themselves with festive apparel, is an indication that the bounty of the king had provided a supply for the guests from his own wardrobe. The beauty of the parable, as well as its deep spiritual significance, is more clearly seen in the fact that beggars are represented as clothed in the garments of royalty! Although there is no direct evidence to show that it was customary thus to furnish wedding-guests with robes, the intimation is clearly made in the parable, and there are, in profane history, accounts of kingly generosity of a character somewhat similar. Extensive wardrobes were a part of Eastern wealth. See note on Job xxvii, 16. Garments were often given as presents; it was a special mark of honor to receive one which had been used by the giver, and kings sometimes showed their munificence by presenting them. See notes on Gen xlv, 22; 1 Sam. xviii, 4; Esther vi, 8.

693.-THE PHARISEES.

XXII, 15. Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

The Pharisees were a politico-religious party among the Jews. Their origin is involved in obscurity, but it is commonly supposed that the beginning of the party dates from a time shortly after the Babylonish Captivity. A Pharisee is, literally, one who is separated; and it is thought that the name was given because these people separated themselves from all Levitical impurity. They were doubtless a pure people in the beginning, their design being to preserve the law from violation, and the Jewish people from contamination. As their influence increased, and political power came into their hands, they lost much of their original simplicity. In the time of Christ they were very numerous and influential, and occupied the chief offices among the Jews. They were divided into two schools: the School of Hillel, and the School of Shammai.

The Pharisees were especially distinguished for belief in an Oral Law of Moses, as well as a Written Law. This Oral Law was supposed to be supplementary to the Written Law, and, with various comments added from time to time, had been handed down by tradition. The Pharisees had great veneration for this traditionary code, and for the traditionary interpretations. They placed them in authority on a level with the Written Law, and even above it. See note on Matt. xv, 3. As a body, they were not chargeable with immorality in life; on the contrary, there were many zealous and conscientious men among them, and many things which they taught were worthy of being observed, as Jesus himself admitted. See Matt. xxiii, 3. These teachings were from the law; it was when they attempted to make their traditions valid that Jesus denounced them. The great error of the most of them consisted in substituting human tradition for divine law, and in observing mere external forms, many of them of a most wearisome as

well as puerile character, instead of seeking for inward purity of heart, which would have been accompanied by corresponding blamelessness in life. It was but natural that such teachers should be bitterly opposed to Christ, and that he should vehemently denounce them and warn the people against them. They endeavored in various ways to "entangle him in his talk," (literally, to ensnare or entrap him,) and in every possible manner they exhibited their hatred. His stinging rebukes tingled in their ears and rankled in their hearts, and made them threaten his life.

XXII, 16. Herodians.

694.-THE HERODIANS.

They sent out unto him their disciples, with the

These Herodians were rather a political than a religious party. They were Jews who attached themselves to the political fortunes of the Herodian family, hoping thereby to promote the interests of the Jewish people. They were not very strict in observing the requirements of the Jewish ritual; and, although in this respect they were the opposite of the Pharisees, they easily united with that powerful body in efforts to ruin Jesus, as appears from this verse in connection with the fifteenth. See also Mark iii, 6; xii, 13. Some suppose, from comparing Matt. xvi, 6, with Mark viii, 15, that the Herodians were all Sadducees; that they belonged to what is known as the Boethusian branch of that body.

XXII, 23.

695,-THE SADDUCEES.

The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection.

The time when the Sadducees appeared as a party among the Jews is unknown. It is generally supposed that they had their origin about the same time as the Pharisees. The derivation of the name is a matter of dispute. Some derive it from the Hebrew tsedek, "righteousness," and suppose that the name was given because of their piety. Others say that the Sadducees were organized by Zadoc, a scholar of Antigonus Socho, president of the Sanhedrim, and a disciple of Simon the Just. This Zadoc died B. C. 263, and from him the name Sadducee is thought to be derived. Others seek a derivation from Zadok the priest, who lived in the time of Davld. See 1 Kings i, 32.

The vital point of difference between the Pharisees and the Sadducees was in their opinion of the Law. The Sadducees rejected the traditionary interpretations of the law, to which the Pharisees attached so much importance. They did not believe in any Oral Law as a supplement to the Written Law, but they took the Hebrew Scriptures, with the authoritative explanations which were developed in the course of time, as the only rule of faith and practice. They accepted those traditional explanations of the law

which could be deduced from the Scriptures, but rejected all which the Pharisees, without authority, had added. In some respects they were more rigid interpreters of the law than the Pharisees. A number of illustrations of this are given by Dr. Ginsburg, in his article on "Sadducees," in KITTO'S Cyclopedia.

The Sadducees denied the doctrine of the resurrection because they considered there was no proof of it in the Hebrew Scriptures. Whether they also denied the soul's immortality, as is commonly represented, is a point on which critics are not agreed. The statement in Acts xxiii, 8, is sometimes adduced as proof of this denial: "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both." It is claimed, however, that this does not show that the Sadducees did not believe in angelic or spiritual existence, but that they did not believe in any manifestation of the angels or spirits to human beings in their own day. Reuss, in HERZOG'S Real-Encyklopädie, s. v. Sadducäer, suggests that the ninth verse gives a key to the interpretation of the eighth. The Pharisaic scribes there admit the possibility of a spirit or an angel having spoken to Paul. The Sadducees might easily deny the reality of such appearances in their day without denying the actual existence of such beings, or the accounts of their appearances which are given in the Old Testament. This opinion is adopted by Twistleton in SMITH'S Dictionary of the Bible, and also by Dr. Milligan in FAIRBAIRN'S Imperial Bible Dictionary.

The Sadducees were not so numerous as the Pharisees, nor were their doctrines so acceptable to the people. They were an ancient priestly aristocracy, having considerable wealth and great political power. From Acts v, 17, compared with iv, 6, it has been inferred that many of the kindred of the high priest at that time, as well as himself, were of the Sadducean party, and that probably the priestly families in general belonged to them. They were too cold and austere in their manners to make many converts, and disappeared from history about the close of the First Century of the Christian era.

696.-SUMMARY OF THE LAW.

XXII, 40. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

1. It was customary among the Jews to hang a copy of their laws in a public place, and some commentators suppose an allusion to this custom to be made here.

2. Jewish teachers have at various times attempted to make compendiums of the law. Tholuck gives a very interesting account of one of the most remarkable of these made by Rabbi Samlai, and contained in the Gemara. The following is a condensed statement of Samlai's compendium

of the law: Moses gave six hundred and thirteen commandments on Mount Sinai. David reduced these commandments to eleven, which may be found in the fifteenth Psalm, in answer to the question, "Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle?" Afterward Isaiah came and reduced the eleven to six, as may be seen in Isa. xxxiii, 15. Then came Micah and reduced the six to three. See Micah vi, 8. Once more Isaiah brought down the three to two. Isa. Ivi, 1. Lastly came Habakkuk, and reduced them all to one: "The just shall live by faith." Hab. ii, 4. See THOLUCK's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, (Am. Ed.,) p. 139.

697.-PHYLACTERIES.

XXIII, 5. They make broad their phylacteries.

Whether the commands in Exod. xiii, 9, 16; Deut. vi, 8; and xi, 18, concerning the duty of binding the word upon the hand and head, were designed to be interpreted figuratively or literally, is a disputed point among commentators. The Jews have for ages attached to them a literal meaning, though some writers claim that this was not done until after the captivity. Whatever the original design of the injunction may have been, in the time of the Saviour it was supposed by all the Jews (excepting the Karaites, who gave to the passages above cited a figurative meaning) to be a duty to wear upon their persons certain portions of the law.

The passages selected were Exod. xiii, 1-10; Exod. xiii, 11-16; Deut. vi, 4-9; and Deut. xi, 13-21. These four sections were written in Hebrew on strips of parchment with ink prepared especially for the purpose. There were two sorts of phylacteries

-one for the arm, and one for the head. That for the arm consisted of one strip of parchment on which the above texts were written. This was inclosed in a small square case of parchment or black calfskin, and fastened with a long, narrow leather strap

142.-PHYLACTERIES FOR THE HEAD AND ARM.

to the inside of the arm, between the bend of the elbow and the shoulder, that when the arm touched the body the law might be near the heart. The strap was carefully wound around the arm and the fingers until the ends came out by the tip of the middle finger. The Sadducees, however, wore the phylacteries in the palm of the left haud instead of on the arm. The case for the forehead consisted of four cells, and had four strips of parchment on which the before-mentioned texts were written. It was fastened by leather

straps on the forehead, between the eyes, and near the roots of the hair; or, as the rabbins say, "where the pulse of an infant's brain is."

The phylacteries were worn by the men only. The common people wore them only during prayers, but the Pharisees wore them continually; and as they sought by inclosing the parchment strips in larger boxes than ordinary to attract the attention of the people, the Saviour denounces them for making "broad their phylacteries." He does not condemn the wearing them, but the ostentation connection with it. They became badges of vanity and hypocrisy; and, not unlikely, were used as amulets, though some writers deny this.

Modern Jews continue the use of the phylacteries, which they call tephillin ; that is, prayer-fillets, because they use them in time of prayer.

698.-PLACES OF HONOR.

XXIII, 6. The chief seats in the synagogue, Luke xi, 43; xx, 46.

See also Mark xii, 39;

These "chief seats" were seats of honor which were prepared for the elders of the synagogue and for the doctors of the law, and hence called, in the second verse of this chapter, "Moses' seat." They were placed in front of the ark, which contained the law, in the uppermost part of the synagogue, at the "Jerusalem end." See note on Matt. iv, 23. Luke calls them "uppermost seats." Those who occupied them sat with their faces to the people. These seats were considered positions of great honor, and were eagerly sought by the ambitious scribes and Pharisees. It is probable that James refers to this custom of honor in the Jewish synagogue when he speaks of "a good place," where the rich man is invited to sit in the Christian "assembly," or synagogue, as it is in the original. See James ii, 2, 3.

699.-RABBI.

XXIII, 7. To be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

This was a title of distinction given to teachers, and literally means Master, or Teacher. It is supposed to have been introduced during our Lord's ministry. Lightfoot says: "We do not too nicely examine the precise time when this title began; be sure it did not commence before the schism arose between the schools of Shammai and Hillel; and from that schism, perhaps, it had its beginning.”—Hora Hebraica. Gamaliel I., who was patriarch in Palestine from A. D. 30-50, was the first who was honored with this title. It will thus be seen that Jesus was assailing a new fashion which had come into use in his own time.

There were three forms of the title used: Rab, Rabbi, Rabbon; respectively meaning, Master, My Master, Our Master. The precise difference