Works
Vers. 4. All the chief Priests.
Since there was properly but one high Priest at once among the Jews, by the chief Priests so often mentioned in the Gospel some have understood those High Priests that by the Roman Governors, or otherwise were turned out of their Office, as about these times that matter was ordinary. So Josephus recorded that Valerius Gratus first made Ishmael High Priest instead of Ananus: then deposeth him and maketh Eleazar, Ananus his Son: him again he deposeth, and maketh Simon Fitz Kamithus; and in his room again he setteth Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas: which Caiaphas was also removed by Vitellius, and Jonathan Fitz Ananus placed in his stead. And these men thus turned out of Office, are called (as they suppose) both here and elsewhere the chief Priests. But their opinion is far more warrantable and agreeable to truth that by the chief Priests understand the several heads of the families, or the chief of the four and twenty courses, into which David had divided and ordered the Priests, 1 Chron. 24. which are therefore called chief Priests, not so much for Primacy or Superiority that they had in their Ecclesiastical function above the rest of the Clergy; as 1. because they were heads of their houses; And 2. because they were of the great Council, and made a third part of the seventy Elders.
§. And Scribes of the people.
He calleth them Scribes of the people, to distinguish them from the Secretaries or Clerks of particular men, as Baruch was the Scribe of Jeremy, and Seraiah the Scribe or Secretary of David, 2 Sam. 8. 17. But these of whom mention is here, and so very frequently in the Gospel elsewhere, were not such private or peculiar Clerks, but they were the public Scribes or Clerks of the people: and this their Office or function consisted in two particulars.
First, They were the men that took upon them to copy the Bible for those that desired to have a copy. For so great and various is the accuracy and exactness of the Scripture Text in the mystical and profound significances of Letters, Vowels and Accents, that it was not fit that everyone should offer to transcribe the Original, or that every vulgar pen should copy things of so sublime speculation: Therefore there was a peculiar and special order of learned men among the Jews, whose Office it was to take care of the preservation of the purity of the Text, in all Bibles that should be copied out, that no corrupion or error should creep into the Original of the Sacred Writ, and these were called the Scribes of the people, or their Scriveners or Writers of the copy of the Bible. And hence is it that there is so frequent mention in the Rabbins of Tikkun Sopherim, The correction, or direction of the Scribes, or their peculiar and special disposing of the Text, which the Masoreth at the beginning of the book of Numbers observeth to have been in eighteen places, which are reckoned there. These Scribes may be conceived to have been either Priests or Levites, or both, the men of that Tribe being the chiefest Students in the Scriptures; and being bound by their calling to be able to instruct the people in the same, Deut. 33. 10. Mal. 2. 7.
They had eight and forty Universities as it were, belonging to that Tribe, for the education of the Clergy in the knowledge of the Law and the Prophets, Josh. 21. and from among the learned of those Students, were some set apart for this Office, which required profound Learning and skill; namely, to be the Copiers of the Bible when any copy was to be taken, or at least to take care that all copies that should be transcribed, should be pure and without corruption.
Secondly, These also were the public and common preachers of the people, being more constant Pulpit men, then any other of the Clergy; taking on them, not only to be the preservers and providers for the purity of the Text, but also the most constant and common explainers and expounders of it in Sermons. Therefore it is said of our Savior, that he taught as one that had authority, and not as the Scribes, Mat. 7. 29. where the Scribes are rather mentioned then any other order, because they were the greatest and most ordinary Preachers. And our Savior himself, in Mark 12. 25. How say the Scribes, that Christ is the Son of David? Instancing in the Scribes only [whereas the Pharisees, Sadducees, and even all the Nation of the Jews held the same opinion] because the Scribes were the men that were oftest in the Pulpit, and preached more then any other; and so this Doctrine was heard more from them then others.
And thus was Ezra a ready Scribe in the Law of Moses, Ezr. 7. 6. both for the copying and preserving pure the Text of the Scripture, and also for the expounding of it by his Sermons. And such a one is the Scribe that our Savior speaketh of, that is instructed to the Kingdom of Heaven, that bringeth out of his treasure instructions out of the New Testament and old, Mat. 13. 52. The Chaldee Paraphrast on Jer. 6. 13. & 8. 10. and in other places instead of The Prophet, readeth the Scribe, taking as it seemeth the Prophet in the same sense that Paul doth Prophecying, 1 Thes. 5. 20. 1 Cor. 14. 5. &c. for the Preacher, and making the Text speak in the same tenor that it doth here, the Priests and the Scribes.
In the Story of our Savior's arraignment, and elsewhere in the New Testament there is mention of the chief Priests, and Scribes, and Elders, Mat. 26. 3. Mark 15. 1. importing that the Great Council consisted of these three sorts of men. The chief Priests of the seed of Aaron, the Scribes of the Tribe of Levi, and the elders of the people mere lay men: These were all deeply and extraordinarily versed and learned in the Law, but the practice of this their learning had some difference, as the civil, common and canon: 1. The Elders judged the people and matters of debate and controversy, but instructed not the people by way of preaching or ministry. The chief Priests judged and instructed, but it was more by resolving questions and doubts that were proposed to them, as our Savior asked them questions, Luke 2. 46. Hag. 2. 11. Mal. 2. 7. then by common preaching Homilies or Sermons. The Scribes were they that were the Preachers or Lecturers, and taught the people from the pulpit, as well as determined upon doubts and debates: And to this triple division of the great and Seraphical Doctors of the Jews, St. Paul seemeth to allude, in 1 Cor. 1. 20. Where is the wise? Where is the Scribe, where is the questionist, or disputer of this world? By the first meaning the Elders of the people, and by the last, the chief Priests.
§. He demanded of them where Christ should be born.
The High Priests were rightly consulted, say the Rhemists, in question of their Law and Religion: for whom should Herod ask, but those that were most likely to give him an answer? But the latter end of their note carrieth a snare with it to entrap the simple: And be they never so ill, say they, they are often forced to say the truth by privilege of their function: They think they have an undeniable groundwork for this their Doctrine from the prophesying of Caiaphas, Joh. 11. 51. as their notes plead there, ascribing that his prophesying to his Priesthood, and order, whereas the Text ascribeth it to the year and season. This he spake not of himself, but being High Priest that year he prophesied: where the emphasis lieth not in the words being High Priest, but in the words, that year, which was the year of sending down of the gifts of the Spirit, in a measure and manner, never known before or after.
Vers. 6. And thou Bethlehem in the land of Judah, &c.
There is no small difference in this quotation of the Scribes or of the Evangelist, or indeed of both, from the letter of the Text of the Prophet from whom they cite it; nor doth this difference rise by the Evangelists following the translation of the LXX, as oft there doth, for it differeth much from the letter of the LXX also, but it is upon some special reason. Which disagreement that we may reconcile, and the reason of which that we may see the better, we will take up the verse verbatim, and the differences as they come to hand, one by one.
First then, whereas Saint Matthew readeth, Thou Bethlehem in the land of Judah, the Hebrew hath it only, Thou Bethlehem Ephratah, without any mention of the land of Judah at all, and so the Chaldee, and so the LXX, but only with the addition of one word, Thou Bethlehem the house of Ephratah, art the least, &c.
Answ. First, There are that give this general answer to all the differences in this quotation, that the Scribes and the Evangelist tie not themselves to the very words of the Prophet, but only think it enough to render his sense. And this answer might be very well entertained, and give good satisfaction, especially, since that in allegations from the Old Testament, it is usual with the New so to do, but that the difference between the Text and the quotation is so great, that it is not only diverse, but even contrary. Some therefore,
Secondly, Conceive, that the Scribes could allege the Text no better without the book, and that the Evangelist hath set it down in their own words, for the just shame of those great Doctors, that were no better versed in the Scripture, then to allege a place in words so very far different from the Text. But he that hath been any whit versed in the writings of the Jews, will find their Rabbins or Doctors to be too nimble textualists to miss in a Text of so great use and import: especially if he shall but consider to what an height of learning they were now come, by the tutorage and pains of the two great Doctors of the Chair, Shammai and Hillel, who had filled all the Nation with learned men the like had not been before.
Thirdly, Whereas some talk of a Syriac Edition which the Jews used at that time more then the Hebrew, and which had this Text of Micah as the Evangelist hath cited it, and that he cited it according to that Edition which was most in use; here are two things presumed upon which it is impossible ever to make good. For whoever read in any Jew of a Syrian Edition of the Prophets besides the Chaldee Paraphrast? Who we are sure readeth not thus: or what Christian ever saw such an Edition, that he could tell that it did so read? For this particular therefore in hand, it is to be answered, that the Scribes or the Evangelists, or both, did thus differently quote the Prophet, neither through forgetfulness, nor through the misleading of an erroneous Edition, but purposely, and upon a rational intent.
For, first, though Ephratah had been the surname of Bethlehem, in ancient time, as Gen. 35. 19. Ruth 4. 11. and in the times of the Prophet Micah, yet it is no wonder if that title of it were now out of use, and especially out of the knowledge of this irreligious King. For the seventy years captivity, and the alterations of the State, did alter the face of the Country, and might easily blot out of use and remembrance such an additional title of a Town as this.
Secondly, This surname of the Town was taken up in memorial of a woman, as appeareth, 1 Chron. 2. 19. and when the discourse concerning Christ, and where he should be born, was in hand and agitation, it was more pregnant to bring his birth-place to have reference to Judah from whom Herod [though he were ignorant in other particulars concerning his birth] knew he should descend, then to a woman and a title which it is like that he had never heard of before. So that this, that in the Scribes might at the first seem to be a mis-allegation of the Prophet through some mistake, being precisely looked upon, with respect had to the times when the Prophesy was given, and when it is now cited, and to the several persons to whom it will show to be so quoted upon very sound wisdom and profound reason, these words, in the land of Judah, being used by them for necessary illustration, instead of the word Ephratah, not as proposing it for the purer Text of the Prophet, but as more suitable, by way of Exposition, for the capacity and apprehension of Herod.
In Micah's time the name Ephratah was common, but in after times it may be it was disused. Howsoever, Micah prophesied to the Jews, to whom this title Ephratah was familiar, and it is like had the Scribes spoken to Jews too, they would have retained that title, but to Herod who was not so punctually acquainted with it, it was not proper to bring a phrase that he could not understand, or that was uncouth to him, therefore they explain it by one that was familiar both to him and the whole Nation, Bethlehem in the Land of Judah.
§. Art not the least.
This clause is far further from Micah's Text then the other, for whereas here is a very strong and Emphatical negation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Prophet there is none at all, either in the Hebrew, in the LXX. or in the Chaldee Paraphrast. And indeed the Text and the quotation are one clean contrary to another; in Micah, Though thou be little, but in Matthew, Thou art not the least. Towards the reconciling of which difference, it will be necessary in the first place, to take a serious survey of the Prophets Text, and then upon the true interpretation of it, to lay this allegation to it, and to see how they do agree. The words in the Hebrew, whereupon the main doubt riseth, are but these two 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : which our English rendereth Though thou be little. The Septuagint, Thou art the least to be among the thousands: but using a differing word to signify the least, from that used here: Some books, saith Nobilius, and the other Scholiast upon the LXX. read, Art not the least, as Jerome, Tertullian and Cyprian: but this their reading I suspect rather to be taken from this quotation of the Gospel, then found by them in the Text of Micah. The vulgar Latin, Thou art little among the thousands, &c. The Italian of Brucioli, and the French, Being little to be, or to be accounted. And much to the same tenor with our English, Ibn Ezra, and David Kimchi. Rabbi Solom showeth his construction of it in this gloss, It were fit thou shouldest be the least among the families of Judah, because of the profaneness of Ruth the Moabitess that was in thee, yet out of thee shall come, &c. Jansen saith, a reconciliation might be made between the Prophet and the Evangelist, by reading the Prophets Text by way of interrogation, And thou Bethlehem art thou the least? Which answereth in sense to thou art not. But to all these interpretations alleged, this one thing may be opposed, that the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot properly agree with the word Bethlehem, according to the Syntax of Substantive and Adjective; because they are of two different genders, as the Grammarian will easily observe, and cannot but confess. For Bethlehem is of the feminine gender, as are all the names of Cities, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of another, as it plainly appeareth by its termination. To construe them therefore together, as Substantive and Adjective, as it is unwarrantable by the Grammar, so doth it make a sense utterly irreconcilable with this of the Evangelist. To which might be added also, that these words being thus conjoined and construed together, do make but an harsh sense and construction among themselves, amounting to this, Thou Bethlehem in being little, out of thee shall come a Ruler.
Their Interpretation therefore is rather to be embraced, that take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Neuter Gender, as it pleadeth itself to be, by its very termination [the Masculine and Neuter in the Hebrew being indifferently taken the one for the other] and do read it thus? And thou Bethlehem Ephratah, it is a small thing to be among the Princes of Judah, out of thee shall come a Ruler, &c. As meaning this, That it is the least of thine honor that thou art reckoned among the Princes of Judah, as equal with them, for thou hast a dignity above this, and above them all in that out of thee shall come a Ruler, which shall feed my people. And to this sense and tenor should I interpret the Chaldee Paraphrase, thought know indeed that it is generally construed another way: Chizgner havetha leithmannaah: And thou Bethlehem Ephratah, art within a little to be superior, or perfect, among the thousands of Judah, &c. As let the learned in the language judge whether the words in the Chaldee will not bear that sense: especially the sense of the first word Chizgner, being looked into the Chaldee, in Psal. 2. 12. & 73. 2. Hos. 1. 4. and in other places.
The Text of the Prophet then being rendered in this interpretation, this allegation of the Evangelist will be found, not to have any contrariety to it at all, but to speak, though not in the very same words, yet to the very same tenor and purpose: For while the one saith, It is a small thing that thou art among the Princes of Judah, and the other, Thou art not the least among them, they both fall into the same sense, or at least into no disagreement of sense at all. For if it were to be reputed a small honor to Bethlehem, to be reckoned in equality with the other Princes of Judah, in comparison of a greater honor that she was to have, in the birth of the Messias; it must readily follow what this quotation of the Evangelist inferreth; namely, that she was not the least among them. And thus doth the Evangelist express the Prophets mind, though he tie not his expression to his very words, alleging his Text to its clearest sense, and to the easier apprehension of the hearer. It is a just exception indeed that Jansen taketh at this interpretation, because that the Scripture useth not to express this sense, It is a small thing, by the word Tsagnir, but by Megnat, as Esa. 7. 13. Gen. 30. 15. and in other places: But as it is true, that it often useth Megnat for that expression; so it is most true, that it useth not that word alone, but others also: As Tikton, in 2 Sam. 7. 19. and Nakel, in Esa. 49. 6. and why not Tsagnir then as well here?
§. Among the Princes of Judah.
In Micah it is, among the thousands of Judah: and so it is translated by the LXX, the Chaldee, the Vulgar, and unanimously by all other Translators: so that here is yet another difficulty and difference in this allegation, the Evangelist still swerving from the Text he citeth. By the thousands of Judah, Rabbi Solomon understandeth the families, and Dav. Kimchi, the Cities; The word is once used in the very propriety of that sense in which the Prophet taketh it here, Judge. 6. 15. My thousand, saith Gideon, is poor in Manasseh: which St. Austin, and R. Isaiah expound that he was Captain of a thousand; Levi Gershom, that his father was Captain; but the Chaldee, and other Rabbins understand it of the thousand in which his family was numbered and enrolled. Howsoever it is understood, it is apparent by this and other places laid unto it, that the several Tribes of the children of Israel were divided into their several thousands, and that these thousands were enrolled to this or that City, to which they had relation by habitation, or by inheritance: Villages that were not so populous, were reduced into hundreds, but Cities into one or more thousands, according as they were in bigness and multitude, Amos 5. 3. The City that went out by a thousand, shall leave an hundred, and that which went out by an hundred, shall leave ten: The Villages were justly reputed of an inferior rank, but the Cities that afforded their thousands were accounted Princes: and so may the Prophet be understood, and so the Evangelist reconciled to him. Now the reason of their difference in words, though they both redound to the same sense may be given these.
First, Because the question in agitation was about the birth of a King, and the place, where now in answer to such a Quaere, it was fitter to speak of Princes then thousands, for where should a King be looked for but among Princes?
Secondly, The Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used by the Prophet, doth signify, both thousands, and Princes indifferently, and so David Kimchi upon that place in the book of Judges cited even now alledgeth; There are, saith he, that interpret Alphi [which our English readeth my thousand ] as it were my Father, even as the word Alluph, whose signification is Prince or Lord.
The Evangelist therefore finding the word in the Prophet of this indifferency, useth it in that sense which best suited with the present occasion, both in regard of the question proposed, as also thirdly, in regard of the manner of Christ's coming: For it was both the expectation of the Jews, and the fear of Herod, that he would come with a conquering and victorious temporal Sword, and restore them to a pompous Earthly State, and expel him out of his Kingdom. Now for the Evangelist to have directed in this quotation, to look for Christ among the thousands of Judah, had backed these Opinions, for the term soundeth of War, and it had been a direction where likelier to find an earthly Warrior, then the Prince of Peace, among the thousands, or among the Militia. And therefore he qualifieth the term to the best satisfaction of Herod and the People; Among the Princes. There is that saith it might be construed, In Princes, and not among them, and the meaning to be this, Thou Bethlehem art not the least in the Princes of Judah, that is, in breeding or bringing them forth: but this relisheth more of wit then solidity, and agreeth better with the Latin, then with the Greek Original.
§. For out of thee shall come a Governor.
The Chaldee readeth it in the Prophet, Out of thee shall come Messias; and so is it expounded by Rabbi Solomon, and David Kimchi. And therefore that is most true which is inferred by Lyranus, that those Catholics that interpret it of Hezekiah, do more judaize then the Jews themselves. Some Jews indeed, saith Theophylact, do apply this to Zerubbabel, but as he answereth, it is like that Zerubbabel was born in Babel, and not in Bethlehem: And St. Matthew hath plainly taught both Jews and Gentiles to understand it in another sense. But here again doth he differ from the Letter of the Prophet, but cometh so near the sense, that the difference is as no difference at all.
Vers. 7. Herod privily called the Wisemen.
[ Privily. ] For had the Jews heard of his pretences [they had so long been acquainted with his policy, tyranny, and ambition] they could readily have descried his mischievousness, and spoiled his bloody contrival, by better information given to the wisemen.
§. Enquired diligently of them the time when the Star appeared.
Had they taken their journey instantly upon the Stars appearing, Herod could easily have computed the time by the length of their journey: but by this his enquiry, it is apparent that they had told him of its appearance at some good space before, which in ver. 16. is plainly resolved to be two years, by the Wisemens own acknowledgment and resolution.
Vers. 11. Gold, and Frankincense, and Myrrh.
The mysterious application of these presents, as Myrrham homini, uncto aurum, &c. be left to them that delight and content themselves in such things: the plain and easy interpretation of the matter is, that they tendered to Christ, the chiefest and choicest commodities that their Country could afford: which they carried in their treasures, as the Text calleth it, that is, in and among those commodities that the men of those Nations used to carry with them when they travailed, especially when they meant to present any one to whom they went, as Gen. 24. 53. 1 King. 10. 2.
Vers. 15. Out of Egypt have I called my Son.
The two allegations produced here out of the Old Testament, this and that out of Jeremy, in Rama was a voice heard, are of that fullness that they speak of two things a piece, and may very fitly be applied unto them both, and show that the one did resemble or prefigure the other: as this Text of Hosea, aimeth both at the bringing of the Church of Israel, in old time, and of the head of that Church at this time out of Egypt. Then a Joseph nourished his father; now a Joseph doth so to his redeemer: then was Egypt deadly to every male child that was born, now is it a place of refuge and preservation to this child.
Ver. 18. In Ramah was there a voice heard, &c.
Ramah stood not far from Bethlehem, though they were in two Tribes: and the cry that the poor Parents and children made in Bethlehem, when this matchless butchery was in hand, reachit to Ramah, and was plainly heard thither. Now observe the fullness of this Scripture as it is uttered by the Prophet, and as it is applied by the Evangelist. It was fulfilled in one kind, in the time of Jeremy himself, and then was the lamentation and weeping in Ramah itself; for hither did Nebuzaradan bring his Prisoners, after he had destroyed Jerusalem, and there did he dispose of them, to the Sword, or to Captivity, as seemed good unto himself, Jer. 40. 1. And imagine what lamentation and crying was then in that City, when so many were doomed there, either to be slain in that place, or to go to Babel, never to see their own Land again. Then was the cry in Ramah, and it was heard no doubt to Bethlehem. But now the Prophesy is fulfilled in another kind, when Herod destroyeth so many Children in Bethlehem, and in the Suburbs and Borders belonging to it: And now the cry is in Bethlehem, and it is heard to Ramah.
§. Rachel weeping for her children, &c.
Rachel's grave was betwixt Bethlehem and Ramah, or at least not far distant from either of them, Gen. 35. 16, 20. 1 Sam. 10. 2. The Holy Ghost therefore doth elegantly set forth this lamentation, by personating Rachel [who died in the birth of her Ben-Oni, the Son of her sorrow ] sorrowing for her Sons and Children that were thus massacred: And this showeth that the Text in the Prophet, aimeth in the first place and intention, at the matter of Nebuzaradan: for in Bethlehem, Rachel properly had no children at all, that City being inhabited by the children of Judah, which descended of Leah: but in Ramah dwelt Rachel's children, that being a Town of Ephraimites descended from Joseph. Howsoever, Rachel may be said to weep for the Babes of Bethlehem as her own children, though they were not strictly and properly her seed, in regard of the interest that she had in all the tribes of Israel, as being wife unto their Father: as Joseph is often called the Father of Christ, being only husband to his mother. And see such another phrase, Gen. 37. 10. Shall I, and thy mother come to bow down before thee? Whereas Josephs mother was dead already.
Vers. 19. But when Herod was dead, &c.
The end of Herod was not long after the massacre of these infants, and his bloodiness which he had used all his life long, and topped up in the murder of these innocents, and in desire to have done as much to the Lord of life, the Lord doth now bring upon his own head. This matter with the children of Bethlehem, we conceive to have been some three months more or less before his end, in which space this was his behavior, as may be collected out of Josephus.
He had slain long before this, his two sons Alexander and Aristobulus, and now was he about to do as much by his Son Antipater, a child too like the Father, and one whom he left by will the Successor in his Kingdom: Him suspected by him for some machination against himself he had now shut up in prison, and intended him presently for the execution, but that his sickness whereof he died seizing on him gave some more space to the imprisoned, and some hopes and possibilities of escaping. His disease was all these mixed together, an inward burning and exulceration, an insatiable greediness and devouring, the Chollick, the Gout and Dropsy, his loins and secrets crawling with lice, and a stink about him, not to be endured. These wringings and tortures of his body, meeting with the peevishness of old age, for he was now seventy, and with the natural cruelty which always had been in him, made him murderously minded above all measure: insomuch that he put to death divers that had taken down a golden Eagle, which he had set up about the Temple: And when he grew near to his end, and saw himself ready to die, he slew his Son Antipater, and caused great multitudes of the Nobility and People to be closed up in a sure place, giving command to slay them as soon as he was dead, for by that means he said he should have the Jews truly and really to sorrow at his death. Vid. Joseph. Antiq. lib. 17. cap. 8, 9, 10. and de Bel. lib. 1. cap. 21.
Vers. 20. For they are dead that sought the young child's life.
The like saying is to Moses, Exod. 4. 19. where the word [ they ] may be understood of Pharaoh and his servants, which jointly sought his life for the Egyptians sake whom he had slain; and were now all dead and worn out in the forty years of his being in Midian. But here [it is true indeed, that the seeking of the child's life may well be applied to Herod's Servants, as well as himself] but that all they died with him or about the time of his death, who in flattery, or favor, or obedience to him, had promoted the slaughter at Bethlehem, and had sought the child's life, I know not upon what ground it should be conceived.
I should therefore by the [ they ] in this place understand Herod and his Son Antipater jointly together: For if it be well considered how mischievous this Antipater was against his own Brethren, and how he wrought their ruin and misery, for fear they should get betwixt him and the throne, yea, how he sought the destruction of his own Father, because he thought he kept him out of the Throne too long, it may very well be believed that he would bloodily stir against this new King of the Jews that the wisemen spake of, for fear of interception of the Crown, as well as his Father: He died but five days before his fathers death, as it was touched before out of Josephus; and thus God brought this bloodliness of the Father and the Son, and the rest of their cruelties to an end, and upon their own heads at once, and in a manner, together; and thus may the words of the Angel be very fairly understood, Take the child and return to the Land of Israel, for Herod and Antipater are dead, that sought his life.
Ver. 22. Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his Father Herod.
Herod had first named Antipater for his Successor in the Throne of Judea; but upon detection of his conspiracy against him, he altered his mind and his will, and nominated Antipas: and changing his mind yet again, he named Archelaus, and he succeeded him; a man not likely to prosper in a Throne, that was so bebloodied: His conclusion was, that in the tenth year of his reign, he was accused by the Nobles of Judea and Samaria, to Augustus, banished to Vienna, and his estate confiscate. Jos. Ant. lib. 17. cap. 15.
Ver. 23. He shall be called a Nazarene.
From Isa. 11. 1. where the Messias is called by the title Nezer, which indifferently signifieth A branch, and the City Nazareth: one and the same word denoting Christ, and the place where he should be born.
§ Wisemen.
That is, Sorcerers, or Magicians, and so might it not unfitly be translated. For first, though Magus and Magia, admit of a gentle construction, and be often taken, not only in an harmless, but in a laudable sense in profane Authors, yet are they never so in Scripture; and by the Idiom and propriety of that, must the word be expounded; and not by Forreign and Heathen Language and acceptation. It is true indeed, that among the Persians the Magi have been renowned for men of excellent wisdom and skill in natural, and in other things, and that none were admitted to reign among them, unless he were well versed in the learning of the Magi; and that Plato, Tully, Philo, Pliny and others, do extol Magia, or Magic, to be the very height and perfection of Philosophy: But the Scripture, who is ever the sure Expositor of itself, doth never take the word, but in the worse sense, for the Devilish and damnable practice and practicers of sorcery and unlawful arts, as Acts 8. 9. Simon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Acts 13. 8. Elymas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .
And the Babylonian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Wizards, are so called by the Greek of Daniel, whosoever traslated it, whether the LXX, or Theodotion, or who else soever, Dan. 1. 20. & 2. 2. &c. Now it is against sense and reason to refuse the sense of Scripture, for a Scripture word, and to fetch the intepretation of it from Persia, Plato, Pliny, and I know not whence.
2. It doth the more set forth the luster and glory of the birth of Christ, and the power of himself and kingdom, by supposing that these men that had been hitherto devoted to the arts, service, and converse of the Devil, should now forsake them, and him, and their own delight, and their old profession, and dedicate themselves, travels and gifts, to a child unknown, far off, and but poorly born.
3. Nor is this opinion but newly minted, but it carrieth with it the passeport and privilege of antiquity. For Ignatius Martyr in his Epistle to the Ephesians, speaking concerning the Wisemens Star, saith thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Then the wesdom of this world grew foolish, Sorcery a toy, and Magic a derision: personating the men in both their contrary professions and devotedness, Devilish and Divine, to Satan and Christ. So likewise Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, speaking of these same men, and how they were qualified and affected before they came to Christ, he saith, they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , captived or led away as a prey by the Devil to all evil actions. And so Theophylact the mouth of Chrysostom, They were, saith he, adversaries or enemies to God, and devoted to Devils in a more special manner: And to this sense doth the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew render the word, whosoever translated it. But to spare more, those fathers confess their opinion to be the same with these; [and those neither mean ones, nor a few] which hold, some of them, that these Magi had obtained their knowledge concerning the King of the Jews, from Sybilla Erythraeae, and others from Balaam, to whom they hold that they stood in relation not only of Nation and kindred, but also of the same profession and art of Wizardy and Magic.
§ From the East.
This doth something confirm the foregoing opinion of their being Magicians, if it need anymore confirmation. For that the East was infamous for Sorceries, auguries and incantations is apparent by Esa. 2. 6. as it is understood by the LXX, by R. Solomon, D. Kimchi and even approved by the context itself: But what Country of the East this was, whence these men came, is as hard to determine, as it was what manner of men they were. Divers have asserted that they were of Chaldea, minding, it seemeth, rather the strictest and worst sense; of both the words Chaldeus and Magus, which signify both one and the same ungodly profession, then the letter of text, and of other Scriptures. For it plainly telleth that these came from the East, and all the Prophets that have spoken of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, have fetched those destroyers from the North, as Jer. 1.
Others therefore do hold them for Persians, and that chiefly because the word Magus, is thought to be originally a Persian word.
But first, as was said before, the Scripture word is to be interpreted according to the Scripture Idiom, and so it consineth them to Persia no more then to any other Country. Secondly, if it should be averred, that the Persian Magi grew renowned from a family of that name, or from some Ancestor that was called Mag or Mago, rather then from any relation that the word hath to the depth of Learning, or any notation for a great Scholar: I suppose it would be hard to prove the contrary; especially since in Babylonia, there was Rab. Mag, or the great Mag, and in Carthage, Mago, two Noblemen or Princes, and for ought we know, no great Scholars neither, of the very same name.
More probable therefore and plausible is their opinion [though it leave the Reader in a Bivium of irresolution] that holdeth these men either for Arabians, or Mesopotamians about Haran: but their resolution the best of all, that bring them from Arabia: and of this mind is Justin Martyr very confidently, in so much that he applieth a Prophecy thereto, namely, Esa. 8. 4. about the breaking of the strength of Damascus.
For first, Arabia is full Eastward from Judea, and the inhabitants thereof are constantly called men of the East, as Gen. 25. 6. Judge. 6. 3. Job. 1. 3.
Secondly, the gifts or presents that the Wisemen offered Christ, were native commodities of the Land of Arabia, as gold of Sheba, Psal. 72. 15. Frankincense from Seba, or Saba, as in the verse, Sua Thura Sabaei, and Myrrh from thereabouts, as appeareth in stories: ann it is more probable to think that they would bring the choice commodities of their own Country, as Jacob sent to Joseph, then of another.
Thirdly, to conceive these men for Arabians, doth very well sort and harmonize with some considerable things in Scripture: As 1. the first Proselyte to the Jewish Church that we find mentioned in Scripture, was Jethro an Arabian, and of the seed of Abraham: And so if we hold these first Proselytes to Christ, it suiteth very fitly. 2. it agreeth also with that Prophetick Psalm mentioned before, namely, Psal. 71. 3. With the rule and dominion, and homage that David and Solomon, Types of Christ, had over and from that Country. For, 4. much of Arabia was the Land of Canaan, as well as Judea: for the heedful eye that shall but seriously look upon the Nations, that planted there at the first, will find that the whole Country was inhabited by the two sons of Ham, Cush, and Canaan: and in after time that the seed of Abraham dispossessed them, and dwelt in their steads, not by any usurpation or injustice, but upon the promise made to Abraham of Canaan's Land, and upon just title by his victory over the four Kings, which having but lately subdued those Lands, were subdued by him, and with the conquest the right and challenge to that land fell to Abraham. And hence it was that David and Solomon dilated their dominion over these Countries even to Euphrates, and then was the promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, concerning their children possessing the Land of Canaan, fulfilled to the utmost extent. Now it is more likely to bring these first fruits of the Gentiles to do homage to the King of the Jews, from a Country which did as much to David and Solomon who were types of him, then from a Forreign Nation: and to conceive that they were of the seed of Abraham, rather then of another race.
Vers. 2. Saying, Where is he that is born of the King of the Jews? for we have seen his Star in the East, &c.
The exposition of this Verse will be made up, by the resolution and answer of these three questions. 1. What was this Star that the Wisemen saw? 2. Where it was that they saw it? And 3. how upon the sight of it they could conclude that it did relate to a King of the Jews? To omit the various guesses and surmises that are made, for the satisfaction of the first Quaere, it seemeth to me, that this Star which these Magicians saw at the birth of Christ, was nothing else but that glorious and miraculous light that shone about the Bethlehem Sheepherds, when the Angel came upon them with the tidings of the birth of a Saviviour, Luk. 2. 9. And that these wizards being that night abroad [belike at their study of Astrology] beheld it at distance, and to them it seemed, being so far off, like a new and uncouth, and a wondrous Star: And the words in the East, do mean the place of the men, and not of the Star, and are to receive this construction, we being in the East have seen his Star: Not it in the East part of Heaven, but they being in the East part of the Earth: And their beholding it to be in the Land of Judea, might the more readily bring them to think it betokened the birth of the King of the Jews.
And thus are the three questions resolved together, if the ground-work whereupon all is built, be but firm and solid, viz. that the light or the glory of the Lord that shone about the Shepherds, was that which the Wisemen then supposed and do now call a Star; Upon which let us look a little, and see what probability there may be that it was so.
First, then it is past doubting, that the Shepherds saw the glory of the Lord shine round about them, and the Wisemen, the new Star shine at a distance from them, at one and the same time, namely, at the time of our Savior's birth; For since both these things were to both these parties as a messenger to impart unto them the tidings of the birth of Christ, no reason can be given or supposed why they should not appear to them both, to do this message to them at the very time when he was born: Now the Sheepherds at Bethlehem, and the Magicians in Arabia, seeing on the very same night, a light that was to tell them of the very same thing, what reason have we to think that it was not one and the same light?
Secondly, to conceive that the Wisemens Star appeared to them in the East part of Heaven, maketh the matter far more difficult to resolve, how they came to know that it denoted a King of the Jews, then by supposing that that they saw it hanging over the very Center or middle of the Land of the Jews. For though we cannot but acknowledge that the spirit of God was their chief intelligencer and instructer in this matter, and so could have taught them so much wheresoever they had seen the Star appear, yet can we not but think, that it was a likelier way to read this lesson to them, by setting this light upon the very place where the King that it betokened was born, rather then in the East part of Heaven, where it might seem to denote something among the Indians, rather then among the Jews.
Thirdly, we know it by experience, that a great light or fire that happeneth in any place in the night, be it never so great in itself, or in the eyes of those that are in the place where it is, yet to those that are a great distance off, it seemeth but as a Star or such a thing. And that it might not be so with the Wisemen in this matter, there is neither Analogy of Faith, probability in reason, evidence in Scripture, or anything I know of will deny.
And lastly, it is not to be omitted without weighing, that as soon as the Wisemen after their conference with Herod, were gone out of Jerusalem to set for Bethlehem, the Star shown itself to them again. It appeareth now nearer to them, to conduct them to the place where the Child now was, as it had▪ appeared at greater distance at his birth, to signify to them that he was born: Then they saw it over or in Judea, which directed them to hearken to Jerusalem: now they see it at Jerusalem almost over their heads, to direct them to Jerusalem.
Vers. 3. He was troubled and all Jerusalem with him.
Herod for fear of the loss of his Kingdom, and Jerusalem for fear of the disturbance of their State. For he having been so long the King of Judea, as seven and thirty years, and having laid the foundation of a successive royalty to his family, in so much policy and cruelty as he had done, how would this make him to startle, to hear of a King newly born unto the Nation, whose subjection his thoughts and endeavors had promised to his own children, and to have the certainty of the thing confirmed from Heaven, by a wondrous and miraculous light? And how must it needs perplex the Jews also, to hear of a new King over them, besides Herod who was set over them by their Lord's the Romans? For how ill would the Romans take it that their determination and decree of Herod's reigning over Judea, should be so affronted, as that a new King should rise among them? and what could follow upon this, but the Roman Armies, and the Jews misery? Or if they understood this King to be Messias [as the Nation now looked for his coming] yet could it not choose but breed some perplexity in them, partly to think of the rareness of the matter, and chiefly of their being in subjection to so potent a Nation as the Romans, when their deliverer should appear.
Vers. 4. All the chief Priests.
Since there was properly but one high Priest at once among the Jews, by the chief Priests so often mentioned in the Gospel some have understood those High Priests that by the Roman Governors, or otherwise were turned out of their Office, as about these times that matter was ordinary. So Josephus recorded that Valerius Gratus first made Ishmael High Priest instead of Ananus: then deposeth him and maketh Eleazar, Ananus his Son: him again he deposeth, and maketh Simon Fitz Kamithus; and in his room again he setteth Joseph, surnamed Caiaphas: which Caiaphas was also removed by Vitellius, and Jonathan Fitz Ananus placed in his stead. And these men thus turned out of Office, are called (as they suppose) both here and elsewhere the chief Priests. But their opinion is far more warrantable and agreeable to truth that by the chief Priests understand the several heads of the families, or the chief of the four and twenty courses, into which David had divided and ordered the Priests, 1 Chron. 24. which are therefore called chief Priests, not so much for Primacy or Superiority that they had in their Ecclesiastical function above the rest of the Clergy; as 1. because they were heads of their houses; And 2. because they were of the great Council, and made a third part of the seventy Elders.
§. And Scribes of the people.
He calleth them Scribes of the people, to distinguish them from the Secretaries or Clerks of particular men, as Baruch was the Scribe of Jeremy, and Seraiah the Scribe or Secretary of David, 2 Sam. 8. 17. But these of whom mention is here, and so very frequently in the Gospel elsewhere, were not such private or peculiar Clerks, but they were the public Scribes or Clerks of the people: and this their Office or function consisted in two particulars.
First, They were the men that took upon them to copy the Bible for those that desired to have a copy. For so great and various is the accuracy and exactness of the Scripture Text in the mystical and profound significances of Letters, Vowels and Accents, that it was not fit that everyone should offer to transcribe the Original, or that every vulgar pen should copy things of so sublime speculation: Therefore there was a peculiar and special order of learned men among the Jews, whose Office it was to take care of the preservation of the purity of the Text, in all Bibles that should be copied out, that no corrupion or error should creep into the Original of the Sacred Writ, and these were called the Scribes of the people, or their Scriveners or Writers of the copy of the Bible. And hence is it that there is so frequent mention in the Rabbins of Tikkun Sopherim, The correction, or direction of the Scribes, or their peculiar and special disposing of the Text, which the Masoreth at the beginning of the book of Numbers observeth to have been in eighteen places, which are reckoned there. These Scribes may be conceived to have been either Priests or Levites, or both, the men of that Tribe being the chiefest Students in the Scriptures; and being bound by their calling to be able to instruct the people in the same, Deut. 33. 10. Mal. 2. 7.
They had eight and forty Universities as it were, belonging to that Tribe, for the education of the Clergy in the knowledge of the Law and the Prophets, Josh. 21. and from among the learned of those Students, were some set apart for this Office, which required profound Learning and skill; namely, to be the Copiers of the Bible when any copy was to be taken, or at least to take care that all copies that should be transcribed, should be pure and without corruption.
Secondly, These also were the public and common preachers of the people, being more constant Pulpit men, then any other of the Clergy; taking on them, not only to be the preservers and providers for the purity of the Text, but also the most constant and common explainers and expounders of it in Sermons. Therefore it is said of our Savior, that he taught as one that had authority, and not as the Scribes, Mat. 7. 29. where the Scribes are rather mentioned then any other order, because they were the greatest and most ordinary Preachers. And our Savior himself, in Mark 12. 25. How say the Scribes, that Christ is the Son of David? Instancing in the Scribes only [whereas the Pharisees, Sadducees, and even all the Nation of the Jews held the same opinion] because the Scribes were the men that were oftest in the Pulpit, and preached more then any other; and so this Doctrine was heard more from them then others.
And thus was Ezra a ready Scribe in the Law of Moses, Ezr. 7. 6. both for the copying and preserving pure the Text of the Scripture, and also for the expounding of it by his Sermons. And such a one is the Scribe that our Savior speaketh of, that is instructed to the Kingdom of Heaven, that bringeth out of his treasure instructions out of the New Testament and old, Mat. 13. 52. The Chaldee Paraphrast on Jer. 6. 13. & 8. 10. and in other places instead of The Prophet, readeth the Scribe, taking as it seemeth the Prophet in the same sense that Paul doth Prophecying, 1 Thes. 5. 20. 1 Cor. 14. 5. &c. for the Preacher, and making the Text speak in the same tenor that it doth here, the Priests and the Scribes.
In the Story of our Savior's arraignment, and elsewhere in the New Testament there is mention of the chief Priests, and Scribes, and Elders, Mat. 26. 3. Mark 15. 1. importing that the Great Council consisted of these three sorts of men. The chief Priests of the seed of Aaron, the Scribes of the Tribe of Levi, and the elders of the people mere lay men: These were all deeply and extraordinarily versed and learned in the Law, but the practice of this their learning had some difference, as the civil, common and canon: 1. The Elders judged the people and matters of debate and controversy, but instructed not the people by way of preaching or ministry. The chief Priests judged and instructed, but it was more by resolving questions and doubts that were proposed to them, as our Savior asked them questions, Luke 2. 46. Hag. 2. 11. Mal. 2. 7. then by common preaching Homilies or Sermons. The Scribes were they that were the Preachers or Lecturers, and taught the people from the pulpit, as well as determined upon doubts and debates: And to this triple division of the great and Seraphical Doctors of the Jews, St. Paul seemeth to allude, in 1 Cor. 1. 20. Where is the wise? Where is the Scribe, where is the questionist, or disputer of this world? By the first meaning the Elders of the people, and by the last, the chief Priests.
§. He demanded of them where Christ should be born.
The High Priests were rightly consulted, say the Rhemists, in question of their Law and Religion: for whom should Herod ask, but those that were most likely to give him an answer? But the latter end of their note carrieth a snare with it to entrap the simple: And be they never so ill, say they, they are often forced to say the truth by privilege of their function: They think they have an undeniable groundwork for this their Doctrine from the prophesying of Caiaphas, Joh. 11. 51. as their notes plead there, ascribing that his prophesying to his Priesthood, and order, whereas the Text ascribeth it to the year and season. This he spake not of himself, but being High Priest that year he prophesied: where the emphasis lieth not in the words being High Priest, but in the words, that year, which was the year of sending down of the gifts of the Spirit, in a measure and manner, never known before or after.
Vers. 6. And thou Bethlehem in the land of Judah, &c.
There is no small difference in this quotation of the Scribes or of the Evangelist, or indeed of both, from the letter of the Text of the Prophet from whom they cite it; nor doth this difference rise by the Evangelists following the translation of the LXX, as oft there doth, for it differeth much from the letter of the LXX also, but it is upon some special reason. Which disagreement that we may reconcile, and the reason of which that we may see the better, we will take up the verse verbatim, and the differences as they come to hand, one by one.
First then, whereas Saint Matthew readeth, Thou Bethlehem in the land of Judah, the Hebrew hath it only, Thou Bethlehem Ephratah, without any mention of the land of Judah at all, and so the Chaldee, and so the LXX, but only with the addition of one word, Thou Bethlehem the house of Ephratah, art the least, &c.
Answ. First, There are that give this general answer to all the differences in this quotation, that the Scribes and the Evangelist tie not themselves to the very words of the Prophet, but only think it enough to render his sense. And this answer might be very well entertained, and give good satisfaction, especially, since that in allegations from the Old Testament, it is usual with the New so to do, but that the difference between the Text and the quotation is so great, that it is not only diverse, but even contrary. Some therefore,
Secondly, Conceive, that the Scribes could allege the Text no better without the book, and that the Evangelist hath set it down in their own words, for the just shame of those great Doctors, that were no better versed in the Scripture, then to allege a place in words so very far different from the Text. But he that hath been any whit versed in the writings of the Jews, will find their Rabbins or Doctors to be too nimble textualists to miss in a Text of so great use and import: especially if he shall but consider to what an height of learning they were now come, by the tutorage and pains of the two great Doctors of the Chair, Shammai and Hillel, who had filled all the Nation with learned men the like had not been before.
Thirdly, Whereas some talk of a Syriac Edition which the Jews used at that time more then the Hebrew, and which had this Text of Micah as the Evangelist hath cited it, and that he cited it according to that Edition which was most in use; here are two things presumed upon which it is impossible ever to make good. For whoever read in any Jew of a Syrian Edition of the Prophets besides the Chaldee Paraphrast? Who we are sure readeth not thus: or what Christian ever saw such an Edition, that he could tell that it did so read? For this particular therefore in hand, it is to be answered, that the Scribes or the Evangelists, or both, did thus differently quote the Prophet, neither through forgetfulness, nor through the misleading of an erroneous Edition, but purposely, and upon a rational intent.
For, first, though Ephratah had been the surname of Bethlehem, in ancient time, as Gen. 35. 19. Ruth 4. 11. and in the times of the Prophet Micah, yet it is no wonder if that title of it were now out of use, and especially out of the knowledge of this irreligious King. For the seventy years captivity, and the alterations of the State, did alter the face of the Country, and might easily blot out of use and remembrance such an additional title of a Town as this.
Secondly, This surname of the Town was taken up in memorial of a woman, as appeareth, 1 Chron. 2. 19. and when the discourse concerning Christ, and where he should be born, was in hand and agitation, it was more pregnant to bring his birth-place to have reference to Judah from whom Herod [though he were ignorant in other particulars concerning his birth] knew he should descend, then to a woman and a title which it is like that he had never heard of before. So that this, that in the Scribes might at the first seem to be a mis-allegation of the Prophet through some mistake, being precisely looked upon, with respect had to the times when the Prophesy was given, and when it is now cited, and to the several persons to whom it will show to be so quoted upon very sound wisdom and profound reason, these words, in the land of Judah, being used by them for necessary illustration, instead of the word Ephratah, not as proposing it for the purer Text of the Prophet, but as more suitable, by way of Exposition, for the capacity and apprehension of Herod.
In Micah's time the name Ephratah was common, but in after times it may be it was disused. Howsoever, Micah prophesied to the Jews, to whom this title Ephratah was familiar, and it is like had the Scribes spoken to Jews too, they would have retained that title, but to Herod who was not so punctually acquainted with it, it was not proper to bring a phrase that he could not understand, or that was uncouth to him, therefore they explain it by one that was familiar both to him and the whole Nation, Bethlehem in the Land of Judah.
§. Art not the least.
This clause is far further from Micah's Text then the other, for whereas here is a very strong and Emphatical negation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the Prophet there is none at all, either in the Hebrew, in the LXX. or in the Chaldee Paraphrast. And indeed the Text and the quotation are one clean contrary to another; in Micah, Though thou be little, but in Matthew, Thou art not the least. Towards the reconciling of which difference, it will be necessary in the first place, to take a serious survey of the Prophets Text, and then upon the true interpretation of it, to lay this allegation to it, and to see how they do agree. The words in the Hebrew, whereupon the main doubt riseth, are but these two 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : which our English rendereth Though thou be little. The Septuagint, Thou art the least to be among the thousands: but using a differing word to signify the least, from that used here: Some books, saith Nobilius, and the other Scholiast upon the LXX. read, Art not the least, as Jerome, Tertullian and Cyprian: but this their reading I suspect rather to be taken from this quotation of the Gospel, then found by them in the Text of Micah. The vulgar Latin, Thou art little among the thousands, &c. The Italian of Brucioli, and the French, Being little to be, or to be accounted. And much to the same tenor with our English, Ibn Ezra, and David Kimchi. Rabbi Solom showeth his construction of it in this gloss, It were fit thou shouldest be the least among the families of Judah, because of the profaneness of Ruth the Moabitess that was in thee, yet out of thee shall come, &c. Jansen saith, a reconciliation might be made between the Prophet and the Evangelist, by reading the Prophets Text by way of interrogation, And thou Bethlehem art thou the least? Which answereth in sense to thou art not. But to all these interpretations alleged, this one thing may be opposed, that the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot properly agree with the word Bethlehem, according to the Syntax of Substantive and Adjective; because they are of two different genders, as the Grammarian will easily observe, and cannot but confess. For Bethlehem is of the feminine gender, as are all the names of Cities, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of another, as it plainly appeareth by its termination. To construe them therefore together, as Substantive and Adjective, as it is unwarrantable by the Grammar, so doth it make a sense utterly irreconcilable with this of the Evangelist. To which might be added also, that these words being thus conjoined and construed together, do make but an harsh sense and construction among themselves, amounting to this, Thou Bethlehem in being little, out of thee shall come a Ruler.
Their Interpretation therefore is rather to be embraced, that take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Neuter Gender, as it pleadeth itself to be, by its very termination [the Masculine and Neuter in the Hebrew being indifferently taken the one for the other] and do read it thus? And thou Bethlehem Ephratah, it is a small thing to be among the Princes of Judah, out of thee shall come a Ruler, &c. As meaning this, That it is the least of thine honor that thou art reckoned among the Princes of Judah, as equal with them, for thou hast a dignity above this, and above them all in that out of thee shall come a Ruler, which shall feed my people. And to this sense and tenor should I interpret the Chaldee Paraphrase, thought know indeed that it is generally construed another way: Chizgner havetha leithmannaah: And thou Bethlehem Ephratah, art within a little to be superior, or perfect, among the thousands of Judah, &c. As let the learned in the language judge whether the words in the Chaldee will not bear that sense: especially the sense of the first word Chizgner, being looked into the Chaldee, in Psal. 2. 12. & 73. 2. Hos. 1. 4. and in other places.
The Text of the Prophet then being rendered in this interpretation, this allegation of the Evangelist will be found, not to have any contrariety to it at all, but to speak, though not in the very same words, yet to the very same tenor and purpose: For while the one saith, It is a small thing that thou art among the Princes of Judah, and the other, Thou art not the least among them, they both fall into the same sense, or at least into no disagreement of sense at all. For if it were to be reputed a small honor to Bethlehem, to be reckoned in equality with the other Princes of Judah, in comparison of a greater honor that she was to have, in the birth of the Messias; it must readily follow what this quotation of the Evangelist inferreth; namely, that she was not the least among them. And thus doth the Evangelist express the Prophets mind, though he tie not his expression to his very words, alleging his Text to its clearest sense, and to the easier apprehension of the hearer. It is a just exception indeed that Jansen taketh at this interpretation, because that the Scripture useth not to express this sense, It is a small thing, by the word Tsagnir, but by Megnat, as Esa. 7. 13. Gen. 30. 15. and in other places: But as it is true, that it often useth Megnat for that expression; so it is most true, that it useth not that word alone, but others also: As Tikton, in 2 Sam. 7. 19. and Nakel, in Esa. 49. 6. and why not Tsagnir then as well here?
§. Among the Princes of Judah.
In Micah it is, among the thousands of Judah: and so it is translated by the LXX, the Chaldee, the Vulgar, and unanimously by all other Translators: so that here is yet another difficulty and difference in this allegation, the Evangelist still swerving from the Text he citeth. By the thousands of Judah, Rabbi Solomon understandeth the families, and Dav. Kimchi, the Cities; The word is once used in the very propriety of that sense in which the Prophet taketh it here, Judge. 6. 15. My thousand, saith Gideon, is poor in Manasseh: which St. Austin, and R. Isaiah expound that he was Captain of a thousand; Levi Gershom, that his father was Captain; but the Chaldee, and other Rabbins understand it of the thousand in which his family was numbered and enrolled. Howsoever it is understood, it is apparent by this and other places laid unto it, that the several Tribes of the children of Israel were divided into their several thousands, and that these thousands were enrolled to this or that City, to which they had relation by habitation, or by inheritance: Villages that were not so populous, were reduced into hundreds, but Cities into one or more thousands, according as they were in bigness and multitude, Amos 5. 3. The City that went out by a thousand, shall leave an hundred, and that which went out by an hundred, shall leave ten: The Villages were justly reputed of an inferior rank, but the Cities that afforded their thousands were accounted Princes: and so may the Prophet be understood, and so the Evangelist reconciled to him. Now the reason of their difference in words, though they both redound to the same sense may be given these.
First, Because the question in agitation was about the birth of a King, and the place, where now in answer to such a Quaere, it was fitter to speak of Princes then thousands, for where should a King be looked for but among Princes?
Secondly, The Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used by the Prophet, doth signify, both thousands, and Princes indifferently, and so David Kimchi upon that place in the book of Judges cited even now alledgeth; There are, saith he, that interpret Alphi [which our English readeth my thousand ] as it were my Father, even as the word Alluph, whose signification is Prince or Lord.
The Evangelist therefore finding the word in the Prophet of this indifferency, useth it in that sense which best suited with the present occasion, both in regard of the question proposed, as also thirdly, in regard of the manner of Christ's coming: For it was both the expectation of the Jews, and the fear of Herod, that he would come with a conquering and victorious temporal Sword, and restore them to a pompous Earthly State, and expel him out of his Kingdom. Now for the Evangelist to have directed in this quotation, to look for Christ among the thousands of Judah, had backed these Opinions, for the term soundeth of War, and it had been a direction where likelier to find an earthly Warrior, then the Prince of Peace, among the thousands, or among the Militia. And therefore he qualifieth the term to the best satisfaction of Herod and the People; Among the Princes. There is that saith it might be construed, In Princes, and not among them, and the meaning to be this, Thou Bethlehem art not the least in the Princes of Judah, that is, in breeding or bringing them forth: but this relisheth more of wit then solidity, and agreeth better with the Latin, then with the Greek Original.
§. For out of thee shall come a Governor.
The Chaldee readeth it in the Prophet, Out of thee shall come Messias; and so is it expounded by Rabbi Solomon, and David Kimchi. And therefore that is most true which is inferred by Lyranus, that those Catholics that interpret it of Hezekiah, do more judaize then the Jews themselves. Some Jews indeed, saith Theophylact, do apply this to Zerubbabel, but as he answereth, it is like that Zerubbabel was born in Babel, and not in Bethlehem: And St. Matthew hath plainly taught both Jews and Gentiles to understand it in another sense. But here again doth he differ from the Letter of the Prophet, but cometh so near the sense, that the difference is as no difference at all.
Vers. 7. Herod privily called the Wisemen.
[ Privily. ] For had the Jews heard of his pretences [they had so long been acquainted with his policy, tyranny, and ambition] they could readily have descried his mischievousness, and spoiled his bloody contrival, by better information given to the wisemen.
§. Enquired diligently of them the time when the Star appeared.
Had they taken their journey instantly upon the Stars appearing, Herod could easily have computed the time by the length of their journey: but by this his enquiry, it is apparent that they had told him of its appearance at some good space before, which in ver. 16. is plainly resolved to be two years, by the Wisemens own acknowledgment and resolution.
Vers. 11. Gold, and Frankincense, and Myrrh.
The mysterious application of these presents, as Myrrham homini, uncto aurum, &c. be left to them that delight and content themselves in such things: the plain and easy interpretation of the matter is, that they tendered to Christ, the chiefest and choicest commodities that their Country could afford: which they carried in their treasures, as the Text calleth it, that is, in and among those commodities that the men of those Nations used to carry with them when they travailed, especially when they meant to present any one to whom they went, as Gen. 24. 53. 1 King. 10. 2.
Vers. 15. Out of Egypt have I called my Son.
The two allegations produced here out of the Old Testament, this and that out of Jeremy, in Rama was a voice heard, are of that fullness that they speak of two things a piece, and may very fitly be applied unto them both, and show that the one did resemble or prefigure the other: as this Text of Hosea, aimeth both at the bringing of the Church of Israel, in old time, and of the head of that Church at this time out of Egypt. Then a Joseph nourished his father; now a Joseph doth so to his redeemer: then was Egypt deadly to every male child that was born, now is it a place of refuge and preservation to this child.
Ver. 18. In Ramah was there a voice heard, &c.
Ramah stood not far from Bethlehem, though they were in two Tribes: and the cry that the poor Parents and children made in Bethlehem, when this matchless butchery was in hand, reachit to Ramah, and was plainly heard thither. Now observe the fullness of this Scripture as it is uttered by the Prophet, and as it is applied by the Evangelist. It was fulfilled in one kind, in the time of Jeremy himself, and then was the lamentation and weeping in Ramah itself; for hither did Nebuzaradan bring his Prisoners, after he had destroyed Jerusalem, and there did he dispose of them, to the Sword, or to Captivity, as seemed good unto himself, Jer. 40. 1. And imagine what lamentation and crying was then in that City, when so many were doomed there, either to be slain in that place, or to go to Babel, never to see their own Land again. Then was the cry in Ramah, and it was heard no doubt to Bethlehem. But now the Prophesy is fulfilled in another kind, when Herod destroyeth so many Children in Bethlehem, and in the Suburbs and Borders belonging to it: And now the cry is in Bethlehem, and it is heard to Ramah.
§. Rachel weeping for her children, &c.
Rachel's grave was betwixt Bethlehem and Ramah, or at least not far distant from either of them, Gen. 35. 16, 20. 1 Sam. 10. 2. The Holy Ghost therefore doth elegantly set forth this lamentation, by personating Rachel [who died in the birth of her Ben-Oni, the Son of her sorrow ] sorrowing for her Sons and Children that were thus massacred: And this showeth that the Text in the Prophet, aimeth in the first place and intention, at the matter of Nebuzaradan: for in Bethlehem, Rachel properly had no children at all, that City being inhabited by the children of Judah, which descended of Leah: but in Ramah dwelt Rachel's children, that being a Town of Ephraimites descended from Joseph. Howsoever, Rachel may be said to weep for the Babes of Bethlehem as her own children, though they were not strictly and properly her seed, in regard of the interest that she had in all the tribes of Israel, as being wife unto their Father: as Joseph is often called the Father of Christ, being only husband to his mother. And see such another phrase, Gen. 37. 10. Shall I, and thy mother come to bow down before thee? Whereas Josephs mother was dead already.
Vers. 19. But when Herod was dead, &c.
The end of Herod was not long after the massacre of these infants, and his bloodiness which he had used all his life long, and topped up in the murder of these innocents, and in desire to have done as much to the Lord of life, the Lord doth now bring upon his own head. This matter with the children of Bethlehem, we conceive to have been some three months more or less before his end, in which space this was his behavior, as may be collected out of Josephus.
He had slain long before this, his two sons Alexander and Aristobulus, and now was he about to do as much by his Son Antipater, a child too like the Father, and one whom he left by will the Successor in his Kingdom: Him suspected by him for some machination against himself he had now shut up in prison, and intended him presently for the execution, but that his sickness whereof he died seizing on him gave some more space to the imprisoned, and some hopes and possibilities of escaping. His disease was all these mixed together, an inward burning and exulceration, an insatiable greediness and devouring, the Chollick, the Gout and Dropsy, his loins and secrets crawling with lice, and a stink about him, not to be endured. These wringings and tortures of his body, meeting with the peevishness of old age, for he was now seventy, and with the natural cruelty which always had been in him, made him murderously minded above all measure: insomuch that he put to death divers that had taken down a golden Eagle, which he had set up about the Temple: And when he grew near to his end, and saw himself ready to die, he slew his Son Antipater, and caused great multitudes of the Nobility and People to be closed up in a sure place, giving command to slay them as soon as he was dead, for by that means he said he should have the Jews truly and really to sorrow at his death. Vid. Joseph. Antiq. lib. 17. cap. 8, 9, 10. and de Bel. lib. 1. cap. 21.
Vers. 20. For they are dead that sought the young child's life.
The like saying is to Moses, Exod. 4. 19. where the word [ they ] may be understood of Pharaoh and his servants, which jointly sought his life for the Egyptians sake whom he had slain; and were now all dead and worn out in the forty years of his being in Midian. But here [it is true indeed, that the seeking of the child's life may well be applied to Herod's Servants, as well as himself] but that all they died with him or about the time of his death, who in flattery, or favor, or obedience to him, had promoted the slaughter at Bethlehem, and had sought the child's life, I know not upon what ground it should be conceived.
I should therefore by the [ they ] in this place understand Herod and his Son Antipater jointly together: For if it be well considered how mischievous this Antipater was against his own Brethren, and how he wrought their ruin and misery, for fear they should get betwixt him and the throne, yea, how he sought the destruction of his own Father, because he thought he kept him out of the Throne too long, it may very well be believed that he would bloodily stir against this new King of the Jews that the wisemen spake of, for fear of interception of the Crown, as well as his Father: He died but five days before his fathers death, as it was touched before out of Josephus; and thus God brought this bloodliness of the Father and the Son, and the rest of their cruelties to an end, and upon their own heads at once, and in a manner, together; and thus may the words of the Angel be very fairly understood, Take the child and return to the Land of Israel, for Herod and Antipater are dead, that sought his life.
Ver. 22. Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his Father Herod.
Herod had first named Antipater for his Successor in the Throne of Judea; but upon detection of his conspiracy against him, he altered his mind and his will, and nominated Antipas: and changing his mind yet again, he named Archelaus, and he succeeded him; a man not likely to prosper in a Throne, that was so bebloodied: His conclusion was, that in the tenth year of his reign, he was accused by the Nobles of Judea and Samaria, to Augustus, banished to Vienna, and his estate confiscate. Jos. Ant. lib. 17. cap. 15.
Ver. 23. He shall be called a Nazarene.
From Isa. 11. 1. where the Messias is called by the title Nezer, which indifferently signifieth A branch, and the City Nazareth: one and the same word denoting Christ, and the place where he should be born.
SECTION VIII.
S. LUKE, CHAP. II.
Christ showeth his wisdom at twelve years old.
Reason of the Order.
THE Order of this Section dependeth so clearly upon the proper Order of that preceding, that that being made good, to lie where it doth, as in the proper place, the subsequence of this to it can nothing at all be doubted of. For whereas all the Evangelists have unanimously passed over in silence, all those years of Christ's minority which intervened or passed, between his return out of Egypt, and this passage of his at twelve years old, there is nothing possible to be found in the Gospels, that can come between, to interpose this order and connection. The carriage and demeanour of our Savior in the time between, is only briefly comprised in the first verse of this portion, And the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom and the grace of God was upon him.
Harmony and Explanation.
Ver. 40. And the child grew, &c.
TWO years Old he was when he went into Egypt: and there he abode in his Exile, a very small time, it may be some two or three months: about such a space as Moses had been hid in Egypt in his Fathers house from the fury of Pharaoh. When he returned to Nazareth his Mothers City, being now about two years and a quarter old, he was not weaned [if in this he followed the use and custom of the Jewish children, as it is like he did] but still sucked his Mothers breasts: As he grew in body, he grew much more in mind; for so the phrase, He waxed strong in Spirit, seemeth to be understood by the Evangelist; taking Spirit, not so much for the Holy Ghost, though it is past question, he was filled with that, as for his Soul or spiritual part of his human nature. And so he describeth his growth in both parts, in the two expressions, The child grew in body, and waxed strong in intellect and soul: filled with wisdom, in an extraordinary manner above other children, and a graciousness appeared in him both in person and actions.
Ver. 41. Now his Parents went to Jerusalem, &c.
Joseph is called the Parent of Christ, as Paul calleth preaching foolishness, 1 Cor. 1. 21, 23. because he was so commonly reputed by men: And as for Womens going up to this Festival, whereas the Law required only the Males appearance before the Lord, three times in the year, we shall have occasion to speak of it hereafter.
Ver. 42. And when he was twelve years old, &c.
At what age our Savior showeth his admirable wisdom in the Temple among the Doctors, in this Story; at the same age had Solomon shown his, in the matter of the two Hostesses, about the dead and living child, 1 King. 3. 25. 28. For that he was twelve years old at that time, may be conceived upon these collections.
First, Absalom began to rebel in the thirty seventh year of David's Reign, or three years before his death, or thereabout; This is to be picked out of that dateless reckoning of years, 2 Sam. 15. 7. And after forty years Absalom said, let me go pay my vow, &c. These forty years are counted from the time that Israel asked a King: three of Saul's Reign, 1 Sam. 13. 1. and seven and thirty of David's, and then began Absalom to challenge the Kingdom: and the reckoning from that date giveth this hint and intimation, that as their asking a King then did sore displease the Lord, so now are they punished in the proper kind for it, when they have so many Kings that they know not well which to follow, and many of them perish in following the usurper.
Secondly, Before his open rebellion, Absalom had been two years in Jerusalem, and not seen the Kings face, 2 Sam. 14. 28.
Thirdly, Before that time, he had been three years in deserved exile in Geshur, 2 Sam. 13. 38.
Fourthly, And two years had passed betwixt the rape of Tamar and slaughter of Amnon, which occasioned him into that exile, 2 Sam. 13. 23.
So that counting all these years together, they appear clearly to be ten at the least, betwixt the rape of Tamar and David's death: and so are they so many of Solomon's age at the same time.
Now that there was some good space that passed betwixt these sums of time mentioned, as betwixt the birth of Solomon and the rape of Tamar, betwixt Absalom's seeing of the Kings face, and his breaking out after into that rebellion, and other spaces, it cannot be denied upon serious and considerate casting up of the Story: But to find out the exact space and measure of time is hardly possible; and so is it to determine the age of our Savior at the time of his disputing with the Doctors. For though the Evangelist say that he was twelve years old, yet hath he left it doubtful, whether current or complete: and that it was a whole half year under or over, it cannot be denied, seeing that he was born about September, and this his disputing was at the Passover, about March or April. So when we say Solomon was twelve years old when he began to Reign, and when he determined the controversy of the two Hostesses, it is not necessary, punctually to pick out and show that space of time to all exactness, it sufficeth to show that the Text bringeth him near to that age under or over. See Ignat. Martyr in Epist. ad Magnes.
Vers. 43. The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and Joseph and his Mother knew not of it.
That morning that they were to depart to their own home, it was the custom to go first to the Temple, and to worship the Lord, 1 Sam. 1. 19. Now the multitudes that went together at these times were exceeding great and many, all the males of the Nation, and very many of the females being constantly present at these occasions.
When therefore Joseph and Mary, and the Galilean company that went along with them, departed from the Temple to go their Journey, it is likely that Christ stayed behind them in the Temple Court, where also he haunted, till they found him again. Now he having been absent from them, and in other companies sometimes before in the Festival week, as it can hardly be doubted, it is not to be wondered if they were not so punctually exact, as to be sure to bring him with them in their sight out of the Temple and the City. For they knew not, nor could they conceive, that he had anything to do, or how he could stay behind them when they were gone, and therefore though they saw him not, yet doubted they not but he was with some of his acquaintance or other, in that vast and numerous multitude: Yea, so confident they were of this, that when after a while they missed him, yet did they not suspect his staying behind them in Jerusalem, but went that days journey forward, searching and inquiring for him among their kindred and acquaintance, that went along with them [for so are those words to be understood] till they came to their lodging. And by that time, not having found him, they resolve, and accordingly do, on the next morning return for Jerusalem.
It is conceived by some, that the multitudes going to and from these festivals, went, the men by themselves, and the women by themselves, and the children indifferently with either parent, as they thought good, and so Mary supposed that Jesus was with Joseph, and Joseph supposed that he was with Mary, and by this mis-apprehension, they went their first days journey, till they met at their lodging, before they mist him: But if that were certain, which is very doubtful, that they thus travailed males and females apart; yet it is clear by the Text, that they jointly mist him in their first days journey, and betimes in the journey, long before they came to their Inn; and yet would not return to seek him at Jerusalem, where they could not so much as suspect that he would stay behind, when he saw all the company setting homewards; but they still go on their journey, and inquire up and down in the company for him, till their not meeting him at night resolves them, that he was not in the company at all.
Vers. 46. After three days they found him in the Temple.
That is, on the third day: for one they spent in journeying home-wards, though they missed him, the other in returning that journey to Jerusalem, and on the third day they find him in the Temple, where he had slipped from them in the crowd when they came to do their farewell-Worship.
§. In the Temple sitting in the midst of the Doctors.
Compare Psal. 82. 1. Hag. 2. 7. Mal. 3. 1, 2.
The Sanhedrin, or great Bench of Judges and Doctors sat in the Court of the Temple: This R. Solomon observeth upon the conjuncture of the end of the twentieth, and beginning of the one and twentieth Chapters of Exodus: for whereas the twentieth ends with, An Altar of Earth shalt thou make unto me, &c. and the one and twentieth begins with, And these are the judgments, his collection from hence is, that the Judges were to sit in the Sanctuary. And to the same purpose, and far more largely speaketh Maimonides; The Sanhedrin, saith he, sat in the Sanctuary, and their number was seventy one, as it is said, Gather me seventy men of the Elders of Israel, and Moses was over them, as it is said, and let them stand there with thee, behold seventy one. The chiefest in wisdom among them, they made head over them, and he was the head of the Bench, and Wisemen constantly call him Nasi [ the Prince, ] and he stands instead of Moses: And him that is chief among the LXX, they appoint second to the head, and he sits on his right hand, and he is called Ab beth Din, or the Father of the Court, and the rest of the LXX sit before them two, according to their Dignity, &c. And they sit as it were in half the floor in a Circle, that the Nasi, and the Ab beth Din may see them all. And they erected also two other Courts of Judges, of twenty three men a piece, one by the Gate of the Court, and one by the Gate of the mountain of the house: Maimond. in Sanhedr. per. 1. 5. That is, one at the gate of the outer Court, and another at the gate of the inner. Now into which of these Societies our Savior was got at this time, it is something hard to determine, since being in any of them he may be said to be in the Temple.
Reason of the Order.
THE Order of this Section dependeth so clearly upon the proper Order of that preceding, that that being made good, to lie where it doth, as in the proper place, the subsequence of this to it can nothing at all be doubted of. For whereas all the Evangelists have unanimously passed over in silence, all those years of Christ's minority which intervened or passed, between his return out of Egypt, and this passage of his at twelve years old, there is nothing possible to be found in the Gospels, that can come between, to interpose this order and connection. The carriage and demeanour of our Savior in the time between, is only briefly comprised in the first verse of this portion, And the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom and the grace of God was upon him.
Harmony and Explanation.
Ver. 40. And the child grew, &c.
TWO years Old he was when he went into Egypt: and there he abode in his Exile, a very small time, it may be some two or three months: about such a space as Moses had been hid in Egypt in his Fathers house from the fury of Pharaoh. When he returned to Nazareth his Mothers City, being now about two years and a quarter old, he was not weaned [if in this he followed the use and custom of the Jewish children, as it is like he did] but still sucked his Mothers breasts: As he grew in body, he grew much more in mind; for so the phrase, He waxed strong in Spirit, seemeth to be understood by the Evangelist; taking Spirit, not so much for the Holy Ghost, though it is past question, he was filled with that, as for his Soul or spiritual part of his human nature. And so he describeth his growth in both parts, in the two expressions, The child grew in body, and waxed strong in intellect and soul: filled with wisdom, in an extraordinary manner above other children, and a graciousness appeared in him both in person and actions.
Ver. 41. Now his Parents went to Jerusalem, &c.
Joseph is called the Parent of Christ, as Paul calleth preaching foolishness, 1 Cor. 1. 21, 23. because he was so commonly reputed by men: And as for Womens going up to this Festival, whereas the Law required only the Males appearance before the Lord, three times in the year, we shall have occasion to speak of it hereafter.
Ver. 42. And when he was twelve years old, &c.
At what age our Savior showeth his admirable wisdom in the Temple among the Doctors, in this Story; at the same age had Solomon shown his, in the matter of the two Hostesses, about the dead and living child, 1 King. 3. 25. 28. For that he was twelve years old at that time, may be conceived upon these collections.
First, Absalom began to rebel in the thirty seventh year of David's Reign, or three years before his death, or thereabout; This is to be picked out of that dateless reckoning of years, 2 Sam. 15. 7. And after forty years Absalom said, let me go pay my vow, &c. These forty years are counted from the time that Israel asked a King: three of Saul's Reign, 1 Sam. 13. 1. and seven and thirty of David's, and then began Absalom to challenge the Kingdom: and the reckoning from that date giveth this hint and intimation, that as their asking a King then did sore displease the Lord, so now are they punished in the proper kind for it, when they have so many Kings that they know not well which to follow, and many of them perish in following the usurper.
Secondly, Before his open rebellion, Absalom had been two years in Jerusalem, and not seen the Kings face, 2 Sam. 14. 28.
Thirdly, Before that time, he had been three years in deserved exile in Geshur, 2 Sam. 13. 38.
Fourthly, And two years had passed betwixt the rape of Tamar and slaughter of Amnon, which occasioned him into that exile, 2 Sam. 13. 23.
So that counting all these years together, they appear clearly to be ten at the least, betwixt the rape of Tamar and David's death: and so are they so many of Solomon's age at the same time.
Now that there was some good space that passed betwixt these sums of time mentioned, as betwixt the birth of Solomon and the rape of Tamar, betwixt Absalom's seeing of the Kings face, and his breaking out after into that rebellion, and other spaces, it cannot be denied upon serious and considerate casting up of the Story: But to find out the exact space and measure of time is hardly possible; and so is it to determine the age of our Savior at the time of his disputing with the Doctors. For though the Evangelist say that he was twelve years old, yet hath he left it doubtful, whether current or complete: and that it was a whole half year under or over, it cannot be denied, seeing that he was born about September, and this his disputing was at the Passover, about March or April. So when we say Solomon was twelve years old when he began to Reign, and when he determined the controversy of the two Hostesses, it is not necessary, punctually to pick out and show that space of time to all exactness, it sufficeth to show that the Text bringeth him near to that age under or over. See Ignat. Martyr in Epist. ad Magnes.
Vers. 43. The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and Joseph and his Mother knew not of it.
That morning that they were to depart to their own home, it was the custom to go first to the Temple, and to worship the Lord, 1 Sam. 1. 19. Now the multitudes that went together at these times were exceeding great and many, all the males of the Nation, and very many of the females being constantly present at these occasions.
When therefore Joseph and Mary, and the Galilean company that went along with them, departed from the Temple to go their Journey, it is likely that Christ stayed behind them in the Temple Court, where also he haunted, till they found him again. Now he having been absent from them, and in other companies sometimes before in the Festival week, as it can hardly be doubted, it is not to be wondered if they were not so punctually exact, as to be sure to bring him with them in their sight out of the Temple and the City. For they knew not, nor could they conceive, that he had anything to do, or how he could stay behind them when they were gone, and therefore though they saw him not, yet doubted they not but he was with some of his acquaintance or other, in that vast and numerous multitude: Yea, so confident they were of this, that when after a while they missed him, yet did they not suspect his staying behind them in Jerusalem, but went that days journey forward, searching and inquiring for him among their kindred and acquaintance, that went along with them [for so are those words to be understood] till they came to their lodging. And by that time, not having found him, they resolve, and accordingly do, on the next morning return for Jerusalem.
It is conceived by some, that the multitudes going to and from these festivals, went, the men by themselves, and the women by themselves, and the children indifferently with either parent, as they thought good, and so Mary supposed that Jesus was with Joseph, and Joseph supposed that he was with Mary, and by this mis-apprehension, they went their first days journey, till they met at their lodging, before they mist him: But if that were certain, which is very doubtful, that they thus travailed males and females apart; yet it is clear by the Text, that they jointly mist him in their first days journey, and betimes in the journey, long before they came to their Inn; and yet would not return to seek him at Jerusalem, where they could not so much as suspect that he would stay behind, when he saw all the company setting homewards; but they still go on their journey, and inquire up and down in the company for him, till their not meeting him at night resolves them, that he was not in the company at all.
Vers. 46. After three days they found him in the Temple.
That is, on the third day: for one they spent in journeying home-wards, though they missed him, the other in returning that journey to Jerusalem, and on the third day they find him in the Temple, where he had slipped from them in the crowd when they came to do their farewell-Worship.
§. In the Temple sitting in the midst of the Doctors.
Compare Psal. 82. 1. Hag. 2. 7. Mal. 3. 1, 2.
The Sanhedrin, or great Bench of Judges and Doctors sat in the Court of the Temple: This R. Solomon observeth upon the conjuncture of the end of the twentieth, and beginning of the one and twentieth Chapters of Exodus: for whereas the twentieth ends with, An Altar of Earth shalt thou make unto me, &c. and the one and twentieth begins with, And these are the judgments, his collection from hence is, that the Judges were to sit in the Sanctuary. And to the same purpose, and far more largely speaketh Maimonides; The Sanhedrin, saith he, sat in the Sanctuary, and their number was seventy one, as it is said, Gather me seventy men of the Elders of Israel, and Moses was over them, as it is said, and let them stand there with thee, behold seventy one. The chiefest in wisdom among them, they made head over them, and he was the head of the Bench, and Wisemen constantly call him Nasi [ the Prince, ] and he stands instead of Moses: And him that is chief among the LXX, they appoint second to the head, and he sits on his right hand, and he is called Ab beth Din, or the Father of the Court, and the rest of the LXX sit before them two, according to their Dignity, &c. And they sit as it were in half the floor in a Circle, that the Nasi, and the Ab beth Din may see them all. And they erected also two other Courts of Judges, of twenty three men a piece, one by the Gate of the Court, and one by the Gate of the mountain of the house: Maimond. in Sanhedr. per. 1. 5. That is, one at the gate of the outer Court, and another at the gate of the inner. Now into which of these Societies our Savior was got at this time, it is something hard to determine, since being in any of them he may be said to be in the Temple.
§. In the Temple sitting in the midst of the Doctors.
Compare Psal. 82. 1. Hag. 2. 7. Mal. 3. 1, 2.
The Sanhedrin, or great Bench of Judges and Doctors sat in the Court of the Temple: This R. Solomon observeth upon the conjuncture of the end of the twentieth, and beginning of the one and twentieth Chapters of Exodus: for whereas the twentieth ends with, An Altar of Earth shalt thou make unto me, &c. and the one and twentieth begins with, And these are the judgments, his collection from hence is, that the Judges were to sit in the Sanctuary. And to the same purpose, and far more largely speaketh Maimonides; The Sanhedrin, saith he, sat in the Sanctuary, and their number was seventy one, as it is said, Gather me seventy men of the Elders of Israel, and Moses was over them, as it is said, and let them stand there with thee, behold seventy one. The chiefest in wisdom among them, they made head over them, and he was the head of the Bench, and Wisemen constantly call him Nasi [ the Prince, ] and he stands instead of Moses: And him that is chief among the LXX, they appoint second to the head, and he sits on his right hand, and he is called Ab beth Din, or the Father of the Court, and the rest of the LXX sit before them two, according to their Dignity, &c. And they sit as it were in half the floor in a Circle, that the Nasi, and the Ab beth Din may see them all. And they erected also two other Courts of Judges, of twenty three men a piece, one by the Gate of the Court, and one by the Gate of the mountain of the house: Maimond. in Sanhedr. per. 1. 5. That is, one at the gate of the outer Court, and another at the gate of the inner. Now into which of these Societies our Savior was got at this time, it is something hard to determine, since being in any of them he may be said to be in the Temple.
SECTION IX.
St. MATTHEW. CHAP. III.
St. MARK. CHAP. I.
St. LUKE. CHAP. III.
Reason of the Order.
ALthough there be a very large space of time betwixt the Section last preceding, and the beginning of this, yet because the Reader in his Bible can see nothing mentioned in any of the four that may come between, he will easily satisfy himself without any further discourse, that the order is necessary, and the connection undeniable. But it may be, he may wonder why the Evangelists have passed so much time in silence, without any mention at all of our Savior Christ, or of anything done or spoken by him: But when he shall observe in the very first words of this Section, that the Preaching of John, and his baptism was the beginning of the Gospel, then will he see that they hasten to that and forward, as to the main aim, and chief intention of their writing, but that the conception and birth of Christ and his forerunner were necessarily to be related before.
In these collateral columns of the Text, and forward, where we shall have occasion to use them so, the Readers eye must sometimes help to lay them together, where the pen could not, without changing and transposing the natural method of the Text; as in this Section now in hand, it had been both as easy for me to have written the third verse of Mark, after the fourth and fifth, as before them, and more agreeing to the columns on either side it; but that I would not be so bold as to change verses without any reason, which Mark not without good reason did dispose as they lie. And this cautelousness have I observed all along as I go, where occasion is offered; presuming rather to trouble the Reader to rank them with his eye, then to tear the Text in the whole cloth, and then sew it together at other edges. It will sometimes be inevitable, but that we must invert and alter the order of one Evangelist or other, from what he had laid it; but wheresoever that shall be so, there shall be such a reason given for it, as I hope shall be to the Readers satisfaction, and mine own excuse.
Harmony and Explanation.
MARK I. Vers. 1.
The beginning of the Gospel.
THE beginning of that age of the world, which the Prophets so unanimously pointed out for the time of good things to come; and which they expressed sometimes by the term of The last days, Esa. 2. 2. Mich. 4. 1. Joel 2. 28. Sometimes, of the acceptable year of the Lord, Esa. 61. 1. Sometimes, of the Kingdom of God, Dan. 2. 44. & 7. 14. and sometimes, of a New Heaven, and a New Earth, Esa. 65. 17. And which the Gospel itself doth begin from the beginning of the Ministry and Preaching of John the Baptist, as in this verse, and Matth. 11. 13. Act. 1. 22. & 10. 37. So that though in our Chronicle account, and computation, we begin to reckon from the birth of our Savior the second Adam, as the age of the world before, was reckoned from the Creation of the first; yet in strict and exact computing, the new world, as one may call it, or the age of the Gospel began not before the setting forth of John, to preach and baptize; and this his Ministry is most fitly called the beginning of the Gospel both in regard of his preaching and of his baptizing.
For, first, the Doctrine and Preaching of John, was of a differing strain, and diverse tenor from the literal Doctrine of the Law: For that called all for works and for exact performance, Do this and live; and, He that doth not all the words of this Law, is cursed; But John called for repentance, and for renewing of the mind, and for belief in him that was coming after, disclaiming all righteousness by the works and performance of the Law, but proclaiming repentance for non-performance, and righteousness only to be had by Christ. So that here were new Heavens, and a new Earth begun to be created; a new Commandment given, a new Church founded, justification by the works of the Law cried down, and the glorious Doctrine of Repentance and Faith set up.
Secondly, Whereas Baptism was used before among the Jews, only for admission of Proselytes or Heathens to their Church and Religion, [ as Vid. Ibn Ezra, Gen. 35. Rambam in Issurei Biah per. 13.] now it is published and proposed to the Jews themselves to be received, and undergone, showing unto them; 1. That they were now to be entered and transplanted into a new profession. And 2. That the Gentiles and they were now to be knit into one Church and Body.
The Ministry of John being of so high concernment, as being thus the beginning of the Gospel, and of a new World, it is no wonder, that St. Luke doth so exactly point out the year by the Reign of the Emperor, the rule of Pilate, Herod, Philip, and Lysanias, the High Priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, that so remarkable a year might be fixed and known to all the World, and that the condition and the state of the times might be observed when the Gospel began. And here it might have been proper to have begun the second part of this our task, and not to have driven over this Period of time, and to stop half a year after it at the baptism of our Savior; but since his preaching and appearing to the World, is the great and main thing that the Evangelists look after, and since the preaching of the Baptist was but a Preface and forerunner unto that of his; it is not unproper, and may be very excusable to make that our entrance to another part, and take this with us in our motion to our lodging and resting there.
§. Of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
This title of The Son of God, is proclaimed of Christ from Heaven, at his baptism, when he is to begin to preach the Gospel, as it is said here to be the Gospel of the Son of God. And it was necessary that so much should be intimated and learned concerning him, as the author of the Gospel, Because 1. The Gospel was the full revealing and opening of the will of the Father. 2. The overthrow and ruin of the Rites and Ceremonies of Moses. 3. The admission of heathen and strangers to be the Church and people of the Lord, whereas Israel had been his peculiar before. 4. It was a Doctrine of trusting in another, and not ones self for salvation, and who was fit for doing the three former, or for being the object of the latter, but Jesus Christ the Son of God, who came from the bosom of the Father, was the substance and body of those shadows and Ceremonies, might raze that partition wall, which in the giving of the Law himself had reared, and did not only preach the Doctrine of the Gospel, but also fully perform the Law.
Vers. 2. As it is written in the Prophets.
It seemeth by the Syrian, Arabic, Uulgar Latin, Victor Antiochenus, Origen cited by him, and others, that some Copies read, As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet: and so Jansen thinketh it was so written by Mark himself, but purposely changed by the Doctors of the Church, as we read it now, to avoid the difficulty which the other reading carried with it.
But, first, it were a very strange and impious, though an easy way of resolving doubts, to add to, or diminish from the Text at pleasure, as the Text shall seem easy or difficult: This is not to expound the Bible, but to make a new one, or a Text of ones own head.
Secondly, In ancienter times then any of theirs that are produced, which read, In Isaiah the Prophet, it was read as we do, In the Prophets, as Jansen himself showeth out of Irenaeus, lib. 3. chap. 11.
Thirdly, The one half of the words alleged in the Text, are not in Isaiah at all, but in Malachi: and the first half also, for that is considerable. For though sometime the New Testament in Allegations from the Old, do closely couch two several places together under one quotation, as if they were but one; yet maketh it sure, that the first always is that very place which it takes on it to cite, though the second be another: as Acts 7. 7. Steven alledgeth a speech of God, as if uttered to Abraham alone; whereas it is two several quotations, and two several speeches tied up in one; the one spoken to Abraham indeed, but the other to Moses, almost four hundred years after; and that to Abraham is set the first, for he is the subject whereupon the allegation is produced.
Fourthly, It is a manner of speech not used in the New Testament, to say, it is written, or it is said in such or such a Prophet, but by him. We find indeed, It is written in the Law, Luke 10. 26. And, It is written in the book of Psalms, Acts 1. 20. Yea, It is written in the Prophets, Joh. 6. 45. but nowhere that it is written in a single Prophet.
Fifthly, To read as we do, As it is written in the Prophets, agreeth with the ordinary and usual division of the Old Testament, by the Hebrews, into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Oraietha, Nebhyim, Chetubbim. The Law, the Prophets, and the Holy writs; approved and followed by our Savior, Luke 24. 44. and alluded to by the Evangelist here.
[ Before thy face, &c. Thy way before thee. ] The former is neither in the Hebrew, nor in the LXX at all: the latter is in them both, but clean contrary, for they both have it, The way before me.
But, first, The Evangelists and Apostles, when they take on them to cite any Text from the Old Testament, are not so punctual to observe the exact and strict form of words, as the pith of them, or sense of the place; as might be instanced in many particulars: so that the difference of the words would not prejudice the agreement in sense, were there not so flat difference of person, as me and thee.
Secondly, The Majesty of Scripture doth often show itself in requoting of places, in this, that it alledgeth them in difference of words and difference of sense, yea, sometimes in contrariety, not to make one place to cross or deny another, but by the variety one to explain and illustrate another, as in corresponding places in the Old Testament might be shown at large, as Gen. 10. 22, 23. cited, 1 Chron. 1. 17. Gen. 36. 12. compared with 1 Chron. 1. 36. 1 Sam. 25. 44. paralleled, 2 Sam. 21. 8. 2 Chron. 3. 15. with Jer. 52. 21. and very many other places of the like nature: wherein the Holy Ghost having penned a thing in one place, doth by variety of words and sense, enlarge and expound himself in another. And the same divine authority and Majesty doth he also use in the New Testament, both in parallel places in itself, and in citations in it, from the Old. So that this difference in hand, betwixt My face, in Malachi; and thy face, in Mark, is not contradictory or crossing one another, but explicatory or one explaining another, and both together do result to the greater mystery. For Christ is the face or presence of the Father: and so is he plainly called, Exod. 33. 14. and in Christ, the Father came and revealed himself among men: and the words in both places, both in the Prophet and in the Evangelist, are to be taken for the words of the Father; in the one, spoken of the Son, and in the other, to him: In Malachi thus, Behold I send my Messenger before me to prepare the way before my face; that is, before the Son, as he is in his own nature, the very brightness of the glory of the Father, and the express image of his person, Heb. 1. 3. and in Mark thus, to prepare the way before thy face, that is, before thee, O Son, when thou comest to undertake the work of Redemption, and to publish the Gospel. And this change of persons in Grammatical construction is usual in the Hebrews Eloquence and Rhetoric; as 1 Sam. 2. 23. My heart rejoiceth in the Lord, I rejoice in thy salvation. There is none holy as the Lord, for there is none beside thee, &c. Zech. 12. 10. They shall look upon me, whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him: and 14. 5. The Lord my God shall come, and all the Saints with thee.
Luke 3. ver. 1. In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar.
This Tiberius was the third Emperor of the Romans, the son of Livia, the wife of Augustus, and by him adopted into the family of the Caesar's, and to the Empire: A man of such subtlety, cruelty, avarice, and bestiality, that for all, or indeed for any of these, few stories can show his parallel: And as if in this very beginning of the Gospel, he were produced of such a constitution, to teach us what to look for from that cruel and abominable City, in all ages and successions.
Now Tiberius his fifteenth was the year of the world 3957. And the time of the year that John began to Baptize in it, was about Easter, or the vernal Equinox, as may be concluded from the time of the Baptism of our Savior. For if Jesus were baptized in Tisri or September, as is cleared hereafter, he being then but just entering upon his thirtieth year, as the Law required, Numb. 4. And if John being six months elder then our Savior, as it is plain he was, did enter his Ministry at the very same age, according to the same Law, it readily follows, that the time mentioned, was the time when he began to Preach. It was indeed Tiberius his fifteenth when John began to baptize, but it may very well be questioned, whether it were so when our Savior was baptized by him: For the exact beginning of every year of Tiberius his reign, was from the fourteenth of the Kalends of September, or the eighteenth of August, at what time Augustus died: Suetonius. in Aug. cap. 100. That fifteenth of the Emperor therefore, in the Spring time of which John began to baptize, was expired before September, when our Savior was baptized, and so his baptism is to be reputed in the year of the world 3958. which was then but newly begun, and in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, but newly begun neither, unless you will reckon the year of the Emperor, as the Romans did the year of the Consuls, from January to January: But this we will not controvert, nor cross the common and constant opinion of all times, that holdeth our Savior to have been baptized in Tiberius his fifteenth.
§. Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea.
Here is called Procurator Judeae by Tacitus, Annal. lib. 15. and hath this brand set upon him by Egisippus, that he was Vir nequam & parvi faciens mendacium, De excid. Jerus. l. 2. c. 5. A wicked man and one that made little conscience of a lie; from which unconscionable disposition, those words of his, What is truth, Joh. 18. 38. seem to proceed, in scorn of truth, and derision of it. He succeeded Gratus, in the government of Judea: managed it with a great deal of troublesomness and vexation to the nation: and at last was put out of his rule by Vitellius, and sent to Rome, to answer for his misdemeanors. Joseph. Antiq. lib. 18. c. 3. 4, 5. Philo in legatione.
§. Herod being Tetrarch of Galilee.
This was Antipas the son of Herod the great, and called also Herod after his Father, a man that after a long and wicked misdemeanor, in his place, was at last banished by Gaius upon the accusation of his Nephew Herod Agrippa, and Herodias his incestuous mate with him, as shall be shown in a more proper place.
§. Tetrarch.
Some tying themselves too strictly, to the signification of the Greek word, understand by Tetrarch, him that governeth the fourth part of a Kingdom, for the Original word includeth four: and accordingly have concluded, that the Kingdom of Herod the great was divided by Augustus after his death into four parts, and given to his four sons, Archelaus [in whose room they say succeeded Pontius Pilate ] Herod Antipas, Philip, and Lysanias. In this strictness hath the Syrian Translator taken the word, rendering it thus, Herod being the fourth Ruler in Galilee, and Philip the fourth ruler in Iturea. And the Arabic thus: Herod being head over a fourth part, even Galilee: and so in the rest. But if the opinion be narrowly examined, these absurdities will be found in it.
First, It maketh a Tetrarchy to be nothing else, but exactly the fourth part of a Kingdom, whereas Pliny, lib. 5. cap. 18. speaketh of Tetrarchies that were like Kingdoms, and compacted into Kingdoms, and he nameth Trachonitis for one. His words are these: Intercurrunt, cinguntque has Uerbes, Tetrarchiae regnorum instar singulae, & in regna contribuuntur, Trachonitis, Paneas, in qua Cesarea cum supradicto fonte Abila. And in chap. 23. he saith, Caelosyria had seventeen Tetrarchies, Tetrarchias in regna descriptas, barbaris nominibus decem & septem.
Secondly, It divideth Herod's kingdom into four parts, whereas it was parted only into three, to his three Sons, Joseph. Ant. lib. 17.
Thirdly, It maketh Lysanias to be Herod's son, which he was not at all.
A Tetrarch therefore seemeth rather to be one that was in the fourth rank or degree of excellency and government in the Roman Empire: the Emperor that was Lord of all the Empire being the first, the Proconsul that governed a Province the second, a King the third, and a Tetrarch the fourth. So Mishueh, and Shalish in the Hebrew, signify a man▪ second or third to the King.
§. And his brother Philip being Tetrarch, &c.
Herod made Antipas [ whom he had intended for King, but changing his mind, he changed his last will ] Tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea. And the Kingdom he bestowed on Archelaus: And Gaulonitis and Trachonitus, and Batanaea, and Paneas he bestowed on Philip who was his own son, and own brother to Archelaus, to be a Tetrarchy, Josep. Ant. l. 17. c. 10.
§. Of Iturea.
This Country seemeth to have taken its denomination from Itur one of the sons of Ishmael, Gen. 25. 15. and it lay edging upon Arabia, but reckoned to Syria, and upon that reference mentioned by the Evangelist here. For he speaketh of these Countries and Tetrarchies, because Syria and Judea were but one Province, and under one Proconsul. And therefore as he nameth the government of Canaan, in the two Countries of Judea and Galilee, so doth he also the government of Syria, under three, Ituria, Trachonitis and Abilene: And this is agreeable to what he had done in Chap. 2. 1. when he spake of the time of our Savior's birth: for as he there dateth the Tax that then was, by the time of a governor of Syria, so doth he now the beginning of the Gospel by the time of the Rulers there, as well as in Judea. And this was also most suitable to the Roman Records, where, seeing that Syria and Judea were joined together into one Province, it is not to be doubted, but their Governors were named together, as members of one body.
§. And the Region of Trachonitis.
The name of this Country, as it seemeth by Strabo, was taken from two mountains, or Rocks, called Trachones: and they very probably so called from the Hebrew word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth wearisomeness, in regard of the irksome and tedious difficulty of passing over them: as Strabo instantly after them, speaketh of other mountains towards Arabia and Iturea, which he titleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hills hard to travel over. Josephus supposeth Uz the eldest son of Aram, to have been the first Inhabiter of this Country, Antiq. lib. 1. cap. 7. but whether it were that son of his or no, it is not so material to inquire, as it is to observe that it was reputed a Country belonging to Aram, or within the compass of Syria: very thievish in the time of Herod, and the Inhabitants living upon the robbery of the Damascens, that lay near unto them: Joseph. Antiq. lib. 15. cap. 13.
§. Lysanias.
He was not a son of Herod, as is supposed by some, nor an immediate son of Ptolemy Mennaeus, neither, as is held by others. [For though Josephus Antiq. lib. 14. cap. 23. and de Bel. lib. cap. 11. telleth that Lysanias succeeded his father Ptolemy Mennaeus, yet it cannot be the same man possibly, that St. Luke here speaketh of, for that Lysanias was slain by the means of Cleopatra, a good space of time before our Savior was born, Jos. Antiq. lib. 15. cap. 4.] But the Lysanias here mentioned, might be the great Grandchild of Mennaeus, or someone of that house, that bare the same name with Mennaeus his immediate son and successor.
§. Abilene.
This Country was so named from the City Abila, which Ptolemy, lib. 5. cap. 15. hath reckoned for a City of Caelosyria, [or as some Copies have it, of Decapolis ] and with this title, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Abila surnamed from Lysanias: see also Pliny, lib. 5. cap. 18. This word soundeth so near to the word Havilah, Gen. 2. 11. & 10. 7. that it may very well be supposed to have descended from it, and the name of the place from that son of Cush, that planted with his brethren mentioned with him, in Arabia and thereabouts.
Vers. 2. Annas and Caiaphas being the High Priest.
There could be but one High Priest properly so called at one time: and that Caiaphas was he at this time, it is most clear, both out of Josephus, and out of the Scripture. Now Annas is said to be High Priest with him, because he was the Nasi or head of the Sanhedrin, and so represented Moses, as Caiaphas did Aaron, and he was of the seed of the Priests, as well as Caiaphas was. An evidence of his being the head of the great Council, is, in that when our Savior was apprehended, he was first led to Annas, Joh. 18. 13. and by him bound and sent to Caiaphas, ver. 24. and that Annas is first placed in the Council, Act. 4. 6. We shall have more punctual occasion hereafter to look after this man, and then will we see what we can find spoken of him by Josephus.
§. The Word of the Lord came to John.
Such was the commission of the Prophets, as Jer. 1. 2. Ezek. 6. 1, &c. And this proclaimeth John a Prophet, as well as they. And here had he his warrant for his Ministry, and this was the institution of the Sacrament of Baptism. Now whether the word of the Lord that came to John and to the Prophets, be to be understood of his personal and substantial word, as Joh. 1. 1. or of the word of Prophesy suggested to them by the Holy Ghost; and whether John had this word imparted to him, by vision, or dream, or rapture, or what other way, it is not so material to inquire, as it is difficult to resolve; only this is not impertinent to observe, That whereas the race of the Prophets that were sent to teach and to preach to the people by the word of the Lord, was expired and extinguished long ago, in the death of Malachi the last of that race, there is now another race of such preachers to be raised again, viz. John, and the great Prophet, and the Apostles, and this is the entrance or beginning to that glorious generation. For we are to distinguish, betwixt having the gift and spirit of Prophesy, and betwixt being sent by that spirit for a constant Preacher to the people. Deborah and Barak, and Huldab and Hannah, and divers others both men and women had the spirit of Prophesy upon them, but never had warrant to go and preach, and to be constant ministers to the Church. But Isaiah, and Jeremy, and Ezekiel, and the rest of that form, under the Old Testament, and John and the Apostles under the New, had not only the spirit of Prophesy upon them, to foretell things to come, but they had also the word of the Lord came unto them, which gave them commission to be continual preachers, and entered them into the function of a constant Ministry. As see how the Baptist himself explaineth what is meant by this word of the Lord coming to him, Joh. 1. 33. He sent me to baptize.
§. To John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
The children of the Priests when they came to age, were to be installed and enrolled into the service of the Temple; their names being entered there, and the name of their father. To this custom the Evangelist seemeth to refer, when he calleth, John the Son of Zacharias in this place, and at this time, when he was to enter upon his Ministerial function: which though he did not at the Temple, as others used to do, but had another kind of employment laid upon him, by the Word of the Lord coming to him in the Wilderness in the place of his converse; yet [as had he been there, he must have been enrolled and registered, thus, John the Son of Zacharias began his Ministration at such a time, or to this purpose, so] doth the Holy Ghost inrol him here, at his entrance into this his Ministry of another kind, the word of the Lord came to John the son of Zacharias. And the like passage we may observe in the same Evangelist concerning our Savior at his being baptized, and when he also entered upon his function.
Matth. 3. ver. 1. Preaching in the Wilderness of Judea.
That is, in the Cities and Towns in the wilderness, as Josh. 15. 61, 62. & 1 Sam. 23. 14. 24. some of which were probably within the territories, and under the command of Hebron the place where John was born: for there is mention of the Cities of Hebron, 2 Sam. 2. 3.
Mark 1. ver. 4. John did baptize in the Wilderness.
It is the most likely that John began to preach in the place where he was born, and from thence went to other places as he saw occasion, and the Spirit moved him: And indeed Hebron itself was in a manner a City of the Wilderness, as well as the others mentioned, though there be no such expression concerning it, as is of them: and if those words, Luke 2. So He was in the deserts, till the day of his showing unto Israel, were interpreted concerning his being in Hebron; the interpretation might very well be justified, though to avoid cavil and offense, we have expounded it of places, which the Scripture calleth Deserts or Wildernesses in express terms.
However, be it in Hebron, or out of Hebron that John was educated, conversed, and began to preach; certain it is, that he did the last of these in some Cities of the Wilderness, not far from Hebron: and if it be said that he baptized also in these Cities where he preached, and as yet was not gone down to Jordan, till Jerusalem and all Judea heard of him, and came to be baptized, and then he went thither for the conveniency of water: I suppose it crosseth nothing, either in the History or Mystery, and it averreth no more concerning John now, then we shall find him doing hereafter; namely, baptizing in other waters besides Jordan. And indeed how can it rationally be understood otherwise, then that John baptized first in these Cities and Towns, before multitude of company drew him down unto the River?
For, first, it cannot be conceived that he walked or stood in the open fields near Jordan, and there began to preach; but that he betook himself to Towns or Cities where was concourse of people.
Secondly, it can as little be conceived, that when any people in this or that City embraced his Doctrine, and desired to be baptized, that he should bring them to the River, which was sometime far off, or delay them till all the multitude should meet him there together; unless it could be shown that the water of Jordan was only allowed to be baptized in, and no other; the contrary to which we shall se •• non.
The Story therefore and progress of his Ministry and baptizing, out of the three Evangelists may be compiled thus: That first he came preaching in the Wilderness of Judea, in the Towns and Cities that were there, about the place of his education; That he baptized there those that were converted by his preaching, and that desired to be baptized by him: That he went abroad from thence, up and down all the Country round about Jordan, and when his converts, and the concourse were now grown numerous, he baptized them in Jordan, because there was water enough, as John 3. 23.
§ And preach the baptism of Repentance.
The Evangelist useth this title or epithet, in opposition to Circumcision, and baptizing of Proselytes, which had been the way and door of admission in to the Church before. They might very fitly be called the Circumcision and baptism of perfomance, as this the baptism of repentance. For whosoever received circumcision was engaged by it to the performance of the whole Law, Gal. 5. 2. And the like was every Proselyte engaged that received Baptism. But this baptism of John, or the baptism in the Christian Church is clean of another nature. For whereas those two challenged of everyone that went through those doors into the Church, that they should stand debtors to the whole Law, and be obliged to a legal righteousness: our baptism requireth a clean contrary thing, namely, that we should be obliged to repentance, in regard that the performance of the Law is a thing that is to us impossible, and that we should be buried with Christ in his death, and seek after his righteousness, seeing that we have none of our own. Hence appeareth clearly, first, a reason why the baptism of John is called the beginning of the Gospel, for it opened a door, and gave an inlet into the Church upon other terms, then had ever been before. And, secondly, that baptism belongeth to Children, though it be the baptism of repentance, and they know not what repentance means: For it requireth not their repentance at their receiving of the Sacrament, when they stand but in the door or entry of the Church, but it engageth them to repentance for the time to come, or when they being now entered into the Church, shall come to the use of reason, and knowledge of the engagement: And so was it with the children that were circumcised: for they when they underwent that Sacrament, undertook obedience to the whole Law, and yet they knew not what, either obedience, or the Law meant: But that undertaking was, what they were to do when they came to the years of knowledge and apprehension.
Matth. 3. Verse 2. And saying, Repent ye, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.
The Phrase, the Kingdom of Heaven, which is so frequently and commonly used in the Gospel, is taken from, Dan. 2. 44. and 7. 14. And it meaneth the spiritual Kingdom of Christ in and under the Gospel, as it is published and preached unto all Nations. For though the phrase be generally and truly understood to mean the preaching of the Gospel; yet doth it most properly and naturally signify the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles, or among all Nations; as might be shown, by the signification of the word Heaven, by the manner of speech here used, that it is at hand, and so again, Mat. 4. 17. when the Gospel was now Preached already: by the Text of Daniel, from whence the phrase is taken, and by divers places in the Gospel where it is used; but the full clearing of this, I have chosen to refer to that difficult place which will call for it to be cleared, when the Lord shall bring us thither, Matth. 16. 19. To thee will I give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: where I conceive Christ to have foretold to Peter; that he should be the first that should Preach the Gospel, and open the door of Faith unto the Gentiles, as Acts 15. 7. and 10.
Now, The Kingdom of Heaven signifying thus, not barely and simply the Preaching of the Gospel, but the Preaching of it to the Gentiles and their conversion, it showeth how proper and pregnant an argument this was to enforce the doctrine and practice of Repentance upon the Jews, because the calling of the Gentiles was near at hand, which would prove their rejection and casting off, if they did not repent, as Deut. 32. 21.
Before the coming of Christ, these four Earthly Kingdoms that are mentioned by Daniel in the Chapters cited, bare all the sway, and domineered over all the world with cruelty and tyranny: but when they were destroyed, at his coming he set up a Kingdom of his own, and swayed the Scepter of Righteousness over all Nations, and ruled them with his word and Spirit. And whereas before his coming also, the Church consisted but of one Nation and Kingdom: and was couched upon a small parcel of Earth, the Land of Canaan, • nd had earthly promises, and earthly rites; when he came and published the Gospel, he gathered a Church of all Kingdoms and Nations, and Languages under Heaven; and built it up with Heavenly and Spiritual promises and instructions, and thus The Kingdom of Heaven may fitly be understood in opposition to these two earthly ones.
Luke 3. ver. 5. Every valley shall be filled, &c.
These borrowed phrases, intend the removing of obstacles and stumbling blocks out of the way, and plaining and clearing the way for men to come to Christ, and to the obedience of the Gospel. The Jews conceive that the cloud of glory that led the people of Israel in the wilderness, did really and according to the letter, do what is here spoken of, for facilitating of their march and journey: as that it levelled Mountains, raised valleys, and laid all of a flat, that it burnt up bushes and smoothed rocks, and made all plain, that they might travail without trouble or offense.
And some of them also say, that when Jeroboam set up his goden calves and Idolatry in Bethel, and Dan, that he and his wicked agents laid ambushments and scouts in the ways to Jerusalem, to catch up everyone that should go thither to worship, and to this purpose they apply that saying of the Prophet, Hos. 5. 1. O ye Priests and O ye house of the King, ye have been a snare on Mizpah, and a net upon Tabor, And the revolters are profound to make slaughter, &c. If either of these things were undoubtedly so, as they suppose, how properly might this passage of the Prophet Isaiah, and of the Evangelist from him, be thought to refer thereunto; but since they be but surmisals, it is safest to take the words for a borrowed speech, to express what was said before, the removing of obstacles in the way to Christ.
Mat. 3. ver. 6. Confessing their sins.
Not to John, but to God: For neither was it possible for John to hear their confessions, nor was it necessary. Not possible, because of the vast multitudes that came to be baptized: nor necessary, for to tell him they had committed such and such sins, what conduced it either to their baptism or forgiveness.
Nor was this their confession of their sins, before there being baptized, but after: For first, if we should strictly take the Grammatical construction of the word, that importeth their confessing, it is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which would have denoted that they had confessed before they were baptized, but it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in both the Evangelists, that speak of that matter.
Secondly, It was far more agreeable to the end and doctrine of Baptism, that their confession of sin should be after their baptizing then before, in that they were baptized to repentance, ver. 11. and not e contra; the Sacrament was more intentionally to enter them into repentance, then repentance to enter them into the Sacrament; For, as was said before, it obliged them more properly to repentance after the receiving of it then before.
Thirdly, the gesture of our Savior after his Baptism seemeth to have been according to the common custom and gesture of the people, and as he coming out of the water fell to prayer, so they when they came out, used to do, to make their penitent confession to the Lord.
Mat. 3. ver. 7. When he saw many of the Pharisees, and Sadducees coming to his baptism.
The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Esseans, the three Sects of the Jews; Josephus Antiq. lib. 13. c. 9. are those three Sheepherds spoken of, Zech. 11. 8. whom our Savior at his coming was to cut off.
The two former, whom we have now in hand, are very frequent in mention in the Gospel: men of enmity one against another, yet both joint enemies to Christ and to his Apostles.
The original of the Pharisees is not so easy to go back unto, as that of the Sadducees, nor is the significancy of their name so readily determined and fixed upon as the other; The Sadducees, it is well known were so called from Sadoc, the first Author of their Sect, and he the Scholar of Antigonus; Rabbi Nathan in his Aboth. Perek. 5. hath thus clearly given us their original. Antigonus of Socoh, saith he, received his learning from Simeon the just: This was his saying: Be not as servants that serve their Master, because of receiving a reward, but be as servants that serve their Master, not for the receiving of a reward, but let the fear of God be upon you. This Antigonus had two Scholars, which changed his words; they changed them to their Scholars, and their Scholars to theirs: They stood up and taught after them, and said, what saw our Fathers to say thus? is it possible that a work-man may do his work all the day, and not receive his wages at even? But if our Fathers had known that there is a world to come, and that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, they would never have said thus: They stood up and separated from the Law, and from them broke out the two Sects, the Sadducees, and Baithusaeans: the Sadducees after the name of Sadoc: and the Baithusaeans, after the name of Baithus. So he. Now this Antigonus, whose good doctrine had this bad construction, was Scholar to Simeon the just, whom we shall have occasion to look after by and by.
But the time and occasion of the rising of the Pharisees, is of more obscurity, and the reason of their name admitteth of more conjectures; As, whether they were so called from Perush, which importeth Exposition, for that they took upon them to be the great Expositors of the Law by their Traditions; or from Parush, which betokeneth separation, for that they accounted and pretended themselves more holy then others of the people, and so became Separatists from them, as despising them, Luke 18. 9. Either of which Etymologies carry with them a fair and plausible probability of their notation, but the last most agreeable to what both the Scripture, and other writings have said of them, in regard of their singularity; and as we shall have further occasion to descry, when we come to meet with them in their Doctrines, Practises or Opinions.
And the time of their first starting up, is yet obscurer: But to speak mine own thoughts, I cannot but conceive them to have been somewhat more ancient then the Sadducees, though but a little: And that that passage of the Prophet Malachi, [when he and the Spirit of Prophecy with him was to leave this world] Remember the Law of Moses, Mal. 4. 4. gave occasion to the rising of the Pharisees, and to the confirming of the Sadducees in their opinion when they had taken it up. For whereas the Spirit of Prophecy and revelation was now to depart from Israel, God having revealed as much of himself, and of his will to them, as he thought fit and necessary: He sendeth back the people in this defect of Prophetick guidance and direction, to the Law of Moses, to be their study, and their rule of Faith, and of Obedience. Hence did a certain generation among them take occasion and opportunity, to vent and broach traditions and glosses upon the Law, pretending them to have descended from Moses himself, and to have been handed over to them, from hand to hand, and as the Prophets while their race continued, expounded Moses, and instructed the people in the knowledge of the Law, by the Spirit of God, so these men (now the Prophts were gone) took on them to explain Moses, and the Law also, and by a way which they pretended to be of equal authority with the words of the Prophets, For that, say they, is God's own gloss upon his own Law, and this he taught Moses while he was with him in the Mount: And this, Moses taught Joshua, and Joshua the Elders, and Eli received it from the Elders and from Phinehas and Samuel from Eli, and David from Samuel, and Ahijah the Shilonite from David, and Elias from Ahijah, and Elisha from Elias, and Jehoiada the Priest from Elisha, and Zacharias from Jehoiada, and Hosea from Zacharias, and Amos from Hosea, and Isaiah from Amos, and Micah from Isaiah, and Joel from Micah, and Nahum from Joel, and Habakkuk from Nahum, and Zephaniah from Habakkuk, and Jeremy from Zephaniah, and Baruch from Jeremiah, and Ezra and his School from Baruch. The School of Ezra was called the men of the great Synagogue, and they were Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah, Nehemiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Zerubbabel, and many wise men with them, to an hundred and twenty: The last of them was Simeon the just, and he was in the number of the hundred and twenty, and he was High Priest afte • Ezra. Vid. Rambam in Mishu. Tom. 1. statim sub initio.
This nameless number that were between the time of Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, Mordecai, and those holy men that we find mentioned in Scripture, and between the times of Simeon the just, I suspect to be the Generation that afforded the rise and original of Pharisaism and Traditions: For there was a good large space of time and distance detween Ezra and Simeon the just, as might be cleared by several particulars, if that were needful. And a preparative, if not a ground-work, to Pharisaism, and traditions seemeth to be that famous speech of the great Synagogue mentioned in Pirck. Aboth. Per. 1. The men of the great Synagogue said three things, Be deliberate in judgment, and raise up Scholars in abundance, and make a hedge to the Law: Now the lesson of making a hedge to the Law, by a fixed and determinate exposition, was to bring on, and into credit, those glosses and traditions which they would produce and bring upon it. For that the Law should lie to the Commons without any fence about it, to keep men off from breaking in upon it by their own interpretations and expositions of it, they could soon persuade the People, was a thing not to be tolerated or endured: and when they had wrought this lesson home upon their hearts, then had they glosses ready of their own invention to put upon it, as to hedge or fence in from private interpretations. These glosses or expositions they had a twofold trick to bring into request.
First, To pretend strongly that they had descended traditionally from Moses, and from God himself, as the pretended pedigree of them is shown before.
And secondly, to use a strict and severe preciseness in their own conversation, and to pretend and show a holiness above other men, and to withdraw from them as too profane for their society, that this might bring their persons into admiration, and their traditions into repute. And thus they came by their name of Separatists, and thus they laid the foundation for traditions.
And as the Pharisees took this opportunity and occasion from those words of the Prophet, Remember the Law of Moses, to vent their foolish and wicked Expositions upon Moses, as seeming thereby to do the people a singular benefit, and to make as singular a fence to Moses himself: So likewise did the Sadducees make use of the same occasion to confirm themselves in the error they had taken up, and to assert it unto others, in that in all the Law of Moses, to the study of which the Holy Ghost had especially directed them in those times, and which Scripture only they embraced, there is not mention nor hint at all as they pretended, of the resurrection of the dead, or of a world to come.
§ Coming to his Baptism.
The Pharisees and Sadducees were not repulsed by John, though he call them by such a name as Vipers, but they were baptized by him: as is most apparent by comparing the relation that Saint Luke maketh of this Story and this together: That saying therefore of Luke, Chap. 7. 20. But the Pharisees, rejected the Counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him, is to be understood of some of that Sect and not all.
§ O generation of Vipers.
By Generation we are not to understand the present age, as when it is said, shall rise up in judgment with this Generation; An adulterous generation seeketh a sign, &c. that is, the people of this age: It is not to be so taken, as if the Baptist meant this present Generation are Vipers: for it is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Original, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : though he include no less in what he speaketh, and though, if ever generation were viperous, that was. But the Baptist useth an expression, that hitteth and reflecteth upon their Fathers, and predecessors as well as themselves, for he calleth them a brood or offspring of Vipers: intimating that they and their Fathers were Vipers both. And this he doth, that he might face and affront that fond and vain opinion of theirs, which so much deluded them, and whereupon they built great hopes and made great boasting, namely, of their being the children of Abraham: No, saith John, Say not within yourselves, we have Abraham to our Father, for ye are not the seed of the promise, but the seed of the Serpent: And thus he speaketh not only to the Pharisees and Sadducees, the heretics of the Nation, but as Luke enlargeth it, to all the multitude that came to be baptized: Commenting upon the first promise at this first preaching of the Gospel, and as on the one hand proclaiming Jesus that was coming after him to be the seed of the Woman, so on the other, declaring the Jews to be now become the seed of the Serpent who should persecute and kill the seed of the Woman, howsoever they boasted themselves for the holy seed of Abraham.
And the same lesson our Savior readeth them, when he giveth them the same title, Mat. 12. 34. and 23. 33.
Vipers are the worst and most deadly of any Serpents; for they destroy and kill suddenly, Act. 28. 4. 6. See Job 20. 16. Isai. 30. 6. and 59. 5. from whence the Baptist and our Savior seem to have this phrase and Epithet: and Isai. 41. 24. as the margin of our English and an Expositor in Dav. Kimchi do interpret it.
§ To flee from the wrath to come.
In this speech, John seemeth to refer to the last words in all the Old Testament: where Malachi prophesying of the Baptist, and of his beginning to preach the Gospel, He shall turn, saith he, the hearts of the Fathers to the Children, and the hearts of the Children to the Fathers, Lest I come and smite the Land with a curse. This meaneth, that wrath to come, which should surely fall upon them, if they should disobey the Gospel, which was now the last means offered them for their conversion, and so it came to pass with them, when about forty four years after this, they were destroyed by the Romans.
Matth. 3. Vers. 9. Say not, we have Abraham to our Father.
This was their common boasting: as John 9. 33. the Chaldee Paraphrast, and R. Sol. on Isai. 62. 6. And so doth Rabbi Solomon conceive, that the Edomites were proud of their descent from Abraham as well as the Jews: for thus he expoundeth those words in the Prophecy of Obadiah, ver. 3. Which dwellest in the clefts of the Rock: He leaneth upon the staff of his Fathers, Abraham and Isaac, and they will not profit him.
§ Of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.
Some take this figuratively, as Ignat. Mart. Epist. ad Magnesios. Clem. Alex. Portrept. ad Graec. and others, of the Gentiles, who are stony-hearted toward the Truth, and who worship stocks and stones, God is able to raise up children to Abraham: But it is rather to be interpreted literally for the crying down of their idle boasting: That it was but a vain prop whereupon they leaned, to think that it was enough for them that they were descended of Abraham, for God by his omniponent power was able to make as good and towardly children to Abraham as they were, even of stones.
Matrh. 3. ver. 10. And now also is the Ax laid unto the root of the Trees.
Whether we read it rationally, as doth the Vulgar Latin, For now the ax, or conjunctively, as doth our English, And now also; it plainly showeth itself to be an Argument or Reason used to enforce something that goeth before. And indeed it suiteth so very well with any of the three verses next preceding, that it is hard to tell, to which most properly it should be applied. For being laid to the seventh verse, it doth so strongly confirm that there was a wrath to come, that it showeth it to be hard by, and even close at hand, For now the ax is laid to the root of the Trees. Join it to the eighth verse and it followeth the metaphor that is used there, of bringing forth fruit, and enforceth the exhortation or Doctrine that is there given, from the danger that may follow on unfruitful trees, For now the ax is laid to the root of them. Or apply it likewise to the verse next preceding, and it doth argue against the carnal confidence that the Jews had in their descending of the stock of Abraham, paraphrastically thus: Ye have had warning of wrath that is to come, and you think you are out of the danger of it, because ye are the children of Abraham, and descended lineally from his loins; a Prerogative so little to be boasted of, that it may be common with you to stones, for God is able of them to raise up children unto Abraham, and a shelter so little to be trusted under, that look to yourselves, the Ax is already laid to the root of the trees.
Some by the Ax understand the word of God, and the preaching of the same, or the publication of the Gospel: from Jerem. 23. 29. after the reading of the LXX: and from Hosea 6. 5. Others, Christ himself, consisting say they of two natures, divine and human, as an Ax of two parts, the head and the handle. But the current of the most, and the best Expositors understand it of the judgments of God: and that it is so to be understood, may be strongly concluded by these reasons.
First, because the context both before and after, speaketh of Judgment and vengeance to come upon the impenitent and unfruitful, as wrath to come, ver. 7. and casting into fire, and fire unquenchable, ver. 10. 12. and therefore it is most proper to expound the Ax as an instrument destroying, for judgment or destruction.
Secondly, this place seemeth plainly to have reference to Isaiah. 10. 33, 34. Behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts shall lop the bough with terror: and the high ones of stature shall be hewn down, and the haughty shall be humbled. And he shall cut down the thickets of the Forests with iron, and Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one: which how the more ancient Jews understood of the destruction of their State and Kingdom, and that near upon the coming of Christ, a testimony of their own in their Talmud, in the treatise Berachoth may sufficiently evidence. There was a certain Jew, say they, was plowing, and one of his Oxen lowed. The Ox lowing, told of the coming of the Lord. A certain Arabian passing by, heard the lowing of the Ox, and said unto the Jew: O Jew! unyoke thine Oxen, and care not for thine implements, for your Sanctuary is destroyed: And the Ox lowed again: and the Arabian saith, O Jew! yoke thine Oxen, and make fit thine implements, for your Messias is born, &c. Rabbi Abuhi said, And what need you to learn this of an Arabian? The text is plain in Isaiah which saith, Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one: and it followeth, And there shall come forth a rod out of the stemm of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his root.
§ To the root of the trees.
First, by the root of the trees, might be understood the root of Jesse, of which mention was made before from Isaiah 11. 1. For in all the crosses and calamities, Wars, overthrows, and captivities, that had befallen the Nation of the Jews, the stock of Jesse, or line of David, could never be rooted out, or extinguished, because the promise that Christ should come out of it, did preserve and keep it alive, in despite of all opposition, till he that was promised did come indeed. But now, seeing that he was come, and that that line had no more the shelter, and preservative of the promise, it also must come to ruin and rooting out as well as others.
Secondly, the Ax is now laid to the very root of your confidence and boasting: For whereas ye say within yourselves, and stand upon it, that ye have Abraham to your Father: the time is now come, that that distinction betwixt who is, and who is not, of the Seed of Abraham, shall be no more regarded, nor looked after: but everyone of what Nation soever that feareth God shall be accepted of him, and the seed of Abraham for not fearing him shall be rejected, and that privilege not respected at all.
Thirdly, Jerusalem was at the root of the whole Nation, from which they derived the sap of rellgion and policy, but now the ax of destruction is laid even to that.
Fourthly, this phrase may be understood, as comparing the ruin of the Jews here threatened, with those desolations they had felt before: For then, as at the captivity of Babylon for example, they were not utterly cut off from their Land forever, but had a promise of returning, and returned, and were planted there again: but now the vengeance threatened must strike at very root, and quite destroy them from being a Nation forever, and from all hope of returning to their Country anymore.
By the Ax being now laid to the root of the trees, may fitly be understood, 1. The certainty of their desolation. And 2. the nearness: in that the instrument of their destruction was already prepared and brought close to them, the Romans, that should ruin their City and Nation, being already Masters and Rulers over them.
Luke 3. verse. 10. And the people asked him, &c.
Or, the multitude, as verse. 7. which verse compared with this, showeth, that the question what shall we do then? proceeded from those to whom the Baptist addressed his last speech, O ye generation of Vipers, &c. which were Pharisees and Sadducees, as appeareth by Matthew, and other multitude mixed among, as by Luke. Now whether this their question proceeded from the apprehension of the danger threatened, or application of the exhortation urged, whether they desired to learn how to avoid the evil of the wrath to come, or to do the good works of repentance, when they ask, what shall we do? is neither so material to search, nor easy to find, as it is fit to observe, how powerfully the doctrine of the Baptist hath wrought with them, when it hath thus brought them to look off the goodness of Abraham in which they trusted, and to think after goodness of their own.
Vers. 11. He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none, &c.
It appeareth by the Baptists answer, that their question demanded what were those good fruits, that he called upon them to bring forth, ver. 8, 9. and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here may seem to have respect to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in those verses.
His answer is an exhortation to Alms-deeds, or giving to the needy, rather then any other lesson, not that thereby they might think to satisfy for their sins, or merit for themselves, but for divers other important and considerable ends. For, 1. he setteth them this as an easy lesson, for yet they were but very children in the Evangelical School: To have put them at their first entry into this School, to the hard lecture of self-denial, mortification, patience and joy in persecution, and other such things as these, had been too strong meat for such babes, too difficult a task for such infants to take out, and therefore he setteth them this easy Copy, and layeth no greater an imposition upon them, then what even the weakest of them might follow and undergo, to impart of their abundance to the poor.
2. The tenor of the Gospel is mercy and not sacrifice, Hosea, 6. 7. Mat. 12. 7. and therefore he putteth not upon them the cost of oblations and offerings which were required by the Law, nor the fasting and pining of the body, as did many of his own Disciples, but the lovely works of Charity and Mercy, the first and most visible of which is relief of the needy.
3. By this he putteth them to trial, how they forsake the world, by parting with their worldly goods, how they live by faith in not fearing poverty though they give of their wealth away, how they love their neighbor as themselves, in making him partner of what they have, and how their eyes are fixed on things to come, by giving away here, and looking for reward thereof in heaven.
And, 4. it may be very well supposed that among the multitude that stood before him, the Baptist saw some rich, and some poor, some in good clothing, and some in mean, and that the present object that he beheld might be some occasion to him to propose this lesson to be put presently in practice.
§ That hath two Coats, &c.
He requireth not willful Poverty, but Alms-deeds of their superfluity, not to give away their coat if they have but one, but if they have two, then give one of them; and to the same purpose he useth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Meats, in the plural number; not to go naked themselves, that they may clothe others, nor to prevent others begging by their alms, and to beg themselves, but what they have above their own necessaries, to contribute to the necessities of the needy, and first to love themselves, and then their neighbors as themselves.
Vers. 12. Publicans.
Publicans at the first were such as gathered the tributes and custom of the Romans in those Countries and Provinces that were under their dominion. And this at that time was an honorable place and calling. For Tully commending M. Varro to Brutus giveth these two reasons of the strong tie of friendship betwixt them: The one is, saith he, because he is versed in my way of studies in which I am chiefly delighted. And the other, because he betook himself maturely to the company of the Publicans, which indeed I would not have had him to have done, because he had suffered great losses, and yet the cause of that common order, of me most highly esteemed, made our friendship the stronger. And in his Oration for Plancius, he saith, That the flower of the Roman Knights, the ornament of the City, the strength of the Common-wealth, is comprehended in the order of the Publicans. And so it was an honorable memorial that was left, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , To him that had played the good Publican. Suetonius in vita Vespasiani statim sub initio.
But in after times the quality of the Office itself, and the conditions of the Officers became very much altered. For now men of inferior rank farmed those places, and took the Office upon an yearly rent, and quickly brought the calling into disgrace. So that in the Gospel Publicans are branded with a special note of infamy above other men, and still go hand in hand with the most notorious sinners.
And this, first, generally everywhere, because of their covetousness, and racking exactions, which are the common fruits of buying and farming of Offices. Tacitus calleth them immodestiam Publicanorum, the immodesty of the Publicans, and mentioneth a general complaint against them in the time of Nero, and some reformation of their injuriousness. And Soudas giveth them this character, The life of the Publicans, is open violence, unpunished rapine, an unseasonable trade, and a shameless merchandize.
Secondly, More especially were men of this profession odious among the Jews; because, whereas they held themselves to be a freeborn Nation, and that they ought not to subject to any, nor pay tribute, but only their dues to God, and homage to their own King, these wretches, as enemies to the common Liberty, did help forward their subjection in exacting of custom, though they were of the same Nation themselves, complying too much with the Romans company, contrary to Jews punctualness of sequestration from the Heathen, and too too much with their tyranny in augmenting those burdens of bondage which they had made heavy enough before.
Ver. 13. Exact no more, &c.
By this answer is approved what is said immediately before, about their extortion, that not only they sided with the Romans, in putting the Jews their own Nation to tribute, but also did aggravate the burden themselves, by exaction of more then was required by the Roman Governors. Now it is observable, that of the Pharisees and Sadducees the Baptist requireth affirmatively some duties to be done. He that hath two coats, &c. because these people stood upon their own righteousness, and pleaded perfection: therefore will he try them by the touchstone of action: but of the Soldiers and Publicans, he requireth only negatively, some enormities to be foregon: for they being notoriously and scandalously wicked, it was necessary they should first cease to do evil, before they could learn or be brought to do good.
Vers. 14. The Soldiers.
These were Romans, or some of other Nations under the Roman pay; for no one can think that the Romans would use the Jews for their garrisons in their own Country, lest they should rebel: and here do the Gentiles first hearken to the Gospel.
§ Do violence to no man, &c.
The Baptist in his answer tieth both hand, tongue and heart, deed, word, and thought from the injury of another, their profession especially tending so much toward injuriousness.
First, he forbiddeth them to open violence in act, whether by blows, ravishing, plunder, firing, or such like mischiefs as attend the wars, and go with Soldiers.
Secondly, secret underminings, by false accusing, abusing the power of the Superior to the wrong of another, when their own could not reach, and sewing the Foxes skin to, when the Lions was too short. And,
Thirdly, discontentation and repining at their wages, which indeed was the cause and original of both the other. And so is that a main argument used by Percennius, which moved the great mutiny of the three legions in Pannonia, in the very entry of the Reign of Tiberius, Denis in diem assibus corpus & animam aestimari: How poor a thing it was that their lives and bodies were rated and set to sale but at ten farthings a days Tacit. Annal. lib. 1.
It is observable in both the answers of the Baptist, to the Publicans and to the Soldiers, that he gainsayeth not their professions, but their abuse of them: to the one he forbiddeth not to gather tribute, but to exact more: and to the other not to exercise Soldiery, but practice violenc.
Ver. 15. As the people were in expectation, &c.
Divers things there were that concurred, to make the Jews to think of Christ, when they saw the Baptist, and to muse in heart whether he were he or not.
First, the first and the prime one was the agreement of the time. For they had learned by divers pregnant evidences both in the Law and in the Prophts that this was the time when Christ should come: for now was the Scepter departed from Judah, now was the Lawgiver or Sanhedrin slain by Herod, now were the Romans Lord's of their Nation, and now were Daniel's seventies expired, by which they knew that this was the time, and now they looked that the Kingdom of Heaven should appear, Luke 19. 11. and they gather together from all Nations to Jerusalem to see its appearing, Act. 2. as was hinted before.
When therefore, secondly, in this time of their great expectation, they behold the excellent sanctity, piety, and zeal; the admirable strictness, austerity and Spirit; And,
Thirdly, The strange, unusual and powerful manner of the preaching of the Baptist, it is no wonder if they entertained a doubtful and musing thought of him, whether he were the Christ or no. And,
Fourthly, Their longing desire and earnest wishing after Messias his coming, might something forward such a conceit, for facile credimus quod volumus; and the Greek word doth import a desire joined with their expectation. So Christ in Gen. 49. 10. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the LXX, the expectation of the Nations; and their desire, Hag. 2. 7. It is not unlike but the coming of the wise men, the words of Simeon and Anna, and other testimonies of Christ then come, were dispersed among very many, and notice taken of them, and this might be a strengthening and helping forward of this surmise: but that the strangeness of the Baptists birth, and of what befell his Father about it, should be any induction or seconding thereunto, as some do hold, is hard to be believed, unless we can think that either this people had forgot to look after the Tribe of Judah for the Messias, or that Elizabeth's alliance to that Tribe, for she was cousin to the Virgin Mary, Luke 1. 36. did satisfy them if they looked after it.
Ver. 16. John answered.
Whereas some hold that John knew the thoughts of their hearts, by the Revelation of the Spirit, for it is said only before that they mused of the matter in their heart, and put it not to question, it is far more probable, that John came to know this their thought, by some outward expression of their own. For among so great a multitude, when they were all in the same doubt and hesitation, it was impossible, but there would break out some whisperings, questions, arguings, or other token of the general conceit, that even a slow and dull apprehension might in short time have found it out.
§. I indeed baptize you, &c.
All the Evangelists have this answer of the Baptist, in regard of the substance, but in some circumstances there is difference among them. As first, whereas Luke saith, that these words were occasioned from him by the thoughts of the people, Matthew, that hitherto hath joined with him in this story, even to the very words, that hath no such thing as about the questions aforementioned, nor about this supposal, but joineth this as a continued speech to the Pharisees and Sadducees: but this needeth to breed no scruple, seeing that it is not only usual, but also necessary among the four, one to relate what another hath omitted, and one to declare at large, what another hath done in brief.
Secondly, Whereas both Luke and Matthew have set this testimony of the Baptist after other speeches of his made before; Mark, as was mentioned before, hath set it the first of all his Preaching, and indeed hath mentioned no speech else: But this he hath done, partly because he would hasten to the Baptism, Preaching, and Miracles of Christ, partly because Matthew had set out the matter at large before; but chiefly to give us to know that this witness went along with John in all his Sermons, and to all companies that came to be baptized.
Thirdly, Whereas Luke hath alleged this speech as an answer to the people's thoughts, John hath brought it as an answer to an open question, Joh. 1. 25, 26, 27. And here it may be questioned indeed, whether these two speak of one and the same thing, and of the same time: But the resolution is easy, that they do not. For as it is plain by Luke, that these words mentioned by him, proceeded from John before the Baptism of Christ, so is it as plain by John, that those in him came from him after: for in ver. 26. he intimateth that Christ himself had already stood among them, but they knew him not; No nor he himself, but by the Holy Ghost, which he saw descend upon him, ver. 33. By which is confimed what was said even now, that John made sure to bear this witness to Christ, at all times, and before all companies. Now because the eyes of the people upon himself, looked at the strangeness of his Baptism, and the sanctity of his person, therefore doth he apply this his testimony accordingly, by comparing Christ and himself, and his baptism and his together, and proclaiming his own inferiority in both, as far as baptism with water only, is below baptizing with the Holy Ghost, and further then the servant that unties his Masters shoos, below him that wears them.
§. I baptize you.
Mark hath it in another tense, I have baptized: which either may import the continuedness of Johns baptizing, this being compared with Matthew and Luke as Jansen hath conjoined them, I have baptized, and do baptize you. Or, rather doth it intimate that he still baptized the companies that came unto him, and then gave this testimony to them concerning Christ. For his preaching was first of repentance, and then having won the people to be baptized, he brought them to the water and baptized them in the name of him that was to come after him, Act. 19. 4. So that these seem to have been the words that he used in sprinkling or applying the water. I baptize thee with water, but a mightier then I cometh, who shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire.
§. With water.
In the Greek it is indifferently, with or in, answerable to the significancy of Beth the Hebrew preposition, either local or instrumental: And according to both senses it may be taken here. For as it is undoubted that John brought those that were to be baptized into the River, Matth. 3. 6. 16. So is it almost as little to be doubted, that when they were there he threw and sprinkled the water upon them, both to answer the types of sprinkling that had preceded in the Law, and the predictions thereof that were given by the Prophets, Ezek. 36. 25. understood by Jerome of baptism, Epist. 83. So Act. 8. 38. The Eunuch first goeth into the water, and then Philip baptizeth him.
§. Water.
As the form of the Church was changed at the coming of Christ, from Jewish to Christian, and from Legal to Evangelical, so is it no wonder if the Sacraments were changed therewithal. For if Christ were to give a new law, as Moses did the old, which the Jews themselves confess that he must, and the Prophets had foretold that he should do; it was also necessary that he should give these new, as well as other things. But it is some wonder, that seeing he instituted the Sacrament that should succeed the Passover so near to the nature of the Passover, as that it was a supper as well as it, that there should such a main distance and difference be between Baptism and Circumcision, the one of which should succeed the other; for what affinity betwixt washing with water, and cutting off of the foreskin? For the better viewing of the reason of which difference, it will be necessary to consider the main particulars of either Sacrament apart, and then may the Reader compare them together in their variety.
First, then, Circumcision to Abraham was a seal of the promise, thou shalt be the father of many Nations: but to his seed, of the promise of the Land of Canaan, I will give to thee, and to thy seed, all the Land of Canaan: therefore thou and thy seed after thee, shall keep my Covenant, Gen. 17. 8, 9. And such a different end may be observed in the administration of baptism to Christ himself, and the administering of it unto Christians. The Text alleged sealeth the lease of the Land of Canaan to the seed of Abraham with the seal of Circumcision, and confineth that Ceremony only to that Land, and only to their continuance there. And upon this inference, [I will give thy seed the Land of Canaan; therefore shall they keep my Covenant ] it was that Joshua, as soon as ever they had set foot upon that Land, was commanded to circumcise them, Josh. 5. And from hence it will follow, first, that that Land must be considered dilated, as far as Circumcision went with the seed of Abraham, in Ishmaelites, Midianites, Edomites and others.
Secondly, Hence they will be found to erect circumcision again in the Church of Christ, that hold the called Jews shall have a temporal Kingdom again in the Land of Canaan.
And, thirdly, hence it may be resolved why that Sacrament was deferred so long, and not given to the World before. Adam, Enoch, Noah, Eber, &c. were not circumcised; because to them a fixed and settled place for the Church to reside together was not designed, but when such a one is designed to Abraham, then circumcision is given also.
The Land of Canaan was bequeathed to Sem by his father Noah, the occasion was, because Cham, and his Son Canaan derided Noah's nakedness as he lay asleep in the midst of his Tent: when therefore that Land is to be settled upon the right heirs of Sem, to which God in the Prophetick spirit of Noah intended it, a seal, and an assurance thereof is given in that member, which had been derided by Canaan, to his loss of that Land, and to his perpetual slavery. This was a main reason, why Males alone were circumcised, and why in that member; because a male alone, and that member in him was so derided. Other reasons of the institution of the Ceremony, and only for masculines, and in that part, might concur for instruction [such as are given by