Exercitations upon the Evangelist St. John
Chapters 1 and 2
I. Not of bloods. Observe the plural number: "Our Rabbins say, That all
Israel had thrown off circumcision in Egypt--but at length they were circumcised, and
the blood of the passover was mingled with the blood of the circumcised, and God
accepted every one of them and kissed them." "I said, while thou wert in thy
bloods, Live: i.e. in the twofold blood, that of the passover, and that of the
circumcision." The Israelites were brought into covenant by three things; by
circumcision, by washing, and by offering of sacrifices. In the same manner, a heathen, if
he would be admitted into covenant, he must of necessity be circumcised, baptized, and
offer sacrifice. We see how of bloods of the passover and circumcision, they say
the Israelites were recovered from the degeneracy: and how of the bloods of
circumcision and sacrifices (with the addition only of washing), they supposed the
Gentiles might become the sons of God, being by their proselytism made Israelites, and the
children of the covenant: for they knew of no other adoption or sonship.
II. Of the will of the flesh. In the same sense wherein the patriarchs and other
Jews were ambitious by many wives to multiply children of themselves, as being of the seed
of Israel and children of the covenant.
III. Of the will of man, in that sense wherein they coveted so many proselytes,
to admit them into the religion of the Jews, and so into covenant and sonship with God.
These were the ways by which the Jews thought any became the sons of God, that is, by
being made Israelites. But it is far otherwise in the adoption and sonship that accrues to
us by the gospel.
I. The Masters of Traditions were wont to say that "the spirit of prophecy
departed from Israel after the death of Zechariah and Malachi." So that we do not
find they expected any prophet till the days of the Messiah; nor indeed that any, in that
interim of time, did pretend to that character.
II. They believed that at the coming of the Messiah the prophets were to rise again.
"'Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice, with the voice together shall they sing,'
Isaiah 52:8. R. Chaia Bar Abba and R. Jochanan say, All the prophets shall put forth a
song with one voice."
"All the just whom God shall raise from the dead shall not return again into the
dust." Gloss, "Those whom he shall raise in the days of the Messiah."
To this resurrection of the saints they apply that of Micah 5:5: "We shall raise
against him seven shepherds; David in the middle, Adam, Seth, Methuselah on his right
hand; Abraham, Jacob, and Moses on his left. And eight principal men: but who are these?
Jesse, Saul, Samuel, Amos, Zephaniah, Zedekiah [or rather Hezekiah, as Kimch. in loc.],
Messiah and Elijah. But indeed [saith R. Solomon] I do not well know whence they had these
things." Nor indeed do I.
Hence by how much nearer still the 'kingdom of heaven,' or the expected time of
Messiah's coming, drew on, by so much the more did they dream of the resurrection of the
prophets. And when any person of more remarkable gravity, piety, and holiness appeared
amongst them, they were ready to conceive of him as a prophet raised from the dead,
Matthew 16:14. That therefore is the meaning of this question, "Art thou one of the
prophets raised from the dead?"
Amongst other things, they expected the purifying of the unclean. R. Solomon upon
Ezekiel 36:26; "I will expiate you, and remove your uncleanness, by the sprinkling of
the water of purification." Kimchi upon Zechariah 9:6; "The Rabbins of blessed
memory have a tradition that Elias will purify the bastards and restore them to the
congregation." You have the like in Kiddushin, Elias comes to distinguish the
unclean and purify them, &c.
When therefore they saw the Baptist bring in such an unusual rite, by which he admitted
the Israelites into a new rule of religion, they ask him by what authority he doth these
things if he himself were not either the Messiah or Elias, or one of the prophets raised
from the dead.
It is very well known that they expected the coming of Elias, and that, from the words
of Malachi 4:5, not rightly understood. Which mistake the Greek version seems to
patronise; I will send you Elias the Tishbite; which word the Tishbite, they
add of themselves in favour of their own tradition; which indeed is too frequent a usage
in that version to look so far asquint towards the Jewish traditions as to do injury to
the sacred text.
I. It was commanded in the law that he that offered the sacrifice should lay his hand
upon the head of the sacrifice, Leviticus 1:4, 3:2, 4:4, &c.
II. The reason of which usage was, that he might, as it were, transfer his sins and
guilt upon the head of the offering, which is more especially evident in the scapegoat,
Hence Christ is said "himself to have borne our sins in his own body on the
tree," 1 Peter 2:24, as the offering upon the altar was wont to do. He was made by
God a "sin for us," 2 Corinthians 5:21; that is, a sacrifice for sin.
III. The same rite was used about the lamb of the daily sacrifice that was offered for
all Israel; "The stationary men [as they were called], or the substitutes of the
people, laying their hands upon the head of the lamb."
To this therefore the words of the Baptist refer: "The lamb of God, that is, the
daily sacrifice, taketh away the sins of the world, as the sacrifice did for all Israel.
But behold here the true Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world."
"Caesar, for two reasons, would not fight that day; partly because he had no
soldiers in the ships, and partly because it was after the tenth hour of the day."
I. In the third chapter of St. Luke the name of Jochanan is sounded three ways in the
Greek pronunciation of it, Janna, verse 24; Joanna, verse 27; and Jonan,
verse 30: but never Jona.
II. Jona was a name amongst the Jews very commonly used, and we meet with it
frequently in the Talmudic authors written Jonah: why, therefore, should not
Peter's father be allowed the name of Jonah as well as that of John?
III. Especially when this son of Jonah imitated the great prophet of that name
in this, that both preached to the Gentiles, and both began their journey from Joppa.
But let the Vulgar have what it desires, and be it so, "Thou shalt be called a
rock"; yet you will scarce grant that our blessed Saviour should call Simon a rock
in the direct and most ordinary sense; "There is no rock save our God," 2 Samuel
22:32: where the Greek interpreters, instead of a rock, have the Creator.
Which word St. Peter himself makes use of, 1 Peter 4:19, showing who is that rock
If, therefore, they will so pertinaciously adhere to that version, Et tu vocaberis
Petra, let it be rendered into English thus, Thou wilt be called a rock: and let us
apprehend our blessed Lord speaking prophetically, and foretelling that grand error that
should spring up in the church, viz., that Peter is a rock, than which the
Christian world hath not known any thing more sad and destructive.
And here Christ gathered to himself five disciples, viz., Andrew, Peter, Philip,
Nathanael (who seems to be the same with Bartholomew), and another, whose name is not
mentioned, verse 35, 40; whom, by comparing John 21:2, we may conjecture to have been
I. Perhaps the asseveration he useth in this place may not be to the same things and
upon the same occasion to which he useth the single Amen in other evangelists.
II. Perhaps, also, St. John, being to write for the use of the Hellenists, might write
the word in the same Hebrew letters wherein Christ used it, and in the same letters also
wherein the Greeks used it, retaining still the same Hebrew idiom.
III. But, however, it may be observed, that, whereas by all others the word Amen
was generally used in the latter end of a speech or sentence, our Lord only useth it in
the beginning, as being himself the Amen, Revelation 3:14; and Isaiah 65:16, the God of
IV. Amen contains in it Yea and Amen; 2 Corinthians 1:20; Revelation 1:7;
i.e. truth and stability, Isaiah 25:1. Interlin. faithfulness and truth.
The other evangelists express the word which our Saviour useth: St. John doubles it, to
intimate the full sense of it.
I have been at some question with myself, whether I should insert in this place the
blasphemous things which the Talmudic authors belch out against the holy Jesus, in
allusion (shall I say?) or derision of this word Amen, to which name he entitled
himself, and by which asseveration he confirmed his doctrines. But that thou mightest,
reader, both know, and with equal indignation abhor, the snarlings and virulency of these
men, take it in their own words, although I cannot without infinite reluctancy allege what
they with all audaciousness have uttered.
They have a tradition, that Imma Shalom, the wife of R. Eliezer, and her brother Rabban
Gamaliel, went to a certain philosopher (the Gloss hath it 'a certain heretic') of
very great note for his integrity in giving judgment in matters, and taking no bribes. The
woman brings him a golden candlestick, and prayeth him that the inheritance might be
divided in part to her. Rabban Gamaliel objects, "It is written amongst us, that the
daughter shall not inherit instead of the son. But the philosopher answered, 'Since the
time that you were removed from your land, the law of Moses was made void: and Aven was
given' [he means the Gospel, but marks it with a scurrilous title]; and in that it is
written, The son and the daughter shall inherit together. The next day Rabban
Gamaliel brought him, a Libyan ass. Then saith he unto them, 'I have found at the
end of Aven [i.e. the Gospel] that it is written there, I, Aven, came not to
diminish, but to add to the law of Moses'": where he abuseth both the name of our
Saviour and his words too, Matthew 5:17.
And now, after our just detestation of this execrable blasphemy, let us think what kind
of judge this must be, to whose judgment Rabban Gamaliel, the president of the Sanhedrim,
and his sister, wife to the great Eliezer, should betake themselves. A Christian, as it
should seem by the whole contexture of the story; but, alas! what kind of Christian, that
should make so light of Christ and his gospel! However, were he a Christian of what kind
soever, yet if there be any truth in this passage, it is not unworthy our taking notice of
it, both as to the history of those times, and also as to that question, Whether there
were any Christian judges at that time?
Of this ladder the Rabbins dream very pleasantly: "The ladder is the ascent of the
altar and the altar itself. The angels are princes or monarchs. The king of Babylon
ascended seventy steps; the king of the Medes fifty-and-two; the king of Greece one
hundred and eighty; the king of Edom, it is uncertain how many," &c. They reckon
the breadth of the ladder to have been about eight thousand parasangae, i.e. about
two-and-thirty thousand miles; and that the bulk of each angel was about eight thousand
English miles in compass. Admirable mathematicians these indeed!
1. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of
Jesus was there:
[And the third day there was a marriage, &c.] A virgin marries on the
fourth day of the week, and a widow on the fifth. "This custom came not in but
from the decree of Ezra, and so onward: for the Sanhedrim doth not sit but on the second
and the fifth days; but before the decree of Ezra, when the Sanhedrim assembled every day,
then was it lawful to take a wife on any day." There is a twofold reason given for
I. The virgin was to be married on the fourth day of the week because the assembly of
the twenty-three met on the fifth: so that if the husband should find his wife to be no
virgin, but already violated, he might have recourse to the consistory in the heat of his
displeasure, and procure just punishment for her according to law. But why then might they
not as well marry on the first day of the week, seeing the Beth Din met on the
second as well as the fifth?
II. Lest the sabbath should be polluted by preparations for the nuptials: for the
first, second, and third days of the week are allowed for those kind of preparations. And
the reason why the widow was to be married on the fifth day was, that her husband might
rejoice with her for three days together, viz. fifth, sixth, and the sabbath day.
If therefore our bride in this place was a virgin, then the nuptials were celebrated on
the fourth day of the week, which is our Wednesday: if she was a widow, then she was
married on the fifth day of the week, which is our Thursday. Let us therefore number our
days according to our evangelist, and let it be but granted that that was the sabbath in
which it is said, "They abode with him all that day," chapter 1, verse 39; then
on the first day of the week Christ went into Galilee and met with Nathanael. So that the
third day from thence is the fourth day of the week; but as to that, let every one reckon
as he himself shall think fit.
[A marriage.] I. The virgin to be married cometh forth from her father's house
to that of her husband, "in some veil, but with her hair dishevelled, or her head
II. If any person meets her upon that day, he gives her the way; which once was done by
king Agrippa himself.
III. They carry before her a cup of wine, which they were wont to call the cup of
Trumah, which denoted that she, for her unspotted virginity, might have married a
priest, and eaten of the Trumah.
IV. Skipping and dancing, they were wont to sing the praises of the bride. In Palestine
they used these words "She needs no paint nor stibium, no plaiting of the hair, or
any such thing; for she is of herself most beautiful."
V. They scattered some kind of grain or corn amongst the children; that they, if
occasion should serve, might bear witness hereafter that they saw that woman a married
VI. They sprinkled also or sowed barley before them, by that ceremony denoting their
fruitfulness. Whether these sports were used at the wedding where our Saviour was present,
let others inquire.
VII. In Sotah there is mention of crowns which the bride and bridegroom wore; as
also what fashion they were of, and of what materials they were made.
VIII. Because of the mirth that was expected at nuptial solemnities, they forbade all
weddings celebrating within the feasts of the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles,
"because there were great rejoicings at nuptials, and they must not intermingle one
joy with another"; that is, the joy of nuptials with the joy of a festival.
IX. The nuptial festivity was continued for the whole seven days; which we also see of
old, Judges 19:12.
[And the mother of Jesus was there.] The mother of Jesus was there, not
invited (as it should seem) with Christ and his disciples, but had been there before the
invitation made to them.
You may conceive who were the usual nuptial guests by those words of Maimonides: "The
bridegroom and his companions, the children of the bridechamber, are not bound to make
I. In a more general sense, denotes a friend or companion, as in the
Targum, Judges 14:2; 2 Samuel 13:3: but it is more particularly applied to those friends
that are the nuptial guests.
II. But in a most strict sense to those two mentioned Chetubb. fol. 12. 1:
"Of old they appointed two Shoshbenin, one for the bridegroom, the other for
the bride, that they should minister to them especially at their entry into the bridal
chamber." They were especially instituted for this end, that they should take care
and provide that there should be no fraud nor deceit as to the tokens of the bride's
virginity. So Gloss upon the place. The Rabbins very ridiculously (as they almost always
do) tell a trifling story, that Michael and Gabriel were the two Shoshbenin at Adam
and Eve's wedding.
III. But as to the signification of this nuptial term in a more large sense, we may see
farther: "If any amongst the brethren make a Shoshbenuth while the father is
yet alive, when the Shoshbenuth returns, that also is returned too; for the Shoshbenuth
is required even before the Beth Din; but if any one send to his friend any
measures of wine, those are not required before the Beth Din; for this was a
deed of gift? or work of charity."
The words are very obscure, but they seem to bear this sense, viz.: This was the manner
of the Shoshbenuth: some bachelor or single person, for joy of his friend's
marriage, takes something along with him to eat and be merry with the bridegroom: when it
comes to the turn of this single person to marry, this bridegroom, to whom he had brought
this portion, is bound to return the same kindness again. Nay, if the father should make a
wedding for his son, and his friends should bring gifts along with them in honour of the
nuptials, and give them to his son [the bridegroom], the father was bound to return the
same kindness whenever any of those friends should think fit to marry themselves. But if
any one should send the bridegroom to congratulate his nuptials, either wine or oil, or
any such gift, and not come himself to eat and make merry with them, this was not of the
nature of the Shoshbenuth, nor could be required back again before the tribunal,
because that was a free gift.
IV. Christ therefore, and five of his disciples, were not of these voluntary Shoshbenin
at this wedding, for they were invited guests, and so of the number of those that were
called the children of the bridechamber, distinguished from the Shoshbenin.
But whether our Saviour's mother was to be accounted either the one or the other is a vain
and needless question. Perhaps she had the care of preparing and managing the necessaries
for the wedding, as having some relation either with the bridegroom or the bride.
6. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the
purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
[Six waterpots.] Gloss, "If any one have water fit to drink, and that water
by chance contract any uncleanness, let him fill the stone vessel with it."
The number of the six waterpots, I suppose, needs not be ascribed to any custom
of the nation, but rather to the multitude then present. It is true indeed that at
nuptials and other feasts, there were waterpots always set for the guests to wash
their hands at; but the number of the vessels and the quantity of water was always
proportioned according to the number of the guests; for both the hands and vessels, and
perhaps the feet of some of them, were wont to be washed.
Mashicala mashi culla, the greater vessel out of which all wash; maschilta mashia
callatha, the lesser vessel in which the bride washes, and (saith the Gloss) the
better sort of the guests.
[Firkins.] The Greek version thus expresseth the measure of a bath, 2
Chronicles 4:5: so Haggai 2:16, where the same measure of a bath is to be
understood. Now if every one of these waterpots in our story contained two or three
baths apiece, how great a quantity of wine must that be which all that water was
The waterpots of Lydda and Bethlehem: where the Gloss, "They were wont to
make pots in Lydda from the measure of the seah to that of the log; and in
Bethlehem from the measure of two seahs to that of one." How big were these pots
that contained six or nine seahs: for every bath contained three seahs.
As to the washing of the hands, we have this in Jadaim; "they allot a fourth
part of a log for the washing of one person's hands, it may be of two; half a log
for three or four; a whole log to five or ten, nay, to a hundred; with this
provision, saith R. Jose, that the last that washeth hath no less than a fourth part of a log
7. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to
[Jesus said, Fill, &c.] I. It is probable that the discourse betwixt Jesus
and his mother was not public and before the whole company, but privately and betwixt
themselves: which if we suppose, the words of the son towards the mother, "Woman,
what have I to do with thee?" will not seem so harsh as we might apprehend them if
spoken in the hearing of all the guests. And although the son did seem by his first answer
to give a plain denial to what was propounded to him, yet perhaps by something which he
afterward said to her, (though not expressed by the evangelist,) or some other token, the
mother understood his mind so far, that when they came into company again she could
intimate to them, "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it."
II. He answered his mother, "Mine hour is not yet come": for it might be
justly expected that the first miracle he would exert should be done in Jerusalem, the
metropolis of that nation.
8. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast.
And they bare it.
[The governor of the feast.] This governor of the feast I would
understand to have been in the place of chaplain, to give thanks, and pronounce blessings
in such kind of feasts as these were. There was the bridegroom's blessing, recited
every day for the whole space of the seven days, besides other benedictions during the
whole festival time, requisite upon a cup of wine (for over a cup of wine there used to be
a blessing pronounced;) especially that which was called the cup of good news, when
the virginity of the bride is declared and certified. He, therefore, who gave the blessing
for the whole company, I presume, might be called the governor of the feast. Hence
to him it is that our Saviour directs the wine that was made of water, as he who, after
some blessing pronounced over the cup, should first drink of it to the whole company, and
after him the guests pledging and partaking of it.
As to what is contained in verses 14, 15, and 16 of this chapter, I have already
discussed that in Matthew 21:12.
18. Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing
that thou doest these things?
[What sign showest thou unto us?] "Noah, Hezekiah, &c., require a sign;
much more the wicked and ungodly."
Since there had been so many, no less than four hundred years past, from the time that
the Holy Spirit had departed from that nation, and prophecies had ceased, in which space
there had not appeared any one person that pretended to the gift either of prophesying or
working miracles, it is no wonder if they were suspicious of one that now claimed the
character, and required a sign of him.
19. Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up.
[Destroy this Temple.] I. Christ showeth them no sign that was a mere sign,
Matthew 12:39. The turning of Moses' rod into a serpent, and returning the serpent into a
rod again; the hand becoming leprous, and restored to its proper temperament again; these
were mere signs; but those wonders which Moses afterward wrought in Egypt were not
mere signs, but beneficent miracles; and whoever would not believe upon those
infinite miracles which he wrought, would much less have believed upon mere signs. And,
indeed, it was unbecoming our blessed Lord so far to indulge to their obstinate
incredulity, to be showing new signs still at every beck of theirs, who would not
believe upon those infinite numbers he put forth upon every proper occasion.
II. Matthew 12:39,40. When they had required a sign, Christ remits them to the sign
of the prophet Jonah; and he points at the very same sense in these words, Destroy this
Temple, &c.: that is, "My resurrection from the dead will be a sign
beyond all denial, proving and affirming, that what I do I act upon divine authority, and
that I am he who is to come (Rom 1:4). Further than this you must expect no other sign
from me. If you believe me not while I do such works, at least believe me when I arise
from the dead."
He acted here, while he is purging the Temple, under that notion as he was the
authorized Messiah, Malachi 3:1,3, and expressly calls it "his Father's house,"
verse 16. Show us therefore some sign, (say the Jews,) by which it may appear that
thou art the Messiah the Son of God; at least, that thou art a prophet. I will show you a
sufficient sign, saith Christ: destroy this temple, viz. of my body, and I
will raise it from the dead again; a thing which was never yet done, nor could be done by
any of the prophets.
20. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt
thou rear it up in three days?
[Forty-and-six years.] I. That this was spoken of the Temple as beautified and
repaired by Herod, not as built by Zorobabel, these reasons seem to sway with me:
1. That these things were done and discoursed betwixt Christ and the Jews in Herod's
2. That the account, if meant of the Temple of Zorobabel, will not fall in either with
the years of the kings of Persia; or those seven weeks mentioned Daniel 9:25, in which
Jerusalem was to be built, "even in troublous times." For whoever reckons by the
kings of Persia, he must necessarily attribute at least thirty years to Cyrus; which they
willingly do that are fond of this account: which thirty years too, if they do not reckon
to him after the time that he had taken Babylon, and subverted that monarchy, they prove
nothing as to this computation at all.
"Cyrus destroyed the empire of the Medes, and reigned over Persia, having
overthrown Astyages, the king of the Medes": and from thence Eusebius reckons to
Cyrus thirty years. But by what authority he ascribes the Jews' being set at liberty from
their captivity to that very same year, I cannot tell. For Cyrus could not release the
Jews from their captivity in Babylon before he had conquered Babylon for himself; and this
was a great while after he had subdued the Medes, as appears from all that have treated
upon the subversion of that empire: which how they agree with Xenophon, I shall not
inquire at this time: content at present with this, that it doth not appear amongst any
historians that have committed the acts of Cyrus to memory, that they have given thirty or
twenty, no, not ten years to him after he had taken Babylon. Leunclavius gives him but
eight years; and Xenophon himself seems to have given him but seven. So that this account
of forty-and-six years falls plainly to the ground, as not being able to stand, but with
the whole thirty years of Cyrus included into the number.
Their opinion is more probable who make these forty-and-six years parallel with the
seven weeks in Daniel 9:25. But the building of the Temple ceased for more years than
wherein it was built; and, in truth, if we compute the times wherein any work was done
upon the Temple, it was really built within the space of ten years.
II. This number of forty-six years fits well enough with Herod's Temple; for
Josephus tells us, that Herod began the work in the eighteenth year of his reign;
nor does he contradict himself when he tells us, in the fifteenth year of his reign he
repaired the Temple; because the fifteenth year of his reign alone, after he had
conquered Antigonus, was the eighteenth year from the time wherein he had been declared
king by the Romans. Now Herod (as the same Josephus relates) lived thirty-seven years from
the time that the Romans had declared him king; and in his thirty-fifth year Christ was
born; and he was now thirty years old when he had this discourse with the Jews. So that
between the eighteenth of Herod and the thirtieth of Christ exclusively there were just
forty-six years complete.
III. The words of our evangelist therefore may be thus rendered in English:
"Forty-and-six years hath this Temple been in building": and this version seems
warranted by Josephus, who, beginning the history of G. Florus, the procurator of Judea,
about the 11th of Nero, hath this passage; From that time particularly our city began
to languish, all things growing worse and worse. He tells us further, that Albinus,
when he went off from his government, set open all the gaols and dismissed the prisoners,
and so filled the whole province with thieves and robberies. He tells withal, that king
Agrippa permitted the Levite singing-men to go about as they pleased in their linen
garments: and at length concludes, "And now was the Temple finished [note that];
wherefore the people, seeing the workmen, to the number of eighteen thousand, were at a
stand, having nothing to do...besought the king that he would repair the porch upon the
east," &c. If therefore the Temple was not finished till that time, then much
less was it so when Christ was in it. Whence we may properly enough render those words of
the Jews into such a kind of sense as this: "It is forty-and-six years since the
repairing of the Temple was first undertook, and indeed to this day is not quite
perfected; and wilt thou pretend to build a new one in three days?"
21. But he spake of the temple of his body.
[But he spake of the temple of his body.] If we consider how much the second
Temple came behind that of the first, it will the more easily appear why our blessed
Saviour should call his body the Temple.
"In the second Temple there wanted the Fire from heaven, the Ark with the
Propitiatory and Cherubims, Urim and Thummim, the Divine Glory, the Holy Ghost, and
the anointing Oil."
These things were all in Solomon's Temple, which therefore was accounted a full and
plenary type of the Messiah: but so long as the second Temple had them not, it wanted what
more particularly shadowed and represented him.
I. There was indeed in the second Temple a certain ark in the Holy of Holies; but this
was neither Moses' ark nor the ark of the covenant: which may not unfitly come to mind
when we read that passage, Revelation 11:19, "The Temple of God was opened in heaven,
and there was seen in his Temple the ark of his testament." It was not seen, nor
indeed was it at all in the second Temple.
The Jews have a tradition, that Josias hid the ark before the Babylonish captivity,
lest it should fall into the hands of the enemy, as once it did amongst the Philistines;
but there is no mention that it was ever found and restored again.
II. In Moses' Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple the divine presence sat visibly over the
Ark in the Propitiatory, in a cloud of glory: but when the destruction of that Temple drew
near, it went up from the Propitiatory, Ezekiel 10:4, and never returned into the second
Temple, where neither the Ark nor the Propitiatory was ever restored.
III. The high priest, indeed, ministered in the second Temple as in the first, in eight
several garments. Amongst these was the pectoral, or breastplate, wherein the precious
stones were put (out of which the jasper chanced to fall and was lost): but the oracle by
Urim and Thummim was never restored: see Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:63. And if not restored in
the days of Ezra or Nehemiah, much less certainly in the ages following, when the spirit
of prophecy had forsaken and taken leave of that people. For that is a great truth amongst
the Talmudists; "Things are not asked or inquired after now [by Urim and Thummim] by
the high priest, because he doth not speak by the Holy Ghost, nor does there any divine
afflatus breathe on him."
This, to omit other things, was the state of Zorobabel's Temple with respect to those
things which were the peculiar glory of it. And these things being wanting, how much
inferior must this needs be to that of Solomon's!
But there was one thing that degraded Herod's Temple still lower; and that was the
person of Herod himself, to whom it is ascribed. It was not without scruple, even amongst
the Jews themselves, that it was built and repaired by such a one: (and who knew not what
Herod was?) and they dispute whether by right such a person ought to have meddled with it;
and invent arguments for their own satisfaction as to the lawfulness of the thing.
They object first, It is not permitted to any one to demolish one synagogue till he
hath built another: much less to demolish the Temple. But Herod demolished the Temple
before he had built another. Ergo,
They answer, "Baba Ben Buta gave Herod that counsel, that he should pull it
down." Now this Baba was reckoned amongst the great wise men, and he did not rashly
move Herod to such a work; for he saw such clefts and breaches in the Temple that
threatened its ruin.
They object, secondly, concerning the person of Herod, that he was a servant to the
Asmonean family, that he rose up against his masters and killed them, and had killed the
They answer, We were under his power, and could not resist it. And if those hands
stained with blood would be building, it was not in their power to hinder it.
These and other things they apologize for their Temple; adding this invention for the
greater honour of the thing--that all that space of time wherein it was a building, it
never once rained by day, that the work might not be interrupted.
The Rabbins take a great deal of pains, but to no purpose, upon those words, Haggai
2:9, "The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former."
"R. Jochanan and R. Eliezer say; one, that it was a greater for the fabric; the
other, that it was greater for the duration." As if the glory of the Temple consisted
in any mathematical reasons of space, dimension, or duration; as if it lay in walls,
gilding, or ornament. The glory of the first Temple was the Ark, the divine cloud over the
Ark, the Urim and the Thummim, &c. Now where or in what can consist the greater
glory of the second Temple when these are gone?
Herein it is indeed that the Lord of the Temple was himself present in his Temple: he
himself was present in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
Colossian 2:9; as the divine glory of old was over the ark typically, or by way of
This is the glory, when he himself is present who is the great High Priest and
the Prophet; who, answerably to the Urim and Thummim of old, reveals the counsels and will
of God; he who is the true and living Temple, whom that Temple shadowed out. "This
Temple of yours, O ye Jews, does not answer its first pattern and exemplar: there are
wanting in that, what were the chief glory of the former; which very defect intimates that
there is another Temple to be expected, that in all things may fall in with its first
type, as it is necessary the antitype should do. And this is the Temple of my body."
No further did he think fit to reply to them at that time.