THE ASCENT:

THE CAVILS OF THE PHARISEES CONCERNING PURIFICATION, AND THE TEACHING OF THE LORD CONCERNING PURITY, THE TRADITIONS CONCERNING 'HAND-WASHING' AND 'VOWS.'

CHAPTER XXXI.

(St. Matt. xv. 1-20; St. Mark vii. 1-23.)

As we follow the narrative, confirmatory evidence of what had preceded springs up at almost every step. It is quite in accordance with the abrupt departure of Jesus from Capernaum, and its motives, that when, so far from finding rest and privacy at Bethsaida (east of the Jordan), a greater multitude than ever had there gathered around Him, which would fain have proclaimed Him King, He resolved on immediate return to the western shore, with the view of seeking a quieter retreat, even though it were in 'the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.' [a St. Matt. xv. 21.] According to St. Mark, [b St. Mark vi. 45.] the Master had directed the disciples to make for the other Bethsaida, or 'Fisherton,' on the western shore of the Lake. [c St. John xii. 21.] Remembering how common the corresponding name is in our own country, [1 I have myself counted twelve different places in England bearing names which might be freely rendered by 'Bethsaidsa,' not to speak of the many subruns and quarters which bear a like designation, and, of course, my list is anything but complete.] and that fishing was the main industry along the shores of the Lake, we need not wonder at the existence of more than one Beth-Saida, or 'Fisherton.' [2 In Jer. Megill. (p. 70 a, line 15 from bottom) we read of a , but the locality scarcely agrees with our Beth-Saida.] Nor yet does it seem strange, that the site should be lost of what, probably, except for the fishing, was quite an unimportant place. By the testimony both of Josephus and the Rabbis, the shores of Gennesaret were thickly studded with little towns, villages, and hamlets, which have all perished without leaving a trace, while even of the largest the ruins are few and inconsiderable. We would, however, hazard a geographical conjecture. From the fact that St. Mark [d St. Mark vi. 45.] names Bethsaida, and St. John [e St. John vi. 17.] Capernaum, as the original destination of the boat, we would infer that Bethsaida was the fishing quarter of, or rather close to, Capernaum, even as we so often find in our own country a 'Fisherton' adjacent to larger towns. With this would agree the circumstance, that no traces of an ancient harbour have been discovered at Tell Hum, the site of Capernaum. [1 Comp. Baedeker (Socin) Palast. page 270.] Further, it would explain, how Peter and Andrew, who, according to St. John, [a St. John i. 44; xii. 21.] were of Bethsaida, are described by St. Mark [b St. Mark 1. 29.] as having theirhome in Capernaum. It also deserves notice, that, as regards the house of St. Peter, St. Mark, who was so intimately connected with him, names Capernaum, while St. John, who was his fellow-townsman. names Bethsaida, and that the reverse difference obtains between the two Evangelists in regard to the direction of the ship. This also suggests, that in a sense, as regarded the fishermen, the names were interchangeable, or rather, that Bethsaida was the 'Fisherton' of Capernaum. [2 May this connection of Capernaum and Beth-Saida account for the mention of the latter as one of the places which had been the scene of so many of His mighty works (St. Matt. xi. 21; St. Luke x. 13)?]

A superficial reader might object that, in the circumstances, we would scarcely have expected Christ and His disciples to have returned at once to the immediate neighbourhood of Capernaum, if not to that city itself. But a fuller knowledge of the circumstances will not only, as so often, convert the supposed difficulty into most important confirmatory evidence, but supply some deeply interesting details. The apparently trivial notice, that (at least) the concluding part of the Discourses, immediately on the return to Capernaum, was spoken by Christ 'in Synagogue,' [c St. John vi. 59.] [3 There is no articlein the original.] enables us not only to localise this address, but to fix the exact succession of events. If this Discourse was spoken 'in Synagogue,' it must have been (as will be shown) on the Jewish Sabbath. Reckoning backwards, we arrive at the conclusion, that Jesus with His disciples left Capernaum for Bethsaida-Julias on a Thursday; that the miraculous feeding of the multitude took place on Thursday evening; the passage of the disciples to the other side, and the walking of Christ on the sea, as well as the failure of Peter's faith, in the night of Thursday to Friday; the passage of the people to Capernaum in search of Jesus, [d St. John vi. 22-24.] with all that followed, on the Friday; and, lastly, the final Discourses of Christ on the Saturday in Capernaum and in the Synagogue.

Two inferences will appear from this chronological arrangement. First, when our Lord had retraced His steps from the eastern shore in search of rest and retirement, it was so close on the Jewish Sabbath (Friday), that He was almost obliged to return to Capernaum to spend the holy day there, before undertaking the further journey to 'the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.' And on the Sabbath no actual danger, either from Herod Antipas or the Pharisees, need have been apprehended. Thus (as before indicated), the sudden return to apprehend. Thus (as before indicated), the sudden return to Capernaum, so far from constituting a difficulty, serves as confirmation of the previous narrative. Again, we cannot but perceive a peculiar correspondence of dates. Mark here: The miraculous breaking of Bread at Bethsaida on a Thursday evening; the breaking of Bread at the Last Supper on a Thursday evening; the attempt to proclaim Him King, and the betrayal; Peter's bold assertion, and the failure of his faith, each in the night from Thursday to Friday; and, lastly, Christ's walking on the angry, storm-tossed waves, and commanding them, and bringing the boat that bore His disciples safe to land, and His victory and triumph over Death and him that had the power of Death.

These, surely, are more than coincidences; and in this respect also may this history be regarded as symbolic. As we read it, Christ directed the disciples to steer for Bethsaida, the 'Fisherton' of Capernaum, But, apart from the latter suggestion, we gather from the expressions used, [a St. Mark vi. 53.] that the boat which bore the disciples had drifted out of its course, probably owing to the wind, and touched land, not where they had intended, but at Gennesaret, where they moored it. There can be no question, that by this term is meant 'the plain of Gennesaret,' the richness and beauty of which Josephus [b Jewish War iii. 10.7, 8.] and the Rabbis [c Pes. 8 b; Meg. 6 a; Ber. R. 98.] describe in such glowing language. To this day it bears marks of having been the most favoured spot in this favoured region. Travelling northwards from Tiberias along the Lake, we follow, for about five or six miles, a narrow ledge of land shut in by mountains, when we reach the home of the Magdalene, the ancient Magdala (the modern Mejdel). Right over against us, on the other side, is Kersa (Gerasa), the scene of the great miracle. On leaving Magdala the mountains recede, and form an amphitheatric plain, more than a mile wide, and four or five miles long. This is 'the land of Gennesaret' (el Ghuweir). We pass across the 'Valley of Doves,' which intersects it about one mile to the north of Magdala, and pursue our journey over the well-watered plain, till, after somewhat more than an hour, we reach its northern boundary, a little beyond Khan Minyeh. The latter has, in accordance with tradition, been regarded by some as representing Bethsaida, [1 Baedeker (Socin) has grouped together the reasons against identifying Khan Minyeh with Capernaum itself.] but seems both too far from the Lake, and too much south of Capernaum, to answer the requirements.

No sooner had the well-known boat, which bore Jesus and His disciples, been run up the gravel-beach in the early morning of that Friday, than His Presence must have become known throughout the district, all the more that the boatmen would soon spread the story of the miraculous occurences of the preceding evening and night. With Eastern rapidity the tidings would pass along, and from all the country around the sick were brought on their pallets, if they might but touch the border of His garment. Nor could such touch, even though the outcome of an imperfect faith, be in vain, for He, Whose garment they sought leave to touch, was the God-Man, the Conqueror of Death, the Source and Spring of all Life. And so it was where He landed, and all the way up to Bethsaida and Capernaum. [a St. Matt. xiv. 34-36; St. Mark vi 53-56.] [1 Mr. Brown McClellan (N.T. vol. i. p. 570) holds, that both the Passover and Pentecost had intervened, I know not on what grounds. At the same time the language in St. Mark vi. 56, might imply more than one occasion on which the same thing happened.] In what followed, we can still trace the succession of events, though there are considerable difficulties as to their precise order. Thus we are expressly told, [b St. John vi. 22-25.] that those from 'the other side' came to Capernaum' on 'the day following' the miraculous feeding, and that one of the subsequent Discourses, of which the outline is preserved, was delivered 'in Synagogue.' [c Pes. 55 a.] As this could only have been done either on a Sabbath or Feast-Day (in this instance, the Passover [d St. John vi.4.] ), it follows, that in any case a day must have intervened between their arrival at Capernaum and the Discourse in Synagogue. Again, it is almost impossible to believe that it could have been on the Passoverday (15th Nisan). [2 This is propounded in Wieseler, Chronolog. Synopse, pp. 276, 290, as a possible view.] For we cannot imagine, that any large number would have left their homes and festive preparations on the Eve of the Pascha (14th Nisan), not to speak of the circumstance that in Galilee, differently from Judaea, all labour, including, of course, that of a journey across the Lake, was intermitted on the Eve of the Passover. [e ver. 59.] Similarly, it is almost impossible to believe, that so many festive pilgrims would have been assembled till late in the evening preceding the 14th Nisan so far from Jerusalem as Bethsaida-Julias, since it would have been impossible after that to reach the city and Temple in time for the feast. It, therefore, only remains to regard the Synagogue-service at which Christ preached as that of an ordinary Sabbath, and the arrival of the multitude as having taken place on Friday in the forenoon.

Again, from the place which the narrative occupies in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, as well as from certain internal evidence, it seems difficult to doubt, that the reproof of the Pharisees and Scribes on the subject of 'the unwashed hands,' [a St. Matt. XV. 1; St. Markvii. 1.] was not administered immediately after the miraculous feeding and the night of miracles. We cannot, however, feel equally sure, which of the two preceded the other: the Discourse in Capernaum, [b St. John vi. 59 or the Reproof of the Pharisees. [c St. Matt. xv. 1 &c.] Several reasons have determined us to regard the Reproof as having preceded the Discourse. Without entering on a detailed discussion, the simple reading of the two sections will lead to the instinctive conclusion, that such a Discourse could not have been followed by such cavil and such Reproof, while it seems in the right order of things, that the Reproof which led to the 'offence' of the Pharisees, and apparently the withdrawal of some in the outer circle of discipleship, [d St. Matt. xv. 12-14.] should have been followed by the positive teaching of the Discourse, which in turn resulted in the going back of many who had been in the inner circle of disciples.

In these circumstances, we venture to suggest the following as the succession of events. Early on the Friday morning the boat which bore Jesus and His disciples grated on the sandy beach of the plain of Gennesaret. As the tidings spread of His arrival and of the miracles which had so lately been witnessed, the people from the neighbouring villages and towns flocked around Him, and brough their sick for the healing touch. So the greater part of the forenoon passed. Meantime, while they moved, as the concourse of the people by the way would allow, the first tidings of all this must have reached the neighbouring Capernaum. This brought immediately on the scene those Pharisees and Scribes 'who had come from Jerusalem' on purpose to watch, and, if possible, to compass the destruction on Jesus. As we conceive it, they met the Lord and His disciples on their way to Capernaum. Possibly they overtook them, as they rested by the way, and the disciples, or some of them, were partaking of some food-- perhaps, some of the consecrated Bread of the previous evening. The Reproof of Christ would be administered there; then the Lord would, not only for their teaching, but for the purposes immediately to be indicated, turn to the multitude; [f St. Matt. xv. 10; St. Mark vii. 14, 15.] next would follow the remark of the disciples and the reply of the Lord, spoken, probably, when they were again on the way; [g St. Matt. xv. 12-14.] and, lastly,the final explanation of Christ, after they had entered the house at Capernaum. [h St. Matt. xv. 15-20; St. Mark vii. 17-23.] In all probability a part of what is recorded in St. John vi. 24, &c. occurred also about the same time; the rest on the Sabbath which followed.

Although the cavil of the Jerusalem Scribes may have been occasioned by seeing some of the disciples eating without first having washed their hands, we cannot banish the impression that it reflected on the miraculously provided meal of the previous evening, when thousands had sat down to food without the previous observance of the Rabbinic ordinance. Neither in that case, nor in the present, had the Master interposed. He was, therefore, guilty of participation in their offence. So this was all which these Pharisees and Scribes could see in the miracle of Christ's feeding the Multitude--that it had not been done according to Law! Most strange as it may seem, yet in the past history of the Church, and, perhaps, sometimes also in the present, this has been the only thing which some men have seen in the miraculous working of the Christ! Perhaps we should not wonder that the miracle itself made no deeper impression, since even the disciples 'understood not' (by reasoning) 'about the loaves' --however they may have accounted for it in a manner which might seem to them reasonable. But, in another aspect, the objection of the Scribes was not a mere cavil. In truth, it represented one of the great charges which the Pharisees brought against Jesus, and which determined them to seek His destruction.

It has already been shown, that they accounted for the miracles of Christ as wrought by the power of Satan, whose special representative--almostincarnation--they declared Jesus to be. This would not only turn the evidential force of these signs into an argument against Christ, but vindicate the resistance of the Pharisees to His claims. The second charge against Jesus was, that He was 'not of God;' that He was 'a sinner.' [a St. John ix. 16, 24.] If this could be established, it would, of course, prove that He was not the Messiah, but a deceiver who misled the people, and whom it was the duty of the Sanhedrin to unmask and arrest. The way in which they attempted to establish this, perhaps persuaded themselves that it was so, was by proving that He sanctioned in others, and Himself committed, breaches of the traditional law; which, according to their fundamental principles, involved heavier guilt than sins against the revealed Law of Moses. The third and last charge against Jesus, which finally decided the action of the Council, could only be fully made at the close of His career. It might be formulated so as to meet the views of either the Pharisees or Sadducees. To the former it might be presented as a blasphemous claim to equality with God--the Very Son of the Living God. To the Sadducees it would appear as a movement on the part of a most dangerous enthusiast--if honest and self-deceived, all the more dangerous; one of those pseudo-Messiahs who led away the ignorant, superstitious, and excitable people; and which, if unchecked, would result in persecutions and terrible vengeance by the Romans, and in loss of the last remnants of their national independence. To each of these three charges, of which we are now watching the opening or development, there was (from the then standpoint) only one answer: Faith in His Person. And in our time, also, this is the final answer to all difficulties and objections. To this faith Jesus was now leading His disciples, till, fully realised in the great confession of Peter, it became, and has ever since proved, the Rock on which that Church is built, against which the very gates of Hades cannot prevail.

It was in support of the second of these charges, that the Scribes now blamed the Master for allowing His disciples to eat without having previously washed, or, as St. Mark-- indicating, as we shall see, in the word the origin of the custom--expresses it with graphic accuracy: 'with common hands.'[1 The word quite corresponds to the Jewish term. Notwithstanding the objection of the learned Bishop Haneberg (Relig. Alterth. p. 475, note 288) I believe it corresponds to the Rabbinic or profanus, in the sense of 'common,' 'not hallowed.'] Once more we have to mark, how minutely conversant the Gospel narratives are with Jewish Law and practice. This will best appear from a brief account of this 'tradition of the elders,' [2 The fullest account of it within reach of ordinary readers is in the Notes to Pocock's Porta Mosis (pp. 350-402) though it is confused, not quite accurate, and based chiefly on later Jewish authorities. Spencer (de Leg. Hebr. pp. 1175-1179) only adds references to similar Gentile rites. Goodwin, even under the revision of Hottinger (pp. 182-188), is in this instance inferior to Pocock. Buxtorf (Synag. pp. 179-184) gives chiefly illustrative Jewish legends; Otho (Lex. Rabb. pp. 335, 336) extracts from his predecessors, to little advantage. The Rabbinic notes of Lightfoot, Winsche, Schottgen, and Wetstein give no clear account; and the Biblical Dictionaries are either silent, or (as Herzog's) very meagre. Other accounts are, unfortunately, very inaccurate.] the more needful that important differences prevail even among learned Jewish authorities, due probably to the circumstance that the brief Mishnic Tractate devoted to the subject [3 Yadayim, in four chapters, which, however, touches on other subjects also, notably on the canonicity of certain parts of the O.T.] has no Gemara attached to it, and also largely treats of other matters. At the outset we have this confirmation of the Gospel language, that this practice is expressly admitted to have been, not a Law of Moses, but 'a tradition of the elders. [4 We refer here generally to chull. 105 a, b, 106 b. Still, and perhaps on this very account, it was so strictly enjoined, that to neglect it was like being guilty of gross carnal defilement. Its omission would lead to temporal destruction, [a Sot. 4 b.] or, at least, to poverty. [b Shabb. 62 b.] Bread eaten with unwashen hands was as if it had been filth. [a Sot. 4 b.] Indeed, a Rabbi who had held this command in contempt was actually buried in excommunication. [b Eduy. v. 6; Ber. 19 a.] Thus, from their point of view, the charge of the Scribes against the disciples, so far from being exaggerated, is most moderately worded by the Evangelists. In fact, although at one time it had only been one of the marks of a Pharisee, yet at a later period to wash before eating was regarded as affording the ready means of recognising a Jew. [c Chull. 106 a; Bemidb. R. 20, ed. Warsh. p. 81 b.][1 Many illustrative stories are given of its importance, on the one hand, and of the danger of neglecting it on the other. With these legends it is not necessary to cumber our pages.]

It is somewhat more difficult to account for the origin of the ordinance. So far as indicated, it seems to have been first enjoined in order to ensure that sacred offerings should not be eaten in defilement. When once it became an ordinance of the elders, this was, of course, regarded as sufficient ground for obedience. [d Chull. 106 a.] Presently, Scriptural support was sought for it. Some based it on the original ordinance of purification in Lev. XV. 11; [e Chull. 106 a.] while others saw in the words [f Lev xi. 44.] 'Sanctify yourselves,' the command to wash before meat; in the command, 'Be ye holy,' that of washing after meat; while the final clause, 'for I am the Lord your God,' was regarded as enjoining 'the grace at meat.' [g Ber. 53 b, end.] For, soon it was not merely a washing before, but also after meals. The former alone was, however, regarded as 'a commandment' (Mitsvah), the other only as 'a duty' (Chobhah), which some, indeed, explained on sanitary grounds, as there might be left about the hands what might prove injurious to the eyes. [h Erub. 17 b; Chull. 105 b.] [2 The danger from 'Salt of Sodom is specially mentioned.] Accordingly, soldiers might, in the urgency of campaigning, neglect the washing before, but they ought to be careful about that after meat. By-and-by, the more rigorous actually washed between the courses, although this was declared to be purely voluntary. [i Chull. 105 a, b.] This washing before meals is regarded by some as referred to in Talmudic writings by the expression 'the first waters' (Mayim rishonim), while what is called 'the second' (sheniyim), or 'the other,' 'later,' or 'afterwaters' (Mayim acharonim), is supposed to represent the washing after meals.

But there is another and more important aspect of the expression, which leads us to describe the rite itself. The distinctive designation for it is Netilath Yadayim, [3 sometimes though rarely, but not which refers to ordinary washing. Occasionally it is simply designated by the term Netilah.] literally, the lifting of the hands; while for the washing before meat the term Meshi or Mesha [k (Chull. 107 a and b).] is also used, which literally means 'to rub.' Both these terms point to the manner of the rite. The first question here was, whether 'second tithe,' prepared first- fruits (Terumah), or even common food (Chullin), or else, 'holy' i.e. sacrificial food, was to be partaken of. In the latter case a complete immersion of the hands ('baptism,' Tebhilath Yadayim), and not merely a Netilath, or 'uplifting,' was purifications were so frequent, and care had to be taken that the water had not been used for other purposes, or something fallen into it that might discolour or defile it, large vessels or jars were generally kept for the purpose. These might be of any material, although stone is specially mentioned. [This and what follows illustrates St. John ii. 6.] It was the practice to draw water out of these with what was called a natla, antila, or antelaya, [b avtyior. very often of glass, which must hold (at least) a quarter of a log [c Chull. 107 a; Baba B. 58 b, and often.] a measure equal to one and a half 'egg-shells.' For, no less quantity than this might be used for affusion. The water was poured on both hands, which must be free of anything covering them, such as gravel, mortar, &c. The hands were lifted up, so as to make the water run to the wrist, in order to ensure that the whole hand was washed, and that the water polluted by the hand did not again run down the fingers. Similarly, each hand was rubbed with the other (the first), provided the hand that rubbed had been affused: otherwise, the rubbing might be done against the head, or even against a wall. But there was one point on which special stress was laid. In the 'first affusion,' which was all that originally was required when the hands were Levitically 'defiled,' the water had to run down to the wrist [The language of the Mishnah shows that the word which bears as vague and wide meaning as, which seems a literal translation of it, can only apply to the wrist.] ( ) lappereq, or ad happereq). If the water remained short of the wrist (chuts lappereq), the hands were not clean. [d Comp. Yad. ii. 3; Chull. 106 a and b.] Accordingly, the words of St. Mark [e St. Mark vii. 3.] can only mean that the Pharisees eat not 'except they wash their hands to the wrist.' [3 The rendering 'wash diligently,' gives no meaning; that 'with the fist' is not in accordance with Jewish Law; while that 'up to the elbow' is not only contrary to Jewish Law, but apparently based on a wrong rendering of the word This is fully shown by Wetstein (N. T. i. p. 585), but his own explanation, that refers to the measure or weight of the water for washing, is inadmissible.]

Allusion has already been made to what are called 'the first' and 'the second,' or 'other' 'waters.' But, in their original meaning, these terms referred to something else than washing before and after meals. The hands were deemed capable of contracting Levitical defilement, which, in certain cases, might even render the whole body 'unclean.' If the hands were 'defiled,' two affusions were required: the first, or 'first waters' (mayim rishonim) to remove the defilement, and the 'second,' or 'after waters' (mayim sheniyim or acharonim) to wash away the waters that had contracted the defilement of the hands. Accordingly, on the affusion of the first waters the hands were elevated, and the water made to run down at the wrist, while at the second waters the hands were depressed, so that the water might run off by the finger points and tips. By-and-by, it became the practice to have two affusions, whenever Terumah (prepared first-fruits) was to be eaten, and at last even when ordinary food (Chullin) was partaken of. The modern Jews have three affusions, and accompany the rite with a special benediction.

This idea of the 'defilement of the hands' received a very curious application. According to one of the eighteen decrees, which, as we shall presently show, date before the time of Christ, the Roll of the Pentateuch in the Temple defiled all kinds of meat that touched it. The alleged reason for this decree was, that the priests were wont to keep the Terumah (preserved first-fruits) close to the Roll of the Law, on which account the latter was injured by mice. The Rabbinic ordinance was intended to avert this danger. [a Shabb. 14 a.] [1 InYad. iv. 6, the Pharisees in dispute with the Sadducees indicate what seems to me a far more likely reason, in the desire to protect the Scriptures from profane use.] To increase this precaution, it was next laid down as a principle, that all that renders the Terumah unfit, also defiles the hands. [b Yad. iii. 2.] Hence, the Holy Scriptures defiled not only the food but the hands that touched them, and this not merely in the Temple, but anywhere, while it was also explained that the Holy Scriptures included the whole of the inspired writings, the Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa. This gave rise to interesting discussions, whether the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, or Esther were to be regarded as 'defiling the hands,' that is, as part of the Canon. The ultimate decision was in favour of these books: 'all the holy writings defile the hands; the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands.' [c Yad. iii. 5.] Nay, so far were sequences carried, that even a small portion of the Scriptures was declared to defile the hands if it contained eighty-five letters, because the smallest 'section' (Parashah) in the Law [d Numb. x. 35, 36.] consisted of exactly that number. Even the Phylacteries, because they contained portions of the sacred text, the very leather straps by which they were bound to the head and arm, nay, the blank margins around the text of the Scriptures, or at the beginning and end of sections, were declared to defile the hands. [a Yad. iii. 3-5.] [1 By a curious inversion the law ultimately came to be, that the Scriptures everywhere defiled the hands, except those of the Priests in the Temple (Kel. xv. 6). This on the ground that, taught by former enactments, they had learned to keep the Terumah far away from the sacred rolls, but really, as I believe, because the law, that the Priests' hands became defiled if they touched a copy of the sacred rules, must have involved constant difficulties.]