Luke 11

II. Whereas he saith, he that made that which is without, he doth not speak it of the artificer that made the cup or the platter, but of God. Else what kind of argument is this? 'He that made the cups and the platters, made both the outside and the inside of them': what then? 'Therefore do ye make yourselves clean both outside and inside too.' But if we refer it to God, then the argument holds forcibly enough: 'Did not God, that made you without, make you within too? he expects, therefore, that you should keep yourselves clean, not only as to your outside, but as to your inside too.'

III. It is hardly probable that the Pharisees should wash the outside of the cup or platter, and not the inside too. Take but these two passages out of this kind of authors themselves: "Those dishes which any person eats out of over night, they wash them, that he may eat in them in the morning. In the morning they wash them, that he may eat in them at noon. At noon, that he may eat in them at the mincha. After the mincha, he doth not wash them again; but the cups, and jugs, and bottles, he doth wash, and so it goes throughout the whole day," &c. I will not give myself nor reader the trouble to examine the meaning of the words: it suffices that here is mention only of washing, and that the whole vessel, not of this or that part only: and the washing of such vessels was by dipping them in water.

"All vessels that have an outside and an inside, if the inside be defiled, the outside is also; but if the outside be defiled, the inside is not defiled." One would think this was to our purpose, and asserted the very literal sense of the words we have in hand, viz. that the cups and the platters, although they were unclean on the outside, yet in the inside they might be clean; and it was sufficient to the Pharisee, if he cleansed them on the outside only. But the vessels here mentioned (if the Gloss may be our interpreter) are such as they might use both the outside and the inside indifferently. Some of them are recited by the Gemarists, viz. sacks, wallets, nightcaps, pillowcases, &c.

Our Saviour, therefore, does not here speak according to the letter, neither here nor in Matthew 23:25, when he saith, "Ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter"; but by way of parable and similitude. 'You, while you are so very nice and officious in your external washings, you do nothing more than if you only washed the outside of the cup or dish, while there was nothing but filth and nastiness within.'

40. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?

[Ye fools.] A word very common to the nation. "Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai said to the Baithuseans, Ye fools, how prove you this?" "Esau said, Cain was a fool. Pharaoh said, Esau was a fool. Haman said, Pharaoh was a fool. Gog and Magog will say, They were all fools that are gone before us." Hence that common phrase, O thou most foolish thing in all the world.

41. But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

[But rather give alms of such things as ye have.] This seems ironically spoken, and in derision to the opinion they had concerning alms.

1. As to the version of the word of such things, may we not suppose it signifies not only, that which is over and above, as the Vulgar, but also all that you have, as Beza: or not only something that may have respect to the riches of this world, but something also that may have respect to the doctrines and tenets of the Pharisees. As if the meaning was this, "'Those things which are amongst you,' i.e. which obtain commonly amongst you, are to this purpose, 'Give but alms, and all things are clean unto you.'" ...

II. However, that which is over and above, or that which you have, (for I will not be very tenacious in this) yet it is hardly probable that our Saviour utters this as his own, but rather as the words and opinion of the Pharisees. Nor do I think that he speaks these things directly, or by way of directions to them, but that he cites their tenets in mere scoff and displeasure. For indeed, this principle was the spawn of their own schools, that giving of alms had a value in it that served for atonement, justification, salvation, every thing. Hence that common term that reached so comprehensively, righteousness. And hence is it that, in those numberless places in the Holy Scriptures, where the praises of justice and righteousness are celebrated, and all the blessings of it pronounced, they apply it all to the giving of alms. Take on instance for all: "Rabh Asai saith, Alms is equivalent to all the other commandments." "R. Judah saith, Giving of alms is a great thing; for it hastens our redemption. It is written, righteousness, [i.e., giving of alms], delivers from death. Almsgiving, delivereth from sudden death, and from the judgment of hell. R. Meir saith, If any wicked man should make this objection, that if your God love the poor, why doth he not feed them? do thou make this answer; it is, that we by them might be delivered from the judgment of hell."

I fear, indeed, that the Greek interpreters have a touch of this, when they so oftentimes render justice by giving of alms. So that the reader may judge whether our Saviour either would teach, that rapine, injustice, and unrighteousness might be cleansed by giving of alms; or that he would give them any counsel of this nature, when he knew they were sufficiently tinctured with this kind of doctrine already.

45. Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.

[Then answered one of the lawyers.] Here seems a little difficulty, that whereas, in the foregoing verse it is said, "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees," it is not subjoined then answered one of the scribes, but one of the lawyers; which scruple perhaps the Vulgar observing, made him leave scribes and Pharisees wholly out. Our Saviour inveighs more peculiarly, and by name, against the Pharisees, verses 37,42,43; and at length joins the scribes with them, verse 44. Hence that lawyer cavils and complains, either that he had named the scribes in terms, or that he had accused the Pharisees of nothing but what the scribes might be equally accused of. As to this very scribe, did not he wash his hands before dinner as the Pharisees did? for it is said of all the Jews, "except they wash their hands oft, eat not." Did not the scribe tithe mint and rue as well as the Pharisee? when we find that the tithing of herbs was instituted by the Rabbins. In a word, the scribes and the Pharisees go hand in hand in that discourse of our Saviour's, Matthew 23; where he blameth both the one and the other for the same things. So that it is plain enough why this man complains; but it is not so plain why he should be termed "one of the lawyers," and not "one of the scribes."

I. It is not very easy distinguishing betwixt the scribe and the Pharisee, unless that Pharisaism was a kind of tumour and excrescence as to superstition and austerities of religion beyond the common and stated practice of that nation, even of the scribes themselves. Whether that distinction betwixt singular, and a disciple, hints any difference as to the austerity of religion, I cannot affirm; I will only lay a passage or two in the reader's eye for him to consider.

"The Rabbins have a tradition, Let no one say, I am a Disciple, I am not fit to be made a Singular." The Gloss hath it, "I am not fit to begin the fasts with the Singulars." And the Gemara a little after; "The Rabbins have a tradition: Every one that would make himself a Singular, let him not make himself so: but if any one would make himself a Disciple, let him." And at length; It is not lawful for a Disciple of the Wise to continue in fastings, because he diminisheth from the work of God: that is, he ceaseth from learning and teaching.

One would here think, that it is plainly distinguished betwixt a Pharisee and any other; and yet the Gemarists, in the very same place, say thus, All the Disciples of the Wise are Singulars. At length they query, "Who is a Singular, and who is a Disciple? A Singular is he that is worthy to be preferred to be a pastor of a synagogue. A Disciple is he, who if they ask him any thing concerning a tradition in his doctrine, he hath wherewithal to answer." So that by a Disciple they mean not him that is now learning, but him who hath already learned and now teacheth; but, in other places, they apply both these to the Disciple.

"R. Jochanan saith, Who is a Disciple of the Wise? he whom they prefer to be pastor of a synagogue: he who, if they ask him about any tradition in any place, hath wherewithal to answer." The difference between these, however confounded in this place, was this: that the Disciple could answer doubts and questions fetched out of that place or from that subject upon which he had taught or read; but the Singular, could answer all doubts raised from any place, even out of the treatise concerning marriages. That mention of the pastor and the teacher, Ephesians 4:11, we seem to have some shadow of it here: the Disciple is the teacher, and the Singular is the pastor of the synagogue: and perhaps if these things were observed, it might give some light into that place of the apostle.

II. As the Disciple and the Singular are sometimes confounded, sometimes distinguished, so also is the scribe and the Pharisee. They are sometimes confounded; for many of the Pharisees were scribes: and they are sometimes distinguished; for many of them were of the common people, and not scribes. Perhaps it may not be improperly said, that there were Pharisees that were of the clergy, and Pharisees that were of the laity. He whom we have now before us was a scribe, but not a Pharisee; but it is not easy to give the reason why he is termed a lawyer and not a scribe. Here is some place for conjecture, but not for demonstration. As to conjecture, therefore, let us make a little essay in this matter.

I. I conceive that the lawyer and teacher of the law, may be opposed to the Sadducees to whom the Pharisee is diametrically opposite; for they were contrary to them in their practice of the traditional rites as much as they could; and these again abundantly contrary to them in traditional doctrines. The Sadducees had, indeed, their scribes or their teachers, as well as any other party: and there is frequent mention of the scribes of the Sadducees. And from this antithesis, probably, is Rabban Gamaliel termed a doctor of law. For there was then an assembly of the 'sect of the Sadducees,' verse 17: and when Gamaliel, who was of the other sect, made his speech amongst them, it is easy to conceive why he is there termed a doctor of law. For the same reason we may suppose the person here before us might be called one of the lawyers, and not a scribe, because there were scribes even amongst the Sadducees.

II. I conceive, therefore, that the lawyers and teachers of the law were the traditionary doctors of the law. As to Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, the thing is without dispute: and if there were any difference between the lawyers and doctors of the law, yet as to this matter, I suppose there was none. Let us consider this following passage: "It is a tradition: R. Simeon Ben Jochai saith, He that is conversant, in the textual exposition of the law, hath a measure, which is not a measure. He that is conversant in Misna, hath a measure, from whence they receive a reward: but if he be conversant in the Talmud, there is not a greater measure than this. Always betake yourself to the Misna rather than the Talmud. But R. Jose Ben R. Bon saith, This which thou sayest, obtained before the Rabbi had mixed with it manifold traditions: but from the time that he mixed with it manifold traditions, always have recourse to the Talmud rather than to the Misna."

Now, I pray, who is he that, according to this tradition, merits most the title of a doctor of law? He that is conversant in the exposition and interpretation of the written law, and the context of it, alas! he doth but little; and for all the oil and labour he hath spent, hath only a measure, which is not a measure. But he that is conversant in the Misna and Talmud, in the traditional doctrine or exposition of the traditional law, he bears away the bell; he hath some reward for his pains, and is dignified with the title of doctor.

III. If there were any distinction betwixt doctors of tradition and doctors of law (which I hardly believe), we may suppose it might be this; either that the doctor of law had his school and his disciples, and the doctor of tradition had none; or that the doctor of tradition was conversant in the Misna, or the plain and literal exposition of traditions, and the doctor of law, in the Talmud, or a more profound and scholastic way of teaching.

However, be there this distinction betwixt them, or some other, or indeed none at all, yet I presume they were both doctors of traditions, and expounders of that which they called the oral law, in opposition to the scribes, whether amongst the Jews or the Sadducees, who employed themselves in the textual exposition of the law.

46. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

[And ye yourselves touch not (the burdens) with one of your fingers.] That the lawyers (as we have already said) were the doctors of traditions, is a little confirmed by this, that what our Saviour reproacheth them for were merely traditionals: this particularly, that they laded men with such 'yokes of traditions,' and yet they themselves would not touch or move them with one of their fingers.

This exposition indeed vulgarly obtains, 'You lay grievous burdens upon others, which in the meantime you indulge yourselves in, and will not undergo them by any means.' This interpretation I cannot but admit; but yet must inquire whether there be not something more included it. For whereas 'he that would prescribe light things to himself, and burdensome to others,' was commonly accounted and called a wicked cunning fellow: and whereas there is frequent mention of this or that Rabbin, who would lay this or that burden upon himself, which he would acquit others of; it may be a question, whether this exposition, so commonly received, doth indeed speak out the whole sense and meaning of these words.

I apprehend, therefore, our Saviour might not only rebuke the remissness and indulgence they gave themselves, but further their strictness and tenaciousness about their own decrees. They made light of the commandments of God, at their own pleasure; but would never diminish the least tittle of their own. That they might remove or take away any part of the divine law, they employ both hands; but as to their own constitutions, they will not move one finger.

49. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

[Therefore also said the wisdom of God.] This form of speaking agreeth well enough with that so much in use, the rule of judgment saith. Amongst numberless instances, take that of the Targumist; "Is it fitting that the daughters of Israel should eat the fruit of their own womb? The rule of judgment [retributive justice] answered and said, Was it also fitting to kill a priest and a prophet in the sanctuary of the Lord, as ye killed Zacharias," &c.

51. From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

[Unto the blood of Zacharias.] If our Saviour had not in the evangelist St. Matthew added "the son of Barachias," no one could have doubted that it referred to any other than Zacharias the son of Jehoiada, whose slaughter is recorded 2 Chronicles 24. It is certain the Jews own no other Zacharias slain in the Temple but himself: and what they say of his slaughter, I have already taken notice upon that place in St. Matthew out of both the Talmuds. We meet with the same things in Midras Echah, and Midras Coheleth: out of which last give me leave briefly to transcribe these passages:

"The blood of Zachary boiled up two hundred and fifty-two years, from the days of Joash to the days of Zedekiah. What did they do? They swept into it all the dust [of the court] and made a heap; yet it ceased not, but still boiled and bubbled up. The Holy Blessed God said to the blood, Behold the time is come that thou exact [that was, Let the Lord behold, and require it at your hands]. When Nebuzaradan came and inquired, what this matter was; they answered, That it was the blood of heifers, and rams, and lambs, which they had sacrificed. Afterward, when he came to understand what the matter was, he slew eighty thousand priests, and yet the blood would not stanch, but broke out and flowed as far as the tomb of Zachary. He brought together, therefore, the Sanhedrim, both the Great and Less, and slew them over that blood, and yet it did not cease," &c.

I hardly indeed think that those that relate this matter did really believe it to have been actually so; but only would by such flowers of rhetoric and strained hyperboles, paint out the horrible guilt of the murder of Zacharias; which by how much the more horrible it was, by so much the more did it agree with the guilt of the murder of our blessed Lord.

And however a great part of it in these relations of theirs may be mere flourish, yet by the whole framing of the thing, it must needs be observed, that the slaughter of this Zacharias was so famous and rooted in the minds of that people generally, that when our Saviour speaks of one Zacharias, slain between the Temple and the altar, it cannot be imagined that they could understand him pointing at any other than this very man. As for his father being here called Barachias, and not Jehoiada, we have spoken to that matter elsewhere.

If any one hesitate about the changing of the name, let him say by what name he finds Jehoiada recited in that catalogue of priests set down in 1 Chronicles 6. It must be either some other name, or else we must suppose him wholly left out of that number. If by another name, you will say (supposing he be also called Barachias) he was then a man of three names. This indeed is no unusual thing with that nation for some to have more names than one: nay, if you will believe the Jewish doctors, even Moses himself had no less than ten.

52. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

[Ye have taken away the key of knowledge.] Should we render it, Ye have taken the key of knowledge, (that is, to yourselves) or, Ye have taken it away; there is not much difference. They took the key of knowledge to themselves, when they arrogated to themselves only all profoundness of wisdom and learning, hereby indeed taking it away from the people, because they taught them nothing but trifling and idle stuff.

The word for key in their language brings to mind the word which was so very much in use amongst them for one that was teaching. Instances of this were endless: there are enough of it in that long preface prefixed to that Midras Threnorum, that hath for its title, The opening of the wise; where (as indeed almost everywhere else), it is so frequently said, R. such a one 'opened'; for I cannot tell how better to render it...