The works of the Reverend and learned John Lightfoot D. D., late Master of Katherine Hall in Cambridge such as were, and such as never before were printed : in two volumes : with the authors life and large and useful tables to each volume : also three maps : one of the temple drawn by the author himself, the others of Jervsalem and the Holy Land drawn according to the author's chorography, with a description collected out of his writings.

CHAP. XV.

VERS. II.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

No small dissension and disputation, &c.

WERE I to render these words into the Talmudick Language (which was the School Language) I would render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 terms very well known in the Schools; according to which Idiom, if they were expounded, there would be no difficulty in them.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

They determined that Paul should go up, &c.

Of this journey Paul himsel makes some mention, Gal. II. 1. where he intimates that he went up by revelation, that is, given to the Ministers of Antioch: for it would not have been said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they determinded, if the Revelation had been made to Paul himself. Amongst others that ••••companied him in his journey, Titus was one: But where he adopted him to himself▪ in those his journeys described Chap. XIII. and XIV. let him guess that can.

VERS. VII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

A good while ago, &c.

I Do not question but St. Peter in these words had an eye to that saying of our Savi∣our, I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, viz. that thou mayst first open the door of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Then it was that the Lord chose him, that by his mouth first the Gentiles might hear the word of the Gospel, and might believe. This he saith was done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, In former days: that is, as he speaks elsewhere, In the time when Jesus went in and out amongst them, Acts I. 21. which time is expressed by our Evangelists by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ From the beginning, Luke I. 2.

VERS. XVI.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

I will build again the Tabernacle of David, which is fallen down.

g 1.1 RAB. Nachman said to R. Isaac, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whence art thou taught when Bar Naphli will come? He saith unto him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Who is this Bar Naphli? The other replied; it is the Messiah. Dost thou then call the Messias Bar Naphli? Yes, saith he, for it is written, In that day I will build again the Tabernacle of David, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nopheleth, falling down.

VERS. XVII.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, &c.

I. I Think it will hardly be denied by any but that St. James spake now in Hebrew, i. e. in the Syriac Tongue. For reason will tell us that the Council at Jerusalem would be managed best in the language of Jerusalem: and indeed the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Symeon, with which he begins his discourse, argues that he spoke Hebrew amongst Hebrews; not so much in that he saith Simeon and not Simon; as in that he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with the let∣ter v, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Simeon; the Syriac Tongue affecting the letter u, in the first sylla∣ble, as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bu••ra, Gushma, Ductha, and many such words. So also in proper names, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ben Sutda, in Jerusalem Language, for Ben Satda, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mugdala, for Magdala.

II. Neither, I presume, will it be denied that the Apostle quoting this passage of the Prophet recites the very words as they are in the Hebrew: which was always done in their Schools, and Sermons: when they recited any place or testimony of Scripture, they did it always in the very original words. But do you think that the Hebrew words of Amos, in the mouth of James, were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That the residue of men might seek; in which sense the Greek words speak? The Hebrew Text in Amos IX. 12. is thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That they may possess the remnant of Edom. But the Greek Interpreters have it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord. where they add 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Lord, of their own, and is not the Prophets; nor in∣deed is it in the Roman Copy, but in the Alexandrian M. S. it is.

It is hardly worth our enquiry whether through carelessness or set design they have gone thus wide from the words of the Prophet; for indeed nothing is more common with those Interpreters than to depart after that manner from the Hebrew Text. One may suspect that they did it on purpose here, partly as envying so comfortable a promise made to Edom; and partly, because in the Prophesie next following it is said, There shall be no remnant of the House of Esau, Obad. vers. ult. where they distinguish that also by rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, One that carrieth fire.

III. The Hebrew words of Amos quoted by James, do suit very well with his design and purpose, when to prove that God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name, he cites this, I will build again the Tabernacle of David, that they may possess the remnant of Edom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The remnant of ••••om, in the same sense with the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the remnant of Israel, mentioned, Rom. XI. 5. And by naming Edom one of the bitterest enemies that Israel had, from whom a remnant should be taken out and reserved, the thing propounded is the more clearly made out, viz. That God had visited the Gentiles, &c. The words also in the Greek Version which St. Luke follows, do prove the thing too: mention being made of all Nations seeking after the Lord: and therefore he doth the more safely follow that Version here which indeed he doth almost every where; and for what reasons he so doth, I have observed in another place.

IV. I know that the Talmudic and other Jewish Writers understand by the Edomites, commonly the Romans; but why they do so, does not so well appear. But their impu∣dence sufficiently appears, when they introduce the Romans owning themselves for the Children of Esau, or Edom, and making their boasts of it. h 1.2 At Rome once within seventy years, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They bring forth a sound man, [one that represents Esau] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and make him ride upon a lame man [that represents Jacob, and by that they shew how Esau now ruleth over Jacob] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And they cloth him with the Garments of Adam [those were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Garments of desire that Esau had.] And they put upon his head 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the skin of the head of Rabbi Ishmael [He was the High Priest, that had been killed by the Kingdom of the

Romans; but had so comely a face, that Cesar's Daughter caused the skin of it to be taken off and preserved in Balsom.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And they hang upon him a Pearl of the weight of a Zuzee,—and proclaim before him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The computation of the Lord (of Jacob, as one Gloss, or of Isaac, as another) is false∣hood. [That is, his Prophesie by which he promised Redemption to his Children, is a lye.] The Brother of our Lord [i. e. of Esau] is a deceiver. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whosoever sees [this sight at present] let him see it, and whosoever doth not see it shall not see it, [that is, till the seventieth year again.] What did thy deceiver get by his deceit, and what did that falsifier get by his falshood? And so at length conclude, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Woe to this man, when he shall arise. [Woe to Esau, when Jacob shall arise.]

I thought fit to transcribe these things, only to give you a specimen, with what con∣fidence the Jewish Writers esteem the Romans for Edomites: of whom they hardly ever speak without spleen and hatred, curse and abhorrency. The words shut within the Parenthesis are not mine but those of the Gloss.

V. I do not belive that the Romans were thus taken for Edomites by the Jews, when the Greek Version was wrote: but yet I do believe that at that time the Edomites were as odious to the Jews: so that it is no wonder, if those interpreters from that hatred should envy them those things Amos had foretold should happen to them that remained of Edom, and diverted his words another way. i 1.3 This is the offering thou shalt receive from them, Gold, Silver, and Brass, Exod. The Gold is Babel: The Silver is Media: The Brass is Greece, Dan. II. But there is no mention of Iron: Why so? Because wicked Edom that wasted the Sanctuary is likened to that. To teach us, that God in time to come will accept an offering from every Kingdom, except Edom.

VERS. XX.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

That they abstain from pollutions of Idols, and from Fornication.

I. IT may with good reason be asked, whether these four things were forbidden un∣der one and the same notion; namely this, That the converted Gentiles might not give offence to the Jews, if they should not abstain from all these things. Or, whether there might not be something else interwoven, viz. that those converted Gentiles might not relapse into something of their former Heathenism: the abstaining from pollutions of Idols, and from Fornication, seems to respect this later, as that of abstaining from things strangled, and from blood, the former.

In the mean time one might wonder at the heart and forehead of the Nicolaitans, who not only practised, but taught diametrically contrary to this decree of the Apostles, Revel. II. 14, 20. Those Balaamites, and Jezebelites: with what paint could they beautifie that horrid and accursed doctrine and practice of theirs? was it the liberty of the Gospel they pretended? or rather did they not abuse that love and charity commanded in the Gospel? Namely, making a shew of some more transcendent friendship amongst them∣selves, they would eat any thing with any Man, and lye carnally with any Woman.

I have oftentimes thought of those words of the Apostle, 1 Tim. IV. 3. forbidding to marry. Who were these that forbad to Marry, but especially upon what account did they forbid it? We know indeed upon what unreasonable reason Marriage is forbidden to some, in the Romish Communion, in these later ages of the world; but to whom, and upon what occasion it was forbidden in those lasts days of the Jewish Oeconomy (to which times the Apostle referrs, in this place) is not easily determined.

As to the clause that follows immediately in the Apostle, commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received, &c. that passage comes into my mind, k 1.4 When the Temple was destroyed the second time, the Pharisees [i. e. the Separatists] were greatly multiplied in Israel, who taught that it was not lawful to eat flesh, nor to drink wine. R. Jo∣shua applied himself to them and said, My Sons who do you not eat flesh nor drink any wine? They say unto him, shall we eat flesh, that were wont to offer it upon the Altar, and that Altar is now broken down? shall we drink wine, that were wont to pour it out upon the Altar, which Altar is now gone? If it be so, saith he, then we should not eat bread, because the Offer∣ings of bread-corn are ceased: we should not eat any fruits, because the offering of first-fruits is at an end. We should not drink water, because the drink offering is ceased, &c. And a little after, Since the Kingdom of iniquity [the Roman Empire] hath decreed sharp things against us—it is but just that we should ordain amongst our selves 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not to marry Wifes, nor beget Children, &c. and so it would come to pass that the seed of Abra∣ham would decay and fail of it self. But let Israel rather be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mistaken than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 presumptuous.

How great a difference is there between these men, and the Nicolaitans? And yet these as foolishly and superstitiously erred in one extreme, as those did impiously and filthi∣ly in the other. As to the Nicolaitans, we may wonder at their ignorance if they knew nothing of this decree of the Apostles; and their impudence in so bold a contradiction, if they did.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

From pollutions of Idols.

In the Epistle of the Council it is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. From meats offered to Idols. The Rabbins distinguish the matter (when they discourse of what is forbidden concerning Idolatry) into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 things prohibited to eat, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 things prohibited to use. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or things offered to Idols, were prohibited to eat. And all the Utensils about any Idolatrous Sacrifice, were prohibited to use. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doubtless comprehended all things offered to Idols, and perhaps all the Utensils too: and it is no impertinent question, whether that in the Epistle commanding them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to abstain from things offered to Idols, did not restrain them from the use of all such Utensils, as well as from the eating of things offered.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And from Fornication.

Any one may discern how obvious this twofold enquiry is. Namely, of what Forni∣cation the discourse here is; and for what reason Fornication, whatsoever it is, should be reckoned here amongst the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or indifferent things.

I. When I recollect what we frequently meet with amongst the Rabbins, that some things are permitted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for peace sake; and some things forbidden 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by reason of the customs of the Amorites, or the Gentiles: I am apt to suspect, in these decrees of the Apostles there is some relation to both: that it was permitted to the converted Gentiles, to Judaize in some things for peace sake; but to abstain in other, not that they might not Judaize, but that they might not do as the Heathen.

II. Particularly in this prohibition of Fornication, we must consider, that it is not so proper to think there needed any peculiar command or prescript of the Apostles, to those that had embraced Christianity, against Fornication in the common notion and ac∣ceptation of the word, whenas the whole tenor of the Gospel prescribed against it. And for that very reason I cannot perswade my self that by blood forbidden in this place, we are to understand murder.

III. There was a certain Fornication amongst the Jews that seemed to them lawful, and had some colour of Legitimation: this was Polygamy, Hos. IV. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They commit whoredom and shall not encrease: So the Chaldee and Syriac, and our own Translation render it well. But now Fornication, as it denotes Whoredom, doth not wish or expect any off-spring, but the contrary rather: But the words relate to Bigamy, or Polygamy. For in case of the Wife's barrenness, it was a common thing for them to take to them another Woman, or more for propagation sake; and this it is that God brands with the reproachful name of Fornication. They commit Fornication but do not multiply. Whatever else is understood by this word; I would certainly understand this, namely, That the Apostles prescribed against Polygamy, a thing esteemed indifferent amongst the Jews (as fornication was amongst the Gentiles) and therefore not unfitly mentioned here amongst things indifferent.

Tell me in what place in the New Testament Bigamy, or Polygamy, is forbidden, if not in this? perhaps you will say in that of our Saviour, Matth. XIX. 4, 5. Where indeed provision is made against putting away of a Man's Wife, but hardly against Poly∣gamy, especially comparing the Apostles words, 1 Cor. VI. 16. Provision is made that Bishops and Deacons shall not have two Wifes, 1 Tim. III. and I should not believe but that the same provision is made against the Bigamy of the Laity. But where is that done, if not in this place?

IV. There was another Fornication, ordinarily so reckoned also in the opinion of the Jews themselves (for they did not account the having many Wives to be Fornication) and that was, besides what they call simple Fornication, their marrying within the pro∣hibited degrees, that which they commonly called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nakedness. These Marriages they were so averse to, that to some of them they alotted Death, to all of them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or cutting off. Concerning which Maimonides speaks largely l 1.5. In the mean time they al∣lowed the Gentile that became a proselyte to the Jewesh Religion, to marry with his Kindred though never so near in blood, with his Sister, if he pleased, or with his Mo∣ther, &c. m 1.6 Hence perhaps arose that incestuous Marriage mentioned 1 Cor. V. They did well therefore to provide by this Apostolical decree, against such kind of Marriages as these, being so odious to the Jews.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

And from things strangled, and from blood.

These (I suppose) were forbidden the Gentile converts for the sake of the Jews, and by way of condescension, that they might not take offence. By blood therefore •••••• by no means understand murther; by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, strangled, shall be considered by and by▪

1. For wherefore should any mention of murder come into this present controves•••• •• Were the Gentile converts to be brought over to Moses? when the Moral precepts of Moses scarcely came in their minds, as being the precepts even of Nature it self. But the question is about ceremonials, and what hath murder to do in that? and as I have al∣ready said, what need could there be of such peculiar caution against Murder to those who had embraced the Gospel of love and peace?

II. By the prohibition of blood therefore, I make no question but that caution is given against eating of blood: which is more than once prohibited in the Law, Gen. IX. 4. Deut. XII. 16, &c. and there could hardly any thing (except an Idol) be named, that the Jew had a greater abhorrence for, than the eating of blood.

III. The Jews distinguish between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the member of a living beast, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the blood of a living Beast n 1.7. The former is forbidden by that, Flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat. The later also is forbidden, Thou shalt not eat blood let out by the cutting of a vein, or any other way, from any beast, saith R. Cha∣ninah in the place above quoted. See also Pesikta, and R. Solomon o 1.8, and instead o•• more, that passage: p 1.9 Wherefore is blood forbidden five times in Scripture? [Gen. IX. 4. Levit. III. 17. & VII. 26. & XVII. 10. Deut. XII. 16.] That the blood of Animals that are holy might be included, and the blood of Animals not Holy, and the blood that was to be covered in the dust, and the blood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the member of a living Beast, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the blood that is let out, by the cutting of a vein, or otherwise. God himself ad∣judgeth him that eats blood to be cut off, Levit. VII. 27, &c. But as to this matter there are wondrous nice and subtile questions and distinctions laid down in Maimonides; I will only transcribe this one: q 1.10 As to the blood that is let out, and the blood of the members, viz. of the Spleen, the Kidneys, the Testicles, and the blood gathered about the heart in the time of slaying, and the blood found about the Liver, they are not guilty of cutting off; but who∣ever eateth of any of that blood let him be scourged: because it is said, Thou shall eat no blood. But concerning being guilty to cutting off, it is said, because the life of the flesh is in the blood. A man therefore is not guilty of cutting off, unless he eats of that blood with which the life goes out.

IV. I know what the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, strangled flesh, in Atheneus * 1.11 mean: but that hath no place here, nor is there any reason why such Meats as he there sets on the Table, should be forbidden even to the Jew. Nor would I by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, strangled, understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the member of a living Beast, partly because I suppose that included in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, blood; and partly because it is thus determined by the Rabbins concern∣ing it. r 1.12 They learn by tradition that that which is said in the Law, Thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh, forbids the eating of a member torn from a living Animal: and concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the member cut off from a living Beast, God saith to Noah, But flesh with the life which is the blood thereof, shalt thou not eat. So that, to eat a member so cut off, is to eat blood: and under that clause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and from blood, is contained the pro∣hibition of eating both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the blood of a living Beast, and also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the member of a living Beast. And under that clause 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and of things strangled, is the prohibition of eating flesh of a Beast not well killed, so as the blood issueth not one as it ought to do. Concerning which there is a large discourse in the Tract Cholin, obscure and tedious enough; however, I cannot but note one passage out of it. s 1.13 If any one desire to eat of a Beast before the life of it be gone, let him cut off a piece of flesh from the killing place, to the quantity of an Olive, and salt it very well, and wash it very well, and stay till the life of the Beast be gone out of him, and then he may eat it: this is equally lawful both to the stranger and to the Israelite. When we speak of not eating of flesh which the blood is not duly got out of, it is not necessary we should include within this rank 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that which dyes of it self, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that which is torn of wild Beasts.

Notes

• g 1.1

  Sanhedr. fol. 69. 2.
• h 1.2

  Avodah Za∣rah, fol. 11. 2.
• i 1.3

  Shemoth rab∣ba, fol. 152. 3.
• k 1.4

  Bava bathra, fol. 60. 2.
• l 1.5

  Maimon. Is∣••••r. beah. cap. 1. & per ••or. tract.
• m 1.6

  Idem, ibid. cap. 14.
• n 1.7

  Sanhedr. fol. ••9. 1.
• o 1.8

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 in •••••••• •••••• & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 IX.
• p 1.9

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 fol. 76. 2.
• q 1.10

  Maimon. Ma∣acaloth Asu∣roth, cap. 6.
• * 1.11

  Lib. 9.
• r 1.12

  Maim. Maa∣caloth Asuroth, cap. 5.
• s 1.13

  Cholin. fol. 33. 1.