Contents | Index
Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim, Vol 2, Cross and the
Crown 4
THE CROSS AND THE CROWN
THE THIRD DAY IN PASSION-WEEK, THE LAST CONTROVERSIES AND DISCOURSES, THE
SADDUCEES AND THE RESURRECTION, THE SCRIBE AND THE GREAT COMMANDMENT, QUESTION TO
THE PHARISEES ABOUT DAVID'S SON AND LORD, FINAL WARNING TO THE PEOPLE: THE EIGHT
'WOES', FAREWELL.
CHAPTER IV.
(St. Matt. xxii. 23-33; St. Mark xii. 18-27; St. Luke xx. 27-39; St. Matt.
xxii. 34-40; St. Mark xii. 28-34; St. Matt. xxii. 41-46; St. Mark xii. 35-40; St.
Luke xx. 40-47; St. Matt. xxiii.)
THE last day in the Temple was not to pass without other 'temptations' than
that of the Priests when they questioned His authority, or of the Pharisees when
they cunningly sought to entangle Him in His speech. Indeed, Christ had on this
occasion taken a different position; He had claimed supreme authority, and
thus challenged the leaders of Israel. For this reason, and because at the last we
expect assaults from all His enemies, we are prepared for the controversies of
that day.
We remember that, during the whole previous history, Christ had only on one
occasion come into public conflict with the Sadducees, when, characteristically,
they had asked of Him 'a sign from heaven.' [a St. Matt. xvi. 1.] Their
Rationalism would lead them to treat the whole movement as beneath serious notice, the
outcome of ignorant fanaticism. Nevertheless, when Jesus assumed such a
position in the Temple, and was evidently to such extent swaying the people, it
behoved them, if only to guard their position, no longer to stand by. Possibly, the
discomfiture and powerlessness of the Pharisees may also have had their
influence. At any rate, the impression left is, that those of them who now went to
Christ were delegates, and that the question which they put had been well planned.
[1 There seems some reference to this question put to Christ in what we regard
as covert references to Christianity in that mysterious passage in the Talmud
(Yoma 66 b) previously referred to (see pp. 193, 194). Comp. the interesting
dissertation of Tottermann on R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanos (pp. 16-18).]
Their object was certainly not serious argument, but to use the much more
dangerous weapon of ridicule. Persecution the populace might have resented; for
open opposition all would have been prepared; but to come with icy politeness and
philosophic calm, and by a well-turned question to reduce the renowned Galilean
Teacher to silence, and show the absurdity of His teaching, would have been to
inflict on His cause the most damaging blow. To this day such appeals to rough
and ready common-sense are the main stock-in-trade of that coarse infidelity,
which, ignoring alike the demands of higher thinking and the facts of history,
appeal, so often, alas! effectually, to the untrained intellect of the
multitude, and, shall we not say it?, to the coarse and lower in us all. Besides, had
the Sadducees succeeded, they would at the same time have gained a signal
triumph for their tenets, and defeated, together with the Galilean Teacher, their own
Pharisaic opponents. The subject of attack was to be the Resurrection [1 In
regard to the denial of the Resurrection by the Sadducees, and to their views
generally, we refer to the sketch of the three sects in Book III. ch. ii.], the
same which is still the favourite topic for the appeals of the coarser forms of
infidelity to 'the common sense' of the masses. Making allowance for difference
of circumstances, we might almost imagine we were listening to one of our
modern orators of materialism. And in those days the defence of belief in the
Resurrection laboured under twofold difficulty. It was as yet a matter of hope, not
of faith: something to look forward to, not to look back upon. The isolated
events recorded in the Old Testament, and the miracles of Christ, granting that
they were admitted, were rather instances of resuscitation than of Resurrection.
The grand fact of history, than which none is better attested, the Resurrection
of Christ, had not yet taken place, and was not even clearly in view of any
one. Besides, the utterances of the Old Testament on the subject of the
'hereafter' were, as became alike that stage of revelation and the understanding of those
to whom it was addressed, far from clear. In the light of the New Testament it
stands out in the sharpest proportions, although as an Alpine height afar off;
but then that Light had not yet risen upon it.
Besides, the Sadducees would allow no appeal to the highly poetic language of
the Prophets, to whom, at any rate, they attached less authority, but demanded
proof from that clear and precise letter of the Law, every tittle and iota of
which the Pharisees exploited for their doctrinal inferences, and from which
alone they derived them. Here, also, it was the Nemesis of Pharisaism, that the
postulates of their system laid it open to attack. In vain would the Pharisees
appeal to Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, or the Psalms. [1 Hamburger (Real Encykl. vol.
i. p. 125) has given the Rabbinic argumentation, and Wunsche (ad St. Matt.
xxii. 23) has reproduced it, unfortunately, with the not unnatural exaggerations
of Hamburger.] To such an argument as from the words, 'this people will rise
up,' [a Deut. xxxi. 16.] the Sadducees would rightly reply, that the context
forbade the application to the Resurrection; to the quotation of Isaiah xxvi. 19,
they would answer that that promise must be understood spiritually, like the
vision of the dry bones in Ezekiel; while such a reference as to this, 'causing the
lips of those that are asleep to speak,' [b Cant. vii. 9.] would scarcely
require serious refutation. [c See Sanh. 90 b, about the middle.] Of similar
character would be the argument from the use of a special word, such as 'return' in
Gen. iii. 19, [d Ber. R. 20.] or that from the twofold mention of the word 'cut
off' in the original of Num. xv. 31, as implying punishment in the present and
in the future dispensation. [e Sanh, 90 b lines 9 &c. from bottom.] Scarcely
more convincing would be the appeal to such passages as Deut. xxxii. 39: 'I kill
and make alive, [f Sanh. 91 b.] or the statement that, whenever a promise
occurs in the form which in Hebrew represents the future tense, [2 It is well known
that the Hebrew has no future tense in the strict sense.] it indicates a
reference to the Resurrection. Perhaps more satisfactory, although not convincing to
a Sadducee, whose special contention it was to insist on proof from the Law, [g
Sanh, 90 b lines 10 and 9 from bottom.] might be an appeal to such passages as
Dan. xii. 2, 13, [h Sanh. 92 a.] or to the restoration of life by certain of
the prophets, with the superadded canon, that God had in part prefiguratively
wrought by His prophets whatever He would fully restore in the future.
If Pharisaic argumentation had failed to convince the Sadducees on Biblical
grounds, it would be difficult to imagine that, even in the then state of
scientific knowledge, any enquiring person could have really believed that there was a
small bone in the spine which was indestructible, and from which the new man
would spring; [3 Hence called the os sacrum (see again in the sequel).] or that
there existed even now a species of mice, or else of snails, which gradually
and visibly developed out of the earth. [i Sanh. 90 b.] Many clever sayings of
the Pharisees are, indeed, here recorded in their controversies, as on most
subjects, and by which a Jewish opponent might have been silenced. But here,
especially, must it have been felt that a reply was not 'always an answer, and that
the silencing of an opponent was not identical with proof of one's own assertion.
And the additions with which the Pharisees had encumbered the doctrine of the
Resurrection would not only surround it with fresh difficulties, but deprive
the simple fact of its grand majesty. Thus, it was a point in discussion, whether
a person would rise in his clothes, which one Rabbi tried to establish by a
reference to the grain of wheat, which was buried 'naked,' but rose clothed. [a
Sanh. 90 b.] Indeed, some Rabbis held, that a man would rise in exactly the same
clothes in which he had been buried, while others denied this. [b Jer. Keth.
35 a.] On the other hand, it was beautifully argued that body and soul must be
finally judged together, so that, in their contention to which of them the sins
of man had been due, justice might be meted out to each, or rather to the two
in their combination, as in their combination they had sinned. [1 This was
illustrated by a very apt Parable, see Sanh. 91 a and b.] Again, it was inferred
from the apparition of Samuel [c 1 Sam. xxviii. 14.] that the risen would look
exactly as in life, have even the same bodily defects, such as lameness,
blindness, or deafness. It is argued, that they were only afterwards to be healed, lest
enemies might say that God had not healed them when they were alive, but that
He did so when they were dead, and that they were perhaps not the same persons.
[d Ber. R. 95, beginning.] In some respects even more strange was the
contention that, in order to secure that all the pious of Israel should rise on the
sacred soil of Palestine, [e Is. xlii. 5.] there were cavities underground in which
the body would roll till it reached the Holy Land, there to rise to newness of
life. [f Ber. R. 96 towards the close.]
But all the more, that it was so keenly controverted by heathens, Sadducees,
and heretics, as appears from many reports in the Talmud, and that it was so
encumbered with realistic legends, should we admire the tenacity with which the
Pharisees clung to this doctrine. The hope of the Resurrection-world appears in
almost every religious utterance of Israel. It is the spring-bud on the tree,
stript by the long winter of disappointment and persecution. This hope pours its
morning carol into the prayer which every Jew is bound to say on awakening; [g
Ber. 60 b.] it sheds its warm breath over the oldest of the daily prayers which
date from before the time of our Lord; [2 It forms the second of the eighteen
Eulogies.] in the formula 'from age to age,' 'world without end,' it forms, so
to speak, the rearguard to every prayer, defending it from Sadducean assault;
[3 It is expressly stated in Ber. ix. 5, that the formula was introduced for
that purpose.] it is one of the few dogmas denial of which involves, according to
the Mishnah, the loss of eternal life, the Talmud explaining, almost in the
words of Christ, that in the retribution of God this is only 'measure according to
measure;' [h Sanh. 90 a line 4 from bottom.] nay, it is venerable even in its
exaggeration, that only our ignorance fails to perceive it in every section of
the Bible, and to hear it in every commandment of the Law.
But in the view of Christ the Resurrection would necessarily occupy a place
different from all this. It was the innermost shrine in the Sanctuary of His
Mission, towards which He steadily tended; it was also, at the same time, the
living corner-stone of that Church which he had builded, and its spire, which, as
with uplifted finger, ever pointed all men heavenwards. But of such thoughts
connected with His Resurrection Jesus could not have spoken to the Sadducees; they
would have been unintelligible at that time even to His own disciples. He met
the cavil of the Sadducees majestically, seriously, and solemnly, with words
most lofty and spiritual, yet such as they could understand, and which, if they
had received them, would have led them onwards and upwards far beyond the
standpoint of the Pharisees. A lesson this to us in our controversies.
The story under which the Sadducees conveyed their sneer was also intended
covertly to strike at their Pharisaic opponents. The ancient ordinance of marrying
a brother's childless widow [a Deut. xxv. 5 &c.] [1 The Talmud has it that the
woman must have no child at all, not merely no son.] had more and more fallen
into discredit, as its original motive ceased to have influence. A large array
of limitations narrowed the number of those on whom this obligation now
devolved. Then the Mishnah laid it down that, in ancient times, when the ordinance of
such marriage was obeyed in the spirit of the Law, its obligation took
precedence of the permission of dispensation, but that afterwards this relationship
became reversed. [b Bekhor. i. 7.] Later authorities went further. Some declared
every such union, if for beauty, wealth, or any other than religious motives, as
incestuous, [c Yebam. 39 b.] while one Rabbi absolutely prohibited it,
although opinions continued divided on the subject. But what here most interests us
is, that what are called in the Talmud the 'Samaritans,' but, as we judge, the
Sadducees, held the opinion that the command to marry a brother's widow only
applied to a betrothed wife, not to one that had actually been wedded. [d Jer.
Yebam. i.6. This seems also to have been the view of the School of Shammai.] This
gives point to the controversial question, as addressed to Jesus.
A case such as they told, of a woman who had successively been married to
seven brothers, might, according to Jewish Law, have really happened. [2 Jer.
Yebam. 6 b, relates what I regard as a legendary story of a man who was thus induced
to wed the twelve widows of his twelve brothers, each widow promising to pay
for the expenses of one month, and the directing Rabbi for those of the 13th
(intercalatory) month. But to his horror, after three years the women returned,
laden with thirty-six children, to claim the fulfilment of the Rabbi's promise!
On the other hand it was, however, also laid down that, if a woman had lost two
husbands, she should not marry a third, according to others, if she had married
three, not a fourth, as there might be some fate ( ) connected with her (Yeb.
64 b). On the question of the Levirate, from the modern Jewish standpoint, see
an interesting article by Gutmann in Geiger's Wiss. Zeitschr. f. Jud. Theol.
vol. iv. (1839), pp. 61-87.] Their sneering question now was, whose wife she was
to be in the Resurrection. This, of course, on the assumption of the grossly
materialistic views of the Pharisees. In this the Sadducean cavil was, in a
sense, anticipating certain objections of modern materialism. It proceeded on the
assumption that the relations of time would apply to eternity, and the conditions
of the things seen hold true in regard to those that are unseen. But perchance
it is otherwise; and the future may reveal what in the present we do not see.
The reasoning as such may be faultless; but, perchance, something in the future
may have to be inserted in the major or the minor, which will make the
conclusion quite other! All such cavils we would meet with the twofold appeal of
Christ to the Word [1 The reproach 'Ye err, not knowing the Scriptures,' occurs in
almost the same form in the discussions on the Resurrection between the
Pharisees and the Sadducees which are recorded in the Talmud.] and to the Power of God,
how God has manifested, and how He will manifest Himself, the one flowing from
the other.
In His argument against the Sadducees Christ first appealed to the power of
God. [a St. Matt. xxii. 29, 30, and parallels.] What God would work was quite
other than they imagined: not a mere re-awakening, but a transformation. The world
to come was not to be a reproduction of that which had passed away, else why
should it have passed away, but a regeneration and renovation; and the body with
which we were to be clothed would be like that which Angels bear. What,
therefore, in our present relations is of the earth, and of our present body of sin
and corruption, will cease; what is eternal in them will continue. But the power
of God will transform all, the present terrestrial into the future heavenly,
the body of humiliation into one of exaltation. This will be the perfecting of
all things by that Almighty Power by which He shall subdue all things to Himself
in the Day of His Power, when death shall be swallowed up in victory. And
herein also consists the dignity of man, in virtue of the Redemption introduced,
and, so to speak, begun at his Fall, that man is capable of such renovation and
perfection, and herein, also, is 'the power of God,' that He hath quickened us
together with Christ, so that here already the Church receives in Baptism into
Christ the germ of the Resurrection, which is afterwards to be nourished and fed
by faith, through the believer's participation in the Sacrament of fellowship
with His body and Blood. [2 Through the Resurrection of Christ resurrection has
become the gift of universal humanity. But, beyond this general gift to
humanity, we believe that we receive in Baptism, as becoming connected with Christ,
the inner germ of the glorious Resurrection-body. Its nourishment (or otherwise)
depends on our personal relationship to Christ by faith, and is carried on
through the Sacrament of His Body and Blood.] Nor ought questions here to rise,
like dark clouds, such as of the perpetuity of those relations which on earth are
not only so precious to us, but so holy. Assuredly, they will endure, as all
that is of God and good; only what in them is earthly will cease, or rather be
transformed with the body. Nay, and we shall also recognise each other, not only
by the fellowship of the soul; but as, even now, the mind impresses its stamp
on the features, so then, when all shall be quite true, shall the soul, so to
speak, body itself forth, fully impress itself on the outward appearance, and
for the first time shall we then fully recognise those whom we shall now fully
know, with all of earth that was in them left behind, and all of God and good
fully developed and ripened into perfectness of beauty.
But it was not enough to brush aside the flimsy cavil, which had only meaning
on the supposition of grossly materialistic views of the Resurrection. Our Lord
would not merely reply, He would answer the Sadducees; and more grand or noble
evidence of the Resurrection has never been offered than that which He gave.
Of course as speaking to the Sadducees, He remained on the ground of the
Pentateuch; and yet it was not only to the Law but to the whole Bible that He
appealed, nay, to that which underlay Revelation itself: the relation between God and
man. Not this nor that isolated passage only proved the Resurrection: He Who,
not only historically but in the fullest sense, calls Himself the God of Abraham,
of Isaac, and of Jacob, cannot leave them dead. Revelation implies, not merely
a fact of the past, as is the notion which traditionalism attaches to it, a
dead letter; it means a living relationship. 'He is not the God of the dead, but
of the living, for all live unto Him.'
The Sadducees were silenced, the multitude was astonished, and even from some
of the Scribes the admission was involuntarily wrung: 'Teacher, Thou hast
beautifully said.' One point, however, still claims our attention. It is curious
that, as regards both these arguments of Christ, Rabbinism offers statements
closely similar. Thus, it is recorded as one of the frequent sayings of a later
Rabbi, that in the world to come there would be neither eating nor drinking,
fruitfulness nor increase, business nor envy, hatred nor strife, but that the just
would sit with crowns on their heads, and feast on the splendor of the Shekhinah.
[a Ber. 17 a, towards the end.] This reads like a Rabbinic adaptation of the
saying of Christ. As regards the other point, the Talmud reports a discussion on
the Resurrection between 'Sadducees,' or perhaps Jewish heretics
(Jewish-Christian heretics), in which Rabbi Gamaliel II. at last silences his opponents by
an appeal to the promise [a Deut. xi. 9.] 'that ye may prolong your days in the
land which the Lord sware unto your father to give unto them', 'unto them,'
emphasises the Rabbi, not 'unto you.' [1 The similar reference to Exod. vi. 4 by a
later Rabbi seems but an adaptation of the argument of Gamaliel II. (See both
in Sanh. 90 b.)] Although this almost entirely misses the spiritual meaning
conveyed in the reasoning of Christ, it is impossible to mistake its Christian
origin. Gamaliel II. lived after Christ, but at a period when there was lively
intercourse between Jews and Jewish Christians; while, lastly, we have abundant
evidence that the Rabbi was acquainted with the sayings of Christ, and took part
in the controversy with the Church. [2 We also recall that Gamaliel II. wasthe
brother-in-law of that Eliezer b. Hyrcanos, who was rightly suspected of
leanings towards Christinaity (see pp. 193, 194). This might open up a most
interesting field of inquiry.] On the other hand, Christians in his day, unless
heretical sects, neither denied that Resurrection, nor would they have so argued with
the Jewish Patriarch; while the Sadducees no longer existed as a party engaging
in active controversy. But we can easily perceive, that intercourse would be
more likely between Jews and such heretical Jewish Christians as might maintain
that the Resurrection was past, and only spiritual. The point is deeply
interesting. It opens such further questions as these: In the constant intercourse
between Jewish Christians and Jews, what did the latter learn? and may there not be
much in the Talmud which is only an appropriation and adaptation of what had
been derived from the New Testament?
2. The answer of our Lord was not without its further results. As we conceive
it, among those who listened to the brief but decisive passage between Jesus
and the Sadducees were some 'Scribes', Sopherim, or, as they are also designated,
'lawyers,' 'teachers of the Law,' experts, expounders, practitioners of the
Jewish Law. One of them, perhaps he who exclaimed: Beautifully said, Teacher!
hastened to the knot of Pharisees, whom it requires no stretch of the imagination
to picture gathered in the Temple on that day, and watching, with restless,
ever foiled malice, the Saviour's every movement. As 'the Scribe' came up to them,
he would relate how Jesus had literally 'gagged' and 'muzzled' [3 (St. Matt.
xxii. 34). The word occurs also in St. Matt xxii. 12: St. Mark i. 25; iv. 39;
St. Luke iv. 35: 1 Cor. ix. 9; 1 Tim. v. 18; 1 Peter. ii 16.] the Sadducees, just
as, according to the will of God, we are 'by well-doing to gag the want or
knowledge of senseless men.' There can be little doubt that the report would give
rise to mingled feelings, in which that prevailing would be, that, although
Jesus might thus have discomfited the Sadducees, He would be unable to cope with
other questions, if only properly propounded by Pharisaic learning. And so we
can understand how one of the number, perhaps the same Scribe, would volunteer to
undertake the office; [a Comp. the two accounts in St. Matthew xxii. 34-40 and
in St. Mark xii. 28-34.] and how his question was, as St. Matthew reports, in
a sense really intended to 'tempt' Jesus.
We dismiss here the well-known Rabbinic distinctions of 'heavy' and 'light'
commandments, because Rabbinism declared the 'light' to be as binding as 'the
heavy,' [b Ab. ii. 1; iv. 2.] those of the Scribes more'heavy' (or binding) than
those of Scripture, [c Sanh. xi. 3.] and that one commandment was not to be
considered to carry greater reward, and to be therefore more carefully observed,
than another. [d Deb. R. 6.] That such thoughts were not in the mind of the
questioner, but rather the grand general problem, however, himself might have
answered it, appears even from the form of his inquiry: 'Which [qualis] is the great,
'the first' [e St. Mark xii. 28.], commandment in the Law?' So challenged, the
Lord could have no hesitation in replying. Not to silence him, but to speak
the absolute truth, He quoted the well-remembered words which every Jew was bound
to repeat in his devotions, and which were ever to be on his lips, living or
dying, as the inmost expression of his faith: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God
is one Lord.' And then continuing, He repeated the command concerning love to
God which is the outcome of that profession. But to have stopped here would have
been to propound a theoretic abstraction without concrete reality, a mere
Pharisaic worship of the letter. As God is love, His Nature so manifesting itself,
so is love to God also love [1 Meyer rightly remarks on the use of here,
implying moral high estimation and corresponding conduct, and not, which refers to
love as an affection. The latter could not have been commanded, although such of
the world is forbidden (St. James iv. 4) while the of one's own (St. John xii.
25) and the (1 Cor. xvi. 22) are stigmatised.] to man. And so this second is
'like' 'the first and great commandment.' It was a full answer to the Scribe when
He said: 'There is none other commandment greater than these.'
But it was more than an answer, even deepest teaching, when, as St. Matthew
reports, He added: 'on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.'
[f St. Matt. xxii 4.] It little matters for our present purpose how the Jews
at the time understood and interpreted these two commandments. [2 The Jewish
view of these commands has been previously explained.] They would know what it
meant that the Law and the Prophets 'hung' on them, for it was a Jewish
expression. He taught them, not that any one commandment was greater or smaller, heavier
or lighter, than another, might be set aside or neglected, but that all sprang
from these two as their root and principle, and stood in living connection with
them. It was teaching similar to that concerning the Resurrection; that, as
concerning the promises, so concering the commandments, all Revelation was one
connected whole; not disjointed ordinances of which the letter was to be weighed,
but a life springing from love to God and love to man. So noble was the
answer, that for the moment the generous enthusiasm of the Scribe, who had previously
been favorably impressed by Christ's answer to the Sadducees, was kindled. For
the moment, at least, traditionalism lost its sway; and, as Christ pointed to
it, he saw the exceeding moral beauty of the Law. He was not far from the
Kingdom of God. [a St. Mark xii. 33, 34.] Whether or not he ever actually entered
it, is written on the yet unread page of its history.
3. The Scribe had originally come to put his question with mixed motives,
partially inclined towards Him from His answer to the Sadducees, and yet intending
to subject Him to the Rabbinic test. The effect now wrought in him, and the
silence which from that moment fell on all His would-be questioners, induced
Christ to follow up the impression that had been made. Without addressing any one in
particular, He set before them all, what perhaps was the most familiar subject
in their theology, that of the descent of Messiah. Whose Son was He? And when
they replied: 'The Son of David,' [1 This also shows that the later dogma of
Messiah the Son of Joseph had not yet been invented.] He referred them to the
opening words of Psalm cx., in which David called the Messiah 'Lord.' The argument
proceeded, of course, on the two-fold supposition that the Psalm was Davidic
and that it was Messianic. Neither of these statements would have been
questioned by the ancient Synagogue. But we could not rest satisfied with the
explanation that this sufficed for the purpose of Christ's argument, if the foundation on
which it rested could be seriously called in question. Such, however, is not
the case. To apply Psalm cx., verse by verse and consistently, to any one of the
Maccabees, were to undertake a critical task which only a series of unnatural
explanations of the language could render possible. Strange, also, that such an
interpretation of what at the time of Christ would have been a comparatively
young composition, should have been wholly unknown alike to Sadducee and
Pharisee. For our own part, we are content to rest the Messianic interpretation on the
obvious and natural meaning of the words taken in connection with the general
teaching of the Old Testament about the Messiah, on the undoubted
interpretation of the ancient Jewish Synagogue, [2 Comp. Appendix IX.] on the authority of
Christ, andon the testimony of History.
Compared with this, the other question as to the authorship of the Psalm is of
secondary importance. The character of infinite, nay, Divine, superiority to
any earthly Ruler, and of course to David, which the Psalm sets forth in regard
to the Messiah, would sufficiently support the argument of Christ. But,
besides, what does it matter, whether the Psalm was composed by David, or only put
into the mouth of David (David's or Davidic), which, on the supposition of
Messianic application, is the only rational alternative?
But we should greatly err if we thought that, in calling the attention of His
hearers to this apparent contradiction about the Christ, the Lord only intended
to show the utter incompetence of the Pharisees to teach the higher truths of
the Old Testament. Such, indeed, was the case, and they felt it in His
Presence. [a St. Matt. xxii. 46.] But far beyond this, as in the proof which He gave
for the Ressurection, and in the view which He presented of the great
commandment, the Lord would point to the grand harmonious unity of Revelation. Viewed
separately, the two statements, that Messiah was David's Son, and that David owned
Him Lord, would seem incompatible. But in their combination in the Person of
the Christ, how harmonious and how full of teaching, to Israel of old, and to all
men, concerning the nature of Christ's Kingdom and of His Work!
It was but one step from this demonstration of the incompetence of Israel's
teachers for the position they claimed to a solemn warning on this subject. And
this appropriately constitutes Christ's Farewell to the Temple, to its
authorieites, and to Israel. As might have been expected, we have the report of it in
St. Matthew's Gospel. [b St. Matt. xxiii.]Much of this had been said before, but
in quite other connection, and therefore with different application. We notice
this, when comparing this Discourse with the Sermon on the Mount, and, still
more, with what Christ had said when at the meal in the house of the Pharisee in
Peraea. [c St. Luke xi. 37-54.] But here St. Matthew presents a regular series
of charges against the representatives of Judaism, formulated in logical
manner, taking up successively one point after the other, and closing with the
expression of deepest compassion and longing for that Jerusalem, whose children He
would fain have gathered under His sheltering wings from the storm of Divine
judgment.
To begin with, Christ would have them understand, that, in warning them of the
incompetence of Israel's teachers for the position which they occupied, He
neither wished for Himself nor His disciples the place of authority which they
claimed, nor yet sought to incite the people to reisitance thereto. On the
contrary, so long as they held the place of authority they were to be regarded, in the
language of the Mishnah [a Rosh haSh. ii. 9], as if instituted by Moses
himself, as sitting in Moses' seat, and were to be obeyed, so far as merely outward
observances were concerned. We regard this direction, not as of merely temporary
application, but as involving as important principle. But we also recall that
the ordinances to which Christ made reference were those of the Jewish
canon-law, and did not involve anything which could really affect the conscience,
except that of the ancient, or of our modern Pharisees. But while they thus obeyed
their outward directions, they were equally to eschew the spirit which
characterised their observances. [1 Even the literal charge of teaching and not doing is
brought in Jewish writings (see, for example, Ber. R. 34). In this respect of
twofold charge is laid against them: of want of spiritual earnestness and love,
[b St. Matt. xxiii, 3, 4) and of more externalism, vanity, and self-seeking.
[c vv. 5-7) And here Christ interrupted His Discourse to warn His disciples
against the first beginnings of what had led to such fearful consequences, and to
point them to the better way. [d vv. 8-12)
This constitutes the first part of Christ's charge. Before proceeding to those
which follow, we may give a few illustrative explanations. Of the opening
accusation about the binding (truly in bondage:) of heavy burdens anf grievous to
be borne, and laying them on men's shoulders, proof can scarcely be required. As
frequently shown, Rabbinism placed the ordinances of tradition above those of
the Law, [e See especially Jer. Ber. i. 7, p. 3 b) and this by a necessity of
the system, since they were professedly the authoritative exposition and the
supplement of the written Law. [f Ab. iii. 11) And although it was a general rule,
that no ordinance should be enjoined heavier that the congregation could bear,
[g B. Kama 79 b] yet (as previously stated) it was admitted, that whereas the
words of the Law contained what 'lightened' and what 'made heavy,' the words of
the Scribes contained only what 'made heavy.' [h Jer. Sanh. 30 a. at bottom]
Again, it was another principle, that were an 'aggravation' or increase of the
burden had once been introduced, it must continue to be observed. [i Nidd. 66 a]
Thus the burdens became intolerable. And the blame rested equally on both the
great Rabbinic Schools. For, although lthe School of Hillel was supposed in
general to make the yoke lighter, and that of Shammai heavier, yet not only did
they agree on many points, [2 So notably in the well-known 'eighteen points' Ab.
Sar. 36 a.] but the School of Hillel was not unfrequently even more strict than
that of his rival. [3 Twenty-four such are mentioned. Jer. Bets. 60 b.] In
truth, their differences seem too often only prompted by a spirit of opposition,
so that the serious business of religion became in their hands one of rival
authority and mere wrangling. [4 Many, very many of them are so utterly trivial and
absurd, that only the hairsplitting ingenuity of theologians can account for
them: others so profane that it is difficult to understand how any religion
could co-exist with them. Conceive, for example, tow schools in controversy whether
it was lawful to kill a louse on the Sabbath. (Schabb. 12 a; 107 b.]
It is not easy to understand the second part of Christ's accousation. There
were, indeed, many hypocrites among them, who might, in the language of the
Talmud, alleviate for themselves and make heavy for others. [a Sot. 21 bS Yet the
charge of not moving them with the finger could scarcely apply to the Pharisees
as a party, not even in this sense, that Rabbinic igenuity mostly found some
means of evading what was unpleasant. But, as previoulsy explained, [b vol. i. p.
101] wewould understand the word rendered 'move' as meaning to 'set in motion,'
or 'move away, in the sense that they did not 'alleviate' where they might
have done so, or else with regerence to their admitted principle, that their
ordinances always made heavier, never lighter, always imposed grievous burdens, but
never, not even with the finger, moved them away.
With this charge of unreality and want of love, those of externalism, vanity,
and self-seeking are closely connected. Here we can only make selection from
the abundant evidence in our support of it. By a merely external interpretation
of Exod. xiii. 9, 16, and Deut. vi. 8; xi. 18, practice of wearing Phylacteries
or, as they were called Tephillin, 'prayer-fillets,' was introduced. [1 On the
Tephillin, comp. 'Sketches of Jewish Scoial Life,' pp. 219-244.] These, as will
be remembered, were square capsules, covered with leather, containing on small
scrolls of parchment, these four sections of the law: Exod. xiii. 1-10; 11-16:
Deut. vi. 4-9; xi. 13-21. The Phylacteries were fastened by long leather
straps to the forehead, and roung the left arm, near the heart. Most superstitious
revernce was attached to them, and in later times they were even used as
amulets. Nevertheless, the Talmud itself gives confirmation that the practice of
constantly wearing phylacteries, or, it might be, making them broad, and enlarging
the borders of the garments, we intended 'for to be seen of men.' Thus we are
told of a certain man who had done so, in order to cover his dishonest practices
in appropriating what had been entrusted to his keeping. [c Jer. Ber. 4 c.
lines 7 and 8 from top Nay, the Rabbis had in so many words to lay it down as a
principle, than the Phylacteries were not to be worn for show. [d Menach 37 b]
Detailed proof is scarcely required of the charge of vanity and self-seeking
in claiming marked outward honours, such as the upper-most places at feasts and
in the Synagogue, respectful salutations in the market, the ostentatious
repetition of the title 'Rabbi,' or 'Abba,' 'Father,' or 'Master,' [a Makk. 24a] [1
These titles are put in the mouth of King Jehoshaphat when saluting the Rabbis.]
or the distinction of being acknowledged as 'greatest.' The very earnestness
with which the Talmud sometimes warns against such motives for study or for
piety sufficiently establishes it. But, indeed, Rabbinic wrtings lay down elaborate
directions, what place is to be assigned to the Rabbis, according to their
rank, and to their disciples, [b Horay, 13] and how in the College the most
learned, but at feast the most aged, among the Rabbis, are to occupy the 'upper
seats.' [c Babha b. 120 a] So weighty was the duty of respectful salutation by the
title Rabbi, that to neglect it would involve the heaviest punishment. [d Ber.
27 bS Two great Rabbis are described as literally complaining, that they must
have lost the very appearance fo learning, since in the market-place they only
had been greeted with 'May your peace be great,' without the addition 'My
masters.' [e Jer. Ber. 9 a, about the middle. Comp. Levy. Neuheber. Worterb, ii. 10 a]
A few further illustrations of the claims which Rabbinism preferred may throw
light on the words of Christ. It reads like a wretched imitation from the New
Testament, when the heathen Governor of Caesarea is represented as rising up
before Rabbis because he beheld 'the faces as it were of Angels;' or like an
adaptation of the well-known story about Constantine the Great when the Governor of
Antioch is described as vindicating a similar mark of respect to the Rabbis by
this, that he had seen their faces and by them conquered in battle. [f Jer.
Ber. 9 a, about the middle] From another Rabbi rays of light are said to have
visibly proceeded. [g u. s.] According to some, they were Epicuraeans, who had no
part in the world to come, who referred slightingly to 'these Rabbis.' [h Jer.
Sanh x. 1] To sypply a learned man with the means of gaining money in trade,
would procure a high place in heaven. [i Pes. 53 b] It was said that, according to
Prov. viii. 15, the sages were to be saluted as kings; [k Gitt. 62 a] nay, in
some respects, they were higher, for, as between a sage and a king, it would be
duty to give the former priority in redemption from captivity, since every
Israelite was fit to be a king, but the loss of a Rabbi could not easily be made
up. [m Horay. 13 a] But even this is not all. The curse of a Rabbi, even if
uncaused, would surely come to pass. [n Sanh.90 b line 3 from top] It would be too
painful to repeat some of the miracles pretended to have been done by them or
for them, occasionally in protection of a lie; or to record their disputes which
among them was 'greatest,' or how they established their respective claims. [o
See forexample Bahba Mets 85 b and 86 a] Nay, their seld-assertion. Extended
beyond this life, and a Rabbi went so far as to order that he should be buried
in white garments, to show that he was worthy of appearing before his Maker. [p
Ber. R. 96. towardsclose] But perhaps the climax of blaaphemous self-assertion
is reached in the story, that, in a discussion in heaven between God and the
heavenly Academy on a Halakhic question about purity, a certain Rabbi, deemed
that most learned on the subject, was summoned to decide the point! As his soul
passed from the body he exclaimed: 'Pure, pure,' which the Voice from Heaven
applied to the state of the Rabbi's soul; and immediately afterwards a letter had
fallen from heaven to inform the sages of the purpose of which the Rabbi had
been summoned to the heavenly assembly, and afterwards another enjoing a week's
universal mourning for him on pain of excommunication. [a Babha Mets 86 a]
Such daring profanities must have crushed out all spiritual religion, and
reduced it to a mere intellectual display, in which the Rabbi was always chief,
here and hereafter. Repulsive as such legends are, they will at least help us to
understand what otherwise might seem harsh in our Lord's dnunciations of
Rabbinism. In view of all this, we need not discuss the Rabbinic warnings against
pride and self-seeking when connected with study, nor their admonitions to
humility. [1 See the quotations to that effect in Schottgen, Wetstein, and Wunsche as
loc.] For, the question here is, what Rabbinism regarded as pride, and what as
humility, in its teachers? Nor is it maintained that all were equally guilty in
this matter; and what passed around may well have led more earnest to energetic
admonitions to humility and unselfishness. but no ingenuity can explain away
the facts as above stated, and, when such views prevailed, it would have been
almost superhuman wholly to aviod what our Lord denounced as characteristic of
Pharisaism. And in this sense, not with Pharisaic painful literalism, but as
opposed to Rabbinic bearing, are we to understand the Lord's warning ot His own not
to claim among brethen to be 'Rabbi,' or 'Abba,' or 'guide.' [2 Hac
clausula(ver. 11) ostendit, senon sophistice litigasse de vocibus, serem points spectasse
(Calvin).] The Law of the Kindgom, as repeatedly taught, [b St.Mark ix. 35;
St. Luke xiv. 11; xviii. 14] was the opposite. As regarede aims, they were to
seek the greatness of service; and as regarded that acknowledgment which would
come from God, it would be the exaltation of humiliation.
It was not a break in the Discourse, [3 Keim argues at length, but very
inconclusively, that this is a different Discourse, addressed to a different audience
and at a different time,] rather an intensification of it, when Christ now
turned to make final denunication of Pharisaism in its sin and hypocrisy. [c St.
Matt. xxiii. 13-33] Corresponding to the eight Beatitudes in the Sermon on the
Mount with which His public Ministry began, He now closed it with eight
denunciations of woe. [1 Although St. Matt. xxiii. 14 is in all probability spurious,
this 'woe' occurs in St. Mark xii. 40, and in St. Luke xx. 47.] These are the
fourthpouring of His holy wrath, the last and fullest testimony against those
whose guilt would involve Jerusalem in common sin and common judgement. Step by
step, with logical sequence and intensified pathos of energy, is each charged
advanced, and with it the Woe of Divine wrath announced.
The first Woe against Pharisaism was on their shutting the Kingdom of God
against men by their opposition to the Christ. All knew how exclusive were their
pretensions in confining piety to the possesion of knowledge, and thah they
declared it impossible for an ignorant person to be pious. Had they taught men the
Scriptures, and shown them the right way, they would have been true to their
office; but woe to them who, in their positions as leaders, had themselves stood
back with their backs to the door of the Kingdom, and prevented the entrance of
others.
The second Woe was on their covetousness and hypocrisy. They made long
prayers, [a Ber. 32 b; Yoma 29 a.] but how often did it only cover thevilest
selfishness, even to the 'devouring' of widow's houses. We can scarcely expect the
Talmud here to furnish us with illustrative instances, and yet at least one such is
recorded; [b Sot. 21 b; comp. Jer. Sot. 19 a.] and we recall how often broad
phylacteries covered fraudulent minds.
The third Woe was on their proselytism, which issued only in making their
converts twofold more the children of hell than themselves. Against this charge,
rightly understood, Judaism has in vain sought to defend itself. It is, indeed,
true that, in its pride and exclusiveness, Judaism seemed to denounce
proselytism, laid down strict rules to test the sincerity of converts, and spoke of them
in general contempt [c Horay, 13 a.] as 'a plague of leprosy.' [d Yeb. 47 a. b;
Nidd. 13 b.] Yet the bitter complaint of classical writers, [e Tacut. Hist. v.
5; Seneca in August. De Civit. Dei vi. 11(2).] the statements of Josepus, [f
Ant. xviii. 3. 5; xx. 2, 4; Jewish War ii.17. 10 &c.; 20, 2; Life 23.] the
frequent allusions in the New Testament and even the admissions of the Rabbis, prove
their zeal for making proselytes, which, indeed, but for its moral sequences,
would neither have deserted nor drawn down the denunciation of a 'woe'. Thus
the Midrash, commenting on the words: [g Gen. xii. 5.] 'the souls that they had
gotten in Haran,' refers it to the converts which Abraham had made, adding that
every proselyte was to be regarded as if a soul had been created. [h Ber. R.
39, ed. Warsh. p. 72 a,and Vayy. R. 1.] [3 Anyone who would see how Jewish
ingenutiy can, for the purpose of misrepresenting the words of Christ, put a meaning
even on Jewish documents which they can never bear, is advised to read the
remarks of the learned Jellinek on St. Matt. xxiii, 15, in the Beth ha-Midr. vol.
v. pp. xlvi. xlvii., and his rendering of the quotation from Ber. R. 28.] To
this we may add the pride with which Judaism looked back upon the 150,000
Gibeonite converts said to have been made whem David avenged the sin of Saul; [a 2 Sam.
xxi. 1 &c.; Yebam, 79 a.] the satisfaction with which it looked forward to the
times of Messiah as those of spontaneous conversion to the Synagogue; [b Ab.
Zar. 24 a.] and not the unfrequent instances in which a spirit favourableto
proselytism is exhibited in Jewish writings, [1 The learned Danzius has collected
all that can be said on that subject in Meuschan, Nov. Test. exTalm. illustr.,
pp. 649-666. But in my opinion he exaggerates his case.] as, also, such a saying
as this, that when Israel is obedient to the will of God, He brings in as
converts to Judaism all the just of the nations, such as Jethro, Rahab, Ruth, &c.
[c Midr. on Eccl. v. 11.] But after all, may the Lord not have referred, not to
conversion to Judaism in general, but to proselytism to the sect of the
Pharisees, which was undoubtedly sought to the compassing of sea and land?
The fourth Woe is denounced on the moral blindness of these guides rather than
on their hypocrisy. From the nature of things it is not easy to understand the
precise allusin of Christ. It is true that the Talmud makes the strangest
distinction between an oath or adjuration, such as 'by heaven' or 'by earth,' which
is not supposed to be binding; and that by any of the letters of which Divine
Being, when the oath is supposed to be binding. [d Shebh. iv. 13 and 35b, 36
a.] But itseems more likely that our Lord refers to oaths or adjurations in
connection with vows, where the casuistry was of the most complicated kind. In
general, the Lord here condemns the arbitrariness of all such Jewish distinctions,
which, by attaching excessive value to the letter of an oath or vow, really
tended to diminish its sanctity. All such distinctions argued folly and more
blindness.
The fifth Woe referred to one of the best-known and strangest Jewish
ordinances, which extended the mosaic law of tithing, in most burdensome minuteness,
even to the smallest products of the soil that were esculent and could be
preserved, [e Maaser, i. 1.] such a asnise. Of these, according to some, not only the
seeds, but, in certain cases, even the leaves and stalks, had to be tithed. [f
Maaser. iv. 5.] And this, together with grievous omission of the weightier
matters of the Law: judgement, mercy, and faith. Truly, this was 'to strain out the
gnat, and swallow the camel!' We remember that this conscientiousness in
tithing constituted one of the characteristics of the Pharisees; but we could
scarcely be prepared for such an instance of it, as when the Talmnd gravely assures us
that the ass of a certain Rabbi had been so well trained as to refuse corn of
which the tithes had not been taken! [a Jer Dem. 21d.] And experience, not only
in the past but in the present, has only too plainly shown, that a religious
zeal which expends itself on trifles has not room nor strength left for the
weightier matters of the Law.
From tithing to purification the transition was natural. [1 Kerm, with keen
insight, characterises the Woes which contrasts their proselytising with their
resistance to the progress of the Kingdom; then, the third and fourth which
denounce their false teaching, the fifth, and sixth their false attempts at purity,
while the last sets forth their relations to those forerunners of Christ, whose
graves they built.] It constituted the second grand characteristic of
Pharasaic piety. We have seen with what punctiliousness questions of outward purity of
vessels were discussed. But woe to the hypocrisy which, caring for the outside,
heeded not whether that which filled the cup and platter had been procured by
extortion or was used for excess. And, alas for the blindness which perceived
not, that internal purity was the real condition of that which was outward!
Woe similarly to another species of hypocrisy, of which, indeed, the preceding
were but the outcome: that of outward appearance of righteousness, while heart
and mind were full of iniquity, just as those annually-whited sepulchres of
theirs seemed so fair outwardly, but within were full of dead men's bones and all
uncleanness. Woe, lastly, to that hypocrisy which built and decorated
sepulchres of prophets and righteous men, and by so doing sought to shelter itself from
share in the guilt of those who had killed them. It was not spiritual
repentance, but national pride, which actuated them in this, the same spirit of
self-sufficiency, pride, and impenitence which had led their fathers to commit the
murders. And were they not about to imbrue their hands in the blood of Him to Whom
all the prophets had pointed? Fast were they in the Divine judgement filling
up the measure of their fathers.
And thicker and heavier than ever before fell the hailstorm of His
denunciations, as He foretold the certain doom which awaited their national impenitence.
[b vv. 34-36.] Prophets, wise men, and scribes would be sent them of Him; and
only murder, sufferings, and persecutions would await them, not reception of
their message and warnings. And so would they become heirs of all the blood of
martyred saints, from that of him whom Scripture records as the first one murdered,
down to that last martyr of Jewish unbelief of whom tradition spoke in such
terms, Zechariah, [2 We need scarcely remind the reader that this Zechariah was
the son of Jehoiada. The difference in the text of St. Matthew may either be due
to family circumstances, unknown to us, which might admit of his designation
as 'the son of Barachias' (the reading is undoubtedly correct), or an error may
have crept into the text, how, we know not, and it is of little moment. There
can be no question that the reference is to this Zecharias. It seems scarcely
necessary to refer to the strange notion that the notice in St. matt. xxiii, 35
has been derived from the account of the murder of Zacharias, the son of Baruch,
in the Temple during the last seige (Jos. War. iv. 5. 4). To this there are
the following foru objections: (1) Baruch (as in Jos.) and Barachias (as in St.
Matt.) are quite different names, in Greek as in Hebrew, 'blessed,' Bapoux, and
'Jehovah will bless,' Bapaxias. Comp. for ex. LXX., Neh. iii. 20 with iii. 30.
(2) Because the place of their slaughter was different, that of the one
'between the porch and the altar,' that of the other 'in the midst of the Temple,'
either the court of the women, or that of the Israelites. (3) Because the murder
of the Zacharias referred to by St. Matt. stood out as the crowning national
crime, and as such is repeatedly referred to in Jewish legend (see references in
margin), and dwelt upon with many miraculous embellishments (4) Because the
clumsiest forger would scarcely have put into the motuh of Jesus an event connected
with the last siege of Jerusalem and derived from Josephus. In general, we
take this opportunity strongly to assert that only unacquaintance with the whole
subject could lead anyone to look to Josephus for the source of any part of the
evangelic narrative. To these remarks we have to add that precisely the same
error (if such it be) as in our text of St. Matthew occurs in the Targum on
Lament. ii. 20, where this Zechariah is designated 'the son (= grandson) of Iddo,'
comp. Ezr. v. 1, and Zech. i. 1, 7. For the correct reading ('son of Jehoiada')
in the 'Gospel of the Hebrews,' comp. Nicholson, p. 59.] stoned by the king's
command in the Court of the Temple, [a 2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22.] whose blood, as
legend had it, did not dry up those two centuries and a half, but still bubbled
on the pavement, when Nebuzar-adan entered the Temple, and at last avenged it.
[b Sanh. 96 b; Gitt, 57 b; also in the Midr. on Eccl. iii. 16 and x. 4. and on
Lament. ii. 2, and iv. 141.]
And yet it would not have been Jesus, if, while denouncing certain judgement
on them who, by continuance and completion of the crimes of their fathers,
through the same unbelief, had served themselves heirs to all their guilt, He had
not also added to it the passionate lament of a love which, even when spurned,
lingered with regretful longing over the lost. [c vv. 37-39.] They all knew the
common illustration of the hen gathering her young brood for shelter, [d Vayyik.
R. 25.] and they knew also what of Divine protection, blessing, and rest it
implied, when they spoke of being gathered under the wings of the Shekhinah. Fain
and often would Jesus have given to Israel, His people, that shelter, rest,
protection, and blessing, but they would not. Looking around on those
Temple-buildings, that House, it shall be left to them desolate! And he quitted its courts
with these words, that they of Israel should not see Him again till, the night
of their unbelief past, they would welcome His return with a better Hosanna
than that which greeted His Royal Entry three days before. And this was the
'Farewell' and the parting of Israel's Messiah from Israel and its temple. Yet a
Farewell which promised a coming again; and a parting which implied a welcome in
the future from a believing people to a gracious, pardoning King!
Edersheim on Matt 23



Read The Bible
- 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
- 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
- American Standard Version (ASV)
- Amplified Bible (AMP)
- Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
- Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
- BRG Bible (BRG)
- Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
- Common English Bible (CEB)
- Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
- Contemporary English Version (CEV)
- Darby Translation (DARBY)
- Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT)
- Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
- Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
- English Standard Version (ESV)
- English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)
- Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV)
- Expanded Bible (EXB)
- GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
- Good News Translation (GNT)
- Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
- International Children’s Bible (ICB)
- International Standard Version (ISV)
- J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)
- Jubilee Bible 2000 (JUB)
- King James Version (KJV)
- Lexham English Bible (LEB)
- Living Bible (TLB)
- Modern English Version (MEV)
- Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
- Names of God Bible (NOG)
- New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
- New American Standard Bible (NASB)
- New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB1995)
- New Catholic Bible (NCB)
- New Century Version (NCV)
- New English Translation (NET)
- New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
- New International Version - UK (NIVUK)
- New International Version (NIV)
- New King James Version (NKJV)
- New Life Version (NLV)
- New Living Translation (NLT)
- New Matthew Bible (NMB)
- New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
- New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
- New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA)
- New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)
- New Testament for Everyone (NTE)
- Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
- Revised Geneva Translation (RGT)
- Revised Standard Version (RSV)
- Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
- The Message (MSG)
- The Voice (VOICE)
- Tree of Life Version (TLV)
- World English Bible (WEB)
- Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
- Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
- Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Table of Contents
Main Menu
- Ancient Assyrian Social Structure
- Ancient Babylonia
- Ancient Canaan During the Time of Joshua
- Ancient History Timeline
- Ancient Oil Lamps
- Antonia Fortress
- Archaeology of Ancient Assyria
- Assyria and Bible Prophecy
- Augustus Caesar
- Background Bible Study
- Bible
- Biblical Geography
- Fallen Empires - Archaeological Discoveries and the Bible
- First Century Jerusalem
- Glossary of Latin Words
- Herod Agrippa I
- Herod Antipas
- Herod the Great
- Herod's Temple
- High Priest's in New Testament Times
- Jewish Literature in New Testament Times
- Library collection
- Map of David's Kingdom
- Map of the Divided Kingdom - Israel and Judah
- Map of the Ministry of Jesus
- Matthew Henry Bible Commentary
- Messianic Prophecy
- Nero Caesar Emperor
- Online Bible Maps
- Paul's First Missionary Journey
- Paul's Second Missionary Journey
- Paul's Third Missionary Journey
- Pontius Pilate
- Questions About the Ancient World
- Tabernacle of Ancient Israel
- Tax Collectors in New Testament Times
- The Babylonian Captivity
- The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser
- The Books of the New Testament
- The Court of the Gentiles
- The Court of the Women in the Temple
- The Destruction of Israel
- The Fall of Judah with Map
- The History Of Rome
- The Incredible Bible
- The Jewish Calendar in Ancient Hebrew History
- The Life of Jesus in Chronological Order
- The Life of Jesus in Harmony
- The Names of God
- The New Testament
- The Old Testament
- The Passion of the Christ
- The Pharisees
- The Sacred Year of Israel in New Testament Times
- The Samaritans
- The Scribes
Ancient Questions
- Why Do the Huldah Gates Appear Different in Ancient Replicas and Modern Photos?
- What Is the Origin of the Japanese and Chinese Peoples? A Biblical Perspective
- How did the ancient Greeks and Romans practice medicine and treat illnesses?
- What were the major contributions of ancient Babylon to mathematics and astronomy?
- How did the ancient Persians create and administer their vast empire?
- What were the cultural and artistic achievements of ancient India, particularly during the Gupta Empire?
- How did ancient civilizations like the Incas and Aztecs build their remarkable cities and structures?
- What were the major trade routes and trading practices of the ancient world?
- What was the role of slavery in ancient societies like Rome and Greece?
- How did the ancient Mayans develop their sophisticated calendar system?
Bible Study Questions
- Why Do Christians Celebrate Christmas?
- How Many Chapters Are There in the Bible?
- The Five Key Visions in the New Testament
- The 400-Year Prophecy: Unpacking Genesis 15 and the Journey of a People
- The Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV): Historical Significance, Translation Methodology, and Lasting Impact
- Exploring the English Standard Version (ESV): Its Aspects, Comparisons, Impact on Biblical Studies, and Church Use
- A Detailed Historical Analysis of Language Updates in the KJ21: Comparison with Other Versions
- A Detailed Historical Analysis of the American Standard Version (ASV): Comparison to the King James Version, Influence on Later Translations, and Evaluation of Strengths and Weaknesses
- A Detailed Historical Analysis of Amplifications in the Amplified Bible (AMP) and Its Comparison to Other Bible Translations
- Detailed Historical Analysis of the Amplified Bible Classic Edition (AMPC): Examples of Amplifications and Comparative Analysis with Other Bible Translations
About
Welcome to Free Bible: Unearthing the Past, Illuminating the Present! Step into a world where ancient history and biblical narratives intertwine, inviting you to explore the rich tapestry of human civilization.
Discover the captivating stories of forgotten empires, delve into the customs and cultures of our ancestors, and witness the remarkable findings unearthed by dedicated archaeologists.
Immerse yourself in a treasure trove of knowledge, where the past comes alive and illuminates our understanding of the present.
Join us on this extraordinary journey through time, where curiosity is rewarded and ancient mysteries await your exploration.
Recent posts
-
The Role of AI in Cryptocurrency Trading and Blockchain Security
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly reworking industries, and the cryptocurrency sector is not any exception. From enhancing trading techniques to... -
The impact of IP address on LinkedIn traffic
IP address has a serious impact on LinkedIn traffic. Before you start working with the site, you should clarify the specifics of this influence and ho... -
The Bible in Museums: Where to See Ancient Scripture Today
The Bible, as one of the most influential books in human history, has shaped not only religious beliefs but also the course of civilization. Its stori... -
How AI is Revolutionizing 2025: Latest Innovations and Industry Applications
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has turn out to be one of the maximum transformative technologies of the twenty first century. As we flow via 2025, AI ke... -
AI-Powered Innovation: How Businesses Are Leveraging AI for Growth
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a futuristic concept however a fundamental driving force of innovation in these days’s commercial enterpri...