King James Bible Adam Clarke Bible Commentary Martin Luther's Writings Wesley's Sermons and Commentary Neurosemantics Audio / Video Bible Evolution Cruncher Creation Science Vincent New Testament Word Studies KJV Audio Bible Family videogames Christian author Godrules.NET Main Page Add to Favorites Godrules.NET Main Page




Bad Advertisement?

Are you a Christian?

Online Store:
  • Visit Our Store

  • LIFE & TIMES OF JESUS THE MESSIAH - SECTION 46
    PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP - GR VIDEOS - GR YOUTUBE - TWITTER - SD1 YOUTUBE    


    THE ASCENT: FROM THE RIVER JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION

    THE HEALING OF THE WOMAN, CHRIST'S PERSONAL APPEARANCE, THE RAISING OF JAIRUS' DAUGHTER

    CHAPTER XXVI

    (St. Matt. ix. 18-26; St. Mark v. 21-43; St. Luke viii. 40- 56.)

    THERE seems remarkable correspondence between the two miracles which Jesus had wrought on leaving Capernaum and those which He did on His return. In one sense they are complementary to each other. The stilling of the storm and the healing of the demonised were manifestations of the absolute power inherent in Christ; the recovery of the woman and the raising of Jairus' daughter, evidence of the absolute efficacy of faith. The unlikeliness of dominion over the storm, and of command over a legion of demons, answers to that of recovery obtained in such a manner, and of restoration when disease had passed into actual death. Even the circumstances seem to correspond, though at opposite poles; in the one case, the Word spoken to the unconscious element, in the other the touch of the unconscious Christ; in the one case the absolute command of Christ over a world of resisting demons, in the other absolute certainty of faith as against the hostile element, of actual fact. Thus the Divine character of the Saviour appears in the absoluteness of His Omnipotence, and the Divine character of His Mission in the all-powerfulness of faith which it called forth.

    On the shore at Capernaum many were gathered on the morning after the storm. It may have been, that the boats which had accompanied His had returned to friendly shelter, ere the storm had risen to full fury, and had brought anxious tidings of the storm out on the Lake. There they were gathered now in the calm morning, friends eagerly looking out for the well- known boat that bore the Master and His disciples. And as it came in sight, making again for Capernaum, the multitude also would gather in waiting for the return of Him, Whose words and deeds were indeed mysteries, but mysteries of the Kingdom. And quickly, as He again stepped on the well-known shore, was He welcomed, surrounded, soon 'thronged,' inconveniently pressed upon, [1 comp. St. Luke viii. 45; St. Mark v. 31.] by the crowd, eager, curious, expectant. It seemed as if they had been all 'waiting for Him,' and He had been away all too long for their impatience. The tidings rapidly spread, and reached two homes where His help was needed; where, indeed, it alone could now be of possible avail. The two most nearly concerned must have gone to seek that help about the same time, and prompted by the same feelings of expectancy. Both Jairus, the Ruler of the Synagogue, and the woman suffering these many years from disease, had faith. But the weakness of the one arose from excess, and threatened to merge into superstition, while the weakness of the other was due to defect, and threatened to end in despire. In both cases faith had to be called out, tried, purified, and so perfected; in both the thing sought for was, humanely speaking, unattainable, and the means employed seemingly powerless; yet, in both, the outward and inward results required were obtained through the power of Christ, and by the peculiar discipline to which, in His all- wise arranging, faith was subjected.

    It sounds almost like a confession of absolute defeat, when negative critics (such as Keim) have to ground their mythical explanation of this history on the supposed symbolical meaning of what they designate as the fictitious name of the Ruler of the Synagogue, Jair, 'he will give light' [a Jesu v. Nazar. ii. 2, p. 472.], and when they [b Strauss, Leben Jesu ii. p. 135.] further appeal to the correspondence between the age of the maiden and the years (twelve) during which the woman had suffered from the bloody flux. This coincidence is, indeed, so trivial as not to deserve serious notice; since there can be no conceivable connection between the age of the child and the duration of the woman's disease, nor, indeed, between the two cases, except in this, that both appealed to Jesus. As regards the name Jairus, the supposed symbolism is inapt; while internal reasons are opposed to the hypothesis of its fictitiousness. For, it seems most unlikely that St. Mark and St. Luke would have rendered the discovery of 'a myth' easy by needlessly breaking the silence of St. Matthew, and giving the name of so well-known a person as a Synagogue- ruler of Capernaum. And this the more readily, that the name, though occurring in the Old Testament, and in the ranks of the Nationalist party in the last Jewish War, [c Jos. Jewish War vi. 1. 8, close.] was apparently not a common one. [2 The name, a well-known O.T. one (Numb. xxxii. 41; Judg., x. 3), does not occur in Rabbinic literature till after the Middle Ages.] But these are comparatively small difficulties in the way of the mythical interpretation.

    Jairus, one of the Synagogue-rulers [1 Keim starts the theory that, according to St. Matthew, Jairus was an in the sense of a civil magistrate. This, in order to make St. Matthew contradict St. Mark and St. Luke, as if were not one of the most common designations of Synagogue-rulers.] of Capernaum, had an only daughter, [2 The particulars of her history must be gathered from a comparison of the three Gospels.] who at the time of this narrative had just passed childhood, and reached the period when Jewish Law declared a woman of age. [3 A woman came of age at twelve years and one day, and boys at thirteen years and one day.] Although St. Matthew, contracting the whole narrative into briefest summary, speaks of her as dead at the time of Jarius' application to Jesus, the other two Evangelists, giving fuller details, describe her as on the point of death, literally, 'at the last breath' (in extremis). [4 Godet points out a like summarisation in St. Matthew's account of the Centurion's servant.] Unless her disease had been both sudden and exceedingly rapid, which is barely possible, it is difficult to understand why her father had not on the previous day applied to Jesus, if his faith had been such as is generally supposed. But if, as the whole tenour of the history shows, his faith had been only general and scarcely formed, we can account the more easily for the delay. Only in the hour of supreme need, when his only child lay dying, did he resort to Jesus. There was need to perfect such faith, on the one side into perseverance of assurance, and on the other into energy of trustfulness. The one was accomplished through the delay caused by the application of the woman, the other by the supervention of death during this interval.

    There was nothing unnatural or un-Jewish in the application of this Ruler to Jesus. He must have known of the healing of the son of the Court-official, and of the servant of the Centurion, there or in the immediate neighbourhood, as it was said, by the mere word of Christ. For there had been no imposition of silence in regard to them, even had such been possible. Yet in both cases the recovery might be ascribed by some to coincidence, by others to answer of prayer. And perhaps this may help us to understand one of the reasons for the prohibition of telling what had been done by Jesus, while in other instances silence was not enjoined. Of course, there were occasions, such as the raising of the young man at Nain and of Lazarus, when the miracle was done so publicly, that a command of this kind would have been impossible. But in other cases may this not be the line of demarcation, that silence was not enjoined when a result was achieved which, according to the notions of the time, might have been attributed to other than direct Divine Power, while in the latter cases [1 The following are the instances in which silence was enjoined:, St. Matt. viii. 4 (St. Mark i. 44; St. Luke v. 14); St. Matt. ix. 30; xii. 16; St. Mark iii. 12; v. 43 (St. Luke viii. 56); St. Mark vii. 36; viii. 26.] publicity was (whenever possible) forbidden? And this for the twofold reason, that Christ's Miracles were intended to aid, not to supersede, faith; to direct to the Person and Teaching of Christ, as that which proved the benefit to be real and Divine; not to excite the carnal Jewish expectancies of the people, but to lead in humble discipleship to the Feet of Jesus. In short, if only those were made known which would not necessarily imply Divine Power (according to Jewish notions), then would not only the distraction and tumult of popular excitement be avoided, but in each case faith in the Person of Christ be still required, ere the miracles were received as evidence of His Divine claims. [2 In general, we would once more thus formulate our views: In the Days of Christ men learned first to believe in His Person, and then in His Word; in the Dispensation of the Holy Spirit we learr first to believe in His Word, and then in His Person.] And this need of faith was the main point.

    That, in view of his child's imminent death, and with the knowledge he had of the 'mighty deeds' commonly reported of Jesus, Jairus should have applied to Him, can the less surprise us, when we remember how often Jesus must, with consent and by invitation of this Ruler, have spoken in the Synagogue; and what irresistible impression His words had made. It is not necessary to suppose, that Jairus was among those elders of the Jews who interceded for the Centurion; the form of his present application seems rather opposed to it. But after all, there was nothing in what he said which a Jew in those days might not have spoken to a Rabbi, who was regarded as Jesus must have been by all in Capernaum who believed not the horrible charge, which the Judaean Pharisees had just raised. Though we cannot point to any instance where the laying on of a great Rabbi's hands was sought for healing, such, combined with prayer, would certainly be in entire accordance with Jewish views at the time. The confidence in the result, expressed by the father in the accounts of St. Mark and St. Matthew, is not mentioned by St. Luke. And perhaps, as being the language of an Eastern, it should not be taken in its strict literality as indicating actual conviction on the part of Jairus, that the laying on of Christ's Hands would certainly restore the maiden.

    Be this as it may, when Jesus followed the Ruler to his house, the multitude 'thronging Him' in eager curiosity, another approached Him from out that crowd, whose inner history was far different from that of Jairus. The disease from which this woman had suffered for twelve years would render her Levitically 'unclean.' It must have been not unfrequent in Palestine, and proved as intractable as modern science has found it, to judge by the number and variety of remedies prescribed, and by their character. On one leaf of the Talmud [a Shabb. 110 a and b.] not less than eleven different remedies are proposed, of which at most only six can possibly be regarded as astringents or tonics, while the rest are merely the outcome of superstition, to which resort is had in the absence of knowledge. [1 Such as the ashes of an Ostrich-Egg, carried in summer in a linen, in winter in a cotton rag; or a barley-corn found in the dung of a white she-ass, &c.] But what possesses real interest is, that, in all cases where astringents or tonics are prescribed,it is ordered, that, while the woman takes the remedy, she is to be addressed in the words: 'Arise (Qum) from thy flux.' It is not only that psychical means are apparently to accompany the therapeutical in this disease, but the coincidence in the command, Arise (Qum), with the words used by Christ in raising Jairus' daughter is striking. But here also we mark only contrast to the magical cures of the Rabbis. For Jesus neither used remedies, nor spoke the word Qum to her who had come 'in the press behind' to touch for her healing 'the fringe of His outer garment.'

    As this is almost the only occasion on which we can obtain a glimpse of Christ's outward appearance and garb, it may be well to form such accurate conception of it, as is afforded by a knowledge of the dress of the ancient Hebrews. The Rabbis laid it down as a rule, that the learned ought to be most careful in their dress. It was a disgrace if a scholar walked abroad with clouted shoes; [2 In Ber. 43 b, it is explained to refer to such shoes as had 'clouts on the top of clouts.'] to wear dirty clothes deserved death; [b Shabb. 114 a] for 'the glory of God was man, and the glory of man was his dress.' [c. Derekh Erets s. x towards the end.] This held specially true of the Rabbi, whose appearance might otherwise reflect on the theological profession. It was the general rule to eat and drink beleow (or else according to) a man's means, but to dress and lodge above them. [d Babha Mez. 52a; Chull. 84 b.] [3 Accordingly, when a person applied for relief in food, inquiry was be made as to his means, but not if he applied for raiment (Babha B 9 a).] For, in these four things a man's character might be learned; at his cups, in many matters, when he was angry and by his ragged dress. [e. Erub. 65 b.] Nay, 'The clothing of the wife of a Chabher (learned associate) is of greater importance than the life of the ignorant (rustic), for the sake of the dignity of the learned' [f Jer. Horay. 48 a, 4 lines from bottom.] Accordingly, the Rabbis were wont to wear such dress by which they might be distinguished. At a latter period they seem at their ordination to have been occasionally arayed in a mantle of gold-stuff. [a Babha Mez. 85 a.] Perhaps a distinctive garment, most likely a head-gear, was worn, even by 'rulers' ('the elder,' ), at their ordination. [1. But I admit that the passage Vayyik. R.2) is not quite' clear. The Maaphoraeth there mentioned may not have been an official dress, but one which the man otherwise used, and which was only specially endeared to him by the recollectionthat he had worn it at his ordination.] The Palestinian Nasi, or President of the Sanhedrin, also had a distinctive dress, [b Ber. 28 a.] and the head of the Jewish community in Babylon a distinctive girdle. [c. Horay. 13 b.] [2 In general, I would here acknowledge my indeptedness on the very difficult subject of dress to Sachs, Beitrage z. Sprach- u. Alterth.-Forsch.; to the Articles in Levy's Dictionaries; and especially to Brull, Trachten d. Juden. The Article in Hamburger's Real-Encykl. is little more than a repetition of Brull's. From other writers I have not been able to derive any help.

    In refering to the dress which may on a Sabbath be saved from a burning house-not, indeed, by carrying it, but by successively putting it on, no fewer than eighteen articles are mentioned. [d Shabb. 120 a; Jer. Shabb. 15d.] If the meaning of all the terms could be accurately ascertained, we should Know precisely what the Jews in the second century, and presumably earlier, wore, from the shoes and stockings on their feet to the gloves [3 So Landau renders one of the words in Shabb. 120 a. I need scarcely say that the rendering is very doubtful.] on the hands. Unfortunately, many of these designations are in dispute. Nor must it be thought that, because there are eighteen names, the dress of an Israelite consisted of so many separate pieces. Several of them apply to different shapes or kinds of the same under or upper garments, while the list indicates their extreme number and variety rather than the ordinary dress worn. The latter consisted, to judge by the directions given for undressing and dressing in the bathroom, of six, or perhaps more generally, of five articles: the shoes, the head-covering, the Tallith or upper cloak, the girdle, the Chaluq or under- dress, and the Aphqarsin or innermost covering. [e Deiekh Erest R. x p. 33 d.] As regarded shoes, a man should sell his very roof-tree for them, [4 Brill regards this as controversial to the practices of the early Christians. But he confounds sects with the Church.] although he might have to part with them for food if he were in a weak condition through blood-letting. [f Shabb. 129 a; comp. Pes. 112a.] But it was not the practice to provide more than one pair of shoes, [g Jer. Shabb. vi. 2] and to this may have referred the injunction [h St. Matt. x. 10] of Christ to the Apostle not to provide shoesfor their journey, or else to the well- known distinction between shoes (Manalim) and sandals (Sandalim). The former, which were sometimes made of very coarse material, covered the whole foot, and were specially intended for winter or rainy weather; while the sandals, which only protected the soles and sides of the feet, were specially far summer use. [i B. Bathra 58 a, lines 2 and 3 from top.]

    In regard to the covering of the head, it was deemed a mark of disrespect to walk abroad, or to pass a person, with bared head. [1. On the other hand, to walk about with shoes loosed was regarded as a mark of pride.] Slaves covered their heads in presence of their heads in presence of their masters, and the Targum Onkelos indicates Israel's freedom by paraphrasing the expression they 'went out with a high hand' [a Exod. xiv. 8.] by 'with uncovered head' [2 The like expression occurs in the Targum on Judg. v. 9.] The ordinary covering of the head was the so-called Sudar(or Sudarimn), a kerchief twisted into a turban, and which might also be worn round the neck. A kind of hat was also in use, either of light material or of felt (Aphilyon shel rosh or Philyon). [b Kel. xxxix. 1.]The Sudar was twisted by Rabbis in a peculiar manner to distinguish them from others. [c Pes. 111 b. See also the somewhat profane etymology of in Shabb. 77 b,.] We read besides of a sort of cap or hood attached to garments.

    Three, or else four articles commonly constituted the dress of the body. First came the under-grment, commonly the Chalug of the Kittuna [3 Also, Kittanitha, and Kittunita.] (The Biblical Kethoneth), from which latter some have derived the word 'cotton.' The Chalug might be of linen or of wool. [d Jer. Shan. 20 c, bottom.] The sages wore it down to the feet. It was covered by the upper garment or Tallith to within about a handbreath. [e. Baha B. 57 b.] The Chalug lay close to the body, and had no other opening than that round the neck and for the arms. At the bottom it had a kind of hem. To posses only one such 'coat' or inner garment was a mark of proverty. [f Meod. K.14 a.] Hence, when the Apostles were sent on their temporary mission, they were direted not to take 'two coats.' [g St. Matt. x. 10, and parallels.] Closely similar to, if not identical with, the Chaluq, was the ancient garment mentioned in the Old Testament as Kethoneth, to which the Greek 'Chiton' ( ) corresponds. As the garment which our Lord wore, [h St. John xix. 23.] [As to the mode of weaving such garments, see the pictorial illustration in Braunius, Vest. Sacred. Hebraeor., which is reproduced, with full details for various other works, in Hartmanns Hebr. am Putzt. vol. i., explanatory notes being added at the beginning of vol. iii. Sammter's note in his edition of B. Mezia, p. 151 a, is only a reproduction of Hartmann's remarks.] and those of which He spoke to His Apostles are designated by that name, we conclude that it represents the well-know Kethoneth or Rabbinic Kittuna. This might be of almost any material, even leather, though it was generally of wool or flax. It was sleeved, close-fitting, reached to the ankles, and was fastened round the loins, or just under the breast, [Comp. Rev. i. 13.] by a girdle. One kind of the latter, the Pundah or Aphundah, [5 It was worn outside (Jer. Ber. 14 c, top). This is the girdle which was not to be worn in the Temple, probably as being that of a person engaged in business.] was provided with pockets or other receptacles, [6 This is the explanation of the Aruch (ed. Landau, i. p. 157 b).] and hence might not be worn outside by those who went into the Temple, [a Jer. Ber. 14 c, top.] probably to indicate that he who went to worship should not be engaged in, nor bear mark of, any other occupation.

    Of the two other garments mentioned as parts of a man's toilette, the Aphqarsin or Aphikarsus seems to have been an article of luxury rather than of necessity. Its precise purpose is difficult to determine. A comparison of the passages in which the term occurs conveys the impression, that it was a large kerchief used partly as a head-gear, and which hung down and was fastened under the right arm. [b Kel. xxix. 1; Ber. 23 b; 24 b, in the sense of kerchief worn in an accessible position; Pesiqt. 15 b, as lying close to the body and yet contracting dust; Jer. Ber. 4 c, line 14 from top, as used for wrapping the upper part of the body.] [1 This passage is both curious and difficult. It seems to imply that the Aphqarsin was a garment worn in summer, close to the body, and having sleeves.] Probably it was also used for the upper part of the body. But the circumstance that, unlike the other articles of dress, it need not be rent in mourning, [c Jer. Moed, K. 83 d.] and that, when worn by females,it was regarded as a mark of wealth, [d Nidd. 48 l.] shows that it was not a necessary article of dress, and hence that, in all liklihood, it was not worn by Christ. It was otherwise with the upper garment. Various shapes and kinds of such were in use, from the coarser Boresin and Bardesin, the modern Burnoose, upwards. The Gelima was a cloak of which 'the border,' or 'hem,' is specially mentioned ( ). [e Sanh. 102 b, and often.] The Gunda was a peculiarly Pharisaic garb. [f Sot. 22 b.] But the upper garment which Jesus wore would be either the so-called Goltha, or, most likely, the Tallith. Both the Goltha [g Jer, Sanh. 28 c.] and the Tallith [h Menach. 37 b.] were provided, on the four borders, with the so-called Tsitsith, or 'fringes.' These were attached to the four corners of the outer dress, in supposed fulfilment of the command, Numb. xv. 38-41; Deut. xxii. 12. At first, this observance seems to have been comparatively simple. The question as to the number of filaments on these 'frings' was settled in accordance with the teaching of the School of Shammai. Four filaments (not three, as the Hillelites proposed), each of four finger-lengths (these, as later tradition put it, doubled), and attached to the four corners of what must be a strictly square garment, such were the earliest rules on the subject. [i Siphre, ed. Friedmann, p. 117 a.] The Mishnah leaves it still a comparatively open question, whether these filaments were to be blue or white. [k Menach. iv. 1.] But the Targum makes a strong point of it as between Moses and Korah, that there was to be a filament of hyacinth colour among four of white. [m Targ. Ps., Jon. on Numb. xvi. 2.] It seems even to implythe peculiar symbolical mode of knotting them at present in use. [n u. s. on Numb. xv. 38.] Further symbolic details were, of course, added in the course of time. [2 The number of knots andthreads at present counted are, of course, later additions. The little tractate Tsitsith Kirchheim, Septem Libri Talm. P. pp. 22-24 is merely a summary. The various authorities on the subject, and not a few have been consulted, are more or less wanting in clearness and defective. Comp. p. 277, note 2, of this volume.] As these fringes were attached to the corners of any square garment, the question, whether the upper garment which Jesus wore was the Goltha or the Tallith, is of secondary importance. But as all that concerns His Sacred Person is of deepest interest, we may be allowed to state our belief in favour of the Tallith. Both are mentioned as distinctive dresses of teachers, but the Goltha (so far as it differed from the Tallith) seems the more peculiarly Rabbinic.

    We can now form an approximate idea of the outward appearance of Jesus on that spring-morning amidst the throng at Capernaum. He would, we may safely assume, go about in the ordinary, although not in the more ostentatious, dress, worn by the Jewish teachers of Galilee. His head-gear would probably be the Sudar (Sudarium) would into a kind of turban, or perhaps the Maaphoreth, [1 The difference between it and the Aphqarsin seems to be, that the latter was worn and fastened inside the dress. The Maaphoreth would in some measure combine the uses of the Sudar and the Aphqarsin.] which seems to have served as a covering for the head, and to have descended over the back of the neck and shoulders, somewhat like the Indian pugaree. His feet were probably shod with sandals. The Chaluq, or more probably the Kittuna, which formed his inner garment, must have been close-fitting, and descended to His feet, since it was not only so worn by teachers, but was regarded as absolutely necessary for any one who would publicly read or 'Targum' the Scriptures, or exercise any function in the Synagogue. [a Tos. Megill. iv. p. 45 b, lines 17 and 16 from bottom.] As we know, it 'was without seam, woven from the top throughout;' [b St. John xix. 23.] and this closely accords with the texture of these garments. Round the middle it would be fastened with a girdle. [2 Canon Westcott (Speaker's Comment.on St. John xix. 23) seems to imply that the girdle was worn outside the loose outer garment. This was not the case.] Over this inner, He would most probably wear the square outer garment, or Tallith, with the customary fringes of four long white threads with one of hyacinth knotted together on each of the four corners. There is reason to believe, that three square garments were made with these 'fringes,' although, by way of ostentation, the Pharisees made them particularly wide so as to attract attention, just as they made their phylacteries broad. [c St. Matt. xviii. 5.] Although Christ only denounced the latter practice, not the phylacteries themselves, it is impossible to believe that Himself ever wore them, either on the forehead or the arm. [3 On this subject I must take leave to refer to the Bibl. Cyclopaedias and to 'Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' pp. 220-224.] There was certainly no warrant for them in Holy Scripture, and only Pharisee externalism could represent their use as fulfilling the import of Exod. xiii. 9, 16; Deut. vi. 8; xi. 18. The admission that neither the officiating priests, nor the representatives of the people, wore them in the Temple, [a Zebhach. 19 a, b.] seems to imply that this practice was not quite universal. For our part, we refuse to believe that Jesus, like the Pharisees, appeared wearing phylacteries every day and all day long, or at least a great part of the day. For such was the ancient custom, and not merely; as the modern practice, to wear them only at prayer. [1 As the question is of considerable practical importance, the following, as bearing upon it, may be noticed. From Jer. Ber. 4 c, we gather: 1. That at one time it was the practice to wear the phylacteries all day long, in order to pass as pious. This is denounced as a mark of hypocrisy. 2. That it was settled, that phylacteries should be worn during a considerable part of the day, but not the whole day. [In Ber. 23 a to 24 a we have rules and discussions about depositing them under certain circumstances, and where to place them at night.] 3. That it was deemed objectionable to wear them only during prayer. 4. That celebrated Rabbis did not deem it necessary always to wear the phylacteries both on the head and on the arm. This seems to prove that their obligation could not have been regarded as absolutely binding. Thus, R. Jochanan wore those for the head only in winter, but not in summer, because then he did not wear a headgear. As another illustration, that the wearing of phylacteries was not deemed absolutely requisite, the following passage may be quoted (Sanh. xi. 3): 'It is more culpable to transgress the words of the Scribes than those of the Torah. He that says, There are no phylacteries, transgresses the word of the Torah, and is not to be regarded as a rebel (literally, is free); but he who says, There are five compartments (instead of four), to add to the words of the Scribes, he is guilty.]

    One further remark may be allowed before dismissing this subject. Our inquiries enable us in this matter also to confirm the accuracy of the Fourth Gospel. We read [b St. John xix. 23.] that the quaternion of soldiers who crucified Christ made division of the riches of His poverty, taking each one part of His dress, while for the fifth, which, if divided, would have had to be rent in pieces, they cast lots. This incidental remark carries evidence of the Judaean authorship of the Gospel in the accurate knowledge which it displays. The four pieces of dress to be divided would be the head-gear, the more expensive sandals or shoes, the long girdle, and the coarse Tallith, all about equal in value. [2 I find that the lowest price mentioned for an upper garment was 7 1/2 dinars, or about 4s. 7d. (Jer. Kilay. ix. 1). The more common price, however, seems to have been 12 dinars, or about 7s. 6d. The cost of making seems to have been 8 dinars, or about 5s. (Jer. Babha Mets. vi. 1), leaving 4 dinars, or 2s. 6d., for the material. Of course, the latter might be much more expensive, and the cost of the garment increased accordingly.] And the fifth undivided and, comparatively, most expensive garment. 'without seam, woven from the top throughout,' probably of wool, as befitted the season of the year, was the Kittuna, or inner garment. How strange, that, what would have been of such priceless value to Christendom, should have been divided as the poor booty of a rough, unappreciative soldiery! Yet how well for us, since not even the sternest warning could have kept within the bounds of mere reverence the veneration with which we should have viewed and handled that which He wore, Who died for us on the Cross.

    Can we, then, wonder that this Jewish woman, 'having heard the things concerning Jesus,' with her imperfect knowledge, in the weakness of her strong faith, thought that, if she might but touch His garment, she would be made whole? It is but what we ourselves might think, if He were still walking on earth among men: it is but what, in some form or other, we still feel when in the weakness, the rebound or diastole, of our faith it seems to us, as if the want of this touch in not outwardly-perceived help or Presence left us miserable and sick, while even one real touch, if it were only of His garment, one real act of contact, however mediate, would bring us perfect healing. And in some sense it really is so. For, assuredly, the Lord cannot be touched by disease and misery, without healing coming from Him, for He is the God- Man.

    GOTO NEXT CHAPTER - LIFE & TIMES INDEX & SEARCH

    God Rules.NET
    Search 30+ volumes of books at one time. Nave's Topical Bible Search Engine. Easton's Bible Dictionary Search Engine. Systematic Theology Search Engine.