1

Sketches of

the

AncientHebrews

Social Lifeby Alfred Edersheim

(Edited by Chuck Cunningham)

Chapter Page

Preface 21 Palestine Eighteen Centuries 3

Ago2 Hebrews and Gentiles in 7

"The Land"3 In Galilee at the time of our 13

Lord

Chapter Page

4 Travelling in Palestine-- 17Roads, Inns, Hospitality,Custom-House Officers,Taxation, Publicans

5 In Judaea 236 Hebrew Homes 337 The Upbringing of Hebrew 39

Children8 Subjects of Study. 46

Home Education in Israel;Female Education. ElementarySchools, Schoolmasters, andSchool Arrangements.

9 Mothers, Daughters, and 52Wives in Israel

10 In Death and After Death 6011 Hebrew Views on Trade, 67

Tradesmen, andTrades' Guilds

12 Commerce 7413 Among the People, and 79

with the Pharisees14 The "Fraternity" of Pharisees 8415 Relation of the Pharisees 88

to the Sadducees and Essenes,and to the Gospel of Christ

16 Synagogues: Their Origin, 92Structureand Outward Arrangements

17 The Worship of the 98Synagogue

18 Brief Outline of Ancient 103Hebrew Theological Literature

2

PrefaceThe object of this volume is kindred to that of myprevious book on The Temple, its Ministry andServices as they were at the Time of YahoshuaChrist. In both I have wished to transport thereader into the land of Palestine at the time of ourLord and of His apostles, and to show him, so faras lay within the scope of each book, as it were,the scene on which, and the persons among whomthe events recorded in New Covenant history hadtaken place. For I believe, that in measure as werealize its surroundings--so to speak, see and hearfor ourselves what passed at the time, enter into itsideas, become familiar with its habits, modes ofthinking, its teaching and worship--shall we notonly understand many of the expressions andallusions in the New Covenant, but also gain freshevidence of the truth of its history alike from itsfaithfulness to the picture of society, such as weknow it to have been, and from the contrast of itsteaching and aims to those of the contemporariesof our Lord.1

In my book on The Temple, its Ministryand Services, I endeavored to carry the reader withme into the Sanctuary, and to make him witnessall connected with its institutions, its priesthood,and its solemnities. In this book I have sought totake him into ordinary civil society, and to makehim mingle with the men and women of thatperiod, see them in their homes and families, learntheir habits and manners, and follow them in theirordinary life--all, as illustrative of New Covenanthistory; at the same time endeavoring to present ina popular form the scenes witnessed.

Another, and perhaps the most importantpart in its bearing on Christianity, yet remains tobe done: to trace the progress of religious thought--as regards the canon of Scripture, the Messiah,the law, sin, and salvation--to describe thecharacter of theological literature, and to show thestate of doctrinal belief at the time of our Lord. It

1 For, a careful study of the period leaves this conviction on themind: that--with reverence be it said--Yahoshua Christ was strictlyof His time, and that the New Covenant is, in its narratives,language, and allusions, strictly true to the period andcircumstances in which its events are laid. But in another, and farmore important, aspect there is no similarity between Christ andHis period. "Never man"--of that, or any subsequent period--"spakelike this man"; never man lived or died as He. Assuredly, if He wasthe Son of David, He also is the Son of Yahweh, the Saviour of theworld.

is here especially that we should see alike thekinship in form and the almost contrast insubstance between what Judaism was at the timeof Christ, and the teaching and the kingdom of ourBlessed Lord. But this lay quite outside the scopeof the present volume, and belongs to a largerwork for which this and my previous book may, ina sense, be regarded as fore studies. Accordingly,where civil society touched, as on so many pointsit does, on the theological and the doctrinal, it wasonly possible to "sketch" it, leaving the outlines tobe filled up. To give a complete representation ofthe times of our Lord, in all their bearings--toshow not only who they were among whomYahoshua Christ moved, but what they knew,thought, and believed--and this as the frame, so tospeak, in which to set as a picture the life of ourBlessed Lord Himself, such must now be thework, to which, with all prayerful reverence andwith most earnest study, I shall henceforth setmyself.

It seemed needful to state this, in order toexplain both the plan of this book and the mannerof its treatment. I will only add, that it embodiesthe results of many years' study, in which I haveavailed myself of every help within my reach. Itmight seem affectation, were I to enumerate thenames of all the authorities consulted or booksread in the course of these studies. Thosementioned in the footnotes constitute but a verysmall proportion of them.

Throughout, my constant object has beento illustrate the New Covenant history andteaching. Even the "Scripture Index" at the closewill show in how many instances this has beenattempted. Most earnestly then do I hope, thatthese pages may be found to cast some additionallight on the New Covenant, and that they willconvey fresh evidence--to my mind of thestrongest kind--and in a new direction, of the truth"of those things which are most surely believedamong us." And now it only remains at the closeof these investigations once more to express myown full and joyous belief in that grand truth towhich all leads up--that "CHRIST IS THE ENDOF THE LAW FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS TOEVERY ONE THAT BELIEVETH."Alfred Edersheim.The Vicarage, Loders, Bridport:November, 1876.

3

Chapter 1Palestine Eighteen Centuries

Ago

Eighteen and a half centuries ago, and theland which now lies desolate--its bare, gray hillslooking into ill-tilled or neglected valleys, itstimber cut down, its olive- and vine-clad terracescrumbled into dust, its villages stricken withpoverty and squalor, its thoroughfares insecureand deserted, its native population well-nigh gone,and with them its industry, wealth, and strength--presented a scene of beauty, richness, and busylife almost unsurpassed in the then known world.The Rabbis never weary of its praises, whethertheir theme is the physical or the moral pre-eminence of Palestine. It happened, so writes oneof the oldest Hebrew commentaries, that RabbiJonathan was sitting under a fig-tree, surroundedby his students. Of a sudden he noticed how theripe fruit overhead, bursting for richness, droppedits luscious juice on the ground, while at a littledistance the distended udder of a she-goat was nolonger able to hold the milk. "Behold," exclaimedthe Rabbi, as the two streams mingled, "the literalfulfillment of the promise: 'a land flowing withmilk and honey.'" "The land of Israel is notlacking in any product whatever," argued RabbiMeir, "as it is written (Deu 8:9): 'Thou shalt notlack anything in it.'" Nor were such statementsunwarranted; for Palestine combined every varietyof climate, from the snows of Hermon and thecool of Lebanon to the genial warmth of the Lakeof Galilee and the tropical heat of the Jordanvalley. Accordingly not only the fruit trees, thegrain, and garden produce known in our colderlatitudes were found in the land, along with thoseof sunnier climes, but also the rare spices andperfumes of the hottest zones. Similarly, it is said,every kind of fish teemed in its waters, while birdsof most gorgeous plumage filled the air with theirsong. Within such small compass the country musthave been unequalled for charm and variety. Onthe eastern side of Jordan stretched wide plains,upland valleys, park-like forests, and almostboundless corn and pasture lands; on the westernside were terraced hills, covered with olives andvines, delicious glens, in which sweet springs

murmured, and fairy-like beauty and busy life, asaround the Lake of Galilee. In the distancestretched the wide sea, dotted with spreading sails;here was luxurious richness, as in the ancientpossessions of Issachar, Manasseh, and Ephraim;and there, beyond these plains and valleys, thehighland scenery of Judah, shelving down throughthe pasture tracts of the Negev, or South country,into the great and terrible wilderness. And over all,so long as Yahweh's blessing lasted, were peaceand plenty. Far as the eye could reach, browsed"the cattle on a thousand hills"; the pastures were"clothed with flocks, the valleys also covered overwith corn"; and the land, "greatly enriched withthe river of Yahweh," seemed to "shout for joy,"and "also to sing." Such a possession, heaven-given at the first and heaven-guarded throughout,might well kindle the deepest enthusiasm.

"We find," writes one of the most learnedRabbinical commentators, supporting eachassertion by a reference to Scripture (R. Bechai),"that thirteen things are in the sole ownership ofthe Holy One, blessed be His Name! And these arethey: the silver, the gold, the priesthood, Israel, thefirst-born, the altar, the first-fruits, the anointingoil, the tabernacle of meeting, the kingship of thehouse of David, the sacrifices, the land of Israel,and the eldership." In truth, fair as the land was, itsconjunction with higher spiritual blessings gave itits real and highest value. "Only in Palestine doesthe Shechinah manifest itself," taught the Rabbis.Outside its sacred boundaries no such revelationwas possible. It was there that rapt prophets hadseen their visions, and psalmists caught strains ofheavenly hymns. Palestine was the land that hadJerusalem for its capital, and on its highest hill thattemple of snowy marble and glittering gold for asanctuary, around which clustered such preciousmemories, hallowed thoughts, and glorious, wide-reaching hopes. There is no religion so strictlylocal as that of Israel. Heathenism was indeed theworship of national deities, and Judaism that ofYahweh, the God of heaven and earth. But thenational deities of the heathen might betransported, and their rites adapted to foreignmanners. On the other hand, while Christianitywas from the first universal in its character anddesign, the religious institutions and the worshipof the Pentateuch, and even the prospects openedby the prophets were, so far as they concerned

4

Israel, strictly of Palestine and for Palestine.They are wholly incompatible with the permanentloss of the land. An extra-Palestinian Judaism,without priesthood, altar, temple, sacrifices, tithes,first-fruits, Sabbatical and Jubilee years, must firstset aside the Pentateuch, unless, as in Christianity,all these be regarded as blossoms designed toripen into fruit, as types pointing to, and fulfilledin higher realities.2 Outside the land even thepeople are no longer Israel: in view of the Gentilesthey are Hebrews; in their own view, "thedispersed abroad."

All this the Rabbis could not fail to perceive.Accordingly when, immediately after thedestruction of Jerusalem by Titus, they setthemselves to reconstruct their brokencommonwealth, it was on a new basis indeed, butstill within Palestine. Palestine was the MountSinai of Rabbinism. Here rose the spring of theHalachah, or traditional law, whence it flowed inever-widening streams; here, for the firstcenturies, the learning, the influence, and the ruleof Judaism centered; and there they would fainhave perpetuated it. The first attempts at rivalry bythe Babylonian schools of Hebrew learning werekeenly resented and sharply put down. Only theforce of circumstances drove the Rabbisafterwards voluntarily to seek safety and freedomin the ancient seats of their captivity, where,politically unmolested, they could give the finaldevelopment to their system. It was this desire topreserve the nation and its learning in Palestinewhich inspired such sentiments as we are about toquote. "The very air of Palestine makes one wise,"said the Rabbis. The Scriptural account of theborderland of Paradise, watered by the riverHavilah, of which it is said that "the gold of thatland is good," was applied to their earthly Eden,

2 * This is not the place to explain what substitution Rabbinismproposed for sacrifices, etc. I am well aware that modern Judaismtries to prove by such passages as 1 Sam 15:22; Psa 51:16, 17; Isa1:11-13; Hosea 6:6, that, in the view of the prophets, sacrifices, andwith them all the ritual institutions of the Pentateuch, were of nopermanent importance. To the unprejudiced reader it seemsdifficult to understand how even party-spirit could draw suchsweeping conclusions from such premises, or how t could ever beimagined that the prophets had intended by their teaching, not toexplain or apply, but to set aside the law so solemnly given onSinai. However, the device is not new. A solitary voice venturedeven in the second century on the suggestion that the sacrificialworship had been intended only by way of accommodation, topreserve Israel from lapsing into heathen rites!

and paraphrased to mean, "there is no learning likethat of Palestine." It was a saying, that "to live inPalestine was equal to the observance of all thecommandments." "He that hath his permanentabode in Palestine," so taught the Talmud, "is sureof the life to come." "Three things," we read inanother authority, "are Israel's through suffering:Palestine, traditional lore, and the world to come."Nor did this feeling abate with the desolation oftheir country. In the third and fourth centuries ofour era they still taught, "He that dwells inPalestine is without sin."

Centuries of wandering and of changes havenot torn the passionate love of this land from theheart of the people. Even superstition becomeshere pathetic. If the Talmud (Cheth. iii. a.) hadalready expressed the principle, "Whoever isburied in the land of Israel, is as if he were buriedunder the altar," one of the most ancient Hebrewcommentaries (Ber. Rabba) goes much farther.From the injunction of Jacob and Joseph, and thedesire of the fathers to be buried within the sacredsoil, it is argued that those who lay there were tobe the first "to walk before Yahweh in the land ofthe living" (Psa 116:9), the first to rise from thedead and to enjoy the days of the Messiah. Not todeprive of their reward the pious, who had not theprivilege of residing in Palestine, it was added,that Yahweh would make subterranean roads andpassages into the Holy Land, and that, when theirdust reached it, the spirit of Yahweh would raisethem to new life, as it is written (Eze 37:12-14):"O My people, I will open your graves, and causeyou to come up out of your graves, and bring youinto the land of Israel...and shall put My spirit inyou, and ye shall live; and I shall place you inyour own land." Almost every prayer and hymnbreathes the same love of Palestine. Indeed, itwere impossible, by any extracts, to convey thepathos of some of those elegies in which theSynagogue still bewails the loss of Zion, orexpresses the pent-up longing for its restoration.Desolate, they cling to its ruins, and believe, hope,and pray--oh, how ardently! In almost everyprayer--for the time that shall come, when theland, like Sarah of old, will, at the bidding ofYahweh, have youth, beauty, and fruitfulnessrestored, and in Messiah the King "a horn of

5

salvation shall be raised up"3 to the house ofDavid.

Yet it is most true, as noticed by a recentwriter, that no place could have been morecompletely swept of relics than is Palestine.Where the most solemn transactions have takenplace; where, if we only knew it, every footstepmight be consecrated, and rocks, and caves, andmountaintops be devoted to the holiestremembrances--we are almost in absoluteignorance of exact localities. In Jerusalem itselfeven the features of the soil, the valleys,depressions, and hills have changed, or at least lieburied deep under the accumulated ruins ofcenturies. It almost seems as if Yahweh meant todo with the land what Hezekiah had done with thatrelic of Moses--the brazen serpent--when hestamped it to pieces, lest its sacred memoriesshould convert it into an occasion for idolatry. Thelie of land and water, of mountain and valley, arethe same; Hebron, Bethlehem, the Mount ofOlives, Nazareth, the Lake of Gennesaret, the landof Galilee, are still there, but all changed in formand appearance, and with no definite spot to whichone could with absolute certainty attach the mostsacred events. Events, then, not places; spiritualrealities, not their outward surroundings, havebeen given to mankind by the land of Palestine.

"So long as Israel inhabited Palestine," saysthe Babylonian Talmud, "the country was wide;but now it has become narrow." There is only toomuch historical truth underlying this somewhatcuriously-worded statement. Each successivechange left the boundaries of the Holy Landnarrowed. Never as yet has it actually reached theextent indicated in the original promise toAbraham (Gen 15:18), and afterwards confirmedto the children of Israel (Exo 23:31). The nearestapproach to it was during the reign of King David,when the power of Judah extended as far as theriver Euphrates (2 Sam 8:3-14). At present thecountry to which the name Palestine attaches issmaller than at any previous period. As of old, itstill stretches north and south "from Dan toBeersheba"; in the east and west from Salcah (themodern Sulkhad) to "the great sea," the

3 * These are words of prayer taken from one of the most ancientfragments of the Judean liturgy, and repeated, probably for twothousand years, every day by every Judean.

Mediterranean. Its superficial area is about 12,000square miles, its length from 140 to 180, itsbreadth in the south about 75, and in the northfrom 100 to 120 miles. To put it more pictorially,the modern Palestine is about twice as large asWales; it is smaller than Holland, and about equalin size to Belgium. Moreover, from the highestmountain-peaks a glimpse of almost the wholecountry may be obtained. So small was the landwhich Yahweh chose as the scene of the mostmarvelous events that ever happened on earth, andwhence He appointed light and life to flow forthinto all the world!

When our blessed Savior trod the soil ofPalestine, the country had already undergonemany changes. The ancient division of tribes hadgiven way; the two kingdoms of Judah and Israelexisted no longer; and the varied foreigndomination, and the brief period of absolutenational independence, had alike ceased. Yet, withthe characteristic tenacity of the East for the past,the names of the ancient tribes still attached tosome of the districts formerly occupied by them(comp. Matt 4:13, 15). A comparatively smallnumber of the exiles had returned to Palestine withEzra and Nehemiah, and the Hebrew inhabitantsof the country consisted either of those who hadoriginally been left in the land, or of the tribes ofJudah and Benjamin. The controversy about theten tribes, which engages so much attention in ourdays, raged even at the time of our Lord. "Will Hego unto the dispersed among the Gentiles?" askedthe Hebrews; when unable to fathom the meaningof Christ's prediction of His departure, using thatmysterious vagueness of language in which wegenerally clothe things, which we pretend to, butreally do not, know. "The ten tribes are beyond theEuphrates till now, and are an immense multitude,and not to be estimated by numbers," writesJosephus, with his usual grandiloquent self-complacency. But where--he informs us as little asany of his other contemporaries. We read in theearliest Hebrew authority, the Mishnah (Sanh. x.3): "The ten tries shall never return again, as it iswritten (Deu 29:28), 'And He cast them intoanother land, as this day.' As 'this day' goes anddoes not return again, so they also go and do notreturn. This is the view of Rabbi Akiba. RabbiElieser says, 'As the day becomes dark and haslight again, so the ten tribes, to whom darkness

6

has come; but light shall also be restored tothem.'"

At the time of Christ's birth Palestine wasgoverned by Herod the Great; that is, it wasnominally an independent kingdom, but under thesuzerainty of Rome. On the death of Herod--thatis, very close upon the opening of the gospelstory--a fresh, though only temporary, division ofhis dominions took place. The events connectedwith it fully illustrate the parable of our Lord,recorded in Luke 19:12-15, 27. If they do not formits historical groundwork, they were at least sofresh in the memory of Christ's hearers, that theirminds must have involuntarily reverted to them.Herod died, as he had lived, cruel and treacherous.A few days before his end, he had once morealtered his will, and nominated Archelaus hissuccessor in the kingdom; Herod Antipas (theHerod of the gospels), tetrarch of Galilee andPeraea; and Philip, tetrarch of Gaulonitis,Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Panias--districts towhich, in the sequel, we may have further to refer.As soon after the death of Herod as circumstanceswould permit, and when he had quelled a rising inJerusalem, Archelaus hastened to Rome to obtainthe emperor's confirmation of his father's will. Hewas immediately followed by his brother HerodAntipas, who in a previous testament of Herod hadbeen left what Archelaus now claimed. Nor werethe two alone in Rome, They found there already anumber of members of Herod's family, eachclamorous for something, but all agreed that theywould rather have none of their own kindred asking, and that the country should be put underRoman sway; if otherwise, they anyhow preferredHerod Antipas to Archelaus. Each of the brothershad, of course, his own party, intriguing,maneuvering, and trying to influence the emperor.Augustus inclined from the first to Archelaus. Theformal decision, however, was for a timepostponed by a fresh insurrection in Judaea, whichwas quelled only with difficulty. Meanwhile, aHebrew deputation appeared in Rome, entreatingthat none of the Herodians might ever beappointed king, on the ground of their infamousdeeds, which they related, and that they (theHebrews) might be allowed to live according totheir own laws, under the suzerainty of Rome.Augustus ultimately decided to carry out the willof Herod the Great, but gave Archelaus the title of

ethnarch instead of king, promising him the highergrade if he proved deserving of it (Matt 2:22). Onhis return to Judaea, Archelaus (according to thestory in the parable) took bloody vengeance on"his citizens that hated him, and sent a messageafter him, saying, We will not have this man toreign over us." The reign of Archelaus did not lastlong. Fresh and stronger complaints came fromJudaea. Archealus was deposed, and Judaea joinedto the Roman province of Syria, but with aprocurator of its own. The revenues of Archelaus,so long as he reigned, amounted to veryconsiderably over 240,000 pounds a year; those ofhis brothers respectively to a third and sixth of thatsum. But his was as nothing compared to theincome of Herod the Great, which stood at theenormous sum of about 680,000 pounds; and thatafterwards of Agrippa II, which is computed ashigh as half a million. In thinking of these figures,it is necessary to bear in mind the generalcheapness of living in Palestine at the time, whichmay be gathered from the smallness of the coins incirculation, and from the lowness of the labormarket. The smallest coin, a (Hebrew) perutah,amounted to only the sixteenth of a penny. Again,readers of the New Covenant will remember that alaborer was wont to receive for a day's work infield or vineyard a denarius (Matt 20:2), or about8d., while the Good Samaritan paid for the chargeof the sick person whom he left in the inn onlytwo denars, or about 1s. 4d (Luke 10:35).

But we are anticipating. Our main objectwas to explain the division of Palestine in the timeof our Lord. Politically speaking, it consisted ofJudaea and Samaria, under Roman procurators;Galilee and Peraea (on the other side Jordan),subject to Herod Antipas, the murderer of John theBaptist--"that fox" full of cunning and cruelty, towhom the Lord, when sent by Pilate, would giveno answer; and Batanaea, Trachonitis, andAuranitis, under the rule of the tetrarch Philip. Itwould require too many details to describeaccurately those latter provinces. Suffice, that theylay quite to the north-east, and that one of theirprincipal cities was Caesarea Philippi (called afterthe Roman emperor, and after Philip himself),where Peter made that noble confession, whichconstituted the rock on which the Church was tobe built (Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29). It was the wifeof this Philip, the best of all Herod's sons, whom

7

her brother-in-law, Herod Antipas, induced toleave her husband, and for whose sake hebeheaded John (Matt 14:3, etc.; Mark 6:17; Luke3:19). It is well to know that this adulterous andincestuous union brought Herod immediatetrouble and misery, and that it ultimately cost himhis kingdom, and sent him into life-longbanishment.

Such was the political division ofPalestine. Commonly it was arranged into Galilee,Samaria, Judaea, and Peraea. It is scarcelynecessary to say that the Hebrews did not regardSamaria as belonging to the Holy Land, but as astrip of foreign country--as the Talmud designatesit (Chag. 25 a.), "a Cuthite strip," or "tongue,"intervening between Galilee and Judaea. From thegospels we know that the Samaritans were notonly ranked with Gentiles and strangers (Matt10:5; John 4:9,20), but that the very termSamaritan was one of reproach (John 8:48)."There be two manner of nations," says the son ofSirach (Ecclus. 1.25,26), "which my heartabhorreth, and the third is no nation; they that situpon the mountain of Samaria, and they that dwellamong the Philistines, and that foolish people thatdwell in Sichem." And Josephus has a story toaccount for the exclusion of the Samaritans fromthe Temple, to the effect that in the night of thePassover, when it was the custom to open theTemple gates at midnight, a Samaritan had comeand strewn bones in the porches and throughoutthe Temple to defile the Holy House. Mostunlikely as this appears, at least in its details, itshows the feeling of the people. On the otherhand, it must be admitted that the Samaritans fullyretaliated by bitter hatred and contempt. For, atevery period of sore national trial, the Hebrewshad no more determined or relentless enemies thanthose who claimed to be the only truerepresentatives of Israel's worship and hopes.

Chapter 2Hebrews and Gentiles in "The

Land"

Coming down from Syria, it would have beendifficult to fix the exact spot where, in the view of

the Rabbis, "the land" itself began. The boundarylines, though mentioned in four differentdocuments, are not marked in anything likegeographical order, but as ritual questionsconnected with them came up for theologicaldiscussion. For, to the Rabbis the precise limits ofPalestine were chiefly interesting so far as theyaffected the religious obligations or privileges of adistrict. And in this respect the fact that a city wasin heathen possession exercised a decisiveinfluence. Thus the environs of Ascalon, the wallof Caesarea, and that of Acco, were reckonedwithin the boundaries of Palestine, though thecities themselves were not. Indeed, viewing thequestion from this point, Palestine was to theRabbis simply "the land,"4 all other countriesbeing summed up under the designation of"outside the land." In the Talmud, even theexpression "Holy Land," so common among laterHebrews and Christians,5 does not once occur.

It needed not that addition, which might havesuggested a comparison with other countries; forto the Rabbinist Palestine was not only holy, butthe only holy ground, to the utter exclusion of allother countries, although they marked within itsboundaries an ascending scale of ten degrees ofsanctity, rising from the bare soil of Palestine tothe most holy place in the Temple (Chel. i. 6-9).But "outside the land" everything was darknessand death. The very dust of a heathen country wasunclean, and it defiled by contact. It was regardedlike a grave, or like the putrescence of death. If aspot of heathen dust had touched an offering, itmust at once be burnt. More than that, if bymischance any heathen dust had been brought intoPalestine, it did not and could not mingle with thatof "the land," but remained to the end what it hadbeen--unclean, defiled, and defiling everything towhich it adhered. This will cast light upon themeaning conveyed by the symbolical directions ofour Lord to His disciples (Matt 10:14), when Hesent them forth to mark out the boundary lines ofthe true Israel--"the kingdom of heaven," that wasat hand: "Whosoever shall not receive you, norhear your words, when ye depart out of that houseor city, shake off the dust of your feet." In other

4So mostly; the expression also occurs "the land of Israel."

5 The only passage of Scripture in which the term is used is Zech2:12, or rather 2:16 of the Hebrew original.

8

words, they were not only to leave such a city orhousehold, but it was to be considered and treatedas if it were heathen, just as in the similar casementioned in Matthew 18:17. All contact withsuch must be avoided, all trace of it shaken off,and that, even though, like some of the cities inPalestine that were considered heathen, they weresurrounded on every side by what was reckoned asbelonging to Israel.

The Mishnah (Shev, vi. 1; Chall. iv. 8) marks,in reference to certain ordinances, "three lands"which might equally be designated as Palestine,but to which different ritual regulations applied.The first comprised, "all which they who came upfrom Babylon took possession of in the land ofIsrael and unto Chezib" (about three hours northof Acre); the second, "all that they who came upfrom Egypt took possession of from Chezib andunto the river (Euphrates) eastward, and untoAmanah" (supposed to be a mountain nearAntioch, in Syria); while the third, seeminglyindicating certain ideal outlines, was probablyintended to mark what "the land" would havebeen, according to the original promise ofYahweh, although it was never possessed to thatextent by Israel.6 For our present purpose, ofcourse, only the first of these definitions must beapplied to "the land." We read in Menachoth vii.1: "Every offering,7 whether of the congregationor of an individual (public or private), may comefrom 'the land,' or from 'outside the land, be of thenew product (of the year) or of old product, exceptthe omer (the wave-sheaf at the Passover) and thetwo loaves (at Pentecost), which may only bebrought from new product (that of the currentyear), and from that (which grows) within 'theland.'" To these two, the Mishnah adds in anotherpassage (Chel. i. 6) also the Biccurim, or first-fruits in their fresh state, although inaccurately,since the latter were likewise brought from what is

6 The expressions in the original are so obscure as to render itdifficult to form a quite definite judgment. In the text we havefollowed the views expressed by M. Neubauer.7 Neither of the English words: "sacrifice," "offering," or "gift"quite corresponds to the Hebrew Korban, derived from a verbwhich in one mood means to be near, and in another to bring near.In the one case it would refer to the offerings themselves, in theother to the offerers, as brought near, the offerings bringing themnear to Yahweh. The latter seems to me both etymologically andtheologically the right explanation. Aberbanel combines both in hisdefinition of Korban.

called by the Rabbis Syria,8 which seems to havebeen regarded as, in a sense, intermediate between"the land" and "outside the land."

The term Soria, or Syria, does not includethat country alone, but all the lands, which,according to the Rabbis, David had subdued, suchas Mesopotamia, Syria, Zobah, Achlab, etc. Itwould be too lengthy to explain in detail thevarious ordinances in regard to which Soria wasassimilated to, and those by which it wasdistinguished from, Palestine proper. Thepreponderance of duty and privilege was certainlyin favor of Syria, so much so, that if one couldhave stepped from its soil straight to that ofPalestine, or joined fields in the two countries,without the interposition of any Gentile strip, theland and the dust of Syria would have beenconsidered clean, like that of Palestine itself(Ohol. xviii. 7). There was thus around "the land"a sort of inner band, consisting of those countriessupposed to have been annexed by King David,and termed Soria. But besides this, there was alsowhat may be called an outer band, towards theGentile world, consisting of Egypt, Babylon,Ammon and Moab, the countries in which Israelhad a special interest, and which weredistinguished from the rest, "outside the land," bythis, that they were liable to tithes and theTherumoth, or first-fruits in a prepared state. Ofcourse neither of these contributions was actuallybrought into Palestine, but either employed bythem for their sacred purposes, or else redeemed.

Maimonides arranges all countries into threeclasses, "so far as concerns the precepts connectedwith the soil"--"the land, Soria, and outside theland"; and he divides the land of Israel intoterritory possessed before and after the Exile,while he also distinguishes between Egypt,Babylon, Moab, and Ammon, and other lands(Hilch. Ther. i. 6). In popular estimate otherdistinctions were likewise made. Thus Rabbi Joseof Galilee would have it (Bicc. i. 10), thatBiccurim 9 were not to be brought from the otherside of Jordan, "because it was not a land flowingwith milk and honey."

8 Syria sent Biccurim to Jerusalem, but was not liable to secondtithes, nor for the fourth year's product of plants (Lev 19:24).9 For a full explanation of the distinction between Biccurim andTherumoth see my work on The Temple: Its Ministry and Servicesas they were at the time of Yahoshua Christ.

9

But as the Rabbinical law in this respectdiffered from the view expressed by Rabbi Jose,his must have been an afterthought, probablyintended to account for the fact that they beyondJordan did not bring their first-fruits to theTemple. Another distinction claimed for thecountry west of the Jordan curiously reminds us ofthe fears expressed by the two and a half tribes ontheir return to their homes, after the first conquestof Palestine under Joshua (Josh 22:24,25), since itdeclared the land east of Jordan less sacred, onaccount of the absence of the Temple, of which ithad not been worthy. Lastly, Judaea properclaimed pre-eminence over Galilee, as being thecenter of Rabbinism. Perhaps it may be well hereto state that, notwithstanding strict uniformity onall principal points, Galilee and Judaea had eachits own peculiar legal customs and rights, whichdiffered in many particulars one from the other.

What has hitherto been explained fromRabbinical writings gains fresh interest when webring it to bear on the study of the New Covenant.For, we can now understand how those Zealotsfrom Jerusalem, who would have bent the neck ofthe Church under the yoke of the Law of Moses,sought out in preference the flourishingcommunities in Syria for the basis of theiroperations (Acts 15:1). There was a specialsignificance in this, as Syria formed a kind ofouter Palestine, holding an intermediate positionbetween it and heathen lands. Again, it resultsfrom our inquiries that, what the Rabbisconsidered as the land of Israel proper, may beregarded as commencing immediately south ofAntioch. Thus the city where the first GentileChurch was formed (Acts 11:20,21); where thedisciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26);where Paul so long exercised his ministry, andwhence he started on his missionary journeys,was, significantly enough, just outside the land ofIsrael. Immediately beyond it lay the country overwhich the Rabbis claimed entire sway. Travelingsouthwards, the first district, which one wouldreach, would be what is known from the gospelsas "the coasts (or tracts) of Tyre and Sidon." St.Mark describes the district more particularly(Mark 7:24) as "the borders of Tyre and Sidon."These stretched, according to Josephus (HebrewWar, iii, 35), at the time of our Lord, from theMediterranean towards Jordan. It was to these

extreme boundary tracts of "the land," thatYahoshua had withdrawn from the Pharisees,when they were offended at His opposition to their"blind" traditionalism; and there He healed by theword of His power the daughter of the "woman ofCanaan," the intensity of whose faith drew fromHis lips words of precious commendation (Matt15:28; Mark 7:29). It was chiefly a heathen districtwhere the Savior spoke the word of healing, andwhere the woman would not let the Messiah ofIsrael go without an answer. She herself was aGentile. Indeed, not only that district, but allaround, and farther on, the territory of Philip, wasalmost entirely heathen. More than that, strange asit may sound, all around the districts inhabited bythe Hebrews the country was, so to speak, fringedby foreign nationalities and by heathen worship,rites, and customs.

Properly to understand the history of thetime and the circumstances indicated in the NewCovenant, a correct view of the state of parties inthis respect is necessary. And here we must guardagainst a not unnatural mistake. If any one hadexpected to find within the boundaries of "theland" itself one nationality, one language, thesame interests, or even one religion publiclyprofessed, he would have been bitterlydisappointed. It was not merely for the presence ofthe Romans and their followers, and of a more orless influential number of foreign settlers, but theHoly Land itself was a country of mixed andhostile races, of divided interests, where close bythe side of the narrowest and most punctiliousPharisaism heathen temples rose, and heathen ritesand customs openly prevailed. In a general way allthis will be readily understood. For, those whoreturned from Babylon were comparatively few innumber, and confessedly did not occupy the landin its former extent. During the troubled period,which followed, there was a constant influx ofheathen, and unceasing attempts were made tointroduce and perpetuate foreign elements. Eventhe language of Israel had undergone a change. Inthe course of time the ancient Hebrew had whollygiven place to the Aramaean dialect, except inpublic worship and in the learned academies oftheological doctors. Such words and names in thegospels as Raka, Abba, Golgotha, Gabbatha, Akel-Dama, Bartholomaios, Barabbas, Bar-Yahoshua,and the various verbal quotations, are all

10

Aramaean. It was probably in that language thatPaul addressed the infuriated multitude, whenstanding on the top of the steps leading from theTemple into the fortress Antonia (Acts 21:40;22:1ff). But along with the Hebraic Aramaean--forso we would designate the language--the Greekhad for some time been making its way among thepeople. The Mishnah itself contains a very largenumber of Greek and Latin words with Hebraicterminations, showing how deeply Gentile life andcustoms around had affected even those who hatedthem most, and, by inference, how thoroughlythey must have penetrated Hebrew society ingeneral. But besides, it had been long the policy oftheir rulers systematically to promote all that wasGrecian in thought and feeling. It needed theobstinate determinateness, if not the bigotry, ofPharisaism to prevent their success, and this mayperhaps partly explain the extreme of theirantagonism against all that was Gentile. A briefnotice of the religious state of the outlying districtsof the country may place this in a clearer light.

In the far northeast of the land, occupyingat least in part the ancient possession of Manasseh,were the provinces belonging to the tetrarch Philip(Luke 3:1). Many spots there (Mark 8:22; Luke9:10; Matt 16:13) are dear to the Christianmemory. After the Exile these districts had beenpeopled by wild, predatory nomads, like theBedawin of our days. These lived chiefly inimmense caves, where they stored theirprovisions, and in case of attack defendedthemselves and their flocks. Herod the Great andhis successors had indeed subdued, and settledamong them, a large number of Hebrew andIdumaean colonists--the former brought fromBabylon, under the leadership of one Zamaris, andattracted, like the modern German colonists inparts of Russia, by immunity from taxation. Butthe vast majority of the people were still Syriansand Grecians, rude, barbarous, and heathens.Indeed, there the worship of the old Syrian godshad scarcely given way to the more refined rites ofGreece. It was in this neighborhood that Petermade that noble confession of faith, on which, ason a rock, the Church is built. But CaesareaPhilippi was originally Paneas, the city devoted toPan; nor does its change of name indicate a moreHebrew direction on the part of its inhabitants.Indeed, Herod the Great had built there a temple to

Augustus. But further particulars are scarcelynecessary, for recent researches have everywherebrought to light relics of the worship of thePhoenician Astarte, of the ancient Syrian god ofthe sun, and even of the Egyptian Ammon, side byside with that of the well-known Grecian deities.The same may be said of the refined Damascus,the territory of which formed here the extremeboundary of Palestine. Passing from the eastern tothe western bounds of Palestine, we find that inTyre and Ptolemais Phrygian, Egyptians,Phoenician, and Greek rites contended for themastery. In the center of Palestine,notwithstanding the pretence of the Samaritans tobe the only true representatives of the religion ofMoses, the very name of their capital, Sebaste, forSamaria, showed how thoroughly Grecianised wasthat province. Herod had built in Samaria also amagnificent temple to Augustus; and there can beno doubt that, as the Greek language, so Grecianrites and idolatry prevailed. Another outlyingdistrict, the Decapolis (Matt 4:25; Mark 5:20,7:31), was almost entirely Grecian in constitution,language, and worship. It was in fact, a federationof ten heathen cities within the territory of Israel,possessing a government of their own. Little isknown of its character; indeed, the citiesthemselves are not always equally enumerated bydifferent writers. We name those of mostimportance to readers of the New Covenant.Scythopolis, the ancient Beth-shean (Josh17:11,16; Judg 1:27; 1 Sam 31:10,12, etc.), wasthe only one of those cities situated west of theJordan. It lay about four hours south of Tiberias.Gadara, the capital of Peraea, is known to us fromMatthew 8:28; Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26. Lastly, wemention as specially interesting, Pella, the place towhich the Christians of Jerusalem fled inobedience to the warning of our Lord (Matt 24:15-20), to escape the doom of the city, when finallybeleaguered by the Romans. The situation of Pellahas not been satisfactorily ascertained, butprobably it lay at no great distance from theancient Jabesh Gilead.

But to return. From what has been said, it willappear that there remained only Galilee andJudaea proper, in which strictly Hebrew views andmanners must be sought for. Each of these will bedescribed in detail. For the present it will sufficeto remark, that north-eastern or Upper Galilee was

11

in great part inhabited by Gentiles--Phoenicians,Syrians, Arabs, and Greeks (Josephus, HebrewWar, iii, 419-427), whence the name "Galilee ofthe Gentiles" (Matt 4:15). It is strange in howmany even of those cities, with which we arefamiliar from the New Covenant, the heathenelement prevailed. Tiberias, which gave its nameto the lake, was at the time of Christ of quiterecent origin, having been built by the tetrarchHerod Antipas (the Herod of the gospel history),and named in honor of the Emperor Tiberius.Although endowed by its founder with manyprivileges, such as houses and lands for itsinhabitants, and freedom from taxation--the latterbeing continued by Vespasian after the Hebrewwar--Herod had to colonize it by main force, so faras its few Hebrew inhabitants were concerned.For, the site on which the city stood had of oldcovered a place of burial, and the whole groundwas therefore levitically unclean (Josephus, Ant,xviii, 38). However celebrated, therefore,afterwards as the great and final seat of theHebrew Sanhedrim, it was originally chiefly un-Hebrew. Gaza had its local deity; Ascalonworshipped Astarte; Joppa was the locality where,at the time when Peter had his vision there, theystill showed on the rocks of the shore the marks ofthe chains, by which Andromeda was said to havebeen held, when Perseus came to set her free.Caesarea was an essentially heathen city, thoughinhabited by many Hebrews; and one of its mostconspicuous ornaments was another temple toAugustus, built on a hill opposite the entrance tothe harbor, so as to be visible far out at sea. Butwhat could be expected, when in Jerusalem itselfHerod had reared a magnificent theatre andamphitheatre, to which gladiators were broughtfrom all parts of the world, and where games wereheld, thoroughly anti-Hebrew and heathen in theirspirit and tendency? (Josephus, Ant., xv, 274). Thefavorites and counselors by whom that monarchsurrounded himself were heathens; wherever he orhis successors could, they reared heathen temples,and on all occasions they promoted the spread ofGrecian views. Yet withal they professed to beHebrews; they would not shock Hebrewprejudices; indeed, as the building of the Temple,the frequent advocacy at Rome of the cause ofHebrews when oppressed, and many other factsshow, the Herodians would fain have kept on good

terms with the national party, or rather used it astheir tool. And so Grecianism spread. AlreadyGreek was spoken and understood by all theeducated classes in the country; it was necessaryfor intercourse with the Roman authorities, withthe many civil and military officials, and withstrangers; the "superscription" on the coins was inGreek, even though, to humor the Hebrews, noneof the earlier Herods had his own image impressedon them.10 Significantly enough, it was HerodAgrippa I, the murderer of St. James, and thewould-be murderer of St. Peter, who introducedthe un-Hebrew practice of images on coins. Thuseverywhere the foreign element was advancing. Achange or else a struggle was inevitable in the nearfuture.

And what of Judaism itself at the period? Itwas miserably divided, even though no outwardseparation had taken place. The Pharisees andSadducees held opposite principles, and hatedeach other; the Essenes looked down upon themboth. Within Pharisaism the schools of Hillel andShammai contradicted each other on almost everymatter. But both united in their unboundedcontempt of what they designated as "the country-people"--those who had no traditional learning,and hence were either unable or unwilling to sharethe discussions, and to bear the burdens of legalordinances, which constituted the chief matter oftraditionalism. There was only one feelingcommon to all--high and low, rich and poor,learned and unlettered: it was that of intensehatred of the foreigner. The rude Galileans were as"national" as the most punctilious Pharisees;indeed, in the war against Rome they furnished themost and the bravest soldiers. Everywhere theforeigner was in sight; his were the taxes levied,the soldiery, the courts of ultimate appeal, thegovernment. In Jerusalem they hung over theTemple as a guard in the fortress of Antonia, andeven kept in their custody the high-priest'sgarments,11 so that, before officiating in the

10 coin mentioned in Matthew 22:20, which bore an "image," aswell as a "superscription," must therefore have been either struck inRome, or else one of the tetrarch Philip, who was the first tointroduce the image of Caesar on strictly Hebrew coins.11 The practice commenced innocently enough. The high-priestHyrcanus, who built the Tower of Baris, kept his dress there, andhis sons continued the practice. When Herod seized thegovernment, he retained, for reasons readily understood, thiscustody, in the fortress of Antonia, which he had substituted for the

12

Temple, he had actually always to apply for themto the procurator or his representative! They wereonly just more tolerable as being downrightheathens than the Herodians, who mingledJudaism with heathenism, and, having sprungfrom foreign slaves, had arrogated to themselvesthe kingdom of the Maccabees.

Readers of the New Covenant know whatseparation Pharisaical Hebrews made betweenthemselves and heathens. It will be readilyunderstood, that every contact with heathenismand all aid to its rites should have been forbidden,and that in social intercourse any leviticaldefilement, arising from the use of what was"common or unclean," was avoided. ButPharisaism went a great deal further than this.Three days before a heathen festival alltransactions with Gentiles were forbidden, so as toafford them neither direct nor indirect helptowards their rites; and this prohibition extendedeven to private festivities, such as a birthday, theday of return from a journey, etc. On heathenfestive occasions a pious Hebrew should avoid, ifpossible, passing through a heathen city, certainlyall dealings in shops that were festively decorated.It was unlawful for Hebrew workmen to assist inanything that might be subservient either toheathen worship or heathen rule, including in thelatter the erection of court-houses and similarbuildings. It need not be explained to what lengthsor into what details Pharisaical punctiliousnesscarried all these ordinances. From the NewCovenant we know, that to enter the house of aheathen defiled till the evening (John 18:28), andthat all familiar intercourse with Gentiles wasforbidden (Acts 10:28). So terrible was theintolerance, that a Hebrewess was actuallyforbidden to give help to her heathen neighbor,when about to become a mother (Avod. S. ii. 1)! Itwas not a new question to St. Paul, when theCorinthians inquired about the lawfulness of meatsold in the shambles or served up at a feast (1 Cor10:25,27,28). Evidently he had the Rabbinical lawon the subject before his mind, while, on the one

ancient tower. On similar grounds the Romans followed the lead ofHerod. Josephus (Ant. xviii, 93) describes "the stone chamber" inwhich these garments were kept, under seal of the priests, with alight continually burning there. Vitellius, the successor of Pilate,restored to the Hebrews the custody of the high-priestly garments,when they were kept in a special apartment in the Temple.

hand, he avoided the Pharisaical bondage of theletter, and, on the other, guarded against eitherinjuring one's own conscience, or offending that ofan on-looker. For, according to Rabbi Akiba,"Meat which is about to be brought in heathenworship is lawful, but that which comes out fromit is forbidden, because it is like the sacrifices ofthe dead" (Avod. S. ii. 3). But the separation wentmuch beyond what ordinary minds might beprepared for. Milk drawn from a cow by heathenhands, bread and oil prepared by them, mightindeed be sold to strangers, but not used byIsraelites. No pious Hebrew would of course havesat down at the table of a Gentile (Acts 11:3; Gal2:12). If a heathen were invited to a Hebrewhouse, he might not be left alone in the room, elseevery article of food or drink on the table washenceforth to be regarded as unclean. If cookingutensils were bought of them, they had to bepurified by fire or by water; knives to be groundanew; spits to be made red-hot before use, etc. Itwas not lawful to let either house or field, nor tosell cattle, to a heathen; any article, howeverdistantly connected with heathenism, was to bedestroyed. Thus, if a weaving-shuttle had beenmade of wood grown in a grove devoted to idols,every web of cloth made by it was to be destroyed;nay, if such pieces had been mixed with others, tothe manufacture of which no possible objectioncould have been taken, these all became unclean,and had to be destroyed.

These are only general statements to show theprevalent feeling. It was easy to prove how itpervaded every relationship of life. The heathens,though often tolerant, of course retorted.Circumcision, the Sabbath-rest, the worship of aninvisible God, and Hebrew abstinence from pork,formed a never-ending theme of merriment to theheathen. Conquerors are not often chary indisguising their contempt for the conquered,especially when the latter presume to look downupon, and to hate them. In view of all this, what analmost incredible truth must it have seemed, whenthe Lord Yahoshua Christ proclaimed it amongIsrael as the object of His coming and kingdom,not to make of the Gentiles Hebrews, but of bothalike children of one Heavenly Father; not to rivetupon the heathen the yoke of the law, but todeliver from it Hebrew and Gentile, or rather tofulfill its demands for all! The most unexpected

13

and unprepared-for revelation, from the Hebrewpoint of view, was that of the breaking down ofthe middle wall of partition between Hebrew andGentile, the taking away of the enmity of the law,and the nailing it to His cross. There was nothinganalogous to it; not a hint of it to be found, eitherin the teaching or the spirit of the times. Quite theopposite. Assuredly, the most unlike thing toChrist were His times; and the greatest wonder ofall--"the mystery hidden from ages andgenerations"--the foundation of one universalChurch.

Chapter 3In Galilee at the time of our

Lord

"If any one wishes to be rich, let him go north;if he wants to be wise, let him come south." Suchwas the saying, by which Rabbinical pridedistinguished between the material wealth ofGalilee and the supremacy in traditional loreclaimed for the academies of Judaea proper. Alas,it was not long before Judaea lost even thisdoubtful distinction, and its colleges wanderednorthwards, ending at last by the Lake ofGennesaret, and in that very city of Tiberias whichat one time had been reputed unclean! Assuredly,the history of nations chronicles their judgment;and it is strangely significant, that the authoritativecollection of Hebrew traditional law, known as theMishnah, and the so-called Jerusalem Talmud,which is its Palestinian commentary,12 shouldfinally have issued from what was originally aheathen city, built upon the site of old forsakengraves.

But so long as Jerusalem and Judaea were thecentre of Hebrew learning, no terms of contemptwere too strong to express the supercilioushauteur, with which a regular Rabbinist regardedhis northern co-religionists. The slighting speech

12 There are two Talmuds--the Jerusalem and the Babylonian--tothe text of the Mishnah. The Babylonian Talmud is considerablyyounger than that of Jerusalem, and its traditions far more deeplytinged with superstition and error of every kind. For historicalpurposes, also, the Jerusalem Talmud is of much greater value andauthority than that of the Eastern Schools.

of Nathanael (John 1:46), "Can there any goodthing come out of Nazareth?" reads quite like acommon saying of the period; and the rebuke ofthe Pharisees to Nicodemus (John 7:52), "Search,and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,"was pointed by the mocking question, "Art thoualso of Galilee?" It was not merely self-conscioussuperiority, such as the "towns-people," as theinhabitants of Jerusalem used to be calledthroughout Palestine, were said to have commonlydisplayed towards their "country cousins" andevery one else, but offensive contempt, outspokensometimes with almost incredible rudeness, wantof delicacy and charity, but always with muchpious self-assertion. The "Lord, I thank Thee that Iam not as other men" (Luke 18:11) seems like thenatural breath of Rabbinism in the company of theunlettered, and of all who were deemedintellectual or religious inferiors; and the parabolichistory of the Pharisee and the publican in thegospel is not told for the special condemnation ofthat one prayer, but as characteristic of the wholespirit of Pharisaism, even in its approaches toYahweh. "This people who knoweth not the law(that is, the traditional law) are cursed," was thecurt summary of the Rabbinical estimate ofpopular opinion. To so terrible a length did it gothat the Pharisees would fain have excluded them,not only from common intercourse, but fromwitness-bearing, and that they even applied tomarriages with them such a passage asDeuteronomy 27:21.

But if these be regarded as extremes, twoinstances, chosen almost at random--one fromreligious, the other from ordinary life--will serveto illustrate their reality. A more complete parallelto the Pharisee's prayer could scarcely beimagined than the following. We read in theTalmud (Jer. Ber, iv. 2) that a celebrated Rabbiwas wont every day, on leaving the academy, topray in these terms: "I thank Thee, Yahweh myGod and God of my fathers, that Thou hast castmy lot among those who frequent the schools andsynagogues, and not among those who attend thetheatre and the circus. For, both I and they workand watch--I to inherit eternal life, they for theirdestruction." The other illustration, also takenfrom a Rabbinical work, is, if possible, even moreoffensive. It appears that Rabbi Jannai, whiletravelling by the way, formed acquaintance with a

14

man, whom he thought his equal. Presently hisnew friend invited him to dinner, and liberally setbefore him meat and drink. But the suspicions ofthe Rabbi had been excited. He began to try hishost successively by questions upon the text ofScripture, upon the Mishnah, allegoricalinterpretations, and lastly on Talmudical lore.Alas! on neither of these points could he satisfythe Rabbi. Dinner was over; and Rabbi Jannai,who by that time no doubt had displayed all thehauteur and contempt of a regular Rabbinisttowards the unlettered, called upon his host, ascustomary, to take the cup of thanksgiving, andreturn thanks. But the latter was sufficientlyhumiliated to reply, with a mixture of Easterndeference and Hebrew modesty, "Let Jannaihimself give thanks in his own house." "At anyrate," observed the Rabbi, "you can join with me";and when the latter had agreed to this, Jannai said,"A dog has eaten of the bread of Jannai!"

Impartial history, however, must record adifferent judgment of the men of Galilee from thatpronounced by the Rabbis, and that even whereinthey were despised by those leaders in Israel.Some of their peculiarities, indeed, were due toterritorial circumstances. The province of Galilee--of which the name might be rendered "circuit,"being derived from a verb meaning "to move in acircle"--covered the ancient possession of fourtribes: Issachar, Zebulon, Naphtali, and Asher.The name occurs already in the Old Covenant(compare Josh 20:7; 1 Kings 9:11; 2 Kings 15:29;1 Chron 6:76; and especially Isa 9:1). In the timeof Christ it stretched northwards to the possessionsof Tyre on the one side, and to Syria on the other;on the south it was bounded by Samaria--MountCarmel on the western, and the district ofScythopolis (in the Decapolis) on the eastern side,being here landmarks; while the Jordan and theLake of Gennesaret formed the general easternboundary-line. Thus regarded, it would includenames to which such reminiscences attach as "themountains of Gilboa," where "Israel and Saul felldown slain"; little Hermon, Tabor, Carmel, andthat great battle-field of Palestine, the plain ofJezreel. Alike the Talmud and Josephus divide itinto Upper and Lower Galilee, between which theRabbis insert the district of Tiberias, as MiddleGalilee. We are reminded of the history ofZaccheus (Luke 19:4) by the mark which the

Rabbis give to distinguish between Upper andLower Galilee--the former beginning "wheresycomores cease to grow." The sycomore, whichis a species of fig, must, of course, not beconfounded with our sycamore, and was a verydelicate evergreen, easily destroyed by cold (Psa78:47), and growing only in the Jordan valley, orin Lower Galilee up to the sea-coast. The mentionof that tree may also help us to fix the localitywhere Luke 17:6 was spoken by the Saviour. TheRabbis mention Kefar Hananyah, probably themodern Kefr Anan, to the north-west of Safed, asthe first place in Upper Galilee. Safed was truly "acity set on an hill"; and as such may have been inview of the Lord, when He spoke the Sermon onthe Mount (Matt 5:14). In the Talmud it ismentioned by the name of Zephath, and spoken ofas one of the signal-stations, whence theproclamation of the new moon, made by theSanhedrim in Jerusalem (see The Temple), andwith it the beginning of every month, wastelegraphed by fire-signals from hill to hillthroughout the land, and far away east of theJordan, to those of the dispersion.

The mountainous part in the north ofUpper Galilee presented magnificent scenery, withbracing air. Here the scene of the Song ofSolomon is partly laid (Cant 7:5). But its cavesand fastnesses, as well as the marshy ground,covered with reeds, along Lake Merom, gaveshelter to robbers, outlaws, and rebel chiefs. Someof the most dangerous characters came from theGalilean highlands. A little farther down, and thescenery changed. South of Lake Merom, wherethe so-called Jacob's bridge crosses the Jordan, wecome upon the great caravan road, whichconnected Damascus in the east with the greatmart of Ptolemais, on the shore of theMediterranean. What a busy life did this roadconstantly present in the days of our Lord, andhow many trades and occupations did it call intoexistence! All day long they passed--files ofcamel, mules, and asses, laden with the riches ofthe East, destined for the far West, or bringing theluxuries of the West to the far East. Travellers ofevery description--Hebrews, Greeks, Romans,dwellers in the East--were seen here. The constantintercourse with foreigners, and the settlement ofso many strangers along one of the great highwaysof the world, must have rendered the narrow-

15

minded bigotry of Judaea well-nigh impossible inGalilee.

We are now in Galilee proper, and a morefertile or beautiful region could scarcely beconceived. It was truly the land where Asherdipped his foot in oil (Deu 33:24). The Rabbisspeak of the oil as flowing like a river, and theysay that it was easier in Galilee to rear a forest ofolive-trees than one child in Judaea! The wine,although not so plentiful as the oil, was generousand rich. Corn grew in abundance, especially inthe neighbourhood of Capernaum; flax also wascultivated. The price of living was much lowerthan in Judaea, where one measure was said tocost as much as five in Galilee. Fruit also grew toperfection; and it was probably a piece of jealousyon the part of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, thatthey would not allow it to be sold at the feasts inthe city, lest people should forsooth say, "We haveonly come up in order to taste fruit from Galilee"(Pes. 8 b). Josephus speaks of the country inperfectly rapturous terms. He counts no fewer than240 towns and villages, and speaks of the smallestas containing not less than 15,000 inhabitants!This, of course, must be gross exaggeration, as itwould make the country more than twice asthickly populated as the densest districts inEngland or Belgium. Some one has comparedGalilee to the manufacturing districts of thiscountry. This comparison, of course, applies onlyto the fact of its busy life, although variousindustries were also carried on there--largepotteries of different kinds, and dyeworks. Fromthe heights of Galilee the eye would rest onharbours, filled with merchant ships, and on thesea, dotted with white sails. There, by the shore,and also inland, smoked furnaces, where glass wasmade; along the great road moved the caravans; infield, vineyard, and orchard all was activity. Thegreat road quite traversed Galilee, entering itwhere the Jordan is crossed by the so-called bridgeof Jacob, then touching Capernaum, going downto Nazareth, and passing on to the sea-coast. Thiswas one advantage that Nazareth had--that it layon the route of the world's traffic and intercourse.Another peculiarity is strangely unknown toChristian writers. It appears from ancientRabbinical writings that Nazareth was one of thestations of the priests. All the priests were dividedinto twenty-four courses, one of which was always

on ministry in the Temple. Now, the priests of thecourse which was to be on duty always gathered incertain towns, whence they went up in company tothe Temple; those who were unable to go spendingthe week in fasting and prayer for their brethren.Nazareth was one of these priestly centres; so thatthere, with symbolic significance, alike thosepassed who carried on the traffic of the world, andthose who ministered in the Temple.

We have spoken of Nazareth; and a few briefnotices of other places in Galilee, mentioned in theNew Covenant, may be of interest. Along the lakelay, north, Capernaum, a large city; and near it,Chorazin, so celebrated for its grain, that, if it hadbeen closer to Jerusalem, it would have been usedfor the Temple; also Bethsaida,13 the name, "houseof fishes," indicating its trade.

Capernaum was the station where Matthew satat the receipt of custom (Matt 9:9). South ofCapernaum was Magdala, the city of dyers, thehome of Mary Magdalene (Mark 15:40, 16:1;Luke 8:2; John 20:1). The Talmud mentions itsshops and its woolworks, speaks of its greatwealth, but also of the corruption of itsinhabitants. Tiberias, which had been built shortlybefore Christ, is only incidentally mentioned in theNew Covenant (John 6:1,23, 21:1). At the time itwas a splendid but chiefly heathen city, whosemagnificent buildings contrasted with the morehumble dwellings common in the country. Quite atthe southern end of the lake was Tarichaea, thegreat fishing place, whence preserved fish wasexported in casks (Strabo, xvi, 2). It was therethat, in the great Roman war, a kind of naval battlewas fought, which ended in terrible slaughter, noquarter being given by the Romans, so that thelake was dyed red with the blood of the victims,and the shore rendered pestilential by their bodies.Cana in Galilee was the birthplace of Nathanael(John 21:2), where Christ performed His firstmiracle (John 2:1-11); significant also inconnection with the second miracle therewitnessed, when the new wine of the kingdom wasfirst tasted by Gentile lips (John 4:46,47). Canalay about three hours to the north-north-east of

13 Three were two places of that name, one east of the Jordan,Bethsaida Julias, referred to in Luke 9:10; Mark 8:22; the other onthe western shore of the Lake of Galilee, the birthplace of Andrewand Peter (John 1:44). See also Mark 6:45; Matthew 11:21; Luke10:13; John 12:21.

16

Nazareth. Lastly, Nain was one of thesouthernmost places in Galilee, not far from theancient Endor.

It can scarcely surprise us, howeverinteresting it may prove, that such Hebrewrecollections of the early Christians as the Rabbishave preserved, should linger chiefly aroundGalilee. Thus we have, in quite the apostolic age,mention of miraculous cures made, in the name ofYahoshua, by one Jacob of Chefar Sechanja (inGalilee), one of the Rabbis violently opposing onone occasion an attempt of the kind, the patientmeanwhile dying during the dispute; repeatedrecords of discussions with learned Christians, andother indications of contact with Hebrewbelievers. Some have gone farther, and foundtraces of the general spread of such views in thefact that a Galilean teacher is introduced inBabylon as propounding the science of theMerkabah, or the mystical doctrines connectedwith Ezekiel's vision of the Divine chariot, whichcertainly contained elements closelyapproximating the Christian doctrines of theLogos, the Trinity, etc. Trinitarian views have alsobeen suspected in the significance attached to thenumber "three" by a Galilean teacher of the thirdcentury, in this wise: "Blessed be Yahweh, whohas given the three laws (the Pentateuch, theProphets, and the Hagiographa) to a peoplecomposed of three classes (Priests, Levites, andlaity), through him who was the youngest of three(Miriam, Aaron, and Moses), on the third day (oftheir separation--Exo 19:16), and in the thirdmonth." There is yet another saying of a GalileanRabbi, referring to the resurrection, which,although far from clear, may bear a Christianapplication. Finally, the Midrash applies theexpression, "The sinner shall be taken by her"(Eccl 7:26), either to the above-named ChristianRabbi Jacob, or to Christians generally, or even toCapernaum, with evident reference to the spreadof Christianity there. We cannot here pursue thisvery interesting subject farther than to say, that wefind indications of Hebrew Christians havingendeavoured to introduce their views whileleading the public devotions of the Synagogue,and even of contact with the immoral hereticalsect of the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:15).

Indeed, what we know of the Galileanswould quite prepare us for expecting, that the

gospel should have received at least a readyhearing among many of them. It was not only, thatGalilee was the great scene of our Lord's workingand teaching, and the home of His first disciplesand apostles; nor yet that the frequent intercoursewith strangers must have tended to remove narrowprejudices, while the contempt of the Rabbinistswould loosen attachment to the strictestPharisaism; but, as the character of the people isdescribed to us by Josephus, and even by theRabbis, they seem to have been a warm-hearted,impulsive, generous race--intensely national in thebest sense, active, not given to idle speculations orwire-drawn logico-theological distinctions, butconscientious and earnest. The Rabbis detailcertain theological differences between Galileeand Judaea. Without here mentioning them, wehave no hesitation in saying, that they show moreearnest practical piety and strictness of life, andless adherence to those Pharisaical distinctionswhich so often made void the law. The Talmud,on the other hand, charges the Galileans withneglecting traditionalism; learning from oneteacher, then from another (perhaps because theyhad only wandering Rabbis, not fixed academies);and with being accordingly unable to rise to theheights of Rabbinical distinctions andexplanations. That their hot blood made themrather quarrelsome, and that they lived in achronic state of rebellion against Rome, we gathernot only from Josephus, but even from the NewCovenant (Luke 13:2; Acts 5:37). Their mal-pronunciation of Hebrew, or rather their inabilityproperly to pronounce the gutturals, formed aconstant subject of witticism and reproach, socurrent that even the servants in the High Priest'spalace could turn round upon Peter, and say,"Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speechbewrayeth thee" (Matt 26:73)--a remark this, bythe way, which illustrates the fact that thelanguage commonly used at the time of Christ inPalestine was Aramaean, not Greek. Josephusdescribes the Galileans as hard-working, manly,and brave; and even the Talmud admits (Jer.Cheth. iv. 14) that they cared more for honourthan for money.

17

But the district in Galilee to which the mindever reverts, is that around the shores of its lake.14

Its beauty, its marvellous vegetation, its almosttropical products, its wealth and populousness,have been often described. The Rabbis derive thename of Gennesaret either from a harp--becausethe fruits of its shores were as sweet as is thesound of a harp--or else explain it to mean "thegardens of the princes," from the beautiful villasand gardens around.

But we think chiefly not of those fertile fieldsand orchards, nor of the deep blue of the lake,enclosed between hills, nor of the busy towns, norof the white sails spread on its waters--but of Him,Whose feet trod its shores; Who taught, andworked, and prayed there for us sinners; Whowalked its waters and calmed its storms, and Whoeven after His resurrection held there sweetconverse with His disciples; nay, Whose lastwords on earth, spoken from thence, come to uswith peculiar significance and application, as inthese days we look on the disturbing elements inthe world around: "What is that to thee? Followthou Me" (John 21:22).

Chapter 4Travelling in Palestine--Roads,

Inns, Hospitality,Custom-House Officers,

Taxation, Publicans

It was the very busiest road in Palestine, onwhich the publican Levi Matthew sat at the receiptof "custom," when our Lord called him to thefellowship of the Gospel, and he then made thatgreat feast to which he invited his fellow-publicans, that they also might see and hear Himin Whom he had found life and peace (Luke 5:29).For, it was the only truly international road of allthose which passed through Palestine; indeed, itformed one of the great highways of the world'scommerce. At the time of which we write, it maybe said, in general, that six main arteries of

14 The New Covenant speaks so often of the occupation of fishersby the Lake of Galilee, that it is interesting to know that fishing onthe lake was free to all. The Talmud mentions this as one of the tenordinances given by Joshua of old (Baba Kama, 80 b).

commerce and intercourse traversed the country,the chief objective points being Caesarea, themilitary, and Jerusalem, the religious capital.First, there was the southern road, which led fromJerusalem, by Bethlehem, to Hebron, and thencewestwards to Gaza, and eastwards into Arabia,whence also a direct road went northwards toDamascus. It is by this road we imagine St. Paul tohave travelled, when retiring into the solitudes ofArabia, immediately after his conversion (Gal1:17,18). The road to Hebron must have beenmuch frequented by priestly and other pilgrims tothe city, and by it the father of the Baptist and theparents of Yahoshua would pass. Secondly, therewas the old highway along the sea-shore fromEgypt up to Tyre, whence a straight, but not somuch frequented, road struck, by CaesareaPhilippi, to Damascus. But the sea-shore roaditself, which successively touched Gaza, Ascalon,Jamnia, Lydda, Diospolis, and finally Caesareaand Ptolemais, was probably the most importantmilitary highway in the land, connecting thecapital with the seat of the Roman procurator atCaesarea, and keeping the sea-board and itsharbours free for communication. This roadbranched off for Jerusalem at Lydda, where itbifurcated, leading either by Beth-horon or byEmmaus, which was the longer way. It wasprobably by this road that the Roman escorthurried off St. Paul (Acts 23:31), the mountedsoldiers leaving him at Antipatris, about twentyRoman miles from Lydda, and altogether fromJerusalem about fifty-two Roman miles (theRoman mile being 1,618 yards, the English mile1,760). Thus the distance to Caesarea, still left tobe traversed next morning by the cavalry would beabout twenty-six Roman miles, or, the whole way,seventy-eight Roman miles from Jerusalem. Thisrate of travelling, though rapid, cannot be regardedas excessive, since an ordinary day's journey iscomputed in the Talmud (Pes 93b) as high as fortyRoman miles. A third road led from Jerusalem, byBeth-horon and Lydda, to Joppa, whence itcontinued close by the sea-shore to Caesarea. Thiswas the road which Peter and his companionswould take when summoned to go and preach thegospel to Cornelius (Acts 10:23,24). It was atLydda, thirty-two Roman miles from Jerusalem,that Aeneas was miraculously healed, and "nigh"to it--within a few miles--was Joppa, where the

18

raising of Tabitha, Dorcas, "the gazelle" (Acts9:32-43), took place. Of the fourth great highway,which led from Galilee to Jerusalem, straightthrough Samaria, branching at Sichem eastwardsto Damascus, and westwards to Caesarea, it isneedless to say much, since, although muchshorter, it was, if possible, eschewed by Hebrewtravellers; though, both in going to (Luke 9:53,17:11), and returning from Jerusalem (John4:4,43), the Lord Yahoshua passed that way. Theroad from Jerusalem straight northwards alsobranched off at Gophna, whence it led across toDiospolis, and so on to Caesarea. But ordinarily,Hebrew travellers would, rather than pass throughSamaria, face the danger of robbers which awaitedthem (Luke 10:30) along the fifth great highway(comp. Luke 19:1,28; Matt 20:17,29), that ledfrom Jerusalem, by Bethany, to Jericho. Here theJordan was forded, and the road led to Gilead, andthence either southwards, or else north to Peraea,whence the traveller could make his way intoGalilee. It will be observed that all these roads,whether commercial or military, were, so to speak,Judaean, and radiated from or to Jerusalem. Butthe sixth and great road, which passed throughGalilee, was not at all primarily Hebrew, butconnected the East with the West--Damascus withRome. From Damascus it led across the Jordan toCapernaum, Tiberias, and Nain (where it fell inwith a direct road from Samaria), to Nazareth, andthence to Ptolemais. Thus, from its position,Nazareth was on the world's great highway. Whatwas spoken there might equally re-echothroughout Palestine, and be carried to theremotest lands of the East and of the West.

It need scarcely be said, that the roadswhich we have thus traced are only those alongthe principal lines of communication. But a largenumber of secondary roads also traversed thecountry in all directions. Indeed, from earliesttimes much attention seems to have been given tofacility of intercourse throughout the land. Even inthe days of Moses we read of "the king's highway"(Num 20:17,19, 21:22). In Hebrew we have,besides the two general terms (derech and orach),three expressions which respectively indicate atrodden or beaten-down path (nathiv, from nathav,to tread down), a made or cast-up road (messillah,from salal, to cast up), and "the king's highway"--the latter, evidently for national purposes, and kept

up at the public expense. In the time of the kings(for example, 1 Kings 12:18), and even earlier,there were regular carriage roads, although we canscarcely credit the statement of Josephus (Antiq,viii, 7, 4) That Solomon had caused the principalroads to be paved with black stone--probablybasalt. Toll was apparently levied in the time ofEzra (Ezra 4:13,20); but the clergy were exemptfrom this as from all other taxation (7:24). Theroads to the cities of refuge required to be alwayskept in good order (Deu 19:3). According to theTalmud they were to be forty-eight feet wide, andprovided with bridges, and with sign-posts whereroads diverged.

Passing to later times, the Romans, asmight have been expected, paid great attention tothe modes of communication through the country.The military roads were paved, and provided withmilestones. But the country roads were chieflybridle-paths. The Talmud distinguishes betweenpublic and private roads. The former must betwenty-four, the latter six feet wide. It is addedthat, for the king's highway, and for the road takenby funerals, there is no measure (Babba B. vi. 7).Roads were annually repaired in spring,preparatory for going up to the great feasts. Toprevent the possibility of danger, no subterraneanstructure, however protected, was allowed under apublic road. Overhanging branches of trees had tobe cut down, so as to allow a man on a camel topass. A similar rule applied to balconies andprojections; nor were these permitted to darken astreet. Any one allowing things to accumulate onthe road, or dropping them from a cart, had tomake good what damage might be incurred bytravellers. Indeed, in towns and theirneighbourhood the police regulations were evenmore strict; and such ordinances occur as for theremoval within thirty days of rotten trees ordangerous walls; not to pour out water on theroad; not to throw out anything on the street, norto leave about building materials, or broken glass,or thorns, along with other regulations for thepublic safety and health.

Along such roads passed the travellers; fewat first, and mostly pilgrims, but graduallygrowing in number, as commerce and social orpolitical intercourse increased. Journeys wereperformed on foot, upon asses, or in carriages(Acts 8:28), of which three kinds are mentioned--

19

the round carriage, perhaps like our gig; theelongated, like a bed; and the cart, chiefly for thetransport of goods. It will be understood that inthose days travelling was neither comfortable noreasy. Generally, people journeyed in company, ofwhich the festive bands going to Jerusalem are awell-known instance. If otherwise, one wouldprepare for a journey almost as for a change ofresidence, and provide tent, victuals, and all thatwas needful by the way. It was otherwise with thetravelling hawker, who was welcomed as a friendin every district through which he passed, whocarried the news of the day, exchanged theproducts of one for those of another district, andproduced the latest articles of commerce or ofluxury. Letters were only conveyed by specialmessengers, or through travellers.

In such circumstances, the command, "Benot forgetful to entertain strangers," had a specialmeaning. Israel was always distinguished forhospitality; and not only the Bible, but the Rabbis,enjoin this in the strongest terms. In Jerusalem noman was to account a house as only his own; andit was said, that during the pilgrim-feasts noneever wanted ready reception. The tractate Aboth(1.5), mentions these as two out of the threesayings of Jose, the son of Jochanan, of Jerusalem:"Let thy house be wide open, and let the poor bethe children of thy house." Readers of the NewCovenant will be specially interested to know,that, according to the Talmud (Pes. 53),Bethphage and Bethany, to which in this respectsuch loving memories cling, were speciallycelebrated for their hospitality towards the festivepilgrims. In Jerusalem it seems to have been thecustom to hang a curtain in front of the door, toindicate that there was still room for guests. Somewent so far as to suggest, there should be fourdoors to every house, to bid welcome to travellersfrom all directions. The host would go to meet anexpected guest, and again accompany him part ofthe way (Acts 21:5). The Rabbis declared thathospitality involved as great, and greater meritthan early morning attendance in an academy oflearning. They could scarcely have gone farther,considering the value they attached to study. Ofcourse, here also the Rabbinical order had thepreference; and hospitably to entertain a sage, andto send him away with presents, was declared as

meritorious as to have offered the daily sacrifices(Ber. 10, b).

But let there be no misunderstanding. Sofar as the duty of hospitality is concerned, or theloving care for poor and sick, it were impossible totake a higher tone than that of Rabbinism. Thus itwas declared, that "the entertainment of travellerswas as great a matter as the reception of theShechinah." This gives a fresh meaning to theadmonition of the Epistle addressed specially tothe Hebrews (13:2): "Be not forgetful to entertainstrangers: for thereby some have entertainedangels unawares." Bearing on this subject, one ofthe oldest Rabbinical commentaries has a verybeautiful gloss on Psalm 109:31: "He shall standat the right hand of the poor." "Whenever," weread, "a poor man stands at thy door, the HolyOne, blessed be His Name, stands at his righthand. If thou givest him alms, know that thou shaltreceive a reward from Him who standeth at hisright hand." In another commentary YahwehHimself and His angels are said to visit the sick.The Talmud itself counts hospitality among thethings of which the reward is received alike in thislife and in that which is to come (Shab. 127 a),while in another passage (Sot. 14 a) we are biddenimitate Yahweh in these four respects: He clothedthe naked (Gen 3:21); He visited the sick (Gen18:1); He comforted the mourners (Gen 25:11);and He buried the dead (Deu 34:6).

In treating of hospitality, the Rabbis display,as in so many relations of life, the utmosttenderness and delicacy, mixed with a delightfulamount of shrewd knowledge of the world andquaint humour. As a rule, they enter here also intofull details. Thus the very manner in which a hostis to bear himself towards his guests is prescribed.He is to look pleased when entertaining his guests,to wait upon them himself, to promise little and togive much, etc. At the same time it was alsocaustically added: "Consider all men as if theywere robbers, but treat them as if each were RabbiGamaliel himself!" On the other hand, rules ofpoliteness and gratitude are equally laid down forthe guests. "Do not throw a stone," it was said,"into the spring at which you have drunk" (BabaK,. 92); or this, "A proper guest acknowledges all,and saith, 'At what trouble my host has been, andall for my sake!'--while an evil visitor remarks:'Bah! what trouble has he taken?' Then, after

20

enumerating how little he has had in the house, heconcludes; 'And, after all, it was not done for me,but only for his wife and children!'" (Ber. 58 a).Indeed, some of the sayings in this connection areremarkably parallel to the directions which ourLord gave to His disciples on going forth upontheir mission (Luke 10:5-11, and parallels). Thus,one was to inquire for the welfare of the family;not to go from house to house; to eat of suchthings as were set before one; and, finally, to partwith a blessing.

All this, of course, applied to entertainment inprivate families. On unfrequented roads, wherevillages were at great intervals, or even outsidetowns (Luke 2:7), there were regular khans, orplaces of lodgment for strangers. Like the modernkhans, these places were open, and generally builtin a square, the large court in the middle beingintended for the beasts of burden or carriages,while rooms opened upon galleries all around. Ofcourse these rooms were not furnished, nor wasany payment expected from the wayfarer. At thesame time, some one was generally attached to thekhan--mostly a foreigner--who would for paymentprovide anything that might be needful, of whichwe have an instance in the parabolic history of theGood Samaritan (Luke 10:35). Such hostelries arementioned so early as in the history of Moses(Gen 42:27; 43:21). Jeremiah calls them "a placefor strangers" (Jer 41:17), wrongly rendered"habitation" in our Authorised Version. In theTalmud their designations are either Greek orLatin, in Aramaic form--one of them being thesame as that used in Luke 10:34--proving thatsuch places were chiefly provided by and forstrangers.15

In later times we also read of the oshpisa--evidently from hospitium, and showing its Romanorigin--as a house of public entertainment, wheresuch food as locusts, pickled, or fried in flour or inhoney, and Median or Babylonian beer, Egyptiandrink, and home-made cider or wine, were sold;such proverbs circulating among the booncompanions as "To eat without drinking is likedevouring one's own blood" (Shab. 41 a), andwhere wild noise and games of chance were

15 In the ancient Latin Itineraries of Palestine, journeys arecomputed by mansiones (night-quarters) and mutationes (change ofhorses)--from five to eight such changes being computed for a day'sjourney.

indulged in by those who wasted their substanceby riotous living. In such places the secret police,whom Herod employed, would ferret out theopinions of the populace while over their cups.That police must have been largely employed.According to Josephus (Anti. xv, 366) spies besetthe people, alike in town and country, watchingtheir conversations in the unrestrained confidenceof friendly intercourse. Herod himself is said tohave acted in that capacity, and to have lurkedabout the streets at night-time in disguise tooverhear or entrap unwary citizens. Indeed, at onetime the city seems almost to have been undermartial law, the citizens being forbidden "to meettogether, to walk or eat together,"--presumably tohold public meetings, demonstrations, or banquets.History sufficiently records what terriblevengeance followed the slightest suspicion. TheNew Covenant account of the murder of all thelittle children at Bethlehem (Matt 2:16), in hope ofdestroying among them the royal scion of David,is thoroughly in character with all that we know ofHerod and his reign. There is at last indirectconfirmation of this narrative in Talmudicalwritings, as there is evidence that all thegenealogical registers in the Temple weredestroyed by order of Herod. This is a mostremarkable fact. The Hebrews retaliated by anintensity of hatred which went so far as to elevatethe day of Herod's death (2 Shebet) into an annualfeast-day, on which all mourning was prohibited.

But whether passing through town orcountry, by quiet side-roads or along the greathighway, there was one sight and scene whichmust constantly have forced itself upon theattention of the traveller, and, if he were ofHebrew descent, would ever awaken afresh hisindignation and hatred. Whithersoever he went, heencountered in city or country the well-knownforeign tax-gatherer, and was met by hisinsolence, by his vexatious intrusion, and by hisexactions. The fact that he was the symbol ofIsrael's subjection to foreign domination, gallingthough it was, had probably not so much to dowith the bitter hatred of the Rabbinists towards theclass of tax-farmers (Moches) and tax-collectors(Gabbai), both of whom were placed whollyoutside the pale of Hebrew society, as that theywere so utterly shameless and regardless in theirunconscientious dealings. For, ever since their

21

return from Babylon, the Hebrews must, with abrief interval, have been accustomed to foreigntaxation. At the time of Ezra (Ezra 4:13,20, 7:24)they paid to the Persian monarch "toll, tribute, andcustom"--middah, belo, and halach--or rather"ground-tax" (income and property-tax?),"custom" (levied on all that was for consumption,or imported), and "toll," or road-money. Under thereign of the Ptolemies the taxes seem to have beenfarmed to the highest bidder, the price varyingfrom eight to sixteen talents--that is, from about3,140 pounds to about 6,280 pounds--a very smallsum indeed, which enabled the Palestine tax-farmers to acquire immense wealth, and thatalthough they had continually to purchase armsand court favour (Josephus, Ant. xii, 154-185).During the Syrian rule the taxes seem to haveconsisted of tribute, duty on salt, a third of theproduce of all that was sown, and one-half of thatfrom fruit-trees, besides poll-tax, custom duty, andan uncertain kind of tax, called "crown-money"(the aurum coronarium of the Romans), originallyan annual gift of a crown of gold, but afterwardscompounded for in money (Josephus,Ant. xii, 129-137). Under the Herodians the royal revenueseems to have been derived from crown lands,from a property and income-tax, from import andexport duties, and from a duty on all that waspublicly sold and bought, to which must be addeda tax upon houses in Jerusalem.

Heavily as these exactions must haveweighed upon a comparatively poor and chieflyagricultural population, they refer only to civiltaxation, not to religious dues (see The Temple).But, even so, we have not exhausted the list ofcontributions demanded of a Hebrew. For, everytown and community levied its own taxes for themaintenance of synagogue, elementary schools,public baths, the support of the poor, themaintenance of public roads, city walls, and gates,and other general requirements. It must, however,be admitted that the Hebrew authorities distributedthis burden of civic taxation both easily andkindly, and that they applied the revenues derivedfrom it for the public welfare in a manner scarcelyyet attained in the most civilized countries. TheRabbinical arrangements for public education,health, and charity were, in every respect, far inadvance of modern legislation, although here alsothey took care themselves not to take the grievous

burdens which they laid upon others, by expresslyexempting from civic taxes all those who devotedthemselves to the study of the law.

But the Roman taxation, which bore uponIsrael with such crushing weight, was quite of itsown kind--systematic, cruel, relentless, and utterlyregardless. In general, the provinces of the RomanEmpire, and what of Palestine belonged to them,were subject to two great taxes--poll-tax (or ratherincome-tax) and ground-tax. All property andincome that fell not under the ground-tax wassubject to poll-tax; which amounted, for Syria andCilicia, to one per cent. The "poll-tax" was reallytwofold, consisting of income-tax and head-money, the latter, of course, the same in all cases,and levied on all persons (bond or free) up to theage of sixty-five--women being liable from theage of twelve and men from that of fourteen.Landed property was subject to a tax of one-tenthof all grain, and one-fifth of the wine and fruitgrown, partly paid in product and partlycommuted into money.16

Besides these, there was tax and duty on allimports and exports, levied on the great publichighways and in the seaports. Then there wasbridge-money and road-money, and duty on allthat was bought and sold in the towns. These,which may be called the regular taxes, wereirrespective of any forced contributions, and of thesupport which had to be furnished to the Romanprocurator and his household and court atCaesarea. To avoid all possible loss to thetreasury, the proconsul of Syria, Quirinus(Cyrenius), had taken a regular census to show thenumber of the population and their means. Thiswas a terrible crime in the eyes of the Rabbis, whoremembers that, if numbering the people had beenreckoned such great sin of old, the evil must be anhundredfold increased, if done by heathens and fortheir own purposes. Another offence lay in thethought, that tribute, hitherto only given toYahweh, was now to be paid to a heathenemperor. "Is it lawful to pay tribute unto Caesar?"was a sore question, which many an Israelite putto himself as he placed the emperor's poll-taxbeside the half-shekel of the sanctuary, and the

16 Northern Africa alone (exclusive of Egypt) furnished Rome, byway of taxation, with sufficient corn to last eight months, and thecity of Alexandria to last four months (Hebrew War, ii, 345-401).

22

tithe of his field, vineyard, and orchard, claimedby the tax-gatherer, along with that which he hadhitherto only given unto Yahweh. Even thepurpose with which this inquiry was broughtbefore Christ--to entrap Him in a politicaldenunciation--shows, how much it was agitatedamong patriotic Hebrews; and it cost rivers ofblood before it was not answered, but silenced.

The Romans had a peculiar way of levyingthese taxes--not directly, but indirectly--whichkept the treasury quite safe, whatever harm itmight inflict on the taxpayer, while at the sametime it threw upon him the whole cost of thecollection. Senators and magistrates wereprohibited from engaging in business or trade; butthe highest order, the equestrian, was largelycomposed of great capitalists. These Romanknights formed joint-stock companies, whichbought at public auction the revenues of aprovince at a fixed price, generally for five years.The board had its chairman, or magister, and itsoffices at Rome. These were the real Publicani, orpublicans, who often underlet certain of the taxes.The Publicani, or those who held from them,employed either slaves or some of the lowerclasses in the country as tax-gatherers--thepublicans of the New Covenant. Similarly, allother imposts were farmed and collected; some ofthem being very onerous, and amounting to an advalorem duty of two and a half, of five, and inarticles of luxury even of twelve and a half percent. Harbour-dues were higher than ordinarytolls, and smuggling or a false declaration waspunished by confiscation of the goods. Thus thepublicans also levied import and export dues,bridge-toll, road-money, town-dues, etc.; and, ifthe peaceable inhabitant, the tiller of the soil, thetradesman, or manufacturer was constantlyexposed to their exactions, the traveller, thecaravan, or the pedlar encountered their vexatiouspresence at every bridge, along the road, and at theentrance to cities. Every bale had to be unloaded,and all its contents tumbled about and searched;even letters were opened; and it must have takenmore than Eastern patience to bear their insolenceand to submit to their "unjust accusations" inarbitrarily fixing the return from land or income,or the value of goods, etc. For there was no useappealing against them, although the law allowedthis, since the judges themselves were the direct

beneficiaries by the revenue; for they beforewhom accusations on this score would have to belaid, belonged to the order of knights, who werethe very persons implicated in the farming of therevenue. Of course, the joint-stock company ofPublicani at Rome expected its handsomedividends; so did the tax-gatherers in theprovinces, and those to whom they on occasionssublet the imposts. All wanted to make money ofthe poor people; and the cost of the collection hadof course to be added to the taxation. We can quiteunderstand how Zaccheus, one of the supervisorsof these tax-gatherers in the district of Jericho,which, from its growth and export of balsam, musthave yielded a large revenue, should, inremembering his past life, have at once said: "If Ihave taken anything from any man by falseaccusation"--or, rather, "Whatever I havewrongfully exacted of any man." For nothing wasmore common than for the publican to put afictitious value on property or income. Anotherfavourite trick of theirs was to advance the tax tothose who were unable to pay, and then to chargeusurious interest on what had thereby become aprivate debt. How summarily and harshly suchdebts were exacted, appears from the NewCovenant itself. In Matthew 18:28 we read of acreditor who, for the small debt of one hundreddenars, seizes the debtor by the throat in the openstreet, and drags him to prison; the miserable man,in his fear of the consequences, in vain fallingdown at his feet, and beseeching him to havepatience, in not exacting immediate full payment.What these consequences were, we learn from thesame parable, where the king threatens not only tosell off all that his debtor has, but even himself,his wife, and children into slavery (v 25). Andwhat short shrift such an unhappy man had toexpect from "the magistrate," appears from thesummary procedure, ending in imprisonment till"the last mite" had been paid, described in Luke12:58.

However, therefore, in far-off Rome,Cicero might describe the Publicani as "the flowerof knighthood, the ornament of the state, and thestrength of the republic," or as "the most uprightand respected men," the Rabbis in distantPalestine might be excused for their intense dislikeof "the publicans," even although it went to theexcess of declaring them incapable of bearing

23

testimony in a Hebrew court of law, of forbiddingto receive their charitable gifts, or even to changemoney out of their treasury (Baba K. x. 1), ofranking them not only with harlots and heathens,but with highwaymen and murderers (Ned. iii. 4),and of even declaring them excommunicate.Indeed, it was held lawful to make false returns, tospeak untruth, or almost to use any means to avoidpaying taxes (Ned. 27 b; 28 a). And about the timeof Christ the burden of such exactions must havebeen felt all the heavier on account of a greatfinancial crisis in the Roman Empire (in the year33 or our era), which involved so many inbankruptcy, and could not have been without itsindirect influence even upon distant Palestine.

Of such men--despised Galileans,unlettered fishermen, excommunicated publicans--did the blessed Lord, in His self-humiliation,choose His closest followers, His special apostles!What a contrast to the Pharisaical notions of theMessiah and His kingdom! What a lesson to show,that it was not "by might nor by power," but byHis spirit, and that Yahweh had chosen the basethings of this world, and things that were despised,to confound things that were mighty! Assuredly,this offers a new problem, and one harder ofsolution than many others, to those who wouldexplain everything by natural causes. Whateverthey may say of the superiority of Christ's teachingto account for his success, no religion could everhave been more weighted; no popular cause couldever have presented itself under moredisadvantageous circumstances than did theGospel of Christ to the Hebrews of Palestine.Even from this point of view, to the historicalstudent familiar with the outer and inner life ofthat period, there is no other explanation of theestablishment of Christ's kingdom than the powerof the Holy Ghost.

Such a custom-house officer was MatthewLevi, when the voice of our Lord, striking to theinmost depths of his heart, summoned him to fardifferent work. It was a wonder that the Holy Oneshould speak to such an one as he; and oh! in whatdifferent accents from what had ever fallen on hisears. But it was not merely condescension,kindness, sympathy, even familiar intercoursewith one usually regarded as a social pariah; it wasthe closest fellowship; it was reception into theinnermost circle; it was a call to the highest and

holiest work, which Yahweh offered to Levi. Andthe busy road on which he sat to collect customsand dues would now no more know the familiarface of Levi, otherwise than as that of a messengerof peace, who brought glad tidings of great joy.

Chapter 5In Judaea

If Galilee could boast of the beauty of itsscenery and the fruitfulness of its soil; of being themart of a busy life, and the highway of intercoursewith the great world outside Palestine, Judaeawould neither covet nor envy such advantages.Hers was quite another and a peculiar claim.Galilee might be the outer court, but Judaea waslike the inner sanctuary of Israel. True, itslandscapes were comparatively barren, its hillsbare and rocky, its wilderness lonely; but aroundthose grey limestone mountains gathered thesacred history--one might almost say, the romanceand religion of Israel. Turning his back on theluxurious richness of Galilee, the pilgrim, even inthe literal sense, constantly went up towardsJerusalem. Higher and higher rose the everlastinghills, till on the uppermost he beheld the sanctuaryof Yahweh, standing out from all around, majesticin the snowy pureness of its marble and glitteringgold. As the hum of busy life gradually faded fromhis hearing, and he advanced into the solemnstillness and loneliness, the well-known siteswhich he successively passed must have seemedto wake the echoes of the history of his people.First, he approached Shiloh, Israel's earliestsanctuary, where, according to tradition, the Arkhad rested for 370 years less one. Next cameBethel, with its sacred memorial of patriarchalhistory. There, as the Rabbis had it, even the angelof death was shorn of his power. Then he stood onthe plateau of Ramah, with the neighbouringheights of Gibeon and Gibeah, round which somany events in Hebrew history had clustered. InRamah Rachel died, and was buried.17

17 * This appears, to me at least, the inevitable inference from 1Samuel 10:2, 3, and Jeremiah 31:15. Most writers have concludedfrom Genesis 35:16, 19, that Rachel was buried close byBethlehem, but the passage does not necessarily imply this. Theoldest Hebrew Commentary (Sifre, ed. Vienna, p. 146) supports theview given above in the text. M. Neubauer suggests that Rachel had

24

We know that Jacob set up a pillar on hergrave. Such is the reverence of Orientals for theresting-places of celebrated historical personages,that we may well believe it to have been the samepillar which, according to an eye-witness, stillmarked the site at the time of our Lord (Book ofJubil. cxxxii Apud Hausrath, Neutest. Zeitg. p.26). Opposite to it were the graves of Bilhah andof Dinah (c. p. 34). Only five miles fromJerusalem, this pillar was, no doubt, a well-knownlandmark. by this memorial of Jacob's sorrow andshame had been the sad meeting-place of thecaptives when about to be carried into Babylon(Jer 40:1). There was bitter wailing at parting fromthose left behind, and in weary prospect ofhopeless bondage, and still bitterer lamentation, asin the sight of friends, relations and countrymen,the old and the sick, the weakly, and women andchildren were pitilessly slaughtered, not toencumber the conqueror's homeward march. Yet athird time was Rachel's pillar, twice before thememorial of Israel's sorrow and shame, to re-echoher lamentation over yet sorer captivity andslaughter, when the Idumaean Herod massacredher innocent children, in the hope of destroyingwith them Israel's King and Israel's kingdom. Thuswas her cup of former bondage and slaughterfilled, and the words of Jeremy the prophetfulfilled, in which he had depicted Rachel's sorrowover her children (Matt 2:17,18).

But westward from those scenes, where themountains shelved down, or more abruptlydescended towards the Shephelah, or wolds by thesea, were the scenes of former triumphs. HereJoshua had pursued the kings of the south; thereSamson had come down upon the Philistines, andhere for long years had war been waged againstthe arch-enemy of Israel, Philistia. Turning thenceto the south, beyond the capital was royalBethlehem, and still farther the priest-city Hebron,with its caves holding Israel's most precious dust.That highland plateau was the wilderness ofJudaea, variously named from the villages whichat long distances dotted it;18 desolate, lonely,tenanted only by the solitary shepherd, or the great

died in the possession of Ephraim, and been buried at Bethlehem.The hypothesis is ingenious but fanciful18 Such as Tekoah, Engedi, Ziph, Maon, and Beersheba, whichgave their names to districts in the wilderness of Judaea.

proprietor, like Nabal, whose sheep pastured alongit heights and in its glens.

This had long been the home of outlaws, or ofthose who, in disgust with the world, had retiredfrom its fellowship. These limestone caves hadbeen the hiding-place of David and his followers;and many a band had since found shelter in thesewilds. Here also John the Baptist prepared for hiswork, and there, at the time of which we write,was the retreat of the Essenes, whom a vain hopeof finding purity in separation from the world andits contact had brought to these solitudes. Beyond,deep down in a mysterious hollow. stretched thesmooth surface of the Dead Sea, a perpetualmemorial of Yahweh and of judgment. On itswestern shore rose the castle which Herod hadnamed after himself, and farther south that almostinaccessible fastness of Masada, the scene of thelast tragedy in the great Hebrew war. Yet from thewild desolateness of the Dead Sea it was but a fewhours to what seemed almost an earthly paradise.Flanked and defended by four surrounding forts,lay the important city of Jericho. Herod had builtits walls, its theatre and amphitheatre; Archelausits new palace, surrounded by splendid gardens.Through Jericho led the pilgrim way from Galilee,followed by our Lord Himself (Luke 19:1); andthere also passed the great caravan-road, whichconnected Arabia with Damascus. The fertility ofits soil, and its tropical produce, were almostproverbial. Its palm-groves and gardens of roses,but especially its balsam-plantations, of which thelargest was behind the royal palace, were the fairyland of the old world. But this also was only asource of gain to the hated foreigner. Rome hadmade it a central station for the collection of taxand custom, known to us from Gospel history asthat by which the chief publican Zaccheus hadgotten his wealth. Jericho, with its general tradeand its traffic in balsam--not only reputed thesweetest perfume, but also a cherished medicine inantiquity--was a coveted prize to all around. Astrange setting for such a gem were itssurroundings. There was the deep depression ofthe Arabah, through which the Jordan wound, firstwith tortuous impetuosity, and then, as it nearedthe Dead Sea, seemingly almost reluctant to loseits waters in that slimy mass (Pliny, Hist. Nat. vi.5, 2). Pilgrims, priests, traders, robbers,anchorites, wild fanatics, such were the figures to

25

be met on that strange scene; and almost withinhearing were the sacred sounds from the Temple-mount in the distance.19

It might be so, as the heathen historian put it inregard to Judaea, that no one could have wishedfor its own sake to wage serious warfare for itspossession (Strabo, Geogr. xvi. 2). The Hebrewwould readily concede this. It was not materialwealth which attracted him hither, although theriches brought into the Temple from all quarters ofthe world ever attracted the cupidity of theGentiles. To the Hebrew this was the true home ofhis soul, the centre of his inmost life, the longingof his heart. "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let myright hand forget her cunning," sang they who satby the rivers of Babylon, weeping as theyremembered Zion. "If I do not remember thee, letmy tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if Iprefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy" (Psa137:5,6). It is from such pilgrim-psalms by theway as Psalm 84 or from the Songs of Ascent tothe Holy City (commonly known as the Psalms ofDegrees), that we learn the feelings of Israel,culminating in this mingled outpouring of prayerand praise, with which they greeted the city oftheir longings as first it burst on their view:

Yahweh hath chosen Zion;He hath desired it for His habitation.

This is my rest for ever:Here will I dwell, for I desire after it!I will abundantly bless her provision:

I will satisfy her poor with bread.I will also clothe her priests with salvation:

And her saints shall shout aloud for joy.There will I make the horn of David to bud:

I ordain a lamp for Mine anointed.His enemies will I clothe with shame:

But upon himself shall his crown flourish.Psalm 132:13-18

Words these, true alike in their literal andspiritual applications; highest hopes which, fornigh two thousand years, have formed and stillform part of Israel's daily prayer, when they plead:"Speedily cause Thou 'the Branch of David,' Thy

19 * According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Succ. v. 3) six differentacts of ministry in the Temple were heard as far as Jericho, and thesmell of the burning incense also could be perceived there. Weneed scarcely say that this was a gross exaggeration.

servant, to shoot forth, and exalt Thou his hornthrough Thy salvation" (this is the fifteenth of theeighteen "benedictions" in the daily prayers). Alas,that Israel knows not the fulfilment of these hopesalready granted and expressed in the thanksgivingof the father of the Baptist: "Blessed be AdonayYahweh of Israel; for He hath visited andredeemed His people, and hath raised up an hornof salvation for us in the house of His servantDavid; as He spake by the mouth of His holyprophets, which have been since the world began"(Luke 1:68-70).

Such blessings, and much more, were notonly objects of hope, but realities alike to theRabbinist and the unlettered Hebrew. Theydetermined him willingly to bend the neck under ayoke of ordinances otherwise unbearable; submitto claims and treatment against which his naturewould otherwise have rebelled, endure scorn andpersecutions which would have broken any othernationality and crushed any other religion. To thefar exiles of the Dispersion, this was the one fold,with its promise of good shepherding, of greenpastures, and quiet waters. Judaea was, so tospeak, their Campo Santo, with the Temple in themidst of it, as the symbol and prophecy of Israel'sresurrection. To stand, if it were but once, withinits sacred courts, to mingle with its worshippers, tobring offerings, to see the white-robed throng ofministering priests, to hear the chant of Levites, towatch the smoke of sacrifices uprising to heaven--to be there, to take part in it was the deliciousdream of life, a very heaven upon earth, theearnest of fulfilling prophecy. No wonder, that onthe great feasts the population of Jerusalem and ofits neighbourhood, so far as reckoned within itssacred girdle, swelled to millions, among whomwere "devout men, out of every nation underheaven" (Acts 2:5), or that treasure poured in fromall parts of the inhabited world. And thisincreasingly, as sign after sign seemed to indicatethat "the End" was nearing. Surely the sands of thetimes of the Gentiles must have nearly run out.The promised Messiah might at any momentappear and "restore the kingdom to Israel." Fromthe statements of Josephus we know that theprophecies of Daniel were specially resorted to,and a mass of the most interesting, though tangled,apocalyptic literature, dating from that period,shows what had been the popular interpretation of

26

unfulfilled prophecy. The oldest Hebrewparaphrases of Scripture, or Targumim, breathe thesame spirit. Even the great heathen historians notethis general expectancy of an impending Hebrewworld-empire, and trace to it the origin of therebellions against Rome. Not even the allegorisingHebrew philosophers of Alexandria remaineduninfluenced by the universal hope. OutsidePalestine all eyes were directed towards Judaea,and each pilgrim band on its return, or wayfaringbrother on his journey, might bring tidings ofstartling events. Within the land the feverishanxiety of those who watched the scene notunfrequently rose to delirium and frenzy. Onlythus can we account for the appearance of somany false Messiahs and for the crowds, which,despite repeated disappointments, were ready tocherish the most unlikely anticipations. It was thusthat a Theudas could persuade "a great part of thepeople" to follow him to the brink of Jordan, in thehope of seeing its waters once more miraculouslydivide, as before Moses, and an Egyptian impostorinduce them to go out to the Mount of Olives inthe expectation of seeing the walls of Jerusalemfall down at his command (Josephus, Ant. xx, 167-172). Nay, such was the infatuation of fanaticism,that while the Roman soldiers were actuallypreparing to set the Temple on fire, a false prophetcould assemble 6,000 men, women, and children,in its courts and porches to await then and there amiraculous deliverance from heaven (Josephus,Hebrew War, vi, 287). Nor did even the fall ofJerusalem quench these expectations, till amassacre, more terrible in some respects than thatat the fall of Jerusalem, extinguished in blood thelast public Messianic rising against Rome underBar Cochab.

For, however misdirected--so far as related tothe person of the Christ and the nature of Hiskingdom--not to the fact or time of His coming,nor yet to the character of Rome--such thoughtscould not be uprooted otherwise than with thehistory and religion of Israel. The New Covenantprocess upon them, as well as the Old; Christiansand Hebrews alike cherished them. In thelanguage of St. Paul, this was "the hope of thepromise made of Yahweh unto our fathers: untowhich our twelve tribes, instantly serving Yahwehday and night, hope to come" (Acts 26:6,7). It wasthis which sent the thrill of expectancy through the

whole nation, and drew crowds to Jordan, when anobscure anchorite, who did not even pretend toattest his mission by any miracle, preachedrepentance in view of the near coming of thekingdom of Yahweh. It was this, which turned alleyes to Yahoshua of Nazareth, humble andunpretending as were His origin, Hiscircumstances, and His followers, and whichdiverted the attention of the people even from theTemple to the far-off lake of despised Galilee.And it was this which opened every home to themessengers whom Christ sent forth, by two andtwo, and even after the Crucifixion, everysynagogue, to the apostles and preachers fromJudaea. The title "Son of man" was familiar tothose who had drawn their ideas of the Messiahfrom the well-known pages of Daniel. The popularapocalyptic literature of the period, especially theso-called "Book of Enoch," not only kept thisdesignation in popular memory, but enlarged onthe judgment which He was to execute on Gentilekings and nations."20 "Wilt Thou at this timerestore the kingdom to Israel?" was a question outof the very heart of Israel. Even John the Baptist,in the gloom of his lonely prison, staggered not atthe person of the Messiah, but at the manner inwhich He seemed to found His kingdom.21 He hadexpected to hear the blows of that axe which hehad lifted fall upon the barren tree, and had tolearn that the innermost secret of that kingdom--carried not in earthquake of wrath, nor inwhirlwind of judgment, but breathed in the still

20 The following as a specimen must suffice for the present: "Andthis Son of man, whom thou hast seen, shall stir up the kings andthe mighty from their layers, and the powerful from their thrones,and shall loose the bridles of the mighty and break in pieces theteeth of sinners. And He shall drive the kings from their thronesand from their empires, if they do not exalt nor praise Him, norgratefully own from whence the kingdom has been entrusted tothem. And He shall drive away the face of the mighty, and shameshall fill them: darkness shall be their dwelling and worms theirbed, and they shall have no hope of rising from their beds, becausethey do not exalt the name of Yahweh of spirits...And they shall bedriven forth out of the homes of His congregation and of thefaithful" (Book of Enoch, xlvi. 4,5,6,8). A full discussion of thismost important subject, and, indeed, of many kindred matters, mustbe reserved for a work on the Life and Times of our Lord.21 The passage above referred to has a most important apologeticinterest. None but a truthful history would have recorded the doubtsof John the Baptist; especially when they brought forward the realdifficulties which the mission of Christ raised in the popular mind;least of all would it have followed up the statement of thesedifficulties by such an encomium as the Saviour passed upon John.

27

small voice of love and pity--was comprehension,not exclusion; healing, not destruction.

As for the Rabbis, the leaders of publicopinion, their position towards the kingdom wasquite different. Although in the rising of BarCochab the great Rabbi Akiba acted as thereligious standard-bearer, he may be looked uponas almost an exception. His character was that ofan enthusiast, his history almost a romance. But,in general, the Rabbis did not identify themselveswith the popular Messianic expectations. Alike theGospel-history and their writings show not merelythat anti-spiritual opposition to the Church whichwe might have expected, but coldness and distancein regard to all such movements. Legal rigorismand merciless bigotry are not fanaticism. The latteris chiefly the impulse of the ill-informed. Eventheir contemptuous turning away from "thispeople which knoweth not the law," as "accursed,"proves them incapable of a fanaticism whichrecognises a brother in every one whose heartburns with the same fire, no matter what hiscondition otherwise. The great text-book ofRabbinism, the Mishnah, is almost entirely un-Messianic, one might say un-dogmatical. Themethod of the Rabbis was purely logical. Wherenot a record of facts or traditions, the Mishnah ispurely a handbook of legal determinations in theirutmost logical sequences, only enlivened bydiscussions or the tale of instances in point. Thewhole tendency of this system was anti-Messianic.Not but that in souls so devout and natures soardent enthusiasm might be kindled, but that alltheir studies and pursuits went in the contrarydirection. Besides, they knew full well how littleof power was left them, and they dreaded losingeven this. The fear of Rome constantly hauntedthem. Even at the destruction of Jerusalem theleading Rabbis aimed to secure their safety, andtheir after history shows, frequently recurring,curious instances of Rabbinical intimacy with theirRoman oppressors. The Sanhedrim spoke theirinmost apprehensions, when in that secret sessionthey determined to kill Yahoshua from fear that, ifHe were allowed to go on, and all men were tobelieve on Him, the Romans would come and takeaway both their place and nation (John 11:48). Yetnot one candid mind among them discussed thereality of His miracles; not one generous voicewas raised to assert the principle of the Messiah's

claims and kingdom, even though they hadrejected those of Yahoshua of Nazareth! Thequestion of the Messiah might come up as aspeculative point; it might force itself upon theattention of the Sanhedrim; but it was not ofpersonal, practical, life-interest to them. It maymark only one aspect of the question, and that anextreme one, yet even as such it is characteristic,when a Rabbi could assert that "between thepresent and the days of the Messiah there was onlythis difference, Israel's servitude."

Quite other matters engrossed the attentionof the Rabbis. It was the present and the past, notthe future, which occupied them--the present asfixing all legal determinations, and the past asgiving sanction to this. Judaea proper was the onlyplace where the Shechinah had dwelt, the landwhere Yahweh had caused His temple to bereared, the seat of the Sanhedrim, the place wherealone learning and real piety were cultivated.From this point of view everything was judged.Judaea was "grain, Galilee straw, and beyondJordan chaff." To be a Judaean was to be "anHebrew of the Hebrews." It has already beenstated what reproach the Rabbis attached toGalilee in regard to its language, manners, andneglect of regular study. In some respects the verylegal observances, as certainly social customs,were different in Judaea from Galilee. Only inJudaea could Rabbis be ordained by the laying onof hands; only there could the Sanhedrim insolemn session declare and proclaim thecommencement of each month, on which thearrangement of the festive calendar depended.Even after the stress of political necessity haddriven the Rabbis to Galilee, they returned toLydda for the purpose, and it needed a sharpstruggle before they transferred the privilege ofJudaea to other regions in the third century of ourera (Jer. Sanh. i. 1, 18). The wine for use in theTemple was brought exclusively from Judaea, notonly because it was better, but because thetransport through Samaria would have rendered itdefiled. Indeed, the Mishnah mentions the namesof the five towns whence it was obtained.Similarly, the oil used was derived either fromJudaea, or, if from Peraea, the olives only werebrought, to be crushed in Jerusalem.

The question what cities were reallyHebrew was of considerable importance, so far as

28

concerned ritual questions, and it occupied theearnest attention of the Rabbis. It is not easy to fixthe exact boundaries of Judaea proper towards thenorth-west. To include the sea-shore in theprovince of Samaria is a popular mistake. Itcertainly was never reckoned with it. According toJosephus (Hebrew War, iii, 35-58) Judaea properextended along the sea-shore as far north asPtolemais or Acco. The Talmud seems to excludeat least the northern cities. In the New Covenantthere is a distinction made between Caesarea andthe province of Judaea (Acts 12:19, 21:10). Thisaffords one of the indirect evidences not only ofthe intimate acquaintance of the writer withstrictly Rabbinical views, but also of the early dateof the composition of the Book of Acts. For, at alater period Caesarea was declared to belong toJudaea, although its harbour was excluded fromsuch privileges, and all east and west of itpronounced "defiled." Possibly, it may have beenadded to the cities of Judaea, simply becauseafterwards so many celebrated Rabbis residedthere. The importance attaching to Caesarea inconnection with the preaching of the Gospel andthe history of St. Paul, and the early andflourishing Christian churches there establishedgive fresh interest to all notices of the place. Onlythose from Hebrew sources can here engage ourattention. It were out of place here to describe thepolitical importance of Caesarea, as the seat of theRoman power, or its magnificent harbour andbuildings, or its wealth and influence. In Hebrewwritings it bears the same name by which weknow it, though at times it is designated after itsfortifications (Migdal Shur, M. Zor, M. Nassi), orafter its harbour (Migdal Shina), once also by itsancient name, the tower of Straton. The populationconsisted of a mixture of Hebrews, Greeks,Syrians, and Samaritans, and tumults betweenthem were the first signal of the great Hebrew war.The Talmud calls it "the capital of the kings." Asthe seat of the Roman power it was speciallyhateful to the Hebrews. Accordingly it isdesignated as the "daughter of Edom--the city ofabomination and blasphemy," although the districtwas, for its riches, called "the land of life." Asmight be expected, constant difficulties arosebetween the Hebrew and Roman authorities inCaesarea, and bitter are the complaints against theunrighteousness of heathen judges. We can readily

understand, that to a Hebrew Caesarea was thesymbol of Rome, Rome of Edom--and Edom wasto be destroyed! In fact, in their view Jerusalemand Caesarea could not really co-exist. It is in thissense that we account for the following curiouspassage: "If you are told that Jerusalem andCaesarea are both standing, or that they are bothdestroyed, believe it not; but if you are told thatone of them is destroyed and the other standing,then believe it" (Gitt. 16 a; Meg. 6 a). It isinteresting to know that on account of the foreignHebrews resident in Caesarea, the Rabbis allowedthe principal prayers to be said in Greek, as beingthe vernacular; and that, from the time of theevangelist Philip, good work was done for Christamong its resident Hebrews. Indeed, Hebrewwritings contain special notice of controversiesthere between Hebrews and Christians.

A brief summary of Hebrew notices ofcertain other towns in Judaea, mentioned also inthe New Covenant, may throw some additionallight on the sacred narratives. In general, theMishnah divided Judaea proper into three parts--mountain, Shephelah, and valley (Shev. ix 2), towhich we must add the city of Jerusalem as aseparate district. And here we have anotherstriking evidence of the authenticity of the NewCovenant, and especially of the writings of St.Luke. Only one intimately acquainted with thestate of matters at the time would, with the Rabbis,have distinguished Jerusalem as a district separatefrom all the rest of Judaea, as St. Luke markedlydoes on several occasions (Luke 5:17; Acts 1:8,10:39). When the Rabbis speak of "the mountain,"they refer to the district north-east and north ofJerusalem, also known as "the royal mount." TheShephelah, of course, is the country along the sea-shore. All the rest is included in the term "valley."It need scarcely be explained that, as theJerusalem Talmud tells us, this is merely a generalclassification, which must not be too closelypressed. Of the eleven toparchies into which,according to Josephus (Pliny enumerates onlyten), Judaea proper was arranged, the Rabbis takeno notice, although some of their names have beentraced in Talmudical writings. These provinceswere no doubt again subdivided into districts orhyparchies, just as the towns were into quarters orhegemonies, both terms occurring in the Talmud.

29

The Rabbis forbade the exportation of provisionsfrom Palestine, even into Syria.

Travelling southward from Caesarea weare in the plain of Sharon, whose beauty andrichness are so celebrated in Holy Scripture (Cant2:1; Isa 35:2). This plain extends as far as Lydda,where it merges into that of Darom, whichstretches farther southwards. In accordance withthe statements of Holy Scripture (Isa 65:10) theplain of Sharon was always celebrated for itspasturage. According to the Talmud most of thecalves for sacrifices were brought from thatdistrict. The wine of Sharon was celebrated, and,for beverage, supposed to be mixed with one-thirdof water. The plain was also well known for themanufacture of pottery; but it must have been ofan inferior kind, since the Mishnah (Baba K. vi. 2)in enumerating for what proportion of damagedgoods a purchaser might not claim compensation,allows not less than ten per cent for breakage inthe pottery of Sharon. In Jer. Sotah viii. 3, we readthat the permission to return from war did notapply to those who had built brick houses inSharon, it being explained that the clay was sobad, that the houses had to be rebuilt within sevenyears. Hence also the annual prayer of the high-priest on the Day of Atonement, that the houses ofthe men of Sharon should not become their graves(see The Temple). Antipatris, the place where thefoot soldiers had left St. Paul in charge of thehorsemen (Acts 23:31), had once been the sceneof a very different array. For it was here that,according to tradition (Yoma, 69 a), thepriesthood, under Simon the Just, had metAlexander the Great in that solemn procession,which secured the safety of the Temple. InTalmudical writings it bears the same name, whichwas given it by Herod, in memory of his fatherAntipater (Ant. vi, 5.2). The name of ChepharZaba, however, also occurs, possibly that of anadjoining locality. In Sanh. 94 b, we read thatHezekiah had suspended a board at the entrance ofthe Beth Midrash (or college), with thenotification that whoever studied not the Law wasto be destroyed. Accordingly they searched fromDan to Beersheba, and found not a singleunlettered person, nor yet from Gebath toAntipatris, boy or girl, man or woman, who wasnot fully versed in all the legal ordinancesconcerning clean and unclean.

Another remarkable illustration of the NewCovenant is afforded by Lydda, the TalmudicalLod or Lud. We read that, in consequence of thelabours of St. Peter and the miracle wrought onAeneas, "all that dwelt at Lydda andSaron...turned to the Lord" (Acts 9:35). The briefnotice of Lydda given in this narrative of theapostle's labours, is abundantly confirmed byTalmudical notices, although, of course, we mustnot expect them to describe the progress ofChristianity. We can readily believe that Lyddahad its congregation of "saints," almost from thefirst, since it was (Maas. Sh. v. 2) within an easyday's journey west of Jerusalem. Indeed, as theTalmud explains, the second tithes (Deu 14:22,26:12) from Lydda could not be converted intomoney, but had to be brought to the city itself, so"that the streets of Jerusalem might be garlandedwith fruits." The same passage illustrates theproximity of Lydda to the city, and the frequentintercourse between the two, by saying that thewomen of Lydda mixed their dough, went up toJerusalem, prayed in the Temple, and returnedbefore it had fermented. Similarly, we infer fromTalmudical documents that Lydda had been theresidence of many Rabbis before the destructionof Jerusalem. After that event, it became the seatof a very celebrated school, presided over by someof the leaders of Hebrew thought. It was thisschool, which boldly laid it down, that, to avoiddeath, every ordinance of the Law might bebroken, except those in regard to idolatry, incest,and murder. It was in Lydda, also, that twobrothers voluntarily offered themselves victims tosave their co-religionists from slaughter,threatened because a body had been found, whosedeath was imputed to the Hebrews. It sounds like asad echo of the taunts addressed by "chief priests,""scribes and elders," to Yahoshua on the cross(Matt 27:41-43) when, on the occasion justmentioned, the Roman thus addressed the martyrs:"If you are of the people of Ananias, Mishael, andAzarias, let your god come, and save you from myhand!" (Taan. 18, 6).

But a much more interesting chain of evidenceconnects Lydda with the history of the founding ofthe Church. It is in connection with Lydda and itstribunal, which is declared to have been capable ofpronouncing sentence of death, that our blessedLord and the Virgin Mother are introduced in

30

certain Talmudical passages, though withstudiously and blasphemously altered names. Thestatements are, in their present form, whether fromignorance, design, or in consequence of successivealterations, confused, and they mix up differentevents and persons in Gospel history; among otherthings representing our Lord as condemned atLydda.22

But there can be no reasonable question thatthey refer to our blessed Lord and Hiscondemnation for supposed blasphemy andseduction of the people, and that they at leastindicate a close connection between Lydda and thefounding of Christianity. It is a curiousconfirmation of the gospel history, that the deathof Christ is there described as having taken place"on the eve of the Passover," remarkably bearingout not only the date of that event as gatheredfrom the synoptical gospels, but showing that theRabbis at least knew nothing of those Hebrewscruples and difficulties, by which modern Gentilewriters have tried to prove the impossibility ofChrist's condemnation on the Paschal night. It hasalready been stated that, after the destruction ofJerusalem, many and most celebrated Rabbischose Lydda for their residence. But the secondcentury witnessed a great change. The inhabitantsof Lydda are now charged with pride, ignorance,and neglect of their religion. The Midrash (Esther1:3) has it, that there were "ten measures ofwretchedness in the world. Nine of those belong toLod, the tenth to all the rest of the world." Lyddawas the last place in Judaea to which, after theirmigration into Galilee, the Rabbis resorted to fixthe commencement of the month. Hebrew legendhas it, that they were met by the "evil eye," whichcaused their death. There may, perhaps, be anallegorical allusion in this. Certain it is, that, at thetime, Lydda was the seat of a most flourishingChristian Church, and had its bishop. Indeed, alearned Hebrew writer has connected the changedHebrew feeling towards Lod with the spread of

22 May there not perhaps be some historical foundation even forthis statement? Could the secret gathering of "the chief priests andPharisees," mentioned in John 11:47, have taken place in Lydda(compare vers. 54, 55)? Was it there, that Judas "communed withthe chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him untothem?" There were at any rate obvious reasons for avoidingJerusalem in all preliminary measures against Yahoshua; and weknow that, while the Temple stood, Lydda was the only place outof Jerusalem which may be called a seat of the Rabbinical party.

Christianity. Lydda must have been a verybeautiful and a very busy place. The Talmudspeaks in exaggerated terms of the honey of itsdates (Cheth. iii. a), and the Mishnah (Baba M. iv.3) refers to its merchants as a numerous class,although their honesty is not extolled.23

Near Lydda, eastwards, was the village ofChephar Tabi. We might be tempted to derivefrom it the name of Tabitha (Acts 9:36), if it werenot that the names Tabi and Tabitha had been socommon at the time in Palestine. There can be noquestion of the situation of Joppa, the modernJaffa, where Peter saw the vision which openedthe door of the Church to the Gentiles. ManyRabbis are mentioned in connection with Joppa.The town was destroyed by Vespasian. There is acurious legend in the Midrash to the effect thatJoppa was not overwhelmed by the deluge. Couldthis have been an attempt to insinuate thepreservation and migration of men to distant partsof the earth? The exact location of Emmaus, forever sacred to us by the manifestation of theSaviour to the two disciples (Luke 24:13), ismatter of controversy. On the whole, the weight ofevidence still inclines to the traditional site.24

If so, it had a considerable Hebrew population,although it was also occupied by a Romangarrison. Its climate and waters were celebrated,as also its market-place. It is specially interestingto find that among the patrician Hebrew familiesbelonging to the laity, who took part in theinstrumental music of the Temple, two--those ofPegarim and Zippariah--were from Emmaus, andalso that the priesthood were wont to intermarrywith the wealthy Hebrews of that place (Er. ii. 4).Gaza, on whose "desert" road Philip preached toand baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, counted notfewer than eight heathen temples, besides an idol-shrine just outside the city. Still Hebrews wereallowed to reside there, probably on account of itsimportant market.

23 The Mishnah discusses how much profit a merchant is allowed totake on an article, and within what period a purchaser, who findshimself imposed upon, may return his purchase. The merchants ofLydda are certainly not placed in this discussion in the mostadvantageous light.24 Modern writers mostly identify it with the present Kulonieh,colonia, deriving the name from the circumstance that it wascolonised by Roman soldiers. Lieut. Conder suggests the modernKhamasa, about eight miles from Jerusalem, as the site of Emmaus.

31

Only two names yet remain to be mentioned,but those of the deepest and most solemn interest.Bethlehem, the birthplace of our Lord, andJerusalem, where He was crucified. It deservesnotice, that the answer which the Sanhedrists ofold gave to the inquiries of Herod (Matt 2:5) isequally returned in many Talmudical passages,and with the same reference to Micah 5:2. It maytherefore be regarded as a settled point that,according to the Hebrew fathers, Messiah, the Sonof David, was to be born in Bethlehem of Judah.But there is one passage in the Mishnah whichthrows such peculiar light on the Gospel narrative,that it will be best to give it in its entirety. Weknow that, on the night in which our Saviour wasborn, the angels' message came to those whoprobably alone of all in or near Bethlehem were"keeping watch." For, close by Bethlehem, on theroad to Jerusalem, was a tower, known as MigdalEder, the "watch-tower of the flock." For here wasthe station where shepherd watched their flocksdestined for sacrifices in the Temple. So wellknown was this, that if animals were found as farfrom Jerusalem as Migdal Eder, and within thatcircuit on every side, the males were offered asburnt-offerings, the females as peace-offerings.25

R. Jehudah adds: "If suited for Paschalsacrifices, then they are Paschal sacrifices,provided it be not more than thirty days before thefeast" (Shekal. vii 4; compare also Jer. Kid. ii. 9).It seems of deepest significance, almost like thefulfilment of type, that those shepherds who firstheard tidings of the Saviour's birth, who firstlistened to angels' praises, were watching flocksdestined to be offered as sacrifices in the Temple.There was the type, and here the reality. At alltimes Bethlehem was among "the least" in Judah--so small that the Rabbis do not even refer to it indetail. The small village-inn was over-crowded,and the guests from Nazareth found shelter only inthe stable,26 whose manger became the cradle ofthe King of Israel.

25 Formerly those who found such animals had out of their ownmeans to supply the necessary drink-offerings. But as this inducedsome not to bring the animals to the Temple, it was afterwardsdecreed to supply the cost of the drink-offerings from the Templetreasury (Shek. vii. 5).26 * In Echa R. 72 a, there is a tradition that the Messiah was to beborn "in the Castle Arba of Bethlehem Judah." Caspari quotes thisin confirmation that the present castellated monastery, in the cave

It was here that those who tended thesacrificial flocks, heaven-directed, found theDivine Babe--significantly the first to see Him, tobelieve, and to adore. But this is not all. It is whenwe remember, that presently these shepherdswould be in the Temple, and meet those who camethither to worship and to sacrifice, that weperceive the full significance of what otherwisewould have seemed scarcely worth while noticingin connection with humble shepherds: "And whenthey had seen it, they made known abroad thesaying which was told them concerning this child.And all they that heard it wondered at those thingswhich were told them by the shepherds" (Luke2:17,18). Moreover, we can understand thewonderful impression made on those in the courtsof the Temple, as, while they selected theirsacrifices, the shepherds told the devout of thespeedy fulfilment of all these types in what theyhad themselves seen and heard in that night ofwonders; how eager, curious crowds might gatheraround to discuss, to wonder, perhaps to mock;how the heart of "just and devout" old Simeonwould be gladdened within him, in expectation ofthe near realisation of a life's hopes and prayers;and how aged Anna, and they who like her"looked for redemption in Israel," would lift uptheir heads, since their salvation was drawingnigh. Thus the shepherds would be the mosteffectual heralds of the Messiah in the Temple,and both Simeon and Anna be prepared for thetime when the infant Saviour would be presentedin the sanctuary. But there is yet another versewhich, as we may suggest, would find a fullerexplanation in the fact that these shepherds tendedthe Temple flocks. When in Luke 2:20 we readthat "the shepherds returned, glorifying andpraising Yahweh," the meaning in thatconnection27 seems somewhat difficult till werealise that, after bringing their flocks to theTemple, they would return to their own homes,and carry with them, joyfully and gratefully,tidings of the great salvation.

of which is the traditional site of our Lord's birth, marks the realspot. In the East such caves were often used as stables.27 Compare here verses 17, 18, which in point of time precede verse20. The term diagnorizo, rendered in the Authorised Version "makeknown abroad," and by Wahl "ultro citroque narro," does not seemexhausted by the idea of conversation with the party in the "stable,"or with any whom they might meet in "the field."

32

Lastly, without entering into controversy, thepassage from the Mishnah above quoted in greatmeasure disposes of the objection against thetraditional date of our Lord's birth, derived fromthe supposed fact, that the rains of Decemberwould prevent the flocks being kept all night "inthe field." For, in the first place, these were flockson their way to Jerusalem, and not regularlypasturing in the open at that season. And,secondly, the Mishnah evidently contemplatestheir being thus in the open thirty days before thePassover, or in the month of February, duringwhich the average rainfall is quite the largest inthe year.28

"Ten measures of beauty," say the Rabbis,"hath Yahweh bestowed upon the world, and nineof these fall to the lot of Jerusalem"--and again,"A city, the fame of which has gone out from oneend of the world to the other" (Ber. 38). "Thine, OLord, is the greatness, the power, the glory, andeternity." This--explains the Talmud--"isJerusalem." In opposition to her rival Alexandria,which was designated "the little," Jerusalem wascalled "the great." It almost reminds one of thetitle "eternal city," given to Rome, when we findthe Rabbis speaking of Jerusalem as the "eternalhouse." Similarly, if a common proverb has it, that"all roads lead to Rome," it was a Hebrew saying,"All coins come from Jerusalem." This is not theplace to describe the city in its appearance andglory (for this compare the two first chapters ofmy volume on The Temple: Its Ministry andServices). But one almost feels as if, on such asubject, one could understand, if not condone, themanifest exaggerations of the Rabbis. Indeed,there are indications that they scarcely expectedtheir statements to be taken literally. Thus, whenthe number of its synagogues is mentioned as 460or 480, it is explained that the latter number is thenumerical equivalent of the word "full" in Isaiah1:21 ("it was full of judgment"). It is moreinteresting to know, that we find in the Talmudexpress mention of "the Synagogue of theAlexandrians," referred to in Acts 6:9--anotherimportant confirmation, if such were needed, ofthe accuracy of St. Luke's narratives. Of the

28 The average rainfall in Jerusalem for eight years amounts tofourteen inches in December, thirteen in January, and sixteen inFebruary (Barclay, City of the Great King, p. 428).

hospitality of the inhabitants of Jerusalemaccounts are given, which we can scarcely regardas much exaggerated; for the city was notreckoned to belong to any tribe in particular; itwas to be considered as equally the home of all.Its houses were to be neither hired nor let, butfreely thrown open to every brother. Nor did anyone among the countless thousands who throngedit at feast-times ever lack room. A curtain hungbefore the entrance of a house intimated, that therewas still room for guests; a table spread in front ofit, that its board was still at their disposal. And, ifit was impossible to accommodate within thewalls of Jerusalem proper the vast crowds whichresorted to the city, there can be no doubt that forsacred purpose Bethany and Bethphage werereckoned as within the circle of Jerusalem. It callsforth peculiar sensations, when we read in theseHebrew records of Bethany and Bethphage asspecially celebrated for their hospitality topilgrim-guests, for it wakes the sacred memoriesof our Lord's sojourn with the holy family ofBethany, and especially of His last stay there andof His royal entrance into Jerusalem.

In truth, every effort was used to makeJerusalem truly a city of delight. Its police andsanitary regulations were more perfect than in anymodern city; the arrangements such as to keep thepilgrim free to give his heart and mind to sacredsubjects. If, after all, "the townspeople," as theywere called, were regarded as somewhat proudand supercilious, it was something to be a citizenof Jerushalaimah, as the Jerusalemites preferredto write its name. Their constant intercourse withstrangers gave them a knowledge of men and ofthe world. The smartness and cleverness of theyoung people formed a theme of admiration totheir more shy and awkward country relatives.There was also a grandeur in their bearing--almostluxury; and an amount of delicacy, tact, andtenderness, which appeared in all their publicdealings. Among a people whose wit andcleverness are proverbial, it was no mean praise tobe renowned for these qualities. In short,Jerusalem was the ideal of the Hebrew, inwhatever land of exile he might tarry. Her richmen would lavish fortunes on the support ofHebrew learning, the promotion of piety, or thesupport of the national cause. Thus one of themwould, when he found the price of sacrifices

33

exceedingly high, introduce into the Temple-courtthe requisite animals at his own cost, to render theservice possible for the poor. Or on anotheroccasion he would offer to furnish the city fortwenty-one months with certain provisions in herstruggle against Rome. In the streets of Jerusalemmen from the most distant countries met, speakingevery variety of language and dialect. Hebrewsand Greeks, Roman soldiers and Galileanpeasants, Pharisees, Sadducees, and white-robedEssenes, busy merchants and students of abstrusetheology, mingled, a motley crowd, in the narrowstreets of the city of palaces. But over all theTemple, rising above the city, seemed to fling itsshadow and its glory. Each morning the threefoldblast of the priests' trumpets wakened the city witha call to prayer; each evening the same blastsclosed the working day, as with sounds fromheaven. Turn where you might, everywhere theholy buildings were in view, now with the smokeof sacrifices curling over the courts, or again withsolemn stillness resting upon the sacred hills. Itwas the Temple which gave its character toJerusalem, and which decided its fate. There is aremarkable passage in the Talmud, which,remembering that the time to which it refers wasin all probability the very year in which our Lorddied on the cross, reads like an unwillingconfirmation of the Gospel narrative: "Forty yearsbefore the destruction of the Temple, its doorsopened of their own accord. Jochanan,29 the son ofSaccai, rebuked them, saying: O Temple, whyopenest thou of thine own accord? Ah! I perceivethat thine end is at hand; for it is written (Zech11:1): 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the firemay devour thy cedars'" (Yoma 39 b). "And,behold, the veil of the Temple was rent in twainfrom the top to the bottom" (Matt 27:51)--blessedbe Yahweh, not merely in announcement ofcoming judgment, but henceforth to lay open untoall the way into the Holiest of All.

29 Caspari suggests that this was the same as the high-priest Annas,the name having only the syllable indicating the name of Yahwehprefixed.

Chapter 6Hebrew Homes

It may be safely asserted, that the granddistinction, which divided all mankind intoHebrews and Gentiles, was not only religious, butalso social. However near the cities of the heathento those of Israel, however frequent and close theintercourse between the two parties, no one couldhave entered a Hebrew town or village withoutfeeling, so to speak, in quite another world. Theaspect of the streets, the building and arrangementof the houses, the municipal and religious rule, themanners and customs of the people, their habitsand ways--above all, the family life, stood inmarked contrast to what would be seen elsewhere.On every side there was evidence that religionhere was not merely a creed, nor a set ofobservances, but that it pervaded everyrelationship, and dominated every phase of life.

Let us imagine a real Hebrew town or village.There were many such, for Palestine had at alltimes a far larger number of towns and villagesthan might have been expected from its size, orfrom the general agricultural pursuits of itsinhabitants. Even at the time of its first occupationunder Joshua we find somewhere about sixhundred towns--if we may judge by the Leviticalcities, of about an average circumference of twothousand cubits on each side, and with probablyan average population of from two to threethousand. But the number of towns and villages,as well as their populousness, greatly increased inlater times. Thus Josephus (Life, 45) speaks of notfewer than two hundred and forty townships inGalilee alone in his days. This progress was, nodoubt, due not only to the rapid development ofsociety, but also to the love of building thatcharacterised Herod and his family, and to whichso many fortresses, palaces, temples, and townsowed their origin. Alike the New Covenant,Josephus, and the Rabbis give us three names,which may be rendered by villages, townships,and towns--the latter being surrounded by walls,and again distinguished into those fortified alreadyat the time of Joshua, and those of later date. Atownship might be either "great," if it had itssynagogue, or small, if it wanted such; this beingdependent on the residence of at least ten men,who could always be reckoned upon to form a

34

quorum for the worship of the synagogue (the so-called Batlanin30); for service could not becelebrated with any less number of males.

The villages had no synagogue; but theirinhabitants were supposed to go to the nearesttownship for market on the Monday and Thursdayof every week, when service was held for them,and the local Sanhedrim also sat (Megill. i. 1-3). Avery curious law provided (Cheth. 110), that aman could not oblige his wife to follow him if hemoved either from a township to a town, or thereverse. The reason of the former provision was,that in a town people lived together, and thehouses were close to each other; hence there was awant of fresh, free air, and of gardens, which wereenjoyed in townships. On the other hand, a womanmight object to exchange residence in a town forone in a township, because in a town everythingwas to be got, and people met in the streets andmarket-place from all the neighbourhood.

Statements like these will give some idea ofthe difference between town and country life. Letus first think of the former. Approaching one ofthe ancient fortified towns, one would come to alow wall that protected a ditch. Crossing this moat,one would be at the city wall proper, and enterthrough a massive gate, often covered with iron,and secured by strong bars and bolts. Above thegate rose the watch-tower. "Within the gate" wasthe shady or sheltered retreat where "the elders"sat. Here grave citizens discussed public affairs orthe news of the day, or transacted importantbusiness. The gates opened upon large squares, onwhich the various streets converged. Here was thebusy scene of intercourse and trade. The country-people stood or moved about, hawking theproduce of field, orchard, and dairy; the foreignmerchant or pedlar exposed his wares,recommending the newest fashions from Rome orAlexandria, the latest luxuries from the far East, orthe art produce of the goldsmith and the modellerat Jerusalem, while among them moved the crowd,idle or busy, chattering, chaffing, good-humoured,and bandying witticisms. Now they give wayrespectfully before a Pharisee; or theirconversation is hushed by the weird appearance of

30 From "betal," to cease--as the glossary to Baba B. 82 a explains:men without reproach, who gave up their work to give themselveswholly to the work of the synagogue. Such had a claim to supportfrom the synagogue revenues.

an Essene or of some sectary--political orreligious,--while low, muttered curses attend thestealthy steps of the publican, whose restless eyeswander around to watch that nothing escape theclose meshes of the tax-gatherer's net. Thesestreets are all named, mostly after the trades orguilds which have there their bazaars. For a guildalways keeps together, whether in street orsynagogue. In Alexandria the different trades satin the synagogue arranged into guilds; and St. Paulcould have no difficulty in meeting in the bazaarof his trade with the like-minded Aquila andPriscilla (Acts 18:2,3), with whom to find alodging. In these bazaars many of the workmen satoutside their shops, and, in the interval of labour,exchanged greetings or banter with the passers-by.For all Israel are brethren, and there is a sort offreemasonry even in the Hebrew mode ofsalutation, which always embodied either anacknowledgment of the God of Israel, or abrotherly wish of peace. Excitable, impulsive,quick, sharp-witted, imaginative; fond of parable,pithy sayings, acute distinctions, or pungent wit;reverent towards Yahweh and man, respectful inthe presence of age, enthusiastic of learning and ofsuperior mental endowments, most delicatelysensitive in regard to the feelings of others;zealous, with intensely warm Eastern natures,ready to have each prejudice aroused, hasty andviolent in passion, but quickly assuaged--such isthe motley throng around. And now, perhaps, thevoice of a Rabbi, teaching in some shady retreat--although latterly Hebrew pride of learning forbadethe profanation of lore by popularising it for the"unlearned"--or, better far, at one time thepresence of the Master, gathers and keeps themspell-bound, forgetful alike of the cravings ofhunger and of the lapse of time, till, the shortEastern day ended, the stars shining out on thedeep blue sky must have reminded many amongthem of the promise to their father Abraham, nowfulfilled in One greater than Abraham.

Back to the town in the cool of even tolisten to the delicious murmur of well or fountain,as those crowd around it who have not cisterns intheir own houses. The watchman is on the top ofthe tower above the gateway; presently, night-watchers will patrol the streets. Nor is thereabsolute darkness, for it is customary to keep alight burning all night in the house, and the

35

windows (unlike those of modern Easterndwellings) open chiefly on street and road. Thoselarge windows are called Tyrian, the smaller onesEgyptian. They are not filled in with glass, butcontain gratings or lattices. In the houses of therich the window-frames are elaborately carved,and richly inlaid. Generally the woodwork is ofthe common sycamore, sometimes of olive orcedar, and in palaces even of Indian sandal-wood.The entablature is more or less curiously carvedand ornamented. Only there must be norepresentation of anything in heaven or on earth.So deep was the feeling on this point, that even theattempt of Pilate to introduce by night intoJerusalem the effigies of Caesar on the top of theRoman standards led to scenes in which theHebrews showed themselves willing to die fortheir convictions (Josephus, Ant, xviii, 59); whilethe palace of Herod Antipas at Tiberias wasburned by the mob because it was decorated withfigures of animals (Josephus, Life, 62-67). Theseextreme views, however, gave way, first, beforethe tolerant example of Gamaliel, the teacher ofPaul, who made use of a public bath, althoughadorned by a statue of Venus, since, as he put it,the statue was intended for the embellishment ofthe bath, and not the bath for the sake of thestatue. If this argument reminds us that Gamalielwas not a stranger to Christianity, the statement ofhis grandson, that an idol was nothing if itsworship had been disclaimed by the heathen (Ab.Sar. 52), recalls still more strongly the teaching ofSt. Paul. And so we gradually come down to themodern orthodox doctrine, which allows therepresentation of plants, animals, etc., butprohibits that of sun, moon, and stars, except forpurposes of study, while, though doubtfully, itadmits those of men and even angels, providedthey be in sunken, not in raised workmanship.

The rule of these towns and villages wasexceedingly strict. The representatives of Romewere chiefly either military men, or else fiscal orpolitical agents. We have, indeed, a notice that theRoman general Gabinius, about half a centurybefore Christ, divided Palestine for juridicalpurposes into five districts, each presided over bya council (Josephus, Ant. xiv, 91); but thatarrangement was only of very short duration, andeven while it lasted these councils seem to havebeen Hebrew. Then every town had is

Sanhedrim,31 consisting of twenty-three membersif the place numbered at least one hundred andtwenty men, or of three members if the populationwere smaller.32

These Sanhedrists were appointed directly bythe supreme authority, or Great Sanhedrim, "thecouncil," at Jerusalem, which consisted ofseventy-one members. It is difficult to fix thelimits of the actual power wielded by theseSanhedrims in criminal cases. But the smallerSanhedrims are referred to in such passages asMatthew 5:22, 23, 10:17; Mark 13:9. Of course allecclesiastical and, so to speak, strictly Hebrewcauses, and all religious questions were withintheir special cognisance. Lastly, there were also inevery place what we may call municipalauthorities, under the presidency of a mayor--therepresentatives of the "elders"--an institution sofrequently mentioned in Scripture, and deeplyrooted in Hebrew society. Perhaps these may bereferred to in Luke 7:3, as sent by the centurion ofCapernaum to intercede for him with the Lord.

What may be called the police and sanitaryregulations were of the strictest character. OfCaesarea, for example, we know that there was aregular system of drainage into the sea, apparentlysimilar to, but more perfect than that of anymodern town (Josephus, Ant. xv, 340). The sameholds true in regard to the Temple-buildings atJerusalem. But in every town and village sanitaryrules were strictly attended to. Cemeteries,tanneries, and whatever also might be prejudicialto health, had to be removed at least fifty cubitsoutside a town. Bakers' and dyers' shops, orstables, were not allowed under the dwelling ofanother person. Again, the line of each street hadto be strictly kept in building, nor was even aprojection beyond it allowed. In general the streetswere wider than those of modern Eastern cities.The nature of the soil, and the circumstance that so

31 The name "Sanhedrim," or "Sunedrion," is undoubtedly of Greekderivation, although the Rabbis have tried to paraphrase it as "Sin"(=Sinai) "haderin," those who repeat or explain the law, or to traceits etymology, as being "those who hate to accept the persons ofmen in judgment" (the name being supposed to be composed of theHebrew equivalents of the words italicised).32 An ingenious attempt has lately been made to show that theSanhedrim of three members was not a regular court, but onlyarbitrators chosen by the parties themselves. But the argument, sofar as it tries to prove that such was always the case, seems to menot to meet all the facts.

36

many towns were built on hills (at least in Judaea),would, of course, be advantageous in a sanitarypoint of view. It would also render the paving ofthe streets less requisite. But we know that certaintowns were paved--Jerusalem with white stones(Josephus, Ant. xx, 219-223). To obviateoccasions of dispute, neighbours were not allowedto have windows looking into the courts or roomsof others nor might the principal entrance to ashop be through a court common to two or threedwellings.

These brief notices may help us better torealise the surroundings of Hebrew town life.Looking up and down one of the streets of a townin Galilee or Judaea, the houses would be seen todiffer in size and in elegance, from the smallcottage, only eight or ten yards square, to themansions of the rich, sometimes two or morestories high, and embellished by rows of pillarsand architectural adornments. Suppose ourselvesin front of a better-class dwelling, though notexactly that of a patrician, for it is built of brick, orperhaps of undressed, or even of dressed stone, butnot of marble, nor yet of hewn stone; nor are itswalls painted with such delicate colours asvermilion, but simply whitewashed, or, may be,covered with some neutral tint. A wide, sometimescostly, stair leads from the outside straight up tothe flat roof, which is made to slope a littledownwards, so as to allow the rainwater easily toflow through pipes into the cistern below. Theroof is paved with brick, stone, or other hardsubstance, and surrounded by a balustrade, which,according to Hebrew law, must be at least twocubits (three feet) high, and strong enough to bearthe weight of a person. Police-regulations,conceived in the same spirit of carefulness,prohibited open wells and pits, insufficientladders, rickety stairs, even dangerous dogs abouta house. From roof to roof there might be a regularcommunication, called by the Rabbis "the road ofthe roofs" (Babba Mez. 88 b). Thus a person couldmake his escape, passing from roof to roof, till atthe last house he would descend the stairs that leddown its outside, without having entered anydwelling. To this "road of the roofs" our Lord nodoubt referred in His warning to His followers(Matt 24:17; Mark 13:15; Luke 17:31), intended toapply to the last siege of Jerusalem: "And let himthat is on the housetop not go down into the house,

neither enter therein." For ordinary intercourse theroof was the coolest, the airiest, the stillest place.Of course, at times it would be used for purposesof domestic economy. But thither a man wouldretire in preference for prayer or quiet thinking;here he would watch, and wait, and observewhether friend or foe, the gathering of the storm,or--as the priest stationed on the pinnacle of theTemple before the morning sacrifice--how the redand golden light of dawn spread along the edge ofthe horizon. From the roof, also, it was easy toprotect oneself against enemies, or to carry ondangerous fight with those beneath; and assuredly,if anywhere, it was "on the housetops" wheresecrets might be whispered, or, on the other hand,the most public "proclamation" of them be made(Matt 10:27; Luke 12:3). The stranger's room wasgenerally built on the roof, in order that,undisturbed by the household, the guest might goout and come in; and here, at the feast ofTabernacles, for coolness and convenience, theleafy "booths" were often reared, in which Israeldwelt in memory of their pilgrimage. Close bywas "the upper chamber." On the roof the familywould gather for converse, or else in the courtbeneath--with its trees spreading grateful shade,and the music of its plashing fountain fallingsoothingly on the ear, as you stood in the coveredgallery that ran all around, and opened on theapartments of the household.

If the guest-chamber on the roof, whichcould be reached from the outside, without passingthrough the house, reminds us of Elisha and theShunammite, and of the last Passover-supper, towhich the Lord and His disciples could go, andwhich they could leave, without coming in contactwith any in the house, the gallery that ran roundthe court under the roof recalls yet another mostsolemn scene. We remember how they who borethe man "sick of the palsy," when unable to "comenigh unto Yahoshua for the press," "uncovered theroof where He was," "and let him down throughthe tiling with his couch into the midst beforeYahoshua" (Mark 2:4; Luke 5:19). We know,from many Talmudical passages, that the Rabbisresorted in preference to "the upper room" whendiscussing religious questions. It may have beenso in this instance; and, unable to gain accessthrough the door which led into the upper room,the bearers of the sick may have broken down the

37

ceiling from the roof. Or, judging it more likelythat the attendant multitude thronged the courtbeneath, while Yahoshua stood in the gallery thatran round the court and opened into the variousapartments, they might have broken down the roofabove Him, and so slowly let down their burden atHis feet, and in sight of them all. There is asignificant parallelism, or rather contrast, to this ina Rabbinical story (Moed K. 25 a), which relateshow, when the bier on which a celebrated teacherwas laid could not be passed out at the door, theycarried up their burden and let it down from theroof--on its way, not to a new life, but to burial.Otherwise, there was also a stair which led fromthe roof into the court and house. Approaching ahouse, as visitors ordinarily would do, from thestreet, you would either pass through a large outercourt, or else come straight to the vestibule orporch. Here the door opened into the inner court,which sometimes was shared by several families.A porter opened to callers on mentioning theirnames, as did Rhoda to Peter on the eventful nightof his miraculous deliverance from prison (Acts12:13,14). Our Lord also applies this well-knownfact of domestic life, when He says (Rev 3:20),"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if anyman hear My voice, and open the door, I willcome into him, and will sup with him, and he withMe." Passing through this inner court, and throughthe gallery, you would reach the various rooms--the family room, the reception room, and thesleeping apartments--the most retired beingoccupied by the ladies, and the inner rooms usedchiefly in winter. The furniture was much thesame as that now in use, consisting of tables,couches, chairs, candlesticks, and lamps, varyingin costliness according to the rank and wealth ofthe family. Among articles of luxury we mentionrich cushions for the head and arms, ornaments,and sometimes even pictures. The doors, whichmoved on hinges fastened with wooden pins, werebarred by wooden bolts, which could bewithdrawn by check keys from the outside. Thedining apartment was generally spacious, andsometimes employed for meetings.

We have been describing the arrangementsand the appearance of towns and dwellings inPalestine. But it is not any of these outward thingswhich gives a real picture of a Hebrew home.Within, everything was quite peculiar. At the

outset, the rite of circumcision separated theHebrew from the nations around, and dedicatedhim to Yahweh. Private prayer, morning andevening, hallowed daily life, and family religionspervaded the home. Before every meal theywashed and prayed: after it they "gave thanks."Besides, there were what may be designated asspecial family feasts. The return of the Sabbathsanctified the week of labour. It was to bewelcomed as a king, or with songs as abridegroom; and each household observed it as aseason of sacred rest and of joy. True, Rabbinismmade all this a matter of mere externalism,converting it into an unbearable burden, byendless injunctions of what constituted work andof that which was supposed to produce joy,thereby utterly changing its sacred character. Still,the fundamental idea remained, like a brokenpillar that shows where the palace had stood, andwhat had been its noble proportions. As the headof the house returned on the Sabbath-eve from thesynagogue to his home, he found it festivelyadorned, the Sabbath lamp brightly burning, andthe table spread with the richest each householdcould afford. But first he blessed each child withthe blessing of Israel. And next evening, when theSabbath light faded out, he made solemn"separation" between the hallowed day and theworking week, and so commenced his labour oncemore in the name of Yahweh. Nor were thestranger, the poor, the widow, or the fatherlessforgotten. How fully they were provided for, howeach shared in what was to be considered not aburden but a privilege, and with what delicacyrelief was administered--for all Israel werebrethren, and fellow-citizens of their Jerusalem--those know best who have closely studied Hebrewlife, its ordinances and practices.

But this also is rather a sketch of religiousthan of family life. At the outset, we should heresay, that even the Hebrew name for "woman,"given her at her creation (Gen 2:23), marked awife as the companion of her husband, and hisequal ("Ishah," a woman, from "Ish," a man). Butit is when we consider the relations between manand wife, children and parents, the young and theaged, that the vast difference between Judaism andheathenism so strikingly appears. Even therelationship in which Yahweh presented Himselfto His people, as their Father, would give peculiar

38

strength and sacredness to the bond whichconnected earthly parents with their offspring.Here it should be borne in mind that, so to speak,the whole purpose of Israel as a nation, with aview to the appearance of the Messiah fromamong them, made it to each household a matterof deepest interest that no light in Israel should beextinguished through want of succession. Hence,such an expression as (Jer 22:10), "Weep sore forhim that goeth away: for he shall return no more,"was applied to those who died childless (Moed K.27). Similarly, it was said that he who had no childwas like one dead. Proverbial expressions inregard to the "parental relation" occur inRabbinical writings, which in their higherapplication remind us that the New Covenantwriters were Hebrews. If, in the impassionedstrain of happy assurance concerning our Christiansafety, we are told (Rom 8:33), "Who shall layanything to the charge of Yahweh's elect? It isYahweh that justifieth," we may believe that St.Paul was familiar with a saying like this: "Shall afather bear witness against his son?" (Abod S. 3).The somewhat similar question, "Is there a fatherwho hateth his own son?" may recall to our mindsthe comfort which the Epistle to the Hebrewsministers to those who are in suffering (Heb 12:7),"If ye endure chastening, Yahweh dealeth withyou as with sons; for what son is he whom thefather chasteneth not?"

Speaking of the relation between parentsand children, it may be safely asserted, that nocrime was more severely reprobated than anybreach of the fifth commandment. The Talmud,with its usual punctiliousness, enters into details,when it lays down as a rule that "a son is bound tofeed his father, to give him drink, to clothe him, toprotect him, to lead him in, and to conduct himout, and to wash his face, his hands, and his feet";to which the Jerusalem Gemara adds, that a son iseven bound to beg for his father--although herealso Rabbinism would give preference to aspiritual before a natural parent, or rather to onewho teaches the law before a father! The generalstate of Hebrew society shows us parents as fondlywatching over their children, and children asrequiting their care by bearing with the foibles,and even the trials, arising from the caprices of oldage and infirmity. Such things as undutifulness, orwant of loving consideration for parents, would

have wakened a thrill of horror in Hebrew society.As for crimes against parents, which the law ofYahweh visited with the utmost penalty, theyseem happily to have been almost unknown. TheRabbinical ordinances, however, also specified theobligation of parents, and limited their power.Thus a son was considered independent wheneverhe could gain his own living; and, although adaughter remained in the power of her father tillmarriage, she could not, after she was of age, begiven away without her own express and freeconsent. A father might chastise his child, but onlywhile young, and even then not to such extent asto destroy self-respect. But to beat a grown-up sonwas forbidden on pain of excommunication; andthe apostolic injunction (Eph 6:4), "Fathers,provoke not your children to wrath," finds almostits literal counterpart in the Talmud (Moed K. 17a). Properly speaking, indeed, the Hebrew lawlimited the absolute obligation of a father (amother was free from such legal obligation) tofeed, clothe, and house his child to his sixth year,after which he could only be admonished to it asone of the duties of love, but not legallyconstrained (Chethub. 49 b; 65 b). In case ofseparation of the parents, the mother had charge ofthe daughters, and the father of the sons; but thelatter also might be intrusted to the mother, if thejudges considered it for the advantage of thechildren.

A few notices as to the reverence due toage will appropriately close this brief sketch ofHebrew home life. It was a beautiful thought--however some may doubt its exegeticalcorrectness--that just as the pieces of the brokentables of the law were kept in the ark, so old ageshould be venerated and cherished, even though itshould be broken in mind or memory (Ber. 8 b).Assuredly, Rabbinism went to the utmost verge inthis matter when it recommended reverence forage, even though it were in the case of oneignorant of the law, or of a Gentile. There were,however, diverging opinions on this point. Thepassage, Leviticus 19:32, "Thou shalt rise upbefore the hoary head, and honour the face of theold man," was explained to refer only to sages,who alone were to be regarded as old. If R. Josecompared such as learned of young men to thosewho ate unripe grapes and drank of new wine, R.Jehudah taught, "Look not at the bottles, but at

39

what they contain. There are new bottles full ofold wine, and old bottles which contain not evennew wine" (Ab. iv. 20). Again, if in Deuteronomy13:1, 2, and also, 18:21, 22 the people weredirected to test a prophet by the signs which heshowed--a misapplication of which was made bythe Hebrews, when they asked Christ what signHe showed unto them (John 2:18, 6:30)--while inDeuteronomy 17:10 they were told simply "to doaccording to all that they of that place informthee," it was asked, What, then, is the differencebetween an old man and a prophet? To this thereply was: A prophet is like an ambassador, whomyou believe in consequence of his royalcredentials; but an ancient is one whose word youreceive without requiring such evidence. And itwas strictly enjoined that proper outward marks ofrespect should be shown to old age, such as to risein the presence of older men, not to occupy theirseats, to answer them modestly, and to assign tothem the uppermost places at feasts.

After having thus marked how strictlyRabbinism watched over the mutual duties ofparents and children, it will be instructive to notehow at the same time traditionalism, in its worshipof the letter, really destroyed the spirit of theDivine law. An instance will here suffice; and thatwhich we select has the double advantage ofillustrating an otherwise difficult allusion in theNew Covenant, and of exhibiting the realcharacteristics of traditionalism. Nocommandment could be more plainly inaccordance, alike with the spirit and the letter ofthe law, than this: "He that curseth father ormother, let him die the death." Yet our Lorddistinctly charges traditionalism with"transgressing" it (Matt 15:4-6). The followingquotation from the Mishnah (Sanh. vii. 8)curiously illustrates the justice of His accusation:"He that curseth his father or his mother is notguilty, unless he curses them with express mentionof the name of Yahweh." In any other case thesages declare him absolved! And this is by nomeans a solitary instance of Rabbinicalperversion. Indeed, the moral systems of thesynagogue leave the same sad impression on themind as its doctrinal teaching. They are allelaborate chains of casuistry, of which no truerdescription could be given than in the words of theSaviour (Matt 15:6): "Ye have made the

commandment of Yahweh of none effect by yourtradition."

Chapter 7The Upbringing of Hebrew

Children

The tenderness of the bond which unitedHebrew parents to their children appears even inthe multiplicity and pictorialness of theexpressions by which the various stages of child-life are designated in the Hebrew. Besides suchgeneral words as "ben" and "bath"-"son" and"daughter"--we find no fewer than nine differentterms, each depicting a fresh stage of life. The firstof these simply designates the babe as the newly-"born"--the "jeled," or, in the feminine, "jaldah"--as in Exodus 2:3, 6, 8. But the use of this termthrows a fresh light on the meaning of somepassages of Scripture. Thus we remember that it isapplied to our Lord in the prophecy of His birth(Isa 9:6): "For a babe" ('jeled') is born unto us, ason ('ben') is given to us"; while in Isaiah 2:6 itsemployment adds a new meaning to the charge:"They please themselves (or strike hands) with the'jalde'--the 'babes'--of strangers"--marking them,so to speak, as not only the children of strangers,but as unholy from their very birth. Compare alsothe pictorial, or else the poetical, use of the word"jeled" in such passages as Isaiah 29:23, 57:4;Jeremiah 31:20; Ecclesiastes 4:13; 1 Kings 12:8; 2Kings 2:24; Genesis 42:22; and others. The nextchild-name, in point of time, is "jonek," whichmeans, literally, "a suckling," being alsosometimes used figuratively of plants, like ourEnglish "sucker," as in Isaiah 53:2: "He shall growup before Him as a sucker"--"jonek." The word"jonek" occurs, for example, in Isaiah 11:8, and inPsalm 8:2. On the other hand, the expression inthe latter passage, rendered "babes" in ourAuthorised Version, marks a yet third stage in thechild's existence, and a farther advancement in thebabe-life. This appears from many passages. Asthe word implies, the "olel" is still "sucking"; butit is no longer satisfied with only this nourishment,and is "asking bread," as in Lamentations 4:4:"The tongue of the 'jonek' cleaves to the roof ofhis mouth for thirst: the 'olalim' ask bread." A

40

fourth designation represents the child as the"gamul," or "weaned one" (Psa 131:2; Isa 11:8,28:9), from a verb which primarily means tocomplete, and secondarily to wean. As we know,the period of weaning among the Hebrews wasgenerally at the end of two years (Chethub. 60),and was celebrated by a feast. After that the fondeye of the Hebrew parent seems to watch the childas it is clinging to its mother--as it were, rangingitself by her--whence the fifth designation, "taph"(Esth 3:13, "The 'taph' and the women in one day";Jer 40:7; Eze 9:6). The sixth period is marked bythe word "elem" (in the feminine, "almah," as inIsa 7:14, of the virgin-mother), which denotesbecoming firm and strong. As one might expect,we have next the "naari," or youth--literally, hewho shakes off, or shakes himself free. Lastly, wefind the child designated as "bachur," or the"ripened one"; a young warrior, as in Isaiah 31:8;Jeremiah 18:21, 15:8, etc. Assuredly, those who sokeenly watched child-life as to give a pictorialdesignation to each advancing stage of itsexistence, must have been fondly attached to theirchildren.

There is a passage in the Mishnah (Aboth.v. 21), which quaintly maps out and, as it were,labels the different periods of life according totheir characteristics. It is worth reproducing, ifonly to serve as introduction to what we shall haveto say on the upbringing of children. RabbiJehudah, the son of Tema, says: "At five years ofage, reading of the Bible; at ten years, learning theMishnah; at thirteen years, bound to thecommandments; at fifteen years, the study of theTalmud; at eighteen years, marriage; at twenty, thepursuit of trade or business (active life); at thirtyyears, full vigour; at forty, maturity of reason; atfifty, of counsel; at sixty, commencement ofagedness; at seventy, grey age; at eighty, advancedold age; at ninety, bowed down; at a hundred, as ifhe were dead and gone, and taken from theworld." In the passage just quoted the age of fiveis mentioned as that when a child is expected tocommence reading the Bible--of course, in theoriginal Hebrew. But different opinions alsoprevailed. Generally speaking, such earlyinstruction was regarded as only safe in the case ofvery healthy and strong children; while those ofaverage constitution were not to be set to regularwork till six years old. There is both common

sense and sound experience in this Talmudicalsaying (Cheth. 50), "If you set your child toregular study before it is six years old, you shallalways have to run after, and yet never get hold ofit." This chiefly has reference to the irreparableinjury to health caused by such early strain uponthe mind. If, on the other hand, we come upon anadmonition to begin teaching a child when it isthree years old, this must refer to such earlyinstructions as the of certain passages of Scripture,or of small isolated portions and prayers, which aparent would make his child repeat from tenderestyears. As we shall show in the sequel, six or sevenwas the age at which a parent in Palestine waslegally bound to attend to the schooling of his son.

But, indeed, it would have been difficult to saywhen the instruction of the Hebrew child reallycommenced. Looking back, a man must have feltthat the teaching which he most--indeed, onemight almost say, which he exclusively--valuedhad mingled with the first waking thoughts of hisconsciousness. Before the child could speak--before it could almost understand what was taught,in however elementary language--before it wouldeven take in the domestic rites of the recurringweekly festival, or those of the annual feasts--itmust have been attracted by the so-called"Mesusah," which was fastened at the door-post ofevery "clean" apartment,33 and at the entrance ofsuch houses as were inhabited by Hebrewsexclusively. The "Mesusah" was a kind ofphylactery for the house, serving a purposekindred to that of the phylactery for the person,both being derived from a misunderstanding andmisapplication of the Divine direction (Deu 6:9,11:20), taking in the letter what was meant for thespirit. But while we gladly concede that the earlierHebrew practice was free from some of thepresent almost semi-heathenish customs,34 andfurther, that many houses in Palestine werewithout it, there can be little doubt that, even at the

33 The "Mesusah" was not affixed to any that were not "dirothcavod"--dwellings of honour. Thus not to bath rooms, wash-houses,tanneries, dyeworks, etc. The "Mesusah" was only attached todwelling-places, not to synagogues.34 The tractate Massecheth Mesusah cannot be regarded as anauthority for early times. But even the "Sohar" contains much thatis little better than heathen superstition on the supposed efficacy ofthe "Mesusah." Among later superstitions connected with it, are thewriting of the name "Cuso bemuchsas cuso" (supposed to be that ofIsrael's watching angel), the etymology of that name, etc.

41

time of Christ, this "Mesusah" would be foundwherever a family was at all Pharisaicallyinclined.

For, not to speak of what seems an allusion toit, so early as in Isaiah 57:8, we have the distincttestimony of Josephus (Ant. iv, 213) and of theMishnah to their use (Ber. iii. 3; Megill. i. 8; MoedK. iii. 4; Men. iii.7--in the last-mentioned place,even with superstitious additions). Supposing the"Mesusah" to have been somewhat as at present, itwould have consisted of a small, longitudinally-folded parchment square, on which, on twenty-twolines, these two passages were written:Deuteronomy 6:4-9, and 11:13-21. Inclosed in ashining metal case, and affixed to the door-post,the child, when carried in arms, would naturallyput out its hand to it; the more so, that it would seethe father and all others, on going out or in,reverently touch the case, and afterwards kiss thefinger, speaking at the same time a benediction.For, from early times, the presence of the"Mesusah" was connected with the Divineprotection, this verse being specially applied to it:"Yahweh shall preserve thy going out and thycoming in from this time forth, and even forevermore" (Psa 121:8). Indeed, one of the mostinteresting ancient literary monuments inexistence--"Mechilta," a Hebrew commentary onthe book of Exodus, the substance of which isolder than the Mishnah itself, dating from thebeginning of the second century of our era, if notearlier--argues the efficacy of the "Mesusah" fromthe fact that, since the destroying angel passedover the doors of Israel which bore the covenant-mark, a much higher value must attach to the"Mesusah," which embodied the name of Yahwehno less than ten times, and was to be found in thedwellings of Israel day and night through all theirgenerations. From this to the magical mysticism ofthe "Kabbalah," and even to such modernsuperstitions as that, if dust or dirt were keptwithin a cubit of the "Mesusah," no less a hostthan three hundred and sixty-five demons wouldcome, there is a difference of degree rather than ofkind.

But to return. As soon as the child had anyknowledge, the private and the united prayers ofthe family, and the domestic rites, whether of theweekly Sabbath or of festive seasons, wouldindelibly impress themselves upon his mind. It

would be difficult to say which of those feastswould have the most vivid effect upon a child'simagination. There was "Chanukah," the feast ofthe Dedication, with its illumination of eachhouse, when (in most cases) the first evening onecandle would be lit for each member of thehousehold, the number increasing each night, till,on the eighth, it was eight times that of the first.Then there was "Purim," the feast of Esther, withthe good cheer and boisterous merriment which itbrought; the feast of Tabernacles, when the veryyoungest of the house had to live out in the booth;and, chiefest of feasts, the week of the Passover,when, all leaven being carefully purged out, everymorsel of food, by its difference from thatordinarily used, would show the child that theseason was a special one. From the moment achild was at all capable of being instructed--stillmore, of his taking any part in the services--theimpression would deepen day by day. Surely noone who had ever worshipped within the courts ofYahweh's house at Jerusalem could ever haveforgotten the scenes he had witnessed, or thewords he had heard. Standing in that gorgeous,glorious building, and looking up its terracedvista, the child would watch with solemn awe, notunmingled with wonderment, as the great throngof white-robed priests busily moved about, whilethe smoke of the sacrifice rose from the altar ofburnt-offering. Then, amid the hushed silence ofthat vast multitude, they had all fallen down toworship at the time of incense. Again, on thosesteps that led up to the innermost sanctuary thepriests had lifted their hands and spoken over thepeople the words of blessing; and then, while thedrink-offering was poured out, the Levites' chantof Psalms had risen and swelled into a mightyvolume; the exquisite treble of the Levitechildren's voices being sustained by the rich roundnotes of the men, and accompanied byinstrumental music. The Hebrew child knew manyof these words. They had been the earliest songshe had heard--almost his first lesson whenclinging as a "taph" to his mother. But now, inthose white-marbled, gold-adorned halls, underheaven's blue canopy, and with such surroundings,they would fall upon his ear like sounds fromanother world, to which the prolonged threefoldblasts from the silver trumpets of the priests wouldseem to waken him. And they were sounds from

42

another world; for, as his father would tell him, allthat he saw was after the exact pattern of heavenlythings which Yahweh had shown to Moses onMount Sinai; all that he heard was Yahweh-uttered, spoken by Yahweh Himself through themouth of His servant David, and of the othersweet singers of Israel. Nay, that place and thathouse were Yahweh-chosen; and in the thickdarkness of the Most Holy Place--there afar off,where the high-priest himself entered on one dayof the year only, and in simple pure white vesture,not in those splendid golden garments in which hewas ordinarily arrayed--had once stood the ark,with the veritable tables of the law, hewn andgraven by the very hand of Yahweh; and betweenthe cherubim had then throned in the cloud thevisible presence of Yahweh. Verily this Templewith its services was heaven upon earth!

Nor would it have been easy to lose theimpression of the first Paschal Supper which achild had attended. There was that about itssymbols and services which appealed to everyfeeling, even had it not been that the law expresslyenjoined full instruction to be given as to everypart and rite of the service, as well as to the greatevent recorded in that supper. For in that night hadIsrael been born as a nation, and redeemed as the"congregation" of Yahweh. Then also, as in amould, had their future history been cast to alltime; and there, as in type, had its eternal meaningand import for all men been outlined, and with itYahweh's purpose of love and work of graceforeshadowed. Indeed, at a certain part of theservice it was expressly ordained, that theyoungest at the Paschal table should rise andformally ask what was the meaning of all thisservice, and how that night was distinguished fromothers; to which the father was to reply, byrelating, in language suited to the child's capacity,the whole national history of Israel, from thecalling of Abraham down to the deliverance fromEgypt and the giving of the law; "and the morefully," it is added, "he explains it all, the better." Inview of all this, Philo might indeed, withoutexaggeration, say that the Hebrews "were fromtheir swaddling clothes, even before being taughteither the sacred laws or the unwritten customs,trained by their parents, teachers, and instructorsto recognise Yahweh as Father and as the Makerof the world" (Legat. ad. Cajum, sec. 16); and

that, "having been taught the knowledge (of thelaws) from earliest youth, they bore in their soulsthe image of the commandments" (Ibid. sec. 31).To the same effect is the testimony of Josephus,that "from their earliest consciousness" they had"learned the laws, so as to have them,as it were,engraven upon the soul" (Ag. Apion, ii, 18);although, of course, we do not believe it, when,with his usual boastful magniloquence, he declaresthat at the age of fourteen he had been"frequently" consulted by "the high priests andprincipal men of the city...about the accurateunderstanding of points of the law" (Life, 7-12;compare also Ant. iv, 31; Ag. Apion, i, 60-68, ii,199-203).

But there is no need of such testimony.The Old Covenant, the Apocrypha, and the NewCovenant, leading us progressively from centuryto century, indicate the same carefulness in theupbringing of children. One of the earliestnarratives of Scripture records how Yahweh saidto Abraham, "I know him, that he will commandhis children, and his household after him, and theyshall keep the way of Yahweh to do justice andjudgment" (Gen 18:19)--a statement which, wemay note by the way, implies the distinctionbetween the seed of Abraham after the flesh andafter the spirit. How thoroughly the spirit of thisDivine utterance was carried out under the law,appears from a comparison of such passages asExodus 12:26, 13:8, 14; Deuteronomy 4:9, 10, 6:7,20, 11:19, 31:13; Psalm 78:5, 6. It is needless topursue the subject farther, or to show how evenYahweh's dealings with His people were regardedas the basis and model of the parental relationship.But the book in the Old Covenant which, ifproperly studied, would give us the deepest insightinto social and family life under the olddispensation--we mean the book of Proverbs--is sofull of admonitions about the upbringing ofchildren, that it is sufficient to refer the readergenerally to it. He will find there the value of suchtraining, its object, in the acquisition of truewisdom in the fear and service of Yahweh, and theopposite dangers most vividly portrayed--thepractical bearing of all being summed up in thisaphorism, true to all times: "Train up a child in theway he should go, and when he is old he will notdepart from it" (Prov 22:6); of which we have thisNew Covenant application: "Bring up (your

43

children) in the nurture and admonition of theLord" (Eph 6:4).

The book of Proverbs brings before us yetanother phase of deepest interest. It contains thefullest appreciation of woman in her true dignity,and of her position and influence in the family-life. It is quite true, as we shall presently show,that the obligation to train the child restedprimarily upon the father, and that both by the lawof Yahweh and by the ordinances of the Rabbis.But even the patriarchal story will prepare anattentive reader to find, especially in the earlyupbringing of children, that constant influence ofwoman, which, indeed, the nature of the maternalrelationship implies, provided the family-life beframed on the model of the Word of Yahweh.Lovelier pictures of this than the mother ofSamuel and the pious Shunammite hostess ofElisha can scarcely be conceived. But the book ofProverbs shows us, that even in the early times ofthe Hebrew monarchy this characteristic of OldCovenant life also appeared outside the bounds ofthe Holy Land, wherever pious Israelites had theirsettlements. The subject is so deeply interesting,historically and religiously, and perhaps so new tosome readers, that a slight digression may beallowed us.

Beyond the limits of the Holy Land, close byDumah, lay the land or district of Massa (Gen25:14), one of the original seats of the Ishmaelites(1 Chron 1:30). From Isaiah 21:11 we gather thatit must have been situate beyond Seir--that is, tothe south-east of Palestine, in Northern Arabia.Whether the Ishmaelites of Massa had come to theknowledge of Yahweh, the true God; whetherMassa was occupied by a Hebrew colony, whichthere established the service of Yahweh;35 orwhether, through the influence of Hebrewimmigrants, such a religious change had beenbrought about, certain it is, that the two lastchapters of the book of Proverbs introduce theroyal family of Massa as deeply imbued with thespiritual religion of the Old Covenant, and the

35 From 1 Chronicles 4:38-43 we infer colonisation in thatdirection, especially on the part of the tribe of Simeon. Utterancesin the prophets (such as in Isa 21 and Micah 1) seem also toindicate a very wide spread of Hebrew settlers. It is a remarkablefact that, according to mediaeval Hebrew and Arab writers, thedistricts of Massa and Dumah were largely inhabited by Hebrews.

queen- mother as training the heir to the throne inthe knowledge and fear of Yahweh.36

Indeed, so much is this the case, that theinstruction of the queen of Massa, and the wordsof her two royal sons, are inserted in the book ofProverbs as part of the inspired records of the OldCovenant. According to the best criticism,Proverbs 30:1 should be thus rendered: "Thewords of Agur, the son of her whom Massa obeys.Spake the man to Yahweh-with-me--Yahweh withme, and I was strong."37

Then Proverbs 31 embodies the words ofAugur's royal brother, even "the words of Lemuel,king of Massa, with which his mother taught him."If the very names of these two princes--Agur,"exile," and Lemuel, "for Yahweh," or "dedicatedto Yahweh"--are significant of her convictions, theteaching of that royal mother, as recorded inProverbs 31:2-9, is worthy of a "mother in Israel."No wonder that the record of her teaching isfollowed by an enthusiastic description of a godlywoman's worth and work (Prov 31:10-31), eachverse beginning with a successive letter of theHebrew alphabet (the Hebrew alphabet has 22letters), like the various sections of Psalm 119--asit were, to let her praises ring through every letterof speech.

As might have been expected, the spirit ofthe Apocryphal books is far different from thatwhich breathes in the Old Covenant. Still, such acomposition as Ecclesiasticus shows that even incomparatively late and degenerate times the godlyupbringing of children occupied a most prominentplace in religious thinking. But it is when weapproach the New Covenant, that a fresh halo ofglory seems to surround woman. And here ourattention is directed to the spiritual influence ofmothers rather than of fathers. Not to mention "themother of Zebedee's children," nor the mother ofJohn Mark, whose home at Jerusalem seems tohave been the meeting-place and the shelter of theearly disciples, and that in times of the mostgrievous persecution; nor yet "the elect lady and

36 There can be no question that the word rendered in theAuthorised Version (Prov 30:1 and 31:1) by "prophecy" is simplythe name of a district, "Massa."37 Or, according to another rendering, "Spake the man: I diligentlysearched after Yahweh, and I am become weary." This, of course,is not the place for critical discussion; but we may say that we havefollowed the general conclusions adopted alike by Delitzsch andZockler, and by Ewald, Hitzig, and Bertheau.

44

her children," whom not only St. John, "but alsoall they that know the truth," loved in truth (2 John1), and her similarly elect sister with her children(v 13), two notable instances will occur to thereader. The first of these presents a most touchinginstance of a mother's faith, and prayers, andlabour of love, to which the only parallel in laterhistory is that of Monica, the mother of St.Augustine. How Eunice, the daughter of the piousLois, had come to marry a heathen,38 we know aslittle as the circumstances which may haveoriginally led the family to settle at Lystra (Acts16:1; compare 14:6, etc.), a place where there wasnot even a synagogue.

At most then two or three Hebrew familieslived in that heathen city. Perhaps Lois and Eunicewere the only worshippers of Yahweh there; forwe do not even read of a meeting-place for prayer,such as that by the river-side where Paul first metLydia. Yet in such adverse circumstances, and asthe wife of a Greek, Eunice proved one to whomroyal Lemuel's praise applied in the fullest sense:"Her children arise up and call her blessed," and"Her works praise her in the gates"-- of the newJerusalem. Not a truer nor more touchingportraiture of a pious Hebrew home could havebeen drawn than in these words of St. Paul: "I callto remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee,which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thymother Eunice"; and again, "From a child thouhast know the Holy Scriptures" (2 Tim 1:5, 3:15).There was, we repeat, no synagogue in Lystrawhere Timothy might have heard every Sabbath,and twice in the week, Moses and the Prophetsread, and derived other religious knowledge; therewas, so far as we can see, neither religiouscompanionship nor means of instruction of anykind, nor religious example, not even from hisfather; but all around quite the contrary. But therewas one influence for highest good--constant,unvarying, and most powerful. It was that of"mother of Israel." From the time that as a "taph"he clung to her--even before that, when a "gamul,"an "olel," and a "jonek"--had Eunice trainedTimothy in the nurture and admonition ofYahweh. To quote again the forcible language of

38 The language of the New Covenant leads to the inference thatTimothy's father was not only by birth, but continued a Greek--being not merely a heathen, but not even a Hebrew proselyte.

St. Paul, "From an infant"39 (or baby) "thou hastknown the Holy Scriptures, which are able tomake thee wise unto salvation, through faithwhich is in Christ Yahoshua."

From the Apocrypha, from Josephus, and fromthe Talmud we know what means of instruction inthe Scriptures were within reach of a pious motherat that time. In a house like that of Timothy'sfather there would, of course, be no phylacteries,with the portions of Scripture which theycontained, and probably no "Mesusah," although,according to the Mishnah (Ber. iii. 3), the latterduty was incumbent, not only upon men but uponwomen. the Babylon Talmud (Ber. 20 b) indeedgives a very unsatisfactory reason for the latterprovision. But may it not be that the Hebrew lawhad such cases in view as that of Eunice and herson, without expressly saying so, from fear oflending a sanction to mixed marriages? Be this asit may, we know that at the time of the Syrianpersecutions, just before the rising of theMaccabees, the possession of portions or of thewhole of the Old Covenant by private families wascommon in Israel. For, part of those persecutionsconsisted in making search for these Scripturesand destroying them (1 Macc. i. 57), as well aspunishing their possessors (Josephus, Ant. xii,256). Of course, during the period of religiousrevival which followed the triumph of theMaccabees, such copies of the Bible would havegreatly multiplied. It is by no means anexaggeration to say that, if perhaps only thewealthy possessed a complete copy of the OldCovenant, written out on parchment or onEgyptian paper, there would scarcely be a pioushome, however humble, which did not cherish asits richest treasure some portion of the Word ofYahweh--whether the five books of the Law, orthe Psalter, or a roll of one or more of theProphets. Besides, we know from the Talmud thatat a later period, and probably at the time of Christalso, there were little parchment rolls specially forthe use of children, containing such portions of

39 The Greek term means literally "a baby," and is so used, not onlyby classical writers, but in all the passages in which it occurs in theNew Covenant, which are as follows: Luke 1:41, 44, 2:12, 16,18:15; Acts 7:19; 2 Tim 3:15; and 1 Peter 2:2.

45

Scripture as the "Shema"40 (Deut 6:4-9, 11:13-21;Num 15:37-41), the "Hallel" (Psa 113-118), thehistory of the Creation to that of the Flood, and thefirst eight chapters of the book of Leviticus. Suchmeans of instruction there would be at the disposalof Eunice in teaching her son.

And this leads us to mention, with duereverence, the other and far greater New Covenantinstance of maternal influence in Israel. It is noneless than that of the mother of our blessed LordHimself. While the fact that Yahoshua becamesubject to His parents, and grew in wisdom and infavour both with Yahweh and man, forms part ofthe unfathomable mystery of His self-humiliation,the influence exerted upon His early education,especially by His mother, seems impliedthroughout the gospel history. Of course, His wasa pious Hebrew home; and at Nazareth there was asynagogue, to which, as we shall by-and-byexplain, a school was probably attached. In thatsynagogue Moses and the Prophets would be read,and, as afterwards by Himself (Luke 4:16),discourses or addresses be delivered from time totime. What was taught in these synagogue-schools, and how, will be shown in anotherchapter. But, whether or not Yahoshua hadattended such a school, His mind was sothoroughly imbued with the Sacred Scriptures--Hewas so familiar with them in their every detail--that we cannot fail to infer that the home ofNazareth possessed a precious copy of its own ofthe entire Sacred Volume, which from earliestchildhood formed, so to speak, the meat and drinkof the God-Man. More than that, there is clearevidence that He was familiar with the art ofwriting, which was by no means so common inthose days as reading. The words of our Lord, asreported both by St. Matthew (Matt 5:18) and bySt. Luke (Luke 16:17), also prove that the copy ofthe Old Covenant from which He had drawn wasnot only in the original Hebrew, but written, likeour modern copies, in the so-called Assyrian, andnot in the ancient Hebrew-Phoenician characters.This appears from the expression "one iota or onelittle hook"--erroneously rendered "tittle" in ourAuthorised Version--which can only apply to the

40 The "Shema"--so called from the first word, "Shema" ("Hear, OIsrael")--forms part of the regular prayers; as the section called"Hallel" ("praise") was appointed to be sung at certain seasons.

modern Hebrew characters. That our Lord taughtin Aramaean, and that He used and quoted theHoly Scriptures in the Hebrew, perhaps sometimesrendering them for popular use into Aramaean,there can be little doubt on the part of careful andunprejudiced students, though some learned menhave held the opposite. It is quite true that theMishnah (Megill. i. 8) seems to allow the writingof Holy Scripture in any language; but evenSimeon, the son of Gamaliel (the teacher of St.Paul), confined this concession to the Greek--nodoubt with a view to the LXX, which was sowidely spread in his time. But we also know fromthe Talmud, how difficult it was for a Rabbi todefend the study or use of Greek, and how readilypopular prejudice burst into a universal andsweeping condemnation of it. The sameimpression is conveyed not only from theimmediate favourable change which the use of theAramaean by St. Paul produced upon theinfuriated people (Acts 21:40), but also from thefact that only an appeal to the Hebrew Scripturescould have been of authority in discussion with thePharisees and Scribes, and that it alone gave pointto the frequent expostulations of Christ: "Have yenot read?" (Matt 12:3, 19:4, 21:13, 16, 42, 22:31).This familiarity from earliest childhood with theScriptures in the Hebrew original also explainshow at the age of twelve Yahoshua could be found"in the Temple; sitting in the midst of the doctors,both hearing them and asking them questions"(Luke 2:46). In explaining this seemingly strangecircumstance, we may take the opportunity ofcorrecting an almost universal mistake. It isgenerally thought that, on the occasion referred to,the Saviour had gone up, as being "of age," in theHebrew sense of the expression, or, to use theirown terms, as a "Bar Mizvah," or "son of thecommandment," by which the period was markedwhen religious obligations and privilegesdevolved upon a youth, and he became a memberof the congregation. But the legal age for this wasnot twelve, but thirteen (Ab. v. 21). On the otherhand, the Rabbinical law enjoined (Yoma, 82 a)that even before that--two years, or at least oneyear--lads should be brought up to the Temple,and made to observe the festive rites.Unquestionably, it was in conformity with thisuniversal custom that Yahoshua went on theoccasion named to the Temple. Again, we know

46

that it was the practice of the members of thevarious Sanhedrims--who on ordinary days sat asjudicatories, from the close of the morning to thetime of the evening sacrifice (Sanh. 88 b)--tocome out upon the Sabbaths and feast-days on"the terrace of the Temple," and there publicly toteach and expound, the utmost liberty being givenof asking questions, discussing, objecting, andotherwise taking intelligent part in these lectures.On the occasion of Christ's presence, thesediscussions would, as usual, be carried on duringthe "Moed Katon," or minor festive days,intervening between the second and the last day ofthe Paschal week. Joseph and Mary, on the otherhand, had, as allowed by the law, returned towardsNazareth on the third day of the Paschal week,while Yahoshua remained behind. Thesecircumstances also explain why His appearance inthe midst of the doctors, although very remarkableconsidering His age, did not at once commanduniversal attention. In point of fact, the onlyqualification requisite, so far as learning wasconcerned, would be a thorough knowledge of theScriptures in the Hebrew, and a properunderstanding of them.

What we have hitherto described will haveconveyed to the reader that the one branch ofinstruction aimed after or desired by the Hebrewsat the time of Christ was religious knowledge.What was understood by this, and how it wasimparted--whether in the family or in the publicschools--must form the subject of specialinvestigation.

Chapter 8Subjects of Study.

Home Education in Israel;Female Education.

Elementary Schools,Schoolmasters, and School

Arrangements.

If a faithful picture of society in ancientGreece or Rome were to be presented to view, it isnot easy to believe that even they who now mostoppose the Bible could wish their aims success.

For this, at any rate, may be asserted, without fearof gainsaying, that no other religion than that ofthe Bible has proved competent to control anadvanced, or even an advancing, state ofcivilisation. Every other bound has beensuccessively passed and submerged by the risingtide; how deep only the student of history knows.Two things are here undeniable. In the case ofheathenism every advance in civilisation hasmarked a progressive lowering of public morality,the earlier stages of national life always showing afar higher tone than the later. On the contrary, thereligion of the Bible (under the old as under thenew dispensation) has increasingly raised, if notuniformly the public morals, yet always the toneand standard of public morality; it has continuedto exhibit a standard never yet attained, and it hasproved its power to control public and social life,to influence and to mould it.

Strange as it may sound, it is strictly true that,beyond the boundaries of Israel, it would bescarcely possible to speak with any propriety offamily life, or even of the family, as weunderstand these terms. It is significant, that theRoman historian Tacitus should mark it assomething special among the Hebrews41--whichthey only shared with the ancient barbarianGermans--that they regarded it as a crime to killtheir offspring!

This is not the place to describe the exposureof children, or the various crimes by which ancientGreece and Rome, in the days of their highestculture, sought to rid themselves of what wasregarded as superfluous population. Few of thosewho have learned to admire classical antiquityhave a full conception of any one phase in itssocial life--whether of the position of woman, therelation of the sexes, slavery, the education ofchildren, their relation to their parents, or the stateof public morality. Fewer still have combined allthese features into one picture, and that not merelyas exhibited by the lower orders, or even amongthe higher classes, but as fully owned andapproved by those whose names have descendedin the admiration of ages as the thinkers, the sages,the poets, the historians, and the statesmen of

41 * Tacitus, Hist. v. 5. In general this fifth book is most interesting,as showing the strange mixture of truth and error, and the intensehatred of the Hebrew race even on the part of such men as Tacitus.

47

antiquity. Assuredly, St. Paul's description of theancient world in the first and second chapters ofhis Epistle to the Romans must have appeared tothose who lived in the midst of it as Divine evenin its tenderness, delicacy, and charity; the fullpicture under bright sunlight would have beenscarcely susceptible of exhibition. For such aworld there was only one alternative--either thejudgment of Sodom, or the mercy of the Gospeland the healing of the Cross.42

When we pass from the heathen world into thehomes of Israel, even the excess of theirexclusiveness seems for the moment a relief. It isas if we turned from enervating, withering,tropical heat into a darkened room, whose gratefulcoolness makes us for the moment forget that itsgloom is excessive, and cannot continue as the daydeclines. And this shutting out of all from without,this exclusiveness, applied not only to whatconcerned their religion, their social and familylife, but also to their knowledge. In the days ofChrist the pious Hebrew had no other knowledge,neither sought nor cared for any other--in fact,denounced it--than that of the law of Yahweh. Atthe outset, let it be remembered that, inheathenism, theology, or rather mythology, had noinfluence whatever on thinking or life--wasliterally submerged under their waves. To thepious Hebrew, on the contrary, the knowledge ofYahweh was everything; and to prepare for orimpart that knowledge was the sum total, the soleobject of his education. This was the life of hissoul--the better, and only true life, to which allelse as well as the life of the body were merelysubservient, as means towards an end. His religionconsisted of two things: knowledge of Yahweh,which by a series of inferences, one from theother, ultimately resolved itself into theology, asthey understood it; and service, which againconsisted of the proper observance of all that wasprescribed by Yahweh, and of works of charity

42 Let it not be thought that we have been guilty of the slightestexaggeration. The difficulty here is to tell the truth and yet findmoderate terms in which to express it. That Christianity shouldhave laid its hold on such a society, found there its brightestmartyrs and truest followers, and finally subdued and transformedit, is quite as great a miracle as that of the breaking down of themiddle wall of partition among the Hebrews, or their spiritualtransformation of mind and heart from self-righteousness andexternalism. In either case, to the student of history the miracle willseem greater than if "one rose from the dead."

towards men--the latter, indeed, going beyond thebound of what was strictly due (the Chovoth) intospecial merit or "righteousness" (Zedakah). But asservice presupposed knowledge, theology wasagain at the foundation of all, and also the crownof all, which conferred the greatest merit. This isexpressed or implied in almost innumerablepassages of Hebrew writings. Let one suffice, notonly because it sounds more rationalistic, butbecause it is to this day repeated each morning inhis prayers by every Hebrew: "These are thethings of which a man eats the fruit in this world,but their possession continueth for the next world:to honour father and mother, pious works,peacemaking between man and man, and the studyof the law, which is equivalent to them all" (Peah.i. 1).

And literally "equivalent to them all" wassuch study to the Hebrew. The circumstances ofthe times forced him to learn Greek, perhaps alsoLatin, so much as was necessary for intercourse;and to tolerate at least the Greek translation of theScriptures, and the use of any language in thedaily prayers of the Shema, of the eighteenbenedictions, and of the grace after meat (these arethe oldest elements of the Hebrew liturgy). But theblessing of the priests might not be spoken, nor thephylacteries nor the Mesusah written, in other thanthe Hebrew language (Megil. i. 8; Sotah, vii. 1, 2);while heathen science and literature wereabsolutely prohibited. To this, and not to the merelearning of Greek, which must have been almostnecessary for daily life, refer such prohibitions asthat traced to the time of Titus (Sotah, ix. 14),forbidding a man to teach his son Greek. TheTalmud itself (Men. 99 b) furnishes a cleverillustration of this, when, in reply to the questionof a younger Rabbi, whether, since he knew thewhole "Thorah" (the law), he might be allowed tostudy "Greek wisdom," his uncle reminded him ofthe words (Josh 1:8), "Thou shalt meditate thereinday and night." "Go, then, and consider," said theolder Rabbi, "which is the hour that is neither ofthe day nor of the night, and in it thou mayeststudy Grecian wisdom." This, then, was onesource of danger averted. Then, as for theoccupations of ordinary life, it was indeed quitetrue that every Hebrew was bound to learn sometrade or business. But this was not to divert himfrom study; quite the contrary. It was regarded as a

48

profanation--or at least declared such--to make useof one's learning for secular purposes, whether ofgain or of honour. The great Hillel had it (Ab. i.13): "He who serves himself by the crown (the'Thorah') shall fade away." To this Rabbi Zadokadded the warning, "Make study neither a crownby which to shine, nor yet a spade with which todig"--the Mishnah inferring that such attemptswould only lead to the shortening of life (Ab. iv.5). All was to be merely subsidiary to the onegrand object; the one was of time, the other ofeternity; the one of the body, the other of the soul;and its use was only to sustain the body, so as togive free scope to the soul on its upward path.Every science also merged in theology. Somewere not so much sciences as means of livelihood,such as medicine and surgery; others were merelyhandmaidens to theology. Jurisprudence was inreality a kind of canon law; mathematics andastronomy were subservient to the computationsof the Hebrew calendar; literature existed notoutside theological pursuits; and as for history,geography, or natural studies, although we mark,in reference to the latter, a keenness of observationwhich often led instinctively to truth, we meetwith so much ignorance, and with so many grossmistakes and fables, as almost to shake the beliefof the student in the trustworthiness of anyRabbinical testimony.

From what has been stated, threeinferences will be gathered, all of most materialbearing on the study of the New Covenant. It willbe seen how a mere knowledge of the law came tohold such place of almost exclusive importancethat its successful prosecution seemed to be well-nigh all in all. Again, it is easy now to understandwhy students and teachers of theology enjoyedsuch exceptional honour (Matt 23:6,7: Mark12:38,39: Luke 11:43, 20:46). In this respect thetestimonies of Onkelos, in his paraphrasticrendering of the Scriptures, of the oldest"Targumim," or paraphrastic commentaries, of theMishnah, and of the two Talmuds, are not onlyunanimous, but most extravagant. Not only aremiracles supposed to be performed in attestationof certain Rabbis, but such a story is actuallyventured upon (Bab. Mes. 86 a), as that on theoccasion of a discussion in the academy ofheaven, when the Almighty and His angels wereof different opinions in regard to a special point of

law, a Rabbi famed for his knowledge of thatsubject was summoned up by the angel of death todecide the matter between them! The story isaltogether too blasphemous for details, and indeedthe whole subject is too wide for treatment in thisconnection. If such was the exalted position of aRabbi, this direction of the Mishnah seems quitenatural, that in case of loss, of difficulties, or ofcaptivity, a teacher was to be cared for before afather, since to the latter we owed only ourexistence in this world, but to the former the lifeof the world to come (Bab. Mez. ii. 11). It iscurious how in this respect also RomanCatholicism and Pharisaism arrive at the sameultimate results. Witness this saying of thecelebrated Rabbi, who flourished in the thirteenthcentury, and whose authority is almost absoluteamong the Hebrews. The following is his glossaryon Deuteronomy 17:11: "Even if a Rabbi were toteach that your left hand was the right, and yourright hand the left, you are bound to obey."

The third inference which the reader willdraw is as to the influence which such views musthave exercised upon education, alike at home andin schools. It is no doubt only the echo of the mostancient mode of congratulating a parent when tothis day those who are present at a circumcision,and also the priest when the first-born is redeemedfrom him, utter this: "As this child has been joinedto the covenant" (or, as the case may be, "attainedthis redemption"), "so may it also be to him inreference to the 'thorah,' the 'chuppah' (themarriage-baldacchino, under which the regularmarriage ceremony is performed), and to goodworks." The wish marks with twofold emphasisthe life that is to come, as compared with the lifethat now is. This quite agrees with the account ofJosephus, who contrasts the heathen festivals atthe birth of children with the Hebrew enactmentsby which children were from their very infancynourished up in the laws of Yahweh (Ag. Apion, i,38-68, ii, 173-205).

There can be no question that, according tothe law of Moses, the early education of a childdevolved upon the father; of course, alwaysbearing in mind that his first training would be themother's (Deu 11:19, and many other passages). Ifthe father were not capable of elementaryteaching, a stranger would be employed. Passingover the Old Covenant period, we may take it that,

49

in the days of Christ, home-teaching ordinarilybegan when the child was about three years old.There is reason for believing that, even before this,that careful training of the memory commenced,which has ever since been one of the mentalcharacteristics of the Hebrew nation. Verses ofScripture, benedictions, wise sayings, etc., wereimpressed on the child, and mnemonic rulesdevised to facilitate the retention of what was soacquired. We can understand the reason of thisfrom the religious importance attaching to theexact preservation of the very words of tradition.The Talmud describes the beau ideal of a studentwhen it compares him to a well-plastered cistern,which would not let even a single drop escape.Indeed, according to the Mishnah, he who fromnegligence "forgets any one thing in his study ofthe Mishnah, Scripture imputes it to him as if hehad forfeited his life"; the reference here being toDeuteronomy 4:9 (Ab. iii. 10). And so we mayattach some credit even to Josephus' boast abouthis "wonderful memory" (Life, ii, 8).

In teaching to read, the alphabet was to beimparted by drawing the letters on a board, till thechild became familiar with them. Next, the teacherwould point in the copy read with his finger, or,still better, with a style, to keep up the attention ofthe pupil. None but well-corrected manuscriptswere to be used, since, as was rightly said,mistakes impressed upon the young mind wereafterwards not easily corrected. To acquirefluency, the child should be made to read aloud.Special care was to be bestowed on the choice ofgood language, in which respect, as we know, theinhabitants of Judaea far excelled those of Galilee,who failed not only in elegance of diction, buteven in their pronunciation. At five years of agethe Hebrew Bible was to be begun; commencing,however, not with the book of Genesis, but withthat of Leviticus. This not to teach the child hisguilt, and the need of justification, but ratherbecause Leviticus contained those ordinanceswhich it behoved a Hebrew to know as early aspossible. The history of Israel would probablyhave been long before imparted orally, as it wascontinually repeated on all festive occasions, aswell as in the synagogue.

It has been stated in a former chapter thatwriting was not so common an accomplishment asreading. Undoubtedly, the Israelites were familiar

with it from the very earliest period of theirhistory, whether or not they had generallyacquired the art in Egypt. We read of the gravingof words on the gems of the high-priest'sbreastplate, of the record of the variousgenealogies of the tribes, etc; while such passagesas Deuteronomy 6:9, 11:20, 24:1, 3, imply that theart was not confined to the priesthood (Num 5:23),but was known to the people generally. Then weare told of copies of the law (Deu 17:18, 28:58,etc.), while in Joshua 10:13 we have a reference toa work called "the book of Jasher." In Joshua 18:9we find mention of a description of Palestine "in abook," and in 24:26 of what Joshua "wrote in thebook of the law of Yahweh." From Judges 8:14(margin) it would appear that in the time ofGideon the art of writing was very generallyknown. After that, instances occur so frequentlyand applied to so many relationships, that thereader of the Old Covenant can have no difficultyin tracing the progress of the art. This is not theplace to follow the subject farther, nor to describethe various materials employed at that time, northe mode of lettering. At a much later period thecommon mention of "scribes" indicates thepopular need of such a class. We can readilyunderstand that the Oriental mind would delight inwriting enigmatically, that is, conveying by certainexpressions a meaning to the initiated which theordinary reader would miss, or which, at any rate,would leave the explanation to the exercise ofingenuity. Partially in the same class we mightreckon the custom of designating a word by itsinitial letter. All theses were very early in practice,and the subject has points of considerable interest.Another matter deserves more serious attention. Itwill scarcely be credited how general thefalsification of signatures and documents hadbecome. Josephus mentions it (Ant. xvi, 317-319);and we know that St. Paul was obliged to warn theThessalonians against it (2 Thess 2:2), and at lastto adopt the device of signing every letter whichcame from himself. There are scarcely any ancientRabbinical documents which have not beeninterpolated by later writers, or, as we mighteuphemistically call it, been recast and re-edited.In general, it is not difficult to discover suchadditions; although the vigilance and acuteness ofthe critical scholar are specially required in thisdirection to guard against rash and unwarrantable

50

inferences. But without entering on such points, itmay interest the reader to know what writingmaterials were employed in New Covenant times.In Egypt red ink seems to have been used; butassuredly the ink mentioned in the New Covenantwas black, as even the term indicates ("melan," 2Cor 3:3; 2 John 12; 3 John 13). Josephus speaks ofwriting in gold letters (Ant. xii, 324-329); and inthe Mishnah (Meg. ii. 2) we read of mixed colours,of red, of sympathetic ink, and of certain chemicalcompositions. Reed quills are mentioned in 3 John13. The best of these came from Egypt; and theuse of a penknife would of course beindispensable. Paper (from the Egyptian"papyrus") is mentioned in 2 John 12; parchmentin 2 Timothy 4:13. Of this there were three kinds,according as the skin was used either whole, orelse split up into an outer and an inner skin. Thelatter was used for the Mesusah. Shortermemoranda were made on tablets, which in theMishnah (Shab. xii. 4) bear the same names as inLuke 1:63.

Before passing to an account of elementaryschools, it may be well, once and for all, to saythat the Rabbis did not approve of the sameamount of instruction being given to girls as toboys. More particularly they disapproved of theirengaging in legal studies--partly because theyconsidered woman's mission and duties as lying inother directions, partly because the subjects werenecessarily not always suitable for the other sex,partly because of the familiar intercourse betweenthe sexes to which such occupations would havenecessarily led, and finally--shall we say it?--because the Rabbis regarded woman's mind as notadapted for such investigations. The unkindestthing, perhaps, which they said on this score was,"Women are of a light mind"; though in its oftrepetition the saying almost reads like a semi-jocular way of cutting short a subject on whichdiscussion is disagreeable. However, instances ofRabbinically learned women do occur. What theirBiblical knowledge and what their religiousinfluence was, we learn not only from the Rabbis,but from the New Covenant. Their attendance atall public and domestic festivals, and in thesynagogues, and the circumstance that certaininjunctions and observances of Rabbinic origindevolved upon them also, prove that, though notlearned in the law, there must have been among

them not a few who, like Lois and Eunice, couldtrain a child in the knowledge of the Scripture, or,like Priscilla, be qualified to explain even to anApollos the way of the Lord more perfectly.

Supposing, then, a child to be so fareducated at home; suppose him, also, to be therecontinually taught the commandments andobservances, and, as the Talmud expressly states,to be encouraged to repeat the prayers aloud, so asto accustom him to it. At six years of age he wouldbe sent to school; not to an academy, or "bethhammedrash," which he would only attend if heproved apt and promising; far less to the class-room of a great Rabbi, or the discussions of theSanhedrim, which marked a very advanced stageof study. We are here speaking only of primary orelementary schools, such as even in the time ofour Lord were attached to every synagogue in theland. Passing over the supposed or real Biblicalnotices of schools, and confining our attentionstrictly to the period ending with the destruction ofthe Temple, we have first a notice in the Talmud(Bab. B. 21 b), ascribing to Ezra an ordinance, thatas many schoolmasters as chose should be allowedto establish themselves in any place, and that thosewho had formerly been settled there might notinterfere with them. In all likelihood this noticeshould not be taken in its literal sense, but as anindication that the encouragement of schools andof education engaged the attention of Ezra and ofhis successors. Of the Grecianised academieswhich the wicked high-priest Jason tried tointroduce in Jerusalem (2 Macc iv. 12,13) we donot speak, because they were anti-Hebrew in theirspirit, and that to such extent, that the Rabbis, inorder to "make a hedge," forbade all gymnasticexercises. The farther history and progress ofHebrew schools are traced in the followingpassage of the Talmud (Bab. B. 21 a): "If any onehas merit, and deserves that his name should bekept in remembrance, it is Joshua, the son ofGamaliel. Without him the law would have falleninto oblivion in Israel. For they used to rest on thissaying of the law (Deu 11:19), 'Ye shall teachthem.' Afterwards it was ordained that masters beappointed at Jerusalem for the instruction ofyouth, as it is written (Isa 2:3), 'Out of Zion shallgo forth the law.' But even so the remedy was noteffectual, only those who had fathers being sent toschool, and the rest being neglected. Hence it was

51

arranged that Rabbis should be appointed in everydistrict, and that lads of sixteen or seventeen yearsshould be sent to their academies. But thisinstitution failed, since every lad ran away if hewas chastised by his master. At last Joshua the sonof Gamaliel arranged, that in every province andin every town schoolmasters be appointed, whoshould take charge of all boys from six or sevenyears of age." We may add at once, that the Joshuahere spoken of was probably the high-priest of thatname who flourished before the destruction of theTemple, and that unquestionably this fartherorganisation implied at least the existence ofelementary schools at an earlier period.

Every place, then, which numberedtwenty-five boys of a suitable age, or, according toMaimonides, one hundred and twenty families,was bound to appoint a schoolmaster. More thantwenty-five pupils or thereabouts he was notallowed to teach in a class. If there were forty, hehad to employ an assistant; if fifty, the synagogueauthorities appointed two teachers. This willenable us to understand the statement, no doubtgreatly exaggerated, that at the destruction ofJerusalem there were no fewer than four hundredand eighty schools in the metropolis. From anotherpassage, which ascribes the fall of the Hebrewstate to the neglect of the education of children,we may infer what importance popular opinionattached to it. But indeed, to the Hebrew, child-lifewas something peculiarly holy, and the duty offilling it with thoughts of Yahweh speciallysacred. It almost seems as if the people generallyhad retained among them the echo of our Lord'ssaying, that their angels continually behold theface of our Father, which is in heaven. Hence thereligious care connected with education. Thegrand object of the teacher was moral as well asintellectual training. To keep children from allintercourse with the vicious; to suppress allfeelings of bitterness, even though wrong had beendone to one's parents; to punish all real wrong-doing; not to prefer one child to another; rather toshow sin in its repulsiveness than to predict whatpunishment would follow, either in this or the nextworld, so as not to "discourage" the child--suchare some of the rules laid down. A teacher was noteven to promise a child anything, which he did notmean to perform, lest its mind be familiarised withfalsehood. Everything that might call up

disagreeable or indelicate thoughts was to becarefully avoided. The teacher must not losepatience if his pupil understood not readily, butrather make the lesson more plain. He might,indeed, and he should, punish when necessary,and, as one of the Rabbis put it, treat the child likea young heifer whose burden was daily increased.But excessive severity was to be avoided; and weare told of one teacher who was actually dismissedfrom office for this reason. Where possible, trykindness; and if punishment was to beadministered, let the child be beaten with a strap,but never with a rod. At ten the child began tostudy the Mishnah; at fifteen he must be ready forthe Talmud, which would be explained to him in amore advanced academy. If after three, or at mostfive, years of tuition the child had not madedecided progress, there was little hope of hisattaining to eminence. In the study of the bible thepupil was to proceed from the book of Leviticus tothe rest of the Pentateuch, thence to the Prophets,and lastly to the Hagiographa. This regulation wasin accordance with the degree of value which theRabbis attached to these divisions of the Bible. Inthe case of advanced pupils the day was portionedout--one part being devoted to the Bible, the othertwo to the Mishnah and the Talmud. Every parentwas also advised to have his child taughtswimming.

It has already been stated that in generalthe school was held in the synagogue. Commonlyits teacher was the "chazan," or "minister" (Luke4:20); by which expression we are to understandnot a spiritual office, but something like that of abeadle. This officer was salaried by thecongregation; nor was he allowed to receive feesfrom his pupils, lest he should show favour to therich. The expenses were met by voluntary andcharitable contributions; and in case of deficiencythe most distinguished Rabbis did not hesitate togo about and collect aid from the wealthy. Thenumber of hours during which the junior classeswere kept in school was limited. As the close airof the school-room might prove injurious duringthe heat of the day, lessons were intermittedbetween ten a.m. and three p.m. For similarreasons, only four hours were allowed forinstruction between the seventeenth of Thamuzand the ninth of Ab (about July and August), andteachers were forbidden to chastise their pupils

52

during these months. The highest honour anddistinction attached to the office of a teacher, ifworthily discharged. Want of knowledge or ofmethod was regarded as sufficient cause forremoving a teacher; but experience was alwaysdeemed a better qualification than mereacquirements. No teacher was employed who wasnot a married man. To discourage unwholesomerivalry, and to raise the general educationalstandard, parents were prohibited from sendingtheir children to other than the schools of theirown towns.

A very beautiful trait was the carebestowed on the children of the poor and onorphans. In the Temple there was a specialreceptacle--that "of the secret"--for contributions,which were privately applied for the education ofthe children of the pious poor. To adopt and bringup an orphan was regarded as specially a "goodwork." This reminds us of the apostolicdescription of a "widow indeed," as one "wellreported for good works"; who "had brought upchildren, lodged strangers, washed the saints' feet,relieved the afflicted, diligently followed everygood work" (1 Tim 5:10). Indeed, orphans werethe special charge of the whole congregation--notthrust into poor-houses,--and the parochialauthorities were even bound to provide a fixeddowry for female orphans.

Such were the surroundings, and such theatmosphere, in which Yahoshua of Nazarethmoved while tabernacling among men.

Chapter 9Mothers, Daughters, and Wives

in Israel

In order accurately to understand the positionof woman in Israel, it is only necessary carefullyto peruse the New Covenant. The picture of sociallife there presented gives a full view of the placewhich she held in private and in public life. Herewe do not find that separation, so common amongOrientals at all times, but a woman mingles freelywith others both at home and abroad. So far fromsuffering under social inferiority, she takesinfluential and often leading part in allmovements, specially those of a religious

character. Above all, we are wholly spared thosesickening details of private and public immoralitywith which contemporary classical literatureabounds. Among Israel woman was pure, thehome happy, and the family hallowed by areligion which consisted not only in publicservices, but entered into daily life, and embracedin its observances every member of the household.It was so not only in New Covenant times butalways in Israel. St. Peter's reference to "the holywomen" "in the old time" (1 Peter 3:5) isthoroughly in accordance with Talmudical views.Indeed, his quotation of Genesis 18:12, and itsapplication: "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham,calling him lord," occur in precisely the samemanner in Rabbinical writings (Tanch. 28, 6),where her respect and obedience are likewise setforth as a pattern to her daughters.43

Some further details may illustrate the matterbetter than arguments. The creation of womanfrom the rib of Adam is thus commented on (Shab.23): "It is as if Adam had exchanged a pot of earthfor a precious jewel." This, although Hebrew witcaustically had it: "Yahweh has cursed woman,yet all the world runs after her; He has cursed theground, yet all the world lives of it." In whatreverence "the four mothers," as the Rabbisdesignate Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel, wereheld, and what influence they exercised inpatriarchal history, no attentive reader of Scripturecan fail to notice. And as we follow on the sacredstory, Miriam, who had originally saved Moses,leads the song of deliverance on the other side ofthe flood, and her influence, though not always forgood, continued till her death (compare Micah6:4). Then "the women whose heart stirred themup in wisdom" contribute to the rearing of theTabernacle; Deborah works deliverance, andjudgeth in Israel; and the piety of Manoah's wife isat least as conspicuous, and more intelligent, thanher husband's (Judg 13:23). So also is that of themother of Samuel. In the times of the kings thepraises of Israel's maidens stir the jealousy ofSaul; Abigail knows how to avert the danger of

43 * The following illustration also occurs: A certain wise womansaid to her daughter before her marriage: "My child, stand beforethy husband and minister to him. If thou wilt act as his maiden hewill be thy slave, and honour thee as his mistress; but if thou exaltthyself against him, he will be thy master, and thou shalt becomevile in his eyes, like one of the maidservants."

53

her husband's folly; the wise woman of Tekoah issent for to induce the king to fetch his banishedhome; and the conduct of a woman "in herwisdom" puts an end to the rebellion of Sheba.Later on, the constant mention of queen mothers,and their frequent interference in the government,shows their position. Such names as that ofHuldah the prophetess, and the idyllic narrative ofthe Shunammite, will readily occur to thememory. The story of a woman's devotion formsthe subject of the Book of Ruth; that of her pureand faithful love, the theme or the imagery of theSong of Songs; that of her courage and devotionthe groundwork of the Book of Esther: while herworth and virtues are enumerated in the closingchapter of the Book of Proverbs. Again, in thelanguage of the prophets the people of Yahweh arecalled "the daughter," "the virgin daughter ofZion," "the daughter of Jerusalem," "the daughterof Judah," etc.; and their relationship to Yahweh isconstantly compared to that of the married state.The very terms by which woman is named in theOld Covenant are significant. If the man is Ish, hiswife is Ishah, simply his equal; if the husband isGever, the ruler, the woman is, in her owndomain, Gevirah and Gevereth, the mistress (asfrequently in the history of Sarah and in otherpassages), or else the dweller at home (Nevathbayith, Psa 68:12).44

Nor is it otherwise in New Covenant times.The ministry of woman to our blessed Lord, and inthe Church, has almost become proverbial. Herposition there marks really not a progress upon,but the full carrying out of, the Old Covenant idea;or, to put the matter in another light, we ask nobetter than that any one who is acquainted withclassical antiquity should compare what he readsof a Dorcas, of the mother of Mark, of Lydia,Priscilla, Phoebe, Lois, or Eunice, with what heknows of the noble women of Greece and Rome atthat period.

44 Similar expressions are Sarah and Shiddah, both from rootsmeaning to rule. Nor is this inconsistent with the use of the wordBaal, to marry, and Beulah, the married one, from Baal, a lord--even as Sarah "called Abraham lord" (1 Peter 3:6, the expressionused of her to Abimelech, Genesis 20:3, being Beulah). Of course itis not meant that these are the only words for females. But theothers, such as Bath and Naarah, are either simply feminineterminations, or else, as Bethulah, Levush, Nekevah, Almah,Rachem, descriptive of their physical state.

Of course, against all this may be set thepermission of polygamy, which undoubtedly wasin force at the time of our Lord, and the ease withwhich divorce might be obtained. In reference toboth these, however, it must be remembered thatthey were temporary concessions to "the hardness"of the people's heart. For, not only must thecircumstances of the times and the moral state ofthe Hebrew and of neighbouring nations be takeninto account, but there were progressive stages ofspiritual development. If these had not been takeninto account, the religion of the Old Covenantwould have been unnatural and an impossibility.Suffice it, that "from the beginning it was not so,"nor yet intended to be so in the end--theintermediate period thus marking the gradualprogress from the perfectness of the idea to theperfectness of its realisation. Moreover, it isimpossible to read the Old, and still more the NewCovenant without gathering from it the conviction,that polygamy was not the rule but the rareexception, so far as the people generally wereconcerned. Although the practice in reference todivorce was certainly more lax, even the Rabbissurrounded it with so many safeguards that, inpoint of fact, it must in many cases have beendifficult of accomplishment. In general, the wholetendency of the Mosaic legislation, and even moreexplicitly that of later Rabbinical ordinances, wasin the direction of recognising the rights ofwoman, with a scrupulousness which reacheddown even to the Hebrew slave, and a delicacythat guarded her most sensitive feelings. Indeed,we feel warranted in saying, that in cases ofdispute the law generally lent to her side. Ofdivorce we shall have to speak in the sequel. Butwhat the religious views and feelings both about itand monogamy were at the time of Malachi,appears from the pathetic description of the altarof Yahweh as covered with the tears of "the wifeof youth," "the wife of thy covenant," "thycompanion," who had been "put away" or"treacherously dealt" with (Mal 2:13 to end). Thewhole is so beautifully paraphrased by the Rabbisthat we subjoin it:

54

"If death hath snatched from thee the wife ofyouth,

It is as if the sacred city were,And e'en the Temple, in thy pilgrim days,

Defiled, laid low, and levelled with the dust.The man who harshly sends from him

His first-woo'd wife, the loving wife of youth,For him the very altar of Yahweh

Sheds forth its tears of bitter agony."

Where the social intercourse between thesexes was nearly as unrestricted as amongourselves, so far as consistent with Easternmanners, it would, of course, be natural for ayoung man to make personal choice of his bride.Of this Scripture affords abundant evidence. But,at any rate, the woman had, in case of betrothal ormarriage, to give her own free and expressedconsent, without which a union was invalid.Minors--in the case of girls up to twelve years andone day--might be betrothed or given away bytheir father. In that case, however, they hadafterwards the right of insisting upon divorce. Ofcourse, it is not intended to convey that womanattained her full position till under the NewCovenant. But this is only to repeat what may besaid of almost every social state and relationship.Yet it is most marked how deeply the spirit of theOld Covenant, which is essentially that of the Newalso, had in this respect also penetrated the life ofIsrael. St. Paul's warning (2 Cor 6:14) againstbeing "unequally yoked together," which is anallegorical application of Leviticus 19:19;Deuteronomy 22:10, finds to some extent acounterpart in mystical Rabbinical writings, wherethe last-mentioned passages is expressly applied tospiritually unequal marriages. The admonition of 1Corinthians 7:39 to marry "only in the Lord,"recalls many similar Rabbinical warnings, fromwhich we select the most striking. Men, we aretold (Yalkut on Deu 21:15), are wont to marry forone of four reasons--for passion, wealth, honour,or the glory of Yahweh. As for the first-namedclass of marriages, their issue must be expected tobe "stubborn and rebellious" sons, as we maygather from the section referring to such followingupon that in Deuteronomy 21:11. In regard tomarriages for wealth, we are to learn a lesson fromthe sons of Eli, who sought to enrich themselves insuch manner, but of whose posterity it was said (1

Sam 2:36) that they should "crouch for a piece ofsilver and a morsel of bread." Of marriages for thesake of connection, honour, and influence, KingJehoram offered a warning, who became KingAhab's son-in-law, because that monarch hadseventy sons, whereas upon his death his widowAthaliah "arose and destroyed all the seed royal"(2 Kings 11:1). But far otherwise is it in case ofmarriage "in the name of heaven." The issue ofsuch will be children who "preserve Israel." Infact, the Rabbinical references to marrying "in thename of heaven," or "for the name of Yahweh,"--in Yahweh and for Yahweh--are so frequent andso emphatic, that the expressions used by St. Paulmust have come familiarly to him. Again, muchthat is said in 1 Corinthians 7 about the marriedestate, finds striking parallels in Talmudicalwritings. One may here be mentioned, asexplaining the expression (v 14): "Else were yourchildren unclean; but now are they holy."Precisely the same distinction was made by theRabbis in regard to proselytes, whose children, ifbegotten before their conversion to Judaism, weresaid to be "unclean"; if after that event to havebeen born "in holiness," only that, among theHebrews, both parents required to professJudaism, while St. Paul argues in the contrarydirection, and concerning a far different holinessthan that which could be obtained through anymere outward ceremony.

Some further details, gathered almost atrandom, will give glimpses of Hebrew home lifeand of current views. It was by a not uncommon,though irreverent, mode of witticism, that twoforms of the same verb, sounding almost alike,were made to express opposite experiences ofmarriage. It was common to ask a newly-marriedhusband: "Maza or Moze?"--"findeth" or "found";the first expression occurring in Proverbs 18:22,the second in Ecclesiastes 7:26. A differentsentiment is the following from the Talmud (Yeb.62 b; Sanh. 76 b), the similarity of which toEphesians 5:28 will be immediately recognised:"He that loveth his wife as his own body,honoureth her more than his own body, brings uphis children in the right way, and leads them in itto full age--of him the Scripture saith: 'Thou shaltknow that thy tabernacle shall be in peace' (Job5:24)." Of all qualities those most desired inwoman were meekness, modesty, and

55

shamefacedness. Indeed, brawling, gossip in thestreets, and immodest behaviour in public weresufficient grounds for divorce. Of course, Hebrewwomen would never have attempted "teaching" inthe synagogue, where they occupied a placeseparate from the men--for Rabbinical study,however valued for the male sex, was disapprovedof in the case of women. Yet this direction of St.Paul (1 Tim 2:12): "I suffer not a woman to usurpauthority over the man" findeth some kind ofparallel in the Rabbinical saying: "Whoeverallows himself to be ruled by his wife, shall callout, and no one will make answer to him."

It is on similar grounds that the Rabbisargue, that man must seek after woman, and not awoman after a man; only the reason which theyassign for it sounds strange. Man, they say, wasformed from the ground--woman from man's rib;hence, in trying to find a wife man only looks afterwhat he had lost! This formation of man from softclay, and of woman from a hard bone, alsoillustrated why man was so much more easilyreconcilable than woman. Similarly, it wasobserved, that Yahweh had not formed woman outof the head, lest she should become proud; nor outof the eye, lest she should lust; nor out of the ear,lest she should be curious; nor out of the mouth,lest she should be talkative; nor out of the heart,lest she should be jealous; nor out of the hand, lestshe should be covetous; nor out of the foot, lestshe be a busybody; but out of the rib, which wasalways covered. Modesty was, therefore, a primequality. It was no doubt chiefly in jealous regardfor this, that women were interdicted engaging inRabbinical studies; and a story is related to showhow even the wisest of women, Beruria, wasthereby brought to the brink of extreme danger. Itis not so easy to explain why women weredispensed from all positive obligations(commands, but not prohibitions) that were notgeneral in their bearing (Kidd. 1. 7,8), but fixed tocertain periods of time (such as wearing thephylacteries, etc.), and from that of certainprayers, unless it be that woman was considerednot her own mistress but subject to others, or elsethat husband and wife were regarded as one, sothat his merits and prayers applied to her as well.Indeed, this view, at least so far as the meritoriousnature of a man's engagement with the law isconcerned, is expressly brought forward, and

women are accordingly admonished to encouragetheir husbands in all such studies.

We can understand how, before thecoming of the Messiah, marriage should have beenlooked upon as of religious obligation. Manypassages of Scripture were at least quoted insupport of this idea. Ordinarily, a young man wasexpected to enter the wedded state (according toMaimonides) at the age of sixteen or seventeen,while the age of twenty may be regarded as theutmost limit conceded, unless study so absorbedtime and attention as to leave no leisure for theduties of married life. Still it was thought bettereven to neglect study than to remain single. Yetmoney cares on account of wife and children weredreaded. The same comparison is used inreference to them, which our Lord applies to quitea different "offence," that against the "little ones"(Luke 17:2). Such cares are called by the Rabbis,"a millstone round the neck" (Kidd. 29 b). In fact,the expression seems to have become proverbial,like so many others which are employed in theNew Covenant.

We read in the Gospel that, when theVirgin-mother "was espoused to Joseph, beforethey came together, she was found with child ofthe Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being ajust man, and not willing to make her a publicexample, was minded to put her away privily"(Matt 1:18,19). The narrative implies a distinctionbetween betrothal and marriage--Joseph being atthe time betrothed, but not actually married to theVirgin-mother. Even in the Old Covenant adistinction is made between betrothal andmarriage. The former was marked by a bridalpresent (or Mohar, Gen 34:12; Exo 22:17; 1 Sam18:25), with which the father, however, would incertain circumstances dispense. From the momentof her betrothal a woman was treated as if shewere actually married. The union could not bedissolved, except by regular divorce; breach offaithfulness was regarded as adultery; and theproperty of the women became virtually that ofher betrothed, unless he had expressly renouncedit (Kidd. ix. 1). But even in that case he was hernatural heir. It is impossible here to enter into thevarious legal details, as, for example, aboutproperty or money which might come to a womanafter betrothal or marriage. The law adjudicatedthis to the husband, yet with many restrictions, and

56

with infinite delicacy towards the woman, as ifreluctant to put in force the rights of the stronger(Kidd. viii. 1, etc.). From the Mishnah (Bab. B. x.4) we also learn that there were regular ShitreErusin, or writings of betrothal, drawn up by theauthorities (the costs being paid by thebridegroom). These stipulated the mutualobligations, the dowry, and all other points onwhich the parties had agreed. The Shitre Erusinwere different from the regular Chethubah(literally, writing), or marriage contract, withoutwhich the Rabbis regarded a marriage as merelylegalised concubinage (Cheth. v. 1). TheChethubah provided a settlement of at least twohundred denars for a maiden, and one hundreddenars for a widow, while the priestly council atJerusalem fixed four hundred denars for a priest'sdaughter. Of course these sums indicate only thelegal minimum, and might be increasedindefinitely at pleasure, though opinions differwhether any larger sums might be legally exacted,if matters did not go beyond betrothal. The form atpresent in use among the Hebrews sets forth, thatthe bridegroom weds his bride "according to thelaw of Moses and of Israel"; that he promises "toplease, to honour, to nourish, and to care for her,as is the manner of the men of Israel," addingthereto the woman's consent, the document beingsigned by two witnesses. In all probability thiswas substantially the form in olden times. InJerusalem and in Galilee--where it was said thatmen in their choice had regard to "a fair degree,"while in the rest of Judaea they looked a good dealafter money--widows had the right of residence intheir husband's house secured to them.

On the other hand, a father was bound toprovide a dowry (nedan, nedanjah) for hisdaughter conformable to her station in life; and asecond daughter could claim a portion equal tothat of her elder sister, or else one-tenth of allimmovable property. In case of the father's death,the sons, who, according to Hebrew law, were hissole heirs, were bound to maintain their sisters,even though this would have thrown them uponpublic charity, and to endow each with a tenth partof what had been left. The dowry, whether inmoney, property, or jewellery, was entered intothe marriage contract, and really belonged to thewife, the husband being obliged to add to it one-half more, if it consisted of money or money's

value; and if of jewellery, etc., to assign to herfour-fifths of its value. In case of separation (notdivorce) he was bound to allow her a properaliment, and to re-admit her to his table and houseon the Sabbath-eve. A wife was entitled to one-tenth of her dowry for pin-money. If a father gaveaway his daughter without any distinct statementabout her dowry, he was bound to allow her atleast fifty sus; and if it had been expresslystipulated that she was to have no dowry at all, itwas delicately enjoined that the bridegroomshould, before marriage, give her sufficient for thenecessary outfit. An orphan was to receive adowry of at least fifty sus from the parochialauthorities. A husband could not oblige his wife toleave the Holy Land nor the city of Jerusalem, noryet to change a town for a country residence, orvice versa, nor a good for a bad house. These areonly a few of the provisions which show howcarefully the law protected the interests of women.To enter into farther details would lead beyond ourpresent object. All this was substantially settled atthe betrothal, which, in Judaea at least, seems tohave been celebrated by a feast. Only a bona fidebreach of these arrangements, or wilful fraud, wasdeemed valid ground for dissolving the bond onceformed. Otherwise, as already noted, a regulardivorce was necessary.

According to Rabbinical law certainformalities were requisite to make a betrothallegally valid. These consisted either in handing toa woman, directly or through messengers, a pieceof money, however small, or else a letter,45

provided it were in each case expressly statedbefore witnesses, that the man thereby intended toespouse the woman as his wife.

The marriage followed after a longer or shorterinterval, the limits of which, however, were fixedby law. The ceremony itself consisted in leadingthe bride into the house of the bridegroom, withcertain formalities, mostly dating from veryancient times. Marriage with a maiden wascommonly celebrated on a Wednesday afternoon,which allowed the first days of the week forpreparation, and enabled the husband, if he had acharge to prefer against the previous chastity ofhis bride, to make immediate complaint before the

45 There was also a third mode of espousal--simply by cohabitation,but this was very strongly disapproved by the Rabbis.

57

local Sanhedrim, which sat every Thursday. Onthe other hand, the marriage of a widow wascelebrated on Thursday afternoon, which left threedays of the week for "rejoicing with her." Thiscircumstance enables us, with some certainty, toarrange the date of the events which preceded themarriage in Cana. Inferring from theaccompanying festivities that it was the marriageof a maiden, and therefore took place on aWednesday, we have the following succession ofevents:--On Thursday (beginning as every Hebrewday with the previous evenint), testimony of theBaptist to the Sanhedrim-deputation fromJerusalem. On Friday (John 1:29), "John seethYahoshua coming unto him," and significantlypreacheth the first sermon about "the Lamb ofYahweh which taketh away the sin of the world."On Saturday (v 35), John's second sermon on thesame text; the consequent conversion of St. Johnand St. Andrew, and the calling of St. Peter. OnSunday (v 43), our Lord Himself preacheth Hisfirst Messianic sermon, and calls Philip andNathanael. On "the third day" after it, that is, onWednesday, was the marriage in Cana of Galilee.The significance of these dates, when comparedwith those in the week of our Lord's Passion, willbe sufficiently evident.

But this is not all that may be learned fromthe account of the marriage in Cana. Of course,there was a "marriage-feast," as on all theseoccasions. For this reason, marriages were notcelebrated either on the Sabbath, or on the daybefore or after it, lest the Sabbath-rest should beendangered. Nor was it lawful to wed on any ofthe three annual festivals, in order, as the Rabbisput it, "not to mingle one joy (that of the marriage)with another (that of the festival)." As it wasdeemed a religious duty to give pleasure to thenewly-married couple, the merriment at timesbecame greater than the more strict Rabbisapproved. Accordingly, it is said of one, that toproduce gravity he broke a vase worth about 25pounds; of another, that at his son's wedding hebroke a costly glass; and of a third, that beingasked to sin, he exclaimed, Woe to us, for we mustall die! For, as it is added (Ber. 31 a): "It isforbidden to man, that his mouth be filled withlaughter in this world (dispensation), as it iswritten, 'Then our mouth was filled with laughter,and our tongue with singing.' When is that to be?

At the time when 'they shall sing among theheathen, Yahweh hath done great things forthem.'"

It deserves notice, that at the marriage inCana there is no mention of "the friends of thebridegroom," or, as we would call them, thegroomsmen. This was in strict accordance withHebrew custom, for groomsmen were customaryin Judaea, but not in Galilee (Cheth. 25 a). Thisalso casts light upon the locality where John 3:29was spoken, in which "the friend of thebridegroom" is mentioned. But this expression isquite different from that of "children of thebridechamber," which occurs in Matthew 9:15,where the scene is once more laid in Galilee. Theterm "children of the bridechamber" is simply atranslation of the Rabbinical "bene Chuppah," andmeans the guests invited to the bridal. In Judaeathere were at every marriage two groomsmen or"friends of the bridegroom"--one for thebridegroom, the other for his bride. Beforemarriage, they acted as a kind of intermediariesbetween the couple; at the wedding they offeredgifts, waited upon the bride and bridegroom, andattended them to the bridal chamber, being also, asit were, the guarantors of the bride's virginchastity. Hence, when St. Paul tells theCorinthians (2 Cor 11:2): "I am jealous over youwith godly jealousy; for I have espoused you toone husband, that I may present you as a chastevirgin to Christ," he speaks, as it were, in thecharacter of groomsman or "bridegroom's friend,"who had acted as such at the spiritual union ofChrist with the Corinthian Church. And we knowthat it was specially the duty of the "friend of thebridegroom" so to present to him his bride.Similarly it was his also, after marriage, tomaintain proper terms between the couple, andmore particularly to defend the good fame of thebride against all imputations. It may interest someto know that his custom also was traced up tohighest authority. Thus, in the spiritual union ofIsrael with their God, Moses is spoken of as "thefriend of the bridegroom" who leads out the bride(Exo 19:17); while Yahweh, as the bridegroom,meets His Church at Sinai (Psa 68:7; Pirke di R.El. 41). Nay, in some mystic writings Yahweh isdescribed as acting "the friend of the bridegroom,"when our first parents met in Eden. There is atouch of poetry in the application of Ezekiel 28:13

58

to that scene, when angels led the choir, anddecked and watched the bridal-bed (Ab. de R.Nathan iv. and xii.). According to another ancientRabbinical commentary (Ber. R. viii), YahwehAlmighty Himself took the cup of blessing andspoke the benediction, while Michael and Gabrielacted the "bridegroom's friends" to our firstparents when they wedded in Paradise.

With such a "benediction," preceded by abrief formula, with which the bride was handedover to her husband (Tobit vii. 13), the weddingfestivities commenced. And so the pair were ledtowards the bridal chamber (Cheder) and thebridal bed (Chuppah). The bride went with herhair unloosed. Ordinarily, it was most strictlyenjoined upon women to have their head and haircarefully covered. This may throw some lightupon the difficult passage, 1 Corinthians 11:1-10.We must bear in mind that the apostle there argueswith Hebrews, and that on their own ground,convincing them by a reference to their ownviews, customs, and legends of the propriety of thepractice which he enjoins. From that point of viewthe propriety of a woman having her head"covered" could not be called in question. Theopposite would, to a Hebrew, have indicatedimmodesty. Indeed, it was the custom in the caseof a woman accused of adultery to have her hair"shorn or shaven," at the same time using thisformula: "Because thou hast departed from themanner of the daughters of Israel, who go withtheir head covered;...therefore that has befallenthee which thou hast chosen." This so far explainsverses 5 and 6. The expression "power," as appliedin verse 10 to the head of woman, seems to referto this covering, indicating, as it did, that she wasunder the power of her husband, while the verydifficult addition, "because of the angels," mayeither allude to the presence of the angels and tothe well-known Hebrew view (based, no doubt, ontruth) that those angels may be grieved oroffended by our conduct, and bear the sad tidingsbefore the throne of Yahweh, or it may possiblyrefer to the very ancient Hebrew belief, that theevil spirits gained power over a woman who wentwith her head bare.

The custom of a bridal veil--either for thebride alone, or spread over the couple--was ofancient date. It was interdicted for a time by theRabbis after the destruction of Jerusalem. Still

more ancient was the wearing of crowns (Cant3:11; Isa 61:10; Eze 16:12), which was alsoprohibited after the last Hebrew war. Palm andmyrtle branches were borne before the couple,grain or money was thrown about, and musicpreceded the procession, in which all who met itwere, as a religious duty, expected to join. TheParable of the Ten Virgins, who, with their lamps,were in expectancy of the bridegroom (Matt 25:1),is founded on Hebrew custom. For, according toRabbinical authority, such lamps carried on thetop of staves were frequently used, while ten is thenumber always mentioned in connection withpublic solemnities.46 The marriage festivitiesgenerally lasted a week, but the bridal daysextended over a full month.47

Having entered thus fully on the subject ofmarriage, a few further particulars may be ofinterest. The bars to marriage mentioned in theBible are sufficiently known. To these the Rabbisadded others, which have been arranged under twoheads--as farther extending the laws of kindred (totheir secondary degrees), and as intended to guardmorality. The former were extended over thewhole line of forbidden kindred, where that linewas direct, and to one link farther where the linebecame indirect--as, for example, to the wife of amaternal uncle, or to the step- mother of a wife. Inthe category of guards to morality we include suchprohibitions as that a divorced woman might notmarry her seducer, nor a man the woman to whomhe had brought her letter of divorce, or in whosecase he had borne testimony; or of marriage withthose not in their right senses, or in a state ofdrunkenness; or of the marriage of minors, orunder fraud, etc. A widower had to wait over threefestivals, a widow three months, before re-marrying, or if she was with child or gave suck,for two years. A woman might not be married athird time; no marriage could take place withinthirty days of the death of a near relative, nor yeton the Sabbath, nor on a feast-day, etc. Of themarriage to a deceased husband's brother (or thenext of kin), in case of childlessness, it isunnecessary here to speak, since although the

46 * According to R. Simon (on Chel. ii. 8) it was an Easterncustom that, when the bride was led to her future home, "theycarried before the party about ten" such lamps.47 The practice of calling a wife a bride during the first year of hermarriage is probably based on Deuteronomy 24:5.

59

Mishnah devotes a whole tractate to it (Yebamoth),and it was evidently customary at the time ofChrist (Mark 12:19, etc.), the practice wasconsidered as connected with the territorialpossession of Palestine, and ceased with thedestruction of the Hebrew commonwealth(Bechar. i. 7). A priest was to inquire into thelegal descent of his wife (up to four degrees if thedaughter of a priest, otherwise up to five degrees),except where the bride's father was a priest inactual service, or a member of the Sanhedrim. Thehigh-priest's bride was to be a maid not older thansix months beyond her puberty.

The fatal ease with which divorce could beobtained, and its frequency, appear from thequestion addressed to Christ by the Pharisees: "Isit lawful for a man to put away his wife for everycause?" (Matt 19:3), and still more from theastonishment with which the disciples had listenedto the reply of the Saviour (v 10). That answer wasmuch wider in its range than our Lord's initialteaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:32).To the latter no Hebrew could have had anyobjection, even though its morality would haveseemed elevated beyond their highest standard,represented in this case by the school of Shammai,while that of Hillel, and still more Rabbi Akiba,presented the lowest opposite extreme. But inreply to the Pharisees, our Lord placed the wholequestion on grounds which even the strictestShammaite would have refused to adopt. For thefarthest limit to which he would have gone wouldhave been to restrict the cause of divorce to "amatter of uncleanness" (Deu 24:1), by which hewould probably have understood not only a breachof the marriage vow, but of the laws and customsof the land. In fact, we know that it included everykind of impropriety, such as going about withloose hair, spinning in the street, familiarly talkingwith men, ill-treating her husband's parents in hispresence, brawling, that is, "speaking to herhusband so loudly that the neighbours could hearher in the adjoining house" (Chethub. vii. 6), ageneral bad reputation, or the discovery of fraudbefore marriage. On the other hand, the wife couldinsist on being divorced if her husband were aleper, or affected with polypus, or engaged in adisagreeable or dirty trade, such as that of a tanneror coppersmith. One of the cases in which divorcewas obligatory was, if either party had become

heretical, or ceased to profess Judaism. But evenso, there were at least checks to the danger ofgeneral lawlessness, such as the obligation ofpaying to a wife her portion, and a number ofminute ordinances about formal letters of divorce,without which no divorce was legal,48 and whichhad to be couched in explicit terms, handed to thewoman herself, and that in presence of twowitnesses, etc.

According to Hebrew law there were fourobligations incumbent on a wife towards herhusband, and ten by which he was bound. Of thelatter, three are referred to in Exodus 21:9, 10; theother seven include her settlement, medicaltreatment in case of sickness, redemption fromcaptivity, a respectable funeral, provision in hishouse so long as she remained a widow and hadnot been paid her dowry, the support of herdaughters till they were married, and a provisionthat her sons should, besides receiving theirportion of the father's inheritance, also share inwhat had been settled upon her. The obligationsupon the wife were, that all her gains shouldbelong to her husband, as also what came to herafter marriage by inheritance; that the husbandshould have the usufruct of her dowry, and of anygains by it, provided he had the administration ofit, in which case, however, he was also responsiblefor any loss; and that he should be considered herheir-at-law.

What the family life among the godly inIsrael must have been, how elevated its tone, howloving its converse, or how earnestly devoted itsmothers and daughters, appears sufficiently fromthe gospel story, from that in the book of Acts, andfrom notices in the apostolic letters. Women, suchas the Virgin-mother, or Elisabeth, or Anna, orthose who enjoyed the privilege of ministering tothe Lord, or who, after His death, tended andwatched for His sacred body, could not have beenquite solitary in Palestine; we find their sisters in aDorcas, a Lydia, a Phoebe, and those women ofwhom St. Paul speaks in Philippians 4:3, andwhose lives he sketches in his Epistles to Timothyand Titus. Wives such as Priscilla, mothers such asthat of Zebedee's children, or of Mark, or like St.

48 The Hebrews have it that a woman "is loosed from the law of herhusband" by only one of two things: death or a letter of divorce;hence Romans 7:2, 3.

60

John's "elect lady," or as Lois and Eunice, musthave kept the moral atmosphere pure and sweet,and shed precious light on their homes and onsociety, corrupt to the core as it was under thesway of heathenism. What and how they taughttheir households, and that even under the mostdisadvantageous outward circumstances, we learnfrom the history of Timothy. And although theywere undoubtedly in that respect without many ofthe opportunities which we enjoy, there was onesweet practice of family religion, going beyondthe prescribed prayers, which enabled them toteach their children from tenderest years tointertwine the Word of Yahweh with their dailydevotion and daily life. For it was the custom toteach a child some verse of Holy Scripturebeginning or ending with precisely the sameletters as its Hebrew name, and this birthday textor guardian-promise the child was day by day toinsert in its prayers. Such guardian words, familiarto the mind from earliest years, endeared to theheart by tenderest recollections, would remainwith the youth in life's temptations, and come backamid the din of manhood's battle. Assuredly, ofHebrew children so reared, so trained, so taught, itmight be rightly said: "Take heed that ye despisenot one of these little ones; for I say unto you,That in heaven their angels do always behold theface of My Father which is in heaven."

Chapter 10In Death and After Death

A sadder picture could scarcely be drawn than thatof the dying Rabbi Jochanan ben Saccai, that"light of Israel" immediately before and after thedestruction of the Temple, and for two years thepresident of the Sanhedrim. We read in theTalmud (Ber. 28 b) that, when his disciples cameto see him on his death-bed, he burst into tears. Totheir astonished inquiry why he, "the light ofIsrael, the right pillar of the Temple, and itsmighty hammer," betrayed such signs of fear, hereplied: "If I were now to be brought before anearthly king, who lives to-day and dies to-morrow,whose wrath and whose bonds are not everlasting,and whose sentence of death, even, is not that toeverlasting death, who can be assuaged by

arguments, or perhaps bought off by money--Ishould tremble and weep; how much more reasonhave I for it, when about to be led before the Kingof kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, Who livethand abideth for ever, Whose chains are chains forevermore, and Whose sentence of death killeth forever, Whom I cannot assuage with words, norbribe by money! And not only so, but there arebefore me two ways, one to paradise and the otherto hell, and I know not which of the two ways Ishall have to go--whether to paradise or to hell:how, then, shall I not shed tears?" Side by sidewith this we may place the opposite saying of R.Jehudah, called the Holy, who, when he died,lifted up both his hands to heaven, protesting thatnone of those ten fingers had broken the law ofYahweh! It were difficult to say which of thesetwo is more contrary to the light and liberty of theGospel--the utter hopelessness of the one, or theapparent presumption of the other.

And yet these sayings also recall to ussomething in the Gospel. For there also we read oftwo ways--the one to paradise, the other todestruction, and of fearing not those who can killthe body, but rather Him who, after He hath killedthe body, hath power to cast into hell. Nor, on theother hand, was the assurance of St. Stephen, ofSt. James, or of St. Paul, less confident than that ofJehudah, called the Holy, though it expresseditself in a far different manner and rested on quiteother grounds. Never are the voices of the Rabbismore discordant, and their utterances morecontradictory or unsatisfying than in view of thegreat problems of humanity: sin, sickness, death,and the hereafter. Most truly did St. Paul, taught atthe feet of Gamaliel in all the traditions andwisdom of the fathers, speak the inmost convictionof every Christian Rabbinist, that it is only ourSaviour Yahoshua Christ Who "hath brought lifeand immortality to light through the Gospel" (2Tim 1:10).

When the disciples asked our Lord, inregard to the "man which was blind from hisbirth": "master, who did sin, this man, or hisparents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:1,2) wevividly realise that we hear a strictly Hebrewquestion. It was just such as was likely to beraised, and it exactly expressed Hebrew belief.That children benefited or suffered according tothe spiritual state of their parents was a doctrine

61

current among the Hebrews. But they also heldthat an unborn child might contract guilt, since theYezer ha-ra, or evil disposition which was presentfrom its earliest formation, might even then becalled into activity by outward circumstances. Andsickness was regarded as alike the punishment forsin and its atonement. But we also meet withstatements which remind us of the teaching ofHebrews 12:5, 9. In fact, the apostolic quotationfrom Proverbs 3 is made for exactly the samepurpose in the Talmud (Ber. 5 a), in how differenta spirit will appear from the following summary. Itappears that two of the Rabbis had disagreed as towhat were "the chastisements of love," the onemaintaining, on the ground of Psalm 94:12, thatthey were such as did not prevent a man fromstudy, the other inferring from Psalm 66:20 thatthey were such as did not hinder prayer. Superiorauthority decided that both kinds were"chastisements of love," at the same timeanswering the quotation from Psalm 94 byproposing to read, not "teachest him," but"teachest us out of Thy law." But that the lawteaches us that chastisements are of greatadvantage might be inferred as follows: If,according to Exodus 21:26, 27, a slave obtainedfreedom through the chastisement of his master--achastisement which affected only one of hismembers--how much more must thosechastisements effect which purified the wholebody of man? Moreover, as another Rabbi remindsus, the "covenant" is mentioned in connection withsalt (Lev 2:13), and also in connection withchastisements (Deu 28:58). "As is the covenant,"spoken of in connection with salt, which givestaste to the meat, so also is "the covenant" spokenof in connection with chastisements, which purgeaway all the sins of a man. Indeed, as a thirdRabbi says: "Three good gifts hath the Holy One--blessed be He!--given to Israel, and each of themonly through sufferings--the law, the land ofIsrael, and the world to come." The law, accordingto Psalm 94:12; the land, according toDeuteronomy 8:5, which is immediately followedby verse 7; and the world to come, according toProverbs 6:23.

As on most other subjects, the Rabbis wereaccurate and keen observers of the laws of health,and their regulations are often far in advance ofmodern practice. From many allusions in the Old

Covenant we infer that the science of medicine,which was carried to comparatively greatperfection in Egypt, where every disease had itsown physician, was also cultivated in Israel. Thusthe sin of Asia, in trusting too much to earthlyphysicians, is specially reproved (2 Chron 16:12).In New Covenant times we read of the womanwho had spent all her substance, and suffered somuch at the hands of physicians (Mark 5:26);while the use of certain remedies, such as oil andwine, in the treatment of wounds (Luke 10:34),seems to have been popularly known. St. Lukewas a "physician" (Col 4:14); and among theregular Temple officials there was a medical man,whose duty it was to attend to the priesthood who,from ministering barefoot, must have beenspecially liable to certain diseases. The Rabbisordained that every town must have at least onephysician, who was also to be qualified to practisesurgery, or else a physician and a surgeon. Someof the Rabbis themselves engaged in medicalpursuits: and, in theory at least, every practitionerought to have had their licence. To employ aheretic or a Hebrew Christian was speciallyprohibited, though a heathen might, if needful, becalled in. But, despite their patronage of thescience, caustic sayings also occur. "Physician,heal thyself," is really a Hebrew proverb; "Livenot in a city whose chief is a medical man"--hewill attend to public business and neglect hispatients; "The best among doctors deservesGehenna"--for his bad treatment of some, and forhis neglect of others. It were invidious to enterinto a discussion of the remedies prescribed inthose times, although, to judge from what isadvised in such cases, we can scarcely wonder thatthe poor woman in the gospel was nowisebenefited, but rather the worse of them (Mark5:26). The means recommended were eithergenerally hygienic--and in this respect theHebrews contrast favourably even with ourselves--or purely medicinal, or else sympathetic, or evenmagical. The prescriptions consisted of simples orof compounds, vegetables being far more usedthan minerals. Cold-water compresses, theexternal and internal use of oil and of wine, baths(medicated and other), and a certain diet, werecarefully indicated in special diseases. Goats'-milkand barley-porridge were recommended in alldiseases attended by wasting. Hebrew surgeons

62

seem even to have known how to operate forcataract.

Ordinarily, life was expected to beprotracted, and death regarded as alike thepunishment and the expiation of sin. To die withinfifty years of age was to be cut off; within fifty-two, to die the death of Samuel the prophet; atsixty years of age, it was regarded as death at thehands of Heaven; at seventy, as that of an oldman; and at eighty, as that of strength. Prematuredeath was likened to the falling off of unripe fruit,or the extinction of a candle. To depart withouthaving a son was to die, otherwise it was to fallasleep. The latter was stated to have been the casewith David; the former with Joab. If a person hadfinished his work, his was regarded as the death ofthe righteous, who is gathered to his fathers.Tradition (Ber. 8 a) inferred, by a peculiarRabbinical mode of exegesis, from a word inPsalm 62:12, that there were 903 different kinds ofdying. The worst of these was angina, which wascompared to tearing out a thread from a piece ofwool; while the sweetest and gentlest, which wascompared to drawing a hair out of milk, was called"death by a kiss." The latter designation originatedfrom Numbers 33:38 and Deuteronomy 34:5, inwhich Aaron and Moses are respectively said tohave died "according to the word"--literally, "bythe mouth of Yahweh." Over six persons, it wassaid, the angel of death had had no power--viz.,Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because they had seentheir work quite completed; and over Miriam,Aaron, and Moses, who had died by "the kiss ofYahweh." If premature death was the punishmentof sin, the righteous died because others were toenter on their work--Joshua on that of Moses,Solomon on that of David, etc. But, when the timefor death came, anything might serve for itsinfliction, or, to put it in Rabbinical language, "OLord, all these are Thy servants"; for "whither aman was to go, thither his feet would carry him."

Certain signs were also noted as to the timeand manner of dying. Sudden death was called"being swallowed up," death after one day'sillness, that of rejection; after two days', that ofdespair; after four days', that of reproof; after fivedays', a natural death. Similarly, the posture of thedying was carefully marked. To die with a happysmile, or at least with a bright countenance, orlooking upward, was a good omen; to look

downward, to seem disturbed, to weep, or even toturn to the wall, were evil signs. On recoveringfrom illness, it was enjoined to return specialthanks. It was a curious superstition (Ber. 55 b),that, if any one announced his illness on the firstday of its occurrence, it might tend to make himworse, and that only on the second day shouldprayers be offered for him. Lastly, we maymention in this connection, as possibly throwinglight on the practice referred to by St. James(James 5:14), that it was the custom to anoint thesick with a mixture of oil, wine, and water, thepreparation of which was even allowed on theSabbath (Jer. Ber. ii. 2).

When our Lord mentioned visitation of thesick among the evidences of that religion whichwould stand the test of the judgment day (Matt25:36), He appealed to a principle universallyacknowledged among the Hebrews. The greatHebrew doctor Maimonides holds that this dutytakes precedence of all other good works, and theTalmud goes even so far as to assert, that whoevervisits the sick shall deliver his soul from Gehenna(Ned. 40- a). Accordingly, a Rabbi, discussing themeaning of the expression, "Ye shall walk afterYahweh your God" (Deu 13:4), arrives at theconclusion, that it refers to the imitation of whatwe read in Scripture of His doings. Thus Yahwehclothed the naked (Gen 3:21), and so should we;He visited the sick (Gen 18:1); He comforted themourners, (Gen 25:11); and He buried the dead(Deu 35:6); leaving us in all this an ensample thatwe should follow in His footsteps (Sota 14 a). Itwas possibly to encourage to this duty, or else inreference to the good effects of sympathy upon thesick, that we are told, that whoever visits the sicktakes away a sixtieth part of his sufferings (Ned.39 b). Nor was the service of love to stop here;for, as we have seen, the burial of the dead wasquite as urgent a duty as the visitation of the sick.As the funeral procession passed, every one wasexpected, if possible, to join the convoy. TheRabbis applied to the observance of this directionProverbs 14:32, and 19:17; and to its neglectProverbs 17:5 (Ber. 18 a). Similarly, all reverencewas shown towards the remains of the dead, andburying-places were kept free from every kind ofprofanation, and even from light conversation.

Burial followed generally as soon aspossible after death (Matt 9:23; Acts 5:6,10, 8:2),

63

no doubt partly on sanitary grounds. For specialreasons, however (Acts 9:37,39), or in the case ofparents, there might be a delay even of days. Thepreparations for the burial of our Lord, mentionedin the gospels--the ointment against His burial(Matt 26:12), the spices and ointments (Luke23:56), the mixture of myrrh and aloes--find theirliteral confirmation in what the Rabbis tell us ofthe customs of the period (Ber. 53 a). At one timethe wasteful expenditure connected with funeralswas so great as to involve in serious difficultiesthe poor, who would not be outdone by theirneighbours. The folly extended not only to thefuneral rites, the burning of spices at the grave,and the depositing of money and valuables in thetomb, but even to luxury in the wrappings of thedead body. At last a much-needed reform wasintroduced by Rabbi Gamaliel, who left directionsthat he was to be buried in simple linen garments.In recognition of this a cup is to this day emptiedto his memory at funeral meals. His grandsonlimited even the number of graveclothes to onedress. The burial-dress is made of the mostinexpensive linen, and bears the name of(Tachrichin) "wrappings," or else the "travelling-dress." At present it is always white, but formerlyany other colour might be chosen, of which wehave some curious instances. Thus one Rabbiwould not be buried in white, lest he might seemlike one glad, nor yet in black, so as not to appearto sorrow, but in red; while another ordered awhite dress, to show that he was not ashamed ofhis works; and yet a third directed that he shouldhave his shoes and stockings, and a stick, to beready for the resurrection! As we know from thegospel, the body was wrapped in "linen clothes,"and the face bound about with a napkin (John11:44, 20:5,7).

The body having been properly prepared,the funeral rites proceeded, as described in thegospels. From the account of the funeralprocession at Nain, which the Lord of life arrested(Luke 7:11-15), many interesting details may belearned. First, burying-places were always outsidecities (Matt 8:28, 27:7,52,53; John 11:30,31).Neither watercourses nor public roads wereallowed to pass through them, nor sheep to grazethere. We read of public and private burying-places--the latter chiefly in gardens and caves. Itwas the practice to visit the graves (John 11:31)

partly to mourn and partly to pray. It was unlawfulto eat or drink, to read, or even to walkirreverently among them. Cremation wasdenounced as a purely heathen practice, contraryto the whole spirit of Old Covenant teaching.Secondly, we know that, as at Nain, the body wasgenerally carried open on a bier, or else in an opencoffin, the bearers frequently changing to give anopportunity to many to take part in a work deemedso meritorious. Graves in fields or in the openwere often marked by memorial columns.Children less than a month old were carried to theburying by their mothers; those under twelvemonths were borne on a bed or stretcher. Lastly,the order in which the procession seems to havewound out of Nain exactly accords with what weknow of the customs of the time and place. It wasoutside the city gate that the Lord with Hisdisciples met the sad array. Had it been in Judaeathe hired mourners and musicians would havepreceded the bier; in Galilee they followed. Firstcame the women, for, as an ancient Hebrewcommentary explains--woman, who brought deathinto our world, ought to lead the way in thefuneral procession. Among them our Lord readilyrecognised the widowed mother, whose onlytreasure was to be hidden from her for ever.Behind the bier followed, obedient to Hebrew lawand custom, "much people of the city." The sightof her sorrow touched the compassion of the Sonof Man; the presence of death called forth thepower of the Son of Yahweh. To her only Hespoke, what in the form of a question He said tothe woman who mourned at His own grave,ignorant that death had been swallowed up invictory, and what He still speaks to us fromheaven, "Weep not!" He bade not the processionhalt, but, as He touched the bier, they that bore onit the dead body stood still. It was a marvelloussight outside the gate of Nain. The Rabbi and Hisdisciples should reverently have joined theprocession; they arrested it. One word of powerburst inwards the sluices of Hades, and out flowedonce again the tide of life. "He that was dead satup on his bier, and began to speak"--what wordsof wonderment we are not told. It must have beenlike the sudden wakening, which leaves not on theconsciousness the faintest trace of the dream. Notof that world but of this would his speech be,though he knew he had been over there, and its

64

dazzling light made earth's sunshine so dim, thatever afterwards life must have seemed to him likethe sitting up on his bier, and its faces and voiceslike those of the crowd which followed him to hisburying.

At the grave, on the road to which theprocession repeatedly halted, when short addresseswere occasionally delivered, there was a funeraloration. If the grave were in a public cemetery, atleast a foot and a half must intervene betweeneach sleeper. The caves, or rock-hewn sepulchres,consisted of an ante-chamber in which the bierwas deposited, and an inner or rather lower cave inwhich the bodies were deposited, in a recumbentposition, in niches. According to the Talmud theseabodes of the dead were usually six feet long, ninefeet wide, and ten feet high. Here there wereniches for eight bodies: three on each side of theentrance, and two opposite. Larger sepulchres heldthirteen bodies. The entrance to the sepulchres wasguarded by a large stone or by a door (Matt 27:66;Mark 15:46; John 11:38,39). This structure of thetombs will explain some of the particularsconnected with the burial of our Lord, how thewomen coming early to the grave had beenastonished in finding the "very great stone" "rolledaway from the door of the sepulchre," and then,when they entered the outer cave, were affrightedto see what seemed "a young man sitting on theright side, clothed in a long white garment" (Mark16:4,5). Similarly, it explains the events as theyare successively recorded in John 20:1-12, howMary Magdalene, "when it was yet dark," hadcome to the sepulchre, in every sense waiting forthe light, but even groping had felt that the stonewas rolled away, and fled to tell the disciples theyhad, as she thought, taken away the Lord out ofthe sepulchre. If she knew of the sealing of thatstone and of the Roman guard, she must have feltas if the hatred of man would not deprive theirlove even of the sacred body of their Lord. Andyet, through it all, the hearts of the disciples musthave treasured hopes, which they scarce daredconfess to themselves. For those other twodisciples, witnesses of all His deeds on earth,companions of His shame in Caiaphas' palace,were also waiting for the daybreak--only at home,not like her at the grave. And now "they both rantogether." But on that morning, so near the nightof betrayal, "the other disciple did outrun Peter."

Grey light of early spring had broken the heavycurtain of cloud and mist, and red and goldensunlight lay on the edge of the horizon. Thegarden was still, and the morning air stirred thetrees which in the dark night had seemed to keepwatch over the dead, as through the unguardedentrance, by which lay "the very great stone"rolled away, John passed, and "stooping down"into the inner cave "saw the linen clothes lying.""Then cometh Simon Peter," not to wait in theouter cave, but to go into the sepulchre, presentlyto be followed thither by John. For that emptysepulchre was not a place to look into, but to gointo and believe. That morn had witnessed manywonders--wonders which made the Magdalenelong for yet greater--for the wonder of wonders,the Lord Himself. Nor was she disappointed. HeWho alone could answer her questions fully, anddry her tears, spake first to her who loved somuch.

Thus also did our blessed Lord Himselffulfil most truly that on which the law and Hebrewtradition laid so great stress: to comfort themourners in their affliction (comp. James 1:27).Indeed, tradition has it, that there was in theTemple a special gate by which mourners entered,that all who met them might discharge this duty oflove. There was a custom, which deserves generalimitation, that mourners were not to be tormentedby talk, but that all should observe silence tilladdressed by them. Afterwards, to obviate foolishremarks, a formula was fixed, according to which,in the synagogue the leader of the devotions, andin the house some one, began by asking, "Inquirefor the ground of mourning"; upon which one ofthose present--if possible, a Rabbi--answered,"Yahweh is a just Judge," which meant, that Hehad removed a near relative. Then, in thesynagogue, a regular fixed formula of comfort wasspoken, while in the house kind expressions ofconsolation followed.

The Rabbis distinguish between the Onenand the Avel--the sorrowing or suffering one, andthe bowed down, fading one, or mourner; theformer expression applying only to the day of thefuneral, the latter to the period which followed. Itwas held, that the law of Yahweh only prescribedmourning for the first day, which was that of deathand burial (Lev 22:4,6), while the other and longerperiod of mourning that followed was enjoined by

65

the elders. So long as the dead body was actuallyin the house, it was forbidden to eat meat or drinkwine, to put on the phylacteries, or to engage instudy. All necessary food had to be preparedoutside the house, and as, if possible, not to beeaten in presence of the dead. The first duty was torend the clothes, which might be done in one ormore of the inner garments, but not in the outerdress. The rent is made standing, and in front; it isgenerally about a hand-breadth in length. In thecase of parents it is never closed up again; but inthat of others it is mended after the thirtieth day.Immediately after the body is carried out of thehouse all chairs and couches are reversed, and themourners sit (except on the Sabbath, and on theFriday only for one hour) on the ground or on alow stool. A three-fold distinction was here made.Deep mourning was to last for seven days, ofwhich the first three were those of "weeping."During these seven days it was, among otherthings, forbidden to wash, to anoint oneself, to puton shoes, to study, or to engage in any business.After that followed a lighter mourning of thirtydays. Children were to mourn for their parents awhole year; and during eleven months (so as notto imply that they required to remain a full year inpurgatory) to say the "prayer for the dead." Thelatter, however, does not contain any intercessionfor the departed. The anniversary of the day ofdeath was also to be observed. An apostate fromthe Hebrew faith was not to be mourned; on thecontrary, white dress was to be worn on theoccasion of his decease, and other demonstrationsof joy to be made. It is well known under whatexceptional circumstances priests and the high-priest were allowed to mourn for the dead (Lev21:10,11). In the case of the high-priest it wascustomary to say to him, "May we be thyexpiation!" ("Let us suffer what ought to havebefallen thee";) to which he replied, "Be yeblessed of Heaven" (Sanh. ii. 1). It is noted thatthis mode of address to the high-priest wasintended to indicate the greatness of theiraffection; and the learned Otho suggests (Lexic.Rabb, p. 343), that this may have been in the mindof the apostle when he would have wished himselfAnathema for the sake of his brethren (Rom 9:3).On the return from the burial, friends, orneighbours prepared a meal for the mourners,consisting of bread, hard-boiled eggs, and lentils--

round and coarse fare; round like life, which isrolling on unto death. This was brought in andserved up in earthenware. On the other hand, themourners' friends partook of a funeral meal, atwhich no more than ten cups were to be emptied--two before the meal, five at it, and threeafterwards (Jer. Ber. iii. 1). In modern times thereligious duty of attending to the dying, the dead,and mourners, is performed by a special "holybrotherhood," as it is called, which many of themost religious Hebrews join for the sake of thepious work in which it engages them.

We add the following, which may be ofinterest. It is expressly allowed (Jer. Ber. iii. 1), onSabbaths and feast-days to walk beyond theSabbath limits, and to do all needful offices for thedead. This throws considerable light on theevangelical account of the offices rendered to thebody of Yahoshua on the eve of the Passover. Thechief mourning rites, indeed, were intermitted onSabbaths and feast-days; and one of the mostinteresting, and perhaps the earliest Hebrew non-Biblical record--the Megillath Taanith, or roll offasts--mentions a number of other days on whichmourning was prohibited, being the anniversariesof joyous occasions. The Mishnah (Moed K. iii. 5-9) contains a number of regulations andlimitations of mourning observances on greaterand lesser feasts, which we do not quote, aspossessing little interest save in Rabbinicalcasuistry. The loss of slaves was not to bemourned.

But what after death and in the judgment? Andwhat of that which brought in, and which givessuch terrible meaning to death and the judgment--sin? It were idle, and could only be painful here todetail the various and discordant sayings of theRabbis, some of which, at least, may admit of anallegorical interpretation. Only that which may beof use to the New Covenant student shall bebriefly summarised. Both the Talmud (Pes. 54 a;Ned. 39 b), and the Targum teach that paradiseand hell were created before this world. Onequotation from the Jerusalem Targum (on Gen3:24) will not only sufficiently prove this, butshow the general current of Hebrew teaching. Twothousand years, we read, before the world wasmade, Yahweh created the Law and Gehenna, andthe Garden of Eden. He made the Garden of Edenfor the righteous, that they might eat of the fruits

66

thereof, and delight themselves in them, becausein this world they had kept the commandments ofthe law. But for the wicked He prepared Gehenna,which is like a sharp two-edged destroying sword.He put within it sparks of fire and burning coals,to punish the wicked in the world to come,because they had not observed the commandmentsof the law in this world. For the law is the tree oflife. Whosoever observeth it shall live and subsistas the tree of life.49

Paradise and hell were supposed to becontiguous, only separated--it was said, perhapsallegorically--by an handbreadth. But although wemay here find some slight resemblance to thelocalisation of the history of the rich man andLazarus (Luke 16:25,26), only those acquaintedwith the theological thinking of the time can fullyjudge what infinite difference there is between thestory in the Gospel and the pictures drawn incontemporary literature. Witness here the 22ndchapter of the book of Enoch, which, as so manyother passages from pseudo-epigraphic andRabbinical writings, has been mangled andmisquoted by modern writers, for purposes hostileto Christianity. The Rabbis seem to have believedin a multitude of heavens--most of them holdingthat there were seven, as there were also sevendepartments in paradise, and as many in hell. Thepre-existence of the souls of all mankind beforetheir actual appearance upon earth, and even thedoctrine of the migration of souls, seem also tohave been held--both probably, however, chieflyas speculative views, introduced from foreign,non-Judaean sources.

But all these are preliminary and outsidequestions, which only indirectly touch the greatproblems of the human soul concerning sin andsalvation. And here we can, in this place, onlystate that the deeper and stronger our convictionthat the language, surroundings, and wholeatmosphere of the New Covenant were those ofPalestine at the time when our Lord trod its soil,the more startling appears the contrast between thedoctrinal teaching of Christ and His apostles and

49 Other Rabbinical sayings have it, that seven things existed beforethe world--the law, repentance, paradise, hell, the throne ofYahweh, the name of the Messiah, and the Temple. At the sametime the reader will observe that the quotation from the Targumgiven in the text attempts an allegorising, and therefore rationalisticinterpretation of the narrative in Genesis 3:24.

that of the Rabbis. In general, it may be said thatthe New Covenant teaching concerning originalsin and its consequences finds no analogy in theRabbinical writings of that period. As to the modeof salvation, their doctrine may be broadlysummed up under the designation of work-righteousness.

In view of this there is, strictly speaking,logical inconsistency in the earnestness withwhich the Rabbis insist on universal andimmediate repentance, and the need of confessionof sin, and of preparation for another world. For, aparadise which might be entered by all on theirown merits, and which yet is to be sought by allthrough repentance and similar means, or else canonly be obtained after passing through a kind ofpurgatory, constitutes no mean moral chargeagainst the religion of Rabbinism. Yet suchinconsistencies may be hailed as bringing thesynagogue, in another direction, nearer to biblicaltruth. Indeed, we come occasionally upon muchthat also appears, only in quite another setting, inthe New Covenant. Thus the teaching of our Lordabout the immortality of the righteous was, ofcourse, quite consonant with that of the Pharisees.In fact, their contention also was, that the departedsaints were in Scripture called "living" (Ber. 18 a).Similarly, it was their doctrine (Ber. 17 a, and inseveral other passages)--though not quiteconsistently held--as it was that of our Lord (Matt22:30), that "in the world to come there is neithereating nor drinking, neither fruitfulness norincrease, neither trade nor business, neither envy,hatred, nor strife; but the righteous sit with theircrowns on their heads, and feast themselves on thesplendour of the Shechinah, as it is written, 'Theysaw Yahweh, and did eat and drink'" (Exo 24:11).The following is so similar in form and yet sodifferent in spirit to the parable of the invitedguests and him without the wedding garment(Matt 22:1-14), that we give it in full. "R.Jochanan, son of Saccai, propounded a parable. Acertain king prepared a banquet, to which heinvited his servants, without however having fixedthe time for it. Those among them who were wiseadorned themselves, and sat down at the door ofthe king's palace, reasoning thus: Can there beanything awanting in the palace of a king? Butthose of them who were foolish went away to theirwork, saying: Is there ever a feast without labour?

67

Suddenly the king called his servants to thebanquet. The wise appeared adorned, but thefoolish squalid. Then the king rejoiced over thewise, but was very wroth with the foolish, andsaid: Those who have adorned themselves shall sitdown, eat, drink, and be merry; but those whohave not adorned themselves shall stand by andsee it, as it is written in Isaiah 65:13." A somewhatsimilar parable, but even more Hebrew in itsdogmatic cast, is the following: "The matter (ofthe world to come) is like an earthly king whocommitted to his servants the royal robes. Theywho were wise folded and laid them up in thewardrobes, but they who were careless put themon, and did in them their work. After some daysthe king asked back his robes. Those who werewise restored them as they were, that is, still clean;those who were foolish also restored them as theywere, that is, soiled. Then the king rejoiced overthe wise, but was very wroth with the carelessservants, and he said to the wise: Lay up the robesin the treasury, and go home in peace. But to thecareless he commanded the robes to be given, thatthey might wash them, and that they themselvesshould be cast into prison, as it is written of thebodies of the just in Isaiah 57:2; 1 Samuel 25:29,but of the bodies of the unjust in Isaiah 48:22,57:21 and in 1 Samuel 25:29." From the sametractate (Shab. 152 a), we may, in conclusion,quote the following: "R. Eliezer said, Repent onthe day before thou diest. His disciples asked him:Can a man know the hour of his death? He replied:Therefore let him repent to-day, lest haply he dieon the morrow."

Quotations on these, and discussions onkindred subjects might lead us far beyond ourpresent scope. But the second of the parablesabove quoted will point the direction of the finalconclusions at which Rabbinism arrived. It is not,as in the Gospel, pardon and peace, but labourwith the "may be" of reward. As for the "afterdeath," paradise, hell, the resurrection, and thejudgment, voices are more discordant than ever,opinions more unscriptural, and descriptions morerepulsively fabulous. This is not the place fartherto trace the doctrinal views of the Rabbis, toattempt to arrange and to follow them up. Work-righteousness and study of the law are the surestkey to heaven. There is a kind of purgation, if notof purgatory, after death. Some seem even to have

held the annihilation of the wicked. Taking thewidest and most generous views of the Rabbis,they may be thus summed up: All Israel haveshare in the world to come; the pious among theGentiles also have part in it. Only the perfectlyjust enter at once into paradise; all the rest passthrough a period of purification and perfection,variously lasting, up to one year. But notoriousbreakers of the law, and especially apostates fromthe Hebrew faith, and heretics, have no hopewhatever, either here or hereafter! Such is the lastword which the synagogue has to say to mankind.Not thus are we taught by the Messiah, the Kingof the Hebrews. If we learn our loss, we also learnthat "The Son of Man has come to seek and tosave that which was lost." Our righteousness isthat freely bestowed on us by Him "Who waswounded for our transgressions and bruised forour iniquities." "With His stripes we are healed."The law which we obey is that which He has putwithin our hearts, by which we become temples ofthe Holy Ghost. "The Dayspring from on highhath visited us" through the tender mercy of ourGod. The Gospel hath brought life andimmortality to light, for we know Whom we havebelieved; and "perfect love casteth out fear." Noteven the problems of sickness, sorrow, suffering,and death are unnoticed. "Weeping may endure fora night, but joy cometh in the morning." The tearsof earth's night hang as dewdrops on flower andtree, presently to sparkle like diamonds in themorning sun. For, in that night of nights has Christmingled the sweat of human toil and sorrow withthe precious blood of His agony, and made it dropon earth as sweet balsam to heal its wounds, tosoothe its sorrows, and to take away its death.

Chapter 11Hebrew Views on Trade,

Tradesmen, and Trades' Guilds

We read in the Mishnah (Kidd. iv. 14) asfollows: "Rabbi Meir said: Let a man always teachhis son a cleanly and a light trade; and let himpray to Him whose are wealth and riches; for thereis no trade which has not both poverty and riches,and neither does poverty come from the trade noryet riches, but everything according to one's

68

deserving (merit). Rabbi Simeon, the son ofEleazer, said: Hast thou all thy life long seen abeast or a bird which has a trade? Still they arenourished, and that without anxious care. And ifthey, who are created only to serve me, shall not Iexpect to be nourished without anxious care, whoam created to serve my Maker? Only that if I havebeen evil in my deeds, I forfeit my support. AbbaGurjan of Zadjan said, in name of Abba Gurja: Letnot a man bring up his son to be a donkey-driver,nor a camel-driver, nor a barber, nor a sailor, nor ashepherd, nor a pedlar; for their occupations arethose of thieves. In his name, Rabbi Jehudah said:Donkey-drivers are mostly wicked; camel-driversmostly honest; sailors mostly pious; the bestamong physicians is for Gehenna, and the mosthonest of butchers a companion of Amalek. RabbiNehorai said: I let alone every trade of this world,and teach my son nothing but the Thorah (the lawof Yahweh); for a man eats of the fruit of it in thisworld (as it were, lives upon earth on the interest),while the capital remaineth for the world to come.But what is left over (what remains) in every trade(or worldly employment) is not so. For, if a manfall into ill-health, or come to old age or intotrouble (chastisement), and is no longer able tostick to his work, lo! he dies of hunger. But theThorah is not so, for it keeps a man from evil inyouth, and in old age gives him both a hereafterand the hopeful waiting for it. What does it sayabout youth? 'They that wait upon Yahweh shallrenew strength.' And what about old age? 'Theyshall still bring forth fruit in old age.' And this iswhat is said of Abraham our father: 'And Abrahamwas old, and Yahweh blessed Abraham in allthings.' But we find that Abraham our father keptthe whole Thorah--the whole, even to that whichhad not yet been given--as it is said, 'Because thatAbraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge,My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.'"

If this quotation has been long, it will inmany respects prove instructive; for it not onlyaffords a favourable specimen of Mishnicteaching, but gives insight into the principles, thereasoning, and the views of the Rabbis. At theoutset, the saying of Rabbi Simeon--which,however, we should remember, was spoken nearlya century after the time when our Lord had beenupon earth--reminds us of His own words (Matt6:26): "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow

not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yetyour heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye notmuch better than they?" It would be a delightfulthought, that our Lord had thus availed Himself ofthe better thinking and higher feeling in Israel; soto speak, polished the diamond and made itsparkle, as He held it up in the light of thekingdom of Yahweh. For here also it holds true,that the Saviour came not in any sense to"destroy," but to "establish the law." All aroundthe scene of His earthly ministry the atmospherewas Hebrew; and all that was pure, true, and goodin the nation's life, teaching, and sayings He madeHis own. On every page of the gospels we comeupon what seems to waken the echoes of Hebrewvoices; sayings which remind us of what we haveheard among the sages of Israel. And this is justwhat we should have expected, and what gives nosmall confirmation of the trustworthiness of thesenarratives as the record of what had really takenplace. It is not a strange scene upon which we arehere introduced; nor among strange actors; nor arethe surroundings foreign. Throughout we have alife-picture of the period, in which we recognisethe speakers from the sketches of them drawnelsewhere, and whose mode of speaking we knowfrom contemporary literature. The gospels couldnot have set aside, they could not even have leftout, the Hebrew element. Otherwise they wouldnot have been true to the period, nor to the people,nor to the writers, nor yet to that law of growthand development which always marks the progressof the kingdom of Yahweh. In one respect only allis different. The gospels are most Hebrew in form,but most anti-Hebrew in spirit--the record of themanifestation among Israel of the Son of God, theSaviour of the world, as the "King of theHebrews."

This influence of the Hebrew surroundingsupon the circumstances of the gospel history has amost important bearing. It helps us to realise whatHebrew life had been at the time of Christ, and tocomprehend what might seem peculiarities in thegospel narrative. Thus--to come to the subject ofthis chapter--we now understand how so many ofthe disciples and followers of the Lord gainedtheir living by some craft; how in the same spiritthe Master Himself condescended to the trade ofHis adoptive father; and how the greatest of Hisapostles throughout earned his bread by the labour

69

of his hands, probably following, like the LordYahoshua, the trade of his father. For it was aprinciple, frequently expressed, if possible "not toforsake the trade of the father"--most likely notmerely from worldly considerations, but because itmight be learned in the house; perhaps even fromconsiderations of respect for parents. And what inthis respect Paul practised, that he also preached.Nowhere is the dignity of labour and the manlyindependence of honest work more clearly setforth than in his Epistles. At Corinth, his firstsearch seems to have been for work (Acts 18:3);and through life he steadily forbore availinghimself of his right to be supported by the Church,deeming it his great "reward" to "make the Gospelof Christ without charge" (1 Cor 9:18). Nay, toquote his impassioned language, he would farrather have died of hard work than that any manshould deprive him of this "glorying." And sopresently at Ephesus "these hands" minister notonly unto his own necessities, but also to them thatwere with him; and that for the twofold reason ofsupporting the weak, and of following the Master,however "afar off," and entering into this joy ofHis, "It is more blessed to give than to receive"(Acts 20:34,35). Again, so to speak, it does one'sheart good when coming in contact with thatChurch which seemed most in danger of dreamycontemplativeness, and of unpractical, of notdangerous, speculations about the future, to hearwhat a manly, earnest tone also prevailed there.Here is the preacher himself! Not a man-pleaser,but a Yahweh-server; not a flatterer, nor covetous,nor yet seeking glory, nor courting authority, likethe Rabbis. What then? This is the sketch as drawnfrom life at Thessalonica, so that each who hadknown him must have recognised it: most loving,like a nursing mother, who cherisheth her ownchildren, so in tenderness willing to impart notonly the Gospel of Yahweh, but his own life. Yet,with it all, no mawkishness, no sentimentality; butall stern, genuine reality; and the preacher himselfis "labouring night and day," because he would notbe chargeable to any of them, while he preachedunto them the gospel of God (1 Thess 2:9). "Nightand day," hard, unremitting, uninteresting work,which some would have denounced or despised assecular! But to Paul that wretched distinction, theinvention of modern superficialism and unreality,existed not. For to the spiritual nothing is secular,

and to the secular nothing is spiritual. Work nightand day, and then as his rest, joy, and reward, topreach in public and in private the unsearchableriches of Christ, Who had redeemed him with Hisprecious blood. And so his preaching, althoughone of its main burdens seems to have been thesecond coming of the Lord, was in no waycalculated to make the hearers apocalypticdreamers, who discussed knotty points and visionsof the future, while present duty lay unheeded asbeneath them, on a lower platform. There is a ringof honest independence, of healthy, manly piety,of genuine, self-denying devotion to Christ, andalso of a practical life of holiness, in thisadmonition (1 Thess 4:11,12): "Make it yourambition to be quite, to do your own" (each onefor himself, not meddling with others' affairs),"and to work with your hands, as we commandedyou, that ye may walk decorously towards themwithout, and have no need of any one" (beindependent of all men). And, very significantly,this plain, practical religion is placed in immediateconjunction with the hope of the resurrection andof the coming again of our Lord (vv 13-18). Thesame admonition, "to work, and eat their ownbread," comes once again, only in strongerlanguage, in the Second Epistle to theThessalonians, reminding them in this of his ownexample, and of his command when with them,"that, if any would not work, neither should heeat"; at the same time sternly rebuking "some whoare walking disorderly, who are not at all busy, butare busybodies" (we have here tried to reproducethe play on the words in the original).

Now, we certainly do not pretend to find aparallel to St. Paul among even the best and thenoblest of the Rabbis. Yet Saul of Tarsus was aHebrew, not merely trained at the feet of the greatGamaliel, "that sun in Israel," but deeply imbuedwith the Hebrew spirit and lore; insomuch thatlong afterwards, when he is writing of the deepestmysteries of Christianity, we catch again andagain expressions that remind us of some thatoccur in the earliest record of that secret Hebrewdoctrine, which was only communicated to themost select of the select sages.50

50 We mean the book Jezirah. It is curious that this should havenever been noticed. The coincidences are not in substance, but inmodes of expression.

70

And this same love of honest labour, the samespirit of manly independence, the same horror oftrafficking with the law, and using it either "as acrown or as a spade," was certainly characteristicof the best Rabbis. Quite different in this respectalso--far asunder as were the aims of their lives--were the feelings of Israel from those of theGentiles around. The philosophers of Greece andRome denounced manual labour as somethingdegrading; indeed, as incompatible with the fullexercise of the privileges of a citizen. ThoseRomans who allowed themselves not only to bebribed in their votes, but expected to be actuallysupported at the public expense, would not stoopto the defilement of work. The Hebrews hadanother aim in life, another pride and ambition. Itis difficult to give an idea of the seeming contrastsunited in them. Most aristocratic and exclusive,contemptuous of mere popular cries, yet at thesame time most democratic and liberal; law-abiding, and with the profoundest reverence forauthority and rank, and yet with this prevailingconviction at bottom, that all Israel were brethren,and as such stood on precisely the same level, theeventual differences arising only from this, thatthe mass failed to realise what Israel's realvocation was, and how it was to be attained, viz.,by theoretical and practical engagement with thelaw, compared to which everything else was butsecondary and unimportant.

But this combination of study with honestmanual labour--the one to support the other--hadnot been always equally honoured in Israel. Wedistinguish here three periods. The law of Mosesevidently recognised the dignity of labour, and thisspirit of the Old Covenant appeared in the besttimes of the Hebrew nation. The book of Proverbs,which contains so many sketches of what a happy,holy home in Israel had been, is full of the praisesof domestic industry. But the Apocrypha, notablyEcclesiasticus (xxxviii. 24-31), strike a verydifferent key-note. Analysing one by one everytrade, the contemptuous question is put, how such"can get wisdom?" This "Wisdom of Yahoshuathe Son of Sirach" dates from about two centuriesbefore the present era. It would not have beenpossible at the time of Christ or afterwards, tohave written in such terms of "the carpenter andworkmaster," of them "that cut and grave seals,"of "the smith," or "the potter"; nor to have said of

them: "They shall not be sought for in publiccounsel, nor sit high in the congregation; theyshall not sit on the judges' seat, nor understand thesentence of judgment; they cannot declare justiceand judgment; and they shall not be found whereparables are spoken" (Ecclus xxxviii. 33). For, inpoint of fact, with few exceptions, all the leadingRabbinical authorities were working at sometrade, till at last it became quite an affectation toengage in hard bodily labour, so that one Rabbiwould carry his own chair every day to college,while others would drag heavy rafters, or work insome such fashion. Without cumbering thesepages with names, it is worth mentioning, perhapsas an extreme instance, that on one occasion a manwas actually summoned from his trade of stone-cutter to the high-priestly office. To be sure, thatwas in revolutionary times. The high-priests underthe Herodian dynasty were of only too different aclass, and their history possesses a tragic interest,as bearing on the state and fate of the nation. Still,the great Hillel was a wood-cutter, his rivalShammai a carpenter,; and among the celebratedRabbis of after times we find shoemakers, tailors,carpenters, sandalmakers, smiths, potters, builders,etc.--in short, every variety of trade. Nor werethey ashamed of their manual labour. Thus it isrecorded of one of them, that he was in the habitof discoursing to his students from the top of acask of his own making, which he carried everyday to the academy.

We can scarcely wonder at this, since it was aRabbinical principle, that "whoever does not teachhis son a trade is as if he brought him up to be arobber" (Kidd. 4.14). The Midrash gives thefollowing curious paraphrase of Ecclesiastes 9:9,"Behold, the life with the wife whom thou lovest"(so literally in the Hebrew): Look out for a tradealong with the Divine study which thou lovest."How highly does the Maker of the world valuetrades," is another saying. Here are some more:"There is none whose trade Yahweh does notadorn with beauty." "Though there were sevenyears of famine, it will never come to the door ofthe tradesman." "There is not a trade to which bothpoverty and riches are not joined; for there isnothing more poor, and nothing more rich, than atrade." "No trade shall ever disappear from theworld. Happy he whom his teacher has brought upto a good trade; alas for him who has been put into

71

a bad one." Perhaps these are comparatively laterRabbinical sayings. But let us turn to the Mishnahitself, and especially to that tractate whichprofessedly embodies the wisdom and the sayingsof the fathers (Aboth). Shemaajah, the teacher ofHillel, has this cynical saying (Ab. i. 10)--perhapsthe outcome of his experience: "Love work, hateRabbiship, and do not press on the notice of thosein power." The views of the great Hillel himselfhave been quoted in a previous chapter. RabbiGamaliel, the son of Jehudah the Nasi, said (Ab.ii. 2): "Fair is the study of the law, if accompaniedby worldly occupation: to engage in them both isto keep away sin; while study which is notcombined with work must in the end beinterrupted, and only brings sin with it." RabbiEleazar, the son of Asarjah, says, among otherthings: "Where there is no worldly support(literally, no meal, no flour), there is no study ofthe law; and where there is no study of the law,worldly support is of no value" (Ab. iii. 21). It isworth while to add what immediately follows inthe Mishnah. Its resemblance to the simile aboutthe rock, and the building upon it, as employed byour Lord (Matt 7:24; Luke 6:47), is so striking,that we quote it in illustration of previous remarkson this subject. We read as follows: "He whoseknowledge exceeds his works, to whom is he like?He is like a tree, whose branches are many and itsroots few, and the wind cometh, and uproots thetree and throws it upon its face, as it is said (Jer17:6)...But he whose works exceed his knowledge,to whom is he like? To a tree whose branches arefew, but its roots many; and if even all the windsthat are in the world came and set upon such atree, they would not move it from its place, as it iswritten (Jer 17:8)." We have given this saying inits earliest form. Even so, it should be rememberedthat it dates from after the destruction ofJerusalem. It occurs in a still later form in theBabylon Talmud (Sanh. 99 a). But what is mostremarkable is, that it also appears in yet anotherwork, and in a form almost identical with that inthe New Covenant, so far as the simile of thebuilding is concerned. In this form it is attributedto a Rabbi who is stigmatised as an apostate, andas the type of apostasy, and who, as such, diedunder the ban. The inference seems to be, that ifhe did not profess some form of Christianity, he

had at least derived this saying from hisintercourse with Christians.51

But irrespective of this, two things are plain oncomparison of the saying in its Rabbinical and inits Christian form. First, in the parable asemployed by our Lord, everything is referred toHim; and the essential difference ultimatelydepends upon our relationship towards Him. Thecomparison here is not between much study andlittle work, or little Talmudical knowledge andmuch work; but between coming to Him andhearing these sayings of His, and then either doingor else not doing them. Secondly, such analternative is never presented by Christianity as,on the one hand, much knowledge and few works,and on the other, little knowledge and manyworks. But in Christianity the vital difference liesbetween works and no works; between absolutelife and absolute death; all depending upon this,whether a man has digged down to the rightfoundation, and built upon the rock which isChrist, or has tried to build up the walls of his lifewithout such foundation. Thus the very similarityof the saying in its Rabbinical form brings out allthe more clearly the essential difference andcontrariety in spirit existing between Rabbinism,even in its purest form, and the teaching of ourLord.

The question of the relation between the bestteaching of the Hebrew sages and some of thesayings of our Lord is of such vital importance,that this digression will not seem out of place. Afew further quotations bearing on the dignity oflabour may be appropriate. The Talmud has abeautiful Haggadah, which tells how, when Adamheard this sentence of his Maker: "Thorns also andthistles shall it bring forth to thee," he burst intotears, "What!" he exclaimed; "Lord of the world,am I then to eat out of the same manger with theass?" But when he heard these additional words:"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," hisheart was comforted. For herein lies (according tothe Rabbis) the dignity of labour, that man is notforced to, nor unconscious in, his work; but thatwhile becoming the servant of the soil, he wins

51 * Elisha ben Abbuja, called Acher, "the other," on account of hisapostasy. The history of that Rabbi is altogether deeply interesting.We can only put the question: Was he a Christian, or merely taintedwith Gnosticism? The latter seems to us the most probable. Hiserrors are traced by the Hebrews to his study of the Kabbalah.

72

from it the precious fruits of golden harvest. Andso, albeit labour may be hard, and the resultdoubtful, as when Israel stood by the shores of theRed Sea, yet a miracle will cleave these watersalso. And still the dignity of labour is great initself: it reflects honour; it nourisheth andcherisheth him that engageth in it. For this reasonalso did the law punish with fivefold restitutionthe theft of an ox, but only with fourfold that of asheep; because the former was that with which aman worked.

Assuredly St. Paul spoke also as a Hebrewwhen he admonished the Ephesians (Eph 4:28):"Let him that stole steal no more: but rather lethim labour, working with his hands the thingwhich is good, that he may have to give to himthat needeth." "Make a working day of theSabbath: only be not dependent upon people," wasthe Rabbinical saying (Pes. 112). "Skin deadanimals by the wayside," we read, "and take thypayment for it, but do not say, I am a priest; I am aman of distinction, and work is objectionable tome!" And to this day the common Hebrew proverbhas it: "Labour is no cherpah (disgrace)"; or again:"Melachah is berachah (Labour is blessing)."With such views, we can understand howuniversal industrious pursuits were in the days ofour Lord. Although it is no doubt true, as theRabbinical proverb puts it, that every man thinksmost of his own trade, yet public opinion attacheda very different value to different kinds of trade.Some were avoided on account of theunpleasantnesses connected with them, such asthose of tanners, dyers, and miners. The Mishnahlays it down as a principle, that a man should notteach his son a trade which necessitates constantintercourse with the other sex (Kidd. iv. 14). Suchwould include, among others jewellers, makers ofhandmills, perfumers, and weavers. The lattertrade seems to have exposed to as many troublesas if the weavers of those days had been obliged toserve a modern fashionable lady. The saying was:"A weaver must be humble, or his life will beshortened by excommunication"; that is, he mustsubmit to anything for a living. Or, as the commonproverb put it (Ab. S. 26 a): "If a weaver is nothumble, his life is shortened by a year." This othersaying, of a similar kind, reminds us of the Scotchestimate of, or rather disrespect for, weavers:"Even a weaver is master in his own house." And

this not only in his own opinion, but in that of hiswife also. For as the Rabbinical proverb has it:"Though a man were only a comber of wool, hiswife would call him up to the house-door, and sitdown beside him," so proud is she of him. Perhapsin the view of the Rabbis there was a little offemale self-consciousness in this regard for herhusband's credit, for they have it: "Though a manwere only the size of an ant, his wife would try tosit down among the big ones."

In general, the following sound views areexpressed in the Talmud (Ber. 17 a): "The Rabbiof Jabne said: I am simply a being like myneighbour. He works in the field, and I in thetown. We both rise early to go to work; and thereis no cause for the one setting himself up abovethe other. Do not think that the one does more thanthe other; for we have been taught that there is asmuch merit in doing that which is little as thatwhich is great, provided the state of our hearts beright." And so a story is told, how one who dugcisterns and made baths (for purification) accostedthe great Rabbi Jochanan with the words: "I am asgreat a man as thou"; since, in his own sphere, heserved the wants of the community quite as muchas the most learned teacher in Israel. In the samespirit another Rabbi admonished to strictconscientiousness, since in a sense all work,however humble, was really work for Yahweh.There can be no doubt that the Hebrew tradesmanwho worked in such a spirit would be alike happyand skilful.

It must have been a great privilege to beengaged in any work connected with the Temple.A large number of workmen were kept constantlyemployed there, preparing what was necessary forthe service. Perhaps it was only a piece ofJerusalem jealousy of the Alexandrians whichprompted such Rabbinical traditions, as, that,when Alexandrians tried to compound the incensefor the Temple, the column of smoke did notascend quite straight; when they repaired the largemortar in which the incense was bruised, andagain, the great cymbal with which the signal forthe commencement of the Temple music wasgiven, in each case their work had to be undone byJerusalem workmen, in order to produce a propermixture, or to evoke the former sweet sounds.There can be no question, however,notwithstanding Palestinian prejudices, that there

73

were excellent Hebrew workmen in Alexandria;and plenty of them, too, as we know from theirarrangement in guilds in their great synagogue.Any poor workman had only to apply to his guild,and he was supported till he found employment.The guild of coppersmiths there had, as we areinformed, for their device a leathern apron; andwhen it members went abroad they used to carrywith them a bed which could be taken to pieces.At Jerusalem, where this guild was organisedunder its Rabban, or chief, it possessed asynagogue and a burying-place of its own. But thePalestinian workmen, though they kept by eachother, had no exclusive guilds; the principles of"free trade," so to speak, prevailing among them.Bazaars and streets were named after them. Theworkmen of Jerusalem were speciallydistinguished for their artistic skill. A wholevalley--that of the Tyropoeon--was occupied bydairies; hence its name, "valley ofcheesemongers." Even in Isaiah 7:3 we read of"the field of the fullers," which lay "at the end ofthe conduit of the upper pool in the highway" toJoppa. A whole set of sayings is expresslydesignated in the Talmud as "the proverbs of thefullers."

From their love of building and splendour theHerodian princes must have kept many tradesmenin constant work. At the re-erection of the Templeno less than eighteen thousand were so employedin various handicrafts, some of them implyinggreat artistic skill. Even before that, Herod theGreat is said to have employed a large number ofthe most experienced masters to teach the onethousand priests who were to construct the HolyPlace itself. For, in the building of that part of theTemple no laymen were engaged. As we know,neither hammer, axe, chisel, nor any tool of ironwas used within the sacred precincts. The reasonof this is thus explained in the Mishnah, whendescribing how all the stones for the altar weredug out of virgin-earth, no iron tool beingemployed in their preparation: "Iron is created tocut short the life of man; but the altar to prolong it.Hence it is not becoming to use that whichshortens for that which lengthens" (Midd. iii. 4).Those who know the magnificence and splendourof that holy house will be best able to judge whatskill in workmanship its various parts must haverequired. An instance may be interesting on

account of its connection with the most solemnfact of New Covenant history. We read in theMishnah (Shek. viii. 5): "Rabbi Simeon, the son ofGamaliel, said, in the name of Rabbi Simeon, theson of the (former) Sagan (assistant of the high-priest): The veil (of the Most Holy Place) was anhandbreadth thick, and woven of seventy-twotwisted plaits; each plait consisted of twenty-fourthreads" (according to the Talmud, six threads ofeach of the four Temple-colours--white, scarlet,blue, and gold). "It was forty cubits long, andtwenty wide (sixty feet by thirty), and made ofeighty-two myriads" (the meaning of this in theMishnah is not plain). "Two of these veils weremade every year, and it took three hundred prieststo immerse one" (before use). These statementsmust of course be considered as dealing in "roundnumbers"; but they are most interesting as helpingus to realise, not only how the great veil of theTemple was rent, when the Lord of that Templedied on the cross, but also how the occurrencecould have been effectually concealed from themass of the people.

To turn to quite another subject. It iscurious to notice in how many respects times andcircumstances have really not changed. The oldHebrew employers of labour seem to have hadsimilar trouble with their men to that of which somany in our own times loudly complain. We havean emphatic warning to this effect, to beware ofeating fine bread and giving black bread to one'sworkmen or servants; not to sleep on feathers andgive them straw pallets, more especially if theywere co-religionists, for, as it is added, he whogets a Hebrew slave gets his master! Possiblysomething of this kind was on the mind of St. Paulwhen he wrote this most needful precept (1 Tim6:1,2): "Let as many servants as are under theyoke count their own masters worthy of allhonour, that the name of Yahweh and His doctrinebe not blasphemed. And they that have believingmasters, let them not despise them, because theyare brethren; but rather do them service, becausethey are believing and beloved, partakers of thebenefit." But really there is nothing "new underthe sun!" Something like the provisions of amutual assurance appear in the associations ofmuleteers and sailors, which undertook to replacea beast or a ship that had been lost withoutnegligence on the part of the owner. Nay, we can

74

even trace the spirit of trade-unionism in theexpress permission of the Talmud (Bab. B. 9) totradesmen to combine to work only one or twodays in the week, so as to give sufficientemployment to every workman in a place. Weclose with another quotation in the same direction,which will also serve to illustrate the peculiarmode of Rabbinical comment on the words ofScripture: "'He doeth no evil to his neighbour-'-this refers to one tradesman not interfering withthe trade of another!"

Chapter 12Commerce

The remarkable change which we havenoticed in the views of Hebrew authorities, fromcontempt to almost affectation of manual labour,could certainly not have been arbitrary. But as wefail to discover here any religious motive, we canonly account for it on the score of altered politicaland social circumstances. So long as the peoplewere, at least nominally, independent, and inpossession of their own land, constant engagementin a trade would probably mark an inferior socialstage, and imply either voluntary or necessarypreoccupation with the things of this world thatperish with the using. It was otherwise whenJudaea was in the hands of strangers. Then honestlabour afforded the means, and the only means, ofmanly independence. To engage in it, justsufficient to secure this result, to "stand in need ofno one"; to be able to hold up one's head beforefriend and foe; to make unto Yahweh moralsacrifice of natural inclination, strength and time,so as to be able freely and independently to devoteoneself to the study of the Divine law, was a nobleresolve. And it brought its own reward. If, on theone hand, the alternation of physical and mentallabour was felt to be healthy, on the other--andthis had been the main object in view--there neverwere men more fearlessly outspoken, moreunconcerned as to mere personality or as toconsequences, more independent in thought andword than these Rabbis. We can understand thewithering scorn of St. Jude (Jude 16) towardsthose "having men's persons in admiration,"

literally, "admiring faces"--an expression bywhich the LXX translate the "respect" or "regard,"or "acceptance" of persons (the nasa panim)mentioned in Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy10:17; Job 13:10; Proverbs 18:5, and many otherpassages. In this respect also, as so often, St. Paulspoke as a true Hebrew when he wrote (Gal 2:6):"But of these who seemed to be somewhat,whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me:the face of man Yahweh accepteth not."

The Mishnah, indeed, does not in so manywords inform us how the change in public feeling,to which we have referred, was brought about. Butthere are plenty of hints to guide us in certain shortcaustic sentences which would be inexplicable,unless read in the light of the history of that time.Thus, as stated in the previous chapter, Shemaajahadmonished: "Love work, hate Rabbiship, and donot press on the notice of those in power."Similarly, Avtaljon warned the sages to becautious in their words, for fear of incurringbanishment for themselves and their followers(Ab. i. 10,11). And Rabbi Gamaliel II had it (ii. 3):"Be cautious with the powers that be, for they onlyseek intercourse with a person for their ownadvantage. They are as if they loved you, when itserves for their profit, but in the hour of his needthey do not stand by a man." In the same categoryof sayings for the times we may rank this of RabbiMatithja: "Meet every one with a salutation ofpeace, and prefer to be the tail of lions, but be notthe head to foxes." It is needless to multiplysimilar quotations, all expressive of an earnestdesire for honourable independence throughpersonal exertion.

Quite different form those as to tradeswere the Rabbinical views about commerce, as weshall immediately show. In fact, the generaladoption of business, which has so often beenmade the subject of jeer against Israel, marks yetanother social state, and a terrible social necessity.When Israel was scattered by units, hundreds, oreven thousands, but still a miserable, vanquished,homeless, weak minority among the nations of theearth--avoided, down-trodden, and at the mercy ofpopular passion--no other course was open tothem than to follow commerce. Even if Hebrewtalent could have identified itself with the pursuitsof the Gentiles, would public life have been opento them--we shall not say, on equal, but, on any

75

terms? Or, to descend a step lower--except inthose crafts which might be peculiarly theirs,could Hebrew tradesmen have competed withthose around? Would they even have been allowedto enter the lists? Moreover, it was necessary fortheir self-defence--almost for their existence--thatthey should gain influence. And in theircircumstances this could only be obtained by thepossession of wealth, and the sole road to this wascommerce.

There can be no question that, according tothe Divine purpose, Israel was not intended to be acommercial people. The many restrictions to theintercourse between Hebrews and Gentiles, whichthe Mosaic law everywhere presents, would alonehave sufficed to prevent it. Then there was theexpress enactment against taking interest uponloans (Lev 25:36,37), which must have renderedcommercial transactions impossible, even thoughit was relaxed in reference to those who livedoutside the boundaries of Palestine (Deu 23:20).Again, the law of the Sabbatic and of the Jubileeyear would have brought all extended commerceto a standstill. Nor was the land at all suited for therequirements of trade. True, it possessed ampleseaboard, whatever the natural capabilities of itsharbours may have been. But the whole of thatcoast, with the harbours of Joppa, Jamneh,Ascalon, Gaza, and Acco or Ptolemais, remained,with short intervals, in the possession of thePhilistines and Phoenicians. Even when Herod theGreat built the noble harbour of Caesarea, it wasalmost exclusively used by foreigners (Josephus,Hebrew. War, 409-413). And the whole history ofIsrael in Palestine points to the same inference.Only on one occasion, during the reign ofSolomon, do we find anything like attempts toengage in mercantile pursuits on a large scale. Thereference to the "king's merchants" (1 Kings10:28,29; 2 Chron 1:16), who imported horses andlinen yarn, has been regarded as indicating theexistence of a sort of royal trading company, or ofa royal monopoly. A still more curious inferencewould almost lead us to describe Solomon as thefirst great "Protectionist." The expressions in 1Kings 10:15 point to duties paid by retail andwholesale importers, the words, literally rendered,indicating as a source of revenue that "from thetraders and from the traffick of the merchants";both words in their derivation pointing to foreign

trade, and probably distinguishing them as retailand wholesale. We may here remark that, besidesthese duties and the tributes from "protected"kings (1 Kings 9:15), Solomon's income isdescribed (1 Kings 10:14) as having amounted, atany rate, in one year, to the enormous sum ofbetween two and three million sterling! Part of thismay have been derived from the king's foreigntrade. For we know (1 Kings 9:26, etc.; 2 Chron8:17, etc.) that King Solomon built a navy atEzion-geber, on the Red Sea, which port Davidhad taken. This navy traded to Ophir, in companywith the Phoenicians. But as this tendency of KingSolomon's policy was in opposition to the Divinepurpose, so it was not lasting. The later attempt ofKing Jehoshaphat to revive the foreign tradesignally failed; "for the ships were broken atEzion-geber" (1 Kings 22:48; 2 Chron 20:36,37),and soon afterwards the port of Ezion-geberpassed once more into the hands of Edom (2Kings 8:20).

With this closes the Biblical history ofHebrew commerce in Palestine, in the strict senseof that term. But our reference to what may becalled the Scriptural indications against the pursuitof commerce brings up a kindred subject, forwhich, although confessedly a digression, weclaim a hearing, on account of its greatimportance. Those most superficially acquaintedwith modern theological controversy are aware,that certain opponents of the Bible have speciallydirected their attacks against the antiquity of thePentateuch, although they have not yet arrangedamong themselves what parts of the Pentateuchwere written by different authors, nor by howmany, nor by whom, nor at what times, nor whenor by whom they were ultimately collected intoone book. Now what we contend for in thisconnection is, that the legislation of the Pentateuchaffords evidence of its composition before thepeople were settled in Palestine. We arrive at thisconclusion in the following manner. Supposing acode of laws and institutions to be drawn up by apractical legislator--for unquestionably they werein force in Israel--we maintain, that no humanlawgiver could have ordered matters for a nationin a settled state as we find it done in thePentateuch. The world has had many speculativeconstitutions of society drawn up by philosophersand theorists, from Plato to Rousseau and Owen.

76

None of these would have suited, or even beenpossible in a settled state of society. But nophilosopher would ever have imagined or thoughtof such laws as some of the provisions in thePentateuch. To select only a few, almost atrandom. Let the reader think of applying, forexample, to England, such provisions as that allmales were to appear three times a year in theplace which Yahweh would choose, or thoseconnected with the Sabbatic and the Jubilee years,or those regulating religious and charitablecontributions, or those concerning the corners offields, or those prohibiting the taking of interest orthose connected with the Levitical cities. Then letany one seriously ask himself, whether suchinstitutions could have been for the first timepropounded or introduced by a legislator at thetime of David, or Hezekiah, or of Ezra? The morewe think of the spirit and of the details of theMosaic legislation, the stronger grows ourconviction, that such laws and institutions couldhave been only introduced before the peopleactually settled in the land. So far as we are aware,this line of argument has not before beenproposed; and yet it seems necessary for ouropponents to meet this preliminary and, as wethink, insuperable difficulty of their theory, beforewe can be asked to discuss their criticalobjections.

But to return. Passing from Biblical, or, atleast, from Old Covenant to later times, we findthe old popular feeling in Palestine on the subjectof commerce still existing. For once Josephus herecorrectly expresses the views of his countrymen."As for ourselves," he writes (Ag. Apion, i, 60-68), "we neither inhabit a maritime country, nordo we delight in merchandise, nor in such amixture with other men as arises from it; but thecities we dwell in are remote from the sea, andhaving a fruitful country for our habitation, wetake pains in cultivating that only." Nor were theopinions of the Rabbis different. We know in whatlow esteem pedlars were held by the Hebrewauthorities. But even commerce was not muchmore highly regarded. It has been rightly said that,"in the sixty-three tractates of which the Talmud iscomposed, scarcely a word occurs in honour ofcommerce, but much to point out the dangersattendant upon money-making." "Wisdom," saysRabbi Jochanan, in explanation of Deuteronomy

30:12, "'is not in heaven'--that is, it is not foundwith those who are proud; neither is it 'beyond thesea'--that is, it will not be found among traders noramong merchants" (Er. 55 a). Still more to thepoint are the provisions of the Hebrew law as tothose who lent money on interest, or took usury."The following," we read in Rosh Hash. 8. 8, "areunfit for witness-bearing: he who plays with dice(a gambler); he who lends on usury; they whotrain doves (either for betting purposes, or asdecoys); they who trade in seventh year's products,and slaves." Even more pungent is this, almostreminding one of the Rabbinic gloss: "Of thecalumniator Yahweh says, 'There is not room inthe world for him and Me'"--"The usurer bites offa piece from a man, for he takes from him thatwhich he has not given him" (Bab. Mez. 60 b). Afew other kindred sayings may here find a place."Rabbi Meir saith: Be sparing (doing little) inbusiness, but busy in the Thorah" (Ab. iv. 2).Among the forty-eight qualifications for acquiringthe Thorah, "little business" is mentioned (vi. 6).Lastly, we have this from Hillel, concluding with avery noble saying, worthy to be preserved to alltimes and in all languages: "He who engagesmuch in business cannot become a sage; and in aplace where there are no men, strive thou to be aman."

It will perhaps have been observed, that,with the changing circumstances of the people, theviews as to commerce also underwent a slowprocess of modification, the main object nowbeing to restrict such occupations, and especiallyto regulate them in accordance with religion.Inspectorships of weights and measures are ofcomparatively late date in our own country. TheRabbis in this, as in so many other matters, werelong before us. They appointed regular inspectors,whose duty it was to go from market to market,and, more than that, to fix the current marketprices (Baba B. 88). The prices for produce wereultimately determined by each community. Fewmerchants would submit to interference with whatis called the law of supply and demand. But theTalmudical laws against buying up grain andwithdrawing it from sale, especially at a time ofscarcity, are exceedingly strict. Similarly, it wasprohibited artificially to raise prices, especially ofproduce. Indeed, it was regarded as cheating tocharge a higher profit than sixteen per cent. In

77

general, some would have it that in Palestine noone should make profit out of the necessaries oflife. Cheating was declared to involve heavierpunishment than a breach of some of the othermoral commandments. For the latter, it wasargued, might be set right by repentance. But hewho cheated took in not merely one or severalpersons, but every one; and how could that ever beset right? And all were admonished to remember,that "Yahweh punisheth even where the eye of anearthly judge cannot penetrate."

We have spoken of a gradual modificationof Rabbinical views with the changingcircumstances of the nation. This probably comesout most clearly in the advice of the Talmud (BabaM. 42), to divide one's money into three parts--tolay out one in the purchase of land, to invest thesecond in merchandise, and to keep the third inhand as cash. But there was always this comfort,which Rab enumerated among the blessings of thenext world, that there was no commerce there(Ber. 17 a). And so far as this world wasconcerned, the advice was to engage in business,in order with the profit made to assist the sages intheir pursuits, just as Sebua, one of the threewealthy men of Jerusalem, had assisted the greatHillel. From what has been said, it will be inferredthat the views expressed as to Palestinian, or evenBabylonian Hebrews, did not apply to those whowere "dispersed abroad" among the variousGentile nations. To them, as already shown,commerce would be a necessity, and, in fact, thegrand staple of their existence. If this may be saidof all Hebrews of the dispersion, it appliesspecially to that community which was the richestand most influential among them--we mean theHebrews of Alexandria.

Few phases, even in the ever-changefulhistory of the Hebrew people, are more strange,more varied in interest, or more pathetic thanthose connected with the Hebrews of Alexandria.The immigration of Hebrews into Egyptcommenced even before the Babylonish captivity.Naturally it received great increase from thatevent, and afterwards from the murder ofGedaliah. But the real exodus commenced underAlexander the Great. That monarch accorded tothe Hebrews in Alexandria the same rights as itsGreek inhabitants enjoyed, and so raised them tothe rank of the privileged classes. Henceforth their

numbers and their influence grew undersuccessive rulers. We find them commandingEgyptian armies, largely influencing Egyptianthought and inquiry, and partially leavening it bythe translation of the Holy Scriptures into Greek.Of the so-called Temple of Onias at Leontopolis,which rivalled that of Jerusalem, and of themagnificence of the great synagogue atAlexandria, we cannot speak in this place. Therecan be no doubt that, in the Providence ofYahweh, the location of so many Hebrews inAlexandria, and the mental influence which theyacquired, were designed to have an importantbearing on the later spread of the Gospel of Christamong the Greek-speaking and Grecian-thinkingeducated world. In this, the Greek translation ofthe Old Covenant was also largely helpful. Indeed,humanly speaking, it would have scarcely beenpossible without it. At the time of Philo thenumber of Hebrews in Egypt amounted to no lessthan one million. In Alexandria they occupied twoout of the five quarters of the town, which werecalled after the first five letters of the alphabet.They lived under rulers of their own, almost in astate of complete independence. Theirs was thequarter Delta, along the seashore. The supervisionof navigation, both by sea and river, was whollyentrusted to them. In fact, the large export trade,especially in grain--and Egypt was the granary ofthe world--was entirely in their hands. Theprovisioning of Italy and of the world was thebusiness of the Hebrews. It is a curiouscircumstance, as illustrating how little the historyof the world changes, that during the troubles atRome the Hebrew bankers of Alexandria wereable to obtain from their correspondents earlierand more trustworthy political tidings than anyone else. This enabled them to declare themselvesin turn for Caesar and for Octavius, and to securethe full political and financial results flowing fromsuch policy, just as the great Hebrew bankinghouses at the beginning of this century weresimilarly able to profit by earlier and moretrustworthy news of events than the general publiccould obtain.

But no sketch of commerce among theearly Hebrews, however brief, would be completewithout some further notice both of the nature ofthe trade carried on, and of the legal regulationswhich guarded it. The business of the travelling

78

hawker, of course, was restricted to negotiating anexchange of the products of one district for thoseof another, to buying and selling articles of homeproduce, or introducing among those who affectedfashion or luxury in country districts specimens ofthe latest novelties from abroad. The foreignimports were, with the exception of wood andmetals, chiefly articles of luxury. Fish from Spain,apples from Crete, cheese from Bithynia; lentils,beans, and gourds from Egypt and Greece; platesfrom Babylon, wine from Italy, beer from Media,household vessels from Sidon, baskets fromEgypt, dresses from India, sandals from Laodicea,shirts from Cilicia, veils from Arabia--such weresome of the goods imported. On the other hand,the exports from Palestine consisted of suchproduce as wheat, oil, balsam, honey, figs, etc.,the value of exports and imports being nearlyequal, and the balance, if any, in favour ofPalestine.

Then, as to the laws regulating trade andcommerce, they were so minute as almost toremind us of the Saviour's strictures on Pharisaicpunctiliousness. Several Mishnic tractates are fullof determinations on these points. "The dust of thebalances" is a strictly Hebrew idea and phrase. Sofar did the law interfere, as to order that awholesale dealer must cleanse the measures heused once every month, and a retail dealer twice aweek; that all weights were to be washed once aweek, and the balances wiped every time they hadbeen used. By way of making assurance doublysure, the seller had to give rather more than anounce in addition to every ten pounds, if the articleconsisted of fluids, or half that if of solids (BabaB. v. 10, 11). Here are some of the principalordinances relating to trade. A bargain was notconsidered closed until both parties had takenpossession of their respective properties. But afterone of them had received the money, it wasdeemed dishonourable and sinful for the other todraw back. In case of overcharge, or a larger thanthe lawful profit, a purchaser had the right ofreturning the article, or claiming the balance inmoney, provided he applied for it after an intervalnot longer than was needful for showing the goodsto another merchant or to a relative. Similarly, theseller was also protected. Money-changers wereallowed to charge a fixed discount for lightmoney, or to return it within a certain period, if

below the weight at which they had taken it. Amerchant might not be pressed to name the lowestprice, unless the questioner seriously intended topurchase; nor might he be even reminded of aformer overcharge to induce him to lower hisprices. Goods of different qualities might not bemixed, even though the articles added were ofsuperior value. For the protection of the public,agriculturists were forbidden to sell in Palestinewine diluted with water, unless in places wheresuch was the known usage. Indeed, one of theRabbis went so far as to blame merchants whogave little presents to children by way of attractingthe custom of their parents. It is difficult toimagine what they would have said to the modernpractice of giving discount to servants. All agreedin reprobating as deceit every attempt to give abetter appearance to an article exposed for sale.Purchases of corn could not be concluded till thegeneral market-price had been fixed.

But beyond all this, every kind ofspeculation was regarded as akin to usury. Withthe delicacy characteristic of Rabbinical law,creditors were expressly prohibited from usinganything belonging to a debtor without paying forit, from sending him on an errand, or evenaccepting a present from one who had solicited anadvance. So punctilious were the Rabbis inavoiding the appearance of usury, that a womanwho borrowed a loaf from her neighbour was toldto fix its value at the time, lest a sudden rise inflour should make the loaf returned worth morethan that borrowed! If a house or a field wererented, a somewhat higher charge might be made,if the money were not paid in advance, but not inthe case of a purchase. It was regarded as animproper kind of speculation to promise amerchant one-half of the profit on the sales heeffected, or to advance him money and then allowhim one-half of the profits on his transactions. Ineither case, it was thought, a merchant would beexposed to more temptation. By law he was onlyentitled to a commission and to compensation forhis time and trouble.

Equally strict were the regulationsaffecting debtor and creditor. Advances werelegally secured by regular documents, drawn outat the expense of the debtor, and attested bywitnesses, about whose signature minutedirections are given. To prevent mistakes, the sum

79

lent was marked at the top, as well as in the bodyof the document. A person was not taken assecurity for another after the loan was actuallycontracted. In reference to interest (which amongthe Romans was calculated monthly), in regard topledges, and in dealing with insolvent debtors, themildness of the Hebrew law has never beenequalled. It was lawful, under certain restrictions,to take a pledge, and in the event of non-paymentto sell it: but wearing apparel, bedding, theploughshare, and all articles required for thepreparation of food were excepted. Similarly, itwas unlawful, under any circumstances, to take apledge from a widow, or to sell that whichbelonged to her. These are only some of theprovisions by which the interest of all parties werenot only guarded, but a higher religious tonesought to be imparted to ordinary life. Those whoare acquainted with the state of matters among thenations around, and the cruel exactions of theRoman law, will best appreciate the difference inthis respect also between Israel and the Gentiles.The more the Rabbinical code is studied, thehigher will be our admiration of its provisions,characterised as these are by wisdom, kindliness,and delicacy, we venture to say, far beyond anymodern legislation. Not only the history of thepast, the present privileges, and the hopeconnected with the promises, but the family,social, and public life which he found among hisbrethren would attach a Hebrew to his people.Only one thing was awanting--but that, alas! the"one thing needful." For, in the language of St.Paul (Rom 10:2), "I bear them record that theyhave a zeal of the Lord, but not according toknowledge."

Chapter 13Among the People, and with

the Pharisees

It would have been difficult to proceed fareither in Galilee or in Judaea without coming intocontact with an altogether peculiar and strikingindividuality, differing from all around, and whichwould at once arrest attention. This was thePharisee. Courted or feared, shunned or flattered,

reverently looked up to or laughed at, he wasequally a power everywhere, both ecclesiasticallyand politically, as belonging to the mostinfluential, the most zealous, and the most closely-connected religions fraternity, which in the pursuitof its objects spared neither time nor trouble,feared no danger, and shrunk from noconsequences. Familiar as the name sounds toreaders of the New Covenant and students ofHebrew history, there is no subject on which morecrude or inaccurate notions prevail than that ofPharisaism, nor yet any which, rightly understood,gives fuller insight into the state of Judaism at thetime of our Lord, or better illustrates His wordsand His deeds. Let us first view the Pharisee as,himself seemingly unmoved, he moves aboutamong the crowd, which either respectfully givesway or curiously looks after him.

There was probably no town or villageinhabited by Hebrews which had not its Pharisees,although they would, of course, gather inpreference about Jerusalem with its Temple, andwhat, perhaps would have been even dearer to theheart of a genuine Pharisee--its four hundred andeighty synagogues, its Sanhedrims (great andsmall), and its schools of study. There could be nodifficulty in recognising such an one. Walkingbehind him, the chances were, he would soon haltto say his prescribed prayers. If the fixed time forthem had come, he would stop short in the middleof the road, perhaps say one section of them, moveon, again say another part, and so on, till,whatever else might be doubted, there could be noquestion of the conspicuousness of his devotionsin market-place or corners of streets. There hewould stand, as taught by the traditional law,would draw his feet well together, compose hisbody and clothes, and bend so low "that everyvertebra in his back would stand out separate," or,at least, till "the skin over his heart would fall intofolds" (Ber. 28 b). The workman would drop histools, the burden-bearer his load; if a man hadalready one foot in the stirrup, he would withdrawit. The hour had come, and nothing could besuffered to interrupt or disturb him. The verysalutation of a king, it was said, must remainunreturned; nay, the twisting of a serpent aroundone's heel must remain unheeded. Nor was itmerely the prescribed daily seasons of prayer,which so claimed his devotions. On entering a

80

village, and again on leaving it, he must say one ortwo benedictions; the same in passing through afortress, in encountering any danger, in meetingwith anything new, strange, beautiful, orunexpected. And the longer he prayed the better.In the view of the Rabbis this had a twofoldadvantage; for "much prayer is sure to be heard,"and "prolix prayer prolongeth life." At the sametime, as each prayer expressed, and closed with abenediction of the Divine Name, there would bespecial religious merit attaching to mere number,and a hundred "benedictions" said in one day wasa kind of measure of great piety.

But on meeting a Pharisee face to face hisidentity could still less be doubted. His self-satisfied, or else mock-modest or ostentatiouslymeek bearing would betray him, even irrespectiveof his superciliousness towards others, hisavoidance of every touch of persons or thingswhich he held unclean, and his extravagantreligious displays. We are, of course, speaking ofthe class, or, rather, the party, as such, and of itstendencies, and not of all the individuals whocomposed it. Besides, there were, as we shall by-and-by see, various degrees among them, from thehumblest Pharisee, who was simply a member ofthe fraternity, only initiated in its lowest degree, orperhaps even a novice, to the most advancedchasid, or "pietist." The latter would, for example,bring every day a trespass-offering, in case he hadcommitted some offence of which he wasdoubtful. How far the punctiliousness of that class,in observing the laws of Levitical purity, wouldgo, may be gathered from a Rabbi, who would notallow his son to remain in the room while he wasin the hands of the surgeon, lest he might bedefiled by contact with the amputated limb, which,of course, was thenceforth dead. Another chasidwent so far in his zeal for Sabbath observance, thathe would not build up again his house because hehad thought about it on the Sabbath; and it waseven declared by some improper to intrust a letterto a Gentile, lest he should deliver it on the holyday! These are real, but by no means extremecases. For, a Rabbi, contemporary with theapostles, was actually obliged to denounce, asincompatible with the continuance of society, thevagaries of the so-called "Chasid Shoteh," or sillypietist. What was meant by these will appear fromsuch instances as the refusal to save a woman

from drowning for fear of touching a female, orwaiting to put off the phylacteries beforestretching out a hand to rescue a child from thewater!

Readers of the New Covenant willremember that the very dress of the Phariseesdiffered from that of others. Simple as the garb ofOrientals is, it must not be thought that, in thosedays, wealth, rank, and luxury were notrecognisable quite as much, if not more, thanamong ourselves. No doubt the polished Grecian,the courtly Herodian, the wealthy Sadducee, aswell as many of the lady patronesses of thePharisees (Josephus, Ant. xvii, 32-45), would havebeen easily recognised. At any rate, Hebrewwritings give us such descriptions of their toilette,that we can almost transport ourselves among thefashionable society of Tiberias, Caesarea,Jerusalem, or that of "the dispersed," who wereresidents of Alexandria or of the wealthy towns ofBabylonia.

Altogether, it seems, eighteen garments weresupposed to complete an elegant toilette. Thematerial, the colour, and the cut distinguished thewearer. While the poor used the upper garment fora covering at night, the fashionable wore the finestwhite, embroidered, or even purple garments, withcuriously-wrought silk girdles. It was around thisupper garment that "the borders" were worn whichthe Pharisees "enlarged" (Matt 23:5). Of these weshall speak presently. Meantime we continue ourdescription. The inner garment went down to theheels. The head-dress consisted of a pointed cap,or kind of turban, of more or less exquisitematerial, and curiously wound, the ends oftenhanging gracefully behind. Gloves were generallyused only for protection. As for ladies, besidesdifferences in dress, the early charge of Isaiah(3:16-24) against the daughters of Jerusalem mighthave been repeated with tenfold emphasis in NewCovenant times. We read of three kinds of veils.The Arabian hung down from the head, leavingthe wearer free to see all around; the veil-dresswas a kind of mantilla, thrown gracefully aboutthe whole person, and covering the head; while theEgyptian resembled the veil of modern Orientals,covering breast, neck, chin, and face, and leavingonly the eyes free. The girdle, which was fastenedlower than by men, was often of very costlyfabric, and studded with precious stones. Sandals

81

consisted merely of soles strapped to the feet; butladies wore also costly slippers, sometimesembroidered, or adorned with gems, and soarranged that the pressure of the foot emitted adelicate perfume. It is well known that scents and"ointments" were greatly in vogue, and often mostexpensive (Matt 26:7). The latter were prepared ofoil and of home or foreign perfumes, the dearestbeing kept in costly alabaster boxes. The trade ofperfumer was, however, looked down upon, notonly among the Hebrews, but even among heathennations. But in general society anointing wascombined with washing, as tending to comfort andrefreshment. The hair, the beard, the forehead, andthe face, even garlands worn at feasts, wereanointed. But luxury went much farther than allthis. Some ladies used cosmetics, painting theircheeks and blackening their eyebrows with amixture of antimony, zinc, and oil. The hair,which was considered a chief point of beauty, wasthe object of special care. Young people wore itlong; but in men this would have been regarded asa token of effeminacy (1 Cor 11:14). The beardwas carefully trimmed, anointed, and perfumed.Slaves were not allowed to wear beards. Peasantgirls tied their hair in a simple knot; but thefashionable Hebrewesses curled and plaited theirs,adorning the tresses with gold ornaments andpearls. The favourite colour was a kind of auburn,to produce which the hair was either dyed orsprinkled with gold-dust. We read even of falsehair (Shab. vi. 3), just as false teeth also wereworn in Judaea. Indeed, as in this respect alsothere is nothing new under the sun, we are notastonished to find mention of hair-pins and elegantcombs, nor to read that some Hebrew dandies hadtheir hair regularly dressed! However, the businessof hairdresser was not regarded as veryrespectable, any more than that of perfumer.52

As for ornaments, gentlemen generally wore aseal, either on the ring-finger or suspended roundthe neck. Some of them had also bracelets abovethe wrist (commonly of the right arm), made of

52 * The learned Lightfoot has expressed a doubt whether the name"Magdalene" is to be rendered "from Magdala" or "the hairdresser."We have noted in a previous chapter, that the inhabitants ofMagdala engaged in such and similar business. But the Rabbinicalpassages to which Lightfoot refers are not satisfactory, since theyare evidently dictated by a special animus against Christ andChristianity.

ivory, gold, or precious stones strung together. Ofcourse, the fashionable lady was similarlyadorned, adding to the bracelets finger-rings,ankle-rings, nose-rings, ear-rings, gorgeous head-dresses, necklaces, chains, and what are nowadayscalled "charms." As it may interest some, we shalladd a few sentences of description. The ear-ringwas either plain, or had a drop, a pendant, or alittle bell inserted. The nose-ring, which thetraditional law ordered to be put aside on theSabbath, hung gracefully over the upper lip, yet soas not to interfere with the salute of the privilegedfriend. Two kinds of necklaces were worn--oneclose-fitting, the other often consisting of preciousstones or pearls, and hanging down over the chest,often as low as the girdle. The fashionable ladywould wear two or three such chains, to whichsmelling-bottles and various ornaments, evenheathen "charms," were attached. Gold pendantsdescended from the head-ornament, whichsometimes rose like a tower, or was wreathed ingraceful snake-like coils. The anklets weregenerally so wrought as in walking to make asound like little bells. Sometimes the two ankle-rings were fastened together, which would obligethe fair wearer to walk with small, mincing steps.If to all this we add gold and diamond pins, andsay that our very brief description is strictly basedupon contemporary notices, the reader will havesome idea of the appearance of fashionablesociety.

The sketch just given will be of some practicaluse if it helps us more fully to realise the contrastpresented by the appearance of the Pharisee.Whether sternly severe, blandly meek, orzealously earnest, he would carefully avoid allcontact with one who was not of the fraternity, oreven occupied an inferior degree in it, as we shallby-and-by show. He would also be recognisableby his very garb. For, in the language of our Lord,the Pharisees made "broad their phylacteries," and"enlarged the borders of their garments." Thelatter observance, at least so far as concerned thewearing of memorial fringes on the borders of thegarments--not the conspicuous enlargement ofthese borders--rested really on a Divine ordinance(Num 15:37; Deu 22:12). In Scripture thesefringes are prescribed to be of blue, the symbolicalcolour of the covenant; but the Mishnah allowsthem also to be white (Men. iv. 1). They are not

82

unfrequently referred to in the New Covenant(Matt 9:20, 14:36, 23:5; Mark 6:56; Luke 8:44).As already stated, they were worn on the border ofthe outer garment--no doubt by every piousIsraelite. Later Hebrew mysticism found in thisfringed border deep references to the manner inwhich the Shechinah enwrapped itself in creation,and called the attention of each Israelite to the factthat, if in Numbers 15:39 we read (in the Hebrew),"Ye shall look upon him" [not "it," as in ourAuthorised Version] "and remember," this changeof gender (for the Hebrew word for "fringes" isfeminine) indicated--"that, if thou doest so, it is asmuch as if thou sawest the throne of the Glory,which is like unto blue." And thus believing, thepious Hebrew would cover in prayer his head withthis mysterious fringed garment; in markedcontrast to which St. Paul declares all suchsuperstitious practices as dishonouring (1 Cor11:4).53

If the practice of wearing borders with fringeshad Scriptural authority, we are well convincedthat no such plea could be urged for the so-called"phylacteries." The observance arose from a literalinterpretation of Exodus 13:9, to which even thelater injunction in Deuteronomy 6:8 gives nocountenance. This appears even from its repetitionin Deuteronomy 11:18, where the spiritualmeaning and purport of the direction isimmediately indicated, and from a comparisonwith kindred expressions, which evidently couldnot be taken literally--such as Proverbs 3:3, 6:21,7:3; Canticles 8:6; Isaiah 49:16. The very termused by the Rabbis for phylacteries--"tephillin,"prayer-fillets--is comparatively modern origin, inso far as it does not occur in the Hebrew OldCovenant. The Samaritans did not acknowledgethem as of Mosaic obligation, any more than dothe Karaite Hebrews, and there is, what seems tous, sufficient evidence, even from Rabbinicalwritings, that in the time of Christ phylacterieswere not universally worn, nor yet by the priestswhile officiating in the Temple. Although the

53 * The practice of modern Hebrews is somewhat different fromthat of ancient times. Without entering into details, it is sufficienthere to say that they wear underneath their garments a small square,with fringes, called the little tallith (from "talal," to overshadow orcover), or the "arbah canphoth" (four "corners"); while duringprayer they wrap themselves in the great tallith, or so-called prayer-cloak.

words of our Lord seem only expressly tocondemn the making broad of the phylacteries, forpurposes of religious ostentation, it is difficult tobelieve that He Himself had worn them. At anyrate, while any ordinary Israelite would only putthem on at prayer or on solemn occasions, themembers of the Pharisaic confraternity wore themall day long. The practice itself, and the views andordinances connected with it, are so characteristicof the party, that we shall add a few furtherparticulars.

The "tephillin" were worn on the left arm,towards the heart, and on the forehead. Theyconsisted--to describe them roughly--of capsules,containing, on parchment (that for the forehead onfour distinct parchments), these four passages ofScripture: Exodus 13:1-10, 13:11-16;Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11:13-21. The capsuleswere fastened on by black leather straps, whichwere wound round the arm and hand (seven timesround the former, and three times round the latter),or else fitted to the forehead in a prescribed andmystically significant manner. The wearer of themcould not be mistaken. But as for their value andimportance in the eyes of the Rabbis, it wereimpossible to exaggerate it. They were reverencedas highly as the Scriptures, and, like them, mightbe rescued from the flames on a Sabbath, althoughnot worn, as constituting "a burden!" It was saidthat Moses had received the law of theirobservance from Yahweh on Mount Sinai; that the"tephillin" were more sacred than the golden plateon the forehead of the high-priest, since itsinscription embodied only once the sacred nameof Yahweh, while the writing inside the "tephillin"contained it not less than twenty-three times; thatthe command of wearing them equalled all othercommands put together, with many other similarextravagances. How far the profanity of theRabbis in this respect would go, appears from thecircumstance, that they supposed Yahweh Himselfas wearing phylacteries (Ber. 6 a). The fact isdeduced from Isaiah 62:8, where the "right hand"by which Yahweh swears is supposed to refer tothe law, according to the last clause ofDeuteronomy 33:2; while the expression "strengthof His arm" was applied to the "tephillin," sincethe term "strength" appeared in Psalm 29:11 inconnection with Yahweh's people, and was in turnexplained by a reference to Deuteronomy 28:10.

83

For "the strength" of Yahweh's People (Psa 29:11)is that which would cause all to "be afraid" ofIsrael (Deu 28:10); and this latter would be due totheir seeing that Israel was "called by the name ofYahweh," this ocular demonstration beingafforded through the "tephillin." Such was theevidence which traditionalism offered for such amonstrous proposition.

The above may serve as a specimen alikeof Rabbinical exegesis and theological inferences.It will also help us to understand, how in such asystem inconvenient objections, arising from theplain meaning of Scripture, would be summarilyset aside by exalting the interpretations of menabove the teaching of the Bible. This brings usstraight to the charge of our Lord against thePharisees (Mark 7:13), that they made "the Wordof Yahweh of none effect" through their"traditions." The fact, terrible as it is, nowhere,perhaps, comes out more strongly than inconnection with these very "tephillin." We read inthe Mishnah (Sanh. xi. 3), literally, as follows: "Itis more punishable to act against the words of theScribes than against those of Scripture. If a manwere to say, 'There is no such thing as "tephillin,"'in order thereby to act contrary to the words ofScripture, he is not to be treated as a rebel. But ifhe should say, 'There are five divisions in theprayer-fillets' (instead of four in those for theforehead, as the Rabbis taught), in order to add tothe words of the Scribes, he is guilty." Assuredly,a more signal instance could scarcely be found of"teaching for doctrines the commandments ofmen," and of, even on their own showing, "layingaside the commandment of Yahweh," in order to"hold the tradition of men" (Mark 7:7,8).

Before passing from this subject, it may beconvenient to explain the meaning of the Greekterm "phylacteries" for these "tephillin," and toillustrate its aptness. It is now almost generallyadmitted, that the real meaning of phylacteries isequivalent to amulets or charms. And as such theRabbinists really regarded and treated them,however much they might otherwise havedisclaimed all connection with heathen views. Inthis connection we are not going to enter into theunsavoury subject of their heathen superstitions,such as where to find, how to detect, and by whatmeans to get rid of evil spirits, or how to conjureup demons--as these are indicated in the Talmud.

Considering the state of civilisation at the time,and the general prevalence of superstition, weshould perhaps have scarcely wondered at all this,had it not been for the claims which the Rabbis setup to Divine authority, and the terrible contrastexhibited between their teaching and that--we willnot say of the New, but--of the Old Covenant. Inreference to the "phylacteries," even the languageof Josephus (Ant. iv, 212-213) savours of belief intheir magical efficacy; although in this matter alsohe is true to himself, showing us, at the same time,that certain proverbial views of gratitude werealready in vogue in his time. For, writing of thephylacteries, which, he maintains, the Hebrewswore in remembrance of their past deliverance, heobserves, that this expression of their gratitude"served not only by way of return for past, but alsoby way of invitation of future favours!" Manyinstances of the magical ideas attaching to these"amulets" might be quoted; but the following willsuffice. It is said that, when a certain Rabbi left theaudience of some king, he had turned his backupon the monarch. Upon this, the courtiers wouldhave killed the Rabbi, but were deterred by seeingthat the straps of his "tephillin" shone like bandsof fire about him; thus verifying the promise inDeuteronomy 28:10 (Jer. Ber. v. 1). Indeed, wehave it expressly stated in an ancient HebrewTargum (that on Cant 8:3), that the "tephillin"prevented all hostile demons from doing injury toany Israelite.

What has been said will in some measureprepare the reader for investigating the history andinfluence of the Pharisees at the time of Christ. Letit be borne in mind, that patriotism and religionequally combined to raise them in popular esteem.What made Palestine a land separate and distinctfrom the heathen nations around, among whom theruling families would fain have merged them, wasthat Hebrew element which the Phariseesrepresented. Their very origin as a party stretchedback to the great national struggle which had freedthe soil of Palestine from Syrian domination. Inturn, the Pharisees had deserted those Maccabeeswhom formerly they had supported, and daredpersecution and death, when the descendants ofthe Maccabees declined into worldly pomp andGrecian ways, and would combine the royal crownof David with the high-priest's mitre. And now,whoever might fear Herod or his family, the

84

Pharisees at least would not compromise theirprinciples. Again, were they not therepresentatives of the Divine law--not only of thatgiven to Israel on Mount Sinai, but also of thosemore secret ordinances which were only verballycommunicated to Moses, in explanation of, andaddition to the law? If they had made "a hedge"around the law, it was only for the safety of Israel,and for their better separation from all that wasimpure, as well as from the Gentiles. As forthemselves, they were bound by vows andobligations of the strictest kind. Their dealingswith the world outside their fraternity, theiroccupations, their practices, their bearing, theirvery dress and appearance among that motleycrowd--either careless, gay, and Grecianising, orself-condemned by a practice in sad discord withtheir Hebrew profession and principles--wouldgain for them the distinction of uppermost roomsat feasts, and chief seats in the synagogues, andgreetings in the markets, and to be called of men,Rabbi, Rabbi ("my great one, my great one"), inwhich their hearts so much delighted.In very truth they mostly did represent, in someone or other degree of their order, what ofearnestness and religious zeal there was in theland. Their name--probably in the first instancenot chosen by themselves--had become to some abyword, to others a party title. And sadly they haddeclined from their original tendency--at least inmost cases. They were not necessarily "scribes,"nor "lawyers," nor yet "teachers of the law." Norwere they a sect, in the ordinary sense of the term.But they were a fraternity, which consisted ofvarious degrees, to which there was a regularnovitiate, and which was bound by special vowsand obligations. This fraternity was, so to speak,hereditary; so that St. Paul could in very truthspeak of himself as "a Pharisee of the Pharisees"--"a Pharisee the son of a Pharisee." That theirgeneral principles became dominant, and that theygave its distinctiveness alike to the teaching andthe practices of the Synagogue, is sufficientlyknow. But what tremendous influence they musthave wielded to attain this position will bestappear from the single fact, which has apparentlybeen too much overlooked, of their almostincredibly small numbers. According to Josephus(Ant. xvii, 32-45), the number of the fraternityamounted at the time of Herod only to about six

thousand. Yet this inconsiderable minority couldcast Judaism in its mould, and for such terribleevil give its final direction to the nation! Surelythe springs of such a movement must have reacheddown to the very heart of Hebrew religious life.What these were, and how they affected the wholecommunity, deserves and requires not merelypassing notice, but special and careful attention.

Chapter 14The "Fraternity" of Pharisees

To realise the state of religious society atthe time of our Lord, the fact that the Phariseeswere a regular "order," and that there were manysuch "fraternities," in great measure the outcomeof the original Pharisees, must always be kept inview. For the New Covenant simply transports usamong contemporary scenes and actors, taking thethen existent state of things, so to speak, forgranted. But the fact referred to explains manyseemingly strange circumstances, and casts freshlight upon all. Thus, if, to choose an illustration,we should wonder how so early as the morningafter the long discussion in the Sanhedrim, whichmust have occupied a considerable part of the day,"more than forty men" should have been found"banded together" under an anathema, neither toeat nor to drink "till they had killed Paul" (Acts23:12,21); and, still more, how such "aconspiracy," or rather "conjuration," which, in thenature of it, would be kept a profound secret,should have become known to "Paul's sister's son"(v 16), the circumstances of the case furnish asufficient explanation. The Pharisees wereavowedly a "Chabura"--that is, a fraternity or"guild"--and they, or some of their kindredfraternities, would furnish the ready material forsuch a "band," to whom this additional "vow"would be nothing new nor strange, and, murderousthough it sounded, only seem a farther carryingout of the principles of their "order." Again, sincethe wife and all the children of a "chaber," ormember, were ipso facto members of the"Chabura," and Paul's father had been a "Pharisee"(v 6), Paul's sister also would by virtue of her birthbelong to the fraternity, even irrespective of theprobability that, in accordance with the principles

85

of the party, she would have married into aPharisaical family. Nor need we wonder that therage of the whole "order" against Paul should havegone to an extreme, for which ordinary Hebrewzeal would scarcely account. The day before, theexcitement of discussion in the Sanhedrim hadengrossed their attention, and in a measurediverted it from Paul. The apologetic remark thenmade (v 9), "If a spirit or an angel hath spoken tohim, let us not fight against Yahweh," comingimmediately after the notice (v 8) that theSadducees said, there was "neither angel norspirit," may indicate, that the Pharisees were quiteas anxious for dogmatic victory over theiropponents as to throw the shield of the "fraternity"over one of its professed members. But with thenight other and cooler thoughts came. It might bewell enough to defend one of their order againstthe Sadducees, but it was intolerable to have sucha member in the fraternity. A grosser outrage onevery principle and vow--nay, on the very reasonof being of the whole "Chabura"--could scarcelybe conceived than the conduct of St. Paul and theviews which he avowed. Even regarding him as asimple Israelite, the multitude which thronged theTemple had, on the day before, been onlyrestrained by the heathens from executing thesummary vengeance of "death by the rebel'sbeating." How much truer was it as the deliberateconviction of the party, and not merely the cry ofan excited populace, "Away with such a fellowfrom the earth; for it is not fit that he should live!"But while we thus understand the conduct of thePharisees, we need be under no apprehension as tothe consequences to those "more than forty men"of their rash vow. The Jerusalem Talmud (Avod.Sar. 40 a) here furnishes the following curiousillustration, which almost reads like acommentary: "If a man makes a vow to abstainfrom food, Woe to him if he eateth, and, Woe tohim if he does not eat! If he eateth, he sinnethagainst his vow; if he does not eat, he sins againsthis life. What then must he do? Let him go before'the sages,' and they will absolve him from hisvow." In connection with the whole of this matterit is, to say the least, a very curious coincidencethat, at the very time when the party so actedagainst St. Paul, or immediately afterwards, threenew enactments should have been passed bySimeon, the son of Gamaliel (Paul's teacher),

which would exactly meet the case of St. Paul.The first of these ordained, that in future thechildren of a "Chaber" should not be necessarilysuch, but themselves require special andindividual reception into the "order"; the second,that the previous conduct of the candidate shouldbe considered before admitting him into thefraternity; while the third enjoined, that anymember who had left the "order," or become apublican, should never afterwards be receivedback again.

Three words of modern significance, withwhich of late we have all become too familiar, willprobably better help us to understand the wholestate of matters than more elaborate explanations.They are connected with that ecclesiastical systemwhich in so many respects seems the counterpartof Rabbinism. Ultramontanism is a direction ofreligious thought; the Ultramontanes are a party;and the Jesuits not only its fullest embodiment, butan "order," which, originating in a revival of thespirit of the Papacy, gave rise to theUltramontanes as a party, and, in the widerdiffusion of their principles, to Ultramontanism asa tendency. Now, all this applies equally to thePharisees and to Pharisaism. To make the analogycomplete, the order of the Jesuits also consists offour degrees54 --curiously enough, the exactnumber of those in the fraternity of "thePharisees!"

Like that of the Jesuits, the order of thePharisees originated in a period of great religiousreaction. They themselves delighted in tracingtheir history up to the time of Ezra, and there mayhave been substantial, though not literal truth intheir claim. For we read in Ezra 6:21, 9:1, 10:11and Nehemiah 9:2 of the "Nivdalim," or those whohad "separated" themselves "from the filthiness ofthe heathen"; while in Nehemiah 10:29 we find,that they entered into a "solemn league andcovenant," with definite vows and obligations.Now, it is quite true that the Aramaean word"Perishuth" also means "separation," and that the"Perushim," or Pharisees, of the Mishnah are, so

54 When speaking of the four degrees in the order of Jesuits, werefer to those which are professed. We are, of course, aware of theexistence of the so-called "professi trium votorum" of whomnothing definite is really known by the outside world, and whomwe may regard as "the secret Jesuits," and of that of lay and clerical"coadjutors," whose services and vows are merely temporary.

86

far as the meaning of the term is concerned, "theseparated," or the "Nivdalim" of their period. Butalthough they could thus, not only linguisticallybut historically, trace their origin to those who had"separated" themselves at the time of Ezra andNehemiah, they were not their successors in spirit;and the difference between the designations"Nivdalim" and "Perushim" marks also the widestpossible internal difference, albeit it may havebeen gradually brought about in the course ofhistorical development. All this will becomeimmediately more plain.

At the time of Ezra, as already noted, therewas a great religious revival among those who hadreturned to the land of their fathers. Theprofession which had of old only characterisedindividuals in Israel (Psa 30:4, 31:23, 37:28) wasnow taken up by the covenanted people as awhole: they became the "Chasidim" or "pious"(rendered in the Authorised Version, "saints"). As"Chasidim," they resolved to be "Nivdalim," or"separated from all filthiness of heathenism"around. The one represented, so to speak, thepositive; the other, the negative element in theirreligion. It is deeply interesting to notice, how theformer Pharisee (or "separated one"), Paul, hadthis in view in tracing the Christian life as that ofthe true "chasid," and therefore "Nivdal"--inopposition to the Pharisees of externalism--in suchpassages as 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, closing withthis admonition to "cleanse ourselves from allfilthiness55 of the flesh and spirit, perfectingholiness in the fear of Yahweh." And so St. Paul'sformer life and thinking seem ever to have servedhim as the type of the spiritual realities of his newstate.56

Two points in Hebrew history here claim ourspecial attention, without attempting to unravelthe whole somewhat tangled web of events. Thefirst is the period immediately after Alexander theGreat. It was one of the objects of the empire

55 The Greek word for "filthiness" occurs in this passage only, butthe verb from which it is derived seems to have a ceremonialallusion attaching to it in the three passages in which it is used: 1Corinthians 8:7; Revelation 3:4, 14:4.56 If St. Paul was originally a Pharisee, the accounts given by theearliest tradition (Euseb. H. E. ii. 23), compared with that ofJosephus (Ant. xx, 197-203), would almost lead us to infer that St.James was a "Chasid." All the more significant would then be thepart he took in removing the yoke of the law from the Gentileconverts (Acts 15:13-21).

which he founded to Grecianise the world; andthat object was fully prosecuted by his successors.Accordingly, we find a circle of Grecian citiescreeping up along the coast, from Anthedon andGaza in the south, northwards to Tyre andSeleucia, and eastwards to Damascus, Gadara,Pella, and Philadelphia, wholly belting the land ofIsrael. Thence the movement advanced into theinterior, taking foothold in Galilee and Samaria,and gathering a party with increasing influenceand spreading numbers among the people. Now itwas under these circumstances, that the"Chasidim" as a party stood out to stem thetorrent, which threatened to overwhelm alike thereligion and the nationality of Israel. The actualcontest soon came, and with it the second grandperiod in the history of Judaism. Alexander theGreat had died in July 323 BC. About a centuryand a half later, the "Chasidim" had gatheredaround the Maccabees for Israel's God and forIsrael. But the zeal of the Maccabees soon gaveplace to worldly ambition and projects. Whenthese leaders united in their person the high-priestly with the royal dignity, the party of the"Chasidim" not only deserted them, but went intoopen opposition. They called on them to resignthe high-priesthood, and were ready to suffermartyrdom, as many of them did, for theiroutspoken convictions. Thenceforth the"Chasidim" of the early type disappear as a class.They had, as a party, already given place to thePharisees--the modern "Nivdalim"; and when wemeet them again they are only a higher order orbranch of the Pharisees--"the pious" of oldhaving, so to speak, become pietists." Tradition(Men. 40) expressly distinguished "the earlyChasidim" (harishonim) from "the later"(acheronim). No doubt, those are some of theirprinciples, although tinged with later colouring,which are handed down as the characteristics ofthe "chasid" in such sayings of the Mishnah as:"What is mine is thine, and what is thine remainsthine as well" (P. Ab. V. 10); "Hard to makeangry, but easy to reconcile" (11); "Giving alms,and inducing others to do likewise" (13); "Goingto the house of learning, and at the same timedoing good works" (14).

The earliest mention of the Pharisees occurs atthe time of the Maccabees. As a "fraternity" we

87

meet them first under the rule of John Hyrcanus,the fourth of the Maccabees from Mattathias (135-105 BC); although Josephus speaks of themalready two reigns earlier, at the time of Jonathan(Ant. xiii, 171-173). He may have done so byanticipation, or applying later terms to earliercircumstances, since there can be little doubt thatthe Essenes, whom he names at the same time, hadnot then any corporate existence. Withoutquestioning that, to use a modern term, "thedirection" existed at the time of Jonathan,57 we canput our finger on a definite event with which theorigin of "the fraternity" of the Pharisees isconnected. From Hebrew writings we learn, that atthe time of Hyrcanus a commission was appointedto inquire throughout the land, how the Divine lawof religious contributions was observed by thepeople.58

The result showed that, while the "therumah,"(see The Temple) or priestly "heave-offerings,"was regularly given, neither the first or Leviticaltithe, nor yet the so-called "second" or "poor'stithe," was paid, as the law enjoined. But suchtransgression involved mortal sin, since it impliedthe personal use of what really belonged toYahweh. Then it was that the followingarrangements were made. All that the "countrypeople" ('am ha-aretz) sold was to be considered"demai"--a word derived from the Greek for"people," and so betraying the time of itsintroduction, but really implying that it was"doubtful" whether or not it had been tithed. Insuch cases the buyer had to regard the "therumah,"and the "poor's tithe" as still due on what he hadpurchased. On the other hand, the Phariseesformed a "Chabura," or fraternity, of which eachmember--"Chaber," or "companion"--boundhimself to pay these tithes before use or sale. Each"Chaber" was regarded as "neeman," or"credited"--his produce being freely bought andsold by the rest of the "Chaberim." Of course, theburden of additional expense which this involvedto each non-"chaber" was very great, since he had

57 In proof of this, it may be stated that before the formal institutionof the "order," R. Jose, the son of Joezer, declared all foreign glassvessels, and indeed the whole soil of heathen lands, "unclean," thus"separating" Israel from all possible intercourse with Gentiles.58 ** It may be to the decrees then enacted by Hyrcanus thatJosephus refers (Ant. xiii, 293-298), when he speaks of their"abolition" after Hyrcanus broke with the Pharisaical party.

to pay "therumah" and tithe on all that hepurchased or used, while the Pharisee who boughtfrom another Pharisee was free. One cannot helpsuspecting that this, in connection with kindredenactments, which bore very hard upon the massof the people, while they left "the Pharisee"untouched, may underlie the charge of our Lord(Matt 23:4): "They bind heavy burdens andgrievous to be borne, and lay them on men'sshoulders; but they themselves will not move themwith one of their fingers."

But the rigorous discharge of tithes was onlyone part of the obligations of a "Chaber." Theother part consisted in an equally rigoroussubmission to all the laws of Levitical purity asthen understood. Indeed, the varied questions as towhat was, or what made "clean," divided the one"order" of Pharisees into members of variousdegrees. Four such degrees, according toincreasing strictness in "making clean," arementioned. It would take too long to explain thisfourfold gradation in its details. Suffice it, that,generally speaking, a member of the first degreewas called a "Chaber," or "Ben hacheneseth," "sonof the union"--an ordinary Pharisee; while theother three degrees were ranked together under thegeneric name of "Teharoth" (purifications). Theselatter were probably the "Chasidim" of the laterperiod. The "Chaber," or ordinary Pharisee, onlybound himself to tithing and avoidance of allLevitical uncleanness. The higher degrees, on theother hand, took increasingly strict vows. Any onemight enter "the order" if he took, before threemembers, the solemn vow of observing theobligations of the fraternity. A novitiate of a year(which was afterwards shortened) was, however,necessary. The wife or widow of a "Chaber," andhis children, were regarded as members of thefraternity. Those who entered the family of a"Pharisee" had also to seek admission into the"order." The general obligations of a "Chaber"towards those that were "without" the fraternitywere as follows. He was neither to buy from, norto sell to him anything, either in a dry or fluidstate; he was neither to eat at his table (as he mightthus partake of what had not been tithed), nor toadmit him to his table, unless he had put on thegarments of "Chaber" (as his own old ones mightelse have carried defilement); nor to go into anyburying-place; nor to give "therumah" or tithes to

88

any priest who was not a member of the fraternity;nor to do anything in presence of an "am ha-aretz," or non-"Chaber," which brought up pointsconnected with the laws of purification, etc. Tothese, other ordinances, partly of an asceticcharacter, were added at a later period. But what isspecially remarkable is that not only was anovitiate required for the higher grades, similar tothat on first entering the order; but that, just as thegarment of a non-"chaber" defiled a "Chaber" ofthe first degree, that of the latter equally defiledhim of the second degree, and so on.59

To sum up then: the fraternity of the Phariseeswere bound by these two vows--that of tithing andthat in regard to purifications. As the most variedquestions would here arise in practice, whichcertainly were not answered in the law of Moses,the "traditions," which were supposed to explainand supplement the Divine law, became necessary.In point of fact, the Rabbis speak of them in thatsense, and describe them as "a hedge" aroundIsrael and its law. That these traditions shouldhave been traced up to oral communications madeto Moses on Mount Sinai, and also deduced byingenious methods from the letter of Scripture,was only a further necessity of the case. The resultwas a system of pure externalism, which oftencontravened the spirit of those very ordinances,the letter of which was slavishly worshipped. Towhat arrant hypocrisy it often gave rise, appearsfrom Rabbinical writings almost as much as fromthe New Covenant. We can understand how those"blind guides" would often be as great a trouble totheir own party as to others. "The plague ofPharisaism" was not an uncommon expression;and this religious sore is ranked with "a sillypietist, a cunning sinner, and a woman Pharisee,"as constituting "the troubles of life" (Sot. iii. 4)."Shall we stop to explain the opinions ofPharisees?" asks a Rabbi, in supreme contempt for"the order" as such. "It is as a tradition among thePharisees," we read (Ab. de R. Nathan, 5), "totorment themselves in this world, and yet they willnot get anything in the next." It was suggested bythe Sadducees, that "the Pharisees would by-and-

59 It is impossible here to reproduce the Talmudical passages inevidence. But the two obligations of "making clean" and of"tithing," together with the arrangement of the Pharisees intovarious grades, are even referred to in the Mishnah (Chag. ii. 5, 6and , and Demai ii. 2,3).

by subject the globe of the sun itself to theirpurifications." On the other hand, almostEpicurean sentences are quoted among theirutterances, such as, "Make haste, eat and drink, forthe world in which we are is like a wedding feast";"If thou possessest anything, make good cheer ofit; for there is no pleasure underneath the sod, anddeath gives no respite...Men are like the flowers ofthe field; some flourish, while others fade away.""Like the flowers of the field!" What far otherteaching of another Rabbi, Whom these rejectedwith scorn, do the words recall! And when fromtheir words we turn to the kingdom which Hecame to found, we can quite understand theessential antagonism of nature between the two.Assuredly, it has been a bold stretch of assertion toconnect in any way the origin or characteristics ofChristianity with the Rabbis. Yet, when we bringthe picture of Pharisaism, as drawn in Rabbinicalwritings, side by side with the sketch of it givenby our Lord, we are struck not only with the life-likeness, but with the selection of the distinctivefeatures of Pharisaism presented in His reproofs.Indeed, we might almost index the history ofPharisaism by passages from the New Covenant.The "tithing of mint and anise," to the neglect ofthe weightier matters of the law, and "thecleansing" of the outside--these twofoldobligations of the Pharisees, "hedged around," asthey were, by a traditionalism which made voidthe spirit of the law, and which manifested itself ingross hypocrisy and religious boasting--are theynot what we have just traced in the history of "theorder?"

Chapter 15Relation of the Pharisees

to the Sadducees and Essenes,and to the Gospel of Christ

On taking a retrospective view ofPharisaism, as we have described it, there is asaying of our Lord, which at first sight seemsalmost unaccountable. Yet it is clear andemphatic. "All therefore whatsoever they bid youobserve, that observe and do" (Matt 23:3). But ifthe early disciples were not to break at once and

89

forever with the Hebrew community, such adirection was absolutely needful. For, though thePharisees were only "an order," Pharisaism, likemodern Ultramontanism, had not only become theleading direction of theological thought, but itsprinciples were solemnly proclaimed, anduniversally acted upon--and the latter, even bytheir opponents the Sadducees. A Sadducee in theTemple or on the seat of judgment would beobliged to act and decide precisely like a Pharisee.Not that the party had not attempted to givedominance to their peculiar views. But they werefairly vanquished, and it is said that theythemselves destroyed the book of Sadduceanordinances, which they had at one time drawn up.And the Pharisees celebrated each dogmaticvictory by a feast! What is perhaps the oldest post-Biblical Hebrew book--the "Megillath Taanith," orroll of fasts--is chiefly a Pharisaic calendar of self-glorification, in which dogmatic victories aremade days when fasting, and sometimes evenmourning, is prohibited. Whatever, therefore, thedogmatic views of the Sadducees were, andhowever they might, where possible, indulgepersonal bias, yet in office both parties acted asPharisees. They were well matched indeed. Whena Sadducean high-priest, on the Feast ofTabernacles, poured out the water on the groundinstead of into the silver funnel of the altar,Maccabean king though he was, he scarce escapedwith his life, and ever afterwards the shoutresounded from all parts of the Temple, "Hold upthy hand," as the priest yearly performed this partof the service. The Sadducees held, that on theDay of Atonement the high-priest should light theincense before he actually entered the Most HolyPlace. As this was contrary to the views of thePharisees, they took care to bind him by an oath toobserve their ritual customs before allowing himto officiate at all. It was in vain that the Sadduceesargued, that the daily sacrifices should not bedefrayed from the public treasury, but from specialcontributions. They had to submit, and besides tojoin in the kind of half-holiday which the jubilantmajority inscribed in their calendar to perpetuatethe memory of the decision. The Pharisees held,that the time between Easter and Pentecost shouldbe counted from the second day of the feast; theSadducees insisted that it should commence withthe literal "Sabbath" after the festive day. But,

despite argument, the Sadducees had to join whenthe solemn procession went on the afternoon ofthe feast to cut down the "first sheaf," and toreckon Pentecost as did their opponents.

We have here referred to only a few of thedifferences in ritual between the views of theSadducees and those of the Pharisees. Theessential principle of them lay in this, that theSadducees would hold by the simple letter of thelaw--do neither more nor less, whether theconsequences were to make decisions more severeor more easy. The same principle they applied intheir juridical and also in their doctrinal views. Itwould take us too much into detail to explain theformer. But the reader will understand how thisliterality would, as a rule, make their judicialdecisions (or rather such as they had proposed) farmore strict than those of the Pharisees, by a rigidlyliteral application of the principle, "an eye for aneye; a tooth for a tooth." The same holds true inregard to the laws of purification, and to thosewhich regulated inheritance. The doctrinal viewsof the Sadducees are sufficiently known from theNew Covenant. It is quite true that, in oppositionto Sadducean views as to the non-existence ofanother world and the resurrection, the Phariseesaltered the former Temple-formula into "Blessedbe Yahweh from world to world" (from generationto generation; or, "world without end"), to showthat after the present there was another life ofblessing and punishment, of joy and sorrow. Butthe Talmud expressly states that the real principleof the Sadducees was not, that there was noresurrection, but only that it could not be provedfrom the Thorah, or Law. From this there was, ofcourse, but a short step to the entire denial of thedoctrine; and no doubt it was taken by the vastmajority of the party. But here also it was againtheir principle of strict literality, which underlayeven the most extreme of their errors.

This principle was indeed absolutelynecessary to their very existence. We have tracedthe Pharisees not only to a definite period, but to aspecial event; and we have been able perfectly toexplain their name as "the separated." Not that wepresume they gave it to themselves, for no sect orparty ever takes a name; they all pretend to requireno distinctive title, because they alone genuinelyand faithfully represent the truth itself. But whenthey were called Pharisees, the "Chaberim," no

90

doubt, took kindly to the popular designation. Itwas to them--to use an illustration--what the name"Puritans" was to a far different and opposite partyin the Church. But the name "Sadducee" isinvolved in quite as much obscurity as the originof the party. Let us try to cast some fresh lightupon both--only premising that the commonderivations of their name, whether from the high-priest Zadok, or from a Rabbi called Zadok, whosefundamental principle of not seeking reward inreligion they were thought to have misunderstoodand misapplied, or from the Hebrew word"zaddikim"--the righteous--are all unsatisfactory,and yet may all contain elements of truth.

There can be no question that the "sect" ofthe Sadducees originated in a reaction against thePharisees. If the latter added to the law their ownglosses, interpretations, and traditions, theSadducee took his stand upon the bare letter of thelaw. He would have none of their additions andsupererogations; he would not be righteousovermuch. Suffice it for him to have to practise"zedakah," "righteousness." We can understandhow this shibboleth of theirs became, in the mouthof the people, the byname of a party--some usingit ironically, some approvingly. By-and-by theparty no doubt took as kindly to the name as thePharisees did to theirs. Thus far, then, we agreewith those who derive the title of Sadducees from"zaddikim." But why the grammatically-unaccountable change from "zaddikim" to"zaddukim?" May it not be that the simple butsignificant alteration of a letter had, after a notuncommon fashion, originated with theiropponents, as if they would have said: "You are'zaddikim?' Nay, rather, 'zaddukim'" from theAramaean word "zadu" (wasting or desolation)--meaning, you are not upholders but destroyers ofrighteousness? This origin of the name would inno way be inconsistent with the later attempts ofthe party to trace up their history either to thehigh-priest Zadok, or to one of the fathers ofHebrew traditionalism, whose motto theyostentatiously adopted. History records not a fewsimilar instances of attempts to trace up the originof a religious party. Be this as it may, we canunderstand how the adherents of Sadduceanopinions belonged chiefly to the rich, luxurious,and aristocratic party, including the wealthyfamilies of priests; while, according to the

testimony of Josephus, which is corroborated bythe New Covenant, the mass of the people, andespecially the women, venerated and supportedthe Pharisaical party. Thus the "order" of the"Chaberim" gradually became a popular party, likethe Ultramontanes. Finally, as from the nature of itPharisaism was dependent upon traditional lore, itbecame not only the prevailing direction ofHebrew theological study, but the "Chaber" by-and-by merged into the Rabbi, the "sage," or"disciple of the sages"; while the non-"chaber," or"am ha-aretz," became the designation forignorance of traditional lore, and neglect of itsordinances. This was specially the case when thedissolution of the Hebrew commonwealthrendered the obligations of the "fraternity"necessarily impossible. Under such alteredcircumstances the old historical Pharisee wouldoften be no small plague to the leaders of theparty, as is frequently the case with the originaladherents and sticklers of a sect in which theirresistible progress of time has necessarilyproduced changes.

The course of our investigations hasshown, that neither Pharisees nor Sadducees werea sect, in the sense of separating from Temple orSynagogue; and also that the Hebrew people assuch were not divided between Pharisees andSadducees. The small number of professedPharisees (six thousand) at the time of Herod, therepresentations of the New Covenant, and even thecurious circumstance that Philo never oncementions the name of Pharisee, confirm the resultof our historical inquiries, that the Pharisees werefirst an "order," then gave the name to a party, andfinally represented a direction of theologicalthought. The New Covenant speaks of no otherthan these two parties. But Josephus and Philoalso mention the "Essenes." It is beyond ourpresent scope either to describe their tenets andpractices, or even to discuss the complex questionof the origin of their name. From the nature of it,the party exercised no great influence, and was butshort-lived. They seem to have combined a kind ofhigher grade Pharisaism with devotional views,and even practices, derived from Easternmysticism, and more particularly from the Medo-Persian religion. Of the former, the fact that theone object of all their institutions was a higherpurity, may here be regarded as sufficient

91

evidence. The latter is apparent from a carefulstudy of their views, as these have been preservedto us, and from their comparison with theZoroastrian system. And of the fact that "Palestinewas surrounded by Persian influences," there areabundant indications.

As a sect the Essenes never attained alarger number than four thousand; and as theylived apart from the rest, neither mingling in theirsociety nor in their worship, and--as a generalrule--abstained from marriage, they soon becameextinct. Indeed, Rabbinical writings allude to quitea number of what may probably be described assectaries, all of them more or less distinctlybelonging to the mystical and ascetic branch ofPharisaism. We here name, first, the "Vathikin," or"strong ones," who performed their prayers withthe first dawn; secondly, the "Toble Shachrith," or"morning baptists," who immersed before morningprayer, so as to utter the Divine Name only in astate of purity; thirdly, the "Kehala Kadisha," or"holy congregation," who spent a third of the dayin prayer, a third in study, and a third in labour;fourthly, the "Banaim," or "builders," who,besides aiming after highest purity, occupiedthemselves with mystical studies about God andthe world; fifthly, the "Zenuim," or "secret pious,"who besides kept their views and writings secret;sixthly, the "Nekije hadaath," "men of a puremind," who were really separatists from theirbrethren; seventhly, the "Chashaim," or"mysterious ones"; and lastly, the "Assiim,""helpers" or "healers," who professed to possessthe right pronunciation of the sacred Name ofYahweh, with all that this implied.

If in any of the towns of Judaea one hadmet the strange apparition of a man dressedwholly in white, whose sandals and garmentsperhaps bore signs of age--for they might not beput away till quite worn out--but who wasscrupulously clean, this man was an Essene. Thepassers would stop short and look after him withmingled reverence and curiosity. For he was butrarely seen in town or village--the communityseparating from the rest of the people, andinhabiting desert places, specially theneighbourhood of the Dead Sea; and the characterof the "order" for asceticism and self-denial, aswell as for purity, was universally known.However strictly they observed the Sabbath, it was

in their own synagogues; and although they sentgifts to the altar, they attended not the Temple noroffered sacrifices, partly because they regardedtheir arrangements as not sufficiently Leviticallyclean, and partly because they came to considertheir own table an altar, and their common meals asacrifice. They formed an "order," bound by thestrictest vows, taken under terrible oaths, andsubject to the most rigorous disciplines. Themembers abstained from wine, meat, and oil, andmost of them also from marriage. They hadcommunity of goods; were bound to poverty,chastity, and obedience to their superiors. Purityof morals was enjoined, especially in regard tospeaking the truth. To take an oath was prohibited,as also the keeping of slaves. The order consistedof four grades; contact with one of a lower alwaysdefiling him of the higher grade. The novitiatelasted two years, though at the end of the first thecandidate was taken into closer fellowship. Therule was in the hands of "elders," who had thepower of admission and expulsion--the latter beingalmost equivalent to death by starvation, as theEssene had bound himself by a terrible oath not toassociate with others. Their day began withsunrise, when they went to prayer. Before that,nothing secular might be spoken. After prayer,they betook themselves to agricultural labour--forthey were not allowed to keep herds and flocks--orelse to works of charity, specially the healing ofthe sick. At eleven o'clock they bathed, changedtheir dress, and then gathered for the commonmeal. A priest opened and closed it with prayer.They sat according to age and dignity; the eldestengaging in serious conversation, but in so quiet atone as not to be heard outside. The young menserved. Each had bread and salt handed him, alsoanother dish; the elders being allowed thecondiment of hyssop and the luxury of warmwater. After the meal they put off their clothes,and returned to work till the evening, when therewas another common meal, followed by mysticalhymns and dances, to symbolise the rapt, ecstaticstate of mind.

It is needless to follow the subject farther.Even what has been said--irrespective of theirseparation from the world, their punctiliousSabbath-observance, and views on purification;their opposition to sacrifices, and notably theirrejection of the doctrine of the resurrection--is

92

surely sufficient to prove that they had noconnection with the origin of Christianity.Assertions of this kind are equally astonishing tothe calm historical student and painful to theChristian. Yet there can be no doubt that amongthese mystical sects were preserved views of theDivine Being, of the Messiah and His kingdom,and of kindred doctrines, which afterwardsappeared in the so-called "secret tradition" of theSynagogue, and which, as derived from the studyof the prophetic writings, contain marvellousechoes of Christian truth. On this point, however,we may not here enter.

Christ and the Gospel among Pharisees,Sadducees, and Essenes! We can now realise thescene, and understand the mutual relations. Theexisting communities, the religious tendencies, thespirit of the age, assuredly offered no point ofattachment--only absolute and essential contrarietyto the kingdom of heaven. The "preparer of theway" could appeal to neither of them; his voiceonly cried "in the wilderness." Far, far beyond theorigin of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, hehad to point back to the original Paschalconsecration of Israel as that which was to be nowexhibited in its reality: "Behold the Lamb of God,which taketh away the sin of the world." If thefirst great miracle of Christianity was the breakingdown of the middle wall of partition, the second--perhaps we should have rather put it first, torealise the symbolism of the two miracles in Cana--was that it found nothing analogous in thereligious communities around, nothingsympathetic, absolutely no stem on which to graftthe new plant, but was literally "as a root out of adry ground," of which alike Pharisee, Sadducee,and Essene would say: "He hath no form norcomeliness; and when we shall see Him, there isno beauty that we should desire Him."

Chapter 16Synagogues: Their Origin,

Structureand Outward Arrangements

It was a beautiful saying of RabbiJochanan (Jer. Ber. v. 1), that he who prays in his

house surrounds and fortifies it, so to speak, with awall of iron. Nevertheless, it seems immediatelycontradicted by what follows. For it is explainedthat this only holds good where a man is alone, butthat where there is a community prayer should beoffered in the synagogue. We can readilyunderstand how, after the destruction of theTemple, and the cessation of its symbolicalworship, the excessive value attached to mereattendance at the synagogue would rapidly growin public estimation, till it exceeded all bounds ofmoderation or reason. Thus, such Scripturalsayings as Isaiah 66:20, 55:6 and Psalm 82:1 wereapplied to it. The Babylon Talmud goes evenfarther. There we are told (Ber. 6 a), that theprayer which a man addresses to Yahweh has onlyits proper effect if offered in the synagogue; that ifan individual, accustomed to frequent every daythe synagogue, misses it for once, Yahweh willdemand an account of him; that if the Eternal findsfewer than ten persons there gathered, His anger iskindled, as it is written in Isaiah 50:2 (Ber. 6 b);that if a person has a synagogue in his own town,and does not enter it for prayer, he is to be calledan evil neighbour, and provokes exile alike uponhimself and his children, as it is written inJeremiah 12:4; while, on the other hand, thepractice of early resorting to the synagogue wouldaccount for the longevity of people (Ber. 8 a).Putting aside these extravagances, there cannot,however, be doubt that, long before theTalmudical period, the institution of synagogueshad spread, not only among the Palestinian, butamong the Hebrews of the dispersion, and that itwas felt a growing necessity, alike from internaland external causes.

Readers of the New Covenant know, thatat the time of our Lord synagogues were dotted allover the land; that in them "from of old" Moseshad been read (Acts 15:21); that they were underthe rule of certain authorities, who also exerciseddiscipline; that the services were definitelyregulated, although considerable liberty obtained,and that part of them consisted in reading theprophets, which was generally followed by an"exhortation" (Acts 13:15) or an address (Luke4:17). The word "synagogue" is, of course, ofGreek derivation, and means "gathering together"--for religious purposes. The correspondingRabbinical terms, "chenisah," "cheneseth," etc.,

93

"zibbur," "vaad," and "kahal," may be generallycharacterised as equivalents. But it is interesting tonotice, that both the Old Covenant and the Rabbishave shades of distinction, well known in moderntheological discussions. To begin with the former.Two terms are used for Israel as a congregation:"edah" and "kahal"; of which the former seems torefer to Israel chiefly in their outward organisationas a congregation--what moderns would call thevisible Church--while "kahal" rather indicatestheir inner or spiritual connection. Even the LXXseem to have seen this distinction. The word"edah" occurs one hundred and thirty times, and isalways rendered in the LXX by "synagogue,"never by "ecclesia" (church); while "kahal" istranslated in seventy places by "ecclesia," andonly in thirty-seven by "synagogue." Similarly, theMishnah employs the term "kahal" only to denoteIsrael as a whole; while the term "zibbur," forexample, is used alike for churches and for theChurch--that is, for individual congregations, andfor Israel as a whole.

The origin of the synagogue is lost in theobscurity of tradition. Of course, like so manyother institutions, it is traced by the Rabbis to thepatriarchs. Thus, both the Targum Jonathan andthe Jerusalem Targum represent Jacob as anattendant in the synagogue, and Rebekah asresorting thither for advice when feeling withinher the unnatural contest of her two sons. Therecan be no occasion for seriously discussing suchstatements. For when in 2 Kings 22:8 we read that"the book of the law" was discovered by Shaphanthe scribe in "the house of Yahweh," this impliesthat during the reign of King Josiah there couldhave been no synagogues in the land, since it wastheir main object to secure the weekly reading,and of course the preservation, of the books ofMoses (Acts 15:21). Our Authorised Version,indeed, renders Psalm 74:8, "They have burned upall the synagogues of Yahweh in the land." Butthere is good authority for questioning thistranslation; and, even if admitted, it would notsettle the question of the exact time whensynagogues originated. On the other hand, there isnot a hint of synagogue-worship either in the lawor the prophets; and this of itself would bedecisive, considering the importance of thesubject. Besides, it may be said that there was noroom for such meetings under the Old Covenant

dispensation. There the whole worship wastypical--the sacrificial services alike constitutingthe manner in which Israel approached untoYahweh, and being the way by which Hecommunicated blessings to His people. Gatheringsfor prayer and for fellowship with the Fatherbelong, so far as the Church as a whole isconcerned, to the dispensation of the holy spirit. Itis quite in accordance with this general principle,that when men filled with the spirit of Yahwehwere raised up from time to time, those wholonged for deeper knowledge and closer conversewith Yahweh should have gathered around themon Sabbaths and new moons, as the piousShunammite resorted to Elisha (2 Kings 4:23), andas others were no doubt wont to do, if within reachof "prophets" or their disciples. But quite adifferent state of matter ensued during theBabylonish captivity. Deprived of the Templeservices, some kind of religious meetings wouldbecome an absolute necessity, if the people werenot to lapse into practical heathenism--a danger,indeed, which, despite the admonitions of theprophets, and the prospect of deliverance held out,was not quite avoided. For the preservation, also,of the national bond which connected Israel, aswell as for their continued religious existence, theinstitution of synagogues seemed alike needfuland desirable. In point of fact, the attentive readerof the books of Ezra and Nehemiah will discoverin the period after the return from Babylon thebeginnings of the synagogue. Only quiterudimentary as yet, and chiefly for the purposes ofinstructing those who had come back ignorant andsemi-heathenish--still, they formed a starting-point. Then came the time of terrible Syrianoppression and persecutions, and of theMaccabean rising. We can understand, how undersuch circumstances the institution of thesynagogue would develop, and gradually assumethe proportions and the meaning, which itafterwards attained. For it must be borne in mind,that, in proportion as the spiritual import of theTemple services was lost to view, and Judaismbecame a matter of outward ordinances, nicedistinctions, and logical discussion, the synagoguewould grow in importance. And so it came to pass,that at the time of Christ there was not a foreignsettlement of Hebrews without one or moresynagogues--that of Alexandria, of which both the

94

Talmuds speak in such exaggerated language,being specially gorgeous--while throughoutPalestine they were thickly planted. It is to theselatter only that we can for the present directattention.

Not a town, nor a village, if it numbered onlyten men, who could or would wholly givethemselves to divine things,60 but had one or moresynagogues.

If it be asked, why the number ten was thusfixed upon as the smallest that could form acongregation, the reply is that, according toNumbers 14:27, the "evil congregation" consistedof the spies who had brought a bad report, andwhose number was ten--after deducting, of course,Joshua and Caleb. Larger cities had several, someof them many, synagogues. From Acts 6:9 weknow that such was the case in Jerusalem,tradition having also left us an account of thesynagogue of "the Alexandrians," to which classof Hebrews Stephen may have belonged by birthor education, on which ground also he wouldchiefly address himself to them. The Rabbis haveit that, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem,that city had not fewer than 480, or at least 460,synagogues. Unless the number 480 was fixedupon simply as the multiple of symbolicalnumbers (4 x 10 x 12), or with a kindred mysticalpurpose in view, it would, of course, be a grossexaggeration. But, as a stranger entered a town orvillage, it could never be difficult to find out thesynagogue. If it had not, like our churches, itsspire, pointing men, as it were, heavenward, thehighest ground in the place was at least selectedfor it, to symbolise that its engagementsovertopped all things else, and in remembrance ofthe prophetic saying, that Yahweh's house should"be established in the top of the mountains," and"exalted above the hills" (Isa 2:2). If such asituation could not be secured, it was sought toplace it "in the corners of streets," or at theentrance to the chief squares, according to whatwas regarded as a significant direction in Proverbs1:21. Possibly our Lord may have had this also inview when He spoke of those who loved "to praystanding in the synagogues and in the corners ofthe streets" (Matt 6:5), it being a very common

60 The so-called "Batlanim." The exact meaning of the term hasgiven rise to much learned discussion.

practice at the time to offer prayer on entering asynagogue. But if no prominent site could beobtained, a pole should at least be attached to theroof, to reach up beyond the highest house. A citywhose synagogue was lower than the otherdwellings was regarded as in danger ofdestruction.

Of the architecture of ordinary synagogues,not only the oldest still in existence, but the recentexcavations in Palestine, enable us to form acorrect idea. Internally they were simplyrectangular or round buildings, with a single ordouble colonnade, and more or less adorned bycarvings. Externally they had generally somesacred symbol carved on the lintels--commonlythe seven-branched candlestick, or perhaps the potof manna.61

There is one remarkable instance of the use ofthe latter emblem, too important to be passed over.In Capernaum, our Lord's "own city" (Matt 9:1),there was but one synagogue--that built at the costof the pious centurion. For, although ourAuthorised Version renders the commendation ofthe Hebrew elders, "He loveth our nation, and hasbuilt us a synagogue" (Luke 7:5), in the originalthe article is definite: "he hath built us thesynagogue"--just as in a similar manner we inferthat Nazareth had only one synagogue (Matt13:54). The site of the ancient Capernaum had tillcomparatively recently been unknown. But itsidentification with the modern Tell Hum is now sosatisfactory, that few would care to question it.What is even more interesting, the very ruins ofthat synagogue which the good centurion builthave been brought to light; and, as if to makedoubt impossible, its architecture is evidently thatof the Herodian period. And here comes in theincidental but complete confirmation of the gospelnarrative. We remember how, before, the LordYahoshua had by His word of blessing multiplied

61 "Of the tabernacle in which the ark rested at Shiloh, from thetime of Joshua to that of Samuel, no trace, of course, remains. Buton the summit of a little knoll we find the remains of what wasonce a Hebrew synagogue, afterwards used as a church, andsubsequently as a mosque. On the lintel over the doorway, betweentwo wreaths of flowers, is carved a vessel, shaped like a Romanamphora. It so closely resembles the conventional type of the 'potof manna,' as found on coins and in the ruins of the synagogue atCapernaum, that it doubtless formed part of the original building. Itis a not improbable conjecture that the synagogue may have beenerected on the sacred spot which for so many generations formedthe centre of Hebrew worship."--Those Holy Fields.

95

the scanty provision, brought, it might beaccidentally, by a lad in the company of those fivethousand who had thronged to hear Him, so thatthere was not only sufficient for their wants, butenough for each of the twelve apostles to fill hisbasket with the fragments of what the Saviour haddispensed. That day of miraculous provision hadbeen followed by a night of equally wondrousdeliverance. His disciples were crossing the lake,now tossed by one of those sudden storms whichso frequently sweep down upon it from themountains. All at once, in their perplexity, it wasthe Master Whom they saw, walking on the sea,and nearing the ship. As the light of the moon fellupon that well-known form, and, as He drew nigh,cast His shadow in increasing proportions uponthe waters which, obedient, bore His feet, theyfeared. It was a marvellous vision--too marvellousalmost to believe it a reality, and too awful to bearit, if a reality. And so they seem to have hesitatedabout receiving Him into the ship. But Hispresence and voice soon reassured them, and"immediately the ship was at the land." That"land" was the seashore of Capernaum. The nextmorning broke with the usual calm and beauty ofspring on the lake. Presently white sails werespreading over its tranquil waters; marking theapproach of many from the other side, who,missing "the Prophet," Whom, with thecharacteristic enthusiasm of the inhabitants of thatdistrict, they would fain have made a king, nowfollowed Him across the water. There could be nodifficulty in "finding Him" in "His own city," thehome of Peter and Andrew (Mark 1:21,29). But noordinary dwelling would have held such aconcourse as now thronged around Him. So, weimagine, the multitude made their way towards thesynagogue. On the road, we suppose, the questionand answers passed, of which we have an accountin John 6:25-28. They had now reached theentrance to the synagogue; and the followingdiscourse was pronounced by the Lord in thesynagogue itself, as we are expressly told in verse59: "These things said He in the synagogue, as Hetaught in Capernaum." But what is so remarkableis, that the very lintel of this synagogue has beenfound, and that the device upon it bears such closereference to the question which the Hebrews put toYahoshua, that we can almost imagine thempointing up to it, as they entered the synagogue,

and said: "Our fathers did eat manna in the desert;as it is written, He gave them bread from heavento eat" (John 6:31). For, in the words of CanonWilliams, "The lintel lying among the ruins of thegood centurion's synagogue at Capernaum hascarved on it the device of the pot of manna. Whatis further remarkable, this lintel is ornamentedbesides with a flowing pattern of vine leaves andclusters of grapes, and another emblem of themystery of which our Lord discoursed so largelyin this synagogue."

Before parting from this most interestingsubject, we may place beside the Master, as itwere, the two representatives of His Church, aGentile and a Hebrew, both connected with thissynagogue. Of its builder, the good centurion,Canon Williams thus writes: "In what spirit thelarge-hearted Roman soldier had made hisoffering, the rich and elaborate carvings ofcornices and entablatures, of columns and capitals,and niches, still attest." As for the ruler of thatsame synagogue, we know that it was Jairus,whose cry of anguish and of faith broughtYahoshua to his house to speak the life-giving"Talitha cumi" over the one only daughter, justbursting into womanhood, who lay dead in thatchamber, while the crowd outside and the hiredminstrels made shrill, discordant mourning.

Thus far as to the external appearance ofsynagogues. Their internal arrangement appears tohave been originally upon the plan of the Temple,or, perhaps, even of the Tabernacle. At least, theoldest still standing synagogue, that of theCyrenian Hebrews, in the island of Gerbe, is,according to the description of a missionary, Dr.Ewald, tripartite, after the model of the Court, theHoly, and the Most Holy Place. And in allsynagogues the body of the building, with thespace around, set apart for women, represents theCourt of the Women, while the innermost andhighest place, with the Ark behind, containing therolls of the law, represents the sanctuary itself. Inturn the synagogue seems to have been adopted asthe model for the earliest Christian churches.Hence not only the structure of the "basilica," butthe very term "bema," is incorporated inRabbinical language. This is only what might havebeen expected, considering that the earliestChristians were Hebrews by nationality, and thatheathenism could offer no type for Christian

96

worship. To return. As concerned the worshippers,it was deemed wrong to pray behind a synagoguewithout turning the face to it; and a story is told(Ber. 6 b) of Elijah appearing in the form of anArab merchant, and punishing one guilty of thissin. "Thou standest before thy Master as if therewere two Powers [or Gods]," said the seemingArab; and with these words "he drew his swordand killed him." A still more curious ideaprevailed, that it was requisite to advance thelength of at least "two doors" within a synagoguebefore settling to prayer, which was justified by areference to Proverbs 8:34 (Ber. 8 a). Theinference is peculiar, but not more so, perhaps,than those of some modern critics, and certainlynot more strange than that of the Talmud itself,which, on a preceding page, when discussing theprecise duration of the wrath of the Almighty,concludes that Balaam had been the only personwho knew it exactly, since it is written of him(Num 24:16), that he "knew the thoughts of theMost High!" Another direction of the Talmud wasto leave the synagogue with slow steps, but tohasten to it as rapidly as possible, since it waswritten (Hosea 6:3, as the Rabbis arranged theverse), "Let us pursue to know Yahweh." RabbiSeira tells us how, at one time, he had beenscandalised by seeing the Rabbis running on theSabbath--when bodily rest was enjoined--to attenda sermon; but that, when he understood howHosea 11:10 applied to the teaching of theHalachah, he himself joined in their race. And soRabbi Seira, as it seems to us, somewhatcaustically concludes: "The reward of a discourseis the haste" with which people run to it--nomatter, it would appear, whether they get in tohear it, or whether there is anything in thediscourse worth the hearing.

As a rule, synagogues were built at theexpense of the congregation, though perhapsassisted by richer neighbours. Sometimes, as weknow, they were erected at the cost of privateindividuals, which was supposed to involvespecial merit. In other cases, more particularlywhen the number of Hebrews was small, a largeroom in a private house was set apart for thepurpose. This also passed into the early Church, aswe gather from Acts 2:46, 5:42. Accordingly weunderstand the apostolic expression, "Church inthe house" (Rom 16:3,5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15;

Phile 2), as implying that in all these and otherinstances a room in a private house had been setapart, in which the Christians regularly assembledfor their worship. Synagogues were consecratedby prayer, although, even thus, the ceremony wasnot deemed completed till after the ordinaryprayers had been offered by some one, though itwere a passing stranger. Rules of decorum,analogous to those enforced in the Temple, wereenjoined on those who attended the synagogue.Decency and cleanliness in dress, quietness andreverence in demeanour, are prescribed withalmost wearisome details and distinctions. Moneycollections were only to be made for the poor orfor the redemption of captives. If the buildingwere in a dangerous condition, the synagoguemight be broken down, provided another werebuilt as rapidly as possible in its place. But evenso, the sanctity of their place remained, andsynagogue-ruins might not be converted intomourning places, nor used as thoroughfares, normight ropes be hung up in them, nor nets spread,nor fruits laid out for drying. The principle ofsanctity applied, of course, to all analogous uses towhich such ruins might have been put. Moneycollected for building a synagogue might, ifabsolute necessity arose, be employed by thecongregation for other purposes; but if stones,beams, etc., had been purchased for the building,these could not be resold, but were regarded asdedicated. A town synagogue was consideredabsolutely inalienable; those in villages might bedisposed of under the direction of the localSanhedrim, provided the locale were notafterwards to be used as a public bath, a wash-house, a tannery, or a pool. The money realisedwas to be devoted to something more sacred thanthe mere stone and mortar of a synagogue--say,the ark in which the copies of the law were kept.Different from synagogues, though devoted tokindred purposes, were the so-called "oratories" or"places where prayer was wont to be made" (Acts16:13). These were generally placed outside townsand in the vicinity of running water or of the sea(Josephus, Ant. xiv, 256-258), for the purpose ofthe customary lustrations connected with prayer(Philo ii. 535).

The separation of the sexes, which wasobserved even in the Temple at the time of Christ,was strictly carried out in the synagogues, such

97

division being made effectual by a partition,boarded off and provided with gratings, to whichthere was separate access. The practice seemssimply in accordance with Eastern manners andmodes of thinking. But the Rabbis, who seekScripture authority for every arrangement,however trivial, find in this case their warrant inZechariah 12:11-14, where "the wives" are no lessthan five times spoken of as "apart," whileengaged in their prayerful mourning. Thesynagogue was so placed that, on entering it, theworshippers would face towards Jerusalem--mere"orientation," as it is now called, having nomeaning in Hebrew worship. Beyond the middleof the synagogue rose the platform or "bima," as itwas anciently, or "almmeor," as it is presentlynamed. Those who were called up to it for readingascended by the side nearest, and descended bythat most remote from their seats in thesynagogue. On this "bima" stood the pulpit, orrather lectern, the "migdal ez," "wooden tower" ofNehemiah 8:4, whence the prescribed portions ofthe law and of the prophets were read, andaddresses delivered. The reader stood; thepreacher sat. Thus we find (Luke 4:20) that, afterreading a portion from the prophet Isaiah, ourLord "closed the book, and He gave it again to theminister, and sat down," before delivering Hisdiscourse in the synagogue of Nazareth. Prayeralso was offered standing, although in the Templethe worshippers prostrated themselves, a practicestill continued in certain of the most solemnlitanies. The pulpit or lectern--"migdal" (tower),"chisse" and "churseja" (chair or throne), or"pergulah" (the Latin "pergula," probablyelevation)--stood in the middle of the "bima," andin front of "the ark." The latter, which occupiedthe innermost place in the synagogue, as alreadynoticed, corresponded to the Most Holy Place inthe Temple, and formed the most important part. Itwas called the "aron" (ark), the "tevah," or"tevutha" (chest, like that in which Noah andMoses were saved), or the "hechal" (little temple).In reality, it consisted of a press or chest, in whichthe rolls of the law were deposited. This "ark" wasmade movable (Taan. ii. 1,2), so as to lift out onoccasions of public fasting and prayer, in order tohave it placed in the street or market-place wherethe people gathered. Sometimes there was also asecond press for the rolls of the prophets, in which

the disused or damaged rolls of the law werelikewise deposited. In front of the ark hung the"vilon" ("velum," veil), in imitation of that beforethe Holy Place. Above it was suspended the "nerolam," or ever-burning lamp, and near to it stoodthe eight-branched candlestick, lit during the eightdays of the feast of the dedication of the Temple(John 10:22), or Candlemas. The practice oflighting candles and lamps, not merely for use, butin honour of the day or feast, is not unknown inthe synagogues. Of course, in regard to this, as toother practices, it is impossible to determine whatwas the exact custom at the time of our Lord,although the reader may be able to infer howmuch and what special practices may have beengradually introduced. It would lead beyond ourpresent scope to describe the various directions tobe observed in copying out the synagogue-rolls,which embodied the five books of Moses, or todetail what would render them unfit for use. Noless than twenty such causes are mentioned by theRabbis. At present the vellum, on which thePentateuch is written, is affixed to two rollers, andas each portion of the law is read it is unrolledfrom the right, and rolled on to the left roller. Theroll itself was fastened together by linen wrappersor cloths ("mitpachoth"), and then placed in a"case" ("tik," the Greek "theke"). All these articlesare already mentioned in the Mishnah. Laterpractices need not here occupy our attention.Lastly, it should be noted, that at first the peopleprobably stood in the synagogues or sat on theground. But as the services became moreprotracted, sitting accommodation had to beprovided. The congregation sat facing the ark. Onthe other hand, "the rulers of the synagogue,"Rabbis, distinguished Pharisees, and others, whosought honour of men, claimed "the chief seats,"which were placed with their backs to the ark, andfacing the worshippers. These seats, which bearthe same name as in the New Covenant, weremade objects of special ambition (Matt 23:6), andrank, dignity, or seniority entitled a Rabbi or otherinfluential man to priority. Our Lord expresslyrefers to this (Matt 23:6) as one of thecharacteristic manifestations of Pharisaical pride.That both the same spirit and practice had creptinto some of the early churches, appears from thewarning of St. James (James 2:2,3) against an un-Christ-like "respect of persons," which would

98

assign a place high up in "synagogues" ofChristians to the mere possession of "goodlyapparel" or the wearing of the "gold ring."

Hitherto we have chiefly described theoutward arrangements of the synagogues. It willnow be necessary, however rapidly in this place,to sketch their various uses, their worship, andtheir officials, most of which are also referred to invarious parts of the New Covenant.

Chapter 17The Worship of the Synagogue

One of the most difficult questions inHebrew history is that connected with theexistence of a synagogue within the Temple. Thatsuch a "synagogue" existed, and that its meeting-place was in "the hall of hewn stones," at thesouth-eastern angle of the court of the priest,cannot be called in question, in face of the cleartestimony of contemporary witnesses. Consideringthat "the hall of hew stones" was also the meeting-place for the great Sanhedrim, and that not onlylegal decisions, but lectures and theologicaldiscussions formed part of their occupation, wemight be tempted to conjecture that the term"synagogue" had been employed in its widersense, since such buildings were generally usedthroughout the country for this two-fold purposeas well as for worship. Of theological lectures anddiscussions in the Temple, we have an instance onthe occasion when our Lord was found by Hisparents "sitting in the midst of the doctors, bothhearing them, and asking them questions" (Luke2:46). And it can scarcely be doubted, that thisalso explains how the scribes and Pharisees couldso frequently "come upon Him," while He taughtin the Temple, with their difficult and entanglingquestions, up to that rejoinder about the nature ofthe Messiah, with which He finally silenced them:"If David then call Him Lord, how is He his Son?"(Matt 22:45). But in reference to the so-called"Temple-synagogue," there is this difficulty, thatcertain prayers and rites seem to have beenconnected with it, which formed no part of theregular Temple services, and yet were somehowengrafted upon them. We can therefore onlyconclude that the growing change in the

theological views of Israel, before and about thetime of Christ, made the Temple services aloneappear insufficient. The symbolical and typicalelements which constituted the life and centre ofTemple worship had lost their spiritual meaningand attraction to the majority of that generation,and their place was becoming occupied by so-called teaching and outward performances. Thusthe worship of the letter took the place of that ofthe spirit, and Israel was preparing to reject Christfor Pharisaism. The synagogue was substituted forthe Temple, and overshadowed it, even within itswalls, by an incongruous mixture of man-devisedworship with the Yahweh-ordained typical rites ofthe sanctuary. Thus, so far from the "Temple-synagogue" being the model for those throughoutthe country, as some writers maintain, it seems tous of later origin, and to have borrowed many ritesfrom the country synagogues, in which the peoplehad become accustomed to them.

The subject has a far deeper than merelyhistorical interest. For the presence of a synagoguewithin the Temple, or rather, as we prefer to put it,the addition of synagogue-worship to that of theTemple, is sadly symbolical. It is, so to speak, oneof those terribly significant utterances (by deed),in which Israel, all unconsciously, pronounced itsown doom, just as was this: "His blood be upon usand our children," or the cry for the release ofBarabbas (the son of the father), who had beencondemned "for sedition" and "murder"--no doubtin connection with a pseudo-Messianic risingagainst the Roman power--instead of the true Sonof the Father, who would indeed have "restoredthe kingdom to Israel." And yet there was nothingin the worship itself of the synagogue which couldhave prevented either the Lord, or His apostlesand early followers, from attending it till the timeof final separation had come. Readers of the NewCovenant know what precious opportunities itoffered for making known the Gospel. Its serviceswere, indeed, singularly elastic. For the mainobject of the synagogue was the teaching of thepeople. The very idea of its institution, before andat the time of Ezra, explains and conveys this, andit is confirmed by the testimony of Josephus (Ag.Apion, ii, 157-172). But perhaps the ordinaryreader of the New Covenant may have failed tonotice, how prominently this element in thesynagogue is brought out in the gospel history.

99

Yet the word "teaching" is used so frequently inconnection with our Lord's appearance in thesynagogue, that its lesson is obvious (see Matt4:23; Mark 1:21, 6:2; Luke 4:15, 6:6, 13:10; John6:59, 18:20). The "teaching" part of the serviceconsisted mainly in reading a section from thelaw, with which the reading of a portion from theprophets, and a sermon, or address, wereconjoined. Of course, the liturgical element couldin such services never have been quite wanting,and it soon acquired considerable importance. Itconsisted of prayer and the pronouncing of theAaronic blessing (Num 6:24-26) by priests--thatis, of course, not by Rabbis, who were merelyteachers or doctors, but by lineal descendants ofthe house of Aaron. There was no service of"praise" in the synagogues.

Public worship62 commenced on ordinaryoccasions with the so-called "Shema," which waspreceded in the morning and evening by two"benedictions," and succeeded in the morning byone, and in the evening by two, benedictions; thesecond being, strictly speaking, an evening prayer.

The "Shema" was a kind of "belief," or"creed," composed of these three passages ofScripture: Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21; Numbers15:37-41. It obtained its name from the initialword "shema": "Hear, O Israel," in Deuteronomy6:4. From the Mishnah (Ber. 1. 3) we learn, thatthis part of the service existed already before thetime of our Lord; and we are told (Ber. iii. 3), thatall males were bound to repeat this belief twiceevery day; children and slaves, as well as women,being exempted from the obligation. There can beno reasonable doubt on the subject, as theMishnah expressly mentions the three Scripturalsections of the "Shema," the number ofbenedictions before and after it, and even theinitial words of the closing benediction (Ber. ii. 2,i. 4; Tamid, v. 1). We have, therefore, here certainprayers which our Lord Himself had not onlyheard, but in which He must have shared--to whatextent will appear in the sequel. These prayers stillexist in the synagogue, although with lateradditions, which, happily, it is not difficult toeliminate. Before transcribing them, it may be

62 Our description here applies to the worship of the ancient, not ofthe modern synagogue; and we have thought it best to confineourselves to the testimony of the Mishnah, so as to avoid the dangerof bringing in practices of a later date.

quoted as a mark of the value attached to them,that it was lawful to say this and the other dailyprayers--to which we shall hereafter refer--and the"grace at meat," not only in the Hebrew, but in anyother language, in order to secure a generalunderstanding of the service (Sotah, vii. 1). At thesame time, expressions are used which lead us tosuppose that, while the liturgical formulaeconnected with the "Shema" were fixed, therewere local variations, in the way of lengthening orshortening (Ber. i. 4). The following are the"benedictions" before the "Shema," in theiroriginal form:

1. "Blessed be Thou, O Yahweh, King of theworld, Who formest the light and createst thedarkness, Who makest peace and createsteverything; Who, in mercy, givest light to theearth and to those who dwell upon it, and in Thygoodness day by day and every day renewest theworks of creation. Blessed be Yahweh our God forthe glory of His handiwork and for the light-givinglights which He has made for His praise. Selah!Blessed be Yahweh our God, Who hath formedthe lights."63

2. "With great love hast Thou loved us, OYahweh our God, and with much overflowing pityhast Thou pitied us, our Father and our King. Forthe sake of our fathers who trusted in Thee, andThou taughtest them the statutes of life, havemercy upon us and teach us. Enlighten our eyes inThy law; cause our hearts to cleave to Thycommandments; unite our hearts to love and fearThy name, and we shall not be put to shame,world without end. For Thou art a God Whopreparest salvation, and us hast Thou chosen fromamong all nations and tongues, and hast in truthbrought us near to Thy great Name--Selah--thatwe may lovingly praise Thee and Thy Oneness.Blessed be Yahweh Who in love chose His peopleIsrael."

After this followed the "Shema." The Mishnahgives the following beautiful explanation of theorder in which the portions of Scripture of whichit is composed are arranged (Ber. ii. 2). Thesection Deuteronomy 6:4-9 is said to precede thatin 11:13-21, so that we might "take upon ourselves

63 * This "benediction," while acknowledging the Creator, has suchfrequent reference to Yahweh in connection with the "lights," that itreads like a confession of Israel against the idolatries of Babylon.This circumstance may help to fix the time of its origination.

100

the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, and only afterthat the yoke of the commandments." Again:Deuteronomy 11:13-21 precedes Numbers 15:37-41, because the former applies, as it were, bothnight and day; the latter only by day. The readercannot fail to observe the light cast by the teachingof the Mishnah upon the gracious invitation of ourLord: "Come unto Me, all ye that labour and areheavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take Myyoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meekand lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto yoursouls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden islight" (Matt 11:28-30). These words must indeedhave had a special significance to those whoremembered the Rabbinic lesson as to the relationbetween the kingdom of heaven and thecommandments, and they would now understandhow by coming to the Saviour they would firsttake upon them "the yoke of the kingdom ofheaven," and then that of "the commandments,"finding this "yoke easy" and the "burden light."The prayer after the "Shema" was as follows:64

"True it is, that Thou art Yahweh our Godand the God of our fathers, our King and the Kingof our fathers, our Saviour and the Saviour of ourfathers, our Creator, the Rock of our salvation, ourHelp and our Deliverer. Thy Name is fromeverlasting, and there is no God beside Thee. Anew song did they that were delivered sing to ThyName by the seashore; together did all praise andown Thee King, and say, Yahweh shall reignworld without end! Blessed be Yahweh Whosaveth Israel!"

The anti-Sadducean views expressed inthis prayer will strike the student of that period,while he will also be much impressed with itssuitableness and beauty. The special prayer for theevening is of not quite so old a date as the threejust quoted. But as it is referred to in the Mishnah,and is so apt and simple, we reproduce it, asfollows:

"O Yahweh our God! cause us to lie downin peace, and raise us up again to life, O our King!Spread over us the tabernacle of Thy peace;strengthen us before Thee in Thy good counsel,and deliver us for Thy Name's sake. Be Thou forprotection round about us; keep far from us the

64 In the form here given it is older than even the prayer referred toin the Mishnah (Ber. ii. 2).

enemy, the pestilence, the sword, famine, andaffliction. Keep Satan from before and frombehind us, and hide us in the shadow of Thywings, for Thou art a God Who helpest anddeliverest us; and Thou, O Yahweh, art a graciousand merciful King. Keep Thou our going out andour coming in, for life and for peace, fromhenceforth and for ever!" (To this prayer a furtheraddition was made at a later period.)

The "Shema" and its accompanying"benedictions" seem to have been said in thesynagogue at the lectern; whereas for the nextseries of prayers the leader of the devotions wentforward and stood before "the ark." Hence theexpression, "to go up before the ark," for leadingin prayer. This difference in position seemsimplied in many passages of the Mishnah(specially Megillah, iv.), which makes adistinction between saying the "Shema" and"going up before the ark." The prayers offeredbefore the ark consisted of the so-called eighteeneulogies, or benedictions, and formed the"tephillah," or supplication, in the strictest sense ofthe term. These eighteen, or rather, as they arenow, nineteen, eulogies are of various dates--theearliest being the first three and the last three.There can be no reasonable doubt that these weresaid at worship in the synagogues, when our Lordwas present. Next in date are eulogies 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,and 16. Eulogy 7, which in its present positionseems somewhat incongruous, dates from a periodof great national calamity--perhaps the time ofPompey. The other eulogies, and some insertionsin the older benedictions, were added after the fallof the Hebrew commonwealth--eulogy 12especially being intended against the early Hebrewconverts to Christianity. In all likelihood it hadbeen the practice originally to insert prayers ofprivate composition between the (present) firstthree and last three eulogies; and out of these thelater eulogies were gradually formulated. At anyrate, we know that on Sabbaths and on otherfestive occasions only the first three and the lastthree eulogies were repeated, other petitions beinginserted between them. There was thus room forthe endless repetitions and "long prayers" whichthe Saviour condemned (Mark 12:40; Luke20:47). Besides, it must be borne in mind that,both on entering and leaving the synagogue, it wascustomary to offer prayer, and that it was a current

101

Rabbinical saying, "Prolix prayer prolongeth life."But as we are sure that, on the Sabbaths when OurLord attended the synagogues at Nazareth andCapernaum, the first three and the last three of theeulogies were repeated, we produce them here, asfollows:

1. "Blessed be Yahweh our God and theGod of our fathers, the God of Abraham, the Godof Isaac, and the God of Jacob; the great, themighty, and the terrible God; the Most HighYahweh, Who showeth mercy and kindness, Whocreateth all things, Who remembereth the graciouspromises to the fathers, and bringeth a Saviour totheir children's children, for His own Name's sake,in love. O King, Helper, Saviour, and Shield!Blessed art Thou, O Yahweh, the Shield ofAbraham."

2. "Thou, O Yahweh, art mighty for ever;Thou, Who quickenest the dead, art mighty tosave. In Thy mercy Thou preservest the living;Thou quickenest the dead; in Thine abundant pityThou bearest up those who fall, and healest thosewho are diseased, and loosest those who arebound, and fulfillest Thy faithful word to thosewho sleep in the dust. Who is like unto Thee, Lordof strength, and who can be compared to Thee,Who killest and makest alive, and causestsalvation to spring forth? And faithful art Thou togive life unto the dead. Blessed be Thou, Yahweh,Who quickenest the dead!"

3. "Thou art holy, and Thy Name is holy;and the holy ones praise Thee every day. Selah!Blessed art Thou, Adonay Yahweh, the HolyOne!"

It is impossible not to feel the solemnity ofthese prayers. They breathe the deepest hopes ofIsrael in simple, Scriptural language. But who canfully realise their sacred import as uttered not onlyin the Presence, but by the very lips of the LordYahoshua Christ, Who Himself was their answer?The three concluding eulogies were as follows:

17. "Take gracious pleasure, O Yahwehour God, in Thy people Israel, and in their prayers.Accept the burnt-offerings of Israel, and theirprayers, with thy good pleasure; and may theservices of Thy people Israel be ever acceptableunto Thee. And oh that our eyes may see it, asThou turnest in mercy to Zion! Blessed be Thou,O Yahweh, Who restoreth His Shechinah toZion!"

18. "We praise Thee, because Thou artYahweh our God, and the God of our fathers, forever and ever. Thou art the Rock of our life, theShield of our salvation, from generation togeneration. We laud Thee, and declare Thy praisefor our lives which are kept within Thine hand,and for our souls which are committed unto Thee,and for Thy wonders which are with us every day,and Thy wondrous deeds and Thy goodnesses,which are at all seasons--evening, morning, andmid-day. Thou gracious One, Whose compassionsnever end; Thou pitying One, Whose grace neverceaseth--for ever do we put our trust in Thee! Andfor all this Thy Name, O our King, be blessed andextolled always, for ever and ever! And all livingbless Thee--Selah--and praise Thy Name in truth,O Yahweh, our Salvation and our Help. Blessedart Thou, Yahweh; Thy Name is the gracious One,to Whom praise is due."

19. (We give this eulogy in its shorterform, as it is at present used in evening prayer.)"Oh bestow on Thy people Israel great peace, forever; for Thou art King and Lord of all peace, andit is good in Thine eyes to bless Thy people Israelwith praise at all times and in every hour. Blessedart Thou, Yahweh, Who blesseth His people Israelwith peace."

Another act, hitherto, so far as we know,unnoticed, requires here to be mentioned. Itinvests the prayers just quoted with a new andalmost unparalleled interest. According to theMishnah (Megillah, iv. 5), the person who read inthe synagogue the portion from the prophets wasalso expected to say the "Shema," and to offer theprayers, which have just been quoted. It followsthat, in all likelihood, our Lord Himself had ledthe devotions in the synagogue of Capernaum onthat Sabbath when He read the portion from theprophecies of Isaiah which was that day "fulfilledin their hearing" (Luke 4:16-21). Nor is it possibleto withstand the impression, how speciallysuitable to the occasion would have been thewords of these prayers, particularly those ofeulogies 2 and 17.

The prayers were conducted or repeated aloudby one individual, specially deputed for theoccasion, the congregation responding by an"Amen." The liturgical service concluded with thepriestly benediction (Num 6:23,24), spoken by thedescendants of Aaron. In case none such were

102

present, "the legate of the Church," as the leader ofthe devotions was called, repeated the words fromthe Scriptures in their connection. In giving thebenediction, the priests elevated their hands up tothe shoulders (Sotah, vii. 6); in the Temple, up tothe forehead. Hence this rite is designated by theexpression, "the lifting up of the hands."65

According to the present practice, the fingersof the two hands are so joined together andseparated as to form five interstices; and a mysticmeaning attaches to this. It was a later superstitionto forbid looking at the priests' hands, as involvingphysical danger. But the Mishnah already directsthat priests having blemishes on their hands, ortheir fingers dyed, were not to pronounce thebenediction, lest the attention of the people shouldbe attracted. Of the attitude to be observed inprayer, this is perhaps scarcely the place to speakin detail. Suffice it, that the body was to be fullybent, yet so, that care was taken never to make itappear as if the service had been burdensome. Oneof the Rabbis tells us, that, with this object inview, he bent down as does a branch; while, inlifting himself up again, he did it like a serpent--beginning with the head! Any one deputed by therulers of a congregation might say prayers, excepta minor. This, however, applies only to the"Shema." The eulogies or "tephillah" proper, aswell as the priestly benediction, could not bepronounced by those who were not properlyclothed, nor by those who were so blind as not tobe able to discern daylight. If any one introducedinto the prayers heretical views, or what wereregarded as such, he was immediately stopped;and, if any impropriety had been committed, wasput under the ban for a week. One of the mostinteresting and difficult questions relates to certainmodes of dress and appearance, and certainexpressions used in prayer, which the Mishnah(Megillah, iv. 8,9) declares either to mark heresyor to indicate that a man was not to be allowed tolead prayers in the synagogue. It may be, thatsome of these statements refer not only to certainHebrew "heretics," but also to the early HebrewChristians. If so, they may indicate certain

65 The apostle may have had this in his mind when, in directing theorder of public ministration, he spoke of "the men...lifting up holyhands, without wrath or doubting" (1 Tim 2:8). At any rate, theexpression is precisely the same as that used by the Rabbis.

peculiarities with which they were popularlycredited.

Of the services hitherto noticed, the mostimportant were the repetition of the eulogies andthe priestly benediction. What now followed wasregarded as quite as solemn, if, indeed, not moreso. It has already been pointed out, that the mainobject of the synagogue was the teaching of thepeople. This was specially accomplished by thereading of the law. At present the Pentateuch is forthis purpose arranged into fifty-four sections, ofwhich one is read on each successive Sabbath ofthe year, beginning immediately after the feast ofTabernacles. But anciently the lectionary, at leastin Palestine, seems to have been differentlyarranged, and the Pentateuch so divided that itsreading occupied three, or, according to some,three and a-half years (half a Jubilee-period). Thesection for the day was subdivided, so that everySabbath at least seven persons were called up toread, each a portion, which was to consist of notless than three verses. The first reader began, andthe last closed, with a benediction. As the Hebrewhad given place to the Aramaic, a "meturgeman,"or interpreter, stood by the side of the reader, andtranslated verse by verse into the vernacular. Itwas customary to have service in the synagogues,not only on Sabbaths and feast-days, but also onthe second and fifth days of the week (Mondayand Thursday), when the country-people came tomarket, and when the local Sanhedrim also sat forthe adjudication of minor causes. At such week-day services only three persons were called up toread in the law; on new moon's day and on theintermediate days of a festive week, four; onfestive days--when a section from the prophetswas also read--five; and on the day of atonement,six. Even a minor was allowed to read, and, ifqualified, to act as "meturgeman." The sectiondescribing the sin of Reuben, and that giving asecond account of the sin of the golden calf, wereread, but not interpreted; those recounting thepriestly blessing, and, again, the sin of David andof Amnon, were neither read nor interpreted. Thereading of the law was followed by a lesson fromthe prophets. At present there is a regularlectionary, in which these lessons are so selectedas to suit the sections from the law appointed forthe day. This arrangement has been traced to thetime of the Syrian persecutions, when all copies of

103

the law were sought for and destroyed; and theHebrew authorities are supposed to have selectedportions from the prophets to replace those fromthe law which might not be produced in public.But it is evident that, if these persecuting measureshad been rigidly enforced, the sacred rolls of theprophets would not have escaped destruction anymore than those of the law. Besides, it is quitecertain that such a lectionary of the prophets asthat presently in use did not exist at the time of ourLord, nor even when the Mishnah was collated.Considerable liberty seems to have been left toindividuals; and the expression used by St. Lukein reference to our Lord in the synagogue atCapernaum (Luke 4:17), "And when He hadopened the book, He found the place where it waswritten," most accurately describes the state ofmatters. For, from Megillah iv. 4, we gather that,in reading from the prophets, it was lawful to passover one or more verses, provided there were nopause between the reading and the translation ofthe "meturgeman." For here also the services of a"meturgeman" were employed; only that he didnot, as in reading the law, translate verse by verse,but after every three verses. It is a remarkable factthat the Rabbis exclude from public reading thesection in the prophecies of Ezekiel whichdescribes "the chariot and wheels." Rabbi Elieserwould also have excluded that in Ezekiel 16:2.

The reading of the prophets was oftenfollowed by a sermon or address, with which theservice concluded. The preacher was called"darshan," and his address a "derashah" (homily,sermon, from "darash," to ask, inquire, or discuss).When the address was a learned theologicaldiscussion--especially in academies--it was notdelivered to the people directly, but whispered intothe ear of an "amora," or speaker, who explainedto the multitude in popular language the weightysayings which the Rabbi had brieflycommunicated to him. A more popular sermon, onthe other hand, was called a "meamar," literally, a"speech, or talk." These addresses would be eitherRabbinical expositions of Scripture, or elsedoctrinal discussions, in which appeal would bemade to tradition and to the authority of certaingreat teachers. For it was laid down as a principle(Eduj. i. 3), that "every one is bound to teach inthe very language of his teacher." In view of thistwo-fold fact, we can in some measure understand

the deep impression which the words of our Lordproduced, even on those who remainedpermanently uninfluenced by them. The substanceof His addresses was far other than they had everheard of, or conceived possible. It seemed as ifthey opened quite a new world of thought, hope,duty, and comfort. No wonder that even incontemptuous Capernaum "all bare Him witness,and wondered at the gracious words whichproceeded out of His mouth"; and that the veryTemple-guard sent to make Him prisoner wereoverawed, and before the council could only givethis account of their strange negligence: "Neverman spake like this man" (John 7:46). Similarly,the form also of His teaching was so differentfrom the constant appeal of the Rabbis to meretradition; it seemed all to come so quite fresh anddirect from heaven, like the living waters of theholy spirit, that "the people were astonished at Hisdoctrine: for He taught them as one havingauthority, and not as the scribes" (Matt 7:28,29).

Chapter 18Brief Outline of Ancient

Hebrew Theological Literature

The arrangements of the synagogue, ashitherto described, combined in a remarkablemanner fixedness of order with liberty of theindividual. Alike the seasons and the time ofpublic services, their order, the prayers to beoffered, and the portions of the law to be readwere fixed. On the other hand, between theeighteen "benedictions" said on ordinary days, andthe seven repeated on the Sabbaths, free prayermight be inserted; the selection from the prophets,with which the public reading concluded--the"Haphtarah" (from "patar," to "conclude")--seemsto have been originally left to individual choice;while the determination who was to read, or toconduct the prayers, or to address the people, wasin the hands of the "rulers of the synagogue" (Acts13:15). The latter, who were probably also themembers of the local Sanhedrim, had naturallycharge of the conduct of public worship, as well asof the government and discipline of thesynagogues. They were men learned in the law

104

and of good repute, whom the popular voicedesignated, but who were regularly set apart by"the laying on of hands," or the "Semichah,"which was done by at least three, who hadthemselves received ordination, upon which thecandidate had the formal title of Rabbi bestowedon him, and was declared qualified to administerthe law (Sanh. 13 b). The Divine Majesty wassupposed to be in the midst of each Sanhedrim, onaccount of which even that consisting of onlythree members might be designated as "Elohim."Perhaps this may have been said in explanationand application of Psalm 82:6: "I have said, Ye areElohim; and all of you children of the Most High."The special qualifications for the office ofSanhedrist, mentioned in Rabbinical writings, aresuch as to remind us of the directions of St. Paul toTimothy (1 Tim 3:1-10). A member of theSanhedrim must be wise, modest, Yahweh-fearing, truthful, not greedy of filthy lucre, givento hospitality, kindly, not a gambler, nor a usurer,nor one who traded in the produce of Sabbaticalyears, nor yet one who indulged in unlawfulgames (Sanh. iii. 3). They were called "Sekenim,""elders" (Luke 7:3), "Memunim," "rulers" (Mark5:22), "Parnasin," "feeders, overseers, shepherdsof the flock" (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2), and"Manhigei," "guides" (Heb 13:7). They wereunder the presidency and supreme rule of an"Archisynagogos," or "Rosh-ha-Cheneseth," "headof the synagogue" (Yom. vii. 1; Sot. vii. 7), whosometimes seems to have even exercised soleauthority. The designation occurs frequently in theNew Covenant (Matt 9:18; Mark 5:35,36,38; Luke8:41,49, 13:14; Acts 18:8,17). The inferiorfunctions in the synagogue devolved on the"chassan," or "minister" (Luke 4:20). In course oftime, however, the "chassanim" combined withtheir original duties the office of schoolmaster;and at present they lead both the singing and thedevotions of the synagogue. This duty originallydevolved not on any fixed person, but whoeverwas chosen might for the time being act as"Sheliach Zibbur," or "legate of the congregation."Most modern writers have imagined, that theexpression "angel of the Church," in the epistles tothe seven churches in the book of Revelation, wasused in allusion to this ancient arrangement of thesynagogue. But the fact that the "Sheliach Zibbur"represented not an office but a function, renders

this view untenable. Besides, in that case, thecorresponding Greek expression would ratherhave been "apostle" than "angel of the Church."Possibly, however, the writer of the Epistle to theHebrews may refer to it, when he designates theLord Yahoshua "the Apostle and High-Priest ofour profession" (Heb 3:1). Besides thesefunctionaries, we also read of "Gabaei Zedakah,"or collectors of charity, to whom the Talmud (B.Bathra, 8 b) by a jeu de mots66 applies the promisethat they "shall be as the stars for ever and ever"(Dan 12:3), since they lead many to"righteousness."

Alms were collected at regular times everyweek, either in money or in victuals. At least twowere employed in collecting, and three indistributing charity, so as to avoid the suspicion ofdishonesty or partiality. These collectors ofcharity, who required to be "men of good repute,and faithful," are thought by many to have beenthe model for the institution of the Diaconate inthe early Church. But the analogy scarcely holdsgood; nor, indeed, were such collectors employedin every synagogue.

In describing the conduct of public worship inthe synagogues, reference was made to the"meturgeman," who translated into the vernaculardialect what was read out of the HebrewScriptures, and also to the "darshan," whoexpounded the Scriptures or else the traditionallaw in an address, delivered after the reading ofthe "Haphtarah," or section from the prophets.These two terms will have suggested names whichoften occur in writings on Hebrew subjects, andmay fitly lead to some remarks on Hebrewtheology at the time of our Lord. Now the work ofthe "meturgeman"67 was perpetuated in theTargum, and that of the "darshan" in the Midrash.

Primarily the Targum, then, was intended as atranslation of the Hebrew Scriptures into thevernacular Aramaean. Of course, such translationsmight be either literal, or else more or lessparaphrastic. Every Targum would also naturallyrepresent the special views of the translator, andbe interesting as affording an insight into the ideasprevalent at the time, and the manner in whichScripture was understood. But some Targumim

66 * Zedakah means righteousness, but is also used for "charity."67 * Hence also the term "dragoman."

105

are much more paraphrastic than others, andindeed become a kind of commentary, showing usthe popular theology of the time. Strictly speaking,we have really no Targum dating from the time ofour Lord, nor even from the first century of ourera. There can be no doubt, however, that such aTargum did exist, although it has been lost. Still,the Targumim preserved to us, although collated,and having received their present form at laterperiods, contain very much that dates from theTemple-period, and even before that. Mentioningthem in the order of their comparative antiquity,we have the Targum of Onkelos, on the five booksof Moses; the Targum of Jonathan, on theprophets (inclusive of Joshua, Judges, and thebooks of Samuel and of the Kings); the so-called(or pseudo) Jonathan on the Pentateuch; and theJerusalem Targum, which is but a fragment.Probably the latter two were intended to besupplemental to the Targum Onkelos. Latecriticism has thrown doubt even on the existenceof such a person as Onkelos. Whoever may havebeen the author, this Targum, in its present form,dates probably from the third, that of Jonathan onthe prophets from the fourth century.

In some respects more interesting than theTargumim are the Midrashim, of which wepossess three, dating probably, in their presentform, from the first or second century of our era,but embodying many parts much older. These are--mentioning them again in the order of theirantiquity--"Siphra" (the book), a commentary onLeviticus; "Siphri," a commentary on Numbersand Deuteronomy; and "Mechiltha," acommentary on certain portions of Exodus. Butwe have even a monument more interesting thanthese, of the views of the ancient Pharisees, and oftheir Scriptural interpretations. Some of the fathersreferred to a work called "Lesser Genesis," or the"Book of Jubilees." This had been lost totheological literature, till again discovered withinthe present century, although not in the originalHebrew, nor even in its first or Greek translation,but in an Ethiopic rendering from the latter. Thework, which no doubt dates from the era of ourLord, covers the same ground as the first book ofMoses, whence the name of "Lesser Genesis." Itgives the Biblical narrative from the creation ofthe world to the institution of the Passover, in thespirit in which the Judaism of that period would

view it. The legendary additions, the Rabbinicalideas expressed, the interpretations furnished, arejust such as one would expect to find in such awork. One of the main objects of the writer seemsto have been the chronology of the book ofGenesis, which it is attempted to settle. All eventsare recorded according to Jubilee-periods of forty-nine years, whence the name "Book of Jubilees,"given to the work. These "Jubilees" are againarranged into "weeks," each of seven years (a dayfor a year); and events are classified as havingtaken place in a certain month of a certain year, ofa certain "week" of years, of a certain "Jubilee"-period. Another tendency of the book, which,however, it has in common with all similarproductions, is to trace up all later institutions tothe patriarchal period.68

Besides these works, another class oftheological literature has been preserved to us,around which of late much and most seriouscontroversy has gathered. Most readers, of course,know about the Apocrypha; but these works arecalled the "pseudo-epigraphic writings." Theirsubject-matter may be described as mainly dealingwith unfulfilled prophecy; and they are couched inlanguage and figures borrowed, among others,from the book of Daniel. In fact, they read likeattempts at imitating certain portions of thatprophecy--only that their scope is sometimeswider. This class of literature is larger than thosenot acquainted with the period might haveexpected. Yet when remembering the troubles ofthe time, the feverish expectations of a comingdeliverance, and the peculiar cast of mind andtraining of those who wrote them, they scarcelyseem more numerous, nor perhaps even moreextravagant, than a certain kind of propheticliterature, abundant among us not long ago, whichthe fear of Napoleon or other political events fromtime to time called forth. To that kind ofproduction, they seem, at least to us, to bear anessential likeness--only that, unlike the Western,the Oriental expounder of unfulfilled prophecyassumes rather the language of the prophet thanthat of the commentator, and clothes his views inmystic emblematic language. In general, this kind

68 * Although the "Book of Jubilees" seems most likely of Pharisaicauthorship, the views expressed in it are not always those of thePharisees. Thus the resurrection is denied, although the immortalityof the soul is maintained.

106

of literature may be arranged into Greek andHebrew--according as the writers were eitherEgyptian (Hellenistic) or Palestinian Hebrews.Considerable difficulty exists as to the precise dateof some of these writings--whether previous orsubsequent to the time of Christ. These difficultiesare, of course, increased when it is sought to fixthe precise period when each of them wascomposed. Still, late historical investigations haveled to much accord on general points. Withoutreferring to the use which opponents ofChristianity have of late attempted to make ofthese books, it may be safely asserted that theirproper study and interpretation will yet be madevery helpful, not only in casting light upon theperiod, but in showing the essential differencebetween the teaching of the men of that age andthat of the New Covenant. For each branch anddepartment of sacred study, the more carefully,diligently, and impartially it is pursued, affordsonly fresh testimony to that truth which is mostcertainly, and on the best and surest grounds,believed among us.

It were, however, a mistake to suppose thatthe Rabbinical views, extravagant as they so oftenare, were propounded quite independently ofScripture. On the contrary, every traditionalordinance, every Rabbinical institution, nay, everylegend and saying, is somehow foisted upon thetext of the Old Covenant. To explain this, even inthe briefest manner, it is necessary to state that, ingeneral, Hebrew traditionalism is distinguishedinto the "Halachah" and the "Haggadah." The"Halachah" (from "halach," to "walk") indicatesthe settled legal determinations, which constitutedthe "oral law," or "Thorah shebeal peh." Nothingcould here be altered, nor was any freedom left tothe individual teacher, save that of explanation andillustration. The object of the "Halachah" was tostate in detail, and to apply to all possible cases,the principles laid down in the law of Moses; asalso to surround it, as it were, with "a hedge," inorder to render every unwitting transgressionimpossible. The "Halachah" enjoyed not only thesame authority with the law of Moses, but, asbeing explanatory, in some respects was evenmore highly esteemed. Indeed, strictly speaking, itwas regarded as equally with the Pentateuch therevelation of Yahweh to Moses; only the form ormanner of revelation was regarded as different--

the one being committed to writing, the otherhanded down by word of mouth. According totradition, Moses explained the traditional lawsuccessively to Aaron, to his sons, to the seventyelders, and to the people--care being taken thateach class heard it four times (Maimonides'Preface to Seraim, 1 a). The Talmud itselfattempts to prove that the whole traditional law, aswell as the writings of the prophets and theHagiographa, had been communicated to Moses,by quoting Exodus 24:12: "I will give thee tablesof stone, and a law, and commandments which Ihave written; that thou mayest teach them." "The'tables of stone,'" argues Rabbi Levi (Ber. 5 1),"are the ten commandments; the 'law' is thewritten law (in the Pentateuch); the'commandments' are the Mishnah; 'which I havewritten,' refers to the prophets and theHagiographa; while the words, 'that thou mayestteach them,' point to the Gemara. From this welearn, that all this was given to Moses on Sinai."

If such was the "Halachah," it is not so easy todefine the limits of the "Haggadah." The term,which is derived from the verb "higgid," to"discuss," or "tell about," covers all that possessednot the authority of strict legal determinations. Itwas legend, or story, or moral, or exposition, ordiscussion, or application--in short, whatever thefancy or predilections of a teacher might choose tomake it, so that he could somehow connect iteither with Scripture or with a "Halachah." Forthis purpose some definite rules were necessary topreserve, if not from extravagance, at least fromutter absurdity. Originally there were four suchcanons for connecting the "Haggadah" withScripture. Contracting, after the favourite mannerof the Hebrews, the initial letters, these fourcanons were designated by the word "Pardes"(Paradise). They were--1. To ascertain the plainmeaning of a passage (the "Peshat"); 2. To takethe single letters of a word as an indication or hint("Remes") of other words, or even of wholesentences; 3. The "Derush," or practical expositionof a passage; and 4. To find out the "Sod"(mystery), or mystical meaning of a verse or word.These four canons were gradually enlarged intothirty-two rules, which gave free vent to everykind of fancifulness. Thus one of these rules--the"Gematria" (geometry, calculation)--allowed theinterpreter to find out the numerical value of the

107

letters in a word--the Hebrew letters, like theRoman, being also numerals--and to substitute fora word one or more which had the same numericalvalue. Thus, if in Numbers 12:1 we read thatMoses was married to an "Ethiopian woman" (inthe original, "Cushith"), Onkelos substitutesinstead of this, by "gematria," the words, "of fairappearance"--the numerical value both of Cushithand of the words "of fair appearance" beingequally 736. By this substitution the objectionableidea of Moses' marrying an Ethiopian was at thesame time removed. Similarly, the Mishnahmaintains that those who loved Yahweh were toinherit each 310 worlds, the numerical value of theword "substance" ("Yesh") in Proverbs 8:21 being310. On the other hand, the canons for thededuction of a "Halachah" from the text ofScripture were much more strict and logical.Seven such rules are ascribed to Hillel, whichwere afterwards enlarged to thirteen.69

Little objection can be taken to them; butunfortunately their practical application wasgenerally almost as fanciful, and certainly aserroneous, as in the case of the "Haggadah."

Probably most readers would wish to knowsomething more of those "traditions" to which ourLord so often referred in His teaching. We havehere to distinguish, in the first place, between theMishnah and the Gemara. The former was, so tospeak, the text, the latter its extended commentary.At the same time, the Mishnah contains also agood deal of commentary, and much that is noteither legal determination or the discussionthereof; while the Gemara, on the other hand, alsocontains what we would call "text." The wordMishna (from the verb "shanah") means"repetition"--the term referring to the supposedrepetition of the traditional law, which has beenabove described. The Gemara, as the very wordshows, means "discussion," and embodies thediscussions, opinions, and saying of the Rabbisupon, or a propos of, the Mishnah. Accordingly,the text of the Mishnah is always given in thepages of the Talmud, which reproduce thosediscussions thereon of the Hebrew Theological

69 * It would be beyond the scope of this volume to explain these"middoth," or "measurements," and to illustrate them by examples.Those who are interested in the matter are referred to the very fulldiscussion on Rabbinical exegesis in my History of the HebrewNation, pp. 570-580.

parliament or academy, which constitute theGemara. The authorities introduced in theMishnah and the Gemara range from about theyear 180 BC to 430 AD (in the Babylon Talmud).The Mishnah is, of course, the oldest work, anddates, in its present form and as a writtencompilation, from the close of the second centuryof our era. Its contents are chiefly "Halachah,"there being only one Tractate (Aboth) in whichthere is no "Halachah" at all, and another (on themeasurements of the Temple) in which it but veryrarely occurs. Yet these two Tractates are of thegreatest historical value and interest. On the otherhand, there are thirteen whole Tractates in theMishnah which have no "Haggadah" at all, andother twenty-two in which it is but of rareoccurrence. Very much of the Mishnah must belooked upon as dating before, and especially fromthe time of Christ, and its importance for theelucidation of the New Covenant is very great,though it requires to be most judiciously used. TheGemara, or book of discussions on the Mishnah,forms the two Talmuds--the Jerusalem and theBabylon Talmud. The former is so called becauseit is the product of the Palestinian academies; thelatter is that of the Babylonian school. Thecompletion of the Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud("Talmud" = doctrine, lore) dates from the middleof the fourth, that of the Babylonian from themiddle of the sixth century of our era. It needscarcely be said that the former is of much greaterhistorical value than the latter. Neither of thesetwo Gemaras, as we now possess them, is quitecomplete--that is, there are Tractates in theMishnah for which we have no Gemara, either inthe Jerusalem or in the Babylon Talmud. Lastly,the Babylon Talmud is more than four times thesize of that of Jerusalem. Obviously this is not theplace for giving even the briefest outline of thecontents of the Mishnah.70

Suffice it here to state that it consists of sixbooks ("sedarim," "orders"), which are subdividedinto Tractates ("Massichthoth"), and these againinto chapters ("Perakim"), and singledeterminations or traditions ("Mishnaioth"). Inquoting the Mishnah it is customary to mention

70 * In Appendix 1 we give as a specimen a translation of one of theMishnic Tractates; and in Appendix 2 translations of extracts fromthe Babylon Talmud.

108

not the Book (or "Seder") but the special Tractate,the Perek (or chapter), and the Mishnah. Thenames of these Tractates (not those of the books)give a sufficient idea of their contents, whichcover every conceivable, and well-nigh everyinconceivable case, with full discussions thereon.Altogether the Mishnah contains sixty-threeTractates, consisting of 525 chapters, and 4,187"Mishnaioth."

There is yet another branch of Hebrewtheology, which in some respects is the mostinteresting to the Christian student. There can beno doubt, that so early as the time of our Lord aseries of doctrines and speculations prevailedwhich were kept secret from the multitude, andeven from ordinary students, probably from fear ofleading them into heresy. This class of study bearsthe general name of the "Kabbalah," and, as eventhe term (from "kabal," to "receive," or "handdown") implies, represents the spiritual traditionshanded down from earliest times, although mixedup, in course of time, with many foreign andspurious elements. The "Kabbalah" grouped itselfchiefly around the history of the creation, and themystery of Yahweh's Presence and Kingdom inthe world, as symbolised in the vision of thechariot and of the wheels (Eze 1). Much that isfound in Cabbalistic writings approximates soclosely to the higher truths of Christianity, that,despite the errors, superstitions, and follies thatmingle with it, we cannot fail to recognise thecontinuance and the remains of those deeper factsof Divine revelation, which must have formed thesubstance of prophetic teaching under the OldCovenant, and have been understood, or at leasthoped for, by those who were under the guidanceof the Holy Spirit.

If now, at the close of these sketches ofHebrew life, we ask ourselves, what might havebeen expected as to the relation between Christand the men and the religion of His period, theanswer will not be difficult. Assuredly, in onerespect Christ could not have been a stranger toHis period, or else His teaching would have foundno response, and, indeed, have been whollyunintelligible to His contemporaries. Nor did Headdress them as strangers to the covenant, like theheathen. His was in every respect the continuation,the development, and the fulfilment of the OldCovenant. Only, He removed the superincumbent

load of traditionalism; He discarded theexternalism, the formalism, and the work-righteousness, which had well-nigh obliterated thespiritual truths of the Old Covenant, andsubstituted in their place the worship of the letter.The grand spiritual facts, which it embodied, Hebrought forward in all their brightness andmeaning; the typical teaching of that dispensationHe came to show forth and to fulfil; and itsprophecies He accomplished, alike for Israel andthe world. And so in Him all that was in the OldCovenant--of truth, way, and life--became "Yeaand Amen." Thus we can understand how, on theone hand, the Lord could avail Himself of everyspiritual element around, and adopt the sayings,parables, ideas, and customs of that period--indeed, must have done so, in order to be a trueman of the period,--and yet be so wholly not ofthat time as to be despised, rejected, and deliveredup unto death by the blind guides of His blindedfellow-countrymen. Had He entirely discarded theperiod in which He lived, had He not availedHimself of all in it that was true or might beuseful, He would not have been of it--not the trueman Christ Yahoshua. Had He followed it,identified Himself with its views and hopes, orheaded its movements, He would not have beenthe Christ, the Son of the living God, the promisedDeliverer from sin and guilt.

And so we can also perceive the reason ofthe essential enmity to Christ on the part of thePharisees and Scribes. It was not that He was anew and a strange Teacher; it was, that He cameas the Christ. Theirs was not an opposition ofteaching to His; it was a contrariety offundamental life-principles. "Light came into theworld, but men loved darkness rather than light."Closely related as the two were, the PharisaicalJudaism of that and of the present period is at theopposite pole from the religion of Christ--alike asregards the need of man, the purposes of Yahweh'slove, and the privileges of His children. There wasone truth which, we are reluctantly obliged toadmit, found, alas! scarcely any parallel in theteaching of Rabbinism: it was that of a sufferingMessiah. Hints indeed there were, as certainpassages in the prophecies of Isaiah could not bewholly ignored or misrepresented, even byRabbinical ingenuity, just as the doctrine ofvicarious suffering and substitution could not be

109

eliminated from the practical teaching of theconfession of sins over the sacrifices, when theworshipper day by day laid his hands upon, andtransferred to them his guilt. Yet Judaism, exceptin the case of the few, saw not in all this that towhich alone it could point as its real meaning:"The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin ofthe world."

And now, as century after century haspassed, and the gladsome Gospel message hasbeen carried from nation to nation, while Israel isstill left in the darkness of its unbelief and themisery of its mistaken hope, we seem to realisewith ever increasing force that "The people thatwalked in darkness have seen a great light: theythat dwell in the land of the shadow of death, uponthem hath the light shined." Yes: "unto us a Childis born, unto us a Son is given: and thegovernment shall be upon His shoulder: and HisName shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Themighty El, The Everlasting Father, The Prince ofPeace" (Isa 9:2,6). For assuredly, "Yahweh hathnot cast away His people which He foreknew."But "all Israel shall be saved: as it is written,There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, andshall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" (Rom11:2,26). "Watchman, what of the night?Watchman, what of the night? The watchman said,The morning cometh, and also the night" (Isa21:11,12).