2. And said unto his servants, This
is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty
works do show forth themselves in him.
[This is John, &c.] Was not Herod
of the Sadducean faith? For that which is said by Matthew, "Beware of
the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," chapter 16:6, is rendered by
Mark, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of
Herod," chapter 8:15; that is, 'of their doctrine.'
If, therefore, Herod embraced the
doctrine of the Sadducees, his words, "This is John the Baptist, he is
risen from the dead," seem to be extorted from his conscience, pricked
with the sting of horror and guilt, as though the image and ghost of the
Baptist, but newly butchered by him, were before his eyes: so that his
mind is under horror; and forgetting his Sadduceism, groaning and
trembling, he acknowledgeth the resurrection of the dead, whether he
will or no.
Or let it be supposed, that with the
Pharisees he owned the resurrection of the dead; yet certainly it was
unusual for them that confessed it to dream of the resurrection of one
that was but newly dead: they expected there should be a resurrection of
the dead hereafter: but this, which Herod speaks, believes, and
suspects, is a great way distant from that doctrine, and seems, indeed,
to have proceeded from a conscience touched from above.
4. For John said unto
him, It is not lawful for thee to have her. [Herod has taken his
brother's wife.]
[It is not lawful for thee to have
her.] "There are thirty-six cuttings off in the law": that is,
sinners who deserve cutting off. And among the rest, he that lies
with his brother's wife. Philip was now alive, and lived to the
twentieth year of Tiberius.
6. But when Herod's birthday was
kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod.
[And when Herod's birthday was kept.]
The Jewish schools esteem the keeping of birthdays a part of
idolatrous worship: perhaps they would pronounce more favourably and
flatteringly of thine, O tetrarch, because thine.
These are the times of idolaters: the
Kalends; the Saturnalia;...the birthday of the kingdom; and the day of a
man's birth...
[The daughter of Herodias danced.]
Not so much out of lightness, as according to the custom of the nation,
namely, to express joy and to celebrate the day. The Jews were wont in
their public and more than ordinary rejoicings, and also in some of
their holy festivals, to express their cheerfulness by leaping and
dancing. Omitting the examples which occur in the holy Bible, it is
reported by the Fathers of the Traditions, that the chief part of the
mirth in the feast of Tabernacles consisted in such kind of dancing: the
chief men, the aged, and the most religious, dancing in the Court of the
Women; and by how much the more vehemently they did it, so much the more
commendable it was. The gesture, therefore, or motion of the girl that
danced took not so much with Herod, as her mind and affection: namely,
because hereby she shewed honour towards his birthday, and love and
respect towards him, and joy for his life and health: from whom, indeed,
Herod had little deserved such things, since he had deprived her father
Philip of his wife, and defiled her mother with unlawful wedlock and
continual incest.
7. Whereupon he promised with an oath
to give her whatsoever she would ask.
[He promised her with an oath,
&c.] This kind of oath is called by the Talmudists a rash oath:
concerning which see Maimonides, and the Talmudic tract under that
title. If the form of the oath were "by his head," which was very usual,
the request of the maid very fitly, though very unjustly, answered to
the promise of the king; as if she should say, 'You swore by your head
that you would give me whatsoever I shall ask; give me, then, the head
of John Baptist.'
10. And he sent, and beheaded John in
the prison.
[He beheaded John.] Josephus
relates that John was imprisoned by Herod in Machaerus: Through the
suspicion of Herod he was sent prisoner to Machaerus. Now Machaerus
was the utmost bounds of Perea: and Perea was within Herod's
jurisdiction. But now if John lay prisoner there, when the decree went
out against his life, the executioner must have gone a long journey, and
which could scarcely be performed in two days from Tiberias, where the
tyrant's court was, to execute that bloody command. So that that horrid
dish, the head of the venerable prophet, could not be presented to the
maid but some days after the celebration of his birthday.
The time of his beheading we find out
by those words of the evangelist John, "but now the Passover was nigh,"
by reasoning after this manner: It may be concluded, without all
controversy, that the disciples, as soon as they heard of the death of
their master, and buried him, betook themselves to Christ, relating his
slaughter, and giving him caution by that example to take care of his
own safety. He hearing of it passeth over into the desert of Bethsaida,
and there he miraculously feeds five thousand men, when the Passover was
now at hand, as John relates, mentioning that story with the rest of the
evangelists. Therefore we suppose the beheading of the Baptist was a
little before the Passover, when he had now been in durance half a year,
as he had freely preached by the space of half a year before his
imprisonment.
13. When Jesus heard of it,
he departed thence by ship into a desert place apart: and when the
people had heard thereof, they followed him on foot out of the
cities.
[He departed thence by ship into a
desert place, &c.] That is, from Capernaum into the desert of
Bethsaida, which is rendered by John, He went over the sea Which
is to be understood properly, namely, from Galilee into Perea. The
chorographical maps have placed Bethsaida in Galilee, on the same coast
on which Capernaum is also: so also commentators feign to themselves a
bay of the sea only coming between these two cities, which was our
opinion once also with them: but at last we learned of Josephus, that
Bethsaida was in the upper Gaulanitis, (which we observe
elsewhere,) on the east coast of the sea of Gennesaret in Perea.
[They followed him on foot.]
From hence interpreters argue that Capernaum and Bethsaida lay not on
different shores of the sea, but on the same: for how else, say they,
could the multitude follow him afoot? Very well, say I, passing Jordan
near Tiberias, whose situation I have elsewhere shewn to be at the
efflux of Jordan out of the sea of Galilee. They followed him afoot
from the cities, saith our evangelist: now there were cities of some
note very near Capernaum, Tarichea on one side, Tiberias on the other.
Let it be granted that the multitude travelled out of these cities after
Christ; the way by which they went afoot was at the bridge of Jordan in
Chammath: that place was distant a mile or something less from Tiberias,
and from Capernaum three miles or thereabouts. Passing Jordan, they went
along by the coast of Magdala; and, after that, through the country of
Hippo: now Magdala was distant one mile from Jordan, Hippo two; and
after Hippo was Bethsaida, at the east shore of the sea; and after
Bethsaida was a bay of the sea, thrusting out itself somewhat into the
land; and from thence was the desert of Bethsaida. When, therefore, they
returned back from thence, he commands his disciples to get into a ship,
and to go to Bethsaida, while he sent the multitude away, whence he
would afterward follow them on foot, and would sail with them thence to
Capernaum.
17. And they say unto him, We have
here but five loaves, and two fishes.
[Two fishes.] What kind of
fish they were we do not determine. That they were brought hither by
a boy to be sold, together with the five loaves, we may gather from
Chapter 6:9. The Talmudists discourse very much of salt fish. I
render the word salt fish, upon the credit of the Aruch: he
citing this tradition out of Beracoth, "Do they set before him first
something salt, and with it a morsel? He blesseth over the salt
meat, and omits [the blessing] over the morsel, because the
morsel is, as it were, an appendix to it. The salt meat, saith
he, is to be understood of fish, as the tradition teacheth, that he that
vows abstinence from salt things is restrained from nothing but from
salt fish." Whether these were salt fish, it were a ridiculous
matter to attempt to determine; but if they were, the manner of blessing
which Christ used is worthy to be compared with that which the tradition
now alleged commands.
20. And they did all eat, and were
filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets
full.
[And they did all eat, and were
filled.] So eating, or a repast after food, is defined
by the Talmudists; namely, "When they eat their fill. Rabh saith, All
eating, where salt is not, is not eating." The Aruch citing these
words, for salt, reads something seasoned, and adds, "It
is no eating, because they are not filled."
22. And straightway Jesus
constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto
the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
[And immediately he compelled his
disciples, &c.] The reason of this compulsion is given by St. John,
namely, because the people seeing the miracle were ambitious to make him
a king: perhaps that the disciples might not conspire to do the same,
who as yet dreamed too much of the temporal and earthly kingdom of the
Messias.
23. And when he had sent the
multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the
evening was come, he was there alone.
[When the evening was come.] So
verse 15, but in another sense: for that denotes the lateness of the
day; this, the lateness of the night. So evening, in the
Talmudists, signifies not only the declining part of the day, but the
night also: "from what time do they recite the phylacteries in the
evening? From the time when the priests go in to eat their Truma,
even to the end of the first watch, as R. Eliezer saith; but, as the
wise men say, unto midnight; yea, as Rabban Gamaliel saith, even to the
rising of the pillar of the morning." Where the Gloss is, in the
evening, that is, in the night.
25. And in the fourth
watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
[In the fourth watch of the night.]
That is, after cock crowing: the Jews acknowledge only three watches of
the night, for this with them was the third; The watch is the third
part of the night. Thus the Gloss upon the place now cited. See also
the Hebrew commentators upon
Judges 7:19. Not that they divided not the night into four parts,
but that they esteemed the fourth part, or the watch, not so much for
the night as for the morning. So
Mark 13:35, that space after cockcrowing is called the morning.
See also
Exodus 14:24. There were, therefore, in truth, four watches of the
night, but only three of deep night. When, therefore, it is said that
Gideon set upon the Midianites in the "middle watch of the night,"
Judges 7:19, it is to be understood of that watch which was indeed
the second of the whole night, but the middle watch of the deep night:
namely, from the ending of the first watch to midnight.
2. Why do thy disciples transgress
the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat
bread.
[Why do they transgress the
tradition of the elders?] How great a value they set upon their
traditions, even above the word of God, appears sufficiently from this
very place, verse 6. Out of infinite examples which we meet with in
their writings, we will produce one place only; "The words of the
scribes are lovely above the words of the law: for the words of the
law are weighty and light; but the words of the scribes are all
weighty."
"He that shall say, 'There are no
phylacteries, transgressing the words of the law,' is not guilty; but he
that shall say, 'There are five Totaphoth, adding to the words of
the scribes,' he is guilty."
"The words of the elders are
weightier than the words of the prophets."
"A prophet and an elder, to what
are they likened? To a king sending two of his servants into a province.
Of one he writes thus, 'Unless he shew you my seal, believe him not': of
the other thus, 'Although he shews you not my seal, yet believe him.'
Thus it is written of the prophet, 'He shall shew thee a sign or a
miracle'; but of the elders thus, 'According to the law which they shall
teach thee,'" &c. But enough of blasphemies.
[For they wash not their hands,
&c.] The undervaluing of the washing of hands is said to be among those
things for which the Sanhedrim excommunicates: and therefore that R.
Eleazar Ben Hazar was excommunicated by it, because he undervalued
the washing of hands; and that when he was dead, by the command of
the Sanhedrim, a great stone was laid upon his bier. "Whence you may
learn (say they) that the Sanhedrim stones the very coffin of every
excommunicate person that dies in his excommunication."
It would require a just volume, and not
a short commentary, or a running pen, to lay open this mystery of
Pharisaism concerning washing of hands, and to discover it in all its
niceties: let us gather these few passages out of infinite numbers:
I. The washing of hands and the
plunging of them is appointed by the words of the scribes: but by
whom, and when, it is doubted. Some ascribe the institution of this rite
to Hillel and Shammai, others carry it back to ages before them: "Hillel
and Shammai decreed concerning the washing of hands. R. Josi Ben Rabbi
Bon, in the name of R. Levi, saith, 'That tradition was given before,
but they had forgotten it': these second stand forth, and appoint
according to the mind of the former."
II. "Although it was permitted to eat
unclean meats, and to drink unclean drinks, yet the ancient religious
eat their common food in cleanness, and took care to avoid uncleanness
all their days; and they were called Pharisees. And this is a matter of
the highest sanctity, and the way of the highest religion; namely, that
a man separate himself, and go aside from the vulgar, and that he
neither touch them, nor eat nor drink with them: for such separation
conduceth to the purity of the body from evil works," &c. Hence that
definition of a Pharisee which we have produced before, The Pharisees
eat their common food in cleanness: and the Pharisaical ladder of
heaven, "Whosoever hath his seat in the land of Israel, and eateth his
common food in cleanness, and speaks the holy language, and recites his
phylacteries morning and evening, let him be confident that he shall
obtain the life of the world to come."
III. Here that distinction is to be
observed between forbidden meats, and unclean meats. Of
both Maimonides wrote a proper tract. Forbidden meats, such as
fat, blood, creatures unlawful to be eaten (Lev
2), were by no means to be eaten: but meats, unclean in
themselves, were lawful indeed to be eaten, but contracted some
uncleanness elsewhere: it was lawful to eat them, and it was not lawful;
or, to speak as the thing indeed is, they might eat them by the law of
God, but by the canons of Pharisaism they might not.
IV. The distinction also between
unclean, and profane or polluted, is to be observed.
Rambam, in his preface to Toharoth, declares it.
Profane or polluted denotes this,
that it does not pollute another beside itself. For every thing
which uncleanness invades so that it becomes unclean, but renders not
another thing unclean, is called profane. And hence it is said of
every one that eats unclean meats, or drinks unclean drinks, that his
body is polluted: but he pollutes not another. Note that, "The body
of the eater is polluted by unclean meats." To which you may add that
which follows in the same Maimonides, in the place before alleged:
"Separation from the common people, &c., conduces to the purity of the
body from evil works; the purity of the body conduceth to the sanctity
of the soul from evil affections; the sanctity of the soul conduces unto
likeness to God, as it is said, 'And ye shall be sanctified, and ye
shall be holy, because I, the Lord that sanctify you, am holy.'" Hence
you may more clearly perceive the force of Christ's confutation, which
we have verses 17-20.
V. They thought that clean food was
polluted by unclean hands, and that the hands were polluted by unclean
meats. You would wonder at this tradition: "Unclean meats and unclean
drinks do not defile a man if he touch them not, but if he touch them
with his hands, then his hands become unclean; if he handle them with
both hands, both hands are defiled; if he touch them with one hand only,
one hand only is defiled."
VI. This care, therefore, laid upon the
Pharisee sect, that meats should be set on free, as much as might be,
from all uncleanness: but especially since they could not always be
secure of this, that they might be secure that the meats were not
rendered unclean by their hands. Hence were the washings of them not
only when they knew them to be unclean, but also when they knew it not.
Rambam in the preface to the tract
of hands, hath these words; "If the hands are unclean by any
uncleanness, which renders them unclean; or if it be hid from a man, and
he knows not that he is polluted; yet he is bound to wash his hands in
order to eating his common food," &c.
VII. To these most rigid canons they
added also bugbears and ghosts to affright them.
It was the business of Shibta.
Where the Gloss is, "Shibta was one of the demons who hurt them
that wash not their hands before meat." The Aruch writes thus, "Shibta
is an evil spirit which sits upon men's hands in the night: and if any
touch his food with unwashen hands, that spirit sits upon that food, and
there is danger from it."
Let these things suffice as we pass
along: it would be infinite to pursue all that is said of this rite and
superstition. Of the quantity of water sufficient for this washing; of
the washing of the hands, and of the plunging of them; of the first and
second water; of the manner of washing; of the time; of the order, when
the number of those that sat down to meat exceeded five, or did not
exceed; and other such like niceties: read, if you have leisure, and if
the toil and nauseousness of it do not offend you, the Talmudic tract
of hands, Maimonides upon the tract lavers, and Babylonian
Beracoth: and this article, indeed, is inserted through the whole
volume entitled cleanness. Let this discourse be ended with this
canon; "For a cake, and for the washing of hands, let a man walk as far
as four miles."
5. But ye say, Whosoever shall say
to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by
whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
[It is a gift by whatsoever thou
mightest be profited by me, &c.] I. Beside the law alleged by
Christ, "Honour thy father and thy mother," &c., they acknowledge this
also for law, A son is bound to provide his father meat and drink, to
clothe him, to cover him, to lead him in and out, to wash his face,
hands and feet. Yea, that goes higher, "A son is bound to nourish
his father, yea, to beg for him." Therefore it is no wonder if these
things which are spoken by our Saviour are not found verbatim in the
Jewish pandect; for they are not so much alleged by him to shew that it
was their direct design to banish away all reverence and love towards
parents, as to show how wicked their traditions were, and into what
ungodly consequences they oftentimes fell. They denied not directly the
nourishment of their parents, nay, they command it, they exhorted to it;
but consequently by this tradition they made all void. They taught
openly, indeed, that a father was to be made no account of in comparison
of a Rabbin that taught them the law; but they by no means openly
asserted that parents were to be neglected: yet openly enough they did
by consequence drawn from this foolish and impious tradition.
II. One might readily comment upon this
clause, "It is a gift" (or, as Mark, "it is Corban") by
whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, if we have read the
Talmudic tracts Nedarim and Nazir, where the discourse is
of vows and oaths; and the phrase which is before us speaks a vow or a
form of swearing.
1. Vows were distinguished into two
ranks, vows of consecration, and vows of obligation, or
of prohibition. A vow of consecration was when any thing was
devoted to holy uses, namely, to the use of the altar or the Temple: as
when a man, by a vow, would dedicate this or that for sacrifice, or to
buy wood, salt, wine, &c. for the altar: or for the reparation of the
Temple, &c. A vow of obligation or prohibition was,
when a man bound himself by a vow from this or that thing, which was
lawful in itself; as, that he would not eat, that he would not put on,
that he would not do this or that, &c.
2. This went for a noted axiom among
them, All epithets of vows are as the vows themselves. They added
certain short forms, by which they signified a vow, and which carried
with it the force of a vow, as if the thing were spoken out in a larger
periphrasis: as for example, "If one should say to his neighbour,
Konem, Konah, Kones, behold, these are epithets of a thing devoted
unto sacred uses."
The word Konem, Rambam thus
explains; Let it be upon me as a thing devoted. So also R. Nissim,
Konem, Koneh, are words of devoting.
We produced before, at chapter 5:33,
some forms of oaths, which were only Assertive: these under our
hands are Votive also. In the place from Beracoth just now
alleged, one saith, Let the wine be 'Konem,' which I shall taste, for
wine is hard to the bowels: that is, Let the wine which I taste be
as devoted wine: as though he had said, I vow that I will not taste
wine. "To which others answered, Is not old wine good for the bowels?
Then he held his peace."
III. But above all such like forms of
vowing, the word Corban, was plainest of all; which openly speaks
a thing devoted and dedicated to sacred use. And the reader of those
tracts which we have mentioned shall observe these forms frequently to
occur. Let it be 'Corban,' whereby I am profitable to thee; and,
Let it be 'Konem,' whereby I am profitable to thee. Which words
sound the very same thing, unless I am very much mistaken, with the
words before us, "Let it be Corban, or a gift, by which
whatsoever thou mayest be profited by me."
Which words that they may be more
clearly understood, and that the plain and full sense of the place may
be discovered, let these things be considered:
First, That the word a gift is
rather to be rendered, Let it be a gift, than It is a gift.
For Konem and Corban, as we have noted, signified not 'It
is' as something devoted, but 'Let it be' as something devoted.
and He, of whom we had mention before...meant not, The wine which I
shall taste is as something devoted, but Let whatsoever wine I
shall taste be as something devoted: that is, To me let all wine
be devoted, and not to be tasted.
Secondly, This form of speech A
gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, does neither
argue, that he who thus spake devoted his goods to sacred uses, nor
obliged him (according to the doctrine of the scribes) to devote them;
but only restrained him by an obligation from that thing, for the
denying of which he used such a form; that is, from helping him by his
goods, to whom he thus spake. He might help others with his wealth, but
him he might not.
Thirdly, The words are brought in as
though they were pronounced with indignation; as if, when the needy
father required food from his son, he should answer in anger and with
contempt, Let it be as a thing devoted, whatsoever of mine may profit
thee. But now, things that were devoted were not to be laid out upon
common uses.
Fourthly, Christ not only cites the
law, 'Honour thy father and mother,' but adds this also, He that
curseth father or mother. But now there was no cursing here
at all; if the son spoke truly and modestly, and as the thing was,
namely, that all his estate was devoted before.
Fifthly, Therefore, although these
words should have been spoken by the son irreverently, wrathfully, and
inhumanly, towards his father, yet such was the folly, together with the
impiety, of the traditional doctrine in this case, which pronounced the
son so obliged by these his words, that it was lawful by no means to
succour his needy father. He was not at all bound by these words to
dedicate his estate to sacred uses; but not to help his father he was
inviolably bound. O excellent doctrine and charity!
Sixthly, The words of the verse,
therefore, may thus be rendered, without any addition put between, which
many interpreters do: Whosoever shall say to his father or mother,
Let it be a [devoted] gift, in whatsoever thou mayest be helped
by me: then let him not honour his father and mother at all.
11. Not that which goeth into the
mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this
defileth a man.
[Defileth the man.] Or,
maketh him common;...because they esteemed defiled men for
common and vulgar men: on the contrary, a religious man among
them is a singular man...
20. These are the things
which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
[With unwashen hands.] He saith
not with unclean hands, but unwashen; because, as we said
before, they were bound to wash, although they were not conscious that
their hands were unclean. In Mark it is with common or defiled
hands,
Mark 7:2; which seem to be called by the Talmudists impure
hands, merely because not washed. Judge from that which is said in the
tract Challah: "A cake is owing out of that dough which they knead with
the juice of fruits: and it is eaten with unclean hands."
22. And, behold, a woman of Canaan
came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on
me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed
with a devil.
[A woman of Canaan.] In Mark it
is, A Greek woman, a Syrophoenician by nation, chapter 7:26.
I. Of Canaan. It is worthy
observing, that the Holy Bible, reckoning up the seven nations,
which were to be destroyed by the Israelites, names the Perizzites, who
were not at all recited among the sons of Canaan,
Genesis 10; and the Canaanites as a particular nation, when all the
seven, indeed, were Canaanites. See
Deuteronomy 7:1,
Joshua 9:1, 11:3,
Judges 3:5, &c.
The reason of the latter (with which
our business is) is to be fetched thence, that Canaan himself inhabited
a peculiar part of that (northern) country, with his first-born sons,
Sidon and Heth: and thence the name of Canaanites was put upon that
particular progeny, distinguished from all his other sons; and that
country was peculiarly called by the name of 'Canaan,' distinctly from
all the rest of the land of Canaan. Hence Jabin, the king of Hazor, is
called the 'king of Canaan,'
Judges 4:2, and the kings of Tyre and Sidon, if I mistake not, are
called 'the kings of the Hittites,'
1 Kings 10:29.
II. A Greek woman, a Syrophoenician
Although Judea, and almost the whole world, had now a long while stooped
under the yoke of the Romans, yet the memory of the Syro-Grecian
kingdom, and the name of the nation, was not yet vanished. And that is
worthy to be noted, In the captivity, they compute the years only
from the kingdom of the Greeks. They said before, "That the Romans,
for a hundred and fourscore years, ruled over the Jews before the
destruction of the Temple"; and yet they do not compute the times to
that destruction by the years of the Romans, but by the years of the
Greeks. Let the Jews themselves well consider this, and the Christians
with them, who reckon the Roman for the fourth monarchy in Daniel.
Therefore that woman that is here
spoken of (to reduce all into a short conclusion) was a Syro-Grecian by
nation, a Phoenician in respect of her habitation, and from thence
called a woman of Canaan.
26. But he answered and
said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to
dogs.
[To the dogs.] By this title the
Jews, out of spite and contempt, disgraced the Gentiles, whose first
care it was to hate, to mock, and to curse, all beside themselves.
The nations of the world [that is, the heathen] are
likened to dogs. From the common speech of the nation, rather than
from his own sense, our Saviour uses this expression, to whom 'the
Gentiles' were not so hateful, and whose custom was to speak with the
vulgar.
This ignominious name, like a stone
cast at the heathen, at length fell upon their own heads; and that by
the hand and justice of God directing it: for although they out of pride
and contempt fixed that disgraceful name upon the Gentiles, according to
their very just desert, the Holy Spirit recoiled it upon themselves. See
Psalm 59:6;
Philippians 3:2;
Revelation 22:15, &c.
36. And he took the seven loaves and
the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his
disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.
[He gave thanks and brake.] See
here the tract Beracoth, where it is discoursed of the manner of
giving thanks when many ate together: Three who eat together ought to
give thanks together: that is, one gave thanks for the rest (as the
Gloss writes) "in the plural number, saying, Let us give thanks."
So when there were ten, or a hundred, or a thousand or more, one gave
thanks for all, and they answered after him Amen, or some words
which he had recited.
3. And in the morning, It will be
foul weather today: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye
hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not
discern the signs of the times?
[Can ye not discern the signs of the
times?] The Jews were very curious in observing the seasons of the
heavens, and the temper of the air.
"In the going out of the last day of
the feast of Tabernacles, all observed the rising of the smoke. If the
smoke bended northward, the poor rejoiced, but the rich were troubled;
because there would be much rain the following year, and the fruits
would be corrupted: if it bended southward, the poor grieved, and the
rich rejoiced; for then there would be fewer rains that year, and the
fruit would be sound: if eastward, all rejoiced: if westward, all were
troubled." The Gloss is, "They observed this the last day of the feast
of Tabernacles, because the day before, the decree of their judgment
concerning the rains of that year was signed, as the tradition is, In
the feast of Tabernacles they judged concerning the rains."
"R. Acha said, If any wise man had been
at Zippor when the first rain fell, he might foretell the moistness of
the year by the very smell of the dust," &c.
But they were dim-sighted at the signs
of times; that is, at those eminent signs, which plainly pointed, as
with the finger and by a visible mark, that now those times that were so
much foretold and expected, even the days of the Messias, were at hand.
As if he had said, "Can ye not distinguish that the times of the Messias
are come, by those signs which plainly declare it? Do ye not observe
Daniel's weeks now expiring? Are ye not under a yoke, the shaking off of
which ye have neither any hope at all nor expectation to do? Do ye not
see how the nation is sunk into all manner of wickedness? Are not
miracles done by me, such as were neither seen nor heard before? Do ye
not consider an infinite multitude flowing in, even to a miracle, to the
profession of the gospel? and that the minds of all men are raised into
a present expectation of the Messias? Strange blindness, voluntary, and
yet sent upon you from heaven: your sin and your punishment too! They
see all things which may demonstrate and declare a Messias, but they
will not see."
6. Then Jesus said unto them, Take
heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
[Beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees, &c.] There were two things, especially, which seem to
have driven the disciples into a mistaken interpretation of these words,
so that they understood them of leaven properly so called.
I. That they had more seldom heard
leaven used for doctrine. The metaphorical use of it, indeed,
was frequent among them in an ill sense, namely, for evil affections,
and the naughtiness of the heart; but the use of it was more rare, if
any at all, for evil doctrine.
Thus one prays: "Lord of ages, it is
revealed and known before thy face that we would do thy will; but do
thou subdue that which hinders: namely, the leaven which is in the
lump, and the tyranny of [heathen] kingdoms." Where the Gloss is
thus; "The 'leaven which is in the lump,' are evil affections,
which leavens us in our hearts."
Cyrus was leavened, that is,
grew worse. Sometimes it is used in a better sense; "The Rabbins say,
Blessed is that judge who leaveneth his judgment." But this is not to be
understood concerning doctrine, but concerning deliberation in judgment.
II. Because very exact care was taken
by the Pharisaical canons, what leaven was to be used and what not;
disputations occur here and there, whether heathen leaven is to be used,
and whether Cuthite leaven, &c. With which caution the disciples thought
that Christ armed them, when he spake concerning the leaven of the
Pharisees: but withal they suspected some silent reproof for not
bringing bread along with them.
13. When Jesus came into the coasts
of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say
that I the Son of man am?
[Whom do men say that I the Son of
man am?] I. That phrase or title, the Son of man, which
Christ very often gives himself, denotes not only his humanity, nor his
humility (for see that passage,
John 5:27, "He hath given him authority of executing judgment,
because he is the Son of man"); but it bespeaks the 'seed
promised to Adam, the second Adam': and it carried with it a silent
confutation of a double ignorance and error among the Jews: 1. They knew
not what to resolve upon concerning the original of the Messias; and how
he should rise, whether he should be of the living, as we noted before,
the manner of his rise being unknown to them; or whether of the dead.
This phrase unties this knot and teaches openly, that he, being a seed
promised to the first man, should arise and be born from the seed of the
women. 2. They dreamed of the earthly victories of the Messias, and of
nations to be subdued by him; but this title, The Son of man,
recalls their minds to the first promise, where the victory of the
promised seed is the bruising of the serpent's head, not the subduing of
kingdoms by some warlike and earthly triumph.
II. When, therefore, the opinion of the
Jews concerning the person of the Messias, what he should be, was
uncertain and wavering, Christ asketh, not so much whether they
acknowledged him the Messias, as acknowledging the Messias, what kind of
person they conceived him to be. The apostles and the other disciples
whom he had gathered, and were very many, acknowledged him the Messias:
yea, those blind men, chapter 9:27, had confessed this also: therefore
that question had been needless as to them, "Do they think me to be the
Messias?" but that was needful, "What do they conceive of me, the
Messias?" and to this the answer of Peter has regard, "Thou art Christ,
the Son of the living God": as if he should say, "We knew well enough a
good while ago that thou art the Messias: but as to the question, 'What
kind of person thou art,' I say, 'Thou art the Son of the living God.'"
See what we note at chapter 17:54.
Therefore the word whom asks not
so much concerning the person, as concerning the quality of the person.
In which sense also is the word who, in those words,
1 Samuel 17:55, not "The son of whom," but the son "of
what kind of man," is this youth?
14. And they said, Some say that
thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one
of the prophets.
[But others, Jeremias.] The
reason why they name Jeremiah only of all the prophets, we give at
chapter 27:9. You observe that recourse is here made to the memory of
the dead, from whom the Messias should spring, rather than from the
living: among other things, perhaps, this reason might persuade them so
to do, that that piety could not in those days be expected in any one
living, as had shined out in those deceased persons. (One of the
Babylonian Gemarists suspects that Daniel, raised from the dead, should
be the Messias.) And this perhaps persuaded them further, because they
thought that the kingdom of the Messias should arise after the
resurrection: and they that were of this opinion might be led to think
that the Messias himself was some eminent person among the saints
departed, and that he rising again should bring others with him.
17. And Jesus answered
and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood
hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
[Flesh and blood.] The Jewish
writers use this form of speech infinite times, and by it oppose men
to God.
"If they were about to lead me
before a king of flesh and blood, &c.; but they are leading me
before the King of kings."
"A king of flesh and blood forms
his picture in a table, &c.; the Holy Blessed One, his, &c." This phrase
occurs five times in that one column: "the Holy Blessed God doth not, as
flesh and blood doth, &c. Flesh and blood wound with one
thing and heal with another: but the Holy Blessed One wounds and heals
with one and the same thing. Joseph was sold for his dreams, and he was
promoted by dreams."
18. And I say also unto thee, That
thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it.
[Thou art Peter, &c.] I. There
is nothing, either in the dialect of the nation, or in reason, forbids
us to think that our Saviour used this very same Greek word, since such
Graecizings were not unusual in that nation. But be it granted (which is
asserted more without controversy) that he used the Syriac word; yet I
deny that he used that very word Cepha, which he did presently
after: but he pronounced it Cephas, after the Greek manner; or he
spoke it Cephai, in the adjective sense, according to the Syriac
formation. For how, I pray, could he be understood by the disciples, or
by Peter himself, if in both places he had retained the same word
Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church? It is
readily answered by the Papists, that "Peter was the rock." But let them
tell me why Matthew used not the same word in Greek, if our Saviour used
the same word in Syriac. If he had intimated that the church should be
built upon Peter, it had been plainer and more agreeable to be the
vulgar idiom to have said, "Thou art Peter, and upon thee I will
build my church."
II. The words concerning the rock
upon which the church was to be built are evidently taken out of Isaiah,
chapter 28:16; which, the New Testament being interpreter, in very many
places do most plainly speak Christ. When therefore Peter, the first of
all the disciples (from the very first beginning of the preaching of the
gospel), had pronounced most clearly of the person of Christ, and had
declared the mystery of the incarnation, and confessed the deity of
Christ, the minds of the disciples are, with good reason, called back to
those words of Isaiah, that they might learn to acknowledge who that
stone was that was set in Sion for a foundation never to be shaken,
and whence it came to pass that that foundation remained so unshaken;
namely, thence, that he was not a creature, but God himself, the Son of
God.
III. Thence, therefore, Peter took his
surname; not that he should be argued to be that rock, but
because he was so much to be employed in building a church upon a
rock: whether it were that church that was to be gathered out of the
Jews, of which he was the chief minister, or that of the Gentiles
(concerning which the discourse here is principally of), unto which he
made the first entrance by the gospel.
19. And I will give unto thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven.
[And I will give thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven.] That is, Thou shalt first open the door
of faith to the Gentiles. He had said that he would build his church
to endure for ever, against which "the gates of hell should not
prevail"... "and to thee, O Peter (saith he), I will give the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, that thou mayest open a door for the bringing in
the gospel to that church." Which was performed by Peter in that
remarkable story concerning Cornelius,
Acts 10. And I make no doubt that those words of Peter respect these
words of Christ,
Acts 15:7; A good while ago God made choice among us, that the
Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel by my mouth, and believe.
[And whatsoever thou shalt bind on
earth &c. And whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, &c.] I.
We believe the keys were committed to Peter alone, but the power of
binding and loosing to the other apostles also, chapter 18:18.
II. It is necessary to suppose that
Christ here spake according to the common people, or he could not be
understood without a particular commentary, which is nowhere to be
found.
III. But now to bind and loose,
a very usual phrase in the Jewish schools, was spoken of things,
not of persons; which is here also to be observed in the articles
what and whatsoever, chapter 18.
One might produce thousands of examples
out of their writings: we will only offer a double decad; the first,
whence the frequent use of this word may appear; the second, whence the
sense may:
1. "R. Jochanan said [to those of
Tiberias], 'Why have ye brought this elder to me? Whatsoever I loose,
he binds; whatsoever I bind, he looseth.'"
2. Thou shalt neither bind nor
loose.
3. "Nachum, the brother of R. Illa,
asked R. Jochanan concerning a certain matter. To whom he answered,
Thou shalt neither bind nor loose."
4. This man binds, but the other
looseth.
5. "R. Chaija said, Whatsoever I
have bound to you elsewhere, I will loose to you here."
6. He asked one wise man, and he
bound: Do not ask another wise man, lest perhaps he loose.
7. The mouth that bindeth is the
mouth that looseth.
8. "Although of the disciples of
Shammai, and those of Hillel, the one bound, and the other loosed;
yet they forbade not but that these might make purifications according
to the others."
9. A wise man that judgeth judgment,
defileth and cleanseth [that is, he declares defiled or clean];
he looseth and bindeth. The same also is in Maimonides.
10. Whether it is lawful to go into the
necessary-house with the phylacteries only to piss? Rabbena looseth,
and Rabh Ada bindeth. The mystical doctor, who neither bindeth nor
looseth.
The other decad shall show the phrase
applied to things:
1. "In Judea they did [servile]
works on the Passover-eve" (that is, on the day going before the
Passover), "until noon, but in Galilee not. But that which the school
of Shammai binds until the night, the school of Hillel looseth
until the rising of the sun."
2. "A festival-day may teach us this,
in which they loosed by the notion of a [servile] work," killing
and boiling, &c., as the Gloss notes. But in which they bound by the
notion of a sabbatism: that is, as the same Gloss speaks, 'The
bringing in some food from without the limits of the sabbath.'
3. "They do not send letters by the
hand of a heathen on the eve of a sabbath, no, nor on the fifth day of
the week. Yea, the school of Shammai binds it, even on the fourth day
of the week; but the school of Hillel looseth it."
4. "They do not begin a voyage in the
great sea on the eve of the sabbath, no, nor on the fifth day of the
week. Yea, the school of Shammai binds it, even on the fourth day of
the week; but the school of Hillel looses it."
5. "To them that bathe in the
hot-baths in the sabbath-day, they bind washing, and they loose
sweating."
6. "Women may not look into a
looking-glass on the sabbath-day, if it be fixed to a wall, Rabbi
loosed it, but the wise men bound it."
7. "Concerning the moving of empty
vessels [on the sabbath-day], of the filling of which there is no
intention; the school of Shammai binds it, the school of Hillel
looseth it."
8. "Concerning gathering wood on a
feast-day scattered about a field, the school of Shammai binds
it, the school of Hillel looseth it."
9. They never loosed to us a crow,
nor bound to us a pigeon.
10. "Doth a seah of unclean
Truma fall into a hundred seahs of clean Truma? The
school of Shammai binds it, the school of Hillel looseth
it." There are infinite examples of this nature.
Let a third decad also be added (that
nothing may be left unsaid in this matter), giving examples of the parts
of the phrase distinctly and by themselves:
1. "The things which they bound
not, that they might have a hedge to the law."
2. "The scribes bound the
leaven."
3. They neither punished nor bound,
unless concerning the leaven itself.
4. "The wise men bound the eating
of leaven from the beginning of the sixth hour," of the day of the
Passover.
5. "R. Abhu saith, R. Gamaliel Ben
Rabbi asked me. What if I should go into the market? and I bound it
him."
1. The Sanhedrim, which looseth two
things, let it not hasten to loose three.
2. "R. Jochanan saith, They
necessarily loose saluting on the sabbath."
3. The wise men loose all oils,
or all fat things.
4. "The school of Shammai saith, They
do not steep ink, colours, and vetches" on the eve of the sabbath,
"unless they be steeped before the day be ended: but the school of
Hillel looseth it." Many more such like instances occur there.
5. "R. Meir loosed the mixing
of wine and oil, to anoint a sick man on the sabbath."
To these may be added, if need were,
the frequent (shall I say?) or infinite use of the
phrases, bound and loosed, which we meet with thousands of times
over. But from these allegations, the reader sees abundantly enough both
the frequency and the common use of this phrase, and the sense of it
also; namely, first, that it is used in doctrine, and in judgments,
concerning things allowed or not allowed in the law. Secondly, That to
bind is the same with to forbid, or to declare
forbidden. To think that Christ, when he used the common phrase, was
not understood by his hearers in the common and vulgar sense, shall I
call it a matter of laughter or of madness?
To this, therefore, do these words
amount: When the time was come, wherein the Mosaic law, as to some part
of it, was to be abolished and left off; and as to another part of it,
was to be continued, and to last for ever: he granted Peter here, and to
the rest of the apostles, chapter 18:18, a power to abolish or confirm
what they thought good, and as they thought good, being taught this and
led by the Holy Spirit: as if he should say, "Whatsoever ye shall
bind in the law of Moses, that is, forbid, it shall be
forbidden, the Divine authority confirming it; and whatsoever ye
shall loose, that is, permit, or shall teach, that
it is permitted and lawful, shall be lawful and
permitted."
Hence they bound, that is,
forbade, circumcision to the believers; eating of things offered to
idols, of things strangled, and of blood for a time to the Gentiles; and
that which they bound on earth was confirmed in heaven. They
loosed, that is, allowed purification to Paul, and to four
other brethren, for the shunning of scandal,
Acts 21:24: and in a word, by these words of Christ it was committed
to them, the Holy Spirit directing that they should make decrees
concerning religion, as to the use or rejection of Mosaic rite and
judgments, and that either for a time or for ever.
Let the words be applied, by way of
paraphrase, to the matter that was transacted at present with Peter: "I
am about to build a Gentile church (saith Christ); and to thee, O Peter,
do I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that thou mayest first open
the door of faith to them; but if thou askest, by what rule that church
is to be governed, when the Mosaic rule may seem so improper for it,
thou shalt be so guided by the Holy Spirit, that whatsoever of the law
of Moses thou shalt forbid them shall be forbidden;
whatsoever thou grantest them shall be granted, and that
under a sanction made in heaven."
Hence in that instant, when he should
use his keys, that is, when he was now ready to open the gate of the
gospel to the Gentiles,
Acts 10:28, he was taught from heaven, that the consorting of the
Jew with the Gentile, which before had been bound, was now
loosed; and the eating of any creature convenient for food was now
loosed, which before had been bound; and he, in like
manner, looses both these.
Those words of our Saviour,
John 20:23, "Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted to them," for
the most part are forced to the same sense with these before us; when
they carry quite another sense. Here the business is of doctrine
only, not of persons; there of persons, not of doctrine:
here of things lawful or unlawful in religion to be determined by the
apostles; there of persons obstinate or not obstinate, to be punished by
them, or not to be punished.
As to doctrine, the apostles were
doubly instructed: 1. So long sitting at the feet of their Master, they
had imbibed the evangelical doctrine. 2. The Holy Spirit directing them,
they were to determine concerning the legal doctrine and practice; being
completely instructed and enabled in both by the Holy Spirit descending
upon them. As to their persons, they were endowed with a peculiar gift,
so that the same Spirit directing them, if they would retain and punish
the sins of any, a power was delivered into their hands of delivering to
Satan, of punishing with diseases, plagues, yea, death itself; which
Peter did to Ananias and Sapphira; Paul to Elymas, Hymeneus, and
Philetus, &c.
Table of Contents
