2:9. “…I know the blasphemy….”
“…The Talmudists, being taught by these their fathers, do give out, horribly blaspheming, that Jesus of Nazareth our Lord was a magician, a broacher of strange and wicked worship; and one that did miracles by the power of the devil, to beget his worship the greater belief and honour.
“‘Ben …Satda brought magic out of Egypt, by cuttings which he had made in his flesh.’ By …Ben Satda, they understand Jesus of Nazareth, {Underlines Mine}, as we have said before; whom they dishonour by that name, that they might by one word and in one breath, reproach him and his mother together. For…Satda, or Stada, sounds as much as an adulterous wife, which the Gemara shews after a few lines…She went aside from her husband. They feign that Jesus traveled with Joshua Ben Perachiah into Egypt, when the said Joshua fled from the anger and sword of Janneus the king, …And that he brought thence magical witchcrafts with him, but under the cutting of his flesh, that he might not be taken by the Egyptian magicians, who strictly examined all that went out of that land, that none should transport their magic art into another land. And in that place they add these horrid words,…Jesus practiced magic, and deceived, and drove Israel to idolatry.“
The Babylonian Gemara taught that “…he by whom the name of God is profaned [or blasphemed], repentance is of no avail to him to suspend judgment, nor the day of expiation to expiate it, nor scourges [or corrections inflicted] to wipe it off, but all suspend judgment and death wipes it off….'” However, the Jerusalem says: “‘Repentance and the day of expiation expiate as to the third part, and corrections as to the third part, and death wipes it off: as it is said and your iniquities shall not be expiated to you until ye die….Behold, we learn that death wipes off.’ Note this, which Christ contradicts, concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; ‘It shall not be forgiven, (saith he,) neither in this world, nor in the world to come;’ that is, neither before death, nor, as you dream, by death.” [2:204-7]
The Gemara of Babylon says: “…’The tradition is, that on the evening of the Passover Jesus was hanged, and that a crier went before him for forty days making this proclamation, ‘This man comes forth to be stoned, because he dealt in sorceries, and persuaded and seduced Israel; whosoever knows of any defence for him, let him come forth and produce it:’ but no defence could be found, therefore they hanged him on the evening of the Passover. Ulla saith, His case seemed not to admit of any defence, since he was a seducer, and of such God hath said, ”Thou shalt not spare him, neither shalt thou conceal him” Deut. xiii.8.” [2:364]
“…no one is condemned as a blasphemer…unless for abusing the sacred name with four letters, &c. Hence is it, that although they oftentimes accused our Saviour as a blasphemer, yet he was not condemned for this, but because…he used witchcraft, and deceived Israel, and seduced them into apostasy.‘….” [4:91-2]
Davies, [254] “We may begin with the limited efficacy of the sacrificial system; the latter was concerned only with sins done unwittingly not with those done with a ‘high hand’, i.e. deliberate sins. Davidson writes: ‘The class of offences said to be done with a high hand were capital and followed by excision from the community. The sins of error and ignorance could be removed by sacrifice and offering …. In other words the Old Testament sacrificial system was a system of atonement only for the so-called sins of inadvertency.'”
2:9. “…the synagogue of Satan…”
The superstitions of the Rabbis and their traditions is evident in many places. They believed in witchcraft and were, no doubt, exposed to the devices of Satan because they did not believe in Jesus Christ, the only defense against the powers of darkness.
One example of their superstitions is given by Lightfoot, [1:39]: According to their tradition, it was not lawful to intercalate the year anywhere but in Judea. When certain Rabbinical disciples went out of Galilee to Lydda to intercalate, “a certain evil eye met them and they all died together.”
Lightfoot, [2:86], says that: “…Rome was ‘the seat of Satan,’ Rev. xiii.2.…” Nevertheless, it was from a pinnacle of the Temple, and not the city of Rome itself, (Matt. 4:7-8), that Satan showed Christ the kingdoms of the world. I believe the temptation was to rule the religious kingdoms of the Jews throughout the world from the Temple as the seat of government as was prophesied in Isaiah 2:2: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, [that] the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.” (Isaiah 2:2)
‘Satan’s seat’ where ‘satan dwelleth’ was the synagogue of the Jews that had slain the faithful martyr Antipas. Revelation 13:2 says that the “dragon,” (i.e. satan, see 12:9), gave the ‘beast’ his power, seat and authority.
2:9; 3:9. “…them which say they are Jews and are not…”
Eusebius in his History of the Church, pp. 52-3, shows that the records of legal descent of kingship and priesthood were destroyed about the time of Christ‘s birth. It should be further observed that Josephus records that in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.:
“…they fired the Archivum and Acra, and the council-house, and Ophla: and the fire destroyed unto the palaces of Helen, which were in the middle of Acra.”
Lightfoot, [1:55], “…Whether he [Eusebius] means the magistrates’ court, or the repository of the ancient records, according to the different signification of the word, we do not determine. There were certainly sacred records in the Temple, and civil records no doubt in the city, where writings and memorials of sales, contracts, donations, and public acts, &c. were laid up. I should more readily understand this of their repository, than of the magistrates’ court, because, presently after, the council-house is distinctly named.”
Lightfoot says that, [1:106], the Jerusalem Gemarists, (Jewish traditionalists), confess that the Messiah was born in Bethlehem, before their times. Even so, they refuse to acknowledge Him as the Son of God foretold by the Scriptures.
Lightfoot, [1:107] says that even in the time of Hadrian, (117-138 A.D.), the Romans had no quarrel with the Christians, but their persecution was against the rebellious Jews. However, many Christians of Jewish descent were caught up in the Roman measures against the Jews.
Lightfoot, [1:312], gives an example of the “allegorical and far-fetched ways of expounding the Scriptures, wherein these egregious commentators do so much please and value themselves.”
CONCERNING DIVORCE:
Lightfoot, [2:120-122] shows how the Biblical laws concerning divorce were turned upside down by the Rabbis: “…hear them thus boasting of that law: ‘The Lord of Israel saith, …that he hateth putting away, Mal.ii.16. Through the whole chapter, saith R. Chananiah in the name of R. Phineas, he is called the Lord of Hosts: but here, of Israel, that it might appear that God subscribed not his name to divorces, but only among the Israelites. As if he should say, ‘To the Israelites I have granted the putting away of wives; to the Gentiles I have not granted it.’ R. Chaijah Rabbah saith, Divorces are not granted to the nations of the world.’…
“The Jews used polygamy, and the divorcing of their wives, with one and the same license: and this, that they might have change, and all for the sake of lust. ‘It is lawful (say they) to have many wives together, even as many as you will: but our wise men have decreed, That no man have above four wives.’….
“…’It is commanded to put away one’s wife, if she obtain not favour in the eyes of her husband.’….’The school of Hillel saith, If the wife cook her husband’s food illy, by over-salting or over-roasting it, she is to be put away.’….’R. Akibah said, If any man sees a woman handsomer than his own wife, he may put her away; because it is said, ‘If she find not favour in his eyes.'”
It is obvious from these and many more of their traditions that marriage had no meaning and therefore children had no stable homes nor discipline in the Jewish community. No wonder that the nation was overrun by outlaw gangs.
Concerning Matthew 19:8, Lightfoot explains the legal allowance for ‘putting away’: “But you may interpret it more clearly and aptly of the inhumanity of husbands toward their wives; but this is to be understood also under restriction: for Moses permitted not divorces, because, simply and generally men were severe and unkind towards their wives; for then, why should he restrain divorces to the cause of adultery? but because, from their fierceness and cruelty towards their wives, they might take hold of and seek occasions from that law which punished adultery with death, to prosecute their wives with all manner of severity, to oppress them, to kill them.”
“…The Divine Wisdom knew that inhuman husbands would use that law of death unto all manner of cruelty towards their wives: for how ready was it for a wicked and unkind husband to lay snares even for his innocent wife, if he were weary of her, to oppress her under that law of death! …the law of divorce was given for that very end, that provision might be made for the woman against the hardheartedness of her husband.” [2:260-2]
CONCERNING THEIR REGARD FOR THE LAW:
[2:222-6]: “…How great a value they set upon their traditions, even above the word of God, appears sufficiently from this very place….The words of the scribes are lovely above the words of the law: for the words of the law are weighty and light; but the words of the scribes are all weighty.’
“…’The words …of the elders are weightier than the words of the prophets…
“…The undervaluing of the washing of hands is said to be among those things for which the Sanhedrim excommunicates….’Whence you may learn (say they) that the Sanhedrim stones the very coffin of every excommunicate person that dies in his excommunication.’….
“…’Although it was permitted to eat unclean meats, and to drink unclean drinks, yet the ancient religious eat their common food in cleanness, and took care to avoid uncleanness all their days; and they were called Pharisees. And this is a matter of the highest sanctity, and the way of the highest religion; namely, that a man separate himself, and go aside from the vulgar, and that he neither touch them, nor eat nor drink with them: for such separation conduceth to the purity of the body from evil works,’…’Whosoever hath his seat in the land of Israel, and eateth his common food in cleanness, and speaks the holy language, and recites his phylacteries morning and evening, let him be confident that he shall obtain the life of the world to come.'”
Regarding the commandment to honor thy father and mother: “They taught openly, indeed, that a father was to be made no account of in comparison of a Rabbin that taught them the law; but they by no means openly asserted that parents were to be neglected: yet openly enough they did by consequence drawn from this foolish and impious tradition.”
In pronouncing the ‘Corban’: “Such was the folly, together with the impiety, of the traditional doctrine in this case, which pronounced the son so obliged by these words, that it was lawful by no means to succour his needy father. He was not at all bound by these words to dedicate his estate to sacred uses; but not to help his father he was inviolably bound….” [2:222-6]
The titles of Rabbi, Rabh, Rabban, are explained: “…Concerning the original of this title, see Aruch: ”The elder times, which were more worthy, had no need of the title either of Rabban, or Rabbi, or Rabh, to adorn either the wise men of Babylon or the wise men of the land of Israel: for, behold, Hillel comes up out of Babylon, and the title of Rabbi is not added to his name: and thus it was with those who were noble among the prophets; for he saith, Hag. the prophet [not Rabbi Hag.]. Ezra did not come up out of Babylon, &C. [not Rabbi Ezra]; whom they did not honour with the titles of Rabbi, when they spoke their names….And the title also of Rabbi began from those that were promoted [to be elders] from that time, Rabbi Zadok, … and the thing went forth from the disciples of Rabban Jochanan Ben Zaccai, and onwards. Now the order, as all men use it, is this: Rabbi is greater than Rabh, and Rabban is greater than Rabbi; and he is greater who is called by his own (single) name, than he who is called Rabban.”
“That this haughty title of Rabbi was not in use before the times of Hillel sufficiently appears from thence, that the doctors before that were called by their plain names, and knew nothing of this title.”
“…’he that teaches any thing, which he hath not heard from his master, {i.e. Rabbi, Rabh, or Rabban}, –he provokes the Divine Majesty to depart from Israel.’….It is reported also, that the council excommunicated certain persons four and twenty times…for the honour of master; that is, for not having given due honour to the Rabbins.
“…As doctors of the law: where they, first and above all things, instilled into their disciples and the common people, that a wise man, or a master, was to be respected above all mortal men whatsoever. Behold the rank and order of benches according to these judges! ”A wise man is to take place of a king….A wise man is to be preferred before a king: for if a wise man die, he hath not left his equal; but if a king die, any Israelite is fit for a kingdom….
“…Under a pretence of mighty devotion, but especially under the goodly show of long prayers, they so drew over the minds of devout persons to them, especially of women, and among them of the richer widows, that by subtle attractives they either drew out or wrested away their goods and estates. Nor did they want nets of counterfeit authority, when from the chair they pronounced, according to their pleasures, of the dowry and estate befalling a widow, and assumed to themselves the power of determining concerning those things….'” [2:292-6