22

CHAPTER 22.

A PERIOD OF DARKENING OPPOSITION.


Our Lord's last recorded discourse in the synagog at Capernaum, which
followed close upon the miracle of feeding the five thousand and that of
walking upon the water, marked the beginning of another epoch in the
development of His life's work. It was the season of an approaching
Passover festival;[736] and at the next succeeding Passover, one year
later, as shall be shown, Jesus would be betrayed to His death. At the
time of which we now speak, therefore, He was entering upon the last
year of His ministry in the flesh. But the significance of the event is
other and greater than that of a chronological datum-plane. The
circumstance marked the first stage of a turn in the tide of popular
regard toward Jesus, which theretofore had been increasing, and which
now began to ebb. True, He had been repeatedly criticized and openly
assailed by complaining Jews on many earlier occasions; but these crafty
and even venomous critics were mostly of the ruling classes; the common
people had heard Him gladly, and indeed many of them continued so to
do;[737] nevertheless His popularity, in Galilee at least, had begun to
wane. The last year of His earthly ministration was inaugurated by a
sifting of the people who professed to believe His word, and this
process of test, trial, and separation, was to continue to the end.

We are without information as to Jesus having attended this Passover
feast; and it is reasonable to infer that in view of the increasing
hostility on the part of the rulers, He refrained from going to
Jerusalem on the occasion. Conjecture as to whether any of the Twelve
went up to the festival is profitless; we are not told. Certain it is
that immediately after this time, the detectives and spies, who had been
sent from Jerusalem into Galilee to watch Jesus, became more active than
ever in their critical espionage. They dogged His footsteps, noted every
act, and every instance of omission of traditional or customary
observance, and were constantly on the alert to make Him out an
offender.


CEREMONIAL WASHINGS, "AND MANY SUCH LIKE THINGS,"[738]

Shortly after the Passover to which allusion has been made, and probably
in accordance with a plan decided upon by the Jewish rulers, Jesus was
visited by a delegation of Pharisees and scribes who had come from
Jerusalem, and who made protest against the disregard of traditional
requirements by His followers. It appears that the disciples, and almost
certainly the Master Himself, had so far transgressed "the tradition of
the elders" as to omit the ceremonial washing of hands before eating;
the Pharisaic critics found fault, and came demanding explanation, and
justification if such were possible. Mark tells us that the disciples
were charged with having eaten with "defiled", or, as the marginal
reading gives it, with "common" hands; and he interpolates the following
concise and lucid note concerning the custom which the disciples were
said to have ignored: "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they
wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And
when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many
other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing
of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables."[739] It should be
borne in mind that the offense charged against the disciples was that of
ceremonial uncleanness, not physical uncleanliness or disregard of
sanitary propriety; they were said to have eaten with common or defiled
hands, not specifically with dirty fingers. In all the externals of
their man-made religionism, the Jews were insistent on scrupulous
exactitude; every possibility of ceremonial defilement was to be
carefully guarded against, and the effects thereof had to be
counteracted by prescribed washings.[740]

To the question: "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the
elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread", Jesus gave
no direct reply; but asked as a rejoinder: "Why do ye also transgress
the commandment of God by your tradition?" To the Pharisaic mind this
must have been a very sharp rebuke; for rabbinism held that rigorous
compliance with the traditions of the elders was more important than
observance of the law itself; and Jesus in His counter question put
their cherished traditions as in direct conflict with the commandment of
God. Adding to their discomfiture, He cited the prophecy of Isaiah, and
applied to them whom He designated hypocrites, the prophet's words:
"Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This
people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men."[741] With deserved severity Jesus carried the
lesson home to their consciences, declaring that they had laid aside the
commandments of God in order that they might follow the traditions of
men.

This accusing affirmation was followed by the citing of an undeniable
instance: Moses had voiced the direct commandment of God in saying:
"Honour thy father and thy mother," and had proclaimed the ordained
penalty in extreme cases of unfilial conduct thus: "Whoso curseth father
or mother, let him die";[742] but this law, though given of God direct
to Israel, had been so completely superseded that any ungrateful and
wicked son could find ready means, which their traditions had made
lawful, of escaping all filial obligations, even though his parents were
destitute. If a needy father or mother craved help of a son, he had but
to say--What you ask of me is Corban--or in other words, an intended
gift to God; and he was held to be legally exempt from all requirements
to contribute of that substance to the support of his parents.[743]
Other obligations could be similarly evaded. To declare that any article
of property real or personal, or any part or proportion of one's
possessions was "corban," was generally understood as an averment that
the property so characterized was dedicated to the temple, or at least
was intended to be devoted to ecclesiastical purposes, and would
eventually be turned over to the officials, though the donor might
continue to hold possession during a specified period, extending even to
the end of his life. Property was often declared to be "corban" for
other purposes than dedication to ecclesiastical use. The result of such
established though utterly unlawful and pernicious traditions was, as
Jesus emphatically stated to the Pharisees and scribes, to make the word
of God of none effect, and, He added, "Many such like things do ye."

Turning from His titled visitors, He called the people together and
proclaimed unto them the truth, as follows: "Hearken unto me every one
of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that
entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him,
those are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear, let
him hear." This was directly in conflict with rabbinical precept and
practise; the Pharisees were offended, for they had said that to eat
with hands that had not been ritualistically cleansed was to defile the
food touched, and in turn to become yet more defiled from the food thus
rendered unclean.

The apostles were not sure that they understood the Master's lesson;
though couched in plain, non-figurative language, it was to some of them
very like a parable, and Peter asked an exposition. The Lord explained
that the food one eats is but temporarily part of his body; having
served its purpose of nourishing the tissues and supplying energy to the
organism, it is eliminated; therefore the food that enters the body
through the mouth is of small and transient importance compared with the
utterances that issue from the mouth, for these, if evil, are truly
defiling. As Jesus set forth: "Those things which proceed out of the
mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the
heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts,
false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man; but
to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."[744]

Some of the disciples asked Jesus whether He knew that the Pharisees had
taken offense at His saying; His answer was a further denunciation of
Pharisaism: "Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted,
shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind.
And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." There
could be no compromize between His doctrine of the kingdom and the
corrupt Judaism of the time. The rulers were plotting against His life;
if their emissaries chose to take offense at His words, let them be
offended and stand the consequences; but blessed would they be if they
were not offended because of Him.[745] He had no conciliatory measures
to offer those whose inability to understand His meaning was the result
of wilful obstinacy, or darkness of mind produced by persistence in sin.


WITHIN THE BORDERS OF TYRE AND SIDON.[746]

Unable to find in Galilee rest, seclusion, or adequate opportunity of
instructing the Twelve as He desired to do, Jesus departed with them
northward, and journeyed into the coasts or borders of Phenicia, a
district commonly known by the names of its prominent cities, Tyre and
Sidon. In one of the little towns near the border, the party took
lodgings; but the attempt to secure privacy was futile, for the Master's
presence "could not be hid." His fame had preceded Him beyond the
boundaries of the land of Israel. On earlier occasions, people from the
region of Tyre and Sidon had been among His listeners, and some of them
had been blessed by His healing mercies.[747]

A woman, hearing of His presence within her own land, came asking a
boon. Mark tells us she was a Greek, or more literally a Gentile[748]
who spoke Greek, and by nationality a Syro-Phenician; Matthew says she
was "a woman of Canaan"; these statements are in harmony, since the
Phenicians were of Canaanite descent. The Gospel-historians make clear
the fact that this woman was of pagan or heathen birth; and we know that
among the peoples so classed the Canaanites were held in particular
disrepute by the Jews. The woman cried aloud to Jesus, saying: "Have
mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed
with a devil." Her words expressed at once faith in the Lord's power,
and a fulness of mother-love, for she implored as though she were the
afflicted sufferer. The fact that she addressed Jesus as Son of David
demonstrates her belief that He was the Messiah of Israel. At first
Jesus refrained from answering her. Undeterred, she pleaded the more,
until the disciples besought the Lord saying: "Send her away; for she
crieth after us." Their intervention was probably an intercession in her
behalf; she could be quieted by the granting of her request; as it was,
she was making an undesirable scene, probably on the street, and the
Twelve knew well that their Master sought quietude. To them Jesus said:
"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," and the
remark must have reminded them of the restriction under which they had
been sent out.[749]

The woman, with importunate desire came near, possibly entering the
house; she fell at the Lord's feet and worshiped Him, pleading
pitifully, "Lord, help me." To her Jesus said, "It is not meet to take
the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." The words, harsh as they
may sound to us, were understood by her in the spirit of the Lord's
intent. The original term here translated "dogs" connoted, as the
narrative shows, not the vagrant and despized curs elsewhere spoken of
in the Bible as typical of a degraded state, or of positive
badness,[750] but literally the "little dogs" or domestic pets, such as
were allowed in the house and under the table. Certainly the woman took
no offense at the comparison, and found therein no objectionable
epithet. Instantly she adopted the analogy, and applied it in combined
argument and supplication,[751] "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the
crumbs which fall from their masters' table;" or, in the words of Mark's
version: "Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's
crumbs." Her prayer was immediately granted; for Jesus said unto her, "O
woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her
daughter was made whole from that very hour." Mark emphasizes the
special recognition of her final plea, and adds: "And when she was come
to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon
the bed." The woman's commendable persistency was based on the faith
that overcomes apparent obstacles and endures even under discouragement.
Her case reminds one of the lesson taught by the Lord on another
occasion through the story of the importunate widow.[752]

Many have queried as to why Jesus delayed the blessing. We may not be
able to fathom His purposes; but we see that, by the course He adopted,
the woman's faith was demonstrated and the disciples were instructed.
Jesus impressed upon her that she was not of the chosen people, to whom
He had been sent; but His words prefigured the giving of the gospel to
all, both Jew and Gentile: "Let the children _first_ be filled" He had
said. The resurrected Christ was to be made known to every nation;[753]
but His personal ministry as a mortal, as also that of the apostles
while He was with them in the flesh, was directed to the house of
Israel.[754]


IN THE COASTS OF DECAPOLIS.[755]

We are not told how long Jesus and the Twelve tarried in the land of
Tyre and Sidon, nor which portions of the district they traversed. They
went thence into the region adjoining the sea of Galilee on the east,
"through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis."[756] Though still among
semi-pagan peoples, our Lord was greeted by great crowds, amongst whom
were many lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and otherwise afflicted; and them
He healed. Great was the astonishment of these aliens, "when they saw
the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the
blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel."

Among the many who were healed was one of whom special mention is made.
He was deaf and defective in speech. The people asked the Lord to lay
His hands upon the man; but Jesus led him away from the multitude, put
His fingers in the man's ears, spat, and touched the man's tongue; then
looking upward in prayer, and sighing the while, He uttered a word of
command in Aramaic, "Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. And straightway his
ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake
plain." The manner of effecting this cure was different again from the
usual mode of our Lord's healing ministrations. It may be that by the
finger-touch to the closed ears and to the bound tongue, the man's faith
was strengthened and his confidence in the Master's power increased. The
people were forbidden to tell abroad what they had witnessed; but the
more they were charged the more they published the news. Their
conclusion as to Jesus and His works was: "He hath done all things well:
he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak."


ANOTHER MEAL IN THE DESERT; OVER FOUR THOUSAND FED.[757]

For three days the glad crowds remained with Jesus and the apostles.
Camping out at that season and in that region entailed no great hardship
incident to exposure. Their supply of food, however, had become
exhausted; and many of them were far from home. Jesus had compassion
upon the people, and was loath to send them away fasting, lest they
would faint by the way. When He spoke to the disciples on the matter
they intimated the impossibility of feeding so great a number, for the
entire stock of food at hand comprized but seven loaves and a few little
fishes. Had they forgotten the former occasion on which a greater
multitude had been fed and filled with but five loaves and two small
fishes? Rather let us believe that the disciples remembered well, yet
deemed it beyond their duty or privilege to suggest a repetition of the
miracle. But the Master commanded; and the people seated themselves on
the ground. Blessing and dividing the small provision as before, He gave
to the disciples and they distributed to the multitude. Four thousand
men, beside women and children, were abundantly fed; and of the broken
but uneaten food there remained enough to fill seven baskets. With no
semblance of the turbulent enthusiasm that had followed the feeding of
the five thousand, this multitude dispersed quietly and returned to
their homes, grateful and doubly blessed.


AGAIN BESET BY SIGN-SEEKERS.[758]

Jesus and the apostles returned by boat to the western shore of the
lake, and landed near Magdala and Dalmanutha. These towns are understood
to have been so close together as to virtually make the latter a suburb
of the other. Here the party was met by the ever-vigilant Pharisees, who
on this occasion were accompanied by their usually unfriendly rivals,
the Sadducees. That the two parties had temporarily laid aside their
mutual differences, and had combined their forces in the common cause of
opposition to Christ, is a demonstration of the determined purpose of
the ecclesiastical authorities to find occasion against Him, and, if
possible, destroy Him. Their immediate object was to further alienate
the common people, and to counteract the influence of His former
teachings with the masses. They set anew the old-time snare of demanding
from Him a supernatural sign of His Messiahship, though thrice already
had they or others of their kind so attempted to entrap Him, and thrice
had they been foiled.[759] Before them, Satan in person had similarly
tried and failed.[760] To their present impertinent and impious demand
He gave a brief and definite refusal coupled with an exposure of their
hypocrisy. This was His reply: "When it is evening, ye say, It will be
fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul
weather today: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can
discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the
times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and
there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.
And he left them, and departed."[761]


THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND OF THE SADDUCEES.[762]

Again with the Twelve upon the water, since on the Galilean coast
neither peace nor opportunity for effective teaching was found, Jesus
directed the vessel's course toward the north-easterly shore. When well
out from land, He said to His companions: "Take heed and beware of the
leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees," and, as Mark adds, "and
of the leaven of Herod." In their hasty departure the disciples had
forgotten to take a supply of food; they had with them but a single
loaf. They construed His words respecting leaven as a reference to
bread, and possibly as a reproof for their neglect. Jesus chided them as
of little faith for thinking then of material bread, and refreshed their
recollection of the miracles by which the multitudes had been fed, so
that their lack of loaves would not further trouble them. Finally they
were made to understand that the Master's warning was directed against
the false doctrines of the Pharisees and those of the Sadducees, and
against the political aspirations of the scheming Herodians.[763]

The party left the boat near the site of the first miraculous feeding of
the multitude, and made their way to Bethsaida Julias. A blind man was
brought, and Jesus was asked to touch him. He took the sightless one by
the hand, led him outside the town, applied saliva to his eyes, laid
hands upon him in a ministration, and asked him if he could see. The man
answered that he saw dimly, but was unable to distinguish men from
trees. Applying His hands to the man's eyes, Jesus told him to look up;
the man did so and saw clearly. Bidding him not to enter the town, nor
to tell of his deliverance from blindness to any in the place, the Lord
sent him away rejoicing. This miracle presents the unique feature of
Jesus healing a person by stages; the result of the first ministration
was but a partial recovery. No explanation of the exceptional
circumstance is given.


"THOU ART THE CHRIST."[764]

Accompanied by the Twelve, Jesus continued His way northward to the
neighborhood or "coasts" of Caesarea Philippi, an inland city situated
near the eastern and principal source of the Jordan, and near the foot
of Mount Hermon.[765] The journey afforded opportunity for special and
confidential instruction to the apostles. Of them Jesus asked: "Whom do
men say that I the Son of man am?" In reply they reported the rumors and
popular fancies that had come to their notice. Some people, sharing the
superstitious fears of the conscience-stricken Herod Antipas, said that
Jesus was John the Baptist returned to life, though such a belief could
not have been entertained seriously by many, as John and Jesus were
known to have been contemporaries; others said He was Elias, or more
exactly, Elijah; still others suggested He was Jeremiah or some other
one of the ancient prophets of Israel. It is significant that among all
the conceptions of the people as to the identity of Jesus there was no
intimation of belief that He was the Messiah. Neither by word nor deed
had He measured up to the popular and traditional standard of the
expected Deliverer and King of Israel. Fleeting manifestations of
evanescent hope that He might prove to be the looked-for Prophet, like
unto Moses, had not been lacking; but all such incipient conceptions had
been neutralized by the hostile activity of the Pharisees and their
kind. To them it was a matter of supreme though evil determination to
maintain in the minds of the people the thought of a yet future, not a
present, Messiah.

With deep solemnity, and as a soul-searching test for which the Twelve
had been in unconscious preparation through many months of close and
privileged companionship with their Lord, Jesus asked of them: "But whom
say ye that I am?" Answering for all, but more particularly testifying
as to his own conviction, Peter, with all the fervor of his soul, voiced
the great confession: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
This was no avowal of mere belief, no expression of a result at which he
had arrived by mental process, no solution of a problem laboriously
worked out, no verdict based on the weighing of evidence; he spoke in
the sure knowledge that knows no question and from which doubt and
reservation are as far removed as is the sky from the ground.

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona:
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which
is in heaven." Peter's knowledge, which was also that of his brethren,
was of a kind apart from all that man may find out for himself; it was a
divine bestowal, in comparison with which human wisdom is foolishness
and the treasure of earth but dross, Addressing Himself further to the
first of the apostles, Jesus continued: "And I say also unto thee, That
thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven."

Through direct revelation from God Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ;
and upon revelation, as a rock of secure foundation, the Church of
Christ was to be built.[766] Though torrents should fall, floods roll,
winds rage, and all beat together upon that structure, it would not,
could not, fall, for it was founded upon a rock;[767] and even the
powers of hell would be impotent to prevail against it. By revelation
alone could or can the Church of Jesus Christ be builded and maintained;
and revelation of necessity implies revelators, through whom the will of
God may be made known respecting His Church. As a gift from God comes
the testimony of Jesus into the heart of man. This principle was
comprized in the Master's teachings at Capernaum, that none could come
to Him save such as the Father would bring.[768] The Lord's promise,
that unto Peter He would give "the keys of the kingdom of heaven,"
embodies the principle of divine authority in the Holy Priesthood, and
of the commission of presidency. Allusion to keys as symbolical of power
and authority is not uncommon in Jewish literature, as was well
understood in that period and is generally current today.[769] So also
the analogies of binding and loosing as indicative of official acts were
then usual, as they are now, particularly in connection with judicial
functions. Peter's presidency among the apostles was abundantly manifest
and generally recognized after the close of our Lord's mortal life.
Thus, it was he who spoke in behalf of the Eleven, in the council
meeting at which a successor to the traitor Iscariot was chosen; he was
the spokesman of his brethren on the occasion of the Pentecostal
conversion; it was he who opened the doors of the Church to the
Gentiles;[770] and his office of leadership is apparent throughout the
apostolic period.

The confession by which the apostles avowed their acceptance of Jesus as
the Christ, the Son of the living God, was evidence of their actual
possession of the spirit of the Holy Apostleship, by which they were
made particular witnesses of their Lord. The time for a general
proclamation of their testimony had not arrived, however; nor did it
come until after Christ had emerged from the tomb a resurrected,
immortalized Personage. For the time being they were charged "that they
should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." Proclamation of Jesus
as the Messiah, particularly if made by the apostles who were publicly
known as His most intimate disciples and associates, or open assumption
of the Messianic title by Himself, would have aggravated the hostility
of the rulers, which had already become a grave interference if not an
actual menace to the Savior's ministry; and seditious uprisings against
the political government of Rome might easily have resulted. A yet
deeper reason for the secrecy enjoined upon the Twelve appears in the
fact that the Jewish nation was not prepared to accept their Lord; and
to ignore Him through lack of certain knowledge involved a lesser degree
of culpability than would have attached to an unpalliated rejection. The
particular mission of the apostles at a time then future was to proclaim
to all nations Jesus, the crucified and resurrected Christ.

From the time of Peter's confession however, Jesus instructed the Twelve
more plainly and with greater intimacy concerning the future
developments of His mission, and particularly as touching His appointed
death. On earlier occasions He had referred in their hearing to the
cross, and to His approaching death, burial and ascension; but the
mention in each case was in a measure figurative, and they had
apprehended but imperfectly if at all. Now, however, He began to show,
and often afterward made plain unto them, "how that he must go unto
Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and
scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day."

Peter was shocked at this unqualified declaration, and, yielding to
impulse, remonstrated with Jesus, or, as two of the evangelists state,
"began to rebuke him," even going so far as to say: "This shall not be
unto thee."[771] The Lord turned upon him with this sharp reproof: "Get
thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest
not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Peter's words
constituted an appeal to the human element in Christ's nature; and the
sensitive feelings of Jesus were wounded by this suggestion of
unfaithfulness to His trust, coming from the man whom He had so signally
honored but a few moments before. Peter saw mainly as men see,
understanding but imperfectly the deeper purposes of God. Though
deserved, the rebuke he received was severe. The adjuration, "Get thee
behind me, Satan," was identical with that used against the arch-tempter
himself, who had sought to beguile Jesus from the path upon which He had
entered,[772] and the provocation in the two instances was in some
respects similar--the temptation to evade sacrifice and suffering,
though such was the world's ransom, and to follow a more comfortable
way.[773] The forceful words of Jesus show the deep emotion that Peter's
ill-considered attempt to counsel if not to tempt his Lord had evoked.

Beside the Twelve, who were immediately about the Lord's person, others
were nearby; it appears that even in those remote parts, far removed
from the borders of Galilee--the habitat of a heathen population, with
whom, however, many Jews were intermixed--the people gathered around the
Master. These He now called together, and to them and the disciples
said: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up
his cross, and follow me." Here the frightful figure of the cross was
again made prominent. There was left no shadow of excuse for the thought
that devotion to Christ would not mean denial and privation. He who
would save his life at the cost of duty, as Peter had just suggested
that Christ should do, would surely lose it in a sense worse than that
of physical death; whereas he who stood willing to lose all, even life
itself, should find the life that is eternal.

As evincing the soundness of His teachings, Jesus uttered what has since
become an inspiring aphorism of life: "For what is a man profited, if he
shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man
give in exchange for his soul?" Whosoever is ashamed of Christ because
of His lowly estate, or through offense at His teachings, shall yet find
that the Son of Man, when He comes in the glory of the Father, with
attending cohorts of angels, will be ashamed of that man. The record of
this memorable day in the Savior's life closes with His blessed promise:
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not
taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
kingdom."[774]


NOTES TO CHAPTER 22.

1. Passover Celebrations Comprized within the Period of Our Lord's
Public Ministry.--The dates on which specific acts occurred in the
ministry of Jesus are difficult if not impossible to fix, except in few
instances; and as heretofore stated and reiterated, even the order of
events is often found to be uncertain. It will be remembered that Jesus
was in Jerusalem at the time of the Passover soon after His baptism, and
that on the visit referred to He forcibly cleared the temple courts of
traffickers and their property. This is known as the _first_ Passover
during the public life of Jesus. If the unnamed "feast of the Jews"
referred to by John (5:1) was a Passover, as many Bible students hold,
it marked the close of the year following the cleansing the temple; it
is commonly spoken of and written about as the _second_ Passover in the
course of our Lord's ministry. Then the Passover near which Jesus fed
the five thousand (John 6:4) would be the _third_, and would mark the
expiration of two years and a fraction since the baptism of Jesus; it
certainly marks the beginning of the last year of the Savior's life on
earth.

2. Ceremonial Ablutions.--The numerous washings required by Jewish
custom in the time of Christ were admittedly incident to rabbinism and
"the tradition of the elders" and not in compliance with the Mosaic law.
Under certain conditions, successive washings were prescribed, in
connection with which we find mention of "first," "second" and "other"
waters, the "second water" being necessary to wash away the "first
water," which had become defiled by contact with the "common" hands; and
so further with the later waters. Sometimes the hands had to be dipped
or immersed; at other times they were to be cleansed by pouring, it
being necessary that the water be allowed to run to the wrist or the
elbow according to the degree of supposed defilement; then again, as the
disciples of Rabbi Shammai held, only the finger tips, or the fingers up
to the knuckles, needed to be wetted under particular circumstances.
Rules for the cleansing of vessels and furniture were detailed and
exacting; distinct methods applied respectively to vessels of clay,
wood, and metal. Fear of unwittingly defiling the hands led to many
extreme precautions. It being known that the Roll of the Law, the Roll
of the Prophets, and other scriptures, when laid away were sometimes
touched, scratched, or even gnawed by mice, there was issued a
rabbinical decree, that the Holy Scriptures, or any part thereof
comprizing as many as eighty-five letters (the shortest section in the
law having just that number), defiled the hands by mere contact. Thus
the hands had to be ceremonially cleansed after touching a copy of the
scriptures, or even a written passage therefrom.

Emancipation from these and "many such like things" must have been
relief indeed. Escape from this thraldom Jesus freely offered, saying:
"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give
you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and
lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is
easy, and my burden is light." (Matt. 11:28-30.)

3. "Corban," a Gift.--The law of Moses prescribed rules relating to vows
(Lev. 27; Numb. 30). "Upon these rules," says the writer in Smith's
_Bible Dict._, "the traditionalists enlarged, and laid down that a man
might interdict himself by vow, not only from using for himself, but
from giving to another or receiving from him, some particular object
whether of food or any other kind whatsoever. The thing thus interdicted
was considered as corban. A person might thus exempt himself from any
inconvenient obligation under plea of corban. Our Lord denounced
practises of this sort (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11), as annulling the spirit
of the law."

The revised version, Matt. 15:5 is made to read "But ye say, Whosoever
shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have
been profited by me is given to God; he shall not honor his father (or,
his mother)." The following account of this pernicious custom appears in
the _Commentary on The Holy Bible_ edited by Dummelow, "'Corban,'
meaning originally a sacrifice or a gift to God, was used in New
Testament times as a mere word of vowing, without implying that the
thing vowed would actually be offered or given to God. Thus a man would
say 'Corban to me is wine for such a time,' meaning that he took a vow
to abstain from wine. Or a man would say to a friend 'Corban to me for
such a time is whatsoever I might be profited by thee,' meaning that for
such a time he vowed that he would receive neither hospitality nor any
other benefit from his friend. Similarly, if a son said to his father or
mother, 'Corban is whatsoever thou mightest have profited by me' he took
a vow not to assist his father or mother in any way, however much they
might require it. A vow of this kind was held by the scribes to excuse a
man from the duty of supporting his parents, and thus by their tradition
they made void the word of God."

4. The "Dogs" that Eat of the Crumbs.--The woman's fervid rejoinder,
"Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their
masters' table," (Matt. 15:27), is thus commented upon and paraphrased
by Trench (_Notes on the Miracles_, p. 271): "The rendering of her
answer in our translation is not, however, altogether satisfactory. For,
indeed, she accepts the Lord's declaration, not immediately to make
exception against the conclusion which He draws from it, but to show how
in that very declaration is involved the granting of her petition.
'Saidest thou dogs? It is well; I accept the title and the place; for
the dogs have a portion of the meal,--not the first, not the children's
portion, but a portion still,--the crumbs which fall from the master's
table. In this very putting of the case, Thou bringest us heathen, Thou
bringest me, within the circle of the blessings which God, the Great
Householder, is ever dispensing to His family. We also belong to His
household, though we occupy but the lowest place therein.'"

The Dummelow _Commentary_, on Matt. 15:26, reads in part as follows:
"The rabbis often spoke of the Gentiles as dogs, e.g. 'He who eats with
an idolater is like one who eats with a dog.' ... 'The nations of the
world are compared to dogs.' 'The holy convocation belongs to you, not
to the dogs.' Yet Jesus in adopting the contemptuous expression slightly
softens it. He says not 'dogs,' but 'little dogs,' i.e. household,
favorite, dogs; and the woman cleverly catches at the expression,
arguing that if the Gentiles are household dogs, then it is only right
that they should be fed with the crumbs that fall from their masters'
table." Edersheim, referring to the original text, says: "The term means
'little dogs,' or 'house dogs.'"

5. Decapolis.--The name means "the ten cities," and was applied to a
region of indefinite boundaries lying mostly on the east of Jordan and
southerly from the sea of Galilee. Scythopolis, which Josephus (Wars of
the Jews, iii, 9:7) refers to as the largest of the ten cities, was on
the west side of the river. There is lack of agreement among historians
as to the cities comprized under the name. Biblical mention (Matt. 4:25;
Mark 5:20; 7:31) implies a general region rather than a definite area.

6. The Coasts of Caesarea Philippi.--The term "coast" as it appears in
the Bible (authorized, or King James version), is used to connote
boundary, limit, or border, and not distinctively a seashore. (For
examples see Exo. 10:4, 14, 19; Josh. 15:1, 4; Judg. 11:20; Matt. 2:16,
etc.) It is applied therefore to inland areas, and frequently occurs as
indicating a vicinity or neighborhood.

Caesarea Philippi, a town located, as stated in the text, near Mount
Hermon at the source of the Jordan, had been enlarged and beautified by
Philip the tetrarch, and by him was named Caesarea in honor of the Roman
emperor. It was called Caesarea Philippi to distinguish it from the
already existing Caesarea, which was situated on the Mediterranean shore
of Samaria, and which in later literature came to be known as Caesarea
Palestina. Caesarea Philippi is believed to be identical with the ancient
Baal Gad (Josh. 11:17) and Baal Hermon (Judg. 3:3). It was known as a
place of idolatrous worship, and while under Greek sovereignty was
called Paneas in recognition of the mythological deity Pan. See
Josephus, Ant. xviii, 2:1; this designation persists in the present
Arabic name of the place, Banias.

7. Simon Peter and the "Rock" of Revelation.--Simon the son of Jonas, on
the occasion of his first recorded interview with Jesus had received
from the Lord's lips the distinguishing name-title "Peter," or in the
Aramaic tongue "Cephas," the English equivalent of which is "a rock" or
"a stone" (John 1:42; see also page 140 herein). The name was confirmed
upon the apostle on the occasion now under consideration (Matt. 16:18).
Jesus said to him "thou art Peter," adding, "and upon this rock I will
build my church." In the course of the general apostasy subsequent to
the ancient apostolic ministry, the Bishop of Rome laid claim to supreme
authority as the alleged lineal successor to Peter; and an erroneous
doctrine gained currency to the effect that Peter was the "rock" upon
which the Church of Christ was founded. Detailed consideration of this
inconsistent and infamous claim cannot be undertaken here; it is
sufficient to say that a church founded or dependent upon Peter or any
other man would be Peter's or the other man's church, and not the Church
of Jesus Christ. (See _The Great Apostasy_, chap 9; also B. of M., 3
Nephi 27:1-8; also chapter 40 herein). That upon Peter rested the
responsibility of presidency in the ministry, after the ascension of the
resurrected Christ, is not questioned; but that he was, even typically,
the foundation upon which the Church was built, is at once unscriptural
and untrue. The Church of Jesus Christ must authoritatively bear His
name, and be guided by revelation, direct and continuous, as the
conditions of its building require. Revelation from God to His servants
invested with the Holy Priesthood through authorized ordination as was
Peter, is the impregnable "rock" upon which the Church is built. (See
_Articles of Faith_, xvi,--"Revelation.")

8. Christ's Rebuke to Peter.--In addressing Peter as "Satan," Jesus was
obviously using a forceful figure of speech, and not a literal
designation; for Satan is a distinct personage, Lucifer, that fallen,
unembodied son of the morning (see page 7); and certainly Peter was not
he. In his remonstrance or "rebuke" addressed to Jesus, Peter was really
counseling what Satan had before attempted to induce Christ to do, or
tempting, as Satan himself had tempted. The command, "Get thee behind
me, Satan," as directed to Peter, is rendered in English by some
authorities "Get thee behind me, tempter." The essential meaning
attached to both Hebrew and Greek originals for our word "Satan" is that
of an adversary, or "one who places himself in another's way and thus
opposes him." (Zenos.) The expression "Thou art an offense unto me" is
admittedly a less literal translation than "Thou art a stumbling-block
unto me." The man whom Jesus had addressed as Peter--"the rock," was now
likened to a stone in the path, over which the unwary might stumble.

9. Some to Live Until Christ Returns.--The Savior's declaration to the
apostles and others in the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi, "Verily I
say unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of
death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom," (Matt.
16:28; compare Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27), has occasioned great and diverse
comment. The event referred to, that of the Son of Man coming in the
glory of His Father attended by the angels, is yet future. At least a
partial fulfilment of the prediction is presented in the prolongation of
the life of John the apostle, who was there present, and who yet lives
in the flesh according to his desire (John 21:20-24; see further B. of
M., 3 Nephi 28:1-6; Doc. and Cov. Sec. 7).

10. "Thou Art the Christ."--Peter's solemn and soulful confession of
Jesus as the Christ is worded differently by each of the three
synoptists. To many the most expressive version is that of Luke: "The
Christ of God." On earlier occasions, some or all of the Twelve had
acknowledged Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, e.g. following the
miracle of walking upon the sea (Matt. 14:33), and again, after the
crucial sermon at Capernaum (John 6:69); but it is evident that Peter's
upwelling and reverential confession in answer to the Lord's question
"But whom say ye that I am?" had a significance, greater in assurance
and more exalted in kind, than had any prior expression of his
conception concerning his Lord. Yet even the conviction given through
direct revelation (Matt. 16:17) did not at the time comprize a
comprehensive knowledge of the Savior's mission. Indeed, a fulness of
understanding and assurance came to the apostles after the Lord's
resurrection (compare Romans 1:4). Nevertheless, Peter's testimony in
the land of Caesarea Philippi evidences a very exalted attainment. At
that stage of the Savior's ministry, the public proclamation of His
divine status would have been as the casting of pearls before swine
(Matt. 7:6); therefore the Lord instructed the apostles that at that
time "they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ."