Works
§. Thou shalt be called Cephas.
I. Change of names in Scripture is frequent, and most common for the better, as Abram's into Abraham, Jacob's into Israel, Hosheas into Jehoshua, and Solomon's into Jedidiah; though sometimes there is a change for the worse, as Jerubaal into Jerubosheth, 2 Sam. 11. 22. Sychem into Sychar, Joh. 4. 5. &c.
II. Christ changeth the name of three Disciples only, Peter, James, and John, Mark 3. 16, 17. as God had changed the names of three men only in the Old Testament, Abram, Jacob, and Solomon.
III. Now as concerning the name Cephas, which Simon carried hence-forward, 1 Cor. 1. 12. & 15. 5. Gal. 2. 9. it is a Syriac word, framed into an adjective, and into a Greek utterance, by addition of s in the latter end.
Ceph indeed is used sometimes in the Hebrew, as Jer. 4. 29. Job 30. 6. But Cepha soundeth of the Chaldee idiom, and is used very frequently by the Paraphrasts; most commonly to render the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as D. Kimchi noteth in Michal, and as may be observed in Numb. 20. 8, 10, 11. Judge. 20. 45, 47. & 21. 13. 1 Sam. 23. 28. and divers other places: and sometime to express the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when it signifieth, a point of land, or sea, as Josh. 15. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Chaldee renders it: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meaning, as saith Kimchi on the place, the point of a Rock that looked South-east. But it will easily be agreed upon about the signification of Ceph and Cepha, namely, that it denoteth a Rock, in the most proper and most common meaning of it: But the scruple is whether Cephas be the very same with Cepha in signification, yea, or no, and whether the letter s added in the end, do change the sound of it only, and not the sense.
To me it seemeth, that Cephas is of an adjective signification, and betokeneth not a Rock, but Rocky, not Petra, but Petrosus, or belonging to the Rock: and I am induced to this opinion upon these grounds and arguments:
1. Because it is uttered Cephas, and not Cepha; for although it is ordinary with the language of the New Testament to add s in the latter end of some words, to make them sound of a Greek pronunciation, as Hezekiah, Manasseh, Messias, Barnabas, &c. and though I think it doth so here, yet do I not conceive it doth so here for that end only, but for some other further purpose and intent.
As 1. To mark it for a proper name, and to take it off from being taken otherwise: and so Barnabas, Barsabas, and Elymas, are marked with the same mark, for the same end.
2. To change its sense, as well as its nature, and to alter it from a substantive signification to an adjective, as well as from a common noun to a proper: For as the Evangelist maketh a clear distinction between Petros and Petra, Matth. 16. 18. as all orthodox Expositors upon that place grant; so certainly is the like to be made betwixt Cephas and Cepha; for these Syriac words our Savior used when he uttered that speech.
And to this purpose it is also to be observed, that the word Petros is not used for a Rock in all the Scripture: It is in use indeed in that sense among Heathen Authors, but in the LXX. and in all the New Testament it is scarcely to be so found: Now if the Evangelist meant to tell us, that Cephas signifieth a Rock, it is wonder that he would use the word Petros, which never occurreth in that sense in all the Bible, and refuse the word Petra, which signifieth so in the Scripture hundreds of times; Nay, say some of our Greek Dictionaries, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Petra is the common name for a Rock, even in the Heathen Greek Language, but Petros, is but the Attick dialect. And therefore I cannot but wonder that Petrus in this place should be translated Petra, as Beza in Latin, and Brucioli in Italian render it; and our English to the same sense, Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone.
For the taking up therefore of the sense and meaning, and of the reason and occasion of this name given to Simon, these particulars are to be taken into consideration.
I. That Christ called him Cephas, totidem literis, and not Cepha: and that he was commonly so called among the Disciples, Cephas, with the s sounded in the latter end. I know it is a common opinion to the contrary, as Beza on Matth. 16. 18. utters it Dominus Syriace loquens, nulla usus est agnominatione, sed utrobique dixit Cepha: and accordingly the Syriac translater everywhere expresseth it.
But let it be observed, 1. That as the Jewish Nation was full of Greek names, which were Greek names indeed, as Andreas, Nicodemus, Alexander, &c. so did they frame many of their Jewish names, which were Jewish names indeed, into a Greek pronunciation, and so pronounced them among themselves, as Theudas, Baithus, and others in the Talmud; and Heraudes for Herod in the Syriac translater, &c. And why Cephas should not be so used among them and other Greek-sounding Syriac names in the New Testament, I have not yet met with any reason that giveth any satisfaction, nor indeed with any Author that giveth any reason.
And let it be observed, 2. That whereas generally common nouns in the Syriac tongue, do end in a, as Aceldama, Abba, Gabbitha, Talitha, Acts 1. 19. Gal. 4. 6, Joh. 19. 13. Mar. 5. 41. when they are to be framed into proper names of men, it is done by putting s to the end of them, as Barabbas, Elymas, Barnabas, &c. And of the same nature is Cephas here: Now since this change of nouns from common to proper was made among the Jews, what reason can be given why this letter that made the change should not be reserved among the Jews also? Did the Greeks only call Simon, Cephas, and not the Jews? And did the Greeks call the other men Barnabas and Barabbas; but the Jews Barnaba and Barabba?
Consider, 3. How common the Greek Bible or the LXX. was in use among the Jews at this time, and how much mixture of Greek words was used in their common language at this time, as appeareth by the Syriac translater, the Chaldee. Paraphrasts, the Talmuds and others the most ancient Jewish Writers, and then we have good cause to think, that they that used the whole Bible in Greek, and that used to speak so much Greek mingled with their Syriac language continually, would not stick to utter one letter that sounded of the Greek, when that letter was only and properly added to denote a proper name.
But you will say, that the New Testament writeth, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jonas, and the like, with s in the end, as these words are written, and yet there is none that can think that the Jews uttered those words so, but as they are written in the Old Testament, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jonah. It is true, that it is most like they did so, but the difference betwixt them and these words that we have in hand, is so apparent, that it is hardly needful to show it: those were proper names originally, these were common names made proper: those had s added in the end, not to show that they were proper names, but to supply the Hebrew h or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the Greek in the end of a word cannot utter; but these have s added in the latter end, purposely and intentionally, to make them proper names, and to show that they are so.
And 4. let it be observed, How it could be possible for the Disciples in those words of our Savior, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram, Math. 16. 18. to understand them otherwise than that Peter should be called the Rock, if Christ used Cepha in both places: Thou art Cepha, and upon this Cepha; Thou art a Rock, and upon this Rock will I build my Church: let any one but judge what interpretation they could make of it, by his own construing and interpreting it, according to the propriety, as the words lie before him. Therefore it is more than probable, that Christ called his name Cephas, uttering and sounding the s in the latter end; and that the addition of that letter was not from the Evangelist, but from Christ himself; and that in the speech mentioned, he thus differenced the words, Thou art Cephas, and upon this Cepha will I build my Church.
II. Now the reason why our Savior giveth him this name Cephas or Rocky, was not so much for that he was built upon the Rock, for so were all the rest of the Apostles except Judas, but because he had a special work to do about that building which Christ was to found upon the Rock. For in those words, upon this Rock will I build my Church, he meaneth the Church of the Gentiles, which was now in founding, and in that building Peter had this special and singular work and privilege, that he was the first that preached the Gospel to the Gentiles, Act. 10. & Acts 15. 7.
§. Which is by interpretation Peter.
For so should the word be rendered, and not as our English hath it, which is by interpretation a stone. This is a passage like that in the verse preceding, Messias, which is by interpretation, Christ; and that Acts 9. 39. Tabitha, which is by interpretation, Dorcas: where our Translators have very properly observed and followed the intention of the Evangelists, which is, to give these proper names out of one language into another, and not to give them out of proper names into common nouns: And here they should have followed the same course, which they have done in the margin, but have refused it in the Text: The Arabic and Vulgar Latin, and divers others, translate it Petrus according to our sense: but the Syriac translateth not the clause at all.
Vers. 43. The day following.
Jansen dare not suppose this to be the next day after that Andrew and the other Disciple followed Jesus to his own home; but he thinks it was the day after Christ had named Simon, Cephas. The cause of his doubting is this, because it being late towards night, when Jesus and Andrew, and the other Disciple came to the place where Jesus dwelt, ver. 39. he cannot suppose how Peter should be found and brought to Christ before the next day: and yet he confesseth Epiphanius to be of opinion against him. But it being observed that Peter and Andrew were brethren, that they dwelt together, Mar. 1. 29. that they fished together, Matth. 4. 18. &c. it will be no difficulty to conceive how Andrew might find out Peter upon a sudden, and bring him to Jesus that very night that they came into Capernaum, though it were late; and accordingly there is no scruple to expound this, day following, of the very next day after.
Vers. 44. Bethsaida.
This was a Town that stood beside the lake of Gennesaret, changed by Philip the Tetrarch into the form or state of a City, and named by him Julia, after the name of Caesar's daughter: so Josephus witnesseth, Antiq. lib. 18. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Town Bethsaida by the lake of Gennesaret, he brought to the dignity of a City, both in multitude of inhabitants, and in other strength, and called it after the name of Julia the daughter of Caesar.
Bethsaida, signifieth the house, or place of hunting; and it seemeth to have been so called, because it stood in a place where was store of Deer or Venison. And to this sense is that passage of Jacob to be understood, Gen. 49. 21. Naphtali, a Hind let loose, that is, Naphtali shall abound in Venison, as Asher with bread and oil, ver. 20. and Judah with wine, ver. 11. view the places in the original. Now Bethsaida stood either in, or very near the tribe of Naphtali, as shall be shown elsewhere.
§. The City of Andrew and Peter.
Andrew and Peter after this removed and dwelt in Capernaum, Mark 1. 21, 29. because they would be near Christ whose residence was there, as was observed before: And there Peter pays tribute for himself, as in proper place, Matth. 17. 27.
§. We have found him of whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets did write, &c.
Now to insist upon the studiousness of Philip and Nathanael in the Law and Prophets, as some collect it out of this expression; there are these things most observable out of these words: 1. That the whole Scriptures of the Old Testament are comprehended under these two heads, the Law and the Prophets. And so again, Matth. 11. 13. Luke 16. 29. For though indeed the Law and the Prophets only were read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day, as Acts 13. 15. yet the third part of the Old Testament called Cetubhim or Hagiographa, did prophesy of Christ, as well as the other two, and so must of necessity be included here: For what book of Scriptures is more full of prophesies of Christ, than the book of Psalms? And what hath more clear prediction concerning Christ, than the book of Daniel? And yet neither of these are taken in among the books of the Prophets as the Jews 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 did commonly divide them in their Bibles, and read them in their Synagogues, but they come under the third part, Cetubhim. And therefore as by the Law here, is to be understood all the Books of Moses; so by the Prophets, is to be understood all the Old Testament beside: And so what is spoken in a Psalm, is said to be spoken by a Prophet, Matth. 13. 35. and Daniel is called a Prophet, Matth. 24. 13. And so the Penman of the book of Job, Esther, Chronicles, &c. deserve the same name. And this very consideration were argument enough, if there were no more, to plead Solomon's salvation.
2. That Christ is the general and chief subject of the Law and the Prophets. And here are we got into a very large field, if we would but traverse it, to show how Law and Prophets in types and prophesies did speak before of Christ: but this consideration, and particulars of it will be continually occurring and emerging as we go along.
3. That when Nathanael saith, That we have found him of whom Moses and the Prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, he meaneth not, that either Moses or the Prophets had so articulately named him, but that Jesus of Nazareth proved to be he of whom they had written and spoken so much.
Vers. 46. Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?
This seemeth to be spoken by Nathanael, not only as referring to the poorness and obscurity of the City Nazareth, [as that it is neither mentioned by the Prophets to be a producer of any good, nor likely in itself to be so, being a place of an inferior and contemptible rank] but as referring rather to the wickedness and profaneness of the place, that it was so wretched and ungodly a City, that it was unlikely that any good thing should come out of it? The wickedness of the people of this place appeareth, Luke 4. 29. when they are so desperate as to go about to murder Christ at his first appearing among them.
Vers. 47. compare Jer. 9. 4, 5, 6. Behold an Israelite indeed, &c.
Although this be the character of every true Christian, as Isaiah 65. 8. and it be accordingly conceived almost generally by Expositors, that our Savior aimeth only at such a thing here, namely, that this is one that serveth God sincerely, and with a good heart, and this is such a one as God requireth a man to be in the profession of Religion, yet can I not apprehend this to be the sole and proper meaning and intention of these words; for why might not the same have been spoken of, and to Peter, Andrew, and Philip? Certainly they were very sincere and upright towards God, and were Israelites indeed, without guile or hypocrisy in matter of Religion, as well as Nathanael; their fetching one another to Christ, and the readiness of them all in embracing of Christ, confirmeth this past all denial: and it is hard and harsh to think that Christ should give that for a singular Encomion to Nathanael, which might generally be given to any of his Disciples: when he nameth Simon Peter, it was for some singular and peculiar respect, and so when he nameth James and John, Boanarges; and doubtless when he passeth such a character as this upon Nathanael, it was for some regard and respect in which he was differenced from other men.
The cause and occasion therefore of this description of him by our Savior, I conceive rather to be Nathanael's uprightness and deceitlesness towards men, than towards God, though his uprightness and sincerity towards God is by no means to be denied. And it seemeth that this was a common name and title which Nathanael had got among his neighbors, and those that knew him, for his very honest, upright, and exemplary dealing, converse and integrity amongst them, that he was commonly called the guiltless Israelite, as that Roman was called verissimus, for his exceeding great truthfulness. And truly to me it is very probable, that the great variety of names that we find divers men in Scripture to have had, [as some to have two names, some three, some more] proceeded in very many of them from this very cause and occasion, namely, their neighbors and acquaintance observing some singular quality in them, and action done by them, gave them some denomination or other agreeable to that action or quality: So Gideon came by his name Jerubbaal, Judge. 6. 32. and Jerubesheth, 2 Sam. 11. 21. So Shemaiah the false Prophet came to be called the Nehelamite, or the dreamer, Jer. 29. 31. and divers others mentioned in Scripture, and in Josephus, some of which will be taken up in their due places: Now it being a common title that Nathanael had got among all that knew him to be called the Israelite without guile; our Savior when he sees him come towards him, calls him by the same name; and thereupon Nathanael questions him how he came to know him, that he could so directly hit upon his common denomination.
Vers. 48. When thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
This seemeth to refer, not only to his being under the fig tree, but to some private and secret action that he did there; and for which he went thither: And as our Savior convinceth the woman of Samaria that he was the Messias, by telling her of her evil actions that she did in the dark and secret, so doth he Nathanael, by hinting some good things that he did from the eyes of men under a fig tree, before Philip light on him there, as praying, vowing, or some other action which none knew of but himself: And this appeareth rather to be the matter that Christ aimed at; and that worketh in Nathanael for his conviction, because that it was possible that Christ might have been near the fig tree himself as well as Philip, and he might see Nathanael, and Nathanael not see him, and so might Nathanael have supposed; but when he telleth of some secret action that passed from him under the fig tree, which his conscience told him that no mortal eye could be conscious to but himself, then he cries out, Thou art the Son of God, &c.
Vers. 49. Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel.
This he speaketh from 2 Sam. 7. 14. Psal. 2. 6, 7. & Psal. 89. 26, 27. Where God setteth his own and only begotten Son upon his hill of Zion, and throne of David, and to rule over the house of Jacob forever, Luke 1. 33.
Vers. 51. Verily, verily, I say unto you.
In the Greek it is Amen, Amen: ] Now because this manner of expression is exceeding usual in the speeches of our Savior through the Gospel, sometimes single Amen, as in the rest of the Evangelists, and constantly doubled in John, Amen, Amen; and because this is the first place according to our Harmony-order and method, that we meet with the word at all, it will be pertinent here to take up the meaning of it once for all, and to consider these two particulars concerning it: 1. What our Savior doth properly intend and mean by Amen, when he useth it so oft: And 2. Why John the Evangelist doth constantly use it doubled, when the other three never use it so at all.
1, As to the first, it is to be observed, [and that is well enough known] that the word Amen is an Hebrew word, and is very commonly used in the Old Testament; but this withal is to be observed [which it may be is not so commonly noted] that it is never used in the Old Testament, but by way of wishing or apprecation, (the sixteenth verse of Isaiah 65. only excepted, of which anon) As when it cometh single, as Deut. 27 twelve times over, where the LXX render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be it done. 1 Kings 1. 36. where the LXX have it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so be it, Nehem. 5. 13. Jer. 28. 6. Psal. 106. 48, &c. Or when it cometh double, Numb. 5. 22. Psal. 41. 13. & 72. 19. & 89. 52. which the LXX express 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be it done, be it done, or so be it, so be it. In all these places it is used by way of prayer or imprecation, according as the subject matter was to which it was applied, as David Kimchi expresseth it in Micol in the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : It is spoken, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 either by way of prayer, or by way of undertaking, as that they take upon them a curse if they transgress.
But in these utterances of our Savior the sense of it is altered from precatory to assertory, or from the way of wishing, to the way of affirming: for what one Evangelist expresseth, Amen I say unto you, This poor widow, &c. Mar. 12. 43. another uttereth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Of a truth I say unto you, &c. Luke 21. 2. Matthew saith, Amen, I say unto you, That some that stand here, &c. which Luke giveth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Of a truth I say unto you, Luke 9. 27. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Matth. 23. 36. is rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , truly, Luke 11. 51. &c. For indeed the word Amen doth properly betoken and signify truth, at is apparent by the construction of that verse forementioned, Isaiah 65. 16. He who blesseth himself in the earth, shall bless himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth, shall swear 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the God of truth: as not only our English, but also R. Sol. and David Kimchi do well render it; and the gloss of Kimchi upon the place is worth the citing; He saith in the earth, saith he, because in all the world there shall be one truth, and that shall be the truth of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the God of truth.
Now Christ is called Amen, Rev. 13. 14. as being not only the faithful and true witness, but even he in whom all the promises of God are yea and Amen, 2 Cor. 1. 20. and even truth itself.
Therefore when he cometh to publish the Gospel, which is that one truth that should be in all the world, (for the prophet Isaiah speaketh there apparently concerning the times of the Gospel) he speaketh of his own (as he saith the Devil doth when he speaketh a lie, Joh. 8. 44.) and useth a different style from the Prophets, (which used to authorize their truths with, Thus saith the Lord, ) and speaketh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , upon his own Authority, as the God of truth: Amen, I say unto you. In this word therefore is included two things, namely, the truth spoken, and the truth speaking it; and the expression doth not only import the certainty of the things delivered, but also recalleth to consider that he that delivers it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Amen the God of truth, and truth itself. And this consideration will help to give a resolution to the second scruple that was proposed, and that is, why John alone doth use the word doubled, and none other of the Evangelists.
I am but little satisfied with that gloss that is given by some upon this matter, namely, that John doth constantly double this word, because the matters spoken by him are of a more celestial and sublime strain, than the matters spoken by the other Evangelists, and therefore the greater attention is challenged to them by this gemination; for neither can I see, nor dare I think of any such superiority and inferiority in the writings of the Evangelists.
Nor do I suppose that Christ used this gemination himself, (for it is very strange that in those speeches that this Evangelist mentioneth he should do so, and in the speeches that the others mention he should not do so, when it may be sometimes it was the very same speech) but I conceive that the Evangelist hath doubled the word, that he might express the double sense which the single word in our Savior's mouth, and in the other Evangelists includeth. And so he addeth nothing to what Christ spake, but explaineth his speech to the utmost extent. He saith in the other Evangelists Amen singly, but he meaneth thus doubly, This is truth, and I am truth that speak it: Now John that he might clear this double meaning, doth double the word Amen, Amen, the one whereof doth refer to the thing that is spoken, and the other to the person that speaketh it. But the question proposed, is not yet resolved, why John should do thus, rather than any of the other; but the same answer that resolveth why John should relate so many things that none of the other three do ever mention, will resolve this: namely, that it was God's will and disposal that there should be four that should write the Gospel, and that some writing one thing, and some another, some after one manner, some another, the Story should be divinely made up to its full perfection. Now John wrote last, and he had warrant and opportunity to relate what the others had omitted: And as for the particular in hand, he saw that the other had only produced this word single, as Christ indeed had continually uttered it, and that they had some of them expounded it in a place or two 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ to show that it was to be taken in these speeches in a meaning different from that precatory strain in which it was constantly used in the Old Testament: but yet that there was something more included in the word, and therefore he is warranted by the holy Ghost to explain it to the full in two words, Amen, Amen: And thus the counsels of the Lord of old, uttered and revealed by the Prophets, do in the preaching of the Gospel by our Savior prove 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Truth, truth, Isaiah 25. 1.
§ Hereaf • er ye shall see Heaven opened.
Observe the manner of our Savior's answer; the text saith, he saith to him, but his words are aimed at them all, Amen, Amen, I say to you, Ye shall see, &c. He applieth his speech to all in general, though he spake more singularly, (as the Text telleth) to Nathanael in prosecution of the discourse that had been betwixt them before.
Now the main difficulty of this speech lieth in this, in what sense to understand, the opening of the Heavens; and where and how these Disciples saw the Angels ascending and descending upon Christ: The words are capable of a double construction, and some give them the one, and some the other: some understand them literally, that the Disciples did at sometimes see the Heavens opened indeed, as John the Baptist had done, Luke 3. and the Angels ascending and descending upon Christ indeed, though never a one of the Evangelists mention it. And fair arguments and probability they show for this, which I shall not spend time to mention.
But others conceive the words are to be interpreted in a Metaphorical and borrowed sense, and not according to the letter, and so taken, some interpret them one way, some another.
I confess that I have stood at this place, tanquam in bivio, a very long time, and can hardly tell which way to take: both the interpretations of the thing, both the literal and the tropical, carrying so fair a color and appearance with them. But I cannot but incline to the latter, namely, to conceive that Christ here speaketh in a borrowed sense, and by the opening of Heaven, and the ascending and descending of Angels, that he meaneth not historically, that that very thing was to be done, but mystically meaneth something else, which he thought good to express by these borrowed phrases. And that which mainly swayeth me that way is, [besides the silence of all the Evangelists, that never mention such a thing really done] the force and signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Our English and Erasmus render it hereafter; and so have left the time at a very large and uncertain scantling. But the Syriac and the Vulgar render it, from this time, or henceforward, and so it is most properly and naturally meaneth: For it signifieth not only a date of time, and someone action done after that date at a time uncertain; but a continuance of such actions or things from that date forward.
Now our Savior's meaning in this phrase is, that from this very time forward he would declare and show himself in his Ministry gloriously and with power, and henceforward should his Disciples see and perceive so much by glorious demonstrations of him, that they might know that he was the Christ.
His expressions of the Heavens opened, and the Angels ascending and descending, refer and allude to Ezekiel's vision at Chebar, Ezek. 1. 1. and to Jacob's at Bethel, Gen. 23. two as glorious revelations of Christ, as any vision the Old Testament mentioneth.
His meaning may be given in a paraphrase, thus; Nathanael dost thou think it so great a matter, that I could see thee though thou wert so close, and private, and secret under the fig tree? thou shalt see far greater things than these; for I tell you all: From this time forward I must begin to preach the Gospel, and ye shall perceive that I have such knowledge of things, as if heaven itself were open to me: and such power of miracles and doing wonders, as if the Angels were continually going on errands for me, and doing my will. And accordingly the Evangelist relateth that on the very next day he shown a miracle at Cana in Galilee, and manifested forth his glory: and in the latter end of the same Chapter, he speaketh of his miracles at Jerusalem, and his knowledge of all men, ver. 24.
So that henceforth Christ's Ministry in preaching and doing miracles doth begin; the place, Cana: the time, some two months after his Baptism, or thereabouts, for ought is to be perceived from the Evangelists to the contrary.
§ The Son of Man.
This title of Christ, which is so frequent in the Evangelists, [and yet which is observable, never but in his own words] meaneth not only to express a man, according to the Syrian Dialect then used, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bar nosho, nor only to express Christ's humanity, or that he was truly man, in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; nor doth it only intimate his humility, when he doth not disdain to call himself so oft by this humble name, though it may have some aim at all these things: but it seemeth to be used so oft by our Savior concerning himself, as intimating him to be the second Adam, and referring to that promise that was made to Adam instantly after his fall, of the seed of the Woman that should break the Serpents head: And to this very purpose, as we observed in its place, the Evangelist Luke, at the story of his Baptism, when he was to be installed into his Minstery, and had that glorious testimony from heaven, deriveth his pedigree up to the first Adam, to draw all men's eyes to that first promise, and to cause them to own him for that seed there promised, and for that effect that is there mentioned, of dissolving the works of Satan: And as that Evangelist giveth that hint, when he his now entering this quarrel with Satan, even in the entrance of his Ministry, so doth he himself as he goeth along in it, very frequently and commonly by this very phrase, give the same intimation for the same purpose. Nathanael had proclaimed him the Son of God, he instantly titles himself, the Son of Man; not only to show his humanity, [for that Nathanael was assured of by the words of Philip, who calls him, Jesus of Nazeret, the son of Joseph ] but to resolve the thoughts of the hearers to the first promise, and to lead them to look for restoring of that by this second Adam which was lost in the first. To him was heaven shut upon his fall, and he lost his former converse and attendance of Angels, but ye shall see heaven open, and the Angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man, that you may know that the second Adam is here.
It is true indeed that Ezekiel and Daniel are called either of them Son of Man, Ezek. 2. 1. &c. Dan. 8. 17. and that all men in general are called the sons of Man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Psal. 62. 9. as nomen naturae, and so we deny not but this title doth denote and show Christ's humanity, and may tell us to what honor God raised our nature in him: But when he doth often style himself by the title with such an Emphasis, it draws the eyes and thoughts of all to meditate also and consider upon this further thing.
§. He that cometh after me, is preferred before me.
We do not find that John had at any time before Christ's baptism, given any such testimony as these words. He had said indeed, A mightier than I cometh after me, whose shoos I am not worthy to bear, and whose shoo latchet I am not worthy to unloose, as the other three Evangelists agree in the relating of it; but these words, He is prefer'd before me, for he was before me, we heard not of till now: Yet is it to be conceived that the Baptist speaketh to the same sense now that he did before, as verse. 27. showeth his intention, though he have altered his expressions: For it is a very common custom of Scripture, in alleging of former speeches, to give the sense, but not to keep exactly to the words. And yet it is not without its weight, that whereas Johns constant testimony of Christ before his baptism was, A mightier than I cometh, he should as constantly after his baptism use this, He coming after me is prefer'd before me; as here, and verse. 27. & 30.
Now the reason of this seemeth to be, because Christ had now appeared, and no mighty work had been yet shown among the people by him; no nor anything done in their eyes or hearing, which might give them occasion to conceive, that he was mightier or stronger than John. The appearance of the Holy Ghost, and the voice from heaven, they had neither seen nor heard; only his catching away from Jordan at this time, it is probable they saw, therefore John to clear their apprehensions from any carnal misconstruction of his words, explains himself, that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A mightier than I, they were not so to understand, as to look for any present visible demonstration of power or miraculousness from him, but that they should take notice that he of whom he spake those words, was before him in rank and dignity, for he was before him in time and office, nature and qualifications, though he came after him.
§. Is prefer'd before me.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : which the Vulgar Latin hath dangerously translated, Ante me factus est, he was made before me; and accordingly the Arians in ancient time made use of this place in this sense, against the eternity of the Son. Whereas the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as Beza well observeth it) in the New Testament, doth constantly refer to place, and not to time, as Mar. 1. 2. Matth. 17. 2. Luke 12. 8. & 19. 27, 28. and divers other places, and therefore our English hath well expressed it with an intimation of such a thing, is prefer'd before me: For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this speech of the Baptist, must needs have a distinct and different sense, because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 between them, doth show that the one is made the reason of the other; He was before me in place and preeminence, because he was before me in time and being. Now the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which seemeth to refer to the time past, (and which hath occasioned 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by some to be understood concerning priority of time) is to be construed in such a construction, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is in Matth. 21. 42. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Acts 4. 11. words not of the present tense, and yet necessarily to be rendered in the present time, I become the head of the corner.
Ver. 16. And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace.
I. These are the words of the Evangelist, and not of the Baptist, and so they are held to be by Cyril, Chrysostom, Chemnitz, and some others; though there be that hold that they are the Baptists words; and some that think no matter whether's words they be taken to be, either the one, or the other.
They appear to be spoken by the Evangelist: 1. By their agreement with his words in ver. 14. for there he speaketh of Christ's being full of grace and truth, and here, of their enjoying of his fullness. 2. By the agreement of the next following verse, which no question proceeded from the same speaker, with the 14 verse also. 3. By the agreement of verse. 18. which as doubtless proceeded from the same speaker likewise, with the same words of the same Evangelist, 1 Joh. 4. 12. 4. Those that the Baptist was speaking to in the verse preceding, were as yet altogether ignorant of Christ, and unacquainted with his appearing, and therefore it was most improper for John to say of himself, and of them together, All we have received, when they had yet received little or nothing at all. 5. The very sense of the words will demonstrate them to be the speech of the Evangelist, and not of the Baptist, as will appear in taking them up.
II. The verse consisteth of two several and distinct clauses, and the word [ and ] in the middle of it, though it be a conjunctive particle, yet plainly forceth this distinction; for though it is not to be denied, that there is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , very frequent in Scripture, that is, the word [ and ] very oft bringing on a latter clause, which speaketh but the very same thing, though in plainer terms, with the former, and in explanation of it, yet is this here unlikely to be such a one, though held by divers so to be; for I suppose it will be very hard to match or parallel this verse in all the Scripture with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is of such a tenor: The verse therefore being thus two distinct and several clauses, it is inevitably and necessarily to be construed in such a kind of syntax and construction; Of his fullness we have received somewhat: and we have also received grace for grace: And this was well observed by Augustine long ago, He saith not, saith he, of his fullness we have received grace for grace; but, of his fullness we have all received, and grace for grace; so that he would have us to understand, that we have received somewhat of his fullness, and grace over and above.
III. Although it be most true that all the Saints of God have received all their graces of the fullness of Christ, for so Chrysostom and Cyril understand and interpret the word • e; and though it be as true, that the holy Patriarchs and Prophets that were before John, received all their gifts and endowments from the same fullness; for so some others interpret that word we, as if John should mean them, and join himself with them, when he saith, We have all received, yet it seemeth that the meaning and intention of the Evangelist in this place, is neither the one nor the other, but that by the word we in this place, he understandeth himself only and his fellow Disciples: For 1. he had used the word in that sense, verse. 14. he dwelt among us, and we saw his glory; where the words us and we do necessarily signify the Apostles or Disciples only, as was shown there, and how can the same word we be taken in this verse, which is but two verses off, any way so properly as in the same sense as it was there. 2. The Evangelist is in this place showing how Christ was declared and published by his Ministers, as well as he shown himself in his own person: And as John the Baptist was the first, so we the Apostles and Disciples were next appointed to be Preachers and proclaimers of him, as we shall see by the scope of these verses that lie together, by and by.
IV. Now that the Apostles received exceeding much from, or of Christ's fullness, there needeth no proving to those that have read the Gospel: They received of that, exceeding much favor, exceeding much sanctification, exceeding much knowledge, exceeding much miraculous power, exceeding much of the Spirit, and over and beside all this, they received grace for grace.
V. This latter clause hath almost as many several interpretations given of it, as there be words in the whole verse, I shall not spare to present the Reader with the variety, because I will not deny him his choice.
Augustine in the place lately alleged, paraphraseth it thus, We received of his fullness, first grace, and then again we received grace for grace. What grace received we first? Faith; walking in faith we walk in grace. What meaneth grace for grace? By faith we obtain God, justification, and life eternal.
Chrysostom in Homil. 14. on John, gives it thus, Grace for grace, which for which? The New for the Old; for as there is a righteousness and a righteousness, a faith and a faith, adoption and adoption, a glory and a glory, a law and a law, a worship and a worship, a covenant and a covenant, a sanctifying and a sanctifying, a baptism and a baptism, sacrifice and sacrifice, temple and temple, circumcision and circumcision, so is there a grace and a grace; but they as types, these as the truth: And much in the same tract goeth Cyril, lib. 2. on John, cap. 21. comparing the Evangelical grace given by Christ, with the legal grace under Moses; and of the same judgment is Beza.
Tolet on this place glosseth it thus, Grace is given to us because of the grace that is in Christ, and we are made acceptable to God because of him: or, as Camerarius that embraceth the same sense doth express it; We have received the favor towards us, because of the favor of God towards the Son. Maldonado saith, Grace for grace is, that some have received one grace, some another. De Dieu taketh it, one grace because of another, the latter because of the former, the first grace is the cause of the second, and the second of a third, and so on. Some take for one grace upon another, or graces multiplied. Others, for grace in us agreeable to the grace in Christ, the like in kind, though not in degree: And for conclusion, there is that supposeth, that grace for grace, meaneth only grace freely bestowed, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth only interpret the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or gratis.
All which interpretations are Indeed true in regard of the matter contained in them, yet whether they are pregnant expositions of this place, the scope of the place, and the intention of the Evangelist in it, may give occasion to doubt and scruple. For the Evangelist is apparently hitherto and here speaking of manifold declarations that were of Christ, or of the several ways and means by which he was revealed, as hath been observed: and therefore it is the surest way to interpret these words suitable to that scope and intention. And accordingly I cannot but apprehend and render these words so, as that the word grace in the first place should signify the grace of Apostleship, and grace in the latter place, mean grace in the hearts of the hearers, and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or for, should denote the final cause, which construction being taken up in this paraphrase, will more easily be understood. And of his fullness all we his Disciples have received exceeding full and eminent gifts: and withal we have received the grace of Apostleship for the doctrine of the free grace of God, and for the propagating of grace in the hearts of others: And as the scope of the Evangelist draweth the verse unto such a sense, so doth the force and virtue of the language justify it. For first, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometime in Scripture applied to such a construction, as we put upon it in the first part of the clause, as Rom. 1. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , We have received grace, (the very word used here) and Apostleship, which Beza well glosseth, Gratiam & Apostolatum, id est, gratiam Apostolatus, that is, the grace of Apostleship: Beneficium eximiae plane liberalitatis, quod alibi vocat, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. And in the same sense the Apostle speaking, 1 Cor. 15. 9. I am the least of the Apostles, which am not worthy to be called an Apostle, he addeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace on me was not in vain, &c.
Secondly, The Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth sometimes, and very properly denote the end and intention of a thing, and hath regard to the final cause, as 1 Cor. 11. 15. Hair is given to a woman, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that it may be a covering, Heb. 12. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Because of the joy that lay before him, Matth. 20. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A redemption in behalf of many, &c. And so among profane Authors it is not seldom used in the sense of Gratia, or for the sake, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , cujus gratia, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , non nullius gratia: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hujus doctrinae gratia, &c. And so may it very fitly be interpreted in this place, we received grace because of, or for the sake of grace, or, in behalf of grace; that is, that it may be advanced in the thoughts, and propagated and wrought in the hearts of others.
Ver. 17. For the Law was given by Moses, &c.
He had in the verses preceding treated concerning the declaration of Christ before his coming, and after it; both in the Law, and under the Gospel: And in the three last verses before, he had handled this latter head, viz. how he was declared in the Gospel after his coming.
- 1. In his own person and converse, verse. 14. The Word became flesh, and dwelt in us, full of grace and truth, and we saw his glory, &c.
- 2. In the Ministry of John the Baptist, ver. 15. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, &c.
- 3. In the Ministry of the Apostles, ver. 16. Of his fullness we have all received, &c.
And now he cometh to weigh the tenor of the Law and of the Gospel; in both which Christ was thus declared, and to compare them together, and the two persons that were the chief Ministers in the exhibition of them, Christ and Moses: the two persons in regard of their Ministry of the doctrine of salvation: and the two things in regard of their tenor, clearness, and exhibition of that doctrine.
The word For in the beginning of the verse, joineth this verse, and that that went before together, and it pieceth either to the whole verse, to make up this sense, We received the grace of Apostleship for the preaching of the Gospel, as Moses did the Law; or rather to the last word grace, to the result of this sense, we received Apostleship for the propagation and advancement of grace, whereas Moses gave the Law for the advancement of works: for so the opposition that is in this verse, doth hold it out; as may be observed.
§. But grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
These two words grace and truth stand here in Antithesis or opposition to the moral and ceremonial Law, which was given by Moses; For though Christ was the giver of the Law, as well as of the Gospel, and though the giving of the Law was a work of grace, and the doctrine of the Law, a work of truth, yet if the tenor of the Law and the Gospel be compared together, they will be found to differ mainly in these particulars, though there be a grace and truth to be found in either of them.
First, The Law indeed held out the doctrine of Salvation, and taught of good things to come, but it was so darkly and obscurely, and in such veiled types and shadows, that it was rather groped after, than seen: and therefore those things are called darkness at the fifth verse of this Chapter: and the Jews that lived under them, yea and gained salvation from the knowledge of them, yet are said to be, not perfect without us, Heb. 11. 40. that is, imperfect in the knowledge of the doctrine of Salvation, till the Gospel brought us Gentiles in. But the Gospel revealed Christ, and the way of salvation so clearly, and in so evident and plain a manner, that all those types, shadows, predictions, and representations, received their equity, accomplishment, and fulfilling, and it shown apparently, what was the substance and intention of them; so that what the Law held out in figures, the Gospel did in truth.
Secondly, Although the Law were in the spirit and marrow of it a Doctrine of Faith, yet in the letter and outward administration of it, it was but a messenger of Death, 2 Cor. 3. 7. challenging exact performance, which no man could yield, and denouncing a curse upon him that performed it not, and so concluded all men under sin and a curse; but the Gospel cometh and preacheth to another tune, and to a more comfortable tenor, promising remission to the penitent, though they had not performed what the Law required, and assuring salvation to the believer, though he had no works nor righteousness of his own to own; and thus it speaketh grace and pardon, whereas the other did a curse and condemnation: And therefore is it divinely thus opposed by the Evangelist, betwixt the Law and the Gospel in these two particulars, according to the two parts of the Law Moral and Ceremonial, and according to the two main Doctrines of the Gospel, Repentance and Believing.
For the Moral called for obedience, and challenged them under condemnation that obeyed it not: but grace and pardon came by Christ, and was offered in the Gospel to those that should repent for their not obeying.
The Ceremonial Law preached Christ under obscure representations, and difficult to grope him through, but the truth of what those obscurities involved, and what those representations figured, came by Christ, and the Gospel holds it out, and calls for faith in him that hath accomplished them: And thus is grace and truth said to come by Jesus Christ, and these to be the tenor of the Gospel in opposition to the Law, not as grace opposeth ungraciousness, but as it opposeth condemning, nor as truth opposeth falsehood, but as it opposeth shadows.
Vers. 18. No man hath seen God at any time.
This is spoken from Exod. 33. about Moses his desiring to see the Lord.
The oregoing verse made a difference between Moses and Christ, which this verse pursueth; Moses desired to see God, but could not see him, Exod. 33. 20. for no man hath seen God, or can see him, and live, but Christ hath been in his bosom, hath seen him, and revealed him. Moses beggeth to know the way of God, and God promiseth him the company of his presence, verse. 13, 14. He beggeth again to see his glory, and God answereth him, that he will show him his goodness, verse. 18, 19. and more of God he saw not, and so much of God hath none seen besides him, but only the begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father. The story of Moses is divinely alluded to in this place; for as concerning the presence of God, the Evangelist saith, he dwelt among us. As concerning his glory, he saith, that they beheld it; and as concerning his goodness, he concludeth, he was full of grace and truth, verse. 14. And though no man hath seen God at any time, yet Christ imaged him forth among his Disciples, with a glory agreeing to the only begotten Son of God, and he hath declared him plainly in the doctrine of the Gospel, a doctrine full of grace and truth.
§. He hath declared him.
It is apparent by this clause, that the Evangelists main intention hereabout, is to speak of the doctrine and declaration of God, Christ, and the Gospel, and the publication of all unto the world; He speaks of Johns publishing of this, ver. 15. and of Johns publishing of this again, v. 19. and of Moses publishing of this in his kind, ver. 17. and of Christ's doing it in his kind, ver. 18. and therefore certainly it cannot but be unconsonant to the scope of the place, and to the purpose of the Penman, to interpret the 16 verse clean to another tune, about receiving grace of remission and sanctification, and this is that that hath mainly induced me to interpret it as I have done, because I see it plainly that the Evangelist applies himself in the whole context to treat concerning the witnesses, and the publication and declaration of Christ and the Gospel.
Vers. 19. The Jews sent Priests and Levites.
The Baptism and Ministry of John was of so strange a tenor, as was observed before, [ viz. that whereas the Law preached for works, he should call for repentance, and whereas Baptism had been used hitherto for admission of heathens to the Religion of the Jews, he should now use it to admit the Jews to a new Religion] it is no wonder if that Court who were to take notice and cognizance of matters of this nature, were very inquisitive and scrutinous after the business, to know Johns authority and his intention. It is rather to be wondered at, that they had let him alone all this while, and never had him in examination yet. John had now followed this course and calling, about eight months together, and six of these eight had he spent in Judea, in their own country, and yet for ought we read, they had never quarrelled with him till this very time: now what the cause of their long-forbearing should be, is hardly worthy the inquiring after, only this we cannot but acknowledge a chief reason of it, namely, God so dispensing and disposing, that his Ministry might run interrupted, or without any let, till Christ should begin to show himself in his Ministry; which the very next day after this dispute he did: And so the Gospel might have no stop in this beginning of it, but while Christ preached not, John should preach without trouble, and when John began to be troubled, Christ should then be ready to preach.
The scrutiny and judging of a Prophet, belonged only to the Sanhedrin or great Council at Jerusalem; and so is the Talmudic tradition, in the Treatise Sanhedrin Perek. 1. They judge not a Tribe, nor a false Prophet, nor the High Priest, but in the judicatory of Seventy and one; and to this law and practice of theirs, those words of Christ relate in Luke 13. 33. It cannot be that a Prophet perish out of Jerusalem: because a Prophet could not be judged upon life and death in any place but there.
This Court and Council sent these messengers to John to make enquiry after him, and after his authority; and so is the word, the Jews, to be understood in this verse, for the representative body of the Jews in the great Judicatory. And they send Priests and Levites to examine him, as men of the greatest knowledge and learning in the Law, and men of the likeliest abilities to try him, and to dispute and discourse with him according to that in Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth.
Vers. 20. But confessed I am not the Christ.
We do not perceive by the Text, that this question, whether he were the Christ, or no, was proposed to him at all, yet he giveth satisfaction to this first: partly, because the time of Christ's appearing was now generally thought by the Nation to be at hand, Luke 2. 26, 38. & 19. 11. & 24. 31. Joh. 4. 25. &c. and partly, because the eminency of John had made the people look upon him, with some questioning whether he were not the Christ, Luke 3. 15.
Vers. 21. Art thou Elias?
When he hath resolved them that he is not the Messias, they presently question whether he be not Elias, Messias his fore-runner: for their expectation was of the fore-runners bodily coming, as well as of Christ's. Their opinions concerning Elias his first coming, and who he was then, and of his latter coming, and what they look for from him then, it is not impertinent to take up a little, in their words and Authors.
Some of our Rabbins of happy memory (saith Levi Gershom) have held, that Elias was Phinehas; and this they have held, because they found some correspondency betwixt them. And behold it is written in the Law, that the blessed God gave him his covenant of peace. And the Prophet saith, My Covenant was with him of life and peace: And by this it seemeth that God gave to Phinehas length of days to admiration: And behold we find that he was Priest in the days of the Concubine at Gibeah, and in the days of David we find it written, And Phinehas the son of Eleazar was ruler over them of old, and the Lord was with him, 1 Chron. 9. 20. And he was the Angel that appeared to Gideon and to Jephthah, and the Spirit of the Lord carried him like an Angel, as we find also of Elias. And for this it is said, They shall seek the Law at his mouth, for he is the Angel of the Lord; and for this cause also he saith, Before time, and the Lord was with him. And behold we find Elias himself saying unto the Lord, Take now my life from me, for I am no better than my fathers: meaning, that it was not for him to live always in this world, but a certain space after the way of the earth, for he was no better than his fathers: We find also that he died not, after he was taken away from the head of Elisha, for there came afterward a writing of Elias to Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, as it is mentioned in the book of Chronicles. Thus Ralbag on 1 King. 17. And thus the Jews hold Phinehas and Elias to have been but one and the same man.
And what they held concerning Elias his singular eminency for Prophesy whilst he lived, it appeareth by R. Samuel Lanjado, in his Comment on 2 King. 2. Elias, saith he, was so endued with Prophesy, that many of the children of the Prophets prophesied by his means: Our wise men of happy memory, say, Whilst Elias was not laid up, the Holy Ghost was in Israel, as it is said, the children of the Prophets that were at Bethel said to Elisha, To day God will take thy Master from thy head: they went and stood afar off, and they passed over Jordan: It may be because they were but a few: the sense telleth, that there were fifty men of the sons of the Prophets. It may be they were private men: The text saith, Thy Master: It is not said, our Master, but thy Master; showing that they were wise men like Elias: When Elias was taken up [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 treasured up] the Holy Ghost departed from them, as it is said, And they said, Behold there is with thy servants fifty men, men of strength, let them go and seek thy Master, &c.
And concerning the departure of Elias, and his estate after, the same Author giveth the opinion of his Nation, a little after in these words: I believe the words of our wise men of happy memory, That Elias was taken away in a whirlwind in the Heaven, that is, in the air, and the Spirit took him to the earthly paradise, and there he abideth in body and soul: therefore they say that Elias died not, and they say moreover that he went not into the firmament: And they say that some have seen him in the School [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] And that he shall come before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.
Now his coming before the day of the Lord, they hold to be twofold, one invisible, as that he cometh to the circumcision of every child, and therefore they set him a chair, and suppose he sitteth there, though they see him not: And the Angel of the Covenant which you desire, behold he cometh, Mal. 3. 1. The Lord shall come to his Temple, this is the King Messias, who also is the Angel of the Covenant, or he saith, The Angel of the Covenant in reference to Elias: And so it is said, That Elias was zealous for the Covenant of Circumcision, which the Kingdom of Ephraim restrained from themselves, as it is said, I have been exceeding zealous for the Lord God of Israel, for the children of Israel have forsaken thy Covenant. He saith unto him, Thou wast zealous in Shittim, [Phinehas in Numb. 25.] and art thou zealous here concerning Circumcision? As thou livest, Israel shall not do the Covenant of Circumcision, till thou seest it with thine eyes: From hence they have appointed to make an honorable Chair for Elias, who is called the Angel of the Covenant. Thus Kimch. on Mal. 3. 1.
Of this matter, and of the Jews present expectation of Elias at every circumcision, learned Buxtorfius giveth an ample relation, in his Synagoga Judaica, cap. 2.
On the eighth day in the morning, saith he, those things that are requisite for the Circumcision are duly prepared. And first of all two seats are set, or one seat so made, as that two may sit one by another in it, covered with rich coverings, or cushions, according as every ones state will bear: In the one of these seats, when the child cometh to be circumcised, sitteth the Sponsor, or Godfather of the child, and the other seat is set for Elias. For they conceive that Elias cometh along with the Infant, and sitteth down in that seat, to observe whether the Circumcision be rightly administered: and this they conceive from Mal. 3. 1. And the Messenger of the Covenant whom ye seek, behold he cometh: when they set that seat for Elias, they are bound to say in express words, This is the seat of the Prophet Elias: That seat is left standing there, three whole days together. Rabbi Judah the holy, once perceived that Elias came not to one Circumcision, and the reason was, because the child circumcised should once turn Christian, and forsake his Judaism. They use to lay the child upon Elias his cushion, both before and after his Circumcision, that Elias may touch him. Thus he, and more largely, about their fancy of Elias his invisible coming upon that occasion. And in the thirteenth Chapter of the same book, he relateth how they expect him visibly at the other Sacrament even every Passover; when among other rites and foolish customs, they use over a cup of wine, to curse all the people of the world that are not Jews as they are: and that they do in this prayer, Pour out thy wrath upon the Nations which have not known thee; and upon the Kingdoms that have not called upon thy name; Pour thine anger upon them, and let the fury of thy wrath lay hold of them, &c. Which while the Master of the house is praying, one runs to the gate, or door of the house, and sets it wide open, in sign of their deliverance, and in hope of Elias his coming to tell them of the approach of the Messias: And presently in comes one clothed in white, that their children may believe that Elias is now come among them indeed.
And in the eleventh Chapter of the same book, he relateth, that every Sabbath day at night, they call hard upon Elias, and since he vouchsafed not to come among them on the Sabbath, which is now past, they earnestly entreat him, that he would come the next Sabbath day. And their Rabbins and Wisemen have taught them, that Elias every Sabbath day, sitting under the tree of life in Paradise, takes account of, and writeth down the good works of the Jews in their keeping of the Sabbath.
I shall trespass too much upon the Readers patience, if I trouble him with anymore such trash and ridiculous sluff, as this is about this matter: Ihave been the bolder with him, that I might the more fully show the earnest and foolish expectation of that blinded Nation in this particular: I shall only crave leave to allege some few expressions more out of their own Authors upon this subject, that here once for all, their doctrine and opinion of the coming of Elias, [which cometh in mention now and then in the Evangelists] may be handled, and may trouble us no more.
Their second and greater expectation then of Elias, is, that he will come visibly and bodily before the coming of the Messias; and that he will do great things when he cometh. The Disciples well knew and spake the common opinion of the Nation, when upon our Savior's discourse concerning his own resurrection, they make this reply; Why then say the Scribes that Elias must first come? Matth. 17. 10.
And so are their Authors full of assertions to such a purpose.
The four Carpenters in Zechariah [ saith Rabbi Simeon ] are Messias ben David, Messias ben Joseph, Elias, and the Priest of righteousness, vid. Kimch. in Zech. 1.
Elias shall restore three things in Israel, [saith Rabbi Tanchuma ] the pot of Manna, the cruse of the anointing oil, and the cruse of water. And as some say also, Aaron's rod with its blossoms and almonds, Tauch. on Exod. 1.
The Talmudists in Erubhim, Perek. 4. are discoursing of this coming of Elias, and inquiring the time; and they have this conclusion, That Israel is assured that Elias will not come but on the evening of the Sabbaths, or on the evening of Feastival days: and when he cometh, they shall say to the great Sanhedrin, He is come, fol. 43.
And in the Treatise of the Sabbath, they intimate, that one work of Elias when he thus cometh, shall be to destroy. Everyone (say they) that observes steadfastly three repasts on the Sabbath, is delivered from three vengeances; From Messias his destroying, from the Judgment of hell, and from the war of Gog and Magog: From the destruction of Messias; It is written here, The day [viz. remember the Sabbath day ] and it is written there, Behold I send unto you Elias the Prophet before the day come, &c. Perek. 16. fol. 118.
And in a common and current proverb among them, they hold that another work of Elias, when he cometh, shall be to resolve doubts and scruples, and to unite doctrinal knots.
And that he shall purify Bastards, and make them fit to come into the congregation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vid. Kimch. in Zech. 9.
And that he shall be one of the seven Shepherds and eight principal ones mentioned, Michah 5. 5. Our Rabbins say, Who are the seven Shepherds? David in the middle, Seth, Enoch, and Methuselah on his right hand, and Abraham, and Jacob, and Moses on his left. And who are the Eight principal ones? Jesse, Saul, Samuel, Amos, Zephaniah, Hezekiah, Elias, and Messiah, Kimch. in Mich. 5.
And for this coming of Elias, doth Elias Levita so heartily pray, in Tisbi, in rad. Tishbi, Elias was in the days of Gibeah: So let it be God's good will that he may be with us in this time, and let that verse be accomplished upon us, Behold I send you Elias; So is the prayer of Elias the Author.
By these and divers other speeches of the like nature, which might be produced out of the Hebrew Authors, showing the common opinion of that people concerning the coming of Elias bodily before the coming of Christ, it is no wonder, if when the Jews saw so eminent a man as John the Baptist come in so powerful a way of Ministry, so great a change of a Sacrament, and so strict austerity of life, they question with themselves, and with him, whether he be not the Messias, and when he denies that, then whether he be not Elias. But it is some wonder, [and that the rather, because our Savior hath long ago resolved what was meant by that place of the Prophet, Behold I send Elias, and hath plainly told that John the Baptist was the Elias that was to come] I say, it is a wonder [this considered] that ever this Jewish opinion of Elias coming before the coming of the Messias, should be so transplanted into the hearts of Christians, under this notion of Elias his coming before Christ's second coming, as that so many understand it as literally, personally, and really, as ever the grossest Jew in Judea did.
It were endless to reckon their names, both Ancient and Modern, that have verily believed, and as boldly asserted, that Enoch and Elias shall come visibly and bodily to destroy Antichrist, to convert the Jews, and to build up the elect in the faith of Christ. He that desires names, may see enow in Bellarmine de Roman. Pontif. lib. 3. cap. 6. where he proves that the Pope is not Antichrist, by this argument, that Elias and Enoch never came against him; in Cornel. a Lapide in Apocal. 11. where he holds the two witnesses to be these two men, Enoch and Elias.
It is somewhat beside our work, to take up this controversy in this place, but it may not be besides the advantage of the Reader, to take up two or three considerations upon this matter, and to ruminate and study upon them, towards the confutation of this groundless opinion.
1. That the great and terrible day of the Lord, before which Elias was promised to come, is exceedingly mistaken by those that understand it of the day of Judgment; for it meaneth only, the day of the destruction of Jerusalem; as might be proved at large by divers other places of Scripture, where the same phrase is used: And the like misconstruction is there of the phrase, in the last days, by taking it for the last days of the world, whereas it meaneth only the last days of Jerusalem.
2. Those two witnesses mentioned, Rev. 11. upon whom there are so various glosses, and different opinions, are pictured and charactered out like Moses and Elias, and not like Enoch and Elias, as is plain by the Text; for that speaketh of shutting up heaven, turning water into blood, and plaguing the earth, which had been the actings of Elias and Moses, and none but they, and no mention of Enochs ever doing such a thing at all. We have therefore from that place, as little warrant to look for Elias his bodily coming before the end of the world, as we have for the bodily coming of Moses.
3. The proper meaning of that Prophesy concerning the two Witnesses, is to set forth the state of the Church towards the end of the world, when the Jews shall be called, and knit together into one Church with the Gentiles; showing that God will raise up a powerful Ministry among either people, which the Holy Ghost characters, by Moses the first Minister and Prophet of the Jews, and Elias the first Minister and Prophet of the Gentiles: These two people, and this double Ministry are as two olive trees and two candlesticks, standing before the Lord of the whole earth: This Ministry shall be opposed by Antichrist, and almost destroyed and brought to nothing: And as Antichrist hath caused a general defection and apostasy already in the world, having even slain Religion, and the preaching of the Truth, till in the age last past they revived again: So shall he cause a defection and falling away for a season in the Church of the Jews after their calling, so that Religion and the truth shall be in a manner extinguished among them, that Antichrist may make the measure of his iniquity full. And as Rome in her heathenish power, did first destroy the old Jerusalem, and then persecute the new: so must she do in her Antichristian power and mischievousness: first undo the Christian Church consisting of Heathens only, as it hath done already in the dark time of Popery over all the world; and then undo the Church consisting of Gentiles and Jews united together; but God shall revive it; and then the true Religion and the Ministry of the Truth shall live again by the power and Spirit of God put into them.
That this is the aim of that prophecy in the eleventh of the Revelation, might be shown, if it were seasonable, by many arguments, and consequently that the expectation of Enoch and Elias to come bodily, and to fight with Antichrist, &c. hath not the least color or ground from thence at all; but this is not a place to dispute that Text.
§. Art thou that Prophet?
There is some question whether to read it in the force of the Article, or no; there are some that do read it so, and some that do not. The Syriac and the Vulgar Latin take no notice of the Article at all, but read it as if it were without, Art thou a Prophet? And so doth the margin of our English Bible: But others, with our English Text, do interpret the words as speaking of some peculiar Prophet, which was neither Christ nor Elias, but some other pointed at and intended by that prediction, Deut. 18. 15. Vid. Cyril and Chrysost. &c.
It is hard to guess at the mind of these Jews that speak these words we have in hand, for both the Greek expression in this Text, and the Jews exposition of that in Deuteronomy, do so indifferently carry it either to a Prophet in general, or to some singular Prophet in particular, that it may be an equilibrious case, whether to take it the one way, or the other. I rather take it the former, and cannot but apprehend that their questioning of the Baptist in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is indefinitely meant, art thou a Prophet? Not this or that Prophet, but art thou a Prophet at all? For prophesy had been long decayed amongst them, and when they saw one appear now of so prophetical a character, as the Baptist was; and when he had resolved them he was neither Christ nor Elias, their properest question then was, art thou then any other Prophet come after so long a time as there have been no Prophets among us? And he answers, No; that is, not in their sense, not a Prophet of the same Ministry with those in the Old Testament, but of another nature; or not one of those Prophets of the Old Testament revived, as Matth. 16. 14. but a Minister foretold of by one of those Prophets, as Isaiah 40. 3.
The reason that I refuse the strict interpretation of this question, [Art thou that Prophet, as if they spake of some particular man] is, partly, because the article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not always to be construed in such a strictness, as pointing out a particular thing or person, but is very commonly, nay, most commonly of a more large and general signification. But chiefly, because I find not in the Jewish Writers any particular Prophet mentioned, whom they expected to come as they did Christ and Elias: and for ought I find, they do not interpret that place in Deut. 18. 15. of any such a particular person, but of the succession of Prophets in general; It is true indeed, that Ibn Ezra understands it of Joshua, and Rab. Sol. on Jer. 1. understands it of Jeremy, but this was of Joshua, and Jeremy in their times: but of any such singular person that they expected in the last times, I find no mention, unless the Priest of righteousness spoken of a little before, or Messias ben Joseph, should be reduced under this notion and name of That Prophet.
Ver. 25. Why baptizest thou then?
It is observable, that they never question what he meant by his baptism, but what he meant to baptize: they inquire not concerning the thing, but concerning his person and authority: And in all the time of his course and ministry, we never find that they made the least scruple what his Baptism was, or what it meant, but only they look on him, and wonder and question what he hath to do to baptize: And the reason of this was, because the rite and custom of baptizing, had been in common and ordinary practice and use among that Nation many hundreds of years before John ever appeared among them; And as this common and known custom of Baptism used among them continually and ordinarily so long before, and then, made them that they never wonder, nor question, nor make strange of Johns baptizing, as to the thing itself; so the consideration of this very thing may give us much light and satisfaction in that controversy that is now afoot among us, concerning the baptizing or not baptizing of Infants. It is urged by those that deny Infants baptism, that there is neither command for it, nor example of it in the Scripture, as there was for Infants circumcision. Now this consideration giveth one ready answer, if there were no other to be given; If baptism, and baptizing of Infants had been as strange, and unseen, and unheard of a thing in the world till John the Baptist came, as circumcision was till God appointed it to Abraham, there is no doubt but there would have been a command or example expressly given for the baptizing of Infants, if God would have them to be baptized, as there was for the circumcising of Infants, because God would have them to be circumcised: But when the baptizing of Infants had been a thing as commonly known, and as commonly used long before John came, and to his very coming, as any holy thing that was used among the Jews, and they were as well acquainted with Infants baptism, as they were with Infants circumcision; it doth not follow, that there needed so express and punctual command or example, to be given for the baptizing of Infants, which was well enough known already, as there needed for Circumcision of Infants or others, which was a thing that till its institution had never been heard of, nor dreamed of in the world.
I shall crave a little leave of the Reader for so much digression, [for so I know he cannot but account it] as from the Jews Authors and Antiquities, to give him some account of these two particulars, which it may be, may prove of some use in the point in mention, viz. 1. The ancient use and practice of baptism among the Jews, before the Gospel began to be preached by John the Baptist. And 2. The common use and practice of baptizing of Infants in those times.
1. Of the antiquity, and long and ancient use of baptism under the Law, we have first this testimony in Maimonides, the great register of the Jews customs and antiquities, in his treatise Issure Biah, perek. 13.
By three things (saith he) Israel entered into Covenant, by Circumcision, Baptism, and Sacrifice:
Circumcision was in Egypt; as it is said, No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof: Moses our Master circumcised them, for they had all forsaken the Covenant of Circumcision in Egypt, but only the tribe of Levi, as it is said, And they keep thy Covenant.
Baptism was in the wilderness, before the giving of the Law, as it is said, And thou shalt sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments.
And Sacrifice, as it is said, And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings, they offered them for all Israel.
And so in after times, when a heathen will enter into the Covenant, and be gathered and joined under the wings of the divine Majesty, and take upon him the yoke of the Law, Circumcision and Baptism, and a freewill offering is required; and if it be a female, Baptism and an offering, as it is said. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 As it is with you, so shall it be with the stranger. How is it with you? With Circumcision, and Baptism, and a free offering: So also the stranger forever, with Circumcision, and Baptism, and a free offering, &c. But at this time, when there are no offerings, Circumcision and Baptism are necessary, but when the house of the Sanctuary shall be built, then shall he also bring an offering. A stranger that is circumcised and not baptized, or that is baptized, and not circumcised, is not a proselyte till he be both circumcised and baptized. Thus Maimonides; and to the same tenor the Talmud also in Jebammoth perek. 4.
A stranger that is circumcised and not baptized, Rabbi Eliezer saith, Behold he is a proselyte, for so we find by our fathers, which were circumcised and not baptized.
He that is baptized and not circumcised, Rabbi Jehoshua saith, Behold he is a proselyte, for so we find by the Maids that were baptized, but not circumcised: but the Wisemen say, Is he baptized and not circumcised, or is he circumcised and not baptized? He is not a proselyte, until he be both circumcised and baptized.
It is necessary, saith Maimonides again, that he be baptized before a triumvirate, or before a consistory of three: If a man come and say, I was proselyted in such a consistory, and they baptized me, he is not trusted to come into the Congregation till he bring witness: As they circumcise and baptize proselytes, so they circumcise and baptize servants taken from heathens. And a little after he mentioneth the place and manner of baptizing, and what multitudes were proselyted, in the days of David and Solomon, and baptized, before private persons: because the Sanhedrin would not then admit proselytes solemnly as at other times, suspecting they might be proselyted either for fear of the power, or for love of the pomp of Israel in those times; yet he concludes, that Whosoever was circumcised and baptized though only before private persons, and though for some by-respect, yet being circumcised and baptized, he was come out of the state of Heathenism. Much more might be produced out of their own Authors, [men, enemies to our Baptism, and the testimony of an enemy is a double testimony] but this enough to show the antiquity, common use, and ordinary knownness of Baptism under the law, long before the times of John the Baptist, sometime used single without circumcision, but most commonly joined with it; by which we may observe, that Baptism was no strange thing when John came baptizing, but the rite was known so well by everyone, that nothing was better known than what baptism was: and therefore there needed not such punctual and exact rules about the manner and object of it, as there had needed, if it had never been seen before: what needed it in the Gospel to tell, that such or such persons were to be the objects of baptism, when it was as well known before the Gospel began, that men, and women, and children were the objects of baptism, and were baptized, as it is to be known that the Sun is up when it shineth at noon day?
These two things therefore are observable about our Savior's instituting baptism for a Gospel Sacrament.
1. That he took up Baptism which was used as an additional to circumcision, instead of circumcision: And so did he also in the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. For after the Paschal Lamb was eaten, it was the common custom of the Nation, that the Master of the family brake a piece of bread, and distributed it among the company, and after it he distributed a cup of wine: now our Savior took up this which was an additional to the Passover, to be a Gospel-sacrament instead of the Passover.
2. That he took up baptism as it was in common and known use, and in ordinary and familiar practice among the Nation, and therefore gave no Rules for the manner of baptizing, or for the age or sex of the persons to be baptized, which was well enough known already, and needed no rule to be prescribed.
Now for the second thing proposed, and about which there is the greatest difference and controversy among Christians in the matter of baptism, which is about the baptizing of Infants, the Jews used it also in as common and ordinary practice, as they did to baptize any others, as appeareth also by these their own testimonies.
In the Talmud in Cetuboth perek. 1. they have these words, Rab. Hona saith, a little one they baptize by the appointment of the Consistory 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Hebrew gloss upon that place, saith, If he have not a father, and his mother bring him to be proselyted, they baptize him, because there is no proselyte without Circumcision and baptism. And there must be three at his baptism [as three are necessary at the baptism of every proselyte] and they become a father to him, and he is made a proselyte by their hands.
The Talmud Text proceedeth thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What do we learn hence? That he hath benefit by it; and they privilege a man, even though he knew it not, for so doth the Gloss interpret the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not to his face, that is, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not to his knowledge, and a little one is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 capable of understanding. ] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : It is a tradition, that they privilege a person though they know it not, but they do not dispriviledge a person without his knowledge. And thus do they answer that objection that is now afoot against Infants baptism, viz. that it is not fit that they should be baptized, because they have no understanding: they make it a non sequitur, for say they, a privilege may be put upon a person, though he himself know not of it. And in the very place out of which these words are cited, even a little before them, the Talmudicks speak of a proselytess and a captivess, and a maid, redeemed, proselyted, and manumitted, being less than three years old and an half, and they have a case upon it about contracts and dower.
And Maimonides in the treatise Abadim, or concerning Servants, Chap. 8. at the very conclusion of the Chapter, hath this saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Israelite that takes a little heathen, or that finds an heathen Infant, and baptizeth him into the name of a proselyte, behold he is a proselyte. And in the treatise Issure biah in the Chapter cited erewhile; he saith, A woman proselyted and baptized, when she is great with child, her child needeth not then to be baptized when he is born: otherwise it was requisite that he should be baptized. By these and other testimonies which might be produced, it is apparent that baptism, and baptism of Infants was in common use before John appeared. And it doth not only show a reason why the Jews never question him what baptism meant, [but by what authority he didbaptize] but also it showeth a reason why the New Testament is so sparing in expressing the object and manner of baptism, namely, because both baptism itself, and those things were commonly and ordinarily used and known before.
Vers. 28. In Bethabara beyond Jordan.
It is but as labor lost to go about to show how many translators and expositors approve this translation, Beyond Jordan, since there is not any to be found, that ever took this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in other sense till Beza found a new. Now he translates it secus Jordanem, not beyond but besides Jordan, and so doth he likewise, Matth. 4. 15. & 19. 1. and indeed with some probability at the first appearance: But when the signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the history, and historical sense of these places alleged, is better viewed; we shall find his interpretation contradicted by both. For first, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth most properly and genuinely signify ultra or trans, and not juxta or secus, beyond and not besides; as might be evidenced by most copious examples both in Scripture and Heathen Writers, we shall not be tedious in allegations in which we might be even endless, take but these two pregnant ones for a pattern, Matth. 8. 18. Joh. 6. 1. & 17. 25. & 18. 1. Mark 4. 35. & 5. 1. &c. And divers places in the LXX. and it will be hard, if not impossible to show where ever 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth secus. To which may be added the signification of several words derived from this, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and others, which all carry in them the signification of going beyond, over, or to the other side.
Secondly, Consider but the progress of John in his baptizing. He first beginneth in Judea, and coasteth on that side Jordan within the land of Canaan, Matth. 3. 1. and kept not fixed to this or that place, but moved up and down at a large distance, and had disciples come to him to be baptized from a very large circuit, as is evident by those expressions of Luke and Matthew, He came into all the country about Jordan, Luke 3. 3. And there went out to him all the regions about Jordan, Matth. 3. 5. And withal Luke saith, that all the people were baptized by the time that our Savior came to his baptism, Luke 3. 21. which I cannot see how it should be understood otherwise, than that John had made all his harvest, and finished all the Ministry that he should use on that side the River which he had now coasted upon a whole half year together, now therefore he was to remove to the other side.
Thirdly, It cannot but be an impropriety to talk of Johns baptizing besides Jordan, as if when he baptized in Bethabara, he baptized in Jordan itself, as Beza himself denieth not.
Fourthly, The people in Cap. 3. 26. say to John, Rabbi, he that was with thee, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 baptizeth. Now if this be to be rendered besides Jordan, how needless will this appear, since John all the half year that he baptized, was hardly anywhere else? And this impropriety it is very like caused Beza to translate it there ad trajectum Jordanis, by what warrant of the Greek, I cannot see. And as for those two places that he alledgeth to confirm his sense, namely Matth. 4. 15. & 19. 1. the shortness of the language that the Evangelist hath used in both places, was that that drove him into this interpretation: For the Text of Matthew 4. 15. cited from Isaiah 9. 1. doth so plainly speak to the 2 King. 15. 29. that it is past all doubting, as will be cleared there: Now in that Text of the Kings there is evident expression of affliction of Israel on both sides Jordan, which Isaiah speaking to, doth utter it very short, as it is usual with the Scripture to do, when it speaketh from known stories: And as for that in Matth. 19. 1. The Harmonizing of the Evangelists will show it most undoubted; that Jesus in that story did go over Jordan indeed, as may be seen, Joh. 10. 40. & 11. 7. which speak in reference to this very story; but both Matthew and Mark have given the story in so short terms, as breedeth ambiguity to him that shall look no further than their Texts for the exposition one of another. For they only say thus, He departed from Galilee; and came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan: but their meaning is this, that he came into the coasts of Judea, and so beyond Jordan; for the story of that one verse comprehendeth as much story, as is contained from Joh. 7. ver. 10. to Joh. 10. ver. 40. And whereas those Evangelists say only thus much briefly, He came into the coasts of Judea, the story at length was this, He came to Jerusalem, and there he stayed from the feast of Tabernacles, Joh. 7. 2, 10. which was in September, till the feast of Dedication, which was in December, Joh. 10. 22. Then he goeth to the other side of Jordan, ver. 40. as shall be cleared past denial, by God's assistance, when his providence and goodness shall bring us thither: So that in both these Texts alleged, the Ellipsis or want of the conjunction And, which is most common in the Scripture style, hath bred this difficulty, and that being added [as the very nature and truth of the thing itself requireth it to be understood] the doubt had been removed: the places being read thus, The way of the Sea beyond Jordan and Galilee of the Gentiles: And he came into the coasts of Judea, and beyond Jordan.
Now where this Bethabara was beyond Jordan, is still under scruple; it is very commonly apprehended to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The place of passage, either where Israel came over when they entered the Land, or the common Ford that the people went over from one side to another▪ from Judea to Perea at the Fords of Jericho.
Now as for the first, it is a very uncertain scantling; seeing that the space of Israel's passage, as was observed on Luke 3. 21. was very many miles: And as for the second, it carrieth great probability with it, if it can but be satisfied, how Christ and his Disciples, could travail from thence to Cana in Galilee in three days, nay to be there at a feast on the third day. The 10 Chapter of John, and the 40 verse, must help us to some light in this obscurity. It is said there, that Jesus went again beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized; upon which Texts let us take up these observations:
- 1. That Jesus in this story, went ultra, or trans Jordanem, over the River, and not only aside of it: for in Joh. 11. 7. he saith unto his Disciples, let us go into Judea again; Now had he not gone over Jordan, he had been in Judea already.
- 2. That he went to the place where John at first baptized, that is, where he first baptized beyond Jordan; this was Bethabara.
- 3. That he went over Jordan at the Fords of Jericho, for he went the common rode from Jerusalem to Perea; or at the least, most certainly he came back again at that passage: compare Luke 18. 31, 35.
- 4. That Bethabara was not adjoining to Jordan at that passage, but at some distance from it: For if we look into this story of his journey beyond Jordan in the other Evangelists, we shall find that he had some journeys beyond the River, as Mar. 10. 17. One came to him when he was gone forth upon his journey, whilst he was beyond Jordan.
The opinion therefore of Jerome cannot be current, that holdeth Bethabara to be buildings at the passage of Jericho, on either side Jordan, one over against another, on the Rivers brink; for then how could Christ, having passed over at that passage, travail when he was beyond Jordan, and yet go but to Bathabara? But it seemeth rather to me, that this place was far more northward up Jordan, and lay over against Galilee; and that Christ going over at the passage of Jericho, coasted up a good way on the left hand, many miles before he came to Bethabara. And I should rather suppose, that it was called Bethabara, or the place of passage, as being the landing place on the other side of the point of the lake Genazareth, over against Galilee, than the landing place on the other side of Jordan, over against Jericho.
And the Reasons that induce me to place it there, are these:
1. Because John had coasted up and down Jordan on Judea side for a long time together, and there he had gathered up all the Converts that were to be had: what then would it avail him to go on the other side the River, just opposite to the places where he had been so long? The River was not above twenty or thirty yards over, or grant it twice or thrice so much, nay, grant if fifty, as Baal haleurim on Numb. 10. and the time that he had spent on Judea side, was all the Summer, and why should it be thought that converts were now to be had on the further side▪ which might with as much facility have come thirty or forty yards further to him to the other side Jordan, especially in Summer it being no great water to get over?
2. Because of the quickness of Christ's journey from Bethabara unto Cana; which was travailed by him in far less than three days. The first night he came to Capernaum, the City of his abode, verse. 39. as we shall show there; and that two hours before night, which from the Fords of Jericho was impossible to do, unless he had shown a miracle, which in this we know he did not.
3. It is a great persuasive to believe, that John was now baptizing near Galilee, because of the Galileans, Peter and Andrew conversing with him.
Vers. 29. Behold the Lamb of God.
This is the first time that John pointeth out Christ personally, or demonstrateth to the people, This is the man: He had hitherto spoken of him, and born witness to him continually, to all that came to be baptized by him, both before Christ's baptism and since, but till now he could never show them who it was of whom he spake so much, and so much honor. When Christ came to be baptized, the Holy Ghost had no sooner come upon him, but he was wrapped away into the wilderness: and then John sends this honorable testimony after him, This was he of whom I spake, &c. But then it was too late for the people to observe who he was, for he was gone out of sight. Since that time till now, he had been in the wilderness among the beasts, and this is his first revealing of himself among men again, and now it is seasonable and necessary for John to demonstrate him.
The title that he giveth him, the Lamb of God, plainly referreth to the Lamb of the daily sacrifice; and it is so called, according to the common style and phrase by which things devoted to God were expressed, as, The bread of God, Lev. 21. 21. The night of the Lord, Exod. 12. 42. A Nazarite of God, Judge. 13. 5. The candle of God, 1 Sam. 3. 2. Now that Lamb was so familiar, common, and conspicuous a lecture of Christ, and it was the first conspicuous lecture of Christ that was in the world, Revel. 13. 8. that John could not have chosen an Epithet that would speak him out better, than to use an expression from the morning and evening Lamb that was offered at Jerusalem. For besides that, 1. John had had newly to deal with Priests and Levites whose chief employment was about that Lamb. And 2. besides that it was about sacrifice time on the second day when John useth these words, between three and four a clock in the afternoon, ver. 39. And besides that 3. the Lamb represented the innocence and purity of Christ, in his being without spot; and the death of Christ in being offered up. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ignat. Mart. Epist. ad Tarsenses. It was 4. most proper and pertinent to the doctrine and preaching of John which he had used before, to use now such an Epithet for Christ when he came in sight: For he had still spoken of remission of sins, and remission of sins still, to all that had come to be baptized, Mar. 1. 4. a doctrine not usual among them that stood upon their own righteousness and performance of the Law: and therefore when Christ first appeareth, he from an allusion to the daily Lamb, upon whose head the sins of the people were confessed and laid, showeth how remission of sins cometh indeed, namely, by the sacrifice of this Lamb of God, Christ, who should bear and take away the sins of the world, as that Lamb did in figure, the sins of the Jews.
Vers. 31. And I knew him not.
The clause is spoken to, and explained in the Notes on Matth. 3. 14.
§. But that he might be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing.
The baptism of John did tend to the manifesting of Christ, especially two ways: 1. Because by the strangeness of his Ministry, and the wonder of such a baptism as his was, the eyes of all the people were drawn to look after what he meant by it: For though his baptism for the manner of it, was suitable to the baptism so well known among the Jews, as was observed before, yet was the doctrine and end of it so strange to them, that it put the whole Nation to an enquiry what was in it. And 2. then did John preach Christ [as ready to come] to everyone that came to be baptized.
Vers. 39. They came and saw where he dwelt.
It is questionable whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here doth intimate, his Inn, or his habitation, but I rather understand the latter, and that the place was Capernaum; where Christ had an habitation, and was a member or Citizen of that City: For though he was a Nazarite in regard of his mothers house and residence, yet it is very probable he was a Carpernaite by his father Josephs. For,
- 1. Observe that Capernaum is called his own City, Matth. 9. 1. compared with Mar. 2. 1.
- 2. There he pays tribute, as the proper place where he should pay it, Matth. 17. 24.
- 3. When he is refused at Nazareth his mothers Town, he goeth down to Capernaum his fathers, Luke 4. 31.
- 4. His resort to Capernaum was very frequent, and his abode there very much, John 2. 11. Luke 4. 31. John 6. 17. Luke 10. 15.
- 5. That his father and mother are very well known there, John 6. 42.
- 6. That in regard of this frequency of Christ's being in this Town, and its interest in him as an inhabitant and member of it, Capernaum is said to be lifted up to Heaven.
Now Capernaum standing upon the banks of Jordan, and on the very point of the lake of Genazaret, as Jordan began to spread itself into that lake, he, and these disciples that go with him, pass over the water before they come thither, for now they were on the other side Jordan where John baptized.
Vers. 40. One of the two was Andrew, Simon Peters brother.
Who the other was, it is uncertain and undeterminable; possibly it might be the Evangelist John himself, but there is no fixing on him, or any other particular man: but this may be observed, that Peter was not the first that came in for a Disciple to Christ, but his brother Andrew and another. And it was well he was not the first, that so much of the Romanists boastings may be stopped.
§. We have found the Messias.
Andrew speaketh, 1. In reference to the expectation of the Nation, that looked so much, and so earnestly for the coming of Christ, and for his coming at this time. 2. In reference to the opinion of the Nation, that held that when Christ came, none should know whence he was, Joh. 7. 27. And 3. in reference to the common and constant testimony of John, that spake so much of Christ to come after him.
The word Messias doth solely and singularly betoken Christ, as it is interpreted most pertinently by the Evangelist here, and Chap. 4. 25. For though the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Hebrew, in the Scripture, signifieth any anointed one whatsoever; yet in this Greek form, Messias, it never signifieth but only Christ. Nor is the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used in Hebrew Authors, but in the same sense, and so it is used infinitely among them: sometimes set single without any other addition, and very often with this addition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The King Messias; as he that is never so little versed in Jewish Authors, will find in great variety. In this propriety the word is used, Dan. 9. 25, 26. and so was it confessed by the Ancient Jews, though the Modern would elude it. The Jews of the Talmud age, say, that the end of the Messias was spoken of in the Book of Cetubhim, aiming at this place; but how the latter generations turn off such a sensee, see in R. Saadias, and Rab. Sol. in loc. &c.
Vers. 42. Thou art Simon.
Christ nameth him at the first sight, and hereby showeth that he was the Messias, in that he could thus name Simon and his father, with whom he had had no converse before.
Simon, or Simeon, as the Syriac renders it, [for they are all one, as Acts 15. 14.] was a name that was exceeding much in use among the Jews at this time, as Matth. 27. 32. Mark 3. 18. Luke 2. 15. Acts 8. 9. & 13. 1. &c. And it was very frequent in use in their Schools in putting of cases, as, Reuben borrowed such a thing of Simeon, &c.
The Jews themselves seem to have brought the Hebrew word Simeon, into this Greek manner of pronouncing, Simon; for their own Authors speak of one Rabbi Simon.
§. The son of Jonah.
Bar Jonah in the Syriac, Matth. 16. 17. and Simon Jonah in the Greek, Joh. 21. 15, 16, 17.
There are that conceive a corruption to be in the writing of this word; for [say they] it should be Joanna. And of that mind is Jerome, the Vulgar Latin, Erasmus, at Joh. 21. 15. and of that writing is Erasmus his Greek copy there, and some others here: But upon what ground this facile and most general reading, of Jonah, [for so the Syrian, Arabic, most and best Greek Copies, and most translations utter it] should be forsaken, and one so far fetched and strained as Joanna be embraced, and taken for the right, I cannot yet understand or apprehend.
Certainly Jonah is the Genitive case of Jonas in the LXX, Joh. 4. 8. and in the New Testament, Matth. 12. 21, 39. And why the father of Peter, should not be thought to be Jonas, as well as Joannas, I believe it will be very hard to show a reason; We have mention of Rabbi Jonah among the Jewish Doctors; which showeth that the name was given to others besides the old Prophet, and there is no reason why a private man might not carry it as well as a Doctor. Sure it is that the very word Jonah, applied thus to Peter, doth give a very good hint, to compare him and the old Prophet together: For they were both preachers to the Gentiles, both of them declined that employment: and both of them declined it at Joppa. Compare Jonah 1. and Acts 10.
§. Thou shalt be called Cephas.
I. Change of names in Scripture is frequent, and most common for the better, as Abram's into Abraham, Jacob's into Israel, Hosheas into Jehoshua, and Solomon's into Jedidiah; though sometimes there is a change for the worse, as Jerubaal into Jerubosheth, 2 Sam. 11. 22. Sychem into Sychar, Joh. 4. 5. &c.
II. Christ changeth the name of three Disciples only, Peter, James, and John, Mark 3. 16, 17. as God had changed the names of three men only in the Old Testament, Abram, Jacob, and Solomon.
III. Now as concerning the name Cephas, which Simon carried hence-forward, 1 Cor. 1. 12. & 15. 5. Gal. 2. 9. it is a Syriac word, framed into an adjective, and into a Greek utterance, by addition of s in the latter end.
Ceph indeed is used sometimes in the Hebrew, as Jer. 4. 29. Job 30. 6. But Cepha soundeth of the Chaldee idiom, and is used very frequently by the Paraphrasts; most commonly to render the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as D. Kimchi noteth in Michal, and as may be observed in Numb. 20. 8, 10, 11. Judge. 20. 45, 47. & 21. 13. 1 Sam. 23. 28. and divers other places: and sometime to express the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when it signifieth, a point of land, or sea, as Josh. 15. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Chaldee renders it: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 meaning, as saith Kimchi on the place, the point of a Rock that looked South-east. But it will easily be agreed upon about the signification of Ceph and Cepha, namely, that it denoteth a Rock, in the most proper and most common meaning of it: But the scruple is whether Cephas be the very same with Cepha in signification, yea, or no, and whether the letter s added in the end, do change the sound of it only, and not the sense.
To me it seemeth, that Cephas is of an adjective signification, and betokeneth not a Rock, but Rocky, not Petra, but Petrosus, or belonging to the Rock: and I am induced to this opinion upon these grounds and arguments:
1. Because it is uttered Cephas, and not Cepha; for although it is ordinary with the language of the New Testament to add s in the latter end of some words, to make them sound of a Greek pronunciation, as Hezekiah, Manasseh, Messias, Barnabas, &c. and though I think it doth so here, yet do I not conceive it doth so here for that end only, but for some other further purpose and intent.
As 1. To mark it for a proper name, and to take it off from being taken otherwise: and so Barnabas, Barsabas, and Elymas, are marked with the same mark, for the same end.
2. To change its sense, as well as its nature, and to alter it from a substantive signification to an adjective, as well as from a common noun to a proper: For as the Evangelist maketh a clear distinction between Petros and Petra, Matth. 16. 18. as all orthodox Expositors upon that place grant; so certainly is the like to be made betwixt Cephas and Cepha; for these Syriac words our Savior used when he uttered that speech.
And to this purpose it is also to be observed, that the word Petros is not used for a Rock in all the Scripture: It is in use indeed in that sense among Heathen Authors, but in the LXX. and in all the New Testament it is scarcely to be so found: Now if the Evangelist meant to tell us, that Cephas signifieth a Rock, it is wonder that he would use the word Petros, which never occurreth in that sense in all the Bible, and refuse the word Petra, which signifieth so in the Scripture hundreds of times; Nay, say some of our Greek Dictionaries, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Petra is the common name for a Rock, even in the Heathen Greek Language, but Petros, is but the Attick dialect. And therefore I cannot but wonder that Petrus in this place should be translated Petra, as Beza in Latin, and Brucioli in Italian render it; and our English to the same sense, Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone.
For the taking up therefore of the sense and meaning, and of the reason and occasion of this name given to Simon, these particulars are to be taken into consideration.
I. That Christ called him Cephas, totidem literis, and not Cepha: and that he was commonly so called among the Disciples, Cephas, with the s sounded in the latter end. I know it is a common opinion to the contrary, as Beza on Matth. 16. 18. utters it Dominus Syriace loquens, nulla usus est agnominatione, sed utrobique dixit Cepha: and accordingly the Syriac translater everywhere expresseth it.
But let it be observed, 1. That as the Jewish Nation was full of Greek names, which were Greek names indeed, as Andreas, Nicodemus, Alexander, &c. so did they frame many of their Jewish names, which were Jewish names indeed, into a Greek pronunciation, and so pronounced them among themselves, as Theudas, Baithus, and others in the Talmud; and Heraudes for Herod in the Syriac translater, &c. And why Cephas should not be so used among them and other Greek-sounding Syriac names in the New Testament, I have not yet met with any reason that giveth any satisfaction, nor indeed with any Author that giveth any reason.
And let it be observed, 2. That whereas generally common nouns in the Syriac tongue, do end in a, as Aceldama, Abba, Gabbitha, Talitha, Acts 1. 19. Gal. 4. 6, Joh. 19. 13. Mar. 5. 41. when they are to be framed into proper names of men, it is done by putting s to the end of them, as Barabbas, Elymas, Barnabas, &c. And of the same nature is Cephas here: Now since this change of nouns from common to proper was made among the Jews, what reason can be given why this letter that made the change should not be reserved among the Jews also? Did the Greeks only call Simon, Cephas, and not the Jews? And did the Greeks call the other men Barnabas and Barabbas; but the Jews Barnaba and Barabba?
Consider, 3. How common the Greek Bible or the LXX. was in use among the Jews at this time, and how much mixture of Greek words was used in their common language at this time, as appeareth by the Syriac translater, the Chaldee. Paraphrasts, the Talmuds and others the most ancient Jewish Writers, and then we have good cause to think, that they that used the whole Bible in Greek, and that used to speak so much Greek mingled with their Syriac language continually, would not stick to utter one letter that sounded of the Greek, when that letter was only and properly added to denote a proper name.
But you will say, that the New Testament writeth, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jonas, and the like, with s in the end, as these words are written, and yet there is none that can think that the Jews uttered those words so, but as they are written in the Old Testament, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jonah. It is true, that it is most like they did so, but the difference betwixt them and these words that we have in hand, is so apparent, that it is hardly needful to show it: those were proper names originally, these were common names made proper: those had s added in the end, not to show that they were proper names, but to supply the Hebrew h or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which the Greek in the end of a word cannot utter; but these have s added in the latter end, purposely and intentionally, to make them proper names, and to show that they are so.
And 4. let it be observed, How it could be possible for the Disciples in those words of our Savior, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc petram, Math. 16. 18. to understand them otherwise than that Peter should be called the Rock, if Christ used Cepha in both places: Thou art Cepha, and upon this Cepha; Thou art a Rock, and upon this Rock will I build my Church: let any one but judge what interpretation they could make of it, by his own construing and interpreting it, according to the propriety, as the words lie before him. Therefore it is more than probable, that Christ called his name Cephas, uttering and sounding the s in the latter end; and that the addition of that letter was not from the Evangelist, but from Christ himself; and that in the speech mentioned, he thus differenced the words, Thou art Cephas, and upon this Cepha will I build my Church.
II. Now the reason why our Savior giveth him this name Cephas or Rocky, was not so much for that he was built upon the Rock, for so were all the rest of the Apostles except Judas, but because he had a special work to do about that building which Christ was to found upon the Rock. For in those words, upon this Rock will I build my Church, he meaneth the Church of the Gentiles, which was now in founding, and in that building Peter had this special and singular work and privilege, that he was the first that preached the Gospel to the Gentiles, Act. 10. & Acts 15. 7.
§. Which is by interpretation Peter.
For so should the word be rendered, and not as our English hath it, which is by interpretation a stone. This is a passage like that in the verse preceding, Messias, which is by interpretation, Christ; and that Acts 9. 39. Tabitha, which is by interpretation, Dorcas: where our Translators have very properly observed and followed the intention of the Evangelists, which is, to give these proper names out of one language into another, and not to give them out of proper names into common nouns: And here they should have followed the same course, which they have done in the margin, but have refused it in the Text: The Arabic and Vulgar Latin, and divers others, translate it Petrus according to our sense: but the Syriac translateth not the clause at all.
Vers. 43. The day following.
Jansen dare not suppose this to be the next day after that Andrew and the other Disciple followed Jesus to his own home; but he thinks it was the day after Christ had named Simon, Cephas. The cause of his doubting is this, because it being late towards night, when Jesus and Andrew, and the other Disciple came to the place where Jesus dwelt, ver. 39. he cannot suppose how Peter should be found and brought to Christ before the next day: and yet he confesseth Epiphanius to be of opinion against him. But it being observed that Peter and Andrew were brethren, that they dwelt together, Mar. 1. 29. that they fished together, Matth. 4. 18. &c. it will be no difficulty to conceive how Andrew might find out Peter upon a sudden, and bring him to Jesus that very night that they came into Capernaum, though it were late; and accordingly there is no scruple to expound this, day following, of the very next day after.
Vers. 44. Bethsaida.
This was a Town that stood beside the lake of Gennesaret, changed by Philip the Tetrarch into the form or state of a City, and named by him Julia, after the name of Caesar's daughter: so Josephus witnesseth, Antiq. lib. 18. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Town Bethsaida by the lake of Gennesaret, he brought to the dignity of a City, both in multitude of inhabitants, and in other strength, and called it after the name of Julia the daughter of Caesar.
Bethsaida, signifieth the house, or place of hunting; and it seemeth to have been so called, because it stood in a place where was store of Deer or Venison. And to this sense is that passage of Jacob to be understood, Gen. 49. 21. Naphtali, a Hind let loose, that is, Naphtali shall abound in Venison, as Asher with bread and oil, ver. 20. and Judah with wine, ver. 11. view the places in the original. Now Bethsaida stood either in, or very near the tribe of Naphtali, as shall be shown elsewhere.
§. The City of Andrew and Peter.
Andrew and Peter after this removed and dwelt in Capernaum, Mark 1. 21, 29. because they would be near Christ whose residence was there, as was observed before: And there Peter pays tribute for himself, as in proper place, Matth. 17. 27.
§. We have found him of whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets did write, &c.
Now to insist upon the studiousness of Philip and Nathanael in the Law and Prophets, as some collect it out of this expression; there are these things most observable out of these words: 1. That the whole Scriptures of the Old Testament are comprehended under these two heads, the Law and the Prophets. And so again, Matth. 11. 13. Luke 16. 29. For though indeed the Law and the Prophets only were read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day, as Acts 13. 15. yet the third part of the Old Testament called Cetubhim or Hagiographa, did prophesy of Christ, as well as the other two, and so must of necessity be included here: For what book of Scriptures is more full of prophesies of Christ, than the book of Psalms? And what hath more clear prediction concerning Christ, than the book of Daniel? And yet neither of these are taken in among the books of the Prophets as the Jews 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 did commonly divide them in their Bibles, and read them in their Synagogues, but they come under the third part, Cetubhim. And therefore as by the Law here, is to be understood all the Books of Moses; so by the Prophets, is to be understood all the Old Testament beside: And so what is spoken in a Psalm, is said to be spoken by a Prophet, Matth. 13. 35. and Daniel is called a Prophet, Matth. 24. 13. And so the Penman of the book of Job, Esther, Chronicles, &c. deserve the same name. And this very consideration were argument enough, if there were no more, to plead Solomon's salvation.
2. That Christ is the general and chief subject of the Law and the Prophets. And here are we got into a very large field, if we would but traverse it, to show how Law and Prophets in types and prophesies did speak before of Christ: but this consideration, and particulars of it will be continually occurring and emerging as we go along.
3. That when Nathanael saith, That we have found him of whom Moses and the Prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, he meaneth not, that either Moses or the Prophets had so articulately named him, but that Jesus of Nazareth proved to be he of whom they had written and spoken so much.
Vers. 46. Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?
This seemeth to be spoken by Nathanael, not only as referring to the poorness and obscurity of the City Nazareth, [as that it is neither mentioned by the Prophets to be a producer of any good, nor likely in itself to be so, being a place of an inferior and contemptible rank] but as referring rather to the wickedness and profaneness of the place, that it was so wretched and ungodly a City, that it was unlikely that any good thing should come out of it? The wickedness of the people of this place appeareth, Luke 4. 29. when they are so desperate as to go about to murder Christ at his first appearing among them.
Vers. 47. compare Jer. 9. 4, 5, 6. Behold an Israelite indeed, &c.
Although this be the character of every true Christian, as Isaiah 65. 8. and it be accordingly conceived almost generally by Expositors, that our Savior aimeth only at such a thing here, namely, that this is one that serveth God sincerely, and with a good heart, and this is such a one as God requireth a man to be in the profession of Religion, yet can I not apprehend this to be the sole and proper meaning and intention of these words; for why might not the same have been spoken of, and to Peter, Andrew, and Philip? Certainly they were very sincere and upright towards God, and were Israelites indeed, without guile or hypocrisy in matter of Religion, as well as Nathanael; their fetching one another to Christ, and the readiness of them all in embracing of Christ, confirmeth this past all denial: and it is hard and harsh to think that Christ should give that for a singular Encomion to Nathanael, which might generally be given to any of his Disciples: when he nameth Simon Peter, it was for some singular and peculiar respect, and so when he nameth James and John, Boanarges; and doubtless when he passeth such a character as this upon Nathanael, it was for some regard and respect in which he was differenced from other men.
The cause and occasion therefore of this description of him by our Savior, I conceive rather to be Nathanael's uprightness and deceitlesness towards men, than towards God, though his uprightness and sincerity towards God is by no means to be denied. And it seemeth that this was a common name and title which Nathanael had got among his neighbors, and those that knew him, for his very honest, upright, and exemplary dealing, converse and integrity amongst them, that he was commonly called the guiltless Israelite, as that Roman was called verissimus, for his exceeding great truthfulness. And truly to me it is very probable, that the great variety of names that we find divers men in Scripture to have had, [as some to have two names, some three, some more] proceeded in very many of them from this very cause and occasion, namely, their neighbors and acquaintance observing some singular quality in them, and action done by them, gave them some denomination or other agreeable to that action or quality: So Gideon came by his name Jerubbaal, Judge. 6. 32. and Jerubesheth, 2 Sam. 11. 21. So Shemaiah the false Prophet came to be called the Nehelamite, or the dreamer, Jer. 29. 31. and divers others mentioned in Scripture, and in Josephus, some of which will be taken up in their due places: Now it being a common title that Nathanael had got among all that knew him to be called the Israelite without guile; our Savior when he sees him come towards him, calls him by the same name; and thereupon Nathanael questions him how he came to know him, that he could so directly hit upon his common denomination.
Vers. 48. When thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
This seemeth to refer, not only to his being under the fig tree, but to some private and secret action that he did there; and for which he went thither: And as our Savior convinceth the woman of Samaria that he was the Messias, by telling her of her evil actions that she did in the dark and secret, so doth he Nathanael, by hinting some good things that he did from the eyes of men under a fig tree, before Philip light on him there, as praying, vowing, or some other action which none knew of but himself: And this appeareth rather to be the matter that Christ aimed at; and that worketh in Nathanael for his conviction, because that it was possible that Christ might have been near the fig tree himself as well as Philip, and he might see Nathanael, and Nathanael not see him, and so might Nathanael have supposed; but when he telleth of some secret action that passed from him under the fig tree, which his conscience told him that no mortal eye could be conscious to but himself, then he cries out, Thou art the Son of God, &c.
Vers. 49. Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel.
This he speaketh from 2 Sam. 7. 14. Psal. 2. 6, 7. & Psal. 89. 26, 27. Where God setteth his own and only begotten Son upon his hill of Zion, and throne of David, and to rule over the house of Jacob forever, Luke 1. 33.
Vers. 51. Verily, verily, I say unto you.
In the Greek it is Amen, Amen: ] Now because this manner of expression is exceeding usual in the speeches of our Savior through the Gospel, sometimes single Amen, as in the rest of the Evangelists, and constantly doubled in John, Amen, Amen; and because this is the first place according to our Harmony-order and method, that we meet with the word at all, it will be pertinent here to take up the meaning of it once for all, and to consider these two particulars concerning it: 1. What our Savior doth properly intend and mean by Amen, when he useth it so oft: And 2. Why John the Evangelist doth constantly use it doubled, when the other three never use it so at all.
1, As to the first, it is to be observed, [and that is well enough known] that the word Amen is an Hebrew word, and is very commonly used in the Old Testament; but this withal is to be observed [which it may be is not so commonly noted] that it is never used in the Old Testament, but by way of wishing or apprecation, (the sixteenth verse of Isaiah 65. only excepted, of which anon) As when it cometh single, as Deut. 27 twelve times over, where the LXX render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be it done. 1 Kings 1. 36. where the LXX have it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so be it, Nehem. 5. 13. Jer. 28. 6. Psal. 106. 48, &c. Or when it cometh double, Numb. 5. 22. Psal. 41. 13. & 72. 19. & 89. 52. which the LXX express 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be it done, be it done, or so be it, so be it. In all these places it is used by way of prayer or imprecation, according as the subject matter was to which it was applied, as David Kimchi expresseth it in Micol in the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : It is spoken, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 either by way of prayer, or by way of undertaking, as that they take upon them a curse if they transgress.
But in these utterances of our Savior the sense of it is altered from precatory to assertory, or from the way of wishing, to the way of affirming: for what one Evangelist expresseth, Amen I say unto you, This poor widow, &c. Mar. 12. 43. another uttereth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Of a truth I say unto you, &c. Luke 21. 2. Matthew saith, Amen, I say unto you, That some that stand here, &c. which Luke giveth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Of a truth I say unto you, Luke 9. 27. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Matth. 23. 36. is rendered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , truly, Luke 11. 51. &c. For indeed the word Amen doth properly betoken and signify truth, at is apparent by the construction of that verse forementioned, Isaiah 65. 16. He who blesseth himself in the earth, shall bless himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth, shall swear 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the God of truth: as not only our English, but also R. Sol. and David Kimchi do well render it; and the gloss of Kimchi upon the place is worth the citing; He saith in the earth, saith he, because in all the world there shall be one truth, and that shall be the truth of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the God of truth.
Now Christ is called Amen, Rev. 13. 14. as being not only the faithful and true witness, but even he in whom all the promises of God are yea and Amen, 2 Cor. 1. 20. and even truth itself.
Therefore when he cometh to publish the Gospel, which is that one truth that should be in all the world, (for the prophet Isaiah speaketh there apparently concerning the times of the Gospel) he speaketh of his own (as he saith the Devil doth when he speaketh a lie, Joh. 8. 44.) and useth a different style from the Prophets, (which used to authorize their truths with, Thus saith the Lord, ) and speaketh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , upon his own Authority, as the God of truth: Amen, I say unto you. In this word therefore is included two things, namely, the truth spoken, and the truth speaking it; and the expression doth not only import the certainty of the things delivered, but also recalleth to consider that he that delivers it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Amen the God of truth, and truth itself. And this consideration will help to give a resolution to the second scruple that was proposed, and that is, why John alone doth use the word doubled, and none other of the Evangelists.
I am but little satisfied with that gloss that is given by some upon this matter, namely, that John doth constantly double this word, because the matters spoken by him are of a more celestial and sublime strain, than the matters spoken by the other Evangelists, and therefore the greater attention is challenged to them by this gemination; for neither can I see, nor dare I think of any such superiority and inferiority in the writings of the Evangelists.
Nor do I suppose that Christ used this gemination himself, (for it is very strange that in those speeches that this Evangelist mentioneth he should do so, and in the speeches that the others mention he should not do so, when it may be sometimes it was the very same speech) but I conceive that the Evangelist hath doubled the word, that he might express the double sense which the single word in our Savior's mouth, and in the other Evangelists includeth. And so he addeth nothing to what Christ spake, but explaineth his speech to the utmost extent. He saith in the other Evangelists Amen singly, but he meaneth thus doubly, This is truth, and I am truth that speak it: Now John that he might clear this double meaning, doth double the word Amen, Amen, the one whereof doth refer to the thing that is spoken, and the other to the person that speaketh it. But the question proposed, is not yet resolved, why John should do thus, rather than any of the other; but the same answer that resolveth why John should relate so many things that none of the other three do ever mention, will resolve this: namely, that it was God's will and disposal that there should be four that should write the Gospel, and that some writing one thing, and some another, some after one manner, some another, the Story should be divinely made up to its full perfection. Now John wrote last, and he had warrant and opportunity to relate what the others had omitted: And as for the particular in hand, he saw that the other had only produced this word single, as Christ indeed had continually uttered it, and that they had some of them expounded it in a place or two 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ to show that it was to be taken in these speeches in a meaning different from that precatory strain in which it was constantly used in the Old Testament: but yet that there was something more included in the word, and therefore he is warranted by the holy Ghost to explain it to the full in two words, Amen, Amen: And thus the counsels of the Lord of old, uttered and revealed by the Prophets, do in the preaching of the Gospel by our Savior prove 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Truth, truth, Isaiah 25. 1.
§ Hereaf • er ye shall see Heaven opened.
Observe the manner of our Savior's answer; the text saith, he saith to him, but his words are aimed at them all, Amen, Amen, I say to you, Ye shall see, &c. He applieth his speech to all in general, though he spake more singularly, (as the Text telleth) to Nathanael in prosecution of the discourse that had been betwixt them before.
Now the main difficulty of this speech lieth in this, in what sense to understand, the opening of the Heavens; and where and how these Disciples saw the Angels ascending and descending upon Christ: The words are capable of a double construction, and some give them the one, and some the other: some understand them literally, that the Disciples did at sometimes see the Heavens opened indeed, as John the Baptist had done, Luke 3. and the Angels ascending and descending upon Christ indeed, though never a one of the Evangelists mention it. And fair arguments and probability they show for this, which I shall not spend time to mention.
But others conceive the words are to be interpreted in a Metaphorical and borrowed sense, and not according to the letter, and so taken, some interpret them one way, some another.
I confess that I have stood at this place, tanquam in bivio, a very long time, and can hardly tell which way to take: both the interpretations of the thing, both the literal and the tropical, carrying so fair a color and appearance with them. But I cannot but incline to the latter, namely, to conceive that Christ here speaketh in a borrowed sense, and by the opening of Heaven, and the ascending and descending of Angels, that he meaneth not historically, that that very thing was to be done, but mystically meaneth something else, which he thought good to express by these borrowed phrases. And that which mainly swayeth me that way is, [besides the silence of all the Evangelists, that never mention such a thing really done] the force and signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Our English and Erasmus render it hereafter; and so have left the time at a very large and uncertain scantling. But the Syriac and the Vulgar render it, from this time, or henceforward, and so it is most properly and naturally meaneth: For it signifieth not only a date of time, and someone action done after that date at a time uncertain; but a continuance of such actions or things from that date forward.
Now our Savior's meaning in this phrase is, that from this very time forward he would declare and show himself in his Ministry gloriously and with power, and henceforward should his Disciples see and perceive so much by glorious demonstrations of him, that they might know that he was the Christ.
His expressions of the Heavens opened, and the Angels ascending and descending, refer and allude to Ezekiel's vision at Chebar, Ezek. 1. 1. and to Jacob's at Bethel, Gen. 23. two as glorious revelations of Christ, as any vision the Old Testament mentioneth.
His meaning may be given in a paraphrase, thus; Nathanael dost thou think it so great a matter, that I could see thee though thou wert so close, and private, and secret under the fig tree? thou shalt see far greater things than these; for I tell you all: From this time forward I must begin to preach the Gospel, and ye shall perceive that I have such knowledge of things, as if heaven itself were open to me: and such power of miracles and doing wonders, as if the Angels were continually going on errands for me, and doing my will. And accordingly the Evangelist relateth that on the very next day he shown a miracle at Cana in Galilee, and manifested forth his glory: and in the latter end of the same Chapter, he speaketh of his miracles at Jerusalem, and his knowledge of all men, ver. 24.
So that henceforth Christ's Ministry in preaching and doing miracles doth begin; the place, Cana: the time, some two months after his Baptism, or thereabouts, for ought is to be perceived from the Evangelists to the contrary.
§ The Son of Man.
This title of Christ, which is so frequent in the Evangelists, [and yet which is observable, never but in his own words] meaneth not only to express a man, according to the Syrian Dialect then used, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bar nosho, nor only to express Christ's humanity, or that he was truly man, in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; nor doth it only intimate his humility, when he doth not disdain to call himself so oft by this humble name, though it may have some aim at all these things: but it seemeth to be used so oft by our Savior concerning himself, as intimating him to be the second Adam, and referring to that promise that was made to Adam instantly after his fall, of the seed of the Woman that should break the Serpents head: And to this very purpose, as we observed in its place, the Evangelist Luke, at the story of his Baptism, when he was to be installed into his Minstery, and had that glorious testimony from heaven, deriveth his pedigree up to the first Adam, to draw all men's eyes to that first promise, and to cause them to own him for that seed there promised, and for that effect that is there mentioned, of dissolving the works of Satan: And as that Evangelist giveth that hint, when he his now entering this quarrel with Satan, even in the entrance of his Ministry, so doth he himself as he goeth along in it, very frequently and commonly by this very phrase, give the same intimation for the same purpose. Nathanael had proclaimed him the Son of God, he instantly titles himself, the Son of Man; not only to show his humanity, [for that Nathanael was assured of by the words of Philip, who calls him, Jesus of Nazeret, the son of Joseph ] but to resolve the thoughts of the hearers to the first promise, and to lead them to look for restoring of that by this second Adam which was lost in the first. To him was heaven shut upon his fall, and he lost his former converse and attendance of Angels, but ye shall see heaven open, and the Angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man, that you may know that the second Adam is here.
It is true indeed that Ezekiel and Daniel are called either of them Son of Man, Ezek. 2. 1. &c. Dan. 8. 17. and that all men in general are called the sons of Man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Psal. 62. 9. as nomen naturae, and so we deny not but this title doth denote and show Christ's humanity, and may tell us to what honor God raised our nature in him: But when he doth often style himself by the title with such an Emphasis, it draws the eyes and thoughts of all to meditate also and consider upon this further thing.
SECTION XIII.
S. JOHN. CHAP. II.
Christ's first miracle, changing of forms.
His first Passover.
AND the third there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there. 2. And both Jesus was called, and his Disciples to the marriage. 3. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6. And there were set there six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water; and they filled them up to the brim. 8. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the Governor of the Feast: And they bare it. 9. When the Ruler of the Feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was, (but the servants which drew the water knew) the Governor of the Feast called the Bridegroom, 10. And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now. 11. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory, and his Disciples believed on him.
12. After this he went down to Capernaum he and his mother, and his brethren, and his Disciples, and they continued there not many days.
Christ's first Passover after his Baptism.
13. And the Jews Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14. And found in the Temple those that sold oxen and sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting. 15. And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the Temple, and the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers money, and overthrew the tables. 16. And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence, make not my Fathers house an house of merchandize. 17. And his Disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine House hath eaten me up. 18. Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou dost these things? 19. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this Temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21. But he spake of the Temple of his body. 22. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his Disciples remembered that he had said this unto them: and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. 23. Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover in the Feast-day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. 24. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25, And needed not that any should testify of man, for he knew what was in man.
Reason of the Order.
THERE need not any words, nor much pains to confirm the order and connection of this Chapter with that that went before, nor the conjunction of these stories of this Chapter one to another. For the words, on the third day, used in the very front of the Chapter, do so plainly tie it to the preceding, that there needeth no more to be said of it. And the transition of the story from Cana to Capernaum, and from Capernaum to the Passover at Jerusalem, is so clear, that he that runneth may read the connection, and none can make any doubt or scruple at all of it: Only when it is said in verse. 12. After this he went down to Capernaum; it is to be understood, with some stay made before in Galilee, as shall be shown at the explanation of the verse.
Harmony and Explanation.
Verse 1.
NOT to be too curious in finding out reasons why Christ should work his first miracle at a marriage, and why by transforming water into wine, about which business some Expositors have been needlessly industrious; these particulars cannot be passed over without observation, they are so obvious and emergent out of the thing itself: 1. That as marriage was the first institution that God ordained, so at a marriage was the first miracle that our Savior wrought. 2. That as he had shown himself miraculous but a little while ago in an extraordinary fast, so doth he now by an extraordinary provision for a feast. 3. That though he refused to turn stones into bread, to satisfy his own hunger, because it would have been for the satisfaction of Satan, yet doth he not refuse to turn water into wine, to make up the full festivity at a marriage, because it would be for the showing forth of his own glory. 4. That as the first miracle that was wrought in the world by man was transformation, Exod. 7. 9, 20. so is the first miracle that was wrought by the Son of man; and he worketh no more of the same nature. 5. That as the first time you hear of John the Baptist in his public Ministry, ye hear of his strict diet, and that he cometh neither eating nor drinking; so the first time ye hear of Christ towards his public Ministry, ye hear of him at a marriage feast, and turning water into wine. 6. If any will observe from his being at this marriage feast, that he honored marriage, and allowed of moderate and sober feasting: Or, 7. if from this, and his turning water into wine, any will think of the marriage of Christ and his Church, and of things changed into a better condition under the Gospel, and of the Elements of the Gospel-Sacraments, water and wine, he hath liberty, if he can find any profit in such observations. But how Christ's being present at this marriage, should discharge marriage of the disorders wherein it was before by divorces, re-marriages, polygamies, and so make Christian marriage a Sacrament, as the Rhemists note upon this place, is a thing so far fetched, that it is an argument only fit for Papists that have such an implicit faith, as to believe anything. And if one should have questioned the Rhemists, did not Christ by being present at this and other feasts, discharge feasts also of their disorders, of drunkenness, excess, and vanity, and make Christian feasting a Sacrament too? No doubt we should have some very learned distinction to show the difference.
§ In Cana of Galilee.
Expositors even generally do speak here of a Cana the great, and Cana the less, the greater near Sidon; the less, they agree not where: the one, as Maldonado tells us, called, Cana Sidoniorum, or, Cana of the Sido ians; and the other, Cana of Galilee. I cannot track this distinction further back, than to Jerome in locis Hebraicis: and withal I cannot see why it should be so currently and generally entertained as it is, unless he had given better grounds for it than I find any. It is true indeed, that the Scripture speaketh of a double Cana, one in the tribe of Asher, Josh. 19. 28. and the other in the tribe of Ephraim, Josh. 16. 8. & 17. 9. That in the tribe of Asher is mentioned indeed with great Sidon, not with any inference that it lay so very near it, but that the lines of Ashers coast went up towards Sidon, for of that, and not of Cana's being near Sidon, is that place to be understood: Now this Cana was certainly in Galilee past denial [for Asher was in Galilee; ] and where to find another Cana in Galilee, I believe it will be impossible to tell: This therefore I cannot but conclude to be the place, and that it is called Cana of Galilee, to distinguish it from the other Cana in the tribe of Ephraim which was Cana of Samaria: And thus supposing this our▪ Cana to be in the tribe of Asher, as the Scripture showeth it us, those words of Jacob may not unfitly be applied to this present occurrence there, that now Asher yieldeth royal dainties indeed, Gen. 49. 20. when Christ turneth water into wine.
Joseph once resided in this Town, as he testifieth himself, In vita sua, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I was at that time in the town of Galilee called Cana; and he relateth, that having a sudden occasion to go from thence to Tiberias, he marched all night, and came thither early in the morning.
§ And the mother of Jesus was there.
His Father Joseph, it is like, was now dead, for there is no mention of him anymore in the Gospel; and when Christ died, then it is apparent that Mary was a widow, for he commendeth her to his Disciple John, and he taketh her to his own house, Joh. 19. 26. &c.
Now Mary had very near kindred in this town of Cana, namely, Mary the wife of Alpheas, or Cleopas, and all that family by that relation. For 1. Mary the wife of Cleopas is called her sister, Joh. 19. 25. and that same Mary is called the mother of James and Joses, Matth. 27. 56. which were undoubtedly the sons of Alpheus, Mark 3. 18. So that Alpheus and Cleopas were but one and the same name, and Mary his wife was very near allied to the Virgin Mary. 2. Alpheus and his family lived in Cana, as may be collected by this, that one of his sons, namely, Simon, is called a Canaanite, to distinguish him from Simon Peter, Mark 3. 18. & 6. 3. And he is called a Canaanite, as meaning and importing that he was a man of Cana.
That this marriage therefore was in Alpheus his house, may be supposed upon this; That 1. Mary and Jesus their near kindred are invited, and all Jesus Disciples for his sake. 2. That Mary the mother of Jesus is so careful about the wine, lest the feast should be spoiled, and the Bridegroom and his family should be disgraced by it. And 3. in that the Evangelist presently after the story of this feast, speaketh of brethren of Jesus, that is, his kinsmen, that went with him to Capernaum, ver. 12. whereas he had no kinsmen in his company before this feast at all: Now these kinsmen or brethren were James, and Judas, and Simon, and Joses, Mark 6. 3.
Ver. 3. The mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
As it is apparent by the very frame of these words, that the Virgin looked after a miracle; so it is something strange, upon what ground she doth expect it. Had she seen any miracle done by him heretofore? Some conceive she had; as that, in the poor and indigent estate of Joseph, he had sometimes supplied necessaries by miracle when he lived there as a private man: but this hath not such certainty in itself, or ground in Scripture, as to be a sufficient resolution that this was the ground upon which his mother now desires a miracle. But this is undoubted, that she knew him to be the Messias, and the Son of God; this she had had so many evidences and assurances of, that that was past all denial with her, and it may be that was it that she built upon, when she proposeth to him, to povide wine in a miraculous way. It is true, no question, that her eye was upon that, and upon that power that was lodged in his being the Son of God, as knowing that he was able to do such a thing if it pleased him; but what warrant had she to urge the acting of that power, since for ought we find, she had never seen him do any miracle before; nay, where, or whence had she intimation of his doing any miracle at all? Yes, she had intimation of such a thing, and of such a thing to be begun ere long, from those words of Christ spoken but the day before: From henceforth ye shall see the Heavens opened, and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. From those very words I conceive she took the rise of her demanding a miracle from her son. For in them he had plainly told his Disciples then present with him, (and there is very good ground to suppose her then to be in the company too) that they should see, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from that time, some divine and heavenly manifestation of him, though he were the Son of man, yet to be the Son of God; and that now he would begin to show himself in his actings and working of wonders, agreeable and suitable to one that had Heaven and Angels at his will and attendance: Upon this it is that she builds her request and proposal at this time, and her words are words of faith, for she believeth what Christ had spoken, and therefore she speaketh; and although she receiveth some check in Christ's answer to her, for her going about to limit and determine the hic & nunc of those his miraculous actions, yet was the proposal itself a fruit of her faith, and Christ seeth so much in her, and refuseth her not.
Ver. 4. Woman what have I to do with thee?
There is exceeding much ado among the Romish party, to mince and to qualify these words, that they may not be a reprehension; for they cannot endure that any one should think, that the Virgin Mary ever did anything worthy of reproof. The Rhemists gloss upon the words, shall serve to show their industry in this matter, to spare the alleging of more, which might be done exceeding abundantly, and (when all is alleged) but to little satisfaction. Christ then may mean here, say they, What is that woman to me and thee being but strangers, that they want wine; as some intepret it: or (which is the more proper use of that kind of speech in holy Writ) what have I to do with thee? that is, why should I have respect to thy desire in this case? In matters touching my charge, and the commission of my Father for preaching, working miracles, and other graces, I must not be tied to flesh and blood. Which was not a reprehension of our Lady, or signification that he would not hear her in this or other things pertaining to God's glory, or the good of men, for the event showeth the contrary; but it was a lesson to the company that heard it, and namely to his Disciples, that respect of kindred should not draw them to do anything against reason, or be the principal motion, why they do their duties, but God's glory. And a little after, Our Lady knew it was no check to her, but a doctrine to others. Now quorsum hoc? Why do these men, and generally all the Expositors of the same school keep such ado to clear this from a reprehension? why, because the Virgin Mary must have no check by no means: but if it had been any woman in the world but she, or any man in the world but Peter, it is a question whether we should have had all this ado to carry these words out of a reprehension.
The manner of the expression they cannot deny to be of a reprehensive nature, the common use of it in Scripture is so apparent, Judge. 11. 12. 2 Sam. 16. 10. Ezr. 4. 3. Matth. 8. 29. and divers of the most ancient Fathers have understood it here in such a sense; as Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Augustine, Athanasius, produced by Beza upon the place. It is more pertinent, and to the purpose therefore, to examine the reason why our Savior giveth his mother such a check, than to seek evasions and arguments to discharge it from being such a thing.
There be that have conceived that our Savior that knew all hearts, did perceive a little pride and vain-glory breathing in these words of his mother, as if she sought for, and was tickled with some desire of esteem and glory, which would redound to her upon these actions of her son: But upon what ground they have built so uncharitable a gloss as this is far from apparency. Although we hold not the Virgin Mary free from sin, as the Papists do, (for upon Mark 3. 31. we cannot but lay a very foul sin to her charge) yet do I not know any cause for which to charge her with pride, especially here where the respect and care of her kinsmans credit in whose house she now was, did move her to propose this to her son, rather than any respect of her own. But others more charitably somewhat have construed it so, as if Christ should check her for going about to keep him still under her maternal correction and commands, when he was now come to so full an age, as that he might very well be guide of his own actions, and accordingly they have read the latter clause by way of question, What is not mine hour yet come? that I may be at mine own disposal, but still must be at the mothers command? but besides the quaintness of this interrogative reading, hardly warranted by any Copy extant, it may very well he supposed that there was something more that our Savior looked after in the matter, than his own privilege and immunity from his mothers command, or else as the former exposition laid some aspersion of pride upon the mother, this doth very nearly do it upon the Son: The mind of Christ therefore in the uttering of these words, may best be understood by those that he speaketh with them, Mine hour is not yet come, as he being the best Expositor of himself, if we can rightly expound those.
§ Mine hour is not yet come.
Not to trouble myself and the Reader to show that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , an hour, in Scripture is not always taken in that strict sense, as an hour properly is taken with us, but that it very commonly and often is used to signify time in general, and of an undefined measure; these words of Christ seem to have this aim. He had told the day before, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , From thenceforth they should see the Heavens opened, &c. that is, that now he began to be revealed, and from henceforward he must declare himself in his Public Ministry and in power. Mary taketh occasion of her proposal to him for this miracle from his own words, as was observed before; But Christ says no, upon this reason, because his working miracles was to confirm his doctrine, and therefore it were fit he should first preach and show his first miracle rather upon a Sermon than upon a feast: And that this is his mind in this clause, may be concluded by his condescension, and in that he doth accomplish what the Virgin his mother doth desire, although he seem to deny her desire: He first gives her a mild reprehension, for that she will be meddling so with his Ministerial actings, as that when he hath but told that he must do miracles, she will offer to prescribe the time and occasion. This he doth in those words, Woman, what have I to do with thee? He then rectifies her in the doctrine concerning his miracles, namely, that they were not to be acted upon all offers and occasions, but to confirm his Doctrine among those uncredulous ones, that unless they saw a sign or wonder would not believe: This he doth in this clause, Mine hour is not yet come: And then he acts the miracle that she did desire, because he knew it would have the fruit here that his miracles aimed and looked after, namely, belief in those that saw it; and so it had, for his Disciples that he had chosen before in the former Chapter, believed on him; ver. 11. and there were new ones added, of his own kindred: So that though the former part of Christ's speech in this verse be a flat reprehension of his mother, yet is not the latter part a flat denial of her request, but an exposition of the most proper meaning of his former words. Now if it be questioned when that hour came of which he speaketh, it is answered by some when John the Baptist was laid up in his prison, for that then it is said, Jesus began to preach, &c. but it is more than apparent that Jesus both preached very much, and did miracles very many before that time, and therefore those words, From that time Jesus began to preach, are to be construed in another sense, than in an antithesis to what he had done before, as shall be shown when we come there. And this hour that he speaketh of here, is to be understood of the first time of his public Ministry and Miracles after this; which the text at the furthest gives account to have been at Jerusalem at the Passover, ver. 23. For Jerusalem was the chief City, and the place where Messias was especially looked for, and therefore the Evangelist doth properly refer us thither for the miracles after this; and to observe his hour there come.
The strangeness of Christ's seeming to deny to do this miracle, and yet doing it, hath put some upon this manner of reconciling of the matter, namely, that while there was any wine remaining, he refused to do it, lest the miracle should not be apparent enough, but some suspicion might have been that there was some remnant of, or some mixture with the old wine; but when that was all gone, then he wrought the miracle, and then it was undeniable, and accordingly they understand the tense in the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not when the wine was clean gone, but when it was in failing. But besides that the Greek word will not make this out, the same cavil might have been now, if they would have cavilled, as before: for the cross-grain'd unbelievers that would have said before, that there was some mixture of the water with the wine that remained; might say now as well, that there was some mixture of the water with some wine that was concealed.
Ver. 5. His mother saith unto the Servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
Here is a scruple, that Mary should be denied as she was in the verse before, and yet be so confident of the thing to be done, as she is in this. Divers answers are given to it, as 1. That she doubted not but that he would begin to work miracles the sooner for her sake. 2. That she was assured of his power, and of his benignity towards all. 3. By her familiarity with him, and acquaintance with all his manner of speeches, she knew it was no repulse. 4. The strength of her Faith would not suffer her to doubt. 5. It may be after his check given her for instruction, he shown some evidence that he would do this thing, either by word or gesture, which the Evangelist hath concealed. 6. There is negatio probationis, sometimes used in Scripture, as Gen. 19. 2. the Angels say unto Lot, Nay, but we will lodge in the streets, and Mat. 15. 26. It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to dogs. Not that the Angels were fixedly resolved to lie in the streets all night, but that they would try and put on Lots importunity: Nor that Christ was determinately resolvedly not to help the woman of Canaan, but that he would try and exercise her faith: So may we understand the denial here, and so did Mary understand it. Not that he did hereby totally and irreversibly gainsay her desire and proposal, [the sequel shows the contrary] but that he would instruct her and inform her understanding, and prove and strain her Faith, to see how it would act upon such a denial. And it acted strongly, and as she asked in faith, so she goes on in Faith, and according to her faith it was done unto her.
Ver. 6. And there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews.
By purifying here, is not meant those sprinklings and washings that were commanded by the Law for the cleansing of the unclean, [for that uncleanness lasted till even, and what to do with those washings at a feast?] but those traditional and Pharasaical washings of the hands, mentioned Matth. 15. 2. which the Jews used before they ate bread, and of Tables, and cups, and platters, mentioned Mar. 7. Now there is a special tract in the Talmud, concerning this washing of their hands, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jadaim, which may give some light to this matter in hand. There is discoursed, first, concerning the quantity of water necessary for one man's hands, or the minimum quod sic, the least measure that may be used, and such as if there be less, the washing is not right; their rule for that is this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, they allow the fourth part of a Log of water to the hands of one man, yea, of two, half a Log to three or four, a whole Log to five, or to ten, or to an hundred: Now this measure called a Log, mentioned Lev. 14. 12. we shall consider of by and by.
Then they discourse concerning the vessels in which water is to be put for this purpose, and that matter they determine thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That water for the hands may be put in any vessel, yea, even in a vessel of ox dung. [for so the Hebrew gloss upon the place explaineth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] or, in a vessel of stone, [such were those vessels we have in mention here] or, in a vessel of Earth: Then they speak of the manner of washing, that it is by pouring of water upon the hands out of a vessel, and they dispute what water this must be, which will be more proper to consider of upon Matth. 15. if the Lord bring us thither: And there also may be produced the prayer they made when they washed their hands.
But for our present purpose, it appeareth by the rule they give about washing the hands, that these vessels mentioned here by the Evangelist, were not the vessels out of which they poured water upon their hands when they washed, for these were too heavy for such a purpose, but they stood here with water in them, to take out from thence either into the vessels that they poured out of upon their hands, or for washing of their cups and tables as occasion served. Now the number of six was not either the set and constant number of such vessels at such occasions, nor is there any mystical business in it, but the number of vessels was now suited to the company of guests, and occasion of much washing; and their number is mentioned for the setting forth of the miracle the more, when not only so much water was made wine in an Instant, but also in so many several vessels.