applied, and probably will be applied in the next generation to a greater extent than has hitherto been done to the whole of the Lord's teaching, is especially appropriate in the treatment of a saying like this, which undoubtedly has its roots in Jewish ideas and habits. Many of our Lord's precepts are couched in language which can be understood everywhere. Others-and this is one of them-are saturated with Jewish influence, are flavoured, so to speak, by the soil in which they grow, and can only be correctly interpreted by those who are familiar with that soil. Let us, then, in dealing with the passage before us try, in the first place, to realize what were the thoughts entertained by the Jews of our Lord's day on the question to which it undoubtedly refers-the wise use of material possessions. Whatever the practice of the Pharisees may have been, it is certain that in their teaching they laid great stress on the value of benevolence as a specially effectual means of securing the favour of Heaven. The text in Proverbs x. 2, "Treasures of wickedness profit nothing, but righteousness delivereth from death," had probably acquired, as early as the time of Christ, the contracted application of its latter half, which we so often find in Rabbinical literature, "Almsgiving delivereth from death." In other words, the term, or "righteousness," and its Aramaic equivalent had begun to be used in a narrower sense than that which it had in the times of the prophets. A part was put by many in place of the whole. If a native of Jerusalem or Galilee spoke of Y, he probably often, if not generally, meant not correspondence with the Divine will in all departments of life, but one phase of it, namely, kindness to the poor expressed in gifts of money and property, or, as he termed it, "mammon." Mammon so used, he was taught, might be a great blessing. Earthly life might be prolonged for years, and the benefit might extend even beyond the grave. Charitable actions were advocates, so to speak, who pleaded powerfully with God (Tosefta Peah iv.; Baba bathra 10b). The death from which almsgiving delivered was thought of in some instances at least as not merely the death of the body, but the darker death which lay beyond—the judgment of hell (Baba bathra 10b). When a scoffing heathen asked Rabbi Akiba, who was a contemporary of the Apostle John, why the God of the Jews, if He loved the poor, did not take care of them, the Rabbi is reported to have replied: "In order that we might be delivered by them (by having them as the objects of charity) from the judgment of hell (Baba bathra 10b). So it seems to have been believed by some of the early Rabbis that benevolence purchased, for the man who practised it, exemption from the torments of hell. According to another anecdote, professing to date from the first century, he who spent his mammon on the poor, instead of laying up treasures below and in this world, laid up treasures above, in the world to come (Baba bathra 11b). "Almsgiving," it was also said, "and benevolence" (by which they meant kind actions not confined to the giving of alms)" are equal in value to all the precepts of the Law" (Tosefta Peah iv.). It was to persons familiar with such teaching as this that the saying under consideration was addressed. So for them it must have meant something like this: "Give freely to the poor of your material possessions, and you will find, when the latter have slipped for ever from your grasp, that you still have friends, friends who can do far more for you than was possible for the highest earthly friendship." II. From these general illustrations of the passage we pass now to some of the expressions which it contains. The opening words, make to yourselves friends, are quite in the manner of the rabbis. "Make to thyself a master," said a Rabbi who flourished before the commencement of the Christian era, "and get to thyself an associate" (Pirke Aboth I. vi.). In the clause that they may receive you, the plural admits of two explanations. It may either be regarded as referring to angels, an idea quite in harmony with Jewish notions about angelic ministry (see Baba bathra 11b, where angels are represented as pleading in behalf of a charitable man, and Cethuboth 104b, where it is said angels meet the soul of the righteous man), or it may be taken as an instance of the indefinite plural so common in Rabbinic literature. If the latter interpretation is adopted the clause might be rendered in English by a passive "that you may be received"; in French by a clause beginning with "on"; and in German by one commencing with man." Eternal tabernacles would probably in the original form of the saying be "tabernacles of the world to come." ἀληθινὸν. III. Most difficult, in fact the crux of the passage, is the expression, mammon of unrighteousness. The highest authorities, Lightfoot, Wetstein, and Wuensche, are all unable to furnish a fully satisfactory explanation, although they give some valuable hints which all later students must gratefully use. 1. Let us at the outset get all the information which can be extracted from the context. In v. 11 we find a slight variation of the expression: instead of ὁ μαμωνᾶς τῆς ἀδκίας, we have ὁ ἄδικος μαμωνάς, and the opposite of this rò dλŋ@wòv. "The mammon of unrighteousness" then is the reverse of what is genuine. It is not what it seems to be; in other words, it is characterized by unreality, by deceitfulness. It is to all intents and purposes a sham. 2. What would the expression mean for the listeners? Was it wholly new? Or was it something with which they were more or less familiar? Had they ever heard of "the mammon of truth," or the mammon of unrighteousness," or "the mammon of deceit," or any similar phrase? The word "mammon" at any rate, as has been already hinted, was in constant use if we can rest an inference on its frequent occurrence in the Hebrew and Aramaic sayings of the Rabbis. It was the common designation of a man's possessions as contrasted with his person. One phrase of which it formed part is found in several passages in the Targums. Now although these relics of the ancient synagogue were not put into their present form until long after the commencement of the Christian era, there is little reason for doubting the great antiquity of much of their contents and the substantial identity of much of their teaching, both as to substance and form, with that which was current in the days of our Lord. It is therefore highly probable, if not almost certain, that the phrase in question NO. V.-VOL. I.-THE THINKER. DD "mammon of deceit," or "mammon of falsehood," was often heard in the synagogues of Palestine during the ministry. Those to whom Jesus spoke had been taught, we may assume, that the sons of Samuel had turned aside "after the mammon of falsehood" (1 Sam. viii. 3); that the man who heaps to himself "mammon of falsehood" destroys his own house (Prov. xv. 27), and that the princes of Jerusalem in the last days of the kingdom of Judah did not shrink from murder in their eagerness to gain "the mammon of falsehood" (Ezek. xxii. 27, see also the Targumic renderings of Isa. v. 23; xxxiii. 15; and Hosea v. 11). They may have been assured from the platform of the synagogue that one of the sins of the Sodomites was misuse of mammon; "they were evil," says the Targum, "in their (the use of) mammon towards one another" (Gen. xiii. 13). So when Jesus spoke of the mammon of unrighteousness, whether He used the very phrase, or not, his hearers would at once think of that, and of any similar expression which they had been accustomed to hear in the synagogue. The phrase p seems to have meant mammon which was either got by deceit or used in deceit. As some may have begun even then (note the reference above to Baba batra 11b) to contrast earthly and heavenly treasures, it is at may have been 1 מָמוֹן דִּרְשַׁע or ,מָמוֹן דִּשְׁקַר least possible that the expression intended to mean, and have been understood to mean, earthly possessions which are so closely associated with evil, and at their best are deceitful, as opposed to spiritual blessings, which are real and everlasting. To sum up, when Jesus said, "Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles," He sought to impress on those who heard Him the real nature of earthly possessions-that if not stained by their origin, or the motive which led to their accumulation, they are disappointing and transient and to point out the best way of using them; and He did this in language which sanctioned what was good in current Jewish teaching on the subject without endorsing what was exaggerated or erroneous. THE SIGN PROMISED TO AHAZ: A REPLY TO BY REV. F. TILNEY BASSETT, M.A., Prebendary of Wells, and Is. vii. 14-16. THERE are some remarkable statements in the paper on the above passage in the last number of THE THINKER. I should be most reluctant to draw any inference from a critical exposition that was not intended by the writer; but three suggestions, to use the mildest word, appear to be made: 1. That 1 My friend, Prof. Marshall, has called attention to the occurrence of this expression in the Targum on Hab. ii. 9, "Woe to him who seizeth the mammon of unrighteousness to his house, in order to set his habitation on high, to save himself from the power of evil.” Justin Martyr and the Christians of his early day were in error in main- a virgin, it is certainly sometimes used of a young married woman." Now, a man as גבר but he has ; נקבה and זכר or perhaps ,אשה and איש words to his strength and vital force, which stands opposed to the Almah and her purity and inexperience. So far from helping the argument for which it is cited, it supplies a more than tacit refutation. As to the second case, Cant. vi. 8, the passage reads: "There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number." There are here three distinct classes defined as members of the royal harem, the queen-consorts who had acknowledged rank and rights, the concubines with whom intercourse had taken place, and the virgins who were passing through the prescribed forms of purification and preparation before being admitted to the king's society. Surely, again, the meaning of the word is inevitably on the side of perfect purity hitherto. Had intimacy taken place they would have been reckoned with the previous class. As to the derivation of the word, the leading opinions are well known to need repetition here. The author of the 2 Maccabees, who speaks of ai κατάκλειστοι τ. παρθένων, intimates what was the favoured derivation and meaning in his day, which was not far remote from the date of the Incarnation, and 3 Maccabees supplies the same phrase. The next thing asserted is that, if Isaiah had intended such a stupendous event (should not a sign (n) from Jehovah be such ?) as a birth from a virgin, he would not have used an ambiguous word instead of in, the ordinary word for virgin. Now, is Bethulah really the word for a virgin, physically speaking, in preference to Almah. It is often asserted to be so, but will this bear investigation? In Joel i. 8 we read "Lament like a virgin (Bethulah) for the husband of her youth." Husband by, one who was her master, who had possession of her youth. I am aware of the efforts that have been made to escape this evidence, but see Exod. xxi. 3, 22; and 2 Sam. xi. 26. The truth is that no signifies a virgin naturally, de facto, and in a virgin according to civic or social classification; the former is equivalent to our virgin or maiden, and the latter to our spinster. This underlies the law in Deut. xxii. 19, as seen in the phrase "Virgin of Israel," and this is supported by the fact that is never used figuratively, but when a city is called a virgin, nina is always employed. Now these are the facts of the case. The controversy between Justin and Trypho, the rebuke of Irenæus, and the comments of Origen and Jerome are so familiar with all students of the controversy that they require no quotation here; but one fact must be emphasized, that the version of the LXX. was made by Jews long before there could exist any partisanship or controversy on this point, and they deliberately rendered л by raplévos. No further comment is necessary, ǹ this is a convincing proof. I then find Mr. Woods asserting that the "sign was given "to the house of David, as it existed at that time, and most especially to Ahaz himself." It is strange how differently men read the same passages of Scripture. I had always thought that the pronouns settled this matter in quite the opposite way, that the prophet first invited Ahaz to ask a sign-" Ask thee a sign"-but when he saw that Ahaz manifested unbelief and disregard for his position and duties (I see no "affected piety ") he turned away from him with contempt, and addressed the family to whom the covenant belonged: "Hear ye now, O house of David, is it a small thing for you to weary men, that ye will weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you (D) a sign." The sign was one not given to the individual who then so unworthily filled the throne but repudiated the inheritance of the promise, but to the house and lineage of him to whom the promise had been made of old, and consequently we may fairly infer that the date of the fulfilment of the sign was not limited to the lifetime of the king, but to the existence of the favoured line. Again, Mr. Woods translates, "Behold, the young woman hath conceived, and shall bear a Son"; this, he adds, is the most natural construction of the tenses, but is not the 3rd per. fem. kal, but the part. fem. (see Exod. xxi. 22) like the word which follows it, and with which it stands connected; |