9:3-10. “…and there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.” (verse 4b).
The Rabbinic traditions had it that Jerusalem was so pure that no serpent or scorpion ever harmed anyone there, that the holy flesh (of the sacrifices) never did stink or breed worms, nor was there ever seen a fly in the place of slaughter. Never was there found any unholy thing in the sheaf of first-fruits or the two loaves or the show-bread. The above verse no doubt refers to this tradition in that the literal city had now become so polluted that it was full of serpents, scorpions and flies.
Contrast the Holy City in Revelation 21:27: “And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”
And: “…there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: (Revelation 22:3)
Lightfoot, [1:48], quotes the Rabbis as saying: “Never did serpent or scorpion harm any one within Jerusalem…” (quoting Avoth, cap. V. hal. 5.)
Again, the Talmudists say:”…nor did the holy flesh ever stink, or breed worms; nor was there ever seen fly in the house [or place] for slaughter;…” [Lightfoot, 1:41 quoting Avoth, R. Nathan, fol. 9.1.)
9:11. “… whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.”
The translation of ‘Abaddon’ and ‘Apollyon’ is ‘destroyer’. This verse may speak of the Sanhedrin’s condemnation of Jesus to death as evidenced by the following quotes:
“…’The Sanhedrim that happens to sentence any one to death within the space of seven years is called ‘a destroyer.’ R. Eleazar Ben Azariah saith, ‘It is so, if they should but condemn one within seventy years.'” [3:425]
“… The Jews call evil angels … destroyers: and good angels … ministering.” Commenting on 1 Cor. 10:10, Lightfoot says that Paul refers here to the natural deaths in the wilderness of those who failed to believe. “Therefore the apostle seems to me to allude to the notion very usual among the Jews concerning the angel of death, the great destroyer, called by them Samael….” [4:225]
“…‘Be Abidan is a house or temple where they eat and drink in honour of an idol, … and void dung (that is, sacrifice) to an idol,’ &c.
“But elsewhere {in the Jewish writings} it occurs in another sense: … ‘The books of the ‘be abidan,’ do they snatch them out of the fire, or do they not snatch them? … Yes, and no:’ that is, sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. But what the books of the be abidan were, the Gloss teacheth in these words; … the heretics wrote books of disputations to themselves against the Jews: … and the place where the dispute is, is called ‘be abidan.” By heretics, no doubt is to be made but that Christians are understood; and that be abidan in this place is not to be taken for a heathen temple is clear enough from what follows: ‘Rabh (say they) went not into be abidan, much less into a heathen temple. Samuel went into a heathen temple, but went not into be abidan.“ [4:281] The Revelator is here, in Revelation 9:11, showing that it is the unbelieving Jews who are ‘abidan’, that is heretics, and not the Christians.
9:11 and 16:16. “…the Hebrew tongue….”
Lightfoot shows that Heber was a descendant of Elam, and Elam of Shem. He says of Melchizedek, “whom now all acknowledge for Shem…” [1:278] He shows that the land later called ‘Canaan’ was actually allotted to the descendants of Shem and that the older place names were Hebrew as named by Shem before the Canaanites invaded the land.
He shows that Heber was alive at the time of the confusion of tongues at Babel and that those descendants of his family spoke his language, ‘Hebrew’. [1:276-9]
After the Babylonian captivity, the children of the mixed marriages spoke “in the speech of Ashdod. and could not speak the Jews language.” (Neh. 13:24). Lightfoot considers the Chaldee very close to the Jewish tongue, and thinks that the language of Ashdod may have been a form of Arabic, another Semitic language. [1:355]
“…’In the Hebrew tongue.] That is, in the language beyond Euphrates, or the Chaldean.
“Aruch upon the word … [‘Hebrew‘] … that is, the language of those beyond the flood.
” … If the Holy Books be written in the Egyptian, or Medes‘, or Hebrew Language. Gloss, … In the Hebrew, that is, the language of those beyond Euphrates.
” … The Hebrew writing is that of those beyond the river.
“So that by …[‘Hebrew‘] they mean the Chaldee language, which, from their return out of Babylon, had been their mother-tongue; and they call it ‘the language of those beyond Euphrates‘ (although used also in common with the Syrians on this side Euphrates), that, with respect to the Jews, they might distinguish it from the ancient holy tongue; q.d. ‘not the tongue they used before they went into captivity, but that which they brought along with them from beyond Euphrates.’
“The Jews to whom this was the mother-tongue were called Hebrews; and from thence are distinguished from the Hellenists; which every one knows. Whence St. Paul should call himself a Hebrew, 2 Cor.xi,22, when he was born in Tarsus of Cilicia, might deserve our consideration.” [3:290]
“…The Jews of the first dispersion, viz. into Babylon, Assyria, and the countries adjacent, are called Hebrews., because they used the Hebrew, or Transeuphratensian language….But those that were scattered amongst the Greeks used the Greek tongue, and were called Hellenists…. Those that lived in Palestine, they were Hebrews indeed as to their language, but they were not of the…, the dispersion, either to one place or another, because they dwelt in their own proper country….” [3:318]
“The word … a Hebrew, admitted another kind of signification under the second temple than it had before and under the first: because, in the Old Testament it had reference to the original and language of that nation; in the New Testament, to their travels and their language. Abraham is first called … Gen.xiv.13, a Hebrew. So Symmachus, the Vulgar, and others: but the Greek interpreters render it … passer-over [transitor]. But this version need not concern us much; when it is plain the interpreters have rendered the word … according to the common use under the second temple, and not according to the primitive and original use of it….[4:55]
“R. Nehemiah saith, ‘Abraham is called … a Hebrew, because he was of the posterity of Heber …; but the Rabbins say, he is so called because he came from beyond … the river.” And they add withal (which deserves some inquiry) … And for that he used the language beyond the river. I would rather have said, he might fitly be called … a Hebrew, because even in Mesopotamia and Chaldea, he retained the Hebrew language in the proper sense. For, if he brought over the transfluvian or Chaldean language into Canaan, as his own and family’s mother-tongue, it is hardly imaginable by what means the Hebrew tongue, strictly so called, should become the native and proper language of his posterity. I have elsewhere offered another reason why he should be termed A Hebrew….” [4:55]
“…After the Babylonish captivity, there was such an alteration of things, that … the Hebrew tongue became the language beyond the river, or the Chaldee tongue. This is plain from those several words, Bethesda, Golgotha, Akeldama, &c. which are said … to be so called in the Hebrew tongue; and yet every one knows the words to be mere Chaldee. The old and pure Hebrew language at that time was called … the Assyrian tongue: and the Syriac and Chaldee … the Hebrew tongue, or (as themselves interpret it) the language beyond the river. …In the Hebrew language, i.e. in the language beyond the river. …In the Assyrian tongue, i.e. in the holy language. [4:55-56]
“We cannot but observe by the way, that the doctors distinguish betwixt … the Hebrew tongue, and … the Syriac; in the mean time distinguishing both from … the Assyrian or holy language. ‘… the Syrian tongue is fit for lamentation; … the Hebrew tongue for speech: … and there are that say, the Assyrian tongue is good for writing.’ This distinction between the Hebrew tongue, or that beyond the river, and the Syrian, which really are the same language, is much such another distinction as between … the Syriac, and … the Aramean. ‘Rabbi saith, … Why the Syrian tongue in the land of Israel, … when either the holy language or the Greek should rather be used? R. Jose saith, … Why the Aramean tongue in Babylon, … when rather, either the holy language or the Persian should be used?’ The Gloss is, ‘Because the Greek is more elegant than the Syriac, and the Persian than the Aramean.’ [4:56]
“We see first how they distinguish here betwixt the Syriac tongue and the Aramean; and the Gloss upon the place tells us upon what account they do it, in these words: ‘Behold, whereas he takes notice that the Syriac is used in the land of Israel, and the Aramean in Babylon, therefore he doth it, as saith R. Ram, because there is some variation and difference between them: as it happens in any common language which they speak much finer in one country than in another. For as to those words Gen.xxxi.52, … This heap be witness, Onkelos renders them … when Laban saith …. But now we must say that Laban spoke … in the Syriac tongue, which is so called from Syria. Now Syria was Aram Naharaim, and Aram Zobah, which David subdued. And because that is nearer to the land of Israel, the Aramean language of it is not so pure.’ Gloss is Sotah: ‘The Syriac tongue is near akin to the Aramean. And I say that that is the language of the Jerusalem Talmud.’ [4:56-7]
“We see, secondly, that the Syriac was the mother tongue of the land of Israel, and the Aramean, which is almost the same, was that of Babylon rather than the Greek or Persic, which were more elegant; nay, rather than the holy language, which was the noblest of all: and that (as to the holy language) for a reason very obvious, viz. that it was everywhere lost as to common use, and was generally unknown. As to the other languages, why they were not in use, the Gloss gives the reason; which we have also given us elsewhere: … Lest the Syriac tongue should be vile in thine eyes.‘ …’For, behold, God doth give it honour in the Law, in the Prophets, for it is said, … Thus shall ye say unto them, Jer.x.11: and in the Hagiographa, for it is said,… And the Chaldeans spake to the king in Syriac, Dan.ii.4.’ [4:57].
“The Syriac, therefore, or the Aramean tongue under the second temple, was that which went under the name of the Hebrew tongue, that is, the language beyond the river: whence they were at that time called Hebrews, upon the account of the common use of that tongue. But whether all to whom that was their mother-tongue were called Hebrews may be a little questioned: and for what reasons it may be so, I shall show after I have said something concerning the Hellenists.” [4:57]
Lightfoot goes on to discuss the distinction between the Hellenists and the Hebrews. It was his opinion that the Hellenists were those Jews who were dispersed among the Gentiles and who knew and used the Greek language, either with the Hebrew or exclusively. He shows that the Greek tongue as well as learning was held in low regard from the days of the Hasmoneans. “…’Cursed is the man that teacheth his son the wisdom of the Greeks.'” This attitude was revived in the days of Titus: “…’In the war with Titus they decreed … that no man should teach his son Greek.’“ However, it seems that some were allowed this learning: “…’They allowed the family of Rabban Gamaliel the Greek learning, because they were allied to the royal blood,’ i.e. they sprung of the stock and lineage of David. They permitted that that family should be brought up in that learning, because it became them for their honour and nobility to want no kind of learning….'” [4:59-60]
Therefore, most of the learned Rabbis understood Greek, but the Jews who knew no other language were considered the lowest degree of Jew. It is these that Lightfoot believes were called Hellenists. As to whether this title applied only to all the Jews who knew only Greek, or whether it also applied to all those who did not know Hebrew, and therefore spoke some other language, is discussed.
“…For the very word Hellenist, especially as it is opposed to Hebrew, seems to intend some such thing; viz. that those who are called Hebrews should be those who were of the captivity and dispersion beyond the river; and those that go under the denomination of Hellenists are those who after their return from this captivity have suffered some other removal or scattering among the Greek or western countries, and understood no other language but of those countries only, having lost the use of what was originally their native tongue, viz. the Hebrew or Chaldee….” [4:62]
“…to whom that Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews was particularly written?”
“I would say, to those of Palestine: for to them it is that the name of Hebrew doth of greatest right belong; which these two particulars … will make it very plain. 1. That it seems most proper that they should be termed Hebrews who use the Hebrew tongue and none else as their natural language, rather than they who use the Greek and Hebrew tongue indifferently. 2. Indeed the Mesopotamians used the Hebrew only as their mother-tongue, and ought in reason to be accounted amongst the Hebrews in general; but they went commonly under the denomination of …{golah} the captivity, because they dwelt still in the place whither they had been led captive, and had not returned into their own land. But those of Palestine who had returned thither were the most properly called Hebrews, because they had passed over from beyond the river, and had brought the transfluvian tongue along with them….” [4:62-3]
“… what we have said … is ingenuously submitted to the candour of the judicious reader.” [4:62-3].
“… 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 the Scripture they did it always in the very original words….” [4:126-7]
“… the wisdom of the Greeks is commonly taken by the Rabbins for all kind of Gentile learning, wherein the Grecians peculiarly excelled. Hence that passage … The beauty of Japheth shall be in the tabernacle of Sem. The Gloss is, ‘This is the Greek tongue, which is more elegant than any language of the children of Japheth.’ And Aruch in … The Greek way of writing is most elegant. And hence is it, … That the Jews, even while they were under the Roman yoke, counted their years by the epocha or era of the Greeks, that is, the Seleucidae. Whence that cavil of the Sadducee; ‘A certain Sadducee said, ‘I rebuke you, O ye Pharisees, because you write the emperor with Moses,’ The Gloss is, ‘In writings of contracts, they write the years of the kings, and this also, … and this also is according to the law of Moses and Israel;‘ viz. that they might reckon according to the years of the Seleucidae….” [4:148-9]
“The Jerusalem Talmudists say, ‘There were five things wanting under the second Temple which were under the first; the fire from heaven, the ark, Urim and Thummim, the oil of anointing, and the Holy Spirit,’ or the Spirit of prophecy: let the Hebrew tongue, the prophetic language, be added also.” [4:295]
9:14; 16:12. “…the great river Euphrates….”
The traditions of the Jews commonly understood Babylon to be all those countries to which the Jews were carried in the Babylonian captivity: Chaldea, Mesopotamia and Assyria. Therefore anything beyond the boundaries of Israel were thought to be across the river Euphrates. [1:301]
“The geographers do indeed distinguish between Mesopotamia and Babylon, or Chaldea; so in Ptolemy‘s fourth table of Asia, … ‘… The country of Babylon is bounded on the south by Mesopotamia,’ &c. And yet Babylon may in some measure be said to be in Mesopotamia’ partly because it lay between the two rivers Euphrates and Tigris, but especially according to the propriety of Scripture language, because it was ‘beyond the river.’ Which we may take notice was observed by the Vulgar {i.e. the Vulgate}, interpreter in Josh. xxiv.3, where what in the Hebrew is, ‘I took your father Abraham … from the other side of the flood,’ he hath rendered it, ‘I took your father Abraham … from the borders of Mesopotamia.’….
“… Strabo tells us, that ‘Mesopotamia, with the country of Babylon, is contained in that great compass from Euphrates and Tigris.'” [4:69-70]
9:20. “And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk”:
Although the Rabbis taught that there was no idolatry in Israel, the Christians understood that Rabbinic Judaism had many idols, such as the Law, the Temple, their wealth and intellectual attainments. Paul counted all his past Pharisaical religion as ‘Dung’, that is, sacrifices to idols.
The prince of devils was given the name Beelzebul by the Jews. The word Baal meant ‘Lord.’ The word zebul meant dung, and the sacrifices to idols were called dung. Therefore idolatry was called zebul. Baalzebul was the name given to the “‘most devilized of all devils,“ the devil that caused people to apostatize. “They call the angel of death by the name of prince of all Satans, because he destroys all mankind by death, none excepted.” [3:115]
Davies, [30, note 3]: “… The Rabbinic teachers regarded it as established that in their time idolatry had no place in Israel, e.g. Judith 8.18-20 reads: ’18. For there arose none in our age, neither is there any now in these days, neither tribe, nor family, nor people, nor city among us, which worship gods made with hands, as hath been aforetime. 19. For the which cause our fathers were given to the sword, and for a spoil, and had a great fall before our enemies. 20. But we know none other God, therefore we trust that he will not despise us, nor any of our nation.’ It was assumed that either during the exile or soon after, the impulse to idolatry was removed utterly from the people. …”