Chapter XXXVIII: Section X: The Last Efforts Before Pilate (2)

“It is indeed objected, that it was not customary among the Jews to
trace back descent through the female line, that is, on the mother’s
side. There are, however, examples to show that this was sometimes
done; and in the case of Jesus, as we have seen, there was a
sufficient reason for it. Thus in 1 Chr. 2, 22, Jair is enumerated
among the posterity of Judah by regular descent. But the grandfather
of Jair had married the daughter of Machir, one of the heads of
Manasseh, 1 Chr. 2, 21. 7, 14; and therefore in Num. 32, 40. 41,
Jair is called the son (descendant) of Manasseh. In like manner, in
Ezra, 2, 61, and Neh. 7, 63, a certain family is spoken of as ‘the
children of Barzillai;’ because their ancestor ‘took a wife of the
daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their
name.’

“3. A question is raised as to the identity, in the two genealogies,
of the Salathiel and Zorobabel named as father and son, Matth. 1,
12. Luke 3, 27. The Zorobabel of Matthew is no doubt the chief, who
led back the first band of captives from Babylon, and rebuilt the
temple, Ezra c. 2-6. He is also called the son of Salathiel in Ezra
3, 2. Neb. 12, 1. Hagg. 1, 1. 2, 2. 23. Were then the Salathiel and
Zorobabel of Luke the same persons? Those who assume this, must rest
solely on the identity of the names; for there is no other possible
evidence to prove, either that they were contemporary, or that they
were not different persons. On the other hand, there are one or two
considerations, of some force, which go to show that they were
probably not the same persons.

“First, if Salathiel and Zorobabel are indeed the same in both
genealogies, then Salathiel who, according to Matthew, was the son
of Jechoniah by natural descent, must have been called the son of
Neri in Luke either from adoption or marriage. In that case, his
connection with David through Nathan, as given by Luke, was not his
own personal genealogy. It is difficult, therefore, to see Luke,
after tracing back the descent of Jesus to Salathiel, should abandon
the true personal lineage in the royal line of kings, and turn aside
again to a merely collateral and humbler line. If the mother of
Jesus was in fact descended from the Zorobabel and Salathiel of
Matthew, she, like them, was descended also from David through the
royal line. Why rob her of this dignity, and ascribe to her only a
descent through an inferior lineage? See Spanheim Dubia Evangel. I.
p. 108, sq.

“Again, the mere identity of names under these circumstances,
affords no proof; for nothing is more common even among
contemporaries. Thus we have two Ezras; one in Neh. 12, 1. 13, 33;
from whom Ezra the scribe is expressly distinguished in v. 36. We
have likewise two Nehemiahs; one who went up with Zorobabel, Ezra 2,
2; and the other the governor who went later to Jerusalem, Neh. 2,
9, sq. So too, as contemporaries, Joram son of Ahab, king of Israel,
and Joram (Jehoram,) son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah; 2 K. 8, 16,
coll. v. 23, 24. Also Joash king of Judah, and Joash king of Israel;
2 K. 13, 9, 10. Further, we find in succession among the descendants
of Cain the following names: Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusael,
Lamech, Gen. 4, 17, 18; and later among the descendants of Seth
these similar ones: Enoch, Methusalah, Lamech, Gen. 5, 21-25.” See
Dr. Robinson’s Greek Harmony of the Gospels, pp. 183-187.

102 Mal. iii. 1; Is. xl. 3.

103 In the New Testament, the same word is used for _the high priests_,
and the chief priests, who were the heads of the twenty-four
courses. So that the two persons whom the Roman governor considered
as the chief of the priests, and whose names stood as such in those
public registers which seem here referred to, may be intended. An
irregularity had arisen out of the confusion of the times: and the
ruler or prince under the Romans, though a chief priest, was a
distinct person from the high priest: Annas being the one, and
Caiaphas the other. Scott, _in loc._ See also Campbell, _in loc._

104 Is. xl. 3, seq.

105 Deut. viii. 3.

106 Deut. vi. 16.

107 Ps. xci. 11.

108 Deut. vi. 13.

109 There is a seeming discrepancy between Matthew and Luke, in the
order of the temptations; but Luke does not affirm the order;
whereas Matthew uses particles, in v. 2 and 8, which seem to fix it
as he has written. NEWCOME.

110 John means that he was not really Elias risen from the dead. But
when Jesus says, (Matth. xvii. 12, and xi. 14,) that Elias was come
already, he means that John had appeared _in the spirit and power of
Elias_. Luke i. 17. Thus likewise, John here denies that he is one
of the ancient prophets again appearing on earth: see Luke ix 19;
with which our Lord’s assertion that he was an eminent prophet, Luke
vii. 28, seems perfectly consistent. Newcome.

111 Is. xl. 3.

112 Kings and princes very often changed the names of those who held
offices under them, particularly when they first attracted their
notice and were taken into their employ; and when subsequently they
were elevated to some new station, and crowned with additional
honours. Gen. xli. 45; and xvii. 5; and xxxii. 28; and xxxv. 10; 2
Kin. xxiii. 34, 35; and xxiv. 17; Dan. i. 6. Hence a name (_a new
name_) occurs topically, as a token of honour, in Phil. ii. 9; Heb.
i. 4; Rev. ii. 17. See also Mark iii. 17. Jahn’s Archæol. § 164.

_ 113 Nathanael_. This apostle is supposed to be the same with
_Bartholomew_, of whom John says nothing; and the others make no
mention of _Nathanael_. This seems to have been his proper name;
since the name of _Bartholomew_ is not a proper name, but only
signifies _the son of Ptolomy_. _Nathanael_ is also ranked among the
Apostles to whom Jesus showed himself. _John_ xxi. 2-4. A. Clarke,
_in loc_.

114 Gen. xxviii. 12.

115 Ps. lxix. 9.

116 Numb. xxi. 8, seq.

117 Is. ix. 1.

118 Is. lxi. 1, and lviii. 6.

119 This word denotes only a subordinate officer, who attended the
minister and obeyed his orders in what concerned the more servile
part of the work. Among other things he had charge of the sacred
books, and delivered them to those to whom he was commanded by his
superiors to deliver them. After the reading was over, he deposited
them in their proper place. CAMPBELL, _in loc_.

120 The service of the synagogue consisted of reading the scriptures,
prayer, and preaching. The posture in which the latter was
performed, whether in the synagogue or elsewhere, (see _Matth_. v.
1; _Luke_ v. 3,) was sitting. Accordingly when our Saviour had read
the portion of scripture, in the synagogue at Nazareth, of which he
was a member, having been brought up in that city, and then, instead
of retiring to his place, _sat down_ in the desk or pulpit, it is
said “the eyes of all that were present were fastened upon him,”
because they perceived, by this posture, that he was about to preach
to them. See also Acts xiii. 14, 15. JENNINGS, Ant. 375.

121 1 Kings xvii. 1, 9.

122 2 Kings v. 14.

123 The accuracy of this description is attested by travellers, to this
day. See ROBINSON’S Travels in Palestine, vol. iii., pp. 186, 187.

124 Matthew says that the disciples were called by Christ while walking
by the sea, because that calling followed the walk by the sea. “We
say that a thing was done by one walking in this or that place,
because he took such a walk, whether he who did the act was then
walking, or sitting or standing.” Spanb. dub. lxxii. v. 2. This
remark reconciles “_walking_,” Matth. iv. 18 with “_stood_,” Luke v.
1. A like remark may be made with respect to the passages placed
parallel to Luke v. 6. Jesus is concisely represented as if he had
at first seen Peter and Andrew casting a net into the sea, because
they were employed thus in consequence of the interview.

Luke does not deny that more than Simon were seen, nor does he
affirm that Simon was seen. Indeed our Lord is said to have seen two
ships by the lake. The calling of others beside Simon not only is
not denied by Luke, but is sufficiently indicated in v. 11. The
words of Matthew (v. 21) “going on from thence,” are not to be
understood as implying a great distance, but as relating to the
neighbouring shore. Matthew relates the principal fact, the calling
and the following; Luke has the accompanying circumstances. And
there is a remarkable harmony between them. Matthew records the
repairing of their nets by the fishermen; Luke shows how they became
broken,—by the great draught they had taken. What is related by
Luke, is not denied by Matthew, but omitted only. Nothing, indeed,
is more common than to find the omission of some supplied by the
other Evangelists. NEWCOME.

125 The death of Zebedee is nowhere mentioned in the gospels; yet an
undesigned coincidence, and proof of the veracity of the
Evangelists, is evident by comparing this place with others, in
which his death is tacitly alluded to. Thus, in Chap. viii. 21, it
is related that “another of his _disciples_ said unto him, Lord,
suffer me first to go and _bury my father_;” and in Chap. xx. 20, it
is said, “Then came to him the _mother of Zebedee’s children_ with
her sons, worshipping him,” &c. See also Chap. xxvii. 55. BLUNT,
Veracity of the Gospels, Sec. I. 2. See note on Mark vi. 3; Post, §
55.

126 There is no inconsistency between this place and the last clause of
Luke iv. 35. The word translated _torn_, signifies to move, agitate,
convulse. It occurs only twice in the Septuagint. In 2. Sam. xxii.
8, the Hebrew signifies to be shaken, _ut in terræ motu_. In Jer.
iv. 19, it is applied to commotion of mind. Here, the demoniac was
violently agitated; but the agitation left no lasting bad effect; he
was restored to perfect health and soundness. NEWCOME.

127 Is. liii. 4.

128 This clause may be rendered “when the day was coming on,” and thus
be reconciled with the words of Mark, who says it was a great while
before day, namely, before broad day-light. SCOTT, _in loc_

129 “The miraculous cure of the leprosy was thought by the Jews to be
characteristic of the Messiah; and therefore there was peculiar
reason for enjoining this man silence.” _Benson’s Life of Christ_,
p. 340. NEWCOME. For the consequences of a premature full
manifestation of himself as the Messiah, by awakening the jealousy
of the Roman government, might, humanly speaking, have impeded his
ministry. Yet there was great propriety in the private exhibition,
to the priesthood, of full proof that he was the Messiah; after
which, their obstinacy in rejecting him was inexcusable. In this,
and divers other instances, our Lord manifested his intent not to be
generally known to the Jews as their Messiah, till the consummation
of his ministry. A general announcement of his divine character at
the outset would have been productive of no good; on the contrary it
would have excited the malice of the Scribes, Pharisees and
Herodians against him; would have favoured the conceit of the Jews
that he was to be their temporal king; would have awakened the
jealousy of the Roman government; and in the natural course of
things, would have prevented him from giving the many miraculous
proofs which he gave of his ministry, and thus laying solid
foundations for faith in his divine mission; would have exposed him
and his religion to the charge of ostentation, vanity, and love of
power and display; and would have deprived the world of that example
which he gave, of meekness, humility and patient suffering and
self-denial. According to human experience, an early assumption of
regal splendour, supported by the miracles he wrought, would have
been successful, and carried him to the throne instead of the cross;
but it would have deprived the world of the great object of his
mission. A sufficient number were enlightened to attest his miracles
and proclaim his religion, and enough were left in their ignorance,
to condemn and crucify him. See A. CLARKE, and SCOTT, _in loc_.

130 Lev. xiv. 2, seq.

131 When a Jew became a Roman citizen, he usually assumed a Roman name.
It is therefore supposed that Levi was the original Hebrew, and
Matthew the assumed Roman name of this evangelist. STOWE’S Introd.
120. See also, HARMER’S Obs. vol. iv. p. 330; Obs. 94.

132 It is observable that though John speaks of this pool or bath as
existing at the time he wrote, which was upwards of sixty years
after the crucifixion, yet he speaks of the efficacy of its waters
in the past tense, as something which had long ceased. This may
account for the silence of Josephus concerning it; whether we
suppose it to have been really a miraculous virtue, existing only in
the time of our Saviour; or merely a groundless belief of the
populace.

133 Spanheim, dub. evang. ii. 185, doubts how the latter part of this
verse is reconcilable with Matthew iii. 17, and the parallel verses.
But the voice from heaven was not God’s _immediate_ voice; but
uttered at his command, and in his person. See Deut. iv. 33; Ex. xx.
1, 2; Comp. Hebr. ii. 2; Gal. iii. 19; Acts vii. 53. NEWCOME.

134 Deut. xxiii. 25.

135 The act of plucking the ears of corn by the hand, in another’s
field, was expressly permitted, by the law of Moses, Deut. xxiii.
23; but it was considered so far a species of reaping as to be
servile work, and therefore not lawful to be done on the Sabbath.
CAMPBELL, _in loc_. See ROBINSON’S Biblical Researches in Palestine,
Vol. 2, pp. 192, 201, that this custom is still in use.

136 Hos. vi. 6.

137 It appears from 1 Sam. xxi. 1, that Abimelech was the high priest at
the time referred to; but Abiathar his son was the _chief_ priest
under him, and probably superintended the tabernacle and its stated
concerns. Abimelech was soon after slain; and Abiathar succeeded him
in that office, and continued in it about forty years, until after
the death of David. This circumstance, and his great eminence, above
his father, may account for the use of his name rather than his
father’s, as illustrating the times of David and Saul. See SCOTT,
_in loc_.

138 Numb. xxviii. 9, 10; xviii. 19.

139 1 Sam. xxi. 1-7.

140 Is. xlii. 1, seq.; Is. xi. 10.

141 There may be an allusion, in these words of the prophet, to an
Eastern custom, for those who were grievously afflicted to come to
the sovereign for relief or redress, having pots of fire, or of
burning straw, or other combustible on their heads, in token of
their extreme trouble. Not one of these, the prophet seems to
intimate, should go away without redress; he will certainly remove
the cause of their complaints, and render truth and justice
victorious over falsehood and oppression. 3 CALM. 394.

142 It appears from Mark vi. 7, that the apostles were sent forth by
_two and two_ to preach; and this accounts for their being here and
in the parallel places named in couples. Luke mentions Matthew
first, as being regarded as the senior of Thomas, his companion; but
Matthew modestly places his own name last. Mark is less observant of
the order of the names, but he alone states that they were thus
associated. The others give the names in couples, but state no
reason for it. This is not the method of false witnesses; such
incidental corroborations belong only to the narratives of truth.

143 Thaddeus, Theudas and Judas (or Jude) are probably names of the same
signification, the Greek termination being added to different forms
of a Hebrew verb. “The Canaanite,” Matth. x. 4, is the same with
“Zelotes” in Luke. “Cognomen erat Chald. quod Lucas reddidit
Zelotem.” Wetstein. Thus, Thomas is rendered Didymus, or, the twin;
Cephas, Peter; and Silas, Tertius. Some suppose that this name had
been given to Simon on account of his religious zeal; or, because he
had been of a Jewish sect called Zealots, who were addicted to the
Pharisees, and justified themselves by the example of Phinehas, for
punishing offenders without waiting for the sentence of the
magistrate. NEWCOME.

“Between Matthew (x. 2,) and Mark (iii. 16,) we observe a strict
correspondence, but the catalogue in St. Luke (vi. 14,) differs from
both the first-mentioned writers, in two particulars. 1, ‘Simon the
Canaanite,’ of Matthew and Mark is introduced as ‘Simon called
Zelotes.’ Now if any difference was admitted in this place, we might
expect it to extend no farther than to the order of the names, or
the addition of a surname; as, for instance, Matthew calls the
‘Thaddeus’ of Mark also ‘Lebbeus;’ but here we have one surname
changed for another. It is indeed easy to conceive, that Simon might
have been commonly distinguished by either appellative, but this we
can only conjecture; neither Evangelist adds a word to explain the
point. 2, The other discrepancy, however, appears more serious. The
Lebbeus or Thaddeus of St. Matthew and Mark, is entirely omitted in
the list of St. Luke, who substitutes ‘Judas the brother of James.’
Here is certainly a marked difference, for it would not seem very
probable, that the Apostle in question passed by three distinct
names. Nor could this be a mere oversight in St. Luke, for, in Acts
i. 13, where a catalogue of the eleven is inserted, he mentioned
this individual in exactly the same manner. Are we to suppose then
that the Evangelist commits a deliberate error in this particular?
We have distinct and satisfactory witnesses to prove that there
really was an Apostle, besides Iscariot, who bore the name of Judas.
Both Matthew (xiii. 55,) and Mark (vi. 3,) concur in speaking of
James and Jude as the near relations of Christ, and part of this
statement is incidentally confirmed by St. Paul, who calls James
‘the Lord’s brother.’ (Gal. i. 19.) But farther, St. John (xiv. 22,)
presents us with a remark made by ‘Judas not Iscariot;’ evidently
one of the Apostles; and St. Jude himself, in the first verse of his
Epistle, styles himself ‘the brother of James.’ There is thus amply
sufficient evidence, that all the Gospel writers acknowledge an
Apostle of this name, though St. Matthew, with his usual simplicity,
familiarly mentions him by two of his appellations, omitting that of
Judas, and St. Mark sees no occasion to depart from his language, in
a matter of such general notoriety. Luke, on the other hand, usually
studious of accuracy, distinguishes this Apostle by the name
generally current in the Church, when his Gospel was written. This
variation then may, upon the whole, convince us how undesignedly the
writers of Scripture confirm each other’s statements; yet can this
only be the result of a minute examination upon our part, and upon
the probability of this, a cautious writer would hardly stake his
reputation for truth or exactness.” See ROBERTS’S “Light shining out
of Darkness,” pp. 91-93.

144 It may be objected that Matthew, in saying that this discourse was
delivered sitting on a mountain, is contradicted by Luke, who says,
that Jesus was standing on a plain. Luke vi. 17. But Dr. Clarke, on
this latter place, has suggested that Jesus “being pressed with
great multitudes of people, might retire from them again to the top
of the hill.” And Dr. Priestley observes that “Matthew’s saying that
Jesus was _sat down_ after he had gone up the mountain, and Luke’s
saying that he stood on the plain, when he healed the sick before
the discourse, are no inconsistencies.” Harm. p. 83.

The whole picture is striking. Jesus ascends a mountain, employs the
night in prayer, and having thus solemnly invoked the divine
blessing, authoritatively separates the twelve apostles from the
mass of his disciples. He descends, and heals, in the plain, all
among a great multitude, collected from various parts by the fame of
his miraculous power. Having thus created attention, he satisfies
the desire of the people to hear his doctrine; and retiring first to
the mountain whence he came, that his attentive hearers might follow
him, and might better arrange themselves before him. Sacro digna
silentio Mirantur _omnes_ dicere. _Hor_. NEWCOME.

The different accounts of the Sermon on the Mount may be reconciled,
by considering that Mathew wrote chiefly for the Hebrew Christians;
and it was therefore important for him to bring out, in full, the
manner in which our Lord enforced the spiritual nature of his
dispensation and doctrine, in opposition to the mere letter of the
Jewish law, and the teaching and practice of Scribes and Pharisees;
which he does particularly and with many examples; while Luke, on
the contrary, wrote chiefly for Gentile Christians, to whom the
contrast with the Jewish law was of less interest; and therefore he
omits those parts of the discourse, and dwells only upon those which
were of practical importance to all. ROBINSON. NEWCOME.

145 The Greek word here employed is said to be derived from the
Persians, among whom the king’s messengers or posts were called
_Angari_. These had the royal authority for pressing horses, ships,
and even men, to assist them in the business on which they were
sent. The word therefore signifies, to be compelled by violence to
do any particular service, especially of the public kind, by the
king’s authority. And the sentiment is a lesson of patience and
gentleness under severe exactions from man. _Lightfoot, apud_ A.
CLARKE, _in loc_. SIR J. CHARDIN’S Travels, Vol. i. p. 238, 257.

146 Calvin says that Matthew, being more brief, introduces the centurion
himself as speaking; and that Luke expresses more at large his
sending by his friends; but that the sense of both is the same.
_Harm_. p. 124.

(Toinard quotes Exod. xviii. 6, where the words related as spoken by
Jethro, were evidently a message sent by him to Moses. _Harm_. 147.)
Considering then the sameness of the scene, of the person, of the
words, and of the transaction, I cannot but conclude with Grotius,
that the miracle is one and the same, related in general by Matthew,
and with greater accuracy by Luke. NEWCOME.

147 The nature of our Lord’s ministry, as it now appeared, so unlike
what John as a Jew expected, may have surprised and perplexed him.
And his own misfortune, coming upon this disappointment and
perplexity, would increase his doubt and embarrassment. His faith
was shaken;—the question implies no more;—and he sent that his
doubts might be removed, and his faith confirmed. Jesus therefore
merely referred John to the miracles he was doing, and the
prophecies which spake of him, and which were fulfilled by those
miracles. Bp. SUMNER, in loc.

148 Is. xxxv. 5, seq.

149 Mal. iii. 1.

150 Mal. iv. 5.

151 We here learn that the demoniac was both blind and dumb. St. Luke
omits the former circumstance, but does not contradict it. NEWCOME.

152 An accurate reader will observe that Matt. xii. 22, and Luke xi. 14,
show the general occasion of the blasphemy against Jesus; and that
Matt. xii. 23, shews the particular occasion of it, the multitude
alarming the Jewish rulers by their question whether Jesus were the
Christ. No cause for the absurd and impious insinuation of the
Scribes and Pharisees is assigned by St. Mark: however, he suggests
an important circumstance, that they came from Jerusalem to watch
the conduct of Jesus. The latter part of Luke viii. 19, shows that
his relations were not able to enter the house on account of the
press. Thus one Evangelist is wonderfully supplemental to another by
notations of time, place, and other circumstances; and the strictest
propriety and agreement result from diligently comparing them.
NEWCOME.

153 The writer of a false narrative would either have omitted to mention
the request for a sign, or would have related that it was complied
with. He would never have exposed his Master to the suspicion of a
want of power. See also, Matt. xvi. 1.

154 Jonah i. 17.

155 Jonah iii. 4, 5.

156 1 Kings x. 1 seq.

157 This omission may seem inconsistent with the character of Jesus, who
appears to have generally complied with all the innocent usages of
his countrymen; and of course it may be adduced as an objection
against the veracity of the Evangelist. Luke simply records the
fact, however it may seem to make against the character of his
Master, or his own veracity. But Mark, vii. 3-9, in a manner equally
incidental and without design, discloses the truth that this washing
was superstitious, and connected with the dangerous error of placing
the traditions of the elders on equal footing with the commands of
God. Where there was danger of his practice being misinterpreted,
our Lord withheld his compliance, even in things indifferent. See
Bp. SUMNER on Luke, Lect. 41.

158 Gen. iv. 8; 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, seq.

159 The autumnal rains in Palestine come mostly from the west or
south-west. ROBINSON’S Biblical Researches, vol. ii. p. 97. The
incidental allusion here made to that fact, would hardly have been
made by a writer of fiction.

160 Is. vi. 9, 10.

161 Ps. lxxviii. 2.

162 This is made consistent with the other Evangelists, by reading
“Gadarenes.” If Gergasa was subordinate to Gadara, the metropolis of
Perea, as Cellarius and Reland judge, and St. Mark did not write in
Judea, what wonder that he chose the more general name, which was
best known in the world? But Cellarius from Eusebius takes notice
that some esteemed Gergasi, so Eusebius writes it, and Gadara two
names of the same city; and this he thinks was the sentiment of the
Syriac translator. To this Sir Richard Ellis most inclines, in his
“Fortuita Sacra.” TOWNSON, p. 72.

In Matthew mention is made of two demoniacs; in Mark and Luke of one
only. Here Le Clerc’s maxim is undoubtedly true: Qui plura narrat,
pauciora complectitur: qui pauciora memorat, plura non negat.
_Harm_. p. 524.

We may collect a reason from the Gospels themselves, why Mark and
Luke mention only one demoniac; because, one only being grateful for
the miracle, his cure only was recorded by the two Evangelists, who
mention this gratitude, and who are more intent on inculcating the
moral, than on magnifying our Lord’s power. NEWCOME.

163 There is no contradiction here between Matth. and Mark. The
demoniacs met Jesus on the shore, as he came out of the ship. Luke
viii. 27. The swine were within sight, on the ascending ground, Luke
viii. 32, at the side of the mountain, Mark v. 11, which was at some
distance from the shore where they stood. Matth. viii. 30.

164 Since swine were held in abhorrence by the Jews, how happened a herd
of them to be feeding by the sea of Tiberias? The answer shows the
accuracy of the Evangelist and his intimate knowledge of the local
circumstances of Judea; for it appears from Josephus, Antiq. xvii.
11, 4, that _Gadara_ was a _Grecian city_, the inhabitants of which,
therefore, were not Jews. BLUNT, Veracity, &c. sect. ii. 6.

165 Here is a reference to an Eastern custom, which affords internal
evidence of the truth of the narrative. The master sat on a higher
seat, and the scholars sat at his feet. Sitting at the feet, was the
posture of a learner; and indicated the reverence and submission due
to the teacher. Thus Moses says of the people, to whom God gave the
law from Mount Sinai,—“they sat down at thy feet.” Deut. xxxiii. 3.
Isaiah, speaking of Abraham, who was taught of God, says “he called
him to his foot.” Is. xli. 2. Mary “sat at Jesus’s feet and heard
his words.” Luke x. 39. Paul was brought up “at the feet of
Gamaliel;” Acts xxii. 3; studied law with him. And the restored
maniac sat down at Jesus’s feet, in the posture of a humble learner,
desiring no other wisdom than to be taught of him.

166 Both Mark and Luke state that this was in Matthew’s own house; and
Luke calls it a great feast, made in honour of Jesus. The omission
of this fact by Matthew, not only shows his modesty and humility,
but adds much to the weight of evidence in his favour, both as a
man, and as a witness. See BLUNT’S Veracity of the Gospels, sect.
i. 4.

167 Hos. vi. 6; 1 Sam. xv. 22.

168 Neither of the Evangelists expressly mentions the death of Joseph;
yet from all four of them it may indirectly be inferred to have
happened while Jesus was yet alive. Comp. Luke viii. 19, John ii.
12, and xix. 25-27. Such harmony as this could not have been the
effect of concert. See BLUNT’S Veracity, &c. sect. i. 7.

169 Commentators have noted two inconsistent circumstances in this
section. In Matthew, _shoes are_ forbidden; in Mark the Apostles are
commanded to be shod with _sandals_. But the true solution seems to
be this, that the Apostles should not furnish themselves with spare
garments, and should wear the simplest covering for their feet. “Non
vult ullis rebus studiose comparatis onerari.” Beza. See Newcome, in
loc.

170 The synagogues were used, not only for divine service, but for
holding courts of justice, especially for ecclesiastical affairs;
and the lesser punishments, such as whipping, were inflicted in the
synagogue, immediately after sentence, as the burning in the hand
was formerly inflicted in England, upon praying the benefit of
clergy. JENNINGS, Ant. p. 376. Such an allusion as this would not be
likely to have been found in a work of fiction.

171 Mic. vii. 6.

172 Matth. xiv. 2, _unto his servants_. Matthew alone mentions, and
without any apparent reason for such minuteness, that Herod
addressed his remark to his _servants_ it. Luke, in the parallel
passage, says he _heard of all that was done by him_; but by
referring to Luke viii. 3, and to Acts xiii. 1, we find that Christ
had followers from among the household of the very prince, with whom
Herod was likely to converse on a subject in which they were better
informed than himself. BLUNT, Veracity, &c., sec. i. 8.

173 Here is a very natural passing allusion to what we learn from
Josephus was a settled custom in the family of Herod; namely, the
making of a feast on his birth-day, at which the officers of his
government were guests. JOSEPHUS, Ant. xix. vii. § 1.

174 Mark incidentally mentions the great multitude coming and going, and
the purpose of Jesus to withdraw _awhile_. The occasion of this
great multitude of _travellers_ is stated in the like incidental
manner by John, vi. 4, that the _passover_ was nigh at hand; and
hence, if Jesus withdrew awhile, the throng would be drawn off
towards Jerusalem. These undesigned coincidences tend to verify both
the narratives. Blunt, Veracity, &c. sect. i. 13.

175 Why Jesus addressed this question to Philip, and why John mentioned
so unimportant a fact, is not here explained. Nor does Luke indicate
any reason for his own statement of the place where this miracle was
wrought, namely, near Bethsaida. But John, in another place, (ch. i.
44,) with apparently as little reason, gratuitously states that
Philip was of Bethsaida; and this fact renders both the others
intelligible and significant. Jesus, intending to furnish bread for
the multitude by a miracle, first asked Philip, who belonged to the
city and was perfectly acquainted with the neighbourhood, whether
bread could be procured there. His answer amounts to saying that it
was not possible. These slight circumstances, thus collected
together, constitute very cogent evidence of the veracity of the
narrative, and evince the reality of the miracle itself. See Blunt,
Veracity, &c. sect. i. 13.

176 In Luke, Jesus commands that the people should be made to sit down
by _fifties_. In Mark it is said that they sat down _by hundreds and
by fifties_. Piscator, and Pearce, in a dissertation at the end of
his comment on St. Paul’s Epistles, say that they sat an hundred in
front, and fifty deep; which very satisfactorily solves the seeming
variation. NEWCOME.

177 This seemingly idle inquiry becomes important as a note of veracity
in the narrator, when compared with the account of Matthew. John
indeed tells us, v. 18, that the wind blew a gale, but he does not
state from what quarter. He also says that there were boats from
Tiberias, near the place where the miracle of bread was wrought, v.
23, but this does not at all explain the inquiry of the people how
Jesus came to Capernaum. But Matthew states that “the wind was
contrary,” that is, west, Matth. xiv. 22. This fact, and the
geographical position of the places, explains the whole. The miracle
was wrought near Bethsaida, on the east side of the lake. The people
saw the disciples take the only boat which was there, and depart for
Capernaum, which was on the west side of the lake, and saw that
Jesus was not with them. In the night it blew a tempest from the
west. In the morning, the storm being over, the people crossed over
to Capernaum and found Jesus already there. Well might they ask him,
with astonishment, how he came thither. For though there were boats
over from Tiberias, which was also on the west side of the lake, yet
he could not have returned in one of them, for the wind would not
have permitted them to cross the lake. BLUNT, Veracity of the
Gospels, sect. i. 17.

178 Ps. lxxviii. 24. Ex. xvi. 15.

179 Isa. liv. 13. Jer. xxxi. 33, seq.

180 Ex. xvi. 15.

181 The truth of the Gospels has been argued from the _confessions_ they
contain. On this verse Paley asks, “Was it the part of a writer, who
dealt in suppression and disguise, to put down _this_ anecdote?”
_Evid._ 255.

182 The admission of Judas Iscariot into the domestic and confidential
circle of our Lord, was the result of profound and even of divine
wisdom. It showed that Jesus was willing to throw open his most
secret actions, discourses, and views not merely to his devoted
friends, but to a sagacious and hardened enemy. If Judas had ever
discovered the least fault in the character or conduct of Jesus, he
certainly would have disclosed it;—he would not have publicly
confessed that he had betrayed innocent blood, and have sunk down in
insupportable anguish and despair. See TAPPIN’S Lect. on Eccl. Hist.
ii.

183 The traditions of the elders were unwritten ordinances of indefinite
antiquity, the principal of which, as the Pharisees alleged, were
delivered to Moses in the mount, and all of which were transmitted
through the High Priests and Prophets, down to the members of the
great Sanhedrim in their own times; and from these, as the Jews say,
they were handed down to Gamaliel, and ultimately to Rabbi Jehudah,
by whom they were digested and committed to writing, toward the
close of the second century. This collection is termed the Mishna;
and in many cases it is esteemed among the Jews as of higher
authority than the law itself. In like manner, there are said to be
many Christians, at the present day, who receive ancient
traditionary usages and opinions as authoritative exponents of
Christian doctrine. They say that the preached gospel was before the
written gospel; and that the testimony of those who heard it is
entitled to equal credit with the written evidence of the
Evangelists; especially as the latter is but a brief record, while
the oral preaching was a more full and copious announcement of the
glad tidings.

These traditions, both of the Jewish and the Christian Church, seem
to stand _in pari ratione_, the arguments in favour of the
admissibility and effect of the one, applying with the same force,
in favour of the other. All these arguments may be resolved into two
grounds, namely, contemporaneous practice subsequently and uniformly
continued; and contemporaneous declarations, as part of the _res
gestæ_, faithfully transmitted to succeeding times. It is alleged
that those to whom the law of God was first announced, best knew its
precise import and meaning, and that therefore their interpretation
and practice, coming down concurrently with the law itself, is
equally obligatory.

But this argument assumes what cannot be admitted; for it still
remains to be shown that those who first heard the law, when orally
announced, had any better means of understanding it than those to
whom the same words were afterwards read. The Ten Commandments were
spoken in the hearing of Aaron and all the congregation of Israel;
immediately after which they made and worshipped a golden calf.
Surely this will not be adduced as a valid contemporaneous
exposition of the second commandment. The error of the argument lies
in the nature of the subject. The human doctrine of contemporaneous
exposition is applicable only to human laws and the transactions of
men, as equals, and not to the laws of God. Among men, when _their
own_ language is doubtful and ambiguous, _their own_ practice is
admissible, to expound it; because both the language and the
practice are but the outward and visible signs of the meaning and
intention of one and the same mind and will, which inward meaning
and intention is the thing sought after. It is on the same ground,
that, where a statute, capable of divers interpretations, has
uniformly been acted upon in a certain way, this is held a
sufficient exposition of its true intent. In both cases it is the
conduct of _the parties_ themselves which is admitted to interpret
their own language; expressed, in cases of contract, by themselves
in person, and in statutes, through the medium of the legislators,
who were their agents and representatives; and in both cases, it is
merely the interpretation of what a man says, by what he does. But
this rule has never been applied, in the law, to the language of any
other person than the party himself; never, to the command or
direction of his superior or employer. And even the language of the
_parties_, when it is contained in a sealed instrument, is at this
day held incapable of being expounded by their actions, on account
of the greater solemnity of the instrument. See Baynham _v_. Guy’s
Hospital, 3 Vesey’s Rep. 295. Eaton _v_. Lyon, Ibid. 690, 694. The
practice of men, therefore, can be no just exponent of the law of
God. If they have mistaken the meaning of his command from the
beginning, the act of contravention remains a sin in the last
transgressor, as well as the first; for the word of God cannot be
changed or affected by the gloss of human interpretation.

The other ground, namely, that the testimony of those who heard
Jesus and his apostles preach, is of equal authority with the
Scriptures, being contemporaneous declarations, and parts of the
_res gestae_, and therefore admissible in aid of the exposition of
the written word, is equally inconsistent with the sound and settled
rules of law respecting writings. When a party has deliberately
committed his intention and meaning to writing, the law regards the
writing as the sole repository of his mind and intention, and does
not admit any oral testimony to alter, add to, or otherwise affect
it. The reasons for this rule are two; first, because the writing is
the more solemn act, by the party himself, designed to prevent
mistake, and to remain as the perpetual memorial of his intention;
and, secondly, because of the great uncertainty and weakness of any
secondary evidence. For no one can tell whether the by-standers
heard precisely what was said, nor whether they heard it all, nor
whether they continued to remember it with accuracy until the time
when they wrote it down, or communicated it to those who wrote it;
to say nothing of the danger of their mixing up the language of the
speaker with what was said by others, or with their own favourite
theories. And where the witnesses were not the original auditors of
what was said, no one knows how much the truth may have suffered
from the many channels through which it has passed, in coming from
the first speaker to the last write or witness. On all these
accounts, the law rejects oral testimony of what the parties said,
in regard to anything that has already been solemnly committed to
writing by the parties themselves, and rejects the secondary
evidence of hearsay, when evidence of a higher degree, as, for
example, a written declaration of the party, can be obtained.

Now, inasmuch as the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles were
penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, why should not the
documentary evidence of the Gospel, thus drawn up by them, be
treated with at least as much respect as other written documents? If
they were inspired to write down those great truths for a perpetual
memorial to after ages, then this record is the primary evidence of
those truths. It is the word of God, penned by his own dictation,
and sealed, as it were, with his own seal. If it were a man’s word
and will, thus solemnly written, no verbal or secondary evidence
could be admitted, by the common law, to explain, add to, or vary
it; nothing could be engrafted upon it; nor could any person be
admitted to testify what he heard the party say, in regard to what
was written. The courts would at once reject all such attempts, and
confine themselves strictly to the writing before them, the only
inquiry being as to the meaning of the language contained in that
document, and not as to what the party may elsewhere have spoken.
The law presumes that the writing alone is the source to which he
intended that resort should be had, in order to ascertain his
meaning. But by calling in the fathers, with their traditions, to
prove what Christ and his Apostles taught, beyond what is solemnly
recorded in the Scriptures, the principle of this plain and sound
rule of law is violated; resort is had to secondary evidence of the
truths of our religion, when the primary evidence is already at
hand; and the pure fountain is deserted for the muddy stream.

184 Matthew was not only a Jew himself, but it is evident, from the
whole structure of his Gospel, especially from his numerous
references to the Old Testament, that he wrote for Jewish
readers.—_Paley_. But the explanation here given by Mark is an
additional evidence of the fact asserted by Jerome and Clement of
Alexandria, that he wrote at Rome, for the benefit chiefly of the
converts of that nation.

185 Ex. xxii 12. Ex. xxi. 17. Deut. v. 16.

186 Is. xxix. 13.

187 Mark designates the woman by the country where she dwelt; Matthew
calls her a woman of Canaan, because of the people to whom she
belonged. Thus they do not contradict each other. The treatment of
this woman by our Lord has been the subject of remark, as evasive
and insincere. But it was far otherwise. He had a twofold object; to
call the attention of his disciples to the fact of her being a
foreigner, in order to show them that his ministry, though primarily
and chiefly to the Jews, was in truth designed for the benefit of
the Gentiles also; and to draw out, as it were, the great faith of
the woman, in order to teach them the effect of faithful and
persevering supplication. To attain these objects, he took the
direct and most obvious method. In this instance also, as in those
of the centurion, (Matth. viii. 5-13,) and of the Samaritan leper,
(Luke xvii. 16-18,) he indicated that the gospel would be more
readily received by the Gentiles than by the Jews. See A. CLARKE,
_in loc_. NEWCOME, Obs. on our Lord. p. 165. Bp. Horsley’s Sermons
on this subject, Serm. xxxvii. and xxxviii. p. 444-464.

188 Cellarius and Lightfoot think that Dalmanutha and Magdala were
neighbouring towns. See Calmet, voc. Dalmanutha. It is probable that
Dalmanutha and Magdala were in Gaulanitis, towards the south-east
part of the lake. See Matth. xv. 21; Mark vii. 24. NEWCOME.

189 Our Lord’s words, Matth. xvi. 8, 10, and Mark viii. 17, 20, are the
same in substance, though differently modified. The evangelists are
not scrupulous in adhering to the precise words used by Christ. They
often record them in a general manner, non numerantes, sed tanquem
appendentes; regarding their purport, and not superstitiously
detailing them. However, in this place, after uttering what Matthew
relates, Jesus may have asked the questions recorded by Mark.
NEWCOME.

190 The notice of this circumstance affords a proof of the veracity of
the evangelist; for he barely states a fact having no apparent
connexion with any other in his narrative. The reason of it is found
in facts stated by the other evangelists. The people of Bethsaida
had already witnessed the miracles of our Lord, but these only
served to increase their rage against him; and they were therefore
abandoned to the consequences of their of their unbelief. Matth. xi.
21.

191 The phrase _three days and three nights_ is equivalent to _three
days_, three natural days of twenty-four hours. Gen. i. 5; Dan.
viii. 14. Comp. Gen. vii. 4. 17.

(It is a received rule among the Jews, _that a part of a day is put
for the whole_; so that whatsoever is done in any part of the day,
is properly said to be done that day. 1 Kings xx. 29; Esth. iv. 16.
“When eight days were accomplished for the circumcision of the
child,” &c. Yet the day of his birth and of his circumcision were
two of these eight days. _Whitby_, quoted by SCOTT, on Matth. xii.
40.) Grotius establishes this way of reckoning the _parts_ of the
first and third days for _two days_, by Aben Ezra on Lev. xii. 3.

(In proof that the phrase “_after three days,_” is sometimes
equivalent to “_on the third day,_” compare Deut. xiv. 28 with xxvi.
12; 1 Sam. xx. 12 with v. 19; 2 Chron. x. 5 with v. 12; Matth. xxvi.
2 with xxvii. 63, 64; Luke ii. 21 with i. 59.)

St. Luke omits our Lord’s sharp reproof of Peter, and the occasion
of it; though he records the discourse in consequence of it. Le
Clerc’s 12th canon is “Qui pauciora habet, non negat plura dicta aut
facta; modo ne ulla sit exclusionis nota.” Perhaps the disciple and
companion of that apostle who had withstood Peter to his face, Gal.
ii. 11, willingly made this omission, as he omits some aggravating
circumstances in Peter’s denial of Christ, Luke xxii. 60, though he
carefully records the greatness of his sorrow, v. 62. NEWCOME.

192 It has been shown, § 74, that “_after six days_” may signify on the
sixth day. But we are not hence to conclude that the phrase has
_always_ such a signification. Here it means six days complete,
after the discourse recorded in § 74. The eight days mentioned by
St. Luke include that of Peter’s reproof and of the transfiguration;
which two days Matthew and Mark exclude. Macknight furnishes us with
the following apposite reference to Tacitus: Hist. i. 29. Piso says,
_Sextus dies agitur—ex quo—Cæsar adscitus sum;_ and yet, § 48 of the
same book, Tacitus speaks of Piso as _quatriduo Cæsar_.

Grotius on Matth. xvii. 1, has another solution; Quod Lucas dicit,
tale est quale cum vulgò dicimus _post septimanam circiter. Nam
Judæos octo dies_ appellasse id quod ab uno sabbato est ad alterum
apparet, Joan. 20, 26, &c. NEWCOME.

193 It is remarkable that Luke assigns no reason for this extraordinary
silence; leaving his narrative in this place imperfect and obscure,
which an impostor would not have done. It is explained by the
command of Jesus, related by Matthew and Mark.

194 The original word is _didrachma_, denoting, not tribute or tax in
general, but a specific and particular offering which every Jew paid
to God. See Josephus, Ant. xviii. x. § 1. This minute accuracy of
the evangelist is worthy of note, as an indication of veracity.

195 The twelve apostles and the seventy disciples were commissioned and
sent forth at different times. Hence the person here alluded to may,
for aught that appears, have been one of the seventy, not personally
known to John and to those who were with him. _Letters on Evil
Spirits_, p. 39.

196 Here Jesus says, He that is not against us is for us; but in Matth.
xii. 30, he says, He that is not with me is against me. Grotius
regards both as proverbial sayings;—Proverbia in utramque partem
usurpata, veritatem suam habent pro materia cui aptantur;—and
alludes to similar forms in Prov. xxvi. 4, 5. NEWCOME.

197 2 Kings iv. 29.

198 This was near the passover; when Jesus, going to celebrate it at
Jerusalem, plainly indicated that men ought to worship _there_;
contrary to the practice of the Samaritans, who, in opposition to
the Holy City, had set up a temple at Gerazim. Hence the cause of
their hostility to him as well as to all others travelling in that
direction _at that season_. This account perfectly harmonizes with
the respectful deportment of the Samaritans towards him at the time
of his interview with the woman at Jacob’s well, John iv. 1-42; for
he was then coming _from_ Judea, and it was not the season of
resorting thither for any purposes of devotion. John iv. 35. BLUNT,
Veracity, &c., sect. i. 16.

199 Lev. xii. 3.

200 On this day, which was one of great joy and festivity, it was the
custom of the Jews to fetch water from the pool Siloam, some of
which they drank with loud acclamations of joy and thanksgiving; and
some they brought to the altar, in commemoration of the miraculous
relief of their forefathers, when thirsting in the wilderness; and
some they brought as a drink-offering to God, to pray for rain
against the following seed-time. See BENSON’S Life of Christ, p.
412. JENNINGS, Ant. p. 495. The existence of this custom, thus
remotely alluded to, gives great truthfulness to the narrative.

201 Isa. lv. 1, and lviii. 11, and xliv. 3. Zech. xiii. 1, and xiv. 8.

202 Ps. lxxxix. 4, and cxxxii. 11. Mic. v. 2.

203 It is apparent, from various incidental allusions in the
Evangelists, that it was the habit of our Lord at this period to
spend his days in Jerusalem, in teaching the people and healing the
sick, and his nights in the Mount of Olives, in prayer. Yet it is
nowhere directly asserted; and the manner in which it is slightly
mentioned or alluded to by the sacred writers, is worthy of
particular notice, as a proof of their veracity, never met with, in
works of fiction. Compare Matth. xxiv. 3, and xxvi. 30; Mark xiii.
3, and xiv. 26; Luke vi. 12, and xxi. 37, 38, and xxii. 39; John
viii. 1, 2, and xviii. 1.

204 Lev. xx. 10. Deut. xxii. 21.

205 The Romans, in settling the provincial government of Judea, which
they had conquered, deprived the Jewish tribunals of the power of
inflicting capital punishments. John xviii. 31. The law of Moses,
however, condemned adulterers to be stoned to death. “This woman had
been caught in the very fact. Jesus must therefore determine against
the law, which inflicted death; or against the Romans, who suffered
them not to put any body to death, and who would still less have
permitted it for such a crime as adultery, which was not capital
among them.—If he condemned not the adulteress _to death_ when he
was alone with her, he hereby teaches us to submit to the civil laws
of the places where we live.” BASNAGE, _Hist. Jud_. lib. v. c. § 2.

206 When one was condemned to death, those witnesses, whose evidence
decided the sentence, inflicted the first blows, in order to add the
last degree of certainty to their evidence. DUPIN, Trial of Jesus,
p. 7. SALVADOR, Histoire des Institutions de Moise, &c. Liv. iv. ch.
ii. p. 76.

207 John vii. 28, is consistent with John viii. 14. “Ye both know my
transactions among you, and whence, as a man, I derive my descent;
(ch. vi. 42,) and yet there is a sense in which ye know not whence I
am, as I came not,” _&c. Kai_ is used in the same manner, Matth. ix.
19. _And yet wisdom_, &c. See also John ix. 30. In this latter sense
(ch. viii. 14,) the Jews knew not whence Jesus came, knew not his
divine mission, and that he would return to the Father at his
ascension. NEWCOME.

208 Deut. xvii. 6, and xix. 15.