Division ^ JESUS THE MESSIAH JESUS THE MESSIAH [* NOV 27 1923 BY ALFRED EDERSHEIM -^^liiiLiB:--" M.A.OXON., D.D., Ph.D. SOMETIME GRINFIELD LECTURER ON THE SEPTUAOINT IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD AN ABRIDGED EDITION OF 'THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS THE MESSIAH" aiut!)0r*0 lEtJition NEW YORK ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH AND CO. 38 West Twenty-Third Street LONDON LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. Copyright, 1S90, By Anson D. F. Randolph & Co. Jantbersttg ^reaa: John Wilson and Son, Cambridge. PATRIS • CARISSIMI AMICI • MULTUM • DEFLETI MEMORIAE HAS • CURAS • QUANTULASCUNQUE DEDICANT E. E. W. S. PEEFACE When the author of the Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah was taken away in the spring of this year from the labours and studies which he loved, he had already had under consideration the expediency of publishing an abridged edition of his larger work, such as should throw it open to a wider circle of readers. That abridgment has now been carried out, it is hoped, upon the lines which he would have desired. Those who have attempted any such task will be aware how difficult it is to execute satisfactorily. When a re- plica is made of a great picture, its scale may be diminished without serious loss. The proportions are preserved ; the contents are the same ; it is only that they are indicated rather more slightly than before. The reduction takes place evenly over the whole surface. It is otherwise with a great literary work. Here reduction involves omission ; and omission at once alters the proportions. It is not only that the logical connection is broken and that new links have to be supplied : the difficulties arising from this cause are perhaps less than might be supposed : but the whole texture of the work is disturbed. A style which was natural upon one scale, has to be adapted to another ; and that by an external process which lacks the ease and viii Jesus the Messiah freedom of first composition. Dr. Ederslieim's work was planned emphatically upon a large scale. It had a certain breadth and richness of colouring which helped to carry off its profusion of detail. When the details were curtailed, this too had to be toned down. What could be done by omitting a phrase here, and a sentence there, has been done ; and upon this much anxious care and thought have been expended. As to the matter of the omissions, this was to some extent prescribed by the nature of the case. The broad framework of narrative was of course indispensable ; and along with this every effort has been made to save as much of the illustrative accessories as the size of the volume permitted. It is, however, greatly to be regretted that so much should have been lost which constituted the peculiar and unrivalled excellence of the larger book. Our genera- tion has seen a number of attempts — some in their way of great merit — to reproduce the externals and surroundings of the Life and Ministry of Christ. But it will, I think, be admitted by the general consent of scholars that in this respect Dr. Edersheim surpassed his predecessors. No one else has possessed such a profound and masterly knowledge of the whole Jewish background to the picture presented in the Gospels — not merely of the archteology, which is something, but of the essential characteristics of Jewish thought and feeling, which is far more. It was inevitable that heavy sacrifices should be made here. All-important as these details are to the student, the ordinary reader would be simply oppressed and overpowered by them. For such readers the abridged edition is intended ; but it is hoped that not a few may be encouraged to go on to the abundant stores of the larger book. I am fain to believe that a more catholic spirit is growing than prevailed a short time ago, when the first Preface ix thing a critic did was to ascertain to what school or party a book belonged, and then to praise or condemn it accord- ingly. This has been too much the case with those who aspired to be in the forefront of opinion. To label a book * critical ' or ' uncritical ' was enough to determine its fate quite apart from its solid value. Dr. Edersheini's book — full as it was of information on the very points on which a scholar would desire it — was not one which could be called exactly ' critical.' It did not, for instance, presuppose any theory as to the origin and composition of the Gospels. It was not that the author was indifferent upon the sub- ject : he had himself made independent studies upon it, which with time might have been matured and published : but he deliberately postponed the critical process until after his book was written. It was quite as well that it should be so ; as well to start with an absence of theory, as e.g. that Keim — to take the case of a very able and conscientious writer — should start from a theory which is pretty certainly untenable. We are learning by degrees to leave first principles in suspense until we know better what are the facts which have to be accounted for. A high authority has said that whoever thinks himself capable of rewriting the story of the Gospels does not understand them. And this is indeed, in a sense, most true. The Gospels have filled for eighteen centuries a place which nothing else will ever fill. But that does not exclude the attempts which have been and are being made so to present the substance of their story as to set it in full relation at once to its own times and to ours. This has not yet been done finally. And if it ever should be done it will, I believe, be allowed that few have contributed more towards the culmination and crown of many efforts than he of whom all that is mortal now rests in peace by the waters of the Mediterranean. With serious purpose, X Jesus the Messiah and after long and arduous preparation, lie had put his hand to a work which it was granted to him to prosecute far, but not to finish — for the Life and Times was to have been followed by a Life of St. Paul. He who Doth not need Either man's work or His own gifts gently took the pen from his grasp. And the present gleaning from the greatest of its many products is a tribute of filial piety. My own share in the work has been quite subordinate : but as I have gone over the ground after the preliminary abridgment had been made, and as I have been freely consulted in cases of doubt, I gladly accept the responsibility which falls to me. Nor can I bring these few words of preface to a close without acknowledging the valuable assistance we have received from Mr. Norton Longman, whom the author always regarded as among the best and most trusted of his friends. W. SANDAY. Oxford: Oct. 3, 1889. CONTENTS CHAP. PAGE I. — The Annunciation of St. John the Baptist ... 1 n. — The Annunciation of Jesus the Messiah, and the Birth of His Forerunner 6 III. —The Nativity of Jesus the Messiah .... 18 IV. — The Purification of the Virgin and the Presentation in the Temple 17 V. — The Visit and Homage of the Magi, and the Flight into Egypt 2-t VI.— The Child-Life in Nazareth 28 VII. — In the House of His Heavenly, and in the Home of His Earthly Father— the Temple of Jerusalem -the Retirement at Nazareth ...... 31 VIII. — A Voice in the Wilderness . . ^ - . 37 IX. — The Baptism of Jesus . .... 42 X.— The Temptation of Jesus 46 XI. — The Deputation from Jerusalem — The Three Sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Es^'jnt's ... 54 XII.— The Twofold Testimony of John— The First Sabbath of Jesus' Ministry— The First Sunday — The First Disciples 62 XIII. — The Marriage -Feast in Cana of Galilee . , . , 69 XIV.— The Cleansing of the Temple . . , . . 74 XV. — Jesus and Nicodemus . r , . c 79 XVI. — In Judaea and through Samaria , , , , 84 XVII.— Jesus at the Well of Sychar . . .88 XVIII. — The Cure of the ' Nobleman's ' Son at Capernaum , 95 XIX. — The Synagogue at Nazareth — Synagogue- Worship and Arrangements .97 xii Jesus the Messiah CHAP. rAOB XX.— The First Galilean Ministry 104 XXI. — At the ' Unknown ' Feast in Jerusalem, and by the Pool of Bethesda 108 XXII.— The Final Call of the First Disciples, and the Miraculous Draught of Fishes .... 113 XXIII. — A Sabbath in Capernaum 117 XXI v.— Second Journey Through Galilee— The Healing of the Leper 121 XXV, — The Return to Capernaum — Concerning the Forgive- ness of Sins — The Healing of the Paralysed . . 126 XXVI.— The Call of Matthew— Rabbinic Theology as regards the Doctrine of Forgiveness in Contrast to the Gospel of Christ— The Call of the Twelve Apostles 129 XXVII.— The Sermon on the Mount 138 XXVIII.— The Healing of the Centurion's Servant . . .147 XXIX.— The Raising of the Young Man of Nain , . .151 XXX. — The Woman which was a Sinner .... 155 XXXI. — The Ministering Women — The Return to Caper- naum— Healing of the Demonised Dumb — Pharisaic Charge against Christ— The Visit of Christ's Mother and Brethren 160 XXXII. — The Parables to the People by the Lake of Galilee, and those to the Disciples in Capernaum . .165 XXXIII.— The Storm on the Lake of Galilee . . . .177 XXXIV.— At Gerasa -The Healing of the Demonised . . 180 XXXV.— The Healing of the Woman — The Raising of Jairus' Daughter 186 XXXVI.— Second Visit to Nazareth— The Mission of the Twelve 192 XXXVII. — The Baptist's Last Testimony to Jesus, and his Be- heading in Prison 202 XXXVIII.— The Miraculous Feeding of the Five Thousand . . 215 XXXIX —The Night of Miracles on the Lake of Gennesaret . 221 XL. — Concerning ' Purification,' ' Hand - Washing,' and 'Vows' 224 XLI. — The Great Crisis in Popular Feeling— Christ the Bread of Life — ' Will ye also go away ? * . . 232 XLII. — Jesus and the Syro-Phoenician Woman . . . 242 XLIII. — A Group of Miracles among a Semi-Heathen Popu- lation 246 XLIV.— The Two Sabbath-Controversies— The Plucking of the Ears of Corn by the Disciples, and the Healing of the Man with the Withered Hand . . .249 Contents xiii CHAP. PAGE XLV.— The Feeding of the Four Thousand—' The Sign from Heaven ' 257 XLVI. — The Great Confession - The Great Commission . . 263 XLVII.— The Transfiguration 273 XLVIII. — The Morrow of the Transfiguration .... 277 XLIX.— The Last Events in Galilee :— The Tributc-Monoy, the Dispute by the Way, and the Forbidding of him who could not follow with the Disciples .... 282 L. — The Journey to Jerusalem — First Incidents by the Way 293 LI. — The Mission and Return of the Seventy — The Home at Bethany 299 LII. — At the Feast of Tabernacles — First Discourse in the Temple 309 LIII.—' In the Last, the Great Day of the Feast ' . , .316 LIV. — Teaching in the Temple on the Octave of the Feast of Tabernacles 321 LV.— The Healing of the Man Born Blind . . . .331 LVI.— The • Good Shepherd ' 339 LVII. — Discourse concerning the Two Kingdoms . . . 343 • LVIII. — The Morning-Meal in the Pharisee's House . . . 350 LIX. — To the Disciples — Two Events and their Moral . . 357 LX, — At the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple . . 366 LXI. — The Second Series of Parables— The Two Parables of him who is Neighbour to us . , . . .371 LXIL— The Three Parables of Warning: The Foolish Rich Man — The Barren Fig-Tree— The Great Supper . 377 LXIIL— The Three Parables of the Gospel : The Lost Sheep, the Lost Drachm, the Lost Son .... 385 LXIV.— The Unjust Steward — Dives and Lazarus . . 3',i3 LXV. — The Three Last Parables of the Persean Scries : The Unrighteous Judge — The Pharisee and the Publi- can— The Unmerciful Servant 406 LXVI. — Christ's Discourses in Penea — Close of the Peraean Ministry 416 LXVIL— The Death and the Raising of Lazarus .... 423 LXVIII. — On the Journey to Jerusalem — Healing of Ten Lepers — On Divorce — The Blessing to Little Children . . 436 LXIX. — The Last Incidents in Pera>a — The Young Ruler who went away Sorrowful- Prophecy of Christ's Passion — The Request of Salome, and of James and John . 442 xiv Jesus the Messiah CHAP. PAGE LXX. — In Jericho— A Guest with Zacchfeus — The Healing of Blind Bartimaeus — At Bethany, and in the House of Simon the Leper 450 LXXI. — The First Day in Passion- Week — The Royal Entry into Jerusalem 459 LXXII. — The Second Day in Passion-Week — The Barren Fig-Tree — The Cleansing of the Temple— The Hosanna of the Children 464 LXXIII.— The Third Day in Passion- Week— The Question of Christ's Authority —The Question of Tribute to Caesar- The Widow's Farthing — The Greeks who sought to see Jesus 468 LXXIV. — The Third Day in Passion- Week— The Sadducees and the Resurrection — The Scribe and the Great Commandment — Question to the Pharisees and Final Warning against them .... 478 LXXV.— The Third Day in Passion- Week — The Last Series of Parables : Of the Labourers in the Vineyard — Of the Two Sons— Of the Evil Husbandmen — Of the Marriage of the King's Son and of the Wedding Garment 491 LXXVI.— The Evening of the Third Day in Passion- Week- Discourse to the Disciples concerning the Last Things 503 LXXVII. — Evening of the Third Day in Passion- Week —Last Parables : Of the Ten Virgins— Of the Talents— Of the Minas 515 LXXVIII.— The Fourth Day in Passion- Week— The Betrayal- Judas : his Character, Apostasy, and End . . 524 LXXIX.— The Fifth Day in Passion-Week—' Make Ready the Passover ! ' 531 LXXX. — The Paschal Supper — The Institution of the Lord's Supper 539 LXXXL— The Last Discourses of Christ— The Prayer of Con- secration 554 LXXXIL— Gethsemane 568 LXXXIII. — Thursday Night — Before Annas and Caiaphas — Peter and Jesus 578 LXXXIV.— The Morning of Good Friday 588 LXXX v.— ' Crucified, Dead, and Buried ' 600 LXXXVI.— On the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead . 624 LXXXVII.— ' On the Third Day He rose again from the Dead ; He ascended into Heaven ' 627 JESUS THE MESSIAH JESUS THE MESSIAH CHAPTER I. THE ANNUNCIATION OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST. (St. Luke i. 5-25.) It was the time of the Morning Sacrifice.' As the massive Temple gates slowly swung on their hinges, a threefold blast from the silver trumpets of the Priests seemed to waken the City to the life of another day. Already the dawn, for which the Priest on the highest pinnacle of the Temple had watched, to give the signal for beginning the services of the day, had shot its brightness far away to Hebron and beyond. Within the courts below all had long been busy. At some time previously, un- known to those who waited for the morning, the superin- tending Priest had summoned to their sacred functions those who had ' washed,' according to the ordinance. There must have been each day about fifty priests on duty. Such of them as were ready now divided into two parties, to make inspection of the Temple courts by torchlight. Presently they met, and trooped to the well-known Hall of Hewn Polished Stones. The ministry for the day was there apportioned. To prevent tlie disputes of carnal zeal, the ' lot ' was to assign to each his function. Four times ' For a description of the details of tiiat service, see 'The Temple and its Services,' Edersheini 2 Jesus the Messiah was it resorted to : twice before, and twice after the Temple gates were opened. The lirist act of their ministry had to be done in the grey dawn, by the fitful red light that glowed on the altar of burnt-oflfering, ere the priests had stirred it into fresh flame. It was scarcely daybreak, when a second time they met for the ' lot,' which desig- nated those who were to take part in the sacrifice itself, and who were to trim the golden candlestick, and make ready the altar of incense within the Holy Place. And now nothing remained before the admission of worshippers but to bring out the lamb, once again to make sure of its fitness for sacrifice, to water it from a golden bowl, and then to lay it in mystic fashion — as tradil ion described the binding of Isaac — on the north side of tlie altar, with its face to the west. All, priests and laity, were present as the Priest, standing on the east side of the altar, from a golden bowl sprinkled with sacrificial blood two sides of the altar, below the red line which marked the difference between ordinary sacrifices and those that were to be wholly consumed. While the sacrifice was prepared for the altar, the priests, whose lot it was, had made ready all within the Holy Place, where the most solemn part of the day's service was to take place — that of offering the incense, which symbo- lised Israel's accepted prayers. Again was the lot (the third) cast to indicate him, who was to be honoured with this highest mediatorial act. Only once in a lifetime might any one enjoy that privilege. It was fitting that, as the custom was, such lot should be preceded by prayer and confession of their faith on the part of the assembled priests. It was the first week in October 748 A.u.C, that is, in the sixth year before our present era, when ' the course of Abia' — the eighth in the original arrangement of the weekly service — was on duty in the Temple. In the group ranged that autumn morning around the superintending Priest was one, on whom at least sixty winters had fallen. But never during these many years had he been honoured with the office of incensing. Yet The Annunciation of St. John the Baptist 3 Mie venerable figure of Zacliarias must have been well known in tlie Temple. For each course was twice a year on ministry, and, unlike the Levites, the priests were not disqualified by age, but only by infirmity. In many re- spects he seemed different from those around. His home was not in either of the great priest-centres — the Ophel- fjuarter in Jerusalem, nor in Jericho — but in some small town in those uplands, south of Jerusalem : the historic 'hill-country of Judaea.' And yet he might have claimed distinction. To be a priest, and married to the daughter of a priest, was supposed to convey twofold honour. That he was surrounded by relatives and friends, and that he was well kno^^^l and respected throughout his district. • st L 1 • ^PPsars incidentally from the narrative.^ For 88,59,61,65, Zacharias and Elisabeth, his wife, were truly 'righteous,' in the sense of walking ' blamelessly,' alike in those commandments which were specially binding on Israel, and in those statutes that were of universal bearing on mankind. Yet Elisabeth was childless. For many a year this must have been the burden of Zacharias' prayer ; the bur- den also of reproach, which Elisabeth seemed always to cany with her. On that bright autumn morning in the Temple, how- ever, no such thoughts would disturb Zacliarias. The lot had marked him for incensing, and every thought must have centred on what was before him. First, he had to choose two of his special friends or relatives, to assist in his sacred service. Theirduti-s were comparatively simple. One reverently removed what had been left on the altar from the previous evening's service ; then, worshipping, retired backwards. The second assistant now advanced, and, having spread to the utmost verge of the golden altar the live coals taken from that of burnt-oifering, worshipped and retired. Meanwhile the sound of the ' organ.' heard to the most distant parts of the Temple, and. according to tradition, far beyond its precincts, had summoned priests, Levites, and people to prepare for whatever service or duty was before tliera. But the celebrant Priest, bearing B 2 4 Jesus the Mess/ ah the golden censer, stood alone within the Holy Place, lit by the sheen of the seven-branched candlestick. Before him, somewhat farther away, towards the heavy Veil that hung before the Holy of Holies, was the golden altar of incense, on which the red coals glowed. To his right (the left of the altar — that is, on the north side) was the table of shewbread ; to his left, on the right or south side of the altar, was the golden candlestick. And still he waited, as instructed to do, till a special signal indicated that the moment had come to spread the incense on the altar, as near as possible to the Holy of Holies. Priests and people had reverently withdrawn from the neighbourhood of the altar, and were prostrate before the Lord, offering unspoken worship. Zacharias waited, until he saw the incense kind- ling. Then he also would have ' bowed do"s\Ti in worship,' and reverently withdrawn, had not a wondrous sight arrested his steps. On the right (or south) side of the altar, between it and the golden candlestick, stood what he could not but recognise as an Angelic form. Never, indeed, had even tradition reported such a vision to an ordinary Priest in the act of incensing. The two supernatural apparitions recorded — one of an Angel each year of the Pontificate of Simon the Just ; the other in that blasphemous account of the vision of the Almighty by Ishmael, the son of Elisha, and of the conversation which then ensued — had both been vouchsafed to High-Priests, and on the Day of Atonement. Still, there was always uneasiness among the people as any mortal approached the immediate Presence of God, and every delay in his return seemed ominous. No wonder, then, that Zacharias ' was troubled, and fear fell on him.' It was from this state of semi-consciousness that the Angel first walcened Zacharias with the remembrance of life-long prayers and hopes, which had now passed into the background of his being, and then suddenly startled him by the promise of their realisation. But that Child of so many prayers, who was to bear the significant name of John (Jehochanan, or Jochauan), 'the Lord is gracious,' The Annunciation of St. John the Baptist 5 was to be the source of joy and gladness to a far wider circle than that of the family. The Child was to be great before the Lord ; not only an ordinary, but a life-Nazarite,' as Samson and Samuel of old had been. liike them, he was not to consecrate himself, but from the inception of life wholly to belong to God, for His work. And, greater than either of these representatives of the symbolical import of Nazarism, he would combine the twofold mean- ing of their mission — outward and inward might in God, only in a higher and more spiritual sense. For this life- work he would be filled with the Holy Ghost, from the moment life woke within him. Then, as another Samson, would he, in the strength of God, lift the axe to each tree to be felled, and, like another Samuel, turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. Nay, com- bining these two missions, as did Elijah on Mount Carmel, he should, in accordance with prophecy,* precede the ]\Iessianic manifestation, and, not indeed in the person or form, but in the spirit and power of Elijah, accomplish the typical meaning of his mission. Thus would this new Elijah ' make ready for the Lord a people prepared.' If the apparition of the Angel, in that place, and at that time, had overwhelmed the aged priest, the words which he heard must have filled him with such bewilder- ment, that for the moment he scarcely realised their mean- ing. One idea alone, which had struck its roots so long in his consciousness, stood out : A son. And so it was the obvious doubt, that would suggest itself, which first fell from his lips, as he asked for some pledge or confir- mation of what he had heard. He that would not speak the praises of God, but asked a sign, received it. His dumbness was a sign— though the sign, as it were the dumb child of the prayer of un- belief, was its punishment also. And yet a sign in another sense also — a sign to the waiting multil ude in the Temple ; a sign to Elisabeth ; to all who knew Zacharias in the • On the different classes of Nazavites, see 'The Temple, &c.,' pp. 322-33). 6 Jesus the Messiah hill-couutiy ; and to the Priest himself, during those nine months of retirement and inward solitude; a sign also that would kindle into fiery flame in the day when God should loosen his tongue. A period of unusual length had passed, since the signal for incensing had been given. The prayers of the people had been offered, and their anxious gaze was directed to- wards the Holy Place. At last Zacharias emerged to take his stand on the top of the steps which led from the Porch to the Court of the Priests, waiting to lead in the priestly »Nuinb.vi. benediction^ that preceded the daily meat-offer- 24-26 jjjg Qj^^ ^j^g chant of the Psalms of praise, ac- companied with joyous sound of music, as the drink- offering was poured out. But already the sign of Zacharias was to be a sign to all the people. The pieces of the sacrifices had been ranged in due order on the altar of burnt-offering; the Priests stood on the steps to the porch, and the people were in waiting. Zacharias essayed to speak the words of benediction, unconscious that the stroke had fallen. But the people knew it by his silence, that he had seen a vision in the Temple. Yet as he stood helpless, trying by signs to indicate it to the awestruck assembly, he remained dumb. Wondering, they had dispersed, people and Priests — • some to Ophel, some to Jericho, some to their quiet dwell- ings in the country. But God fulfilled the word which He had spoken by His Angel. CHAPTER II. THE ANNUNCIATION OF JESUS THE MESSIAH, AND THE BIRTH OF HIS FORERUNNEH. (St. Matt. i. ; St. Luke i. 26-80.) The Galilee of the time of Jesus was not only of the richest fertility, cultivated to the utmost, and thickly covered with populous towns and villages, but the centre The Annunciation of Jesus 7 of every known industry, and the busy road of the world's commerce. Nor was it i ^herwise in Nazareth. The great caravan- route which led fi-om Acco on the sea to Damascus divided at its commencement into three roads, one of which passed through Nazareth. Men of all nations, busy with another life than that of Israel, would appear in its streets ; and through them thoughts, associations, and hopes connected with the great outside world be stirred. But, on the • other hand, Nazareth was also one of the great centres of Jewish Temple-life. The Priesthood was divided into twenty-four ' courses,' each of which, in turn, ministered in the Temple. The Priests of the 'course' which was to be on daty always gathered in certain towns, whence they went up in company to Jerusalem, while those of their number who were unable to go spent the week in fasting and prayer. Now Nazareth was one of these Priest-centres. Thus, to take the wider view, a double symbolic signifi- cance attached to Nazareth, since through it passed alike those who carried on the traffic of the world, and those who ministered in the Temple. We may take it, that the people of Nazareth were like those of other little towns similarly circumstanced : with all the peculiarities of the impulsive, straight-spoken, hot- blooded, brave, intensely national Galileans ; with the deeper feelings and almost instinctive habits of thought and life, which were the outcome of long centuries of Old Testament training; but also with the petty interests and jealousies of such places, and with all the ceremonialism and punctilious self-assertion of Orientals. The cast of Judaism prevalent in Nazareth would, of course, be the samp as in Galilee generally. We know, that there were marled divergences from the observ-ances in that strong- hold of Rabbinism, Judaea — indicating greater simplicity and freedom from the constant intrusion of traditional ordinances. The purity of betrothal in Galilee was less likely to be sullied, and weddings were more simple than • St. John in Judtea — without the dubious institution of iii.23 groomsmen, or 'friends of the bridegroom. ^ 8 Jesus the Messiah The bride was chosen, not as in Judfea, where money was too often the motive, but as in Jerusalem, with chief regard to ' a fair degree ; ' and widows were (as in Jeru- salem) more tenderly cared for. Whatever view may be taken of the genealogies in the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke, there can be no question that both Joseph and Mary were of the royal lineage of David. Most probably the two were nearly related, while Mary could also claim kinship with the Priesthood, being, no doubt on her mother's side, a * « St. Luke i. ' blood-relative ' of Elisabeth, the Priest-wife of ^^ Zacharias.* Even this seems to imply that Mary's family must shortly before have held higher rank, for only with such did custom sanction any alliance on the part of Priests. But at the time of their betrothal, alike Joseph and Mary were extremely poor, as appears — not indeed from his being a carpenter, since a trade was re- garded as almost a religious duty — but from the offering b St. Luke at the presentation of Jesus in the Temple.^ ii. 24 Accordingly, their betrothal must have been of the simplest, and the dowry settled the smallest possible.^ From that moment Mary was the betrothed wife of Joseph; their relationship as sacred as if they had already been wedded. Any breach of it would be treated as adultery ; nor could the bond be dissolved except, as after marriage, by regular divorce. Yet months might intervene between the betrothal and marriage. Five months of Elisabeth's sacred retirement had passed, when a strange messenger brought its first tidings to her kinswoman in far-otf Galilee. It was not in the solemn grandeur of the Temple, between the golden altar of incense and the seven-branched candlestick, that the Angel Gabriel now appeared, but in the privacy of a humble home at Nazareth. And, although the awe of the Supernatural must unconsciously have fallen upon her, it was not so much the sudden appearance of the mysterious ' Comp. 'Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ,' pp. US-l'lD. Also the article on 'Marriage ' in C'ti.sseU's Bible-Educator, vul. iv. pp. 267-270. The Annunciation of Jesus g stranger in lier retirement that startled the maiden, as the words of his greeting, implying unthought blessing. The ' Peace to thee ' was, indeed, the well-known salutation, while the words ' The Lord is with thee ' might waken remembrance of the Angelic call to great deliverance • Judg. vi. in the past.* But this designation of ' highly ^^ favoured ' came upon her with bewildering sur- prise, perhaps not so much from its contrast to the humble- ness of her estate, as from the self-unconscious humility of her heiirt. Accordingly, it is this story of special ' favour,' or grace, which the Angel traces in rapid outline, from the conception of the Virgin-Mother to the distinctive, Divinely-given Name, symbolic of the meaning of His coming ; His absolute greatness ; His acknowledgment as the Son of God ; and the fulfilment in Him of the great Davidic hope, with its never-ceasing royalty, and its bound- less Kingdom. In all this, however marvellous, there could be nothing strange to those who cherished in their hearts Israel's great hope. Nor was there anything strange even in the naming of the yet unconceived Child. It sounds like a saying current among the people of old, this of the Rabbis, concerning the six whose names were given before their birth : Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Solomon, Josiah, and ' the Name of the Messiah, Whom may the Holy One, blessed be His Name, bring quickly, in our days ! ' Thus, on the supposition of the readiness of her be- lieving heart there would have been nothing that needed further light than the how of her own connection with the glorious announcement. And the words, which she spake, were not of trembling doubt, but rather those of enquiry, for the further guidance of a willing self-surrender. And now the Angel unfolded yet farther promise of Divine favour, and so deepened her humility. For the idea of the activity of the Holy Ghost in all great events was quite familiar to Israel at the time, even though the Indi- viduation of the Holy Ghost may not have been fully apprehended. Only, they expected such influences to rest exclusively upon those who were either mighty, or rich, oi 10 jEbus THE Messiah wise. And of this twofold manifestation of miraculous ^ favour ' — that she, and as a Virgin, should be its sub- ject—Gabriel, 'the might of God,' gave this unasked sign, in what had happened to her kinswoman Elisabeth. The sign was at the same time a direction. The first, but also the ever-deepening desire in the heart of Mary, when the Angel left her, must have been to be away from Nazareth, and for the relief of opening her heart to a woman, in all things like-minded, who perhaps might speak blessed words to her. It is only what we would have expected, that ' with haste ' she should have resorted to her kinswoman. It could have been no ordinary welcome that would greet the Virgin-Mother. Elisabeth must have learnt from her husband the destiny of their son, and hence the near Advent of the Messiah. But she could not have known either when, or of whom He would be born. When, by a sign not quite strange to Jewish expectancy, she recognised in her near kinswoman the Mother of her Lord, her salutation was that of a mother to a mother — the mother of the ' preparer ' to the mother of Him for Whom he would prepare. Three months had passed, and now the Virgin- Mother must return to Nazareth. Soon Elisabeth's neighbours and kinsfolk would gather with sympathetic joy around a home which, as they thought, had experienced unexpected mercy. But Mary must not be exposed to the publicity of such meetings. However conscious of what had led to her condition, it must have been as the first sharp pang of the sword which was to pierce her soul, when she told it all to her betrothed. For only a direct Divine communi- cation could have chased all questioning from his heart, and given him that assurance, which was needful in the future history of the Messiah. Brief as the narrative is, we can read in the ' thoughts ' of Joseph the anxious con- tending of feelings, the scarcely established, and yet delayed, resolve to ' put her away,' which could only be done by regular divorce ; this one determination only standing out clearly, that, if it must be, her letter of The Birth of St. John the Baptist ii divorce shall be handed to her privately, only in the presence of two witnesses. The humble Tsaddiq of Naza- reth would not willingly make of her ' a public exhibition of shame,' The assurance, which Joseph could scarcely dare to hope for, was miraculously conveyed to him in a dream - vision. All would now be clear ; even the terms in which he was addressed (' thou son of David '), so utterly unusual in ordinary circumstances, would prepare him for the Angel's message. The namiug of the unborn Messiah would accord with popular notions ; the symbolism of such a name was deeply rooted in Jewish belief; while the explanation of Jehoshua or Jeshua (Jesus), as He Who would save His people (primarily, as he would understand it, Israel) from their sins, described at least one generally expected aspect of His Mission. The fact that such an announcement came to him in a dream, would dispose Joseph all the more readily to receive it. ' A good dream ' was one of the three things popu- larly regarded as marks of God's favour. Thus Divinely set at rest, Joseph could no longer hesitate. The highest duty towards the Virgin-Mother and the unborn Jesus demanded an immediate marriage, which would afford not only outward, but moral protection to both. Meanwhile the long-looked-for event had taken place in the home of Zacharias. No domestic solemnity was so important or so joyous as that in which, by circumcision, the child hud, as it were, laid upon it the yoke of the Law, with all of duty and privilege which this implied. It was, so tradition has it, as if the father had acted sacrificially as High-Priest, offering his child to God in gratitude and love ; and it symbolised this deeper moral truth, that man must by his own act complete what God had first insti- tuted. We can scarcely be mistaken in supposing, that then, as now, a benediction was spoken before circum- cision, and that the ceremony closed with the usual grace over the cup of wine, when the child received his name in a prayer, that probably did not much differ from this at present in use: 'Our God, and the God of our fathers, 12 Jesus the Messiah raise up this cliild to his father and mother, and let his name be called in Israel Zacharias, the son of Zacharias.' The prayer closed with the hope that the child might grow up, and successfully 'attain to the Torah, the marriage- baldachino, and good works.' Of all this Zacharias was, though a deeply interested, yet a deaf and dumb ^ witness. This only had he noticed, that, in the benediction in which the child's name was inserted, the mother had interrupted the prayer. Without explaining her reason, she insisted that his name should not be that of his aged father, as in the peculiar circum- stances might have been expected, but John (Jochanan). A reference to the father only deepened the general astonishment, when he also gave the same name. But this was not the sole cause for marvel. For, forthwith the tongue of the dumb was loosed, and he, who could not utter the name of the child, now burst into praise of the name of the Lord. His last words had been those of unbelief, liis first were those of praise ; his last words had been a question of doubt, his first were a hymn of assu- rance. This hymn of the Priest closely follows, and, if the expression be allowable, spiritualises a great part of the most ancient Jewish prayer : the so-called Eighteen Bene- dictions. Opening with the common form of blessing, his hymn struck, one by one, the deepest chords of that prayer. But far and wide, as these marvellous tidings spread throughout the hill-country of Judeeai, fear fell on all — the fear also of a nameless hope : ' What then shall this Child be ? For the Hand of the Lord also was with Him ! ' ' From St. Luke i. 62 we gather that Zacharias was what the Eabbis understood by a Hebrew term signifying one deaf as well as dumb. Accordingly, he was communicated with by signs. The Nativity of Jesus 13 CHAPTER III. THE NATIVITY OF JESUS THE MESSIAH. (St. Malt. i. 25 ; St. Luke ii. 1-20.) To Bethlehem as the birthplace of Messiah, not only Old Testament prediction,^ but the testimony of Rab- binic teaching, unhesitatingly pointed. Yet no- thing could be imagined more directly contrary to flewish thoughts — and hence nothing less likely to suggest itself to Jewish invention — than the circumstances which, accord- ing to the Gospel-narrative, brought about the birth of the Messiah in Ijethlehem. A counting of the people, or Cen- sus ; and that Census taken at the bidding of a heathen Emperor, and executed by one so universally hated as Herod, would represent the ne plus ultra of all that was most repugnant to Jewish feeling. That the Emperor Augustus made registers of the Roman Empire, and of subject and tributary states, is now generally admitted. This registration — for the purpose of future taxation — would also embrace Palestine. Even if no actual order to that effect had been issued during the life-time of Herod, we can understand that he w^ould deem it most expedient, in view of the probable excitement which a heathen census would cause in Palestine, to take steps for making a registration rather according to the Jewish than the Roman manner. According to the Roman law, all country-people were to be registered in their ' own city ' — meaning thereby the town to which the village or place, where they w^ere born, was attached. In so doing, the ' house and linenge ' of each were marked. According to the Jewish mode of registration, the people would have been enrolled accord- ing to tribes, families ov chins, and the //o».sc of their fathers. But as the ten tribes had not returned to Palestine, this could only take place to a very limited extent, while it 14 Jesus the Mess/ ah would be easy for each to be registered in ' his own city.' In the case of Joseph and Mary, whose descent from David was not only known, but where, for the sake of the unborn Messiah, it was most important that this should be dis- tinctly noted, it was natural that, in accordance with Jewish law, they should have gone to Bethlehem. Perhaps also, for many reasons which will readily suggest them- selves, Joseph and Mary might be glad to leave Nazareth, and seek, if possible, a home in Bethlehem. Indeed, so strong was this feeling, that it afterwards required special Divine direction to induce Joseph to relinquish this chosen • St. Matt, place of residence, and to return into Galilee.^ "• ^^ In these circumstances, Mary, now the ' wife ' of Joseph, though standing to him only in the actual relation- »>st. Luke ii. sliip of ' betrothed,' ^ would, of course, accompany ^" her husband to Bethlehem. The short winter's day was probably closing in, as the two travellers from Nazareth, bringing with them the few necessaries of a poor Eastern household, neared their journey's end. Only in the East would the most absolute simplicity be possible, and yet neither it, nor the poverty from which it sprang, necessarily imply even the slightest taint of social inferiority. The way had been long and weary — at the very least, three days' journey from Galilee. Most probably it would have been by that route so com- monly followed, from a desire to avoid Samaria, along the eastern banks of the Jordan, and by the fords near Jericho. The little town of Bethlehem was crowded with tliose who had come from all the outlying district to register their names. The very inn was filled, and the only avail- alale space was where ordinarily the cattle were stabled. Bearing in mind the simple habits of the East, this scarcely implies what it would in the West ; and perhaps the seclusion and privacy from the noisy, chattering crowd, which thronged the khan, would be all the more welcome. Scanty as these particulars are, even thus much is gathered rather by inference than from the narrative itself. Thus early in this history does the absence of details, which The Nativity of Jesus 15 increases as we proceed, remind us, that the Gospels were not intended to furnish a biography of Jesus, nor even the materials for it ; but had only this twofold object : that those who read them ' might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,' and that believing they ' might have life • St. Joiin through His Name.' * The Christian heart and ^{^1} imagination, indeed, long to be able to localise St. Luke i. 4 \\;^q scene and linger with fond reverence over that Cave, which is now covered by ' the Church of the Nativity.' It seems likely that this, to which the most venerable tradition points, was the sacred spot of the world's greatest event. Bat certainty we have not. As to all that passed in the seclusion of that ' stable ' the Gospel- narrative is silent. This only is told, that then and there the Virgin-Mother ' brought forth her first-born Son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger.' But as we pass from the sacred gloom of the cave out into the night, its loneliness is peopled, and its silence made vocal from heaven. Jewish tradition may here prove both illustrative and helpful. That the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, was a settled conviction. Equally so was the belief, that He was to be revealed from Migdal Eder, ' the tower of the flock.' This Migdal Eder was not the watch-tower for the ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheep -ground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to the town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah leads to the conclusion, that the flocks, which pastured there, were destined for Temple-sacrifices, and, accordingly, that the shepherds, who watched over them, were not ordinary shepherds. The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism, on account of their necessary isolation from religious ordinances, and their manner of life, which rendered strict legal observance unlikely, if not absolutely impossible. The same Mishnic passage also leads us to infer, that these flocks lay out all the year round, since they are spoken of as in the fields thirty days before the Passover — that is, in the month of February, when in Palestine the average rainfall is nearly greatest. 1 6 Jesus the Messiah It was, then, on that ' wintry night ' of the 25th of December, that shepherds watched the flocks destined for sacrificial services, in the very place consecrated by tradi- tion as that where the Messiah was to be first revealed. Of a sudden came the long-delayed, nnthought-of announce- ment : an Angel stood before their dazzled eyes, while the outstreaming glory of the Lord seemed to enwi-ap them, as in a mantle of light. Surprise, awe, fear would be hushed into calm and expectancy, as from the Angel they heard that what they saw boded not judgment, but ushered in to waiting Israel the great joy of those good tidings which he brought : that the long-promised Saviour, Messiah, Lord, was born in the City of David, and that they themselves might go and see, and recognise Him by the humbleness of the circumstances surrounding His Nativity. It was as if attendant angels had only- waited the signal. As, when the sacrifice was laid on the altar the Temple-music burst forth in three sections, each marked by the blast of the Priests' silver trumpets, so, when the Herald-Angel had spoken, a multitude of heaven's host stood forth to hymn the good tidings he had brought. What they sang was but the reflex of what had been announced : — Glory to God in the highest — And upon earth peace — Among men good pleasure I Only once before had the words of Angels' hymn fallen upon mortals' ears, when, to Isaiah's rapt vision. Heaven's high Temple had opened, and the glory of Jehovah swept its courts, almost breaking down the trembling posts that bore its boundary gates. Now the same glory enwrapt the shepherds on Bethlehem's plains. Then the Angels' hymn had heralded the announcement of the Kingdom coming ; now that of the King come. Then it had been the Tris-Hagion of prophetic anticipation; now that of Evangelic fulfilment. The hymn had ceased ; the light faded out of the sky ; and the shepherds were alone. But the Angelic message The Purification of the Virgin 17 remained with them ; and the sign, which was to guide them to the Infant Christ, lighted their rapid way up the terraced height to where, at the entering of Bethlehem, the lamp swinging over the hostelry directed them to the strangers of the house of David, who had come from Nazareth. There they found, perhaps not what they had expected, but as they had been told. The holy group only consisted of the Virgin-Mother, the carpenter of Nazareth, and the Babe laid in the manger. What further passed we know not, save that having seen it for themselves the shepherds told what had been spoken to them about this Child, to all around — in the ' stable,' in the fields, probably also in the Temple, to which they would bring their flocks, thereby preparing the minds of a Simeon, of an Anna, and of all them that looked for salvation in Israel. CHAPTER IV. THE PURIFICATION OF THE VIRGIN AND THE PRESENTATION IN THE TEMPLE. (St. Luke ii. 21-38.) Foremost amongst those who, wondering, had heard what the shepherds told, was she whom most it concerned : the Mother of Jesus. At the very outset of this histoiy, and increasingly in its course, the question meets us, how, if the Angelic message to the Virgin was a reality, and her motherhood so supernatural, she could have been apparently so ignorant of what was to come — nay, so often have even misunder- stood it ? Might we not have expected, that the Virgin- Mother from the inception of this Child's life would have realised that He was truly the Son of God ? The question, like so many others, requires only to be clearly stated, to find its emphatic answer. For, had it been so, His history. His human life, of which every step is of such importance to mankind, would not have been possible. Apart from C 1 8 Jesus the Messiah all thoughts of the deeper necessity, both as regarded His Mission and the salvation of the world, of a true human development of gradual consciousness and personal life, Christ could not, in any real sense, have been subject to His Parents, if they had fully understood that He was Divine ; nor could He, in that case, have been watched, as He ' grew in wisdom and in favour with God and men.' Such knowledge would have broken the bond of His Humanity to ours, by severing that which bound Him as a child to His mother. We could not have become His brethren, had He not been truly the Virgin's Son. The mystery of the Incarnation would have been needless and fruitless, had His Humanity not been subject to all its right and ordinary conditions. In short, one, and that the distinctive New Testament, element in our salvation would have been taken away. At the beginning of His life He would have anticipated the lessons of its end — nay, not those of His Death only, but of His Eesurrection and Ascension, and of the coming of the Holy Ghost. In all this we have only considered the earthward, not the heavenward, aspect of His life. The latter, though very real, lies beyond our present horizon. Not so the question as to the development of the Virgin-Mother's spiritual knowledge. Assuming her to have occupied the standpoint of Jewish Messianic expectancy, and remember- ing also that she was so ' highly favoured ' of God, still there was not as yet anything, nor could there be for many years, to lead her beyond what might be called the utmost height of Jewish belief. On the contrary, there was much connected with His true Humanity to keep her back. Thus it was, that every event connected with the Messianic manifestation of Jesus would come to the Virgin-Mother as a new surprise. Each event, as it took place, stood isolated in her mind, as something quite by itself. She knew the beginning, and she knew the end ; but she knew not the path which led from the one to the other ; and each step in it was a new revelation. And it was natural and well that it should be so. For, thus only could she truly, because self-unconsciously, as a Jewish The Purification of the Virgin 19 woman and motlier, lulfil all the requirements of the Law, alike as regarded herself and her Child. The first of these was Circumcision, representing voluntary subjection to the conditions of the Law, and acceptance of the obligations, but also of the privileges, of the Covenant between (jlod and Abraham and his seed. 'J'he ceremony took place, as in all ordinary circumstances, on the eighth day, when the Child received the Angel- given name Jtskiia (Jesus). Two other legal ordi- nances still remained to be observed. The firstborn sou of every household was, according to the Law, to be ' redeemed ' of the priest at the price of five shekels of the •Numb. Sanctuary." The earliest period of presentation xvui. 16 ^^,g^g thirty-one days after birth, so as to make the legal month quite complete. The child must have been the firstborn of his mother; neither father nor mother must be of Levitic descent ; and the child must be free from all such bodily blemishes as would have dis- (jualified him for the priesthood — or, as it was expressed : ' the firstborn for the priesthood.' It was a thing much dreaded, that the child should die before his redemption ; but if his father died in the interval, the child had to redeem himself when of age. The value of the 'redemp- tion-money' would amount to about ten or twelve shillings. The redemption could be made from any priest, and attendance in the Temple was not requisite. It was ^ .. otherwise with ' the purification ' of the mother.'' The Rabbinic law fixed this at forty-one days after the birth of a son, and eighty-one after that of a daughter, so as to make the Biblical terms quite complete. But it might take place any time later — -notably, when attendance on any of the great feasts brought a family to Jerusalem, Indeed, the woman was not required to be personally present at all, when her offering was provided for — say, by the representatives of the laity, who daily took part in the services for the various districts from which they came. But mothers who were within con- venient distance of the Temple, and especially the more earnest among them, would naturally attend personal!}^ in c 2 20 Jesus the Messiah the Temple ; and in such cases, when practicable, the redemption of the firstborn, and the purification of his mother, would be combined. Such was undoubtedly the case with the Virgin-Mother and her Son. For this twofold purpose the Holy Family went up to the Temple, when the prescribed days were completed. The ceremony at the redemption of a firstborn son was, no doubt, more simple than that at present in use. It con- sisted of the formal presentation of the child to the priest, accompanied by two short ' benedictions ' — the one for the law of redemption, the other for the gift of a firstborn son, after which the redemption-money was paid. As regards the rite at the purification of the mother, the scantiness of information has led to serious misstate- ments. Any comparison with our modern 'churching' of women is inapplicable, since the latter consists of thanksgiving, and the former primarily of a sin-offering for the Levitical defilement symbolically attaching to the beginning of life, and a burnt-offering, that marked the restoration of communion with God. Besides, as already stated, the sacrifice for purification might be brought in the absence of the mother. The service simply consisted of the statutory sacrifice. This was what, in ecclesiastical language, was termed an offering, ' ascending and de- scending,' that is : according to the means of the offerer. The sin-offering was, in all cases, a turtle-dove or a young pigeon. But, while the more wealthy brought a lamb for a burnt-offering, the poor might substitute for it a turtle-dove, or a young pigeon. The Temple-price of the meat- and drink-offerings was fixed once a month ; and special officials instructed the intending offerers, and pro- vided them with what was needed. There was also a special ' superintendent of turtle-doves and pigeons,' required for certain purifications. In the Court of the Women there were thirteen trumpet-shaped chests for pecuniary contributions, called ' trumpets.' ' Into the third of these they who brought the poor's offering, like ' Comp. St. Matt. vi. 2. See ' The Temple and its Services,' &c., pp. 26. 27. The Purification of the Virgin 21 the Virgin-Mother, were to drop the price of the sacrificen which were needed for their purification. As we infer, the superintending priest must have been stationed here, alike to inform the offerer of the price of the turtle-doves, and to see that all was in order. For the offerer of the poor's offering would not require to deal directly with the sacrificing priest. At a certain time in the day this third chest was opened, and half of its contents applied to burnt-, the other half to sin-offerings. Thus sacrifices were provided for a corresponding number of those who were to be purified, without either shaming the poor, needlessly disclosing the character of impurity, or causing unnecessary bustle and work. Though this mode of pro- cedure could, of course, not be obligatoiy, it would, no doubt, be that generally followed. We can now, in imagination, follow the Virgin-Mother in the Temple. Her Child had been given up to the Lord, and received back from Him. She had entered the Court of the Women, probably by the ' Gate of the Women,' on the north side, and deposited the price of her sacrifices in Trumpet No. 3, which was close to the raised dais or gallery where the women worshipped, apart from the men. And now the sound of the organ, which announced throughout the vast Temple-buildings that the incense was about to be kindled on the Golden Altar, summoned those who were to be purified. The chief of the ministrant lay-representatives of Israel on duty (the so-called ' station- men ') ranged those, who presented themselves befoi'e the Lord as ofi'erers of special sacrifices, within the wickets on either side the great Nicanor Gate, at the top of the fifteen steps which led up from the Court of the Women to that of Israel. The purification-service, with such unspoken prayer and praise as would be the outcome of a grateful heart, was soon ended, and they who had shared in it were Levitically clean. Now all stain was removed, and, as the Law put it, they might again partake of sacred offerings. It has been observed, that by the side of every humili- ation connected with the Humanity of the Messiah, the 22 //IS US THE Messiah glory of His Divinity was also made to shine forth. The coincidences are nianifestly undesigned on the part of the Evangelic writers, and hence all the more striking. And so, when now the Mother of Jesus in her humbleness could only bring the ' poor's offering,' the witness to the greatness of Him Whom she had borne was not want- ing. The ' parents ' of Jesus had brought Him into the Temple for presentation and redemption, when they were met b}^ one, whose venerable figure must have been well known in the city and the Sanctuary. Simeon combined the three characteristics of Old Testament piety : 'justice,' as regarded his relation and bearing to God and man ; ' fear of God,' in opposition to the boastful self-righteousness of Pharisaism ; and, above all, longing expectancy of the near fulfilment of the great promises, and that in their spiritual import as ' the Consolation of Israel.' And now it was as had been promised him. Coming 'in the Spirit' into the Temple, just as His parents were bringing the Infant Jesus, he took Him into his arms, and burst into thanks- giving. God had fulfilled His word. He was not to see death, till he had seen the Lord's Christ. Now did his Lord ' dismiss ' him ' in peace ' — release him from work and watch — since he had actually seen that salvation, so long preparing for a waiting weary world : a glorious light, Whose rising would light up heathen darkness, and be the outshining glory around Israel's mission. BiTt his unexpected appearance, the more unexpected deed and words, and that most unexpected and un-Judaic form in which what was said of the Infant Christ was pre- sented to their minds, filled the hearts of His parents with wonderment. And it was as if their silent wonderment had been an unspoken question, to which the answer now came in words of blessino- from the agfed watcher. But now it was the personal, or rather the Judaic, aspect which, in broken utterances, was set before the Virgin- Mother — as if the whole history of the Christ upon earth were passing in rapid vision before Simeon. That Infant was to be a stone of decision : a foundation and corner- The Presentatiox in the Temple 23 stone," for fall or for uprising ; a sign spoken against; the sword of deep personal sorrow would pierce the Mother's heart ; and so to the terrible end. when the veil of externalism which had so long covered the hearts of Israels leaders would be rent, and the deep evil of their thoughts laid bare. Nor was Simeon's the only hymn of praise on that day. A special interest attaches to her who responded in praise to God for the pledge she saw of the near redemption. A kind of mystery seems to invest this Anna. A widow, whose early desolateness had been followed by a long life of solitary mourning ; one of those in whose home the tribal genealogy had been preserved. We infer from this, and from the fact that it was that of a tribe which had not returned to Palestine, that hers was a family of some distinction. Curiously enough, the tribe of Asher alone is celebrated in tradition for the beauty of its women, and their fitness to be wedded to High-Priest or King. These many years had Anna spent in the Sanctuary, and spent in fasting and prayer — yet not of that self- righteous, self-satisfied kind which was of the essence of popular religion. Nor yet were ' fasting and prayer ' to her the all-in-all of religion, sufficient in themselves ; sufficient also before God. The seemingly hopeless exilei of her own tribe, the political state of Judgea, the con-l dition — social, moral, and religious — of her own Jerusa-\ lem, all kindled in her, as in those who were like-minded, deep, earnest longing for the time of promised ' redemp- tion.' No place so suited to such an one as the Temple, with its services ; no occupation so befitting as '' fasting and prayer.' And there were others, perhaps many such, in Jerusalem. Though Rabbinic tradition ignored them, they were the salt which preserved the mass from festering corruption. To her, as the representative of such, was it granted as prophetess to recognise Him, Whose Advent had been the burden of Simeon's praise. 24 Jesus the Messiah CHAPTER V. THE VISIT AND HOMAGE OF THE MAGI, AND THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT. (St. Matt. ii. 1-18.) The story of the homage to the infant Saviour by the Macji is told by St. Matthew, in language of which the brevity constitutes the chief difficulty. Even their desig- nation is not free from ambiguity. The term Magi is used in the LXX., by Philo, Josephus, and by profane writers, alike in an evil and, so to speak, in a good sense — in the ^ , . former case as implying the practice of magical " So also in . , , ^ "^ ° . .'^^ -,-, ° Acts viii. 9 ; arts ; ^ m the latter, as referring to those cjastern ' (specially Chaldee) priest-sages, whose researches, in great measure as yet mysterious and unknown to us, seem to have embraced much deep knowledge, though not untinged with superstition. It is to these latter, that the Magi spoken of by St. Matthew must have belonged. Their number — to which, however, no importance at- taches— cannot be ascertained. Various suggestions have been made as to the country of ' the East,' whence they came. The oldest opinion traces the Magi — though par- tially on insufficient grounds — to Arabia. And there is this in favour of it, that not only the closest intercourse existed between Palestine and Arabia, but that from about 120 B.C. to the sixth century of our era, the kings of Yemen professed the Jewish faith. Shortly after the Presentation of the Infant Saviour in the Temple, certain Magi from the East arrived in Jeru- salem with strange tidings. They had seen at its ' rising ' a sidereal appearance, which they regarded as betokening the birth of the Messiah-King of the Jews, in the sense which at the time attached to that designation. Accor- dingly, they had come to Jerusalem to pay homage to Him, probably not because they imagined He must be born The Visit of the Magi 2^ in the Jewish capital, bat because tliey would naturally expect there to obtain authentic information, ' where ' He might be found. In their simplicity, the Magi addressed themselves in the first place to the official head of the nation. But their inquiry produced on King Herod, and in the capital, a far different impression from the feeling of the Magi. Unscrupulously cruel as Herod had always proved, even the slightest suspicion of danger to his rule — the bare possibility of the Advent of One, Who had such claims upon the allegiance of Israel, and Who, if acknowledged, would evoke the most intense movement on their partem ust have struck terror to his heai't. Nor is it difficult to understand that the whole city should, although on different grounds, have shared the ' trouble ' of the king. They knew only too well the character of Herod, and what the consequences would be to them, or to any one who might be suspected, how^ever unjustly, of sympathy with any claimant to the royal throne of David. Herod took immediate measures, characterised by his usual cunning. He called together all the High-Priests — past and present — and all the learned Rabbis, and, with- out committing himself as to whether the Messiah was already born, or only expected, simply propounded to them the question of His birthplace. At the same time he took care diligently to inquire the precise time, when the sidereal appearance had first attracted the attention of • St. Matt, the Magi.* So long as any one lived, who was "• ' born in Bethlehem between the earliest appear- ance of this ' star ' and the time of the arrival of the b ^ jg Magi, he was not safe. The subsequent conduct of Herod ^ shows that the Magi must have told him, that their first observation of the phenomenon had taken place two years before their arrival in Jerusalem. The assembled authorities of Israel could only return one answer to the question submitted by Herod. As shown by the rendering of the Taryum, Jonathan^ the prediction in Micah v. 2 was at the time universally understood as pointing to Bethlehem, as the birthplace of the IMessiah. That such was the general expectation, appears from the 26 Jesus the Messiah Talmud, where, in an imaginary conversation between an Arab and a Jew, Bethlehem is authoritatively named as Messiah's birth]ilace. St. Matthew reproduces the pro- phetic utterance of Micah, exactly as such quotations were popularly made at that time. It will be remembered that, Hebrew being a dead language so far as the people were concerned, the Holy Scriptures were always translated into the popular dialect, the person so doing being desig- nated Alethurgeman (dragoman) or interpreter. These ren- derings, which at the time of St. Matthew were not yet allowed to be written down, formed the precedent for, if not the basis of, our later Targum. The further conduct of Herod was in keeping with his plans. He sent for the Magi — for various reasons, secretly. After ascertaining the precise time when they had first observed the ' star,' he directed them to Beth- lehem, with the request to inform him when they had found the Child ; on pretence that he was equally desirous with them to pay Him homage. As they left Jerusalem for the goal of their pilgrimage, to their surprise and joy, the ' star,' ^ which had attracted their attention at its ' rising,' and which, as seems implied in the narrative, they had not seen of late, once more appeared on the horizon, and seemed to move before them, till ' it stood over where the young child was ' — that is, of course, over Bethlehem, not over any special house in it. And, since in ancient times such extraordinary ' guidance ' by a ' star ' was matter of belief and expectancy, the Magi would, ' Astronomically speaking there can be no doubt that the most remarkable conjunction of planets — that of Jupiter and Sa' urn in the constellation Pisces, which occurs only once in 800 years— took place no less than three times in the year 747 A.u.c, or two years before tlie birth of Christ (in May, Oct., and Dec.)- In the year following Mars joined this conjunction. Kepler, who was led to the discovery by ob- serving a similar conjunction in 1603-4, also noticed that when the three planets came into conjunction a new, extraordinarilj' brilliant star was visible between Jupiter and Saturn, and he suggested that a similar star had appeared under the same circumstances in the conjunc- tion preceding the Nativity. It has been astronomically ascertained that such a sidereal apparition would be visible to those who left Jerusalem, and tliat it would jsoint — almost seem to go before — in the direction of and stand over Bethlehem. The Flight into Egypt "i") from their standpoint, regard it as the fullest confirmat iou tliat they had been rightly directed to Bethlehem — and * they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.' It could not be difficult to learn in Bethlehem, where the Infant, around Whose Birth marvels had gathered, might be found. It appears that the temporary shelter of the ' stable ' had been exchanged by the Holy Family for the more per- «> V 11 maiient abode of a ' house ; " ^ and there the Magi found the Infant- Saviour with His Mother. Only two things are recorded of this visit of the Magi to Bethlehem : their homage, and their offerings. Viewed as gifts, the incense and the myrrh would, indeed, havB been strangely inappropriate. But their offerings were evidently intended as specimens of the products of their country, and their presentation was, even as in our own days, expressive of the homage of their country to the new-found King. In this sense, then, the Magi may truly be regarded as the representatives of the Gentile World ; their homage as the ffrst and typical acknowledg- ment of Christ by those who hitherto had been ' far off';' and their offerings as symbolic of the world's tribute. The ancient Church has traced in the gold the emblem of His Royalty ; in the myrrh, of His Humanity, and that in the fullest evidence of it, in His burying ; and in the in- cense, that of His Divinity. It could not be, that these Magi should become the in- struments of Herod's murderous designs ; nor yet that the Infant-Saviour should fall a victim to the tyrant. Warned of God in a dream, the ' wise men ' returned ' into their own country another w^ay ; ' and, warned by the Angel of the Lord in a dream, the Holy Family sought temporary shelter in Egypt. Baffled in the hope of attaining his object through the Magi, the reckless tyrant sought to secure it by an indiscriminate slaughter of all the chil- dren in Bethlehem and its immediate neighbourhood, from two years and under. True, considering the population of Bethlehem, their number could only have been small — probably twenty at most. But the deed was none the less atrocious; and these infants may justly be regarded as 28 Jesus the Messiah the ' protomartyrs,' tlie first witnesses, of Christ, 'the blos- som of martyrdom ' (' flores martyrum,' as Prudentvus calls them). But of two passages in his own Old Testament Scrip- tures the Evangelist sees a fulfilment in these events. The flight into Egypt is to him the fulfilment of this ex- pression by Hosea, 'Out of Egypt have I called My " Hos. xi. 1 Son.' * In the murder of ' the Innocents,' he sees "Jer.xxxi.i5 the fulfilment of Rachel's lament'' over her chil- dren, the men of Benjamin, when the exiles to Babylon met in Ramah," and there was bitter wailing at the pro- spect of parting for hopeless captivity, and yet bitterer lament, as they who might have encumbered the on- ward march were pitilessly slaughtered. Those who have attentively followed the course of Jewish thinking, and marked how the ancient Synagogue, and that rightly, read the Old Testament in its unity, as ever pointing to the Messiah as the fulfilment of Israel's history, will not wonder at, but fully accord with St. Matthew's retro- spective view. CHAPTER VI. THE CHILD-LIFE IN NAZARETH. (St. Matt. ii. 19-23 ; St. Luke ii. 39, 40.) The stay of the Holy Family in Egypt must have been of brief duration. The cup of Herod's misdeeds, but also of his misery, was full. During the whole latter part of his life, the dread of a rival to the throne had haunted him, and he had sacrificed thousands, among them those nearest and dearest to him, to lay that ghost. And still the tyrant was not at rest. A more terrible scene is not pre- sented in history than that of the closing days of Herod.' Tormented by nameless fears ; even making attempts on ' For an account of the personal history of Herod see ' Life and Times,' bk. ii., chaps, ii. and ix., and app. iv. The Child-life in Nazareth 29 his own life; the delirium of tyranny, the passion for blood, drove him to the verge of madness. The most loathsome disease had fastened on his body, and his suffer- ing's were at times agonising. By the advice of his physicians, he had himself carried to the baths of Cal- lirhoe (east of the Jordan), trying all remedies with the determination of one who will do hard battle for life. It was in vain. He knew that his hour was come, and had himself conveyed back to his palace under the palm-trees of Jericho. The last days of Herod were stained by fresh murders. The execution of Anti[)ater — the false accuser and real murderer of his half-brothers Alexander and Aristobulus — pi'eceded the death of his father by but five days. The latter occurred from seven to fourteen days before the Passover, which in 750 took place on April 12. Herod had reigned thirty-seven years — thirty-four since his conquest of Jerusalem. Soon the rule for which he had so long plotted, striven, and stained himself with untold crimes, passed from his descendants. A century more, and his whole race had been swept away. Herod had three times changed his testament.' But a few days before his death he made yet another disposi- tion, by which Archelaus, the elder brother of Antipas, was appointed king; Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Pera}a; and Philip tetrarch of the territory east of the Jordan. Although the Emperor seems to have authorised him to appoint his successor, Herod wisely made his dis- position dependent on the approval of Augustus. But the latter was not by any means to be taken for granted. Archelaus had, indeed, been immediately proclaimed King by the army ; but he prudently declined the title, till it had been confirmed by the Emperor. Augustus decided, however, to do this, though with certain slight modifications, of which the most important was that Archelaus should bear the title of I'Jthtiarch, which, if he deserved it, would by-and-by be exchanged ' Herod had uiarried no less than ten times. See his genealogical table. 30 Jesus the Messiah for that of King. His dominions were to be Judgea, Idumaea, and Samaria, •with a revenue of 600 talents (about 230,000/. to 240,000L). It is needless to follow the for- tunes of the new Ethnarch. His brief reign ceased in the year 6 of our era, when the Emperor banished him, on account of his crimes, to Gaul. It must have been soon after the accession of Archelaus, but before tidings of it had actually reached Joseph in Egypt, that the Holy Family returned to Palestine. The first intention of Joseph seems to have been to settle in Bethlehem, where he had lived since the birth of Jesus. Obvious reasons would incline him to choose this, and, if possible, to avoid Nazareth as the place of his residence. But when, on reaching Palestine, he learned who the successor of Herod was, and also, no doubt, in what manner he had inaugurated his reign, common prudence would have dictated the withdrawal of the Infant-Saviour from the dominions of Archelaus, It needed Divine direc- tion to determine his return to Nazareth. ^ Of the many years spent in Nazareth, during which Jesus passed from infancy to manhood, the Evangelic narrative has left us but briefest notice. Of His childhood : that ' He grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with • St. Luke wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him ; ' * "•*° of His youth : besides the account of His ques- tioning the Rabbis in the Temple, the year before He attained Jewish majority — that ' He was subject to His Parents,' and that ' He increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.' Considering what loving care watched over Jewish child-life, tenderly marking by not fewer than eight designations the various stages of its development,' and the deep interest naturally attaching to the early life of the Messiah, that silence, in contrast to the almost blasphemous absurdities of the Apocryphal Gospels, teaches us once more, that the Gospels furnish a history of the Saviour, not a biography of Jesus of Nazareth. 1 See 'Sketches of Jewish Sociiil Life,' Edersheim, pp. 103, 104, and 'Life aud Tiiuea,' vol. i. pp. 226-234. In the House of His Heavenly Father 31 CHAPTER VII. IN THE HOUSE OF HIS HEAVENLY, AND IN THE HOME OF HIS EARTHLY FATHER — THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM — THE RETIREMENT AT NAZARETH. (St. Luke ii. 41-52.) Once only is the silence which lies on the history of Christ's early life broken. It is to record what took place on His first visit to the Temple. In strict law, personal observance of the ordinances, and hence attendance on the feasts at Jerusalem, devolved on a youth only when he was of age, that is, at thirteen years. Then he became what was called ' a son of the Commandment,' or ' of the Torah.' But, as a matter of fact, the legal age was in this respect anticipated by two years, or at least by one. It was in accordance with this custom that, on the first Pascha after Jesus had passed His twelfth year. His Parents took Him with them in the ' company ' of the Nazarenes to Jerusalem. The text seems to indicate, that it was their wont to go up to the Temple ; and we mark that, although women were not bound to make such personal appearance, Mary gladly availed herself of what seems to have been the direction of Hillel (followed also by other religious women, men- tioned in Rabbinic writings), to go up to the solemn services of the Sanctuary. Politically, times had changed. Archelaus was banished, and Juda?a, Samaria, and Iduma?a were now incorporated into the Roman province of Syria, under its Governor, or Legate, P. Sulpicius Quirinius. The special administration of that part of Palestine was, how- ever, entrusted to a Procurator, whose ordinary residence was at Ca?sarea. It was, as we reckon it, in spring a.d. 9, that Jesus for the first time went up to the Paschal Feast in Jerusalem. A brief calm had fallen upon the land. The census and 32 Jesus the Messiah taxing, with the consequent rising of the Nationalists with Ezekias at their head, which had marked the accession of Herod, misnamed the Great, were alike past. There was nothing to provoke active resistance, and the party of the Zealots, as the Nationalists were afterwards called, although still existing, and striking deeper root in the hearts of the people, was, for the time, rather ' the philosophical party ' — their minds busy with an ideal, which their hands were not yet preparing to make a reality. And so, when, according to • Ps. xiii. 4 ; ancient wont,^ the festive company from Nazareth, l^'x.V.' ^^ soon swelled by other bands, went up to Jerusa- 'Degrees'; \Qxa. chanting by the wav those 'Psalms of cxxxiv. Ascent ' ^ to the accompaniment of the flute, they might implicitly yield themselves to the spiritual thoughts kindled by such words. When the pilgrims' feet stood within the gates of Jerusalem, there could have been no difficulty in finding hospitality, however crowded the City may have been on such occasions — the more so when we remember the ex- treme simplicity of Eastern manners and wants, and the abundance of provisions which the many sacrifices of the season would supply. Glorious as a view of Jerusalem must have seemed to a child coming to it for the first time from the retirement of a Galilean village, we must bear in mind, that He Who now looked upon it was not an ordi- nary Child. But the one all-engrossing thought would be of the Temple. As the pilgrim ascended the Mount, crested by that symmetrically proportioned building, which could hold within its gigantic girdle not^ fewer than 210,000 persons, his wonder might well increase at every step. The Mount itself seemed like an island, abruptly rising from out deep valleys, surrounded by a sea of walls, palaces, streets, and houses, and crowned by a mass of snowy marble and glittering gold, rising terrace upon terrace. Altogether it measured a square of about 1,000 feet. At its north-western , angle, and connected with it, frowned the Castle of Antonia, held by the Roman garrison.' ' For a full description reference must be made to ' The Temple, its Ministry and Services, &c.* In the House of His Heavenly Father 33 In some part of this Temple, ' sitting in the midst of the Doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions,' we must look for the Child Jesus on the third and the two following days of the Feast on which He first visited the Sanctuary. Only on the two first days of the Feast of Passover was personal attendance in the Temple necessary. With the third day commenced the so-called half-holidays, when it was lawful to return to one's home — a provision of which, no doubt, many availed themselves. For tlie Passover had been eaten, the festive sacrifice (or Chagicjali) offered, and the first ripe barley reaped and brought to the Temple, and waved as the Omer of first flour before the Lord. Hence, in view of the well-known Rabbinic pro- vision, the expression in the Gospel-narrative concerning • St. Luke the "■ Parents ' of Jesus, ' when they had fulfilled ^ ^^ the days,' * cannot necessarily imply that Joseph and the Mother of Jesus had remained in Jerusalem during the whole Paschal week. We read in the Talmud that the members of the Tempi e-Sanhedrin, who on ordinary- days sat as a Court of Appeal from the close of the Morn- ing to the time of the Evening Sacrifice, were wont on Sabbaths and feast-days to come out upon ' the Terrace ' of the Temple, and there to teach. In such popular instruc- tion the utmost latitude of questioning would be given. It is in this audience, which sat on the ground, sur- rounding and mingling with the Doctors — and hence during, not after the Feast — that we must seek the Child Jesus. The presence and questioning of a Child of that age did not necessarily imply anything so extraordinary, as to convey the idea of supernaturalness to those Doctors or others in the audience. Jewish tradition gives other in- stances of precocious and strangely advanced students. Besides, scientific theological learning would not be neces- sary to take part in such popular discussions. If we may judge from later arrangements, not only in Babylon, but in Palestine, there were two kinds of public lectures, and two kinds of students. The first, or more scientific lectures, implied considerable preparation on the part of the lecturing 34 Jesus the Messiah Rabbis, and at least some Talmudic knowledge on the part of the attendants. On the other hand, there were Students of the Court, who during ordinary lectures sat separated from the regular students by a kind of hedge, outside, as it were in the Court, some of whom seem to have been ignorant even of the Bible. The lectures addressed to such a general audience would, of course, be of a very different character. But if there was nothing so unprecedented as to render His Presence and questioning marvellous, yet all who heard Him ' were amazed ' at His ' combinative insight ' and ' discerning answers.' Judging by what we know of such discussions, we infer that His questioning may have been connected with the Paschal solemnities. Or perhaps He would lead up by His questions to their deeper mean- ing, as it was to be unfolded, when Himself was offered up, ' the Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sin of the world.' Other questions also almost force themselveci on the mind — most notably this : whether on the occasion of this His first visit to the Temple, the Virgin-Mother had told her Son the history of His Infancy, and of what had happened when, for the first time. He had been brought to the Temple. It would almost seem so, if we might judge from the contrast between the Virgin-Mother's complaint about the search of His father and of her, and His own emphatic appeal to the business of His Father. But most sur- prising— truly wonderful it must have seemed to Joseph, and even to the Mother of Jesus, that the meek, quiet Child should have been found in such company, and so engaged. The reply of Jesus to the expostulation of them who had sought Him ' sorrowing ' these three days, sets clearly these three things before us. He had been so entirely absorbed by the awakening thought of His Being and Mission, however kindled, as to be not only neglectful, but forgetful of all around. Secondly : we may venture to say, that He now realised that this was emphatically His Father's House. And, thirdly : so far as we can judge, it was theji and tliere that, for the first time, He felt the In the Home of His Earthly Father 35 stron<^ and irresistible impulse — that Divine necessity ot His Being — to be ' about His Father's business.' A further, though to us it seems a downward step, was the quiet, immediate, unquestioning return of Jesus to Nazareth with His Parents, and His willing submission to them while there. It was not self-exinanition but self- submission, all the more glorious in proportion to the greatness of that Self. This constant contrast before her eyes only deepened in the heart of Mary the ever-present impression of 'all those matters, of which she was the most cognisant. With His return to Nazareth began Jesus' life of youth and early manhood, with all of inward and outward development, of heavenly and earthly approbation which it • St. Luke ii. Carried.* Whether or not He went to Jerusalem ^^ on recurring Feasts, we know not, and need not inquire. Other influences were at their silent work to weld His inward and outward development, and to determine the manner of His later Manifesting of Himself We assume that the school-education of Jesus must have ceased soon after His return to Nazareth. Jewish home-life, especially in the country, was of the simplest. Only the Sabbath and festivals, whether domestic or public, brought what of the best lay within reach. The same simplicity would prevail in dress and manners. We cannot here discuss the vexed question whether ' the brothers and sisters ' of Jesus were such in the real sense, or step-brothers and sisters, or else cousins, though it seems to us as if the primary meaning of the terms would scarcely have been called in question, but for ^ o ^ theory of false asceticism, and an undervaluing Matt, i." 21'; of the sanctity of the married estate. ** But, 7*' st!'M;ltt. "whatever the precise relationship between Jesus 55*' 5^6^-' St "" ^^^ these ' brothers and sisters,' it must, on any Mark iii. 31 ; theorv, have been of the closest, and exercised VI. 3 ; Actsi. .. . n TT- 14 ; 1 Cor. ix. its iniluence upon Him. 6 ; Gal. 1. 19 Passing over Joses or Joseph, of whose his- tory we know next to nothing, we would venture to infer from the Epistle of St. James, that his religious views had d2 36 Jesvs the Messiah originally been cast in the mould of Shammai. Of His cousin Simon ^ we know that he had belonged to the Nationalist party, since he is expressly so designated . St. Luke (Zelotes,^ GananceavF). Lastly, there are in the yi 15 ; Acts Epistle of St. Jude, one undoubted and another «>*st. Mark probable reference to two of those (Pseudepi- ^' graphic) Apocalyptic books, which at that time marked one deeply interesting phase of the Messianic out- look of Israel. ** We have thus within the nar- w. \i^\h to row circle of Christ's Family-Life — not to speak afocb^aiKi of any intercourse with the sons of Zebedee, who to the°^^^'^ probably were also His cousins — the three most Assum. of hopeful and pure Jewish tendencies, brought into Moses - . ^ constant contact with Jesus ; in Pharisaism, the teaching of Shammai; then, the Nationalist ideal; and, finally, the hope of a glorious Messianic future. To these there should probably be added at least knowledge of the lonely preparation of His kinsman John, who, though certainly not an Essene, had, from the necessity of his calling, much in his outward bearing that was akin to them. From what are, necessarily, only suggestions, we turn again to what is certain in connection with His Family- Life and its influences. From St. Mark vi. 3, we may infer with great probability, though not with absolute cer- 1 comp. St. tainty,*^ that He had adopted the trade of Joseph. Mt^st^John Among the Jews the contempt for manual labour, ""• ^ which was one of the characteristics of heathenism, did not exist. On the contrary, it was deemed a religious duty, frequently and most earnestly insisted upon, to learn some trade, provided it did not minister to luxury, nor tend to lead away from personal observance of the Law. There was not such separation between rich and poor as with us, and while wealth might confer social distinction, the absence of it in no way implied social inferiority. The reverence towards parents, as a duty higher than any of outward observance, and the love of brethren, which ' I regard this Simon (Zelotes) as the son of Clopas (brother of Joseph, the Virgin's husband) and of Mary. A Voice in the Wilderness 37 Jesus had learned in His home, form, so to speak, the natural basis of many of His teachings. They give us also an insight into the family-life of Nazareth. Even the games of children, as well as festive gatherings of families, find their record in the words and the life of Christ. This also is characteristic of His past. And so are His deep sympathy with all sorrow and suffering, and His love for the family circle, as evidenced in the home of Lazarus. That He spoke Hebrew, and used and quoted the Scrip- tures in the original, has been shown,' although, no doubt, He understood Greek, possibly also Latin. Thus, Christ in His home-life and surroundings, as well as by the prevailing ideas with which He was brought into contact, was in sympathy with all the highest tenden- cies of His people and time. Beyond this, into the mys- tery of His inner converse with God, the unfolding of His spiritual receptiveness, and the increasing communication from above, we dare not enter. It is best to remain con- tent with the simple account of the Evangelic narrative: * Jesus increased in favour with God and man«' CHAPTER VIII. A VOICE m THE WILDERNESS. (St. Matt. iii. 1-12 ; St. Mark i. 2-8 ; '6t. Luke iii. 1-18.) A SILENCE, even more complete than that concerning the early life of Jesus, rests on the thirty years and more, which intervened between the birth and the open forth- showing of John in his character as Forerunner of the Messiah. Only his outward and inward development, and • St. Luke I. ^^^ being ' in the deserts,' are briefly indicated.* 80 At last that solemn silence was broken by an appearance, a proclamation, a rite, and a ministry as Blartling as that of Elijah had been. In many respects, indeed, the two messengers and their times bore singular 1 bee ' Life aud Times of Jesus the Messiah,' vol. L p. 234. 38 Jesus the Messiah likeness. John came suddenly out of the wilderness of Judsea, as Elijah from the wilds of Gilead ; John bore the same strange ascetic appearance as his predecessor ; tlie message of John was the counterpart of that of Elijah ; his baptism that of Elijah's novel rite on Mount Oarmel. And, as if to make complete the parallelism, even the more minute details surrounding the life of Elijah found their counterpart in that of John. Palestine, the ancient kingdom of Herod, was now divided into four parts : Judgea being under the direct administration of Rome, two other tetrarchies under the rule of Herod's sons (Herod Antipas and Philip), while the small principality of Abilene was governed by L} sa- nias, of whom no details can be furnished. Herod Antipas, whose rule extended over forty-three years, reigned over Galilee and Per«a — the districts which were respectively the principal sphere of the Ministry of Jesus and of John the Baptist. Like his brother Arche- laus, Herod Antipas possessed in an even aggravated form most of the vices, without any of the greater qualities, of his father. Of deeper religious feelings or convictions he was entirely destitute, though his conscience occasionally misgave, if it did not restrain, him. The inherent weak- ness of his character left him in the absolute control of his wife, to the final ruin of his fortunes. He was covetous, avaricious, luxurious, and utterly dissipated ; suspicious, and with a good deal of that fox-cunning which, especially in the East, often forms the sura total of state-craft. Like his father, he indulged a taste for building — always taking care to propitiate Rome by dedicating all to the Emperor. A happier account can be given of Philip, the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem. He was a moderate and just ruler, and his reign of thirty-seven years contrasted favourably with that of his kinsmen. The land was quiet and prosperous, and the people contented and happy. As regards the Roman rule, matters had greatly changed for the worse since the mild sway of Augustus, A Voice in the Wilderness 39 When Tiberius succeeded to the Empire, and Judiea was a province, merciless harshness characterised the administration of Palestine; while the Emperor himself was bitterly hostile to Judaism and the Jews, and that although, personally, openly careless of all religion. St. Luke significantly joins together, as the highest religious authority in the land, the names of Annas and Caiaphas. The former had been appointed by Quirinius. After holding the Pontilicate for nine years, he was de- posed, and succeeded by others, of whom the fourth was his son-in-law Caiaphas, in whom the Procurator at last found a sufficiently submissive instrument of Roman tyranny. The character of the High-Priests during the whole of that period is described in the Talmud in terrible language. And although there is no evidence that ' the house of Annas ' was guilty of the same sins as some of their successors, they are included in the woes pronounced on the corrupt leaders of the priesthood, whom the Sanc- tuary is represented as bidding depart from the sacred precincts, which their presence defiled. Such a combination of political and religious distress, surely, constituted the time of Israels utmost need. As yet no attempt had been made by the people to right themselves by armed force. In these circumstances, the cry that the Kingdom of Heaven was near at hand, and the call to preparation for it, must have awakened echoes throughout the land, and startled the most careless and unbelieving. It was, according to St. Luke's exact state- ment, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius C»sar — reckoning, as provincials would do, from his co-regency with Augustus (which commenced two years before his sole reign) — in the year 26 a.d. According to our former computation, Jesus would then be in His thirtieth year. The scene of John's first public appearance was in ' the wilderness of Judaea,' that is, the wild, desolate district around the mouth of the Jordan. We know not whether • St. Luke John baptized in this place, nor yet how long he "»• 3 continued there ; but we are expressly told that his stay was not confined to that locality.* Soon afterwards 40 Jesus the Messiah we find him at Bethany * (A.V. Bethabara), which is farther « St. John i. ^^P the stream. The outward appearance and 28 the habits of the Messenger corresponded to the character and object of his Mibsion. Neither his dress nor his food was that of the Essenes ; and the former, at least, like that of Eliiah,'' whose mission he was now t.Kingsi.8^^ 'fulfil.' This was evidenced alike by what he preached, and by the new symbolic rite, from which he derived the name of ' Baptist.' The grand burden of his message was : the announcement of the approach of ' the Kingdom of Heaven,' and the needed preparation of his hearers for that Kingdom. The latter he sought, positively, by ad- monition, and, negatively, by warnings, while he directed all to the Coming One, in Whom that Kingdom would become, so to speak, individualised. Concerning this ' Kingdom of Heaven,' which was the great message of John, and the great work of Christ Him- self, we may here say, that it is the whole Old Testament sublimated, and the whole New Testament realised. This rule of heaven and Kingship of Jehovah was the very sub- stance of the Old Testament ; the object of the calling and mission of Israel ; the meaning of all its ordinances, whether civil or religious ; the underlying idea of all its institutions. It explained alike the history of the people, the dealings of God with them, and the prospects opened up by the prophets. It constituted alike the real contrast between Israel and the nations of antiquity, and Israel's real title to distinction. A review of many passages on the subject shows that, in the Jewish mind, the expression ' Kingdom of Heaven ' referred, not so much to any particular period, as in general to the Rule of God — as acknowledged, manifested, and eventually perfected. Very often it is the equivalent for personal acknowledgment of God : the taking upon oneself of the ' yoke ' of 'the Kingdom,' or of the com- mandments— the former preceding and conditioning the latter. As we pass from the Jewish ideas of the time to the A Voice in the Wilderness 41 teaching of the New Testament, we feel that vvliile there is complete change of spirit, the form in which the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven is presented is substantially similar. John came to call Israel to submit to the Reign of God, about to be manifested in Christ. Hence, on the one hand, he called them to repentance — a ' change of mind ' — with all that this implied ; and, on the other, pointed them to the Christ, in the exaltation of His Person and Office. Thus the symbolic action by which this preaching was accompanied might be designated ' the baptism of repent- ance.' For what John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before oft'ering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became ' proselytes of righteousness,' or ' pro- selytes of the Covenant,' were to be admitted to full par- ticipation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice — the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been pro- posed that Israel should undergo a ' baptism of repentanc;e,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. Was it intended that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their re- pentance, that like persons defiled they sought purifica- tion, and like strangers they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God ? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a ' baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose that the people would have been prepared for such admissions ; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. «Coinp.Gcu. May it not rather have been that as, when the first XXXV. 2 Covenant was made, Moses was directed to pre- pare Israel by symbolic baptism of theii' persons ^ and their 42 ' Jesus the Messiah garments,* so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which a Ex. six. 10, the people were to enter into the Kingdom of ^^ God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God ? CHAPTER IX. THE BAPTISM OF JESUS. (St. Matt. iii. 13-17; St. Mark i. 7-11; St. Luke iii. 21-23; St. John i. 32-34.) The more we think of it, the better do we seem to under- stand how that ' Voice crying in the wilderness : Repent ! for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,' awakened echoes throughout the land, and brought from city, village, and hamlet strangest hearers. For once, every distinction was levelled. Pharisee and Sadducee, outcast publican and semi-heathen soldier, met here as on common ground. Their bond of union was the common ' hope of Israel ' — the only hope that remained : that of ' the Kingdom.' That Kingdom had been the last word of the Old Testament. As the thoughtful Israelite, whether Eastern or Western, viewed even the central part of his worship in sacrifices, and remembered that his own Scriptures bad spoken of them in terms which pointed to something be- yond their offering,' he must have felt that ' the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean,' could only ' sanctify to the purifying of the flesh ; ' that, indeed, the whole body of ceremonial and ritual ordinances ' could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience.' They were only ' the shadow of good things to come ; ' of ' a new ' and ' better •> Feb ix covenant, established upon better promises.' '' It 13,9; X. i; was Otherwise with the thought of the Kingduiu. ' Each successive link in the chain of prophecy, ' Comp. 1 Sam. xv. 22 ; Ps. xl. 6-8; li. 7, 17; Is. i. 11-13 ; Jer. vii. 25}, 23 ; Amos v. 21, 22 ; Ecclus. vii. 9 ; xxxiv. 18, 19 ; xxxv. 1, 7. The Baptism of Jesus 43 even the wild fantasies of Apocalyptic liteiature, bound Israel anew to this hope. This great expectancy would be strung to utmost ten- sion during the pressure of outward circumstances more hopeless than any hitherto experienced. And now the cry had been suddenly raised : ' The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand ! ' It was heard in the wilderness of Judsea, within a few hours' distance from Jerusalem. No wonder Pharisee and Sadducee flocked to the spot. They would not see anything in the messenger that could have given their expectations a rude shock. His was not a call to armed resistance, but to repentance, such as all knew and felt must precede the Kingdom. The hope which he held out was not of earthly possessions, but of purity. His appearance would command respect, and his character was in accordance with his appearance. Not rich nor yet Pharisaic garb with wide fringes, bound with many-coloured or even priestly girdle, but the old prophet's poor raiment and a leathern girdle. Not a luxurious life, but one of meanest fare. ' Not a reed shaken by the wind,' but unbendingly firm in deep and settled conviction. For himself he sought nothing; for them he had only one absorbing thought : The Kingdom was at hand, the King was coming — let them prepare ! Such entire absorption in his mission, which leaves us in ignorance of even the details of his later activity, must have given force to his message. And still the voice, everywhere proclaiming the same message, travelled up- ward, along the winding Jordan which cleft the land of promise. It was probably the autumn of the year 779 (a.u.c), which, it may be noted, was a Sabbatic year. Released from business and agriculture, the mul- titudes flocked around him as he passed on his Mission. He had reachtl what seems to have been the most northern point of his Mission-journey, Beth-Abara ('the house of passage,' or 'of shipping') — according to the ancient reading, Bethany ('the house of shipping') — one . St. John i. of the fords across the Jordan into Pera3a. Here ^^ he baptized." But long before John had reached 44 Jesus the Messiah that spot, tidings of his word and work must have come even into the retirement of Jesus' home-life. From earliest ages it has been a question why Jesus went to be baptized. We need not seek for any ulterior motive. The one question with Him was, as He afterwards put it : •• Tlie Baptism of John, whence was it ? from heaven, or of men ? ' (St. Matt. xxi. 25). That question once answered, there could be no longer doubt nor hesita- tion. He went not from any other motive than that it was of God. The Baptism of Christ was the last act of His private life ; and, emerging from its waters in prayer, He learned, when His business was to commence, and how it would be done. Alone the two met — probably for the first time in their lives. Over that which passed between them Holy Scrip- ture has laid the veil of reverent silence, save as regards the beginning and the outcome of their meeting, which it was necessary for us to know. When Jesus came, John knew Him not. And even when he knew Him, that was not enough. For so great a witness as that which John was to bear, a present and visible demonstration from heaven was to be given. We can understand how what he knew of Jesus, and what he now saw and heard, must have overwhelmed John with the sense of Christ's transcendentally higher dignity, and led him to hesitate about, if not to refuse, administer- ing to Him the rite of Baptism. Not because it was ' the baptism of repentance,' but because he stood in the presence of Him ' the latchet of Whose shoes ' he was ' not worthy to loose.' And yet in so ' forbidding ' Him, and even suggesting his own baptism by Jesus, John forgot and misunderstood his mission. John himself was never to be baptized ; he only held open the door of the new Kingdom ; himself entered it not, and he that was least in that Kingdom was greater than he. Jesus overcame his reluctance by falling back upon the simple and clear principle which had brought Him to Jordan: 'It becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.' Thus putting aside, with- gut argument, the objection of the Baptist, He followed The Baptism of Jesus 4$ the Hand that pointed Him to the open door of ' the Kingdom.' Jesus stepped out of the baptismal waters ' praying.'* • St. Luke One prayer, the only one which He taught His ^'* ^^ disciples, recurs to our minds. As the prayer of Jesus winged heavenwards, His solemn response to the call of the Kingdom — ' Here am I ; * * Lo, I come to do Thy Will ' — the answer came, which at the same time was also the predicted sign to the Baptist. Heaven seemed cleft, and, in bodily shape like a dove, the Holy Ghost descended on Jesus, remaining on Him. Here, at these waters, was the Kingdom into which Jesus had entered in the fulfilment of all righteousness ► and from them He emerged as its Heaven-designated, Heaven- qualified, and Heaven-proclaimed King. As such He had received the fulness of the Spirit for His Messianic work. As such also the voice from Heaven proclaimed it, to Him and to John : ' Thou art (' this is ') My Beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.' The ratification of the great Davidic promise, the announcement of the fulfilment of its predictive import in Psalm ii., was God's solemn declara- tion of Jesus as the Messiah, His public proclamation of it, and the beginning of Jesus' Messianic work. And so the •> St. John L Baptist understood it, when he ' bare record ' that ^ He was ' the Son of God.' *» CHAPTER X. THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS. (St. Matt. iv. 1-11 ; St. Mark i. 12, 13; St. Luke iv. 1-13.) The proclamation and inauguration of the ' Kingdom of Heaven ' at such a time, and under such circumstances, was one of the great antitheses of history. A similar, even greater antithesis, was the commencement of the Ministry of Christ. From the Jordan to the wilderness with its wild beasts ; from the devout acknowledijment of the 46 Jesus the Messiah Baptist, the consecration and filial prayer of Jesus, the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the heard testimony of Heaven, to the utter forsakenness, the felt want and weak- ness of Jesus, and the assaults of the Devil — no contrast more startling could be conceived. And yet that at His consecration to the Kingship of the Kingdom, Jesus should have become clearly conscious of all that it implied in a world of sin ; that the Divine method by which that Kingdom should be established, should have been clearly brought out, and its reality tested.; and that the King, as Representative and Founder of the Kingdom, should have encountered and defeated the representative, founder, and holder of the opposite power, ' the prince of this world ' — these are thoughts which must arise in every one who believes in any Mission of the Christ. We can understand how a Life and Work such us that of Jesus would commence with ' the Temptation,' but none other than His. Judaism never conceived such an idea ; because it never conceived a Messiah like Jesus. The patriarchs indeed had been tried and proved ; so had Moses, and all the heroes of faith in Israel. And Rabbinic legend, enlarging upon the Biblical narratives, has much to tell of the original envy of the Angels ; of the assaults of Satan upon Abraham, when about to offer up Isaac ; of attempted resistance by the Angels to Israel's reception of the Law ; and of the final vain endeavour of Satan to take away the soul of Moses. Foolish, and even blasphemous, as some of these legends are, thus much at least clearly stands out, that spiritual trials must precede spiritual elevation. In their own language : ' The Holy One, blessed be His Name, does not elevate a man to dignity till He has first tried and searched him ; and if he stands in temptation, then He raises him to dignity.' But so far from any idea obtaining that Satan was to assault the Messiah, in a well-known passage the Arch- enemy is represented as overwhelmed and falling on his face at sight of Him, and owning his complete defeat. Thus, though such ideas were, indeed, present to the Jewish mind, they were so in a sense opposite to the The Temptation of Jesus 47 Gospel narratives. But if the narrative cannot be traced to Rabbinic legend, the question may be raised if it be not an adaptation of an Old Testament narrative, such as the account of the forty days' fast of Moses on the mount, or of Elijah in the wilderness ? Viewing the Old Testament in its unity, and the Messiah as the apex in the column of its history, we admit — or rather, we must expect — throughout points of correspondence between Moses, Elijah, and the Messiah. In fact, these may be described as marking the three stages in the history of the Covenant. Moses was Its giver, Elijah its restorer, the Messiah its renewer and perfecter. And as such they all had, in a sense, a similar outw^ard consecration for their work. But that neither Moses nor Elijah was assailed by the Devil, constitutes not the only, though a vital, difference between the fast of Moses and Elijah, and that of Jesus. Moses fasted in the middle, Elijah at the end, Jesus at the beginning of His ministry. Moses fasted in the Presence of God ; Elijah alone ; Jesus assaulted by the Devil. Moses had been called up by God ; Elijah had gone forth in the bitterness of his own spirit ; Jesus was driven by the Spirit. Moses failed after his forty days' fast, when in indignation he cast the Tables of the Law from him ; Elijah failed before his forty days' fast ; Jesus was assailed for forty days and endured the trial. Moses was angry against Israel ; Elijah despaired of Israel ; Jesus overcame for Israel. Before proceeding further, a most difficult and solemn question arises : In what respect could Jesus Christ, the Perfect Sinless Man, the Son of God, have been tempted of the Devil ? That He was so tempted is of the very essence of this narrative, confirmed throughout His after- life, and laid dow^n as a fundamental principle in the • Heb.iv. teaching and faith of the Church. '^ On the other ^5 hand, temptation without the inward correspond- ence of existent sin is not only unthinkable, so far as man "St. James is Concerned,^ but temptation without the possi- *• ^* bility of sin seems unreal — a kind of Docetism.' • The heresy which represents the liody of Christ as only apparent, not real. 4^ Jesus the Messiah Yet the very passage of Holy Scripture in which Christ's equality with us as regards all temptation is expressed, also emphatically excepts from it this one particular, smi,* » Heb.iv. not Only in the sense that Christ actually did not b^st. James ^^^5 ^^^ merely in this, that ' our concupiscence ' ^ *• 14 had no part in His temptations, but emphatically in this also, that the notion of sin has to be wholly ex- cluded from our thoughts of Christ's temptations. To obtain, if we can, a clearer understanding of this subject, two points must be kept in view. Christ's was real, though unfallen Human Nature; and Christ's Human was in inseparable union with His Divine Nature. Jesus voluntarily took upon Himself human nature with all its infirmities and weaknesses — but without the moral taint of the Fall : without sin. It was human nature, in itself capable of sinning, but not having sinned. The position of the first Adam was that of being capable of not sinning, not that of being incapable of sinning. The first Adam would have been ' perfected' — or passed from the capability of not sinning to the incapability of sinning — by obedience. That 'obedience' — or absolute submission to the Will of God — was the grand outstanding characteristic of Christ's work ; but it was so, because He was not only the Un- sinning, Unfallen Man, but also the Son of God. To sum up : The Second Adam, morally unfallen, though volun- tarily subject to all the conditions of our Nartiure, was, with a peccable Human Nature, absolutely impeccable as being also the Son of God — a peccable Nature, yet an impeccable Person : the God-Man, ' tempted in regard to all (things) in like manner (as we), without (excepting) sin.' A few sentences are here required in explanation of seeming differences in the Evangelical narration of the event. The historical part of St. John's Gospel begins after the Temptation — tbat is, with the actual jMinistry of Christ. If St. Mark only summarises in his own brief manner, he supplies the twofold notice that Jesus was ' driven ' into the wilderness, ' and was with the wild beasts,' which is in fullest internal agreement with the The Temptation of Jesus 49 detailed narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke. The only noteworthy difference between these two is that St. Matthew places the Temple-temptation before that of the world-kingdom, while St. Luke inverts this order, probably because his narrative was primarily intended for Gentilo readers, to whose mind this might preseat itself as to them the true gradation of temptation. To St. Matthew we owe the notice, that after the Temptation 'Angels came and ministered' unto Jesus ; to St. Luke, that the Tempter only * departed from Him for a season.' During the whole forty days of Christ's stay in the wil- derness His temptation continued, though it only attained its high-point at the last, when, after the long fast, He felt the weariness and weakness of hunger. As fasting occupies but a very subordinate place in the teaching of Jesus, and as, so far as we know, He exercised on no other occasion such ascetic practices, we are left to infer internal, as well as external, necessity for it in the present instance. The former is easily understood in His pre-occupation ; the latter must have had for its object to reduce Him to utmost outward weakness, by the depression of all the vital powers. We regard it as a psychological fact that, under such circumstances, of all mental faculties the memory alone is active, indeed almost preternaturally active. During the preceding thirty-nine clays the plan, or rather the future, of the Work to which He had been consecrated, must have been always before Him. It is impossible that He hesitated for a moment as to the means by which He was to establish the Kingdom of God. The unchangeable convictions which He had already attained must have stood out before Him : that His Father's business was the Kingdom of God ; that He was furnished to it, not by outward weapons, but by the abiding Presence of the Spirit ; above all, that absolute submission to the Will of God was the way to it, nay, itself the Kingdom of God. It will be observed that it was on these very points that the final attack of the Enemy was directed in the utmost weakness of Jesus. But, on the other hand, the Tempter could not have failed to assault Him with considerations 50 Jesus the Messiah which He must have felt to be true. How could He hope, alone, and with such principles, to stand against Israel ? He knew their views and feelings ; and as, day by day, the sense of utter loneliness and forsakenness increasingly gathered around Him, in His increasing faintness and weakness, the seeming hopelessness of such a task as He had undertaken must have grown upon Him with almost overwhelming power. Alternately, the temptation to de- spair, presumption, or the cutting short of the contest in some decisive manner, must have presented itself to His mind, or rather have been presented to it, by the Tempter. And this was, indeed, the essence of His last three great temptations; which, as the whole contest, resolved themselves into the one question of absolute submission to the Will of God. If He submitted to it, it must be suffer- ing— suffering to the bitter end ; to the extinction of life, in the agonies of the Cross ; denounced, betrayed, rejected by His people. And when thus beaten about by tempta- tion, His powers reduced to the lowest ebb of faintness, all the more vividly would memory hold out the facts so well known.: the scene lately enacted by the banks of Jordan, and the two great expectations of His own people, that the Messiah was to head Israel from the Sanctuary of the Temple, and that all kingdoms of the world were to become subject to Him. He is weary with the contest, faint with hunger, alone in that wilderness. He must. He will absolutely submit to the Will of God. But can this be the Will of God ? One word of power, and the scene would be changed. By His Will the Son of God, as the Tempter suggests — not, however, calling thereby in question His Sonship, but rather proceeding on its admitted reality— can change the stones into bread. He can do miracles — put an end to present want and question, and, as visibly the possessor of absolute miraculous power, the goal is reached ! But this would really have been to change the idea of Old Testament miracle into the heathen conception of magic, which was absolute power inherent in an individual, without moral The Temptation of Jesus 51 purpose. The moral purpose — the grand moral purpose in all that was of God — was absolute submission to the Will of God. His Spirit had driven Him into that wil- derness. His circumstances were God-appointed, and where He so appoints them, He will support us in them, even as in the failure of bread, He supported Israel by the manna.* Jesus does more than not succumb : cu .viu. jje cQj^q^^grg The Scriptural reference to a better life upon the Word of God marks more than the end of the contest ; it marks the conquest of Satan. He emerges on the other side triumphant, with this expression of His assured conviction of the sufficiency of God. It cannot be despair — and He cannot take up His Kingdom alone, in the exercise of mere power. If it be not despair of God, let it be presumption ! The Spirit of God had driven Jesus into the wilderness ; the spirit of the Devil now carried Him to Jerusalem. Jesus stands on the lofty pinnacle of the Tower, or of the Temple- porch, presumably that on which every day a Priest was stationed to watch, as the pale morning light passed over the hills of Judaea far off to Hebron, to announce it as the signal for offering the morning sacrifice. In the next temptation Jesus stands on the watch-post which the white-robed Priest has just quitted. Fast the morning light is spreading over the land. In the Priests' Court below Him the morning-sacrifice has been offered. The massive Temple-gates are slowly opening, and the blast of the Priests' silver trumpets is summoning Israel to begin a new day by appearing before their Lord. Now then let Him descend, Heaven-borne, into the midst of Priests and people. What shouts of acclamation would greet His appearance ! What homage of worship would be His ! The goal can at once be reached, and that at the head of believing Israel. Jesus is surveying the scene. By His side is the Tempter. The goal might indeed thus be reached; but not the Divine goal, nor in God's way — and, as so often. Scripture itself explained and guarded the Divine promise by a preceding Divine command. And thus once more E 2 52 Jesus the Messiah Jesus not only is not overcome, but He overcomes by absolute submission to the Will of God. To submit to the Will of God ! But is not this to acknowledge His authority, and the order and disposition which He has made of all things ? Once more the scene changes. They have turned their backs upon Jerusalem and the Temple. Behind are also all popular prejudices, narrow nationalism, and limitations. They no longer breathe the stifled air, thick with the perfume of incense. They have taken their flight into God's wide world. There they stand on the top of some very high mountain. Before Him from out the cloud-land at the edge of the horizon the world, in all its glory, beauty, strength, majesty, lies unveiled. Its work, its might, its greatness, its art, its thought, emerge into clear view. It is a world quite other than that which the retiring Son of the retired Nazareth- home had ever seen, that opens its enlarging wonders. But passingly sublime as it must have appeared to the Perfect Man, the God-Man — and to Him far more than to us from His infinitely deeper appreciation of, and wider sympathy with the good, the true, and the beautiful — He had already overcome. It was, indeed, not ' worship,' but homage which the Evil One claimed from Jesus, and that on the apparently rational ground that, in its present state, all this world ' was delivered ' unto him, and he exercised the power of giving it to whom he would. But in this very fact lay the answer to the suggestion. High above this moving scene of glory and beauty arched the deep blue of God's heaven, and brighter than the sun, which poured its light over the sheen and dazzle beneath, stood out the fact : ' I must be about My Father's business ; ' above the din of far-off* sounds rose the voice : ' Thy King- dom come ! ' Was not all this the Devil's to have and to give, because it was not the Father's Kingdom, to which tfesus had consecrated Himself? To destroy all this : to destroy the works of the Devil, to abolish his kingdom, to set man free from his dominion, was the very object of Christ's Mission. On the ruins of the past shall the new arise. It is to become the Kingdom of God ; and Christ's The Temptation of Jesus 53 consecration to it is to be the corner-stone of its new Temple. Those scenes are to be transformed into one of higher worship ; those sounds to merge into a melody of praise. An endless train, unnumbered multitudes from afar, are to bring their gifts, to pour their wealth, to con- secrate their wisdom, to dedicate their beauty — to lay it all in lowly worship as humble offering at His feet. And so Satan's greatest becomes to Christ his coarsest temptation, which He casts from Him ; and the words : ' Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve,' which now receive their highest fulfilment, mark not only Satan's defeat and Christ's triumph, but the principle of His Kingdom — of all victory and all triumph. Foiled, defeated, the Enemy has spread his dark pinions towards that far-off world of his, and covered it with their shadow. The sun no longer glows with melting heat ; the mists have gathered on the edge of the horizon, and en- w.apped the scene which has faded from view. And in the cool and shade that followed have the Angels come and ministered to His wants, both bodily and mental. He would not yield to Jewish dream ; He did not pass from despair to presumption ; and lo, after the contest, with no reward as its object, all is His. He would not have Satan's vassals as His legions, and all Heaven's hosts are at His command. They had been overcome, these three temptations against submission to the Will of God, present, personal, and specifically Messianic. Yet all His life long there were echoes of them : of the first, in the suggestion of His • St. John brethren to show Himself*; of the second, in the vii. 3-5 popular attempt to make Him a king, and per- haps also in what constituted the final idea of Judas Iscariot; of the third, as being most plainly Satanic, in the question of Pilate : ' Ai-t Thou then a king ? ' 54 Jesus the Messiah CHAPTER XI. THE DEPUTATION FROM JERUSALEM — THE THREE SECTS OF THE PHARISEES, SADDUCEES, AND ESSENES. (St. John i. 19-24.) Apart from the carnal form which it Tiad taken, there is something sublime in the continuance and intensity of the Jewish expectation of the Messiah. It outlived not only the delay of long centuries, but the persecutions and scattering of the people ; it continued under the disappointment of the Maccabees, the rule of a Herod, the administration of a corrupt and contemptible Priest- hood, and, finally, the government of Rome as represented by a Pilate ; nay, it grew in intensity almost in pro- portion as it seemed unlikely of realisation. These are facts which show that the doctrine of the Kingdom, as the sum and substance of Old Testament teaching, was the very heart of Jewish religious life; while, at the same time, they evidence a moral elevation which placed abstract religious conviction far beyond the reach of passing events, and clung to it with a tenacity which nothing could loosen. Tidings of what these many months had occurred by the banks of the Jordan must have early reached Jeru- salem, and ultimately stirred to the depths its religious society, whatever its preoccupation with ritual questions or political matters. For it was not an ordinary move- ment, nor in connection with any of the existing parties, religious or political. An extraordinary preacher, of extraordinary appearance and habits, not aiming, like others, after renewed zeal in legal observances, or increased Levitical purity, but preaching repentance and moral renovation in preparation for the coming Kingdom, and sealing this novel doctrine with an equally novel rite, had drawn from town and country multitudes of all classes — inquirers, penitents, and novices. The great and burning The Deputation from Jerusalem 55 question seemed, what the real character aud meaning of it was ? or rather, whence did it issue, and whither did it tend? The religious leaders of the people proposed to answer this by instituting an inquiry through a trust- worthy deputation. That the interview referred to occurred afier the Bap- tism of Jesus, appears from the whole context. Similarly, the statement that the deputation which came to John was * sent from Jerusalem ' by ' the Jews ' implies that it pro- ceeded from authority, even if it did not bear more than a semi-official character, for, although the expression ' Jews ' in the fourth Gospel generally conveys the idea of con- trast to the disciples of Christ {e.cj. St. John vii. 15), yet it refers to the people in their corporate capacity, that is, as represented by their constituted religious authori- , „ „. ties.^ On the other hand, it seems a legitimate • Comp. St. , . , . ' . o, . John V. 15, mierence that, considering their own tendencies, 16 ■ ix 18 . . . 22 • xviii.'i2, and the political dangers connected with such a ^^ step, the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem would not have come to the formal resolution of sending a regular deputa- tion on such an inquiry. Moreover, a measure like this would have been entirely outside their recognised mode of procedure. It is quite true that judgment upon false prophets and religious seducers lay with it ; but the Bap- tist had not as yet said or done anything to lay him open to such an accusation. If, nevertheless, it seems most probable that ' the Priests and Levites ' came from the Sanhedrin, we are led to the conclusion that theirs was an informal mission, rather privately arranged than publicly determined upon. And with this the character of the deputies agrees. ' Priests and Levites ' — the colleagues of John the Priest — would be selected for such an errand, rather than leading Rabbinic authorities. The presence of the latter would, indeed, have given to the movement an importance, if not a sanction, which the Sanhedrin could not have wished. Finally, it seems quite natural that such an informal iu- fjuiry, set on foot most probably by the Sanhedrists, should have been entrusted exclusively to the Pharisaic party. 56 Jesus the Messiah It would in no way have interested the Sadducees ; and • St. Matt, what members of that party had seen of John * iii. 7,&c. must have convinced them that his views and aims lay entirely beyond their horizon. The two great parties of Pharisees and Sadducees ' mark, not sects, but mental directions, such as in their principles are natural and universal, and, indeed, appear in connection with all metaphysical questions. The latter originally represented a reaction from the Pharisees — the moderate men, who sympathised with the later tendencies of the Maccabees. Without entering on the principles and supposed prac- tices of ' the fraternity ' or ' association ' of Pharisees, which was comparatively small, numbering only about 6,000 members, the following particulars may be of in- terest. The object of the association was twofold : to observe in the strictest manner, and according to tradi- tional law, all the ordinances concerning Levitical purity, and to be extremely punctilious in all connected with religious dues ( tithes and all other dues). A person might undertake only the second, without the first of these obli- gations. But he could not undertake the vow of Levitical purity without also taking the obligation of all religious dues. If he undertook both vows he was a Chabher, or Afe. ociate. Here there were four degrees, marking an ascending scale of Levitical purity, or separation from all that was profane. In opposition to these was the Am ha^ arets, or ' country people ' (the people which knew not, or cared not for the law, and were regarded as ' cursed '). The two great obligations of the ' official ' Pharisee, or ' Associate ' — that in regard to tithing ^ and that xi. 42 ; x^i. in regard to Levitical purity — are pointedly re- ixiir23^''"' ferred to by Christ.^ In both cases they are associ- ^.st-gLuke a,ted with a want of corresponding inward reality, St. Matt.' and with hypocrisy. But the sayings of some ^^"' ' of the Rabbis in regard to Pharisaism and the 1 For further particulars as to the origin and peculiar views and practices of these parties see ' Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,' Booli i. ch. viii., and Book iii. ch. ii. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes 57 professional Pharisee are more withering than any in the New Testament. Such an expression as ' the plague of Pharisaism ' is not uncommon ; and a silly pietist, a clever sinner, and a female Pharisee, are ranked among ' the troubles of life.' The Sadducees had, indeed, some reason for the taunt, that ' the Pharisees would by-and-by subject the globe of the sun itself to their purifications,' the more so that their assertions of purity were sometimes conjoined with Epicurean maxims, betokening a very different state of mind, such as, ' Make haste to eat and drink, for the world which we quit resembles a wedding feast.' But it would be unjust to identify Pharisaism, as a religious direction, with such embodiments of it, or even with the official ' fraternity.' While it may be granted that the tendency and logical sequence of their views and practices were such, their system, as opposed to Saddu- ceeism, had very serious bearings : dogmatic, ritual, and legal. ^he fundamental dogmatic differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees concerned : the rule of faith and practice ; the ' after death ; ' the existence of angels and spirits ; and free will and predestination. In regard to the first of these points, the- Sadducees did not lay down the principle of absolute rejection of all traditions as such, but they were opposed to traditionalism as represented and carried out by the Pharisees. When put down by sheer weight of authority, they would probably carry the controversy further, and retort on their opponents by an appeal to Scripture as against their traditions, perhaps ultimately even by an attack on traditionalism ; but always as represented by the Pharisees. A careful examination of the statements of Josephus on this subject will show that they convey no more than this. That there was sufficient ground for Sadducean opposition to Pharisaic traditionalism, alike in principle and in practice, will appear from the following quotation, to which we add, by way of explanation, that the wearing of phylacteries was deemed by that party of Scriptural obligation, and that the phylactery for the head was to consist (according 58 Jesus the Messiah to tradition) of four compartments. ' Against the words of the Scribes is more punishable than against the words of Scripture, He who says, No phylacteries, so as to transgress the words of Scripture, is not guilty (free) ; [he who says] five compartments — to add to the words of the Scribes — he is guilty.' The second doctrinal difference between Pharisees and Sadducees concerned the ' after death.' According to the New Testament,* the Sadducees denied the re- xxii. 23, and surrectiou of the dead, while Josephus, going sagesf Acts further, imputes to them denial of reward or '^"iii I' punishment after death, and even the doctrine that the soul perishes with the body. The latter statement may be dismissed as among those inferences which theological controversialists are too fond of im- puting to their opponents. But it is otherwise in regard to their denial of the resurrection of the dead. Not only Josephus, but the New Testament and Rabbinic writings, attest this. The Mishnah expressly states that ^the formula ' from age to age,' or rather ' from world to world,' had been introduced as a protest against the opposite theory; while the Talmud, which records disputations between Gamaliel and the Sadducees on the subject of the resurrection, expressly imputes the denial of this doctrine to the ' Scribes of the Sadducees.' In fairness it is perhaps only right to add that in the discussion the Sadducees seem only to have actually denied that there was proof for this doctrine in the Pentateuch, and that they ultimately professed themselves convinced by the reasoning of Rabbi Gamaliel. Whether or not their opposition to the doctrine of the resurrection in the first instance was prompted by rationalistic views, which they endeavoured to support by an appeal to the letter of the Pentateuch, as the source of traditionalism, it deserves notice that in His controversy with the Sadducees Christ appealed to the Pentateuch in proof of His teaching Connected with this was the equally rationalistic opposition to belief in Angels and Spirits.'' Remembering what the Jewish Angelology was, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes 59 one can scarcely wonder that in controversy the Sadducees should have been led to the opposite extreme. The last dogmatic difference between the two 'sects' concerned the problem of man's free will and God's pre- ordination, or rather their compatibility. The difference seems to have been this : that the Pharisees accentuated God's pre-ordination, the Sadducees man's free will; and that, while the Pharisees admitted only a partial influence of the human element on what happened, or the co-opera- tion of the human with the Divine, the Sadducees denied all absolute pre-ordination, and made man's choice of evil or good, with its consequences of misery or happiness, to depend entirely on the exercise of free will and self- determination. The other diflFerences between the Pharisees and Sadducees can be easily and briefly summed up. They concern ceremonial, ritual, and juridical questions. In regard to the first, the opposition of the Sadducees to the excessive scruples of the Pharisees on the subject of Levitical defilements led to frequent controversy. Even greater importance attached to differences on ritual questions, although the controversy here was purely theoretical. For the Sadducees, when in office, always conformed to the prevailing Pharisaic practices. But the Sadducean objection to pouring the water of libation upon the altar on the Feast of Tabernacles, led to riot and bloody reprisals on the only occasion on which it seems to have been carried into practice.' There were also many other minor difierences which need not here be discussed. Among the divergences on juridical questions it may be mentioned that the Sadducees only allowed marriage with the ' betrothed,' and not with the actually espoused widow of a deceased childless brother.^ Josephus, indeed, ' For details about the observances on this festival, I must refer to • The Temple, its Ministry and Services.' - The Sadducees in the Gospel argue on the Pharisaic theory, apparently for the twofold object of casting ridicule on the doctrine of the resurrection, and on the Pharisaic practice of marriage with the espoused wife of a deceased brother. 6o Jesus the Messiah charges the Sadducees with extreme severity in criminal matters; but this must refer to the fact that the ingenuity or punctiliousness of the Pharisees would afford to most offenders a loophole of escape. On the other hand, such of the diverging juridical principles of the Sadducees as are attested on trustworthy authority, seem more in accord- ance with justice than those of the Pharisees. With the exception of dogmatic differences, the con- troversy between the two parties turned on questions of ' canon-law.' Josephus tells us that the Pharisees com- manded the masses, and especially the female world, while the Sadducees attached to their ranks only a minority, and that belonging to the highest class. The leading priests in Jerusalem formed, of course, part of that highest class of society; and from the New Testament and Josephus we learn that the High-Priestly families belonged to the « lets y 17 ^^^^^^^^^ party.^ But not a few of the Pharisaic leaders were actually priests, while the Pharisaic ordinances make more than ample recog- nition of the privileges and rights of the Priesthood. Even as regards the deputation to the Baptist of ' Priests and » St. John i. Levites'from Jerusalem, we are expressly told ^* that they ' were of the Pharisees.' ^ The name Pharisees, ' Perushim,'' ' separated ones,' was not taken by the party itself, but given to it by their opponents. From 1 Mace. ii. 42 ; vii. 13; 2 Mace. xiv. 6 it appears that originally they had taken the sacred ^p^ name of Chasidim, or 'the pious.'*' This, no sxxi.23; ' doubt, on the ground that they were truly ^v^%'i^ ix. those who, according to the directions of Ezra,*^ Neh/i^^J ^^^ separated themselves ' from the filthiness of the heathen ' (all heathen defilement) by carry- ing out the traditional ordinances.^ The derivation of the name ' Sadducee ' has always been in dispute. But the inference is at hand, that, while the 'Pharisees' would arrogate to themselves the Scriptural name of Chasidim, or 'the pious,' their opponents would retort that they were satisfied to be Tsaddiqim, or ' righteous.' Thus the ■^ Comp. generally, ' Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' pp. 230, 231. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes 6i name of TsackUqim would become that of the party- opposing- the Pharisees, that is, of the Sadducees. There remains yet another party, mention of which could not bev omitted in any description of those times. But while the Pharisees and Sadducees were parties within the Synagogue, the Essenes^ were, although strict Jews, yet separatists, and, alike in doctrine, worship, and prac- tice, outside the Jewish body ecclesiastic. Their numbers amounted to only about 4,000. Tiiey are not mentioned in the New Testament, and only very indirectly referred to in Rabbinic writings. Their entire separation from all who did not belong to their sect, the terrible oaths by which they bound themselves to secrecy about their doctrines, and which would prevent any free religious dis- cussion, as well as the character of what is known of their views, would account for the scanty notices about them. On one point, at least, our brief inquiry can leave no doubt. The Essenes could never have been drawn either to the person or the preaching of John the Baptist. Similarly, the Sadducees would, after they knew its real character and goal, turn contemptuously from a movement which would awaken no sympathy in them, and could only become of interest when it threatened to endanger their class by awakening popular enthusiasm, and so rousing the suspicions of the Romans. To the l^harisees there were questions of dogmatic, ritual, and even national im- portance involved, which made the barest possibility of what John announced a question of moment. And, although we judge that the report which the earliest • St. Matt. Pharisaic hearers of John* brought to Jerusalem ^•^ — no doubt, detailed and accurate — and which led to the despatch of the deputation, would entirely pre- dispose them against the Baptist, yet it behoved them, as leaders of public opinion, to take such cognisance of it, as would not only finally determine their own relation to the movement, but enable them effectually to direct that of others also. ' For a fuller account of the Essenes see ' Life and Times,' vol. i. pp. 324-334. 62 Jesus the Messiah CHAPTER XII. THE TWOFOLD TFSTIMONY OF JOHN — THE FIRST SABBATH OF JESUS' MINISTRY — THE FIRST SUNDAY — THE FIRST DISCIPLES. (St. John i. 15-51.) The forty days, which had passed since Jesus had come to him, must have been to the Baptist a time of unfolding understanding, and of ripened decision. On first meeting Jesus by the banks of Jordan, he had felt the seeming incongruity of baptizing One of Whom he had rather need to be baptized. Yet what he needed was not to be baptized, but to learn that it became the Christ to fulfil all righteousness. This was the first lesson. The next and completing one came when after the Baptism the heavens opened, the Spirit descended, and the Divine Voice of Testimony pointed to, and explained the promised . St joim i, sign.^ It told him that the work wkich he had 2^ begun in the obedience of faith had reached fulfilment. He had entered upon it not only without illusions, but with such entire self-forgetfulness as only deepest con- viction of the reality of what he announced could have wrought. As we gather the elements of that conviction, we find them chiefly in the Book of Isaiah. His speech and its imagery, and especially the burden of his message, were taken from those prophecies. In his announcement of the .Kingdom, in his call to inward repentance, even in his symbolic Baptism, one Great Personality always stood out before the mind of John. All else was absorbed in that great fact : he was only the voice of one that cried, ' Prepare ye the way ! ' And now, on the last of those forty days, simultaneously, as it would seem, with the final great Temptation of Jesus, which must have summed up all that had preceded it in the previous days, came the hour of John's temptation by The Twofold Testimony of John 63 the deputation from Jerusalem. Very gently it came to him, not like the storm-blast which swept over the Master. Yet a very real temptation it was, this provoking to the assumption of successively lower grades of self-assertion, where only entire self-abnegation was the rightful feeling. And greatest temptation it was when, after the first victory, came the not unnatural challenge of his authority for what he said and did. This was the question which must at all times, from the beginning of his work to the hour of his death, have pressed most closely upon him, since it touched not only his conscience, but the very ground of his mission, nay, of his life. For what was the meaning of that question which the disciples of John brought to Jesus : ' Art Thou He that should come, or do we look for another ? ' other than doubt of his own warrant and authority for what he had said and done ? But in that first time of his trial at Bethabara he overcame — the first temptation by the humility of his intense sincerity, the second by the simplicity of his own experimental con- viction ; the first by what he had seen, the second by what he had heard concerning the Christ at the banks of Jordan. Yet, as we view it, the questions of the Pharisaic deputation seem but natural. After his previous emphatic disclaimer at the beginning of his preaching (St. Luke iii. 15), of which they in Jerusalem could scarcely have been ignorant, the suggestion of his Messiahship — not indeed expressly made, but sufficiently implied to elicit what the language of the fourth Gospel shows to have been the most energetic denial — could scarcely have been more than tentative. It was otherwise with their question whether he were ' Elijah.' Yet, bearing in mind what we know of the Jewish expectations of Elijah, this also could scarcely have been meant in its full literality — but rather as ground for the further question after the goal and warrant of his mission. Hence also John's disavowing of such claims is not satisfactorily accounted for by the common explana- tion, that he denied being Elijah in the sense of not being what the Jews expected of the Forerunner of the Messiah : 64 Jesus the Messiah the real, identical Elijah of the days of Ahab; or else, that he denied being such in the sense of the peculiar Jewish hopes attaching to his reappearance in ' the last days.' There is much deeper truth in the disclaimer of the Baptist. It was, indeed, true that, as foretold in the • St. Luke i. Angelic announcement,* he was sent ' in the 1^ spirit and power of Elias,' that is, with the same object and the same qualifications. Similarly, it is true what, in His mournful retrospect of the result of John's mission, and in the prospect of His own end, the Saviour said of him : ' Elias is indeed come,' But ' the spirit and power' of the Elijah of the New Testament, which was to accomplish the inward restoration through penitent recep- tion of the Kingdom of God in its reality, could only ac- complish that object if ' they received it ' — if ' they knew him.' And as in his own view, so also in very fact the Baptist, though Divinely such, was not really Elijah to Israel. This is the meaning of the words of Jesus : ' And b St. Matt, if y6 will receive it, this is Elias, which was for ^i- 14 to come.' ^ More natural still seems the third question of the Pharisees, whether the Baptist were ' that prophet.' The reference here is undoubtedly to Deut. xviii. 15, 18. Not that the reappearance of Moses as lawgiver was expected. But the prediction taken in connection with the pro- c jer. xxxi. mise '^ of a ' new covenant ' with a ' new law ' 31 &c. written in the hearts of the people was expected to take place in Messianic days, and by the instrumentality of ' that prophet.' Whatever views the Jewish embassy might have enter- tained concerning the abrogation, renewal, or renovation of the Law in Messianic times, the Baptist repelled the suggestion of his being ' that prophet ' with the same energy as those of his being either the Christ or Elijah. We mark increased intensity and directness in the testi- d St. John i. niony which he now bears to the Christ before the 22-28 Jerusalem deputies.*^ And the reward of his overcoming temptation was at hand. On the very day of the Baptist's temptation Jesus The Twofold Testimony of John 65 had left the wilderness. On the morrow after it, ' John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sin of the world ! ' We cannot doubt, that the thought here present to the mind of John was the description of ' The Servant of liiL' '** ' Jehovah,' as set forth in Is, liii. It must always »> comp. St. ^^^'6 been Messianically understood ; * it formed iztstLuke ^^® groundwork of Messianic thought to the New xxi'i. 37; Testament writers ^ — nor did the Synagogue read 32;iPet.ii. it Otherwise, till the necessities of controversy ^^ diverted its application, not indeed from the times, but from the Person of the Messiah. But we can understand how, during those forty days, this greatest height of Isaiah's conception of the Messiah was the one outstanding fact before his view. And what he believed, that he spake, when again, and unexpectedly, he saw Jesus. Yet, while regarding his words as an appeal to the prophecy of Isaiah, two other references must not be ex- cluded from them : those to the Paschal Lamb, and to the Daily Sacrifice. These are, if not directly pointed to, yet implied. For the Paschal Lamb was, in a sense, the basis of all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, not only from its saving import to Israel, but as that which really made them ' the Church,' and people of God. Hence the institu- tion of the Paschal Lamb was, so to speak, only enlarged and applied in the daily sacrifice of a Lamb, in which this twofold idea of redemption and fellowship was ex- hibited. Lastly, the prophecy of Isaiah liii. was but the complete realisation of these t\v^o ideas in the Messiah. Neither could the Paschal Lamb with its completion in the Daily Sacrifice be properly viewed without this pro- phecy of Isaiah, nor yet that prophecy properly understood without its reference to its two great types. Jewish com- ment explains how the morning and evening sacrifices were intended to atone, the one for the sins of the night, the other for those of the day, so as ever to leave Israel guilt- less before God ; and it expressly ascribes to them the efficacy of a raradete — that being the word used. And r 66 Jesus the Messiah both the school of Shammai and that of Hillel insisted on the symbolic import of the Lamb of the Daily Sacrifice in regard to the forgiveness of sin. In view of such clear testimony from the time of Christ, less positiveness of assertion might, not unreasonably, be expected from those who declare that the sacrifices bore no reference to the forgiveness of sins, just as, in the face of the application made by the Baptist and other New Testament writers, more exegetical modesty seems called for on the part of those who deny the Messianic references in Isaiah. It was, as we have reason to believe, the early morning of a Sabbath. John stood, with the two of his disciples who most shared his thoughts and feelings. One of them we know to have been Andrew (v. 40) ; the other, un- named one, could have been no other than John himself, the beloved disciple. They had heard what their teacher had on the previous day said of Jesus. And now that Figure once more appeared in view. The Baptist is not teaching now, but learning, as the intensity and penetra- tion of his gaze calls from him the now worshipful repeti- tion of what, on the previous day, he had explained and enforced. There was no leave-taking on the part of these two — perhaps they meant not to leave John. It needed no direction of John, no call from Jesus. But as they went, in the dawn of their rising faith, He turned Him. It was not because He discerned it not that He put to them the question, ' What seek ye ? ' which elicited a. reply so simple, so real, as to carry its own evidence. He is still to them the Rabbi — the most honoured title they can find — yet marking still the strictly Jewish view, as well as their own standpoint of ' What seek ye ? ' There is strict correspondence to their view in the words of Jesus. Their very Hebraism of ' Rabbi ' is met by the equally Hebraic ' Come and see ; ' ^ their unspoken, but half-conscious longing by what the invitation implied. ' The precise date of the origin of this designation is not quite clear. When Jesus is so addressed it is in the sense of ' my Teacher.' Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that thus it was generally current in and before the time noted in the Gospels. The expression ' Come The FiRsi Disciples 67 It was but early morning — ten o'clock. • The form of the narrative and its very words convey, that the two, not learners now but teachers, had gone, each to search for his brother — Andrew for Simon Peter, and John for James. Here already, at the outset of this history, the haste of energy characteristic of the sons of Jona^ outdistanced the St. John i. naore quiet intenseness of John : * ' He (Andrew) ^1 first findeth his own brother.' But Andrew and John equally brought the same announcement, still markedly Hebraic in its form : ' We have found the Messias.' This, then, was the outcome to them of that day — He was the Messiah ; and this the goal which their longing had reached, ' We have found Him.' And still this day of first marvellous discovery had not closed. It could scarcely have been but that Andrew had told Jesus of his brother, and even asked leave to bring him. The searching glance of the Saviour now read in Peter's inmost character his future call and work : ' Thou art Simon, the son of John — thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted (Grecianised) Peter.' It was Sunday morning, the first of Christ's Mission- work, the first of His Preaching. He was purposing to re- turn to Galilee. The first Jerusalem-visit must be prepared for by them all ; and he would not go there till the right time — for the Paschal Feast. It was probably a distance of about twenty miles from Bethany (Bethabara) to Cana. By the way, two other disciples were to be gained — this time not brought but called, where and in what precise circum- stances we know not. But the notice that Philip was a and see' is among the most common Kabbinic formulas, although generally connected with the acquisition of special and important in- formation. ' The common supposition is, that the time must be computed according to the Jewish method, in which case the tenth hour would represent 4 p.m. But remembering that the Jewish day ended with sunset, it could, in that case, have been scarcely marked that ' they abode with Him that day.' The correct interpretation would therefore point in this, as in other passages of St. John, to the Asiatic numeration of hours, corresponding to our own. Comp. J. B. McLellan's New Testament, pp. 740-712. ' Note : According to the best text, John, and not Jona, as l)elow. P 2 6S Jesus the Messiah fellow-townsman of Andrew and Peter seems to imply some instrumentality on their part. Similarly we gather that afterwards Philip was somewhat in advance of the rest, when he found his acquaintance Nathanael, and en- gaged in conversation with him just as Jesus and the others came up. But here also we mark, as another characteristic trait of John, that he, and his brother with him, seem to have clung close to the Person of Christ, just as did Mary afterwards in the house of her brother. It was this intense exclusiveness of fellowship with Jesus which traced on his mind that fullest picture of the God- Man, which his narrative reflects. The call to Philip from the lips of the Saviour met with immediate responsive obedience. Yet though no special obstacles had to be overcome and hence no special narrative was called for, it must have implied much of learning, to judge from what he did and from what he said to Nathanael. In Nathanael's conquest by Christ there is something special implied, of which the Lord's words give significant hints. Nathanael (Theodore, ' the gift of God ') had, as we often read of Rabbis, rested for prayer, meditation, or study, in the shadow of that wide- spreading tree so common in Palestine, the fig-tree. The approaching Passover-season, perhaps mingling with thoughts of John's announcement by the banks of Jor- dan, would naturally suggest the great deliverance of Israel in the age to come. Such a verse as that with which the meditation for the New Moon of Nisan, the Passover- month, closes — ' Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help ' ^ — would recur, and so lead back the mind to the suggestive symbol of Jacob's vision, and its realisation in ' the age to come.' These are, of course, only suppositions ; but it might well be that Philip had found him while still busy with such thoughts. It must have seemed a startling answer to his thoughts, this announcement, made with the fresh- ness of new conviction : ' We have found Him of Whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets, did write.' But this addition about the Man of Nazareth, the son of The First Disciples 69 Joseph, would appear a terrible anti-climax. It was so diflferent fnjiii anything that he had associated either with the great hope of Israel, or with the Nazareth of his own neighbourhood, that his exclamation, without implying any special imputation on the little town, seems only natural. There was but one answer to this — that which Philip made, which Jesus had made to Andrew and John 1 * Come and see.' And as he went with him evidences irre- fragable multiplied at every step. As he neared Jesus, he heard Him speak to the disciples words concerning him, which recalled, truly and actually, what had passed in his soul. And to his astonished question came such answer that he could not but burst into immediate and full acknow- ledgment : ' Thou art the Son of God,' Who hast read my inmost being ; ' Thou art the King of Israel,' Who dost meet its longing and hope. Thus Nathanael, ' the God-given ' — or, as we know him in after-history, Bartholomew, ' the son of Telamyon ' — was on that first Sunday added to the disciples. CHAPTER XIIT. THE MARRIAGE-FEAST IN CANA OF GALILEE. (St. John ii 1-12.) We are now to enter on the Ministiy of 'The Son of Man,' first and chiefiy in its contrast to the pi-eparatory call of the Baptist, with the asceticism symbolic of it. We behold Him now as freely mingling with humanity, entering into its family life, sanctioning and hallowing all by His Presence and blessing ; then as transforming the ' water of legal purification ' into the wine of the new dis- pensation; and, lastly, as having absolute power as the ' Son of Man,' being also ' the Son of God ' and ' the King of Israel.' It must be borne in mind that marriage conveyed to the Jews much higher thoughts than merely those of festivity and merriment. The pious fasted before it, confessing their sins. It was regarded almost as a Sacrament. Entrance 70 Jesus the Messiah into the married state was thought to carry the forgiveness of sins. It almost seems as if the relationsliip of Husband and Bride between Jehovah and His people, so frequently insisted upon, not only in the Bible, but in Rabbinic writings, had always been standing out in the back- ground. A special formality, that of ' betrothal' preceded the actual marriage by a period varying in length, but not ex- ceeding a twelvemonth in the case of a maiden. At the betrothal, the bridegroom, personally or by deputy, handed to the bride a piece of money or a letter, it being expressly stated in each case that the man thereby espoused the woman. A legal document fixed the dowry which each brought, the mutual obligations, and all other legal points. On the evening of the actual marriage, the bride was led from her paternal home to that of her husband. First came the merry sounds of music ; then they who dis- tributed among the people wine and oil, and nuts among the children ; next the bride, covered with the bridal veil, her long hair flowing, surrounded by her companions, and led by ' the friends of the bridegroom,' and ' the children of the bride-chamber.' All around were in festive array ; some carried torches, or lamps on polos ; those nearest had myrtle-branches and chaplets of flowers. Every one rose to salute the procession, or join it ; and it was deemed almost a religious duty to break into praise of the beauty, the modesty, or the virtues of the bride. Arrived at her new home, she was led to her husband. Some such for- mula as : ' Take her according to the Law of Moses and of Israel,' would be spoken, and bride and bridegroom crowned with garlands. Then a formal legal instrument was signed, which set forth that the bridegroom undertook to work for her, to honour, keep, and care for her, as is the manner of the men of Israel ; that he promised to give his maiden- wife at least two hundred Zuz ' (or more as might be),^ and to increase her own dowry (which, in the If the Zuz be reckoned at Id., about 51. 16s M. * This, of course, represents only the minimum. In the case of a Priest's daughter the ordinary legal minimum was doubled The Marriage-Feast in Can a of Galilee yi case of a poor orphan, the authorities supplied) by at least one-half, and that he also undertook to lay it out for her to the best advantage, all his own possessions being guarantee for it. Then, after the prescribed washing of hands and benediction, the marriage-supper began — the cup being filled, and the solemn prayer of bridal benediction spoken over it. And so the feast lasted — it might be more than one day, till at last ' the friends of the bridegroom ' led the bridal pair to the bridal-chamber and bed. Here it ought to be specially noticed, as a striking evidence that the writer of the fourth Gospel was not only a Hebrew, but intimately acquainted with the varying customs prevailing in Galilee and in Judaea, that at the marriage of Cana no ' friend of the bridegroom ' or ' groomsman ' is mentioned, while he is referred to in St. John iii. 29, where the words are spoken outside the boundaries of Galilee. For among the simpler Galileans the practice of having ' friends of the bridegroom ' did not obtain, though all the invited •comp.st. guests bore the general name of ' children of the Matt. ix. 15 bride-chamber.' "^ It was the marriage in Cana of Galilee. All connected with the account of it is strictly Jewish — the feast, the guests, the invitation of the stranger Rabbi, and its accept- ance by Jesus. We are not able to fix with certainty the site of the little town of Cana. But if we adopt the most probable identification of it with the modern pleasant village of Kefr Kenna, a few miles north-east of Nazareth, on the road to the Lake of Galilee, we picture it to ourselves as on the slope of a hill, its houses rising terrace upon terrace. As we approach the little town we come upon a fountain of excellent water, around which clustered the village gar- dens and orchards that produced in great abundance the best pomegranates in Palestine. Here was the home of Nathauael-Bartholomew, and it seems not unlikely, that with him Jesus had passed the time intervening between His arrival and ' the marriage,' to which His Mother had come — the omission of all mention of Joseph leading to the supposition, that he had died before that time. There is not any difficulty in understanding that on His arrival 72 Jesus the Messiah Jesus would hear of this ' marriage,' of the presence of His Mother in what seems to have been the house of a friend, if not a relative ; that He and His disciples would be bidden to the feast ; and that He resolved not only to comply with the request, but to use it as a leave-taking from home and friends — similar, though also far other, than that of Elisha, when he entered on his mission. As we pass through the court of that house in Cana, and reach the covered gallery which opens on the various rooms — in this instance, particularly, on the great reception room — all is festively adorned. In the gallery the servants move about, and there the ' water-pots ' are ranged, ' after the manner of the Jews,' for purification — for the washing not only of hands before and after eating, but also of the vessels used.* 'Purification' was one of the * Comp. St. . . • T-> 1 1 • • • 11 Markvii. mam pomts m Kabbinic sanctity, and the mass of the people would have regarded neglect of the ordinances of purification as betokening either gross igno- rance or daring impiety. At any rate, such would not be exhibited on an occasion like the present ; and outside the reception-room, as St. John relates, six of those stone pots, of which we know from Rabbinic writings, were ranged. It seems likely that each of these pots might have held from 17 to 25^ gallons. For such an occasion the family would produce or borrow the largest and handsomest stone-vessels that could be procured, and it seems to have been the practice to set apart some of these vessels exclusively for the use of the bride and of the more distinguished guests, while the rest were used by the general company. Entering the spacious, lofty dining-room, which would be brilliantly lighted with lamps and candlesticks, the guests are disposed round tables on couches, soft with cushions or covered with tapestry, or seated on chairs. The bridal blessing has been spoken, and the bridal cup emptied. The feast is proceeding — not the common meal, which was generally taken about even, according to the Rabbinic say- ing, that he who postponed it beyond that hour was as if he swallowed a stone — but a festive evening meal. And The Marriage-Feast in Cana of Galilee 73 now there must have been a painful pause, or something like it, when the mother of Jesus whispered to Him that ' the wine failed.' There could, perhaps, be the less cause for reticence on this point towards her Son, not merely because this failure may have arisen from the accession of guests in the persons of Jesus and His disciples, for whom no provision had been originally made, but because the gift of wine or oil on such occasions was regarded as a meri- torious work of charity. But all this still leaves the main incidents in the narra- live untouched. How are we to understand the implied request of the Mother of Jesus, how His reply, and what was the meaning of the miracle ? Although we have no absolute certainty of it, we have the strongest internal reasons for believing that Jesus had done no miracles these thirty years in the home at Nazareth, but lived the life of quiet submission and obedient waiting. That was the then part of His Work. And so when ]\Iary told Him of the want that had arisen, it was simply in absolute confidence in her Son, probably without any conscious expectancy of a miracle on His part. Yet not without a touch of maternal self-consciousness, almost pride, that He, Whom she could trust to do anything that was needed, was her Son, Whom she could solicit m the friendly family whose guests they were — and that what He did would be done if not for her sake, yet at her request. It was a true earth-view to take of their relationship : the outcome of His misunderstood meekness. And therefore it was that as on the first misunderstanding in the Temple, He had said : ' Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business ? ' so now : ' Woman, what have I to do with thee ? ' With that ' business ' earthly relationship, however tender, had no connection. And Mary did not, and yet she did, understand Him, when she turned to the servants with the direction, implicitly to follow His behests. What happened is well known: how, in the excess of their zeal, they tilled the water-pots to the brim — an accidental circumstance, yet useful, as show- ing that there could be neither delusion nor collusion ; how, 74 . Jesus the Messiah probably in the drawing of it, the water became best wine — 'the conscious water saw its God, and blushed;' then the coarse proverbial joke of what was probably the master of ceremonies and purveyor of the feast, intended, of course, not literally to apply to the present company, and yet in its accideutalness an evidence of the reality of the miracle. After this the narrative abruptly closes with a retrospective remark on the part of him who relates it : ' And His disciples believed on Him.' CHAPTER XIV. TDK CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE. (St. John ii. LS-25.) Immediately after the marriage of Cana, Mary and the ' brethren of Jesus ' went with Him, or followed Him, to .o* T.T ^^ • Ca])ernaum, which henceforth became ' His own •St. Matt. IV. .1 .' p r^ ^ t 13 ; ix. 1 ; city ^ durmg His stay by the Lake of Galilee. It seems most probable that the Tell Hum of modern exploration marks the site of the ancient Gajier- naum, Kephar Nachum, or Tanchumin. At the time it could have been of only recent origin, since its Synagogue had but lately been reared, through the friendly liberality of the k St. Matt, true and faithful Centurion.^ But already its vui. 5, &c. importance was such, that it had become the station of a garrison, and of one of the principal custom- houses. Its soft sweet air, the fertility of the country — notably of the plain of Gennesaret close by; and the fertilising proximity of a spring which, from its teeming with fish like that of the Nile, was popularly regarded as springing from the river of Egypt — this and more must have made Capernaum one of the most delightful places in these ' Gardens of Princes,' as the Rabbis interpreted the word 'Gennesaret,' by the 'cither-shaped lake' of thr.t name. The town lay quite up on its north-western shore, only two miles from where the Jordan falls into the lake. Close by tlie shore stood the Synagogue, built of white limestone on dark basalt foundation. All the houses of the The Cleansing of the Temple 75 town are gone : the good Centurion's house, that of Mat- .„, „ , .. thew the publican,'^ that of Simon Peter,'' the •St. Mark 11. ^ ] • ^ n t i n r i6;comp. temporary home which first sheltered the Master iii 20 31 • b St. Matt, and His loved ones. All are unrecognisable ^"•^^ — a confused mass of ruins — save only that white Synagogue in which He taught. From its ruins we can still measure its dimensions, and trace its fallen pillars ; nay, we discover over the lintel of its entrance the « St. John device of a pot of. manna, which may have lent vi. 49, 69 -^g form to His teaching there.*^ And this, then, is Capernaum — the first and the chief home of Jesus, when He had entered on His active work. But, on this occasion. He ' continued there not many days.' For, already, ' the Jews' Passover was at hand,' and He must needs keep that feast in Jerusalem. If our former computations are right this Passover must have taken place in the spring (about April) of the year 27 a.d. A month before the feast bridges and roads were put in repair, and sepulchres whitened, to prevent accidental pollution to the pilgrims. Then, some would select this out of the three great annual feasts for the tithing of their flocks and herds, which, in such case, had to be done two weeks before the Passover ; while others would fix on it as the time for going "» St. Joiiu up to Jerusalem before the feast ' to purify them- XI. 55. selves ' ^ — that is, to undergo the prescribed purification in any case of Levitical defilement. But what must have appealed to every one in the land was the appear- ance of the ' money-changers' who opened their stalls in every country-town on the 15th of Adar (just a month before the feast). They were, no doubt, regularly accre- dited and duly authorised. For all Jews and proselytes — women, slaves, and minors excepted — had to pay the annual Temple-tribute of half a shekel, according to the ' sacred ' standard, equal to about Is. 2d. of our money. From this tax, many of the Priests — to the chagrin of the Rabbis — claimed exemption. This Temple-tribute had to be paid in exact half-shekels of the Sanctuary, or ordinary Galilean shekels. When it is remembered that, besides strictly Palestinian silver and 76 Jesus the Messiah especially copper coin, Persian, Tyrian, Syrian, Egyptian, Grecian, and Roman money circulated in the country, it will be understood what work these ' money-changers ' must have had. From the 15th to the 25th Adar they had stalls in every country-town. On the latter date, which must therefore be considered as marking the first arrivals ot festive pilgrims in the city, the stalls in the country were closed, and the money-changers henceforth sat within the precincts of the Temple. All who refused to pay the Temple-tribute, except Priests, were liable to dis- traint of their goods. The money-changers made a statutory fixed charge of from Hr/. to Id. on every half- shekel. In some cases, however, double this amount was charged. It is a reasonable inference that many of the foreign Jews arriving in Jerusalem would take the opportunity of changing at these tables their foreign money, and for this, of course, fresh charges would be made. For there was a great deal to be bought within the Temple-area, needful for the feast (in the way of sacrifices and their adjuncts), or for purification. We can picture to ourselves the scene around the table of an Eastern money-changer — the weighing of the coins, deductions for loss of weight, arguing, disputing, bargaining — and we can realise the terrible truthfulness of our Lord's charge that they had made the Father's House a mart and place of traffic. But even so the business of the Temple money-changers would not be exhausted. Through their hands would pass probably all business matters connected with the Sanctuary. Some idea of the vast accumulation of wealth in the Temple- treasury may be formed from the circumstance that, despite many previous spoliations, the value of the gold and silver which Crassus ^ carried from the Temple-treasury amounted to the enormous sum of about two and a half millions sterling. The noisy and incongruous business of an Eastern money-lender was not the only one carried on within the sacred Temple-enclosure. A person bringing a saci'ifice might not only learn, but actually obtain, in the Temple The Cleansing of the Temple yy from its officials what was required for the meat- and drink- otieriiig. The prices were fixed by tariff every month, and on payment of the stated amount the offerer received one of four counterfoils, which respectively indicated, and, on handing it to the proper official, procured the pi'cscribed complement of his sacrifice.' The Priests and Le\ ites in charge of this made up their accounts every evening, and these (thoughn -ecessary) transactions must have left a considerable margin of profit to the treasury. This would soon lead to another line of traffic. " Offerers might, of course, bring their sacrificial animals with them, and we know that on the Mount of Olives there were four shops, specially for the sale of pigeons and other things requisite for sacrificial purposes. But then, when an animal was brought, it had to be examined as to its Levitical fitness by persons regularly qualified and appointed. Disputes might here arise, due to the ignorance of the purchaser or the greed of the examiner. But all trouble and difficulty would be avoided by a regular market within the Temple-enclosure, where sacrificial animals could be purchased, having presumably been duly inspected, and all fees paid before being offered for sale. It needs no comment to show how utterly the Temple would be profaned by such traffic, and to what scenes it might lead. These Temple-Bazaars,'^ the property, and one of the principal sources of income, of the family of Annas, were the scene of the purification of the Temple by Jesus ; and in the private locale attached to these very Bazaars, where the Sanhedrin held its meetings at the time, the final con- deuination of Jesus may have been planned, if not actually pronounced. We can now also understand why the Temple officials, to whom these Bazaars belonged, only challenged the authority of Christ in thus purging the Temple : the unpopularity of the whole traffic, if not their consciences, prevented their proceeding to actual violence. Nor do we any longer wonder that no resistance was offered by the people to the action of Jesus, and that even the r;inon- 1 Coinp. "TIio Tomple .tiul its Servicps, &c.' pp. 118, 119. - See ' Life and Times of .Jesus the Meseiaii,' Vol. i. pp. 370-72 of the larger work. 78 Jesus the Messiah strances of tlie priests were not direct, but in the form of a perplexing question. Many of those present must have known Jesus. The zeal of His early disciples, who, on their first recognition of Him, proclaimed the new-found Messiah, could not have given place to absolute silence. The many Galilean pil- grims in the Temple could not but have spread the tidings, and the report must soon have passed from one to the other in the Temple-courts, as He first entered their sacred en- closure. They would follow Him, and watch wliat He did. Nor were they disappomted. He inaugurated His Mission by fulfilling the prediction concerning Him Who was to be Israel's refiner and purifier (Mai. iii. 1-3). Scarce had He entered the Temple-porch, and trod the Court of the Gen- tiles, than He drove thence what profanely defiled it. There was not a hand lifted, not a word spoken to arrest Him as He made the scourge of small cords, and with it drove out of the Temple both the sheep and the oxen ; not a word said nor a hand raised as He poured into their receptacles the changers' money and overthrew their tables. His Presence awed them, His words awakened even their consciences ; they knew only too well how true His denunciations were. And behind Him was gathered the wondering multitude, with whom such bold and Messianic vindication of Temple sanc- tity would gain Him respect, approbation and admiration, and which, at any rate, secured His safety. For when ' the Jews,' by which here, as in so many other places, we are to understand the rulers of the people — in this instance, the Temple officials — did gather courage to come forward, they ventured not to lay hands on Him. Still more strangely, they did not even reprove Him for what He had done, as if it had been wrong or improper. With infinite cunning, as appealing to the multitude, they only asked for ' a sign ' which would warrant such assumption of authority. But this question of challenge marked two things : the essential opposition between the Jewish authorities and Jesus, and the manner in which they would carry on the contest, which was henceforth to be waged between Him and the rulers of the people. The Cleansing of the Temple 79 And Jesus foresaw, or ratlier saw it all. As for ' the sign,' then and ever again sought by an ' evil and adulte- rous generation ' — evil in their thoughts and ways, and adulterous to the God of Israel — He had then, as afterwards,* • St. Matt, only one ' sign ' to give : ' Destroy this Temple, 3ui. 38-40 g^jj^ jjj three days I will raise it up.' Thus He met their challenge for a sign by the challenge of a sign : Crucify Him, and He would rise again ; let them suppress the Christ, He would triumph. CHAPTER XV. JESUS AND NICODEMUS. (St. John iii. 1-21.) The Feast of the Passover commenced on the 15th Nisan, dating it, of course, from the preceding evening. On the evening of the 13th Nisan, with which the 14th, or ' pre- paration-day,' commenced, the head of each household would, with lighted candle and in solemn silence, search out all leaven in his house, prefacing his search with solemn thanksgiving and appeal to God, and closing it by an equally solemn declaration that he had accomplished it, so far as within his knowledge, and disavowing responsibility for what lay beyond it. And as the worshippers went to the Temple, they would see prominently exposed, on a bench in one of the porches, two desecrated cakes of some thaukoffering, indicating that it was still lawful to eat of that which was leavened. At ten, or at latest eleven o'clock, one of those cakes was removed, and then they knew that it was no longer lawful to eat of it. At twelve o'clock the second cake was removed, and this was the signal for solemnly burning all the leaven that had been gathered. The ' cleansing of the Temple ' undoubtedly preceded b St. johu ii. ^^ actual festive Paschal week.^ To those who 23 were in Jerusalem it was a week such as had never been before, a week whea ' they saw the signs which So Jesus the Messiah He did,' and when, stirred by a strange impulse, 'they believed in His Name ' as the Messiah. Among the observers who were struck by these signs was Nicodemus, one of the Pharisees and a member of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin. And, as we gather from his mode of expression, not he only, but others with him. From the Gospel-history we know him to have been cautious by nature and education, and timid of character, and we cannot wonder that he should have wished to shroud this his first visit in the utmost possible secrecy. It was a most compromising step for a Sanhedrist to take. With that first bold purgation of the Temple a deadly feud between Jesus and the Jewish authorities had begun, of which the sequel could not be doubtful. Nevertheless, Nicodemus came. And as Jesus was not depressed by the resistance of the authorities, nor by the ' milk-faith ' of the multitude (as Luther calls it), so He was not elated by the possibility of making such a convert as a member of the Great Sanhedrin. The report of what passed reads, more than almost any other in the Gospels, like notes taken at the time by one who was present. We can almost put it again into the form of brief notes, by heading what each said in this manner, Nicodemus : — or, Je^us. They are only the out- lines of the conversation, giving in each case the really im- portant gist, and leaving abrupt gaps between, as would be the manner in such notes. Yet they are quite sufficient to tell us all that is important for us to know. We can scarcely doubt that it was the narrator, John, w^ho was the wit- ness that took the notes. His own reflections upon it, or lather his after- look upon it, in the light of later facts, and under the teaching of the Holy Ghost, is described in the verses with which the writer follows his account of what had passed between Jesus and Nicodemus (St. John iii. 16-21). In the same manner he winds up with similar reflections (ib. vv. 31-36) the reported conversation between the Baptist and his disciples. In neither case are the verses to which we refer part of what either Jesus or John said at the time, but what, in view of it, Jesus and Nicodemus Si John says in name of, and to the Church of the New Testament. If from St. John xix. 27 we might infer that St. John had ' a home ' in Jerusalem itself, the scene about to be described would have taken place under the roof of him who has given us its record. Up in the simply furnished Alit/ah — the guest-chamber on the roof — the lamp was still burning. There was no need for Nicodemus to pass through the house, for an outside stair led to the upper room. It was night, when Jewish superstition would keep men at home; a wild, gusty spring night, when loiterers would not be in the streets ; and no one would see him as at that hour he ascended the outside steps that led up to the Aliyah. His errand was soon told: one sentence, that whicti admitted the Divine Teachership of Jesus, implied all the questions he could wish to ask. It was all about ' the Kingdom of God,' so connected with that Teacher come from God, that Nicodemus would inquire. And Jesus took him straight to whence alone that ' Kingdom ' could be seen. ' Except a man be born from above,' he cannot see the Kingdom of God.' Judaism could understand a new relatiouship towards God and man, and even the forgiveness of sins. But it had no conception of a moral renovation, a spiritual birth, as the initial condition for reformation, far less as that for seeing the Kingdom of God. And it was because it had no idea of such ' birth from above,' of its reality or even possibility, that Judaism could not be the Kingdom of God. All this sounded quite strange and unintelligible to Nicodemus. He could understand how a man might become other, and so ultimately he other ; but how a man should first be other in order to become other — more than that, needed to be • born from above,' in order to ' see the Kingdom of God ' — passed alike his experience and his Jewish learning. Only one possibility of being occurred ' Notwithstanding the high authority of Professor Westcott, I must still hold that this and not ' anew,' is the right rendering. The word dfjiOev has always the meaning 'above' in the fourth Gospel (ch. iii. 3, 7, ;{1; xix. 11, 2;{) ; and otherwise also St. John always speaks of 'a birth ' from God (St. John i. 13 ; 1 John ii. 29 ; iii. 9 ; iv. 7 ; v. 1, 4, 18). G 82 Jesus the Messiah to hira : ttiat given him in his natural disposition, or, as a Jew would have put it, in his original innocency when he first entered the world. And this he thought aloud.* St. John But there was another world of being than that "*•* of which Xicodemus thought. That world was the ' Kingdom of God ' in its essential contrariety to the kingdom of this world, whether in the general sense of that expression, or even in the special Judaistic sense attaching to the ' Kingdom ' of the Messiah. But that ' Kingdom ' was spiritual, and here a man must he in order to become. How was he to attain that new being? The Baptist had pointed it out in its negative aspect of repent- ance and putting away the old by his Baptism of water ; and as regarded its positive aspect he had pointed to Him Who was to baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. This was the gate of being, through which a man must enter into the Kingdom, which was of the Messiah, be- cause it was of God and the Messiah was of God, and in that sense ' the Teacher come from God ' — that is, being sent of God, He taught of God by bringing to God. But as to the mystery of this being in order to become— hark ! did he hear the sound of the wind as it swept past the Aliyah ? He heard its voice ; but he neither knew whence it came, nor whither it went. So was every one that was born of the Spirit. You might hear the voice of the Spirit Who originated the new being, but the origination of that new being, or its further development into all that it might and would become, lay beyond man's observation. Nicodemus now understood in some measure what entrance into the Kingdom meant ; but he wanted to know the how of these things before he believed them. But to that height of being no one could ascend but He that had come do^sTi from heaven, the only true Teacher come from God. Or did Nicodemus think of another Teacher — hitherto their only Teacher, Moses — whom Jewish tradition generally believed to have ascended into the very heavens, in order to bring tlie teaching unto them ? Let the history of Moses, then, teach them ! They had heard what Moses had taught them ; thev had seen Jesus and Nicodemus 83 ' the earthly things ' of God — and, in view and hearing of it all, they had not believed but murmured and rebelled. Then came the judgment of the fiery serpents, and, in answer to repentant prayer, the symbol of new being, a life restored from death, as they looked on their no longer living but dead death lifted up before them. A sj^^mbol this, showing forth two elements : negatively, the putting away of the past in their dead death (the serpent no longer living, but a brazen serpent) ; and positively, in their look of faith and hope. Before this symbol, as has been said, tradition has stood dumb. It could only suggest one meaning, and draw from it one lesson. The meaning which tradition attached to it was that Israel lifted up their eyes, not merely to the serpent, but rather to their Father in heaven, and had regard to His mercy. This, as St. John afterwards shows (ver. 16), was a true but in- sufiicient interpretation. And the lesson which tradition drew from it was that this symbol taught the dead would live again ; for, as it is argued, ' behold, if God made it that, through the similitude of the serj^ent which brought death, the dying should be restored to life, how much more shall He, Who is Life, restore the dead to life ? ' And here lies the true interpretation of what Jesus taught. If the uplifted serpent, as symbol, brought life to the believing look which was fixed upon the giving, pardoning love of God, then, in the truest sense, shall the uplifted Son of Man give true life to eveiyone that believeth, looking up in Him to the giving and forgiving love of God, which His Son came to bring, to declare, and to manifest. ' For as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth should in Him have eternal life.' And so the record of this interview abruptly closes. Of Nicodemus we shall hear again in the sequel, not need- lessly, nor yet to complete a biography, were it even that of Jesus ; but as is necessary for the understanding of this •st.joiin History. What follows* are not the words of iii./6-2i Christ, but of St. John. In them, looking back many years afterwards in the light of completed events, «2 84 Jesus the Messiah the Apostle takes his stand, as becomes the circumstances, where Jesus had ended His teaching of Nicodemus — under the Cross. And to all time and to all men sounds, like the Voice of the Teacher come from God, this eternal Gospel-message : ' God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' CHAPTER XVI. IN JUD EA AND THROUGH SAMARIA. (St. John iv. 1-4.) From the city Jesus retired with His disciples to 'the country,' which formed the province of Judtea. There He « St. John taught, and His disciples baptized.^ The number *^' ^ of those who professed adhesion to the expected new Kingdom, and were consequently baptized, was as large, in that locality, as had submitted to the preaching and Baptism of John — perhaps even larger. An exag- gerated report was carried to the Pharisaic authorities : »st. Johu ' Jesus maketh and baptizeth more disciples than '^- ^ John.' ^ From which, at least, we infer that the opposition of the leaders of the party to the Baptist was now settled, and that it extended to Jesus ; and also, what careful watch they kept over the new movement. But what seems at first sight strange is the twofold circumstance that Jesus should for a time have established Himself in such apparently close proximity to the Baptist, and that on this occasion, and on this only. He should have allowed His disciples to administer the rite of Bap- tism. The latter must not be confounded with Christian Baptism, which was only introduced after the death of Christ,*^ or, to speak more accurately, after the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. The administra- tion of the same rite by John and by the disciples of Jesus seems not only unnecessary, but it might give rise to mis- In Jud^a and through Samaria 85 conception on the part of enemies, and misunderstanding or jealousy on tlie part of weak disciples. Such was actually the case when, on one occasion, a discussion arose ' on the part of John's disciples with a • St. John Jew,' ^on the subject of purification.'* We know "'• ^^ not the special point in dispute. But what really interests us is, that somehow this Jewish objector must have connected what he said with a reference to the Baptism of Jesus' disciples. For, immediately afterwards, the disci- ples of John, in their zeal for the honour of their master, brought him tidings of what to them seemed interference with the work of the Baptist, and almost presumption on the part of Jesus. While fully alive to their error, we cannot but honour and sympathize with this loving care for their master. Never before had such deep earnestness and self-abnegation as his been witnessed. In the high-day of his power, when all men wondered whether he would an- nounce himself as the Christ, or, at least, as His Forerunner, or as one of the great Prophets, John had disclaimed everything for himself, and pointed to Another! And, as if this had not been enough, the multitudes which had formerly come to John now flocked around Jesus ; nay. He had even usurped the one distinctive function still left to their master. It was evident that, hated and watched by the Pharisees, watched also by the ruthless jealousy of a Herod, overlooked if not supplanted by Jesus, the mission of their master was nearing its close. It had been a life and work of suffering and self-denial ; it was about co end in loneliness and sorrow. They said nothing expressly to complain of Him to Whom John had borne witness, but they told of what He did, and how all men came to Him. The answer which the Baptist made may be said to mark the high-point of his life and witness. In the silence, which was now gathering around him, he heard but One Voice, that of the Bridegroom. For it he had waited and worked. And now that it had come, he was content : his 'joy was now fulfilled.' 'He must increase, but I must decrease." It was the right and good order. ' This, aiid not ' the Jews,' is the better reading 86 Jesus the Messiah That these were his last words, publicly spoken and recorded, may, however, explain to us why on this excep- tional occasion Jesus sanctioned the administration by His disciples of the Baptism of John. Far divergent as tlieir paths had been, this practical sanction on the part of Jesus of John's Baptism, when the Baptist was about to be forsaken, betrayed and murdered, was Christ's highest testimony to him. Jesus adopted his Baptism ere its waters for ever ceased to flow, and thus He blessed and consecrated them. Leaving for the present the Baptist, we follow the foot- steps of the Master. St. John alone tells of the early Judaean ministry and the journey through Samaria, which preceded the Galilean work. The shorter road from Judasa to Galilee led through Samaria; and this was the one generally taken by the Galileans on their wa'y to the capital. On the other hand, the Juda^ans seem chiefly to have made a detour through Perasa, in order to avoid hostile and impure Samaria. The expression, ' He must needs go through Samaria,' probably refers to the advisability in the circumstances of taking the most direct road, since such prejudices in regard to Samaria would not influence the conduct of Jesus. Great as these undoubtedly were, they have been unduly exag- gerated by modern writers, misled by one-sided quotations from Rabbinic works. The Biblical history of that part of Palestine which bore the name of Samaria need not here be re- KinS^xiii. peated.^ Before the final deportation of Israel &a r^ii-^ ty Shalmaneser, or rather Sargon, the ' Samaria ' 'g^^V^i'f^^''' to which his operations extended must have con- xv.29;Shai- siderably shrunk in dimensions. It is difficult xvii. 3-5'; to suppose that the original deportation was so slrKou^xv'ii. complete as to leave behind no traces of the b'ctmp 2 original Israelitish inhabitants.^ Their number chron. woukl probably be swelled by fugitives from jenxii.'s;' Assyria, and by Jewish settlers in the troublous Amos V. 3 ^j^gg ^jjj^^ followed. Afterwards they were largely increased by apostates and rebels against the order of things established by Ezra and Neheuiiah. In Judma and through Samaria ^j The first foreiL'n colonists of Samaria brought their * 2 Kings peculiar lorms of idolatry with them.* But the XVU.30, 31 Providential judgments by which they were visited led to the introduction of a spurious Judaism, con- sisting of a mixture of their former superstitions with " 2 Kings Jewish doctrines and rites.'' Although this state xvii. 2«-4i Qf matters resembled that which had obtained in the original kingdom of Israel, perhaps just because of this, Ezra and Nehemiah, when reconstructing the Jewish commonwealth, insisted on a strict separation between those who had returned from Babylon and the Samaritans, resisting equally their offers of co-operation and their at- tempts at hindrance. This embittered the national feeling of jealousy already existing, and led to that constant hos- tility between Jews and Samaritans which has continued to this day. The religious separation became final when the Samaritans built 'a rival temple on Mount Gerizini, and Manasseh, the brother of Juddua, the Jewish High- Priest, having refused to annul his marriage with the daughter of Sanballat, was forced to flee, and became the High-Priest of the new Sanctuary. Henceforth, by impu- dent falsification of the text of the Pentateuch, Gerizim was declared the rightful centre of worship, and the doctrines and rites of the Samai-itans exhibited a curious imitation and adaptation of those prevalent in Judtua. As might be expected, their tendency was Sadducean rather than Pharisaic. In general it may be said that, while on certain points Jewish opinion remained always the same, the judgment passed on the Samaritans, and especially as to intercourse with them, varied, according as they showed more or less active hostility towards the Jews.' The expression, ' the Jews have no dealings with the • St. John Samaritans,'*' finds its Rabbinic counterpa,rt in *^-' this : ' May I never set eyes on a Samaritan ; ' or else, ' May I never be thrown into company with him ! ' A RalDbi in Ctesiirea explains, as the cause of tliese changes of opinion, that formerly the Samaritans had l»een * For more precise details see the ' Life and Times of Jesus the Mes- siah.' vol. i. pp. 400. 401. 88 Jesus the Messiah observant of the Law, which they no longer were. Mat- ters proceeded so far, that they were entirely excluded from fellowship. But at the time of Christ Jewish tole- ration declared all their food to be lawful, and there would be no difficulty as regarded the purchase of victuals on the part of the disciples of Jesus. The Samaritans strongly believed in the Unity of God; they held the doctrine of Angels and devils ; they received the Pentateuch as of sole Divine authority ; they regarded Mount Gerizim as the place chosen of God, maintaining that it alone had not been covered by the Flood, as the Jews asserted of Mount Moriah ; they were most strict and zealous in what of Biblical or traditional Law they received ; and they looked for the coming of a Messiah, in Whom the promise would be fulfilled, that the Lord God would raise up a Prophet from the midst of them, like unto Moses, in Whom His words were to be, and unto «Deut.xviii. Whom they should hearken.^ Thus while in ^®'^^ some respects access to them would be more difficult than to His own countrymen, yet in others Jesus would find there a soil better prepared for the Divine Seed, or, at least, less encumbered by the thistles and tares of traditionalism and Pharisaic bigotry. CHAPTER XVII. JESUS AT THE WELL OF SYCHAR. (St. John iv. 1-42.) There is not a district in ' the Land of Promise ' which presents a scene more fair or rich than the plain of Samaria (the modern Et MuJclina). As we stand on the summit of the ridge, on the way from Shiloh, the eye travels over the wide sweep, extending more than seven miles northward, till it rests on the twin heights of Gerizim and Ebal, which enclose the Valley of Shechem. Following the straight olive-shaded road from the south to where a spur of Gerizim jutting south-east forms the Vale of Shechem, Jesus at the Well of Sychar 89 we stand by that ' Well of Jacob ' to which so many eacred memories attach. North of the entrance to the Vale of Shechem rises jMoimt Ebal, which also forms, so to speak, the western wall of the northern extension of the Plain of Samaria. Here it bears the name of lEl 'Asl'O/r, from Askar, the ancient Sychar, which nestles at the foot of Ebal, at a distance of about two miles from Shechem. It was, as we judge, about six o'clock of an evening in early summer, when Jesus, accompanied by the small band which formed His disciples, emerged into the rich Plain of Samaria. Far as the eye could sweep, ' the fields ' were ' already white unto the harvest.' They had reached ' the Well of Jacob.' Here Jesus waited, while the others went to the little town of Sychar on their work of ministry. This latter circumstance marks that it was evening, since noon was not the time either for the sale of provisions or for their purchase by travellers. Probably John remained with the Master. They would scarcely have left Him alone, especially in that place ; and the whole narrative reads like that of one who had been present at what passed. There was another well on the east side of the town, and much nearer to Sychar than ' Jacob's Well ; ' and to it probably the women of Sychar generally resorted. It should also be borne in mind that in those days such work no longer devolved, as in early times, on the matrons and maidens of fair degree, but on women in much humbler station. This Samaritaness may have chosen 'Jacob's Well,' perhaps, because she had been at work or lived in that direction ; perhaps because, if her character was what seems implied in verse 18, the concourse of the more com- mon women at the village-well of an evening might scarcely make such a pleasant place of resort to her. But whatever the motives which brought her thither, both to Jesus and to the woman the meeting was unsought : providential in the truest sense. The request : 'Give Me to drink,' was natui-al on the part of the thirsty traveller. Even if He had not spoken, the Samaritaness would have recognised the Jew by His appearance and dress, if, as 90 Jesus the Messiah seems likely, He wore the fringes on the border of His garment.^ His speech would by its pronunciation place His nationality beyond doubt. Any kindly address, con- veying a request not absolutely necessary, would naturally surprise the woman ; for, as the Evangelist explanatively adds ; ' Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.' Besides, we must remember that this was an ignorant Samaritaness of the lower order. In the mind of such an one, two points would mainly stand out : that the Jews in their wicked pride would have no intercourse with them ; and that Gerizim, not Jerusalem, as the Jews falsely asserted, was the place of rightful worship. It was, therefore, genuine surprise which expressed itself in the question ; ' How is it. Thou, being a Jew, of me askest to drink ? ' And the ' How is it ? ' of the Samaritan woman soon and fully found its answer. He Who had spoken to her was not like what she thought and knew of the Jews. He was what Israel was intended to have become to mankind ; what it was the final object of Israel to have been. Had she but known it, the present relation between them would have been reversed ; the Well of Jacob would have been but a symbol of the living water, which she would have asked and He given. The ' How can these things be ? ' of Nicodemus finds a parallel in the bewilderment of the woman. Jesus had nothing wherewith to draw from the deep well. Whence, then, the ' living water ' ? And yet, as Nicodemus' ques- tion not only similarly- pointed to a physical impossibility, but also indicated his searching after higher meaning and spiritual reality, so that of the woman : ' No ! art Thou greater than our father Jacob ? ' — who at such labour had dug this well, finding no other means than this of supply- ing his own wants and those of his descendants. Nor did the answer of Jesus now differ in spirit from that which He had given to the Rabbi of Jerusalem. But to this ' The ' fringes ' on the Tallith of the Samaritans are blue, while those worn by the Jews are white. The Samaritans do not seem to have worn phylacteries. But neither did many of the Jews of old — nor, 1 feel persuaded, did our Lord. Jesus at the Well of Sychar 91 woman His answer must be much simpler and plainer than to the Rabbi. It was not water like that of Jacob's Well which He would give, but ' living water.' In the Old Tes- tament a perennial spring had, in figurative language, been •Gen. xxvi. tlius designated,* in significant contrast to Water ^f^ Y^' accumulated in a cistern.'' But there was more " "^^'■- "• ^3 than this : it was water which, in him who had drunk of it, became a well, not merely quenching the thirst on this side time, but ' springing up into everlasting life.' We would mark here that though in many passages the teaching of the Rabbis is compared to water, it is never likened to a ' well of water springing up.' The difference is great. For it is the boast of Rabbinism that its disciples drink of the waters of their teachei's ; chief merit lies in receptiveness not spontaneity, and higher praise cannot be given than that of being ' a well-plastered cistern, which lets not out a drop of water.' But this is quite the opposite of what our Lord teaches. For it is only true of what man can give when we read this (in Ecclus. xxiv. 21): 'They that drink me shall yet be thirsty.' At the Feast of Tabernacles, amidst universal rejoicing, water from Siloam was poured from a golden pitcher on the altar, as emblem of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost.' But the saying of our Lord to the Samari- taness referred neither to His teaching, nor to the Holy Ghost, nor yet to faith, but to the gift of that new spii'itual life in Him, of which faith is but the outcome. If the humble, ignorant Samaritaness had formerly bub imperfectly guessed that there was a higher meaning in the words of Him Who spake to her, she now believes in the incredible ; believes it because of Him and in Hina ; believes also in a satisfaction through Him of outward wants, reaching iip beyond this to the everlasting life. But all these elements are still in strange confusion. And thus Jesus reached her heart in that dimly conscious longing which she expressed, though her intellect was incapable of distinguishing the new truth. ' See 'The Temple and its Ministry,' pp. 241-243. 92 Jesus the Mess/ah It is difficult to suppose tliat He asked tlie woman to call her husband with the primary object of awakening in her a sense of sin. Nor does anything in her bearing in- « ver. 19 dicate any such effect ; indeed, her reply ^ and " '^^^- 29 her after-reference to it ^ rather imply the con- trary. We do not even know for certain whether the five previous husbands had died or divorced her, and, if the latter, with whom the blame lay, although not only the peculiar mode in which our Lord refers to it but the present condition of the woman seem to point to a sinful life in the past. In Juda?a a course like hers would have been almost impossible ; but we know too little of the social and moral condition of Samaria to judge of what might there be tolerated. On the other hand, we have abundant evidence that, when the Saviour so unexpectedly laid open to her a past which He could only supernatu- rally have known, the conviction at once arose in her that He was a Prophet, just as in similar circumstances it had » St. John been forced upon Nathanael.*' i. 48, 49 rpjj^g conviction, sudden but firm, was already faith in Him; and so the goal had been attained — not, perhaps, faith in His Messiahship, about which she might have only very vague notions, but in Him. We feel that the woman has no after-thought, no covert purpose in what she now asks. All her life long she had lieard that Gerizim was the mount of worship, and that the Jews were in deadly error. But here was an undoubted Prophet, and He a Jew. Were they then in error about the right place of worship, and what was she to think and to do ? Once more the Lord answers her question by leading her far beyond all controversy : even on to the goal of all His teaching. ' There cometh an hour, when neither in this mountain, nor yet in Jerusalem, ye shall worship the Father.' Words, these, that pointed to the higher solution in the worship of a common Father, which would be the v\'orship neither of Jews nor of Samaritans, but of children. And yet there v/as truth in their present differences. ' Ye wor- ship ye know not what : we worship what we know, since salvation is from out the Jews.' The Samaritan was Jesus at the Well of Svchar 93 aimless worship, because it wanted the goal of all the Old Testament institutions, that Messiah ' Who was to be of • Rom. i. 3 ttie seed of David ' * — for of the Jews, ' as con- kRom.ix.s cerning the flesh,' was Christ to come.^ But only of present interest could such distinctions be ; for an hour would come, nay, already was, when the true worshippers would ' worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father also seeketh such for His worshippers. Spirit is God ' — and only worship in spirit and in truth could be acceptable to such a God. Higher teaching than this could not be uttered. And she who heard thus far understood it, that in the glorious picture, which was set before her, she saw the coming of the Kingdom of the Messiah. ' I know that Messiah cometh. When He cometh, He will tell us all things.' It was then that, according to the need of that untutored woman, He told her plainly what in Judiea, and even by His disciples, would have been carnally misinterpreted and misapplied : that He was the Messiah. It was the crowning lesson of that day. The disciples had returned from Sychar. That Jesus should converse with a woman was so contrary to all Judiean notions of a Rabbi, that they wondered. Yet, in their reverence for Him, they dared not ask any questions. Meanwhile the woman, forgetful of her errand, and only conscious of that new well-spring of life which had risen within her, had left the unfilled waterpot, and hurried into ' the City.' ' Come, see a man who told me all that I have done. No — is this the Christ ? ' We infer that these strange tidings soon gathered many around her ; that they questioned, and as they ascertained from her the indisputable fact of His superhuman knowledge believed on Him, so far as the woman could set Him before them as object of faith.*^ •• vv. 39, 40 Under this impression ' they went out of the City, *ver. 30 ^mj came on their way towards Him.' ^ Meantime the disciples had urged the Master to eat of the food which they had brought. But His Soul was otherwise engaged. His words of rel)uki^ made them won- der whether, unknown to them, some one had brought Him 94 /esvs the Mess/ah • St. Matt. food. It was not the only nor the last instance Kvi. 6, 7 Qf their dulness to spiritual realities.^ Yet with Divine patience He bore with them ; ' My meat is, that I may do the Will of Him that sent Me, and that I may accomplish (bring to a perfect end) His work.' To the disciples that work appeared still in the far future. To them it seemed as yet little more than seed-time ; the green blade was only sprouting ; the harvest of such a Messianic Kingdom as they expected was still months dis- tant. To correct their mistake, the Divine Teacher, as so often, and as best adapted to His hearers, chose His illus- tration from what was visible around. To show their meaning more clearly, we venture to reverse the order of the sentences which Jesus spoke : ' Behold, I say unto you, lift up your eyes and look [observantly] at the fields, that they are white to the harvest. [But] do ye not say that there are y&t four months, and the harvest cometh ? ' Notice how the Lord further unfolded His own lesson of present harvesting, and their inversion of what was sowing and what reaping time. ' Already ' he that reaped received wages, and gathered fruit unto eternal life (which is the real reward of the Great Reaper, the seeing of the travail of His Soul), so that in this instance the sower rejoiced equally as the reaper And, in this respect, the otherwise cynical proverb, that one was the sower, another the reaper of his sowing, found a true application. It was indeed so, that the servants of Christ were sent to reap what others had sown, and to enter into their labour. And yet, as in this instance of the Samaritans, the sower would rejoice as well as the reaper. It was as Christ had said. The Samaritans, who believed ' because of the word ' (speech) ' of the woman [what she said] as she testified ' of the Christ, ' when they came' to that well, ' asked Him to abide with them. And He abode there two days. And many more believed because of His own word (speech, discourse), and said unto the woman : No longer because of thy speaking do we believe. For we ourselves have heard, and know, that this is truly the Saviour of the world.' 95 CHAPTER XVin. THE CURE OF THE 'NOBLEMAN's' SON AT CAPERNAUM. (St. Matt. iv. 12 ; St. Mark i. 14 : St. Luke iv. 14, 15 ; Si. John iv. 43-54.) When Jesus returned to Galilee, it was in circumstances entirely different from those under which He had left it. • St. John iv, -^s He Himself said," there had, perhaps natur- ** ally, been prejudices connected with the humble- ness of His upbringing, and the familiarity engendered by knowledge of His home-surroundings. These were over- come when the Galileans had witnessed at the feast in Jerusalem what He had done. Accordingly, they were now prepared to receive Him with the reverent attention which His Word claimed. We may conjecture that it was partially for reasons such as these that He first bent His steps to Cana. The miracle, which had there been "St. John u. wrought,^ would still further prepare the people ^-^^ for His preaching. Besides, this was the home of Nathanael, in whose house welcome would now await Him. It was here that the second recorded miracle of His Galilean ministry was wrought, with what effect upon the whole district may be judged rem the expectancies «st. Lukeiv. which the fame of it e>cite 1 even in Nazareth, 2^ the city of His early upbringing.*^ It appears that the son of one of Herod Antipas' oflScers was sick, and at the point of death. When tidings reached the father that the Prophet, or more than Prophet, Whose fame had preceded Him to Galilee, had come to Cana, he resolved in his despair of other means to apply to Him for the cure of his child. We do not assume that this ' court-officer ' was actuated by spii itual belief in the Son of God when applying to Him for help. Rather would we go to almost the opposite extreme, and regard him as simply actuated by what, in the circumstances, might be the views of a devout Jew. Instances are recorded in the Talmud, which may here serve as our guide. Various g6 Jesus the Messiah cases are related in which those seriously ill, and even at the point of death, were restored by the prayers of cele- brated Rabbis. But the great and vital contrast lies alike in what was thought of Him Who was instrumental in the cure and in the moral effects which followed. The profane representa- tion of the relation between God and His servants, the utterly unspiritual view of prayer, which are displayed by the Rabbis, and their daring self-exaltation mark suffi- ciently the contrast in spirit between the Jewish view and that which underlies the Evangelic narrative. When, to the request that Jesus would come down to Capernaum to perform the cure, the Master replied, that unless they saw signs and wonders they would not believe, what He reproved was not the request for a miracle, which was necessary, but the urgent plea that He should come down to Capernaum for that purpose. That request argued ignorance of the real character of the Christ, as if He were either merely a Rabbi endowed with special power, or else a miracle-monger. What He intended to teach this man was, that He, Who had life in Himself, could restore life at a distance as easily as by His Pre- sence ; by the word of His Power as readily as by personal application. When the 'court-officer' had learned this lesson, he became ' obedient unto the faith,' and ' went his "ver. 50 way,''^ presently to find his faith both crowned - ver! 53 ^^^ perfected.^ Whether this ' royal officer ' was Chiiza, Herod's steward, whose wife, under the abiding impression of this miracle to her child, afterwards gratefully ministered to n a* T V Jesus,*^ must remain undetermined. Suffice it ' bt. LMKB ' . n-< > n viii. 3 to mark the progress in the ' royal officer from d ver.50 belief in the power of Jesus to faith in His • ver. 53 word,*^ and thence to absolute faith in Him,® with its expansive effect on that whole household. And so are we ever led from the lower stage of belief by what we see Him do, to that higher faith which springs from experi- mental knowledge of what He is. 97 CHAPTER XIX. THE SYNAGOGUE AT NAZARETH — SYNAGOGUE-WORSHIP AND ARRANGEMENTS. (St. Luke iv. 16.) The stay in Cana, though we have no means of determin- ing its length, was probably of only short duration. Per- haps the Sabbath of the same week already found Jesus in the Synagogue of Nazareth. As the lengthening shadows of Friday's sun closed around the quiet valley, He would hear the well-remem- bered double blast of the trumpet from the roof of the Synagogue-minister's house, proclaiming the advent of the holy day. Once more it sounded through the still summer- air, to tell all that work must be laid aside. Yet a third time it was heard, ere the ' minister ' put it aside close by where he stood, not to profane the Sabbath by carrying it ; for now the Sabbath had really commenced, and the festive Sabbath lamp was lit. Sabbath morn dawned, and early He repaired to that Synagogue where He had so often worshipped in the humble retirement of His rank, sitting, not up there among the elders and the honoured, but far back. The old well-known faces were around Him, the old well-re- membered words and services fell on His ear. And now He was again among them, a stranger among His own countrymen ; this time, to be looked at, listened to, tested, tried. It was the first time, so far as we know, that He taught in a Synagogue, and this Synagogue that of His own Nazareth. That Synagogues originated during, or in consequence of, the Babylonish captivity, is admitted by all. The Old Testament contains no allusion to their existence, and the Rabbinic attempts to trace them even to Patriarchal times deserve, ot course, no serious consideration. We can readily understand how, during the long years of exile in H gS Jesus the Messiah Babylon, places and opportunities for common worship on Sabbaths and feast-days must have been felt almost a necessity. This would furnish, at least, the basis for the institution of the Synagogue. After the return to Pal- estine, and still more by ' the dispersed abroad,' such ' meeting-houses ' would become absolutely requisite. Here those who were ignorant even of the language of the Old Testament would have the Scriptures read and 'targumed' to them. It was but natural that prayers, and, lastly, addresses, should in course of time be added. Thus the regular Synagogue services would gradually arise ; first on Sabbaths and on feast- or fast-days, then on ordinary days, at the same hours as, and with a sort of internal correspondence to, the worship of the Temple. The services on Mondays and Thursdays were special, these being the ordinary market-days, when the country-people came into the towns, and would avail themselves of the opportunity for bringing any case that might require legal decision before the local Sanhedrin, which met in the Synagogue, and consisted of its authorities. Naturally, these two days would be utilised to afford the country-people, who lived far from the Synagogues, opportunities for worship. A congregation, according to Jewish Law, must consist of at least ten men. Another and perhaps more important rule was as to the direction in which Synagogues were to be built, and which worshippers should occupy during prayer. Prayer towards the east was condemned, on the ground of the false worship towards the east mentioned in Ezek. viii. 16. The prevailing direction in Palestine was towards the west, as in the Temple. It is a mistake to suppose that the men and women sat in opposite aisles, separated by a low wall. We can with the help given by recent excavations form a conception of these ancient Synagogues. The Synagogue is built of the stone of the country. The flooring is formed of slabs of white limestone ; the walls are solid (from 2 even to 7 feet in thickness), and well built of stones, rough in the exterior, but plastered in the interior. The building is SynacjOGUe-worship and Akrangements 99 furnished with sufficient windows to admit light. The roof is Hat, the columns being sometimes connected by blocks of stone, on which massive rafters rest. Entering by the door at the southern end, and making the circuit to the north, we take our position in front of the women's gallery. Those colonnades form the body ol' the Synagogue. At the south end, facing north, is a movable ' Ark,' containing the sacred rolls of the Law and the Prophets. It was made movable, so that it might be carried out, as on public fasts. Steps generally led up to it. In front hangs the Vilon or curtain. But the Holy Lamp is never wanting, in imitation of the undying light •Exod. in the Temple.* Right before the Ark, and facing xxvn.20 ^|-^Q people, are the seats of honour, for the rulers bst. Matt, of the Synagogue and the honourable. '^ The place xxiu.G fQj. \mi\. who leads the devotion of the people is also in front of the Ark, either elevated, or else, to mark humility, lowered. In the middle of the Synagogue (so generally) is the elevation, on which there is the desk, from which the Law is read. This is also called the chair, or throne. Those who are to read the Law will stand, while he who is to preach or deliver an address will sit. Beside them will be the Methunjeman, either to interpret or to repeat aloud what is said. To neglect attendance on the services of the Synagogue would not only involve personal guilt, but bring punish- ment upon the wliole district. Indeed, to be effectual, prayer must be offered in the Synagogue. At the same time, the more strict ordinances in regard to the Temple, such as that we must not enter it carrying a staff, nor with shoes, nor even dust on the feet, nor with scrip or purse, do not apply to the Synagogue, as of comparatively inferior sanctity. However, the Synagogue must not be made a thoroughfare. We must not behave lightly in it. We may not joke, laugh, eat, talk, dress, nor resort there for shelter from sun or rain. Only Rabbis and their disciples, to whom so many things are lawful, and who, indeed, must look upon the Synagogue as if it were their own dwelling, may eat, drink, perhaps even sleep there. Lender certain H 2 100 Jesus the Messiah circnmstnnces also, the poor and strangers may be fed there. But, in general, the Synagogue must be regarded as consecrated to God. All this, irrespective of any Rabbinic legends, shows with what reverence these ' houses of congregation' were regarded. And now the weekly Sabbath, the pledge between Israel and God, had once more come. To meet it as a bride or queen, each house was adorned on the Friday evening. The Sabbath lamp was lighted ; the festive garments put on ; the table provided with the best which the family could afford ; and the benediction spoken over a cup of wine, which, as always, was mixed with water. And as Sabbath morning broke, they hastened with quick steps to the Synagogue ; for such was the Rabbinic rule in going, while it was prescribed to return with slow and lingering steps. Jewish punctiliousness defined every movement and attitude in prayer. If those rules were ever observed in their entirety, devotion must have been crushed under their weight. But we have evidence that, in the time of our Lord, and even later, there was room for p rsonal freedom left ; for not only was much in the services determined by the usage of each place, but the leader of the devotions might preface the regular service by free prayer, or insert such between certain parts of the liturgy. The officials are all assembled. The lowest of these » St. Luke was the Ghazzan, or minister,* who often acted also '^•^*^ as schoolmaster. For this reason, and because the conduct of the services frequently devolved upon him, great care was taken in his selection. Then there were the elders or rulers, whose chief was the ArcMsynagogos. All the rulers of the Synagogue were duly examined as to their knowledge, and ordained to the office. They formed the local Sanhedrin or tribunal. But their election de- pended on the choice of the congregation ; and absence of pride, as also gentleness and humility, are mentioned as special qualifications. To these regular officials we have to add those who officiated during the service, the delegate of the congrega- Synagogue- WORSHIP and Arrangements ioi tion — who, as its mouthpiece, conducted the devotions — the Interpreter or Methurgeman, and those who were called on to read in the Law and the Prophets, or else to preach. We are now in some measure prepared to follow the worship on that Sabbath in Nazareth. On His entrance into the Synagogue, or perhaps before that, the chief ruler would request Jesus to act for that Sabbath as the Sheliach Tsihhtr, or delegate of the congregation. For, according to the Mishnah, the person who read in the Synagogue the portion from the Prophets, was also expected to conduct the devotions, at least in greater part. If this rule were enforced at that time, then Jesus would ascend the elevation, and, standing at the lectern, begin the service by two prayers. After this followed what may be designated as the Jewish Creed. It consisted of three passages from the • Deut.vi. Pentateuch,* so ai-ranged that the worshipper 2iVNumbr *oo^ upon hiuiself first the yoke of the Kingdom XV.' 37-41 of Heaven, and only after it the yoke of the com- mandments. The recitation of these passages was followed by a prayer. This finished, he who officiated took his place before the Ark, and there repeated certain ' Eulogies ' or Bene- dictions. These are eighteen, or rather nineteen, in number, and date from different periods. But on Sabbaths only the three first and the three last of them, which are also those undoubtedly of greatest age, were repeated, and between them certain other prayers in- serted. After this the Priests, if any were in the Synagogue, spoke the blessing, elevating their hands up to the shoulders (in the Temple above the head). This was bcomp. called the lifting up of hands.^ In the Syna- 1 Tim. II. 8 gogue the priestly blessing was spoken in three sections, the people each time responding by an Amen. Lastly, in the Synagogue, the word ' Adonai ' was • sub- stituted for Jehovah. If no descendants of Aaron were present, the leader of the devotions repeated the usual I02 Jesus the Messiah »Numb.vi. priestly .benediction.^ After the benediction ^^'-^ followed the last Eulogy. It was the practice of leading Rabbis, probably dating from very early times, to add at the close of this Eulogy certain prayers of their own, either fixed or free, of which the Talmud gives specimens. From very early times also, the custom seems to have obtained that the descendants of Aaron, before pronouncing the blessing, put off their shoes. In the benediction the Priests turned towards the people, while he who led the ordinary prayers stood with his back to the people, looking towards the Sanctuary. The public prayers closed with an Amen, spoken by the congregation. The liturgical part being thus completed, one of the most important, indeed, what had been the primary object of the Synagogue service, began. The Ghazzan, or minister, approached the Ark, and brought out a roll of the Law. It was taken from its case and unwound from those cloths which held it. The time had now come for the reading of portions from the Law and the Prophets. The reading of the Law was both preceded and followed by brief Benedictions. Upon the Law followed a section from the Prophets. As the Hebrew was not generally understood, the Methurgeman, or Interpreter, stood by the side of the .„ reader,^ and translated into the Aramaean verse 1 Cor. xiv. by verse, and m the section from the Prophets, 27 28 tJ ■' 1 ? after every three verses. But the Meiliurgeman was not allowed to read his translation, lest it might popularly be regarded as authoritative. This may help us in some measure to understand the popular mode of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament. So long as the substance of the text was given correctly, the Methurge- man might paraphrase for better popular understanding. Again, it is but natural to suppose that the Methurgeman would prepare himself for his work by such materials as he would find to hand, among which, of course, the trans- lation of the LXX. would hold a prominent place. This :nay in part account o like for the employment of the LXX., Synagogue-worship and Arrangements 103 r.nd for its Targamic modifications, iu the New Testament quotations. The reading of the section from the Prophets was in olden times immediately followed by an address, discourse, or sermon, that is, where a Rabbi capable of giving such instruction, or a distinguished stranger, was present. Neither the leader of the devotions (' the delegate of the congregation '), nor the Methurgema7i, nor yet the preacher, required ordination. That was reserved for the rule of the congregation, whether in legislation or administration, doctrine or discipline. The only points required in the preacher were the necei^sary qualifications, both mental and moral. Jewish tradition uses the most . extravagant terms to extol the institution of preaching. So it came, that many cultivated this branch of theology. When a popular preacher was expected, men crowded the area of the Synagogue, while women filled the gallery. On such occasions, there was the additional satisfaction of feeling that they had done something specially meritorious in running with quick steps, and crowding into the Syna- gogue. For, was it not to carry out the spirit of Hos. vi. 3, xi. 10 — at least, as Rabbinically understood ? Even grave Ilabbis joined in this ' pursuit to know the Lord,' and one of them comes to the somewhat caustic conclusiou, that ' the reward of a discourse is the haste.' It is interesting to know that, at the close of his address, the preacher very generally referred to the great Messianic hope of Israel. The service closed with a short prayer, or what we would term an ' ascription.' We can now picture to ourselves the Synagogue, its worship and teaching. We can see the leader of the people's devotions as (according to Talmudic direction) he first refuses, with mock modesty, the honour confei-red on him by the chief ruler ; then, when urged, prepares to go ; and when pressed a third time, goes up with slow and measured steps to the lectern, and then before the Ark. We can imagine how one after another, standing and facing the people, unrolls and holds in his baud a copy of 104 Jesus the Messiah the Law or of the Prophets, and reads from the Sacred Word, the MpiJiiircjemcm interpreting. Finally, we can picture it, how the preacher would sit down and begin his discourse, none inteiTupting him with questions till he had finished, when a succession of objections, answers, or in- quiries might await the helper, if the preacher had em- ployed such. And help it certainly was not in many cases, to judge by the depreciatory remarks which not unfrequently occur, as to the manners, tone, vanity, self- conceit, and silliness of the Metlnirgeman or Aviora as he was sometimes called. As he stood beside the Rabbi, he usually thought far more of attracting attention and applause to himself, than of benefiting his hearers. Hence some Rabbis would only employ special and trusted inter- preters of their own, who were above fifty years of age. In short, so far as the sermon was concerned, the impression it produced must have been very similar to what we know the addresses of the monks in the Middle Ages to have wrought. All the better can we understand, even from the human aspect, how the teaching of Jesus, alike in its substance and form, in its manner and matter, differed from that of the scribes ; how multitudes would hang en- tranced on His word ; and how, everywhere and by all, its impression was felt to be overpowering. CHAPTER XX. THE FIRST GALILEAN MINISTRY. (St. Matt. iv. l.S-17; St. Mark i. 14, 15 ; St. Luke iv. 15-32.) As there could be no un-Jewish forwardness on the part of Jesus, so would there be none of that mock humility of reluctance to officiate, in which Rabbinism delighted. It seems likely that Jesus commenced the first part of the service, and then pronounced before the ' Ark ' those Eulogies which were regarded as, in the strictest sense, the prayer. And now, one by one, Priest, Levite, and, The First Galilean Ministry 105 in succession, five Israelites, had read from the Law. The whole narrative seems to imply that Jesus Himself read the concluding portion from the Prophets. It is most likely that the lesson for that day was taken from the pro- phecies of Isaiah, and that it included the passage** b St. Luke quoted by the Evangelist as read by the Lord iv. 18, 19 jesugb '-YVe know that the ' rolls ' on which the Law was written were distinct from those of the Prophets. In this instance we are expressly told that the minister ' delivered unto Him the book of the prophet Esaias,' and that, ' when He had unrolled the book,' He ' found ' the place from which the Evangelist makes quotation. It was, indeed. Divine ' wisdom ' — ' the Spirit of the Lord ' upon Him, which directed Jesus in the choice of the text for His first Messianic Sermon. It struck the key- note to the whole of His Galilean ministry. The ancient • The other Synagogue regarded Is. Ixi. 1, 2, as one of the ij''xx|ufi4, three passages,'' in which mention of the Holy Lament Ghost was couuected with the promised redemp- iii. 50 tion. In this view, the application which the passage received in the discourse of our Lord was peculiarly suitable. For the words in which St. Luke reports what followed the introductory text seem rather a summary than either the introduction or part of the discourse of Christ. ' This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.' As regards its form, it would be : so to present the teach- ing of Holy Scripture, as that it can be drawn together in the focus of one sentence; as regards its substance, that this be the one focus : all Scripture fulfilled by a present Christ. There was not a word of that which common Jewish ex- pectancy would have connected with, nay, chiefly accentu- ated in an announcement of the Messianic redemption ; not a word to raise carnal hopes, or flatter Jewish pride. Truly, it was the most un-Jewish discourse for a Jewish Messiah of those days, with which to open His Ministry. And yet such was the power of these ' words of grace,' that the hearers hung spell-bound upon them. For the time they forgot all else — Who it was that addressed them, even the io6 Jesus the Messiah strangeness of the message, so in contrast to any preach- ing of Rabbi or Teacher that had been heard in that Synagogue. The discourse had been spoken, and the breathless silence with which, even according to Jewish custom, it had been listened to, gave place to the usual after-sermon hum of an Eastern Synagogue. On one point all were agreed : that they were marvellous words of grace, which had proceeded out of His mouth. And still the preacher waited for some question, which would have marked the spiritual applica- tion of what He had spoken. They were indeed making application of the Sermon to the Preacher, but in quite different manner from that to which His discourse had pointed. It was not the fulfilment of the Scripture in Him, but the circumstance that such an one as the Son of Joseph, their village carpenter, should have spoken such words, that attracted their attention. They had heard, and now they would fain have seen. But already the holy indignation of Him, Whom they only knew as Joseph's Son, was kindled. No doubt they would next expect that here in His own city, and all the more because it was such. He would do what they had heard had taken place in Capernaum. It was the world-old saying, as speciously popular as most such sayings : ' Charity begins at home ' — or, according to the Jewish proverb, and in application to the special circumstances : ' Physician, heal thyself.' Whereas, if there was any meaning in the discourse He had just spoken, Charity does not begin at home ; and ' Physician, heal thyself is not of the Gospel for the poor, nor yet the preaching of God's Jubilee, but that of the Devil, whose works Jesus had come to destro}''. How could He say this better than by again repeating, though now with different application, that sad experience, ' No prophet is « St. John accepted in his own country ; ' * and by pointing i^- ^* to those two Old Testament instances of it, whose names and authority were most frequently on Jewish lips ? Not they who were ' their own,' but they who were most receptive in faith — not Israel, but Gentiles, were those most markedly favoured in the ministry of Elijah and of Elisha. The FiiiST Galilean Ministry 107 That Jesus should have turned so fully the light upon the Gentiles, and flung its large shadows upon them ; that ' Joseph's Son ' should have taken up this position towards them ; that He would make to them spiritual application unto death of His sermon, since they would not make it unto life, stung them to the quick. Away He must out of His city ; it could not bear His Presence any longer, not even on that holy Sabbath. Out they thrust Him from the Synagogue ; out of the city, along the road by the brow of the hill on which the city is built — perhaps to that western angle, at present pointed out as the site. This, with the unspoken intention of crowding Him over the cliff, which there rises abruptly about forty feet out of the valley beneath. If we are correct in indicating the locality, the road here bifurcates, and we can conceive how Jesus, Who had hitherto allowed Himself to be pressed onwards by the surrounding crowd, now turned, and by His look of commanding majesty, which ever and again wrought on those around miracles of subjection, constrained them to halt and give way before Him, while unharmed He passed through their midst. Cast out of His own city, Jesus pursued His solitary way towards Capernaum. There, at least, devoted friends and believing disciples would welcome Him. There, also, a large draught of souls would fill the Gospel-net. Caper- • St. Matt, naum would be His Galilean home.^ Here He ^^•^ w^ould, on the iSabbath-days, preach in that •> St. Luke Synagogue, of which the good centurion was the «'st^Maikv. builder,'' and Jairus the chief ruler." These 22 names, and the memories connected with them, are a sufficient comment on the effect of His preaching : that ' His word was with power.' In Capernaum, also, was the now believing household of the court-officer, whose only son the Word of Christ, spoken at a distance, had restored to life. Here also, or in the immediate neigh- bourhood, was the home of His earliest and closest disci- ples, the brothers Simon and Andrew, and of James and John, the sons of Zebedee. He came ; and now Capernaum was not the only place io8 Jesus the Messiah where He taught. Rather was it the centre for itinerancy » St. Matb. through all that district, to preach in its Syna- IV. 13-17 gogues.^ Amidst such ministry of quiet ' power,' chiefly alone and unattended by His disciples, the summer passed. To the writer of the first Gospel, as, years afterwards, he looked back on this happy time when he had first seen the Light, till it had sprung up even to him ' in the region and shadow of death,' it must have been a time of peculiarly bright memories. How often, as he sat at the receipt of custom, must he have seen Jesus passing by; how often must he have heard His Words, some, perhaps, spoken to himself, but all preparing him at once to obey the sum- mons when it came : Folloiv Me ! There was a dim tradition in the Synagogue, that this prediction,^ ' The people that walk in darkness see a great light,' referred to the new light, with which God would enlighten the eyes of those who had penetrated into the mysteries of Rabbinic lore, enabling them to perceive concerning ' loosing and binding, con- cerning what was clean and what was unclean.' Others regarded it as a promise to the early exiles, fulfilled when the great liberty came to them. To Levi-Matthew it seemed as if both interpretations had come true in those days of Christ's first Galilean ministry. CHAPTER XXI. AT THE ^ "UNKNOWN ' FEAST IN JERUSALEM, AND BY THE POOL OF BETHESDA. (St. John V.) The shorter days of early autumn had come as Jesus passed from Galilee to what, in the absence of any certain evi- dence, we must still be content to call 'the Unknown Feast ' in Jerusalem. Thus much, however, seems clear : that it was eitJier the ' Feast of Wood-ottering ' on the 15th of Abh (in August), when, amidst demonstrations of At the ' Unknown' Feast 109 joy, willing givers brought from all parts of the country the wood required for the service of the Altar ; or else the 'Feast of Trumpets' on the 1st of Tishri (about the nliddle of September), whicli marked the beginning of the New (civil) Year. The journey of Christ to that Feast and its results are not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, because that Juda^au ministry lay, in great measure, beyond their historical standpoint. But this and similar events belonged to that grand Self-Manifestation of Christ, with the corre- sponding growth of opposition consequent upon it, which it was the object of the fourth Gospel to set forth. It may be inferred that, during the summer of Christ's first Galilean ministry, when Capernaum was His centre of action, the disciples had returned to their homes and usual avocations, while Jesus moved about chiefly alone and unattended. This explains the circumstance of a second call, even to His most intimate and closest followers. It also accords best with that gradual development in Christ's activity, which, commencing with the more private teaching of the new Preacher of Righteousness in the villages by the lake, or in the Synagogues, expanded into that publicity in which He at last appears, surrounded by His Apostles, attended by the loving ministry of those to whom He had brought healing of body or soul, and fol- lowed by a multitude whicli everywhere pressed around Him for teaching and help. This more public activity commenced with the return of Jesus from ' the Unknown Feast ' in Jerusalem. There He had, in answer to the challenge of the Jewish authori- ties, for the first time set forth His Messianic claims in all their fulness. And there, also. He had for the first time encountered that active persecution unto death, of which Golgotha was the logical outcome. This Feast, then, was the time of critical decision. It seems only accordant with all the great decisive steps of Him in Whose footprints the disciples trod, after He had marked them, as it were, with His Blood — that He should have gone up to that Feast alone and un- attended. Tio Jesus the Messiah The narrative transports us to what, at the time, seems to have been a well-known locality in Jerusalem, though all attempts to identify it, or even to explain the name Bethesda, have hitherto failed. All we knovV is, that it was a pool enclosed within five porches, by the sheep- • Neh. iii. market, presumably close to the ' Sheep-Gate.' * 32 ; xu. 39 Tliis, as seems most likely, opened from the busy northern suburb of markets, bazaars, and workshops, east- wards upon the road which led over the Mount of Olives and Bethany to Jericho. In the five porches surrounding this pool lay ' a great multitude of the impotent,' in anxious hope of a miraculous cure. The popular superstition, which gave rise to a peculiarly painful exhibition of human misery of body and soul, is strictly true to the times and the people. Even now travellers describe a similar concourse of poor crippled sufferers, on their miserable pallets or on rugs, around the mineral springs near Tiberias, filling, in true Oriental fashion, the air with their lamentations. In the present instance there would be even more occasion for this than around any ordinary thermal spring. For the popular idea was, that an Angel ' descended into the water, causing it to bubble up, and that only he who first stepped into the pool would be cured. As thus only one person could obtain benefit, we may imagine the lamentations of the ' many ' who would, perhaps day by day, be disappointed in their hopes. This bubbling up of the water was, of course, due not to supernatural but to physical causes. Such intermittent springs are not uncommon, and to this day the so-called ' Fountain of the Virgin ' in Jerusalem exhibits the same phenomenon. The Gospel-narrative does not ascribe this ' troubling of the waters ' to Augelic agency, nor endorse the belief, that only the first who afterwards entered them could be healed. This was evidently the belief of the impotent man, as of all the b St. John V. waiting multitude.'' But the words inverse -1 ^ of our Authorised Version, and perhaps, also, 1 For thn popular Jewish views on Angels see ' Tlic Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,' Appendix xiii. By the Pool of Bethesda hi the last clause of verse 3, are admittedly an interpola- tion. The waters had not yet been ' troubled,' when Jesus stood amonof that multitude of sufferers and their attendant friends. It was in those breathless moments of intense ex- pectancy, \vhen every eye was fixed on the pool, that the eye of the Saviour searched for the most wretched object among them all. In him, as a typical case, could He best do and teach that for which He had come. This ' impotent ' man, for thirty-eight years a hopeless sufferer, without • ver 7. attendant or friend ^ among those whom misery • Compost, made so intensely selfish ; and whose sickness was John ix. 3 really the consequence of his sin,'' and not merely in the sense which the Jews attached to it *' — this now seemed the fittest object for power and grace. It is idle to speak either of faith or of receptiveness on the man's part. The essence of the whole history lies in the utter absence of both ; in Christ's raising, as it were, the dead, and calling the things that are not as tliough they were. The ' Wilt thou be made whole ? ' with which Jesus drew the man's attention to Himself, was only to probe and lay bare his misery. And then came the word of power or rather the power spoken forth, which made him whole every whit. Away from this pool, in which there was no healing — for the Son of God had come to him with the outflowing of His power and pitying help, and he was made whole. Away with his bed, not although it was the holy Sabbath, but just because it was the Sabbath of holy rest and holy delight ! Before the healed man, scarcely conscious of what had passed, had, with new-born vigour, gathered himself up and rolled together his coverlet to hasten after Him, Jesus had already withdrawn.* In that multitude, all thinking only of their own sorrows and wants, He had come and gone unobserved. But tliey all now knew and observed this miracle of healing, as they saw this unbefriended one healed, without the troubling of waters or first immersion in them. The Jews saw him, as from Bethesda he carried home 112 Jesus the Messiah his ' burden.' Most cliaracteristically, it was tliis external infringement which they saw, and nothing else ; it was the Person Who had commanded it Whom they would know, not Him Who had made whole the impotent man. It could not have been long after this that the healed man and his Healer met in the Temple. What He then said to him completed the inward healing. On the ground of his having been healed, let him be whole. As he trusted and obeyed Jesus in the outward cure, so let him now in- v/ardly and morally trust and obey. Here also this looking through the external to the internal, through the temporal to the spiritual and eternal, which is so characteristic of the after-discourse of Jesus, nay, of all His discourses and of His deeds, is most marked. The healed man now knew to Whom he owed faith, gratitude, and trust of obedience ; and the consequences of this knowledge would make him a disciple in the truest sense. And this was the only addi- tional lesson which he, as each of us, must learn individu- ally and personally : that the man healed by Christ stands in quite another position, as regards the morally right, from what he did before — not only before his healing, but even before his felt sickness, so that, if he were to go back to sin, or rather, as the original implies, 'continue to sin/ a thing infinitely worse would come to him. And yet something further was required. Jesus must speak out in clear, open words, what was the hidden inward meaning of this miracle. The first forthbursting of His Messianic Mission and Character had come in that Temple when He realised it as His Father's House, and His Life as about His Father's business. Again had these thoughts about His Father kindled within Him in that Temple, when, on the first occasion of His Messianic appearance there, He had sought to purge it, that it might be a House of Prayer. And now, once more in that House, it was the same consciousness about God as His Father, and His Life as the business of His Father, which furnished the answer to the angry invectives about His breach of the Sabbath- Law. The Father's Sabbath was His ; the Father worked hitherto and He worked ; the Father's work and His were By the Pool of Bethesda 113 • St. John V. the same ; He was the Son of" the Father.* And *^ in this He also taught, what the Jews had never understood, the true meaning of the Sabbath-Law, by em- phasising that which was the fundamental thought of the Sabbath — ' Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it : ' not the rest of inactivity, but of blessing and hallowing. Once more it was not His whole meaning, but only this one point, that He claimed to bj equal with God, of which they took hold. As we understand it, the discourse be- ginning with verse 19 is not a continuation of that which had been begun in verse 17, but was delivered on another, though probably proximate occasion. By what He had said about the Father working hitherto and His working, He had silenced the multitude, who must have felt that God's rest was truly that of beneficence, not of inactivity. But He had raised another question, that of His equality with God, and for this He was taken to task by the Masters in Israel. But for the present the majesty of His bearing overawed His enemies, even as it did to the end, and Christ could pass unharmed from among them. With this inward separation and the gathering of hostile parties, closes the first, and begins the second stage of Christ's Ministry. CHAPTER XXII. THE FINAL CALL OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES, AND THE MIRACULOUS DRAUGHT OF FISHES. (St. Matt. iv. 18-22 ; St. Mark i. 16-20; St. Luke v. 1-11.) We are once again out of the great City, and by the Lake of Galilee. They were other men, these honest, simple, im- pulsive Galileans, than that self-seeking, sophistical, heart- less assemblage of Rabbis, whose first active persecution Jesus had just encountered, and for the time overawed by the majesty of His bearing. What wonder that, immedi- ately on His return, ' the people pressed upon Him to hear His word ' ? 1 114 Jesus the Messiah It seems as if what we are about to relate ocuarred while Jesus was returning from Jerusalem. But perhaps it fol- lowed on the first morning after His return. It had pro- bably been a night of storm on the Lake. For the toil of the » St. Luke fishermen had brought them no draught of fishes,* ^* ^ and they stood by the shore or in the boats drawn up on the beach, casting in their nets to ' wash ' them of sand and pebbles, or to mend what had been torn by the violence of the waves. It was a busy scene ; for among the many industries by the Lake of Galilee that of fishing was not only the most generally pursued, but perhaps the most lucrative. Tradition had it, that since the days of Joshua, and by one of his ten ordinances, fishing in the Lake, though under certain necessary restrictions, was free to all. And as fish was among the favourite articles of diet, in health and sick- ness, on week-days and especially at the Sabbath-meal, many must have been employed in connection with this trade. Frequent and sometimes strange are the Rabbinic advices, what kinds of fish to eat at different times, and in what state of preparation. They were eaten fresh, dried, ti St Matt ^^ pickled ; ^ a kind of ' relish ' or sauce was made vii. io;xiii. of them, and the roe also prepared. In truth, these Rabbis are veritable connoisseurs in this delicacy. It is one of their usual exaggerations when we read of 300 different kinds of fish at a dinner given to a great Rabbi, although the common proverb had it to denote what was abundant, that it was like ' bringing fish to Acco,' yet fish was largely imported i'vcnn abroad. Those engaged in the trade of fishing, like Zebedee and his sons, were not unfrequently men of means and standing. This, irrespective of the fact that the Rabbis enjoined some trade or industrial occupation on every man, whatever his station. Jewish customs and modes of thinking at that time do not help us further to understand the Lord's call, except so far as they enable us to apprehend what the words of Jesus would convey to them. The expression ' Follow Me ' would be readily understood, as implying a call to become the The Final Call of the First Disciples 115 permanent disciple of a teacher. Similarly, it was not only the practice of the Rabbis, but regarded as one of the most sacred duties, for a Master to gather around him a circle of disciples. Thus, neither Peter and Andrew, nor the sons of Zebedee, could have misunderstood the call of Christ, or even regarded it as strange. On that memorable return from His temptation in the wilderness they had learned tq • St. John i. know Him as the Messiah,^ and they followed 37 &c. Him. And, now that the time had come for gathering around Him a separate discipleship, when, with the visit to the Unknown Feast, the Messianic activity of Jesus had passed into another stage, that call would not come as a surprise to their minds or hearts. So far as the Master was concerned, we mark three points. First, the call came after the open breach with, and initial persecution of, the Jewish authorities. It was, therefore, a call to fellowship in His peculiar relationship to the Synagogue. Secondly, it necessitated the abandon- ment of all their former occupations, and, indeed, of all f St. Matt, earthly ties.^ Thirdly, it was from the first, and IV. 20, 22 clearly, marked as totally different from a call to such discipleship, as that of any other Master in Israel. It was not to learn more of doctrine, nor more fully to follow out a life-direction already taken, but to begin, and to become, something quite new, of which their former occupation offered an emblem. The disciples of the Rabbis, even those of John the Baptist, ' followed,' in order to learn ; they, in order to do, and to enter into fellowship with His Work. ' Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.' The more we think of it, the more do we perceive the mag- nitude of the call and of the decision which it implied — for, without doubt, they understood what it implied, perhaps more clearly than we do. All the deeper, then, must have been their belief in Him, and their earnest attachment, when, with such absolute simplicity and entireness of self- surrender, that it needed not even a spoken Yea on their part, they forsook ship and home to follow Him. And so, successively, Simon and Andrew, and John and James — those who had been the first to hear, were also the first to I 2 ii6 Jesus the Messiah follow Jesus. And ever afterwards did they remain closest to Him, who had been the first fruits of His Ministry. What had passed between Jesus and, first the sons of Jona, and then those of Zebedee, can scarcely have occupied many minutes. But already the people were pressing around the Master in eager hunger for the Word. To such call the Fisher of Men could not be deaf. The boat of Peter shall be His pulpit ; He had consecrated it by conse- crating its owner. We need scarcely ask what He spake. It would be of the Father, of the Kingdom, and of those who entered it — like what He spake from the Mount, or to those who laboured and were heavy laden. And Peter had heard it all as he sat close by. This then was the teaching of which he had become a disciple; this the net and the fishing to which he was just called. Could such an one as he ever hope, with whatever toil, to be a successful fisher? Jesus had read his thoughts, and much more than read them. This is another object in Christ's miracles to His disciples : to make clear their inmost thoughts and longings, and to point them to the right goal. ' Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.' That they toil in vain all life's night only teaches the need of another beginning. The ' nevertheless, at Thy word,' marks the new trust, and the new work as springing from that trust. Already ' the net was breaking,' when they beckoned to their partners in the other ship that they should come and help them. And now both ships are burdened to the water's edge. But what did it all mean to Simon Peter ? Jesus could see to the very bottom of Peter's heart. And could he then be a fisher of men, out of whose heart, after a life's night of toil, the net would come up empty, or rather only clogged with sand and torn with pebbles ? This is what he meant when ' he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying : Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.' And this is why Jesus comforted him : ' Fear not ; from hence- forth thou shalt catch men.' * And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all and followed Him.' A Sabbath in Capernaum 117 CHAPTER XXIII. A SABBATH IN CAPERNAUM. (St. Matt. viii. 14-17 ; St, Mark i. 21-34 ; St. Luke iv. 33-41.) It was the Holy Sabbath — the first after He had called around Him His first permanent disciples ; the first, also, after His return from the Feast at Jerusalem. As yet all seemed calm and undisturbed. Those simple, warm-hearted Galileans yielded themselves to the power of His words and works, not discerning- hidden blasphemy in what He said, nor yet Sabbath-desecration in His healing on God's holy day. It is morning, and Jesus goes to the Synagogue at Capernaum. To teach there was now His wont. It was not only what He taught, but the contrast with that to which they had been accustomed on the part of ' the Scribes,' which filled His hearers with ' amazement.' There was no appeal to human authority, other than that of the conscience ; no subtle logical distinctions, legal niceties, nor clever sayings. Clear, limpid, and crystalline, His words flowed from out the spring of the Divine Life that was in Him. Among the hearers in the Synagogue that Sabbath morning was one of a class, concerning whose condition, whatever difficulties may attach to our proper understand- ing of it, the reader of the New Testament must form some definite idea. The New Testament speaks of those who had a spirit, or a demon, or demons, or an unclean spirit, or the spirit of an unclean demon, but chiefly of persons who were ' demonised.' We find that Jesus not only tolerated the popular opinion regarding the demonised, but that He even made it part of His disciples' commission to • St. Matt. ' cast out demons,'^ and that, when the disciples tost Luke X s-fte^wards reported their succe.^is in this, Christ 17, 18 actually made it a matter of thanksgiving to God.^ The same view underlies His reproof to the disciples, T 1 8 Jesus the Mess/ ah • St. Matt. when failing in this part of tLeir work ^ ; while in compfii'^o ^^'- Luke xi. 1 9, 24, He adopts and argues on this xii. 43 &c., view as against the Pharisees. to the fiis- Our next inquiry must be as to the character cipes ^j. ^j^^ phenomenon thus designated. In view of the fact that in St. Mark ix. 21, the demonised had been such ' of a child,' it is scarcely possible to ascribe it simply to moral causes. Similarly, personal faith does not seem to have been a requisite condition of healing. Again, it is evident that all physical or even mental distempers of the same class were not ascribed to the same cause : some might be natural, while others were demoniacal. On the other hand, there were more or less violent symptoms of disease in every demonised person, and these were greatly aggravated in the last paroxysm, when the demon quitted his habitation. We have therefore to regard the pheno- mena described as caused by the influence of such ' spirits,' primarily, upon that which forms the nexus between body and mind, the nervous system, and as producing different physical effects, according to the part of the nervous system affected. To this must be added a certain im- personality of consciousness, so that for the time the consciousness was not that of the demonised, but the demoniser, just as in certain mesmeric states the conscious- ness of the mesmerised is really that of the mesmeriser. We might carry the analogy farther, and say that the two states are exactly parallel — the demon or demons taking the place of the mesmeriser, only that the effects were more powerful and extensive, perhaps more enduring. Neither the New Testament, nor even Rabbinic literature, conveys the idea of permanent demoniac indwelling, to which the later term ' possession ' owes its origin. On the contrary, such accounts as that of the scene in the Synagogue of Capernaum give the impression of a sudden influence, which in most cases seems occasioned by the spiritual effect of the Person or of the Words of the Christ. In our view, it is of the deepest importance always to keep in mind that the ' demonised ' was not a permanent state, or possession by the powers of darkness. A Sabbath in Capernaum 119 For it establishes a moral element, since during the period of their temporary liberty the deraonised might have shaken themselves free from the overshadowing power, or sought release from it. Thus the demonised state in- volved personal responsibility, although that of a diseased and disturbed consciousness. Whatever want of clearness there may be about the Jewish ideas of demoniac influences,' there is none as to the means proposed for their removal. These may be broadly classified as: magical means for the prevention of such influences (such as the avoidance of certain places, times, numbers, or circumstances ; amulets, &c.) ; magical means for the cure of diseases ; and direct exorcism (either by certain outward means, or else by formulas of incanta- tion). Again, while the New Testament furnishes no data by which to learn the views of Jesus or of the Evangelists regarding the exact character of the phenomenon, it sup- plies the fullest details as to the manner in which the demonised were set free. This was always the same. It consisted neither of magical means nor formulas of exor- cism, but always in the Word of Power which Jesus spake, or entrusted to His disciples, and which the demons always obeyed. There is here not only difference, but contrariety in comparison with the current Jewish notions, and it leads to the conclusion that there was the same contrast in His views, as in His treatment of the ' de- monised.' In one respect those who were ' deraonised ' exhibited the same phenomenon. They all owned the Power of Jesus. It was not otherwise in the Synagogue at Caper- naum on that Sabbath morning. What Jesus had spoken produced an immediate effect on the demonised, though one which could scarcely have been anticipated. For there is authority for inserting the word ' straight- • in St. Mark Way ' '^ immediately after the account of Jesus' ^•-^ preaching. Yet, as we think of it, we cannot imagine that the demon would have continued silent, nor ' See 'Life and Times,' Appendix XVi. : 'Jewish Views about Demons and the Demonised.' 120 Jesus the Messiah yet that he could have spoken other than the truth in the Presence of the God -Man. Involuntarily, in his con- fessed inability of disguise or resistance, he owns defeat even before the contest. ' What have we to do with Thee, Jesus of Nazareth ? Thou art come to destroy us ! I know Thee Who Thou art, the Holy One of God.' And yet there seems in these words already an emergence of the consciousness of the demonised, at least in so far that there is no longer confusion between him and his tor- mentor, and the latter speaks in his own name. One stronger than the demon had affected the higher part in the demonised. But this was not all. Jesus had come not only to de- stroy the works of the Devil, but to set the prisoners free. By a word of command He gagged the confessions of the demon, unwillingly made, and even so with hostile intent. It was not by such voices that He would have His Messiahship proclaimed. The same power which gagged the confession also bade the demon relinquish his prey. One wild paroxysm — and the sufferer was for ever free. But on them all who saw and lieard it fell the stupor of astonishment. Each turned to his neighbour with the inquiry : ' What is this ? A new doctrine with authority ! And He commandeth the un- clean spirits, and they obey Him.' From the Synagogue we follow the Saviour, in com- pany with His called disciples, to Peter's wedded home. But no festive meal, as was Jewish wont, awaited them there. A sudden access of violent ' burning fever,' such as is even now common in that district, had laid Peter's mother-in-law prostrate. If we had still any lingering thought of Jewish magical cures as connected with those of Jesus, what is now related must dispel it. The Talmud gives this disease precisely the same name, ' burning- fever,' and prescribes for it a magical remedy, of which the principal part is to tie a knife wholly of iron by a braid of hair to a thornbush, and to repeat on successive days Exod. iii. 2, 3, then ver. 4, and finally ver. 5, after which the bush is to be cut down, while a certain magical A Sabbath in Capernaum 121 formula is pronounced. How different from this is the Evangelic narrative of the cure of Peter's mother-in-law, Jesus is ' told " of the sickness ; He is besought for her who is stricken down. In His Presence disease and misery cannot continue. Bending over the sufferer He 'rebuked the fever,' just as He had rebuked 'the demon' in the Synagogue. Then lifting her by the hand, she rose up. healed, to 'minister' unto them. It was the first Dia- conate of woman in the Church — a Diaconate to Christ and to those that were His. The sun was setting, and the Sabbath past. On this autumn evening at Capernaum no one thought of business, pleasure, or rest. There must have been many homes of sorrow, care, and sickness there, and in the populous neighbourhood around. To all had the door of hope now been opened. No disease too desperate, wlien even the demons owned the authority of His mere rebuke. From all parts they bring them, and the whole city throngs — a hushed, solemnised multitude — expectant, waiting at the door of Simon's dwelling. There they laid them, along the street, up to the market-place, on their beds. Never, surely, was He more truly the Christ than when, in the stillness of that evening, He went through that suffering throng, laying His hands in the blessing of healing on every one of them, and casting out many devils. CHAPTER XXIV, SECOND JOURNEY THROUGH GALILEE — THE HEALING OF THE LEPER. (St. Matt. iv. 23 ; viii. 2-4 ; St. Mark i. 35-45 ; St. Luke iv. 42-44 ; V. 12-16.) It was, so to speak, an inward necessity that the God-Man, when brought into contact with disease and misery, whether from physical or supernatural causes, should re- move it by His Presence, by His touch, by His Word. An 122 Jesus the Messiah outward necessity also, because no otlxer mode of teaching equally convincing would have reached those accustomed to Rabbinic disputations, and who must have looked for such a manifestation from One Who claimed such autho- rity. And yet, so far from being a mere worker of miracles, as we should have expected if the history of His miracles had been of legendary origin, there is nothing more marked than the pain, we had almost said the humiliation, which their necessity seems to have carried to His heart, ' Ex- cept ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe ; ' 'an evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign ; ' ' blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed ' — such are the utterances of Him Who sighed when He opened » St. Mark the cars of the deaf,^ and bade His Apostles look b st.^Luke ^'^^ higher and better things than power over all X. 17-20 diseases or even over evil spirits.^ And so, thinking of the scene on the evening before, we can understand how, ' very early, while it was still very c St. Mark i. dark,' ° Jesus rose up, and went into a solitary 35 place to pray. As the three Synoptists accordantly state, Jesus now entered on His second Galilean journey. There can be little doubt that the chronological succession of events is here accurately indicated by the more circumstantial narrative in St. Mark's Gospel. Significantly, His Work began where that of the Rabbis, we had almost said of the Old Testament saints, ended. Whatever remedies, medical, magical, or sympa- thetic. Rabbinic writings may indicate for various kinds of disease, leprosy is not included in the catalogue. They left aside what even the Old Testament marked as moral death, by enjoining those so stricken to avoid all contact with the living, and even to bear the appearance of mourners. As the leper passed by, his clothes rent, his hair dishevelled, and the lower part of his face and his dLev.xui. upper lip covered,"^ it was as one going to death *5 who reads his own burial-service, while the mournful words, ' Unclean ! Unclean ! ' which he uttered, proclaimed that his was both living and moral death. The Healing of the Leper 123 Again, the Old Testament, and even Rabbinism, took, in the measures prescribed in leprosy, primarily a moral, or rather a ritual, and only secondarily a sanitary, view of the case. Tn the elaborate Rabbinic code of defilements leprosy stood foremost. Not merely actual contact with the leper, but even his entrance defiled a habitation, and everything in it, to the beams of the roof. But beyond this, Rabbinic harshness or fear carried its provisions to the utmost sequences of an unbending logic. Childlessness and leprosy are described as chastisements, which indeed procure for the sufferer forgiveness of sins, but cannot, like other chastisements, be regarded as the outcome of love, nor be received in love. Tradition had it that, as leprosy attached to the house, the dress, or the person, these were to be re- garded as always heavier strokes, following as each succes- sive warning had been neglected, and a reference to this was seen in Pro v. xix. 29. Eleven sins are mentioned which bring leprosy, among them pre-eminently those of which the tongue is the organ. Still, if such had been the real views of Rabbinism, one might have expected that compassion would have been extended to those who bore such heavy burden of their sins. Instead of this, their troubles were needlessly in- creased. True, as wrapped in mourner's garb the leper passed by, his cry ' Unclean ! ' was to incite others to pray for him — but also to avoid him. No one was even to salute him ; his bed was to be low, inclining towards the ground. If he even put his head into a place, it became unclean. No less a distance than four cubits (six feet) must be kept from a leper ; or, if the wind came from that direction, a hundred was scarcely sufficient. Rabbi Meir would not eat an ^^^ purchased in a street where there was a leper. Another Rabbi boasted that he always threw stones at them to keep them far off, while others hid themselves or ran away. To such extent did Rabbinism carry its inhuman logic in considering the leper as a mourner, that it even forbade him to wash his face. We can now in some measure appreciate the contrast 124 Jesus the Messiah between Jesus and His contemporaries in His bearing towards the leper. Or, conversely, we can judge by the healing of this leper of the impression which the Saviour had made upon the people. He would have fled from a Rabbi ; he came in lowliest attitude of entreaty to Jesus. There was no Old Testament precedent for this approach : not in the case of Moses, nor even in that of Elisha, and there was no Jewish expectancy of it. But to have heard Him teach, to have seen or known Him as healing all man- ner of disease, must have carried the conviction of His absolute power. And so one can understand this cry : ' If Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean.' It is not a prayer, but the ground-tone of all prayer — faith in His Power, and absolute committal to Him of our need. And Jesus, touched with compassion, willed it. It almost seems as if it were in the very exuberance of power that Jesus, acting in so direct contravention of Jewish usage, touched the leper. It was fitting that Elisha should disappoint Naaman's expectancy that the prophet would heal his leprosy by the touch of his hand. It was even more fitting that Jesus should surprise the Jewish leper by touching, ere by His Word He cleansed him. It is not quite so easy at first sight to understand why Christ should with such intense earnestness, almost vehem- ence, have sent the healed man away — as the term bears, ' cast him out,' Perhaps we may here once more gather how the God-Man shrank from the fame connected with miracles — specially with such an one — which, as we have seen, were rather of inward and outward necessity than of choice in His Mission. Not thronged by eager multitudes of sight-seers, or aspirants for temporal benefits, was the Kingdom of Heaven to be preached and advanced. It would have been the way of a Jewish Messiah, and have led up to His royal proclamation by the populace. But as we study the character of the Christ, no contrast seems more glaring than that of such a scene. And so we read that when, notwithstanding the Saviour's charge to the healed leper to keep silence, it was nevertheless all the more made known by him. He could no more, as before, The Healing of the Leper 125 enter fclie cities, but remained without in desert places, whither they came to Him from every quarter. And in that withdrawal He spoke, and healed, ' and prayed.' Christ's injunction of silence to the leper was com- bined with that of presenting himself to the priest, and conforming to the ritual requirements of the Mosaic Law in such cases. His conforming to the Mosaic Ritual was to be 'a testimony unto them.' The Lord did not wish to have the Law of Moses broken — and broken, not super- seded, it would have been, if its provisions had been in- fringed before His Death, Ascension, and the Coming of the Holy Ghost had brought their fulfilment. But there is something else here. The course of this history shows that the open rupture between Jesus and the Jewish authorities, which had commenced at the Unknown Feast at Jerusalem, was to lead to practical sequences. On the part of the Jewish authorities, it led to measures of active hostility. The Synagogues of Galilee are no longer the quiet scenes of His teaching and miracles ; His Word and deeds no longer pass unchallenged. It had never occurred to these Galileans, as they implicitly sur- rendered themselves to the power of His words, to question their orthodoxy. But now, immediately after this occur- • St. Luke V. rence, we find Him accused of blasphemy.* They ^' had not thought it breach of God's Law when, on that Sabbath, He had healed in the Synagogue of Capernaum and in the home of Peter; but after this it became sinful to extend like mercy on the Sabbath to him «• St. Luke whose hand was withered.^ They had never ^" ^ thought of questioning the condescension of His intercourse with the poor and needy ; but now they sought to sap the commencing allegiance of His disciples by charging Him with undue intercourse with publicans « St. Lukev. and sinners,'" and by inciting against Him even the d^st. Lukev. prejudices and doubts of the half-enlightened 3^ followers of His own Forerunner.*^ All these new incidents are due to I lie presence and hostile watch- fulness of the Scribes and Pliarise(^s, who now for the first time appear on the scene of His ministry. Is it too much 126 Jesus the Messiah then to infer that, immediately after that Feast at Jerusa- lem, the Jewish authorities tent their familiars into Galilee after Jesus, and that it was to the presence and influence of this informal deputation that the opposition to Christ, which now increasingly appeared, was due ? If so, then we see not only an additional motive for Christ's injunc- tion of silence on those whom He had healed, and for His own withdrawal from the cities and their thi'ong, but we can understand how, as He afterwards answered those whom John had sent to lay before Christ his doubts, by pointing to His works, so He replied to the sending forth of the Scribes of Jerusalem to watch, oppose, and arrest Him, by sending to Jerusalem as His emlDassy the healed leper, to submit to all the requirements of the Law, CHAPTER XXV. THE RETURN TO CAPERNAUM — CONCERNING THE FORGIVE- NESS OF SmS THE HEALING OF THE PARALYSED. (St. Matt. ix. 1-8 ; St. Mark ii. 1-12 ; St. Luke v. 17-26.) We are still mainly following the lead of St. Mark, alike as regards the succession of events and their details. The second journey of Jesus through Galilee had com- menced in autumn ; the return to Capernaum was ' after days,' which, in common Jewish phraseology, meant a con- siderable interval. As we reckon, it was winter, which would equally account for Christ's return to Capernaum, and for His teaching in the house. For, no sooner ' was it heard that He was in the house,' than so many flocked to the dw^elling of Peter, which at that period may have been 'the house' or temporary 'home ' of the Saviour, as to fill its limited space to overflowing. The general im- pression on our minds is, that this audience was rather in a state of indecision than of sympathy with Jesus. It in- cluded ' Pharisees and doctors of the Law,' who had come on purpose from the towns of Galilee, from Juda3a, and The Healing of the Paralysed 127 from Jerusalem. These occupied the ' uppermost rooms/ sitting, no doubt, near to Jesus. Their influence must have been felt by the people. Although ill no wise necessary to the understanding of the event, it is helpful to try and realise the scene. We can picture to ourselves the Saviour ' speaking the Word ' to that eager, interested crowd, which would soon become forgetful even of the presence of the watchful ' Scribes.' Though we know a good deal of the structure of Jewish houses,' we feel it difficult to be sure of the exact place which the Saviour occupied on this occasion. Meetings for religious study and discussion were certainly held in the Alit/ah or upper chamber. But, on many grounds, such a locale seems unsuited to the requirements of the narrative. The house of Peter was, probably, one of the better dwellings of the middle classes. In that case Jesus would speak the Word, standing in the covered gallery that ran round the courtyard of such houses, and opened into the various apartments. Perhaps He stood within the entrance of the guest-chamber, while the Scribes sat within that apartment, or beside Him in the gallery. The court before Him was thronged, out into the street. All were absorb- edly listening to the Master, when of a sudden those appeared who were bearing a paralytic on his pallet. It had of late become too common a scene to see the sick thus carried to Jesus to attract special attention. And yet one can scarcely conceive that, if the crowd had merely filled an apartment and gathered around its door, it would not have made way for the sick, or that somehow the bearers could not have come within sight, or been able to attract the attention of Christ. But with a courtyard crowded out into the street, all this would be, of course, out of the question. In such circumstances access to Jesus was simply impossible. Their resolve was quickly taken. If they cannot ap- proach Christ with their burden, they can let it down fi'om above at His feet. Outside the house, as well as inside, a ' See ' Sketches of Jewish Life," pp. 93-9(5. 128 Jesus the Messiah stair led up to the roof. They may have ascended it in this wise, or else reached it by what the Rabbis called ' the road of the roofs,' passing from roof to roof, if the house adjoined others in the same street. It would have been comparatively easy to ' unroof the covering of ' tiles,' and then, ' having dug out ' an opening through the lighter framework which supported the tiles, to let down their burden ' into the midst before Jesus.' All this, as done by four strong men, would be but the work of a few minutes. But we can imagine the arresting of the discourse of Jesus, and the surprise of the crowd as this opening through the tiles appeared, and slowly a pullet was let down before them. Busy hands would help to steady it, and bring it safe to the ground. And on that pallet lay one paralysed — his fevered face and glistening eyes upturned to Jesus. This energy and determination of faith exceeded aught that had been witnessed before. Jesus saw it, and He spake. As yet the lips of the sufferer had not parted to utter his petition. He believed, indeed, in the power of Jesus to heal, with all the certitude that issued in the determination to be laid at His feet. And this open out- burst of faith shone out the more brightly from its contrast with the unbelief within the breast of those Scribes, who had come to watch and ensnare Jesus. As yet no one had spoken, for the silence of expectancy had fallen on them all. But He, AVho perceived man's unspoken thoughts, knew that there was not only faith, but also fear, in the heart of that man. Hence the first words which the Saviour spake to him were : ' Be of good » St. Matt, cheer.'* He had, indeed, got beyond the coarse '^■"^ Judaic standpoint, from which suffering seemed an expiation of sin. But this other Jewish idea was even more deeply rooted, had more of underlying truth, and would, especially in presence of the felt holiness of Jesus, have a deep influence on the soul, that recovery would not be granted to the sick unless his sins had first been for- given him. It was this, perhaps as yet only partially conscious, want of the sufferer before Him, which Jesus met when He spoke forgiveness to his soul, and that not The Healing of the Paralysed 129 as something to come, but as an act already past : ' Child, thy sins have been forgiven.' In another sense, also, there was a higher ' need be ' for the word which brought forgiveness, before that which gave healing. Let us recall that Jesus was in the presence of those in .whom the Scribes would fain have wrought dis- belief, not of His power to cure disease — which was patent to all — but in His Person and authority ; that, perhaps, such doubts had already been excited. And here it de- serves special notice, that, by first speaking forgiveness, Christ not only presented the deeper moral aspect of His miracles, as against their ascription to magic or Satanic agency, but also established that very claim, as regarded His Person and authority, which it was sought to invali- date. In this forgiveness of sins He presented His Person and authority as Divine, and He proved it such by the miracle of healing which immediately followed. Thus the inward reasoning of the Scribes, which was open and known to Him Who readeth all thoughts, issued in quite the opposite of what they could have expected. It seemed easy to say : ' Thy sins have been forgiven.' But to Him, Who had ' authority ' to do so on earth, it was neither more easy nor more difficult than to say : ' Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.' Yet this latter, assuredly, proved the former, and gave it in the sight of all men unquestioned reality. CHAPTER XXVI. THE CALL OF MATTHEW — RABBINIC THEOLOGY AS REGARDS THE DOCTRINE OF FORGIVENESS IN CONTRAST TO THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST — THE CALL OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. (St. Matt. ix. 9-13 ; St. Mark ii. 13-17 ; St. Luke v. 27-32 ; St. Matt. X. 2-4 : St. Mark iii. 13-19; St. Luke vi. 12-19.) In two things chiefly does the fundamental difference appear between Christianity and all other religious systems. 130 Jesus the Messiah notably Rabbinism. Rabbinism, and every other system down to modern humanitarianism, can only generally point to God for tbe forgiveness of sin. What here is merely an abstraction has become a concrete reality in Christ. He speaks forgiveness on earth, because He is its embodiment. As regards the second idea, that of the sinner, all other systems would first make him a penitent, and then bid him welcome to God ; Christ first welcomes him to God, and so makes him a penitent. The one demands, the other imparts life. And so Christ is the Physician, Whom they that are in health need not, but they that are sick. And so Christ came not to call the righteous, but siuners — not to repentance, as our common text erroneously puts it in St. Matthew ix. 13, and St. Mark ii. 17, but to Himself, to the Kingdom; and this is the beginning of repentance. Thus it is that Jesus, when His teaching becomes dis- tinctive from that of Judaism, puts these two points in the foreground : the one at the cure of the paralytic, the other in the call of Levi-Matthew. And this, also, further ex- plains His miracles of healing as for the higher presenta- tion of Himself as the Great Physician, while it gives some insight into the nexus of thesetwo events, and ex- plains their chronological succession. It was fitting that at the very outset, when Rabbinism followed and chal- lenged Jesus with hostile intent, these two spiritual facts should be brought out, and that, not in a controversial, but in a positive and practical manner. For all the cum- brous observances of Rabbinism — its whole law — were only an attempted answer to the question : How can a man be just with God ? But, as Rabbinism stood self-confessedly silent and powerless as regarded the forgiveness of sins, so it had emphatically no word of welcome or help for the sinner. The very term ' Pharisee,' or ' separated one,' implied the exclusion of sinners. With this the whole character of Pharisaism accorded ; perhaps we should have said, that of Rabbinism, since the Sadducean would here agree with the Pharisaic Rabbi. The contempt and avoidance of the The Call of Matthew 131 unlearned, which was so characteristic of the system, arose not from mere pride of knowledge but from the thought that, as ' the Law ' was the glory and privilege of Israel — indeed, the object for which the world was created and preserved — ignorance of it was culpable. Thus, the un- learned blasphemed his Creator, and missed or perverted his own destiny. It was a principle that 'the ignorant cannot be pious.' The yoke of ' the Kingdom of God ' was the high destiny of every true Israelite. Only to them it lay in external, not internal conformity to the Law of God : ' in meat and drink,' not ' in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.' Although Rabbinism had no welcome to the sinner, it was unceasing in its call to repentance and in extolling its merits. Repentance not only averted punishment and prolonged life, but brought good, even the final redemption to Israel and the world at large. But, when more closely examined, we find that this repentance, as preceding the free welcome of invitation to the sinner, was only another form of work-righteousness. We have already touched the point where, as regards repentance, as formerly in regard to forgiveness, the teaching of Christ is in absolute and fundamental con- trariety to that of the Rabbis. According to Jesus Christ, when we have done all, we are to feel that we are but un- • st. Luke profitable servants.* According to the Rabbis, as xvu. 10 g^_ Paul puts it, ' righteousness cometh by the Law ; ' and, when it is lost, the Law alone can restore life; while, according to Christian teaching, it only bringeth death. Thus there was, at the very foundation of religious life, absolute contrariety between Jesus and His contemporaries. The nature of repentance has yet to be moi'e fully explained. Its gate is sorrow and shame. In that sense repentance may be the work of a moment, ' as in the twinkling of an eye,' and a life's sins may obtain mercy by the tears and prayers of a few minutes' repentance. To this also refers the beautiful saying, that all which rendered a sacrifice unfit for the altar, such as that it was broken, K 2 132 Jesus the Messiah fitted the penitent for acceptance, since ' the sacrifices ot God were a broken and contrite heart.' In some respects Rabbinic teaching about the need of repentance runs close to that of the Bible. But the vital dilference between Rabbinism and the Gospel lies in this : that whereas Jesus Christ freely invited all sinners, what- ever their past, assuring them of welcome and grace, the last word of Rabbinism is only despair and a kind of Pessimism. For it is expressly and repeatedly declared in the case of certain sins, and characteristically of heresy, that, even if a man genuinely and truly repented, he must expect immediately to die — indeed, his death would be the evidence that his repentance was genuine, since, though such a sinner might turn from his evil, it would be impossible for him, if he lived, to lay hold on the good, and to do it. It is in the light of Rabbinic views of forgiveness and repentance that tlie call of Levi-Matthew must be read, if we would perceive its full meaning. Few. if any, could have enjoyed better opportunities for hearing and quietly thinking over the teaching of the Prophet of Nazareth, than Levi-Matthew. We do not wonder that in the sequel his first or purely Jewish name of Levi is dropped, and only that of Matthew, which would have been added after his conversion, retained. The latter, which is the equivalent of Nathanael, or of the Greek Theodore (gift of God), seems to have been fre- quent. Sitting before his custom-house, as on that day when Jesus called him, Matthew must have frequently heard Him as He taught by the sea-shore. Thither not only the multitude from Capernaum would easily follow ; but here was the landing-place for the many ships which traversed the Lake, or coasted from town to town. And this not only for them who had business in Capernaum or that neighbourhood, but also for those who would then strike the great road of Eastern commerce which led from Damascus to the harbours of the West. We know much about those ' tolls, dues, and customs,' The Call op Matthew 133 which made the Roman administration such sore and vexatious exaction to all ' Provincials/ and which in Judasa loaded the very name of publican with contempt and hatred. They who cherished the gravest religious doubts as to the lawfulness of paying any tribute to Caesar, as involving in principle recognition of a bondage to which they would fain have closed their eyes, and the substitu- tioQ of heathen kingship for that of Jehovah, must have looked on the publican as the very embodiment of anti- nationalism. The endless vexatious interferences, the unjust and cruel exactions, the petty tyranny, and the extortionate avarice, from which there was neither defence nor appeal, would make it well-nigh unbearable. It is to this that the Rabbis so often refer. If ' publicans ' were disqualified from being judges or witnesses, it was, at least so far as regarded witness-bearing, because ' they exacted more than was due.' Hence also it was said that repentance was specially difficult for tax-gatherers and custom-house officers. It is of importance to notice that the Talmud dis- tinguishes two classes of ' publicans : ' the tax-gatherer in general, and the douanier or custom-house official. Although both classes fall under the Rabbinic ban, the douanier — such as Matthew was — is the object of chief execration. And this, because his exactions were more vexatious, and gave more scope to rapacity. The tax- gatherer collected the regular dues, which consisted of ground-, income-, and poll-tax. The ground-tax amounted to one-tenth of all grain and one-fifth of th© wine and fruit grown — partly paid in kind, and partly commuted into money. The income-tax amounted to 1 per cent. ; while the head-money, or poll-tax, was levied on all per- sons, bond and free, in the case of men from the age of fourteen, in that of women from the age of twelve up to that of sixty-five. If this offered many opportunities for vexatious exac- tions and rapacious injustice, the custom-house official might inflict much gi'eater hardship upon the poor people. There was tax and duty upon all imports and exports ; on 134 Jesus the Messiah all that was bought and sold ; bridge-money, road-money, harbour-dues, town-dues, &c. The classical reader knows the ingenuity which could invent a tax and find a name for every kind of exaction. On goods the ad valorem duty amounted to from 2^ to 5, and on articles of luxury to even 12^ per cent. But even this was as nothing, com- pared with the vexation of being constantly stopped on the journey, having to unload all pack-animals, when every bale and package was opened, and the contents tumbled about, private letters opened, and the douanier ruled supreme in his insolence and rapacity. This custom- house official was called ' great ' if he employed substi- tutes, and ' small ' if he stood himself at the receipt ot custom. What has been described will cast light on the call of Matthew by the Saviour of sinners. For we remember that Levi-J\latthew was not only a ' publican,' but of the worst kind : a ' MoJches ' or douanier ; a ' little Molxhes ' who himself stood at his custom-house ; of the class to whom, as we are told, repentance offered special difficulties. And, of all such officials, those who had to take toll from ships were perhaps the worst, if we are to judge by the pro- verb : ' Woe to the ship which sails without having paid the dues.' But now quite another day had dawned for Matthew. The Prophet of Nazareth was not like those other great Rabbis, or their self-righteous imitators. There was not between Him and one like Matthew, the great, almost impassable gap of repentance. He had seen and heard Him in the Synagogue — and who that had heard His Words or witnessed His power could ever forget or lose the impression ? The people, the rulers, even the evil spirits, had owned His authority. But in the Synagogue Jesus was still the Great One, far away from him ; and he, Levi-Matthew, the ' little Mohhes' of Capernaum, to whom, as the Rabbis told him, repentance was next to impossible. But out there, in the open, by the seashore, it was other- wise. All unobserved by others, he observed all, and could yield himself without reserve to the impression. The Call of Matthew 135 Perhaps he may have witnessed the call of the first Apostles ; he certainly must have known the fishermen and shipowners of Capernaum. And now it appeared as if Jesus had been brought still nearer to Matthew. For the great ones of Israel, ' the Scribes of the Pharisees,' and their pietist followers, had combined against Him, and would exclude Him, not on account of sin, but on account of the sinners. And so, we take it, long before that eventful day which for ever decided his life, IMatthew had, in heart, become the disciple of Jesus. Only he dared not hope for personal recognition — far less for call to discipleship. But when it came, and Jesus fixed on him that look of love which searched the inmost deep of the soul, it needed not a moment's thought or consideration. When He spake it, ' Follow Me,' the past seemed all swallowed up. He said not a word ; but he rose up, left the custom-house, and followed Him. That was a gain that day, not of Matthew alone, but of all the poor and needy in Israel — nay, of all sinners from among men, to whom the door of heaven was opened. It could not have been long after this that the memorable gathering took place in the house of Matthew, which gave occasion to that cavil of the Pharisaic Scribes, which served further to bring out the meaning of Levi's call. It was natural that all the publicans around should, after the call of Matthew, have come to his house to meet Jesus. And it was characteristic that Jesus should improve such opportunity. When we read of ' sinners ' as in company with these publicans, it is not necessary to think of gross or open offenders, though such may have been included. For we know what such a term may have included in the Pharisaic vocabulary. Equally characteristic was it, that the Rabbinists should have addressed their objection as to fellowship with such, not to the Master, but to the dis- ciples. Had they been able to lodge this cavil in their minds, it would have fatally shaken the confidence of the disciples in the Master. From their own standpoint and contention, in their own form of speech. He answered the Pharisees. And 136 Jesus the Messiah He not only silenced their gainsaying, but further opened up the meaning of His acting— nay, His very purpose and Mission. ' No need have they who are strong and « The latter ^^ health '^ of a physician, but they who are in St. Luke ill.' It was the very principle of Pharisaism which He thus set forth, alike as regarded their self-exclusion from Him and His consorting with the diseased. And, as the more Hebraic St. Matthew adds, applying the very Rabbinic formula, so often used when superficial speciousness of knowledge is directed to further thought and information : ' Go and learn ! ' Learn what ? What their own Scriptures meant ; learn that fundamental principle of the spiritual meaning of the Law as explana- tory of its mere letter, ' I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.' There was yet another and higher aspect of it, ex- plaining and applying alike this saying and the whole Old Testament, and thus His Own Mission : ' For I am not come to call righteous men, but sinners.' The intro- duction of the words ' to repentance ' in some manuscripts of St. Matthew and St. Mark shows how early the full meaning of Christ's words was misinterpreted. For Christ called sinners to better and higher than repentance, even to Himself and His Kingdom. The call of St. Matthew was no doubt speedily followed by the calling of the other Apostles.'' It ap- x.l-/[^"' pears that only the calling of those to the Apo- 13119'^^'"" stolate is related, which in some sense is typical, St. Luke vi. yiz. that of Peter and Andrew, of James and John, of Philip and Bartholomew (or Bar Tela- myon, or Temalyon, generally supposed the same as Nathanael), and of Matthew the publican. Yet, secondly, there is something which attaches to each of the others. Thomas, who is called Didymus (which means 'twin'), is closely connected with Matthew, both in St. Luke's Gospel and in that of St. Matthew himself. James is ex- ^ St. John pressly named as the son of Alphaeus or Clopas." ' six. 25 This we know to have been also the name of ' Thus he would be the same as ' James the Less,' or rather ' the Little,' a son of Maij, the sister-in-law of the Virgin-Mcther. The Call of the Twelve Apostles 137 Matthew-Levi's father. But, as the name was a common one, no inference can be drawn from it, and it does not seem likely that the father of Matthew was also that of James, Judas, and Simon, for these three seem to have been brothers. Judas is designated by St. Matthew as Lebbajus, from the Hebrew for ' a Jieart^' and is also named, both by him and by St. Mark, Thaddteus — a term which we would derive from the Jewish name for ^ praise.^ In that case both Lebbgeus and Thadda3us would point to the heartiness and the thanksgiving of the Apostle, and hence to his character. St. Luke simply designates him Judas of James, which means that he was the brother •St. Luke (^®^^ probably, the son) of James.* Thus his vi. 15; real name would have been Judas Lebba?us, and St. John his surname Thaddeeus. Closely connected with ^'^■^^ these two we have, in all the Gospels, Simon, surnamed Zelotes or Canangean (not Canaanite), both terms indicating his original connection with the Galilean Zealot party, the ' Zealots for the Law.' His position in the Apostolic Catalogue, and the testimony of Hegesippus, seem to point him out as the son of Clopas, and brother of James, and of Judas Lebba3us. These three were, in a sense, cousins of Christ, since, according to Hegesippus, Clopas was the brother of Joseph, while the sons of Zebedee were real cousins, their mother Salome being a sister of the Virgin. Lastly, we have Judas Iscariot, or Ish Kerioth, ' a man of Kerioth,' a town in Judah.^ b Josh. XV. Thus the betrayer alone would be of Judsean ^^ origin, the others all of Galilean ; and this may throw light on not a little in his after-history. 138 Jesus the Messiah CHAPTER XXVII. THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. (St. Matt, v.-vii.) It was probably on one of those mountain-ranges which stretch to the north of Capernaum, that Jesus had spent the night of lonely prayer which preceded the designation of the twelve to the Apostolate. As the morning broke, He called up those who had learned to follow Him, and from among them chose the twelve, who were to be His • St. Luke Ambassadors and Representatives.* But already ^- 1^ the eager multitude from all parts had come to the broad level plateau beneath, to bring to Him their need of soul or body. To them He now descended with words of comfort and power of healing. As they pressed around Him for that touch which brought virtue of healing to all, He retired again to the mountain height, and through the clear air of the spring day spake what has ever since been known as the ' Sermon on the Mount,' from the place where He sat, or as that ' in the plain ' (St. Luke vi. 17), from the place where He had first met the multitude, and which so many must have continued to occupy while He taught. The first and most obvious, perhaps also most super- ficial thought, is that which brings this teaching of Christ into comparison with the best of the wisdom and piety of the Jewish sages, as preserved in Rabbinic writings. Its essential difference, or rather contrariety, in spirit and substance, not only when viewed as a whole, but in almost each of its individual parts, will be briefly shown in tho sequel. Turn from a reading of the ' Sermon on the Mount ' to the wisdom of the Jewish Fathers in their Talmud. It matters little what part be chosen for the purpose. Here, also, the reader is at disadvantage, since his ingtructors present to him too frequently broken sentences, torn from The Sermon on the Mount 139 their connection, words often mistranslated or misapplied ; at best, only isolated sentences. There is here wit and logic, quickness and readiness, earnestness and zeal, but by the side of it profanity, uncleanness, superstition, and folly. Taken as a whole, it is not only utterly unspiritual, but anti-spiritual. Not that the Talmud is worse than might be expected of such writings in such times and circumstances, perhaps in many respects much better — always bearing in mind the particular standpoint of narrow nationalism, without which Talmudism itself could not have existed, and which therefore is not an accretion but an essential part of it. But, taken not in abrupt sentences and quotations, but as a whole, it is so utterly and im- measurably unlike the New Testament, that it is not easy to determine which is greater, the ignorance or the pre- sumption of those who put them side by side. And to the reader of such disjointed Rabbinic quotations there is this further source of misunderstanding, that the form and sound of words is so often the same as that of the sayings of Jesus, however different their spirit. For, necessarily, the wine — be it new or old — made in Judaea comes to us in Palestinian vessels. But the ideas underlying terms eqaally employed by Jesus and the teachers of Israel are, in everything that concerns the relation of souls to God, so absolutely ditterent as not to bear comparison. Whence otherwise the enmity and opposition to Jesus from the first, and not only after His Divine claim had been pronounced ? We can only here attempt a general outline of the * Sermon on the Mount.' Its great subject is neither righteousness, nor yet the New Law (if such designation be proper in regard to what in no real sense is a Law), but the Kingdom of God. Notably, the Sermon on the j\Iount contains not any detailed or systematic doctrinal, nor any ritual teaching, nor yet does it prescribe the form of any outward observances. As from this point of view the Sermon on the Mount differs from all contemporary Jewish teaching, so also is it impossible to compare it with any other system of morality. The difference here is one not of degree, nor 140 Jesus the Messiah even of kind, but of standpoint. It is indeed true that the Words of Jesus, properly understood, mark the utmost limit of all possible moral conception. But every moral system is a road by which, through self-denial, discipline, and effort, men seek to reach the goal. Christ begins with this goal, and places His disciples at once in the position to which all other teachers point as the end. They work up to the goal of becoming the ' children of the Kingdom ; ' He makes men such, freely, and of His grace : and this is the Kingdom. Accordingly, in the real sense, there is neither new law nor moral system here, but entrance into a new life : ' Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father Which is in heaven is perfect.' But if the Sermon on the Mount contains not a new, nor, indeed, any system of morality, and addresses itself to a new condition of things, it follows that the promises attaching, for example, to the so-called 'Beatitudes' must not be regarded as the reward of the spiritual state with which they are respectively connected, nor yet as their result. It is not because a man is poor in spirit that his is the Kingdom of Heaven, in the sense that the one state will grow into the other, or be its result ; still less is the one the reward of the other. The connecting link between the ' state ' and the promise is in each case Christ Himself: because He stands between our present and our future, and ' has opened the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers.' Thus the promise represents the gift of grace by Christ in the new Kingdom, as adapted to each case. It is Christ, then, as the King, Who is here flinging open the gates of His Kingdom. To study it more closely : in the three chapters, under which the Sermon on the Mount is grouped in the First Gospel,^ the King- ^ chs v.-vii. " . , . ~ dom. of God is -presented successively, iwogressivehj, and extensively. Let us trace this with the help of the text itself. In the first part of the Sermon on the Mount,** the Kingdom of God is delineated generally, first positively, and then negatively, marking espe- cially how its righteousness goes deeper than the mere The Sermon on the Mount 141 letter of even the Old Testament Law. It opens with ten Beatitudes, which are the New Testament counterpart to the Ten Commandments. These present to us, not the observance of the Law written on stone, but the realisation of that Law which, by the Spirit, is written on the fleshy tables of tlie heart.* 3-12. * '^* These Ten Commandments in the Old Cove- bEx.xix. j^^ii^ were preceded by a Prologue. '^ The ten il-ie^*"' ^' Beatitudes have, characteristically, not a Prologue, but an Epilogue,*' which corresponds to the Old Testament Prologue. This closes the first section, of which the object was to present the Kingdom of God in its characteristic features. But here it was necessary, in order to mark the real continuity of the New Testament with the Old, to show the relation of the one to the other. And this is the object of verses 17 to 20, the last-men- tioned verse forming at the same time a grand climax and transition to the criticism of the Old Testament-Law in its merely literal application, such as the Scribes and Pliari- <« w. 21 to sees made.^ In this part of the ' Sermon on the end of ch. v. jyjount ' the careful reader will mark an analogy to Exod. xxi. and xxii. This closes the first part of the ' Sermon on the Mount.' The second part is contained in St. Matt. vi. In this the criticism of the Law is carried deeper. The question now is not as concerns the Law in its literality, but as to what constituted more than a mere observance of the outward commandments : pieti/, spii'itualiti/ , sanctity. Three points here stand out : alms, prayer, and fasting — or, to put the latter more generally, the relation of the physical to the spiritual. These three are successively presented, nega- *Aims vL tively and positively.® But even so, this would 1-4 : Prayer, havc been but the external aspect of them. The Fpelled. 144 Jesus the Messiah Then all the Gentile nations urge that the Law had not been offered to them, which is proved to be a vain con- tention, since God had actually offered it to them, but only Israel had accepted it. On this the nations reply by a peculiar Rabbinic explanation of Exod. xix. 17, according to which God is actually represented as having lifted Mount Sinai like a cask, and threatened to put it over Israel unless they accepted the Law. Israel's obedience, therefore, was not willing, but enforced. On this the Almighty proposes to judge the Gentiles by the Noachic commandments, although it is added that, even had they observed them, these would have carried no reward. And, although it is a principle that even a heathen if he studied the Law was to be esteemed like the High-Priest, yet it is argued, with the most perverse logic, that the reward of heathens who observed the Law must be less than that of those who did so because the Law was given them, since the former acted from impulse, and not from obe- dience ! Other portions of the context bring out even more strongly the difference between the largeness of Christ's World-Kingdom, and the narrowness of Judaism. It is the same self-righteousness and carnalness of view which underlies the other Kabbinic parallels to the Beati- tudes, pointing to contrast rather than likeness. Thus the Rabbinic blessedness of mourning consists in this, that much misery here makes up for punishment here- after. We scarcely wonder that no Rabbinic parallel can be found to the third Beatitude, unless we recall the con- trast which assigns in Messianic days the possession of earth to Israel as a nation. Nor could we expect any pai'allel to the fourth Beatitude, to those who hunger and thirst after righteousness. Rabbinism would have quite a different idea of ' righteousness,' considered as ' good works,' and chiefly as almsgiving. To such the most special reward is promised. Similarly, Rabbinism speaks of the perfectly righteous and the perfectly unrighteous, or else of the righteous and unrighteous (according as the good or the evil might weigh heaviest in the scale) ; and, Kingdom of Chr/st and Rabbinic Teaching 145 besides these, of a kind of middle state. But such a con- ception as that of ' hunger ' and ' thirst ' after rigliteous- ness would have no place in the system. And, that no doubt may obtain, this sentence may be quoted : ' He that says, I give this " Sela " as alms, in order that my sons may live, and that I may merit the world to come, behold, this is the perfectly righteous.' Along with such assertions of work-righteousness we have this principle often repeated, that all such merit attaches only to Israel, while the good works and mercy of the Gentiles are actually reckoned to them as sin, though it is only fair to add that one voice is raised in contradiction of such teaching. It seems almost needless to prosecute this subject ; yet it may be well to remark that the same self-righteousness attaches to the quality of mercy, so highly prized among the Jews, and which is supposed not only to bring reward, but to atone for sins. With regard to purity of heart, there is, indeed, a discussion between the school of Sham- mai and that of Hillel — the former teaching that guilty thoughts constitute sin, while the latter expressly confines it to guilty deeds. The Beatitude attaching to peace- making has many analogies in Rabbinism ; but the latter would never have connected the designation of ' children of God' with any but Israel. A similar remark applies to the use of the expression ' Kingdom of Heaven ' in the next Beatitude. One by one, as we place the sayings of the Rabbis by the side of those of Jesus in this Sermon on the Mount, we mark the same essential contrariety of spirit, whether as regards righteousness, sin, repentance, faith, the Kingdom, alms, prayer, or fasting. Only two points may be specially selected, because they are so frequently brought forward by writers as proof that the sayings of Jesus did not rise above those of the chief Talmudic authorities. The first • St. Matt, of these refers to the well-known words of our ^- 12 Lord : * ' Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them : for this is the law and the prophets.' This is compared L 146 Jesus the Mess/ah with the following Rabbinic parallel, in which the gentle- ness of Hillel is contrasted with the opposite disposition of Shammai. The latter is said to have harshly repelled an intending proselyte, who wished to be taught the whole Law while standing on one foot, while Hillel received him with this saying : ' What is hatei'ul to thee, do not to another. This is the whole Law, all else is only its ex- planation.' It will be noticed that the words in which the Law is thus summed up are really only a quotation from Tob. iv. 15, ahbough their presentation as the sub- stance of the Law is, of course, original. But apart from this, there is a vast difference between this negative injunc- tion and the positive direction to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. The one does not rise above the standpoint of the Law, while the Christian saying embodies the nearest approach to absolute love of which human nature is capable, making that the test of our conduct to others which we ourselves desire to possess. And, be it observed, the Lord does not put self-love as the principle of our con- duct, but only as its ready test. Besides, the fiirther explanation in St. Luke vi. 38 should here be kept in view, as also the explanatory additions in St. Matt. v. 42-48. The second instance is the supposed similarity between • St. Matt, petitions in the Lord's Prayer * and Rabbinic vi. 9-13 prayers. Here we may remark at the outset, that both the spirit and the manner of prayer are presented by the Rabbis so externally, and with such details, as to make it quite different from prayer as our Lord taught His disciples. That the warning against prayers at the corner of streets was taken from life appears from the well- known anecdote concerning one Rabbi Jannai, who was observed saying his prayers in the public streets of Sepphoris, and then advancing four cubits to make the so- called supplementary prayer. Again, a perusal of some of the recorded prayers of the Rabbis will show how vastly different many of them were from the petitions which our Lord taught. Further details would lead beyond our present scope. Healing of the Centurion's Servant 147 It must suffice to indicate that such sayings as St. Matt. V. 6, 15, 17, 25, 29, 31, 46, 4-7 ; vi. 8, 12, 18, 22, 24, 32 ; vii. 8, 9, 10, 15, 17-19, 22, 23, have no parallel, in any real sense, in Jewish writings, whose teaching, indeed, often embodies opposite ideas. CHAPTER XXVIII. THE HEALING OF THE CENTURION'S SERVANT. (St. Matt. viii. 1, 5-15 ; St. Mark ui. 20, 21 ; St. Luke vii. 1-10.) From the Mount of Beatitudes, it was again to His tem- • St. Mark porary liouie at Capernaum that Jesus retired.* iii. 19-21 Yet not either to solitude or to rest. For of that multitude which had hung entranced on His Words many followed Him, and there was now such constant pressure around Him, that in the zeal of their attendance upon the wants and demands of those who hungered after the Bread of Life alike Master and disciples found not leisure so much as for the necessary sustenance of the body. The circumstances, the incessant work, and the all- consuming zeal led to the apprehension on the part of ' His friends ' that the balance of judgment might be over- weighted, and high reason brought into bondage to the poverty of the earthly frame. On tidings reaching them, with perha]js Orientally exaggerating details, they hastened out of their house in a neighbouring street to take posses- sion of Him, as if He had needed their charge. The idea that He was 'beside Himself afforded the only explana- tion of what otherwise would have been to them well-nigh inexplicable. To the Eastern mind especially this want of self-possession, the being ' beside ' oneself, would point to possession by another — God or Devil. It was on the ground of such supposition that the charge was so con- stantly raised by the Scribes, and unthinkingly taken up by the people, that Jesus was mad, and had a devil : not demouiacal possession, be it marked, but possession by the L 2 148 Jesus the Messiah Devil, in tlie absence of self-possessedness. And hence our Lord characterised this charge as really blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. And this also explains how, while unable to deny the reality of His Works, they could still resist their evidential force. This incident could have caused but brief interruption to His Work. Presently there came the summons of the heathen Ceuturion and the healing of his servant, which both St. Matthew and St. Luke record. The Centurion is a real historical personage. He was captain of the troop quartered in Capernaum, and in the service of Herod Antipas. We know that such troops were chiefly recruited from Samaritans and Gentiles of Caesarea. Nor is there the slightest evidence that this Centurion was a ' proselyte of righteousness.' The accounts both in St. Matthew and in St. Luke are incompatible with this idea. A ' proselyte of righteousness ' could have had no reason for not approaching Christ directly, nor would he have spoken of himself as ' unfit ' that Christ should come under his roof. But such language quite accorded with Jewish notions of a Gentile, since the houses of Gentiles were considered as defiled, and as defiling those who entered them. On the other hand, the ' proselytes of righteousness ' were in all respects equal to Jews, so that the words of Christ concerning Jews and Gentiles, as reported by St. Matthew, would not have been applicable to them. The Centurion was simply one who had learned to love Israel and to reverence Israel's God ; one who had built that Synagogue, of which, strangely enough, now after eighteen centuries the remains in their rich and elaborate carvings of cornices and entablatures, of capitals and niches, show with what liberal hand he had dealt hia votive offerings. As the houses of Gentiles were ' unclean,' entrance into them, and still more familiar fellowship, would ' de- file.' The Centurion must have known this ; and the higher he placed Jesus on the pinnacle of Judaism, the more natural was it for him to communicate with Christ through the elders of the Jews, and not to expect the Healing of the Centurion's Servant 149 persoaal Presence of the Master, even if the application to Him were attended with success. Closely considered, whatever verbal differences, there is not any real discrepancy between the Judaean presenta- tion of the event in St. Matthew and the fuller Gentile account of it by St. Luke. From both narratives we are led to infer that the house of the Centurion was not in Capernaum itself, but in its immediate neighbourhood, probably on the road to Tiberias. And in their leading features the two accounts entirely agree. There is earnest supplication for his sick, seemingly dying servant. Again, the Centurion in the fullest sense believes in the power of Jesus to heal, in the same manner as he knows his own commands as an officer would be im- plicitly obeyed. But in his self-acknowledged ' unfitness ' lay the real ' fitness ' of this good soldier for membership with the true Israel ; and in his deep-felt ' unworthiness ' the real ' worthiness ' for ' the Kingdom ' and its blessings. Here was one who was in the state described in the first clauses of the ' Beatitudes,' and to whom came the pro- mise of the second clauses ; because Christ is the connect- ing link between the two, and because He consciously was such to the Centurion. And so we mark that participation in the blessedness of the Kingdom is not connected with any outward rela- tionship towards it, nor belongs to our inward conscious- ness in regard to it ; but is granted by the King to that faith which in deepest simplicity realises, and holds fast by Him. But for the fuller understanding of tlie words of Christ, the Jewish modes of thought, which He used in illustration, require to be briefly explained. It was a common belief that in the day of the Messiah redeemed Israel would be gathered to a great feast, together with the patriarchs and heroes of the Jewish faith. One thing, however, was clear : Gentiles could have no part in that feast. On this point, then, the words of Jesus in re- ference to the believing Centurion formed the most marked contrast to Jewish teaching. 150 Jesus the Messiah In another respect also we mark similar contrariety. When our Lord consigned the unbelieving to ' outer dark- ness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth,' He once more used Jewish language, only with opposite appli- cation of it. Gehinnom was a place of darkness, to which, in the day of the Lord,^ the Gentiles would be "^°* ^' consigned. On the other hand, the merit of circumcision would in the day* of the Messiah deliver Jewish sinners from Gehinnom. It seems a moot question, b &t. Matt, whether the expression ' outer darkness ' ^ may viii. 12 j^Q^ have been intended to designate — besides the darkness outside the lighted house of the Father, find even beyond the darkness of Gehinnom — a place of hope- less, endless night. Associated with it is * the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.' In Rabbinic thought the former was connected with sorrow, the latter almost always with anger — not, as generally supposed, with anguish. To complete our apprehension of the contrast between the views of the Jews and the teaching of Jesus, we must bear in mind that, as the Gentiles could not possibly share in the feast of the Messiah, so Israel had claim and title to it. To use Rabbinic terms, the former were ' children of Gehinnom,' but Israel ' children of the King- <: St. Matt. dom,'*^or, in strictly Rabbinic language, 'royal vm. 12 children,' ' children of God,' 'of heaven,' 'chil- dren of the upper chamber,' and ' of the world to come.' Never, surely, could the Judaism of His hearers have received more rude shock than by this inversion of all their cherished beliefs. There was a feast of Messianic fellowship, a recognition on the part of the King of all His faithful subjects, a festive gathering with the fathers of the faith. But this fellowship was not of outward, but of spiritual kinship. There were ' children of the King- dom,' and there was an * outer darkness ' with its anguish and despair. But this childship was of the Kingdom, such as He had opened it to all believers ; and that outer darkness theirs, who had only outward claims to present. And so this history of the believing Centurion is at the same time an application of the ' Sermon on the Mount,' The Raising of the Young Man of Nain 151 and a further carrying out of its teaching. Negatively, it differentiated the Kingdom from Israel ; while, posi- tively, it placed the hope of Israel, and fellowship with its promises, within reach of all faith, whether of Jew or Gentile, CHAPTER XXIX. THE RAISING OF THE YOUNG MAN OF NAIN". (St. Luke vii. 11-17.) It matters little whether it was the very ' day after ' the healing of the Centurion's servant, or ' shortly afterwards,' that Jesus left Capernaum for Nain. Probably it was the morrow of that miracle, and the fact that ' much people,' or rather ' a great multitude,' followed Him seems con- firmatory of it. The way was long — as we reckon, more than twenty-five miles; but even if it was all taken on foot, there could be no difficulty in reaching Nain ere the evening, when so often funerals took place. Various roads lead to and from Nain. About ten minutes' walk to the east of Nain lies the now unfenced buryiug-ground, whither on that spring afternoon they were carrying the widow's son. Putting aside later superstitions, so little has changed in the Jewish rites and observances about the dead, that from Talmudic and even earlier sources we can form a vivid conception of what had taken place in Nain. The watchful anxiety, the vain use of such means as were known or within reach of the widow would be com- mon features in any such picture. But here we have besides the Jewish thoughts of death and after death ; knowledge just sufficient to make afraid, but not to give firm consolation, which make even the most pious Rabbi uncertain of his future ; and then the desolate thoughts connected in the Jewish mind with childlessness. We can realise how Jewish ingenuity and wisdom would re- sort to remedies real or magical ; how the neighbours would come in with reverent step, feeling as if the very 152 /eSLTS the M£SS/.4/i ShcJihinah were, uuseen, at the head of the pallet in that humble home : and how they would resort to the prayers of those who were deemed pious in Nain. But all was in vain. And now the well-known blast of the horn has cai'ried tidings that once more the Angel of Death has done his behest. In passionate grief the mother has rent her upper garment. The last sad otfices have been rendered to the dead. The body has been laid on the ground ; hair and nails have been cut, and the body washed, anointed, and wrapped in the best the widow could procure. The mother is left moaning, lamenting. She would sit on the tloor, neither eat meat nor drink wine. AMiat scanty meal she would take must be without prayer, in the house of a neighbour, or in another room, or at least with her back to the dead. Pious friends would render neighbourly offices, or busy themselves about the near funeral. If it was deemed duty for the poorest Jew, on the death of his wife, to provide at least two tlutes and one mourning woman, we may feel sure that the widowed mother had not neglected what were regarded as the last tokens of affection. In all likelihood the custom obtained even then, though in modified form, to have funeral orations at the grave. For, if charity even provided for an unknown wayfarer the simplest funeral, mourning- women would be hired to chaunt in weird strains the lament : ' Alas, the lion ! alas, the hero ! ' or similar words, while great Rabbis were wont to bespeak for themselves ' a warm funeral oration.' We can follow in spirit the mournful procession. As it issued chairs and couches were reversed and laid low. Outside, the funeral orator, if such were employed, pre- ceded the bier, proclaiming the good deeds of the dead. Immediately befoi"e the dead came the women, this being peculiar to Galilee, the Midrash giving this reason of it, that woman had introduced death into the world. The body was not, as afterwards in preference, carried in an ordinary cothn of wood, if possible cedarwood. but laid on a bier, or in an open coffin. In former times a distiuc- The Raising of the Young Man of Nain 153 tion had been made in these biers between rich and poor. The former were carried, as it were, in state — while the poor were conveyed in a receptacle made of wickerwork, having sometimes at the foot what was termed ' a horn,' to which the body was made fast. But this distinction between rich and poor was abolished by Rabbinic or- dinance, and both alike, if carried on a bier, were laid in that made of wickerwork. Commonly, though not in later practice, the face of the dead body was uncovered. The body lay with its face turned up, and its hands folded on the breast. We may add that, when a person had died unmarried or childless, it was customary to put into the coffin something distinctive of them, such as pen and ink, or a key. Over the coffins of bride or bridegroom a baldachino was carried. Sometimes the coffin was garlanded with myrtle. In exceptional cases we read of the use of incense, and even of a kind of libation. We cannot, then, be mistaken in supposing that the body of the widow's son was laid on the ' bed,' or in the ' willow basket,' already described. Nor can we doubt that the ends or handles were borne by friends and neighbours, different parties of bearers, all of them un- shod, at frequent intervals relieving each other, so that as many as possible might share in the good work. During these pauses there was loud lamentation ; but this custom was not observed in the burial of women. Behind the bier walked the relatives, friends, and then the sympa- thising ' multitude.' For it was deemed like mocking one's Creator not to follow the dead to his last resting- place, and to all such want of reverence Prov. xvii. 5 was applied. If one were absolutely prevented from joining the procession, although for its sake all work, even study, should be interrupted, reverence should at least be shown by rising up before the dead. And so they would go on to what the Hebrews beautifully designated as the ' house of assembly,' or ' meeting,' the * hostelry,' the ' place of rest,' or ' of freedom,' the ' field of weepers,' the ' house of eternity,' or ' of life.' Up from the city close by came this ' great multitude ' 154 Jesus the Messiah that followed tlie dead, with lamentations, wild chaunts of mourning women, accompanied by Hutes and the melan- choly tinkle of cymbals, perhaps by trumpets, amidst expressions of general sympathy. Along the road from Endor streamed the great multitude which followed the ' Prince of Life.' Here they met : Life and Death. The connecting link between them was the deep sorrow of the widowed mother. He recognised her as she went before the bier, leading him to the grave whom she had brought into life. She was still weeping ; even after He had hastened a step or two in advance of His followers, quite close to her, she did not heed Him and was still weeping. But, ' beholding her,' the Lord ' had compassion on her.' We remember, by way of contrast, the common formula used at funerals in Palestine, ' Weep with them, all ye who are bitter of heart ! ' It was not so that Jesus spoke to those around, nor to her, but characteristically : ' Be not weeping.' And what He said, that He wrought. He touched the bier, perhaps the very wicker-basket in which the dead youth lay. He dreaded not the greatest of all defilements — that of contact with the dead, which Rabbinism, in its elaboration of the letter of the Law, had surrounded with endless terrors. His was other separa- tion than of the Pharisees : not that of submission to ordinances, but of conquest of what made them neces- sary. And as He touched the bier, they who bore it stood still. The awe of the coming wonder — as it were, the shadow of the opening gates of life — had fallen on them. One word of command, ' and he that was dead sat up, and began to speak.' Not of that world of which he had had brief glimpse. For, as one who suddenly passes from dream-vision to waking, in the abruptness of the transition loses what he has seen, so he, who from that dazzling brightness was hurried back to the dim light to which his vision had been accustomed. And still was Jesus the link between the mother and the son, who had again found each other. And so, in the truest sense, ' He gave him to his mother.' The Woman which was a Sinner 155 But on those who saw this miracle at Nain fell the fear of the Divine Presence, and over their souls swept the hymn of Divine praise : fear, because a great Prophet was risen up among them; praise, because God had visited His people. CHAPTER XXX. THE WOMAN WHICH WAS A SINNER. (St. Luke vii. 36-50.) The next recorded event in this Galilean journey of the Christ can scarcely have occurred in the quiet little town of Nain. And yet it must have followed almost immedi- ately upon it. The impression left upon us by St. Matt. xi. 20-30 (which follows on the account of the Baptist's embassy) is that Jesus was on a journey, and it may well be that those words of encouragement and invitation, spoken to the » St. Matt burdened and wearily labouring,'^ formed part, xi. 28-30 perhaps the substance, of His preaching on that journey. Truly these were ' good tidings,' and not only to those borne down by weight of conscious sinfulness or deep sorrow. ' Good news,' also, to them who would fain have ' learned ' according to their capacity, but whose teachers had weighted ' the yoke of the Kingdom ' to a heavy burden, and made the Will of God to them labour, weary and unaccomplishable. Another point requires notice. It is how, in the un- folding of His Mission to man, the Christ progressively placed Himself in antagonism to the Jewish religious thought of His time, from out of which He had historically sprung. We find this in the whole spirit and bearing of what He did and said — in the house at Capernaum, in the Synagogues, with the Gentile Centurion, at the gate of Nain, and especially here, in the history of the much- forgiven woman who had much sinned. A Jewish Rabbi could not have so acted and spoken ; he would not even 156 Jesus the Messiah have understood Jesus ; nay, a Uabbi, however gentle and pitiful, would in word and deed have taken precisely the opposite direction from that of the Christ. The history itself seems but a fragment. We must try to learn from its structure, where and how it was broken off. We understand the delicacy that left her unnamed, the record of whose ' much forgiveness ' and great love had to be joined to that of her much sin. And we mark in contrast the cravings of morbid curiosity, or for saint-worship, which have associated her history with the name of Mary Magdalene. Another mistake is the attempt of certain critics to identify this history with the " St Matt much later anointing of Christ at Bethany.* Yet xxvi. 6 &G., the two narratives have really nothinar in com- and parallels , i , • 1 ,1 , m • < mon, save that m each case there was a ' feimon — perhaps the commonest of Jewish names ; a woman who anointed ; and that Christ, and those who were present, spoke and acted in accordance with other passages in the Gospel-history. The invitation of Simon the Pharisee to his table does not necessarily indicate that he had been impressed by the teaching of Jesus. If Jesus had taught in the ' city,' and, as always, irresistibly drawn to Him the multi- tude, it would be only in accordance with the manners of the time if the leading Pharisee invited the distinguished ' Teacher ' to his table. As such he undoubtedly treated * St. Luke Him.^ The question in Simon's mind was, vii. 40 whether He was more than ' Teacher ' — even ' Prophet ; ' and that such question rose within him indi- cates not only that Christ openly claimed a position different from that of Rabbi, and that His followers re- garded Him at least as a Prophet, but also, within the breast of Simon, a struggle in which Jewish prejudice was bearing down the impression of Christ's Presence. They were all sitting, or rather ' lying,' around the table, the body resting on the couch, the feet turned away from the table in the direction of the wall, while the left elbow rested on the table. And now, from the open court- yard, up the verandah-step, perhaps through an ante- The Woman which was a Sinner 157 chamber, and by the open door, passed the figure of a woman into the festive reception-room and dining-hall. How she obtained access little matters — as little as whether she ' had been," or ' was ' up to that day, ' a sinner,' in the terrible acceptation of the term. But we must bear in mind the greatness of Jewish prejudice against any conversation with woman, however lofty her character, fully to realise the incongruity on the part of such a woman in seeking access to the Rabbi, Whom so many regarded as the God-sent Prophet. We have said before that this story is a fragment ; and here, also, as in the invitation of Simon to Jesus, we have evidence of it. The woman had, no doubt, heard His words that day. What He had said would be, in sub- stance : ' Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. . . . Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart. . . . Ye shall find rest unto your souls. . . .' This was to her the Prophet sent from God with the good news that opened even to her the Kingdom of Heaven, and laid its yoke upon her, not bear- ing iier down to very hell, but easy of wear and light of burden. She knew that it was all as He said, in regard to the heavy load of her past ; and, as she listened to those Words, and looked on that Presence, she learned to believe that it was all as He had promised to the heavy-burdened. And she had watched, and followed Him afar off to the Pharisee's house. The shadow of her form must have fallen on all who sat at meat. But none spake ; nor did she heed any but One. What mattered it to her who was there, or what they thought ? There was only One Whose Presence she dared not encounter — not from fear of Him, but from knowledge of herself. It was He to Whom she had come. And so she ' stood behind at His Feet.' She had brought with her an alahastron (phial, or flask, commonly of alabaster) of perfume. We know that perfumes were much sought after, and very largely in use. Some, such as true balsam, were worth double their weight in silver ; others, like the spikenard, though not equally costly, were IS8 Jesus the Messiah also ' precious.' We have evidence that pevfumed oils — notably oil of roses, and of the iris plant, but chiefly the mixture known in antiquity a^s foliation, were largely manu- factured and used in Palestine. A flask with this perfume was worn by women round the neck, and hung down below the breast. So common was its use as to be allowed even on the Sabbath. Hence it seems at least not unlikely that the alahastron which she brought, who loved so much, was none other than the ' flask of foliatum.' As she stood behind Him at His Feet, reverently bend- ing, a shower of tears, like sudden summer-rain, ' bedewed ' His Feet. As if afraid to defile Him by her tears, she (piickly wiped them away with the long tresses of her hair that had fallen down and touched Him as she bent. And, now that her faith had grown bold in His Presence, she is continuing to kiss those Feet which had brought to her the ' good tidings of peace,' and to anoint them out of the alahastron round her neck. And still she spake not, nor yet He. For, as on her part silence seemed most fitting utterance, so on His, that He suffered it in silence was best and most fitting answer to her. Another there was whose thoughts, far other than hers or the Chi'ist's, were also unuttered. A more painful con- trast than that of ' the Pharisee ' in this scene can scarcely be imagined. We do not insist that the designation ' this Man,'* given to Christ in his unspoken thoughts, • ver. 39 ^^ ^^^ manner in which afterwards he replied to the Saviour's question by a supercilious ' I suppose,' or ' pre- sume,' ^ necessarily imply contempt. But they ''^^' *' certainly indicate the mood of his spirit. One thing, at least, seemed now clear to this Pharisee : If ' this Man,' with His strange, novel ways and words, Whom in politeness he must call ' Teacher,' Rabbi, luere a Prophet, He would have known who the woman was ; and, if He had known who she was, then would He never have allowed such approach. And yet Prophet He was, and in far fuller sense than Simon could have imagined. For He had read Simon's unspoken thoughts. Presently He would show it to him ; The Woman which was a Sinner 159 yet not by open reproof that would have put him to shame before his guests. What follows is not, as generally sup- posed, a parable, but an illustration. Accordingly, it must in no way be pressed. With this explanation vanish all the supposed difficulties about the Pharisees being ' little forgiven,' and hence ' loving little.' To convince Simon of the error of his conclusion that, if the life of that woman had been known, the Prophet must have forbidden her touch of love, Jesus entered into the Pharisee's own modes of reasoning. Of two debtors, one of whom owed ten times as much as the other, who would best love the creditor who had freely forgiven them ? Though to both the debt might have been equally impossible of discharge, and both might love equally, yet a Rabbi, would, according to his Jewish notions, say that he would love most to whom most had been forgiven. If this was the undoubted outcome of Jewish theology — the so much for so much — let it be applied to the present case. If there were much benefit, there would be much love ; if little benefit, little love. And conversely : in such case much love would argue much benefit ; little love, small benefit. Let him then apply the reasoning by marking this woman, and contrasting her conduct with his own. To wash the feet of a guest, to give him the kiss of welcome, and especially to anoint him,* were not, indeed, necessary atten- johTxi'ii. 4 tious at a feast. All the more did they indicate 4?"|x^J^"' special care, affection, and respect.** None of xxiT. 32 ; these tokens of re^-ard had marked the merely Jiulp. XIX. . . ~ _ _ ,; 2i;isam. polite reception of Him by the Pharisee. But, Ex.'xTiu. 7; in a twofold climax,*^ of which the intensity can 6 f^x.^'; only be indicated, the Saviour now proceeds to Ecci. iix.8; g^Qw how different it had been with her, to Amos VI. 6 ; • • t \ /-\ Ps. isiii.5 whom, for the first time, He now turned! On e yv, 44—46 , . Simon's own reasoning, then, he must have re- ceived but little, she much benefit. Or, to apply the former illustration, and now to reality: 'Forgiven have been her sins, the many ' — not in ignorance, but with knowledge of their being ' many.' This, by Simon's former admission, would explain and account for her much love, i6o Jesus the Messiah as the effect of much forgiveness. On the other hand — though the Lord does not actually express it — this other inference would also hold true, that Simon's little love showed that ' little is being forgiven.' And as formerly for the first time He had turned, so now for the first time He spoke to her : ' Thy sins have been forgiven ' — not now ' the many.' Nor does He now heed the murmuring thoughts of those around, who cannot understand Who this is that forgiveth sins also. But to her He said : ' Thy faith has saved thee : go into peace.' Our logical dogmatics would have had it : 'go in peace ; ' He, ' iyito peace.' And so she, the first who had come to Him for spiritual healing, went out into the better light, and into the eternal peace of the Kingdom of Heaven. CHAPTER XXXI. THE MINISTERING WOMEN — THE RETURN TO CAPERNAUM — HEALING OF THE DEMONISED DUMB — PHARISAIC CHARGE AGAINST CHRIST — THE VISIT OF CHRIST's MOTHER AND BRETHREN. (St. Luke viii. 1-3 ; St. Matt. ix. 32-35 ; St. Mark iii. 22, &c. ; St. Matt, xii. 46-50 and parallels.) Although there are difficulties connected with details, we conclude that Christ was now returning to Capernaum • St Luke from that Missionary journey ^ of which Nain viii. 1-3 ; St. had been the southernmost point. On this iour- Matt ix 35 ney He was attended, not only by the Twelve, but by loving, grateful women. Among them three are specially named. ' Mary, called Magdalene,' had received from Him special benefit of healing to body and soul. Her designation as Magdalene was probably derived from her native city, Magdala, just as several Rabbis are spoken of in the Talmud as ' Magdalene.' Magdala, which was a Sabbath-day's journey from Tiberias, was celebrated for its dyeworks, and its manufactories of fine woollen textures, of which eighty are mentioned. Indeed, all that district The Ministering Women i6i seems to have been engaged in this industry. It was also reputed for its traffic in turtle-doves and pigeons for purifications — tradition, with its usual exaggeration of numbers, mentioning three hundred such shops. Accord- ingly, its wealth was very great, and it is named among the three cities whose contributions were so large as to be sent in a waggon to Jerusalem. But its moral corruption was also great, and to this the Rabbis attributed its final destruction. Of the many towns and villages that dotted the shores of the Lake of Galilee, all have passed away except ]\Iagdala, which is still represented by the collection of mud hovels that bears the name of Mejdel. The ancient watch-tower which gave the place its name is still there, probably standing on the same site as that which looked down on Jesus and the Magdalene. To this day Magdala is celebrated for its springs and rivulets, which render it specially suitable for dyeworks ; while the shell-fish, with which these waters and the Lake are said to abound, might supply some of the dye. Such details may help us more clearly to realise the home, and with it, perhaps, also the upbringing and circumstances of her who not only ministered to Jesus in His life, but, with eager avarice of love, watched 'afar off' * St Matt -^^^ <^yiiig moments,^ and then sat over against xxvii. 56 ' the new tomb of Joseph in which His Body was ^^* laid.'' And the terrible time which followed she spent with her like-minded friends, who in Galilee had . ^ ministered to Christ," in preparing those ' spices xxui. 55 and ointments ' ^ which the Risen Saviour would never require. But however difficult the circum- stances may have been, in which the Magdalene came to profess her faith in Jesus, those oi Joanna must have been even more trying. She was the wife of C/iuza, Herod's Steward — possibly, though not likely, the Court-official whose son Jesus had healed by the word spoken in Cana.* • St. John Only one other of those who ministered to Jesus iv. 46-54 £g mentioned by name. It is Snmnna, the ' lily.' And they 'ministered to Him of their substance.' It was on this return-journey to Capernaum, probably M i62 Jesus the Messiah not far from the latter place, that the two blind men harl B St. Matt, their sight restored.* It was then also that the ix. 27-31 healing of the demonised dumb took place, which is recorded in St. Matt. ix. 32-35, and alluded to in St. Mark iii. 22-30. This narrative must, of course, not be confounded with the somewhat similar event told in St. Matt. xii. 22-32, and in St. Luke xi. 14-26. The latter occurred at a much later period in our Lord's life, when, as the whole context shows, the opposition of the Pharisaic party had assumed much larger proportions, and the lan- guage of Jesus was more fully denunciatory of the character and guilt of His enemies. That charge of the Pharisees, therefore, that Jesus cast out the demons through the b St. Matt. Prince of the demons,^ as well as His reply to it, ix. 34 ^]\\ i3eg^ 130 considered when it shall appear in its fullest development. It was on this return-journey to Capernaum from the uttermost borders of Galilee that the demonised dumb was restored by the casting out of the demon. The circum- stances show that a new stage in the Messianic course had begun. It is characterised by fuller unfolding of Christ's teaching and working, and pari passu by more fully de- veloped opposition of the Pharisaic party. For the two went together, nor can they be distinguished as cause or effect. That new stage, as repeatedly noted, had opened on His return from the ' Unknown Feast ' in Jerusalem, whence He seems to have been followed by the Pharisaic party. We have marked it so early as the call of the four disciples by the Lake of Galilee. But it first actively appeared at the healing of the paralytic in Capernaum, when, for the first time, we noticed the presence and murmuring of the Scribes, and, for the first time also, the distinct declaration about the forgiveness of sins on the part of Jesus. The same twofold element appeared in the call of the publican Matthew, and the cavil of the Pharisees at Christ's subsequent eating and drinking with ' sinners.' It was in further development of this separation from the old and now hostile element, that the twelve Apostles were next appointed, and that distinctive teaching of Jesus Healing of the Demonised Dumb 163 addressed to the people in the ' Sermon on the Mount,' which was alike a vindication and an appeal. On the journey through Galilee, which followed, the hostile party- does not seem to have actually attended Jesus ; but their growing and now outspoken opposition is heard in the discourse of Christ about John the Baptist after the • St. Matt, dismissal of his disciples,* while its influence xi. 16-19 appears in the unspoken thoughts of Simon the Pharisee. It has already been suggested that the Pharisaic party, as such, did not attend Jesus on His Galilean journey. But we are emphatically told that tidings of the raising » St. Luke of the dead at Nain had gone forth into Judaea.** ^- ^'^ No doubt they reached the leaders at Jerusalem. There seems just sufficient time between this and the healing of the demonised dumb on the return-journey to Capernaum, to account for the presence there of those • St. Matt. Pharisees,*' who are expressly described by St. *'^st.*Mark Mark "^ as 'the Scribes which came down from iii. 22 Jerusalem.' Whatever view the leaders at Jerusalem may have taken of the raising at Nain, it could no longer be denied that miracles were wrought by Jesus. At least, what to us seem miracles, yet not to them, since, as we have seen, ' miraculous ' cures and the expelling of demons lay within the sphere of their 'extraordinary ordinary' — were not miracles in our sense, since they were, or professed to be, done by their ' own children.' The mere fact, therefore, of such cures would present no difficulty to them. To us a single well-ascertained miracle would form irrefragable evidence of the claims of Christ ; to them it would not. They could believe in the ' miracles,' and yet not in the Christ. And here, again, we perceive that it was enmity to the Person and Teaching of Jesus which led to the denial of His claims. The inquiry : By what Power Jesus did these works ? they met by the assertion that it was through that of Satan, or the Chief of the Demons. They regarded Jesus, as not only temporarily, but permanently, possessed by a demon, that is, as the constant vehicle of M 2 164 Jesus the Messiah Satanic influence. And this demon was, according to them, none other than Beelzebub, the Prince of the devils.^ • St. Mark Thus, in their view, it was really Satan who i"-22 acted in and through Him; and Jesus, instead of being recognised as the Son of God, was regarded as an incarnation of Satan ; instead of being owned as the Messiah, was denounced and treated as the representative of the Kingdom of Darkness. All this, because the King- dom which He came to open and which He preached, was precisely the opposite of what they regarded as the Kingdom of God. Thus it was the essential contra- riety of Rabbinism to the Gospel of Ihe Christ that lay at the foundation of their conduct towards the Person of Christ. To regard every fresh manifestation of Christ's Power as only a fuller development of the power of Satan, and to oppose it with increasing determination and hostility, even to the Cross : such was henceforth the natural progress of this history. On the other hand, such a course once fully settled upon, there would and could be no further reason- ing with or against it on the part of Jesus. Henceforth His Discourses and attitude to such Judaism must be chiefly denunciatory, while still seeking — as, from the inward necessity of His Nature and the outward necessity of His Mission, He must — to save the elect remnant from this ' untoward generation,' and to lay broad and wide the foundations of the future Church. The charge of Satanic agency was, indeed, not quite new. It had been suggested that John the Baptist had been under demoniacal influence, and this cunning pretext for resistance to his message had been eminently successful *> St. Matt, with the people.^ The same charge, only in St Luke ' much fuller form, was now raised against Jesus, vii. 31-33 As 'the multitude marvelled, saying, it was never so seen in Israel,' the Pharisees, without denying the facts, had this explanation of them : that, both as re- garded the casting out of the demon from the dumb man 0 St. Matt, '^ii*^ ''^^' similar works, Jesus wrought it 'through ix.3'3,34 the Ruler of the Demons.' ° Pharisaic Charge against Christ 165 Their besetment of the Christ did not cease here. It is to it that we attribute the visit of ' the mother and brethren' of Jesus, which is recorded in the three Synoptic Gospels.* Pharisaic opposition had either filled xii. 46&0.'; tliose relatives of Jesus with fear for His safet}-, ui'.s^'&c. • *^^ made them sincerely concerned about His st-.i'Uke proceedings. Only if it meant some kind of interference with His Mission, whether prompted by fear or affection, would Jesus have so disowned their relationship. But it meant more than this. Without going so far as to see pride or ostentation in this, that the Virgin- Mother summoned Jesus to her outside the house, since the opposite might as well have been her motive, we cannot but regard the words of Christ as the sternest pro- phetic rebuke of all Mariolatry, prayer for the Virgin's intercession, and, still more, of the strange doctrines about her freedom from actual and original sin, up to their prurient sequence in the dogma of the ' Immaculate Conception.' On the other hand, we also remember the deep rever- ence among the Jews for parents, which found even ex- aggerated expression in the Talmud. And we feel that of all in Israel He, who was their King, could not have spoken or done what might even seem disrespectful to a mother. There must have been higher meaning in His words. That meaning would be better understood after His Resurrection. CHAPTER XXXII. THE PARABLES TO THE PEOPLE BY THE LAKE OF GALILEE, AND THOSE TO THE DISCIPLES IN CAPERNAUM. (St. Matt. xiii. 1-52 ; St. Mark iv. 1-34 ; St. Luke viii. 4-18.) We are once more with Jesus and His disciples by the Lake of Galilee. It was a spring morning, and of such spring-time as only the East, and chiefly the Galilean Lake, knows. Almost suddenly the blood-red anemone, 1 66 Jesus the Messiah / // the gay tulip, the spotless narcissus, and the golden ranun- ' cuius clothe the fields, while all trees put forth their fragrant promise of fruit. As the imagery employed in the Sermon on the Mount confirmed the inference, otherwise derived, that it was spoken dviring the brief period after the winter rains, when the ' lilies ' decked the fresh grass, so the scene depicted in the Parables spoken by the Lake of Galilee indicates a more advanced season, when the fields gave first promise of a harvest to be gathered in due time. And as we know that the barley-harvest commenced with the Passover, we cannot be mistaken in supposing that the scene is laid a few weeks before that Feast. Other evidence of this is not wanting. From the • St. Matt, opening verses'^ we infer that Jesus had gone xiii. 1, 2 forth from ' the house ' with His disciples only, and that, as He sat by the seaside, the gathering multitude had obliged Him to enter a ship, whence He spake unto them many things in Parables. We mark an ascending scale in the three series of Para- bles, spoken respectively at three different periods in the History of Christ, and with reference to three different stages xstMatt. ^^ Pharisaic opposition and popular feeling, '^"i- The first series is that,^ when Pharisaic opposi- tion had just devised the explanation that His works were of demoniac agency, and when misled affection would have converted the ties of earthly relationship into bonds to hold the Christ. ,. ^ , The second series of Parables*' is connected "= St. Luke •11 1 • n tii • • x.-xvi., With the climax oi Pharisaic opposition as pre- xvui., passim g^^^^gj j^^ ^j^g charge, in its most fully developed form, that Jesus was, so to speak, the incarnation of Satan, the constant medium and vehicle of his activ- 0 St. Luke ity.*^ This was the blasphemy against the Holy XI. 14-36 *, /^ 1 i. St. Matt. b-nOSt. st."Mai*k /ii III the third series, consisting of eight Para- lll^^-Kf *^ bles,^ the Kingdom of God is presented in its •St. Matt. > „ . ° , . *. xviii., XX., final stage of ingathering, separation, reward and xxiv.^'xxv., loss, as, indeed, we might expect in the teaching of tlie Lord immediately before His final rejec- StLuke Kix. Parables by the Lake of Galilee 167 tion by Israel and betrayal into the hands of the Gen- tiles. One thing, however, is common to all the Parables, and forms a point of connection between them. They are all occasioned by some unreceptiveness on the part of the hearers, and that, even when the hearers are professing disciples. This seems indicated in the reason assigned by Christ to the disciples for His use of parabolic teach- ing : that unto them it was ' given to know the mys- tery of the Kingdom of God, but unto them that •St. Mark ^'^^ without, all thcse things are done in i^-ii parables.'* Little information is to be gained from discussing the etymology of the word ParaJile. The word means the placing of one thing by the side of another. Perhaps no other mode of teaching was so common among the Jews as that by Parables. Only in their case they were almost entirely illustrations of what had been said or taught; while, in the case of Christ, they served as the foundation for His teaching. This distinction will be found to hold true, even in instances where there seems the closest pai'allelism between a Rabbinic and an Evangelic Parable. On further examination, the difference between them, as has been already remarked in regard to other forms of teaching, will appear not merely one of degree, but of kind, or rather of standpoint. This may be illustrated by the Parable of the woman who made anxious search for her lost b St. Luke coin,*' to which there is an almost literal Jewish XV. 8-10 parallel. But, whereas in the Jewish Parable the moral is that a man ought to take much greater pains in the study of the Law than in the search for coin, since the former procures an eternal reward, while the coin would, if found, at most only procure temporary enjoy- ment, the Parable of Christ is intended to set forth, not the merit of study or of works, but the compassion of the Saviour in seeking the lost, and the joy of Heaven in his recovery. It need scarcely be said thnt comparison between such Parables, as regards their spirit, is scarcely possible, except by way of contrast. 1 68 Jesus the Messiah "St Matt -'-^ ^^^ record of this first series,'* tlie fact that bit M Jesus spake to the people in Parables,'' and only liiLs, and in Parablcs," is strongly marked. It appears, • st?Matt. therefore, to have been the first time that this st"MMk iv. Diode of popular teaching was adopted by Him, 33,34 Accordingly, the disciples not only expressed their astonishment, but inquired the reason of this novel 4 St Matt method.* The answer of the Lord specially xiii. 10, and marks this as the difference between the teaching para e s youchsafed to them and the Parables spoken to the people, that the designed effect of the latter was judicial : to complete that hardening which, in its com- mencement, had been caused by their voluntary rejection «st Matt, ^f what they had heard.® To us, at least, it xi. 13-17 seems clear that the ground of the different effect of the Parables on the unbelieving multitude and on the believing disciples was not caused by the substance or form of these Parables, but by the different standpoint of the two classes of hearers towards the Kingdom of God. We are now in some measure able to understand why Christ now for the first time adopted parabolic teaching. Its reason lay in the altered circumstances of the case. All His former teaching had been plain, although initial. In it He had set forth by word, and exhibited by fact (in miracles), that Kingdom of God which He had come to open to all believers. The hearers had now ranged themselves into two parties. Those who, whether temporarily or per- manently (as the result would show), had admitted these premisses, so far as they understood them, were His pro- fessing disciples. On the other hand, the Pharisaic party had now devised a consistent theory, according to which the acts, and hence also the teaching, of Jesns were of Satanic origin. Christ must still preach the Kingdom; for that purpose had He come into the world. Only, the presentation of that Kingdom must now be for decision. It must separate the two classes, leading the one to clearer understanding of the mysteries of the Kingdom, while the other class of hearers would now regard these mysteries as wholly unintelligible, incredible, and to be rejected. And The Parable of the Sower 169 tlie ground of this lay in the respective positions of these two classes towards the Kingdom. ' Whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance ; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.' And the mysterious manner in which they were presented in Parables was alike suited to, and corresponded with, the character of these ' mysteries of the Kingdom,' now set forth, not for initial instruction, but for final decision. Thus much in general explanation. The record of the • St. Matt, ^rst series of Parables * contains three separate *"'• accounts : that of the Parables spoken to the people ; that of the reason for the use of parabolic teaching, and the explanation of the first Parables (both addressed to the disciples) ; and, finally, another series of Parables spoken to the disciples. To each of these we must briefly address ourselves. On that bright spring morning, when Jesus spoke from ' the ship ' to the multitude that crowded the shore, He addressed to them these four Parables : concerning Him Who sowed, concerning the Wheat and the Tares, concerning the Mustard-Seed, and concerning the Leaven. The first, or perhaps the two first of these, must be supple- mented by what may be designated as si fifth Parahle, that of the Seed growing unobservedly. This is the only Parable b St. Mark ^f which St. Mark alone has preserved tl^ie record." iv. 26-29 ^\\ these Parables refer, as is expressly stated, to the Kingdom of God ; that is, not to any special phase or characteristic of it, but to the Kingdom itself, or in other words, to its history. The first Parable is that of Him Who sowed. We can almost picture to ourselves the Saviour seated in the prow of the boat, as He points His hearers to the rich plain over against Him, where the young corn, btill in the first green of its growing, is giving promise of harvest. Like this is the Kingdom of Heaven which He has come to proclaim. The Sower has gone forth to sow the Good Seed. If we bear in mind a mode of sowing peculiar to those times, the Parable gains in vividness. According to 170 Jesus the Mess/am Jewish authorities there was twofold sowing, as the seed was either cast by the hand or by means of cattle. In the latter case, a sack with holes was filled with corn, and laid on the back of the animal, so that, as it moved on- wards, the seed was thickly scattered. Thus it might well be that it would fall indiscriminately on beaten roadway, on stony places but thinly covered with soil, or where the thorns had not been cleared away, or undergrowth from the thorn-hedge crept into the field, as well as on good ground. The result in each case need not here be repeated. But what meaning would all this convey to the Jewish hearers of Jesus ? How could this sowing and growing be like the Kingdom of God ? Certainly not in the sense in which they expected it. To them it was only a rich harvest, when all Israel would bear plenteous fruit. Again, what was the Seed, and who the Sower ? or what could be meant by the various kinds of soil and their unproductiveness ? To us, as explained by the Lord, all this seems plain. The initial condition requisite was to believe that Jesus was the Divine Sower, and His Word the Seed of the Kingdom. If this were admitted, they had at least the right premisses for understanding ' this mystery of the Kingdom.' According to Jewish view the Messiah was to appear in outward pomp, and by display of power to esta- blish the. Kingdom. But this was the very idea of the Kingdom, with which Satan had tempted Jesus at the out- set of His Ministry. In opposition to it was this ' mystery of the Kingdom,' according to which it consisted in recep- tion of the Seed of the Word. That receptioii would depend on the nature of the soil, that is, on the mind and heart of the hearers. The Kingdom of God was ivithin ; it came neither by a display of power, nor even by this, that Israel, or else the Gospel-hearers, were the field on which the Seed of the Kingdom was sown. If even the disciples failed to comprehend the whole bearing of this ' mystery of the Kingdom,' we can believe how utterly strange and un-Jewish such a Parable of the Messianic Kingdom must have sounded to them who had Parable of the Wheat and the Tares 171 been influenced by the Pharisaic representations of the Person and Teaching of Christ. This appears the fittest place for inserting the Parable •St. Mark recorded by St. Mark alone,^ concerning the Seed iT. 26-29 crrowinor unobsers-edlv. If the first Parable, that of the Sower and the Field of Sowing, would prove to all who were outside the pale of discipleship a ' mystery,' while to those within it would unfold knowledge of the very mysteries of the Kingdom, this would even more fully be the case in regard to this second or supplementary Parable. In it we are only viewing that portion of the field which the former Parable had described as good soil. ' So is the Kingdom of God, as if a man had cast the seed on the earth, and slept and rose, night and day. and the seed sprang up and grew : how, he knows not himself. Automatons [self-acting] the earth beareth fruit : first blade, then ear, then full wheat in the ear ! But when the fruit presents itself, immediately he sendeth forth the sickle, because the harvest is come.' The meaning of all this seems plain. We can only go about our daily work, or lie down to rest, as day and night alternate : we see, but know not the how of the growth of the seed. Yet assuredly it will ripen, and when that moment has arrived, immediately the sickle is thi'ust in, for the harvest is come. And so also with the Sower. His outward activity on earth was in the sowing, and it will be in the harvesting. What lies between them is of that other Dispensation of the Spirit, till He again send forth His reapers into His field. But all this must have been to those • without ' a great mystery, in no wise compatible with Jewish notions ; while to them * within ' it proved a very needful unfolding of the mysteries of the Kingdom, with wide application of them. The ' mystery ' is made still further mysterious, or else it is still further unfolded, in the next Parable concerning the Tares sown among the Wheat. According to the com- mon view, these Tares represent what is botanically known as the ' bearded darnel,' a poisonous rye-grass, very coui- mon in the East, ' entirely like wheat until the ear appears;' or else the 'creeping wheat' or 'couch-grass' {Triticum 172 ■- Jesus the Messiah re2:)ens), of which the roots creep underground and become intertwined with those of the wheat. But the Parable gains in meaning if we bear in mind that, according to ancient Jewish (and, indeed, modern Eastern) ideas, the Tares were not of different seed, but only a degenerate kind of wheat. Once more we see the field on which the corn is grow- ing— we know not how. The sowing time is past. ' The Kingdom of Heaven is become like to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But in the time that men sleep came his enemy and over-sowed tares in (upon) the midst of the wheat, and went away.' Thus far the picture is true to nature, since such deeds of enmity were, and still are, common in the East. And so matters would go on unobserved, since, whatever kind of ' tares ' may be meant, it would, from their likeness, be for some time impossible to distinguish them from the wheat. ' But when the herb- age grew and made fruit, then appeared (became manifest) also the tares.' What follows is equally true to fact, since most strenuous efforts are always made in the East to weed out the tares. But in the present instance separation would have been impossible, without at the same time uprooting some of the wheat. For the tares had been sown right into the midst, and not merely by the side of the wheat ; and their roots and blades must have become intertwined. And so they must grow together to the har- vest. Then such danger would no longer exist, for the period of growing was past, and the wheat had to be gathered into the barn. Then would be the right time to bid the reapers first gather the tares into bundles for burning, that afterwards the wheat, pure and unmixed, might be stored in the garner. True to life as the picture is, yet the Parable was, of all others, perhaps the most un-Jewish, and therefore mysterious and unintelligible. Hence the disciples spe- cially asked explanation of this only, which from its main subject they designated as the Parable ' of the Tares.' " »st. Matt. Yet this was also perhaps the most important for xm. 36 them to understand. For already ' the Kingdom Parable of the Wheat and the Tares 173 of Heaven is become like ' this, although the appearance of fruit has not yet made it manifest that tares have been sown right into the midst of the wheat. But they would soon have to learn it, in bitter experience and temptation,* •St. John and not only as regarded the impressionable, VI. 66-70 iickle multitude, nor even the narrower circle of professing followers of Jesus, but that in their very midst there was a traitor. Most needful, yet most mysterious also, is this other lesson, as the experience of the Church has shown, since almost every period of her histoiy has wit- nessed not only the recurrence of the proposal to make the wheat unmixed while growing, by gathering out the tares, but actual attempts towards it. All such have proved failures, because the field is the wide ' world,' not a narrow sect ; because the tares have been sown into the midst of the wheat, and by the enemy ; and because, if such gather- ing were to take place, the roots and blades of tares and wheat would be found so intertwined, that harm would come to the wheat. But what have we, who are only the owner's servants, to do with it, since we are not bidden of Him ? The ' yEon-completion ' will witness the harvest, when the separation of tares and wheat may not only be accomplished with safety, but shall become necessary. For the wheat must be garnered in the heavenly storehouse, and the tares bound in bundles to be burned. More mysterious still, and if possible even more need- ful, was the instruction that the Enemy who sowed the tares was the Devil. To the Jews, nay, to us all, it may seem a mystery that in ' the Messianic Kingdom of Heaven ' there should be a mixture of tares with the wheat, the more mysterious, that the Baptist had predicted that the coming Messiah would throughly purge His floor. But to those who were capable of receiving it, it would be explained by the fact that the Devil was ' the Enemy ' of Christ and of His Kingdom, and that he had sowed those tares. This would, at the same time, be the most effective answer to the Pharisaic charge that Jesus was the incar- nation of Satan, and the vehicle of his influence. The concluding two J-*arables set forth another equally 174 Jesus the Messiah mysterious cTiaracteristic of the Kingdom : that of its development and power, as contrasted with its small and weak beginnings. In the Parable of the Mustard-seed this is shown as regards the relation of the Kingdom to the outer world; in that of the Leaven in reference to the world within us. The one exhibits the extensiveness, the other the intensiveness of its power ; in both cases at first hidden, almost imperceptible, and seemingly wholly inadequate to the final result. A few remarks will set the special meaning of these Parables more clearly before us. Here also the illustrations used may have been at hand. The very idea of Parables implies, not strict scientific accuracy, but popular pictorial- ness. It is characteristic of them to present vivid sketches that appeal to the popular mind, and exhibit such analogies of higher truths as can be readily perceived by all. Thus, as regards the first of these two Parables, the seed of the mnstard-plant passed in popular parlance as the smallest of seeds. In fact, the expression, ' small as a mustard- seed,' had become proverbial, and was used, not only by « St. Matt, our Lord,*^ but frequently by the Rabbis, to indi- xvii.20 gg^^Q ^}^Q smallest amount, such as the least drop of blood, the least defilement, or the smallest remnant of sun-glow in the sky. ' But when it is grown, it is greater than the garden-herbs.' Indeed, it looks no longer like a large garden-herb or shrub, but ' becomes,' or rather appears like ' a tree ' — as St. Luke puts it, ' a great tree ^' — bst. Luke of course, not in comparison with other trees, but xiii. 18, 19 Yfitlx gardcu-shrubs. Such growth of the mus- tard-seed was also a fact well known at the time, and indeed still observed in the East. This is the first and main point in the Parable. The other concerning the birds which are attracted to its • St. Mark branches and ' lodge ' — literally, ' make tents ' — *^'- ^^ there, or else under the shadow of it,'' is subsi- diary. Pictorial, of course, this trait would be, and we can the moi'e readily understand that birds would be attracted to the branches or the shadow of the mustardrplant, when we know that mustard was in Palestine mixed with or used as Parable of the Leaven 175 food for pigeons, and presumably would be sousrht b}^ other birds. And the general meaning would the more easily be apprehended, that a tree, whose wide-spreading branches alibrded lodgment to the birds of heaven, was a familiar Old Testament figure for a mighty kingdom that gave • Eztk. xxxi. shelter to the nations." Indeed, it is specifically iv.'i2, 14? 21, used as an illustration of the Messianic King- k^Ezck xvii ^^^^'^■^ Thus the Parable would point to this, so 23 full of mystery to the Jews, so explanatory of the mystery to the disciples : that the Kingdom of Heaven, planted in the field of the world as the smallest seed, in the most humble and unpromising manner, would grow till it far outstripped all other similar plants, and gave shelter to all nations under heaven. To this extensive power of the Kingdom corresponded its intensive character, whether in the world at large or in tRe individual. This formed the subject of the last of the Parables addressed at this tmie to the people — that of the Leaven. We need not here resort to ingenious methods of explaining ' the three measures,' or Sealis, of meal in which the leaven was hid. Three Seahs were an Ephah, of which the exact capacity differed in various districts. To mix ' three measures ' of meal was common in P>iblical, 0 Comp ^^ ^^^^ '"^^ ^^ later times.*' Nothing further was Gen. xviii. therefore conveyed than the common process of i9';isum.i. Ordinary, everyday life. And in this, indeed, ^* lies the very point of the Parable : that the King- dom of God when received within would seem like leaven hid, but would gradually pervade, assimilate, and trans- form the whole of our common life. With this most un-Jewish characterisation of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Saviour dismissed the people. Enough had been said to them and for them, if they had but ears to hear. And now He was again alone with the disciples ' in the house ' at Capernaum, to which they had <« St jratt. returned."^ Many new and deeper thoughts of xiii. 36; the Kingdom had come to them. But why had 10, an'cist! Ho so spokcn to the multitude, in a manner so Mark IV. 10 (jifj-gj.gjij;^ a^g regarded not only the form, but 176 Jesus the Messiah even the substance of His teaching ? And did they quite understand its solemn meaning themselves ? More especi- ally, who was the enemy whose activity would threaten the safety of the harvest ? Of that harvest they had » St. John already heard on the way through Samaria.* IV. 35 And what were those ' tares,' which were to con- tinue in their very midst till the judicial separation of the end ? To these questions Jesus now made answer. His statement of the reason for adopting in the present instance the parabolic mode of teaching would, at the same time, give them farther insight into those very mysteries of the Kingdom which it had been the object of these Parables to set forth. His unsolicited explanation of the details of the first Parable would call attention to points that might readily have escaped their notice, but which, for warning and instruction, it most behoved them to keep in view. Kindred, or rather closely connected, as are the two Parables of the Treasure hid in the Field and of the Pearl of Great Price — now spoken to the disciples — their dif- ferences are sufficiently marked. In the first, one who must probably be regarded as intending to buy a, if not this, field, discovers a treasure hidden there, and in his joy parts with all else to become owner of the field and of the hidden treasure which he had so unexpectedly found. Some difficulty has been expressed in regard to the morality of such a transaction. In reply it may be ob- served that it was, at least, in entire accordance with Jewish law. If a man had found a treasure in loose coins among the corn, it would certainly be his, if he bought the corn. If he had found it on the ground, or in the soil, it would equally certainly belong to him, if he could claim ownership of the soil, and even if the field were not his own, unless others could prove their right to it. The law went so far as to adjudge to the purchaser of fruits anything found among these fruits. In the second Parable we have a wise merchantman who travels in search of pearls, and when he finds one which in value exceeds all else, he returns and sells all that he has, in order to buy this unique gem. The The Storm on the Lake of Galilee 177 supreme value of the Kingdom, the consequent desire to appropriate it, and the necessity of parting with all else for this purpose, are the points common to this and the previous Parable. But in the one case, it is marked that this treasure is hid from common view in the field, and the finder makes unexpected discovery of it, which fills him with joy. In the other case, the merchantman is, indeed, in search of pearls, but he has the wisdom to dis- cover the transcendent value of this one gem, and the yet greater wisdom to give up all further search and to acquire it at the surrender of everything else. Thus, two difi'erent aspects of the Kingdom, and two different con- ditions on the part of those who, for its sake, equally part with all, are here set before the disciples. Nor was the closing Parable of the Draw-net less needful. Assuredly it became, and would more and more become, them to know that mere discipleship — mere in- clusion in the Gospel-net — was not sufficient. That net let down into the sea of tliis world would include much which, when the net was at last drawn to shore, would prove worthless or even hurtful. To be a disciple, then, was not enough. Even here thei-e would be separation. Not only the tares, which the Enemy had designedly sown into the midst of the wheat, but even much that the Gospel- net cast into the sea had inclosed, would when brought to land prove fit only to be cast away, into ' the oven of the fire where there is the wailing and the gnashing of teeth.' » CHAPTER XXXIII. THE STORM ON THE LAKE OF GALILEE. (St. Matt. viii. 18, 23-27 ; St. Mark iv. 35-41 ; St. Luke viii. 22-25.) It was the evening, and once more great multitudes were gathering to Him. What more could He have said to those to whom He had all that morning spoken in Parables, which hearing they had not heard or understood? In ' The well-known oven of the well-known fire — Gehenna. N 178 /esus the Messiah truth, after that day's teaching it was better, alike for these multitudes and for His disciples, that He should withdraw. And so ' they took Him even as He was ' — that is, pro- bably without refreshment of food, or even preparation of it for the journey o This indicates how readily, nay, eagerly, the disciples obeyed the behest. Whether in their haste they heeded not the signs of the coming storm ; whether they had the seci'et feeling that ship and sea which bore such burden were safe from tempest ; or whether it was one of those storms which so often rise suddenly, and sweep with such fury over the Lake of Galilee, must remain undetermined. He was in the ship,' the well-known boat which was always ready for His service, whether as pulpit, resting-place, or means of journeying. But the departure had not been so rapid as to pass unobserved ; and the ship was attended by other boats, which bore those who would fain follow Him. In the stern of the ship, on the low bench where the steers- man sometimes takes rest, lay Jesus. Weariness, faintness, hunger, exhaustion, asserted their mastery over His true humanity. He, Whom earliest Apostolic testimony ^ pro- » Phil. u. 6 claimed to have been in ' the form of God,' slept. Meanwhile the heavens darken, the wild wind swoops down those mountain-gorges, howling over the trembling sea. The danger is increasing — ' so that the ship was b St. j^ark ^o^ filling.' ^ They who watched it might be i^'37 tempted to regard the peaceful rest of Jesus as weakness in not being able, even at such a time, to overcome the demands of our lower nature ; real indiffer- ence, also, to their fate — not from want of sympathy, but of power. In short, it might lead up to the inference that the Christ was a no-Christ, and the Kingdom of which He had spoken in Parables, not His, in the sense of being identified with His Person. It has been asked, with which of the words recorded by the Synoptists the disciples had wakened the Lord : with c St. Matt, those of entreaty to save them,*' or with those of st.\uke impatience, perhaps uttered by Peter himself?* « St. Mark Similarly, it has been asked, whicl) eame first — The Storm on the Lake of Galilee 179 the Lord's rebuke of the disciples, and after it that of • St. Matt, the wind and sea,* or the converse ? ^ But, aiHi*' ^^'''^^ niay it not be that each recorded that lirst which St. Luke ijad most impressed itself on his mind — St. Matthew, who had been in the ship that night, the needful « St. Mark, rebuke to the disciples ; St. Mark and St. Luke, probably ^^^ j^^^j ]ie2ivdi it from other.^,,-^ the help first, and St. Peter then the rebuke ? Yet it is not easy to understand what the disciples had really expected, when they wakened the Christ with their ' Lord, save us — we perish ! ' Certainly not that which actually happened, since not only wonder but fear came over them as they witnessed it. Probably theirs would be a vague, undefined belief in the unlimited possibility of all in connection with the Christ. When ' He was awakened ' ^ by the voice of iv. 38 His disciples, ' He rebuked the wind and the sea,' Nah. il^"^' as Jehovah had of old® — just as He had ' re- ir^ 39"'^^ buked ' the fever,^ and the paroxysm of the de- f St. Mark mouised.^ And the sea He commanded as if it were a sentient being : ' Be silent ! Be silenced ! ' And immediately the wind was bound, the waves throbbed into stillness, and a great calm fell upon the Lake, lor, when Chrigt sleepeth, there is storm ; when He waketh, peace. But over these men who had wakened Him with their cry, now crept wonderment, awe, and fear. No longer, as at His first wonder-working in Capernaum, was "St. Mark i. it: ' \Vliat is this?'** but, ' VFAo, then, is this?' ^^ And so the grand question, which the enmity of the Pharisees had raised, and which, in part, had been answered in the Parables of teaching, was still more fully and practically met in what, not only to the disciples, but to all tiuie, was a Parable of help. And Jesus also wondered : how was it that they had no faith ? k8 i8o Jesus the Messiah CHAPTER XXXV. AT GERASA — THE HEALING OF THE DEMONISED. (St. Matt viii. 28-34 ; St. Mark v. 1-20 ; St. Luke viii. 26-39.) Most writers have suggested that the healing of the demonised on the other side took place at early dawn of the day following the storm on the Lake. But the distance is so short that, even making allowance for the delay by the tempest, the passage could scarcely have occupied the whole night. All the circumstances lead us to regard the healing at Gerasa as a night-scene, following immediately on Christ's arrival from Capernaum, and after the calming of the storm at sea. We can with confidence describe the exact place where our Lord and His disciples touched the other shore. The ruins right over against the plain of Gennesaret, which still bear the name of Kersa or Gersa, must represent the ancient Gerasa. The locality entirely meets the require- ments of the narrative. About a quarter of an hour to the south of Gersa is a steep bluff, which descends abruptly on a narrow ledge of shore. A terrified herd running down this cliff could not have recovered its foothold, and must inevitably have been hurled into the Lake beneath. Again, the whole country around is burrowed with limestone caverns and rock-chambers for the dead, such as those which wei'e the dwelling of the demonised. From these tombs the demonised, who is specially singled out by St. Mark and St. Luke, as well as his less • St. Matt, prominent companion,'^ came forth to meet Jesus, vni. 28 According to common Jewish superstition, the evil spirits dwelt especially in lonely desolate places, and also among tombs. ^ We must here remember what has previously been explained as to the confusion in the con- sciousness of the demonised between their own notions ' See 'Life and Times,' App. XIII., ' Angelology and Demonology ; ' and App. XVI. ' Jewish Views about Demons and the Demonised.' The Healing of the Demonised i8i and the ideas imposed on them by the demons. It is quite in accordance with the Jewish notions of the de- monised that, according to the more circumstantial ac- count of St. Luke, he should feel as it were driven into the deserts, and that he was in the tombs, while, accord- ing to St. Mark, he was ' night and day in the tombs and in the mountains,' the very order of the words indi- cating the notion (as in Jewish belief) that it was chiefly at night that evil spirits were wont to haunt burying- places. In calling attention to this and similar particulars, we repeat that this must be kept in view as characteristic of the demonised, that they were incapable of sepa- rating their own consciousness and ideas from the in- fluence of the demon, their own identity being merged, and to that extent lost, in that of their tormentors. In this respect the demonised state was also kindred to mad- ness. The language and conduct of the demonised, whether seemingly his own, or that of the demons who influenced him, must always be regarded as a mixture of the Jewish- human and the demoniacal. The demonised speaks and acts as a Jew under the control of a demon. Thus, if he chooses solitary places by day, and tombs by night, it is not that demons really preferred such habitations, but that the Jews imagined it, and that the demons, acting on the existing consciousness, would lead him, in accordance with his preconceived notions, to select such places. Here also mental disease offers points of analogy. The fact that in the demonised state a man's identity was not super- seded but controlled, enables us to account for many phenomena without either confounding demonism with mania, or else imputing to our Lord such accomuiodation to the notions of the times, as is not only untenable in itself, but forbidden even by the language of the present narrative. The description of the demonised, coming out of the tombs to meet Jesus as He touched the shore at Gerasa, is vivid in the extreme. His violence, the impossibility oi 1 82 Jesus the Messiah control by others,^ the absence of self-control,*" 3"4 ' ^^ "' his homicidal,'^ and almost suicidal,'^ frenzy, are viu.'27"'^^ all depicted. Christ, Who had been charged by est. Matt. \^Q Pharisees with being- the embodiment and « St. Mark V. messenger of Satan, is here face to face with the extreme manifestation of demoniac power and influence. It is once more, then, a Miracle in Parable which is about to take place. The question, which had been raised by the enemies, is about to be brought to the issue of a practical demonstration. With irresistible power the demonised was drawn to Jesus, as He touched the shore at Gerasa. As always, the first effect of the contact was a fi'esh paroxysm, but in this peculiar case not physical, but moi'al. As always, also, the demons knew Jesus, and His Presence seemed to constrain their confession of themselves — and therefore of Him. The strange mixture of the demoniac with the human, or rather, this expression of underlying demoniac thought in the forms and modes of thinking of the Jewish victim, explains the expressed fear of present actual torment, or, as St. Matthew, who, from the briefness of his account, does not seem to have been an eye-witness, expresses it: ' Thou art come to torment us before the time ; ' and possibly also for the ' adjuration by God.' For, as immediately on the homage and protestation of the demonised : ' What between me and Thee, Jesus, Thou Son of the Most High God ?' Christ had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man, it may have been that in so doing He had used the Name of the JNIost High God; or else the 'adjuration' itself may have been the form in which the Jewish speaker clothed the consciousness of the demons, with which his own was identified. It may be conjectured that it was partly in order to break this identification, or rather to show the demonised that it was not real, and only the consequence of the con- trol which the demons had over him, that the Lord asked his name. To this the man made answer, still in the dual consciousness, ' My name is Legion : for we are many.' The Healing of the Demonised 183 Such might be the subjective motive for Christ's question. Its objective reason may have been to sliovv the power of the demoniac possession in the present instance, thus marking it as an altogether extreme case. It was a com- mon Jewish idea that, under certain circumstances, ' a legion oi hurtful spirits' (of course not in the sense of a Roman legion) 'were on the watch for men, saving : When shall he fall into the hands of one of these things, and be taken ? ' This identification of the demons with the demonised, in consequence of which he thought with their conscious- ness, and they spoke not only through him but in his forms of thinking, may also account for the last and most difficult part of this narrative. Their main object and wish was not to be banished from the country and people, or, as St. Luke puts it — again to ' depart into the abyss.' Let us now try to realise the scene. On the very narrow strip of shore, between the steep cliff that rises in the background and the Lake, stands Jesus with His disciples and the demonised. The wish of the demons is not to be sent out of the countiy — not back into the abyss. Up on that clifi" a great herd of swine is feeding ; up that cliff, there- fore, is ' into the swine ; ' and this also agrees with Jewish thoughts concerning uncleunness. The rendering of our » St. Mark Authorised Version,* that, in reply to the dcmo- ▼•13 va-AQ. entreaty, ' forthwith Jesus gave them leave,' has led to misunderstanding. The verb, which is the same in all the three Gospels, would be better rendered by * suffered ' than by ' gave them leave.' With the latter we associate positive permission. None such was either asked or given. The Lord suffered it — that is. He did nob actually hinder it. He only ' said unto them. Go ! ' What followed belongs to the phenomena of supersen- suous influences upon animals, of which many instances are recorded, but the rationale of which it is impossible to explain. This, however, we can understand: that under such circumstances a panic would seize tlie herd, tliat it would madly rush down the steep, on which it could not arrest itself, and so perish in the sea. 184 Jesus the Messiah The weird scene was past. And now silence baii, fallen on tliem. From above, the keepers of the herd had seen it all — alike what had passed with the demonised, and then the issue in the destruction of the herd. From the first, as they saw the demonised, for fear of whom ' no man might pass that way,' running to Jesus, they must have watched with eager interest. In the clear Eastern air not a word that was spoken could have been lost. And now in wild terror they fled, into Gerasa — into the country round about — to tell what had happened. It is morning, and a new morning-sacrifice and morn- ing-Psalm are about to be offered. He that had been the possession of foul and evil spirits — a very legion of them — and deprived of his human individuality, is now ' sitting at the feet of Jesus,' learning of Him, ' clothed and in his right mind.' He has been brought to God, restored to self, to reason, and to human society — and all this by Jesus, at Whose Feet he is gi'atefully, humbly sitting, ' a disciple.' But now from town and country have they come, who had been startled by the tidings which those who fed the swine had brought. It is not necessary to suppose that their request that Jesus would depart out of their coasts was prompted only by the loss of the herd of swine. There could be no doubt in their minds that One possess- ing supreme and unlimited power was in their midst. Among men superstitious, and unwilling to submit abso- lutely to the Kingdom which Christ brought, there could only be one effect of what they had heard, and now witnessed in the person of the healed demonised — awe and fear ! And in such place and circumstances Jesus could not have continued. As He entered the ship, the healed demonised humbly, earnestly entreated that he might go with his Saviour, It would have seemed to him as if there were calm, safety, and happiness only in His Presence ; not far from Him — not among those wild mountains and yet wilder men. So too often do we reason and speak, as regards ourselves or those we love. Not so He Who appoints alike our discipline and our work. To go back, The Healing of the Woman 185 now healed, to his own, and to publish there, in the city — nay, through the whole of the large district of the ten con- federate cities, the Decapolis — how great things Jesus had done for him, such was henceforth to be his life-work. In this there would be both safety and happiness. ' And all men did marvel.' And presently Jesus Him- self came back into that Decapolis, where the healed demonised had prepared the way for Him. CHAPTER XXXV. THE HEALING OF THE WOMAN — THE RAISING OF JAIRUS DAUGHTER. (St. Matt. ix. 18-26 ; St. Mark v. 21-43 ; St. Luke viii, 40-56.) On the shore at Capernaum many were gathered on the morning after the storm eagerly looking out for the well- known boat that bore the Master and His disciples. And, as He again stepped on the shore. He was soon ' thronged,' inconveniently pressed upon, by the crowd, eager, curious, expectant. The tidings rapidly spread, and reached two homes where His help was needed ; where, indeed, it alone could now be of possible avail. The two most nearly con- cerned must have gone to seek that help about the same time, and prompted by the same feelings of expectancy. Both Jairus, the Ruler of the Synagogue, and the woman suffering these many years Irom disease, had faith. But the weakness of the one arose from excess, and threatened to merge into superstition, while the weakness of the other was due to defect, and threatened to end in despair. In both cases faith had to be called out, tried, purified, and so perfected. Jairus, one of the Synagogue-rulers of Capernaum, had an only daughter, who at the time of this narrative had just passed childhood, and reached the period when Jewish Law declared a woman of age. Although St. ^latthew, contracting the whole narrative into briefest summary, speaks of her as dead at the time of Jairus' 1 86 Jesus the Mess /ah application to Jesus, the other two Evangelists, giving fuller details, describe her as on the point of death, literally, ' at the last breath.' That, in view of his child's imminent death, and with the knowledge he had of the ' mighty deeds ' com- monly reported of Jesus, Jairus should have applied to Him, can the less surprise us when we remember how often Jesus must, with consent and by invitation of this Ruler, have spoken in the Synagogue, and what im- pression His words must have made. There was nothing in what Jairus said which a, Jew in those days might not have spoken to a Rabbi, who was regarded as Jesus must have been by all in Capernaum who believed not the charge, which the Juda?an Pharisees had just raised. Though we cannot point to any instance where the laying on of a great Rabbi's hands was sought for healing, such combined with prayer would certainly be in entire accordance with Jewish views at the time. The confidence in the result, expressed by the father in the accounts of St. Mark and St. Matthew, is not mentioned by St. Luke. And, perhaps, as being the language of an Eastern, it should not be taken in its strict literality aa indicating actual conviction on the part of Jairus, that the laying on of Christ's Hands would certainly restore the maiden. Be this as it may, when Jesus followed the Ruler to his house, the multitude ' thronging Him ' in eager curiosity, another approached Him whose inner histoiy was far different from that of Jairus. The disease from which this woman had suffered for twelve years would render her Levitically ' unclean.' It must have been not unfrequent in Palestine, and proved as intractable as modern science has found it, to judge by the number and variety of remedies prescribed, and by their character. But what possesses real interest is that, in all cases where astringents or tonics are prescribed, it is ordered that, while the woman takes the remedy, she is to be addressed in the words : ' Arise from thy flux.' It is not only that psychical means are apparently to accompany the therapeu- The Healing of the Woman 187 tical in this disease, but the coincidence in the command, ' Arise,' with the words used by Christ in raising Jairus' daughter is striking. But here also we mark only con- trast to the magical cures of the Rabbis. For Jesus neither used remedies, nor spoke the word ' Arise' to her who had come ' in the press behind ' to touch for her healing ' the fringe of His outer garment.' We can form an approximate idea of the outward appearance of Jesus amidst the throng at Capernaum. He would, we may safely assume, go about in the ordinary although not in the more ostentatious, dress, worn by the Jewish teachers of Galilee. His head-gear would pro- bably be a kind of turban, or perhaps a covering fcr the head which descended over the back of the neck and shoulders, somewhat like the Indian pugaree. His feet were probably shod with sandals. His inner garment must have been close-fitting, and descended to His feet, since it was not only so worn by teachers, but was regarded as absolutely necessary for anyone who would publicly read or ' Targum ' the Scriptures, or exercise any function in the Synagogue. As we know, it was without seam, • St. John woven from the top throughout,* and this closely '^^•^"^ accords with the texture of these garments. Round the middle it would be fastened with a girdle. Over this inner He would most probably wear the square outer garment, or Tallith, with the customaiy fringes of four long white threads with one of hyacinth knotted together at each of the four corners. There is reason to believe that three square garments were made with these ' fringes,' although by way of ostentation, the Pharisees made them particularly wide so as to attract attention, »> St. Matt, just as they made their phylacteries broad.'' Al- *^'"- ^ though Christ only denounced the latter practice, not the phylacteries themselves, it is impos.sible to believe that Himself ever wore them, either on the forehead or the arm. There was certainly no warrant for them iu Holy Scripture, and only Pharisaic externalism could represent their use as fulfilling the import nf Exod. xiii. 9, 16 ; Ueut. vi. 8 ; xi. 18. The admission that neither the 1 88 Jesus the Messiah officiating priests, nor the representatives of the people, wore them in the Temple, seems to imply that this prac- tice was not quite universal. One further remark may be allowed before dismissing this subject. Our inquiries enable us in this matter also to confirm the accuracy of the Fourth Gospel. We read * • St. John that the quaternion of soldiers who crucified XIX. 23 Christ made division of the riches of His poverty, taking each one part of His dress, while for the fifth, which, if divided, would have had to be rent in pieces, they cast lots. This incidental remark carries evidence of the Judaean authorship of the Gospel in the accurate know- ledge which it displays. The four pieces of dress to be divided would be the head-gear, the more expensive sandals or shoes, the long girdle, and the coarse Tallith — all about equal in value. And the fifth undivided and comparatively most expensive garment, ' without seam, woven from the top throughout,' probably of wool, as be- fitted the season of the year, was the inner garment. We do not wonder that this Jewish woman, ' having heard the things concerning Jesus,' with her imperfect knowledge, in the weakness of her strong faith, thought that, if she might but touch His garment, she would be made whole. We can picture her to our minds as, mingling with those who thronged and pressed upon the Lord, she put forth her hand and ' touched the border of His garment,' most probably the long fringes of one of the corners of the outer garment. We can understand how, with a disease which not only rendered her Levitically defiling, but where womanly shamefacedness would make public speech so difficult, she, thinking of Him Whose Word spoken at a distance had brought healing, might thus seek to have her heart's desire. Yet in the very strength of her faith lay also its weakness. She believed so much in Him, that she felt as if it needed not personal appeal to Him ; she felt so deeply the hindrances to her making request of Him- self, that, believing so strongly in Him, she deemed it sufficient to touch, not even Himself, but that which in The Healing of the Woman 189 itself had no power nor value, except as it was in contact with His Divine Person. Very significantly, the Lord disappointed not her faith, but corrected the error of its direction and nianifestaiiou. No sooner had she so touched the border ol" His garment than ' she knew in the body that she was healed of the scourge.' No sooner, also, had she so touched the border of His garment than He knew, ' perceived in Himself,' what had taken place : the forthgoiug of the Power fhat is from out of Him. And this was neither unconscious nor unwilled on His part. It was caused by her faith, not by her touch. ' Thy faith hath ipade thee whole.' And the question of Jesus could not have been misleading, when ' straightway ' He ' turned Him about in the crowd and said, ' Who touched My garments ? ' That He knew who had done it, and only wished, through self-confession, to bring her to clear- ness in the exercise of her faith, appears from what is immediately added : ' And He looked round about,' not to see who had done it, but ' to see her that had done this thing.' And as His look was at last fixed on her alone in all that crowd, which, as Peter rightly said, was throng- ing and pressing Him, 'the woman saw that she was mtt • St. Luke hid,' '' and came forward to make full confession. ^"'' Thus, while in His mercy He had borne with her weakness, and in His faithfulness not disappointed her faith, its twofold error was also corrected. She learned that it was not from the garment, but from the Saviour, that the power proceeded ; she learned also that it was not the touch of it, but the faith in Him, that made whole — ■ and such faith must ever be of personal dealing with Him. And so He spoke to her the Word of twofold -help and assurance: 'Thy faith hath made thee whole — go forth into peace, and be healed of thy scourge.' Brief as is the record of this occurrence, it must have caused considerable delay in the progress of our Lord to the house of Jairus. For in the interval the maiden, who had been at the last gasp when her father went to entreat the help of Jesus, had not only died, but the house of 1 90 Jesus the Messiah mourning was already filled with relatives, hired mourners, wailing women, and mnsicians, in preparation for the funeral. The intentional delay of Jesus when summoned « St. John ^^ Lazarus * leads us to ask whether similar xi.6 purpose may not have influenced His conduct in the present instance. But even were it otherwise, no out- come of God's Providence is of chance, but each is designed. The circumstances, which in their concurrence ma^e up an event, may all be of natural occurrence, but their conjunction is of Divine ordering and to a higher purpose, and this constitutes Divine Providence. It was in the interval of this delay that the messengers came, who informed Jairus of the actual death qf his child. Jesus overhead it, as they whispered to the Ruler not to trouble the Rabbi any further, but He heeded it not, save so far as it affected the father. The emphatic admonition, not to fear, only to believe, gives us an insight into the threatening failure of the Ruler's faith ; perhaps, also, into the motive which prompted the delay of Christ. The utmost need, which would henceforth require the utmost faith on the part of Jairus, had now come. But into that which was to pass within the house no stranger must intrude. Even of the Apostles only those, who now for the first time became, and henceforth continued, the innermost circle, might witness what was about to take place. Within, ' the tumult ' and weeping, the wail of the mourners, real or hired, and the melancholy sound of the mourning flutes — sad preparation for, and pageantry of, an Eastern funeral —broke discordantly on the calm of assured victory over death, with which Jesus had entered the house of mourning. But even so He would tell them that the damsel was not dead, but only sleeping. The Rabbis also frequently have the expression ' to sleep ' (when the sleep is overpowering and oppressive), instead of ' to die.' It may well have been that Jesus made use of this word of double meaning in some such manner as this : ' the maiden sleepeth.' And they understood Him well in their own way, yet understood Plim not at all. For did they not verily know that she had actually The Raising of Jairus' Daughter 191 died, even before the messengers had been despatched to prevent the needless trouble of His coming? Yet even this their scorn served a higher purpose. For it showed these two things : that to the certain belief of those in the house the maiden was really dead, and that the Gospel- writers regarded the raising of the dead as not only Ijeyond the ordinary range of Messianic activity, but as something miraculous even among the miracles of Christ. The first thing to be done by Christ was to ' put out ' the mourners, whose proper place this house no longer was, and who by their conduct had proved themselves unfit to be witnesses of Christ's great manifestation. The im- pression which the narrative leaves on the mind is that all this while the father of the maiden was stupefied, passive rather than active in the matter. The great fear, which had come upon him when the messengers ap- prised him of his only child's death, seemed still to numb his faith. * Christ now led the father and the mother into the chamber where the dead maiden lay, followed by the three Apostles, witnesses of His chiefest working and of His utmost earthly glory, but also of His inmost sutlerings. Without doubt or hesitation He took her by the hand, and spoke only these two words : Talijeiha Qum [/v7«rt] Maiden, arise ! ' And straightway the damsel arose.' But the great astonishment which came upon them, as well as the ' strait charge ' that no man should know it, are further evidence, if such were required, how little their faith had been prepared for that which in its weakness was granted to it. And thus Jesus, as He had formerly corrected in the woman that weakness of faith which came through very ex-cess, so now in the Ruler of the Synagogue the weakness which was by failure. 192 fEsus THE Messiah CHAPTER XXXVI. SECOND VISIT TO NAZARETH — THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE. (St. Matt. xiii. 54-58; x. 1, 5-42; xi. 1; St. Mark vi. 1-13; St. Lukeix.1-6.) How Jesus conveyed Himself away from Capernaum, whether through another entrance into the house, or by ' the road of the roofs,' we are not told. But assuredly He must have avoided the multitude. Presently we find Him far from Capernaum. Probably He had left it immediately on quitting the house of Jairus. It almost seems as if the departure of Jesus from the town marked a crisis in its history. From henceforth it ceases to be the centre of His activity, and is only occa- sionally, and in passing, visited. Indeed, the concentra- tion and growing power of Pharisaic opposition, and the proximity of Herod's residence at Tiberias, would have rendered a permanent stay there impossible at this stage in our Lord's history. Henceforth, He has no certain dwelling-place : in His own language, ' He hath not where to lay His Head.' • St. Mark The notice in St. Mark's Gospel,* that His ^^•1 disciples followed Him, seems to connect the arrival of Jesus in ' His own country ' (at Nazareth) with the departure from the house of Jairus, into which He had allowed only three of His Apostles to accompany Him. The circumstances of the present visit, as well as the tone of His countrymen at this time, are entirely different from what is recorded of His former sojourn at Nazareth.'' b st_ Lu^e Nazareth would have ceased to be Nazareth, had iv. 16-31 i^g people felt or spoken otherwise than they had before. That His fame had so grown in the interval would only stimulate the conceit of the village-town. And now He had come back to them, after nine or ten months, in totally different circumstances. No one could any longer question His elaims, whether for good or for The Mission of the Twelve 193 evil. As on the Sabbath He stood up ouce more in tlmi Synag-ogne to teach, they were astonished. But their astonishment was that of unbelief. Whence had ' this One ' ' these things,' ' and what the wisdom which ' was •St. Mark 'given to this One — and these mighty works ^- 2 done by His Hands ? ' * ' And He marvelled because of their unbelief.' In view of their own reasoning it was most unreasonable. But it would have been impossible for Christ to have finally given up His own town of Nazareth without one further appeal and one further opportunity for repentance. As He had begun, so He closed this part of His Galilean Ministry, by preaching in His own Synagogue of Nazareth. Save in the case of a few who were receptive, on whom He laid His Hands for healing. His visit passed away without such 'mighty works ' as the Nazarenes had heard of He will not return again to Nazareth. Henceforth He will make commencement of sending forth His disciples. For His Heart compassionated the many who were ignorant and out of the way. Viewing the discourse with which Christ now sent out "St. Matt. X. t^® Twelve in its fullest form,'' it is to be noted 5 to the Mini that it consists ol five parts: vv. 5 to 15 ; vv. IG to 23 ; w. 24 to 33 ; vv. 34 to 39 ; vv. 40 to the end. = St. Matt. I^s fi^^^' P^i't*^ applies entirely to this first X. 6-15 Mission of the Twelve, although the closing words point forward to ' the judgment.'*^ Accordingly it has its ''ver. 15 parallels, although in briefer form, in the other \f:iAU *^^ Cospels.* St. Luke 1 . The Twelve were to go forth two and two,' fst. Mark fumished with authority — or, as St. Luke more fully expresses it, with ' power and authority ' — alike over all demons and to heal all manner of diseases. The special commission, for which they received such power, was to proclaim the near advent of the Kingdom, and, in manifestation as well as in evidence of it, to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, and cast out demons. They were to speak good and to do good in the highest sense, and that in a manner which all would feel to be good : freely, o 194 Jesus the Messiah even as tliey had received it. Again, they were not to make any special provision for their journey, beyond the absolute immediate present. They were but labourers, yet as such they had claim to support. Their Employer would provide, and the field in which they worked might •comp. for well be expected to supply it.* asplct"^"^ Before entering into a city, they were to iTim.v.18 make inquiry, literally to ' search out,' who in it was ' worthy,' and of them to ask hospitality ; not seeking during their stay a change for the gratification of vanity or for self-indulgence. If the report on which they had made choice of a host proved true, then the ' Peace with thee ! with which they had entered their temporary home, would become a reality. Christ would make it such. But even if the house should prove unworthy, the Lord would none the less own the words of His messengers and make them real ; only, in such case the ' Peace with thee ! ' would return to them who had spoken it. Yet another case was possible. The house to which their inquiries had led them, or the city into which they had entered, might refuse to receive them, because they came as Christ's ambassadors. Greater, indeed, would be their guilt than that of the Cities of the Plain, since these had not known the character of the heavenly guests to whom tliey refused reception ; and more terrible would be their future punishment. So Christ would vindicate their authority as well as His own, and show the reality of their commission : on the one hand, by making their word of peace a reality to those who had proved ' worthy ; ' and, on the other, by punishment if their message were refused. Lastly, in their present Mission they were not to touch either Gentile or Samaritan territory. This direction — so different in spirit from what Jesus Himself had previously said and done, and from their own later commission — was, of course, only ' for the present necessity.' It would have been a fatal anticipation of their inner and outer history to have attempted more, and it would have defeated the object of our Lord of disarming prejudices when making a final appeal to the Jews of Galilee. The Mission of the Twelve 195 Even these considerations le.id us to expect a strictly Jewish cast in this Discourse to the Disci [)U-^s. The com- mand to abstain from any religious fellowship with Gentiles and Samaritans was in tempoi'ary accommodation to the prejudices of His disciples and of the Jews. And the dis- tinction between ' the way of the Gentiles ' and ' any city of tlie Samaritans ' is the more significant, when we bear in mind that even the dust of a heathen road was regarded as defiling, while the houses, spi-ings, roads, and certain food of the Samaritans were declared clean. At the same time, religiously and as regarded fellowship, the Samaritans were placed on the same footing with Gentiles. Nor would the injunction, to impart their message freely, sound strange in Jewish ears. It was, in fact, what the Kabbis themselves most earnestly enjoined in regard to the teach- ing of the Law and traditions, however different their prac- tice may have been. Indeed, the very argument that they were to impart freely, because they had received freely, is employed by the Rabbis, and derived from the language and example of Moses in Deut. iv. 5. Again, the direc- tions about not taking staff, shoes, nor money-purse, exactly correspond to the Rabbinic injunction not to enter the Temple-precincts with staff, shoes (mark, not sandals), and a money-girdle. The s3mibolic reasons underlying this command would, in both cases, be probably the same: to avoid even the appearance of being engaged on other business, when the whole being should be absorbed in the service of the Lord. Nor could they be in doubt what severity of final punishment a doom heavier than that of Sodom and Gomorrah would imply, since, according to early tradition, their inhabitants were to have no part in the world to come. And most impressive to a Jewish mind would be the symbolic injunction, to shake off the dust of their feet for a testimony against such a house or city. The expression, no doubt, indicated that the ban of the Lord was resting on it, and the symbolic act would, as it were, be the solemn pronouncing that ' nought of the cursed • Deut. xiii. thing' clave to them.* In this sense, anything ^~ that clave to a person was metaphorically called o 2 196 Jesus the Messiah 'the dust,' as, for example, 'the dust of an evil tongue,' 'the dust of usury,' as, on tlie other hand, to 'dust to idolatry ' meant to cleave to it. Even the injunction not to change the dwelling, where a reception had been given, was in accordance with Jewish views, the example of Abra- a According ^^^ being quoted, who ^ ' returned to the place toGen. xiii. where liis tent had been at the beginning,' "St. Matt. X. These remarks show how closely the Lord «st. Matt. X. followed, in this first part of His charge to the ^^"^^ disciples,^ Jewish forms of thinking and modes of expression. It is not otherwise in the second,*^ although the difference is here very marked. We have no longer merely the original commission, as it is given in almost the same terms by St. Mark and St. Luke. But the horizon is now enlarged, and St. Matthew reports that which the other Evangelists record at a later stage of the Lord's Ministry. Without here anticipating the full inquiry into the promise of His immediate Coming, it is important to avoid, even at this stage, any possible misunderstanding on the point. The expectation of the Coming of ' the Son of d Dan. yii. Man ' was grounded on a prophecy of Daniel,"* in 13 which that Advent, or rather manifestation, was associated with judgment The same is the case in this charge of our Lord. The disciples in their work are de- scribed ' as sheep in the midst of wolves,' a phrase which the Midrash applies to the position of Israel amidst a jiostile world, adding : How great is that Shepherd, Who delivers them, and vanquishes the wolves! Siuiilarly, the admonition to ' be wise as serpents and harmless as doves ' is reproduced in the Midrash , where Israel is de- scribed as harmless as the dove towards God, and wise as serpents towards the hostile Gentile nations. Such and even greater would be the enmity which the disciples, as the true Israel, would have to encounter from Israel after the flesh. They would be handed over to the various Sanhedrin, and visited with such punishments as these tribunals had power to inflict.® More than this, •St. Matt. X. 1111 1 1 r- 17 they would be brought beiore governors and kings — primarily, the Roman governors and the Hero- The Mission of the Twelve 197 dian princes.'' And so determined would be this persecu- tion, as to break the ties of the closest kinship, and to bring .e. 1.T . on them the hatred of all men.*' The only support • St. Matt. X. .... 1 18 m those terrible circumstances was the assurance ^' ' of such help from above, that, although unlearned and humble, they need have no care, nor make preparation in their defence. And with this they had the promise that he who endured to the end would be saved, and the prudential direction, so far as possible, to avoid persecution by timely withdrawal, which could be the more readily achieved, since they would not have completed their circuit of the cities of Israel before the ' Son of Man be come.' It is of the greatest importance to keep in view that, at whatever period of Christ's Ministry this prediction and promise were spoken, and whether only once or oftener, they refer exclusively to a Jeivish state of things. The persecutions are exclusively Jewish. This appears from verse 18, where the answer of the disciples is promised to be ' for a testimony against them,' who had delivered them up, that is, here, evidently the Jews, as also against ' the Gentiles.' And the Evangelistic circuit of the disciples in their preaching was to be primarily Jeirish ; and not only so, but in the time when there were still ' cities of Israel,' that is, previous to the final destruction of the Jew- ish commonwealth. The reference, then, is to that period of Jewish persecution and of Apostolic preaching in the cities of Israel, which is bounded by the destruction of Jerusalem. Accordingly, the ' Coming of the Son of Man,' and ' the end ' here spoken of, must also have the same application. It was, as we have seen, according to Dan. vii. 13, a coming in judgment. To the Jewish persecuting authorities, who had rejected the Christ, in order, as they imagined, to save c St. John their City and Temple from the Romans," and to xi.48 whom Christ had testified that He would come again, this judgment on their city and state, this destruc- tion of their polity, was ' the Coming of the Son of Man' in judgment, and the only coming which the Jews, as a state, could expect. The disciples must have the more readily applied this 198 Jesus the Messiah prediction of His Coming to Palestine, since 'the woes' connected with it so closely corresponded to those expected by the Jews before the Advent of Messiah. Even the direction to flee from persecution is repeated by the Rabbis in similar circumstances, and established by the example of Jacob, of Moses, and of David. In the next section of this Discourse of our Lord, • St. Matt. X. as reported by St. Matthew,^ the horizon is ^*"^^ enlarged. The statements are still primarily ap- plicable to the early disciples, and their preaching among the Jews and in Palestine. But their ultimate bearing is already wider, and includes predictions and principles true to all time. In view of the treatment which their Master received, the disciples must expect misrepresentation and evil-speaking. Nor could it seem strange to them, since even the common Rabbinic proverb had it : 'It is enough for a servant to be as his lord.' As we hear it from the lips of Christ, we remember that this saying afterwards comforted those who mourned the downfall of wealthy and liberal homes in Israel, by thoughts of the greater calamity which had overthrown Jerusalem and the Temple. And very significant is its application by Christ : ' If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebul, how much more them of His household.' But they were not to fear such misrepresentations. In due time the Lord would make manifest both His and "St. Matt.x. their true character.'' Nor were they to be de- ^® terred from announcing in the clearest and most public manner, in broad daylight, and from the flat roofs of houses, that which had been first told them in the dark- ness, as Jewish teachers communicated the deepest and highest doctrines in secret to their disciples, or as the preacher would whisper his discourse into the ear of the interpreter. But, from a much higher point of view, how different was the teaching of Christ from that of the Rabbis ! The latter laid it down as a principle, which • Lev. xviii. '^^^ tried to prove from Scripture,*^ that, i n 6- order to save one's life, it was not only lawful, but even duty, if necessary, to commit any kind of sin, Tub Mission of the Twelve 199 except idolatry, incest, or murder. Nay, even idolatry was allowed, if only it were done in secret, so as not to pro- fane the Name of the Lord — than which death was in- finitely preferable. Christ, on the other hand, not only ignored this vicious Jewish distinction of public and private as regarded morality, but bade His followers set aside all regard for personal safety, even in reference to the duty of preaching the Gospel. There was a higher fear than of men : that of God — and it should drive out the fear of those who could only kill the body. Besides, why fear? God's Providence extended even over the meanest of His creatures. Two sparrows cost only about the third of a penny. Yet even one of them would not perish without the knowledge of God. No illustration was more familiar to the Jewish mind than that of His watchful care even over the sparrows. Nor could even the additional promise of Christ: ' But of you even the hairs of the head are all numbered,' surprise His disciples. But it would convey to them the assurance that, in doing His Work, they were performing the Will of God, and were specially in His keeping. And it would carry home to them what Rabbinism expressed in a realistic manner by the common sayings, that whither a man was to go, thither his feet would carry him ; and, that a man could not injure his finger on earth, unless it had been so decreed of him in heaven. And in later Rabbinic writings we read, in almost the words of Christ : ' Do I not number all the hairs of every creature ? ' And yet an even higher outlook was opened to the disciples. All preaching was confessing, and all confessing a preach- ing of Christ ; and our confession or denial would, almost by a law of nature, meet with similar confession or denial on the part of Christ before His Father in heaven. This, also, was an application of that fundamental principle, that ' nothing is covered that shall not be revealed.' • St. M.vtt.x. What follows incur Lord's Discourse •* still ^* farther widens the horizon. It describes the condition and laws of His Kingdom, until the final rev'ela- tion of that which is now covered and hidden. So long 200 Jesus the Messiah as ITis claims were set before a hostile world, they could only provoke war. On the other hand, so long as such decision was necessary, in the choice of either tho.^e nearest and dearest, of ease, nay, of life itself, or else of Christ, there could be no compromise. Not that, as is sometimes erroneously supposed, a very great degree of love to the dearest on earth amounts to loving them more than Christ. The love which Christ condemneth differs not in degree, but in kind, from riglitful affection. It is one which takes the place of love to Christ — not which is placed by the side of that of Christ. For, rightly viewed, the two occupy different provinces. Wherever and whenever the two affections come into comparison, they also come into collision. And so the questions of not being worthy of Him, and of the true finding or losing of our life, have their bearing on our daily life and profession. But even in this respect the disciples must, to some extent, have been prepared to receive the teaching of Christ. It was generally expected that a time of great tribulation would precede the Advent of the Messiah. Again, it was a Rabbinic axiom that the cause of the teacher, to whom a man owed eternal life, was to be taken in hand before that of his father, to whom he owed only the life of this world. Even the statement about taking up the Cross in following Christ, although pro- phetic, could not sound quite strange. Crucifixion was, indeed, not a Jewish punishment, but the Jews must have become sadly familiar with it. Indeed, the expression ' bearing the cross,' as indicative of sorrow and suffering, is so common, that we read, Abraham carried the wood for the sacrifice of Isaac, ' like one who bears his cross on his shoulder.' Nor could the disciples be in doubt as to the meaning • stMatt. of the last part of Christ's address.* They M'ere X. 40-42 q1(J Je^vish forms of thought, only filled with the new wine of the Gospe). The Kabbis taught, but in extravagant terms, the merit attaching to the reception and entertainment of sages. The very expression ' in the name of a prophet, or a righteoHis man, is strictly Jewish, The Mission of the Twelve 201 and means for the sake of, or with intention in regard to. It ajipears to us that Christ introduced His own dis- tinctive teaching by the admitted Jewish principle, that hospitable reception for the sake of, or with the intention of doing it to, a prophet or a righteous man, would pro- cure a share in the prophet's or righteous man's reward. Thus, tradition had it that the Obadiah of King Ahab's • 1 Kings court * had become the prophet of that name, XV111.4 because he had provided for the hundred pro- phets. And we are repeatedly assured that to receive a sage, or even an elder, was like receiving the Shokhinah itself. But the concluding promise of Christ, concerning the reward of even ' a cup of cold water ' to ' one of these little ones ' ' in the name of a disciple,' goes far beyond the farthest conceptions of His contemporaries. Yet, even so, the expression would, so far as its form is concerned, perhaps bear a fuller meaning to them than to us. These 'little ones' were 'the children,' who were still learning the elements of knowledge, and who would by-and-by grow into ' disciples.' For, as the Midrash has it : ' Where there are no little ones, there are no disciples ; and where no disciples, no sages ; where no sages, there no elders ; where no elders, there no prophets ; and where no pro- phets, there does God not cause His Shekhinah to rest.' We have been particular in marking the Jewish parallel- isms in this Discourse, first, because it seemed important to show that the words of the Loi'd were not beyond the comprehension of the disciples. Starting from forms of thought and expressions with which they were familiar, He carried them far beyond Jewish ideas and hopes. But, secondly, it is just in this similarity of form, which proves that it was of the time and to the time, as well as to us and to all times, that we best see how far the teaching of Christ transcended all contemporary conception. 202 Jesus the Messiah CHAPTER XXXVII. THE baptist's LAST TESTIMONY TO JESUS, AND HIS BEHEADING IN PRISON. (1. St. John iii. 25-30. 2. St. Matt. ix. 14-17; St. Mark ii. 18-22; St. Luke V. 38-39. 3. St. Matt. xi. 2-14 ; St. Luke vii. 18-35. 4. St. Matt. xiv. 1-12; St. Mark vi. 14-29; St. Luke ix. 7-9.) While the Apostles went forth by two and two on their first Mission, Jesus Himself taught and preached in tho • St. Matt, towns around Capernaum.'^ This period of un- b'st. Mark disturbed activity seems, however, to have been st Lukelx. ^^ brief duration. That it was eminently suc- 6 cessful, we infer not only from direct notices,^ but also from the circumstance that, for the first time, the attention of Herod Antipas was now called to the Person of Jesus. We suppose that, during the nine or ten months of Christ's Galilean Ministry, the Tetrarch had resided in his Pertean dominions (east of the Jordan), either at Julias or at Macha3rus, in which latter fortress the Baptist was beheaded. We infer that the labours of the Apostles had also extended thus far, since they at- tracted the notice of Herod. In the popular excitement caused by the execution of the Baptist, the miraculous activity of the messengers of the Christ Whom John had announced, would naturally attract wider interest, while Antipas would, under the influence of fear and supersti- tion, give greater heed to them. We can scarcely be mistaken in supposing that this accounts for the abrupt termination of the labours of the Apostles, and their re- turn to Jesus. At any rate, the arrival of the disciples of John, with tidings of their master's death, and the return of the Apostles, seem to have been contempora- c St. Matt, neous.'^ Finally, we conjecture that it was irMarkvi. ^inong the motives which influenced the re- 30 moval of Christ and His A]iostles from Caper- naum. Temporarily to withdraw Himself and His dis- The Baptist in Prison 203 ciples from Herod, to give them a season of rest and further preparation after tlie excitement of the last few weeks, and to avoid being involved in the popular move- ments consequent on the murder of the Baptist — such we may venture to indicate as among the reasons of the de- parture of Jesus and His disciples, first into the dominions • St. John of the Tetrarch Philip, on the eastern side of the b'st. Mark L^'^ke,* and after that ' into the borders of Tyre V"- 24 and Sidon.' ^ Thus the fate of the Baptist was, as might have been expected, decisive in its influence on the History of the Christ and of His Kingdom. But we have yet to trace the incidents in the life of John, so far as recorded in the Gospels, from the time of his last con- tact with Jesus to his execution. « St. John 1- I^ was*^ in the early summer of the year iii.22toiv.3 27 of our era, that John was baptizing in yEnon, near to Salim. In the neighbourhood Jesus and His disciples were similarly engaged. The Presence and «st.johnii. activity of Jesus in Jerusalem at the Passover '^ 13 to iii. 21 i^a(j determined the Pharisaic party to take active measures against Him and His Forerunner, John. As the first outcome of this plan we notice the discussions on the question of 'purification,' and the attempt to separate between Christ and the Baptist by exciting the jealousy of • St. John the latter.® But the result was far different. His ui. 25&C. disciples might have been influenced, but John himself was too true a man, and too deeply convinced of the reality of Christ's Mission, to yield even for a moment to such temptation. It was not the greatness of the Christ, to his own seeming loss, which could cloud the Baptist's convictions. In simple Judt\3an illustration, he was only ' the friend of the Bridegroom,' with all that popular association or higher Jewish allegory connected with that relationship. He claimed not the bride. His was another joy — that of hearing the Voice of her rightful Bridegroom, Whose ' groomsman ' he was. In the sound of that Voice lay the fulfilment of his office. 2. The scene has changed, and the Baptist has become 204 Jesus the Messiah the prisoner of Herod Antipas. Tlie dominions of the latter embraced, in the north : Galilee, west of the Jordan and of the Lake of Galilee ; and in the south : Peraea, east of the Jordan. To realise ev^ents we must bear in mind that, crossing the Lake eastwards, we should pass from the possessions of Herod to those of the Tetrarch Philip, or else come upon the territory of the ' Ten Cities ' or Decapolis, a kind of confederation of townships, with con- stitution and liberties, such as those of the Grecian cities. By a narrow strip northwards, Pera3a just slipped in between the Decapolis and Samaria. It is impossible with certainty to localise the ^non, near Salim, where John baptized. We believe that the place was close to, perhaps actually in, the north-eastern angle of the province of Judsea, where it borders on Samaria. We are now on the western bank of Jordan. The other, or eastern, bank of the river would be that narrow northern strip of Perasa which formed part of the territory of Antipas. Thus a few miles, or the mere crossing of the river, would have brought the Baptist into Peraea. There can be no doubt but that the Baptist must either have crossed into, or else that /Enon, near Salim, was actually within the dominions ot Herod. It was on that occasion that Herod seized on his " St. John person,* and that Jesus, Who was still within b St. John Judaean territory, withdrew from tlu? intrigues of vi- 1 • the Pharisees and the proximity of Herod, thi-ough Samaria, into Galilee.^ Supposing Antipas to have been at his palace in the Pera3an Julias, he would have been in close proximity to the scene of the Baptist's last recorded labours at ^Euon. We can now understand, not only how John was im- prisoned by Antipas, but also the threefold motives which influenced it. According to Josephus, the Tetrarch was afraid that his absolute influence over the people, who seemed disposed to carry out whatever he advised, might lead to a rebellion. This circumstance is also indicated in 0 St Matt, t^^® remark of St. Matthew '^ that Herod was ^v- 5 afraid to put the Baptist to death on account ot 1^Q people's opinion of him. On the other hand, the The Baptist in Prison 205 • St. Matt. Evangelic statement * that Herod had imprisoned stMiiiVvi. J^Ii'i on account of his declaring his marriage 17, 18 with Herodias unlawful, is in no way inconsistent with the reason assigned by Josephus. Not only might both motives have influenced Herod, but there is an obvious connection between them. For John's open declaration of the unlawfulness of Herod's marriage, as alike incestuous and adulterous, might, in view of the influence which the Baptist exercised, have easily led to a rebellion. The reference to the Pharisaic spying and to their comparisons between the influence of Jesus and of ost.Johniv. Johu,'' which led to the withdrawal of Christ ^'2 into Galilee, seems to imply that the Pharisees had something to do with the imprisonment of John. Their connection with Herod appears even more clearly in the attempt to induce Christ's departure from Galilee, on pretext of Herod's machinations. It will be remembered that the Lord unmasked their hypocrisy by bidding them go back to Herod, showing that He fully knew that real danger threatened Him, not from the Tetrarch, but from c St. Luke the leaders of the party in Jerusalem. *= Our 3dii. 31-33 inference, therefore, is that Pharisaic intrigue had a very large share in giving effect to Herod's fear of the Baptist and of his reproofs. 3. Macha^rus (the modern &rkhaur^ marked the extreme point south, as Pella that north, in Per^ea. As the boundary fortress in the south-east (towards Arabia), its safety was of the greatest importance, and everything was done to make a place, exceedingly strong by nature, impregnable. ' A rugged line of upturned squared stones ' shows the old Roman paved road leading to the fortress, in which, according to Josephus, the Baptist was confined. Ruins covering quite a square mile, on a group of undulating hills, mark the site of the ancient town of Macharus. Although surrounded by a wall and towers, its position is supposed not to have been str.'i)i>gically defensible. Only a mass of ruins here, with traces of a temple to the Syriau Sun-God, broken cisterns, and desolateness all around. 206 Jesus the Messiah Crossing a narrow deep valley, abont a mile wide, we climb up to the ancient fortress on a conical hill. Altogether it covered a ridge of more than a mile. The key of the position was a citadel to the extreme east of the fortress. It occupied the summit of the cone, was isolated, and almost impregnable, but very small. Descending a steep slope about 150 yards towards the west, we reach the oblong flat plateau that formed the fortress, containing Herod's magnificent palace. No traces of the royal palace are left, save foundations and enormous stones upturned. Within the area of the keep are a well of great depth, and a deep cemented cistern with the vaulting of the roof still complete, and two dungeons, one of them deep down, its sides scarcely broken in, ' with small holes still visible in the masonry where staples of wood and iron had once been fixed.' As we look down into its hot darkness, we shudder in realising that this terrible keep had for nigh ten months been the prison of that son of the free ' wilderness,' the bold herald of the coming Kingdom, the humble, earnest, self-denying John the Baptist. 4. In these circumstances we scarcely wonder at the feelings of John's disciples, as months of his weary captivity passed. Uncertain what to expect, they seem to have oscillated between Machaerus and Capernaum. Any hope of their Master's vindication and deliverance lay in the possibilities involved in the announcement he had made of Jesus as the Christ. And it was to Hini that their Master's finger had pointed them. Indeed, some of Jesus' earliest and most intimate disciples had come from their ranks ; and, as themselves had remarked, the multi- tude had turned to Jesus even before the Baptist's im- • St. John prisonment.* And yet, in their view, there must iii. 26 have been a terrible contrast between him who lay in the dungeon of Machferus, and Him Who sat down to eat and drink at a feast of the publicans. His reception of publicans and sinners they could understand ; their own Master had not rejected them. But why eat and drink with them ? Was not fasting always, The Baptist in Prison 207 but more especially now, appropriate ? The Pharisees, iu their anxiety to separate between Jesus and His Fore- runner, must have told them all this again and again, and pointed to the contrast. At any rate, it was at the instigation of the Pharisees, and in company with them, that the disci])l('s of John pro- pounded to Jesus this question about fiisting and prayer, immediately after the feast in the house of the converted Levi-Matthew." We must bear in mind that • St. Matt. /. . T 1 /> • ix. 14-17 fastmg and prayer, or else fasting and alms, or aiir para es ^j^ ^^ three. Were always combined. Fasting represented the negative, prayer and alms the positive element, in the forgiveness of sins. Fasting, as self- punishment and mortification, would avert the anger of God and calamities. Most extraordinary instances of the purposes in view in fasting, and of the results obtained, are told in Jewish legend, which (as will be remembered) went so far as to relate how a Jewish saint was thereby rendered proof against the fire of Gehenna, of which a realistic demonstration was given when his body was rendered proof against ordinary fire. To the Jews, fasting was the readiest means of turning aside any threatening calamity, such as drought, pesti- lence, or national danger. The second and fifth days of the week (Monday and Thursday) were those appointed for public fasts, because Moses was supposed to have gone up the Mount for the second Tables of the Law on a Thursday, and to have returned on a Monday. It may well have been that it was on one of these weekly fasts that the feast of Levi-^latthew had taken place, and that this explains the expression : ' And John's » St. Mark disciples and the Pharisees were fasting.' ^ This "• 1^ would give point to their complaint, ' Thy disciples fast not.' Looking back upon the standpoint from which they viewed fasting, it is easy to perceive why Jesus could not have sanctioned, nor even tole- rated, the practice, among His disciples, as little as St. l^iul could tolerate among Judaising Christians the, in itself indifferent, practice of circumcision. But it was 2o8 Jesus the Messiah uot so easy to explain this at the time to the disciples of Jolm. The last recorded testimony of the Baptist had pointed » St. John to Christ as ' the Bridegroom.' ^ As explained iii-29 in a previous chapter, John applied this in a manner which appealed to popular custom. As he had pointed out, the Presence of Jesus marked the marriage- week. By universal consent and according to Rabbinic law, this was to be a time of unmixed festivity. During the marriage-week all mourning was to be suspended — even the obligation of the prescribed daily prayers ceased. It was regarded as a religious duty to gladden the bride and bridegroom. Was it not, then, inconsistent on the part of John's disciples to expect ' the sons of the bride- chamber ' to fast, so long as the Bridegroom was with them ? But let it not be thought that it was to be a time of unbroken joy to the disciples of Jesus. The Bridegroom would be violently taken from them, and then would be the time for mourning and fasting. Not that this neces- sarily implies literal fasting, any more than it excludes it, provided the great principles, more fully indicated imme- diately afterwards, are kept in view. Painfully minute, Judaistic self-introspection is contrary to the spirit of the joyous liberty of the children of God. It is only a sense of sin, and the felt absence of the Christ, which should lead to mourning and fasting, though not in order thereby to avert either the anger of God or outward calamity. In general, the two illustrations employed — that of the piece of undressed cloth (or, according to St. Tmke, a piece torn from a new garment) sewed upon the rent of an old garment, and that of the new wine put into the old wine- skins— must not be too closely pressed in regard to their language. They seem chiefly to imply this: You ask, why do we fast often, but Thy disciples fast not ? You are mistaken in supposing that the old garment can be re- tained, and merely its rents made good by patching it with a piece of new cloth. The old garment will not bear mending with the ' undressed cloth.' Christ's was not The Baft I si in Prison 209 merely a reformation : all things must become new. Or, attain, take the other view of it — the new wine of the Kingdom cannot be confined in the old forms. It would burst those wine-skins. The spirit must, indeed, have its corresponding form of expression ; but that form must be adapted, and correspond to it. Such are the two final principles — the one primarily addressed to the Pharisees, the other to the disciples of John, by which the illustrative teaching concerning the marriage-feast, with its bridal garment and wine of banquet, is carried beyond the original question of the disciples of John, and receives an application to all time. 5. Weeks liad passed, and the disciples of John had come back and showed their Master of all these things. He still lay in the dungeon of Machaerus ; his circumstances unchanged — perhaps, more hopeless than before. For Herod was in that spiritually most desperate state : he had heard the Baptist, and was much perplexed. This we can understand, since he ' feared him, knowing that he was a righteous man and holy,' and thus fearing ' heard him.' But that, being ' much perplexed,' he still ' heard • St. Mark li™ gladly,'* Constituted the hopelessness of his ^- -^ case. But was the Baptist right ? Did it con- stitute part of his Divine calling to have not only de- nounced, but apparently directly confronted Herod on his adulterous marriage ? Had he not attempted to lift him- self the axe which seemed to have slipt from the grasp of Him, of Whom the Baptist had hoped and said that He would lay it to the root of the tree ? Such thoughts may have been with him, as he passed from his dungeon to the audience of Herod, and from such bootless interviews back to his deep keep. Strange as it may seem, it was, perhaps, better for the Baptist when he was alone. The state of mind and experience of his disciples has already appeared, even in the slight notices concerning them. Indeed, had they fully understood him, and not ended where he began — which, truly, is the characteristic of all sects — they would not have remained his disciples. Their very affection for him, and their zeal P 210 Jesus the Messiah for his credit (as shown in the ahnost coarse language of their inquiry : ' John the Baptist hath sent us unto Thee, saying, Art Thou He that cometh, or look we for another ? '), as well as their tenacity of unprogressiveness— were all, so to speak, marks of his failure. And if he had failed with them, had he succeeded in anything ? And yet further and more searching questions rose in that dark dungeon. What if after all there had been some horrible mistake on his part ? At any rate the logic of events was against him. He was now the fast prisoner of that Herod, to whom he had spoken with authority ; in the power of that bold adulteress, Herodias, If he were Elijah, the great Tishbite had never been in the hands of Ahab and Jezebel. And the Messiah, Whose Elijah he was, moved not ; could not, or would not, move, but feasted with publicans and sinners ! Was it all a reality ? It must have been a terrible hour, and the power of dark- ness. At the end of a life, and that of such self-denial and suffering, and with a conscience so alive to God, which had — when a youth — driven him burning with holy zeal into the wilderness, to have the question meeting him : Art Thou He, or do we wait for another ? In that conflict John overcame, as we all must over- come. His very despair opened the door of hope. The helpless doubt, which none could solve but One, he brought to Him around Whom it had gathered. When John asked the question : Do we wait for another ? light was already struggling through darkness. It was incipient victory even in defeat. When he sent his disciples with this question straight to Christ, he had already conquered ; for such a question addressed to a possibly false Messiah had no meaning. The designation ' The Coming One,' though a most truthful expression of Jewish expectancy, was not one ordinarily used of the Messiah. But it was invariably used in reference to the Messianic age as the coming world or ^on. In the mouth of John it might therefore mean chiefly this : Art Thou He that is to establish the Messianic Kingdom in its outward power, or have we to The Baptist in Prison 211 wait for anotlier ? In that case, the manner in which the Lord answered it would be all the more significant. The messengers came just as He was engaged in healing body • St. Luke and soul.* Without interrupting His work, or ^'■^^ otherwise noticing their inquiry, He bade them tell John for answer what they had seen and heard, and •> St. Matt, that ' the poor ^ are evangelised.' To this, as the "• ^ inmost characteristic of the Messianic Iviuijdom, He only added, not by way of reproof nor even of warning, but as a fresh ' Beatitude ' : * Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be scandalised in Me.' And such knowledge of Christ's distinctive Work and Word is the only true answer to oui- questions, whether of head or heart. But a harder saying than this did the Lord speak amidst the forthpouring of His testimony to John, when his messengers had left. He to Whom John had formerly borne testimony now bore testimony to him ; and that, not in the hour when John had testified for Him, but when his testimony had wavered and almost failed. Again we mark that the testimony of Christ is as from a higher standpoint. And it is a full vindication as well as unstinted praise, spoken, not as in his hearing, but after his messengers — who had met a seemingly cold reception — had left. 6. The scene once more changes, and we are again at Machaarus. Weeks have passed since the return of John's messengers. We cannot doubt that the sunlight of faith has again fallen into the dark dungeon, nor yet that the peace of conviction has filled the martyr of Christ. He must have known that his end was at hand, and been ready to be offered up. Nor would he any longer expect from the Messiah assertions of power on his behalf. He now understood that for which ' He had come ; ' he knew the better liberty, triumph, and victory which He brought. His life-work had been done, and there was nothing further that fell to him or that he could do, and the weary servant of the Lord must have longed for his rest. It was early spring, shortly before the Passover, the anniversary of the death of Herod the Great and of the p2 212 Jesus the Messiah accession of (his son) Herod Antipas to the Tetrarchy. A fit time this for a Belshazzar-feast, when such an one as Herod would gather to a grand banquet ' his lords,' and the military authorities, and the chief men of Galilee. It is evening, and the castle-palace is brilliantly lighted up. The noise of music and the shouts of revelry come across the slope into the citadel, and fall into the deep dungeon where waits the prisoner of Christ. And now the merriment in the great banqueting-hall has reached its utmost height. The king has nothing further to offer his satiated guests, no fresh excitement. So let it be the sensuous stimulus of dubious dances, and, to complete it, let the dancer be the fair young daughter of the king's wife, the very descendant of the Asmonsean priest-princes ! To viler depth of coarse familiarity even a Herod could not have descended. She has come, and she has danced, this princely maiden. And she has done her best in that wretched exhibition, and pleased Herod and them that sat at meat with him. And now, amidst the general plaudits, she shall have her reward — and the king swears it to her with loud voice, that all around hear it — even to the half of his kingdom. The maiden steals out of the banquet-hall to ask her mother what it shall be. Can there be doubt or hesitation in the mind of Herodias ? If there was one object she had at heart, which these ten months she had in vain sought to attain, it was the death of John the Baptist. She remembered it all only too well — her stormy, reckless past. The daughter of Aristobulus, the ill-fated son of the ill-fated Asmongean princess Mariamme (I.), she had been married to her half-uncle, Herod Philip, the son of Herod the Great and of Mariamme (II.), the daughter of the High-Priest (Boethos). At one time it seemed as if Herod J 'hilip would have been sole inheritor of his father's dominions. But the old tyrant had changed his testament, and Philip was left with great wealth, but as a private person living in Jerusalem. This little suited the woman's ambition. It was when his half-brother, Herod Antipas, came on a visit to him at Jerusalem, that an intrigue began between BeheadinCj of John the Baptist 213 the Tetrarch and liis brotlier's wife. It was agreed that, after the return of Antlpas from his impending- journey to Rome, he should repudiate his wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia, and wed Herodias. But Aretas' daughter heard of the plot, and having obtained her husband's con- sent to go to Mu''ha3rus, she fled thence to her father. This, of course, led to enmity between Antipas and Aretas. Nevertheless, the adulterous marriage with Herodias followed. In a few sentences the story may be carried to its termination. The woman proved the curse and ruin of Antipas. First came the murder of the Baptist, which sent a thrill of horror through the people, and to which all the later misfortunes of Herod were attributed. Then followed a war with Aretas, in which the Tetrarch was worsted. And, last of all, his wife's ambition led him to Rome to solicit the title of king, lately given to Agrippa, the brother of Herodias. Antipas not only failed, but was deprived of his dominions, and banished to Lyons in Gaul. The pride of the woman in refusing favours from the Emperor, and her faithfulness to her husband in his fallen fortunes, are the only redeeming points in her history. As for Salome, she was first married to her uncle, Philip the Tetrarch. Legend has it that her death was retribu- tive, being in consequence of a fall on the ice. Such was the woman who had these many months sought to rid herself of the hated person who alone had dared publicly denounce her sin, and whose words held her weak husband in awe. The opportunity had now come for obtaining from the vacillating monarch what her entreaties • St. Matt, could never have secured. As the Gospel puts it,^ nv. 8 i. instigated ' by her mother, the damsel hesitated not. ' With haste,' as if no time were to be lost, she went up to the king : • I will that thou forthwith give me in a charger the head of John the Baptist.' Silence must ' have fallen on the assembly. Even into their hearts such a demand from the lips of little more than a child must have struck horror. They all knew John to be a righteous and a holy man. Wicked as they were, in their supersti- tion, if not religiousness, few, if any of them, would have 214 Jesus the Messiah willingly lent himself to such work. And they all knew also why Salome, or rather Herodias, had made this demand. What would Herod do ? ' The king was ex- ceeding sorry.' For months he had stiiven against this. His conscience, fear of the people, inward horror of the deed, all would have kept him from it. But he had sworn to the maiden, who now stood before him, claiming that the pledge be redeemed, and every eye in the assembly was fixed upon him. Unfaithful to his God, to his con- science, to truth and righteousness ; not ashamed of any crime or sin, he would yet be faithful to his half-drunken oath, and appear honourable and true before such com- panions ! It has been but the contest of a moment. ' Straight- way ' the king gives the order to one of the body-guard. No time for preparation is given, or needed. A few minutes more, and the gory head of the Baptist is brought to the maiden in a charger, and she gives the ghastly dish to her mother. It is all over ! As the pale morning light streams into the keep, the faithful disciples, who had been told of it, come reverently to bear the headless body to the burying. They go forth for ever from that accursed place, which is so soon to become a mass of shapeless ruins. They go to tell it to Jesus, and henceforth to remain with Him. We can imagine what welcome awaited them. But the people ever afterwards cursed the tyrant, and looked for those judgments of God to follow, which were so soon to descend on him. And he himself was ever afterwards restless, wretched, and full of apprehensions. He could scarcely believe that the Baptist was really dead, and when the fame of Jesus reached him, and those around suggested that this was Elijah, a prophet, or as one of them, Herod's mind, amidst its strange perplexities, still reverted to the man whom he had murdered. It was a new anxiety, perhaps even so a new hope ; and as formerly he had often and gladly heard the Baptist, so now he would fain »st.Lukeis, have seen Jesus.* He would see Him : but not 9 now. In that dark night of betrayal, he, who at Feeding of the Five Thousand 215 the bidding of the child of an adulteress, had murdered the Forerunner, nuglit, with the approbation of a Pilate, have rescued Him WJiose faithful witness John had been. But night was to merge into yet darker night. For it was the time and the power of the Evil One. And yet : Jehovah reigneth ! CHAPTER XXXVIII. THE MIRACULOU.S FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOITSAND. (St. Matt. xiv. 13-21; St. Mark vi. 30-4i ; St Luke ix 10-17; St, John -vi. 1-14.) In the circumstances described in the previous chapter, Jesus resolved at once to leave Capernaum ; and this prob- ably, as we have seen, alike for the sake of His disciples, who needed rest ; for that of the people, who might have attempted a rising after the murder of the Baptist ; and temporarily to withdraw Himself and His followers from the power of Herod. For this purpose He chose the place, outside the dominions of Antipas, nearest to Capernaum. This was Beth-8aida (' the house of fishing ') on the eastern border of Galilee, just within the territory of the Tetrarch Philip. Originally a small village, Philip had converted it into a town, and named it Julias, after Ceesar's daughter. It lay on the eastern bank of Jordan, just before that stream enters the Lake of Galilee.' Only a few hours' sail from Capernaum, and even a shorter distance by land, lay the district of Bethsaida Julias. It was natural that Christ, wishing to avoid public attention, should havt- gone ' by ship,' and equally so that the many ' seeing them departing, and knowing ' — viz. what direction the boat was taking — should have followed on foot, and been joined by others from the neigh- bouring villages. The circumstance that the Passover was ' This Bethsaida must not be confounded with the other Fisher- town ' or Bethsaida, on the western shore of the Lake, which tlie Fourth Gospel distinguishes from the Eastern as 'Bethsaida of Galilee' (St. John xii. 21 ; comp. i. 44 ; St. Mark vi. 45). 2i6 Jesus the Messiah nigh at hand, so that many must have been starting on their journey to Jerusalem, round the Lake and through Peraea, partly accounts for the immense number of ' about 5,000 men, beside women and children,' which is men- tioned. And this, perhaps in conjunction with the effect on the people of John's murder, may also explain their ready and eager gathering to Christ. As we picture it to ourselves, our Lord with His disciples, and perhaps followed by those who had outrun the rest, first retired to the top of a height, and there » St. johu rested in teaching converse with them.* Pre- b'st. Matt, sently, as He saw the great multitudes gathering, xiv. 14 Ue ^ag i moved with compassion towards them.' '' There could be no question of retirement or rest in view of this. He must work while it was called to-day, ere the night of judgment came. It was this depth of pity which now ended the Saviour's rest, and brought Him down from the hill to meet the gathering multitude in the ' desert ' plain beneath. And what a sight — these thousands of men, besides women and children ; and what thoughts of the past, the present, and the future, would be called up by the scene. These Passover-pilgrims and God's guests, now streaming out into this desert after Him ; with a murdered John just buried, and no earthly teacher, guide, or help left ! Truly • St. Mark they were * as sheep having no shepherd.'" vi. 34 The very surroundings seemed to give to the thought the vividness of a picture : this wandering, stray- ing multitude, the desert sweep of country, the very want of provisions. A Passover, indeed, but of which He would be the Paschal Lamb, the Bread which He gave the Supper, and around which He would gather those scattered, shepherdless sheep into one flock of many ' companies,' to which His Apostles would bring the bread He had blessed and broken, to their sufficient and piore than sufficient nourishment ; and from which they would carry the remnant-baskets full, after the flock had been fed, to the poor in the outlying places of far-off heathendom. Feeding of the Fh'e Thousand 217 Meantime the Saviour was moviBg among thtm — ' beginning to teach them many things,' * and vi. 34 ^^ ' healing them that had need of healing.' ^ Yet, L^u^^^^ as He so moved and thought of it all, from the 'St. John grst 'HeHimself knew what He was about to do.' ^' VI. 6 And now the sun had passed its meridian, and the shadows fell on the surging crowd. Full of the thoughts of the great Supper, which was symbolically to link the Passover of the past with that of the future, and its Sacramental continuation to all time, He turned to Philip with this question : ' Whence are we to buy bread, that these may eat?' Perhaps there was something in Philip which made it specially desirable that the question dconip St should beputtohim.^ At any rate, the answer John xiv. of Philip sliowed that there had been a ' need be ' for it. This — ' two hundred denarii (between six and seven pounds) worth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one may take a little,' is the realism, not of unbelief, but of an absence of faith which, entirely ignoring any higher possibility, has not even its hope left in a ' Thou kuowest, Lord.' But there is evidence, also, that the question of Christ worked deeper thinking and higher good. As we under- stand it, Philip told it to Andrew, and they to the others. While Jesus taught and healed, they must have spoken together of this strange question of the Master. They knew Him sufficiently to judge that it implied some purpose on His part. Did He intend to provide for all that multitude ? They counted them roughly. They thought of all the means for feeding such a multitude. How much had they of their own ? As we judge by com- bining the various statements, there was a lad there who carried the humble provisions of the party — perhaps a • Comp st fisher-lad brought for the purpose from the boat.° johnvi. 9 It would take quite what Philip had reckoned — Matt. xiv. about two hundred denarii — if the Master meant li.'3?i st"'^'' them to go and buy victuals for all that multitude, Luke ix. 13 Pi-obably the common stock — at any rate as com- puted by Judas, who carried the bag — did not contain that 2i8 Jesus the Messiah amount. In any case, the right and the wise thing' v^as to dismiss the multitude, that they might go into tlie towns and villages and buy for themselves victuals, and find lodgment. Already what was called ' the first evening ' had set in, when the disciples, whose anxiety must have been growing with the progress of time, asked the Lord to dismiss the people. But it was as they had thought. He would have them give the people to eat ! How many loaves had they ? • St. Mark I^^t them go and see.* And when Andrew went ■"• ^8 to see what store the fisher-lad carried for them, he brought back the tidings, ' He hath five barley loaves and two small fishes,' to which he added, half in disbelief, half in faith's rising expectancy of impossible possibility : "St. John 'But what are they among so many?'*' It is ^i-9 to the fourth Evangelist alone that we owe the record of this remark, which we instinctively feel gives to the whole the touch of truth and life. It is to him also that we owe two other minute traits of deep interest, and of greater importance than at first sight appears. When we read that these five were ftar^e^-loaves, we learn that, no doubt from voluntary choice, the fare of the Lord and of His followers was the poorest. Indeed, barley- bread was, almost proverbially, the meanest. The other minute trait in St. John's Gospel consists in the use of a peculiar word for ' fish ' — 'opsarion,' which properly means what was eaten along with the bread, and specially refers to the small and generally dried or pickled fish eaten with bread, like our ' sardines,' or the ' caviar ' of Russia, the pickled herrings of Holland and Germany, or a peculiar kind of small dried fish, eaten with the bones, in the North of Scotland. Now the Lake of Galilee was particularly rich in these fishes, and we know that both the salting and pickling of them was a special industry among its fishermen. For this purpose a small kind was specially selected. The diminutive used by St. John, of which our Authorised Version no doubt gives the meaning fairly by rendering it 'small fishes,' refers, most likely, to those small fishes (probably a kind of sfirdine), of which millions were Feeding op the Five Thousand 219 cane^lit in the Lake, and which, dried and sailed, would form the most common ' savoury ' with bread for the fish(>s'- population along the shores. Only once again does the same expression occur, and that once more in the fourth Gospel. On that morning, when the Risen One manifested Himself by the Lake of Galilee to them who had all the night toiled in vain, He had provided for them miraculously the meal, when on the fire of charcoal ' they saw the well-remembered ' little fish,' and, as He bade them bring of the ' little fish ' which they had miraculously caught, Peter drew to shore the net full, not of ' little ' but ' of great fishes.' And yet it was not of those ' great fishes ' that He gave them, but ' He took • St. John ^^6 bread and gave them, and the oj^»arion like- xxi. 9, :o,i3 wise.'* There is one proof at least of the implicit faith, or rather trust, of the disciples in their Master. They had given Him account of their own scanty provision, and yet, as He bade them make the people sit down to the meal, they hesitated not to obey. We can picture to ourselves »> St. Matt. ^^® expanse of ' grass,' ^ 'green,' and fresh,"^ ^st M- k ' much grass ; ' ^ then the people in their ' com- vi. 39 panies ' *= of fifties and hundreds, reclining,^ and vi. io ° ^" looking in their regular divisions, and with their vl'^s'^'"^^ bright many-coloured dresses, like ' garden- ' St. Luke beds'K on the turf But on One Fiyfure must IX. 14 ^ est. Mark every eye have been bent. Around Him stood ^' His Apostles. They had laid before Him the scant provision made for their own wants, and which was now to feed this great multitude. As was wont at meals on the part of the head of the household, Jesus took the bread, ' blessed ' or, as St. John puts it, ' gave thanks,' and ' brake ' it. The expression recalls that connected with the Holy Eucharist, and leaves little doubt on the mind that, in the Discourse delivered in the Synagogue of •"St. Joiin Capernaum,** there is also reference to the Lord's VI. 48-58 Supper. As of comparatively secondary import- ance, yet helping us better to realise the scene, we recall the Jewish ordinance, that the head ofjbhe house was only to 220 /£SUS THE M ESSlAfJ speak the blessing if he himself shared in the meal. Yet if they who sat down to it were not merely guests, but his children, or his household, then might he speak it, even if he himself did not partake of the bread which he had broken. There can be little doubt that the words which Jesus spake, whether in Aramaean, Greek, or Hebi*ew, were those so well known : ' Blessed art Thou, Jehovah our God, King of the world, Who causest to come forth bread from the earth.' Assuredly it was this threefold thought : the up- ward thought, the recognition of the creative act as regards every piece of bread we eat, and the thanks- giving— which was realised anew in all its fulness when, as He distributed to the disciples, the provision miracu- lously multiplied in His Hands. And still they bore it from His Hands from company to company, laying before each a store. When they were all filled. He that had pro- vided the meal bade them gather up the fragments before each company. 80 doing, each of the twelve had his basket filled. Here also we have another life-touch. Those ' baskets ' known in Jewish writings by a similar name, made of wicker or willows, were in common use, but considered of the poorest kind. There is a sublimeness of contrast that passes description between this feast to the five thousand, besides women and children, and the poor's provision of barley-bread and the two small fishes ; and, again, between the quantity left and the coarse wicker baskets in which it was stored. Nor do we forget to draw mentally the parallel between this Messianic feast and that banquet of 'the latter days' which Rabbinism pictured so realistically. But as the wondering multitude watched, as the disciples gathered from company to com- pany the fragments into their baskets, the murmur ran through the ranks : ' This is truly the Prophet, " the Coming One." ' 221 CHAPTER XXXIX. THE NIGHT OF MIRACLES ON THE LAKE OF GENNESARET. (St. Matt. xiv. 22-36; St. Mark vi. 45-56 ; St. John vi. 15-21.) The last question of the Baptist spoken in public had been : ' Art Thou the Coming One, or look we for another ? ' It had in part been answered, as the murmur had passed through the ranks : ' This One is truly the Prophet, the Coming One ! ' So, then, they had no longer to wait, nor to look for another ! An irresistible impulse seized the people. They would proclaim Him King, then and there ; and as they knew, probably from previous utterances, per- haps when similar movements had to be checked, that He would resist, they would constrain Him to declare Him- self, or at least to be proclaimed by them. •Jesus, therefore, perceiving that they were about to come, and to take Him by force, that they might make Him King, withdrew again into the mountain. Himself alone,' or, as it might be rendered, though not quite in the modern usage of the expression, ' became an anchorite •St. johu asrain . . . Himself alone.''' He withdrew to pray ; and He stilled the people, and sent them, no doubt solemnised, to their homes, by telling them that He withdrew to pray. And He did pray till far on, when b St. Matt, the (second) evening had come,*' and the first ^'^" ^^ stars shone out over the Lake of Galilee. For whom and for what He prayed alone on that mountain, we dare not inquire. And as He prayed, out on the Lake, vhere the bark which bore His disciples made for the other shore, ' a great wind ' ' contrary to them ' was rising. And still He was 'alone on the land,' but looking out after them, as the ship was ' in the midst of the sea,' and they toiling and ' disti'essed in rowing.' Thus far, to the utmost verge of their need, but not farther. The Lake is altogether about six miles wide, and they had as yet made little more than half the dis- tance. Already it was ' the fourth watch of the night,' 222 Jesus the Messiah what might be termed the morning watch,' when the well- known Form seemed to be passing them, ' walking upon the sea.' There can, at least, be no question that such was the impression, not only of one or another, but that all saw Him, They tell us that they regarded His Form moving on the water as ' a spirit,' and cried out for fear ; and again, that the impression produced by the whole scene, even on them that ha,d witnessed the miracle of the previous evening, was one of overwhelming astonishment. This walking on the water, then, was even to them within the domain of the truly miraculous, and it affected their minds equally, perhaps even more than ours, from the fact that in their view so much which to us seems miraculous lay within the sphere of what might be expected in the course of such a history. As regards what may be termed the credibility of this miracle this may again be stated, that this and similar instances of ' dominion over the creature,' are not beyond the range of what God had originally assigned to man, when He made him a little lower than the angels, and crowned him with glory and honour, made him to have dominion over the works of His Hands, and all things .„ ... , were put under his feet.* Indeed, this ' dominion ft Ps. viii. 5 ^ ... 6 ; comp. ' ovcr the sea ' seems to exhibit the Divinely human rather than the humanly Divine aspect of Christ's Person, if such distinction may be lawfully made. This, however, deserves special notice : that there is one marked point of difference between the account of this miracle and what will be found a general characteristic in legendary narratives. In the latter the miraculous, how- ever extraordinary, is the expected ; it creates no sur- prise and it is never mistaken for something that might have occurred in the ordinary course of events. For it is characteristic of the mythical that the miraculous is not only introduced in the most realistic manner, but forms the essential element in the conception of things. Now the opposite is the case in the present narrative. Had it been mythical or legendary, we should have expected that ' Probably from 3 to about 6 A.M. CHRIST Walking on the Water 223 the disciples would have been described as immediately recognising the Master as He walked on the sea, and worshipping Him. Instead of this, they ' are tioubled ' and ' afraid.' ' They supposed it was an apparition ' (this in accordance with popular Jewish notions^, and ' cried out for fear.' Even afterwards, when they had received Him into the ship, ' they were sore amazed in themselves,' and ' understood not,' while those in the ship (in contradistinc- tion to the disciples) burst forth into an act of worship. This much then is evident, that the disciples expected not the miraculous; that they were unprepared for it; that they explained it on what to them seemed natural grounds ; and that, even when convinced of its reality, the impres- sion of wonder which it made was of the deepest. But their fear, which made them almost hesitate to re- ceive Him into the boat, even though the outcome of error and superstition, brought His ready sympathy and com- fort, in language which has so often converted mis:ippre- hension into thankful assurance : ' It is I, be not afraid !' And they were no longer afraid, though truly His walk- ing upon the waters might seem more awesome than any ' apparition.' The storm in their hearts, like that on the Lake, was commanded bj' His Presence. We must still bear in mind their former excitement, now greatly in- tensified by what they had just witnessed, in order to understand the request of Peter : ' Lord, if it be Thou, bid me come to Thee on the water.' They are the words of a man whom the excitement of the moment has carried beyond all reflection. And yet, with reverence be it said, Christ could not have left the request ungranted, even though it was the outcome of yet unreconciled and un- transformed doubt and presumption. And so He bade him come upon the water to transform his doubt, but left him to his own feelings unassured from without as he saw the wind, in order to transform his presumption ; while by stretch- ing out His Hand to save him from sinking, and by the words of correction which He spake, He did actually so point to their transformation in that hope, of which fSt. Peter is the special representative, and the preacher in the Church. 224 Jesus the Messiah And presently, as they two came into the boat, the wind ceased, and immediately the ship was at the land. But ' they that were in the boat ' — apparently in contradistinc- tion to the disciples, though the latter must have stood around in sympathetic reverence — ' worshipped Him, say- ing, Of a truth Thou art the Son of God.' The first full public confession this of the fact, and made not by the disciples, but by others. But in the disciples also the thought was striking deep root ; and presently, by the Mount of Transfiguration, would it be spoken in the name of all by Peter, not as demon nor as man taught, but as taught of Christ's Father Who is in Heaven. CHAPTER XL. CONCEKNING ' PURIFICATION,' ' HAND-WASHING,' AND ' VOWS.* (St. Matt. XV. 1-20 ; St. Mark vii. 1-23.) It is quite in accordance with the abrupt departure of Jesus from Capernaum, and its motives, that when, far from finding rest and privacy at Bethsaida (east of the Jordan), a greater multitude than ever had there gathered around Him, which would fain have proclaimed Him King, He resolved on immediate return to the western shore, with the view of seeking a quieter retreat, even though it were in • St. Matt. ' the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.'* From the fact bstfiiark t'^^^ St. Mark^ names Bethsaida, and St. John° ^st^ J hn Capernaum, as the original destination of the boat, vi. i? we would infer that Bethsaida was the fishing quarter of, or rather close to, Capernaum, even as we so often find in our own country a ' Fisherton ' adjacent to larger towns. Christ had directed the disciples to steer thither. But dst. Mark wc gather from the expressions used ^ that the boat ■"• 53 which bore them had drifted out of its course — • probably owing to the wind — and touched land, not where they had intended, but at Gennesaret, where they moored it early on the Friday morning. There can be no question Concerning Purification 225 that by this term is meant ' the Plain of Gennesaret,' the richness and beauty of which Josephus and the Rabbis describe in such glowing language. To this day it bears marks of having been the most favoured spot in this favoured region. As the tidings spread of His arrival and of the miracles which had so lately been witnessed, the people from the neighbouring villages and towns iiocked around Him, and brought their sick for the healing touch. So passed the greater part of the forenoon. Meantime the report of all this must have reached the neighbouring Capernaum. This brought immediately on the scene those Pharisees and Scribes ' who had come from Jerusalem ' on purpose to watch, and, if possible, to compass the destruction of Jesus. As we conceive it, they met the Lord and His disciples on their way to Capernaum. Although the cavil of the Jerusalem Scribes may have been occasioned by seeing some of the disciples eating with- out first having washed their hands, we cannot banish the impression that it reflected on the miraculously provided meal of the previous evening, when thousands had sat down to food without the previous observance of the Rabbinic ordinance. Neither in that case, nor in the present, had the Master interposed. He was, therefore, guilty of par- ticipation in their offence. But, in another aspect, the objection of the Scribes was not a mere cavil. It has already been shown that the Pharisees accounted for the miracles of Christ as wrought by the power of Satan, whose special representative— almost incarnation — they declared Jesus to be. This would not only turn the evidential force of these signs into an argument against Christ, but vindicate the resistance of the Pharisees to His claims. The second charge against Jesus was, that He • St. John was ' not of God ; ' that He was ' a sinner.' * If ix. 18, 24 ^jjjg could be established it would, of course, prove that He was not the Messiah, but a deceiver who misled the people, and whom it was the duty of the San- hedrin to unmask and arrest. The way in which they attempted to establish this, perhaps persuaded themselves Q 226 Jesus the Messiah that it was so, was by proving that He sanctioned in others, and Himself committed, breaches of the traditional law. The third and last charge against Jesus, which finally decided the action of the Council, could only be fully made at the close of His career. It might be formulated so as to meet the views of either the Pharisees or Sadducees. To the former it might be presented as a blasphemous claim to equality with God — the Very Son of the Living God. To the Sadducees it would appear as a movement on the part of a most dangerous enthusiast — if honest and self- deceived, all the more dangerous ; one of those pseudo- Messiahs who led away the ignorant, superstitious, and excitable people ; and which, if unchecked, would result in persecutions and terrible vengeance by the Romans, and in loss of the last remnants of their national independence. To each of these three charges, of which we are now watching the opening or development, there was (from the then standpoint) only one answer : faith in His Person. To this faith Jesus was now leading His disciples, till, fully realised in the great confession of Peter, it became, and has ever since proved, the Rock on which that Church is built, against which the very gates of Hades cannot prevail. It was in support of the second of these charges that the Scribes now blamed the Master for allowing His dis- ciples to eat without having previously washed, or, as St. Mark — indicating in the word the origin of the custom — expresses it : ' with common hands.' This practice is ex- pressly admitted to have been, not a Law of Moses, but ' a tradition of the elders.' Still, it was so strictly enjoined that to neglect it was like being guilty of gross carnal de- filement. Its omission would lead to temporal destruction, or, at least, to poverty. Bread eaten with unwashen hands was as if it had been filth. In fact, although at one time it hod only been one of the marks of a Pharisee, yet at a later period to wash before eating was regarded as affording the ready means of recognising a Jew. Let us try to realise the attitude of Christ in regard to the ordinances about purification, and seek to under- Concerning * Hand-washing' 227 stand the reuson of His bearing. That, in replying to the charge of the Scribes against His disciples, He neither vindicated their conduct, nor apologised for their breach of liabbinic ordinances, implied at least an attitude of indifference towards traditionalism. This is the more noticeable, since, as we know, the ordinances of the Scribes were declared more precious and of more binding import- ance than those of Holy Scripture itself. But, even so, the question might arise, why Christ should have provoked such hostility by placing Himself in marked antagonism to what, after all, was in itself indifferent. The answer to this inquiry will require a disclosure of that aspect of Rabbinism which has hitherto been avoided. It has elsewhere been told how Rabbinism, in the mad- ness of its self-exaltation, represented God as busying Him- self by day with the study of the Scriptures, and by night with that of the Mishnah ; and how, in the heavenly San- hedrin, over which the Almighty presided, the Rabbis sat in the order of their greatness, and the Halakhah was discussed, and decisions taken in accordance with it. It is even more temble to read of God wearing the Tallifh, or that He puts on the Phylacteries, which is deduced from Is. Ixii. 8. In like manner the Almighty is sup- posed to submit to purifications. Similarly He immersed in a bath of fire, after the defilement of the bui-ial of Moses. Such details will explain how Jesus could not have assumed merely an attitude of indifference towards tradi- tionalism. His antagonism was never more pronounced that in what He said in reply to the charge of neglect of the ordinance about ' the washing of hands.' It was an admitted Rabbinic principle that, while the ordinances of Scripture required no confirmation, those of the Scribes needed such, and that no Halakhah (traditional law) might contradict Scripture. When Christ, therefore, next proceeded to show that in a very important point — nay, in ' many such like things ' — the Halakhah was utterly in- compatible with Scripture, that, indeed, they made ' void the Word of God' by their traditions which they had o 2 22S Jesus the Messiah • St. Matt, received,'* He dealt the heaviest blow to tra- it.'Mari vii. ditionalism. Rabbinism stood self-condemned ; 9' 13 on its own showing it was to be rejected as in- compatible with the Word of God. It is not so easy to understand why the Lord should, out of ' many such things,' have selected in illustration the Rabbinic ordinance concerning vows, as in certain circumstances contravening the lifth commandment. Of course, the ' Ten Words ' were the Holy of Holies of the Law ; nor was there any obligation more rigidly observed than that of honour to parents. In both respects, then, this was a specially vulnerable point, and it might well be argued that if in this Law Rabbinic ordinances came into conflict with the demands of God's Word, the essential contrariety between them must, indeed, be great. At the outset it must be admitted that Rabbinism did not encourage the practice of promiscuous vowing. The Jewish proverb had it : 'In the hour of need a vow ; in time of ease excess.' Towards such work-righteousness and religious gambling the Eastern, and especially the Rabbinic Jew, would be particularly inclined. But even the Rabbis saw that its encouragement would lead to the profanation of what was holy. Of many sayings con- demnatory of the practice one will suthce to mark the general feeling : ' He who makes a vow, even if he keep it, deserves the name of wicked." Nevertheless, the practice must have attained serious proportions, whether as regards the number of vows, the lightness with which they were made, or the kind of things which became their object. It was not necessary to use the express words of vowing. Not only the word ' Qorhan ' [Korhaii] — ' given to God ' — but any similar expression would suffice ; the mention of anything laid upon the altar (though not of the altar it- self), such as the wood or the fire, would constitute a vow, nay, the repetition of the form which generally followed on the votive Qonam or Q,orhan had binding force, even though not preceded by these terms. It is in explaining this strange provision, intended bolL. to uphold the solemnity of vows, and to discourage Concerning 'Vows' 229 the rash use of words, that the Talmud makes use of the word • Itcmd ' in a connection which might, by association of ideas, have suggested to Christ the contrast between what the Bible and what the Rabbis regarded as ' sanctified hands,' and hence between the commands of God and the traditions of the Elders. For the Talmud explains that when a man simply says : ' That (or if) I eat or taste such a thing,' it is imputed as a vow, and he may not eat or taste of it, ' because the hand is on the Qorban ' — the mere touch of Qorban had sanctified it and put it beyond his reach, just as if it had been laid on the altar itself. Here then was a contrast. According to the Rabbis, the touch of ' a common ' hand defiled Gods good gift of meat, while the touch of ' a sanctified ' hand in rash or wicked words might render it impossible to give anything to a parent, and so involve the grossest breach of the Fifth Com- mandment ! Such, according to Rabbinic Law, was the ' common ' and such the • sanctifying ' touch of the hands. And did such traditionalism not truly ' make void the Word of God ' ? A few further particulars may serve to set this in clearer light. It must not be thought that the pronuncia- tion of the votive word ' Qorban,' although meaning ' a gift,' or ■ given to God,' necessarily dedicated a thing to the Temple. The meaning might simply be, and generally was, that it was to be regarded like Qorban — that is, the thing termed was to be considered as if it were Qorban, laid on the altar, and put entirely out of their reach. For although included under the one name, there were really two kinds of vows : those of consecration to God, and those of per- sonal obligation — and the latter were the most frequent. The legal distinctions between a vow, an oath, and ' the ban,' are clearly marked both in reason and in Jewish Law. The oath was an absolute, the vow a conditional undertaking. The ' ban ' might refer to one of three things : those dedicated for the use of the priesthood, those dedicated to God, or else to a sentence pronounced by the 8an- hedrin. Absolutions from a vow might be obtained before a ' sage,' or, in his absence, before three laymen, when all 230 Jesus the Messiah obligations became null and void. At tlie same time the Mishnah admits that this power of absolving from vows received little (or, as Maimonides puts it, no) support from Scripture. There can be no doubt that the words of Christ referred to such vows of personal obligation. By these a person might bind himself in regard to men or things, or else put that which was another's out of his own reach, or that which was his own out ef the reach of another, and this as completely as if the thing or things had been Qprhan^ a gift given to God. And so stringent was the ordinance that (almost in the words of Christ) it is expressly stated that such a vow was binding, even if what was vowed involved a breach of the Law. Such vows in regard to parents were certainly binding, and were actually made. Thus the charge brought by Christ is in fullest accordance with the facts of the case. More than this, the seemingly inappropriate addition to our Lord's mention of the Fifth Commandment of the words : ' He that revi'eth father or mother, he shall (let him) • Ex xxi 17 s^^rely die,'* is not only explained but vindicated by the common usage of the Rabbis, to mention along with a command the penalty belonging to its breach, so as to indicate the importance which Scripture attached to it. On the other hand, the words of St. Mark : ' Qor- ban (that is to say, gift [viz. to God]) that by which thou mightest be profited by me,' are a most exact tran- scription into Greek of the common formula of vowing, as given in the Mishnah and Talmud. But Christ did not merely show the hypocrisy of the system of traditionalism in conjoining in the name of re- ligion the greatest outward punctiliousness with the grossest breach of real duty. Never was prophecy more clearly vin- dicated than the words of Isaiah to Israel : ' This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Howbeit, in vain do they worship Me, teacliing for doctrines the commandments of men.' In thus setting forth for the first time the real character of traditionalism, and placing Himself in open opposition to its fundamental principles, the Chiist enunciated also for the first time the That which Defilrth a Man 23 z fundamental principle of His own interpretation of the Law. Tiiat Law was not a system of externalism, in which out- ward things affected the inner man. It was moral, and addressed itself to man as a moral being. Not from with- out inwai'ds, but from within outwards : such was the prin- ciple of the new Kingdom, as setting forth the Law in its fulness and fulfilling it. 'There is nothing from without the man, that, entering into him, can defile him ; but the things which proceed out of the man, those are they that defile the man.' It is in this essential contrariety of prin- ciple, rather than in any details, that the unspeakable difference between Christ and all contemporary teachers appears. As we read it, the discussion had taken place between the Scribes and the Lord, while the multitude perhaps stood aside. But when enunciating the grand principle of what constituted real defilement, ' He called to Him the • St. Matt, multitude.'* It was probably while pursuing st.Mark their way to Capernaum, when this conversation ■^'ii- 1^ had taken place, that His disciples afterwards re- ported that the Pharisees had been offended by that saying of His to the multitude. Even this implies the weakness of the disciples : that they were not only influenced by the good or evil opinion of these religious leaders of the people, but in some measure sympathised with their views. The answer which the Lord gave iDore a twofold aspect : that of warning concerning the inevitable fate of every plant which God had not planted, and that of warn- ing concerning the character and issue of Pharisaic teach- ing, as being the leadership of the blind by the blind, which must end in ruin to both. But even so the words of Christ are represented in the Gospel as sounding strange and difficult to the disciples. They were earnest, genuine men ; and when they reached the home in Capernaum, Peter, as the most courageous of them, broke the reserve — half of fear and half of reverence — which, despite their necessary familiarity, seems to have subsisted between the TNIaster and His disciples. He would seek for himself and his fellow-disciples explanation of 232 Jesus the Mess/ah what seemed to Lira parabolic in the Master's teaching. He received it in the fullest manner. There was, indeed, one part even in the teaching of the Lord, which accorded with the higher views of the Rabbis. Those sins which Christ set before them as sins of the outward and inward man, and of what connects the two : our relation to others, were the outcome of ' evil thoughts.' And this the Rabbis taught, explaining with much detail how the heart was alike the source of strength and of weakness, of good and of evil thoughts, loved and hated, envied, lusted and deceived, proving each statement from Scripture. But never before could they have realised that anything enter- ing from without could not defile a man. Least of all could they perceive the final inference which St. Mark • St. Mark long afterwai'ds derived from this teaching of the ^st clause Lord : ' Tins He said, making all meats clean.'* CHAPTER XLI. THE GREAT CRISIS IN POPULAR FEELING — CHRIST THE BREAD OF LIFE — 'WILL YE ALSO GO AWAY?' (St. John vi. 22-71.) The narrative now returns to those who, on the previous evening, had after the miraculous meal been ' sent away ' to their homes. We remember that this had been after an abortive attempt on their part to take Jesus b}^ force and make Him their Messiah-King. We can understand how the resistance of Jesus to their purpose not only weakened, but in great measure neutralised, the effect of the miracle which they had witnessed. In fact, we look upon this check as the first turning of the tide of popular enthusiasm. Let us bear in mind what ideas and expec= tations of an altogether external character those men con- nected with the Messiah of their dreams. At last, by some miracle more notable even than the giving of the INlanna in the wilderness, enthusiasm had been raised to the highest pitch, and thousands were determined to give Crjsis in Popular Feeling 233 up their pilgrimage to tlie Passover, and then and there proclaim the Galilean Teacher Israel's King. If He were the Messiah, such was His rightful title. Why then did He so strenuously and effectually resist it ? In ignorance of His real views concerning the Kingship, they would naturally conclude that it must have been from fear, from misgiving, from want of belief in Himself At any rate, He could not be the Messiah, Who would not be Israel's King. Enthusiasm of this kind, once repressed, could never again be kindled. Hencefoi'th there were continuous misunderstanding, doubt, and defection among former ad- herents, gi'owing into opposition and hatred unto death. Even to those who took not this position, Jesus, His Words and Works, were henceforth a constant mystery. And so it caine that the morning after the miraculous meal found the vast majority of those who had been fed either in their homes or on their pilgrim-way to the Pass- over at Jerusalem. Only comparatively few came back to seek Him, where they had eaten bread at His Hand. And even they sought both ' a sign ' to guide, and an explana- tion to give them its understanding. It is this view of the mental and moral state of those who, on the morning after the meal, came to seek Jesus which alone explains the questions and answers of the interview at Capernaum. As we read it : ' the day follow- ing, the multitude which stood on the other [the eastern] side of the sea ' ' saw that Jesus was not there, neither • St. John -His disciples.'* But of two facts they were vi. 22, 24 cognisant. They knew that on the evening before only one boat had come over, bringing Jesus and His disciples ; and that Jesus had not returned in it with His disciples, for they had seen them depart, while Jesus remained to dismiss the people. In these circumstances they probably imagined that Christ had returned on foot by land, being, of course, ignorant of the miracle of that night. But the wind which had been contrary to the dis- ciples had also driven over to the eastern shore a number of lishing-boats from Tiberias. These they now hired, and came to Capernaum, making inquiry for Jesus. It 234 Jesus the Messiah is difficult to determine whether the conversation and out- lined address of Christ took place on the Friday afternoon and Sabbath morning, or only on the Sabbath. All that » St joh ^® know for certain is that the last part (at any vi. 53-58 rate ^) was spoken ' in Synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum.' ^ We have to bear in mind that the Discourse in ques- tion was delivered in the city which had been the scene of so many of Christ's great miracles, and the centre of His teaching, and in the Synagogue built by the good Centurion, and of which Jairus was the chief ruler. Again, it was delivered after that miraculous feeding which had raised the popular enthusiasm to the highest pitch, and also after that chilling disappointment of their Judaistic hopes in Christ's utmost resistance to His Messianic pro- clamation. They now came ' seeking for Jesus,' in every sense of the word. They were outwardly prepared for the very highest teaching, to which the preceding events had led up, and therefore they must receive such, if any. But they were not inwardly prepared for it, and therefore they could not understand it. Secondly, and in connection with it, we must remember that two high-points had been reached — by th@ people, that Jesus was the Messiah- King; by the ship's company, that He was the Son of God. However imperfectly these truths may have been apprehended, yet the teaching of Christ must start from them, and then point onwards, > 25-29 ^' "^^^ question:'' 'Rabbi, when camesb Thou hither ? ' with which they from the eastern shore gi-eeted Jesus, seems to imply that they were per- plexed about, and that some perhaps had heard a vague rumour of the miracle of His return to the western shoi-e. It was the beginning of that unhealthy craving for the miraculous which the Lord had so sharply to reprove. In His own words : they sought Him not because they ' saw signs,' but because they ' ate of the loaves,' and, in their love for the miraculous, ' were filled.' What brought them was not that they had discerned either the higher mean- ing of that miracle, or the Son of God, but those carnal Last Discourse at Capernaum 235 Judaistit; expectancies which had led them to proclaim Hira King. What they waited for was a Kingdom of God — not in righteousness, joy, and peace in the Holy Ghost, but in meat and drink — a kingdom with miraculous wil- derness-banquets to Israel, and coarse miraculous triumphs over the Gentiles. Not to speak of the fabulous Messia- nic banquet which a sensuous realism expected, or of the achievements for which it looked, every figure in which prophets had clothed the brightuf ss of those days was first literalised, and then exaggerated, till the most glorious poetic descriptions became incongruous caricatures of spiritual Messianic expectancy. The fruit-trees were every day, or at least every week or two, to yield their riches, the fields their harvests ; the grain was to stand like palm trees, and to be reaped and winnowed without labour. Similar blessings were to visit the vine ; ordinary trees would bear like fruit-trees, and every produce of every clime would be found in Palestine in such abundance and luxuriance as only the wildest imagination could con- ceive. Such were the carnal thoughts about the Messiah and II is Kingdom of those who sought Jesus because they 'ate of the loaves, and were filled.' What a contrast between them and the Christ, as He pointed them from the search for such meat to ' work for the meat which He would give them,' not as a merely Jewish Messiah, but as ' the Son of jNIan.' And yet in uttering this strange truth, Jesus could appeal to something they would understand when He added, ' for Him the Father hath sealed, even God.' The words, which seem almost inexplicable in this connection, become clear when we remember that this was a well- known Jewish expression. According to the Rabbis, ' the seal of God w^as Truth,' the three letters of which this word is composed in Hebrew being, as was significantly pointed out, respectively the first, the middle, and the last letters of the alphabet. Thus the words of Christ would convey to His hearers that for the real meat, which would endure to eternal life — for the better J\Iessianic banquet — they must come to Him, because God had impressed upon 236 Jesus the Mess/ ah Him His own seal of truth, and so authenticated His Teach- ing and Mission. • St. John 2. Probably what now follows ^ took place at VI. 30-36 g^ somewhat different time — perhaps on the way to the Synagogue. Among the ruins of the Synagogue of Capernaum the lintel has been discovered : it bears the device of a pot of manna, ornamented with a flowing pattern of vine leaves and clusters of grapes. Here then were the outward emblems, which would connect them- selves with the Lord's teaching on that day. The miracu- lous feeding of the multitude in the ' desert place ' the evening before, and the Messianic thoughts which gathered around it, would naturally suggest to their minds remem- brance of the manna. That manna, which was angels' food, distilled (as they imagined) from the upper light, ' the dew from above ' — miraculous food, of all manner of taste, and suited to every age, according to the wish or condition of him who ate it, but bitterness to Gentile palates — they expected the Messiah to bring again from heaven. For all that the first deliverer, Moses, had done, the second- Messiah — would also do. And here, over their Synagogue, was the pot of manna — symbol of what God had done, earnest of what the Messiah would do : that pot of manna, which was now among the things hidden, but which Elijah, when he came, would restore again. In their view the events of yesterday must lead up to some such sign, if they had any real meaning. They had been told to believe on Him as the One authenticated by God with the seal of truth, and Who would give them meat to eternal life. By what sign would Christ cor- roborate His assertion that they might see and believe ? What work would He do to vindicate His claim ? Their fathers had eaten manna in the wilderness. To understand the reasoning of the Jews, implied but not fully expressed, as also the answer of Jesus, it is necessary to bear in mind that it was the oft and most anciently expressed opinion that, although God had given them this bread out of heaven, yet it was given through the merits ot Moses, and ceased with his death. This the Jews had probably Christ the Bread of Life 237 in view, when they asked : ' What workest Thou ? ' and this was the meaning of Christ's emphatic assertion that it was not Moses who gave Israel that bread. And then, by what may be designated a peculiarly Jewish turn of reasoning, such as only those familiar with Jewish litera- ture can fully appreciate, the Saviour makes quite different, yet to them familiar, application of the manna. Moses had not given it — his merits had not procured it — but His Father gave them the true bread out of heaven. ' For,' as He explained, ' the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.' Again, this very Rabbinic tradition which described in such glow- ing language the wonders of that manna, also further ex- plained its other and real meaning to be that if Wisdom said ' Eat of my bread and drink of my wine,' * it indicated that the manna and the miraculous water-supply were the sequence of Israel's receiving the Law and the Commandments — for the real bread from heaven was the Law. It was a reference which the Jews understood, and to which they could not but respond. Yet the mood was brief. As Jesus, in answer to the appeal that He would evermore give them this bread, once more directed them to Himself — from works of men to the Works of God and to faith — the passing gleam of spiritual hope had already died out, for they had seen Him and ' yet did not believe.' With these words Jesus turned away from His ques- b St. John tioners. The solemn sayings which now followed^ vi. 37-40 could not have been spoken to, and they would not have been understood by, the multitude. And accord- ingly we find that, when the conversation of the Jews is once more introduced,*^ it takes up the thread c ver. 41 . where it had been broken off, when Jesus spake of Himself as the Bread Which had come down from heaven. 3. Regarding these words of Chi'ist as addressed to the disciples, there is nothing in them beyond their standpoint. Believing that Jesus was the Messiah, it might not be quite strange nor new to them as Jews — although not 238 Jesus the Messiah commonly received — that He would at the end of the world raise the pious dead. Indeed, one of the names given to the Messiah has by some been derived from this very ex- pectancy. Again, He had said that it was not any Law, but His Person that was the bread which came down from heaven and gave life, not to Jews only, but unto the world — and they had seen Him and believed not. But none the less would the purpose of God be accomplished in the totality of His true people, and its reality be expe- rienced by every individual among them : ' All that [the total number] which the Father giveth Me shall come unto Me [shall reach Me], and him that cometh unto Me [the coming one to Me] I will not cast out outside.' The totality of the God-given must reach Him, despite all hin- drances, for the object of His Coming was to do the Will of His Father ; and those who came would not be cast outside, for the Will of Him that had sent Him, and which He had come to do, was that of ' th e all which He has given ' Him, He ' should not lose ayiyihing out of this, but raise it up in the last day.' Again, it was the Will of Him that sent Him ' that everyone who intently looketh at the Son, and believeth on Him, should have eternal life ; ' and the coming ones would not be cast outside, since this was His undertaking and promise as the Christ in regard • st jpbnvi to each: 'And raise him up will I at the last 39, 4o ■ ^ay.' ■- 4. What now follows'' is again spoken to 'the Je.vs,' and may have occurred just as they were entering the Synagogue. To those spiritually un- enlightened, the point of difficulty seemed how Christ could claim to be the Bread, come down from heaven. His known parentage and early history forbade anything like a literal interpretation of His Words. Yet we mark that what Jesus now si)ake to * the Jews ' was the same in substance as, though different in applica- tion from, what He had just uttered to the disciples. This, not merely in regard to the Messianic prediction of the Besurrection, but even in what He pronounced as the judg- ment on their murmuring. The words : ' No man can come Christ the Bread oe Liee 2^g to Me, exce])t the Father Which hath st']i:> Me draw him,' piL'SL'iit only the converse aspect of those to the disciples: ' All that which the Father giveth Me shall come unto Me, and him that cometh unto Ale I will in no wise cast out.' No man can come to the Christ — such is the condition of the human mind and heart that coming to Christ as a disciple is not an outward, but an inward, impossibility — except the Father ' draw him.' And this, again, not in the sense of any constraint, but in that of the personal moral influence and revelation, to which Christ afterwards • St. John lefers when He saith : 'And I, if I be lifted up xii. 32 from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.'" Nor did Jesus, while uttering these entirely un- Jewish truths, forget that He was speaking to Jews. The appeal to their own Prophets was the more telling, that Jewish tradition also applied these two prophecies (Is. liv. 13; Jer. xxxi. 84) to the teaching by God in the Messianic Age. But the explanation of the manner and issue of God's teaching was new: ' Everyone that hath heard from the Father, and leai'ned, cometh unto Me.' And this, not by some external or realistic contact with God, such as they regarded that of Moses in the past, or expected for them- selves in the latter days ; only ' He Which is from God, He hath seen the Father.' But even this might sound general and without exclusive reference to Christ. So, also, might this statement seem : ' He that believeth hath eternal life.' Not so the final application, in which the subject was carried to its ultimate bearing, and all that might have seemed general or mysterious plainly set forth. The Personality of Christ was the Bread of Life : ' I am •> St. .John the Bread of Life.'*> The Manna had not been ^'••»'^ bread of life, for those who ate it had died, their carcases had fallen in the wilderness. Not so in regard to this, the true Bread from heaven. To share in that Food was to have everlasting life, a life which the sin and death of unbelief and judgment would not cut short, as it had that of them who had eaten the Manna and died in the wilderness : ' the Bread that I will give is My Flesh, for the life of the world.' 240 Jesus the Messiah 5. These words, so significant to us, as pointing out the true meaning of all His teaching, must have sounded most mysterious. Yet the fact that they strove about their meaning sliows that they must have had some glimmer of apprehension tliat they bore on His self-surrender, or, as they might view it, His martyrdom. This last point is . st_ John ^^^' fortli in the concluding Discourse,* which we vi. 53-58 know to bave been delivered in the Synagogue, whether before, during, or after, His regular Sabbath address. It was not a mere martyrdom for the life of the world, in which all who benefited by it would share — but personal fellowship with Him. Eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of the Son of Man, such was the neces- sary condition of securing eternal life. It is impossible to mistake the primary reference of these words to our per- sonal application of His Death and Passion to the deepest need and hunger of our souls ; most difficult, also, to resist the feeling that, secondarily, they referred to that Holy Feast which shows forth that Death and Passion, and is to all time its remembrance, symbol, seal, and fellowship. 6. But to them that heard it, nay even to many of His disciples, this was an hard saying. It -was a thorough dis- enchantment of all their Judaic illusions, an entire upturn- ing of all their Messianic thoughts. The ' meat ' and ' drink ' from heaven which had the Divine seal of ' truth ' were, according to Christ's teaching, not ' the Law,' nor yet Israel's privileges, but fellowship with the Person of Jesus in that state of humbleness (' the son of Joseph ' ^), nay, of martyrdom, which His words seemed to indicate, ' My Flesh is the true meat, and My Blood is c ver. 55 the truo drink ; ' *= and what even this fellowship secured consisted only in abiding in Him and « ver. 56 jjg {q. them ; ^ or, as they would understand it, in inner communion with Him, and in sharing His con- dition and views. Though they spake it not, this was the rock of offence over which they stumbled and fell. And Jesus read their thoughts. If they stumbled at this, what when they came to contemplate the far more mysterious and un-Jewish Christ the Bread or Life 241 • St. John vi. facts of the Messiah's Crucifixion and Ascension ! * ^"^ Truly, not outward following, but only inward and spii'itual life-quickening could be of profit—even in the case of those who heard the very Words of Christ, which were spirit and life. Thus it again appeared, and most fully, that, morally speaking, it was absolutely im- . ^^ possible to come to Him, even if His Words " ver. bo ; ■•• ' . • n comp. vv. were heard, except under the gracious mfluence from above. ^ And so this was the great crisis in the History of the Christ. We have traced the gradual growth and develop- ment of the popular movement, till the murder of the Baptist stirred popular feeling to its inmost depth. With his death it seemed as if the Messianic hope, awakened by his preaching and testimony to Ckrist, were fading from view. It was a terrible disappointment, not easily borne. Now must it be decided whether Jesus were really the Messiah. His Works, notwithstanding what the Pharisees said, seemed to prove it. That miraculous feeding, that wilderness-cry of Hosanna to the Galilean King-Messiah from thousands of Galilean voices — what were they but its beginning ? All the greater was the disappointment : first, in the repression of the movement — so to speak, the retreat of the Messiah, His voluntary abdication, rather, His defeat ; then, next day, the incongruousness of a King, Whose few unlearned followers, in their ignorance and un- Jewish neglect of most sacred ordinances, outraged every Jewish feeling, and whose conduct was even vindicated by their Master in a general attack on all traditionalism, that basis of Judaism — as it might be represented, to the con- tempt of religion and even of common truthfulness in the denunciation of solemn vows ! This was not the Messiah ■: St. Matt. Whom the many — nay, Whom almost any — ^v- 12 would own.« Here, then, we are at the parting of the two ways ; and, just because it was the hour of decision, did Christ so clearly set forth the highest truths concerning Himself, in opposition to the views which the multitude entertained about the Messiah. The result was yet another and a sorer B 242 Jesus the Mess/ ah defection. ' Upon this many of His disciples went back, •St. John ^^^ walked no more with Him.'" Nay, the vi. 66 searching trial reached even unto the hearts of the Twelve. But one thing kept them true. It was the experience of the past. This was the basis of their present faith and allegiance. They could not go back to their old past ; they must cleave to Him. So Peter spake it in name of them all : ' Lord, to whom shall we go ? Words of Eternal Life hast Thou ! ' Nay, and more than this, as the result of what they had learned: 'And we have believed and know that Thou art the Holy One '^'''^'' of God.' » But of these Twelve Christ knew one to be 'a devil ' — like that Angel, fallen from highest height to lowest depth. The apostasy of Judas had already commenced in his heart. And the greater the popular expectancy and disappoint- ment had been, the greater the reaction and the enmity that followed. CHAPTER XLn. JESUS AND THE SYRO-PHOENICIAN WOMAN, (St. Matt. XV. 21-28 ; St. Mark vii. 24-30.) The purpose of Christ to withdraw His disciples from the excitement of Galilee, and from what might follow the execution of the Baptist, had been interrupted by the events at Beth saida- Julias, but it was not changed. A comparatively short journey would bring Jesus and His companions from Capernaum ' into the parts,' or, as St. Mark more specifically calls them, ' the borders of Tyre and Sidon.' At that time this district extended, north of Galilee, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. But the event about to be related occurred, as all circumstances show, not within the territory of Tyre and Sidon, but on its borders, and within the limits of the Laud of Israel. The whole circumstances seem to point to more than a night's rest in that distant home. Possibly, the two first The Syro-Phcenician Woman 243 Passover-days may have been spent here. According to St. Mark, Jesus 'would have no man know' His Pre.sence in that place, ' but He could not be hid.' and the fame of His Presence spreading into the neighbouring district of Tyre and Sidon reached the mother of the demonised child. All this implies a stay of two or three days. And with this also agrees the after-complaint of the di.sciples: 'Send • .St. Matt, her away, for she crieth after us.' * As the ^^st!\iark Saviour apparently received the woman in the vii. 24, 25 house,^ it seems that she must have followed some of the disciples into Galilee, entreating their help or intercession in a manner that attracted the attention which, according to the will of Jesus, they would fain have avoided, before, in her despair, she ventured into the presence of Christ within the house. She who now sought His help was, as St. Matthew calls her, from the Jewish standpoint, • a Ca- naanitish '^ woman,' by which term a Jew would designate a native of Ph(pnicia, or. as St. Mark calls her, a Syro-Phoenician (to distinguish her country from Ly bo- Phoenicia), and ' a Greek '—that is, a heathen. But we can understand how she would, on hearing of the Christ and His mighty deeds, seek His help for her child with the most intense earnestness, and that, in so doing, she would 0 St. Mark approach Him with lowliest reverence, falling ^'•25 at His Feet. "^ But what, in our view, furnishes the explanation of the Lord's bearing towards this woman is her mode of addressing Him : • 0 Lord, Thou Son of David ! ' This was the mo.st distinctively Jewish appellation of the Messiah ; and yet it is emphatically stated of her that she was a heathen. Spoken by a heathen, these words were, if used with- out know^ledge, an address to a Jewish Messiah, Whose works were only miracles, and not also and primarily signs. Now this was exactlv the error of the Jews w^iich Jesus had encountered and combated, alike when He resisted the attempt to make Him King, in His reply to the Jeru- salem Scribes, and in His Discourses at Capernaum. To have granted her the help she so entreated would have been, B 2 244 Jesus the Messiah as it were, to reverse the wliole of His Teaching, and to make His works of healing merely works of power. In her mouth, the designation meant something to which Christ could not have yielded. And yet He could not refuse her petition. And so He first taught her, in such manner as she could understand, that which she needed to know — the relation of the heathen to the Jewish world, and of both to the Messiah, and then He gave her what she asked. She had spoken, but Jesus had answered her not u word. When the disciples — in some measure, probably, still sharing the views of this heathen, that He was the Jewish Messiah — without, indeed, interceding for her, asked that she might be sent away, because she was troublesome to them, He replied that His Mission was only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This was true, as regarded His Work while upon earth ; and true, in every sense, as we keep in view the world-wide bearing of the Davidic reign and promises, and the real relation between Israel and the world. Thus baffled, as it might seem, she cried no longer ' Son of David,' but ' Lord, help me.' It was then that the special teaching came in the manner she could understand. If it were as ' the Son of David ' that He was entreated — if the heathen woman as such applied to the Jewish Messiah as such, what, in the Jewish view, were the heathens but 'dogs,' and what would be fellowship with them but to cast to the dogs— house-dogs, it may be — what should have been the children's bread ? And, certainly, no expression more common in the mouth of the Jews than that which designated the heathens as dogs. Most harsh as it was, as the outcome of national pride and Jewish self-assertion, yet in a sense it was true, "Rev. xxii. ^^^^ those tvWihi Were the children, and those 1^ ' ' ivithout' 'dogs.'* Two lessons did she learn with that instinct-like rapidity which Christ's personal Presence seemed ever and again to call forth. ' Yea, Lord,' it is as Thou say est ; heathenism stands related to Judaism as the house-dogs to the children, and it were not meet to rob the children of their bread in order to give it to dogs. But Thine own Miracles among a Semi-Heathen Population 245 words show that such would not now be the case. If they are house-dogs, then they are the Master's and under His table, and when He breaks the bread to the children, in the breaking of it the crumbs must fall around. But in so saying she was no longer 'under the table,' but had sat down at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and was partaker of the children's bread. He was no longer to her the Jewish Messiah, but traly ' the Son of David.' She now understood what she prayed, and she »v's a daughter of Abraham. And that which had taught her all this was faith in His Person and Work, as not only just enough for the Jews, but enough and to spare for all — children at the table and dogs under it ; that in and with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, all nations were blessed in Israel's King and Messiah. And so it was that the Lord said it : '0 woman, great is thy faith : be it done unto thee even as thou wilt.' Or, as St. Mark puts it, not quoting the very sound of the Lord's words, but their impression upon Peter : ' For this saying go thy way ; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.' ' And her daughter • St. Matt. '^^s healed from that hour.' '^ 'And she went XV. 28 away unto her house, and found her daughter prostrate [indeed] upon the bed, and [but] the demon gone out.' CHAPTER XLIII. A GROUP OF MIRACLES AMONG A SEMI-HEATHEN POPULATION. (St. Matt. XV. 29-31 ; St. Mark vii. .31-37 ; viii. 22-26 ; St. Matt. xi. 27-31.) If even the brief stay of Jesus in that friendly Jewisli home by the borders of Tyre could not remain unknown, the fame of the iiealing of the Syro- Phoenician maiden would soon have rendered impossible that privacy and retirement, which had been the chief object of His leaving Capernaum. Accordingly, when the two Paschal days were ended. He resumed His journey, extending it far beyond any previously undertaken. The borders of 246 Jesus the Messiah Palestine proper, though not of what the Rabbis reckoned as belonging to it, ' were passed. Making a long circuit through the territory of Sidon, He descended — probably through one of the passes of the Hermon range — into the country of the Tetrarch Philip. Thence He continued ' through the midst of the borders of Decapolis/ till He once more reached the eastern, or south-eastern, shore of the Lake of Galilee. It will be remembered that the D^capolis, or confederacy of ' the Ten Cities,' was wedged in between the Tetrarchies of Philip and Antipas. Their political constitution was that of the free Greek cities. They were subject only to the Governor of Syria, and formed part of Cosle-Syria, in contradistinction to Syro- Phoenicia. Their privileges dated Iruni Pouipey's linie. It is important to keep in view that, although Jesus was now within the territory of ancient Israel, the district and all the surroundings were essentially heathen, although in closest proximity to that which was purely Jewish. St. « St. Matt. Matthew ^ gives a general description of Christ's XV. 29-31 activity there. They have heard of Him as the wonder-worker, these heathens in the land so near to, and yet so far from, Israel ; and they have brought to Him ' the lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others,' and laid them at His Feet. All disease vanishes in presence of Heaven's Own Life Incarnate. It is a new era — Israel conquers the heathen world, not by force, but by love ; not by outward means, but by the manifestation of life-power from above. Truly, this is the Messianic conquest and reign : ' and they glorified the God of Israel.' One special instance of miraculous healing is recorded by St. Mark, not only from its intrinsic interest, but, per- haps, also, as in some respects typical. 1. Among those brought to Him was one deaf, whose speech had, probably in consequence of this, been so affected as practically to deprive him of its power. This circum- stance, and that he is not spoken of as so afflicted from his ' For the Rabbinic views of the boundaries of Palestine see ' Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' ch. ii. Healisg of the Deaf and Dumb 247 birth, leads us to infer that the affection was the result of disease, and not congenital. Remembering that alike the subject of the miracle and they who brought him were heathens, but in constant and close contact with Jews,* what follows is vividly true to life. The entreaty to ' lay His Hand upon him ' was heathen, and yet semi-Jewish also. Quite peculiar it is, when the Lord took him aside from the multitude; and again that, using a means ot healing accepted in popular opinion of Jew and Gentile, ' He spat,' applying it directly to the diseased organ. We read of the direct application of saliva only here and in the • St. Mark healing of the blind luan at Betlisaida.* We are viii. 23 disposed to regard this as peculiar to the healing of Gentiles. Peculiar, also, is the term expressive of burden on the mind, when, ' looking up to heaven, He sighed.' Peculiar, also, is the ' thrusting ' of His Fingers into the man's ears, and the touch of his tongue. Only the upward look to heaven, and the command ' Ephphatha ' — ' be opened' — seem the same as in His everyday won- ders of healing. But we mark that all here seems more elaborate than in Israel, The reason of this must, of course, be sought in the moral condition of the person healed. There is an accumulation of means, yet each and all inadequate to effect the purpose, but all connected with His Person. This elaborate use of such means would banish the idea of magic ; it would arouse the attention, and fix it upon Christ as using these means, which were all connected with His own Person. It was in vain to enjoin silence. Wider and wider spread the unbidden fame, till it was caught up in this hymn of praise : ' He hath done all things well — He maketh even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.' fc St. Mark 2- Another miracle is recorded by St. Mark,^ viii. 22-26 ag wrought by Jesus in these parts, and, as we infer, on a heathen. All the circumstances are kindred to those just related. It was in Bethsaida- Julias that one blind was brought unto Him, with the entreaty that He would touch him, — just as in the case of the deaf and dumb. Here, also, the Saviour took him aside — ' led him 248 Jesus the Messiah out of the village ' — and ' spat on his eyes, and put His Hands upon him.' We mark not only the similarity of the means employed, but the same, and even greater ela- borateness in the use of them, since a twofold touch is recorded before the man saw clearly. So far as we can judge, the object was, by a gradual process of healing, to disabuse the man of any idea of magical cure, while at the same time the process of healing again markedly centred in the Person of Jesus. With this also agrees (as in the case of the deaf and dumb) the use of spittle in the healing. We may here recall that the use of saliva was a well-known Jewish remedy for affections of the eyes. 3. Yet a third miracle of healing requires to be here considered, although related by St. Matthew in another « St. Matt, connection.* But we have learned enough of the ix. 27-31 structure of the first Gospel to know that its arrangement is determined by the plan of the wi"iter rather than by the chronological succession of events. The man- ner in which the Lord healed the two blind men, the injunction of silence, and the notice that none the less they spread His fame in all that land^ seem to imply that He was not on the ordinary scene of His labours in Galilee. Nor can we fail to mark an internal analogy between this and the. other tw^o miracles enacted amidst a chiefly Grecian population. And, strange though it may sound, the cry with which the two blind men who sought His help followed Him, ' Son of David, have mercy on us,' comes more fiequently from Gentile than from Jewish lips. It was, of course, pre-eminently the Jewish designation of the Messiah, the basis of all Jewish thought of Him. But we can understand how to Gentiles who resided in Palestine the Messiah of Israel would chiefly stand out as ' the Son of David.' It was the most ready, and, at the same time, the most universal, form in which the great Jewish hope could be viewed by them. Peculiar to this history is the testing question of Christ, whether they really believed what their petition implied, that He was able to restore their sight ; and, again, His stern, almost passionate, insistence on their Two Sabbath-Controversies 249 silence as to the mode of their cure. Only on one other occasion do we read of the same insistence. It is, when the leper had expressed the same absolute faith in Christ's ability to heal if He willed it, and Jesus had, as in the case of these two blind men, conferred the benefit by the -St. Mark i. touch of His Hand.* In both these cases, it is 40,41 remarkable that, along with strongest faith of those who came to Him, there was rather an implied than an expressed petition on their part. The leper who knelt before Him only said: ' Ijord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean ; ' and the two blind men : ' Have mercy on us. Thou Son of David.' Thus it is the highest and most realising faith which is most absolute in its trust, and most reticent as regards the details of its request. CHAPTER XLIV. THE TWO SABBATH-CONTROVERSIES— THE PLUCKING OF THE EARS OF CORN BY THE DISCIPLES, AND THE HEALING OF THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND. (St. Matt. xii. 1-21 ; St. Mark ii. 23-iii. 6 ; St. Luke vi. 1-lL) In grouping together the three miracles of healing de- scribed in the last chapter, we do not wish to convey that it is certain they had taken place in precisely that order. From their position in the Evangelic narratives we inferred that they happened at that particular period and east of the Jordan. They differ from the events about to be related by the absence of the Jerusalem Scribes, who hung on the footsteps of Jesus. While the Saviour tarried on the borders of Tyre, and thence passed through the terri- tory of Sidon into the Decapolis and to the southern and eastern shores of the Lake of Galilee, they were in Jeru- salem at the Passover. But after the two festive days, which would require their attendance in the Temple, they seem to have returned. And the events about to be related are chronologically distinguished from those that 250 Jesus the Messiah had preceded by this presence and opposition of the Pha- risaic party. The contest now becomes more decided and sharp, and we are rapidly nearing the period when He, Who had hitherto been chiefly preaching the Kingdom, and healing body and soul, will, through the hostility of the leaders of Israel, enter on the second, or prevailingly negative stage of His Work. Where fundamental principles were so directly contrary, the occasion for conflict could not be long wanting. In- deed, all that Jesus taught must have seemed to these f'harisees strangely un-Jewish in cast and direction, even if not in form and words. But chiefly would this be the case in regard to that on which, of all else, the Pharisees laid most stress : the observance of the Sabbath. On no other subject is Rabbinic teaching more minute and more manifestly incongruous to its professed object. For, if we rightly apprehend what underlay the complicated and in- tolerably burdensome laws and rules of the Pharisaic Sabbath-observance, it was to secure, negatively, absolute rest from all labour, and, positively, to make the Sabbath a delight. The Mishnah includes Sabbath-desecration among those most heinous crimes for which a man was to be stoned. This, then, was their first care : by a series of complicated ordinances to make a breach of the Sabbath- rest impossible. The next object was, in a similarly ex- ternal manner, to make the Sabbath a delight. A special Sabbath dress, the best that could be procured ; the choicest food, even though a man had to work for it all the week, or public charity were to supply it — such were some of the means by which the day was to be honoured and men were to find pleasure therein. The strangest stories are told, how, by the purchase of the most expensive dishes, the pious poor had gained unspeakable merit, and obtained, even on earth, Heaven's manifest reward. And yet, by the side of these and similar misdirections of piety, we come also upon that which is touching, beautiful, and even spiritual. On the Sabbath there must be no mourning, for to the Sabbath . jn prov. I. applies this saying : ^ ' The blessing of the Lord, 22 it maketh rich, and He addeth no sorrow with it.' The Pluckisg of the Ears of Corn 251 Quite alone was the Sabbath among the measures of time. Every other clay had been paired with its fellow : not so the Sabbath. And so any festival, even the Day of Atone- ment, might be transferred to another day : not so the observance of the Sabbath. Nay, when the Sabbath com- plained before God that of all days it alone stood solitary, God had wedded it to Israel ; and this holy union God had bidden His people ' remember,' * when they stood before the Mount. Even the tortures of Gehenna were intermitted on that holy, happy day. Jewish Law sufficiently explains the controversies in which the Pharisaic party now engaged with Jesus. Of these the first was when, going through the cornfields on the Sabbath, His disciples began to pluck and eat the ears of corn. This first Sabbath-controversy is immediately followed by that connected with the healing of the man with the withered hand. From St. Matthew and St. Mark it might appear as if this had occurred on the same day as the plucking of the ears of corn, but St. Luke corrects any possible misunderstanding by telling us that it happened 'on another Sabbath' — perhaps that following the walk through the cornfields. It was probably on the Sabbath after the Second Pas- chal Day that, as Christ and His disciples passed through b St Mat- cornfields, His disciples, being hungry,^ as they thew went,*^ plucked ears of corn and ate them, having a st'/Luke rubbed off the husks in their hands. "^ On any eDeut. xxiii. Qj.(jjj^j^j.y (ij^y ^]^jg would have been lawful,^ but on the Sabbath it involved, according to Rabbinic statutes. at least two sins. For, according to the Talmud, what was really one labour, would, if made up of several acts, each of them forbidden, amount to several acts of labour, each involving sin, punishment, and a sin-offering. Now in this case there were at least two such acts involved : that of plucking the ears of corn, ranged under the sin of reaping, and that of rubbing them, which might be ranged under sifting in a sieve, threshing, sifting out fruit, grind- ing, or fanning. 252 Jesus the Messiah Holding views like these, the Pharisees, who witnessed the conduct of the disciples, would naturally condemn what they must have regarded as gross desecration of the Sabbath. Yet it was clearly not a breach of the Biblical, but of the Rabbinic Law. Not only to show them their error, but to lay down principles which would for ever apply to this diflicult question, was the object of Christ's reply. Unlike the others of the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath Law has in it two elements : the moral and the ceremonial ; the eternal, and that which is subject to time and place ; the inward and spiritual, and the outward (the one as the mode of realising the other). In their distinc- tion and separation lies the difficulty of the subject. In its spiritual and eternal element, the Sabbath Law em- bodied the two thoughts of rest for worship, and worship which pointed to rest. The keeping of the seventh day, and the Jewish mode of its observance, were the temporal and outward form in which these eternal principles were presented. Even Rabbinism, in some measure, perceived this. It was a principle that danger to the life of an Israelite, but not of a heathen or Samaritan, superseded the Sabbath Law, and, indeed, all other obligations. It was argued that a man w^as to keep the commandments that he might live — certainly not, that by so doing he might die. Yet this other and kindred principle did Rab- binism lay down, that every positive commandment super- seded the Sabbath-rest. This w^as the ultimate vindication of work in the Temple, although certainly not its explana- tion. Lastly, we should, in this connection, include this important canon, laid down by the Rabbis : ' a single Rabbinic prohibition is not to be heeded, where a graver matter is in question.' These points must be kept in view for the proper understanding of the words of Christ to the Scribes. For, while going far beyond the times and notions of His ques- tioners. His reasoning must have been within their com- prehension. Hence the first argument of our Lord, as recorded by all the Synoptists, w^as taken from Biblical history. When, on his flight from Saul, David had, The Sabbath-Law 253 * when an hungered," eaten of the shewbread, and given it to his followers, althoug'li. by the letter of the Levitical • Lev. xxiv. Law,* it was only to be eaten by the priests, ^^- Jewish tradition vindicated his conduct on the plea that ' danger to life superseded the Sabbath-Law,' and hence all laws connected with it ; while, to show David's zeal for the Sabbath-Law, the legend was added that he had reproved the priests of Nob, who had been baking the shewbread on the Sabbath. To the first argu- ment of Christ St. Matthew adds this as His second, that the priests, in their services in the Temple, necessarily broke the Sabbath-Law without thereby incurring guilt. In truth, the Sabbath-Law was not one merely of rest, but of re.- St. Matt state, ranged on 'the grass,' ** while, on the ^t^M^'k • present occasion, which must have been several 39'; stJohn weeks later, when in the East the grass would ^" be burnt up, we are told by the two Evangelists that they sat on ' the ground.' On the occasion referred to in the preceding narrative, those who had lately taken counsel together against Jesus — the Pharisees and the Herodians, or, to put it otherwise, the Pharisees and Sadducees — were not present. For those who, politically speaking, were ' Herodians ' might also, though perhaps not religiously speaking, yet from the Jewish standpoint of St. Matthew, be designated as, or else include, Sadducees. But they were soon to reappear on the scene, as Jesus came close to the Jewish territory of Herod. As Jesus sent away the multitude whom He had fed. He took ship with His disciples, and 'came into c St Matt, tlie borders of Magadan,' ° or, as St. Mark puts it, XV. 39 < \^Q parts of Dalmanutha.' Neither ' Magadan ' nor ' Dalmanutha ' has been identified. This only we infer, that the place was close to, yet not within the boundary of strictly Jewish territory ; since on His arrival there the 8 2 260 Jesus the Messiah Pharisees are said to ' come forth ' * — a word which • St. Mark implies that they resided elsewhere, though, of viii.ii course, in the neighbourhood. We can quite understand the challenge on the part of Sadducees of ' a sign from heaven.' They would disbelieve the heavenly Mission of Christ, or, indeed, to use a modern term, any supra-naturalistic connection between heaven and earth. But in the mouth of the Pharisees also it had a special meaning. Certain supposed miracles had been either wit- nessed by, or testified to them, as done by Christ. As they now represented it — since Christ laid claims which in their view were inconsistent with the doctrine received in Israel, preached a Kingdom quite other than that of Jewish expectancy, was at issue with all Jewish customs, more than this, was a breaker of the Law, in its most important commandments, as they understood them — it followed that, according to Deut. xiii.. He was a false prophet, who was not to be listened to. Then, also, must the miracles which He did have been wrought by the power of Beelzebul, ' the lord of idolatrous worship,' the very prince of devils. But had there been real signs, and might it not all have been an illusion ? Let Him show them ' a sign,' and let that sign come direct from heaven ! It is said that Rabbi Eliezer, when his teaching was challenged, successfully appealed to certain ' signs.' First, a locust tree moved at his bidding one hundred, or according to some, four hundred cubits. Next the channels of water were made to flow backwards. Then the walls of the Academy leaned forward, and were only arrested at the bidding of another Rabbi. Lastly, Eliezer exclaimed : ' If the Law is as I teach, let it be proved from heaven ! ' when a voice fell from the sky : ' What have ye to do with Rabbi Eliezer, for the Halakhah is as he teaches ? ' It was, therefore, no strange thing, when the Pharisees asked of Jesus ' a sign from heaven,' to attest His claims and teaching. The answer which He gave was among the most solemn which the leaders of Israel could have heard. They had asked Him virtually for some sign of His Messiahsliip ; some striking vindication from heaven The ' S/Gjv from Heaven 261 of His claims. It would be given them only too soon. By the light of the flames of Jerusalem and the Sanctuary were the words on the Cross to be read again. The burn- ing of Jerusalem was God's answer to the Jews' cry, ' Away with Him — we have no king but Ccesar ; ' the thousands of crosses on which the Romans hanged their captives, the terrible counterpart of the Cross on Golgotha. It was to this that Jesus referred in His reply to the Pharisees and ' Sadducean ' Herodians. Men could dis- cern by the appearance of the sky whether the day would be fair or stormy. And yet, when all the signs of the gathering storm that would destroy their city and people, were clearly visible, they, the leaders of the people, failed to perceive them ! Israel asked for ' a sign ' — but none should be given the doomed land and city other than that which had been given to Nineveh : 'the sign of Jonah.' The only sign to Nineveh was Jonah's solemn warning and call to repentance ; and the only sign now, or rather, • St. Mark ' uuto this generation no sign,' * was the warn- b St Luke i^o ^^ ^^ judgment and the loving call to six. 41-44 repentance.^ It was but a natural sequence that ' He left them and departed.' Once more the ship bore Him and His disciples towards the coast of Bethsaida-Julias. He was on his way to the utmost limit of the land, to Cassarea Philippi, in pursuit of His purpose to delay the final con- flict. For the great crisis must begin, as it would end, in Jerusalem, and at the Feast; it would begin at the = St. John Feast of Tabernacles,*^ and it would end at the ^^' following Passover. But by the way the disciples themselves showed how little even they, who had so long and closely followed Christ, understood His teaching, and how prone to misapprehension their spiritual duluess rendered them. When the Lord touched the other shore, His mind and heart were still full of the scene from which He had lately passed. For truly on this demand for a sign did the future of Israel seem to hang. And now, when they landed, they carried ashore the empty provision baskets ; 262 Jesus the HIessiah for, as, with his usual attention to details, St. Mark notes, they had only brought one loaf of bread with them. In fact, in the excitement and hurry 'they forgot to take bread.' Whether or not something connected with this arrested the attention of Christ, He broke the silence, speaking that which was so much on His mind. He warned them, as greatly they needed it, of the leaven with which Pharisees and Sadducees had, each in their own manner, leavened, and so corrupted, the holy bread of Scripture-truth. The disciples, aware that in their hurry and excitement they had forgotten bread, mis- understood these words of Christ. They thought the words implied that in His view they had not forgotten to bring bread, but purposely omitted to do so, in order, like the Pharisees and Sadducees, to ' seek of Him a sign ' of His Divine Messiahship — nay, to oblige Him to show such : that of miraculous provision in their want. The mere suspicion showed what was in their minds, and pointed to their danger. This explains how, in His reply, Jesus re- proved them, not for utter want of discernment, but only for ' little faith.' It was their lack of faith — the very leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees — which had sug- gested such a thought. Again, if the experience of the past had taught them anything, it should have been to believe that the needful provision of their wants by Christ was not ' a sign.' such as the Pharisees had asked, but what faith migiit ever expect from Christ, when following after or waiting upon Him. Then understood they truly that it was not of the leaven of bread that He had bidden them beware, but pointed to the far more real danger of ' the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees,' which had underlain the demand for a sign from heaven. 263 CHAPTER XLVI. THE GREAT CONFESSION — THE GREAT COMMISSION (St. Matt. xvi. 13-28; St. Mark viii. 27-ix. 1 ; St. Luke ix. 18-27.) If we are right in identifying the little bay — Dalmanutha — with the neighbourhood of Tafich• 1* to receive /ii'm, this is Elijah, which is to come.' Similarly, if Israel had received the Christ, He would have gathered them as a hen her chickens for protection ; He would not only have been, but have visibly appeared as their King. But Israel did not know their Elijah, and did unto him whatsoever they listed ; and so, in logical sequence, would the Son of Man also suffer of them. And thus has the other part of Malachi's prophecy been ful- filled, and the land of Israel been smitten with the ban. Amidst such conversation the descent from the moun- tain was accomplished. Presently they found themselves in view of a scene, which only too clearly showed that unfitness of the disciples for the heavenly vision of the preceding night, to which reference has been made. It was, indeed, a terrible contrast between the scene below and that vision of Moses and Elijah, when they had spoken of the Exodus of the Christ, and the Divine Voice had attested the Christ from out the luminous cloud. A con- course of excited people — among them once more ' Scribes,' who had tracked the Lord and come upon His weakest disciples in the hour of their greatest weakness — is gathered nbout a man who had in vain brought his luuatick son for healing. He is eagerly questioned by the multiti de, and k St Matt, moodily answers ; or, as it might almost seem xvii. 14 from St. Matthew,'' he is leaving the crowd and those from whom he had vainly sought help. This was the hour of triumph for these Scribes. The Master had refused the challenge in Dalmanutha, and the disciples, accepting it, had signally failed. There they were, ' ques- 28o Jesus the Mess/ ah tioning with them ' noisily, discussing this and all similar phenomena, but chiefly the power, authority, and reality of the Master. It reminds us of Israel's temptation in the wilderness, and we should scarcely wonder if they had even questioned the return of Jesus, as they of old did that of Moses. At that very moment Jesus appeared with the three. We cannot wonder that, ' when they saw Him, they were »st Mark gi's^^^ly amazed and running to Him saluted Him.' ^ Before the Master's inquiry about the cause of this violent discussion could be answered, the man who had been its occasion came forward and, ' kneel- "st.Mat- ing to Him,'*' addressed Jesus. Describing the ^'^^^ symptoms of his son's distemper, which were those of epilepsy and mania — although both the father and Jesus rightly attributed the disease to demoniac in- fluence— he told how he had come in search of the Master, but only found the nine disciples, and how they had attempted and failed in the desired cure. Why had they failed ? For the same reason that they had not been taken into the Mount of Transfiguration — because they were ' faithless.' because of their ' unbelief.' They had that outward faith of the ' prohatum est ' (' it is proved ') ; they believed because of what they had seen ; but that deeper faith, which consisted in the spiritual view of that which was the unseen in Christ, and that higher power, which flows from such apprehension, they had not. In such fkith as they had, they repeated forms of exorcism, tried to imitate their Master. But they signally failed, as did those seven Jewish Priest-sons at Ephesus. In that hour of crisis, in the presence of questioning Scribes and a wondering populace, and in the aljsence of the Christ, only one power could prevail, that of spiritual faith ; and ' that kind ' could ' not come out but by prayer.' For one moment we have a glimpse into the Saviour's soul : the poignant sorrow of His disappointment at the unbelief of the ' faithless and perverse generation,' with which He had so long borne ; the patience and condescen- sion, the Divine ' need be ' of His having thus to bear even Healing of the Lunatic k Boy 281 with His own, together with the humiliation which it in- volved; and the almost home-longing, as it has been called, of His soul. These things are mysteries. The next moment Jesus turns Him to the father. At His command the lunatick is brought to Him. In the Presence of Jesus, and in view of the coming contest between Light and Darkness, one of those paroxysms of demoniac operation ensues, such as we have witnessed on all similar occasions. This was allowed to pass in view of all. But both this, and the question as to the length of time the lunatick had been afflicted, together with the answer and the descrip- tion of the dangers involved which it elicited, were evidently intended to point the lesson of the need of a higher faith. To the father, however, who knew not the mode of treatment by the Heavenly Physician, they seemed like the questions of an earthly healer who must con- sider the symptoms before he could attempt to cure. ' If Thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us.' There is all the calm majesty of Divine self-conscious- ness, yet without trace of self-assertion, when Jesus, utterly ignoring the ' if Thou canst,' turns to the man and tells him that, while with the Divine Helper there is the possibility of all help, it is conditioned by a possibility in ourselves, by man's receptiveness, by his faith. ' If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.' It was a lesson, of which the reality was attested by the hold which it took on the man's whole nature. While by one great out-going of his soul he overleapt all, to lay hold on the fact set before him, he felt all the more the dark chasm of unbelief behind him. Thus through the felt unbelief of faith he attained true faith by laying hold on the Divine Saviour, when he cried out and said : ' Lord, I believe ; help Thou mine unbelief.' Such cry could not be, and never is, unheard. It was a reality, and not accommodation to Jewish views, when, as He saw ' the multitude running together. He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to him : Dumb and deaf spirit, I 282 Jesus the Messiah command thee, come out of him, aud no more come into him.' Another and a more violent paroxysm, so that the by- standers ahnost thought him dead. But the unclean spirit had come out of him. And with strong gentle Hand the Saviour lifted him, and delivered him to his father. CHAPTER XLIX. THE LAST EVENTS IN GALILEE: — THE TEIBUTE-MONEY, THE DISPUTE BY THE WAY AND THE FORBIDDING OF HIM WHO COULD NOT FOLLOVi^ WITH THE DISCIPLES. (St. Matt. xvii. 22— xviii. 22 ; St. Mark vs.. 30-50 ; St. Luke ix. 43-50.) Now that the Lord's retreat at Ca^sarea Philippi was known to the Scribes, and that He was again surrounded and followed by the multitude, there could be no further object in His retirement. Indeed, the time was coming that He should meet that for which He had been, and was still, preparing the minds of His disciples — His Decease at Jerusalem. Accordingly, we find Him once more with His disciples in Galilee — not to abide there, but prepara- tory to His journey to the Feast of Tabernacles. The few events of this brief stay, and the teaching connected with it, may be summed vip as follows. 1 . Prominently, perhaps, as the summary of all, we have now the clear and emphatic repetition of the predic- tion of His Death and Resurrection. The announcement filled their hearts with exceeding sorrow ; they compre- hended it not ; nay, they were — perhaps not unnaturally — ■ afraid to ask Him about it. 2. It is to the depression caused by His insistence on this terrible future, to the constant apprehension of near danger, and the consequent desire not to 'offend,' and so provoke those at whose hands Christ had told them He was to suflFer, that we trace the incident of the tribute- money. We can scarcely believe that Peter would have TuF. Tribute-Money 283 answered as he did. without previous permission of his Master, had it not been for such thoughts and fears. It was another mode of saying-, 'That be far from Thee' — or. rather, trying to keep it as far as he could from Christ. It is well known that, on the ground of the injunction in Exod. xxx. 13 &c., every male in Israel, from twenty m years upwards, was ex])e«ted annually to con- 2Kingsxii. tribute to the Temple-Treasury the sum of one xxiv. ^\ ' half-shekel of the Sanctuary,^ equivalent to about Neh.x.32 J,, 2(^. or Is. 3rf. of our money. Whether or not the original Biblical ordinance had been intended to insti- tute a regular annual contribution, the Jews of the Dis- persion would probably regard it in the light of a patriotic as well as religious act. It will be remembered that, shortly before the previous Passover, Jesus with His disciples had left Capernaum, that they returned to the latter city only for the Sabbath, and that, as we have suggested, they passed the first Paschal days on the borders of Tyre. It must have been known that He had not gone up to Jerusalem for the Passover. Accordingly, when it was told in Capernaum that the Rabbi of Nazareth had once more come to what seems to have been His Galilean home, it was only natural that they who collected the Temple-tribute should have applied for its payment. It is quite possible that their application may have been, if not prompted, yet quickened, by the wish to involve Him in a breach of so well-known an obligation, or else by a hostile curiosity. We picture it to ourselves on this wise. Those who received the Tribute-money hod come to Peter, and per- haps met him in the court or corridor, and asked him : • Your Teacher (Rabbi), does He not pay the didrachma ? ' While Peter hastily responded in the affirmative, and then entered into the house to procure the coin, or else to report what had passed, Jesus, Who had been in another part of the house, but was cognisant of all, ' anticipated him.' Addressing him in kindly language as ' Simon,' He pointed out the real state of matters by an illustration v/hich must, of course, not be too literally pressed, and of which the 284 Jesus the Messiah meaning was : Whom does a King intend to tax for the maintenance of His palace and officers? Surely not his own family, but others. The inference from this, as re- garded the Temple-tribute, was obvious. As in all similar Jewish parabolic teaching, it was only indicated in general principle : ' Then are the children free.' But even so, be it as Peter had wished, although not from the same motive. Let no needless ofience be given ; for, assuredly, they would not have understood the principle on which Christ would have refused the Tribute-money, and all misunder- standing on the part of Peter was now impossible. Yet Christ would still further vindicate His royal title. He will pay for Peter also, and pay, as heaven's King, with a stater^ or four-drachm piece, miraculously pro- vided. If we wish to mark the difference between the sobriety of this record and the extravagances of legend, we may remind ourselves of a somewhat kindred Jewish Haggadah intended to glorif}' the Jewish mode of Sabbath observance. One Joseph, known as ' the honourer ' of the Sabbath, had a wealthy heathen neighbour, to whom the Chaldaeans had prophesied that all his riches would come to Joseph. To render this impossible, the wealthy man converted all his property into one magnificent gem, which he carefully concealed within his head-gear. Then he took ship, so as for ever to avoid the dangerous vicinity of the Jew. But the wind blew his head-gear into the sea, and the gem was swallowed by a fish. And, lo ! it was the holy season, and they brought to the market a splendid fish. Who should purchase it but Joseph ? for none as he would prepare to honour the day by the best which he could provide. But when they opened the fish, the gem was found in it — the moral being : ' He that borroweth for the Sabbath, the Sabbath will repay him.' 3. The event next recorded in the Gospels took place partly on the way from the Mount of Transfiguration to Capernaum, and partly in Capernaum itself, immediately after the scene connected with the Tribute- money. It is recorded by the three Evangelists, and it led to explana- The Dispute by the Way 285 tions and admouitions, which are told by St. Mark and vSt. Luke, but chieH}^ by St. Matthew. Thif.^ circumstance seems to indicate that the latter was the chief actor in that which occasioned this special teaching and warning of Christ, and that it must have sunk very deeply into his heart. » St. Mark ^^ St. Mark puts it,* by the way they had ix. 34 disputed among themselves which of them should " St. uratt. be the greatest — as St. Matthew explains,*' in '''"'■ ^ the Messianic Kingdom of Heaven. Of a dispute serious and even violent, among the disciples, we have evidence in the exhortation of the Master, as reported by ■= St. Mark St. Mark,'= in the direction of the Lord how to IX. 42-5U ^^^ W\\\\ an offending brother, and in the 1st. Matt, answering inquiry of Peter.*^ Nor can we be at xvin. 15, 21 aiQgg i^Q perceive its occasion. The distinction just bestowed on the three in being taken up the Mount, may have roused feelings of jealousy in the others, perhaps of self-exaltation in the three. Alike the spirit which John displayed in his harsh prohibition of the man that « St. Mark did not follow with the disciples,® and the self- IX. 38 righteous bargaining of Peter about forgiving the fst. Mutt, supposed or real offences of a brother,^ give evi- xyiii.2i denceofthis. In truth, the Apostles were still greatly under the in- fluence of the old spirit. It was the common Jewish view that there would be distinctions of rank in the Kingdom of Heaven. It can scarcely be necessary to prove this by Rabbinic quotations, since the whole system of Rabbinism and Pharisaism, with its separation from the vulgar and ignorant, I'ests upon it. But even within the circle of Rabbinism there would be distinctions, due to learning, merit, and even to favouritism. In this world there were God's special favourites, who could command anything at His hand — to use the Rabbinic illustration, like a spoilt child from its father. And in the ]\[essianic age God would assign booths to each according to his rank. How deep-rooted were such thoughts and feelings appears not only fr(jm the dispute of the disciples by the 286 Jesus the Messiah "St. Matt, way, but from the request proffered by tlie mother XX. 20 q|> Zebedee's children and her sons at a later period.^ We have ah'eady seen that there was quite sufficient occasion and material for such a dispute on the way from the Mount of Transfiguration to Capernaum. We suppose Peter to have been only at the first with the others. To judge by the latter question, how often he was to forgive the brother who had sinned against him, he may have been so deeply hurt that he left the other disciples, and hastened on with the Master, Who would, at any rate, sojourn in his house. For neither he nor Christ seems to have been present when John and the others forbade the man, who would not follow with them, to cast out demons in Christ's Name. Again, the other disciples only came into Capernaum, and entered the house, just as Peter had gone for the stater, with which to pay the Temple-tribute for the Master and himself And, if speculation be per- missible, we would suggest that the brother, whose offences Peter found it so difficult to forgive, may have been none other than Judas. In such a dispute by the way, Judas, with his Judaistic views, would be particularly interested ; perhaps he may have been its chief instigator ; certainly, he, whose natural character amidst its sharp contrasts to that of Peter presented so many points of resemblance to it, would on many grounds be specially jealous of and antagonistic to him. Quite natural in view of this dispute by the way is another incident of the journeyj which is afterwards b St Mark related.^ As we judge, John seems to have been St'. LuL ix ^'^® principal actor in it ; perhaps in the absence 49 of Peter he claimed the leadership. They had met one who was casting out demons in the Name of Christ — whether successfully or not, we need scarcely inquire. 50 widely had faith in the power of Jesus extended ; so real was the belief in the subjection of the demons to Him ; so reverent was the acknowledgment of Him. A man who, thus forsaking the methods of Jewish exorcists, owned Jesus in the face of the Jewish world, could not be The Dispute by the Way 287 fur from the Kingdom of Heaven. John had, in name ot the disciples, forbidden him. because he had not cast in his lot wholly with them. To forbid a man in such circum- stances would be either prompted by the spirit of the dispute by the way, or else must be grounded on evidence tliat the motive was, or the effect would ultimately be (as in the case of the sous of Sceva), to lead men ' to speak evil' of Christ, or to hinder the work of His disciples. Assuredly, such could not have been the case with a man who invoked His Name, and perhaps experienced Its efficacy. More than this — and here is an eternal principle : ' He that is not against us is for us ; ' a saying still more • St. Luke clear, when we adopt the better reading in St. '^•^*' Luke," ' He that is not against you is for you.' The lesson is of the most deep-reaching character. Not that it is unimportant to follow with the disciples. but that it is not ours to forbid any work done, however imperfectly, in His Name, and that only one question is really vital — whether or not a man is decidedly with Christ. Such were the incidents by the way. And now, while withholding from Christ their dispute, and, indeed, anything that might seem personal in the question, the disciples, on entering the house where He was in Capernaum, addressed to Him this inquiry : ' Who then is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven ? ' It was a general question — but Jesus perceived the thous'ht of their heart :^ fo g^ Luke r o > He knew about what they had disputed by the « St Mark way,° and now asked them concerning it. The *^- ^^ account of St. Mark is most graphic. Conscience- stricken ' they held their peace.' It seems as if the Master had at first gone to welcome the disciples on their arrival, and they, 'fuUof their dispute,' had without delay addi'essed their inquiry to Him in the court or antechamber, where they met Him. Leading the way into the house, ' He sat down,' not only to answer their inquiry, but to teach them what they needed to learn. He called a little child — perhaps Peter's little son — and put him in the midst of them. Not to strive who was to be greatest, but to be utterly without 288 Jesus the Messiah self-consciousness, like a child — thus to become turned and entirely changed in mind, ' converted,' was the condi- tion for entering into the Kingdom of Heaven. Then, as to the question of greatness there, it was really one of greatness of service, and that was greatest service which implied most self-denial. Suiting the action to the teach- ing, the Blessed Saviour took the hajopy child in His Arms. Not to teach, to preach, to work miracles, nor to do great things, but to do the humblest service for Christ's sake, was to receive Christ — nay, to receive the Father. And the smallest service, as it might seem — even the giving a cup of cold water in such spirit — would not lose its reward. These words about receiving Christ, and ' receiving in the Name of Christ,' had stirred the memory and con- science of John, and made him half wonder, half fear, whether what they had done by the way, in forbidding the man to do what he could in the Name of Christ, had been right. And so he told it, and received the further and higher teaching on the subject. St. Mark and St. Matthew record further instruction in connection with "St. Luke this, to which St. Luke refers at a somewhat later xvu. 1-7 period.'' The love of Christ goes deeper than the condescension of receiving a child, utterly un-Pharisaic and un-Rabbinic as this is.*^ A man may enter "St. Matt. . ^ . y xviii. 2-6, into the Kingdom and do service — yet, it m so para e b jj^-^^g. |^g disregard the law of love to the little ones, far better his work should be abruptly cut short ; better one of those large millstones turned by an ass were hung about his neck and he cast into the sea ! We pause to note, once more, the Judaic, and therefore evidential setting of the Evangelic narrative. The Talmud also speaks of two kinds of millstones — the one turned by hand, referred to in St. Luke xvii. 35 : the other turned by an ass. Similarly, the figure about a millstone hung round the neck occurs also in the Talmud — although there as figurative of almost insuperable diffi- culties. Again, the expression, ' it were better for him,' is a well-known Rabbinic expression. Lastly, according •Salted for the Fjre' 289 to St. Jerome, the punishment which seems alkuled to in the words of Christ, and which we know to have been in- flicted by Augustus, was actually practised by the Romans in Galilee on some of the leaders of the insurrection under Judas of Galilee. And yet greater guilt would only too surely be in- •st. Matt, curred ! Woe unto the world ! * Occasions of st^'MarkL stumbliug and offence would surely come, but 43^8 woe to the man through whom such havoc was wrought. What then is the alternative ? If it be a ques- tion as between offence and some part of ourselves, a' limb or member, however useful — the hand, the foot, the eye — then let it rather be severed from the body, however pain- ful, or however seemingly great the loss. It cannot be so great as that of the whole being in the eternal fire of Gehenna, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Be it hand, foot, or eye — practice, pursuit, or research — which consciously leads us to occasions of stumbling, it must be resolutely put aside in view of the incomparably greater loss of eternal remorse and anguish. Here St. Mark abruptly breaks off with a saying in which the Saviour makes general application, although the * St. Mark narrative is further continued by St. Matthew.'' ix. 49, 50 j^ seems to us that, turning from this thought that even members which are intended for useful service may, in certain circumstances, have to be cut off to avoid the greatest loss, the Lord gave to His disciples this as the final summary and explanation of all : ' For every one shall be salted for the fire ' — or, as a very early gloss which has strangely crept into the text paraphrased and explained it, ' Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.' No one is fit for the sacrificial fire nor can offer anything as a sacrifice, unless it have been first, according to the Levitical Law, covered with salt, symbolic of the incor- ruptible. ' Salt is good ; but if the salt,' with which the spiritual sacrifice is to be salted for the fire, ' have lost its sav'our, wherewith will ye season it?' Hence, 'have salt in yourselves,' but do not let that salt be corrupted by making it an occasion of offence to others, or among your- u 290 Jesus the Messiah Belves, as in the dispute by the way, or in the disposition of mind that led to it, or in forbidding others to work who follow not with you, but ' be at peace among yourselves.' To this explanation of the words of Christ it may, perhaps, be added that, from their form, they must have conveyed a special meaning to the disciples. It was a well-known law that every sacrifice burned on the Altar , ^ ^ .. ,, must be salted with salt.* Indeed, according to • Lev. 11. 13 ' o the ialmud, not only every such oifering, but even the wood with which the sacrificial fii'e was kindled, was sprinkled with salt. Salt symbolised to the Jews of that time the incorruptible and the higher. The Bible was compared to salt, so was acuteuess of intellect, so was the soul. Lastly, the question : ' If the salt have lost its savour, wherewith will ye season it?' seems to have been proverbial, and occurs in exactly the same words in the Talmud, apparently to denote a thing that is impossible. Most thoroughly anti-Pharisaic and anti-Rabbinic as all this was, what St. Matthew further reports leads still farther in the same direction. We seem to see Jesus still holding this child, and, with evident reference to the Jewish contempt for that which is small, point to him and apply, in quite other manner than they had ever heard, the Rabbinic teaching about the Angels. In the Jewish view, only the chiefest of the Angels were before the Face of God within the curtained Veil, while the others, ranged in different classes, stood outside and awaited His behest. The distinction which the former enjoyed was always to behold His Face, and to hear and know directly the Divine counsels and commands. This distinction was, therefore, one of knowledge ; Christ taught that it was one of love. Look up from eai-th to heaven; those representative, it may be guardian Angels nearest to God, are not those of deepest knowledge of God's counsel and commands, but those of simple, humble grace and faith — and so learn not only not to despise one of these little ones, but who is truly greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven ! Yet a further depth of Christian love remained to be On Forgiveness of a 'Brother' 291 shown, that which sought uot its own, but the things of others. Hitherto it had been a question of not seeking self, nor minding great things, but, Christ-like and (iod-like, to condescend to the little ones. What if actual wrong had « St. Matt, been done, and just offence given, by a ' brother ' ? * xviii. 15 Xn such case, also, the principle of the Kingdom — which, negatively, is that of self-forgetfulness, positively, that of service of love — would first seek the good of the offending brother. We mark here the contrast to Rab- binism, which directs that the first overtures must be made by the offender, not the offended ; and even prescribes this to be done in presence of numerous witnesses, and, if needful, repeated three times. As regards the duty of showing to a brother his fault, and the delicate tenderness of doing this in private so as not to put him to shame, Rabbinism speaks the same as the Master of Nazareth. Yet, in practice, matters were very diffei-ent; and neither could those be found who would take reproof, nor yet such as were worthy to administer it. Quite other was it in the Kingdom of Christ, where the theory was left undefined, but the practice clearly marked. Here, by loving dealing, to convince of his wrong him who had done it, was not humiliation nor loss of dignity or of right, but real gain : the gain of our brother to us, and eventually to Christ Himself. But even if this should fail, the ofiended must not desist from his service of love, but conjoin in it others with himself so as to give weight and authority to his remonstrances, as not being the outcome of personal feeling or prejudice — per- haps, also, to be witnesses before the Divine tribunal. If this failed, a final appeal should be made on the part of the Church as a whole, which, of course, could only be done through her representatives and rulers, to whom Divine authority had been committed. And if that were rejected, the offer of love would, as always in the Gospel, pass into danger of judgment. Not, indeed, that such was to be executed by man ; but that such an offender, after the first and second admonition, was to be rejected.^ 1 USUI, jj^ ^^^ ^^ j^^ treated as was the custom in regard 0 2 292 Jesus the Messiah to a heathen or a publican — not persecuted, despised, or avoided, but not received in Church-fellowship (a heathen), nor admitted to close familiar intercourse (a publican). And this, as we understand it, marks out the mode of what is called Church discipline in general, and specifically as regards wrong done to a brother. Discipline so exercised (which may God restore to us) has the highest Divine sanction, and the most earnest reality attaches to it. For in virtue of the authority which Christ had committed to the Church in the persons of her rulers and representatives, what they bound or loosed — declared obligatory or non- obligatory — was ratified in heaven. Nor was this to be wondered at. The Incarnation of Christ was the link which bound earth to heaven; through it whatever was agreed upon in the fellowship of Clu'ist as that which was a St Matt, tio be asked, would be done for them of His xviii. 19 Father Which was in heaven.^ Thus the power of the Church reached up to heaven through the power of prayer in His Name Who made God our Father. And so, beyond the exercise of discipline and authority, there was the omnipotence of prayer — 'if two of you shall agree ... as touching anything ... it shall be done for them ' — and with it also the possibility of a higher service of love. For in the smallest gathering ^' ' in the Name of Christ His Presence would be, and with it the certainty of nearness to, and acceptance with, God.^ It is bitterly disappointing that, after such teaching, even a Peter could come to the Master — either immediately, or perhaps after he had had time to think it over, and apply it — with the question how often he was to forgive an offending brother, imagining that he had more than satisfied the new requirements, if he extended it '^^'^' to seven times.'^ Such traits show better than elaborate discussions the need of the mission and the re- newing of the Holy Ghost. And yet there is something touching in the simplicity and honesty with which Peter goes to the Master, as if he had fully entered into His teaching, yet with such a misapprehension of its spirit. On Forgiveness of a 'Brother* 293 Surely, the new wine was bursting the old bottles. It was a principle of Rabbinism that, even if the wrongdoer had made full restoration, he would not obtain forgiveness till he had asked it of him whom he had wronged, but that it was cruelty in such circumstances to refuse pardon. The Jerusalem Talmud adds the beautiful remark : ' Let this be a token in thine hand — each time that thou showesfc mercy, God will show mercy on thee ; and if thou showest not mercy, neither will God show mercy on thee.' But it was a settled rule, that forgiveness should not be ex- tended more than three times. Even so, the practice was very different. It must have seemed to Peter, in his ignorance, quite a stretch of charity to extend forgiveness to seven, instead of three offences. It did not occur to him that the very act of numbering offences marked an externalism which had never entered into, nor comprehended the spirit of Christ. Until seven times ? Nay, until seventy times seven ! The evident purport of these words was to efface all such landmarks. Peter had yet to learn what we too often forget : that Christ's forgiveness, as that of the Christian, must not be computed by numbers. It is qaalitaiive, not qvantitative: Christ forgives sin, not sins — and he who has experienced it follows in His footsteps. CHAPTER L. THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM — FIRST INCIDENTS BY THE WAY. (St. John vii. 1-16 ; St. Luke ix. 1-56, 57-62 ; St. Matt. viii. 19-22.) The part in the Evangelic History which we have now reached has this peculiarity and difficulty, that the events are recorded by only one of the Evangelists. The section in St. Luke's Gospel from chapter ix. 51 to chapter xviii. 14 stands absolutely alone. St. John mentions three 294 Jesus the Messiah appearances of Christ in Jerusalem at that period : at the « St John Feast of Tabernacles,* at that of the Dedication,^ vii. tox. and His final entry, which is referred to by all » X. 22-42 the other Evangelists.*^ But, while the narrative 0 st Matt. Qf gt. John confines itself exclusively to what XX. 17 (kc. ; . . y St. Mark X. happened m Jerusalem or its immediate neiffh- 32 &c * St • . . . Liikexvii.' bourhood, it also either mentions or gives sufii- ^^ *"■ cient indication that on two out of these three occasions Jesus left Jerusalem for the country east of the Jordan (St. John x. 19-21 ; St. John x. 39-43, where the words in ver. 39, ' they sought again to take Him,' point to a previous similar attempt and flight). Besides these, St. John also records a journey to Bethany — though not st. Matt, the same supernatural powers as the Twelve.^ comp^.' Naturally, the personal directions as to their St. Luke X. 9 conduct Were in both cases substantially the same. We mark only three peculiarities in those addressed to the Seventy. The direction to ' salute no man by the way ' was suitable to a temporary and rapid mission, which might have been interrupted by making or renewing ac- quaintances. Both the Mishnah and the Talmud lay it clown, that prayer was not to be interrupted to salute even a king, nay, to uncoil a serpent that had wound round the foot. All agreed that immediately before prayer no one should be saluted, to prevent distraction, and it was advised rather to summarise or to cut short than to inter- rupt prayer, though the latter might be admissible in case of absolute necessity. None of these provisions, however, seems to have been in the mind of Christ. If any parallel is to be sought, it would be found in the similar direction of Elisha to Gebazi, when sent to lay the prophet's staff" on the dead child of the Shunammite. 302 Jesus the Messiah The other two peculiarities in the address to the Seventy seem verbal rather than real. The expression,'* •St. Luke ' if the Son of Peace be there,' is a Hebraism, b'st Matt equivalent to ' if the house be worthy,' ^ and re- X- 13 fers to the character of the head of the house and the tone of the household. Lastly, the direction to eat « St. Luke and drink such things as were set before them*' ^- ^' ^ is only a further explanation of the command to abide in the house which had received them, without seeking for better entertainment. On the other hand, the whole most important close of the address to the Twelve — ^st. Matt, which, indeed, forms by far the largest part of it ^ XI. 16-42 — ^g wanting in the commission to the Seventy, thus clearly marking its merely temporary character. In St. Luke's Gospel, the address to the Seventy is followed by a denunciation of Chorazin and Beth- • St. Luke saida.® This is evidently in its right place X. 13-16 there, after the Ministry of Christ in Galilee had been completed and finally rejected. In St. Matthew's Gospel, it stands immediately after the Lord's rebuke of f St. Matt, the popular rejection of the Baptist's message.^ xi. 20-24 rpjjQ <■ ^Qg ' pronounced on those cities, in which * most of His mighty works were done,' is in proportion to the greatness of their privileges. The denunciation of Chorazin and Bethsaida is the more remarkable, that Chorazin is not otherwise mentioned in the Gospels, nor yet any miracles recorded as having taken place in (the western) Bethsaida, From this two inferences seem inevi- table. First, if this history were legendary, Jesus would not be represented as selecting the names of places, which the writer had not connected with the legend. Again, ap- parently no record has been preserved in the Gospels of most of Christ's miracles — only those being narrated, which were necessary in order to present Jesus as the Christ, in ac- « St. John cordance with the respective plans on which each xxi. 25 Qf ^]^g Gospels was constructed. « Chorazin and Bethsaida are compared with Tyre and Sidon, which under similar admonitions would have re- pented, while Capernaum, which, as for so long the home The Mission of the Seventy 303 of Jesus, had truly ' been exalted to heaven,' is compared with Sodom. And such guilt involved a still greater punishment. The very site of Bethsaida and Chorazin cannot be fixed with certainty. The former probably re- presents the ' Fisherton ' of Capernaum ; the latter St. Jerome places two miles from Capernaum, If so, it may be represented by the modern Kerazeh, somewhat to the north-west of Capernaum. As for Capernaum itself — standing on that vast field of ruins and upturned stones which marks the site of the modern Tell Huvi, we feel that no description of it could be more pictorially true than that in which Christ prophetically likened the city in its downfall to the desolateness of death and ' Hades.' Whether or not the Seventy actually returned to Jesus before the Feast of Tabernacles, it is convenient to consider in this connection the result of their Mission. It had filled them with ' joy ; ' nay, the result had exceeded their expectations, just as their faith had gone beyond the mere letter unto the spirit of His Words. As they reported it to Him, even the demons had been subject to them through His Name. In this they had exceeded the letter of Christ's commission ; but as they made experiment of it, their faith had gi own, and they had applied His command to ' heal the sick ' to the worst of all sufferers, those grievously vexed by demons. The Prince of Light and Life had vanquished the Prince of Darkness and Death. The • 80. John Prince of this world must be cast out.* In "»• 31 spirit, Christ gazed on ' Satan falling as lightning from heaven.' He sees of the travail of His soul, and is satisfied ! What the faith of the Seventy had attained was now to be made permanent to the Church, whose representatives they were. For the words in which Christ now gave authority and power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the Enemy, and the promise that nothing should hurt them, could not have been ad- dressed to the Seventy for a Mission which had now come to an end, except in so far as they represented the Church Universal. Yet it is not this power or authority which is 304 Jesus the Messiah to be the main joy either of the Church or the individual, but the fact that our names are written in heaven. And so Christ brings us back to His great teaching about the need of becoming children, and wherein lies the secret of true greatness in the Kingdom , The joy of the disciples was met by that of the Master, and His teaching presently merged into a prayer of thanks- giving. Throughout the occurrences since the Transfigu- ration, we have noticed an increasing antithesis to the teaching of the Rabbis. But it almost reached its climax in the thanksgiving, that the Father in heaven had hid these things from the wise and the understanding, and revealed them unto babes. As we view it in the light of those times, we know that ' the wise and understanding ' — the Rabbi and the Scribe — could not, from their stand- point, have perceived them. And so it must ever be the law of the Kingdom and the fundamental principle of Divine Revelation that, not as ' wise and understanding,' but only as ' babes ' — as ' converted,' ' like children ' — we can share in that knowledge which maketh wise unto salva- tion. This truly is the Gospel, and the Father's good pleasure. The words * with which Christ turned from this address • St. Luke X. ^ *^6 Seventy and thanksgiving to God, seem almost like the Father's answer to the prayer of the Son. They refer to and explain the authoj'ity which Jesus had bestowed on His Chvirch : ' All things were delivered to Me of My Father ; ' and they aflbrd the highest rationale for the fact that these things had been hid from the wise and revealed unto babes. For as no man, only the Father, could have full knowledge of the Son, and con- versely no man, only the Son, had true knowledge of the Father, it followed that this knowledge came to us, not of wisdom or learning, but only through the Revelation of Christ : ' No one knoweth Who the Son is, save the Father ; and Who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomso- ever the Son willeth to reveal Him.' St. Matthew, who also records this — although in a different connection — concludes this section by words which The Yoke of Christ 305 have ever since been the grand text of those who, following • St. Matt, i^ the wake of the Seventy, have been ambassa- xi. 28-30 (}Qj.g for Christ.* On the other hand, St. Luke 23^2/"^^^ concludes this part of his narrative by adducing c conip. St. words equally congruous to the occasion,^ which, Matt.siii. 16 indeed, are not new in the mouth of the Lord.*^ From their suitableness to what had preceded, we can have little doubt that both that which St. Matthew, and that which St. Luke report were spoken on this occasion. Because knowledge of the Father came only through the Son, and because these things were hidden from the wise and revealed to ' babes,' did the gracious Lord open His Arms and bid all that laboured and were heavy laden come to Him. These were the sheep, distressed and prostrate, whom to gather, that He might give them rest, He had sent forth the Seventy on a work for which He had prayed the Father to thrust forth labourers, and which He has sioce entrusted to the faith and service of love of the Church. And the true wisdom, which qualified for the Kingdom, was to take up His yoke, which would be found easy, not like that unbearable yoke of Rabbinic conditions ; ^ and the true understanding to be sought was by learning of Hiin. In that wisdom of enter- ing the Kingdom by taking up its yoke, and in that know- ledge which came by learning of Him, Christ was Himself alike the true lesson and the best teacher for those ' babes.' For He is meek and lowly in heart, and so, by coming unto Him, would true rest be found for the soul. These words, as recorded by St. Matthew — the Evan- gelist of the Jews — must have sunk the deeper into Xhoi hearts of Christ's Jewish hearers, that they came in their own old familiar form of speech, yet with such contrast of spirit. One of the most common figurative expressions of 'OnQ time was that of ' the yoke,' to indicate submission to an occupation or obligation. Thus we read not only of the ' yoke of the Law,' but of that of ' earthly governments,' and ordinary ' civil obligations.' This yoke might be ' cast off,' as the ten tribes had cast off that ' of God,' and thus brought on themselves their exile. On the other hand, to X 3o6 Jesus the Messiah ' take upon oneself the yoke ' meant to submit to it of free choice and deliberate resolution. Of Isaiah it was said that he had been privileged to prophesy of so many blessings, ' because he had taken upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven with joy.' And, as previously stated, it was set forth that in the ' Shema^' or Creed — which was repeated every day — the words, Deut. vi. 4-9, were recited before those in xi. 13-21, so as first generally to ' take upon ourselves the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and only afterwards that of the commandments.' And this yoke all Israel had taken upon itself, thereby gaining the merit ever afterwards imputed to them. Yet, practically, ' the yoke of the Kingdom ' was none other than that ' of the Law ' and ' of the commandments ; ' oue of laboi-ious performances and of impossible self- righteousness. It was ' unbearable,' not ' the easy ' yoke of Christ, in which the Kingdom of God was of faith, not of works. This voluntary making of the yoke as heavy as possible, the taking on themselves as many obligations as possible, was the ideal of Rabbinic piety. There was, therefore, peculiar teaching and comfort in the words of » St. Luke X. Christ; and well might He add, as St. Luke 23, 24 reports,* that blessed were they who saw and heard these things. It seems not unlikely, that the scene next recorded by St. Luke ^ stands in its right place. Such an inquiry on the part of a ' certain lawyer,' as to what he should do to inherit eternal life, together with Christ's Parabolic teaching about the Good Samaritan, is evidently congi-uous to the previous teaching of Christ about entering into the Kingdom of Heaven. Possibly, this Scribe may have understood the words of the Master about these things being hid from the wise, and the need of taking up the yoke of the Kingdom, as enforcing the views of those Rabbinic teachers who laid more stress upon good works than upon study. From this interruption, which, but for the teaching of Christ connected with it, would have formed a discord in the heavenly harmony of this journey, we turn to a far The Home at Bethany 307 other scene. It must mark the close of Christ's journey to the Feast of Tabernacles, since the home of Martha and Mary, to which it introduces us, was in Bethany, close to Jerusalem, almost one of its suburbs. From the narrative of Christ's reception in the house of Martha, we gather that Jesus had arrived in Bethany with His disciples, but • St. Luke X. that He alone was the guest of the two sisters.* ^^ We infer that Christ had dismissed His disciplis to go into the neighbouring City for the Feast, while Him- self tarried in Bethany. With this agrees the notice in St. John vii. 14, that it was not at the beginning, but ' about the midst of the feast,' that ' Jesus went up into the Temple.' Although travelling on the two first festive days was not actually unlawful, yet we can scarcely conceive that Jesus would have done so — especially on the Feast of Tabernacles ; and the inference is obvious, that Jesus had tarried in the immediate neighbourhood, as we know He did at Bethany in the house of Martha and Mary. Other things, also, do so explain themselves — notably, the absence of the brother of Martha and Mary, who pro- bably spent the festive days in the City itself. It was the beginning of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the scene re- corded by St. Luke^ would take place in the l> ^ 38—42 . • • open leafy booth which served as the sitting apartment during the festive week. For, according to law, it was duty during the festive week to eat. sleep, pray, study — in short, to live — in these booths, which were to be constructed of the boughs of living trees. And, although this was not absolutely obligatory on women, yet the rule which bade all make ' the booth the principal, and the house only the secondary dwelling,' would induce them to make this leafy tent at least the sitting apartment alike for men and women. They were high enough, and yet not too high ; chiefly open in front ; close enough to be shady, and yet not so close as to exclude sunlight and air. Such would be the apartment in which what is recorded passed ; and, if we add that this booth stood probably in the court, we can picture to ourselves Martha moving, forwards and backwards on her busy errands, and seeing, X 2 3o8 Jesus the Messiah as she went, Mary still sitting a rapt listener, not heeding what passed around ; and, lastly, how the elder sister could, as the language of verse 40 implies, enter so suddenly the Master's Presence, bringing her complaint. To understand this history, we must dismiss from our minds preconceived, though, perhaps, attractive thoughts. Thei'e is no evidence that the household of Bethany had previously belonged to the circle of Christ's professed dis- ciples. It was, as the whole history shows, a wealthy home. Although we know not how it came so to be, the house was evidently Martha's, and into it she received Jesus on His arrival in Bethany. It would have been no uncommon occurrence in Israel for a pious, wealthy lady to receive a great Rabbi into her house. But the present was not an ordinary case. Martha must have heard of Him, even if she had not seen Him. But, indeed, the whole narrative « comp. St. implies ^ that Jesus had come to Bethany with Luke X. 38 ^j^g view of accepting the hospitality of Martha, which probably had been proffered when some of those ' Seventy,' sojourning in the worthiest house at Bethany, had announced the near arrival of the Master. Still, her bearing affords only indication of being drawn towards Christ — at most, of a sincere desire to learn the good news, not of actual discipleship. And so Jesus came. He was to lodge in one of the booths, the sisters in the house, and the great booth in \he middle of the courtyard would be the common living apart- ment of all. This festive season was a busy time for the mistress of a wealthy household, especially in the near neighbourhood of Jerusalem, whence her brother might, after the first two festive days, bring ^vith him any time that week honoured guests from the City. To these cares was now added that of doing sufficient honour to such a Guest — for she must already have deeply felt His greatness. And so she hurried to and fro through the courtyard, literally, ' distracted about much serving.' Her younger sister, also, would do Him all highest honour ; but not as Martha. Her homage consisted in forgetting all else but Him, Who spake as none had ever The Feast of Tabernacles 309 done. ' She sat at the Lord's Feet, and heard His Word.' And so, time after time, as Marfha passed on her busy- way, she still sat listening and living. At last the sister, who in her impatience could not think that a woman could in such manner fulfil her duty or show forth her religious profiting, broke in with what sounds like a querulous complaint : ' Lord, dost Thou not care that my sister did leave me to serve alone ? ' Mary had served with her, but she had now left her to do the work alone. With tone of gentle reproof and admonition, the affect ionaten ess of which appeared even in the repetition of her name, * Martha, Martha ' — as similarly, on a later occasion, ' Simon, Simon ' — did He teach her in words which, however simple in their primary meaning, are so full that they have ever since borne the most many-sided application : ' Thou art careful and anxious about many things : but one thing is needful ; and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.' CHAPTER LII. AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES — FIRST DISCOURSE IN THE TEMPLE. • (St. John vii. 11-36.) It was the non-sacred part of the festive week, the half- holy days. Jerusalem wore quite another than its usual aspect ; other, even, than when its streets were thronged by festive pilgrims during the Passover-week, or at Pente- cost. For this was pre-eminently the Feast for foreign pilgrims, coming from the farthest distance, whose Temple- contributions were then received and counted. As the Jernsalemite would look with proud self-consciousness, not unmingled with kindly patronage, on the swarthy strangers, yet fellow-countrymen, or the eager-eyed Galilean curiously stare after them, the pilgrims would in turn gaze with mingled awe and wonderment on the novel scene. All day long the smoke of the burning, smouldering 3IO Jesus the Messiah sacrifices rose in slowly-widening column, and hung between the Mount of Olives and Zion ; the chant of Levites and the solemn responses of the Hallel were borne on the breeze, or . the clear blast of the Priests' silver trumpets seemed to waken the echoes far away. And then, at night, how all these vast Temple-buildings stood out, illuminated by the great Candelalr.as that burned in the Court of the Women, and by the glare of torclies, when strange sound of mystic hymns and dances came floating over the intervening dark- ness ! Truly, well might Israel designate the Feast of Tabernacles as ' f//e Feast," and the Jewish historian describe it as 'the holiest and greatest.' Early on the 14th Tisliri (corresponding to our Sep- tember or early October), all the festive pilgrims had arrived. Then it was indeed a scene of bustle and activity. Hos- pitality had to be sought and found ; guests to be welcomed and entertained ; all things required for the Feast to be got ready. Booths must be erected everywhere — in court and on housetop, in street and square, for the lodgment and entertainment of that vast multitude; leafy dwellings everywhere, to remind of the wilderness-journey, and now of the goodly land. Only that fierce castle, Antonia, which frowned above the Temple, was undecked by the festive spring into which the land had burst. To the Jew it must have been a hateful sight, that castle, which guarded and dominated his own City and Temple. Yet, for all this, Israel could not read on the lowering sky the signs of the times, nor yet knew the day of their merciful visitation. And this, although of all festivals that of Tabernacles should have most clearly pointed them to the future. Indeed, the whole symbolism of the Feast, beginning wnth the completed harvest, for which it was a thanks- giving, pointed to the future. The Rabbis themselves admitted this. The strange number of sacrificial bullocks — seventy in all — they regarded as referring to ' the seventy nations ' of heathendom. The ceremony of the outpouring of water, which was considered of such vital importance as to give to the whole festival the name of ' House of Out- pouring,' was symbolical of the outpouring of the Holy The Feast of Tabernacles 311 Spirit. As the brief night of the great Temple-illumination closed, there was solemn testimony made before Jehovah against heathenism. It must have been a stirring scene, when from out the mass of Levites, with their musical instru- ments, who crowded the fifteen steps that led from the Court of Israel to that of the Women, stepped two Priests with their silver trumpets. As the first cockerowing in- timated the dawn of morn, they blew a threefold blast, another on the tenth step, and yet another threefold blast as they entered the Court of the Women. And, still sounding their trumpets, they marched through the Court of the Women to the Beautiful Gate. Here, turning round and facing westwards to the Holy Place, they repeated : ' Our fathers, who were in this place, they turned their backs on the Sanctuary of Jehovah, and their faces east- ward, for they worshipped eastward, the sun ; but we, our eyes are towards Jehovah,' ' We are Jehovah's — our eyes are towards Jehovah.' Nay, the whole of this night- and morning-scene was symbolical : the Temple-illumination, of the light which was to shine from out the Temple into the dark night of heathendom ; then, at the first dawn of morn the blast of the Priests' silver trumpets, of the army of God, as it advanced with festive trumpet-sound and call to awaken the sleepers, marching on to quite the utmost bounds of the Sanctuary, to the Beautiful Gate, which opened upon the Court of the Gentiles — and then again facing round to utter solemn protest against heathenism, and make solemn confession of Jehovah ! But Jesus did not appear in the Temple during the first two festive days. The pilgrims from all parts of the country had expected Him there, for everyone would now speak of Him — ' not openly,' in Jerusalem, for they were afraid of their rulers. But they sought Him, and inquired after Him — a low, confused discussion of the pro and con. in this great controversy among the ' multitudes,' or festive bands from various parts. Some said : ' He is a good man,' while others declared that He only led astray the common, ignorant populace. And now, all at once, in the half-holy- days, Jesus Himself appeared in the Temple, and taught. 312 Jesus the Messiah We know that on a later occasion " He walked and taught • St johu X ^ ' Solomon's Porch,' and, from the circumstance 23 that the early disciples made this their com- oActsv. 12 jj-^Qj^ meeting-place,'' we may draw the inference that it was here the people now found Him. Although neither Josephus nor the Mishnah mentions this ' Porch ' by name, we have every reason for believing that it was the eastern colonnade, which abutted against the Mount of Olives and faced ' the Beautiful Gate,' that formed the principal entrance into the ' Court of the Women,' and so into the Sanctuary. For all along the inside of the great wall which formed the Temple-enclosure ran a double colonnade — each column a monolith of white marble, 25 cubits high, covered with cedar-beams. These colonnades, which, from their ample space, formed alike places for quiet walk and for larger gatherings, had benches in them — and, from the liberty of speaking and teaching in Israel, Jesus might here address the people in the very face of His enemies. We know not what was the subject of Christ's teach- ing on this occasion. But the effect on the people was one of general astonishment. They knew what common « St. John unlettered Galilean tradesmen were — but this, dcomp. Acts whence came it P*' ' How does this one know litera- xxvi. 24 ture (letters, learning),'^ never having learned ? * To the Jews there was only one kind of learning — that of Theology; andonly oneroad to it — the Schools of the Rabbis. Their major was true, but their minor false, and Jesus hastened to correct it. He had, indeed, ' learned,' but in a School quite other than those which alone they recognised. Yet, on their own showing, it claimed submission. Among the Jews a Rabbi's teaching derived authority from the fact of its accordance with tradition — that it accurately represented what had been received from a previous great teacher, and so on upwards to Moses, and to God Himself. On this ground Christ claimed the highest authority. His doctrine was not His own invention : it was the teaching of Him that sent Him. The doctrine was God-received, and Christ was sent direct from God to ' S£NT OF God' 313 brincr it. He was God's messenger of it to them.* • St. John Everyone who in his soul felt drawn towards God, '"•^•''^^ each one who really ' willeth to do His Will,' would know ' concerning this teaching, whether it is of God,' or whether it was of num. It was this felt, though unrealised influence, which had drawn all men after Him, so that they hung on His lips. Jesus had said : ' He shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from Myself.' From Myself? Why, there is this other test of it : ' Who speaketh from himself, seeketh his own glory ' — there can be no doubt or question of this, but do I seek My own glory ? — ' But He Who seeketh the glory of Him Who sent Him, He is true [a faithful messenger], and un- righteousness is not in Him." ^ Thus did Christ appeal and prove it : My doctrine is of God, and I am sent of God ! Sent of God, no unrighteousness in Him ! And yet at that very moment there hung over Him the charge of de- fiance of the Law of Moses, nay, of that of God, in an open breach of the Sabbath-commandment — there, in that very City, the last time He had been in Jerusalem ; for ^vhich, as well as for His Divine Claims, the Jews were even then « St. John V. seeking ' to kill Him.' "^ And this forms the tran- '^ sition to what may be called the second part of Christ's address. Here He argues as a Jew would argue with Jews, only the substance of the reasoning is to all times and people. In His reply the two threads of the former argument are taken up. Doing is the condition of knowledge — and a messenger had been sent from God ! Admittedly, Moses was such, and yet every one of them was breaking the Law which he had given them ; for were they not seeking to kill Him without right or justice ? 1 ch. vii. 19, This, put in the form of a double question,*^ re- '^ presents a peculiarly Jewish mode of argumenta- tion, behind which lay the truth, that those whose hearts were so little longing to do the Will of God, not only must remain ignorant of His Teaching as that of God, but had also rejected that of Moses. 314 Jesus the Messiah A general disclaimer, a cry ' Thou hast a demon ' (art possessed), ' who seeks to kill Thee ? ' here broke in upon the Speaker. But He would not be interrupted, and con- tinued : ' One work I did, and all you wonder on account of it ' — referring to His healing on the Sabbath, and their utter inability to understand His conduct. Well, then, JMoses was a messenger of God, and I am sent of God. Moses gave the law of circumcision--not, indeed, that it was of his authority, but had long before heeu God-given — and, to observe this law, no one hesitated to break the Sabbath, since, according to Rabbinic principle, a positive ordinance superseded a negative. And yet when Christ, as sent from God, made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath (' made a whole man sound '), they were angry « St. John with Him ! ^ Every argument which might have "'• ^^"^^ been urged in favour of the postponement of Christ's healing to a week-day, would equally apply to that of cir- Qumcision ; while every reason that could be urged in favour of Sabbath-circumcision, would tell an hundredfold in favour of the act of Christ. Let them not judge, then, after the mere outward appearance, but 'judge the right judgment.' V From the reported remarks of some Jerusalemites in the crowd we learn that the fact that He, Whom they sought to kill, was suffered to speak openly, seemed incomprehen- j^ _ sible.'' Could it be that the authorities were shaken in their former ideas about Him, and now regai-ded Him as the Messiah ? But it could not be. It was a settled popular belief, and in a sense not quite unfounded, that the appearance of the Messiah would be sudden and unexpected. He might be there, and not be known ; or He might come, and be again hidden for a time. As they put it, when Messiah came no one would know whence He was ; but they all knew ' whence this One ' was. And with this rough and ready argument they, like so many among us, settled off-hand and once for all the great question. But Jesus could not, even for the sake of His disciples, let it rest there. * Therefore ' He lifted up His voice, that it reached the dispersing, receding multitude. Yes, they thought they knew both Him and whence He came. Discourse in the Temple 3 1 5 It would have beeu so had He come from Himst^lf. But Ho had been sent, and He that sent Him ' was real ; ' though they knew Him not. And so, with a reaffirmation of His two- • St. John fold claim, His Discourse closed. ** But they had VII. 29 understood His allusions, and in their anger would fain have laid hands on Him, but His hour had not come. Yet others were deeply stirred to faith. As they parted they spoke of it among themselves, and the sum of it all was : ' The Christ, when He cometh, will He do moi 0 miracles (signs) than this One did?' So ended the first teaching of that day in the Temple. And as the people dispersed, the leaders of the Pharisees — who, no doubt aware of the presence of Christ in the Temple, yet unwilling to be in the number of His hearers, had watched the effect of His Teaching — overheard the furtive, half-spoken remarks (' the murmuring ') of the people about Him. I'resently they conferred with the heads of the priesthood and the chief Temple-officials. Although there was neither meeting, nor decree of the Sanhedrin about it, nor, indeed, could be, orders were given to the Temple-guard on the first possible occasion to seize Him. Jesus was aware of it, and as, either on this or another day, He was moving in the Temple, watched by the spies of the rulers and followed by a mingled crowd of disciples and enemies, deep sadness in view of the end filled His heart. ' Jesus therefore said ' — no doubt to His disciples, though in the hearing of all — ' Yet a little while am I with you, then I go away to Him that sent Me. Ye shall seek Me, and not find Me ; and where I am, thither ye cannot come.' ** Mournful words, these, D vy_ 33 34 . •' ' ' which were only too soon to become true. But those who heard them naturally failed to comprehend their meaning. Was He about to leave Palestine, and go among the disijerscd who lived in heathen lands, to teach the Greeks ? Or what could be His meaning ? 3i6 Jesus the Messiah CHAPTER LIII. *IN THE LAST, THE GREAT DAY OF THE FEAST.* (St. John vii. 37-viii. 11.) It was ' the last, the Great Day of the Feast,' and Jesus was once more in the Temple. We have in this Feast the only Old Testament type yet unfulfilled ; the only Jewish festival which has no counterpart in the cycle of the Christian year, just because it points forward to that great, yet unfulfilled hope of the Church : the ingathering of Earth's nations to the Christ. The celebration of the Feast corresponded to its meaning. Not only did all the priestly families minister during that week, but it has been calculated that not fewer than 446 Priests, with, of course, a corresponding number of Levites, were required for its sacrificial worship. In general, the services were the same every day, except that the number of bullocks offered decreased daily from thirteen on the first to seven on the seventh day. Only during the first two, and on the last festive day (as also on the Octave of the Feast), was strict Sabbatic rest enjoined. On the intervening half-holy days, although no new labour was to be undertaken, unless in the public service, the ordinary and necessary avocations of the home and of life were carried on, and especially all done that was required for the festive season. But ' the last, the Great Day of the Feast,' was marked by special observances. Let us suppose ourselves in the number of worshippers who are leaving their ' booths ' at daybreak to take part in the service. The pilgrims are all in festive array. In his right hand each carries a myrtle and willow-branch tied together with a palm-branch between them. This was supposed to be in fulfilment of the command. Lev. xxiii. 40. ' The fruit (A.V. ' boughs ') of the goodly trees,' mentioned in the same verse of Scripture, was supposed to be the so-called Paradise-apple, a species of citron. This each worshipper carries in his left hand. • The Last, the Great Day of the Feast' 317 Thus provided, the festive multitude would divide into three bands. Some would remain in the Temple to attend the preparation of the Morniug Sacrifice. Another band would go in procession ' below Jerusalem ' to a place which some have sought to identify with the Emmaus of the Resurrection-Evening. Here they cut down willow- branches, with which, amidst the blasts of the Priests* trumpets, they adorned the altar, forming a leafy canopy about it. Yet a third company was talcing part in a still more interesting service. To the sound of music a pro- cession started from the Temple. It followed a Priest who bore a golden pitcher, capable of holding about two pints. Onwards it passed, probalily through Ophel, which recent investigations have shown to have been covered with buildings to the very verge of Siloam, down the edge of the Tyropoeon Valley, where it merges into that of the Kedron. To this day terraces mark where the gardens, watered by the living spring, extended from the King's Gardens down to the entrance into the Tyropoeon. When the Temple-procession had reached the Pool of Siloam, the Priest filled his golden pitcher from its waters. Then they went back to the Temple, so timing it that they should arrive just as the pieces of the sacrifice were being laid on the great Altar of Burnt-offering towards the close of the ordinary Morning-Sacrifice service. A threefold blast of the Priests' trumpets welcomed the arrival of the Priest, as he entered through the ' Water- gate,' which obtained its name from this ceremony, and passed straight into the Court of the Priests. Here he was joined by another Priest, who carried the wine for the drink-offering. The two Priests ascended ' the rise ' of the altar, and turned to the left. There were two silver funnels here, with narrow openings, leading down to the base of the altar. Into that at the east, which was some- what wider, the wine was poured, and, at the same time, the water into the western and narrower opening. Immediately after ' the pouring of water,' the great ' HuUel,' consisting of Psalms cxiii. to cxviii. (inclusive), was chanted antiphonally, or rather witli responses, to the 3i8 Jesus the Messiah accompaniment of the flute. As the Levites intoned the first line of each Psalm, the people repeated it ; while to each of the other lines they responded by Hallelu Yah (' Praise ye the Lord '). But in Psalm cxviii. the people not only repeated the first line, ' 0 give thanks to the Lord,' but also these, ' 0 then, work now salvation, Jeho- ops. cxviii v^lij''' '0 Lord, send now prosperity;''' and 25 again, at the close of the Psalm, ' 0 give thanks to the Lord.' As they repeated these lines, Ihey shook towards the altar the branches which they held in their hands — as if with this token of the past to express the reality and cause of their praise, and to remind God of His promises. It is this moment which should be chiefly kept in view. The festive morning-service was followed by the offer- ing of the special sacrifices for the day, with their drink- ofterings, and by the Psalm for the day, which, on ' the last, the Great Day of the Feast,' was Psalm Ixxxii. from verse 5. The Psalm was, of course, chanted as always to instrumental accompaniment, and at the end of each of its three sections the Priests blew a threefold blast, while the people bowed down in worship. In further symbolism of this Feast, as pointing to the ingathering of the heathen nations, the public services closed with a procession round the altar by the Priests, who chanted, ' 0 then, work now salvation, Jehovah ! 0 Jehovah, send now prosperity.' ° «• Ps. cxviii. I^ut on ' the last, the Great Day of the Feast,' 25 this procession of Priests made the circuit of the altar, not only once but seven times, as if they were again compassing, but now with prayer, the Gentile Jericho which barred their possession of the promised laud. Hence the seventh or last day of the Feast was also called that of ' the Great Hosannah.' As the people left the Temple, they saluted the altar with words of thanks, and on the last day of the Feast they shook off the leaves on the willow-branches round the altar, and beat their palm- branches to pieces. On the same afternoon the ' booths ' were dismantled, and the Feast ended. We can have little difficulty in determining at what * The Last, the Great Day op the Feast'' 319 part of the services of ' the last, the Great Day of the Feast,' Jesus stood and cried, ' If any one thirst, let him come unto Me and drink ! ' It must have been with special reference to the ceremony of the outpouring of the water, which was considered the central part of the service. Moreover, all would understand that His words must refer to the Holy Spirit, since the rite was universally re- garded as symbolical of His outpouring. The forthpouring of the water was immediately followed by the chanting of the Hallel. But after that there must have been a short pause to prepare for the festive sacrifices. It was then, immediately after the symbolic rite of water-pouring, immediately after the people had responded by repeating those lines from Psalm cxviii.— given thanks, and prayed that Jehovah would send salvation and prosperity, and had shaken their branches towards the altar, thus praising ' with heart and mouth and hands,' and then silence had fallen upon them — that there rose, so loud as to be heard throughout the Temple, the Voice of Jesus. He interrupted not the services, for they had for the moment ceased : He interpreted, and He fulfilled them. Of those who had heard Him, none but must have understood that, if the invitation were indeed real, and Christ the fulfilment of all, then the promise also had its deepest meaning, that he who believed on Him would not only receive the promised fulness of the Spirit, but give it forth to the fertilising of the barren waste around. It was, truly, the fulfilment of the Scripture-promise, not of one but of all : that in Messianic times the ' prophet,' literally the ' weller forth,' viz., of the Divine, should not be one or another select individual, but that He would pour out on all His handmaidens and servants of His Holy Spirit, and thus the moral wilderness of this world be changed into a fruitful garden. What was new to them was that all this was treasured up in the Christ, that out of His fulness men might receive. And yet even this was not quite new. For was it not the fulfilment of that old prophetic cry : ' The Spirit of the Lord .Jeliovali is upon Me : therefore has He Messiahed (anointed) Me to preach 330 /£srs THE Mess/ah good tidingg unto the poor ' ? So. then, it was nothing new, only the happy faltilment of the old. when He thus 'spake rf the Holy Spirit, Which they who believed on Him sfaonld receive," not then, but upon His Messianic esahation. And so we scarcely wonder that many on hearing Him said, though not with that heart-coaviction which would have led to self-surrender, that He was the Prophet promised of old, even the Christ ; while others, by their side, regarding Him as a Galilean, the Son of Joseph, raised the ignorant objection that He could not be the MewRMih, since the latter must be of the seed of David and came from Bethlehem. Xay. such was the auger of some ag'^nsfc what they regarded a dangerous seducer of the poor people, that they would fain have laid violent handa on Him. But amidst all this, the strongest testimony to His Person and Mi^on remains to be told. It came, as so oitr'n, from a quarter whence it could least have been e^rpecred, Tlioee Temple-officers, whom the authorities had commissioned to watch an opportunity for seizing Jesus, now returned without having done their behest, and that wlften, manifestly, the scene in the Temple might have (^^ed the desired ground for His imprisonment- To the qneetiffli of tlie Pharisees, they could only give this reply, v^iich has e^er ^ce remained unquestionable fact of histcKT, admitted alike by friend and foe : • Never man so spake as this Man.' The scene which followed is so thoroughly Jewish, that it alone would suffice to prove the Jewish, and hence Johannine. authorship of the Fourth Gkjspel. The harsh sneer : • Are ye also led astray ? ' is succeeded by pointing to the authority of the learned and great, who with one accord were rejecting Jesus. • But this people " — the country-people, the ignorant, unlettered rabble — • are cursed.' But there was one standing among the Temple- autho- rities, whom an uneasy conscience would not allow to remain quite silent. It was the Sanhedrist Xicodemus. He could not hold his peace, and yet he dared not speak Teaching in the Temple 321 for Clirist. So he made compromise of both by taking the part of. and speaking as a righteous, rigid Sanhedrist. ' Does our Law judge (pronounce sentence upon) a man, except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth ? ' From the Rabbinic point of view, no sounder judicial saying could have been uttered. Yet such common-place helped not the cause of Jesus, and it disguised not the advocacy of Nicodemus. We know what was thought of Gralilee in the Rabbinic world. • Art thou also of Galilee ? Search and see, for out of Galili-e ari^eth no pruphet." ' CHAPTER LIT. -TEACHEsG IN THE TEMPLE ON THE OCTAVE OF THE FEAST OF TABEKNACLES. (St. John viii. 12-59.) The addresses of Jesus which followed must have been delivered either later on that day, or, as seems more likely, chiefly, or all. on the next day. which was the Octave of the Feast, when the Temple would be once more thronged by worshippers. On this occasion we find Christ first in ' the Treasury,' * and then*' in some unnamed part of the sacred viii. 20 building, in all probability one of the ' Porches.' ^^' Greater freedom could be here enjoyed, since these ' Porches,' which enclosed the Court of the Gentiles, did not form part of the Sanctuary in the stricter sense. Discussions might take place, in which not, as in ' the Treasury/ onlv " the Pharisees.' "^ but the people generally, might propound questions, answer, or assent. Again, as regards the requirements of the present narrative, since the Porches opened upon the Court, the ' The reader will observe that the narrative of the woman taken in adnlterv, as also the previous verse (St. John \-ii. .53-viii. 11) have been left oijit in this History — although with great reluctance. Bv this it is not intended to characterise that section as Apocryphal. All that we feel bound to maintain is that the narrative in its present form did not exist in the Gospel of St John. Y 322 Jesus the Messiah Je-vs might there pick up stones to cast at Him (which would have been impossible in any part of the Sanctuary itself), while, lastly, Jesus might easily pass out of the Temple in the crowd that moved through the Porches to the outer gates. But the narrative first transports us into ' the Treasury,' where ' the Pharisees ' — or leaders — would alone venture to speak. This would be within ' the Court of the Women,' the common meeting-place of the worshippers, and, as we may say, the most generally attended part of the Sanctuary. Here, in the hearing of the leaders of the people, took place the first Dialogue between Christ and the Pharisees. It opened with what probably was an allusion alike to oae of the great ceremonies of the Feast of Tabernacles, to its symbolic meaning, and to an express Messianic expec- tation of the Rabbis. As the Mishnah states : On the first, or, as the Talmud would have it, on every night of the festive week, ' the Court of the Women ' was brilliantly illuminated, and the night spent in the demonstrations already described. This was called ' the joy of the Feast.' This ' festive joy,' of which the origin is obscure, was no doubt connected with the hope of earth's great harvest-joy in the conversion of the heathen world, and so pointed to 'the days of the Messiah.' In connection with this we mark that the term ' light ' was specially applied to the Messiah. In a very interesting passage of the Midrash we are told that, while commonly windows were made wide within and narrow without, it was the opposite in the Temple of Solomon, because the light issuing from the Sanctuary was to lighten that which was without. This «st LukeiL reminds us of the language of devout old Simeon 32 ' in regard to the Messiah,^ as ' a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of His people Israel.' We ought to refer to a passage in another Midrash, where, after a remarkable discussion on such names of the Messiah as ' the Lord our Righteousness,' ' the Branch,' ' the Com- forter,' ' Shiloh,' ' Compassion,' His Birth is connected with the destruction, and His return with the restoration of the Temple. But in that very passage the Messiah is also Teaching in the Temple 323 specially designated as the ' Enlightener,' the words : ' the light dwelleth with Him,' * being applied to Hnn. What has just been stated shows that the Pharisees could not have mistaken the Messianic meaning in the words of Jesus, in tiieir reference to the past festivity : * I am the Light of the world.' Substantially, the Discourses which follow are a continuation of those previously delivered at this Feast. What Jesus had gradually communicated to the disciples, who were so unwilling to receive it, had now become an acknowledged fact. It was no longer a secret that the leaders of Israel and Jerusalem were compassing the Death of Jesus. This underlies all His Words. And He sought to turn them from their purpose, not by appeal- ing to their pity or to any lower motive, but by claiming as His right that for which they would condemn Him. He was the Sent of God, the Messiah ; although, to know Him and His mission, it needed moi'al kinship with Him that had sent Him. But this they did not possess; na}', no man possessed it, till given him of God. This was not exactly new in these Discourses of Christ, but it was now far more clearly stated and developed. As a corollary He would teach that Satan was not a merely malicious being, working outward destruction, but that there was a moral power of evil which held us all — not the Gentile world only, but even the most favoured, learned, and exalted among the Jews. Of this power Satan was the concentration and impersonation ; the prince of the power of ' darkness.' This opens up the reasoning of Christ, alike as expressed and implied. He presented Himself to them as the Messiah, and hence as the Light of the World. It resulted that only in following Him would a man ' not walk in the darkness,' but have the light— and " St. John that, be it marked, not the light of knowledge, ^'»- 12 but of life.^ On the other hand, it also followed that all who were not within this light were in darkness and in death. It was an appeal to the moral in His hearers. The Pharisees sought to turn it aside by an appeal to the Y 2 324 Jesus the Messiah external and visible. Tliey asked for some witness, or pal- " St. John pable evidence, of what they called His testimony viii. 13 ^bout Himself,^ well knowing that such could only be through some external, visible, miraculous mani- festation, just as they had formerly asked for a sign from heaven. The Bible, and especially the Evangelic history, is full of what men ordinarily, and often thoughtlessly, call the miraculous. But in this case the miraculous would have become the magical, which it never is. If Christ had yielded to their appeal, and transferred the question from the moral to the coarsely external sphere, He would have ceased to be the Messiah of the Incarnation, Temptation, and Cross, the Messiah-Saviour. A miracle or sign would at that moment have been a moral anachronism — as much as any miracle would be in our days, when the Christ makes His appeal to the moral, and is met by a demand for the external and material evidence of His witness. The interruption of the Pharisees '' was thoroughly Jewish, and so was their objection. It had to be met, and that in the Jewish form in which it had been raised, while the Christ must at the same time con- tinue His former teaching to them concerning God and their own distance from Him. Their objection had pro- ceeded on this fundamental judicial principle — ' A person is not accredited about himself Harsh and unjust as this principle sometimes was, it evidently applied only in judi- cial cases, and hence implied that these Pharisees sat in judgment on Him as one suspected, and charged with guilt. The reply of Jesus was plain. Even if His testimony about Himself were unsupported, it would still be true, and He was competent to bear it, for He knew as a matter of fact whence He came and whither He went — His own part in this Mission, and its goal, as well as God's — whereas they knew not either.*' But more than this : their demand for a witness had proceeded on the as- sumption of their being the judges, and He the panel — a relation which only arose from their judging after the flesh. Spiritual judgment upon that which was within belon^^ed only to Him Who searcheth all secrets. Christ, Teaching in the Temple 325 while on earth, judged no man ; and, even if lie did so, it must be remembered that He did it not alone, but with, and as the Representative of, the Father. Hence such "St. John judgment would be true.^ But as for their viii. 15, 16 main charge, was it either true or good in law ? In accordance with the Law of God, tliere were two wit- nesses to the fact of His Mission : His own, and the frequently-shown attestation of His Father. And, if it were objected that a man could not bear witness in his own cause, the same Rabbinic canon laid it down, that this only applied if his testimony stood alone. But if it were cor- roborated, although by only one male or female slave — who ordinarily were unfit for testimony — it would be credited. The reasoning of Clirist, without for a moment quitting the higher ground of His teaching, was quite unanswerable from the Jewish standpoint. The Pharisees felt it, and, though well knowing to Whom He referred, tried to evade it by the sneer — where (not Who) His Father was ? This gave occasion for Christ to return to the main subject of His address, that the reason of their ignorance of Him ^ was that they knew not tlie Father, and, in turn, that only acknowledgment of Him would bring true knowledge of the Father.** Such words would only ripen in the hearts of such men the murderous resolve against Jesus. Yet, not till His hour had come ! Presently we find Him again, now in one of the Porches — probably that of Solomon — teaching, this time, ' the Jews.' We imagine tlu-y were chiefly, if not all, Judoeans — perhaps Jerusa]emites, aware of the murderous intent of their leaders — not His own Galileans, whom He addressed. It was in continuation of what had gone before — alike of what He had said to them, and of what they felt towards Him. The words are Christ's fare- well to His rel)ellious people. His tear-words over lost Israel ; abrupt also, as if they were torn sentences, or else headings for special discourses : ' I go My way ' — ' Ye shall seek Me, and in your sin shall ye die ' — ' Whither I go, ye cannot come ! ' They thought that He spok(> of His dying, and not, as He did, of that which came aller it. But how 326 Jesus the Messiah could His dying establish such separation between them ? « St. John This was the next question which rose in their viii. 22 minds.* Would there be anything so peculiar about His dying, or did His expression about going indicate a purpose of taking away His Own life ? It was this misunderstanding which Jesus briefly but emphatically corrected by telling them, that the ground of their separation was the difference of their nature : they were from beneath, He from above ; they of this world, He not of this world. Hence they could not come where He would be, since they must die in their sin, b vv 23 24 • . as He had told them — ' if ye believe not that I am.'** The words were intentionally mysteriously spoken, as to a Jewish audience. Believe not that Thou art ! But ' Who art Thou ? ' Their question condemned themselves. In His broken sentence, Jesus had tried them — to see how they would complete it. All this time they had not yet learned Who He was ; had not even a conviction on that point either for or against Him, but were ready to be swayed by their leaders ! ' Who I am ? ' Has My testi- mony by word or deed ever swerved on this point ? I am what all along, from the beginning, I tell you. Then, putting aside this interruption. He resumed His argument." Many other things had He to say and to judge concerning them, besides the bitter truth of their perishing if they believed not that it was He — but He that had sent Him was true, and He must ever speak into the world the message which He had received. When Christ referred to it as that which ' He heard from d ver. 26 . . . Him,' ^ He evidently wished thereby to emphasise the fact of His Mission from God, as constituting His claim on their obedience of faith. But it was this very point which, even at that moment, they were not understanding.® And they would only learn it, not by His Words, but by the event, when they had ^ *• lifted Him up,' as they thought to the Cross, but really on the way to His Glory .^ Then would they perceive the meaning of the designation He had Teaching in the Temple 327 given of Himself, and the claim founded on it : * ' Then • St. John shall ye perceive that I am.' Meantime : ' And Smp^ Ter, of Myself do I nothing, but as the Father taught 24) Me, these things do I speak. And He that sent Me is with i\Ie. He hath not left Me alone, because what pleases Him I do always.' If the Jews failed to understand the expression ' lifting up,' which might mean His Exaltation, though it did mean in the first place His Cross, there was that in His appeal to His Words and Deeds as bearing witness to His Mission and to the Divine Help and Presence in it, which by its sincerity and reality found its way to the hearts of many. Instinc- tively they felt and believed that His Mission must be Divine. Whether or not this found articulate expression, Jesus now addressed Himself to those who thus f;ir — at least for the moment — believed on Him. They were at the crisis of their spiritual history, and He must press home on them what He had sought to teach at the first. By nature far from Him, they were bondsmen. Only if they abode in His Word would they know the truth, and the truth would make them free. The result of this knowledge would be moral, and hence that knowledge consisted not in merely believ- ing on Him, but in making His Word and teaching their •> 30-32 ^^^''^lliiig — abiding in it.'' But it was this very moral application which they resisted. In this also Jesus had used their own forms of thinking and teach- ing, only in a much higher sense. For their own tradition had it, that he only was free who laboured in the study of the Law. Yet the liberty of which He spoke came not through study of the Law, but from abiding in the Word of Jesus. But they ignored the spiritual, and fell back upon the national application of the words of Christ. As this is once more evidential of the Jewish authorship of this Gospel, so also the characteristically Jewish boast, that as the children of Abraham they had never been and never could be in rc^al servitude. It would take too long to enumerate all the benefits supposed to be derived from descent from Abraham. Suffice here the almost funda- mental principle : ' All Israel are the childi-en of Kings/ 328 Jesus the Messiah and its application even to common life, that as ' tlie chil- dren of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not even Solomon's feast could be too good for them.' Not so, however, would the Lord allow them to pass it by. He pointed them to another servitude which they • St. Joiin knew not, that of sin, ^ and, entering at the same viji. 34 time also on their own ideas, He told them that continuance in this servitude would also lead to national bondage and rejection : ' For the servant abideth not in the house for ever.' On the other hand, the Son abode there for ever ; whom He made free by adoption into His Family, they would be free in reality and essentially.'^' ^ Then, for their very dulness, He would turn ro their favourite conceit of being Abraham's seed. There was, indeed, an obvious sense in which, by their natural descent, they were such. But there was a moral descent^ — and that alone was of real value. Abraham's seed ? But they entertained purposes of murder, and that because the Word of Christ had not free course, made not way in them. His Word was what he had seen with (before) the Father, not heard — for His Presence there was eternal. Their deeds were what they had heard from their father — the word ' seen ' in our common text depending on a wrong reading. And thus He showed them — in answer to their interpellation — that their fither could not have been Abraham, so far as spiritual descent was concerned.'^ They had now a glimpse of His meaning, but only to misapply it, accord- ing to their Jewish prejudice. Their spiritual descent, they urged, must be of God, since their descent from ^ ,, Abraham was legitimate.*^ But the Lord dis- n ver. 41 ^ polled even this conceit hj showing that if theirs were spiritual descent from God, then would they not reject His Message, nor seek to kill Him, but recognise ever. 42 and love Him.'' fvv. 43-47 ]3^^| whence all this misunderstanding of His speech ? *" Because they were morally incapable of hearing it — and this because of the sinfulness of their nature : an element which Judaism had never taken into account. Teaching in the Temple 329 And so, with infinite wisdom, Christ once more brought back His Discourse to what Pie would teach them concern- ing man's need, whether he be Jew or Gentile, of a Saviour and of renewing by the Holy Ghost. If the Jews were morally unable to hear His Word and cherished murderous designs, it was because, morally speaking, their descent was of the Devil. Very differently from Jewish ideas did He speak concerning the moral evil of Satan, as both a murderer and a liar — a murderer from the beginning of the history of our race, and one who ' stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him.' Hence ' whenever he speaketh a lie ' — whether to our first parents, or now concerning the Christ — ' he speaketh from out his own (things), for he (Satan) is a liar, and the father of such an one (who telleth or believeth lies).' Which of them could convict Him of sin ? If therefore He spake truth and they believed Him not, it was because they were not of God, but, as He had shown them, of their father, the Devil. The argument was unanswerable, and there seemed only one way to turn it aside — a Jewish Tii qnoque, an adapta- tion of the ' Physician, heal thyself : ' Do we not say rightly, that Thou art a Samaritan , and hast a demon ? ' By no strain of ingenuity is it possible to account for the designation ' Samaritan,' as given by the Jews to Jesus, if it is regarded as referriug to nationality. But in the language which they spoke, what is rendered into Greek by ' Samaritan,' while literally meaning such, is almost as often used in the sense of ' heretic.'' But it is also sometimes used as the equivalent of Ashmedai, the prince of the demons. If this, therefore, were the term applied by the Jews to Jesus, it would literally mean, 'Child of the Devil.' This would also explain why Christ only replied to the charge of having a demon, since the two charges meant substantially the same : 'Thou art a child of the devil and hast a demon.' In wondrous patience and mercy He almost passed it by, dwelling rather, for their teaching, on the fact that, while they dishonoured Ilim, He honoured His Father. He heeded not their charges. His concern 330 Jesus the Messiah was the. glory of His Father ; tbe vindication of His owu honour would be brought about by the Father — though, alas ! in judgment on those who were casting such dis- » St. John honour on the Sent of God.* Then He once viu. 50 more pressed home the great sul)ject of His Discourse, that only ' if a man keep " — both have regard to, and observe— His ' Word,' '■ he shall not gaze at death [intently behold it] unto eternity ' — for ever shall he not come within close and terrible gaze of what is really death, of what became such to Adam in the hour of his Fall. It was, as repeatedly observed, this death as the con- sequence of the Fall, of which the Jews knew nothing. And so they once more misunderstood it as of physical death, and, since Abraham and the prophets had died, regarded Christ as setting up a claim higher than theirs.*' The Discourse had contained all that He had «> w. 52, 53 . 1 1 1 . , p 1 , , . , . wished to brmg beiore them, and their objections were degenerating into wrangling. It was time to break it off by a general application. The question, He added, was not of what ITe said, but of what God said of Him — that God, Whom they claimed as theirs, and yet knew not, but Whom He knew, and Whose Word He ' kept.' But, as for Abraham — he had ' exulted ' in the thought of the coming day of the Christ, and, seeing its glory, he was glad. Even Jewish tradition could scarcely gainsay this, since there were two parties in the Synagogue of which one believed that, when that horror of great dark- , ness fell on him ° Abraham had in vision been ^ Gen. XV. 17 . shown not only this, but the coming world — and not only all events in the present ' age,' but also those in Messianic times. And now theirs was not misunder- standing, but wilful misinterpretation. He had spoken of Abraham seeing His day ; they took it of His seeing Abraham's day, and challenged its possibility. Whether or not they intended thus to elicit an avowal of His claim to eternal duration, and hence to Divinity, it was not time any longer to forbear the full statement, and, with Divine emphasis, He spake the words which could not be mis- Healing of the Man Born Blind 331 taken : ' Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I AM.' It was as if they had only waited for this. Furiously they rushed from the Porch into the Court of the Gentiles ■ — with symbolic significance even in this — to pick up stones, and to cast them at Him. But, once more, His hour had not yet come, and their rage proved impotent. Hiding Himself for the moment, as might so easily be done, in one of the many chambers, passages, or gateways of the Temple, He presently passed out. It had been the first plain disclosure and avowal of His Divinity, and it was ' in the midst of His enemies,' and when most contempt was cast- upon Him. Presently would that avowal be renewed both in Word and by Deed ; for ' the end ' of mercy and judgment had not yet comej but was drawing terribly nigh. CHAPTER LV. THE HEALING OF THE MAN BORN BLIND. (St. John ix.) After the scene in the Temple described in the last chapter, and Christ's consequent withdrawal from His enemies, we are led to infer that no long interval of time elapsed before the healing of the man born blind. Probably it happened the day after the events just recorded. It was the Sabbath, the day after the Octave of the Feast, and Christ with His disciples was passing — presum- ably when going into the Temple — where this blind beggar was wont to sit, probably soliciting alms, perhaps in some such terms as these, which were common at the time : ' Gain merit by me ; ' or ' O tenderhearted, by me gain merit, to thine own benefit.' But on the Sabbath he would of course neither ask nor receive alms, though his pi-csence in the wonted place would secure wider notice, and perhaps lead to many private gifts. Indeed, the 332 Jesus the Messiah blind were regarded as specially entitled to charity ; and the Jerusalem Talmud relates instances of the delicacy displayed towards them. As the Master, and His disciples passed the blind beggar, Jesus ' saw ' him with that look which they who followed Him knew to be full of meaning. Yet, so thoroughly Judaised were they by their late con- tact with the Pharisees, that no thought of possible mercy came to them, only a question addressed to Him expressly and as ' Rabbi : ' through whose guilt this blindness had befallen him — through his own, or that of his parents. Thoroughly Jewish the question was. Many instances could be adduced in which one or another sin is said to have been punished by some immediate stroke, disease, or even by death ; and we constantly find Rabbis, when meeting such unfortunate persons, asking them how, or by what sin this had come to them. But, as this man was ' blind from his birth,' the possibility of some actual sin before birth would suggest itself, at least as a speculative question, since the ' evil impulse ' might even then be called into activity. At the same time, both the Talmud and the later charge of the Pharisees, ' In sins wast thou born altogether,' imply that in such cases the alternative explanation would be considered, that the blindness might be caused by the sin of his parents. It was a common Jewish view that the merits or demerits of the parents would appear in the children. Certain special sins in the parents would result in specific diseases in their offspring, and one is mentioned as causing blindness in the children. But the impression left on our minds is that the disciples felt not sure as to either of these solutions of the difficulty. It seemed a mystery, inexplicable on the supposition of Grod's infinite goodness, and to which they sought to apply the common Jewish solution. Putting aside the clumsy alternative suggested by the disciples, Jesns told them that it was so in order ' that the works of God might be made manifest in him.' They wanted to know the ' why,' He told them the ' in order to,' of the man's calamity; they wished to understand its reason as regai'ded its origin. He told them its reasonable- Healing of the Man Born Blind 333 ness in regard to the purpose which it and all similar suffering should serve, since Christ has come, the Healer of evil — because the Saviour from sin. Thus He trans- ferred the question from intellectual ground to that of the moral purpose which suffering might serve. To make this the reality to us, was ' the work of Him ' Who sent, and for which He sent the Christ. And rapidly now must He work it, for perpetual example, during the • St. John f*?^^ hours still left of His brief working-day.^ i.x. 4, 5 This figure was not unfamiliar to the Jews, though it may well be that, by thus emphasising the briefness of the time. He may also have anticipated any objection to His healing on the Sabbath. Once more we notice how in His Deeds, as in His Words, the Lord adopted the forms known and used by His contemporaries, while He filled them with quite other substance. It has already been stated that saliva was commonly regarded as a remedy for diseases of the eye, although, of course, not for the removal of blindness. With this He made clay, which He now used, adding to it the direction to go and wash in the Pool of Siloam, a term which literally meant ' sent.' A symbolism this, of Him Who was the Sent of the Father. And so, what the Pharisees had sought in vain, was freely vouchsafed when there was need for it. With perfect simplicity the man's obedience and healing are recorded. We judge that his first impulse when healed must have been to seek for Jesus, naturally, where he had first met Him. On his way, probably past his own house to tell his parents, and again on the spot where he had so long sat begging, all who had known him must have noticed the great change that had passed over him. So marvellous indeed did it appear, that while part of the crowd that gathered would, of course, acknowledge his identity, others would say : ' No, but he is like him ; ' in their suspiciousness looking for some imposture. For there can be little doubt that on his way he must have learned more about Jesus than merely His Name,*^ and in turn have communicated to his informants the story of his healing. Similarly, 334 Jesus the Messiah the formal question now put to him by the Jews was as much, if not more, a preparatory inquisition than the out- come of a wish to learn the circumstances of his healing. And so we notice in his answer the cautious desire not to say anything that could incriminate his Benefactor. He tells the facts truthfully, plainly ; he accentuates by what means he had ' recovered,' not received, sight ; but other- « St. John wise gives no clue by which either to discover ix. 12 Qj. ^Q incriminate Jesus.* Presently they bring him to the Pharisees, not to take notice of his healing, but to found on it a charge against Christ. The ground on which the charge would rest was plain : the healing involved a manifold breach of the Sabbath-Law. The first of these was that Jesus had made clay. Next, it would be a question whether any remedy might be applied on the holy day. Such could only be done in diseases of the internal organs (from the throat downwards), except when danger to life or the loss of an organ was involved. It was, indeed, declared lawful to apply, for example, wine to the outside of the eyelid, on the ground that this might be treated as washing ; but it was sinful to apply it to the inside of the eye And as regards saliva, its application to the eye is expressly forbidden, on the ground that it was evidently intended as a remedy. There was, therefore, abundant legal ground for a criminal charge. And, although on the Sabbath the Sanhedrin would not hold any formal meeting, and even had there been such, the testimony of one man would not have sufficed, yet ' the Pharisees ' set the inquiry regularly on foot. First, as if not satisfied with the report of those who had brought the man, they made him repeat it.^ The wondrous fact could neither be denied nor ex- ^^'^' ^^ plained. The alternative, therefore, was : whether their traditional law of Sabbath-observance, or else He Who had done such miracles, was Divine ? Was Christ not ot God, because He did not keep the Sabbath in their way ? But then, could an open transgressor of God's Law do such miracles ? In this dilemma they turned to the simple man before them. ' Seeing that He opened ' his eyes, what Healing of the Man Born Blind 335 did he say of Him ? what was the impression left on hip •st.Juhuix. mind, who had the best oppuitimity for judg- 17 and ino-'f*" fo'lowing *"B • ^ , ■verses There is something very peculiar, and, in one sense, most instructive, as to the general opinion entertained even by the best disposed who had not yet been taught the liigher truth, in his reply, so simple, so comprehensive in its sequences, and yet so utterly inadequate by itself: ' He is a Prophet.' One possibility still remained. After all, the man might not have been really blind ; and they might, by cross-examining the parents, elicit that about his original condition which would explain the pretended cure. But on this most important point, the parents, with all their fear of the anger of the Pluirisees, remained unshaken. He had been born blind ; but as to the manner of his cure, they declined to offer any opinion. For to persons so wretchedly poor as to allow their son to live by begging, the consequences of being ' un-Syna- gogued,' or put outside the congregation — which was to be the punishment of any one who confessed Jesus as the Messiah — would have been dreadful. Talmudic writings speak of two, or rather, we should say, of three, kinds of ' excommunication,' of which the first two were chiefly dis- ciplinary, while the third was the real ' casting out,' ' un- Synagoguing,' ' cutting off from the congregation.' The first and lightest degree was, properly, ' a rebuke,' an in- veighing. Ordinarily, its duration extended over seven days ; but, if pronounced by the Head of the Sanhedrin, 'it lasted for thirty days. In later times, however, it only rested for one day on the guilty person. Perhaps St. Paul referred to this ' rebuke ' in the expression which he used about an offending Elder.^ He certainly adopted D \ Xiin. V. 1 ... * the practice in Palestine, when he would not have an Elder ' rebuked,' although he went far beyond it when he would have such ' entreated.' Yet another direction of St. Paul's is evidently derived from these arrangements of the Synagogue, although applied in a far different spirit. When the Apostle wrote : ' An heretic after the first and second admonition reject,' there must 336 Jesus the Messiah have been in his mind the second degree of Jewish excom- munication, called from the verb to thrust, thrust out, cast out. This lasted for thirty days at the least, although among the Babylonians only for seven days. At the end of that term there was ' a second admonition,' which lasted other thirty days. If still unrepentant, the third, or real ex- communication, was pronounced, which was called the ban, and of which the duration was indefinite. Hence- forth he was like one dead. He was not allowed to study with others, no intercourse was to be held with him, he was not even to be shown the road. He might, indeed, " comp. buy the necessaries of life, but it was forbidden 1 Cor. V. 11 |.Q gg^^ Qj. (jpj^jj with such an one.* When we remember what such an anathema would involve to persons in the rank of life, and so poor as the parents of that blind man, we no longer wonder at their evasion of the question put by the Sanhedrin. And if we ask ourselves, on what ground so terrible a punishment could be inflicted to all time and in every place — for the ban once pronounced applied everywhere — simply for the confession of Jesus as the Christ, the answer is not difficult. The Rabbinists enumerate twenty-four grounds for excom- munication, of which more than one might serve the purpose of the Pharisees. But in general, to resist the authority of the Scribes, or any of their decrees, or to lead others either away from ' the commandments,' or to what was regarded as profanation of the Divine Name, was sufficient to incur the ban, while it must be borne in mind that excommuni- cation by the President of the Sanhedrin extended tx) all places and persons. As nothing could be elicited from his parents, the man who had been blind was once more summoned before the Pharisees. It was no longer to inquire into the reality of his alleged blindness, nor to ask about the cure, but simply to demand of him recantation, though this was put in the most specious manner. Thou hast been healed : own that it was only by God's Hand miraculously stretched forth, and that ' this man ' had nothing to do with it, save that the coincidence may have been allowed to try the faith of Healing of the Man Born Blind 337 Israel. It could not have been Jesus Who had done it, for they knew Him to be * a sinner.' Of the two alterna- tives they had chosen that of the absolute Tightness of their own Sabbath-traditions as against the evidence of His ]\[iracles. Virtually, then, this was the condemnation of Christ and the apotheosis of traditionalism. The renewed inquiry as to the manner in which Jesus had healed him * might have had for its object to betray •St. John th® xiioxx into a positive confession, or to elicit some- '^- 26 thing demoniacal in the mode of the cure. The blind man had now fully the advantage. He had already told them. As he put it half ironically : Was it because they felt the wrongness of their own position, and that they should become His disciples ? It stung them to the quick ; they lost all self-possession, and with this their moral defeat became complete. ' Thou art the disciple of that Man, but we (according to the favourite phrase) are the disciples of Moses.' Of the Divine Mission of Moses they knew, but of the Mission of Jesus they knew b vpr 29 • nothing.^ The unlettered man had now the full advantage in the controversy. ' In this, indeed,' there was ' the marvellous,' that the leaders of Israel should confess themselves ignorant of the authority of One, Who had power to open the eyes of 'the blind — a marvel which had never before been witnessed. If He had that power, whence had He obtained it, and why ? It could only have been from God. They said. He was 'a sinner' — and yet there was no principle more frequently repeated by the Rabbis, than that answers to prayer depended on a man being ' devout ' and doing the Will of God. There could there- fore be only one inference : If Jesas had not Divine Autho- rity, He could not have had Divine Power. The truthful reasoning of that untutored man, which confounded the acuteness of the sages, shows the effect of these manifestations on aii wliose hearts were open to the truth. The Pharisees had nothing to answer, and, as not unfrequently in analogous cases, could only in their furv cast him out with bitter reproaches. Would he teach them — he, whose very disease showed him to have been a z 338 Jesus the Messiah child conceived and born in sin, and who, ever since his birth, had been among ignorant, Law-neglecting ' sinners ' ? But there was Another Who watched and knew him : He Whom, so far as he knew, he had dared to confess, and for Whom he was content to suffer. Let him now have the reward of his faith, even its completion. Ten- «st. John derly did Jesus seek him out,* and, as He found vs.. 35 hivn.^ this one question did He ask, whether the conviction of his experience was not growing into the higher faith of the vet unseen : ' Dost thou believe on the Son of God ? ' To such a soul it needed only the directing Word of Christ, ' And Who is He, Lord, that I may believe on Him ? ' *• It seems as if the question of Jesus had kindled in him the conviction of what was the right answer. To such readiness there could be only one answer. In language more plain than He had ever before used, Jesus answered, and with immediate confession of implicit faith the man worshipped. And so it was that the first time he saw his Deliverer, it was to worship Him. There were those who still followed Him — not convinced by, nor as yet decided against Him — Pharisees, who well understood the application of His Words. Formally, it had been a contest between traditionalism and the Work of Christ. They also were traditionalists — were they also blind ? But nay, they had misunderstood Him by leaving out the moral element, thus showing themselves blind indeed. It was not the calamity of blindness ; but it was a blindness in which they were guilty, and for which they were responsible,*' which indeed was the result of their deliberate choice: therefore their sin — not their blindness only — remained. 339 CHAPTER LVI. THE 'GOOD SHEPHERD.' (St. John X. 1-21.) It was in accordance with the character of the Discourse presently under consideration, that Jesus spake it, not indeed in Parables in the strict sense (for none such are recorded in the fourth Gospel), but in an allegory in the »st. joiiu Parabolic form," hiding the hi^dier truths from ^- ^ those who having eyes had not seen, but reveal- ing them to such whose eyes had been opened. If the scenes of the last few days had made anything plain, it was the utter unfitness of the teachers of Israel for their pro- fessed work of feeding the flock of God. The Kabbinists also called their spiritual leaders ' feeders.' The terra com- prised the two ideas of " leading ' and ' feeding,' which ;ire separately insisted on in the Lord's allegory. It only re- quired to recall the Old Testament language about the shepherding of God, and that of evil shepherds, to make the application to what had so lately hapi^ened. They were, surely, not shepherds, who had cast out the healed blind man. or who so judged of the Christ, and would cast out all His disciples. They had entered into God's Sheep- fold, but not by the door by which the Owner, God, had brought His flock into the fold. To it the entrance had been His love, His thoughts of pardoning. His purpose of saving mei-cy. Not by that door, as had so lately fully appeared, had Israel's rulers come in. They had climbed up to their place in the fold some other way — -with the same right, or by the same wrong, as a thief or a robber. They had wrongfully taken what did not belong to them — cunningly and undetected, like a thief; they had allotted it to themselves, and usurped it by violence, like a robber. What more accurate description could be given of the means by which the Pharisees and Sadducees had attained the rule over God's flock, and claimed it for them- selves ? How different He, Who comes in and leads us througli z 2 340 Jesus the Messiah God's door of covenant-mercy and Gospel-promise -the door by which God had brought, and ever brings, His flock into His fold ! This was the true Shepherd. The allegory must, of course, not be too closely pressed ; but, as we remember how in the East the flocks are at night driven into a large fold, and charge of them is given to an under- shepherd, we can understand how, when the shepherd comes in the morning, ' the doorkeeper ' or ' guardian ' opens to hira. And when a true spiritual shepherd comes to the true spiritual door, it is opened to him by the guardian from within — that is, he flnds ready and imme- diate access. Equally pictorial is the progress of the allegory. Having thus gained access to his flock, it has not been to steal or rob, but the shepherd knows and calls them, each by his name, and leads them out. We mark that in the expression : ' when he has 'put forth all his own,' — the word is a strong one. For they have to go each singly, and perhaps they are not willing to go out each by himself, or even to leave that fold, and so he ' puts ' or thrusts them forth, and he does so to ' all his own.' Then the Eastern shepherd places himself at the head of his flock, and goes before them, guiding them, making sure of their following simply by his voice, which they know. So would His flock follow Christ, for they know His Voice, and in vain would strangers seek to lead them away, as the Pharisees had tried. It was not the • St. John known Voice of their own Shepherd, and they ^•^•^ would only flee from it.^ We can scarcely wonder that they who heard it did not understand the allegory, for they were not of His flock and knew not His Voice. But His own knew it then, and ^ would know it for ever. ' Therefore,' ^ both for the sake of the one and the other. He continued, now dividing for greater clearness the two leading ideas of His allegory, and applying each separately for better com- fort. These two ideas were : entrance by the door^ and the characteristics of the good Shepherd — thus affording a twofold test by which to recognise the true, and distin- guish it from the false. TuF. ^ Good Shepherd* 341 1. The Door.— Christ was the Door.* All the Old •St. Johux. Testament institutions, prophecies, and promises, '"^ so far as they referred to access into God's fold, meant Christ. And all those who went before Him, pre- tendinsr to be the door — whether Pharisees, Sadducees, or Nationalists — were only thieves and robbers : that was not the door into the Kingdom of God. And the sheep, God's tloek. did not hear them; for although they might pi-etend to h^ad the flock, the voice was that of strangers. The transition now to another application of the allegorical idea of the ' door ' was natural and almost necessary, though it appears somewhat abrupt. Even in this it is peculiarly Jewish. We must understand this transition as follows : I am the Door ; those who professed otherwise to gain access to the fold have climbed in some other way. But if I am the only, I am also truly the Door. And, dropping the figure, if any man enters by Me, he shall be saved, securely go out and in (where the language is not to be closely pressed), in the sense of having liberty and finding pasture. Tl. This forms also the transition to the second leading idea of the allegory : the True and Good Shepherd. Here we mark a fourfold progression of thought, which reminds us of the poetry of the Book of Psalms. There the thought expressed in one line or one couplet is carried forwai'd and developed in the next, forming what are called the Psalms of Ascent (' of Degrees '). And in the Discourse of Christ also the final thought of each couplet of verses is carried forward, or rather leads upward in the next. Thus we have here a Psalm of Degrees concerning the Good Shepherd and His Flock, and, at the same time, a New Testament version of Psalm xxiii. Accordingly its analysis might be formulated as follows : ^ 1. Christ the Good Shepherd, in contrast to others who falsely dnimed to he the shepherds}' 2. The Good Shepherd WIlo Unjeth down His life for His sheep ! 3. For the shecji that are Mine, whom / know, and frr v:hom I lay down My Life ! 342 Jesus the Messiah 4. In the final Step of ' Ascent ' * the leading thoughts • St. John X. of the whole Discourse are taken up and carried ^''■^^ to the last and highest thought. The Good Shepherd thai hrings together the One Flock! Yes — by laying down His Life, but also by taking it up again. Both ai'e necessary for the work of the Good Shepherd : nay, the life is laid down in the surrender of sacrifice, in order that it may be taken up again, and much more fully, in the Resurrection- Power. And therefore His Father loveth Him as the Messiah-Shepherd, Who so fully does the work committed to Him, and so entirely surrenders Himself to it. And all this, in order to be the Shepherd-Saviour — to die, and rise for His Sheep, and thus to gather them all, Jews and Gentiles, into one flock, and to be their Shep- herd. This, neither more nor less, was the Mission which God had given Him ; this, ' the commandment ' which He had received of His Father — that which God had given Him to do}" It was a noble close of the series of those Discourses in the Temple, which had it for their object to show that He was truly sent of God. And, in a measure, they attained that object. To some, indeed, it all seemed unintelligible, incoherent, madness ; and they fell back on the favourite explanation of all this strange drama— He hath a demon ! But others there were, not yet His disciples, to whose hearts these words went straight. ' These utterances are not of a demonised ' — and then it came back to them : ' Can a demon open the eyes of the blind ? ' And so, once again, the Light of His Words and of His Person fell u]X)n His Works, and, as ever, revealed their character, and made them clear. 343 CHAPTER LVII. DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE TWO KINGDOMS. (St. Matt. xii. 22-45; St. Luke xi. 14-36.) It was well that Jesus should, for the present, have parted from Jerusalem with words like these. Even ' the schism ' •St. John ^'hat had come among them* conc(n-uing His X. 19 Person made it possible not only to continue His Teaching, but to return to the City once more ere His final entrance. For His Pera^an Alinistry, which extended from after the Feast of Tabernacles to the week preceding the last Passover, was, so to speak, cut in half by the t, r,, -r . brief visit of Jesus to Jerusalem at the Feast of " St. John X. T-k T • /-xn 22-39 the Dedication.'' Of these six months we have 'St. Luke (with the solitary exception of St. JNIatthew xii. xvii.ii 22-45), no other account than that furnished by "St. John St. Luke,*^ although, as usually, the Jerusalem xi. 1-45;' and Juda?an incidents of it are described by St. "•^'^-^'* John.-i It will be noticed that this section is peculiarly lacking in incident. It consists almost exclusively of Discourses and Parables, with but few narrative portions interspersed. And this chiefly from the character of His Ministry in Pera3a. We remember that, similarly, the beginning of Christ's Galilean Ministry had been chiefly marked by Discourses and Parables. In fact, His Pertean was sub- stantially a resumption of His early Galilean Ministry, onlv modified and influenced bv the much fuller kuowledgfe of the people concerning Christ, and the greatly developed enmity of their leaders. Thus, to begin with, we can understand how He would, at this initial stage of His Peraean, as in that of His Galilean Ministiy, repeat, when asked for instruction concerning prayer, those sacred words ever since known as the Lord's Prayer. The varia- tions are so slight as to be easily accounted for by the 344 Jesus the Mess/ah individuality of the reporter. They afford, however, the occasion for remarking on the two principal differences. In St. Luke the prayer is for the forgiveness of ' sins,' while St. Matthew uses the Hebraic terra ' debts,' which has passed even into the Jewish Liturgy, denoting our guilt as indeVjtedness. Again the ' day by day ' of St. Luke, \vhich further explains the petition for ' daily bread,' com- mon both to St. Matthew and St. Luke, may be illustrated by the beautiful Rabbinic teaching, that the Manna fell only for each day. in order that thought of their daily dependence might call forth constant faith in our ' Father Which is in heaven.' From the introductory expression : ' When (or when- ever) ye pray, say ' — we venture to infer, that this prayer was intended, not only as the model, but as furnishing the words for the future use of the Church. Yet another suggestion may be made. The request, ' Lord, teach us to • St. Luke P^'^y? ^s John also taught his disciples,' ^ seems '^'- 1 to indicate what was ' the certain place,' which, now consecrated by our Lord's prayer, became the school ior ours. It seems at least likely, that the allusion of the disciples to the Baptist may have been prompted by the circumstance that the locality was that which had been the scene of John's labours — of course, in Pereea. This chapter will be devoted to the briefest summary of the Lord's Discourses in Pergea, previous to His return to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple. The first of these was on the occasion of His casting b St. Luke out a demon,*' and restoring speech to the de- xi. 14 monised ; or if, as seems likely, the cure is the same as that recorded in St. Matt. xii. 22, both sight and speech, which had probably been paralysed. This is one of the cases in which it is difficult to determine whether narratives in different Gospels, with slightly varying details, represent different events or only differing modes of narration. When recording similar events the Evange- lists would naturally tell them in much the same manner. Hence it does not follow that two similar narratives in Concerning the Two Kingdoms 345 different Gospels always represent the same event. But in this instance it seems likely. It is the Pharisees' charge that He was an instrument of Satan which forms the main subject of Christ's address, • St. Mark ^is language being now much more explicit than iii. 22 formerly,* even as the opposition of the Pharisees had more fully ripened. The following arc the leading features of Christ's reply : 1st, It was utterly unreason- b St. Matt, able,'' and inconsistent with their own premisses,*^ XU.25 showing that their ascription of Satanic agency " ^- 2^^"^" to what Christ did was only prompted by hostility to His Person. This mode of turning the argument against the arguer was peculiarly Hebraic, and it does not imply any assertion on the part of Christ as to whether or not the disciples of the Pharisees really cast out demons. Mentally we must supply — according to your own pro- fessions, your disciples cast out demons. If so, by whom are they doing it ? But '2ndly, beneath this logical argumentation lies spiritual instruction, closely connected with the late teaching during the festive days in Jerusalem. It is directed against the superstitious and unspiritual views entertained by Israel alike of the Kingdom of evil and of that of God. For if we ignore the moral aspect of Satan and his kingdom, all degenerates into the absurdities and superstitions of the Jewish view concerning demons and Satan. On the other hand, introduce the ideas of moral evil, of the concentration of its power in a kingdom of which Satan is the representative and ruler, and of our own inherent sinfulness, which makes us his subjects — and all becomes clear. Then, truly, can Satan not cast out Satan — else how could his kingdom stand ? Then, also, is the casting out of Satan only by ' God's Spirit,' or ' Finger : ' "vv 25-28 ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ *^® Kingdom of God."^ Nay, by their own admission, the casting out of Satan was part of the work of Messiah. Then had the Kingdom of God indeed come to them — for in this was the Kingdom of God ; and He was the God-sent Messiah, come not for the glory of Israel, nor for anything outward or intellectual, 346 Tesus the Messiah '' * but to engage in mortal conflict with moral evil, and with Satan as its representative. In that contest Christ, as the Stronger, bindeth ' the strong one,' spoils his house (divideth his spoil), and takes from him the armour in which his strength lay (' he trusted ') by taking away the power of • St. Matt, sin.* This is the work of the Messiah — and, "*■ ^* therefore, also, no one can be indifferent towards Him, because all, being by nature in a certain relation towards Satan, must, since the Messiah had commenced His Work, occupy a definite relationship towards " ^"- ^^ the Christ Who combats Satan.^ But it is conceivable that a man may not only try to be passively, but even be actively on the enemy's side, and this not by merely speaking against the Christ, which might be the outcome of ignorance or unbelief, but by re- presenting that as Satanic which was the object of His Coming. ° Such perversion represents sin in its * ^* ' absolute completeness, and for which there can be no pardon, since the state of mind of which it is the outcome admits not the possibility of repentance, because its essence lies in this, to call that Satanic which is the very object of repentance. 3rdly. Recognition of the spiritual, which was the oppo- site of the sin against the Holy Ghost, was, as Christ had so lately explained in Jerusalem, only to be attained by spiritual kinship with it.*^ The tree must be ^' ~ made good, if the fruit were to be good ; tree and fruit would correspond to each other. How then could these Pharisees ' speak good things,' since the state of the heart determined vspeech and action ? Hence, a man would have to give an account even of every idle word, since however trifling it might appear to others or to oneself, it was really the outcome of ' the heart,' and showed the inner state. And thus, in reality, would a man's future in judgment be determined by his words ; a conclusion the more solemn, when we remember its bearing on what His disciples on the one side, and the Pharisees on the other said concerning Christ and the Spirit of God. 4thly. Both logically and morally the Words of Christ Concerning the Two Kingdoms 347 were unanswerable ; and the Pharit^ees fell back on the old device of challenging proof of His Divine Mission by some • St. Matt, visible sign."* But this was an attempt to shift "'•'^ the argument from the moral to the physical. It was the moral that was at fault, or rather, wanting in them ; and no amount of physical evidence or demonstration could have supplied that. Hence, as under previous similar 0 St. Matt, circumstances,'' He would offer them only one xvi. 1-4 sign, that of Jonas the prophet. But whereas on the former occasion Christ chiefly referred to Jonas' preach- ing (of repentance), on this He rather pointed to the allegorical history of Jonas as the Divine attestation of his Mission. As he appeared in Nineveh, he was himself ' a = St. Luke sign unto the Ninevites ; ' *^ the fact that he had xi. 30 been three days and nights in the whale's belly, and that thence he had, so to speak, been sent forth alive to preach in Nineveh, was evidence to them that he had been sent of God. And so would it be again. After three days and three nights ' in the heart of the earth ' — which is a Hebraism for ' in the earth ' — would His Resurrection Divinely attest to this generation His Mission. The Ninevites did not question, but received this attestation of Jonas ; nay, an authentic report of the wisdom of Solomon had been sufficient to bring the Queen of Sheba from so far ; in the one case it was because they felt their sin ; in the other, because she felt need and longing for better wisdom than she possessed. But these were the very elements wanting in the men of this generation ; and so both Nineveh and the Queen of Sheba would stand up, not only as mute witnesses against, but to condemn, them. For, the great Reality of which the preaching of Jonas had been only the type, and for which the wisdom of Solomon 0 Rt Matt, had been onlv the preparation, had been presented xii. 39-12 to them in Christ.^ 5thly, And so, having put aside this cavil, Jesus returned to His former teaching ® concerning the Kingdom ^' of Satan and the power of evil. Here, also, it must be remembered that, as the words used by our Lord were allegorical and illustrative, they must not be too 348 Jesus the Messiah closely pressed. As compared with the other nations of the world, Israel was like a house fi'om which the demon of idolatry had gone out with all his attendants — really the ' Beel-Zibbul ' whom they dreaded. And then the house had been swept of all the foulness and uncleanness of idolatry, and garnished with all manner of Pharisaic adornments. Yet all this while it was left really empty ; God was not there ; the Stronger One, Who alone could have resisted the Strong One, held not rule in it. And so the demon returned to it again, to find the house whence he had come out, swept and garnished indeed — but also empty and defenceless. The folly of Israel lay in this, that they thought of only one demon — him of idolatry — Beel-Zibbul, with all his foulness. So, to continue the illustrative language of Christ, Satan came back ' with seven other spirits more wicked than himself — pride, self-righteousness, unbelief, and the like, the number seven being general — and thus the last state — Israel without the foulness of gToss idolatry, and garnished with all the adornments of Pharisaic devotion to the study and practice of the Law — was really worse than had been the first with all its open repulsive- ness. 6thly. Once more was the Discourse interrupted, this time by a truly Jewish incident. A woman in the crowd burst into exclamations abovit the blessedness of the Mother "St. Luke who had borne and nurtured such a Son.* The ^'" ^^ phraseology seems to have been not uncommon, since it is equally applied by the Rabbis to Moses, and even to a great Rabbi, And yet such praise must have been peculiarly unwel- come to Christ, as being the exaltation of only His Human Personal excellence, intellectual or moral. It quite looked away from that which He would present : His Work and Mission as the Saviour. This praise of the Christ through His Virgin-Mother was as unacceptable and unsuitable as the depreciation of the Christ, which really, though un- consciously, underlay the loving care of the Virgin-Mother when she would have arrested Him in His Work, and which (perhaps for this very reason) St. Matthew relates in Concerning the Two Kingdoms 349 the same connection.* Accordingly, the answer in both » St. Matt, cases is substantially the same : to point away xii. 46, 47 from His merely Human Personality to His Work and Mission — in the one case : ' Whosoever shall do the Will of My Father Which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother ; ' in the other : ' Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep it,' 7thly . And now the Discourse draws to a close ^ by a fresh " St. Luke application of what, in some other form or con- xL 33-36 nection, Christ had taught at the outset of His ■■St. Matt. V. public Ministry in the ' Sermon on the Mount.'*' 15; VI. 22, 23 i^igi^fiy ^o understand its present connection, we must pass over the various interruptions of Christ's Discourse, and join this as the conclusion to the previous part, which contained the main subject. This was, that spiritual knowledge presupposed spiritual kinship. As here put, it is that spiritual receptiveness is ever the con- dition of spiritual reception. What was the object of lighting a lamp ? Surely, that it may give light. But if so, no one would put it into a vault, or under the bushel, but on the stand. Should we then expect that God would light the spiritual lamp, if it be put in a dark vault ? Or, to take an illustration of it from the eye, which, as regards the body, serves the same purpose as the lamp in a house. Does it not depend on the state of the eye whether or not we have the sensation, enjoyment, and benefit of the light ? Let us therefore take care, lest by placing, as it were, the lamp in a vault, the light in us be really only darkness.^ On the other hand, if by means of a good eye the light is transmitted through the whole system, then shall we be wholly full of light. And this, finally, explains the recep- tion or rejection of Christ : how, in the words of an Apostle, the same Gospel would be both a savour of life unto life, and of death unto death. ' In ^l>me measure like the demon who returned to fiud his house empty, swept, aud garnished. 350 Jesus the Messiah CHAPTER LVIII. THE MORNING-MEAL IN THE PHAR[SEE'S HOUSE. (St. Luke xi. 37-54.) Bitter as was the enmity of the Pharisaic party against Jesus, it had not yet so far spread, nor become so avowed, as in every place to supersede the ordinary rules of courtesy. It is thus that we explain that invitation of a Pharisee to the morning-meal, which furnished the occasion for the second recorded Perasan Discourse of Christ. It is the last address to the Pharisees recorded in the Gospel of St. Luke A similar last appeal is recorded in a much »st. Matt, later portion of St. Matthew's Gospel,* only sxiii. that St. Luke reports that spoken in Peraa, St. Matthew that made in Jerusalem. This may also partly account for the similarity of language in the two Discourses. What makes it almost certain that some time must have elapsed between this and the previous Discourse (or rather that, as we believe, the two events happened in different places), is, that the invitation of the Pharisee was to the ' morning-meal.' We know that this took place early, immediately after the return from morning-prayers in the Synagogue. It is, therefore, scarcely conceivable that all that is recorded in connection with the first Dis- course should have occurred before this first meal. On the other hand, it may well have been, that what passed at the Pharisee's table may have some connection with something that had occurred just before in the Synagogue, for we conjecture that it was the Sabbath-day. We infer this from the circumstance that the invitation was not to the principal meal, which on a Sabbath 'the Lawyers' (and, indeed, all householders) would, at least ordinarily, have in their own homes. We can picture to ourselves the scene. The week-day family-meal was simple enough, whether breakfast or dinner — the latter towards evening, although Meals among the Jews 351 sometimes also in the middle of the day, but alwaj'S before actual darkness, in order, as it was expressed, that the sight of the dishes by daylight might excite the appetite. The Babylonian Jews were content to make a meal with- out meat ; not so the Palestinians. With the latter the favourite food was young meat : goats, lambs, calves. Beef was not so often used, and still more rarely fowls. Bread was regarded as the mainstay of life, without which no entertainment was considered as a meal. Indeed, in a sense it constituted the meal. For the blessing was spoken over the bread, and this was supposed to cover all the rest of the food that followed, such as the meat, fish, or vegetables — in short, all that made up the dinner, but not the dessert. Similarly, the blessing spoken over the wine included all other kinds of drink. Otherwise it would have been neces- sary to pronounce a separate benediction over each different article eaten or drunk. He who neglected the prescribed benedictions was regarded as if he had eaten of 5. XXIV. ^jjjjjgg dedicated to God, since it was written : ' The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof.' *^ Let us suppose the guests assembled. To such a morn- ing-meal they would not be summoned by slaves, nor be received in such solemn state as at feasts. First, each would observe, as a religious rite, ' the washing of hands.' Next, the head of the house would cut a piece from the whole loaf — on the Sabbath there ^vere two loaves — and speak the blessing. But this only if the company reclined at table, as at dinner. If they sat, as probably alwa3^s at the early meal, each would speak the benediction for himself The same rule applied in regard to the wine. At the entertainment of this Pharisee, as indeed gene- rally, our Lord omitted the prescribed ' washing of hands ' before the meal. But as this rite was in itself indilVerent, He must have had some definite object, which will be ex- plained in the sequel. In regard to the position of the guests, we know that the uppermost seats were occupied by the Rabbis. The Talmud formulates it in this manner • That the worthiest lies down first, on his left side, with his feet stretching 352 Jesus the Messiah back. If there are two ' cushions ' (divans), the next worthiest reclines above him, at his left hand ; if there are three cushions, the third worthiest lies below him who had lain down first (at his right), so that the chief person is in the middle (between the worthiest guest at his left and the less worthy one at his right hand). The water before eating is first handed to the worthiest, and so in regard to the washing after meat. But if a large number are present, you begin after dinner with the least worthy, till you come to the last five, when the worthiest in the company washes his hands, and the other four after him. The guests being thus arranged, the head of the house, or the chief person at table, speaks the blessing, and then cuts the bread. Then, generally, the bread was dipped into salt, or something salted, etiquette demanding that where there were two they should wait one lor the other, but not where there were three or more. The wine was mixed with water, and, indeed, some thought that the benediction should not be pronounced till the water had been added to the wine. Various vintages are mentioned : among them a red wine of Saron. and a black wine. Spiced wine was made with honey and pepper. .-, ,. , Another mixture, chiefly used for invalids, con- » Mentioned •!(. ii- nii i In St. Miirk sisted ot old winc, water, and balsam : yet another XV 23 • . was ' wine of myrrh.' ^ Palm wine was also in use, and foreign drinks. As regards the various kinds of grain, meat, fish, and fruits used by the Jews, either in their natural state or preserved, almost everything known to the ancient world was embraced. At feasts there was an introductory course, followed by the dinner itself, which finished with dessert, consisting of pickled olives, radishes and lettuce, and fruits, among which even preserved ginger from India is men- tioned. Fish was a favourite dish, and never wanting at a Sabbath-meal. It was a saying, that both salt and water should be used at every meal, if health was to be preserved. Very different were the meals of the poor — locusts, eggs, or a soup made of vegetables : the poorer still would satisfy theii' hunger with bread and cheese or bread and fruit. Meals among the Jews 353 At meals the rules of etiquette were strictly observed, especially as regarded the sages. According to some, it was not good breeding to speak while eating. The learned and most honoured occupied not only the chief places, but were sometimes distinguished by a double portion. Ac- cording to Jewish etiquette, a guest should conform in everything to his host, even though it were unpleasant. Although hospitality was the greatest and most prized social virtue, which, to use a Rabbinic expression, might make every home a sanctuary and every table an altar, an unbidden guest, or a guest who brought another guest, was proverbially an unwelcome apparition. Sometimes, by way of self-righteousness, the poor were brought in, and the best part of the meal ostentatiously given to them.' After dinner, the formalities concerning handwashing and prayer already described were gone through, and then frequently aromatic spices burnt, over which a special benediction was pronounced. We have only to add, that on Sabbaths it was deemed a religious duty to have three meals, and to procure the best that money could obtain, even though one were to save and fast for it all the week. Lastly, it was regarded as a special obligation and honour to entertain sages. We have no dithculty now in understanding what passed at the table of the Pharisee. When the water for purification was presented to Him, Jesus would either refuse it ; or if, as seems more likely at a morning-meal, each guest repaired by himself for the prescribed purifica- tion. He would omit to do so, and sit down to meat without this formality. No one who knows the stress which Pharisaism laid on this rite would argue that Jesus might have conformed to the practice. Indeed, the controversy was long and bitter between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel on such a point as whether the hands were to lie washed before the cup was filled with wine, or after that, and where the towel was to be deposited. A religion which spent its energy on such trivialities must have lowered the moral tone. All the more that Jesus insisted ' For fuller details see ' Life and Times, &c.,' vol. ii. p. 209. k A 354 Jesus the Messiah so earnestly, as the substance of His teaching, on that corruption of our nature which Judaism ignored, and on that spiritual purification which was needful for the recep- tion of His doctrine, would He publicly and openly set aside ordinances of man which diverted thoughts of purity into questions of the most childish character. On the other hand, we can also understand what bitter thoughts must have filled the mind of the Pharisee, whose guest Jesus was, when he observed His neglect of the cherished rite. It was an insult to himself, a defiance of Jewish Law, a revolt against the most cherished traditions of the Synagogue. Remembering that a Pharisee ought not to sit down to a meal with such, he might even feel that he should not have asked Jesus to his table. What oui" Lord said on that occasion will be considered in detail in another place. Suffice it here to mark that He first exposed the mere externalism of the Pharisaic law of purification, to the utter ignoring of the higher need of « St. Luke inward purity, which lay at the foundation of all.* ^'•^^ If the primary origin of the ordinance was to prevent the eating of sacred offerings in defilement, were these outward offerings not a symbol of the inward sacri- fice, and was there not an inward defilement as well as the outward?'' To consecrate what we had to God in His poor, instead of selfishly enjoying it, would not, indeed, be a purification of them (for such was not needed), but it would, in the truest sense, be to eat God's offerings in cleanness.*' We mark here a pro- gress and a development as compared with the former occasion when Jesus had publicly spoken on the a St. Matt, same subject.*^ Formerly He had treated the XV. 1-9 ordinance of the Elders as a matter not binding ; now He showed how this externalism militated against thoughts of the internal and spiritual. Formerly He had shown how traditionalism came into conflict with the written Law of God ; now, how it superseded the first principles which underlay that Law. Formerly He had est. Matt. ^^^^ down the principle that defilement came not XV. 10, 11 from without inwards but from within outwards : ® Morning-Meal in the Pharisee's House 355 now He unfolded this highest principle that higher conse- cnition imparted purity. The same principle, indeed, would apply to other things, such as to the Rabbinic law of tithing. At the same time it may have been, as already suggested, that something which had previously taken place, or was the subject of conversation at table, had given occasion for the further • St. Luke remarks of Christ.'* Thus, the Pharisee may ^'•*^ have wished to convey his rebuke of Christ by referring to the subject of tithing. And such covert mode of rebuking was very common among the Jews. It was regarded as utterly defiling to eat of that which had not been tithed. Indeed, the three distinctions of a Pharisee were : not to make use nor to partake of anything that had not been tithed ; to observe the laws of purification : and. as a consequence of these two, to abstain from familiar intercourse with all non-Pharisees. This separation formed the ground of their claim to distinction.'' It will D vcr. 43 ^ be noticed that it is exactly to these three things our Lord adverts : so that these sayings of His are not, as might seem, unconnected, but in the strictest internal relationship. Our Lord shows how Pharisaism, as regarded the outer, was connected with the opposite tendency as re- garded the inner man : outward purification with ignorance of the need of that inward purity, which consisted in God-consecration, and with the neglect of it ; strictness of outward tithing with ignorance and neglect of the principle which underlay it, viz. the acknowledgment of God's right over mind and heai-t (judgment and the love of God) ; while, lastly, the Pharisaic pretence of separation, and consequent claim to distinction, issued only in pride and self-assertion. Thus, tried by its own tests, Pharisaism failed. It was hypocrisy, although that word was not « St. Luke mentioned till aiterAvards ; •= and that both nega- ''"• ^ tively and positively : the concealment of what it was, and the pretension to what it was not. And the Pharisaism which pretended to the liighest purity wa.s really the greatest impurity -the defilenjent of graves, only covered up not to be seen of men ! AA 2 356 Jesus the Messiah It was at this point that one of ' the Scribes ' at table broke in. Remembering in what contempt some of tlie learned held the ignorant bigotry of the Pharisees, we can understand that he might have listened with secret enjoy- ment to denunciations of their ' folly.' As the common saying had it, ' the silly pietist,' ' a woman Pharisee,' and the (self-inflicted) ' blows of Pharisaism,' were among the plagues of life. But, as the Scribe rightly remarked, by attacking, not merely their practice but their principles, the whole system of traditionalism, which they represented, • St. Luke was condemned.* And so the Lord assuredly xi.45 meant it. The 'Scribes' were the exponents of the traditional law : those who bound and loosed in Israel. They did bind on heavy burdens, but they never loosed one ; all these grievous burdens of traditionalism they laid on the poor people, but not the slightest effort ^ did they make to remove any of them.^ Tradi- tion, the ordinances that had come down — they would not reform nor put aside anything, but claim and proclaim all that had come down from the fathers as a sacred inheritance to which they clung. So be it I let them be judged by their own words. The fathers had murdered the prophets, and they built their sepulchres ; that also was a tradition — that of guilt which would be avenged. Tradition, learning, exclusiveness — alas ! it was only taking away from the poor the key of knowledge ; and while they themselves entered not by ' the door ' into the Kingdom, they hindered those who would have gone in. And truly so did they prove that theirs was the in- heritance, the ' tradition,' of ffuilt in hinderinsf 0 w. 47-52 . . . . ~ . ~ and banishing the Divine teaching of old, and murdering its Divine messengers.*^ There was terrible truth and solemnity in what Jesus spake, and in the Woe which He denounced on them. But after such denunciations, the entertainment in the Pharisee's house must have been broken up. With what feelings they parted from Him appears from the sequel. ' And when He was come out from thence, the Scribes To THE Disciples 357 and the Pharisees began to press u]xni Him vehemently, and to provoke Him to speak of many tilings; laying wait for Him, to catch something out of His Mouth.' CHAPTER LIX. TO THE DISCIPLES — TWO EVENTS AND THEIR MORAL (St. Luke xii. 1-xiii. 17.) The record of Christ's last warning to the Pharisees, and of the feelings of murderous hate which it called forth, is followed by a sunimary of Christ's teaching to His disciples. The tone is still that of warning, but entirely different from that to the Pharisees. It is a warning of sin that threatened, not of judgment that awaited; it was for pre- vention, not in denunciation. The same teaching, because prompted by the same causes, had been mostly delivered also on other occasions. Yet there are notable, though seemingly slight, divergences, accounted for by the differ- ence of the writers or of the circumstances, and which mark the independence of the narratives. 1. The first of these Discourses'^ naturally connects • St. Luke itself with what had passed at the Pharisee's xii. 1-12 table, an account of which must soon have spread. Although the Lord is reported as having addressed the same language chiefly to the Twelve when sending them on their first Mission,'' we mark characteristic variations. The address — or probably only its summary — is introduced by the following notice of the circumstances : ' In the mean time, when the many thou- sands of the people were gathered together, so that they trode upon each other. He began to say to His disciples : " First [above all], beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." ' There is no need to point out the connection between this warning and the denunciation of Pharisaism and traditionalism at the Pharisees table. Although the word 'hypocrisy' had not been spoken there, it was the sum and substance of His contention 35^ Jesus the Messiah that Pharisaism, while pretending to what it was not, concealed what it was. And it was this which, like ' leaven,' pervaded the whole system of Pharisaism. Not that as in- dividuals they were all hypocrites, but that the system was hypocrisy. And here it is characteristic of Pharisaism, that Rabbinic Hebrew has not even a word equivalent to the term ' hypocrisy.' The only expression used refers either to flattery of, or pretence before men, not to that unconscious hypocrisy towards God which our Lord so truly describes as ' the leaven ' that pervaded all the Phari- sees said and did. After all, hypocrisy was only self-deception." ' But •St. Luke there is nothing covered that shall not be re- ^"' ^' vealed.' Hence, what they had said in the dark- ness would be revealed, and what they had spoken about in the store-rooms would be proclaimed on the housetops. J, , ^ Nor should fear influence them.^ Man could " ver, 4 only kill the body, but God held body and soul. And as fear was foolish, so was it needless in view of that Providence which watched over even the meanest of God's creatures.*^ Rather let them, in the impending struggle with the powers of this world, rise to consciousness of its full import. And this contest was not only opposition to Christ, but, in its inmost essence, blas- phemy against the Holy Ghost. Therefore, to succumb ^ g implied the deepest spiritual danger.** Nay, but let them not be apprehensive ; their acknowledg- ment would be not only in the future. Even now, in the hour of their danger, would the Holy Ghost help them, and give them an answer before their accusers and judges, whoever they might be — Jews or Gentiles. Thus, if they fell victims, it would be with the knowledge — not by neglect — of their Father ; in their own hearts, before the Angels, = vv a 12 ^®^°*'® men. would He give testimony for those who were His witnesses,'' 2. The second Discourse recorded in this connection was occasioned by a request for judicial interposition on f ,» o, the part of Christ. This He answered bv a Parable/ which will be explained in conjunction To THE Disciples 359 with the other I'ai-ables of that period. The outcome ot this Parable, as to the uncertainty of this life, and the consequent folly of bcinji^ so careful for this world while neglectful of God, led Him to make warning application •St. Luke to His Pera^an disciples.* Only here the nega- xii. 22-34 ^-^g injunction that preceded the Parable, 'be- ware of covetousuess.' is, when addressed to ' the disciples,' carried back to its positive underlying principle : to dismiss all anxiety, even for the necessaries of life, learning from the birds and the flowers to have absolute faith and trust in God, and to labour for only one thing — the Kingdom of God. But even in this they were not to be careful. " ver 32 ^"^ ^^ hsiVe absolute faith and trust in their Father, ' Who was well pleased to give ' them 'the Kingdom.' '' With but slight variations the Lord had used the same language, even as the same admonition had been needed, at the beginning of His Galilean Ministry, in the Sermon « St. Matt, on the Mount.'^ Perhaps we may here also vi. 25-33 regard the allusion to the springing flowers as a mark of time. Only, whereas in Galilee this would mark the beginning of spring, it would, in the more favoured climate of certain parts of Pertea, indicate the beginning of December, about the time of the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple. More important, perhaps, is it to note, 1 St. Luke that the expression ^ rendered in the Authorised ^"•^'•^ and Revised Versions, ' neither be ye of doubtful mind,' really means, ' neither be ye uplifted,' in the sense • coniij. of not aiming, or seeking after great things.^ jer. xiv. 5 rpj^^ coutext here shows that the term must refer to the disciples coveting great things, since only to this the remark could apply, that the Gentile world sought such things, but that our Father knew what was really needful for us. Of deep importance is the final consola- tion, to dismiss all care and anxiety, since the Father was pleased to give to this ' little flock ' the Kingdom. The ex- pression ' flock ' carries us back to the language which Jesus had held ere parting from Jerusalem.* Hence- t St. Johu X. ^^j.^j^ ^^.g designation would mark His people. 360 Jesus the Messiah These admonitions, alike as against covetousness, and as to absolute trust and a self-surrender to God, which would count all loss for the Kingdom, are finally set forth, alike in their present application and their ultimate and permanent principle, in what we regard as the concluding » St. Luke Pf^i't of this Discourse.^ Its first sentence, 'Sell xii. 33, 34 t\iQ,i ye have, and give alms,' which is only re- corded by St. Luke, indicates not a general principle, but its application to that particular period, when the faithful disciple required to follow the Lord unencumbered by bcomp. worldly cares or possessions.^ The general St. Matt. principle underlying it is that expressed by «icor. viL St. Paul,*^ and finally resolves itself into this: that the Christian should have as not holding, and use what he has not for self nor sin, but for necessity. 3. Closely connected with, and yet quite distinct from the previous Discourse, is that about the waiting attitude of the disciples in regard to their Master. The Discourse itself consists of three parts and a practical application. (1) The Disciples as Servants in the absence of their ^st L k Master:^ their duttj and their reward.^ This xii. part, containing what would be so needful to these Pera?an disciples, is peculiar to St. Luke. The Master is supposed to be absent, at a wedding, so that the exact time of his return could not be known to the servants who waited at home. In these circumstances, they should hold themselves in readiness, that, whatever hour it might be, they should be able to open the door at the first knocking. Such eagerness and devotion of service would naturally meet its reward, and the Master would, in turn, consult the comfort of those who had not allowed themselves their evening-meal, nor lain down, but watched for him. Hungry and weary as they were from their zeal for him, he would now, in turn, minister to their personal comfort. And this applied to servants who so watched — it mattered not how long, whether into the second or the third of the watches into which the night was divided. The ' Parable ' now passes into another aspect of the To THE Disciples 361 case, which is again referred to in the last. Discourses of • St. Matt. Christ.* Conversely — suppose the other case, xxiv. 43, 44 Qf people sleeping : the house might be broken into. If one had known the hour when the thief would come, sleep would not have been indulged in ; but it is just this uncertainty and suddenness which should keep the people in the house ever on their watch till Christ «• St. Luke came.^ xii. 39, 40 j^ ^ag at this particular point that a question of Peter interrupted the Discourse of Christ. ^To whom did this ' Parable ' apply about ' the good man ' and ' the servants ' who were to watch : to the Apostles, or also to all ? We can understand how Peter might entertain the Jewish notion, that the Apostles would come with the Master from the marriage-supper, rather than wait for His return and work while waiting. It is to this that the reply of Christ refers. If the Apostles or others are rulers, it is as stewards, and their reward of faithful and wise stewardship will be advance to higher administration. But as stewards they are servants — servants of Christ, and ministering servants in regard to the other and general servants. What becomes them in this twofold capacity is faithfulness to the absent yet ever near Lord, and to their work, avoiding on the one hand the masterfulness of pride and of harshness, and on the other the self- degradation of conformity to evil manners, either of which would entail sudden and condign pvinishment in the sudden and righteous reckoning at His appeariog. The ' Parable,' therefore, alike as to the waiting and the reckoning, applied to work for Christ, as well as to personal relation- ship towards Him. In this Perffian Discourse, as reported by St. Luke,° • St. Luke there now follows what must be regarded, not con/'~^^' incleed as a further answer to Peter's inquiry, St. Matt. but as referring to the question of the relation between special work and general discipleship which had been raised. For, in one sense, all disciples are servants, not only to wait, but to work. As regarded those who, like the professed stewards or labourers, knew 362 Jesus the Messiah their work, but neither ' made ready,' nor did according to His Will, their punishment and loss (where the illus- trative figure of ' many ' and ' few stripes ' must not be too closely pressed) would naturally be greater than that of them who knew not — though this also involves guilt — that their Lord had any will towards them, that is, any • St. Luke work for them. =» '^i'-^A 4s (2) In the absence of their Master ! A])eriod this of worlc, as well as of waiting; a -period of trial also.^ Here also the two opening verses, in vv. 49-53 ^ijg-j, connection with the subject-matter under the first head of this Discourse, but especially with the closing sentences about work for the Master, are peculiar to St. Luke's narrative. The Church had a work to do in His absence — the work for which He had come. He ' came to cast fire on earth ' — that fire which was kindled when the Risen Saviour sent the Holy Ghost, and of which the tongues of fire were the symbol. That fire must they spread : this was the work in which, as disciples, each one must take part.*= Again, in that Baptismal Agony of His they also must be prepared to share. It was fire: burning up, as well as purifying and giving light. And here it was in place to repeat to His Persean disciples the prediction already addressed to the d St. Matt. X. Twelve when going on their Mission,^ as to 34-3G i]^Q certain and necessary trials connected with carrying ' the fire ' which Christ had cast on earth, even to the burning up of the closest bonds of association and B St Luke kinship.^ xii. 51-53 (3) Thus far the disciples. And now for its ^^'' ^* application to ' the multitudes.' ^ Let them not think that all this only concerned the disciples. Were they so blinded as not ' to know how to interpret the g ver. 56 ^ime ' 2 — they who had no difficulty in interpret- »" ver. 57 jjjg it when a cloud rose from the sea, or the sirocco blew from the south ? ^ Why then did they not of themselves judge what was fitting and necessary, in view of the gathering tempest ? What was it ? Even what He had told them before in TlVO EVEA'TS AND THEIR MORAL 363 Galilre,'' fur the circumstances were the sauic. What • St. Matt, comniuu sense and common prudence would V. 25, %\ dictate to every one whom his accuser or creditor haled before the magistrate : to come to an agreement with him before it was too late, before sentence had been b St. Luke pronounced and executed.^ Although the illus- xii. 58, 59 tration must not be pressed, its general meaning would be the more readily understood that there was a similar Rabljinic proverb, although with very different practical application. 4. Besides these Discourses, two events are recorded before Christ's departure to the ' Feast of the Dedication.' Each of these led to a brief Discourse, ending in a Parable. The first records two circumstances not mentioned by the Jewish historian Joxf'ijhux, nor in any other historical notice of the time, either by Rabbinic or other writers. It appears that then, or soon afterwards, some persons told Christ about a number of His own Galileans, whom Pilate had ordered to be cut down, as we infer, in the Tem- e St. Luke pits while engaged in offering their sacrifices ;<' xiii. 1-5 gQ fiia,t, in the pictorial language of the r]ast, their blood had mingled with that of their sacrifices. Clearly, their narration of this event must be connected with the preceding Discourse of Jesus. He had asked them whether they could not discern the signs of the terrible national storm that was nearing. And it was in reference to this, as we judge, that they repeated this story. To understand their object, we must attend to the answer of Christ. It is intended to refute the idea, that these Galileans had in this been visited by a special punishment of some special sin against God. Very probably these Galileans were thus murdered because of their real or suspected connection with the Nationalist movement, of which Galilee was the focus. It is as if these Jews had said to Jesus : Yes, signs of the times and of the coming storm ! These Galileans of yours, your own countrymen, involved in a kind of Pseudo- Messianic movement, a kind of ' signs of the times ' rising, 364 Jesus the Messiah something like that towards which you want us to look — was not their death a condign punishment ? This latter inference they did not express in words, but implied in their narration of the fact. But the Lord read their thoughts and refuted their reasoning. For this purpose • St. Luke He adduced another instance,* when a tower at ^'"- ^ the Siloam-Pool had fallen on eighteen persona and killed them, perhaps in connection with that con- struction of an aqueduct into Jerusalem by Pilate, which called forth on the part of the Jews the violent opposition which the Roman so terribly avenged. As good Jews they would probably think that the fall of the tower, which had buried in its ruins these eighteen persons who were perhaps engaged in the building of that cursed structure, was a just judgment of God ! For Pilate had used for it the sacred money which had been devoted to Temple-purposes, and many there were who perished in the tumult caused by the Jewish resistance to this act of profanation. But Christ argued that it was as wrong to infer that Divine judgment had overtaken His Galilean countrymen, as it would be to judge that the Tower of Siloam had fallen to punish these Jerusalemites. Not one party only, nor another ; not the supposed Messianic tendency (in the shape of a national rising), nor, on the other hand, the opposite direction of absolute submission to Roman domination, was in fault. The whole nation was guilty ; and the coming storm, to the signs of which He had pointed, would destroy all, unless there were spiritual repentance on the part of the nation. Having thus answered the implied objection, the Lord t^£_g next showed, in the Parable of the Fig-tree,^ the need and urgency of national repentance. The second event recorded by St. Luke in this connec- • TV. 10-17 tion *= recalls the incidents of the early Juda3an ^ a St. John and of the Galilean Ministry.^ In Jerusalem there ^- ^^ is neither reasoning nor rebuke on the part of xH*9^i3"' t^ie Jews, but absolute persecution. There also 'St. John the Lord enters on the higher exposition of His T. 16, 17 &c. actions, motives, and Mission.^ In Galilee there The Woman with a 'Spirit of Infirmity' 365 is questioning, and cunning intrigue against Him on the part of the Judajans who dogged His steps. But while no violence can be attempted against Him, the people do not • St. Matt, venture openly to take His part.^ But in Peraea xii. 1-21 ^g ryj.Q confronted by the clumsy zeal of a country- Archisynagogos (Chief Ruler of a Synagogue), who is very angry, but not very wise ; who admits Christ's healing power, and does not dare to attack Him directly, but in- stead rebukes, not Christ, not even the woman who had been healed, but the people who witnessed it, at the same time telling them to come for healing on other days, not perceiving, in his narrow-minded bigotry, what this admission implied. Little more requires to be added about this incident in *one of the Synagogues' of Peraea. Let us only briefly recall the scene. Among those present in this Synagogue had been a poor woman, who for eighteen years had been a sufferer, as we learn, through demoniac agency. In fact, she was, both physically and morally, not sick, but sicklv, and most truly was hers ' a spirit of infirmity,' so that ' she was bowed together, and could in no wise lift herself up.' For we mark that hers was not demoniac possession at all — and yet, though she liad not yielded, she had not effec- tually resisted, and so she was ' bound ' by ' a spirit of infirmity," both in body and soul. We recognise the same ' spirit of infirmity ' in the cir- cumstances of her healing. When Christ, seeing her, called her, she came ; when He said unto her, ' Woman, thou hast been loosed from thy sickliness,' she was unbound, and yet in her weakliness she answered not, nor straightened herself, till Jesus ' laid His Hands on her,' and so strength- ened her in body and soul, and then she was immediately ' made straight, and glorified God.' As for the Archisynagogos, we have, as already hinted, such characteristic portraiture of him that we can almost sec him ; confused, irresolute, perplexed, and very angry, bustling forward and scolding the people who had done nothing, yet not venturing to silence the woman, now no longer infirm — far less to reprove the great Rabbi, Who $66 Jesus the Mess/ah had just done such a ' glorious thing,' but speaking at Him through those who had been the astounded eye- witnesses. He was easily and effectually silenced, and all who sympathised with him put to shame. ' Hypocrites ! ' spake the Lord — on your own admissions your practice and your Law condemn your speech. Every one on the Sab- bath looseth his ox or ass, and leads him to the watering. The Rabbinic law expressly allowed this, and even to draw the water, provided the vessel were not carried to the animal. If, as you admit, I have the power of ' loosing ' from the bonds of Satan, and she has be.en so bound these eighteen years, should she — a daughter of Abraham — not have that done for her which you do for your beasts of burden ? The retort was unanswerable ; it covered the adversaries with shame. And the Pera^ans in that Synagogue felt also, at least for the time, the freedom which had come to that woman. They took up the echoes of her hymn of praise, and ' rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by Him.' And He answered their joy by setting before them ' the Kingdom,' which He had come both to preach and to bring, in its reality and all-pervading energy, as exhibited in the two Parables of ' the Mustard-seed ' and ' the Leaven,' spoken before in Galilee. These were now repeated, as specially suited to the circumstances. And the practical application of these Parables must have been obvious to all. CHAPTER LX. AT THE FEAST OF THE DEDICATION OF THE TEMPLE. (St. Luke xiii. 22 ; St. John x. 22-42.) About two months had passed since Jesus had leflb Jeru- salem after the Feast of Tabernacles. At the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple we find Christ once more in the Temple. There seems special fitness in Christ's spending what, At the Feast of the DedilATion 367 by a computatiou of dates, we may regard as the last anni- versary season of His Birth, in the Temple at that Feast. It was not of Biblical origin, but had been instituted by Judas ]\[accab£eus in 164 B.C., when the Temple, which had been desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes, was once more purified, and re-dedicated to the service of Jehovah. Accordingly, it was designated as ' the Dedication of the Altar.' During the eight days of the Feast the series of Psalms • Ps. cxiii.- known as the Ilallel " was chanted in the Temple, cxviii. ^]j0 people responding as at the Feast of Taber- nacles. Other rites resembled those of the latter Feast. •> 2 Maco. Thus, originally, the people appeared with palm- *• ^ branches. '^ This however does not seem to have been afterwards observed, while another rite, not mentioned in the Book of Maccabees — that of illuminating the Temple and private houses — became characteristic of the Feast. Tra- dition had it, that when the Temple-Services were restored by Judas Maccabeus, the oil was found to have been desecrated. Only one flagon was discovered of that which was pure, sealed with the very signet of the High-Priest. The supply proved just sufficient to feed for one day the Sacred Candlestick, but by a miracle the flagon was con- tinually replenished during eight days, till a fresh supply could be brought from Thekoah. In memoiy of this, it was ordei'ed the following year, that the Temple be illu- minated for eight days on the anniversary of its ' Dedication.' But the ' Lights ' in honour of the Feast were lit not only in the Temple, but in every home. One would have suf- ficed for the whole household on the first evening, but pious householders lit a light for every inmate of the home, sc that, if ten burned on the first, there would be eighty on the last night of the Festival. According to the Talmud, the light might be placed at the entrance to the house or room, or, according to circumstances, in the window, or even on the table. According to modern practice the light is placed at the left on entering a room (the Mezuzah, or folded scroll of the Law. is on the right). Certain bene- dictions are spoken on lighting these lights, all work is stayed, and the festive time spent in merriment. The first 368 Jesus the Messiah night is specially kept in memory of Judith, who is supposed to have slain Holofernes, and cheese is freely partaken of as the food of which, according to legend, she gave him so largely, to incite him to thirst and drunkenness. Lastly, during this Festival all fasting and public mourning were prohil)ited, though some minor acts of private mourning were allowed. This Festival, like the Feast of Tabernacles, com- memorated a Divine victory, which again gave to Israel their good land, after they had once more undergone sor- rows like those of the wilderness : it was another harvest- feast, and pointed forward to yet another ingathering. As the once extinguished light was relit in the Temple, it grew day by day in brightness, till it shone out into the heathen darkness, that once had threatened to quench it. That He Who purified the Temple, was its True Light, and brought the Great Deliverance, should (as hinted) have spent the last anniversary season of His Birth at that Feast in the Sanctuary, shining into their darkness, seems most fitting. Thoughts of the meaning of this Feast and of what was associated with it, will be helpful as we listen to the words which Jesus spake to the people in ' Solomon's Porch.' It is winter, and Christ is walking in the covered Porcli in front of the ' Beautiful Gate,' which formed the principal entrance into the ' Court of the Women ' As He walks up and down, the people are literally barring His way — ' came round about ' Him. From the whole circumstances we can- not doubt that the question which they pat, ' How long boldest Thou us in suspense ? ' had not in it an element of genuine inquiry. Their desire that He should tell them ' plainly ' if He were the Christ, had no other motive than that of grounding on it an accusation. The more clearly we perceive this, the more wonderful appear the forbear- ance of Christ and the wisdom of His answer Briefly He puts aside their hypocrisy. What need is there of fresh speech ? He told them befoi-e, and they ' believe not.' From words He appeals to the indisputable witness ot deeds : the works which He wrought in His Father's Name. Their non-belief in presence of these facts was due to their At the Feast of the Dedication 369 not being of His Sheep. As He had said unto them before it was characteristic of His Sheep (as generally of every flock in regard to its own shepherd) to hear — recognise, listen to — His Voice and follow Him. We mark in the » St. John words of Christ a triplet of double parallelisms X.27, 28 concerning the Sheep and the Shepherd, in ascending climax,'' as follows : My sheep hear My Voice, And I know them, And they follow Me : And I give unto them eternal life ; And they shall never perish. And no one shall snatch them out of My Hand. Richer assurance could not have been given. But something special has here to be marked. The two jHrst parallelisms always link the promise of Christ to the attitude of the sheep ; not, perhaps, conditionally, but as a matter of sequence and of fact. But in the third parallelism there is no reference to anything on the part of the sheep ; it is all promise, and the second clause only explains and intensifies what is expressed in the first. If it indicates attack of the fiercest kind, and by the strongest and most cunning of enemies, be they men or devils, it also marks the watchfulness and absolute superiority of Him Who hath them, as it were, in His Hand — perhaps a Hebraism for ' power ' — and hence their absolute safety. And, as if to carry twofold assurance of it, He reminds His hearers that His Work, being ' the Father's Conmiandment,' is really the Father's Work, given to Christ to do, and no one could snatch them out of the Father's Hand. One logical sequence is unavoidable. Rightly under- stood, it is not only the last and highest announcement, but it contains and implies everything else. If the Work of Christ is really that of the Father, and His Working also that of the Father, then it follows that He ' and the Father are One ' (' one ' is in the neuter). This identity of work (and purpose) implies the identity of Nature (Essence) ; that of working, the identity of Power. And so, evidently, the Jews understood it when they again took up stones with the intention of stoning Him — no B B 370 Jesus the Messiah doubt because He expressed, in yet more plain terms, what they regarded as His blasphemy. Once more the Lord appealed from His Words, which were doubted, to His Works, which He hath ' showed from the Father,' any one of which might have served as evidence of His Mission. And when the Jews ignored this line of evidence, and insisted that He had been guilty of blasphemy, since, being a Man, he had made Himself God, the Lord replied in a manner that calls for our special attention. From the peculiarly Hebraistic mode of designating a quotation • Ps ixxxii. from the Psalms* as 'written in the Law,' we 6 gather that we have here a literal transcript of the very words of our Lord. He had claimed to be One with the Father in work and working ; from which, of course, the necessary inference was, that He was also One with Him in Nature and Power. Let us see whether the claim was strange. In Ps. Ixxxii. 6 the titles ' God ' and ' Sons of the Highest ' had been given to Judges as the Kepresentatives and Vicegerents of God. wielding His delegated authority, since to them had come His Word of authorisation. But here was authority not transmitted by ' the word,' but personal and direct consecration and Mission on the part of God. The comparison made was not with Prophets, because they only told the word and message from God, but with Judges, who, as such, did the very act of God. If those who, in so acting, had received an indirect commission, were ' gods,' the very representatives of God, could it be blasphemy when He claimed to be the Son of God, Who had received, not authority through a word transmitted through long cen- turies, but direct personal command, to do the Father's Work ; had been directly and personally consecrated to it by the Father, and directly and personally sent by Him, not to say, but to do, the work of the Father ? All would, of course, depend on this, whether Christ »> St. John really did the works of the Father.^ If He *-3^ did the works of His Father, then let them believe, if not the words, yet the Avorks, and thus would they arrive at the knowledge, ' and understand ' — distin- The Second Series of Parables 371 pcuishing here the act from the state — that ' iu ]\fe is the Father, aud I in the Father.' In otlier words, recognising the Work as that of the Father, they would come to understand that the Father worked in Him, and that the root of His Work was in the Father. The stones that had been taken up were not thrown, for the words of Christ rendered impossible the charge of explicit blasphemy which alone would, according to Rabbinic law, have warranted such summary vengeance. But ' tiiey sought again to seize Him,' so as to drag Him before their tribunal. His time, however, had not yet come, ' and He went forth out of their hand.' CHAPTER LXI. THE SECOND SERIES OF PARABLES — THE TWO PARABLES OF HIM WHO IS NEIGHBOUR TO US. (St. Luke X. 25-37 ; xi. 5-13.) The period between Christ's return from the ' Feast of the Dedication ' and His last entry into Jerusalem, may be arranged into two parts, divided by the brief visit to Bethany for the purpose of raising Lazarus from the dead. The Parables of this period look back upon the past, and forward into the future. Those spoken by the Lake of Galilee were purely symbolical. This second series of Parables could be understood by all. They were typical, using the word ' type ' as an example, or perhaps more correctly, an exem- •Asinicor. plification.^ Accordingly, they are also intensely Phil. iii!i7; practical. Their prevailing character is not 2Th^s.iii!' descriptive, but hortatory; and they bring the » : 1 T^n\-.i''- Gospel, in the stmse of glad tidings to the lost, 7;iret. V. 3 to the hearts of all who hear them. Of the Parables of the third series it will for the present suffice to say that they are neither symbolical nor typical, but their prevailing characteristic is prophetic. The Parables of the second (or Peraean) series, which are typical and hortatory, and ' Evangelical ' in character, B u 2 372 Jesus the Messiah are thirteen in number, and, with the exception of the last, are either peculiar to, or else most fully recorded in, the Gospel by St. Luke. > St. Luke X. 1- The Parable of the Good Samaritan.^ — 25-37 ^\ns, Parable is connected with a question ad- dressed to Jesus by a ' lawyer ' — not one of the Jerusalem Scribes or Teachers, but probably an expert in Jewish Canon Law, who possibly made it more or less a profession in that district, though perhaps not for gain. We have suggested that the words of this lawyer referred, or else that himself belonged, to that small party among the Rabbinists who, at least in theory, attached greater value to good works than to study. Knowing the habits of his class, we do not wonder that he put his question to ' tempt ' — test, try — the great Rabbi of Nazareth. We seem to witness the opening of a regular Rabbinic contest as we listen to this speculative problem : ' Teacher, what having done shall I inherit eternal life ? ' At the foundation lay the notion that eternal life was the reward of merit, of works : the only question was, what these works were to be. The idea of guilt had not entered his mind ; he had no conception of sin within. There was a way in which a man might inherit eternal life, not indeed as having absolute claim to it, but in consequence of God's Covenant on Sinai. And so our Lord, using the common Rabbinic expression, ' What readest thou ? ' pointed him to the Scriptures of the Old Testament. The reply of the ' lawyer ' is remarkable, not only on its own account, but as substantially that given on two >» St Mitt other occasions by the Lord Himself.^ The ques- xix. 16-22; tiou therefore naturally arises, whence did this lawyer, who certainly had not spiritual insight, derive his reply ? As regarded the duty of absolute love to God, indicated by the quotation of Deut. vi. 5, there could, of course, be no hesitation in the mind of a Jew. The primary obligation of this is frequently referred to, and. indeed, taken for granted, in Rabbinic teaching. The repetition of this command formed part of the daily pf^yers. When Jesus referred the lawyer to the Scriptures, Parable of the Good Samaritan 373 he could scarcely fail to quote this first paramount obliga- tion. Hillel had summed up the Law, in briefest compass, in these words : ' What is hateful to thee, that do not to another. This is the whole Law ; the rest is only its ex- planation.' Still, the two principles just mentioned are not enunciated in conjunction by Eabbinism, nor seriously propounded as either containing the whole Law or as secur- ing heaven. They are a^lso subjected to grave modifications. On the ground of works — if that had been tenable — the lawyer's answer really pointed to the right soluti )\\ of the question: this was the way to heaven. To understand any other answer would have required a sense of sin ; and it is the preaching of the Law which awakens in the mind a sense of sin.'' But the difficulty of this ' way ' °'""'"*" would soon suggest itself to a Jew, Whatever complexity of motives there may have been, there can be no doubt as to the main object of the lawyer's question : ' But who is my neighbour ? ' He wished ' to justify himself,' in the sense of vindicating his original question, and showing that it was not quite so easily settled as the answer of Jesus seemed to imply. And here it was that Christ could in a ' l-*arable ' show how far orthodox Judaism was from even a true understanding, much more from such perfect observance of this Law as would gain heaven. Some one coming from the Holy City, the Metropolis of Judaism, is pursuing the solitary desert-road, those twenty-one miles to Jericho, a district notoriously insecure, when he ' fell among robbers, who, having both stripped and inflicted on him strokes, went away leaving him just as he was, half dead.' This is the first scene. The second opens with an expression which, theologically, as well as exegetically, is of the greatest interest. The word ren- dered ' by chance ' occurs only in this place, for Scripture commonly views matters in relation to agents rather than to results. The real meaning of the word is ' concurrence,' much like the con-esponding Hebrew term. And better definition could not be given, not, indeed, of ' Providence,' 374 Jesus the Mess /ah which is a heathen abstraction for which the Bible has no equivalent, but for the concrete reality of God's providing. He provides through a concurrence of circumstances, all in themselves natural and in the succession of ordinary causation (and this distinguishes it from the miracle), but the concurring of which is directed and overruled by Him. And this helps us to put aside those coarse tests of the reality of prayer and of the direct rule of God which men sometimes propose. It was by such a ' concurrence ' that first a priest, then a Levite, came down that road, when each successively ' when he saw him, passed by over against (him).' It was the principle of questioning, ' Who is my neighbour ? ' which led both priest and Levite to such conduct. Who knew what this wounded man was, and how he came to lie there; and were they called upon, in igno- rance of this, to take all the trouble, perhaps incur the risk of life, which care of him would involve ? Thus Judaism (in the persons of its chief representatives) had, by its exclusive attention to the letter, come to destroy the spirit of the Law. Happily, there came yet another that way, not only a stranger, but one despised, a semi- heathen Samaritan. He asked not who the man was, but what was his need. Whatever the wounded Jew might have felt towards him, the Samaritan proved a true ' neighbour.' ' He came towards liim, and beholding him, he was moved with compassion.' He first bound up his wounds, and then, taking from his travelling provision wine and oil, made of them what was regarded as the common dressing for wounds. Next, having ' set ' (lifted) him on his own beast, he walked by his side, and brought him to one of those khans, or hostelries, by the side of unfrequented roads, which afforded free lodgment to the traveller. Generally they also offered entertainment, in which case, of course, the host, commonly a non- Israelite, charged for the victuals supplied to man or beast, or for the care taken. In the present instance the Samaritan seems himself to have tended the wounded man all that evening. But even thus his care did not Parable op the Importunate Neighbour 375 end. The next morning, before continuing his journey, he gave to the host two dinars — about one shilling and threepence of our money, the amount of a labourer's wages • St. Matt, for two days * — as it were, two days' wages for .\x. 2 iiig care of him, with this provision, that if any further expense were incurred, he would pay it when he next came that way. So far the Parable : its lesson ' the lawyer ' is made himself to enunciate. ' Which of these three seems to thee to have become neighbour of him that fell among the robbers ? ' Though unwilling to take the hated name of Samaritan on his lips, especially as the meaning of the Parable and its anti-Rabbinic bearing were so evident, the ' lawyer ' was obliged to reply : ' He that showed mercy on him,' when the Saviour answered, ' Go, and do thou likewise.' The Parable implies not a mere enlargement of the Jewish ideas, but a complete change of them. The whole old relationship of mere duty is changed into one of love. Thus matters are placed on an entirely different basis from that of Judaism. The question now is not ' Who is my neighbour ? ' but ' Whose neighbour am I ? ' The Gospel answers the question of duty by pointing us to love. Wouldst thou know who is thy neighbour ? Become a neighbour to all by the utmost service thou canst do them in their need. And so the Gospel would not only abolish man's enmity, but bridge over man's separation. 2. The Parable which follows in St. Luke's narrative ^ •« St. Luke seems closely connected with that just com- li. 5-13 mented upon. It is also a story of a good neighbour who gives in our need, but presents another aspect of the truth to which the Parable of the Good Samaritan had pointed. Love bends to our need : this is the objective manifestation of the Gospel. Need looks up to love, and by its cry elicits the boon which it seeks. And this is the subjective experience of the Gospel. The ono underlies the story of the first Parable, the other that of the second. This second ParnVjlp is strung to the request of some 3/6 Jesus the Messiah disciples to be taught what to pray/' A man has a • St. Luke friend who, long after nightfall, unexpectedly "^^^ ^ comes to him from a journey. He has nothing in the house, yet he must provide for his need, for hospitality demands it. Accordingly, though it be so late, he goes to his friend and neighbour to ask him for three loaves, stating the case. On the other hand, the friend so asked refuses, since at that late hour he has retired to bed with his children, and to grant his request would imply not only inconvenience to himself, but the disturbing of the whole household. It is not ordinaiy but, so to speak, extra- ordinary prayer, which is here alluded to. To return to the Parable : the question (abruptly broken off from the beginning of the Parable in ver. 5) is, what each of us would do in tha circumstances just ^^ detailed. The answer is implied in what follows.^ It points to continued importunity, which would at last obtain what it needs. ' I tell you, even if he will not give him, rising up, because he is his friend, yet at least on account of his importunity, he will rise up and give him as many as he needeth.' It is a gross misunder- standing to describe this as presenting a mechanical view of prayer ; as if it implied either that God was unwilling to answer, or else that prayer, otherwise unheard, would be answered merely for its importunity. The lesson is that where, for some reasons, there are or seem special difficulties to an answer to our prayers, the importunity arising from the sense of our absolute need, and the knowledge that He is our Friend and that He has bread, will ultimately prevail. The difficulty is not as to the giving, but as to the giving then — 'rising up ;' and this is overcome by perseverance, so that (to return to the Parable) if he will not rise up because he is his friend, yet at least he will rise because of his importunity, and not only give him ' three ' loaves, but, in general, ' as many as he needeth.' So important is the teaching of this Parable that Christ makes detailed application of it. He bids us ' ask,' and that earnestly and believingly ; ' seek,' and that Parable of the Foolish Rich Man 377 energetically and instantly ; ' knock,' and that intently and loudly. Ask — He is a Friend, and we shall ' receive ; ' 'seek' — it is there, and we shall 'find;' 'knock' — our need is absolute, and it shall be opened to us. And such importunity applies to 'every one,' whoever he be, and whatever the circumstances which would seem to render his prayer specially difficult of answer. More than tliis, God will not deceive by the appearance of what is not reality. He will eveu give the greatest gift. The Parabolic relation is now not that of friends, but of father and son. If the son ask for bread, will the father give what seems such, but is only a stone ? If he ask for a fish, will he tender him what looks such, but is a serpent ? If he seeks an egg, will he hand to him what breeds a scorpion ? The need, the hunger, of the child will not, in answer to its prayer, receive at the Father's Hands that which seems, but gives not the reality of satisfaction — I'ather is poison. Let us draw the inference. Such is our conduct — how much more shall our heavenly Father give His Holy Spirit to them that ask Him ? CHAPTER LXII. THE THREE PARABLES OF WARNING : THE FOOLISH RICH MAN — THE BARREN FIG-TREE — THE GREAT SUPPER. (St. Luke xii. 13-21 ; xiii. -6-9 ; xiv. 16-24.) The three Parables which successively follow in St. Luke's (irospel may generally be designated as those ' of warning.* This holds especially true of the last two of them, which refer to the civil and the ecclesiastical polity of Israel. Each of the three Parables was spoken under circumstances which gave occasion for such illustration. • St. Luke 1. The Parable of the Foolish Rich Man." It ^*' ^^"^^ appears that some one among them that listened to Jesus, conceived the idea thMt the authority of the Great Rabbi of Nazareth might be used for his own selfish 378 Jesus the Messiah purposes. Evidently Christ must have attracted and deeply moved multitudes, or His interposition would not have been sought ; and, equally evidently, what He preached had made upon this man the impression that he might possibly enlist Him as his champion. On the other hand, Christ had not only no legal authority for interfering, but the Jewish law^ of inheritance was so clearly defined, and we may add so just, that if this person had had any just or good cause, there could have been no need for appealing to Jesus. Hence it must have been ' covetousness,' in the strictest sense, which prompted it — perhaps a wish to have, besides his own share as a younger brother, half of that additional portion which, by law, came to the eldest son of the family. This accounts for the immediate reference of our Lord to covetousness, the folly of which He showed by this almost self-evident principle — that ' not in the superabound- ing to any one [not in that wherein he has more than enough] consisteth his life, from the things which he pos- sesseth.' In other words, that part of the things which a man possesseth by which his life is sustained, consists not in what is superabundant : his life is sustained by that which he needs and vises ; the rest, the superabundance, forms no part of his life, and may, perhaps, never be of use to him. And herein lies the danger : the love of these things will engross mind and heart, and care about them will di'ive out higher thoughts and aims. The moral as regarded the Kingdom of God, and the warning not to lose it for thought of what ' perisheth with the using,' are obvious. The Parable itself consists of two parts, of which the first shows the folly, the second the sin and danger of that care for what is beyond our present need, which is the characteristic of covetousness. The rich man is surveying his land, which is bearing plentifully — evidently beyond its former yield, since the old provision for storing the corn appears no longer sufficient. In the calculations which he now makes, he looks into the future, and sees there pro- gressive increase and riches. As yet, the harvest was not reaped ; but he was already considering what to do, reckon- Parable of the Foolish Rich Man 379 ing upon the riches that would come to him. And so he resolved to pull down the old, and build larger bams, where he would store his future possessions. In these plans for the future — and it was his folly to make such absolutely — he thought not of God. His whole heart was set on the acquisition of earthly riches, not on the service of God. He remembered not his responsibility ; all that he had was for himself, and absolutely his own, to batten upon : ' Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years ; take thine ease, eat, drink, be mei-ry.' He did not even remember that there was a God Who might cut short his years. And now comes the quick, sharp contrast. ' But God said unto him' — not by revelation, nor through inward presentiment, but with awful suddenness, in those un- spoken words of fact which cannot be gainsaid or answered : ' Thou fool ! this very night ' — which follows on thy plans and purposings — ' thy soul is required of thee. But the things which thou hast prepared, whose shall they be?' Here, with the obvious evidence of the folly of such state of mind, the Parable breaks off. Its sinfulness — nay, and beyond this negative aspect of it, the wisdom of righteous- ness in laying up the good treasure which cannot be taken from us, appears in this concluding remark of Christ — ' So is he who layeth up treasure (treasureth) for himself, and is not rich towards God.' It was a barbed arrow, we might say, out of the Jewish quiver, but directed by the Hand of the Lord. For we read in the Talmud that a Rabbi told his disciples, ' Repent the day before thy death ; ' and when his dis- ciples asked him : ' Does a man know the day of his death ? ' he replied, that on that very ground he should repent to-day, lest he should die to-morrow. And so would all his days be days of repentance. The Son of Sirach, the Talmud, and the Midrash furnish similar warn- ings and parallels. But we miss in them the spiritual application made by Christ. 2. The special warning intended to be conveyed by • St. Luke ^^' Parable of Uie Barren Fvj-lree'^ suflici- xiii. 6-8 ently appears from the context. As previously 380 Jesus the Messiah explained, the Lord had not only corrected the erroneous interpretations which the Jews were giving to certain recent national occurrences, but pointed them to this higher moral of all such events, that, unless speedy national re- pentance followed, the whole people would perish. This Parable offeis not merely an exemplification of this general prediction of Christ, but sets before us that which underlies it : Israel in its relation to God ; the need of repentance ; Israel's danger ; the nature of repentance, and its urgency ; the relation of Christ to Israel ; the Gospel ; and the final judgment on impenitence. As regards the details of this Parable, we mark that the fig-tree had been specially planted by the owner in his vineyard, which was the choicest situation. This, we know, was not unusual. Fig-trees, as well as palm- and olive- trees, were regarded as so valuable, that to cut them down, if they yielded even a small measure of fruit, was popularly deemed to deserve death at the Hand of God. Ancient Jewish writings supply interesting particulars of this tree and its culture. On account of its repeated crops, it was declared not subject to the ordinance which en- joined that fruit should be left in the corners for the poor. Its artificial inoculation was known. The practice men- tioned in the Parable of digging about the tree and dunging it, is frequently mentioned in Rabbinic writings, and by the same designations. Curiously, Maimonides mentions three years as the utmost limit within which a tree should bear fruit in the land of Israel. Lastly, as trees were re- garded as by their roots undermining and deteriorating the ground, a barren tree would be of threefold disadvantage : it would yield no fruit ; it would fill valuable space, which a fruit-bearer might occupy ; and it would needlessly deteriorate the land. Accordingly, while it was forbidden to destroy fruit-bearing trees, it would, on the grounds above stated, be duty to cut down a ' barren ' or ' empty ' tree. These particulars will enable us more fully to under- stand the details of the Parable. Allegorically, the fig- tree served in the Old Tcstjinient as emblem of the Jewish Parable of the Barren Fig-Tree 381 nation *; in the Talmud, rather as that of Isrucls lore, ;iiid ht'nce of the leaders and the pious of the people. The vineyard is in the New Testament the symbol of the Kingdom of God, as distinct from the nation of Israel.'' Thus far then, the Parable may be XX. i&c. ;' thus translated : God called Israel as a nation, to Jewith and planted it in the most favoured spot — as a thought the fiof-tree in the vineyard of His own Kiny-dom. two were o j o scarcely ' And He Came seeking,' as He had every riglit to Bepara c . ^^^ ^ fruit thereon, and found none.' It was the third year (not after three years, but evidently in the third year, when the third year's crop should have appeared), that He had vainly looked for fruit, when He turned to His Vinedresser — the Messiah, to Whom the vineyard is com- mitted as its King — with this direction : ' Cut it down — wh}- doth it also deteriorate the soil?' It is barren, though in the best position ; as a fig-tree it ought to bear figs, and here the best ; it fills the place which a good tree might occupy ; and besides, it deteriorates the soil. And its three years' barrenness has established (as before ex- plained) its utterly hopeless character. Then it is that the Divine Vinedresser, in His infinite compassion, pleads, and with far deeper reality than either Abraham or Moses could have entreated, for the fig-tree which Himself had planted and tended, that it should be spared ' this year also,' ' until then that I shall dig about it, and dung it' — till He labour otherwise than before, even by His Own Presence and Words, nay, by laying to its roots His most precious Blood. * And if then it bear fruit ' — here the text abruptly breaks off, as implying that in such case it would, of course, be allowed to remain ; ' but if not, then against the future (coming) year shalt thou cut it down.' The Parable needs no further commentation. 3. The third Parable of warning — that of the Great • St. Luke Snjypei- '^ — refers not to the political state of Israel, xiv. 16-24 but to their ecclesiastical status, and their con- tinuance as the possessors and representatives of the Kingdom of God. It was spoken after the return of Jesus from the Feast of the Dedication, and therefore carries us 3o2 Jesus the Messiah beyond tlie point in this history which we have reached. Accordingly, the attendant circumstances will be explained in the sequel. What led up to the Pai'able of 'the Great Supper' happened after these things : after His healing of the man with the dropsy in sight of them all on the Sabbath, after His twofold rebuke of their perversion of the Sabbath- Law, and of those marked characteristics of Pharisaism, which showed how far they were from bringing forth fruit worthy of the Kingdom, and how they misrepresented • St. Luke ^^^® Kingdom, and were utterly unfit ever to do xiv. 1-11 otherwise.'' The Lord had spoken of making a feast, not for ones kindred, nor for the rich — whether such outwardly, or mentally and spiritually from the standpoint of the Pharisees — but for the poor and afflicted. This would imply true spirituality, because that fellowship of giving, which descends to others in order to raise them as brethren, not condescends, in order to be raised by them as their Master and Superior.^ And He had concluded with these words : ' And thou shalt be blessed — because they have not to render back again to thee, for it shall be rendered back to thee again in the Resurrection of the Just.'° It was this last clause — but separated, in true Phari- saic spirit, from that which had preceded and indicated the motive — on which one of those present now commented, probably with a covert, perhaps a provocative, reference to what formed the subject of Christ's constant teaching : ' Blessed whoso shall eat bread in the Kingdom of Heaven.' An expression this, which to the Pharisee meant the com- mon Jewish expectancy of a great feast at the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom. Whether or not it was the object of his exclamation, as sometimes religious common- places or platitudes are in our days, to interrupt the course of Christ's rebukes, or as before hinted, to provoke Hira to unguarded speech, must be left undetermined. What is chiefly apparent is, that this Pharisee separated what Christ said about the blessings of the first Resurrection from that with which He had connected them as logically Parable of the Great Supper 383 their moral antecedent : viz. love, in opposition to self- assertion and self-seeking. The l^harisee's words imply that like his class he, at any rate, fully expected to share in these blessings as a matter of course, and because he was a Pharisee. Thus to leave out Christ's anteceding words was not only to set them aside, but to pervert His saying, and to place the blessedness of the future on the very opposite basis from that on which Christ had rested • St. Luke it- Accordingly, it was to this man personally * '''^- ^'^ that the Parable was addressed. There can be no difficulty in understanding the main ideas underlvinsr the Parable. The man who made the ' Great Supper ' was He Who had, in the Old Testament, prepared ' a feast of fat things.' '^ The ' bidding ' many ' preceded the actual announcement of the day and hour of the feast. This general announcement was made in the Old Testament institutions and prophecies, and the guests bidden were those in the city, the chief men — not the ignorant and those out of the way, but the men who knew, and read, and expounded these prophecies. At last the preparations were ended, and the Master sent out His Servant — referring to whomsoever He would em- ploy for that purpose. It was to intimate to the persons formerly bidden, that everything was now ready. Then it was that, however differing in their special grounds for it, or expressing it with more or less courtesy, they were all at one in declining to come. The feast to which they had been bidden some time before, and to which they had ap- parently agreed to come, was, when actually announced as ready, not what they had expected, at any rate not what they regarded as more desirable than what they had, and must give up in order to come to it. For — and this seems one of the principal points in the Parable — to come to that feast, to enter into the Kingdom, implies the giving up of something that seems, if not necessary, yet most desirable, and the enjoyment of which a])pears only reasonable. Then let the feast be for those who were in need of it, and to whom it would be a feast : the poor and those afflicted — the maimed, and blind and lame, on whom those 3^4 Jesus the Messiah great citizens who had been first bidden would look down. This, with reference to, and in higher spiritual explanation of what Christ had previously said about bidding such to •St. Luke ^^^ feasts of fellowship and love.^ Accordingly, xiv. 13 t]2e Servant is now directed to ' go out quickly into the (larger) streets and the (narrow) lanes of the City ' — a trait which shows that the scene is laid in ' the City,' the professed habitation of God. The importance of this circumstance is evident. It not only explains who the first bidden chief citizens were, but also that these poor were the despised ignorant, and the maimed, lame, and blind — such as the publicans and sinners. These are they in ' the streets ' and ' lanes ; ' and the Servant is directed, not only to invite, but to ' bring them in,' as otherwise they might naturally shrink from coming to such a feast. But even so, ' there is yet room ; ' for the Lord of the house has, in His liberality, prepared a very great feast for very many. And so the Servant is once more sent, so that the Master's ' house may be filled.' But now he is bidden to ' go out,' outside the City, outside the Theocracy, ' into the highways and hedges,' to those who travel along the world's great highway, or who have fallen down weary, and rest by its hedges ; into the busy, or else weary, heathen world. This reference to the heathen world is the more apparent that, according to the Talmud, there were commonly no hedges round the fields of the Jews. And this time the direction to the Servant is not, as in regard to those naturally bashful outcasts of the City — who would scarcely venture to the great house — to ' bring them in,' but ' constrain ' [without a pronoun] ' to come in.' Their being invited by a Lord Whom they had not known, per- haps never heard of before, to a City in which they were strangers, and to a feast for which — as wayfarers, or as resting by the hedges, or else as working within their en- closure— they were wholly unprepared, required special urgency, ' a constraining,' to make them either believe in it, or come to it from where the messengers found them, and that without preparing for it by dress or otherwise. And so the house would be filled. The Three Parables of the Gospel 385 Here the Pfinible al^niptly breaks off. What follows are the words of our Lord in explanation and application of it to the company then present : ' For I say unto you, that none of those men which were bidden shall taste of i\[y Supper.' And this was the final answer to this Pharisee and to those with him at that table, and to all such perversion of Christ's Words and misapplication of God's Promises as he and they were guilty of. CHAPTER LXIII. THE THREE PARABLES OF THE GOSPEL : THE LOST SHEEP, THE LOST DRACHM, THE LOST SON. (St. Luke XV. ) A SIMPLE perusal of the three Parables grouped together in the fifteenth chapter of St. Luke's Gospel, will convince us of their connection. They are peculiarly Gospel Parables ' of the recovery of the lost : ' in the first instance, through the unwearied labour ; in the second, through the anxious care, of the owner ; and in the third Parable, through the never-ceasing love of the Father. Properly to understand these Parables, the circum- stances which elicited them must be kept in view. As Jesus preached the Gospel of God's call, not to those who had, as they imagined, prepared themselves for the King- dom by study and good works, but as that of a door open, and a welcome free to all, ' all the publicans and sinners were [constantly] drawing near to Him.' It has been shown, that the Jewish teaching concerning repentance was quite other than, nay, contrary to, that of Christ. Theirs was not a Gospel to the lost : they had nothing to say to sinners. They called upon them to ' do penitence,' and then Divine Mercy, or rather Justice, would have its reward for the penitent. Christ's Gospel was to the lost as such. It told them of forgiveness, of what the Saviour was doing, and the Father purposed and felt for them ; and that, not in the future and as reward of their penitence, but now in the immediate present. From what we know CC 386 Jesus the Messiah of the Pharisees, we can scarcely wonder that ' they were ninrmuring at Hira, saying, This man I'eceiveth " sinners," and eateth with them.' Whether or not Christ had on this, « St. Matt, as on other occasions,* joined at a meal with such IX. 10, 11 persons, their charge was so far true, that ' this One,' in contrariety to the principles and practice o\ Rabbinism, ' received sinners ' as such, and consorted with them. These three Parables proceed on the view that the work of the Father and of Christ, as regards ' the Kingdom,' is the same ; that Christ was doing the work of the Father, and that they who know Christ know the Father also. That work was the restoration of the lost ; Christ had come to do it, and it was the longing of the Father to welcome the lost home again. Further, and this is only second iu importance, the lost was still God's property ; and he who had wandered farthest was a child of the Father, and con- sidered as such. In other particulars there are, however, differences, all the more marked that they are so finely shaded. These concern the lost^ their restoration^ and its results. 1 . The Parable of the Lost 8heep. — The Lost Sheep is only one among a hundred : not a very great loss. Yet which among us would not, even from the common motives of ownership, leave the ninety-and-nine, and go after it, all the more that it has strayed into the wilderness ? At the outset we remark that this Parable and the next, that of the Lost Drachm, are intended as an answer to the Pharisees. Hence they are addressed to them. Should not the Christ do even as they would have done to the straying and almost lost sheep of His own flock ? We think not only of those sheep which Jewish pride and superciliousness had left to go astray, but of our own natural tendency to wander. And we recall the saying of St. Peter, which, no doubt, looked back upon this Parable : ' Ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.' ^ It is not difficult in imagination to follow the Parabolic picture : how in its folly and ignorance the sheep strayed further and Parable of the Lost Drachm 387 further, and at last was lost in solitude and among stony places ; how the shepherd followL-d and found it, weary and footsore ; and then with tender care lifted it on his shoulder, and can'ied it home, glad that he had found the lost. And not only this, but when, after long absence, he returned home with his found sheep, that now nestled close to its Saviour, he called together his friends, and bade them rejoice with him over the erst lost and now found treasure. To mark lier(> the contrast between the teaching of Christ and that of the Pharisees, we put down in all its nakedness the message which Pharisaism brought to the lost. Christ said to them : ' There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.' Pharisaism said — and we quote literally— ' There is joy before God when those who pro- voke Him perish from the world.' 2. In proceeding to the second Parable, that of the Lost Drachm, we must keep in mind that in the iirzt the danger of being lost arose from the natural tendency of the sheep to wander. In the second Parable it is no longer our natural tendency to which our loss is attributable. The drachm (about 7hd. of our money) has been lost, as the woman, its owner, was using or counting her money. The loss is the more sensible as it is one out of only ten, which constitute the owner's property. But it is still in the house — not like the sheep that had gone astray — only covered by the dust that is continually accumulating from the work and accidents around. And so it is more and more likely to be buried under it, or swept into chinks and corners, and less and less likely to be found as time passes. But the woman lights a lamp, sweeps the house, and seeks diligently till she has found it. And then she calleth together those around, and bids them rejoice with her over the finding of the lost part of her possessions. And so there is joy in the presence of the Angels over one sinner that repenteth. The interest of this Parable centres in the search. 3. If it has already appeared that the two first Para- bles are not merely a repetition, in different form, of the c c 2 388 Jesus the Messiah same thouglit, but represent two different aspects and causes of the ' being lost ' — the essential difference between them appears even more clearly in the third Parable, that of the Lost Son. Before indicating it in detail, we may mark the similarity in form, and the contrast in spirit, of analogous Rabbinic Parables. The Midrash '^ relates how when Moses fed the sheep of Jethro in the wilderness, and a kid had gone astray, he went after it, and found it drinking at a spring. As he thought it might be weary, he laid it on his shoulder and brought it back ; when God said that, because he had shown pity on the sheep of a man. He would give him His own sheep, Israel, to feed. As a parallel to the second Parable, this may be quoted as similar in form, though very different in spirit, when a Rabbi notes that, if a man had lost a sela (drachm) or anything else of value in his house, he would light ever so many lights till he had found what provides for only one hour in this world. How much more, then, should he search, as for hidden treasures, for the words of the Law, on which depends the life of this and of the world to come ! And in regard to the high place which Christ assigin d to the repenting sinner, we may note that, accor- ding to the leading Rabbis, the penitents would stand nearer to God than the ' perfectly righteous,' since, in Is. Ivii. 19, peace was first bidden to those who had been afar off, and then only to those near. It may be added that besides illustrations, to which reference will be made in the sequel. Rabbinic traditioii supplies a parallel to at least part of the third Parable, that of the Lost Son. It tells us that while prayer may some- times find the gate of access closed, it is never shut against repentance, and it introduces a Parable in which a king sends a tutor after his son, who, in his wickedness, had left the palace, with this message : ' Return, my son ! ' to which the latter replied : ' With what face can I return ? I am ashamed ! ' On which the father sends this message : ' My son, is there a son who is ashamed to return to his father — - and shalt thou not return to thy father ? Thou shalt re- turn.' So, continues the Midrash, had God sent Jeremiah Parable of the Prodigal Son 389 after Israel in the hour of their sin with the call to return,* and the comfortins: reminder that it was to their • Jer. 111. 12 _, , ° Father. In the Parable of ' ihe Lost Son,' the main interest centres in his restoration. It is not now to the innate ten- dency of his nature, nor yet to the work and dust in the house that the loss is attributable, but to the personal, free choice of the individual. He does not stray ; he does not fall aside — he wilfully departs, and under aggravated cir- cumstances. It is the younger of two sons of a father who is equally loving to both, and kind even to his hired ser- vants, whose home, moreover, is one not only of sufficiency but of wealth. The demand which he makes for the ' por- ' ion of property falling ' to him is founded on the Jewish l^aw of Inheritance. Presumably, the father had only these two sons. The elder would receive tAvo portions, the younger the third of all movable property. The father could not have disinherited the younger son, although, if there had been several younger sons, he might have divided the property falling to them as he wished, provided he expressed only his disposition, and did not add that such or such of the children were to have a less share or none at all. On the other hand, a man might, during his lifetime, dispose of all his property by gift, as he chose, to the disadvantage or even the total loss of ,he first- born, or of any other children; nay, he might give all to strangers. It thus appears that the younger son was, by law, fully entitled to his share of the possessions, although, of coiirse, he had no right to claim it during his father's lifetime. His conduct, whatever his motives, was most heartless as re- garded his father, and sinful as before God. Such a disposition could not prosper. The father had yielded to his demand, and, to be as free as possible from control and restraint, the younger son had gone into a far country. There the natural sequences soon appeared, and his property was wasted in riotous livingf. The next scone in the history is misunderstood when the objection is raised, that the young man's misery is 390 Jesus the Messiah there represented as the result of Providential circumstances rather than of his own misdoing. For our awakening, in- deed, we are frequently indebted to what is called the Providence, but what is really the manifold working to- gether of the grace of God. And so we find special mean- ing in the occurrence of this famine. That in his want ' he clave to one of the citizens of that country,' seems to indicate that the man had been unwilling to engage the dissipated young stranger, and only yielded to his desperate importunity. This also explains how he employed him in the lowest menial service, that of feeding swine. To a Jew there was more than degradation in this, since the keeping of swine (although perhaps the ownership rather than the feed- ing) was prohibited to Israelites under a curse. And even in this demeaning service he was so evil entreated, that for veiy hunger he would fain have ' filled his belly with the carob- pods that the swine did eat.' But here the same harshness which had sent him to such employment met him on the part of all the people of that country : ' and no man gave unto him,' even sufficient of such food. What perhaps gives additional meaning to this description is the Jewish saying, ' When Israel is reduced to the carob-tree, they become repentant.' It was this pressure of extreme want which first showed to the younger son the contrast between the country and the circumstances to which his sin had brought him, and the plentiful provision of the home he had left, and the kindness which provided bread enough and to spare for even the hired servants. There was only a step between what he said, ' having come into him- self,' and his resolve to return, though its felt difficulty seems implied in the expression, 'I will arise.' Nor would he go back with the hope of being reinstated in his position as son, seeing he had already received and wasted in sin his portion of the patrimony. All he sought was to be made as one of the hired servants. And alike from true feeling, and to show that this was all his pretence, he Vv'ould pi-eface his request by the confession, that he had sinned ' against heaven ' — a frequent Hebraism for ' against Parable of the Prodigal Son 391 God ' — and in the sight of his father, and hence could no longer lay claim to the name of son. But the result was far other than he could have ex- pected. When we read that, ' while he was yet afar off, his father saw him,' we must evidently understand it in the sense, that his father had been always on the outlook for him, an impression which is strengthened by the later command to the servants to ' bring the calf, the fatted • St. Luke one,' * as if it had been specially fattened against XV. 23 ijis return. As he now saw him, 'he was moved with compassion, and he ran, and he fell on his neck, and covered him with kisses.' Such a reception rendered the purposed request, to be made as one of the hired servants, impossible. The father's love had anticipated his con- fession, and rendered its self-spoken sentence of condemna- tion impossible. And so he only made confession of his sin and wrong — not only as preface to the request to be taken in as a servant, but as the outgoing of a humbled, gi'ateful, truly penitent heart. Here it deserves special notice, as marking the absolute contrast between the teaching of Christ and Rabbinism, that we have in one of the oldest Rabbinic works a Parable exactly the reverse of this, when the son of a friend is redeemed from bondage, not as a son, but to be a slave, that so obedience might be demanded of him. The inference drawn is, that the obedience of the redeemed is not that of filial love of the pardoned, but the enforcement of the claim of the master. They have reached the house. And now the father would not only restore the son, but convey to him the evidence of it, and he would do so before, and by the servants. The three tokens of wealth and position are to be furnished him. 'Quickly' the servants are to bring forth the ' sfo/a,' the upper garment of the higher classes, and that 'the first' — the best, and this instead of the tattered, coarse raiment of the foreign swineherd. Similarly, the finger-ring for his hand, and the sandals for his un- shod feet, would indicate the sou of the house. And to mark this still further, the servants are not only to bring these articles, but themselves to ' put them on ' the son, 392 Jesus the Messiah so as thereby to own his mastership. And yet further, the calf, ' the fatted one ' for this very occasion, was to be killed, and there was to be a joyous feast, for ' this ' his son ' was dead, and is come to life again ; was lost and is found.' While this was going on, so continues the Parable, the elder brother was still in the field. On his return home, he inquired of a servant the reason of the festivities which he heard within the house. The harsh words of reproach with which he next set forth his own apparent wrongs could have only one meaning : his father had never rewarded him for his services. But in this very thing lay the error of the elder son, and to apply it- -the fatal mistake of Pharisaism. The elder son regarded all as of merit and reward, as work and return. But it is not so. We mark, first, that the same tenderness which had welcomed the returning son now met the elder brother. The father spoke to the angry man, not in the language of merited reproof, but addressed him lovingly as ' sou,' and reasoned with him. And then, when he had shown him his wrong, he would fain recall him to better feeling by telling him of the other as his ' brother.' * » St. Luke But t^6 main point is this. There can be here XV. 32 jjQ question of desert. So long as the son is in His Father's house, He gives in His great goodness to His child all that is the Father's. But this poor lost one — still a son and a brother — he has not got any reward, only been taken back again by a Father's love, when he had come back to Him in the misery of his need. This son, or rather, as the other should view him, this 'brother,' had been dead, and was come to life again ; lost, and was found. And over this ' it was meet to make merry and be glad,' not to murmur. Such murmuring came from thoughts of work and pay — wrong in themselves, and foreign to the proper idea of Father and son ; such joy, from a Father's heart. The elder brother's were the thoughts of a servant : of service and return ; the younger brother's was the welcome of a son in the mercy and everlasting love of a Father 393 CHAPTER LXIV. THE UNJUST STEWARD — DIVES AND LAZARUS. (St. Luke xvi.) Although widely differing in their object and teaching, the last group of l^arables spoken during this part of Christ's ]\linistry is, at least outwardly, connected by a leading thought. The word by which we would string them together is Rhjhti'onsness. There are three Parables of the t/va-ighteous : the Unrighteous Steward, the Un- righteous Owner, and the Unrighteous Dispenser, or Judge. And these are followed by two other Parables of the /S'e//-rigliteous : Self-righteousness in its Ignorance, and its dangers as regards oneself; and Self-Kighteousness in its Harshness, and its dangers as regards others. But when this outward connection has been marked, we have gone the utmost length. Much more close is the internal connection between some of them. I. The Farahle of the JJnjnxt Steward. — Here we dis- • St. Luke tinguish — 1. The illustrative Parable.* 2. Its byent moral.^ 3. Its application in the combination «w. 10-13 of the moral with some of the features of the Parable.*^ 1. The illustrative Parable.** This may be said to .1 vv. 1-8 converge to the point brought out in the conclud- <■ vcr. 8 -jjg verse : " the prudence which characterises the dealings of the children of this world in regard to their own generation — or, to translate the Jewish forms of ex- pression into our own phraseology, the wisdom with which those who care not for the world to come choose the means most effectual for attaining their worldly objects. It is this prudence by which their aims are so effectually secured, and it alone, which is set before ' the children of light,' as that from which to learn. And the lesson is the more practical, that those primarily addressed had hitherto been among these men of the world. Let them learn from the serpent its wisdom, and from the dove its harm- 394 Jesus the Messiah lessness ; from the children of this world, their prudence as regarded their generation, while, as children of the new light, they must remember the higher aim for which that prudence was to be employed. Thus would that Mamon which is ' of unrighteousness ' and which certainly ' faileth,' become to us treasure in the world to come — welcome us there, and, so far from ' failing,' prove permanent — welcome us in everlasting tabernacles. Thus also shall we have made friends of the ' Mamon of unrighteousness,' and that, which from its nature must fail, become eternal gain. The connection between this Parable and what the Lord had previously said concerning returning sinners, is evidenced by the use of the term ' wasting ' in the charge against the steward, just as the prodigal son had ' wasted ' a St. Luke his substance.* Only, in the present instance, ^^- ^^ the property had been entrusted to his adminis- tration. As regards the owner, his designation as ' rich ' seems intended to mark how large was the property com- mitted to the steward. The ' steward ' was not, as in St. Luke xii. 42-46, a slave, but one employed for the adminis- tration of the rich man's affairs, subject to notice of «> St. Luke dismissal.^ He was accused — the term implying XVI. 2, 3 malevolence, but not necessarily a false charge — not of fraud, but of wasting his master's goods. And his master seems to have convinced himself that the chai-ge was true, since he at once gives him notice of dismissal. The latter is absolute, and not made dependent on the ' account of his stewardship,' which is only asked when he gives up his office. Nor does the steward either deny the charge or plead any extenuation. His great concern rather is, during the time still left of his stewardship, before he gives up his accounts, to provide for his future support. The only alternative before him in the future is that of manual labour or mendicancy. But for the former he has not strength ; from the latter he is restrained by shame. Then it is that his ' prudence ' suggests a device by which, after his dismissal, he may without begging be Parable of the Unjust Steward 395 received into the houses of those whom he has made friends. It must be borne in mind that he is still steward, and, as such, has full power of disposing of his master's affairs. When, therefore, he sends for one after another oi his master's debtors, and tells each to alter the sum in the bond, ho does not suggest to them forgery or fraud, but, in remittingpart of the debt, he acts, although unrighteously, yet strictly within his rights. Thus neither the steward nor the debtors could be charged with criminality, and the master must have been struck with the cleverness of a man who had thus secured a future provision by making friends, so long as he had the means of so doing (ere his Mam on of unrighteousness failed). A few archaeological notices may help the interpretation of details. It seems likely, that the ' bonds,' or rather ' writings,' of these debtors were written acknowledg- ments of debt. In the first case they are stated as ' a hundred haili of oil,' in the second as ' a hundred cor of wheat.' In regard to these quantities we have the pre- liminary difficulty, that three kinds of measurement were in use in Palestine — that of the ' Wilderness,' or the original Mosaic ; that of ' Jerusalem,' which was more than a fifth larger ; and that of Sepphoris, probably the common Galilean measurement, which, in turn, was more than a fifth larger than the Jerusalem measure. Assuming the measurement to have been the Galilean, one hatU would have been equal to about 39 Hires. In the Parable, the first debtor was owing 100 of these ?>flf/i, or, accor- ding to the Galilean measurement, about 3,900 lUrea of oil. The value of the oil would probably amount to about 10^. of our money, and the remission of the steward, of course, to hi. The second debtor owed ' a hundred cor of wheat ' — that is, in dry measure, ten times the amount of the oil of the first debtor, since the cor was ten ephali or haih, the ephah three senJi, the seah six qahh, and the qahh four Zoj/. This must be borne in mind, since the dry and the fluid measures wei-e precisely the same ; and here, also, their threefold computation (the ' Wilderness,' the ' Jerusalem,' 396 Jesus the Messiah and the ' Galilean ') obtained. Striking an average between the various prices mentioned we infer that the hundred cor would represent a debt of from lOOZ. to 125Z., and the re- mission of the steward (of 20 cor), a sum of 20^. to 2hl. Comparatively small as these sums may seem, they are in reality large, remembering the value of money in Palestine, which, on a low computation, would be five times as great as in our own country. These two debtors are only men- tioned as instances, and so the unjust steward would easily secure for himself friends by the ' Mamon of unrighteous- ness ' — the term Mamon, we may note, being derived from the Syriac and Rabbinic word of the same kind (signifying to apportion). Another point on which acquaintance with the history and habits of those times throws light is, how the debtors could so easily alter the sum mentioned in their respective bonds. For the text implies that this, and not the writing of a new bond, is intended ; since in that case the old one would have been destroyed, and not given back for altera- tion. The materials on which the Jews wrote were of the most diverse kind : leaves, as of olives, palms, the carob, &c. ; the rind of the pomegranate, the shell of walnuts, &c. ; the prepared skins of animals (leather and parch- ment) ; and the product of the papyrus, used long before the time of Alexander the Great for the manufacture of paper, and known in Talmudic writings by the same name. But what interests us more, as we remember the ' tablet ' on which Zacharias wrote the name of the future Baptist,* • St. Luie is the circumstance that it bears not only the '•^^ same name, but that it seems to have been of such common use in Palestine. It consisted of thin pieces of wood fastened or strung together. The Mishnah enumerates three kinds of them : those where the wood was covered with papyrus, those where it was covered with wax, and those where the wood was left plain to be written on with ink. The latter was of different kinds. Black ink was prepared of soot, or of vegetable or mineral sub- stances. Gum Arabic and Egyptian and vitriol seem also Parable of the Unjust Steward 397 to have been used in writing. A pen made of reed was employed, and the reference in an Apostolic Epistle * to writing ' with ink and pen ' finds even its verbal counterpart in the Midrash. Indeed, the public ' writer ' — a trade very common in the East — went about with a reed-pen behind his ear, as badge of his em- ployment. With the reed-pen we ought to mention its necessary accompaniments : the pen-knife, the inkstand (which, when double, for black and red ink, was some- times made of earthenware), and the ruler — it being re- garded by the stricter set as unlawful to write any words of Holy Writ on any unlined material, no doubt to ensure correct writing and reading. In all this we have not referred to the practice of writing on leather specially prepared with salt and flour, nor to the parchment in the stricter sense. For "we are here chiefly interested in the common mode of writing, that on the ' tablet,' and especially on that covered with wax. Indeed, a little vessel holding wax was generally attached to it. On such a tablet they wrote, of course, not with a reed-pen, but with a stylus, generally of iron. This in- strument consisted of two parts, which might be detached from each other : the hard pointed ' writer,' and the 'blotter,' which was flat and thick for sniootliing out letters and words which had been written or rather graven in the wax. There can be no question that acknowledgments of debt, and other transactions, were ordinarily written down on such wax-covered tablets ; for not only is direct reference made to it, but there are special provisions in regard to documents where there are such erasures, or rather efiace- ments — such as, that they require to be noted in the docu- ment, under what conditions and how the witnesses are in such cases to affix their signatures, &c. — ^just as there are particular injunctions how witnesses who could not write are to affix their mark. 2. We return to notice the moral of the Parable.*' It is •• St. Luke put in these words : ' Make to yourselves friends out ^^'- ^ of [by means of] the Mamon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into ever- 398 Jesus the Messiah lasting tabernacles.' From what has been previously stated the Dieaning of these words offers little serious difficulty. We recall the circumstance that they were primarily addressed to converted publicans and sinners, to whom the expression ' Mamon of unrighteousness ' — of which there are close analogies, and even an exact transcript in the Targum — would have an obvious meaning. Again, the addition of the definite article leaves no doubt, that ' the everlasting tabernacles' mean the well-known heavenly home ; in which sense the term ' tabernacle ' is, indeed, already used in the Old Testament. But as a whole we regard it as an adaptation to the Parable of the well- known Rabbinic saying, that there were certain graces of which a man enjoyed the benefit here, while the capital, so to speak, remained for the next world. And if a more literal interpretation were demanded, we cannot but feel the duty incumbent on those converted publicans, nay, in a sense, on us all, to seek to make for ourselves of the Mamon — be it of money, of knowledge, of strength, or opportunities — which to many has, and to all may so easily become that ' of unrighteousness ' — such lasting and spiritual application : gain such friends by means of it, that, ' when it fails,' as fail it must when we die. all may not be lost, but rather meet us in heaven. Thus would each deed done for God with this Mamon become a friend to greet us as we enter the eternal world. 3. The suitableness both of the Parable and of its appli- cation to the audience of Christ appears from its similarity to what occurs in Jewish writings. We almost seem to hear the very words of Christ : ' He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much,' in this of the Midrash : ' The Holy One, blessed be His Name, does not give great things to a man until he has been tried in a small matter ; ' which is illustrated by the history of Moses and of David, who were both called to rule from the faithful guiding of sheep. Considering that the Jewish mind would be familiar with such modes of illustration, there could have been no misunderstandinp- of the words of Christ. These converted Parable of Dives and Lazarus 399 publicans might think that theirs was a very narrow sphere of service, one of little importance ; or else, like the Phari- sees, that faithful administration of the things of this world (' the Mamon of unrighteousness ') had no bearing on the possession of the true riches in the next world. In answer to the first difficulty, Christ points out that the principle of service is the same, whether applied to much or to little ; that the one was, indeed, meet preparation for, and, in • St Luke truth, the test of the other. '^ Therefore, if a man ^^•10 failed in faithful service of God in his worldly matters, could he look for the true Mamon, or riches of the world to come ? Would not his unfaithfulness in the lower stewardship imply unfitness for the higher ? And — still in the language of the Parable — if they had not proved faithful in mere stewardship, ' in that which was another's,' could it be expected that they would be exalted from stewardship to proprietorship ? And the ultimate applica- tion of all was this, that dividedness was impossible in the service of God.'' There is absolutely no distinc- tion to the disciple between spiritual matters and worldly, and our common usage of the words secular and spiritual is derived from a serious misunderstanding and mistake. To the secular, nothing is spiritual ; and to the spiritual, nothing is secular : No servant can serve two Masters ; ye cannot serve God and Mamon. 11. The Parable of Dives and Lazarus.'^ — Although 14-31 pi'iiwarily spoken to the Pharisees, and not to the disciples, yet, as will presently appear, it was spoken for the disciples. The words of Christ had touched more than one sore spot in the hearts of the Pharisees. It is said that they derided Him — literally, ' turned up their noses at J vcr 14 Him.' ^ The mocking gestures, with which they pointed to His publican-disciples, would be ac- companied by mocking words in which they would extol and favourably compare their own claims and standing with that of those new disciples of Christ. But one by one their pleas were taken up and shown to be untenable. They were persons who by outward righteousness and 400 Jesus the Messiah pretences sought to appear just before men, but God knew their hearts ; and that which was exalted among men, their Pharisaic standing and standing aloof, was • St. Luke abomination before Him.* These two points form XVI. 15 |.|^Q main subject of the Parable. Its first object was to show the great difference between the ' before men ' and the ' before God ; ' between Dives as he appears to men in this world, and as he is before God and will be in the next world. Again, the second main object of the Parable was to illustrate that their Pharisaic standing and standing aloof — the bearing of Dives in reference to a Lazarus — which was the glory of Pharisaism before men, was an abomination before God. Yet a third object of the Parable was in reference to their covetousness, the selfish use which they made of their possessions — their Mamon. But a selfish was an unrighteous use ; and, as such, would meet with sorer retribution than in the case of an unfaith- ful steward, Christ then proceeds to combat these grounds of their bearing, that they were the custodians and observers of the Law and of the Prophets, while those poor sinners had no claims upon the Kingdom of God, Yes — but the Law and the Prophets had their terminus ad qvtmi in John the Baptist, who ' brought the good tidings of the Kingdom of God.' Since then ' every one ' had to enter it by personal h n c* resolution and ' force.' ^ It was true that the "> Comp. St. p . . , p . -f-, Matt. xi. 12, Law could not fail m one tittle of it.'' But, remarks on notoriously and in everyday life, the Pharisees, ^st^LiiiT" who thus spoke of the Law and appealed to it, xvi. iG, 17 were the constant and open breakers of it, Wit- ^^^' ^^ ness here their teaching and practice concerning divorce, which really involved a breach of the seventh commandment.'^ Bearing in mind that we have here only the ' headings,' or rather the ' stepping stones,' of Christ's argument— from notes by a hearer at the time, which were afterwards given to St, Luke — we perceive how closely connected are the seemingly disjointed sentences which preface the Parable, and how aptly they introduce it. The Parable itself is Parable of Dives and Lazarus 401 strictly of the Pharisees aud their relation to the ' publicaus and sinners ' whom they despised, and to whose steward- ship they opposed thoughts of their own proprietorship. It tells in two directions: in regard to their selfish use of the literal riches — their covetousness ; and in regard to their selfish use of the figurative riches — their Pharisaic righteousness, which left poor Lazarus at their door to the dogs and to famine, not bestowing on him aught from their supposed rich festive banquets. It will be necessary in the interpretation of this Parable to keep in mind that its Parabolic details must not be ex- ploited, nor doctrines of any kind derived from them, either as to the character of the other world, the question of the duration of future punishments, or the possible moral improvement of those in GeJUnnom. All such things are foreign to the Parable, which is only a type and illus- tration of what is intended to be taught. 1. Dives and Lazarus before and after death.'' — The • St. Luke Parable opens by presenting to us ' a rich man' XVI. 16-22 'clothed in purple and byssiis, joyously faring every day in splendour." Byssus and purple were the most expensive materials, only inferior to silk, which if genuine and unmixed — for at least three kinds of silk are mentioned in ancient Jewish writings — was worth its weight in gold. Quite in accordance with this luxuriousness was the feasting every day, the description of which conveys the impression of company, merriment, and splendour. This is intended to set forth the selfish use which this man made of his wealth, and to point the contrast of his bearing to- wards Lazarus. Here also every detail is meant to mark the pitiableness of the case, as it stood out before Dives. The very name — not often mentioned in any other real, and never in any other Parabolic story — tells it : Lazanis, Laazar, a common abbreviation of Elazar, as it were, ' God help him ! ' Then we read that he ' was cast ' at his gate- way, as if to mark that the bearers were glad to throw down their unwelcome burden. Laid there, he was in full view of the Pharisee as he went out or came in, or sat in his courtyard. And as he looked at him, he was covered D D 402 Jesus the Messiah with a loathsome disease ; as he heard him, he uttered a piteous request to be filled with what fell from the rich man's table. Yet nothing was done to help his bodily- misery, and, as the word ' desiring ' implies, his longing for the ' crumbs ' remained unsatisfied. So selfish in the use of his wealth was Dives, so wretched Lazarus in his view ; so self-satisfied and unpitying was the Pharisee, so miserable in his sight and so needy the publican and sinner. ' Yea, even the dogs came and licked his sores ' — for it is not to be understood as an alleviation, but as an aggravation of his ills, that he was left to the dogs, which in Scripture are always represented as unclean animals. So it was before men. But how was it before God ? There the relation was reversed. The beggar died — no more of him here. But the Angels ' carried him away into Abraham's bosom.' Leaving aside for the present the Jewish teaching concerning tlie ' after death,' we are struck with the sublime simplicity of the figurative language used by Christ, as compared with the wild and sensuous fancies of later Rabbinic teaching on the subject. It is, indeed, true that we must not look in this Parabolic language for Christ's teaching about the ' after death.' On the other hand, while He would say nothing that was essentially divergent from the purest views entertained on the subject at that time, yet whatever He did say must, when stripped of its Parabolic details, be consonant with fact. Thus, the carrying up of the soul of the righteous by Angels is certainly in accordance with Jewish teaching, though stripped of all legendarydetails, such as about the number and the greetings of the Angels. But it is also fully in accordance with Chris- tian thought of the ministry of Angels. Again, as regards the expression ' Abraham's bosom,' it occurs, although nofc frequently, in Jewish writings. On the other hand, the appeal to Abraham as our father is so frequent, his presence and merits are so constantly invoked ; notably, he is so expressly designated as he who receives the penitent into Paradise, that we can see how congruous, especially to the higher Jewish teaching which dealt not in cotirsely sensuous descriptions of Paradise, the phrase ' Abraham's bosom ' must have been. Parable of Dives and Lazarus 403 2. Dives and Lazarus after death : " The ' great con- • St. Luke trast' fully realised, and how to enter into the XV). 23-26 Kingdom. — Here also the main interest centres in Dives. He also has died and been buried. Thus ends all his exaltedness before men. The next scene is in Hades or Sheol, the place of the disembodied spirits before the final Judgment. It consists of two divisions : the one of consolation, with all the laithful gathered unto Abraham as their father ; the other of Hery torment. Thus far in ac- cordance with the general teaching of the New Testament. As regards the details, they evidently represent the views current at the time among the Jews. According to them, the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life were the abode of the blessed. Na}", in common belief, the words of Gen. ii. 10 : * a river went out of f]den to water the garden,' in- dicated that this Eden was distinct from, and superior to, the garden in which Adam had been originally placed. With reference to it, we read that the righteous in Paradise see the wicked in GeJmuiom, and rejoice ; and, similarly, that the wicked in Geliinnom see the righteous sitting beatified in Paradise, and their souls are troubled. Again, it is consonant with what were the views of the Jews, that con- versations could be held between dead persons, of which several legendary instances are given in the Talmud. The torment, especially of thirst, of the wicked, is repeatedly mentioned in Jewish writings. The righteous is seen be- side delicious springs, and the wicked with his tongue parched at the brink of a river, the waves of which are constantly receding from him. But there is this very marked and characteristic contrast, that in the Jewish legend the beatified is a Pharitee, while the sinner tor- mented with thirst is a Publican ! Above all, we notice that there is no analogy in Rabbinic writings to the state- ment in the Parable, that there is a wide and impassable gulf between Paradise and Gehenna. To return to the Parable. When we read that Dives in torments ' lifted up his eyes,' it was, no doubt, for help, or, at least, alleviation. Then he first perceived and re- cognised the reversed relationship. The text emphatically D D 2 404 Jesus the Messiah repeats here : ' And he,' — literally, this one, as if now for the first time he realised, but only to misunderstand and misapply it, how easily superabundance might minister relief to extreme need — ' calling (viz. upon = invoking) said : " Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus." ' The invocation of Abraham, as having the power, and of Abraham as ' Father,' was natural on the part of a Jew. All the more telling is it, that the rich Pharisee should behold in the bosom of Abraham, whose child he specially claimed to be, what, in his sight, had been poor Lazarus, covered with moral sores, and, re- ligiously speaking, thrown down outside his gate. And it was the climax of the contrast that he should now have to invoke, and that in vain, his ministry, seeking it at the hands of Abraham. And here we also recall the previous Parable about making, ere it fail, friends by means of the Mamon of unrighteousness, that they may welcome us in the everlasting tabernacles. * It should be remembered that Dives now limits his re- quest to the humblest dimensions, asking only that Lazarus might be sent to dip the tip of his finger in the cooling liquid, and thus give him even the smallest relief To this Abraham replies, though in a tone of pity : ' Child,' yet decidedly — showing him, first, the rightness of the present position of things ; and, secondly, the impossibility of any alteration, such as he had asked. Dives had in his life- time received his good things ; those had been his, he had chosen them as his part, and used them for self, without communicating of them. And Lazarus had received evil things. Now Lazarus was comforted and Dives in torment. It was the right order — not that Lazarus was comforted because in this world he had suffered, nor yet that Dives was in torment because in this world he had had riches. But Lazarus received there the comfort which had been refused to him on earth, and the man who had made this world his good, and obtained there his portion, of which he had refused even the crumbs to the most needy, now received the meet reward of his unpitying, unloving, selfish life. But, besides all this, Dives had asked what Parable of Dives and Lazarus 405 was impossible : no intercourse could be held between Paradise and Gehenna, and on this account a great and impassable chasm existed between the two, so that even if they would, they could not pass from heaven to hell, nor yet from hell to those in bliss. • St. Luke 3, Application of the Parable^"' showing how rvi. 27-31 the Law and the Prophets cannot fail, and how we must now press into the Kingdom. We now find Dives pleading that Lazarus might be sent to his five brothers, who, as we infer, were of the same disposition and life as himself had been, to ' testify unto them' — the word implying earnest testimony. Presum- ably, what he so asked to be attested was, that he. Dives, was in torment ; and the expected effect, not of the testi- mony but of the mission of Lazarus,'' whom they are supposed to have known, was that these his brothers might not come to the same place. At the same time, the request seems to imply an attempt at self-justi- fication, as if during his life he had not had sufficient warning. Accordingly, the reply of Abraham is no longer couched in a tone of pity, but implies stern rebuke of Dives. They need no witness-bearer : they have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. If testimony be needed, theirs has been given and it is sufficient — a reply this, which would specially appeal to the Pharisees. And when Dives, now, perhaps, as much bent on self-justification as on the message to his brothers, remonstrates that although they had not received such testimony, yet ' if one come to them from the dead,' they would repent, the final, and as history has shown since the Resurrection of Christ, the true answer is, that ' if they hear not [give not hearing to] Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be influenced [moved : their intellects to believe, their wills to repent] if one rose from the dead.' And here the Parable, and the warning to the Pharisees, abruptly break off. When next we hear the Master's voice,'^ it is in loving application to the disciples of some of the le-sous which were implied in what He had spoken to the Pharisees. XVll 406 Jesus the Messiah CHAPTEil LXV. THE THREE LAST PARABLES OF THE PER^AN SERIES: THE UNRIGHTEOUS JUDGE — THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN — THE UNMERCIFUL SERVANT, (St. Luke xviii. 1-14 ; St. Matt, xviii. 23-35.) We must bear in mind that between the Parable of Dives and Lazarus and that of the Unjust Judge, most momentous events had intervened. These were : the visit of Jesus to Bethany, the raising- of Lazarus, the Jerusalem • St. John council agaiust Christ, the flight to Ephraim,"^ a ^'- brief stay and preaching there, and thecommence- |» St. Luke nient of His last journey to Jerusalem. i' During XVll. 11 ^|-^^g [j^g^ giQ^y progress from the borders of Galilee St. Luku to Jerusalem, we suppose the Discourses'^ and the Parable about the Coming uf the Son of Man to have been spoken. And although such utterances will be best considered in connection with Christ's later and full Discourses about ' The Last Things,' we readily per- ceive, even at this stage, how, when He set His Face towards Jerusalem, there to be offered up, thoughts and words concerning the ' End ' may have entered into all His teaching. The most common but also the most serious mistake in reference to the Parable of ' the Unjust Judge,' is to regard it as implying that, just as the poor widow insisted in her petition and was righted because of her insistence, so the disciples should persist in prayer, and would be heard because of their insistence. The inference from the Parable is not that the Church will be ultimately vindicated because she perseveres in prayer, but that she so perseveres, because God will surely right her cause : it is not that insistence in prayer is the cause of its answer, but that the certainty of that which is asked for should lead to continuance in prayer, even when all around seems to forbid the hope of answer. This is the lesson to be learned from a comparison of the Unjust Judge with the Parable of the Unjust Judge 407 Just and Holy God in His dealings with His own. If the widow persevered, knowing that although no other con- sideration, human or Divine, would influence the Unjust Judge, yet her insistence would secure its object, how much more should we ' not faint,' but continue in prayer, who are appealing to God, Who has His people and His cause at heart, even though He delay — remembering also that even this is for their sakes who pray ! And this is fully expressed in the introductory words : ' He spake also a Parable to them with reference to the need be of their always praying, and not fainting.' If it be asked, how the conduct of the Unjust Judge could serve as illustration of what might be expected from God, we answer, that the lesson in the Parable is not from the similarity, but from the contrast between the Unrigh- teous human and the Righteous Divine Judge. ' Hear what the Unrighteous Judge saith. But God [mark the emphatic position of the word], shall He not indeed vin- dicate [the injuries of, do judgment for] His elect . . . ?' In truth, this mode of argument is perhaps the most common in Jewish Parables, and occurs on almost every page of ancient Rabbinic commentaries. It is called the 'light and heavy,' and answers to our reasoning a fortiori orde 7ninore ad majus (from the less to the greater). Accord- ing to the Rabbis, ten instances of such reasoning occur in the Old Testament itself.' In the present Parable the reasoning would be : 'If the Judge of Unrighteousness ' Slid that he would vindicate, shall not the Judge of all Righteousness do judgment on behalf of His Elect? In fact, we have an exact Rabbinic parallel to the thought underlying, and the lesson derived from, this Parable. When describing how at the preaching of Jonah Nineveh repented and cried to God, His answer to the loud persis- tent cry of the people is thus explained : ' The bold (he who is unabashed) conquers even a wicked person [to grant him his request], how much more the All-Good of the world ! ' ' These ten passages are: Gen. xliv. 8; Exod. vi. 9, 12; Numb. xii. 14; Deut. xxxi. 27 ; two instances in Jerem . xii. 5 ; 1 Sam. xxiii. 3 j Prov. xi. 31 ; Esth. ix. 12 ; and Ezek. xv. 5. 4o8 Jesus the Messiah The Parable opens by laying down as a general principle the necessity and duty of the disciples alwaj^s to pray — the precise meaning being defined by the opposite, or limiting clause : ' not to faint,' that is, not ' to become weary.' The word ' always ' must be understood in the sense of under all circumstances, however apparently adverse, when it might seem as if an answer could not come, and we should therefore be in danger of ' fainting ' or becoming- weary. Thus it is argued even in Jewish writings, that a man should never be deterred from, nor cease praying — the illustration being from the case of Moses, who knew that it was decreed he should not enter the land, and yet continued praying about it. The Parable introduces to us a Judge in a city, and a widow. Except where a case was voluntarily submitted for arbitration rather than judgment, or judicial advice was sought of a sage, one man could not have formed a Jewish tribunal. Besides, his mode of speaking and acting is inconsistent with such a hypothesis. He must therefore have been one of the Judges, or municipal authorities, appointed by llerod or the Romans — perhaps a Jew, but not a Jewish Judge. Possibly, he may have been a police- magistrate, or one who had some function of that kind delegated to him. We know that, at least in Jerusalem, there were two stipendiary magistrates, whose duty it was to see to the observance of all police-regulations and the prevention of crime. At any rate there were in every locality police-officials, who watched over order and law. Frequent instances are mentioned of gross injustice and bribery in regard to the non-Jewish Judges in Palestine. It is to such a Judge that the Parable refers — one who "• St. Luke ^^^ avowedly * inaccessible to the highest motive, xviii.4 the fear of God, and not even restrained by the lower consideration of regard for public opinion. It is an extreme case, intended to illustrate the exceeding unlikeli- hood of justice being done. For the same purpose, the party seeking justice at his hands is described as a poor, unprotected widow. This widow came to the Unjust Judge (the imperfect tense in the original indicating Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican 409 repeated coming), with the urgent demand to be vindicated of her adversary: that is, that the Judge should make legal inquiry, and by a decision set her right as against him at whose hands she was suffering wrong. For reasons of his own he would not ; and this continued for a while. At last, not from any higher principle, nor even from regard for public opinion — both of which, indeed, as he avowed to himself, had no weight with him — he complied with her request, as the text (literally translated) has it : ' Yet at any • comp. St. rate * because this widow troubleth me, I will do Lukes! 8 justice for her, lest, in the end, coming she bruise me ' — do personal violence to me, attack me bodily. Then follows the grand inference from it : If the ' Judge of Unrighteousness ' speak thus, shall not the Judge of all Righteousness — God — do judgment, vindicate [by His Coming to judgment and so setting right the wrong done to His Church] ' His Elect, which cry to Him day and night, although He suffer long on account of them ' — delay His final interposition of judgment and mercy, and that, not as the Unjust Judge, but for their own sakes, in order that the number of the Elect may all be gathered in, and they fully prepared ? 2. The Parable of the Pharisee and the Puhlican, which b St. Luke follows,** is Only internally connected with that of xviii. 9-14 ' ii^Q Unjust Judgc.' It is not of unrighteous- ness, but of self-righteousness — and this, both in its posi- tive and negative aspects : as trust in one's own state, and as contempt of others. Again, it has also this connection with the previous Parable, that, whereas that of the Un- righteous Judge pointed to continuance, this to humility in prayer. Probably something had taken place which is not recorded, to occasion this Parable, which, if not directly addressed to the Pharisees, is to such as are of Pharisaic spirit. It brings before us two men going up to the Temple — whether ' at the hour of prayer,' or otherwise is not stated. Remembering that, with the exception of the Psalms for the day and the interval for a certain prescribed prayer, the service in the Temple was entirely sacrificial, 410 Jesus the Messiah we are thankful for such glimpses which show that, both in the time of public service, and still more at other times, the Temple was made the place of private prayer.* On ocomp. St. the present occasion the two men, who went to- 37'^ Acts^il. gether to the entrance of the Temple, represented 46 ;v. 12, 42 the two religious extremes in Jewish society. To the entrance of the Temple, but no farther, did the Pharisee and the Publican go together. Within the sacred enclosure — before God, where man should least have made it, began their separation. ' The Pharisee put himself by himself, and prayed thus : O God, I thank Thee that I am not as the rest of men — extortioners, unjust, adulterers — nor also as this Publican [there].' Never, perhaps, were words of thanksgiving spoken in less thankfulness than these. They referred not to what he had received, but to the sins of others by which they were separated from him, and to his own meritorious deeds by which he was separated from them. Thus his words expressed what his attitude indicated; and both were the expression, not of thank- fulness, but of boastfulness. It was the same as their bearing at feasts and in public places ; the same as their contempt and condemnation of ' the rest of men,' and espe- cially ' the publicans ; ' the same that even their designation — ' Pharisees," Separated ones' — implied. The 'rest of men' might be either the Gentiles, or more probably, the common unlearned people, whom they accused or suspected of every possible sin, according to their fundamental principle : ' The unlearned cannot be pious.' And it must be added that, as we read the Liturgy of the Synagogue, we come ever and again upon such and similar thanksgiving — that they are ' not as the rest of men.' But this was not all. From looking down upon others the Pharisee proceeded to look up to himself. Hei'e Talmudic writings offer parallelisms. They are full of references to the merits of the just, to ' the merits and righteousness of the fathers,' or else of Israel in taking upon itself the Law. And for the sake of these merits and of that righteousness, Israel, as a nation, expects general accept- ance, pardon, and temporal benefits. All spiritual benefits Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican 411 Israel as a natiou, and the pious in Israel individually, possess already, nor do they need to get them from heaven, since they can and do work them out for themselves. And here the Pharisee in the Parable sig- nificantly dropped even the form of thanksgiving. The religious performances which he enumerated are those which mark the Pharisee among the Pharisees: 'I fast twice a week, and I give tithes of all that 1 acquire.' The first of these was in pursuance of the custom of some ' more righteous than the rest,' who, as previously ex- plained, fasted on the second and fifth days of the week. But, perhaps, we should not forget that these were also the regular market days, when the country-people came to the towns, and there were special Services in the Syna- gogues, and the local Sanhedrin met — so that these saints in Israel would, at the same time, attract and receive special notice for their fasts. As for the boast about giving tithes of all that he acquired — and not merely of his land, fruits, &c. — it has already been explained that this was one of the distinctive characteristics of ' the sect of the Pharisees.' Their practice in this respect may be summed up in these words of the Mishnah : ' He tithes all that he eats, all that he sells, and all that he buys, and he is not a guest with an unlearned person [so as not possibly to partake of what may have been left untithed].' Although it may not be necessary, yet a quotation will help to show how truly this picture of the Pharisee was taken from life. Thus, the following prayer of a Rabbi is recorded : ' I thank Thee, 0 Lord my God, that Tliou hast put my part with those who sit in the Academy, and not with those who sit at the corners [money-changers and traders]. For I rise early, and the}' rise early : I rise early to the words of the Law, and they to vain things. I labour and they labour : I labour and receive a reward, they labour and receive no reward. I run and they run : I run to the life of the world to come, and they to the pit of destruction.' We also recall such painful sayings as those of Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai, to which reference has already been made — notably this, that if there were only 412 Jesus the Messiah two righteous men in the world, he and his son were these ; and if only one, it was he ! The second picture, or scene, in the Parable sets before us the reverse state of feeling from that of the Pharisee. Only we must bear in mind, that as the Pharisee is not blamed for his giving of thanks, nor yet for his good- doing, real or imaginary, so the prayer of the Publican is not answered because he was a sinner. In both cases what decides the rejection or acceptance of the prayer is, whether or not it was 'prayer. The Pharisee retains the righteousness which he had claimed for himself, whatever its value ; and the Publican receives the righteousness which he asks: both have what they desire before God. If the Pharisee ' stood by himself,' apart from others, so did the Publican : ' standing afar off,' viz. from the Pharisee — quite far back, as became one who felt himself unworthy to mingle with God's people. In accordance with this : ' He would not so much as lift his eyes to heaven,' as men generally do in prayer, ' but smote his breast ' — as the Jews still do in the most solemn part of their confession on the Day of Atonement — ' saying, God be merciful to me the sinner.' The one appealed to himself for justice, the other appealed to God for mercy. Once more, as between the Pharisee and the Publican, the seeming and the real, that before men and before God, there is sharp contrast ; and the lesson which Christ had so often pointed is again set forth, not only in regard to the feelings which the Pharisees entertained, but also to the glad tidings of pardon to the lost : ' I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified above the other.' In other words, the sentence of righteousness as from God with which the Publican went home was above, far better than, the sentence of righteousness as pronounced by himself, with which the Pharisee returned. This saying casts also light on such comparisons as between 'the righteous ' elder brother and the pardoned prodigal, or the ninety-nine tbat ' need no repentance ' and the lost that was found, or on such an utterance as this : ' Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes Parable of the Unmerciful Servant 413 and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom • St. Matt, of Heaven.' » And so the Parable ends with ^•20 the general principle, so often enunciated : ' For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased ; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.' And with this fully accords the instruction of Christ to His disciples concerning the reception of little children, which im- «> St. Luke mediately follows.** • St' Mair ^- The parable with which this series closes — x>-iu. 23-35 that of the Unmerciful Servant ^— can be treated more briefly, since the circumstances leading up to it have already been explained. We are now reaching the point where the solitary narrative of St. Luke again merges with those of the other Evangelists. The Parable of the Un- merciful Servant belongs to the Persean series, and closes it. Its connection with the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican lies in this, that Pharisaic self-righteousness and contempt of others may easily lead to unforgiveness and unmercifulness, which are utterly incompatible with a sense of our own need of Divine mercy and forgiveness. And so in the Gospel of S^. Matthew this Parable follows on the exhibition of a self-righteous, unmerciful spirit, which would reckon up how often we should forgive, forgetful of our own need of absolute and unlimited pardon a St. Matt, at the hands of God"* — a spirit, moreover, of xviii. 15-22 harshness, that could look down upon Christ's ' little ones,' in forgetfulness of our own need perhaps of cutting off even a right hand or foot to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.^ • St. Matt. T T . 1 • T-. 1 1 i xviii. 1-14, In studying this Parable, we must once more passim remind ourselves of the general canon of the need of distinguishing between what is essential in a Parable, as directly bearing on its lessons, and what is merely intro- duced for the sake of the Parable itself, to give point to its main teaching. Keeping apart the essentials of the Parable from the accidents of its narration, we have three distinct scenes, or parts, in this story. In the first, our new feelings towards our brethren are traced to our new relation towards God, 414 Jesus the Messiah as the proper spring of all our thinking, speaking, and acting. Notably, as regards forgiveness, we are to re- member the Kingdom of God : ' Therefore has the Kingdom of God become like ' — ' therefore ' : in order that thereby we may learn the duty of absolute, not limited, forgiveness — not that of ' seven,' but of ' seventy times seven.' And now this likeness of the Kingdom of Heaven is set forth in the Parable of ' a man, a King ' (as the Rabbis would have expressed it, ' a king of flesh and blood '), who would ' make his reckoning ' ' with his servants ' — not his bond- servants, but probably the governors of his provinces, or those who had charge of the revenue and finances. ' But after he had begun to reckon' — not necessarily at the very beginning of it — ' one was brought to him, a debtor of ten thousand talents.' Reckoning them only as Attic talents this would amount to the enormous sum of about two and a quarter millions sterling. No wonder that one who during his administration had been guilty of such peculation, or else culpable negligence, should, as the words ' brought to him ' imply, have been reluctant to face the king. The Parable further implies that the debt was admitted ; and hence, in the course of ordinary judicial procedure — according to the Law of Moses,* .. , and the universal code of antiquity — that "Ex.xxii. 3; 5 • 1 1 • f •! T 11 1 • Lev. xsv. ' servant, with his tamiiy and all his property, was ordered to be sold, and the returns paid into the treasury. It is not suggested that the ' payment ' thus made would have met his debt. This trait belongs not to the essentials of the Parable. Nor does the promise : ' I will pay thee all.' In truth, the narrative takes no notice of this, but on the other hand, states : ' But, being moved with compassion, the lord of that servant released him [from the bondage decreed, and which had virtually begun with his sentence], and the debt forgave he him.' A more accurate repre- sentation of our relation to God could not be made. We are the debtors to our heavenly King, Who has entrusted to us the administration of what is His, and which we have purloined or misused, incurring an unspeakable debt, Parable of the Unmerciful Servant 415 which we can never discharge, and of which, in the course of justice, unending bondage, misery, and ruin would be the proper sequence. But if in humble repentance we cast ourselves at His Feet, He is ready in infinite com- passion, not only to release us from meet punishment, but — O blessed revelation of the Gospel ! — to forgive us the debt. It is this new relationship to God which must be the foundation and the rule for our new relationship towards our fellow-servants. And this brings us to the second part, or scene, in this Parable. Here the lately pardoned servant finds one of his fellow-servants, who owes him the small sum of 100 dinars, about 4Z, 10s. In the first case, it was- the servant brought to account, and that before the king; here it is a servant finding, and that his fellow- servant ; in the first case he owed talents, in the second dinars (a six-thousandth part of them) ; in the first, ten thousand talents; in the second, one hundred dinars. Again, in the first case payment is only demanded, while in the second the man takes his fellow-servant by the throat — a not uncommon mode of harshness on the part of Roman creditors — and says : ' Pay what,' or, according to the better reading, 'if thou owest anything.' And lastly, although the words of the second debtor are almost the same as those in which the first debtor besought the king's patience, yet no mercy is shown, but he is ' cast ' [with violence] into prison, till he have paid what was due. It can scarcely be necessaiy to show the incongruous- ness or the guilt of such conduct. But this is the object of the third part, or scene, in the Parable. Here the other servants are introduced as exceedingly sorry, no doubt about the fate of their fellow-servant. Then they come to their lord, and ' clearly set forth,' or ' explain ' what had happened, upon which the Unmerciful Servant is summoned, and addressed as ' wicked servant,' not only because he had not followed the example of his lord, but because, after having received such immense favour as the entire remis- sion of his debt on entreating his master, to have refused to the entreaty of his fellow-servant even a brief delay in the payment of a small sum argued want of all mercy and 4i6 Jesus the Messiah positive wickedness. And the words are followed by the manifestation of righteous anger. As he has done, so is it done to him — and this is the final application of the Para- •st. Matt, ble.* He is delivered ' to the tormentors : ' in other xviii. 35 words, he is sent to the hardest and severest prison, there to remain till he should pay all that was due by him — that is, in the circumstances, for ever. And here we may remark that as sin has incurred a debt which can never be discharged, so the banishment, or rather the loss and misery of the sinner, will be endless. We pause to notice how near Rabbinism has come to this Parable, and yet how far it is from its sublime teach- ing. At the outset we recall that unlimited foi-giveness — or, indeed, for more than the farthest limit of three times — was not the doctrine of Rabbinism. It did, indeed, teach how freely God would forgive Israel, and it introduces a similar Parable of a debtor appealing to his creditor, and receiving the fullest and freest release of mercy, and it also draws from it the moral, that man should similarly show mercy ; but it is not the mercy of forgiveness from the heart, but of forgiveness of money debts to the poor, or of various injuries, and the mercy of benevolence and benefi- cence to the wretched. But, however beautifully Rabbin- ism at times speaks on the subject, the Gospel conception of forgiveness, even as that of mercy, could only come by experience of the infinitely higher forgiveness, and the in- comparably greater mercy, which the pardoned sinner has received in Chi'ist from our Father in Heaven. CHAPTER LXVI. Christ's discourses in per^a — close of the per^ean ministry. (St. Luke xiii. 23-30, 31-35; xiv. l-ll, 25-35; xvii. 1-10.) From the Parables we now turn to such Discourses of the Lord as belong to this period of His Ministry. Their con- sideration may be the more brief, that throughout we find points of correspondence with previous or later portions of His teaching. Discourses in Per^a 417 1. The words of our Lord, as recorded by St. Luke,*^ are »st Luke ^"^^ spoken, as in 'The Sermon on the Mount,'*' xiii. 23-30 in connection with His teaching to His disciples, comp. St. but are in reply to a question addressed to Him Matt. vii. 13, i 1.1,1 j. j.* /> ji 14 ; vv. 25- by some one — probably, a representative of the St! iSatt vii. Pharisees : "^ ' Lord, are they few, the saved ones 21.-23 [that are being saved]?' We can scarcely St. Luke xiii. doubt that the word 'saved' bore reference, not 31 to the eternal state of the soul, but to admission to the benefits of the Kingdom of God — the Messianic Kingdom, with its privileges and its judgments, such as the Pharisees understood it. The question, whether 'few' were to be saved, could not have been put from the Pharisaic point of view, if understood of personal salva- tion ; while, on the other hand, if taken as applying to part in the near-expected Messianic Kingdom, it has its distinct parallel in the Rabbinic statement, that, as re- garded the days of the Messiah (His Kingdom), it would be similar to what it had been at the entrance into the land of promise, when only two (Joshua and Caleb) out of all that generation were allowed to have part in it. As regards entrance into the Messianic Kingdom, this Pharisee, and those whom he represented, are told that the Kingdom was not theirs, as a matter of course — their question as to the rest of the world being only whether few or many would share in it — but that all must ' struggle [agonise] to enter in through the nai'row door.' ' When once the Master of the house is risen up,' to welcome His guests to the banquet, and has shut to the door, while they standing without vainly call upon Him to open it, aud He replies : ' I know you not whence ye are,' would they begin to remind Him of those covenant-privi- leges on which, as Israel after the flesh, they had relied (' we have eaten and drunk in Thy Presence, and Thou hast taught in our streets'). To this He would reply by a repetition of His former words, gi'ounding alike His disavowal and His refusal to open on their inward contra- riety to the King and His Kingdom : ' Depart from Me, all ye workers of iniquity.' It was a banquet to the E £ 41 8 Jesus the Messiah friends of the King : the inauguration of His Kingdom. When they found the door shut, they would indeed knock, in the confident expectation that their claims would at once be recognised, and they admitted. And when the Master of the house did not recognise them as they had expected, and they reminded Him of their outward connec- tion, He only repeated the same words as before, since it was not outward but inward relationship that qualified the guests, and theirs was not friendship, but antagonism to Him. Terrible would then be their sorrow and anguish, when they would see their own patriarchs (' we have eaten and drunk in Thy Presence ') and their own prophets (' Thou hast taught in our streets ') within, and yet them- selves were excluded from what was peculiarly theirs — while from all parts of the heathen world the welcome guests would flock to the joyous feast. And here pre- »comp. also eminently would the saying hold good, in oppo- ^L^A**V^ sition to Pharisaic claims and self-ria'hteousness : ZIX* Ov 9 XX. ^^ O 16 ' There are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.' ^ 2. The next Discourse, noted by St. Luke,'' had been b St. Luke spoken ' in that very day,' as the last. It was xiii. 31-35 occasioncd by a pretended warning of ' certain of the Pharisees ' to depart from Pera^a, which, with Galilee, was the territory of Herod Antipas, as else the Tetrarch would kill Him. Probably the danger of which these Pharisees spoke might have been real enough, and from their secret intrigues with Herod they might have special reasons for knowing of such. But their suggestion that Jesus should depart could only have proceeded from a wish to get Him out of Perasa, where, evidently, His works of healing were largely attracting and influencing the people. But if our Lord would not be deterred by the fears of ost.johu His disciples from going into Judfea,*^ feeling '^- ^ that each one had his appointed working day, in the light of which he was safe, and during the brief dura- tion of which he was bound to ' walk,' far less would He recede before His enemies. Pointing to their secret Discourses in Per^a 419 intrigues, He bade them, if they chose, go buck to ' that fox,' and give to his low cunning, and to all similar attempts to hinder or arrest His Ministry, what would be a decisive answer, since it unfolded what He clearly fore- saw in the near future. ' Depart?' — yes, 'depart' ye to tell ' that fox,' I have still a brief and an appointed time to work, and then ' I am perfected,' in tlio sense in which we all readily understand the expression, as applying to His Work and Mission. ' I know that at the goal is death : yet not at the hands of Herod, but in Jerusalem, the slaughter-house of them that " teach in her streets." ' But the thought of Jerusalem — of what it was, what it might have been, and wh;it would come to it — may well have foi'ced from the lips of Him Who wept over it a cry • St. Luke of mingled anguLsh, love, and warning.* It may b St. Matt, be that these very words, which are reported by xxiii. 37-39 <^^_ Matthew in another connection,^ are here quoted by St. Luke, because they fully express the thought to which Christ here first gave distinct utterance. But some such words, we can scarcely doubt, He did speak even now, when pointing to His near Decease in Jerusalem. 3. The next in order of the Discourses recorded by St. « St. Luke Luke "^ is that which prefaced the Parable of ' the "ciim'ter Great Supper,' expounded in a previous chapter.*^ i^'- A very brief commentation will here suffice. It appears that the Lord accepted the invitation to a vSabbath- meal in the house ' of one of the Rulers of the Pharisees ' — perhaps one of the Rulers of the Synagogue in which they had just worshipped, and where Christ may have taught. His acceptance was made use of to ' w\'itch Him.' The man with the dropsy had, no doubt, been introduced for a treacherous purpose, although it is not necessary to suppose that he himself had been privy to it. On the other hand, it is characteristic of the gracious Lord, that, with full knowledge of their purpose. He sat down with such companions, and that He did His Work of power and love unrestrained by their evil thoughts. But, even so, He must turn their wickedness also to good account. Yet E E 2 420 Jesus the Messiah we mark that. He first dismissed the man liealed of tho "St, Luke dropsy before He reproved the Pharisees.* It ^'^'■^ was better so — for the sake of the guests, and for the healed man himself And after his departure the Lord first spake to them, as was His wont, concerning their misapplication of the Sabbath-Law, to which, indeed, their own practice gave the lie. They deemed it unlawful ' to heal ' on the Sabbath- day, though, when He read their thoughts and pui-poses as against Him, they would not answer His question on the point. And yet, if ' a son,^ or even an ox,' of any of them had ' fallen into a pit,' they would have found some valid legal reason for pulling him out ! Their Sabbath-feast, and their invitation to Him, when thereby they wished to lure Him to evil — and, indeed, their much-boasted hospi- tality— was all characteristic, only external show, with utter absence of all real love ; only self-assumption, pride, and self-righteousness, together with contempt of all who were regarded as religiously or intellectually beneath them. Even among themselves there was strife about ' the first places' — such as, perhaps, Christ had on that occasion witnessed, amidst mock professions of humility, when, perhaps, the master of the house had afterwards, in true Pharisaic fashion, proceeded to re-arrange the guests ac- cording to their supposed dignity. And even the Rabbis had given advice to the same effect as Christ's ^ — and of this His Words may have reminded them. But further — addressing him who had so treacherously bidden Him to this feast, Christ shov^ed how the principle of Pharisaism consisted in self-seeking, to the necessary exclusion of all true love. This self-righteousness appeared even in what, perhaps, they most boasted of — their hos- pitality. For if in an earlier Jewish record we read the beautiful words : ' Let thy house be open towards the street, and let the poor be the sons of thy house,' we have also this later comment on them, that Job had thus had his house opened to the four quarters of the globe for the poor, and that when his calamities befell him, he remon- • So — and not ' ass ' — according to the best reading. Discourses in Per.^a 421 strated with God on the ground of his merits in this respect, to which answer was made that he had in this matter come very far short of the merits of Abraham. So entirely self-introspective and self-seeking did Rabbinism become, and so contrary was its outcome to the spirit of Christ, the inmost meaning of Whose Work, as well as Words, was entire self-forgotfulness and selr-surrender in love. 4. In the fourth Discourse recorded by St. Luke,* we • st L k P^^''' from the parenthetic account of that Sabbath- xiv.'25-35 meal in the house of the ' Ruler of the Pharisees,' back to where the narrative of the Pharisees' threat about Herod and the reply of Jesus had left us.** At the outset we mark that we are not told what con- stituted the true disciple, but what would prevent a man from becoming such. Again, it was now no longer (as in the earlier address to the Twelve), that he who loved the nearest and dearest of earthly kin more than Christ — and hence clave to such rather than to Him — was not worthy of Him ; nor that he who did not take his cross and follow after Him was not worthy of the Christ. Since then the enmity had ripened, and discipleship became impossible without actual renunciation of the nearest relationship, « St. Luke ^^^5 moi'e than that, of life itself. *= The term xiv. 26 < ija^e ' points to this, that, as outward separation consequent upon men's antagonism to Christ was before them in the near future, so in the present inward separa- tion, a renunciation in mind and heart, preparatory to that outwardly, was absolutely necessary. And this immediate call was illustrated in twofold manner. A man who was about to begin building a tower, must count the cost of his undertaking:.'^ It was not enousfh that he was prepared to defray the expense of the founda- tions ; he must look to the cost of the whole. So must they in becoming disciples look not on what was involved in the present following of Christ, but remember the cost of the final acknowledgment of Jesus. Again, if a king went to war, common prudence would lead him to consider whether his forces were equal to the great contest before him ; else it were far better to withdraw in time, even 422 Jesus the Messiah though it involved humiliation, from what, in view of his • St. Luke weakness, would end in miserable defeat.*" So, xiv. 31, 32 ^^^ rnuch more, must the intending disciple make complete inward surrender of all, deliberately count- ing the cost, and in view of the coming trial ask himself whether he had indeed sufficient inward strength — the force of love to Christ --to conquer. Or else, and here Christ breaks once more into that pithy Jewish proverb — ' Salt is good ; ' ' salt, if it have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted ? ' ^ ^' ' We have preferred quoting the proverb in its Jewish form to show its popular origin. Salt in such condition was neither fit to improve the land, nor on the other hand to be mixed with the manure. The disciple who had lost his distinctiveness would neither benefit the land, nor was he even fit, as it were, for the dunghill, and could only be cast out. And so, let him that hath ears ta hear, hear the warning ! 5. We have still to consider the last Discourses of ^, ^ , Christ before the raisins of Lazarus. '^ As beinsf « St. Luke 1 T . 1 J 1 ^ xvii. 1-10 addressed to the disciples,*^ we have to connect them with the Discourse just commented upon. In point of fact, part of these admonitions had already been spoken on a previous occasion, and that comp. St. more fully, to the disciples in Galilee.® Only we 6^3"; v^ne, must again bear in mind the difference of cir- MatT'xvii cumstaiices. Here they immediately precede the 20 raising of Lazarus,^ and they form the close of Christ's public Ministry in Peraea. Hence they come to us as Christ's parting admonitions to His Per^ean followers. They are intended to impress on the new disciples these four things : to be careful to give no offence ^ ; to be e St. Luke careful to take no offence ^ ; to be simple and hw'.3,4 earnest in their faith, and absolutely to trust its ' ver. 6 all-pervading power ^ ; and yet, when they had made experience of it, not to be elated, but to remember their relation to their Master, that all Avas in His service, and that, after all, when everything had been Discourses in Per ma 423 done, they were but unprofitable servants * In other • St. Luke words, they urged upon the disciples holiness, xvii. 7-10 jQyg^ faith, and service of self-surrender and humility. The four parts of this Discourse are broken by the prayer of the Apostles, who had formerly expressed their difficulty in regard to these very requirements : '' xvui.^-"' * Add unto us faith.' It was upon this that the *st Lixke Lord spake to them, for their comfort, of the jv"- 6 absolute power of even the smallest faith,*' and of the service and humility of faith. "^ The latter was couched in a Parabolic form, well calculated to impress on them those feelings which would keep them lowly. They were but servants ; and, even though they had done their work, the Master expected them to serve Him, before they sat down to their own meal and rest. Yet meal and rest there would be in the end. Only, let there not be self-elation, nor weariness, nor impatience ; but let the Master and His service be all in all. Surely, if ever there was emphatic protest against the fundamental idea of Pharisaism, as claiming merit and reward, it was in the closing admonition of Christ's public Ministry in Per^ea : * When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants ; we have done that which was our duty to do.' And with these parting words did He most effectually and for ever separate, in heart and spirit, the Church from the Synagogue. CHAPTER LXVII. THE DEATH AND THE RAISING OF LAZARUS. (St. John xi. 1-54.) From listening to the teaching of Christ, we turn once more to follow His working. It will be remembered that the visit to Bethany divides the period from the Feast of the Dedication to the last Paschal week into two parts. It also forms the prelude and preparation for the awful events 424 Jesus the Messiah of the End. For it was on that occasion that the members of the Sanhedrin formally resolved on His Death, It now only remained to settle and cany out the plans for giving effect to their purpose. At the outset, we must here once more meet, however briefly, the preliminary difficulty in regard to Miracles, of which the raising of Lazarus is the most notable. Un- doubtedly, a Miracle runs counter not only to our experi- ence, but to the facts on which our experience is grounded ; and can only be accounted for by a direct Divine interpo- sition, which also runs counter to our experience, although it cannot logically be said to run counter to the facts on which that experience is grounded. Beyond this it is im- possible to go, since the argument on other grounds than of experience — be it phenomenal [observation and historical information] or real [knowledge of laws and principles] — would necessitate knowledge alike of all the laws of Nature and of all the secrets of Heaven. On the other hand, to argue this point only on the ground of experience (phenomenal or real), were not only reasoning d priori^ but in a vicious circle. It would really amount to this • A thing has not been, because it cannot be ; and it cannot be, because, so far as I know, it is not and has not been. But to deny on sucb cl iiriori prejudg- ment the possibility of Miracles ultimately involves a denial of a Living, Reigning God. For the existence of a God im- plies at least the possibility, it may be the rational necessity, of Miracles. And the same grounds of experience, which tell against the occurrence of a Miracle, would equally apply against belief in a God. We have as little ground in experience (of a physical kind) for the one as for the other. This is not said to deter inquiry, but for the sake of our argument. For we confidently assert, and challenge experiment of it, that disbelief in a God, or Materialism, involves infinitely more difficulties, and that at every step and in regard to all things, than the faith of the Christian. We may now follow this solemn narrative itself. Per- haps the more briefly we comment on it the better. Death of Lazarus 425 It was while in Pertea, that this message suddenly reached the Master from the well-remembered home at Bethany, ' the village of Mary and her sister Martha,' con- cerning their (younger) brother Lazarus : ' Lord, behold he whom Thou lovest is sick ! ' We note as an important fact that the Lazarus, who had not even been mentioned in the only account preserved to us of a previous visit of Christ • St. Lukes, to Bethany,* is described as 'he whom Christ 38 &c. loved.' What a gap of untold events between the two visits of Christ to Bethany — and what modesty should it teach us as regards inferences from the circum- stance that certain events are not recorded in the Gospels ! The messenger was apparently dismissed by Christ with this reply : ' This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, in order that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.' This answer was heard by such of the Apostles as were present at the time. They would naturally infer from it that Lazarus would not die, and that his restoration would glorify Christ, either as having foretold it, or prayed for it, or effected it by His Will. And yet,, probably at the very time when the messenger received his answer, and ere he could have brought it to the sisters, Lazarus was already dead. Nor did this awaken doubt in the minds of the sisters. We seem to hear the very- words, which at the time they said to each other, when each of them afterwards repeated to the Lord : ' Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother would not have died.' They probably thought the message had reached Him too late. Even in their keenest anguish, there was no failure of trust. Yet all this while Christ knew that Lazarus had died, and still He continued two whole days where He was, finishing His work. And yet — and this is noted be- fore anything else, alike in regard to His delay and to His after-conduct — He ' loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.' Christ is never in haste, because He is always sure. It was only after these two days that Jesus broke silence as to His purposes and as to Lazarus. Though thoughts of him must have been present with the disciples, 426 Jesus the Messiah none dared ask aught, although not from misgiving, nor yet from fear. This also of faith and of confidence. At last, when His work in that part had been completed, He spoke of leaving, but even so not of going to Bethany, but into Judaea. For, in truth, His work in Bethany was not only geograjiliically, but really, part of His work in Jud^a ; and He told the disciples of His purpose, just be- cause He knew their fears and would teach them, not only for this but for every future occasion, what principle applied to them. For when in their care and affection they re- minded the ' Eabbi ' that the J ews ' were even now seeking to stone ' Him, He replied by telling them in figurative language that we have each our working day from God, and that while it lasts no foe can shorten it or break up our work. The day had twelve hours, and while these lasted no mishap would befall him that walked in the way [he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world]. It was otherwise when the day was past and the night had come. When our God-given day has set, and with it the light been withdrawn which hitherto prevented our stum- bling— then, if a man went in his own way and at his own time, might such mishap befall him, ' because,' figura- tively as to light in the night-time, and i-eally as to guidance and direction in the way, ' the light is not in him.' But this was only part of what Jesus said to His dis- ciples in preparation for a journey that would issue in such tremendous consequences. He next spoke of Lazarus, their ' friend,' as ' fallen asleep ' — in the frequent Jewish figura- tive sense of it, and of His going there to wake him out of sleep. The disciples would naturally connect this mention of His going to Lazarus with His proposed visit to Judaea, and, in their eagerness to keep Him from the latter, inter- posed that there could be no need for going to Lazarus, since sleep was according to Jewish notions one of the six, or, according to others, five symptoms or crises in recovery from dangerous illness. And when the Lord then plainly stated it, ' Lazarus died,' adding, what should have aroused their attention, that for their sakes He was glad He had Burial of Lazarus 427 not been in Bethany before the event, because now that would come which would work faith in them, and proposed to go to the dead Lazarus — even then, their whole atten- tion was so absorbed by the certainty of dan<,'er to their loved Teacher, that Thomas had only one thouy;lit : since it was to be so, let them go and die with Jesus. We already know the quiet happy home of Bethany. When Jesus reached it, ' He found ' — probably from those • comp. St. who met Him by the way ^ — that Lazarus had John xi. 20 been already four days in the grave. According to custom, he would be buried the same day that he had died. This may be a convenient place for adding to the account already given, in connection with the burying of the widow's son at Nain, such further particulars of the Jewish observances and rites, as may illustrate the present history. Referring to the previous description, we resume, in imagination, our attendance at the point where Christ met the bier at Nain and again gave life to the dead. But we remember that, as we are now in Judaea, the hired mourners — both mourning-men and mourning- women — would follow, and not, as in Galilee, precede the body. From the narrative we infer that the burial of Lazarus did not take place in a common bury ing-ground, which was never nearer a town than 50 cubits, dry and rocky places being chosen in preference. Here the graves must be at least a foot and a half apart. It was deemed a dishonour to the dead to stand on, or walk over, the turf of a grave. Roses and other flowers seem to have been planted on graves. But cemeteries, or common burying-places, appear in earliest 6 2 KiiiKs times to have been used only for the poor,^ or for je" xxv'i. 23 strangers.*' In Jerusalem there were also two xKvii^'7"' places where executed criminals were buried. Acts i. 19 AH these, it is needless to say, were outside the City, But there is abundant evidence that every place had not its own burying-ground ; and that, not unfre- quently, provision had to be made for the transport of bodies. Indeed, a burying-place is not mentioned among the ten requisites for every fully-organised Jewish commu- 428 Jesus the Messiah nity.' The names given, both to the graves and to the burying-place itself, are of interest. As regards the former, we mention such as ' the house of silence ; ' ' the house of stone ; ' ' the hostelry,' or literally, ' place where you spend the night ; ' ' the couch ; ' ' the resting-place : ' ' the valley of the multitude,' or ' of the dead.' The cemetery was called ' the house of graves ; ' or ' the court of burying ; ' and 'the house of eternity.' By a euphemism, 'to die' was designated as 'going to rest;' 'being completed;' ' being gathered to the world,' or ' to the home of light ; ' ' being withdrawn,' or ' hidden.' Burial without coffin seems to have continued the practice for a considerable time, and rules are given how a pit, the size of the body, was to be dug, and surrounded by a wall of loose stones to prevent the falling in of earth. It is interesting to learn that, for the sake of peace, just as the poor and sick of the Gentiles might be fed and nursed as well as those of the Jews, so their dead might be buried with those of the Jews, though not in their graves. On the other hand, a wicked person should not be buried close to a sage. Suicides were not accorded all the honours of those who had died a natural death, and the bodies of executed criminals were laid in a special place, whence the relatives might after a time remove their bones. The burial terminated by casting earth on the grave. But, as already stated, Lazarus was, as became his sta- tion, jiot laid in a cemetery, but in his own private tomb in a cave — probably in a garden, the favourite place of interment. Though on terms of close friendship with Jesus, he was evidently not regarded as an apostate from the Synagogue. For every indignity was shown at the burial of an apostate ; people were even to array themselves in white festive garments to make demonstration of joy. Here, on the contrary, every mark of sympathy, respect, and sorrow had been shown by the people in the district and by friends in the neighbouring Jerusalem. In such ' These were : a law court, provision for the poor, a synagogue, a public bath, a secessus, a doctor, a surgeon, a scribe, a butcher, and a schoolmaster. Burial of Lazarus 429 case it would be regarded as a privilege to obey tlie Rabbinic direction of accompanying the dead, so as to show honour to the departed and kindness to the survivors. As the sisters of Bethany were ' disciples,' we may well believe that some of the more extravagant demonstrations of gi'ief were, if not dispensed with, yet modified. We can scarcely believe that the hired ' mourners " would alternate between extravagant praises of the dead and calls upon the attendants to lament ; or that, as was their wont, they would strike on their breasts, beat their hands, and dash about their feet, or break into wails and mourning songs, alone or in chorus. In all probability, however, the funeral oration would be delivered — as in the case of all distinguished persons — either in the house, or at one of the stations where the bearers changed, or at the burying- place ; perhaps, if they passed it, in the Synagogue. It has previously been noted what extravagant value was in later times attached to these orations, as indicating both a man's life on earth and his place in heaven. The dead was supposed" to be present, listening to the words of the speaker and watching the expression on the faces of the hearers. When thinking of these tombs in gardens, we natu- rally revert to that which for three days held the Lord of Life. It is, perhaps, better to give details here rather than afterwards to interrupt, by such inquiries, our solemn thoughts in presence of the Crucified Christ. Not only the rich, but even those moderately well-to-do, had tombs of their own, which probably were acquired and prepared long before they were needed, and treated and inherited as private and personal property. In such caves, or rock- hewn tombs, the bodies were laid, having been anointed with many spices, with myrtle, aloes, and, at a later period, also with hyssop, rose-oil, and rose-water. The body was dressed and, at a later period, wrapped, if possible, in the worn cloths in which originally a Roll of the Law had been held. The ' tombs ' were either * rock-hewn,' or natural ' caves,' or else large walled vaults, with niches along the sides. Such a ' cave ' or ' vault ' 6 feet in width, 9 feet 430 Jesus the Messiah ill length, and C feet in height, contained ' niches 'for eight bodies, Tlie larger caves or vaults held thirteen bodies. These figures apply, of course, only to what the Law- required, when a vault had been contracted for. At the entrance to the vault was ' a court ' 9 feet square, to hold the bier and its bearers. After a time the bones were collected and put into a box or coffin, having first been anointed with wine and oil, and being held together by wrappings of cloth. This circumstance explains the exis- tence of the mortuary chests, or oderypliagi, so frequently found in the tombs of Palestine by late explorers, who have been unable to explain their meaning. Inscriptions appear to have been graven either on the lid of the mortuary chest, or on the great stone ' rolled ' at the entrance to the vault, or to the ' court ' leading into it, or else on the inside walls of yet another erection, made over the vaults of the wealthy, and which was supposed to complete the burying- place. These small buildings surmounting the graves may have served as shelter to those who visited the tombs. They also served as 'monuments,' of which we read in the Bible, in the Apocrypha and in Josephns. But of gravestones with inscriptions we cannot find any record in Talmudic works. At the same time, the place where there was a vault or a grave was marked by a stone, which was kept whitened, to warn the passer-by against defilement. We are now able fully to realise all the circumstances and surroundings in the burial and raising^ of Lazarus. Jesus had come to Bethany. But in the house of mourning they knew it not. As Bethany was only about two miles from Jerusalem, many from the City, who were on terms of friendship with what was evidently a distin- guished family, had come in obedience to one of the most binding Rabbinic directions — that of comforting the mourners. In the funeral procession the sexes had been separated, and the practice probably prevailed even at that time for the women to return alone from the grave. This may explain why afterwards the women went and returned alone to the T(>mb of our Lord. Tlie mourniugf, which Burial, of Lazarus 431 bearan before the burial, had been shared bv the frienda who sat silent on the ground, or were busy prejiaring the mourning meal. As the company left the dead, each had taken leave of the deceased with a ' Depart in peace ! ' Then they had formed into lines, through which the mourners passed amidst expressions of sympathy, repeated (at least seven times) as the procession halted on the return to the house of mourning. Then began the mourn- ing in the house, which really Listed thirty days, of which the first three were those of greatest, the others, during the seven days, or the special week of sorrow, of less intense mourning. But on the Sabbath, as God's holy day, all mourning was intermitted— and so ' they rested on the Sabbath, according to the commandment.' In that household of disciples this mourning would not have assumed such violent forms, as when we read that the women were in the habit of tearing out their hair, or of a Rabbi who publicly scourged himself. But we know how the dead would be spoken of. In death the two worlds were said to meet and kiss. And now they Avho had passed away beheld God. They w'ere at rest. Such beautiful passages as Ps. cxii. 6, Prov. x. 7, Is. xi. 10, last clause, and Is. Ivii. 2, were applied to them. Nay, the holy dead should be called ' living.' In truth, they knew about us. and unseen still surrounded us. Nor should they ever be mentioned without adding a blessing on their memo^y. In this spirit, we cannot doubt, the Jews were non * comforting " the sisters. They may have repeated words like those quoted as the conclusion of such a consolatory speech : '■ INIay the Lord of consolations comfort you ! Blessed be He Who comforteth the mourners ! ' But they could scarcely have imagined how literally a wish like this was about to be fulfilled. For already the message had reached Martha, who was probably in one of the outer apartments of the house : Jesus is coming ! She hastened to meet the Master. Not a word of complaint, not a murmur, nor doubt, escaped her lips — only what during those four bitter days these two sisters must have been so often saying to each other, when the luxury of 432 Jesus the Messiah solitude was allowed them, that if He had been there, their brother would not have died. And still she held fast by- it, that even now God would give Him whatsoever He asked. Her words could scarcely have been the expression of any- real hope of the miracle about to take place, or Martha would not have afterwards sought to arrest Him, when He bade them roll away the stone. And yet is it not even so, that when that comes to us which our faith had once dared to suggest, if not to hope, we feel as if it were all too great and impossible — that a very physical ' cannot be ' separates us from it ? It was in very truth and literality that the Lord meant it, when He told Martha her brother would rise aofain, althouo-li she understood His Words of the Re- surrection at the Last Day. In answer, Christ pointed out to her the connection between Himself and the Resurrection ; and, what He spoke, that He did when He raised Lazarus from the dead. The Resurrection and the Life are not special gifts either to the Church or to humanity, but are connected with the Christ — the out- come of Himself. Most literally He is the Resurrection and the Life — and this, the new teaching about the Resurrection, was the object and the meaning of the raising of Lazarus. It is only when we think of the meaning of Christ's previous words that we can understand the answer of Martha to His question : ' Believest thou this ? Yea, Lord, I have believed that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God [with special reference to the original message of • St. John Christ^], He that cometh into the world' ['the ^'•^ Cominsr One into the world ' = the world's promised, expected, come Saviour]. What else passed between them we can only gather from the context. It seems that the Master ' called ' for Mary, This message Martha now hasted to deliver, although ' secretly.' Mary was probably sitting in the chamber of mourning, with its upset chairs and couches, and other melancholy tokens of mourning, as was the custom ; surrounded by many who had come to comfort Raising of Lazarus 433 them. As she heard of His coming and call, she rose ' quickly,' and tho Jews followed her, under the impi*ession that she was again going to visit and to weep at the tomb of her brother. For it was the practice to visit the grave, especially during the first three days. When she came to Jesus, where He still stood, outside Bethany, she was forgetful of all around. She could only fall at His Feet, and repeat the poor words with which she and her sister had these four weary days tried to cover the naked- ness of their sorrow : poor words of faith, which she did not, like her sister, make still poorerby adding the poverty of her hope to that of her faith. To ^fartha that had been the maximum, to Mary it was the minimum of her faith ; for the rest, it was far better to add nothing more, but simply to worship at His Feet. It must have been a deeply touching scene : the out- pouring of her sorrow, the al).soluteness of her ftiith, the mute appeal of her tears. And the Jews who witnessed it were moved as she, and wept with her. What follows is difficult to understand. But if with a realisation of Christ's Condescension to, and union with humanity as its Healer, by taking upon Himself its diseases, we combine the statement formerly made about the Resurrection, as not a gift or boon but the outcome of Himself — we may, in some vvay, not understand, but be able to gaze into the unfathomed depth of that Theanthropic fellow-suffering which was both vicarious and redemptive, and which, before He became the Resurrection to Lazarus, shook His whole inner Being, when, in the words of St. John, ' He vehemently moved His Spirit and troubled Himself.' And now every trait is in accord. ' Where have ye laid him ? ' As they bade Him come and see, the tears that fell from Him were not like the violent lamentation that burst from Him at sight and prophetic view of doomed • St. Luke Jerusalem."^ Yet we can scarcely think that the XIX. 41 Jews rightly interpreted it, when they ascribed it only to His love for Tiazarus. But surely there was not a touch either of malevolence or of irony, only what we feel to be quite natural in the circumstances, when some of F F 434 Jesus the Messiah them asked aloud : ' Could not this One, Which opened the eyes of the blind, have wrought so that [in order] this one also should not die?' Scarcely was it even unbelief. They had so lately witnessed in Jerusalem that Miracle, such as had ' not been heard ' ' since the world « St. John began,''* that it seemed difficult to understand ^- ^^ how, seeing there was the will (in His affection for Lazarus), there was not the power — not to raise him from the dead, for that did not occur to them, but to prevent his dying. Was there, then, a barrier in death ? And it was this, and not indignation, which once more caused that Theanthropic recurrence upon Himself, when again ' He vehemently moved His Spirit.' And now they were at the cave which was Lazarus' tomb. He bade them roll aside the great stone which covered its entrance. Amidst the awful pause which pre- ceded obedience, one voice only was raised. It was that of Martha. Jesus had not spoken of raising Lazarus. But what was about to be done ? She could scarcely have thought that He merely wished to gaze once more upon the face of the dead. Something nameless had seized her. She dared not believe ; she dared not dis- believe. Did she, perhaps, not dread a failure, but feel misgivings, when thinking of Christ as in presence of commencing corruption before these Jews — and yet, as we so often, still love Him even in unbelief? It was the common Jewish idea that corruption -commenced on the fourth day, that the drop of gall, which had fallen from the sword of the Angel and caused death, was then working its effect, and that, as the face changed, the soul took its final leave from the resting-place of the body. Only one sentence Jesus spake of gentle reproof, of re- minder of what He had said to her just before, and of the message He had sent when first He heard of Lazarus' b St. John illness.^ And now the stone was rolled away. ^'•* We all feel that the fitting thing here was prayer — yet not petition, but thanksgiving that the Father ' heard ' Him, not as regarded the raising of Lazarus, which was His Own Work, but in the ordering and Raising of Lazarus 435 arranging of all the circumstances — alike the petition and the thanksgiving having for their object them that stood by, for He knew that the Father always heard Him : that so they might believe that the Father had sent Him. Sent of the Father — not come of Himself, not sent of Satan — and sent to do His Will ! One loud command spoken into that silence ; one loud call to that sleeper, and the wheels of life again moved at the outgoing of The Life. And, still bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face with the napkin, Lazarus stood forth, shuddering and silent, in the cold light of earth's day. In that multitude, now more pale and shud- dering than the man bound in the graveclothes, the only one majestically calm was He, Who before had been so deeply moved and troubled Himself, as He now bade them * Loose him, and let him go.' We know no more. What happened afterwards — how they loosed him, what they said, and what were Lazarus' first words, we know not. Did Lazarus remember aught of the late past, or was not rather the rending of the grave a real rending from the past : the awakening so sudden, the transition so great, that nothing of the bright vision re- mained, but its impress — just as a marvellously beautiful Jewish legend has it, that before entering this world, the soul of a child has seen all of heaven and hell, of past, present, and future ; but that, as the Angel strikes it on the mouth to waken it into this world, all of the other has passed from the mind ? Again we say : We know not — and it is better so. And here abruptly breaks off this narrative. Some of those who had seen it believed on Him ; others hurried back to Jerusalem to tell it to the Pharisees. Then was hastily gathered a meeting of the Sanhedrists, not to judge Him, but to deliberate what was to be done. They had not the courage of, though the wish for judicial murder, till he who was the High- Priest, Caiaphas, reminded them of the well-known Jewish adage, that it ' is better one man should die, than the community perish.' This was the last prophecy in Israel ; with the sentence F F 2 43^ Jesus the Mess/ah of death on Israel's true High-Priest died prophecy in Israel, died Israel's High Priesthood. It had spoken sentence upon itself. This was the first Friday of dark resolve. Henceforth it only needed to concert plans for carrying it out. Some one, perhaps Nicodemus, sent word of the secret meeting and resolution of the Sanhedrists. That Friday and the next Sabhath Jesus rested in Bethany, with the same majestic calm which He had shown at the grave of Lazarus. Then He withdrew far away to the obscure bounds of Peraea and Galilee, to a city of which the very location is now unknown. And there He continued with His disciples, withdrawn from the Jews — till He would make His final entrance into Jerusalem. CHAPTER LXVIII. ON THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM — HEALING OF TEN LEPERS ON DIVORCE — THE BLESSING TO LITTLE CHILDREN, (St. Matt. xix. I, 2; St. Mark x. 1; St. Luke xviL 11; 12-19; St. Matt. xix. 3-12 ; St. Mark x. 2-12; St. Matt. xix. 13-15 ; St. Mark X. 13-16; St. Luke xviii. 1.5-17.) The brief time of rest and quiet converse with His disciples in the retirement of Ephraim was past, and the Saviour of men prepared for His last journey to Jerusalem. All the »st Matt tlii'ee Synoptic Gospels mark this, although with xix. 1,2; varvine" details.* From the mention of Galilee St Mark x 1 ;' St. Luke by St. Matthew, and by St. Luke of Samaria and xvii. 11 Galilee — or more correctly, ' between (along the frontiers of) Samaria and Galilee,' we may conjecture that, on leaving Ephraim, Christ made a very brief detour along the northern frontier to some place at the southern border of Galilee — perhaps to meet at a certain point those who were to accompany Him on His final journey to Jerusalem. The whole company would then form one of those festive bands which travelled to the Paschal Feast, nor would Healing of Ten Lepers 437 there be anything strange or unusual in the appearance of" such a band, in this instance under the leadership of Jesus. Another notice, furnished by SS. Matthew and Mark, is that during this journey through Peraea, ' great multi- tudes ' resorted to, and followed Him, and that thew ' He healed ' * and ' taught them.' ^ This will account for the incidents and Discourses by the way, and also how, from among many deeds, the Evange- lists may have selected for record what to them seemed the most important or novel, or else best accorded with the plans of their respective narratives, xvii. 12-19 1 . St. Luke alone relates the very first incident vy. 20-37 i^y ^j^g way,*^ and the first Discourse.*^ It is a further confirmation of our suggestion as to the road taken by Jesus, that of the ten lepers whom, at the outset of His journey, He met when entering into a village, one was a Samaritan. It may have been that the district was infested with leprosy ; or these lepers may, on tidings of Christ's approach, have hastily gathered there. It was in strict accordance with Jewish Law, that these lepers remained both outside the village and far from Him to Whom they now cried for mercy. And, without either touch or even command of healing, Christ bade them go and show themselves as healed to the priests. For this it was not necessary to repair to Jerusalem. Any priest might declare ' unclean' or ' clean,' provided the applicants presented themselves singly, and not in company, for his inspection. And they went at Christ's bidding, even before they had actually experienced the healing! So great was their faith, and, may we not almost infer, the general belief throughout the district, in the Power of ' the Master.' And as they went, the new life coursed in their veins. But now the characteristic difference between these men appeared. Of the ten, equally recipients of the benefit, the nine Jews continued their way — presumably to the priests — while the one Samaritan in the numljer at once turned back, with a loud voice glorifying God. No 438 Jesus the Messiah longer now did he remain afar off, but fell on his face at the Feet of Him to Whom he gave thanks. This Samari- tan had received more than new bodily life and health : he had found spiritual life and healing. But why did the nine Jews not return ? Assuredly, they must have had some faith when first seeking help from Christ, and still more when setting out for the priests before they had experienced the healing. But perhaps we may over-estimate the faith of these men. Bearing in mind the views of the Jews at the time, and what constant suc- cession of miraculous cures had been witnessed these years, it cannot seem strange that lepers should apply to Jesus. Nor yet perhaps did it, in the circumstances, involve very much greater faith to go to the priests at His bidding — implying, of course, that they were or would be healed. But it was far different to turn back and to fall down at His Feet in worship and thanksgiving. That made a man a disciple. And the Lord emphasised the contrast in this between the children of the household and ' this stranger.' Accord- ing to the Gospels, a man might either seek benefit from Christ, or else receive Christ through such benefit. In the one case the benefit sought was the object, in the other the means: in the one it ultimately led away from, in the other it led to Christ and to discipleship. And so Christ now spake to this Samaritan : ' Arise, go thy way ; thy faith has made thee whole.' 2. The Discourse concerning the Coming of the Kingdom, which is reported by St. Luke immediately after » St. Luke the healing of the ten lepers,* will be more con- XVII. 20-37 veniently considered in connection with the t St. Matt, fuller statement of the same truths at the close '^^^ of our Lord's Ministry.'' 3. This brings us to what we regard as, in point of » St. Matt, time, the next Discourse of Christ on this journey, it^Maikx recorded both by St. Matthew and, in briefer 2-12 ■ form, by St. Mark."^ Christ had advanced farther on His journey, and now once more encountered the hostile Pharisees. It will be On Divorce 439 remombered that He hiul met them befoi-e in the same • St. Luke part of the country,* and answered their taunts *^'- ^* and objections, among other things, by charging them with breaking in spirit tliat Law of which they pro- fessed to be the exponents and representatives. And this He had proved by reference to tlieir views and teaching on the subject of divorce.'' This seems to have >>T7. 17, 18 j.r^fj]j](;>f| i,^ their minds. Probably they also imagined, it would be easy to show on this point a marked difference between the teaching of Jesus and that of JMoses and the Rabbis, and to enlist popular feeling against Him. Accordingly, when these Pharisees again encountered Jesus, now on His journey to Judaea, they resumed the subject pre- cisely where it had been broken off" when they had last met Him, only now with the object of 'tempting Him.' Perhaps it may also have been in the hope that, by getting Christ to commit Himself against divorce in Perani — the territory of Herod — they might enlist against Him, as formerly against the Baptist, the implacable hatred of Herodias. But their main object evidently was to involve Christ in controversy with some of the Rabbinic Schools. This appears from the form in which they put the question, « St. Matt, whether it was lawful to put away a wife ' for "*• ^ every cause ' ? '^ St. Mark, who gives only a very condensed account, omits this clause ; but in Jewish circles the whole controversy between different teachers turned upon this point. All held that divorce was lawful, the only question being as to its grounds. There can however be no question that the practice was discouraged by many of the better Rabbis, alike in word and by their example : nor yet, that the Jewish Law took the most watchful care of the interests of the woman. In fact, if an}* doubt were raised as to the legal validity of a letter of divorce, the Law always pronounced against the divorce. At the same time, in popular practice, divorce must have been very frequent ; while the principles underlying Jewish legis- lation on the subject are most objectionable. No real comparison is possible between Christ and even the strictest of the Rabbis, since none of them actually 440 Jesus the Messiah prohibited divorce, except in case of adultery, nor yet laid down those high eternal principles which Jesus enunciated. But we can understand how from the Jewish point of view ' tempting Him,' they would put the question, whether it was lawful to divorce a wife ' for every cause.' Avoiding their cavils, the Lord appealed straight to the highest authority — God's institution of marriage. He Who at the beginning had made them male and female had in the marriage-relation ' joined them together,' to the breaking of every other, even the nearest, relationship, to be ' one flesh ' — that is, to a union which was unity. Such was the fact of God's ordering. It followed that they were one — and what God had willed to be one, man might not put asunder. Then followed the natural Rabbinic objection, why, in such case, Moses had commanded a bill of divorce- ment. Our Lord replied by pointing out that Moses had not commanded divorce, only tolerated it on account of their hardness of heart, and in such case commanded to give a bill of divorce for the protection of the wife. And this argument would appeal the more forcibly to them, that the Rabbis themselves taught that a somewhat similar con- « Dent. xxi. cession had been made ^ by Moses in regard to ^^ female captives of war — as the Talmud has it, ' on account of the evil impulse.' But such a separation, our Lord continued, had not been provided for in the original institution, which was a union to unity. Only one thing could put an end to that unity — its absolute breach. Hence, to divorce one's wife (or husband) while this unity lasted, and to marry another, was adultery, because, as the divorce was null before God, the original marriage still subsisted — and in that case the Rabbinic Law would also have forbidden it. The next part of the Lord's inference, that ' whoso marrieth her which is put a.way doth commit adultery,' is more difficult of interpretation. Generally, it is understood as implying that a woman divorced for adultery might not be married. Be this as it may, the Jewish Law, which regarded marriage with a woman divorced under any circumstances as unadvisable, absolutely forbade that of the adulterer with the adulteress. The Blessing to Little Children 441 Thai the Pharisees had rightly judged, when ' tempting Him,' what the popular feeling on the subject would be, appears even from what ' His disciples ' [not necessarily the Apostles] afterwards said to Him. They waited to ex- • St. Mark press their dissent till they were alone with Him *• ^^ ' in the house,' * and then urged that, if it were as Christ had taught, it would be better not to marry at «> St. Matt. all. To which the Lord replied,*' that ' this say- xix. 10-12 ing' of the disciples, 'it is not good to marry,' could not be received by all men, but only by those to whom it was ' given.' For there were three cases in which abstinence from marriage might lawfully be contemplated. In two of these it was, of course, natural ; and, where it was not so, a man might, ' for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake' — that is, in the service of God and of Christ — have all his thoughts, feelings, and impulses so engaged that others were no longer existent. It is this which requires to be ' given ' of God ; and which ' he that is able to receive it ' — who has the moral capacity for it — is called upon to receive. 4. The next incident is recorded by the three Evange- • St. Matt, lists.*^ It probably occurred in the same house st^Murk^x. where the disciples had questioned Christ about Lilkc L-rtii -H^^ teaching on the Divinely sacred relationship 15-17 of marriage. And the account of His blessing of ' infants ' and ' little children ' most aptly follows on the former teaching. We can understand how, when One Who so spake and wrought rested in the house, Jewish mothers should have brought theii- ' little children,' and some their ' infants,' to Him, that He might ' touch,' ' put His Hands on them, and pray.' What power and holiness must these mothers have believed to be in His touch and prayer; what life to be in, and to come from Him ; and what gentleness and tenderness must His have been, when they dared so to bring these little ones ! For how utterly contrary it was to all Jewish notions, and how incompatible with the supposed dignity of a Rabbi, appears from the rebuke of the disciples. It was an occasion and an act when, as the fuller and more pictorial account of St. Mark 442" Jesus the Messiah informs us, Jesus ' was much displeased ' — the only time this strong word is used of our Lord — and said unto them : ' Suffer the little children to come to Me, hinder them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God.' Then He gently re- minded His own disciples of their grave error, by repeating • St. Matt, what they had apparently forgotten,^ that, in xviii. 3 order to enter the Kingdom of God, it must be received as by a little child — that here there could be no question of intellectual qualification, nor of distinction due to a great Eabbi, but only of humility, receptiveness, meek- ness, and a simple application to, and trust in the Christ. And so He folded these little ones in His Arms, put His Hands upon them, and blessed theru. CHAPTER LXIX. THE LAST INCIDENTS IN PER^A — THE YOUNG RULER WHO WENT AWAY SORROWFUL — PROPHECY OF CHRIST's PASSION — THE REQUEST OF SALOME, AND OF JAMES AND JOHN. (St. Matt. six. 16-22; St. Mark x. 17-22; St. Luke xviii. 18-23 St. Matt, xix, 23-30 ; St. Mark x. 23-31 ; St. Luke xviii. 21-30 St. Matt. XX. 17-19 ; St. Mark x. 32-34 ; St. Luke xviii. 81-34 St. Matt. XX. 20-28 ; St. Mark x. 35-45.) As we near the goal, the story seems to grow in tenderness and pathos. It is as if all the loving condescension of the Master were to be crowded into these days ; all the press- ing need also and the human weaknesses of His disciples. As ' He was going forth into the way ' — probably at early morn, as He left the house where He had blessed the chil- dren brought to Him by believing parents — His progress b St T k ^^^ arrested. It was ' a young man,' ' a ruler,' '' probably of the local Synagogue, who came with all haste, ' running,' and kneeling,'^ to ask what to him, to us all, is the most important question. The actual question of the young Ruler is one which repeatedly occurs in Jewish writings, as put to a Rabbi by his disciples. Amidst the ditfereut answers given, wo The Young Ruler 443 scarcely wonder that they also pointed to observance of the Law. And the saying of Christ seems the more adapted to the young Ruler when we recall this sentence from the Talmud : ' Tlicre is nothing else that is good but the Law.' But here again the similarity is only of form, not of substance. For it will be noticed that, in the fuller ac- count by St. Matthew, Christ leads the young Ruler upwards through the table of the prohibitions of deeds to the first positive command of deed, and then, by a rapid transition, to the substitution for the tenth commandment in its negative form of this wider positive and all-embracing • Lev.xix. command:* 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as ^" thyself Any Jewish ' Ruler,' but especially one so earnest, would have at once answered a challenge on the first four commandments by ' Yes ' — and that not self- righteously but sincerely, though of course in ignorance of their real depth. And this was not the time for lengthened discussion and instruction : only for rapid awakening, to lead up, if possible, from a heart-drawing towards the ^Lister to real discipleship. Best here to start from what was admitted as bintling — the ten commandments — and to lead from that in them which was least likely to be broken, step by step, upwards to that which was most likely to awaken consciousness of sin. And the young Ruler did not, as that other Pharisee, reply by trying to raise a Rabbinic disputation over the »st. Luke X. ' Who is neighbour to me ? ' ^ but in the sincerity •" of an honest heart answered that he had kept— that is, so far as he knew them — ' all these things from his youth.' On this St. Matthew puts into his mouth the question — ' What lack I yet ? ' What he had seen and heard of the Christ had quickened to greatest intensity all in him that longed after God and heaven, and had brought him in this supreme moral earnestness to the Feet of Him in Whom, as he felt, all perfectness was, and from Whom all perfectness came. He had not been first drawn to Christ, and thence to the pure, as were the publicans and sinners ; but, like so many — even as Peter, when in that hour of soul-agony he said : ' To whom shall we go ? Thou 444 Jesus the Messiah hast the words of eternal life,' — he had been drawn to the pure and th:; higher, and therefore to Christ. And Jesus saw what he lacked ; and what He saw, He showed him. For, ' looking at him ' in his sincerity and earnestness, ' He loved him.' One thing was needful for this young man : that he should not only become His disciple, but that, in so doing, he should ' come and follow ' Christ. It seems as if to some it needed, not only the word of God, but a stroke of some Moses'-rod to make the water gush forth from the rock. And thus would this young Ruler have been ' perfect ; ' and what he had given to the poor have become, not through merit nor by way of reward, but really, ' treasure in heaven.' What he lacked — was earth's poverty and heaven's riches : a heart fully set on following Christ ; and this could only come to him through willing surrender of all. There is something deeply pathetic in the mode in which St. Mark describes what follows : ' he was sad " — the word painting a dark gloom that overshadowed the face of the young man. We need scarcely here recall the almost extravagant language in which Rabbinism de- scribes the miseries of poverty ; we can understand his feelings without that. Such a possibility had never entered his mind : the thought of it was terribly startling. Rabbinism had never asked this ; if it demanded alms- giving, it was in odious boastfulness ; while it was declared even unlawful to give away all one's possessions — at most, only a fifth of them might be dedicated. And so, with clouded face he gazed down into what he lacked — within ; but also gazed up in Christ on what he needed. And, although we hear no more of him who that day went back to his rich home very poor, because ' very sorrowful,' we cannot but believe that he whom Jesus loved yet found in the poverty of earth the treasure of heaven. Nor was this all. The deep pity of Christ for him who had gone that day, speaks also in His warning to a St. Mark His disciples.^ But surely those are not only =^•23 riches in the literal sense which make it so The Young Ruler 445 difficult for a man to enter into the King-clom of Heaven — so difficult, as to amount almost to that impossibility which was expressed in the common Jewish proverb, that a man did not even in his dreams see an elephant pass through the eye of a needle ? But when in their perplexity the disciples put to each other the question : Who then can be saved ? He taught them that what was impossible of achievement by man in his own strength, God would work by His Almighty Grace. It almost jars on our ears when Peter, perhaps as spokesman of the rest, seems to remind the Lord that they had forsaken all to follow Him. St. Matthew records also the special question which Simon added to it : ' What shall we have therefore ? ' The Lord's reply bore on two points : on the reward which all who left everything to »st Matt follow Christ would obtain ; ^ and on the special xix. 29 ; acknowledgment awaiting the Apostles of Christ.^ 29^ 30 ; St." In regard to the former we mark, that it is two- Luke xviii. j.^j^ rpj^gy ^^^ ^^^ forsaken all ' for His sake ' "^ bst. Matt, i and the Gospel's,' ^ ' for the Kingdom of God's • St. Mat- sake ' — and these three expressions explain and thew and , , , '^ , -, . ^ . , . St. Murk supplement each other — would receive ' m this time " ' manifold more ' of new, and better, and closer relationships of a spiritual kind f.r those which they had surrendered, although, as St. Mark significantly adds, to prevent all possible mistakes, ' with persecutions.' But by the side of this stands out unclouded and bright the promise for ' the world to come ' of ' everlasting life.' As regarded the Apostles personally, some mystery lies on the special promise to them (that ' in the regeneration ' they should ' sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel '). We could quite understand that the distinction of rule to be bestowed on them might have been worded in language taken from the expectations of the time, in order to make the promise intelligible to them. But, unfortunately, we have here no explanatory information to offer. The Rabbis, indeed, speak of a renovation or regeneration of the world which was to take place after the 7,000 or else 5,000 years of the Messianic reign. 44^ Jesus the Messiah Such a renewal of all things is not only foretold by the prophets,^ and dwelt upon in later Jewish ' As for ex- . . ^ ample Is. writings,^ but frequently referred to in Rabbinic e^Txv.V?^'' literature. But as regards the special rule or Eiu?c°hxd 'judgment' of the Apostles, or ambassadors of 16, 17; 4 the Messiah, we have not, and, of course, cannot expect any parallel in Jewish writings. Yet that the delegation of such rule and judgment to the Apostles is in accordance with Old Testament promise will be seen from Dan. vii. 9, 10, 14, 27 ; and there are few references in the New Testament to the blessed consummation of all • At ••• things in which such renewal of the world,*' and 21 ; Rnni. evcu the rule and judgment of the representatives 2 Pet. iii. ' of the Cliurch,*^ are not referred to. 13 _: Rev. rp^^ reference to the blessed future with its 2\*^°Rev'" rewards was followed by a Parable, recorded .is x'x. 4;xxi. with One exception all of that series, only by St. Matthew. It will best be considered in connection with the last series of Christ's Parables. But it est. Matt, was accompanied by a most needful warning.® XX. 17-19 Thoughts of the future Messianic reign, its glory, and their own part in it might have so engrossed the minds of the disciples as to make them forgetful of the terrible present, immediately before them. In such case they might not only have lapsed into that most fatal Jew- ish error of a Messiah-King Who was not Saviour — the Crown without the Cross — but have even suffered ship- wreck of their faith, when the storm broke on the Day of His Condemnation and Cructfixion. How truly such pre- pai'ation was required by the disciples appears from the naiTative itself. There was something sad and mysterious in the words with which Christ had closed His Parable, that the last .c.^, . should be first and the first last*' — and it had 'St.Matt. . , . . . T , T . -i^ . XX. 16 ; St. carried misgiving to those who heard it. i et the disciples could not have indulged in illu- sions. His own sayings on at least two previous occa- B St. Matt. sions,s however ill or partially understood, must xvii."22!23 tavG led them to expect at any rate grievous Prophecy of Christ's Passion 447 opposition and tribulations in Jerusalem, and their en- deavour to deter Christ from going to Bethany, to raise Lazarus, proves that they were well aware of the • St John danger which threatened the Master in Judaea.* xi. H, 16 Yet not only ' was He now going up to Jerusalem,' but there was that in His bearing which was quite unusual. As St. Mark writes, ' And going before them was Jesus ; and they were amazed [utterly bewildered, viz. the Apostles] ; and those who were followinof, were afraid.' It was then that Jesus took the Apostles apart, and, in language more precise than ever before, told tliem how all things that were ' written by the prophets shall be accomplished on the Son of ]\Ian '•' — not * St, Luke merely, that all that had been written concerning xviii. 31 ^i^g c^(,^ Qf Man should be accomplished, but a far deeper truth, all-comprehensive as regards the Old Testament: that all its prophecy ran up into the Sufferings of the Christ. As the three Evangelists report it, the Lord gave them full details of His Betrayal, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. And yet we may. without irreverence, doubt whether on that occasion He had really entered into all those particulars. In such case it would seem difficult to explain how, as St. Luke reports, ' they understood none of these things, and the saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken ; ' and again, how afterwards the actual events and the Resurrec- tion could have taken them so by surprise. Rather do we think that the Evangelists report what Jesus had said, in the light of after-events. At the time they may have thought that it pointed only to His rejection by Jews and Ci entiles, to Suflf'erings and Death — and then to a Resurrec- tion, either of His Mission or to such a reappearance of the Messiah, after His temporary disappearance, as Judaism expected. One other incident, and the Persian stay is for ever ended. It almost seems as if the fierce blast of temp- tation, the very breath of the destroyer, were already sweeping over the little flock, as if the twilight of the night of betrayal and desertion were already falling 448 Jesus the Messiah around. And now it has fallen on the two chosen dis- ciples, James and John — ' the sons of thunder,' and one of them, ' the beloved disciple ! ' Peter, the third in that band most closely bound to Christ, had already had his « St. Matt, temptation,*" and would have it more fiercely — to ^^'' ^^ the uprooting of life, if the Great High-Priest had not specially interceded for him. And, as regards b St. Matt, these two sons of Zebedee and of Salome, ** we comp St' know what temptation had already beset them, — ^^^ark sv. 40 Jiqw Jolm had forbidden one to cast out devils, ix'.ss because he followed not with them,*' and how both he and his brother, James, would have called down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans who would a St. Luke not receive Christ.*^ It was essentially the same IX. 54 spirit that now prompted the request which their mother Salome preferred, not only with their full « By St. concurrence, but, as we are expressly told,® with Mark (x. 35) ^q[y active participation. There is the same faith in the Christ, tLe same allegiance to Him, but also the same unhallowed earnestness, the same misunder- standing— and, let us add, the same latent self-exaltation, as in the two former instances, in the present request that, as the most honoured of His guests, and also as the nearest to Him, they might have their places at His Right Hand St. Matt, and at His Left in His Kingdom.^ Terribly in- st' Marks cougruous as is any appearance of self-seeking 35-45 at that momenfe and with that prospect before them, we cannot but feel that there is also an intenseness of faith almost sublime, when the mother steps forth from among those who follow Christ to His Suffering and Death, to proffer such a request with her sons, and for them. And so the Saviour seems to have viewed it. He, Whose Soul is filled with the contest before Him, bears with the weakness and selfishness which could cherish such ambitions at such a time. To correct them. He points to that near prospect, when the Highest is to be made low. ' Ye know not what ye ask ! ' The King is to be King through suffering — are they aware of the road which leads The Request of James and John 449 to that goal ? Those nearest to the King of Sorrows must reach the place nearest to Him by the same road as He. Are they prepared for it ; prepared to drink that cup of soul-agony, which the Father will hand to Him — to sub- mit to, to descend into that Baptism of consecration, when the floods will sweep over Him ? In their ignorance, and listening only to the promptings of their hearts, they imagine that they are. Nay, in some measure it would be so ; yet, finally to correct their mistake : to sit at His Eight and at His Left Hand, these were not marks of mere favour for Him to bestow — in His own words : it 'is not Mine to give except to them for whom it is prepared of My Father.' But as for the other ten, when they heard of it, it was only the pre-eminence which, in their view, James and John had sought, that stood out before them, to their • St Matt ei^vy and indignation.'* And so in that solemn xs. 24, hour would the fire of controversy have broken Markx.'4i, out among them who should have been most ^'^' closely united — had not Jesus hushed it into silence when He spoke to them of the grand contrast between the princes of the Gentiles as they ' lord it over them,' or the ' great among them ' as they ' domineer ' over men, and their own aims — how, whosoever would be great among them, must seek his greatness in service — not greatness through service, but the greatness of service ; and whosoever would be chief or rather ' first ' among them, let it be in service. The Son of Man Himself — let them look back, let them look forward — He came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. And then, breaking tlirough the reserve that had held Him, and revealing to them the inmost thoughts which had occupied Him when He had been alone, going before them on the way. He spoke for the first time fully what was the deepest mean- ing of His Life, Mission, and Death : ' to give His Life a b St. Matt, ransom for many,' ^ to pay with His Life-Blood St." Mark x. ^^^ price of their redemption, to lay down His ''s Life for them : in their room and stead, and for their salvation. These words must have sunk deep into the heart of G G 450 Jesus the Messiah one at least in that company. A few days later, and tlie beloved disciple tells us of this Ministry of His xiii!' ^ Love at the Last Supper,* and ever afterwards, in 24^Tcor. his writings and in his life, does he seem to bear 1 Tim ii 6- ^^^^ about with him, and to re-echo them. Ever 1 Pet. 1.19; since also have they remained the foundation- truth on which the Church has been built : the subject of her preaching, and the object of her experience.'' CHAPTER LXX. IN JERICHO — A GUEST WITH ZACCH^US — THE HEALING OF BLIND BARTIM^US — AT BETHANY, AND IN THE HOUSE OF SIMON THE LEPER. (St. Luke xix. 1-10 ; St. Matt. xx. 29-34 ; St. Mark x. 46-52; St. Luke xviii. 35-43 ; St. John xi. 55-xii. 1 ; St. Matt. xxvi. 6-13 ; St. Mark xiv. 3-9; St. John xii. 2-11.) Once more, and now for the last time, were the fords of Jordan passed, and Christ was on the soil of Judjea proper. Behind Him were Peraea and Galilee ; behind Him the Ministry of the Gospel by Word and Deed ; before Him the final Act of His Life, towards which all had consciously tended. And He was coming openly, at the head of His Apostles, and followed by many disciples — a festive band going up to the Paschal Feast, of which Himself was to be ' the Lamb ' of sacrifice. The first station reached was Jericho, the ' City of Palms,' a distance of only about six hours from Jerusalem. The ancient City occupied not the site of the present wretched hamlet, but lay about half an hour to the north-west of it, by the so-called Elisha-Spring. A second spring rose an hour further to the north-north-west. The water of these springs distributed by aqueducts gave, under a tropical sky, unsurpassed fertility to the rich soil along the ' plain ' of Jericho, which is about twelve or fourteen miles wide. Herod the Great had first plundered, and then partially rebuilt, fortified, and adorned Jericho. It was here that In Jericho 45 1 he died. Long before, it had recovered its ancient fame for fertility and its prosperity. If to its special advantages of climate, soil, and productions we add that it lay on the caravan-road from Damascus and Arabia, that it was a great commercial and military centre, and lastly, its near- ness to Jerusalem, to which it formed the last ' station ' on the road of the festive pilgrims from Galilee and Pera^a — it will not be difficult to understand either its importance or its prosperity. We can picture to ourselves the scene, as our Lord on that afternoon in early spring beheld it. There it was, indeed, already summer, for, as Josephus tells us, even in winter the inhabitants could only bear the lightest clothing of linen. It is protected by walls, flanked by four forts. These walls, the theatre, and the amphitheatre, have been built by Herod ; the new palace and its splendid gardens are the work of Archelaus. All around wave groves of palms, rising in stately beauty ; stretch gardens of roses, and especially sweet-scented balsam - plantations — the largest behind the royal gardens, of which the perfume is carried by the wind almost out to sea, and which may have given to the city its name (Jericho, ' the perfumed '). And in the streets of Jericho a motley throng meets : pilgrims from Galilee and Perasa, priests who have a ' station ' here, traders from all lands, who have come to purchase or to sell, or are on the great caravan-road from Arabia and Damascus — robbers and anchorites, wild fanatics, soldiers, courtiers, and busy publicans — for Jericho was the central station for the collection of tax and custom, both on native produce and on that brought from across Jordan. It was through Jericho that Jesus, ' having entered,' » St. Luke was passing.* Tidings of the approach of the sir. 1-10 band, consisting of His disciples and Apostles, and headed by the Master Himself, must have preceded Him these six miles from the fords of Jordan. His Name, His Works, His Teaching — perhaps Himself, must have been known to the people of Jericho, just as they must have been aware of the feelings of the leaders of the people, 002 452 Jesus the Messiah perliiips of the approaching great contest between them and the Prophet of Nazareth. Was He a good man ; had He wrought those great miracles in the power of God or by Satanic influence — was He the Messiah or the Antichrist ; would He bring salvation to the world, or entail ruin on His own nation : conquer or be destroyed ? Close by was Bethany, whence tidings had come, most incredible yet unquestioned and unquestionable, of the raising of Lazarus. And yet the Sanhedrin — it was well known — had resolved on His death ! At any rate there was no concealment about Him ; and here, in face of all, and accompanied by His followers — humble and unlettered, but thoroughly con- vinced of His superhuman claims, and deeply attached — Jesus was going up to Jerusalem to meet His enemies ! It was the custom when a festive band passed through a place, that the inhabitants gathered in the streets to bid their brethren welcome. And on that afternoon surely scarce any one in Jericho but would go forth to see this pilgrim-band. A solid wall of onlookers before their gardens was this ' crowd ' along the road by which Jesus ' was to pass.' Would He only pass through the place, or be the guest of some of the leading priests in Jericho ; would He teach or work any miracle, or silently go on His way to Bethany ? Only one in all that crowd seemed un- welcome ; alone, and out of place. It was the ' chief of the Publicans ' — the head of the tax and customs depart- ment. As his name shows, he was a Jew : but yet that very name Zacchaeus, ' Zakkai ' ' the just 'or 'pure,' sounded like mockery. We know in what repute Publicans were held, and what opportunities of wrong-doing and oppression they possessed. And from his after-confession it is only too evident that Zacchaeus had to the full used them for evil. And he had got that for which he had given up alike his nation and his soul : ' he was rich.' If, as Christ had taught, it was harder for any rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, what of him who had gotten his riches by such means ? The narrative is singularly detailed and pictorial. A Guest with Zacch^us 453 Zaccha^us, trying to push his way tlirough ' the press,' and repulsed ; Zaechaeus, ' little of stature,' and unable to look over the shoulders of others. Needless questions have been asked as to the import of Zaccha3us' wish ' to see who Jesus was.' It is just this vagueness of desire, which Zacchasus himself does not understand, that is characteristic. And since he cannot otherwise succeed, he climbs up one of those wide-spread- ing sycamores in a garden, perhaps close to his own house, along the only road by which Jesus can pass — ' to see Him.' Now the band is approaching, through that double living wall : first, the Saviour, viewing the crowd, but with different thoughts from theirs — surrounded by His Apostles, the face of each expressiv^e of such feelings as were upper- most ; conspicuous among them, he who ' carried the bag,' with furtive, uncertain glance here and there, as one who seeks to gather himself up to a terrible deed. Behind them are the disciples, men and women, who are going up with Him to the Feast. Of all persons in that crowd the least noted, the most hindered in coming — and yet the one most concerned, was the Chief Publican. Never more self-unconscious was Zacchjeus than at the moment when Jesus was entering that garden-road and passing under the overhanging branches of that sycamore, the crowd closing up behind, and following as He went along. Only one thought — without ulterior conscious object, temporal or spiritual — filled his whole being. The present abso- lutely held him — when those Eyes out of which heaven itself seemed to look upon earth, were upturned, and that Face of infinite grace, never to be forgotten, beamed upon him the welcome of recognition, and He uttered the self-spoken invitation in which the invited was the real Inviter, the guest the true Host. As bidden by Christ, Zacchaeus ' made haste and came down.' Under the influence of the Holy Ghost he ' received Him rejoicing.' Nothing was as yet clear to him, and yet all was joy within his soul. But a few steps farther, and they were at the house of the Chief Publican. But now the murmur of disappointment and anger ran 454 Jesus the Messiah through the accompanying crowd — which perhaps had not before heard what had passed between Jesus and the Publican — because He was gone to be guest with a man that was a sinner. And it was this sudden shock of opposition which awoke Zacchasus to full conscious- ness. In that moment Zacchgeus saw it all : what his past had been, what his present was, what his future must be. Standing forth, not so much before the crowd as before the Lord, and scarcely conscious of the confession it implied — Zacchteus vowed fourfold restoration, as by a thief,"^ of what had become his through false accusation, as well as the half of all his goods to the poor. And so the whole cuiTent of his life had been turned in those few moments ; and Zacchseus the public robber, the rich Chief of the Publicans, had become an almsgiver. It was then that Jesus spake in the hearing of all for their and our teaching : ' This day became — arose — there salvation to this house,' ' forasmuch as,' truly and spiritu- ally, ' this one also is a son of Abraham.' And as regards this man and all men, so long as time endureth : ' For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost.' The Evangelic record passes with significant silence over that night in the house of Zacchfeus. It was in the ^ morning, when the journey in company with His XX. 29-34; disciples was resumed, that the next public inci- 46^52;' st!^ dent occurred in the healing of the blind by the 35"43^^'"' wayside.'' It may have been that, as St. Matthew relates, there were hvo blind men sitting by the wayside, and that St. Luke and St. Mark mention only one — the latter by name as ' Bar Timaeus ' — because he was the spokesman. Once more the crowd was following Jesus, as He re- sumed the journey with His disciples. And there by the wayside, begging, sat the blind men. As they heard the tramp of many feet and the sound of many voices, they learned that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. But what must their faith have been, when there, in Jericho, they not only owned Him as the true Messiah, but cried — in a The Healing of Blind Bartim.eus 455 mode of address significant, as coming from Jewish lips : ' Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me ! ' It was in accordance with what one miglit ahnost have expected — certainly with the temper of Jericho, as we learnt it on the previous evening, when ' many,' the ' multitude,' ' they wliich went before,' would have bidden that cry for help be silent as an unwarrantable intrusion and interruption. But only all the louder and more earnest rose the petition, as the blind felt that they might for ever be robbed of the opportunity that was slipping past. And He, Who listens to every cry of distress, heard fhis. He stood still, and commanded the blind to be called. Then it was that the sympathy of sudden hope seized the ' multitude ' — the wonder about to be wrought fell upon them, as they com- forted the blind in the agony of rising despair with the • St. Mark words, ' He calleth thee.' ^ As so often, we are ^••*^ indebted to St. Mark for the vivid sketch of what passed. We can almost see Bartimasus as, on receiv- ing Christ's summons, he casts aside his upper garment and hastily comes. That question : what he would that Jesus should do unto him, must have been meant for those around more than for the blind. The cry to the Son of David had been only for mercy. It might have been for alms — though, as the address, so the gift bestowed in answer, would be right ro.val — 'after the order of David.' But the faith of the blind rose to the full height of the Divine possibilities opened before them. Their inward eyes had received capacity for The Light, before that ot earth lit up their long darkness. In the language of St. Matthew, ' Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes.' This is one aspect of it. The other is that given by St. Mark and St. Luke, in recording the words with which He accompanied the healing : ' Thy faith hath saved thee.' And these two results came of it : ' all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God ; ' and as for Bartimseus, though Jesus had bidden him ' go thy way,' yet ' immediately he received his sight,' he ' fol- lowed Jesus in the way,' glorifying God.^ The arrival of the Paschal band from Galilee and Peraea 456 Jesus the Mess/ ah was not in advance of many others. In truth, most pil- grims from a distance would probably come to the Holy City some days before the Feast, for the sake of purification in the Temple, since those who for any reason needed such — and there would be few families that did not — generally deferred it till the festive season brought them to Jerusalem. We owe this notice, and that which follows, » St. John to St. John," and in this again recognise the xi. 55-67 Jewish writer of the Fourth Gospel. It was only natural that these pilgrims should have sought for Jesus, and, when they did not find Him, discuss among them- selves the probability of His coming to the Feast. His absence would, after the work which He had done these three years, the claim which He made, and the defiant denial of it by the priesthood and the Sanhedrin, have been regarded as a virtual surrender to the enemy. There was a time when He need not have appeared at the Feast — when, as we see, it was better He should not come. But that time was past. The chief priests and the Phari- sees also knew it, and they ' had given commandment that, if any one knew where He was, he should show it, that they might take Him.' It would be better to as- certain where He lodged, and to seize Him before He appeared in public, in the Temple. But it was not as they had imagined. Without con- cealment Christ came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom He had raised from the dead. He came there six days before the Passover — and yet His coming was such » St. John that they could not ' take Him.'^ They might ^"- ^ as well take Him in the Temple ; nay, more easily. For the moment His stay in Bethany became known, ' much people of the Jews ' came out, not only for His sake, but to see that Lazarus whom He had raised from the dead. And of those who so came many went away believing. Thus one of their plans was frustrated. The Sanhedrin could perhaps not be moved to such flagrant <: St. John outrage of all Jewish Law, but ' the chief priests,' xii. 10, 11 ^jio had no such scruples, consulted how they might put Lazarus also to death.*' Fn the House of Simon the Leper 457 Yet, uot until His hour had come could man do aught against Christ or His disciples. And in contrast to such scheming, haste, and search, we murk the calm and quiet of Him Who knew what was before Him. Jesus had arrived at Bethany six days before the Passover — that is, on a Frida3\ The day after was the Sabbath, and ' they • St. John niade Him a supper.' ^ It was the special festive ^^'i- 1 meal of the Sabbath. The words of St. John seem to indicate that the meal was a public one, as if the people of Bethany had combined to do Him this honour, and so share the ])rivilege of attending the feast. In point of fact, we know from St. Matthew and St. Mark that it took place ' in the house of Simon the Leper ' — not, of course, an actual leper — but one who had been such. Among the guests is Lazarus ; and, prominent in service, Martha ; and Mary (the unnamed woman of the other two Gospels, which do not mention that household by name) is also true to her character. She had ' an alabaster ' of ' spikenard genuine,' which was very precious. It held ' a litra,' which was ' a Roman pound,' and its value could not have been less than nearly 9/. Remembering the fondness of Jewish women for such perfumes, it is, at least, not unreasonable to suppose that Mary may have had that ' alabaster ' of very costly ointment from olden days, before she had learned to serve Christ. Then, when she came to know Him, and must have learned how constantly that Decease, of wbich He ever spoke, was before His ]\Iind, she may have put it aside, ' kept it, against the day of His burying.' And now the decisive hour had come. Jesus may have told her, as He had told the disciples, what was before Him in Jerusalem at the Feast, and she would be far more quick to understand, even as she must have known far better than they, how great was the danger from the Sanhedrin. And it is this believing apprehension of the mystery of His Death on her part, and this preparation of deepest love for it — this mixture of sorrow, faith, and devotion — which made her deed so precious, that, wherever in the future the Gospel should be preached, this also that she had done should be 458 Jesus the Messiah recorded for a memorial of her.^ And the more we think « St. Matt, of it, the better can we understand liow, at that xxvi. 13 lagf; feast of fellowship, when all the other guests realised not — not even His disciples — how near the end was, she would 'come aforehand to anoint His Body for "St. Mark ^^^ buryiug.' ^ Her faith made it a twofold xiv.8 anointing: that of the best Guest at the last feast, and that of preparation for that Burial which, of all others, she apprehended as so terribly near. And so she poured the precious ointment over His Head, over His Feet — then, stooping over them, wiped them with her hair, as if not only in evidence of service and love, but in fellowship of His Death. ° ' And the house was filled ' — as to all time His Hou.se, the Church, is filled — ' with the odour of the ointment.' It is ever the light which throws the shadows of objects — and this deed of faith and love now cast the features of Judas in dark outlines against the scene. He knew the nearness of Chi'ist's Betrayal, and hated the more ; she knew of the nearness of His precious Death, and loved the more. It was not that he cared for the poor, when, taking the mask of charity, he simulated anger that such costly ointment had not been sold and the price given to the poor. For he was essentially dishonest, ' a thief,' and covetousness was the underlying master-passion of his soul. The money, claimed for the poor, would only have been used by himself Yet such was his pretence of righteousness, such his influence as ' a man of prudence ' among the disciples, and such their weakness, that they, d St. Mark or at least ' some,' ^ expressed indignation among xiT. 41 themselves and against her who had done the deed of love. There is something inexpressibly sad, yet patient and tender, in Christ's ' Let her alone.' That He Who was ever of the poor and with them, Who for our sakes became poor that through His poverty we might be made rich, should have to plead for a last service of love to Himself, and for Mary, and as against a Judas, seems indeed the depth of self-abasement. Yet, even so, has this falsely-spoken plea for the poor become a real plea. The First Day in Passiox-Wef.k 459 since He has left us this, as it were, as His last cluirge, find that by His own Death, that we have the poor always with us. And so do even the words of covetous dishonesty become transformed into the command of charity, and the Church does constant service to Christ in the ministry to His poor. CHAPTER LXXI. THE FIRST DAY IN PASSION-WEEK — THE ROYAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. (St. Matt. xxi. 1-11 ; St. Mark si. 1-11 ; St. Luke xix. 29-44 ; St. John xii. 12-19.) At lensrth the time of the end had come. Jesus was about to make Entry into Jerusalem as King : King of the Jews, as Heir of David's royal line, with all of sym- bolic, typic, and prophetic import attaching to it. Yet not as Israel after the flesh expected its Messiah was the Son of David to make triumphal entrance, but as deeply and significantly expressive of His Mission and Work, and as of old the rapt seer had beheld afar off the outlined picture of the Messiah-King ; not in the proud triumph of war-conquests, but in the ' meek ' rule of peace. It was a day in the early spring of tlie year 29, when the festive procession set out from the home at Bethany. There can be no reasonable doubt as to the locality of that hamlet (the modern El-^Amnye, ' of Lazarus '), perched on a broken rocky plateau on the other side of Olivet, ^lore difficulty attaches to the identification of Beiliplicuje, which is associated with it, the place not being men- tioned in the Old Testament, though repeatedly, but with contradictory statements of locality, in Jewish writings, l^erhaps the name Bethphage — ' house of figs ' — was given alike to that district generally, and to a little village close to Jerusalem where the district began. Although all the four Evangelists relate Christ's Entry into Jerusalem, they seem to do so from different stand- points. The Syuoptists accompany Him from Bethany, 460 Jesus the Messiah while St. John, in accordance with the general scheme of his narrative, seems to follow from Jerusalem that multi- tude which, on tidings of His approach, hastened to meet Him. It was probably soon after His outset that He sent • corap. St. ^^ ' two disciples ' — possibly Peter and John " Lukexxii. 8 — j^to 'the village over against' them — pre- sumably Bethphage. There they would find by the side of the road an ass's colt tied, whereon never man had sat. We mark the significant symbolism of the latter, in connec- tion with the general conditions of consecration D ^um XIX ^^ 2 ; Deiit. ' to Jehovah ^ — and note in it, as also in the Mission of the Apostles, that this was intended by Christ to be His Royal and Messianic Entry. This colt they were to loose and to bring to Him. The disciples found all as He had said. When they reached Bethphage, they saw by a doorway where two roads met the colt tied by its mother. As they loosed it, ' t^® owners ' and ' certain of them that stood by ' *^ comp.aiso' asked their purpose, to which, as directed by the Master, they answered : ' The Lord [the JMaster, Christ] hath need of him,' when, as predicted, no further hindrance was offered. We can understand how, so soon as from the bearing and the peculiar words of the disciples thej^ understood then- purpose, the owners of the ass and colt would grant the use of the colt for the solemn Entry into the City of the Teacher of Nazareth, Whom the multitude was so eagerly expecting ; and again how, as from the gates of Jerusalem tidings spread of what had passed in Bethphage, the multitude would stream forth to meet Jesus. Meantime Christ and those who followed Him from Bethany had entered on the well-known caravan-road from Jericho to Jerusalem. It is the most southern of three which converge close to the City, perhaps at the very place where the colt had stood tied. ' The road soon loses sight of Bethany. It is now a rough, but still broad and well- defined mountain-track, winding over rock and loose stones ; a steep declivity on the left ; the sloping shoulder of Olivet above on the right ; fig-trees below and above, here and The Royal Entry into Jerusalem 461 there growing out of the rocky soil.' Somewhere here the disciples who brought ' the colt ' must have met Him. They were accompanied by many, and immediately followed by more. For, as already stated, Bethphage — we presume the village — formed almost part of Jerusalem, and during Easter-week must have been crowded by pilgi'ims, who could not find accommodation within the City walls. And the announcement that disciples of Jesus had just fetched the beast of burden on which Jesus was about to enter Jerusalem, must have quickly spread among the crowds which thronged the Temple and the City. With these went also a number of ' Pharisees,' their hearts full of jealousy and hatred. As we shall presently see, it is of importance to keep in mind this composition of the ' multitude.' As the two disciples, accompanied or immediately fol- lowed by the multitude, brought ' the colt ' to Christ, ' two streams of people met ' — the one coming from the City, the other from Bethany. The disciples, who understood • St. John not,* till the light of the Resurrection-glory had xii. 16 been poured on their minds, the significance of 'these things,' even after they had occurred, seem not even to have guessed that it was of set purpose Jesus was about to make His Royal Entry into Jerusalem. Their enthusiasm seems only to have been kindled when they saw the pro- cession from the town come to meet Jesus with palm- branches cut down by the way, and greeting Him with Hosanna-shouts of welcome. Then they spread their gar- ments on the colt, and set Jesus thereon. Then also in their turn they cut down branches from the trees and gardens through which they passed, or plaited and twisted palm- 0 St. Luke branches, and strewed them as a rude matting in XIX. 37, 38 jjj^, ^yjj^y^ while they joined in, and soon raised to a much higher pitch ^ the Hosauna of welcoming praise. They had now ranged themselves : the multitude which had come from the City preceding, that which had come with Him from Bethany following the triumphant progress of Israel's King, ' meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the fual of an ass.' ' (Jradually the long procession swept 462 Jesus the Mess/ah up and over the ridge where first begins " the descent of the Mount of Olives " towards Jerusalem. At this point the first view is caught of the south-eastern corner of the City. The Temple and the more northern portions are hid by the slope of Olivet on the right ; what is seen is only Mount Zion, now for the most part a rough field.' But at that time it rose, terrace upon terrace, from the Palace of the Maccabees and that of the High- Priest, a very city of palaces, till the eye rested in the summit on that castle, city, and palace, with its frowning towers and magnificent gardens, the royal abode of Herod, supposed to occupy the very site of the Palace of David. They had been greeting Him with Hosannas ! But enthusiasm, especially in such a cause, is infectious. They were mostly stranger-pilgrims » St. John that had come from the City, chiefly because ^- ^^ they had heard of the raising of Lazarus.* And now they must have questioned them which came from Bethany, who in turn related that of which themselves had ^ ^ been eyewitnesses.^ It may have been just as the precise point of the road was reached where ^ the City of David ' first suddenly emerges into view, ' at the descent of the Mount of Olives,' ' that the whole multi- tude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen.' •= As the burning words of joy and praise, the record of what they had seen, passed from mouth to mouth, and they caught their first sight of ' the City of David,' adorned as a bride to welcome her King — Davidic praise to David's Greater Son wakened the echoes of old Davidic Psalms. ' Hosanna to the Son of David ! Blessed be He that cometh in the Name of the Lord. . . . Blessed the Kingdom that cometh, the Kingdom of our father David. . . . Blessed be He that cometh in the Name of the Lord. . . . Hosanna . . . Hosanna in the highest. . . . Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.' They were but broken utterances, partly based upon Ps. cxviii., partly taken from it — the ' Hosanna,' or ' Save <• Ps. cxviii. now,' and the ' Blessed be He that cometh in the 25, 26 Name of the Lord,' ^ forming part of the re- The Royal Entry into Jerusalem 463 sponses by the people with which this Psaku was chanted on certain of the most solemn festivals. At the same time it must be remembered that, according to Jewish tradition, Ps. cxviii. vv. 25-28 was also chanted antiphonally by the people of Jerusalem, as they went to welcome the festive pilgrims on their arrival, the latter always responding in the second clause of each verse, till the last verse of the Psalm ^ was reached, which was sung by both a ver. 29 . . . ... . ~ "^ parties in unison, Psalm ciii. 17 being added by way of conclusion. But as ' the shout rang through the long defile,' carrying evidence far and wide, that, so far from condemning and forsaking, more than the ordinary pilgrim-welcome had been given to Jesus^the Pharisees, who had mingled with the crowd, turned to one another with angry frowns ; ' Behold [see intently], how ye prevail nothing ! See — the world is gone after Him ! ' Then they made a desperate appeal to the Master Himself, Whom they so bitterly hated, to check and rebuke the honest zeal of His disciples. He had been silent hitherto, but now. with a touch of quick and righteous indignation. He pointed to the rocks and stones, telling those leaders of Israel that, if •> St Luk *^® people held their peace, the very stones would cry out.'' Silence has fallen these many centuries upon Israel j but the very stones of Jerusalem's ruin and desolateness have cried out that He, Whom in their silence they rejected, has come as King in the Name of the Lord. ' Again the procession advanced. The road descends a slight declivity, and the glimpse of the City is again mthdrawn behind the intervening ridge of Olivet. A few moments and the path mounts again, it climbs a rugged ascent, it reaches a ledge of smooth rock, and in an instant the whole City bursts into view. ... It is hardly possible to doubt that this rise and turn of the road — this rocky ledge — was the exact point where the multitude paused again, and " He, when He beheld the City, wept over it." ' Not with still weeping, as at the grave of Lazarus, but with loud and deep lamentation. The contrast was indeed terrible between the Jerusalem 464 Jesus the Messiah that rose before Him in all its beauty, glory, and security, and tlie Jerusalem which He saw in vision dimly rising on the sky, with the camp of the enemy round about it on every side, and the very ' stockade ' which the Roman Legions raised ; then, another scene in the shifting pano- rama, and the City laid with the ground, the bodies of her children among her ruins ; and yet another scene : the silence and desolateness of death by the Hand of God — not one stone left upon another ! But for the present, on that bright spring-day, the weak, fickle populace streamed before Him through the City-gates, through the narrow streets, up the Temple- mount. Everywhere the tramp of their feet and the shout of their exclamations brought men, women, and children into the streets and on the housetops. The City was moved, and from mouth to mouth the question passed among the eager crowd of curious onlookers : ' Who is He ? ' And the multitude answered — not, this is Israel's Messiah -King, but : ' This is Jesus the Prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.' And so up into the Temple ! He alone spake not, but only looked round about upon all things, as if to view the field on which He was to suffer and die. And now the shadows of evening were creeping up ; and, weary and sad. He once more returned with the twelve disciples to the shelter and rest of Bethany, CHAPTER LXXII. THE SECOND DAY IN PASSION-WEEK — THE BARREN FIG-TREE — THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE THE HOSANNA OF THE CHILDREN. (St. Matt. xxi. 12-22 ; St. Mark xi. 15-26 ; St. Luke xix. 45-48.) How the King of Israel spent the night after the triumphal » St. Mark Entry into His City and Temple, we may venture Liike'v^*i6- reverently to infer. We know how often His St. Matt. ' nights had been spent in lonely prayer,a and Luke VI. 12; surely it is not too bold to associate such thoughts *^*^^ with the first nioht in Passion-week Thus al.^o The Barren Fig-Tree 465 we can most readily account for that exhaustion and faint- ness of hunger, which next morning made Him seek fruit on the fig-tree on His way to the City. It was very early on the morning of the second day in Passion-week (Monday), when Jesus with His dis- ciples left Bethany. In the fresh, crisp, spring air, after the exhaustion of that night, ' He hungered.' By the roadside, as so often in the East, a solitary tree grew in the rocky soil. It must have stood on an eminence, where it caught the sunshine and warmth, for He saw it ' afar off,' * green, against the sky, ' It was not " the season of figs,' but the tree, covered with leaves, attracted His attention. It might have been that they hid some of the fruit which hung through the winter, or else the springing fruits of the new crop. For it is a well-known fact that in Palestine ' the fruit appears before the leaves ; ' and that this fig-tree, whether from its exposure or soil, was precocious, is evident from the fact that it was in leaf, which is quite unusual at that season on the Mount of Olives. The old fruit would, of course, have been edible, and in regard to the unripe fruit we have the evidence of the Mishnah, confirmed by the Talmud, that the unripe fruit was eaten so soon as it began to assume a red colour — as it is expressed, ' in the field, with bread,' or, as we understand it, by those whom hunger overtook in the fields, whether working or travelling. But in the present case there was neither old nor new fruit, ' but leaves only.' It was evidently a barren fig- tree, cumbering the ground, and to be hewn down. Our mind almost instinctively reverts to the Parable of the » St. Luke Barren Fig-tree, which Jesus had so lately xm. 6-9 spoken.'' To Him, Who but yesterday had wept over the Jerusalem that knew not the day of its visitation, and over which the sharp axe of judgment was already lifted, this fig-tree with its luxuriant leaves must have recalled, with pictorial vividness, the scene of the previous day. Israel was that barren fig-tree ; and the leaves only covered their nakedness, as erst they had that of our first parents after their Fall. And the judgment symbolically H H 466 Jesus the Messiah spoken in the Parable must be symbolically executed in this leafy fig-tree, barren when searched for fruit by the Master. According to the more detailed account of St. Mark, it was only next morning, when they again passed by, that they noticed the fig-tree had withered from its very roots. The spectacle attracted their attention, and vividly recalled the Words of Christ, to which on the previous day they had, perhaps, scarcely attached sufficient importance. And it was the suddenness and completeness of the judgment that had been denounced which now struck Peter, rather than its symbolic meaning. Peter's words are at least capable of this interpretation, that the fig-tree had withered in consequence of, rather than by the Word of Christ. His answer combined all that they needed to learn. It pointed to the typical lesson of what had taken place : the need of realising, simple faith, the absence of which was the cause of Israel's leafy barrenness, and which, if present and active, could accomplish all, however impossible it might seem by outward means. To one who ' shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he saith cometh to pass, it shall be to him.' And this general principle of the Kingdom, which to the reverent believer needs neither explanation nor limitation, received its further application, specially to the Apostles in their coming need : ' Therefore I say unto you, whatsoever things, praying, ye ask for, believe that ye have received them [not, in the counsel of God, but actually, in answer to the prayer of faith], and it shall be to you.' On the previous afternoon, when Christ had come to the Temple, the services were probably over, and the Sanctuary comparatively empty of worshippers and of those who there carried on their traffic. When treating of the first cleansing of the Temple, at the beginning of Christ's Ministry, sufficient has been said to explain the character and mode of that nefarious traffic, the profits of which went to the leaders of the priesthood, as also how popular indig- nation was roused alike against this trade and the traders. We need not here recall the words of Christ; Jewish Second Cleansing of the Temple 467 authorities sufficiently describe, in even stronger terms, this transformation of ' the House of Prayer' into 'a den of robbers.' If, when beginning to do the ' business' of His Father, and for the first time publicly presenting Him- self with Messianic claim, it was fitting He should take such authority, and first ' cleanse the Temple,' much more was this appropriate now, at the close of His Work, when as King He had entered His City and publicly claimed authoiity. At the first it had been for teiicliing and warn- ing, now it was in symbolic judgment ; what and as He then began, that and so He now finished. Accordingly, as we compare the words, and even some of the acts, of the first 'cleansing ' with those accomi)anying and explaining the second, we find the latter bearing a different character — that of final judicial sentence. Nor did the Temple-authorities now, as on the former occasion, seek to raise the populace against Him, or challenge His authority by demanding the warrant of ' a sign.' The contest had reached quite another stage. They heard what He said in their condemnation, and with bitter hatred in their hearts sought for some means to destroy Him. But fear of the people restrained their violence. For marvellous indeed was the power which He wielded. With rapt attention the people hung on His lips,* ' astonished ' at those new and blessed truths which dropped from them. By His authority the Temple was cleansed of the unholy, thievish traffic which a corrupt priesthood cai'ried on, and so for the time restored to the solemn Service of God ; and that purified House now became the scene of Christ's teaching, when He spake those words of truth and of comfort concerning the Father — thus realising the prophetic promise of ' a House of Prayer ^ for all the nations.''' And as those traffickers were driven from the Temple, and He spake, there flocked in from porches and Temple-Mount sufferers — the blind and the lame — to get healing to body and soul. It was truly spring-time in that Temple, and the boys that gathered about their fathers, and looked in turn from their faces of wonderment and enthusiasm to the Godlike Face H u ^ 468 Jesus the Messiah of the Christ, and then on those healed sufferers, took up the echoes of the welcome at His entrance into Jerusalem — in their simplicity understanding and applying them better — as they burst into ' Hosanna to the Son of David ! ' It rang through the courts and porches of the Temple, this Children's Hosanna. They heard it, whom the wonders He had spoken and done, so far from leading to repentance and faith, had only filled with indignation. Once more in their impotent anger they sought, as the Pharisees had done on the day of His Entry, by a hypo- critical appeal to His reverence for God, not only to mislead, and so to use His very love of the truth against the truth, but to betray Him into silencing those Children's voices. But not from the great, the wise, nor the learned, but ' out of the moutli of babes and sucklings ' has He ' per- fected praise.' This, also, is the Music of the Gospel. CHAPTER LXXIII. the third day in passion-week — the question of Christ's authority — the question of tribute to ciesar — the widow's farthing — the greeks who sought to see jesus. (St. Matt. xxi. 23-27 ; St. Mark xi. 27-33; St. Luke xx. 1-8 ; St. Matt, xxii. 15-22 ; St Mark xii. 13-17; St. Luke xx. 20-26; St. Matt. xxii. 41-46 ; St. Luke xxi. 1-4 ; St. John xii. 20-50.) This chapter will be devoted to the events of the third day in Passion- Week. 1. As usually, the day commenced «■ with teaching in • St. Mat- the Temple.** We gather this from the expres- fc^stLuke sion: ' as He was walking,''' viz., in one of the « St. Mark Porches, where, as we know, considerable freedom of meeting, conversing, or even teaching, was allowed. It will be remembered that on the previous day the authori- ties had been afraid to interfere with Him. But with the night and morning other counsels had come. From the The Question of Christ's Authority 469 formal manner in which ' the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders ' are introduced,* and from the circumstance that they so met Christ immediately on His entry into the Temple, we can scarcely doubt that a meeting, although informal, of the authorities had been held to concert measures against the growing danger. Yet, even so, they dared not directly oppose Him, but endeavoured, by attacking Him on the one point where He seemed to lay Himself open to it, to arrogate to them- selves the appearance of strict legality, and so to turn popular feeling against Him, For there was no principle more firmly established by universal consent than that authoritative teaching required previous autliorisation. Indeed, this logically followed from the principle of Rabbinism. A.11 teaching must be authoritative, since it was traditional — approved by authority, and handed down from teacher to disciple. The highest honour of a scholar was that he was like a well- plastered cistern, from which not a drop had leaked of what had been poured into it. The ultimate appeal in cases of discussion was always to some great authority, whether an individual Teacher or a Decree by the Sanhedrin. And to decide differently from authority was either the mark of ignorant assumption or the out- come of daring rebellion, in either case to be visited with ' the ban.' And this was at least one aspect of the contro- versy as between the chief authorities and Jesus. No one would have thought of interfering with a mere Haggadist — a popular expositor, preacher, or teller of legends. But authoritatively to teach required other warrant. In fact, there was regular ordination to the office of Rabbi, Elder, and Judge, for the three functions were combined in one. At whatever periods this practice may have been intro- duced, it is at least certain that, at the time of our Lord, no one would have ventured authoritatively to teach with- out proper Rabbinic authorisation. The question there- fore with which the Jewish authorities met Christ, while teaching, was one which had a very real meaning, and ap- pealed to the habits and feelings of the people who 470 Jesus the Messiah listened to Jesus. Otherwise also it was cunningly framed. For it did not merely challenge Him for teaching, but also asked for His authority in what He did ; referring not only to His Work generally, but perhaps especially to what had happened on the previous day. They were not there to oppose Him ; but when a man did as He had done in the Temple, it was their duty to verify his credentials. Finally, the alternative question reported by St. Mark : ' or ' — if Thou hast not proper Rabbinic commission — ' who gave Thee this authority to do these things ? ' seems clearly to point to their contention, that the power which Jesus wielded was delegated to Him by none other than Beelzebul. But the Lord answered their question, though He also exposed the cunning and cowardice which prompted it. To the challenge for His authority, and the dark hint about Satanic agency. He replied by an appeal to the Baptist. He had borne full witness to the Mission of Christ from the Father, and ' all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.' Were they satisfied ? What was their view of the Baptism in preparation for the Coming of Christ ? They would not, or could not, answer. If they said the Baptist was a prophet, this implied not only the authorisation of the ]\Iission of Jesus, but the call to believe on Him. On the other hand, they were afraid publicly to disown John. And so they were self-condemned, when they pleaded ignorance — a plea so grossly and manifestly dishonest, that Christ could refuse further discussion with them on this point. 2. Foiled in their endeavour to involve Him with the ecclesiastical, they next attempted the more dangerous device of bringing Him into collision with the civil authori- ties. Remembering the ever watchful jealousy of Rome, the tyranny of Pilate, and the low artifices of Herod, » St. Luke wiio W3,s at that time in Jerusalem,* we instinc- xxiii.7 tively feel how even the slightest compromise on the part of Jesus in regard to the authority of Ceesar would have been absolutely fatal. If it could have been proved on undeniable testimony that Jesus had declared The Question of Tribute to C^sar 471 Himself on the side of, or even encouraged, the so-calley a merely extei-nnl interpretation of Exod. xiii. 9, 16, and Deut. vi. 8, xi, 18, the practice of wearing Phylacteries, or, as they were called, Tephillin, ' prayer-fillets,' was introduced. These, as will be remembered, were square capsules, covered with leather, containing on small scrolls of parchment these; four sections of the law: Ivxod. xiii. 1-10, 11-10; Dent. vi. 4-9 ; xi. 13-21. The Phylacteries wci'e fastened by long leather straps to the forehead, and round the left arm, near the heart. I^Iost superstitious reverence was attached to them, and in later times tlu^y wen; even used as amulets. Nevertheless, the Talmufl itself gives confir- mation that th(? practice of constantly wearing Phylac- teries— or, it might be, making them broad, and enlarging the borders of the garments — was intended '/or to he wan ofmert.^ Nay, the Rabbis had in so many words to lay it down as a principle, that the Phylacteries were not to ha worn for show. Detailed proof is scarcc-ly required of the charge, of vanity and self-seeking in claiming marked outward honours, such as the uppermost places at feasts and in the Synagogue, respectful salutations in the market, the osten- tatious repetition of the title ' Rabbi,' or ' Abba,' ' Father,' or ' Master,' or the distinction of being acknowledged as 'greatest.' The very earnestness with which the 'J'ahnud sometimes warns against such motives for study or for piety sufficiently establishes it. The Law of the Kingdom, as repeatedly taught,* was • St. Mark the opposite. As j-egarded aims, they were Uy Luke riv*^' ^^'^ ^^^ grcatness of service ; and as regarded ii;xviii. 14 ^h^t acknowledgment which would come from God, it would be the exaltation of humiliation. It was not a break in the Discourse, rather an inten- sification of it, when Christ now turned to make final •>st. .Matt, denunciation of Pharisaism in its sin and hypo- uiii. 13-33 crisy.'' Corresponding to the eight Beatitudes 488 Jesus the Messiah in the Sermon on the Mount with which His public Ministry began, He now closed it with eight denunciations of woe. These are the forthpouring of His holy wrath, the last and fullest testimony against those whose guilt would involve Jerusalem in common sin and common judgment. The first Woe against Pharisaism was on their shutting the Kingdom of God against men by their opposition to the Christ. All knew how exclusive were their pretensions in confining piety to the possession of knowledge, and that they declared it impossible for an ignorant person to be pious. The second Woe was on their covetousness and hypo- crisy. They made long prayers, but how often did it only cover the vilest selfishness, even to the ' devouring ' of widows' houses ! The third Woe was on their proselytism, which issued only in making their converts twofold more the children of hell than themselves. Against this charge, rightly under- stood, Judaism has in vain sought to defend itself. But the Lord may have referred here, not to conversion to Judaism in general, but to proselytism to the sect of the Pharisees, which was undoubtedly sought to the compassing of sea and land. The fourth Woe is denounced on the moral blindness of these guides rather than on their hypocrisy. It seems likely that our Lord refers to oaths or adjurations in con- nection with vows, where the casuistry was of the most complicated kind. The fiftb Wo3 referred to one of the best-known and sti'angest Jewish ordinances, which extended the Mosaic law of tithing, in most burdensome minuteness, even to the smallest products of the soil that were esculent and could be preserved, such as anise. Of these, according to some, not only the seeds, but in certain cases even the leaves and stalks, had to be tithed. We remember that this conscientiousness in tithing constituted one of the characteristics of the Pharisees ; but we could scarcely be prepared for such an instance of it, as when the Talmud Final Warning against the Pharisees 489 gravely assures us that the ass of a certain Rabbi had beeu so well trained as to refuse corn of which the tithes had not been taken ! From tithing to purification the transition was natural. It constituted the second characteristic of Pharisaic piety. "VVe have seen with what punctiliousness questions of out- ward purity of vessels were discussed. But woe to the hypocrisy which, caring for the outside, heeded not whether that which filled the cup and platter had been procured by extortion or was used for excess. And. alas for the blind- ness which perceived not that internal purity was the real condition of that which was outward ! Woe similarly to another species of hypocrisy, of which, indeed, the preceding were but the outcome : that of out- ward appearance of righteousness, while heart and mind were full of iniquity — ^just as those annually-whited sepul- chres of theirs seemed so fair outwardly, but within were full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Woe, lastly, to that hypocrisy which built and decorated sepulchres of prophets and righteous men, and by so doing sought to shelter itself from share in the guilt of those who had killed them. It was not spiritual repentance, but national pride, which actuated them in this, the same spirit of self-sufficiency, pride, and impenitence which had led their fathers to commit the murders. And were they not about to imbrue their hands in the blood of Him to Whom all the prophets had pointed ? Fast were they in the Divine judgment filling up the measure of their fathers. And thicker and heavier than ever before fell the hail- storm of His denunciations, as He foretold the certain •St. Matt. doom which awaited their national impenitence.* xxiii. .Ti -36 Prophets, wise men, and scribes would be sent them of Him ; and only murders, sufferings, and perse- cutions would await them — not reception of their message and warnings. And so would they become heirs of all the blood of martp-ed saints, from that of him whom Scrip- ture records as the first one murdered, down to that last martyr of Jewish unbelief of whom tradition spoke in such 490 Jesus the Messiah terms — Zecbariah,' stoned by the king's command in the • 2 chron. Court of the Temple,^ whose blood, as legend had xxiv. 20-22 ii;^ (ji(j jjqi^ (jj.y u^p those two centuries and a half, but still bubbled on the pavement, when Nebuzar-adan entered the Temple and at last avenged it. And yet it would not have been Jesus, if, while de- nouncing certain judgment on them who, by continuance and completion of the crimes of their fathers, through the same unbelief, had proved themselves heirs to all their guilt, He had not also added to it the passionate lament of a love which, even when spurned, lingered with longing »> St. Matt, over the lost.** They all knew the common illus- xKjii. 37-39 tration of the hen gathering her youny- brood for shelter, and they knew also what of Divine protection, blessing, and rest it implied, when they spoke of being gathered under the wings of the Shekhinah. Fain and often would Jesus have given to Israel, His people, that shelter, rest, protection, and blessing — but they would not. Looking around on those Teui pie-buildings — that House, it shall be left to them desolate ! And He quitted its courts with these words, that they of Israel should not see Him again till, the night of their unbelief past, they would welcome His return with a better Hosanna than that which had greeted His Royal Entry three days before. ' We need scarcely remind the reader that this Zechariah was the son of Jehoiada. The difference in the text of St. Matthew may either be due to family circumstances, unknown to us, which might admit of his designation as ' the son of Barachias ' (the reading is undoubtedly correct), or an error may have crept into the text — liow, we know not, and it is of little moment. There can be no question that the reference is to this Zacharias. 491 CHAPTER LXXV. THE THIRD DAY IN PASSION-WEEK — THE LAST SERIES OF parables: of the labourers in the VINEYARD — OF THE TWO SONS — OF THE EVIL HUSBANDMEN — OF THE MARRIAIJE OF THE KING'S SON AND OF THE WEDDING GARMENT. (St. Matt. six. 30-xx. 16 ; xxi. 28-32, 33-46 ; St. Mark sii. 1-1^; St. Luke XX. 9-19 ; St. Matt. xxii. 1-14.) Although it may not be possible to mai-k their exact succession, it will be convenient here to group together the last series of Parables. Most, if not all of them, were spoken on that third day in Passion-week : the first four to a more general audience ; the last three (to be treated in another chapter) to the disciples, when, on the evening • St Matt ^^ ^'^^^' third day, on the Mount of Olives,^ He xxiv. 1 : St. told them of the ' Last Things.' They are the Luke xxi 37 . Parables of Judgment, and in one form or another treat of ' the End.' 1. The Parable of the Labourers in the Vine- kc. -,,.. yarciy — As treating of 'the End,' this Parable k St. Matt. .Till 11 ■ , . xix. 30-xx. evidently belongs to the last series, although it may have been spoken previously to Passion- week. We remember that on the occasion of the rich young ruler's failure to enter the Kingdom, to which he was so near, Christ had uttered an earnest warning on the « St. Matt, danger of ' riches.' '^ In the low spiritual stage xix. 23, 24 which the Apostles had as yet attained, it was, perhaps, only natural that Peter should, as spokesman of the rest, have in a kind of spiritual covetousness clutched at the promised reward, and that in a tone of self-righteous- ness he should have reminded Christ of the sacrifices which they had made. It was most incongruous, yet part of what the Lord had always to bear from their ignorance and failure to understand Him and His work. Only 492 Jesus the Messiah there was here danger to the disciples : danger of lapsing into feelings kindred to those with which the Pharisees viewed the pardoned Publicans, or the elder son in the Parable his younger brother ; danger of misunder- standing the right relations, and with it the very character of the Kingdom, and of work in and for it. It is to this that the Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard refers. The principle which Christ lays down is that, while nothing done for Him shall lose its reward, yet, from one reason or another, no forecast can be made, no inferences of self-righteousness may be drawn. It does not by any means follow that most work done — at least, to our seeing and judging — shall entail a greater reward. Of this the Parable of the Labourers is an illustration. It teaches nothing beyond this. But while illustrating how it may come that some who were first are * last,' and how utterly mistaken or wrong is the thought that they must necessarily receive more than others, who seemingly have done more — how, in short, work for Christ is not a ponderable quantity, so much for so much, nor yet we the judges of when and why a worker has come — it also con- veys much besides. We mark, first, the bearing of ' the householder, who went out to hire labourers into his vineyard.' That he • St. Matt. Dcut. xxii.7 least, about letting the mother-bird fly away '' — attaching to both precisely the same reward. To these, if need were, might be added other illustrations of that painful reckoning about work, or else sufferings, and reward, which characterises Jewish theology, as it did those labourers in the Parable. 2. The second Parable in this series — or perhaps rather illustration — was spoken within the Temple. The Saviour had been answering the question of the Pharisees as to His authority by an appeal to the testimony of the Baptist. This led Him to refer to the twofold reception of that testimony — on the one hand, by the Publicans and harlots, and on the other, by the Pharisee;^. • St. Matt. The Parable '^ which now follows introduces a ixi. 28-32 ijjj^n -^y]^o has two sons. He goes to the first, and in language of affection bids him go and work in his vine- yard. The son curtly and rudely refuses ; but afterwards he changes his mind and goes. Meantime the father, when refused by the one, has gone to his other son on the same errand. The contrast here is marked. The tone is most polite, and the answer of the son contains not only a promise, but we almost see him going : ' I, sir ! — and he did not go.' The application was easy. The first son rejiresented the Publicans and harlots, whose curt and rude refusal of the Father's call was implied in their life of reck- less sin. But afterwards they changed their mind — and went into the Father's vineyard. The other son, with his politeness of tone and ready promise, but utter neglect of obligations undertaken, represented the Pharisees with their hypocritical and empty professions. And Christ obliged them to make application of the Parable, Wheo 49^ Jesus the Messiah challenged by the Lord, which of the two had done the will of his father, they could not avoid the answer. Then it was that in language equally stern and true He pointed the moral. The Baptist had come preaching righteousness, and, while the self-righteous Pharisees had not believed him, those sinners had. And yet, even when the Pharisees saw the effect on these former sinners, they changed not their minds that they might believe. Therefore the Publicans and harlots would and did go into the Kingdom before them. 3. Closely connected with the two preceding Parables, »st Matt ^^^^ indeed, with the whole tenor of Christ's xxi. 33 &o. sayings at that time, is that about the Evil Hus- and parallels ^ -, • ,^ -it-. ^ „ bandmen m the Vmeyard.^ The Parable opens, like that in Is. v., with a description of the complete arrangements made by the Owner of the Vineyard, to show how everything had been done to ensure a good yield of fruit, and what right the Owner had to expect at least a share in it. In the Parable, as in the prophecy, the Vineyard represents the Theocracy, although in the Old Testament, necessarily, as identified with the nation of Israel,^ while in the Parable the two are distinguished, aud the nation is represented by the labourers to whom the Vineyard was ' let out.' In- deed, the whole structure of the Parable shows that the husbandmen are Israel as a nation, although they are addressed and dealt with in the persons of their represen- <: St. Luke tatives and leaders. And so it was spoken ' to alt^Matt. the people,' ° and yet ' the chief priests and Phari- sxi. 45 gggg ' I'iglitly ' perceived that He spake of them.' '^ This vineyard the owner had let out to husbandmen, while he himself ' travelled away ' [abroad], as St. Luke adds. ' for a long time.' From the language it is evident that the husbandmen had the full management of the vine- yard. We remember that there were three modes of dealing with land. According to one of these ' the labourers ' employed received a certain portion of the fruits, say, a third or a fourth of the produce. In such cases it seems, at least sometimes, to have been the practice, besides Parable of the Evil Husbandmen 497 giving them a proportion of thfe produce, to provide also the seed (for a field) and to pay wages to the labourers. The other two modes of letting land were, either that the tenant paid a money rent to the proprietor, or else that he agreed to give the owner a definite amount of pro- duce, whether the harvest had been good or bad. Such leases were given by the year or for life ; sometimes the lease was even hereditary, passing from father to son. There can scarcely be a doubt that it is tlie latter kind of lease which is referred to in the Parable, the lessees being bound to give the owner a certain amount of fruits in their season. Accordingly, ' when the time of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen to receive his fruits ' — the part of them belonging to him, or, as St. Mark and St. Luke express it, ' of the fruits of the vineyard.' We gather that it was a succession of servants, who received increas- ingly ill treatment from these evil husbandmen. We might have expected that the owner would now have taken severe measures ; but instead of this he sent, in his patience and goodness, ' other servants ' — not ' more,' but ' greater than the first,' no doubt with the idea that their greater authority would command respect. And when these also received the same treatment, we must regard it as involving increased guilt on the part of the husbandmen. Once more a fresh and still greater display of the owner's patience and unwillingness to believe that these husbandmen were so evil. As St. Mark pathetically puts it, indicating not only the owner's goodness, but the spirit of determined rebellion and the wickedness of the husbandmen : ' He had yet one, a beloved son — he sent him last unto them,' on the supposition that they would reverence him. The result was different. The appearance of the legal heir made them apprehensive of their tenure. Practically, the vine- yard was already theirs ; by killing the heir, the only claimant to it would be put out of the way, and so the vineyard become in ever}- respect their own. For the husbandmen proceeded on the idea that, as the owner was ' abroad ' ' for a long time,' he would not personally inter- K K 498 Jesus the Messiah fere — an impression strengthened by the circumstance that he had not avenged the former ill-usage of his servants, but only sent others in the hope of influencing them by gentleness. So the labourers, 'taking him [the son], cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him ' — the first action indicating that by violence they thrust him out of his possession, before they wickedly slew him. The meaning of the Parable is sufficiently plain. The Owner of the vineyard, God, had let out His Vineyard — the Theocracy — to His people of old. The covenant having been instituted, He withdrew, as it were — the former direct communication between Him and Israel ceased. Then in due season He sent 'His Servants,' the prophets, to gather His fruits — they had had theirs in all the temporal and spiritual advantages of the covenant. But instead of re- turning the fruits meet unto repentance, they only ill-treated His messengers, and that increasingly even unto death. In His longsuffering He next sent on the same errand • St. Luke ' greater' than them — John the Baptist.* And ^1-26 when he also received the same treatment. He sent last His own Son, Jesus Christ. His appearance made them feel that it was now a decisive struggle for the Vineyard — and so in order to gain its possession for them- selves, they cast the rightful Heir out of His own possession, and then killed Him. And they must have understood the meaning of the Parable, who had proved themselves heirs to their fathers b St. Matt, in the murder of all the prophets,^ who had just xxui. 34-36 ijeejj convicted of the rejection of the Baptist's message, and whose hearts were even then full of murderous thoughts against the rightful Heir of the Vineyard. But, even so, they must speak their own judgment. In answer to His challenge, what in their view the owner of the vine- yard would do to these husbandmen, the chief priests and Pharisees could only reply : ' As evil men evilly will He destroy them. And the vineyard will He let out to other « St. Matt, husbandmen, which shall render Him the fruits xsi. 41 jj, iijgij. seasons.' *^ The application was obvious, and it was made by Parable of the Marriage of the King's Son 499 Christ, first, as always, by a reference to tlie prophetic testimony. And then followed, in plain and unmistak- able language, the terrible prediction, first nationally, that the Kingdom of God would be taken from them, and ' given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof : ' and then individually, that whosoever stumbled at that stone and fell over it, in personal offence or hostility, should be broken in pieces, but whosoever stood in the way of, or resisted its progress, and on whom therefore it fell, it would ' scatter him as dust.' Once more was their wrath roused, but also their fears. They knew that He spake of them, and would fiiin have laid hands on Him ; but they feared the people, who in those days regarded Him as a prophet. And so for the present they left Him, and went their way. 4. If Rabbinic writings offer scarcely any parallel to the preceding Parable, that of the Marriage-Feast of the • St. Matt. King's Son and the Wedding Garment* seems xxii. 1-14 almost reproduced in Jewish tradition. A King is represented as inviting to a feast, without, however, fixing the exact time for it. The wise adorn themselves in time, and are seated at the door of the palace, so as to be in readiness, since, as they argue, no elaborate pre- paration for a feast can be needed in a palace ; while the foolish go awa}'^ to their work, arguing there must be time enough, since there can be no feast without prepara- tion. But suddenly comes the King's summons to the feast, when the wise appear festively adorned, and the King i-ejoices over them, and they are made to sit down, eat and drink ; while he is wroth with the foolish, who appear squalid, and are ordered to stand by and look on in anguish, hunger and thirst. When we turn to the Parable of our Lord, its meaning is not difficult to understand. The King made a marriage for his Son, and sent his Servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding. Evidently, as in the Jewish Parable, and as before in that of the guests invited to the «> St. Luke gi'cat Supper,*' a preliminary general invitation xiv. 16, 17 tjaj preceded the announcement that all was K K 2 Soo Jesus the Messiah ready. But those invited would not come. It reminds us both of the Parable of the Labourers for the Vineyard, sought at different times, and of the repeated sending of messengers to those Evil Husbandmen for the fruits that were due, when we are next told that the King sent forth other servants to tell them to come, for he had made ready his ' early meal,' and that, no doubt with a view to the later meal, the oxen and fatlings were killed. These repeated endeavours to call, to admonish, and to invite, form a characteristic feature of these Parables, showing that it was one of the central objects of our Lord's teach- ing to exhibit the longsuffering and goodness of God, Instead of giving heed to these repeated and pressing calls, in the words of the Parable : ' But they [the one class] made light of it, and went away, the one to his own land, the other unto his own merchandise.' So the one class ; the other made not light of it, but acted even worse than the first. ' But the rest laid hands on his servants, entreated them shamefully, and killed them.' The sin was the more aggravated that he was their king, and the messengers had invited them to a feast, and that one in which every loyal subject should have rejoiced to take part. Theirs was therefore not only murder, but also rebellion against their sovereign. On this the king in his wrath sent forth his armies, which — and here the narrative in point of time anticipates the event — destroyed the murderers, and burnt their city. « St. Matt. ' Then ' * — after the king had given com- xxu. 8 mandment for his armies to go forth, he said to his servants, ' The wedding indeed is ready, but they that were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the partings of the highways [where a number of roads meet and cross], and, as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.' We remember that the Parable here runs parallel to that other, when first the outcasts from the city-lanes, and then the wanderers on the world's high- " St. Luke way, were brought in to fill the place of the xiv. 21-24 invited guests.^ We have already in part anticipated the interpretation Parable of the Wedding-Garment 501 of this Parable. 'The Kingdom ' is here, as so often in the Old and in the New Testament, likened to a feast, and more specifically to a marriage-feast. But we mark as distinctive, that the King makes it for His Son. Thus Christ, as Son and Heir of the Kingdom, forms the central Figure in the Parable. The next point is that the chosen, invited guests were the' ancient Covenant- people — Israel. To them God had sent first under the Old Testament. And, although they had not given heed to His call, yet a second class of messengers was sent to them under the New Testament. And the messasre of the latter was that ' the early meal was ready [Christ's first coming], and that all prei)arations had been made for the great evening-meal [Christ's Reign]. Another ])roniinent truth is set forth in the repeated message of the King, which points to the goodness and longsuffering of God. Next, our attention is drawn to the refusal of Israel, which appears in the contemptuous neglect and preoccupation with their own things of one party, and the hatred, resistance, and murder by the other. Then follow in quick succession the command of judgment on the nation, and the burning of their city — God's army being, in this instance, the Romans — and finally, the direction to go into the crossways to invite all men, alike Jews and Gentiles. With verse 10 begins the second part of the Parable. The ' Servants ' — that is, the New Testament messengers — had fulfilled their commission ; they had brought in as many as they found, both bad and good : that is, without respect to their previous history, or their moral and re- ligious state up to the time of their call : and ' the wedding was filled with guests ' — that is, the table at the marriage-feast was filled with those who as guests ' lay around it.' But if ever we are to learn that we must not expect on earth — not even at the King's marriage- table — a pure Church, it is surely from what now follows. The King entered to see his guests, and among tliem he descried one who had not on a wedding-garment. Mani- festly, the quickness of the invitation, and the previous 502 Jesus the Messiah unpreparedness of the guests did not prevent the procur- ing of such a garment. As the guests had been travellers, and as the feast was in the King's palace, we cannot be mistaken in supposing that such garments were supplied in the palace itself to all those who sought them. And with this agrees the circumstance that the man so addressed 'was speechless' [literally, 'gagged,' or 'muzzled']. His conduct argued utter insensibility as regarded that to which he had been called — ignorance of what was due to the Kiug, and what became such a feast. And whereas it is said in the Parable that only one was descried without this garment, this is intended to teach that the King will not only generally view His guests, but that each will be separately examined, and that no one will be able to escape discovery amidst the mass of guests, if he has not the ' wedding-garment.' In short, in that day of trial it is not a scrutiny of Churches, but of individuals in the Church. And so the King bade the servants, not the same who had previously carried the invitation, but evidently here the Angels, His ' ministers,' to bind him hand and foot, and to ' cast him out into the darkness, the outer ' — that is, unable to offer resistance and as a punished captive, he was to be cast out into that darkness which is outside the brilliantly lighted guest-chamber of the King. And still further to mark that darkness out- side, it is added that this is the well-known place of suffering and anguish : ' there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.' And here the Parable closes with the general state- ment, applicable alike to the first part of the Parable — to the first invited guests, Israel — and to the second, the guests from all the world : ' For ' (this is the meaning « St. Matt, of the whole Parable) ' many are called, but xxii. 14 few chosen.'* 503 CHAPTER LXXVI. THE EVENING OF THE THIRD DAY IN PASSION- WEEK — DISCOURSE TO THE DISCIPLES CONCERNING THE LAST THINGS. (St. Matt. xxiv. ; St. Mark xiii. ; St. Luke xxi. 5-38 ; xii. 35-48.) The last and most solemn denunciation of Jerusalem had been uttered, the last and most terrible prediction of judg- ment upon the Temple spoken. It was as if Jesus had cast the dust off His shoes against * the House ' that was to be ' left desolate.' And so He quitted for ever the Temple and them that held office in it. They had left the Sanctuary and the City, had crossed black Kidron, and were slowly climbing the Mount of Olives. A sudden turn in the road, and the Sacred Build- ing was once more in full view. In the setting, even more than in the rising sun, the vast proportions, the sym- metry, and the sparkling sheen of this mass of snowy marble and gold must have stood out gloriously. And across the valley, and up the slopes of Olivet, lay the shadows of those gigantic walls built of massive stones, some of them nearly twenty-four feet long. Even the Rabbis, despite their hatred of Herod, grow enthusiastic, and dream that the very Temple-walls would have been covered with gold, had not the variegated marble, resembling the waves of the sea, seemed more beauteous. It was probably as they now gazed on all this grandeur and strength, that they broke the silence imposed on them by gloomy thoughts of the near desolateness of that House, which the Lord had • St. Matt, predicted.* One and another pointed out to Him xxiii. 37-39 those massive stones and splendid buildings, or spake of the rich offerings with which the Temple was tst. Matt, adorned.^ It was but natural that the contrast *^'^- ^ between this and the predicted desolation should have impressed them ; natural also, that they should refer 504 Jesus the Messiah to it — not as matter of doubt, but rather as of question.^ "St. Matt. Then Jesus, turning to His questioners,'^ spoke XXIV. 3 fully of that terrible conti'ast between the present "St. Mark and the near future, when, as fulfilled with almost incredible literality, not one stone would be left upon another that was not upturned. In silence they pursued their way. Upon the Mount of Olives they sat down, right over against the Temple. Whether or not the others had gone farther, or Christ had sat apart with these four, Peter and James and John and « St. Mark Andrew are named ^ as those who now asked Him xui. 3 further of what must have weighed so heavily on their hearts. It was not idle curiosity, although inquiry on such a subject, even merely for the sake of information, could scarcely have been blamed in a Jew. But it did concern them personally, for had not the Lord conjoined the desolateness of that ' House ' with His own absence ? He had explained the former as meaning the ruin of the City and the utter destruction of the Temple. But to His pre- diction of it had been added these words : ' Ye shall not see Me henceforth, till ye shall say. Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord.' In their view, this could only refer to His Second Coming, and to the end of the world as connected with it. This explains the two- fold question which the four now addressed to Christ : ' Tell us, when shall these things be ? and what shall be the sign of Thy Coming, and of the consummation of the age?' Irrespective of other sayings in which a distinction between these two events is made, the di^^ciples could scarcely have conjoined the desolation of the Temple with the immediate Advent of Christ and the end of the world. For in the very saying which gave rise to their question, Christ had placed an indefinite period between the two. Between the desolation of the House and their new wel- come to Him, would intervene a period of indefinite length, during which they would not see Him again. Keeping this in mind, the question of the disciples would appear to have been twofold ; When would these things Concerning the Last Things 505 be ? and, What would be the siyns of His Royal Advent and the consummation of the ' Age ' ? Ou the former the Lord gave no information ; to the latter His Discourse on the Mount of Olives was directed. On one point the statement of the Lord had been so novel as almost to account for their question. Jewish writings speak very frequently of the so-called ' sorrows of the Messiah.' These were partly those of the Messiah, and partly — perhaps chiefly — those coming on Israel and the world previous to, and connected with the Coming of the Messiah. They may generally be characterised as marking a period of in- ternal corruption and of outward distress, especially of famine and war, of which the land of Palestine was to be the scene, and in which Israel were to be the chief sufferers. But as a matter of fact, none of them refers to desolation of the City and Temple as one of the ' signs ' or ' sorrows ' of the Messiah. When Christ therefore proclaimed the desolation of ' the House,' and even placed it in indirect connection with His Advent, He taught that which must have been alike new and unexpected. This may be the most suitable place for explaining the Jewish expectation connected with the Advent of the Messiah.' Into many points connected with it we cannot enter here. Suffice it to say that, according to general opinion, the Birth of the Messiah would be unknown to His contemporaries ; that He w^ould appear, carry on His work, then disappear — probably for forty-five days ; then reappear, and destroy the hostile powers of the world, notably ' Edom,' ' Armilos,' the Roman power — the fourth and last world-empire (sometimes it is said : through Ishmael). Ransomed Israel would now be miraculously gathered from the ends of the earth, and brought back to their own land, the ten tribes sharing in their restoration, but this only on condition of their having repented of their former sins. According to the Midrash, all cir- cumcised Israel would then be released from Gehenna, and the dead be raised — according to some authorities, by 1 On the expectation of a double Messiah see ' Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,' vol. ii. pp. 434-436. 5o6 Jesus the Messiah the Messiah, to Whom God wouhl give 'the Key of the Eesurrection of the Dead.' This Resurrection would take place in the laud of Israel, and those of Israel who had been buried elsewhere would have to roll under ground — not without suffering pain — till they reached the sacred soil. Probably the reason of this strange idea, which was supported by an appeal to the direction of Jacob and Joseph as to their last resting-place, was to induce the Jews, after the final desolation of their land, not to quit Palestine. This resurrection, which is variously supposed to take place at the beginning or during the course of the Messianic manifestation, would be announced by the blowing of the great trumpet. It would be difficult to say how many of these strange and confused views pre- vailed at the time of Christ ; which of them were uni- versally entertained as real dogmas ; or from what sources they had been originally derived. Probably many of them were popularly entertained, and afterwards further de- veloped— as we believe, with elements distorted from Christian teaching. We have now reached the period of the ' coming age.' All the resistance to God would be concentrated in the great war of Gog and Magog, and with it the prevalence of all wickedness be conjoined. And terrible would be the straits of Israel. Three times would the enemy seek to storm the Holy City. But each time would the assault be repelled — at the last with complete destruction of the enemy. The sacred City would now be wholly rebuilt and inhabited. But oh, how different from of old ! Its Sabbath-boundaries would be strewed with pearls and precious gems. The City itself would be lifted to a height of some nine miles — nay, with realistic applica- tion of Is. xlix. 20, it would reach up to the throne of God, while it would extend from Joppa as far as the gates of Damascus. For Jerusalem was to be the dwelling- place of Israel, and the resort of all nations. But most glorious in Jerusalem would be the new Temple which the Messiah was to rear, and to which those five things were to be restored which had been wantino; in the former Concerning the Last Things 507 Sanctnary : tlie golden candlestick, the Ark, the Heavt'ii- lit tire on the Altar, the Holy Ghost, and the Cherubim. And the land of Israel would then be as wide as it had been sketched in the promise which God had given to Abraham, and which had never before been fulfilled — since the largest extent of Israel's rule had only been over seven nations, whereas the Divine promise extended it over ten, if not over the whole earth. Strangely realistic and exaggerated by Eastern ima- gination as these hopes sound, there is connected with them a point of interest on which remarkable divergence of opinion prevailed. It concerns the Services of the re- built Temple, and the observance of the Law in ]\lessianic days. One party here insisted on the restoration of all the ancient Services, and the strict observance of the Mosaic and Rabbinic Law — nay, on its full imposition on the Gentile nations. But the most liberal view, and, as we may suppose, that most acceptable to the enlightened, was that in the future only these two festive seasons would be observed : The Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Esther (or else that of Tabernacles) ; and that of all the sacrifices only thankofferings would be continued. Nay, opinion went even further, and many held that in Messianic days the distinctions of pure and impure, law- ful and unlawful, as regarded food, would be abolished. There can be little doubt that these different views were entertained even in the days of our Lord and in Apostolic times, and they account for the exceeding bitterness with which the extreme Pharisaic party in the Church at Jerusalem contended that the Gentile converts must be circumcised, and the full weight of the yoke of the Law laid on their necks. It only remains briefly to describe the beatitude of Israel, both physical and moral, in those days. Morally, this would be a period of holiness, of forgiveness, and of peace. Without, there would be no longer enemies or oppressors. And within the City and Land a more than Paradisiacal state would prevail, which is depicted in even more than the usual realistic Eastern lanffuage. And it 5o8 Jesus the Messiah is one of the strangest mixtures of self-righteousness and realism with deeper and more spiritual thoughts, when the Rabbis prove by references to the prophetic Scriptures that every event and miracle in the history of Israel would find its counterpart, or rather larger fulfilment, in Messianic days. But by the side of this we find much coarse realism. The land would spontaneously produce the best dresses and the finest cakes ; the wheat would grow as high as palm-trees, nay, as the mountains, while the wind would miraculously convert the grain into flour, and cast it into the valleys. Every tree would become fruit-bearing ; nay, they were to break forth and to bear fruit every day ; daily was every woman to bear child, so that ultimately every Israelitish family would number as many as all Israel at the time of the Exodus. All sickness and disease, and all that could hurt, would pass away. Lastly, such physical and outward loss as Rabbinism regarded as the consequence of the Fall, would be again restored to man. The same literalism prevails in regard to the reign of King Messiah over the nations of the world. Jerusalem would, as the residence of the Messiah, become the capital of the world, and Israel take the place of the (fourth) world-monarchy, the Roman Empire. A great war, which seems a continuation of that of Gog and Magog, would close the Messianic era. The nations, who had hitherto given tribute to Messiah, would rebel against Him, when he would destroy them by the breath of His mouth, so that Israel alone would be left on the face of the earth. The duration of that period of rebellion is stated to be seven years. It seems at least a doubtful point, whether a second or general Resurrection was expected, the more probable view being that there was only one Resurrection, and that of Israel alone, or, at any rate, only of the studious and the pious, and that this was to take place at the beginning of the Messianic reign. If the Gentiles rose at all, it would only be immedi- ately again to die. Concerning the Last Things 509 Then the final Judgment would commence. We must here once more make distinction between Israel and the Gentiles, with whom, nay, as more punishable than they, certain notorious sinners, heretics, and all apostates, were to be ranked. Whereas to Israel the Gehenna, to which all but the perfectly righteous had been consigned at death, had proved a kind of purgatory, from which they were all ultimately delivered by Abraham, or, according to some, by the Messiah, no such deliverance was in prospect for the heathen nor for sinners of Israel. At the time of Christ the punishment of the wicked was regarded as of eternal duration, while annihilation would await the less guilty. The contrast between the Jewish picture of the last Judgment and that outlined in the Gospels is so striking, as alone to vindicate (were such necessary) the eschato- logical parts of the New Testament, and to prove what infinite distance there is between the Teaching of Christ and the Theology of the Synagogue. After the final Judgment we must look for the renewal of heaven and earth. In the latter neither physical nor moral dai'kuess would any longer prevail, since the ' Evil impulse ' would be destroyed. And renewed earth would bring forth all without blemish and in Paradisiacal per- fection, while alike physical and moral evil had ceased. Then began the ' world to come.' The question whether any functions or enjoyments of the body would continue, is variously answered. The reply of the Lord to the ques- tion of the Sadducees about marriage in the other world seems to imply that materialistic views on the subject were entertained at the time. On the other hand, pas- sages may be quoted in which the utterly unmaterial cha- racter of the ' world to come ' is insisted upon in most emphatic language. The many and persistent attempts, despite the gross inconsistencies involved to represent the teaching of (Christ concerning ' the Last Things ' as only the reflection of contemporary Jewish opinion, have rendered some 510 /esus the Messiah evidence necessary.' When, with the information just summarised, we again turn to the questions addressed to Him by the disciples, we recall that they could not have conjoined the ' when ' of ' these things ' — that is, of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple — with the ' when ' of His Second Coming and the end of the ' Age.' We would also suggest that Christ referred to His Advent, as to His disappearance, from the Jewish standpoint of Jew- ish, rather than from the general cosmic view-point of universal history. As regards the answer of the Lord to the two ques- tions of His disciples, it may be said that the first part of « St Matt ^^^ Discourse ^ is intended to supply information xxiv. 4-35, on the two facts of the future : the destruction of the Temple, and His Second Advent and the end of the ' Age,' by setting before them the signs indica- ting the approach or beginning of these events. But even here the exact period of each is not defined, and the teaching given is intended for purely practical purposes^ b St. Matt. In the second part of His Discourse ^ the Lord dis- eucTand*" tiuctly tells them what they are not to know, paiaUeis and wliy ; and how all that was communicated to them w^s only to prepare them for that constant watch- fulness, which has been to the Church at all times the proper outcome of Christ's teaching on the subject This then we may take as a guide in our study ; that the words of Christ contain nothing beyond what was necessary for the warning and teaching of the disciples and of the Church. p w. 4-35 The first part of Christ's Discourse '^ consists i4Ti5^28'-^~ ^^ ^"^"^ Sections,^ of which the first describes 29-35 < the beginning of the birth-woes'® of the new « ver. 8 ; P^ o St. Mask ' Age about to appear. ?st.' Matt. 1 • The purely practical character of the Dis- XXIV. 4 course appears from its opening words. ^ They contain a warning, addressed to the disciples in their individual, not in their corporate capacity, against being ' For details as to the opinions on this subject expressed in the Pseudepigraphic Writings, see ' Life and Times, &c.,' vol. ii. pjj. 442-445. Concerning the Last Things 511 * led astray.' This, more particularly in regard to Judaic seductions leading them after false Christs. Though in the multitude of impostors, who in the troubled times between the rule of Pilate and the destruction of Jerusa- lem promised Messianic deliverance to Israel, few names and claims of this kind have been specially recorded, yet •Actsv 36- ^^® hints in the New Testament,'' and the refer- viii. 9;xxi.' enccs, howcvcr guarded, by the Jewish historian, imply the appearance of many such seducers. But taking a wider view, they might also be misled by either rumours of war at a distance, or by actual warfare, so as to believe that the dissolution of the Roman Empire, bst Matt 3,nd with it the Advent of Christ, was at hand.'* xxiv. 6-8 This also would be a misapprehension, grievously misleading, and to be carefully guarded against. 2. From the warning to Christians as individuals, the Lord next turns to give admonition to the Church in her corporate capacity. Here we mark that the events now described ^ must not be regarded as following, e gt Matt . . . ixiv. 9-14, with strict chronological precision, those referred and paraueis ^^ -^ ^j^^ previous verses. Rather is it intended to indicate a general nexus with them, so that these events begin partly before, partly during, and partly after, thos^ formerly predicted. They form, in fact, the continuation of the ' birth-woes.' As regards the admonition itself, ex- .. c ,, pressed in this part of the Lord's Discourse,*^ we ■l St. Matt. ^. ^ . .,..,, ' xxiv. 9-11, notice that, as tormerly to individuals, so now to para o a ^j^^ Church, two soui'ces of danger are pointed out : internal, from heresies (' false prophets ') and the decay • St. Matt, of faith ; ® and external, from persecutions, whether x.\iv. 10-13 Judaic and from their own kindred, or from the secular powers throughout the world. But along with these two dangers, two consoling facts are also pointed out. As regards the persecutions in prospect, full Divine aid is promised to Christians — alike to individuals and to the Church. And as for the other and equally consoling fact : despite the persecution of Jews and Gentiles, before the End Cometh 'this the Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the inhabited earth for a testimony to all 512 Jesus the Messiah the nations.* This, then, is really the only sign of * the End ' of the present ' Age.' xxiv. 14 ■ 3. From these general predictions, the'Lordpro- «> St. Matt, ceeds, in the third part of this Discourse,^ to adver- andVrai-^' ^^^^ Disciples of the great historic fact immedi- ieis;note ately before them, and of the dangers which tiie language might Spring from it. In truth, we have here of St. Luke jj^g answer to their question, ' When shall these • St. Matt, things be ? ' •^ not, indeed, as regards the when, but the what of them. And with this He conjoins the present application of His general warning regarding ^ false Christs, given in the first part of this Dis- course.*^ The fact is the destruction of Jerusalem. Its twofold dangers would be — outwardly, the difficulties and perils which at that time would necessarily beset men, and especially the members of the infant-Cfhurch ; and religiously, the pretensions and claims of false Christs or prophets at a period when all Jewish thinking and expec- tancy would lead men to anticipate the near Advent of the Messiah. There can be no question that from both these dangers the warning of the Lord delivered the Church. As for Jerusalem, the prophetic vision initially fulfilled in • 2 Mace. vi. ^^^^ (^^^^ of Antiochus® would once more, and now 1-9 fully, become reality, and 'the abomination of desolation ' stand in the Holy Place. Nay, so dreadful would be the persecution, that, if Divine mercy had not interposed for the sake of the followers of Christ, the whole Jewish fst Matt. ^^^® ^^^ inhabited the land would have been xxiv. 22 swept away.^ But on the morrow of that day no new Maccabee would arise, no Christ come, as Israel fondly hoped ; but over that carcase would the vultures gather ; ^ and so through all the Age of the Gentiles, till converted Israel should raise the welcoming shout : ' Blessed be He that cometh in the Name of the Lord!' 4. The Age of the Gentiles,'^ ' the end of the Age,' and with it the new allegiance of His now penitent people Israel ; ' the sign of the Son of Man in heaven/ perceived by them ; the conversion of all the Concerning the Last Things 513 world, the Coming of Christ, the last Ti'umpet, the Resur- rection of the dead — such, in most rapid sketch, is the outline which the Lord draws of His Coming and the End of the world. It will be remembered that this had been the second • St. Matt, question of the disciples.* We again recall that XXIV. 3 ^jjQ disciples could not have connected, as immedi- ately subsequent events, the destruction of Jerusalem and His Second Coming, since He had expressly placed between them the period — apparently protracted — of His Absence," with the many events that were to happen in it — notably, the preaching of the Gospel over the whole inhabited earth.*' Hitherto the Lord had, in His Discourse, dwelt in detail only on those events which would be fulfilled before this generation should pass.*^ More than this concerning the future of the Church could not have been told, without defeating the very object ot the admonition and warning which Christ had exclusively in view, when answering the question of the disciples. Accordingly, what follows in ver. 29, describes the history, not of the Church — far less any visible physical signs in the literal heavens — but in prophetic imagery, the history of the hostile powers of the world, with its lessons. A constant succession of empires and dynasties would charac- terise politically the whole period after the extinction of the Jewish State.® Immediately after that would follow the appearance to Israel of the ' Sign ' of the Son of Man in heaven, and with it the conversion of • ver. u all nations (as previously predicted) ,*^ the Coming B ver. 30 , of Christ,^ and finally, the blast of the last Trumpet "ver. 31 and the Resurrection.'' 5. From this rapid outline of the future the Lord once more turned to make present application to the disciples; application, also, to all times. From the fig-tree, under which on that spring-afternoon they may have rested on the Mount of Olives, they were to learn a' parable.' * I yy 32 33 . *^ ^ . We can picture Christ taking one of its twigs, just as its softening tips were bursting into young leaf. L L 514 Jesus the Messiah Surely, this meant that summer was nigh — not that it had actually come. The distinction is important. For it seems to prove that ' all these things,' which were to indi- cate to them that it was near, even at the doors, and which were to be fulfilled ere this generation had passed away, could not have referred to the last signs connected with the » St. Matt, immediate Advent of Christ,*^ but must apply to xxiv. 29-31 ^}^g previous prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish. Commonwealth. At the same time we again admit, that the language of the Synoptists indicates that they had not clearly understood the words of the Lord which they reported, and that in their own minds they had associated the ' last signs ' and the Advent of Christ with the fall of the City. Thus may they have come to expect that blessed Advent even in their own days. II. It is at least a question whether the Lord, while distinctly indicating these facts, had intended to remove the doubt and uncertainty of their succession from the minds of His disciples. To have done so would have necessitated that which, in the opening sentence of the b St Matt second division of this Discourse,^ He had ex- xxiv. 36to pressly declared to lie beyond their ken. The ' when '■ — the day and the hour of His coming— c St. Matt, -was to remain hidden from men and Angels. ° Nay, even the Son Himself — as they viewed Him and as He spake to them — knew it not. It formed no part of His present Messianic Mission, nor subject for His Messianic Teaching. The Church would not have been that of the New Testament, had she known the mystery of that day and hour, and not ever waited as for the immediate Coming of her Lord and Bridegroom. To the world this uncertainty would indeed become the occasion for utter carelessness and practical disbelief of the cominar Judffment.** As in the days of d yv 37-40 00 i/ Noah the long delay of threatened judgment had led to absorption in the ordinary engagements of life, to the entire disbelief of what Noah had preached, so would it be in the future. But that day would come certainly and unexpectedly, to the sudden separation of those who Parable of the Ten Virgins 515 were engaged in the same daily business of life, of whom • St. Matt, one might be taken up, the other left to the de- riiv. 40, 41 struction of the coming Judgment.* But this very mixture of the Church with the world in the ordinary avocations of life indicated a great danger. As in all such, the remedy which the Lord would set before us is not negative in the avoidance of certain things, but positive.'' We shall best succeed, not by going ^'^' out of the world, but by being watchful in it, and keeping fresh on our hearts, as well as on our minds, the fact that He is our Lord, and that we are always to look and long for His return. CHAPTER LXXVII. evening of the third day in passion-week — last parables: of the ten virgins — of the talents — of the minas. (St. Matt. XXV. 1-13; 14-30; St. Luke xix. 11-28.) 1. As might have been expected, the Parables concerning the Last Things are closely connected with the Discourse of the Last Things, which Christ had just spoken to His Disciples. In fact, that of the Ten Virgins is, in its main object, only an illustration of the last part of Christ's c St. Matt. Discourse.*' Its outlines may be thus summa- xxiv. 36-51 rised : Be ye personally prepared ; be ye pre- pared for any length of time ; be ye prepared to go to Him directly. It is late at even — the world's long day seems past, and the Coming of the Bridegroom must be near. The day and the hour we know not, for the Bridegroom has been far away. Only this we know, that it is the evening of the Marriage which the Bridegroom had fixed, and that His word of promise may be relied upon. Therefore all has been made ready within the bridal house, and is in waiting there ; and therefore the Virgins prepare to go forth to meet Him on His arrival. The Pariible proceeds X, L 2 5i6 Jesus the Messiah on the assumption that the Bridegroom is not in the town, but somewhere far away ; so that it cannot be known at what precise hour He may arrive. But it is known that He will come that night ; and the Virgins who are to meet Him have gathered — presumably in the house where the Marriage is to take place — waiting for the summons to go forth and welcome the Bridegroom. The common mistake, that the Virgins are represented in verse 1 as having gone forth on the road to meet the Bridegroom, is not only irrational — since it is scarcely credible that they would all have fallen asleep by the wayside, and with lamps in their • St. Matt, hands — but incompatible with the circumstance * ^^^- ^ that at midnight the cry is suddenly raised to go forth and meet Him. In these circumstances, no precise parallel can be derived from the ordinary Jewish marriage- processions, where the bridegroom, accompanied by his groomsmen and friends, went to the bride's house, and thence conducted the bride, with her attendant maidens and friends, into his own or his parents' home. But in the Parable, the Bridegroom comes from a distance and goes to the bridal house. Accordingly, the bridal proces- sion is to meet Him on His arrival, and escort Him to the bridal place. Another archasological inquiry will, perhaps, be helpful to our understanding of this Parable. The ' lamps ' — not ' torches ' — which the Ten Virgins carried, were of well- known construction. They consisted of a round receptacle for pitch or oil for the wick. This was placed in a hollow cup or deep saucer — which was fastened by a pointed end into a long wooden pole, on which it was borne aloft. According to Jewish authorities, it was the custom in the East to carry in a bridal procession about ten such lamps. We have the less reason to doubt that such was also the case in Palestine, since, according to rubric, ten was the number required to be present at any office or ceremony, such as at the benedictions accompanying the marriage-ceremonies. And, in the peculiar circumstances supposed in the Parable, Ten Virgins are represented as going forth to meet the Bridegroom, each bearing her lamp. Parable of the Ten Virgins 517 Tlie first point which we mark is that the Ten Virgins brought ' their own lamps.' Emphasis must be laid on this. Thus much was there of personal preparation 011 the part of all. But while the five that were wise brougflit also ' oil in the vessels ' [presumably the hollow receptacles in which the lamp proper stood], the five foolish Virgins neglected to do so, no doubt expecting that their lamps would be filled. out of some common stock in the house. In the text the foolish Virgins are mentioned before the wise, because the Parable turns on this. We cannot be at a loss to interpret the meaning of it. The Bridegroom far away is Christ, Who is come for the Marriage-Feast from 'the far country' — the Home above — certainly on that night, but we know not at what hour of it. The ten appointed bridal companions who are to go forth to meet Him are His professed disciples, and they gather in readi- ness to welcome His arrival. It is night, and a marriage- procession : therefore they must go forth with their lamps. All of them have brought their own lamps, they all have the Christian, or the Church-profession : the lamp in the hollow cup on the top of the pole. But only the wise Virgins have more than this — the oil in the vessels, with- out which the lamps cannot give their light. The Christian or Church-profession is but an empty vessel without the oil. We here remember the words of Christ : ' Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good • St. Matt, works, and glorify your Father Which is in ^- ^^ heaven.' * The foolishness of the Virgins, which consisted in this, that they had omitted to bring their oil, is thus indicated in the text : ' All they which were foolish, when they brought their own lamps, brought not with them oil : ' they'brought their own lamps, but not their own oil. They had no conception either of any personal obligal ion in this matter, nor that the call would come so suddenly, nor yet that there would be so little interval between the arrival of the Bridegroom and ' the closing of the door.' For — and here begins the second scene in the Parable — the interval between the gathering of the Virgins in 5i8 Jesus the Messiah readiness to meet Him and the arrival of the Bridegroom is much longer than had been anticipated. And so it came, that both the wise and the foolish Virgins ' slumbered and slept.' What follows is intended to bring into pro- minence the startling suddenness of the Bridegroom's Coming. It is midnight — when sleep is deepest — when suddenly ' there was a cry, Behold, the Bridegroom cometh ! Come ye out to the meeting of Him. Then all those Virgins awoke, and prepared (trimmed) their lamps.' This, not in the sense of heightening the low flame in their lamps, but in that of hastily drawing up the wick and lighting it, when, as there was no oil in the vessels, the flame, of course, immediately died out. ' Then the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil ; for our lamps are going out. But the wise answered, saying: Not at all — it will never suffice for us and you ! Go ye rather to the sellers, and buy for your own selves.' This advice must not be regarded as given in irony. The trait is introduced to point out the proper source of supply — to emphasise that the oil must be their own, and also to prepare for what follows. ' But while they were going to buy, the Bridegroom came ; and the ready ones [they that were ready] went in with Him to the Marriage-Feast, and the door was shut.' It is of no importance here, whether or not the foolish Virgins finally succeeded in obtaining oil, since it could no longer be of any possible use, as its object was to serve in the festive procession, which was now past. Nevertheless, and when the door was shut, those foolish Virgins came, calling