the people, unrolls and holds in his hand a copy of the Law or of the Prophets, and reads from the Sacred Word, the Methurgeman interpreting. Finally, we can picture it, how the preacher would sit down and begin his discourse, none interrupting him with questions till he had finished, when a succession of objections, answers, or inquiries might await the Amora, if the preacher had employed such help. And help it certainly was not in many cases, to judge by the depreciatory and caustic remarks, which not unfrequently occur, as to the manners, tone, vanity, self- conceit, and silliness of the Amora [a Midr. on Eccl. vii. 5; ix. 17 b.] who, as he stood beside the Rabbi, thought far more of attracting attention and applause to himself, then of benefiting his hearers. Hence some Rabbis would only employ special and trusted interpreters of their own, who were above fifty years of age. [a Chag. 14 a.] In short, so far as the sermon was concerned, the impression it produced must have been very similar to what we know the addresses of the monks in the Middle Ages to have wrought. All the better can we understand, even from the human aspect, how the teaching of Jesus, alike in its substance and form, in its manner and matter, differed from that of the scribes; how multitudes would hang entranced on His word; and how, everywhere and by all, its impression was felt to be overpowering.
But it is certainly not the human aspect alone which here claims our attention. The perplexed inquiry: 'Whence hath this man this wisdom and this knowledge?' must find another answer than the men of Nazareth could suggest, although to those in our days also who deny His Divine character, this must ever seem an unanswered and unanswerable question.
THE ASCENT: FROM THE RIVER JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION THE FIRST GALILEAN MINISTRY. CHAPTER XI.
(St. Matt. iv. 13-17; St. Marki. 14, 15; St. Luke iv. 15-32.)
The visit to Nazareth was in many respects decisive. It presented by anticipation an epitome of the history of the Christ. He came to His own, and His own received Him not. The first time He taught in the Synagogue, as the first time He taught in the Temple, they cast Him out. On the one and the other occasion, they questioned His authority, and they asked for a 'sign.' In both instances, the power which they challenged was, indeed, claimed by Christ, but its display, in the manner which they expected, refused. The analogy seems to extend even farther, and if a misrepresentation of what Jesus had said when purifying the Temple formed the ground of the final false charge against Him, [a St. Matt. xxvi. 60, 61.] the taunt of the Nazarenes: 'Physician, heal thyself!' found an echo in the mocking cry, as He hung on the Cross: 'He saved others, Himself He cannot save.' [b St. Matt. xxvi. 40-42.]
It is difficult to understand how, either on historical grounds, or after study of the character of Christ, the idea could have arisen [1 And yet most commentators, following, I suppose, the lead of Meyer, hold that Christ had 'stood up' in the sense of offering or claiming to read.] that Jesus had offered, or that He had claimed, to teach on that Sabbath in the Synagogue of Nazareth. Had He attempted what, alike in spirit and form, was so contrary to all Jewish notions, the whole character of the act would have been changed. As it was, the contrast with those by whom He was surrounded is almost as striking, as the part which He bore in the scene. We take it for granted, that what had so lately taken place in Cana, at only four miles' distance, or, to speak more accurately, in Capernaum, had become known in Nazareth. It raised to the highest pitch of expectancy the interest and curiosity previously awakened by the reports, which the Galileans had brought from Jerusalem, and by the general fame which had spread about Jesus. They were not to test, whether their countryman would be equal to the occasion, and do in His own city what they had heard had been done for Capernaum. To any ordinary man the return to Nazareth in such circumstances must have been an ordeal. Not so to the Christ, Who, in utter self-forgetfulness, had only this one aim of life, to do the Will of Him that sent Him. And so His bearing that day in the Synagogue is itself evidence, that while in, He was not of, that time.
Realising the scene on such occasions, we mark the contrast. As there could be no un-Jewish forwardness on the part of Jesus, so, assuredly, would there be none of that mock-humility of reluctance to officiate, in which Rabbinism delighted. If, as in the circumstances seems likely, Jesus commenced the first part of the service, and then pronounced before the 'Ark' those Eulogies which were regarded as, in the strictest sense, the prayer (Tephillah), we can imagine, though we can scarcely realise, the reverent solemnity, which would seem to give a new meaning to each well-remembered sentence. And in His mouth it all had a new meaning. We
cannot know what, if any, petitions He inserted, though we can imagine what their spirit would have been. And now, one by one, Priest, Levite, and, in succession, five Israelites, had read from the Law. There is no reason to disturb the almost traditional idea, that Jesus Himself read the concluding portion from the Prophets, or the so- called Haphtarah. The whole narrative seems to imply this. Similarly, it is most likely that the Haphtarah for that day was taken from the prophecies of Isaiah, [1 Although we cannot feel quite sure of this.] and that it included the passage [a Is. lxi.
1, 2.] quoted by the Evangelist as readby the Lord Jesus, [b St. Luke iv. 18, 19.] We know that the 'rolls' on which the Law was written were distinct from those of the Prophets; [c Baba B. 18 b.] and every probability points to it, that those of the Prophets, at least the Greater, were also written on separate scrolls. In this instance we are expressly told, that the minister 'delivered unto Him the book of the prophet Esaias,' we doubt not, for the Haphtarah, [2 I infer this from the fact, that the Book of the Prophet Isaiah was given to Him by the Minister of the Synagogue. Since the time of Bengel it has been a kind of traditional idea that, if this was the Haphtarah for the day, the sermon of Christ in Nazareth must have taken place on the Day of Atonement, for which in the modern Jewish lectionary Is. lviii. 6 forms part of the Haphtarah. There are, however, two objections to this view: 1. Our modern lectionary of Haphtarahs is certainly not the same as that in the time of Christ. 2. Even in our modern lectionary, Is. lxi. 1, 2 forms no part of the Haphtarah, either for the Day of Atonement, nor for any other Sabbath or festive day. In the modern lectionary Is. lvii. 14 to Is. lviii. 14 is the Haphtarah for the Day of Atonement.] and that, 'when He had unrolled the book,' He 'found' the place from which the Evangelist makes quotation.
When unrolling, and holding the scroll, much more than the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah must have been within range of His eyes. On the other hand, it is quite certain that the verses quoted by the Evangelist could not have formed the whole Haphtarah. According to traditional rule, [a Massech. Soph. xii. 7.] the Haphtarah ordinarily consisted of not less than twenty-one verses, [1 This symbolically: 7x3, since each of the seven readers in the Law had to read at least three verses.] though, if the passage was to be 'targumed,' or a sermon to follow, that number might be shortened to seven, five, or even three verses. Now the passage quoted by St. Luke consists really of only one verse (Is. lxi. 1), together with a clause from Is. lviii. 6, [2 'To set at liberty those that are bruised.' The words are taken, with but a slight necessary alteration in the verb, from the LXX. rendering of Is. lviii. 6. The clause from Is. lxi. 2 is: 'To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.'] and the first clause of Is. lxi. 2. This could scarcely have formed the whole Haphtarah. There are other reasons also against this supposition. No doubt Jesus read alike the Haphtarah and the text of His discourse in Hebrew, and then 'targumed' or translated it: while St. Luke, as might be expected, quotes (with but two trifling alterations [3 Preaching instead of proclaiming, in Is. lxi.
2, and in the form of the verb in the clause from Is. lviii. 6. Besides, the insertion of the clause: 'to heal the broken-hearted,' is spurious.]) from the rendering of the LXX. But, on investigation, it appears that one clause is omitted from Is. lxi. 1, [4 All the best MSS. omit the words, 'To heal the broken-hearted.'] and that between the close of Is. lxi. 1 and the clause of verse 2, which is added, a clause is inserted from the LXX. of Is. lviii. 6. [5 See above, Note 2.] This could scarcely have been done in reading the Haphtarah. But, if as we suppose, the passages quoted formed the introductory text of Christ's discourse, such quotation and combination were not only in accordance with Jewish custom, but formed part of the favourite mode of teaching, the Charaz, or stringing, like pearls, passage to passage, illustrative of each other. [6 See the remarks on this point in the previous chapter. If I rightly understand the somewhat obscure language of Surenhusius (Biblos Katallages, pp. 339-345), such is also the view of that learned writer. This peculiarly
Jewish method of Scriptural quotation by 'stringing together' is employed by St. Paul in Rom. iii. 10-18.] In the present instance, the portion of the scroll which Jesus unrolled may have exhibited in close proximity the two passages which formed the introductory text (the so-called Pethichah). But this is of comparatively small interest, since both the omission of a clause from Is. lxi. 1, and the insertion of another adapted from Is. lviii. 6, were evidently intentional. It might be presumptuous to attempt stating the reasons which may have influenced the Saviour in this, and yet some of them will instinctively occur to every thoughtful reader.
It was, indeed, Divine 'wisdom', 'the Spirit of the Lord' upon Him, which directed Jesus in the choice of such a
