[314] Buxtorf. Synag. Judaic. c. 12. p. 317.
[315] Scalig. de emend. Temp. in prolegom.
[316] Buxtorf. Synag. c. 12. p. 325.
In case any did eat leavened bread those seven daies, the penalty was, that such a soul should be cut off from Israel, Exod. 12. 15. Which penalty hath amongst Expositors a three-fold interpretation.[317] Some understand thereby such a man to be cut off from his heavenly inheritance: others, that God would cut off such from the living by an untimely death: others, that he should die without children, leaving no posterity behind him: To this purpose their Proverb is,[318] A man childless is lifeless.
[317] Vid. P. Fag. in Exod. 12.
[318] Vid. P. Fag. ibid.
Of these three, the first is most probable in this place, though the same Text may admit the second interpretation in other places of Scripture, as is declared in the Chapter of Circumcision. Notwithstanding here let the judicious Reader determine, whether these words do not imply, besides the secret actions of God touching the soul of such a Delinquent, a direction unto the Church how to deal with parties thus offending by censuring them with Excommunication, which kind of censure elsewhere the Scripture calleth, A casting out of the Synagogue, John 16. 2. A speech much like this, A cutting off from Israel.
Three things may be here demanded. First, who killed the Paschal Lamb? Secondly, where it was killed? Thirdly, where it was eaten? First, it was killed by the Priests, 2 Chron. 35. 6. Secondly, it was killed after the first time in the Court of the Temple, the place which God had chosen. Deut. 16. 6. Thirdly, the owner of the Lamb took it of the Priest, and did eat it in his own house at Jerusalem, Christ with his disciples kept the Passover in an upper-chamber at Jerusalem.[319]
[319] Maimon. in Korban Pesach c. 1. sec. 6.
It may further be demanded, whether the Passover consisted of two suppers, one immediately succeeding the other? Some affirm it, and their reasons are these: First, say they, the Passover was eaten standing, but Christ used another gesture. This argument of all other is the weakest, for Christ used the gesture of lying on his body, as well in the eating of the Passover, as at the consecration of the Sacrament, and the Jews, generally after the first institution, in all their Passovers, used rather this posture of their body, than the other of standing, in token of rest and security, as appeareth in the Chapter of Feasts. Secondly, they say, the Paschal Lamb was wont to be rosted; but in the last Passover which our Saviour celebrated, there was Jus cui intingebatur panis, Broth into which he dipped the bread. This reason is as weak as the former, because though there was a command to eat the Paschal Lamb rosted; yet there was no prohibition to joyn their ordinary supper with the eating thereof, and that might admit broth: but, as it is shewn above, the matter into which the sop was dipped, was thought to be the sauce Charoseth. Thirdly, they urge John 13. 2. That the first supper was done, when Christ arose and washed his Disciples feet, and after that he gave Judas the sop, which must argue a second sitting down. This foretelling his Disciples, that one of them should betray him, is likewise by Saint Luke recited after the consecration of the Sacrament. This is the strongest argument, and yet not of sufficient validity, because by a kind of Prolepsis, or anticipation of time, it is not unusual, in the Scripture, to relate that first, which according to the truth of the History, should be last. Thus John 11. mention is made of Mary which anointed the Lord, yet her anointing of him followeth in the next Chapter. And this same History of betraying Christ, Saint Matthew, and Saint Mark recite it before the consecration of the Sacrament. Whence the Jews have a Proverb,[320] Non esse prius aut posterius in scriptura; That first and last, must not be strictly urged in Scripture. Together with these answers, consider how improbable it is, that ten persons (for sometimes they were so few) should eat a second supper, after they had eaten A Lamb of the first year, which might be an year old. It is evident also by that of Barabbas, that it was a received custom on the Passover, to let loose and enlarge one Prisoner or other. Concerning the reason hereof, the conjecture is three-fold, Some think this custom to have been used in memory of Jonathan the son of Saul, when the people rescued him from the hands of his Father. Others say that the reason hereof was, that the Feast might be celebrated with the greater joy and gladness. Others more probably think, it was done in remembrance of their deliverance from the Egyptian bondage.