Section X

the deputation from Jerusalem which takes the lord to task on account of the free behaviour of his disciples. Jesus’ distant mountain journeys to the borders of the phœnician district, and through upper Galilee to gaulonitis, on the other side of the sea. (the canaanitish woman. the mute. the second miraculous feeding. the passage to the western shore of galilee)

(Matt. 15. Mar 7:1-37; chap. 8:1-10)

About this time Jesus was formally called to account by a company of travellers from Jerusalem, consisting of Pharisees and scribes. This group have pretty much the appearance of a deputation; at least they appear to have come from Jerusalem to Galilee with the express object of questioning Him concerning a great offence, as they imagined, in the behaviour of His disciples. Their reproach ran thus: ‘Why do Thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders;-in this, namely, that they wash not their hands when they eat bread?’¹

The Evangelist Mark here makes an explanatory note concerning the scrupulous care with which the Pharisees and the Jews in general, following the tradition of the elders, used to wash their hands before every meal. He mentions three kinds of washings: washings of the hands,² of the food which was brought from the market,³ and of the service used for eating and the table-cups, pitchers, pots, even the boards belonging to the table.⁴

A commission coming expressly from Jerusalem to Galilee, in order to call the Lord to account because His disciples had neglected the customary washings, leads us to suppose, as we have already shown, that the offence had taken place in Jerusalem. Probably the enemies of Jesus waited for some time in order to see whether Jesus would not come there, perhaps to the feast of Pentecost. But He did not appear. At length it seems too long to them to wait until He shall come again to Jerusalem; therefore they come to seek Him in Galilee, and take Him to task, in order to ruin Him here in His own home.

Jesus sternly put back the questioners by the counter-question: ‘Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?’ That they do act in a fine style (καλῶς, Mark, ver. 9), He proves by a striking example. ‘Through Moses God gave the command, Honour thy father and mother; and He strengthened this command through the contrast, He that curseth his father or mother, let him die the death.⁵ Ye, on the contrary, command,⁶ that if a man shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited—and so on.’ Jesus breaks off the sentence, perhaps to signify that they well knew what he meant to say, or that it was too horrible to give it open expression, or else that in its completion it was presented in different forms of expression.⁷ There were Rabbins who held that the duty of children to honour their parents according to the fifth commandment, was higher than all the other commandments;⁸ ‘but the sages declared also, that vows which were in opposition to this commandment were binding.’ Thus there was already an incitement for Jewish sons, who were fanatically disposed, and also unmindful of their filial duty, to withhold from their parents the support which they owed them. Jesus expresses in strong language this tendency of their pernicious teaching: ‘Ye suffer such an one to do nothing more for his father or his mother: thus have ye weakened God’s commandment by your rules which ye have made; and ye make many such rules.’

Upon this He tells them that they are such hypocrites as Isaiah had, with perfect justice, described in the words:⁹ ‘This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, whilst they teach as doctrines the commandments of man’ (Isa 29:13). ‘This word,’ He adds, ‘applies to you; for ye put aside the commandment of God, and ye hold the traditions of men, the washing of your pots and cups, and the like.’

Jesus now returned to the multitude who witnessed this discussion, in order to set them free from their superstition with regard to those washings. ‘Hearken all of you, and take it to heart,’ He cried: ‘not that which enters into the mouth can make the man common (unclean with respect to the purity of the holy community), but that which goes out of the mouth it is that defiles the man.’

This word was very strong, keen-edged, and many-sided, and it was intended by Christ in all its mighty bearings. Therefore it is quite appropriate that Christ should here conclude with that cry, with which He frequently called upon His hearers to seek themselves for the inferences which lay in some important saying, namely, with the cry: ‘Who hath ears to hear, let him hear!’ We can easily conceive that the Pharisees would take offence at this great declaration which Jesus had made. They had wanted to represent Him and His disciples as men who, in consequence of neglected washings, were already unclean; and it would agree very well with such a view on their part, that the discussion was taking place in some public spot. But Jesus, with the words, ‘That which comes out of the mouth makes the man common,’ gives them to understand that such he now considers them, who have undermined the purity of the theocratic community by their commandments which adulterated the law; but especially by their malignant, homicidal speeches. But they might perhaps also so interpret His words, as if He not only did away with the rules of the elders in respect to washings, but also the laws of Moses in respect to the eating of the flesh of unclean animals. A direct abolition of this sort was certainly not now His intention. The discourse did not refer to these laws respecting meats, but to the washings required by the commandment of the elders. Even these Jesus did not mean at once positively to set aside; only He would suffer no restraint to be laid upon Himself and His disciples by their enforcement; and that on the ground that He had translated the Old Testament law in this respect also into the New Testament form. Just as His keeping of the Sabbath showed its New Testament character in this, that He did good on the Sabbath, so likewise He set forth the New Testament purity of the mouth in this respect, that He kept the mouth sacred as being the outlet to the heart,—that is, according to its spiritual importance,—instead of wishing to keep it holy as being the entrance to the stomach, that is, viewed sensuously merely, and symbolically in the Levitical sense. And because, according to its highest meaning, He fulfilled the law of the consecration of the mouth, therefore for Him the same law in its lower sense was set aside, but without thereby setting aside the various considerations which might impose even upon Him the law of love and forbearance. Thus for Him the law of meats was in the sanctity of the heart and the mouth; and in the same way was it also set aside for His disciples, in so far as they stood under the law of sanctification binding them to this holy life of Christ. Therefore, also, Christ was able in the most general form to express the antithesis: Not that which enters into the mouth defiles the man, but that which comes out of the mouth. He who received into his heart the second law of life, had therewith also received into his heart the spirit of the first, and was therefore made free from the letter of it. The application and gradual development of the principle expressed was left to the training of the Spirit of Christ. But if we would ask, How could Christ before His death imperil a Mosaic appointment such as this? the answer is ready, that we have to think of His dying to the Old Testament theocracy as being a gradual process, which was to accomplish itself in several momentous steps. So soon, for example, as the Jewish government had declared itself against John the Baptist as well as against Him, He gave up the Old Testament baptism by receiving it, according to its essential import, into the presentiment of His death. Further, so soon as the Jews violated the Sabbath by lying in wait for His works of mercy on the Sabbath-day, He gave up regard for their sabbatical ordinances, and set forth the Sabbath in the rest of God, by which He was helping the miserable. Thus He is at the present time induced to allow the laws concerning washings and meats to go in abeyance in the declaration of the higher law of life, that the mouth and the life must be purified from the heart even as they are defiled from the heart. The crisis afterwards came, when He took leave of the temple declaring: This your house shall be left unto you desolate! Similar was the crisis when He had no longer an answer to make to the high priest. Thus we see how He dies to one element of the Old Testament economy after another, and this He does at all times whenever this economy is employed against His higher spiritual life, so that He is led to announce the higher law of life.

After Jesus, in the hearing of His opposers, had uttered to the people this comprehensive declaration, He withdrew with His disciples into the house which was then His abode. The disciples had remarked how much the Pharisees were offended at what He had last said. This circumstance quite engrossed them, and they called His attention to it. But Jesus answered them: ‘Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted shall be torn up by the roots.’ By that He could not have meant the Pharisees, but no doubt their commandments He did mean. All mere commandments of men are plants which His heavenly Father has not planted. They are no plants of life which have their origin in eternity, which are rooted and which breathe in eternity, and are appointed for eternity. A temporal motive has produced them, in a temporal interest they find their vital nourishment, into a temporal curse they are at length changed by their slavish admirers: in place of true, divine life, therefore, they have at length a temporal fate, in which they perish; they are rooted out Then Jesus passed judgment on the Pharisees themselves: ‘Let them alone! they are blind leaders of the blind; but if a blind man leads the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.’ Once before in general terms Jesus had drawn this severe sketch; now He applied it directly to the Pharisees.

Even the disciples had not understood Christ’s dictum. It seemed to them as a dark parable, at all events as a parable which they were obliged to ask to have explained. This induced the Lord to utter the reproof: ‘Are ye so without understanding also?’ He saw Himself obliged plainly to describe the contrast between what enters into the mouth, and what goes out of the mouth. The first is of a physical kind; it does not make its way into the heart of a man, but into the belly, and is at length cast out into the draught, which purifies the whole feeding process.¹⁰ On the other hand, the latter, that which goes out of the mouth, is of a spiritual nature; it may defile the man,—namely, the evil designs of the heart perfecting themselves in words, crimes of every kind. These deeds in words, these ‘adulteries, fornications, murderings, thefts, covetousnesses, slynesses, obscenities, malignant side-glances,¹¹ or defamations, railings, self-exaltations, foolishnesses: these defile the man and make him common,’ so that he no longer belongs to the holy community.

This last conflict with His opposers seems to have made a great impression upon the Lord. The unclean spirit which is desecrating the Holy Land, which is defiling the chosen people, which now almost at every step is maliciously opposing Him, and breathing upon Him with its impure breath, drives Him back close upon the borders of the heathen country, as if it would fain drive Him into the heathen world. He immediately quitted His present place of abode, probably an abode belonging to some friends in the highlands of Galilee, and withdrew (ἀνεχώρησεν) from the snares of His enemies, wandering with His disciples far away through the mountains in a north-westerly direction, as far as the borders of Phœnicia. Here, at the extreme limit of the Jewish land, He would fain rest Himself for a while in profound solitude, and reflect upon His further progress in a country in which nearly every way and path were closed against Him by enemies.

Elijah also had once wandered into Phœnicia, when he was no longer able to find a resting-place from his enemies in the Jewish land. Jesus remained just inside the Jewish borders. He here chose out a lonely abode, where He would fain have been hid for a while from all the world. But in this He could not succeed. A heathen woman, of the original Phœnician (Syrian) stock,¹² and thus to the Jewish mind an unclean Canaanite, but apparently a Greek in point of language, whose little daughter was tormented by a demoniacal malady, heard of Him, and crossed the borders to seek for Him. The keen sagacity with which need here scents out and finds her Saviour is of infinite, quite indeterminable magnitude. In various ways she might have heard something of the importance of Jesus. In her miserable plight, the maiden herself, in some bright moment, might perhaps have found out the Helper and described Him to her mother. But there was no need of that here. ‘Jesus could not be hid,’ the Evangelist emphatically says. She seems first to have met with Him when He was walking about with His disciples. Imploringly she cried to Him from afar: ‘Have mercy upon me, O Lord, Thou Son of David! and moaned out to Him her daughter’s terrible suffering. Jesus walked on without answering her. It must have been hard for Him to allow the woman’s wail to die away unheeded. But even the strongest of His feelings—His compassion-was overruled by the consciousness of His temporary condition of limitation, restrained by the inward law of His mission and His pure self-determination. We have no right to say (as some do) that Jesus was at first not willing to help the woman, and that His intention was afterwards changed gradually through her importunity and her perseverance, in which He recognized a sign from His Father.¹³ For how could He have first precipitately formed the intention of not heeding the solicitations of the woman, and then have broken this intention? Thus much is true, that it was not at once certain whether, according to the theocratic relations, it would be possible for Him to help the woman, and that He waited for the unfolding of this certainty, because He could not be precipitate in either consenting or repulsing. As the heathen woman first found Him and cried out to Him, she was not such as He could help. She must first go through a course in her mental life; she must, in susceptibility for the blessing, become a Jewess or a Christian before He could bestow it upon her. With what dull heathen notions must she have first used this address, which she had got from the Jews: Lord, Thou Son of David! For if in this cry there was an admixture, a shrill sound of heathen superstition, then even on this ground Jesus could not at once yield to her. At any rate, a development of spiritual life must take place in this heathen’s heart before Jesus could extend to her the help which took for granted theocratic faith.¹⁴ Moreover, in the disciples also a higher state of mind must be consciously awakened before Jesus could yield to the woman’s desire (see vol. i. p. 400). Jesus had gradually unfolded His spiritual freedom in Israel to such a point, that He was on that account almost considered as outlawed by the hierarchical party. And now a case had arisen when, in consequence of one cure of a child in a heathen land suffering from bodily disease, He might be in danger of losing even the confidence of His disciples. At all events, therefore, He must first be sure of His disciples before He could help the heathen. So He walked on in silence, waiting to see in what measure His Spirit would stir in the hearts of His disciples, and in what measure, influenced thereby, the spirit of Israelitish faith would develop itself in the heart of the woman. And He did not wait in vain. The disciples came round Him and begged Him to dismiss the woman, to administer help to her. They certainly do not seem to bring forward the highest motive when they add: ‘for she crieth after us.’ But it does not follow from these words that they merely wished to be freed from the troublesome outcry.¹⁵ Rather, they seemed to be struck by the power, the earnestness, which was contained in her cries, and to expect that they would not cease until help came. Their hearts were all moved by the piercing call for help. And whilst they considered this call for help as a sufficient reason why she must be helped, they thereby declared, with beautiful naivety, that they no longer saw any national or religious hindrance in this case. Through this intercession of the disciples the woman was, so to speak, recognized as an Israelite, who had become so by virtue of her persevering prayers, and as admitted into the true Israelitish communion. There was now no longer any hindrance on the part of the disciples. But as touching the heathen woman, she had yet to justify the faith of the disciples; therefore Jesus declared to them: ‘I am only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel!’ In the meantime she had overtaken the lingering party, and then she threw herself down at Jesus’ feet, saying, ‘Lord, help me!’ Upon this, Jesus put her to the trial by uttering the severe word: ‘Let the children (of the house) first be filled. For it is not meet to take the bread which belongs to the children in the house, and throw it to the dogs.’ In this sentence, so marvellously made up of a rough shell and a sweet kernel, a bitter, proud heathen heart might have heard nothing but the utterance of a hard and narrow-minded national pride;¹⁶ but so likewise might a humble, pious human heart have heard in it an utterance of the Saviour of the nations. And yet the word had not a double meaning, it was only ambiguous: a simple theocratic word, full of Christian spirit under a Jewish veil. In its simple, original import, the expression declared that there existed an economical relation between Jews and heathen, appointed by God, which He must not disregard. By the law of this economy He must give the bread of the house to the Jews as children of the house, and had no right to take it away from these in order to throw it to those who had no right, or at least less right to it, such as were found in every household in the domestic dogs.¹⁷ If the woman had doubted the faithful original import of this figure, if she had heard with an untrue ear, she would have understood in these words of Jesus a chiding, and even an insulting denial. But she heard with a truer ear, and she was no doubt helped to do so by the peculiar tone of the words of Jesus. Who can say with what a drawing power of the Spirit He may have spoken these words? And so, indeed, in the harsh expression she heard a word of Christ’s.¹⁸ She gave the word the boldest application, which could only have been suggested to her, in her extremest need, by faith or by the Spirit of God, turning it into a promise. ‘Truth, Lord!’ she said; by this expression rejecting the harsh appearance of Christ’s words, but assenting to their true meaning. And with the same refined logic of the heart, at once assenting and refuting, she continued: ‘and so assuredly the dogs also (καὶ γάρ)¹⁹ eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ tables.’ She thought that a house rich enough to keep dogs at all, or call them by endearing names, must also provide for the dogs with the rest. She thought that the juncture was come when the children of the house were already filled to satiety, even if she did know that they were really beginning, in the worst sense, to grow tired of the bread of Jesus; a circumstance to which, probably, the word of Jesus had alluded. She did homage to the Lord and His disciples as her spiritual masters, and delicately declared that she considered it would be only a crumb from His fulness for Him to help her. We should but little understand either the woman or the Lord, if we supposed that by this word she humbled herself to be a self-castaway. She understood the spirit of Jesus’ words, which kindly and earnestly rebuked in her the heathen world and Heathenism; and she with lowly obeisance allowed their truth.²⁰ But with as much power of faith as humility, she seized hold of the hidden promise contained in the words, and so adroitly did she draw that promise out, that it almost seemed as if she had obtained a claim against Jesus, as if she had prevailed against Him in argument. But, in fact, she had only thereby interpreted the very sense of His own very word. Otherwise Jesus would not so joyfully have acknowledged her interpretation, but would have disclaimed it as a misinterpretation. Those who imagine that she conquered Him in His will, must at the same time likewise assume that she imputed to His words a ‘deeper meaning’ than they originally possessed.²¹ But instead of that, He recognized His meaning and His Spirit in her words, and therefore also the will of His Father that He should help her. With astonishment He exclaimed: ‘O woman, great is thy faith; be it unto thee even as thou wilt.’ When she returned home, she found her daughter exhausted, but healed, and lying on the bed; the last and decisive paroxysm was therefore already over.

It is indeed a fact of divine greatness and of marvellous tenderness, that Jesus helps the first Canaanitish woman by allowing Himself to be apparently overcome by her in argument as well as by her perseverance. Thus the apparent unkindness was gradually changed into the tenderest kindness; and He allows the severe humiliation of the heathen woman to be followed by a sublime manifestation of His own humility.

It was probably the publicity given to this occurrence that induced Jesus at once to leave that neighbourhood. He determined now again to direct His course towards the Galilean Sea. But He first travelled further north, and in this journey passed through a portion of the Sidonian territory.²² The Lord had just witnessed the faith that was ripening for Him in the heathen world. We may therefore venture to believe that He wanted to hold a silent fore-celebration of His future spiritual entrance into the heathen world; in silence to tread, in childlike delight to greet, His future dominion. He also, no doubt, felt how desirable such a previous acquaintance with heathen places and roads would be for the disciples. But the rapture of hope with which He would cross the borders of Judea would certainly be intimately blended with sorrow for His own nation. From the district of Sidon He turned eastward. Mark says that He now ‘passed through the midst of the borders of Decapolis.’ Now Decapolis certainly lay for the most part to the east of the Jordan and the Sea of Galilee. But this undefined region not only stretched itself in an easterly direction, but also to the north, beyond the borders of Judea. ‘It consisted, in the main, simply of places of which the Jews, after their return from the captivity, could not again obtain possession, and which therefore, although properly in Palestine, remained with the heathen. They maintained a peculiar municipal government, and were politically allied amongst themselves, on which account they were also a sore in the eyes of the Jews’ (Sepp, iii. 2). It followed from this origin of Decapolis, that it stood in political alliance with cities outside of Judea. Now if, according to Pliny, even Damascus belonged to Decapolis, and according to Lightfoot (supported by passages of the Talmud), Cesarea Philippi, we may surely, under the ‘borders’ of Decapolis, take in also the high land round the sources of the Jordan. We are also led to this by Mark’s description. Since Jesus traversed the Sidonian territory from south to north in order to return to the Sea of Galilee through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis, He must have proceeded in a sweeping semicircle through the mountain wastes and valleys at the foot of Lebanon and Anti-Libanus, past the snow-covered summit of Hermon. With the feeling of one banished from His home it was He dived into the solitudes of this region. His spirit was already occupied with the end which lay before Him. It became more and more clear to Him that the world would thrust Him out from its fellowship, that for the world’s salvation He must give His life. So soon, however, as He again approached the abodes of men, He was soon recognized. At a certain place one deaf and dumb was brought to Him; a man who could not hear, and could only unintelligibly stammer instead of speaking.²³

This man does not seem to have belonged to the class of demoniacs. Jesus led him to a retired spot, probably in order to avoid observation. Mark relates to us the way and means by which He dealt with him, and how He opened his hearing by the command: ‘Ephphatha: Be opened!’ He forbade those who were about the healed man to speak of the deed; but this was in vain. Here in the lonely, mountainous, south-eastern part of the country, where it bordered upon Jewish ground, and where His deeds were as yet but little known, especially by the heathen inhabitants of this region, there was created an extraordinary astonishment even at this single, comparatively small miracle. He makes all things well again! was the exultant cry of the people. They began to flock after Him. Far and wide spread His fame, from far and wide came the people (τινὲς γὰρ αὐτῶν μακρόθεν ἥκουσι). Thus He came at length to the scene of His earlier labours in Gaulonitis. There is no great ground for supposing that His present place of abode was much farther south than the earlier one. Here, as usual, the multitude brought to Him sick people of every description,—especially lame, blind, dumb, and maimed. But already many were so accustomed to His works of healing that they made use of but little ceremony in their applications to Him. Matthew says that they cast the sufferers down at His feet, and He healed them. But again and again did the ever-fresh divine works of Christ overcome the stupidity of the people, and constrain them with astonishment to glorify God.

This time the Lord’s intercourse with the people lasted three days. It was as if He with His people, and His people, with Him, in unbroken and blessed communion, had forgotten the world in the deep solitude of the wilderness. At the end of the third day He determined to dismiss the multitude. But as their time for departure drew near, He was seized with pity for the people, who were again in danger of sinking from hunger on their way home. Therefore He once more invited the people to be His guests and partake of His miraculous food in the wilderness.

This miracle has some resemblance to the former one. The situation is at least nearly the same. The crowd of people who surround Him is here again very great. The feeding is a miraculous one, performed with but slender means; and after the meal, a considerable quantity remains over, to be gathered up in fragments. What has caused most surprise in this matter is, that a similar conversation between Jesus and His disciples precedes this meal to that which preceded the former one, and that the disciples appear now to be just as much at a loss as then. But if we realize to ourselves how the Lord performed that first miracle only in the element of a heavenly frame of mind to which He raised the assembled multitude of His guests, that He blessed the bread with the power of His divine life, and increased it through the blessing of His love (see vol. i. 447), we shall understand how that the disciples might be tempted again in a spirit of doubtfulness to take into account the means required, and to feel a lively concern for the success of so apparently hazardous an undertaking. Just because they did not know whence on the first occasion had come all the bread and all the festive joy, therefore they saw nothing but difficulty in the proceeding, for which they were now made answerable with Him, since they had invited the guests. But the Lord’s will was law to them, and their cooperation in the matter shows that in the decisive moment they trusted to Him for everything. Certainly, however, we do not find here nothing but a mere feeble reflection of the first feeding; on the contrary, there are considerable differences apparent between the two miracles. The time is decidedly different. The guests this time remained three days with Jesus; the first time, only one day. This time the supply of bread which Jesus and His disciples had was greater than at the first time—seven loaves and a few fishes, whilst the first time the number of the loaves was five. On the other hand, the number of the guests is smaller, namely, four thousand besides women and children; the former time there were a thousand men more. And whilst then twelve baskets (κοφίνοι) were filled with the fragments that were left, now there were only seven (σπυρίδες).²⁴

These characteristics carry with them a high degree of historic simplicity and truth. It has been justly remarked, that an embellishing or myth-constructing representation would never have been content to make the second feeding follow the first in this less brilliant form.²⁵ But this the spirit of evangelical truthfulness was really able to do. For the Lord did not want to unfold a new splendour, but to do His work of compassion on the hungry multitude, who were in danger of famishing.²⁶

The crowd of people whom Jesus had now fed appears in a different aspect of character from that former one. This had in part flocked to Him from the mountains of the north-eastern boundary of the land. That crowd, on the other hand, came for the most part from the maritime towns of the Sea of Galilee, especially from Tiberias and the neighbourhood, and there was much excitement and enthusiasm amongst it. Therefore on that former occasion Jesus could with difficulty withdraw Himself from the multitude. Now, on the contrary, He is able quietly to get into a ship with His disciples and depart. They traverse the length of the sea in a slanting direction, and at length landed in the coasts of Magdala or Dalmanutha. Of the situation of Dalmanutha, nothing is further known. Probably it was a village or spot in the neighbourhood of Magdala. It is remarkable that the Lord does not land now at Capernaum; probably He avoided that much-frequented landing-place, because He knew that at this time the hierarchy were everywhere lying in wait for Him. The voyagers intentionally hove-to at an unfrequented landing-place between the two comparatively small places, Magdala and Dalmanutha, which were situated towards the south of the sea. Hence arose a wavering in the tradition, Matthew describing the place of landing as being on the coasts of Magdala, and Mark in the neighbourhood of Dalmanutha. Their specification seems to be perfectly exact. The landing took place in the neighbourhood of Dalmanutha, in the region of Magdala, whose district probably embraced likewise the smaller place of Dalmanutha.²⁷

───♦───

Notes

1. In elucidation of the circumstance that the Pharisees came from Jerusalem to Galilee in order to call Jesus to account, Von Ammon (ii. 264) makes the following remark:—‘The sect of the Pharisees was, as is well known, predominant, as regards numbers, in the Sanhedrim of the capital, and kept up a close connection with the synagogues dependent on Jerusalem (Act 9:2). Delegates therefore from that authority industriously visited the provinces, and were especially watchful of those teachers who deviated from the principles of Pharisaism, at the head of which principles the dogma of tradition stood foremost.’ This, no doubt, is what is referred to in Act 14:19, chap. 15:1.

2. Not only unconsciously, but with the most distinct consciousness, did the Rabbins exalt their institutions above the law of Moses. In the Talmud it runs thus: The words of the scribes are more excellent than the words of the law; for the words of the law are both difficult and easy, but the words of the scribes are all easy (easily understood). See Sepp, ii. 345. ‘He who occupies himself with the Scriptures—so we read in the treatise Bava Metzia—does something indifferent; he who studies the Mischna deserves praise; but he who concerns himself with the Gemara does the most meritorious thing of all.ʼ—Ib

3. Concerning the way in which Strauss (i. 531) treats the account of the Canaanitish woman, Ebrard has expressed himself severely, but appropriately. See his work, p. 336.

4. Concerning the way in which criticism treats the similarity between the first and second miraculous feeding, the above-mentioned author has enlarged in a humorous manner. Comp. also Hug's Gutachten, ii. p. G8.

1) In Mark it is: They ate bread κοιναῖς χερσὶ, that is, no doubt, with hands which according to the Levitical law were unclean, or common.

2) Πιιγμῇ, with the fist. It was perhaps a part of the rite that the washing hand was closed, because it was apprehended that a hand washing open might perhaps defile the other hand, or be again defiled by it, after it was itself washed. In this case, the maxim would not seem to have held good: One hand washes the other.

3) It is plain enough, that here victuals are meant which were brought from the market, and not that those persons who come home from market had to bathe themselves, See Olshausen in loc.

4) See Von Ammon, ii, 265. ‘The washing of the hands before meals was an universal custom with Persians, Greeks, and Romans.’

5) Ex. xx. 12; chap. xxi. 17.

6) The Corban, offering, of Moses is identical in meaning with the קוֹנָם, votum esto, then in use; a word of interdict, by which the offerer pronounced himself wholly quit of an object, so that the thing Was no longer at his own disposal. (Mishna in the treatise נדרים, De Votis, c. 1,2). If, therefore, an ungrateful child wished wholly to separate himself from his parents, he only had to say Konam, and then every gift of filial gratitude was already sequestered beforehand; just as the Polynesian islanders with a similar word pronounced themselves entirely quit of everything that they declare ‘consecrated to the gods.’ Von Ammon, ii. 260; see Lev. vii. 88. The children of Israel had already uttered the vow of sacrifice in Egypt, which they were now to fulfil in the wilderness. See Ex. viii, 25, 26. Comp. Sepp, ii, 3847.

7) In Matthew’s account, the breaking off of the sentence (the aposiopesis) is doubtful, especially if we follow Lachmann’s text. But in the Gospel of Mark this breaking off is very decided, It seems very appropriate to. the historical scene which is represented : Christ is citing a rule laid down by His opposers. Comp, Winer, N. T. Gramm.

8) Thus Rabbi Elieser. Comp. De Wette, Matt, 135.

9) See Olshausen on this passage.

10) Καθάριζον πάντα τά βρώματα (Mark v. 19). The draught not only purges food as separating from it the unclean excrement, but it cleanses also the very excrement of food itself. For that which is in its right place, in its proper relations, is clean. Thus the cloaca secures the ideal character of the lowest function of nature. It is the last καθάριζον in relation to food, which does away with all impurities which may have come into combination with it—a strong contrast to the καθάριζον of pharisaical ordinances.

11) The evil eye, which is still so much talked of in the East, is only meant here in a figurative sense, as it works in words of malignity, See Sepp, ii. 348.

12) Comp. Olshausen in loc. [It is very well brought out by Archer Butler, in his sermon on the Canaanite mother a type of the Gentile Church (Sermons, i. 210), that, this woman embraced in her single person every great division of the then known Gentile world, considered as to position relatively to Israel: of Tyre and Sidon, a Canaanite, a Syro-pheenician, a Greek.—ED.]

13) See Stier, ii. 287, &c. His argument, on the other hand, in opposition to the usual supposition (p. 280), that the Lord only desired to prove the woman, is perfectly just.

14) See Von Ammon, ii. 275.

15) This motive in the disciples speech Stier brings too prominently forward (ii. 285). But his remark is very striking: ʻHere is appearance against appearance: the merciful Master appears unfeeling, and the disciples appear more merciful than He, though they think as much at least of themselves as of the petitioner and her sorrow.ʼ

16) As some ʻcriticsʼ of our own time have proved in their own case.

17) See Neauder on this passage.

18) [Hers was trust ‘manifested, not in believing what the Lord said, but in disbelieving it, when, in its apparent sense, it contradicted her views of God’s character, and tended to shake her confidence in Him, by representing Him as careless about her sufferings, and indisposed to relieve them.’ Bishop O’Brien’s Ten Sermons on Faith. The use he makes of this instance of faith is one of the most striking portions of his rich volume,—ED.]

19) [ ʻFor indeed’ —TR.]

20) She does not humble herself before a man, but before Him in whom—in any case, whatever she might understand about His person—God was revealing Himself to her feelings’ —Neander.

21) The ‘critics’ (so styled) must needs even suppose that the woman as well as the disciples so worked upon the Lord, as to carry Him further than He otherwise would have gone.

22) Lachmann follows the strongly authenticated reading: ἢλθεν διὰ Σιδῶνος. [So Tischeudorf, Alford, Tregelles, aud Meyer. ED.]

23) Olshausen thinks that it was only on account of his deafness that he could not speak plain. But Mark not only remarks that his ears were opened, but also that the string of his tongue was loosed. Sepp has confounded this mail with the demoniacal deaf and dumb mail whom we meet with earlier.

24) Certainly the circumstance that Paul (Acts ix. 25) was let down by the wall ἐν σπυρίδι: seems to lead to the supposition that σπυρίδες were a larger kind of baskets. See Stier, ii, 292.

25) See Olshausen on this passage. What Strauss (ii. 189) says to the contrary does not do away with the weight of Olshausen's remark ; rather he here himself departs from the pure supposition of its being a mythical account, in order to find standing-ground against his opponents.

26) [That this applies to all Christ's works is admirably shown by Ewald (Geseh. Christus, pp. 229-231). His deeds were not arranged and executed in order to prove His Messiahship, but, though fitted to do this, were themselves called forth from His compassion and sympathy. They proved His Messiahship the rather because they were so purely and simply deeds of love.—ED.]

27) Olshausen (ii. 193) erroneously removes these places to the eastern shore of the sea. Von Ammon, on the other hand, just as erroneously places the scene of the second miraculous feeding on the western shore (ii. 223). [See Thomson s possible discovery of Dalmanutha in Dalhauiia, on the western shore, south of Magdala: Land and Book, 393.—ED.]