1Sa 9:13, Mat 15:36, Mar 8:6, Joh 6:11, 23, 1Ti 4:3-4 | Barnes

1 Samuel 9:13

Matthew 15:36

(a) "and gave thanks" 1Sam 9:13, Lk 22:19, 24:30

Mark 8:6

John 6:11

John 6:23

Verse 23. There came other boats. After the disciples had departed. This is added because, from what follows, it appears that they supposed that he had entered one of those boats and gone to Capernaum after his disciples had departed.

From Tiberias. This town stood on the western borders of the lake, not far from where the miracle had been wrought. It was so called in honour of the Emperor Tiberius. It was built by Herod Antipas, and was made by him the capital of Galilee. The city afterward became a celebrated seat of Jewish learning. It is now called Tabaria, and is a considerable place. It is occupied chiefly by Turks, and is very hot and unhealthy. Mr. Fisk, an American missionary, was at Tiberias (Tabaria) in 1823. The old town is surrounded by a wall, but within it is very ruinous, and the plain for a mile or two south is strewed with ruins. The Jordan, where it issues from the lake, was so shallow that cattle and asses forded it easily. Mr. Fisk was shown a house called the house of Peter, which is used as the Greek Catholic church, and is the only church in the place. The number of Christian families is thirty or forty, all Greek Catholics. There were two sects of Jews, each of whom had a synagogue. The Jewish population was estimated at about one thousand. On the 1st of January, 1837, Tiberias was destroyed by an earthquake. Dr. Thomson (The Land and the Book, vol. it. p. 76, 77) says of this city: "Ever since the destruction of Jerusalem, it has been

chiefly celebrated in connection with the Jews, and

was for a long time the chief seat of rabbinical

learning. It is still one of their four holy cities.

Among the Christians it also early rose to

distinction, and the old church, built upon the spot

where our Lord gave his last charge to Peter, is a

choice bit of ecclesiastical antiquity. The present

city is situated on the shore, at the north-east

corner of this small plain. The walls inclose an

irregular parallelogram, about 100 rods from north

to south, and in breadth not more than 40.

They were strengthened by ten round towers on the west,

five on the north, and eight on the south. There were

also two or three towers along the shore to protect the

city from attack by sea. Not much more than one-half of

this small area is occupied by buildings of any kind,

and the north end, which is a rocky hill, has nothing

but the ruins of the old palace. The earthquake of

1837 prostrated a large part of the walls, and they

have not yet been repaired, and perhaps never will be.

There is no town in Syria so utterly filthy as Tiberias,

or so little to be desired as a residence. Being 600 feet

below the level of the ocean, and overhung on the west

by a high mountain, which effectually shuts off the

Mediterranean breezes, it is fearfully hot in summer.

The last time I was encamped at the Baths the

thermometer stood at 100� at midnight, and a steam

went up from the surface of the lake as from some

huge smouldering volcano. Of course it swarms with

all sorts of vermin. What can induce human beings

to settle down in such a place? And yet some two

thousand of our race make it their chosen abode.

They are chiefly Jews, attracted hither either to

cleanse their leprous bodies in her baths, or to

purify their unclean spirits by contact with her

traditionary and ceremonial holiness."

(i) "nigh unto the place" Jn 6:11

1 Timothy 4:3-4

Verse 3. Forbidding to marry. That is, "They will depart from the faith through the hypocritical teaching--of those who forbid to marry." 1Thes 4:2. This does not necessarily mean that they would prohibit marriage altogether, but that it would be a characteristic of their teaching that marriage would be forbidden, whether of one class of persons or many. They would commend and enjoin celibacy and virginity. They would regard such a state, for certain persons, as more holy than the married condition, and would consider it as so holy that they would absolutely prohibit those who wished to be most holy from entering into the relation. It is needless to say how accurately this applies to the views of the Papacy in regard to the comparative purity and advantages of a state of celibacy, and to their absolute prohibition of the marriage of the clergy. The tenth article of the decree of the Council of Trent, in relation to marriage, will show the general view of the Papacy on that subject.--" Whosoever shall say that the married state is to be preferred to a state of virginity, or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or celibacy, than to be joined in marriage; let him be accursed!" Comp. Peter Dens' Moral Theology, pp. 497--500.

And commanding to abstain from meats, etc; The word meat in the Scriptures, commonly denotes food of all kinds, Mt 3:4, 6:26, 10:10; Mt 15:37. This was the meaning of the word when the translation of the Bible was made. It is now used by us, almost exclusively, to denote animal food. The word here used βρωμα means, properly, whatever is eaten, and may refer to animal flesh, fish, fruit, or vegetables. It is often, however, in the New Testament, employed particularly to denote the flesh of animals, Heb 9:10, 13:9, Rom 14:15,20, 1Cor 8:8,13. As it was animal food particularly which was forbidden under the Jewish code, and as the questions on this subject among Christians would relate to the same kinds of prohibition, it is probable that the word has the same limited signification here, and should be taken as meaning the same thing that the word meat does with us. To forbid the use of certain meats, is here described as one of the characteristics of those who would instruct the church in the time of the great apostasy. It is not necessary to suppose that there would be an entire prohibition, but only a prohibition of certain kinds, and at certain seasons. That this characteristic is found in the Papacy more than anywhere else in the Christian world, it is needless to prove. The following questions and answers from Dr. Butler's Catechism, will show what is the sentiment of Roman Catholics on this subject. "Q. Are there any other commandments besides the Ten Commandments of God? A. There are the commandments or precepts of the church, which are chiefly six. Q. What are we obliged to do by the second commandment of the church? A. To give part of the year to fast and abstinence Q. What do you mean by fast-days? A. Certain days on which we are allowed but one meal, and forbidden flesh meat. Q. What do you mean by days of abstinence? A. Certain days on which we are forbidden to eat flesh meat; but are allowed the usual number of meals. Q. Is it strictly forbidden by the church to eat flesh meat on days of abstinence? A. Yes; and to eat flesh meat on any day on which it is forbidden, without necessity and leave of the church, is very sinful." Could there be a more impressive and striking commentary on what the apostle says here, that "in the latter days some would depart from the faith, under the hypocritical teaching of those who commanded to abstain from meats?" The authority claimed by the Papacy to issue commands on this subject, may be seen still further by the following extract from the same catechism, showing the gracious permission of the church to the "faithful." "The abstinence on Saturday is dispensed with, for the faithful throughout the United States, for the space of ten years (from 1833,) except when a fast falls on a Saturday. The use of flesh meat is allowed at present by dispensation, in the diocese of Philadelphia, on all the Sundays of Lent, except Palm Sunday, and once a day on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday in each week, except the Thursday after Ash Wednesday, and also excepting Holy-week." Such is the Roman Catholic religion! See also Peter Dens' Moral Theology, pp. 321--339. It is true that what is said here might apply to the Essenes, as Koppe supposes, or to the Judaizing teachers, but it applies more appropriately and fully to the Papal communion than to any other body of men professing Christianity, and taken in connection with the other characteristics of the apostasy, there can be no doubt that the reference is to that.

Which God hath created. The articles of food which he has made, and which he has designed for the nourishment of man. The fact that God had created them was proof that they were not to be regarded as evil, and that it was not to be considered as a religious duty to abstain from them. All that God has made is good in its place, and what is adapted to be food for man is not to be refused or forbidden. Comp. Eccl 5:18. There can be no doubt that in the apostasy here referred to, those things would be forbidden, not because they were injurious or hurtful in their nature, but because it might be made a part of a system of religion of self-righteousness, and because there might be connected with such a prohibition the belief of special merit.

(a) "received with thanksgiving" Eccl 5:18 Verse 4. For every creature of God is good. Gr., all the creatures, or all that God has created--πανκτισμα: that is, as he made it. Comp. Gen 1:10,12,18,31. It does not mean that every moral agent remains good as long as he is a creature of God, but moral agents, men and angels, were good as they were made at first. Gen 1:31. Nor does it mean that all that God has made is good for every object to which it can be applied. It is good in its place: good for the purpose for which he made it. But it should not be inferred that a thing which is poisonous in its nature is good for food, because it is a creation of God. It is good only in its place, and for the ends for which he intended it. Nor should it be inferred that what God has made is necessarily good after it has been perverted by man. As God made it originally, it might have been used without injury. Apples and peaches were made good, and are still useful and proper as articles of food; rye and indian corn are good, and are admirably adapted to the support of man and beast; but it does not follow that all that man can make of them is necessarily good. He extracts from them a poisonous liquid, and then says that "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused." But is this a fair use of this passage of Scripture? True, they are good --they are to be received with gratitude as he made them, and as applied to the uses for which he designed them: but why apply this passage to prove that a deleterious beverage which man has extracted from what God has made, is good also, and good for all the purposes to which it can be applied? As God made these things, they are good. As man perverts them, it is no longer proper to call them the "creation of God," and they may be injurious in the highest degree. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced to vindicate the use of intoxicating drinks. As employed by the apostle, it had no such reference, nor does it contain any principle which can properly receive any such appellation.

And nothing to be refused. Nothing that God has made, for the purposes for which he designed it. The necessity of the case--the "exigency of the passage"--requires this interpretation. It cannot mean that we are not to refuse poison if offered in our food, or that we are never to refuse food that is to us injurious or offensive; nor can it any more mean that we are to receive all that may be offered to us as a beverage. The sense is, that as God made it, and for the purposes for which he designed it, it is not to be held to be evil; or, which is the same thing, it is not to be prohibited as if there were merit in abstaining from it. It is not to be regarded as a religious duty to abstain from food which God has appointed for the support of man.

If it be received with thanksgiving. 1Cor 10:31; Eph 5:20; Php 4:6.