|
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah Vol. 2
Written by: Edersheim, Alfred Posted on: 03/13/2003
Category: Biographies
Source: CCN
Etext of Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
by Alfred Edersheim
1883
Volume 2
THE DESCENT: FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION
INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
THE TRANSFIGURATION.
CHAPTER I.
(St Matt. xvii. 1-8; St. Mark ix. 2-8; St. Luke ix. 28-36.)
THE great confession of Peter, as the representative
Apostle, had laid the foundations of the Church as such. In
contradistinction to the varying opinions of even those best
disposed towards Christ, it openly declared that Jesus was
the Very Christ of God, the fulfilment of all Old Testament
prophecy, the heir of Old Testament promise, the realization
of the Old Testament hope for Israel, and, in Israel, for all
mankind. Without this confession, Christians might have been
a Jewish sect, a religious party, or a school of thought, and
Jesus a Teacher, Rabbi, Reformer, or Leader of men. But the
confession which marked Jesus as the Christ, also constituted
His followers the Church. It separated them, as it separated
Him, from all around; it gathered them into one, even Christ;
and it marked out the foundation on which the building made
without hands was to rise. Never was illustrative answer so
exact as this: 'On this Rock', bold, outstanding,
well-defined, immovable, 'will I build My Church.'
Without doubt this confession also marked the high-point of
the Apostles' faith. Never afterwards, till His Resurrection,
did it reach so high. Nay, what followed seems rather a
retrogression from it: beginning with their unwillingness to
receive the announcement of His decease, and ending with
their unreadiness to share His sufferings or to believe in
His Resurrection. And if we realize the circumstances, we
shall understand at least, their initial difficulties. Their
highest faith had been followed by the most crushing
disappointment; the confession that He was the Christ, by the
announcement of His approaching Sufferings and Death at
Jerusalem. The proclamation that He was the Divine Messiah
had not been met by promises of the near glory of the
Messianic Kingdom, but by announcements of certain, public
rejection and seeming terrible defeat. Such possibilities had
never seriously entered into their thoughts of the Messiah;
and the declaration of the very worst, and that in the near
future, made at such a moment, must have been a staggering
blow to all their hopes. It was as if they had reached the
topmost height, only to be cast thence into the lowest depth.
On the other hand, it was necessary that at this stage in
the History of the Christ, and immediately after His
proclamation, the sufferings and the rejection of the Messiah
should be prominently brought forward. It was needful for the
Apostles, as the remonstrance of Peter showed; and, with
reverence be it added, it was needful for the Lord Himself,
as even His words to Peter seem to imply: 'Get thee behind
Me; thou art a stumbling-block unto me.' For, as we have
said, was not the remonstrance of the disciple in measure a
re-enactment of the great initial Temptation by Satan after
the forty days' fast in the wilderness? And, in view of all
this, and of what immediately afterwards followed, we venture
to say, it was fitting that an interval of 'six' days should
intervene, or, as St. Luke puts it, including the day of
Peter's confession and the night of Christ's Transfiguration,
'about eight days.' The Chronicle of these days is
significantly left blank in the Gospels, but we cannot doubt,
that it was filled up with thoughts and teaching concerning
that Decease, leading up to the revelation on the Mount of
Transfiguration.
There are other blanks in the narrative besides that just
referred to. We shall try to fill them up, as best we can.
Perhaps it was the Sabbath when Peter's great confession was
made; and the 'six days' of St. Matthew and St. Mark become
the 'about eight days' of St. Luke, when we reckon from that
Sabbath to the close of another, and suppose that at even the
Savior ascended the Mount of Transfiguration with the three
Apostles: Peter, James, and John. There can scarcely be a
reasonable doubt that Christ and His disciples had not left
the neighborhood of Caesarea, [1 According to an old
tradition, Christ had left Caesarea Philippi, and the scene
of the Transfiguration was Mount Tabor. But (1) there is no
notice of His departure, such as in generally made by St.
Mark; (2) on the contrary, it is mentioned by St. Mark as
after the Transfiguration (ix. 30); (3) Mount Tabor was at
that time crowned by a fortified city, which would render it
unsuitable for the scene of the Transfiguration.] and hence,
that 'the mountain' must have been one of the slopes of
gigantic, snowy Hermon. In that quiet semi-Gentile retreat of
Caesarea Philippi could He best teach them, and they best
learn, without interruption or temptation from Pharisees and
Scribes, that terrible mystery of His Suffering. And on that
gigantic mountain barrier which divided Jewish and Gentile
lands, and while surveying, as Moses of old, the land to be
occupied in all its extent, amidst the solemn solitude and
majestic grandeur of Hermon, did it seem most fitting that,
both by anticipatory fact and declamatory word, the Divine
attestation should be given to the proclamation that He was
the Messiah, and to this also, that, in a world that is in
the power of sin and Satan, God's Elect must suffer, in order
that, by ransoming, He may conquer it to God. But what a
background, here, for the Transfiguration; what surroundings
for the Vision, what echoes for the Voice from heaven!
It was evening, [1 This is implied not only in the disciples
being heavy with sleep, but in the morning scene (St. Luke
ix. 37) which followed.] and, as we have suggested, the
evening after the Sabbath, when the Master and those three of
His disciples, who were most closely linked to Him in heart
and thought, climbed the path that led up to one of the
heights of Hermon. In all the most solemn transactions of
earth's history, there has been this selection and separation
of the few to witness God's great doings. Alone with his son,
as the destined sacrifice, did Abraham climb Moriah; alone
did Moses behold, amid the awful loneliness of the
wilderness, the burning bush, and alone on Sinai's height did
he commune with God; alone was Elijah at Horeb, and with no
other companion to view it than Elisha did he ascend into
heaven. But Jesus, the Savior of His people, could not be
quite alone, save in those innermost transactions of His
soul: in the great contest of His first Temptation, and in
the solitary communings of His heart with God. These are
mysteries which the outspread wings of Angels, as reverently
they hide their faces, conceal from earth's, and even
heaven's vision. But otherwise, in the most solemn
turning-points of this history, Jesus could not be alone, and
yet was alone with those three chosen ones, most receptive of
Him, and most representative of the Church. It was so in the
house of Jairus, on the Mount of Transfiguration, and in the
Garden of Gethsemane.
As St. Luke alone informs us, it was 'to pray' that Jesus
took them apart up into that mountain. 'To pray,' no doubt in
connection with 'those sayings;' since their reception
required quite as much the direct teaching of the Heavenly
Father, as had the previous confession of Peter, of which it
was, indeed, the complement, the other aspect, the twin
height. And the Transfiguration, with its attendant glorified
Ministry and Voice from heaven, was God's answer to that
prayer.
What has already been stated, has convinced us that it could
not have been to one of the highest peaks of Hermon, as most
modern writers suppose, that Jesus led His companions. There
are three such peaks: those north and south, of about equal
height (9,400 feet above the sea, and nearly 11,000 above the
Jordan valley), are only 500 paces distant from each other,
while the third, to the west (about 100 feet lower), is
separated from the others by a narrow valley. Now, to climb
the top of Hermon is, even from the nearest point, an Alpine
ascent, trying and fatiguing, which would occupy a whole day
(six hours in the ascent and four in the descent), and
require provisions of food and water; while, from the
keenness of the air, it would be impossible to spend the
night on the top. [1. Canon Tristvam writes: 'We were before
long painfully affected by the rarity of the atmosphere.' In
general, our description is derived from Canon Tristram
('Land of Israel'), Captain Conder ('Tent-Work in Palestine),
and Badeker-Socin's Palastina, p. 354.] To all this there is
no allusion in the text, nor slightest hint of either
difficulties or preparations, such as otherwise would have
been required. Indeed, a contrary impression is left on the
mind.
'Up into an high mountain apart,' 'to pray.' The Sabbath-sun
had set, and a delicious cool hung in the summer air, as
Jesus an the three commenced their ascent. From all parts of
the land, far as Jerusalem or Tyre, the one great object in
view must always have been snow-clad Hermon. And now it stood
out before them, as, to the memory of the traveler in the
West, Monte Rosa or Mont Blanc [2 One of its names, Shenir
(Deut. iii. 9; Cant. iv. 8; Ezek. xxvii. 5) means Mont Blanc.
In Rabbinic writings it is designated as the
'snow-mountain.'] , in all the wondrous glory of a sunset:
first rose-colored, then deepening red, next 'the death-like
pallor, and the darkness relieved by the snow, in quick
succession.' [3 Tristram, u.s., p. 607.] From high up there,
as one describes it, [4 Conder, u.s., vol. i. p. 264.] 'a
deep ruby flush came over all the scene, and warm purple
shadows crept slowly on. The sea of Galilee was lit up with a
delicate greenish-yellow hue, between its dim walls of hill.
The flush died out in a few minutes, and a pale,
steel-coloured shade succeeded. . . . A long pyramidal shadow
slid down to the eastern foot of Hermon, and crept across the
great plain; Damascus was swallowed up by it; and finally the
pointed end of the shadow stood out distinctly against the
sky, a dusky cone of dull colour against the flush of the
afterglow. It was the shadow of the mountain itself,
stretching away for seventy miles across the plain, the most
marvelous shadow perhaps to be seen anywhere. The sun
underwent strange changes of shape in the thick vapours, now
almost square, now like a domed Temple, until at length it
slid into the sea, and went out like a blue spark.' And
overhead shone out in the blue summer-sky, one by one, the
stars in Eastern brilliancy. We know not the exact direction
which the climbers took, nor how far their journey went. But
there is only one road that leads from Caesarea Philippi to
Hermon, and we cannot be mistaken in following it. First,
among vine-clad hills stocked with mulberry, apricot and
fig-trees; then, through corn-fields where the pear tree
supplants the fig; next, through oak coppice, and up rocky
ravines to where the soil is dotted with dwarf shrubs. And if
we pursue the ascent, it still becomes steeper, till the
first ridge of snow is crossed, after which turfy banks,
gravelly slopes, and broad snow-patches alternate. The top of
Hermon in summer, and it can only be ascended in summer or
autumn is free from snow, but broad patches run down the
sides expanding as they descend. To the very summit it is
well earthed; to 500 feet below it, studded with countless
plants, higher up with dwarf clumps. [1 Our description is
based on the graphic account of the ascent by Canon Tristram
(u.s. pp. 609-613).]
As they ascend in the cool of that Sabbath evening, the keen
mountain air must have breathed strength into the climbers,
and the scent of snow, for which the parched tongue would
long in summer's heat [a Prov. xxv. 13.], have refreshed
them. We know not what part may have been open to them of the
glorious panorama from Hermon embracing as it does a great
part of Syria from the sea to Damascus, from the Lebanon and
the gorge of the Litany to the mountains of Moab; or down the
Jordan valley to the Dead Sea; or over Galilee, Samaria, and
on to Jerusalem and beyond it. But such darkness as that of a
summer's night would creep on. And now the moon shone out in
dazzling splendour, cast long shadows over the mountain, and
lit up the broad patches of snow, reflecting their brilliancy
on the objects around.
On that mountain-top 'He prayed.' Although the text does not
expressly state it, we can scarcely doubt, that He prayed
with them, and still less, that He prayed for them, as did
the Prophet for his servant, when the city was surrounded by
Syrian horsemen: that his eyes might be opened to behold
heaven's host, the far 'more that are with us than they that
are with them.' [b 2 Kings vi. 16, 17.] And, with deep
reverence be it said, for Himself also did Jesus pray. For,
as the pale moonlight shone on the fields of snow in the deep
passes of Hermon, so did the light of the coming night shine
on the cold glitter of Death in the near future. He needed
prayer, that in it His Soul might lie calm and still,
perfect, in the unruffled quiet of His Self-surrender, the
absolute rest of His Faith, and the victory of His
Sacrificial Obedience. And He needed prayer also, as the
introduction to, and preparation for, His Transfiguration.
Truly, He stood on Hermon. It was the highest ascent, the
widest prospect into the past, present, and future, in His
Earthly Life. Yet was it but Hermon at night. And this is the
human, or rather the Theanthropic view of this prayer, and of
its consequence.
As we understand it, the prayer with them had ceased, or it
had merged into silent prayer of each, or Jesus now prayed
alone and apart, when what gives this scene such a truly
human and truthful aspect ensued. It was but natural for
these men of simple habits, at night, and after the long
ascent, and in the strong mountain-air, to be heavy with
sleep. And we also know it as a psychological fact, that, in
quick reaction after the overpowering influence of the
strongest emotions, drowsiness would creep over their limbs
and senses. 'They were heavy, weighted, with sleep,' as
afterwards at Gethsemane their eyes were weighted. [a St.
Matt. xxvi. 43; St. Mark xiv. 40.] [1 The word is the same.
It also occurs in a figurative sense in 2 Cor. i. 8; v. 4; 1
Tim. v. 16.] Yet they struggled with it, and it is quite
consistent with experience, that they should continue in that
state of semi-stupor, during what passed between Moses and
Elijah and Christ, and also be 'fully awake,' [2 Meyer
strongly advocates the rendering: 'but having kept awake.'
See, however, Godet's remarks ad loc.] 'to see His Glory, and
the two men who stood with Him.' In any case this descriptive
trait, so far from being (as negative critics would have it),
a 'later embellishment,' could only have formed part of a
primitive account, since it is impossible to conceive any
rational motive for its later addition. [3 Meyer is in error
in supposing that the tradition, on which St. Luke's account
is founded, amplifies the narratives of St. Matthew and St.
Mark. With Canon Cook I incline to the view of Resch, that,
judging from the style, &c., St. Luke derived this notice
from the same source as the materials for the large portion
from ch. ix. 51 to xviii. 17.]
What they saw was their Master, while praying,
'transformed.' [4 On the peculiar meaning of the word comp.
Bishop Lightfoot on Philip. pp. 127-133.] The 'form of God'
shone through the 'form of a servant;' 'the appearance of His
Face became other,' [b St. Luke.] [5 This expression of St.
Luke, so far from indicating embellishment of the other
accounts, marks, if anything, rather retrogression.] it 'did
shine as the sun.' [c St. Matthew.] [6 It is scarcely a
Rabbinic parallel, hardly an illustration, that in Rabbinic
writings also Moses' face before his death is said to have
shone as the sun, for the comparison is a Biblical one. Such
language would, of course, be familiar to St. Matthew.] Nay,
the whole Figure seemed bathed in light, the very garments
whiter far than the snow on which the moon shone [7 The words
'as snow,' in St. Mark ix. 3, are, however, spurious, an
early gloss.], 'so as no fuller on earth can white them,' [d
St. Mark.] 'glittering,' [e St. Luke.] 'white as the light.'
And more than this they saw and heard. They saw 'with Him two
men,' [a St. Luke.] whom, in their heightened sensitiveness
to spiritual phenomena, they could have no difficulty in
recognising, by such of their conversation as they heard, as
Moses and Elijah. [1 Godet points out the emphatic meaning of
in St. Luke ix. 30=quippe qui: they were none other than.]
The column was now complete: the base in the Law; the shaft
in that Prophetism of which Elijah was the great
Representative, in his first Mission, as fulfilling the
primary object of the Prophets: to call Israel back to God;
and, in his second Mission, this other aspect of the
Prophets' work, to prepare the way for the Kingdom of God;
and the apex in Christ Himself, a unity completely fitting
together in all its parts. And they heard also, that they
spake of 'His Exodus, outgoing, which He was about to fulfil
at Jerusalem.' [b St. Luke.] Although the term 'Exodus,'
'outgoing,' occurs otherwise for 'death,' [2 In some of the
Apocrypha and Josephus, as well as in 2 Pet. i. 15.] we must
bear in mind its meaning as contrasted with that in which the
same Evangelic writer designates the Birth of Christ, as His
'incoming.'[c Acts xiii. 24.] In truth, it implies not only
His Decease, but its manner, and even His Resurrection and
Ascension. In that sense we can understand the better, as on
the lips of Moses and Elijah, this about His fulfilling that
Exodus: accomplishing it in all its fulness, and so
completing Law and Prophecy, type and prediction.
And still that night of glory had not ended. A strange
pecularity has been noticed about Hermon in 'the extreme
rapidity of the formation of cloud on the summit. In a few
minutes a thick cap forms over the top of the mountain, and
as quickly disperses and entirely disappears.' [3 Conder,
u.s. vol. i. p 265.] It almost seems as if this, like the
natural position of Hermon itself, was, if not to be
connected with, yet, so to speak, to form the background to
what was to be enacted. Suddenly a cloud passed over the
clear brow of the mountain, not an ordinary, but 'a luminous
cloud,' a cloud uplit, filled with light. As it laid itself
between Jesus and the two Old Testament Representatives, it
parted, and presently enwrapped them. Most significant is it,
suggestive of the Presence of God, revealing, yet concealing,
a cloud, yet luminous. And this cloud overshadowed the
disciples: the shadow of its light fell upon them. A nameless
terror seized them. Fain would they have held what seemed for
ever to escape their grasp. Such vision had never before been
vouchsafed to mortal man as had fallen on their sight; they
had already heard Heaven's converse; they had tasted Angels'
Food, the Bread of His Presence. Could the vision not be
perpetuated, at least prolonged? In the confusion of their
terror they knew not how otherwise to word it, than by an
expression of ecstatic longing for the continuance of what
they had, of their earnest readiness to do their little best,
if they could but secure it, make booths for the heavenly
Visitants [1 Wiinsche (ad loc.) quotes as it seems to me,
very inaptly, the Rabbinic realistic idea of the fulfilment
of Is. iv. 5, 6, that God would make for each of the
righteous seven booths, varying according to their merits
(Baba B. 75 a) or else one booth for each (Bemid. R. 21, ed.
Warsh. p. 85a). Surely, there can be no similarity between
this and the words of Peter.], and themselves wait in humble
service and reverent attention on what their dull heaviness
had prevented their enjoying and profiting by, to the full.
They knew and felt it: 'Lord', 'Rabbi', 'Master', 'it is good
for us to be here', and they longed to have it; yet how to
secure it, their terror could not suggest, save in the
language of ignorance and semi-conscious confusion. 'They
wist not what they said.' In presence of the luminous cloud
that enwrapt those glorified Saints, they spake from out that
darkness which compassed them about.
And now the light-cloud was spreading; presently its fringe
fell upon them. [2 A comparison of the narratives leaves on
us the impression that the disciples also were touched by the
cloud. I cannot agree with Godet, that the question depends
on whether we adopt in St. Luke ix. 34 the reading of the
T.R. EKeivous, or that of the Alex. avrovs.] Heaven's awe was
upon them: for the touch of the heavenly strains, almost to
breaking, the bond betwixt body and soul. 'And a Voice came
out of the cloud, saying, This is My Beloved [3 The more
correct reading in St. Luke seems to be 'Elect Son.'] Son:
hear Him.' It had needed only One other Testimony to seal it
all; One other Voice, to give both meaning and music to what
had been the subject of Moses' and Elijah's speaking. That
Voice had now come, not in testimony to any fact, but to a
Person, that of Jesus as His 'Beloved Son,' [4 St. Matthew
adds, 'in Whom I am well pleased.' The reason of this fuller
account is not difficult to understand.] and in gracious
direction to them. They heard it, falling on their faces in
awestruck worship.
How long the silence had lasted, and the last rays of the
cloud had passed, we know not. Presently, it was a gentle
touch that roused them. It was the Hand of Jesus, as with
words of comfort He reassured them: 'Arise, and be not
afraid.' And as, startled, [5 St. Mark indicates this by the
words: 'And suddently, when they looked round about.'] they
looked round about them, they saw no man save Jesus only. The
Heavenly Visitants had gone, the last glow of the light-cloud
had faded away, the echoes of Heaven's Voice had died out. It
was night, and they were on the Mount with Jesus, and with
Jesus only.
Is it truth or falsehood; was it reality or vision, or part
of both, this Transfiguration-scene on Hermon? One thing, at
least, must be evident: if it be a true narrative, it cannot
possibly describe a merely subjective vision without
objective reality. But, in that case, it would be not only
difficult, but impossible, to separate one part of the
narrative, the appearance of Moses and Elijah, from the
other, the Transfiguration of the Lord, and to assign to the
latter objective reality, [1 This part of the argument is
well worked out by Meyer, but his arguments for regarding the
appearance of Moses and Elijah as merely a vision, because
the former at least had no resurrection-body, are very weak.
Are we sure, that disembodied spirits have no kind of
corporeity, or that they cannot assume a visible appearance?]
while regarding the former as merely a vision. But is the
account true? It certainly represents primitive tradition,
since it is not only told by all the three Evangelists, but
referred to in 2 Peter i. 16-18, [2 Even if that Epistle were
not St. Peter's, it would still represent the most ancient
tradition.] and evidently implied in the words of St. John,
both in his Gospel, [a St. John i 14.] and in the opening of
his First Epistle. Few, if any would be so bold as to assert
that the whole of this history had been invented by the three
Apostles, who professed to have been its witnesses. Nor can
any adequate motive be imagined for its invention. It could
not have been intended to prepare the Jews for the
Crucifixion of the Messiah, since it was to be kept a secret
till after His Resurrection; and, after the event, it could
not have been necessary for the assurance of those who
believed in the Resurrection, while to others it would carry
no weight. Again, the special traits of this history are
inconsistent with the theory of its invention. In a legend,
the witnesses of such an event would not have been
represented as scarcely awake, and not knowing what they
said. Manifestly, the object would have been to convey the
opposite impression. Lastly, it cannot be too often repeated,
that, in view of the manifold witness of the Evangelists,
amply confirmed in all essentials by the Epistles, preached,
lived, and bloodsealed by the primitive Church, and handed
down as primitive tradition, the most untenable theory seems
that which imputes intentional fraud to their narratives, or,
to put it otherwise, non-belief on the part of the narrators
of what they related.
But can we suppose, if not fraud, yet mistake on the part of
these witnesses, so that an event, otherwise naturally
explicable, may, through their ignorance or imaginativeness,
have assumed the proportions of this narrative? The
investigation will be the more easy, that, as regards all the
main features of the narrative, the three Evangelists are
entirely agreed. Instead of examining in detail the various
rationalistic attempts made to explain this history on
natural grounds, it seems sufficient for refutation to ask
the intelligent reader to attempt imagining any natural
event, which by any possibility could have been mistaken for
what the eyewitnesses related, and the Evangelists recorded.
There still remains the mythical theory of explanation,
which, if it could be supported, would be the most attractive
among those of a negative character. But we cannot imagine a
legend without some historical motive or basis for its
origination. The legend must be in character, that is,
congruous to the ideas and expectancies entertained. Such a
history as that of the Transfiguration could not have been a
pure invention; but if such or similar expectancies had
existed about the Messiah, then such a legend might, without
intentional fraud, have, by gradual accretion, gathered
around the Person of Him Who was regarded as the Christ. And
this is the rationale of the so-called mythical theory. But
all such ideas vanish at the touch of history. There was
absolutely no Jewish expectancy that could have bodied itself
forth in a narrative like that of the Transfiguration. To
begin with the accessories, the idea, that the coming of
Moses was to be connected with that of the Messiah, rests not
only on an exaggeration, but on a dubious and difficult
passage in the Jerusalem Targum. [a On Ex. xii.] [1 Moses and
the Messiah are placed side by side, the one as coming from
the desert, the other from Rome. 'This one shall lead at the
head of a cloud, and that one shall lead at the head of a
cloud, the Memra of Jehovah leading between them twain, and
they going', as I would render it, 'as one' (Ve-innun
mehalkhin kachada), or, as some render it, 'they shall walk
together.' The question here arises, whether this is to be
understood as merely figurative language, or to be taken
literally. If literally, does the Targum refer to a kind of
heavenly vision, or to something that was actually to take
place, a kind of realism of what Philo had anticipated (see
vol. i. p. 82)? It may have been in this sense that Fr.
Tayler renders the words by 'in culmine nubis equitabit.' But
on careful consideration the many and obvious incongruities
involved in it seem to render a literal interpretation well
nigh impossible. But all seems not only plain but accordant
with other Rabbinic teaching (see vol. i. p. 176), if we
regard the passage as only indicating a parallelism between
the first and the second Deliverer and the deliverances
wrought by them. Again, although the parallel is often drawn
in Rabbinic writings between Moses and Elijah, I know only
one passage, and that a dubious one, in which they are
conjoined in the days of the Messiah. It occurs in Deb. R. 3
(seven lines before the close of it), and is to this effect,
that, because Moses had in this world given his life for
Israel, therefore in the Aeon to come, when God would send
Elijah the prophet, they two should come, keachath, either
'together' or 'as one,' the proof passage being Nah. i. 3,
'the whirlwind' there referring to Moses, and 'the storm' to
Elijah. Surely, no one would found on such a basis a Jewish
mythical origin of the Transfiguration.] It is quite true,
that the face of Moses shone when he came down from the
Mount; but, if this is to be regarded as the basis of the
Transfiguration of Jesus, the presence of Elijah would not be
in point. On the other hand, to pass over other
inconsistencies, anything more un-Jewish could scarcely be
imagined than a Messiah crucified, or that Moses and Elijah
should appear to converse with Him on such a Death! If it be
suggested, that the purpose was to represent the Law and the
Prophets as bearing testimony to the Dying of the Messiah, we
fully admit it. Certainly, this is the New Testament and the
true idea concerning the Christ; but equally certainly, it
was not and is not, that of the Jews concerning the Messiah.
[1 Godet has also aptly pointed out, that the injunction of
silence on the disciples as to this event is incompatible
with the mythical theory. It could only point to a real
event, not to a myth.
If it is impossible to regard this narrative as a fraud;
hopeless, to attempt explaining it as a natural event; and
utterly unaccountable, when viewed in connection with
contemporary thought or expectancy in short, if all negative
theories fail, let us see whether, and how on the supposition
of its reality, it will fit into the general narrative. To
begin with: if our previous investigations have rightly led
us up to this result, that Jesus was the Very Christ of God,
then this event can scarcely be described as miraculous, at
least in such a history. If we would not expect it, it is
certainly that which might have been expected. For, first, it
was (and at that particular period) a necessary stage in the
Lord's History, viewed in the light in which the Gospels
present Him. Secondly, it was needful for His own
strengthening, even as the Ministry of the Angels after the
Temptation. Thirdly, it was 'good' for these three disciples
to be there: not only for future witness, but for present
help, and also with special reference to Peter's remonstrance
against Christ's death-message. Lastly, the Voice from
heaven, in hearing of His disciples, was of the deepest
importance. Coming after the announcement of His Death and
Passion, it sealed that testimony, and, in view of it,
proclaimed Him as the Prophet to Whom Moses had bidden Israel
hearken, [a Deut. xviii. 15.]while it repeated the heavenly
utterance concerning Him made at His Baptism. [b St. Matt.
iii. 17.]
But, for us all, the interest of this history lies not only
in the past; it is in the present also, and in the future. To
all ages it is like the vision of the bush burning, in which
was the Presence of God. And it points us forward to that
transformation, of which that of Christ was the pledge, when
'this corruptible shall put on incorruption.' As of old the
beacon-fires, lighted from hill to hill, announced to them
far away from Jerusalem the advent of solemn feast, so does
the glory kindled on the Mount of Transfiguration shine
through the darkness of the world, and tell of the
Resurrection-Day.
On Hermon the Lord and His disciples had reached the highest
point in this history. Henceforth it is a descent into the
Valley of Humiliation and Death!
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
ON THE MORROW OF THE TRANSFIGURATION
CHAPTER II
(St. Matt. xvii. 9-21; St. Mark ix. 9-29: St. Luke ix.
37-43.)
IT was the early dawn of another summer's day when the
Master and His disciples turned their steps once more towards
the plain. They had seen His Glory; they had had the most
solemn witness which, as Jews, the could have; and they had
gained a new knowledge of the Old Testament. It all bore
reference to the Christ, and it spake of His Decease. Perhaps
on that morning better than in the previous night did they
realise the vision, and feel its calm happiness. It was to
their souls like the morning-air which they breathed on that
mountain.
It would be only natural, that their thoughts should also
wander to the companions and fellow-disciples whom, on the
previous evening, they had left in the valley beneath. How
much they had to tell them, and how glad they would be of the
tidings they would hear! That one night had for ever answered
so many questions about that most hard of all His sayings:
concerning His Rejection and violent Death at Jerusalem; it
had shed heavenly light into that terrible gloom! They, at
least these three, had formerly simply submitted to the
saying of Christ because it was His, without understanding
it; but now they had learned to see it in quite another
light. How they must have longed to impart it to those whose
difficulties were at least as great, perhaps greater, who
perhaps had not yet recovered from the rude shock which their
Messianic thoughts and hopes had so lately received. We think
here especially of those, whom, so far as individuality of
thinking is concerned, we may designate as the representative
three, and the counterpart of the three chosen Apostles:
Philip, who ever sought firm standing-ground for faith;
Thomas, who wanted evidence for believing; and Judas, whose
burning Jewish zeal for a Jewish Messiah had already begun to
consume his own soul, as the wind had driven back upon
himself the flame that had been kindled. Every question of a
Philip, every doubt of a Thomas, every despairing wild
outburst of a Judas, would be met by what they had now to
tell.
But it was not to be so. Evidently, it was not an event to
be made generally known, either to the people or even to the
great body of the disciples. They could not have understood
its real meaning; they would have misunderstood, and in their
ignorance misapplied to carnal Jewish purposes, its heavenly
lessons. But even the rest of the Apostles must not know of
it: that they were not qualified to witness it, proved that
they were not prepared to hear of it. We cannot for a moment
imagine, that there was favouritism in the selection of
certain Apostles to share in what the others might not
witness. It was not because these were better loved, but
because they were better prepared [1 While writing this, we
fully remember about the title of St. John as he 'whom Jesus
loved' specially, even in that inner and closer circle.],
more fully receptive, more readily acquiescing, more entirely
self-surrendering. Too often we commit in our estimate the
error of thinking of them exclusively as Apostles, not as
disciples; as our teachers, not as His learners, with all the
failings of men, the prejudices of Jews, and the unbelief
natural to us all, but assuming in each individual special
forms, and appearing as characteristic weaknesses.
And so it was that, when the silence of that morning-descent
was broken, the Master laid on them the command to tell no
man of this vision, till after the Son of Man were risen from
the dead. This mysterious injunction of silence affords
another presumptive evidence against the invention, or the
rationalistic explanations, or the mythical origin of this
narrative. It also teaches two further lessons. The silence
thus enjoined was the first step into the Valley of
Humiliation. It was also a test, whether they had understood
the spiritual teaching of the vision. And their strict
obedience, not questioning even the grounds of the
injunction, proved that they had learned it. So entire,
indeed, was their submission, that they dared not even ask
the Master about a new and seemingly greater mystery than
they had yet heard: the meaning of the Son of Man rising from
the Dead. [a St. Mark ix. 10.] Did it refer to the general
Resurrection; was the Messiah to be the first to rise from
the dead, and to waken the other sleepers, or was it only a
figurative expression for His triumph and vindication?
Evidently, they knew as yet nothing of Christ's Personal
Resurrection as separate from that of others, and on the
third day after His Death. And yet it was no near! So
ignorant were they, and so unprepared! And they dared not ask
the Master of it. This much they had already learned: not to
question the mysteries of the future, but simply to receive
them. But in their inmost hearts they kept that saying, as
the Virgin-Mother had kept many a like saying, carrying it
about 'with them' as a precious living germ that would
presently spring up and bear fruit, or as that which would
kindle into light and chase all darkness. But among
themselves, then and many times afterwards, in secret
converse, they questioned what the rising again from the dead
should mean. [a St. Mark ix. 10.]
There was another question, and it they might ask of Jesus,
since it concerned not the mysteries of the future, but the
lessons of the past. Thinking of that vision, of the
appearance of Elijah and of his speaking of the Death of the
Messiah, why did the Scribes say that Elijah should first
come, and, as was the universal teaching, for the purpose of
restoring all things? If, as they had seen, Elijah had come,
but only for a brief season, not to abide, along with Moses,
as they had fondly wished when they proposed to rear them
booths; if he had come not to the people but to Christ, in
view of only them three, and they were not even to tell of
it; and, if it had been, not to prepare for a spiritual
restoration, but to speak of what implied the opposite: the
Rejection and violent Death of the Messiah, then, were the
Scribes right in their teaching, and what was its real
meaning? The question afforded the opportunity of presenting
to the disciples not only a solution of their difficulties,
but another insight into the necessity of His Rejection and
Death. They had failed to distinguish between the coming of
Elijah and its alternative sequence. Truly 'Elias cometh
first', and Elijah had 'come already' in the person of John
the Baptist. The Divinely intended object of Elijah's coming
was to 'restore all things.' This, of course, implied a moral
element in the submission of the people to God, and their
willingness to receive his message. Otherwise there was this
Divine alternative in the prophecy of Malachi: 'Lest I come
to smite the land with the ban' (Cherem). Elijah had come; if
the people had received his message, there would have been
the promised restoration of all things. As the Lord had said
on a previous occasion [b St. Matt. xi. 14.]: 'If ye are
willing to receive him, [1 The meaning remainssubstantially
the same whether we insert 'him' or 'it.'] 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
fulfilled: and the land of Israel been smitten with the ban.
[1 The question, whether thereis to be a literal reappearance
of Elijah before the Second Advent of Christ does not seem to
be answered in the present passage. Perhaps it is purposely
left unanswered.]
Amidst such conversation the descent from the mountain 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. For, amidst the divergence of
details between the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Mark,
and, so far as it goes, that of St. Luke, the one point in
which they almost literally and emphatically accord is, when
the Lord speaks of them, in language of bitter disappointment
and sorrow, as a generation with whose want of faith,
notwithstanding all that they had seen and learned, He had
still to bear, expressly attributing [a In St. Matthew and
St. Mark.] their failure in restoring the lunatick, to their
'unbelief.' [2 The reading 'little faith' instead of
'unbelief,' though highly attested, seems only an early
correction. On internal grounds it is more likely, that the
expression 'little faith' is a correction by a later
apologete, than 'unbelief.' The latter also corresponds to
'faithless generation.'
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 concourse 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 about a man who
had in vain brought his lunatick son for healing. He is
eagerly questioned by the multitude, and moodily answers; or,
as it might almost seem from St. Matthew, [b ver. 14.] 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, 'questioning 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 greatly
amazed, [3 There is no hint in the text, that their amazement
was due to the shining of His Face.] and running to Him
saluted Him.' [c St. Mark.] He came, as always, and to us
also, unexpectedly, most opportunely, and for the real
decision of the question in hand. There was immediate calm,
preceding victory. Before the Master's inquiry about the
cause of this violent discussion could be answered, the man
who had been its occasion came forward. With lowliest gesture
('kneeling to Him' [a St. Matthew.]) he addressed Jesus. At
last he had found Him, Whom he had come to seek; and, if
possibility of help there were, oh! let it be granted.
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 influence,
he told, how he had come in search of the Master, but only
found the nine disciples, and how they had presumptuously
attempted, and signally failed in the attempted 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 'probatum est' ('it is proved'); they
believed because, and what, they had seen; and they were
drawn closer to Christ, at least almost all of them, though
in varying measure, as to Him Who, and Who alone, spake 'the
words of eternal life,' which, with wondrous power, had
swayed their souls, or laid them to heaven's rest. But that
deeper, truer 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
faith as they had, they spake, repeated forms of exorcism,
tried to imitate their Master. But they signally failed, as
didi those seven Jewish Priest-sons at Ephesus. And it was
intended that they shomld fail, that so to them and to us the
higher meaning of faith as contrasted with power, the inward
as contrasted with the merely outward qualification, might
appear. In that hour of crisis, in the presence of
questioning Scribes and a wondering populace, and in the
absence of the Christ, only one power could prevail, that of
spiritual faith; and 'that kind' could 'not come out but by
prayer.' [2 The addition of the word 'fasting' in St. Mark is
probably spurious. It reads like a later gloss. It is not
unlikely that St. Matt. xvii. 21 is merely a spurious
insertion from St. Mark. However, see Meyer on this point.]
It is this lesson, viewed also in organic connection with
all that had happened since the great temptation at
Dalmanutha, which furnishes the explanation of the whole
history. 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,' [1 The
expression 'generation' although embracing in its reproof all
the people, is specially addressed to the disciples.] with
which He had so long borne; the infinite patience and
condescension, the Divine 'need be' of His having thus to
bear even with His own, together with the deep humiliation
and keen pang which it involved; and the almost home-longing,
as one has called it, [2 Godet.] of His soul. These are
mysteries to adore. 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
description 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 consider the symptoms
before he could attempt to cure. 'If Thou canst do anything,
have compassion on us, and help us.'
It was but natural, and yet it was the turning-point in this
whole history, alike as regarded the healing of the lunatick,
the better leading of his father, the teaching of the
disciples, and that of the multitude and the Scribes. There
is all the calm majesty of Divine self-consciousness, 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. Not, if the Christ can do
anything or even everything, but, 'If thou canst believe, [3
The weight of the evidence from the MSS. accepted by most
modern critics (though not by that very judicious
commentator, Canon Cook) is in favour of the reading and
rendering: 'If Thou canst! all things are possible,' &c. But
it seems to me, that this mode of reply on the part of Christ
is not only without any other parallel in the Gospels, but
too artificial, too Western, if I may use the expression.
While the age of a MS. or MSS. is, of course, one of the
outward grounds on which the criticism of the text must
proceed, I confess to the feeling that, as age and purity are
not identical, the interpreter must weigh all such evidence
in the light of the internal grounds for or against its
reception. Besides, in this instance, it seems to me that
there is some difficulty about the is struck out, and which
is not so easily cleared up as Meyer suggests.] all things
are possible to him that believeth.' [4 'Omnipotentiae
Divinae se fides hominis, quasi organon, accommodat and
recipiendum, vel etiam ad agendum.', Bengel.] The question is
not, it can never be, as the man had put it; it must not even
be answered, but ignored. It must ever be, not what He can,
but what we can. When the infinite fulness is poured forth,
as it ever is in Christ, it is not the oil that is stayed,
but the vessels which fail. He giveth richly, inexhaustibly,
but not mechanically; there is only one condition, the moral
one of the presence of absolute faith, our receptiveness. And
so these words have to all time remained the teaching to
every individual striver in the battle of the higher life,
and to the Church as a whole, the 'in hoc signo vinces' over
the Cross, the victory that overcometh the world, even our
faith.
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 outgoing of his soul he overleapt all, to lay hold on
the one fact set before him, he felt all the more the dark
chasm of unbelief behind him, but he also cluug to that
Christ, Whose teaching of faith had shown him, together with
the possibility, the source of faith. Thus through the felt
unbelief of faith he attained true faith by laying hold on
the Divine Saviour, when he cried out and said: [2 The words
with 'tears,' in the T.R. are apparently a spurious
addition.] 'Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief.' [3 The
interpretation of Meyer: 'Do not withhold thy help,
notwithstanding my unbelief' seems as Jejune as that of
others: 'Help me in my unbelief.'] These words have remained
historic, marking all true faith, which, even as faith, is
conscious of, nay implies, unbelief, but brings it to Christ
for help. The most bold leap of faith and the timid resting
at His Feet, the first beginning and the last ending of
faith, have alike this as their watchword.
Such cry could not be, and never is, unheard. It was real
demoniac influence which, continuing with this man from
childhood onwards, had well-nigh crushed all moral
individuality in him. In his many lucid intervals these many
years, since he had grown from a child into a youth, he had
never sought to shake off the yoke and regain his moral
individuality, nor would he even now have come, if his father
had not brought him. If any, this narrative shows the view
which the Gospels and Jesus took of what are described as the
'demonised.' 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 command thee, come out of him, and no more
come into him.'
Another and a more violent paroxysm, so that the bystanders
almost thought him dead. But the unclean spirit had come out
of him. And with strong gentle Hand the Saviour lifted him,
and with loving gesture delivered him to his father.
All things had been possible to faith; not to that external
belief of the disciples, which failed to reach 'that kind,'
[1 But it is rather too wide an application, when Euthymius
Zygabenus (one of the great Byzantine theologians of the
twelfth century), and others after him, note 'the kind of all
demons.'] and ever fails to reach such kind, but to true
spiritual faith in Him. And so it is to each of us
individually, and to the Church, to all time. 'That kind,'
whether it be of sin, of lust, of the world, or of science
falsely so called, of temptation, or of materialism, cometh
not out by any of our ready-made formulas or dead dogmas. Not
so are the flesh and the Devil vanquished; not so is the
world overcome. It cometh out by nothing but by prayer:
'Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief.' Then, although
our faith were only what in popular language was described as
the smallest,' like a grain of mustard-seed' and the result
to be achieved the greatest, most difficult, seemingly
transcending human ability to compass it, what in popular
language was designated as 'removing mountains' [2, The
Rabbinic use of the expression, 'grain of mustard seed,' has
already been noted. The expression 'tearing up' or 'removing'
'mountains' was also proverbial among the Rabbis. Thus, a
great Rabbi might be designated as one who 'uprooted
mountains' (Ber., last page, line 5 from top; and Horay, 14
a), or as one who pulverised them (Sanh. 24 a). The
expression is also used to indicate apparently impossible
things, such as those which a heathen government may order a
man to do (Baba B. 3 b). nothing shall be impossible' unto
us. And these eighteen centuries of suffering in Christ, and
deliverance through Christ, and work for Christ, have proved
it. For all things are ours, if Christ is ours.
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
THE LAST EVENTS IN GALILEE, THE TRIBUTE-MONEY,
THE DISPUTE
BY THE WAY, THE FORBIDDING OF HIM WHO COULD NOT
FOLLOW WITH
THE DISCIPLES, AND THE CONSEQUENT TEACHING OF
CHRIST.
CHAPTER III
(St. Matt. xvii. 22,xviii. 22; St. Mark ix. 30-50; St. Luke
ix. 43-50.)
Now that the Lord's retreat in the utmost borders of the
land, at Caesarea 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, [1 The
expression in St. Matthew abode, but a temporary stay, a
going to (xvii. 22) does not imply permanent and fro.] nor to
traverse it as formerly for Missionary purposes, but
preparatory to His journey to the Feast of Tabernacles. The
few events of this brief stay, and the teaching connected
with it, may be summed up as follows.
1. Prominently, perhaps, as the summary of all, we have now
the clear and emphatic repetition of the prediction of His
Death and Resurrection. While He would keep His present stay
in Galilee as private as possible, [a St. Mark.] He would
fain so emphasize this teaching to His disciples, that it
should sink down into their ears and memories. For it was,
indeed, the most needful for them in view of the immediate
future. Yet the announcement only filled their loving hearts
with exceeding sorrow; they comprehend it not; nay, they
were, perhaps not unnaturally, afraid to ask Him about it. We
remember, that even the three who had been with Jesus on the
Mount, understood not what the rising from the dead should
mean, and that, by direction of the Master, they kept the
whole Vision from their fellow-disciples; and, thinking of it
all, we scarcely wonder that, from their standpoint, it was
hid from them, so that they might not perceive 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 suffer,
that we trace the incident about the tribute-money. We can
scarcely believe, that Peter would have 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. Indeed, we can scarcely repress the
feeling, that there was a certain amount of secretiveness on
the part of Peter, as if he had apprehended that Jesus would
not have wished him to act as he did, and would fain have
kept the whole transaction from the knowledge of his Master.
It is well known that, on the ground of the injunction in
Exod. xxx. 13&c., every male in Israel, from twenty years
upwards, was expected annually to contribute to the
Temple-Treasury the sum of one half-shekel [1 According to
Neh. x. 32, immediately after the return from Babylon the
contribution was a third of a shekel, probably on account of
the poverty of the people.] of the Sanctuary, [a Comp. 2
Kings xii. 4; 2 Chron. xxiv. 6; Neh. x. 32.] that is, one
common shekel, or two Attic drachms, [2 But only one
Alexandrian (comp. LXX. Gen. xxiii. 15; Josh. vii. 21).]
equivalent to about 1s. 2d. or 1s. 3d. of our money. Whether
or not the original Biblical ordinance had been intended to
institute a regular annual contribution, the Jews of the
Dispersion would probably regard it in the light of a
patriotic as well as religious act.
To the particulars previously given on this subject a few
others may be added. The family of the Chief of the Sanhedrin
(Gamaliel) seems to have enjoyed the curious distinction of
brining their contributions to the Temple-Treasury, not like
others, but to have thrown them down before him who opened
the Temple-Chest, [3 Could there have been an intended, or,
what would be still more striking, an unintended, but very
real irony in this, when Judas afterwards cast down the
pieces of silver in the Temple (St. Matt. xxvii. 5)?] when
they were immediately placed in the box from which, without
delay, sacrifices were provided. [b Sheq. iii. 3.] Again, the
commentators explain a certain passage in the Mishnah [c
Sheq. iii. 4.] and the Talmud [d Yoma 64 a.] as implying
that, although the Jews in Palestine had to pay the
tribute-money before the Passover, those from neighbouring
lands might bring it before the Feast of Weeks, and those
from such remote countries as Babylonia and Media as late as
the Feast of Tabernacles. [4 Dean Plumptre is mistaken in
comparing, as regarded the Sadducees, the Temple-rate with
the Church-rate question. There is no analogy between them,
nor did the Sadducees ever question its propriety. The Dean
is also in error in supposing, that the Palestinians were
wont to bring it at one of the other feasts.] Lastly,
although the Mishnah lays it down, that the goods of those
might be distrained, who had not paid the Temple-tribute by
the 25th Adar, it is scarcely credible that this obtained at
the time of Christ, [1 The penalty of distraint had only been
enacted less than a century before (about 78), during the
reign of Queen Salome-Alexandra, who was entirely in the
hands of the Pharisees.] at any rate in Galilee. Indeed, this
seems implied in the statement of the Mishnah [a Sheqal. vi.
5.] and the Talmud, [b Yoma 55 b.] that one of the 'thirteen
trumpets' in the Temple, into which contributions were cast,
was destined for the shekels of the current, and another for
those of the preceding, year. Finally, these
Temple-contributions were in the first place devoted to the
purchase of all public sacrifices, that is, those which were
offered in the name of the whole congregation of Israel, such
as the morning and evening sacrifices. It will be remembered,
that this was one of the points in fierce dispute between the
Pharisees and Sadducees, and that the former perpetuated
their triumph by marking its anniversary as a festive day in
their calendar. It seems a terrible irony of judgment [c Ps.
ii. 4.] when Vespasian ordered, after the destruction of the
Temple, that this tribute should henceforth be paid for the
rebuilding of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. [d Jos. War
vii. 6. 6.]
It will be remembered that, shortly before the previous
Passover, Jesus with His disciples had left Capernaum, [2 See
Book III. ch. xxxi.] 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. We
have, indeed, no means of knowing where the Master had
tarried during the ten days between the 15th and the 25th
Adar, supposing the Mishnic arrangements to have been in
force in Capernaum. He was certainly not at Capernaum, and it
must also 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 [3 If it
were not for the authority of Wieseler, who supports it, the
suggestion would scarcely deserve serious notice, that the
reference here is not to the Temple-tribute, but to the Roman
polltax o census. Irrespective of the question whether a
census was then levied in Galilee, the latter is designated
both in St. Matt. xvii. 25, and in xxii. 17, as well as in
St. Mark xii. 14, as, while here the well-known expression
didrachma is used.] 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. Would He, Who took so strangely different views of
Jewish observances, and Who made such extraordinary claims,
own the duty of paying the Temple-tribute? Had it been owing
to His absence, or from principle, that He had not paid it
last Passover-season? The question which they put to Peter
implies, at least, their doubt.
We have already seen what motives prompted the hasty reply
of Peter. He might, indeed, also otherwise, in his rashness,
have given an affirmative answer to the inquiry, without
first consulting the Master. For there seems little doubt,
that Jesus had on former occasions complied with the Jewish
custom. But matters were now wholly changed. Since the first
Passover, which had marked His first public appearance in the
Temple at Jerusalem, He had stated, and quite lately in most
explicit terms, that He was the Christ, the Son of God. To
have now paid the Temple-tribute, without explanation, might
have involved a very serious misapprehension. In view of all
this, the history before us seems alike simple and natural.
There is no pretext for the artificial construction put upon
it by commentators, any more than for the suggestion, that
such was the proverty of the Master and His disciples, that
the small sum requisite for the Temple-tribute had to be
miraculously supplied.
We picture it to ourselves on this wise. Those who received
the Tribute-money had come to Peter, and perhaps 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 has passed, Jesus,
Who had been in another part of the house, but was cognisant
of all, 'anticipated him.' [1 The Revised Version renders it
by: 'spake first.' But the word ( ) does not bear this
meaning in any of the fifteen passages in the LXX., where it
corresponds to the Hebrew Qiddem, and means 'to anticipate'
or 'to prevent' in the archaic sense of that word.]
Addressing him in kindly language as 'Simon,' He pointed out
the real state of matters by an illustration which must, of
course, not be too literally pressed, and of which the
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 regarded 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 offence be given; for, assuredly, they would not
have understood the principle on which Christ would have
refused the Tribute money, [2 In Succ. 30 a, we read a
parableof a king who paid toll, and being asked the reason,
replied that travellers were' to learn by his example not to
seek to withdraw themselves from paying all dues.] and all
misunderstanding 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 provided.
Thus viewed, there is, we submit, a moral purpose and
spiritual instruction in the provision of the Stater out of
the fish's mouth. The rationalistic explanation of it need
not be seriously considered; for any mythical interpretation
there is not the shadow of support in Biblical precedent or
Jewish expectancy. But the narrative in its literality has a
true and high meaning. And if we wished to mark the
difference between its sober simplicity and the extravagances
of legend, we would remind ourselves, not only of the
well-known story of the Ring of Polycrates, but of two
somewhat kindred Jewish Haggadahs. They are both intended to
glorify the Jewish mode of Sabbath observance. One of them
bears that 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 splended fish. Who would 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.' [a Shabb. 119 a,
lines 20 &c. from top.]
The other legend is similar. It was in Rome (in the
Christian world) that a poor tailor went to market to buy a
fish for a festive meal. [1 In the Midrash: 'On the eve of
the great fast' (the Day of Atonement). But from the
connection it is evidently intended to apply to the
distinction to be put on the Sabbath-meal.] Only one was on
sale, and for it there was keen competition between the
servant of a Prince and the Jew, the latter at last buying it
for not less than twelve dinars. At the banquet, the Prince
inquired of his servants why no fish had been provided. When
he ascertained the cause, he sent for the Jew with the
threatening inquiry, how a poor tailor could afford to pay
twelve dinars for a fish? 'My Lord,' replied the Jew, 'there
is a day on which all our sins are remitted us, and should we
not honour it?' The answer satisfied the Prince. But God
rewarded the Jew, for, when the fish was opened, a precious
gem was found in it, which he sold, and ever afterwards lived
of the proceeds. [a Ber. R. 11 on Gen. ii. 3.]
The reader can scarcely fail to mark the absolute difference
between even the most beautiful Jewish legends and any trait
in the Evangelic history.
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 explanations and admonitions,
which are told by St. Mark and St. Luke, but chiefly by St.
Matthew. This 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.
As we look at it, in the light of the then mental and
spiritual state of the Apostles, not in that in which,
perhaps naturally, we regard them, what happened seems not
difficult to understand. As St. Mark puts it, [b St. Mark ix.
34.] by the way they had disputed among themselves which of
them would be the greatest, as St. Matthew explains, [c St.
Matt. xviii. 1.] in the Messianic Kingdom of Heaven. They
might now the more confidently expect its near Advent from
the mysterious announcement of the Resurrection on the third
day, [d St. Matt. xvii. 23; St. Mark ix. 31.] which they
would probably connect with the commencement of the last
Judgment, following upon the violent Death of the Messiah. Of
a dispute, serious and even violent, among the disciples, we
have evidence in the exhortation of the Master, as reported
by St. Mark, [e St. Mark ix. 42-50.] in the direction ofthe
Lord how to deal with an offending brother, and in the
answering inquiry of Peter. [f St. Matt. xviii. 15, 21.] Nor
can we be at a loss to 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 did not
follow with the disciples, [g St. Mark ix. 38.] and the
self-righteous bargaining of Peter about forgiving the
supposed or real offences of a brother, [h St. Matt. xviii.
21.] give evidence of anything but the frame of mind which we
would have expected after the Vision on the Mount.
In truth, most incongruous as it may appear to us, looking
back on it in the light of the Resurrection, day, nay, almost
incredible, evidently, the Apostles were still greatly under
the influence 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,
rests upon it. But even within the charmed circle of
Rabbinism, there would be distinctions, due to learning,
merit, and even to favouritism. In this world there were His
special favourites, who could command anything at His hand,
to use the Rabbinic illustration, like a spoilt child from
its father. [a Taan. iii. 8; comp. especially Jer. Taan. 67
a.] [1 The almost blasphemous story of how Choni or Onias,
'the circle-drawer,' drew a circle around him, and refused to
leave it till God had sent rain, and successively objected to
too little and too much, stands by no means alone. Jer. Taan.
67 a gives some very painful details about this power of even
altering the decrees of God.] And in the Messianic age God
would assign booths to each according to his rank. [b Baba B.
75 a.] On the other hand, many passages could be quoted
bearingon the duty of humility and self-abasement. But the
stress laid on the merit attaching to this shows too clearly,
that it was the pride that apes humility. One instance, [c
Ber. 34 b.] previously referred to, will sufficeby way of
illustration. When the child of the great Rabbi Jochanan ben
Zakkai was dangerously ill, he was restored through the
prayer of one Chanina ben Dosa. On this the father of the
child remarked to his wife: 'If the son of Zakkai had all day
long put his head between his knees, no heed would have been
given to him.' 'How is that?' asked his wife; 'is Chanina
greater than thou?' 'No, was the reply, 'he is like a servant
before the King, while I am like a prince before the King'
(he is always there, and has thus opportunities which I, as a
lord, do not enjoy).
How deep-rooted were such thoughts and feelings, appears not
only from the dispute of the disciples by the way, but from
the request proffered by the mother of Zebedee's children and
her sons at a later period, in terrible contrast to the near
Passion of our Lord. [d St. Matt. xx. 20.] It does, indeed
come upon us as a most painful surprise, and as sadly
incongruous, this constant self-obtrusion, self-assertion,
and low, carnal self-seeking; this Judaistic trifling in face
of the utter self-abnegation and self-sacrifice of the Son of
Man. Surely, the contrast between Christ and His disciples
seems at times almost as great as between Him and the other
Jews. If we would measure His Stature, or comprehend the
infinite distance between His aims and teaching and those of
His contemporaries, let it be by comparison with even the
best of His disciples. It must have been part of His
humiliation and self-exinanition to bear with them. And is it
not, in a sense, still so as regards us all?
We have already 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
later 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 seem 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 permissible, 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, he, with his Judaistic views,
would be specially 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 journey, which is afterwards related. [a St.
Markix. 38; St. Luke ix. 49 As we judge, John seems to have
been the principal actor in it; perhaps, in the absence 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. So 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 far from the Kingdom of Heaven; at any
rate, he could not quickly speak evil of Him. John had, in
name of the disciples, forbidden him, because he had not cast
in his lot wholly with them. It was quite in the spirit of
their ideas about the Messianic Kingdom, and of their
dispute, which of His close followers would be greatest
there. And yet, they might deceive themselves as to the
motives of their conduct. If it were not almost impertinence
to use such terms, we would have said that there was infinite
wisdom and kindness in the answer which the Saviour gave,
when referred to on the subject. To forbid a man, in such
circumstances, would be either prompted by the spirit of the
dispute by the way, or else must be grounded on evidence that
the motive was, or the effect would untimately be (as in the
case of the sons 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;' he that opposeth not the disciples, really is for
them, a saying still more clear, when we adopt the better
reading in St. Luke, [a St. Luke ix. 50 'He that is not
against you is for you.' [1 Readers of ordinary sobriety of
judgment will form their opinions of the value of modern
negative criticism, when we tell them that it has discovered
in this man who did not follow with the disciples an allusion
to 'Pauline Christianity,' of which St. Mark took a more
charitable view than St. Matthew! By such treatment it would
not be difficult to make anything of the facts of history.]
There was reproof in this, as well as instruction, deeply
consistent with that other, though seemingly different,
saying: [b St. Matt. xii. 30.] 'He that is not with Me is
against Me.' The distinction between them is twofold. In the
one case it is 'not against,' in the other it is 'not with;'
but chiefly it lies in this: in the one case it is not
against the disciples in their work, while in the other it
is, not with Christ. A man who did what he could with such
knowledge of Christ as he possessed, even although he did not
absolutely follow with them, was 'not against' them. Such an
one should be regarded as thus far with them; at least be let
alone, left to Him Who knew all things. Such a man would not
lightly speak evil of Christ, and that was all the disciples
should care for, unless, indeed, they sought their own. Quite
other was it as regarded the relation of a person to the
Christ Himself. There neutrality was impossible, and that
which was not with Christ, by this very fact was against Him.
The lesson is of the most deep-reaching character, and the
distinction, alas! still overlooked, perhaps, because ours is
too often the spirit of those who journeyed to Capernaum.
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 (which should be inserted from the opening
words of St. Matthew's narrative): 'Who, then, is greatest in
the Kingdom of Heaven?' It was a general question, but Jesus
perceived the thought of their hearts; [c St. Luke.]He knew
about what they had disputed by the way, [d St. Mark ix. 33
and now asked them concerning it. The account of St. Mark is
most graphic. We almost see the scene. Conscience-stricken
'they held their peace.' As we read the further words: [e
ver. 35.] 'And He sat down,' it seems as if the Master had a
first gone to welcome the disciples on their arrival, and
they, 'full of their dispute,' had, without delay, addressed
their inquiry to him in the court or antechamber, where they
met Him, when, reading their thoughts, He had first put the
searching counter-question, what had been the subject of
their dispute. Then, leading the way into the house, 'He sat
down,' not only to answer their inquiry, which was not a real
inquiry, but to teach them what so much 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 self-consciousness, like
a child, thus, to become turned and entirely changed in mind:
'converted,' was the condition 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 teaching, the Blessed Saviour took the happy 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, lovingly, earnestly, wholly, self-forgetfully, simply
for Christ, 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. Blessed teaching this to the disciples and to us;
blessed lesson, which, these many centuries of scorching
heat, has been of unspeakable refreshing, alike to the giver
and the receiver of the cup of water in the Name of Christ,
in the love of Christ, and for the sake of Christ. [1 Verbal
parallels could easily be quoted, and naturally so, since
Jesus spoke as a Jew to Jews, but no real parallel. Indeed,
the point of the story lies in its being so utterly
un-Jewish.]
These words about receiving Christ, and 'receiving in the
Name of Christ,' had stirred the memory and conscience 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. And, more than this, St. Mark and, more fully, St.
Matthew, record some further instruction in connection with
it, to which St. Luke refers, in a slightly different form,
at a somewhat later period. [a St. Luke xvii. 1-7.] But it
seems so congrous to the present occasion, that we conclude
it was then spoken, although, like other sayings, [b Comp.
for example St. Markix. 50 with St. Matt. v. 13.] it may have
been afterwards repeated under similar circumstances. [3 Or
else St. Luke may have gathered into connected discourses
what may have been spoken at different times.] Certainly, no
more effective continuation, and application to Jewish minds,
of the teaching of our Lord could be conceived than that
which follows. For, the love of Christ goes deeper than the
condescension of receiving a child, utterly un-Pharisaic and
un-Rabbinic as this is. [a St. Matt. xviii. 2-6, and
parallels.] To have regard to the weaknesses of such a child,
to its mental and moral ignorance and folly, to adapt
ourselves to it, to restrain our fuller knowledge and forego
our felt liberty, so as not 'to offend', not to give occasion
for stumbling to 'one of these little ones,' that so through
our knowledge the weak brother for whom Christ died should
not perish: this is a lesson which reaches even deeper than
the question, what is the condition of entrance into the
Kingdom, or what service constitutes real greatness in it. A
man may enter into the Kingdom and do service, yet, if in so
doing he 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 ( ), [b Kethub. 59 b, line
18 from bottom.] referred to in St. Luke xvii. 35; the other
turned by an ass ( ), just as the Talmud also speaks of 'the
ass of the millstone' ( ). [c Moed K. 10 b, first line.]
Similarly, the figure about a millstone hung round the neck
occurs also in the Talmud, although there as figurative of
almost insuperable difficulties. [d Kidd. 29 b, lines 10 and
9 from bottom.] Again, the expression, 'it were better for
him,' is a well-known Rabbinic expression (Mutabh hayah lo).
[e Vayyikra R. 26.] Lastly, according to St. Jerome, the
punishment which seems alluded to in the words of Christ, and
which we know to have been inflicted 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 incurred! Woe
unto the world! [f St. Matt. xviii. 8-9; St. Mark, ix.
43-48.] Occasions of stumbling and offence will surely come,
but woe to the man through whom such havoc was wrought. What
then is the alternative? If it be a question 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 painful, 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. [1 St. Mark ix. 44 thelast
clause of ver. 45, and ver. 46, seem to be spurious. But ver.
48 (except the words for, which read simply: 'into Gehenna')
as well as the expression 'fire that never shall be
quenched,' and in St. Matthew, 'everlasting fire,' are on all
hands admitted to be genuine. The question of 'eternal
punishment,' from the standpoint of Jewish theology, will be
treated in a later part.] 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 narrative is
further continued by St. Matthew. The words reported by St.
Mark are so remarkable, so brief, we had almost said
truncated, as to require special consideration. [a St. Mark
ix. 49, 50.] It 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 [1 The rendering 'Salted for the fire,'
viz., as a sacrifice, has been adopted by other critics.] or,
as a very early gloss, which has strangely crept into the
text, [2 We can readily understand howthat clause, which was
one of the most ancient explanations, perhaps a marginal
gloss on the text 'Everyone shall be salted for the fire,'
crept into the text when its meaning was no longer
understood.] paraphrased and explained it, 'Every sacrifice
shall be salted with salt. [b These words are spurious.]
Noone is fit for the sacrificial fire, no one can himself be,
nor offer anything as a sacrifice, unless it have been first,
according to the Levitical Law, covered with salt, symbolic
of the incorruptible. 'Salt is good; but if the salt,' with
which the spiritual sacrifice is to be salted for the fire,
'have lost its savour, wherewith will ye season it?' Hence,
'have salt in yoursleves,' but do not let that salt be
corrupted by making it an occasion of offence to others, or
among yourselves, 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 is well-known law, that
every sacrifice burned on the Altar must be salted with salt.
[c Lev. ii. 13.] Indeed, accordingto the Talmud, not only
every such offering, but even the wood with which the
sacrificial fire was kindled, was sprinkled with salt. [d
Menach.] Salt symbolished to the Jews of that time the
incorruptible and the higher. Thus, the soul was compared to
the salt, and it was said concerning the dead: 'Shake off the
salt, and throw the flesh to the dogs. [e Nidd. 31 a.] The
Bible was compared to salt; so was acuteness of intellect. [f
Kidd. 29 b.] 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. [a
Bekhor. 8 b, lines 14 and 13 from bottom.] [1 'the salt, when
it becomes ill-savouring, with what shall it be seasoned?'
The passage occurs in a very curious Haggadah, and the
objection that salt would not become ill-savouring, would not
apply to the proverb in the form given it by Christ.]
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, [2 See the Appendix on
'Angelology and Demonology.'] only the chiefest of the Angels
were before the Face of God within the curtained Veil, or
Pargod, while the others, ranged in different classes, stood
outside and awaited his behest. [b Chag. 12 b; Pirke de R.
Eliez. 4.] 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. Not the more exalted in knowledge, and merit, or worth,
but the simpler, the more unconscious of self, the more
receptive and clinging, the nearer to God. Look up from earth
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!
Viewed in this light, there is nothing incongruous in the
transition: 'For the Son of Man is come to save that which
was lost.' [c St. Matt. xviii. 11.] This, His greatest
condescension when He became the Babe of Bethlehem, is also
His greatest exaltation. He Who is nearest the Father, and,
in the most special and unique sense, always beholds His
Face, is He that became a Child, and, as the Son of Man,
stoops lowest, to save that which was lost. The words are,
indeed, regarded as spurious by most critics, because certain
leading manuscripts omit them, and they are supposed to have
been imported from St. Luke xix. 10. But such a transference
from a context wholly unconnected with this section [3 Except
that the history of Zacchaeus, in which the words occur, is
really an application real life of the Parable of the Lost
Sheep.] seems unaccountable, while, on the other hand, the
verse in question forms, not only an apt, but almost
necessary, transition to the Parable of the Lost Sheep. It
seems, therefore, difficult to eliminate it without also
striking out that Parable; and yet it fits most beautifully
into the whole context. Suffice it for the present to note
this. The Parable itself is more fully repeated in another
connection, [a St. Luke xv. 3-7.] in which it will be more
convenient to consider it.
Yet a further depth of Christian love remained to be shown,
which, all self-forgetful, sought not its own, but the things
of others. This also bore on the circumstances of the time,
and the dispute between the disciples, but went far beyond
it, and set forth eternal principles. Hitherto it had been a
question of not seeking self, nor minding great things, but
Christ-like and God-like, to condescend to the little ones.
What if actual wrong had been done, and just offence given by
a 'brother'? [b St. Matt. xviii. 15.] In 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 Rabbinism, which directs that the first
overtures must be made by the offender, not the offended; [c
Yoma viii. 9.] and even prescribes this to be done in the
presence of numerous witnesses, and, if needful, repeated
three times. [d Yoma 87 a.] 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. [e Shabb. 119 b;
Tamid 28 a; Arakh. 16 b.] In fact, according to Jewish
criminal law, punishment could not be inflicted unless the
offender (even the woman suspected of adultery) had
previously been warned before witnesses. Yet, in practice,
matters were very different: and neither could those be found
who would take reproof, nor yet such as were worthy to
administer it. [f Arakh. u.s.]
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 offended 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, perhaps, 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. [a Titus
iii. 10.] He was to be treated as was the custom in regard 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 wrongs 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 has committed to the
Church in the persons of her rulers and representatives, [1
It is both curious and interesting to find that the question,
whether the Priests exercised their functions as 'the sent of
God' or 'the sent of the congregation', that is, held their
commission directly from God, or only as being the
representatives of the people, is discussed already in the
Talmud (Yoma 18 b & c.; Nedar. 35 b). The Talmud replies
that, as it is impossible to delegate what one does not
possess, and since the laity might neither offer sacrifices
nor do any like service, the Priests could not possibly have
been the delegates of the Church, but must be those of God.
(See the essay by Delitzsch in the Zeitschr. fur Luther.
Theol. for 1854, pp. 446-449.)] 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 Christ, as that
which was to be asked, would be done for them of his Father
Which was in heaven. [b St. Matt.xviii. 19.] 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 infinite possibility of a higher service of
love. For, in the smallest gathering in the Name of Christ,
His Presence would be, [2 The Mishnah (Ab. iii.2), and the
Talmud (Ber. 6 a), infer from Mal. iii. 16, that, when two
are together and occupy themselves with the Law, the
Shekhinah is between them. Similarly, it is argued from
Lament. iii. 28, and Exod. xx. 21, that if even one alone is
engaged in such pursuits, God is with him and will bless
him.] and with it the certainty of nearness to, and
acceptance with, God. [c St. Matt. xviii. 19, 20.]
It is bitterly disappointing that, after such teaching, even
a Peter could, either immediately afterwards, or perhaps
after he had had time to think it over, and apply it, come to
the Master 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. [d
St. Matt. xviii. 21.] Such traits show better than elaborate
discussions the need of the mission and the renewing of the
Holy Ghost. And yet there is something touching in the
simplicity and honesty with which Peter goes to the Master
with such a misapprehension of His teaching, as if he had
fully entered into its spirit. 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. [a Babha K. viii. 7.] The Jerusalem Talmud
[b Jer. Babha K. 6 c.] adds the beautiful remark: 'Let this
be a token in thine hand, each time that thou showest mercy,
God will show mercy on thee; and if thou showest not mercy,
neither will God show mercy on thee.' And yet it was a
settled rule, that forgiveness should not be extended more
than three times. [c Yoma 86 b.] Even so, the practice was
terribly different. The Talmud relates, without blame, the
conduct of a Rabbi, who would not forgive a very small slight
of his dignity, though asked by the offender for thirteen
successive years, and that on the Day of Atonement, the
reason being, that the offended Rabbi had learned by a dream
that his offending brother would attain the highest dignity,
whereupon he feigned himself irreconcilable, to force the
other to migrate from Palestine to Babylon, where, unenvied
by him, he might occupy the chief place! [d Yoma 87.]
And so 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! [1 It makes no
difference in the argument, whether we translate seventy
times seven, or else seventy times and seven.] The evident
purport of these words was to efface all such landmarks.
Peter had yet to learn, what we, alas! too often forget: that
as Christ's forgiveness, so that of the Christian, must not
be computed by numbers. It is qualitative, not quantitative:
Christ forgives sin, not sins, and he who has experienced it,
follows in His footsteps. [2 The Parable, with which the
account in St. Matthew closes, will be explained by and by in
the Second Series of Parables.]
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM, CHRONOLOGICAL
ARRANGEMENT OF THE
LAST PART OF THE GOSPEL-NARRATIVES, FIRST
INCIDENTS BY THE
WAY.
CHAPTER IV
(St. John vii. 1-16; St. Luke ix. 1-56; 57-62; St. Matthew
viii. 19-22.)
THE part in the Evangelic History which we have now reached
has this peculiarity and difficulty, that the events are now
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. From the circumstance that St. Luke omits
throughout his narrative all notation of time or place, the
difficulty of arranging here the chronological succession of
events is so great, that we can only suggest what seems most
probable, without feeling certain of the details. Happily,
the period embraced is a short one, while at the same time
the narrative of St. Luke remarkably fits into that of St.
John. St. John mentions three appearances of Christ in
Jerusalem at that period: at the Feast of Tabernacles, [a St.
John vii. to x.] at that of the Dedication, [b x. 22-42.] and
His final entry, which is referred to by all the other
Evangelists. [c St. Matt. xx. 17 &c.; St. Mark x. 32 &c.; St.
Luke xvii. 11 &c.] But, while the narrative of St. John
confines itself exclusively to what happened in Jerusalem or
its immediate neighborhood. it also either mentions or gives
sufficient 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 to Jerusalem,
for the raising of Lazarus, [d St. John xf.] and after that a
council against Christ in Jerusalem, in consequence of which
He withdrew out of Judaean territory into a district near
'the wilderness' [e xi. 54.], as we infer, that in the north,
where John had been baptizing and Christ been tempted, and
whither He had afterwards withdrawn. [f St. Luke iv. 1; v.
16; vii. 24.] We regard this 'wilderness' as onthe western
bank of the Jordan, and extending northward towards the
eastern shore of the Lake of Galilee. [g St. Luke viii. 29.]
If St. John relates three appearances of Jesus at this time
in Jerusalem, St. Luke records three journeys to Jerusalem,
[a St. Luke ix. 51; xiii. 22; xviii. 31.] the last of which
agrees, in regard to its starting point, with the notices of
the other Evangelists, [b St. Matt. xix. 1; St. Mark x. 1.]
always supposing that we have correctly indicated the
locality of 'the wilderness' whither, according to St. John
xi. 54, Christ retired previous to His last journey to
Jerusalem. In this respect, although it is impossible with
our present information to localise 'the City of Ephraim,' [c
Comp. the suggestions in Neubauer, Geog. de Talm. p. 155.]
the statement that it was 'near the wilderness,' affords us
sufficient general notice of its situation. For, the New
Testament speaks of only two 'wilderness,' that of Judaea in
the far South, and that in the far North of Peraea, or
perhaps in the Decapolis, to which St. Luke refers as the
scene of the Baptist's labours, where Jesus was tempted, and
whither He afterwards withdrew. We can, therefore, have
little doubt that St. John refers [d in St. John xi. 54.] to
this district. And this entirely accords with the notices by
the other Evangelists of Christ's last journey to Jerusalem,
as through the borders of Galilee and Samaria, and then
across the Jordan, and by Bethany to Jerusalem.
It follows (as previously stated) that St. Luke's account of
the three journeys to Jerusalem fits into the narrative of
Christ's three appearances in Jerusalem as described by St.
John. And the unique section in St. Luke [c St. Luke ix.
51-xviii. 14.] supplies the record of what took place before,
during, and after those journeys, of which the upshot is told
by St. John. This much seems certain; the exact chronological
succession must be, in part, matter of suggestion. But we
have now some insight into the plan of St. Luke's Gospel, as
compared with that of the others. We see that St. Luke forms
a kind of transition, is a sort of connecting link between
the other two Synoptists [f St. Matthew and St. Mark.] and
St. John. This is admitted even by negative critics. [g See
Renan, Les Evangiles, p.266.] The Gospel by St. Matthew has
for its main object the Discourses or teaching of the Lord,
around which the History groups itself. It is intended as a
demonstration, primarily addressed to the Jews, and in a form
peculiarly suited to them, that Jesus was the Messiah, the
Son of the Living God. The Gospel by St. Mark is a rapid
survey of the History of the Christ as such. It deals mainly
with the Galilean Ministry. The Gospel by St. John, which
gives the highest, the reflective, view of the Eternal Son as
the Word, deals almost exclusively with the Jerusalem
Ministry. [1 This seems unaccountable on the modern negative
theory of its being an Ephesian Gospel.] And the Gospel by
St. Luke complements the narratives in the other two Gospels
(St. Matthew and St. Mark), and it supplements them by
tracing, what is not done otherwise: the Ministry in Peroea.
Thus, it also forms a transition to the Fourth Gospel of the
Judaean Ministry. If we may venture a step further: The
Gospel by St. Mark gives the general view of the Christ; that
by St. Matthew the Jewish, that by St. Luke the Gentile, and
that by St. John the Church's view. Imagination might,
indeed, go still further, and see the impress of the number
five, that of the Pentateuch and the Book of Psalms, in the
First Gospel; the numeral four (that of the world) in the
Second Gospel (4x4=16 chapters); that of three in the Third
(8x3=24 chapters); and that of seven, the sacred Church
number, in the Fourth Gospel (7x3=21 chapters). And perhaps
we might even succeed in arranging the Gospels into
corresponding sections. But this would lead, not only beyond
our present task, but from solid history and exegesis into
the regions of speculation.
The subject, then, primarily before us, is the journeying of
Jesus to Jerusalem. In that wider view which St. Luke takes
of this whole history, he presents what really were three
separate journeys as one, that towards the great end. In its
conscious aim and object, all, from the moment of His finally
quitting Galilee to His final Entry into Jerusalem, formed,
in the highest sense, only one journey And this St. Luke
designates in a peculiar manner. Just as [a St. Luke ix. 31.]
he had spoken, not of Christ's Death but of His 'Exodus,' or
outgoing, which included His Resurrection and Ascension, so
he now tells us that, 'when the days of His uptaking',
including and pointing to His Ascension [2 The substantive
occurs only in this place, but the cognate verb repeatedly,
as referring to the Ascension. The curious interpretation of
Wieseler would not even call for notice, it it had not the
authority of his name.], 'were being fulfilled, He also [3
The word , omitted in translations, seems to denote Christ's
full determination by the side of the fulfilment of the time.
It could scarcely be argued that it stands merely for the
Hebrew copulative .] steadfastly set [4 The term is used in
the LXX as denoting firmly setting. In connection with it
occurs twelve times.] His Face to go to Jerusalem.'
St. John, indeed, goes farther back, and speaks of the
circumstances which preceded His journey to Jerusalem. There
is an interval, or, as we might term it, a blank, of more
than half a year between the last narrative in the Fourth
Gospel and this. For, the events chronicled in the sixth
chapter of St. John's Gospel took place immediately before
the Passover, [b St. John vi. 4.] which was on the fifteenth
day of the first ecclesiastical month (Nisan), while the
Feast of Tabernacle [a St. John vii. 2.] began on the same
day of the seventh ecclesiastical month (Tishri). But, except
in regard to the commencement of Christ's Ministry, that
sixth chapter is the only one in the Gospel of St. John which
refers to the Galilean Ministry of Christ. We would suggest,
that what it records is partly intended [1 Other and deeper
reasons will also suggest themselves, and have been hinted at
when treating of this event.] to exhibit, by the side of
Christ's fully developed teaching, the fully developed enmity
of the Jerusalem Scribes, which led even to the defection of
many former disciples. Thus, chapter vi. would be a
connecting-link (both as regards the teaching of Christ and
the opposition to Him) between chapter v., which tells of His
visit at the 'Unknown Feast,' and chapter vii., which records
that at the Feast of Tabernacles. The six or seven months
between the Feast of Passover [b St. John vi.] and that of
Tabernacles, [c St. John vii.] and all that passed within
them, are covered by this brief remark: 'After these things
Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in Judaea,
because the Jews [the leaders of the people [The term 'Jews'
is generally used by St. John in that sense.]] sought to kill
Him.'
But now the Feast of Tabernacles was at hand. The pilgrims
would probably arrive in Jerusalem before the opening day of
the Festival. For, besides the needful preparations, which
would require time, especially on this Feast, when booths had
to be constructed in which to live during the festive week,
it was (as we remember) the common practice to offer such
sacrifices as might have previously become due at any of the
great Feasts to which the people might go up. [3 According to
Babha K. 113 a, regular festive lectures commenced in the
Academies thirty days before each of the great Feasts. Those
who attended them were called Beney Rigla, in distinction to
the Beney Khallah, who attended the regular Sabbath
lectures.] Remembering that five months had elapsed since the
last great Feast (that of Weeks), many such sacrifices must
have been due. Accordingly, the ordinary festive companies of
pilgrims, which would travel slowly, must have started from
Galilee some time before the beginning of the Feast. These
circumstances fully explain the details of the narrative.
They also afford another most painful illustration of the
loneliness of Christ in His Work. His disciples had failed to
understand, they misapprehended His teaching. In the near
prospect of His Death they either displayed gross ignorance,
or else disputed about their future rank. And His own
'brethren' did not believe in Him. The whole course of late
events, especially the unmet challenge of the Scribes for 'a
sign from heaven,' had deeply shaken them. What was the
purpose of 'works,' if done in the privacy of the circle of
Christ's Apostles, in a house, a remote district, or even
before an ignorant multitude? If, claiming to be the Messiah,
He wished to be openly [1 The same term (Parhesya) occurs in
Rabbinic language.] known as such, He must use other means.
If He really did these things, let Him manifest Himself
before the world, in Jerusalem, the capital of their world,
and before those who could test the reality of His Works. Let
Him come forward, at one of Israel's great Feasts, in the
Temple, and especially at this Feast which pointed to the
Messianic ingathering of all nations. Let Him now go up with
them in the festive company into Judaea, that so His
disciples, not the Galileans only, but all, might have the
opportunity of 'gazing' [2 The verb is the significant one,
.] on His Works. [3 Godet remarks, that the style of ver. 4
is peculiarly Hebraistic.]
As the challenge was not new, [4 See especially the cognate
occurrence and expressions at the marriage feast in Cana.]
so, from the worldly point of view, it can scarcely be called
unreasonable. It is, in fact, the same in principle as that
to which the world would now submit the claims of
Christianity to men's acceptance. It has only this one fault,
that it ignores the world's enmity to the Christ.
Discipleship is not the result of any outward manifestation
by 'evidences' or demonstration. It requires the conversion
of a child-like spirit. To manifest Himself! This truly would
He do, though not in their way. For this 'the season' [5
Kaipos.] had not yet come, though it would soon arrive. Their
'season', that for such Messianic manifestations as they
contemplated, was 'always ready.' And this naturally, for
'the world' could not 'hate' them; they and their
demonstrations were quite in accordance with the world and
its views. But towards Him the world cherished personal
hatred, because of their contrariety of principle, because
Christ was manifested, not to restore an earthly kingdom to
Israel, but to bring the Heavenly Kingdom upon earth, 'to
destroy the works of the Devil.' Hence, He must provoke the
enmity of that world which lay in the Wicked One. Another
manifestation than that which they sought would He make, when
His 'season was fulfilled;' soon, beginning at this very
Feast, continued at the next, and completed at the last
Passover; such manifestation of Himself as the Christ, as
could alone be made in view of the essential enmity of the
world.
And so He let them go up in the festive company, while
Himself tarried. When the noise and publicity (which He
wished to avoid) were no longer to be apprehended, He also
went up, but privately, [1 Godet infers from the word
'secretly,' that the journey of St. Luke ix. 51 could not
have been that referred to by St. John. But the qualified
expression, 'as it were in secret,' conveys to my mind only a
contrast to the public pilgrim-bands, in which it was the
custom to travel to the Feasts, a publicity, which His
'brethren' specially desired at this time. Besides, the 'in
secret' of St. John might refer not so much to the journey as
to the appearance of Christ at the Feast: comp. St. John vii.
11, 14.] not publicly, as they had suggested. Here St. Luke's
account begins. It almost reads like a commentary on what the
Lord had just said to His brethren, about the enmity of the
world, and His mode of manifestation, who would not, and who
would receive Him, and why. 'He came unto His own, and His
own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them
gave He power to become children of God . . . which were born
. . . of God.'
The first purpose of Christ seems to have been to take the
more direct road to Jerusalem, through Samaria, and not to
follow that of the festive pilgrim-bands, which travelled to
Jerusalem through Peraea, in order to avoid the band of their
hated rivals. But His intention was soon frustrated. In the
very first Samaritan village to which the Christ had sent
beforehand to prepare for Himself and His company, [2 It does
not necessarily follow, that the company at starting was a
large one. But they would have no host nor quarters ready to
receive them in Samaria. Hence the despatch of messengers.]
His messengers were told that the Rabbi could not be
received; that neither hospitality nor friendly treatment
could be extended to One Who was going up to the Feast at
Jerusalem. The messengers who brought back this strangely
un-Oriental answer met the Master and His followers on the
road. It was not only an outrage on common manners, but an
act of open hostility to Israel, as well as to Christ, and
the 'Sons of Thunder,' whose feelings for their Master were,
perhaps, the more deeply stirred as opposition to Him grew
more fierce, proposed to vindicate the cause, alike of Israel
and its Messiah-King, by the open and Divine judgment of fire
called down from heaven to destroy that village. Did they in
this connection think of the vision of Elijah, ministering to
Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration, and was this their
application of it? Truly, they knew not of what Spirit they
were to be the children and messengers. He Who had come, not
to destroy, but to save, turned and rebuked them, and passed
from Samaritan into Jewish territory to pursue His journey.
[3 At the same time, according to the best MSS. the words (in
St. Luke ix. 54): 'Even as Elias did,' and those (in verses
55 and 56) from 'and said. . .' to 'save them,' are
interpolated. They are 'a gloss,' though a correct one.]
Perhaps, indeed, He had only passed into Samaria to teach His
disciples this needful lesson. The view of this event just
presented seems confirmed by the circumstance, that St.
Matthew lays the scene immediately following 'on the other
side', that is, in the Decapolis. [a St. Matt. viii. 18.]
It was a journey of deepest interest and importance. For, it
was decisive not only as regarded the Master, but those who
followed Him. Henceforth it must not be, as in former times,
but wholly and exclusively, as into suffering and death. It
is thus that we view the next three incidents of the way. Two
of them find, also, a place in the Gospel by St. Matthew, [b
St. Matt. viii. 19-22.] although in a different connection,
in accordance with the plan of that Gospel, which groups
together the Teaching of Christ, with but secondary attention
to chronological succession.
It seems that, as, after the rebuff of these Samaritans,
they 'were going' towards another, and a Jewish village,
'one' [1 The word here designates a certain one, one, viz.,
of the company. The arrangement of the words undoubtedly is,
'one of the company said unto Him by the way,' and not as
either in the A.V. or R.V. Comp. Canon Cook, ad loc. in the
'Speaker's Commentary.'] of the company, and, as we learn
from St. Matthew, 'a Scribe,' in the generous enthusiasm of
the moment, perhaps, stimulated by the wrong of the
Samaritans, perhaps, touched by the love which would rebuke
the zeal of the disciples, but had no word of blame for the
unkindness of others, broke into a spontaneous declaration of
readiness to follow Him absolutely and everywhere. Like the
benediction of the woman who heard Him, [c St. Luke xi. 27.]
it was one of these outbursts of an enthusiasm which His
Presence awakened in every susceptible heart. But there was
one eventuality which that Scribe, and all of like
enthusiasm, reckoned not with, the utter homelessness of the
Christ in this world, and this, not from accidental
circumstances, but because He was 'the Son of Man.' [2 We
mark, that the designation 'Son of Man' is here for the first
time applied to Christ by St. Matthew. May this history have
been inserted in the First Gospel in that particular
connection for the purpose of pointing out this contrast in
the treatment of the Son of Man by the sons of men, as if to
say: Learn the meaning of the representative title: Son of
Man, in a world of men who would not receive Him? It is the
more marked, that it immediately precedes the first
application on the part of men of the title 'Son of God' to
Christ in this Gospel (St. Matt. vii. 29).] And there is here
also material for still deeper thought in the fact that this
man was 'a Scribe,' and yet had not gone up to the Feast, but
tarried near Christ, was 'one' of those that followed Him
now, and was capable of such feelings! [3 It is scarcely
necessary to discuss the suggestion, that the first two
referred to in the narrative were either Bartholomew and
Philip, or else Judas Iscariot and Thomas.] How many whom we
regard as Scribes, may be in analogous relation to the
Christ, and yet how much of fair promise has failed to ripen
into reality in view of the homelessness of Christ and
Christianity in this world, the strangership of suffering
which it involves to those who would follow, not somewhere,
but absolutely, and everywhere?
The intenseness of the self-denial involved in following
Christ, and its contriariety to all that was commonly
received among men, was, purposely, immediately further
brought out. This Scribe had proffered to follow Jesus.
Another of his disciples He asked to follow Him, and that in
circumstances of peculiar trail and difficulty. [a St. Luke
ix. 59.] The expression 'to follow' a Teacher would, in those
days be universally understood as implying discipleship.
Again, no other duty would be regarded as more sacred than
that they, on whom the obligation naturally develoved, should
bury the dead. To this everything must give way, even prayer,
and the study of the Law. [b Ber. iii. 1; 17 b, and other
passages, but especially Megill. 3.] lastly, we feel morally
certain, that, when Christ called this disciple to follow
Him, He was fully aware that at that very moment his father
lay dead. Thus, He called him not only to homelessness, for
this he might have been prepared, but to set aside what alike
natural feeling and the Jewish Law seemed to impose on him as
the most sacred duty. In the seemingly strange reply, which
Christ made to the request to be allowed first to bury his
father, we pass over the consideration that, according to
Jewish law, the burial and mourning for a dead father, and
the subsequent purifications, would have occupied many days,
so that it might have been difficult, perhaps impossible, to
overtake Christ. We would rather abide by the simple words of
Christ. They teach us this very solemn and searching lesson,
that there are higher duties than either those of the Jewish
Law, or even of natural reverence, and a higher call than
that of man. No doubt Christ had here in view the near call
to the Seventy, of whom this disciple was to be one, to 'go
and preach the Kingdom of God.' When the direct call of
Christ to any work comes, that is, if we are sure of it from
His own words, and not (as, alas! too often we do) only infer
it by our own reasoning on His words, then every other call
must give way. For, duties can never be in conflict, and this
duty about the living and life must take precedence of that
about death and the dead. Nor must we hesitate, because we
know not in what form this work for Christ may come. There
are critical moments in our inner history, when to postpone
the immediate call, is really to reject it; when to go and
bury the dead, even though it were a dead father, were to die
ourselves!
Yet another hindrance to following Christ was to be faced.
Another in the company that followed Christ would go with
Him, but he asked permission first to go and bid farewell to
those whom he had left in his home. It almost seems as if
this request had been one of those 'tempting' questions,
addressed to Christ. But, even if otherwise, the farewell
proposed was not like that of Elisha, nor like the supper of
Levi-Matthew. It was rather like the year which Jephtha's
daughter would have with her companions, ere fulfilling the
vow. It shows, that to follow Christ was regarded as a duty,
and to leave those in the earthly home as a trial; and it
betokens, not merely a divided heart, but one not fit for the
Kingdom of God. For, how can he draw a straight furrow in
which to cast the seed, who, as he puts his hand to the
plough, looks around or behind him?
Thus, these are the three vital conditions of following
Christ: absolute self-denial and homelessness in the world;
immediate and entire self-surrender to Christ and His Work,
and a heart and affections simple, undivided, and set on
Christ and His Work, to which there is no other trial of
parting like that which would involve parting from Him, no
other or higher joy than that of following Him. In such
spirit let them now go after Christ in His last journey, and
to such work as He will appoint them!
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
FURTHER INCIDENTS OF THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM,
THE MISSION
AND RETURN OF THE SEVENTY, THE HOME AT
BETHANY, MARTHA AND
MARY
CHAPTER V
(St. Luke x. 1-16; Matt. ix. 36-38; xi. 20-24; St. Luke x.
17-24; St. Matt. xi. 25-30 ; xiii. 16 ; St. Luke x. 25 ;
38-42.
ALTHOUGH, for the reasons explained in the previous chapter,
the exact succession of events cannot be absolutely
determined, it seems most likely, that it was on His progress
southwards at this time that Jesus 'designated' [1 Perhaps
this may be a fuller English equivalent than 'appoint.']
those 'seventy' [2 The reading: 'Seventy-two' seems a
correction, made for obvious reasons.] 'others,' who were to
herald His arrival in every town and village. Even the
circumstance, that the instructions to them are so similar
to, and yet distinct from, those formerly given to the
Twelve, seems to point to them as those from whom the Seventy
are to be distinguished as 'other.' We judge, that they were
sent forth at this time, first, from the Gospel of St. Luke,
where this whole section appears as a distinct and separate
record, presumably, chronologically arranged; secondly, from
the fitness of such a mission at that particular period, when
Jesus made His last Missionary progress towards Jerusalem;
and, thirdly, from the unlikelihood, if not impossibility, of
taking such a public step after the persecution which broke
out after His appearance at Jerusalem on the Feast of
Tabernacles. At any rate, it could not have taken place later
than in the period between the Feast of Tabernacles and that
of the Dedication of the Temple, since, after that, Jesus
'walked no more openly among the Jews.' [a St. John xi. 54.]
With all their similarity, there are notable differences
between the Mission of the Twelve and this of 'the other
Seventy.' Let it be noted, that the former is recorded by the
three Evangelists, so that there could have been no confusion
on the part of St. Luke. [b St. Matt. x. 5 &c.; St. Mark vi.
7 &c.; St. Luke ix 1 &c.] But the mission of the Twelve was
on their appointment to the Apostolate; it was evangelistic
and missionary; and it was in confirmation and manifestation
of the 'power and authority' given to them. We regard it,
therefore, as symbolical of the Apostolate just instituted,
with its work and authority. On the other hand, no power or
authority was formally conferred on the Seventy, their
mission being only temporary, and, indeed, for one definite
purpose; its primary object was to prepare for the coming of
the Master in the places to which they were sent; and their
selection was from the wider circle of disciples, the number
being now Seventy instead of Twelve. Even these two numbers,
as well as the difference in the functions of the two classes
of messengers, seem to indicate that the Twelve symbolised
the princes of the tribes of Israel, while the Seventy were
the symbolical representatives of these tribes, like the
seventy elders appointed to assist Moses. [a Num. xi. 16.] [1
In Bemidb. R. 15, ed. Warsh. p. 64 b, the mode of electing
these Seventy is thus described. Moses chose six from every
tribe, and then put into an urn seventy-two lots, of which
seventy had the word Zaqen (Elder) inscribed on them, while
two were blanks. The latter are supposed to have been drawn
by Eldad and Medad.] This symbolical meaning of the number
Seventy continued among the Jews. We can trace it in the LXX.
(supposed) translators of the Bible into Greek, and in the
seventy members of the Sanhedrin, or supreme court. [2 Comp.
Sanh. i.6.]
There was something very significant in this appearance of
Christ's messengers, by two and two, in every place He was
about to visit. As John the Baptist had, at the first,
heralded the Coming of Christ, so now two heralds appeared to
solemnly announce His Advent at the close of His Ministry; as
John had sought, as the representative of the Old Testament
Church, to prepare His Way, so they, as the representatives
of the New Testament Church. In both cases the preparation
sought was a moral one. It was the national summons to open
the gates to the rightful King, and accept His rule Only, the
need was now the greater for the failure of John's mission,
through the misunderstanding and disbelief of the nation. [b
St. Matt. xi. 7-19.] This conjunction with John the Baptist
and the failure of his mission, as regarded national results,
accounts for the insertion in St. Matthew's Gospel of part of
the address delivered on the Mission of the Seventy,
immediately after the record of Christ's rebuke of the
national rejection of the Baptist. [c St. Matt. xi. 20-24;
comp. with St. Luke x. 12-16.] For St. Matthew, who (as well
as St. Mark) records not the Mission of the Seventy, simply
because (as before explained) the whole section, of which it
forms part, is peculiar to St. Luke's Gospel, reports 'the
Discourses' connected with it in other, and to them
congruous, connections.
We mark, that, what may be termed 'the Preface' to the
Mission of the Seventy, is given by St. Matthew (in a
somewhat fuller form) as that to the appointment and mission
of the Twelve Apostles; [a St. Matt. ix. 36-38.] and it may
have been, that kindred words had preceded both. Partially,
indeed, the expressions reported in St. Luke x. 2 had been
employed long before. [b St. John iv. 35.] Those 'multitudes'
throughout Israel, nay, those also which 'are not of that
flock', appeared to His view like sheep without a true
shepherd's care, 'distressed and prostrate,' [1 The first
word means literally 'torn.' The second occurs sixty-two
times in the LXX. as equivalent for the Hebrew (Hiphil)
Hishlikh, projicio, abjicio.] and their mute misery and only
partly conscious longing appealed, and not in vain, to His
Divine compassion. This constituted the ultimate ground of
the Mission of the Apostles, and now of of the Seventy, into
a harvest that was truly great. Compared with the extent of
the field, and the urgency of the work, how few were the
labourers! Yet, as the field was God's, so also could He
alone 'thrust forth labourers' willing and able to do His
work, while it must be ours to pray that He would be pleased
to do so.
On these introductory words, [c St. Luke x.2.] which ever
since have formed 'the bidding prayer' of the Church in her
work for Christ, followed the commission and special
directions to the thirty-five pairs of disciples who went on
this embassy. In almost every particular they are the same as
those formerly given to the Twelve. [2 See Book III. ch.
xxvii.] We mark, however, that both the introductory and the
concluding words addressed to the Apostles are wanting in
what was said to the Seventy. It was not necessary to warn
them against going to the Samaritans, since the direction of
the Seventy was to those cities of Peraea and Judaea, on the
road to Jerusalem, through which Christ was about to pass.
Nor were they armed with precisely the same supernatural
powers as the Twelve. [d St. Matt. x. 7, 8; comp. St. Luke x.
9.] Naturally, the personal directions as to their 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 sadly
interrupted by making or renewing acquaintances. Both the
Mishnah [e Ber. 30 b.] and the Talmud [f u.s. 32 b.] layit
down, that prayer was not to be interrupted to salute even a
king, nay, to uncoil a serpent that had wound round the foot.
[3 But it might be interrupted for a scorpion, Ber. 33 a.
Comp. page 141, note 1.] On the other hand, the Rabbis
discussed the question, whether the reading of the Shema and
of the portion of the Psalms called the Hallel might be
interrupted at the close of a paragraph, from respect for a
person, or interrupted in the middle, from motives of fear.
[g Ber. 14 a.] All agreed, thatimmediately before prayer no
one should be saluted, to prevent distraction, and it was
advised rather to summarise or to cut short than to break
into prayer, though the latter might be admissible in case of
absolute necessity. [a Ber. 14 a; 32 b.] 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 Gehazi, when sent to lay
the prophet's staff on the dead child of the Shunammite.
The other two peculiarities in the address to the Seventy
seem verbal rather than real. The expression, [b St. Luke x.
6.] 'if the Son of Peacebe there,' is a Hebraism, equivalent
to 'if the house be worthy,' [c St. Matt. x. 13.] and refers
to the character of the head of the house and the tone of the
household. [1 Comp. Job xxi. 9, both in the original and the
Targum.] Lastly, the direction to eat and drink such things
as were set before them [d St. Luke x. 7,8.] is only a
further explanation of the command to abide in the house
which had received them, without seeking for better
entertainment. [2 Canon Cook (ad loc.) regards this as
evidence that the Seventy were also sent to the Samaritans;
and as implying permission to eat of their food, which the
Jews held to be forbidden. To me it conveys the opposite,
since so fundamental an alteration would not have been
introduced in such an indirect manner. Besides, the direction
is not to eat their food, but any kind of food. Lastly, if
Christ had introduced so vital a change, the later difficulty
of St. Peter, and the vision on the subject, would not be
intelligible.] On the other hand, the whole most important
close of the address to the Twelve, which, indeed, forms by
far the largest part of it [e St. Matt. xi. 16-42.], is
wanting in the commission to theSeventy, 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 Bethsaida. [f St. Luke x.
13-16.] This is evidentlyin its right place there, after the
Ministry of Christ in Galilee had been completed and finally
rejected. In St. Matthew's Gospel, it stands (for a reason
already indicated) immediately after the Lord's rebuke of the
popular rejection of the Baptist's message. [g St. Matt. xi.
20-24.] The 'woe' 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 inevitable. First, this history
must be real. If the whole were legendary, Jesus would not be
represented as selecting the names of places, which the
writer had not connected with the legend. Again, apparently
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
accordance with the respective plans on which each of the
Gospels was constructed. [a St. John xxi. 25.]
As already stated, the denunciations were in proportion to
the privileges, and hence to the guilt, of the unbelieving
cities. Chorazin and Bethsaida are compared with Tyre and
Sidon, which under similar admonitions would have repented,
[1 Fasting ' in sackcloth and ashes' was the practice in
public humiliations (Taan. ii. 1).] while Capernaum, which,
as for so long the home of Jesus, had truly 'been exalted to
heaven, [2 The R.V., following what are regarded as some of
the best MSS., renders it interrogatively: 'Shalt thou be
exalted,' &c.? But such a question is not only without
precedent, but really yields no meaning. We have, therefore,
adopted the reading of Alford, Meyer, &c., which only differs
in tense from the A.V.] is compared with Sodom. And such
guilt involved greater punishment. The very site of Bethsaida
and Chorazin cannot be fixed with certainty. The former
probably represents the 'Fisherton' of Capernaum, [3 See Book
III. ch. xxxi.] the latter seems to have almost disappeared
from the shore of the Lake. St. Jerome places it two miles
from Capernaum. If so, it may be represented by the modern
Kerazeh, somewhat to the north-west of Capernaum. The site
would correspond with the name. For Kerazeh is at present 'a
spring with an insignificant ruin above it,' [4 Canon
Tristram.] and the name Chorasin may well be derived from
Keroz ( ) a water-jar, Cherozin, or 'Chorazin,' the
water-jars. If so, we can readily understand that the
'Fisherton' on the south side of Capernaum, and the
well-known springs, 'Chorazin,' on the other side of it, may
have been the frequent scene of Christ's miracles. This
explains also, in part, why the miracles there wrought had
not been told as well as those done in Capernaum itself. In
the Talmud a Chorazin, or rather Chorzim, is mentioned as
celebrated for its wheat. [b Menach. 85 a; comp. Neubauer, p.
220.] But as for Capernaum itself, standing on that vast
field of ruins and upturned stones which marks the site of
the modern Tell Hum, 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, [5 Godet infers this from the use
of the word 'returned,' St. Luke x. 17.] it is convenient to
consider in this connection the result of their Mission. It
had filled them with the 'joy' of assurance; 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 grown, and they had applied His command to 'heal
the sick' to the worst of all sufferers, those grievously
vexed by demons. And, as always, their faith was not
disappointed. Nor could it be otherwise. The great contest
had been long decided; it only remained for the faith of the
Church to gather the fruits of that victory. The Prince of
Light and Life had vanquished the Prince of Darkness and
Death. The Prince of this world must be cast out. [a St. John
xii. 31.] In spirit, Christ gazed on 'Satan fallen as
lightning from heaven.' As one has aptly paraphrased it: [1
Godet, ad loc.] 'While you cast out his subjects, I saw the
prince himself fall.' It has been asked, whether the words of
Christ referred to any particular event, such as His Victory
in the Temptation. [2 So far from seeing here, with Wunsche
(ad loc.), Jewish notions about Satan, I hold that in the
Satanology of the New Testament, perhaps more than anywhere
else, do we mark not only difference, but contrast, to Jewish
views.] But any such limitation would imply grievous
misunderstanding of the whole. So to speak, the fall of Satan
is to the bottomless pit; ever going on to the final triumph
of Christ. As the Lord beholds him, he is fallen from heaven,
from the seat of power and of worship; for, his mastery is
broken by the Stronger than he. And he is fallen like
lightning, in its rapidity, dazzling splendour, and
destructiveness. [b Rev. xii. 7-12.] Yet as we perceive it,
it is only demons cast out in His Name. For still is this
fight and sight continued, and to all ages of the present
dispensation. Each time the faith of the Church casts out
demons, whether as formerly, or as they presently vex men,
whether in the lighter combat about possession of the body,
or in the sorer fight about possession of the soul, as Christ
beholds it, it is ever Satan fallen. For, he sees of the
travail of His soul, and is satisfied. And so also is there
joy in heaven over every sinner that repenteth.
The authority and power over 'the demons,' attained by
faith, was not to pass away with the occassion that had
called it forth. The Seventy were the representatives of the
Church in her work of preparing for the Advent of Christ. As
already indicated, the sight of Satan fallen from heaven is
the continuous history of the Church. 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 [3 The
word over 'on,' A. V.) must be connected with 'power.']
serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the Enemy,
and the promise that nothing should hurt them, could not have
been addressed to the Seventy for a Mission which had now
come to an end, except in so far as they represented the
Church Universal. It is almost needless to add, that those
'serpents and scorpions' are not to be literally but
symbolically understood. [a Comp. Ps. xci. 13; St. Mark xvi.
18.] [1 I presume, that in the same symbolical sense must be
understood the Haggadah about a great Rabbinic Saint, whom a
serpent bit without harming him, and then immediately died.
The Rabbi brought it to his disciples with the words: It is
not the serpent that killeth, but sin (Ber. 33 a).] Yet it is
not this power or authority which is to be the main joy
either of the Church or the individual, but [2 The word
'rather' in the A.V. is suprious.] the fact that our names
are written in heaven. [3 The figure is one current in
Scripture (comp. Exod. xxxii. 32: Is. iv. 3; Dan. xii. 1).
But the Rabbis took it in a grossly literal manner, and spoke
of three books opened every New Year's Day, those of the
pious, the wicked, and the intermediate (Rosh haSh. 16 b).]
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.
It is beautifully in the spirit of all this, when we read
that the joy of the disciples was met by that of the Master,
and that His teaching presently merged into a prayer of
thanksgiving. Throughout the occurrences since the
Transfiguration, 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 standpoint, have perceived
them; nay, that it is matter of never-ending thanks that, not
what they, but what 'the babes,' understood, was, as alone it
could be, the subject of the Heavenly Father's revelation. We
even tremble to think how it would have fared with 'the
babes,' if 'the wise and understanding' had had part with
them in the knowledge revealed. And so it must ever be, not
only the Law of the kingdom and the fundamental principle of
Divine Revelation, but matter for thanksgiving, that, not as
'wise and understanding,' but only as 'babes', as
'converted,' 'like children', we can share in that knowledge
which maketh wise unto salvation. And this truly is the
Gospel, and the Father's good pleasure. [4 This is a common
Jewish formula: .]
The words, [b St. Luke x. 22.] with which Christ turned from
this Address to the Seventy and thanksgiving to God, seem
almost like the Father's answer to the prayer of the Son.
They refer to, and explain, the authority which Jesus had
bestowed on His Church: 'All things were delivered [5 The
tense should here be marked.] to Me of My Father;' and they
afford 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, conversely, 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
whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him.'
St. Matthew, who also records this, although in a different
connection, immediately ofter the denunication of the
unbelief of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, concludes
this section by words which have ever since been the grand
text of those who following in the wake of the Seventy, have
been ambassadors for Christ. [a St. Matt. xi. 28-30.] On the
other hand, St. Luke concludes this partof his narrative by
adducing words equally congruous to the occasion, [b St. Luke
x. 23, 24.] which, indeed, are not new in the mouth of the
Lord. [c Comp. St. Matt. xiii. 16.] From their suitableness
to what had preceded, we can have little doubt that both that
which St. Matthew, and that which St. Luke, reports was
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 so wide, and bid all [1 Melanchthon writes: 'In
this "All" thou art to include thyself, and not to think that
thou dost not belong thereto; thou art not to search for
another register of God.'] 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 since
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, and a lightsome
burden, not like that unbearable yoke of Rabbinic conditions;
[d Acts xv. 10.] and the true understanding to be sought, was
by learning of Him. In that wisdom of entering the Kingdom by
taking up its yoke, and in that knowledge 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. He had done what He taught, and He taught what He
had done; and so, by coming unto Him, would true rest be
found for the soul.
These words, as recorded by St. Matthew, the Evangelist of
the Jews, must have sunk the deeper into the 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 the 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 to 'earthly governments,' and
ordinary 'civil obligations.' [a Abhoth iii. 5.] Very
instructive for the understanding of the figure is this
paraphrase of Cant. i. 10: 'How beautiful is their neck for
bearing the yoke of Thy statues; and it shall be upon them
like the yoke on the neck of the OX that plougheth in the
field, and provideth food for himself and his master.' [b
Targum, ad loc.] [1 Similarly we read of 'the yoke of
repentance (Moed K. 16 b), of that 'of man,' or rather 'of
flesh and blood' (Ab. de R. Nath. 20), &c.] This yoke might
be 'cast off,' as the ten tribes had cast off that 'of God,'
and thus brought on themselves their exile. [c Shemoth R.
30.] On the other hand, to 'take upon oneself the yoke' ( )
meant to submit to it of free choice and delibrate
resolution. Thus, in the allegorism of the Midrash, in the
inscription, Prov. xxx. 1, concerning 'Agur, the son of
Jakeh', which is viewed as a symbolical designation of
Solomon, the word 'Massa,' rendered in the Authorized Version
'prophecy,' is thus explained in reference to Solomon:
'Massa, because he lifted on himself (Nasa) the yoke of the
Holy One, blessed be He.' [d Midr. Shoch. Tobh. ed. Lemb. p.
20 a.] And 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.' [e
Yalkut ii. p. 43 a, Section 275, lines 10 &c. from bottom.]
[2 This is mentioned as an answer given in the great Academy
of Jerusalem by Elijah the prophet to a question propounded
to him by a student.] 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.' [f Ber. ii. 2.] [3 Comp. 'Sketches of
Jewish Social Life,' p. 270.] 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;' one of
laborious performances and of impossible self-righteousness.
It was 'unbearable,' not 'the easy' and lightsome yoke of
Christ, in which the Kingdom of God was of faith, not of
works. And, as if themselves to bear witness to this, we have
this saying of theirs, terribly significant in this
connection: 'Not like those formerly (the first), who made
for themselves the yoke of the Law easy and light; but like
those after them (those afterwards), who made the yoke of the
Law upon them heavy!' [a Sanh. 94 b, middle.] And, indeed,
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, peculair
teaching and comfort in the words of Christ; and well might
He add, as St. Luke reports, [b St. Luke x. 23, 24.] that
blessed were they who sawand heard these things. [1 In a rapt
description of the Messianic glory (Pesiqta, ed. Buber. 149
a, end) we read that Israel shall exult in His light, saying:
'Blessed the hour in which the Messiah has been created;
blessed the womb that bare Him; blessed the eye that sees
Him; blessed the eye that is deemed worthy to behold Him, for
the opening of his lips is blessing and peace, &c.' It is a
strange coincidence, to say the least, that this passage
occurs in a 'Lecture' on the portion of the prophets (Is.
Lxi. 10), which at present is read in the Synagogues on a
Sabbath close to the Feast of Tabernacles.] For, that
Messianic Kingdom, which had been the object of rapt vision
and earnest longing to prophets and kings of old had now
become reality. [2 The same words were spoken on a previous
occasion (St. Matt. xiii. 16), after the Parable of the
Sower.]
Abounding as this history is in contrasts, it seems not
unlikely, that the scene next recorded by St. Luke [c St.
Luke x. 25 &c.] 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 congruous 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. Perhaps himself
belonged to that minority, although his question was intended
to tempt, to try whether the Master would stand the Rabbinic
test, alike morally and dialectically. And, without at
present entering on the Parable which gives Christ's final
answer (and which will best be considered together with the
others belonging to that period), it will be seen how
peculiarly suited it was to the state of mind just supposed.
From this interruption, which, but for the teaching of
Christ connected with it, would have formed a terrible
discord in the heavenly harmony of this journey, we turn to a
far other scene. It follows in the course of St. Luke's
narrative, and we have no reason to consider it out of its
proper place. If so, 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. Other indications,
confirmatory of this note of time, are not wanting. Thus, the
history which follows that of the home of Bethany, when one
of His disciples asks Him to teach them to pray, as the
Baptist had similarly taught his followers, seems to
indicate, that they were then on the scene of John's former
labours, north-east of Bethany; and, hence, that it occurred
on Christ's return from Jerusalem. Again, from the narrative
of Christ's reception in the house of Martha, we gather that
Jesus had arrived in Bethany with His disciples, but that He
alone was the guest of the two sisters. [a St. Luke x. 38.]
We infer that Christ had dismissed His disciples to go into
the neighbouring City for the Feast, while Himself tarried in
Bethany. Lastly, with all 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. [1 No one who impartially reads St.
John xi. can doubt, that the persons there introduced are the
Martha and Mary of this history, nor hence that their home
was in Bethany.]
Other things, also, do so explain themselves, notably, the
absence of the brother of Martha and Mary, who probably spent
the festive days in the City itself. It was the beginning of
the Feast of Tabernacles, and the scene recorded by St. Luke
[b x. 38-42.] would take place in the 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 constructued of the boughs of living trees. [2
Comp. 'The Temple and its Services,' p. 237, &c.] And,
although this was not absolutely obligatory on women, [c
Sukk. ii. 8.] yet, the rule which bade all make 'the booth
the principal, and the house only the secondary dwelling,' [d
u.s. 9.] would induce them to make this leafy tent at least
the sitting apartment alike for men and women. And, indeed,
those autumn days were just the season when it would be joy
to sit in these delightful cool retreats, the memorials of
Israel's pilgrim-days! 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, as she passed again and again,
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. There is
no evidence that the household of Bethany had previously
belonged to the circle of Christ's professed disciples. It
was, as the whole history shows, a wealthy home. It consisted
of two sisters, the elder, Martha (a not uncommon Jewish
name, [1 See Levy, Neuhebr. Worterb. ad voc.] being the
feminine of Mar, [2 Martha occurs, however, also as a male
name (in the Aramaic).] and equivalent to our word
'mistress'); the younger, Mary; and their brother Lazarus,
or, Laazar. [3 The name Laazar ( ), or Lazar, occurs
frequently in Talmudic writings as an abbreviated form of
Elazar or Eleazar ( ).] Although we know not how it came,
yet, evidently, the house was 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 implies,
[a Comp. St. Luke x. 38.] that Jesus had come to Bethany with
the 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, and, with Him and in Him, Heaven's own
Light and Peace. He was to lodge in one of the booths, the
sisters in the house, and the great booth in the middle of
the courtyard would be the common living apartment of all. It
could not have been long after His arrival, it must have been
almost immediately, that the sisters felt they had received
more than an Angel unawares. How best to do Him honour, was
equally the thought of both. To Martha it seemed, as if she
could not do enough in showing Him all hospitality. And,
indeed, 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 with 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, also,
deeply felt His greatness. And so she hurried to and fro
through the courtyard, literally, 'distracted [4 .] 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 done. As truest
courtesy or affection consists, nor in its demonstrations,
but in being so absorbed in the object of it as to forget its
demonstration, so with Mary in the Presence of Christ. And
then a new Light, another Day had risen upon her; a fresh
life had sprung up within her soul: 'She sat at the Lord's
Feet, [1 This, instead of 'Jesus,' is the reading more
generally received as correct.] and heard his Word.' We dare
not inquire, and yet we well know, of what it would be. And
so, time after time, perhaps, hour after hour, as Martha
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, fulfill 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. Would the
Master bid her resume her neglected work? But, with tone of
gentle reproof and admonition, the affectionateness 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; [2 Few would be
disposed to adopt the proposed alternative reading (R.V.,
margin): 'but few things are needful, or one' ,meaning, not
much preparation, indeed, only one dish is necessary.] and
Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken
away from her.'
It was, as we imagine, perhaps the first day of, or else the
preparation for, the Feast. More than that one day did Jesus
tarry in the home of Bethany. Whether Lazarus came then to
see Him, and, still more, what both Martha and Mary learned,
either then, or afterwards, we reverently forbear to search
into. Suffice it, that though the natural disposition of the
sisters remained what it had been, yet henceforth, 'Jesus
loved Martha and her sister.'
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES, FIRST DISCOURSE IN
THE TEMPLE
CHAPTER VI
(St. John vii. 11-36.)
IT was Chol ha Moed, as the non-sacred part of the festive
week, the half-holy days were called. [1 Also Cholo shel Moed
and Moed Qaton.] Jerusalem, the City of Solemnities, the City
of Palaces, the City of beauty and glory, wore quite another
than its usual aspect; other, even, than when its streets
were thronged by festive pilgrims during the Passover-week,
or at Pentecost. For this was pre-eminently the Feast for
foreign pilgrims, coming from the farthest distance, whose
Temple-contributions were then received and counted. [2 See
ch. iii. of this Book.] Despite the strange costumes of
Media, Arabia, Persia, or India, and even further; or the
Western speech and bearing of the pilgrims from Italy, Spain,
the modern Crimea, and the banks of the Danube, if not from
yet more strange and barbarous lands, it would not be
difficult to recognise the lineaments of the Jew, nor to
perceive that to change one's clime was not to change one's
mind. As the Jerusalemite 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. Here was the realisation of their fondest dreams
ever since childhood, the home and spring of their holiest
thoughts and best hopes, that which gave inward victory to
the vanquished, and converted persecution into anticipated
triumph.
They could come at this season of the year, not during the
winter for the Passover, nor yet quite so readily in summer's
heat for Pentecost. But now, in the delicious cool of early
autumn, when all harvest-operations, the gathering in of
luscious fruit and the vintage were past, and the first
streaks of gold were tinting the foliage, strangers from afar
off, and countrymen from Judaea, Peraea, and Galilee, would
mingle in the streets of Jerusalem, under the ever-present
shadow of that glorious Sanctuary of marble, cedarwood, and
gold, up there on high Moriah, symbol of the infinitely more
glorious overshadowing Presence of Him, Who was the Holy One
in the midst of Israel. How all day long, even till the stars
lit up the deep blue canopy over head, the smoke of the
burning, smouldering sacrifices rose in slowly-widening
column, and hung between the Mount of Olives and Zion; how
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 Candelabras that burned in the
Court of the Women, and by the glare of torches, when strange
sound of mystic hymns and dances came floating over the
intervening darkness! Truly, well might Israel designate the
Feast of Tabernacles as 'the Feast' (haChag), and the Jewish
historian describe it as 'the holiest and greatest.' [a Jos.
Ant. viii. 4. 1.] [1 For a full description of the Feast of
Tabernacles in the days of Christ, I must refer to 'The
Temple and its Services.']
Early on the 14th Tishri (corresponding to our September or
early October), all the festive pilgrims had arrived. Then it
was, indeed, a scene of bustle and activity. Hospitality had
to be sought and found; guests to be welcomed and
entertained; all things required for the feast to be got
ready. Above all, 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, hateful sight and sounds, that Roman
garrison, with its foreign, heathen, ribald speech and
manners. 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 with the
completed harvest, for which it was a thanksgiving, 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.
[b Sukk. 55 b; Pesiqta, ed. Buber, p. 17 a;194 a: Shabb. 88
b.] 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 Outpouring,' [a Sukk. v.
1.]was symbolical of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. [b
Jer. Sukk. q. 1, p. 55 a.] 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 of the mass of Levites, with
their musical instruments, 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
cockcrowing intimated 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 eastward, for they
worshipped eastward, the sun; but we, our eyes are towards
Jehovah.' 'We are Jehovah's, our eyes are towards Jehovah.'
[c Sukk. v. 4.] [1 This second form is according to R.
Jenudah's tradition.] 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,
perhaps, they from abroad also, had expected Him there, for
everyone would now speak of Him, 'not openly,' in Jerusalem,
for they were afraid of their rulers. It was hardly safe to
speak of Him without reserve. But they sought Him, and
inquired after Him, and they did speak of Him, though there
was only a murmuring, a low, confused discussion of the pro
and con, in this great controversy among the 'multitudes,' [2
In the plural it occurs only in this place in St. John, and
once in St. Mark (vi. 33), but sixteen times in St. Luke, and
still more frequently in St. Matthew.] 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 Chol ha Moed, [1 See
above, p. 148.] Jesus Himself appeared in the Temple, and
taught. We know that, on a later occasion, [a St. John x.
23.] He walked and taught in 'Solomon's Porch,' and, from the
circumstance that the early disciples made this their common
meeting-place, [b Acts v. 12.] we may draw the inference that
it was here the people now found Him. Although neither
Josephus nor the Mishnah mention this 'Porch' by name, [2
This, as showing such local knowledge on the part of the
Fourth Gospel, must be taken as additional evidence of its
Johannine authorship, just as the mention of that Porch in
the Book of Acts points to a Jerusalem source of
information.] 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. That on the south side (leading
from the western entrance to Solomon's Porch), known as the
'Royal Porch,' was a threefold colonnade, consisting of four
rows of columns, each 27 cubits high, and surmounted by
Corinthian capitals. We infer that the eastern was 'Solomon's
Porch,' from the circumstance that it was the only relic left
of Solomon's Temple. [c Jos. Ant. xv. 11. 5; xx. 9. 7.] 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 teaching on
this occasion. But the effect on the people was one of
general astonishment. They knew what common unlettered
Galilean tradesmen were, but this, whence came it? [d St.
John vii. 15.] 'How does this one know literature (letters,
learning), [e Comp. Acts xxvi. 24.] never having learned?' To
the Jewsthere was only one kind of learning, that of
Theology; and only one road 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 the most absolute
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 bring it. He was God's
messenger of it to them. [a St. John vii. 16-17.] Of this
twofold claim there was also twofold evidence. Did He assert
that what He taught was God-received? Let trial be made of
it. 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
man. [1 The passage quoted by Canon Westcott from Ab. ii. 4
does not seem to be parallel.] It was this felt, though
unrealised influence which had drawn all men after Him, so
that they hung on His lips. It was this which, in the hour of
greatest temptation and mental difficulty, had led Peter, in
name of the others, to end the sore inner contest by laying
hold on this fact: 'To whom shall we go? Thou hast the words
of eternal life, and we have believed and know, that Thou art
the Holy One of God.' [b St. John vi. 68, 69.] Marking, as we
pass, that this inward connection between that teaching and
learning and the present occasion, may be the deeper reason
why, in the Gospel by St. John, the one narrative is
immediately followed by the other, we pause to say, how real
it hath proved in all ages and to all stages of Christian
learning, that the heart makes the truly God-taught ('pectus
facit Theologum'), and that inward, true aspiration after the
Divine prepares the eye to behold the Divine Reality in the
Christ. But, if it be so is there not evidence here, that He
is the God-sent, that He is a real, true Ambassador of God?
If Jesus' teaching meets and satisfies our moral nature, if
it leads up to God, is He not the Christ?
And this brings us to the second claim which Christ made,
that of being sent by God. There is yet another logical link
in His reasoning. He 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 unrighteousness is not in Him.'
[c St. John vii. 18.] 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 defiance 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 which, as well as for His
Divine claims, the Jews were even then seeking 'to kill Him.'
[a St. John v. 18.] And this forms the transition to what may
be called the second part of Christ's address. If, in the
first part, the Jewish form of ratiocination was already
apparent, it seems almost impossible for any one acquainted
with those forms to understand how it can be overlooked in
what follows. [1 I regard this as almost overwhelming
evidence against the theory of an Ephesian authority of the
Fourth Gospel. Even the double question in ver. 19 is here
significant.] It is exactly the mode in which a Jew would
argue with Jews, only the substance of the reasoning is to
all times and people. Christ is defending Himself against a
charge which naturally came up, when He claimed that His
Teaching was of God and Himself God's real and faithful
Messenger. 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? This, put in the form of a double
question, [b St. John vii. 19, 20.] representsa peculiarly
Jewish mode of argumentation, behind which lay the terrible
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.
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 continued: 'One
work I did, and all you wonder on account of it' [2 The words
'on account of it,' rendered in the A.V. 'therefore,' and
placed in ver. 22 (St. John vii.), really form the close of
ver. 21. At any rate, they cannot be taken in the sense of
'therefore.'] referring to His healing on the Sabbath, and
their utter inability to understand His conduct. Well, then,
Moses 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 been God-given, and, to
observe this law, no one hesitated to break the Sabbath, [3
This was a well-recognized Rabbinic principle. Comp. for
example Shabb. 132 a, where the argument runs that, if
circumcision, which applies to one of the 248 members, of
which, according to the Rabbis, the human body consists,
superseded the Sabbath, how much more the preservation of the
whole body.] 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 with Him!
[c vv. 21-24.] 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 circumcision; while every
reason that could be urged in favour of Sabbath-circumcision,
would tell an hundredfold in favour of the act of Christ. Oh,
then, let them not judge after the mere outward appearance,
but 'judge the right judgment.' And, indeed, had it not been
to convince them of the externalism of their views, that
Jesus had on that Sabbath opened the great controversy
between the letter that killeth and the spirit that maketh
alive, when He directed the impotent man to carry home the
bed on which he had lain?
If any doubt could obtain, how truly Jesus had gauged the
existing state of things, when He contrasted
heart-willingness to do the Will of God, as the necessary
preparation for the reception of His God-sent Teaching, with
their murderous designs, springing from blind literalism and
ignorance of the spirit of their Law, the reported remarks of
some Jerusalemites in the crowd would suffice to convince us.
[a St. John vii. 25-27.] The fact that He, Whom they sought
to kill, was suffered to speak openly, seemed to them
incomprehensible. Could it be that the authorities were
shaken in their former idea about Him, and now regarded Him
as the Messiah? But it could not be. [1 In the original: 'Can
it 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. [b
Comp. also Sanh. 97 a; Midr. on Cant. ( ). 10.] [2 See Book
II. ch. V., and Appendix IX.] 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
of a coarse realism, 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 poor weak disciples, let it
rest there. 'Therefore' He lifted up His voice, [3 'Cried.']
that it reached the dispersing, receding multitude. Yes, they
thought they knew both Him and whence He came. It would have
been so had He come from Himself. But He had been sent, and
He that sent Him 'was real;' [4 The word has not an exact
English equivalent, scarcely a German one (wahrhaftig ?). It
is a favourite word of St. John's, who uses it eight times in
his Gospel, or, if the Revised reading viii. 16 be adopted,
nine times (i. 9; iv. 23, 37; vi. 32; vii. 28; viii. 16 ?;
xv. 1; xvii. 3; xix. 35); and four times in his First Epistle
(ii. 8, and three times in ch. v. 20). Its Johannine meaning
is perhaps best seen when in juxtaposition with (for example,
1 John ii. 8). But in the Book of Revelation, where it occurs
ten times (iii. 7, 14; vi. 10; xv. 3; xvi. 7; xix. 2, 9, 11;
xxi. 5; xxii. 6), it has another meaning, and can scarcely be
distinguished from our English 'true.' It is used, in the
same sense as in St. John's Gospel and Epistle, in St. Luke
xvi. 11, in 1 Thess. i 9; and three times in the Epistle to
the Hebrews (viii. 2; ix. 24; x. 22). We may, therefore,
regard it as a word to which a Grecian, not a Judaean meaning
attaches. In our view it refers to the true as the real, and
the real as that which has become outwardly true. I do not
quite understand, and, so far as I understand it, I do not
agree with, the view of Cremer (Bibl. Theol. Lex., Engl. ed.
p. 85), that ' is related to as form to contents or
substance.' The distinction between the Judaean and the
Grecian meaning is not only borne out by the Book of
Revelation (which uses it in the Judaean sense), but by
Ecclus. xlii. 2. 11. In the LXX. it stands for not fewer than
twelve Hebrew words.] it was a real Mission, and Him, who
hadthus sent the Christ, they knew not. And so, with a
reaffirmation of His twofold claim, His Discourse closed. [a
St. John vii. 29.] But they had 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 more
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 low, furtive,
half-outspoken remarks ('the murmuring') of the people about
Him. Presently they conferred with the heads of the
priesthood and the chief Temple-officials. [1 On the heads
and chief officials of the Priesthood, see 'The Temple and
its Services,' ch. iv., especially pp. 75-77.] Although there
was neither meeting, nor decree of the Sanhedrin about it,
nor, indeed, could be, [2 Only those unacquainted with the
judicial procedure of the Sanhedrin could imagine that there
had been a regular meeting and decree of that tribunal. That
would have required a formal accusation, witnesses,
examination, &c.] 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 [3 Canon Westcott
marks, that the word here used ( ) indicates a personal act,
while another word ( ) marks a purpose or mission, and yet a
third word ( ) expresses simple separation.] to Him that sent
Me. Ye shall seek Me, and not find Me; and where I am,
thither ye cannot come.' [b vv. 33. 34.] Mournful words,
these, 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 to the Diaspora of the
Greeks, among the dispersed who lived in heathen lands, to
teach the Greeks? Or what could be His meaning? But we, who
hear it across these centuries, feel as if their question,
like the suggestion of the High-Priest at a later period, nay
like so many suggestions of men, had been, all unconsciously,
prophetic of the future.
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
'IN THE LAST, THE GREAT DAY OF THE FEAST
CHAPTER VII
(St. John vii. 37, viii. 11.)
IT was 'the lst, the great day of the Feast,' and Jesus was
once more in the Temple. We can scarcely doubt that it was
the concluding day of the Feast, and not, as most modern
writers suppose, its Octave, which, in Rabbinic language, was
regarded as 'a festival by itself.' [a Comp. Yoma 3 a, and
often.] [1 Hence the benediction said at the beginning of
every Feast is not only said on the first of that of
Tabernacles, but also on the octave of it (Sukk. 48 a). The
sacrifices for that occasion were quite different from those
for 'Tabernacles;' the 'booths' were removed; and the
peculiar rites of the Feast of Tabernacles no longer
observed. This is distinctly stated in Sukk. iv. 1, and the
diverging opinion of R. Jehudah on this and another point is
formally rejected in Tos. Sukk. iii. 16. For the six points
of difference between the Feast of Tabernacles and its
Octave, see note at the end of ch. viii.] But such solemn
interest attaches to the Feast, and this occurrence on its
last day, that we must try to realise the scene. We have here
the only Old Testament type yet unfilfilled; the only Jewish
festival which has no counterpart in the cycle of the
Christian year, [2 Bishop Haneberg speaks of the
anniversaries of the Martyrs as part-fulfilment of the
typical meaning of that Feast.] 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 great
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-holidays (CholhaMoed), 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
on 'the last, the Great Day of the Feast,' 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 what is called the Lulabh, [1 Also Lulabhaand
Luleybha.] which, although properly meaning 'a branch,' or
'palm-branch,' consisted of 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 Ethrog, the
so-called Paradise-apple (according to Ber. R. 15, the fruit
of the forbidden tree), a species of citron. [a Targ.
Onkelos, and Pseudo-Jon. and Jerus. on Lev. xxiii. 40; Jos.
Ant. xiii. 13.5.] This Ethrog each worshipper carries in his
left hand. It is scarcely necessary to add, that this
interpretation of Lev. xxiii. 40 was given by the Rabbis; [b
Vayy. R. 30, towards end, ed. Warsh., p. 47 a.] perhaps more
interesting to know, that this was one of the points in
controversy between the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Thus armed with Lulabh in their right, and Ethrog in their
left hands, the festive multitude would divide into three
bands. Some would remain in the Temple to attend the
preparation of the Morning Sacrifice. Another band would go
in procession 'below Jerusalem' [c Sukk. iv. 5.] to a place
called Moza, the 'Kolonia' of the Jerusalem Talmud, [d Jer.
Sukk. iv.3, p. 54 b.] which some have sought to identify with
the Emmaus of the Resurrection-Evening. [2 Fora full
discussion of this point, see p. 636, note 3.] At Moza 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 were taking part
in a still more interesting service. To the sound of music a
procession started from the Temple. It followed a Priest who
bore a golden pitcher, capable of holding three log. [3
Rather more than two pints.] Onwards it passed, probably,
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 by the spring Rogel down to the entrance into the
Tyropoeon. Here was the so-called 'Fountain-Gate,' and still
within the City-wall 'the Pool of Siloam,' the overflow of
which fed a lower pool. As already stated it was at the
merging of the Tyropoeon into the Kedron Valley, in the
south-eastern angle of Jerusalem. The Pool of Siloam was fed
by the living spring farther up in the narrowest part of the
Kedron Valley, which presently bears the name of 'the
Virgin's Fountain,' but represents the ancient En-Rogel and
Gihon. Indeed, the very canal which led from the one to the
other, with the inscription of the workmen upon it, has
lately been excavated. [1 Curiously, in that passage the
spring of the river is designated by the word Moza.] Though
chiefly of historical interest, a sentence may be added. The
Pool of Siloam is the same as 'the King's Pool' of Neh. ii.
14. [a Comp. Neh. iii. 15.] It was made by King Hezekiah, in
order both to divert from a besieging army the spring of
Gihon, which could not be brought within the City-wall, and
yet to bring its waters within the City. [b 2 Chron. xxxii.
30; 1 2 Kings xx. 20.] This explains the origin of the name
Siloam, 'sent', a conduit [c St. John ix. 7.], or 'Siloah,'
as Josephuscalls it. Lastly, we remember that it was down in
the valley at Gihon (or En-Rogel), that Solomon was
proclaimed, [d 1 Kings i. 33, 38.] while the opposite faction
held revel, and would have made Adonijah king, on the cliff
Zoheleth (the modern Zahweileh) right over against it, not a
hundred yards distant, [e 1 Kings i. 9.] where they must, of
course, have distinctly heard thesound of the trumpets and
the shouts of the people as Solomon was proclaimed king. [f
ver. 41.]
But to return. When the Temple-procession had reached the
Pool of Siloam, the Priest filled his golden pitcher from its
waters. [2 Except on a Sabbath, and on the first day of the
Feast. On these occasions it had been provided the day
before.] Then they went back to the Temple, so timing it,
that they should arrive just as they were laying the pieces
of the sacrifice on the great Altar of Burnt-offering, [g
Tos. Sukk iii. 8.] towards the close of the
ordinaryMorning-Sacrifice service. A threefold blast of the
Priests' trumpets welcomed the arrival of the Priest, as he
entered through the 'Water-gate,' [3 One of thegates that
opened from 'the terrace' on the south side of the Temple.]
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 somewhat wider, the wine was poured, and,
at the same time, the water into the western and narrower
opening, the people shouting to the Priest to raise his hand,
so as to make sure that he poured the water into the funnel.
For, although it was held, that the water-pouring was an
ordinance instituted by Moses, 'a Halakhah of Moses from
Sinai,' [a Jer. Sukk. iv. 6; Sukk. 44 a.] this was another of
the points disputed by the Sadducees. [1 On the other hand,
R. Akiba maintained, that the 'water-pouring' was prescribed
in the written Law.] And, indeed, to give practical effect to
their views, the High-Priest Alexander Jannaeus had on one
occasion poured the water on the ground, when he was nearly
murdered, and in the riot, that ensued, six thousand persons
were killed in the Temple. [b Sukk. iv. 9: Jos. Ant. xiii.
13.5.]
Immediately after 'the pouring of water,' the great
'Hallel,' consisting of Psalms cxiii. to cxviii. (inclusive),
was chanted antiphonally, or rather, with responses, to the
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, 'O give thanks to the Lord,' but also these, 'O
then, work now salvation, Jehovah,' [c Ps. cxviii. 25.] 'O
Lord, send now prosperity;' [d ver. 25.] and again, at the
close of the Psalm, 'O give thanks to the Lord.' As they
repeated these lines, they shook towards the altar the Lulabh
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 offering of
the special sacrifices for the day, with their
drink-offerings, and by the Psalm for the day, which, on 'the
last, the Great Day of the Feast,' was Psalm lxxxii. from
verse 5. [e Sukk. 55 a; Maimonides, Yad haChas. Hilkh. Temid.
uMos. x. 11 (vol. iii. p. 204 a).] [2 For the Psalms chanted
on the otherdays of the Feast, and a detailed description of
the Feast itself, see 'The Temple and its Services,' ch.
xiv.] 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 'O then, work now salvation,
Jehovah! O Jehovah, send now prosperity.' [f Ps. cxviii. 25]
But on 'the last, the Great Day of the Feast,' 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 land. 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, [g Sukk. iv. 5.] 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. [a u. s. 1 and 6.] On the same afternoonthe
'booths' were dismantled, and the Feast ended. [b u. s. 8.]
We can have little difficulty in determining at what 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, as we have
seen, was considered the central part of the service. [1 I
must respectfully differ from Canon Westcott (ad loc.) when
he regards it as a doubtful question whether or not the
'water-pouring' had taken place on the day when our Lord so
pointed to the fulfilment of its symbolical meaning.]
Moreover, all would understand that His words must refer to
the Holy Spirit, since the rite was universally regarded 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 (the Musaph). 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 Lulabh 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.
Whether we realise it in connection with the deeply-stirring
rites just concluded, and the song of praise that had
scarcely died out of the air; or think of it as a vast step
in advance in the history of Christ's Manifestation, the
scene is equally wondrous. But yesterday they had been
divided about Him, and the authorities had given directions
to take Him; to-day He is not only in the Temple, but, at the
close of the most solemn rites of the Feast, asserting,
within the hearing of all, His claim to be regarded as the
fulfilment of all, and the true Messiah! And yet there is
neither harshness of command nor violence of threat in His
proclamation. It is the King, meek, gentle, and loving; the
Messiah, Who will not break the bruised reed, Who will not
lift up His Voice in tone of anger, but speak in accents of
loving, condescending compassion, Who now bids, whosoever
thirsteth, come unto Him and drink. And so the words have to
all time remained the call of Christ to all that thirst,
whence- or what-soever their need and longing of soul may be.
But, as we listen to these words as originally spoken, we
feel how they mark that Christ's hour was indeed coming: the
preparation past; the manifestation in the present,
unmistakable, urgent, and loving; and the final conflict at
hand.
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 Nabhi, '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. Indeed, this is expressly stated in the Targum which
thus paraphrases Is. xliv. 3: 'Behold, as the waters are
poured on arid ground and spread over the dry soil, so will I
give the Spirit of My Holiness on they sons, and My blessing
on thy children's children.' What was new to them was, that
all this was treasured up in the Christ, that out of His
fulness men might receive, and grace for grace. And yet even
this was not quite new. For, was it not the fulfilment of
that old prophetic cry: 'The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is
upon Me: therefore has He Messiahed (anointed) Me to preach
good tidings unto the poor'? So then, it was nothing new,
only the happy fulfilment of the old, when He thus 'spake of
the Holy Spirit, which they who believed on Him should
receive,' not then, but upon His Messianic exaltation.
And so we scarcely wonder that many, on hearing Him, said,
though not with that heart-conviction 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 Messiah, since the latter must be of
the seed of David and come from Bethlehm. Nay, such was the
anger of some against what they regarded a dangerous seducer
of the poor people, that they would fain have laid violent
hands on Him. But amidst all this, the strongest testimony to
His Person and Mission remains to be told. It came, as so
often, from a quarter whence it could least have been
expected. Those Temple-officers, whom the authorities had
commissioned to watch an opportunity for seizing Jesus, came
back without having done their behest, and that, when,
manifestly, the scene in the Temple might have offered the
desired ground for His imprisonment. To the question of the
Pharisees, they could only give this reply, which has ever
since remained unquestionable fact of history, admitted alike
by friend and foe: 'Never man so spake as this man.' [1
Whether or not the last three words are spurious is, so far
as the sense of the words is concerned, matter of comparative
indifference.] For, as all spiritual longing and all upward
tending, not only of men but even of systems, consciously or
unconsciously tends towards Christ, [a St. John vii. 17.] so
can we measure and judge all systems bythis, which no sober
student of history will gainsay, that no man or system ever
so spake.
It was not this which the Pharisees now gainsaid, but rather
the obvious, and, we may add, logical, inference from it. The
scene which followed is so thoroughly Jewish, that it alone
would suffice to prove the Jewish, and hence Johannine,
authorship of the Fourth Gospel. 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 (Am ha-arez),
the ignorant, unlettered rabble, 'are cursed.' Sufficient has
been shown in previous parts of this book to explain alike
the Pharisaic claim of authority and their almost unutterable
contempt of the unlettered. So far did the latter go, that it
would refuse, not only all family connection and friendly
intercourse, [b Ps. 49 b.] but even the bread of charity, to
the unlettered; [c Baba B. 8 b.] nay, that, in theory at
least, it would have regarded their murder as no sin, [d Pes.
49 d.] and even cut them off from the hope of the
Resurrection. [e Kethub. 11 b.] [2 For further details the
reader is referred to Wagenseil's Sota, pp. 516-519.] But is
it not true, that, even in our days, this double sneer,
rather than argument, of the Pharisees is the main reason of
the disbelief of so many: Which of the learned believe on
Him? but the ignorant multitude are led by superstition to
ruin.
There was one standing among the Temple-authorities, whom an
uneasy conscience would not allow to remain quite silent. It
was the Sanhedrist Nicodemus, still a night-disciple, even in
brightest noon-tide. He could not hold his peace, and yet he
dared not speak for Christ. 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-places impose
not on any one, nor even serve any good purpose. It helped
not the cause of Jesus, and it disguised not the advocacy of
Nicodemus. We know what was thought of Galilee in the
Rabbinic world. 'Art thou also of Galilee? Search and see,
for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.'
And so ended this incident, which, to all concerned, might
have been so fruitful of good. Once more Nicodemus was left
alone, as every one who had dared and yet not dared for
Christ is after all such bootless compromises; alone, with
sore heart, stricken conscience, and a great longing. [1 The
reader will observe, that the narrative of the woman taken in
adultery, as also the previous verse (St. John vii. 53-viii.
11) have been left out in this History, although with great
reluctance. By this it is not intended to characterise that
section as Apocryphal, nor indeed to pronounce any opinion as
to the reality of some such occurrence. For, it contains much
which we instinctively feel to be like the Master, both in
what Christ is represented as saying and as doing. All that
we reluctantly feel bound to maintain is, that the narrative
in its present form did not exist in the Gospel of St. John,
and, indeed, could not have existed. For a summary of the
external evidence against the Johannine authorship of the
passage, I would refer to Canon Westcott's Note, ad loc., in
the 'Speaker's Commentary.' But there is also internal
evidence, and, to my mind at least, most cogent, against its
authenticity, at any rate, in its present form. From first to
last it is utterly un-Jewish. Accordingly, unbiassed critics
who are conversant either with Jewish legal procedure, or
with the habits and views of the people at the time, would
feel obliged to reject it, even if the external evidence had
been as strong in its favour as it is for its rejection.
Archdeacon Farrar has, indeed, devoted to the illustration of
this narrative some of his most pictorial pages. But, with
all his ability and eloquence, his references to Jewish law
and observances are not such as to satisfy the requirements
of criticism. To this general objection to their correctness
I must add a protest against the views which he presents of
the moral state of Jewish society at the time. On the other
hand, from whatever point we view this narrative, the
accusers, the witnesses, the public examination, the bringing
of the woman to Jesus, or the punishment claimed, it presents
insuperable difficulties. That a woman taken in the act of
adultery should have been brought before Jesus (and
apparently without the witnesses to her crime); that such an
utterly un-Jewish, as well as illegal, procedure should have
been that of the 'Scribes and Pharisees'; that such a breach
of law, and of what Judaism would regard as decency, should
have been perpetrated to 'tempt' Him; or that the Scribes
should have been so ignorant as to substitute stoning for
strangulation, as the punishment of adultery; lastly, that
this scene should have been enacted in the Temple, presents a
veritable climax of impossibilities. I can only express
surprise that Archdeacon Farrar should have suggested that
the 'Feast of Tabernacles had grown into a kind of
vintage-festival, which would often degenerate into acts of
licence and immorality,' or that the lives of the religious
leaders of Israel 'were often stained' with such sins. The
first statement is quite ungrounded; and as for the second, I
do not recall a single instance in which a charge of adultery
is brought against a Rabbi of that period. The quotations in
Sepp's Leben Jesu (vol. v. p. 183), which Archdeacon Farrar
adduces, are not to cases in point, however much, from the
Christian point of view, we may reprobate the conduct of the
Rabbis there mentioned.]
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
TEACHING IN THE TEMPLE ON THE OCTAVE OF THE
FEAST OF
TABERNACLES.
CHAPTER VIII.
(St. John viii. 12-59.)
The startling teaching on 'the last, the Great Day of the
Feast' was not the only one delivered at that season. The
impression left on the mind is, that after silencing, as they
thought, Nicodemus, the leaders of the Pharisees had
dispersed. [1 This, although St. John vii. 53 must be
rejected as spurious. But the whole context seems to imply,
that for the present the auditory of Jesus had dispersed.]
The addresses of Jesus which followed must, therefore, have
been delivered, either later on that day, or, what on every
account seems more likely, chiefly, or all, on the next day,
[2 It is, however, not unlikely that the first address (vv.
12-19) may have been delivered on the afternoon of the 'Last
Day of the Feast,' when the cessation of preparations for the
Temple-illumination may have given the outward occasion for
the words: 'I am the light of the World.' The of vv. 12 and
21 seems in each case to indicate a fresh period of time.
Besides, we can scarcely suppose that all from vii. 37 to
viii. 59 had taken place the same day. For this and other
arguments on the point, see Lucke, vol. ii. pp. 279-281.]
which was the Octave of the Feast, when the Templewould be
once more thronged by worshippers.
On this occasion we find Christ, first in 'The Treasury,' [a
St. John viii. 20.] and then [b ver. 21.] in some unnamed
part of the sacred building, in all probabilities 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,' only
'the Pharisees,' [c ver. 13.] 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 Jews 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. [3 The last clauses of ver. 59, 'going
through the midst of them went His way, and so passed by,'
must be omitted as spurious.]
But the narrative first transports us into 'the Treasury,'
where 'the Pharisees', or leaders, would alone venture to
speak. It ought to be specially marked, that if they laid not
hands on Jesus when He dared to teach in this sacred
locality, and that such unwelcome doctrine, His immunity must
be ascribed to the higher appointment of God: 'because His
hour had not yet come.' [a ver. 20.] An archaeological
question may here be raised as to the exact localisation of
'the Treasury,' whether it was the colonnade around 'the
Court of the Women,' in which the receptacles for charitable
contributions, the so-called Shopharoth, or 'trumpets', were
placed, [b Sheqal. vi. 5.] or one of the two 'chambers' in
which, respectively, secret gifts [1 The so-called 'chamber
of the silent' (Chashaim), Sheqal. v. 6.] and votive
offerings [2 The 'chamber of the vessels' (Kelim). It was
probably over, or in this chamber that Agrippi hung up the
golden memorial-chain of his captivity (Jos. Antiq. xix. 6.
1).] were deposited. [c Sheqal v. 6.] [3 Comp. generally 'The
Temple and its Services,' pp. 26, 27.] The former seems the
most likely. In any case, it 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. [4 The 'Court of the Women' ( ), Jos. Jew. War v.
5. 3; comp. also v. 5. 2), so called, because women could not
penetrate further. It was the real Court of the Sanctuary.
Here Jeremiah also taught (xix. 14; xxvi. 2). But it is not
correct to state (Westcott), that the Council Chamber of the
Sanhedrin (Gaxith) was 'between the Court of the Women and
the inner court.' It was in the south-eastern angle of the
Court of the Priests, and hence at a considerable distance
from the Court of the Women. But, not to speak of the
circumstance that the Sanhedrin no longer met in that
Chamber, even if it had been nearer, Christ's teaching in the
Treasury could not (at any period) 'have been within earshot
of the Sanhedrin,' since it would not sit on that day.] 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 one of
the great ceremonies of the Feast of Tabernacles, to its
symbolic meaning, and to an express Messianic expectation of
the Rabbis. As the Mishnah states: On the first, [d Sukk. v.
2.] or, as the Talmud would have it, [e Jer. Sukk. 55 b;
Sukk. 53 a.] on every night [5 Although Rabbi Joshua tells
(in the Talmud) that during all the nights of the festive
week they 'did not taste sleep,' this seems scarcely
credible, and the statement of the Mishnah is the more
rational. Maimonides, however, adopts the view of the Talmud
(Hilch. Lul. viii. 12).] 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 [a
Bemidb. R. 15, ed. Warsh. p. 62 a, b.] 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 reminds us of the language of
devout old Simeon in regard to the Messiah, [b St. Luke ii.
32.] as 'a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of
His people Israel.' The Midrash further explains, that, if
the light in the Sanctuary was to be always burning before
Jehovah, the reason was, not that He needed such light, but
that He honoured Israel with this as a symbolic command. In
Messianic times God would, in fulfilment of the prophetic
meaning of this rite, 'kindle for them the Great Light,' and
the nations of the world would point to them, who had lit the
light for Him Who lightened the whole world. But even this is
not all. The Rabbis speak of the original light in which God
had wrapped Himself as in a garment, [c Ber. R. 3.] and which
could not shine by day, because it would have dimmed the
light of the sun. From this light that of the sun, moon, and
stars had been kindled. [d Bemidb. R. 15.] It was now
reserved under the throne of God for the Messiah, [e Yalk. on
Is. 1x.] in Whose days it would shine forth once more.
Lastly, we ought to refer to a passage in another Midrash, [f
On Lam. i. 16, ed. Warsh. p. 64 a, b.] where, after a
remarkable discussion on such names of the Messiah as 'the
Lord our Righteousness,' 'the Branch,' 'the Comforter,'
'Shiloh,' 'Compassion,' His Birth is connected with the
destruction, and His return with the restoration of the
Temple. [1 The passage is one of the most remarkable, as
regards the Messianic views of the Rabbis. See Appendix IX.]
But in that very passage the Messiah is also specially
designated as the 'Enlightener,' the words: [g In Dan. ii.
22.] 'the light dwelleth with Him,' being applied to Him.
What has just been stated shows, that the Messianic hope of
the aged Simeon [h St. Luke ii 32.] most truly expressed the
Messianic thoughts of the time. It also proves, that the
Pharisees could not have mistaken the Messianic meaning in
the words of Jesus, in their reference to the past festivity:
'I am the Light of the world.' This circumstance is itself
evidential as regards this Discourse of Christ, the truth of
this narrative, and even the Jewish authorship of the Fourth
Gospel. But, indeed, the whole Address, the argumentation
with the Pharisees which follows, as well as the subsequent
Discourse to, and which follows, as well as the subsequent
Discourse to, and argumentation with, the Jews, are
peculiarly Jewish in their form of reasoning. Substantially,
these Discourses are a continuation of those previously
delivered at this Feast. But they carry the argument one
important step both backwards and forwards. The situation had
now become quite clear, and neither party cared to conceal
it. 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 leades
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 appealing to their pity nor 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 moral
kinship with Him that had sent Him. But this led to the very
root of the matter. It needed moral kinship with God: did
Israel, as such, possess it? They did not; nay, 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, and in that sense new.
We also are too apt to overlook this teaching of Christ,
perhaps have overlooked it. It is concerning the corruption
of our whole nature by sin, and hence the need of
God-teaching, if we are to receive the Christ, or understand
His doctrine. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that
which is born of the Spirit is Spirit; wherefore, 'marvel not
that I said, Ye must be born again.' That had been Christ's
initial teaching to Nicodemus, and it became, with growing
emphasis, His final teaching to the teachers of Israel. It is
not St. Paul who first sets forth the doctrine of our entire
moral ruin: he had learned it from the Christ. It forms the
very basis of Christianity; it is the ultimate reason of the
need of a Redeemer, and the rationale of the work which
Christ came to do. The Priesthood and the Sacrificial Work of
Christ, as well as the higher aspect of His Prophetic Office,
and the true meaning of His Kingship, as not of this world,
are based upon it. Very markedly, it constitutes the
starting-point in the fundamental divergence between the
leaders of the Synagogue and Christ, we might say, to all
time between Christians and non-Christians. The teachers of
Israel knew not, nor believed in the total corruption of man,
Jew as well as Gentile, and, therefore, felt not the need of
a Saviour. They could not understand it, how 'Except a man',
at least a Jew, were 'born again,' and, 'from above,' he
could not enter, nor even see, the Kingdom of God. They
understood not their own Bible: the story of the Fall, not
Moses and the Prophets; and how could they understand Christ?
they believed not them, and how could they believe Him? And
yet, from this point of view, but only from this, does all
seem clear: the Incarnation, the History of the Temptation
and Victory in the Wilderness, and even the Cross. Only he
who has, in some measure, himself felt the agony of the first
garden, can understand that of the second garden. Had they
understood, by that personal experience which we must all
have of it, the Proto-Evangel of the great contest, and of
the great conquest by suffering, they would have followed its
lines to their final goal in the Christ as the fulfilment of
all. And so, here also, were the words of Christ true, that
it needed heavenly teaching, and kinship to the Divine, to
understand His doctrine.
This underlies, and is the main object of these Discourses
of Christ. As a corollary He would teach, that Satan was not
a merely malicious, impish 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,' [1 Mark here the definite article.] but
have the light, and that, be it marked, not the light of
knowledge, but of life. [a St. John viii. 12.] 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 external and
visible. They asked for some witness, or palpable evidence,
of what they called His testimony about Himself, [b ver. 13.]
well knowing that such could only be through some external,
visible, miraculous manifestation, 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. It would have
been to un-Messiah the Messiah of the Gospel, for it was
only, in another form, a repetition of the Temptation. A
miracle or sign would at that moment have been a moral
anachronism, as much as any miracle would be in our days, [1
It is substantiallythe same evidence which is demanded by the
negative physicists of our days. Nor can I imagine a more
thorough misunderstanding of the character and teaching of
Christianity than, for example, the proposal to test the
efficacy of prayer, by asking for the recovery of those in a
hospital ward! This would represent heathenism, not
Christianity.] 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 [a St. John viii. 13.] was
thoroughly Jewish, and so was their objection. It had to be
met, and that in the Jewish form [2 We mark here again the
evidence of the Jewish authorship of the Fourth Gospel.] in
which it had been raised, while the Christ must at the same
time continue His former teaching to them concerning God and
their own distance from Him. Their objection had proceeded on
this fundamental judicial principle, 'A person is not
accredited about himself.' [b Kethub. ii. 9.] Harsh and
unjust as this principle sometimes was, [3 Thus the testimony
of a man, that during the heathen occupancy of Jerusalem his
wife had never left him, was not allowed, and the husband
forbidden his wife (Kethub. ii. 9).] it evidently applied
only in judicial 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 [4 Not, as in the A.V., 'tell.'] not either. [c St.
John viii. 14.] But, more than this: their demand for a
witness had proceeded on the assumption 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 belonged only to Him, that searcheth all
secrets. Christ, while on earth, judged no man; and, even if
He did so, it must be remembered that He did it not alone,
but with, and as the Representative of, the Father. Hence,
such judgment would be true. [d vv. 15, 16.] But, as for
their main charge, was it either true, or good in law? In
accordance with the Law of God, there were two witnesses 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 corroborated (even in a
matter of greatest delicacy), [5 Kethub. ii 9. Such solitary
testimony only when favourable, not when adverse. On the law
of testimony generally, comp. Saalschutz, Mos. Recht, pp.
604, 605.] although by only one male or female slave, who
ordinarily were unfit for testimony, it would be credited.
The reasoning of Christ, 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 the
Father, and, in turn, that only acknowledgment of Him would
bring true knowledge of the Father. [a St. John viii. 19.]
Such words would only ripen in the hearts of such men the
murderous resolve against Jesus. Yet, not till His, not
their, 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 they were chiefly, if not all,
Judaeans, perhaps Jerusalemites, 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 intensely sad, Christ's farewell
to His rebellious 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 [1 Not 'sins,' as in the A.V.] shall
ye die', 'Whither I go, ye cannot come!' And is it not all
most true? These many centuries has Israel sought its Christ,
and perished in its great sin of rejecting Him; and whither
Christ and His kingdom tended, the Synagogue and Judaism
never came. They thought that He spoke of His dying, and not,
as He did, of that which came after it. But, how could His
dying establish such separation between them? This was the
next question which rose in their minds. [b St. John viii.
22.] Would there be anything so peculiar about His dying, or,
did His expression about going indicate a purpose of taking
away His Own life? [2 Generally this is understood as
referring to the supposed Jewish belief, that suicides
occupied the lowest place in Gehenna. But a glance at the
context must convince that the Jews could not have understood
Christ as meaning, that He would be separated from them by
being sent to the lowest Gehenna. Besides, this supposed
punishment of suicides is only derived from a rhetorical
passage in Josephus (Jew. War iii. 8. 5), but unsupported by
any Rabbinic statements. The Rabbinic definition, or rather
limitation, of what constitutes suicide is remarkable. Thus,
neither Saul, nor Ahitophel, nor Zimri, are regarded as
suicides, because they did it to avoid falling into the hands
of their enemies. For premeditated, real suicide the
punishment is left with God. Some difference is to be made in
the burial of such, yet not such as to put the survivors to
shame.]
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, as He had told them, 'if ye
believe not that I am.' [a vv. 23, 24.]
The words were intentionally mysteriously spoken, as to a
Jewish audience. Believe not that Thou art! But 'Who art
Thou?' Whether or not the words were spoken in scorn, their
question condemned themselves. In His broken sentence, Jesus
had tried them to see how they would complete it. Then it was
so! 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?', am I not telling you it even from the beginning; has My
testimony by word or deed ever swerved on this point? I am
what all along, from the beginning, I tell you. [1 It would
be impossible here to enter into a critical analysis or
vindication of the rendering of this much controverted
passage, adopted in the text. The method followed has been to
retranslate literally into Hebrew: This might be rendered
either, 'To begin with, He that I also tell you;' or, 'from
the beginning He that I also tell you.' I prefer the latter,
and its meaning seems substantially that of our A.V.] Then,
putting aside this interruption, He resumed His argument. [b
vv. 25, 26.] 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 Him,' [c ver. 26.] 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. [d ver. 27.] 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. [2 As Canon Westcott rightly points out (St. John
xii. 32), the term 'lifting up' includes both the death and
the glory. If we ask ourselves what corresponding Hebrew
word, including the sensus malus as well as the sensus bonus
would have been used, the verb Nasa ( ) naturally occurs
(comp. Gen xl. 19 with ver. 13). For we suppose, that the
word used by Christ at this early part of His Ministry could
not have necessarily involved a prediction of His
Crucifixion, and that they who heard it rather imagined it to
refer to His Exaltation. There is a curiously illustrative
passage here (in Pesiqta R. 10), when a king, having given
orders that the head of his son should be 'lifted up' ( ),
that it should be hanged up ( ), is exhorted by the tutor to
spare what was his 'moneginos' (only begotten). On the king's
replying that he was bound by the orders he had given, the
tutor answers by pointing out that the verb Nasa means
lifting up in the sense of exalting, as well as of executing.
But, besides the verb Nasa, there is also the verb Zeqaph (
), which in the Aramaic and in the Syriac is used both for
lifting up and for hanging, specifically for crucifying; and,
lastly, the verb Tela ( ), which means in the first place to
lift up, and secondarily to hang or crucify (see Levy,
Targum, Worterb. ii. p. 539 a and b). It this latter verb was
used, then the Jewish expression Taluy, which is still
opprobriously given to Jesus, would after all represent the
original designation by which He described His own death as
the 'lifted-up One.'] Then would they perceive the meaning of
the designation He had given of Himself, and the claim
founded on it [a ver. 28 (comp. ver. 24).]: 'Then shall ye
perceive that I am.' Meantime: 'And of Myself do I nothing,
but as the [1 Not 'my,' as in A.V.] Father taught Me, these
things do I speak. And He that sent Me is with Me. He [2 A
new sentence; and He,' not 'the Father,' as in the A.V.] 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,
earnestness, and reality, found its way to the hearts of
many. Instinctively 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
far, 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 believing on Him, but
in making His Word and teaching their dwelling, abiding in
it. [b vv. 30-32.] But it was this very moral application
which they resisted. In this also Jesus had used their own
forms of thinking and teaching, 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. [c Ab. Baraitha vi. 2, p.
23 b; Erub. 54 a, line 13 from bottom.] Yet the liberty of
which He spoke came not through study of the Law, [3 With
reference to Exod. xxxii. 16, a play being made on the word
Charuth ('graven') which is interpreted Cheyruth ('liberty').
The passage quoted by Wunsche (Baba Mets. 85 b) is not
applicable.] but from abiding in the Word of Jesus. But it
was this very thing which they resisted. And so 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 real
servitude. It would take too long to enumerate all the
benefits supposed to be derived from descent from Abraham.
Suffice here the almost fundamental principle: 'All Israel
are the children of Kings,' [d Shabb. 67 a; 128 a.] and its
application even to common life, that as 'the children of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not even Solomon's feast could be
too good for them.' [e Baba Mets. vii. 1.]
Not so, however, would the Lord allow them to pass it by. He
pointed them to another servitude which they knew not, that
of sin, [a St. John viii. 34.] and, entering at the same 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.' [1 Here there should be a full stop, and not as in the
A.V.] 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. [b ver. 35.] [2 Comp. Westcott ad
loc.] Then for their very dulness, He would turn to 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. Another, and to them wholly new, and heavenly
teaching this, which our Lord presently applied in a manner
they could neither misunderstand nor gainsay, while He at the
same time connected it with the general drift of His
teaching. 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. [3 So Canon Westcott aptly
renders it.] His Word was what He had seen with (before) the
Father, [4 Not 'My Father,' as in the A.V. These little
changes are most important, as we remember that the hearers
would so far understand and could have sympathised, had the
truth been in them.] 'not heard, for His presence was there
Eternal. Their deeds were what they had heard from their
father [5 According to the proper reading, the rendering must
be 'from your father, not 'with your father,' as in the
A.V.], the word 'seen' in our common text depending on a
wrong reading. And thus He showed them, in answer to their
interpellation, that their father could not have been
Abraham, so far as spiritual descent was concerned. [c vv.
37-40.] They had now a glimpseof His meaning, but only to
misapply it, according to their Jewish prejudice. Their
spiritual descent, they urged, must be of God, since their
descent from Abraham was legitimate. [d ver. 41.] But the
Lord dispelled even this conceit by showing, that if theirs
were spiritual descent from God, then would they not reject
His Message, nor seek to kill Him, but recognise and love
him. [e ver. 42.]
But whence this misunderstanding of His speech? [6 The word
here is.] [f vv. 4347.] Because they are morally incapable of
hearing it, and this because of the sinfulness of their
nature: an element which Judaism had never taken into
account. And so, with infinite Wisdom, Christ once more
brought back His Discourse to what He would teach them
concerning 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 [1 See Book
II. ch. v.] did He speak concerning the moral evilof 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).' [2 I cannot here regard
Canon Westcott's rendering, which is placed in the margin of
the Revised Version, as satisfactory.] Which of them could
convict Him of sin? If therefore He spake truth, [3 In the
text without the article.] 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 Tu quoque, an adaptation of the
'Physician, heal thyself': 'Do we not say rightly, that Thou
art a Samaritan, and hast a demon?' It is strange that the
first clause of this reproach should have been so
misunderstood and yet its direct explanation lies on the
surface. We have only to translate it into the language which
the Jews had used. 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 referring to nationality.
Even at the very Feast they had made it an objection to His
Messianic claims, that He was (as they supposed) a Galilean.
[a vii. 52.] Nor had He come to Jerusalem from Samaria; [b
St. Luke ix. 53.] nor could He be so called (as Commentators
suggest) because He was 'a foe' to Israel, or a 'breaker of
the Law,' or 'unfit to bear witness' [4 The passage quoted by
Schottgen (Yebam. 47 a) is inapplicable, as it really refers
to a non-Israelite. More apt, but also unsuitable, is Sot. 22
a, quoted by Wetstein.], for neither of these circumstances
would have led the Jews to designate Him by the term
'Samaritan.' 'But, in the language which they spoke, what is
rendered into Greek by 'Samaritan,' would have been either
Kuthi ( ), which, while literally meaning a Samaritan, [c
from Kuth or Kutha; comp. 2 Kings xvii. 24, 30.] is almost as
often used in the sense of 'heretic,' or else Shomroni ( ).
The latter word deserves special attention. [5 Comp. Kohut,
Jud. Angelol. p. 95.] Literally, it also means, 'Samaritan;'
but, the name Shomron (perhaps from its connection with
Samaria), is also sometimes Warsh. p. 65 b, line 5 from
bottom: Yalkut on Job xxi. vol. ii. p. 150 b line 16from
bottom.] [6 See the Appendix on Jewish-Angelology and
Demonology.] According to the Kabbalists, Shomron was the
father of Ashmedai, and hence the same as Sammael, or Satan.
That this was a wide-spread Jewish belief, appears from the
circumstance that in the Koran (which, in such matters, would
reproduce popular Jewish tradition), Israel is said to have
been seduced into idolatry by Shomron, [a L'Alcoran trad.par
le Sieur du Ryer, p. 247.] while, in Jewish tradition, this
is attributed to Sammael. [b Pirqe de R. Eliez. 45 ed.Lemb.
p. 59 b, line 10 from top.] If, therefore, the term applied
by the Jews to Jesus was Shomroni, and not Kuthi, 'heretic',
it would literally mean, 'Child of the Devil.' [1 I need
scarcely point out how strongly evidential this is of the
Jewish authorship of the Fourth Gospel.]
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 Him, He honoured His
Father. He heeded not their charges. His concern was the
glory of His Father; the vindication of His own honour would
be brought about by the Father, though, alas! in judgment on
those who were casting such dishonour on the Sent of God. [c
St. John viii. 50.] Then,as if lingering in deep compassion
on the terrible issue, He once more pressed home the great
subject 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] [2 The word is that peculiar
and remarkable one, to gaze earnestly and intently, to which
I have already called attention (see vol. i. p. 692).] 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
consequence of the Fall, of which the Jews knew nothing. And
so they once more misunderstood it as of physical death, [3
He spoke of 'seeing,' they of 'tasting' death (vv. 51, 52).
The word 'taste,' is used in precisely the same manner by the
Rabbis. Thus, in the Jer. Targum on Deut. xxxii. 1. In Ber.
R. 9, we are told, that it was originally destined that the
first man should not taste death. Again, 'Elijah did not
taste the taste of death' (Ber. R. 21). And, tropically, in
such a passage as this: 'If any one would taste a taste
(here: have a foretaste) of death, let him keep his shoes on
while he goes to sleep' (Yom. 78 l). It is also used of
sleep, as: 'All the days of the joy of the house of drawing
[Feast of Tabernacles] we did not taste the taste of sleep'
(Succ. 53 a). It is needless to add other quotations.] and,
since Abraham and the prophets had died, regarded Christ as
setting up a claim higher than theirs. [d vv. 52, 53.] The
Discourse had contained all that He had wished to bring
before 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 He 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.' [4 On the expression 'keep' ( )His work,' Bengel
beautifully observes: doctrinam Jesu, credendo; promissa,
sperando; facienda obediendo.] 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 darkness fell on him, [a Gen. xv. 17.] Abraham had,
in vision, been shown not only this, but the coming world,
and not only all events in the present 'age,' but also those
in Messianic times. [b Ber. R. 44, ed. Warsh. p. 81 b, lines
8, 7, 6 from bottom.] [1 In the Targum Jerusalem on Gen. xv.
also it seems implied that Abraham saw in vision all that
would befall his children in the future, and also Gehenna and
its torments. So far as I can gather, only the latter, not
the former, seems implied in the Targ. Pseudo-Jonathan.
Note on the differences between the Feast of Tabernacles and
that of its Octave (see p. 156, note 1). The six points of
difference which mark the Octave as a separate feast are
indicated by the memorial words and letters and are as
follows: (1) During the seven days of Tabernacles the Priests
of all the 'courses' officiated, while on the Octave the
sacrificial services were appointed, as usually, by lot. (2)
The benediction at the beginning of a feast was spoken again
at the Octave. (3) The Octave was designated in prayer, and
by special ordinances, as a separate feast. (4) Difference in
the sacrifices. (5) Difference in the Psalms, on the Octave
(Soph. xix. 2) probably Ps. xii. (6) According to 1 Kings
viii. 66, difference as to the blessing.] And now, theirs was
not misunderstanding, 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 mistaken:
'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 fury 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 come, but was drawing terribly nigh.
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
THE HEALING OF THE MAN BORN BLIND.
CHAPTER IX.
(St. John ix.)
After the scene in the Temple described in the last chapter,
and Christ's consequent withdrawal from His enemies, we can
scarcely suppose any other great event to have taken place on
that day within or near the precincts of the Sanctuary. And
yet, from the close connection of the narratives, we are led
to infer that no long interval of time can have elapsed
before the healing of the man born blind. [1 Godet supposes
that it had taken place on the evening of the Octave of the
Feast. On the other hand, Canon Westcott would relegate both
ch. ix. and x. to the 'Feast of the Dedication.' But his
argument on the subject, from another rendering of St. John
x. 22, has failed to convince me.] Probably it happened the
day after the events just recorded. We know that it was a
Sabbath, [a St. John ix. 14.] and this fresh mark of time,
aswell as the multiplicity of things done, and the whole
style of the narrative, confirm our belief that it was not on
the evening of the day when He had spoken to them first in
'the Treasury,' and then in the Porch.
On two other points there is strong presumption, though we
cannot offer actual proof. Remembering, that the entrance to
the Temple or its Courts was then, as that of churches is on
the Continent, the chosen spot for those who, as objects of
pity, solicited charity; [b Acts iii. 2.] remembering, also,
how rapidly the healing of the blind man became known, and
how soon both his parents and the healed man himself appeared
before the Pharisees, presumably, in the Temple; lastly, how
readily the Saviour knew where again to find him, [c St. John
ix. 35.], we can scarcely doubt that the miracle took place
at the entering to the Temple, or on the Temple-Mount.
Secondly, both the Work, and especially the Words of Christ,
seem in such close connection with what had preceded, that we
can scarcely be mistaken in regarding them as intended to
form a continuation of it.
It is not difficult to realise the scene, nor to understand
the remarks of all who had part in it. It was the Sabbath,
the day after the Octave of the Feast, and Christ with His
disciples was passing, presumably 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
presence in the wonted place would secure wider notice and
perhaps lead to many private gifts. Indeed, the blind were
regarded as specially entitled to charity; [a Peah viii. 9.]
and the Jerusalem Talmud [b Jer. Peah viii. 9, p. 21 b.]
relates some touching 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 contact with the Pharisees,
that no thought of possible mercy came to them, only a truly
and characteristically Jewish question, addressed to Him
expressly, and as 'Rabbi:' [1 So in the original. through
whose guilt this blindness had befallen him, through his own,
or that of his parents.
For, 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' (Yetser haRa), might even then be called into
activity. [c Sanh. 91 b; Ber. R. 34.] 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. [2 This
opinion has, however, nothing to do with 'the migration of
souls', a doctrine which has been generally, but quite
erroneously, supposed that Josephus imputed to the Pharisees.
The misunderstanding of Jew. War. ii. 8. 14, should be
corrected by Antiq. xviii. 1. 3.] It was a common Jewish
view, that the merits or demerits of the parents would appear
in the children. In fact, up to thirteen years of age a child
was considered, as it were, part of his father, and as
suffering for his guilt. [d Shabb. 32 b; 105 b; Yalkut on
Ruth, vol. ii. par. 600, p. 163 c.] Morethan that, the
thoughts of a mother might affect the moral state of her
unborn offspring, and the terrible apostasy of one of the
greatest Rabbis had, in popular belief, been caused by the
sinful delight his mother had taken when passing through an
idolgrove. [e Midr. on Ruth. iii. 13.] Lastly, certain
special sins in the parents would result in specific diseases
in their offspring, and one is mentioned [a Nedar. 20 a.] as
causing blindness in the children. [1 At the same time those
opinions, which are based on higher moral views of marriage,
are only those of an individual teacher. The latter are
cynically and coarsely set aside by 'the sages' in Nedar. 20
b.] 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 God's infinite goodness, and to which they
sought to apply the common Jewish solution. Many similar
mysteries meet us in the administration of God's Providence,
questions, which seem unanswerable, but to which we try to
give answers, perhaps, not much wiser than the explanations
suggested by disciples.
But why seek to answer them at all, since we possess not
all, perhaps very few of, the data requisite for it? There is
one aspect, however, of adversity, and of a strange
dispensation of evil, on which the light of Christ's Words
here shines with the brightness of a new morning. There is a
physical, natural reason for them. God has not specially sent
them, in the sense of His interference or primary causation,
although He has sent them in the sense of His knowledge,
will, and reign. They have come in the ordinary course of
things, and are traceable to causes which, if we only knew
them, would appear to us the sequence of the laws which God
has imposed on His creation, and which are necessary for its
orderly continuance. And, further, all such evil
consequences, from the operation of God's laws, are in the
last instance to be traced back to the curse which sin has
brought upon man and on earth. With these His Laws, and with
their evil sequences to us through the curse of sin, God does
not interfere in the ordinary course of His Providence;
although he would be daring, who would negative the
possibility of what may seem, though it is not, interference,
since the natural causes which lead to these evil
consequences may so easily, naturally, and rationally be
affected. But there is another and a higher aspect of it,
since Christ has come, and is really the Healer of all
disease and evil by being the Remover of its ultimate moral
cause. This is indicated in His words, when, putting aside
the clumsy alternative suggested by the disciples, He 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 regarded its origin, He told them
its reasonableness 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
transferred the question from intellectual ground to that of
the moral purpose which suffering might serve. And this not
in itself, nor by any destiny or appointment, but because the
Coming and Work of the Christ has made it possible to us all.
Sin and its sequences are still the same, for 'the world is
established that it cannot move.' But over it all has risen
the Sun of Righteousness with healing in His wings; and, if
we but open ourselves to His influence, these evils may serve
this purpose, and so have this for their reason, not as,
regards their genesis, but their continuance, 'that the works
of God may be made manifest.'
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 few hours still
left of His brief working-day. [a St. John ix. 4, 5.] This
figure was not unfamiliar to the Jews, [b Ab. ii. 15.] 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. But it is of even more importance to
notice, how the two leading thoughts of the previous day's
Discourse were now again taken up and set forth in the
miracle that followed. These were, that He did the Work which
God had sent Him to do, [c St. John viii. 28, 29; comp. ix.
4.] and that He was the Light of the world. [d viii. 12;
comp. ix. 5.] As its Light He could not but shine so long as
He was in it. And this He presently symbolised (and is not
every miracle a symbol?) in the healing of the blind.
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, [1 See Book III. ch. xxxiv. p. 48.] 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.' [2 The etymological correctness of
the rendering Siloam by Sent' is no longer called in
question. As to the spring Siloam, see ch. vii. of this
Book.] A symbolism, this, of Him Who was the Sent of the
Father. For, all is here symbolical: the cure and its means.
If we ask ourselves why means were used in this instance, we
can only suggest, that it was partly for the sake of him who
was to be healed, partly for theirs who afterwards heard of
it. For, the blind man seems to have been ignorant of the
character of his Healer, [e St. John ix. 11.] and it needed
the use of some means to make him, so to speak, receptive. On
the other hand, not only the use of means, but their
inadequacy to the object, must have impressed all.
Symbolical, also, were these means. Sight was restored by
clay, made out of the ground with the spittle of Him, Whose
breath had at the first breathed life into clay; and this was
then washed away in the Pool of Siloam, from whose waters had
been drawn on the Feast of Tabernacles that which symbolised
the forthpouring of the new life by the Spirit. Lastly, if it
be asked why such miracle should have been wrought on one who
had not previous faith, who does not even seem to have known
about the Christ, we can only repeat, that the man himself
was intended to be a symbol, 'that the works of God should be
made manifest in him.'
And so, what the Pharisees had sought in vain, was freely
vouch-safed when there was need for it. With inimitable
simplicity, itself evidence that no legend is told, 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, [a ver. 11.] and in
turn have communicated to his informants the story of his
healing. Similarly, the formal question now put to him by the
Jews was as much, if not more, a preparatory inquisition than
the outcome 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, [1 This is the proper rendering. The
organs of sight existed, but could not be used.] not
received, sight; but otherwise gives no clue by which either
to discover or to incriminate Jesus. [b ver. 12.]
Presently they bring him to the Pharisees, not to take
notice of his healing, but to found on it a charge against
Christ. Such must have been their motive, since it was
universally known that the leaders of the people had, of
course informally, agreed to take the strictest measures, not
only against the Christ, but against any one who professed to
be His disciple. [c ver. 22.] The ground on which the present
charge against Jesus would rest was plain: the healing
involved a manifold breach of the Sabbath-Law. The first of
these was that He had made clay. [a Shabb. xxiv. 3.] 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. [b
Jerus. Shabb. 14 d.] 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. [c
Jer. Shabb. u. s.]
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. [d St. John ix. 15.] The
simplicity of the man's language left no room for evasion or
subterfuge. Rabbinism was on its great trial. The wondrous
fact could neither be denied nor explained, and the only
ground for resisting the legitimate inference as to the
character of Him Who had done it, was its inconsistence with
their traditional law. The alternative was: whether their
traditional law of Sabbath-observance, or else He Who had
done such miracles, was Divine? Was Christ not of 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 did he say of Him?
what was the impression left on his mind, who had the best
opportunity for judging? [e vv. 17 and following.]
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 higher
truth, in his reply, so simple and solemn, 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 Pharisees, remained unshaken. He had been born
blind; but as to the manner of his cure, they declined to
offer any opinion. Thus, as so often, the machinations of the
enemies of Christ led to results the opposite of those wished
for. For, the evidential value of their attestation of their
son's blindness was manifestly proportional to their fear of
committing themselves to any testimony for Christ, well
knowing what it would entail.
For to persons so wretchedly poor as to allow their son to
live by begging, [1 It would lead too far to set these forth
in detail. But the shrinking from receiving alms was in
proportion to the duty of giving them. Only extreme necessity
would warrant begging, and to solicit charity needlessly, or
to simulate any disease for the purpose, would, deservedly,
bring the reality in punishment on the guilty.] the
consequence of being 'un-Synagogued,' or put outside the
congregation [2 So also St. John xii. 42; xvi. 2.], which was
to be the punishment of any 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 two first were chiefly
disciplinary, while the third was the real 'casting out,'
'un-Synagoguing,' 'cutting off from the congregation.' [3 In
Jer. Moed K. 81 d, line 20 from top:] The general designation
[4 Both Buxtorf and Levy have made this abundantly clear, but
Jewish authorities are not wanting which regard this as the
worst kind of ban.] for 'excommunication' was Shammatta,
although, according to its literal meaning, the term would
only apply to the severest form of it. [5 Levy derives it
from, to destroy, to root out. The Rabbinic derivations in
Moed K. 17 a, are only a play upon the word.] The first and
lightest degree was the so-called Neziphah or Neziphutha;
properly, 'a rebuke,' an inveighing. Ordinarily, its duration
extended over seven days; but, if pronounced by the Nasi, or
Head of the Sanhedrin, it lasted for thirty days. In later
times, however, it only rested for one day on the guilty
person. [a Moed K. 16 a and b.] Perhaps St. Paul referred to
this 'rebuke' in the expression which he used about an
offending Elder. [b 1 Tim. v.] He certainly adopted the
practice in Palestine, [6 But there certainly were notable
exceptions to this rule, even in Palestine Among the
Babylonian Jews it did not obtain at all.] when he would not
have an Elder 'rebuked' although he went far beyond it when
he would have such 'entreated.' In Palestine it was ordered,
that an offending Rabbi should be scourged instead of being
excommunicated. [c Moed K. 17 a; Nedar. 7 b; Pes. 52 a.] 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
have been in his mind the second degree of Jewish
excommunication, the so-called Niddui (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. [d Moed K. 16 a.] At the end of that term there was 'a
second admonition,' which lasted other thirty days. If still
unrepentant, the third, or real excommunication, was
pronounced, which was called the Cherem, or ban, and of which
the duration was indefinite. Any three persons, or even one
duly authorised, could pronounce the lowest sentence. The
greater excommunication (Niddui), which, happily, could only
be pronounced in an assembly of ten, must have been terrible,
being accompanied by curses, [a Moed K. 16a; Shebh. 36a; Baba
Mez. 59 b.] [1 Buxtorf here reminds us of 1 Cor. v. 5.] and,
at a later period, sometimes proclaimed with the blast of the
horn. [b Shebh. 36. a; Sanh. 107 printed in the Chesronoth
ha-Shas, p. 25 b.] If the person so visited occupied an
honourable position, it was the custom to intimate his
sentence in a euphemistic manner, such as: 'It seems to me
that thy companions are separating themselves from thee.' He
who was so, or similarly addressed, would only too well
understand its meaning. Henceforth he would sit on the
ground, and bear himself like one in deep mourning. He would
allow his beard and hair to grow wild and shaggy; he would
not bathe, nor anoint himself; he would not be admitted into
an assembly of ten men, neither to public prayer, nor to the
Academy; though he might either teach, or be taught by,
single individuals. Nay, as if he were a leper, people would
keep at a distance of four cubits from him. If he died,
stones were cast on his coffin, nor was he allowed the honour
of the ordinary funeral, nor were they to mourn for him.
Still more terrible was the final excommunication, or Cherem,
when a ban of indefinite duration was laid on a man.
Henceforth 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, buy the
necessaries of life, but it was forbidden to eat or drink
with such an one. [c Comp. 1 Cor. v. 11.]
We can understand, how everyone would dread such an
anathema. But when we remember, what it would involve to
persons in the rank of life, and so miserably 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 excommunication,
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 excommunication by
the President of the Sanhedrin extended to all places and
persons. [d Jer. Moed K. 81 d, about the middle.]
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, [1 The common view (Meyer,
Watkins, Westcott) is, that the expression, 'Give glory to
God' was merely a formula of solemn adjuration, like Josh.
vii. 19. But even so, as Canon Westcott remarks, it implies
'that the cure was due directly to God.'] and that 'this man'
had nothing to do with it, save that the coincidence may have
been allowed to try the faith of Israel. It could not have
been Jesus Who had done it, for they knew Him to be 'a
sinner.' Of the two alternatives they had chosen that of the
absolute rightness of their own Sabbath-traditions as against
the evidence of His Miracles. Virtually, then, this was the
condemnation of Christ and the apotheosis of traditionalism.
And yet, false as their conclusion was, there was this truth
in their premisses, that they judged of miracles by the moral
evidence in regard to Him, Who was represented as working
them.
But he who had been healed of his blindness was not to be so
betrayed into a denunciation of his great Physician. The
simplicity and earnestness of his convictions enabled him to
gain even a logical victory. It was his turn now to bring
back the question to the issue which they had originally
raised; and we admire it all the more, as we remember the
consequences to this poor man of thus daring the Pharisees.
As against their opinion about Jesus, as to the correctness
of which neither he nor others could have direct knowledge,
[2 In the original: 'If He is a sinner, I know not. One thing
I know, that, being blind, now I see.'] there was the
unquestionable fact of his healing of which he had personal
knowledge. The renewed inquiry now by the Pharisees, as to
the manner in which Jesus had healed him, [a St. John ix.
26.] might have had for its object to betray the man into a
positive confession, or to elicit something demoniacal in the
mode of the cure. The blind man had now fully the advantage.
He had already told them; why the renewed inquiry? 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 nothing. [b ver. 29.] 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, [a Ber. 6 b; Taan. iii. 8; Sukk. 14 a; Yoma 29 a.]
than that answers to prayer depended on a man being 'devout'
and doing the Will of God. There could therefore by only one
inference: If Jesus had not Divine Authority, He could not
have had Divine Power.
The argument was unanswerable, and in its unanswerableness
shows us, not indeed the purpose, but the evidential force of
Christ's Miracles. In one sense they had no purpose, or
rather were purpose to themselves, being the forthbursting of
His Power and the manifestation of His Being and Mission, of
which latter, as applied to things physical, they were part.
But the truthful reasoning of that untutored man, which
confounded the acuteness of the sages, shows the effect of
these manifestations on all whose hearts were open to the
truth. The Pharisees had nothing to answer, and, as not
unfrequently in analogous cases, could only, in their fury,
cast him out with bitter reproaches. Would he teach them, he,
whose very disease showed him to have been a 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; and so shall it become manifest to all
time, how, as we follow and cherish the better light, it
riseth upon us in all its brightness, and that faithfulness
in little bringeth the greater stewardship. Tenderly did
Jesus seek him out, wherever it may have been: [b St. John
ix. 35.]and, as He found him, this one question did He ask,
whether the conviction of his experience was not growing into
the higher faith of the yet unseen: 'Dost thou believe on the
Son of God?' [1 With all respect for such authority as that
of Professors Westcott and Hort ('The N.T.' p. 212), I cannot
accept the proposed reading 'Son of Man, instead of 'Son of
God.' Admittedly, the evidence for the two readings is evenly
balanced, and the internal evidence seems to be strongly in
favour of the reading 'Son of God.'] He had had personal
experience of Him, was not that such as to lead up to the
higher faith? And is it not always so, that the higher faith
is based on the conviction of personal experience, that we
believe on Him as the Son of God, because we have experience
of Him as the God-sent, Who has Divine Power, and has opened
the eyes of the blind-born, and Who has done to us what had
never been done by any other in the world? Thus is faith
always the child of experience, and yet its father also;
faith not without experience, and yet beyond experience;
faith not superseded by experience, but made reasonable by
it.
To such a soul it needed only the directing Word of Christ.
'And Who is He, Lord, that I may believe on Him?' [a St. John
ix. 36.] It seems as ifthe question of Jesus had kindled in
him the conviction of what was the right answer. We almost
see how, like a well of living water, the words sprang
gladsome from his inmost heart, and how he looked up
expectant on Jesus. To such readiness of faith 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 lowly worshipped. [1 The word is never
used by St. John of mere respect for man, but always implies
Divine worship. In the Gospel it occurs ch. iv. 20-24; ix.
38; xii. 20; and twenty-three times in the Book of
Revelation, but always in the sense of worship.] And so it
was, that the first time he saw his Deliverer, it was to
worship Him. It was the highest stage yet attained. What
contrast this faith and worship of the poor unlettered man,
once blind, now in every sense seeing, to the blindness of
judgment which had fallen on those who were the leaders of
Israel! [b ver. 39.] The cause alike of the one and the other
was the Person of the Christ. For our relationship to Him
determines sight or blindness, as we either receive the
evidence of what He is from what He indubitably does, or
reject it, because we hold by our own false conceptions of
God, and of what His Will to us is. And so is Christ also for
'judgment.'
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, [c ver.
41.] which indeed was the result of their deliberate choice:
therefore their sin, not their blindness only, remained!
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
THE 'GOOD SHEPHERD' AND HIS 'ONE FLOCK', LAST
DISCOURSE AT
THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES.
CHAPTER X
(St. John x. 1-21.)
The closing words which Jesus had spoken to those Pharisees
who followed HIm breathe the sadness of expected near
judgment, rather than the hopefulness of expostulation. And
the Discourse which followed, ere He once more left
Jerusalem, is of the same character. It seems, as if Jesus
could not part from the City in holy anger, but ever, and
only, with tears. All the topics of the former Discourses are
now resumed and applied. They are not in any way softened or
modified, but uttered in accents of loving sadness rather
than of reproving monition. This connection with the past
proves, that the Discourse was spoken immediately after, and
in connection with, the events recorded in the previous
chapters. At the same time, the tone adopted by Christ
prepares us for His Peraean Ministry, which may be described
as that of the last and fullest outgoing of His most intense
pity. This, in contrast to what was exhibited by the rulers
of Israel, and which would so soon bring terrible judgment on
them. For, if such things were done in 'the green tree' of
Israel's Messiah-King, what would the end be in the dry wood
of Israel's commonwealth and institutions?
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 [1 The
word is not parable, but proverb or allegory. On the
essential characteristics of the Parables, see Book III. ch.
xxiii.] in the Parabolic form, [a St. John x. 6.] hiding the
higher truths from those who, having eyes, had not seen, but
revealing 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
professed work of feeding the flock of God. The Rabbinists
also called their spiritual leaders 'feeders,' Parnasin ( ),
a term by which the Targum renders some of the references to
'the Shepherds' in Ezek. xxxiv. and Zech xi. [1 The figure of
a shepherd is familiar in Rabbinic as in Biblical literature.
Comp. Bemidb. R. 23; Yalkut i. p. 68 a.] The term comprised
the two ideas of 'leading' and 'feeding,' which are
separately insisted on in the Lord's allegory. As we think of
it, no better illustration, nor more apt, could be found for
those to whom 'the flock of God' was entrusted. It needed not
therefore that a sheepfold should have been in view, [2 This
is the view advocated by Archdeacon Watkins, ad loc.] to
explain the form of Christ's address. [a St. John x. 1-5.] It
only required 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 happened. 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 Sheepfold, but not by
the door by which the owner, God, had brought His flock into
the fold. To it the entrance had been His free love, His
gracious provision, His thoughts of pardoning, His purpose of
saving mercy. That was God's Old Testament-door into His
Sheepfold. 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 themselves? And what was true of them holds equally so
of all, who, like them, enter by 'some other way.'
How different He, Who comes in and leads us through 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' [3
This is the proper reading: he who locked the door from
within and guarded it.] or 'guardian' opens to him. In
interpreting the allegory, stress must be laid not so much on
any single phrase, be it the 'porter,' the 'door,' or the
'opening,' as on their combination. If the shepherd comes to
the door, the porter hastens to open it to him from within,
that he may obtain access to the flock; 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 finds
ready and immediate 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,'
[1 This is the literal rendering.], the word is a strongone.
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 known Voice
of their own Shepherd, and they would only flee from it. [a
St. John x. 4, 5.]
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,' [b. ver. 7.] 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 comfort. 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 distinguish it from the false.
I. The door, Christ was the Door. [c vv. 7-9.] The entrance
into God's fold and to God's flock was only through that, of
which Christ was the reality. And it had ever been so. All
the Old 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, [2 The words 'who went
before Me' are questioned by many.] pretending 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 flock, did not hear
them; for, although they might pretend to lead 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.
II. 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 forward 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 claimed to be the shepherds. [a ver. 10.] Their
object had been self, and they had pursued it even at the
cost of the sheep, of their life and safety. He 'came' [1 Not
as in the A.V., 'am come.'] for them, to give, not to take,
'that they may have life and have abundance.' [2 As Canon
Westcott remarks, 'this points to something more than life.']
'Life,' nay, that they may have it, I 'lay down' [3 This is
the proper rendering.] Mine: so does it appear that 'I am the
Good [4 Literally 'fair.' As Canon Westcott, with his usual
happiness, expresses it: 'not only good inwardly ( ) but good
as perceived ( ).] Shepherd.' [5 This would be all the more
striking that, according to Rabbinic law, a shepherd was not
called upon to expose his own life for the safety of his
flock, nor responsible in such a case. The opposite view
depends on a misunderstanding of a sentence quoted from Bab.
Mez. 93 b. As the context there shows, if a shephered leaves
his flock, and in his absence the wolf comes, the shepherd is
responsible, but only because he ought not to have left the
flock, and his presence might have prevented the accident. In
case of attack by force superieure he is not responsible for
his flock.]
2. The Good Shepherd Who layeth down His life for His Sheep!
What a contrast to a mere hireling, whose are not the sheep,
and who fleeth at sight of the wolf (danger), 'and the wolf
seizeth them, and scattereth (viz., the flock): (he fleeth)
because he is a hireling, and careth not for the sheep.' The
simile of the wolf must not be too closely pressed, but taken
in a general sense, to point the contrast to Him 'Who layeth
down His Life for His sheep.' [6 See an important note at
theend of this chapter.]
Truly He is, is seen to be, 'the fair Shepherder,' [7 See
Note 4.] Whose are the sheep, and as such, 'I know Mine, and
Mine know Me, even as the Father knoweth Me, and I know the
Father. And I lay down My Life for the sheep.'
3. For the sheep that are Mine, whom I know, and for whom I
lay down My Life! But those sheep, they are not only 'of this
fold,' not all of the Jewish 'fold,' but also scattered sheep
of the Gentiles. They have all the characteristics of the
flock: they are His; and they hear His Voice; but as yet they
are outside the fold. Them also the Good Shepherd 'must
lead,' and, in evidence that they are His, as He calls them
and goes before them, they shall hear His Voice, and so, O
most glorious consummation, 'they shall become one flock [1
Not 'fold,' as in the A.V.] and one Shepherd.'
And thus is the great goal of the Old Testament reached, and
'the good tidings of great joy' which issue from Israel 'are
unto all people.' The Kingdom of David, which is the Kingdom
of God, is set up upon earth, and opened to all believers. We
cannot help noticing, though it almost seems to detract from
it, how different from the Jewish ideas of it is this Kingdom
with its Shepherd-King, Who knows and Who lays down His Life
for the sheep, and Who leads the Gentiles not to subjection
nor to inferiority, but to equality of faith and privileges,
taking the Jews out of their special fold and leading up the
Gentiles, and so making of both 'one flock.' Whence did Jesus
of Nazareth obtain these thoughts and views, towering so far
aloft of all around?
But, on the other hand, they are utterly un-Gentile also, if
by the term 'Gentile' we mean the 'Gentile Churches,' in
antagonism to the Jewish Christians, as a certain school of
critics would represent them, which traces the origin of this
Gospel to this separation. A Gospel written in that spirit
would never have spoken on this wise of the mutual relation
of Jews and Gentiles towards Christ and in the Church. The
sublime words of Jesus are only compatible with one
supposition: that He was indeed the Christ of God. Nay,
although men have studied or cavilled at these words for
eighteen and a half centuries, they have not yet reached unto
this: 'They shall become one flock, one Shepherd.'
4. In the final Step of 'Ascent' [a St. John x. 17, 18.] the
leading thoughts of the whole Discourse are taken up and
carried to the last and highest thought. The Good Shepherd
that brings together the One Flock! Yes, by laying down His
Life, but also by taking it up again. Both are 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.
His Death, His Resurrection, let no one imagine that it
comes from without! It is His own act. He has 'power' in
regard to both, and both are His own, voluntary, Sovereign,
and Divine acts.
And this, 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 Shepherd.
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. [a St. John
x. 18.]
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, let us
hope, many, not yet His disciples, to whose hearts these
words went straight. And how could they resist the
impression? '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 His Person
fell upon His Works, and, as ever, revealed their character,
and made them clear.
Note., It seems right here, in a kind of 'Postscript-Note,'
to call attention to what could not have been inserted in the
text without breaking up its unity, andyet seems too
important to be relegated to an ordinary foot-note. In Yoma
66 b, lines 18 to 24 from top, we have a series of questions
addressed to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanos, designed, as it
seems to me, to test his views about Jesus and his relation
to the new doctrine. Rabbi Eliezer, one of the greatest
Rabbis, was the brother-in-law of Gamaliel II., the son of
that Gamaliel at whose feet Paul sat.He may, therefore, have
been acquainted with the Apostle. And we have indubitable
evidence that he had intercourse with Jewish Christians, and
took pleasure in their teaching; and , further, that he was
accused of favouring Christianity. Under these circumstances,
the series of covered, enigmatic questions, reported as
addressed to him, gains a new interest. I can only repeat,
that I regard them asreferring to the Person and the Words of
Christ. One of these questions is to this effect: 'Is it
[right, proper, duty] for the Shepherd to save a lamb from
the lion?' To this the Rabbi gives (as always in this series
of questions) an evasive answer, as follows: 'You have only
asked me about the lamb.' On this the following questionis
next put, I presume by way of forcing an express reply: 'Is
it [right, proper, duty] to save the Shepherd from the lion?'
and to this the Rabbi once more evasively replies: 'You have
only asked me about the Shepherd.' Thus, as the words of
Christ to which covert reference is made have only meaning
when the two ideas of the Sheep and the Shepherd are
combined, the Rabbi, by dividing them, cleverly evaded giving
an answer to his questioners. But these inferences come to
us, all of deepest importance: 1. I regard the questions
above quoted as containing a distinct reference to the words
of Christ in St. John x. 11. Indeed, the wholestring of
questions, of which the above form part, refers to Christ and
His Words. 2. It casts a peculiar light, not only upon the
personal history of this great Rabbi, the brother-in-law of
the Patriarch Gamaliel II., but a side-light also, on the
history of Nicodemus. Of course, such evasive answers are
utterly unworthy of a discipleof Christ, and quite
incompatible with the boldness of confession which must
characterise them. But the question arises, now often
seriously discussed by Jewish writers: how far many Rabbis
and laymen may have gone in their belief of Christ,and yet,
at least in too many instances, fallen short of discipleship;
and, lastly, as to the relation between the early Church and
the Jews, on which not a few thingsof deep interest have to
be said, though it may not be on the present occasion. 3.
Critically also, the quotation is of the deepest importance.
For, does it not furnish a reference, and that on the lips of
Jews, to the Fourth Gospel, and that from the close of the
first century? There is here something which the opponents of
its genuineness and authenticity will have to meet and
answer.
Another series of similar allegorical questions in
connection with R. Joshua b.Chananyah is recorded in Bekhor.
8 a and b, but answered by the Rabbi in an anti-Christian
sense. See Mandelstamm, Talmud. Stud. i. But Mandelstamm goes
too far in his view of the purely allegorical meaning,
especially of the introductory part.
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
THE FIRST PERAEAN DISCOURSES, TO THE PHARISEES
CONCERNING
THE TWO KINGDOMS, THEIR CONTEST, WHAT QUALIFIES
A DISCIPLE
FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND HOW ISRAEL WAS
BECOMING SUBJECT
TO THAT OF EVIL.
CHAPTER XI
(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. They would cling about
His hearers like the odour of incense that had ascended. Even
'the schism' that had come among them [a St. John x. 19.]
concerning His Person made it possible not only to continue
His Teaching, but to return to the City once more ere His
final entrance. For, His Peraean Ministry, which extended
from after the Feast of Tabernacles to the week preceding the
last Passover, was, so to speak, cut in half by the brief
visit of Jesus to Jerusalem at the Feast of the Dedication.
[b St. John x. 22-39.] Thus, each part of the Peraean
Ministry would last about three months; the first, from about
the end of September to the month of December; [c 28 A.D.]
the second, from that period to the beginning of April. [d 29
A.D.] Of these six months we have (with the solitary
exception of St. Matthew xii. 22-45), [1 The reasons forhis
insertion of this part must be sought in the character of
this Discourse and in the context in St. Matthew's Gospel.]
no other account than that furnished by St. Luke, [e St. Luke
xi. 14 to xvii. 11.] [2 On the characteristics of this
Section, Canon Cook has some very interesting remarks in the
Speaker's Commentary, N.T. vol. i. p. 379.] although, as
usually, the Jerusalem and Judaean incidents of it are
described by St. John. [f St. Johnx. 22-42; xi. 1-45; xi.
46-54.] After that we have the account of His journey to the
last Passover, recorded, with more or less detail, in the
three Synoptic Gospels.
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, not only because the season of the year must have made
itinerancy difficult, and thus have hindered the introduction
to new scenes and of new persons, but chiefly from the
character of His Ministry in Peraea. We remember that,
similarly, the beginning of Christ' Galilean Ministry had
been chiefly marked by Discourses and Parables. Besides,
after what had passed, and must now have been so well known,
illustrative Deeds could scarcely have been so requisite in
Peraea. In fact, His Peraean was, substantially, a resumption
of His early Galilean Ministry, only modified and influenced
by the much fuller knowledge of the people concerning Christ,
and the greatly developed enmity of their leaders. This
accounts for the recurrence, although in fuller, or else in
modified, form, of many things recorded in the earlier part
of this History. Thus, to begin with, we can understand how
He would, at this initial stage of His Peraean, as in that of
His Galilean Ministry, repeat, when asked for instruction
concerning prayer, those sacred words ever since known as the
Lord's Prayer. The variations are so slight as to be easily
accounted for by the individuality of the reporter. [1 The
concluding Doxology should be omitted from St. Matthew's
report of the prayer. As regards the different readings which
have been adopted into the Revised Version, the reader is
advised, before accepting the proposed alterations, to
consult Canon Cook's judicious notes (in the Speaker's
Commentary ad loc.).] 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 term 'debts,' which has passed even into the
Jewish Liturgy, denoting our guilt as indebtedness. ( )
Again, the 'day by day' of St. Luke, which further explains
the petition for 'daily bread,' common 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. [a Yoma 76
a, lines 14-16 from top.] [2 The samepage of the Talmud
contains, however, some absurdly profane legends about the
manna.] Another Rabbinic saying places [b According to Ps.
cxxxvi. 24, 25.] our nourishment on the same level with our
redemption, as regards the thanks due to God and the fact
that both are day by day. [c Ber. R. 20, ed. Warsh. p. 39 b,
last line.] Yet a third Rabbinic saying [d Ber. R. 97.] notes
the peculiar manner in which both nourishment and redemption
are always mentioned in Scripture (by reduplicated
expressions), and how, while redemption took place by an
Angel, [e Gen. xiviii. 16.] nourishment is attributed
directly to God. [f Ps.cxiv. 16.]
But to return. From the introductory expression: 'When (or
whenever) 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 pray,
as John also taught his disciples,' [g St. Luke xi. 1.] seems
to indicate what was 'the certain place,' which, now
consecreated by our Lord's prayer, became the school for
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 Peraea. Such a note of
place is the more interesting, that St. Luke so rarely
indicates localities. In fact, he leaves us in ignorance of
what was the central place in Christ's Peraean Ministry,
although there must have been such. In the main, the events
are, indeed, most likely narrated in their chronological
order. But, as Discourses, Parables, and incidents are so
closely mixed up, it will be better, in a work like the
present, for clearness' and briefness' sake, to separate and
group them, so far as possible. Accordingly, this chapter
will be devoted to the briefest summary of the Lord's
Discourses in Peraea, 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 out a
demon, [a St. Luke xi. 14.] and restoring speech to the
demonised; 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. It
needs no argument to prove, that substantially the same
event, such as the healing of a blind or dumb demonised
person, may, and probably would, have taken place or more
than one occasion, and that, when it occurred, it would
elicit substantially the same remarks by the people, and the
same charge against Christ of superior demoniac agency which
the Pharisees had now distinctly formulated. [b See Book III.
ch. xxii.] Again, when recording similar events, the
Evangelists would naturally come to tell them in much the
same manner. Hence, it does not follow that two similar
narratives in different Gospels always represent the same
event. But in this instance, it seems likely. The earlier
place which it occupies in the Gospel by St. Matthew may be
explained by its position in a group denunciatory of the
Pharisees; and the notice there of their blasphemous charge
of His being the instrument of Satan probably indicates the
outcome of their 'council,' how they might destroy Him. [c
St. Matt. xii. 14.] [1 It marks the chronological place of
this miracle that it seems suitably to follow the popular
charge against Jesus, as expressed in St. John viii. 48 and
x. 20.]
It is this charge of the Pharisees which forms the main
subject of Christ's address, His language being now much more
explicit than formerly, [d St. mark iii. 22; see Book III.
ch. xxii.] even as the opposition of the Pharisees had more
fully ripened. In regard to the slight difference in the
narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke, we mark that, as
always, the Words of the Lord are more fully reported by the
former, while the latter supplies some vivid pictorial
touches. [a See for example St. Luke xi. 22, 22.] The
following are the leading features of Christ's reply to the
Pharisaic charge: First, It was utterly unreasonable, [b St.
Matt. xii. 25.] and inconsistent with their own premisses, [c
vv. 27-30.] showing that their ascription of Satanic agency
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 professions, your disciples
cast out demons. If so, by whom are they doing it?
But, secondly, beneath this logical argumentation lies deep
and spiritual instruction, closely connected with the late
teaching during the festive days in Jerusalem. It is directed
against the flimsy, 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,
which are fully described in another place. [1 See the
Appendix on Angelology and Demonology.] 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:' and this is the Kingdom of God. [d St. Matt. xii.
25-28.] Nay, by their own admission, the casting out of Satan
was part of the work of Messiah. [e Yalkut on Is. lx.] [2 See
Book II. ch. v., and the Appendix to it, where the passage is
given in full.] 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, 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 sin. [f v.
29.] 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. [1 The
reason of the difference between this and the somewhat
similar passage, St. Luke ix 50, is, that there the
relationship is to the disciples, here to the Person of the
Christ.] [a v. 30.]
It follows, that the work of the Christ is a moral contest
waged through the Spirit of God, in which, from their
position, all must take a part. 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 representing that as Satanic which was the object of
His Coming. [b vv. 31, 32.] Such perversion of all that is
highestand holiest, such opposition to, and denunciation of,
the Holy Spirit as if He were the manifestation of Satan,
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. It were unduly to press the
Words of Christ, to draw from them such inferences as,
whether sins unforgiven in this world might or might not be
forgiven in the next, since, manifestly, it was not the
intention of Christ to teach on this subject. On the other
hand, His Words seem to imply that, at least as regards this
sin, there is no room for forgiveness in the other world.
For, the expression is not 'the age to come' ( ), but, 'the
world to come' ( or, ), which, as we know, does not strictly
refer to Messianic times. but to the future and eternal, as
distinguished both from this world ( ), and from 'the days of
the Messiah' ( ). [c See Book II. ch. xi. vol. i. p. 267.]
3. But this recognition of the spiritual, which was the
opposite 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. [d St. Matt. xii. 33-37.] 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 speech 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.
4. Both logically and morally the Words of Christ were
unanswerable; and the Pharisees fell back on the old device
of challenging proof of His Divine Mission by some visible
sign. [a St. Matt. xii. 38.] But this was to avoid the appeal
to the moral element which the Lord had made; it 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. All the signs from heaven would not
have supplied the deep sense of sin and of the need for a
mighty spiritual deliverance, [b ver. 39.] which alone would
lead to the reception of the SaviourChrist. Hence, as under
previous similar circumstances, [c St. Matt. xvi. 1-4.] He
would offer them only one sign, that of Jonas the prophet.
But whereas on the former occasion Christ chiefly referred to
Jonas' preaching (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
sign unto the Ninevites;' [d St. Luke xi. 30] the fact that
he had 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' [1 This is simply a Hebraism of which, as
similar instances, may be quoted, Exod. xv. 8 ('the heart of
the sea'); Deut. iv. 11 ('the heart of heaven'); 2 Sam.
xviii. 14 ('the heart of the terebinth'). Hence, I cannot
agree with Dean Plumptre, that the expression 'heart of the
earth' bears any reference to Hades.] 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 had been only the preparation, had been
presented to them in Christ. [e St. Matt. xii. 39-42.]
5. And so, having put aside this cavil, Jesus returned to
His former teaching [a vv. 43-45.] concerning the Kingdom of
Satan and the power of evil; only now with application, not,
as before, to the individual, but, as prompted by a view of
the unbelieving resistance of Israel, to the Jewish
commonwealth as a whole. Here, also, it must be remembered,
that, as the words used by our Lord were allegorical and
illustrative, they must not be too closely pressed. As
compared with the other nations of the world, Israel was like
a house from 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 the house
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. That was all very
repulsive, and they had carefully removed it. But they knew
that demons were only manifestations of demoniac power, and
that there was a Kingdom of evil. So this house, swept of the
foulness of heathenism and adorned with all the
self-righteousness of Pharisaism, but empty of God, would
only become a more suitable and more secure habitation of
Satan; because, from its cleanness and beauty, his presence
and rule there as an evil spirit would not be suspected. So,
to continue the illustrative language of Christ, he 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 gross 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 repulsiveness.
6. Once more was the Discourse interrupted, this time by a
truly Jewish incident. A woman in the crowd burst into
exclamations about the blessedness of the Mother who had
borne and nurtured such a Son. [b St. Luke xi. 27.] The
phraseology seems to have been not uncommon, since it is
equally applied by the Rabbis to Moses, [c Shem. R. 45.] and
even toa great Rabbi. [d Chag. 14 b.] More striking, perhaps,
is another Rabbinic passage (previously quoted), in which
Israel is described as breaking forth into these words on
beholding the Messiah: 'Blessed the hour in which Messiah was
created; blessed the womb whence He issued; blessed the
generation that sees Him; blessed the eye that is worthy to
behold Him.' [a Persiqta, ed. Buber, b. 149 a, last lines.]
[1 For the full quotation see Book II. ch. v., and the
reference to it in Appendix IX.]
And yet such praise must have been peculiarly unwelcome 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. Hence it was, although from the opposite direction,
as great a misunderstanding as the Personal depreciation of
the Pharisees. Or, to use another illustration, this praise
of the Christ through His Virgin-Mother was as unacceptable
and unsuitable as the depreciation of the Christ, which
really, though unconsciously, underlay the loving care of the
Virgin-Mother when she would have arrested Him in His Work,
[2 See Book III. ch. xxii.] and which (perhaps for this very
reason) St. Matthew relates in the same connection. [b St.
Matt. xii. 46, 47.] Accordingly, the answer in both cases is
substantially the same: to point away 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.' [3 In view of such teaching, itis indeed
difficult to understand the cultus of the Virgin, and even
much of that tribute to the exclusively human in Christ which
is so characteristic of Romanism.]
7. And now the Discourse draws to a close [c St. Luke xi.
33-36.] by a fresh application of what, in some other form or
connection, Christ had taught at the outset of His public
Ministry in the 'Sermon on the Mount.' [d St. Matt. v. 15;
vi. 22, 23.] Rightly to 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. [4 See
above, page 199 &c.] Here, as becomes the close of a
Discourse, the same truth is practically applied in a more
popular and plain, one might almost say realistic, manner. As
here put, it is, that spiritual receptiveness is ever the
condition 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, nor 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. [1 In
some measure like the demon who returned to find his house
empty, swept and garnished.] On the other hand, if by means
of a good eye the light is transmitted through the whole
system, if it is not turned into darkness, like a lamp that
is put into a vault or under a bushel, instead of being set
up to spread light through the house, then shall we be wholly
full of light. And this, finally, explains the reception 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.
It was a blessed lesson with which to close His Discourse,
and one full of light, if only they had not put it into the
vault of their darkened hearts. Yet presently would it shine
forth again, and give light to those whose eyes were opened
to receive it; for, according to the Divine rule and
spiritual order, to him that hath shall be given, and from
him that hath not shall be taken away even that he hath.
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
THE MORNING-MEAL IN THE PHARISEE'S HOUSE, MEALS
AND FEASTS
AMONG THE JEWS, CHRIST'S LAST PERAEAN WARNING
TO PHARISAISM
CHAPTER XII
(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 Peraean Discourse of Christ. Alike in substance and
tone, it is a continuation of His former address to the
Pharisees. And it is probably here inserted in order to mark
the further development of Christ's anti-Pharisaic teaching.
It is the last address to the Pharisees, recorded in the
Gospel of St. Luke. [1 Even St. Luke xx. 45-47 is not an
exception. Christ, indeed, often afterwards answered their
questions, but this is His last formal address to the
Pharisees.] A similar last appeal is recorded in a much later
portion of St. Matthew's Gospel, [a St. Matt. xxiii.] only
that St. Luke reports that spoken in Peraea, St. Matthew that
made in Jerusalem. This may also partly account for the
similarity of language in the two Discourses. Not only were
the circumstances parallel, but the language held at the end
[b St. Matt. xxiii.] may naturally have recurred to the
writer, when reporting the last controversial Discourse in
Peraea. Thus it may well have been, that Christ said
substantially the same things on both occasions, and yet
that, in the report of them, some of the later modes of
expression may have been transferred to the earlier occasion.
And because the later both represents and presents the
fullest anti-Pharisaic Discourse of the Saviour, it will be
better to postpone our analysis till we reach that period of
His Life. [2 See the remarks on St. Luke xi. 39-52 in our
analysis of St. Matt. xxiii. in chap. iv. of Book V.]
Some distinctive points, however, must here be noted. The
remarks already made will explain, how some time may have
elapsed between this and the former Discourse, and that the
expression And as He spake' [St. Luke xi, 37.] must not be
pressed as a mark of time (referring to the immediately
preceding Discourse), but rather be regarded as indicating
the circumstances under which a Pharisee had bidden Him to
the meal. [1 The expression 'one of the Lawyers' (ver. 45)
seems to imply that there were several at table.] Indeed, we
can scarcely imagine that, immediately after such a charge by
the Pharisees as that Jesus acted as the representative of
Beelzebul, and such a reply on the part of Jesus, a Pharisee
would have invited Him to a friendly meal, or that 'Lawyers,'
or, to use a modern term, 'Canonists,' would have been
present at it. How different their feelings were after they
had heard His denunciations, appears from the bitterness with
which they afterwards sought to provoke Him into saying what
might serve as ground for a criminal charge. [a St. Luke xi.
53, 54.] And there is absolutely no evidence that, as
commentators suggest, the invitation of the Pharisee had been
hypocritically given, for the purpose of getting up an
accusation against Christ. More than this, it seems entirely
inconsistent with the unexpressed astonishment of the
Pharisee, when he saw Jesus sitting down to food without
having first washed hands. Up to that moment, then, it would
seem that he had only regarded Him as a celebrated Rabbi,
though perhaps one who taught strange things.
But 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.' [2 Not 'to dine' as in theA.V. Although in
later Greek the word was used for prandium, yet its original
meaning as 'breakfast' seems fixed by St. Luke xiv. 12.] We
know that this took place early immediately after the return
from morning prayers in the Synagogue. [3 of which the German
Morgenbrot is a literal rendering. To take the first meal
later in the day was deemed very unwholesome: 'like throwing
a stone into a skin.'] It is, therefore, scarcely
conceivable, that all that is recorded in connection with the
first Discourse 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. [4 On the sacredness of theduty of hospitality, see
'Sketches of Jewish Social Life,' pp. 47-49.] We can picture
to ourselves the scene. The week-day family-meal was simple
enough, whether breakfast or dinner, the latter towards
evening, although sometimes also in the middle of the day,
but always before actual darkness, in order, as it was
expressed, that the sight of the dishes by daylight might
excite the appetite. [a Yoma 74 b.] The Babylonian Jews were
content to make a meal without meat; not so the Palestinians.
[b Bezeh 16 a.] With the latter the favorite 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, [1 As always in the East, there were many kinds of
bakemeat, from the coarse barley-bread or rice-cake to the
finest pastry. We read even of a kind of biscuit, imported
from India (the Teritha, Ber. 37 b).] 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. [c Ber. 41 b.] Otherwise it would have
been necessary 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
things dedicated to God, [d Ber. 35 a.] since it was written:
'The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.' [e Ps.
xxiv. 1.] [2 So rigidwas this, that it was deemed duty to
speak a blessing over a drink of water, if one was thirsty,
Ber. vi. 8.] Beautiful as this principle is, it degenerated
into tedious questions of casuistry. Thus, if one kind of
food was eaten as an addition to another, it was settled that
the blessing should be spoken only over the principal kind.
Again, there are elaborate disputations as to what should be
regarded as fruit, and have the corresponding blessing, and
how, for example, one blessing should be spoken over the
leaves and blossom, and another over the berries of the
caper. [f Ber. 36 a.] Indeed, that bush gave rise to a
serious controversy between the Schools of Hillel and
Shammai. Another series of elaborate discussions arose, as to
what blessing should be used when a dish consisted of various
ingredients, some the product of the earth, others, like
honey, derived from the animal world. Such and similar
disquisitions, giving rise to endless argument and
controversy, busied the minds of the Pharisees and Scribes.
Let us suppose the guests assembled. To such a morning-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 were two loaves, and speak the blessing. [3 This, also,
was matter of controversy, but the Rabbis decided that the
blessing must first be spoken, and then the loaf cut (Ber. 39
b).] But this, only if the company reclined at table, as at
dinner. If they sat, as probably always at the early meal,
each would speak the benediction for himself. [g Ber. vi. 6.]
The same rule applied in regard to the wine. Jewish casuistry
had it, that one blessing sufficed for the wine intended as
part of the meal. If other wine were brought in during the
meal, then each one would have to say the blessing anew over
it; if after the meal (as was done on Sabbaths and
feast-days, to prolong the feast by drinking), one of the
company spoke the benediction for all.
At the entertainment of this Pharisee, as indeed generally,
our Lord omitted the prescribed 'washing of hands' before the
meal. But as this rite was in itself indifferent, He must
have had some definite object, which will be explained in the
sequel. The externalism of all these practices will best
appear from the following account which the Talmud gives of
'a feast.' [a Ber. 43 a.] As the guests enter, they sit down
on chairs, and water is brought to them, with which they wash
one hand. After this the cup is taken, when each speaks the
blessing over the wine partaken of before dinner. Presently
they all lie down at table. Water is again brought them, with
which they now wash both hands, preparatory to the meal, when
the blessing is spoken over the bread, and then over the cup,
by the chief person at the feast, or else by one selected by
way of distinction. The company responded by Amen, always
supposing the benediction to have been spoken by an
Israelite, not a heathen, slave, nor law-breaker. Nor was it
lawful to say it with an unlettered man, although it might be
said with a Cuthaean [b Ber. 47 b.] (heretic, or else
Samaritan), who was learned. After dinner the crumbs, if any,
are carefully gathered, hands are again washed, and he who
first had done so leads in the prayer of thanksgiving. The
formula in which he is to call on the rest to join him, by
repeating the prayers after him, is prescribed, and differs
according to the number of those present. The blessing and
the thanksgiving are allowed to be said not only in Hebrew,
but in any other language. [c Ber. 40 b.]
In regard to the position of the guests, we know that the
uppermost seats were occupied by the Rabbis. The Talmud
formulates it [d Ber. 46 b.] in this manner: That the
worthiest lies down first, on his left side, with his feet
stretching 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 very 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. [1 According
to Ber. 46 b, the order in Persia was somewhat different. The
arrangement indicated in the text is of importance as regards
the places taken at the Last Supper, when there was a dispute
among the disciples about the order in which they were to sit
(comp. pp. 493-495).] The guests being thus arranged, thehead
of the house, or the chief person at table, speaks the
blessing, [2 Tradition ascribes this benediction to Moses on
the occasion when manna first fell.] and then cuts the bread.
By some it was not deemed etiquette to begin eating till
after he who had said the prayer had done so, but this does
not seem to have been the rule among the Palestinian Jews.
Then, generally, the bread was dipped into salt, or something
salted, etiquette demanding that where there were two they
should wait one for the other, but not where there were three
or more.
This is not the place to furnish what may be termed a list
of menus at Jewish tables. In earlier times the meal was, no
doubt, very simple. It became otherwise when intercourse with
Rome, Greece, and the East made the people familiar with
foreign luxury, while commerce supplied its requirements.
Indeed, it would scarcely be possible to enumerate the
various articles which seem to have been imported from
different, and even distant, countries.
To begin with: 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. [a Ber. vii. 5.]
According to one statement, two parts, [b Nidd. ii. 7.]
according to another, three parts, of water were to be added
to the wine. [c Pes. 108 b.] 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, consisted of old wine, water, and balsam; yet
another was 'wine of myrrh;' [d Mentioned in St. Mark xv.
23.] we also read of a wine in which capers had been soaked.
To these we should add wine spiced, either with pepper, or
with absinthe; and what is described as vinegar, a cooling
drink made either of grapes that had not ripened, or of the
lees. Besides these, palm-wine was also in use. Of foreign
drinks, we read of wine from Ammon, and from the province
Asia, the latter a kind of 'must' boiled down. Wine in ice
came from the Lebanon; a certain kind of vinegar from
Idumaea; beer from Media and Babylon; a barley-wine (zythos)
from Egypt. Finally, we ought to mention Palestinian
apple-cider, [e Terum xi. 2.] and the juice of other fruits.
If we adopt the rendering of some, even liqueurs were known
and used.
Long as this catalogue is, that of the various articles of
food, whether native or imported, would occupy a much larger
space. Suffice it that, as regarded the various kinds of
grain, meat, fish, and fruits. either in their natural state
or preserved, it embraced almost everything known to the
ancient world. At feasts there was an introductory course,
consisting of appetising salted meat, or of some light dish.
This was followed by the dinner itself, which finished with
dessert (Aphiqomon or terugima) consisting of pickled olives,
radishes and lettuce, and fruits, among which even preserved
ginger from India is mentioned. [a Comp. Ber. 40-44 passim.]
The most diverse and even strange statements are made as to
the healthiness, or the reverse, of certain articles of diet,
especially vegetables. Fish was a favorite 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. Condiments, such as mustard or pepper, were to be
sparingly used. Very different were the meals of the poor.
Locusts, fried in flour or honey, or preserved, required,
according to the Talmud, no blessing, since the animal was
really among the curses of the land. Eggs were a common
article of food, and sold in the shops. Then there was a
milk-dish into which people dipped their bread. Others, who
were better off, had a soup made of vegetables, especially
onions, and meat, while the very poor would satisfy the
cravings of hunger with bread and cheese, or bread and fruit,
or some vegetables, such as cucumbers, lentils, beans, peas,
or onions.
At meals the rules of etiquette were strictly observed,
especially as regarded the sages. Indeed, two tractates are
added to the Talmud, of which the one describes the general
etiquette, the other that of 'sages,' and the title of which
may be translated by 'The Way of the World' (Derekh Erets),
being a sort of code of good manners. According to some, it
was not good breeding to speak while eating. The learned and
most honored occupied not only the chief places, but were
sometimes distinguished by a double portion. According 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. At ordinary entertainments, people were to
help themselves. It was not considered good manners to drink
as soon as you were asked, but you ought to hold the cup for
a little in your hand. But it would be the height of
rudeness, either to wipe the plates, to scrape together the
bread, as though you had not had enough to eat, or to drop
it, to the inconvenience of your neighbour. If a piece were
taken out of a dish, it must of course not be put back; still
less must you offer from your cup or plate to your neighbour.
From the almost religious value attaching to bread, we
scarcely wonder that these rules were laid down: not to
steady a cup or plate upon bread, nor to throw away bread,
and that after dinner the bread was to be carefully swept
together. Otherwise, it was thought, demons would sit upon
it. The 'Way of the World' for Sages, [a Derekh Erets Suta v.
and vii.] lays down these as the marksof a Rabbi: that he
does not eat standing; that he does not lick his fingers;
that he sits down only beside his equals, in fact, many
regarded it as wrong to eat with the unlearned; that he
begins cutting the bread where it is best baked, nor ever
breaks off a bit with his hand; and that, when drinking, he
turns away his face from the company. Another saying was that
the sage was known by four things: at his cups, in money
matters, when angry, and in his jokes. [b Erub. 65 b.] 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 honor to entertain sages.
We have no difficulty 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 purification, 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. [1 For
a full account of the laws concerning the washing of hands
and the views entertained of the rite, see Book III. ch.
xxxi.] Indeed, the controversy was long and bitter between
the Schools of Shammai and Hillel, on such a point as whether
the hands were to be washed before the cup was filled with
wine, or after that, and where the towel was to be deposited.
With such things the most serious ritual inferences were
connected on both sides. [c Ber. 51 b to52 b.] A religion
which spent its energy on such trivialities must have lowered
the moral tone. All the more that Jesus insisted 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 reception 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 tradltions of the Synagogue. Remembering that
a Pharisee ought not to sit down to a meal with such, he
might feel that he should not have asked Jesus to his table.
All this, as well as the terrible contrast between the
punctiliousness of Pharisaism in outward purifications, and
the inward defilement which it never sought to remove, must
have lain open before Him Who read the inmost secrets of the
heart, and kindled His holy wrath. Probably taking occasion
(as previously suggested) from something that had passed
before, He spoke with the point and emphasis which a last
appeal to Pharisaism demanded.
What our Lord said on this occasion will be considered in
detail in another place. [1 In connection with St. Matt.
xxiii.] Suffice it hear to mark, that He first exposed the
mere externalism of the Pharisaic law of purification, to the
utter ignoring of the higher need of inward purity, which lay
at the foundation of all. [a St. Luke xi. 39.] If the primary
origin of the ordinance was to prevent the eating of sacred
offerings in defilement, [2 On the origin and meaning of the
ordinance, see Book III. ch. xxxi.] were these outward
offerings not a symbol of the inward sacrifice, and was there
not an inward defilement as well as the outward? [b ver. 40.]
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. [c ver.
41.]We mark here a progress and a development, as compared
with the former occasion when Jesus had publicly spoken on
the same subject. [d St. Matt. xv. 1-9.] Formerly, He had
treated the 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 laid down the principle
that defilement came not from without inwards, but from
within outwards; [e St. Matt. xv. 10, 11.] now, He unfolded
this highest principle that higher consecration 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 remarks of Christ.
[a St. Luke xi. 42.] 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: [1 On 'the
Pharisees,Sadducees, and Essenes,' see Book III. ch. ii. In
fact, the fraternity of the Pharisees were bound by these
'two VOWS, that of tithing, and that in regard to
purifications.] 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.
[b ver. 43.] It will 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 regarded 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 heart (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 [2
St. Luke xi. 44. The word 'Scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites,' are an interpolation.] terribly failed. It was
hypocrisy, although that word was not mentioned till
afterwards; [c St. Luke xii. 1.] [3 See previous Note.] and
that both negatively and positively: the concealment of what
it was, and the pretension to what it was not. And the
Pharisaism which pretended to the highest purity, was,
really, the greatest impurity, the defilement of graves, only
covered up, not to be seen of men!
It was at this point that one of 'the Scribes' at table
broke in. Remembering in what contempt some of the learned
held the ignorant bigotry of the Pharisees, [4 As to the
estimate of the Pharisees, comp. also 'Sketches of Jewish
Social Life,' p. 237.] we can understand that he might have
listened with secret enjoyment 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. [a Sot. iii. 4.]
And we cannot help feeling, that there is sometimes a touch
of quiet humour in the accounts which the Rabbis give of the
encounters between the Pharisees and their opponents. [1 See
previous Note.] But, as the Scribe rightly remarked, by
attacking, not merely their practice, but their principles,
the whole system of traditionalism, which they represented,
was condemned. [b St. Luke xi. 45.] And so the Lord assuredly
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 those grievous
burdens of traditionalism they laid on the poor people, but
not the slightest effort did they make to remove any of them.
[c ver. 46.] Tradition, yes! the very profession of it bore
witnessagainst them. Tradition, 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! 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 inheritance, the 'tradition,' of guilt in
hindering and banishing the Divine teaching of old, and
murdering its Divine messengers. [d vv. 47-52.]
There was a terrible truth and solemnity in what Jesus
spake, and in the Woe which He denounced on them. The history
of the next few months would bear witness how truly they had
taken upon them this tradition of guilt; and all the
after-history of Israel shows how fully this 'Woe' has come
upon them. But, after such denunciations, the entertainment
in the Pharisee's house must have been broken up. The Christ
was too terribly in earnest, too mournfully so over those
whom they hindered from entering the Kingdom, to bear with
the awful guilt of their trivialities. With what feelings
they parted from Him, appears from the sequel.
'And when He was come out from thence, the Scribes and the
Pharisees began to press upon Him vehemently, and to provoke
Him to speak of many things; laying wait for Him, to catch
something out of His Mouth.' [2 This is both the correct
reading and rendering of St. Lukexi. 53, 54, as given in the
Revised Version.]
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
TO THE DISCIPLES, TWO EVENTS AND THEIR MORAL.
CHAPTER XIII
(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 summary 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
prevention, not in denunciation. That such warnings were most
seasonable, requires scarcely proof. They were prompted by
circumstances around. 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 difference of the writers
or of the circumstances, and which mark the independence of
the narratives.
1. The first of these Discourses [a St. Luke xii. 1-12.]
naturally connects itself with what had passed at the
Pharisee's 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, [b St. Matt. x.] [1 With St. Luke xii. 2-9,
comp. St. Matt. x. 26-33; with St. Luke xii. 10, comp. St.
Matt. xii. 31, 32; and with St. Luke xii. 11, 12, comp. St.
Matt. x. 18-20.] we shall presently mark several
characteristic variations. The address, or so much of it as
is reported, probably only its summary, is introduced by the
following notice of the circumstances: 'In the mean time,
when the many thousands of the people were gathered together,
so that they trode upon each other, He began to say to His
disciples: "First [above all.] [2 I prefer this rendering to
that which connects the word 'first' as a mark of time with
the previous words.] 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 Pharisee's table.
Although the word 'hypocrisy' had not been spoken there, it
was the sum and substance of His contention, 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 individuals 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, [1 Wunsche goes too far in saying that and are
only used in the sense of flattering. See Levy, sub verb.]
not to that unconscious hypocrisy towards God which our Lord
so truly describes as 'the leaven' that pervaded all the
Pharisees said and did. It is against this that He warned His
disciples, and in this, rather than conscious deception,
pretence, or flattery, lies the danger of the Church. Our
common term, 'unreality,' but partially describes it. Its
full meaning can only be gathered from Christ's teaching. But
what precise term He may have used, it is impossible to
suggest. [2 The Peshito paraphrases it.]
After all, hypocrisy was only self-deception. [a St. Luke
xii. 2.] 'But, [3 Thus, and not 'for,' as in the A.V.] there
is nothing covered that shall not be revealed.' Hence, what
they had said in the darkness would be revealed, and what
they had spoken about in the store-rooms [4 St. Luke seems to
use in that sense (here and in ver. 24), St. Matthew in the
sense of 'inner chamber' (St. Matt. vi. 6; xxiv. 26). In the
LXX. it is used chiefly in the latter sense; in the Apocr.
once in the sense of 'inner chamber' (Tob. vii. 16), and once
in that of 'storeroom' (Ecclus. xxix. 12).] would be
proclaimed on the housetops. Nor should fear influence them.
[b ver. 4.] Fear of whom? Man could only kill the body, but
God held body and soul. And, as fear was foolish, so was it
needless in view of that wondrous Providence which watched
over even the meanest of God's creatures. [c vv. 6, 7.]
Rather let them, in the impending struggle with the powers of
this world, rise to consciousness of its full import, how
earth's voices would find their echo in heaven. And then this
contest, what was it! Not only opposition to Christ, but, in
it inmost essence, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
Therefore, to succumb in that contest, implied the deepest
spiritual danger. [d vv. 8-10.] Nay, but let them not be
apprehensive; their acknowledgment 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; here, there, everywhere, in
their own hearts, before the Angels, before men, would He
give testimony for those who were His witnesses. [e vv. 11,
12.]
Before proceeding, we briefly mark the differences between
this and the previous kindred address of Christ, when sending
the Apostles on their Mission. [a St. Matt. x.] There (after
certain personal directions), the Discourse began [b St.
Matt. x. 18-20.] with what it here closes. There it was in
the form of warning prediction, here in that of comforting
reassurance; there it was near the beginning, here near the
close, of His Ministry. Again, as addressed to the Twelve on
their Mission, it was followed by personal directions and
consolations, [c St. Matt. x. 21-25.] and then, transition
was made to the admonition to dismiss fear, and to speak out
publicly what had been told them privately. On the other
hand, when addressing His Peraean disciples, while the same
admonition is given, and partly on the same grounds, yet, as
spoken to disciples rather than to preachers, the reference
to the similarity of their fate with that of Christ is
omitted, while, to show the real character of the struggle,
an admonition is added, which in His Galilean Ministry was
given in another connection. [d St. Luke xii. 10, comp. with
St. Matt. xii. 3i, 32.] Lastly, whereas the Twelve were
admonished not to fear, and, therefore, to speak openly what
they had learned privately, the Peraean disciples are
forewarned that, although what they had spoken together in
secret would be dragged into the light of greatest publicity,
yet they were not to be agraid of the possible consequences
to themselves.
2. The second Discourse recorded in this connection was
occasioned by a request for judicial interposition on the
part of Christ. This He answered by a Parable, [1 Concerning
the foolish rich man.] [e St. Luke xii. 16-21.] which will be
explained in conjunction with the other Parables of that
period. The outcome of this Parable, as to the utter
uncertainty of this life, and the consequent folly of being
so careful for this world while neglectful of God, led Him to
make warning application to His Peraean disciples. [f St.
Luke xii. 22-34.] Only here the negative injunction that
preceded the Parable, 'beware of covetousness,' 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, but to have absolute faith and trust
in their Father, 'Who was well pleased to give' them 'the
Kingdom.' [g St. Luke xii. 32.]
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 on the
Mount. [h St. Matt. vi. 25-33.] Perhaps we may here, also,
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 Peraea, indicate the beginning of December, about
the time of the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple. More
important, perhaps, is it to note, that the expression [a St.
Luke xii. 29.] rendered in the Authorised and Revised
Versions, 'neither be ye of doubtful mind,' really means,
'neither be ye uplifted,' in the sense of not aiming, or
seeking after great things. [b Comp. Jer. xiv. 5.] This
rendering the Greek word ( ) is in accordance with its
uniform use in the LXX., [1 The word occurs in that sense
twentyfive times in the LXX. of the old Testament (four times
as a noun, thirteen as an adjective, eight as a verb), and
seven times in the Apocrypha (twice as a verb and as an
adjective, and three times as a noun). This must fix the N.T.
usus.] and in the Apocrypha; while, on the other hand, it
occurs in Josephus and Philo, in the sense of 'being of a
doubtful mind.' But the context 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 deepest importance is the final consolation, to dismiss
all care and anxiety, since the Father was pleased to give to
this 'little flock' the Kingdom. The expression 'flood'
carries us back to the language which Jesus had held ere
parting from Jerusalem. [c St. John x.] Henceforth this
designation would mark His people. Even its occurrence fixes
this Discourse as not a repetition of that which St. Matthew
had formerly reported, but as spoken after the Jerusalem
visit. It designates Christ's people in distinction to their
ecclesiastical (or outward) organisation in a 'fold,' and
marks alike their individuality and their conjunction, their
need and dependence, and their relation to Him as the 'Good
Shepherd.' Small and despised though it be in the eyes of
men, 'the little flock' is unspeakably noble, and rich in the
gift of the Father.
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 part of this
Discourse. [d St. Luke xii. 33, 34.] Its first sentence:'Sell
that ye have, and give alms,' which is only recorded 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 worldly cares or
possessions. [e comp. St. Matt. xix. 21.] The general
principle underlying it is that expressed by St. Paul, [f 1
Cor. vii. 30, 31.] 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. This
conclusion of Christ's Discourse, also, confirms the
inference that it was delivered near the terrible time of the
end. Most seasonable would be here the repetition, though in
slightly different language, of an admonition, given in the
beginning of Christ's Galilean Ministry, [a St. Matt. vi.
19-21.] to provide treasure in heaven, which could neither
fail nor be taken away, for, assuredly, where the treasure
was, there also would the heart be.
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. Wholly detached from the
things of the world, their hearts set on the Kingdom, only
one thing should seem worthy their whole attention, and
engage all their thoughts and energies: their Master! He was
away at some joyous feast, and the uncertainty of the hour of
His return must not lead the servants to indulge in
surfeiting, nor to lie down in idleness, but to be faithful
to their trust, and eagerly expectant of their Master. The
Discourse itself consists of three parts and a practical
application. itself consists of three parts and a practical
application.
1. The Disciples as Servants in the absence of their Master:
[b St. Luke xii.] their duty and their reward. [c vv. 35-38.]
This part, containing what would be so needful to these
Peraean disciples, is peculiar to St. Luke. The Master is
supposed to be absent, at a wedding, a figure which must not
be closely pressed, not being one of the essentials in the
Parable. At most, it points to a joyous occasion, and its
mention may chiefly indicate that such a feast might be
protracted, so that the exact time of the Master's 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 His return. 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. [1
The first is not mentioned, because it was so early, nor yet
the fourth, because the feast would scarcely be protracted so
long. Anciently, the Hebrews counted three night-watches; but
afterwards, and probably at the time of Christ, they divided
the night into four watches (see the discussion in Ber. 3 a).
The latter arrangement was probably introduced from the
Romans.]
The 'Parable' now passes into another aspect of the case,
which is again referred to in the last Discourses of Christ.
[d St. Matt. xxiv. 43, 44.] Conversely, suppose the other
case, of people sleeping: the house might be broken into. Of
course, 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, and the Coming of the Christ into
His Kingdom would be equally sudden, which should keep the
people in the house ever on their watch till Christ came. [a
St. Luke xii. 39, 40.]
It was 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? From the
implied, for it is not an express answer of the Lord, we
infer, that Peter expected some difference between the
Apostles and the rest of the disciples, whether as regarded
the attitude of the servants that waited, or the reward. From
the words of Christ the former seems the more likely. 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 punishment in the
sudden and righteous reckoning at His appearing. The
'Parable,' therefore, alike as to the waiting and the
reckoning, applied to work for Christ, as well as to personal
relationship towards Him.
Thus far this solemn warning would naturally be afterwards
repeated in Christ's Last Discourses in Judaea, as equally
needful, in view of His near departure. [b St. Luke xii.
42-46; comp. St. Matt. xxiv. 45-51.] But in this Peraean
Discourse, as reported by St. Luke, there now follows what
must be regarded, not, indeed, as a further answer to Peter's
inquiry, but as specifically referring to the general
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 their work. but neither 'made ready,' [1 So literally.]
nor did according to His Will, theirpunishment and loss
(where the illustrative 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 work for them. This, according to a well-understood
principle, universally, almost instinctively, acted upon
among men. [a St. Luke xii. 47, 48.]
2. In the absence of their master! A period this of work, as
well as of waiting; a period of trial also. [b St. Luke xii.
49-53.] Here, also,the two opening verses, in their evident
connection with the subject-matter under the first head of
this Discourse, [1 Comp. before, under 1, p. 218.] but
especially with the closing sentences about work for the
Master, are peculiar to St. Luke's narrative, and fit only
into it. 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. [2
This clause is most important for the interpretation of that
which precedes it, showing that it cannot be taken in sensu
malo. It cannot therefore be 'the fire of judgment'
(Plumptre.)] Oh, how He longed, [3 Probably, as Wunsche
suggests, the or else the of the Rabbis.] that it were
already kindled! But between Him and it lay the cold flood of
His Passion, the terrible Passion in which He was to be
baptized. Oh, how He felt the burden of that coming Agony! [c
vv. 49-50.] 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 Peraean
disciples the prediction already addressed to the Twelve when
going on their Mission, [d St. Matt. x 34-36.] as to the
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 kinship. [e St. Luke
xii. 51-53]
3. Thus far to the disciples. And now for its application to
'the multitudes' [f ver. 54] although here also He could only
repeat what on a former occasion He had said to the
Pharisees. [g St. Matt. xvi. 2, 3] Let them not think that
all this only concerned the disciples. No; it was a question
between Israel and their Messiah, and the struggle would
involve the widest consequences, alike to the people and the
Sanctuary. Were they so blinded as not 'to know how to
interpret the time'? [h St. Luke xii. 56]Could they not read
its signs, they who had no difficulty in interpreting it when
a cloud rose from the sea, or the sirocco blew from the
south? [4 The observant reader will notice how characteristic
the small differences are. Thus, the sirocco would not be
expected in Galilee, but in Peraea, and in the latter also
the first flowers would appear much earlier.] Why then, and
here St. Luke is again alone in his report [i ver. 57.], did
they not, in the circumstances, of themselves judge what was
right and fitting and necessary, in view of the gathering
tempest?
What was it? Even that he had told them before in Galilee,
[a St. Matt. v. 25, 26.] for the circumstances were the same.
What common sense and common prudence would 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 pronounced and executed. [b St. Luke
xii. 58, 59.] Although the illustration must not be pressed
as to details, its general meaning would be the more readily
understood that there was a similar Rabbinic proverb, [c
Sanh. 95 b. Its import is thus explained: Prepare ta
vengence, sans que ton ennemipuisse s'en douter (Schuhl,
Sent. et. Prov. d. Talm. p. 3.)] 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 Josephus, [1 This omission goes far to prove
the groundlessness of the charge brought by Renan, and lately
by Joel (Bl. in d. Relig. Gesch. ii. pp. 52 &c), that the
writings of Josephus have been largely falsified by Christian
copyists.] nor in any other historical notice of the time,
either by Rabbinic or other writers. This shows, on the one
hand, how terribly common such events must have been, when
they could be so generally omitted from the long catalogue of
Pilate's misdeeds towards the Jews. On the other hand it also
evidences that the narrative of St. Luke was derived from
independent, authentic sources, in other words, the
historical character of his narrative, when he could refer as
well known to facts, which are not mentioned in any other
record of the times; and, lastly, that we are not warranted
in rejecting a notice, simply because we find no other
mention of it than on the pages of the Third Gospel.
It appears that, just then, or quite 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
Temple, while engaged in offering their sacrifices, [d St.
Luke xiii. 1-5.] so that, in the pictorial language of the
East, 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. Two questions here arise. Since between Christ's
visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles and that at
the Dedication of the Temple no Festival took place, it is
most probable that this event had happened before Christ's
visit to Jerusalem. But in that case it seems most likely,
almost certain, that Christ had heard of it before. If so,
or, at any rate, if it was not quite a recent event, why did
these men tell Him of it then and there? Again, it seems
strange that, although the Jews connected special sins with
special punishments, they should have regarded it as the
Divine punishment of a special sin to have been martyred by a
Pilate in the Temple, while engaged in offering sacrifices.
All this becomes quite plain, if we regard these men as
trying to turn the edge of Jesus' warning by a kind of 'Tu
quoque' argument. Very probably these Galileans were thus
ruthlessly 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, 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 He adduced another
instance, [a St. Luke xiii. 4.] when a tower at the
Siloam-Pool had fallen on eighteen persons and killed them,
perhaps in connection with that construction 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 (the Qorban), [b Jes. War. ii. 9. 4.] 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. And yet wider
than this, and applying to all time, is the underlying
principle, that, when a calamity befalls a district or an
aggregation of individuals, we ought not to take to ourselves
judgment as to its special causation, but to think
spiritually of its general application, not so much seek to
trace what is the character of its connection with a district
or individuals, as to learn its lessons and to regard them as
a call addressed to all. And conversely, also, this holds
true in regard to deliverances.
Having thus answered the implied objection, the Lord next
showed, in the Parable of the Fig-tree, [a St. Luke xiii.
6-9.] the need and urgency of national repentance. [1 For the
exposition of this Parable, I refer to that of all the
Parables of that period.
The second event recorded by St. Luke in this connection [b
St. Luke xiii. 10-17.] recalls the incidents of the early
Judaean [c St. John v 16.] and of the Galilean Ministry. [d
St. Matt. xii. 9-13.] We observe the same narrow views
andexternalism as before in regard to the Sabbath on the part
of the Jewish authorities, and, on the part of Christ, the
same wide principles and spiritual application. If we were in
search of evidence of the Divine Mission of Jesus, we would
find it in this contrariety on so fundamental a point, since
no teacher in Israel nor Reformer of that time, not the most
advanced Sadducee, would have defended, far less originated,
the views as to the Sabbath which Christ now propounded. [2
On the Sabbath-Law, see Appendix XVII.] Again, if we were in
quest of evidence of the historical truthfulness of the
Gospel-narratives, we would find it in a comparison of the
narratives of the three Sabbath-controversies: in Jerusalem,
in Galilee, and in Peraea. In all the spirit was the same.
And, although the differences between them may seem slight,
they are characteristic, and mark, as if they pointed to it
with the finger, the locality and circumstances in which each
took place. In Jerusalem there is neither reasoning nor
rebuke on the part of the Jews, but absolute persecution.
There also the Lord enters on the higher exposition of His
action, motives, and Mission. [e St. John v 16, 17 &c.] In
Galilee there is questioning, and cunning intrigue against
Him on the part of the Judaeans who dogged His steps. But
while no violence can be attempted against Him, the people do
not venture openly to take His part. [f St. Matt. xii. 1-21]
But in Peraea we are 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,
instead, 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 fer healing on other days, not
perceiving, in his narrow-minded bigotry, what this admission
implied. This rustic Ruler had not the cunning, nor even the
courage, of the Judaean Pharisees in Galilee, whom the Lord
had formerly convicted and silenced. Enough, to show this
obscure Peraean partisan of Pharisaism and the like of him
their utter folly, and that by their own admissions. [a St.
Luke xiii. 15, 16] And presently, not only were His
adversaries ashamed, while in Galilee they went out and held
a council against Him, [b St. Matt. xii. 14] but the people
were not afraid, as the Galileans had been in presence of
their rulers, and openly rejoiced in the glorious working of
the Christ.
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. It is quite true that most,
if not all, such diseases were connected with moral
distemper, since demoniac possession was not permanent, and
resistance might have been made in the lucid intervals, if
there had been moral soundness. But it is ungrounded to
distinguish between the 'spirit of infirmity' as the moral
and psychical, and her being 'bent,' as indicating the
physical disease, [1 This is the view of Godet, who regards
the 'Thou hast been loosed' as referring to the psychical
ailment.] or even to describe the latter as a 'permanent
curvature of the spine. [2 So Dean Plumptre.] The Greek word
here rendered 'infirmity' has passed into Rabbinic language
(Isteniseyah, ), and there means, not any particular disease,
but sickliness, sometimes weakliness. In fact, she was, both
physically and morally, not sick, but sickly, 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 had not yielded, she had not effectually 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
circumstances of her healing. When Christ, seeing her,
probably a fit symbol of the Peraeans in that Synagogue,
called her, she came; when He said unto her, 'Woman, thou
hast been loosed [3 So, and not as in the A. V.] 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 strengthened 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 see 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 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 admisions
your practice and your Law condemn your speech. Every one on
the Sabbath looseth his ox or ass, and leads him to the
watering. The Rabbinic law expressly allowed this, [1 It was
not contrary to the Rabbinic law, as Canon Cook (ad loc.)
supposses. The rule is quite different from that which
applied in St. Matt. xii. 11.] and even to draw the water,
provided the vessel were not carried to the animal. [a Erub.
17 b; 20 b.]If, as you admit, I have the power of 'loosing'
from the bonds of Satan, and she has been 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 and irresistible; it did what
was intended: it covered the adversaries with shame. And the
Peraeans in that Synagogue felt also, at least for the time,
the blessed 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 rightly directing it, by setting before them
'the Kingdom,' which He had come both to preach and to bring,
in all its freeness, reality, power, 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: first, to the Miracle they had witnessed;
then, to the contention that had passed; and, lastly, to
their own state of feeling. And the practical application of
these Parables must have been obvious to all.
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
AT THE FEAST OF THE DEDICATION OF THE TEMPLE.
CHAPTER XIV
(St. Luke xiii. 22; St. John x. 22-42.)
ABOUT two months had passed since Jesus had left Jerusalem
after the Feast of Tabernacles. Although we must not commit
ourselves to such calculations, we may here mention the
computation which identifies the first day of the Feast of
Tabernacles of that year [a 28 A.D.] with Thursday the 23rd
September; the last, 'the Great Day of the Feast,' with
Wednesday the 29th; the Octave of the Feast with the 30th
September; and the Sabbath when the man born blind was healed
with the 2nd of October. [1 Wieseler, Chronolog. Synopse, pp.
482, 483.] In that case, 'the Feast of the Dedication of the
Temple,' which commenced on the 25th day of Chislev, and
lasted eight days, would have begun on Wednesday the 1st, and
closed on Wednesday the 8th December. But, possibly, it may
have been a week or two later. At that Feast, or about two
months after He had quitted the City, we find Christ once
more in Jerusalem and in the Temple. His journey thither
seems indicated in the Third Gospel (St. Luke xiii. 22), and
is at least implied in the opening words with which St. John
prefaces his narrative of what happened on that occasion. [b
St. John x. 22.] [2 It must, however, be admitted that some
commentators draw an opposite inference from these words.]
As we think of it, there seems special fitness, presently to
be pointed out, in Christ's spending what we regard as the
last anniversary season of His Birth [3 The subject has been
more fully treated in an article in the 'Leisure Hour' for
Dec. 1873: 'Christmas, a Festival of Jewish Origin.'] in the
Temple at that Feast. It was not of Biblical origin, but had
been instituted by Judas Maccabaeus 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. [c 1 Macc. vi. 52-59.] Accordingly, it was
designated as 'the Dedication of the Altar.' [d u. s. vv.
56-59.] Josephus [e Ant. xii. 7. 7.] calls it 'The
Lights,'from one of the principal observances at the Feast,
though he speaks in hesitating language of the origin of the
festival as connected with this observance, probably because,
while he knew, he was ashamed to avow, and yet afraid to deny
his belief in the Jewish legend connected with it. The Jews
called it Chanukkah, 'dedication' or 'consecration,' and, in
much the same sense, Enkainia in the Greek of the LXX., [a
Ezra vi. 16, 17; Neh. xii. 27; Dan. iii. 2.] [1 Similarly,
the cognate words as well as the verb ( ), are frequently
used both in the LXX. and the Apocrypha. The verb also occurs
Heb. ix. 18; x. 20.] and in the New Testament. During the
eight days of the Feast the series of Psalms known as at the
Hallel [b Ps. cxiii. cxviii.] was chanted in the Temple, the
people responding as at the Feast of Tabernacles. [2 See ch.
vii. This was always the case when the Hallel was chanted.]
Other rites resembled those of the latter Feast. Thus,
originally, the people appeared with palm-branches. [c 2
Macc. x. 7.] This, however, does not seem to have been
after-wards observed, while another rite, not mentioned in
the Book of Maccabees, that of illuminating the Temple and
private houses, became characteristic of the Feast. Thus, the
two festivals, which indeed are put in juxtaposition in 2
Macc. x. 6, seem to have been both externally and internally
connected. The Feast of the 'Dedication,' or of 'Lights,'
derived from that of Tabernacles its duration of eight days,
the chanting of the Hallel, and the practice of carrying
palm-branches. On the other hand, the rite of the
Temple-illumination may have passed from the Feast of the
'Dedication' into the observances of that of 'Tabernacles.'
Tradition had it, that, when the Temple-Services were
restored by Judas Maccabaeus, the oil 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 continually
replenished during eight days, till a fresh supply could be
brought from Thekoah. In memory of this, it was ordered the
following year, that the Temple be illuminated for eight days
on the anniversary of its 'Dedication.' [d Shabb. 21 b, lines
11 to 8 from bottom.] The Schools of Hillel and Shammai
differed in regard to this, as on most other observances. The
former would have begun the first night with the smallest
number of lights, and increased it every night till on the
eighth it was eight times as large as on the first. The
School of Shammai, on the other hand, would have begun with
the largest number, and diminished, till on the last night it
amounted to an eighth of the first. Each party had its own,
not very satisfactory, reasons for its distinctive practice,
and its own adherents. [e Shabb. 21 b, about the middle.] But
the 'Lights' in honour of the Feast were lit not only in the
Temple, but in every home. One would have sufficed for the
whole household on the first evening, but pious householders
lit a light for every inmate of the home, so 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 is on the right). Certain
benedictions are spoken on lighting these lights, all work is
stayed, and the festive time spent in merriment. The first
night is specially kept in memory of Judith, who is supposed
then to have slain Holofernes, and cheese is freely partaken
of as the food of which, according to legend, [1 In regard to
the latter Jewish legend, the learned reader will find full
quotations (as, in general, much interesting information on
the 'Feast of the Dedications') in Selden, de Synedriis (ed.
Frcf. 1696) p. 1213, and in general from p. 1207 to 1214.]
she gave him so largely, to incite him to thirst and
drunkenness. [2 The reader will find much that is curious in
these four Midrashim (apud Jellinek, Beth haMidr. i. pp.
130-146): the Maaseh Jehudith, 2 Midr. for Chanukkah, and he
Megillath Antiochos. See also the Megillath Taanith (ed.
Warsh. 1874), pp. 14 a to 15 b.] Lastly, during this
Festival, all fasting and public mourning were prohibited,
though some minor acts of private mourning were allowed. [a
Moed K. iii. 9; Shabb. 21 b.]
More interesting, perhaps, than this description of the
outward observances is the meaning of this Festival and its
connection with the Feast of Tabernacles, to both of which
reference has already been made. Like the Feast of
Tabernacles, it commemorated a Divine Victory, which again
gave to Israel their good land, after they had once more
undergone sorrows 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, and, according to Scriptural imagery, might that not
mean the Light of Israel, the Lamp of David?, it grew day by
day in brightness, till it shone quite 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,
especially as we remember the Jewish legend, according to
which the making of the Tabernacle had been completed on the
25th Chislev, although it was not set up till the 1st of
Nisan (the Paschal month). [b Bemidb. R. 13, ed. Warsh., p.
49 a, line 15 from top.]
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 o the people in 'Solomon's Porch.' There is
a pictorialness in the description of the circumstances,
which marks the eyewitness. It is winter, and Christ is
walking in the covered Porch, [1 The location of this 'Porch'
in the passage under the present mosque El Aksa (proposed by
Caspari, Chronol. Geogr. Einleit. p. 256, and adopted by
Archdeacon Watkins) is contrary to all the well-known facts.]
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 cannot doubt,
that the question which they put: 'How long holdest Thou us
in suspense?' had not in it an element of truthfulness or
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. [2 Commentators mostly
take quite a different view, and regard their as more or less
honest inquiry.] The more clearly we perceive this, the more
wonderful appears the forbearance of Christ and the wisdom of
His answer. Briefly he puts aside their hypocrisy. What need
is there of fresh speech? He told them before, and they
'believe [3 According to the better reading, in the present
tense.] not.' From words He appeals to the mute but
indisputable witness of deeds: the works which He wrought in
His Father's Name. Their non-belief in presence of these
facts was due to their not being of His Sheep. As he had said
unto them before, [4 This clause in ver. 26 of the A.V. must,
if retained, be joined to ver. 27.] 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 words of Christ, a triplet of double
parallelisms concerning the Sheep and the Shepherd, in
ascending climax, [a St. John x. 27, 28.] as follows:, [5 So,
after the precedent of Bengel, especially Luthardt and Godet,
and after them others.]
My sheep hear My Voice, And they follow me: And they shall
never perish.
And I know them, And I give unto them eternal life: And no
one shall snatch them out of My Hand.
A similar fourfold parallelism with descending and ascending
climax, but of an antithetic character, has been noticed [6
By Bengel.] in Christ's former Discourse in the Temple (St.
John x. 13, 15),
The hireling Is an hireling, Careth not for the sheep.
Fleeth
I Am the good Shepherd, Know the sheep, Lay down My Life.
Richer or more comforting assurance than that recorded above
could not have been given. But something special has here to
be marked. The two first parallelisms always link the promise
of Christ to the attitude of the sheep; not, perhaps,
conditionally, for the relation is such as not to admit
conditionalness, either in the form of 'because, therefore,'
or even of 'if, then,' 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
Commandment,' it is really the Father's Work, given to Christ
to do, and no one could snatch them out of the Father's Hand.
It is a poor cavil, to try to limit these assurances by
seeking to grasp and to comprehend them in the hollow of our
human logic. Do they convey what is commonly called 'the
doctrine of perseverance'? Nay! but they teach us, not about
our faith but about His faithfulness, and convey to us
assurance concerning Him rather than ourselves; and this is
the only aspect in which 'the doctrine of perseverance' is
either safe, true, or Scriptural.
But one logical sequence is unavoidable. Rightly understood,
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. [1 St. Augustine marks, that the word
'one' tells against Arianism, and the plural 'are' against
Sabellianism. And do they not equally tell against all
heresy?.] And so, evidently, the Jews understood it, when
they again took up stones with the intention of stoning Him,
no 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 were
indubitable. And so He does to all time. His Divine Mission
is evidence of His Divinity. And if His Divine Mission be
doubted, He appeals to the 'many excellent works' ( ) which
He hath 'showed from the Father,' any one of which might,
and, in the case of not a few, had, served as evidence of His
Mission. And when the Jews ignored, as so many in our days,
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 from the Psalms [a Ps. lxxxii. 6.] as'written in
the Law,' [1 In Rabbinic writings the word for Law (Torah, or
Oreya, or Oreyan) is very frequently used to denote not only
the Law, but the whole Bible. Let one example suffice:
'Blessed be the Merciful Who has given the threefold Law ( ,
Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa) to a threefold people
(priests, Levites, laity) by the hands of a third (Moses,
being the third born of his parents) on the third day (after
the preparation) in the third month (Sivan),' Shabb. 88 a.]
we gather that we have here a literaltranscript of the very
words of our Lord. [2 We need scarcely call attention to the
evidence which it affords of the Judean authorship of the
Fourth Gospel.] But what we specially wish, is, emphatically,
to disclaim any interpretation of them, which would seem to
imply that Christ had wished to evade their inference: that
He claimed to be One with the Father, and to convey to them,
that nothing more had been meant than what might lawfully be
applied to an ordinary man. Such certainly is not the case.
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. lxxxii. 6 the titles 'God'
(Elohim) and 'Sons of the Highest' (Beney Elyon) had been
given to Judges as the Representatives and Vicegerents of
God, wielding His deligated 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 personal and direct 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, [3 We would call attention to
the words 'The Scripture cannot be broken' (ver. 35) as
evidential of the views which Jesus took of the authority of
the Old Testament, as well as of its inspiration.] could it
be blasphemy when He claimed to be the Son of God, Who had
received, not authority through a word transmitted through
long centuries, 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? Was it not
rather the true and necessary inference from these premisses?
All would, of course, depend on this, whether Christ really
did the works of the Father. [a St. John x. 37.] That was the
test; and, as we instinctively perceive, both rationally and
truly. But if He did the works of His Father, then let them
believe, if not the words yet the works, and thus would they
arrive at the knowledge, 'and understand' [1 Thus,
accordingto the better reading.] distinguishing here the act
from the state [2 So Meyer.], that 'in Me is the Father, and
I in the Father.' In other words, recognizing 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 'they sought again to
sieze Him,' so as to drag Him before their tribunal. His
time, however, had not yet come, 'and He went forth out of
their hand', how, we know not.
Once more the Jordan rolled between Him and His bitter
persecutors. Far north, over against Galilee, in the place of
John's early labours, probably close to where Jesus Himself
had been baptized, was the scene of His last labours. And
those, who so well remembered both the Baptist and the
testimony which he had there borne to the Christ, recalled it
all as they listened to His Words and saw His Works. As they
crowded around Him, both the difference and the accord
between John and Jesus carried conviction to their minds. The
Baptist had done 'no sign,' [3 The circumstance, that,
according to the Gospels, no miracle was wrought by John, is
not only evidential of the trustworthiness of their report of
our Lord's miracles, but otherwise also deeply significant.
It shows that there is no craving for the miraculous, as in
the Apocryphal and legendary narratives, and it proves that
the Gospel-narratives were not cast in the mould of Jewish
contemporary expectation, which would certainly have assigned
another role to Elijah as the Forerunner of the Messiah than,
first, that of solitary testimony, then of forsakenness, and,
lastly, of cruel and unavenged murder at the hands of a
Herodian. Truly, the history of Jesus is not that of the
Messiah of Judaic conception!] such as those which Jesus
wrought: but all things which John had spoken of Him, they
felt it, were true. And, undisturbed by the cavils of
Pharisees and Scribes, many of these simple-minded,
true-hearted men, far away from Jerusalem, believed on Him.
To adapt a saying of Bengel: they were the posthumous
children of the Baptist. Thus did he, being dead, yet speak.
And so will all that is sown for Christ, though it lie buried
and forgotten of men, spring up and ripen, as in one day, to
the deep, grateful, and external joy of them who had laboured
in faith and gone to rest in hope.
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
THE SECOND SERIES OF PARABLES, THE TWO PARABLES
OF HIM WHO
IS NEIGHBOUR TO US: THE FIRST, CONCERNING THE
LOVE THAT,
UNASKED, GIVES IN OUR NEED; THE SECOND,
CONCERNING THE LOVE
WHICH IS ELICITED BY OUR ASKING IN OUR NEED.
CHAPTER XV
(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.
Even if it were possible, with any certainty, chronologically
to arrange the events of each of these periods, the variety
and briefness of what is recorded would prevent our closely
following them in this narrative. Accordingly, we prefer
grouping them together as the Parables of that period, its
Discourses, and its Events. And the record of the raising of
Lazarus may serve as a landmark between our Summary of the
Parables and that of the Discourses and Events which preceded
the Lord's final appearance in Jerusalem.
These last words help us to understand the necessary
difference between the Parables of this and of the preceding
and the following periods. 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. They presented
unseen heavenly realities under emblems which required to be
translated into earthly language. It was quite easy to do so,
if you possessed the key to the heavenly mysteries;
otherwise, they were dark and mysterious. So to speak, they
were easily read from above downwards. Viewed from below
upwards, only most dim and strangely intertwining outlines
could be perceived. It is quite otherwise with the second
series of Parables. They could, as they were intended, be
understood by all. They required no translation. They were
not symbolical but typical, using the word 'type,' not in the
sense of involving a predictive element, [a As in Rom. v.
14.] but as indicating an example, or, perhaps, more
correctly, an exemplification. [a Asin 1 Cor. x. 6, 11; Phil.
iii. 17; 1 Thess. 1. 7; 2 Thess. iii 9; 1 Tim. iv. 12;Tit.
ii. 7; 1 Pet. v.3.] Accordingly, the Parables of this series
are also intensely practical. Lastly, their prevailing
character is not descriptive, but hortatory; and they bring
the Gospel, in the sense of glad tidings to the lost, most
closely and touchingly to the hearts of all who hear them.
They are signs in words, as the miracles are signs in works,
of what Christ has come to do and to teach. Most of them bear
this character openly; and even those which do not, but seem
more like warning, have still an undertone of love, as if
Divine compassion lingered in tender pity over that which
threatened, but might yet be averted.
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. As befits
their historical place in the teaching of Christ, they point
to the near future. They are the fast falling, lengthening
shadows cast by the events which are near at hand,
The Parables of the second (or Peraean) series, which are
typical and hortatory, and 'Evangelical' in character, 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.
1. The Parable of the Good Samaritan. [b St. Luke x. 25-37.]
, This Parable is connected with a question, addressed to
Jesus by a 'lawyer', not one of the Jerusalem Scribes or
Teachers, but probably an expert in Jewish Canon Law, [1 A
distinction between different classes of Scribes, of whom
some gave themselves to the study of the Law, while others
included with it that of the Prophets, such as Dean Plumptre
suggests (on St. Matt. xxii. 35), did not exist.] who
possibly made it more or less a profession in that district,
though perhaps not for gain. Accordingly, there is a marked
absence of that rancour and malice which characterised his
colleagues of Judaea. In a previous chapter it has been
shown, that this narrative probably stands in its proper
place in the Gospel of St. Luke. [2 See generally ch. v. of
this Book.] We have also 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. At any rate, there
is no occasion to impute directly evil motives to him.
Knowing the habits of his class, we do not wonder that he put
his question to 'tempt', test, try, the great Rabbi of
Nazareth. There are many similar instances in Rabbinic
writings of meetings between great Teachers, when each tried
to involve the other in dialectic difficulties and subtle
disputations. Indeed, this was part of Rabbinism, and led to
that painful and fatal trifling with truth, when everything
became matter of dialectic subtlety, and nothing was really
sacred. What we require to keep in view is, that to this
lawyer the question which he propounded was only one of
theoretic, not of practical interest, nor matter of deep
personal concern, as it was to the rich young ruler, who, not
long afterwards, addressed a similar inquiry to the Lord. [a
St. Luke xviii. 18-23.]
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. It was the old Judaism of
self-righteousness speaking without disguise: that which was
the ultimate ground of the rejecting and crucifying of the
Christ. There certainly was a way in which a man might
inherit eternal life, not indeed as having absolute claim to
it, but (as the Schoolmen might have said: de congruo) 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, and even literally, that given
on two other occasions by the Lord Himself. [b St. Matt. xix.
16-22; xxii. 34-40.] The question 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, which in the Talmud receives the
most elaborate and strange interpretation, [1 Thus: ' "With
all thy heart", with both thy impulses, that to good and that
to evil; "with all thy soul", even if it takes away thy soul;
"with all thy might" , "with all thy money." Another
interpretation: "With all thy might", in regard to every
measure with which He measures to thee art thou bound to
praise Him' (there is here a play on the words which cannot
be rendered), Ber. 54 a, about the middle.] formed part of
the daily prayers. When Jesus referred the lawyer to the
Scriptures, he could scarcely fail to quote this first
paramount obligation. Similarly, he spoke as a Rabbinic
lawyer, when he referred in the next place to love to our
neighbour, as enjoined in Lev. xix. 18. Rabbinism is never
weary of quoting as one of the characteristic sayings of its
greatest teacher, Hillel (who, of course, lived before this
time), that he 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
explanation.' [a Shabb. 31 a, about the middle.] Similarly,
Rabbi Akiba taught, that Lev. xix. 18 was the principal rule,
we might almost say, the chief summary of the Law ( ). [b
Yalkut i. 174 a, end; Siphra on the passage, ed. Weiss, p. 89
b; also Ber. R. 24, end.] Still, the two principles just
mentioned are not enunciated in conjunction by Rabbinism, nor
seriously propounded as either containing the whole Law or as
securing heaven. They are also, as we shall presently see,
subjected to grave modifications. One of these, as regards
the negative form in which Hillel put it, while Christ put it
positively, [c St. Matt. vii. 12.] [1 Hamburger (Real
Encykl., Abth. ii. p. 411) makes the remarkable admission
that the negative form was chosen to make the command
'possible' and 'practical.' It is not so that Christ has
accommodated the Divine Law to our sinfulness. See previous
remarks on this Law in Book III. ch. xviii.] has been
previously noticed. The existence of such Rabbinic
modifications, and the circumstance, already mentioned, that
on two other occasions the answer of Christ Himself to a
similar inquiry was precisely that of this lawyer, suggests
the inference, that this question may have been occasioned by
some teaching of Christ, to which they had just listened, and
that the reply of the lawyer may have been prompted by what
Jesus had preached concerning the Law.
If it be asked, why Christ seemed to give His assent to the
lawyer's answer, as if it really pointed to the right
solution of the great question, we reply: No other answer
could have been given him. On the ground of works, if that
had been tenable, this was the way to heaven. To understand
any other answer, would have required a sense of sin; and
this could not be imparted by reasoning: it must be
experienced. It is the preaching of the Law which awakens in
the mind a sense of sin. [d Rom. vii.] Besides, if not
morally, yet mentally, the difficulty of this 'way' would
soon suggest itself to a Jew. Such, at least, is one aspect
of the counter-question with which 'the lawyer' now sought to
retort on Jesus.
Whatever complexity of motives there may have been, for we
know nothing of the circumstances, and there may have been
that in the conduct or heart of the lawyer which was
specially touched by what had just passed, there can be no
doubt as to the maiu object of his 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 'Parable' show
how far orthodox Judaism was from even a true understanding,
much more from such perfect observance of this Law as would
gain heaven. Thus might He bring even this man to feel his
shortcomings and sins, and awaken in him a sense of his great
need. This, of course, would be the negative aspect of this
Parable; the positive is to all time and to all men.
That question: 'Who is my neighbour?' has ever been at the
same time the outcome of Judaism (as distinguished from the
religion of the Old Testament), and also its curse. On this
point it is duty to speak plainly, even in face of the wicked
persecutions to which the Jews have been exposed on account
of it. Whatever modern Judaism may say to the contrary, there
is a foundation of truth in the ancient heathen charge
against the Jews of odium generis humani (hatred of mankind).
God had separated Israel unto Himself by purification and
renovation, and this is the original meaning of the word
'holy' and 'sanctify' in the Hebrew ( ). They separated
themselves in self-righteousness and pride, and that is the
original meaning of the word 'Pharisee' and 'Pharisaism' ( ).
In so saying no blame is cast on individuals; it is the
system which is at fault. This question: 'Who is my
neighbour?' frequently engages Rabbinism. The answer to it is
only too clear. If a hypercriticism were to interpret away
the passage [a Ab Zar. 26 a.] which directs that idolators
are not to be delivered when in imminent danger, while
heretics and apostates are even to be led into it, the
painful discussion on the meaning of Exod. xxiii. 5 [b Babha
Mets 32 b.] would place it beyond question. The sum of it is,
that, except to avert hostility, a burden is only to be
unloaded, if the beast that lieth under it belongeth to an
Israelite, not if it belong to a Gentile; and so the
expression, [c Ex. xxiii. 5.] the ass of him that hateth
thee,' must be understood of a Jewish, and not of a Gentile
enemy ( ). [d Babha Mets. 32 b line 3 from bottom.]
It is needless to follow the subject further. But more
complete rebuke of Judaistic narrowness, as well as more
full, generous, and spiritual world-teaching than that of
Christ's Parable could not be imagined. The scenery and
colouring are purely local. And here we should remember,
that, while admitting the lawfulness of the widest
application of details for homiletical purposes, we must take
care not to press them in a strictly exegetical
interpretation. [1 As to many of these allegorisations,
Calvin rightly observes: 'Scripturae major habenda est
reverentia, quam ut germanum ejus sensum hac licentia
transfigurare liceat.' In general, see Goebel, u. s.]
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, [1 , Germ., wie er eben war,' Grimm, Clavis N.T.p. 438
b.] 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 rendered
'by chance' ( ) occurs only in this place, [2 I cannot (as
some writers do) see any irony in the expression.] for
Scripture commonly views matters in relation to agents rather
than to results. As already noted, [3 Vol. i. p. 560.] the
real meaning of the word is 'concurrence,' much like the
corresponding Hebrew term ( ). And better definition could
not be given, not, indeed, of 'Providence,' 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. Such
stately ships ride not in such shallow waters.
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 heartless conduct. Who knew what this
wounded man was, and how he came to lie there: and were they
called upon, in ignorance 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. [4 In the Greek, ver. 33
begins with 'A Samaritan, however,' to emphasise the contrast
to the priest and Levite.] 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 him, and beholding him, he was moved with
compassion.' His resolution was soon taken. 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. [a Jer. Ber. 3 a; Shabb. 134 a.]Next,
having 'set' (lifted) him on his own beast, he walked by his
side, and brought him to one of those houses of rest and
entertainment, whose designation ( ) has passed into Rabbinic
language ( ). These khans, or hostelries, by the side of
unfrequented roads, afforded free lodgment to the traveller.
But 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 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
for two days, [a St. Matt. xx. 2.] as it were, two days'
wages for his care of him, with this provision, that if any
further expense were incurred, either because the wounded man
was not sufficiently recovered to travel, or else because
something more had been supplied to him, the Good Samaritan
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 finally answered, 'Go, and do thou likewise.'
Some further lessons may be drawn. The Parable implies not a
mere enlargement of the Jewish ideas, but a complete change
of them. It is truly a Gospel-Parable, for 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.
Thus is the Parable truly Christian, and, more than this,
points up to Him Who, in our great need, became Neighbour to
us, even at the cost of all He had. And from Him, as well as
by His Word, are we to learn our lesson of love.
2. The Parable which follows in St. Luke's narrative [b St.
Luke xi. 5-13.] seems closely connected with that just
commented 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 one underlies the story of the first Parable,
the other that of the second.
Some such internal connection between the two Parables
seems, indeed, indicated even by the loose manner in which
this second Parable is strung to the request of some
disciples to be taught what to pray. [a ver. 1.] Like the
Parable of the 'Good Samaritan,' it is typical, and its
application would be the more felt, that it not only points
to an exemplification, but appeals to every man's
conciousness of what himself would do in certain given
circumstances. The latter are as follows. A man has a 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. The main circumstances
therefore are: Sudden, unthought-of sense of imperative need,
obliging to make what seems an unseasonable and unreasonable
request, which, on the face of it, offers difficulties and
has no claim upon compliance. It is, therefore, not ordinary
but, so to speak, extraordinary 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 the circumstances just detailed. The answer is
implied in what follows. [b ver. 8.] 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 [1 , Goebel, ad loc.] on account
of his importunity, he will rise up and give him as many as
he needeth.' This literal rendering will, it is hoped, remove
some of the seeming difficulties of the Parable. It is a
gross misunderstanding to describe it 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. It
must be remembered, that he who is within is a friend, and
that, under circumstances, he would at once have complied
with the request. But, in this case, there were special
difficulties, which are represented as very great; it is
midnight; he has retired to bed, and with his children; the
door is locked. And the lesson is, that where, for some
reasons, there are, or seem, special difficulties to an
answer to our prayers (it is very late, the door is no longer
open, the children have already been gathered in), 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 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. In the circumstances
described a man would persevere with his friend, and in the
end succeed. And, similarly, the Lord bids us 'ask,' and that
earnestly and believingly; 'seek,' and that 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. But the emphasis of the Parable and its lesson
are in the word 'every one' ( ). Not only this or that, but
'every one,' shall so experience it. The word points to the
special difficulties that may be in the way of answer to
prayer, the difficulties of the 'rising up,' which have been
previously indicated in the Parable. These are met by
perseverance which indicates the reality of our need ('ask'),
the reality of our belief that the supply is there ('seek'),
and the intensity and energy of our spiritual longing
('knock'). Such importunity applies to 'every one,' whoever
he be, and whatever the circumstances which would seem to
render his prayer specially difficult of answer. Though he
feel that he has not and needs, he 'ask;' though he have
lost, time, opportunities, mercies, he 'seek;' though the
door seem shut, he 'knocks.' Thus the Lord is helper to
'every one;' but, as for us, let us learn the lesson from
what we ourselves would do in analogous circumstances.
Nay, more than this, God will not decieve by the appearance
of what is not reality. He will even give the greatest gift.
The Parabolic relation is now not that of friends, but of
father and son. If the son asks for bread, will the father
give what seems such, but is only a stone? If he asks for a
fish, will he tender him what looks such, but is a serpent?
If he seek 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,
rather 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. That gift will not
disappoint by the appearance of what is not reality; it will
not decive either by the promise of what it does not give, or
by giving what would prove fatal. As we follow Christ's
teaching, we ask for the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit, in
leading us to Him, leads us into all truth, to all life, and
to what satisfies all need.
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
THE THREE PARABLES OF WARNING: TO THE
INDIVIDUAL, TO THE
NATION, AND TO THE THEOCRACY, THE FOOLISH RICH
MAN, THE
BARREN FIGTREE, THE GREAT SUPPER.
CHAPTER XVI.
(St. Luke xii. 13-21; xiii. 6-9; xiv. 16-24.)
The three Parables, which successively follow in St. Luke's
Gospel, may generally be designated as those 'of warning.'
This holds specially true of the last two of them, which
refer to the civil and the ecclesiastical polity of Israel.
Each of the three Parables is set in an historical frame,
having been spoken under circumstances which gave occasion
for such illustration.
1. The Parable of the foolish rich man. [a St. Luke xii.
13-21.] It appears, that some one among them that listened to
Jesus conceived the idea, that the authority of the Great
Rabbi of Nazareth might be used for his own selfish purposes.
This was all he had profited, that it seemed to open
possibilities of gain, stirred thoughts of covetousness. But
other inferences also come to us. 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. The presumptive evidence
which it affords as regards the effect and the subject-matter
of Christ's preaching is exceedingly interesting. 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
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. [b Bekhor viii. 2; Baba B. viii.] [1 Cases
might, however, arise when the claim was doubtful, and then
the inheritance would be divided (Baba B. ix. 2). The double
part of an eldest son was computed in the following manner.
If five sons were left, the property was divided into six
parts, and the eldest son had two parts, or one-third of the
property. If nine sons were left, the property was divided
into ten parts, and the eldest son had two parts, or a fifth
of the property. But there were important limitations to
this. Thus, the law did not apply to a posthumous son, nor
yet in regard to the mother's property, nor to any increase
or gain that might have accrued since the father's death. For
a brief summary, see Saalschutz, Mos. Recht, pp. 820 &c.]
Such an attempt for covetous purposes to make use of the pure
unselfish preaching of love, and to derive profit from His
spiritual influence, accounts for the severity with which
Christ rejected the demand, although, as we judge, He would,
under any circumstances, have refused to interfere in purely
civil disputes, with which the established tribunals were
sufficient to deal.
All this accounts for the immediate reference of our Lord to
covetousness, the folly of which He showed by this almost
self-evident principle, too often forgotten, that 'not in the
superabounding to any one [not in that wherein he has more
than enough] consisteth his life, from the things which he
possesseth.' [1 So literally.] 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 uses; the rest, the
super-abundance, forms no part of his life, and may, perhaps,
never be of use to him. Why, then, be covetous, or long for
more than we need? And this folly also involves danger. For,
the love of these things will engross mind and heart, and
care about them will drive 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 bears on all these points. It 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. It seems
implied, or, we may at least conjecture, that this was not
only due to the labour and care of the master, but that he
had devoted to it his whole thought and energy. More than
this, it seems as if, in the calculations which he now made,
he looked into the future, and saw there progressive increase
and riches. As yet, the harvest was not reaped; but he was
already considering what to do, reckoning upon the riches
that would come to him. And so he resolved to pull down the
old, and build larger barns, where he would store his future
possessions. From one aspect there would have been nothing
wrong in an act of almost necessary foresight, only great
folly in thinking, and speaking, and making plans, as if that
were already absolutely his which might never come to him at
all, which, was still unreaped, and might be garnered long
after he was dead. His life was not sustained by that part of
his possessions which were the 'superabounding.' But to this
folly was also added sin. For, God was not in all his
thoughts. In all his 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 merry.' He did not
even remember, that there was a God Who might cut short his
years.
So had he spoken in his heart, proud, selfish,
self-indulgent, God-forgetting, as he looked forth upon what
was not yet, even in an inferior sense, his own, but which he
already treated as such, and that in the most absolute sense.
And now comes the quick, sharp, contrast, which is purposely
introduced quite abruptly. 'But God said unto Him', not by
revelation nor through inward presentiment, but, with awful
suddenness, in those unspoken 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
righteousness 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 [a Shabb. 153 aline 16 &c. from top.] that a Rabbi
told his disciples, 'Repent the day before thy death;' and
when his disciples 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. Again, the son of Sirach wrote:
[b Ecclus. xi. 18, 19.] 'There is that waxeth rich by his
wariness and pinching, and this is the portion of his reward;
whereas he saith, I have found rest, and now will eat
continually of my goods; and yet he knoweth not what time
shall come upon him, and that he must leave those things to
others, and die.' But we sadly miss in all this the spiritual
application which Christ made. Similarly, the Talmud, [c Jer.
Shabb. 14c, top.] by a play on the last word ( ), in the
first verse of Psalm xlix., compares man to the weasel, which
laboriously gathers and deposits, not knowing for whom, while
the Midrash [a Debar. R. 9, ed. Warsh. p. 19 b, line 6 from
top and onwards.] tells a story, how, when a Rabbi returned
from a feast where the Host had made plans of storing his
wine for a future occasion, the Angel of Death appeared to
him, grieved for man, 'since you say, thus and thus shall we
do in the future, while no one knoweth how soon he shall be
called to die,' as would be the case with the host of that
evening, who would die after the lapse of thirty days. But
once more we ask, where is the spiritual application, such as
was made by Christ? So far from it, the Midrash adds, that
when the Rabbi challenged the Angel to show him the time of
his own death, he received this reply, that he had not
dominion over the like of him, since God took pleasure in
their good works, and added to their days!
2. The special warning intended to be conveyed by the
Parable of the Barren Fig-tree [b St. Luke xiii. 6-9.]
sufficiently appears from the context. As explained in a
previous chapter, [1 See ch. xiii. of this Book.] the Lord
had not only corrected the erroneous interpretation which the
Jews were giving to certain recent national occurences, but
pointed them to this higher moral of all such events, that,
unless speedy national repentance followed, the whole people
would perish. This Parable offers not merely an
exemplification of this general prediction of Christ, but
sets before us what 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. [c Baba K. 91 b.]
Ancient Jewish writings supply interesting particulars of
this tree and its culture. According to Josephus, in favoured
localities the ripe fruit hung on the tree for ten months of
the year, [d War. iii. 10, 8.] the two barren months being
probably April and May, before the first of the three crops
which it bore had ripened. The first figs [e Phaggim, Shebh.
iv 7.] ripened towards the end of June, sometimes earlier.
The second, which are those now dried and exported, ripened
in August; the third, which were small and of comparatively
little value, in September, and often hung all winter on the
trees. A species (the Benoth Shuach) is mentioned, of which
the fruit required three years for ripening. [f Shebh. v 1.]
The fig-tree was regarded as the most fruitful of all trees.
[a Shebh. 1, 3.] On account of its repeated crops, it was
declared not subject to the ordinance which enjoined that
fruit should be left in the corners for the poor. [b Peah 1.
4.] Its artificial inoculation was known. [c Shebh. 11. 5.]
The practice mentioned 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. [d
Moreh Nebhukh. iii. 37, apud Wetstein, ad loc.] Lastly, as
trees were regarded as by their roots undermining and
deteriorating the land, [e Baba B. 19 b.] a barren tree would
be of threefoldisadvantage: 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, [f Deut. xx,
19; Baba K. 91 b; 92 a.] it would, on the grounds above
stated, be duty to cut down a 'barren' or 'empty' tree (Ilan
seraq [g Kil. vi. 5.] ).
These particulars will enable us more fully to understand
the details of the Parable. Allegorically, the fig-tree
served in the Old Testament as emblem of the Jewish nation [h
Joel, 1. 7.] - in the Talmud, ratheras that of Israel's lore,
and hence of the leaders and the pious of the people. [i Ber.
57 a; Mikr. on Cant. i. 1.] The vineyard is in the New
Testament the symbol of the Kingdom of God, as distinct from
the nation of Israel. [k St. Matt. xx. 1&c.; xxi. 33 &c. In
Jewish thought the two were scarcely separated.] Thus far,
then, the Parable may be thus translated: God called Israel
as a nation, and planted it in the most favoured spot: as a
fig-tree in the vineyard of His own Kingdom. 'And He came
seeking,' as He had every right to do, 'fruit thereon, and
found none.' It was the third year [1 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 committed as its King - with this direction: 'Cut
it down - why 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 [2 .
Grimm rendersthe word, enervo, sterilem reddo.] the soil
(literally: And its three years' barrenness has established
(as before explained) 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 [1
. Goebel points to a similiar use of in St. Luke 1. 20; Acts
xiii. 42.] the future (coming) year shalt thou cut it down.'
The Parable needs no further commentation. [2 DeanPlumptre
regards the fig-tree as the symbol of a soul making fruitless
profession; the vineyard as that of Israel. For homiletical
purposes, or for practical application, this is, of course,
perfectly fair; but not in strict exegesis. To waive other
and obvious objections, it were to introduce modern,
Christian ideas, which would have been wholly unintelligible
to Christ's hearers.] In the words of a recent writer: [3
Goebel.] 'Between the tree and the axe nothing intervenes but
the intercession of the Gardener, Who would make a last
effort, and even His petition applies only to a short and
definite period, and, in case it pass without result, this
petition itself merges in the proposal, "But if not, then cut
it down."' How speedily and terribly the warning came true,
not only students of history, but all men and in all ages
have been made to know. Of the lawfulness of a further
application of this Parable to all kindred circumstances of
nation, community, family, nay, even of individuals, it is
not necessary to speak.
3. The third Parable of warning, that of the Great Supper [a
St. Luke xiv. 16-24.] , refers not to the political state of
Israel, but to their ecclesiastical status, and their
continuance 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 beyond
the point in this history which we have reached. Accordingly,
the attendant circumstances will be explained in the sequel.
In regard to these we only note, how appropriately such a
warning of Israel's spiritual danger, in consequence of their
hardness of heart, misrepresentation, and perversion of God's
truth, would come at a Sabbath-meal of the Pharisees, when
they lay in wait against Him, and He first challenged their
externalising of God's Day and Law to the subversion of its
real meaning, and then rebuked the self-assertion, pride, and
utter want of all real love on the part of these leaders of
Israel.
What led up to the Parable 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, instead of representing, they represented the
Kingdom, and were utterly unfit ever to do otherwise. [a St.
Luke xiv. 1-11.] The Lord had spoken of making a feast, not
for one's kindred, nor for the rich, whether such outwardly,
or mentally and spirtually 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. [b St. Luke xiv. 14.] And He had concluded with
these words: 'And thoushalt 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 Pharisaic
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 common
Jewish expectancy of a great feast [1 The expression 'eating
bread' is a well-known Hebraism, used both in the Old
Testament and in Rabbinic writings for taking part in a
meal.] at the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom. So far he
had rightly understood, and yet he had entirely
misunderstood, the words of Christ. Jesus had, indeed,
referred to the future retribution of (not, for) deeds of
love, among which He had named as an instance, suggested by
the circumstances, a feast for, or rather brotherly love and
fellowship towards, the poor and suffering. But although the
Pharisee referred to the Messianic Day, his words show that
he did not own Jesus as the Messiah. Whether or not it was
the object of his exclamation, as sometimes religious
commonplaces or platitudes are in our days, to interrupt the
course of Christ's rebukes, or, as before hinted, to provoke
Him 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, we do not say as their
condition, but as logically their moral antecedent: viz.,
love, in opposition to self-assertion and self-seeking. The
Pharisee'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 it. Accordingly, it was to this man personally [a
ver. 16.] that the Parable was addressed.
There can be no difficulty in understanding the main ideas
underlying the Parable. The man who made the 'Great Supper'
[1 Rather the principal meal, which was towards evening.] was
He Who had, in the Old Testament, prepared 'a feast of fat
things.' [b Is. xxv. 6, 7.] The 'bidding many' preceded the
actual announcement of the day and hour of the feast. We
understand by it a preliminary intimation of the feast then
preparing, and a general invitation of the guests, who were
the chief people in the city; for, as we shall presently see,
the scene is laid in a city. 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,
not necessarily to be understood of any one individual in
particular, such as John the Baptist ,but referring to
whomsoever He would employ in His Service 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 apparently agreed to come (at least,
this was implied), 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
appears only reasonable. Be it possession, business, and
pleasure (Stier), or the priesthood, the magistracy, and the
people generally (St. Augustine), or the priesthood, the
Pharisees, and the Scribes, or the Pharisees, the Scribes,
and the self-righteously virtuous, with reference to whom we
are specially to think of the threefold excuse, the main
point lies in this, that, when the time came, they all
refused to enter in, each having some valid and reasonable
excuse. But the ultimate ground of their refusal was, that
they felt no real desire, and saw nothing attractive in such
a feast; had no real reverence for the host; in short, that
to them it was not a feast at all, but something much less to
be desired than what they had, and would have been obliged to
give up, if they had complied with the invitation.
Then let the feast, for it was prepared by the goodness and
liberality of the Host, 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
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 our
feast of fellowship and love. [a St. Luke xiv. 13.]
Accordingly, theServant 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 great Lord of the house has, in His great
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, [b B. Bathr 4 , lines 8 10 from bottom.] 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,' Not certainly
as indicating their resistance and implying force, [1 It is
most sad, and seems almost incredible, that this 'constrain
to come in' has from of old been quoted in justification of
religious persecution.] but as the moral constraint of
earnest, pressing invitation, coupled with assurance both of
the reality of the feast and of their welcome to it. For,
these wanderers on the world's highway had, before the
Servant came to them, not known anything of the Master of the
house, and all was quite new and unexpected. Their being
invited by a Lord Whom they had not known, perhaps 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 enclosure, 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!
Here the Parable abruptly 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 My 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.
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
THE THREE PARABLES OF THE GOSPEL: OF THE
RECOVERY OF THE
LOST, OF THE LOST SHEEP, THE LOST DRACHM, THE
LOST SON.
CHAPTER XVII
(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. Although they treat of 'repentance,' we
can scarcely call them 'The Parables of Repentance;' for,
except in the last of them, the aspect of repentance is
subordinate to that of restoration, which is the moral effect
of repentance. They are rather 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 circumstance
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 Kingdom by study and
good works, but as that to a door open, and a welcome free to
all, 'all the publicans and sinners were [constantly] drawing
near to Him.' It has formerly been shown, [1 See Book III.
ch. xvii.] 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 of the Pharisees, we can
scarcely wonder that 'they were murmuring at Him, saying,
This man receiveth "sinners," and eateth with them. Whether
or not Christ had on this, as on other occasions, [a St.
Matt. ix. 10, 11.] joined at a meal with such persons, which,
of course, in the eyes of the Pharisees would have been a
great aggravation to His offence, their charge was so far
true, that 'this One,' in contrariety to the principles and
practice of Rabbinism, 'received sinners' as such, and
consorted with them. Nay, there was even more than they
charged Him with: He not only received them when they sought
Him, but He sought them, so as to bring them to Him; not,
indeed, that they might remain 'sinners,' but that, by
seeking and finding them, they might be restored to the
Kingdom, and there might be joy in heaven over them. And so
these are truly Gospel-Parables, although presenting only
some aspects of it.
Besides their subject-matter, these three Parables have some
other points in common. Two things are here of chief
interest. They all 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 in importance, the lost was
still God's property; and he who had wandered farthest was a
child of the Father, and considered as such. And, although
this may, in a wider sense, imply the general propriety of
Christ in all men, and the universal Fatherhood of God, yet,
remembering that this Parable was spoken to Jews, we, to whom
these Parables now come, can scarcely be wrong in thinking,
as we read them, with special thankfulness of our Christian
privileges, as by Baptism numbered among the sheep of His
Flock, the treasure of His Possession, and the children of
His Home. [1 The only other alternative would seem, if one
were to narrow the underlying ideas in a strictly
Predestinarian sense. But this seems not only incompatible
with the third Parable, where all turns on personal resolve,
but runs contrary to the whole spirit of these Parables,
which is not of the exclusion of any, but of the widest
inclusion.]
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 Sheep. 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: 'What man of you?' [b St. Luke xv. 4.] 'or
what woman?' [c ver. 8.] just as His late rebuke to them on
the subject of their Sabbath-cavils had been couched:
Which of you shall have a son or an ox fallen into a well?'
[a St. Luke xiv 5.]Not so the last Parable, of the Lost Son,
in which He passed from defence, or rather explanation, of
His conduct, to its higher reason, showing that He was doing
the work of the Father. Hence, while the element of
comparison (with that which had not been lost) appears in
most detailed form in the first Parable, it is generalised in
the second, and wholly omitted in the third.
Other differences have to be marked in the Parables
themselves. In the first Parable (that of the Lost Sheep) the
main interest centres in the lost; in the second (that of the
Lost Drachm), in the search; in the third, in the
restoration. And although in the third Parable the Pharisees
are not addressed, there is the highest personal application
to them in the words which the Father speaks to the elder
son, an application, not so much of warning, as of loving
correction and entreaty, and which seems to imply, what
otherwise these Parables convey, that at least these
Pharisees had 'murmured,' not so much from bitter hostility
to Christ, as from spiritual ignorance and misunderstanding.
Again, these Parables, and especially that of the Lost
Sheep, are evidently connected with the preceding series,
that 'of warnings.' The last of these showed how the poor,
the blind, lame, and maimed, nay, even the wanderers on the
world's highway, were to be the guests at the heavenly Feast.
And this, not only in the future, and after long and
laborious preparation, but now, through the agency of the
Saviour. As previously stated, Rabbinism placed acceptance at
the end of repentance, and made it its wages. And this,
because it knew not, nor felt the power of sin, nor yet the
free grace of God. The Gospel places acceptance at the
beginning of repentance, and as the free gift of God's love.
And this, because it not only knows the power of sin, but
points to a Saviour, provided of God.
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?
And, to take these Pharisees on their own ground, [1 There is
to some extent a Rabbinic parallel Parable (Ber. R. 86, ed.
Warsh. p. 154 b, about the middle), where one who is driving
twelve animals laden with wine, leaves the eleven and follows
the twelfth into the shop of a Gentile, for fear that the
wine which it bears might be mixed there.] should not the
Christ have done likewise to the straying and almost lost
sheep of His own flock? Nay, quite generally and to all time,
is this not the very work of the 'Good Shepherd,' and may we
not, each of us, thus draw from it precious comfort? As we
think of it, we remember that it is natural for the foolish
sheep so to wander and stray. And 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.' [a
1 Pet. ii.25.] It is not difficult in imagination to follow
the Parabolic picture: how in its folly and ignorance the
sheep strayed further and further, and at last was lost in
solitude and among stony places; how the shepherd followed
and found it, weary and footsore; and then with tender care
lifted it on his shoulder, and carried it home, gladsome 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.
It needs not, and would only diminish the pathos of this
exquisite Parable, were we to attempt interpreting its
details. They apply wherever and to whatever they can be
applied. Of these three things we think: of the lost sheep;
of the Good Shepherd, seeking, finding, bearing, rejoicing;
and of the sympathy of all who are truly friends, like-minded
with Him. These, then, are the emblems of heavenly things. In
heaven, oh, how different the feeling from that of
Pharisaism! View 'the flock' as do the Pharisees, and divide
them into those who need and who need not repentance, the
'sinners' and the 'righteous,' as regards man's application
of the Law, does not this Parable teach us that in heaven
there shall be joy over the 'sinner that repenteth' more than
over the 'ninety-and-nine' 'righteous,' which 'have not need
of repentance'? And to mark the terrible contrast between the
teaching of Christ and that of the Pharisees; to mark also,
how directly from heaven must have been the message of Jesus,
and how poor sinners must have felt it such, 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 here
literally, 'There is joy before God when those who provoke
Him perish from the world. [b Siphre, ed. Friedmann, p. 37 a,
line 13 from top.]
2. In proceeding to the second Parable, that of the Lost
Drachm, we must keep in mind that in the first the danger of
being lost arose from the natural tendency of the sheep to
wander. [1 In St. Matt. xviii. 12-14, the same Parable is
used, but with different application, not as here to the
loss, but towhat men might deem the smallness of the loss,
with special reference to the command in ver. 10 (ver. 11 in
the text of our A.V. is spurious).] In the second Parable it
is no longer our natural tendency to which our loss is
attributable. The drachm (about 7 1/2d. 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 comparison with others that need not such is
now dropped, because, whereas formerly the sheep had strayed,
though from the frowardness of its nature, here the money had
simply been lost, fallen among the dust that accumulates,
practically, was no longer money, or of use; became covered,
hidden, and was in danger of being for ever out of sight, not
serviceable, as it was intended to be and might have been.
We repeat, the interest of this Parable centres in the
search, and the loss is caused, not by natural tendency, but
by surrounding circumstances, which cover up the bright
silver, hide it, and render it useless as regards its
purpose, and lost to its owner.
3. If it has already appeared that the two first Parables
are not merely a repetition, in different form, of the same
thought, 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 thoughtful reader will have noted this
even in the Jewish parallel to the first Parable, [1 See Note
onp. 255 of this chapter.] where the reason of the man
following the straying animal is Pharisaic fear and distrust,
lest the Jewish wine which it carried should become mingled
with that of the Gentiles. Perhaps, however, this is a more
apt parallel, when the Midrash [a on Ex. iii. 1.] 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. [a Shem. R. 2,
ed. Warsh, p. 7 b, about the middle.] As a parallel to the
second Parable, this may be quoted as similar in form, though
very different in spirit, when a Rabbi notes, [b on Prov. ii.
4.] 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! [c Midr. on Cant. i.
1, ed. Warsh p. 3 a, about the middle.] And in regard to the
high place which Christ assigned to the repenting sinner, we
may note that, according to the leading Rabbis, the penitents
would stand nearer to God than the 'perfectly righteous' ( ),
since, in Is. lvii. 19, peace was first bidden to those who
had been afar off, and then only to those near. This opinion
was, however, not shared by all, and one Rabbi maintained, [d
Ber. 34 b about the middle.] that, while all the prophets had
only prophesied with reference to penitents (this had been
the sole object of their mission), yet, as regarded the
'perfectly righteous,' 'eye hath not seen' O God, beside
Thee, what He hath prepared' for them. [e Is. lxiv. 4.]
Lastly, itmay, perhaps, be noted, that the expression 'there
is joy before Him' ( ) is not uncommon in Jewish writings
with reference to events which take place on earth.
To complete these notes, it may be added that, besides
illustrations, to which reference will be made in the sequel,
Rabbinic tradition supplies a parallel to at least part of
the third Parable, that of the Lost Son. It tells us that,
while prayer may sometimes 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 return.' So, continues the Midrash, had God sent
Jeremiah after Israel in the hour of their sin with the call
to return, [f Jer. iii. 12.] and the comforting reminder that
it was to their Father. [g Debar. R. 2, on Deut. iii. 25,
which, in general, contains several references to repentance,
ed. Warsh. p. 7 b, about the middle.]
In the Parable of 'the Lost Son,' the main interest centres
in his restoration. It is not now to the innate tendency 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 circumstances. It is
the younger of two sons of a father, who is equally loving to
both, and kind even to his hired servants, whose home,
moreover, is one not only of sufficiency, but of
superabundance and wealth. The demand which he makes for the
'portion of property falling' to him is founded on the Jewish
Law of Inheritance. [1 See ch. xvi. Note 1.] Presumably, the
father had only these two sons. The eldest would receive two
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 the first-born, or
of any other children; nay, he might give all to strangers.
[2 But in regard to such disinheriting of children, even if
they were bad, it was said, that the Spirit of Wisdom did not
rest on them who made such disposition (Baba B. viii. 5).] In
such cases, as, indeed, in regard to all such dispositions,
greater latitude was allowed if the donor was regarded as
dangerously ill, than if he was in good health. In the latter
case a legal formality of actual seizure required to be gone
through. With reference to the two eventualities just
mentioned, that of diminishing or taking away the portion of
younger children, and the right of gift the Talmud speaks of
Testaments, [3 It may be interesting here to quote, in
connection with the interpretation of Heb. vii. 18, viii.
7-13, this Rabbinic principle: 'A testament makes void a
[previous] testament,' Jer. Baba B. 16 b, below.] which bear
the name Diyatiqi, as in the New Testament. [a Baba B. viii.
6; Moed K. iii. 3.] These dispositionsmight be made either in
writing or orally. But if the share of younger children was
to be diminished or taken away, the disposition must be made
by a person presumably near death (Shekhibh mera). But no one
in good health (Bari) could diminish (except by gift) the
legal portion of a younger son. [4 The present Jewish Law of
Inheritance is fully given in Fassel, Mos. Rabb. Civil-Recht,
vol. i. pp. 274-412.]
It thus appears that the younger son was, by law, fully
entitled to his share of the possessions, although, of
course, he had no right to claim it during the lifetime of
his father. That he did so, might have been due to the
feeling that, after all, he must make his own way in the
world; to dislike of the order and discipline of his home; to
estrangement from his elder brother; or, most likely, to a
desire for liberty and enjoyment, with the latent belief that
he would succeed well enough if left to himself. At any rate,
his conduct, whatever his motives, was most heartless as
regarded 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 living. Regarding the demand for his
inheritance as only a secondary trait in the Parable,
designed, on the one hand, more forcibly to bring out the
guilt of the son, and, on the other, the goodness, and
afterwards the forgiveness, of the Father, we can scarcely
doubt that by the younger son we are to understand those
'publicans and sinners' against whose reception by, and
fellowship with, Christ the Pharisees had murmured.
The next scene in the history is misunderstood when the
objection is raised, that the young man's misery is there
represented as the result of Providential circumstances
rather than of his own misdoing. To begin with, he would not
have been driven to such straits in the famine, if he had not
wasted his substance with riotous living. Again, the main
object is to show, that absolute liberty and indulgence of
sinful desires and passions ended in anything but happiness.
The Providence of God had an important part in this. Far more
frequently are folly and sin punished in the ordinary course
of Providence than by special judgments. Indeed, it is
contrary to the teaching of Christ, [a St. Luke xii. 2, 3.]
and it would lead to an unmoral view of life, toregard such
direct interpositions as necessary, or to substitute them for
the ordinary government of God. Similarly, for our awakening
also we are frequently indebted to what is called the
Providence, but what is really the manifold working together
of the grace, of God. And so we find special meaning in the
occurrence of this famine. That, in his want, 'he clave [1
More literally, 'was glued.' The LXX. translate thus the
Hebrew , 'to cleave.'] ( ) 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 feeding) was prohibited to Israelites under a curse. [b
Baba K. 82 b, and the reference to it in the Midrash on
Eccles. viii. 1.] [2 This prohibition is connected by
tradition with Maccabean times.] And even in this demeaning
service he was so evil entreated, that for very 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.'
[a Vayyik. R. 35 ed. Warsh., pp. 53 b, 54 a.] [1 The fruit
ofthe carob-tree is regarded in Jewish and heathen literature
as the poorest, and, indeed, only fit for animals. See
Wetstein ad loc. According to Jewish ideas, it took seventy
years before the carob-tree bore fruit (Bekhor. 8 a). It is
at least doubtful whether the tree is mentioned in the Old
Testament (the of 2 Sam. v. 23, 24). In the Mishnah it is
frequently referred to (Peah i. 5; Shabb. xxiv. 2; Baba B.
ii. 7). Its fruit seems to have been the food of ascetics,
such as Chanina b. Dosa, &c. (Ber. 17 b), and Simeon b.
Jochai (Shabb. 33 b), even as it had been that of John the
Baptist. Its leaves seem on occasions to have been used as
writing-material (Tos. Gitt. 2).]
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 himself,' 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 would preface his request by the confession,
that he had sinned 'against heaven', a frequent Hebraism for
'against God' [2 Other terms were also substituted (such as
'Might,' 'Mercy,' &c.), with the view of avoiding needless
mention of the Deity.] and in the sight of his father, and
hence could no longer lay claim to the name of son. The
provision of the son he had, as stated, already spent, the
name he no longer deserved. This favour only would he seek,
to be as a hired servant in his father's house, instead of in
that terrible, strange land of famine and harshness.
But the result was far other than he could have expected.
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 one,' [b St. Luke xv. 23.] as if
it had been specially fattened against his 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.' [3 Or 'kissed
him much'.] Such a reception rendered the purposed request,
to be made as one of the hired servants, impossible, and its
spurious insertion in the text of some Important manuscripts
[a ver. 21. See marg. of R. V.] affords sad evidence of the
want of spiritual tact and insight of early copyists. The
father's love had anticipated his confession, and rendered
its self-spoken sentence of condemnation impossible. 'Perfect
love casteth out fear,' and the hard thoughts concerning
himself and his deserts on the part of the returning sinner
were banished by the love of the father. And so he only made
confession of his sin and wrong, not now as preface to the
request to be taken in as a servant, but as the outgoing of a
humbled, grateful, truly penitent heart. Him whom want had
humbled, thought had brought to himself, and mingled need and
hope led a suppliant servant, the love of a father, which
anticipated his confession, and did not even speak the words
of pardon, conquered, and so morally begat him a second time
as his son. 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
[b Siphre, ed. Friedm. p. 35 a.] 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
pardoned, but the enforcement of the claim of a master. How
otherwise in the Parable and teaching of Christ!
But even so the story of love has not come to an end. 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 'stola,' 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 unshod feet, would indicate the son of the
house. And to mark this still further, the servants were not
only to bring these articles, but themselves to 'put them on'
the son, 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.' [1 Thus the text correctly. As it seems
to me, the words do not, in the first place, point to a moral
change. Dogmatically, the inference is no doubt correct, but,
as Goebel remarks, they would scarcely have, in that sense,
been addressed to the servants.]
Thus far for the reception of 'publicans and sinners,' and
all in every time whom it may concern. Now for the other
aspect of the history. 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. Informed that
his younger brother had come, and the calf long prepared
against a feast had been killed, because his father had
recovered him 'safe and sound,' he was angry, would not go
in, and even refused the request to that effect of the
father, who had come out for the purpose. The harsh words of
reproach with which he set forth his own apparent wrongs
could have only one meaning: his father had never rewarded
him for his services. On the other hand, as soon as 'this'
his 'son', whom he will not even call his brother, had come
back, notwithstanding all his disservice, he had made a feast
of joy!
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. He
spoke to the angry man, not in the language of merited
reproof, but addressed him lovingly as 'son,' 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.' [a St. Luke xv. 32.] But the main point is
this. There can be here no 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 deep misery of his felt 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: [1 It may be worth
mentioning a somewhat similar parable in Bemidb. R. 15 (ed.
Warsh. p. 62 b, near beginning). Reference is made to the
fact, that, according to Numb. vii., all the twelve tribes
brought gifts, except Levi. Upon that follows in Numb. viii.
the consecration of the Levites to the service of the Lord.
The Midrash likens it to a feast which a king had made for
all the people, but to which he does not bid his special
friend. And while the latter seems to fear that this
exclusion may imply disfavour, the king has a special feast
for his friend only, and shows him that while the common meal
was for all, the special feast is for those he specially
loves.] of service and return; the younger brother's was the
welcome of a son in the mercy and everlasting love of a
Father. And this to us, and to all time!
THE DESCENT:
FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION INTO THE
VALLEY OF
HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
THE UNJUST STEWARD, DIVES AND LAZARUS, JEWISH
AGRICULTURAL
NOTES, PRICES OF PRODUCE, WRITING AND LEGAL
DOCUMENTS, PURPLE
AND FINE LINEN, JEWISH NOTIONS OF HADES.
CHAPTER XVIII.
(St. Luke xvi.)
Although widely differing in their object and teaching, the
last group of Parables spoken during this part of Christ's
Ministry are, at least outwardly, connected by a leading
thought. The word by which we would string them together is
Righteousness. There are three Parables of the Unrighteous:
the Unrighteous Steward, the Unrighteous Owner, and the
Unrighteous Dispenser, or Judge. And these are followed by
two other Parables of the Self-righteous: Self-righteousness
in its Ignorance, and its dangers as regards oneself; and
Self-righteousness 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.
We note it, first and chiefly, between the two first
Parables. Recorded in the same chapter, [a St. Luke xvi.] and
in the same connection, they were addressed to the same
audience. True, the Parable of the Unjust Steward was
primarily spoken 'to His disciples,' [b ver 1.] that of Dives
and Lazarus to the Pharisees. [c ver. 15.] But then the
audience of Christ at that time consisted of disciples and
Pharisees. And these two classes in the audience stood in
peculiar relation to each other, which is exactly met in
these two Parables, so that the one may be said to have
sprung out of the other. For, the 'disciples,' to whom the
first Parable was addressed, were not primarily the Apostles,
but those 'publicans and sinners' whom Jesus had received, to
the great displeasure of the Pharisees. [d St. Luke xv. 1,
2.] Them He would teach concerning the Mamon of
unrighteousness. And, when the Pharisees sneered at this
teaching, He would turn it against them, and show that,
beneath the self-justification, [g ver. 17.] which made them
forget that now the Kingdom of God was opened to all, [f ver.
16.] and imagine that they were the sole vindicators of aLaw
[g ver. 17.] which in their everyday practice they
notoriously broke, [h ver. 18.] there lay as deep sin and as
great alienation from God as that of the sinners whom they
despised. Theirs might not be the Mamon of, yet it might be
that for unrighteousness; and, while they sneered at the idea
of such men making of their Mamon friends that would receive
them into everlasting tabernacles, themselves would
experience that in the end a terrible readjustment before God
would follow on their neglect of using for God, and their
employment only for self of such Mamon as was theirs, coupled
as it was with harsh and proud neglect of what they regarded
as wretched, sore-covered Lazarus, who lay forsaken and
starving at their very doors.
It will have been observed, that we lay once more special
stress on the historical connection and the primary meaning
of the Parables. We would read them in the light of the
circumstances in which they were spoken, as addressed to a
certain class of hearers, and as referring to what had just
passed. The historical application once ascertained, the
general lessons may afterwards be applied to the widest
range. This historical view will help us to understand the
introduction, connection, and meaning, of the two Parables
which have been described as the most difficult: those of the
Unjust Steward, [1 The reader who wishes to see the different
views and interpretations of this Parable is referred to the
modern commentaries, and especially to Archbishop Trench's
Notes on the Parables (13th ed.). pp. 427-452.] and of Dives
and Lazarus.
At the outset we must recall, that they were addressed to
two different classes in the same audience. In both the
subject is Unrighteousness. In the first, which is addressed
to the recently converted publicans and sinners, it is the
Unrighteous Steward, making unrighteous use of what had been
committed to his administration by his Master; in the second
Parable, which is addressed to the self-justifying,sneering
Pharisees, it is the Unrighteous Possessor, who uses only for
himself and for time what he has, while he leaves Lazarus,
who, in his view, is wretched and sore-covered, to starve or
perish, unheeded, at his very door. In agreement with its
object, and as suited to the part of the audience addressed,
the first Parable points a lesson, while the second furnishes
a warning. In the first Parable we are told, what the sinner
when converted should learn from his previous life of sin; in
the second, what the self-deceiving, proud Pharisee should
learn as regarded the life which to him seemed so fair, but
was in reality so empty of God and of love. It follows, and
this is of greatest importance, especially in the
interpretation of the first Parable, that we must not expect
to find spiritual equivalents for each of the persons or
incidents introduced. In each case, the Parable itself forms
only an illustration of the lessons, spoken or implied, which
Christ would convey to the one and the other class in His
audience.
I. The Parable of the Unjust Steward., In accordance with
the canon of interpretation just laid down, we distinguish,
1. The illustrative Parable. [a St. Luke xvi. 1-8.] 2. Its
moral. [b ver. 9.] 3. Its application in the combination of
the moral with some of the features of the Parable. [c vv.
10-13.]
1. The illustrative Parable. [d vv. 1-8.] This may be said
to converge to the point brought out in the concluding verse:
[e ver. 8.] 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 expression 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 by 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
harmlessness; 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 unrightousness,' and that, which
from its nature must fail, become eternal gain, or, to
translate it into Talmudic phraseology, it will be of the
things of which a man enjoys the interest in this world,
while the capital remains for the world to come.
It cannot now be difficult to understand the Parable. Its
object is simply to show, in the most striking manner, the
prudence of a worldly man, who is unrestrained by any other
consideration than that of attaining his end. At the same
time, with singular wisdom, the illustration is so chosen as
that its matter (materia), 'the Mamon of unrighteousness,'
may serve to point a life-lesson to those newly converted
publicans and sinners, who had formerly sacrificed all for
the sake, or in the enjoyment of, that Mamon. All else, such
as the question, who is the master and who the steward, and
such like, we dismiss, since the Parable is only intended as
an illustration of the lesson to be afterwards taught.
The connection between this Parable and what the Lord had
previously said concerning returning sinners, to which our
remarks have already pointed, is further evidenced by the use
of the term 'wasting' ( ), in the charge against the steward,
just as the prodigal son had 'wasted' ( ) his substance. [a
St. Luke xv. 13.] Only, in the present instance, the property
had been entrusted to his administration. As regards the
owner, his designation as 'rich' seems intended to mark how
large was the property committed to the steward. The
'steward' was not, as in St. Luke xii. 42-46, a slave, but
one employed for the administration cf the rich man's
affairs, subject to notice of dismissal. [b St. Luke xvi. 2,
3.] He was accused,the term implying malevolence, but not
necessarily a false charge, not of fraud, but of wasting,
probably by riotous living and carelessness, his master's
goods. And his master seems to have convinced himself that
the charge 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 as, of
course, necessary, 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 received
into the houses of those whom he has made friends. [1 A
somewhat similar parable occurs in Vayyik. R. 5 (towards the
close) about a 'prudent' farmer. When matters go badly with
his farm, he dresses himself in his best, puts on a cheerful
mien, and so appears before his landlord. By well turned,
flattering replies to the inquiries about the cattle and the
crops, he so conciliates favour, that when the landlord
finally inquires what he wished, and he requests a loan, he
receives double the sum he had asked.] 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 of his master's debtors, and
tells each to alter the sum in the bond, he does not suggest
to them forgery or fraud, but, in remitting part of the debt,
whether it had been incurred as rent in kind, or as the price
of produce purchased, 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 Mamon of
unrighteousness failed).
A few archaeological notices may help the interpretation of
details. From the context it seems more likely, that the
'bonds,' or rather 'writings,' of these debtors were written
acknowledgements of debt, than, as some have supposed that
they were, leases of farms. The debts over which the steward
variously disposed, according as he wished to gain more or
less favour, were considerable. In the first case they are
stated at 'a hundred Bath of oil,' in the second as 'a
hundred Cor of wheat.' In regard to these quantities we have
the preliminary 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. To be more precise, one
Galilean was equal to 3/2 'Wilderness' measures. Assuming the
measurement to have been the Galilean, one Bath [2 The writer
in Smith's Bibl. Dict., vol. iii. p. 1740 b, is mistaken in
saying that 'the Bath is the largest of liquid measures.'
According to Ezek. xlv. 11, the Chomer or Cor = ten bath or
ephah, was equally applied to liquid and dry measures. The
Bath (one-tenth of the Chomer or Cor) = three seah; the seah
= two hin; the hin = twelve log; the log = space of six eggs.
Further, one thirty-secondth of a log is reckoned equal to a
large (table), one sixty-fourth to a small (dessert) spoon.]
would have been equal to an Attic Metretes, or about 39
litres. On the other hand, the so-called 'Wilderness
measurement' would correspond with the Roman measures, and,
in that case, the 'Bath' would be the same as the Amphora, or
amount to a little less than 26 litres. [3 This difference
between the 'Wilderness,' or 'Mosaic,' and the 'Galilean
measure removes the difficulty (raised by Thenius) about the
capacity of the 'brazen sea' in Solomon's Temple (1 Kings
vii. 23, 26). The Bath should be calculated, not according to
the Galilean ( = Metretes = about thirty-nine litres), but
according to the 'Wilderness' measure ( = amphora = about
twenty-six litres).] The latter is the measurement adopted by
Josephus.' [a Ant. viii. 2, 9; comp. ix. 4, 5.] In the
Parable, the first debtor was owing 100 of these 'Bath,' or,
according to the Galilean measurement, about 3,900 litres of
oil. As regards the value of a Bath of oil, little
information can be derived from the statements of Josephus,
since he only mentions prices under exceptional
circumstances, either in particularly plentiful years, [b
Jewish War. ii. 21.] or else at a time of war and siege. [c
Life, 13.] In the former, an Amphora, or 26 litres, of oil
seems to have fetched about 9d.; but it must be added, that,
even in such a year, this represents a rare stroke of
business, since the oil was immediately afterwards re-sold
for eight times the amount, and this, 3s. for half an Amphora
of about 13 litres, would probably represent an exceptionally
high war-price. The fair price for it would probably have
been 9d. For the Mishnah informs us, that the ordinary
'earthenware casks' (the Gerabh) held each 2 Seah, or 48 Log,
or about 26 litres. [a Terum. x. 8.] Again, according toa
notice in the Talmud, [b Jer. Baba M. iv. 2, p. 9 d.] 100
such 'casks,' or, 200 Seah, were sold for 10 (presumably
gold) dinars, or 250 silver dinars, equal to about 7l. 10s.
of our money. And as the Bath (= 3 Seah) held a third more
than one of those 'casks,' or Gerabhin, the value of the 100
Bath of oil would probably amount to about 10l. of our money,
and the remission of the steward, of course, to 5l.
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 Ephah or Bath, the Ephah three
Seah, the Seah six Qabh, and the Qabh four Log. This must be
borne in mind, since the dry and the fluid measures were
precisely the same; and here, also, their threefold
computation (the 'Wilderness,' the 'Jerusalem,' and the
'Galilean') obtained. As regards the value of wheat, we learn
[c from Baba M. 105 b, about the middle.] that, on an
average, four Seah of seed were expected to produce one Cor,
that is, seven and a half times their amount; and that a
field 1,500 cubits long and 50 wide was expected to grow a
Cor. The average price of a Cor of wheat, bought uncut,
amounted to about 25 dinars, or 15s. Striking an average
between the lowest prices mentioned [d Peah viii. 7; Erub.
viii. 2; Baba B. 91b.] and the highest, [e Baba B 91 a.] we
infer that the price of 3 Seah or an Ephah would be from two
shillings to half-a-crown, and accordingly of a Cor (or 10
Ephah) from 20 to 25 shillings (probably this is rather more
than it would cost). On this computation the hundred Cor
would represent a debt of from 100l. to 125l., and the
remission of the steward (of 20 Cor), a sum of from 20l. to
25l. 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. [1 This will appear from the cost of
living, labour, &c.] These two debtors are only mentioned as
instances, and so the unjust steward would easily secure for
himself friends by the 'Mamon of unrighteousness,' the term
Mamon, [2 The word should be written with one m. See Grimm s.
v.] we may note, being derived from the Syriac and Rabbinic
word of the same kind ( , from , , to apportion). [3 Grimm
(after Drusius) derives it from , but this is most unlikely.
The derivation of Lagarde (ap. Kautzsch, p. 173) seems very
difficult. Buxtorf (s. v.) largely, but not very
satisfactorily, discusses its etymology. The view in the text
has the sanction of Levy.]
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 alteration. It would
be impossible, within the present limits, to enter fully on
the interesting subject of writing, writing-materials, and
written documents among the ancient Jews. [1 I must here
refer generally to the monograph of Low (Graphische Requis.
u. Erzeugn., 2 vols.). Its statements require, however,
occasionally to be rectified. See also Herzfeld,
Handelsgesch. pp. 113 &c., and Note 17.] Suffice it to give
here the briefest notices.
The materials on which the Jews wrote were of the most
divers 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 parchment); 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, as Papir [a Sot. 49
b.] or Apipeir, [b Kel. xxiv. 7.] but more frequently by that
of Nayyar, probably from the stripes (Nirin) of the plant of
which it was made. [2 Low, u. s. vol. i. pp.97, 98. It is
curious to learn that in those days also waste paper went to
the grocer. (Baba M. 56 b.)] But what interests us more, as
we remember the 'tablet' ( ) on which Zacharias wrote the
name of the future Baptist, [c St. Luke i. 63.] is
thecircumstance that it bears not only the same name, Pinaqes
or Pinqesa, but that it seems to have been of such common use
in Palestine. [3 From earlier times comes to us notice of the
Gillayon (Is. viii. 1), a smooth tablet of wood, metal, or
stone, and of the Cheret, or stylus (Is. viii. 1), and the
Et, which means probably not only a stylus but also a calamus
(Ps. xlv. 2; Jer. viii. 8.)]. It consisted of thin pieces of
wood (the Luach) fastened or strung together. The Mishnah [d
Kel. xxiv. 7.] enumerates three kinds of them: those where
the wood was covered with papyrus, [4 So Sachs, Beitr. z.
Sprach u. Alterth. Forsch. vol. i. p. 165; but Low (u. s.)
seems of different opinion.] 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 (the Deyo), or of vegetable or mineral
substances. [5 The Deyo seems to have been a dry substance
which was made into black ink. Ink from gall-nuts appears to
be of later invention.] Gum Arabic and Egyptian (Qumos and
Quma) and vitriol (Qanqanthos) seem also to have been used [e
Shabb. xii. 4.] in writing. It is curious to read of writing
in colours and with red ink or Siqra, [f u. s.] and even of a
kind of sympathetic ink, made from the bark of the ash, and
brought out by a mixture of vitriol and gum. [g Jer. Shabb 13
d. about the middle.] We also read of a gold-ink, as that in
which the copy of the Law was written which, according to the
legend, the High-Priest had sent to Ptolemy Philadelphus for
the purpose of being translated into Greek by the LXX. [a
Jos. Ant. xii. 2. 10.]But the Talmud prohibits copies of the
Law in gold letters, [1 But the learned Relandus asserts that
there were in his country such texts written in gold letters,
and that hence the Talmudic prohibition could have only
applied to the copies used in the Synagogues (Havercamp's ed.
of Josephus, vol. i. p. 593, Note e.)] or more probably such
in which the Divine Name was written in gold letters. [b
Shabb. 103 b; Sopher. i. 9.] [2 Not to make a distinction
between any portions of Scripture, and also from the curious
Kabbalistic idea that somehow every word in the Bible
contained the Divine Name.] In writing, a pen, Qolemos, made
of reed (Qaneh [c Shabb. viii. 5.] was used, and the
reference in an Apostolic Epistle [d 3 John 13.] to writing
'with ink and pen' ( ) finds even its verbal counterpart in
the Midrash, which speaks of Milanin and Qolemin (ink and
pens). Indeed, the public 'writer', a trade very common in
the East [3 We read of one, Ben Qamtsar, who wrote four
letters (the Tetragram) at once, holding four reeds
(Qolemosin) at the same time between his four fingers (Yoma
38 b). The great R. Meir was celebrated as a copyist,
specially of the Bible, at which work he is said to have made
about 8s. weekly, of which, it is stated, he spent a third on
his living, a third on his dress, and a third on charity to
Rabbis (Midr. on Eccles. ii. 18, ed. Warsh. p. 83 b, last two
lines). The codices of R. Meir seem to have embodied some
variations of the common text. Thus, in the Psalms he wrote
Halleluyah in one word, as it it had been an interjection,
and not in the orthodox way, as two words: Hallelu Yah (Jer.
Meg. 72 a). His codices seem also to have had marginal notes.
Thus, on the words 'very good' ( ), Gen. i. 31, he noted
'death is good' ( ), a sort of word-play, to support his
view, that death was originally of God and created by Him, a
natural necessity rather than a punishment (Ber. R. 9.).
Similarly, on Gen. iii. 21, he altered in the margin the
'skin,' of the text into 'light,' thus rendering 'garments of
light' (u. s. 20). Again, in Gen. xlvi. 23, he left out the
from, rendering it 'And the son of Dan was Chushim' (u. s.
94.). Similarly, he altered the words, Is. xxi. 11, 'the
burden of Dumah' into Roma, (Jer. Taan. p. 64 a, line 10 from
top.)]. went about with a Qolemos, or reed-pen, behind his
ear, as a badge of his employment. [e Shabb. i. 3.] [4
Similarly, the carpenter carried a small wooden rule behind
his ear.] With the reed-pen we ought to mention its necessary
accompaniments: the penknife, [f Already mentioned in Jer.
xxxvi. 23, and in theMishnah called Olar. Kel. xii. 8.] the
inkstand (which, when double, for black and red ink, was
sometimes made of earthenware, Qalamarim [g Kel. ii. 7.]),
and the ruler [h Kel. xii. 8.], it being regarded bythe
stricter set as unlawful to write any words of Holy Writ on
any unlined material, no doubt to ensure correct writing and
reading. [i Meg. 16 b.] [5 Letters, other documents, or bales
of merchandise, were sealed with a kind of red clay.]
In all this we have not referred to the practice of writing
on leather specially prepared with salt and flour, [k Meg. 17
a; 19 a.] nor to the Qelaph, or parchment in the stricter
sense. [m Shabb. viii. 3.] For we are here chiefly interested
in the common mode of writing, that on the Pinaqes, or
'tablet,' and especially on that covered with wax. Indeed, a
little vessel holding wax was generally attached to it
(Pinaqes sheyesh bo beth Qibbul shaavah [n Kel. xvii. 17.] On
such a tablet they wrote, of course, not with a reed-pen, but
with a stylus, generally of iron. This instrument consisted
of two parts, which might be detached from each other: the
hard pointed 'writer' (Kothebh), and the 'blotter' (Mocheq)
which was flat and thick for smoothing out letters and words
which had been written or rather graven in the wax. [a Kel.
xiii. 2.] 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, [b Ab. iii. 16.] but there are special provisions
in regard to documents where there are such erasures, or
rather effacements: such as, that they require to be noted in
the document, [c Baba B. 161 b.] under what conditions and
how the witnesses are in such cases to affix their
signatures, [d u. s. 163 a, b; 164 a.] just as there are
particular injunctions how witnesses who could not write are
to affix their mark.
But although we have thus ascertained that 'the bonds' in
the Parable must have been written on wax, or else, possibly,
on parchment, where the Mocheq, or blotter, could easily
efface the numbers, we have also evidence that they were not,
as so often, written on 'tablets' (the Pinaques). For, the
Greek term, by which these 'bonds' or 'writings' are
designated in the Parable ( [e St. Luke xvi. 7.]), is the
same as is sometimes used in Rabbinic writings (Gerammation)
for an acknowledgment of debt; [f Shem. R. 15] [1 The
designations for the general formulary (Tophos, or Tiphos
(Gitt. iii. 2), = typos), and for the special clauses (Toreph
= Tropos) were of Greek derivation. For the full draft of the
various legal documents we refer the reader to Note ix. at
the end of Sammter's edition of Baba Mets. pp. 144-148. How
many documents of this kind Jewish legalism must have
invented, may be gathered from the circumstance that Herzfeld
(u. s. p. 314) enumerates not fewer than thirty-eight
different kinds of them! It appears that there were certain
forms of these and similar documents, prepared with spaces
left blank to be filled in (Gitt. iii. .2)] the Hebraised
Greek word corresponding to the more commonly used (Syriac)
term Shitre (Shetar), which also primarily denotes
'writings,' and is used specifically for such
acknowledgments. [g Baba M. i. 8.] [2 The more full
designation was Shetar Chobh, a writing of debt (Baba M. i.
6), or Shetar Milvah (Gitt. iii. 2), a writing of loan.] Of
these there were two kinds. The most formal Shetar was not
signed by the debtor at all, but only by the witnesses, who
were to write their names (or marks) immediately (not more
than two lines) below the text of the document, to prevent
fraud. Otherwise, the document would not possess legal
validity. Generally, it was further attested by the Sanhedrin
[3 The attestation of the court was called Qiyum Beth Din,
'the establishment of the court,' Ashra, or Asharta,
strengthening, or Henpheq (Baba Mez. 7 b), literally, the
production, viz. before the court.] of three, who signed in
such manner as not to leave even one line vacant. [h Baba B.
163 a, b.] Such a document contained the names of creditor
and debtor, the amount owing, and the date, together with a
clause attaching the property of the debtor. In fact, it was
a kind of mortgage; all sale of property being, as with us,
subject to such a mortgage, [a Babha B. x. 8.] which bore
thename Acharayuth (probably, 'guarantee' [1 For the
derivation and legal bearing of the term, see Low, vol. ii.
p. 82.]) When the debt was paid, the legal obligation was
simply returned to the debtor; if paid in part, either a new
bond was written, or a receipt given, which was called
Shobher [b Babha M. 7.] or Tebhara, because it 'broke' the
debt.
But in many respects different were those bonds which were
acknowledgements of debt for purchases made, such as we
suppose those to have been which are mentioned in the
Parable. In such cases it was not uncommon to dispense
altogether with witnesses, and the document was signed by the
debtor himself. In bonds of this kind, the creditor had not
the benefit of a mortgage in case of sale. We have expressed
our belief that the Parable refers to such documents, and we
are confirmed in this by the circumstance that they not only
bear a different name from the more formal bonds (the
Shitre), but one which is perhaps the most exact rendering of
the Greek term ( , [c Babha B. x. 8.] a 'writing of hand,'
'note of hand' [2 Although it is certain that letters of
credit were used by the Jews of old, there is sufficient
reason for believing that 'bills' were first introduced into
commerce by the Italians, and not by Jews.]). For
completeness' sake we add, in regard to the farming of land,
that two kinds of leases were in use. Under the first, called
Shetar Arisuth, the lessee (Aris= ) [3 But Guisius (in
Surenhusius' Mishna, vol. i. pp. 56, 57) gives a different
derivation and interpretation, which the learned reader may
consult for himself.] received a certain portion of the
produce. He might be a lessee for life, for a specified
number of years, or even a hereditary tiller of the ground;
or he might sub-let it to another person. [d Babha B 46 b.]
Under the second kind of lease, the farmer, or Meqabbel,
entered into a contract for payment either in kind, when he
undertook to pay a stipulated and unvarying amount of
produce, in which case he was called a Chokher (Chakhur or
Chakhira [4 The difference between the Aris and the Chokher
is stated in Jer. Bikkur. 64 b.]), or else a certain annual
rental in money, when he was called a Sokher. [5 The
difference between the Chokher and the Sokher is expressed in
Tos. Demai vi. 2. Ugolini (Thes. vol. xx. pp. cxix., cxx.)
not only renders but copies this passage wrongly. A more
composite bargain of letting land and lending money for its
better cultivation is mentioned in B. Mez. 69 b.]
2. From this somewhat lengthened digression, we return to
notice the moral of the Parable. [e St. Luke xvi. 9.] It is
put in these words: 'Make to yourselves friends out of [by
means of] the Mamon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall
fail, [6 This, and not 'they shall fail,' is the correct
reading.] they may receive you into everlasting tabernacles.'
From what has been previously stated, the meaning of these
words offers little serious difficulty. We must again recall
the circumstances, 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 [1 So in the Targ. on
Hab. ii. 9, .] in the Targum, would have an obvious meaning.
Among us, also, there are not a few who may feel its aptness
as they look back on the past, while to all it carries a much
needed warning. 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.
[a Ps. xv. i.; xxvii. 5, the latter being realistically
understood in Siphra.] [2 Comp. Schottgen ad loc.] But as a
whole we regard it (as previously hinted) 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
application to the audience of Christ appears from its
similarity to what occurs in Jewish writings. Thus, the
reasoning that the Law could not have been given to the
nations of the world, since they have not observed the seven
Noachic commandments (which Rabbinism supposes to have been
given to the Gentiles), is illustrated by a Parable in which
a king is represented as having employed two administrators
(Apiterophin); one over the gold and silver, and the other
over the straw. The latter rendered himself suspected, and,
continues the Parable when he complained that he had not been
set over the gold and silver, they said unto him: Thou fool,
if thou hast rendered thyself suspected in regard to the
straw, shall they commit to thee the treasure of gold and
silver? [b Yalkut, vol. i. p. 81 a, lines 19 &c, from top.]
And we almost seem to hear the very words of Christ: 'He that
is faithful [3 No doubt the equivalent for the Rabbinic
accreditus, and used in the same sense.] 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. [a Shem. R., ed. Warsh., p. 7 b, abcut the middle.]
Considering that the Jewish mind would be familiar with such
modes of illustration, there could have been no
misunderstanding of the words of Christ. These converted
publicans might think, and so may some of us, that theirs was
a very narrow sphere of service, one of little importance; or
else, like the Pharisees, and like so many others among us,
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
truth, the test of the other. [b St. Luke xvi. 10.] 'He that
is faithful', or, to paraphrase the word ( ), he that has
proved himself, is accredited (answering to ) 'in the least,
is also faithful [accredited] in much; and who in the least
is unjust is also in much unjust.' Therefore, if a man failed
in faithful service of God in his wordly matters, in the
language of the Parable, if he were not faithful in the Mamon
of unrighteousness, 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 application
of all was this, that dividedness was impossible in the
service of God. [c ver. 13.] It is impossible for the
disciple to make separation between spiritual matters and
worldly, and to attempt serving God in the one and Mamon in
the other. There is absolutely no such distinction to the
disciple, and our common usage of the words secular and
spiritual is derived from a terrible 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.
II. The Parable of Dives and Lazarus. [d St. Luke xvi.
14-31.], Although primarily 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. This
consecration of all to God as the necessary condition of high
spiritual service, and then of higher spiritual standing, as
it were 'ownership', such as they claimed, was a very hard
saying. It touched their covetousness. They would have been
quite ready to hear, nay, they believed that the 'true'
treasure had been committed to their trust. But that its
condition was, that they should prove themselves God-devoted
in 'the unrighteous Mamon,' faithful in the employment of it
in that for which it was entrusted to their stewardship, this
was not to be borne. Nor yet, that such prospects should be
held out to publicans and sinners, while they were withheld
from those who were the custodians of the Law and of the
Prophets. But were they faithful to the Law? And as to their
claim of being the 'owners,' the Parable of the Rich Owner
and of his bearing would exhibit how unfaithful they were in
'much' as well as in 'little,' in what they claimed as owners
as well as in their stewardship, and this, on their own
showing of their relations to publicans and sinners: the
Lazarus who lay at their doors.
Thus viewed, the verses which introduce the second Parable
(that of Dives and Lazarus) will appear, not 'detached
sayings,' as some commentators would have us believe, but
most closely connected with the Parable to which they form
the Preface. Only, here especially, must we remember, that we
have only Notes of Christ's Discourse, made years before by
one who had heard it, and containing the barest outline, as
it were, the stepping-stones, of the argument as it
proceeded. Let us try to follow it. As the Pharisees heard
what Christ said, their covetousness was touched. It is said,
moreover, that they derided Him, literally, 'turned up their
noses at Him.' [a St. Luke xvi. 14.] The |
