Luke 10

II. As to the oral law, there was also a twofold way of explaining it, as they had for the written law:

1. The former way we have intimated to us in these words: "The book of the Law, when it grows old, they lay up with one of the disciples of the wise men, even although he teach the traditions." The passage seems very obscure, but it is thus explained by the Gloss: "Albeit it doth not any way help the disciples of the wise men in Talmud and Gemara, but in Misnaioth and Beriathoth," that is, he that would only read the body of the traditional law, and render the literal sense of it,--and not he that would dispute scholastically, and comment upon it. For,

2. There were doctors that would inquire more deeply into the traditions, would give some accounts (such as they were), of them, would discuss difficulties, solve doubts, &c.; a specimen of which is the Talmudic Gemara throughout.

Lastly, amongst the learned, and doctors of that nation, there were the Agadici, who would expound the written law in a more profound way than ordinary, even to what was cabalistical. These were more rare, and (as it should seem) not so acceptable amongst the people. Whether these are concerned in what follows, let the reader judge: "R. Joshua Ben Levi saith, So and so let it happen to me, if in all my life I ever saw the book Agada above once; and then I found a hundred seventy-and-five sections of the law, where it is written, 'The Lord hath said, hath spoken, hath commanded.' They are according to the number of the years of our father Abraham, as it is said, To receive gifts for men, &c. A hundred forty-and-seven Psalms, which are in the Book of Psalms [mark the number] are according to the number of the years of our father Jacob; as it is written, 'Thou art holy, and inhabitest the praises of Israel.' A hundred twenty-and-three turns, wherein Israel answereth Hallelujah [to him that repeats the Hallel], are according to the number of the years of Aaron," &c. And as a coronis, let me add that passage in Sanhedrim, "If they be masters of the textual reading, they shall be conversant in the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. If they be masters of the Misna, they shall be conversant in Misna Halacoth and Haggadoth. And if they be masters of the Talmud, they shall be conversant in the traditions of the Passover, in the Passover: in the traditions of Pentecost, in Pentecost: in the traditions of the feast of Tabernacles, in the feast of Tabernacles."

These all, whom we have mentioned, were scribes and doctors and expounders of the law; but which of these may properly and peculiarly challenge to themselves the title of lawyers, whether all, or any particular class of them? The latter is most probable: but then, what class will you choose? or will you distinguish betwixt the lawyer and the teacher of the law? I had rather the reader would frame his own judgment here. And yet, that I might not dismiss this question wholly untouched, and at the same time not weary the reader with too long a digression, I have referred what is to be alleged in this matter to my notes upon chapter 11:45.

26. He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

[How readest thou?] An expression very common in the schools, What readest thou? when any person brought a text of Scripture for the proof of any thing. The Rabbins have a tradition, that the disease of the squinancy came into the world upon the account of tithes. (The Gloss hath it: "For eating of fruits that had not been tithed.") "R. Eliezer Ben R. Jose saith, 'It was for an evil tongue.' Rabba saith, and it is the saying also of R. Joshua Ben Levi, What readest thou? The king shall rejoice in God; every one that sweareth by himself shall glory: for the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped." And a little after, upon another subject: "R. Simeon Ben Gezirah saith, What or how readest thou? If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock": Canticles 1:8.

We will not be very curious in inquiring whether our Saviour used the very same form of speech, or any other. In this only he departs from their common use of speech, in that he calls to another to allege some text of Scripture; whereas it was usual in the schools that he that spoke that would allege some place himself.

27. And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

[And with all thy mind.] In this answer of the man there are these two things observable:

I. That our Saviour brings in this clause, which in so many terms is not in Moses, where the rest are: where the Greek both of the Roman and Alexandrian edition render with all thy might. But wherein is mind? I pass by other copies, wherein though there is some varying, yet there is not this which is now before us.

Our Saviour hath the same clause elsewhere, but not in the same order; with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: here it is, with all thy strength, and with all thy mind. What shall we say therefore? shall we suppose it writ to this sense in the Hebrew in their phylacteries? This we can hardly think. Was it added by the Greek interpreters, and so the evangelists take it from thence? we see it is not so. What then? doth might signify both strength and mind? Here, indeed, the hinge of the question turns. That it denotes strength, no one doubts; yea, and the Rabbins suppose it denotes Mammon too, with whom the Syriac and Targumist agree: but still, where doth it signify the mind?

1. Take such a Gloss as is frequently in use amongst the allegorizing doctors: With what measure he shall mete to thee, do thou praise him exceedingly. Where we see they play with the sound of words, which is a very common thing with them to do...

2. To this we may add, if we think fit, what they commonly require in all religious services; viz. the preparation and the intention of the mind...Moses' words, therefore, are rendered by the evangelists not strictly and according to the letter, as they are in him, or were in the parchments in the phylacteries; but both according to their full sense and tenour, as also according to the common and received interpretation of that nation.

"R. Levi Bar Chajothah went to Caesarea, and heard them reciting their 'Shemaa' [or their phylacteries] Hellenistically [i.e. in Greek]" &c. Now, whether the clause we are now handling was inserted there, it would be in vain to inquire, because not possible to find...

The second thing observable in this man's answer, is, that he adds, "And thy neighbour as thyself": which indeed was not written in the schedules of their phylacteries: otherwise I should have thought the man had understood those words of our Saviour, How readest thou? as if he had said, "How dost thou repeat the sentences of the phylacteries?" for he reciteth the sentence as it was in their phylacteries, only adding this clause, "And thy neighbour," &c. Now the usual expression for the recitation of their phylacteries was They read the 'Shemaa'; which also is so rendered by some when indeed they commonly repeat them without book. He that read the Book [of Esther] orally: i.e. as the Gemara explains it, "Without book," or "by heart." It is queried, "Why they repeat those two sections every day? R. Levi saith, Because the ten commandments [of the decalogue] are comprehended therein." And he shews further how they are comprehended, saving only (which is very observable) the second commandment. Afterward indeed they confess, "It was very fitting they should every day repeat the very decalogue itself; but they did not repeat it, lest the heretics should say, that only those commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai." However, they did repeat those passages wherein they supposed the decalogue was summed up.

Whether, therefore, this lawyer of ours understood the words of our Saviour as having respect to that usage of repeating their phylacteries; or whether he of his own accord, and according to his own opinion, would be giving the whole sum of the decalogue, he shews himself rather a textual than a traditional doctor, although the word lawyer, seems to point out the latter rather.

29. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

[And who is my neighbour?] This doubt and form of questioning he had learned out of the common school, where it is thus taught in Aruch. He excepts all Gentiles when he saith, His neighbour.

"An Israelite killing a stranger inhabitant, he doth not die for it by the Sanhedrim; because it is said, If any one lift up himself against his neighbour. And it is not necessary to say, He does not die upon the account of a Gentile: for they are not esteemed by them for their neighbour."

"The Gentiles, amongst whom and us there is no war, and so those that are keepers of sheep amongst the Israelites, and the like, we are not to contrive their death: but if they be in any danger of death, we are not bound to deliver them: e.g. If any of them fall into the sea, you shall not need to take him out: for it is said, Thou shalt not rise up against the blood of thy neighbour; but such a one is not thy neighbour."

30. And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

[A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho.] This was the most beaten and frequented road in the whole land of Israel, and that, not only as it led to Perea, but also upon the account of that great traffic that was between these two cities, especially because of the courses that were as well in Jericho as Jerusalem. Of which we have discoursed elsewhere. To which I shall superadd this passage out of Jerusalem Taanith: "The former prophets instituted four-and-twenty courses, and for every course there was a stationary class of priests, Levites, and Israelites in Jerusalem. It is a tradition: Four-and-twenty thousand was the stationary number out of Jerusalem, and half that station out of Jericho. Jericho could indeed have produced an entire station; but that it would give the preference to Jerusalem; and therefore it produced but half."

Here, therefore, you may see in this historical parable why there is such particular mention made of a priest and Levite travelling that way, because there was very frequent intercourse of this sort of men between these towns; and that upon the account of the stations above mentioned.

[He fell among thieves.] It is with great confidence I see, but upon what foundation I cannot see, that the commentators generally make Adummim the scene of this robbery above all other places. It is true, the road betwixt Jerusalem and Jericho was dangerous enough; and for that reason (as is commonly believed) there was placed a band of soldiers "betwixt Aelia and Jericho," for the safeguard of passengers: but whereas it is said that the place is called Adummim, i.e. a place of redness, from the blood that was spilt by robbers there, this seems to have very little force in it: because the place had that name of Adummim even in Joshua's days, when we can hardly suppose the times to have been so pestered with robberies as they were when our Saviour uttered this parable: see Joshua 15:7, where if we consider the situation of 'the going up to Adummim,' it will appear it was not very distant from Jericho.

[Half dead.] The Rabbins term it next to death; beyond which condition, on this side death, was only one just expiring.

31. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

[When he saw him, he passed by on the other side.] And why, I pray, priest and Levite, do ye thus pass by a man in such a miserable condition? Was he not an Israelite? It is true, ye had learned out of your own schools not to succour a Gentile, no, nor a keeper of sheep, though he was an Israelite: now was this wounded man such a one? or did ye think ye should have contracted some pollution by touching one half dead? The word passed by on the other side, seems to hint as if they passed by him, keeping their distance from him: let them tell the reason themselves. For my part, I would impute it wholly to the mere want of charity.

33. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him.

[But a certain Samaritan.] The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans: that is, so as to be obliged by them for any courtesy done to them. But would this Jew, half dead, reject the kindness of the Samaritan at this time? This person being of a nation than which the Jews hated nothing more, is brought in shewing this kindness to the Jew, on purpose to give the plainer instance, who is our neighbour. It might seem more proper to have said, that the Samaritan acknowledged the wounded man for his neighbour in being so kind to him: but our Saviour intimates that he was the wounded man's neighbour; thereby teaching us that even a stranger, yea, an enemy (against the doctrine of their own schools), is no other than our neighbour.

34. And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

[Pouring in oil and wine.] It is a tradition. "They spread a plaster for the sick on the sabbath day: that is, upon condition they had mingled it with wine and oil on the evening of the sabbath. But if they have not mixed it on the sabbath, it is forbidden. A tradition. R. Simeon Ben Eliezer saith, That it is allowed by R. Meir, both to mingle the oil and the wine, and also to anoint the sick on the sabbath day."

35. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

[He took out two pence.] Aruch: "A shekel of the law is selaa, and is of the value of four pence." So that the half shekel is two pence: a price that was to be paid yearly by every one as a ransom for his soul or life. Whence, not unfitly, we see two pence are paid down for the recovery of this man's life that had been wounded and half dead.

[And gave them to the host.] The Rabbins retain this Greek word, however the author of Aruch calls it Ismaelitic, or Arabic. A tavern or inn (saith he), in the Ismaelitish language, is called 'pondak.' It is true, indeed, the Arabic version useth this word in this place; but it is well known whence it takes its original. "Two men went into an inn; one a just, the other a wicked man. They sat down apart. The wicked man saith to the host, 'Let me have one pheasant, and let me have conditum or hippocras.' The just man said to the host, 'Let me have a piece of bread and a dish of lentils.' The wicked man laughed the just man to scorn, 'See how this fool calls for lentils when he may have dainties.' On the contrary, the just man, 'See how this fool eateth, when his teeth are to be immediately dashed out.' The just man saith to the host, 'Give me two cups of wine, that I may bless them': he gave them him, and he blessed them, and rising up gave to the host a piece of money for the portion that he had eaten, and departed in peace. But there was a falling out betwixt the wicked man and his host about the reckoning, and the host dashed out his teeth."

38. Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

[Martha received him, &c.] Our Saviour is now at the feast of Tabernacles: and visits Bethany, where there had grown a friendship betwixt himself and Lazarus' family, upon his having cast out so many devils out of Mary his sister. For it is no foreign thing to suppose she was that Mary that was called Magdalene, because Bethany itself was called Magdala. As to the name Martha, see notes upon John 11: and as to the name Magdala, see notes upon John 12.