YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE KING

AND

THE KINGDOM.

THE KING

AND

THE KINGDOM:

A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.

' To the present age is ascribed productiveness and changeableness of opinions, and at the
same time indifference to opinions. But that cannot arise from this : no man in all corrupted
Europe can be indifferent to truth as such, for it, in the last resort, decides upon his life ; but
every one is at last become cold and shy towards the erring teachers and preachers of truth.
Take the hardest heart and brain which withers away in any capital city, and only give him the
certainty that the spirit which approaches him brings down from eternity the key which opens
and shuts the so weighty gates of his life-prison, of death, and of heaven, — and the dried-up
worldly man, so long as he has a care or a wish, must seek for a truth which can reveal to him
that spirit.' — Richter's Levanct.
' Hasten the time when, unfettered by sectarian intolerance, and unawed by the authority of
men, the Bible shall make its rightful impression upon all ; the simple and obedient readers
thereof calling no man Master, but Christ only.' — Dr. Chalmers.
' I speak as to wise men ; judge ye what I say.'— 1 Cor. x. 15.

SECOND SERIES.

New Yoek: Ot. P. PUTNAM'S SONS.
London: WILLIAMS AND NOEGATE.
1893.

Yale Divinity Library
Nrw Haven, Qsnn.

vi PREFACE.
Truth at which they clutch ; on the other side is a band of
honest, fearless sceptics, acute in the exercise of criticism, and
so self-confident that they scruple not to adopt unhesitatingly
the conclusions of their own minds, to the utter rejection of
whatever appears miraculous in the gospel narratives. Yet
surely the compilers, who wrote in apostolic times, were not
destitute of common sense and powers of judgment, and they
must have had infinitely better means of arriving at the facts
than can be claimed by any investigator after the lapse of
eighteen centuries.
Disregarding alike dogmatic interpretations and hostile
criticisms, it is no small comfort to turn to the narratives
themselves, seeking with patient study their true import.
Independent and unprejudiced enquiry is the best preservative
against the two extremes of believing too easily or doubting
too much. To do full justice to the authors of the Gospels we
must take their work as it were fresh from their own hands.
If the gospel histories are worth anything, they will be self-
luminous, and by their own light alone should they be inter
preted. If in the main points and circumstances they are held
to be not reliable, they can scarcely be deemed worthy of
serious study.
In this spirit the following investigation has been conducted.
Everything is sought to be taken as it stands, without abate
ment and without addition, the simple obj ect being to arrive at
the facts intended to be conveyed by the evangelists, and to
grasp the truths and doctrines taught by Jesus.
Not scholarship, as may easily be seen, but only earnestness
of thought and sincerity of purpose, can be urged in favour of
this work. It is the outcome of many years of painstaking,
loving labour, the foundation having previously been laid by a
similar methodical and careful review of each of the four
gospels separately. Not until that apprenticeship to the sub
ject was ended, did the author venture to undertake the more
important task of combining the four narratives, pondering
them as before verse by verse, phrase by phrase, and when
necessary word by word. No preconceived ideas, his own or

PREFACE. vii
of others, were voluntarily allowed to influence the investiga
tion ; no theories or doctrines had to be upheld, no reasonable
conclusions needed to be shrunk from or evaded, no fear of
adverse judgment or criticism, no dread of blame, no hope of
praise or profit have been at work to interfere with the expres
sion of free and honest thought. That fact may serve, it is
hoped, to extenuate any apparently undue boldness of utter
ance : if the writer seems, as may often be the case, to under
value the opinions of other men, it is not out of disrespect, but
simply because truth is to be prized above everything ; when
ever the conclusions arrived at are strongly stated, it is because
they have been as strongly felt. A careful reader will note the
gradual growth of opinion from first to last. The true nature
of Christ's gospel, of the kingdom of heaven, and of real dis-
cipleship to Jesus, must needs dawn more and more, here a
little and there a little, on the mind which sets itself to the
study of his divine teaching.

All Scriptural quotations are from the Revised Version, unless otherwise
stated. Frequent references will be found to the following works :
The Holt Bible. Literally and idiomatically translated out of the
original languages. By Robert Young, D.D. A. Fullarton & Co..
Edinburgh, Dublin and London.
The New Testament. "With various readings from the most celebrated
manuscripts of the original Greek Text. By Constantine Tischendorf.
Tauchnitz Edition. Volume 1000. Sampson Low, Son & Marston,
London.
The New Testament. Translated from the critical text of Von Tischen
dorf. By Samuel Davidson, D.D. Henry King & Son, London.
(All readings and renderings mentioned as being those of Von Tischen
dorf are from this work, the renderings, of co-urse, being by Dr.
Davidson. )
The New Testament for English Readers. By Henry Alford, D.D.
Rivingtons, London.
The Holy Bible. Translated by Samuel Sharpe. "Williams & Norgate,
London.
The Englishman's Greek New Testament, together with an inter
linear Translation. S. Bagster & Sons, Limited, London.
The Englishman's Concordance of the Greek New Testament.
S. Bagster & Sons, Limited, London.

THE

KING AND THE KINGDOM
A STUDY OF THE FOUE GOSPELS.
PART II.

The enforced sojourn of Jesus in Galilee was now drawing to its
close. The fourth evangelist states plainly the reasons which led to
it. ' And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee ; for he would r
not walk in Judaea, because the Jews sought to kill him.' From the
other evangelists we have learnt what happened during this period,
which was full of incidents ; and we know that the mind of Jesus
was then busy with respect to the establishment and practical
working of that ' assembly ' which he designed to found. Alas !
that his ideal plan should never yet have been realised. John's
narrative passes over in silence this eventful portion of the career of
Jesus, but records the fact that his prolonged absence from Judsea at
length occasioned comment, and that some officious advice was
offered to him by his relatives. ' Now the feast of the Jews, the
feast of tabernacles, was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto
him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may
behold the works which thou doest.' He had previously gained a
number of adherents in the south : why should he remain in the
north so long away from them ? There could be no better oppor
tunity than the coming feast for a display of his miraculous powers.
It was time, and the proper course, that any claims he had to make,
should be made as publicly as possible. ' For no man doeth anything
in secret, and himself seeketh to be known openly.' Why should he
work in a corner, when he could do so before the eyes of all men ?
* If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world.' This
disclosure for a moment of the family life of Jesus is somewhat
startling. He was surrounded by grown-up brothers and sisters, who
seem to have been quite unable to comprehend his claims and his
powers. It is evident that his mother preserved silence with respect
to his birth, leaving the divine purposes to accomplish themselves
¦without explanation or interference on her part. Her husband is
never mentioned ; possibly he had passed away from this life. We
must not attribute the advice now tendered, to sarcasm or unkind-
ness. A serious argument seems to have been intended, to which
Jesus replied with equal seriousness. The advisers do not seem to
have troubled themselves to ascertain whether the reported works of

2 TEE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [paet ii.
Jesns were actually true. Supposing them to be so, he could not do
a wiser thing than submit them to the test of public criticism. His
brethren themselves were not on]y unsympathetic, but unbelieving.
r John 5 'For even his brethren did not believe on him.' There is nothing
wonderful in that. None believed in him, who did not care to listen
to him, who were not moved by his words, or who had not enough of
faith to accept facts vouched by others, or of interest to go and see
and judge for themselves.
To the counsel given him Jesus replied that the fitting time for his
departure to Judaja had not arrived. In that respect his brethren
were freer than himself, for at any moment they could go without
attracting observation, or dread of consequences. With him it was
far otherwise : he was not only widely known, but, outside the circle
of his own disciples, intensely hated on account of his uncom-
„ n, r promising denunciations of evil. 'Jesus therefore said unto them.
My time is not yet come ; but your time is always ready. The world
cannot hate you ; but me it liateth, because I testify of it, that its
works are evil.' Whenever he went, it would be, he knew, at peril of
his life. His brethren must go up without him, for he was not pre-
„ s pared to go during festival time. ' Go ye up unto the feast : I go
not up yet unto this feast.' The Revisers note that ' many ancient
copies omit yet:' the Sinaitic, which is the most ancient, does so.
The author of ' Gospel Difficulties ' remarks as follows : ' In his
Commentary on Tatian's Harmony, Ephrem Syrus has the following :
" He said not, I do not ascend to this feast but in this feast (Non
dixit, non ascendo ad festum hoc sed in festo hoc!)." Tatian there
fore early in the second century apparently knew nothing of the
reading of the Received Text of the present day in this passage. It
is of course very easy to understand how likely it would be that a
copyist might think that " to this feast " was required by the sense
of the passage, and how therefore, if Tatian's reading was correct, the
spurious reading crept in.' Tischendorf adopts the Sinaitic reading :
" s 'I go not up unto this feast.' Jesus repeated as his reason : ' because
my time is not yet fulfilled.' The words seem to indicate a fixed time
during which Jesus was debarred from undertaking the journey,
although the period of restraint was near its close. He had confined
his ministrations to Galilee owing to some threat against his life.
The fact that ' the Jews sought to kill him ' is alluded to as a matter
within public knowledge. He may have been under legal penalties :
possibly one of them was to the effect that if within a certain time
he revisited Jerusalem his life would be forfeit. The expression used
by Jesus seems to point to something of that kind. That is but a
supposition, and it may be considered more probable that Jesus
referred to the fulfilment of an appointed period in his destiny, as in
another passage where the same verb, simvpleroo, ' to fill completely,' is
i Luv.e .-,1 uge(j . ' And it came to pass when the days were well-nigh come
(Gr., were being fulfilled) that he should be received up, he steadfastly
set his face to go to Jerusalem.' Jesus was able to forecast his own
„ si destiny. Elijah and Moses had been with him on the mount ' and
spake of his decease (or, departure) which he was about to accom
plish at Jerusalem.' Must not the mind of Jesus have been con
stantly looking towards that final crisis ? Though he might rarely
care to talk about it, yet what more natural than that some reference

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 3
to it should be made when his plans and course of action were
alluded to ?
Having resisted his brethren's importunity, and arranged for their
prior departure, Jesus was free to follow the course dictated by his
own judgment. He gave no further hint of his intentions, and
continued his residence in Galilee. ' And having said these things v Joim o
unto them, he abode still in Galilee.' The Revisers have retained
the italicised word ' still,' which is dispensed with by Tischendorf
and Young. The Revised Version continues as follows : ' But when „ to
his brethren were gone up unto the feast, then went he also up :' the
Revisers retain the expression ' were gone up,' as it stands in the
Authorised Version ; but Alford, Young and Tischendorf replace it
by 'went up.' This alters the sense. The Authorised and Revised
Versions represent the departure of Jesus as deferred until his
brethren had left, which accords with Luther's version ; the three
other translators represent the departure of Jesus as simultaneous
with that of his brethren, if even he did not go with them : ' But
when his brethren went up unto the feast, then he also went up.' It
would seem that instead of preceding Jesus they chose to delay their
departure. That is on the supposition that the word ' yet ' is to be
retained. If, however, it is omitted, it seems necessary to fall back
upon Tatian's reading : ' I do not ascend in this feast.' The verb
here used, anabaino, will bear that sense also, as in the passages :
'No man hath ascended into heaven,' 'I ascend unto my Father,' s Joim 13
and in various other passages. 20 j0l,n l~
Jesus in his journey sought to avoid publicity, for it is added :
'not publicly, but as it were in secret.' The oldest MS. omits 'as it 7Joim 10
were,' and Tischendorf 's version stands : 'not openly, but in secret.'
There was no attempt at concealment, only Jesus travelled incognito,
as a private traveller, not preaching and healing on his way. But
when he reached the borders of Judasa, his incognito was dropped
perforce ; crowds resorted to him, and he recommenced his work of
healing and teaching. Matthew and Mark here take up the narra
tive. "' And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, he 19 5Ijt- 1. "
departed from Galilee, and came into the borders of Judcea beyond
Jordan ; and great multitudes followed him ; and he healed them
there.' Mark does not allude to the cures, but notifies the fact that
Jesus resumed a course of teaching. ' And he arose from thence, 10 Mark i
and cometh into the borders of Judasa and beyond Jordan : and
multitudes come together unto him again ; and, as he was wont, he
tauerht them ap-ain.'

u5'

Meantime the celebration of the feast of tabernacles had begun in
Jerusalem, and enquiries were being made as to his whereabouts.
' The Jews therefore sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he ?"
Young renders, ' Where is that one ? ' Alford, ' Where is that man ? '
and observes : ' The Jews are, as usual, the rulers, as distinguished
from the multitudes. Their question itself (that man) shews a hostile
spirit.' The public mind was excited, and there was much discussion
and difference of opinion about Jesus, some upholding his character,
and others denouncing him as a demagogue. ' And there was much
murmuring among the multitudes concerning him : some said, He
is a good man ; others said, Not so, but he leadeth the multitude b 2

Jolmll

4 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
astray.' No one ventured to espouse his cause in public, for the
7 John is vengeance of his enemies was to be dreaded. 'Howbeit no man
spake openly (publicly — Young) of him for fear of the Jews.'
Alford says : ' Here again the Jews are distinguished from the
multitudes: This distinction drawn by Alford will not bear investi
gation. ' The Jews ' are constantly referred to throughout John's
gospel, but not in the sense of ' the rulers, as distinguished from the
multitudes.' The allusions to 'the Jews' are very frequent: in
chapter 2, three times, ch. 3, twice, ch. 4, twice, ch. 5, four times,
ch. 6, twice, ch. 7, five times, ch. 8, four times, ch. 9, twice, ch. 10,
four times, ch. 11, eight times, ch. 12, twice, ch. I'd, once, ch. 18,
six times, ch. 19, ten times, and ch. 20, once. Under ordinary
circumstances, an author describing events happening in his own
country does not speak of his countrymen as ' the English,' ' the
French,' and so on. But throughout Judasa there was a mixed popu
lation, Romans, Jews, Galileans, Samaritans. The fact brought out
clearly in John's gospel is that the persecutions, the accusations, the
injustice directed against Jesus, which culminated in his death, all
proceeded from ' the Jews.' Writing long after the events had
happened, at a distance from Palestine, probably for foreigners, there
was no better or more natural way of showing by whom these things
were done, than that adopted in the fourth gospel. The hostility to
Jesus was not on the part of Romans, Samaritans or Galileans, but
of the Jews.
For two or three days the appearance of Jesus at the feast of taber
nacles was delayed, but in the midst of the week he entered the temple
" u and taught in public. ' But when it was now the midst of the feast
Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.' The ability displayed
in his teaching excited astonishment, especially as he had received
„ is no training after the orthodox fashion. ' The Jews therefore mar
velled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned ? '
Alford says : ' It appears to have been the first time that he taught
publicly at Jerusalem.' The question as to the source of his know
ledge appears to have been in derogation of his authority, for Jesus
replied to the criticism by assuring them that he stood forth as a
teacher not in his own name but as directly commissioned from
„ io another. ' Jesus therefore answered them, and said, My teaching is
not mine, but his that sent me.' Those among his listeners who were
anxious to learn and do the will of God, would be in no doubt as to
„ iv the character of his teaching. ' If any man Avilleth to do his will he
shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God, or whether I speak
from myself.' A teacher having his own ends to serve would be
„ is careful about his own reputation. ' He that speaketh from himself
seeketh his own glory.' But the teacher who could throw aside self-
interest, caring only to deliver the message entrusted to him, without
regard to consequences, gave thereby unmistakable evidence of truth
„ is and rectitude. ' But he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him
the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.' There was need
for some bold expounder of the divine will ; for although they had
» i» the law of Moses, there was a universal disregard of that law. ' Did
not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law ? '
,. io What was their justification for aiming at his life ? ' Why seek ye
to kill me ? ' That question seems to have astounded the listening

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 5
crowd. They knew nothing of any such attempt, not being in the
counsel of those who had plotted the death of Jesus. His assertion
was attributed (what enemy among the crowd first broached the
idea?) to morbid self-deception. 'The multitude answered, Thou 7 j„im 20
hast a devil (Gr. demon): who seeketh to kill thee ? ' Jesus referred
to the miracle of healing performed by him when last at Jerusalem,
which had caused the hostility and persecution, as explained pre
viously by this evangelist : ' Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, 0 Joi>„ 10
and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the
sabbath day.' Taking up this charge of sabbath-breaking which
had been made against him, Jesus now argued the question. There
is some uncertainty here as to the correct rendering. The Autho
rised Version is as follows : ' Jesus answered and said unto them, I
have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore gave unto
you circumcision ; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers).'
Alford explains : ' The argument seems to be, Moses on this account
gave you circumcision, not because it was of Moses, but of the
fathers ; i.e., it is no part of the law of Moses properly so called.'
That would apply equally to the Revised Version : ' Jesus answered 7 Joi™ 21,
and said unto them, I did one work, and ye all marvel. For this
cause hath Moses given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses but
of the fathers).' But the Revisers have given as an alternative
reading : ' I did one work and ye all marvel because of this. Moses
hath given you circumcision,' This alters the sense. Tischendorf
inserts neither ' for this cause,' nor ' because of this,' following the
oldest MS., which omits the word rendered in the Authorised Version
' therefore : ' ' I did one work, and ye all marvel. Moses hath given
you circumcision.' The general astonishment at the fact of Jesus
having chosen or ventured to heal on the sabbath-day, induced him
to argue out the question. They themselves did not scruple to
circumcise children on the sabbath. Why ? Because they found
themselves in the dilemma of either breaking the law which ' ordains
circumcision on the eighth day ' (Alford), or of breaking the sabbath
to the extent of then performing the ceremony whenever the occasion
demanded. Why then should they blame Jesus for having exer
cised a similar freedom of judgment ? His act was, to say the least,
as necessary and beneficent as theirs. They did it for the child's
" sake ; he did it for the man's sake ; theirs was a mere ceremonial
observance ; his was an actual, visible, tangible, perfect gift of
healing : ' and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man. If a man „ 22,
receiveth circumcision on the sabbath, that the law of Moses may
not be broken ; are ye wroth with me, because I made a man every
whit whole on the sabbath ? ' If they presumed to claim the right
of judging him with respect to that matter, let them not regard the
action from a superficial point of view, but enter into the merits of
the question, and decide upon it impartially and righteously. ^ Judge „ 2-t
not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement.'
In proportion to the boldness of Jesus was the timidity of his
adversaries. They had launched forth their sentence of condemna
tion and death, but now they seemed to shrink from doing anything
against him. Their evident vacillation of purpose was the subject
of comment and wonder among some of the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Here was Jesus speakiDg in public, and his enemies keeping an un-

6 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part n.
¦joim 25,% accountable silence. 'Some therefore of them of Jerusalem said, Is
not this he whom they seek to kill ? And lo, he speaketh openly,
and they say nothing unto him.' Was this only as the ominous husli
before the outburst of a storm ? Or might it not be possible that
the opposing rulers had after all become convinced that Jesus was in
„ 20 truth the expected Messiah of their nation ? ' Can it be that the
rulers indeed know that this is the Christ ? ' The popular opinion
having no authoritative guidance from the upper classes, swayed
hither and thither, as one view or another of the subject presented
itself. Some argued that because they knew the origin of Jesus, he
could not be the Messiah, whom they expected to come in some
„ 27 sudden and mysterious way. ' Howbeit we know this man whence
he is : but when the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence he is.
Alford states that Justin Martyr represents Trypho the Jew saying,
' Even if Christ has been bom and exists somewhere, he is unknown,
and is not even conscious of his own identity, until Elias shall come
and anoint him and make him manifest to all.' The discussion of
this idea being notorious, Jesus alluded to it in the course of his
teachings in the temple. He told the multitude that they were
taking up only a half-truth : it was true that they knew him and
his home ; but it was equally true that he had been sent by One
having a real existence, of whom, however, they were ignorant.
„ as ' Jesus therefore cried in the temple, teaching and saying, Ye both
know me, and knoAV whence I am ; and I am not come of myself,
but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.' On the word
' true ' Alford observes : ' The nearest English word would be real .-
but this would not convey the meaning perspicuously to the ordinary
mind ; perhaps the A. V. true is better, provided it be explained to
mean really existent, not truthful: Probably Luther's version con
veys the sense of the original : ' Es ist ein Wahrhaftiger, der mich
gesandt hat.'
Their uncertainty and unbelief could not disturb the knowledge
„ 29 and. assurance of Jesus. ' I know him ; because I am from him, and
he sent me.' These words must not be pressed unduly. The evan-
i joim o gelist wrote of the Baptist : ' There came a man, sent from God,
whose name was John.' When Jesus used the same expression about
himself, it should carry the same meaning. Yet the saying, ' I know
him, because I am from him,' may bear on the lips of Jesus a signi
ficance higher and deeper than the same words uttered by another.
Both the ambassador of a king and the son of a king might be en
titled to say, ' I know him, because I am from him,' but the asser
tion would mean much more in the case of the son than of the
ambassador. The claim thus made by Jesus to a direct commission from God,
was deemed sufficient to justify his apprehension, and his enemies
r j«im so took steps with that object. ' They sought therefore to take him.'
Yet no result followed : his capture was not effected, and the evan
gelist does not scruple to attribute this immunity to the fact that his
„ co destiny was foreordained and overruled. ' And no man laid his hand
on him, because his hour was not yet come.' So among the people
.. si Jesus gained many adherents. ' But of the multitude many believed
on him.' That they became professed disciples, we are not told : the
question with them was argumentative, a matter of opinion and

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 7
judgment rather than of life and action. ' And they said, When the 7 j„,„,
Christ shall come, will he do more signs than those which this man
hath done ? These expressions of popular approval were noted by
the Pharisees, and they m conjunction with the chief priests decided
to seize Jesus, and sent out officers for that purpose. ' The Pharisees
heard the multitude murmuring these things concerning him • and
the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers to take him.' Havin--
knowledge of this, Jesus warned the people that his time with them
would be short. He would not speak of his death as death, but
would have them regard it with him as simply his going back to Him
from whom he came, whom Jesus knew, but whom they knew not.
4 Jesus therefore said, Yet a little while am I with you, and I go unto
him that sent me.' A time would come when they would be anxious
for his presence, and would search for him without success. 'Ye ,.
shall seek me, and shall not find me.' Between him and them there
must be an impassable gulf of separation : ' and where I am, ye cannot
come.' In connection with the earthly life of Jesus, we know of
nothing to explain these words. His mind was .dwelling on his
return to his heavenly Father, and his saying must refer to coming-
experiences in the life beyond the present. To the Jews it was alto
gether enigmatical : he was about to go somewhere away from them.
Whither ? ' The Jews therefore said among themselves, Whither
will this man go that we shall not find him ? ' Was he about to
transfer himself and his teaching to a heathen land and people ?
' Will he go unto the Dispersion among (Gr. of) the Greeks, and
teach the Greeks ? ' Did he intend to quit Judasa, and in some
foreign country indoctrinate all who would listen to him, both Jews
and Gentiles ? Alford says : ' Their interest in this hypothesis,
that He was going to the dispersed among the Greeks, is, to convey
contempt and mockery.' Of that we can scarcely feel sure, inasmuch
as the suggestion was made 'among themselves,' not addressed to
Jesus, and the idea was at once dismissed as improbable, so that his
saying still remained inexplicable. ' What is this word that he
said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me : and where I am, ye
cannot come ? '
On the third or fourth day after his arrival at Jerusalem, Jesus
adopted a very decided course of action, challenging attention by
the utterance in public of most emphatic declarations respecting him
self and his influence upon others. It was the last and great day of
the feast, and Jesus stood forth before the assembled crowds, pro
claiming in their ears the nature of the gift he was able to promise to
his followers. ' Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus „
stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst; let him come unto me
and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out
of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.' Here is the same figure
of speech as was adopted in the discourse with the woman of Samaria,
the same tone of thought, method of persuasion, and promised benefit.
Standing forward as the Messiah of his people, Jesus utters no call to
arms, no word about political rights or national freedom. His pro
mises are not general, but only to individual and willing hearers, to
such as possessed a burning thirst, were conscious of an inward want,
and were disposed to come to him for teaching and relief : 'If any
man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.' In such an invitation

8 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
there was nothing revolutionary, no ' leading astray ' of the multitude :
the promise is a grand one, but symbolical, and would sound to many
far-fetched and visionary. This is no demagogue inciting the multi
tude, but an earnest high-minded Teacher seeking to impart spiritual
blessings. And his promise is conditional : ' He that believeth on
me.' He claims unreserved confidence, boundless trust ; and to such
disciples he guarantees an inward, self-evolved satisfaction of their
highest aspirations ; nothing of worldly glory, no gratification of
earthly ambition, no shout of victory, no song of triumph : simply
the personal realisation of a figurative prophecy : ' as the scripture
hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.' Alford
says : ' We look in vain for such a text in the Old Testament.' But
in several places the flowing out of water is alluded to, as : ' And it
shall come to pass in that day, that living water shall go out from
Jerusalem.' Jesus seems to have chosen a similar expression as best
suited to convey his idea of a pure and perpetual supply of that for
which human nature thirsts.
The evangelist here inserts the following explanation : ' But this
spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to
receive : for the Spirit was not yet given ; because Jesus was not yet
glorified.' The Revisers, following the oldest MS., have omitted
' Holy ' before ' Spirit,' but they have retained the 'italicised word
' given ' after ' yet.' The word ' given ' appears in the text of the
Vatican MS. Alford observes : ' The additions " given," " upon
them," as some authorities read, and the like, are all put in by way
of explanation, to avoid a misunderstanding which no intelligent
reader could fall into. Chrysostom writes : " The evangelist says,
For the Holy Ghost was not yet, i.e., was not yet given, because
Jesus was not yet glorified : meaning by the Glory, the Cross." '
Tischendorf has : ' But this spake he of the Spirit, which they
that believe on him were about to receive ; for the Spirit was not yet,
because Jesus was not yet glorified.' Young is to the same effect :
' But this he said concerning the Spirit, which those believing in
him were about to receive ; for as yet the Holy Spirit was not,
because Jesus was not yet glorified.' Jesus alluded to a spiritual in
fluence about to be imparted to his disciples ; it had not yet been
bestowed, nor could it be until a further point had been reached in
the career of Jesus. We must wait for more light on this subject,
observing only that Chrysostom's idea that the 'glory 'means the
' cross ' cannot be accepted without evidence. Alford remarks : ' It
is obvious that the word ' was ' cannot refer to the essential existence
of the Holy Spirit. . . The word implied is not exactly " given," but
rather " working," or some similar word : was not — had not come in ;
the dispensation of the Spirit was not yet.' It is easier to understand
the words of Jesus than the explanation of the evangelist, although
his interpretation of them must be accepted as authoritative.
The effect of this declaration of Jesus varied according to the dis
positions of the hearers. Some of them expressed the conviction
that he was the long-expected prophet. ' Some of the multitude
therefore, when they heard these words, said, This is of a truth the
prophet.' The Revisers, following the oldest MS., have altered
' many ' to ' some ' and ' this saying ' to ' these words.' Alford ex
plains : ' From the prophecy of Moses, Deut. xviii. 15, 18, the Jews

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 9
expected some particular prophet to arise, distinct from the Messiah
whose coming was, like that of Elias, intimately connected with that
ot the Messiah Himself.' Others discerned in Jesus sufficient to
warrant the belief that he was actually the Messiah. ' Others said, 7 Join, «
lhis is the Christ. But against the possibility of that, some raised
the argument that the Messiah could not be expected to come from a
place so far outside of Judaea as Galilee. 'But some said, What, doth „
the Christ come out of Galilee ? ' On the contrary, the Scriptures had "
toretold that he would be a descendant of David, and from Beth
lehem, David's native village. ' Hath not the scripture said that - «
the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem,
the village where David was?' This question shows a total
ignorance of the opening history of Jesus as recorded by Luke.
Even if the events which happened thirty years ago were not entirely
forgotten, there was nothing within public knowledge to identify
Jesus in connection with them. In face of Herod's slaughter, the
object had been concealment. That had been secured by the flight
to Egypt. Even after Herod's death Joseph had feared to revisit
Judaea, and, as a matter of course, in Galilee no hint would be given
likely to lead to the identification of Jesus. It is quite possible, nay,
it is most reasonable to suppose that his Mother's mind must have
been haunted by a constant dread lest their secret should be exposed,
and the life of Jesus thereby jeopardised. The enemies who were now
seeking his life would have been only too glad to know that he was
the child whom Herod had sought to slay because he had been wor
shipped by the Magi as the King of the Jews. How wonderful had
been the workings of divine Providence ! Notwithstanding the entire
silence which had been maintained respecting the high origin and
destiny of Jesus, the question of his Messiahsbip was now coming to
the front. It was earnestly debated by the multitude. Doubtless
the leisure of the festival time afforded a fit opportunity for consider
ing such a matter. Two parties were formed, one in favour of Jesus
and one against him. ' So there arose a division in the multitude • 4::
because of him.' Some of his opponents were desirous to seize him,
although they did not actually venture to do so. ' And some of them „ w
would have taken him ; but no man laid hands on him.' Although
Jesus stood in great danger, the very officers who had been sent to
apprehend him held their hands ; they returned without the expected
prisoner, to the astonishment of tho Pharisees, and in reply to the
enquiry why they had failed to fulfil their mission, the officers could
only say that the discourses of Jesus were not like those of any other
man : he was no ordinary haranguer of a mob, nor could they venture
upon the profanation of attempting to silence a teacher so unparal
leled. ' The officers therefore came to the chief priests and Pharisees ; .. 45> '
and they said unto them, Why did ye not bring him ? The officers
answered, Never man so spake.' So the Pharisees were forced to
argue against the scruples of their own emissaries. This they did in
a tone of angry, bitter scorn. ' The Pharisees therefore answered „ 47
them, Are ye also led astray ? ' Could they point to a single man of
reputation or learning who had become a disciple of Jesus ? ' Hath » 4S
any of the rulers believed on him, or of the Pharisees ? ' Tischendorf
renders,* ' any one of the rulers,' and the Revisers have replaced ' have '
* The ' renderings ' alluded to as of Tischendorf are those of Dr. Davidson.

10 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
by ' hath.' The verdict of the populace in favour of Jesus was to be
attributed to a judicial blindness due to their ignorance of the law.
'But this multitude which knoweth not the law are accursed.'
Alford notes : ' multitude is here a word of contempt — rabble' One
voice among the Pharisees, however, was raised on behalf of Jesus.
In the Authorised Version we read: 'Nicodemus saith unto them,
(he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them.') Tischendorf
has simply : ' Nicodemus said unto them, being one of them,' which
is the reading of the oldest MS. Alford notes : ' The reading here
varies very much : some ancient copies omitting " by night," others
inserting it in different positions.' The Revisers omit ' by night/
but for some unexplained reason insert instead thereof the word
'before.' 'Nicodemus saith unto them (he that came to him before,
being one of them).' If the multitude did not know the law, let the
Pharisees beware of disregarding it. Did the law justify the passing
of judgment upon Jesus, without first hearing his defence and taking-
evidence with respect to his actions ? 'Doth our law judge a man,
except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth ? ' Young
and Tischendorf render literally 'the man,' not 'a man.' This
pertinent and searching question was answered only by a con
temptuous sarcasm. ' They answered and said unto him, Art thou
also of Galilee ? ' Did he expect the light and learning of Jerusalem
to be overborne by the uncultured ideas of a Galilean ? Let Nico
demus take up the investigation of that question, and he would soon
become convinced that no Teacher worthy of the name could spring-
out of such a locality and such surroundings. ' Search and see that
out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.'
This feast of tabernacles was not the first occasion on which the
public voice in Jerusalem had made itself heard in favour of Jesus.
At a previous passover-festival many disciples had been gained, and
an enthusiasm manifested of which Jesus declined to avail himself.
The incident is recorded only by the fourth evangelist, and, although
it occurs in the earlier portion of the narrative, he gives no indica
tion to what period of the career of Jesus it refers, simply placing
together the events of two passovers and giving precedence to the
last on account of ' the cleansing of the temple.' The other evan
gelists place that event towards the end of the ministry of Jesus, and
as John does not specify the time there is no justification for assum
ing that the cleansing of the temple occurred twice, especially in face
of the obvious similarity in the details. Neither does the evangelist
specify any time in what follows, but simply states that it was at
Jerusalem during a passover. ' Now when he was at Jerusalem at
the passover, during the feast, many believed on his name, beholding
his signs which he did.' The Authorised Version continues : ' but
Jesus did not commit himself unto them.' This conveys the idea
of a willingness on their part to espouse and promote the cause of
Jesus in some fashion of their own choosing, but from which he held
aloof. The Revised Version (agreeing with Tischendorf, Young and
Alford) reads : ' But Jesus did not trust himself unto them.' Alford
explains that 'in the original, the same verb is used for believed in
verse 23, and for trust in this verse.' So the meaning must be that
he did not feel that confidence in them which they showed in him.
The evangelist explains that he possessed a perfect intuition in judg
ing the characters of men generally, which made him independent of

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOKPELS. 11
private information : he was able to gauge the disposition of every
man he met : ' for that he knew all men, and because he needed not » joim 24
that any one should bear witness concerning man (or, a man) ; for
he himself knew what was in man (or, the man).' It is most reason
able to suppose that the opinion thus expressed was based upon the
evangelist's own observation. Jesus frequently exhibited this power :
as when he saw Nathanael coming to him and pronounced him an
Israelite indeed without guile ; when he surnamed Peter, ' Rock ' ;
when he termed him ' Satan ' ; when he surnamed two disciples ' Sons
of thunder ' ; when he said to Judas, ' That thou doest, do quickly ' ;
when he perceived the craftiness and hardness of heart of scribes and
Pharisees. But Alford argues : ' Nothing less than divine hnowledge
is here set forth ; the words are even stronger than if the reference
had been to the persons here mentioned : as the text now stands, it
asserts an entire knowledge of all that is in all men.' If such an
assertion be intended, it is simply made by the evangelist, and can
be worth no more than the opinion of any other man. How
could the writer of this gospel know that Jesus knew all tbat was
in the heart of every man living ? The supposition is monstrous,
incredible. The visit of Nicodemus already alluded to would seem to have
been made at that passover-time when the minds of the multitude
were inclined towards Jesus, for the account of the visit immediately
follows. Nicodemus was not only a Pharisee, but a leading man
among the Jews. 'Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named 3J..im 1
Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.' Under cover of the night he paid
a visit to Jesus. ' The same came unto him by night.' Following „ 2
the three oldest MSS. the Revisers have replaced the word' Jesus'
by ' him.' This alteration makes more apparent the connection with
the preceding account of the passover. We can only conjecture the
reason for choosing the night time. Probably one motive was
secrecy ; probably the whole of the day was occupied by Jesus 111
teaching or otherwise, and the private conference sought by Nico
demus was deemed important enough to require a fixed appointment
when there would be ample leisure and no fear of interruption.
Nicodemus opened the conversation with courtesy and candour. He
addressed Jesus by the recognised title ' Teacher,' and he scrupled
not to admit that the conviction of Jesus' divine mission had been
forced upon the minds of himself and others of his class : 'and said ,. t
to him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God : for
no man can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him.
Youn"-'s rendering in the past tense, ' Rabbi, we have known seems
to brin°- out the fact that the matter had been considered and decided.
It may" be inferred from the use of the word 'we' that Nicodemus
came as a delegate : had this been merely his private opinion he
would not so have expressed it as to compromise others ot his class.
The Pharisees were constrained to admit the reality of the miracles
wrouo-ht by Jesus, and that they could only be performed by the
favour and power of God; therefore his teaching must be divinely
•mthorised Either the conversation turned naturally to questions
relating to the kingdom of God, and the record is fragmentary, or
lesus at once deliberately directed his discourse to that subject. He
startled Nicodemus by making a very solemn and emphatic assertion.

12 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
1 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,

by Tischendorf. Young renders : ' If any one be not born from
above, he is unable to see the reign of God.' There must be a fresh ,_
super-mundane, heavenly birth, before any man can see the reign ol
God, discern the mode and manner of the divine rulership. Nico
demus was staggered by this declaration. It was too positive and
earnest to be regarded as a mere figure of speech. It was evident to
his mind that Jesus was describing some natural fact of human ex
istence, which was as much a reality as being born into the world.
But how could anything of that kind happen to a man a second
.. 4 time ? ' Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when
he is old ? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and
be born ? ' Jesus explained that the birth he alluded to was by the
combination of the element of water with spirit. ' Jesus answered,
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' The Sinaitic
MS. reads, ' he cannot see the kingdom of heaven.' Tischendorf has,
' he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,' and he substitutes
' one ' for the words ' a man.' The English translators by begiuning
the word 'spirit' with a capital letter, and introducing before it the
definite article, incorporate into the text an idea of their own. The
true meaning seems to be that the birth alluded to is by a compound
ing of water with spirit. This is confirmed by the words which
follow, in which Jesus contrasts the nature of the fi st birth and of
,, « the second birth, and distinguishes between the two. ' That which is
born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the spirit is
spirit.' How can translators be justified in placing a capital to the
first word ' Spirit,' and not to the second word ' spirit,' which follows
immediately ? The Authorised Version led the way, and the Re
visers, Tischendorf, Young and Alford have followed suit. Luther's
version does not give the idea of a person to the word spirit. ' Was
vom Fleisch geboren wird, das ist Fleisch ; und was vom Geist
geboren wird, das ist Geist.' The translation of Samuel Sharpe brings
the true meaning of the original clearly to our view : ' Unless a man
be born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
What is born of the flesh, is flesh, and what is born of the spirit is
spirit.' The earthly life is a fleshly life ; the heavenly life is a
spiritual life ; the lower nature is flesh and blood, the higher nature
is water and spirit. The apostle Paul was cognizant of this truth.
is i. Cor^ He wrote : ' If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The
last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Howbeit that is not first which
is spiritual, but that which is natural ; then that which is spiritual.
The first man is of (out of— Young) the earth, earthy : the second
man is of (out of— Young) heaven. As is the earthy, such are they
also that are earthy : and as is the heavenly, such are they also that
are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we
shall (or, let us) also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I
say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
God.' Is not that precisely to the same effect as what Jesus said to

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 13
Nicodemus ? The fact must not be rejected or even wondered at
because it is inscrutable. ' Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must 3 Joim 7
be born anew (or, from above).' None can trace the course of wind
or spirit, though our ears catch the sound and we are certain of the
unseen reality. Those who have attained the new, spiritual birth,
are equally invisible, intangible, untraceable. 'The wind bloweth s
(or, the Spirit breatheth) where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice
thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so
is every one that is born of the Spirit.' Alford explains that 'in both
languages, that in which Jesus spoke, as well as that in which this
speech is reported,' the word is the same, ' Pneuma being both wind
and spirit: Unfortunately our translators have here again taken
upon themselves to supply a capital letter to Spirit, thereby introduc
ing a personality which could not otherwise be inferred. Young
renders : ' Thou mayest not wonder, that I said to thee, It behoveth
you to be born from above ; the Spirit where he willeth doth breathe,
and his voice thou hearest, but thou hast not known whence he
cometh, and whither he goeth : thus is every one who is born of the
Spirit.' This interpretation is adopted by some others, neither ' it '
nor ' he ' being expressed in the original. Alford says : ' Bengel, after
Origen and Augustine, takes the word pneuma with which this word
opens, and which we have rendered ivind, of the Holy Spirit exclu
sively : but this can hardly be. The form of the sentence, as well as
its import, is against it. The words (bloweth, hearest, knowest) are
all said of well-known facts.' Tischendorf renders the verse : ' The
wind blows where it will, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but
knowest not whence it comes and whither it goes : so is every one
that has been born of the Spirit.' The ' Englishman's Greek New
Testament ' gives as the literal translation, ' everyone that has been
born of the Spirit.' This last clause of the verse makes it evident
that the comparison is not to be taken, as seems generally to have
been assumed, as illustrating the mysterious manner in which the
new spiritual birth is accomplished, but the incomprehensible, invi
sible existence of those who have been born anew.
Nicodemus was lost in wonder, if not in doubt. Such a mystery
was too deep for him to comprehend, or feel at all certain about.
' Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be ? ' , ¦>
Whatever his profession, this reply was conceived in the spirit of a
Sadducee. Jesus reminded him that such uncertainty and want of
assurance with respect to the future life were ill suited to his high
position as a Jewish teacher. ' Jesus answered and said unto him, „ i<
Art thou the teacher of Israel, and understandest not these things ? '
It was in vain for Jesus, ' a teacher sent from God,' and others like
him, to speak out what they knew and testify to what had come
under their own observation, if their declarations were to be met with
incredulity. ' Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do . >
know, and bear witness of that we have seen ; and ye receive not our
witness.' This seems to refer to a prevalent scepticism of all
scriptural and divine teaching. On the words, ' We speak that we
do know . . .' Alford has the note : ' Why these plurals ? Various
interpretations have been given : " Either He speaks concerning
Himself and the Father, or concerning Himself alone " (Euthymius) ;
" He speaks of Himself and the Spirit (Bengel) ; of Himself and the

14 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
Prophets (Beza, Tholuck) ; of Himself and John the Baptist (Knapp) ;
of Teachers like himself (Meyer) ; of all the born of the Spirit (Lange,
Wesley) ; of the three Persons in the Holy Trinity (Stier) ; or, the
plural is only rhetorical (Liicke, De Wette)." ' Alford adds : ' I had
rather take it as a proverbial saying ; q.d., " I am one of those who,
&c. Our Lord thereby brings out the unreasonableness of that
unbelief which would not receive His witness, but made it an excep
tion to the general proverbial rule.' Most probably Nicodemus
would understand the word 'we' to include Jesus and John the'
Baptist. The Pharisees had refused to accept the testimony of the
latter, and Nicodemus now hesitates to believe a positive statement
made by the former. If the teaching of Jesus on earthly matters
was disregarded, as it had been, what' expectation could there be of
faith in his assurances relating to heavenly matters ? ' If I told you
earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you
heavenly things ? ' No other teacher than himself was familiar with
the heavenly world. 'And no man hath ascended into heaven, but
he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, which is in
heaven.' Young's literal rendering agrees exactly with that in the
'Englishman's Greek New Testament: ' 'And no one hath gone up
into the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down — the
Son of man who is in the heaven.' Here are four statements : (1)
Only one person had gone up into the heavenly world. (2) That
one had come down out of the heavenly world. (3) He was a man,
the representative or Messiah of men, ' the Son of man.' (4) And
he was in heaven. Let us consider these statements seriatim. (1)
' No man hath ascended into heaven.' Luther uses the present tense :
' Und niemand fahrt gen Himmel, And no one goes to heaven ; ' but
other translators agree in using the past tense, ' hath ascended.' So
clear was this to Alford that he argues : ' He is here speaking by
anticipation. He regards therefore throughout the passage, the great
facts of redemption as accomplished, and makes announcements which
could not be literally acted upon till they had been so accomplished.'
Any mind unwarped by theological dogmas must at once dismiss such
attempted explanations. The assertion of Jesus is a very simple one,
requiring no rectification or amplification : no man had gone up into
heaven except (2) one who had come clown out of heaven. We know-
that one to be Jesus. Luke has told his miraculous birth, John has
declared his lofty, ancient, divine origin : he was an inhabitant of
heaven born into our world, to sojourn here and pass his human life
among us, for the teaching and salvation of mankind, being (3) ' the
Son of man,' in all things made like unto his brethren. The last
statement, (4) 'which is in heaven,' requires consideration. The
Revisers note that ' many ancient authorities omit ' the words. The
two oldest MSS. omit them, notwithstanding which Tischendorf
retains them. Alford regards them as asserting ' the being in heaven
of the time then present,' but he explains or qualifies this by saying.
' (heaven about Him, heaven dwelling on earth) ivhile here,' which
transforms the words either into a mere figure of speech or into a
contradiction of terms. Alford says also : ' Doubtless the meaning-
involves, whose place is in heaven.' That commends itself as a
reasonable interpretation, the distinction being between ' the Son of
man which is in heaven,' conversant with ' heavenly things,' and

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 15
'the Son ofman which is on earth,' conversant only with 'earthlv
things. No man hath ascended,' obviously means 'no man livino-
on earth. Ihe passage asserts the existence of humanity in heaven^
but as there is a doubt whether the words 'which is in heaven ' were
actually spoken by Jesus, it would not bs satisfactory to attempt anv
development of the doctrine they may be taken to convey.
The influence of this Son of man descended out of heaven was
designed to be exerted widely and beneficially upon mankind, and
would resemble that of the brazen serpent made and raised on high 21 »„... -.
by Moses at the command of God for the healing of the dying-
Israelites. 'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness 3j0imi-
even so must the Son of man be lifted up : that whosoever believeth
may m him have eternal life.' The Authorised Version stands as
follows : ' that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have eternal life.' Th- Revisers and Tischendorf, on the authority
of the two oldest MSS., have omitted the words, 'not perish, but.'
The Revisers have also made the words ' believeth in him may have,'
a marginal reading, and have altered the sense by putting in the text,
' believeth, may in him have eternal life.' This alteration differs
from the rendering of Tischendorf, Luther and Young, that of the
last being : ' so it behoveth the Son of man to be lifted up, that
every one who believeth in him may not perish, but may have life
age-during.' Taking the proper rendering of the word ' eternal ' to
be ' age-during,' the question presents itself whether that term is not
here applicable equally to the serpent-bitten and serpent-healed Israel
ites and to the believers on the uplifted Son of man ? Otherwise the
simile is not exact, but defective in an important particular, standing
in fact as follows : As the serpent uplifted in the wilderness gave a
life which was not eternal, even so the uplifted Son of man will give
a life which is eternal. But if we take the natural sense of the word
' age-during ' this inconsistency disappears. The Israelites were
dying before completing the full term or age of their earthly
existence : the act of healing restored to them their proper ' age-
during ' life, which, however it might vary according to differences of
constitutions and surroundings, would not be prematurely cut short by
the serpent-poison. Even so the Son of man is held forth as convey
ing a virtue sufficient to antidote everything which threatens to bring
to a premature end the heavenly existence of which he had been
speaking. The idea is scriptural. Messiah's life-prolonging influence
is not for this world, but for the next. ' In Adam all die . . . Even 15 1. Cor. 2-
so in Christ shall all be made alive ' . . . ' As we have borne the image „ v.
of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.' The
nature of the promise of ' eternal life ' depends upon the meaning of
those two words. There can be no doubt as to the sense of the word
' life ; ' the word translated ' eternal ' or ' everlasting ' must be
brought to assume in our minds its proper import — ' age-during ; '
then comes the question as to the significance of ' age : ' is it a period
absolutely endless ? or is it a period of vast duration ? or is it a period
fixed by the constitution of our nature, which the influence of the Son
of man will maintain to its utmost limit ?
God, in his love to mankind, had devoted his only begotten Son
to the work of securing that supreme boon to all who placed their
confidence in him. ' For God so loved the world, that he gave his 3 Joim ig

16 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part h.
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish,
but have eternal life.' Tischendorf, on the authority of the two
oldest MSS., has replaced ' his ' by 'the.' The introduction of the
words 'should not perish ' clearly points to the impending catastrophe
of Death. This cannot be the death which all who are born on earth
must undergo : no faith in Jesus saves from that. But he is speak
ing of ' heavenly things,' and the corollary to be drawn from his
words is this : (1) either the seeds of dissolution implanted m our
nature will survive in our resurrection-life, and develop in the world
to come the same inevitable premature mortality as in this ; or, (2)
in the next stage of our existence there will be a liability and inclina
tion towards transgression of some divine law, entailing the same
fatal consequences as those which overtook the first Adam and his
posterity, and which will need to be avoided or counteracted by faith
in Jesus. The Mosaic account of the fall of man involves the idea
¦2 Gen. 17 of his premature death : ' In the day that thou eatest thereof thou
shalt surely die ; ' growth and development would stop, and dissolu
tion would begin. That is the only rational interpretation, seeing
5 Gen. 5 that Adam did not forthwith expire. The nine hundred and thirty
years which Adam lived, and even the nine hundred and sixty nine
of Methuselah, completed not the full age to which the perfect man
would have attained but for his transgression ; and the elements of
decay matured rapidly and fatally in his posterity, cutting short the
term of human life by centuries, so that Shem the son of Noah lived
GOO years, the son of Shem 438 years, the next descendants respec
tively 433, 464, 239, 239, 230, 148 and 205 years, the last named
being Terah the father of Abraham. Still the age of man steadily
declined, until 80 years was held to be its extreme limit. The mind
of the patriarch Jacob was profoundly impressed by the rapid and
47 Gen. o constant decline, for in telling his age to Pharaoh he said : ' The
days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years :
few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and they have
not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in
the days of their pilgrimage.' The period of our earthly existence
has not been enlarged by the work of Christ : his salvation extends
not in that direction ; his repeated promises of ' life age-during ' are
for the world to come, for that heavenly life and kingdom which can
only be revealed and realised through being ' born anew of water and
the Spirit.' Dropping the ecclesiastical and symbolical ideas attached
to that second birth, regarding it not as restricted to a few but as the
universal privilege of mankind, it is a solemn, inevitable, merciful
reality, a phase and crisis of our destiny as important, probably far
more important than our birth into this world. In the ' heavenly
things ' appertaining to that new sphere of existence, the Son of man
must still be taken for our Guide and Saviour ; he will preserve his
adherents from the sins and evils which threaten that life, as they
15 i. Cor. 45 have here marred and shortened this, and as our ' second Adam ' he
will become to us ' a life-giving spirit.'
Let none deem this view of the divine mercy too bold or too wide.
The Christ came not for judgment, but for salvation ; not to save
3 Joim 17 particular persons, but the world. ' For God sent not the Son into
the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved
through him.' The Revisers, following the two oldest MSS., have

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 17
altered ' his Son ' to ' the Son.' They have also replaced in this and
¦tuZ° n?xt 7erf tLhe word ' condemn ' by ' judge,' therein agreeing
with Tischendorf, Young and Alford. The office of the Son is not to
make inquisition into the errors and sins of mankind, but to deliver
them from their condition of disease and death. Those who trust
themselves to him are not arraigned as criminals, or called upon to
answer for past misdeeds. ' He that believeth on him is not judged.' 3 joi„, is
Nor does the advent of the Son involve any such judicial procedure
towards those who withhold from him their confidence : the rejection
of. him by them leaves them in their former evil and perilous condi
tion. ' He that believeth not hath been judged already, because he , is
hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.'
There can be no excuse for those who, when light has come into the
world, deliberately prefer the darkness. ' And this is the judgement, „ w
that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness
rather than the light.' Only evil deeds could have sought the cover
of the night : ' for their works were evil.' Every wrongdoer hates „ i»
light and avoids it, because it must disclose his iniquity. ' For every „ 20
one that doeth (or, practiseth) ill hateth the light, and cometh not to
the light, lest his works should be reproved (or, convicted).' But he
who truly works, and works truly, comes forward to where the light
shines most, that it may be thrown upon his work and show that it
has been wrought out honestly as in the sight of God. ' But he that 21
doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made
manifest, that (or, because) they have been wrought in God.'
Alford alludes to the fact that ' many Commentators, since the time
of Erasmus, who first suggested the notion, have maintained that the
discourse of our Lord breaks off at verse 16, and the rest to verse 21
consists of the remarks of the Evangelist.' The principal grounds
for that idea are (a) that all allusion to Nicodemus is henceforth
dropped, (b) That henceforth past tenses are used, (c) On account
of the use of only begotten, verses 16, 18, which is peculiar to John.
Alford argues vigorously against all this, and concludes ' that the
words following, to verse 21, cannot be otherwise regarded than as
uttered by our Lord in continuation of his discourse.' With respect
to the use of the term ' only begotten ' ' Stier well enquires, Whence
did John get this word but from the lips of his divine Master ?
Would he have ventured on such an expression, except by an
authorization from Him ? ' Certainly it is inconceivable that any
honest historian could present such a combination of assertions rela
ting to the subject on which Jesus discoursed with Nicodemus, unless
warranted by express words of Jesus spoken either then or at some
other time.
A more important question is as to the meaning of the solemn and
positive declarations of Jesus respecting the new birth. The conclu
sions already arrived at have been based on the natural interpreta
tion of the words employed, without reference to anything apart from
them. The discourse has been taken as conveying its own meaning,
as complete in itself, not needing to be supplemented by a reference
to something found elsewhere, and not to be understood figuratively
for the mere purpose of its assumed connection with a Church
ordinance. But by many persons that mode of dealing with the
discourse has been set aside ; they have rushed to the conclusion that

18 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
Jesus spoke symbolically ; that to be born ' again ' or ' anew ' or
' from above,' means to be baptized ; that the ' water ' is the water
of baptism ; that the 'spirit ' is the Holy Spirit, who comes with or
through the rite of baptism. But surely if Jesus wished to impress
upon Nicodemus the" absolute .necessity of baptism, he could and
10 Mark is would have used plainer words, as he did on another occasion : ' He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.' From first to last
Nicodemus gathered no such meaning, but was lost in doubt and
wonderment at the strangeness, the depth and the breadth, of these
statements of Jesus : ' How can a man be born when he is old_ . .
How can these things be ? ' Luther's figurative interpretation,
quoted by Alford, we can appreciate and respect : ' My teaching is
not of doing and leaving undone, but of a change in the man ; so that
it is, not new ivories done, but a neiu man to do them ; not another
life only, but another birth.' From the first there has been a differ
ence of opinion. Alford quotes Chrysostom: 'Some say, from
heaven, some, from the beginning,' and adds that 'he and Euthymius
explain it by regeneration : Origen, Cyril, and Theophylact taking
the other meaning.' Of course the ' new birth ' means 'regeneration,'
but not necessarily by baptism. Alford takes upon himself to say :
'It is impossible that Nicodemus can have so entirely and stupidly
misunderstood our Lord's words, as his question here would seem to
imply.' It is much more natural and probable to assume that
Nicodemus detected no reference to baptism in the words of Jesus,
notwithstanding the fact that ' the idea of a new birth was by no
means alien from the Rabbinical views. They described a proselyte
when baptized as "like an infant just born," Lightfoot.' If we
suppose Jesus to have been anxious to impress upon his hearer the
importance of baptism, would it not have been wise and right to'
speak with the utmost plainness, to avoid all possibility of doubt or
misapprehension ? Why should we either attribute obscurity to the
speaker or perversity to the listener ? If Dean Alford had not
started with the foregone conclusion that the ' water and spirit '
must as a matter of course refer to the water administered and the
Spirit received in baptism, and if, instead of doing so, he had bent his
mind to an unprejudiced investigation of thediscourseof Jesus, probably
he would not have accused Nicodemus, nor have penned the follow
ing passage : ' There can be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of
the words, that to be born of water refers to the token or outward
sign of baptism, to be born of the Spirit the thing signified, or in
ward grace ot the Holy Spirit. All attempts to get rid of these two
plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, by which the
views of expositors have been warped. Such we have in Calvin :
who explains the words to mean, '• the Spirit who cleanses us, and by
diffusing His influence in us inspires the vigour of heavenly life : "
Grotius, "the Spirit, who cleanses like water ;" Cocceius, "the grace
of God, washing away our uncleanness and sins ; " Tholuck, who
holds that not Baptism itself, but oniy its idea, that of cleansing is
referred to ; and others, who endeavour to resolve water and the
Spirit into a figure, so as to make it mean " the cleansing or purify
ing Spirit." All the better and deeper expositors have recognized
the coexistence of the two, water and the Spirit.' ' Doctrinal preju
dices ! ' Alford applied the expression to prejudices against the

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 19
doctrine of baptismal regeneration : his opponents would say it
applies equally to prejudices in favour of that doctrine. Apart from
that question, Alford contends that a real meaning, instead of a bare
figurative meaning, should be attached to the statements of Jesus.
lo that extent we are in agreement : under that conviction and in that
direction, the foregoing independent investigation has been carried out.
_ We have now to return to the feast of tabernacles. After the
incidents connected with it, the observation follows : ' And they went t J«i«> os
every man unto his own house.' This may be understood to denote
the completion of the festival, during which 'the people lived for a
week in booths, to remind them of their desert wanderings.'* Jesus
retired to the mount of Olives, on the outskirts of Jerusalem. ' But 8 J()1"' J
Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.' Early in the morning he
returned to the city, seated himself in the temple, and there began
discoursing to the crowd which came to hear him. ' And early in the .. 2
morning' (literally, at dawn— Young) 'he came again into the
temple, and all the people came unto him, and he sat down, and
taught them.' Although the temple was the recognised place for
religious worship, it bore small resemblance to our consecrated
cathedrals and churches. The people seem to have wandered at their
will within its precincts, and went even to the length of buying and
selling, making it a market place for doves, sheep and oxen, which
were probably, at least ostensibly, required for sacrifice. After a
time, the discourse being either ended or interrupted, the scribes and
Pharisees made their appearance, bringing with them a woman who
had been detected in her sin. They placed her in the midst of those
present, and told Jesus what was the charge against her. ' And the •< 3> 4
scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery ; and
having set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master (or, Teacher),
this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act.' The only
question to be decided was as to what ought to be done to her. The
Mosaic law doomed the offender to death, which was to be brought
about, not by a single executioner, but by the combined action of the
congregation, each casting a stone or stones at the criminal. Alford
explains : ' The command here mentioned is not to be found, unless
" putting to death " generally, is to be interpreted as stoning.' It
would seem, however, to have been necessarily and clearly inferred, as
Alford admits, from 22 Deu. 23, 24, and the command was so under
stood. ' Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such.' Alford ¦¦ 5
renders ' such ' as ' such women.' The accusers invited Jesus to
express his views as to the proper mode of dealing with the woman.
' What then sayest thou of her ? ' The Revisers, adopting the reading .. 5
of Wordsworth, have added ' of her.' The narrator explains that the
question was not put in good faith, but with the express object of
founding upon the reply of Jesus an accusation against him. ' And „ 6
this they said, tempting (or, trying) him, that they might have
whereof to accuse him.' We can only conjecture the grounds on
which they could have done so. Jesus had already been reproached
as ' a friend of publicans and sinners.' If on this occasion he n Mat. 19
inclined towards mercy, his leniency would expose him to further
* "Helps to the Study of the Bible." C 2

20 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
misinterpretation and calumny. He had also been charged with
breaking the law of Moses by infringing the sabbath : if in this case
he were to advocate the remission of capital punishment, he would
be laying himself open to a similar reproach. Yet the fate of this
erring woman seemed to be left in his hands ; a word from him
justifying the view expressed by these scribes and Pharisees might be
equivalent to a sentence of death against her. Moreover, the
punishment of death for such an offence was probably opposed to
Roman law, and the enemies of Jesus would have been only too ready
to denounce him as the instigator of the deed if, having been appealed
to on the subject, he made no protest against the proposed death by
stoning. Alford quotes Liicke on this point : ' Some kind of civil
or political collision the question certainly was calculated to provoke:
but from the brevity of the narration, and our want of more accurate
knowledge of criminal proceedings at the time, it is impossible to lay-
down definitely, wherein the collision would have consisted.' Jesus
did not feel himself called upon to answer the question put to him.
Wisely and discreetly he maintained an entire silence. Criminals
should be brought by their accusers to a proper tribunal of justice.
Why should Jesus be appealed to publicly on a point of law in this
particular case ? He practically refused to discuss the matter : they
had no right to question him, and he certainly had the right to
remain silent. He chose to do so, and by his attitude and gesture
s joim e plainly intimated his determination. ' But Jesus stooped down, and
with his finger wrote on the ground.' Under the peculiar circum
stances, this method of refusing to be entangled into a discussion, was
wise and dignified. Probably a feeling of indignation may have had
to do with it. All they cared about was to trump up an accusation
against himself, and they were not ashamed to make this poor, guilty,
trembling creature the occasion of it ! He will baffle their designs ;
not a word shall they extract from him. Let them go their way,
leaving him to his work, or at least to his meditations. His mind is
busy with some other train of thought : better anything than to take
or give counsel with such men on such a subject ! It were useless to
show the anger which, we know, could flash on occasion from his
eye ; it were cruel to look towards the crushed, shame-laden woman :
better to fix his gaze on the ground at his feet. Those apparently
idle, aimless tracings of his fingers on the floor are signs, not of
vacancy, but of a mind at work, full to overflowing with who can
say what blended thoughts of scorn, grief, pity. What words, if any,
were written by the nervous workings of his fingers during that deep
absorption, none can tell, though some have tried to guess. ' One of
our MSS. reads : " He wrote on the ground the sins of each of them " '
(Alford). When would the divine law come to be written as eas'ily
on human hearts ? When would it cease to be as light, as fleetino-
as well-nigh invisible there, as though traced on unyielding stone or
on the wind-blown, feet-trodden dust of the earth ? When would
the two great laws of love to God and man be recognised as
binding and supreme ? Many and deep the problems Jesus mio-ht
then be pondering. They scrupled not, however, to interrupt his
reverie, pestering him with repetitions of their question, ' What then
sayest thou of her ? ' At last he raised himself to meet their super
cilious gaze and give an answer to their mockiug words. It was

John 7

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPEL*. 21
their matter, not his ; they had raised the question about their duty ;
let them act according to their light and conscience. ' But when
they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them,
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.'
If, knowing well the infirmities, degradation, and sinful propensities
of human nature, they judged it right, wise, expedient, and their
duty, to insist upon the rigorous exaction of the stern penalty decreed
by Moses so many centuries ago, let them proceed to cany out the
sentence. Let any one of them who knew himself to be pure in
mind, in heart, in conduct, cast the first stone at her, and then all
would be free to follow his example. That was the first and last
word of Jesus on the subject. Again he hid his face from everyone,
stooped down, and began afresh that mysterious writing on the
ground. 'And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on „ s
the ground.' Not one of them dared now to lift his hand first against
the woman. When the eldest was seen to rise, it was not to cast a
stone, but to leave the place. The next in age and honour followed
his example. With every departure, the responsibility laid upon
those remaining was felt the more ; one by one each man slunk away,
until Jesus and the woman alone were left. ' And they, when they , '.>
heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even unto
the last : and Jesus was left alone, and the woman where she was, in
the midst.' Then Jesus rose from his stooping posture : had he done
so sooner, or had he not stooped at all, probably his adversaries
would have met his gaze defiantly, and have braved out the matter to
the end. It was far better settled thus. Better, it would seem, than
Jesus himself anticipated ; for his first question indicated un
consciousness and surprise. ' And Jesus lifted up himself, and said ¦¦ w
unto her, Woman, where are they ? ' His last look at them had
discerned a general determination to convict her. Was it possible
that not one out of all of them had formulated the sentence of con
demnation ? 'Did no man condemn thee?' Yes ! it had ; turned ,. «
out even so. ' And she said, No man, Lord (Sir— Young). Then , u
she might dismiss all fear : Jesus would be the last man to raise
hand o* voice against her. ' And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn „ u
thee.' She was free to go, uncondemned, but not unwarned. Let
her ever henceforth avoid the sin which had placed her life in peril.
' Go thy wav ; from henceforth sin no more.' «,«-..„*" ''
To this narrative the Revisers have appended the note : Most ot
the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53— viii. 11. Those which
contain it vary much from each other.' Alford explains : This
passage is to be treated very differently from the rest of the saced
text In the Alexandrine, Vatican,. Paris, and Sinaitic MSS., the
ancient Syriac Versions, and all the early fathers it is omitted : the
Cambridge MS., alone of our most ancient an"^n£™^
Augustine states, that certain expunged it from their MSS., because
thef thought it might encourage sin. But this will not account for
heVery general omission of it, nor for the fact that Ch. vn. 53 s
ucluded in the omitted portion. Eusebius assigns it apparently to
the apocryphal " Gospel according to the Hebrews." . In the MSS
which contain it, the number of variations is very much grea er than
hi any other equal portion of Scripture : so much is this he
case "hat here are in fact three separate texts, it being hardly possible

22 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
to unite them into one.' The passage was rejected by Tischendorf,
as no part of the original gospel. But he gives it in two forms, one
from the text of D, or the Cambridge MS. ; the other according to
the received text, or the Elzevir of 1624. Comparing these, the
differences are unimportant. The narrative carries on the face of it
the stamp of authenticity. The minute details and touches are such
as could have been given only by an eye-witness. As in a picture a
great artist is revealed by his manner and style, so in this narrative
we discern certain inimitable characteristics of Jesus, his wisdom, his
caution, his self-restraint, his deep insight, his mastery in argument,
his loving gentleness, his broad compassion.
The evangelist now introduces a new subject with the words,
! ' Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of
the world.' The expression ' again therefore ' seems to indicate the
recommencement of an address : possibly Jesus had been interrupted,
and his congregation dispersed, by the entrance of the priests with
the woman ; and possibly tbe rising sun, — the people having
assembled at early dawn, — suggested the metaphor. It was very
bold, suggestive, self-laudatory, — deliberately chosen on that account,
1 — for Jesus added : ' He that followeth me shall not walk in the dark
ness, but shall have the light of life.' No ordinary man could dare
to speak such words ; only one who knew himself to be above all
others of mankind, in his person, attributes, office, could claim a pre
eminence so exalted, so superhuman. In this and similar assertions
made by Jesus with respect to himself, we find the justification of
this evangelist for those astounding statements about the origin,
nature and influence of Jesus, which are placed in the forefront of
the narrative. When the writer asserted : ' In him was light, and
the light was the life of men. And the light shineth in the darkness ;
and the darkness overcame it not . . . The true light, which
lighteth every man, was coming into tbe world,' — the authority for
such statements was the express declaration of Jesus. The evangelist
was not giving us his own notions, but the actual claims and assur
ances of Jesus himself.
In opposition to the solemn asseveration now made by Jesus that
he was the light and life of the world, the Pharisees 'brought two
objections: (1) it was an uncorroborated statement; (2) it was
false. ' The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest witness
of thyself ; thy witness is not true.' Jesus took up the question
Even though his statement rested only upon his own word, it was
none the less true ; for he knew his origin and his destiny, his abode
prior to his entrance into this world, and the place which would
receive him on his departure hence. 'Jesus answered and said unto
them, Even if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true • for 1
know whence I came, and whither I go.' On those points they were
entirely ignorant, and could exercise only a judgment based upon the '
15 ordinary experiences of humanity. ' But ye know not whence I
come, or whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh ' Not so did Jesus
judge any man ; but any judgment he might form would be based
upon higher knowledge than that of mankind generally, for it would
not be merely human, he being aided by the presence and guidance
i» of Him who had sent him hither. ' 1 judge no man. Yea and if I

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 23
judge, my judgment is true ; for I am not alone, but I and the
Father that sent me.' In verse 16 Tischendorf, following the
bmaitic MS., reads ' he ' instead of ' the Father.' These sayings of
Jesus possess an actuality, reality, which it is well for us to grasp and
hold. Others can give us, with respect to God and things unseen,
only _ abstract reasonings, abstruse speculations ; Jesus gives us
positive statements of facts within his own experience. In some
other portion of the universe he had a prior existence ; there he had
submitted himself to the will of One who had sent him on a mission
to mankind ; while here, he was conscious of the presence and
guidance of him who had sent him ; when his earthly career should
end he knew whither he would depart out of the world. All this is as
clear and positive as it is startling and profoundly interesting. There
is no incongruity between it and our comparatively small experiences
of things material and spiritual. In the mind of Jesus there was no
shadow of doubt, hesitation or uncertainty. He was as sure of the
personal existence of the Father who had sent him, as of his own.
If the unsupported testimony of Jesus was not enough for these
Pharisees, let them know that there were actually two persons certi
fying, Jesus and his Father. 'Yea and in your law it is written, sJ«im 17, is
that the witness of two men is true. I am he that beareth witness of
myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.' There
upon they challenged him, apparently in derision, to produce his
Father. ' They said therefore unto him, Where is thy Father ? ' To „ in
this Jesus replied, that they were as unable to recognise himself as his
Father : no knowledge of him ' after the flesh ' was a true revelation,
and if they had possessed any spiritual perception of himself, they
would have discerned his Father also. ' Jesus answered, Ye know m
neither me, nor my Father : if ye knew me, ye would know
my Father also.' The essential idea of Fatherhood is likeness of
nature, and the failure to know, appreciate, comprehend, the Son
must extend also to their apprehension of the Father.
These sayings of Jesus were recorded by one who heard them, and
who was able to state the exact place of their delivery. ' These • -"
words spake he in the Treasury, as he taught in the temple.' And
still his enemies failed to carry out their design of apprehending
him ; not from want of will or opportunity, but owing to some divine
overruling of their plans. That seems to be the meaning of the
evangelist's statement : ' And no man took him, because his hour was . iu
not yet come.' Being still free, Jesus shrank not from speaking.
He addressed to the Pharisees some bold, plain, parting words,
amounting to repudiation if not denunciation. ' He said therefore -'
again unto them, I go away, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in
your sin : whither I go, ye cannot come.' Jesus seems here to fore
tell a time when the present circumstances would be reversed : he
would be absent, and they anxious to find him, yet doomed to perish
in their sin, it being impossible for them to gain his presence. The
Revisers in this verse have altered ' my way ' into ' away,' and ' sins
into ' sin,' agreeing with Young and other modern translators. Tis
chendorf inserts the word 'away' a second time: 'Whither I go
away : ' the verb, hupago, is the same in both places. The saying
sounded mysterious : to go whither none of them could follow,
might signify going out of the world altogether. Was he then,

24 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM : [part n.
1 22 thinking of suicide ? ' The Jews therefore said, Will he kill him
self, that he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come ? ' The question
was not so harsh and offensive as it would have been had they known,
as we know, the prescience of Jesus with respect to his approaching
death. In repelling their suggestion, he explained the precise import
of his words. His origin was different from theirs ; he belonged to
23 another world than this. ' And he said unto them, Ye are from
beneath ; I am from above : ye are of this world ; I am not of this
world.' That fact justified the assertion he had made : this was a
world of perishing sinners, and if they believed not that One had
come from another world with the offer of life age-during, there
24 could be no escape from death. ' I said therefore unto you, that ye
shall die in your sins : for except ye believe that I am he (or, I am),
ye shall die in your sins.' Tischendorf renders : ' ye will die in your
sins : ' it was no threat, but a pure statement of the fact that without
a deliverer bringing life from above, there can be no hope of salva
tion from death. Alford calls attention to the fact that the italicised
word ' he ' is not in the original. The remark of Jesus gave rise to a
25 further question. ' They said therefore unto him, Who art thou ? '
In the Revised Version the answer of Jesus stands as follows :
25 ' Jesus said unto them, Even that which I have also spoken unto you
from the beginning (or, How is it that I even speak to you at all ?) '
An alternative rendering so peculiar indicates considerable doubt as
to the meaning. Alford explains : ' Our Lord's reply has been found
very difficult, from reasons which can hardly be explained to the
English reader. The A. V. " even the same that I said unto you
from the beginning," cannot well be right. The verb rather means
to speak or discourse, than to say : the connecting particle cannot
well be rendered even ,- and the word rendered " from the beginning "
far more probably means " essentially," or " in very deed." This
being premised, the sentence may be rendered (literally) thus :
"Essentially that which I also discourse unto you :" or, "In very
deed, that same which I speak unto you." He is the word — His
discourses are the revelation of Himself Tischendorf renders :
' Altogether that which I am telling- you;' Young: 'Even what I
speak to you at the beginning.' The alternative rendering : ' That I
even speak to you at all,' differs from all the above, especially as the
Revisers have prefaced it with the three italicised — imaginary —
words, ' How is it,' and have inserted a note of interrogation. That
would have been no answer to the question, but sounds like an ex
pression of petulant impatience, which it is not likely would have
been uttered by Jesus. Putting that aside, the other renderings
agree in one point : in reply to the enquiry Who he was, Jesus told
ivhat he was : 'that same which 1 speak to you ; ' ' that which I am
also telling you :' ' that I speak to you ; ' ' what I said to you ; ' ' that
which 1 have altogether spoken unto you ; ' and ' altogether that
which also I say to you,' the last being the translation given in the
' Englishman's Greek New Testament.' The only doubt is as to
whether the word rendered by the Revisers ' from the beginning,' bv
Young and Sharjpe, ' at the beginning,' is not better rendered by
' essentially,' or ' in very deed,' or ' altogether.' In either case we
need go back no further than the ' beginning ' of this discourse and
12 the saying of Jesus, ' I am the light of the world.' He would have

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 25
them know him only under the aspect in which he had presented
himself : not as a Person merely, but as a Power and Influence, dis
persing ' darkness ' and imparting ' the light of life.'
The meaning of what follows is not apparent on the surface. ' I s Jul.,, 20
have many things to speak and to judge concerning you.' The Revisers
have replaced ' say' by 'speak,' and 'of you' by 'concerning you.'
Young renders : ' Many things I have to speak, and to judge concern
ing you.' The English idiom leaves us in doubt whether the ' speaking '
as well as the ' judging ' is 'concerning you,' or whether two distinct
statements are made : (1) ' I have many things to speak,' and (2) ' I
have many things to judge of you.' Luther's translation is clear : ' Ich
habe viel von euch zu reden und zu richten.' ' I have much of you to
speak and to judge,' which agrees with the order of the words in the
original : ' Many things I have concerning you to say and to
judge.' ' Howbeit he that sent me is true.' The connection between this .. M
and what precedes is not clear. The word alethes, rendered ' true,'
is defined : of persons, true, sincere ; truthful, frank, honest : of
things, real, actual. Samuel Sharpe brings out the meaning clearly
and boldly : ' Moreover he that sent me is to be trusted,' which
answers to Luther's ' wahrhaftig,' ' truthful or reliable.' That makes
evident the sense of the following words : 'And the things which I ¦• '-'"'
heard from him, these speak I unto (Gr. into) the world.' The
' Englishman's Greek New Testament' renders verbatim: 'And I
what I heard from him, these things I say to the world.' The oldest
MS. reads, ' heard with him.'
The evangelist states that the listeners did not understand the
allusion. ' They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father.' ¦• J7
The Revisers have replaced ' understood ' by ' perceived.' The
' Englishman's G. N. T.' renders : ' They knew not that the Father
to them he spoke of.' In verse 26 the Sinaitic MS. reads, instead of
'he that sent me,' 'the Father that sent me,' and in this verse:
' they perceived not that he spake to them of the Father God.' That
reading obviates the following comment of Alford : ' However im
probable" this may be, after the plain words, " the Father that sent
me," in verse 18, it is stated as a fact.' According to the Sinaitic
MS., they understood that he spoke of his father, but at once asked,
' Where is thy father ? ' because they did not realise the fact that he •¦
meant the Divine Father.
Perceiving their obtuseness, Jesus foretold the way in which they
would come to know him, and that his acts and words were by the
power and teaching of the Father. ' Jesus therefore said, When ye •• 2S
have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he (or,
I am) ; and that I do nothing (or, and I do nothing) of myself, but
as the Father taught me, I speak these things.' Let us try to grasp
the meaning of this. The plain, natural sense of 'lifted up is
' exalted.' The verb is hupsoo, the same as in the passage, ' he that is i^e u
humbleth himself shall be exalted.' That sense is not to be considered
as interfered with or displaced because the evangelist, on a subse
quent occasion, attached an additional interpretation to the word :
'And I if I be lilted up from (or, out of) the earth, will draw alli-JohllS2
men unto myself. But this he said, signifying by what manner of
death he should die.' On the words ' by what manner of death
Alford has the note : * The words here can hardly point to more

2G THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
than the external circumstances of' his death . . St. John does no:
say that this was all that the lifting up meant, but that it was its
first and obvious reference.' Nor need we be concerned about the
interpretation which the evangelist or any other man may have seen
fit to attach to words of Jesus used on another occasion ; the only-
question is as to the sense which the words themselves will here
warrant. That death by crucifixion involved a lilting up from or
out of the earth was a mere collateral fact, which might be indicated
by a passing reference, but which cannot be accepted as a reason for
attaching the idea of crucifixion to the term ' lifted up ' wherever and
whenever it may occur. Dismissing any doubt or difficulty which
might arise on that point, we have simply to ponder the expression
as "it stands, ' When ye have lifted up the Son of man.' The title
' Son of man : is applied by Jesus to himself, and to the Messiah ; to
himself therefore as the representative of humanity. ' When ye have
exalted me as your Messiah, then you will know what I am to you,
that what I do is not personal to myself, that what I teach you, 1
have learned from the heavenly Father : ' that would seem to be the
natural and proper sense of this saying of Jesus.
But though his own people as yet knew and received him not,
¦ John 29 Jesus had no feeling of loneliness or failure. 'And he that sent me
is with me ; he hath not left me alone.' Rejected, opposed, scoffed
at by men, Jesus was doing in the world the work which God had
,, 20 . appointed him. ' For I do always the things that are pleasing to him.'
These words of Jesus were not without effect, but produced con-
30 viction and faith in the minds of many of those present. 'As he
spake these tilings, many believed on him.' To these new converts
Jesus addressed himself specially. He told them that the test of
real discipleship consisted in a constant adherence to his teaching.
, m ' Jesus said therefore to those Jews which had believed him, If ye
abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples.' Then they would
gain a knowledge of the truth, and the truth would give them
., :;2 freedom. 'And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make
you free.' The freedom of which he spoke was spiritual ; but they
did not take his words in that sense. They prided themselves on
descent from Abraham ; they had never been slaves to any man :
, -.a what, then, did this offer of freedom signify ? ' They answered unto
him, We be Abraham's seed, and have never yet been in bondage to
any man : how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free ? ' Jesus solemnly
reminded them that there was a moral slavery, and that every sinner
i, -4 had made himself the slave of sin. ' Jesus answered them, Verily,
verily, 1 say unto you, Every one that committeth sin is the bond
servant of sin.' The seed of Abraham w« s of two kinds : the son of
the bondwoman, and the son of the freewoman ; the former had no
permanent inheritance in common with the latter, who alone could
, ¦.:;, claim the paternal home. 'And the bondservant abideth not in the
house for ever : the son abideth for ever.' Alford says : ' I believe
with Stier and Bengel, the reference to be to Hagar and Ishmael
and Isaac : the bond, and the free. They had spoken of themselves
as the seed of A bralutm. The Lord shews them that there may be of
that seed, two hinds ; the son properly so called, and the slave. The
latter does not abide in the house for ever : it is not his right nor
his position — " Cast out the bondwoman and her son." " But the
son abideth ever." ' Young's literal rendering is as follows : ' But

part ii. 1 A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. ^7
the servant remaineth not in the house to the age, the Son remaineth
to the age.' Eis ton aiona, ' to the age,' although translated ' ever,'
signifies no more than the full term of life. We must not venture to
give it, here or elsewhere, a more extended meaning. Although
bondslaves, there was a way to freedom : if the acknowledged son
and heir released them from servitude, no one could entangle them
again in the yoke of bondage. ' If therefore the Son shall make you s j„i,n 30
free, ye shall be free indeed.' The fact was undeniable that they were
children of Abraham, yet none the less they were seeking the lii'e of
Jesus, not for any act of wrong or injustice on his part, but simply
because his expressed opinions differed from their own. ' I know „ .17
that ye are Abraham's seed ; yet ye seek to kill me, because my word
hath not free course in you (or, hath no place in you).' Inasmuch
as Jesus spoke only from actual observation and knowledge of his
Father, they, in opposing him, revealed an antagonistic parentage.
' I speak the things which I have seen with my Father (or, the . 3s
Father) ; and ye also do (or, do ye also therefore) the things which
ye heard from your (or, the) Father.' By words and acts alone could
true sonship be demonstrated ; be they whose sons they might, their
deeds proved them to be aliens from Jesus and his Father. The force
and spirit of this saying touched them not : they only reiterated the
old, parrot cry, that they claimed descent from Abraham. ' They , w
answered and said unto him, Our Father is Abraham.' Jesus would
admit only one kind and one evidence of sonship, — identity of spirit
and of action. ' Jesus saith unto them, If ye were (Gr. are) Abra- , 3.1
ham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.' The Revisers
note that some ancient authorities read 'ye do ' for ' ye would do.'
They were not now manifesting the patriarch's spirit or fulfilling the
patriarch's will. ' But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told , «i
you the truth, which I heard from God : this did not Abraham.' Let
us learn to cherish this description of Jesus by himself : ' a man that
hath told you the truth, which I heard from God.' There are many
still who are ready to accept and believe in him under that aspect,
and they have here the justification of his own words for doing so.
Let not those who are able to take a higher view of Jesus, and who
can rise to a loftier flight of faith, condemn or despise those who
simply look up to him with reverence as 'a teacher sent from God.'
The remembrance of this saying of Jesus, his own portrait of himself
held forth for these men's regard, would have sufficed to stifle many
an anathema in the act of utterance, and quench many a fire kindled
by religious bigotry. Jesus, in this very passage, is protesting against
the spirit of persecution. Abraham had never been guilty of it ; and
they who now sought to suppress the truth by killing the speaker,
proved themselves of a different stock. ' Ye do the works of your , u
father.' They sought to evade the argument by going behind the
obvious meaning, as though Jesus were attempting either to impute
the stain of illegality to their natural birth, or to intimate that they
were in no sense children of the God and common Father of mankind.
' They said unto him, We were not born of fornication ; we have one ,41
Father, even God.' Jesus was not seeking to make them out different
from other men, but he would have them deal with realities instead
of words. The fatherhood of God was no meaningless expression but
denoted community of will and spirit. If God were their leather,

28 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
their minds would coincide with His, and they would love instead of
s Joim 42 hating his messenger. 'Jesus said unto them, If God were your
Father, ye would love me : for I came forth and am come from God.'
Young renders literally : ' If God were your Father, ye would have
been loving me, for I came out from God, and am come.' The verb
exerchomai, rendered in the Authorised Version ' proceed forth ' and
by the Revisers ' come out,' must not be strained to any theological
sense. It was a word in common use, applied to any ordinary de-
<j Mat. si parture from one place to another, as in the passage : _' But they
having gone out' Its import here is clear from the following words :
s Joim 42 ' For neither have I come of myself, but he sent me.' Taking the
verse in its entirety, no mere man could ever dare to say such things
of himself. Here again we find the declaration of Jesus harmonising
1 John u with the opening statement of the evangelist : 'And the Word became
flesh, and tabernacled among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as
of the only-begotten from the Father).' If Jesus then came as God's
messenger, why were those he addressed unable to comprehend his
s John 43 words ? ' Why do ye not understand (or, know) my speech ? ' They
claimed to be of the household of God, but could not grasp the sense
„ 43 of the divine language. 'Even because ye cannot hear my word.'
Alford explains : ' To understand a man's speech, — as here used, is
literally to understand the idiom or dialect in which a man speaks, his
manner of speech ,¦ see Matt. xxvi. 73, where the same word is used
in the original' Tischendorf and Young do not insert the italicised
word ' even,' which may convey a wrong idea. Luther's version gives
a clear meaning : ' Warum kennet ihr denn meine Sprache nicht ?
Denn ihr konnet ja mein Wort nicht horen.' ' Why then do ye not
know my speech ? For indeed ye cannot hear my word.' The verb
alcouo, rendered ' hear,' signifies in this place, and often elsewhere, to
is Mat. is ' listen to,' as in the passage : ' If he shall hear thee.' Their inability
to comprehend him was as gross as though he spoke an unknown
foreign tongue ; and it was evidence of the fact that they were of a
s j„i,n 44 far different parentage and mode of life. ' Ye are of your father the
devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do.' Instead of
' it is your will to do ' the Authorised Version has ' ye will do,' which
Alford condemns as 'wholly inadequate and misleading . . . The
original means, your will is to do, you love, or, are inclined to do.'
Tischendorf renders, 'ye desire to do'; Young, 'ye wish to do.'
Having named the devil, Jesus went on to speak of him as of one
„ 44 whose origin, history and character were well known. ' He was a
murderer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because
there is no truth in him.' To the word ' stood ' the Revisers have
appended the note : ' Some ancient authorities read standeth.'
Apart from that fact, Alford renders the word as 'standeth.' He
says : ' The A. V. abode is un grammatical, the original word being
present in sense.' Young renders : ' In the truth he hath not stood'.'
Tischendorf has, ' and stands not in the truth ' ; but there is nothing
to indicate whether his adoption of the word ' stands ' arises from
difference of translation or of version. The following- sentence also
„ 44 is open to uncertainty in translation : ' When he speaketh a lie, he
speaketh of his own : for he is a liar, and the father thereof.' This
agrees with the Authorised Version, the Revisers having simply
altered ' of it ' to ' thereof.' But they give as an alternative ren-

i (il'll.

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 29
dering : ' When one speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own : for his
father also is a liar.' Alford does not touch upon this difference of
translation ; his note simply broaches the question whether the devil
is said to be the father of lies or of liars. Young renders : ' When
one may speak falsehood, of his own he speaketh, because he is a
liar — his father also.' Tischendorf renders : ' When he speaks lies,
he speaks from his own nature ; for he is a liar, and so is his father.'
Samuel Sharpe renders : 'When any one speaketh a lie, he speaketh
after the manner of his kindred, for his father also is a liar.' We
have here the explanation of Jesus himself as to the sense in which
he used the term ' father.' The word conveys two ideas : descent
and likeness. Jesus dwells chiefly on the latter ; indeed, he assumes
that the former can exist only in connection with the latter. 'Adam :
. . begat a son in his own likeness, after his image.' That is the
essential idea of parentage ; however great and numerous the dif
ferences in body and mind between father and child, they are over
borne, put out of sight, are as nothing, compared with the manifold
and far greater similarities of nature. That like begets its like is
the universal law, with man, brute, bird, fish, trees, plants : any great
and sudden divergence from the parental type is a physical impossi
bility. Ascending to the higher platform of spiritual life, Jesus insists
upon this obvious and irrefragable law. No bodily diversities have
then to be taken into account ; there is absolutely nothing to modify
the law that like must beget its like. Jesus speaks as having cogni
zance of spiritualities beyond our ken, and he seems to recognise an
action of spirit upon spirit, and powers of transformation and identi
fication between spirits, of which our limited earthly experience is
ignorant if not wholly unconscious. But we shall not err in taking
the lower ground of metaphor and analogy, and tracing out the mean
ing Jesus sought to convey to our minds by the figurative term
' father.' ' When any one speaketh a lie, he speaketh after the
manner of his kindred" ; for his father also is a liar.' These Jews had
claimed kindred with Abraham : ' We be Abraham's seed . . . Our
father is Abraham.' In the natural sense that was true : ' I know
that ye are Abraham's seed ' ; but in the spiritual sense it was false :
they had not the spirit of Abraham, but the spirit which stooped to
actions Abraham would have scorned to do. The truth held good :
' Ye do the works of your father ' : only the spirit which had begotten
their murderous desires, was not the spirit by which Abraham was
animated. Let us not overlook the fact, that in seeking the life of
Jesus these men had no personal quarrel against him; they weie
resolved to close his career at any price, simply because they could
not otherwise close his mouth, and they deemed his teaching heretical
and dangerous. What Jesus and every right-minded, unprejudiced
person could only denounce as a crime, they probably regarded as a
sacred duty, for the apostles were taught to anticipate the time when
' whosoever killeth you will think that he offereth service unto God.' in join,
On that point of the discussion there could be no agreement ; these
Jews shifted the ground of argument, and urged that at all events
Jesus could not deny them the common claim of humanity to be
children of one heavenly Father. ' We have one Father— God.' This
application of the word ' father ' both to Abraham and to God, indi
cates that the term was understood to be used in a sense not strictly

30 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
literal. Jesus took up their challenge, and contended that they had
no right to the title of God's children, inasmuch as their spirit was
hostile to His will. On the contrary, they were doing the devil's
work, they had his spirit, they were his children, he was their father :
to say any one of these things was to imply the whole of them. The
act manifests the spirit, and the spirit denotes the parentage. Jesus
spoke from the first to the same effect. In the sermon on the mount
5 Mat. 15 he had said : ' Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute
you ; that ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven.' The
likeness would constitute the sonship : ' for he maketh his sun to rise
on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.'
i joim 12 The evangelist also presents the matter in the same light : ' But as
many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children
of God'; the submissive, obedient, trustful spirit transforms the
uuim 12, 13 natural man into the man divine : 'even to them that believe in his
name : which were begotten, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God.' The new birth, which theolo
gians have shown an inclination to make dependent upon and myste
riously connected with the rite of baptism, Jesus and the evangelist
have declared to be contingent upon character. On the other hand,
instead of this God-like transformation and uprising, there may be
a course of devil-worship and degradation ; the actions of the life
are the evidences of the Spirit who rules : ' Ye do the works of your
father.' These Jews had reached a state of mind altogether alien from the
trurh. They might believe a lie, but they would not believe the
s joim 45 truth. ' But because I say the truth, ye believe me not.' Could any
one of them point to any crime in the life of Jesus which made his
„ 40 evidence untrustworthy ? ' Which of you convicteth me of sin ? '
The alteration by the Revisers of ' convinceth ' into ' convicteth '
was anticipated by Young, who renders : ' Who of you convicteth
me of sin ? ' Tischendorf renders : 'Which of you convicts me for
sin ? ' Alford says : ' The question is an appeal to his sinlessness of
life as evident to them all, as a pledge for his truthfulness of word.'
To what could their rejection of unimpeachable evidence be attri-
„ a; buted ? ' If I say the truth, why do ye not believe me ? ' It must
be admitted that relationship to God involved reception of a divine
„ 47 message. ' He that is of God heareth the words of God.' And from
the fact that they refused to hear, the conclusion must be drawn that
, 47 they could claim no relationship to God. ' For this cause ye hear
them not, because ye are not of God.'
In proportion to the solemn earnestness of Jesus, was the obtuse-
ness and indifference of the listeners. They answered him now with
a scoffing insinuation. Was he not, in all he was saying, justifyino-
their previous assumption, that he was a heretic from the Jewish
faith, and impelled to his teaching by some misleading demon ?
„ -is ' The Jews answered and said unto him, Say we not well that thou
art a Samaritan, and hast a devil (Gr. demon) ? ' To this o-rave
., 49 charge Jesus gave a dignified and calm denial. ' Jesus answered I
have not a devil (Gr. demon).' On the contrary, by word and deed
he was doing honour to his Father, in spite of the dishonour thev
„ 49 were casting on himself : ' but I honour my Father, and ye dishonour

¦n

me.' Jesus was actuated by no personal ambition. ' But I seek not

S Jolni GO

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 31
mine own glory.' There was One who desired to see him honoured
and who took judicial oversight of the words and acts of all ' There
is one that seeketh and judgeth,' rendered by Young, ' There is one
who is seeking and judging.' Acceptance of the teaching of Jesus
involved momentous consequences. In bis accustomed solemn and
emphatic manner he declared that obedience to his instructions
would ward off death. 'Verily, verily, I say unto you,- If a man -,1
keep my word, he shall never see death.' It is important here to
take the literal rendering of Dr. Young, ' If any one may keep my
word, death he may not see— to the age.' The sense of the original
is bound up with the word ' age,' and there can be no right concep
tion of the passage apart from that term. Even in the translations
there is no escaping from it, the words ' ever, everlasting, eternal,'
being obviously derived from the Latin form of ' age,'—cevum, cetas.
We are bound to take the words of Jesus in their natural sense,
without either underestimating or overstraining their significance!
It cannot be denied that the word 'age ' conveys the idea of limita
tion ; it denotes a certain period, however indefinite or prolonged
that period may be. On the other hand, it appears from the answer
of the Jews in the context (v. 52), that the popular notion of the
expression 'age' was that it signified a vast stretch of time,
amounting in fact to perpetuity, just as we are now accustomed to
interpret the words 'ever' and 'never.' But in construing- this
solemn promise of Jesus, we must not take up the random, hasty,
haphazard interpretation of his words which happens to be the
popular one. We must seek to grasp accurately the real import of
every phrase and word he used. Let us be sure that his form of
expression in dealing with so weighty a matter was wisely and
deliberately chosen. The statement, 'he shall never (in no wise —
' Englishman's Greek Testament ') see death,' is at once defined, en
larged and restricted by the addition — ' to the age.' What is an
age ? The word denotes a fixed period of human existence.
' Thou shalt come to thy grave in a full age, 5 j„u 20
Like as a shock of corn cometh in in its season.'
' Behold, thou hast made my days as handbreadths ; 3r, rsl. :,
And mine age is as nothing before thee.'
W'hen Jesus assures life ' to the age,' immunity from death ' to the
age,' he is simply promising that nothing shall cut short the allotted
term of existence. This does not amount to a declaration of im
mortality. The apostle Paul realised a far more extended stretch of
time than an ' age,' and he gave expression to his idea by using the
word in the plural 'ages.' 'That in the ages to come he might 2 Epi,. 7
shew the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in
Christ Jesus.' ' Unto him be the glory in the church and in Christ 3 Eyh. 21
Jesus unto all the generations of the age of the ages.' 'Theici. 20
mystery which hath been hid from the ages and from the genera
tions.' There is obviously a gradation of time in the words ' genera
tions,' ' age,' ' ages.' Jesus did not see fit to employ the plural form.
His promise was personal, applicable to each individual : ' If any
one may keep my word, death he may not see — to the age.' Obedience
to the precepts of Jesus will ensure the prolongation of human life
to its utmost limit. More than that can scarcely be insisted on
from these words of his. And never yet in the world's history has

32 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part n.
such an experience been granted to a child of Adam. Human life
was cut short by the first transgression ; the centuries of Methuselah
were but a shortened career, and to what a span has man's life
dwindled down since then ! When our second Adam, the Man from
heaven, works his will within us, the law of the spirit of life will
completely rule and enormously prolong our existence. Is not such
a promise enough for us ? It is too much for this world, and we
wait its realisation in the world to come. If Jesus had intended to
promise absolute immortality, no linguistic difficulty stood in the way
of doing so. He could have conveyed that idea as easily as the
apostle Paul did subsequently. This is a suitable opportunity for
¦i Rom. 7 considering the apostle's teaching on this subject. ' To them that by
patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and incorruption,
eternal life,' rendered by Young : ' To them, indeed, who in patient
continuance of a good work, seek glory, and honour, and incorrupti
bility — life age-during.' The aim is the highest possible, — incor
ruptibility or immortality, but its antecedent and preparative is
15 i. cor. .53 ' life age-during.' Again : ' For this corruptible must put on incor
ruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.' This the apostle
speaks of as a far-off and final change, which will be granted alike to
the dead and the living 'at the last trump :' the dead (that is, the
pre-deceased) and the living (that is, survivors in this world) will
52 simultaneously, instantaneously be transformed. ' We shall all be
changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump :
for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible,
and we shall be changed.' The figure of ' the last trump ' implies
previous preparation, all arrangements made, every individual
watching in his place, the innumerable host of the redeemed duly
instructed how and when to act, having gone through prior evolu
tions, and waiting but the signal from the Captain of their salvation
to attain their ultimate perfection.
i h. Tim. 10 Take another passage. 'Our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished
death, and brought life and incorruption to light through the gospel,'
rendered by Young, ' who abolished death, but who enlightened life
and immortality through the good news.' Here is an evident dis
tinction between life and immortality : the latter is more than the
former, though it be life age-during. Jesus has revealed both, but
the life age-during must come before the life immortal.
In the following passage the sense of ' age ' and 'age-during,' and
the higher significance of ' incorruptibility ' or ' immortality,' come out
n. Tim. 17 clearly. 'Now unto the king eternal (Gr. of the ages), incor
ruptible, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and
ever (Gr. unto the ages of the ages).' In the following passage also.
' immortality ' is held to be a divine prerogative. ' Until the
appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ : which in its (or, his) own times
he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the Kino- of
kings (Gr. them that reign as kings) and Lord of lords (Gr. them
that rule as lords) ; who only hath immortality, dwelling in lio-ht
unapproachable, whom no man hath seen, nor can see : to whom
be honour and power eternal' The last word is rendered by
Young ' age-during : ' the ascription of praise to the immortal king,
by creatures having their appointed ' age,' is properly described by
the term ' age-during.'

. 1 1- 16 ;

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 33
Another form of expression has been used to convey the idea of
immortality : ' after the power of an eudless (Gr. indissoluble) life.' 7 Hub w
Jesus, however, does not speak of incorruptibility, immortality,
endless or indissoluble life, but of ' life age-during,' and it behoves
us to weigh his words with care, to insist to the utmost upon their
proper meaning, but not presume to go beyond it.
The solemn asseveration of Jesus was regarded by the opposing
Jews as evidence of madness, or worse. ' The Jews said unto him, s joi„, 52
Now we know that thou hast a devil (Gr. demon).' They proved it,
to their own satisfaction, thus : The best and greatest men had died,
yet here was one who said that he could save from death. Was he,
this carpenter's son, a greater man than Abraham and all the
prophets of the past ? Was he not arrogating to himself an un
heard-of power and name ? 'Abraham is dead, and the prophets ; .. ¦">¦-'
and thou sayest, If a man keep my word, he shall never taste of
death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead ? „ ¦«
and the prophets are dead : whom makest thou thyself ? ' We must
again take Dr. Young's literal rendering. ' Now have we known that
thou hast a demon : Abraham died, and the prophets, and thou
sayest, If any one may keep my word, he shall not taste of death to
the age ! Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who died ? the
prophets also died ; whom dost thou make thyself ? ' The words of
Jesus were ' death he may not see to the age ; ' the Jews quote them
as ' he shall not taste of death to the age.' Alford explains that the
expressions were synonymous ; ' To behold death as to taste of death,
is a Hebrew way of speaking for to die, and must not be pressed to
mean, " shall not feel (the bitterness of) death," in a temporal sense,
as Stier has done.' Alford observes further : ' The death of the body
is not reckoned as death, any more than the life of the body is life, in
our Lord's discourses ; see ch. xi. 25, 26, and notes. Both words
have a deeper meaning.' That is only another way of saying that
Jesus' promise of ' life age-during ' is to be interpreted figuratively,
and not according to the natural sense of the words. The other
passage which Alford refers to, spoken with reference to the death
and resurrection of Lazarus, assuredly does not bear out the idea of
a figurative interpretation. It is evident from the comment of these
Jews that the words of Jesus were taken literally, nor are we at
liberty to assume that Jesus did not intend them to be so under
stood. In straining after 'a deeper meaning' the words become
meaningless. In reply to the criticism, ' Whom makest thou thyself ? ' Jesus
admitted that any self-exaltation or self-praise would be worthless.
'Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing.' His - "
title to power and honour was his Father's gift : ' it is my Father , 54
that glorifieth me.' And that they might not repeat their question,
* Where is thy Father ? ' Jesus added : ' of whom ye say, that he is
your God.' Tischendorf, following the Vatican MS., renders, ' our
God.' Alford notes : ' Whom ye are in the habit of calling your
God— i.e., the God of Israel. A most important identification, from
the mouth of our Lord himself, of the Father with the God of Israel
in the Old Testament.' The God they professed to worship, they
were, in truth, ignorant of. ' And ye have not known him.' The
Authorized Version has, ' yet ye.' Alford explains : ' The sense is,

19
54

34 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part n.
of Whom ye say that he is our God, and (not yet nor but) know him
not.' The improved rendering of the Revisers was anticipated here,
as generally elsewhere, by Dr. Young. Jesus had the knowledge
which they lacked, and it would be a moral impossibility for him to
deny what he knew to be true. That being his justification for not
yielding to their opinions and strenuously upholding his own, he puts
N.r„hn55 the naked truth plainly and honestly before them. 'But I know
him ; and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be like unto you,
a liar.' Young uses the past tense : ' But I have known him, and if
I say that I have not known him, I shall be like you— a liar.' It
must not be supposed that in making so positive and serious a charge
there was anything approaching to passion in the utterance of Jesus.
He must have been wholly incapable, even under the greatest pro
vocation, of ' giving the lie ' in any offensive sense. He spoke more
in sorrow than in anger, and we may assume that his tone was
neither vehement nor sarcastic. There must have been a ring of
sadness and compassion in his accusing words. An inconsiderate
reader is apt to give to such denunciations an emphasis which accords
not with the gentle and loving spirit of Jesus. Try as we will to
realise the scene, the occasion, and the surroundings of this or any
other particular incident recorded by the evangelists, there must still
ever be a risk of misconception and misrendering. Our own ideas
and feelings mingle unconsciously with the narrative, and often, in
repeating the sayings of Jesus, we express ourselves rather than him.
The true and accurate reading of the gospels, and indeed of Scrip
ture generally, depends far more upon the depth of the reader's
insight than upon the clearness of his voice and the elegance of his
delivery. It would follow, that the fullest and most appreciative
mind would best interpret, by the living voice, the sense of Scripture,
were it not for two reasons : (1) that too little care is given to the
cultivation and management of the voice ; and (2) that the reverence
felt for Scripture deters many from rendering it artistically, as they
would any other work of genius. Yet surely the public reading of
the Bible not only justifies but claims the highest efforts of our best
and most attractive faculties ; in proportion to our appreciation of
its pathos, simplicity, fulness, graphicness, sublime conceptions, mag
nificent imagery, and ennobling doctrine, should be our care to make
the reading worthy of the writing. Why should all the power of
expression which resides in the human voice be restricted to the
singing ? Why should the choristers do their utmost in the chanting,
and the reader perform his task negligently, apparently with cool
indifference, as though he were physically if not mentally incapable
of throwing heart and soul into the reading ? How often might
depths and breadths of meaning be brought out by judicious inflec
tions and pauses, by that natural, irrepressible vibration of the voice
which accompanies the expression of whatever is deeply felt and
realised ! That is a vastly different thing from what is known and
taught as the grace of elocution. No teaching can give the hidden
fire, and no instruction should be imparted or allowed in Scripture
reading. All about it must be natural, spontaneous : only let the
mind of the reader be upstrung to the proper pitch of earnest and
intensely reverential thought, and his reading will become naturally
aud spontaneously artistic. There must be no copying of others in

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 35
manner or method, no straining for effect, but a hearty desire to
apprehend the full significance of the narrative, the prophecy, the
teaching, or the parable, and to bring out its meaning with force and
clearness. The style should vary with the subject-matter. Many
readers adopt one manner and one tone for everything, being always
either too impassive or too intensely solemn. The first and foremost
aim of a reader should be to feel as well as to understand ; that will
enable him to infuse into his delivery, and impart to the listeners,
his own emotions and perceptions. Such an effectual reading of the
Scriptures would convey more pleasure and profit, intellectual and
moral, than any sermon ; the well-known words which now fall
barren on careless ears, would then become ' spirit and life,' and the
interest and spirituality thereby generated would diffuse themselves
over the other portions of the service of prayer and praise. Nothing
of that can be hoped for so long as a negligent, unimpassioned style
of reading prevails, such as would better befit the perusal of some
old and tedious Act of Parliament.
Jesus repeated his assertion with respect to his knowledge of God.
' But I know him, and keep his word.' Young indicates a difference s John 05
of tense : ' But I have known Him, and His word I keep.' The
expression ' keep his word,' would seem to mean, as in verse 52, ' act
according to his will' Then, alluding to their question, ' Art thou „ 53
greater than our father Abraham, which is dead ? ' Jesus tells them :
' Your father Abraham rejoiced to see (or, that he should see) my „ 50
day ; and he saw it, and was glad.' This is rendered by Tischendorf :
' Your father Abraham exulted that he might see my day : and he
saw and was glad.' Young reverses the position of the words
' rejoiced ' and ' was glad : ' ' Abraham, your father, was glad that he
might see my day ; and he saw, and rejoiced.' The patriarch had
rejoiced in being privileged both to anticipate and to behold the day
of Jesus. Alford says : ' What is the meaning of My day 'I Certainly,
the day of Christ's appearance in the flesh.' That seems to be the
only possible interpretation. It agrees with the opening words of
this discourse of Jesus : ' I am the light of the world.' It is ., 12
corroborated by the revelation of Moses and Elijah upon the mount
conferring with Jesus, who now declares that Abraham had mani
fested the same interest in his career. It is all very mysterious to us,
' who are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon s joi, 9
earth are a shadow.' Jesus reveals matters which had come to
his knowledge in a prior state of existence, in another world than
ours • he claims acquaintance with the God of the Jews, and with the
father of their nation. And in all this there is nothing intrinsically
improbable : a life elsewhere is as credible as this life is certain ;
a life prolonged through centuries, in what respect is that more
marvellous than a life prolonged through years ? And that the
loftiest Being in the universe should be known by Another claiming
fellowship with Him, that our progenitor, translated to a higher
sphere, should take an interest more or less active m mundane
affairs' is a rational belief when based on revelation, although it could
not be evolved from man's inner consciousness.
The criticising hearers of Jesus gave no credence to his assertion.
He stood before them, walked among them, as an ordinary man It
was their humour to scoff at his words, rather than to ponder .them.
D 2

36

THE KING AND THE KINGDOM:

[part ii.

John

„ 58

1 John 1,

S John 59

7 Acts 5S
22 Acts 20

14 Acts 19

' The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old,
and hast thou seen Abraham ? ' The conception of a prior, heavenly
origin and existence did not enter into their minds. Jesus now
solemnly, plainly and unmistakably declared the fact. ' Jesus said
unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was (Gr.
was born), I am.' The Tauchnitz edition has the following excep
tional note : ' Translate, Before Abraham was born, I am.' That is
the rendering of Tischendorf. Young, however, renders: 'Before
Abraham came— I am.' Samuel Sharpe : ' I was before Abraham
was born.' Luther : ' Ehe denn Abraham ward, bin ich.' ' Before
Abraham was (or, became), am I.' Alford prefers : ' Before Abraham
was made, I am.' The 'verb in the original is ginomai, which is
defined : to become, to happen : to be born : to be.' Alford adds the
note : ' As Liicke remarks, all unbiassed explanation of these _ words
must recognise in them a declaration of the essential praa-existence
of Christ.' That truth was a natural inference from the previous
portion of the discourse, and the emphatic asseveration of Jesus
places it beyond question. The word of Jesus himself stands in
confirmation of the evangelist's opening of this gospel : ' In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. The same was in the beginning with God.'
The saying of Jesus found no place in the minds of the listeners.
Exasperated beyond measure, they were on the point of pelting him
with stones, and would have done so, had he not in some way-
concealed himself. ' They took up stones therefore to cast at him :
but Jesus hid himself (or, was hidden).' It must not be assumed
that this attempt at stoning had a judicial character, or that the
death of Jesus was the object of the would-be stone throwers. It
was a sudden, unauthorised outburst of popular frenzy, not in any
way resembling the stoning of Stephen, who, after arraignment, was
' cast out of the city ' and deliberately put to death in the presence of
* witnesses,' Saul ' standing by, and consenting, and keeping the
garments of them that slew him.' The habit of throwing stones at
earnest-minded preachers and reformers would seem to have been a
favourite pastime of the intolerants of those days, who, on one
occasion, persuaded the multitude to stone Paul, and afterwards
dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. Jesus now
stood in the same danger, and how he escaped is not clear, especially
as there is much uncertainty in the various readings. The Autho
rised Version stands : ' But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the
temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.' The
two oldest MSS. stop at the word ' temple,' and the Revisers have
done the same, adding the footnote : ' Many ancient authorities add
and going through the midst of them went his way, and so passed bi/.'
Alford observes : ' There does not appear to be any miraculous escape
intended here, although certainly the assumption of one is natural
under the circumstances. Jesus was probably surrounded by His
disciples, and might thus hide himself.' That is a fair interpretation
of the words, ' hid himself, and went out of the temple, going throuo-h
the midst of them, and so passed by.' The only way of hiding in a
friendly crowd would be by stooping down, those about him makino-
a passage, so that Jesus could reach the edge unrecognised, and walk
away. Such a mode of retreat would not be dignified, but it was

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 37
better so than that his incensed enemies should resort to violence
In some way, at all events, Jesus either 'hid himself or 'was
hidden,' and so escaped.
In verse 31 it was stated that Jesus began his discourse to ' those
Jews which had believed him.' Yet immediately upon his first
observation we find them questioning, doubting, arguing, showing
resentment at his teaching, and at last (verse 48) attacking his
reputation. Jesus was accustomed to be treated, more or less, in that
way. This may be taken to indicate the fact that it was no custom
of the Jews to listen in silence to their religions teachers. Probably
Jesus himself committed no innovation when, at the age of twelve
years, he was found 'sitting in the midst of the teachers, both 2 Luke 40
hearing them, and asking them questions.' The liberty he thus
claimed for himself, he freely allowed to others. Indeed, he seems to
have encouraged the fullest questioning, and often provoked criticism
by his outspoken sentiments, always answering carefully and thoroughly
any argument brought against him. The discourses to Nicodemus,
to the Samaritan woman at the well, and to his twelve apostles at
various times, show this custom under its most favourable aspect.
Jesus never resented, but ever welcomed discussion of his teaching,
although the criticisms were generally hostile. An example of this is
to be found in the 6th chapter of John. The multitude is there
represented as repeatedly putting questions, in fact carrying on an
argument with Jesus. From the consecutiveness of the narrative it
is evident that certain spokesmen of the multitude must have been
selected, the discussion being carried on with a closeness and accuracy
of reasoning not otherwise possible. This example is very striking
when we bear in mind the social status of the multitude. It was
composed of persons to whom a full and satisfying meal was a matter
of consequence, a thing to be eagerly desired ; for Jesus told them :
' Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the e Joim 20
loaves, and were filled.' Moreover, the discourse was delivered in
a place set apart for religious worship and teaching, ' in the syna- „ 59
gogue,' which may be taken as fairly representative of our churches
and chapels. All this is quite opposed to the mode of religious
teaching which now prevails. Children are often taught theology at
an early age, and through very rigid formulas, perhaps necessarily so,
the subjects dealt with being above the competence and compre
hension of the infant mind, so that catechisms must be learned by-
rote, the tremendous and supernatural character of the dogmas
therein enunciated finding no foothold in a child's nature, and being-
only realisable, if remembered at all, in the maturity of manhood.
Religious instruction is bestowed upon adults in the same authorita
tive, unchallenged manner. We are accustomed to listen in submis
sive silence to sermons from the pulpit ; many preachers seem to
have a conviction, not that they are divinely taught, but that they
have been divinely appointed to teach. No sign of criticism or
dissent must be betrayed by the hearers, who are sometimes warned
against inattention, as though it were a sin, and forbidden even to
discuss the sermon afterwards, as though all comment, unless it
happens to be favourable, on the discourse, were a mocking of sacred
subjects. What are the results ? We have form without spirit ;

38 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part n.
doctrines which weak and plastic minds bow down before with
reverence, but which hard-headed men, accustomed to free, honest,
independent thought, treat either with scorn or indifference. The
undemonstrative silence of a congregation would be a terrible thing
to preachers, had they not become habituated to it. To go on
preaching, sentence after sentence, for an hour at a time, and that
week after week for years together, and never be able to glean, by
word or look, the slightest intimation as to the effect produced on the
great majority of the hearers, that, rightly viewed, must be no smali
trial to a Christian minister. No wonder he sometimes strives to
break through that awful monotony, catches at signs of languor and
mind-wandering, and rebukes his congregation sharply, finds fault
with a smile here, a whisper there, a tendency to nod everywhere, and
bewails occasionally the strange and startling fact that his most
solemn exhortations and invitations produce apparently no effect on
the majority of his flock. All men, clergymen among thetn, must
reap as they have sown. The claim to authoritative teaching, which
sets itself above criticism and practically denies the right of reply, is
the surest way to estrange the sympathy of those to whom such
teaching is addressed. There can be no bond of intellectual union
between minister and people, on such conditions. He cannot expect
to act the part of a potter, nor will they submit to be moulded as clay
in his hands. Be his ideas and pretensions as an ordained minister
of the gospel what they may, he stands none the less a mere man
among fellow men, and should seek to submit his views to the judg
ments, the criticisms, the questionings, which are necessarily gene
rated in the minds of intelligent hearers. They may, indeed, through
custom or indifference, be content to listen in silence, but only
in one way, by mutual argument and exchange of views, can their
minds and hearts become satisfied, and the Truth prevail. As
it is, there is a great gulf fixed between ministers and people, none
the less formidable and deplorable because it is more real than
apparent. The courtesies of social life conceal it partly ; as does also
the estrangement springing from opposed ideas. The more frequently-
such ideas are repeated by the pastor, and listened to in sullen or
contemptuous silence by the flock, the wider grows the breach
between them, albeit there may be nothing to indicate the sad and
solemn fact. Some few among the hearers, who may be gifted with
an uncommon share of intellectual energy, and who are led to turn it
towards the study of the New Testament, may hammer out a theoloo-y
for themselves, and find at the fountain-head the teachino- and com
fort their souls crave ; but where can those persons turn, whose souls
rebel against the preaching so pertinaciously and positively reiterated
but who either have not enough mental capacity to expose its
fallacies, or who turn with disgust from theological doctrines so
handled and enforced ? They naturally take refuge in the realities of
life, its business, its ambitions, in anything and everythino- except
that patient and wrapt attention which to every religious'3 teacher
must be, as it was to Jesus, the ' one thing needful' &Undoubtedly
there are exceptions : congregations reverential, submissive, interested
docile, swayed by a minister exercising real power. ' By their fruits
ye shall know them.' Does the result amount to this : that church
services are better attended, prayers more frequent, the Communion

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 39
table crowded, the children catechised ? Good, good, good, a thousand
times good, if you will : religious fervour in any form is better than
callousness of heart, and earnestness of belief and hope must help
forward morality, down even to the vagaries of the Salvation Army.
But what about the upgrowth of independent thought, the clash of
mind with mind, the play of intellectual life and vigour, the spirit of
enquiry, which are as essential to the continuance" and development
of Christianity as to everything else in the gradual progression of
humanity ? These are greater matters, though orthodoxy cares not
for them, and ritualism aims at something different. The question is
this : Shall adults continue to receive religious teaching, as well as
children ? If so, can it be wise and right that they should receive it
in the same manner as children, — in absolute, submissive silence ?
Jesus did not so teach, neither was he so listened to. Well was it
for his cause, though ill for him, well was it for the world to remotest
ages, that the religious teaching of the Jews was thus fundamentally
different from that prevailing throughout Christendom. Had Jesus
been doomed to preach to congregations which never dared to criti
cise, to enquire, to express doubt, to speak out their own opinions, to
cavil even, think you that his sermons would have produced the effect
they did ? There is reason to suppose that he gave no latitude to
criticism beyond what was common in those days ; we are told, on
the contrary, that his tone was more positive thau that to which the
people had been accustomed : ' And it came to pass, when Jesus r Mat. 2s, 1
ended these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching :
for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.'
And as the apostles preached from synagogue to synagogue, the same
measure was meted out to them as had been to their Master : their
words found acceptance or rejection according to the impression they
were able to produce on the minds of the hearers. There was no
such thing in those days as passive listening in compulsory dumbness.
Follow the career of the first preachers, as they went from place to
place : the synagogues were always centres of intellect, of thought, of
debate, albeit error and blind orthodoxy often gained the ultimate
physical victory, as in the case of Stephen : ' But there arose certain 0 Acts 9
of them that were of the synagogue called of the Libertines, and of
the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cihcia and
Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to withstand
the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake.' 'They came to 17 Acts 1,
Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews : and Paul, as his
custom was, went in unto them, and for three sabbath days reasoned
with them from the scriptures.' The reasoning was not, in those
days, all on one side, the pastor arguing from the pulpit, and the
sheep forbidden to utter even one responsive bleat. ' They . . came 1 3 Acts u.
to Antioch of Pisidia ; and they went into the synagogue on the
sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of the law and
the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying.
Brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.
We have changed all that. But has the change been wise and bene
ficial ? Is it well for the people ? Is it well for the priest ?
Opposition to the ministry of Jesus came from various quarters.
We have seen that when he did begin to gain influence over men, it

40 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
was sometimes lost immediately, on his continuing to address them.
His trial took at one time a domestic turn. His ' friends ' arrived at
the conclusion that he was going, or had gone, out of his mind. His
marvellous statements about himself, his influence over men as the
giver of age-during life, and his pre-existence to Abraham, coupled
with the slander about demoniacal possession circulated by his oppo
nents, may have led to that conclusion. It was known that enormous
crowds were attracted to him, and that Jesus and those with him
were occupied without intermission. The result of a friendly council
would seem to have been that some kind of restraint should be exer-
m Mark 20, 21 cised over him. ' And the multitude cometh together again, so that
they could not so much as eat bread. And when his friends heard
it, they went out to lay hold on him : for they said, He is beside himself.'
His supernatural power of exorcism was turned by his enemies into an
„ 22 argument which pointed in the same direction. ' And the scribes
which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and, By
(or, in) the prince of the devils (Gr. demons) casteth he out the
devils (Gr. demons).' Matthew gives a detailed account of what led
them to make the charge. A demoniac who was both blind and
dumb was brought to be cured by Jesus. The cure extended to the
infirmities of blindness and deafness, to the amazement of all be-
12 Mat. 22, 23 holders. ' Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil (or,
a demoniac), blind and dumb : and he healed him, insomuch that the
dumb man spake and saw. xlnd all the multitudes were amazed.'
Luke appears not to have known about the blindness, for he does not
ii Lnke 14 mention it. ' And he was casting out a devil (Gr. demon) 'which was
dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil (Gr. demon) was gone
out, the dumb man spake ; and the multitudes marvelled.' The
recovery of speech would naturally be more manifest to the crowd
than the recovery of sight. All could mark his previous silence, and
hear his utterances after the cure, but those only who came near, and
had an opportunity of close investigation, would ascertain the fact of
his restored vision. The discrepancy in the narratives indicates an
independent source of information.
The wonder of the multitude led them to debate the question
whether the ability of Jesus to perform so great a miracle, did not
prove him to be the expected Jewish Messiah, for Matthew adds :
12 Mat. 22, as ' And said, Is this the Son of David ?' When the Pharisees heard
that idea expressed, they took upon themselves to counteract it, by
asserting that the miracle should be regarded as evidence of a compact
„ 24 between Jesus and the ruling spirit of all demons. ' But when the
Pharisees heard it, they said, This man doth not cast out devils (Gr.
demons), but by (or, in) Beelzebub the prince of the devils (Gr.
demons).' We have seen that Mark attributed that slanderous
assertion to ' the scribes which came down from Jerusalem.' The
scribes and Pharisees were constantly associated in opposition to
Jesus. Luke appears not to have known who were the authors of the
n Luke is calumny, for he speaks vaguely, ' But some of them said, By (or, In)
Beelzebub the prince of the devils (Gr. demons) casteth he out devils
(Gr. demons).' Luke, however, records the fact, omitted by Matthew
and Mark, that this suggestion led to another. Jesus was urged to
„ 10 disprove the accusation by giving some sign out of heaven. 'And!
others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from (out of — Youno-)

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 41
heaven.' Jesus being cognizant of what was in their minds,
endeavoured to convince them by argument. ' But he, knowing their n mice 17
thoughts, said unto them . . .' This stands in Matthew : ' And 12 Mat. 25
knowing their thoughts he said unto them . . .' It is to be inferred
from the narrative that the charge of Satanic agency was not launched
forth in the hearing of Jesus, but that he was intuitively, whether
supernaturally or not we cannot venture to say, aware of it. The
demand of a sign out of heaven wras sufficient to show what was passing
in their minds. From Mark's narrative it appears that Jesus and his
accusers were not standing face to face, but were some distance apart,
for we are told, ' And he called them unto him, and said unto them 3 Mark 2s
in parables . . .' His usual figurative teaching had on this occasion
a special application to what had just happened. Every community,
large or small, be it a nation, a city, or a family, can only be held
together by unity of purpose. National rebellion and social anarchy
are synonymous ; tumults among fellow citizens lead to destruction
of property and business ; and feuds in a family must disorganize
and eventually break up the home. ' Every kingdom divided against 12 Mat. 25
itself is brought to desolation ; and every city or house divided
against itself shall not stand.' Luke does not mention ' every city,'
but adds to the first clause of the verse, ' and a house divided against 11 Luke it
a house falleth (or, and house falleth upon house).' Mark's record is
the same in sense, although differing somewhat in words. In the
accounts of our Lord's sayings we constantly meet with such varia
tions, which obviously must have arisen from defects in the memory
or notes of the first or subsequent reporters. ' And if a kingdom be 3Ma,k24
divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house
be divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
Matthew and "Luke apply to the 'kingdom' the expression ' brought
to desolation.' Luke alone applies to the ' house ' the word ' falleth.
Mark adopts both for the 'kingdom' and the 'house' the term
' stand.' He also prefaces the illustration with the question, ' How „ 2+
can Satan cast out Satan ? ' The drift of the argument is best
apprehended by Young's translation of the word ' Satan as adver
sary • ' ' How is an adversary able to cast out an adversary ? Jiacn
evangelist continues the account in his own way, the agreement being-
substantial and the verbal discrepancies unimportant. 'And if Satan 12 Mat. ¦¦.,
casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself ; how then shall his
kingdom stand?' 'And if Satan also is divided against himselt, 11 i.uke is
how shall his kingdom stand ? because ye say that I ^t out ^ devifs
(Gr. demons) by (or, in) Beelzebub.' < And if Sa an hath risen up 3 Maik a>
against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end
It would be the height of absurdity for the Adversary thus to oppose
himself, foil his own plans, weaken his own power, annihi late himsen.
\nd if the act of exorcism by Jesus involved complicity with Satan, how
would these Pharisees account for the exercise of the same power by
dTsciples of their own ? < And if I by (or, in) Beelzebub cast ou 12 Mat. ..
devil? (Gr. demons) by (or, in) whom do your sons cast t hem 0 utj
therefore shall they be your judges.' Luke recoids *« vera e n
precisely the same words. The Authorised Version has chldien in
Matthew and 'sons' in Luke The. Eev^ have biought the
passages into harmony. Alford explains that the wo d sons is
Equivalent to ' scholars-disciples,' and refers for one instance of such

42 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
it Kings s use of it to the passage, ' And the sons of the prophets that were at
Beth-el came forth to Elisha.' Alford says : ' The interpretation ot
this verse has been much disputed ; .viz., as to whether the casting
out by the sons of the Pharisees were real or pretended exorcisms . _. .
In Josephus we read that Solomon " left forms of exorcism, by which
they cast out demons, so that they never return. And this kind ot
cure is very common among us to this day." ' It is clear that some
kind of exorcism, real or imaginary, was practised by the Jews ; and
Jesus argued that the rule of judgment applied to him with reference
thereto, must also apply to others. It could not be held that the
power allowed and extolled in others, was evidence of Satanic agency
when displayed by Jesus ; nor would those sons of the Pharisees
tamely submit to be branded, by implication, with so terrible a
charge : ' therefore shall they be your judges.' On any fair and
honest reasoning, the very opposite conclusion must be arrived
at : the demon spirit must be held to be cast out by the divine spirit,
and the fact admitted, that the divine power and rulership was being
12 Mat. as established among them. ' But if I by (or, in) the Spirit of God
cast out the devils (Gr. demons), then is the kingdom of God come
upon you.' Instead of the word ' Spirit ' Luke introduces the word
n Luke 20 ' finger.' ' But if I by the finger of Gocl cast out devils (Gr. demons),
then is the kingdom of God come upon you.' The sense is the same ;
but did Jesus use both forms of expression ? If not, which of the
two ? Who changed ' Spirit ' into ' finger,' or the reverse ? To a
Jewish mind the difference would be immaterial, the latter being a.
proverbial way of expressing the former ; so that a reporter of the
discourse, being equally familiar with both forms, might unconsciously
s ex. io have adopted the one for the other. ' Then the magicians said unto
Pharaoh, This is the finger of God,' that is, the working of God's
:n ex. is power. ' Tables of stone, written with the finger of God : ' probably
a Jew would not take that literally, any more than the words of the
s Psa. 3 Psalmist : ' When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers,
the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained.' The ' finger ' of
God is synonymous with the working, the Spirit, the ordainment
of God.
Mark has not recorded the argument with respect to the sons of
the Pharisees, but the additional illustration which follows is given
3 Mark 27 by the three evangelists. In Mark it stands : ' But no one can enter
into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first
bind the strong man ; and then he will spoil his house.' In Matthew
12 Mat. 29 the only difference is in the opening words, which are, ' Or how can
one enter,' instead of ' But no one can enter.' In Luke the illustra-
n Luke 2i, tion is more elaborated : 'When the strong man fully armed guardeth
22 his own court, his goods are in peace : but when a stronger than
he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him his
whole armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.' Jesus
puts forward the parable as accurately representing the nature of the
work in which he was engaged. So far from being in collusion with
the adversary, he was his most strenuous and powerful opponent.
The casting out of demons denoted victory over the prince of demons ;
and the imparting of the same power of exorcism to the disciples of
Jesus might fitly be compared to the dividing, of a conqueror's spoils
among his followers. The idea of complicity with evil must be

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 43
scouted. The strongest form of proverb was not too strong to denote
the antagonism which exists between Jesus and evil, and the utter
impossibility of any combination, truce, or agreement among those
engaged in such .a warfare. ' He that is not with me is against 12 Mat. 30
me ; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.' Luke gives
precisely the same words. Mark omits them.
The scandalousness of the charge which had been brought against
Jesus impelled him to utter a very solemn warning. ' Therefore I „ si
say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men ;
but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.' Mark's
account is fuller, and seems to give the exact words of Jesus.
' Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons 3 Mark 28-30
of men, and their blasphemies where withsoever they shall blaspheme :
but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never
forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin : because they said, He
hath an unclean spirit.' These last eight words, giving the reason
why Jesus made the observation, agree in effect with Matthew's,
' Therefore I say unto you : ' obviously there was some such preface
to the remark, though Mark does not record it.
Let us first note the difference between the Authorised and Revised
Versions of Matthew. ' All manner of sin and blasphemy' is now
rendered ' Every sin and blasphemy,' which agrees with Tischendorf.
Young renders, ' All sin and evil speaking.' The alteration is an
important one. 'All manner ' simply refers to the kinds of sin and
blasphemy which shall be forgiven ; but the words ' every ' and ' all '
keep out of view the kinds, and relate to the entire catalogue, as a
whole, of sin and blasphemy. The Revisers note that instead of
' unto men,' ' some ancient authorities read unto you men.' That is
the reading of the Vatican MS., but Tischendorf does not adopt it
In the Authorised Version verse 31 ends with the words 'unto men,'
but the Revisers have not repeated them, in deference to the reading
of the two oldest MSS. In verse 31 the Authorised Version has
' against the Holy Spirit,' the italics showing that the words ' against '
and ' Holy ' were added by the translators. The Revisers have not
italicised the word ' against,' which is rendered 'of by Young, but
they have omitted ' Holy,' with Young and Tischendorf. Tischen
dorf renders ' will be forgiven ' and ' will not be forgiven,' instead of
' shall be forgiven ' and ' shall not be forgiven.' This may be
regarded as more than a mere verbal difference. The word ' shall
is "more restrictive, seeming to indicate rather the power and possi
bility of forgiveness than its certainty and universality ; the word
< will ' is absolute, does not involve but rather excludes the idea ot
any uncertainty : 'all sin will be forgiven,' is simply the assertion of
a fact ; ' all sin shall be forgiven,' raises in the mmd a conception ot
one who says it shall or it shall not. . , ,
In Mark the Revisers have twice inserted the word their, wnere
it does not appear in the Authorised Version : 'All their sins shall
be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies, iiscnen-
dorf renders : ' All things shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, the
sins and the blasphemies.' The Revisers have replaced the words
' is in danger of eternal damnation,' by, ' is guilty of an eternal sin.
Alford o-ives the same reading. The Sinaitic MS. reads, shall be in

44 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
danger.' The word 'damnation' (judgment— Young) has been
altered to ' sin ' on the authority of the two oldest MSS. Instead of
' is guilty,' Tischendorf renders ' will be guilty.' Young's rendering-
is as follows : ' All the sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and
evil speakings with which they may speak evil ; but whoever may
speak evil of the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness— for the age, but
is in danger of age-during judgment.'
Taking Matthew and Mark together, what is the doctrine here
enunciated by Jesus ? ' Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven
unto men.' 'All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of ^ men,
and their blasphemies wherewithsoever they shall blaspheme.' By
introducing in Mark the word ' their,' the Revisers have brought out
the fact that the allusion is to sins and evil speakings of man against
man. In Matthew also only a slight pause is needed: ' shall _ be
forgiven— unto men,' to indicate that the sin and evil speaking-
referred to are those ' unto men' or ' unto you men,' not ' unto the
Spirit.' The ' Englishmen's Greek New Testament ' gives the literal
translation of Matthew thus : ' Every sin and blasphemy shall be for
given to men ; but the concerning the spirit blasphemy shall not be
forgiven.' Until the Revisers, following the two oldest MSS.,
excluded after ' forgiven ' the words ' unto men,' which had stood for
centuries as the last two words of this verse, it was not possible to
adopt the view which is probably the correct one. ' Unto men '
seemed bound to the previous word ' forgiven.' The passages can
now be read as though they stood : ' All sins and evil speakings unto
men shall be forgiven.' 'All their sins unto the sons of men shall be
forgiven.' The"' Englishman's Greek New Testament ' renders Mark
literally thus : 'All the sins to the sons of men, and blasphemies
whatsoever they shall have blasphemed shall be forgiven ; but who
soever shall blaspheme against the Spirit the Holy . . .'
And how must we understand the word ' forgiven ? ' Forgiven by
man, or forgiven by God ? That question has no bearing upon
the matter, if we can only be persuaded that ' forgiveness ' must be a
fact and not a fiction, actual and not merely verbal, a reality in
existence and not simply an intellectual conception : to the prisoner,
freedom from confinement ; to the debtor, cancelment of the debt ; to
the transgressor in any shape, deliverance from the penalty imposed.
Nothing short of that can be real forgiveness. To the extent to
which man can deliver man from the consequences due to or actually
inflicted upon wrong doing, to that extent does the exercise of human
forgiveness reach. And the divine forgiveness must surely reach as
far and perform as much, unless it be a mere figment of the imagina
tion, a theological idea, a belief in some assumed change in the mind
and will of God towards us, of which, however, we can have no
evidence apart from some corresponding change in ourselves and our
surroundings. When Jesus asserted that all sin and evil speaking
among men will be forgiven, must he not have meant, that in the
onward progress of humanity a time will come when the sins and
slanders of this life will have been sufficiently atoned for, leaving no
resentment of past wrongs on the part of the injured, and no per
manent stain upon the moral nature of the injurer, the renovation of
society being perfected through the regeneration of each individual,
with no punishment, human or divine, to be imposed or dreaded on

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 45
account of past transgressions ? Such a consummation can be brought
about only through the working of ' the Holy Spirit of God, in whom 4 epi, :
we are sealed unto the day of redemption ; ' and if a man grieves
maligns, blasphemes, speaks evil of that Spirit whence can regenera
tion and forgiveness come to him ? That sin, and its penalty, lie
not withm the range of human jurisdiction. They are bound up
with the very existence of the transgressor, defiling and hardening
the mind and conscience : he ' hath never forgiveness, but is guiltv
of an eternal sin,' literally, he ' hath not forgiveness — for the age, but
is guilty of an age-during sin.' This is the one moral obliquity from
which there can be no salvation : the transgressor must bear the
burden of his infamy to his ' last day ; ' the guilt and condemnation
are declared by the Saviour to be ' age-during : ' we may neither take
from nor add to that declaration.
Matthew has preserved a further saying of Jesus on this subject.
' And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall 12 Mai.
be forgiven him.' The evil speaking of mankind against the Messiah
is pardonable, equally with that against men in general. ' But who- „
soever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven
him, neither in this world (or, age), nor in that which is to come.'
Young renders : ' neither in this age, nor in that which

Jta

IS

' Neither in this age, nor in that to come,' is the rendering of Samuel
Sharpe. Luther, however, used the word ' Welt,' ' world,' and it is
surprising how tenaciously translators have clung to the word' world.'
Dr. Samuel Davidson, in his translation from the Latin critical text
of Von Tischendorf, retains the word ' world : ' yet in Beza's Latin
Testament the passage stands, ' neque in hoc seculo, neque in futuro.'
Alford admitted the true meaning of the word aion, but seems to
have regarded as a matter of indifference the fact that it has been
rendered in a variety of ways. He says : ' The expressions this ivorM,
(equivalent to this present world, Tit. ii. 12 : 2 Tim. iv. 10 ; this
time, Mark x. 30 ; the course (age) of this world, Eph. ii. 2 ; this present
evil world, Gal. i. 4), and the world to come (see Mark x. 30 ; equiva
lent to that ivortd, Luke xx. 35 ; the ages to come, Eph. ii. 7) were
common among the Jews, and generally signified respectively the
time before and after the coming of the Messiah.' In every
passage here quoted by Alford, the word ' age ' has been adopted
by Young. The persistent use of a wrong word is no small matter.
The Revisers have not discarded ' world,' but they have given
the word ' age ' in the margin. For that much let us be thankful.
Jesus added another illustration of the supreme folly of attributing
good works to an evil origin. The suggestion was contrary to the
course of nature. ' Either make the tree good, and its fruit good ; or 12 Mat. 33
make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt : for the tree is known by
its fruit.' Adopting that simple rule of judgment, the abominable
slander uttered against Jesus betrayed the natural depravity of the
speakers. Jesus did not scruple now to endorse with his own
authority the crushing sarcasm, which the Baptist had applied to the
Pharisees and Sadducees : ' Ye offspring of vipers.' That title might 3 Mat. 7
well designate them : their bitter hostility, their hissing calumnies,
their tortuous insinuations, their crawling subtleties, the poisonous
malice of their envenomed tongues,— all these things were as evident

46 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
as they were inimical and repulsive to good and earnest-minded
teachers. Truth and charity were as strange to their lips as an
12 Mat. 34 unknown language. ' Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil,
speak good things ? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
speaketh.' The thoughts, good or evil, treasured in the mind, and the
desires cherished in the heart, must needs find utterance, and thereby
„ 35 manifest the disposition and character. ' The good man out of his
good treasure bringeth forth good things : and the evil man out of
his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.' The conversation of a
man, even his most casual talk, is as important as any other form of
„ 3i; human action, and will be judged in the same way. ' And I say unto
you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give
account thereof in the day of judgement.' How must we understand
this allusion to ' the day of judgement ? ' Not, assuredly, according
to the popular conception of it. The words of Jesus must be taken
in their simplicity in the light of the context only. In the original
there is no article before ' day : ' it is simply ' in day of judgment,'
which undoubtedly means ' in time of judgment.' He does not say
judgment after death, or final judgment, or divine judgment, or
universal judgment. Let us take a somewhat similar saying of Jesus :
r, Mat. 25 ' Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art with him in the
way ; lest haply the adversary deliver thee to the judge.' That
would be a day, time, way of judgment. The idea in both passages
is confined to that. We must not add to it what Jesus did not add.
He does not assert, (how then can we presume to do so ?) that judg
ment will be held in every case, but simply that when a judgment
does take place, every casual remark brought before the tribunal will
be investigated, and the responsibility attaching to its utterance
brought home to the speaker. Jesus had just declared : ' All evil-
speaking shall be forgiven unto men.' He seems now to be alluding
to exceptional cases, in which there is not forgiveness but judgment.
It is obvious that he could not at one and the same time have intended
it to be understood that all our evil words would be forgiven and
that all idle words would be judged. It is equally evident that his
object was to inculcate the responsibility attaching to all speech,
especially that which takes the form of criticism. The lesson he
12 Mat. 37 would have men learn was this : ' For by thy words thou shalt be
justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.'
At this point there is some uncertainty about the arrangement of
the narrative. Following Luke's order, we should have to pass over
five verses of Matthew. Verse 43 begins with the word ' but,' which
indicates a sequence, yet the subject introduced appears, at first sight,
to have no connection with what precedes, but to be more nearly
related to the matter lately presented, for Jesus gives an explanation
of the fact of demoniacal repossession after exorcism. On the other
hand, the words in verse 45, ' Even so shall it be also unto this evil
generation,' show the bearing of this on the previous discourse and
lead to the conclusion that Matthew's arrangement is correct. He
tells us that some of the class of persons Jesus had been condemning
retorted by asking him for a sign in attestation of his authority!
„ as ' Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying"
Master (or, Teacher), we would see a sign from thee.' Jesus replied

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 47
that such a demand was in itself an indication of evil and immor
ahty : only when the guidance of reason and conscience are set aside
and the sanctities of human nature violated, can there arise a craving
for some other and external illumination to supply the want of that
natural light which lighteth every man. ' But he answered and said i- Mat ¦-.
unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign '
Luke does not state who were the questioners, but tells us that these
words of Jesus formed the opening of a discourse to a large cono-reo-a-
tion. ' And when the multitudes were gathering together unto him, 11 Luke «.,
he began to say, This generation is an evil generation : it seeketh
after a sign.' Probably the scribes and Pharisees had chosen for their
visit a time shortly previous to that fixed for the sermon to be
delivered by Jesus, and he preferred to give his answer the greatest
publicity possible. He told them that the arbitrary desire for a
miracle would not be gratified, except after the same fashion as that
in which Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites : 'and there shall no „ •».< :«>
sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah. For even as Jonah
became a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to
this generation.' Matthew gives the words of Jesus more fully : ' and miat.sn, 40
there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet :
for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the
whale (Gr. sea-monster), so shall the Son of man be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth.' The expression ' heart of the
earth,' is peculiar. Alford constructed the following argument
respecting it. ' Jonah himself calls the belly of the sea-monster
" the belly of Hades," =the heart of the earth here. And observe,
that the type is not of our Lord's body being deposited in the tomb
of Joseph of Arimathea, for neither could that be called " the heart of
the earth," nor could it be said that " the Son of man " was there
during the time ; but of our Lord's personal descent into the place
of departed souls.' The argument outruns the subject of discourse.
A descent ' into the place of departed souls ' could be no sign to living
men. Probably the expression ' heart of the earth ' was a colloquial
figure of speech, as we now speak of ' the bosom of the earth.' The
meaning attachable to the words of Jesus seems to amount to this :
The teacher himself must be the sign, — as Jonah to the Ninevites, so
Jesus to his generation. But taking the word ' sign ' as equivalent
to ' wonder ' or ' marvel,' the mysterious reappearance of Jonah after
an absence from the world of three days would be paralleled in the
history of Jesus by a similar supernatural resurrection, after an
interment in the earth extending over the same period. He tells them
here what he told his disciples privately, that after three days he
would rise again.
If reformation did not follow upon the preaching of Jesus, it could
be for no lack of a sign, for the example of the Ninevites proved the
contrary. ' The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgement „ 41
with this generation, and shall condemn it : for they repented at the
preaching of Jonah ; and behold, a greater than (Gr. more than)
Jonah is here.' Young renders : ' for they reformed at the proclama
tion of Jonah, and lo, something greater than Jonah here ; ' Tischen
dorf : ' because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and
behold, more than Jonah is here.' The omission by Dr. Young of
the definite article at the beginning of the verse is not unimportant.

48 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
' The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgement,' maybe taken
by some persons to refer to a day of general, simultaneous judgment
both of living and dead, but there is seen to be no ground for such
an idea when the word ' the ' before ' men ' is struck out. Jesus is
here simply contrasting the privileges and conduct of those who
asked him for a sign, with those of men who reformed their lives at
Jonah's warning : in that review, or judgment, the Jews would
stand condemned by Ninevites. The judgment here spoken of is not
that of God over his creatures, or of Messiah over mankind, but the
silent, self-evident condemnation of one class of persons by comparison
with others, Ninevites rising up out of ancient history to cast dis
credit on the men of the latest generation. That is the natural, un
strained sense of the assertion made by Jesus, harmonising with the
context and developing his argument. It is a hasty and inconsiderate
idea, to assume that the juxtaposition of the words ' the judgment '
with the word ' rise ' must needs refer to the resurrection of the dead
at the last judgment. Against an interpretation of the passage so
far-fetched and misleading, it is enough to point out that the con
demnation proceeds from the Ninevites, not from the judge. The
Revisers have helped forward the proper view of the passage by alter
ing ' rise ' into ' stand up.'
The drift of the argument is evident from the expression, ' more
than Jonah is here.' In blind perverseness the scribes and Pharisees
were asking for something they had not and could not have, some
special ' sign.' Jesus replies that they had already more than was
necessary : Jonah had sufficed for the reformation of the Ninevites,
and here was more than Jonah. The allusion was indefinite, not
restricted to the personality of Jesus : they had ' more ' everyway :
advanced knowledge, a purer creed, and, in place of a half-hearted,
wavering prophet, unwillingly making proclamation of coming doom,
an incomparable, earnest, loving Teacher, living, preaching, and
working miracles among them.
12 Mat. 42 Precisely the same idea is conveyed by the next illustration. ' The
queen of the south shall rise up in the judgement with this generation,
and shall condemn it : for she came from the ends of the earth to
hear the wisdom of Solomon ; and behold, a greater than (Gr. more
than) Solomon is here.' More, by as much as heaven exceeds earth,
and the gospel of the kingdom of God the wisdom of the world.
Luke corresponds very nearly with Matthew, except that he places
the reference to the Ninevites after that to the queen of the south.
' The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgement with the men
of this generation, and shall condemn them : for she came from the
ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon ; and behold, a
greater than (Gr. more than) Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh
shall stand up in the judgement with this generation, and shall con
demn it : for they repented at the preaching of Jonah ; and behold,
a greater than (Gr. more than) Jonah is here.' In both narratives the
words rendered respectively by the Revisers ' stand up' and 'rise up'
represent the Greek verbs anistemi and egeiro. This free interchano-e
of two words is inconsistent with the idea that they carry a theological
sense, in relation to the doctrine of a resurrection. In the original there
is no definite_ article : it is simply, ' Men of Nineveh,' as in Matthew.
Jesus continued : ' But the unclean spirit, when he (or, it) is o-0ne

11 Luke 31,

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 40
out of the man, passeth through waterless places, seeking rest, and
findeth it not.' The word ' but,' which indicates a connection with
what went before, is omitted in the Authorised Version ; it is inserted
by Young, Tischendorf and Alford. Here is the case of a man who
has been under the dominion of spiritual evil, but is freed from it.
Jesus speaks here, as often elsewhere, of the evil spirit as a real, living-
Being. That is a mystery which we cannot fathom ; we must not
feign to possess knowledge on a subject of which we are profoundly
ignorant. We know absolutely nothing about spiritual Beings such
as are here alluded to, and we can only follow, humbly and reverently,
the words of our great Teacher on the subject. He pictures to us,
in his expressive, figurative way, the restlessness and misery of the
disembodied spirit — a weary traveller through a desert, with no water
to appease thirst, and no place for shelter and repose. The resolution
is therefore taken to return to the former dwelling-place. ' Then he 12 Mat. 14
(or, it) saith, I will return into my house, whence I came out.'
Acting upon this determination, the prior abode is found to be,
according to Young's literal translation, ' unoccupied, swept, and ,, 44
adorned.' ' And when he (or, it) is come, he (or, it) findeth it empty, n i.nke 21-
swept, and garnished.' Luke's narration of the parable is from first -"
to last almost word for word identical with Matthew, except that the
first word, ' but,' is omitted, and also here the word ' empty.' But
for that, we should be inclined to think that the chief point of the
warning lay in this fact of the emptiness of the place — that there was
nothing to hinder repossession. As it stands, no particular stress
attaches to the word ' empty.' The old home now showed all the
external signs of decency and refinement ; but there had been no
barring of the door against the possibility of re-entry. It stood
invitingly open, and the former evil occupant sought the companion
ship of seven kindred spirits, worse in character than himself; all
together they took possession of that living temple which should ever
be kept sacred to the service of God and man, and the lordship of
evil being now re-established over the man's body and mind, his
condition became worse than before, and finally hopeless. ' Then 12 Mat. 45
goeth he (or, it), and taketh with himself (or, itself) seven other
spirits more evil than himself (or, itself), and they enter in and dwell
there : and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first.
Matthew records the application given by Jesus himself to this
parable. ' Even so shall it be also unto this evil generation.' The .. ¦*¦>
advances they had been able to make towards a better, purer, higher
life, would be forfeited and lost. The fair show of social decorum
and religious observances would be disorganised, trampled into con
fusion, and ruthlessly destroyed. Past history would repeat itself,
with added marks of evil, of misery, of horror.
Luke here relates an incident not recorded by the other evangelists.
Amono- the crowd of listeners was a woman, who was so enraptured
by the discourse of Jesus that she gave vent to her feelings by a
loudly-uttered cry of admiration. Her tribute of praise was con
ceived in true womanly fashion, amounting in fact to this, Happy
the mother of such a son ! ' And it came to pass, as he said these 11 Luke 27
things, a certain woman out of the multitude lifted up her voice, and
said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts

50 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
which thou did suck.' Even such an outburst as that Jesus would
not suffer to pass unnoticed or unimproved. It is evident that on all
occasions he manifested the utmost consideration for any arguments
or sentiments expressed by those he was addressing. He left no
objector without a fitting reply, and occasionally suffered repeated
interruptions to the chain of his reasonings. He now takes up the
woman's saying, and deals with it appreciatively and gently. The
eulogy was based upon his preaching, and any blessing connected
with that must fall primarily, chiefly, if not entirely, upon those who
heard from him the word of God in a spirit of obedience. True,
their happiness might reflect itself upon his mother, but what_ was
that compared with the direct blessing resulting from his teaching ?
n Luke 2s ' But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God,
and keep it.' It was as though one should exclaim, Happy the
mother of so skilful a physician ! and be answered, Yes, but how
much happier the multitudes he has been able to cure !
Probably the observation of the woman was suggested by the fact
that the mother of Jesus was then known to be standing at the edge
12 Mat. 40 of the crowd, waiting until his discourse should be finished. This is
3 Mark 31 here stated both by Matthew and Mark, and the incident has already
s Luke w |3em considered in connection with Luke's narrative, the displace-
m Mark 2i ment in which probably extends to this portion also. Mark tells us,
just before he relates the charge of the scribes of complicity with
Beelzebub, that the friends of Jesus went out to lay hold on him,
under the idea that he was beside himself. At the close of the reply
„ 3i of Jesus, Mark reports that his brethren and mother were standing
without, enquiring for him, and Matthew introduces them at the
same point in the narrative. The inference is clear : at the very
time when the woman, in her outspoken impetuosity, was assuming
the mother of Jesus to be the happiest among women, Mary's heart
must have been agitated with grief and anxiety. No one could
realise her blessedness so fully as herself. The salutation of the
angel Gabriel would even yet be sounding in her ears, as would the
i Luke 42 congratulatory words of Elisabeth, ' Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.' But now, and for how long-
before we know not, her sublime joy had been turned to bitter
misery. The problem of her life was not an easy one. From the
time when Joseph her husband had been minded to put her away
privily, she had been destined, owing to her unparalleled experiences
and surroundings, to occupy a false position, not morally false, but
outwardly so, on account of that strange secret in her history of
which her betrothed husband knew nothing and judged wrongly,
until he received a special revelation on the subject, and of which
the world at large and probably Mary's own family knew absolutely
nothing to her dying day. Her miraculous conception of the child
Jesus was not a matter which could be entrusted to the four winds
of idle rumour, subject to all the irreverence and scepticism which
would have mingled with public discussion and criticism. Such a
topic must needs have been far too sacred for the world's gaze and
comments. The holy marvel doubtless remained a locked secret in
Mary's bosom. She kept all these things, and pondered them in her
heart, and must have watched her child's development and course of
action with feelings of submissive, self-repressive awe and expectation.

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 51
So it came to pass, that her other children had no perception of the
di vine origin and heavenly work of Jesus ; they judged of him
according to the idea current with those who were older titan them
selves, men of learning and reputation, scribes and Pharisees, who
had come in contact with him, tested him, and condemned him.
Every glimpse we get of the family life confirms this natural conclu
sion At one time we find Jesus admitting the fact that he was 'a 13 Mat 53
prophet without honour in his own house,' and the neighbours per
suaded that he was simply on an equality in all points with his
brothers and sisters. At another time we are told that 'even his 7 John 5
brethren did not believe on him,' and challenged him to take more
active measures to convince the world, if he really believed in himself
Now we find his ' friends ' criticising his public teachings and grow
ing notoriety, and expressing their conviction that he was ' beside
himself.' In their efforts to 'lay hold on him' they naturally
enlisted the aid of his relatives, whose errand to Jesus seems to have
been in connection with this attempt. His mother was perforce
with them. How could she have stood aloof? She was but a weak
woman, apparently a widow, for Joseph her husband is never alluded
to. In that position, it would have been a moral impossibility for
her to disclose now any of the miraculous events connected with the
birth of her first-born son. There was no one to confirm her words.
Who would have believed them ? The apparent insanity of the
mother in making such a statement would have corroborated the idea
of insanity in Jesus. How must her heart have been pierced with
grief, her soul bowed down by the weight of conflicting emotions !
At such a moment, what an irony must it have seemed to extol her
happiness as mother of Jesus ! Doubtless the angel's words held
true : ' Blessed art thou among women ; ' yet she could not now 1 Luke 2s
realise their truth, but was undergoing the terrible experience fore
told to her by Simeon, that her son would be ' for a sign which is 2 Luke 35
spoken against ; yea, and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul'
Immediately following the allusion to the queen of the south and
the men of Nineveh, Luke gives a parable not reported by the other
evangelists. It has an obvious bearing upon what precedes, and
teaches that no attesting sign was necessary, nothing more, indeed,
than what was already at hand, if only a rational use were made of
the ample opportunities for light and knowledge. ' No man, when n Luke 33
he hath lighted a lamp, putteth it in a cellar, neither under the
bushel' The Revisers have altered ' secret place ' to ' cellar.'
Alford agrees that the word hruptos is ' more properly a crypt, or
covered passage.' It would be the act of a fool to place the lamp
where its light cannot be seen, taking pains to smother its rays when
kindled. As a matter of course, it must occupy a conspicuous
position in sight of all comers : 'but on the stand, that they which „ 33
enter in may see the light.' Now comes the application of the
parable. ' The lamp of thy body is thine eye.' This stands in the „ 34
Authorised Version, 'The light of the body is the eye.' The
Revisers have altered ' light ' to ' lamp,' the word being the same as
that rendered ' lamp ' in the previous verse. The three oldest MSS.
have ' thine eye,' instead of ' the eye ; ' the Revisers have adopted
that reading, but have gone beyond it, by putting ' thy body ' for
E 2

52 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
' the body,' which Tischendorf has not done, but renders : ' The
lamp of the body is thine eye.' A man's eyesight answers the same
purpose as a lamp : by it he sees ; without it, all is dark. The
illumination of the entire man depends upon the point of vision ; if
that is unimpaired, he walks confidently, rejoicingly, in an atmo
sphere of light ; but if that is defective, in proportion to the defect
he must live in darkness, — absolute darkness if the eyes are wholly
blind. ' When thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of
light ; but when it is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.' Alford
discards the expressions, 'full of light,' 'full of darkness,' trans
lating literally 'light' and 'dark.' Luther does the same, and
Young's rendering is : ' When thine eye may be simple, thy whole
body also is lightened : but when it may be evil, thy body also is
darkened.' From this Jesus draws (1) a warning, and (2) an en
couragement. This is the warning : ' Look therefore whether the
light that is in thee be not darkness.' This somewhat alters the
sense of the Authorised Version, which stands : ' Take heed there
fore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.' Young agrees
with the Authorised Version. Tischendorf retains ' Take heed,' but
instead of ' be not darkness ' he puts ' is not darkness,' which admits
the sense which the Revisers have introduced by using the word
' whether.' They represent Jesus as urging self-examination. Let
those who desired a sign, and who could not perceive the truth of his
doctrine, ask themselves whether this did not proceed from their own
defect of vision. The purest light is darkness to the blind, and no
amount of external illumination would avail for eyes that would not
or could not see. The very opposite condition might, and in some
cases did, exist. There were persons who saw all things clearly, and
were conscious of no darkness, however much others might grope and
stumble and complain of want of further evidence. This certainty
of perception was attributable to the same internal cause : their moral
vision was sound and true. Let men only rightly cherish and
rationally use the faculties with which God has endowed them, and
the clear light of truth will shine within them and around them.
This was the encouragement. ' If therefore thy whole body be full
of light, having no part dark, it shall be wholly full of light, as when
the lamp with its bright shining doth give thee light.' As we can
place the lamp where we will, so we can use our eyes in the way we
choose, and find accordingly darkness or light. The most obvious
truth does not reveal itself, unless contemplated by the judgment ;
assurance with respect to the deepest mysteries must spring- from the
exercise of our reasoning faculties. There is such a thing as wilful
blindness : men cannot perceive, because they will not look ; or they
misjudge, because they look hastily and carelessly. And there is a
partial blindness, a defect of vision, which calls for external aids and
correctives ; and a total blindness, where there is utter darkness.
Jesus by this parable reminded his hearers that the reception or
rejection of his teaching depended upon themselves.
Luke records a further incident which is not found elsewhere.
Whilst addressing the people, Jesus was invited by a Pharisee to
breakfast with him. ' Now as he spake, a Pharisee asketh him to
dine (Gr. breakfast) with him.' We may assume that the words ' as

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 53
he spake ' do not import that Jesus was interrupted for the puipose
of conveying the invitation, as though it came in the course of a
sermon. Jesus did not generally deliver set harangues of that kind,
and it is obvious that there were frequent breaks, when the hearers
were at liberty to express their feelings and interpose remarks or
questions. The word rendered ' dine,' and in the margin ' breakfast,'
is explained by Alford to signify the first meal of the day. Jesus
accepted the invitation, entered the house, and took his place at the
table. ' And he went in, and sat down to meat,' rendered by Young, n
'and having gone in, he reclined (at meat).' The astonishment of
the Pharisee was excited, and in some way expressed, at the fact of
Jesus neglecting the ablution which was customary before meals.
' And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first
washed before dinner (Gr. breakfast).' Young renders, ' that he did
not first baptize himself before the dinner.' Doubtless Jesus deemed
the act superfluous at that comparatively early hour, and what was
not requisite for cleanliness he would not perform for the sake of a
traditional superstition. He was in no mood to defer to the judg
ment and feelings of the class of men who had that very morning-
accused him of Satanic agency, and he now deliberately turned round
upon his opponents, and exposed in plain, unmitigated terms a
variety of errors and evils in their creed and life. Had Jesus made
no stand, and uttered no reproof, his enemies might have been en
couraged to persevere in their libellous criticisms. Their object was
to weaken his hold and influence over the people, and not for an
instant would he suffer that design to prevail by submitting in
silence, either in public or private, to their unjust accusations and
insinuations. He addressed himself to his host on the question now
raised, and scrupled not to contrast the Pharisaic system of punc
tiliousness in external ceremonial trifles, with their utter debasement
of character and disregard of moral principle. ' And the Lord said
unto him, Now do ye Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of
the platter ; but your inward part is full of extortion and wicked
ness.' The word ' extortion ' takes the place of ' ravening ' m the
Authorised Version. Young renders it 'rapine;' Tischendorf,
' robbery.' The charge was a grave one, and could never have been
made if it had not been notoriously and undeniably true. The
Baptist and Jesus denounced with equal uncompromising vehemence
the Pharisaic class, and never a word of protest came from the
listening crowds ; at least, we read of none, nor of any vindication
attempted on behalf of the class thus publicly accused. Was there
not consummate folly in all this hypocrisy ? Was the outside only
of man's nature moulded by God, and not the inward spiritual
qualities,— that they should so care for the former and fail to
cultivate the latter ? 'Ye foolish ones, did not he thao made the
outside make the inside also ? ' By altering ' fools to ' foolish ones
the Revisers make it evident that the term was not used in contempt.
Young renders it ' unthinking ! ' There was a better way of making
food 'clean ' than by the scouring of cup and platter : let them share
it with the poor, and they need have no scruples of conscience as to
the correct way of eating their own portion. Howbeit give for
alms those things which are within (or, ye can); and behold, all
things are clean unto you.' Brotherly kindness ranked higher than

54

THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.

ceremonial observances, and the broad, free spirit of liberality would
replace the harrow punctiliousness of ritualism. The Authorised
Version stands, 'But rather give alms of such things as ye have.'
which Alford explains to be ' literally, the things inside.' Tischendorf
renders, ' But give what is in them as alms ; ' Young, ' But the what
ye have give as alms.'
It was a characteristic of the Pharisees, a reproach and evil to
them, thus to prefer the little to the great, to care much about
religious trifles, and nothing about justice towards men and heart -
n Luke 42 felt devotion to God. ' But woe unto you Pharisees ! for ye tithe
mint and rue and every herb, and pass over judgment and the love
of God.' The giving 'of the tenth part of a man's property was
regarded by them as a cardinal test of character, the surest way, and
by no means a cheap one, of acceptance with the God they professed
to worship. Elsewhere Jesus represents a Pharisee as enumerating
is Luke 12 this among his other virtues : ' I give tithes of all that I get.' What
they thus gave, as they deemed, to God, was probably never devoted
to the real service of humanity, for they were accused by Jesus of
looking with complacent approval on the man who, on the plea of
15 Mat. s, 6 having given his property to God, withheld it from the support of
his parents. ' Give for alms those things which ye can,' was the
counsel of Jesus to them. The dedication of tithes to so-called
divine uses, ranked far lower in his esteem. Then, as in later times,
they went to the support of an ecclesiastical system, and its spirit of
Pharisaic propagandism was denounced by Jesus as bringing about
23 Mat. 15 results the very reverse of beneficial : ' Woe unto you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye compass sea and land to make one
proselyte ; and when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a
son of hell than yourselves.'
The sense of proportion was inverted in these men : in their eyes
the little was held great and the great little ; the first was put last,
and the last first ; the fundamental obligations of judgment and the
love of God were ignored, and the faculties which should have been
concentrated on the substantial realities of morality, were wrappetl
up in the skirts and fringes of ritualism and formality. Jesus sought
ii Luke 42 to make this clear to them, saying, ' But these ought ye to have done,
and not to leave the other undone.' The heart-work and the life-
work should be expended on what was most important, and the
leisure would suffice for the minor duties, which now had become, if
not their all in all, at least their primary concern.
Another fault of character in them, was the love of precedence.
Seated in synagogues, or passing through the public streets, they
were accustomed to the first place and the most obsequious courtesy.
Thus to lose the sense of fellowship and of equality, was an evil, a
regrettable deprivation, albeit they felt it not, but rejoiced to be
singled out and held aloof from the crowd of their fellow creatures.
„ 43 'Woe unto you Pharisees ! for ye love the chief seats in the syna
gogues, and the salutations in the market-places.'
The homage they craved and received was altogether undeserved.
The world at large cared not to enquire into their true character.
When a social gulf exists between class and class, it is surprising how
indifferent and ignorant they are with respect to each other. That is
the case now, in spite of a free press and the habit of public criticism.

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPFJLS. 55
Rank and wealth are worshipped apart from moral character. The
toiling multitudes have nearer and more pressing concerns than to
investigate nicely the habits and principles of their ' betters.' All
have their faults, and all keep them out of sight as far as possible.
That immunity the Pharisees enjoyed, in common with others, and
it served but to perpetuate their unhappy, woeful condition. ' Woe 11 Luke 44
unto you ! for ye are as the tombs which appear not, and the men
that walk over them know it not.' The Authorised Version stands :
' Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! ' but these last four
words are omitted by the Revisers, not being in the two oldest MSS.
At this point of the discourse a lawyer who was present inter
posed the remark, that this condemnation of the Pharisees reflected
also upon those of his own profession. 'And one of the lawyers ,, 4.-,
answering saith unto him, Master (or, Teacher), in saying this thou
reproachest us also.' Tischendorf renders, ' illtreatest,' Young 'in-
sultest.' Alford observes : ' This man appears to have been not a
common Pharisee merely, but besides, a lawyer, whose duty it espe
cially was to interpret the law. Perhaps he found himself involved
in the censure of verse 42.' That explains why this lawyer applied
this reproach to his own class. It was their duty to define the obli
gations of the Mosaic law, and to insist upon the due performance of
all its requirements. It was they who taught the necessity of tithing
' mint and rue and every kind of herb.' Why should they be charged
with that as though it were a crime ? Why should it be assumed
that they passed over weightier matters ? Jesus replied that the
curse, the error, the evil, the woe, — either term seems applicable, —
attaching to their profession, was that of indifference to human
weakness and to the stern necessities and facts of ordinary life. It
was easy work for them to spin out interpretations of the Law, multi
plying its obligations and enforcing the duty of obedience in every
point ; but when they had piled up that burden, so that it lay heavy
upon the consciences of men, could or did these teachers of the Law
give the slightest help towards fulfilling it ? They could teach, but
they could not give either the will or the power to practise. They
were simply overloading human nature, overtasking human endur
ance, utterly heedless of the evil and misery resulting from their
unwise teachings. 'And he said, Woe unto you lawyers also! for ye „ i«
lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch
not the burdens with one of your fingers.' Is there nothing akin to
this in these days ? No similar unauthorised, injudicious teaching ?
Preachers are ever insisting upon a variety of duties which are per
formed half-heartedly, unwillingly, aye, hypocritically, by some, and
deliberately disregarded by others. ' You should pray more, come to
church to pray, pray in your closets and families,— God loves to be
prayed to.' What ? is prayer to be deemed a duty, so that man
must pray verbally, apart from the sense of want and desire ? Is our
heavenly Father so strange a Being as to be angry with his children
if they are not always asking him for the very things he is always,
unasked, freely giving them ? Surely some hideous blunder lies at
the foundation of such a system of teaching. ' You should watch
and pray in Advent, you should keep Lent, with fast and prayer tor
forty days, you should observe the holy Easter week, and ponder
Christ upon the cross every Good Friday,' and so on, and so on.

56 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
Alas for the minds which can esteem this as Christianity, and
persuade or be persuaded to submit to such a yearly routine, as
though it had aught to do with the glorious gospel of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ ! Erroneous teaching of that kind involves
mental and spiritual evil all round. There is a perverted sense of
duty, a mistaken idea of acceptableness to God, and of Christian
virtue and perfection, in the teacher and his submissive devotees ;
and in those who listen to such exhortations, and obey them not,
often, probably, an injury to the moral nature, a searing of the con
science, a feeling of wrong doing which they cannot away with, a
haunting sense of alienation from that heavenly Father who must
needs become nearer and dearer to every willing soul whenever the
true gospel of salvation is rightly and wisely proclaimed. Not one
in a thousand of a congregation may be sufficiently strong-minded,
clear-headed, endowed, through earnest, independent, long-continued
study of the New Testament, with the knowledge and spiritual dis
cernment necessary to enable him to sift the chaff from the wheat,
the false from the true, the thoughts of men from the words of Jesus,
in the sermons to which it is our lot to listen. On behalf of those
commonly denounced as neglectful hearers, it behoves us to raise this
firm and emphatic protest. They stand before their spiritual teachers
like sullen, obstinate, unhappy children, unwisely taught, unwisely
threatened, unwisely dealt with from first to last by well-meaning
but misguided and misguiding pedagogues. The children are deemed
rebellious because they will not bow to a yoke against which their
very nature revolts, nor stoop to lift the burden so carefully bound
up by those who are persuaded that this load of man's devising was
meant for every back, and that the duty exists of carrying it by an
effort which must be personal and individual. ' Ye lade men with
burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the
burdens with one of your fingers.' Regarded as a simple state
ment of fact, apart from any idea of condemnation or reproach, is not
this true ?
The scribes, devoting themselves to antiquarian and legal re
searches, were out of harmony with the times. Thev foolishly" busied
themselves in attempts to perpetuate the memory of "events long past,
and which it would have been better to veil, if not to forget. They
had no sympathy with living prophets and reformers, with John the
Baptist and Jesus, but they would fain have the old prophets kept in
mind. Not content to 'let the dead Past bury its dead,' they had
undertaken the task of searching out and renovating the martyrs'
tombs. It was' another mistake of judgment, another misapplication
of the thought and energy which should be consecrated to ' the living
n Luke 47 Present.' ' Woe unto you ! for ye build the tombs of the prophets
and your fathers killed them.' It may be doubted whether the ex
pression 'woe unto you' conveys the sense of the original. Samuel
Sharpe discarded it, using in each case the modern form of exclama
tion, ' alas ! ' 'Alas for you, for ye build the tombs of the prophets
and your fathers killed them.' That rendering does away with the
idea that Jesus intended to denounce divine vengeance, immediate or
remote, on those he was addressing. His reiterated ' woe ' or ' alas '
was a lamentation over their unhappy state of mind and heart. He
now points out to them the startling fact, that their connection with

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 57
the past was closer than they themselves would be disposed to admit.
In honouring the martyred saints they were condemning themselves,
for they were animated by the same spirit and walked in the steps of
their forefathers who had slain the prophets. ' So ye are witnesses n Luke is
and consent unto the works of your fathers : for they killed them,
and ye build their tombs.' Tbe two last words are italicised by the
Revisers, not being in the two oldest MSS. Tischendorf renders :
' For they indeed killed them, and ye build.' Imagine the de
scendants of a murderer subscribing to repair and renovate the grave
of his victim ! What an anomaly, what a perversion of the moral
sense, what unblushing effrontery ! the world would say. Surely the
memory of such a deed should cause the cheek to bum with shame;
it was a crime to be spoken of with horror, not thus dragged forth to
the light of day. That it was part of a chapter in ecclesiastical
history, one of those bloody pages which defile the records of theo
logical strife, — that the authors of the deed escaped the punishment
due to all murderers, this made no difference in the enormity of the
guilt or the detestation in which it should be held. The Jews stood
alone in this respect ; the charge of killing heaven-sent prophets
could not apply to heathen nations. God in his wisdom had decided
to send from time to time to his chosen people teachers and special
messengers. ' Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send „ 4»
unto them prophets and apostles.' Their divine commission could
not exempt them from its foreseen consequences : some of them were
doomed to death and persecution ; but their blood would not remain
unavenged. To this people, from the beginning of human history,
had these prophets been sent, and from this people the innocent blood
they had shed would be required : ' and some of them they shall kill ., ™
and persecute : that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed
from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation.
What a catalogue of murdered religious teachers from first to last !
' From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah, who perished „ si
between the altar and the sanctuary (Gr. house).' It is uncertain who
this Zachariah was, but the peculiar atrocity connected with his death
is indicated by the circumstance of his having been butchered in the
priests' court, probably whilst engaged in his priestly duties. All
this bloodshed would have to be accounted for : ' yea, I say unto you, - -
it shall be required of this generation.' Human life was still as
sacred in the eyes of God as when he first declared : ' Surely your o Gen. .,
blood, the blood of your lives, will I require.' Divine Providence still
worked to the same end as when, after long years of immunity,
Reuben was constrained to remind his brethren: ' Spake 1 not unto -
you, saying, Do not sin against the child ; and ye would not hear i
therefore also, behold, his blood is required.' But how could he
Jewish people be held responsible for the death of Abel ? This opens
out the wider question, How could that generation have to answer tor
the cumulative blood-guiltiness of past ages ? By the slow silent
inevitable, retributive workings of Divine Providence. ^ is not that
one man answers for another man's sin, but that the law of natuial
descent transmits the habits and dispositions of ancestors ^ chddien
It is an indubitable fact that God has organised °ur ex,^e™e. °,n
that basis, so that evil is thus perpetuated for . af.lef thef J J™
and good for a far longer period. The evil qualities have a tendency

Gen. 22

58 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
to die out in three or four generations, whereas the inherited effects
of a virtuous life endure to the remotest posterity. This is the solemn
20 ex. 5, 6 truth enunciated in the declaration : ' For I the Lord thy God am a
jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children,
upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me ;
and showing mercy unto a thousand generations of them that love
me and keep my commandments.' The divine teaching by means of
inspired prophets, and the divine interferences in the shape of defeats
and captivities, were designed to bring the Jewish people to a better
mind, to counteract the evil effects of the bad blood inherited from
their sinning and rebellious forefathers ; but the experience of many
7 Acts 51-53 centuries was finally thus summed up by the martyr Stephen : ' Yo
stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist
the Holy Ghost : as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets
did not your fathers persecute ? and they killed them which shewed
before of the coming of the Righteous One ; of whom ye have now
become betrayers and murderers ; ye who received the law as it was
ordained by angels, and kept it not.' Jesus threw away his life and
labours in efforts to bring them, as a nation, to a better mind. At
the end, he could only say to the blind directors of the public con-
23 Mat. 32 science, ' Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers,' and with
streaming eyes bewail the approaching doom of that fair metropolis
of Judaea whose children he would have gathered together and pro
tected, if only they would have deigned to listen and obey. Now they
must be left to the consequences of their long-continued guilt and
obstinacy : the conquering hosts of the unsparing Romans would seek
by fire and blood to discipline the people to their sway, the nation
would resist to the death, Jerusalem must be destroyed, the temple,
the priesthood, and the whole system of religious worship be abolished,
and the surviving Jews scattered to the four winds. On that gene
ration would thus fall the terrible consummation of past transgres
sions, and in one huge catastrophe of bloody massacre all the innocent
blood of past ages would ' be required of this generation.'
Alas ! for these lawyers, for they stood as absolute stumbling-
n Luke 52 blocks in the path of intellectual progress. ' Woe unto you lawyers !
for ye took away the key of knowledge.' Not content with turning
their own backs upon mental, moral, spiritual advancement, they had
„ 52 barred the way of access against others. ' Ye entered not in your
selves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.' Is there not a
warning here against all attempts to stereotype the religious ideas
and convictions of one age, so they may be perpetuated to remote
generations ? The Reformers of the Church of England three cen
turies ago drew up 39 Articles, and from that day to this they stand
unrepealed and unaltered. The object was to ensure uniformity of
opinion, that vain, unrealisable dream of theologians. They were
' agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces, and
the whole Clergy, in the Convocation holden at London in the year
15G2, for the avoiding of Diversities of Opinions and for the estab
lishing of Consent touching true Religion.' The Declaration of the
King imposed upon all persons submission to the Articles ' in the
plain and full meaning . . in the literal and grammatical sense,' and
the Declaration ends thus : ' That if any Public Reader in either of
Our Universities, or any Head or Master of a College, or any other

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 59
person respectively in either of them, shall affix any new sense to any
Article, or shall publicly read, determine, or bold any public Dispu
tation, or suffer any such to be held either way, in either the Uni
versities or Colleges respectively ; or if any Divine in the Universities
shall preach or print anything either way, other than is already
established in Convocation with our Royal Assent : he, or they the
Offenders, shall be liable to Our displeasure, and the Church's censure
in our Commission Ecclesiastical, as well as any other ; and We will
see there shall be due Execution upon them.' What is that but an
attempt to ' take away the key of knowledge ? '
The outspoken condemnation of the Pharisees and lawyers by
Jesus provoked them beyond measure. They retaliated to the utmost
of their power. Upon his leaving the house they began to oppose
him vigorously. ' And when he was come out from thence, the n Luke 53
scribes and the Pharisees began to press upon him vehemently (or,
set themselves vehemently against him), and to provoke him to speak
of many (or, more) things.' The Authorised Version stands : ' And
as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees
began to urge Aim vehemently.' The Revisers have altered ' As he
said these things ' into ' When he was come out from thence,' on the
authority of the two oldest MSS.
Instead of taking to heart the solemn condemnation of Jesus, those
who were the objects of it now sought to browbeat him by a simul
taneous attack. Young describes the scene in these words : ' The
scribes and the Pharisees began fearfully to urge and to provoke him
about many things.' The more he could be induced to say, the
better for their purpose, for if only they could find ground to charge
him with slander or libel, and bring him within the clutch of the
law, they would thereby be able to silence him, and revenge his
assault upon their reputation ; ' laying wait for him, to catch r>*
something out of his mouth.' The Authorised Version adds : ' that
they might accuse him,' which is now omitted as not being found in
the two oldest MSS.
Luke intimates that during the breakfast and discourse in the
Pharisee's house an enormous crowd bad assembled, and that Jesus,
before addressing them, dropped a few words of warning to his
disciples. ' In the mean time, when the many thousands of (Gr. 12 Lnke 1
myriads of) the multitude were gathered together, insomuch that they
trode one upon anotber, he began to say unto his disciples first of all
(or, First of all), Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is
hypocrisy.' Tischendorf renders : ' In the mean time, when the
multitude was gathered together in tens of thousands, insomuch that
they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples
first . .' The expression ' he began to say,' seems to indicate that his
discourse was interrupted, probably owing to the crowd outside. The
few words he uttered were ' unto his disciples first,' before he went out
to face the multitude. He bade them avoid that cardinal vice of the
Pharisees, that leaven which permeated their character and actions —
hypocrisy. But now Luke goes on with a discourse of Jesus of some
length, from verse 2 to 12. Those verses have already been con
sidered in connection with the instructions given to the disciples
before sending them out to preach, as recorded in the tenth chapter
of Matthew. This part of Luke's narrative appears to have been

60 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
misplaced. A long address of that kind was not likely to be delivered
to the disciples while the multitudes were elbowing and crushing
each other. It is probable that Luke, having that part of the dis
course without any indication as to its proper place, inserted it where
he thought it would come in most appropriately, and the warning
against hypocrisy seemed to be a fit introduction to the opening
12 Luke 2 sentence, 'But there is nothing covered up that shall not be
revealed.' This idea is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the
connecting word 'but ' is omitted in the oldest MS.
Among these 1 1 misplaced verses of Luke is one which does not
„ 10 even belong to the same group. Verse 10 is as follows : 'And every
one who shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be for
given him : but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit
12 Mat. 32 it shall not be forgiven.' This is given by Matthew and Mark in
3 Mark 2S-30 connection with the charge of casting out demons by Beelzebub, and
it should obviously have been inserted by Luke in his account of the
same matter, that is, between verses 23 and 24 of chapter 11. It is
a reasonable supposition that Luke, having a large mass of material
before him in the shape of information and tradition from various
sources, and exercising the greatest care in assorting and compiling
it, may sometimes have been in doubt as to the proper position to be
occupied by particular portions, and selected for them the place which
seemed on the whole most appropriate. Had the narratives of
Matthew and Mark been before him, they would have enabled him to
fix the above-mentioned verse in its right position.
Among the crowd gathered before Jesus was one who made him
self conspicuous by requesting a special favour. He was smarting
under a sense of injustice : the whole of an inheritance had fallen to
his brother, and he begged Jesus to use his influence on his behalf,
and urge upon this brother that he ought to consent to an equal
12 mke 13 division of the property. ' And one out of the mnltitude said unto
him, Master (or, Teacher), bid my brother divide the inheritance with
me.' Jesus showed no sympathy with the request. He sternly
reminded the man that the performance of such a function lay alto-
„ n gether outside his appointed sphere of duty. ' But he said unto him,
Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you ? ' Holding no
official position, it was not for him to investigate complaints and
apportion justice ; nor could any friend attempt to arbitrate, or argue
the merits of the question, having heard one party only. But
whether any injustice existed or not, or on whichever side the wrong
lay, this squabbling about property might well form the text for a
sermon against covetousness. Here was a warning to shake one's
„ 15 self free from that vice in every shape. ' And he said unto them,
Take heed, and keep yourselves from all covetousness.' The word
' all ' has been introduced by the Revisers on the authority of the three
„ is oldest MSS. Whatever is superfluous to life is not essential : ' for a
man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he
possesseth (Gr. for not in a man's abundance consisteth his life, for
the things which he possesseth).' The literal translation in the
' Englishman's Greek New Testament ' is : ' for not in the abundance
to anyone his life is of that which he possesses.' The Greek word
rendered 'abundance' really signifies ,' superabundance,' the sub
stantive perisseuma being so defined, and the verb perisseud, which is
here- used, meaning : 'to be over and above ; to be -more than

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 61
enough.' Any superfluity is useless ; it can neither nourish nor in
any way benefit the person who has it. This very simple, yet
almost universally forgotten truth, Jesus illustrated by a parable. He
pictured a rich landowner rejoicing over unusually abundant harvests.
The yield was so great, that he was somewhat perplexed about its
storage. ' And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground
of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully : and he reasoned
within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have not 12 Luke m
where to bestow my fruits ? ' He decided to improve and enlarge r
his homestead, pulling down the old barns and erecting larger
ones, where there would be ample room for everything. ° And he
said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build „ is
greater ; and there will I bestow all my corn and my goods.' The
Authorised Version reads, 'all my fruits and my goods.' The Revisers
have followed the Alexandrine MS. in replacing ' fruits ' by ' com.'
The Sinaitic MS. omits 'and my goods.' That done, he would dismiss
from his mind all anxiety. He need not trouble himself about the
future, for henceforth he could take his business and his pleasure
easily. He would rest and be thankful, enjoying during the many
years to which he looked forward the good things of life freely and
heartily. ' And I will say to my soul (or, life), Soul (or, life), thou ,. "»
hast much goods laid up for many years ; take thine ease, eat, drink,
be merry.' But in the midst of all this prosperity, self-satisfaction,
and bright anticipations, there came to him a sudden summons to face
¦ — Death. That was one of the possibilities he had overlooked. All his
wealth could not prolong his life, not even for a day. In all haste
he must make his last will, and decide who should inherit the pro
perty he could enjoy no longer. ' But God said unto him, Thou ,. 20
foolish one, this night is thy soul (or, life) required of thee (or, they
require thy soul) ; and the things which thou hast prepared, whose
shall they be ? ' That is the case of every man who amasses wealth
for the future, but whose trust is in uncertain riches rather than in
God. ' So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich ,. 21
toward God.' Man's only true wealth is confidence in God. His daily
bread must nourish our lives, and to store up the bread as though it
sufficed apart from the Giver, will lead to a sudden shock, a rough
awakening from the dream of covetousness to the realities of life and
death. Commentators have carried this parable beyond its proper scope.
Alford says : ' It was by God's blessing that he became thus rich,
which might have been a real blessing, if he had known how to use
it ; ' and he quotes Ambrose : ' Thou hast barns— the bosoms of the
poor, the houses of widows, the mouths of infants . . these are the
barns which will last for ever.' Jesus did not speak the parable to
euf orce the duty of almsgiving, but to show that life did not depend
upon superabundance, and that whoever acted under the idea that
it did, was ia foolish person, and would be forced to recognise his
folly at the last. If this rich man had given freely— perhaps he did
—he could not thereby lengthen his life, nor could any amount ot
alms-giving wean him from the fond delusion that he had many
years of healthy, happy, enjoyable life in reserve. He is represented
as simply forgetting— it is a common and terrible forge tfulness—
that ' the life is more than the food, and the body than the raiment.

G2 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
12 Luke 22 The next 10 verses in Luke are prefaced by the words ' And he
said unto his disciples.' This indicates that they formed no portion
of the address spoken at this time to the multitude. They have
already been considered in connection with 6 Matthew 25 — 34, and
they appear to have formed part of the sermon on the Mount,
although placed apart by Luke. But what follows is recorded by
Luke only, and is evidently part of an address to the disciples, not
restricting that term to the apostles. Jesus sought to impart to them
,. 32 courage and hope. ' Fear not, little flock ; for it is your Father's
good pleasure to give you the kingdom.' Although few in number,
they were a flock, held together and watched over. Their heavenly
Father intended that they should rise to higher privileges and
responsibilities. Young's literal rendering is striking : ' for your
Father delighted to give you the reign.' Seeking things above, they
could well afford, and Jesus counsels them, to disembarrass themselves
¦ S3 of earthly possessions. ' Sell that ye have, and give alms.' Tischen
dorf renders : ' Sell your goods.' The advice is obviously for those
who are called upon to give up worldly trading and affairs and devote
their lives to the establishment of the new order of things, the reign
of the heavens. They would be making a good exchange : providing
a purse for the future which would never wear out, and an inex-
, 33 haustible treasure for their use in a better world. ' Make for your
selves purses which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth
, 33 not.' It would be beyond all risk of loss or damage : ' where no
thief draweth near, neither moth destroyeth.' There was a need for
these precepts, because the work in which they were to engage
demanded their entire devotion, and as no worldly emolument could
be hoped for, they must be animated by tbe thought of a heavenly
.. s* recompense. ' For where your treasure is, there will your heart be
also.' If they parted with their earthly possessions and ambitions, it
was that they might be free, not to beg but to work, and that for a
in Luke 7 better final recompense. Jesus recognised the fact that ' the
labourer is worthy of his hire,' but he led his apostles to expect no
:i i. rv.r. 14 more than meat and drink, ordaining that ' they which proclaim the
gospel should live of the gospel' A bare livelihood on earth, in
return for much labour and suffering, and a treasure unfailing in
heaven, — that was what Jesus offered his disciples. He would have
12 Luke 35, them maintain an attitude of watchfulness and expectation. ' Let
your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning ; and be ye your
selves like unto men looking for their lord, when he shall return from
the marriage feast ; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may
straightway open unto him.' The simile must be looked at as a
whole. The girding of the loins seems to signify the shortening and
tightening of the loose outer garment, so that the wearer might be
ready at any moment to walk swiftly and unimpeded ; the lamps
burning may denote the lights required by servants waiting to admit
their lord on his return from a marriage feast. Alford observes :
' There is only a hint at the cause of his absence — He is gone to a
wedding : the word used may mean almost any feast or entertain
ment.' The servants must keep on the alert, ready at the knock
which may come at any time, to meet their lord at the outer gate. If
the parable ended here, its import might be thus restricted. But
„ 37 Jesus continued it as follows, ' Blessed are those servants (Gr. bond-

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 63
servants) whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching - verilv
say unto you that he shall gird himself, and make them sit down
to meat, and shall come and serve them.' That cannot apply to any
ordinary occasion : obviously the marriage is that of the lord him
self and the servants are waiting and watching for the arrival of the
bridegroom with the bride and others, at his own house. This is
made clear by the following description of a Jewish marriage extracted
from 'Helps to the Study of the Bible.' ' This ceremony was per
formed in the "upper room" of private houses. The bethrotned
pair stood under a canopy, the bride being veiled, both wearing-
Si0^ *'hlch were several times exchanged during the ceremony
The officiating minister was not a priest, nor necessarily a rabbi but
an elder, who, standing behind the canopy holding a cup of blessing
invoked a benediction on the assembly. He then gave a cup of wine
to the betrothed, who pledged one another, the bridegroom draining
his cup, dashing it to the ground, crushing it with his heel, swearing-
fidelity until its powdered fragments are re-united. The marriage con
tract was next read, and attested by each person present drinking a cup
of wine. The friends next walk round the canopy, chanting psalms
and showering rice upon the couple. The ceremony is concluded by
the elder invoking the seven blessings upon them, drinking the bene
dictory cup, and passing it round the assembly. It was for this cup
that our Saviour supplied the wine at Cana. After dark, the bride
groom led the bride to her house attended by the friends of each,
while others joined the procession on its way, bearing hymeneal
lamps in token of respect. Arrived at the bridegroom's house all
were invited to a feast, which by the rich was repeated for seven
nights, the festivities being prolonged to a late hour.'
The Revisers have replaced 'wedding' by 'marriage feast.'
Alford retained the word ' wedding,' but spoke of it as a ' feast or
entertainment.' Young and Tischendorf render ' marriage,' Sharpe
' wedding,' Luther ' Hochzeit,' and Beza's Latin version has ' nuptiis.'
The word gamos is defined as 'wedding, marriage,' but 'in the plural,
a marriage-feast ; ' the plural is here used, and is rendered in the
' Englishman's Greek New Testament,' ' wedding feasts.' Still it
may perhaps be open to question whether the plural form, like our
word ' nuptials,' does not signify the actual marriage ceremony. The
remark of Alford seems hardly correct : ' The main thought here only
is that he is away at a feast, and will return. But in the background
lies the tvedding in all its truth.' In all translations except the
Revised Version, the idea of the wedding is prominent ; what is
kept in the background is the feast prepared for the bride and bride
groom and their guests. Jesus does not alluded to that, but to a
subsequent feast given to the servants of the house, which might
naturally be the case on one of the six festal nights succeeding the
marriage. The lord on that occasion would manifest his apprecia
tion of their faithful, efficient, watchful service, by superintending
the arrangements for their comfort, and he would not scruple to
break through the barriers of, class and rank, and condescend to
minister personally to their wants. ' Blessed are those servants (Gr. 1
bondservants) whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching :
verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them sit
down to meat, and shall come and serve them.' Tischendorf renders :

64 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
'he will gird himself about, and make them sit down at table, and
coming near will minister unto them.' We see now the sense to be
attached to the words, ' Let your loins be girded about : ' assume the
garb, the office, the service appointed to you in the Master's house
hold ; let everything about you be suited to the task you are called
to do ; learn to watch patiently, and to perform your life-work with
earnestness and alacrity. The lesson Jesus was anxious to impress
12 Lnke 38 was the duty and necessity of vigilance. ' And if he shall come in
the second watch, and if in the third, and find them so, blessed are
those servants.' Tischendorf reads, ' blessed are they,' following
the two oldest MSS. Instead of making that alteration the Revisers
have indicated it by italicising the word ' servants.'
By another simile Jesus urged the consideration that our duty and
our convenience cannot be made to correspond. It was obvious that
if only the owner of a house could foretell the time when a burglary
would be attempted, he would prefer to keep watch for that occasion
only. As it is, he is always in uncertainty, and must be constantly
on guard, knowing that the danger is imminent, and that if ever he
leaves the house he does so at the peril of finding on his return that
„ 30 it has been broken into. 'But know this (Or, But this ye know),
that if the master of the house had known in what hour the thief
was coming, he would have watched, and not have left his house to
be broken through (Gr. digged through).' As the necessity is laid
upon the householder of being ever on the spot or on the alert, per
sonally or by deputy, so it is incumbent upon the disciple of Jesus to
keep at his post of duty, for he is exposed to similar uncertainty, and
knows not — or rather should know — what irreparable injury and loss
may ensue from any relaxation of that watchfulness, caution, self-
restraint, and devotion to duty which are essential to our well-being,
„ 40 bodily and spiritual, temporal and eternal. ' Be ye also ready : for
in an hour that ye think not the Son of man cometh.' It cannot be
doubted that by ' the Son of Man ' Jesus designated himself, as
Messiah and Head of mankind : The nature and object of his
' coming ' are evident from the context. It would not be for the
purpose of executing judgment, either among those of his own house
hold or upon his declared enemies, but in the natural course of events.
He represents himself as participating in all the experiences of
humanity, and on the most momentous and joyful occasion in his
career he must needs rely upon the fidelity and devotion of those
who are engaged in his service. If they should fail him, he will
suffer shame and disappointment ; if they carry out his wishes and
are zealous in his service, he will make them sharers of his joy, will
delight to show them honour, and even reciprocate their good offices.
The ' coming ' for which he would have us prepare ourselves is not
that of a Deity, with vengeance in one hand and reward in the other,
but the 'coming of the Son of man,' in the same nature as our own,
with no greater difference between ourselves and him than that
which exists between a master of exalted rank and the servants who
live in his house and wait upon his bidding.
One of the apostles was in doubt whether the parable was to be
„ 41 considered applicable to them only, or extended to others also. ' And
Peter said, Lord (Sir— Young), speakest thou this parable unto us,
or even unto all ? ' The question was natural and necessary, for the

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 05
servants in a ruler's household are few indeed compared with those
persons scattered over his estates. The answer of Jesus went straio-ht
to the point. Whoever holds any position of responsibility or trust
to him the rule laid down in the parable as a matter of course
applies 'And the Lord said, Who then is the faithful and wisei->L„i«
steward (or, the faithful steward, the wise man), whom his lord shall
set over his household to give them their portion of food in due
season ? ' The word sitometrion, rendered ' portion of food,' is de
fined as ' a measured allowance of corn,' and is translated iu the
'Englishman's Greek New Tesstament ' 'measure of corn.' The
general lesson conveyed by the parable is demonstrated by altering
the circumstances connected with it. Jesus drops the "simile of
domestics waiting for their lord's return, and takes the case of a
man who by his character or wisdom has earned a superior position,
throwing upon him the responsibility of seeing that all committed to
his oversight are duly provided and cared for. Alford somewhat
narrows the interpretation by saying : ' In its highest sense it applies
to his Apostles and ministers, inasmuch as to them most has beeu
given as the stewards — but its application is gradationally downwards
through all those who know their Master's will, even to the lowest,
whose measure both of responsibility and reward is more limited.'
It is true that the apostle Paul wrote : ' Let a man so account of us, i i. cor.
as of ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God ; '
and again : ' The bishop (or, overseer) must be blameless as God's 1 Tit. 7
steward.' But the apostle Peter applies the term ' stewards ' to the
general body of Christians : 'According as each hath received a gift, *t ret.
ministering it among yourselves, as good stewards of the manifold
grace of God.' It cannot be argued, therefore, that to the clergy
' most has been given as the stewards ; ' and although the apostles,
dealing with spiritual gifts, used the word ' steward ' in that con
nection only, Jesus in the parable itself does not. On the contrary,
he takes up the ordinary office of a steward in a nobleman's estab
lishment, and there is no hint that any class of teachers or any kind
of teaching is designedly referred to. Moreover, the words ' steward '
and ' servant ' are used apparently as synonymous in the parable, and
in the oldest MS., the Sinaitic, the original reading was ' servant,'
not 'steward,' the word having been altered by a later hand. Adhering
to the terms of the parable, we are bound to apply it to the affairs of
ordinary life. The steward's duties are not to be taken as representing
those of priests and pedagogues. The most prominent and universal
feature in human history is — Labour ; and the apportionment of a
due reward to Labour is one of the most serious, and hitherto, alas !
most difficult problems of society. We talk glibly about the struggle
which ever exists between Capital and Labour. It is time we asked
ourselves, in the name of morality and Christianity, Whether any
such strife is natural and necessary ? Whether, at least, its conditions
ought not to be considerably modified ? Every capitalist is a steward.
Every employer is a steward. The superior position itself is evidence
of faithfulness and wisdom, either in the man himself or his ancestors.
Having regard to the grand truth of human brotherhood, it must be
admitted that the status of a large manufacturer, for instance, is
that of a faithful and wise steward, who has, under divine Providence,

66 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
been set over a household, to give them their portion of food in due
season. Such responsibility clearly attaches to him. How is it
generally fulfilled ? The answer is plainly recorded in the huge
fortunes of the few and the degraded condition of the masses.
Overlooking the teaching of Jesus, we have taken up the science of
political economy in the same spirit and to the same ends as
Macchiavelli handled the science of political government. His point
of view was the interest of the governors, not of the governed, and
the very idea of morality, of right and wrong in rulership, was ex
cluded from his system. In dealing with human beings, any system
which leaves out of account the principles of justice, of compassion,
of brotherly love, becomes thereby earthly and devilish. The law of
supply and demand regulates the tides of commerce, and human
labour, being a saleable article, must fluctuate in value with other
things. Of course, of course ! that is, if you assume that a brother
or a sister is to be considered simply as a chattel, bought and sold,
used and worked, with as little regard to his or her bodily, mental,
social welfare, as a plough or a steam engine. It rests with the great
employers of labour, to what extent they will avail themselves of the
power they possess to extort the largest amount of work for the
smallest amount of pay. It would be difficult, and might be even
dangerous, for an individual employer or firm voluntarily to pay
more than the recognised market price of labour. One of the
penalties attaching to a long-continued course of wrong-doing is the
difficulty and risk of departing from it. Tyranny descends from one
generation to another, — an inherited curse which it is hard to shake
off. The first step towards amendment is to recognise and confess
the evil ; then the thought and energy which formerly were devoted
to its maintenance and perpetuation will be free to set about the
task of its eradication. It is not in human nature for one class
deliberately and systematically to resolve upon oppressing and
starving the class below them. The monstrous wrong has grown up
gradually, like errors in politics, in finance, in theology, one side of
the question being brought into undue prominence, and the other
side wholly overlooked. The laws of political economy, when applied
to human beings, must be blended with human sympathy, or they
will produce misery instead of happiness, injustic and slavery instead
of right and freedom. Where, between masters and servants, there
is personal or direct intercourse, the system of ' starvation wages '
has not come into operation. The treatment of domestics can
scarcely be admitted as a case in point, they being unmarried and
having no families to maintain. But take that branch of labour
which is not manual but clerical: the stern law of supply and
demand does not reduce salaries to the lowest crushing point. A
merchant's or manufacturer's clerk grows up from youth to man
hood, and ofteii continues to his life's'end, in the same service. As
his necessities increase, when he marries, when his children need
education, he states his case, and his employer manifests considera
tion and sympathy. The Christian law of brotherhood demands
that the same consideration and sympathy should be extended to the
very lowest manual labourer. This momentous question has been
fully, eloquently, impartially faced and argued by Joseph Cook of

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 117
Boston. The ten lectures * delivered by him on the subject deserve
the careful, earnest study of every Christian, and especially of
Christian employers. Here arc a few quotations from that work :—
" I went through Manchester, in England, carefully studyino- the
poor. Sometimes I walked by open doors, where the filth inside the
threshold was as deep as outside. I saw poultry picking up their
living not oftener outside than inside these doors. One evening, on
the top of an omnibus, I went out into the suburbs of Manchester,
and came upon palaces, immense private establishments, with grounds
kept in the best English styles. Whose houses are these ? They are
the masters' houses; manufacturers' houses. This is the country
seat of Sir So-and-so, who owns such-and-such acres of factories in
Manchester, under the soot yonder. Where do his workmen live ?
They must live close to their work, under the eaves of the factories ;
and I found I had been studying the houses of the operatives em
ployed by these very princes and masters. Skilled operatives' houses
in Manchester are often very comfortable, but I am speaking of the
condition of the lowest paid labourers. There was before me in
Manchester what does not yet exist in New England, — an hereditary
class of operatives. Little by little men had gone down to the
squalid condition in hovels where I saw children fight over a piece of
fish dropped from a pedlar's cart. I have stood there myself, and
peeled an orange, and the peel was picked up swiftly from the side
walk, and eaten by hungry children. I could fire an arrow in the
street over sixty or eighty children that looked as if they had been
unwashed from birth. Within a cannon-shot stood these palaces of
the manufacturers. That contrast is seen all through the Old World ;
and it results from these great principles, that subdivision of labour
increases the skill of the operative, and that the larger the establish
ment the greater the profits. The man who manages the great
establishment may become rich, and can take care of himself; the
man who makes the pin-head loses capacity to do anything else. If
he loses the opportunity to make that pin-head, he knows no other
trade, and may suffer terribly before he can learn one, and find
another place to work. What else did I see in Manchester ? Near
one of the great factories was a long brick building ; and I saw
women pass it, and hand their infants in at the gate. When six
o'clock came in the afternoon, I saw these same women coming back,
and receiving out of that gate their babes. What sort of house
keeping is that ? . . . Even John Stuart Mill, using England as a
lens, and putting behind that telescope the best eyes of political
economy, writes a deliberate chapter (Political Economy, Book V.,
chapter VII.) on the Probable Future of the Labouring Classes, and
goes so far as to say that he finds the prospects hopeful, only because
he expects the entire system of wages to be superseded by that of
co-operation. But the system of wages is woven with the whole
structure of modern life, and does not show a tendency to vanish out
of history like a morning cloud. The accumulation of wealth falls
chiefly to employers, and not to operatives. The distance between
the two classes is a result of deep causes arising from the two great
laws of the manufacturing system. It is out of these laws that there
* ''Labour." By Joseph Cook. Hodder and Stoughton. Price Is. 6d.
F 2

68 . THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part n.
inevitably originates what has been called in modern times a manu
facturing aristocracy. De Tocqueville, using this phrase, compares
the territorial aristocracy of former ages with the manufacturing-
aristocracy of to-day, and finds the former superior to the latter,
because it was bound by law, or thought itself bound by usage, as
the latter is not, to come to the relief of its serving-men, and to
succour them in their distresses (Democracy in America, vol. II.,
Book II., chap. XX. ; also vol. II., Book IV., chap. V.) . . . xAdvo-
cating no socialistic proposition, and defending no communistic
dream, I yet believe the day will come when the cost of its pro
duction will determine the pay of labour. The cost of production
includes the support of a family. . . . There must be somewhere a
lifting of the income of the lowest-paid class of labourers : otherwise
we shall have monstrosity after monstrosity. . . . De Tocqueville
ventures to affirm that the modern manufacturing aristocracy, which
to a large extent has taken the place of the hereditary and territorial,
differs from the old feudal aristocracy in that it feels no responsibility
for the age of its dependants. Give us the best service of youth .-
crush out the right of children to a fair education in primary
branches ; give us the strength of the girl before her powers have
been fully confirmed ; give us the strength of mothers when their
lives draw near to dangerous physical crises ; give us the strength of
manhood up to the last hour in which it can labour remuneratively ;
and then let the ruined girl, let the mother in her weakness, let old
age in its dependence, shift for themselves. ... I arrive at the con
clusion that justice is not dangerous to capital. ... 1. The cost of
producing labour should determine the price of labour. 2. The cost
of producing labour includes that of rearing a family. 3. The cost
of rearing a family depends on the standard of comfort and decency,
below which labourers will not go, or ought not to go. . . . Only
the golden rule can bring the golden age. ... On my study table
there is a collection of treasure or rubbish — I hardly know which to
call it — on political economy : ten or twelve feet of volumes repre
senting the best discussions in social science for the last two hundred
years. Gather and examine in chronological order any such collec
tion of books, and you will find that down to about 1840 or 1850,
they are full of the see-saw theory of wages and profits, and teach a
godless science ; a series of propositions utterly without pietyr and
having in mind no Christian principles. About 1840 and 1850,,
after the reform-laws in Great Britain had come into force, you find
this series of books changing position ; and God be praised that
to-day political economy does not deserve to be caUed the dismal
science. ... 6. The rate of profit, therefore, depends on a variety
of circumstances, of which the rate of wages is only one. 7.
Ricardo's doctrine that the rate of profit depends on wages only, is
therefore an inaccurate, because an inexhaustive, statement of the
case. 8. When the efficiency of labour is increased by the improve
ment of machinery, or any other cause, profits may be increased,
although wages may remain the same. 9. It may happen from the
same causes that both the rate of wages and the rate of profit may
be increased at the same time. There is no see-saw in the relation
between labour and capital, if these propositions are true. . . . There
has rarely been taught authoritatively a more mischievous falsehood

part ii.] A STUDY* OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. ,;;,
in political economy than the assertion that wages and capital are of
necessity an eternal see-saw, putting the labourer and the employer
into a state of constant war. . . . Justice is no peril to capitalists
nor fair wages a diminution of fair profits.'
These extracts suffice to show the vastness and urgency of the
subject. We have only to open our eyes and see for ourselves the
degraded condition of the masses in our cities. Observe the crowd
of the lower class poor in the eastern, southern, or northern streets
ot London,— their dress, their unhealthy faces, their language, their
manners. Then think what must be their surroundings, where and
how they live, and in what an atmosphere. Think of the hard straits
they must be put to, their scanty and unwholesome food, their lack
of all those decencies and conveniences which are prime necessaries
of existence with the classes above them. The fact is undeniable
and notorious, that many kinds of labour are terribly underpaid
Why should that be ? How did such an unchristian system origi
nate ? How can it be first mitigated and eventually abolished?
That is the grave problem which presses for solution. Let us no
longer be deluded by a lying spirit in the garb of political economy.
Let the fact be recognised and faced, that a fair amount of wage is
part of the prime cost of an article, as much as if it were a part of
the raw material There is, after all, a certain starvation point below
which the rate of wages cannot be pressed. Let that point be raised
some few degrees. Let the human workman receive the same con
sideration as the machinery, which it is found necessary to keep in
proper working order, whatever be the expenditure required to do so.
Probably the additional cost will fall upon consumers, not upon the
manufacturer. Be that as it may, let the responsibility of paying
.adequate wages rest henceforth on the right shoulders, — those of the
master who employs the workman. If they are Christians, they must
both act upon the principle laid down by Christ. The labourer must
give honest, hearty work, and the master must offer sufficient pay, —
sufficient to provide for the workman and his family, so that his
children may not be defrauded of their right to education. Educa
tion by the State, either wholly or partly free, with compulsory
.attendance, is one mode of grappling with the evil which has grown
up in our midst ; and the introduction of this system will render
«asier the next step in advance. The spirit of liberality is not
quenched among our wealthy manufacturers, as is evident from the
princely sums given for people's parks, for schools, and in other ways.
These things, however, are but palliatives, and the real reform must
begin at the other end, — by putting the workmen into a position to
do what is needful for themselves. In some effectual way that must
be brought about, — probably by the combination of different methods,
including among them the principle of co-operation. The ' kingdom
of heaven ' proclaimed by Jesus is based upon loftier maxims and
principles of action than those current in the world. The obligations
of the gospel are laid upon all men, and extend to every sphere of
human duty. It is an idle pretext, an act of hypocrisy, to call Jesus
' Lord, Lord,' and fail to do the things he says. The whole life should
be permeated, its every nook and cranny illuminated, swept, garnished
by his Spirit. That is what he demands in this parable, which applies
to all holding responsible positions. Jesus will judge every one by

70 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
the way in which he performs his proper life-work. ' Who then is
the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall set over his house
hold, to give them their portion of food in due season ? ' Is not that
precisely the appointed task of every parent and of every master ?
And with respect to our fulfilment of that task, the Son of man will
judge us at the last. The patient, loving, anxious, long-suffering-
Mother, will rejoice in his approval when the burden of her life is
laid aside. The Father, be his condition high or low, who has
laboured and battled in the world for his children's sake, will be
welcomed as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. The Master who has
cared for his servants, who has not defrauded or oppressed them, who
has been as careful ' to give them their portion of food in due season '
as to secure his own gain and increase his own wealth, — his character
and course of action will be stamped with our Lord's approval
' Blessed is that servant (Gr. bondservant), whom his Lord when he
cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto yon, that he will
set him over all that he hath.' The sjiirit of Christian brotherhood
is that which will commend us to Christ and advance our interests in
his coming kingdom, when the world's maxims and the mistakes of
the science falsely so-called of political economy will be replaced br a
judgment which is unerring and compassionate.
This is no new gospel, however much we may have overlooked and
perverted the truths which Jesus preached. The apostles are at one
with him in pressing home this duty. 'Masters, render unto your
servants that which is just and equal ; knowing that ye also have a
Master in heaven.' Against the oppression of the poor by the rich
in the matter of wages, James entered this emphatic protest : ' Be
hold, the hire of your labourers, who mowed your fields, which is of
you kept back by fraud, crieth out : and the cries of them that
reaped have entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.' The
warning which Jesus uttered against this form of covetousness, this
breach of trust, this neglect and perversion of duty, is very solemn.
, ' But if that servant (Gr. bondservant) shall say in his heart, My
lord delayeth his coming ; and shall begin to beat the menservants
and the maidservants, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken ; the
lord of that servant (Gr. bondservant) shall come in a day when he
expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shalt cut
him asunder (or, severely scourge him), and appoint his portion with
the unfaithful.' Looking round upon our country and our time in
sober sadness, would it be easy, would it even be possible to assert.
that the worship of wealth does not prevail over the worship of
Christ ? Things must have come to a terrible pass to have evoked
mid justified Mrs. Browning's ' Cry of the Children ' and Thomas
Hood's 'Song of the Shirt.' The employers of labour must be
regarded as primarily and directly responsible for evils such as those.
which when dragged to light shock the moral sense of the communityl
The greed of riches has been so keen, the race for wealth so ea°-er
that the claims of humanity, the dictates of conscience, and the-
teaching of Jesus have been alike forgotten. How strangely, how
startlingly, do his words apply : ' If that servant shall say in his
heart, My Lord delayeth his coming ! ' The ' day of judgment' has.
been regarded as a remote event, destined to happen at some period
in the dim and distant future ; meantime, there was held to be no>

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 71
divine oversight with respect to the course of thi-i world's trading ;
prices must rise or fall according to the stress of competition, and
the wages of men, women and children must follow the same cast-
iron law of political economy, the necessity for keeping them at the
very lowest point being self-evident, on account of the largeness of
the item and the fact that other charges were necessarily fixed, such
as rent of premises and the cost, repair and maintenance of machinery :
the reduction of workmen's wages was the readiest and most effectual
economy practicable. If the master suffered with them, if he had
been losing, were it only interest on his capital, at the same time, if
the reduction had been temporary and exceptional, it might have
been excusable. But there has been growing opulence among
employers, whilst want, misery and degradation have become chronic
among the working class. What is that but oppression, coupled
with selfishness and self-indulgence ? ' And shall begin to beat the
menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink, and to be
drunken.' Seeing extremest luxury on one side, and extremest
poverty on the other, this simile can scarcely be deemed too strong.
There has been a hideous misconception of Christian duty ; somno
lence if not searing of the conscience. Huge fortunes have been
amassed under this system, with never a thought of any loss of
Christian status. The so-called ' evangelization of the masses ' may
eveii have been a pet form of charity with some of these wealthy
manufacturers. They have been looking forward to a heavenly life
hereafter, have believed in Jesus as their Redeemer, and have been
anticipating and preparing for his ' coming.' But not in the way he
has appointed them. ' The lord of that servant shall come in a day
when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not.'
Acceptance with Jesus is not to be found through any Church
membership, or form of worship, or sacramental pledge, but in doing
the work of this life on the principles and in the spirit he has incul
cated. Were Jesus now to revisit earth, and to look round about
upon all things, as when he espied the abuses in the temple,
think you that he would look without shame and indignation on the
slums in which the lowest class of labourers live, or with complaceucy
upon the palaces of the masters who have risen to wealth, refinement,
rank, notwithstanding the degradation of their operatives ? Would
he not quickly execute his threat : ' and shall cut him asunder, ana
appoint his portion with the unfaithful ? ' Such neglect and oppres
sion of one's poorer brethren must lead to exclusion from the brother
hood of which Jesus is the head. Such a steward will find no
permanent place in his Master's household. And because the judg
ment is not executed speedily, because the evil goes on from generation
to generation, oppressor and oppressed alike hardening into indiffer
ence, and being even taught to look upon such a system as the natural
ordering of divine Providence, are we to suppose that no account is
taken of it, and that this parable uttered by Jesus will be the only
token of his reprobation ? He himself has intimated by another
parable how sudden and complete may be the reversal in the world to
come of the relative positions of rich and poor m this. He assures
us that deliberate injustice, the sinning in this fashion against light
and knowledge, will meet with a heavy punishment. 'And that
servant (Gr. bondservant), which knew his lord's will, and made not

12 Luke 47

72 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [pari n.
ready, nor did according to his will, shall be beaten with many
stripes.' But Jesus assumes that the failure of Christian duty in this
matter may not be deliberate or of set intention, but may arise from
heedless ignorance ; and in such cases, although the evil is none the
less actual and deplorable, and cannot be perpetrated with impunity,
yet the punishment with which it is avenged will be of a far lighter
12 mke 4s character. ' But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes,
shall be beaten with few stripes.' Christian morality branches out in
all directions and embraces every duty, personal, domestic and social.
It is easy to understand how and why the last named has come to be
least regarded and most neglected. The doctrine of repentance was
proclaimed from the first. The necessity of personal reformation of
character was strongly urged by the apostles, and ever has been in
the Christian church. Family relationships have always stood, both
by nature and grace, well within the sphere of Christian influence.
Parental responsibility has been accepted as self-evident, scarcely
5 i. Tin?, s needing any enforcement. ' But if any provideth not for his own,
and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is
worse than an unbeliever.' But as the circle of duty widens outwards,
the feeling of sympathy and obligation naturally becomes less intense :
our individual wants and domestic trials must needs be realised more
vividly by ourselves than those of others. It is open to question,
also, whether our spiritual guides have not, in preaching the gospel,
somewhat unwisely overshot the mark. They have been so earnest
in exhortations to generosity, that they have forgotten to inculcate
simple justice. The duty of almsgiving has seemed a nobler grace
than the mere payment, in the ordinary way, of adequate if not
liberal wages. And there have been so many objects of high and
spiritual interest to be pleaded for : missions to the heathen, schools
for religious education, Bible societies, tract societies, church building,
hospitals, reformatories. Subscriptions to such objects have been
supposed to constitute the first and foremost duty of the wealthy,
whilst the injustice which has oppressed and degraded the poor has
been eating like a canker into the social system, and left to extend
and perpetuate itself, as though it were some heaven-sent scourge,
which society must endure as it may, and palliate if possible, but can
never hope to extirpate. We have been taught, moreover, that this
world, with all that appertains to it, is of far less consequence than
the world to come, where — by some process of divine judgment apart
from human effort — it is assumed that the wrongs and inequalities of
our present existence will right themselves, poor and rich alike being-
made happy or miserable for ever, according to their reception or
rejection of the gospel message now, and their faith or unbelief with
respect to those doctrines and mysteries which it is the appointed
work of Christ's ministers to preach and elucidate. What wonder
that under such a system of teaching the common, fundamental
reciprocal duties of man to man have been lost sight of and ignored ?
Let us revert to the pure and simple gospel of Jesus, and ponder
well his warnings against all unjust stewardship. The recognition of
Christianity in its social aspects comes late and last in the world's
gradual development. It is the great want and work of the Church
and until that want' is felt and that work is faced, the regeneration
of society will be as far off as ever.

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 73
In Matthew's gospel this parable stands in another connection, as
though delivered after the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Alford assumes that it was spoken twice. He says : ' How much
more natural that our Lord should have preserved in his parabolic
discourses the same leading ideas, and again and again gathered his
precepts round them,— than that the Evangelists should have thrown
into utter and inconsistent confusion, words which would have been
treasured up so carefully by those that heard them ; to say nothing
of the promised help of the Spirit to bring to mind all that he had
said to them.' To this it must be replied : (1) We fepeatedly find
in the gospel narratives similar instances of confusion. (2) This
would naturally arise from the difficulty of constantly noting down
long discourses at the time they were spoken. That would have
been an impossible task, except on special occasions, or on the
assumption that one of the apostles was an adept in reporting, and
was always present, note book in hand. (3) The assumed need of
the Spirit's aid to bring to their minds the things previously spoken,
would be in itself an evidence that no regular, methodical record had
been kept of them. (4) Alford seems to have overlooked the fact
that not only this but the preceding parable must, on his view, have
been delivered twice, and both together on the two occasions, which
is somewhat improbable. The question when they were spoken is
not material. As they fit smoothly and accurately in Luke's narra
tive, but rather incongruously in Matthew's, it seems likely that a
misplacement at the time of compilation, or a displacement subse
quently, has occurred in the latter. On comparing the following
with Luke, it will be seen how nearly the words agree in both
evangelists. ' But know this (or, But this ye know), that if the 24Mai.
master of the house had known in what watch the thief was coming,
he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be
broken through (Gr. digged through). Therefore be ye also ready :
for in an hour that ye think not the Son of man cometh. Who then
is the faithful and wise servant (Gr. bondservant), whom his lord
hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season ?
Blessed is that servant (Gr. bondservant) whom his lord when he
cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that he will set
him over all that he hath. But if that evil servant (Gr. bondservant)
shall say in his heart, My lord tarrieth ; and shall begin to beat his
fellow-servants, and shall eat and drink with the drunken ; the lord
of that servant (Gr. bondservant) shall come in a day when he
oxpecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall cut
him asunder (or, severely scourge him), and appoint his portion with
the hypocrites : there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
The marginal reading 'severely scourge him,' introduced by the
Revisers, does not appear in other translations. The words m the
text, ' shall cut him asunder,' are thus explained by Alford : ' The
reference is to the punishment of cutting, or sawing asunder : see
Dan. ii. 5 ; iii. 29 : Sus. ver. 59 ; see also Heb. iv. 12 ; xi. 37.'
Those passages contain nothing to confirm the interpretation of
Alford. The idea of attributing such a simile to Jesus is repulsive.
The verb in the original is dichotomeo, to cut in two, cut asunder
There is an analogous verb, dichostateo, to stand apart, disagree. If
the servant is represented as ' cut apart,' it was in order that he

74 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
might ' stand apart.' The expression seems plainly and naturally to
signify exclusion from the Christian fellowship : the ' cutting asunder '
is from the household in which the steward held a responsible posi
tion. That no form of capital punishment is implied, is obvious
from the closing sentence in Matthew, which represents the mental
anguish suffered by those who have been thus ' cut asunder.' The
word ' hypocrites ' is used by Matthew instead of ' unfaithful : ' un
faithful servants are necessarily hypocrites.
In Luke's narrative immediately following upon this parable are
5 verses which have no traceable connection with the context. They
agree with verses 34 to 36 of the 10th chapter of Matthew, which
were spoken on the sending forth of the apostles, and these five-
verses in Luke have been already considered in relation to that event.
The next 6 verses in this 1 2th chapter of Luke are recorded as having
been spoken 'to the multitudes,' but without any indication as to the
time. Four of them correspond nearly with 16 Mat. 1 — 4 and
8 Mark 10 — 13, which have been already dealt with, but the subject
touched on may well bear reconsideration. Jesus intimated that the
failure of the people to appreciate his mission and forecast its con
sequences, was not owing to any defect in their power of judgment.
They were able and accustomed to observe for themselves, and to
:,4, arrive at correct conclusions on other matters. ' And he said to the
0,J multitudes also, When ye see a cloud rising in the west, straightway
ye say, There cometh a shower ; and so it cometh to pass. Anil
when ye see a south wind blowing, ye say, There will be a scorching
heat (or, hot wind), and it cometh to pass.' The Revisers, following
the oldest MS., have altered ' out of the west ' to ' in the west.' The
allusion here is not simply to the exercise of judgment, but rather to
the insight of future events ; how from one thing another thing-
might with certainty be anticipated. They did not want to be
caught in a shower, or expose themselves to any sudden increase of
temperature, so they watched the clouds and changing wind, and pro
tected themselves in time. Were they not equally able to prognosti
cate the consequences of their own lives and actions ? Was not the
blindness wilful, hypocritical, when they shut their eyes to coming
evils, living for the present regardless of the future ? ' Ye hypocrites,
ye know how how to interpret (Gr. prove) the face of the earth and
the heaven ; but how is it that ye know not how to interpret (Gr.
prove) this time ? ' They were able, if they would, to deduce the
future from the present. Why should they delay amendment until
the time of final and irrevocable judgment ? ' And why even of
yourselves judge ye not what is right ? ' For they were like litigants
on their way to the tribunal of justice, and the present moment gave
the last chance of voluntary repentance. Let the debtor, the wrong
doer, avail himself of the opportunity, and exert his utmost to escape
the stern retribution which threatened him if unyielding and unre-
¦, pentant. ' For as thou art going with thine adversary before the
magistrate, on the way give diligence to be quit of him.' The omis
sion of the connecting word ' for ' in the Authorised Version marred
the sense and force of the passage. This is not an alteration in the
reading, but in tbe translation ; Young also inserted the word ' for.'
If the offender continued obdurate, so much the worse for him : the

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 75
matter would be carried to tbe extremity, the adjudication would be
made, the warrant of the judge would issue, and the prisoner would
be handed over to the jailor. ' Lest he hale thee to the judge, and
the judge shall deliver thee up to the exactor, and the exactor cast
thee into prison.' That is Tischendorf's rendering. Young's is as
follows : ' That he may not drag thee before the judge, and the judge
may deliver thee to the officer, and the officer may cast thee into
prison.' The Authorised Version begins : ' Lest he hale thee to the
judge.' The Revisers have inserted the word ' haply,' which weakens
the passage, making the punishment a mere possible contingency
instead of an absolute certainty : 'lest haply he hale thee unto the 1- Luke r,s
judge, and the judge shall deliver thee to the officer (Gr. exactor),
alid the officer (Gr. exactor) shall cast thee into prison.' The im
prisonment, however long continued, would not be held equivalent
to the cancelment of the debt. 'I say unto thee, Thou shalt by ho „ 59
means come out thence, till thou have paid the very last mite.' All
unfulfilled obligations will bring their penalty, and there ¦ can be no
joy or freedom for any one who has failed in duty and scorned
repentance, until through much suffering and effort he has retrieved
the past. That seems to be the scope of this parable.
In the Authorised Version Luke's narrative continues thus :
'There were present at that season some that told him of the
Galileans.' Alford remarks : ' The words at that season may mean at
that very time, viz. as He finished the foregoing discourse : but it is
not necessary to interpret thus ; for, Matt. xii. ] ; xiv. ], the similar
expression is certainly indefinite. The opening words do not mean,
as A. V., that these persons were in the crowd, and remarked to the
Lord concerning these Galileans, in consequence of what He had said
ch. xii. 57 : such a finding of connection is too fine-drawn. It is
obvious that no connection is intended between this incident and the
foregoing discourse.' Dr. Young renders : ' And there were present
certain at that time, telling him about the Galileans.' This does not
favour the view of Alford, neither does the course adopted by the
Revisers. In the two other passages he alludes to they have left the
expression indefinite, ' at that season,' but here they have inserted the
word ' very.' ' Now there were some present at that very season 13 Luke 1
which told him of the Galileans.' Tischendorf, however, does not
indicate that the persons were present in the crowd, but the contrary.
' And there came some at that season telling him of the Galileans.'
Still, the insertion by the Revisers of the omitted word ' for ' in
verse 58 of the last chapter and of the omitted word 'now ' or ' and'
at the beginning of this verse, denotes a connection which was not
previously manifest. Jesus had been dealing with the subject of
retributive justice, and to that he now again refers. The Roman
governor had made a stern example in his treatment of certain
Galileans. To express the abhorrence and infamy attaching to them,
he had caused their blood to mingle with tbe sacrifices offered to the
avenging deities of the Roman people. That would seem to be the
meaning of the statement : ' whose blood Pilate had mingled with „ 1
their sacrifices.' Alford, Tischendorf, Young, and the ' Englishman's
Greek New Testament ' omit the word ' had ' before ' mingled.'
Alford says : ' It must have occurred at some feast in Jerusalem, on

76 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
which occasions riots often took place, and in the outer court of the
temple. Such slaughters were frequent.' That interpretation of the
expression seems far too weak. The act was judicial, striking,
solemn, or it would not have been attributed to Pilate and spoken of
as exceptional. Men were naturally impressed by the heinousness of
the guilt which had been visited by so ignominious a death. Not so
Jesus. ' And he answered and said unto them, Think ye that these
Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they have
suffered these things ? ' It is obvious from the words ' suffered these
things,' that there' had been some form of public execution marked
by nn usual severity. Jesus, however, did not admit that the
criminality of these men was as exceptional as their punishment.
That may well have been doubtful, to say the least ; for the enormity
of guilt has often been defined by political rather than moral con
siderations, and the men called ' traitors ' by their contemporaries
and ' patriot martyrs ' by historians, have expiated their ' treason ' by
executions attended by every possible mark of execration. The time
was not far off,— and Jesus knew it,— when he himself would be
delivered up to this same Pilate, and scourged and crucified as a
malefactor. It would be unsafe, it might be uncharitable, to judge
the characters of men according to the treatment they received from
the rulers of this world. But the lesson which should come home to
every man was twofold : the need of personal reformation, and the
certainty of final retribution. ' I tell you, Nay : but except ye
repent, ye shall all in like manner perish.'
Then Jesus referred to another event. Eighteen persons had lost
their lives, not by way of law, but by an accident altogether
exceptional. A tower had fallen, crushing them to death. Probably
no one had apprehended the possibility of such a catastrophe. Any
fatal occurrence which men cannot account for, they always have been
disposed to ascribe to ' the visitation of God,' even deeming such a
conclusion reverential The phrase, properly understood, means only
that human science, skill and foresight either cannot explain, or did
not suffice to avert the calamity. But in some minds there is a
tendency to carry the inference a step further, and to assume that
some supernatural power has been exercised in the event, which there
fore comes to be regarded in the light of a visitation of divine judg
ment. Against such an idea Jesus protested. ' Or those eighteen,
upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, think ye that
they were offenders (Gr. debtors) above all the men that dwell in
Jerusalem ? I tell you, Nay.' Comparative degrees of guilt in men
are not to be measured by the mode of death which befalls them.
The purest patriot may suffer like the vilest criminal, and fatal acci
dents may overtake alike the guilty and the innocent. The emphatic,
' I tell you, Nay,' of Jesus stands out against all rash judgments.
But from instances of sudden, unexpected death, he would have us
draw the same warning. ' But, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise
perish.' ' If ye may not reform,' is Young's rendering, and it is
preferable, on account of the theological ideas and definitions which
have become attached to the word ' repent.'
The expression ' likewise perish ' demands consideration. In the
Authorised Version it so stands in both verses, but the Revisers have
altered it in verse 3 to ' in like manner.' Tischendorf has ' in like

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 77
manner ' in verse 3, and 'in the same manner ' in verse 5. Samuel
Sharpe has ' thus perish ' in verse 3 and ' perish in like manner ' in verse 5
Young has ' even so ' in verse 3 and ' in like manner ' in verse 5
Alford suggests ' in like manner ' for both verses. He says : ' The
force of this is lost in the A. V. likewise. It is strictly in like manner.'
That being the case, what is the significance of the expression ?
Here is Alford's comment on verse 3 : 'as indeed the Jewish people
did perish by the sword of the Romans.' And this is his comment
on verse 5 : ' Here, the similarity will be — in the ruin of your whole
city. This does not render it necessary that these words should have
been spoken to actual dwellers in Jerusalem : for nearly the whole
nation was assembled there at the time of the siege.' To give this
national and local restriction to the warning of Jesus is unsatisfactory ;
indeed, any such application of his words seems far-fetched and un
reliable. It transforms the teaching into a prophecy, and assumes that
the saying could be interpreted only by the light of a future event.
On the contrary, by keeping close to the subject, the meaning
naturally attaching to the statement of Jesus becomes obvious. He
spoke first of a judicial execution by Pilate. That was no indica
tion of exceptional guilt ; but a similar judicial execution awaited all
who remained impenitent. He spoke next of an unexpected, over
whelming catastrophe. That also gave no reason for assuming
unusual criminality on the part of its victims ; but a similar sudden,
irresistible destruction would overtake all who failed to reform their
lives. The imminence, certainty and universality of Divine judg
ment — that is the lesson here taught by Jesus. It applies not to
the Jews only, but to men of all nations throughout all time.
In connection with this subject Jesus delivered a parable. He
represents the owner of a vineyard inspecting a fig tree planted
therein. For three years together he has found it unproductive, and
at last he issues orders for its removal. ' And he spake this parable ; 1
A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard ; and he came
seeking fruit thereon, and found none. And he said unto the vine
dresser, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig
tree, and find none : cut it down ; why doth it also cumber the
ground ? ' Tischendorf renders, ' cut it out : ' the object was not
merely to get rid of the trunk and branches, but to free the soil for
something" better. But the vinedresser even yet did not despair.
He thought the tree was worth another effort, and that if he bestowed
upon it extra care, and manured it well, it might still become pro
ductive. ' And he answering saith unto him, Lord (Sir — Young aud
Alford), let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung
it.' That should in any case be the final effort ; the year's respite
was the tree's last chance. 'And if it bear fruit thenceforth, ivell;
but if not, thou shalt cut it down.'
We are left to draw our own conclusions from the parable, and
therefore cannot be too careful to keep within its prescribed limits.
Its most prominent lesson seems to be this : Perseverance to the last
in hope and effort, and that equally in the task of self-reform and of
altruistic influence. This barren fig tree represents an exceptional
case of obduracy and moral worthlessness. No other tree in the
vineyard failed as this did. Yet he who was best able to judge, who
watched it constantly, was anxious, in spite of his bitter disappoint-

Luke 10, "II

78 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM .' [part ii.
mcnt, to savo it from destruction. He resolved to make one per
sistent, final effort, admitting at the same time that if that failed all
hope must be abandoned, and the axe must be left to do its work.
Life and usefulness must go together. The fruit-producing tree is
the proper symbol for humanity. We are called to something higher
than a useless, aimless, selfish existence. Each soul's career is
watched over, its worth or worthlessness duly appraised, and its
ultimate destiny determined accordingly. In various ways Jesus
enforces the grand truth of moral responsibility. The negligent
steward is ' cut asunder ' from the household, that he may no longer
disorganize and disgrace it. The barren fig tree is ' cut out,' that it
may no longer cumber the ground.
Alford observes : ' This Parable has perhaps been interpreted
with hardly enough reference to its own peculiar context, or to the
symbolic language of Scripture in other places. Ordinarily the
owner of the vineyard is explained to be the Eternal Father : the
dresser and intercessor, the Son of God: the fig tree, the whole Jewish
people: the vineyard,, the world.' Against that interpretation
Alford argues, and then gives his own. He says : ' Now who is this
intercessor 1 ' and he arrives at the conclusion, 'Clearly, it seems to
me, the Holy Spirit of God.' Then he assumes that the ' three
years ' are an allusion ' to the three years of our Lord's ministry,' and
he meets certain objections brought against that assumption. On
what a sea of uncercainty and error do they set forth, who go beyond
the primary and essential idea embodied in the parable ! The lesson
which the first hearers would naturally draw from it, is the lesson for
us. All beyond that is a surplusage of guesswork, based upon con
ceptions which grew up subsequently in the minds of theologians.
In proportion as the parables are construed mystically, after a recog
nized ' orthodox ' fashion, they lose force and freshness, and instead
of serving to illustrate the grand central truths on which Jesus would
have us fix our thoughts, they become, perplexing and unprofitable.
The following incident, recorded' only by Luke, is described with
much vividness, and was evidently derived from an eye-witness.
It happened in a synagogue, on the sabbath. Jesus was teaching,
and among the listeners was a deformed woman. For eighteen years
she was known to have suffered from a spinal weakness, being bowed
down and unable to stand erect. ' And he was teaching in one of the
synagogues on the sabbath day. And behold, a woman which had a
spirit of infirmity eighteen years ; and she was bowed together, and
could in no wise lift herself up.' The expression, 'had "a spirit of
infirmity,' may be taken as the idea entertained by the narrator and
others. Alford says : ' The A. V. has here mistaken the position of
the word which it renders in no wise. It means altogether, and
belongs to the verb lift herself He renders it, ' could not lift
herself upright.' Tischendorf, 'wholly unable to lift herself up.'
Young, ' not able to bend back at all' The ' Englishman's Greek
New Testament' replaces 'in no wise' by 'wholly.' Her pitiable
condition attracted the notice of Jesus, who called her to him. How
must she have been astounded at his words ! ' And when Jesus saw
her, he called her, and said to her, Woman, thou art loosed from
thine infirmity.' Then on her crippled form she felt the touch of

part n.J A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 79
those hands which never touched in vain. From his body to hers
there passed a mysterious invigorating power; as by some subtle
magic her muscles shook off their hitherto unconquerable torpor the
vigour of her best days was instantaneously restored, and she 'was
seen standing upright aud heard uttering her thanksgiving to God
trinoKte aA ^V^T* her : and immediately she was made h Luke ,
straight, and glorified God.
The man whose office threw upon him the duty of maintaining
order m the synagogue was so narrow-minded, prejudiced, bigoted
as to resent this marvellous exhibition of the healing power of Jesus'
Without venturing to condemn the act or the actor, he expressed his
displeasure, vented his petty criticism, by reminding those present of
the sanctity of the day. His indignation was excited by what
appeared to him a desecration of the sabbath, and he showed the
courage of his convictions by reproving the people. He rose up and
delivered his little sermon on the text, ' Remember the sabbath day
to keep it holy.' He could argue the question verbally and techni-
Cau-\ £fc iW fal* °ff was tle from fche sPirit of divine compassion
which had made the sabbath for man ! He urged the congregation
to beware of encouraging sabbath work in any form ; tf people
wanted to be healed, the synagogue should be kept open for them
throughout the week. 'And the ruler of the synagogue, being u
moved with indignation because Jesus had healed on the sabbath,
answered and said to the multitude, There are six davs in which men
ought to work : in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the
day of the sabbath.' Jesus answered this conscientious, self-satisfied,
zealous critic reproachfully, almost scornfully. 'But the Lord 1:
auswered him, and said, Ye hypocrites.' The Revisers have altered
the word from the singular to the plural, following the three oldest
MSS. This man was one of a class, a fair representative of his sect.
Jesus had affixed to the scribes and Pharisees generally the designa
tion 'hypocrites.' It is obvious that the term was not deemed
offensive^ in the sense of implying open discourtesy. The word
'hupokrites, had a wider application than our translation of it, the
signification ' hypocrite ' being subsidiary : ' one who answers : an
interpreter or expounder. One who plays a part on the stage, a player,
actor. A dissembler, pretender, hypocrite.' The indignation mani
fested by this ruler of the synagogue was not feigned, but real, and
it impelled him to take the course he did. The lives of such
dogmatists were full of incongruities and anomalies ; wedded to an
erroneous system of faith and morals, their most solemn convictions
involved a kind of double-dealing ; seeking to hold fast by the letter
of the divine law, they opposed its spirit ; going about to establish
their own righteousness, they repudiated and opposed anything and
everything which overstepped the limits of their authorised maxims
and orthodox conventionalities. In proportion as men become un
natural they must needs develop inconsistency, and nothing tends so
much in that direction as wrong notions in religion. It was so in
the days of Jesus : is it less so now ? He detected in these vene
rators of the divine revelation, these devout advocates and exemplars
of constant prayer, these strict Sabbatarians, a spirit and habit of
conduct which was best described by the word actors or hypocrites.
In the New Testament the term is never used except by Jesus, and

80 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
whenever he affixed the stigma he was careful to give the reason for
it. Probably unconscious hypocrisy is more common than that
which is deliberate and intentional, and its effects may be quite as
harmful. With loving, compassionate boldness Jesus dragged forth
this lurking vice -into open daylight. On this occasion it sufficed to
sIioav that this man and his co-religionists were in the habit of doing
on the sabbath work of the same kind as that which had just been
is Luke 15 performed by Jesus. 'Doth not each one of you on the sabbath
loose his ox or his ass from the stall (Gr. manger), and lead him
away to watering ? ' Even their rigid creed admitted the necessity
for that. And wherein did this action of Jesus differ ? In two
points only. The laying on of the hands by Jesus involved far less
labour than a journey to the stable, the untying and retying of a
halter, the leading out and home of an animal ; and the need of this
woman for the relief he was able to give, — how vastly was that in
excess of the few hours' thirst of a dumb creature ! Here was a
suffering woman, one of Abraham's daughters, who by some malign
power had been physically bound in ceaseless discomfort day after
day, year after year, during eighteen long years. Ought she not to
¦ in have been loosed from that bond on the sabbath day ? ' And ought
not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan had
bound, lo, these eighteen years, to have been loosed from this bond
on the day of the sabbath ? ' Who could dare to answer No, to
such a question ? His adversaries were dumbfounded by the argu
ment. Not one word could they suggest in self-justification,
especially as the crowd were enthusiastically on the side of Jesus, and
were manifesting unbounded joy as they discussed the astounding
., ir and beneficent marvels wrought by him. 'And as he said these
things, all his adversaries were put to shame : and all the multitude
rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.'
Young renders 'Satan' by 'Adversary.' The words of Jesus,
' whom the Adversary had bound,' carry far more weight than those
which expressed the popular notion that the woman ' had a spirit of
infirmity.' Jesus had superhuman knowledge, and he certainly attri
buted this physical deformity to the spiritual adversary of mankind. In
some way, direct or indirect, it was his doing. If we believe that Jesus
exercised his spiritual powers on behalf of mankind, it is equally credible
that a hostile spiritual being may exercise his powers to the detriment
of mankind. Why or how, we cannot tell. We only know that this
mysterious antagonism of good and evil, of malice and beneficence,
runs throughout the whole Bible history, from the first page to the
last, and that it was admitted and endorsed by Jesus and his apostles.
The gift of prescience possessed by Jesus probably intensified his
mental sufferings. Knowing that he was destined to end his life
under circumstances of ignominy, at Jerusalem, he now prepared to
s Luke si undertake what he knew would be his last journey thither. 'And it
came to pass, when the days were well-nigh come (Gr. were being
fulfilled) that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to
go to Jerusalem.' The expression ' steadfastly set his face ' denotes
the moral courage required and exercised. Not only did he resolve
to go, but he attracted the utmost publicity, undertaking organised
missionary work on the journey, and sending messengers to announce

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.

81

his coming to places on the road: 'and sent messengers before his o Luke 52
face.' That would bs an absolute necessity, if he desired to find
audiences ready to listen to his teaching. In places where the in
habitants were scattered, previous notice would have to be given, the
approach of Jesus announced, and the times at which he would be
prepared to address the people duly arranged beforehand. The mes
sengers set about the performance of this task in a village inhabited
by Samaritans. 'And they went, and entered into a village of the „ 52
Samaritans, to make ready for him.' It was a recognised fact that
the Jews had 'no dealings with Samaritans,' but the disciples of 4 John 9
Jesus were above any prejudice of that kind, and they seem to have
assumed that the spirit of exclusiveness was on the side of their own
nation only, and that the Samaritans would appreciate as a privilege
the proposed visit to them of the great Jewish teacher. Had he not
on a former occasion been acknowledged as Messiah by the Samari
tans of Sychar ? But the disciples were quickly undeceived : they
found that Samaritans could be quite as haughty and bigoted as
Jews. As soon as it was ascertained that Jesus was travelling
towards Jerusalem, a peremptory refusal was given to his entering
their village. 'And they did not receive him, because his face was o Luke 53
as though he were going to Jerusalem.' Two of the disciples were
greatly incensed at this indignity being put upon their Master, and
they were anxious to see his prophetic character vindicated by a sum
mary act of judicial vengeance. His divine authority would be best
shown by some sign from heaven, and knowing well the supernatural
powers which could be wielded by Jesus, they waited but a word of
permission from him to invoke in his name consuming fire from the
sky on the heads of those who had thus scornfully rejected his pre
sence and teaching. 'And when his disciples James and John saw <• bi
this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we bid fire to come down from
heaven, and consume them ? ' The Revisers, following the two oldest
MSS., have omitted ' even as Elias did.' The suggestion was indica
tive of their reverence and faith, and might well occur to these two
who had lately been permitted the vision of their Master transfigured
mid glorified on the mountain-top. But such a purpose was far from
the mind of Jesus, and the idea was instantly met by a stern rebuke.
' But he turned, and rebuked them.' The Revisers, following the „ 55
three oldest MSS., have omitted : ' and said, Ye know not what
manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to
destroy men's lives, but to save them.'
Jesus and his disciples directed their steps elsewhere. 'And they „ so
went to another village.' On the way thither the following incident
occurred. A man expressed a wish to become a follower of Jesus, no
matter whether he was going to Jerusalem or elsewhere 'And as ,. w
they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, I will follow tnec
whithersoever thou goest.' He may have been a Samaritan anxious
to prove himself superior to the narrow mmdedness which had been
shown by his countrymen. The words ' whithersoever thou goest,
seemed to point to a fixed abode somewhere, but Jesus could not offer
that to any follower. As he was at this moment, such he was always :
a homeless wanderer. 'And Jesus said unto him The foxes have „ 53
holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests (Gr. lodging-places) ;
but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.'

82 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
The conclusions thus derived from Luke's narrative are somewhat
disturbed on comparing it with Matthew. He inserts this incident
at a much earlier period of the history. He tells us that the man
was a scribe, but the conversation is almost word for word the same.
s Mat. is, 20 ' And there came a scribe (Gr. one scribe), and said unto him, Master
(or, Teacher), 1 will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus
saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven
have nests (Gr. lodging-places) ; but the Son of Man hath not where to
lay his head.' The position this occupies in Matthew leads to the
inference that the offer was made and the reply of Jesus given when
he was on the point of entering a boat to cross the lake of Genne-
saret ; that, however, is but an inference, whereas Luke says plainly
that the incident happened ' as they went in the way.' With respect
to Matthew's narrative generally, the Reverend J. J. Halcombe makes
the following observations : ' We perceive at once that, whilst it shews
a distinct chronological framework, upon which tbe whole narrative is
built up, yet that the idea of chronological order, so far from being
the paramount idea or controlling principle of narration, is altogether
subordinated to the design of giving special prominence to the Oral
Teaching of our Lord .... Thus it happens that throughout the
first half of his Gospel, whilst grouping together, and so to speak
classifying, discourses spoken on very different occasions, S. Matthew
as a rule introduces Christ's actions, and even the actions of his
enemies, not with reference to the time to which they properly be
longed, but with reference to their suitability to illustrate His Oral
Teaching, and so to complete a Portrait, rather than a Biography of
the Divine Teacher.' * On the other hand, as it was the express
intention of Luke to compile his narrative in due order, we must
needs suppose that he endeavoured to do so in this instance, and that
his words, 'as they went in the way,' were not inserted without
warrant as a mere connecting link. But with respect to the two some
what similar incidents immediately following, Luke does not give
any clue as to time or sequence.
9 i.uke 59 Jesus desired a person to become his follower. ' And he said unto
another, Follow me.' The man pleaded for a slight delay on account
„ 59 of a domestic bereavement. ' But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go
and bury my father.' No : the command was imperious, the necessity
for immediate action urgent, the highest duty must stand first and
„ eo foremost. ' But he said unto him, Leave the dead to bury their own
dead ; but go thou and publish abroad the kingdom of God.' Matthew
omits the command and the concluding words recorded by Luke, but
brings out the fact that the call to ' follow ' Jesus was addressed to one
s Mat 21, 22 of his acknowledged disciples. ' And another of the disciples said unto
him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said
unto him, Follow me ; and leave the dead to bury their own dead.'
Luke records another saying of Jesus, uttered under similar cir
cumstances. Another volunteer presented himself, who, like the last,
o Luke 6i was not quite ready. 'And another also said, I will follow thee,
Lord ; but first suffer me to bid farewell to them that are at my
house.' The cause of Jesus would brook no such delay : hesitation,
indecision, half-heartedness of that kind, must be taken to indicate
"Gospel Difficulties," pp. cxv., cxvii.

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 83
unfitness for the task. ' But Jesus said unto him, No man having put his 9 Luke m
hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.'
These three replies are strikingly characteristic of the mind and
policy of Jesus. The call to follow him involved more than mere
discipleship : it necessitated the relinquishment of life's comforts
and conveniences ; it interfered with the regard clue to social customs
and etiquette ; it demanded the rupture of family ties, and an
earnestness of purpose to make everything yield to the sacred cause
in hand. The ' followers ' of Jesus must feel themselves without an
earthly home ; as the only living men among a host of dead ; as
labourers tied to one plough and one furrow in the world's harvest-
field. Jesus deemed it necessary to put all this in the most emphatic
language possible. In proportion to the earnestness of his declara
tions should be our care not to misunderstand or misapply them. It
would be a perversion of their true import to assume that they admit
of universal application. Elevate the tone and aims of a Christian
community to the highest conceivable degree, still it could never be
desirable that all should become ' followers ' of Jesus in this sense :
any general adoption of such maxims would lead to social confusion
and misery. All persons could not simultaneously choose a wandering,
homeless life ; they could not all delegate to others the duties of
ordinary existence, shaking off from themselves the claims of family
relationship and withholding customary observances of respect ; they
could not all go about proclaiming the kingdom of God, and holding
fast to that as the one object of life. Obviously such precepts are
not for all persons. Are they suitable for all times ? That also may
be open to question. We can conceive a condition of society when
such sacrifices of the few will no longer be needed for the spiritual
enfranchisement and elevation of the many. Rightly restricting the
application of such a call to those who voluntarily dedicate them
selves entirely to the worship of God and the service of humanity,
the Romish Church has sought, with a laudable enthusiasm, to
enforce the perpetual observance of these principles of action on all
her ministers. Vows of celebacy are imposed on her clergy, and
monks and nuns are encouraged to live apart from the world around
them. We know what that system has led to ; we can trace its
workings ; we can observe its effects. It was a grand experiment,
founded on a sublime idea, — the very chivalry of Christianity. But
its attendant evils have exceeded its benefits, its corruptions have
overborne its purity, its doctrines of self-effacement and unquestioning
obedience have sapped the foundations of moral freedom and hindered
the growth of religious truth. Before attempting to build up any
system on precepts enunciated by Jesus, it behoves us to be quite
sure that we fully understand them, not only his words but his spirit,
and that we do not erroneously extend their application beyond the
persons for whom and the circumstances and times for which they
were intended.
At first Jesus had restricted the number of his followers to twelve.
Subsequently he invited others to ' follow ' him, and we have seen
how carefully he made his selection, and how rigid were the ideas of
self-sacrifice and devotion he impressed upon them. After a time, he
found himself the recognised leader of no less than eighty-two
persons, and as he had formerly sent forth the twelve apostles he
G 2

84 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
now appointed seventy others to undertake, under his directions, a
similar mission. As on the previous occasion, he arranged that they
should go forth not singly, nor all together, but in pairs ; and they
were sent as harbingers of himself, to certain towns and localities
which he had decided to visit, probably in company with the twelve
10 Luke 1 apostles. ' Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others,
and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place,
whither he himself was about to come.' Tischendorf retains the
word ' also ' after ' others ; ' the Revisers, following the Vatican MS.,
have omitted it. Alford notes : ' The words should not bo rendered,
as in A. V., other seventy also, but others also, seventy in number.
The others may refer, either to the Twelve, ch. ix. 1, or perhaps, from
the similarity of their mission, to the messengers in ch. ix. 52.'
This missionary enterprise of Jesus was evidently conceived on a
large scale. All that it was possible for him to attempt in the work
of evangelisation, he did. But he was painfully impressed by the
inadequacy of the means at his disposal. There was a plenteous
harvest, but a scarcity of reapers. Jesus began by pointing out that
fact to his followers, urging them to take the same view of the
matter as himself, and to offer their own services in the emergency.
„ " ' And he said unto them, The harvest is plenteous, but the labourers
are few : pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send
forth labourers into his harvest.' Dr. Young has gone beyond the
Authorised and Revised Versions by inserting capitals : ' Beseech ye
then the Lord of the harvest, so that He may put forth labourers
into His harvest.' This is but an exemplification of the idea which
has been commonly attached to this saying of Jesus. It is assumed,
as a matter of course, to be an exhortation to prayer on behalf of
that missionary enterprise in particular, and of missionary enterprises
generally. That interpretation overlooks the nature of the simile,
which is that of a harvest-field : the lord of the harvest is the owner
or superintendent, whose business it is to arrange for the ingathering ;
these labourers are cognisant, like himself, of the need for immediate
action, and it is expected of them that they will tender their services
for tha work which must be done at once. There must be a perfect
understanding and readiness on both sides. The ' lord of the harvest '
is there, waiting to employ ; the ' labourers ' go to him direct, and
ask to be employed. As the labourers represent the disciples, so the
lord of the harvest represents Jesus. He had used the same words
g Mat. ss before sending out the twelve apostles : ' The harvest truly is plen
teous, but the labourers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the
harvest, that he send forth labourers into his harvest.' Then it is
hi :.:.*. 5 added : ' These twelve Jesus sent forth.' In so doing he acted the
part of ' the lord of the harvest.' He would send forth only volun
teers, men who were convinced that the right moment for action had
come, who were anxious about the work, and hopeful as to its results.
The same conclusion is forced upon us by Luke's narrative : for after
saying, ' Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth
10 Luke 3 labourers into his harvest,' it is added : ' Go your ways : behold I
send you forth.' Jesus is the sender, ' the Lord of the harvest.' And
he would have them conscious of the dangers to which they would
„ :; be exposed, and of their utter helplessness. ' I send you forth as
lambs in the midst of wolves.' No representative of Jesus must

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 85
engage in strife, even in self-defence. There is nothing to indicate
that by ' wolves ' Jesus intended any particular religious opponents
Travellers in those days were in danger of attack from robbers, to
whom possibly the allusion refers. These messengers of Jesus must
carry with them nothing to invite attack, or which would be worth
defending. ' Carry no purse, no wallet, no shoes.' Divested of all 10 LuI.e
incumbrances, they would be recognised as simple messengers, and as
such they would be at liberty also to dispense with those formal
ceremonious greetings which were customary between travellers :
' and salute no man on the way.' Miss L. M. von Finkelstein, in
one of her lectures, has explained this : ' You can observe the very "
same thing which was in Christ's mind every day of your life in
Palestine. The ordinary salutation between strangers meeting on
the road takes at least half-an-hour, and is a most ceremonious affair.
All travellers greet each other in the same way, with one exception —
the messenger who runs from place to place is allowed to pass on, aud
when people see him run along they merely call out to him, and if he
answers that he is a messenger he passes unhindered. Now Christ's
disciples were essentially messengers, and they would have had little
time for preaching had they saluted every traveller on the road. It
was for that reason that the command was given.'
Wherever the disciples took up their abode, Jesus would have them
intimate, in a solemn and striking manner, that they came not for
purposes of debate and strife. 'And into whatsoever house ye shah „ 5
enter, first say (or, enter first, say) Peace be to this house.' If the
owner of the dwelling were like-minded, that calmness of soul and
temper which they had learnt from intercourse with Jesus would
pervade the household. ' And if a son of peace be there, your peace „ <i
shall rest upon him (or, it).' But if, unhappily, the spirit of con
tention reigned, they must still retain that quiet mind with which
they had entered. ' But if not, it shall turn to you again.' Not for , i.
any expressed differences of opinion, nor for any other reason, might
they reject or seem to disparage the hospitality freely tendered. 'And „ 7
in that same house remain, eatiug and drinking such things as they
give.' They would not be eating the bread of idleness, and their
efforts for the general welfare might fairly claim a bare subsistence,
without any forfeiture of independence : ' for the labourer is worthy „ 7
of his hire.' No fickleness of purpose, no distaste of their sur
roundings, should induce them to change the abode to which they
were at first welcomed. ' Go not from house to house.' , 7
When they entered into a city, and were received as forerunners of
Jesus, they were to put forth the same powers of healing as they had
seen him exercise, taking no remuneration in money, but only such
hospitality as might be offered them. ' And into whatsoever city ye „ s
enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you :
and heal the sick that are therein.' This simple, quiet declaration is
of startling import. In sending out the twelve Jesus had invested
them with the same — and greater — powers. Now to seventy disciples
at once he attributes, as though it were a matter of course, the
miraculous gift of healing. How great must be the mistake of those
who would have us regard the miracles of Jesus as proofs of his
divinity ! He sought to make them the common heritage of
humanity. There dwells in all of us a mysterious power of which

86 • THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
we are unconscious, an influence for good which we have never
learnt the secret how to exert, a phenomenal attribute lying on the
border-land between matter and spirit, whereby the latter controls
the former. To the most learned physicians disease is still a mystery :
that it can be propagated by a touch, and without a touch, we all
know ; Jesus disclosed the fact that there exists a similar contagion
of healing, and if only we could put ourselves on his level, or be
taught, guided, influenced by him as were the twelve and the seventy,
14 joim 12 we should realise the literal truth of his assertion, 'Verily, verily, I
say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he1
do also.'
Conjointly with the exercise of their powers of healing, the disciples
10 Luke!' were to proclaim the nearness of God's kingdom. 'And say unto
them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.' These marvels
of mercy were its manifestations : flashes of light and love from the
heavenly realm of divine beneficence. The nearness was present,
actual, a thing realised, not a promise of something about to be
revealed. The reign of God has never been so near to men as in
those days when Jesus and his apostles went about proclaiming its
proximity and demonstrating its laws and powers.
But the messengers of Jesus must be prepared for rejection as well
as acceptance. They must not allow themselves to be repelled with-
10 Luke 10, out making a solemn protest. ' But into whatsoever city ye shall
11 enter, and they receive you not, go out into the streets thereof and
say, Even the dust from your city, that cleaveth to our feet, we do
wipe off against you.' The Revisers have altered ' cleaveth on us ' to
' cleaveth to our feet,' the reading of the three oldest MSS. being,
' cleaveth on us on our feet.' This symbolical action was not un
common. Alford explains : ' It was a custom of the Pharisees, when
they entered Judaea from a Gentile land, to do this act, as renouncing
all communion with Gentiles. Rejection, however disheartening and
contemptuous, must in no wise shake the assurance of the disciples
„ n themselves, and they were to give proof of this by adding, ' Howbeit
know this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh.' The proffered
boon was none the less real and substantial because men, failing to
appreciate it, thrust it from them. The folly, the wrong, the guilt of
such conduct would be intolerable, more so even than that of Sodom.
„ 12 'I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom,
than for that city.' The reception of these messengers was equiva
lent to the reception of Jesus; their rejection, to" the rejection of
himself ; and the rejection of him, to the rejection of God Himself.
„ i6 ' He tnat heareth you heareth me, and he that rejecteth you re-
jecteth me ; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me.'
„ 13-15 Between verses 12 and 16 Luke inserts the following. ' Woe unto
thee, Chorazin ! woe unto thee Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works
(Gr. powers) had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which were done in
you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and
ashes. Howbeit it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the
judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be
exalted unto heaven ? thou shalt be brought down unto Hades.' In
dealing with the mass of material at his command, Luke must
occasionally have had to rely on his own judgment with respect to
the position to be occupied by certain portions of the narrative. His

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 87
object was to place all things in order, but the fitting place for
various short traditional sayings of Jesus might not be obvious
These he would naturally insert at the most appropriate and con
venient points. If, as seems probable, these verses 13, 14 and 15
comprised one of these scattered notes, the mention of' ' Sodom ' in
connection with the word ' tolerable ' would be sufficient to induce
the compiler to place it where it now stands. That nu'o-ht seem
preferable to either dropping it in at hap-hazard, without any regard
to the context, or introducing it alone, as probably some passages of
doubtful standing are introduced, by some such words as 'Jesus
said.' These remarks apply, more or less, with equal force to
Matthew's gospel. It is a mere tradition that he wrote it ; to what
extent it may have been compiled by others, we know not ; and it
does not make any claim to chronological accuracy. The Reverend
J. J. Halcombe arrives at the following conclusion : ' A strict adhe
rence to an exact historical order of events being manifestly incon
sistent with the plan on which S. Matthew wrote, all transpositions
of his text required in any attempt to shew what that order really
rwas, provided only they are exactly regulated by the order vouched
for by other Evangelists, are neither " arbitrary," nor in the slightest
degree inconsistent with his absolute accuracy.'* Now iu Matthew
we find a parallel passage to that just quoted from Luke, but intro
duced at an earlier period. Alford has in this instance held, contrary
to his usual practice, that the words were spoken twice by Jesus ; but
the Reverend J. J. Halcombe has not scrupled to place them in
juxtaposition with the passage in Luke. In Matthew they are intro
duced with these words : ' Then began he to upbraid the cities n Mat. 20
wherein most of his mighty works (Gr. powers) were done, because
they repented not.' That is a very unusual form of preface ; whether
by Matthew himself or by a subsequent compiler, it is simply the
writer's way of introducing the subject. If we could be sure that
Matthew not only wrote but arranged the narrative bearing his
name, the words ' then began he ' would denote a sequence, but not
otherwise. Alford says : ' This expression betokens a change of
subject, but not of locality or time : ' he does not venture to argue
that it signifies identity of time, although the 'close connexion of the
whole chapter ' leads him to that conclusion. He adds : ' I would
rather regard the then began he as the token of the report of an ear-
witness, and as pointing to a pause or change of manner on the part
of our Lord.' The word ' upbraid ' seems hardly consistent with the
character of Jesus. Tischendorf renders it 'reproach.' Samuel
Sharpe's rendering of ' woe ' by ' alas,' gives to the utterance a
sorrowful and compassionate tone. Young's version is : ' Then
began he to reproach the cities in which most of his mighty works
were done, because they reformed not.' Matthew's record of these
reproaches or regrets of Jesus is as follows : ' Woe unto thee, jt 2i-s
Chorazin ! woe unto thee Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works (Gr.
powers) had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you,
they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Howbeit
I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the
day of judgement, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou
"Gospel Difficulties," p. cxx.

88 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
be exalted unto heaven ? thou shalt go down unto Hades : for if the
mighty works (Gr. powers) had been done in Sodom which were done
in thee, it would have remained until this day. Howbeit I say unto
you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day
of judgement, than for thee.' Comparing this with Luke, there is
great similarity. The woe of Chorazin and Bethsaida is word for
word the same, except that Luke introduces ' sitting ' and ' 1 say
unto you.' Respecting Capernaum it seems doubtful whether the
words were ' go down ' or ' be brought down,' the authorities differing
as to the MS. of Matthew. Luke omits all that follows in Matthew
after 'Hades,' but he had just before quoted almost similar words
concerning Sodom. Now comes the important question, What is the
real import of the passages ? Alford rushes unhesitatingly to this
conclusion : ' That the reference here is to the last great day of judg
ment is evident, by the whole being spoken of in the future.' That
is obviously an abbreviated form of the argument, for it does not
follow that because the judgment is future it must therefore be the
last great day of judgment. The argument fully stated amounts to
this : The judgment applies to Tyre and Sidon as well as to Chorazin
and Bethsaida, to Sodom as well as to Capernaum : therefore, the
future tense only being used, the judgment of Tyre and Sidon and of
;^odom must be future. But Sodom was judged and destroyed ages
ago : therefore that past judgment is not referred to, but some other,
which can only be the last great day of judgment. That this is
fairly put, is evident from these words added by Alford : ' Had our
Lord been speaking of the outivard judgment on the rebellious cities.
the future might have been used of them, but could not of Sodom,
which was already destroyed.' It may be urged, on the contrary,
that the word ' shall ' cannot apply to Sodom, and that therefore the
meaning of the sentence is not that which might appear from its
literal, hard and fast grammatical construction. It would involve
no change of meaning to put it thus : It shall be less tolerable for
thee in the day of judgment than for the land of Sodom ; or, It shall
be less tolerable for thee than for the land of Sodom in the clay of
judgment. Any critical reader, apart from foregone conclusions and
theological training, would understand that to be its meaning. Jesus
was simply drawing a contrast between the guilt and doom of Sodom
and of existing cities. He was not enunciating any new doctrine of
final retribution, involving the resurrection not only of individuals
but of cities and citizens in their corporate capacity". That is what
the idea of Alford amounts to, and it is absurd on the face of it.
Jesus draws a comparison and warning from ancient history, and
men thrust into it their own conclusions drawn from other parts of
Scripture ! Are the customary elisions of speech which are common
in all languages, and which are recognised intuitively by our judg
ment and common sense, to be disregarded when we deal with the
utterances of Jesus ? Every italicised passage is a standing protest
against such a system of interpretation. We may surely claim the
right of grasping an idea without that circumlocution which strict
grammarians might insist on. Take the passage in Luke : ' It shall
be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.' The
meaning is on the surface : That city is less to be borne with in that
day, than was Sodom. If more tolerable for Sodom, surely less

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS, 89
tolerable for that city ; so the sense is unaltered if we put the sentence
thus : It shall be less tolerable in that day for that city, than for
Sodom. Now all is seen to depend on the position given to the
words, which may be taken in this order : In that day for that city
it shall be less tolerable than for Sodom. The future tense has no
reference to Sodom, the judgment of which, being past, could be
thus held up as an example. It is open to question whether the right
sense is attached to the word ' tolerable.' Is it the conduct which is
' more tolerable ' in the eyes of the judge, or the punishment in
flicted by the judge which is ' more tolerable ' to the criminal ? The
former, most probably ; for although the latter is generally assumed,
it involves the introduction of an extraneous idea, that of the state,
condition, or punishment, so that in Beza's Latin version each of the
six passages in which the word ' tolerable ' occurs is amplified by the
introduction of the word ' conditio : ' ' tolerabilior erit conditio terras
.Sodomorum et Gomorrhaeorum,' although, strange to say, only in
.6 Mark 11 is the word ' conditio ' italicised.
The estimate Jesus was led to form of his countrymen is not a
little startling. Driven from Judaea, he laboured in Galilee ; but he
was far from satisfied with the result of his efforts, even in the places
where they had been most abundant. He had not succeeded in
bringing about the moral reformation at which he aimed. He could
preach to the people, he could work miracles among them, but he
could not influence their hearts or transform their lives. They
remained impenitent, unreformed ; and he was forced to the conclu
sion that the Gentiles were more open to conviction and amendment
than were the Jews. Even the heathen cities of Tyre and Sidon,
against which Jewish prophets had been commissioned to launch
forth divine threatenings, and which ' had been chastised by God's
judgment under Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander' (Alford), were, in
the opinion of Jesus, less obdurate than Chorazin and Bethsaida. So
intense was the conviction of Jesus with respect to the moral obtuse-
ness of those among whom he had laboured, that he declared Sodom
itself would have been saved by such a revelation as Capernaum had
received and despised. And yet, at this very time, Capernaum was
regarding itself with complacency and self-glorification, dreaming of
advancement heavenwards when her sins were dragging her down to
death. There might be material prosperity, increasing commerce, grow
ing wealth : what could all that profit when spiritual indifference pre
vailed, leading to hatred of the Truth and rejection of the Messiah ?
No account is given of the labours of the seventy. After a time
which may have been long or short, they returned to Jesus, delighted
with the success of their mission, and enthusiastic about the gifts ot
healing which they had been able to exercise. 'And the seventy io Luke vj
returned with joy, saying, Lord (Sir— Young), even the devils (Gr.
demons) are subject unto us in thy name.' To this observation
Jesus made a remarkable reply. 'And he said unto them I beheld „ is
Satan fallen as lightning from heaven.' The Authorised Version
has : ' as lightning fall from heaven.' In effect the sense is the
same, the instantaneousness of the flash making it impossible to draw
a distinction between 'fall' and 'fallen.' Tischendorf renders
'falling;' Young 'having fallen;' the ' Englishman s Greek .New
Testament ; ' ' I beheld Satan as lightning out of the heaven falling.

90 THE KING AND THE. KINGDOM: [part n.
From fallen lightning no danger is to be dreaded ; it has become
powerless, extinct. The simile is full of meaning. To the mind of
Jesus, the spiritual Adversary of himself and of mankind stood
revealed, as real, as threatening, as irresistible, as demonstrable, as^ is
the lightning which springs from its unseen source above, and which
falls upon us, how, whence or why we know not. That there should
exist a spiritual Being inimical to mankind, is no more incredible or
mysterious than is the fact that lightning may consume us, or floods
drown us, or malaria infect us. The constitution of the physical
universe does not exclude these perils to the body, and the constitu
tion of the moral universe may with equal reason be held to _ involve
similar spiritual perils. The eye of Jesus discerned realities invisible
to us, and he spoke with equal certainty of the ministrations of
heavenly messengers and of attacks from a spiritual adversary.
Modern scientists, accustoming themselves to withhold credence from
what they cannot see, or feel, or in some way test and demonstrate
by analysis, would laugh away all such ideas. Not so Jesus. He
believed in them, promulgated them. Spiritual influences inimical
to human welfare were as fully within his category of actually-
existent dangers, as were serpents and scorpions with their offensive
instincts and poisonous fangs. The former class of agents was as
real and malevolent as the latter, and the one might be taken as
representative of the other. The dangers from both were equal, and
instead of bidding us shut our eyes to either, Jesus assured his
disciples that through the power which he had given they could
10 Luke 19 safely encounter and overcome them. ' Behold, I have given you
authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the
power of the enemy : aud nothing shall in any wise hurt you.'
Let us keep to the similes which Jesus used as illustrations of
Satanic agency, — the lightning -flash and the serpent-sting. Thunder
storms are comparatively rare, and injury from a thunderbolt rarer
still. Moreover, the wit of man devised the lightning-rod to attract
the flash and guide it harmless to the ground. Just so, the incursions
of demoniacal agency were always fitful, and Jesus interposed a
barrier between us and them, warding off in some simple but efficient
way, as by some master-stroke of heavenly science, their evil influ
ences. We can rejoice that these are now altogether exceptional
Our immunity may not be so complete as we flatter ourselves, but
even were it perfect, it would ill-become us to misconstrue it as an
evidence that the danger was always imaginary and the dread of it
irrational. Take the other metaphor, — of serpents and scorpions.
Between such poisonous reptiles and the human race there has ever
been a deadly feud. As civilization, has advanced, they have
declined, the law of self-preservation impelling men to hunt out and
extirpate them with remorseless energy. Abounding most in tropic
heat, some parts of the world have never known these dangerous
scourges ; even from places where they most abounded they have
slunk away, and the race must needs be finally crushed out. So has
it been, and will be, with hostile spiritual influences. The Holy
Spirit bestowed by Jesus on his disciples has supplied an antidote to
the deadly venom of man's ghostly enemies, whose attacks may
be sometimes insidious and sometimes direct. The apostle Paul
n it cor. 14, wrote : ' Even Satan fashioneth himself into an augel of light. It ia

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.

91

no great thing therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as
ministers of righteousness ; whose end shall be according to their
works.' Religious hypocrites were classed by John the Baptist and
by Jesus as viperous. ' Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to 3 Mat 7
flee from the wrath to come ? ' 'Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, »3 Mat 33
how shall ye escape the judgement of Gehenna ? ' Over such men,
and over the spirit which animates them, Jesus promised his followers
an easy and perfect triumph. ' Behold, I have given you authority
to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the
enemy : and nothing shall in any wise hurt you.'
_ Yet not in that triumph over spiritual foes would Jesus have his
disciplesexult, but in their own heavenly privileges. ' Howbeit in 10 Luke 20
this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you ; but rejoice
that your names are written in heaven.' The word 'rather,' before
' rejoice,' has been omitted by the Revisers. It is not in the three
oldest MSS. Young renders : ' Your names were written in the
heavens,' and _ Tischendorf, ' your names have been written in
heaven.' The idea seems to be the same as is thus expressed else
where : ' Ye are come ... to the general assembly and church of 12 Heb. 2s
the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven.' Not strife and victory on
earth, even in the noblest cause, is to be the limit of Christian
expectation, but that heavenly citizenship from which all evil will be
excluded, and in which the powers and prerogatives of redeemed
humanity will find their free and fullest scope.
The Authorised Version continues as follows : ' In that hour Jesus
rejoiced in spirit.' The Revisers have capitalised the last word, and
placed ' Holy ' before it, following the reading of the two oldest
MSS. Tischendorf also renders : ' In that hour he exulted in the
Holy Spirit.' Alford inserts this note : ' Read, with all the most
ancient authorities, the holy spirit : ' he does not venture to use
capitals. By doing so, here and elsewhere, the text assumes in the
eyes of ordinary readers a meaning beyond the sense contained in the
original. The idea of a separate and divine personality inevitably
springs up on seeing the words ' Holy Spirit ' so printed, which idea
does not necessarily arise when capital letters are not used. Samuel
Sharpe renders : ' In that hour Jesus rejoiced in his spirit.' Avoid
ing both of these extremes, let us neither omit ' holy,' — for it is
found in the oldest copies extant, — nor capitalise it, nor insert the
word 'his.' What is the meaning of the expression, 'Jesus rejoiced
in the holy spirit ? ' Apart from preconceived theological dogmas,
no thought of any ' spirit ' except that of Jesus himself would enter
our minds. We have long since arrived at the conclusion that the
term ' holy ' is applied to "any thing or any person specially devoted
to the service of God. In his spirit of self-dedication to the divine
will, Jesus now rejoiced. That this is the true sense becomes more
evident from what follows. Jesus gives thanks to his Father, the
supreme Ruler, humbly acquiescing in the unfolding of His purposes.
' In that same hour he rejoiced in (or, by) the Holy Spirit, and said,
I thank (or, praise) thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that
thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and
didst reveal them unto babes.' The seventy disciples had returned to
Jesus, congratulating themselves and him on the effectual exercise of
their miraculous powers, especially that of exorcism. He had dis-

10 Luke 21,
22

92 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
coursed with them on this matter, had assured them of perfect
immunity from spiritual evil, and of victory over it, but had bidden
them rejoice rather in the prospect opened out to them of the
heavenly life. Surrounded by his band of earnest disciples, the heart
of Jesus' overflowed with thankfulness at the success which had been
granted to his mission. But his disciples were men of humble rank
in life ; the ruling class of his countrymen held aloof from him ;
scribes and Pharisees ranged themselves in opposition. None more
sensible, — more sensitive, indeed, — of this than Jesus himself. Look
ing round upon his disciples, comparing them with persons renowned
for learning, 'the wise and understanding,' he was free to admit the
fact that his adherents suffered by the comparison : the contrast was
as great as that between men grown up and highly educated, and
very ' babes.' Jesus was learning to submit to the inevitable. He
had sought in vain to gain the ears and hearts of others. It was
obviously the divine purpose that he should succeed in this direction
only. His work had fallen short of his ideal He now recognises
the solemn fact that this apparent failure was of divine appointment.
It was strange that those best qualified ¦ to judge should reject his
teaching ; but it was far more wonderful that these ' babes ' should
attain to the heavenly wisdom. God had chosen the weak things of
the world to confound the wise. Convinced that it was so, Jesus
10 Luke 21 bows to the divine will. ' Yea, Father, for (or, that) so it was well-
pleasing in thy sight.' This view of the text is confirmed by Alford,
who inserts the following note on the words ' I thank thee : ' ' Not
merely, / praise thee, but in the force of the Greek word I confess to
thee, I recognize the justice of thy doings.' Young renders, ' I confess
to thee, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth, that Thou didst
hide these things from wise men and prudent, and didst reveal them
to babes ; yes, Father, for so it was good pleasure before thee.' The
acquiescence of Jesus was complete, being based upon his conviction
that all his experiences throughout life were divinely arranged. That
„ 22 seems to be the import of the words which follow : ' All things have
been delivered unto me of my Father.' The ' all things ' here
alluded to must signify what had just been spoken of, — the works
and teaching of Jesus with all the consequences resulting therefrom.
He had been carrying out God's purposes, and if he could gain no
greater measure of success, it was simply because in the divine wisdom
men were left free to acknowledge or deny him, to accept or reject
his salvation. His assurance sprang from the consciousness that he
was doing God's work in the world. It ill becomes us to claim, or
rather to parody his claim to a similar special divine direction. In
one sense, of course, all that befalls ourselves is the Lord's doino- :
his laws cannot be broken, his retributions cannot be escaped. But
to attribute the failure of our plans and hopes, springing often from
our greed of wealth, our selfish ambitions, or brought about by errors
of judgment or conduct, to providential interposition, — this is rather
profanity than piety. Jesus, in all his plans and purposes, was one
with the Father, supreme and alone among men in his knowledge of
God, and himself, in his true character and nature, unrecognized by
„ 22 meu and known to the Father only. ' And no one knoweth who the
Son is, save the Father ; and who the Father is save the Son.' But
that knowledge of God which men possessed not, it was the office and

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 93
life-work of Jesus to impart, therefore he added : ' and he to whom
soever the Son willeth to reveal him.' The Authorised Version
stands : _ and he to whom the Son will reveal him: ' the alteration of
'will into 'willeth to,' .is important. Young and Tischendorf
bring out the same sense ; the former : 'and to whomsoever the Son
may will to reveal Him ; ' the latter : ' and he to whom the Son may
wish to reveal him.' Jesus did not, would not, could not make the
same revelation to all alike ; it was not the work of a moment of a
month, of a year, or even of a life : it depended not on the' time
employed 111 teaching, nor could any teaching avail unless the disciple
himself were receptive of the truth. But to earnest disciples such
as those who now stood by him apart from ordinary listeners, Jesus
did indeed disclose new truths. To these disciples he now turned
aside, and addressed them privately, congratulating them on their
opportunities and the use they made of them. ' And turning to the 10 Luke 23
disciples, he said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things
that ye see.' Tischendorf has, ' he said apart ; ' Young, ' he said by
themselves.' They saw the Father's love and goodwill to mankind
manifested through the miracles of Jesus : disease aud infirmity fly
ing at his touch, mental and spiritual disorder banished, body, soul
and spirit released from the trammels of evil, and placed once more
in the path of true freedom and happiness. And the doctrine also of
Jesus was equally new to the world : his works and words satisfied
aspirations hitherto unfulfilled : ' For I say unto you, that many „ 24
prophets and kings desired to see the things which ye see, and saw
them not ; and to hear the things which ye hear, and heard them
not.' On the words ' prophets and kings,' Alford has the note :
' David united both these, also Solomon.' That seems to miss the
full significance of the allusion. Jesus does not limit it to those who
combined both offices. His observation is general : ' many prophets
iind kings.' Prophets, teachers of morality, have longed for a revela
tion of pure and perfect truth, a system of ethics based on the wants
of humanity and harmonising to the fullest extent with social
requirements. Many kings have sought to promote the physical
well-being of their subjects, to eradicate disease, to remove the evils
attendant upon ignorance and vice, to abate misery, to augment
happiness, to lengthen the span and brighten the monotony
of our earthly existence. Jesus alone among mankind was able to
demonstrate the feasibility, and inaugurate the era, of the moral and
physical regeneration of mankind.
These remarks to the disciples are recorded by Luke only, but up
to tbat point his account agrees very closely with that of Matthew,
which is as follows : ' At that season Jesus answered and said, 1 11 Mat. 25-27
thank (or, praise) thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou
didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst
reveal them unto babes : yea, Father, for (or, that) so it was well
pleasing in thy sight. All things have been delivered unto me of my
Father : and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father ; neither doth
any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth
to reveal him.' 'Knoweth the Son — knoweth who the Son is;
neither doth any know the Father — and who the Father is :' these
are the only discrepancies here between Matthew aud Lnke, the two
narratives being otherwise word for word the same. Evidently both

94 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
evangelists had the same or an equally reliable record : the slight
divergence is just such as might naturally occur between two reporters,
or be introduced by a compiler.
Matthew alone records the following sayings of Jesus. They
appear to have been spoken to the multitude, forming no part of that
private address to the disciples which is given by Luke but not
alluded to by Matthew. The crowd which surrounded Jesus no
doubt comprised all classes, the majority being of the toiling poor.
That many of them were persons to whom a meal free of expense was
a welcome boon, and the vain hope of living upon the bounty of
Jesus an inducement to follow him, is evident from his telling them
<: joim 20 on one occasion, ' Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because
ye ate of the loaves and were filled.' Jesus could not but feel com
passion for those engaged in the monotonous round of ceaseless and
exhausting toil. He seems to have been struck by the outward signs
of overwork apparent in many of those about him, and he had a word
of consolation for them. He could encourage them by no socialistic
theories, no promise of a more equal distribution of property, no
immediate prospect of an ameliorated earthly lot ; he was indeed
trying to lay the groundwork for all that, but the reconstitution of
society upon principles of Christian brotherhood was a far-off ideal,
— alas ! that it should be so still, — and until its realization, patient
submission was the only attainable alleviation. He had a message
for them, not of emancipation from their heavy toil, but of some
11 Mat. 28 easing and lightening of the burden. ' Come to me, all ye labouring
and burdened ones, and I will give you rest.' The promise is not of
entire immunity, but of partial repose from toil. The old English
version, standing in the Communion service, is ' I will refresh you,'
which corresponds with Luther's, ' Ich will euch erquicken.' How
did Jesus propose to effect this ? By supplying them with his own
form of yoke, and teaching them his own method of burden-bearing.
'Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me.' He would have them
imitate his own disposition of meekness and humility : ' for I am
meek and lowly in heart.' That would ensure them spiritual repose,
recruitment of their flagging energies, the sense of rest in the midst
of toil : ' and ye shall find rest unto your souls.' He could assure
them of this by his own experience. His yoke was comfortable to
the shoulder, and it reduced the weight of the burden. ' For my
yoke is easy, and my burden is light.' Alford defines the word
' easy ' as ' not exacting ; answering to kind, spoken of persons.' Tis
chendorf renders, ' for my yoke is good ; ' Luther, ' denn mein Joch
ist sanft — for my yoke is soft.' By the simile of a yoke, which is
necessarily associated with the idea of a heavy burden, Jesus intimates
that there can be no escape from the labours incident to our lot in
life. He is not alluding to any burden which he himself places upon
men's shoulders, nor does the yoke represent any restriction by him
upon our freedom of action or will. Probably there is no passao-e of
Scripture more commonly misread than this ; "the simile is constantly
taken apart from its proper sense, the context being disregarded and
the exhortation of Jesus misconstrued and misapplied. Alford on
the words ' learn of me,' speaks of ' the reception of the divine o-race
for the pardon of sin, and the breaking of the yoke of the corruption

2'.)2<J

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 95
of our nature' How far off are such ideas from these saying of
Jesus ! He does not allude to the breaking of any yoke nor to any
kind of moral corruption. Alford says again: ' Doubtless, outward
and bodily misery is not shut out ; but the promise, rest to your
souls, is only a spiritual promise. Our Lord does not promise to
those who come to him freedom from toil or burden, but rest in the
soul, which shall make all yokes easy, and all burdens lio-ht ' That
accords with the simile, except that it is not intimated that 'all
yokes ' will be easy, but only the yoke of Jesus, which is his spirit of
¦ meekness and humility. Alford goes altogether outside the advice
and. assurance so lovingly given by Jesus, when he adds : ' The main
invitation however is to those burdened with the yoke of sin, and of
the law, which was added because of sin. All who feel that' burden
are invited.' What a perversion and confusion of the thought
and metaphor! The yoke which eases a burden is spoken°of
as a burden ; the ' yoke of sin ' in connection with the divine
law, either as though both were burdens, or as though the yoke
of sin made the law a burden. Then: 'all who feel that burden
are invited : ' Jesus invites men who feel the burden of sin, and
teaches them how to find rest to their souls under it ! Is it not evident
that such doctrines about sin and the law have no connection with
these sayings of Jesus ? The ideas and subjects are incongruous, and
the attempt to amalgamate them leads to contradictions and absurdi
ties. The application of the simile is sufficiently wide, without in
troducing matters on which it has no bearing. The labour and load
of life represent far more than mere bodily toil. The nature of the
burden varies : whatever constitutes a trial, an overtasking of the
energies, — anxiety, grief, ill-health, disappointment, the failure of our
projects, the strain and worry of business, injustice from others, un
avoidable poverty, family responsibilities and sorrows, — there are
burdens innumerable to be borne, and only this yoke of Jesus which
can act as a lever to the lightening of the load and the easing of the
weary shoulder. Jesus gave this counsel at a moment when his spirit
rejoiced, not that events had turned out as he designed, but because
he bowed to the Father's will and submitted to the decree of his
supreme wisdom. He had ' learned obedience by the things which 5 Heh. s
he suffered,' and out of the fulness of his own experience he eulogised
the repose springing out of meekness and lowliness of heart. Wc
need not seek to extend the broad and beautiful lesson here taught
by Jesus ; yet, so long as his words are not perverted from their
true sense, we are not restricted in their use, and they have never
been more touchingly applied than in the first verse of the well-
known hymn : ' I heard the voice of Jesus say,
Come unto me and rest.
Lay down, thou weary one, lay down,
Thy head upon my breast :
I came to Jesus as I vas,
Weary, and worn, and sad :
I found in him a resting-place,
And he has made me glad.
' I heard the voice of Jesus say,
Behold, I freely give
The living water, thirsty one,
Stoop down, and drink, and live :

96 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii,
I came to Jesus, and I drank
Of that life-giving stream ;
My thirst was quenched, my soul revived,
And now I live in Him.
' I heard the voice of Jesus say,
I am this dark world's Light ;
Look unto Me, thy morn shall rise,
And all thy day be bright :
I looked to Jesus, and I found
In him my Star, my Sun ;
And in that Light of life I'll walk
Till travelling days are done. '
Such ideas stand forth among the most perfect expressions of
Christian faith, hope and joy. Believing souls apply them according
to their individual moods and experiences. To one here and there,
perchance, the singing of the hymn, excluding the last two lines,
brings tender reminiscences of some dear one who has left this world to
find in Jesus the rest, the water of life, and the light of the world to
come. It peals forth as the rapturous death-bed song for the dying
Christian, or rather as the resurrection hymn of the newly-departed.
But the liberty we claim of thus using the sayings and promises of
Jesus altogether apart from their primary connection, should make
us only the more careful, in our expositions of Scripture, to adhere
closely to their proper significance as shown by the context. The
misinterpretation and misapplication of this declaration of Jesus can
scarcely fail to act and react injuriously, involving not only the loss
of the lesson he would have us learn, but also wrong judgments and
estrangements of Christian sympathy with respect to our fellow men.
Our poorer brethren, living hard lives of unremitting toil, lacking
the refinements, the luxuries, alas ! even the decencies of civilisation,
herding in unsanitary dwellings, nourished on inferior food, its supply
often scanty and always precarious, with no hope of amelioration on
this side the grave, — yet admidst all their disadvantages active,
energetic, industrious, cheerful, contented,— what splendid examples
do they constitute of that meekness and lowliness of heart counselled
by Jesus as the best panacea for the labouring classes throughout
the world ! What grand specimens of humanity exist among them !
If we rail at their faults, let- us at least discern and eulogise their
virtues. In this matter they exhibit far more of the spirit of Jesus
than we are accustomed to give them credit for. They have well
learned their lesson of obedience, alike to the mysterious dispensa
tions of Providence and the arbitrary and oppressive decrees of
society. What a miserable, narrow, effete theology is that, which
misreads, warps, distorts this simple precept of Jesus, overlays it
with dogmas and mystical interpretations, blinds our eyes to living
exemplifications of the spirit he inculcated and commended, and
would, if it could, persuade those who through such meekness and
lowliness of heart have found rest to their souls, that they are aliens
from the Son of man, and can never approach him, or be acceptable
in his sight, except through sacraments, priestly teaching and absolu
tion, prayers and creeds and church-membership !
The following incident is recorded by Luke. One of those Jewish
doctors ' whose especial office it was to teach the law ' (Alford), took

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 97
upon him to put a question to Jesus. ' And behold, a certain lawyer 10 Luke 25
stood up and tempted him, saying, Master (or, Teacher), what shall I
do to inherit eternal life ? ' The question may be taken to assume a
connection between the mode of life here and its continuance in
another world, amounting in fact to this : How must I live, or what
must I do, 011 earth, in order to secure endless existence hereafter ?
However generally that interpretation may be adopted, as though it
were a matter of course, open to 110 argument or question, the literal
rendering of Dr. Young puts us on the track of finding another and
and very different sense : 'Teacher, on doing what— shall I inherit
age-during life ? ' Death, considered as the penalty of transgression,
what is it but the premature ending of the natural ' age ' of man ?
The promise of the law was ' life,' not ' age-during life,' for that was
lost to mankind through the first transgression : and the law exacted
no penalty and conveyed no promise outside the limit of our earthly
existence. Therefore the question propounded by this Jewish
lawyer was natural and momentous, ' On doing what — shall I inherit
age-during life ? ' As far as can be ascertained from Scripture, the
doctrine of age-during life was first revealed by Jesus ; it was the
peculiar feature of his teaching. The lawyer, consciously or un
consciously, was quoting the words and adopting the ideas of Jesus :
' and age-during life shall inherit.' ' Who may not receive back i" Mat. 29
manifold more in this time, and in the coming age age-during life ' is Lime 30
(Young). Jesus had, indeed, proclaimed this age-during life as the
gift of God granted to men through him. ' He who is hearing my 5 Joim 24
word, and believing Him who sent me, hath life age-during.'
' Verily, verily, I say to you, He who is believing in me, hath life a John 47
age-during.' Possibly the lawyer anticipated that his question would
lead to a repetition byr Jesus of such declarations, for the words
' stood up and tempted him ' imply an intention of entangling Jesus
in some argument or accusation. But Jesus simply answered the
question by putting another. What did this lawyer hold to be the
sum and substance of the law? 'And he said unto him, What is 10 Luke 26
written in the law ? how readest thou ? ' The lawyer was ready
with his summary of human duties. ' And he answering said, Thou .. 27
shalt love the Lord thy God with (Gr. from) * all thy heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind ;
and thy neighbour as thyself.' Jesus accepted that as a true and
full epitome of the divine law. ' And he said unto him, Thou hast „ 2s
answered right.' And the connection between life and duty was of
the closest kind. ' This do, and thou shalt live.' The perpetuation „ 2s
of life must needs depend upon observance of God's decrees : therein
consists the harmony of our nature with his will and with the sur
roundings, physical and moral, individual and social, amidst which
he has placed us. This is the case both in this world and the next.
It applies equally to that broken span of life inherited from the first
Adam, who ' is of the earth, earthy,' and to that age-during life 15 i. cor. 1-
which comes to us through the second Adam, who is ' the Lord from
heaven ' (A. V.). There must be an incorporation of our nature
with his : ' He who is eating my flesh, and drinking my blood, hath 6 Joim 54
* The note ' (Gr. from) ' should refer also to the following throe instances of the
word 'with.'

10 John 17

98 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
life age-during.' (Young). His spirit of obedience is the spirit of
life within us ; his spirit of life within us is the spirit of obedience.
There is no self-contradiction in Jesus when at one time he says,
h John 19 ' This do, and thou shalt live,' and at another time, ' Because I live,
ye shall live also.' And the life he promises is age-during, not end
less God has given to every living creature an appointed time, or
' age.' All that can be hoped is, that each shall reach the utmost
limit of existence. An immortality of this earthly life would be a
curse, and not a blessing. An immortality of changeless being here
after may be equally undesirable and unattainable. Having gamed
3 Phil. 10 Christ, we trust to ' know him, and the power of his resurrection.
Our hope should not rest in the ceaseless perpetuation of one change
less mode of existence, but in the assured triumph over death, when-
n ever and wherever it may come, that we 'may attain unto the resur
rection from the dead.' Jesus was made our high priest, after the
order of Melchizedek, ' after the power of an endless (Gr. indissoluble)
life.' That did not save him from death upon the cross, but it
ensured his resurrection : ' I lay down my life, that I may take it
again.' There was nothing in the reply of Jesus which the lawyer could
lay hold upon to criticise and question; but that he might not
appear abashed or foiled in his purpose, he broached another topic
of enquiry. ' But he, desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus,
And who is my neighbour ? ' Alford supposes, ' that to justify
himself may mean, to get himself out of the difficulty, viz. : by
throwing on Jesus the definition of one's neighbour, which was very
narrowly and technically interpreted among the Jews, excluding
Samaritans and Gentiles.' Jesus entered upon no verbal or tech
nical argument, but illustrated the matter by drawing a picture
which exhibited the working of tbe spirit of exclusiveness and the
spirit of neighbourliness. ' Jesus made answer and said, A certain
man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho ; and he fell among
robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving
him half dead.' If ever one human being stood in need of assistance
from another, that poor traveller did. An opportunity for help soon
arose. A priest happened to be going that road. He caught sight
of the half-murdered man, and at once — what ? Simply and deli
berately avoided him. 'And by chance a certain priest was going-
down that way : and when he saw him, he passed by on the other
side.' Afterwards a Levite came upon the scene, and he, all uncon
sciously, imitated the conduct of his spiritual superior : 'And in like
manner a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him,
passed by on the other side.' A passing glance was enough for both
these men. Fortunately they were followed by a man whose brotherly
sympathies were not extinct. ' But a certain Samaritan, as he
journeyed, came where he was : and when he saw him, he was moved
with compassion.' All the help within his power he hastened to
render : ' and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on
them oil and wine.' The Revisers agree with Young in adopting the
word ' on ' instead of ' in,' but Tischendorf retains ' in.' Either word
will suit, now the term ' beat ' is used instead of ' wounded ' : they
were surface-wounds, not sword-cuts. The difficulty now -was how to
remove the patient. His rescuer managed to place him on the saddle

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 99
of the animal he himself had been riding, led him to an inn, and
there saw that all his wants were provided for. ' And he set him on 10 Luke 34
his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.'
After a night's rest the invalid was sufficiently restored to admit of
his kind friend pursuing his journey. Having bestowed what care
and time were requisite, he must needs provide money, and that he
did in the most delicate way, not troubling the sufferer about the
matter, but placing what he thought would be sufficient, or perchance
it was the utmost he could spare, in the hands of the innkeeper, whom
he begged to see to the stranger's wants, at the same time making
himself responsible for any further expenditure which might be found
necessary. ' And on the morrow he took out two pence (denaries — „ 35
Young) and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him ; and
whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay
thee.' The Revisers, following the two oldest MSS., have omitted
after ' morrow ' the words ' when he departed.'
Why did the Samaritan do so much, and those two others abso
lutely nothing ? Were the priest and the Levite totally destitute of
the commonest feelings of humanity ? The object of Jesus in deli
vering the parable was not to portray Jewish culpability, or to exalt
heathen benevolence. The question it dealt with was that of neigh
bourship, and Jesus brought the lesson to bear on that one point.
He assumed that one of the travellers was a neighbour of the
wounded man, and he asked the lawyer to guess which one of them
it was. ' Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbour „ 36
unto him that fell among the robbers ? ' The Authorised Version
has 'was neighbour,' which Tischendorf retains. Young, agreeing
with the ' Englishman's Greek New Testament,' renders, ' to have
been neighbour.' Alford did not alter the text of the Authorised
Version, although he quoted this from Wordsworth : ' Observe, that
the was neighbour, is literally became neighbour.' Luther renders :
'Welcher diinkte dich, der unter diesen dreyen der Niichste sey
gewesen dem, der unter die Morder gefallen war ? ' which may be
taken to correspond with Young. The Revisers' word 'proved,'
which is rather a gloss than a translation, and which is stronger than
Wordsworth's ' became,' may therefore be disregarded. The lawyer
expressed his opinion that the one who showed kindness to the
wounded man must have been his neighbour. 'And he said, He that „ 37
shewed mercy on him,' which means that they were both Samaritans.
That explained everything, according to the teaching and spirit of
Jewish exclusiveness. The priest and Levite were not necessarily
callous to human suffering, but they were imbued with caste pre
judices. So widespread and deep was the feeling of national aversion,
that the Samaritan woman at the well expressed astonishment that
Jesus, being a Jew, should have condescended to ask a drink of water
at her hands. A special vision from heaven was needed to teach
even the apostle Peter, after years of intercourse with Jesus, that he
' should not call any man common or unclean.' Those engaged m 10 Acts 28
¦sacerdotal functions would naturally be most punctilious in avoiding
any suspicion of ceremonial uncleanness. To have given any help to
the wounded man, would have brought the priest and Levite into
close personal contact with him. They could not venture to approach _
and touch a Samaritan ! Not until one of his own nation came up,
h 2

100 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
could any be found who would regard and help him as a ' neighbour.'
The parable was a protest against the spirit of bigotry and intole
rance^ showing how hideous and hateful were self-righteousness and
arrogance how inimical to the best instincts and interests of humanity.
There must be no narrow-mindedness in settling an answer to the
question ' Who is my neighbour ? ' Here was a Jewish lawyer ex
ercising 'his intellect in verbalisms and quibblings about the import
aud bearing of the simple divine command, ' Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.' It had been so expounded as to extinguish
the spirit of brotherhood appertaining to our common nature, and a
better and broader interpretation of the law was needed than the one
in voo-ue. There may have been a touch of indignation and im
patience in the words with which Jesus dismissed this lawyer, with
10 Luke 37 his questioning and questionable subtleties. ' And Jesus said unto
him, Go, and do thou likewise.' The light of nature was a sufficient
o-uide to the meaning of the grand law of human brotherhood. There
was no need to ask, "' Who is my neighbour ? ' A heart open to com
passion, a soul overflowing with love, would answer unhesitatingly
and peremptorily, Who is not my neighbour ? The love of man to
man must free itself from all cant of creeds, prejudices of caste, and
national antipathies. On the common ground of humanity, Jew and
Samaritan must not only meet but shake hands as ' neighbours.'
In the course of journeying with his disciples, Jesus reached a,
village, the name of which is not here recorded. The mention of it
by Luke as ' a certain village ' leads to the inference that the docu
ments in his possession did not enable him to give the exact locality.
„ as ' Now as they went on their way, he entered into a certain village.'
There he was hospitably lodged and entertained in a lady's house.
as ' And a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.'
The expression seems to signify more than a visit of a few hours
made in passing. A sister of Martha eagerly availed herself of the
an opportunity of listening to the discourse of Jesus. ' And she had a
sister called Mary, which also sat at the Lord's feet, and heard his
word.' The Revisers have followed 'many ancient authorities"
(Alford) in replacing ' Jesus ' by ' Lord.' The word is ' Lord ' in the
oldest MS., and in the Vatican MS. it had been altered to ' Lord ' by
a later hand. It would seem that Jesus was allowed to carry on his
teaching in the house itself. But the mistress of the house was not
at leisure to attend these gatherings. She was bent on honouring her
guest with festal entertainments, and devoted herself with much
i„ energy and anxiety to the task. ' But Martha was cumbered (Gr.
distracted) about much serving.' Herself overburdened, she disap
proved of her sister's negligence. It must needs be supposed that
Martha did not scruple to express herself freely on the point to Mary,
before presuming to trouble Jesus with her domestic grievance. But
Mary could not tear herself from the Teacher's feet, and her offended
sister, overwrought by the pressure of her well-meant, hospitable
cares, and sensitive upon the point even to petulance, ventured to
lay her complaint before Jesus, and actually solicited his interference.
., in ' And she came up to him (having stood by him — Young), and said,
Lord (Sir — Young), dost thou not care that my sister did leave me
to serve alone ? bid her therefore that she help me.' Such a crisis,.

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 101
arising out of such sweet foibles of character in these two lovino-
women, was not a little embarrassing. Jesus disposed of it with
extreme delicacy and courtesy. Called upon to express his wish in
the matter, he did so with friendly sincerity and candour. He must
needs incline to one side or the other, and he did not hesitate to plead
for freedom of judgment and action on behalf of Mary. The conten
tion between the sisters was as to the most fitting and welcome mode
of showing their esteem for him. Jesus was not unmindful of all
that Martha had done and was doing for his comfort and entertain
ment, and he had perceived her anxiety and her efforts branching
out in many directions. ' But the Lord answered and said unto hei\ 10 Luke n
Martha, Martha, thou art anxious and troubled about many things.'
Here again the Revisers have altered ' Jesus ' to ' Lord.' It stands
' Lord ' in the Sinaitic, which is the oldest MS., and in the Vatican
MS. the original reading was ' Lord,' the word having been altered
by a later hand. So in the Vatican MS. in verse 39 ' Lord ' had been
inserted, and in verse 11 erased. Such modifications are suggestive.
On this particular point it must not be assumed that antiquity is an
evidence of accuracy : a feeling of reverence might naturally seem to
justify the copying of the word ' Lord ' from ah older'MS., but few
probably would have ventured to dispense with 'Lord' and insert
' Jesus,' except upon overwhelming evidence.
That Jesus should have twice uttered the name of Martha, may be
taken to indicate either that her impetuosity of speech and spirit
needed that emphatic call upon her attention, or that Jesus dwelt
upon the word for the purpose of emphasising its meaning, which is
* stirring up, bitter, provoking.' In either case the repetition was a
kind of gentle reproof. Nor was Jesus able to say that he greatly
appreciated everything his hostess, in her kindness and large-heartcd-
ness, was so busy and earnest about. On the 6ontrary, his wants
were few, and he would willingly have them considered all merged
and summed up in one. ' But one thing is needful' The two oldest „ 42
MSS. read, ' But there is need of few things or of one,' and the
Revisers note that many ancient authorities have, 'But few things
are needful, or one.' And that one was the very thing which Mary
had chosen to supply him with. ' For Mary hath chosen the good > 42
part.' The best mark of respect which could be shown to him, the
service which above all else he desired and appreciated, was this
simple and rapt attention to the truths he taught. To aught else he
was comparatively indifferent. How then could he comply with
Martha's request, and send aivay Mary from her seat at his feet to
attend to mere household matters ? It was due from him rather to
justify her presence, and to forbid her absence : ' which shall not be „ 42
taken away from her.'
This charming episode in the gospel narrative carries its lesson on
the face of it. If we must needs make a practical application of it
to ourselves or others, let us not go beyond its plain significance and
bearing. We can show Jesus no greater honour, we can give him no
greater pleasure, than that of sitting at his feet to listen and ponder
his teaching. Ten thousand instructors in Christ cannot improve
the truths enfolded in his simplest sayings. But we must go him
direct, hear him ourselves, exercise our own judgment on his doctrine,
and seek to grasp the real import and spirit of his w7ords. Trans-

il John 1

102 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: '[part n-
lators, interpreters, commentators, there must needs be :_let us recog
nise the value of their labours, and lean upon their learning but only
that we may through them ' learn Christ.' To do that effectuafly,
we must shut out from our ears all other voices. He speaks to us as
to men capable of judging what he says. We are surrounded by an
atmosphere of so-called Christian thought, which was never generated
by the breath of Jesus. Discordant sounds impinge upon our ears,
and we are directed hither and thither for the right creed and the
true faith. There are still teachers who presume to claim apostolical
descent and authority, others who deem themselves divinely ap
pointed through laying on of hands, others with lower pretensions
based on congregational election, others self-elected, all perchance
equally self-confident. What a Babel of tongues, what a diversity
of notions, what a contrariety of dogmas, what a trampling of
theological feet, what an opening and shutting, none too gently, of
theological doors ! It is all well meant, designed and carried out
with a°view to the Master's honour : but are we sure that he attaches
any importance to the modes of serving him which have been devised
according to the rules and precepts of men ? We are bidden to meet
him in this way and that way, through one sacrament or another
sacrament, through prayers, through praises, through preachings,
through fastings, through devout meditations, in church-goings, in
Bible^readings, in creeds and confessions, in priestly counsel and
absolution. If we are competent to exercise ourselves in such doc
trines and rituals, surely we are equally competent to grasp _ the
meaning of the teaching of Jesus by taking his own words direct
from his own lips. Earnest, honest, independent thought, the exer
cise of a sound, unfettered judgment with respect to the gospel
record, — that is the great want of the age, the one thing needed for
a better knowledge of Jesus and of his salvation. His teachings
have been not only examined under every possible light, but as it
were — analysed, their component parts first separated and then
worked up anew by preachers and commentators into an amalgam of
their own, supposed to be his, and vaunted as the true essence of
Christianity. Take, as an example of the confusion and error
incident to this disregard of the plain, primary sense, the oft-quoted
words, ' but one thing is needful' Jesus used, them with reference
to the attention shown to himself and his words by Mary as com
pared with Martha's hospitable cares on his behalf. Dean Alford
applies it to ourselves, saying : ' The good portion is the one thing
which is needful — see John vi. 53 — the feeding on the bread of life
by faith.' The idea is reversed, and an extraneous idea inserted
from anotber discourse of Jesus. And we know how generally
preachers follow in the wake of Alford when dealing with this text.
As Jesus was walking with his disciples he caught sight in passing
of a man who was blind and had been so from birth. ' Aud as he
passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth.' The disciples, sharing
the Jewish idea that every infirmity was the punishment of sin
(Alford), asked Jesus with whom in this case the transgression
rested. ' And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who did sin,
this man or his parents, that he should be born blind ? ' We know,
as a matter of fact, that the sins of parents are often visited upon

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 103
their children ; but whether to this extent, the disciples were in
doubt, or whether even the blindness might not be a judgment upon
the man himself. There are sins of ignorance, unconsciously com
mitted, secret faults as well as presumptuous transgressions. Could
the possibility of such involuntary sin extend to an unborn child ?
Afford's note is as follows : ' How could he himself have sinned before
his birth ? Beza and Grotius refer the question to the doctrine of
the transmigration of souls, that he may have sinned in a former
state of existence ; this however is disproved by the consideration
adduced by Lightfoot, that the Pharisees believed that the good
souls only passed into other bodies, which would exclude this case.
Lightfoot, Liicke and Meyer refer it to the possibility of sin in the
ivomb ; Tholuck to predestinated sin, punished by anticipation ;
De Wette to the general doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, which
prevailed both among the Rabbis and Alexandrians : see Wisdom
viii. 19, 20.' How much, or how little, or whether anything at all
of such ideas was in the minds of the disciples, we know not. They
could have had no settled opinion upon the subject. Their question
was a mere guess, and Jesus put it aside as being either false or
inapplicable. ' Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his 9 John 3
parents : but that the works of God should be made manifest in
him.' Alford suggests that to get at the sense we must supply here
after ' his parents,' that he should be born blind ; and also after 'but,'
he was bom blind. Samuel Sharpe supplies the supposed omission
by rendering : ' Neither did this man sin, nor his parents ; but it
was that the works of God should be shown in him.' But where he
inserts a semi-colon, and the Revisers a colon, Tischendorf and Young
place a comma. Much depends on punctuation and pause. If,
instead of assuming a hiatus, we read the sentence without a break,
the sense is modified : ' Neither did this man sin nor his parents but
that the works of God should be made manifest in him : ' that is,
whether the sin lay with him or them, its only effect would be to
render him an object of divine power and compassion. It seems
more reasonable to take that as the proper sense of the passage, than
to assume, as otherwise we must, that Jesus regarded the man as
having been doomed to blindness from birth in order to give oppor
tunity for a miraculous restoration of his sight at last. It was
enough to know that wherever sin and infirmity were found to exist,
there was a call and an occasion for the exercise of the power which
had been divinely given. ' We must work the works of him that „ i
sent me.' Following the two oldest MSS. the Revisers have replaced
' I ' by ' we.' Not only did Jesus humbly describe himself as the
messenger of God, but he associated others with him in that
capacity, having imparted to them the same miraculous powers.
And equally as regarded himself and them, such works must be per
formed whenever the occasion presented itself : ' while it is day : the .. *
night cometh, when no man can work.' That Jesus was thinking of
the brevity of life's term of labour, and of his approaching departure
from the world, is evident from his next remark : ' When I am in „ s
the world, I am the light of the world.' The Authorised Version
begins with the words ' As long as,' which the Revisers have replaced
by ' when,' therein agreeing with Tischendorf, Alford and Young.
Samuel Sharpe puts ' while/ The sense of the three- forms appears

0 John 6

104 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
to be identical. No ordinary man could have presumed to utter such
words. We can but walk by the light which God vonchsafes us.
'Light, more light,' is the cry of the wisest But Jesus declares
himself the very sun of the firmament, the daylight of the world.
And having made that astounding assertion, he proceeded to deal
with the case of physical blindness which had suggested the saying.
But not in the way we should have expected ; not by a word, or a
touch, as had been his habit in other instances. Once he had
restored sight to two blind men who expressed belief in his power, by
o Mat. 27 touching their eyes, saying, ' according to your faith be it done unto
you' The same method of cure was adopted with the two ^ blind
-o Mat. 34 beggars of Jericho, who called upon him as 'son of David. Jn
8 Mark 23-25 another instance Jesus spat on the eyes, put his hands on them, and
restored the sight gradually. In this case of blindness from birth,
Jesus used other means. He spat on the ground, kneaded the
moistened earth into clay, and with that as a plaster smeared the
eyes. ' When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made
clay of the spittle, and anointed his eyes with the clay (or, and with
the clay thereof anointed his eyes).' The Revisers have followed the
two oldest MSS. by reading ' his eyes ' instead of ' the eyes of the
blind man.' Having done that much, Jesus called the man's energy
and faith into action by bidding him go to a certain pool and there
wash off the clay: 'and said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of
Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent).' There is no ground for
supposing that interpretation to have been mentioned by Jesus. The
only doubt is as to whether the remark was thrown in by the evan
gelist or by a copyist. Alford says : ' The reason of this derivation
being stated has been much doubted. Some consider the words to
have been inserted as an early gloss of some allegorical interpreter.
But there is no external authority for this supposition.' The man
carried out the directions of Jesus, and thereupon received sight.
' He went away, therefore, and washed, and came seeing.' Alford
comments thus on the miracle : ' The value especially of the fasting
saliva, in cases of disorders of the eyes, was well known to antiquity.
In the accounts of the restoring of a- blind man to sight attributed
to Vespasian, the use of this remedy occurs. The use of clay also
for healing the eyes was not unknown. No rule can be laid down
which our Lord may seem to have observed, as to using, or dispensing
with, the ordinary human means of healing. He himself determined,
by considerations which are hidden from us.' Wc cannot but wonder
at the extremely low ground here taken by Alford. What proper
analogy or comparison can there be between any common mode of
dealing with diseases of the eye, and the astounding marvel of giving
sight to one born blind ? However, in the next sentence Alford sets
aside his own idea, for he adds : ' Whatever the means used, the
healing was not in them, but in Him alone.' That is going to the
contrary extreme. We are not justified in assuming that any means
adopted by Jesus were superfluous. Is it to be supposed that he
would have acted as he did in this case, without any reason or
necessity for so doing ? His methods of cure are seen to vary :
because we cannot say why or wherefore, are we at liberty to infer
that they had nothing to do with the result, that ' the healing
was not in them, but in him alone ? ' On the contrary, we may feel

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 105
confident that Jesus did nothing in vain, and that he would not have
condescended to make a parade of means which were not essential
adjuncts to the cure.
The man's neighbours, and those who had been accustomed to see
him seated to solicit alms, could not but enquire whether this was the
same person. ' The neighbours therefore, and they which saw him afore- o John s
time, that he was a beggar, said, Is not this he that sat and begged ? '
The Revisers, following the three oldest MSS., have altered the word
¦* blind ' to ' a beggar.' The transformation was so great, that con
siderable doubt existed as to the man's identity. ' Others said, It is „ a
he : others said, No, but he is like him.' The passage has been
strengthened by inserting the words, ' No, but,' to agree with the two
oldest MSS. The man's own assurance was forthcoming to convince
his questioners. ' He said, I am he.' All this seems very natural „ 9
when we consider the marvellous change which had been wrought in
his condition. Imagine what it must have been to him to open his
eyes for the first time upon this wonderful world : to see the sky and
clouds, the earth, the fields, the grass, the flowers, the glorious setting
and rising of the sun, the moon ' walking in brightness,' and all the
stars of the firmament, the running stream and the outspread lake,
the trees and shrubs waving in the wind, the happy birds flying to
and fro, the patient cattle, the domestic animals ; to watch the faces,
the movements, the bright and varied dresses of his fellow creatures,
the smiles upon the children's faces, the play of passion and of
character in adults ; to gaze upon the houses, the streets, the shops,
the bustle and business of mankind : what a changed world it was to
him ! What wonder that he himself should be changed, almost
beyond recognition ? The fixed, stolid gaze of the sightless eyes was
gone ; instead of groping with a stick, he walked self -confidently and
nimbly ; the glow of happiness and hope was on his countenance ;
he was the same, yet not the same, so greatly changed that his own
assertion might well be needed to convince those who stood in doubt
of his identity. Then followed the natural question as to the means
whereby he had received sight. ' They said therefore unto him, How „ 10
then were thine eyes opened ? ' He answered that the man Jesus,
whose name was so well known, had in a very simple way brought
that about. ' He answered, The man that, is called Jesus made clay, „ 11
and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, G 0 to Siloam, and wash :
so I went away and washed, and I received sight.' Impelled by a
feeling of curiosity, the hearers enquired where Jesus was to be found ;
but the man himself did not know. 'And they said unto him, „ 12
Where is he ? He saith, I know not.'
The report of such a miracle could not fail to spread. Not only
did it reach the ears of the Pharisees, but the man himself was pro
duced to them in evidence. ' They bring to the Pharisees him that
aforetime was blind.' Another fact came out in connection with it :
that the miracle had been wrought on a sabbath. 'Now it was the „ u
sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.
We know the intense scrupulousness of the Pharisees with respect to
the observance of the sabbath. Jesus had previously been charged
with breaking the divine law by infringing the sacred rest of the
day. Probably he anticipated a renewal of that charge, and delibe
rately resolved to set it at defiance, when he prefaced his labour of

„ 13

106 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
o John 4 love with the words, ' We must work the works of him that sent me,
while it is day.' The Pharisees questioned the man closely as to the
15 manner in which the miracle had been performed. ' Again therefore
the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight. And he
said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do
see.' That was sufficient, in the minds of some, to condemn Jesus as
a sabbath-breaker, a man therefore who could not possibly be charged
16 with a divine mission. ' Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This
man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath.' But
others shrank from accepting and thus applying that form of argu
ment : they were disposed rather to reverse it, and instead of saying,
This man has broken the sabbath, and is therefore a transgressor, to
say, This man has wrought beneficent miracles, and therefore cannot
be a sinner. No agreement was possible between the holders of such
„ 16 opposite views. ' But others said, How can a man that is a sinner
do such signs ? And there was a division among them.' With the
view of ascertaining what would be the natural and unbiassed opinion
of the character of Jesus, apart from theological preconceptions and
„ 17 arguments, the man himself was questioned on the point. ' They say
therefore unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, in that
he opened thine eyes ? ' The answer was given unhesitatingly.
„ 17 ' And he said, He is a prophet.' Then the idea was broached — alas !
for the baseless prejudices and false suspicions generated by partisan
ship — that the whole affair was pure deception from beginning to
end, that the man had not been born blind, and had not received his
sight, but was an emissary of Jesus, probably hired to cry him up as
a prophet. Resolved to sift the matter to the bottom, the parents of
the man were summoned, and not until their evidence had been taken
did these doubters and traducers relinquish their theory about collu-
,, is, 19 sion and deception. ' The Jews therefore did not believe concerning
him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they
called the parents of him that had received his sight, and asked them,
saying, Is this your son, who ye say, was born blind ? how then doth
he now see ? '
It will be observed that the evangelist attributes this incredulity to
'the Jews,' whereas he had previously spoken, in verses 13, 15 and
1G, of 'the Pharisees.' Why does he make that distinction ? This
opens out an important question, which it is advisable to examine
thoroughly and dispose of once for all. When we speak or read of
the Jews or the Jewish people, we are accustomed to take it for
granted that the term includes all Israelites. That is not always the
case. The word ' Jews,' in strictness, denotes the inhabitants of
Jewry or Judaea, and in every instance in which this evangelist uses
i John 19 the expression we find it bears that sense. ' The Jews sent unto him
from Jerusalem priests and Levites.' Nathanael did not greet Jesus
„ 49 as king of the Jews, but said, ' Thou art the king of Israel' The
2 John o mention of ' the Jews' manner of purifying,' may signify that ' in
Cana of Galilee ' this traditional custom was observed as in Judasa.
,,13 ' The passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to
Jerusalem,' the capital of Judaea. As the feast could only be kept
„ is there, it was natural to call it ' the passover of the Jews.' ' The Jews-
,, 20 answered and said unto him.' ' The Jews therefore said, Forty aud
six years was this temple in building.' There is no mention or

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 107
thought of Gentiles, but naturally and as a matter of course the
dwellers of Jerusalem and the neighbourhood are designated by the
customary title of ' Jews.' ' A man of the Pharisees, named Nico- s John 1
demus, a ruler of the Jews.' At that time the land of Canaan was
divided into four provinces, Galilee and Persea, North Peraea, Samaria
and Judasa, under four different Roman governors. The rulership of
Nicodemus, whatever its character, must certainly have been restricted
to the inhabitants of Judaea, that is to ' the Jews.' Jesus when
speaking of the whole nation, irrespective of locality, uses the term
' Israel : ' ' Art thou the teacher of Israel ? ' ' There arose therefore „ 10
a questioning on the part of John's disciples with a Jew about puri- „ 25
fying,' — not a Jew as distinguished from a Gentile, but in connection
with the mention of ' the land of Judsea,' a Judsean, not one of those
from 'beyond Jordan.' ' For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.' ,, 26
This passage is not in the oldest MS., and the Revisers note that4joim9
'some ancient authorities omit' it. If inserted by the evangelist we
must take it in the same sense as elsewhere. Samaria lay between
Judaaa, the country of the Jews, and Galilee, which was also inhabited
by men of the same nation and religion, although not ' Jews.' It is
quite possible that the rancour was chiefly if not entirely between the
Samaritans and the Judseans or ' Jews ' only. This seems probable,
from the fact that Jesus was once refused admittance into ' a village 9 Lnke 52
of the Samaritans,' not because he and his disciples were recognised
as Israelites, but because it was evident that they were journeying
towards Jerusalem : the Samaritans would hold no intercourse with
those who were about to associate with their enemies ' the Jews.'
'Salvation is from the Jews.' This follows immediately upon the 4 John 22
mention of Jerusalem, which the Samaritan woman understood to be
the only place, according to Jewish ideas, in which God must be
worshipped. ' He went forth from thence into Galilee. For Jesus „ 43-^
himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.
So when he came into Galilee, the Galileans received him, having
seen all the things that he did in Jerusalem at the feast : for they
also went unto the feast.' Here the distinction is plain between Jews
and Galileans. Jesus was a Jew, having been ' born in Bethlehem of 2 Mat, 1
Judsea.' His own countrymen, the Jews, rejected him, but the
Galileans received him. Jews and Galileans were of the same reli
gion, both Israelites. ' There was a feast of the Jews ; and Jesus 5 Joim 1
went up to Jerusalem.' ' So the Jews said unto him that was cured, „ 10
It is the sabbath, it is not lawful for thee to take up thy bed.' ' For „ 16
this cause did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things
on the sabbath.' ' The Jews sought the more to kill him.' It is „ is
now abundantly evident that the constant mention of ' the Jews ' by
the evangelist is altogether apart from any thought of heathens or
Gentiles. By 'Jews'"' he means the inhabitants of Jerusalem and
of Judaea generally, as distinguished from Galileans and other Israel
ites, and he shows how bitter and constant was the opposition of the
Jews to Jesus, compelling him sometimes to fly irom the south
country of Judsea, and to confine his ministry chiefly to the north
country of Galilee. ' Now the passover, the feast of the Jews, was at 6 John 4
hand' 'The Jews therefore murmured concerning him. Ihe ,. «
Jews'therefore strove one with another.' There is nothing in these .. «
passages to modify the previous conclusions. The following passages

108 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
7 John 1-3 corroborate them. ' And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee :
for he would not walk in Judasa (Jewry — Authorised Version),
because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the feast of the Jews, the
feast of tabernacles, was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto
" n him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea.' ' The Jews therefore sought
.. ls him at the feast.' ' No man spake openly of him for fear of the
'• 16 Jews.' 'The Jews therefore marvelled, saying, How knoweth this
man letters, having never learned ? ' The evangelist now makes a
still closer distinction. Inhabitants of Jerusalem were necessarily
Jews, but all Jews would not be inhabitants of Jerusalem ; so he
explains, ' Some therefore of them of Jerusalem said, Is not this he
whom they seek to kill ? ' And now the evangelist, referring for the
.. 35 first time to heathens, reports : ' The Jews therefore said among
themselves, Whither will this man go that we shall not find him ? '
will he go unto the Dispersion among (Gr. of) the Greeks, and teach
the Greeks ? ' He might go to those who were not Jews or Gentiles,
« John 22 to the Galileans, but in Galilee they could find him. 'The Jews
therefore said, Will he kill himself, that he saith, Whither I go, ye
" 31 cannot come ? ' ' Jesus therefore said to those Jews which had
" 4S believed him.' 'The Jews answered and said unto him, Say we
not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil (Gr. demon) ? '
„ 52 ' The Jews said unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil (Gr.
» 67 demon).' ' The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty
o John is years 0ic[j and hast thou seen Abraham ? ' ' The Jews therefore did
not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received
his sight.' That is the passage which suggested this investigation.
Possibly all the Pharisees were not Jews ; at all events, tbe evangelist
here brings out the fact that these objectors were Jews, not "from
¦¦ 22 Galilee or elsewhere than Judasa. 'They feared the Jews: for the
Jews had agreed already, that if any man should confess him to be
io joim io the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.' 'There arose
„ 23, 24 again a division among the Jews because of these words.' 'Jesus
was walking in the temple, in Solomon's porch. The Jews therefore
„ 3i came round about him.' ' The Jews took up stones again to stone
.. 33 him.' ' The Jews answered him. For a good work we stone thee not.'
It were absurd to suppose that in these passages the Jews are
n John ?, s mentioned in contradistinction to Gentiles. ' He saith to the
disciples, Let us go into Judaea again. The disciples say unto hiin,
Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone thee ; and goest thou
thither again ? ' Nothing could be plainer than that the term ' Jews '
is applied and restricted to the dwellers in Judaea, the countrymen
„ io and co-religionists of Jesus. ' Many of the Jews had come to Martha
.. si and Mary.' ' The Jews then which were with her in the house.' Of
course Gentiles could not have been present : no thought of such a
„ 33 thing was in the writer's mind. 'And the Jews also°weepino- (Gr.
.. so wailing).' 'The Jews therefore said, Behold how he loved &him.'
„ 45 ' Many therefore of the Jews . . believed on him.' ' Jesus therefore
.. " walked no more openly among the Jews, but departed thence into the
country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim : and there
he tarried with his disciples : ' of course among men of their own
„ 55 nation. 'Now the passover of the Jews was at hand: and many
¦i2 John 9 went up to Jerusalem.' ' The common people therefore of the Jews
„ ii learned that he was there.' ' Many of the Jews went away and

2031
3330

14, 1!>
20
2131
88, 40

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 109
believed on Jesus.' 'As I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye is John's
cannot come ; so now I say unto you.' The inference is plain : th e
disciples to whom Jesus spoke thus were .not Jews, at least not all
Jews And the officers of the Jews seized''Jesus.' ' Now Caiaphas is mm i»
was he which gave counsel to the Jews.' ' I ever taught in the , u
synagogues (Gr. synagogue), and in the temple, where all the Jews
come together.' ' The Jews said unto him, It is not lawful for us
to put any man to death.' ' Art thou the king of the Jews ? '
'Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief
priests delivered thee unto me.' It is obvious from this, that the term
' Jew did not extend to Gentiles living in Judaea. ' That I should
not be delivered to the Jews.' ' He went out again unto the Jews.'
' Will ye therefore that I release unto you the king of the Jews ? '
' Hail King- of the Jews.' ' The Jews answered him.' ' The Jews 19 joim 3 12
cried out. ' He said unto the Jews.' ' Jesus of Nazareth, the king
of the Jews.' 'This title therefore read many of the Jews.' 'The
chief priests of the Jews.' 'Write not the king of the Jews, but,
that he said, I am king of the Jews.' ' The Jews therefore, because
it was the preparation.' ' Secretly for fear of the Jews.' ' As the
custom of the Jews is to bury : ' probably it was not customary thus
to embalm the dead in Galilee and elsewhere. ' Because of the Jews' „ 42
Preparation.' So much for John's gospel. Turning now to Matthew we find the
following passages. ' Where is he that is born King of the Jews ? ' 2 Mat. 2
was the question of the Magi, and under that title Jesus at last was
crucified ; but the prophecy quoted took a wider view : ' which shall „ 0
be shepherd of my people Israel' 'And came into the land of „ 21,22
Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over
Judaea . . he withdrew into the parts of Galilee.' The distinction
between the land of Israel as a whole, and Judaea as a part of Israel,
is here unmistakable. ' I have not found so great faith, no, not in s Mat. 10
Israel' ' It was never so seen in Israel' ' Go rather to the lost 9 Mat. 33
sheep of the house of Israel' ' They glorified the God of Israel' \°6 j^; ^
'Judging the twelve tribes of Israel' 'Tell ye the daughter of »> Mat is
Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee : ' but it was as ' Son of 21 M,at' j!
David,' who ruled over Israel. ' Art thou the King of the Jews ? ' 27 M,lt- 12
Pilate was merely ' Governor of Judaea,' and therefore could only 3 Luke 1
take cognizance of a claim to kingship over ' Jews ; ' but the chief
priests, the scribes and elders, mocking said : ' He is King of Israel' 2" Mat- 42
Mark, besides these titles affixed to Jesus by Pilate and the elders, 15 Mark 2,
supplies only one other passage bearing on the subject. 'For the 10' a-1^
Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently 7 Mark 3'
(or, up to the elbow) eat not.' This is preceded by the observation,
'And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain 7 Mark 1,2
of the scribes, which had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that
some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen,
hands.' Obviously there was not the same strict observance of ' the
tradition of the elders ' among the Israelites generally, as prevailed
among ' all the Jews.'
Luke contains the following passages. ' Many of the children of 1 Luke 10
Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.' 'The Lord God shall » 32>M
give unto him the throne of his father David ; and he shall reign
over the house of Jacob for ever (Gr. unto the ages).' ' He hath ,. st.es

110 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
holpcn Israel his servant.' ' Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel'
1 Luke 69 ' And hath raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his
„ so servant David.' ' Till the day of his showing unto Israel' ' Looking
2 Luke 25 for the consolation of Israel' ' The glory of thy people Israel
„ 32, 34 'For the falling and rising up of many in Israel' 'I have not
7 Luke io found so great faith, no, not in Israel' Pilate's title is of course
23 Luke 3, the same, but the hope of the disciples had embraced not Jews only
37' 3S but all Israelites : ' But we hoped that it was he which should
24 Luke 21 redeem Israel'
It was the more important to undertake this exhaustive examina
tion of the Gospels, because throughout the Acts the term ' Jews ' is
used in a wider sense. We there read of 'Jews' at Jerusalem and
Damascus, of Grecian Jews, Jews of Phoenicia, Cyprus, Antioch,.
Salamis, Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Philippi, Thessalomca, Beroea,
Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Achaia, in Greece, Asia, Rome, and
24 Acts 6 < throughout the world.' Nor can it be supposed that these are called
Jews as being of the tribe of Judah, for in several passages ' Jews
21 Acts 21 and Greeks' are spoken of, and in one place 'Jews among the
Gentiles,' the title of 'Jews' being used then in the same broad
sense as now. So we find the word ' Jews ' used in two ways :
throughout the Gospels generally, and in John's Gospel especially, as
denoting the Judaeans or Southern Israelites, as distinguished from
the Israelites of Galilee and elsewhere ; and throughout the Acts as
embracing all Israelites in opposition to Gentiles. Nor is this to be
wondered at. The Gospels record the life and labours of Jesus
among his own people only, as stated by himself : ' I am not sent
but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel : ' therefore when one
section of the people is alluded to, it is to distinguish them from
the other section, not from men of other nations ; just as in a
history of the English people the constant repetition of the word
' English ' might signify the exclusion of Scotch and Welsh, with
out thought or reference to Continental nations. Unfortunately
Mr. Matthew Arnold, taking up the popular and not the evangelist's
sense of the term ' Jews,' has thence drawn the conclusion that
John's Gospel could not have been written by John, nor by a Jew.
Here is his argument.* ' Now, a plain reader will certainly, when
his attention is called to the matter, be struck with the extraordinary
way in which the writer of the Fourth Gospel, whom we suppose
a Jew, speaks of his brother Jews. We do not mean that he speaks
of them with blame and detestation ; this we could quite understand.
But he speaks as if they and their usages belonged to another
race from himself, — to another world. The waterpots of Cana are
set " after the manner of the purifying of the Jews; " " there arose a
question between some of John's disciples and a Jew about purify
ing ; " " now the Jews' Passover was nigh at hand ; " " there they
laid Jesus, because of the Preparation of the Jews." No other
Evangelist speaks in this manner. It seems almost impossible to
think that a Jew born and bred, — a man like the Apostle John, — -
could ever have come to speak so. Granted that he was settled at
Ephesus when he produced his Gospel, granted that he wrote in
Greek, wrote for Greeks ; still he could never, surely, have brought
* "God and the Bible. The fourth Gospel from without."

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. in
himself to speak of the Jews and of Jewish things in this fashion !
His lips and his pen would have refused to form such strange expres
sions, in whatever disposition he may have written ; nature and habit
would have been too much for him. A Jew talking of the Jews'
Passover, and of a dispute of some of John's disciples with a Jew
about purifying ? It is like an Englishman writing of the Derby as
the English people's Derby, or talking of a dispute between some of
Mr. Cobden's disciples and an Englishman about fee-trade. An
Englishman would never speak so.' Mr. Matthew Arnold is not
quite correct in saying, ' No other Evangelist speaks in this manner,'
as will be seen on referring to 7 Mark 1 — 3. No other Evangelist
needed to speak in that manner, inasmuch as only John sought to
bring out so prominently and methodically the fact, that the whole
opposition to Jesus, from first to last, was not national but local, had
no existence in Galilee, but sprang from Judaea, and was confined to
those who were distinguished by their own countrymen as ' Jews.'
The examination of the parents confirmed the account previously
given. They identified their son, and attested the fact that he
was born blind. ' His parents answered and said, We know that this ° Joim 20
is our son, and that he was born blind.' Beyond this they could say
nothing. ' But how he now seeth, we know not ; or who opened his „ 21
eyes, we know not.' That information could be obtained from the
son himself, who was of an age competent to give reliable testimony ;
' Ask him ; he is of age ; he shall speak for himself.' From this it ,, 21
is to be inferred that he was of youthful appearance. The boon
Jesus had conferred upon him was all the more to be appreciated
because he stood only upon the threshold of manhood, and the gift
of sight would prove a life-long blessing. The parents were the more
reticent because they stood in fear of the consequences which might
result from any acknowledgment of the supernatural power of Jesus.
It was known that any confession of him as Messiah involved the
penalty of excommunication. ' These things said his parents, because „ 22, :
they feared the Jews : for the Jews had agreed already that if any
man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the
synagogue. Therefore said his parents, He is of age ; ask him.'
The man had already owned to a belief in Jesus as a prophet. Even
that conception of him these Jews would not let pass without a pro
test and a warning. So they summoned the man again to their
presence, and urged him to attribute his recovery from blindness to
God alone, and to take it from them that his visible Benefactor was
the very reverse of a prophet, — actually a breaker of the divine law.
' So they called a second time the man that was blind, and said unto „ 24
him, Give glory to God : we know that this man is a sinner.' We
are left to suppose that the dissentients from that opinion had retired
from the council, leaving the bigots to take their own course. As to
the character of Jesus the man could not profess to know anything ;
but one thing he did know for certain, — that he had been blind and
now could see. ' He therefore answered, Whether he be a sinner, I » 25
know not : one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.'
They reminded him, in reply, that the bare fact was not enough, but
that the method of performing the miracle had to be taken into
account. ' They said therefore unto him, What did he to thee ? how » 2«
opened he thine eyes ? ' The man seemed to miss the drift of their

112 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
insinuation ; the idea that the act involved the sin of sabbath-
breaking was not in his mind ; probably he was ignorant of the dis
cussion which had taken place on that question, and only knew that
as soon as he had mentioned the fact about the clay they paid no
more attention to his words, and would listen to no further details.
9 John 27 'He answered them, I told you even now, and ye did not hear.''
The man seems to have been fairly puzzled, and expressed his
astonishment, asking why they wanted him to go over the matter-
again, having hoard him with impatience and comparative inattention
before, and suggesting, apparently, that no amount of repetition
„ 27 would be likely to convert them into disciples of Jesus. ' Wherefore
would ye hear it again ? would ye also become his disciples ? '
Alford observes : ' This latter clause is of course ironical' The tone
and tenor of the man's replies and criticisms indicate that absence of
conventional respect for the council, the place, the dress and rank of
the Pharisees, which would be natural and excusable in one who
looked upon such things for the first time. It is an unconscious
touch of truthfulness in the narrative. The very idea of the
Pharisees becoming disciples of Jesus was dismissed with scorn. They
replied disdainfully that the man himself appeared to be a disciple, but
,, 2s they owned allegiance to none but Moses. ' And they reviled him,
and said, Thou art his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.'
About his divine inspiration there could be no question, but Jesus
,, 29 was an utter stranger to them. ' We know that God hath spoken by
Moses : but as for this man, we know not whence he is.' The Revisers
have softened the Authorised Version by putting ' this man ' instead
of ' this fellow,' therein agreeing with Alford. Tischendorf and
Young render ' this one.' That itself deserved to be called a miracle.
„ 30 ' The man answered and said unto them. Why, herein is the marvel,
that ye know not whence he is, and yet he opened mine eyes.' It was
an axiom of their faith that no sinner could gain the ear of Deity :
,. 31 for that, it was imperative to adore God and to obey his will ' We
know that God heareth not sinners : but if any man be a worshipper
of God, and do his will, him he heareth.' The miracle performed
was altogether without precedent, and taken by itself was an irre
fragable testimony that Jesus was divinely taught and authorised.
„ 32, 33 ' Since the world began it was never heard that any one opened the
eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could
do nothing.' The common-sense, the logic, the religious sentiment
of the argument, were beyond refutation. But the man, ignorant,
owing to his infirmity, of many social customs and deferences, had yet
to learn that the Pharisaic spirit was too proud to brook contradic
tion, and that the power of authority was greater than any force of
argument. All at once, the evil spirit within these men broke
bounds. They resented as an insult the attempt to convince them,
and scrupled not to pronounce his past blindness a brand of infamy.
., 34 ' They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in
sins, and dost thou teach us ? ' Alford quotes the following from
Trench : ' They forget that the two charges, — one that he had never
been born blind, and so was an impostor, — the other, that he bore
the mark of God's anger in a blindness that reached back to his
birth, — will not agree together.' This comment goes beyond the
narrative. The evangelist says only that they did not believe he had

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 113
been born blind until they called the parents. We must not charge
them, with deliberate prevarication. The fact of blindness had been
proved : they accepted the proof, and then presumed to regard the
infirmity as a divine judgment. They seem even to have construed
'us vindication of Jesus as a proof of discipleship deserving the
threatened penalty of excommunication, which they proceeded to inflict
upon him. ' And they cast him out.' Alford explains : ' Probably o John 34
the first of the three stages of Jewish excommunication, — the being
shut out from tbe synagogue and household for thirty days, but
without any anathema. The other two, the repetition of the above,
accompanied by a curse,— and final exclusion, would be too harsh,
aud perhaps were not in use so early.' The sentence of exclusion
passed upon the blind man was infamous and cruel. The report of
it reached the ears of Jesus, who sought him out, for the purpose of
giving him. an opportunity of that disciples-hip with which he had
been charged, and for which he was now bearing punishment.
' Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and finding him, he said, ¦¦ '">
Dost thou believe on the Son of God ? ' The expression of the
Revisers, 'finding him,' must not be taken to denote an accidental
meeting. The Authorised version stands, ' when he had found him;'
Tischendorf and Alford have, ' he found him ; ' Young has ' having
found him,' — all of which denote a set purpose of seeking. The
Revisers have inserted the note, ' Many ancient authorities read the
Son of man.' Tischendorf does so, following the two oldest MSS.
It matters little which we take, ' Son of God ' or ' Son of man,' for
the stress of the question lay upon the man's faith rather than upon
the nature of him who was the object of it. On this latter point the
man was absolutely ignorant, for he did not even understand who
was alluded to. ' He answered and said, And who is he, Lord (Sir — .. *;
Young), that I may believe on him ? ' The question had no rela
tion to any article of doctrine or creed, but to a living Person 011
whom the man could rely : ' believe on him ' must needs mean that,
and not merely ' believe something about him.' Jesus replied that
the person to whom he alluded had been actually seen by the man,
this man born blind ! — and heard by him, and was, indeed, the very
person now speaking with him. ' Jesus said unto him, Thou hast . ^
both seen him, and he it is that speaketh with thee.' What a revela
tion was that ! What adoring gratitude must have gleamed in those
eyes which had been so long sightless, as they now gazed for the first
time on him who had opened them to the light and glory of the
world ! And to learn from his own lips that he was the Messiah,
and be invited to believe on him, having already realized his divine
power and beneficence ! Without a moment's hesitation came the
answer and the homage. ' And he said, Lord, I believe. And he , ss
worshipped him,' rendered by Young : ' And he said, I believe, Sir,
and bowed before him.' Wliat a contrast that to the spirit and
demeanour of the Pharisees! Jesus in a very solemn sentence
expressed his sense of it. ' And Jesus said, For judgement came 1 .. so
into this world, that they which see not may see ; and that they
which see may become blind.' He was not only light to some, but
darkness to others. None could escape his influence, and those who
opposed his work and doctrine must needs have the eyes of their
understanding darkened. Some of the Pharisees were present when

314 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
9 John 40 the discourse containing these words was delivered. ' Those of the
Pharisees which were with him heard these things, and said unto
him, Are we also blind ? ' The expression ' these things,' rendered
in the Authorised Version 'these words,' seems to refer to some
special remarks made by Jesus on the subject. In reply to their
question, he assured them that blindness in itself was no mark of sin,
but that the power of vision, misused and perverted, was an evidence
>• 41 of sin unrepented of and unremoved. ' Jesus said unto them, If ye
were blind, ye would have no sin : but now ye say, We see _: your
sin remaineth.' This was a most emphatic protest against their false
ideas and prejudices. Jesus utterly repudiates their expressed
opinion that the blind man was necessarily born in sin, and asserts,
on the contrary, that guilt attached itself to them who could see,
but who shut their eyes'" wilfully against truth and righteousness.
There is no very obvious connection, to say the least, between what
precedes and the following discourses of Jesus. As was usual with
liim when uttering some solemn and important truth, he gave
emphasis to it by beginning with the words, Verily, verily. He
pictured a man entering into a fold of sheep, not by the proper
entrance, but by climbing over at some other place : the act itself
io John i wag sufficient proof that he must needs be bent on robbery. ' Verily,
verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the fold
of the sheep, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and
a robber.' Evidently Jesus was designedly bringing a heavy charge
against somebody. On the other hand, the man who was seen to enter
the sheepfold by the. door, could be no other than the shepherd.
.. 2 ' But he that entereth in by the door is the (or, a) shepherd of the
sheep.' The Revisers seem doubtful whether the article should be
definite or indefinite. Tischendorf and Young omit it altogether :
' is shepherd of the sheep.' The doorkeeper knows him and admits
" 3 him, and the sheep recognise his voice. ' To him the porter openeth ;
and the sheep hear his voice.' He has a peculiar call, which his own
.. 3 sheep are accustomed to listen for and follow. ' And he calleth his
own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.' It seems to be assumed
that the enclosure contains various flocks, taken care of by different
shepherds, all of whom of course would be known to tbe doorkeeper.
First of all, the shepherd has to assemble the sheep which are under
his own charge ; then he walks in front, and the flock follows, guided
.. * by his voice. ' When he hath put forth all his own, he goeth before
them, and the sheep follow him : for they know his voice.' They
are safe therefore from being led astray. If a stranger should
approach, they instinctively avoid him, and the sound of his unac
customed voice, far from enticing them, would but add to their terror.
>, 5 < And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him : for they
know not the voice of strangers.'
As usual, Jesus offered no explanation of the similitude he had put
forward. Doubtless it enfolded important truths, but the hearers
. ''¦ were without a clue to them. 'This parable (or, proverb) spake
Jesus unto them : but they understood not what things they were
which he spake unto them.' Perceiving their lack of comprehension,
Jesus illustrated his meaning. He took up three points of the
allegory : the door, the thief, the shepherd, disregarding as immaterial

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 115
the fold itself and the porter, but introducing the additional metaphors
of a hireling and a wolf. He explained that the door of the sheep
represented himself. 'Jesus therefore said unto them again, Verily iojoh.
verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.' Luther renders
—freely—' I am the door to (zu) the sheep.' The only access to the
sheep, the assembly, the flock, the church,— call it what we will— of
Jesus, is Jesus himself. No man having any legitimate purpose can
attempt to approach them otherwise. "Whoever would assume the
office of a teacher and guide of men in matters pertaining to the
gospel, must go to them in tbe spirit of Jesus, preaching the truth
as it is in him. Doctrines, creeds, hopes, fears, modes of worship,
schemes of government, not prescribed by him, cannot constitute his
gate of entrance. The Authorised Version continues : ' All that ever
came before me are thieves and robbers.' The word ' ever ' is omitted
in the Revised Version : ' All that came before me are thieves and ..
robbers.' Young renders, ' All, as many as came before me.' Alford
says : ' I believe that the right sense of these words, All that ever
came before me, has not been apprehended by any of the Commen
tators. First, they can only be honestly understood of time : all who
came before me (not, ivithout regard to me, nor passing by me as the
door, nor instead of me : nor pressing before me, ch. v. 7, which would
have been come, not came : nor before taking the trouble io find me,
the door .- nor any other of the numerous shifts which have been
adopted).' Alford considers the reference to be to the Devil ' and all
his followers : ' ' His was the first attempt to lead human nature
before Christ came.' Tischendorf, following the oldest MS., omits the
words ' before me : ' ' All that ever came are thieves and robbers.'
Jesus here, as often elsewhere, speaks not of himself as an ordinary
man, but as charged with a divine mission, possessing powers of attrac
tion and protection which none else could claim to exercise. His
object was to found a society, a church, an assembly, a flock, upon his
own principles, under his own guidance. All previous attempts to
dominate large masses of mankind had been dictated by selfish
¦motives, by love of pomp and power, by earthly ambitions, and pre
eminence had been sought and gained through strife, war, bloodshed,
in contempt of personal liberty and disregard of individual interests.
Nations of warriors, slaves, serfs, swayed by kings and conquerors :
the people existed for their rulers ; they fainted and were as sheep
without a shepherd ; no leader had risen up in whom they could con
fide : ' All that came before me are thieves and robbers ; but the ,
sheep did not hear them.' Jesus presents himself to suffering
humanity as ' the door,' the entrance to a place of refuge, rest and
safety. ' I am the door : by me if any man enter in, he shall be >•
¦saved.' Each sheep of his fold is secure of freedom, under due
restraints of time and prudence, every natural impulse and aspira-
.tion being realised to the utmost : ' And shall go in and out, and
shall find pasture.'
There have ever been those who are ready and anxious to disturb
the peace and assail the liberties of mankind. They use andconsume
the flock for their OAvn base purposes ; disdaining to herd with them,
.they seek to live upon them, and in the pursuit of wealth, luxury,
..supremacy, are careless of the social wrongs they inflict and the
jnisery and destruction which their policy entails. Political and

116 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
dynastic ambitions, perpetuated from generation to generation, have
deluged the world with blood. The race for wealth has engendered
the grinding competition of commerce, and transformed the logic of
political economy into a godless and inhuman system _ of oppression,
reducing the wages of some operatives to starvation point, and
leaving the toiling masses to sink into a slough of mental, moral and
physical degradation. To the authors of such wrongs and miseries
-jo John 10 the words of Jesus apply : 'The thief cometh not, but that he may
steal, and kill, and destroy.' The frightful persecutions which have
sprung from false theology have been occasional, intermittent ; but the
warlike spirit has been a constant scourge, and the worship of Mammon
has deteriorated the life blood of the community. Any exposition of
the words of Jesus which overlooks these evils, fails thereby to grasp
his spirit and apply his warning. The mission of Jesus to mankind
„ 10 had the very opposite tendency and object. ' I came that they may
have life, and may have it abundantly (or, have abundance).' He
brings no new gift to men except the gift of his Spirit. The heavenly
Father has supplied, in the constitution of our nature and by the
arrangements of the physical universe, all that is needful for his
children's welfare. ' Life age-during : ' the promise of Jesus could
go no further. The regulation and preservation of our lives — that
was the declared purpose of his coming. God's world overflows with
blessings to mankind. There is enough for all, and to spare, if only
covetousness be abolished, and replaced by the spirit of Christian
equity. The metaphor is now changed. Jesus is no longer the 'door,' but
the ' shepherd.' He presents himself under a different figure, the
new aspect showing his willingness and ability to meet the needs of
,, n humanity. ' I am the good shepherd.' In that capacity he was pre
pared not only to labour and watch, but to sacrifice his life for the
, 1 1 safety of the flock. ' The good shepherd layeth down his life for the
sheep.' That extreme of unselfish devotion could exist only through
a conscious identity of interest. A hired servant would do his duty
faithfully up to the point of a due regard for his own safety, but at
the approach of clanger he would think of himself rather than of the
„ 12 sheep, esteeming his own life as more precious than theirs. ' He that
is a hireling, and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not,
beholdeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth.' He
escapes, but the flock suffers, some being devoured and all scattered.
„ 12 ' And the wolf snatcheth them, and scattereth tJiem.' The result
might have been foreseen. The hireling cannot have the same
„ is instinct of self-sacrifice as the shepherd who owns the sheep. ' He
fleeth because he is a hireling, and careth not for the sheep.' Tischen
dorf, without any loss of clearness, omits the italicised words ' them '
and ' he fleeth,' inserted by the Revisers. ' The sheep ' stands in the
Authorised Version alter ' scattereth,' but not in the two oldest MSS. ;
and 'the hireling fleeth' stands before 'because,' but is not
in the three oldest MSS., having been erased from the Vatican MS.
by a later hand.
Jesus reverts to the intimacy subsisting between a devoted, careful
, 14 shepherd and the flock he guides and guards. ' I am the good shep
herd : and I know mine own, and mine own know me.' The simile-
does not admit the idea of equal knowledge on both sides. The sheep.

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 117
i?°aWW>1SlleP5erd b^¥S voicTe'but his P°wers of discernment are
of a higher order. Between Jesus and his own, however, there is a
knowledge based upon intellect and will: 'even as the Father 10 Join,
knoweth me, and I know the Father.' Alford notes: 'Beware of
rendering the former clause of verse 15, as in the Authorised Version
f «n 1^dePende?t sentence, As my Father knoweth me, even so know
I the Father .- it is merely the sequel to verse 14.' Tischendorf
agrees with the Revisers, who have adopted Alford's view, which cor
responds also with Luther's version. Jesus knew well that the
tragic end of the faithful shepherd was appointed for himself ' And
I lay down my life for the sheep.' Yet in spite of premature death "
he looked forward to an extension of his influence. ' And other
sheep I have, which are not of this fold : them also I must brino- (or "
lead), and they shall hear my voice.' Alford observes : ' The other
sheep are the Gentiles; not the dispersion of the Jews, who were
already in God's fold.' That interpretation is corroborated by the
vision subsequently sent to Peter, by the mission of the apostle Paul 10 Acts
to the heathen world, and by the reverential enthusiasm with which
he and Barnabas announce the fact that God ' had opened a door of u Acts
faith unto the Gentiles.' It is to be observed that Jesus reverts to
the words of the original simile, ' them also I must lead, and they
shall hear my voice,' but he does not repeat, ' even as the Father
knoweth me, and I know the Father.' His mode of guidance now is
indirect ; he is in the heavens ; we hear his voice as of one who
towers above us, and whose nature and attributes we cannot attain
to. His earthly flock is held together rather by the instinct of gre-
gariousness than by the guidance of himself and his Spirit; we have a
knowledge of his voice, of his call, rather than of his words ; some
have professed to reveal him through the subtleties of the Athanasian
creed ; some have attained to the conceptions of him embodied in
the Nicene creed ; for most of us the simple, historical facts of the
Apostles' creed suffice : we hear his voice and are to a certain extent
led by it,— he himself did not say that we should understand it, —
and how little his words and their spirit are comprehended through
out Christendom, let our standing armies, our daily records of crime,
our social evils in their multitudinous forms, attest. He has told us
earthly things, and we believe not : how shall we believe when he
tells us of heavenly things ? The first and foremost aim of Jesus was
to give pasture to his flock, — to satisfy the needs of our common
humanity ; and till the Church accomplishes that work, by moulding
the framework of Christian society after the pattern of the Sermon on
the mount and the other hints which Jesus gave respecting- the
principles and regulations of his ' assembly,' no realisation will have
been attained, or properly attempted, of that kingdom of heaven
which he came to establish on earth. It was the purpose of Jesus to
unite all of mankind who would accept his supremacy into one com
panionship and fellowship. ' And they shall become one flock (or, 10 joim 1
there shall be one flock), one shepherd.' Alford observes : ' The one
Jlock is remarkable — not onefold, as characteristically, but erroneously
rendered in the Authorised Version : not one fold, but one flock ; no
one exclusive enclosure of an outward church, but one flock, all know
ing the one Shepherd and known of Him.'
In the pursuit of his self-sacrificing plan on behalf of mankind,

10 John 17

20 Mat. 19

118 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
Jesus felt himself to be working out the divine will. ' Therefore doth
the Father love me , because I lay down my life.' In the same
breath he added : ' that I may take it again.' This was the character
istic of Jesus. No instance is recorded of his ever having spoken of
his death except in connection with life. ' They shall condemn him
is Luke 33 to death .... and the third day he shall be raised up.' ' Ibey shall
scourge and kill him : and the third day be shall rise again. His
12 John 24, idea of death involved resurrection and fuller life : ' Verily, verily, I
2;' say unto you, Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it
abideth by itself alone ; but if it die, it beareth much fruit. He that
loveth his life loseth it ; and he that hateth his life in this world shall
- 32.33 keep it unto life eternal' ' And I, if I be lifted up from the earth,
will draw all men unto myself. But this he said, signifying by what
manner of death he should die.' Jesus encountered death of his own
free will : his adversaries had not rushed against him, but he against
them ; just as the wolf, attacking only the sheep, was resisted by the
io John is shepherd, who sacrificed himself for them. ' No one taketh it away
from me ; but I lay it down of myself.' The Revisers note : ' Some
ancient authorities read took it away.' The Sinaitic and Vaticar
MSS. first and second in point of age, read, ' No man hath taken it,'
although Tischendorf has not followed them. That reading points tc
a higher and altogether different sense attaching to this saying of
Jesus, for it cannot be said, with absolute, literal truth, that no man
took his earthly life. The apostle Peter asserted the contrary :
2 Acts 23 'Him ... ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay.'
5 Acts no < The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him
on a tree.' The form of the expressions, ' No man took it awayr,' or,
' No man hath taken it away,' Jesus being yet alive, does not denote
a future act. The oldest readings harmonise with and are indicative
of the true meaning, which must not be set aside because later
copyists, failing to discern the reason and bearing of so exceptional
and peculiar an expression, altered it from ' hath taken it away ' to
' taketh it away.' One result of the alteration has been to set com
mentators upon a search for wrong inferences from this and other
passages. Alford appears to take a view the very opposite of that oi
Peter, and does not scruple to say of the death of Jesus : ' It was his
own act: The arguments upon which that astounding assertion is
based are strained and far-fetched : ' The truth of this voluntary
rendering up was shewn by his whole sufferings, from the falling of
his enemies to the ground in the garden (ch. xviii. 6) to the last
words, ' / commend (render up) my spirit, Luke xxiii. 4(1' Could
anything be weaker in the way of argument ? The evangelist records,
' They went backward and fell to the ground.' Alford assumes that
they were struck down by the power of Jesus : ergo, no man put him
23 Lnke 46 to _ death ! Jesus said: 'Father, into thy hands I commend my
spirit : ' and that also is taken to prove that no human power killed
him ; in fact, that crucifixion and the draining away of his life
blood would never have resulted in death but for the voluntary deter-
7 Acts eo mination of Jesus ! The dying cry of Stephen, ' Lord Jesus, receive
my spirit,' has never been so perverted, nor would the equivalent last
utterance of Jesus have been so, were it not for a foregone and
erroneous conclusion. Anything within reach is laid hold of in
support of it : ' None of the Evangelists say He died : — but it is,,

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 119
yielded vp the spirit, Matthew ; breathed his last, Mark, Luke ;
delivered up his spirit, John.' Were not all these customary modes of
expression, applied constantly to the deaths of ordinary men ? The
life which Jesus had laid down, and which he would resume, was a
life prior to that he led on earth, and of that former life he said : ' 1 10 John is
have power (or, right) to lay it down, and I have power (or, right)
to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father.'
In exposing himself to the hostility of his foes, in abating no jot of his
pretensions before their prejudices and criticisms, in carrying on his
work despite their malice and threats, and with the inevitable end of
scorn, scoffs, scourging, crucifixion plainly revealed and ever before
his eyes, Jesus went forward, upheld by the consciousness that such
was the will of God concerning him.
The criticisms of Mr. Matthew Arnold on this part of John's
gospel are based on the assumption that an obviously wrong arrange
ment of the words of Jesus has been adopted. He says : * ' Who can
doubt that here, again, we have two separate sets of logia of Jesus ;
one set which have / am the good shepherd for their centre, and
another set which have for their centre I am the door ; and that our
Evangelist has thrown the two together and confused them ? Beau
tiful as the sayings are even when thus mixed up together, they arc
far more beautiful when disentangled. But the Evangelist had a
doorkeeper and a door and sheep in his first parable ; and he had
another parable in which was a "door of the sheep." Catching
again at an apparent connection, he could not resist joining the
two parables together, and making one serve as the explanation of
the other.' That statement is made in a very cool and positive way,
but it has no better foundation than the critical acumen of a scholar
dealing with a narrative of remote antiquity. Mr. Matthew Arnold
assumes that two similar parables were spoken by Jesus, the one not
overlapping or repeating the similes of the other, — that the evan
gelist had them before him in proper form, but was so obtuse that
he did not appreciate their simplicity and symmetry,— that, failing
to do so, he was misled by ' an apparent connexion,' and ' could not
resist joining the two parables together.' Now, that is done by
verse 6, which stands as follows : ' This parable spake Jesus unto
them : but they understood not what things they were which he spake
unto them. Jesus therefore said unto them again. . .' Did the evan
gelist invent that connexion ? Mr. Arnold seems to say so, for he
proceeds as follows : ' To explain the first parable, and to go on all
fours with it, the second ought to run as follows : " I am the door ot
the sheep. All that climb up some other way are thieves and robbers ;
but the sheep do not hear them. I am the door ; by me if any man
enter, he is the shepherd of the sheep." The words m italics must be
substituted for the words now in the text of our Gospel ; and Jesus
must stand, not as the door of salvation in general but as the door
by which to enter is the sign of the true teacher. There can be no
doubt, however, that the words now in the text are right, and that
what is wrong is the connexion imposed on them.' That .very serious
charge against the compiler of the narrative amounts to this : He did
uot know, and did not much care, what he was about ; he fancied
* ' ' God and the Bible. The Fourth Gospel from Within. "

120 TBE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
there was ' a connexion which did not exist ' ; he therefore joined
' the two parables together,' and made 'one serve as the explanation
of the other' ; but when he had done that, the second parable did
not 'explain the first,' or ' go on all fours with it ' ! Was there ever
such a bungler as this meddlesome, not very scrupulous evangelist t
Mr. Matthew Arnold, after all these centuries, steps forward to put
him and us right ; and he does so in this way. ' The seventh and
ninth verses are a logion quite distinct from what precedes and follows,
and ought to be entirely separated from it. Their logion is : "I am
the door of the sheep. I am the door ; by me if a man enter ^he
shall be saved, and shall go in and out and find pasture." The
eighth verse belongs to the first parable, the parable of the shepherd ;
not to the parable" of the door. It should follow the fifth verse, and
be followed by the tenth. Jesus says of the sheep : " A stranger will
they not follow, but will flee from him, for they know not the voice
of strangers. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers ;
but the sheep did not hear them. The thief cometh not but to steal
and to kill and to destroy ; I am come that they might have life, and
that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd." '
That is how Mr. Arnold would remedy what he terms ' the artistic
failure at the beginning of the tenth chapter.' But there is no
evidence, outside Mr. Arnold's own mind, that any such failure is
chargeable against the compiler of the narrative. Surely he could
have discerned, — a child could have discerned the fact, — that it
would be simpler to combine all that was said about a door in one
parable, and to make a separate parable about the shepherd. The
evangelist, with the original records before him, would not, could not.
do that. Mr. Arnold is bolder: he not only does it, but imputes
stupidity, ' an artistic failure,' to the evangelist for not having done
it, — charges him with imagining and actually 'imposing a connexion
which did not exist,' and blandly condescends to argue thence that
we must needs have the actual words of Jesus, although in a wrong
sequence, because the evangelist has shewn such an utter incom
petency : he could not even arrange them properly, — how much less
could he have invented them ! ' A consummate artist, inventing for
Jesus, could not have been satisfied with such a merely seeming
and verbal connexion.' Not by such criticisms, erudite and honest
though they be, can the gospel nairatives be properly gauged, set
aside, or upheld.
This discourse of Jesus produced opposite feelings in those who
listened to it. Many affected to regard him as a kind of inspired
lunatic, to whose rhapsodies it was not worth while to pay attention.
in, ' There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words.
20 And many of them said, He hath a devil (Gr. demon) and is mad ;
why hear ye him ? ' The Revisers, on the authority of the two oldest
MSS., have omitted the word ' therefore ' before the word ' again.'
This contemptuous criticism was not suffered to pass unchallenged.
Words so solemn, so cogent, so touching as those of Jesus, had
never been, and could never be uttered by one labouring under
i any kind of mental aberration. ' Others said, These are not the
sayings of one possessed with a devil (Gr. demon).' His words
must be taken in conjunction with his works, and it would be
impossible to attribute to demoniacal influence the miraculous

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 121
restoration of sight to the blind. 'Can a devil (Gr. demon) open 10 .mm, >i
the eyes of the blind ? '
The narrative proceeds as follows: 'And it was the feast of the „ 22.2
dedication at Jerusalem: and it was winter ; and Jesus was walkino-
in the temple in Solomon's porch.' There is here an impression of
•consecutiveness. The Vatican MS. begins with the words, ' It was
then'; and the Revisers note: 'Some ancient authorities read At
that time was the feast' Alford explains : ' This feast had become
usual since the time when Judas Maccabaeus purified the temple from
the profanations of Antiochus. It was held on Chisleu (December)
25, and seven following days : see 1 Mace. iv. 41—59 : 2 Mace. x.
1— 8.' An attempt was made on this occasion to extract from Jesus
a positive declaration of his Messiahship. His countrymen sur
rounded him, reproached him with the ambiguousness attaching to
his claims and position, and desired a plain answer to the question
whether he was the Christ. ' The Jews therefore came round about „ 24
him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense ?
If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly.' The expression in the Autho
rised Version is, ' How long dost thou make us to doubt ? ' Young-
renders literally : ' Till when our soul dost thou hold in suspense ?"'
The reply of Jesus was peculiar : ' Jesus answered them, I told you, ., 25
and ye believe not.' To the Samaritan woman Jesus had said : ' 1 4 joim 20
that spake unto thee am he.' If he had said the same to these Jews,
they would not now have been putting their question. There must
have been some good reason which withheld Jesus from answering
by a simple ' yes ' or ' no ' ; the latter he could not, and the former he
would not say. We know that 'the Jews had agreed already that if 9.101,1122
any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the
synagogue.' There were many who had believed in him without
waiting for any fuller declaration on his part. A word from Jesus
might have doomed his disciples to the threatened penalty of excom
munication : all of them would have had to decide at once between
recantation and martyrdom. If the Teacher himself claimed to be
Christ, they would either have been forced to own him such, and
suffer, or to disown him. That was a dilemma which these un
believing questioners would have rejoiced to bring about. By 'Jews '
here wc understand the Judaeans, to whom the title properly applied,
and who were hostile to Jesus from first to last, ever seeking to kill
him, and compelling him to carry on his labours outside the sphere
of their jurisdiction and influence. By returning to Jerusalem and
teaching in their midst, he was now defying their animosity. They
were on the watch to entrap him, and it behoved him, for the sake
of others as well as of himself, to answer warily. The popular notion
of the Christ was out of harmony with the true vocation of Jesus :
men had yet to learn that the Messiah was simply a moral reformer,
a spiritual guide, that he was no king or conqueror after the recog
nised earthly fashion. Who he was, and what his office was, could
be manifested only by his own words and works. It would have been
misleading and dangerous to adopt to himself a title sure to be mis
understood. His claim to Messiahship must follow his teaching, not
precede it or be extolled apart from it. After his spiritual discourse
at the well, and when the Samaritan woman had expressed her con
viction that Messiah was a Teacher of such truths, Jesus could safely

John 1.1

122 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
present himself to her in that character. But he manifested intense
anxiety not to be proclaimed publicly. It was well that Peter should
i,i Mat. io recognise and own the fact, ' Thou art the Christ,' but it must ncver-
„ 20 theless be held back from the world's knowledge : ' Then charged he
the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.'
This reticence on the part of Jesus was not understood by John the
n Mat. 2, 3 Baptist, who ' heard in the prison the works of the Christ,' and ' sent
by his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that cometh, or look
we for another ? ' Even to them Jesus gave no direct reply, but
.. + 'answered and said unto them, Go your way and tell John the things
which ye do hear and see,' thereby intimating that his personality
and office were to be disclosed only by his course of action, that it
was enough to know that he did ' the works of the Christ,' without
bringing the title itself into notoriety. But for this cautious reserve,
it is probable that the popular enthusiasm with respect to Jesus would
have taken some undesirable form of development, thereby interfer
ing with his plan of teaching, bringing him into collision with the
ecclesiastical and civil rulers, and precipitating that catastrophe which
overtook him at the last. On one occasion Jesus perceived that the
multitude ' were about to come and take him by force, to make him
king ' ; he knew, moreover, that his adversaries were ever on the watch
to formulate an accusation against him : he would have been simply
playing into their hands had he allowed them to extort from him an
unqualified admission of his Messiahship. His answer to them was
io j,,hn 20 identical with that he had formerly given to the Baptist : ' The works
that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me.' His works
of mercy were sufficient attestation of his spirit and power. He
claimed no title, nor would he suffer one to be put forward, which
might serve as a rallying cry for the populace to lay hold of and per
vert. He had no quarrel with the ruling powers ; he preached no
crusade ; the followers he sought were not fighting volunteers,
nationalists, resolute partisans, but had been described by him as
'sheep ' ; the only title that Jesus chose was that of 'shepherd' ; in
,, 26,27 that character it was for men to reject him or follow him. 'But ye
believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my
voice, and I know them, and they follow me.' The Revisers have
omitted the concluding words of verse 26, ' as I said unto you,' on
the authority of the two oldest MSS. All that Jesus offered them
was that which they had already— life, but life prolonged to its
„ 2s utmost limit: 'And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall
never perish.' This is rendered by Young : 'And life age-during I
give to them, and they shall not perish— to the age.' Jesus does not
say that he will immortalise his sheep, but he promises to safeguard
„ 28 them : ' and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.' The Autho
rised Version continues : ' My Father, which gave them to me, is
greater than all ; and no man is able to pluck them out of my
„ 29 Father's hand.' The Revised Version stands : ' My Father, which
hath given them unto me, is greater than all ; and no one is able to
snatch them (or, aught) out of the Father's hand.' The Revisers.
have inserted the note : ' Some ancient authorities read, That which
my Father hath yiven unto me.' Alford states that to be the reading
of ' most of our ancient copies.' The three oldest MSS., however",
give no hint of that reading ; yet Tischendorf adopted it, the altera-

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 123
tion being included among the 'errata.' The passage as it thus stands
harmonises with the preceding idea : ' That which my Father hath
given unto me is greater than all ' ; the guidance and safe-keeping of
the sheep entrusted to me are greater than all besides : the word
meizon, greater, judging from the 44 passages in which it occurs,
does not denote ' stronger,' but more important. And the life which
the Father gives through the Son, and desires to perpetuate, is
beyond the reach of any adverse power : ' and no one is able to snatch
out of the Father's hand.' Alford explains that the italicised word
' them ' or ' aught ' is ' not in the original' Then Jesus added : ' I 10 j<,im 30
and the Father are one.' Alford explains : ' Notice, One is neuter in
gender, not masculine : the Father and the Son are not personally
one, but essentially.' The meaning of the expression is clear from
its use elsewhere by Jesus. ' Holy Father, keep them in thy name 17 johnii
which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.'
Again : ' That they may be one, even as we are one ; I in them, and ,, ¦,». ¦>
thou in me, that they may be perfected into one.' The unity existing
among Christians is spoken of in the same breath and as being of the
same character, with that existing between Jesus and his Father. Yet
so incensed and scandalised were the Jews by this saying of Jesus,
that they prepared to stone him. ' The Jews took up stones again to 10 jnhu 31
stone him.' Not on the impulse of the moment, as though first one
had stooped down to lift a stone, and then another had followed his
example. Tischendorf brings out the deliberateness of the purpose
by rendering, ' The Jews again bore stones to stone him.' In the 20
other instances in which the verb bastazd, here rendered ' take up,'
occurs, it is translated in the A. V. 'bear' or 'carry.' It was a
moment of grave peril. Jesus could not fail to perceive their design,
and he calmly expostulated with them. ' Jesus answered them, Many „ 32
good works have I shewed you from the Father ; for which of those
works do ye stone me ? ' They replied that it was not for any of his
works, but for his words : that has ever been the cry of persecutors.
' The Jews answered him* For a good work we stone thee not, but for „ :w
blasphemy.' Young, here and elsewhere, renders the word 'blas
phemy ' by ' evil speaking.' They added : ' and because that thou, „ ss
being a man, makest thyself God.' Their idea is still current, and
prevails : that the term ' God ' is necessarily restricted to the one
Supreme Being. Jesus repudiated that idea. He reminded them that
in Scripture the title was used in a much wider sense, and had been
applied, under revelation from God himself, to certain of- mankind.
' Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are „ si
gods ? ' The reference is evidently to one of the Psalms of Asaph :
' God standeth in the congregation of God ; S2 ps. i
He judgeth among the gods.
How long will ye judge unjustly, , -
And respect the persons of the wicked ?
I said. Ye are gods, ¦ "
And all of you sons of the Most High.
Nevertheless ye shall die like men, , 7
And fall like one of the princes.
Arise, 0 God, judge the earth.' . . . , " s
Alford observes : ' The Psalm is directed against tbe injustice and
tyranny of judges (not the Gentile rulers of the world, nor, the

:;n

124 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
angels) iii Israel. And in the Psalm reference is made by I have
said to previous places in Scripture where judges are so called, viz.
Exod. xxi. G ; xxii. 9, 28.' The passages here referred to stand in
Young's version as follows : ' Then hath his lord brought him nigh
unto God.' ' Unto God cometh the matter of them both ; he whom
God doth condemn he repayeth double to his neighbour.' ' God thou
dost not revile, and the prince among thy people thou dost not curse.
In the Authorised Version these passages stand : ' Then his master
shall bring him unto the judges.' ' The cause of both parties shall
come before the judges ; and whom the judges shall condemn, he
shall pay double unto his neighbour.' ' Thou shalt not revile the
gods (or, judges), nor curse the ruler of thy people.' Evidently the
translators deemed the term ' god ' synonymous with ' judge,' and did
not scruple on occasion so to render it. The Revisers have
followed Young by inserting ' God ' in the text, and the Authorised
Version by putting ' judges ' in the margin. On this obvious and
undeniable application of the word ' God ' in the Scriptures, Jesus
; „, 3,, founded an argument. 'If he called them gods, unto whom the
"" word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of
him, whom the Fattier sanctified (or, consecrated) and sent into the
world, Thou blasphemest ; because I said, I am the Son of God ?'
Jesus admits that he had claimed the title, not of ' God,' but of ' Son
of God.' In the true, old, recognised Scriptural sense of the word,
there was nothing to forbid the application to himself of the title
' God ' ; he could uot disclaim it, but he claimed it only as bestowed
and derivative, as one consecrated by tbe Father and sent into the
world, as being Son of God. Jesus was willing that his assumptions
should be brought to the test of fact. Did he, or did he not exercise
powers which, being superhuman, stamped themselves as God-given,
divine ? ' If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.' It
were enough to make them the sole criterion of judgment. Let his
own assertions about himself be set aside, let his teachings and his
miracles be regarded by themselves : they proved sufficiently their
character and origin, ' But if I do them, though ye believe not me,
believe the works : that ye may know and understand that the
Father is in me, and I in the Father.' The Authorised Version has :
' that ye may know and believe ; ' the Revisers have followed the
Vatican MS. by putting ' understand ' for ' believe.' The last word,
' Father,' stands in the Authorised Version ' him,' which has been
altered on the authority of the two oldest MSS.
The argument of Jesus could not be refuted, but in spite of it, and
of his appeal in connection with it, an attempt was made to appre
hend him. If they could not venture to stone him uncondemned,
they were anxious at least to put him on his trial for blasphemy.
' They sought again to take him.' The Authorised Version adds :
' But he escaped out of their hand.' Instead of ' escaped,' Alford
renders ' passed,' and Young ' went forth.' The latter is adopted by
Tischendorf and the Revisers. 'And he went forth out . of their
hand.' The expression ' out of their hand' indicates the imminence
of the peril, if not an actual ' escape.'
Jesus retired for safety to the other side of the river Jordan, and
chose as his abode the place where the Baptist had commenced his
ministry. ' And he went away again beyond Jordan into the place

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 125
where John was at first baptizing ; and there he abode.' There
hearers flocked to him. The memory of the Baptist's work was still
fresh, and comparison was naturally made between Jesus and his
forerunner. Miracles were now witnessed which John never
attempted, and all that he had foretold of Jesus was admitted to be
fully realised. 'And many came unto him; and they said, John 10 John u
indeed did no sign : but all things whatsoever John spake of this
man were true.' The result was a large accession, if not of disciples,
at least of convinced listeners and beholders. ' And many believed , i»
on him there.'
While Jesus was engaged in that safer and more encouraging field
of labour, the brother of the two ladies who had formerly shown him 10 Luke .-is
hospitality was attacked by illness. ' Now a certain man was sick
Lazarus of Bethany, of the village of Mary and her sister Martha.5 n Jolm *
The evangelist, or a subsequent compiler, has here thrown in an
observation which anticipates a later incident in the narrative.
' And it was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, „ i
and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.'
The sisters sent a special message to Jesus acquainting him with
the fact. The wording of the message indicates that" Jesus had
formed a close intimacy and friendship with Lazarus. ' The sisters „ 3
therefore sent unto him, saying, Lord (Sir— Young), behold, he whom
thou lovest is sick.' On receiving the news, Jesus remarked that the
illness would not be fatal, but would redound to the glory of God,
and of himself as the Son of God. ' But when Jesus heard it, he „ 4
said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that
the Son of God may be glorified thereby.' We have already seen 10 joim a;
that Jesus claimed that title. The evangelist explains that the
whole family was very dear to Jesus. ' Now Jesus loved Martha, and 11 j»i„i &
her sister, and Lazarus.' Two days passed before he gave any
indication of his intention to respond to the call of the sisters.
' When therefore he heard that he was sick, he abode at that time „ 0
two days in the place where he was.' Then he startled his disciples
by proposing that they should revisit Judaea. ' Then after this he „ 7
saith to the disciples, Let us go into Judaea again.' The suggestion
filled them with consternation ; they trembled for his safety,
reminded him that his life had been but lately put in peril there,
and expressed astonishment at his design. ' The disciples say unto „ *>
him, Rabbi, the Jews were but now seeking to stone thee ; and goest
thou thither again ? ' The reply of Jesus indicated that there was
nothing rash or hazardous in the step he proposed to take. He had
due regard to time and opportunity. When the night of persecution
had settled down upon him, during which he had felt that there was
no work possible for him in Jerusalem except under conditions of
danger and anxiety which it would have been unwise to face, he had
remained quiescent. Now it was again day : there was light in him
and around him, and he could see his course straight and clear
before him. ' Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the „ '¦; 10
day ? If a man walls in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth
the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, ho
stumbleth, because the light is not in him.' That assurance of Jesus
gave them no clue to the purpose which was in his mind ; but
presently he disclosed to them the fact that his journey was under-

126 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
n John n taken on account of their common friend Lazarus. ' These things
spake he : and after this he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus is
fallen asleep ; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.' _ The
saying sounded enigmatical. The disciples construed the mention of
sleep in connection with the idea of repose, as an augury of speedy
„ 12 recovery. 'The disciples therefore said unto him, Lord (Sir —
Young), if he is fallen asleep he will recover (Gr. be saved).' Young
and Tischendorf adopt the Greek expression 'be saved.' The
Authorised Version has instead, ' do well,' which is altered by the
Revisers and Alford to ' recover.' If the Greek form, ' be saved,'
had been adhered to here and wherever else it occurs, the word
' salvation ' would probably never have been so restricted and
perverted in meaning as it is now in its popular acceptation.
The disciples had not grasped the meaning of Jesus, nor was it
.. 13 possible for them to do so without clear explanation. 'Now Jesus
had spoken of his death : but they thought that he spake of taking
., i* rest in sleep.' Jesus now spoke in. plainest terms. ' Then Jesus
therefore said unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.' Here is,
apparently, another instance of supernatural perception on the part
of Jesus. We can venture no positive opinion as to how such
knowledge was arrived at, whether by intuition or by direct revelation
from superior Beings, through visions, as is recorded to have been
the case with Zacharias, the mother of Jesus, and the shepherds, or
through dreams, as in the case of the Magi and of Joseph the
husband of Mary. Not only was Jesus assured of the death of
Lazarus, but he rejoiced that he himself had been away during the
» L'J illness and at the final crisis. ' And I am glad for your sakes that I
was not there.' That circumstance, instead of being regrettable,
would prove a means of confirming their confidence in Jesus, for he
.. J5 added : ' to the intent ye may believe.' Notwithstanding the fact
that Lazarus was already dead, probably even buried, Jesus proposed
-, is that he and his disciples should visit him ! ' Nevertheless let us go
unto him.' To make the journey at that time, with his disciples
about him, seemed like courting death ; yet one of them used his
influence with the rest to persuade them all to comply with the
desire of Jesus : rather than refuse to do so, leaving him to carry
out his intention alone, let them be ready to face death out of
- lfl loyalty to him and in companionship with him. ' Thomas therefore,
who is called Didymus (that is, Twin), said unto his fellow-disciples,
Let us also go, that we may die with him.' Alford explains : ' The
meaning of Thomas, in the Aramaic, which was the dialect
of the country, is the same as that of the Latin Didymus, viz.,
a twin.' On reaching their destination it was ascertained that the burial of
¦ ir Lazarus had taken place four days previously. ' So when Jesus came
he found that he had been in the tomb four days already.' The
wording of this would lead to the inference that Jesus himself made
enquiry as to the time, and must therefore have been ignorant of it
exactly. But this does not follow from Young's literal rendering :
' Jesus therefore having come, found him four days already in the
tomb.' Not only was Jesus now close to Jerusalem, but his arrival
must necessarily soon be known to his enemies, many of the Jews
., is, m having come to condole with the bereaved sisters. 'Now Bethany

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 127
was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off ; and many of
the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning
their brother.' The approach of Jesus was notified to Martha, who
went out to meet him, leaving her sister seated in the house.
' Martha therefore, when she heard that Jesus was coming, went and n join, 20
met him : but Mary still sat in the house.' The rendering of
Young, ' but Mary kept sitting in the house,' and of Tischendorf,
' but Mary continued sitting in the house,' may be taken to denote
11 deliberate purpose. Consider the circumstances. Jesus had but
lately fled from Jerusalem. The sisters, when their brother was
overtaken by illness, could not venture to ask that Jesus should
again expose himself to danger by returning : they simply acquainted
him with the fact, ' He whom thou lovest is sick.' When they found
that Jesus had dared everything for their sake, their first impulse
would naturally be to conceal, if possible, his coming : Martha must
go quietly to meet him, whilst Mary kept at home, giving no indica
tion of the proximity of Jesus. In her greeting of Jesus, Martha's
regret at his absence burst forth unchecked. 'Martha therefoie , 21
said unto Jesus, Lord (Sir — Young), if thou hadst been here, my
brother had not died.' The cruel persecutors of Jesus had indirectly
brought about the death of Lazarus. Yet Martha's faith in the
power of Jesus was still unshaken, although her brother had passed
away while he was not at hand to save. ' And even now I know „ 22
that, whatsoever thou shalt ask of God, God will give thee.' Jesus
replied in one pregnant sentence. 'Jesus saith unto her, Thy .. 2»
brother shall rise again.' Martha perceived no specific promise in
the assurance, but took it simply as a confirmation of her faith in an
ultimate resurrection. ' Martha said unto him, I know that he shall „ 24
rise again in the resurrection at the last day,' rendered by Young
with tautological exactness, ' I know that he will rise again, in the
rising again at the last day.' Whether consciously or unconsciously
Martha here laid hold upon a doctrine and form of expression which
had been previously enunciated by Jesus in the words, ' I will raise 6 join, si
him up at the last day.' Did she grasp the true import of the
saying ? Did she understand ' the last day ' to apply to some far
distant day when there would come to pass a simultaneous resurrec
tion of all mankind ? If so, her notions were about on- a par with
those still generally prevalent, their crudeness, strangeness, incon-
ceivableness, covered over and made up for by a verbal positiveness
of assertion miscalled ' faith.' It is a very easy thing to take up the
words of the Athanasian Creed : ' At whose coining all men shall rise
again with their bodies : ' multitudes who have never given five
minutes' consecutive thought to the subject have been wont to repeat
them glibly, as with a sacred unction, and as though they held a
truth clear as the noonday sun, and a hope sufficient to live and die
by. ' I know,' said Martha, but it is a matter on which none of us
have knowledge. The words of our divine Teacher need to be
pondered deeply, reverentially, with all humility, and apart from the
dogmas which have grown up round them. Jesus did not endorse
Martha's unfaltering declaration, but proceeded to put the subject in
his own way. Resurrection and life were his indwelling attributes.
' Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life.' And those n J«i " ^
attributes would be possessed by all his followers. ' He that „ lo

ii .John 10

128 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live : and whosoever
liveth and believeth on me shall never die.' We cannot be too
careful to get at the true sense of these words. The Authorised
Version has : ' He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet
shall he live.' Tischendorf renders: 'though he die, yet will he
live.' Young : ' even if he may die, shall live ; ' Alford : ' though
he have died, yet shall he live ; ' Samuel Sharpe : ' even though he
die, will live ; ' the 'Englishman's Greek New Testament ' : ' though he
die, he shall live.' By using ' will ' instead of ' shall,' Tischendorf
and Sharpe obviate the idea of a special exercise of power in the case
of every believer : Jesus asserts simply what ' will ' happen, — the
divinely-appointed law of resurrection from death. His promise is
not completed by this utterance : having before us but one sentence,
the two members of which are connected by the word 'and,' we must
not divide the saying into two sentences, as though Jesus gave two
separate promises. Resurrection and life were his, and would also
be the lot of his followers, — the life, that is, which follows upon
resurrection, there being obviously no reference to the life which
precedes it : ' and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never
die.' Tischendorf renders : 'shall never die ; ' Alford : 'shall not
die for evermore ; ' the ' Englishman's Greek New Testament ' : ' in no
wise shall die for ever ; ' Sharpe : ' will not die till the end of the
age.' The entire passage in Young's version is as follows : ' He who
is believing in me, even if he may die, shall live ; and no one who is
living and believing in me shall die unto the age.' To make the
sense clear, Young renders pas . . . on me apothanei = ' every
one . . . in no wise shall die,' by ' no one . . . shall die.' In other
respects his translation is strictly literal : eis ton aiona is undoubtedly
' unto the age,' eis signifying, in connection with time, ' until ' or
' up to.' The life is ' age-during,' not endless : its term will be fixed
by the constitution of our nature, by the decree of God, and Jesus
assures us that, we being under his guidance, it will not be cut
short as in the case of the life inherited from Adam. This promise
of Jesus may be regarded under two aspects. It seems to be
generally assumed that the life here spoken of is an arbitrary gift, to
be bestowed or withheld by Jesus according to the possession or uon-
possession of faith in him. This is to individualise and narrow the
promise, instead of to generalise and broaden it ; the gift thus
becomes in each case a miraculous endowment, an exercise of super
natural power. But why should the declaration of Jesus be taken in
that sense ? He does but unfold the divine will and purposes. He
steps forth as the leader, the prince, the Messiah of mankind,
discloses the fact of human resurrection, and assures to believers in
him the prolongation to its utmost limit of the life which lies
beyond. If we ask— How ? surely it must be by his guiding and
protective influence, by regulating the lives of his followers, and
bringing them into harmony with the laws of God, of nature and of
society. That is the aspect under which Jesus himself has presented
the matter. ' My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
' follow me : and (Young) life age-during I give to them, and they
shall not perish— to the age, and no one shall pluck them out of my
hand.' A promise going beyond this was once given by Jesus when
he said, ' This is the will of Him who sent me, that every one who is

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 129
beholding the Son, and believing in him, may have life ao-e-during
and 1 will raise him up in the last day.' Taking those words in the
order in which they stand, the resurrection 'in the last day' by
the power of Jesus, is subsequent to the 'life age-during : ' a second
resurrection is here foretold. But in the discourse with Martha, it
was she, not Jesus, who spoke about Lazarus rising again ' in the
resurrection at the last day.' Jesus called her mind away from that
high mystery ; enough for her to be assured of the lower doctrine of
an age-during life beyond the grave, and her positive ' I know ' must
take the simpler form of ' I believe : ' ' Believest thou this ? ' was the n John
enquiry with which Jesus closed. The reply of Martha indicated
rather a confidence in his words than a full comprehension of them
1 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord (Sir— Young) : 1 have believed that .. 2
thou art the Christ, the Son of God, even he that cometh into the
world.' Alford quotes Euthymius as follows : ' That He spoke great
things about Himself she knew : but in what sense He spoke them,
she did not know : and therefore when asked one thing, she replies
another.' Martha now hastened to inform her sister of the arrival of Jesus,
and of the fact that he had expressed a wish to see her. But she did
this warily, doubtless out of regard to his safety, knowing that his
enemies were round about. ' And when she had said this, she went » 2
away, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying (or, her sister, saying
secretly), The Master (or, Teacher) is here, and calleth thee.' This
is quite consistent with the previous notification to Mary of the
approach of Jesus. Martha had gone to meet him on the first news
of his coming, and now not only confirms the report but announces
that he is actually at hand. Young renders : ' The Teacher is
present, and calleth for thee.' Not an instant did Mary lose in
obeying the call. ' And she, when she heard it, arose quickly, and .. 2'
went unto him.' Even then Jesus had not reached the village,
having remained outside it in the place whither Martha had hastened
to meet him. ' (Now Jesus was not yet come into the village, but was „ 3<
still in the place where Martha met him).' Everything indicates the
caution and secrecy which naturally sprang out of their anxiety for
the safety of Jesus. But the precautions taken did not avail. The
hasty departure of Mary was noticed by the Jews, who were acting
the part of comforters ; they guessed that she had gone to the grave,
there to indulge in an outburst of grief, and therefore they resolved
to follow her. ' The Jews then which were with her in the house, » 3]
and were comforting her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up
quickly and went out, followed her, supposing that she was going
unto the tomb to weep (Gr. wail) there.' Their notion of comfort
in bereavement appears to have been the very opposite of ours.
We are accustomed to repress, assuage, check, reprove even, any
violent demonstration of grief ; but the Jewish habit was to weep
with them that wept, minstrels being engaged to add their sorrowful
melodies to the lamentations of the mourners.
When Mary reached the presence of Jesus she fell prostrate at his
feet, — it may have been as a mark of reverence, or that her faltering-
strength could no longer uphold her. The only words she could find
were those with which Martha bad first greeted him, and which must
have formed the burden of the two sisters' reflections throughout the

20

130 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
n John 32 last fews days. L Mary therefore, when she came where Jesus was,
and saw him, fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord (Sir —
Young) if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.' It was
a trying scene, and its effect upon Jesus was very marked and
„ 33 peculiar. 'When Jesus therefore saw her weeping (Gr. wailing),
and the Jews also weeping (Gr. wailing) which came with her, he
groaned in the spirit (or, was moved with indignation in the spirit),
and was troubled (Gr. troubled himself), and said, Where have ye
laid him?' Alford explains: 'The word rendered by the A. V.
groaned can bear but one meaning,— the expression of indignatwn
and rebuke, not of sorrow. This has been acknowledged by all the
expositors who have paid any attention to the usage of the word.'
It is clear therefore that the marginal reading introduced by the
Revisers must be adopted as correct, ' was moved with indignation in
the spirit.' Alford modifies his own assertion of ' indignation ' and
' rebuke ' by saying, ' I think the meaning to be, that Jesus, with the
tears of sympathy already rising and overcoming His speech, checked
them, so as to be able to speak the words following . . . Thus Bengel:
" Jesus for the present austerely repressed his tears." ' That con
jecture is not satisfactory, and does not seem to meet .the case : the
mere repression of emotion is not to be confounded with indignation
or rebuke. The intense, heartfelt wail of Mary, and the conventional,
perfunctory, hypocritical wail of the Jews were well calculated to
arouse opposite feelings in the breast of Jesus. Alford admits :
' Meyer's explanation deserves mention : that our Lord was indignant
at seeing the Jews, his bitter enemies, mingling their hypocritical
tears with the true ones of the bereaved sisters.' That was like
Jesus, and worthy of him. Nothing ever stirred his indignation so
much as hypocrisy, whether conscious or unconscious, or so re
peatedly drew forth the expression of his measureless abhorrence.
„ 34 In reply to his question, ' Where have ye laid him ? ' ' They say
unto him, Lord (Sir — Young), come and see.' The trouble which
had manifested itself in the demeanour of Jesus now reached its
35 climax, and found vent in an outburst of tears. ' Jesus wept.'
Even on the way to the grave the Jews could not abstain from
„ so, c7 criticism of Jesus. ' The Jews therefore said, Behold how he loved
him ! But some of them said, Could not this man, which opened
the eyes of him that Avas blind, have caused that this man also should
not die ? ' At these uncalled for and unseemly comments, the signs
of unspoken, repressed, indignation again showed themselves in
„ 38 Jesus. ' Jesus therefore again groaning in himself (or, being moved
with indignation in himself) cometh to the tomb.' It was a cave,
and against the entrance, which was probably horizontal (Alford), a
as stone had been placed. ' Now it was a cave, and a stone lay against
(or, upon) it.' Jesus requested that the stone might be removed.
30 'Jesus saith, Take ye away the stone.' Martha, always impulsive
and foremost, ventured to expostulate. Four days having passed, the
, so work of corruption must have set in. ' Martha, the sister of him
that was dead, saith unto him, Lord (Sir — Young), by this time he
stinketh : for he hath been dead four days.' Tischendorf and Young
do not insert the italicised word ' dead.' The former has : ' he is
four days gone ; ' the latter, literally, ' it is four days.' Jesus
reminded Martha of an assurance he had previously given her. It

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 131
was for him to act, and for her to have confidence in him. ' Jesus n J"'1" ¦»«
saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou believedst, thou
shouldest see the glory of God ? ' Then the request of Jesus was
complied with. ' So they took away the stone.' The revisers and „ n
Tischendorf, following the two oldest MSS., have omitted, ' from the
place where the dead was laid.' How strange and solemn must have
been the scene ! What an awe-struck hush of wonder and expectation,
while Jesus stood before the opened tomb ! Turning his eyes heaven
wards, he lifted up his voice in thanksgiving. ' And Jesus lifted up „ ji, 42
his eyes, aud said, Father, I thank thee that thou heardest me.'
Alford notes : ' When he prayed, does not appear. Probably in
Peraea, before the declaration in verse 4.' Having uttered those few
words to his heavenly Father, Jesus instantly expressed his reason
for doing so. Neither the prayer nor the hearing were exceptional
' And I knew that thou hearest me always.' But for the sake of all .. ¦"
now standing about him, that they might be convinced of his divine
mission, Jesus had prefaced the miracle he was about to perform by
this reverential acknowledgment of the divine power vouchsafed to
him : ' but because of the multitude which standeth around I said it, ¦¦ 12
that they may believe that thou didst send me.' Then, raising his
voice, so that it rang out sharp and clear enough to pierce into the
cave and rouse one simply sleeping there, Jesus commanded Lazarus
to come forth. ' And when he had thus spoken, he cried with a loud . -i3
voice, Lazarus, come forth.' What a word was that ! And what a
marvel followed on its utterance ! The body o the dead and buried
man was seen to issue from the tomb, not free and unimpeded, but
the hands and feet still circled with their bandages, and the face with
the napkin which had been wrapped round it. 'He that was dead •• «
(literally, had been dead) came forth, bound hand and foot with
grave-clothes (or, grave-bands) ; and his face was bound about with
a napkin.' Alford notes : ' The word rendered grave-clothes is
explained to mean a sort of band of rush or tow, used to swathe
infants, and to bind up the dead. It does not appear whether the
bands were wound about each limb, as in the Egyptian mummies,_ so
as merely to impede motion,— or were loosely wrapped round both feet
and both hands, so as to hinder any free movement altogether. The
latter seems most probable, and has been supposed by many. Basil
speaks of the bound man coming forth from the sepulchre, as a
miracle in a miracle : and ancient pictures represent Lazarus gliding
forth from the tomb, not stepping : which apparently is right The
napkin, or handkerchief, appears to have tied up his chm. As the
awe-struck beholders gazed upon the apparition, the voice of ,,esus
was again heard. ; Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let -
him go.' . -,.
The evangelist makes not a word of comment on this astounding-
miracle. Jesus himself alluded to it as 'the glory of God and as „ «
" for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby , *
The evolvement and manifestation of life, the triumph over death,
the arrest of decay, the reorganisation of materialism,— we can con
ceive no higher powers of Deity, Life, Rulership : these constitute
¦the very essence of the true idea of God. What does the miracle of
the resurrection of Lazarus amount to ? His earthly life had closed.
Had he then ceased to be ? In the ordinary course of nature ins
K 2

132 . THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
body could never again become reanimated, but would have turned
to earth. No Lazarus would then have walked visibly again among
men, known and recognised of them. Jesus called his death a sleep,
but that was foreseeing what would happen, knowing that he would
' awake him out of sleep.' Yet he literally and really died : ' Jesus
therefore said unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.' Nevertheless
there still existed a Lazarus to whom Jesus lifted up his voice and
cried aloud, ' Come forth.' That was a true call : it would not have
been uttered without need or reason. How Jesus shrank from
useless words was shown the very instant previously, when he
explained his thanksgiving to have been spoken for the sake of those
standing by. That Lazarus was there, within reach of the voice, we
may be sure. How he came to be there, must remain a mystery ; as
also whether in the same body, or in some other invisible form, or
altogether formless. We know nothing about the ' disembodied
spirit,' of which men sometimes speak as a matter of course. There
were, in fact, two miracles : the bringing back of Lazarus to the
living, and the snatching of him from the dead. In order that the
earthly life might be renewed, the continuity of the heavenly life
was broken. The appointed mode of existence after death was inter
fered with equally, whether we suppose the 'unclothed' soul of
Lazarus to have been restored to his former body, or his ' spiritual
body ' to have been forsaken, dissolved, or merged, when his fleshly
tabernacle was re-entered and reanimated.
' "When Lazarus left his charnel-cave,
And home to Mary's house return'd,
"Was this demanded — if he yearn'd
To hear her weeping by his grave ?
' " "Where wert thon, brother, those four days ? "
There lives no record of reply,
"Which telling what it is to die,
Had surely added praise to praise.
' From every house the neighbours met,
The streets were filled with joyful sound,
A solemn gladness even crown? d
The purple brows of Olivet.
' Behold a man raised up by Christ !
The rest remaineth unreveal'd ;
He told it not ; or something seal'd
The lips of that Evangelist.' *
'Where wert thou, brother, those four days ? ' is a question to-
3 John 5 which our existence in this world forbids the answer. ' Except a
man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king-
is t cor. 50 dom of God.' ' Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.'
The new life demands a new incarnation. The faith of the apostle
s h. cor. 1-3 Paul enabled him to grasp and elucidate this mystery. ' For we
knowthat if the earthly house of our tabernacle (or, bodily frame)'
be dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with.
* Tennyson's "In Memoriam."

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 133
hands, eternal (age-during— Young), in the heavens. For verily in
this we groan, longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which
is from heaven : if so be that being clothed we shall not be found
naked. The resurrection of Lazarus had beeii foreseen by Jesus,
aud we make no visionary supposition in assuming that invisible
agents had anticipated and arranged with respect to it, as about the
birth of Jesus and his own uprising from the tomb. The idea of
Martha that putrefaction must necessarily have set in, may have been
contrary to the fact, it being more reasonable to believe that the body
was preserved from decay, than that all traces of it were instan
taneously and miraculously obliterated. Nor is it fanciful to bear in
mind the fact that the performance of the miracle had been inten
tionally timed by Jesus. He had deliberately delayed his departure n j„i
two days : it was no mere chance that he arrived when three full days
had elapsed since the decease. There must have been some reason,
hidden from us, why Jesus, whenever he foretold his own resurrec
tion, prognosticated that it would happen ' after three days,' some
occult reason why it did take place after that interval. The second
birth, like the first birth, must have its appointed sequences and
period ; there must be a graduated development into the heavenly
life, as there was into the earthly life ; the incarnation of ' water and
spirit ' is doubtless as natural a process as the incarnation of ' flesh and
blood.' The knowledge of Jesus with respect to these matters was
more than human ; the laws of life and death were within his cog
nizance ; he knew when and how to seize the right moment for the
working of his power; he could call back at once the soul of the
damsel newly-departed, but in the case of Lazarus he saw fit to delay
three days, and he was aware from the first that the same lapse of
time would have to occur in the resurrection of himself. These facts
are neither arbitrary nor meaningless, and we do well to ponder the
hints afforded us with respect to the extension and perpetuation in
supermundane matters of that regularity and spontaneity in the laws
of growth and change which prevail throughout the only world with
which we are as yet familiar.
On many of the Jews who beheld the miracle its effect was
immediate and unmistakable : they could not but express their faith
in Jesus. ' Many therefore of the Jews, which came to Mary and
beheld that which he did, believed in him.' The Revisers have
followed the Vatican and Alexandrine MSS., by inserting 'that
which ' instead of ' the things which,' but Tischendorf retains the
latter, which is the reading of the oldest MS., the Sinaitic.
Reports of the miracle could not fail to be carried to the enemies
of Jesus. ' But some of them went away to the Pharisees, and told „
them the things which Jesus had done.' Alford observes : ' We
must take care rightly to understand this. In the last verse, it is not
many of the Jews which had come, but many of the Jews, viz., those
which had come, " many .... to wit ... . tlwse that came" All
these believed on Him. Then some of them, viz., of those which had
come, and believed, went, &c.' Alford adds : ' The evangelist is very
simple, and at the same time very consistent, in his use of particles :
almost throughout his Gospel, the great subject, the manifestation of
the Glory of Christ, is carried onward by 'then,' or 'therefore,'
whereas ' but ' as generally prefaces the development of the antagonist

134 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
manifestation of hatred and rejection of him.' Without under
valuing the importance of such minute criticisms, Alford seems to
carry his deduction too far where he says : ' The but certainly
shews that this was done with a hostile intent.' We may consider
the ' but ' to refer to the result, not to the intent ; this will still agree
with Alford's note on verse 27 : ' St. John seldom uses but as a mere
copula, but generally as expressing a contrast.' On receiving an
account of the miracle, the Jewish rulers called a council to consider
what steps they should take with respect to Jesus and his works.
n Joim 47 ' The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council,
and said, What do we ? for this man doeth many signs.' The
growing influence of Jesus must be counteracted in some way. But
why ? What was to be dreaded from it ? This was their argument,
„ 4« their ground of action. ' If we leave him thus alone, all men will
believe on him : and the Romans will come and take away both our
place and our nation.' Luther renders the closing words ' Land und
Leute,' 'land and people.' Could any idea be more visionary, more
baseless, more utterly contrary to the fact ? The doctrine of Jesus
was for the salvation of the people. We know that to its rejection
he attributed the woe and destruction which impended over Jeru-
ior.uke42- salem. 'He saw the city and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst
44 known in this thy day, even thou, the things which belong unto
peace ! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall
come upon thee, when thine enemies shall cast up a bank about thee,
and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall
dash thee to the ground, and thy children within thee ; and they
shall not leave in thee one stone upon another ; because thou
knewest not the time of thy visitation.' Jesus foresaw the very
same evils which were apprehended by these Jewish rulers, but he
and they attributed them to precisely opposite causes. They dreaded
any radical change, any interference with the existing order of
things, any Reform which was not inaugurated and directed by
themselves. Alford observes : ' The word our (our place and nation)
is emphatic, detecting the real cause of their anxiety. Respecting
this man's pretensions, they do not pretend to decide : all they know
is tbat if he is to go on thus, their standing is gone.' One of them,
and he the most eminent, disparaged the opinion which bad been
ii joim 40, expressed, which was not founded upon any actual knowledge. ' But
s0 a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said
unto them, Ye know nothing at all' And in speculating on con
tingencies and probabilities, they overlooked the fact that it would be
better the Romans should find one popular leader whom they could
hold responsible and put to death, than that the whole nation should
be visited with the consequences of rebellion. Apart from any
subsequent explanation, that might seem to be the import of the
„ so words : ' nor do ye take account that it is expedient for you that one
man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.'
The Authorised Version has 'for us,' which is altered by the
Revisers and Tischendorf into ' for you,' agreeing with the Vatican
MS. The Sinaitic MS. omits both words. But the evangelist, or
the compiler, has inserted an explanation, which places the passage
„ si outside the rules of ordinary interpretation. ' Now this he said not
of himself : but being high priest that year, he prophesied.' . . . The

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 135
words ' not of himself,' imply some influence over-ruling the speaker.
Alford observes : ' There certainly was a belief, probably arising origi
nally from the use of the Urim and Thummim, that the High Priest,
and indeed every priest, had some knowledge of dreams and utterance
of prophecy. Philo the Jew says, " A true priest is ipso facto a
prophet." That this belief existed, may account for the expression
here ; which however does not confirm it in all cases, but asserts the
fact that the Spirit in this case made use of him as High Priest, for
this purpose.' The prophecy of Caiaphas is thus described : ' that 11 joim
Jesus should die for the nation ; and not for the nation only, but
that he might also gather together into one the children of God that
are scattered abroad.' The word 'prophecy' does not necessarily
denote the foretelling of future events, but may stand for any kind of
high spiritual teaching. It is not stated that Caiaphas delivered his
prophecy before the council : it seems rather to be implied that in
his official capacity as high priest he had broached the doctrine that
tbe death of Jesus would be for the welfare of the nation,. and would
lead to the unification of the dispersed Israelites. ' This said he not
of himself : ' the deep meaning of his saying was hidden from him,
and the evangelist, or tbe. compiler, elucidates it for us. Tbe
opinion expressed by Caiaphas appears to have been regarded as a
counsel, if not a justification of the death of Jesus, for the result is
summed up thus : ' So from that day forth they took counsel that .. 53
they might put him to death.'
An expression used in verses 49 and 51 of this chapter has led Mr.
Matthew Arnold to express the following opinion* 'Twice the
fourth Gospel speaks of Caiaphas as " high-priest of that year," as if
the Jewish high-priesthood had been at that time a yearly office,
which it was not. It is a mistake a foreigner might perfectly well
have made, but hardly a Jew. It is like talking of an American
President as " President of that year," as if the American Presidency
were a yearly office. An American could never adopt, one thinks,
such a way of speaking.' The conclusion drawn by Mr. Matthew
Arnold from this supposed error, is that the Gospel was not written
by the Apostle John : ' St. John cannot have written it for the same
reason that be cannot have . . . made the high-priesthood of
Caiaphas a yearly office.' Let us examine this objection. Alford s
note on the passage is as follows : ' In the words that year, there is no
intimation conveyed that the High Priesthood was changed every
year, which it was not : but we must understand the words as
directing attention to that (remarkable) year, without any reference
to time past or to come. That year of great events had Caiaphas as
its High Priest.' That idea seems weak and forced, so we will reject
it Still it does not follow that the expression ' high priest that
year,' which is the reading of the Revised Version, denotes a yearly
change in the office : it may simply indicate that the change had
occurred that year— that Caiaphas had that year entered upon his
term of office. But Mr. Arnold obviates that solution by introducing
the word ' of : ' 'high-priest of that year.' And we are bound to
admit that he is right, on the authority of Tischendorf and Young,
both of whom insert the word ' of.' That being admitted, we can
" God and the Bible. The fourth Gospel from "Without."

136 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
now fairly raise and face the question. Does the writer of the Gospel
show ignorance upon the point ? Had he less knowledge about it
than Mr. Arnold has ? Before deciding in favour of the latter, we
must refer to other allusions to the subject in John's Gospel. Its
author, having previously stated that Caiaphas was ' high-priest of
that year,' nevertheless tells us that when Jesus had been seized and
is John 13 bound, the officers of the Jews 'led him to Annas first.' And he
explains their reason for doing so : ' for he was father-in-law to
Caiaphas, which was high priest that year,' rendered again by
Tischendorf and Young, 'high priest of that year.' The expression
deemed so inapplicable is here for the third time repeated, but so far
is the writer from being ignorant, that he shows the most minute
knowledge of the subject, actually stating the relationship between
the two men. Afterwards he tells us : ' Annas therefore sent him
bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.' All this indicates a con
temporaneous familiarity with the facts, which were not a little
remarkable. Why should Jesus have been sent to Annas first ?
What could the father-in-law of the high priest have to do with the
matter ? By what right did Annas send back the prisoner bound ?
The evangelist did not care to explain. He could not anticipate
that eighteen centuries later a scholarly critic would rise up, and
argue that he did not understand what he was writing about. He
told the circumstance simply and naturally, and what he stated has
been confirmed and elucidated by another evangelist. Luke mentions,
3 Luke 2 as a well-known historical fact, 'the high-priesthood of Annas and
Caiaphas.' Obviously the office at that time was held conjointly,
which was quite as much out of the ordinary course as that it should
be yearly. What more likely than that the two high priests should
have acted alternately, year by year ? That simple and probable
conjecture makes everything clear : Luke's narrative agrees with
John's, and the deference shown to Annas, and his interference,
Caiaphas nevertheless having to adjudicate, as well as the expression
'high priest of that year,' — all these things agree together and
corroborate the accuracy and fulness of the writer's knowledge.
The assumption of Mr. Matthew Arnold is as hasty as it is
positive ; however plausible at first sight, the tenor of the narrative
is opposed to it.
In consequence of the determined hostility of the chief priests and
Pharisees, Jesus again withdrew from open intercourse with the
inhabitants of Judaea. He retired to a city in the country bordering
n John 54 the wilderness, and there continued with his disciples. 'Jesus
therefore walked no more openly among the Jews, but departed
thence into the country near to the wilderness, into a city called
Ephraim ; and there he tarried with the disciples.' The Authorised
Version has ' his disciples,' which is now altered to ' the disciples,' to
accord with the two oldest MSS.
The Sermon on the mount, as recorded in Matthew's narrative, is
much fuller than in Luke's account of it ; and among the portions
contained in the former, but omitted from the latter, is the Lord's
prayer. Luke introduces that subsequently, and he obviously refers
to a different occasion, when the prayer was repeated by Jesus in an
n Luke l, 2 abridged form. ' And it came to pass as he was praying in a certain

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.

137

place, that when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord
(Sir— Young), teach us to pray, even as John also taught his
disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray, say . . .' The
closing doxology which stands in the Authorised Version of Matthew,
.is omitted by the Revisers, not being in the two oldest MSS., and it
is not in Luke. Let us compare, clause by clause, the forms given
by the two evangelists.

11 Luke 2—4.
Father.Omitted.
The same.
The same.
Omitted. Give us day by day our daily
bread (Gr. our bread for the
coming day).
And forgive us our sins ; for we
ourselves also forgive every one
that is indebted to us.
The same.

Omitted.

6 Matthew 9—13.
(1) Our Father.
(2) Which art in heaven.
(3) Hallowed be thy name.
(4) Thy kingdom come.
(5) Thy will be done, as in
heaven, so on earth.
(6) Give us this day our daily
bread (Gr. our bread for
the coming day).
(7) And forgive us our debts, as
we also have forgiven our
debtors.
(8) And bring us not into temp
tation.
(9) But deliver us from the evil
one (or, evil).
Tischendorf agrees with the above Revised Version. To the
clauses numbered 1, 2, 5 and 9, the Revisers attach in Luke the
note, ' Many ancient authorities read,' &c, to correspond with
Matthew. Alford considers tbat these clauses ' could hardly by any
possibility have been omitted by any, had they ever formed a part of '
Luke's text. He adds : ' The shorter form, found in the Vatican . . .
and in the recently published Sinaitic MS., was the original one :
then the copyists inserted the clauses which were not found here,
taking them from St. Matthew. That this, and not the converse
process, must have been the one followed, is evident to any one who
considers the matter. Stier's argument, that our text has not been
conformed to Matthew, because the doxology has never been inserted
here, seems to me to tend in quite another direction : the doxology
was inserted there, because that teas the form in general liturgical
use, and not here, because that teas never used liturgically.'
Consider the simplicity and brevity of the form of prayer
bequeathed to us by Jesus. At its first delivery he connected with it
a warning against all ostentation and ' vain repetitions ' in prayer.
He never broached the doctrine, so fondly held and zealously propa
gated by some, that prayer is to be regarded as a test of character,
that God loves him best who prays best, or most, or always : that
idea is as irrational as it would be to insist upon our children asking
us constantly, repeatedly, as a matter of duty and privilege and of
moral obligation, to watch over them and supply their wants. They
are sure we shall do that, without the asking ; their petitions are
occasional only, and naturally and properly confined to those things
of which they feel the want. What is prayer but the effort, either
to bring the divine will into harmony with our will, or our will into

138 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
harmony with the divine will ? Whenever they are felt to coincide,
there is no need of prayer. The higher our advancement towards
perfection of character, the less our impulse towards prayer on our .
own account. It becomes transformed into praise, and that not of
necessity verbal and formal, but deep-seated, the silent, reverential,
adoring gratitude of a soul redeemed, at peace, and hopeful of
futurity. The cry is no longer, 'I pray thee to hear me,'
but, ' I thank thee that thou "hast heard me ; ' and even that
utterance "is checked by the thought, ' I know that thou hearest me
always.' When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray, he was
content to refer them to the brief form he had previously delivered,
and even that he further simplified and shortened. Nothing could
be more condensed than this : ' Father, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Give us day by day our daily bread. And
forgive us our sins ; for we ourselves also forgive every one that is
indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation.' The wants
and aspirations of humanity summed up into those six petitions !
There is our model. Are we content to copy it ? Or do we prefer
to amplify it, as though God could be better pleased with a stilted
style and flowery language ?
In the following parable Jesus represents prayer as the natural
' and necessary outcome of a sudden and unexpected emergency, and
great as was the importunity he described, it was wholly unselfish,
the intercession being on behalf of another. He supposed the case
of a man venturing to trouble his friend, in the depth of night, not
in consequence of any grave calamity, but merely for the purpose of,
borrowing a little bread. 'And he said unto them, Which of you
shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say to
him, Friend, lend me three loaves ; ' the sole justification for the
request being that a traveller had unexpectedly arrived, and there
was no food in the house : ' for a friend of mine is come from
a journey, and I have nothing to set before bim.' The applicant
was met with expostulation and rebuff. Why should a person be
disturbed at so unseemly an hour, and expected to get up and furnish
a meal for the friend of his friend ? He positively refused to be
troubled with the matter ; it was preposterous to ask him to get out
of bed, and disturb his sleeping family, for such a purpose. ' And
he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not : the door is
now shut, and niy children are with me in bed ; I cannot rise and
give thee?' His friendship was not great enough for that. But
necessity knows no law : the man outside continued knocking, asking,
pestering him ; the clamour could not be stopped, or endured ; the
trouble of repeatedly refusing was more than the trouble involved in
complying : this' persistent fellow must needs have what he wants ;
it will be better to give him anything, everything, for the sake of
quiet and repose. ' I say unto you, Though he will not rise
and give him because he is his friend, yet because of his impor
tunity he will arise and give him as many (or, whatsoever things) he
needeth.' The harshness of colouring in this picture was undoubtedly inten-,
tional There is nothing lovely or amiable about either of the men.
The one was coldly indifferent, a, friend in name, who shrank from

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 139
the trouble entailed by a friendly action ; the other was overbearing
in purpose, rough, rude, bent on gaining his wish by sheer force of
will. The very opposite of all that was to be attached to the true
notion of prayer. Jesus here teaches not by similarity but by
contrast. He knows nothing of unwillingness on tbe one side, or of
importunity on the other. He teaches that to ask is to have, to seek
is to obtain, to knock is to gain access. 'And I say unto you, Ask, 11 r.ukoo
and it shall be given you ; seek, and ye shall find ; knock, and it
shall be opened ;unto you.' There is no restriction on the divine
bounty, no favouritism on the part of God ; he is the universal
friend, whose ear is ever open, who is never weary of giving, and
whose store is unlimited. None need ask him twice, and though
often the eagerness of our desire impels us to beseech him thrice, it
is not that bis grace is insufficient, but that our faith is weak, or our
self-will strong. Jesus repeats his assurance, and applies it without
exception. ' For every one that asketh receiveth ; and he that „ v>
seeketh findeth ; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.' His
way of putting the matter is opposed to the notion commonly enter
tained of Prayer. The general idea and definition of the word needs
to be changed and broadened. It is not a mere asking : that is only
one of its aspects ; nor is it merely ' the soul's desire, uttered or
unexpressed : ' that is but the foundation on which it rests. It
comprises asking, seeking, knocking : it is the human will in action,
anxious and energetic in whatever direction may have been clearly
prescribed by the divine will. Effort is as much a part of prayer as
are words and wishes ; let us not mistake the part for the whole.
There are moments when our energies are exhausted, when we can no
longer be seeking and knocking, and can only say, in sheer weariness.
and resignation, Father, not my will, but thine be done. Only the
murmured wish is then within our power ; but at other times, what
we pray for we must seek for, or prayer degenerates into formalism
and hypocrisy. Jesus insisted upon that truth in the very point
where it might ' seem most difficult of application. We pray for
forgiveness : what can we do towards it ? Nay ; even that is not to
be divorced from our own. free-will and effort. ' For if ye forgive 6 Mat. u, is
men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father
forgive your trespasses.'
Prayer is the cry of a child to its father. That is its true and best
illustration. The parental instinct forbids indifference. Callousness
on the part of a father is inconceivable, contrary to nature. 'And n Luke 11,
of which of you that is a father shall his son ask a loaf, and he give
him a stone ? Or a fish, and he for a fish give him a serpent ? Or
if he shall ask an egg, will he give him a scorpion ? ' The son's
request is supposed to be confined to necessary and wholesome food, —
a loaf, a fish, an egg. That, and only that, will be supplied : nothing
useless, nothing hurtful. However degraded the condition of
mankind, the law prevails universally, that the knowledge and
experience of the father will be used for the son's welfare. How
much more, then, must that be the case with the heavenly Father ?
'If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your „ 13
children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy
Spirit to therii that ask him ? ' Alford notes that the italicised

51 Pa
63 ls.i

10 11

1 M.it. IS, 20
12 M.it. 31
3 Mark 29
12 Luke 10
,, 12
14 John 26
28 Acts 25
3 Heb. 7
<) Heb. S

3 M-it. 11
1 Murk S
3 Luke 16
1 John 33
I Acts 5
12 Mark 36
1 Luke 36
» 41
„ 67
4 Luke 1
11 Luke 13
2 Acts 4
4 Acts 31
„ S
6 Acts 5
7 Acts 55
9 Acts 17
10 Acts 3S
11 Acts 16
,, 24
13 Acts 0, 51
14 Rom. 17
I i. Thes. 5
0
2 Heb. 4
1 i. Pet. 12
Juile 20

140 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [fart ii.
word ' your ' is ' not expressed at all ; ' the literal translation is, ' the
Father the from heaven.' Young renders : ' the Father who is from
heaven;' Tischendorf, ' your Father from heaven.' Samuel Sharp:!
renders : ' How much more will the father from heaven give holy
spirit to them that ask him.' It cannot be denied that translators,
by beginning the two words ' holy ' and ' spirit ' with capital letters,
have thereby conveyed to ordinary readers the idea of a Person.
Even Dr. Young has followed suit in that respect. But where the
words occur in the Old Testament the Revisers have not used
capitals. ' Take not thy holy spirit from me.' ' They rebelled and
grieved his holy spirit.' ' Where is he that put his holy spirit in the
midst of them ? ' In the Authorised Version the passage from the
Psalm agrees with the Revised Version ; and in the other two verses
a capital is used for the word ' Spirit ' only ; whereas in the three
passages Young has deferred to ' orthodox ' ideas by using capitals
for both words!" Why, unless for the same reason, do the Revisers
always introduce capitals when the same words occur in the New
Testament ? To obtain an unprejudiced view of the matter, let us
turn to a translation which was uninfluenced by the generally
received doctrine of the Trinity. Samuel Sharpe agrees with the
Revisers as to the three passages in the Old Testament, and, with
some exceptions, adheres to the same plan throughout the New
Testament. His exceptions are the following.
3 ' With child of the Holy Spirit.' 3 ' Is of the Holy Spirit.'
2 ' Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit.' 5 ' He that
shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.' 4 ' Him that blasphemeth
against the Holy Spirit.' 4 ' The Holy Spirit will teach you.'
5 ' The Comforter, the Holy Spirit.' 5 ' Well spake the Holy Spirit
through Isaiah.' 5 ' As the Holy Spirit saith.' 5 ' The Holy Spirit
signifying this.' These ten passages are the only ones in which
Sharpe introduces capitals. In those numbered 3 the original has
pneuma hagion, ' spirit holy ; ' in those numbered 4, to hagion pneuma,
' the holy spirit ; ' in those numbered 5, to pneuma to hagion, ' the spirit
the holy ; ' number 2, to pneuma, ' the spirit.'
In the following 28 passages Sharpe oniits the article before ' holy
spirit,' because all of them come under number 3 and are without an
article in the original. ' In holy spirit and fire.' ' He will baptize
you in holy spirit.' ' He will baptize you in holy spirit and fire.'
'He that baptizeth in holy spirit.' 'Ye will be baptized in holy
spirit.' ' David himself in holy spirit, said.' ' Holy spirit will come
upon thee.' ' Elisabeth was filled with holy spirit.' ' Zacharias was
filled with holy spirit.' ' Jesus being full of holy spirit.' ' Give holy
spirit to them that ask him.' ' They were all filled with holy spirit.'
' They were all filled with holy spirit.' ' Peter, filled with holy spirit.'
' A man full of faith and holy spirit.' ' Being full of holy spirit.'
' And be filled with holy spirit.' ' God anointed him with holy spirit
and power.' ' Ye shall be baptized in holy spirit.' ' Full of holy
spirit and faith.' ' Being filled with holy spirit.' ' Filled with joy
and holy spirit.' ' Righteousness and peace, and joy with holy spirit'.'
' In power, and in holy spirit and in much assurance.' ' With joy of
holy spirit.' 'Gifts o'f holy spirit.' 'With holy spirit sent from
heaven.' ' Praying with holy spirit.'
In the following two passages Sharpe inserts the indefinite article,

part ii.] a STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 141
although there is no article in the original. ' No man can say that 12 >'• Co,-. 3
Jesus is the Lord but by a holy spirit.' ' By a holy spirit.' In both e 11. cor. 0
passages the Authorised Version, Young and Tischendorf insert the
definite article and capitalise the words.
In the Authorised Version one passage stands : 'full of the Holy 6 Acts 3
trhost and wisdom,' there being no article in the original The
Revisers have altered that to, ' full of the Spirit and of wisdom '
lhe Sinaitic MS. has, ' full of the spirit of wisdom,' and the transla
tion from Tischendorf 's critical text is, 'full of the spirit and wisdom '
The Revisers, by capitalising the word ' spirit,' convey the same
meaning as ' Holy Ghost' has in the Authorised Version.
Here is a similar instance. The Authorised Version stands, ' which 2 i. c°r. 13
the Holy Ghost teacheth,' although there is no article in the original
The three oldest MSS. omit ' holy.' The Revisers capitalise the
word 'spirit.' Sharpe agrees with Tischendorf: 'taught by the
spirit.' & J
In the following passage the Revisers have capitalised the word
'spirit,' contrary to the Authorised Version, which stands: ' the si. John s
spirit, and the water, and the blood.' Tischendorf, Young and
Sharpe adopt the small s in spirit.
In the following passage Sharpe agrees with the Revisers in capital
ising the word ' Spirit.' ' The blasphemy against the Spirit shall not 12 Mat. 31
be forgiven.'
The last passage which needs to be referred to is : ' And the Holy 10 He»- 16
Ghost also beareth witness to us,' which is rendered by Sharpe, 'And
the Spirit also witnesseth for us : ' he capitalises the word ' Spirit,'
but there is nothing to indicate why he omits the word ' holy.'
There are 50 other passages in addition to the foregoing,
in which the words ' holy spirit ' occur, in all of which Sharpe has
discarded capitals.
It must be admitted that he is not altogether consistent. Pro
bably he could have given reasons, more or less satisfactory, for the
10 instances in which he has followed the plan adopted throughout
by other translators. But the explanation is not forthcoming, and
one is certainly required. If, however, we are unable to see why he
in those exceptional cases capitalises the words, how much less can
the justification be imagined for doing so in every case ! The habit
indicates a foregone conclusion, a settled doctrine, just as much as
the writing of the word ' God ' with a capital denotes the supreme
Being : when that is not signified by the translators they omit the
capital, which is done in a multitude of passages, notably in the
following : ' For though there be that are called gods, whether in s i. cor. 5, s
heaven or on earth ; as there are gods many, and lords many ; yet
to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we
unto him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,
ai:d we through him.' The context must in every instance fix the
sense, equally as regards the word ' god ' and the word ' spirit.' No
translator, and no sufficiently intelligent reader, can escape the re
sponsibility of exercising his own judgment in the matter. Unfor
tunately our translations and retranslations have been undertaken by
theologians deeply committed to Trinitarian doctrines. — men who
could not, owing to their previous training, or who would not if they
could, owing to their clerical status and surroundings, refrain from

142 , THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
bringing out, by such an easy method, their own way of understand
ing the repeated allusions in Scripture to the ' spirit ' and the ' holy
spirit.' Even Dr. Robert Young, in the preface to his independent,
literal and idiomatic translation, thought it well to say of his altera
tions : ' While they affect very considerably the outward form
of the translation, it is a matter of thankfulness that they do not
touch the truth of a single Scripture doctrine, — not even one.' That
betrays a theological bias, sufficient by itself to explain why he has
so submissively followed the Authorised Version in this matter of
capitalising. If we are to claim and use the freedom of judgment
o which the apostle Paul urged in the words, 'Brethren, be not
children in mind ... in mind be men (Gr. of full age),' it becomes
an absolute necessity, either that the translation of these crucial
texts should stand uncapitalised, or that we should deal with them
as though they were. Thereby we shall show a readiness of mind to
receive truth, let it come from or incline to whichever side it will ;
which certainly was not the case with the Revisers, who regarded the
presence of the one acknowledged Unitarian among them as a scandal,
and so necessitated his withdrawal from the work to which he had
been called in conjunction with themselves. The use of capitals is
arbitrary, and may easily grow into an abuse ; and their disuse entails
no risk of misconception. That must be obvious, when we_ remember
that in the German Version there is and could be nothing answering
to the plan resorted to by our translators, every substantive in that
language being capitalised. German readers are on this point com
pelled to judge of the sense by the context, which is the only safe
rule in studying Scripture. Luther did not capitalise the adjective
' holy ' before ' Spirit,' as our translators have done. The translation
of Samuel Sharpe has the merit, with very few exceptions, of being
faithful to the original, which is more than can be said of those
versions in which the definite article is inserted where it does not
appear in the text. No unprejudiced, unshackled searcher for the
truth will be content to regard the doctrine involved, as settled for
him by his forefathers, and therefore incontrovertible. It must be
faced,_and argued out honestly and impartially, in calm defiance of
ecclesiastical censures and time-honoured assertions aud denuncia
tions. Happily the days are past when theologians could excom
municate, imprison, burn those whose views seemed to them heretical.
The foregoing remarks are not made in any spirit of opposition to
the prevailing doctrine of the Trinity, nor with any leaning in favour
of Unitarianism. Before a step can be taken towards a thorough
investigation, it is essential thus to clear the way, by ascertaining to
what extent the dogma may have been affected by the idiosyncrasies
of translators.
We turn now to the 13th chapter of Luke. ' And he went on his
way through cities and villages, teaching, and journeying on unto
Jerusalem.' There is no connection traceable between that statement
of the evangelist and the portion of the narrative immediately pre
ceding. The author of ' Gospel Difficulties ' * has arrived at the
* "Gospel Difficulties, or the Displaced Section of S. Luke."
By J. J. Halcombe, M.A.

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 143
conclusion that here ' a section of S. Luke's Gospel has been placed
after a section which it originally preceded, and that a new and
utterly confusing order of events 'has been created at three points :
(a) where tbe section was taken from its right place, (b) where it was
•inserted in the wrong place, (c) Avhere a fictitious connection was
established between the reversed sections.' Accordingly he places
between verses 21 and 22 of chapter 8, the portion of chapter 11 from
verses 14 to 54, the whole of chapter 12, and chapter 13 up to verse
2 ; and he asserts ' that the above displacement being rectified, the
general arrangement of the Gospels is perfectly simple throughout,
S. Luke's restored order at once explaining both the exact plan of
of S. Matthew's Gospel and the rare and very slight departures from
a chronological arrangement observable in S. Mark.' Without enter
ing upon the argument relating to Matthew and Mark, it is no small
gain to have effected by this one simple alteration an obvious con
sistency and consecutiveness throughout the Gospel according to
Luke. That evangelist, having mentioned the course of teaching
from place to place undertaken by Jesus, proceeds in this and the five
following chapters to give examples of his teaching.
A question was put to Jesus. ' And one said unto him, Lord is Luke 23
(Sir — Young) are they few that be saved ? ' Young renders : ' Are
those saved few ? ' Tischendorf : ' Are there few to be saved ? ' The
former simply indicates a fact ; the latter denotes a purpose. An
examination of the multitude of scriptural passages in which the
words ' save ' and ' saved ' occur, makes it evident that the term
* saved ' had the same breadth of meaning and application as it now
bears in ordinary language. The one sense which cannot be justified,
is that restricted theological one which somehow has come to be
attached to it, — the idea of deliverance hereafter from the penalty of
sin, escape at the day of judgment from endless misery, and admis
sion to the happiness of heaven. The word ' saved ' signifies deliver
ance from evil, actual or threatened, without reference to any specific
event or period.
The reply of Jesus intimated that personal safety must depend
upon personal effort, and upon the due use of the right way and
fitting opportunity. ' And he said unto them, Strive to enter in by „ 23, 2-
the narrow door.' An easier, broader entrance is here suggested,
which must be avoided with a view to safety ; many will be lost
through choosing either the wrong way or the wrong time. ' For „ 24
many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able.'
The figure of admission by a narrow entrance is now enlarged into a
parable. Jesus represents a householder as rising up, shutting the
door, and excluding later comers. 'When once the master of the „ 25
house is risen up, and hath shut to the door . . .' The Revisers, indi
cate by a note a doubt whether the full stop between ' able ' and
* when ' should not be replaced by a comma. That arises from the
¦change in verse 24 of 'strait gate' to 'narrow door,' in accordance
with the two oldest MSS. It seems right to keep the ideas distinct,
the ' narrow gate ' in 7 Mattkejv 13 denoting a safe pathway, and the
house in this parable having, as a matter of course, only one recog
nised ' door ' for entrance, quite irrespective of its breadth or narrow
ness. Finding the door closed, the late comers would crowd round
and knock, but be denied admission : ' and yc begin to stand without, » 25

144

THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii-

and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, lord, open to us ; and he
shall answer and say |to you, I know you not whence ye are.' The
cry ' Lord, lord ' may signify that they came not as guests, but as
servants desiring a place in the household, and the answer, ' I know
you not whence ye are,' imports that inasmuch as they had not pre
sented themselves previously, their character and fitness could not be
recognised. Then they claim some prior knowledge of the house-
13 Luke 26 holder, but it is casual and distant at the best. ' Then shall ye begin
to say, We did eat and drink in thy presence, and thou didst teach in
our streets.' But what could it avail that some of them had met him
in society, and others had known him by report as their city mis
sionary ? That could only prove how negligent they had been to
cultivate his acquaintance, how indifferent and averse to his teach
ings. His social intercourse, his repeated pleadings, had not attracted
them to his cause and person. Those worthy of him had followed
12 John 26 him : ' Where I am, there shall also my servant be.' Their delay in
obeying his call sufficed to prove their true character. They were
not fit for his work, nor could they be admitted to a place in his
13 Luke 27 household : ' and he shall say, I know not whence ye are : depart
from me, all ye workers of iniquity.' Alford renders : ' ye workmen
of iniquity.' These are they who have not been saved — from their
sins. Deep will be their grief, and bitter their disappointment, to
find themselves excluded on that account from God's kingdom here
after. Jesus drops the parable of the house and householder, and bids
them contemplate the future life, when they will hold communion
with the dead, the age-during existence of the Jewish patriarchs
„ 2s enabling them to clasp hands with their remote descendants. ' There
shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom
of God, and yourselves cast forth without.' Jesus surely was not
deluding us with visionary hopes, when he so calmly and assuredly spoke
about realities such as these in the world to come. He only could
3 joim 13 disclose these things. ' No man hath ascended into heaven, but he
that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man.' While in this
world he held converse with departed saints. Moses and Elijah came
to him on the mountain-top, the fact being witnessed by three, and
very positively and solemnly attested in writing by two of his dis
ciples. However little we ponder and are influenced by these revela
tions, they are absolutely, literally true, having a basis as real and
substantial as any established scientific fact relating to the earth or
its inhabitants. In proportion as we yield ourselves to the teachings
of Jesus on other matters, our minds will become able to grasp and
realise his declarations respecting the future life and the heavenly
world. His scheme of teaching is based upon his knowledge of both
worlds, and is designed to make the present life homogeneous with
that which is to come. That is the secret of his divine philosophy,
and that our faith may reach the highest round of that ladder which
he has raised between earth and heaven, we must begin our climbing
,. 12 at the bottom, and ascend patiently and carefully step by step. ' If
I told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if
I tell you heavenly things?' The words of Jesus applied to the
actual hearers : ' when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob,
and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 145
out.' Though the Jewish nation be intended, that will not exclude
individuals, nor were those then living excepted because their poste
rity were included in the warning. And there will be no exclusion
on account of nationality in God's kingdom : ' And they shall come 13 Luke 21
from the east and west, and from the north and south, and shall sit
down (Gr. recline) in the kingdom of God.' Tischendorf renders :
' will sit down at table : ' under the figure of a social feast, Jesus
foretells the friendly welcome and intimacy which will prevail in the
company of the redeemed. The picture he draws is one of universal
physical and moral happiness, the wicked banished and the righteous
rejoicing. That is his ideal of the ' salvation ' of humanity. And
this renovation of society will involve not only the separation of the
bad from the good, but in many instances among the redeemed them
selves a reversal of their previous relative positions as regards rank,
honour and influence. ' And behold, there are last which shall be , 30
first, and there are first which shall be last.' The law of advance
ment in God's kingdom will be vastly different from that which
prevails on earth. That reflection was often in the mind of Jesus,
for he repeated more than once his saying with respect to it. Of
course the pride and pomp which are now dependent upon wealth
will cease, and the glory of the warrior will find no place in that
kingdom, which triumphs in righteousness, peace and joy. Science,
art, intellect, refinement, moral worth, and the spirit of brotherhood,
— these will be held in everlasting honour. Social status will depend
on social worth. The spiritual hierarchy, from the pope downwards,
archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, deans, vicars, rectors, deacons, who
have claimed to be ministers of Christ, successors of the apostles,
dispensers of sacramental gifts, or at the very least instructors in the
things of Christ and guides to the heavenly world : how far will their
pretensions hold good hereafter ? Will the round they now prescribe
and practise of prayer, praise, penance, and the mystical communion
through the eating of bread and drinking of wine duly consecrated,
be found indeed to accord with the mind of Christ, and to have
helped forward his kingdom ? Or will these men generally find their
occupation gone, many of their assumptions to have been unwar
ranted, many of their dogmas exploded and rejected as erroneous,
and the church of Christ a different organisation altogether from
what they had been taught and had taught others to believe ? We
.are all fallible, probably they most so whose teaching is most positive.
How astounded must the scribes and Pharisees have been to hear
Jesus express the opinion that they were shutting up the kingdom of
heaven against men ; that their zeal in compassing heaven and earth
to make one proselyte, ended iu their making him twofold more the
child of hell than themselves ! The rank now assigned to men is
quite as much the outcome of class as of character : none can rise in
'the Church' who either fall below a recognised standard ot ortho
doxy or rise above the spirit and doctrine of the age m which they
live. ' Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of, said Jesus to
his apostles. When all things come to be ruled according to his will,
and all men to be placed according to his judgment, great and sur
prising will be the reversals in their respective positions : Ihere are
last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

146 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
The incident next related by the evangelist begins in the Autho
rised Version with the words, 'The same day.' Following the three
oldest MSS., the Revisers have altered this to, ' In that very hour,'
and Tischendorf to ' In that same hour.' Certain Pharisees urged
Jesus to stop his course of teaching, and to hasten his departure from
13 Luke 31 the place, on the ground that Herod was seeking his life. 'In that
very hour there came certain Pharisees, saying to him, Get thee out,
and go hence : for Herod would fain kill thee.' The last four words
are clearer than ' will kill thee ' in the Authorised Version. Alford
renders, ' is minded to ; ' Tischendorf, ' desires to ; ' Young, ' wisheth
to.' Alford observes : ' These Pharisees appear to have been sent by
Herod for the purpose of getting rid of Jesus out of his jurisdiction.
Considering his character, it is hardly possible that he should really
have wished to kill one who was so popular; he refused to do so when
Jesus was in his power afterwards in Jerusalem ; but, as great
multitudes were now following him about, and superstitious fears, as
we know, agitated Herod, he wished to be quit of him, and took this
means of doing so. I think this view is necessary to justify the
epithet applied to Herod, which certainly implies cunning on his part.'
The reply of Jesus was couched in a tone of dignified reprobation
32 and remonstrance. ' And he said unto them, Go and say to that
fox . .' We are accustomed to regard the prominent characteristic of
a fox to be that of cunning, but it by no means follows that the idea
was familiar to the Jews. In a country where foxes abounded, the
damage done by the animals, and their habit of attacking and
destroying things on which the husbandman had expended much
care and labour, would naturally be the foremost thought in connec
tion with them.
2 song of ' Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vineyards ;
son.™, io Yov our vineyards are in blossom.'
Herod had stopped the career of John the Baptist by first im
prisoning and at last beheading him. Therein he had acted the part
of a fox, and he now showed an inclination to interfere with Jesus
and mar his work in the same way. Jesus met the threat by ex
plaining that he meant to carry on his labour of exorcising and
is Luke 32 healing during three days only. 'Behold, I cast out devils (Gr.
demons) and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day
I am perfected.' Tischendorf renders, ' the third day I finish ; '
Sharpe, ' the third day I shall have ended.' The verb teleioo, is the
2 i.uke 43 same as in the passage : ' and when they had' fulfilled the days/
And although during those three days Jesus must needs carry out his
work, yet he would at the same time be complying with the desire of
i3 Luke 33 Herod by journeying onwards. ' Howbeit I must go on my way to
day and to-morrow and the day following.' Tischendorf renders r
' I must go about ; ' Young : ' go on ; ' the Authorised Version has :
' I must walk ; ' Alford renders : ' I must journey,' and he explains :
' In the original it is the very word in which they had addressed him,
Depart (journey) hence.' All this seems very clear ; but to Alford it
seemed quite incomprehensible. He says : ' The interpretation of
this answer is difficult, for two reasons— (1) that the signification of
the to-day, to-morrow, and the third day is doubtful— (2) that the
meaning of / am perfected is also doubtful' He begins by assuming
ihat the words used have some mysterious meaning; he rejects the=

tart n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 147
natural interpretation of Meyer and Bleek : ' In three days (literal
days) the Lord's working of miracles in Galilee would be ended,
which had excited the apprehension of Herod : aud that He would
leave the territory, not for fear of Herod, but because he was going
to Jerusalem to die ; ' and after vainly searching for some satisfactory
mystical sense, he ends by saying : ' I own that neither of the above
interpretations satisfy me, and still less the various modifications of
them which have been proposed. Nor can I suggest one less open to
objection.' No wonder: for he started with the conviction ' that
perfected is used in the solemn sense elsewhere attached to the word,'
and he refers to eleven passages in which the word occurs. Other
translators saw no such reason for doubt and uncertainty here. The
sense of the expression must be fixed by the context. It is most
unreasonable to suppose that Jesus returned an answer to Herod in
the form of an enigma, so difficult of solution that a luminary of the
Church in the nineteenth century found himself unable to eluci
date it.
Jesus being on his way towards Jerusalem, there was no necessity
for Herod to urge his moving forward; and that he, a prophet, should
be killed anywhere outside of Jerusalem would be indeed a new event
in history. ' For it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jeru- 13 L„ke 33
salem.' That city stood foremost in the work of persecution and
bloodshed. Luke here inserts the apostrophe beginning, ' 0 Jeru
salem, Jerusalem,' which Alford considers to be ' in too close connexion
with the preceding to allow of the supposition that ' it was ' inserted
unchronologically, as many suppose.' If, however, Luke had only
the saying, with nothing to guide him as to its proper place, he would
naturally insert it in connection with the word Jerusalem. It tallies
so closely with 23 Matthew 37 — 39, that it will be best to take the
passages together. Here in Luke the apostrophe seems out of place :
' your house is left unto you,' could only be spoken appropriately to
dwellers in Jerusalem ; and ' ye shall not see me,' would be a strange
expression to apply to them at a time when Jesus was actually
journeying towards Jerusalem.
The party hostile to Jesus appears to have maintained everywhere
and always a watch over his actions. On a sabbath day (it would
seem to have been during this journey), he entered the house of a
Pharisee who stood in high repute, to partake of his hospitality.
There, as usual, the eyes and ears of critics were on the alert. ' And " Luke 1
it came to pass, when he went into the house of one of the rulers of
the Pharisees on a sabbath to eat bread, that they were watching
him.' Immediately facing Jesus was a man suffering from dropsy.
'And behold, there was before him a certain man which had the „ 2
dropsy.' It is not said that he was one of the guests, nor must it
necessarily be assumed that he was inside the Pharisee's house.
Young's version points the other way : ' On his going into the house
. . . there was a certain dropsical man before him,'— placed at the
entrance, right in the way of Jesus, obviously with a desire and
expectation of a cure. Thereupon Jesus turned to the lawyers and
Pharisees surrounding him, and asked their opinion. 'And Jesus „ a
answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful
to heal on the sabbath, or not ? ' The words ' or not ' have been

148 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
added by the Revisers, being in the two oldest MSS. No answer
14 Luke 4 was given to the question. 'But they held their peace.' They
could not venture a plain ' yes ' or ' no.' No one of them had the
courage of his convictions ; probably they halted between two
opinions, afraid to break God's law, yet by no means sure about their
accustomed rigid interpretation of it. Jesus was not troubled with
4 any such doubts or scruples. 'And he took him, and healed him,
and let him go.' Tischendorf renders : ' And he took hold of and
cured him, and sent him away.' Young : ' And having taken hold
of him, he healed him, and sent him away.' Then, to those who had
„ s refrained from answering his former question, he put another. 'And
he said unto them, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen
into a well, and will not straightway draw him up on a sabbath day?'
The Revisers have altered ' pit ' in the Authorised Version to ' well'
John 11,12 The word, phrear, is rendered ' well ' in the passage, ' the well is deep
. . . which gave us the well,' and it is defined : ' a well ; or more
commonly a water tank, cistern, reservoir.' The idea conveyed is an
impending death by water, and an analogy may have been intended
to the disease from which the man suffered : he was ' dropsical,'
hudropikos, which is derived fron hudor, ' water.' Instead of ' ass '
Tischendorf renders 'son,' on the authority of the Vatican and
Alexandrine MS., but the older Sinaitic MS. has 'ass.' The Revisers
note that ' many ancient authorities read a son.' Alford observes :
' This reading, which, from the weight of ancient testimony in its
favour, evidently was the original, seemed incompatible with the
supposed argument from the less to the yr eater • son was therefore
altered to 'ass' (as in ch. xiii. 15) or sheep, as one of our ancient
MSS. has it.' The argument of Jesus was a crushing one. Who
could deny that the instinct of humanity was a sufficient guide ?
When danger threatened, and help could be given, who would stop
to debate nice questions of Sabbatarian ritualism ? Once more, those
4 Luke o addressed were dumb. ' And they could not answer again unto these
things.' If others were watching Jesus, he also was watching them, though
in a very different spirit. His observation and criticism were directed
„ 7 to their benefit, and led him to deliver a short parable. ' And he
spake a parable unto those which were bidden, when he marked how
they chose out the chief seats.' The Revisers, agreeing with Tischen
dorf, have altered ' rooms ' to ' seats ; ' Alford to ' places.' Young-
renders : ' And he spake a simile to those called, marking how they
were choosing out the first couches.' Tischendorf inserted a special
note, that the proper translation is, ' how they were choosing out.'
Not to offend needlessly the susceptibilities of his hearers, yet°at the
same time to make the application of the parable sufficiently obvious
Jesus, whilst alluding to a feast, specified one of a different kind :
„ 7, a ' Saying unto them, When thou art bidden of any man to a marriage-
feast, sit not down (Gr. recline not) in the chief seat.' Young
renders : ' When thou mayest be called by any one to marriao-e
feasts, thou mayest not recline on the first couch.' By using tne
plural, ' marriage feasts,' the parable was still more generalised, and
therefore less liable to give offence. The same remark applies to the
rendering, ' thou mayest not recline on the first couch : ' there is a
touch of delicate feeling in thus assuming that ordinary courtesy and

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 149
self-respect dictated this as a matter of course. If, perchance, a
person should forget, in caring for himself, what was due to others,
he would run the risk of being unpleasantly reminded of his selfish
breach of etiquette : ' lest haply a more honourable man than thou n Luke s, »
be bidden of him, and he that bade thee and him shall come and say
to thee, Give this man place : and then thou shalt begin with shame
to take the lowest place.' Nothing beyond a passing discomfort, an
admission of error, a feeling of mortification, a sense of one's own
dignity being lessened by contrast with that of a superior, would
ensue. But it would be wiser and pleasanter to anticipate and avoid
such a result, and to form the habit of erring, if at all, on the safe
side in a point of precedence. Rather than run the risk of claiming
too much, it would be better to keep quite in the background. ' But „ 10
when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest place.' The
duty of seating the guests properly devolves upon the host, and he
must needs fulfil the responsibilities of his position. If there should
have been an unseemly scramble for places, he will quietly and
courteously sec to its rectification, and will take care that each guest
ut his table is treated with the respect due to his acknowledged rank
and character : ' that when he that hath bidden thee cometh, he may „ 10
say to thee, Friend, go up higher.' Such an experience would be
pleasant and honourable, the reverse iu all respects of the other.
' Then shalt thou have glory in the presence of all that sit at meat „ 10
with thee.' The Revisers have altered ' worship ' to ' glory,' agreeing
with Tischendorf and Young. They have also, on the authority of
the three oldest MSS., inserted the word 'all'
Had Jesus added nothing to the parable by way of explanation, it
would have been scarcely safe and wise for us to enlarge its applica
tion. In this instance, we are specially told that he was rebuking a
fault of disposition and conduct which had just come under his
observation: Why should we take upon ourselves to extend the
parable ? Alford assumes much when he says : ' The whole of this
has, besides its plain reference, a deeper one, linked into it by the
important word wedding, carrying with it all that meaning which it
always has when relating to the kingdom of God. Both senses are
obvious.' This means that the words, ' When thou art bidden of any
man to a marriage feast,' must of necessity signify the invitation to
enter the kingdom of heaven, the ' host ' representing either God or
Jesus. Such a mode of interpretation being adopted, theologians
are free to exercise their fancies and air their favourite dogmas to
their hearts' content. In this case, however, difficulties arise in
attempting to unravel this ' deeper reference.' No sooner does
Alford say, ' Both senses are obvious,' than he feels bound to qualify
the assertion, adding : ' and only one remark needed.' Here it is :
' That all that false humility, by which men put themselves lowest
and dispraise themselves of set purpose to be placed higher, is, by the
very nature of our Lord's parable, excluded: for that is not bona fide
abasing one's self. The exaltation at the hands of the Host is not to
be a purposed end to the guests, but will follow true humility.' The
parable standing in its simplicity, and the application which Jesus
makes from it, are free from such entanglements, and require no such
cautions against misapprehension. Why should it be considered
beneath the dignity of so great a Teacher to seize the occasion for

150 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
reproving the vice of self-esteem and eulogising the opposite virtue,
even were that his only object ? True, Luke calls the discourse ' a
parable,' but it was spoken not of set purpose, as a simile deliberately
chosen to illustrate the kingdom of heaven, like many other parables,
but casually, on witnessing the behaviour of some of the guests, to
whom it conveyed a necessary lesson of good manners and right
feeling. Jesus did, however, see fit to deduce from the parable a
particular conclusion, and to the application which he himself has
made we shall do well to restrict ourselves. The inference he drew
stands out clearly. ' For every one that exalteth himself shall be
humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.' Young,
by putting the present tense in a different form, indicates a habit of
mind and action : ' For every one who is exalting himself shall be
humbled, and he who is humbling himself shall be exalted.' The
human aspect in the parable is most prominent. The guests are
fellow-men, and the placing of each is in accordance with his
recognised social status. Nor is ' he that bade thee and him '
necessarily to be interpreted as representing God. Jesus avoids
giving any mark of distinction or superiority to the host. He is not
described as a king, nor is there anything to indicate that he was
superior in rank to any of the guests. We are simply led to con
template society as it exists, each individual entitled to occupy a
certain position, the majority falling naturally into their appropriate
places, but some over-estimating their own importance, ambitious of
distinction, not caring whose may be the place they seize if only it
be within their reach and sufficiently conspicuous. That is an out
rage which Society will not long endure. The imposter is detected,
and the man of real worth is welcomed. The shame of rejection may
be more personal than public, but the chorus of approval when true
merit is advanced to the front is loud and universal : ' then shalt
thou have glory in the presence of all' Jesus traces to its source the
law of degradation and elevation. The former springs from self-
exaltation, the latter from humility. At all times, and on every
side, we may see this law at work ; and as human society advances
towards the ideal of Christianity, the process of selection will become
more refined, accurate and discriminating, the Church will be purged
from the curse of selfish ambition, and through the docility which
becomes us as ' sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus,' we shall
pass onwards from our humble infancy to the perfection of his glorious
manhood. ' For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled,
and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.' The law is universal :
'every one.'
Jesus addressed to his host a few words of friendly counsel, con
ceived in the highest spirit of charity. Such entertainments as ho
was accustomed to give were not, as was evident on this occasion,
without their drawbacks. A desire for precedence was observable
among the guests, with respect to which it might be necessary for
the host to interfere. Why should he not, for once at least, resolve
to change his company ? Instead of inviting a distinguished assembly,
let him throw open his doors and extend his hospitality to the poorest
and most miserable. As it was, there was a constant round of visit
ing and feasting, everyman of high position deeming it a duty to
return the invitation. No benefit was conferred, no sentiment of

H Luke 12

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. ibi
gratitude evoked: the host to-day became the guest to-morrow
Ihere was no scope in that ceaseless pursuit of mutual pleasure for
the blessing which attaches to pure, unselfish benevolence Some
thing better ought to be attempted. ' And he said to him also that
had bidden him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not
thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor rich neighbours ;
less haply they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee.'
But setting aside conventionalities, let him issue invitations to a class
with whom he had hitherto contracted no friendships, among whom
he had no relatives, and who could boast of nothing in the shape of
wealth or social status. Let him welcome the poor, and those of
them especially who through accident or infirmity were unable to help
or raise themselves, as others might. ' But when thou makest a feast, , fi
bid the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.' Such a social inno
vation, however it might be criticised, would have a happy effect
upon himself : ' and thou shalt be blessed (happy — Young).' The u
very impossibility of any return being made to him would constitute
the charm and sweetness of his hospitality : ' because they have not ,. u
wherewith to recompense thee.' Not here, but in the next life, when
the distinctions between mankind will be reduced to the one point of
character, two classes only being recognised, the just and the unjust,
his neighbourly and compassionate liberality would be reciprocated.
' For thou shalt be recompensed in the resurrection of the just.' , i*
Sharpe uses the words 'repayment, repaid,' instead of 'recompense,
recompensed ' ; and certainly a repayment in kind seems to be in
tended. We have here a hint or two with respect to the arrange
ment of society in the future life : the poor in this world may become
rich in the next, and the remembrance of past kindnesses will survive
the shock of death and flight of time. Jesus holds out to ' the just '
a pleasant prospect of life in the world to come. Alford's note on
the words, ' the resurrection of the just,' is as follows : ' The first
resurrection, here distinctly asserted by our Lord ; otherwise the
words of the just would be vapid and unmeaning. See 1 Cor. xv. 22 ;
1 Thess. iv. 16 ; Rev. xx. 4, 5.' This blending together of Scriptural
passages with the view of establishing a doctrine not clearly revealed
in any one of them, is a practice which needs cautious watching, and is
always open to suspicion, so much depending upon the tone of the com
mentator's mind and on the ease with which a word or form of speech
in the original may be misapprehended and unintentionally perverted.
The apostle Paul touched on this matter : ' Having hope towards 24 Acts is
God, which these also themselves look for (or, accept), that there
shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust.' From this it is
evident that it was a settled article of belief among the orthodox
Jews that there would be a universal resurrection, and in connection
therewith a division of mankind into two classes, the just and the
unjust. Alford's argument that the mention of the resurrection of the
just indicates that there will not only be a distinction into two
classes, but a separation in point of time in the resurrection of the
two, is scarcely consistent with the idea conveyed by Paul's expres
sion, ' a resurrection of the just and of the unjust : ' he speaks not of
two resurrections, but of one. Let us examine the passages alluded
to. ' But 'now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits is i. cor. 20-
of them that are asleep. For since by man came death, by man came

152 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in
Christ (Gr. the Christ) shall all be made alive. But each in his own
order : Christ the firstfruits ; then they are Christ's, at his coming
(Gr. presence).' Observe : it is not said that Christ was raised from
death, but ' from the dead.' It is important to bear the distinction
in mind. The German version shows ' the dead ' as a plural substan
tive, equivalent to ' dead persons ' : ' auferstanden von den Todten,'
' risen up from those who are dead.' Dead persons had been raised
before Christ died, as is evident from the appearing of Moses and
Elijah, and by the argument of Jesus that the mention of Abraham,
20 Luke 37 Isaac and Jacob, living after death, was proof that ' the dead are
raised.' Obviously, the sense in which the apostle alludes to Christ
as ' the firstfruits of them that are asleep,' is that of the presentation
of the firstfruits to God under the Mosaic law. Jesus has gone, first
7 Acts 56 and foremost of mankind, to the divine presence, ' the Son of man
standing on the right hand of God.' Pursuing that idea, the apostle,
having spoken of ' the dead,' not as extinct but as ' them that are
asleep,' tells how all in Christ shall be 'made alive,' quickened into
3 Coi. 3 active vitality ; as elsewhere : ' Your life is hid with Christ in God.'
Then he adds : ' But each in his own order (rank — Englishman's
Greek New Testament) ' ; not each of the two classes, but each
individual. And that this means an order in rank or place, not in
time, is evident from what follows : ' Christ the firstfruits,' the fore
most, honoured, accepted representative of humanity : 'then they that
are Christ's at his presence.' All this has no bearing on the question
4i. Thess. of two resurrections. Take the next passage: 'We that are alive,
i5-17 that are left unto the coming (Gr. presence) of the Lord, shall in no
wise precede them that are fallen asleep. For the Lord himself shall
descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel,
and with the trump of God : and the dead in Christ shall rise first :
then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be
caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we
ever be with the Lord.' The apostle begins by asserting that the
living will have no precedence over the dead. He represents the
arrival of a moment of crisis and culmination, Jesus descending
from heaven, as the great Captain of our salvation, a shout of
triumph raised, a word of command uttered by a ' chief messenger '
(Young), and God's trumpet sounded as a signal understood, expected
and to be obeyed. The language is highly figurative. ' The dead in
Christ shall rise first.' Whence ? We know not. Whither ? ' To
meet the Lord in the air,' the living also being 'caught away in
clouds ' (Young). That is the rising, or uprising, here spoken of.
Those ' asleep ' are not described as raised from death at that instant,
for in the previous verse it is said that Jesus will bring them with
him, so that they in fact will rise first to meet him, taking precedence
of the living. The rising 'first ' has no reference to the idea of two
resurrections, that of the just prior to that of the unjust.
The last passage to which Dean Alford referred is one of deepest
20 Rev. 4-6 mystery. ' And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judge
ment was given unto them : and I saiv the souls of them that had
been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God,
and such as worshipped not the beast, neither his image, and received
not the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand ; and they

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 153
lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the
dead lived not until the thousand years should be finished. This is
the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the
first resurrection: over these the second death hath no power (or,
authority) ; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall
reign with him a thousand years.' One is soon lost and bewildered
in wandering through the marvellous symbolism and imagery of the
Book of the Revelation. Probably this passage is the origin of the idea
that the resurrection to life of all mankind will be deferred to some
remote period ; that all of a certain character will be raised first ; and
after a further period all the rest of mankind ; and as the expression
' a resurrection of the just and of the unjust ' happens to fit in with
this conclusion, it has been assumed that the passages may be taken
together, as embodying the same doctrine. Nothing of the kind can
be inferred safely, to say the least. ' Thrones, and they sat upon
them ' : who are ' they ' ? Again : ' The souls of them that had been
beheaded . . . and such as worshipped not the beast.' To apply a
passage thus hedged round with restrictions, doubts and uncertainty,
to the destiny of the human race in general, is most unwise. Looking
to the context, the expression ' the rest of the dead lived not,' appa
rently refers back to the last verse of the preceding chapter : ' the i» Rev. 21
rest were killed with the sword of him that sat upon the horse,' that
is, ' them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that .. 20
worshipped his image.' The events thus darkly foretold in con
nection with the millennium, can have no bearing on any doctrine
touching the ultimate fate of the innumerable generations of
mankind. The idea broached by Jesus of the possibility of a return being
made in the next world for kindness shown in this, was taken upby
one of the guests, who ventured to address to him an observation
naturally suggested by the subject. ' And when one of them that
sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed
is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.' We are so accus
tomed to restrict the term 'blessed' to the divine blessing, that
Young's constant rendering of the word as ' happy ' is preferable.
The happiness alluded to is not that of the future, but of the present :
it is not ' happy shall he be,' but literally, ' happy he that shall eat
denoting a condition of mind and being which can afford to overlook
the present, be it joyous or grievous, in the assurance of the future.
But Jesus at once started a parable which plainly intimated that the
generality of men did not so prize the heavenly banquet, but were
immersed in other and nearer ambitions and enjoyments. ' But he
said unto him, A certain man made a great supper ; and he bade
many' Those invited showed, however, so little inclination to
attend, that when the time arrived he sent his servant round to the
guests to urge their coming, everything being now in readiness for
their reception. ' And he sent forth his servant (Gr. bondservant)
at supper time to sav to them that were bidden, Come ; for all things
are now ready.' Alford omits ' all,' and explains that it is omitted
by several ancient authorities.' It is not in the oldest MS. lne
Revisers have retained the word, but have italicised it. Ihe message-
bearer was dismissed with a series of excuses. One and all ot those
invited offered an apology, more or less plausible, for his refusal.

. 14 Luke 15

154 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
14 Luke is 'And they all with one consent began to make excuse.' The word
' consent ' not being in the original, the expression must not be taken
to mean that a combined refusal had been previously resolved upon :
the passage is literally : ' And began with one to excuse themselves
all' The first explained, courteously, that he was on the point of
„ is starting to inspect a field he had just purchased. ' The first said
unto him, I have bought a field, and I must needs go and see to it :
I pray thee have me excused.' Another was anxious to test the work
ing of a fresh purchase of oxen, and therefore, with tbe same courteous
„ 19 formality, refused the invitation. ' And another said, I have bought
five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them : I pray thee have me
excused.' Another gave as a reason, so obvious and insuperable as to
dispense with the need of any apology, the fact that he was bound to
„ 20 be present at the festivities attendant upon his wedding. 'And
another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.'
On receiving the report of these evasive replies, the householder was
naturally moved with indignation. His supper was prepared, but the
guests were wanting. Still, there were many to be found who would
appreciate the banquet. So he desired his servant to hasten to the
city, and out of its streets and lanes to assemble the poor, and among
them those whose bodily infirmities had reduced them to utter help-
„ 21 lessness and destitution. ' Then the master of the house being angry
said to his servant (Gr. bondservant), Go out quickly into the streets
and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor and maimed and
blind and lame.' Having done this, the servant reported that the
guests were still small in number compared with the extent of the
„ 22 house and banquet. 'And the servant (Gr. bondservant) said, Lord,
what thou didst command is done, and yet there is room.' Then a
wider circuit must be made, country roads and byways searched, and
pressure must be put upon the wayfarers to accept the invitation, the
householder being determined to see his house filled with guests.
, 23,24 'And the lord said unto the servant (Gr. bondservant), Go out into
the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house
may be filled.' To understand the bearing of the next sentence a
„ 24 little consideration is required. ' For I say unto you, that none of
those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.' Why should
this have been said by the householder ? All expectation of those
first invited being present, had been relinquished. After it was
known that they would not come, it would be strange indeed for the
offended host to say that they should not come. And why should
this be said to the servant, who knew all the circumstances, and could
¦ not possibly suppose that those originally selected would make an
effort now to claim admission ? But it is by no means clear, and
must not be assumed, that the householder addressed these words to
his servant. It is not, ' I say unto thee,' but ' I say unto you.'
Alford observes : ' I think with Stier, that our Lord here speaks in
his oivn Person: unto you will fit no circumstance in the parable ; for
the householder and his servant are alone : the guests are not present.
He speaks with his usual For I say unto you, to the company present:
and half continuing the parable, half expanding it, substitutes Him
self for the master of the feast, leaving it hardly doubtful who those
men which were bidden are.' This remark must be taken subject to
a slight but important difference of rendering introduced by Tischen-

part ii.] a STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 153
dorf ; instead^of : 'none of those men which were bidden shall taste
01 my supper, he renders : ' none of those men who have been called
will taste of my supper.' There is a great difference between shall
ana will, which unfortunately is not brought out distinctly by ordi
nary grammatical construction, and this defect of language is apt to
cause uncertainty and mistake. As translated by Tischendorf the
¦expression has a tone of regret, ' none . . . will taste,' none are willing
to taste, of rny supper ' ; whereas ' none . . . shall taste ' conveys the
idea of a threat and forbiddal. No doubt the former is correct, the
latter mcorrect. Jesus having finished his parable, reduced its appli
cation to this one sentence. He was like the householder : his invi
tation to the kingdom of God was not accepted by those whose social
position required that they should be foremost, and his efforts were
therefore of necessity directed to the gaining of an influence over the
lower class, between whom and the rulers and Pharisees the gulf was
¦as wide as that between prosperous men of business and the poorest
of the poor. There is nothing to indicate that Jesus ever gained a
single professed convert or follower from the higher ranks of society.
The common people heard him gladly, but his enemies could exclaim
m triumph, 'Hath any of the rulers believed on him, or of the7Jullu4S
Pharisees ? ' How true and sorrowful his saying : ' None of those
men who have been called will taste of my supper""! '
While Jesus was thus despondent with respect to some, he deemed
it necessary to repress the hasty, inconsiderate ardour of others.
Large numbers not only heard him, but followed him, rendered by
Young, ' were going on with him.' Jesus turned round, faced the
crowd, and assured them that this keeping by him, watching him,
listening to him, did not and could not amount to discipleship. His
idea of a disciple was a man prepared to go to the very extreme of
•sacrifice and self renunciation. ' Now there went with him great 14 Luke 25,
multitudes, and he turned, and said unto them, If any man cometh -"
unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and
children, aud brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can
not be my disciple.' The dedication of one's self to the cause of
Jesus would necessitate the snapping of every earthly tie, the
abandonment of all other duties and relationships, however close and
eacred, and the sacrifice of life itself. Even that strong language
was not enough, for Jesus added : ' Whosoever doth not bear his own 14 Luke 27
cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.' We know that
Jesus anticipated, — for he foretold,— his own death by crucifixion.
His mention of a cross for his followers meant nothing less than that.
The sight, in those days of stern Roman justice, must have been a
common one, of a malefactor led out to death bearing his own cross.
That was the end to which Jesus would have his disciples look for
ward ; and he desired those about him to weigh the matter well, to
count the cost fully, before committing- themselves to his enterprise.
In his usual way, he illustrated the subject by a parable. In entering
upon any costly undertaking, it was wise and necessary to forecast
the extent of the probable requirements and resources. ' For which „ 2s
of you, desiring to build a tower, doth not first sit down and count
the cost, whether he have wherewith to complete it.' To leave the
work unfinished for want of funds, would be a folly so egregious as
to expose the builder to derision. ' Lest haply, when he hath laid „ 20, 30

156 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
a foundation, and is not able to finish, all that behold begin to mock
him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.'
As though that simile were not strong enough, Jesus put forward
another. He pictured a king compelled to face the stern arbitra
ment of war ; and on very unequal terms, having at his command
only one half of the forces likely to be arrayed against him. The
certainty of utter ruin in the event of defeat, would impel to the
gravest and most careful counsel beforehand : the question would be
earnestly pondered whether the deficiency in numbers could be
counterbalanced by superiority in valour, skill, or otherwise. If not,
an ambassador would be forthwith despatched to arrange terms of
14 Luke 31, peace. ' Or what king, as he goeth to encounter another king in war,
82 will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten
thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand ?
Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an
ambassage, and asketh conditions of peace.' The question of fighting
or capitulating might depend, however, not upon the most probable •
issue, but upon the spirit of the king and his people, if they were
prepared to face all risks rather than to submit to a hateful foreign
sway. Such were the difficulties to be faced and the problems to be
solved by those who contemplated discipleship to Jesus. They were
called to an undertaking which would swallow up the whole of their
fortune, to a war to be waged at heavy odds, which gave no hope of
victory, but must be fought out for the sake of Jesus and of conscience.
S3 ' So therefore whosoever he be of you that renounceth not all that he
hath, he cannot be my disciple.' All this, we may be sure, was not
said without a serious and definite purpose. The disciples of Jesus
were not mere investigators and adherents of a system of philosophy
or religion, but followers of himself, destined to go forth as he did on
the work of evangelisation. It was of the utmost importance to his
cause that it should not be undertaken by the wavering and half
hearted. He had warned his twelve apostles of the persecution which
would surely overtake them, and he desired that none should join
them who were not animated by enthusiasm, ready to suffer the loss
of all things, and even to lay down their lives for the truth's sake.
So far was Jesus from inviting all to become his disciples, that he
repelled all who were not cast in the strongest mould, resolute men,
intensely earnest, prepared to spend and be spent in his service. It
is important to recognise and emphasise this fact, for many readers
and expounders of the gospels are apt to assume that every saying of
Jesus is of universal application. It behoves us to study his words
closely, carefully, exercising common sense and discrimination.
Those he sought to keep back from a profession of discipleship were
none the less able, on that account, to rejoice in the gospel he preached
and the truths he taught, to take him as their shepherd, their life-
guide, their Saviour, laying hold of the promise of age-during life
through him. Jesus never called all men to relinquish everything
and to follow him. Still less does he do so now. High-flown
exhortations to that effect, however much they may seem to accord
with his commands, are misplaced, misleading, irrational We do^
not, we will not, we cannot act upon them. The error of judgment.
which leads to them cannot be too strongly deprecated, for it tends.
to the wounding of weak consciences, and to the perpetuation of the

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 157
pernicious idea that obedience to Christ's precepts is beyond our
reach. The great dread of Jesus was lest men should profess and
attempt too much, hastily and only nominally enrolling themselves
as his disciples, whom he had previously designated as ' the salt of o Mat. is
the earth.' The simile was aptly chosen, the quantity of salt required
being out of all proportion to the enormous mass of food consumed.
So, the disciples of Jesus, few in number, destined to exert a wide
spread influence, must be selected with the utmost care, the qualities
and character of each individual severely tested beforehand, in view
of the important trust committed to him and the severe strain and
trial to which he would be exposed. If these disciples wavered in
their career, failed in their duty, there would be none who could
supply their place. Jesus reverted to his former simile. ' Salt there- 14 Luke 34
fore is good : but if even the salt have lost its savour, wherewith
shall it be seasoned ? ' If they failed to retain unimpaired their
principles, their spirit of self-sacrifice, their unconquerable determina
tion to suffer all things for Christ's sake, they would become utterly
worthless to mankind, fit for no heavenly or earthly use, like salt
grown insipid, which could be turned to no advantage in any way.
-1 It is fit neither for the land nor for the dunghill : men cast it out.' „ 35
Jesus deemed it so important that this should be fully understood,
that he urged every individual present to hear his warning, that they
might act accordingly. ' He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.' » 35
At this time there was a large attendance of the lowest class of
the people at the discourses of Jesus. ' Now all the publicans and is Luke 1
sinners were drawing near unto him for to hear him.' The Pharisees
and the scribes were much scandalised at seeing him encourage
intimacy with the despised tax-gatherers and with persons of
notoriously evil lives. ' And both the Pharisees and the scribes „ 2
murmured, saying. This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with
them.' The Revisers and Tischendorf have introduced the word
' both ' as the best reading. Those whose profession it was to
expound the Mosaic law, agreed in opinion with the strait-laced
Pharisees as to the unseemliness of the conduct of Jesus. Not
satisfied with simply preaching to the people, he consorted with
them. The expression, 'receiveth sinners, and eateth with them,'
indicates that Jesus received them as guests and sat at the table
with them ; and as it was their object to hear him, and his to talk to
them, doubtless the meal was made use of, as it had been by him in
the Pharisee's house, as an opportunity of addressing them. It was
the habit of Jesus to lead the conversation at such social gatherings,
and never was religious teaching presented under a more charming
aspect The sense of friendliness and nearness to the great Teacher,
his affability, his warm-heartedness, the simple, touching eloquence
and self-evident appropriateness of his parables, the rational, pleasure-
able excitement of the mind naturally connected with the taking of
meat and drink together,— all these were adjuncts to his influence,
bridging over the gulf which separated class from class, and bringing
home to the souls of the listeners the feeling of a common brother
hood and an impulse, a hope, a resolution towards self-amendment
and self-elevation. The scribes and Pharisees betrayed the pre
judices and exclusiveness of the spirit of class and caste. Jesus

158 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
refused to be bound by their rules of propriety^. Their sanctimonious
punctiliousness and their love of precedence were obnoxious to him,
and he scrupled not, when occasion offered, to expose and reprove
them. He now repelled their ill-natured and offensive criticism, and
justified his own conduct, by delivering in their hearing tbe following
ir, Luke 3, 4 parables. ' And he spake unto them this parable, saying, What man
of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth
not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that
which is lost, until he find it ? ' Each sheep is equally precious in
the eyes of the shepherd, and the sense of responsibility impels him
to seek the erring one. He scruples not to leave his flock, safe in
their gregariousness, for a time ; and his search takes him to strange,
difficult, dangerous places, into which no shepherd would think of
leading his flock. And when he has found the lost sheep, he carries
,. » it on his back exultingly. ' And when he hath found it, he layeth it
on his shoulders, rejoicing.' The loss of one sheep out of a hundred
was not a thing to be borne with equanimity, and its recovery is
hailed with satisfaction. It is assumed that the fact of one of the
flock being missed was matter of notoriety, of consternation, of con
dolence, so that when the shepherd returns, all his fellows are ready
to congratulate him, and he, in the joy of his heart, summons them
¦¦ (i to a feast, to signalise the happy issue. ' And when he cometh
home, he calleth together his friends and his neighbours, saying
unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was
lost.' The primary application of the parable was obvious. Jesus had
o Mat. 30 been going about among those who, to use his own words, ' were
distressed and scattered, as sheep not having a shepherd.' Among
that class his mission had been most successful, and the festive meal
at which his flock and disciples were present, and which gave such
umbrage to Pharisees and scribes, might be deemed his calling
' together his friends and his neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice
with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost.'
But Jesus gave to the parable a fuller, deeper meaning. His
conduct and labours, however much they might be criticised and
blamed, were in harmony with the spirit and practice of heavenly
Beings. Their interest was engaged and concentrated on the
reformation of society, and to them it was a matter of rejoicing when
one sinner was restored to the paths of virtue and safety. The evil
thereby prevented, the advance thereby gained, were more considered
than all previous attainments towards the perfecting of the social
state. The well-being of any and every individual is to be desired,
not only and entirely out of regard to his own personal happiness,
but because he is a living unit in the vast total of humanity. As
the spirit of philanthropy widens, there is developed an intense
interest in the moral state of the least, the lowest, the worst amono-
ir, Luke 7 mankind. ' I say unto you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven
over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine
righteous persons, which need no repentance.'
„ s Jesus gave another illustration of the matter. ' Or what woman
having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not licht a
lamp, and sweep the house, and seek diligently until she find it ? '
The Revisers note that the Greek word used, drachma, was a coin

part n.J A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 159
worth about eight pence. The intrinsic value of the lost drachma,
as of the lost sheep, was not great ; but stress is laid upon the fact
that the shepherd had but a hundred sheep and the woman only
ten drachmas. The illustrations are chosen from humble life, the
object being to bring out in each case the value in the eyes of the
owner of that which was lost, without which there would have been
no earnest search for it. The woman is represented as extremely
anxious and energetic, lighting the lamp, sweeping the whole house,
aud carefully examining every nook and crevice, until the missing
coin is discovered. Again it is assumed that the fact of the loss, and
her trouble over it, had been made known to those about her, aud
when her search has proved successful she is overjoyed, and calls her
women friends together to celebrate the happy finding. ' And when 15 Luke 0
she hath found it, she calleth together her friends (female friends —
Young) and neighbours, saying, Rejoice with me, for I have found
the piece which I had lost. '
All this might be taken as apposite to the occasion. Jesus had
been searching out among persons and in places- which the Pharisees
and scribes scorned to visit. He had called together the waifs and
strays of humanity, whom he made his friends and neighbours, and
had celebrated the success of his mission by a friendly entertainment.
Aud his supercilious critics look on disdainfully, lifting up their
voices in pious amazement : ' This man receiveth sinners, and eateth
with them ! ' How mean, how low, how destitute of self-respect he
is ! Nay : but it was they who failed to realise the importance of the
work in which he was engaged. The sweet balm of social inter
course never poured forth its fragrance more worthily than on
such an occasion as this, when repentant sinners yielded to truth and
righteousness, and sought the company of the Son of man, who had
come to seek and to save that which was lost. Beings higher than
mankind were watching this work of Jesus, and rejoicing in its
results. ' Even so, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of „ 10
the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.'
Had this statement been uttered by an ordinary mortal, we might
receive it as an inspiration of faith, a sublime flight of poetical
imagination. But from the lips of Jesus it is much more than this.
The heavenly world, with all its mysteries, lay open to his gaze. No
other man could have presumed to teach the prayer ' Thy will be
done on earth as it is in heaven.' Angels ministered to him on
earth ; a voice from heaven proclaimed his divine sonship ; Moses
and Elijah held converse with him on the mountain-top ; the
departed spirit of one dead and buried heard his voice at the tomb,
and came forth in the body at bis call ; he foresaw and foretold his
own death and resurrection ; angels sat watching by his grave, and
joyously proclaimed its emptiness,—' He is not here ; for he is risen, 23 Mat. &
even as he said ; ' and when his mission to mankind had been fully
accomplished, his resurrection-body soared above the earth, became
enfolded in a cloud, and was seen no more, ' two men ... in white 10 Acts 1
apparel ' standing below to predict the return of ' this same Jesus
which is taken up from you into heaven.' He it is who tells us that
' there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner
that repenteth.' The * inhabitants of earth and heaven are linked
together by bonds of sympathy and mutual interest, none the less.

160 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
i John 51 real because to us invisible and incomprehensible. ' Hereafter ye shall
see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending
upon the Son of man.'
Surely these parables, thus viewed, are full of instruction and
interest ; yet theological commentators, not satisfied with their
primary, self-evident import, coupled with the momentous truth
which Jesus brought out in connection therewith, have set them
selves to the task of allegorizing, amplifying, decorating the parables
with touches, glosses and fanciful interpretations of their own devis
ing. Here is Alford's attempt in that direction : ' The lost piece of
money. In the following wonderful parable, we have the next class
of sinners set before us, sought for and found, by the power and work
of the Spirit in the Church of Christ. It will be seen, as we proceed,
how perfectly this interpretation comes out, not as a fancy, but as
the very kernel and sense of the parable.' What an assumption !
He takes it for granted that Jesus did not bring out ' the very kernel
and sense of the parable,' but that ' the interpretation comes out,'
¦ that is, Dean Alford's interpretation. He assumes that each of the
things mentioned in the parable is itself a parable or simile : the
woman, the house, the coin, the lamp. But that there is room for
difference of opinion as to their significance is evident from his first
remark : ' The woman cannot be the Ghitrch absolutely, for the
Church herself is a lost sheep at first, sought and found by the
Shepherd.' Observe the expressions, ' absolutely,' and ' the Church
herself and the mention of ' a lost sheep ' in elucidating the parable
of a lost coin. This haziness of thought and diction is not a good
beginning of the exposition. Alford is ' rather ' of opinion that the
' house ' is the Church, and therefore he considers that the ' woman '
must be — but let us take his own words. ' Rather is the house here
the Church — as will come out by and by ' (how it comes out by and
by is by no means clear), ' and the woman the indwelling Spirit
working in it.' That is very bold, the woman having ' friends and
neighbours,' who of course must be equal to her in rank and familiar
in intercourse. Next : ' All men belong to this Creator-Spirit ; all
have been stamped with the mage of God.' This is an addition if not
an improvement to the parable, which referred to the coin but not to
its image and superscription. Not satisfied with that touch of his
own, Dean Alford adds another : the dust in the house, which some
how was omitted to be mentioned, represents ' sin aud death and
corruption.' These are his words : ' But the sinner lies in the dust
of sin and death and corruption — "wholly unconscious.'" These
last two words constitute an additional touch of ornamentation :
this lack of vitality in the coin did not come to the front in the
parable itself. Alford puts those words in inverted commas,
probably because he took the idea from Bengel, whom he had before
quoted as follows : ' Bengel, in distinguishing the three, says, " The
sheep, the drachma, the prodigal son, — signify respectively, (1) the
stupid sinner, (2) the sinner wholly unconscious of the fact and of
himself, (3) the sinner conscious and of purpose." ' Ordinary
readers, without the guidance of theologians, could have no idea that
Jesus intended to describe three different classes of sinners. Alford
proceeds : ' Then the Spirit, lighting the candle of the Lord (Prov. xx.
27 ; Zeph. i. 12), searching every corner and sweeping every unseen

part n.] a STUDY OF . THE FOUR GOSPELS. 161
fdrT'n;???! °"' ** i?0?,™ Vr?st0,,f h™ t0 his true value as made
ioi bod s glory. Alford's choice of texts to support his argument is
a very strange one. That from Proverbs runs 7 ' The spirit of man
is the lamp of the Lord;' that from Zephaniah : ' And I it Si
come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with candles
(Heb. lamps) In no way do these quotations bear out or bear upon
the assertion that the ' woman ' is to be taken as representing the
Creator-Spirit But now Alford drags in ' the Church,' not in the
high, Scriptural sense of 'assembly,' but in the low, common
ritualistic sense of an ecclesiastical intitution : 'This li»-htin°- amj
sweeping arc to be understood of the office of the Spirit in the

".. «««»"• «" "«= iiguumg or tne lamp and tlie sweeping, are sym
bolical of the duties of the ministerial office ! What might the
woman's broom represent ? Why is not that introduced as an additional
metaphor, as the ' dust ' was ? But now something is brought in by
way of corroboration? simply on the ground that it is left out of
the parable ! ' Her (female) friends and her neighbours are invited—
but there is no return home now— nor in the explanation, ver. 10, is
there any in heaven.' Simply, one would naturally think, because
the woman, being at home, could not be spoken or thought of as
returning home, because the parable did not admit or need the idea.
Not so, says Alford, but ' because the Spirit abides in the Church—
because the angels are present in the Church, see 1 Cor. xi. 10.' That
is the passage which contains the puzzling words, 'because of the
angels.' Alford continues : 'nor is it shall be (as in ver. 7, at the
return of the Redeemer then future), but is — the ministering spirits
rejoice over every soul that is brought out of the dust of death into
God's treasure-house by the searching of the blessed Spirit.' Here is
a new parable, founded upon the original parable by introducing two
new metaphors, ' the dust of death ' and ' God's treasure-house.' Not
by such additions and verbal trivialities as these can we grasp the
broad, open lessons designed to be conveyed by the parables. They
u-ere spoken not only to but for those who heard them, and who
could have no conception of the elaborately wrought out and recon
dite meanings which, in the course of centuries, have overgrown
them, marred their charm, force, freshness, and more or less distorted
the truths they were designed to illustrate.
It has seemed right and necessary to criticise thus fully and
unreservedly this tissue of explanations and arguments, which may
serve as a specimen of the style of thought and method prevalent
amongst professed theologians. No one doubts the learning, the
honesty, the reverence, the earnestness, the good intentions of this
class of men. But we are all subject to the same laws and limits of
development, and none can rise above the level of the doctrine he
has been taught from childhood upwards, except by a long training
in the direction of unfettered, original, independent thought. It is
hard and rare indeed for those who have bound themselves solemnly
and unreservedly to the acceptance of authorised creeds and articles
of religion, to emancipate themselves from that thraldom. Every
thing is against their doing so. At the best, they can but kick
against the^pricks in some things, and the opposition and persecution

162 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
thence ensuing wTarn them and their fellows against further encroach
ments in the same direction. The young clergyman begins hi-3 career
with a stock of inherited theological beliefs, which he no more thinks
of questioning and replacing by others, than he would of criticising
grammatical rules and framing a new language for himself and the
world. He preaches ' the truth ' as he has been taught it, and his
mind revolves continuously round the subjects with which he deals,
always in the same direction. The longer he preaches, the more does
this habit and mode of thought become to him as a second nature.
At first he was the obedient, humble recipient of dogmatic teaching ;
now he has become himself a teacher and ' defender of the faith.' So
long as the clergy are not left wholly free from the first to believe and
preach whatever their own minds and consciences dictate, so long will
their numbness of individual thought, their dumbness of enlarged
ideas, their narrowness of theological views, cling to them and mar
their influence. One who had escaped the trammels of orthodox
theology, and whose works are full of a spirit and wisdom rising high
above the common standard, J. E. Channing, said truly : ' The con
sistency of great error with great virtue, is one of the lessons of
universal history. But error is not made harmless by such associa
tions.' For that reason, it behoves us to be on our guard against
error, and to oppose it whenever and wherever it may be found. The
responsibility of an author, dealing with the momentous subjects of
religion and morality, would be too overwhelming, apart from full and
free criticism. However honest and earnest our searchings after
truth, we are all liable to error, and sometimes the more erroneous a
doctrine, the more emphatic is its expression, and the more tenacious
one's hold of it. Thereby an evil influence has often proceeded from
the works of good and thoughtful men, who would be the first to re
pudiate their wrong conclusions and fallacious arguments, in the light
of a more perfect knowledge and wisdom. Take, as an example, the
late Dean Alford, whose life was spent in intellectual toil, and who
sought in all he wrote to set forth and help forward what he believed
to be the true doctrine of Christ. Not one jot or tittle of his writings
can be modified now. May it not be, that in that world where we all
hope to find more light and truth, he will welcome as a friend any
man, be he who he may, who dealt boldly with whatever seemed
wrong in his books, however remorseless the exposure of their under
lying fallacies ? How unwise, how antagonistic to truth and progress,
have been the efforts made in past times to stereotype the theological
ideas of one generation with the object of imposing them on the
next ! And how faulty must have been the spirit in the Church
which has bowed submissively to such a yoke during many successive
generations !
Jesus delivered a third parable, having an obvious bearing on the
15 Lnke 11, subject illustrated by the two preceding ones. 'And he said, A cer-
12 tain man had two sons : and the younger of them said to his father,
Father, give me the portion of thy (Gr. the) substance that falleth to
me.' The word ' thy ' is introducod in italics by the Revisers, the
correct word, ' the,' being banished to the margin. Why should they
have gone out of their way to insert a wrong word by the side of the
right word ? The Authorised Version has neither ' the ' nor ' thy.'

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 163
Young and Tischendorf use ' the,' the rendering of the latter beino-,
' Father, give me the portion of the property that falls to me.' Alford
explains : ' Such a request as this is shewn by Orientalists to have
been known in the East, though not among the Jews. The firstborn
had hvo thirds of the property, see Deut. xxi. 17.' Young, agreeing
with the Authorised Version, has italicised the words ' to me,' which
the Revisers have omitted to do.
The father apportioned the property as desired. ' And he divided is Luke 12
unto them his living.' The Revisers have not italicised ' his,' which
was done in the Authorised Version. Young, following the original,
uses the definite article in place of ' his.' Alford observes : ' The
father, as implied in the parable, reserves to himself the power
during his life over the portion of the firstborn, see ver. 31.'
The intention of the younger son was soon manifested. He realised
the property, and emigrated to a distant land. ' And not many days „ 13
after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into
a far country.' Not covetousness, but extravagant self-indulgence was
his predominant vice. Removed from home influence and restraint,
he ' scattered his property ' (Tischendorf) recklessly aud riotously :
' and there he wasted his substance with riotous living.' So far did „ 13
he carry his excesses, that absolutely nothing remained to him.
Then there came a time of great scarcity and privation throughout
the land. ' And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine „ u
in that country.' In proportion to the scarcity of the necessaries of
life was the difficulty of obtaining help or employment. A foreigner,
however willing to work, stood but a poor chance when all felt the
pressure of the times. The spendthrift found himself reduced to
a very low level : ' and he began to be in want.' In this strait he „ u
was forced to seek a refuge anywhere. He deliberately bound hirnsel f
to menial service in a foreign household. ' And he went and joined , u
himself to one of the citizens of that country.' A stranger and an
outcast, the lowest drudgery was imposed upon him: 'and he sent „ 1.-,
him into his field to feed swine.' What a repulsive occupation that,
for a man who had scorned to labour at home, and who, rather than
do so abroad, had lived in folly and idleness until his last coin was
spent. To Jewish ears, the very mention of his present occupation
would be abhorrent, swine being classed in their law as unclean
animals. So ill paid was his labour, that he lived habitually in a
state of semi-starvation, and could have begrudged the swine the food
with which he fed them, a full meal being now a luxury beyond his
reach. ' And he would fain have been filled with the husks (Gr. the » 1(i
pods of the carob tree) that the swine did eat.' Whether he stooped
td beg, may be in doubt ; but not a hand was stretched out to relieve
his wants : 'and no man gave unto him.' His life of enjoyment had „ 10
vanished like a dream : homeless, friendless, helpless now, he could
but look back upon his past career as a period of insanity, a chaos of
self-delusion, vanity, neglected duties, lost opportunities, a fitful
delirious fever which had run its course, and left him weak, worn,
weary, but, thank God, sound in mind at last. He could realise now
the value of the home he bad forsaken, and think once more of the
father he had neglected. The scenes familiar to him from childhood
rose up before him, — the labours of the well-ordered household, all
±he hired servants there rejoicing in plenty. ' But when he came to „ 1:
at 2

164 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
himself he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread
enough and to spare.' And here was he, who might have been
15 Luke 17 honoured as a master over them, on the verge of starvation : ' and I
perish here with hunger.' Reduced now to the last extremity, no
longer deaf to self-reproach, he resolves to take the course which had
been open to him from the first. His proud and obstinate self-will
has melted away in the fiery trial, his faults are patent to himself,
nor will he seek to hide them from others, or shrink even from open
„ is acknowledgment. 'I will arise and go to my father, and will say
unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight.'
He had fondly deemed himself above the common lot, and despised
the humdrum life of daily toil, had lived for to-day, forgetting the
morrow, for pleasure, and not for duty, and now the retributive
decree of divine Providence had scourged, and avenged his folly. He
sees and owns it all, taking shame to himself for the unblushing
effrontery with which he hall pursued his mad career : he had been
fighting against heaven, before his father's face ! It rises up before
him now, reproachful, amazed, sorrowful, as when he first decided
upon his proudly independent course. He will own himself unworthy
,, io of his parentage : ' I am no more worthy to be called thy son.' He
will crave only some place of servitude in the paternal home, wherein
to atone for the past, as far as may be, by docility and assiduity :
„ io ' Make me as one of thy hired servants.' A long course of misery
had been needed to bring him to this resolution ; but once taken,.
„ 20 there was no delay in executing it. ' Aad he arose, and came to his
father.' In how terrible a plight must he have been, as he neared his
journey's end ! And Avith what mingled feelings of hope, doubt, joy,
dread, must he have entered upon its last stage ! But while he was.
still 'a great way off' (Authorised Version), 'yet far distant' (Young),
his coming was perceived. Along the road by which, if ever, he
must return, the father's eye was gazing, and as, at last — at last, his-
son's well remembered form appeared, the father's heart rushed forth
to meet him. But as he drew near enough to be clearly recognized,.
what a wreck, what a shadow, what a. parody of his former self !
Emaciated, footsore, travel-stained, a humbled spirit in an abject
form, — oh ! he must not be left thus one moment longer. The-
father ran to meet him, his loving arms once more encircled the neck
of his erring child, and with a shower of kisses he welcomed his
.. 20 return. ' But while he was yet afar off, his father saw him, and was
moved with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed
him (Gr. kissed him much): kissed him tenderly' (Tischendorf) .-
Then, in that first burst of greeting, on the open road, the prodigal
•> -1 made his humble confession. ' And the son said unto him, Father,.
1 have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight : I am no more
worthy to be called thy son.' The Revisers note : ' Some ancient
authorities add make me as one of thy hired servants.' That is not in
the Authorised Verson, nor is it adopted by Tischendorf, although it
stands in the two oldest MSS, Either, at a very early date, it was
introduced from verse 19, or omitted from this verse. It is just such
an error as would be likely to arise in copying, and the balance of
probability is on the side of its accidental insertion, it being easy for
the eye of the copyist to fix on verse 19. No doubt transcribers were
chosen for their superior skill in writing, and it would be too much

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 165
to assume that every one of the class was intelligent aud puncti
liously honest. The detection of an error of this kind would depend
upon the way in which the original MS. was compared with the
copy. If the supervisor read out to the copyist, it was in the power
of the latter to omit calling attention to what he might consider
unimportant discrepancies ; and there would be a temptation in that
direction, because the accidental omission or insertion of several
words together might necessitate the re-writing of a sheet or more of
MS. We know how easily printers' errors creep in, despite every
precaution. The original ' proof ' is now destroyed, and the printed
book alone circulated ; but in those days the original MS. remained
extant, as well as the copies. These trifling variations among the
ancient versions handed down to us are not to be wondered at. They
are certainly very numerous. The frequent alterations in the oldest
MSS., made ' by a later hand,' indicate that the existence of errors
was recognised from the first, and the task of rectification under
taken. That task must have been almost, if not quite, as difficult
then as it is now7.
Whether or not the son actually made the request he had intended,
it was at once felt to be an impossibility that his father should treat
him as a servant. On reaching home, the domestics were bidden
instantly to attend to all the wanderer's needs. The best robe was
selected for his wear, a jewel sparkled on his hand, and_ the weary
feet were fitted with shoes. ' But his father said to his servants 15 mke 2:
(Gr. bondservants), Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on
him ; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet.' What a
transformation ! What a blessed change from squalor and degrada
tion to luxury, refinement, and deferential service ! The father's
iheart overflowed with joy. He must needs arrange a feast to cele
brate his son's return. The stalled calf was ordered to be killed, and
preparations made for a merry banquet. ' And bring the fatted calf, » ->:!
and kill it, and let us eat, and make merry.' No greater cause could
there be for grateful rejoicing : his son had risen up suddenly, unex
pectedly, as one from the dead, or like a straying child found after
long 'and anxious search. ' For this my son was dead, and is alive •• -4
again ; he was lost and is found.' A joyous feast indeed it was : ^
' And they began to be merry.'
What could the Pharisees and scribes say now against Jesus?
What reproach was it to him that he had feasted with sinners, even
as this father with his returned prodigal ? But Jesus enlarged his
parable, picturing therein the evil spirit and temper which these
cavillers had displayed.
The elder son as yet knew nothing of his brother s return, and
when he came to hear the news it was with undisguised feelings of
envy and ill-will. He was away at the time, about the farm, engaged
in his routine of duty. As he drew near to the house, what was his
astonishment to hear sounds of revelry, music playing and dancing
going on ! What craze was this which had come over his old father,
—to make a feast, and say nothing about it to him ? _' Now his .. -
elder son was in the field : and as he came and drew nigh to the
house, he heard music and dancing.' Unable to divine the mystery,
he called one of the servants, and asked what it all meant .> And .. -"
he called to him one of the servants (Gr. bondservants), and inquired

166 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
what these things might be.' Then he learnt the news, over which
15 Luke 27 natural affection should have prompted him to rejoice. 'And he
said unto him, Thy brother is come ; and thy father hath killed the
fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.' The elder
thought more about himself at that moment, than about his younger
brother. A wave of ill-will and jealousy swept over his soul. His
dignity was hurt ; his egotism, pride, self-conceit, perverted his
judgment, and quenched alike filial respect and brotherly love. In
sullen anger, he refused to give a welcome to his brother, to share in
, 2.s the festivities, or even to enter the house. ' But he was angry, and
would not go in.' Thus, in the midst of joy, came a sudden, sharp
trial to the father's heart. It was a sad presage for the future ; it
would be a terrible thing for him and them, if these brothers should
not shake hands now, should refuse to bury in oblivion faults and
animosities, and so mar the peace of the home for ever. All his
,. 2s influence must be exerted to reconcile these two : ' and his father
came out, and intreated him.' But the hot-headed son began to
complain equally of his father and his brother. He was mightily
offended at the slight which had been put upon him. He considered
that he had been treated with gross injustice. He had lived for many
years a laborious and blameless life, but never once had the father
,, 20 proposed a feast for him and friends of his. ' But he answered and
said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, and I never
transgressed a commandment of thine : and yet thou never gavest me
a kid, that I might make merry with my friends.' But the instant
this spendthrift and debauchee returns, a sumptuous entertainment is
prepared in honour of the event, no prior notice being sent to the
„ so elder son, and no heed given to his absence. ' But when this thy
son came, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou killedst
for him the fatted calf.' The father's answer was grave, passionless,
argumentative. There was no thought of putting a slight upon the
elder son, who had spent his life by his father's side, and was now
heir to all his property. And it was very natural that there should
be this outburst of rejoicing on the sudden arrival of him wh/> had
„ 3i, 32 been as one dead and lost to them for many years. ' And he said
unto him, Son (Gr. child), thou art ever with me, and all that is mine
is thine. But it was meet to make merry and be glad : for this thy
brother was dead, and is alive again ; and was lost, and is found.'
The parable was sketched with consummate tact and delicacy.
None could take offence at it ; but how must the career of the
prodigal have come home to some of those ' sinners ' whom Jesus had
not scrupled to receive and welcome ! And how accurately did the
captiousness and envy of the elder brother portray the spirit by which
the Pharisees and scribes were animated ! The first and foremost
application of the parable lies in that direction : but as every parable-
is susceptible of a variety of interpretations, it is but natural that
commentators should differ widely from each other in their attempts
at elucidation. Alford gives his own views, and combats those of
others. He says : 'A certain man, — our heavenly Father, the Creator
and Possessor of all : not Christ, who ever represents himself as a
Son. . . Two sons, not, in any direct and primary sense of the
Parable, the Jews and the Gentiles,' and so on. All such interpreta
tions are of men's own devising, excrescences to the pure and simple

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 167
teaching of Jesus, glosses, inventions, which can only be profitable
when held in check wisely and reverently, and can scarcely fail to be
hurtful when pressed in the shape of dogmatic theology. How comes
it to be assumed that Jesus intended his parables to be taken as illus
trations of truths or doctrines which he himself was not teaching at
their first delivery ?
The last three parables were spoken to the Pharisees and scribes ; is Luke a
the one which follows was delivered to the disciples : ' And he said ie Luke 1
also unto the disciples' . . It is important to note this distinction
whenever it occurs. The word ' disciple ' signifies a person who has
deliberately placed himself under the instruction and guidance of his
Teacher. Not all who attended the discourses of Jesus were disciples,
but only such as offered themselves to him and were accepted by him.
We have seen how Jesus bade men count the cost before they took u Luke v,-
upon themselves his discipline, and what trials he foretold for them,
even to the loss of all things. Would it not at the time have been a
palpable absurdity to say that, nevertheless, every one was called to
be his disciple ; that none who believed in him could refuse the title,
with its accompanying obligations ? Is it not equally absurd now to
assume that every Christian is, by simple baptism, either infant or
adult, enrolled as a disciple ? John baptised whole multitudes, but
his ' disciples ' were alluded to as a body by themselves. It was the
very essence of discipleship that the disciple should be, for a time at
least, with his Teacher, should ' come after ' him, ' follow ' him, learn
and accept his doctrines, and devote himself to his cause. We read
of no female disciples : the work of evangelisation was not suited for
them, nor they for it. Mention is made of only one woman, Tabitha,
under that designation, — the only instance in which the Greek word
is in the feminine form, matheMa,—a,nd she had evidently devoted
herself entirely to a life apart from worldly interests : 'this woman 9 Acts 30
was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did : ' her sphere of „ 39
action was the making of garments for the poor. In the proper sense
of the word, only a living Teacher can have ' disciples,' who, after
their Master's death, raise up 'disciples' of their own. We may
fondly deem ourselves disciples of Jesus, but in reality we have
dwindled down to a very different discipleship, and not one of us in
a million dreams of attempting to carry out every commandment
which Jesus laid upon his disciples. Nor is it incumbent upon us to
do so. He would have all believe in him, but he chose even while
he lived on earth, few to be his disciples. In the four Gospels the
word ' disciple,' mathetes, occurs 230 times. In every instance the
use of the term indicates a clear, sharp distinction between dis
ciples' and others. One passage only might seem, at hrst sight ,01
somewhat doubtful meaning: when the Pharisees said, We are dis-ojohnss
ciples of Moses ;' but no doubt they claimed the title exclusively, for
Jesus said of them, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses 23 Mat. 2
seat ¦ ' their lives were devoted to the promulgation and enforcement
of his law The true sense of the word comes out m the passage :
' Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more 6 John 66
with HIM. Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, Would ye also GO
away?' And again the statement that 'Jesus was making and 4 John 1
baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself baptized

168 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [rAirr n.
not, but his disciples).' Jesus certainly did not baptize more persons
than John, but ' more disciples,' the disciples he had made already
oeing, it would seem, employed in administering baptism to those
who were anxious to join them. Accordingly we find that Jesus was
10 Luke 1 able at one time to appoint ' seventy others,' whom he sent ' two and
two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was
about to come.' Subsequently to the Gospels the word ' disciple '
occurs in the New Testament 30 times. Let us examine those
oActsi passages. ' When the number of the disciples was multiplied ....
„ 2 the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them.' It must
not be assumed that ' disciples ' here is synonymous with 'believers.'
The contrary appears to be the fact, for the question was as to whether
a certain work should be undertaken by the twelve or by other
disciples. Seven of the latter were appointed 'over this business,'
among whom was Stephen, whose life seems to have been entirely
devoted to the work of evangelisation, for we are told that he
„ a ' wrought great wonders and signs among the people,' and was
occupied in disputations, until he was brought to a public trial on
account of his preaching, and suffered for it the penalty of death.
„ r ' The number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly :
and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.'
it is not said that the priests became disciples : they could not,
their lives being devoted to the performance of their priestly func
tions. The title applied to those who were ' obedient to the faith,'
s Acts w although not 'disciples,' was 'believers.' 'And believers were the
more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.' And
4 i. Tim. 12 Timothy was exhorted : ' Be thou an ensample to them that believe.'
21 Acts 20 Again : ' Thou seest, brother, how many thousands (Gr. myriads)
„ 25 there are among the Jews of them which have believed.' ' As touch
ing the Gentiles which have believed.' Those myriads of Jews and
Gentiles are not styled disciples : they constituted the churches or
assemblies, for whose formation and edification the multitude of
is Acts io disciples was required. ' Why tempt ye God, that ye should put a
yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we
were able to bear ? ' Peter's argument was against compelling the
' disciples ' to teach the Gentiles that they must be circumcised : that
doctrine would have been a yoke on the teachers' necks. We read
o Acts 26 that Paul ' assayed to join himself to the disciples : and they were
all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple.' Obviously
Paul's object was to associate himself with the disciples in their
work : none would have been afraid at his simply professing his faith
„ i in Christ. ' Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against
the disciples of the Lord,' that is, against those who were engaged
,, a in the work of promulgating the hated doctrine. ' That if he found
any that were of the Way, whether men or women, he might
bring them bound to Jerusalem.' To make sure of getting at the
disciples, he desired to bring every professed believer to Jerusalem for
examination. In short, all the passages lead to the same conclusion :
discipleship to Jesus, or to his doctrine, involves entire dedication to
his cause and work. 'Believers' generally should be content with
that humbler title ; and we should ever bear in mind that directions
given by Jesus specially to his ' disciples ' are not to be deemed of
universal application. Misapprehension on this point has led to

part „.] a STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. i69
much error. Finding that some of the commands of Jesus are un
to' ?! V^w™!?1' imP°ssih,e of general adoption, and failing
to understand that they were addressed to disciples, and not to
all behevers, many thoughtful, earnest-minded men have looked
KJ P !!' h / "! 5 ?1I,g !°° high for them ; whilst those who
piofess to have devoted themselves to the work of Jesus, aud who, as
his 'disciples,' teachers of his truth, devotees to his cause, should
have taken up and carried out all his maxims, have made no attempt
to do so, but have swum with the tide of ordinary humanity The
evil takes two directions : the religion of Jesus is deemed by some an
ideal system too lofty and refined for the grasp of common men and
women ; and those who have made profession of discipleship, claim
ing the rank and title of ministers and ambassadors of Christ have
never even aimed at that ideal which Jesus desired that his dis'cinles
should exhibit to the world. We are here treading on difficult
ground: so much the more need is there for bold, free, careful
honest thought and speech. Jesus did not call all men, but he did call
some, to lead a life conformable to his ideal. Once, to a youno- man
whom he had looked upon and loved, he said : ' If thou wouldest be loumkai
perfect, go, sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt
have treasure in heaven : and come, follow me.' It is open to
question whether the doctrine of the cross is not preached both too
high and too low. The sheep and their shepherds cannot stand upon
the same level. The ' perfect ' life must be entirely consistent with
the precepts of Jesus, in the fulness of their breadth and depth.
Count Tolstoi has lately raised and grappled with this puzzling-
question. He carries to its literal and logical extreme Christ's
•doctrine of non-resistance. Unfortunately he starts with a wrong
assumption, when he says : * 'In the Sermon on the Mount, ad^
dressed to all men, He (Jesus) says : "And if anybody sue thee at
the law for thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Therefore He
forbids our going to law.' But the sermon on the mount was not
'addressed to all men,' but to the disciples: 'And seeing the multi- 5 Mat. 2
tudes, he went up into the mountain : aud when he had sat down,
his disciples came unto him : and he opened his mouth and taught
them.1 Count Tolstoi continues : ' But perhaps this applies only to
the relations between private individuals and public courts of law ;
yet Christ does not deny justice itself, and admits in Christian
societies the existence of persons chosen for the purpose of adminis
tering justice. I see that this hypothesis is likewise inadmissible.
In His prayer Christ enjoins all men, without any exception, to
forgive, as they hope to be forgiven. We find the same precept
repeated many times. Each man must forgive his brother when he
prays, and before bringing his gift. Then how can a man judge and
condemn another when, according to the faith he professes, he is
bound to forgive ? Thus I see that, according to the doctrine of
Christ, a judge who condemns his fellow-creature to death is no
Christian.' The argument and conclusion are pertinent, only Count
Tolstoi has overlooked the fact that the Lord's prayer was for
disciples. Matthew gives it as part of the Sermon on the Mount,
* "What I believe." Translated from the Russian. Page 26. Elliot Stock,
,-62, Paternoster Row.

170 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
n Luke i and Luke introduces it as follows : 'And it came to pass, as he was
praying in a certain place, that when he ceased, one of his disciples
said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his
disciples.' In dealing with this difficult question, it is important
not to start with a false assumption. Nevertheless Tolstoi's book
Page 30 supplies much food for thought. He says : ' Each of us gives the
doctrine of Christ an interpretation of his own, but it is never the
direct and simple one which flows out of his words. We have
grounded the conduct of our lives on a principle which He rejects ;
and we do not choose to understand His teaching in its simple and
direct sense. Those who call themselves " believers " believe that
Christ-God, the second person of the Trinity, made Himself man
in order to set us an example how to live, and they strictly fulfil the
most complicated duties, such as preparing for the sacraments, build
ing churches, sending out missionaries, naming pastors for parochial
administration, etc. : they forget only one trifling circumstance — to
,. 4u do as He tells them.' Again : ' Christ says that the law of resist
ance by violence, which you have made the basis of your lives, is
unnatural and wrong ; and He gives us instead the law of non-
resistance, which, He tells us, can alone deliver us from evil. He
says : " You think to eradicate evil by your human laws of violence ;
they only increase it. During thousands and thousands of years you
have tried to annihilate evil by evil, and you have not annihilated it ;
you have but increased it. Follow the teaching I give you by word
and deed, and you will prove its practical power." Not only does
He speaks thus, but He remains true to His own doctrine not to
resist evil in His life and in His death. Believers take all this in
with their ears, hear it read in churches, calling it the Word of God.
They call Him God, and then they say, " His doctrine is sublime,
but the organization of our lives renders its observance impossible ; it
would change the whole course of our lives, to which we are so-
used and with which we are so satisfied. Therefore, we believe in
His doctrine, only as an ideal which man must strive after — an ideal
which is to be obtained by prayer, by believing in the sacraments,
in redempton, aud in the resurrection of the dead." '
Everything which Jesus commanded his ' disciples,' they were
bound to obey. At the same time, counsels given to them may be
followed, more or less, by others also. Of his disciples Jesus said r
17 Joim i6 'They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.' 'I
» i+ have given them thy word ; and the world hated them, because they
are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.' The selection
of disciples out of the world did not imply the condemnation of other
s John 17 men, but the contrary : ' For God sent not the Son into the world to
judge the world, but tbat the world should be saved through him.T
And his plan of saving men was through the disciples, to whom he
.-> Mat. 13, 14 said : ' Ye are the salt of the earth ... Ye are the light of the
world.' The disciples of Jesus were as much out of, apart from the'
world, as afterwards were anchorites of the desert, monks and nuns,
as much a class by themselves, only with very different duties laid
upon them than those of making prayers, chanting hymns, readings
of Scripture, and frequent communion, coupled with a worship more
or less idolatrous of the sacramental bread and wine. All baptised
Christians are no more ' disciples ' of Jesus, in the proper sense of the

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 171
word, than they are monks or nuns. The note of Christian obliga
tion has been pitched too high for ordinary men and women. The
ideal Jesus set before the world was a real and visible one : a body
of men living on earth according to his own heavenly maxims. The
Church of England has, instead of holding forth that reality, assumed
that all, without exception, are called to lead the ideal life. Jesus
warned all not to profess discipleship who were not resolutely deter
mined to take up his cross and follow him : but over every baptised
infant the minister utters the words : ' We receive this child into the
congregation of Christ's flock :' that should have been enough, but
he must add : ' and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token
that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to fight under his banner,
against sin, the world, and the devil ; and to continue Christ's faithful
soldier and servant unto his life's end.' Brave words these : but
nothing more ! In how many cases must they be, if sober truth be
spoken, a solemn farce ! The child, perchance, grows up in the slums,
picks up the language of the gutter ; until the last few years it might
have been left without the merest rudimentary intellectual teaching ;
even at the best, it will lead only an average, common-place life,
labouring perforce for the meat which perisheth, caring and knowing
nothing about Christ's cross, or any soldiership under his banner.
And most of us, except the comparatively few who come within the
charmed circle of sacerdotal influence, make but feeble attempts and
faint profession of active service iii the cause of Jesus. It cannot be
right to apply indiscriminately, to every infant, words of momentous
import such as would suit tbe consecration of a Bishop. Precisely
the opposite plan was adopted by Jesus. Not only did he restrict the
call to discipleship, but he was ever careful not to impose on the
multitudes any doctrines which might bo above their capacities. He
spoke constantly to them in similes. ' With many such parables 4 Mark 33, 34
spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it : and with
out a parable spake he not unto them : but privately to his own dis
ciples he expounded all things.' And when the disciples asked the
reason for his reticence towards others, he explained that it was not
given to the multitudes to comprehend the mysteries of the kingdom
of heaven, their vision, hearing, and understanding being imperfect.
'And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto 13 Jiat. 10.
them in parables ? And he answered and said unto them, Unto you
it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to
them "it is not given , . Therefore speak I to them in parables ;
because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do
they understand.' Why should we be afraid of a principle thus
sanctioned by Jesus ? If discipleship, involving implicit, unreserved
obedience, was not laid by him upon all who heard him preach the
<>-ospel, how much less can such an obligation be insisted on univer
sally now ? We profess too much ; and having done so, we minimise
and explain away certain plain directions of Jesus, the simple truth
being that they are too high for us, that we do not choose to adopt
them It were better to say so boldly : to confess ourselves ' believers '
but not ' disciples.' ' Resist not him that is evil : but whosoever 5 Mat
smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if
¦my man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him
have thv cloke also.' Did the apostle Paul hold it obligatory upon

13

3'.'

172 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
all believers to assert no right by legal means ? No : on the con
trary, he urged that the 'assembly' itself should constitute a legal
tribunal, to whose decisions believers should bow, rather than resort
o- ,.cov. 1 to adjudication by the ' unrighteous.' ' Dare any of you, having a
matter against his neighbour, go to law before the unrighteous, aud
2 not before the saints ? . . Are ye unworthy to judge the smallest
5 matters ? , . Is it so, that there cannot be found among you one wise
man, who shall be able to decide between his brethren, but brother
goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers ? ' _ That sug
gestion of the apostle was in conformity with the plan laid down by
Jesus for the submission ofall trespasses and faults to the judgment
of the assembly. But Paul urged at the same time that there was a
higher standard lost sight of by them in thus resorting to lawsuits in
.- 7 any shape. ' Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you (or, a loss
to you), that ye have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather
take wrong ? why not rather be defrauded ? ' That would be a fol
lowing out of Christ's counsel of perfection, thereby making them
selves in that respect his disciples indeed. What shall be said then
about war and bloodshed ? Is not the profession of a soldier. diame
trically opposed to the teaching of Jesus ? John did not refuse
baptism to soldiers on service, but surely they could never be called
his ' disciples,' much less ' disciples ' of Jesus. And yet we read of
io acu 2 Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian cohort, ' a devout man, and one
that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the
people, and prayed to God alway.' He was assured by an angel of
the approval of God, and was baptised into the faith of Jesus : yet
without relinquishing his trade of arms, he could never presume to
call himself a 'disciple' of Jesus, being simply a believer in him,
saved indeed through him, but not wholly conformed to his life and
doctrine, a servant still of the Roman Emperor, and not of him who
-io Mat. 02 said, ' Put up again thy sword into its place : for all they that take
the sword shall perish with the sword.' In modern phraseology, we
might say he was a Christian although not a disciple ; but we read
ii Aois i6 that ' the .disciples were called Christians first in Antioch,' doubtless
from their strict adherence to the tenets of Jesus, which marked them
out as his followers, their new principles of action and mode of life
giving rise to a new title. Count Tolstoi does not use the term
' Christians ' in its primitive sense ; but if it be restricted to ' dis
ciples,' his argument is logical, and his conclusions, however startling,
beyond dispute.
The parable which Jesus delivered to his disciples is as follows, —
io Luke i ' There was a certain rich man, which had a steward ; and the same
was accused unto him that he was wasting his goods.' The master
called his servant, challenged him to refute the accusation if he could,
decided that he was unfit to retain his office, and required him to
., 2 make up his accounts. 'And he called him, and said unto him, What
is this that I hear of thee ? render the account of thy stewardship ;
for thou canst be no longer steward.' The loss of his office gave
occasion for serious reflection : not by way of self-accusation or regret
for any past misdoings, but as to the best method of ' feathering his
nest ' for the future. If not unfit, he was certainly indisposed for
manual labour, and he scorned the idea of asking loans or favours.

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 173
' And the steward said within himself, What shall I do, seeing that 10 L"k? »
my lord taketh away the stewardship from me ? I have not strength
to dig ; to beg I am ashamed.' The ' I cannot ' of the Authorised
Version is replaced by ' I have not strength to ;' other translators do
not go so far: Young and Tischendorf have simply ' I am not able,'
and Luther, ' graben mag ich nicht,' ' dig I may not.' Being in this
dilemma, he set his wits to work, and devised a scheme which was as
clever and far-sighted as it was unprincipled and immoral. ' I am ,4
resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship,
they may receive me into their houses.' He could yet manage, at his
master's cost, to ingratiate himself with the tenants or debtors of the
estate. He knew human nature well enough to rely upon their
covetousness and self-interest, without much risk of being foiled by
any conscientious scruples on their part. By virtue of his office he
would naturally have great power over these men, for it rested with
him to drive a hard bargain or the reverse, to press for payment ot
to do them a good turn. This latter was his cue now. 'And calling „ r-
to him each one of his lord's debtors, he said to the first, How much
owest thou unto my lord ? ' Not a pleasant question at any time,
and one likely to awaken anxiety if it were known that the steward
was about to close his accounts. 'And he said, A hundred measures „ <>
(Gr. baths) of oil.' Tischendorf renders, 'pipes of oil,' and Samuel
Sharpe inserts, ' (or seven hundred gallons).' It was a large quantity:
too much by half, said this generous steward. Here is your account ;
sit down at once, and alter it yourself by that amount. 'And he said » (;
unto him, Take thy bond (Gr. writings), and sit down quickly and
write fifty.' It was all regular and legal enough to pass muster : the
steward was yet in office, authorised to act, master of the situation.
If he pronounced the sum excessive, and suggested the amendment
of the document, it was not for the debtor to say him nay. ' Then >. 7
said he to another, And how much owest thou ? ' The word ' and '
before ' how ' sufficiently indicates either that all the debtors were
assembled together, or at least that no concealment was attempted.
Each would hope to be treated as his neighbour bad been, and thence
forth they would have common cause to shield and justify each other,
and maintain, if questioned, the spontaneousness and validity of the
transaction. The second was dealt with in the same liberal manner
as the first. 'And he said, A hundred measures (Gr. cors) of wheat. „ '
He said unto him, Take thy bond (Gr. writings), and write fourscore.'
Young renders ' homers,' Tischendorf ' quarters ; ' Sharpe has, ' a
hundred Cors (or seven thousand gallons).' The value in each case
was considerable. Yet these were only two instances out of many.
Nothing was said to any one of the debtors about a division of the
spoil. As one after another fell into the trap laid by the wily steward,
his power over each and all of them became so much the more. Each
knew himself to be implicated with others in a transaction which
would scarcely bear investigation, and which it would be best for all
to hush up for ever. He had made himself a friend, a benefactor to
every one of them. He could claim henceforth, as it suited him, some
return at their hands. He having freely given them so much capital,
might justly set up a claim to so much interest. He had put them
ou'the best terms with himself, and would take care to give them the
opportunity of reciprocating his good offices. Thenceforth they would

174 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
undoubtedly, one and all, be willing to receive him into their houses ;
he need not be a permanent guest anywhere, having free choice of all.
The plan, however unprincipled, was cleverly conceived and skih
fully carried out. So large a deduction from the revenue of the
estate was necessarily detected, but the owner seems to have felt
himself helpless either to remedy or resent the loss, and is repre
sented as simply expressing his admiration at the consummate auda-
iu Lukes city, ability and foresight of the steward. ' And his lord commended
the unrighteous steward (Gr. the steward of unrighteousness) because
he had done wisely.' There is no approval of the man's character,
which is sufficiently condemned by the title given him, ' the steward
of unrighteousness.' Dean Alford took upon himself to render 'the
lord ' by ' his lord,' and observed : ' The A. V. ought to have been
thus expressed, and not the lord, and there would have been no
ambiguity.' The Revisers have made the alteration ; but Tischen
dorf, Young and Luther, following the original, render ' the lord.'
Sharpe throughout the parable has ' the master,' which removes all
doubt. It is well to be clear on the point, although the next sentence
shows that Jesus himself endorsed the opinion of the master.
Commentators, as usual, have assumed the parable to contain
hidden meanings not brought out or indicated by Jesus. Accordingly
their interpretations are various and contradictory. Alford says : ' In
the interpretation, the rich man is tlie Almighty Possessor of all
ihinys. This is the only tenable view. Meyer, who supposes him to be
mammon (defending it by the consideration that dismissal from his
service is equivalent to being received into everlasting habitations,
which it is not), is involved in inextricable difficulties further on.
Olshausen's view, that he represents the Devil, the prince of this world,
will be found equally untenable. Schleiermacher's, that the Romans
are intended, whose stewards the Publicans were, and that the
debtors are the Jews, hardly needs refuting ; certainly not more
refuting than any consistent exposition will of itself furnish.' We
are not here compelled to choose between God and the Devil. Why
should expounders of the parables introduce such ideas, which are
but arbitrary guesses after all, and which keep out of view those
human lessons which Jesus sought to inculcate. This parable is of
so peculiar a character that we might well stand in doubt as to the
true interpretation, had not Jesus himself undertaken to guide us.
He drew seven lessons from the parable.
1. The wise and thrifty use of opportunities.
2. The use which his disciples should make of wealth.
3. The inseparable connection between character and conduct.
4. And between conduct and destiny.
5. And between responsibility and freedom.
G. The need for singleness of mind aud purpose.
7. The choice between discipleship and money-making.
„ » (1). Here is the foremost lesson. ' For the sons of this world (or,
age) are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the lio-ht.'
Those whose aims and hopes are bounded by the present life, display
greater prudence in regard to their future welfare than do those who
are enlightened by higher principles and are called to a nobler
destiny. Instead of simply drifting on towards futurity, bewailing
what is past and dreading what is to come, it behoves us to take

part i:.] a STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 175
account of what is left to us of life and energy, anticipating the fast
approaching day when our present stewardship must be resided and
a new stage of being entered upon. b '
hJ-2-J'JiemS -Urge^ hi8 disciPles t0 anticipate and prepare for that
MaltoV81^ *? W6f \ °f thlS W°rld- ' And J »7 "nt° S —
Make to yourselves friends by means of (Gr. out of) the mammon of
unrighteousness ; that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into
the eternal tabernacles.' Tischendorf renders 'mammon of un
righteousness' as 'mammon of injustice.' Wealth is so unevenl'y
and unfairly apportioned among msu as to justify the appropriate
ness of this title. The Authorised Version has ' when Te fail >
which « changed by the Revisers and Tischendorf to 'when it shall
Jail. 1 he Alexandrine MS. stood so from the first, and it is the
altered reading of the Vatican MS. Young renders ' eternal ' as
age-during.' _ This application of the parable is very direct and peculiar. Drop
ping all thought of the want of honest principle on, the part of the
steward, Jesus held up as an example his friendly and munificent
spirit. And inasmuch as all must deal with money, the ' unrighteous
mammon ' which has no connection with moral rectitude, he coun
selled his disciples to turn it social uses, cementing thereby the bonds
ot mutual friendship. Aud as the views of the steward reached
beyond his term of office, so must their views reach beyond the
present life. As his emoluments were bound to cease, so. must their
hold on earthly possessions ; and as his object was to provide for
himself a home for the future among friends, so they should look
forward to a welcome, by those who have been made friends here,
into a far more enduring home. The expression ' age-during taber
nacles ' sufficiently indicates the unworldliness of the exhortation.
Jesus brings out the fact of a continuity of existence, the friendships
formed in this life being perpetuated in the next. His words imply,
moreover, a condition of existence analogous to the present, under
the same necessities for mutual help and comfort, the lot of each
individual there as dependent as it is here on the dispositions and
actions of his fellows. Our relative positions may be reversed, but
the grand law of retribution will continue to work through human
instrumentality. Jesus does not say, Give, and God will recompense
you ; but, Make to yourselves friends by giving, and they will repay
you. This parable will not bear close pressing — To attempt that,
eads to its distortion in one direction or another. All thought of
the rascality of the steward has to be dropped : there is nothing
imitable in that. His purely selfish motive must not be ours ; and
yet it is true that as we sow in social matters, so we shall reap.
Neither can it be imagined that benefactors must survive the friends
they have made, and who will of necessity have gone before and be
in a position to offer helpful ministrations ; nor is to be assumed
that the poor in this world will be transformed into the rich of the
next ; nor that those whose motives and lives have been highest on
earth will hereafter need the help of those they befriended. Nor
must the fact be overlooked that the parable was spoken to 'disciples,'
whose choice of following Jesus involved the relinquishment of
worldly affairs, hopes, position, — to the ' little flock ' who from the
first had been exhorted, ' Sell that ye have, and give alms ; make for 12 Luke 33

176 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
yourselves purses which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that
faileth not. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.'
To apply such directions to all alike would be absurd: Christian
society cannot be founded on the basis of all giving up everything,
and 'Jesus never propounded so monstrous and mischievous a
doctrine. If maxims intended for comparatively few are sought to
be made of universal application, the only result must be, as it has
been, to fritter away the sense of the wise aud necessary counsels
given by Jesus to his disciples, and to perpetuate the false notion
that none can comply literally and fully with his commands. He
never laid upon all men's shoulders the burden of discipleship ;
and we wrong his spirit and pervert his words by mistaking tbe
former and explaining away the latter. It behoves every Christian
to act up to his profession. If he professes himself a disciple, let
him truly and completely carry out every instruction given to dis
ciples ; and let the sober, solemn truth be recognised, that a 'minister'
of Christ and a ' disciple ' of Christ are synonymous terms. As it
is, in this matter of the giving away of property, we seem to think
that the man who gives, not all but most, comes nearest to the ideal
of a Christian. Such a conception is mean and paltry. If a man
gave up all he had, but not himself to the work of evangelisation, he
would still be no 'disciple.' Aye ! and the thought is worth our
pondering, whether any ' disciple ' of Jesus is justified in holding-
property, seeing he must live for heaven, and lay up his only
treasure there ? Let us take our stand on lower ground. The
command has not been addressed to us, as it was to the young man
in Mat. 21 who wanted to be ' perfect ' : ' Sell that thou hast, and give to the
poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven : and come, follow me.'
Still, the spirit of discipleship may be ours, more or less, as we are
able to receive it ; and inasmuch as the parable of the unjust steward
was obviously designed to elucidate rather principles of action
than any particular form of action, we may lay hold, to our comfort
and profit, on the truths deducible therefrom. ' Make to yourselves
friends . . . that they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles.'
The words of Jesus convey a charming picture of the life to come :
to rejoin those we have known and loved on earth, to receive from
them a hearty welcome, to enter their heavenly homes, to renew,
under better auspices, all friendly intimacies, and. share in common
our far more enduring inheritance, all mutual offices of tender love
and sweet fellowship still existent and interchanged : the hope is
more than all we could desire, and the reality beyond our powers of
conception. God be thanked for such a revelation ! The clay and
dross of earth are transmu table, by a heavenly alchemy, into the
spirit and life of the world to come ; our earthly homes have their
antitypes in heaven. Jesus sets before us the duty, not of promis
cuous almsgiving, but of social charities. Our best and truest friends
must be those of our own household and the comparatively few who
come within the circle of our personal influence. To do our utmost,
wisely and liberally, for all about us, is to uncoil a chain of love
which will join earth and heaven, and circle round eternity.
(3). The third deduction drawn by Jesus from the parable is in
io Lnke io the words : ' He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in
much: and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 177
in much.' The steward's negligence of oversight which led to the
simple 'wasting ' of his master's goods, was at once, under the pressure
of temptation, replaced by a deliberate scheme of robbery. Puncti
liousness with respect to small duties is a good augury of fidelity in
general, and the rule reversed is equally true. Every trust is a test of
character, and the qualities displayed in one condition of existence
are sure to act under all circumstances.
(4). From this consideration Jesus drew the inference : ' If therefore 10 Luke n
ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will com
mit to your trust the true riches ? ' Alford notes that the italicised
word ' riches ' is ' not expressed in the original' Tischendorf renders :
' who will commit to your trust the true good ? ' Young's rendering
is no doubt preferable : ' If, then, in the unrighteous riches ye were
not faithful — the true who will entrust to you ? ' The contrast is
between 'true' and ' unrighteous,' both words referring to 'riches.'
The words are used in the same way elsewhere : ' The same is true, 7 John is
and no unrighteousness is in him.' There is a form of wealth to
which no injustice clings, which is attainable only in conjunction
with moral rectitude, and the distribution of which is impartial and
unselfish. Jesus does not further specify its nature ; but probably
we shall not err in interpreting it to mean that miraculous power
over diseases and over hostile spirits which was constantly exhibited
by Jesus, and which he imparted, as they were able to receive it, to
his disciples', making it an essential preliminary that before going
forth to exercise it, they should strip themselves of all money and
everything superfluous, and determine to take no recompense beyond
food and lodging. Suppose one of those seventy whom Jesus thus
sent forth, had filled his purse, and tried to sell his miraculous gifts :
where would have been the faith on which alone his power depended ?
' Thy silver perish with thee,' said Peter to Simon the sorcerer, ' be- s Acts 20
cause thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money.'
Spiritual gifts and worldly wealth lie very far apart : they are, in
truth, inimical. So Jesus taught, and on that principle his disciples
acted. But the right use of wealth is a test of character. The first
followers of Jesus were called upon to give it up, and gave it up
altogether, that they might secure to themselves a more enduring
treasure. The proper spending of money requires soundness of judg
ment, liberality of mind, unselfishness of motive. The getting and
the keeping of it are hard enough, and at that point the efforts of
many terminate : the method and habit of disbursing it wisely and
freely are harder still. Self-denial may be coupled with rapacity,
parsimony with covetousness, profusion with recklessness and self-
indulgence. If our minds and hearts lead us astray in dealing with
the current coin of the world, which not only symbolises but actually
embodies effort, power, influence, how can we be fit for higher gifts,
for a wider and more unfettered sphere of action, for the 'true riches'
which the Son of man shall give unto us ?
(5.) Jesus dwelt on this idea, adding : ' And if ye have not been ie Luke 12
faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is
your own ? ' The Revisers note that ' some ancient authorities read
our own.' That is not the reading of the three oldest MSS. It is
incongruous, and may be dismissed as erroneous. The words of Jesus
import that our earthly duties constitute a training for a higher stage

178 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
of existence. The unfaithfulness of the steward deprived him of all
opportunity of rising in the world, and kept him in a state of utter
dependence upon others. The due fulfilment of one trust certifies
our fitness for another ; and to fall short of our duty in any assigned
responsibility, must prevent our advancement to a position involving
unfettered powers of action. The connection here indicated by Jesus
between temporal and spiritual gifts deserves to be more deeply pon
dered than it is. The fact gives significance and dignity alike to the
lowest and the highest earthly occupations. This world is our school ;
labour our taskmaster ; our home lies elsewhere, and our life to come
is hid with Christ in God. The earning of a livelihood, the acquire
ment, employment, and distribution of wealth, call forth the exercise
of moral qualities, and serve as stepping-stones to a higher platform
of thought and energy. All the concerns of this life, rightly viewed
and utilised, tend heavenwards. In proportion to our sense of re
sponsibility, and our earnest devotion to the duties of this life, will
be our fitness for heavenly and spiritual things, when the time shall
come for us to enter upon them.
(6). From the steward's breach of trust in preferring the interest
16 Luke is of his friends to that of his master, Jesus drew another lesson. ' No
servant (Gr. household-servant) can serve two masters : for either he
will hate the one, and love the other ; or else he will hold to one, and
despise the other.' The maxim must not be misread, as though it
were impossible to undertake the management of conflicting interests.
It is a matter of daily experience that upright men can and do act
independently of favour or self-interest. The reference is to a ' house
hold-servant,' the rendering of Young and Tischendorf being 'do
mestic' There must not be two masters in one house ; a servant
must not owe a divided allegiance. Not only will the two controlling-
powers clash, but the servant must needs incline to the one or the
other. Professing equal devotion to both, either he will obey one
willingly and the other unwillingly, or deliberately refuse obedience
to one of the two. A double rule may be so harmonised as to become
practically one mastership ; but Jesus had in mind two opposing
powers, putting forth diverse, claims impossible to reconcile, so utterly
different in character and purpose, that if love be felt for the one
antipathy must exist to the other, and submission to one involve dis
obedience to the other.
(7). This parable lies within the previous parable, aud is applied
„ 13 by Jesus in the same direction : ' Ye cannot serve God and mammon.'
The choice lay between discipleship and money-making. Jesus does
not hint at anything wrong or degrading in the latter. Young
simply renders 'mammon' by the word 'riches.' The entire timeT,
energy, and devotion of a domestic are claimed by his master : the
service of God to which Jesus here alludes is of that kind. The man
who had professed discipleship was not free for the ordinary business
of the world. The disciples, to whom the parable was addressed, must
disentangle themselves from their former avocations : they could not
attend as before, and as other men, to the concerns of this life ; they
professed to have accepted the call of Jesus, and must devote them
selves unreservedly to his cause. To regard this statement of Jesus
as applicable to every baptised Christian is to mistake its bearino- to
involve our ideas of duty in inextricable confusion, and to encourage

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.

170

that mild, unconscious hypocrisy which grows out of half truths and
wrong notions. The majority of mankind throughout their lives do
perforce or willingly, ' serve riches.' It is incumbent upon most to
labour for daily bread, for family requirements, for the education and
advancement of children, for the accumulation before our death of
property for those we love and must leave behind. It were absurd
to argue against this as being contrary to the law of Christ ¦ it is the
teaching of nature ; it is the decree of Providence ; it is an instinct
of humanity to make the best of this earthly life which God has o-fven
us. The manufacturer who invests his capital in buildings' and
machinery, the merchant who ventures on the importation or expor
tation of goods, the agent who undertakes their disposal, the banker
who provides the requisite coin and credit, the tradesman who dis
tributes according to the requirements of the community: all these
are engrossed, six days out of seven, in the work of ' serving riches.'
Not for them is there any command to forsake houses, lands, brethren,
wife, children, for Christ's sake. Let us face this question honestly,
and clear our minds of cant with respect to it. Away with the folly
of imagining ourselves 'disciples' and 'followers' of Jesus, when we
are not such in reality, and have no intention of making an effort to
become such. The teaching and exhortations of Jesus must be ap
plied with judgment. They deserve an amount of thought and study
which they have not received. Ministers of the gospel start with the
idea that they know all about the matter : have they not studied
' theology ? ' Yes : and what they have been taught, that they will
teach. The errors attaching to gospel truth are propagated the more
easily, owing to the fetters which our well-meaning forefathers un
wisely imposed upon freedom of opinion in religious matters. Under
pains and penalties, what they fondly and falsely deemed ' the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' has been taken for
granted, upheld, proclaimed by their most obedient followers. At the
same time, the doctrine of Scriptural inspiration has had the effect of
making it an orthodox opinion that every syllable of the Bible comes
direct from God, and hence that every command therein is his, and
that all his commands are obligatory upon all. Accepting generali
sations such as these, the faculty of discrimination has been well nigh
lost for want of exercise ; the maxims of Jesus have been taken, all
together, blended into a hotchpot, and then equally apportioned out
to the whole body of Christians, share and share alike, or so much to
each as each may care to appropriate. A clergyman, a bishop, an
archbishop, is no more a ' disciple,' forsooth, than the school child
who is able to learn the catechism ! And so the solemn call of Jesus
to his ' followers ' is taken to have no special application to our
spiritual pastors ; they, although claiming to be representatives of
Christ, are as free to make a purse for themselves as other men are !
On the other hand, in some mysterious way apart from the ordinary
process of reasoning, the commands not to serve riches, not to lay up
treasure upon the earth, to forsake all for Christ's sake, to take up his
cross and follow him, never to return a blow, never to bring an
action at law, are held to be within the pale of ordinary Christian
duties, incumbent upon all alike, either capable of fulfilment gene
rally, or not capable of fulfilment at all ! What a farce is this !
How can we ever learn the mind of Christ, whilst such confusion

N 2

180 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
of thought and prevarication of judgment remain unchecked, unre-
proved, undetected ?
The remarks of Jesus to his disciples were listened to by the
Pharisees. They were a money-loving class, and openly expressed
10 Luke 14 their contempt for such teaching. 'And the Pharisees, who were
lovers of money, heard all these things ; and they scoffed at him.'
Jesus solemnly reproved their unjust levity. Nothing easier than to
mock at any earnest teacher, to turn the laugh against him, gaining
„ ir. applause themselves whilst bringing him into contempt. ' And he
said unto them, Ye are they that justify yourselves in the sight_ of
men.' But their conduct and their principles were subject to Divine
scrutiny, and that which was highly esteemed by men was hateful
„ is to God. ' But God knoweth your hearts : for that which is exalted
among men is an abomination in the sight of God.' Jesus specified
two conspicuous instances of repugnance to the will of God : 1. The
persistent opposition to the introduction of the gospel. 2. The
operation of the law of divorce.
(1). The time had come for the introduction of a higher system of
morality, based on a new religious teaching. John the Baptist had
„ io come as the harbinger of that better state of things. ' The law and
the prophets ivere until John : from that time the gospel of the
kingdom of God is preached.' In the Authorised Version the words
' the gospel of ' are omitted. Tischendorf agrees with the Revised
Version ; Luther rendered : ' das Reich Gottes durchs Evaugelium
geprediget ' ; Young's version stands : ' since then the reign of God
is proclaimed as good news.' The verb in the original, euangelizo,
signifies to preach or announce good news. Yet no free acceptance
of the proffered boon was allowed to men : whoever wished to enter
„ w the kingdom of God had to force his way through obstacles : ' and
every man entereth violently into it.' The Authorised Version has :
' and every man presseth into it ' ; Young adopted that wording, but
Tischendorf strengthened the expression as the Revisers have done :
' and every one enters into it with violence ' ; Luther has : ' und
jedermann dringet mit Gewalt hinein, 'and every one presses in
with force.' The spirit of religious intolerance prevailed, and it was
diametrically opposed to the divine purposes designed for the advance
ment of humanity.
(2). Simultaneously with this active hostility to the gospel, there
was a lack of regard to that divine law which is as immutable and
„ it irrefragable as the universe itself. ' But it is easier for heaven and
earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fall.' Against the
deliberate, constant, recognised infraction of that law in the most
sacred relationship of life, Jesus emphatically protested. He asserted
that the Mosaic law of divorce was an infraction of the divine law —
' Thou shalt not commit adultery.' The argument was as unwelcome
as it was bold and uncompromising. It involved a distinction
between one part of the canon of Scripture and another part of it.
, is Moses permitted divorce : God did not. ' Every one that putteth
away his wife, and niarrieth another, committeth adultery : and he
that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth
adultery.' This declaration of Jesus was so startlingly at variance
with the recognised law and practice of the Jews, that the Pharisees

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 181
some time afterwards reverted to the subject, hoping either to
entangle him into an argument demonstrably fallacious, or to charge
bim with bringing the law of Moses into disrepute. Their attack on
Jesus, and his reply thereto, are recorded by Mark and Matthew.
' And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, Is it lawful for 10 Mark 2
a man to put away his wife ? tempting him.' Matthew represents
something more to have been added to the question. ' And there 10 Mat. 3
came unto him Pharisees, tempting him, and saying, Is it lawful for
a man to put away his wife for every cause ? ' The two oldest MSS.
omit the words 'for a man,' which the Revisers have italicised.
They have also omitted from this verse the words ' unto him,' and
from the next verse the words ' unto them,' which do not appear
in those two MSS. They have also omitted ' the ' before ' Pharisees,'
inserting the note : ' Many authorities, some ancient, insert the.'
Tischendorf does so, following the two oldest MSS. Jesus, in reply,
referred his questioners to the account they were accustomed to read
of the creation of man. ' And he answered and said, Have ye not „ i
read, that he which made them from the beginning made them male
and female ' ? The reference is to the first chapter of Genesis : ' male 1 Gen. 27
and female created he them.' Then Jesus added : ' and said, For 10 Mat. 5
this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave
to his wife ; and the twain shall become one flesh.' Alford observes :
' He quotes as spoken by the Creator the words in Gen. ii. 24, which
were actually said by Adam,' and : ' He cites both from the first and
second chapters of Genesis ; and in immediate connexion ; thus
shewing them to be consecutive paits of a continuous narrative,
which, from their different diction, and apparent repetition, they
have sometimes been supposed not to be.' Both these statements of
Alford are open to question. Verses 24 and 25 of the second chapter
of Genesis appear to be explanatory, not spoken by Adam. Assum
ing the words in verse 24 to be Adam's, Alford was forced to qualify
them thus : ' They must therefore be understood as said in prophecy,
by divine inspiration which indeed the terms made use of in them
would require, since the relations alluded to by those terms did not
yet exist. As Augustine says, " God said by man that which man
foretold." ' On the contrary, the fact that Jesus attributed the
words to God and not to Adam, should be taken as confirming that
interpretation of the passage. The suggestion about ' prophecy ' is
really made to get over a difficulty otherwise insuperable. As regards
the assumed connection and continuity between the first and second
chapters of Genesis, there is a mystery which has yet to be solved.
Not only is there a difference in diction, but the repetition is only
' apparent,' as stated by Alford. The first chapter starts from a state
of chaos, and describes the gradual uprising and ordering of all
things, including grass, herbs and fruit trees, flying fowls, beasts of
the earth and cattle, ending with the creation of man, male and
female simultaneously, after which there was a cessation of creative
power during a period, ' a seventh day,' equal in duration to one of
the ' days ' preceding. The arbitrary division into chapters is mis
leading, for it is obvious that the narrative is continuous up to and
including verse 3 of the second chapter. Verse 4 is the opening of
a separate document, beginning with the words : ' These are the
generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created,

182 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii-
in the day ' (not days) ' when the Lord (Jehovah) God made earth
and heaven.' Young renders : 'These are the genealogies of the
heavens and of the earth in their being framed, in the day of the
Lord God's making the earth and the heavens.' Samuel Sharpe
commences verse 4 with capitals, 'to mark the beginning of new
matter,' as follows : ' This is the birth-book of the heavens and
of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God
made the earth and the heavens.' There is now neither a chaos nor
a habitable world : no plant, no herb, no man to till the ground, —
2 Gen. 5, 6 nothing but a misty atmosphere and the damp earth. ' And no plant
of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet
sprung up : for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the
earth, and there was not a man to till the ground ; but there went
up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.'
Then man was formed ' of the dust of the ground,' — nothing said as
in the former account about his being 'in the image of God,' — not
male and female as before, but a solitary man. Then a portion of
the earth was redeemed from barrenness, and planted as a garden for
man's dwelling-place. Later on, the woman was created out of the
man. If is not possible to combine the first chapter with the second,
nor to make the latter a mere supplement to the former ; neither can
they be considered as different accounts of the same creation : the
discrepancies between the two, if that view be taken, amount to
contradictions. The two chapters record two distinct exercises of
creative power, separated by some vast interval of time, God's
sabbath ' day ' intervening between them. The argument of Jesus
fits in with this idea. He quotes from the first chapter, to show
that ' from the beginning ' God created ' male and female,' a living
pair. From the second chapter he quotes the statement about the
unity of nature in the man and the woman, so that throughout all
time the marriage tie must take precedence of every other relation-
19 Mat. o ship, being essentially indissoluble: 'So that they are no more
twain, but one flesh.' On that, Jesus based his argument. The
constitution of human nature, the ordinance of God, decreed the
inseparableness of husband and wife. Man's wandering desires must
„ o not be suffered to override the will of the all-wise Creator. ' What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'
io Mark e-o Mark's report is somewhat more succinct. ' But from the begin
ning of the creation, Male and female made he them. For this cause
shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife ;
and the twain shall become one flesh ; so that they are no more twain,
but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man
put asunder.' The two oldest MSS. omit, ' and shall cleave to his
wife.' Let it be observed tbat the opening words of Luke, ' Have
ye not read,' and also the expression ' and said,' are omitted by Mark.
This discrepancy shows on how uncertain a foundation Alford rested
his argument that the words ' and said ' indicated that Jesus quoted
'as spoken by the Creator the words which were actually said by
Adam.' We cannot tell whether Mark's or Luke's narrative ap
proaches most nearly to verbal accuracy. There is a further differ
ence between the two narratives. They both start with the question
put by the Pharisees, but only Mark represents Jesus as replyino-
io Mark 3 thereto by the following question : ' And he answered and said unto

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 183
them, What did Moses command you ? ' To this they replied un
hesitatingly. ' And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of 10 Mark 4
divorcement, and to put her away.' Jesus characterised that per
mission as a policy necessitated by obdurate self-will, opposed to the
divine will and to the true interests of humanity. ' But Jesus said „ 5
unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this command
ment.' Then followed the observations respecting the original insti
tution of marriage, and the recognition of its indissolubleness from
the first. Jesus had only asked about the command of Moses for the
purpose of repudiating it. It was therefore very natural to enquire
why Moses gave a command more honoured in the breach than in the
observance. ' They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to 10 Mat. 7
give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away ? ' If, piecing the
two narratives together, we suppose the allusion to Moses to have
occurred twice, Jesus on the second occasion simply repeated his
previous statement. ' He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness „ s
of heart suffered you to put away your wives : but from the begin
ning it hath not been so.' Alford notes the distinction between the
word ' command ' used by the Pharisees in verse 7 and the word
' suffered ' used by Jesus in verse 8, and says : ' The Pharisees
imagine that they have overthrown our Lord's decision by a, permis
sion of the law, which they call a command.' That idea, however
natural, is displaced by Mark's account, for he represents Jesus to
have used the word ' command,' and the Pharisees the word ' suffered.'
The permission was, in fact, a prohibition against unconditional
divorce, a command not to divorce without first writing the bill of
divorcement. There is no escape from the conclusion that Jesus
declared the command or permission of Moses to be contrary to the
command and will of God. The assertion of Jesus involves a dis
tinction between the law of Moses and the divine law ; and on look
ing carefully we find that such a distinction is obvious enough. The
law of divorce is laid down in the first four verses of the 24th
chapter of Deuteronomy. It is embedded among a large number of
directions and ordinances beginning with the 12th chapter, and pre
faced by the words : ' Ye shall observe to do the statutes and the 11 Deu. 32
judgments which I set before you this day.' The words are the
words of Moses : again and again that fact is brought out promi
nently. ' In the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy 12 Deu. u
tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there shalt thou
do all that I command thee.' ' What thing soever I command you, „ 32
that shall ye observe to do.' ' Wherefore I command thee, saying, 19 Deu. 7
Thou shalt separate three cities for thee.' ' Do according to all that 24 Deu. ¦,
the priests the Levites shall teach you : as I commanded them, so
shall ye observe to do.' ' The Lord thy God redeemed thee thence : » IS
therefore I command thee to do this thing.' ' And Moses and the 27 Deu. 1
elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, Keep all the command
ment which I command you this day.' Here the elders are repre
sented as endorsing the law laid down by Moses. He himself claimed
a divine authority for it : ' When thou shalt hearken to the voice of is Deu. is
the Lord thy God, to keep all his commandments which 1 command
thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the Lord thy
God.' ' If thou shalt hearken unto the commandments of the Lord 2s Deu. 13
thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them,

184 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
and shalt not turn aside from any of the words which I command you
this day.' As a divinely-appointed legislator Moses issued his edicts,
but throughout their delivery his own personality stands out clearly
and unmistakably. The voice is human ; at the most, all that can be
asserted is that the speaker has God's authority, and that there was
a blending of the divine with the human. That the latter prepon
derated over the former is sufficiently indicated by the frequent repe
tition of the personal pronoun ' I.' Knowing well the people with
whom he had to deal, Moses deemed it wise and right to allow a
liberty of divorce, fencing it round with certain formalities and
restrictions, so that it might at least be a deliberate, public, and
irrevocable act. Alas ! that the state of so-called ' Christendom '
should necessitate the perpetuation in our own time of the permis
sion granted by Moses to a nation but lately redeemed from slavery,
with its accompanying degradation and lack of intellectual and moral
culture. How far off are we still from the mind aud rule of Christ !
In his eyes the marriage bond was divine, too sacred for man to sever :
' What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'
He now repeats the law which, according to Matthew, he laid down
19 Mae. 9 in the sermon on the mount : ' Whosoever shall put away his wife,
except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery :
and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.'
Jesus is not speaking of the guilt, but of the nature of the act : how
ever customary or legalised, the fact of promiscuous sexual intercourse
was patent and undeniable. The disruption of the old tie and the
recognition of the new, are both equally illegal and dishonourable in
the eye of God. The perfection of manhood and womanhood is
marred, when husband and wife are sundered : divorce is as it were
an act of amputation, and a second marriage, under such circum
stances, is like putting on another person's limb, disfiguring and
monstrous to human nature, the severance and the misplacement
being alike unnatural and revolting.
There is some uncertainty as to the proper rendering of verse 9.
The Revisers note that ' some ancient authorities ' adopt the reading
of 5 Mat. 32, namely 'saving for the cause of instead of 'except
for,' and with the addition, 'maketh her an adulteress.' Of the three
oldest MSS. only the Vatican has this addition. The Revisers note
further that the following words ' are omitted by some ancient autho
rities :' 'and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth
adultery.' This sentence appears to have been inserted to correspond
with 5 Mat. 32. It is not in the oldest MS., and Tischendorf omits
it. Count Leon Tolstoi asserts that there has been a mistranslation.
s Mat. 32 He takes the original Greek words seriatim : * 'parektos, besides ;
logon, the matter ; porneias, of lewdness ; poiei, causes ; aute'n, her ;
moichasthai, to commit adultery.' In the lexicon parektos is defined :
'out of, without, besides;' and porneia is defined: 'fornication,
prostitution.' Tolstoi says :f 'porneia, which is, in all translations
except the English, rendered as "adultery," in the same way as
moichasthai, is, in reality, quite another word.' To make clear the
distinction, he chooses the word 'lewdness,' as equivalent to 'de
bauchery' or 'fornication,' and as 'expressing not an action, but a
* "What I Believe," p. 62. f "What I Believe," p. 81.

part 11.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 185
quality or state.' He does not scruple to say : ' Every Greek scholar
will construe the passage thus . . . Therefore the text stands word
lor word thus : He who divorces his wife, besides the sin of lewdness
causes her to commit adultery.' That refers to the 5 th chapter
lolstoi adds : 'We find exactly the same in the 19 th chapter. No
sooner is the incorrect translation of the word porneia amended, as
well as that of the preposition epi, which has been translated " for ¦ "
no sooner is the word " lewdness " placed instead of " adultery " and
the preposition " by" instead of " for," than it grows perfectly clear
that the words ei me epi porneia can have no reference to the wife.
And as the words parektos logou porneias can have no other meaning
than " besides the sin of lewdness of the husband," so the words ei
me epi porneia, which we find in the 19 th chapter, can have no
reference to anything except the lewdness of the husband. It is said,
ei me epi porneia, which, being translated literally, is, " if not by
lewdness," '¦' if not out of lewdness." And thus the meaning is clear
that Christ in this passage refutes the notions of the Pharisees that
a man who put away his wife, not out of lewdness, but in order to
live matrimonially with another woman, did not commit adultery;
Christ says that the repudiation of a wife, even if it be not done out
of lewdness, but in order to be joined in bonds of matrimony to
another woman, is adultery.' Much in favour of Tolstoi's argument
is the fact, that the word ei, ' if,' is omitted by Griesbach, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and Wordsworth, as not being in
accordance with the best readings ; aud also the fact that whether
epi be rendered ' by ' or ' for,' his argument is equally strong. The
question is both novel and important, and calls for close investiga
tion, the intense earnestness and honesty of Tolstoi giving weight to
his opinion.
Jesus declared that to be wrong in the sight of God which was
justified and legalised among men. So rigid did his doctrine appear
to the disciples, that they exclaimed that it would be inexpedient for
a man to marry under such conditions. ' The disciples say unto him, i9M.at.io
If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to
marry.' That conclusion Jesus repudiated. The leading of a single
life must be exceptional, and for those only having a peculiarity of
constitution or temperament. ' And he said unto them, All men „ n
cannot receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.' ' This
saying ' appears to refer to the opinion just expressed by the disciples,
not to what Jesus had previously said. A similar instance occurred
when Jesus replied to the Canaanitish woman, ' For this saying go 7 Mark 29
thy way.' Jesus went on to explain that an unmarried life was
abnormal : some were born without the natural instinct towards mar
riage ; some were compelled by position or circumstances to renounce
it ; some, devoting themselves to a higher and heavenly destiny,
deliberately avoided it. ' For there are eunuchs which were so born 19 Mat. 12
from their mother's womb ; and there are eunuchs which were made
eunuchs by men ; and there are eunuchs which made themselves
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.' Such a maxim, advocating
a solitary life, was not for general adoption, but for those who were
exceptionally disposed towards it. * He' that is able to receive it, let „ 12
him receive it.'
The teaching of Jesus respecting divorce was so startling to the

186 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
disciples, that in the privacy of their common home they again
10 Mark 10 questioned him on the subject. ' And in the house the disciples asked
him again of this matter.' Jesus reiterated his former dictum : he
„ n, 12 had nothing to retract, nothing to modify. ' And he saith unto them,
Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth
adultery against her : and if she herself shall put away her husband,
and marry another, she committeth adultery.' Be it observed that
there is here nothing which can be construed into an exception.
Mark's narrative gives no hint of any such saving clause. This is in
favour of Tolstoi's argument that there has been a mistranslation and
misconception ; the account handed down to Mark, and by him to
us, would surely have alluded to an exception, if Jesus had been
understood to have made one.
The following parable, recorded by Luke, is placed immediately
after that of the unjust steward, and continues the train of thought
with respect to the right employment of wealth, and the possible
contrasts in men's relative positions here and hereafter. Jesus pic-
i6 Luke io tures a man at the very summit of prosperity and luxury. ' Now
there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine
linen, faring sumptuously every day (or, living in mirth and splendour
every day).' In contrast to this man, Jesus describes a man in direst
poverty, reduced to the utmost extremity of want and misery. He
names him Lazarus, ' God is my help,' as indicating that he had no
hope of human succour. His place was at the outer porch of that
„ 20 abode of magnificence and revelry. 'And a certain beggar named
Lazarus was laid at his gate.' He was altogether in a deplorable
condition, his body being covered with sores, and hunger impelling
him to long for the broken victuals which came from the well-spread
., 21 table of the rich man : ' full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the
crumbs that fell from the rich man's table.' The Revisers have
italicised the word 'crumbs,' and Tischendorf, following the two
oldest MSS., omits it, rendering ' what fell' The only companions
of the poor man were the dogs, probably attracted to the gate by the
same motive as himself, and these dumb creatures showed their
, 21 sympathy by licking his sores, as though they were their own. ' Yea,
even the dogs came and licked his sores.' Tischendorf renders,
' usually licked,' and Young's literal rendering conveys the same idea :
' yea, even the dogs, coining, were licking his sores.' So much only
of the history of these two men in this world. Jesus now shows them
to us transported to another. The poor man died first, as well he
., 22 might from semi-starvation and disease. ' And it came to pass that
the beggar died.' The Revisers have retained the word ' beggar,'
which is discarded from the parable by Young and Tischendorf, who
adopt instead the term ' poor man.' Luther also has ' Armer,' ' poor
man.' The primary sense of the word, ptochos, is ' one who crouches
or cringes,' from ptosso, to crouch or cower. It will be well for us
to drop the idea of his being a recognised ' beggar,' and to take the
parable as that of the ' rich man ' and ' the poor man.' Thus viewed, it
has a far wider application than otherwise. The next sentence stands in
the Authorised Version : ' and was carried by the angels into Abraham's
» "- bosom,' but is altered by the Revisers to : ' and that he was carried
away by the angels into Abraham's bosom,' Young's literal rendering

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 187
being : 'And that he was carried away by the messengers into the
bosom of Abraham.' We have here, to say the least, the view which
J esus entertained of those ' angels ' or ' messengers ' of whom we read ¦
'Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the 1 Hob u
sake of them that shall inherit salvation?' On the expression
'Abraham's bosom,' Alford observes: 'This, as a form of speech
among the Jews, was not even by themselves understood in its strict
literal sense ; and though the purposes of the parable require this,
ver. 23, no one would think of pressing it into a truth, but all would
see in it the graphic filling up of a state which in itself is strictly
actual' The expression seems to have been a proverbial one, indi
cating nearness and dearness, and the Jewish custom of reclining at
meals was in itself sufficient to make this meaning obvious. ' There is John 23
was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom
Jesus loved.' The fourth evangelist used the expression as one recog
nised and conveying a definite meaning : ' The only begotten Son, 1 Johll ls
which is in the bosom of the Father.' The figure of speech had been
familiar from the time of Moses, who used it : ' Have I conceived all n n«,„. 12
this people ? have I brought them forth, that thou shouldest say unto
me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing-father carrieth the suck
ing child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers ? '
The translation of Lazarus to Abraham's bosom may be taken to
denote his entrance upon a career under the patronage and guardian
ship of the venerated father of the Israelitish nation. The teaching
of Jesus is throughout intensely human. He does not represent tbe
departed spirit as summoned before a divine tribunal, but he reveals
another world with relationships between men analogous to and
founded upon those of the present life. The departed may be nearer
to us even on earth than we are accustomed to suppose. Who would
have imagined, when Jesus took his three disciples to the mountain-
top, that it was for the purpose of meeting and conferring with Moses
and Elijah ? How profoundly interesting is the prospect of futurity
opened out to us by these hints and glimpses of the spiritual world !
After a time the rich man's life came also to its close. ' And the is Luke 22
rich man also died, and was buried.' Through the grave and gate
of death he passed on to far other experiences than those of this
world. Jesus represents him in a condition of grievous suffering.
'And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments.' The „ 23
Revisers have done good service towards removing popular miscon
ceptions by altering 'hell' to 'Hades.' Here is Alford's comment.
' Hades, in Hebrew Sheol, is the abode of all disembodied spirits till
the resurrection, not, the place of torment, — much less 'hell,' as
understood commonly, in the A. V. Lazarus was also in Hade's,
but separate from Dives ; one on the blissful, the other on the bale
ful side. It is the gates of Hades, the imprisonment of death, which
shall not prevail against the Church (Matt. xvi. 18) ; the Lord holds
the key of Hades. (Rev. i. 18). Himself went into the same Hade's,
of which Paradise is a part.' In face of the parable itself, the con
ception of Dives and Lazarus as ' disembodied spirits ' is a strange
one ; the words ' till the resurrection,' and the reference to another
' place of torment,' are thrown in glibly, as part and parcel of an
accepted creed, but such ideas are not the teaching of Jesus, and a
careful investigation is needed to detect and expose the misconcep-

188 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
tions of Scriptural passages on which such erroneous doctrines are
based. In the next life the relative positions of the two men were
reversed. Their lots still lay wide apart ; but Lazarus was in comfort
and honour, and the man of pomp and luxury was reduced to a state
of anguish. We must not, however,, exaggerate tbe import of the
expression, ' being in torments.' The Greek word is basanos, from
basanizo, and both noun and verb were employed to denote afflictions
and labours of an ordinary kind, as in the following passages.
4 Mat. 24 'Holden with divers diseases and torments (basanois).' 'Seeing
o Mark is them distressed (basanizomenos) in rowing.' ' Vexed (ebasanizen)
¦2 ii. Pet. s his righteous soul' Enough, that heavy toil or discomfort of some
kind were now the portion of the man once rich in this world, and
is Luke 23 that above him, in the distance, was a region of bliss : ' and seeth
Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.' He could no more
hope to enter that bright abode than Lazarus, when they both lived
on this earth, could have gained admission to his palace of feasting.
But he prayed that some assuagement of his misery might be vouch
safed, and that Lazarus might be sent to moisten, were it but with
24 a drop of water, his fevered tongue. ' And he cried and said, Father
Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the
tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue ; for I am in anguish
in this flame.' Young renders : ' I am sorrowing in this flame,'
the ' Englishman's Greek New Testament,' ' I am suffering ; ' the
Authorised Version has . ' I am tormented.' The Greek verb is
odunaomai, which was in common use to signify any great mental
2 Luke 4s distress. It occurs in the passages : ' Thy father and I sought thee
20 Acts 38 sorrowing (odundmenoi).' ' Sorrowing (odunomenoi) most of all for
the word which he had spoken.' In the answer of the patriarch
there was a tone of compassionate sadness. He began by reminding
this, his unhappy descendant, of the mutability of human destiny,
how enjoyment led on to suffering, and suffering was a discipline
io Luke 25 preparatory to joy. ' But Abraham said, Son (Gr. Child), remember
that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and Lazarus in
like manner evil things : but now here he is comforted, and thou art
in anguish.' Tischendorf and the Revisers have introduced the word
' here,' on the authority of the three oldest MSS. Young renders ' in
anguish ' by ' sorrowing : ' it is the same word, odunasai. Small as
was the boon now craved, there stood' a physical impossibility in the
„ 26 way of its accomplishment. ' And besides all this (Or, in all these
things) between us and you there is a great gulf fixed.' Young
renders, 'And besides all these things.' The line of demarcation
between class and class is more insuperable in hades than it is on
„ 26 earth : ' that they which would pass from hence to you may not
be able, and that none may cross over from thence to us.' The
rendering of the Authorised Version is : 'so that they which would
pass from hence to you cannot ; neither can they pass to us, that
tvould come from thence.' The Revised translation is stronger, as
indicating not simply the existence of such an obstacle, but the fact
it was designedly set up to prevent closer intercourse. Tischendorf's
rendering conveys the same idea : ' that they who desire to pass
hence to you may not be able, nor those cross over to us thence.'
Young does not render ' may not be able,' but the form he adopts
implies an insuperable law : ' so that they who are wishing to go

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 189
over from hence to you are unable, nor do they from hence to us pass
through.' Forced now to recognise the fact that any immediate
alleviation of his own sufferings was hopeless, the suppliant turned
his thoughts to those who had been near and clear to him on earth,
and out of his dread lest they should come also to the same terrible
experience of suffering, he ventured to ask that Lazarus might be
sent to them. ' And he said, I pray thee, therefore, father, that thou lli L
wouldest send him to my father's house ; for I have five brethren.'
The expression ' my father's house ' obviously does not signify ' my
father's abode,' but is equivalent to ' my family,' the word ' house '
being similarly joined to the word father's, in that sense, in about
50 passages of Scripture. It was a request that Lazarus might
go to the various members of the family, and reveal to them the
penalties attaching hereafter to lives misled on earth : ' that he may
testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.'
The word rendered torment is basanou. Young renders, ' thoroughly
testify ; ' the Englishman's G. N. T., ' earnestly testify.' The idea
did not commend" itself to the judgment of the patriarch. The law
and the prophets were enough for the teaching of mankind. ' But
Abraham saith, They have Moses and the prophets ; let them hear
them.' Not so, it was argued : but a messenger direct from the
world beyond the grave would startle them into a reformation of life.
' And he said, Nay, father Abraham : but if one go to them from the
dead, they will repent. Young, as usual, renders ' repent ' by
'reform.' However plausible the suggestion, it was based on an
error of judgment. Abraham held a contrary opinion. ' And he
said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will
they be persuaded if one rise from the dead.'
To this marvellous parable not a word was added by way of com
ment or explanation : we are left to interpret and apply it as we will.
If it had been uttered by any one except Jesus himself, it would have
been worth no more to us than one of iEsop's fables. The value of
any moral teaching contained in it would have been more than counter
balanced by our uncertainty as to the truthfulness and reality of the
o-roundwork on which the narrative rests. If its revelations of a
future life were purely imaginary, they would tie not only unreliable,
but misleading. Only our confidence in Jesus can. induce us to
attach importance to his teaching on matters beyond the reach of
ordinary human knowledge. We know of his miraculous birth his
superhuman words and works, his converse with Moses and Elijah
when he was transfigured on the mount, his resurrection from the
dead, and his ascension into heaven: and our belief m all these
things impels us to receive with reverence this parable of the rich
man and Lazarus. Every parable delivered by Jesus on earthly
matters withiu our cognizance, is true to nature, and consistent with
Sual eSerience ; and we may be confident that he is equa by accu
rate and reliable when revealing to us the laws and cond itions of
'heavenly things.' The following deductions are inseparable from the
Durable and are therefore stamped with the authority of Jesus. _
1 1 The life of each individual on earth is but the prelude to life m
^^AnSlic3 ministrations are needed and granted in the world to
come.

190 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
3. Human destinies differ there, as here, class being separate from
class ; and acute suffering may be experienced by one individual, and
perfect enjoyment by another.
4. In the future life there will be a clear recollection of the former
life, and the grouping of society there is on the earthly pattern, so
that neighbours will recognise each other, and there will be a con
sciousness and acknowledgment of previous social and family rela
tionships. 5. The introduction of Abraham into the parable involves the
doctrine of a perpetuity of existence : not necessarily an unchange
able, inextinguishable existence, for there may be other deaths and
other resurrections analogous to the first death and the first resur
rection. The ' age-during life,' of which Jesus so often spoke,
embodies the idea of an appointed term : tbe revivification which
comes after the close of the present life, may it not be granted also
at the culmination and crisis of the next stage of being, life and
death alternating, life ever triumphing over death, the tendency
deathward declining, and the tendency lifeward augmenting, until,
7 Hob. io like our Lord Jesus, we are made ' after the power of an endless (Gr.
indissoluble) life ? ' That is the conception of human destiny which
seems best to elucidate, combine and harmonise the promises of our
Redeemer and all other revelations of Scripture.
6. The next state of being is revealed to us subject to laws, phy
sical and moral, as immutable as those which encompass us on earth.
The line of demarcation between class and class is represented as rigid
in the extreme. Divine Providence has fixed certain boundaries which
none, though urged by the most charitable motives, may seek to over
pass. The more perfect the condition of society, the more imperative
does it become to remove the evil from the proximity of the good.
The two principles of good and evil must, if brought into contact,
involve ceaseless strife ; the ethics of Christianity require for their
free, unchecked development a complete immunity from the hostile
powers of unrighteousness. That is the condition of humanity here
after, as sketched out by Jesus. Punishment by way of penalty and
retribution is not hinted at, but conduct and destiny are revealed
linked together as cause and effect. And there is a recognised con
tinuity of being, — no hiatus between the concerns of this life and the
next, — but the' one leading up naturally and inevitably to the other:
that was the ground of anxiety with respect to the five brethren still
living upon earth.
7. The closing words of the parable, ' if one rise from the dead,'
indicate what is meant in other passages by a similar form of expres
sion : not, that is, the resurrection from death to life, but the revisit
ing of the living by the dead.
In this parable it is clear, beyond the possibility of doubt or gain
saying, that Jesus taught the doctrine of an individual, personal resur
rection of — not from — the dead. In face of this, and of the plain
teaching of Paul and other apostles, it is a marvel and mystery how
that earnest searcher after truth, Count Leon Tolstoi, could have been
led to form and express the following opinion: 'And strange as it
may seem to say so of Christ, who Himself rose from the dead, and
who promised to raise all men, He never by a single word, confirmed
the belief in individual resurrection, in individual immortality beyond

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 191
the grave, but He even attached to the raising up of the dead in the
kingdom of the Messiah, as taught by the Pharisees, a meaning which
excluded the idea of individual resurrection.' * Again • ' Christ could
never have supposed so strange an idea among His followers He
supposes all men to understand that individual life must inevitably
perish ; and he reveals a life which cannot perish ' -Wain • ' The
whole purport of Christ's doctrine is to teach His disciples that indi
vidual life being but a delusion they should renounce it, and transfer
their individual lives into the lives ofall humanity, into the life of the
son of man.' Tolstoi has been misled by his own imagination Let
it suffice to say that his misconceptions are based upon a misappre
hension of the meaning of the words he quotes, namely, ' With God
all are living,' from which he hastily draws the conclusion, as thouo-h
it were the only conceivable one : ' And therefore, if there be a livin°-
God, the man who is one with God lives too.' The mind of Tolstoi
is, as it were, microscopic : his earnest gaze on some particular pas
sages may reveal depths of truth and reality which, for want of such
a power of concentration, have been passed over by others ; but when
his focus of vision is disarranged, a truth becomes distorted, and an
error magnified. Take, as an example of his self-deceptive reasoning,
the following explanation on another subject : ' It was necessary to
feed several thousand men. One of the disciples said to Christ that
a boy there had a few fishes. The disciples had also a few loaves.
Christ knew that some of those who had come from a distance had
brought food with them and others had not. That many had brought
provisions with them is evident from there being twelve basketfuls
gathered of what remained, as we read in all the four Gospels. (If
nobody had had anything except the boy, there would not have been
twelve baskets in the field.) Had Christ not done what he did, that
is, the " miracle " of feeding thousands with five loaves, what now
takes place in the world would have taken place then. Those who
had provisions with them would have eaten all they had, would have
overeaten themselves rather than that anything should have been left.
Misers would perhaps have taken the remainder home. Those who
had nothing would have remained hungry, looking on with wicked
envy at those who ate, and some would very likely have stolen from
those who had provisions. Quarrelling and fighting would have
ensued, and some would have gone home satisfied, the others hungry
and cross ; exactly what takes place in our present lives would have
happened then. But Christ knew what he meant to do ; He told
them all to sit in a circle, and enjoined his disciples to offer a part of
what they had to those next them, and to tell others to do the same.
The result was, that when all those who had brought provisions with
them followed the example set them by the disciples, and offered a
share of their provisions to others, there was enough for all. All
were satisfied, and so much rem.ained that twelve baskets were
filled.' It is a beautiful conception of Tolstoi's, and admirably worked out.
At first one is inclined to rub one's eyes, and wonder why so simple
an explanation of the ' miracle ' has never presented itself before. But
how came it to pass that not one of the four evangelists presented it
* " What I Believe," pp. 135, 147, 146.

192 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
in that light ? Any one of them, by introducing a sentence or
simply turning a phrase, could have made the matter as clear to us as
Tolstoi has done. Not a hint of his interpretation is conveyed by
the narratives ; not a word about the multitude having food left of
their own ; no such expression as he uses, ' tell others to do the
same ; ' nothing to lead to the conclusion that ' those who had
brought provisions with them followed the example set them by the
6 Mark 41 disciples.' On the contrary, Mark ends with the words, ' And they
o John 13 that ate the loaves were five thousand men,' aud John says that ' they
filled twelve baskets with broken pieces from the five barley loaves.'
,, 26 When Jesus alludes to the miracle, it is in the same strain : ' Ye seek
me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves, and
were filled.' In the similar miracle, when four thousand were fed
with seven loaves and a few fishes, there is nothing mentioned con
sistent with the idea of Tolstoi, nothing about the people bringing
out their own stores of food, but on the contrary, Matthew and Marie
id Mat. 32 agree as to the exact words of Jesus: 'I have compassion on the
s Mark 2 multitude, because they continue with, me now three days and have
nothing to eat.' And when Jesus referred to both miracles, the
number of loaves he specifies as divided among the multitude is five
io Mat. o, io and seven. ' Do ye not yet perceive, neither remember the five loaves
of the five thousand, and. how many baskets ye took up ? Neither
the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took
up ? ' Count Tolstoi seems incapable of extending his range of vision
outside his own argument : he is blind to the facts which tell against
it. In the same way, in framing his theory about the resurrection,
he overlooks the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the revelation
of Moses and Elijah on the mount, and the sublime reasoning of Paul
in the fifteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians. The
errors of Christianity have ever arisen from the mistakes of its
friends, and it behoves us to be on our guard against them, thankful
for any fresh light, yet watchful against mistakes of judgment,
seeking to sift the true from the false, and following no man blindly.
Holding fast to the doctrine of a resurrection of the dead, it must
prove rather a curse than a blessing if it leads to a neglect of the
obligations resting upon Christians in the present life. This is
wisely and forcibly insisted on by Mr. J. A. Froude. He says : * ' The
Egyptians, in the midst of their corruptions, had inherited the doctrine
from their fathers which is considered the foundation of all religion.
They believed in a life beyond the grave — in the judgment bar of
Osiris, at which they were to stand on leaving their bodies, and in a
future of happiness or misery as they had lived well or ill upon earth.
It was not a speculation of philosophers— it was the popular creed ;
and it was held with exactly the same kind of belief with which it has
been held by the Western nations since their conversion to Chris
tianity. But what was the practical effect of their belief ? There is
no doctrine, however true, which works mechanically on the soul like
a charm. ' The expectation of a future state may be a motive for the
noblest exertion, or it may be an excuse for acquiescence in evil, and
serve to conceal and perpetuate the most enormous iniquities. The
magnate of Thebes or Memphis, with his huge estates, his town and
* " On Progress.''

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 193
country palaces, his retinue of eunuchs, and his slaves whom he
counted by thousands, was able to say to himself, if he thought at all,
''_ Irue enough, there are inequalities of fortune, but it is only for a
time after all ; they have immortal souls, poor devils ! and their
wretched existence here is but a drop of water in the ocean of
their being. They have as good a chance of Paradise as I have-
perhaps better. Osiris will set all right hereafter ; and for the present
rich and poor are an ordinance of Providence, and there is no occa
sion to disturb established institutions. For myself, I have drawn a
prize in the lottery, and I hope I am grateful. I subscribe hand
somely to the temple services. I am myself punctual in my religious
duties. The priests, who are wiser than I am, pray for me, and they
tell me I may set my mind at rest." Under this theory of things the
Israelites had been ground to powder. They broke away. They too
were to become a nation. A revelation of the true God was bestowed
on them, from which, as from a fouutain, a deeper knowledge of the
Divine nature was to flow out over the earth ; and the central thought
of it was the realization of the Divine government — not in a vague
hereafter, but in the living present. The unpractical prospective
justice which had become an excuse for tyranny, was superseded by
an immediate justice in time. They were to reap the harvest of their
deeds, not in heaven, but on earth. There was no life in the grave
whither they were going. The future state was withdrawn from their
sight till the mischief which it had wrought was forgotten. It was
not denied, but it was veiled in a cloud. It was left to private
opinion to hope or to fear ; but it was no longer held out either as an
excitement to piety, or a terror to evil doers. The God of Israel was
a living God, and His power was displayed visibly and immediately
in rewarding the good and punishing the wicked while they remained
in the flesh. It would be unbecoming to press the parallel, but
phenomena are showing themselves which indicate that an analogous
suspension of belief provoked by the same causes may possibly be
awaiting ourselves. The relations between man and man are now
supposed to be governed by natural laws which enact themselves
independent of considerations of justice. Political economy is erected
into a science, and the shock to our moral nature is relieved by the
reflection that it refers only to earth, and that justice may take effect
hereafter. Science, however, is an inexorable master. The evidence
for a hereafter depends on considerations which science declines to
entertain. To piety and conscientiousness it. appears inherently pro
bable ; but to the calm, unprejudiced student of realities, piety and
conscientiousness are insufficient witnesses to matters of fact. The
religious passions have made too many mistakes to be accepted as of
conclusive authority. Scientific habits of thought, which are more
and more controlling us, demand external proofs which are difficult
to find. It may be that we require once more to have the living-
certainties of the Divine government brought home to us more pal
pably ; that a doctrine which has been the consolation of the heavy-
laden for eighteen hundred years may have generated once more a
practical infidelity, and that by natural and intelligent agencies, in
the furtherance of the everlasting purposes of our Father in heaven,
the belief in a life beyond the grave may again be about to be with
drawn.'

17 Luke 3

194 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
This voice of warning is not lifted up without a cause. They are
not fit for the hope of a life to come, who make no effort to realise
the Christ-like life on earth.
Immediately following the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is
placed a discourse of Jesus to his disciples. 'And he said unto his
disciples, It is impossible but that occasions of stumbling should
come.' This corresponds with Young's word ' stumbling-blocks,' in
place of ' offences ' in the Authorised Version. The term ' stum
bling-block ' conveys the idea of something laid in the way of social
progress, something which is detrimental to the general welfare, a
cause of danger to many and of injury to some. The condition of
society excludes the hope of immunity from such evils : they ' come '
inevitably, generated out of the imperfections of humanity. If they
who fall and suffer by them are to be pitied, much more miser
able and condemnable are the men by whom they are originated and
perpetuated. Jesus added : ' but woe unto him, through whom they
come.' Sharpe renders : ' but alas for him,' which throws a tone of
compassion into the threat. A premature and ignominious death
would be preferable to a life prolonged to exercise an obstructive
influence. ' It were well for him if a millstone were hanged about
his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, rather than that he should
cause one of these little ones to stumble.' The original is stronger
than the translation. Sharpe renders, ' an upper millstone ' ; Young
' a mighty millstone ' ; the ' Englishman's Greek New Testament,' ' a
millstone turned by an ass.' The expression, ' these little ones '
must refer to the disciples, to whom the discourse was addressed.
Jesus was accustomed to allude to them under that designation.
' Whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup
of cold water only, in the name of a disciple . . .' ' One of these
little ones which believe on me.' Jesus was ever mindful of the
fact that those who followed his teaching and example were shorn of
the powers of resistance and self-defence. So much the worse for
them, from the point of view of this world. So much the worse
for their oppressors, when the rulership of Jesus is established.
Meantime, he counsels his disciples to be vigilant over themselves,
allowing no sin in their midst to pass without rebuke. ' Take heed
to yourselves : if thy brother sin, rebuke him.' Not punishment,
threats or litigation, but argument, expostulation, rebuke must be
resorted to. Should that prove effectual, the matter must end with
amendment on the one side and forgiveness on the other. The
offence must be condoned, not avenged : ' and if he repent, foroive
him.' Young here, as elsewhere, renders 'repent ' as ' reform ' ;&but
the definition of the verb metanoeo is : ' to perceive afterwards or too
late. 2 to change one's mind or opinion. 3 to repent,' and the
noun metanoia, rendered by Young ' reformation,' is defined : ' after
thought : change of mind on reflection, repentance.' Of course
change of thought or purpose must take a practical form ; but the
will_ is the mainspring of conduct, and as soon as mind and heart
begin to move aright, rebuke should cease. No matter how often
the offence might be renewed : human nature is most weak when
most erring, and the spirit of forgiveness must not be less persistent
than the evil which calls for its exercise. ' And if he sin a°ainst

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 195
thee seven times in the day, and seven times turn again to thee,
saying, I repent ; thou shalt forgive him.' Folio wmg the two
oldest MSS. the Revisers do not repeat ' in a day ' before ' turn.'
The precept aims at the maintenance of a spirit of watchfulness and
of healthy criticism. The word ' brother ' indicates that the Christian
community is referred to, not the outside world. Between the
followers of Jesus no wrong must be suffered, and no tame submission
to wrong doing is inculcated. Brother should rebuke brother, and a
discipline of virtue and rectitude be encouraged and upheld : not,
however, by punishment meted out under the idea of retributive
justice, the penalty bejng proportioned to the offence ; but by the
development of a proper spirit and right judgment : immediately
the offender is conscious of his fault and desirous to amend it, no
further rebuke is required. Reformation can only proceed from
within, through a change in the mind of the offender himself, and
the instant that becomes evident, the end of reproof is gained, and no
further pressure should be applied. It must not be assumed that the
habit of repeated forgiveness is inculcated merely with reference to
the perfecting of the character of the offended person, that he may
become more Christ-like. Jesus had at heart the welfare of all, and
if he advises the acceptance of an express desire and intention of
amendment, it is because that is the most efficacious method of
dealing with wrong-doers, the course best calculated to promote not
only the peace but the perfection of the Christian community. The
counsels of Jesus with respect to Church government have not been
recognised or adopted : that ' force is no remedy ' is a maxim of the
highest wisdom, constituting the very essence of Christian judicature ;
the object is not to punish criminals, but to reform them. Jesus
gave his followers power to remit sins, but not to avenge them. His
strongest weapon is 'rebuke'; if the sinner 'turn again,' nothing isMat.15-17
more could be desired ; if not, Jesus has elsewhere laid down a
course of procedure which has been strangely, sadly overlooked, a
scheme of Church discipline which has yet to be urged, tested, estab
lished, before it can be asserted that Christianity has been even
tried, much less found wanting. The existence, for example, of
wars between so called Christian nations, is of itself a proof that
there is no such thing as national Christianity: all fightings are
contrary to the spirit of its Founder, whose ' kingdom is not of this
world,' and who laid down as a maxim of belief and practice that ' all 26 Mat. 52
they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.'

The Evangelist proceeds : ' And the apostles said unto the Lord, n
Increase our faith.' The introduction of the words ' the Lord,'
instead of ' him,' seems to indicate that this was not a continuation
of the preceding subject : there is certainly no apparent connection
between forgiveness and faith. To the request of the disciples Jesus
gave a very remarkable answer. He seems not to admit the idea of
any need for the increase of faith, declaring, on the contrary, that
¦ the minutest imaginable quantity was sufficient to work the greatest
conceivable miracle. 'And the Lord said, If ye have faith as a
grain of mustard seed, ye would say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou
rooted up, and be thou planted in the sea ; and it would have obeyed
you.' A very strong hyperbole, this ! But is it anything more than
0 2

Luke &

196 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
an exaggerated figure of speech ? Having regard to the Speaker, it
may carry a meaning which it could not bear had it fallen from the
lips of an ordinary man. It raises the question of the power of mind
over matter. There are subtle influences at work in nature, acting
invisibly and even independently of volition, which are as certain
and mighty in operation as they are inscrutable and astounding.
Magnetic attraction is a mystery and marvel. Who can explain why
the compass points invariably to the north ? What is the occult
property in the loadstone, which causes a piece of iron to fly to it
through space, and then adhere so firmly ? There dwells in the
magnet an inexplicable force ; give it a name : call it attraction .
the mystery remains as great as(ever. Is it, then, a thing incredible,
that there should emanate from the human mind a power analogous to
that which we know can exist in a piece of metal ? Give that power
a name : call it faith : you do not thereby elucidate the marvel :
you simply define the existence of an inherent quality and force in
mind, that is, in a certain combination of spirit with matter. Jesus
asserts the possibility of what we, in our blind ignorance, would
declare to be impossible. This question reaches to the very basis of
our belief in Deity. Either the order of the universe was self-
generated, or it has been arranged by a supreme Spirit working
upon unconscious matter. That was the belief of the Psalmist :
33 Psa. 6 ' By the word of the Lord were the heavens made ;
And all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
.i o for he spake, and it was done ;
He commanded, and it stood fast.'
Jesus bade his disciples recognise the rudiments of a similar God
like power in themselves. What is faith but assurance, — confidence,
— the conviction that what we will to do is ensured by the act of
willing ? I will to move my finger, and it is done : I had the faith
that I could move it, and the result corresponded to the conviction.
I have no faith, not one grain of faith, that I can uproot a tree : but
if I had that faith, the act would lie within the compass of my power.
The infant unfolds day by clay new attributes, the child develops new-
capacities, the adult puts forth new energies ; and as with the indivi
dual, so with the race. Out of the gloom of barbarism the nations
have gradually emerged into the light of commerce and civilisation,
through them to rise to a yet higher culture and purer morality.
Each age has its own degree of faith, corresponding to the scale of
advancement to which it has attained : to desire an increase of faith,
is to seek that which lies beyond our present grasp ; to grant it,
would be to disturb the order of nature and providence. Faith must
needs be the spontaneous outcome of the human soul : it is the
certainty of conviction, the consciousness of power, the limit of our
own ability to will and do; nothing is impossible to it; it is a
quality, not a quantity ; to crave for more, is as though we were to
ask that the brightest light should be altogether dazzling, for two
suns instead of one, that we may scorch ourselves and die. No : we
must be content to bide our time, to circle in our little round of
duty, passing through our appointed probation of servitude, and
gradually rising to a higher range of faith and action. What the
disciples wanted was not more faith, but more obedience. Jesus at
17 Luke r, s once turned their thoughts in that direction. 'But who is there of

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 197
you, haying a servant (Gr. bond-servant) plowing or keeping sheep
tnat will say unto him, when he is come in from the field, Come'
straightway and sit down to meat ; and will not rather say unto
turn Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve
nie, till 1 have eaten and drunken ; and afterward thou shalt eat and
^'l j of rank and gradati°n must be recognised and
adhered to ; the master must needs take precedence of the servant
Ihe lesson conveyed by the parable amounts to this : be content to
work in your allotted sphere of duty ; do not expect things which
are above you, and too high for you : seek no increase of faith in
the hope of display of power and a sudden elevation ; that which is
necessary and desirable for your Master is equally so for you, and
will in due time be granted you. Be content to do his bidding and
wait his time. Your position and prospects are your sufficient and
only recompense. Aim not at anything beyond, for you can claim
nothing and receive nothing more. ' Doth he thank the servant 17 Luke 9
(Gr. bond-servant) because he did the things which were com
manded ? ' The Revisers and Tischendorf omit the words, ' I trow
not.'^ Alford notes that they are 'omitted by several ancient author
ities,' but no indication is given of their absence from any of the
three oldest MSS. In such a spirit let the disciples simply endeavour
to perform their duty. Enough for them, instead of asking for
higher gifts of faith, to obey every command laid upon them, dis
missing the idea of any works of supererogation, and indulging no
ambition outside their proper sphere of action. ' Even so ye also, „ 10
when ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say,
We are unprofitable servants (Gr. bond-servants) ; we have done
that which it was our duty to do.' The word 'unprofitable' needs
consideration. Alford says : ' In the case of men this is different ;
a good servant is profitable, not useless.' Bat to represent such
servants as unprofitable to their Master is contrary to the parable,
for they were either ploughing or keeping sheep, and afterwards
waiting at table ; and in another parable Jesus describes a heavy
punishment to be due to an unprofitable servant. Alford quotes
Bengel, who gets over the difficulty in this way : ' Wretched is he
whom the Lord calls an unprofitable servant : happy he who calls
himself so.' But as the word ' unprofitable ' does not apply to the
servants in respect of their master, it must in respect of themselves :
their labour was profitable to him, being justly due to him ; it
brought no profit to them, they being bound to render him service.
That the application of the word may be twofold is shown in the
passage : ' That they may do this with joy, and not with grief : for 3 Heh. 17
this ivere unprofitable for you.' It might have stood ' for them ' :
had the writer omitted the last two words, we should have had to
judge for ourselves whether he meant 'for you' or 'for them,' or
'for you and them.' In the case before us, the context sufficiently
indicates that the application of the word ' unprofitable ' is not to
the master but to the servants : it was for them to do their duty,
without expectation of profit in the shape of thanks or special
emoluments. In recording tbe miracles of Jesus, Luke is careful to supply such
particulars of time and place as were within his knowledge. The

198 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
following incident occurred in a journey towards Jerusalem, some-
17 Luke 11 where t near the boundary-line between Galilee and Samaria. 'And
it came to pass, as they were (or, as he was) on the way to Jerusalem,
that he was passing through the midst of (or, between) Samaria and
Galilee.' No record was handed down of the exact spot : the ' certain
village' alluded to was probably too little known to have been
generally recognised by name. At the entrance to the village Jesus
„ i2 was met by ten lepers. ' And as he entered into a certain village,
there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off.' This
isolation from others was obligatory on account of their disease.
The expression ' there met him ' coupled with ' which stood afar off,'
may be taken to indicate that the meeting was intentional on their
part : the fame of Jesus had long been spread abroad, and wherever
he went with his disciples the news of his coming would be likely to
precede him. The lepers with one accord besought the compassion
„ 13 of the great Teacher : ' and they lifted up their voices, saying, Jesus,
Master, have mercy on us.' Probably Jesus was surrounded by a
crowd eager to see and hear him, outside which the ten lepers were
constrained to keep at some considerable distance, endeavouring to
attract his attention by crying aloud. This is implied by the words :
u ' And when he saw them, he said unto them.' It is not said that he
called back to them : probably one of the disciples conveyed to them
14 his message, which was as follows : ' Go and shew yourselves unto
the priests.' They were justified in regarding that as a favourable
answer : the only object of undergoing inspection by the priest was
that he might pronounce the leprosy either diminished or cured.
,, 14 They went as Jesus bade them. ' And it came to pass, as they went,
they were cleansed.' One of them, when he became conscious of the
marvellous change which had come over him, returned to Jesus, pro-
is claiming loudly as he went his thankfulness to God. 'And one of
them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, with a loud
voice glorifying God.' The uplifting of the voice was no needless
demonstration : none would approach a leper, and to shout out, 'God
be thanked for my cure ! ' was natural, and, under the circumstances,
not unbecoming. On reaching the presence of Jesus, he fell pro-
„ i6 strate, pouring forth his thanks. ' And he fell upon his face at his
feet, giving him thanks.' The nationality of the man was discern-
,. 16 ible : ' and he was a Samaritan.' But why, Jesus asked, had one
„ 17 only out of ten returned ? ' And Jesus answering said, Were not the
ten cleansed ? but where are the nine ? ' The feeling of gratitude
„ is was strongest in this alien from the commonwealth of Israel. ' Were
there (or, There were) none found that returned to give glory to God,
save this stranger (or, alien).' This may be accounted for on the
supposition that the rest were Jews, who might consider it enough to
14 Levit. comply with the observance laid down by Moses on the cleansing of
leprosy. The spirit of Jesus appears in his observation : he valued
much, if not mcst, the immediate recognition of a benefit ; and the
acknowledgment to a benefactor was, in his eyes, consistent with, if
not equivalent to, a thanksgiving to God. Moreover, he would not
have the man leave him under the idea that only to God alone, or to
Jesus in conjunction with God, the cure was to be attributed. The
n Luke io man's faith had been a means in the working of the miracle. ' And
he said unto him, Arise, and go thy way : thy faith hath made thee

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 199
whole (or, saved thee).' Young and Tischendorf render 'saved thee • '
the ' Englishman's Greek New Testament,' ' cured thee.' The expres
sion, however translated, is obviously restricted to the healing of the
leprosy. Unfortunately, the training and traditions of theologians
embolden them to discover meanings which are not disclosed or
suggested by the narrative. Dean Alford's comment is as follows :
' Hath made thee whole— -in a higher sense than the mere cleansing of
his leprosy— theirs was merely the beholding of the brazen serpent
with the outward eyes,— but his, with the eye of inward faith ; and
this faith saved him ;— not only healed his body, but his soul'
What a lamentable overstepping of the narrative is that ! How can
the simple but momentous truths which Jesus sought to teach be
realised, when his words are thus stretched beyond their natural and
proper meaning ?
Jesus was once questioned by the Pharisees as to the time when
God's kingdom, which we know had been proclaimed since the days
of John the Baptist, would come. Jesus replied that no outward
signs marked its advent. ' And being asked by the Pharisees, when i
the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, The
kingdom of God cometh not with observation.' There were no
external symbols of that rulership ; it was not a thing to be localised
and gazed at. ' Neither shall they say, Lo, here ! or, There ! for lo,
the kingdom of God is within you (or, in the midst of you).' The
Revisers have retained the word ' within,' but the sense of the
marginal reading is expressly given by Tischendorf 's note : 'translate
is among you.' Alford says : ' The misunderstanding which rendered
these words within you, meaning this in a spiritual sense, in your
hearts, should have been prevented by reflecting that they are
addressed to the Pharisees, in whose hearts it certainly was not.'
Young renders ' within,' not necessarily intending it in a spiritual
sense. Yet his translation ot ' kingdom of God ' by ' reign of God,'
includes that sense : God's ' reign ' can only be ' among ' men in
proportion to their obedience to his will.
What follows was spoken to the disciples, not to the Pharisees, and
must not be assumed to be a continuation of the same subject.
' And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall
desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see
it.' The earthly career of Jesus must draw on to its close ; and
when his daily round of teaching and healing should be ended, there
would spring up in the hearts of his disciples, a longing for his
presence and instruction. Then rumours of his return to earth would
be promulgated, some saying he would be found in one place, some
in another. All such visionary expectations must be set aside.
' And they shall say to you, Lo, there ! Lo, here ! go not away, nor
follow after them.' Tischendorf renders : ' Go not away and pursue
not.' Such reports would not be worth their heeding and investiga
ting. When the day of his manifestation should come, there would
be no need to seek him in a particular spot : the whole world would
know of his coming, which would be as open and unmistakable as
the lightning which flashes at opposite points of the horizon. ' For
as the lightning, when it lighteneth out of the one part under the
heaven, shineth unto the other part under the heaven ; so shall the

200 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part n.
Son of man be in his day.' The Revisers note that ' Some ancient
authorities omit in his day.' Of the three oldest MSS. the Vatican only
omits those words ; Tischendorf retains them. But before the day
of his manifestation, Jesus must pass through much suffering and be
17 Luke 25 rejected by his contemporaries. 'But first must he suffer many
things and be rejected of this generation.' Foreseeing all that, he
looked far beyond, even to a time when he would be the supreme
arbiter of the world's destiny. Jesus had previously foretold as much,
13 Mat. 41 when expounding his parable of the tares of the field. ' So shall it
be in the consummation of the age. The Son of man shall send
forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things
that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity.' Meantime all the
affairs of the world are left to go on after their accustomed fashion,
17 Luke 26- the long-deferred crisis coming suddenly at its appointed time. _' And
29 as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the
days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they
were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,
and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise even as it
came to pass in the days of Lot ; they ate, they drank, they bought,
they sold, they planted, they builded ; but in the day that Lot went
out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and
destroyed them all' The rendering of Tischendorf, Young, and the
' Englishman's Greek New Testament,' ' they were eating, they were
drinking,' &c, is preferable. These two illustrations point tosome
catastrophe, a universal judgment, a special and irresistible inter-
„ 30 ference with the course of nature : ' after the same manner shall it
be in the day that the Son of man is revealed.' So sudden will be
the emergency that not an instant must be lost by those who would
„ 31,32 escape destruction. ' In that day, he which shall be on the housetop,
and his goods in the house, let him not go down to take them away :
and let him that is in the field likewise not return back. Remember
Lot's wife.' As this represents imminent danger to life, the signifi
cance of the following verse is not obvious, and seems at first sight
„ 33 contradictory. ' Whosoever shall seek to gain his life (or, soul) shall
lose it : but whosoever shall lose Ms life (or, sold) shall preserve it
(Gr. save it alive).' Alford translates the verse thus : ' Whosoever
shall have sought his life shall lose it : and whosoever shall have lost
it shall quicken it ; ' and he adds the note : ' whosoever shall have
sought, i.e. during his preceding life, shall lose it then : whosoever shall
have lost it, by self-sacrifice during this life, shall quicken it then ' ;
and he quotes Wordsworth as follows : ' The verb in the original is an
expressive word, derived from animal parturition, bringing forth to
air and life what was before concealed in the womb.' Tischendorf's
rendering is : ' Whosoever shall seek to possess his life, will lose it ;
and whosoever shall lose it will preserve it ' ; Young : ' Whoever
may seek to save his life, shall lose it ; and whoever may lose his life,
shall preserve it.' Nothing can ward off death, and nothing can
hinder life after death. The axiom was one which Jesus impressed
on his disciples at various times, and which he sought to make them
realise as their rule of life and action. And the coming of the Son
of man will be in connection with the final change and crisis of our
present existence, and will involve a process of selection and separa
tion altogether irrespective of worldly conditions and surroundings.

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 201
' I say unto you, In that night there shall be two men in one bed, the 17 Lnke 34,
one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. There shall be two
women grinding together ; the one shall be taken, and the other
shall be left.' The Revisers, following the three oldest MSS., have
omitted the following verse : ' There shall be two men in ' the ti 3G
field ; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.' Alford
suggests that ' it was probably inserted here from Matt. xxiv. 40.'
There has been nothing in the world's history answering to this
description of the coming of the Son of man. It represents not only
a general, overwhelming catastrophe, but simultaneously or antece
dently the deliverance of certain persons. Jesus dwells especially on
this last circumstance, telling us that the discrimination of character
will be so close and unerring that men and women living, resting,
working together will be separated from each other, some taken from
the evil to come and others left to meet their doom. It is the story
of Dives and Lazarus in another form, the same truth, but without a
metaphor, as is revealed in the parables of the tares of the field and
the drag-net, both of which had reference to 'the consummation of 13 Mat. 40,
the age.' The disciples asked Jesus where this stupendous manifesta- 41- 4S' 4"
tion of the Son of man was destined to take place. ' And they 17 Luke 37
answering say unto him, Where, Lord (Sir— Young) ? ' The reply of
Jesus was metaphorical : 'And he said unto them, Where the body „ 37
is, thither will the eagles (or, vultures) also be gathered together.'
Divine judgment will be executed, not with reference to particular
localities, but as it may be necessitated by the course of events : as
the vultures swoop to their prey, attracted thither by the miasma of
the. carcase, so the advent of the Son of man, and the work of separa
tion assigned to his messengers, will come to pass where and when
the state of society may demand such an interference.
Of the parable of the unjust judge which immediately follows,
Alford says : ' This parable, though not perhaps spoken in immediate
unbroken sequence after the last discourse, evidently arose out of it.'
The opening words imply, at least, that it was spoken to the same
persons : ' And he spake a parable unto them,' that is, to ' the dis- is Luke i
ciples ' (see verse 22 of the last chapter) : ' to the end that they ought „ Tj ._.
always to pray, and not to faint, saying, There was in a city a judge,
which feared not God, and regarded not man.' Young renders lite
rally : ' A certain judge was in a certain city, God not fearing, and
man not regarding.' A man without conscience and without prin
ciple, setting at naught all laws, divine and human. To his judgment
seat there came a lonely, persecuted woman. ' And there was a widow „ 3
in that city, and she came oft unto him, saying, Avenge me (or do
me justice) of mine adversary.' That, for some time he refused to
do ; but, later on, he altered his mind, and resolved to do her justice.
Not willingly, however, nor from any sense of rectitude, but simply
to save himself the annoyance caused by her repeated applications.
' And he would not for a while : but afterward he said within him- „ 4, 5
self Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow
troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest she wear me out (Gi^ bruise me)
by her continual coming.' Persistent entreaty was a sufficient fever
wherewith to overcome his conscienceless immobility. On that point
of the parable Jesus seized, emphasising the lesson it conveyed. ' And „ s

202

THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.

IS Luke

IS Luke S

the Lord said, Hear what the unrighteous judge (Gr. the judge of
unrighteousness) saith.' If he was moved by the widow's importunity
to vindicate her cause, how much more will God exercise his judicial
power in favour of those whom he has chosen out of the world, and
whose cry, under the wrongs and persecutions of the world, sounds
unceasingly in his ears ? 'And shall not God avenge his elect, which
cry to him day and night, and he is longsuffering over them ? ' The
Authorised Version has : ' though he bear long with them,' but the
wording of the Revisers agrees with Tischendorf and Alford. The
latter explains : ' He is long-suffering to those who oppose them ; '
but surely the word ' them ' must refer back to the elect. So Peter
ii. Pet. 9 applied the term : ' long-suffering to you-ward.' The word ' though,'
in the Authorised Version, is not in the original The long-suffering
or patience of God to the cry of his chosen, is put in contrast with
the impatience of the unjust judge to the complaint of the widow ;
the divine long-suffering is in the direction of a willing, continuous
attention, which was the quality lacking in the unjust judge, who
would not suffer the woman's importunity. The reverse of that
holds good with respect to God and his elect : ' I say unto you, that
he will avenge them speedily.' From this it follows that the drift of
the parable, that ' they ought always to pray and not to faint,' is not
to be understood as referring to the reiteration of prayer, for there can
be no need of that to One who answers ' speedily.' The expression,
' which cry to him day and night,' denotes the incessant wrong-doing
which is committed in the worid, so that an unbroken chorus of sup
plication is ever rising to God in appeal against man's injustice.
Generation after generation, by day and night, that goes on : yet
' the Lord is not slack concerning his promise ; ' the warning of Jesus
never ceases' to apply : ' Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles
thou art with him in the way ; lest haply the adversary deliver thee
to the judge.' That will be the lot of every oppressor. Our earthly
life soon ends, and how speedily after death come judgment and the
rectification, even to reversal, of this world's inequalities, let the
parable of the rich man and Lazarus, — whose name signifies ' God is
my help,' — testify. All this, however, is a matter of faith, unbacked
by any evidence : the ' I say unto yon ' of Jesus is the only basis for
our hope to rest upon. And as time goes on, century after century
passing without any visible divine interference, the anticipation of a
judgment to come grows fainter, so that even ' in the last days ' the
question will be asked, •' Where is the promise of his coming ? for,
from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they
were from the beginning of the creation.' Foreseeing this, Jesus
added : ' Howbeit, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith
(or, the faith) on the earth ? ' Young, Tischendorf, and Alford
render ' the faith,' the latter considering it to be 'faith in reference to
the object of the parable.'
Although the Revisers have not dropped from verses 3, 5, 7, and 8
the word ' avenge,' they have given as its equivalent, ' do me justice
of.' Alford suggests, ' deliver me from ; ' Young has ' do me justice '
. . ' do her justice ' . . ' execute the justice ' ; Luther uses in each
instance the word ' retten,' ' save.' The alteration is important,
because in modern language the words ' avenge ' and ' vengeance '
have come to signify more than impartial ' justice,' and convey the

3 ii. Pet. 9
5 Mat. 25

3 ii. Pet. 4

IS LukeS

part ii.]. A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 203
idea either of actual vindictiveness or of punishment inflicted with
extremest rigour. It is clear that in this parable the term ' avenge '
applies rather to the benefit conferred on the oppressed than to any
penalty inflicted upon the oppressor ; and throughout the Scriptures
by the words ' avenge, avenger, vengeance,' should be understood ¦
simply the execution of ' justice.' In that, its true sense, the doctrine
of divine ' vengeance ' is a grand, ennobling, consolatory truth. Thus
viewed, passages in the Psalms and elsewhere, which otherwise must
be regarded as revolting or inexplicable, assume solemnity and
pathos. Vengeance or avengement must never be dissociated from or
go beyond the idea of justice ; retaliation is not synonymous with
vindictiveness. On 'the avenger of blood' in Israel devolved the
duty of slaying every murderer, without trial, without delay ; he was
the exponent of the divine law, ' Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by 9 Gen. o
man shall his blood be shed.' Flight to one of the cities of refuge
was the only way of avoiding immediate destruction, and of claiming
the right of trial ; and even if the charge were reduced to man
slaughter, the manslayer was not safe from the avenger outside the
city of refuge. Only the avenger was justified in executing vengeance, sa Num.
and he was commissioned to act unhesitatingly, unvaryingly, like a
passionless law of nature, as surely, as swiftly, as remorselessly, on
meeting a murderer, as a flame of fire consumes the stubble within
its reach. Consider the effect which such an office, always existing
among the Israelites, must have had on the popular conception : the
idea of ' vengeance ' was connected with the exercise of a strictly
judicial function, an unsparing severity against bloodguiltiness, estab
lished for the protection of the community. ' Vengeance ' was declared
to be an attribute of the God of Israel, and is spoken of in connection
with his prerogative of supreme judgment. ' Vengeance is mine, and ^ £>?"¦ ss
recompence.' ' 0 Lord, thou God to whom vengeance belongeth, 94 Ps. 1-3
Thou God to whom vengeance belongeth, shine forth.
Lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth :
Render to the proud their desert.
Lord, how long shall the wicked,
How long shall the wicked triumph ? '
Not cruelty, but mercy, and a sublime love of justice, were in the
soul of David when he sang :
' The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance : 58 Psa. 10,11
He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
So that men shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous :
Verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth.'
In the mind of Paul also vengeance and judgment seem to have
been synonymous, for he asks : ' Is God unrighteous who taketh ven- 3 Rom. 5, 0
geance ? ' and answers : ' God forbid : for then how shall God judge
the world ? '
Luke next records another parable, which was not addressed to the
disciples, but to certain persons who showed a spirit of self-laudation,
and at tbe same time held others in contempt. ' And he spake also is Luke o
this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were
righteous, and set all others (Gr. the rest) at nought.' Possibly some
unrecorded incident revealed that trait of character and called forth

204 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
this reproof from Jesus. Young's rendering points that way : ' And
he spake also to certain who were trusting in themselves that they
were righteous, and despising the rest, this simile.' Tischendorf,
however, renders : ' certain who trust in themselves that they are
-righteous, and set at nought the rest.' Alford also adopts that
rendering. Jesus describes two men, one at the top, the other at the
is Luke 10 bottom of the social scale, both going to pray in the temple. ' Two
men went up into the temple to pray ; the one a Pharisee, and the
other a publican.' The Authorised and Revised Versions continue -.
u ' The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself.' The words
'with himself are omitted by Tischendorf, and by Young who
renders : ' The Pharisee having stationed himself, thus prayed : ' the
recognized formality of posture was punctiliously observed. And his
prayer turns out to be a thanksgiving — on behalf of himself, all about
, 11 himself, his integrity, his morality. ' God, I thank thee, that I am
not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers.' Ah ! how
thankful he ought to be, not only on account of his freedom from
such gross immoralities, but for bis honourable position in society :
how different his lot from that of this tax-gatherer, whose calling was
„ n deemed, if not infamous, certainly not respectable ; so he adds : ' or
even as this publican.' What a privilege to have a strict sense of
religious duty, involving constant, voluntary self-denial in food and
,, 12 money ! 'I fast twice in the week ; I give tithes of all that I get,'
The Revisers have altered ' possess 'to ' get ; ' Tischendorf and
Alford render the word ' acquire ; ' the ' Englishman's Greek New
Testament ' ' gain.' He gave a tenth part of his income. The heart
of the Pharisee stands revealed to us : nothing he said can be
assumed to be hypocritical or untrue. He is represented as simply
trusting in himself that he was righteous, and looking down upon the
publican. The tax-gatherer was humble in demeanour, and would
not even lift his eyes heavenwards, a custom which we know that
„ 13 Jesus himself observed in prayer. ' But the publican, standing afar
off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven.' That his
soul was filled with compunction was evident from his gesture, his
intensity of self-reproach impelling him to smite his breast, as he
„ 13 confessed his sinfulness and craved forgiveness : ' but smote his breast,
saying, God, be merciful (or, be propitiated) to me a (or, the) sinner.'
What a contrast between these two men, the one esteeming himself
as best among the best, the other as worst among the worst ; the one
full of thankful self-congratulation, airing his virtuousness of heart
and life in the sight of heaven, the other a self-accused criminal,
anxious only to deprecate the wrath of God due to his misdeeds ! As
they left the house of prayer for their respective homes, which of the
„ n two was the more acceptable in the sight of God ? Jesus tells us : I say
unto you, This man went down to his house justified rather than the
h other.' And this by the working of an inflexible law : ' For every
one that exalteth himself shall be humbled, but he that humbleth
himself shall be exalted.' That is the point of the parable ; the one
lesson which Jesus bids us draw from it. He impressed this truth on
2'j Mat. n, his disciples on two other occasions also. ' But he that is greatest
12 among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalthimself
shall be humbled ; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be
n Luke io, exalted.' Again : ' Then shalt thou have glory in the presence of all

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 205
that sit at meat with thee. For every one that exalteth himself shall
be humbled ; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.'
The three instances in which Jesus enforced this argument applied
to matters of social conduct and demeanour : he would have us
take it as a rule of life, with respect to claims of precedence in
society and in the church. The apostle Paul laid hold upon this
truth, and acted in accordance with it: ' For we are not bold to 10 it Cor. 12
number or compare ourselves with certain of them that commend
themselves ; but they themselves, measuring themselves by them
selves, and comparing themselves with themselves, are without under
standing.' Accepting this as sound philosophy and a doctrine of
Christian ethics, surely that educational system must be unwise and
wrong, which is based upon emulation, the standard of a boy's pro
gress being his position in a class, claims to distinction arising out of
a comparison of the scholars with each other, so that they are taught
to be ' measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing them
selves with themselves.' ' Every one when he is perfected shall be » t^e 40
as his teacher.' Whatever is thoroughly learnt by all ceases to be a
subject of competitive examination : comparison in degrees of attain
ment is but the badge of imperfection ; the custom of prize-giving
and of ' honours ' in our educational system is an evidence either of
the fact that the effort to teach thoroughly has not been successful
with the majority, or that the scholars generally have been exercised
beyond their mental powers. Distinctions granted to the few are, in
truth, reproaches chargeable against the teacher for his failure with
the many. A wiser method should be adopted. Instead of the
artificial system of prize-giving, and the detestable custom of sending
periodical ' reports,' with the names and ' marks ' of respective
scholars, which too much resembles an attempt to shift the responsi
bility from the schoolmaster upon the parents, who desire that their
children may be taught, not simply classified as more or less un
successful scholars, why should not certificates of competency be
issued ? That could easily be arranged for all subjects : certificates,
for instance, of having become perfect in the first four rules of
arithmetic, in practice, in simple and compound proportion, in
decimals ; certificates of thorough attainment in specific grades of
geometry, of languages, grammatically, by translation, and collo
quially, of geography, of writing and drawing in their several stages,
and so 'on. Such certificates would be reliable evidences of progress,
and would obviate the objectionable system of 'cramming' for
examinations. Such a plan has been adopted with satisfactory results
by Mr. Isaac Pitman. He issues certificates for phonography : that
a speed of so many words per minute has been attained. Every
student should perform his work for the work's sake, apart from the
stimulus and strain of competition. Why should he be induced to
compare himself with his fellows, and measure his own attainments
by those of others ? So far as the spirit of emulation is instinctive
and spontaneous, it will find its natural outcome in games of strength
and skill, which are undertaken for the play's sake, just as studies
should be for the work's sake. There is no need to encourage in the
young a yearning for distinction and pre-eminence. Jesus detected
too much of such a spirit in his days, and he counsels us to hold
aloof from it, to act upon the contrary principle, to accept as a truth

200

THE KING AND THE KINGDOM:

[part II.

and life-maxim his assurance : ' Every one that exalteth himself shall
be humbled, but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.'

19 Mat. 13

18 Luke 15
10 Mark 13

IS Luke 16

19 Mat. 14 '

10 Mark 15
IS Luke 17

Luke's narrative now again falls in with Matthew and Mark. The
three evangelists record the bringing of infants to Jesus. ' Then
were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his
hands on them, and pray.' Luke says nothing about praying, but
uses a word which denotes the earliest age. ' And they brought unto
him also their babes, that he should touch them.' Mark : 'And they
brought unto him little children, that he should touch them.'
Matthew and Mark state : ' and the disciples rebuked them.' Luke
says: 'But when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.' The
Revisers have substituted in Mark ' them ' for ' those that brought
them,' on the authority of the two oldest MSS. The rebuke could
scarcely fail to be reflected upon such of the children as were old
enough to understand the prohibition. Possibly it seemed to the
disciples derogatory to the character and office of their Teacher that
he should be importuned in this way : that his touch, which had so
constantly worked miracles of healing should be sought when no
infirmity required it, perchance even with a superstitious notion. But
the interference of the disciples was hotly resented by Jesus. ' But
when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation.' Luke represents
him as summoning the disciples to give them his opinion of the
matter. ' But Jesus called them unto him, saying, Suffer the little
children to come unto me, and forbid them not : for of such is the
kingdom of God.' Mark : ' and said unto them, Suffer the little
children to come unto me ; forbid them not : for of such is the
kingdom of God.' Matthew : ' But Jesus said, Suffer the little
children, and forbid them not, to come unto me : for of such is the
kingdom of heaven.' In Matthew and Luke the Authorised Version
omits the word ' the ' before ' little children,' thereby making the
words apply generally ; but Tischendorf, Young and Alford agree
with the Revisers. Tischendorf in the three places uses the expression :
' Leave the little children to come unto me : ' the force is on the word
' come ; ' the children, invited by the gesture of Jesus, were to be left
free to follow their natural impulse, no man forbidding them. The
saying of Jesus must not be stretched beyond the occasion, as though
it applied in any way, except by analogy, to the question of infant
baptism. The calling together of the disciples indicated a purpose of
stating an important truth, and the lesson conveyed by Jesus was in
the opposite direction : not that children were to be admitted to the
rite of baptism, not that they needed to be brought into the kingdom
of heaven, but that their characteristic innocency and helplessness
were the pattern of the heavenly disposition : ' for of such is the king
dom of heaven.' Instead of depreciating children, Jesus would have
his disciples imitate them. God's kingdom was not for the indepen
dent and self-confident ; men must receive it in a childlike spirit,
put away the sense of self-confidence and self-esteem, unlearn their
previous teaching, begin life afresh, starting with new maxims, new
aims, new hopes : ' Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive
the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein.'
Young renders, ' the reign of God : ' what is that but implicit sub
mission to the divine will ? Jesus was the guide to that new state of

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 207
being, the teacher of the heavenly doctrine, the alphabet of which
could only be acquired by childlike docility. Once within the king
dom, heavenly lessons would be learned, spiritual powers unfolded,
a nobler career of duty opened out, the higher life inaugurated. But
only through humility, passive, unquestioning, reverential submission
to the heaven-sent doctrine, could entrance be Tgained. Jesus had
previously taught that truth, enforcing it by calling to himself a little
child, and assuring his disciples, ' Except ye turn, and become as is Mat. 2, 3
little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.'
No wonder his indignation was roused, when he found them rebukin'o-
and driving away children from his presence. He scrupled not to
comply with the wish of those who brought them, embracing the
little ones, blessing them, laying his hands on each. 'And he took 10 Mark 10
them in his arms, and blessed them, laying his hands upon them.'
Matthew explains that it was a parting benediction, the last act of
Jesus in the place where he had been teaching. ' And he laid his io Mat. is
hands on them, and departed thence.'
The compilers of the ' Ministration of Public Baptism of Infants
to be used in the Church,' availed themselves of this incident with
consummate judgment and tact. After reading the account given
by Mark, the Minister comments as follows : ' Beloved, ye hear in
this Gospel the words of our Saviour Christ, that he commanded the
children to be brought unto him ; how he blamed those that would
have kept them from him ; how he exhorteth all men to follow their
innocency. Ye perceive how by his outward gesture and deed he
declared his good-will toward them ; for he embraced them in his
arms, he laid his hands upon them, and blessed them. Doubt ye not,
therefore, but earnestly believe, that he will likewise favourably
receive this present Infant ; that he will embrace him with the arm's
of his mercy ; that he will give unto him the blessing of eternal life,
and make him partaker of his everlasting kingdom. Wherefore we
being thus persuaded of the good-will of our heavenly Father towards
this Infant, declared by his Son Jesus Christ ; and nothing doubting
but that he favourably alloweth this charitable work of curs in
bringing this Infant to his holy Baptism: let us faithfully and
devoutly give thanks unto him.' That, in truth, is the only founda
tion on which the theory and practice of infant baptism can be
upheld : and it is a weak foundation at the best. For the good-will
of Jesus was shown towards children as children, simply in their
natural condition, apart from any doctrine of regeneration : whereas
the Minister deals with children from an opposite point of view,
saying : ' Forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, and
that our Saviour Christ saith, None can enter into the kingdom of
God, except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and of the
holy Ghost : I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our
Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to this
Child that thing which by nature he cannot have.' How different is
this, in tone and spirit, from the words of Jesus, ' of such is the
kingdom of God.' Infant baptism is held to be much more than a
mere emblematic and figurative rite, as the prayers by which it is
accompanied plainly indicate. Something supernatural is besought
from God, and is declared to have been bestowed by him : for the
priest says, 'We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that

208 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant with thy holy Spirit.'
That supernatural gift is assumed to be granted at the font, the
prayers used putting God foremost and the Priest somewhat in the
background. But in urgent cases of private baptism, only ' so many
of the Collects appointed to be said before in the Form of Public
Baptism, as the time and present exigence will suffer,' are to be used ;
and as soon as the water is poured upon the child, and the words
uttered, ' I baptize thee In the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost,' God is thanked as before : ' We yield thee
hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to
regenerate this Infant with thy holy Spirit.' The change is believed
to have been wrought through the magic of those few priestly words !
And in order that the people may rely unhesitatingly on the efficacy
of the rite, both in this world and the next, this note is added : ' It
is certain by God's Word, that Children which are baptized, dying
before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.' Our Lord
Jesus never claimed for his touch and blessing any such power as
that. Infant baptism, with the doctrines thereto attached, is no part
of his gospel, but an invention of theologians. They have not only
sought to justify the practice by referring to his kindly and eulogistic
words spoken with respect to children, but in another Church
ceremony devised by them they have imitated his laying on of hands.
Having claimed the mystic power of regenerating infants through
water and the holy Spirit, allowing sponsors to promise and vow
repentance and faith, in the name and on behalf of the unconscious
child, they thought it advisable, and from their point of view it might
well be deemed absolutely necessary, that some twelve years or more
afterwards these children should ' themselves with their own mouth
and consent, openly before the Church, ratify and confirm what their
Godfathers and Godmothers promised for them in Baptism.' That,
by itself, would have constituted a very simple, touching ceremony :
but that also was elaborated in accordance with assumptions of
priestly influence and power. ' The Order of Confirmation, or laying
on of hands upon those that are baptized and come to years of
discretion,' does not put forward any claim to the effect that grace
and virtue flow from the touch of the Bishop's hands. On the
contrary, that action is left altogether vague and undefined : it may
be taken to mean little or much, anything, nothing, or everything,
according to the ideas and teaching which may have been impressed
upon the candidates for Confirmation. But it is a most natural
question, Why should the laying on of hands have been instituted,
and why should it have been restricted to one holding highest office
in the Church ? and it is an equally natural inference, that when the
Bishop lays ' his hands upon the heads of every one severally,' some
benefit is claimed, or intended, or believed, or hoped, to be conveyed
thereby. If not, why is the laying on of hands by the apostles thus
imitated, and in connection with solemn prayers for the outpouring
of ' the holy Ghost ? ' The only guidance vouchsafed on this point is
that the Bishop, in the Collect, says, ' upon whom (after the example
of thy holy Apostles) we have now laid our hands, to certify them
(by this sign) of thy favour and gracious goodness towards them.'
The individual Bishop assumes the recognised style of royalty,
speaking of himself as ' we,' ' we have now laid our hands.' When

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 209
the apostles laid on their hands, some visible, oral, or other manifes
tation of the Holy Spirit s presence followed : the Bishop claims only
that he gives a ' sign,' not even of some inward and spiritual grace
but simply of God's ' favour and gracious goodness.' If that is all'
why this punctiliousness of ceremony and gesture ? We do not need
the touch of a Bishop's hand to assure us of the well-known truth
that our heavenly Father is loving unto every man. Infant Baptism
the Catechism, and tne Order of Confirmation constitute an artificial
system of Church membership, and cry aloud for honest criticism
and revision. The intention was good : to christianise every child
from birth, to lay down a recognised form of religious teachino- and
in due time to impress upon every young person the solemn obliga
tions of Christianity. No provision was made, however, for any
changes which might become necessary by the advancement of reli
gious thought and the modification of existing creeds : the compilers
of the Prayer Book assumed the absolute perfection and incontrover-
tibihty of every doctrine they laid down, and demanded an unques
tioning submission to the forms and ceremonies they prescribed.
How little influence such clerical teaching has had upon adults
generally is evidenced by the constant failure of multitudes to attend,
except at rare intervals of their own choosing, the Lord's supper. In
vain do the clergy invite, implore, insist upon spiritual benefits to be
derived from frequent participation, and danger to the soul from
neglect of the ordinance : the majority of the congregation habitually
turn their backs upon it, and treat the exhortations of the Minister
with silent contempt, albeit in every other point of divine worship
and Christian living they may be as devout and blameless as the
comparatively few regular communicants. Does not that prove the
existence of a widespread unbelief with respect to the sacramental
dogmas insisted on by the clergy ? Men and women are not afraid to
disregard their teaching and injunctions, and face the threatened
penalties. But their children they are still careful to bring to
baptism, and would not withhold them from confirmation. This
state of things might go on for an indefinite period, were it not that
the number of those who think for themselves on religious matters,
or are led by other teachers, is ever on the increase. Some there are,
none can say how many or how few, who deem the clergy generally
unsafe and unwise guides, and who are anxious to keep their children's
minds free from clerical dogmatic teaching ; who dare not take the
responsibility of imposing upon their children a catechism, to be
learnt by rote, which is altogether out of harmony with their own
convictions and feelings ; and who could not conscientiously urge
them to submit themselves to examination by a clergyman to be
prepared after his fashion as candidates for confirmation. The next
step in advance must needs be that the catechism and rite of confir
mation will fall more and more into desuetude, and unless that should
lead to an utter disregard of the Lord's supper, — which God forbid,
though one sees not how, under present circumstances, it can perma
nently hold its ground, — there must be a deliberate setting aside of
the rule originally laid down : ' And there shall none be admitted to
the holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready
and desirous to be confirmed.' The clergy themselves must needs be
leavened with the spirit of the age in which they live. As a body

210 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part n.
they have already ceased from making any vigorous protest ; some of
them are sure to imbibe or to sympathise with the new opinions
embraced by the intelligent among" the laity. There are old penalties
and antiquated laws still upon the statute-book, which no man now
would think of enforcing : the same gradual process of neglect and
oblivion will render obsolete the Catechism and the Confirmation cere
mony, and then, to save Baptism and Holy Communion from a
similar fate, tbey will have to be freed from the superstition, errors
and false assumptions with which they are interwoven, and remodelled
in a form to harmonise with the light of reason and the simplicity
which led men to welcome them when first instituted. Meantime,
until that or some other devoutly to be wished for consummation is
arrived at, the breach between clergy and laity must widen, the
influence of the former continue to decline, and some of the best
minds and purest hearts among the latter be content to bear, silently
or with an occasional protest, the false charge of indifference, irre
verence, atheism, or whatever other brand denoting a fundamental
difference of opinion may be imposed upon them. Not the clergy of
the present day, but their predecessors, who fondly persuaded them
selves that they held the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth in theology, and vainly hoped to stereotype their own ideas
upon the members of the Church of England for all time, are re
sponsible for this entanglement. There are two things the heaven
sent doctrine will not bear : the pressure of the human hand,
moulding it into a particular form ; and tbe admixture of human
inventions. In the account of the following incident the discrepancies between
the ancient MSS. indicate that commentators in early times had set
themselves to the task of revising and altering the original documents.
io Mat. i6 In the Revised Version Matthew begins as follows : 'And behold, one
came to him and said, Master (or, Teacher), what good thing shall I
do, that I may have eternal life ? ' The Revisers note that ' some
ancient authorities read Good Master.' It so stands in the Authorised
Version, but the two oldest MSS. omit 'good.' The Authorised
Version continues : ' And he said unto him, Why callest thou me
„ n good ? ' The Revisers, following the two oldest MSS., render : 'And
he said unto him, ' Why asketh thou me concerning that which is
good ? ' This refers, not to any appellation bestowed on Jesus, but
to the question, ' What good thing shall I do ? ' The Authorised
Version, agreeing with ' some ancient authorities,' adds : ' There is
„ 17 none good hut one, that is God.' The Revised Version stands :' One
there is who is good.' Tichendorf's Tauchnitz Edition gives the
reading of the two oldest MSS. thus : ' Why askest thou me con
cerning what is good ? He who is good is One.' But Dr. Samuel
Davidson's translation of Tischendorf's critical text is as follows :
' Why askest thou me concerning the good ? One is the good.''
There seems to be uncertainty about the translation as well as about
the reading. Mark describes how the man ran to Jesus and knelt
before him ; and the question put differs somewhat, and the answer
id Mark it- entirely. ' And "as he was going forth into the way (or, on his way),.
there ran one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good
Master (or, Teacher), what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life ?

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 211
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good ? none is good
save one, even God.' Luke adds that the man was a ruler. ' And a iS Luke ls
certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master (or, Teacher), what " «
shall I do to inherit eternal life ? And Jesus said unto him, Why
callest thou me good ? none is good, save one, even God.' The
reading of the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS. proves that the passage
in Matthew had been altered to harmonise with Mark and Luke.
Alford says : ' This passage furnishes one of the most instructive and
palpable cases of the smoothing down of apparent discrepancies by
correcting the Gospels out of one another and thus reducing them to
conformity.' Let us consider first the words as they stand in Mark
and Luke. The point of the reply turns upon the word 'good' in
the question. ' Good Master . . . Why callest thou me good ? ' It
seems to have been assumed, as though it were a matter of course,
that Jesus thereby reproved the questioner for applying to him the
term ' good,' and afterwards proceeded to answer the question. But
that is a mere guess, without a foundation, and it is more reasonable
to take the words as forming part of the answer to the question.
' Why ? ' is properly equivalent to ' wherefore ? ' ' on what account ? '
'for what reason?' The questioner is bidden to ask himself that
question. What induced him to come to Jesus, and to consider him
a ' good Teacher ? ' Was it not because of his work, his life, his
teaching ? He was engaged in God's work : his life was devoted to
God's cause, the establishment of ' the kingdom of God ; ' he taught
men to obey the will of God. God was the sole fountain of good ;
' none is good save one — God ; ' that must be the doctrine of every
good teacher. Therefore the question, ' What shall I do ? ' admitted
only of one answer : ' Thou knowest God's commandments: ' do them.
This harmonises perfectly with the original reading of Matthew's
gospel as now accepted by the Revisers. He also makes the point of
the answer turn upon the word ' good ' in the question : but in quite
a different way. He omits mention of the title ' good ' which was
applied to Jesus as a Teacher, and he brings out the fact that the
questioner asked, ' What good thing shall I do ? ' There is no_ incon
sistency between the evangelists so far. Then Matthew omits the
sentence which the others record ' Why callest thou me good ? ' and
he introduces a sentence which they omit : 'Why askest thou me
concerning that which is good ? ' Still there is no inconsistency, and
if only we do not presume to introduce without warrant the extraneous
idea that Jesus wished to convey a reproof and to repudiate any claim
to a customary title of respect, the evangelists are in harmony as to
the sense : ' Why callest thou me good ? ' and ' Why askest thou me
concerning that which is good ? ' are sentences which might naturally
bs spoken in conjunction, the ' good Teacher' being applied to ' con
cerning that which is good.' Any ambiguity attaching to the words
' Why callest thou me good ? ' is removed, and the true sense of that
expression shown, by the additional sentence, ' Why askest thou me
concerning that which is good ? ' Instead of assuming a discrepancy
between the evangelists, read the accounts together, and all difficulty
of interpretation disappears. The attempt to reconcile them by
partially suppressing and transforming the original account of
Matthew, proceeded from error of judgment and want of insight
The question, ' Why askest thou me concerning that which is good .' .
p 2

212 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM : [part ii.
would surely not be assumed to indicate reproof, as though the _ man
deserved blame for making such an enquiry of Jesus : there is no
more reason for such a supposition with respect to the words, ' Why
callest thou me good ? ' The drift of the two questions is in the same
direction : whoever regarded Jesus as a good teacher concerning
that which is good, must be prepared to believe that God was the
only good, for the life and life-work of Jesus began, continued, and
ended in God. .
Here as elsewhere Young renders 'eternal life ' by 'age-during
life : ' a most important distinction : for ' age-during ' life denotes
the natural continuance of being, whereas 'eternal life' seems to be
regarded as a new, exceptional, or special gift, even when it is not
explained away into something different, as equivalent to eternal
happiness. There can be but one way of reaching the utmost span of
lite, either now in this world or hereafter in another. God's laws
must be observed, not only in view of their constitutional/individual
influence on mind and body, but of their indirect effects, socially as
well as personally. The life of each depends upon his neighbour's
observance of the law, ' Thou shalt not kill,' and the law of heredity,
working retributively in silence, lays upon children the sins,
wilful or ignorant, of parents, sapping the health and shortening the
lives of the entire community. Jesus could only give one answer to
19 Mat. 17 the enquiry. ' But if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the com
mandments.' Here again Mark and Luke are more condensed than
Matthew, their record of the words being simply, ' Thou knowest the
commandments.' Matthew tells us that another question was here
is put. ' He saith unto him, Which ? ' Jesus in reply quoted the
is commandments relating to the duties of man to man. ' And Jesus
said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt
not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and
thy mother : and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' Mark
io Mark 19 omits the closing summary, and introduces, ' Do not defraud.' ' Thou
knowest the commandments, Do not kill, Do not commit adultery,
Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honour thy
father and thy mother.' Luke reverses the order of the first two.
is Luke 20 ' Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not
kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and
mother.' The answer of Jesus amounts to this : that an ' inheritance '
of age-during life is only attainable through the due observance of
every social duty, But as a matter of course the greater includes the
less : personal virtue and self-control are indispensable to every man;
nature itself teaches that intemperance must destroy health, and cut
short life, and that proper care must be taken to preserve the body
from dangers, from undue heat and cold, and from accidents. These
things are necessarily foremost in our own minds, but Jesus does not
even mention them. The question proposed was purely personal, —
selfish : ' What shall I do that I may inherit age-during life ? ' That
is a boon which can never come through individual self-seeking ;
never to any except through fulfilment of the duties due from each to
all. Apart from that consummation of social life, and until it shall
be reached, there can be no age-during life for any. That good gift of
God will never be ours until, through the teaching and grace of Jesus,
the Church, that is the assembly of believers, the community of

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 213
Christians, shall have learnt to live by his precept, ' Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself.'
Probably the enquirer was disappointed at the reply. Instead of
the ' good thing ' he had desired to learn about, Jesus had simply
thrown him back upon old, well known.duties. 'And he said, All these is Luke 21
things have I observed from my youth up.' Mark notes that he still
addressed Jesus as ' Teacher.' ' And he said unto him, Master (or, 10 Mark 20
Teacher), all these things have I observed from my youth.' Matthew,
as before, is a little fuller, telling us that the man was young, and
that he propounded another question. ' The young man saith unto 19 Mat 20
him, All these things have I observed : what lack I yet ' ? The
answer to that was very plain and startling. 'And when Jesus is Luke 22
heard it, he said unto him, One thing thou lackest yet : sell all that
thou hast, and distribute unto the poor.' The expression, 'when
Jesus heard it,' seems to denote that he was struck by the observa
tion^ Mark adds that he gazed upon the speaker, and at once
manifested an affection towards him. ' Aud Jesus looking upon him 10 Mark 21
loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest : go, sell
whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor.' Matthew again adds a
sentence : ' Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell 19 Mat. 21
that thou hast, and give to the poor.' That was indeed a counsel of
perfection, a demand wholly unexpected. Yet it would be but
another step in the same direction : he who claims to have fulfilled
all duties, up to the point of loving his neighbour as himself, and
then asks what more he can do, must needs be called upon to prove
that he loves his neighbour better than himself. That involved
discipleship to Jesus, self-sacrifice for the world's sake being the
very essence of his call. He wanted men as followers who would
forsake all things for his cause, who accepted his axiom that where
the treasure is there is the heart also, and who would be content to
have no tie to earth, laying up treasure in heaven. That hope he
held out to the young man, inviting him to share the same lot as him
self : ' and thou shalt have treasure in heaven : and come, follow me.' 10 Mark 21
The Authorised Version of Mark has after ' come ' the words ' take is Luke 22
up the cross,' which the Revisers have omitted on the authority of the 19 Mat. 21
two oldest MSS. It was a magnificient opportunity, this invitation
to place himself by the side of the good Teacher, and to help forward
his plans for the establishment of God's kingdom. But the young
man was unable to rise to the occasion. His demeanour changed at
once ; a great sorrow took possession of him, for he could not bring
himself to accept the call, involving as it did the loss of property and
position, and he must needs turn his back upon Jesus, whose advice
he had sought with such enthusiasm. 'But his countenance fell at 10 Mark 23
the saying, and he went away sorrowful : for he was one that had
grest possessions.' ' But when the young man heard the saying, he 19 Mat. 22
went away sorrowful : for he was one that had great possessions.'
' But when he heard these things, he became exceeding sorrowful ; is Luke 23
for he was very rich.' Must not Jesus himself have felt sorrowful at
this failure of his effort to gain a disciple ? He could not abate his
terms, but he knew well how hard it. was to comply with them. ' And „ 24
Jesus seeing him said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter
into the kingdom of God ! ' The observation was addressed to the
disciples. ' And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, 19 Mat. 23

214 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.'
Mark notes that he surveyed his disciples, as though realising the
10 Mark 23 fact that they were all of another class than this young ruler. ' And
Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly
shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God ! ' It is
„ 24 added : ' And the disciples were amazed at his words.' That he
should make the forsaking of all things a condition of discipleship,
was no new doctrine to their ears ; for he had previonsly laid down
14 Luke 33 the rule, ' Whosoever he be of you that renounceth not all that he
hath, he cannot be my disciple.' But this saying about the incom
patibility of wealth and godliness seemed to extend the rule beyond
io Mark 24 professed discipleship. Jesus however, repeated the assertion. ' But
Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is
it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God ! '
The words, 'for them that trust in riches,' seem to tone down some
what the previous remark ; but they are not found in the two oldest
MSS., aud the Revisers have noted that ' some ancient authorities
omit' them. Jesus reiterated the truth in a strikingly emphatic
19 Mat. 24 form. ' And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go
through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom
io Mark 25 of God.' The words stand precisely the same in Mark, and in Luke
is Luke 25 the only difference is 'enter in through' instead of 'go through.'
The hyperbole denotes an absolute impossibility. We must not
venture to explain away or diminish the force of a declaration which
Jesus saw fit to make so solemnly. It looks as if some early com
mentator had sought to do that, by inserting in Mark the words ' for
them that trust in riches.' Nothing can qualify the simile, which
enforces the moral impossibility under the figure of a physical
impossibility. ' The kingdom of God,' rendered by Young, ' the
reign of God,' obviously denotes a state of life in which everything
i6 Luke io is ruled after the divine will. ' The law and the prophets were until
John : from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached.'
Men were invited to enter into a higher sphere of spiritual activity,
to throw aside all worldly maxims, to inaugurate the life of heaven
on earth, taking the precepts of Jesus for their rule of duty. There
is no favouritism in God's kingdom ; there must be no selfishness
among God's children. Between Christian brethren there must be
no sharp contrasts of wealth and poverty, no superfluity of riches
restricted to a few, whilst many suffer abject poverty. That is
Christ's ideal of a Christian community ; that is God's ideal of his
kingdom : not all that is meant by ' the reign of God,' but an im
portant part thereof, so that it was impossible for a rich man to enter
in. If words have meaning, Jesus meant that. If we say : under the
present state of society that cannot be, — that is simply asserting that
God's kingdom cannot be. In truth, it is a vision which has never
yet been realised on earth. One fact alone is enough to prove that
much : the existence of armies and navies, the perpetuation through
out nineteen centuries after the coming of Christ of the spirit and
habit of war, with the multiplied and inevitable horrors attendant
upon destruction and carnage. There is no approach to the reign of
God whilst the kingdoms of the world are ruled after such a fashion.
The inequalities of social life, the highest class revelling in
splendid luxury, the lowest class, generation after generation, born to

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 215
want and misery : are not these contrasts equally contrary to the
spirit and teaching of Jesus ? He declared that before a rich man
could take the first step into the kingdom of God, he must part with
his wealth. All the first disciples, undertaking as they did to devote
themselves to the establishment of the kingdom of God were uro-ed
to renounce all they had for the cause of Jesus. Only by coming
within the circle of discipleship could men enter the kingdom of God
The two terms, a ' disciple ' and a ' member of the kino-dom of God '
are synonymous. The rich ruler's refusal of the°call, 'Come,
follow me,' is instantly spoken of by Jesus as a refusal to ' enter into'
the kingdom of God,' the one being identical with the other. And
as but few became disciples, not many being invited by Jesus, and all
men being dissuaded by him unless they first counted the cost, so there
were but few who entered the kingdom of God, Jesus declaring it to
be a very hard thing to do so, especially for the rich. But no con
demnation was involved on the multitudes who were not disciples,
and who did not enter into the kingdom of God. That kingdom was
not even preached until the coming of the Baptist, and then only the
strong-minded could take it as by force. 'The law and the prophets i6Lukew
were until John : from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is
preached, and every man entereth violently into it.' For weaker men
there was room enough to live in peace and safety outside, taking ' the
law and the prophets' for their rule of conduct. Their loss was a
loss of privilege, not of the life, not of the soul. To be outside God's
kingdom involved no threat of divine judgment : exclusion and
regret were the penalties pressed home to the minds of the Jews by
Jesus : ' There shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye 13 Luke 2s
shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the
kingdom of God, and yourselves cast forth without.' Not individual
salvation, but the regeneration of society, was the sum and scope of
the ' gospel of the kingdom ' which Jesus preached ; the word ' king
dom ' sufficiently denotes that the coming reformation was to be not
simply individual and personal but socialistic and communal, termed
by Jude ' our common salvation.' So far off are we from such a jude 3
realization of God's kingdom, that the work of its establishment has
±0 be begun afresh. Not until those who claim to be Ministers,
representatives, disciples, followers, — no matter what title be chosen,
— of Jesus, adopt his maxims and requirements absolutely without an
exception, renouncing all things for his sake, thereby giving to the
world the strange spectacle of a body of believers prepared not to
resist evil, not to claim legal rights, not to fight under any circum
stances, not to accumulate property, but to live entirely for the king
dom of heaven, — not until we are taught by such living examples the
true doctrine of Jesus, will his spirit begin again to permeate society.
Count Leon Tolstoi has boldly thought out that truth ; we must not
let it go, neither must we assume such a rule of life to be binding
upon all men. Discipleship to Jesus must be voluntary and excep
tional still, as it was at first. The idea that all are called to disciple
ship is an absurdity. Ministers of the Church of England sign any
and every child ' with the sign of the cross, in token that hereafter
he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and
manfully to fight under his banner, against sin, the world, and the
devil; and to continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant unto his

216 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
life's end.' Words, words, nothing but words ! The ideal is pitched
3 Phii. 14 too high : such a ' high calling of God in Christ Jesus ' was never
meant to be universal, still less to be imposed upon unconscious
infants. It is as utterly out of place and wide of truth, as it would
be to devote every babe to a soldier's life and duties, knowing well
that in nearly every case a different profession would be followed.
Fictions such as these, passed on as an inheritance from age to age,
have dimmed our spiritual eyesight ; and until they are put aside, and
the plain truth, which is always and alone God's truth, faced, our
2 i. cor. 12 perceptive faculties will not be equal to the comprehension of ' the
things that are freely given us by God.' Before Christ's precepts
can be acted upon, men must rise to the level of them. In the pre
sent state of society any general adoption of them would be impossible,
and, if suddenly attempted, injurious. That many rich men should
sell their possessions and give to the poor, would be quite as much to
the loss and detriment of the poor as of the rich. Almsgiving tests
the character of those who receive as well as of those who give ;
indiscriminate charity quenches energy and self-reliance, and tends
to pauperise, that is, to render perpetually poor those who rely upon it.
The trustees of the Peabody fund could find no better way of bene
fiting the poor of London than that of building- better dwellings, at
moderate rentals, for the working class. Hospitals, infirmaries, refuges,
reformatories, workhouses, — we must needs have them still, but the less
the better : for they are evidences either of under-payment for labour
or of improvidence among labourers. The masters who are careful to
pay their workmen fairly, do more for the poor and promote more the
kingdom of God, than those who accumulate huge fortunes, keeping
down wages under cast-iron laws of supply and demand as decreed by
' Political Economy,' and who then disgorge a portion of the ill-gotten
superfluity to help workmen in ways wherein, if the profits on labour
were fairly divided, they should be able and would be willing to help
themselves. Preachers boast of what Christianity has done in the shape
of charitable institutions : but all that paraphernalia of charity is
really an evidence that the ' kingdom of God ' has not yet come, that
the spirit and scheme of Christianity have not yet been realised.
The disciples heard the declaration of Jesus with the utmost
amazement. If it was impossible for a rich man to enter God's king
dom, who would be found ready to accept salvation at such a cost ?
This rich ruler might be taken as an example of others in like circum-
w Mat. 25 stances. ' And when the disciples heard it, they were astonished
exceedingly, saying, Who then can be saved ? ' The Authorised
Version of Mark represents them as enquiring this ' among them
selves,' but the Revisers, following the two oldest MSS., take the
io Mark 26 question to have been addressed to Jesus. 'And they were astonished
exceedingly, saying unto him, Then who can be saved ? ' Luke
is Luke 26 is briefer and vaguer. 'And they that beard it said, Then who can
be saved ? ' Obviously the word ' who ' signifies, ' who among such
persons,' only the wealthy being alluded to. The sense of the word
' saved ' must be fixed by the context : saved out ,of the world, and
admitted into the kingdom of God. There is no fixed meaning
attachable to the word ' saved,' albeit theologians are in the habit of
defining it in one particular way. The apostle Peter speaks of
' salvation ' as a term of such wide and doubtful meaning that those

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 217
who used it had been uncertain as to its import : ' Receiving the end n. Pet. 9-11
of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Concerning which
salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied
of the grace that should come unto you : searching what time or what
manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point
unto.' Salvation relates to a time or manner of time, that is, the
establishment of the kingdom of God.
Luke gives the reply of Jesus thus : ' But he said, The things is Luke 27
which are impossible with men are possible with God.' Matthew is
more definite : ' and looking upon them said to them, With men this 19 Mat. 20
is impossible ; but with God all things are possible.' Mark : ' Jesus 10 Mark 27
looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with
God : for all things are possible with God.' The habitual manner of
Jesus must have been as impressive as his words. Occasionally it
was so striking that special mention was made of it. Here his earnest
gaze, ' Jesus looking upon them,' is noted. Words which we often
read, or hear read, coldly and carelessly, fell from the lips of Jesus
with solemn emphasis, change of voice, of attitude, of countenance,
adding force and dignity to what he said. Did Jesus assert that
what he had just pronounced impossible was not absolutely so, but
only humanly impossible, and that God, although a man clung to his
riches, could nevertheless enable him to enter into the kingdom of
heaven ? That would simply have been to contradict and explain
away the statement he had just before deliberately corroborated by a
strong hyperbole. The import of the passage depends upon the
sense given to the expressions ' with men . . with God.' By taking
them as equivalent to, ' to men . . to God,' we introduce a contra
diction. But ' to ' and ' with ' are not synonymous. Luther renders
the word ' bey : ' ' bey den Menschen ... bey Gott,' which conveys
the idea of association with men . . with God. The Greek word is
para, which is rendered in the Authorised Version 24 different ways,
but never as ' to.' When it governs the dative, as it does in these
three passages, it is frequently rendered 'with,' in the sense of
Luther's ' bey,' as in the following examples. ' There were with us 22 Mat. 25
seven brethren.' ' To be guest with a man that is a sinner.' ' That ™ Ll'keJ
he would tarry teith them.' Following human maxims, customs, ° n
counsels, it is impossible ; but with God, led by him, it is not
impossible to enter his kingdom in this way of his appointment,
leavino- earthly wealth outside. That truth flashed upon the mind of
Peter .& He and his , fellow apostles had indeed entered in that way
the kino-dom of God. 'Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have 10 Mark 28
left all, and have followed thee.' Luke varies the words : ' And Peter is Luke 2s
said Lo we have left our own (or, our own homes), and followed
thee ' The oldest MS. adds, in Mark, the additional words, 'What
shall we have therefore?' They may have been inserted from
Matthew, which stands as follows: 'Then answered Peter and said u Mat. 2,
unto him Lo, we, have left all, and followed thee, what then shall we
have v ' Earthly wealth being excluded, what kind of riches were to
he gained in God's kingdom? Jesus prefaced his reply with his
accustomed solemn, 'Verily.' He would have them believe that
the words he was about to utter were spoken with deliberation and
certainty ' And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you that „ 2s
ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man

218 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel' The words, ' ye which
have followed me,' must be taken in their fullest, deepest sense, not
as denoting a simple profession and badge of discipleship, but an
actual, lifelong imitation of the career of Jesus, the forsaking of all
things, the taking up of his cross, the hating of their own lives for
his name's sake. Thereby they would become fitted for pre-eminence
hereafter, taking part with Jesus in the judicial responsibilities of the
kingdom of God which he came to proclaim and found. A state of
society has to be attained so intrinsically different from that now
existing as to amount to a ' regeneration ; ' Young renders the word
' renovation.' Then the ' Son of man,' Jesus as the head and repre
sentative of redeemed humanity, will ' sit on the throne of his glory.'
No more scorning of his truth and person, no false charges of
blasphemy and sedition, no plotting, betrayal, or crucifixion, but an
acknowledged supremacy, a reverential homage, with all that apper
tains to regal power and majesty. Jesus not only foretold his suffer
ings and death on earth, but looked beyond all that to the glory
which should be given him. His cause would surely triumph ; the
kingdom of God would be established, and then the twelve apostles
he had chosen, having been its pioneers, would have earned a high
position, ranking next to Jesus, and holding office under him. When
redeemed humanity has come beneath the sway of Jesus, the changed
conditions of existence will still admit of conflicting interests, which
will have to be settled, not on the old lines of physical strife and
murder legalised by the name of war, but by the judgment of those
whom Jesus shall appoint, who have submitted themselves unre
servedly to his guidance, and may therefore be trusted as fit exponents
of his mind and will. The mention of ' the twelve tribes of Israel '
was full of meaning. At that time the nationality of Israel, as
regarded ten of the tribes, was a thing of the past. The land was
ruled by strangers, and there was no king over Israel or Judah. The
1 James i epistle of James is addressed ' to the twelve tribes which are of the
Dispersion.' Yet Jesus asserted that the twelve tribes of Israel would
come under the rule of himself and his apostles. The problem of
Israel's restoration is dealt with by Paul, and he arrived at this
n Rom. 26, conclusion : ' And so all Israel shall be saved ; even as it is written,
There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer ;
He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob :
And this is my covenant unto them,
When I shall take away their sins.'
That is a spiritual deliverance, from ungodliness and sins. The
s Rom. 6 apostle argued : ' For they are not all Israel which are of Israel : ' he
insists upon the proper sense of the word ' Israel,' which is, ' contender
„ 7 or soldier of God.' He proceeds : ' Neither, because they are
Abraham's seed, are they all children : but, In Isaac shall thy seed be
4 Gai. 2s called.' Elsewhere he says : ' Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are
children of promise : ' that is, Gentiles with Jews, redeemed by
Jesus, constitute the Israel of God. ' The twelve tribes of Israel '
is an expression which, in the mouth of Jesus, of James, and of Paul,
has a breadth of meaning beyond that which they would have given
s Joim 39 jt who cried, ' Our Father is Abraham,' to whom Jesus answered,
' If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.'

¦Ml

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 219
t N°ti0Ii1/ t0 the aP°sfcles» bufc t0 a11 ^o followed in their steps,
Jesus bed out an assurance of recompense. 'And everyone that 19 Mat. 20
natii left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children
or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall
inherit eternal life.' The Authorised Version has after ' mother ' ' or
wife, which is the reading of the Vatican MS. The Sinaitic' MS
originally had ' houses ' where it stands above, but the word there
had been erased and inserted by a later hand after ' lands,' so as to
stand last instead of first. Instead of ' hundredfold ' the Vatican MS
has 'manifold' Luke now stands as follows: 'And he said unto is Luke 20
them. Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, 80
or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children, for the kingdom of
Gods sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this time, and in
the world (or, age) to come eternal life.' Here the Revisers have
altered the order of tiie words, making them agree with the Sinaitic
MS. The word aion, rendered ' world (or, age),' is the root of the
word aionios. To be consistent, it should be rendered, not ' eternal,'
but ' age-during,' as it is by Young. Mark's record is fuller : ' Jesus 10 Mark 20,
said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or
brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my
sake, and for the gospel's sake, but he shall receive a hundredfold now
in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and
children, and lands, with persecutions ; and in the world (or, age) to
come, eternal life.' Here the Revisers, following the two oldest MSS.,
have omitted ' or wife,' which is in the Authorised Version, and they
have reversed the order of ' mother, father,' according to the Vatican
MS. The original reading of the Sinaitic MS. omitted the thirteen
words from ' nouses ' to ' persecutions,' and also ' for my sake and '
before ' for the gospel's sake.' These frequent erasures and insertions
by a later hand in the old MSS. indicate great care in revising and
collating. The evangelists themselves often differ, as here, in the
form of the expressions attributed to Jesus. Mark has, ' for my sake,
and for the gospel's sake ; ' Luke, ' for the kingdom or God's sake ; '
Matthew, ' for my name's sake.' We have to choose between two
probable explanations : either the exact words of Jesus were not
caught or remembered by all alike, those who reported them caring
more to convey the obvious sense than the precise form of expression ;
or Jesus may have used different terms, all having a similar meaning :
' for my sake, for the kingdom of God's sake, for my name's sake,
for the gospel's sake.' Possibly Jesus was in the habit of reiterating
those portions of a discourse which he wished specially to emphasise,
and in doing so varied his words ; he may even have combined
different modes of expression, either to show that each of them bore
the same meaning, as those above quoted, or to amplify the sense and
deepen the impression, as by first saying ' manifold ' and then ' a
hundredfold.' Young renders Luke as follows : ' who may not receive
back manifold more in this time, and in the coming age age-during
life.' These words of Jesus import that his promise of 'age-during
life ' is reserved for ' the coming age : ' it does not take effect ' in this
time.' Here is a corroboration of the conclusions previously deduced
from the words of Jesus. Wherein the ' manifold more in this time'
consists, we are not told. Jesus simply assures us that devotion to his
cause is more to our advantage, immediately as well as remotely, than

220 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
all else which gives to life its comfort and its charm. The apostle
Paul emphatically and rejoicingly testified to that effect. Mark
throws in two words omitted by the other evangelists : ' with persecu
tions.' Paul had his full share of them, and triumphed in spite of
sii.Tim.io- them. To Timothy he wrote : 'But thou didst follow my teaching,
^conduct, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, patience, persecutions, suf
ferings ; what things befell me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra ; what
persecutions I endured : aud out of them all the Lord delivered me.
Yea, and all that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecu
tion.' He does not say that believers in Jesus will necessarily suffer
persecution : the expression, ' all that would live godly in Christ Jesus '
denotes the entire dedication of the life to the cause of Jesus. The
persecution arose in consequence, not of holding, but of preaching a
« Gai. 11 particular doctrine. ' If I still preach circumcision, why am I still
persecuted ? then hath the stumblingblock of the cross been done
away.' To avoid persecution, it was only necessary to cease preach-
14 Acts 22 ing, or to preach differently. ' Through many tribulations we must
enter into the kingdom of God : ' those words were addressed, not to
believers generally, but to ' the disciples,' and the expression ' enter
into the kingdom of God ' is identical with that used by Jesus when
he called the rich ruler to follow him, first giving up his property.
To ' enter into the kingdom of God,' to ' follow ' Jesus, to ' leave all '
for ' the kingdom of God's sake, for the gospel's sake, for Christ's
name's sake:' these seem to have been but different forms of ex
pression, all denoting the entire dedication of the life to the cause
of Jesus. In following out that career, there would not only be
differences between one and another, but often an absolute reversal
io Mat. 30 of men's relative positions. ' But many shall be last that are
first ; aud first that are last.' The Authorised Version stands : ' But
many that are first shall be last ; and the last shall be first.' The
io Mark 31 Revisers have adopted the reading of the oldest MS. Mark has : 'But
many that are first shall be last ; and the last first.' It is not, many
that are esteemed first, or placed first, or claim to be first : the
meaning goes deeper, and relates to the actual character and conduct.
The course of duty involves self-development ; not only can there be
no equality between one and another, but there can be no fixed status
for any individual. The saying holds good if the italicised words are
omitted. The literal rendering of Matthew, and of Mark also according
to the reading of Griesbach, Lachmann, and Wordsworth, is : ' Many
shall be first last, and last first.' The progress is onward and upward
with all and each ; all may run well, but some better, and the best
will of necessity stand foremost. Every man also must wait for his
call and opportunity : our tasks are varied, and there are appointed
times for doing them. This Jesus illustrated by a parable. He com
pared the life of activity in his cause, which he had been speaking of
as an entrance into the kingdom of God or of heaven, to the hiring of
20 Mat. i labourers for vineyard work. ' For the kingdom of heaven is like
unto a man that is a householder, which went out early in the morning
to hire labourers into his vineyard.' The amount of wages was
„ 2 agreed, and the work entered upon. ' And when he had agreed with
the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.'
Some time after he again went out, found other labourers unemployed,
and engaged them, not fixing the wages, but telling them that he

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 221
would pay them fairly. ' And he went out about the third hour, aud 20 Mat. ?,, 4
saw others standing in the marketplace idle ; aud to them he said, Go
ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you.
And they went their way.' Three hours later, and also six hours
later, he did the same. ' Again he went out about the sixth and the ., ">
ninth hour, and did likewise.' Once more, two hours later, when
there remained only one hour for labour, he went to the marketplace.
' And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing; „ <.
and he saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle ? ' The
two oldest MSS. omit the word ' idle,' but it is retained by Tischendorf
as well as by the Revisers. The labourers replied that no employment
has been offered to them, whereupon they also were sent into the
vineyard. ' They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He „ 7
saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard.' The Authorised
Version adds : ' and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.' This
is not in the two oldest MSS., and is omitted by the Revisers. At
the close of the day the proprietor of the vineyard bade his ' overseer,'
so Tischendorf renders the word, summon the labourers and pay
them, beginning with those last engaged. 'And when the even was „ s
come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the
labourers, and pay them their hire, beginning from the last unto the
first.' A full day's pay was given to those who had done only one
hour's work. ' And when they came that were hired about the .. ''
eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.' Seeing how
liberally these had been dealt with, the men who had laboured from
early morning flattered themselves with the hope that they also would
be overpaid. ' And when the first came, they supposed that they ., 10
would receive more.' Not so : nothing beyond the agreed amount
was paid to them. ' And they likewise received every man a penny.' „ 10
Disappointed and discontented, they complained that they were not
treated fairly. Why should those who bad done an hour's work in the
cool of the evening, be put on an equality with those who had done a
hard day's work under a scorching sun ? ' And when they received ,. ", 1-
it, they murmured against the householder, saying, These last have
spent but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which
have bofne the burden of the day and the scorching heat (or, hot
wind).' To one of these murmurers the employer gave an answer :
no injustice had been done to those who complained ; an agreement
had been made and it had been adhered to. The contract having
been completed on both sides, the labourer had simply to take up his
money and depart. ' But he answered and said to one of them, „ is, 1
Friend, I do thee no wrong : didst not thou agree with me for a
penny ? Take up that which is thine, and go thy way.' The pro
prietor of the vineyard had no intention of raising the standard
price of labour. He bad simply decided to put those last engaged on
an equality with the first. The difference between the amount earned
and the payment made, was so much out of the emp oyer s pocket a
free gift which he chose to make, and which no one had the right to
gainsay. 'It is my will to give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is „ n
it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Did not the
complaint proceed from envy, rather than from a sentiment of ] ustice?
' Or is thine eye evil, because I am good ? '_ Jesus would have the „ v,
parable pondered as illustrating the saying with which he prefaced it,

222 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
20 Mat. 16 for he added : ' So the last shall be first, and the first last.' The
Authorised Version continues : 'for many be called, but few chosen.
That sentence is not in the two oldest MSS., and it is omitted
by Tischendorf as well as by the Revisers. Alford notes that it is
' omitted in several of the oldest authorities.' The insertion cannot be
attributed to a copyist's error, for the two sentences are not found in
conjunction elsewhere. Possibly some early commentator thought he
discerned in the allusion to a free gift, the principle expressed by
Jesus in the words ' many be called, but few chosen,' and inserted
that sentence as explanatory of ' so the last shall be first, and the first
last.' How frequently do preachers and commentators, without
venturing upon an actual addition or misplacement, read different
passages of Scripture into each other, as though they stood side by
side, instead of being widely separated, and thereby lose the special
application of each, and misinterpret both !
' So the last shall be first, and the first last.' That is the only clue
which Jesus gave towards the interpretation of the parable. We
shall best arrive at its proper application by keeping close to the
text and context. It was delivered as an illustration of what must
occur in ' the reign of the heavens,' which expression, as is obvious
from what precedes, denotes the condition of society when brought
under the sway of Jesus. Only his disciples and followers can enter
' the reign of the heavens.' To them, and with reference to them, he
spoke the parable, which followed immediately upon the answer which
he had given to the question put by Peter, ' Lo, we have left all, and
followed thee ; what then shall we have ? ' Jesus made no distinction
between one apostle and another, but placed all upon an equality :
the twelve should sit upon twelve thrones, judging twelve tribes.
And all who devoted themselves to the same cause would share the
same lot, would be recompensed to the same extent, ' manifold more '
or 'a hundredfold,' and would attain to the same perfection of
existence, ' in the age to come age-during life.' This raising of all
to one level involves of necessity the readjustment of men's relative
positions. The status of society generally can be improved only
through a process of equalisation ; in other words, ' Many first shall
be last, and the last first.' The parable was spoken to illustrate that
truth. There is absolutely nothing to favour the idea that the first
became last through their own fault or conduct, or the last first on
account of any superiority of character. On the contrary, the first
laboured throughout the day, and Jesus was careful to state that the
last had been idle only because no man had hired them. The central
point of the parable is the ' penny,' which represents the amount
required for the proper maintenance and comfort of a labourer.
That, neither more nor less, was given to all. A similar process of
adjustment goes on in 'the reign of God.' Every man is called to
exercise his functions to the uttermost ; and at the close of the gospel
dispensation, as its final result, that which was the object of its
establishment, all within the kingdom of God and of Christ will stand
on an equal footing, the perfect life being secured to each and all
alike. Socialism and not individualism, the general welfare and not
personal ambition, a higher standard for all and no sharp contrast
between wealth and poverty : that is the lesson deducible from the
parable, the very spirit and essence of Christ's gospel. We must be

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 223
content to accept the kingdom of God in that shape, or not at all.
' He hath put down princes from their thrones, and hath exalted 1 Lnke 52
them of low degree.' ' The last shall be first, and the first last.'
That, in truth, is the triumph-shout of Christianity.
' Every valley shall be filled, 3 Luke 5, 0
And every mountain and hill shall be brought low ;
And the crooked shall become straight,
And the rough ways smooth ;
And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.'
The ^ salvation of humanity, not of individuals, is ' the salvation of
God.' In face of this great work of the regeneration of society, how
mournful is the question, ' Why stand ye here all the day idle ? '
And how pathetic is the answer : ' Because no man hath hired us ' !
Many stand waiting in the marketplace, ready and anxious to do
their share in Christ's work, but hearing no special call, and knowing
of no vineyard in which to labour. From doctrinal religion, as by
law established, and as preached by those who deem themselves
Christ's ministers, they turn away. What a blessing would it be, to
themselves and others, to find some opening into the kingdom of
God, some sphere of duty lying parallel with that of the apostles and
first disciples, whose sublime act of self-devotion and renunciation
not one of us in ten thousand professing Christians feels himself
called to imitate. Still, in lowlier ways, the great cause may be
helped forward ; and when truer, clearer perceptions of the nature
and character of Christian work begin to dawn upon men's minds,
they will be found willing to sow seed in gospel furrows, albeit they
may not profess to put their hands to the gospel plough. What a
work for Christ and for the poor, has that noble-hearted writer of
fiction, Walter Besant, been able through his novels to accomplish !
What a strange, unexpected, marvellous development and sign of the
times is the ' Salvation army,' raised out of the working classes !
What a hopeful augury for the future ! Give to the leaders of these
men, and to the men themselves, a purer and more rational theology,
a more accurate perception of the real nature of Christ's teaching,
and of that kingdom of God into which they seek to enter, and what
a stride will then be made in the right direction ! Christianity has
ever been a motive-power. Only free it from the mass of errors and
superstitions which have encrusted, disfigured, hampered it, and it
will yet change, rule and save the world.
When last in Jerusalem the life of Jesus had been threatened, and
knowing that the chief-priests and Pharisees were bent on putting
him to death, he had retired from Judaea, staying at Ephraim, near 11 John 54
the wilderness, with his disciples. Now, for some time past, he has
been again 'on the way to Jerusalem.' As they drew nearer to the 17 Luke 11
metropolis, Jesus showed no sign of halting, but kept in advance of
his disciples, as though anxious to avoid delay and indifferent to the
risk he ran. The disciples were astonished at this,' and although they
followed, it was with fear and trembling. ' And they were in the way 10 Mark 32
going up to Jerusalem ; and Jesus was going before them : and they
were amazed ; and they that followed were afraid (or, but some as
they followed were afraid).' Then he repeated to the apostles that
prophecy of his coming sufferings, death and resurrection, which

224

THE KING AND THE KINGDOM:

[part II.

10 Mark 33

IS Luke 31

20Mat. 17-19

10 Mark 33, 34

IS Luke 31- 33

S Mark 32

1 S Luke 34

0 Mark 32
0 Luke 45

9 Mark 31
9 Luke 44
17 Mat. 23
16 Mat. 22

twice before he had delivered to them. 'And he took again the
twelve, and began to tell them the things that were to happen unto
him.' Luke uses a similar expression, denoting that the information
was restricted to the apostles. ' And he took unto him the twelve,
and said unto them . . .' Matthew explains that he arranged for
the twelve only to accompany him, and in the course of his journey
with them he told them what it would result in to himself. ' And as
Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart,
and in the way he said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem ;
and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and
scribes ; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him
unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify : and the
third day he shall be raised up.' Mark adds ' shall spit upon him ; '
instead of ' crucify ' he has ' kill ; ' instead of ' the third day,' ' after
three days ; ' and instead of ' raised up,' ' rise again : ' the last-named
difference arises from an alteration in the reading of Matthew. ' Be
hold, we go up to Jerusalem : and the Son of man shall be delivered
unto the chief priests and the scribes ; and they shall condemn him
to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles : and they shall
mock him, and shall spit upon him, and shall scourge him, and shall
kill him ; and after three days he shall rise again.' Luke inserts an
allusion to the prophecies, and he adds the words ' shamefully en
treated.' ' Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all the things that
are written by (or, through) the prophets shall be accomplished unto
the Son of man. For he shall be delivered up unto the Gentiles, and
shall be mocked, and shamefully entreated, and spit upon : and they
shall scourge and kill him : and the third clay he shall rise again.'
This was but a repetition and amplification of what Jesus had pre
viously told his disciples generally, not to the twelve only, for it is
stated, 'And he spake the saying openly.' Some time afterwards
Jesus had again touched upon the same topic. Although it is now
mentioned for the third time, it is with a repetition of the statement
that the declaration of Jesus was incomprehensible : ' And they
understood none of these things ; and this saying was hid from them,
and they perceived not the things that were said.' On the second
occasion a similar observation was made both by Mark and Luke :
the former : ' But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to
ask him ; ' the latter : ' But they understood not this saying, and it
was concealed from them, that they should not perceive it : and they
were afraid to ask him about that saying.' Had. this referred to the
saying in Mark : ' after three days he shall rise again,' it might well
be that the prodigy of a bodily resurrection could not be anticipated ;
but Luke had not quoted those words, and the saying on which he
commented is simply, ' The Son of man shall be delivered up into the
hands of men.' That saying the disciples did understand sufficiently
to be made thereby, as Matthew tells us, ' exceeding sorry.' And
on the first occasion also the meaning of what Jesus said was so
evident that ' Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying Be
it far from thee, Lord : this shall never be unto thee.' Jesus could
not have used clearer language ; so anxious was he to make the
matter plain, that he told it thrice ; so unmistakable was the sense
of his words, that one of the apostles tried to silence him, and all of
them were grieved. The varied expressions in Luke seem to indicate

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 225
a difficulty as to the choice of words whereby to convey the sense
accurately Luke was but a compiler : either he had before him
three recorded observations, or one record combining the three sentences
which he has handed down to us. No matter which : in either case
the reiteration indicates that no one of the three sentences is by itself
sufficiently elucidatory. First we have, 'They understood none of
these things ; this is modified or explained by, ' this saying was hid
rrom them ; that does not convey the sense with perfect accuracy
so a third explanation is added : ' they perceived not the things that
were said. On the previous occasion also Luke's narrative shows
the same hesitation as to the choice of words proper to explain the
meaning. ' But they understood not this saying— it was concealed
from them— that they should not perceive it.' They did not under
stand the saying, not because it was not plain, but because it was
concealed from them, not through any supernatural influence, for
nothing of the kind is hinted at, but through a lack of perception on
their part. The failure to comprehend arose within themselves, was
owing to something in their own minds, some preconceived notion to
which they clung, which this declaration shocked and threatened,
which they dreaded might be extinguished if the matter were further
inquired into, so that they were afraid to ask him for fuller informa
tion. The disciples regarded Jesus as the Christ, that is, the Messiah.
He had justified that belief in him, at the same time charging them
'that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.' In that i8 ^t 20
capacity they expected, as a matter of course, ' that it was he which 21 Luke 21
should redeem Israel' If, instead of doing so, he should be put to
death by his enemies, their hope was vain, their faith, in himself mis
placed. They dared not face the thought ; they could not reconcile the
prophecy of Jesus with his claim to the Messiahship ; his words were
enigmatical ; there must be some mystery connected with them which
they could not solve ; such a saying was to them utterly incompre
hensible, in its literal sense incredible ; it might be a figure of speech,
a parable, or be susceptible of modication in some unexplained way :
anything rather than admit the possibility of his leaving the world
without having restored the kingdom to Israel, or wrought any visible 1 Acts e
redemption of his people.
We are told that Jesus ' learned obedience by the things which he 5 Heb. s
suffered : ' that statement is made in connection with the mention of
his death. On that point he had received supernatural instruction,
Moses and Elijah having spoken with him ' of his decease which he 9 Luke 31
was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.' Jesus never courted death,
but shrunk from it instinctively. If in his three years' ministry he
did so much, what might he not have accomplished had he been per
mitted to labour in the world for another thirty or forty years, up to
the age of seventy ! His enemies were bent on preventing that, and
it was not the will of his Father to interfere by a miracle to save him
from a premature death. All that Jesus could do, he did. He raised
up a band of disciples, to whom he communicated, as far as they
were able to receive it, his scheme for the establishment of the
kingdom of God. He chose them ' out of the world,' and left them 17 j0hn 6
' in the world,' to follow out his precepts. Had his life been pro
longed, he would have been persecuted to the end of it, even as his
apostle3 were after him. That probably was the thought in the mind

226

THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.

1 i. Col. 24

9 Mark 2
14 Mark S3

13 Mark 3

I Luke 54

of Paul, when he said, ' I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and
fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in
my flesh.' Jesus himself was the first martyr in his cause ; he earned
out to the bitter end his doctrine of patient, non-resisting sufferance ;
no exception was made in his favour ; he left an example that others
might follow ; his ' followers,' in the true sense of the term, must
live, as he did, a life on earth based on maxims of the heavenly world,
and be content, as he was, to take the consequences. All that, as
yet, was very far from the minds of the disciples. The ideas pre
valent with respect to his coming ' kingdom,' led them to entertain
hopes of honour and aggrandisement. At the very time Jesus was
foretelling his inevitable doom of suffering and death, some about
him were coveting for themselves the highest and most dignified
positions in his kingdom. Two of his disciples, accompanied by
their mother, approached him, with the utmost respect, bowing to
him, and begging of him a certain boon. ' Then came to him the
mother of the sons of Zebedee with her sons, worshipping him
(bowing — Young), and asking a certain thing of him.' The woman
obviously was foremost in the matter, and Jesus, before saying yea
or nay, naturally requested her to state what she wanted. ' And he
said unto her, What wouldest thou ? ' The blessing- she craved was not
for herself, but for her children. They had perfect faith in him, and
in the triumph of his cause, and forestalling in imagination the time
when he would sit on his glorious throne, they were ambitious of the
honour of being seated next to him. ' She saith unto him, Command
that these my two sons may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on
thy left hand, in thy kingdom.' The three must have consulted
together, before venturing to make the suggestion. The request was
based upon their faith in Jesus, their reverence for his character,
their attachment to his person. From the first he had shown his
appreciation of the two brothers, for ' them he surnamed Boanerges,
which is, Sous of thunder.' Simon also he had surnamed Peter —
Rock ; and to these three Jesus had given, and continued up to the
last, special opportunities of being with him : he chose them to
witness his transfiguration, and to accompany him in the garden of
Gethsemane ; they are mentioned as taking the lead in expressing
their opinions, and the three, with Andrew, once questioned Jesus
privately on the mount of Olives. These facts, as well as their
surnames, indicate that they possessed in a conspicuous degree
firmness and energy, and received from Jesus peculiar marks of con
fidence. James and John entertained so high an opinion of their
Master's dignity, that on one occasion they wished to call down fire
from heaven to consume those who treated him with disrespect.
Having cast in their lot with him ever since the day when, at his
call, they unhesitatingly left their fishing boat in sole charge of their
father and followed Jesus, they may have considered that they were
fairly entitled to secure for themselves whatever future advantages
might be attainable. Would they not be so much the more devoted
to him now, if they could be assured of reaching the highest possible
position under him hereafter ? Their father had been left to carry on
their former business without the assistance of his sons ; their mother
now was urgent on their behalf, fondly deeming them superior to
others, and firing them with ambitious hopes. Matthew describes

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 227
her as foremost in making the application ; but the three were at
one on the point. Mark says nothing about the mother, but repre
sents the two disciples as making the request themselves. ' And 10 Mark 35-
there come near unto him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, 37
saying unto him, Master (or, Teacher), we would that thou shouldest
do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee. And he said unto them,
What would ye that I should do for you ? And they said unto him'
Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on
thy left hand, in thy glory.' Both evangelists agree that an effort
was made to extract a promise from Jesus without first disclosing
the nature of the request : Matthew says, ' asking a certain thing of
him ' ; Mark : ' do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee.' They
should have known Jesus too well for that ; he, at least, knew well
what was due to himself and them, and refused to promise blindly.
And when they had made known their wish he assured them that
they did not understand what it amounted to and involved. ' But 20 Mat. 22
Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask.' It was not a
mere question of granting them a favour, and of their accepting it,
but of their power of endurance in his cause. Were they able to
undergo the same sufferings as himself ? ' Are ye able to drink the „ 22
cup that 1 am about to drink ? ' The alteration by the Revisers of
' I shall drink of,' into ' I am about to drink,' agrees with the render
ing of Tischendorf and Young. The Authorised Version continues :
' and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ? '
which is now omitted, not being in the two oldest MSS. Those words
were probably inserted from Mark, which stands as follows: ' But 10 Mark as
Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to
drink the cup that I drink ? or to be baptized with the baptism that
I am baptized with ? ' The drinking from a cup and submission to
baptism are voluntary actions : the reference was unmistakably to
the bitter and overwhelming sorrows which Jesus was about to ex
perience, as he had been explaining to his disciples. Yes : these two
were even prepared to face shame, suffering and death. ' They say 20Mat.22.23
unto him, We are able.' And he knew they were destined for that.
* He saith unto them, My cup indeed ye shall drink.' Here again
the Revisers, following the two oldest MSS., have omitted the words,
' and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.' That
is in Mark : 'And they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus 10 Mark 39
said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink ; and with the
baptism tbat I am baptized withal shall yei be baptized ! ' Beyond
that, Jesus could give them no assurance. Positions of nearness to
himself were not matters of favour and arbitrary bestowment : he had
no power to promise and grant them ; they must be earned, not
forestalled ; they were reserved for those who best could fill them.
' But to sit on my right hand or on my left hand is not mine to give : „ 40
but it is for them for whom it hath been prepared.' Matthew adds
the words, ' of my Father.' ' But to sit on my right hand, and on 20 Mat. 21
my left hand, is not mine to give, but it is for them for whom it hath
been prepared of my Father.' The insertion of the italicised words,
'it is for them,' may be deemed unnecessary. The Authorised
Version has in italics, ' it shall be given to them.' Luther makes no
such addition to the text, nor does Dr. Young, who renders : ' is not
mine to give, but to those for whom it hath been prepared by my
Q 2

228

THE KING AND THE KINGDOM:

[part n.

20 Mat. 24
10 Mark 41

fl Luke 55
(A. V.)

10 Mark 42

7 Luke 5
11 John

20 Mat. 26
10 Mark 43

20 Mat. 26, 27

Father.' The effect of the addition is to prevent the reading of the
word ' but ' as equivalent to ' except,' which Alford, with Chrysostom
and others, admits not to be contrary to the sense of the original.
Alford says : ' If however we understand after but " it shall be given
by Me," the two interpretations come to the same : ' that is, if two
more words are inserted without authority, then the previous un
authorised insertion will not obviate the probable sense of the original
apart from any addition whatever.
When the other apostles heard of the application which had been
privately made by James and John, they seem to have regarded it as
an underhand and selfish action, and they manifested indignation
against the two brothers. ' And when the ten heard it, they were
moved with indignation concerning the two brethren.' 'And when
the ten heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning
James and John.' They certainly had not raised themselves in the
estimation of Jesus, who had told them, 'Ye know not what ye ask,'
as once before he had occasion to rebuke them, saying, ' Ye know not
what manner of spirit ye are of.' Now they had also drawn down
upon themselves the deserved reproaches of their fellow labourers.
Jesus took the opportunity of assuring the twelve that the mode,
method and surroundings of earthly rulership could have no counter
parts in his kingdom. Power, pre-eminence, lordship, authority, —
these constituted the very essence of human government, and a great
man was held to be synonymous with an arbitrary ruler. ' But Jesus
called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the rulers of the
Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority
over them.' According to Mark's wording, Jesus spoke of that as
only a show, a mockery of true rulership : ' And Jesus called them to
him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to
rule over the Gentiles lord it over them ; and their great ones-
exercise authority over them.' Alford notes : ' They which are
accounted to rule, — who have the title of rulers : literally, they which
seem to rule, or, think that they rule.' By introducing the word
' Gentiles ' the translators lead English readers to assume that th&
reference is to heathen nations only. That is not so. The Greek
word ethnos is rendered in four ways : ' Gentile, heathen, nation,
people.' The lexicon defines it : ' a company, body of men. 2 a race,
tribe. 3 a nation, people ; plural, the Gentiles, i.e., all except Jews and
Christians.' The last and subsidiary signification is the term
generally used in the Authorised Version, but Dr. Young adopts the-
term ' nation, nations.' That it is equally applicable to the Jews is
clera from various passages, as : 'he loveth our nation (ethnos) ; that
i Jesus should die for the nation (ethnous) ; and not for the nation
' (ethnous) only.' Luther renders the passage under consideration i
' die Aveltlichen Fiirsten herrschen,' ' the worldly princes rule.' No
such domination must exist among the disciples of Jesus : ' Not so
shall it be among you.' Mark has it : ' But it is not so among you.'
Freedom of thought and action was the privilege of each, and their
notion of superiority must be the reverse of that prevalent in the
world. Voluntary service must be their badge of distinction, the
spirit of humility and self-sacrifice their token of nobility. ' But
whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister (or,
servant) ; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your

. 20 Mat. 28

10 Mark 45

*art n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 229
Sf^onrS^ ;TTfc)-<' Mark aSrees exacfcly> except that instead
ness^th hi™ \\haS Sei'Vant (Gr" bond™t) of all' Great- 10 Mark «,
cousilt in t ? rUSt,be T^T With U8ef^ess, and pre-eminence «
lot of W ^^e^devotion to the general welfare. That was the
camfnortohr^V1118/016/1^^1 'even as th* Son of man :
™. * be mm,lsteled unt0' but t0 minister, and to give his life
?he fi rtwnr ^ Here ¥*£ *? iQ eXact ^ment, except as to
the fust two words, ' even as,' which are now replaced by ' for verily ' ¦
wtfef ^onthVBtend 'for eve'u' whicLgreeTwitii
Xoung and Tischendon. Alford suggests rendering ' even 'by ' also '
which corresponds with Luther's. ' audi.' There is nothing to ind2e
why the Revisers introduce the word ' verily.' Alford has the
loflowmgnote: 'A ransom for many, is a plain declaration of the
sacnticial and vicarious nature of the death of our Lord The
principal usages (in the Greek Scriptures) of the word rendered
tansom are the following ; (1) a payment as equivalent for a life
destroyed ; (2) the price of redemption of a slave ; (3) a propitiation
lor _ Jesus was not then directing the minds of the apostles to the
doctrine of ' the sacrifical and vicarious nature ' of his death, and to
imagine that, is to take away the force of the words ' even us ' or
for even ' or ' for also,' which indicate a possible correspondence
between his own life and death and the life and death of each one of
them. Taking the words apart from any particular dogma, thus
much, at least, is clear from them : that Jesus believed that the
sacrifice of his life would result in the ransom of many of mankind.
It is not said, as a ransom for many other lives : we should not be
justified in adding those last two words ; and if we assume that to be
the sense, the question arises : Did the death of Jesus prevent the
death of many others ? On the contrary, had he not told his disciples
that they would have to give up their lives for his name's sake ? The
death of Jesus was the price he paid in carrying out his scheme for
the ransom or redemption of mankind, that is, for the establishment
¦of the kingdom of God among men. Is it not equally true that
some of his apostles aud first followers gave up their lives in the same
cause ? And is it not equally reasonable to say that they, as well as
he, gave their lives a ransom for many ? That is but equivalent to
the well-known saying that ' the blood of the martyrs was the seed of
the Church.' Only one of two senses is to be attached to the words
of Jesus : either that in which they must have been understood at the
time, or that in which he obviously intended that they should be
understood. Here there is nothing to warrant the idea that the
disciples could have interpreted the saying as Alford does ; nothing
to justify the inference that Jesus taught that his own death was
* sacrificial and vicarious ' in any other way than the death of his
followers might be so termed. Let it be understood that no question
is here raised as to the truth of the doctrine alluded to by Alford,
but simply a protest against importing it into this passage. The
words of Jesus must be held too sacred and inviolable to admit of any
other ideas than his own being mixed up with them. What he
designed to teach at the time of uttering them, that only can we admit
to be their true, full and proper meaning.
Still pursuing his journey towards Jerusalem, Jesus drew near to

230 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
is Luke 35 Jericho. By the roadside a blind man was seated. ' And it came to
pass, as he drew nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the
way side begging.' Is it not strange that after eighteen centuries of
Christian teaching, the same pitiable spectacle of men and women
incapacitated from work by blindness, and begging in the streets,
should still be seen ? Surely it is time that some plan should be
devised for maintaining, at the cost of the community, those who are
so totally unable to engage in the battle of life. It would not be
difficult to provide shelter, food and raiment for all the helpless, friend
less blind and cripples who now are left to depend upon casual alms
giving, the hands of many willing to help being held back through
fear of the deceptions practised by professional and sham beggars.
We build prisons, and keep our criminals at a heavy cost, and lunatic
asylums for those who are dangerous to us in other ways. Surely we
ought to go further than that. The blind, the lame and the mute
should not be suffered to beg ; refuges should be provided at the
public charge, with proper supervision, and arrangements for the
profitable employment, according to their various capabilities, of those
who are shut out by blindness, lameness or dumbness from the
ordinary avocations of life. We cannot cure these unfortunates, as
Jesus did ; for that reason it is our duty to succour them. But as
long as such works of charity are left to private individuals, so long-
will they be performed inadequately, sufficient funds not being forth
coming for the work. What is admitted to be everyone's business is
undertaken by no one in particular, and amid the multitude of
claims for help the most pressing are sometimes the least urged.
The want of our age is precisely the want of the age in which Jesus
lived, and which he sought to supply by proclaiming and inaugurating
' the kingdon of God,' that is, a kingdom of Christians. Not yet can
n r.:v. is. it be said : ' The kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of
our Lord, and of his Christ.' They are not founded on the basis of
his teaching, but make then- boast in principles and modes of action
the very reverse of his. The preponderance of national force is
determined by war, and commercial rivalry rests on the maxims of a
science of political economy as hard and merciless as the warrior's
sword. The need of the world is the same as ever, the times cry out
2 nt. 14 for ' a peculiar people, zealous of good works.' That was the ideal of
(a. v.) a Christian community in the eyes of the apostle Peter : ' But ye are
2 '' re(A.9v.) a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar
people ; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called
you out of darkness into his marvellous light.' The Church,
that is, the assembly of believers in Jesus, should present the aspect
of a select family, bearing the stamp of royalty and saintliness, a
nation within a nation, a people distinct from the surrounding world,
a body animated by the indwelling spirit of Jesus, moved by one
sacred impulse, and living as an organic whole the life of Jesus among
mankind. In the formation of such a society, the nucleus must needs
consist of disciples round whom believers can gather ; such disciples
must take all the precepts of Jesus, not a choice or modification of
them, as their rule of life and action : thereby only can they become
the heart, the central moving impulse of the whole body. Is not the
existing system of Christianity defective in that, its initial point ?
We have no separate class of disciples living, not apart from the

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.

231

world but in the midst of the world, in contempt of all worldly
ambitions, maxims, policies, and in unfeigned, entire subjection to
the teaching, mind and will of Jesus. The men recognised as
ministers of Christ are not of that stamp, nor do they profess or really
strive to be so. Ask any one of them whether he does not consider
that every member of his flock is as much bound as himself to obey
every precept and counsel of Jesus, and he will unhesitatingly answer,
Yes. The shepherds have placed themselves and the sheep on the
same level of duty. Christianity was not founded upon that principle :
Jesus chose but few disciples, taught them to make special sacrifices,
to expect special trials. They went forth in his name and spirit, and
gathered round them multitudes of believers, both men and women,
who certainly were not called to discipleship : ' Are all apostles ? are 12 i. Cor. 29
all prophets ? are all teachers ? ' If those who have claimed to be
successors of the apostles bad been so in reality, discipleship to Jesus
would have assumed a very different phase in the eyes of all men, and
the universal Church would have been taught by the pattern of a
heavenly life as designed by Jesus. Under the existing system of
Church doctrine and discipline, his kingdom comes not. We have
agreed to expect salvation in the next world, not on earth, and to
regard it as an individual concern rather than a social question.
When the jailer at Philippi asked, trembling for fear, ' What must 1 16 Acts 31
do to be saved ? ' Paul and Silas answered, ' Believe on the Lord
Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house.' This need of a
' common salvation ' was learnt by Dives in the next life, and led Jude 3
him to desire it for his 'father's house.' Religion ceases to be a J0 Luke 27
merely personal matter, when we come to realise it as the establish
ment of ' the kingdom of God.' Not through prayers, praises, creeds,
sacraments, can we be saved, but only through social progress, for
' we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members 12 Rom. 5
one of another.' The Christian community needs to be defined,
restricted, that it may assume a bodily shape and perform the
functions of a living organism. At present it is formless, a vague
monstrosity, supposed to be here, there, everywhere, each individual
in the nation having an equal claim to membership. Thence it
comes to pass that the national career is held to be identical with the
career of Christianity, the earthly is blended with the heavenly, the
State with the Church, the precepts of Jesus with the maxims of the
world, the spirit of war and aggrandisement with the gospel of peace
and self-sacrifice. This worthless and deceptive amalgam of the
human with the divine is not Christianity, and is altogether out of
harmony with the scheme of its Founder. Let us go back to that.
If those who profess to be our heavenly guides become truly ' apostolic,'
disciples of Jesus as separate from the world and as hostile to its
spirit as were the twelve who first proclaimed the gospel of peace,
what a transformation of society may be brought about by then-
example and their teaching ! The ideal of an apostolic life is not too
high for Ministers generally. The Church of Rome has gone beyond
it requiring every priest to be a celibate. Jesus never made that an
indispensable condition of discipleship, but the relinquishment of
property and the laying up instead of treasure m the heavens, he did.
Possibly it was the vow of poverty which led to the enforced
relinquishment of marriage : for it might be deemed better not to

232

THE KING AND THE KINGDOM:

[part ii.

10 Luke 7

22 Luke 35

2 ii. Tim. 0
9 i. Cor. 14

8 i. Tim. 2

10 Luke /

marry than to leave wife and children without adequate means of
support. At least it must be assumed that the decree of celibacy
must have originated in some high and good motive. But it was
none the less an error of judgment, a mistaken attempt (how many
such have there been !) to improve on the method of Jesus. He
desired that his followers should rely upon the sense of justice aud
obligation in those to whom they ministered. He taught them that
' the labourer is worthy of his hire,' and he appealed to them as to
whether their experience had not justified the spirit of reliance he
had inculcated : ' When I sent you forth without purse, and wallet,
and shoes, lacked ye anything ? and they said, Nothing.' The
apostle Paul laid down the maxim : ' The husbandman that laboureth
must be the first to partake of the fruits ;' and he declared : ' Even so
did the Lord ordain that they which proclaim the gospel should live
of the gospel' That did not prevent him from insisting that a
bishop must be, not only ' without reproach,' but also ' the husband
of one wife ; ' and that those to be appointed ' elders ' should be
family men : ' If any man is blameless, the husband of one wife,
having children that believe.' It may be a question open to dis
cussion, whether the Church of Christ will always require a body of
'apostles,' 'disciples,' 'bishops,' 'elders,' 'overseers,' or by what
ever other name those who take the foremost places are designated ;
but so long as they exist, and claim to be ministers of Christ,
descendants of the apostles, they are tied down to these rules of life,
and are no true shepherds of the sheep whilst they infringe them.
There is nothing in the New Testament to justify the holding of
wealth by the professed ' disciples ' of Jesus. It might be well for
archbishops and bishops to take the huge incomes they inherit, if
only they would spend the whole of them in the cause to which they
have professedly devoted themselves, and let the world know and
see that they are doing so. It might be well to retain the services
of men of learning, as preachers or otherwise, endowing them liberally
without requiring them to give up all for Christ's sake, if only they
would abate their pretensions of apostolical descent, and take their
place among laymen. In the rank and file of the ministry there
are comparatively few overpaid, and the majority are sadly
underpaid. It would be no sacrifice to them, were they to profess
openly their adherence to the apostolic system of living 'from hand
to mouth.' That they do perforce, every day of their lives. What is
wanting is, that all who claim office as leaders of men to Jesus
should from the first, deliberately, in the sight of all men, renounce
worldly possessions and ambitions, and throw themselves upon the
charity of those to whom they minister, ' eating and drinking such
things as they give.' A strange counsel that ! Undoubtedly : yet
not more strange now than when Jesus first gave it. It
was his plan, deliberately formed and earnestly insisted upon by
him, and carried out to the letter by those whom he sent forth. True,
he empowered them to 'heal the sick,' but that was in conjunction
with and subsidiary to their preaching, 'the kingdom of God is
come nigh unto you.' To men animated by such a spirit and
living such a life, an influence would attach which otherwise is lacking.
It would be now, as then, a question either of receiving them or re
jecting them ; and over those receiving them they would exercise a

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 233
power of direction, of guidance, of leadership, which would suffice
to bind together churches, that is, assemblies of believers, not
nominally as at present, but in reality. Infant baptism, which is too
much a myth, a superstition, a fetish, would either be abolished, or
regarded as a simple emblematic ceremony, the distinction between
the church and the world becoming as evident as the difference
between their respective leaders, far too wide to bo bridged over by a
sacramental form which makes all Christians in name, but cannot
make them Christians in deed. When the pastors stand out separate
from the world, the sheep who rally round them will be distinguish
able from others, and a true church will be constituted, instead of a
professed one. The organisation will assume definiteness, compact
ness, homogeneity, as naturally and easily as did that new and strange
outcome of our times — tbe Salvation Army. Is not the marvellous
success attaching to that movement an evidence of what can be
accomplished when men work on the lines of self-sacrifice and
brotherhood which were laid down by Jesus ? He trusted not his
cause to priests, Levites, pharisees or religious doctors ; one only of
the pharisaic rulers, Joseph of Arimathea, became his ' disciple,' and
he 'secretly, for fear of the Jews.' Must that experience be repeated 10 John 38
after eighteen centuries ? Be that as it may, not until the leaders in
Christianity stand aloof from and above the world, bearing in their
hands the standard not of doctrinal theology, apostolical succession and
sacramental theories, but of an earthly life woven to the exact pattern
of the precepts given by Jesus to his disciples, will ' the kingdom of
heaven ' be established upon earth ; and when that comes to pass, the
Church — the Christian community— will become a recognised brother
hood, seen and known of all men, ' a peculiar people, zealous of good
works.' Then it will be understood that for the propagation of the
gospel men are needed, and money avails nothing, the first require
ment of every ambassador of Christ being that he should relinquish
property, and throw himself unreservedly on the liberality of those
among whom he labours. The apostle Paul, who was the first
missionary to the heathen, acted on that principle, and even went
beyond it. Having ' suffered the loss of all things ' for Christ's sake, s pun. s
he speaks of himself as moneyless. We find him labouring at
Corinth together with Aquila and Priscilla : ' because he was of the is Acts s
same trade, he abode with them, and they wrought ; for by their
trade they were tentmakers.' Writing of himself and, it would seem,
of Sosthenes and Apollos, to the Corinthians, he says : ' Even unto 4i. cor. n
this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and
arc buffeted, and have no certain dvvellingplace ; and we toil, work-
in"- with our own hands.' Further on, in the same epistle, he laid
down the law of Jesus: 'Even so did the Lord ordain that thev 9 i. cor. u
which proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel, adding: But! „ io
have used none of these things: and I write not these things that it
may be so done in my case : for it were good for me rather to die than
that any man should make my glorying void . . . What then is my
reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel
without charge, so as not to use to the full my right in the gospel.
From the Philippians only did he receive any payment, and that was
in the shape of a purely voluntary gift: 'And ye yourselves also * P.ui. i, i ,
know, ye Philippians, that in the beginning of the gospel, when 1

234 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
departed from Macedonia, no church had fellowship with me in the
matter of giving and receiving, but ye only ; for even in Thessalonica
4 Phil, is ye sent once and again unto my need . . . But I have all things
and abound : I am filled, having received from Epaphroditus the
things that came from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice
acceptable, well-pleasing to God.' For some reason, Paul refused to
receive help from the Corinthians. In his second epistle to them he
11 it cor. 7-9 wrote : ' Or did I commit a sin in debasing myself that ye might be
exalted, because I preached to you the gospel of God for nought ? I
robbed other churches, taking wages of them, that I might minister
unto you ; and when I was present with you and was in want, I was
not a burden on any man ; for the brethren, when they came from
Macedonia, supplied the measure of my want ; and in everything I
kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep
myself Paul gives his reason for that departure on his part from
„ 12 the rule laid down by Jesus : ' But what I do, that 1 will do,
that I may cut off occasion from them which desire an oc
casion ; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.'
He was determined to make the impecuniosity of preachers of the
gospel generally, a test of their sincerity. He admits that it was not
quite fair on his part to relieve the Corinthians at the cost of other
churches, and that in so doing he was not carrying out the ordinance of
12 n. Cor. is Jesus, and might be charged with injustice. 'For what is there
wherein ye were made inferior to the rest of the churches, except it
be that I myself was not a burden to you ? forgive me this wrong.'
What Paul did, others could do. And if the voluntary impoverish
ment of Christ's ambassadors is possible and obligatory when they
go forth as missionaries to foreign countries, how much easier would
it be to adopt the same course of action among their own country
men ! The scheme of Jesus was based on human effort and human
sympathy, and no advance in Christianity has ever been made, or will
be made, apart from them. They are the only reliable bond of union
between the clergy and the laity, and between individuals con
stituting the Christian community. The crying want of the Church
is unity of interest and purpose among all its members. Some great
and fundamental change is required, some plan of reorganisation,
which will give form, character, definiteness to the Church. The method
insisted upon by Jesus, and acted upon by his first disciples, would
be as effectual now as it proved then. The Master's servants will
fight best with the weapon which he placed in their hands. Unless
they wield it, aud trust in it, they cannot conquer in his cause. The
spirit of uuworldliness and heavenly-mindedness, carried to its extreme
in the shape of voluntary poverty and self-sacrifice, is demanded of
those who claim to be our spiritual guides : demanded not by the
flock, but by the chief shepherd of the flock — Jesus himself. That
truth seems to have been lost sight of. The clergy do not regard it as
3 Phii. 14 their special duty and privilege, a condition attached to their 'high
calling of God in Christ Jesus.' Poverty they are content to accept,
if need be, as an accident of their lives, but not as a ruling principle of
their conduct. The laity, immersed in worldly affairs as the prime
necessity of their existence, must needs feel that such precepts are not
for them. For whom then ? For all in general, and no one in par
ticular ? For each individual Christian, as far as he may choose to

235

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
apply them and act upon them, and no further ? That is what our
want of perception and looseness of thought have led to. These
solemn and reiterated exhortations of Jesus to his disciples have come
to be held nugatory, ineffective, visionary, well nigh obsolete, alto
gether impracticable ; they are regarded as counsels of a perfection
which is unattainable, undesirable in this life, principles of action too
w? if °™!nary mortals, and not specially binding upon any class.
W hy then did Jesus utter them ? Was he a mere dreamer of dreams
an enthusiast counselling the impossible ? Not so, surely ' These
rules of life were laid down in all sober seriousness, and only a careful
and discriminating study of the gospels and epistles is needed to make
evident their application. They are the heritage of professed disciples,
men willing to throw away their fortunes and hazard their lives for
the name of the Lord Jesus. With such men for leaders, and not
without them, the Church of Christ will grow and prosper. They
will possess a power of organisation, control, direction, which can
be enforced by no statutes and maintained by no formal creeds ; the
wealth of the— then— visible Church will flow forth at their bidding,
and will supply every need. Not more willingness to give, but more
system and unanimity in giving, is required ; "and not by almsgiving
alone can the inequalities of society be redressed, but by the ceaseless
overflowing of that stream of sympathy with which the spirit of Jesus
mustneeds flood his true Church, making the welfare of each the concern
of all, and uplifting, by just and fair dealing, the degraded masses
now forming the lower stratum of society to the dignity of Christian
brotherhood. The lesser works of charity are bound up with that
greater one, in comparison with which it will be a small thing to
obviate for ever the sad spectacle of blind men sitting by the wayside
begging. Upon the ears of this blind man there fell the sound of the passing
crowd, leading him to enquire the cause of such an unusual gathering.
'And hearing a multitude going by, he inquired what this meant 'i' is Luke 30
On learning that the well-known Teacher was about to pass, he
instantly cried out, addressing him byname, as the expected Messiah,
and beseeching his compassion. ' And they told him, that Jesus of „ 37, cs
Nazareth passed by. And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou son of David,
have mercy on me.' Those foremost in the procession reproved the
clamouring man, hoping to silence him. ' And they that went before „ 39
rebuked him, that he should hold his peace.' This effort of theirs
may be taken as an indication that Jesus showed an aversion to all
needless commotion, and that those about him were aware of the im
portance of making his progress from place to place as quiet and
undemonstrative as possible. Wherever there is a crowd, not much is
wanted to create disturbance. Jesus was now performing a journey
which involved considerable hazard to himself and his disciples, so
much so, that at its commencement ' they that followed were afraid.' 10 Mar1; 32
The nearer they drew to Jerusalem, the greater became the peril.
Openly to hail him in the way as ' the Son of David,' was to play into
the hands of his enemies, whose emissaries might even now be
among them, watching for anything on which to found an accusation
against him. But the effort to subdue the enthusiastic outcry of the
blind man was futile : ' But he cried out the more a great deal, Thou 1S Luke 30
Son of David, have mercy on me.' It reached the ears of Jesus, who

236 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part it.
at once halted, and desired that the man should be conducted to him.
is Luke 40 ' And Jesus stood, and commanded him to be brought unto him.'
Then the kindly voice of this to him invisible benefactor entered
„ 41 the blind man's ears : ' and when he was come near, he asked him,
What wilt thou that I should do unto thee ?' The man's brief
answer proved that he doubted not the power of Jesus, marvellous as
„ 4i was the boon be craved. ' And he said, Lord (Sir — Young), that I
may receive my sight.' Nothing was needed now but the mighty
„ 42 word of Jesus. 'And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight.'
,, 42 But he added, as he was wont to do : ' thy faith hath made thee
whole (or, saved thee),' and we must not venture to overlook or
explain away those words. They signify that the faith of the man
was quite as necessary, to say the least, to the performance of the
miracle, as was the volition of Jesus : indeed, he attributes the cure
entirely to the faith. All the instances of healing by Jesus, or by
those to whom he communicated a similar gift, were obviously per
formed under certain conditions ; they were not scattered broadcast ;
special application had always to be made, either by 'the afflicted
person or by some one on his behalf; as a general rule, but not
without exception, physical contact occurred, and was essential,
between the healer and the healed. Jesus touched, or he was touched,
and sometimes much more than a touch appears to have been needed,
as when he anointed the eyes of the blind man with clay mixed with his
saliva, and when he placed his fingers in the ears of the deaf, the
sufferer was brought somehow into relation with his benefactor: a few
words exchanged between them, or even a look, might suffice ; and
Jesus occasionally impressed upon those he healed the fact that their
own faith had much, if not everything, to do with the working of the
miracle. The same law acted subsequently, and was so widely recog-
o Acts 15 nised that ' they oven carried out the sick into the streets, and laid
them on beds and couches, that, as Peter came by, at the least his
19 Actsii, 12 shadow might overshadow some of them.' We are told that 'God
wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul : insomuch that unto
the sick were carried away from his body handkerchiefs or aprons,
and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out.'
Not without a reason did Peter, before curing the cripple, fasten his
3 Acts 4 eyes upon him, with John, and say, ' Look on us ; ' and when Paul
14 Acts 9, io healed a similar case of lameness, we read of his ' fastening his eyes
upon him, and seeing that he had faith to be made whole, said with a
loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet.' Such facts indicate the
existence of some occult law of our being, some blending of the
spiritual with the bodily powers, some kind of animal magnetism, subtle
electric force, or whatever else it may be — we know not — which can
be brought into action under certain circumstances, conditions,
limitations, but which being altogether unusual and as yet undefined
by science, we term miraculous.
The cure of the blind man was instantaneous and complete. No
longer compelled to remain helplessly inactive, to be led like a child,
or grope his slow, uncertain way in doubt, dread and darkness, he was
able to enter the surging crowd and take his place in the procession
which he had heard, indeed, but had never hoped to see and join.
is Luke 43 ' And immediately he received his sight, and followed him.' With
joy and thankfulness, yet not in silence : still his voice uprose, no

part Ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 237
longer in pitiful entreaty, but in devout thanksgiving : ' glorifying is Luke 43
God.' The enthusiastic admiration of the crowd rose to the same
level : as they marched forward a chant of praise was sounded out, a
triumph-shout of adoring gratitude for this manifestation of God-like
power and mercy. ' And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise „ «
unto God.' Here was Jesus of Nazareth in their midst, who had thus
repeatedly transformed into an actual reality of life the figurative
language of the prophet : ' Then the eyes of the blind shall be'opened, ssisa. 5,0
and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame
man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing.' If any
one of the multitude remembered such a passage, and uttered it aloud,
it may well have been passed from mouth to mouth, and shouted out
in solemn chorus.
Luke distinctly states that this miracle was performed as Jesus
was approaching Jericho : ' as he drew nigh unto Jericho.' Either is Luke 35
the same or a similar miracle is described by Mark as happening on
the departure of Jesus from Jericho : ' And they come to Jericho. 10 Mark 40
And as he went out from Jericho, with his disciples and a great
multitude, the son of Tiniseus, Bartimasus, a blind beggar, was sitting
by the way side.' This account was evidently obtained at first hand,
from one who had full knowledge of the circumstances, and who knew
the place and its inhabitants. Except as regards the locality, the two
accounts agree perfectly. Mark stands as follows: 'And when he „ 47 -v.
heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, ho began to cry out and say,
Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me. And many rebuked
him, that he should hold his peace : but he cried out the more a great
deal, Thou son of David, have mercy on me. And Jesus stood still,
and said, Call ye him. And they call the blind man, saying unto
him, Be of good cheer : rise, he calleth thee. And he, casting away
his garment, sprang up, and came to Jesus. And Jesus answered him,
and said, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee ? And the
blind man said unto him, Rabboni, that I may receive my sight. And
Jesus said unto him, Go thy way ; thy faith hath made thee whole (or,
saved thee). And straightway he received his sight, and followed him
in the way.' Here are several graphic touches, which must have been
thrown in by an eye-witness. Instead of saying that Jesus ' com
manded him to be brought unto him,' the actual words of Jesus are
given, ' Call ye him.' The encouragement thereupon offered by the
bystanders is' noted : ' Be of good cheer : rise, he calleth thee ; ' and
the impulsive eagerness and alacrity of the blind man : ' And he,
casting away his garment, sprang up, and came to Jesus.' The
somewhat unusual term ' Rabboni,' which he used, is given. Alford
observes : ' Rabboni, i.e., Master, or My Master, see John xx. 16. It
was said to be a more respectful form than Rabbi merely.' These
variations may be taken to denote greater accuracy of detail, rather
than any inconsistency between the two narratives. We should un
hesitatingly assume that to be the case, if it were not for the
discrepancy of time and place, which seems to involve the existence of
an error either in Mark or Luke. To an unbiased mind there is
nothing shocking in the idea that either of these honest compilers
should unintentionally misplace a fact. There may have been many
occasions when either Mark or Luke may have bad to exercise an
independent judgment in grouping the materials placed m their

238 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
hands. Imagine the diary of a traveller to consist of scattered notes :
if edited long after his death by another hand, what more likely than
that an occasional mistake should occur in the sequence of the
incidents detailed, or even arise from defect of memory on the part
of the original recorder ? To suppose that supernatural assistance
was given for the preparation of their respective histories to Mark and
Luke, although they themselves never claimed to have received it, is
nothing more than a wild freak of the imagination, however much it
may be disguised under the solemn term of Inspiration, and worked
into certain passages of Scripture supposed to justify the doctrine.
But in this instance it is quite possible that both these evangelists are
correct, and are relating two different miracles. Matthew records the
21 Mat. 29 departure of Jesus from Jericho : ' And as they went out from Jericho,
a great multitude followed him.' That is a statement by itself. Then
„ 30 it is added, without reference to time or place : ' And behold, two
blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus was
passing by, cried out, saying, Lord, have mercy on us, thou son of
David.' It would be too much to infer that the word ' and ' before
' behold ' of necessity means that this happened as they went out
„ 31-34 from Jericho. Matthew continues : ' And the multitude rebuked
them, that they should hold their peace : but they cried out the more,
saying, Lord, have mercy on us, thou son of David. And
Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will ye
that I should do unto you? They say unto him, Lord, that our
eyes may be opened. And Jesus, being moved with compassion,
touched their eyes : and straightway they received their sight, and
followed him.' Matthew does not say that these two blind men were
sitting together and were healed together. Blindness was so common,
and every wayside so suitable for begging, that it may well have
happened that Jesus passed one blind man on entering and another
on leaving Jericho. The conditions being precisely similar, the
results would be equally so. Men unable to see would naturally raise
their voices. If one had sight restored on the entrance to Jericho,
there would be ample time, before Jesus left the place, for the news
to be carried to the blind man at the other end of the town. What
more natural than that he should adopt the same form of address and
method of attracting the attention of Jesus, which had been successful
previously ? Those who wanted such outcries stopped before, would
be as anxious on that point now : if Jesus were to be constantly
hailed as ' Son of David,' Jerusalem might be in an uproar before he
reached it, and his enemies find good ground for apprehending him.
That Jesus should stand still, call the man, question him, and cure
him, would come as naturally to pass now as on the first occasion.
Nothing more probable than that two such miracles should happen,'
and the one be almost a counterpart of the other. The similarity
between them would naturally prevent a reporter from giving details
of both : he would either choose one of them, or combine the salient
features of the two. Luke found and preserved the account of the
first ; Mark was able to record the second ; Matthew related the
chief points of the two. On that view, the differences between Mark
and Luke are noteworthy : the latter describes the man as ' brought '
to Jesus, adding ' and when he was come near,' as thouo-h the
approach was slow ; the former represents the crowd as anticipating

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 239
the miracle. : ' Be of good cheer : rise, he calleth thee ; ' and the man
as extremely active and hopeful, so sure of a cure now, that he cares
nothing about leaving his robe behind, jumps up on the instant, and
makes his way, unaided, boldly and alone, in the direction of the
voice of Jesus : ' And he casting away his garment, sprang up, and
came to Jesus.' That is in favour of the idea that the news of the
first miracle had travelled, and led to the performance of the second.
The words of Jesus, ' Call ye him,' are not quite synonymous with
the expression, ' commanded him to be brought,' and would seem
rather to have been spoken of another man ; and whereas the one
addressed Jesus as Kurios, ' Lord ' the other is represented as using
the word Rabboni, 'Master.' Such differences may be owing to
greater facility and accuracy of observation and a more reliable
memory, possessed by one of the reporters ; or they may be, as seems
on the whole most probable, equally true to fact, and descriptive of
two different miracles. Dean Alford did not admit that. His note
is as follows : ' He must be indeed a slave to the letter, who would
stumble at such discrepancies, and not rather see in them the corro
borating coincidence of testimonies to the fact itself. Yet some
strangely suppose our Lord to have healed one blind man (as in Luke)
on entering Jericho, and another (Bartimseus, as in Mark) on leaving
it, and St. Matthew to have " with his characteristic brevity in
relating miracles," combined both these in one. But then, what
becomes of St. Matthew's assertion, " as they departed from Jericho ?"
Can we possibly imagine, that the Evangelist, having both fads before
him, could combine them and preface them with what he must know
to be inaccurate?' Of course not: no one would make such an
assumption. It is Alford himself who assumes, without warrant, that
Matthew must be understood to mean that the facts recorded
happened after leaving Jericho, which he certainly does not say.
Something would have to be added to the narrative to make that
clear : if it ran, ' And, behold, two blind men who ivere then sitting
by the way side,' Alford's argument would hold good ; but without
some such additional words, it does not, and he is not justified in
insisting that the sentence must be read as though they had been
inserted. Alford was not careful to search for any possible way of
reconciling the three evangelists ; he saw how others were constantly
at work toning down and. explaining away, in a very injudicious
fashion, every discrepancy met with in the sacred narratives, and
ao-ainst such a task he resolutely set his face, and uttered a strong-
protest. Without troubling himself to investigate the probabilities
of the case, he jumped to the conclusion that of course Matthew was
wrong in stating that there were two blind men, and he made this
startling assertion : ' The supposition that they were two miracles
is perfectly monstrous ; and would at once destroy the credit of
St. Matthew as a truthful narrator.' He adds : ' It is just thus that
the Harmonists utterly destroy the credibility of the Scripture
narrative. Accumulate upon this the absurd improbability involved
in two men, under the same circumstances, addressing our Lord in
the same words at so very short an interval,— and we may be thankful
that Biblical criticism is at length being emancipated from "forcing
narratives into accordance." ' In a ' Harmony of the Gospels con
tained in ' Helps to the study of the Bible,' issued from the Oxford

240 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
University Press, the accounts of Matthew and Mark are given under
the head ' Healing blind Bartimaeus,' Luke's account being entirely
ignored. That seems to be an instance of what Alford called ' forcing
narratives into accordance.' Those who are free from the trammels
of the Inspiration theory have, on the one hand, no temptation to do
that, and on the other hand, are not afraid to consider the various
ways in which apparent discrepancies lying on the surface of the
narratives may admit of reconcilement.
Matthew alone records the fact that Jesus touched the eyes of the
blind men ; from which it may be inferred that the habit of healing by
the touch was then so well known, that the recorders did not always
specially mention it.
The three evangelists agree in stating that the blind men 'followed '
Jesus. That expression means much, although it may or may not
ic 2i- have been intended here to denote a profession of discipleship. We
Sj know that Jesus on one occasion turned and faced the crowd, and
pointed out to them what the true following of him involved. Every
one cured by his power and joining the procession, thereby offered a
kind of homage to him, just as in our own day those who walk with
the Salvation Army are assumed to ally themselves with the cause.
Jesus halted, for some hours at least, in Jericln. Luke relates an
incident which took place there. One of the inhabitants, a wealthy
s 1-3 tax-gatherer, was anxious to catch sight of Jesus. ' And he entered
and was passing through Jericho. And behold, a man called by name
Zacchaeus ; and he was a chief publican, and he was rich. And. he
sought to see Jesus who he was.' It might have been the natural
curiosity to see what manner of man the great Teacher was ; but
the expression is peculiar : ' who he was,' rendered literally by Youug
' who he is,' seems to signify that he had some expectation of being-
able to identify Jesus; it is possible, for instance, that Zacchseus
might have met years before and remembered, the young carpenter of
Galilee, in whom there were discernible mysterious presages of future
greatness, or they might have met on some occasion when Jesus was
travelling incognito, ' and would have no man know it,' and Zacchgeus
have been so struck with his demeanour and conversation as to
wonder, afterwards, whether he had not been privileged to associate
with the great Teacher whose fame was in all men's mouths. But
Jesus was shut out from sight by the crowd, and the diminutive
ttature of Zacchseus made it hopeless for him to get a view of him
in the same way as others. Knowing the course which Jesus would
necessarily take, he ran on in advance, and climbed a tree, from which
3, 4 position he would be able to look down on everything : ' and could
not for the crowd, because he was little of stature. And he ran on
before, and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him : for he was
to pass that way.' It was by no means a dignified position, but it
answered the purpose. We are not told whether Zacchaaus recoo-nised
Jesus as one he had met before, but Jesus certainly identified him
and addressed him familiarly by name. More than that, he bade him
come down instantly, and welcome him to his house, where Jesus in-
s tended to stay, as though they were old friends. 'And when Jesus
came to the place, he looked up, and said unto him, Zacchceus make
haste, and come down ; for to-day I must abide at thy house!' All

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 241
that reads very naturally, and the evangelist leaves us to draw our own
inferences. He does not add a word which might lead us to suppose that
the knowledge exhibited by Jesus was supernatural, and it is not for
us to assert that which Luke refrained from saying. After ' looked
up ' the Authorised Version has, ' and saw him,' which is omitted by
the Revisers and Tischendorf, not being in the two oldest MSS.
That the quick eye of Jesus should light upon the man whose position
was so conspicuous, is not to be wondered at. Alford observes :
' The probability is, that our Lord's supernatural knowledge of man
(see John i. 48-50) is intended to be understood as the means of his
knowing Zacchaeus : but the narrative does not absolutely exclude
the supposition of a personal knowledge of Zacchasus on the part of
some around him.' No : nor on the part of Jesus, whose mode of address
decidedly indicated a prior mutual acquaintance. Zacchaaus was of
the class with whom Jesus had been in the habit of consorting ; the
expression ' who he is,' indicates that Zacchaeus was bent upon ascer
taining whether he might not be able to recognise him, and there is no
reason why Jesus should have feigned a recognition and assumed a
tone of friendly familiarity with an utter stranger. Let the narrative
be taken in its entirety, and interpreted naturally and rationally.
That the evangelist gives no hint of anything supernatural or extra
ordinary, is by itself good evidence that he did not intend us to view
the account in that light. Zacchaeus is not represented as being
astounded or awed when thus familiarly addressed by Jesus. On the
contrary, the following words read like the description of a renewal of
intimacy between persons who have been long separated, and who
rejoice to meet again. 'And he made haste, and came down, and 9Luk
received him joyfully.' That Jesus should have thus deliberately chosen
to associate with one whose hated calling was of itself enough to
bring his character into disrepute, excited much comment and ill-
natured criticism. 'And when they saw it, they all murmured, - r
saying, He is gone in to lodge with a man that is a sinner.'
Zacchaeus stood forward, and repelled the taunt. So far from de
serving it, he had given half of his property away to the poor, and if
any wrongful exaction had been made by him in his business of tax-
collector, he was anxious to offer the amplest compensation. ' And .. s
Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord (Sir— Young),
the half of my goods I give to the poor ; and if I have wrongfully
exacted aught of any man, I restore fourfold.' Jesus accorded to him
the fullest credence and sympathy. Whatever the past career of
ZacchEeus might have been, and whatever others might think and
say of him now, Jesus recognised in this declaration an honest heart
and purpose, an augury and evidence of moral rectitude. That was
the true salvation of personal, family and social life, the genuine
sign of a descent from Abraham. 'And Jesus said unto him, To-day »
is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son ot
Abraham.' The contempt poured upon the class to which Zacchajus
belonged, was the attracting power which drew Jesus to his side.
' For the son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost ,. ">
This justification of Zacchaeus was spoken m presence of his
accusers, who, it seems, were believers in Jesus, for he seized the
opportunity to address to them a warning on another subject on
which also they held erroneous views. They were indulging an

I;e6

242 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
expectation that the approaching visit of Jesus to Jerusalem would
result in some open manifestation of God's kingdom. The parable
now delivered disclosed the faulty basis and inherent evils of a
19 Luke 11 kingdom founded on an earthly pattern. ' And as they heard these
things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to
Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was
immediately to appear.' Jesus sketched a vivid picture of an earthly
potentate, of kindgoms taken, held, ruled, after the fashion of this
world, of social anarchy, of the high-handedness, selfishness, and
favouritism of governors, no man able to call anything his own, and
every aspiration after political freedom and representative government
, 12 ruthlessly suppressed and quenched in blood. ' He said therefore, A
certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a
kingdom, and to return.' Young renders : ' A certain man of birth
proceeded into a distant region to take to himself a kingdom, and to
return.' Whether to ' receive for himself,' as a family heritage, or ' to
take to himself,' by force of arms, matters little : he was an aristocrat,
born to hold sway over men, and claiming to exercise dominion even
in a far distant land. It was his intention, after taking possession of
the colony, to leave its administration to others, he himself returning
to rule over his native country. Before departing he summoned ten
of his slaves, and entrusted them with ten rninae, bidding them trade
,, 13 with the money on his behalf during his absence. 'And he called ten
servants (Gr. bondservants) of his, and gave them ten pounds, and
said unto them, Trade ye herewith till I come.' Alford explains : ' The
sums given are here all the same, and all very small. The (Attic)
mina is -£% of a talent, and equal to about £3 of our money.' The
transaction does not disclose a spark of liberality, or the least
discernment of character : the same miserable pittance is placed in
the hands of each, and an intimation is given that the trust will end
on their lord's return. He is represented as a man held in universal
detestation : his slaves were not free to express an opinion, but his
subjects hated him, and the popular indignation against him rose to
such a height that after his departure a deputation from the citizens
was sent after him to announce their determination to submit no
„ ii longer to his rule. ' But his citizens hated him, and sent an ambassage
after him, saying, We will not that this man reign over us.' But it
proved easier to frame a declaration of independence in his absence,
than to free themselves from his tyranny and escape his vengeance.
The picture was not over-coloured. Alford observes : ' The ground
work of this part of the parable seems to have been derived from the
history of Archelaus, son of Herod the Great. The kings of the
Herodian family made journeys to Rome, to receive their " kingdom."
On Archelaus's doing so, the Jews sent after him a protest, which
however was not listened to by Augustus. The situation was
appropriate ; for at Jericho was the royal palace which Archelaus
had built with great magnificence.' If that piece of contemporaneous
history be fitted into the parable, the circumstances are not improved.
In either case, we have a system of arbitrary and irresponsible govern
ment, the wishes, interests and aspirations of the people being held as
of no account by their rulers. The monarch, having accomplished
the object of his journey, on his return summoned his slaves to account
to him for the money he had advanced and the profit resulting from

243 15

fart ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
atl,;mpli?yn?ent- '^^ came t0 Pass, when he was come back io Luke
tevvf^ml re?eiVed the king'dom. that he commanded those
n? ?^ V,, • dsemnts) unt0 whom he had given the money, to
iLTni' a0!,1^' that ¥ miSht knw ^hat they had gained by
3 (A1ford no.tes tta* the closing words should be read ana
rendered, what business they had carried on.' Young's translation
is, tnat he might know what each had done in business .- ' the result
m eacn case would prove their aptitude for affairs, and to what extent
tney coufd be trusted to look after their master's interests. The first
nad succeeded in increasing the smaU fund tenfold. ' And the first .. ™
came before him, saying, Lord (Sir-Young), thy pound hath made
ten pounds more.' That showed energy, shrewdness, fidelity ; the
man could be relied upon to make the most of opportunities, to add
wealth to the royal coffers. ' And he said unto him, Well done, thou >, n
good servant (Gr. bondservant).' His capacities in that direction
marked him out for far larger responsibilities: 'because thou wast „ 17
rrn? • jful m a verv little> have thou authority over ten cities.'
lhat indeed was a huge trust : the successful money-maker is at a
stroke transformed into a governor of men. What connection
between the two offices there might be, it were difficult to say. The
driver of hard bargains is scarcely the man whom a wise ruler would
prefer to entrust with the lives, liberties, physical and moral welfare
of vast multitudes. ' He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in 23 it sam. x
the fear of God.' Those were ' the last words ' of David. No such
requirement is made of this governor of ten cities. The smallness of
the amount he had to deal with is a striking feature of the parable,
and that point is emphasised by the king's admission that it was ' a
very little.' No matter how trifling the concerns in which royal
favourites minister to their master's selfishness : that has too often
been the surest road to promotion, the welfare of the people being
sacrificed and their destinies committed to men whose only claim to
consideration was the title and the influence conferred upon them
by an arbitrary monarch. As mankind progress, these things slowly
mend. But in the days of Jesus that system, was in full force ; and
knowing that the people were looking to him to inaugurate a new
kingdom, he brought vividly before them in this parable the inherent
evils of those then existing in the world. The second of the ten
slaves had increased his capital only half as much as the first, but the
ability to make five hundred per cent, pointed him out as a fit man
to rule over five cities. ' And the second came, saying, Thy pound, 19 Luke is,
Lord (Sir — Young), hath made five pounds. And he said unto him
also, Be thou also over five cities.' These two instances indicate
sufficiently the rule of promotion in king's courts. The aggrandise
ment of the monarch was the primary concern ; devotion to his
interests the only road to elevation ; high principles of action and
earnest labour on behalf of the people committed to their charge, —
these things were well-nigh out of sight and out of mind among
kings and nobles. One of the ten slaves, however, did not choose to
swim with the stream ; despotic rule was an abomination to his mind,
and he had determined not to spend his life in labours the fruits of
which would go to his master, not to himself. ' And another (Gr. the ., -'o^
other) came, saying, Lord (Sir— Young), behold, here is thy pound,
which I kept laid up in a napkin : for I feared thee, because thou art

R 2

244 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
an austere man : thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and
reapest that thou didst not sow.' That might be true : but he was a
bondservant, bound to labour for his lord, and blamable if he did not.
He ought either to have dealt faithfully with the trust, or have
handed it over to others, the one thing needful being that the royal
io i.ukc 22, wealth should constantly go on accumulating. ' He saith unto him,
23 Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant (Gr.
bondservant). Thou knewest that I am an austere man, taking up
that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow; then wherefore
gavest thou not my money into the bank, and I at my coming should
have required (or, I should have gone and required) it with interest ? '
Responsibilities and advancement were not for such as he. Let the
money be taken from him, and handed over to him who could make
.. 24 the best use of it. ' And he said unto them that stood by. Take
away from him the pound, and give it unto him that hath the ten
pounds.' Against that the instinctive sense of justice rose in protest.
.. 25 'And they said unto him, Lord (Sir — Young), he hath ten pounds.'
Alford observes that this ' is parenthetical, spoken by the standers-by in
the parable, in surprise at such a decision.' This additional touch of
nature was not thrown into the parable without a motive. It is of
the same tone and colour as the surrounding incidents, the object
being apparently to represent this pattern of earthly rulership in an
unfavourable light. From first to last it presents a scene of disorder,
of enforced subjection, of imperiousness on the one side and a
tendency to rebellion on the other. The citizens muttered discontent,
and would have shaken off, if they could, the hated yoke of sovereignty.
One of the slaves of the household deliberately neglected to labour for
his lord's advantage, would not even take the trouble to place out his
money where it would bear interest, and when called to account,
boldly denounced his master's character and conduct to his face.
And now, when the command is given to transfer the pound to the
man who least needed it, having already more to deal with than any
of the others, dissatisfaction is excited in the minds of his fellows, and
an attempt at expostulation made. No one, outside the circle of a
few reigning favourites, is contented in that kingdom ; the autocrat
rules by fear, not by love ; his will and his interest are the only things
to be considered ; the people's wishes are treated with contempt ; no
man's time or energy can be claimed for himself ; and the system is
upheld by favouritism, those most subservient to the royal will and
pleasure being elevated to positions in which they can aid and imitate
their lord's despotic rule : ' Have thou authority over ten cities . . .
Be thou also over five cities.' Success to the successful, was the
inexorable rule : for them all the honours, emoluments and opportuni
ties of distinction, which the despot might choose to apportion out as
the reward of obsequious fidelity. But woe to the unprofitable
servant : whoever failed to increase the royal revenue, was adjudged
., 26 incompetent, and unworthy to hold office. ' I say unto you, that unto
every one that hath shall be given ; but from him that hath not, even
that which he hath shall be taken away from him.' The vigour and
rigour thus exercised by the monarch within his court, were as nothing-
compared with the sternness shown towards those outside who had
presumed to seek deliverance from his rule. No hint is given that
they had taken up arms against the government ; it was enough that

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 245
they had formulated the resolution, ' We will not that this man reign
over us.' That constituted them, in his eyes, rebels of the deepest
dye ; such citizens he regarded not as subjects, but as enemies, with
whom he would hold no parley, to whom he would show no mercy, io Luke 27
* Howbeit these mine enemies, which would not that I should reign
over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.' It was a terrible
picture of arbitrary rule, its basis, its working, its results, which Jesus
placed before the minds of his hearers. That was the kind of ' king
dom ' with which mankind had become familiar. Could they desire
that the world's history should continue to be written after such a
fashion? Whenever 'the kingdom of God' should 'appear,' it
would surely be something altogether different from this. We are
not told that Jesus added a single word of comment or explanation :
he left the parable to speak for itself ; it is not prefaced, as many are,
with the words, ' the kingdom of heaven is like unto . . . ,' nor had
he been discoursing previously on the subject. It was because those
about him were expecting God's kingdom, that he sketched out this
one after the world's model. Touch after touch added to the sombre-
ness and unloveliness of its characteristics and surroundings, and the
closing catastrophe was an awful scene of revengeful slaughter. The
kingdom of a despot, or the kingdom of the devil, it may be : any
thing rather than a picture of ' the kingdom of God ! ' Yet that is
the light in which men have come to view it. Here is Dean Alford's
interpretation : ' The nobleman, son of a king, literally one high born,
is the Lord Jesus ; the kingdom is that over his own citizens, the
Jews. They sent a message after Him ; their cry went up to
heaven, in the persecutions of His servants, &c. ; we will not have this
man to reign over us.' The ideas are as frightful as they are fanciful.
Once on that wrong track of thought, there is no stopping : on the
words, ' These mine enemies, which would not that I should reign
over them, bring hither, and slay them before me,' Alford's comment
is, ' This command brings out both comings of the Lord, — at the
destruction of Jerusalem, and at the end of the world.' Away, once
and for ever, with the monstrous, horrible notion of theologians, that the
destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans was, in any sense, the
' coming ' of the Lord Jesus ! He foresaw it, indeed, and foretold it,
pitying the helpless sufferers, and bidding his disciples, 'pray ye that 21 Mat. -:o
your flight be not in the winter.' It was one of those episodes in
human history brought upon mankind by themselves, the natural and
nevitable outcome of that system of rulership on which the kingdoms
of the world were founded, the selfish wielding of irresponsible power,
the rebellious spirit thereby generated, the arbitrament of the sword,_
the triumph of might over right. The kingdom and the coming ot
Jesus are the very opposite of that : ' the Son of man came not to 9 Luke 00
destroy men's lives, but to save them.'
Whilst Jesus was travelling towards Jerusalem many others also
were proceeding thither from various points to keep the annual
festival of the passover. ' Now the passover of the Jews was at nand : 11 John 55
and many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the pass-
over to purify themselves.' They were anxious to see Jesus and
were' not without hope of finding him in Jerusalem although it was
notorious that he could only go there at peril of his life. Would

246 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
n John 56 he venture to come up to the feast ? ' They sought therefore for
Jesus, and spake one with another, as they stood in the temple, What
think ye ? That he will not come to the feast ? ' After his last visit
he had found it necessary to withdraw with his disciples to a retired
„ ot spot, ' a country near to the wilderness,' and a decree of the Jewish
rulers was still in force, making it incumbent upon any one who
„ sr knew his whereabouts to disclose it. ' Now the chief priests and the
Pharisees had given commandment, that, if any man knew where he
was, he should shew it, that they might take him.' Jesus _ was now
on the point of putting himself again within reach of their power,
although he knew full well that they would exercise it to his destruc
tion. Six days before the passover he appeared in Bethany, sure of a
12 joim i welcome from the family of Lazarus. 'Jesus therefore six days
before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom
Jesus raised from the dead.' Following the two oldest MSS., the
Revisers have omitted the words, ' which had been dead.' Very
hearty was the greeting he received. An entertainment was prepared
to celebrate his arrival, Martha busying herself with serving, and
,. 2 Lazarus being one of the guests. ' So they made him asupper there :
and Martha served ; but Lazarus was one of them that sat at meat
with him.' This was not, as might have been inferred, in Martha's
26 Mat. e house, for Matthew's account begins : ' Now, when Jesus was in
14 Mark s Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper ; ' and Mark's : ' And while
he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat.'
26 Mat. 7 There the following incident occurred. ' There came unto him a
woman, having an alabaster cruse (or, a flask) of exceeding precious
ointment, and she poured it upon his head, as he sat at meat.' In
the Authorised Version the word is 'box,' not 'cruse.' Young and
Tischendorf retain the word ' box.' Mark describes the kind of oint-
14 Mark 3 ment : ' there came a woman having an alabaster cruse of ointment
of spikenard very costly ; and she brake the cruse, and poured it over
his head.' The Revisers' note is : ' Gr. pistic nard, pistic being
perhaps a local name. Others take it to mean genuine ; others liquid.'
Young renders it ' myrrh ' in Matthew, and ' spikenard ' in Mark.
Luther renders Matthew : ' ein Glas mit kostlichem Wasser,' ' a
glass with costly water,' and Mark, ' ein Glas mit ungefalschtem und
kostlichem Nardenwasser,' ' a glass with unadulterated and costly
nardwater.' John does not allude to the vessel which contained it,
but states its weight, and identifies the woman as Mary, the sister of
12 joim s Lazarus. ' Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of spikenard,
very precious, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet
with her hair.' The act has been previously alluded to by John as
n John 2 that of Mary : ' And it was that Mary which anointed the Lord
with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother
Lazarus was sick.' John does not mention the pouring of the oint
ment over the head, and the two other records do not allude to the
anointing of the feet, nor to the use of Mary's hair in drying them.
It may be that the account of John is that of an eye-witness, and the
other accounts made up from hearsay evidence, which did not give the
woman's name, or state more than the current report that the ointment
was poured upon the head. Although very costly, it wa3 applied pro
fusely, lavishly, even ' wastefully ' in the opinion of certain critical
observers. There is in John's narrative an additional touch, which

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 247
indicates that it was derived from one who was present at the enter
tainment -. ' and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.' 12 joim 3
Some of those present were scandalized at beholding such extrava
gance : they estimated the cost of the ointment, and thought how
large an amount of comfort the expenditure of so much money might
have brought to the poor. *' But there wrere some that had indigna- 14 Mark 4, 5
tion among themselves, saying, To what purpose hath this waste of
the ointment been made ? For this ointment might have been sold
for above three hundred pence, and given to the poor.' As the
denary was the common day's wage of a labourer, the three hundred
denaries would be equivalent to about £50 in our time. Matthew
informs us that this question was raised by the disciples of Jesus.
'But when the disciples saw it, they. had indignation, saying, To 20 Mat. s, 9
what purpose is this waste ? For this ointment might have been sold
for much, and given to the poor.' John was able to state with whom
the idea, which was thus taken up by the disciples, originated. ' But 12J0I1114, 5
Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples, which should betray him, saith,
Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given
to the poor ? ' The evangelist does not scruple to assert that the
suggestion was simple hypocrisy on the part of Judas, that he cared
nothing about the poor, but watched for an opportunity of purloining
money from the poorbox, which was entrusted to his keeping. How
well does that suit the character of the man who sold his Master !
'Now this he said, not because he cared for the poor, but because he „ g
was a thief, and having the bag (or, box) took away (or, carried) what
was put therein.' The criticism of the disciples was directed against
Mary : ' And they murmured against her.' Jesus, becoming conscious 14 Mark 5.
of all this, expostulated with his disciples on the woman's behalf.
' But Jesus perceiving it said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman ? ' 26 Mat. 10
'But Jesus, said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her?' Jesus u Mark c.
was as poor as anybody, and he regarded the action as a good deed
rendered to himself : ' She hath wrought a good work upon me.' „ 0
' For she hath wrought a good work upon me.' The poor would be 20 Mat. w
always present among them, but not Jesus. ' For ye have the poor „ n
always with you ; but me ye have not always.' Mark is fuller : ' For 14 Mark 7
ye have the poor always with you, and whensoever ye will ye can do
them good : but me ye have not always.' Death was very near to
him, and this office of womanly love might be regarded as performed
in anticipation of his burial. ' She hath done what she could : she „ s
hath anointed mv body aforehand for the burying.' The form of the
expression is given somewhat differently by Matthew : ' For in that 26 Mat. 12
she poured (Gr. cast) this ointment upon my body, she did it to pre
pare me for burial' John is to the same effect, but he reverses the
sayings: 'Jesus therefore said, Suffer her to .keep it (or, Let her 12 John 7, s
alone : it was that she might keep it) against the day of my burying.
For the poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always.
It was hard for Mary to be blamed and shamed for her good action.
That must not be. It was a deed worthy to be recorded, and it
should be held in world-wide remembrance. ' Verily I say unto you, 26 Mat. 13
Wheresoever this gospel (or, these good tidings) shall be preached in
the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be
spoken of for a memorial of her.' Mark records that saying word

248 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
for word, simply putting ' and ' before ' verily,' according to the two
oldest MSS., which have been followed by the Revisers in this point ;
on the same authority they have here altered 'this gospel' to 'the
gospel,' as Tischendorf has done. Alford has the following note :
' We cannot but be struck with the majesty of this prophetic
announcement : introduced with the peculiar and weighty verily I
say unto you, conveying, by implication, the whole mystery of the
gospel which should go forth from His Death as its source, — looking
forward to the end of time, when it shall have been preached in the
whole world, — and specifying the fact that this deed should be recorded
wherever it is preached. We may notice (1) that the announcement
is a distinct prophetic recognition by our Lord of the existence of
written records, in which the deed should be related ; for in no other
conceivable way could the universality of mention be brought about :
(2) that we have here (if indeed we needed it) a convincing argument
against that view of our three first Gospels which supposes them to
have been compiled from an original document, for if there had been
such a document, it must have contained this narrative, and no one
using such a Gospel could have failed to insert this narrative,
accompanied by such a promise, in his own work, — which St. Luke
has not done : (3) that the same consideration is equally decisive
against St. Luke having used, or even seen, our present Gospels of
Matthew and Mark.' Sections (2) and (3) constitute a very strong
argument, which may be commended to the consideration of those
who might be disposed to accept the contrary idea, which has been
put forward by the Rev. J. J. Halcombe in ' Gospel Difficulties,'
(page lxxxiv), as follows : ' S. Luke's object was to remove an
uncertainty, or suspicion of untruthfulness, which had affected
certain Gospels (Logoi) which, he states, had been handed over to the
Church by those whose authority for writing them consisted in their
having been either " eye-witnesses or ministers of the word ; " this
uncertainty, or suspicion, having been engendered by certain un
successful attempts which many had previously made to rearrange, or
harmonize, these Gospels. That these Logoi were in fact the Gospels
of S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. John, we gather (1) from the use
which S. Luke makes of the word Logos in his Preface to the Acts,
where he styles his own Gospel a Logos, (2) from his definition of the
writers, and (3) from the fact that from the very commencement to
the end of his Gospel, he traverses the same ground, and deals with
the same incidents, as those Evangelists ; and that, not only in the
same general order, but in such a manner as to elucidate on every
occasion . . . ' and so on. This chain of reasoning hangs on a very
fragile thread. If Theophilus had the Gospels of Matthew, Mark
and John, the word Logoi might represent them : but that is a mere
assumption, advanced without a shred of evidence, and improbable on
the face of it.
Section (1) of Alford's argument is overstrained, and open to question.
He takes the expression, ' Wheresoever these good tidings shall be
preached in the whole world,' as proof positive that the good tidings
were to take the shape of written records. That no more follows
from this passage than from another passage: 'Go ye into all the
world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.' Who would

13

S Mark 35
13 Mark 10

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 249
understand that to signify that the apostles would issue written
records, and that ' in no other conceivable way could the universality
of mention be brought about ? ' The application of the word 'gospel'
to written or printed documents was the outcome of later times. The
words ' this gospel,' uttered by Jesus, could only refer to something
which was at that moment in the mind and mouth of the Speaker,
aud equally present to the minds of his hearers. In Young's literal
version the word is always rendered ' good news ' or ' good tidings : '
whenever and wherever it occurs it is necessarily in connection with
a particular idea, the revelation of a fact or truth, in the same way as
' news ' is understood and grasped in reference to any topic of the
day. The sense of the word ' gospel ' was invariably fixed by the
context, the ' good news ' being presented now in one shape and now
in another. Take a few passages, iusing Young's version. ' The good 1 Mark i
news of Jesus Christ : ' obviously, about Jesus Christ. ' Believe in
the good news : ' that is, that ' the reign of God hath come near.'
' Whoever may lose his life for my sake and for the good news : ' in
promulgating what Jesus preached. ' To all the nations it behoveth
first to proclaim the good news:' which they had been assisting
Jesus, and would continue, to proclaim. 'As he is teaching the 20 Luke 1
people in the temple, and proclaiming the good news : ' the teaching
being the aspect under which the good news was presented. ' God 15 Acta 7
among us made choice, through my mouth, for the Gentiles to hear
the word of the good news : ' which is to the same effect. ' The good 20 mke 24
news of the grace of God.' ' The good news of God . . concerning 1 Rom. 1
His Son.' ' The good news of Christ.' ' According to my good „ »: i,,
news : ' Paul's doctrine of a judgment of the secrets of men ' through 2 Rom. 10
Jesus Christ.' ' They were not all obedient to the good tidings : ' 10 r.uh. 10
that is, ' good tidings of peace, good tidings of the good things.'
' As regards, indeed, the good tidings, they are enemies on your 11 Rom. 2
account : ' the good tidings referring to the coming of a deliverer out
of Zion, ' who should turn away ungodliness from Jacob.' ' The 15 Rnm. w
good news of God.' It is not necessary to go through the othei*
passages in which the term ' gospel ' or ' good news ' occurs : these
are sufficient to show, at least, that written records of the sayings
and doings of Jesus do not properly come under that designation.
Luke gives two titles to his so-called ' Gospel : ' ' a narrative,' and
' a treatise concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach.'
The naming of each of the four histories ' the gospel,' and the failure
to give the literal translation, 'good news,' have led to some con
fusion of thought, approaching sometimes to misapprehension. Let
anyone disposed to doubt this take the pains to read in Dr. Young's
literal version the passages, about 70, in which the expression ' good
news ' occurs. A clearer insight will thereby be gained of the
nature and definiteness of the apostolic teaching : the proclamation
of ' good news,' as such, raises naturally and instantaneously in the
mind the conception both of a Sender and of an authorized Messenger,
which the word ' gospel ' does not, unless a special mental effort is
made by the reader.
Reverting to the words of Jesus, it will be observed that they
appear in Matthew as ' this gospel ' or ' these good tidings.' ' This '
or ' these ' must refer to something spoken at the time. He may have

250 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
been discoursing at the meal, as was his custom, of 'the good news
of the reign of God ; ' or the reference may have been to the context,
' to prepare me for burial. ' That climax of his career was ' good news '
for the world, however distressing at the time to himself and his
disciples. Alford seems to assume that connection, for he speaks of
' the gospel which should go forth from his Death as its source.'
John does not record the prediction of Jesus concerning Mary's
action, but he mentions a fact omitted by the other evangelists. The
presence of Jesus at Bethany had been noised abroad, and many of
the populace were attracted thither by the expectation of seeing not
only Jesus but Lazarus also, whom he was known to have raised from
12 joim o the tomb to life. ' The common people therefore of the Jews learned
that he was there : and they came, not for Jesus' sake only, but that
they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.' The
Revisers have altered ' much people ' to ' the common people.' Tischen
dorf renders, ' the great multitude ; ' ' Young, ' a great multitude ; '
Luther, ' viel Volks,' ' much people.' The expression chosen by the
Revisers is not a happy one.
The clerical party were so incensed against Jesus, that they deter
mined to let nothing stand in the way of their attempt to counteract
his influence. Lazarus was now obnoxious to them, and they decided
that it would be necessary for their purpose to put him to death as
„ io well as Jesus. ' But the chief priests took counsel that they might
put Lazarus also to death.' He had become so conspicuous, and was
saying or doing so much in favour of Jesus, that many converts were
being made, who turned their backs upon the chief priests and
„ n professed their faith in Jesus : ' because that by reason of him many
of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.' Alford observes as
follows : ' Remember here, as elsewhere in John, the Jews are not
the people, but the rulers, and persons of repute : the representatives
of the Jewish opposition to Jesus.' How can that be, when it is said
that 'the great multitude of the Jews' went to see Jesus and Lazarus,
and that many of them believed ? The term ' Jews ' appears to
denote the men of Jewry, inhabitants of Judaea, whose only oppor
tunity of seeing and hearing Jesus was when he came into their
neighbourhood. The evangelist gives, without comment, a bare
statement of the fact, but it is, by itself, a frightful example of
clerical bigotry and persecution. What detestable, sanguinary
principles of action have cloaked themselves under the garb of
Religion, and made the professed ministers of God the bitterest
opponents of human progress, and the enemies of mankind !
Luke seems to intimate that the parable of the nobleman who was
hated by his citizens, feared by his servants, and who exterminated his
enemies, was the last discourse delivered by Jesus on his journey : fol
io Luke as it is said : ' And when he had thus spoken, he went on before, going
up to Jerusalem.' We have seen that he reached Bethany six days
before the passover, and was received into the house of Simon the
leper. On approaching the place, Jesus had given to two of his
disciples directions of a very remarkable kind. He told them to go
into the neighbouring village, where they would find an ass tethered
21 Mat. 1. 2 and a colt by her side. ' And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem,
and came unto Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then Jesus sent

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 251
two disciples, saying unto them, Go into the village that is over
against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with
her.' Mark adds the fact that the colt was unbroken : 'And when n Mark 1,2
they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the
mount of Olives, he sendeth two of his disciples, and saith unto them,
Go your way into the village that is over against you : and straight
way as ye enter into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon no man ever
yet sat.' Luke uses very nearly the same words : ' And it came to 19 Luke 29,
pass, when he drew nigh unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount
that is called the mount of Olives, he sent two of the disciples, saying,
Go your way into the village over against you ; in the which as ye
enter, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon no man ever yet sat.' Such
similarities of diction between three historians are indications that
they borrowed from a common narrative, the merely verbal differences
arising from the amplification of the original, which would probably
be in the form of condensed notes. In this instance, there may have
been two, and could have been no more than two independent sources
of information. Matthew states the instruction given by Jesus in
these words : ' Loose them, and bring them, unto me.' Young renders 21 Mat 2
literally : ' Having loosed, bring to me.' Only Matthew alludes to
the ass being with the colt. Mark and Luke, having spoken of the
colt only, use the same expression : ' Loose him and bring him.'
Thus to appropriate another person's property would seem extra
ordinary, and required some warrant. Jesus admitted as much, and
instructed his disciples how to meet the difficulty. ' And if any one „ 3
say aught unto you, ye shall say, the Lord hath need of them ; and
straightway he will send them.' Here the word ' them ' is no inser
tion. Combining the evangelists, it would seem that the colt only
was required, but the she-ass was sent with him, it being unadvisable
to separate the mother from her foal. Mark and Luke still allude to
the latter only. ' And if any one say unto you, Why do ye 19 Luke 31
this ? say ye, The Lord hath need of him ; and straightway he will
send (Gr. sendeth) him back (or, again) hither.' The word 'back'
(or, again) has been introduced from the two oldest MS. Luke says
merely, ' And if any one ask you, Why do ye loose him ? thus shall „ si
ye say, The Lord hath need of him.' The omission by Luke of the
assurance given by Jesus may be accounted for by supposing it to
have been absent from the manuscript from which Luke compiled
this portion of the history. The greater the demand for these early
records, the greater also would be the difficulty of meeting it with
promptitude, the copying of manuscripts being a slow process.
Thence it might well happen that the deficiency was supplied by the
best means available, and that abstracts of the facts might be
compiled from memory, or attempts made to follow m writing the
readino- of some original document. This would sufficiently account
for variations and omissions which do not amount to discrepancies.
Matthew, as was his custom, traced in the event a fulfilment of
prophecy. 'Now this is come to pass, that it might be fulnlled iMut.«,»
which was spoken by (or, through) the prophet, saying,
Tell ye the daughter of Zion,
Behold, thy king cometh unto thee,
Meek, and riding upon an ass,
And upon a colt the foal of an ass.'

252 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
¦J zee. 9 The original passage stands as follows : 'Rejoice greatly, 0 daughter
of Zion ; shout, 0 daughter of Jerusalem : behold, thy king cometh
unto thee ; he is just, and having salvation, lowly, and riding upon
an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass.' Alford observes : ' That
this riding and entry were intentional on the part of our Lord, is
clear : and also that He did not thereby mean to give any coun
tenance to the temporal ideas of His Messiahship, but solemnly to fulfil
the. Scriptures respecting Him, and to prepare the way for His
sufferings, by a public avowal of His mission.' Jesus seized upon
this Scriptural picture as illustrating the nature of the kingdom he
desired to found. The homage paid to him must be natural and
spontaneous : justice, salvation, meekness, constituted the basis of
his power and influence ; he resolved to make himself conspicuous
in this particular way to his enthusiastic followers, and, knowing that
his death was very near, to bequeath to the world this pattern of
what a king's triumphal entry ought to be. It is not to be supposed
that Jesus would have been any less the Messiah of mankind, if he
had not thus literally accomplished the terms of .this prophecy ; the
incident by itself proved nothing, convinced nobody ; a false Christ
might have assumed the same position ; it was no evidence in his
favour at the time, for we are expressly told that his disciples had no
recollection of such a prophecy ; but the character, the doctrine, the
aims of Jesus were entirely in harmony with it, and he would let the
world know what kind of sovereignty he claimed, and see, once for
all, a true pattern of regal dignity.
The two disciples found it easy to accomplish the task which Jesus
had laid upon them. Everything happened as he had foretold, and
when they delivered his message the animal was at once given over
io Luke 32- for his use. ' And they that were sent went away, and found even as
35 he had said unto them. And as they were loosing the colt, the owners
thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt ? And they said, the
Lord hath need of him. And they brought him to Jesus.' Mark is
n Mark 4-7 somewhat more precise. ' And they went away, and found a colt tied at
the door without in the open street, and they loose him. And certain
of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt ?
And they said unto them even as Jesus had said : and they let them
go. And they bring the colt unto Jesus.' In the Authorised Version
the locality is described as ' in a place where two ways met,' which is
rendered by Tischendorf ' on the crossway,' and by Young ' by the two
ways.' The Revisers have altered it to ' in the open street.' Alford
explains : ' The word rendered a place ivhere two ivays met, only means,
a road leading round a place, and probably imports simply the street.
Wordsworth interprets it, the back way, which led round the house.
But there does not appear to be any reason for supposing the word
round to refer to the house, rather than to the whole block, or neigh
bourhood, of houses, round about which the street led. Dean Trench
would render it a tvay round, a crooked lane.' Matthew's account is
21 Mat. 6 far more concise. ' Aud the disciples went, and did even as Jesus
appointed them, and brought the ass, and the colt.'
As the message of Jesus induced the owners to lend their property
for his use, it is natural to consider in what sense they must have
understood the words, ' The Lord hath need of him.' Alford's note
on Matthew is as follows : ' The Lord, here, the Lord, Jehovah .- most

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 253
probably a general intimation to the owners, that they were wanted
for _ the service of God. I cannot see how this interpretation errs
against decorum, as Stier asserts. The meanest animals might be
wanted for the service of the Lord Jehovah. And after all, what
difference is there as to decorum, if we understand with him the Lord
to signify the King Messiah?' That there has been a general
tendency towards straining the sense of the word ' Lord ' is evident
from the repeated instances in which Dr. Young, alone among trans
lators, renders it by the word ' Sir.' There are passages, of which this
is one, in which " Sir" cannot be used ; but it by no means follows
that the term is therefore to be taken in such cases as applying to the
Deity. Probably the term in the original was equivalent" to the
German word ' Herr,' and used in the same manner, either in speaking
to or of a person recognised as a superior, a Master or Teacher. That
is the import which Jesus himself attached to the word : ' Ye call me 13 Joim 13
Master (or, Teacher), and, Lord ; and ye say well ; for so I am.' And
again : ' A servant (Gr, bondservant) is not greater than his lord.' „ 10
That form of expression was in general use between man and man ; it
was also used, in the same sense of supremacy, when speaking of God.
The context in writing, and the circumstances in speaking, are a suffi
cient guide as to the intended significance, limitation, or extension, of
the title. In the case before us, there could be small room, or none
at all, for uncertainty. Jesus had come into the neighbourhood
accompanied by a crowd of followers ; his disciples were recognisable
as such, and when two of them went together, loosed the colt, and
explained that they did it in obedience to the directions of the lord or
master, either the owners must have at once understood the reference
to be to Jesus, or the disciples would make it clear that it was he who
had sent them and who required the animal. If, on the contrary, it
be supposed that Jesus was kept out of sight in the transaction, and
that two strangers simply stated that they were taking the ass because
Jehovah, the God of Israel, had need of him, there is much force in
the objection of Stier, that the request would have appeared indecorous,
and would not have been instantly and unhesitatingly complied with.
This argument is all the stronger, when it is remembered that there
was no idea in the mind of any one that the fulfilment of a prophecy
was in question.
The disciples simply carried out the instructions of Jesus, and every
thing happened just as he had led them to expect. Was this a display
of supernatural prescience on the part of Jesus ? That may be inferred
from the narrative ; but the evangelists themselves have not touched
upon the question. We can easily believe that one who displayed such
miraculous powers, and applied them in such various ways, might
possess such a gift of foresight, and might even exercise a controlling-
influence on others by his own force of will. Or it may be that in
visible Beings, heavenly messengers, were superintending and directing
his career, revealing to him, as they had done to Mary and to Joseph,
the things which were about to happen. In this instance, however,
we are not tied down to that conclusion. The message, ' the Lord
hath need of him,' may, perchance, have referred to some previous
conference between Jesus and the owners. It is not to be supposed
that he was never was out of sight and hearing of his disciples, that
he never conversed with anyone except in their presence, that he was

254

THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.

1 1 Mark 7
1 9 Luke 35

21 Mat. 7

1 1 Mark S
19 Luke 36
21 Mat. 8
11 Mark S

12 John 12

not free to take an independent course and arrange a plan for himself.
The wording of Mark's narrative, as altered by the Revisers on the
authority of the two oldest MSS., seems to indicate that the colt had
lately been to the place where Jesus was. The Authorised Version
has ' straightway he will send him hither ; ' the word ' back (or,
again) ' is now placed before 'hither.' The three evangelists agree
that Jesus told his disciples they would discover the colt immediately
upon entering the village : 'straightway ye shall find,' ' straightway as
ye enter into it,' ' in the which as ye enter.' Therefore the colt had
but lately passed Jesus on its way to the village. Moreover, Jesus
was no stranger in Bethany ; he had visited the place before ; he may
have known the abode of the owners, and where they took the colt on
its customary round, and he seems to have relied upon their know
ledge of himself as a sufficient inducement to comply unhesitatingly
with his expressed desire : ' straightway he will send them.' Where-
ever Jesus went he healed many, and thereby, as well as through his
teachings, must have gained many friends, all glad to serve him in
anything within their power. The apparent mystery is capable of
solution in a perfectly natural manner ; the evangelists have not
hinted at anything supernatural, and it would ill become us to assert
the existence of a marvel with respect to which they maintained entire
silence. The colt being without a saddle, one was extemporised out of the
garments of the disciples, and then Jesus mounted : ' and cast on him
their garments ; and he sat upon him.' 'And they threw their gar
ments upon the colt, and set Jesus thereon.' Matthew adheres to the
plural : ' and put on them their garments ; and he sat thereon.'
Then ensued a scene of enthusiastic exultation. The example set by
the disciples was imitated by the multitude, who stripped off their
robes and laid them on the ground over which he was to pass. ' And
the most part of the multitude spread their garments in the way.'
' And many spread their garments upon the way.' ' And as he went,
they spread their garments in the way.' Others supplemented this
with a carpet of leafy boughs, cut off from the trees. ' And others
cut branches from the trees, aud spread them in the way.' Young
renders literally, ' were cutting.' ' And others branches (Gr. layers of
leaves), which they had cut from the fields.' The Revisers, following
the two oldest MSS., have omitted from Mark the words ' and strawed
them in the way,' which were probably inserted at an early date from
Matthew. Alford notes that they are 'omitted in many ancient
authorities,' and explains : ' the word signifies not merely branches,
but branches cut for tlie purpose of being littered to walk on : and this
implies the str awing in the ivay, which has been unskilfully supplied.'
The expression used by the Revisers in Mark, ' which they had cut
from the fields,' agrees with Tischendorf 's, ' having cut them out of
the fields,' and with Alford's statement that they had been ' cut for
the purpose.' This is corroborated by the fourth evangelist, who
stated, before mentioning the riding upon the ass, that the multitude
had taken branches of palm trees and gone out to meet Jesus. ' On
the morrow a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they
heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took the branches of the
palm trees, and went forth to meet him.' To the words, ' a oreat
multitude,' the Revisers have affixed the note : 'Some ancient autho-

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 255
rities read the common people.' Not the three oldest MSS., however ¦
that form of speech looks like the gloss of some commentator. The
coming of this multitude with palms in their hands was not without
a meaning. They were bent on honouring Jesus as the Messiah, the
expected king of Israel, and with loud shouts they hailed him under
r,-™ 26 k ? ^ed °Uk HTnna :, Blessed is he thafc cometh in the 12 Jo„„ 13
name of the Lord, even the King of Israel' When the ass arrived
and Jesus had been placed thereon, the prophetic picture was com
plete. Here was just such a king as Zechariah had foretold, entering
Jerusalem in just such a way as he described, no troops, no courtiere
by his side, no insignia of royalty upon his person, nothing in his
favour except the two things which alone give real dignity to a kino-
—his character, and the willing homage of his people. ' And Jesus' ., « 1:
having found a young ass, sat thereon, as it is written, Fear not'
daughter of Zion : behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt ;
The evangelist summarises the sense of the passage without adhering
to the actual words. ' Fear not ' is not in the original, but the context
clearly conveyed the idea of protection and safety. The evangelist
explains that there was no thought at the time in the minds of any of
the disciples, of the prophecy which they unconsciously fulfilled.
4 These things understood not his disciples at the first : but when Jesus .. 10
was glorified then remembered they that these things were written of
him, and that they had done these things unto him.' The gathering
of so great and enthusiastic a multitude on this occasion was due to
two causes : (1) they ' had come to the feast,' and therefore would be
under the influence of religious ideas, and at leisure to seek out and
honour the great Teacher whose probable coming to Jerusalem had
been eagerly anticipated ; (2) many among them had been present
when Jesus had called Lazarus out of the grave, and the account given
by these eye-witnesses of that miracle excited the popular imagination
in favour of Jesus, and resulted in this form of public ovation. ' The .. 17, is
multitude therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of
the tomb, and raised him from the dead, bare witness. For this cause
also the multitude went and met him, for that they heard that he had
done this sign.' There is no inconsistency between the narratives ;
indeed, they throw light upon each other : John says nothing about
the sending forth of the two disciples in search of the ass, but states
simply that one was found by Jesus, which implies that some means
were taken by him to obtain it. Matthew, Mark and Luke say noth
ing about the coming of the multitude with palms and singing, which
explains the otherwise unaccountable outburst of enthusiasm, which
the mere fact of seeing Jesus riding was not calculated to evoke. The
bearing of the palms harmonises with the statement of Luke, that
layers of leaves had been cut from the fields ; and the strewing of
them upon the road would naturally lead others to cut branches from
the trees with the same object, as described by Matthew. In the same
way, the stripping off of their garments by the disciples to improvise
a saddle, was imitated by the most part of ' the multitude,' the laying
down and constant replacing of the garments supplying the gaps
between the carpet of greenery. From first to last it was a scene of
tumultuous gladness. The multitude divided into two bands, one
preceding and the other following, Jesus being in the midst. After a
time, when they were nearing Jerusalem and had reached the down-

256 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
ward slope of the mount of Olives, the song with which he had
been hailed at' starting was taken up and added to by his
19 Luke 37, disciples. ' And as he was now drawing nigh, even at the descent
38 of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began
to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty
works (Gr. powers) which they had seen ; saying, Blessed is the King
that cometh in the name of the Lord : peace in heaven, and glory in
the highest.' That was well suited to the mouths of professed dis
ciples, and was, as Luke intimates, rather an acknowledgment of the
work which Jesus had done than a claim for his future supremacy :
the words ' peace in heaven and glory in the highest ' sufficiently
indicated that no earthly kingship was in the minds of these his
followers when they greeted him as ' the King that cometh in the
name of the Lord.' The expression ' King of Israel ' is dropped by
the disciples, and also the word ' Hosanna,' which might be open to
misconstruction by the enemies of Jesus. Alford explains : ' Hosanna
— from Psalm cxviii. 25 = save now.' The Psalm runs : ' Save now,
we beseech thee, 0 Lord.' The crowd composed of visitors to the
feast had started that cry, and however discreet some of his disciples
may have been, knowing how he had once charged them to tell no man
that he was the Christ, the multitude were enamoured with that idea,
21 Mat. o an(i fc00]j jt Up enthusiastically. ' And the multitudes that went before
him, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David :
Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord ; Hosanna in the
n Mark 9, io highest.' ' And they that went before, and they that followed, cried,
Hosanna ; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord :
Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of our father
David : Hosanna in the highest.' It could not be helped : the con
ception of a temporal sovereign, and of a kingdom, not ' of God,' not
' of heaven,' but ' of David,' was ever uppermost iu men's minds.
Not all among the multitude participated in these demonstrations.
There was a sprinkling of Pharisees, who had come to watch and criticise.
There was much that a hostile and fastidious observer might object
to. Not every man in those days, any more than now, would strip
off his coat in the open air, without caring about conventional
etiquette. The social status of the class composing the crowd might
be judged thereby. It was all very well for fishermen and others
whose daily toil made such an action habitual, to be thus enthusiastic
and demonstrative, but well-bred, cultured^ onlookers, who were care
ful to make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their
garments, were little likely to use their robes for such a purpose or in
such a fashion. The fact repeatedly stares us in the face, and here
is another evidence of it, that the bulk of the disciples and welcomers
of Jesus consisted of what would now be designated by the super
cilious term, ' the lower orders,' or more correctly ' the working
classes.' The men and women who, chiefly, came under the influence
of Jesus resembled those composing the ' Salvation Army,' who of
late years have been sought out and gained by ' General ' Booth and
his coadjutors. The very chiefest of the apostles, Peter and John,
in the full tide of their spiritual gifts and successful preaching, were
4 Aits 13 classed by the priestly rulers of the Jews as ' unlearned and ignorant
men.' There were Pharisees who looked scornfully and disapprov
ingly on this scene of which Jesus was so conspicuously the central

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 257
figure, and as the cavalcade swept onwards they expostulated with
him on the unseemliness of such proceedings, and urged him to check
his disciples in their singing. ' And some of the Pharisees from the 10 Luke 39
multitude said unto him, Master (or, Teacher), rebuke thy disciples.'
Their chant of praise, as recorded by Luke, had nothing'in it about
'the king of Israel,' or 'the kingdom of David.' Whatever the
multitudes might shout, the disciples, trained and taught by Jesus,
were not likely to give expression to such ideas. The chosen apostles
were careful, perhaps were directed by him, to lead the thoughts and
voices of the multitude into a higher, holier channel, ' to rejoice and
praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they
had seen ; ' and their salutation of Jesus as ' the King that cometh
in the name of the Lord,' coupled with the refrain 'peace in heaven,
and glory in the highest,' conveyed no thought of an earthly throne
and kingdom. Jesus replied that the eulogy well beseemed his life-
work and his teaching, and if the good works he had showed them
from the .Father were forbidden to be mentioned by the tongues of
his disciples, the very stones might be expected to proclaim them.
' And he answered and said, I tell you that, if these shall hold their » 40
peace, the stones will cry out.' By selecting so strong an hyperbole
Jesus, in the most emphatic way possible, justified his disciples and
condemned the Pharisees. Not long ago they had banished him
from Judsea, and they were now surprised and angered to find him
setting at naught their decree, and actually about to enter Jerusalem
amid the enthusiastic acclamations of the populace. 'The Pharisees 12 John 19
therefore said among themselves, Behold (or, Ye behold) how ye
prevail nothing : lo, the world is gone after him.' But there was no
triumph, only sorrow, in the heart of Jesus. He knew well what
would be the fatal result to himself of this his last visit, and he fore
saw also the certain ruin of Jerusalem in days not far distant.
As he approached the city his soul grew sad, and when he saw it
stretched out before him, his emotions of grief and pity found vent
in tears. In short, sobbing sentences, he bewailed the coming evils,
all of which might have been prevented if only the citizens had
known what was the true basis, of peace and prosperity. ' And when 19 Luke; 41,
he drew nigh, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, If thou (or,
0 that thou) hadst known in this day, even thou, the things, which
belong unto, peace ! but now they are hid from thine eyes.' The
national policy and the temper of the people would culminate in
rebellion, a trial of strength and endurance between them and their
enemies, bringing on the city the horrors of a weary siege, cruel,
relentless carnage, and resulting finally in utter defeat and devasta
tion. ' For the days shall come upon thee, when thine enemies will » 43> -4
cast up a bank (Gr. palisade) about thee, and compass thee round,
and keep thee in on every side, and shall dash thee to the ground,
and thy children within thee ; aud they shall not leave in thee
one stone upon another.' In all human history, national as well
as individual, the Present is ever the father of the Future. ' If thou
hadst known in this day,' said Jesus ; (that is the reading of the two
oldest MSS., omitting the word ' thy ' before day) : his teaching was
meant to be the salvation of the people, but being thwarted and
repudiated the opportunity was lost, and another chapter must be
added to the bloodstained page of history, another attempt to conquer

258 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
19 Luke 44 force by force, another triumph of might over right : ' Because thou
knewest not the time of thy visitation.' This was not the only occa
sion when Jesus gave expression to these thoughts, in conjunction
with a lamentation over Jerusalem. The records of the Past were
ominous in the extreme. ' It . cannot be,' he once said, ' that a
prophet perish out of Jerusalem.' And then he uttered an apostrophe,
very similar to the foregoing, conceived in the same spirit and con-
13 Lnke 34, veying the same ideas. '0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the
35 prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her ! how often would
I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her
own brood under her wings, and ye would not ! Behold, your house
is left unto you desolate : and I say unto you, Ye shall not see me,
until ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the
Lord.' Taking the passages together, they elucidate each other. In
the first place, however, a few technical points have to be considered.
The Revisers have altered ' sent unto thee ' to ' sent unto her ' which
is the rendering of Young and Tischendorf. The italicised word
' gathereth ' is omitted by Young, not being in the original. The
Revisers have omitted to italicise ' her ' before wings ; Young and
Tischendorf render 'the wings.' The Revisers have italicised the
word ' desolate,' which is not in the three oldest MSS. and is omitted
by Young, Tischendorf and Alford. The Authorised Version has
' until the time come when ye shall say,' which is rendered by Young,
' till it come when ye may say,' altered by the Revisers in accordance
with the two oldest MSS. to ' till ye shall say.' It is probable, as is
supposed by many, that these verses have been inserted unchrono-
logically by Luke. If he were in doubt where they ought properly to
be placed, it would be natural for him to bring them in, as he has
done, immediately after the mention of Jerusalem. In Matthew
they occupy a different position, being introduced immediately after
23 Mat. 37- the condemnation of the Pharisees. ' 0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which
killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her ! how
often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not ! Behold,
your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall
not see me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in
the name of the Lord.' The chief point of difference is the intro
duction in Matthew of the word ' henceforth.' There is some doubt
as to the word ' desolate,' which the Revisers note is ' omitted by
some ancient authorities.' It does not appear in the Vatican MS.
The import of the expression, ' Because thou knewest not the time
of thy visitation,' now becomes clear. Jesus had often sought to
draw Jerusalem to himself, but his efforts had failed. The simile he
chose was striking and peculiar : ' How often did I desire to gather
thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under the
wing, and ye desired not ' (Tischendorf). The dread of a coming
danger was in his mind, and he knew that only the protection he
offered could save them from it. Yet his mode of defence was not
after the fashion of the world : he urged no resistance, he uttered no
rallying cry, he wielded no weapon of defence, but simply tried to
attract men to himself, induce them to lay aside every thought of
violence, and keep their souls in charity aud peace. If his kingdom
had been of this world, then would his servants have fought ; but

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 259
his only effort and aim was to save others by sacrificing himself :
' If therefore ye seek me, let these go their way : that the word might is Joim s, a
be fulfilled which he spake, Of those whom thou hast given me, I
lost not one.' The spirit and teaching of Jesus forbade any resort to
violence and bloodshed, and led all who came to him to seek the
rectification of wrong and evil by other means, to overcome the
world by peace, and antidote its tribulations by the hope and foretaste
of the kingdom of God and heaven. ' Peace. I leave with you ; my u Joim 27
peace I give unto you : not as the world giveth, give I unto you.
Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be fearful' That
was his panacea for the trials of the time then present. True, his
wisdom then, as now, seemed folly to the world ; only his disciples
could receive and comprehend his saying : ' These things have 1 10 John 33
spoken unto you, that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye
have tribulation : but be of good cheer ; I have overcome the world'
Few indeed were they who embraced that doctrine, and thence his
lamentation over Jerusalem : ' 0 that thou hadst known in this day,
even thou, the things which belong unto peace.' The old, old
warlike spirit must needs revive, the cry of, patriotism uprise, instead
of that nobler aspiration after a heavenly inheritance to which Jesus
called his followers, swords must clash, and blood must flow, and
brute force triumph as of yore. The tears of Jesus were shed over
his own lost cause in Jerusalem. It was appointed to him that he
should die for the people, and if he could only have drawn them
to himself, the nation would have been saved, and the ultimate
triumph of Christianity antedated by many, none can say how many,
centuries. To the high priest alone was given a prophetic insight of
this truth : ' A certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that 11 John 49-
year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor do ye take account
that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people,
.and that the whole nation perish not. Now this he said not of
himself : but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus
should die for the nation ; and not for the nation only, but that he
might also gather together into one the children of God that are
scattered abroad.' Not until the whole body of Christians are thus
gathered together into one united heavenly-minded phalanx, taking
all the precepts of Jesus for their creed and heritage, and suffering no
admixture of earthly elements with his pure, unworldly doctrine, cau
Christianity assume the form which its founder sought to give it, and
bless mankind with the salvation which he offered them.
The omission of the word ' desolate ' from the three oldest MSS. in
Luke, and from the Vatican and other ancient authorities in Matthew,
may be taken to indicate either that the word was first introduced by
Commentators to suit their view of the sense intended, or at the
least, that no stress is to be laid upon the word in interpreting
the passage. The expression, ' Behold, your house is left unto you,'
conveys the idea of the withdrawal of any attempt at guidance or
interference on the part of Jesus. It was their own house, ' your
house,' and it must now be ' left unto ' them, to manage and rule as
they thought fit. This seems to be admitted by Alford, although he
at the same time thought there was an allusion to the temple. He
says • ' No more God's but your house— said primarily of the
.temple,— then of Jerusalem,— and then of the whole land in which ye
s 2

260 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii-
dwell ! ' The efforts of Jesus to guide and save them having been
repulsed, the people must be left to their own devices. This
interpretation of the passage harmonises with what precedes, and also
with the words which follow : ' Ye shall not see me henceforth, till
ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.'
Jesus could attempt no more ; he must leave them to themselves, and
wait until they were prepared to welcome him as the divinely-
commissioned Saviour. We see- that the words of the carol sung by
the disciples on the occasion of his triumphal approach to Jerusalem
not only met his approval but were adopted by Jesus himself.
When the procession of disciples and others entered the city,
the inhabitants naturally manifested considerable excitement and
21 Mat. 10 curiosity. ' And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was
stirred, saying, Who is this ? ' The visits of Jesus to the metropolis
being only occasional, he was not so well known there as in Galilee.
„ n ' And the multitudes said, This is the prophet, Jesus, from Nazareth
of Galilee.' The distance between the two places being considerably
over 50 miles, the career of Jesus did not come within the cognizance
of dwellers at Jerusalem. His visits were at festival times, when
there was a large influx of strangers ; probably most of those who
sought him out at Jerusalem and attended his preaching there, had
become acquainted with him in Galilee or elsewhere.
Jesus at once proceeded to the temple, and manifested much
interest in what he saw going on about him. The night was
approaching, he had freed himself from the presence of the clamorous
multitude, keeping with him only the twelve apostles, and with them
he retired to Bethany, which was about a mile and a half from
ii Mark n Jerusalem. 'And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple ; and
when he had looked round about upon all things, it being now
eventide, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.' The next
morning they returned to Jerusalem, and Jesus, ever more anxious
about his work than about his food, began to suffer from hunger.
„ 12 ' And on the morrow, when they were come out from Bethany, he
21 Mat. is hungered.' Matthew adds that it was in the morning. ' Now in the
morning as he returned to the city, he hungered.' The expression
' as he returned,' may be taken to indicate that he had started
without breakfasting, and felt exhausted on the journey. On the
!<i road he saw a solitary fig tree, and made his way towards it. ' And
seeing a (or, a single) fig tree by the way side, he came to if
Mark explains that it was at some distance, and was seen to be in
leaf, so that it was possible, though by no means certain, that fruit
n Mm k is als0 might be found on it. 'And seeing a fig tree afar off having
leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon.' The word
' haply ' implies that it was a mere chance, and the slender hope was
21 Mat. io doomed to disappointment ; ' and found nothing thereon, but leaves-
only.' Mark explains that the season was not sufficiently advanced
to justify the expectation of fruit being found as a matter of course :
n Mark 13 ' and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for it was
not the season of figs.' Having ascertained the fact, Jesus uttered
some very remarkable words, not to his companions, but to the tree
21 Mat. io itself. ' And he saith unto it, Let there be no fruit from' thee
n Mark 14 henceforward for ever.' Mark is to the same effect : ' And he-
answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit from thee henceforward

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 261
wleT j TAnd his disciPles heard it.' It was a strange thing to say.
Why did Jesus say it ? Was it a mere expression dropped in haste
anger, disappointment, vindictiveness? That would be contrary
to all we know of Jesus. No question appears to have been asked,
no comment made. They went on their way, spent the day in
Jerusalem, returned to Bethany, and the next morning passed the
spot again. Then the incident was recalled to their minds There
stood the tree : but what had happened to it ? Its foliage was
fading, and a close examination showed that it had withered from
the root upwards. ' And as they passed by in the morning, they saw n Mark 20
the fig tree withered away from the roots.' Matthew condenses the
account, saying nothing about the intervening day, but simply
'And immediately the fig tree withered away.' The word ' imme- 21 Mat 19
diately ' stands in the Authorised Version as ' presently ; ' Young
renders : ' And forthwith the fig tree withered.' The disciples were
astounded at so inexplicable a phenomenon. The Authorised Version
puts their words in the form of an exclamation of surprise. ' And
when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the
fig tree withered away ! ' Tischendorf agrees with that, but Young
renders it as a question : 'And the disciples having seen, wondered,
saying, How did the fig-tree forthwith wither ? ' and the Revisers „ 20
have done the same. ' And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled,
saying, How did the fig tree immediately wither away ? ' One of the
disciples called the attention of Jesus to the circumstance. 'And 11 Mark 21
Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Rabbi, behold, the
fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.' The Revisers have
altered 'Master' to 'Rabbi,' therein agreeing with Tischendorf,
Young and Alford. The term was equivalent to 'Teacher,' and was
by itself a mark of distinction, and on that account coveted by the
Pharisees, for Jesus once described them as loving ' to be called of 23 Mat. 7, s
men Rabbi,' and added, ' But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your
teacher, and all ye are brethren.' The companionship between
Jesus and his disciples, however intimate, was not, could not be of an
ordinary kind. They had always a becoming sense of his superiority,
•and the esteem and honour in which they held him appear frequently
in their mode of addressing him.
In the opinion of the disciples the utterance of Jesus was a male
diction : Peter did not scruple to say, 'the fig tree which thou
cursedst.' The miracle can be regarded in no other light. For this
once, the power of Jesus was put forth to blight and destroy, instead
of to bless and heal. Such an act could benefit no one : to kill a
fruit-producing tree because it did not bear prematurely, offends our
notions of wisdom and benevolence. That Jesus did this thing, can
make no difference in the judgment we pass upon it. In some
mysterious way, he had thwarted the operation of the laws of nature
with respect to this tree, so that it ceased to draw nourishment out
of the earth and the elements, and was transformed into a barren,
useless stock. Once he had spoken a parable about a fig-tree, repre
senting it to have been fruitless for three years together, aud yet
when the owner decided to cut it down, the experienced vinedresser
pleaded for a fourth year's trial, to see the effect of increased care
and culture. That parable harmonised with the mind and teaching
of Jesus ; but now his own deed runs co.unter to it ; he goes out of

262 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
his way, to seek for figs out of season, and failing to find them, he
anathematises the tree and withers its root. Again the question
presses : Why did he do this ? Doubtless he had a motive. He
himself gave the clue thereto, and explained the significance of his
11 Mark 22 action. ' And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.'
That is the key note of the explanation. To blast the fig tree by a
word, was the very reverse of faith in God : it was an interference
with the divinely-arranged system of the universe, a transgression
against the beneficent laws of nature, an exercise of human influence
in opposition to the will of God, by whose providence the fruit tree
bears fruit after its kind and in its proper season. The tongue and
will of man are potent, aye ! omnipotent, in the direction of such
„ 23 evils. Jesus asserted that fact : ' Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the
sea ; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he
saith cometh to pass ; he shall have it.' The Sinaitic MS. begins : ' If
you have faith in God, verily I say unto you . . ,' but that reading,
although indicated by Tischendorf was not adopted by him. In the
Authorised Version the verse ends with the words, ' he shall have
whatsoever he saith,' which is now altered to, ' he shall have it,' in
accordance with the two oldest MSS. Matthew's fuller record of the
words of Jesus places the uprooting of the mountain and the withering-
si Mat. 21 of the fig tree in the same category. ' And Jesus answered and said
unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not,
ye shall not only do what is done to the fig tree, but even if ye shall
say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea, it
shall be done.' The Authorised Version stands : ' ye shall not only
do this which is done to the fig tree ; ' omitting the italicised words
' which is done,' the sentence would stand, ' ye shall not only do this
to the fig tree.' This brings out the character of the action itself, as
does also Young's literal rendering : ' not only this of the fig tree
shall ye do.' The acts are of the same kind : both abnormal, needless,
destructive, interfering with the settled order of the universe,
bringing no advantage to mankind, but the reverse, introducing
confusion into the harmony of nature, the human will, selfish,
passionate, reckless, setting itself against physical arrangements and
sequences ordained from of old by the will of God. Jesus was
hungry, sought fruit, found none, and instantly cursed the tree
appointed to bear it. There was none to say him nay : he had the
power, a faith in his own word sufficient for the purpose, and he
spoke the word and exercised the power. What he had done, others
also could do : there is no limit to the operation of man's will up to
the point in which he has confidence in himself. True, no man save
Jesus knew the secret of working that mighty spiritual influence;
but in the direction of beneficence he had imparted it to some extent
to his disciples, and when they on one occasion had failed in their
attempt to imitate him, he had attributed their want of success to a
lack of faith, which faith he now declares to be an influence more
subtile than the process of vegetable life, and mightier than the force
of gravitation. Jesus is asserting the existence of a common attri
bute of humanity : ' Whosoever shall say . . shall not doubt in his
heart . . shall believe that what he saith cometh to pass . . ye shall
not only do what is done . . but even if ye shall say . . it shall be

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 263
done.' It is all personal to man, a pure act of volition on his part :
in fact and in a word — man's faith in himself. What Jesus urged
them to aim at and cultivate was precisely the reverse of that.
Instead of saying, Have faith in yourselves, he says : ' Have faith in
God,' which Young renders, ' Have God's faith,' in opposition to
man's faith, a faith submissive to the divine will and satisfied to rest
upon the divine working. This unwonted, strange act of Jesus
carried and proclaimed its own moral ; it was as though he said to
them, You see what mischief I am able to do. You will be able to
do the same. I would have you fully conscious of that power, and
draw from it a lesson, not of self-confidence and self-will, but of sub-
missiveness and prayer. Let your faith work in that direction only.
If you can do mischief, God can do all things ; be persuaded that he
doeth all things well, and strong in that faith, be passive, and make
your requests known unto him. ' Therefore I say unto you, All n Mark 24
things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that ye have received
them, and ye shall have them.' The Authorised Version has :
' Whatsoever things ye desire, when ye pray,' which stands in the
two oldest MSS. thus : ' What things soever ye pray and desire.'
The Revised Version, 'whatsoever ye pray and ask for,' does not
quite correspond with that, nor does Dr. Davidson's rendering of
Tischendorf as, 'whatsoever ye pray for and ask.' In all three
versions a formal petition is implied, whereas the words 'what things
soever ye pray and desire,' may include both actual prayer and desire
unspoken. The Authorised Version has, ' believe that ye receive,'
now altered to ' believe that ye have received,' which Alford states is
the reading of ' most ancient authorities ; ' it is adopted by Tischen
dorf, although not noted by him as the reading of either of the three
oldest MSS. The sense appears to be this : Let your faith have refer
ence to God. Whatever you ask, let it always be something which
has already been vouchsafed by God, and which cannot therefore be
contrary to his will ; let it never be anything which lies outside the
scope of his gifts, or is opposed to his providential arrangements, as
to blight a tree or overturn a mountain. Matthew's account is con
densed. He simply records the saying thus : ' And all things, what- 21 Mat. 22
soever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.' So much
of the discourses of Jesus as those who first reported them were able
to record, has been handed down to us. In this instance Matthew s
narrative is imperfect. Even when the sayings of Jesus are noted,
however correctly and fully, it does not follow that the evangelists
always grasped their meaning. To elucidate that, to get, as it were
behind the mind of Jesus, it is necessary to compare the records and
exercise a careful and independent judgment. Mark has here
brought out in the discourse of Jesus, a connecting link, lhereiore
I say unto you,' which Matthew seems to have missed. Jesus brings
into close connection two things which we are apt to view apart :
the power of man, and the power of prayer. He argues : because
yon are able of yourselves to exercise unbounded supremacy over
nature, therefore be sure that whatever you confidently ask or wish,
you will receive : therefore ask and wish nothing which you ought
not Jesus willed the destruction of the fig tree : he brought to
bear upon it, we know not how, some mysterious power we know not
what, and his desire was accomplished. If a man wills to overturn

264 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
a mountain, it is because he knows that the act lies within the
compass of his power ; if not, his professed will would be an impos
ture upon himself. Addressing his disciples generally, not in
dividually, Jesus added that if they desired anything, they must
believe that it was a thing granted them to have, and their wish
would be fulfilled. The answer to prayer, ' uttered or unexpressed,'
is through human instrumentality. We pray for daily bread. There
is no need for the formal utterance of the petition, except that it is
well for us to look up to God, and when we do so to recognise the
fact that the supply of our necessities is in harmony with and
dependent upon his will. The life of every creature is in itself a
prayer for the nourishment needed for its preservation.
104 Psa. 27 'These wait all upon thee,
That thou mayest give them their meat in due season.'
But the skies do not rain down upon man unground corn or flour or
wheat : he must sow, reap, grind, and prepare the food; not each indivi
dual for himself, but some for all ; the community as a whole thus bring
ing to pass the universal prayer, ' Give us this day our daily bread.' It
is so with everything we need, pray for and desire : all things
vouchsafed to mankind must come to us through men, in connection
with that power of self-help and mastery over the material world with
which it has pleased God to endow us. ' Therefore I say unto you,
All things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that ye have
received them, and ye shall have them.' That is the law of God's
giving and of man's asking and receiving.
And the law of forgiveness runs parallel therewith. Jesus touched
n Mark 25 upon that also. 'And whensoever ye stand praying, forgive, if ye
have aught against any one ; that your Father also which is in
2 Mark 6, 7 heaven may forgive you your trespasses.' The Jewish doctors held
that none but God could forgive sins, and that it was rank blasphemy
for men to profess to do so. Jesus taught, on the contrary, that the
forgiveness of sins was the privilege of humanity, and that the pre
rogative of divine forgiveness would not, could not, be exercised
independently thereof. Not only did he class them together, but he
6 Mat. 14, 15 declared plainly that they must act in conjunction. ' For if ye
forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive
you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your
Father forgive your trespasses.' The disciples of Jesus are bound to
ii Luke 4 pray in these terms : ' Forgive us our sins ; for we ourselves also
forgive every one that is indebted to us.' Every law of God is for
man's benefit, and every infraction of his law a sin against humanity.
So long as man continues to call man to account for wrongs com
mitted, forgiveness is an impossibility. To suppose that God forgives
when man does not, or that man can forgive when God does not, is to
take away reality from forgiveness, making it not a fact, but a form
of words, a mere sentiment or emotion of the mind. Jesus did not
take that surface view of the question. His teaching went deeper far,
down to the veiy root of the matter. He saw, and tried to make his
disciples see, that God's forgiveness was contingent upon man's, the
latter being the antecedent and earnest, if not the form and embodi
ment of the former. This doctrine is too important to be passed
without a thorough investigation of the Scriptural meaning of the
word forgiveness. According to Cruden's Concordance the words

tart 11.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 265
' forgive, forgiven, forgiveth, forgiveness, forgivenesses,' occur in the
Old Testament 44 times. Three of those passages relate to human
forgiveness, and 41 to divine forgiveness, and in every instance the
•actual remission of a punishment is connected with the word. Only
with respect to two passages could there be a moment's hesitation in
arriving at that conclusion : the first relates to the forgiveness of a 30 Num. s, s,
woman's vow, and the context there (verse 15), declares that the '^
husband ' shall bear her iniquity ; ' the second is : ' Thou, Lord, art so ps. 5
good and ready to forgive,' and there the context alludes to a prayer
for help in a day of trouble. Some of the passages in Leviticus and
Numbers relate to offerings, ending with the words, ' they shall be
forgiven . . he shall be forgiven : ' to such instances the statement
applies, that under the law ' every transgression and disobedience 2 Heb. 2
received a just recompense of reward.' In the Gospels forgiveness is
alluded to 32 times. The passages may be classified as follows :
(a) By the Son of man, 12 times ; (b) divine, conditional on
human, 8 times ; (c) of a brother, 3 times ; (d) of a sinful woman,
twice ; (e) of all sins except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, 5
times ; (f) Father, forgive them, once ; (g) it should be forgiven them, 4 Mark 12
once. There is nothing in these passages inconsistent with the previous
conclusion that forgiveness signifies the remission of a punishment, an
actual deliverance from a condition brought about by wrong conduct.
In the Acts and Epistles forgiveness is alluded to 16 times. The
passages may be classified as follows : (a) Of offences, sins, trespasses,
and avoidance of punishment, 12 times ; (b) mutual, 3 times ; (c)
' Forgive me this wrong,' once. There is still nothing to alter the
previous conclusion. The idea of absolution or forgiveness apart from
an actual, evident remission of punishment, has no foundation in
Scripture. If the penalty due to an offence is exacted by man, it
cannot truly be declared forgiven by God : ' Forgive . . that your
Father also which is in heaven may forgive : ' that was the doctrine
of Jesus, the aspect of divine in conjunction with human forgiveness
which he repeatedly and earnestly impressed upon his disciples. Let
us honestly and boldly face the truth in this matter. Take the case
of a thief or a murderer, the one condemned to penal servitude, the
other to death. Unless the sentence be revoked it would be absurd
to say that either of the criminals was forgiven : they are left to bear
the punishment of their iniquity, and death to the manslayer was
ordained by God himself. The accusers, the witnesses, the jury, the
judo-e the jailer, ihe executioner, all combine to punish the trans-
o-reslion, not to forgive it. Suppose Jesus were to revisit the world,
and were to say, Forgive those men. That could have but one
meaning : remit the penalty. Yet that would be precisely what he
had said before. That earnest seeker after truth, Count Leon
Tolstoi, has grappled with this difficult question among others His
reasonings, fearless, unsophisticated, luminous are well worth our
pondering. He says:* 'I was drawn away from the Church by
various singularities in its dogmas ; by its approval of persecution,
capital punfshment, war ; and also by its intolerance of all other forms
of worship than its own ; but my faith in the teaching of the Church
was shaken still more by its indifference to what seemed to me the
* ""What I Believe," pp. 6—25.

266 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
very basis of the teaching of Christ, and by its evident partiality for
what I could not consider an essential part of that doctrine ... I
turned away from the Church. For the precepts which were given
me by the Church concerning belief in dogmas, observance of the
sacraments, fast-days, prayers, I did not care ; and precepts really
founded on the teachings of Christ were wanting . . . What perplexed
me most of all was, that all the evil things that men do, such as con
demning private individuals, whole nations, or other religions ; and
the inevitable results of these condemnations — executions and wars —
were justified by the Church. I saw that the doctrine of Christ,
which teaches us humility, tolerance, forgiveness, self-denial, and
love, was extolled by the Church, but that at tbe same time she
sanctioned what was incompatible with such teachings ... It was
only after losing all faith in the explanations of learned theology and
criticism, and after laying them all aside, in obedience to the words of
Christ (Mark x. 15), that I began to understand what had till then
seemed incomprehensible to me. It was not by deep thought only, or
by skilfully comparing or commenting on the texts of the Gospel,
that I came to understand the doctrine. On the contrary, all grew
clear to me for the very reason that I had ceased to rest on mere
interpretations. The text that gave me the key to the truth was the
thirty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew : " Ye have
heard tbat it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for
a tooth. Bui I say unto you, that ye resist not evil." The
simple meaning of these words suddenly flashed full upon
me ; 1 accepted the fact that Christ meant exactly what He
said; and then, though I had found nothing new, all that had
hitherto obscured the truth cleared away, and the truth itself arose
before me in all its solemn importance . . . Now I understood that
the whole force of the teaching lay in the words, " resist not evil," and
that all the context was but an application of that great precept. I
saw that Christ does not require us to turn the other cheek, and to
give away our cloak, in order to make us suffer ; but He teaches us
not to resist evil, and warns us that so doing may involve personal
suffering . . . Christ meant to say, " Whatever men may do to you,
bear, suffer, submit ; but never resist evil." What could be clearer,
more intelligible, and more indubitable than this ? As soon as I
understood the exact meaning of these simple words, all that had
appeared confused to me in the doctrine of Christ grew intelligible ;
what had seemed contradictory now became consistent, and what I
had deemed superfluous became indispensable. All united in one
whole, one part fitting into and supporting the other, like the pieces
of a broken statue put together again in their proper places. This
doctrine of " non-resistance " is commended again and again in the
Gospels. In the " Sermon on the Mount " Christ represents his
followers — i.e., those who follow this law of non-resistance — as liable
to be persecuted, stoned, and reduced to beggary. Elsewhere He tells
us that the disciple who does not take up His cross, who is not willing
to renounce all, cannot be His follower, and He thus describes the man
who is ready to bear the consequences that may result from the
practice of the doctrine of non-resistance. Christ says to His dis
ciples : " Be poor, be ready to bear persecution, suffering, and even
death, without resisting evil." He prepared for suffering and death

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 267
Himself without resisting evil ; reproved Peter who grieved over Him
because He proposed thus to yield ; and he died, forbidding others to
resist evil, remaining true to His own doctrine in His own example.
All His first disciples obeyed the same law of non-resistance of evil ;
and passed their lives in disability and persecution. We may bring-
forward as an objection, the difficulty of always obeying such a law";
we may even say, as multitudes do, that it is a foolish doctrine, that
Christ was a dreamer, an idealist, who gave precepts which it is
impossible to follow. But, whatever our objections may be, we can
not deny that Christ expresses His meaning most clearly and dis
tinctly ; and His meaning is, that man must not resist evil ; he who
fully accepts His teaching cannot resist evil ... If a man were to
set all the faculties of his mind to the annulling of a given law, what
more forcible argument could he use for its suppression than that it
was an impracticable law, and that the legislator's own opinion of it
was, that it could not be kept without supernatural aid ? And yet
this was exactly what I had thought about the commandment "not to
resist evil." I tried to remember when and how the strange idea had
first come into my mind, that the doctrine of Christ was divine in
authority, but impossible in practice. On reviewing my past life, I
discovered that this idea had never been transmitted to me in all its
nakedness, for then it would have repelled me ; but that I had imper
ceptibly imbibed it from my earliest childhood, and that the associa
tions of my life had confirmed the strange error. I was taught from
my childhood that Christ is God, and that His teaching is divine and
authoritative ; while, on the other hand, I was also told to respect
those institutions which, by means of violence, secured my safety from
evil ; I was taught to honour those institutions as being sacred. I
was taught to resist evil ; and it was instilled into me that it was
humiliating and dishonourable to submit to evil, and to suffer from
it ; and that it was praiseworthy to resist evil. I was taught to con
demn and to execute. I was taught to make war, i.e., to resist evil
by murder. The army, a member of which I was, was called a
" Christ-loving " army, and its mission was consecrated by the Church.
I was taught to resist an offender by violence ; to avenge a private
insult, or one against my native land, by violence. All this was never
regarded as wrong, but, on the contrary, I was told that it was per
fectly right, and in nowise contrary to Christ's doctrine. All
surrounding interests, such as the peace and safety of myself and
family, and of my property, were based on the law that was rejected
by Christ — on the law of "a tooth for a tooth." Ecclesiastical
teachers told me that the doctrine of Christ was divine, but that its
observance was impossible on account of the weakness of human
nature ; and that the grace of God alone could enable us to keep this
law. Secular teachers told me, and the whole order of life proved,
that the teaching of Christ was impracticable and ideal, and that we
must, in fact, live contrary to His doctrine. Such a notion of the
practical impossibility of following the divine doctrine was imbibed
by me gradually and almost imperceptibly. I was so accustomed to
it, it coincided so well with all my animal feelings, that I had never
observed the contradiction in which I lived. I did not see that it was
impossible to admit the Godhead of Christ— the basis of whose
teaching is non-resistance of evil— and, at the same time, to

268 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part n.
work consciously and calmly for the institutions of property, courts of
law, kingdoms, the army, and so on. It could not be consistent for
us to regulate our lives contrary to the doctrine of Christ, and then
pray to the same Christ that we might be enabled to keep His com
mandments — to " forgive," and not to "resist evil." . . . In word I
acknowledged the teaching of Christ as sacred ; but I did not carry
out that teaching in deed, for I admitted, and respected, the un
christian institutions which surrounded me ... To affirm that the
Christian doctrine refers only to personal salvation, and has no bear
ing upon state affairs, is a great error. To say so, is but to assert an
audacious, groundless, most evident untruth, which a moment's serious
¦reflection suffices to destroy. Well, say I to myself, I will not resist
evil ; as a private man, I will let myself be smitten ; but what am I
to do if an enemy invade my native land, or other nations oppress it ?
I am called upon to take part in a struggle against evil — to go and
kill. The question immediately arises : Which will be serving God,
and which will be serving " toga " (vain things) ? To go, or not to
go ? Suppose I am a peasant ; I am chosen as the senior member of
my village, as judge, as juryman. I am bound to take an oath, to
judge, to punish. Fellow-creature, what am I to do ? I have again
to choose between the law of God and the law of man. Or let us say,
I am a monk, and live in a monastery ; the neighbouring peasants
have taken possession of the hay we had mown for our own use. I
am sent to take part in a struggle against evil — to prosecute these
men. I have again to choose between the laws of God and the laws
of man. None of us can evade the demand for such a decision. To
say nothing of the class of society which I belong to — military men,
judges, administrators, whose whole lives are passed in resisting evil
— there is not a single private individual, be he ever so insignificant,
who has not to choose between serving God by fulfilling His com
mandments, or serving the " toga " in the Government institutions of
his country. Our private lives are interwoven with the organization
of the State, and the latter requires unchristian duties of us, contrary
to the commandment of Christ. At the present time, the military
service, which is obligatory on all, and the participation of each, as
jurymen, in the courts of law, place the dilemma with striking clear
ness before all. Each man is called upon to take up an instrument of
murder— a gun, a sword— even if he do not kill a fellow creature ;
he loads the gun and sharpens the sword, i.e., he is ready to commit
murder. Each citizen is called upon to enter the courts of law, to
take part in judging and punishing his fellow creature ; i.e., each
must renounce the doctrine of Christ which teaches us not to resist
evil ... Christ says : " Resist not evil." The sole object of courts
of law is — to resist evil. Christ enjoins us to return good for evil.
Courts of law return evil for evil. Christ says : "Make no distinction
between the just and the unjust." Courts of law do nothing else.
Christ says : " Forgive all ; forgive not once, not seven times, forgive
without end. Love your enemies. Do good to them that hate you."
Courts of law do not forgive, but they punish ; they do not do good,
but evil, to those whom they call the enemies of society."
The world and the Church, if they will but hearken, are in
debted to Count Leon Tolstoi for his uncompromising logic.
However startling and unconventional this disclosure of the naked

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 269
truth, it is well for us to recognise the true form of Christianity,
undraped by the garments woven by human hands after the fashion
of the world. Like Luther, Tolstoi is bold enough to think and act
for himself, and his voice and example are a trumpet call to the
slumbering churches. Christ's doctrine is clear and incontrovertible.
The maxims of worldly prudence by which it has been obscured, and
the qualifications and exceptions devised by men, must needs be swept
away. That being done, the only question is as to the limitations
laid down by Christ himself. Did he impose his teachings
upon all men, and call upon all to follow them ? Assuredly he did
not. That fact has been lost sight of by Tolstoi. What Jesus
spake, he spake to his disciples, and he repelled from discipleship all
who were not prepared to adopt his teaching, with all the suffering,
fc If -denial, and self-sacrifice it entailed. Jesus drew a broad line of
demarcation between his disciples and mankind in general. ' They 17 John i<;
are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.' They were
separated from other men, called to live an unworldly life. There
are precepts of universal obligation, but this is not one of them. God
'commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent:' noti7Aetsso
that they should all become disciples. 'God our Saviour; who 21. Tim. 4
willeth that all men should be saved, and come to the knowledge of
the truth : ' we must not presume to add : and profess themselves
disciples of Jesus. The preaching of Jesus to men in general is thus
summarised : ' Repent ye, and believe the gospel ; ' and his disciples 1 Mark v,
' went out, and preached that men should repent.' Not a word did 6 Mark 12
Jesus say to the multitudes to this effect : 'Ye are the salt of the
earth ... Ye are the light of the world : ' such teaching, although
in public, is addressed to his disciples, to whom he could say also :
' Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute yon, and 5 Mat. 11
say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.' It excited
the astonishment of the disciples that Jesus always taught the multi
tudes in parabolic form : ' Without a parable spake he nothing unto 13 Mat. 34
them.' And he explained that they were neither disposed nor able to
receive from him any deeper teaching : ' Unto you it is given to know 8 Luke 10
the mysteries of the kingdom of God : but to the rest in parables ;
that seeing they may not see, and hearing they 'may not under
stand.' There is no foundation for the idea that Jesus expected or
desired that all men should follow the precepts given to his disciples.
On one occasion Peter asked him : ' Speakest thou this parable 12 Luke 41
unto us, or even unto all ? ' That question alone is sufficient proof
that the disciples did not regard every doctrine of Jesus as of
universal application. Such an assumption, however general, is as
absurd as it would be to imagine the mysteries and duties of Free
masonry to be incumbent upon those who have never joined tbat
fraternity. Jesus enlisted his disciples for no light enterprise. He
had come to establish the rule of heaven upon earth, the kingdom of
God among mankind. That involved the annulment of ancient and
divinely-authorised laws, and the substitution of higher principles of
action. It was a new departure ; a fresh step onward in the progress
of humanity. It was decreed, moreover, that Jesus himself must be
the first martyr in his own cause; and it is a sublime fact, of vast
ni o-nificance, that a conference was held between himself, Moses and
Elijah on the mountain-top, wherein- was discussed the subject of

270 THE KING AND . THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
a Luke 31 < his decease which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.' The
first Jewish lawgiver approved and directed the course adopted by
Jesus, sanctioning aud welcoming his method of enlarging and alter
ing the former code, Moses himself revisiting the earth, acknowledg-
s Mat. 38, 39 ing Jesus; and thereby tacitly endorsing his command : ' Ye have
heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth :
but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil' That was but one
of many precepts, all equally startling, connected therewith. The
disciples were forbidden to take an oath, to go to law, to resent an
outrage, to accumulate property, to perform the functions of a judge.
Tolstoi writes :. ' Now I understand what Christ meant when he said,
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth. And I say unto you, that ye resist not evil." Christ
means, " You have been taught to consider it right and rational to pro
tect yourselves against evil by violence, to pluck out an eye for an eye,
to institute courts of law for the punishment of criminals, to have a
police, an army, to defend you against the attacks of an enemy ; but
I say to you, do no violence to any man, take no part in violence,
never do evil to any man, not even to those whom ye call your
enemies." I now understood that, in this doctrine of non-resistance,
Christ not only tells us what the natural result of following this
doctrine will be, but by placing the same doctrine in opposition
to the Mosaic law, the Roman law, and the various codes of
the present time, He clearly shows that it ought to be the basis
of our social existence, and should deliver us from the evil we
have brought on ourselves. He says : " You think to amend
evil by your laws, but they only aggravate it. There is one way by
which you can put a stop to evil ; it is by indiscriminately returning
good for evil. You have tried the other law for thousands of years ;
now try Mine, which is the very reverse." ' In the early days of
Christianity the disciples of Jesus acted up to his precepts. Justin
Martyr (a.d. 140) says : ' We who were once slayers of one another,
do not now fight against our enemies.' Irenseus, bishop of Lyons
(a.d. 107) states that the followers of Jesus had disused their weapons
of war, and no longer knew how to fight. Tertullian, later (a.d. 200),
alludes to Christians who were engaged in military pursuits ; but on
another occasion informs us that many soldiers quitted those pursuits
in consequence of their conversion to Christianity, and repeatedly
expresses his opinion that any participation in war is unlawful for
believers in Jesus, not only because of the idolatrous practices of the
Roman armies, but because Christ has forbidden the use of the sword
and the revenge of injuries. Origen (a.d. 230) in his work against
Celsus says : ' We have become for the sake of Jesus the children of
peace. By our prayers we fight for our king abundantly, but take
no part in his wars, even though he urge us.' Is it wonderful that
the law which regulates God's kingdom in heaven, should seem out of
place and chimerical when introduced into man's kingdom, or rather
the devil's kingdom, upon earth ? The aim of Jesus was to introduce
into human society that heavenly-mindedness by which alone it can
be purified, regenerated, transformed. The new leaven must be put
into the old lump, there to grow and spread until the whole should
become leavened. It must needs be that the Founder of the new
religion, and his first followers, should be martyrs in the cause ; and

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 271
that others should rise up afterwards, and carry on the work in the
same way and spirit. That is the true ministry of Christ, the true
preaching of the cross. The need of the world cries out for the
constant presence and example of a body of men prepared to live
entirely in accordance with the rule of life laid down by Jesus, and to
suffer gladly all the consequences. That ideal has been lost sight of,
and instead thereof we have a Clergy claiming the right of adminis
tering sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, men who
expound the Scriptures to us, or for us, christen us, indoctrinate us,
marry us, visit us in sickness, bury us. Did Christ ever say one word
about such a sphere of duty for his followers ? That is not his work,
his method, his scheme of action. One Tolstoi is worth an army of
such evangelisers. Not that our clerical brethren are to be reproached
for the position they occupy. They have not made it for themselves ;
they have simply inherited it ; clergy and laity alike, we are all what
our forefathers have made us. The so-called Christian community is
full of unchristian notions ; about salvation, war, law, the rights and
duties of property. Society has never yet been organised upon the
Christian basis. That is a consummation which can only be arrived
at gradually ; and the departure from the foundation which was laid
by Jesus and his apostles has thrown it back many centuries. Only
by reverting to his plan can the gospel have free course, run, and be
glorified. The first step towards success is to discern what is lacking.
'.there are multitudes willing to devote themselves to the cause of
Jesus, and to do all that he commands, if only his requirements and
the world's necessities be rightly apprehended. Mistakes of judgment
and of principle in this matter are fatal to the progress of Christianity.
The doctrine of Jesus must be disentangled from the parasitic growth
of human maxims by which it has been covered and stifled. Let the
professed followers of Jesus be called by what name they may :
ministers of Christ, disciples, deacons, priests, pastors, bishops ; only
let it be understood that they are bound to frame their lives in exact
accordance with the pattern of Christ's life and the spirit and letter
of his teachings. Such men will be the salt of the earth, the light of
the world, seen and known of all men, like a city set upon a hill which
cannot be hid. With such leaders in light and love, the church will
be constituted according to Christ's ideal. The profession of
discipleship must be purely optional, as Jesus intended it to be, and
all ordained thereto must take up the cross, relinquish wealth, scorn
ambition, seek the honour which comes from God only, have their
treasure in heaven, their hearts being there also, decline to take any
oath by way of allegiance or otherwise, refrain from judicial pro
ceedings, refuse to fight in any cause, either labour for a bare
subsistence and distribute the overplus, or be content to give their
time and labour to the church in exchange for food, raiment and
shelter. Such men, and such men only, will be able to take up the
apostle's words : ' Herein is love made perfect with us, that we may 4 i. John 17
have boldness in the day of judgement ; because as he is, even so are
we in this world.' They would be living sermons, epistles of Christ,
seen and known of all men, ' written not with ink, but with the Spirit s a. cor. 3
of "the living God.' What is wanted is a change, not of men, but of
aim and system : that instead of simply hearing, year after year and
generation after generation, the same doctrines inculcated, we should

272 . THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
have ever before our eyes patterns and examples of men who, with like
passions to ourselves, live the life ordained for them by Christ, each
of them ready to say, if need be, with the apostle Paul: 'Now I
rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that
which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake,,
which is the church.' In the strife for freedom and for truth, they
must needs sometimes suffer who stand foremost ; but the bitterness-
of the world's persecution is past, and an implicit adherence to the
doctrine of non-resistance now, might not entail the frightful penalties-
endured by martyrs in darker ages. Be it remembered too, that the
chief persecutors in bygone times were men who called and deemed
themselves Christians, but who, in that matter at least, were as far
off from the teaching and spirit of Christ as heaven is from earth, or
from hell. If the true doctrine of Jesus had not been wholly
obliterated from the minds of those who claimed to be descendants
from him and his apostles, it would have been impossible for them to
lift a hand against any man, far less against those they sought to
influence and convert. When the church of Christ begins to adopt
his policy, then Christianity will begin to flourish and bear its proper
fruit of righteousness and peace. If the gospel of Jesus does not
triumph, after all these centuries of preaching, — and who can dare to
say it does ? — it must be because some fundamental human error
mars and hinders the heaven-sent gift. When that is recognised, the
question of amendment will become practical, and not much will be
wanted to ensure success. The commandments of Jesus involve self-
denial, but they are not grievous. The pecuniary emoluments of most
clergymen are so small already, that it would be no sacrifice to them
were they formally to renounce, in Christ's name, all hope and desire
of property. The great difficulty and trial in connection with that,
was the necessity it laid upon men of abstaining from marriage, lest
at their death those they loved should be left without provision. But
the beneficent system of life assurance would now obviate that, so
ameliorating the stern necessity of renouncing for Christ's sake wife
and children as well as money and lands. Of course, under the
system laid down by Jesus, pluralities and the huge incomes of our
Bishops must be abolished : they are of the world, worldly, and befit
not those who profess to be followers of a heavenly Master. But
there is room in the Church for all, for men of wealth, culture,
leisure, who could still devote themselves to preaching and other
clerical offices, only taking second rank instead of first, renouncing
the vain, pretentious claim of apostolical succession, in favour of those
who in deed and in truth prove themselves imitators of Jesus and the
apostles by life-long poverty and self-sacrifice, deliberately, voluntarily
faced for the kingdom of heaven's sake. They alone can claim the
title of soldiers of the Cross, and infinitely preferable would be their
lot in this life, whatever persecutions and sufferings they might be
called to endure, than is that of troops in a fighting army. Tolstoi
draws the following graphic contrast between the soldiers of Christ
and of the world : * ' Leaving their parents, their wives and children,
they go in their buffoon attire, blindly submissive to some superior
whom they hardly know ; cold, hungry, worn out by a march above
* "What I Believe," p. 182.

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 273
their strength, they follow him like a herd of oxen to the slaughter.
But they are not oxen, they are men ! They cannot help knowing
that they are driven to slaughter, with the unsolvable question, Why
must I go ? and with despair in their hearts they go on, many dying
off through cold, hunger, and infectious diseases, till those that are
left are placed under bullets and cannon-balls, and ordered to kill men
whom they know nothing about. They kill and are. at last killed
themselves, and not one of those who kills his fellow-creature knows
why he does so . . . And no sooner does anyone call than others go
to the same dreadful suffering and to death. And nobody finds it
hard. Neither do they themselves think it hard, nor do their fathers
and mothers think so ; the latter even advise their children to go.
Not only do they think it necessary and unavoidable, but even
perfectly right and moral. We might think the fulfilling of Christ's
doctrine difficult if it were really an easy and pleasant thing to live
according to the teaching of the world. But it is much more difficult,
dangerous and painful to do so than it is to live up to the doctrine of
Christ. It is said that formerly there were martyrs for Christianity,
but these were exceptional cases ; we reckon about three hundred and
eighty thousand voluntary and involuntary martyrs for Christianity in
the course of 1800 years. Now count those that have died for the
teaching of the world, and for each martyr for Christianity you will
find a thousand martyrs for the world's sake, whose sufferings were a
hundredfold more dreadful. Thirty millions have been killed in war
during the present century alone. Those were all martyrs for the
world's sake. Had they but rejected the teaching of the world, even
without following the doctrine of Christ, they would have escaped
suffering and death . . . We need not be martyrs for Christ's sake ;
that is not what He requires of us. But he teaches us to cease
martyrizing our own selves for the sake of the false teaching of the
world. The doctrine of Christ has a deep metaphysical purport ; it
has a purport general to all humanity ; the doctrine of Christ has the
simplest, clearest, most practical purport for each of us. We may
express this idea in a few words. Christ teaches men not to _ act
foolishly. It this lies the simplest sense of Christ's doctrine, and it is
one each has it in his power to understand.' There is a mine of
philosophy in that simple sentence of Tolstoi : ' Christ teaches men not
to act foolishly ; ' and also in the following : ' In order to secure an
uncertain life, for an uncertain future, we resolutely ruin our real
lives in the actual present.' The salvation designed by Christ is the
salvation of mankind in this life. Losing sight of that truth, our
spiritual guides teach us to acquiesce in its postponement to the next.
Not aiming at Christ's pattern-life themselves, they have left the
world to its own course, and instead of overcoming it have been
overcome by it. . .ni.-ni.-j;
In the Authorised Version the following verse is added : But it n Mark 26
ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive
your trespasses.' This is not in the two oldest MSS., and the Revisers
have banished it to the margin.
The expression 'No man eat fruit from thee henceforward for „ u
ever ' is rendered 'by Dr. Young literally, ' No more from thee—for
the age— may any eat fruit.' Obviously the 'age or natural
duration of the tree is alluded to. In the same way, when Jesus

274 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
promises men life ' to the age,' or ' age-during life,' the meaning is
restricted to the full term of man's natural existence.
On returning to Jerusalem after spending a night in Bethany,
Jesus entered the temple. He found it already occupied. It was
transformed for the time being into a market place. Traffic and
money changing were going on, and sellers of doves were comfortably
seated. Not for such purposes had the temple been built, and to see
its sacredness thus set at naught excited the indignation of Jesus.
Unhesitatingly and alone he undertook the task of preventing such
21 Mat. 12 acts of desecration. ' And Jesus entered into the temple of God,
and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and over
threw the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that
sold the doves.' The words ' of God ' after ' temple ' are not in the
two oldest MSS., and the Revisers note that they are omitted in
19 Luke 4.-. 'many ancient anthorities.' Luke's account is very concise- : 'And
he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold.'
The words ' and them that bought ' are omitted by the Revisers, not
being in the two oldest MSS. Mark's account shows that Jesus not
only ejected the trespassers but held possession, not even allowing
n Mark is, those bearing vessels to pass through the building. ' And they
1,5 come to Jerusalem : and he entered into the temple, and began to
cast out them that sold and them that bought in the temple, and
overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them
that sold the doves ; and he would not suffer that any man should
19 Luke 46 carry a vessel through the temple.' Luke continues : ' saying unto
them, It is written, And my house shall be a house of prayer : but
ye have made it a den of robbers.' The conciseness of the narrative
might lead to the conclusion that these words were addressed to the
traffickers, but Mark explains that they formed part of a subsequent
ii Mark 17 discourse : ' And he taught, and said unto them, Is it not written,
My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations ? but
21 Mat 13 ye have made it a den of robbers.' Matthew is as follows : ' And he
saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of
prayer : but ye make it a den of robbers.' Following the two oldest
MSS., the Revisers have altered ' ye have made ' to 'ye make,'
rendered by Alford and Tischendorf ' ye are making.' The passage
si; isa.7 in Isaiah stands : ' Mine house shall be called an house of prayer for
all peoples.' The second portion appears to be a quotation based
7 Jer. ii upon the words of Jeremiah : ' Is this house which is called by my
name, become a den of robbers in your eyes ? ' Having expelled, the
godless, grasping traders, Jesus is expostulating with the people for
permitting such a scandalous misuse of the temple. The abuse was
of long standing, and needed to be put down with a strong hand.
The work of Jesus in the place was indeed sacred : he not only
taught, but put forth his marvellous powers of healing. Blind men
and cripples found their way to the temple, and received the blessing
21 Mat u of restored sight and vigour. ' And the blind and the lame came to
him in the temple : and he healed them.'
Very near the beginning of John's gospel stands the following
2 Joim 13-16 record : ' And the passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went
up to Jerusalem. And he found in the temple those that sold oxen
and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting ; and he

part h.J a STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 275
made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the
sheep and the oxen ; and he poured out the changers' money, and over
threw their tables ; and to them that sold the doves he said, Take
• these things hence ; make not my Father's house a house of
merchandise.' This is so similar to the foregoing accounts that,
apart from any apparent reason to the contrary, we should assume
the incident to be one and the same. That idea is repudiated by
Alford. He says : ' It is impossible to suppose that St. Matthew or
St. John, or any one but moderately acquainted with the events
which he undertook to relate, should have made such a gross error in
chronology as must be laid to the charge of one or other of them, if
these two occurrences were the same.' That argument would be
valid enough on two assumptions : (1) that it was always the inten
tion of the evangelists to write chronologically ; (2) that the manu
script was bound together like a modern book, and so bound before
it left the hands of its author. There is no evidence, no probability
that such was the case. The original records of what Jesus did and
said were most likely made at the time, as opportunity offered. This
applies especially to John's gospel, which contains long discourses
of Jesus, the recording of which was not attempted by any other
evangelist. If the leaves were numbered at all, the numbering would
most likely not be consecutive from first to last : each portion might
be paged separately. In that case, the order of the events would
depend upon the binder rather than the writer. The Rev. J. J.
Halcombe claims to have made the important discovery that an
entire section of Luke's narrative has been displaced from time
immemorial, and that the portion from the 14th verse of the 12th
chapter to the 21st verse of the 13th chapter should be inserted
between verses 21 and 22 of the 8th chapter. The close agreement
between John's account and that of the three other evangelists may
be taken to indicate that it has been misplaced in the fourth gospel.
Both this latter portion of the 2nd chapter and the whole of the
3rd chapter of John, relating the conversation with Nicodemus,
probably belonged to a later period. It is not easily conceivable
that Jesus would have commenced his career with such an action, or
that he should have been visited by a ruler of the Pharisees so soon
after his first miracle in Cana of Galilee, with the acknowledg
ment : ' Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God : 3 John :
for no man can do these signs that thou doest, except God be
with him.'
Whether Jesus twice in his life, or once only, took upon himself to
purge the temple, is not a question of much importance. Only John
makes mention of the oxen and sheep, and of the scourge of cords,
which would be necessary in order to drive them out. Alford
observes : ' That our Lord used the scourge on the beasts only, not
on the sellers of them, is almost necessarily contained in the form of
the sentence here : which, according to the grammar of the original,
should be rendered, " He drove all out of the temple, both the sheep
and the oxen." ' The Revisers have adopted that rendering, instead
of the Authorised Version, ' he drove them all out of the temple, and
the sheep, and the oxen.' We may feel sure that Jesus never lifted
his hand against any man. Luke says only, he 'began to cast out
them that sold,' which seems to involve physical force, if not herculean T 2

276 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
strength. But the other evangelists explain the method by which he
accomplished the object : when the sheep and oxen were driven
away, the owners must of course follow ; when the bowls of coin
were overturned together with the . tables, the money-changers would
be glad to collect their money and escape from the presence of Jesus ;
and the dove-sellers were got rid of, with the doves, by throwing
down their seats and stands, coupled with the expostulation, ' Take
these things hence.' John attributes their departure to the expostula
tion only. When the cattle-dealers and bankers had gone, it would
have been useless for others to remain. No market could be held, no
bargaining go on, in face of such disturbance.
The disciples of Jesus must have regarded with astonishment a
scene so strange and unexpected. Discussing the matter among
themselves, they called to mind a passage in the Psalms, — which
were probably as familiar to them as they are to members of the
Church of England, — a passage which seemed to foretell just such an
: .inii'n 17 outburst of zeal in connection with the temple. ' His disciples
remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house shall eat
me up.' In the Authorised Version it is, ' hath eaten me up.'
Tischendorf notes that in the three oldest MSS. the words are
' eateth me up,' and in his version the quotation stands, ' Zeal for
'•'¦' p»- 9 thine house consumes me.' In the Psalm the passage reads : ' For
the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.'
It was but natural that after so high-handed a proceeding on the
ijr.ini is part of Jesus, he should be called upon to justify his conduct. ' The
Jews therefore answered and said unto him, What sign shewest thou
unto us, seeing that thou doest these things ? ' The word ' there
fore ' may be taken to involve a connection not only with the act
itself, but with the interpretation which his disciples were putting
upon it. Probably tiiek opinion agreed with that which Alford
expresses as follows : ' This cleansing of the temple was in the direct
course of His manifestation as the Messiah.' Jesus took up the
challenge. He was prepared to give them such a sign, one which
lay beyond the utmost conceivable range of merely human power.
, io 'Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple (or,
sanctuary), and in three days I will raise it up.' It was a deep
saying, if not a hard one. The temple was for the worship and glory
of God. They who desecrated it might carry their irreverence to the
length of actually destroying it. In that event, which Jesus seems
to speak of as a foregone conclusion, lie would be able to repair the
mischief done by them ; not with difficulty, labour, or any long-
delay, but within a fixed term of three days. To them the assertion
„ 20 was an enigma, an inexplicable hyperbole. 'The Jews therefore
said, Forty and six years was this temple (or, sanctuary) in building,
and wilt thou raise it up in three days ? ' But to us, as to the
disciples when they had become witnesses of the resurrection of
„ 21 Jesus, his meaning is clear. 'But he spake of the temple (or,
sanctuary) of his body.' When the true sense of the expression
' raise it up in three days,' dawned upon the disciples, they called to
. 22 mind this occasion when he used it. ' When therefore he was raised
from the dead, his disciples remembered that he spake this.' It is
.. '-*- added : ' and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus
had said.' Tischendorf renders, 'the word which Jesus spake,' and

J!77

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
Young, 'the word which Jesus said.' This is different from 'hod
said > whlch seems t0 refer to something spoken lonHefore
rischendorf omits 'they' before 'believed,' thereby m&n* one
sentence only. It can scarcely be contended that the d&iples
believed the word which Jesus said,' if they waited until the event
had proved its truth. Those who take that view are in a difficulty
also with respect to the phrase 'believed the scripture' Wl2
scripture ? Alford says : 'At first sight it appears 3 uh to fix on
any passage in which it is directly announced: but '-here peeps
forth the conventionally-trained intellect of the theologian-' but
with the deeper understanding of the Scriptures which the Holy
fepmt gave the Apostles and still gives the Christian Church, such
prophecies as that in Psalm xvi. are recognized as belonging to Him
in whom alone they are properly fulfilled.' It is simpler to take the
meaning thus : When Jesus was raised from the dead they remem
bered his saying and discussed its appropriateness ; and at the time
although unable to grasp its import, they regarded him as the
Messiah to whom the scripture they themselves had selected applied
anwu 6y Were conMent that the sign he promised would surely be oiven'
When alluding to his body as ' this temple,' Jesus uttered no mere
figure of speech. The apostle Paul seized upon the idea, insisted
upon it as a reality, and applied it to believers generally. ' Know ye
not that ye are a temple (or, sanctuary) of God, and that the Spirit
of God dwelleth in you ? If any man destroyeth the temple (or
sanctuary) of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple (or^
sanctuary) of God is holy, which temple ye are.' We read that Jesus
was ' full of the Holy Spirit.' Where the Spirit of God dwells, there
truly is His temple. Paul did not claim that title individually,
but for the entire body of believers : ' ye are a temple,' not ' ye are
temples ; ' 'the Spirit of God dwelleth in you,' collectively, not ' in
each of you.' 'To each one is given,' not the Spirit in his fulness, 121. cor
but a certain measure and 'manifestation of the Spirit to profit
withal ; ' so that ' in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body,'
which body constitutes ' the temple of God.' The apostle's teaching
is very clear on this point. He speaks of ' the church, which is 'his 1 Eph. 2
body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all ; ' and again : ' for 1 c>i. 24
his , body's sake, which is the church.' And the apostle Peter,
addressing ' the elect ' says : ' ye also, as living stones, are built up a 21. Pet.
spiritual house.' There is a world of meaning in that phrase of Jude,
¦* our common salvation.' In proportion as our conception of salva- ju<ie 3
tion becomes individualized and personal, it falls short of the ideal of
Christ and his apostles. ' None of us liveth to himself, and none 14 Rom.
dieth to himself
When Jesus alluded to his resurrection, it was in connection with
an interval of ' three days.' Surely there must exist some reason for
this, some law of development and reorganisation, which requires for
its working that particular period of time. That is the case with
every process of nature in respect of living organisms. Revivifica
tion, be it of a human soul or body, or of both combined, if it be
universal, as we must needs believe, is not an exceptional, super
natural act of divine omnipotence, hut comes as much within the
ordinary dispensation of Providence as our birth and death. We
cannot attempt to pierce the mystery which surrounds the grave and

3 i. Cor. 16, 17

4 Lnke I

278 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
the afterlife ; but the repeated mention of ' three days ' by Jesus,
and the fact that the interval between his death and his uprising
coincided with what he had led his disciples to expect, may be taken
to indicate rather a fixed relationship of cause and effect than an
arbitrary decree apart therefrom.
Here, in verses 18 and ^20, as so often in John's gospel, mention is
made of 'the Jews:' 'the Jews therefore answered . . . the Jews
therefore said,' obviously denoting the inhabitants of Jerusalem or of
' Jewry ' generally. ' His disciples ' (verse 17) took one side, ' the
Jews ' the other. It was a recognised fact that the disciples of
Jesus were chiefly Galikeans, as distinguished from Jews. The dis-
26 Mat. 69 tinction was sharp and clear. Jesus was known as ' Jesus the
14 Mark 70 GalilaBan,' and Peter was recognized as such : ' thou art a Galilsean.'
And on the day of Pentecost it was observed, as a self-evident fact,
2 Acts 7 ' Behold, art not all these which speak Galilaeans ? '
Matthew describes the cures wrought by Jesus in the temple as
' wonderful,' and relates that the children within the building
occupied themselves in chanting the words which had been uttered
by the multitude the day before : ' Hosanna to the son of David.'
We know how quickly a popular melody can be caught up by children,
and it is not surprising that the words of the triumph-song should
still have been re-echoed in this way. The chief priests and scribes
watched the miracles, but with critical and jealous eyes, and they cast
upon Jesus the responsibility for these childish outcries, which they
21 Mat. 15, i6 seem to have considered a profanation. ' But when the chief priests
and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children
that were crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the son of
David, they were moved with indignation, and said unto him,
Hearest thou what these are saying ? ' However erroneous the
criticism, it was an honest one : 'they were moved with indignation.'
The strength of men's convictions and feelings is no evidence of
soundness of judgment in matters either political or religious ; and
very often those who are most positive and outspoken in their
opinions and condemnations are utterly in the wrong. Regarded
from different points of view, that which is offensive to one man may
appear harmless and justifiable to another. Jesus was not dis
posed to reprove or to silence the children. They were far from
understanding the deep import of the words they sang, but had not
David declared that even the mouths of infants might be taught to
21 Mat. io praise God most perfectly ? ' And Jesus said unto them, Yea : did
ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou- hast
x pk. 2 perfected praise ? ' The original passage stands : ' Out of the mouth
of babes and sucklings hast thou established strength.' Strength in
utterance : that is, perfection of expression, which may be in the
direction either of truth or praise, or both. The same .combination
s Hei,. 7 of ideas is found in the passage: 'having offered up prayers and
, supplications with strong crying.' Nothing Jesus said or' did was
approved of by his enemies. Priests and scribes could not tamely
brook his teaching of the people that the temple had become trans
formed into a robbers' den. That he should take upon himself to
declare that trading in the temple to be a sacrilege, which they had
suffered to exist as a necessary custom, was galling to their pride.

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 279
Either their influence over the people would be lessened, or his voice
must be silenced. They were bent upon proceeding to extremities.
' And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought how they n Maik is
might destroy him.' The clerical party were the authors of the
scheme, but Luke states that they were abetted by the leading
citizens. 'And he was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief 10 Luke 47
priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people sought to
destroy him.' All they could possibly fear from him was a loss of
prestige to themselves, the triumph of his arguments and teaching
over theirs. But vanity aud self-esteem are potent factors, especially
in conjunction with self-interest, and the astounding- popularity of
Jesus was a sufficient explanation of their policy. ' For they feared 11 Mark is
him, for all the multitude was astonished at his teaching.' That,
which was the chief motive of their action, rendered it very difficult
of accomplishment. ' And they could not find what they might do, 19 Luke 4s
for the people all hung upon him, listening.' The Authorised
Version stands, ' Were very attentive to hear him.' Alford notes :
' literally, hung on him in hearing him.' Young has : ' were hanging
on him, hearing him.' Tischendorf also agrees with the Revisers.
To what an extent might not the history of the world have been
changed, if Jesus had been suffered to go on unimpeded ; if these
priests and scribes had been otherwise disposed, or had possessed less
power of doing evil ; if the life of Jesus had been prolonged, and his
personal ministry continued in the world, say thirty or forty years
longer ! The doctrine of human free will is a stern reality, a cardinal
law of our being, as immutable in God's government of the moral
world, as is the law of gravitation in the physical universe. God has
never been known to annihilate either the one or the other. Man's
history is of his own making. ' It was necessary that the word of 13 Acts 46,
God should first be spoken to you. Seeing ye thrust it from you,
aud judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the
Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us.' That is the inter
pretation given by Paul and Barnabas to the divine plan of salvation
of which Jesus is the appointed author and finisher. In how many
things, since the apostles' time, have men, intentionally and unin
tentionally, through passion, blindness, error, ignorance, put away from
them the doctrine of Jesus and the salvation he designs for mankind !
Unmoved by the opposition he encountered, and undeterred by the
danger he ran, Jesus continued to teach daily in the temple, but never
passing a night in the city. ' And every evening (Gr. whenever even- n Mark 19
ing came) he went forth out of the city.' Probably that was done for
safety, quite as much as for convenience.
The fourth evangelist, also, alludes to the growing popularity of
Jesus at Jerusalem during the feast in which the cleansing of the
temple occurred. ' Now when he was in Jerusalem at the pass- 2 John 23
over, during the feast, many believed on his name, beholding his signs
which he did.' Jesus showed no disposition to rely on the popular
favour. ' But Jesus did not trust himself unto them." The Autho- „ 24
rised Version stands, ' But Jesus did not commit himself unto them.'
The word ' commit ' is changed to trust by Alford, Tischendorf and
Young, as well as by the Revisers. Alford explains : ' In the original
the same word is used for believed in verse 23, and for trust in this
verse.' That is a very important observation : whenever belief or

2 John 24

280 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
faith is mentioned in Scripture, it is well for us to consider whether
its proper equivalent in English is not trust or confidence. The
Greek verb here is pisteuo, which is generally translated as ' believe,'
and its derivitive pistis as 'faith.' A right apprehension of the true
sense of both words will go far towards removing various erroneous
doctrines which have arisen out of their misapplication. The confi
dence which the multitude were ready to place in Jesus, as their
leader, he was not able to place in them as his followers. The evange
list adds that Jesus possessed a full, intuitive knowledge of men's
characters : ' for that he knew all men.' This marvellous perceptive
faculty placed him above the necessity of seeking the testimony of
those whose judgment of others was based on intimacy and long obser-
„ 25 vation : ' and because he needed not that any one should bear witness
concerning man (or, a man).' His superior and unerring insight
rendered him independent of the ordinary sources of information :
„ 20 ' for he himself knew what was in man (or, the man).' Alford renders
'of himself he knew,' but the word 'of is uot introduced by other
translators, and the rendering in the ' Englishman's Greek New
Testament ' is simply, ' for he knew.' Alford certainly goes too far
in saying : ' Nothing less than divine knowledge is here set forth . . .
As the text now stands, it asserts an entire knowledge of all that is
in all men.' Assuredly that is not the drift and intention of the
evangelist. His assertion can only have value on the assumption that
it is based upon his own observation, or upon some plain declaration
of Jesus. The latter we have not ; and John is only referring to
persons with whom Jesus came into contact, nor does he say, as
Alford presumed to say, that Jesus knew all that was in all of them.
During one of the daily preachings in the temple, the declared
enemies of Jesus came to him in a body, and demanded of him under
20 Luke 1, 2 what authority he acted, and from whom it emanated. ' And it came
to pass, on one of the days, as he was teaching the people in the
temple, and preaching the gospel, there came upon him the chief
priests and the scribes with the elders ; and they spake, saying unto
him, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things ? or who is
he that gave thee this authority ? ' In Matthew's account the con
text makes it evident that this took place on the second morning of
the preaching in the temple, after the discourse about the withered
fig tree. ' And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests
and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and
said, By what authority doest thou these things ? and who gave
thee this authority ? ' In Mark also this follows immediately upon
n Mark 27 the incident of the fig tree. ' And they come again to Jerusalem : and
as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests,
and the scribes, and the elders ; and they said unto him, By what
authority doest thou these things ? or who gave thee this authority
to do these things ? ' It may be assumed that ' these things ' referred
to his driving out the buyers and sellers from the temple three days
before. It would have been useless to have done that, and then suffer
the same traffic to recommence. The daily visits of Jesus to the
temple, lasting from early morning to evening, enabled him to guard
against and prevent any repetition of the scandal Possibly the space
formerly used as a market was now occupied by Jesus and the con-

21 Mat. 23

part ii.] 4 STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 281
gregation of his hearers. As this altered state of things went on day
alter day, the buyers and sellers would naturally complain to the
authorities, probably protest against interference with what they
deemed a right of use and custom. It was not an easy question to
deal with : it would be equally difficult to justify and insist upon the
Holding of the market as formerly, or to declare the presence of Jesus
and Ins work of teaching and healing in the temple to be either illegal
or improper. It behoved all parties to act warily, especially in view
of the temper of the multitude which daily thronged to hear Jesus
k ! t,?onj01nt actlouwas taken by priests, scribes and elders, indicates
that there must have been previous discussion of the question and
arrangement as to the method to be adopted. The first step was to
bring Jesus within the scope of their judicial powers. Alford explains
that the three classes, chief priests, elders and scribes, ' make up the
members of the Sanhedrim. It was an official message, sent with a
view to make our Saviour declare Himself to be a prophet sent from
God — in which case the Sanhedrim had power to take cognizance of
his proceedings, as of a professed Teacher. Thus the Sanhedrim
sent a deputation to John on his appearing as a Teacher, John i.
1 9. The question was the result of a combination to destroy Jesus,
Luke xix. 47, 48.' Whether that be the correct explanation or not,
Jesus saw fit to refrain from giving any direct answer to their ques
tion, but met it by putting another to them. 'And he answered 20 Luke 3
and said unto them, I will also ask you a question (Gr. word) ; and
tell me. ' If they would answer him, he was ready to answer them.
' And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will ask you one 21 Mat. 24
question (Gr. word), which if ye tell me, I likewise will tell you by
what authority I do these things.' ' And Jesus said unto them, I will n Mark 20
ask you one question (Gr. word), and answer me, and I will tell you
by what authority I do these things.' The question was simple and
direct. ' The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men ? ' 20 Lnke 4
They, as guides of the people, must have formed an opinion on that
important matter, having sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to 1 Joim 10
investigate and report on it. ' The baptism of John, was it from n Mark 30
heaven, or from men ? answer me.' ' The baptism of John, whence was 21 Mat. 25
it ? from heaven or from men ? ' If they knew, why should they
hesitate to say ? Why should they need to confer so mysteriously
together ? Did they differ in opinion ? Alas ! they were not discuss
ing as to what would be the right answer, but only the effect of giving
a reply at all. With them, policy stood foremost, and truth in the
background. The three evangelists coincide very closely, as though
all quoted from the same record. Information as to this private con
ference and the motives which animated those who took part in it,
must have been obtained later, and from one of them, probably some
convert to the faith of Jesus. ' And they reasoned with themselves, „ 25, 20
saying, If we shall say, From heaven, he will say unto us, Why then
did ye not believe him ? But if we shall say, From men ; we fear the
multitude ; for all hold John as a prophet.' ' And they reasoned with 11 Mark si,
themselves, saying, If we shall say from heaven ; he will say, Why then m
did ye not believe him ? But should we say from men (or, But shall
we say, From men ? ) — they feared the people : for all verily held
John to be a prophet (or, for all held John to be a prophet indeed).'
* And they reasoned with themselves, Eaying, If , we shall say, From 20 Luke 5, 6

282 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii
heaven ; he will say, Why did ye not believe him ? But if we shall
say, From men ; all the people will stone us : for they be persuaded
that John was a prophet.' They saw no way of extricating themselves
from that dilemma. If they answered at all, they would either be
constrained to admit that their opposition to Jesus was contrary to
the will of heaven, or they would have to face the popular resentment,
probably to suffer from it. They resolved not to commit themselves
21 Mat. 27 either way. ' And they answered Jesus, and said, We know not.'
n Mark 33 ' And they answered Jesus and say, We know not.' ' And they
20 Luke 7 answered, that they knew not whence it ivas.' It was not that they
did not know, but that they would not say. Alford expresses the
opinion that these' Jewish rulers had never believed in John as a
heaven-sent prophet. He says : ' These " blind leaders of the blind "
had so far made an insincere concession1 to the people's persuasion, as
to allow John to pass for a prophet ; but they shrank from the reproof
which was sure to follow their acknowledging it now.' Having
admitted themselves incapable of deciding as to the authority of the
Baptist, it was obviously out of place for them to call in question that
21 Mat. 27 of Jesus, and useless for him to bring his claims before them. ' He
also said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these
n Mark 33 things.' 'And Jesus saith unto them, Neither tell I you by what
Luke s authority I do these things.' ' And Jesus said unto them, Neither
tell I you by what authority I do these things.'
This account furnishes an interesting example of the ' Common
Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels.' Taking Mark, verses 28 to 33, the
words common to all three, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are as follows :
' Said — By what authority doest thou these things ? who gave thee
this authority ? — And — said — them, I will ask of you — question — me.
The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men ? — Reasoned
— themselves, saying, If we shall say from heaven ; he will say, Why
— did ye not believe him — Should we say from men — all— John — a
prophet. And — answered — know — And — unto them, Neither tell
I you by what authority I do these things.' Now, if Matthew, or
another of the apostles, noted down at the time what took place, this
is just the kind of memorandum one would expect to find. Care is
taken to put down in full the question, the reply of Jesus, the reason
ings of the questioners, and the closing observation of Jesus. In
addition thereto, a word or two is thrown in here and there, serving
sufficiently to guide the memory in subsequently enlarging the
narrative. It is all very natural, and the only conceivable way by
which anyone except a verbatim shorthand reporter could have
recorded the incident in a reliable and satisfactory manner. The
authors of the ' Common Tradition ' assume that the three evangelists
borrowed from one original document ; but that raises a difficulty with
respect to Matthew's gospel. Dean Alford states that its author ' has
been universally believed to be the Apostle Matthew ; ' and that ' the
testimony of the early Church is unanimous, that Matthew wrote first
among the Evangelists.' In that case, he can hardly be supposed to
have borrowed from the same original tradition as Mark and Luke.
Is it not more probable that the condensed original tradition, the
rough, apostolic note-book which is the basis of the first three gospels,
was that of Matthew himself ? Mark and Luke would naturally use
that, as the oldest and most reliable record, comparing and supple-

part n.] a STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 283
nienting it with any independent traditions handed down to them.
1 he enlargement of Matthew's original memoirs, even by his own
hand, would depend for its correctness to some extent on memory.
To the baffled questioners Jesus spoke a short parable. He be°-an
with the words, ' But what think ye ? ' However reticent they might n Mat
be about the baptism of John, on this subject they could have no
difficulty m forming an opinion. 'A man had two sons. And he
came to the first, and said, Son (Gr. Child), go work to day in the
vineyard.' Young and Tischendorf render literally ' son ' as ' child '
and 'two sons ' as 'two children.' The request of the father was
met^bya point blank refusal 'And he answered and said, I will „
i10*' Subsequently he changed his mind, and did what he had
been bidden : ' but afterward he repented himself, and went.' The „
father made the same demand upon the other son. ' And he came
to the second, and said likewise.' The reply is given both in the
Authorised and Revised Versions as follows : ' And he answered and „
said I go, sir : and went not.' Young also inserts an italicised
word, will instead of go: 'I will, sir.' Tischendorf renders, ' Yea,
sir,' and Luther, ' Herr, ja. Sir, yes.' These are obviously given as
supposed equivalents of the original, not as direct renderings.
Alford puts the italicised word ' go ' between brackets, adding the
note, 'not expressed in the original' The form of expression does
not seem to have been colloquial, and if not, Jesus must have
intentionally omitted to place any word between 'I' and 'Sir.'
If a note of exclamation were added, the two words would signify a
contemptuous refusal, as though the father had asked what was
unreasonable ; a note of interrogation would give to the words a tone
of expostulation. The sense of ' I— Sir ' depends entirely on the
emphasis of the voice and the manner of the speaker. It may be
made to express either astonishment, doubt, hesitation, assent or
dissent, combined with perfect courtesy or tacit reproof. But
without introducing any idea of that kind, letting the two words
stand by themselves, as they were left by Matthew, the meaning is
altogether vague, which Jesus probably intended it to be, as fitly
representing their mental attitude with respect to the Baptist. The
' Sir ' was sufficient to show respect, the ' I ' to indicate a conscious
ness of duty : what intention was hidden under a form of reply
so uncertain and equivocal remained to be seen, and was forthwith
proved by the event : ' and went not.'
The parable, short and simple, was finished by the time they may
have thought only the opening scene was reached, and sharp and
clear rang out the question of Jesus : 'Whether of the twain did the „ .i
will of his father ? ' There could be no doubt on that point.
' They say, The first.' Then Jesus took the unusual course of himself „ 3
explaining and applying the parable. ' Jesus saith unto them, Verily „ 3
I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the
kingdom of God before you.' Those who had been openly, notoriously

unjust and sinful were entering God's kingdom, whilst those who had
made great professions of reverence and obedience were holding
themselves aloof. The Baptist had come, an uncompromising teacher
of moral rectitude, aud what had been the result ? The despised
tax-gatherers and erring women had believed and honoured him as
a heaven-sent Teacher ; and these priests and scribes, whose solemn

284 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
deputation and enquiries amounted to nothing more than a pre
tentious, hypocritical, formal ' I — Sir,' had seen the minds, hearts
and lives of the populace touched, moved, changed, by the Baptist's
call to reformation, yet themselves stood aloof from the inspired
movement, and could not even yet say that they believed the Baptist
to be what he had professed himself, the forerunner of One mightier
3 Mat. 12 than himself, who should baptize them ' with holy spirit and with
21 Mat. 32 fire.' ' For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and
ye believed him not ; but the publicans and the harlots believed
him : and ye, when ye saw it, did not even repent yourselves after
ward, that ye might believe him.' This attitude of passive in
difference was equivalent to rejection, and was so regarded generally,
7 Luke 29, 30 for we are elsewhere told : ' And all the people when they heard, and
the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of
John. But the Pharisees aud the lawyers rejected for themselves
the counsel of God, being not baptized of him.'
The expression 'go into the kingdom of God,' calls for con
sideration. The act is represented as purely voluntary. Men are
not carried into God's kingdom by supernatural power, but enter into
it of their own free will. If the ' kingdom of God' and the ' kingdom
of heaven' be not strictly synonymous, so as to be used inter
changeably, there is a close connection between them. The Lord's
prayer indicates that the latter is bound up with the former, and
must come as its perfect realization : ' Thy kingdom come. Thy
will be done in earth as it is in heaven.' Preachers have been wont
to talk much more about going 'to God' and going 'to heaven,'
than about entering the 'kingdom of God' and the 'kingdom of
heaven ; ' and that desired consummation, be it what it may, has been
deemed altogether impossible of attainment on earth, and therefore
relegated to another life in another world. So the gospel of Jesus
has come to be represented as a scheme aiming at the salvation of
individuals in heaven, apart from that of mankind in general both in
earth and heaven. Dr. Young's literal renderings, ' reign of God,'
'reign of the heavens,' help to a better understanding of the matter.
Individuals, one after another, may place themselves under the ' reign
of God ' by submitting to the commands which Jesus laid upon his
disciples and followers ; but the ' reign of the heavens ' seems to
refer to a state of existence in which all alike are living under the
divine rulership.
The parable of the two sons was followed by another. Jesus said :
21 Mat. 33 ' Hear another parable.' Mark and Luke, not having recorded the
12 Mark i previous parable, make no allusion to it. Mark says : ' And he began
to speak unto them in parables.' Luke notes that he addressed him-
20 Luke 9 self to the people generally : 'And he began to speak unto the
„ o people this parable.' Luke states simply : ' A man planted a vine-
12 Mark 2 yard.' Mark : ' A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about"
it, and digged a pit for the wine-press, and built a tower.' Young
renders, ' digged an under- wine-vat,' which stands in the Authorised
Version ' digged a place for the winefat.' Instead of the italicised
words 'a place for,' the Revisers have inserted 'a pit for,' which
they have not italicised. Matthew describes the man as a house-
-ji Mat. 33 holder. ' There was a man that was a householder, which planted a

21 Mat. 33

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 285
vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a winepress in it, and
built a tower.' The word here rendered ' winepress ' is lenon ; in
Mark it is hupolenion. The planter of the vineyard being a ' house
holder,' not a cultivator, leased it to others : ' and let it out to
husbandmen.' The three evangelists use that expression. According
to the Authorised Version they also agree in stating, ' and went into
a far country.' Alford notes : ' the original has only left the country ; '
Young and Tischendorf render, ' and went abroad ; ' the Revisers,
' and went into another country.' Luke adds the words : ' for a long
time.' Mark continues : ' And at the season he sent to the husband- 12 Mark 2
men a servant (Gr. bondservant), that he might receive from the
husbandmen of the fruits of the vineyard.' Luke: 'And at the 20 Luke 10
season he sent unto the husbandmen a servant (Gr. bondservant),
that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard.' Matthew
represents the despatch of ' servants,' not of ' a servant,' aud this
discrepancy between the evangelists continues throughout the parable.
It can scarcely be considered a contradiction : probably, naturally,
the chief servant would have assistants, but the negotiations would
be between the tenants and himself, and against him, as well as those
with him, their animosity would be directed. Matthew intimates
that the mission was in ample time, before the actual commencement
of the season. ' And when the season of the fruits drew near, he 21 Mat. 34
sent his servants (Gr. bondservants) to the husbandmen, to receive
his fruits (or, the fruits of it).' Instead of meeting the just demands
of their landlord, the occupiers assaulted his representatives, and
sent them away without payment. ' And they took him, and beat 12 Mark 3
him, and sent him away empty.' 'But the husbandmen beat him, 20 Luke 10
and sent him away empty.' Matthew states that several servants
were mentioned, and that they suffered in various ways. ' And the 21 Mat. 35
husbandmen took his servants (Gr. bondservants), and beat one, and
killed another, and stoned another.' A larger number were then
sent, but they met with no better treatment. ' Again, he sent other „ 36
servants (Gr. bondservants) more than the first : and they did unto
them in like manner.' Luke describes one servant only sent at a
time. 'And he sent yet another servant (Gr. bondservant); and 20Lvkeii^
him also they beat, and handled him shamefully, and send him away
empty. And he sent yet a third : and him also they wounded, and
cast him forth.' Mark also records the sending of a single servant
on two other occasions, but he then adds that many others also were
sent. ' And again he sent unto them another servant (Gr. bond- 12 Mark 4, o-
servant) ; and him they wounded in the head, and handled shame
fully. Aud he sent another ; and him they killed : and many others ;
beating some, and killing some.' These last words, 'and many
others'"; beating some, and killing some,' enable us to harmonise the
evano-elists. Luke states that one servant was sent alone on three
several occasions ; Mark agrees with that, adding the fact that the
same thing happened subsequently and repeatedly. Matthew passes
over in silence the sending of particular envoys, and contents himself
with grouping all the messages and messengers together.
In verse 4 of Mark the Revisers have omitted the words ' and at
him they cast stones,' and the word ' again ' before ' he sent,' in
verse 5, on the authority of the two oldest MSS.
Luke represents the proprietor of the vineyard deliberating with

286 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
himself as to what further steps it was in his power to take, and
resolving to send his son, whom he dearly loved, hoping that respect
20 Luke 13 would be paid to him. 'And the lord of the vineyard said, What
shall I do ? I will send my beloved son : it may be they will
reverence him.' The Authorised Version adds, 'when they see him,'
which is omitted, not being in the two oldest MSS. Mark stands :
12 Mark o ' He had yet one, a beloved son : he sent him last unto them, saying,
They will reverence my son.' ' He had yet,' takes the place of
' having yet therefore,' and the word ' also ' before 'last ' is omitted,
in accordance with the two oldest MSS. Here also Matthew is
Mat. 37 somewhat briefer. ' But afterward he sent unto them his son,
saying, They will reverence my son.' The word ' afterward ' here
and in Young and Tischendorf takes the place of ' last of all ' in the
Authorised Version. Far from showing reverence to the son, the
husbandmen conferred together, discussing the advantage they might
gain by putting him to death and holding the vineyard as their own.
„ ss ' But the husbandmen, when they saw the son, said among themselves,
This is the heir : come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance.' In
their wicked folly they thought that his death might be as good to
20 Luke 14 them as a legal title to the estate. ' But when the husbandmen saw
him, they reasoned one with another, saying, This is the heir : let us
kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.' Mark represents them
12 Mark 7 as having no doubt about that. ' But those husbandmen said among
themselves, This is the heir ; come, let us kill him, and the in-
„ s heritance shall be ours.' Mark continues : ' And they took him, and
killed him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard.' This seems to
mean that the murder was committed inside the vineyard, and the
dead body afterwards thrown outside. But the words are reversed in
21 Mat. 39 the other evangelists. ' And they took him, and cast him forth out
20 Luke io of the vineyard, and killed him.' ' And they cast him forth out of
the vineyard, aud killed him.' Surely the bloody tragedy could not
end there. The long-suffering and deeply-injured householder must
needs take some further steps, unless he tamely submitted to the
i2 Mark 9 robbery and left the murderers unpunished. ' What therefore will the
lord of the vineyard do ? he will come and destroy the husbandmen,
20 Luke ir,, and will give the vineyard unto others.' Luke also : 'What there-
18 fore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them ? He will come and
destroy these husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others-.'
Both question and answer might be spoken by Jesus : but Matthew-
represents him as pausing, and the reply to have been given by the
2i Mat. io, ii hearers. ' When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what
will he do unto those husbandmen ? They say unto him, He will
miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard
unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their
seasons.' The question is not quite the same, the coming of the
proprietor being included in it. We may imagine the reply to have
been first, ' he will come,' and this to be a further question, ' When
he shall come, what will he do ? ' The object of Jesus seems to have
been to elicit the full and free opinions of the listeners, and Matthew
records them, perhaps combines them. The infamy attaching to the
robbers and murderers is emphasised. Alford observes : ' In the
original the adverb rendered miserably is that belonging to the
adjective rendered wicked. This could hardly be given in a version

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 287
in English ; it may be represented by some such expression as, He
ivill destroy them wretchedly, tvretches as they are.' The Revisers and
Tischendorf have brought out this peculiarity by altering, ' He will
miserably destroy those wicked men' to 'he will miserably destroy
those miserable men.' Young renders : 'Evil men — he will miserably
destroy them.' Having regard to Alford's explanation it is obvious
that a literal translation would be : ' Evil men — evilly he will
destroy them,' and so Luther renders it : ' Er wird die Bosewichter
libel umbringen.' It was the rendering of evil for evil, the principle
on which men's ideas of justice, human and divine, had been founded,
but which principle Jesus disavowed, teaching his disciples to 'render 12 Rom. 17
to no man evil for evil' The vineyard being now freed from wrong
ful holders would be transferred to others. ' And will give the 12 Mark 0
vineyard unto others.' Luke uses the same words. Matthew is
fuller and more exact. ' And will let out the vineyard unto other 21 Mat. 41
husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.'
An observation was here interposed which is recorded only by Luke.
' And when they heard it, they said, God forbid (Gr. Be it not so).' 20 Luke 10
Alford says it is literally, ' Let it not be,' and Young so renders it.
The exclamation must obviously be taken as a criticism upon the
parable in its entirety, not as a deprecation of the vengeance inflicted
upon the murderers, or as applying only to the closing words, ' and
will give the vineyard unto others.' The hearers themselves had
suggested the ending of the parable, which disclosed such a picture
of injustice, cruelty, folly, and reckless wickedness, that they might
well deem it too highly coloured, and expostulate against its being-
taken as representative of anything in the national history. ' In
credible ! Impossible ! God forbid ! Let it not be ! ' Were they
right ? Was Jesus wrong ? Had he drawn a fiction, or had he
described a fact ? He was terribly in earnest . He fixed his eye^
upon them, and bade them explain, if they could, from their
optimistic point of view, a certain passage in the Scriptures. ' But „ n
he looked upon them, and said, What then is this that is written,
The stone which the builders rejected,
The same was made the head of the corner ? '
Did not that indicate an antagonism between the design of God and
the ideas of those who claimed to be the appointed leaders in carrying
out that design ? The parable represented only too truly the in
justice and inhumanity which have ever been disgraceful features in
the development of religious intolerance and persecution. But
putting all that aside, dismissing the simile which dealt with human
nature thus perverted and brutalised, and taking up the figures of a
stone and a building instead of a householder and husbandmen, the
same lesson was conveyed. There must come to pass an utter
reversal , of human plans and purposes, the strength and beauty of
the heavenly edifice being made to depend upon that corner-stone
which the builders ignominiously rejected. Still keeping to the
metaphor of a stone, Jesus added : ' Every one that falleth on that .. is
stone shall be broken to pieces ; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it
will scatter him as dust.' The Authorised Version stands : 'Who
soever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken ; but on whomsoever
it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.' The word ' broken ' by
itself might be taken to signify bruised, more or less injured, but the

288 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
Revisers have made it equivalent to ' dashed to pieces.' Tischendorf
has : ' Every one that fell upon that stone will be broken ; but on
whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.' Young
renders : ' Every one who hath fallen on that stone shall be broken,
and on whom it may fall, it will crush him to pieces.' The promi
nent idea, brought out by Jesus with all the force of which language
is capable, is the utter futility of human efforts and intentions when
opposed to the divine will. Matthew and Mark represent an addi
tional verse of the Psalm to have been quoted, leading our thoughts
12 Mark 10, in the same direction. 'Have. ye not read even this Scripture ;
The stone which the builders rejected,
The same was made the head of the corner :
This was from the Lord,
And it was marvellous in our eyes ? '
21 M.t. 42 Matthew prefaces the quotation with the words : ' Jesus said unto
them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures . . .' The original passage
stands as follows :
us iv 22, 23 ' The stone which the builders rejected
Is become the head of the corner.
This is the Lord's doing ;
It is marvellous in our eyes.'
Matthew alone records the following additional words of Jesus :
21 Mat. 43 ' Therefore I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away
from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits
„ ¦** thereof.' After which comes the verse: 'And he that falleth
on this stone shall be broken to pieces : but on whomsoever it
shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.' The Revisers note that ' some
ancient authorities omit ' this last verse. Lachmann and Tischendorf
omit it. It is enough that we have it standing unquestioned in
Luke. From the parable of the vineyard Jesus drew an inference :
that the kingdom of God should be taken from the unbelieving Jews,
and given to others. From the simile of the stone he drew another
inference : that opposition to the divine will must be hurtful or fatal
to the opposers. These two lessons may be merged into one : the
necessity of submitting to the will and purposes of God. Jesus was
not careful what parable he took up to enforce that truth : the stone
and the builders would do just as well as the vineyard and the
husbandmen. To deduce from either parable any conclusion as to
the mode and method of the divine judgments, is to overlook the
spirit and misread the letter of the teaching of Jesus. None can be
so foolish as to suppose that the final doom of the builders is to be
mutilated or crushed to death in any literal sense. As little are we
justified in rigorously interpreting the words 'he will miserably
destroy those miserable men,' even were they the words of Jesus,
which they are not. In another parable the catastrophe is thus
22 Mat. 7 described : ' But the king was wroth ; and he sent his armies, and
destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.' Dean Alford
scrupled not to add as an explanatory note : ' the Roman armies.'
Here also he introduces the same idea, saying : ' We may observe
that our Lord here makes when the Lord tlxerefore of the vineyard
cometh coincide with the destruction of Jerusalem, which is incon-
testably the overthrow of the wicked husbandmen. This passage
forms therefore an important key to our Lord's prophecies, and a

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 289
decisive justification for those who, like myself, firmly hold that the
coming of the Lord is in many places to be identified, primarily, with
that overthrow.' That is certainly a deduction from the parable
which Jesus did not bring before his hearers. ' The kingdomof God
shall be taken away from you : ' did the Romans take away the
kingdom of God from the Jews ? ' And shall be given to a nation
bringing forth the fruits thereof What had the destruction of
Jerusalem to do with that ? To call that frightful event the coming
of the Lord Jesus, is to misconceive utterly the nature of his king
dom, and the drift of his teachings.
The chief priests and the Pharisees could not fail to perceive that
the wicked husbandmen and the foolish builders were designed to
represent themselves. ' And when the chief priests and the Pharisees 21 Mat. 45
heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.' They
decided to arrest him without any further delay. 'And the scribes 20 Luke 10
and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him in that very hour.'
But their dread of the populace caused them to defer their purpose.
' And when they sought to lay hold on him, they feared the multi- 21 Mat. 4s
tudes, because they took him for a prophet.' Luke gives the same
explanation. 'And they feared the people: for they perceived that 20 Luke 19
he spake this parable against them.' Mark adds that they withdrew
from the presence of Jesus. ' And they sought to lay hold on him ; 12 Mark 12
and they feared the multitude ; for they perceived that he spake the
parable against them : and they left him, and went away.'
It is interesting to consider the skeleton of the above narrative as
it is disclosed by the authors of ' The Common Tradition.' In the
fourth column are the words common to the three evangelists, and in
the first, second and third columns the expansions of Matthew, Mark
and Luke respectively.

Expansion of Matthew.

Expansion of Mark.

Expansion of Luke.

Common to the
Three Evangelists.

Hear another

And he began to speak
unto them in

And he began to speak
unto the people this

parable 1

There was

a man 2

that was a householder,
which

planted a 3
vineyard
and set a hedge about
it, and digged a
winepress in it, and
built a tower
and set a hedge about
it, and digged a pit
for the winepress in
it, and built a tower
and let it out 4
to husband
men, and
went into
another
country
and when the
and at the
and at the
season 5
of the fruits drew
he sent 6
near
his
a servant
a servant
servants to 7
the hus
bandmen
to receive his
that he might receive
from the husband
men of
that they should give
him of
fruits 8
and the husbandmen
took his servants,
and 1
of the vineyard. And
they took him, and
of the vineyard ; but
the husbandmen
beat 9
290

THE KING AND THE KINGDOM:

[part II.

Expansion of Matthew.

one, and killed an
other, and stoned
another Again he
sent others
more than the first
they did unto them in
like manner. But
afterwards he sent
unto them his son,
saying

when they saw the
son, said among
themselves

and take his

took him, and

and
him. When therefore
shall come
unto those
The say unto him
he will miserably
those miserable men
let out
husbandmen, which
shall render him
the fruits in their
seasons. Jesus saith
unto them, Did ye
never read in

Expansion of Mark.

him, and sent him
away empty. And
again he sent unto
them another

him they wounded
in the head, and
handled shamefully.
And he sent another
and him they killed:
and many others,
beating some, and
killing some. He
had yet one, a be
loved son : he sent
him last unto them,
saying

said among them
selves

and

took him, and

and
therefore

the
he will come and
give

have ye not read even
this

Expansion of Luke.

him, and sent him
away empty. Again
he sent other

him also they beat,
and handled him
shamefully, and
sent him away
empty. And he
sent yet a third :
and Him also they
wounded, and cast
him forth. And the
lord of the vineyard
said, "What shall I
do P I will send my
beloved son ; it may
be
when

saw him, they rea
soned one with an
other, saying

thatmay be ours

and therefore

these
he will come and
giveAnd when they heard
it, ]they said, God
forbid. But he
looked upon them,
and said, W hat then
is this that is written

Common to the
Three Evangelists.

servants

and

10

they will re
verence my
son. But

the husband
men
this is the 13
heir
let us kill 14
him
inheritance lo
and they l(i
cast him 17
forth out of
the vine
yard
killed 18
the lord of the 19
vineyard
what will he 20
do
husbandmen 21
he mil 22
destroy 23
and will 2-1
the vineyard 25
unto other
the scriptures 2fi

The stone
which the
builders re
jected the
same was
made the
head of the
comer

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.

291

Expansion of Matthew.

Expansion of Mark.

1 Expansion of Luke.

Common to tho
Three Evangelists

This was from the

This was from the

! Every one that falleth

Lord, and it is mar

Lord, and it is mar

on that stone shall

vellous in our eyes.

vellous in our eyes.

be broken to pieces ;

Therefore say I unto

but on whomsoever
you, The kingdom
it shall fall, it will
of God shall be
[ scatter him as dust.
taken away from
you, and shall be
given to a (nation
bringing forth the
fruits thereof. And
<
he that falleth on
this stone shall be
broken to pieces :
but on whomsoever
it shall fall, it will
scatter him as dust.
And when the chief
parables they 28
priests and the
Pharisees heard his
perceived "
that
he spake of
he spake against
he spake against
them 29
and 30
when they
they
the scribes and the
chief priests
sought 31
to lay hold on
to lay hold on
to lay hands on
him they 32
feared
the multitudes, be
the multitude
the people
33
cause they took him
for a prophet.
The fourth column, which is common to the three evangelists,
comprises the leading words of the discourse, as if they had beeu
noted down hastily whilst it was delivered, for the purpose of aiding
the memory in recording it subsequently. The suggestion is merely
tentative, but assuming the original rough draft to have been
Matthew's, the first column shows how he dealt with it, his recollec
tion enabling him to fill up the slight sketch in that way.
The differences between the evangelists may be analysed as
follows :
(a) Wordings in Mark and Luke differing from those in Matthew,
but so similar in Mark and Luke as to indicate that they
copied from a document common to both : 1, 10, 12.
(b) Phrases in Matthew only, indicating that he gives the actual
words of Jesus : 1, 3, 11, 20, 23, 24.
(c) Verbal differences, insertions or omissions, apparently due to
the compilers : 1 Matthew and Luke ; 4 Matthew and Luke ;
5. 6, Matthew and Luke ; 8, 9, Matthew and Luke ; 13, 14,
Luke; 17, Luke; 25, Matthew and Luke; 29, 31, 32,
Luke ; 33.
(d) Verbal differences, additions, or omissions, indicating varia
tions in the original records : 16 Luke ; 23, 26 Mark and
Luke ; 28 Mark and Luke.
(e) Plural in Matthew, but singular in Mark or Luke, or in both,
or vice versa : servants, servant 7, 8, 9 ; also multitudes,
multitude, 33. v 2
292 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii
The theory tbat Matthew's was the original record is only put
forth suggestively. These comparisons tend, however, to confirm it.
The above method of investigation is full of interest, and, in compe
tent hands, would be fruitful of reliable conclusions. The doctrine
of ' inspiration ' has stood terribly in the way of any such inde
pendent study of the gospels. One hour's patient labour in this
direction would suffice to dissipate erroneous ideas cherished by
inspirationists ; and a methodical and painstaking comparison of the
evangelistic narratives on this basis, which is that adopted by the
authors of ' The Common Tradition,' would be worth more than a
multitude of ' Harmonies,' and do as much good as the doctrine of
' inspiration ' has done harm.
Mat. i Jesus continued to address the people in parabolic form. ' And
Jesus answered and spake again in parables unto them, saying . . '
His opening words indicate that he intended to illustrate something
relating to that ' reign of the heavens,' the establishment of which
was the object of his life. The ruler of a certain kingdom is repre-
„ i sented as decreeing festivities on account of his son's marriage. ' The
kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, which made a
marriage feast for his son.' Such an event lies outside the routine of
daily life, and is an occasion for special rejoicing. Invitations to the
banquet were issued, and in due time the chosen guests were sum-
•¦ ' moned to attend. ' And sent forth his servants (Gr. bondservants)
to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast.' Strange to say,
they cared nothing about the banquet, and showed not the least
,. » respect to the king or the king's son. ' And they would not come.'
Other servants were then despatched to repeat and enforce the former
,, i message. 'Again he sent forth other servants (Gr. bondservants),
saying, Tell them that are bidden, Behold, I have made ready my
dinner : my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready :
come to the marriage feast.' In vain did they explain, invite,
expostulate. Nobody paid the least attention to the message. The
expected guests went off in various directions, and occupied themselves
in different ways : they would go anywhere rather than to the king's
palace, and do anything rather than sit down at his banquet. ' But
they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his own farm,
another to his merchandise.' Instead of 'they made light of it,'
Young renders, ' they having disregarded it,' Tischendorf, ' they
neglected,' and 'The Englishman's Greek New Testament,' 'they being-
negligent of (it).' They were simply indifferent, wrapped up in
thoughts of other things, preferring to follow their daily round of
labour rather than break the monotony of the life to which they were
accustomed, even for the sake of realising the brightness, the rejoicing,
the refinement of a king's conrt. It does not appear that they had
professed to accept the invitation, or ever for a moment intended to
avail themselves of it. From first to last they held aloof, feeling no
concern in the royal plans and purposes, and esteeming it no honour
and no privilege to share therein. Some went beyond mere cool
contempt and disrespect, and laid violent hands upon the kino-'s
„ « servants, maltreated them, even murdered them. ' And the rest laid
hold on his servants (Gr. bondservants), and entreated them shame
fully, and killed them.' It is altogether a strange story. Who coula
have expected that the good intentions of the king, his courteous

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 293
invitation, his costly preparations, his patient entreaties, would be
met in such a spirit of utter indifference and hostility, and lead to so
lamentable a result ? The goodwill of the monarch being thus
scorned was replaced by indignation against the murderers. Justice
demanded that his servants should be avenged, and stern retribution
was forthwith exacted 'But the king was wroth ; and he sent his 22 Mat 7
armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city ' The
Authorised Version has, after 'but,' 'when the king heard thereof-'
these words are omitted by the Revisers, not being in the two oldest
Mbb. _ In verses 2, 3 and 4 Young uses the plural, ' marriage-feasts '
¦^interpreting the parable the following points are to be noted :
(1) 1 he invitation was not universal. Certain persons were bidden
to the wedding feast, and they only were called upon to attend. (2)
Attendance involved the relinquishment for the time being of worldly
affairs. (3) The bulk of the invited guests preferred their own busi
ness to the king's pleasure, and continued to conduct their affairs as
though they had never been invited. (4) The rest of the invited
guests were not simply indifferent to the invitation, but hostile to it,
and took upon them to persecute the king's messengers. (5) Only
these last, the murderers, are represented as being punished.
The parable is started as an illustration of ' the kingdom of heaven.'
Only disciples of Jesus, true followers prepared to forsake all things
for his cause, could enter therein. He could not soften his hard
terms of admission, and when these were recognised many, — how many
who can tell ? — who heard his call and were ready enough to answer,
'Lord, Lord,' were not prepared to do the things he said. They
kept on according to the course of this world, not less diligent
in earthly business than before, or in any wise blameable therein. A
call from above had come, which they had disregarded : it was their
loss, the gospel's loss. The parable goes no further than that as
regards these men. But there were others, who were not merely
impassive to the call, but antagonistic to it, and to those by whom it
was proclaimed. What moved them to this ? Nothing but the
invitation itself and the persistence with which it was urged. They
were men so bent on having things go on in the old course, so
determined to resent any new point of departure in thought aud
practice, that they scrupled not to treat as enemies and criminals
those who called them and others to higher aims and nobler duties.
The chief priests and Pharisees, who were even then taking counsel
against Jesus to put him to death, stand in this category ; so do they
who afterwards persecuted and sought to kill his apostles ; so do all
who in bygone times have dragged to prison and the stake those who
proclaimed religious opinions at variance with their own ; so do they
who now denounce pains and penalties for nonconformity, and in
their poor, puny fashion rake up again the dying embers of religious
intolerance and persecution. They are all of the same spirit, which
leads up to murder as its extreme, and has various intermediate
degrees of ' shameful handling.' Murder is murder, however much
men may seek to justify it as a necessity in some cause which they
deem sacred. 'Whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth 10 joim 2
service unto God.' How often has that prophecy of Jesus come
true! Taught by him, we may boldly apply to this matter the
apostle's words : ' We know that the judgement of God is according 2 Rom. 1

294 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii
to truth against them that practise such things.' Let us not restrict
to one particular event . that just judgment of God which Jesus
indicated by the words : ' But the king was wroth ; and he sent his
armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.' It is
here that Alford inserted his explanatory note : ' The Roman
armies.' That narrows the application of the parable down to one
specific incident in Jewish national history. True, armies did come,
and Jerusalem was besieged and burnt, and so far there is a resem
blance between that catastrophe and the climax of the parable. But
that did not happen until nearly 40 years after the words were
spoken, by which time many of the persecutors had died naturally.
The theory of Alford is not without its difficulties. It assumes the
king in the parable to be God ; and as he sent forth his armies, it
follows that the Romans were God's soldiers. That were hard to
believe, if not incredible. Certainly they were not soldiers of Jesus,
for the weapons of his warfare were not carnal but spiritual, and he
foresaw and sought to avert the destruction of Jerusalem, and wept
at the non-success of his efforts. There is a strange inconsistency in
supposing, as Alford does, that the destruction of Jerusalem was the
coming of Jesus. Moreover, the Romans spared none, so that the
adoption of Alford's view leads to the conclusion that the neglecters
of the invitation suffered together with the murderers, which is
contrary to the parable. Jesus therein did not profess to foretell the
nation's future, but to illustrate ' the kingdom of heaven,' and the
application of the parable is general and universal, not individual
and local. Destruction is the doom of persecutors who go to the
length of murder, and not a trace will be left on earth of all their
plans and labours. The armies of the Lord of hosts are invisible to
mortal eyes ; it is enough for us to know that their work of retribution
is sure, irresistible, inevitable. Not once or twice, not here or there,
but always and everywhere, the saying is fulfilled: 'He sent his
armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.' The
apostle Paul represented the judgment of God under the same figure
3 i. cor. is^_ 0f burning and destruction : ' Each man's work, of what sort it is,
the fire shall prove it. . . . If any man destroyeth the temple of
God, him shall God destroy ; for the temple of God is holy, which
temple ye are.' Human life is sacred, and woe to them who destroy
it in their hatred of the truth of God enshrined therein. It is a
remarkable fact that all the denunciations of Jesus were directed
against hatred of truth and light. He did not attack the common
vices of mankind, the grossness of immorality and wrong-doing in its
multitudinous forms. His chief concern was about the promulgation
of truth and the overthrow of error. With publicans and sinners he
dealt lightly ; not so with opposing scribes, priests and Pharisees.
' Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! ' The same tone
and direction of thought are observable in the parables. Jesus
presented repentant sinners under the figures of the lost sheep
recovered, the lost coin found, the prodigal returned and welcomed.
Not blame, aversion, condemnation, but pity, hope, repentance, for
giveness and rejoicing, were prominent in his treatment of the frail
and sinful. But the parables directed against the chief priests and
Pharisees were reprobatory and threatening. 'He will come and
destroy those husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others.'

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 295
'He sent ^ his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned
their city. Doubtless there were good reasons in the mind of Jesus
tor this difference of treatment. Sins of the body bring their own
punishment, and stamp with degradation those who commit them.
Society has taken upon itself the castigation of wickedness in a
variety of forms. But against spiritual pride and rancour, opposition
to light and truth, and the self-complacency which exalts itself and
despises others, there is no appeal to any human tribunal. These
are vices of the upper class, of those who have the making of laws
and the wielding of judicial powers. Jesus came perforce into
conflict with these men : they could not crush his spirit, but they
took his life, and afterwards sought to crush his followers. The
apostle Paul describes the nature of this strife : ' Our wrestling is not e Eph. 12
against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the
powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual
hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.' Young renders this :
' We have not the wrestling against blood and flesh, but against the
principalities, against the powers' (authorities — Eng. G. N. T.),
' against the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, against the
spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places.' Luther's version
carries the same meaning : ' Denn wir haben nicht mit Fleisch und
Blut zu kampfen, sondern mit Fiirsten und Gewaitigen, nemlich
mit den Herren der Welt, die in der Finsterniss dieser Welt
herrschen, mit den bosen Geistern unter deni Himmel.' ' For we
have not to fight with flesh and blood, but with the princes and
mighty ones, namely with the lords of the world, who rule in the
darkness of this world, with the evil spirits under heaven.' Take
Count Leon Tolstoi's view of the Christian doctrine and warfare,
and this passage will no longer be so inapplicable, so incomprehensible,
or so vapid and well-nigh meaningless as it has hitherto seemed.
The apostle's exhortation has a definite application, and if men fail
to find it, it is because they mistake the nature and reality of the
Christian warfare, and have wandered into a realm of unpractical

imagination.

The parable does not end with the destruction of the murderers,
but branches out in another direction. ' Then saith he to his 2
servants (Gr. bondservants), The wedding is ready, but they that
were bidden were not worthy.' Young and Tischendorf render
' wedding ' as ' marriage feast : ' the word in the original is the same
as before. Unwillingness, as well as opposition, is represented as
indicating unworthiness. The king now commands his servants to
seek for guests, no matter of what class or from what quarter. ' Go
ye therefore unto the partings of the highways, and as many as ye
shall find, bid to the marriage feast.' The Revisers have altered
' highways ' to ' partings of the highways,' which is rendered by
Young and Tischendorf ' cross-ways,' and by the ' Englishman's
Greek New Testament ' ' thoroughfares of the highways.' The utmost
publicity would thus be given'to the invitation. This resulted, as
was to be expected, in the collection of a very motley assemblage. No
restrictions were imposed, all classes and characters being welcomed.
' And those servants (Gr. bondservants) went out into the highways.
and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good
The Authorised Version continues : ' and the wedding was furnished

296 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
22 Mat. io with guests,' which the Revisers have rendered, ' and the wedding-
was filled with guests,' Tischendorf, following another reading,
renders, ' and the bride-chamber was filled with guests ; ' Young :
' and the marriage-feast apartment was filled with guests.' Luther
also here drops the word ' Hochzeit,' ' wedding,' and chooses another
word : ' und die Tische wurden alle voll,' ' and the tables were all
filled.' From first to last the parable puts a limitation upon the
number of the guests. Originally a certain selection was made : ' call
them that were bidden to the marriage feast.' Now the room is
represented as being filled up. This feature of the parable has its
significance, and must not be disregarded. Alford assumes those
first invited to be ' the Jewish people,' and he talks of ' the opening
of the Feast to the Gentiles.' But the very structure of the parable
forbids the idea of universality. To suppose a whole nation invited
to assemble in a bridal-feast apartment is an absurdity. Such a mode
of interpretation is wholly inconsistent with the aspect under which
Jesus here presents ' the kingdom of heaven.' Only through disciple
ship to him is the kingdom of heaven attainable, and we know that
he intentionally limited the number of disciples, and warned all men
not to profess themselves as such, unless they had first counted the
cost and resolved to hate all things else, even their own lives, for the
gospel's sake. That every man should become a disciple was no
more to be expected or desired, than that every house should become
a church of chapel. ' Ye are the light of the world : ' if all could
claim that illuminating influence, there would be no world outside for
them to enlighten. ' A city set on a hill cannot be hid : ' city-
crowned hills are exceptional ; dwellers in the plains below must look
and climb upwards to them. A sprinkle of leaven put in three
bushels of meal, till the whole should become leavened ; a tiny grain
of mustard seed, which must be sown and grow up gradually into a
tree ; an assembly of wedding guests, favoured individuals, for each
one of whom admitted, a thousand of their countrymen must have
been, as a matter of course, excluded : such were the similes whereby
Jesus represented the kingdom of heaven. At first the world received
it but in embryo ; poor and puny has been its development during
eighteen centuries. Yet Christianity was no abortion : it was fairly
born into the world in the first century. Where is it, what is it now ?
As an accepted creed, as a system of doctrine, it is everywhere, and
professes itself everything. But as ' the kingdom of heaven ' among
mankind, it has no existence. There is no ' reign of the heavens '
yet in this world, nor can it ever be established except through the
method devised by Jesus. . Not by an assumption on the part of the
clergy that they have been commissioned and empowered to admit
every infant into the kingdom of heaven by a supernatural act of
grace in the sacrament of baptism, and then preaching the duty of
everyone to live up to that high privilege and profession, can "the
kingdom of heaven be set up in our midst. That is a plan of human
invention, an error, a fiction, a rotten foundation upholding a sham
Christianity. The scheme of Jesus is the very reverse of that. To the
world at large his call is, from its very nature, impracticable. Never
theless he would have men follow it ; not all — that cannot be 
but those who deliberately resolve to become his disciples and to seek
first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. That profession

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 297
entails a life of self-denial, the abnegation of this world, the sufferings
incident to a career of protest against its errors and evils, coupled
with an unequivocal acceptance of that doctrine of non-resistance
which is the glory of the cross and the scorn of the world. Only such
men can teach how to live and how to die after the example of Jesus
and his apostles. If we had such soldiers of the cross among us, not
standing aloof as ecclesiastical superiors, but simply bent on living in
the midst of us the heavenly life, their example would surely be con
tagious. It would then be deemed a nobler thing to fight Christ's
battle than to enter an army and be drilled to slaughter fellow
creatures. Let us honestly state and face this truth : no disciple of
Jesus may destroy a human life, or have recourse to violence. Who
ever does that, is not his follower, however much he may deceive him
self into that belief. Let every soldier take lower ground : he is of
the world — opposed to the cause of Christ — by the nature of his
calling. The rule extends in other directions also. No rich man is
a follower of Jesus : the holding of superfluous wealth is contrary to
his requirement. ' Follower, disciple, Christian : ' the title itself
matters not : the question is not about a name but about a reality.
Let us be clear on the point. No condemnation is involved in non-
discipleship ; but much harm results from laying claim to discipleship
apart from obedience to Jesus and entire dedication to his cause. If
the lump is mistaken for the leaven, called by its name, no sharp dis
tinction being discernible between the two, the whole mass must con
tinue unleavened. Either the gospel must fail of its purpose, or dis
ciples must be found who will devote themselves to the cause, just as
surely as the marriage feast would have been a failure if no guests
had attended. Yet those most fitted for the work fail to recognise
its claim upon them, so that it becomes necessary to hunt up recruits
iu all quarters. Jesus does not represent the mixture of classes at the
marriage feast as a thing desirable in itself, but the occasion was of
such urgency that no selection was possible ; they ' gathered together
all as many as they found, both bad and good :' that touch was in
troduced into the parable deliberately and of set purpose. The apostle
Paul recognised its truth and application. ' For behold your calling, i
brethren, how that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty,
not many noble ; but God chose the foolish things of the world,
tbat he might put to shame them that are wise ; and God chose
the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things
that are strong ; and the base things of the world, and the things that
are despised, did God choose, yea and the things that are not, that he
he might bring to nought the things that are.' The closing words
show the drift of the argument : the disciples were chosen ' to bring
to naught the things that are,' that is, to annul the system of social
life prevailing in the world, a system grounded upon selfishness and
violence, and to replace it by the gospel of Christ Jesus, his ' wisdom
from God, and righteousness and santification, and redemption.
Obviously, whoever" undertakes such a work must rise to _ its level,
however low and degraded his previous career. The way in which
Jesus continues the parable brings out that fact. He describes the
king as making an inspection of the guests, detecting one who was
not clothed, as the others must have been, in the garment indispens
able at such festivities, and calling him to account for the impro-

298 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii-
22 Mat. n, 12 priety. ' But when the king came in to behold the guests, he saw
there a man which had not on a wedding-garment : and he saith unto
him, Friend, how earnest thou in hither not having a wedding-
garment ? ' The words 'to see ' in the Authorised Version are re
placed by the more emphatic words ' to behold.' Tischendorf renders,
' to look at the guests.' Young's version is as follows : ' And the
king having come in to view the guests, saw there a man not clothed
with clothing of the marriage-feast, and saith to him, Comrade,
how earnest thou in hither, not having the clothing of the marriage-
feast ? ' By adding this to the parable Jesus obviated any idea that
the kingdom of heaven required no change in those who accepted the
invitation to enter it. Alford notes that the word ' Friend ' is ' more
properly Comrade or Companion.' Those who associate themselves
with Jesus and his cause must conform their lives to his pattern. If
not, sooner or later, in this age or the next, the enquiry will come
home to them, ' Comrade, how earnest thou in hither, not having the
clothing of the marriage-feast ? ' The fashion of this world will not
be recognised as suitable for the kingdom of heaven. It was no
light offence which this man had committed. Of his own free will
he had accepted the invitation, and he had no excuse to offer for
neglecting the duty incumbent upon every guest to put on suitable
22 Mat. 12 apparel. ' And he was speechless.' It was necessary that he should be
.. is forthwith excluded. ' Then the king said to the servants (Gr. bond
servants), Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer
darkness.' The words ' and take him away ' after ' foot,' are omitted
by the Revisers, not being in the two oldest MSS. The command,
' Bind him hand and foot,' suggests that the man would as a matter of
course attempt to maintain his position by violence. Refusal to wear the
prescribed raiment is indicative of an intention to follow the customs
of the outer world. The practical rejection of Christ's doctrine of
non-resistance is the fault most prominent and disastrous among those
who assume a place in his kingdom without submitting to the
guidance of his mind and will. Herein consists the gravest scandal
upon our profession of Christianity. The warlike spirit has never
been obliterated from the instincts of mankind. The strange,
devilish notion still prevails, that War is a necessity of human exist
ence upon earth. It is deemed paramount among the resources of
civilization, and the professed ministers and representatives of Christ
raise no protest in common against it, and not only suffer the curse
to continue rampant and unreproved, but actually consecrate its
banners and pray, by royal command, for its successful issue and the
blessing of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ upon those
engaged in it. What a shameful parody of Christianity is this !
It comes from our overlooking and forsaking one of the first principles
of the gospel of Christ. All strife and bloodshedding are prohibited
to the disciples of Jesus, and they who practise or approve such
things have no part or lot in his kingdom, but must be cast out
' into the outer darkness.' The import of that phrase is clear, and
must not be exaggerated. It simply denotes exclusion from the
bright and festive joy inside : the man was thrust outside into the
darkness of the night, as being unworthy and unfitted for the company
within. That is the extent of the condemnation pronounced against
those who are not in the kingdom of heaven, of which the marriage-

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 299
feast is typical. Yet this is no light penalty, no trifling loss. It
means the perpetuation of this world's miseries and crimes, the cease
less round of wrong and suffering inseparable from a social system
based upon selfishness and violence. The guilt of this man consisted
in the fact that he introduced the habits and maxims of the world
into the kingdom of heaven. Alas ! that fatal mistake, that deadly
sin, has grown into a widespread, crying evil, so that the professed
Church of Christ has the form of godliness without the power there
of. There is no salvation for mankind under such a system.
' There shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth.' How true, 22 Mat. 13
how applicable, that saying of Jesus to the existing condition of
humanity !
Jesus closed the parable with the words : ' For many are called, but „ u
few chosen.' That was a truth which pressed heavily upon his
mind and heart. He represented all those first invited into the king
dom of heaven, as either neglecting or resenting the invitation. And
when, after scouring the country, enough were found to start the
gospel enterprise, the work of exclusion had to be undertaken. Jesus
realised full well the difficulty of establishing the kingdom of heaven
among mankind. Those to whom the duty of assisting naturally
and of right belonged, held aloof from the enterprise. Men of light
and leading preferred to devote themselves to the old, established
routine, and not a few of them vehemently opposed the new scheme
of life and doctrine. In spite of that, 'by men of strange tongues 14 1. cor. 21
and by the lips of strangers' the gospel invitation was proclaimed,
and the Church of Christ was founded. Then came another evil,
foreseen by Jesus and figured in this parable : the blending of the
world's teaching with his pure gospel. That evil grew monstrously
and still prevails. Men boast of the spread of the gospel ; but if
the Church has overrun the world, the world has overrun the Church.
The spirit of Christendom is not the spirit of Christ ;. the life of
professed Christians is not the life of the kingdom of heaven. The
freedom, the brightness, the joy and rejoicing of the gospel marriage
feast are not our portion upon the earth. We are yet in the ' outer
darkness;' and the state of society in general accords only too well
with the sorrowful ejaculation, ' there is the weeping and gnashing
of teeth.' The utmost possible peace, goodwill and happiness, —
these are the characteristics of a marriage feast and of the kingdom
of heaven. That conception of it may seem to most men too simple,
too good to be true : but what higher, nobler, other object can the
heavenly Father have than the prosperity of his children ? ' The
carol with which the angels welcomed the Saviour conveys the same
idea : ' On earth peace, good pleasure among men.' This ameliora- 2 Luke 11
tion of the common lot of mankind on earth has been well nigh lost
sight of as constituting the salvation of Jesus. The apostle Peter
says that the ' precious blood ' of Christ redeemed the elect ' from 1 1 ret. is
your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers.' Salva
tion, as preached and taught generally, is a very different kind of
thing,— a system of intellectual beliefs, a scheme of justification, a
method devised for the appeasement of divine justice without the
sacrifice of transgressors. Saturated with such ideas, men interpret
and work out the parables in such a way as to harmonise with their
own notions. Here is Dean Alford's note on the wedding-garment.

300 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
' The guest was bound to provide himself with this proper habit, out
of respect to the feast and its Author : how this was to be provided,
does not here appear, but does elsewhere. The garment is tlie imputed
and inherent righteousness of the Lord Jesus, put on symbolically in
Baptism (Gal. iii. 27), and really by a true and living faith (ib. ver.
26), without which none can appear before God in His kingdom of
glory; Heb. xii. 14: Phil. iii. 7, 8: Eph. iv. 24: Col. iii. 10:
Rom. xiii. 14 : which truth could not be put forward here, but at its
subsequent manifestation threw its great light over this and other
such similitudes and expressions.' Alford assumes that Jesus did not
bring out this ' truth ' in the parable, because he could not. Why ?
And it is taken for granted that scattered passages in the Pauline
epistles are to be applied to the elucidation of a parable to which the
apostle never referred. Again, why ? And how could each man's
particular wedding-garment represent the one robe of the king's son,
whose robe is not even mentioned ? And what connection is there
between allusion to a garment and ' the imputed and inherent right
eousness of the Lord Jesus ' ? Such an interpretation makes the robe
the figure of a figure, not of a reality. That is a fallacy which per
vades the whole doctrine of 'imputed righteousness.' Righteous
ness, — however much men may persuade themselves to the contrary, —
is not, cannot be imputed to those who do not possess it. If Christ's
righteousness is imputed to a man, it is because that man ' doeth
3i. John 7 righteousness,' and ' is righteous, even as he is righteous.' The word
' impute ' is the pivot on which the popular doctrine of salvation
rests and turns. Let us examine the passages in which the word
occurs.
7 Lev. is (a) ' And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings
be eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither
shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it.' Young renders
' neither shall it be imputed ' by ' it is not reckoned.'
n Lev. 3,4 (b) ' What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth
an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without
the camp, and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent
of meeting, to offer it as an oblation unto the Lord before
the tabernacle of the Lord : blood shall be imputed unto that
man ; he hath shed blood.' Young renders, ' blood is reckoned
to that man.'
22 1. Sam. io (c) ' Let not the king impute anything unto his servant, nor to all
the house of my father : for thy servant knoweth nothing of
• all this, less or more.' Instead of ' impute anything,' Young
renders, ' lay anything.'
io ii. Sam. io (d) 'Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou
remember that which they servant did perversely.'
32 p«. i, 2 (e) ' Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is
covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth
not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.'
i nai.. n (0 ' Imputing this his power unto his god.' The Revisers render :
(a. v.) t p;ven ^g -whoge might is his god.' Young renders : ' Ascribeth
this his power to his god.'
In the New Testament there are two Greek verbs rendered in the
Authorised Version ' impute : ' ellogeo, ' to reckon in ; to impute ; '
and logizomai, ' to count, reckon, calculate, compute ; to take into

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 301
account, consider ; to calculate, reason.' The root of both words is
logos, which is defined as ' the word by which the inward thought is
expressed ; the inward thought or reason itself.' The verb ellogeo
occurs only twice : 5 Rom. 13 (k) and Phile. 18 : ' put that to mine
account.' The verb logizomai is rendered in the Authorised Version
as ' impute ' 8 times, and in other passages as ' account, account of,
conclude, count, despise, esteem, lay, number, reason, reckon, suppose,
think, think on,' as for example: 'They reasoned with themselves.' n Mark si
' He was reckoned with transgressors.' ' I thought as a child.' w Ma*k -s
'Lest any man should account of me above that which he seeth me.' " ii c'oi- ^-I
' May it not be laid to their account.' 4 iiTim! to
These examples, as well as the definitions and derivation of the
word, sufficiently indicate that it denotes a conclusion founded upon
facts, and is the very opposite of a merely supposititious, non-existent
ideal. In Webster's Dictionary 'impute' is thus defined: ' 1. to
charge ; to attribute ; to set to the account of. 2. to attribute ; to
ascribe. 3. to reckon to one what does not belong io him. — Milton.'
The last sense is that which has been introduced and generally held
by theologians, as though to ' impute ' involved a pretence or make-
believe. That idea does not properly appertain to the word, and it
does not appear in NuttaU's Dictionary, where the definition is
simply: ' to ascribe ; to reckon to ; to reckon.' The Revised Version
obviates the danger of misapprehension by banishing the word
' impute ' and supplying its place by ' reckon ' in all the passages
except one in which it occurs in the Authorised Version. They are as
follows : —
(g) ' Even as David also pronounceth blessing upon the man, unto 4 Rom. o-*
whom God reckoneth righteousness apart from works, saying,
Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin. '
(h) ' That righteousness might be reckoned unto them.' „ n
(i) ' It was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Now it was not
written for his sake alone, that it was reckoned unto him ; but
for our sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned.'
(k) ' Sin is not imputed when there is no law.'
(1) ' Not reckoning unto them their trespasses.' s «• cor. io
(m) ' Abraham believed God, and is was reckoned unto him for 2 James 23
righteousness.'
These are all the passages in which the word ' impute ' occurs. Let
us summarise them.
(a) An offering not imputed as an offering.
(b) Slaughter of an animal not offered as an oblation, imputed as
bloodshedding.
(c) A fault not to be imputed, because not committed.
(d) A fault not to be imputed, because repented of.
(e) and (1) A fault not imputed, because forgiven.
(f) Power imputed to a deity.
(g)> (a) and (i) Righteousness imputed without works, after
forgiveness.
(k) Sin not imputed when there is no law.
(m) Faith imputed as righteousness.
No difficulty can arise except in connection with the passages (g),

22-2-1

, Rum. 13

302 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
(h), (i), (k) and (m). Take first (k) : ' Sin is not imputed where
there is no law.' Here is the apostle's argument. Sin entered into
the world through the first man, Adam, and death through sin. Sin
.7 Emu. 12 and death are inseparable from man's nature : ' Death passed unto all
men, for that all sinned.' That was so before the law. Death was
not a consequence of breaking the law given in the time of Moses :
for in the absence of law there could be no transgression against it :
„ 13 ' For until the law sin was in the world : but sin is not imputed
when there is no law.' Yet in the period between Adam and Moses
death prevailed ; not because of the law, which then had not been
given, nor because men repeated the first transgression of Adam, for
., n that they did not : ' Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until
Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of
Adam's transgression.' The cause of death lies deeper down than
any law, — in man's depraved nature and life. So the apostle teaches
3 Gai. io that sin is independent of the law, which after a time was ' added
because of transgressions,' to reveal, denounce and prohibit them,
7 Rom. 13 ' that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sin-
3 i. joim* ful.' Another apostle defines sin as 'the transgression of the law.'
-) That is true : but Paul argues that it is something more, a faulty
condition of man's nature, tending inevitably to death, apart from
the law which condemns it. The apostle John intimates as much by
introducing the word ' also,' in the passage immediately preceding :
' Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law.' The state
ment that ' sin is not imputed when there is no law,' implies the con
verse, that sin is imputed when there is a law. Obviously the word
' imputed ' here denotes, not the assumption of a state of being which
does not actually exist, but the fact of its actual existence. Is it
probable, or even possible, that the same word ' imputed ' is not
meant to carry the same meaning, when applied to the opposite con
dition of ' righteousness ? ' To ascertain this, let us examine the
passages (g), (h), (i) and (m), which relate to 'righteousness.'
(g) ' Even as David also pronounceth blessing upon the man, unto
whom God reckoneth righteousness apart from works, saying. Blessed
are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord will not reckon sin.' The
2 Rom. 12 law reckons sin, and declares its penalty : ' For as many as have
sinned without law shall also perish without law : and as many as
have sinned under law shall be judged by law.' The apostle places
the Gentiles in the first class, and the Jews in the second class. To
the latter the words of David apply, ' Blessed is the man to whom
the Lord will not impute sin : ' this signifies the withdrawal of the
penalty against sin regarded as ' the transgression of the law ; ' in
other words, 'Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and
whose sins are covered.' But forgiveness is a reality, not— as is too
generally assumed — a kind of legal fiction, a simple change of dis
position towards the sinner, a revocation of the curse of the law. If
in that sense only iniquities were forgiven and sins covered, those
' under law ' would simply revert to the position of those ' without
law,' and would still ' perish.' The non-imputation of sin cannot
s Rom. 23 alter its deadly effects : 'for the wages of sin is death.' Therefore
when the apostle quotes the Psalmist's words, he regards them as a
description of ' the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 303
righteousness without works.' To be clear as to the meanino- of this
we must have regard to the context. The apostle had asserted : ' By 3 Rom «o
the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his si'o-ht ' or
according to the marginal reading, ' out of works of law shall&no 'flesh
be accounted righteous in his sight.' Young renders : ' By works of
law shall no flesh be declared righteous before Him.' If ri>hteous-
ness is attained, it cannot be through a law which has been dis
obeyed : ' For through the law cometh the knowledge of sin ' The •>«
apostle proceeds : ' But now apart from the law a righteousness of " ~>,
God hath been manifested; . . . even the righteousness of God
through faith m Jesus Christ ; ' and he reaches this conclusion : 'We „ 2s
reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works
of the law.' Then he instances Abraham as justified not by works-
obedience to the law,— but by faith : ' Abraham believed God, and it 4 Ron,. 3
was reckoned unto him for righteousness ; ' and then quotes David
as pronouncing blessing ' upon the man unto whom God reckoneth
righteousness apart from works.' ' God reckons,' ' imputes,' ' counts,'
' declares,' ' attributes,'— the words carry one and the same sense-
both ' sin ' and ' righteousness ' to men, the former through his law
against sin, the latter ' apart from the law.' Sin has been manifested
through the law ; but now righteousness through faith in Jesus
Christ. Elsewhere the apostle proclaims the same doctrine : ' For 3 Tit. 3-7
we also were aforetime foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers
lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one
another. But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love
toward men, appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we
did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the
washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he
poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour ; that,
being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the
hope of eternal life.' Is it not obvious, indisputable, that the
righteousness imputed through faith is as actual, real, visible,
tangible, personal, as was the sin imputed through the law ? Paul
recognized in human nature two opposite conditions, 'sin,' and
'grace,' the one, condemned by the law, working misery and death,
the other, arising out of faith in Jesus, tending to peace and life.
' Where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly : that, 5 Rom. 20, 21
as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteous
ness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' Introduce
into any part of the impassioned arguments of Paul the idea of a
merely substituted moral rectitude, the imaginative fiction about
putting on the robe of ' the imputed and inherent righteousness of
the Lord Jesus,' and you will thereby mar, distort, destroy, the force
of the apostle's reasonings, and contradict scores of passages in which
he asserts and glorifies the saving power of faith and grace.
Take now the passage (h) : ' That righteousness might be reckoned
unto them.' The word ' also,' after ' them,' has been omitted by the
Revisers, not being in the three oldest MSS. The drift of the argu
ment is clear. Abraham, whilst yet uncircumcised, was reckoned
righteous by his faith in God ; therefore he may be regarded as father
of the uncircumcised Gentiles who have that same righteousness
based on faith. That a real, active life of righteousness was in the
apostle's mind, is evident from the context, when he says : ' who also 1 Rom. 12

304 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had
in uncircnmcision.'
4 Rom. 22-24 The passage (i) is as follows: 'It was reckoned unto him for
righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was
reckoned unto him ; but for our sake also, unto whom it shall be
reckoned, who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the
„ 20,21 dead.' The faith of Abraham was perfect: 'Looking unto the
promise of God, he wavered not through unbelief, but waxed strong
through faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that,
what he had promised, he was able also to perform.' The expression,
' waxed strong through faith,' indicates the effect of the faith upon
Abraham, — on which account — ' wherefore also — it was reckoned to
him for righteousness.' As with him, so with us : our faith must
produce its result, and will therefore be reckoned for righteousness.
Young, instead of ' shall be reckoned,' renders literally, ' is about to
be reckoned.' The faith of Abraham may be regarded in two ways :
either as an instantaneous mental conviction, or as a continuous
disposition of the mind. Those who assert most strongly and posi
tively the apostle's doctrine of justification by faith, according to
their own version of it, generally adopt the former view, which
certainly was not that of Paul. For the scripture he quotes,
i j uui. i, < Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteous
ness,' relates to the first giving of the promise. Years elapsed before
4 Rom. is-21 it Was fulfilled. Yet Abraham ' in hope believed against hope . . .
and without being weakened in faith he considered his own body
now as good as dead (he being about a hundred years old), and the
deadness of Sarah's womb : yea, looking unto the promise of God, he
wavered not through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith, giving
glory to God, and being fully assured that, what he had promised, he
was able also to perform.' The Revisers have omitted the word
' not ' before ' his own body,' on the authority of the three oldest
MSS., and have replaced ' neither yet ' by ' and,' before ' the dead
ness,' which agrees with Young, the former being a mistranslation.
The apostle Paul shows the patriarch's faith in active exercise from
first to last. The apostle James goes farther in the same direction.
In the last passage to be considered (m), he says : ' And the scripture
was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was
reckoned unto him for righteousness.' He quotes that passage in
connection with the offering up of Isaac, which was many years later
2 James 17 still ; and his object was to prove that ' faith, if it have not works,
.. 20 is dead in itself.' He argues : ' But wilt thou know, 0 vain man,
» 21 that faith apart from works is barren ? Was not Abraham our father
justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar ?
» -- Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was
faith made perfect ; and the scripture was fulfilled . . .' Paul and
James are at one in their definition of faith, and they only who
misunderstand the former imagine him to be in opposition to the
latter. The marvellous breadth and fulness of Paul's intellect render
his style difficult in some parts of comprehension, and careful study
is required in order to grasp his meaning and avoid misconceptions.
The apostle Peter recognised the value of Paul's epistles, but was also
conscious of certain misconstructions put upon them from the first,
3 ii. Pet. is, and uttered a caution with respect to them. He wrote : ' Even as

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 305
our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him,
wrote unto you ; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these
things ; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the
ignorant and unsteadfast wrest, as theg do also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction.' This warning is as much needed now
as ever. Doctrines most startling and obnoxious have been deduced
from the Pauline epistles. Theologians of past generations have
founded sects and systems out of them, and some of their followers
in the present day quote certain texts as conclusive arguments,
knowing and caring little about the contexts, and never troubling to
investigate for themselves the original meaning of passages ' hard to
be understood ' even by the best trained and most earnest minds, and
the true sense of which is wholly obscured and lost to prejudiced or
ignorant and self-confident readers.
When the enemies of Jesus left him and went their way, full of
indignation at the obvious application of his parables to themselves,
it was for the purpose of consulting as to the best means of silencing
his voice for ever. They feared to arrest him themselves, and deemed
it safer to bring him, if possible, under some criminal charge, within
the clutches of the law. If they could ensnare him into some expres
sion of an opinion which might be construed as treasonable, they
could thereby ruin him with safety to themselves. ' Then went the 22 Mat. 15
Pharisees, and took counsel how they might ensnare him in his talk.'
Luke discloses the plot in all its fulness. ' And they watched him, 20 Luke 20
and sent forth spies, which feigned themselves to be righteous, that
they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the
rule and to the authority of the governor.' These emissaries were
not common informers. Such men would have been ill-fitted for so
delicate a mission. Men of high position in the religious and
political world were not ashamed to become the acting agents in this
detestable scheme. Mark records that fact. ' And they send unto 12 Mark 13
him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, that they might
catch him in talk.' Alford explains : ' The Herodians were more a
political than a religious sect, the defendants and supporters of the
dynasty of Herod, for the most part Sadducees in religious sentiment.
These, though directly opposed to the Pharisees, were yet united
with them in their persecution of our Lord, see Matt. xxii. 16 :
Mark iii. 6.' The teaching of Jesus was as hateful to the secularists
as to the religionists. From the first, the world at large was opposed
to his gospel : ' For of a truth in this city ' (said the disciples) 4 Acts 27
'against thy holy Servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both
Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of
Israel, were gathered together.' The doctrine of non-resistance to
evil was enough, by itself, to rouse the opposition of military rulers.
Their power is founded upon physical strength and justice— or
injustice— by violence, war, bloodshed,— from all of which Jesus
held back his followers. The following passage, from Count Leon
Tolstoi's ' What I believe,' is well worth our consideration : ' Not one
of the Apostles, not one of Christ's disciples, could have supposed it
necessary to forbid a Christian's committing murder, which is mis
called war. See what Origen says in his answer to. Celsus, chapter 63 :
" Celsus exhorts you to help the sovereign with all your strength, to

306 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
take part in his duties, to take up arms for him, to serve under his
banner, if necessary to lead out his army to battle. Moreover, we
may say, in answer to those who, being ignorant of our faith, require
the murder of men of us, that even their high-priests do not soil their
hands in order that their God may accept their sacrifice. No more
do we." And concluding by the explanation that Christians do more
good by their peaceful lives than soldiers do, Origen says : " Thus we
fight better than any for the safety of our sovereign. We do not, it
is true, serve under his banners, and we should not, even were he to
force us to do so." It was thus that the first Christians regarded
war and thus their teacher spoke when addressing the great men of
the world at the time when hundreds and thousands of martyrs were
perishing for the Christian faith.' Here is a sufficient explanation of
the hostility of rulers to the Christian faith. Whenever the head of
the state authorises the persecution of a section of his subjects, it
must be for some grave state reason, for the upholding of his supre
macy against private opinions deemed antagonistic to national policy
and welfare. The heathens had what we have and, alas ! boast of
having, — a state-religion, a system of faith and divine worship recog
nised as orthodox, an ecclesiastical organisation working harmoniously
with the imperial policy, the State and the Church mutually sup
porting and strengthening each other. True, the persecutions under
the Roman emperors took the form of upholding the recognised mode
of divine worship. That came naturally about, because the divinities
they honoured included such as Mars and Venus, whose cult was
suited to a people which gloried in war and revelled in immorality.
io i. cor. 20 Paul asserted ' that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacri-
s John 44 fice to devils, and not to God.' Jesus declared that the devil ' was
a murderer from the beginning,' and told those who sought his life,
' Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is
your will to do.' The apostle James thus criticised the warlike spirit r
4 James i, 2 ' Whence come wars and whence come fightings among you ? come they
not hence, even of your pleasures that war in your members ? Ye lust,
¦ and have not : ye kill, and covet, and cannot obtain : ye fight and war."
3 i. joim s We are assured : ' To this end was the Son of God manifested, that
he might destroy the works of the devil.' The apostle James
3 James is describes a wisdom ' that cometh not down from above, but is earthly,
sensual (or natural, or animal), devilish.' That is the wisdom of the
„ io world, based on ' jealousy and faction,' and leading to ' confusion
» i7 and every vile deed. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure,
then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good
fruits, without variance (uncontentious — Young), without hypocrisy.
„ is And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for (or, by) them that
make peace.' The apostle Paul speaks in precisely the same terms .-.
2i. cor. o 'We speak wisdom among the perfect: yet a wisdom not of this
world (or, age), nor of the rulers of this world (or, age), which are
„ 7 coming to nought : but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, even
the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before-
„ s the worlds unto our glory : which none of the rulers of this world
(or, age) knoweth : for had they known it, they would not have-
crucified the Lord of glory.' The method of Jesus is opposed to the
„ 5 method of the world, and our faith does ' not stand in the wisdom of
„ 2 men, but in the power of God,' in ' Jesus Christ, and him crucified : *

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 307
all strivings against evil relinquished, to make way for unlimited
gentleness and patient, unresisting sufferance. That is the wisdom
proclaimed 'among the perfect (or, full grown),' the strong ' meat ' 3 i. Cor. 1
of the spiritual disciples of Christ, as contrasted with the ' milk ' on „ 2
which ' babes in Christ ' must needs be fed, being ' yet carnal ; ' — ,,3
' for whereas,' says the apostle, ' there is among you jealousy and
strife, are ye not carnal, and walk after the manner of men ? ' This
conformity to the world in spirit and practice, robs the gospel of
Christ of its most distinguishing characteristics, and accounts for the
harmony prevailing between the Church and the world. Tolstoi
continues : ' But in our times the question whether a Christian ought
to take part in war never seems to occur to any. Youths brought up
according to the Church law, go every autumn, at fixed periods, to
the conscription halls, and, with the assistance of their spiritual
pastors, there renounce the law of Christ.' Such facts give rise to
very solemn reflections, and force upon us the conclusion that the
spirit of the age is essentially anti-christian. It prevails, not in
Russia only, but throughout Europe. Both in the last century and
in the present it made France a desolating scourge, and threw her
back, baffled, humiliated, defeated, to nurse again into activity, as
soon as may be possible, the demon-spirit of revenge. Germany is a
permanent camp of soldiery. The Continent seethes with the
elements of disturbance, rebellion, anarchy. England rushes deli
berately, light-heartedly, now and again, into wars supposed to be
necessary for self-preservation or prestige. The lust for power,
dominion, and military supremacy, is a national insanity, a delirium-
tremens, resulting from an inherited habit and curse of blood-drink
ing. And all this goes on, generation after generation, side by side
with a profession of Christianity ! Not without reason did the apostle
James connect the wisdom of the world, and its strifes, with
' hypocrisy.' Where are the ' disciples ' of Jesus ? Are they simply
dumb, or are they non-existent ? Assuredly they are not engaged in
the work of bringing ' to nought the things that are.' Let any one 1 i. cor. 2s
of them, the very humblest, rise up in personal, practical protest, and
he will be treated, as were the first disciples, as a fool, a fanatic, a
rebel against social order. Tolstoi gives an instance : ' A short time
ago a peasant refused to enter the military service, grounding his
refusal on the words of the Gospel. The clergy all tried to persuade
the man that his view of the matter was erroneous ; and as the
peasant still believed in Christ's words, and not in theirs, he was cast
into prison, and kept there till he denied Christ. And this takes
place although we, Christians, received 1800 years ago a perfectly
clear and definite commandment from our God, which said, "Never
consider men of another nation as thine enemies ; look upon all men
as brethren, and behave towards all men as thou dost towards thy
fellow-countrymen ; therefore shalt thou not kill those whom thou
callest thine enemies ; love all and do good to all." ' The following
fact, which is stated by the translator of Tolstoi's book, ' What I
believe,' is equally suggestive : ' The work has unfortunately been
forbidden in Russia, but the manuscripts pass from hand to hand,
doino- their silent work of regeneration in the hearts of those who
longlfor the coming of the kingdom of God on earth.' The existing
state of society has been brought about, and is maintained, by that
x 2

17

15

22

308 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part n.
same combination of religionists and secularists which schemed the
death of Jesus and the overthrow of his teaching.
22 Mat. 16, Matthew's account is as follows. 'And they send to him their
" disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Master "(or, Teacher), we know
that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest
not for any one : for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us
therefore, What thinkest thou ? Is it lawful to give tribute unto
12 Mirk 14, Caesar, or not ? ' Mark stands as follows : ' And when they were
"¦ come they say unto him, Master (or, Teacher), we know that thou
art true, aud carest not for any one : for thou regardest not the per
son of men, but of a truth teachest the way of God : Is it lawful to
give tribute unto Caesar, or not ? Shall we give, or shall we not
20 Luke 21, give?'- Luke's account is somewhat condensed. 'And they asked
"'! him, saying, Master (or, Teacher), we know that thou sayest and
teachest rightly, and acceptest not the person of any, but of a truth
teachest the way of God : Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto
Caesar, or not ? ' What a sudden change of tone ! What an un
expected spirit of deference ! What a flattering encomium of the
Teacher they had hitherto hated and despised ! What a subtle
question, and how difficult to answer ! Jesus saw through it and
them, denounced their hypocrisy, and replied warily and wisely.
Let them produce the coin which was payable as tribute. They did
so. Whose was the likeness stamped upon it, and to whom did the
( superscription refer ? ' But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and
! said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites ? Shew me the tribute money.
And they brought unto him a penny (denary — Young). And he
saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription ? They
12 Mark 15, say unto him, Caesar's.' Mark : ' But he, knowing their hypocrisy,
115 said unto them, Why tempt ye me ? bring me a penny, that I
may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them,
Whose is this image and superscription ? And they say unto
20 Luke 23, him, Caesar's.' Luke is briefer : ' But he perceived their crafti-
24 ness, and said unto them, Shew me a penny. Whose image and
superscription hath it ? And they said, Caesar's.' Obviously the
coin had once been Caesar's property, issued from his mint, and bore
his name as subject to his control. As it was received from or
through him, how could it be unlawful to restore it to him ? The
teaching of Jesus about 'the way of God' had no connection with
Caesar's property. Their claims must not be mingled, but kept
distinct. Duty to God could not be paid in Caesar's coin, and no
question could properly arise as to whether it belonged to the Roman
22 Mat. 21 emperor or to God. 'Then saith he unto them, Render therefore
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that
12 Mark 17 are God's.' Mark : ' And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar
the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.'
20 Luke 25 Luke : ' And he said unto them, Then render unto Caesar the things
that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.' Jesus
decided that tribute was lawfully payable ; and the apostle Paul has
13 Rom. o, 7 expressed the same opinion : ' For this cause ye pay tribute also ; for
they are ministers of God's service, attending continually upon this
very thing. Render to all their dues : tribute to whom tribute is due ;
custom to whom custom ; fear to whom fear, honour to whom
honour.' With equal clearness Jesus asserted that there were other

20

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 309
things which belonged to God. and which must be rendered to him
not to Caesar. Need we ask, What things ? 'Thou shalt love the 12 Mark 30
Lord thy God from all thy heart, and from all thy soul, and from all
thy mind, and from all thy strength.' Man himself, all his bodily
and intellectual powers, must be yielded up to God. The command,
' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' clashes not therewith, but
is its necessary outcome : ' He that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled is Rom. s
the law.' That is the extent of human duty : ' Owe no man anything
save to love one another.' The question presented to Jesus was one
of allegiance, not of neighbourly obligation, and his answer implied
that some things no worldly monarch may claim. With the due
payment of tribute, custom, fear, honour, the requirements of sub
jection and loyalty to an earthly ruler end, and Christian liberty lays
hold upon the counsel of a free spirit, ' Owe no man anything, save
to love one another.' ' Render unto God the things which are God's: '
only that high rule of conscience makes discipleship to Jesus possible.
When charged with disobedience to the commands of the ruling
powers, religionists and secularists being again united in opposition
to the doctrine of Jesus, ' Peter and the apostles answered and said, 5 Acts 20
Wc must obey God rather than men.' There is a sharp distinction
between the things of God and the things of Caesar. The laws laid
down by Jesus for the guidance of his disciples accord not with those
on which human society has been constituted. They who were
willing to present themselves ' a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to 12 Rom. 1
God,' were exhorted to be altogether different from the world around :
' Be not fashioned according to this world (or, age) : but be ye trans- „ 2
formed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the
good and acceptable and perfect will of God.' Among the duties
arising out of this transformation and renewal of the mind, the
apostle includes these: 'Render to no man evil for evil ... Be at » ir.ls
peace with all men . . . Avenge not yourselves . . . Overcome evil „ 19,21
with good.' That is not the spirit of the world, neither are such
maxims consistent with the office and duties of the world's rulers.
Yet the apostle regarded the existing authorities as worthy of respect,
and counselled subjection. Let us take Tischendprf's rendering,
which harmonises with Young's : ' Let every soul be subject to the 13 Rom. 1
authorities that are over him. For there is no authority but from
God : and those which arc, have been ordained by God.' All govern
ment is of divine origin, for without it, society would fall into fatal
anarchy : ' So that he who sets himself against the authority, resists the „ 2
ordinance of God : and they that resist will receive to themselves
judgement.' That is equally true, whether such resistance be justifiable
or unjustifiable, tacit and passive or overt and active. Jesus told
Pilate, 'Thou wouldest have no authority against me, except it were i9Joimii
given thee from above : therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath
greater sin.' The harmless Jesus ought never to have been dragged
before the judgment-seat of Pilate. That was the act of the
religionists of those days, and how often has it been repeated since !
So common a thing was it from the first for Christians to be treated
as their Master was, that the apostle Peter wrote as follows : ' Beloved, 4 i. Pet. 12
think it not strange concerning the fiery trial among you, which
cometh upon you to prove you, as though a strange thing happened
unto you : but inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings,

310 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
4 i. Pet. is rejoice . . . For let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or
„ io an evil-doer, or as a meddler in other men's matters : but if a man
suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God
„ 17 in this name. For the time is come for judgement to begin at the
house of God : and if it begin first at us, what shall be the end of
them that obey not the gospel of God ? ' There was no certainty of
escape from arraignment before judicial tribunals ; all that could be
3 i. Pet. 17 said was, ' Is is better, if the will of God should so will, that ye suffer
for well-doing than for evil-doing.' The experience was so general, that
it seemed like a dispensation of Providence, and a somewhat puzzling
4 i. Cor. o one, even to the mind of Paul, who wrote, ' For, I think God hath
set forth us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death : for we
are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.'
Yet in truth, here was no new thing : always throughout human
history the rectification of abuses has involved suffering, and the path
of progress has had to be cut with difficulty, risk and loss through
obstacles. That has been done by the banding of men together in a
common cause, by taking up arms, resorting to violence, by strife,
war, bloodshed. The method of Jesus is altogether different : there
is the same concentration of energy, unity of purpose, spirit of oppo
sition to existing evils ; but there is self-sacrifice without self-defence,
arguments enforced without arms, freedom claimed and exercised, but
12 Heb. 4 not fought for, resistance to the utmost, if need be ' unto blood,
striving against sin,' but always passive, never a sword in the hand,
but often a cross on the shoulders, borne cheerfully even to the
extremity of suffering and death. Only by regarding 'the things
which are Caesar's ' as separate and distinct from ' the things which
are God's,' can the work of reformation go on, and the spirit of
martyrdom prevail. Neither the judges who condemn, nor those who
are condemned, being accused, with more or less truth, of seeking to
17 Acts 6 turn ' the world upside down,' are to be blamed. The former are the
representatives and exponents of the national mind and will, the
latter, of the mind and will of Christ. That these are not in
harmony, but contrary the one to tbe other, is a loss and grief to the
whole community, all the heavier because not recognised and felt
generally. Inherited opinions and habits of life must needs clash
against new ideas, the earthly and the heavenly refuse to combine,
and a struggle for mastery ensues. That is the penalty of past errors
and evils, which the disciples of Jesus were called to endure. Paul
n ii. cor. 23 suffered in that way more than did the other apostles : ' in prisons
more abundantly, in stripes above measure, in deaths oft.' Yet he
never railed against constituted authorities, but regarded them as
13 Rom. 6 'ministers of God's service.' The world must needs take its own
course, and Christians theirs. Police, judges, jailers, there must
be, perchance even soldiers, though it is time that standing and
invading armies should be abolished as inconsistent with modern
enlightenment and civilization : but all these things appertain
to Caesar, not to Christ, and with them his true followers can
have no concern. Neither Caesar nor Caesar's representatives are
to be condemned : they are declared to be ministers of God,
» 4 avengers ' for wrath to him that doeth evil ; ' but they are not
ministers of Christ, in the sense in which the apostles were,
4 i. cor. i of whom Paul said, ' Let a man so account of us, as of ministers

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 311
of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.' Their offices,
their function, their rule of life and action, are altogether different!
Jesus chose his disciples out of the world, to be separate from
the world, to the same extent and in the same way as he was.
To call any man who wields a sword, returns a blow, sentences or
executes criminals, goes to law, or accumulates property on earth,
a disciple of Jesus, is to mistake the spirit of his calling and confer
the title wrongly. Let us be content to take lower ground. It is
enough that we are believers in Jesus, saved by faith in him ; it is
too much to arrogate to ourselves a position and status claimable
only by such as devote themselves wholly to his cause. The first
step towards clearness of view, accuracy of thought, and sound judg
ment on this important question, is to keep distinct in our minds the
things of Caesar and the things of Christ. The tendency of our
spiritual guides has been in the opposite direction. Dean Alford's
comment on this saying of Jesus is' as follows : ' These weighty
words, so much misunderstood, bind together, instead of separating,
the political and religious duties of the followers of Christ.' Christ
assumed no political duties : how then can his ' followers ' do so ?
The reply of Jesus astonished his questioners. ' And they marvelled 12 Mark 17
greatly at him.' There was nothing in his words which they could
condemn or dispute. Instead of being able to frame an accusation
or argument against him, they were reduced to an ignominious
silence. ' And they were not able to take hold of the saying before 20 Luke 20
the people : and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.'
They quitted his presence, foiled in their purpose and admiring his
sagacity. ' And when they heard it, they marvelled, and left him, 22 Mat. 22
and went their way.'
Jesus was next questioned by the Sadducees with respect to their
fundamental article of disbelief. 'And there come unto him Saddu- 12 Mark is
cees, which say that there is no resurrection.' Matthew states that
it was 'on the same day. ' On that day there came to him Sadducees, 22 Mat. 23
which say (Gr. saying) that there is no resurrection.' Alford and
Tischendorf adopt the reading 'saying,' which indicates that the
Sadducees began a discussion about their peculiar doctrine. Luke's
account implies that ' certain ' of the sect had been selected for that
purpose. ' And there came to him certain of the Sadducees, they 20 Luke 27
which say that there is no resurrection.' The Authorised Version
stands : ' which deny that there is any resurrection,' but the Revisers
have followed the reading of the two oldest MSS. There is a sub
stantial agreement between the evangelists as to the question pro
pounded. Matthew : ' And they asked him, saying, Master (or, 22 Mat 24
Teacher), Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother
shall marry his wife (Gr. shall perform the duty of a husband's
brother to his wife), and raise up seed unto his brother.' Mark:
'And they asked him, saying, Master (or, Teacher), Moses wrote 12 Mark 10
unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and
leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up
seed unto his brother.' Luke : ' And they asked him, saying, Master 20 Luke 2s
(or, Teacher), Moses wrote unto us, that if a man's brother die,
having a wife, and he be childless, his brother should take the wife,
and raise up seed unto his brother.' A case was stated, which may

312 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
22 Mat. 25- have been real or imaginary, rising out of this custom. ' Now there
27 were with us seven brethren : and the first married and deceased,
and having no seed left his wife unto his brother ; in like manner
the second also, and the third, unto the seventh (Gr. seven). And
12 Mark 20- after them all the woman died.' Mark : ' There were seven brethren :
22 and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed ; and the second took
her, and died, leaving no seed behind him ; and the third likewise :
and the seven left no seed. Last of all the woman also died.' The
Revisers, following the two oldest MSS., have omitted the words
' had her, and ' after ' seven.' In the Alexandrine MS. the additional
word 'likewise' is introduced. In the constant copying and re-
copying of the manuscripts there seems to have been a temptation
and tendency to improve occasionally upon the original. Luke :
20 Luke 29- ' There were therefore seven brethren : and the first took a wife, and
32 died childless ; and the second ; and the third took her ; and like
wise the seven also left no children, and died. Afterward the woman
also died.' That having been the state of things in this life, in what
relation would the woman stand to these seven in the next ? She
had belonged to each : which one of them will be entitled to claim
22 Mat. 2s her ? ' In the resurrection therefore whose wife shall she be of the
12 Mark 23 seven ? for they all had her.' Mark : ' In the resurrection whose
wife shall she be of them ? for the seven had her to wife.' Luke :
20 Luke 33 ' In the resurrection therefore whose wife of them shall she be ? for
the seven had her to wife.' The question was not an argument, but
the answer might serve as a basis on which to raise one. Yet man's
ignorance of the conditions of a future state of existence is no more
a reason for denying it, than is the ignorance of an unborn child a
disproof of all that appertains to tbe world into which it is destined
to enter. Light and knowledge come with life, and human relation
ships in this world are modified by man's free will to suit with the
necessities of his being. ' For this cause shall a man leave his father
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.' But death severs every
7 Rom. 2 bond : ' For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the
husband while he liveth ; but if the husband die, she is discharged
from the law of the husband.' If these Sadducees meant to argue
that the connections existing in this life must perforce continue
in the next, that confusion and discord must thence ensue, and that
there was no conceivable outlet from their supposed dilemma, they
must have been shallow reasoners indeed. A bond of union first
voluntarily entered into, and then by an overruling fate compulsorily
and legally broken, — how can it be assumed to be binding and
infrangible subsequently ? Jesus told them that they were in error,
their mistake proceeding from ignorance of the divine will and power.
22 Mat. 29 ' But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing
the scriptures, nor the power of God.' Mark represents this as a
question, Jesus setting them to the task of self-scrutiny and enquiry.
12 Mark 24 ' Jesus said unto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye
know not the scriptures, nor the power of God ? " Resurrection
from death was not a marriage ceremony, but the entrance into an
22 Mat. 30 angelical and heavenly state of being. ' For in the resurrection they
neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in
heaven.' It is not said, ' after the resurrection,' nor ' in the resurrec
tion-life,' but simply ' in the resurrection,' that is, in the act and fact

part ii.]- A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 313
of resurrection, which has nothing to do with marriage, but is a
transformation to a more exalted condition of being. Mark is to the
same effect. ' For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither 12 Mark 2s
marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.' It is
not, ' when they shall have risen,' but ' when they shall rise,' literally
according to the ' Englishman's Greek New Testament,' 'when from
among dead they rise ; ' it is not, ' they will neither marry, nor be given
in marriage,' but, ' they neither marry, nor are given in marriage : '
equivalent to : ' the rising from the dead is not marrying and giving
in marriage, but the assumption of a heavenly life.' The argument
resembles that of Paul, when he said : ' For the kingdom of "God is 14 Rom. ir
not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the
Holy Ghost.' Young renders 'angels' as 'messengers.' The idea
of heavenly ' angels ' or ' messengers ' was familiar to the Jews :
' And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels winds (or, 1 Heh. 7
spirits), and his ministers a flame of fire.' The words of Jesus would
naturally be taken in that sense, not as referring to any non-existence
of marriage between angels ; for what did the hearers know, what do
we know, as to that ? Such an interpretation of the saying makes it
pointless, not an argument for conviction, but a statement beyond
human apprehension. Is it not rather to be viewed as a waiver of
the question the Sadducees had sought to discuss ? The doctrine of
the resurrection lies wholly apart therefrom, and has to be considered
by itself, as little connected with marrying and giving in marriage, as
with buying and selling, building and planting, or any other of the
concerns of this life.
Luke's account of the words of Jesus is much fuller, and is evidently
taken from a different record. ' And Jesus said unto them, The sons 20 Luke 34-
of this world (or, age) marry, and are given in marriage : but they
that are accounted worthy to attain to that world (or, age), and the
resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage :
for neither can they die any more : for they are equal unto the angels;
and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.' This passage
may be regarded from the same point of view. The institution of
marriage is suited to man's necessities in this world : the attainment
of a higher condition of existence and the resurrection from the
dead, is" not marrying or giving in marriage, for it is a state of
immunity from death, of equality with angels, of divine sonship.
Jesus puts aside the earthly, carnal question of the Sadducees, and
dwells on the ideas properly arising in connection with the hope of a
resurrection. There is another passage in which a reply of Jesus has
to be applied and restricted in the same way. The disciples asked
him, ' Rabbi, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he should be » Joim 2
born blind ? Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his » s
parents.' Of course Jesus was not asserting that no sin had ever
been committed by them, but simply that there was no sin to be
thought of in connection with the blindness. Just so here : Jesus is
asked ' In the resurrection whose wife of them shall she be ? ' and he
replies in effect, Neither wife of this man nor of that man : they
neither marry nor are given in marriage ; all thought of that must
be dismissed in connection with the resurrection. Jesus turned the
minds of the disciples into the proper channel by adding, ' but that
the works of God should be made manifest in him,' and then went on

314 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
s John 5 to the truth, ' When I am in the world, I am the light of the world.'
So here : having dismissed the idea about marriage, he explains, ' for
neither can they die any more : for they are equal unto the angels ;
and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.' To adopt a
10 Heh. 9 scriptural phrase : ' He taketh away the first, that he may establish
the second.' This interpretation is corroborated by the way in which
the words of Jesus are understood and dealt with by Matthew and
Mark. They are condensed into a single sentence : ' They neither
marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven,' — which
corresponds in structure with : ' Neither did this man sin, nor his
parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.'
On the words : ' For neither can they die any more,' Alford makes
this explanatory comment : i.e., they will have ' no need of a succession
and renewal, which is the main purpose of marriage.' That is as
though we should argue that if Adam and Eve had not forfeited
immortality they would have remained childless, having ' no need of a
succession and renewal.' Not the simple perpetuation, but the increase
l Gen. 2s of the species, has been the divine purpose from the beginning : ' Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.' To reach the mind
of Jesus, his meaning must not be thus guessed at, but pondered with
earnest care. It is not enough to skim the narrative, and take for
granted the inference which seems to lie upon the surface. Does the
divine law, ' Be fruitful and multiply,' apply to this world only ? Let
those who infer as much from the saying of Jesus, ' they neither
marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven,' at
least take the pains to reconsider his words, and be quite sure about
the doctrine before they promulgate it.
The words of Jesus as reported by Luke, ' they that are accounted
worthy to attain to that world (or, age), and the resurrection from
the dead,' are not consistent with the idea of a general resurrection
and reunion of mankind. We are bound to give the same significance
to the expression ' accounted worthy,' in Luke, as attaches to it
5 Acts 4i elsewhere ; and it must certainly be regarded as restrictive. ' Re
joicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the
Name.' 'To the end that ye may be accounted worthy of the
kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer.' The attainment of ' that
world (or, age) ' in conjunction with ' the resurrection from the dead,'
is not represented as a certainty for all men, but as a privilege depen
dent upon character. Such a conception of the resurrection was
contrary to the popular notion, in accordance with which the
Sadducees had argued. They assumed that there would be no
exceptions, no selection, that the seven brethren and the woman, as a
matter of course, would find themselves together hereafter under
similar conditions to those existing in this world. Not so. The sons
of this age do not all become sons of that age through the resurrection,
which involves no resumption of former earthly ties, no marrying or
giving in marriage. The Sadducees took the lowest and most carnal
view of the resurrection ; Jesus takes the highest and most spiritual,
is i. cor. 44 as did the apostle Paul, when he wrote, ' It is sown a natural body ;
it is raised a spiritual body.' They might with equal unreason have
asked : In the resurrection whose servant shall he be, who bound
himself to many masters, and was successively freed by each ? Or,
In the resurrection, who, out of a succession of Head Masters, will be

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 315
Head Master, the rights, duties, dignities and emoluments of the office
being held for life, and then becoming vested in another ? It might
well be answered, In the resurrection they neither assume servitude
nor mastership ; in the resurrection they neither become teachers nor
pupils : the meaning obviously being, not that there will be no
servitude and no mastership, no teachers and no pupils in the
resurrection-life, but that questions with respect to those matters can
have no bearing on the primary question, Is there a resurrection ?
And then, having shown what the resurrection is not, in those respects,
all that the resurrection really involves might be dwelt on in the
precise way and words of Jesus when replying to the question which
was actually propounded to him. He reveals an ' age,' a condition
of existence, to be attained by those worthy of it, to whom the
resurrection will be much more than the living over again of the
former earthly life ; they will become immortalised, etherialised,
deified : 'for neither can they die any more : for they are equal unto
the angels ; and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.' The
gift of immortality is promised, not to all, but to those worthy to
attain to that ' age,' in which Jesus will bestow it upon those who
behold him and believe in him : ' And this is the will of Him who o Joim 40
sent me, that every one who is beholding the Son, and believing in
him, may have life age-during, and I will raise him up in the last day.'
On the words ' beholding the Son,' take this apostolic comment : ' But 3 ii. cor. is
"we all, with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror (or, beholding as in a
mirror) the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image
from glory to glory.'
Having disposed of the question of the Sadducees, Jesus proceeded
to give a scriptural proof of the doctrine they disputed. 'But as 22 Mat. 31,
touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which
was spoken unto vou by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac," and the God of Jacob ? ' Mark is fuller. ' But 12 Mark 20
as touching the dead, that they are raised ; have ye not read in the
book of Moses, in theplace concerning the Bush, how God spake unto
him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob?' Luke is as follows : 'But that the dead are 20 Luke 37
raised, even Moses shewed, in the place concerning the Bush, when he
calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob.' The italicised words, 'the place concerning,' in
Mark and Luke, are rendered ' the history concerning,' by Alford,
who observes : ' The words may in the original mean either " in the
chapter concerning the history of God appearing in the Bush," or
" when he was at the Bush." The former is the more probable.' From
that passage Jesus drew this inference : ' God is not the God of the 22 Mat. 32
dead, but of the living.' The two oldest MSS. begin, ' He is not the
God ' Tischendorf renders literally : ' He is not God of dead, but
of living ' Mark : ' He is not the God of the dead, but of the 12 Mark 27
livino- : ye do greatly err.' Luke : ' Now he is not the God of the 20 Luke ss
dead° but of the living : for all live unto him.' Young translates the
three passages thus : ' God is not a God of dead men, but of living.'
' He is not 'the God of dead men, but of living men. ' He is not a
God of dead men, but of living.' The argument is clear and con
clusive, resting upon two foundations : (1) the essential relationship
•of God to man ; (2) the declared continuance of that relationship

4 Gal.

S

5Ps. :

¦2

10 Ps.

16

75 Ps.

7

OS Ps.

0

3 Jer.

4

54 Isa

. 5

316 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
centuries after the termination, of the earthly lives of the patriarchs.
Jesus takes the title ' God ' in its natural and proper sense, as
denoting rulership, oversight, protection. He asserts that, obviously
and necessarily, ' He is not the God of dead men, but God of living
men.' It is possible for men to imagine and worship false gods, as
the apostle says : 'Not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them
which by nature are no gods.' The term ' god' is synonymous with
king, lord, judge : ' Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King and
my God.' ' The Lord is King for ever and ever.' ' God. is the judge :
He putteth down one and lifteth up another.' Any word will suit
which denotes power, responsibility and loving care : ' A father of
the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habita
tion.' ' Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou
art the guide (or, companion) of my youth ? ' ' For thy Maker is
thine husband; the Lord of. hosts is his name.' The title ' God '
conveys the idea of absolute supremacy over living beings : ' all live
unto him ; ' it cannot be applied in connection with those who have
3 Gai. 17 passed out of existence. Some four hundred years after the death of
Abraham, God said to Moses, ' I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' That by itself was proof
positive that those patriarchs were then alive. And inasmuch as
they had died, they must as certainly have been ' raised,' resuscitated.
Death and the resurrection are two parts, the one visible, the other
invisible, of the same phenomenon. We can see the ending of the
old and earthly life ; we cannot see the beginning of the new and
heavenly life. The course of the one is open to us, the course of the
other is hidden from us. The latter is not, on that account, un
natural or incredible : are we not as sure of the existence of the wind
which is invisible, as we are of the earth which is visible ? God has
revealed the one to mortal eyes, but not the other ; true, we have
evidences of the wind, through the senses of hearing and feeling,
which we have not of departed yet still existent personalities : that is
the only difference ; the absence of physical certainty does not mili
tate against a belief founded upon other testimony vouchsafed to us.
The word 'resurrection,' which is rendered by Young 'rising
again,' obviously does not touch upon the question of corporeity or
incorporeity : for the argument of Jesus is, that the mention of the
patriarchs as living after they had died, is evidence of their ' resurrec
tion ' or ' rising again,' apart from any mention of a bodily form.
The Sadducees assumed its existence hereafter, with all its parts and
passions. Modern teachers have gone to the contrary extreme.
Strange ideas have prevailed on this subject : as that the soul
continues to exist, and will remain, in an unbodied condition, until a
day of ' general resurrection,' when it will be reincorporated, some
even have asserted with the identical particles of matter which were
buried in the grave ! That monstrous conception is fading away, as
it needs must, before the light of Science and a more rational inter
pretation of the Scriptures. The words of the Athanasian Creed
have a doubtful or double meaning : ' At whose coming, all men
shall rise again with their bodies : and shall give account for their
own works,' may be understood to signify a simultaneous uprising
from tombs. That wrong notion involves another : either the inter
mediate ' sleep of the soul,' or its continuance until the day of judg-

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 317
ment in a state of disembodiment. Both ideas are purely imaginary,
not scriptural revelations, but mere logical inferences, the accuracy
or inaccuracy of which depends on the truth or error of the premises .
on which they rest. Theologians dispute about them among them
selves, as when Alford says, ' Stier remarks that this is a weighty
testimony against the so-called "sleep of the soul" in the inter
mediate state.' The conception of a human soul or life without a
body may be stated in words, as a supposition, but has no foundation
in any fact within our cognizance, no analogy with anything in the
world in which we live and move and have our being. Paul assumed
that a doubt of the resurrection of the dead involved, as a matter of
course, the question, ' With what manner of body do they come ? ' is i. Cor. 35
The resurrection of a man without any of the attributes of manhood,
of a woman without any of the distinctions of womanhood, of the
soul or mind without any reassumption of a material organism akin
to the brain through which the intelligence works and the nervous
system which conveys sensations : what kind of 'rising again ' would
that be ? How conceive it, hope for it, long for it ? It is as though
you were to destroy a drum, and assert that the instrument still exists
in the shapeless air which it once held, and which is now mingled
•with the surrounding atmosphere. They ' are as angels in heaven.'
Angels are distinct personalities, possessing forms which have been
rendered visible to mortal eyes, and organs of speech and touch which
have enables them to hold intercourse with mankind.
There are two forms of expression : Mark : ' touching the dead,
that they are raised ; ' Luke : ' but that the dead are raised.' That
is one form ; the other is, in Mark : ' when they shall rise from the
dead ; ' in Luke : ' the resurrection from the dead.' It is the latter
which is alluded to as a privilege, bestowed upon those who are
accounted worthy to attain to it and to ' that age.' The ' resurrec
tion op the dead ' is equivalent to the statement that ' the dead are
raised,' that is, they are raised from death. The ' resurrection from
the dead ' carries a different meaning. The resurrection of the dead
1-rom death, amounts simply to the fact that there is a 'rising
ao-ain.' The resurrection of the dead from the dead, denotes a
pre-eminence granted to certain of the dead above others of the dead.
This distinction is more easily caught through a language which
gives the plural form to ' the dead,' as the French ' les morts and
the German ' die Todten.' In common language, when we speak ot
' the dead ' we mean those who have passed away from the earthly
life as though they no longer existed. But the instant we begin to
sneak in faith of the doctrine of a resurrection, they are no longer
reo-arded as non-existent, and by ' the dead' is meant those who haye
entered upon the resurrection-life. Thus mankind are divided into
two classes, 'the living' and 'the dead,' both equally alive, the
former here, the latter elsewhere. A resurrection from the living is a
thing unheard of, except in the cases of Enoch and Elijah, bu we
are taught to expect a resurrection ' from the dead,' which is alluded
to as a similar translation to a higher existence, as when Paul
exclaimed ' if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from 3 rim. 11
the deTd ' Jesus Christ is styled ' the firstborn from the dead : ' m 1 Co,, is
what sense? Not, certainly, that he was the first who had been
raised from death, for we have his own assurance that the three

318

THE KING AND THE KINGDOM:

[part II.

22 Ex. 29

1 Col. 18
15 i. Cor. 23
6 John 40

22 Mat. i

patriarchs had been so raised, and we are told that Moses and Elijah
15 i. cor. 20 conversed with him on the mount. Neither is Jesus called ' the first-
fruits of them that are asleep,' in the sense of being the first raised
from death : for that he was not, as is proved by his own argument.
In Jewish language, a ' firstborn ' son was the one exalted by his
father above his brethren : Isaac was deemed the ' firstborn,' the
' only son,' although born after Ishmael. The ' firstfruits ' were the
first-gathered portion of the harvest, rendered up as an offering to
God : ' Thou shalt not delay to offer of the abundance of thy fruits,
and of thy liquors. The firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto
me.' Under both figures, Jesus stands forth as the representative of
humanity. He ' is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead ; '
' Christ the firstfruits ; then they that are Christ's, at his coming
(Gr. presence).' In his presence, 'beholding the Son, and believing
on him,' the perfect ' will of God ' in ' sending him ' will be accom
plished, in 'the resurrection from the dead' of those 'that are
Christ's,' ' in the last day.' The doctrine of the resurrection, so easy
either to deny or to profess, so hard to understand, demands a more
careful and discriminating study than is generally bestowed upon it.
We are told that the teaching of Jesus excited general astonish
ment. ' And when the multitudes heard it, they were astonished at
his teaching.' He had put the doctrine of the resurrection on a
higher level of thought and certainty. The scribes also were struck
20 Luke so by the novelty and cogency of his argument. ' And certain of the
scribes answering said, Master (or, Teacher), thou hast well said.'
His questioners felt that it would be useless to continue the discus
sion of a subject on which he had displayed such consummate know-
» 40 ledge. ' For they durst not any more ask him any question.'
The news of this intellectual encounter, aud of its result, was
carried to the Pharisees. Their opinions on the resurrection were
23Acts6-s diametrically opposed to those of the Sadducees. When Paul ' cried
out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees :
touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in ques
tion,' there ' arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees :
and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is
no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit : but the Pharisees confess
both.' It would naturally be felt by the Pharisees that for the
Sadducees to discuss with the Teacher, who was equally obnoxious
to both parties, their peculiar and false tenet, was to invite defeat
and exalt the reputation of Jesus, which they were so anxious to de
press. Therefore the Pharisees assembled themselves, doubtless still
22 Mat. C4, anxious to ' ensnare him in his talk.' ' But the Pharisees, when they
' heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves
together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting
him.' Mark does not allude to the Pharisees, but states the fact that
this new questioner had been present at the previous discussion, and
had heard the convincing answer which had been given by Jesus to
12 Mark 2s the Sadducees. ' And one of the scribes came, and heard them
questioning together, and knowing that he had answered them well,
asked him . . .' Had we Mark's account only, we should take it for
granted that the scribe had no bad motive in putting a further ques
tion. Had we Matthew's account only, we should naturally assume

35 i

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 319
the contrary. Alford appears to suppose that one of the evangelists
gives a wrong colour to the matter, and that we must choose which
of their opposite views to take. He says : ' In the more detailed
account of Mark, this question does not appear as that of one
maliciously tempting our Lord : and his seems to me the view to be
taken,— as there could not be any evil consequences to our Lord,
whichever way he had answered the question.' And again : ' I
should be disposed to take St. Mark's as the strictly accurate account,
seeing that there is nothing in the question which indicates enmity,
and our Lord's answer (ver. 34) plainly precludes it. The man, from
hearing them disputing, came up, and formed one of the band who
gathered together for the purpose of tempting Him. St. Mark's
report ... is that of some one who had taken accurate note of the
circumstances and character of the man : St. Matthew's is more
general . . .' There is no reason for setting aside either evangelist.
Let us combine their accounts. It is plain from Mark that the scribe
had listened to the former argument, and recognised the sagacity of
Jesus. Probably his question was spontaneous, arising out of a
desire to test the ability of Jesus further, and to elicit his opinion on
a point much debated. That is to adopt the idea of Alford, that the
question was not put maliciously, although Matthew describes it as
' tempting him.' The Greek verb here used, peirazo, is occasionally
rendered as ' prove ' and ' try : ' ' This he said to prove him.' ' Try o Joim o
your own selves.' When the Pharisees who had not been present, 13 u. Cor. 5
but who, on receiving an account of what had passed, ' gathered
themselves together,' as described by Matthew, this scribe, one of
their own sect, without opportunity for previous consultation with
them, put his question to Jesus. He anticipated them : and when he
had been answered, convinced, almost converted, Mark tells us that .,
any further questions they might have formulated were put aside :
' and no man after that durst ask him any question.' That observa- 12 Mark a
tion indicates that there had been an evident intention of doing so,
which was followed by an equally evident abandonment of the design.
Thus viewed in conjunction, the narratives harmonise : Matthew
discloses the purpose of the Pharisees, and Mark how it was thwarted.
The test question of the scribe was innocent and harmless, for he had
come under the influence of Jesus ; and his fellow Pharisees could no
more escape that influence than he had done. They had resolved to
question, cavil and condemn, but were constrained to relinquish their
purpose, and stood dumfounded in the presence of Jesus.
The question was this : ' Master (or, Teacher), which is the great 22 Mat. so
commandment in the law?' Tischendorf renders: 'which com
mandment is great in the law ? ' Mark gives it thus : ' What com- 12 Mark 2s
mandment is the first of all ? ' In Matthew the reply of Jesus stands
as follows : ' And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy 22 Mat. 37
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the great and first commandment.' The words ' great and
first' possibly indicate that both were used by the questioner,
although Matthew records only the former and Mark only the latter.
In Mark the reply is fuller : ' Jesus answered, The first is, Hear, 0 12 Mark 29,
Israel : the Lord our God, the Lord is one (or, The Lord is our God ;
the Lord is one) : and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with (Gr.
from) all thy heart, and with (Gr. from) all thy soul, aud with (Gr.

320 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
from) all thy mind, and with (Gr. from) all thy strength.' The
Greek rendered ' with ' or ' from,' is en in Matthew and ex in Mark.
Young and Tischendorf render the former as ' with ; ' Young, the
latter as ' out of ' and Tischendorf as ' from.' In the Authorised
Version, after the word ' first ' are the words ' of all the command
ments : ' these are now omitted, on the authority of the two oldest
MSS. Alford explains : ' St. Mark cites the passage entire : ' that
« Deu. 4, 5 is not quite accurate. The passage stands as follows : ' Hear, 0
Israel : the Lord our God is one Lord : and thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
might.' In Mark, the words ' and with all thy mind ' are added.
io Luke 27 The same addition is made on another occasion, the extra words
being there placed last, and quoted by a lawyer. That first command
was comprehensive in the extreme, and Jesus pointed out that there
22 Mat. 39 was another of the same character. ' And a second like unto it is
this (or, And a second is like unto it), Thou shalt love thy neighbour
12 Mark 31 a8 thyself.' Mark : ' The second is this, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.' There was nothing original or novel in this
10 Luke 27 reply of Jesus : those two commands were likewise placed in con
junction by a lawyer, as containing a summary of human duties.
Jesus heartily concurred in that view : when put forth by another,
„ 28 he said, 'Thou hast answered right,' and now he adopts it as his
22 Mat. 40 own, adding, ' On these two commandments hangeth the whole law,
and the prophets.' Instead of that, Mark reports the following
12 Mark 31 words : 'There is no other commandment greater than these.' It
may be safely assumed that, both observations were made by Jesus.
That we have two independent accounts, is evident from the fact
that while Matthew ends at this point Mark proceeds. Jesus and
„ 32, 33 his questioner were at one on the matter. ' And the scribe said unto
him, Of a truth, Master (or, Teacher), thou hast well said that he is
one ; and there is none other but he : and to love him with all the
heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and
to love his neighbour as himself, is much more than all whole burnt
offerings and sacrifices.' The Authorised Version has : ' for there is
one God,' which is now altered to, ' that he is one,' on the authority
of the three oldest MSS., but Tischendorf renders, ' that there is one,'
the literal translation being ' that one is.' After ' understanding '
the Authorised Version has, ' and with all thy soul,' which is now
omitted in accordance with the two oldest MSS. The Revisers have
inserted 'much' before 'more,' which is a reading adopted by
Tischendorf and Tregellcs. The word ' with,' ex, is rendered by
Young ' out of ' and by Tischendorf ' from.' Instead of ' all whole
burnt offerings and sacrifices,' Young and Tischendorf render,
literally, ' all the whole burnt offerings and the sacrifices,' which
gives a definiteness wanting in the Authorised and Revised Versions,
and brings out a contrast between the ceremonial and the moral re
quirements of the law. That was a splendid generalization, bold and
wise, made by this scribe, aud it afforded Jesus a favourable insight
of his character. A mind of that stamp was well fitted to embrace
the whole doctrine of Jesus, and the man stood upon the threshold
12 Mark 34 of God's kingdom. ' And when Jesus saw that he answered dis
creetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of
of God.'

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 321
According to Matthew, the reply of Jesus alluded to the heart,
soul and mind ; according to Mark, to the heart, soul, mind and
strength ; the word ' mind ' not being found in the original com
mand. The scribe spoke of the heart, understanding, and strength.
These divergences are suggestive. Obviously not the bare words of
the original, but the sense of them, was most cared for. In the
course of centuries some words become changed in meaning ; with
the progress of thought shades of difference become noticeable which
at first were overlooked ; and sometimes two words may be required
to convey the full import covered primarily by one word. This may
have been the case with the word ' soul.' Originally the heart and
soul may have been understood to comprehend all the moral and
intellectual faculties, but gradually ' soul ' became applied if not
restricted to ' life,' the latter word standing as its equivalent in the
New Testament. If such was the case, Jewish doctors did well to
introduce the word ' mind,' thereby bringing out the full and proper
sense of the commandment. Jesus himself followed that practice.
In the same spirit the scribe preferred to use the word ' understand
ing,' instead of ' soul ' and ' mind,' that term being inclusive of the
two words. The object aimed at in such emendations was the com
plete and accurate rendering of the original passage. There is the
same need in our own day for verbal additions and amendments,
especially having regard to the translations from Hebrew and Greek
into modern languages. Even with respect to our creeds the necessity
is felt and acknowledged. The words ' hell,' ' quick ' and ' catholic '
carry other meanings than those current in ordinary speech. The
terms ' substance,' ' incomprehensible,' ' begotten,' also need to be
discriminated and explained. The same care is required in the inter
pretation of certain Scriptural expressions. Whoever would expound
them rightly must be at the pains of retranslating or modifying
them. The sense of the word ' church ' is lost or perverted unless it
be rendered ' assembly.' ' Eternal ' and ' everlasting ' are best repre
sented by ' age-during.' ' Hell ' involves a distinction between
'hades' and 'Gehenna.' 'Soul' is often interchangeable with
' life ; ' and the Hebrew expression ' only begotten Son ' carries a
meaning not generally borne in mind. Dr. Robert Young has done
good service in this direction by his literal and idiomatic translation
of the Bible. It would obviate error and promote the truth, if others
would follow his example. The theory about verbal inspiration has
stood in the way. Men have been afraid to touch a Bible-word, and
the mistakes and imperfections of translators have been held as
sacred as the book itself. How different this servile spirit from that
of. the Jews, who grasped the fact that the command to love God
embraced man's whole nature, and who therefore did not scruple to
insert the word ' mind,' or, having done so, to use the word ' under
standing ' as its equivalent. Accuracy of thought is not secured,
but rather endangered, by a rigid adherence to set forms of speech
The recorders of our Lord's sayings seem to have been more careful
to convey his meaning than his precise words, so that often we find
them using different modes of expression, leaving us in doubt which
of them, or whether both, actually fell from the lips of Jesus. There
is an instance of this now before us. Matthew uses the word en
where Mark uses the word ex. The Revisers merely point out this

322 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: {part ii.
difference by a marginal note in Mark, indicating that the proper
translation is ' from,' not ' with,' but Young and Tischendorf retain
throughout the passage in Mark ' from'' or ' out of.' One of the
objects aimed at by Dr. Young in his version, was to avoid such
different renderings of the same original word, and he gives in his
' General.Preface to the New Translation' some striking examples of
' the las renderings of king James' Revisers.' For instance : the
Hebrew word nathan, ' to give,' is rendered by 84 English words and
idioms ; asah, ' to do,' by 74, and so on. The best translation is
that which adheres most closely to the original and varies as little as
possible the rendering of a particular word.
That the love of God enjoined by the commandment is much more
than a mere sentiment, is evident from the expression ' from all thy
heart, and from all thy soul, and from all thy mind, and from all thy
strength.' We are too much accustomed to regard love to God as
simply a mental, spiritual emotion, a feeling of devout veneration and
affection. That is to mistake the foundation for- the building, the
seed for its fruit, the bare ground for the crop which grows upon it.
Love is the active operation of every attribute and power we possess ;
it is the putting forth of all our moral, mental and physical energies
towards and on behalf of the Being we adore. Be it observed also
that the command is not merely, ' Thou shalt love Jehovah,' but
' Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,' bringing out that relationship
between him and us, he our ruler, we his subjects. It is equivalent
to, 'Thou shalt love thy sovereign Lord and King.' Loyal and
submissive, having regard in all things to his supremacy, our faculties
bent to his will, and our activities enlisted in his service : that is the
love we owe to God. The name by which we know him cannot be
dissociated from rulership,. and our allegiance must wait upon his
bidding. Again : the word ' thy ' here denotes, not individualism
but nationality, as is evident from the preface, ' Hear, 0 Israel, the
Lord our God, the Lord is one : and thou shalt love the Lord thy
God.' The intelligence and fortitude of the entire nation were
demanded for the service and praise of that God who had chosen
14 Deu. 2 Israel ' to be a peculiar people unto himself, out of all peoples that
are upon the face of the earth.' This divine command was addressed
to the community, not to each man individually, promulgated to the
people generally, yet not on that account less incumbent on all and
each. The idea of duty restricted to individual obedience or dis
obedience, resulting in mere personal salvation or condemnation, is
too narrow, too selfish, too egotistical. The apostle Paul insisted
14 Rom. 7, 8 upon that truth, asserting that ' none of us liveth to himself, and none
dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord, or
whether we die, we die unto the Lord ; whether we live therefore, or
die, we are the Lord's.' Is not that precisely the same obligation as
was set forth in the words, ' Hear, 0 Israel, the Lord our God, the
Lord is one : and thou shalt love the Lord thy God.' Devotion to
God is not a mere personal concern, and the love he demands of us
jude 3 has no scope for action apart from the grand cause of ' our common
2 Eph. 12 salvation.' Only as a member of ' the commonwealth of Israel ' was
a Jew bound or able to manifest his love to the Lord God of Israel ;
and only as we belong to the true 'Israel,' — the word denoting
' soldier or contender of God,' — can the heart, soul, mind and strength

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 323
, pf any one of us show forth love to our Lord God. The Scriptures
define love as active and willing service : ' This is the love of God, 5. -.John 3
that we keep his commandments : and his commandments are not
grievous.' The love of God is more than morality, just as the love of
our neighbour is more than common justice. Love stands on a
higher platform of obligation than simple obedience and rectitude. It
opens out a fuller, ampler life, a wider sphere of activity. It is one
thing to say, ' All these things have I kept from my youth up ; ' it is
quite another and loftier thing to say, ' The love of God hath been 5 Rom. 5
shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit which was given
unto us.' The former carries us no further than the desponding
question, ' What lack I yet ? ' The latter leads up to the joyous
exclamation, ' The love of Christ constraineth us ; because we thus a a. cor. 14,
judge, that one died for all, therefore all died ; and he died for all, 14
that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto
him who for their sakes died and rose again.' The utterance of love
is not for every lip, the ambition and hope of love are not for every
mind and heart. Love to God is the perfection of manhood, engaged
in the service of humanity. It is ' the first commandment of all,' not
meaning thereby the foremost in point of time, for we attain to it last
of all, but first in rank and perfection, — ' the great and first com
mandment.' It is easy to adopt the cant of religious phraseology, to
talk and sing about our love to God, to persuade ourselves that it
resides in our emotional faculties, and floats heavenwards in ecstasies
of prayer and praise : it is something far more real and substantial ;
it involves the abnegation of self and the world, and devotion to Christ
and the kingdom of heaven ; and only in proportion as we have the
Spirit of Christ can we possess the love of God. Who among us can
lay claim to it ? Not all, certainly ; not many, probably. They are
few who rise to the height of the ' great and first commandment ; '
but there are none of us who cannot, if we will, place our hands upon
the second like unto it, ' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.'
Only through the lower can we hope to reach the higher, ' for he that 4 i- Joim 20
loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he
hath not seen ; ' and when, climbing upwards on the love of man to
the love of God, we have attained to the summit of Christian perfect-
ness, it will be to realise the grand truth that the love of God is the love
of Jesus, and the love of Jesus is the love of man, for ' this command- „ 21
ment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also.'
The Pharisees who had assembled round Jesus showing no further
inclination to question him, he took the opportunity of putting a
question to them. ' Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, 22 Mat. n,^
Jesus asked them a question, saying, What think ye of the Christ ?
whose son is he ? ' There was no hesitation or doubt about their
reply. 'They say unto him, The son of David.' Jesus had been „ 12
often greeted' by that title, which carried with it more than the idea
of mere descent, according to the popular notion. The Jews cherished
the hope of a temporal Messiah, and were ready enough to hail Jesus
as such, and to cry out, ' Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the 11 Mark 10
kingdom of our father David.' The expression ' our father,' not
' his father,' indicates that the terms ' father ' and ' son ' were taken
generally in a broader sense than with us. We use the words
t 2

324 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
'fathers,' 'forefathers' in the same way, but the singular form,
. ' father ' or ' forefather ' is restricted by us to natural kinship.
Those who welcomed Jesus as ' son of David ' must have done so
without any evidence of his pedigree ; they did not wait or care to
trace up his genealogy, before offering him their homage under that
title. .
Taking up the answer of the Pharisees, Jesus enquired how they
would reconcile their conception of the Messiah's sonship to David,
with that lordship of the Christ to which David had acknowledged
22- Mat. 43- himself to be subjected. ' He saith unto them, How then doth
45 David in the Spirit call him, Lord, saying,
The Lord said unto my Lord,
Sit thou on my right hand,
Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet ?
If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son ? '
The ' Psalm of David ' begins in the Revised Version as follows :
no ps. i ' The Lord saith unto my lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.'
A careful reader may observe that the second ' lord ' is without a
capital letter, therein differing from the Authorised Version ; but a
quick and critical eyesight is needed to take note of the fact that the
first ' Lord ' is in somewhat different type, all the letters being small
capitals. A person hearing the verse read could not possibly imagine
these differences existed ; and those who are painstaking enough to
detect them on perusal are left without a clue to their significance:
If one happens to have read the Revisers' lengthy ' Preface,' and to
remember the various explanations therein given, he will understand
the reason and meaning of this capitalisation of the word ' Lord.'
The Revisers explain : ' It has been thought advisable in regard to
the word " Jehovah " to follow the usage of the Authorised Version,
and not to insert it uniformly in place of " Lord " or " God," which
when printed in small capitals represent the words substituted by
Jewish custom for the ineffable Name according to the vowel points
by which it is distinguished. It will be found therefore that in this
respect the Authorised Version has been departed from only in a few
passages, in which the introduction of a proper name seemed to be
required.' That opens our eyes to the fact, doubtless new to most of
us, that the same small capitalisation of the words ' Lord ' and ' God '
has always existed in the Authorised Version. If any ordinary
reader ever observed it, he would find nothing whatever to indicate a
connection with the word ' Jehovah,' for the Dedication to King
James in the Authorised Version, beginning : ' Great and manifold
were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the
Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when
first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us,'
— that Preface enters into no particulars as to the mode and method
of the translation. Now if we turn to the Prayer Book Version of
the Psalms, which is a still older translation, we find no capitalisa
tion of the word ' Lord : ' that was a step, half-hearted and ineffec
tive, taken by King James' translators, not towards absolute accuracy,
but towards an indication that a perfect and proper rendering had
not been attempted either by their predecessors or themselves. And
now, 270 years later, the Revisers frankly tell us that they delibe-

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 325
rately decided to go no further in the direction of a true and literal
rendering. 'It has been thought advisable ' not to render the word
Jehovah as Jehovah, but instead thereof to put another word in
small capitals ; and for this no better reason is assigned than that
others did so before them ! In this passage Dr. Young's version
stands : °
' Jehovah * affirmeth to my Lord :
Sit at my right hand,
Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'
But on this point even Dr. Young has been inconsistent, picking and
choosing for himself, sometimes inserting Jehovah, but generally
replacing that word, after the fashion of the Authorised Version, by-
Lord^ only m larger capitals, without a hint in his preface of what
they signify. Considerations of expediency are out of place in the
work of translating the Scriptures. We do not want to know what
any theologian, or body of theologians, may consider ' advisable ' in
the way of adhering to former errors or imperfections of rendering,
but to have placed before us the nearest possible approach to a literal
translation. That no difficulty stands in the way of a scholar who is
entirely free from the trammels of conventionality, with respect to
the rendering of the word 'Jehovah,' is proved by Samuel Sharpe's
translation of the Scriptures from Van der Hooght's edition of the
Hebrew Bible printed in Amsterdam in 1705. The Preface states :
' The aim of the Translator has been to shew in the Text, by greater
exactness, those peculiarities which others have been content to point
out in Notes and Commentaries.' Accordingly, in Samuel Sharpe's
Version there is no capitalisation of the words ' God ' and ' Lord,' but
a constant use of the name 'Jehovah.' Take this 110th Psalm as an
example. Verse 1. 'Jehovah said to my Lord; 2. Jehovah will
send the sceptre of thy power out of Zioh ; 4. Jehovah hath sworn ; '
but in verse 5 it is ' the Lord,' not ' Jehovah,' removing an obscurity
needlessly introduced to the puzzlement of simple English readers.
Turning page after page of Sharpe's translation, the word ' Jehovah '
meets the eye, so that one can only wonder why it has been so syste
matically kept out by others. The exclusion begins with verse 4 of
the 2nd chapter of Genesis, which Sharpe renders : ' This is the
birth-book of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,
in the day that Jehovah God made the earth and the heavens.' Up
to the end of the 4th chapter the terms 'Jehovah God' and 'Jehovah'
are used, whereas in the 1st chapter the word ' God ' is used through
out. In the 5th chapter ' God ' again recurs, but in the 29th verse
' Jehovah ' is the word used. These distinctions in the original are
by no means unimportant, and whoever would get at the true sense
of these ancient records must resort to versions which bring out their
variations clearly, rather than trust to a Version, however much
'Revised,' which persistently fails to do so. To print always a
wrong word, but in different type, is not equivalent to giving the
correct word. From the observation of the Revisers it appears that
* A careful and esteemed critic, on reading the author's MS., has called
attention to the fact that the 'word " Jehovah" itself is the result of combining
the true consonants with false vowels, and therefore "a mongrel or fantastic
word"— "a mere makeshift." Gesenius's Heb. Gram. tr. by Dr. B. Davies
(Asher& Co.), pp. 52, 230, 356 : cf. Spottiswoode's Variorum Bible, on Ex. iii.
and vi.'

326 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part it.
Jehovah ' stands in place of the ineffable Name,' a ' proper name '
belonging to the Deity. Has the word a definable meaning ? and if
so, does it signify ' Lord ' or ' God ? ' Nuttall's Dictionary gives the
following definition : ' Jehovah. God as related to the Jew (literally,
the self-existent and eternal, from Heb. hayah, to be).' The follow-
3 ex. 14, 15 ing passage in the Revised Version accords with this : ' And God said
unto Moses, I am that I am (Or, I am, because I am, Or, I am who
am, Or, I will be that I will be) : and he said, Thus shalt thou say
unto the children of Israel, I am (Or, I will be, Heb. Ehyeh) hath
sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt
thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord (Heb. Jehovah, from
the same root as Ehyeh), the God of your fathers, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto
you.' There is therefore a relationship between ' I am ' and ' Jehovah '
and the root of the latter word has reference to existence. ' The name
Jehovah is formed from the Hebrew word which signifies to be, in its
various inflections of am or is, was and tvill be.' It would seem,
therefore, that if ' Jehovah ' is translated it must be by some such
equivalent as ' existing,' ' living,' or ' eternal.' To render it_ by
' Lord ' or ' God ' appears to be improper, and sometimes tautological.
The expression 'Lord God' is tantamount to 'God God,' whereas
' Jehovah God ' or ' living God ' is correct in form and sense. This
6 Ex. 2, 3 is borne out by the following passage : ' And God spake unto Moses,
and said unto him, I am Jehovah : and I appeared unto Abraham,
unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty (Heb. El Shaddai), but
by (or, as to) my name Jehovah I was not known (or, made known)
to them.' It is therefore obvious that ' God ' and ' Jehovah ' are not
synonymous terms, and as ' God ' and ' Lord ' are synonymous,
neither of them can properly be used in place of ' Jehovah.' Sharpe's
rendering brings this out clearly : ' And God spake to Moses, and
said to him, I am Jehovah. And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac,
and to Jacob, as El (or, God) Almighty, but by my name Jehovah
was I not known to them.' There "are passages which, as rendered
by Sharpe, indicate a connection in Jewish minds between the word
5 Deu. 20 ' Jehovah ' and the word ' living.' ' If we hear the voice of Jehovah
our God any more, then we shall die. For who is there of all flesh,
that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst
17 i. Sam. 36, of the fire, as We have, and hath lived?' Again: 'Thy servant
37 slew both the lion and the bear. And this uncircumcised Philistine
shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the army of the living
God. David said moreover, Jehovah, who delivered me out of the
paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me
out of the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said to David, Go, and
may Jehovah be with thee.' Many of the Psalms assume a different
complexion when the word ' Jehovah ' is introduced as the proper
name of the Deity, and is not confused with the word ' God ' or
'Lord.' Take as an example Sharpe's version of the following
Psalm.
40 Ps j 'I waited patiently for Jehovah.
s And put into my mouth a new song of praise to our God.
Many will see it, and fear, and will trust in Jehovah.
„ 4 Blessed is the man that maketh Jehovah his trust.
5 Many works hast thou done, 0 Jehovah, my God.
H s I delight to do thy will, 0 my God.

*art h.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 327
w-' l^e n0b closed my liVs> ° JeQOyah» thou knowest. 40 ps. 9
Withhold not, 0 Jehovah, thy tender mercies from me. „ 11
Be pleased, 0 Jehovah, to deliver me ; 13
0 Jehovah, make haste to help me. "
May Jehovah be magnified. 16
But I am poor and needy, yet the Lord thinketh on me. " n.
Tarry not, 0 my God.' "
The translation of Jehovah by ' Lord ' is not confined to the
English version. Luther habitually rendered it in the same way.
For instance : in the 2nd chapter of Genesis Sharpe repeatedly intro
duces ' Jehovah God,' which is rendered by ' Gott der Herr, God the
Lord,' and ' Jehovah ' by itself is represented by ' Herr, Lord.' But
then Luther is consistent, and avoids altogether the word ' Jehovah,'
even in the crucial passage which has been considered, which he
renders as follows : ' Und Gott redete mit Mose, und sprach zu ihm : 6 Ex. 2] s
Ich bin der Herr. Und bin erschienen Abraham, Isaak und Jacob,
dass ich ihr allmachtiger Gott sein wollte ; aber mein Name, Herr,
ist ihnen nicht geoffenbaret worden : ' 'And God spoke with Moses,
and said to him, I am the Lord. And have appeared to Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, that I would be their almighty God ; but my name, »
Lord, was not revealed to them.' Obviously Luther made no attempt
either to disclose the name ' Jehovah,' or to coin a word in place of
it, but arbitrarily adopted as its representative, not as its equivalent,
the word ' Herr,' which conveys the same meaning as ' Lord ' in
English. This imperfection in their own translation was recognised
by King James' Revisers, who called attention to it, and indicated
that there was something beyond the common meaning to be attached
to the word ' Lord ' wherever they caused it to be printed in small
capitals. That is no sufficient guide to the sense of the original, and
the constant use of a wrong word, however distinguished in type, can
only mislead ordinary readers. The marginal notes now thrown in
are important, and a careful student of the Scriptures must needs
feel grateful for them ; but it is much to be regretted that Dr.
Robert Young and our Revisers did not go further in the way of
correction, and that the bent of their minds led them to acquiesce in
the mistake of former translators, and to perpetuate the banishment
of the name ' Jehovah.' wherever possible, from the English Bible.
The ' Appendix ' placed at the end of the Revised Version of the
Old Testament shows that the American Old Testament Revision
Company protested against the omission of the word ' Jehovah.'
Their note to that effect stands foremost, and is as follows : ' Substi
tute the Divine name " Jehovah " wherever it occurs in the Hebrew
text, for "the Lord" and "God" and omit the marg. to " the
Lord " at Gen. ii. 4, and " Heb. Jehovah" from the marg. at Ex. iii. 15,
also substitute " Jehovah " for " the Lord " or " Jah " wherever ^the
latter occurs in the Hebrew text, and retain or insert " Heb. Jah" in
the marg. ; where " Jehovah " immediately follows, viz., in Is. xii. 2,
xxvi. 4, read " Jehovah even Jehovah " and omit " Jehovah " from
the marg.'
The Pharisees were baffled by the question of Jesus, being unable to
attempt any solution of the difficulty he had raised. Their dis
comfiture had a wholesome effect, and deterred all others thenceforth
from interrupting his course of teaching, by pestering him with hard

328 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
22 Mat. 4c questions. ' And no one was able to answer him a word, neither
.. durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.'
Haying failed to elicit an explanation from the Pharisees, Jesus
12 Mark 35- referred the same enquiry to his hearers generally. 'And Jesus
*> answered and said, as he taught in the temple, How say the scribes
that Christ is the son of David ? David himself said in the Holy
Spirit, The Lord said unto my Lord,
Sit thou on my right hand,
Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.
David himself calleth him Lord ; and whence is he his son ? ' Luke's
20 Luke 41- account, also, implies that the question was put to the people. ' And
44 he said unto them, How say they that the Christ is David's son ?
For David himself saith in the book of Psalms,
' The Lord said unto my Lord,
Sit thou on my right hand,
Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.'
David therefore calleth him Lord, and how is he his son ? ' In the
Authorised Version the quotation in Matthew stands, ' Till I make
thine enemies thy footstool,' which is altered by the Revisers to ' Till
I put thine enemies underneath thy feet,' on the authority of the
two oldest MSS. In Mark, the Vatican only out of the three oldest
MSS. has a similar reading ; the Revisers have not adopted it, but
have inserted the note : ' Some ancient authorities read underneath
thy feet' In Mark and Luke the Revisers have altered ' footstool '
to ' footstool of thy feet.' That is a difference of translation, not of
readings, and Sharpe renders it in the same way as the Revisers,
although Young and Tischendorf do not. The tautology of the
expression sufficiently accounts for its not having been rendered
literally. Luther agrees with the Revisers, but the German word for
footstool being ' Schemel,' there is no tautophony between it and
'Fiisse,' 'feet.'
By beginning the words ' Spirit ' and ' Holy Spirit ' with capitals,
the translators have introduced the idea of a divine personality : at
least, that is the sense which ordinary readers would give to words so
distinguished. The Authorised Version renders Matthew, literally,
' in spirit,' uncapitalised, now altered by the Revisers to ' in the
Spirit,' capitalised. Tischendorf agrees with the Authorised Version ;
Sharpe also ; and the latter, in Mark, instead of ' in the Holy Spirit,'
capitalised, has ' in holy spirit,' uncapitalised, a reading which was
adopted by Griesbach and Wordsworth. The introduction of capitals
is obviously uncalled for, not warranted by the original, and
scarcely fair towards English readers, who are accustomed to attach
a certain significance to the use of them.
What would be the proper answer to the question which was left
unanswered ? Jesus did not deny, could not have intended to throw
a doubt upon the fact, that Christ was actually descended from
David. The apostle Paul announced that as an undoubted truth :
' Concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to
l Rom. 3 the flesh ; ' but he instantly went on to the higher truth : ' who was
„ 4 declared (Gr. determined) to be the Son of God with (or, in) power,
according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead ;
even Jesus Christ our Lord.' It was that loftier relationship to which
Jesus called attention, and the existence of which was clearly indicated

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 329
when David himself owned personal allegiance to the Christ. There
was obviously an aspect under which David contemplated the Messiah,
which was incompatible with the ordinary ideas of mere natural
descent and relationship. Writing under a spiritual influence, David
reversed the recognised order of precedence, and spoke of Christ not
as his son but as his lord. The word 'son' was equivalent to
' descendant,' one born in some distant age, and whose orbit of life
and influence could at no point cross that of a long-departed ancestor ;
but the title ' lord ' denotes a ' ruler,' one to whom David would look
up for guidance, and to whose laws he would yield obedience. The
promised son would be no mere follower of the father ; there would
be no repetition of the earthly career of David, no re-establishment
of his kingdom founded upon force and cemented with blood. The
spirit of prophecy had foretold a new order of things, under a new
Lord, who would sit at Jehovah's right hand, 'from henceforth 10 Heb. 13
expecting till his enemies be made the footstool of his feet.' That
attitude of non-interference and simple expectation accords with the
Psalm, with the apostle's interpretation of it, and with the whole
teaching and plan of Jesus.
' Jehovah will send the sceptre of thy power out of Zion ;
Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.'
To rule in the midst of enemies is surely a new development, and
well describes the gospel scheme. Equally significant of the Christian
warfare is the following verse :
' Thy people will be of willing heart in thy day of battle,
On the mountain of holiness
From the womb of the morning was the dew of thy youth.'
How well does that describe the voluntary discipleship demanded by
Jesus, the earnest strife his people wage above and aloof from the
world, so distinct from and high above its level, and the new and
pure doctrine of Jesus, evolved out of the earth like dew by his up
rising as a sun of righteousness. Then comes the verse :
' Jehovah hath sworn, and will not repent,
Thou art a priest for ever of the order of Melchizedek,'
which the same apostle applies to the high priesthood of Jesus. The 5 Heb. 5, a
Psalm throughout is Messianic in forecast and in spirit. The similes
at the close are in the tone and language of the warlike David, but
they Jmust all be interpreted to accord with what precedes. The
divine spirit of prophecy has breathed through human instruments,
and the notes, although they make heavenly music, give evidence of
the imperfection of the medium through which they are conveyed.
This Psalm of David touches upon that ' salvation of souls ' to which
the apostle Peter alluded, and to it his words are applicable : ' Con- 1 i. pet. 10-^
cerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently,
who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you : search
ing what time or what manner of time the spirit of Christ which
was in them did point out, when it testified beforehand the
sufferings of (Gr. unto) Christ, and the glories that should follow
them. To whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto
you, did' they minister these things, which now have been announced
unto you through them that preached the gospel unto you by (Gr. in)
the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven.' To call the attention of
the Pharisees and of the people generally to the prophecy of David,
was the best way of leading them to a conception of the spiritual

330 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
character of the reign of Christ. Their inability to solve the question
was by itself a proof that there were heights and depths relating to
the office and kingdom of the Christ, to which they had not attained,
and which were not included in the popular expectation of a temporal
Messiah. Alford observes : ' From the universally recognized title
of the Messiah as the Son of David, which by His question He elicits
from them, He takes occasion to shew them, who understood this
title in a mere worldly political sense, the difficulty arising from
David's own reverence for this his son : the solution lying in the in
carnate Godhead of the Christ, of which they were ignorant.' That
last sentence narrows down the explanation to one particular theo
logical dogma, about which nothing was known. If that were the
only possible solution, what would have been the use of putting the
question ? A knowledge of the miraculous incarnation of Jesus was
not indispensable to the acknowledgment of him as Son of God. The
import of the title rests not on that foundation only. When Jesus
14 Mat. 33 had calmed the tempest, ' they that were in the boat worshipped him,
27 Mat. 54 saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.' And we read that ' the
centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, when they
saw the earthquake, and the things that were done, feared exceedingly,
saying, Truly this was the Son of God (or, a son of God).' The
expression had a definite meaning altogether independent of the
mystery of the incarnation, which is not once alluded to in the
preaching of the apostles or in the epistles. Paul based the claim of
Jesus to the title, not on his birth but on his resurrection : ' who was
determined the Son of God in power, according to the spirit of
holiness, by the resurrection of the dead,' rendered by Young : ' who
is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of
holiness, by the rising again from the dead.'
On the words, ' David in the Spirit,' in Matthew, and, ' David
himself saith in the Holy Spirit,' in Mark, Alford makes the following
note : ' This is a weighty declaration by our Lord of the inspiration of
the prophetic Scriptures.' The remark is as natural as it is important.
In proportion to our hostility to the theory of inspiration, when
placed upon a wrong basis and carried to an extreme unwarranted
by the Scriptures themselves and which is repugnant to common
sense, must _ be our anxiety to admit the doctrine to the full extent to
which it is justified by the divine revelation and does not offend our
judgment or make unauthorised demands upon our credulity. We
have here the belief of Jesus himself upon the matter, and it accords
i ii. Pet. 21 entirely with the statement of the apostle Peter, that ' men spake
from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.' The whole Bible, from
the first verse of Genesis to the last of Revelation, is a declaration of
divine power and influence exercised on behalf of mankind. That
conviction uprose early in human history, and continued in full force
during thousands of years. That is a fact which cannot be denied,
the historical and prophetic books of the Old and New Testaments
being in themselves a consecutive chain of evidence. We have not to
deal with the primary beliefs of ignorant, uncivilized savages. The
patriarch Abraham was not of that class, and the divine revelations
and promises made to him either were realities, true in substance and
fact, or fables invented by human genius. The same remark applies
to the historical books which relate the deliverance of the Israelites
from Egypt, the giving of the law, the institution of an elahorate

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 331
ritualism, the settlement in Canaan, the commencement of the
monarchical system, the continuous stream of prophecy throughout
the Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all the prophets up to Malachi. It
is easy enough for a solitary thinker to set aside the beliefs, and the
outcome thereof, which have accumulated during past centuries, to
treat them all as idle tales, to transfer the puerilities and unre
liabilities attaching to the creeds of other nations to the history of
the Jewish people, classing them all together, and waving them away
as myths of olden times, unworthy of credence by a scholar of these
enlightened days. The fashion sets that way. The solemn account
of the raising of Lazarus is deemed, forsooth, a freak of the imagina
tion, and the resurrection of Jesus is assumed to have no foundation
in fact. All theories are possible and plausible to the minds which
form them, and all alike must be established or crumble into nothing
ness at the touch of reality and truth. The Jews and their prophets,
Jesus and his apostles, and the first and subsequent believers in
Christianity, were neither fools nor children, but equal in capacity
and power of judgment to the most enlightened scholars of the pre
sent day. The matters which the men of old believed in and placed
on record were within the scope of their personal observation, and if
they had not been true it is impossible to suppose such men would
have accepted them, held fast to them at peril of suffering and death,
and have devoted their lives to the promulgation of the gospel. We
have to choose between two contrary propositions : (1) That God,
the Jehovah of the Jews, has granted a revelation to mankind ; (2)
that no such revelation has been made. As a mere subject of
scientific enquiry, the one is as credible and reasonable as the other.
In support of the second we have the deductions, inferences, conclu
sions, of men who have investigated, more or less fully and carefully,
the records of past times, and who express their opinion to the effect
that the Scriptures of the Jews are worth no more than the sacred
books of other nations, if so much ; that the very idea of a miracle
is offensive to a well-trained mind (the miracles of science always
excepted), that it is a thing incredible that God should raise the dead,
and that the whole human race, Jews and Gentiles alike, have been
left from the first, whatever they may think to the contrary, without
one law for guidance from above, or one spark of inspiration from a
Supreme Intelligence. On the other hand, in favour of the first pro
position, we have a mass of evidence handed down from earliest ages,
carried on through successive generations, forming a consecutive narra
tive, one thread of purpose and design running through the whole. The
mental calibre of the psalmists and prophets is not surpassed by that
of their modern critics, and the mind of Jesus of Nazareth, as revealed
to us through the gospels, apart from other evidence and claims,
towers high above the intellects of those who would have us
appraise him as a mere dreamer of dreams, an enthusiast who over
rated himself and deluded his followers. The words of Jesus and
the writings of the apostles survive them, amply demonstrating their
powers of intelligence and soundness of judgment. It is enough for
us that Jesus endorsed the belief current among his countrymen on
the subject of inspiration. The extent to which that doctrine may
be carried is still an open question. The apostle Peter was of opinion
that the prophets themselves were not able to grasp the nature of

332 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
that salvation to which the Messianic Spirit within them testified,
although they were led to foretell a condition of mingled suffering
and glory which should be realised in some distant future. The
prophetic insight was not in all to the same extent, and it would seem
that the visions of futurity necessarily took the form, character and
words natural to the minds to which they were presented. It is
quite conceivable that clearer and brighter views might be obtained
at one time than at another, by the same individual, and that different
men, speaking by the same Spirit, should realise in varying degrees
the coming destinies of mankind, and describe them after the fashion
of the ideas most prominent and habitual in their own minds. Take,
for instance, the psalm to which Jesus referred. The first four verses
accord with all we know of Messiah's spirit and kingdom, but then
David proceeds to paint a picture in his own colours descriptive of
the justice and triumph of the Christ.
no Ps. 5, 6 ' The Lord at thy right hand
Shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
He shall judge among the nations,
He shall fill the places with dead bodies ;
He shall strike through the head in many countries.'
Taken as pure figures of speech, but in no other way, all this
denotes the ultimate supremacy of the Messiah. The literal sense is
utterly abhorrent to the aims and character of Jesus. In another
Psalm, not of David, we have a clue to the true meaning of these
' desolations ' which God will bring upon the earth.
40 Ps.'s-io ' Come, behold the works of the Lord,
What desolations he hath made in the earth.
He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth ;
He breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder ;
He burnetii the chariots in the fire.
Be still, and know that I am God :
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth.'
Take another Psalm, evidently prophetic.
72 Ps. 5-9 ' They shall fear thee while the sun endureth,
And so long as the moon, throughout all generations.
He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass :
As showers that water the earth.
In his days shall the righteous flourish ;
And abundance of peace, till the moon be no more.
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea,
And from the River unto the ends of the earth.
They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him ;
And his enemies shall lick the dust.'
That last line is out of harmony with the rest, unless we take it in
a figurative sense. The same remark applies to the closing words of
verse 4, which stands as follows :
'He shall judge the poor of the people,
He shall save the children of the needy,
And shall break in pieces the oppressor.'
it i. cor. 32 Paul explained that ' the spirits of the prophets are subject to the
prophets ; ' and when Peter expressed his conviction that the Spirit of
i i. Pet. io- Christ was in those who foretold gospel days, he claimed for them no
12

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 333
greater gift than that which every Christian must possess, for ' if any 8 Rom. 9
man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.' There is no more
justification for the assertion that the Spirit of God in the Old and
New Testament writers conferred infallibility upon them, than there
would be for claiming the same infallibility for all Christians now.
' To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal.' 12 1. cor. 7
The test of true inspiration is profitablness : ' Every scripture inspired 3 ii. Tim. m
of God is also profitable.' Tischendorf, Sharpe and Luther render
that passage in the same way, so that it really carries a meaning
contrary to that deduced from the Authorised Version, which stands
as follows : ' All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable.' To assume that there is nothing in the Bible purely
human ; that every sentence has been framed under divine guidance ;
that mistakes and misapprehensions were eliminated from the minds
of the writers, when they wrote or dictated these records, however
little that may have been the case with them at other moments : that
is a proposition too monstrous and absurd to be upheld in all its
nakedness. Yet the theory of Inspiration, long held and insisted on,
amounts to neither more nor less than that. Let us distinguish
between infallibility and spirituality, and between spirituality and
omniscience. The saying of Jesus that David in the Holy Spirit
called Christ Lord, testifies only to the spiritual insight of David.
To that extent, at least, God had ' sent forth the Spirit of his Son,' 4 Gai. s
into the heart of David, as he does now into our hearts : for ' no man 12 i. cor. s
can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit.' Consider how
unhesitatingly the apostle Paul asserted, not only the existence of a
spiritual influence in believers, but its universality among them, and
its varieties of operation. ' Now there are diversities of gifts, but the » 4~n
same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same
Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who
worketh all things in all. But to each one is given the manifestation
of the Spirit to profit withal. For to one is given through the Spirit
the word of wisdom ; and to another the word of knowledge, accord
ing to the same Spirit : to another faith, in the same Spirit ; and
to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit ; and to another
workings of miracles (or, powers) ; and to another prophecy ; and
to another discernings of spirits : to another divers kinds of tongues ;
and to another the interpretation of tongues : but all these worketh
the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as
he will.' The doctrine of inspiration cannot be rightly grasped
by those who restrict it to the writers of the Old and New
Testaments. That is the fundamental error to be guarded against.
Inspiration has been held to signify, not spirituality, but infallible
accuracy, not the natural, spontaneous outcome of that energy and
intelligence which the Spirit of God has vouchsafed ' to each one
severally, even as he will,' but a kind of religious ventriloquism, as
though the lips of prophets were moved by a supernatural influence
to utter words not of their own choosing. Except in the case of
Balaam, what justification do the Scriptures afford for such an idea ?
The recognition by Jesus of the fact that David and other prophets
spake ' in the Holy Spirit ' must not be assumed to favour whatever
views of inspiration happen to be current among theologians. His
admission of the doctrine must not be confounded with their definition

334 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
of it. Dean Alford, in the Introduction to his ' New Testament for
English Readers ' has defined his belief in inspiration : ' I regard the
Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments to have been given
by inspiration of Almighty God, and in this respect to differ from all
other books in the world. I rest this my belief on the consent of
Christ's Holy Catholic Church, and on evidence furnished by these
books themselves.' That phrase, 'the consent of Christ's Holy
Catholic Church,' is sonorous and solemn, but put into plainer words
it amounts to this : That the belief in inspiration is based upon the
opinions of Christians in general, and that no one in particular is
responsible for it. We are to accept it, because others accepted it
before us. It is held to follow that, inasmuch as the four gospels
have been consented to by the Church, their compilers are to be
assumed to have been inspired, — Mark and Luke, who were not
apostles, equally with Matthew and John who were. The successive
steps of the argument are not disclosed, and consequently no attempt
is made to examine and substantiate them. The ' consent of Christ's
Holy Catholic Church' covers everything, and so, without enquiry
and without scruple, Alford reaches the following conclusion : ' The
two, three, or four, Gospel records of the same event are each of them
separately true : written by men divinely guided into truth, and
relating facts which happened, and as they happened.' This is
another turning-point in the argument, it being taken for granted
that inspiration and historical accuracy are either identical, or that the
former includes the latter, and that inasmuch as the New Testa
ment writers were inspired, they must been supernaturally guided in
the task of compilation, and were enabled unerringly to sift the false
from the true. So we are led on and on, from one assumption to
another, only to find at last that the doctrine of inspiration, which is
founded upon 'the consent of Christ's Holy Catholic Church,' is not
consented to in the same sense by those who hold it, so that Alford
has to argue against the theory of verbal inspiration, and to fall back
upon plenary inspiration, saying, ' If I understand plenary inspiration
rightly, I hold it to the utmost.' He arrives finally, however, at this
Conclusion : ' We must take our views of inspiration, not, as is too
often done, from a priori considerations, but entirely from the evidence
furnished by the Scriptures themselves ; ' with which, it may be added,
the consent of the ' Church ' has nothing to do.
Every attempt to bring the teaching of Jesus into contempt had
failed ignominiously, and his discourses were now attended by
12 Mark 37 crowds of eager listeners. ' And the common people (or, the great
multitude) heard him gladly.' Alford notes that the expression
' common people ' in the Authorised Version is ' literally the great
multitude: Young, Tischendorf and Luther so render it, and Sharpe
and the ' Englishman's Greek New Testament,' ' the great crowd.'
Jesus was addressing his disciples, but what he said to them was
heard by others, and he did not scruple thus publicly to utter a
warning against the scribes, their love of ostentation, their rapacity
20 Luke 45- and hypocrisy. ' And in the hearing of all the people he said unto
47 his disciples, Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long
robes, and love salutations in the market-places, and chief seats in
the synagogues, and chief places at feasts ; which devour widows'

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 335
houses, and for a pretence, make long prayers : these shall receive
greater condemnation.' Mark is to the same effect : ' And in his 12 Mark ss-
teaching he said, Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long 40
robes, and to have salutations in the market-places, and chief seats in
the synagogues, and chief places at feasts : they which devour
widows' houses, and for a pretence make (or, even while for a
pretence they make) long prayers ; these shall receive greater con
demnation.' The Revisers have altered ' damnation ' to ' condemna
tion.' Young renders, 'more notable judgment,' and Tischendorf,
'more abundant judgment.' In these few masterly words and
touches Jesus thus summarised the lives and characters of this class
of men: their love of dress and deference and precedence, always
and everywhere, their grasping avarice, veneered over with sancti
monious observances. There was a world of cant in those days, as in
ours, crying but for exposure, and meriting the contempt of every
honest mind. Vices of that kind deserve, and will receive, a greater
measure of reprobation than open transgressions : ' Some men's sins 5 '¦ Tim- 24
are evident, going before unto judgement : and some men also they
follow after.' A poison disguised as fragrance and permeating the
atmosphere, works more mischief than the open contamination of a
dungheap. Jesus directed the full force of his eloquence, and that
not once or twice only, against the miasma of hypocrisy. This
condemnation of the scribes, related by Mark and Luke, was pre
liminary to a long and vehement discourse recorded by Matthew.
Jesus began by bidding his hearers recognise the judicial position
occupied by the scribes and Pharisees, whose counsels might be
followed safely and in all good conscience. Their teaching by way
of precept was right, but the example of their lives was pernicious.
' Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying, The 23 Mat. 1-3
scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat : all things therefore
whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe : but do not ye after
their works ; for they say, and do not.' Tischendorf renders : ' sat
on Moses' seat ' ; and Young literally : ' On the seat of Moses sat
down the scribes and the Pharisees.' Alford notes : ' The verb
rendered sit must not be pressed too strongly, as conveying blame, —
have seated themselves; it is merely stated here as a matter of fact'
Their teaching was rigid and burdensome in the extreme, but their
own lives were light and frivolous. ' Yea, they bind heavy burdens » 4
and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders ; but
they themselves will not move them with their finger.' The Revisers
note that ' many ancient authorities omit and grievous to be borne.'
It is omitted by Tischendorf and Alford. The reading of the oldest
MS. is, ' great heavy burdens, and lay.' The Authorised Version
has, ' with one of their fingers,' but Young and Tischendorf agree
with the Revisers in rendering, 'with their finger.' Their airy,
fantastic finger- touch, which was all they cared to give, could not
lay hold upon and grapple with the stern and solemn responsibilities
they preached about. Their chosen sphere of action was in duties
and customs which could be exhibited externally, making themselves
conspicuous in the eyes of men. ' But all their works they do for to » 5-7
be seen of men : for they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge
the borders of their garments, and love the chief place at feasts, and
the chief seats in the synagogues, and the salutations in the market-

336 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii
places, and to be called of men, Rabbi.' The two oldest MSS. omit
' of their garments,' which seems to be the reason why the Revisers
italicised those words. The Authorised Version repeats the word
' Rabbi,' now omitted on the same authority. ' Uppermost rooms at
feast ' is now literally translated, ' chief places (couches — Young) at
feasts.' Alford explains : ' Phylacteries, in the Hebrew, Tephillin,
were strips of parchment with certain passages of Scripture, viz.,
Exod. xiii. 11—16 and 1—10 : Deut. xi. 13—21 ; vi. 4—9, written
on them, and worn on the forehead between the eyes, on the left
side next the heart, and on the left arm.' On the title ' Rabbi,'
23 Mat. s Jesus observed : 'But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your
teacher, and all ye are brethren.' The words ' even Christ,' after
' teacher,' are now omitted, not being in the two oldest MSS. The
word rendered ' Master ' in the Authorised Version and ' director ' by
Young, is now replaced by ' teacher,' according to a different reading.
„ 9-12 Jesus continued : ' And call no man your father on the earth : for
one is your Father, which is in heaven (Gr. the heavenly). Neither
be ye called masters, for one is your master, even the Christ. But
he that is greatest (Gr. greater) among you shall be your servant (or,
minister). And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled ;
and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.' Tischendorf
renders ' masters, master,' as ' leaders, leader,' and Young as
'directors, director.' Alford explains that 'call no man your father
on the earth ' is, ' literally, name not any Father of you on earth ' :
the command is to the disciples collectively, not designed to touch
upon personal and family relationships. Jesus strenuously insisted
upon equality among his disciples. The collective title which best
beseems them is ' brethren.' Freedom, absolute and entire, is their
heritage. Much of the evil existing in the world has risen up and
been perpetuated through the spirit of autocracy. Lordship on the
one side, and servility on the other, have made the multitude
obedient slaves to one absolute, imperious will, and have enabled
monarchs and their coadjutors to deluge the world with blood, so
that dynastic and national feuds, with all the accompanying horrors
of war, have come to be regarded as the natural, justifiable, inevitable
condition of humanity on earth. The aim of Jesus, the sum and
substance of his gospel, was to introduce 'peace on earth' ; and his
repeated counsels to his disciples to eradicate from their minds the
very idea of domination and direction by a recognised superior, to
acknowledge no fealty except to one heavenly Father, and to own no
Lord, no teacher, no leader, except Christ himself, — this was the
best, the essential method of bringing to pass his gracious purposes
of blessing to mankind. Let us not fall into the error of assuming
that such exhortations have only a theological aspect and bearing,
and relate simply to liberty of conscience and judgment in matters of
faith and modes of divine worship. The precepts of Jesus touch the
whole life and character. He bound his disciples to transfer their
allegiance from others to himself. Absolute subjection to his rules
of conduct constitutes the only reason and justification of this
immunity from worldly claims and customs. The counsels of Jesus
are for disciples of Jesus ; what he speaks, he speaks to those who
receive the law at his mouth and fashion their lives to his pattern.
Emulations, distinctions, precedences, titles of honour, — these are

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 337
badges of the world's system, and are contrary to the method and
spirit of Jesus. To carry out his intentions, it was, and is, absolutely
necessary that a Christian brotherhood should exist, owning no lord
but the Christ, rejecting the world's maxims, holding aloof from all
strife of law or arms, accumulating no surplus property, estranged
from courtly rank, and allowing among its own members no titles of
superiority or supremacy. The adoption of any lower standard of
discipleship than this, is evidence of departure from the high ideal of
the gospel, and of the blending of the church with the world. Alas !
the very conception of such an organisation is now almost lost
to mankind. No distinction is drawn, or even suggested, between
simple 'believers' and professed 'disciples' of Jesus. The only
difference now is between the clergy and the laity, and that not a
difference between discipleship and non-discipleship, but of profession
and of dress, all else that is lawful to a layman being equally lawful
to a clergyman. There are two conceivable ways of bringing
mankind under the rule of Christ, of establishing the kingdom of
heaven upon earth. The first is, to introduce all into the church of
Christ on easy terms, as a matter of course and of inherent right,
adopting infant baptism, and then endeavouring, by means of
Christian teaching, to persuade all men to live up to the precepts of
Jesus, first toning them down somewhat, as though they were
couched in figurative language which needs to be interpreted and
modified to square with the established customs and recognised tone
of society. That has been the system pursued through many
centuries : the result being that dense masses of the population, in
so-called Christian countries, are sunk in worse than heathen degra
dation, the worship of mammon prevails, and the warlike spirit
among nations is as rampant as in tbe time of the Cassars. The plan
of Jesus is the very opposite of that which has been so long adopted
and perseveringly adhered to. It consists in the enlistment and
organisation of a band of ' disciples,' volunteers in the cause of
Christ, who have pledged themselves not merely to aim at but
actually to live the heavenly life on earth, having their hearts and
their treasure in the heavens, taking all the counsels of Jesus,
without exception or equivocation, as their rule of life, when reviled,
reviling not again, but committing themselves to him who judgeth
righteously, animated by the spirit of Jesus, devoting themselves as
the apostles did, and able to take up the apostle's words : ' We are * t cor. D-13
made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels and to men. We
are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ ; we are weak,
but ye are strong ; ye have glory, but we have dishonour. Even
unto this present hour, we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked,
and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place ; and we toil,
working with our own hands : being reviled, we bless ; being perse
cuted, we endure ; being defamed, we intreat : we are made as the
refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things, even until now.'
Such a body of disciples would teach by example, far more than by
precept, and assemblies of believers watched over, taught and guided
by such men, would imbibe the true spirit of Christianity, so alien
from and antagonistic to that of the world, the flesh and the devil.
thereby solving at a stroke all problems and oppositions of law and
liberty, freedom and servitude, capital and labour, socialism and

338 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
individualism, free trade and protection, peace and war, which now
distract the minds and sever the interests of mankind. Christianity,
rightly viewed, means emancipation from the false and narrow-
teachings, maxims and customs of the world : it aims at neither
more nor less than the regeneration, purification and perfection, —
physical, mental, moral, — of the whole human race. Itisnot a
system of dogmas, a scheme of salvation offered for individual
acceptance or rejection, but the establishment of a heavenly kingdom
under the sway of Jesus.
' In his days shall the righteous flourish ;
And abundance of peace, till the moon be no more.'
There have always been men and women desirous _ of devoting
themselves, their property and lives, unreservedly to Christ ; but they
have been encouraged to forsake the world, to enter monasteries and
nunneries. Such a withdrawal from society, from the ordinary
walks and avocations of life, is incompatible with discipleship to Jesus,
and thwarts its very aim and object. To take vows of poverty, of
celibacy, of obedience to ecclesiastical superiors, is contrary to the
spirit of gospel freedom, and runs counter to the will of Jesus, who
must be the only Rabbi, lord and master to his disciples. They must
be left free to follow the leading of his Spirit. Nonconformity to the
world and conformity to Jesus is the essence of discipleship. Any
institution framed after the pattern of the world, which adopts badges
of distinction, titles of pre-eminence, judicial powers, and claims tbe
right of defining and restricting what is to be believed and preached,
cannot be in unison with the mind of Jesus. He said : ' Be not ye
called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren . . .
Neither be ye called masters : for one is your master — the Christ.'
There must be an absolute reversal of the system prevailing in the
world without : ' He that is greater among you shall be your servant.
And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled ; and whosoever
shall humble himself shall be exalted.' How can the disciples of
Jesus claim freedom from the world's teaching and behests,if they set up
and bow down to a similar domination among themselves ? Christianity
could no more secure immunity from that gradual yet sm-e process of
deterioration which attacks the loftiest ideals and aspirations of
humanity, than could Judaism and the Mosaic dispensation. The
scribes and Pharisees were the leaders aud teachers of religious
thought and practice, yet so far had they declined from the spirit of
the divine law and of the prophets, that they scrupled not to seek the
death of Jesus, and compelled him to aim at the weakening of their
influence by exposing and denouncing the abominations of their
principles and characters. They were the opponents of religious pro
gress, hostile to Messiah's purposes, and doing all they could to
hinder the establishment of his kingdom. ' But woe unto you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites ! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven
against (Gr. before) men : for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer
yc them that are entering in to enter.' The verse which stands next
in the Authorised Version is now omitted. It is not in the two
oldest MSS. Alford says : ' It is wanting in almost all the oldest
authorities. It appears to have been inserted here by the copyists
from Mark xii. 40, or from Luke xx. 47.' The note inserted by the

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 339
Revisers indicates that the position of the verse varies in the copies in
which it stands.
It was no lack of energy which held these men aloof from the
cause of Jesus. They had 'a zeal for God, but not according to 10 Rom. 2
knowledge. They could be enthusiastic in the work of gaining
converts to their own system of faith and practice. ' Woe unto you, 23 Mat. id
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye compass sea and land to
make one proselyte.' Alas ! for those who thus submitted to their
influence : ' And when he is become so, ye make him twofold more a ic
son of hell (Gr. Gehenna) than yourselves.' Of the word ' hell ' the
following explanation is given in ' Helps to the Study of the Bible.'
' Hell is from a root meaning " to hide," so that the original sense is
" the hidden or unseen place " (Skeat). It serves as the translation
of two words, viz. 1 SheSl (Heb.) or Hades (Gr.), the abode of
departed spirits, as in the Apostles' Creed. 2 Gehenna (Heb.) the
Valley of Hinnom, the dark gorge on the west side of Jerusalem,
where was the furnace (Tophet) in which idolaters offered human
sacrifices, and "made their children to pass through the fire to
Moloch ; " and in which persons, convicted of aggravated wilful
murder, were burnt to death ; hence it was synonymous with a place
of torment—" hell-fire " (Mat. v. 22).' That last statement, and the
inference drawn from it, must not be accepted apart from proof.
Where is the evidence that burning criminals to death was a Jewish
custom ? It could not have been in the days of Jesus, for the Jews
said to Pilate, 'It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.' is John 31
Mention is omitted to be made of the fact, stated by others, that the
Gehenna fire was kept burning for the destruction of offal and garbage.
Possibly the dead bodies of certain criminals may have been cast there
to take their chance of putrefaction or cremation, for such a custom
seems to be alluded to in the closing verse of Isaiah : ' And they shall 66 isa. 24
go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed
against me : for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be
quenched ; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.' The idea
of Gehenna in the minds of the hearers of Jesus, must have been
connected with worthlessness, infamy, and corruption, the casting
away and destruction of that which was vile and contaminating. It
would be a frightful perversion of the meaning of Jesus to take his
words, ' ye make him twofold more a son of Gehenna than yourselves,'
as signifying that the scribes and Pharisees and their proselytes
deserved to be and would be burnt to death. A still more hideous,
revolting and absurd sense has been put upon them : that of being
cast alive into fire, ever burning, yet never consumed.
The scribes and Pharisees played fast and loose with conscience,
and had a systematised method of freeing men even from solemn
obligations voluntarily entered into. Certain forms of words had
been devised with that object, and on a former occasion Jesus showed
that the effect of one of them was to abrogate a divine command :
' Ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That where- r Mark 11-13
with thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say,
Given to God ; ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his
mother ; making void the word of God by your tradition : and many
such like things ye do.' Jesus now gives some further instances.
' Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear 23 Mat. is
z 2

340 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
by the temple (or, sanctuary), it is nothing ; but whosoever shall
swear by the gold of the temple (or, sanctuary), he is a debtor (or,
bound by his oath).' Such casuistry was detestable ; and it assumed
the temple to be inferior to the metal which adorned it, which is as
though one should argue that the dress is more than the wearer.
23 Mat. 17 ' Ye fools and blind : for whether is greater, the gold or the temple
(or, sanctuary) that hath sanctified the gold ? ' In the same way,
they annulled an oath by the altar, and ratified an oath by the gift
placed thereon : a fanciful and false distinction, making man's gift
„ is, of more account than God's altar. ' And whosoever shall swear by
19 the altar, it is nothing ; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is
upon it, he is a debtor (or, bound by his oath). Ye blind : for
whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift ? '
In truth, however, iL, was no question about less or greater, and an
honest mind would brush aside such fine-spun theories, devised only
as loopholes of escape for a guilty conscience. The greater includes
„ 20-22 the less, and the less involves the greater. ' He therefore that
sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
And he that sweareth by the temple (or, sanctuary), sweareth by it,
and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that sweareth by the
heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth
thereon.' It was the habit of these men's minds to regard the less more thati
, 23 the greater. ' Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for
ye tithe mint, and anise (or, dill) and cummin, and have left undone
the weightier matters of the law, judgement, and mercy, and faith :
but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other
undone.' Young renders : ' These it behoved you to do, and those
not to neglect.' Tischendorf: 'These ought ye to have done, and
not leave those,' which agrees with Luther's, 'Diess sollte man thun,
und jenes nicht lassen.'
In the Authorised Version the next verse stands : ' Ye blind
guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel,' rendered by
, 21 the Revisers : ' Ye blind guides, which strain out the gnat, and
swallow the camel,' and by Young : ' Blind guides ! who are straining-
out the gnat, but the camel are swallowing.' As the straining out
refers to drinking, so the swallowing would naturally be understood
n Lev. 4 to refer to eating, the Jews being forbidden to eat camel. The use
of the indefinite instead of the definite article in the Authorised
Version has caused the passage to be regarded as a strong hyperbole,
but there is no sufficient reason for assuming an interpretation so far
fetched and exaggerated. The idea of trangression in eating and
23 Mat. 25 drinking being thus laid hold of, it is carried on as follows : 'Woe
unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye cleanse the out
side of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion
and excess.' Tischendorf renders, ' robbery and incontinence ; '
Young : ' rapine and incontinence ; ' Sharpe : ' rapine and injustice,'
the last word being a different reading, adopted by Griesbach and
Wordsworth, ' unrighteousness.' The meaning obviously is, ' full of
that which proceeds from, extortion and excess : ' the livelihood of
these men consisted not in the fruits of honest labour. It was a
grave charge to make against a class, but Jesus accused them
unhesitatingly and openly, asserting now that they devoured widows'

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 341
houses on religious pretexts, and once before : ' Now do ye Pharisees n Luke 39
cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter ; but your inward
part is full of extortion and wickedness.' Not all their punctilously
observed traditions about ' washings of cups, and pots, and brasen 7 Mark 4
vessels,' could purge away the taint of food acquired and eaten in
fraud and dishonour. Only an honest meal could be clean eating.
' Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the 23 Mat. 21;
platter, that the outside thereof may become clean also.'
Outward appearance was everything to them : they themselves
were like polished tombs, conspicuously fair outside and all foul and
corrupt within. 'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! ,, 27
for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beauti
ful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones, and of all unclean
ness.' Jesus did not shrink from applying the simile, which was not
one whit too repulsive to describe their character. ' Even so ye also „ 2s
outwardly appear righteous unto men, but inwardly ye are full of
hypocrisy and iniquity.' Well might they take delight in building
sepulchres and adorning tombs. That was one of their forms of
ostentatious piety, to hold in reverence the names of martyred
prophets, and disclaim participation in the guilt of their murderers.
' Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye build the „ 29, 3
sepulchres of the prophets, and garnish the tombs of the righteous,
and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not
have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' There
was just one truth in that : the acknowledgment that they were sons
of persecutors and prophet-slayers. And it was equally true that
they were engaged now in the same course ; and Jesus, whose life
they sought, challenges them to complete their fathers' deadly work.
He would not yield to them, and there was no outlet from the strife
between them, except the catastrophe from which neither he nor they
would shrink — his death. 'Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that „ 31, 3
ye are sons of them that slew the prophets. Fill ye up then the
measure of your fathers.' It was their very nature and training to
be inimical to the welfare of the community, treacherous, venomous^
and they must be left to work on towards and until their doom of
retribution. ' Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape „ 33
the judgement of hell (Gr. Gehenna) ? ' Three years had passed since
the Baptist applied to this class of men the same simile, ' offspring of 3 Mat. 7
vipers' They were still unchanged; in the opinion of John and
Jesus they were, as a class, beyond hope of change. When such
reh>ious teachers thus speak in the ears of all men, it must be
because the accused have been already tried and found guilty at the
bar of public opinion. The spirit of Pharisaism had infused itsett
into the fountain-head of religious doctrine, poisoning the stream at
its source. No reform could be carried out except in opposition to
their influence and teaching ; it was a question of life or death on
both sides : either the gospel must remain unpreached, the kingdom
of heaven shut up against men, or its opponents must be exposed,
impeached, defied and overcome. The career of Jesus was but the
beginning of the strife, which would be continued in his name by
n,c°n hostile to and ahead of the spirit of the times, as the prophets
were teachers of a wisdom higher than the world scribes of a new
class' apart from those who now stood up side by side with the

342 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
23 Mat. si Pharisees. ' Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise
men, and scribes.' Like their Master they would be appointed to
death, even as malefactors, to infamous punishment before the con
gregations they sought to influence, being hunted from place to
„ 34 place, and finding nowhere rest or peace. ' Some of them shall ye
kill and crucify ; and some of them shall ye scourge in your syna
gogues, and persecute from city to city.' The method of propagating
the gospel on the one hand, and of opposing it on the other, differed
not from that whereby advancing light and truth bad been dissemi
nated and resisted from the earliest times. The first martyr under
r Acts 51, 52 the new dispensation proclaimed that fact : ' Ye stiffnecked and
uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost :
as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets did not your
fathers persecute ? and they killed them which shewed before of the
coming of the Righteous One ; of whom ye have now become
betrayers and murderers.' These outrages upon humanity were all
done in the name of religion, by those who had constituted them
selves, and deemed themselves, spiritual guides and rulers of their
countrymen. Civil magistrates take the lives of murderers and
hardened criminals ; conquerors slaughter all alike who stand in the
way of their ambition ; only theologians singled out for their attack
the upright, the farseeing, those guiltless of aught save the love of
truth and the spirit of enquiry and reform. The shedding of
' righteous blood ' has been the speciality of religionists in all ages ;
the persecutors for conscience' sake can alone be held responsible for
3 Mat. 35 it ; therefore Jesus added : ' That upon you may come all the
righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the
righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, wdiom ye
slew between the sanctuary (shrine — Tischendorf) and the altar.'
The quarrel of Cain against Abel was a theological one, arising out
of their different modes of worshipping Jehovah. It is not known
who Zachariah son of Barachiah was : probably the victim last
murdered in Jerusalem on account of his religious opinions and
teaching. But although a certain class was primarily and chiefly responsible
for the perpetuation of the spirit and the carrying out of the system
of persecution, the responsibility was not confined to them, and its
consequences would fall upon the nation generally. The force of
public opinion, that is, of the majority of their fellow citizens, must
either have been in their favour, or utterly callous to their wrong
i-i Mark 53 doings. The high priest, the chief priests, the elders and the
„ <;t scribes, first laid their hands upon Jesus, ' and they all condemned
io Mark i him to be worthy of (Gr. liable to) death,' and ' delivered him up to
„ n Pilate.' We are told also that ' the chief priests stirred up the
multitude, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.' The
;Acts2s high priest and his council said to the apostles, 'ye . . intend to
bring this man's blood upon us.' Yet Peter charged the people
i .vets i4 generally with participation in the crime : ' But ye denied the Holy
and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto
you, and killed the Prince of life.' The guides and their followers
, 17 were equally blind : ' And now, brethren, I wot that in ignorance ye
did it, as did also your rulers.' Bigotry, ignorance, prejudice
indifference, — they all have a share in national crimes, servino- to

part n.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 343
explain their origin, but they do not extenuate them, neither can the
natural evil consequences of such wrong doing be averted, or confined
to their authors and abettors. Jesus added : ' Verily I say unto you, ¦„ „,( ,,;
All these things shall come upon this generation.' Hosea had ""
prophesied; 'My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge : i h„s. ,;
because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that
thou shalt be no priest to me : seeing thou hast forgotten the law of
thy God, I also will forget thy children.' Things were now fast
coming to that inevitable crisis. The moral tone of the nation was
weakened and perverted under the influence of a false system of
religious teaching. In vain had Jesus sought to stem the flowino-
current of corruption. His efforts had failed of success. In Galilee
and elsewhere he was held in honour, but in the metropolis of Judsea
the influence of the Pharisaic and clerical party was too strong for
him, and the very centre of national life and policy remained under
their guidance and control, its inhabitants generally either indifferent
or hostile to his teaching. ' 0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth 23 Mat. 37
the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her ! how often
would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth
her chickens under her wings, and ye would not ! ' Luke recorded
this apostrophe, but introduced it in another connection, and
apparently out of place. ' 0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the 13 i.uke 31
prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her ! how often would
I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her
own brood under her wings, and ye would not ! ' The simile is
peculiar, — cast in a different mould of thought than that which bears
the world's stamp. Jesus desired to become the Saviour of his
countrymen. How ? Not by inciting them to arms, infusing martial
courage, bidding them stand upon their defence, and, if need be,
resist their foes. He had a plan and purpose of his own, and would
have them rest their confidence entirely upon himself. Had they
done so, listened to his call, received his doctrine, heard his voice
and followed him, as sheep their shepherd to the fold, or as a
helpless brood nestles under the mother's wing, the war-storm would
have passed over, leaving them unharmed. Jesus was no disturber
of the world's peace, and would have brought the peace of heaven to
his followers. The all-conquering Romans might have scorned his
gospel, scoffed at the proclamation of a heavenly kingdom, but they
would not have cared to oppose the Christian doctrine, or to
exterminate its adherents. That was the work of the bigoted Jews,
from whom the heathens had not yet learnt the art of religious
persecution. The gospel of Jesus would have replaced patriotism by
a nobler spirit, have quenched the animosities of creed and race, and
made Jerusalem the source of glory and joy to the whole earth,
instead of a heap of ruins. Jesus continued : ' Behold, your house 23 Mat. 3s
is left unto you desolate.' The Revisers note : ' Some ancient
authorities omit desolate.' It is not in the Vatican MS. In Luke
the Revisers have italicised the word, which is omitted from the
three oldest MSS. There was nothing to be expected for the country
but utter ruin and devastation. Jesus could not stand forth as the
Messiah of the people except in his proper character, nor save them
otherwise than in his own way. False Christs might rise, holding
out delusive hopes, but Jesus must retire from the scene, until

344 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part n.
they were able to recognise the nature of his mission aud hail him as
23 Mat. 39 the divinely-appointed Saviour. ' For I say unto you, Ye shall not
see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the
name of the Lord.'
There is a great similarity between this denunciation of the scribes
and Pharisees in Matthew and that recorded in the 11th chapter of
Luke, but the two discourses appear to have been delivered on
different occasions. That in Lnke was addressed to a Pharisee and
a lawyer (verses 38 and 45), others of their class being probably
present ; that in Matthew was spoken ' to the multitudes and to his
disciples' (verse 1). Jesus had denounced the character and conduct
of these men to their faces, before he launched out this attack upon
them in public.
Samuel Sharpe has thrown a note of sorrowful pathos into the
denunciations of Jesus, by rendering ' Woe unto you,' as ' Alas for
you ! ' That certainly accords with all we know of the mind and
heart of Jesus. The repeated utterances, ' Woe unto you,' are not to
be taken as indicating any personal animosity or desire of inflicting
retributive punishment.
Jesus had seated himself opposite the place where the gifts of the
12 Mark 41 people were deposited. ' And he sat down over against the treasury.'
Alford explains : ' This is usually understood of thirteen chests, which
stood in the court of the women, into which were thrown contribu
tions for the temple, or the tribute (of Matt. xvii. 24). But it is
hardiy likely that they would have been called the treasury, and we
hear of a building by this name in Josephus.' From the position
Jesus occupied, he watched the givers throw in their offerings.
„ 41 Many wealthy people came, and gave liberally : ' and beheld how
the multitude cast money (Gr. brass) into the treasury : and many
that were rich cast in much.' Luke's account indicates that rich
21 Luke i persons chiefly were the givers. 'And he looked up, and saw the
rich men that were casting their gifts into the treasury (Or, And saw
them that were casting their gifts into the treasury, and they were
rich).' But among them there came one poor widow woman, who
i2 iiark 42 put in two coins of the smallest value. ' And there came a (Gr. one)
poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing.'
Sharpe renders literally : ' two Lepta, that is, a quodrantes.' Alford
explains that a mite was the smallest Jewish coin, and its value
about yl-s- of a denarius. As the denarius represented the day wage
of a vineyard labourer, which may be roughly taken as equivalent to
five shillings, the two mites were equivalent to a gift of one penny of
our money. From Mark's account it appears that only 'brass,'
rendered by Young and Sharpe ' copper,' was deposited. Whatever
the reason for that custom, it at all events made the giving of much
needlessly conspicuous, and the giving of a trifle painfully prominent
by comparison. This would naturally deter the poor in general from
giving at all. The Authorised Version has in Mark, ' a certain poor
widow,' which is rendered by Tischendorf as well as by the Revisers
21 Luke 2 marginally, 'one poor widow.' Luke says : ' And he saw a certain
poor widow casting in thither two mites.' From the expressions
' one ' and ' a certain,' it is obvious that not many of that class came
to drop in with the fingers coin which others could throw in by

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 345
Sd ^ J^ qUlf 6ye °f JeSUS °bserved both the P^r and her
gut, and his mind was so impressed thereby that he at once
iTZZ I havP Z1P1^ t0 a?FOa^' that he mi^hfc imPart the les«°n
lie would have them draw from the circumstance. ' And he called 1- M,,i- +¦¦
un to him his disciples,' rendered by Young literally, ' And hav S
he wtbPHhlS dlTleS- 1 BeiDg Pthered r0Und him> *W found tha"t
more £, ^ f P ^ *.? ^ ^ this °ne WOma» had S™*
more than all the rest ' And said unto them, Verily I say unto you,
This poor widow cast in more than all they which are casting into
the treasury. Luke is to the same effect : ' And he said, Of a truth ¦
i say unto you, This poor widow cast in more than they all ' It is
not more than anyone of them:' so that the meaning may be,
more than all of them together.' In either sense, that was an
extraordinary assertion. Jesus proceeded to justify it by explaining
his meaning ' For they all did cast in of their superfluity ; but she 12

21 Luke 3

Mark 44

of her want did cast in all she had, even all her living.' Luke : ' For 21 Luke 4
all these did of their superfluity cast in unto the gifts : but she of
!iei' w"1* rld Cast in a11 the living that she had-' The words
Ti^aa -a ,' glft8'' are now omitted> not being in the two oldest
Mbb. How did Jesus know that this was ' all her living ' ? We
need not assume the exercise of any supernatural prescience on his
part. Alford gives no hint of any such suggestion by commentators.
A11 open, empty purse in the woman's hand may have spoken volumes
to the discerning eye of Jesus. In what sense are we to understand
the statement that the woman gave ' more than they all ' ? Literally,
as a bare matter of fact, that was not the case. Jesus was comparing
the means of the givers, the poverty of the woman with the super
fluity of the others. Her gift, so viewed, was out of all proportion
to theirs. Alford's comment on the word ' more ' is : ' more, in God's
reckoning ; more for her own stewardship of the goods entrusted to
her care.' That is introducing two ideas which are not in the saying
of Jesus. He made no allusion to Divine oversight and approval,
or to responsibility towards God, with respect to giving. The
woman had supplied a splendid example of liberality"; Jesus drew
the attention of the disciples to the generosity of the deed, but not a
word did he add in commendation of it, or of exhortation to do like
wise. He fixed their minds simply and entirely upon the fact, that
the small donation of the woman was ' more ' in his eyes than the
much larger gifts of others. It is not likely that Jesus desired that
people should impoverish themselves to supply funds for religious
purposes, knowing as he did that the money wrould be applied under
the direction of chief priests, Pharisees, scribes and leading men of
the city, who were banded together in active opposition to himself
and the preaching of the kingdom of God. If the money was set
apart for the repair and decoration of the temple, how could he urge
to liberality, knowing well that not one stone should be left upon
another, which should not be thrown down ? If the money went to
the poor, why should the poorest of the poor contribute, thus
bringing about the very destitution sought to be relieved ? Is it
reasonable to suppose that Jesus meant that the rich ought to strip
themselves of all their wealth, leaving themselves penniless like this
poor widow ? Or that because they did not, and she gave her all,
they were condemned, and she approved, in the sight of God and

346 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
Jesus ? Nothing of the kind. Such ideas are not deducible from the
words of Jesus. We shall fall into error, one way or another, if we
attempt to press them beyond the point at which he aimed. Let us
abide by the facts . he saw many rich, giving much, and one poor
widow who gave her all, — a penny ; and he said that her gift was
' more ' than all the others put together. He brings into prominence,
and sets a high value upon a small donation. There had been a
grave fault, in bis eyes, about this collection : it had been confined
to rich men and large gifts, and the poor, with their trifles, had been
conspicuous, to his mind, by their absence. He hailed the coming of
this ' one poor widow ' as a happy augury of that brotherhood of aim
and effort which it was the purpose of his life to establish among
mankind. With loving eyes he watched her in the act of giving,
s ii. cor. 2 and was charmed to witness ' her deep poverty abounding unto the
riches of her liberality.' He rejoiced, as Paul did subsequently over
„ s the Macedonians when he said : ' For according to their power ... yea,
and beyond their power, theg gave of their own accord.' Some may
think that Jesus called up his disciples merely for the purpose of
pointing out the woman and eulogising her generous impulse. It is
more probable that he had au intention of teaching something ; and
if we are to draw a lesson for ourselves from his words, they are most
naturally to be taken as pointing to : (1) The duty of combined
effort, and (2) The value of small donations.
All great enterprises require for their performance, unity of pur
pose in many minds, and the hearty co-operation of a multitude of
willing hearts and hands. The solitary thinker, with whom a great
idea originates, doubtless does more for the world's advancement
than the army of busy workers by whom it is subsequently carried
out. But if the one is the soul of a grand work, the others constitute
its body, and as the body without the soul is dead, so the soul with
out the body is powerless. Any plans for the common welfare call
for the aid of the entire community. That is a general truth ; and
the more clearly it is apprehended and acted upon, the more will
social progress be accelerated. That has come to be recognised, late
indeed in human history, as an article in the creed of advanced
politicians. Democracy means, not merely self-government, but safe
government : without the aid, the check, the combined judgment of
the masses, class rulership degenerates into selfishness and tyranny.
The gospel of Christ is a plan for ameliorating the condition of man
kind, not in one particular direction only, that of theology, but in all
directions. The church of Christ is simply an assembly of his
followers and believers. He came to break down the barriers between
Jew and Gentile, nation and nation, class and class, and to unite the
3 Gai. 2s entire human family in one organic whole. ' There can be neither
Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no
male and female : for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus.' That was
the idea and purpose in the mind of Jesus, as interpreted and realised
by the apostle Paul, who regarded the entire Christian brotherhood
as an instrument, specially designed by God, for the carrying out of
•j njih. io good works. He wrote : ' For we are his workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should
walk in them.' These ' good works ' have been too much restricted
to one or two particular channels : the relief of poverty and sickness,

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 347
and the propagation of the gospel in its theological conception as a
scheme of individual salvation. The combined efforts of the Christian
community should embrace a wider field of action. The depressed,
degraded condition of the masses, is a scandal to our profession of
Christianity. Generation after generation passes, with but small
signs of improvement in that respect ; the giving of money for the
relief of destitution has been a salve to the consciences of the rich,
but has only still further pauperised the poor, and will never lift them
out of the mire. The labouring class, as a whole, has not received,
and still do.es not receive, a fair share of the profits arising out of
labour. To the recognition of this truth, and the solution of the
problems connected with it, the thoughts and aims of Christians
should be directed, rather than to the system of hand-to-mouth
alleviation which can only serve to perpetuate the evil. Alas ! this
work, in which Christians should have been foremost, has been left
to philosophers, socialists, secularists. These men are sufficiently
emancipated from traditional errors of faith and practice to discern
the truth of things about them, and have not shrunk from proclaim
ing existing wrongs and evils, from investigating their proximate
causes, and seeking some method for their remedy. Shall they and
their followers be left to find a solution for themselves ? If so, it will
probably be, ultimately, by force that society will be revolutionised.
Let Christian philanthropists join hands with these men, who have
often more of the spirit of Jesus than they have who denounce and
defame them. The church of Christ should lay its hand to this
plough, and not look back, until it has furrowed out a scheme of co
operation which will ensure to every honest, steady working man and
woman sufficient for the decent upbringing of a family without
recourse to alms in any shape. As workers rise, idlers must sink ;
as the labouring class claims and receives its fair recompense of
reward, the making of huge fortunes will become difficult, if not
impossible. Those who possess them have scarcely reason to be con
gratulated, at least in the judgment of the apostle James, who wrote :
' Go to now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coining 5 James
upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-
eaten. Your gold and silver are rusted ; and their rust shall be for
a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh as fire.' Let us not,
however, misunderstand or misapply those strong words. They were
obviously dictated by a deep sense of wrong and injustice. If they
were a bare denunciation of rich men simply as being rich, as well
might James have denounced the increase of the fields and flocks,
and the fruits hanging upon the trees. The apostle brings grave
charges. He accuses the rich of letting their wealth lie idle. ' Your
riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten.' It is the
' rust ' of their treasures which testifies against the owners. And he
reproaches them further for fraudulently keeping back the wages of
their harvestmen, whilst living delicately on the earth and taking
their pleasure, and for condemning and killing the righteous. With
our full tides of commerce, the rich are not tempted to let their
wealth lie idle : it is used to their profit and that of the community,
either by themselves or those to whom they loan it. But the greed
of profit-making has brought about a sad condition of affairs. Any
shed which will hold machinery is deemed good enough for the work-

348 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
men who tend it. Unlovely and unsanitary surroundings, from the
cradle to the grave, are the lot of millions of our brother toilers.
From the noise and grime of the workshop, they go to so-called
' homes,' squalid, filthy, unhealthy in the extreme. Wages are cut
down to the lowest level of existence, rents are raised to the highest
point, and the poor themselves have come to deem it cause for self-
congratulation if only they can earn enough to keep body and soul
together, utilising the early labours of their children, whom they had
till lately no opportunity of educating. To remedy this state of
things, Christians should join heart to heart and hand to hand.
There are signs of improvement ; but the dawn of hope for the
oppressed, aye ! the defrauded labourers, is as yet faint and flickering,
and may die out altogether, or take many generations before it
gathers light and strength enough to enable the community at large
to recognise the causes of the evil and apply an effectual remedy.
That remedy must come, sooner or later, either through Christianity
or Socialism. The gospel of Jesus is all-sufficient, if only we under
stand and use it rightly. If every Christian employer will face his
responsibility and do his part, adjuring ' the dismal science ' of
political economy, falsely so-called, and worshipping Christ as God,
instead of Mammon, then society will indeed mount the hill of pro
gress, and begin to breathe the free air of that heavenly kingdom
which Jesus came to establish on. the earth. If that is our ideal, we
shall learn to look upon almsgiving, not as a meritorious offering to
God and a benefit to mankind, but as a wretched palliative of the
world's sores and wrongs, needful and acceptable only as a temporary
expedient to supply the lack of that common justice which man owes
to man.
As regards the propagation of the gospel, enormous sums are year
after year collected and spent with that object. Home and foreign
missions are pleaded for with earnest eloquence, and are set on foot
and supported by a multitude of donations. To cast a doubt upon
the value of this work, will seem to many little shoit of profanation,
even blasphemy. But, at the utmost, what the preaching of the
gospel has done for England and for Europe generally, it may be ex
pected, in the course of time, to do for other parts of the world. Is
the tone of so-called Christian society among ourselves, Christ-like or
the reverse ? According to our judgment on that question, will be
our view of the value or worthlessness of missionary enterprises. If
Christianity was intended by its Founder to be the establishment of
the kingdom of heaven upon earth, then we have it not amongst us,
nor can it come until war and mammon-worship shall have become
things of the past. At present they are rampant in the nations which
profess and believe themselves to be more or less christianised ; and
as these evils are promoted and perpetuated by those who hold front
rank in society, and who are the highest exponents of our creed and
practice, they may be taken, ajiart from the prevailing flood of
immorality and injustice, as indexing our true, or false, position as
followers of Jesus of Nazareth. If, however, the salvation of Christ
is deemed a personal and individual rather than social matter, there
is an easy way of escape from the terrible conclusion which otherwise
cannot be gainsaid. And not only is that assumption made, pro
claimed, insisted upon, but it is further urged that Christ offers us

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 349
some mysterious kind of soul-salvation, to take effect hereafter, to
save us in the world to come from the consequences of our earthly mis
doings, and there, not here, to transform his people into his own like
ness. Faith in Jesus as a Saviour is considered all sufficient, even
though it be an instantaneous mental process, to make safe and happy
everlastingly those who have it ; and it is an unquestionable, undoubted
fact that clergyman will and do preach that doctrine to vilest
criminals, and do not shrink from holding out that hope, as the hope
of the gospel, to the most hardened murderer, even when the rope is
already round his neck. It is all with the best intentions, the
highest motives, the most perfect conviction that God's word justifies
the statements made. But the men who thus interpret it are, to say
the least, fallible, and we all know, or have the means of knowing,
that this is but one phase of the erroneous system of doctrinal
teaching which has assumed to itself the name of Christianity. What
good fruit can be expected from the promulgation of such a creed ?
What benefit could have accrued in bygone times from any missionary
enterprise started under the auspices of Torquemada and the Holy
Inquisition ? The only gospel given us to preach is the ' gospel of 4 Mllt- -3
the kingdom;' and until that fundamental truth is recognised, it
will avail little to go about preaching a personal salvation, the chief
benefit of which will be realised hereafter, in the hour of death and
in a day of judgment. Our missions to the heathen world cannot
bear the test of impartial investigation, and the time is come for
applying it. Canon Isaac Taylor has written an article in the
Fortnightly Review of October, 1888, entitled, 'The great missionary
failure.' What results can be shown for the men and money employed
in the work ? Here are some of the curiosities of the Mission
Budget which Canon Taylor has collected. ' Last year in Ceylon
424 agents of the Church Missionary Society spent £11,003 15s. Id.
in making 190 adult converts out of a population of nearly three
millions, but the relapses were more numerous than the converts, as
there was a decrease of 143 in the native Christian adherents. In
China 247 agents of the same society spent £14,875 3s. in making
167 converts out of a population of 382,000,000. In Northern
India (Bengal, Bombay, and the North West Provinces), 715 agents
made 173 converts at a cost of £34,186 2s. 5d.' And many of the
so-called ' converts ' would be dear at any price. Canon Taylor says :
' In the missions to Egypt, Persia, Palestine, and Arabia, where there
are no heathen, the Church Missionary Society employs 119 agents,
and has spent £23,545 4s. Id. in the last two years. The net results
are nil. In Egypt, last year, there were two " inquirers," one a
negro and the other an Egyptian, but the inquiries did not lead to
any further results. In Arabia a sick robber who was doctored by a
missionary promised to abstain from robbing for ten days. In
Palestine, the one Moslem convert of last year, a weak-minded
orphan <nrl who required constant guidance, and for whom the
prayers of all English Christians were invoked, has gone over to
Rome, and is now immured in a nunnery. In the oldest of our
West African possessions all the unrepentant Magdalens of the -chiet
city are professing Christians, and the most notorious one m the
place boasts that she "never missed going to Church on a Communion
Sunday" Three years ago, in a nominally Christian village, a

350 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
quarrel broke out, and not a few were killed. The victors cooked
and ate the bodies of the slain. As a punishment, the native pastor
announced that they were " suspended from Church privileges."
Cannibalism is punished by temporary exclusion from the Holy Com
munion ! ' As an instance of 'squabbles among the missionaries,'
Canon Taylor relates the following : ' Mr. Squires, the local secretary
of the Church Missionary Society in the Bombay Presidency, states
that " one of the greatest hindrances to missionary effort is the
existence of so many Christians who do not belong to any of the
Protestant societies. Strange to say, the existence of so many
Christians is a great hindrance to the spread of Christianity !
Mr. Squires, with his 07 assistants, baptized last year 36 adults and
02 children, at a cost of £9441 7s. Id., and the converts made by
his society, after 66 years of labour, do not amount to 2000 ; while
the devoted Roman priests are converting, educating, and consoling-
thousands upon thousands, at a nominal cost, which comes, not from
any wealthy society, but mainly from the converts themselves. No
wonder Mr. Squires is jealous of his successful rivals.'
Not much money is wanted, or can avail, for the conversion of the
world. How much had the twelve apostles between them ? Abso
lutely nothing : for Jesus insisted upon his disciples going forth
with no money in their purses. The above hint about the Romanists
indicates that the same policy would answer now. Christian men are
the primary requisite, and they must be of the right stamp. It is
not necessary to go back to Buddha or Saint Paul for types of the
ideal missionary. There are, as Canon Taylor points out, plenty of
modern instances. The ' Oxford Brethren ' at Calcutta are one.
The Salvation Army is another : ' Mr. Tucker, their leader, has given
proof of his sincerity by surrendering a lucrative post in the Indian
Civil Service. He heads a barefooted regiment of two hundred
soldiers, who go for life, who give up everything they have, who
receive no payment, but are content with a bare subsistence. They
abstain from the flesh of animals, the slaughter of which is an
abomination to the Hindu ; they touch no alcohol ; their food is a
handful of rice and curry, which they beg from day to day from those
to whom they minister. Like the natives they oil their bodies with
colza oil, they go barefoot, with turbans to protect them from the
sun, and their dress is a few yards of calico, costing about 5s. The
whole maintenance of each missionary does not exceed 2s. a week, or
£5 a year. Like the successful Moravian missionaries in South
Africa or the West Indies their object is to become natives, to live
among the natives exactly as the natives live, simply exhibitin°- a
nobler life and higher aims. They never argue, or discuss doctrines,
or go into the " evidences " of Christianity. They exhibit the ascetic
life which appeals so strongly to the Hindu. They say, " See what
our religion does for us, how happy it makes us, and how it enables
us to despise poverty and conquer the troubles of the world, how it
makes us contented and cheerful and free from sin "... As one of
the greatest missionaries has said, The best preachers are not our
words, but our lives ; and our deaths, if need be, are better preachers
still. We must hold up the spectacle of devoted lives to enable the
people to understand the first elements of the Christian faith.
General Gordon, in one of his last letters, has told us the same hard

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 351
truth. Writing from Khartoum, he says, in his trenchant style :
I here is not the least doubt that there is an immense virgin field
tor an apostle m these countries among the black tribes. But where
will you find an apostle ? A man must give up everything under
stand— everything, everything! No half or three-quarter measures
will do. He must be dead to the world, have no ties of any sort
and long for death when it may please God to take him There are
few, very few, such. And yet what a field ! " '
_ That a Canon of the Church of England should thus boldly recog
nise and expose the shortcomings and deceptiveness of her missionary
system, is a happy augury for the future. The ceaseless cry for
money, money, as the prime requisite for the extension of Chris
tianity, is a degradation of the true ideal of the kingdom of God If
that is to be established, at home or abroad, the energies of believers
must be directed into other and healthier channels. Many a o-00d
cause languishes for lack of the funds which are now expended in
various enterprises assumed to be sacred, but which represent chiefly
the theological conceptions or misconceptions of their founders and
supporters. Societies were established by our forefathers— take the
Religious Tract Society as a conspicuous example— for the purpose of
disseminating their views of the plan of salvation, and of persuading
the readers of their leaflets and books to accept their doctrines, that
they might 'believe and be saved.' All the errors and crudities
existent in the belief of a bygone generation have thus been, figura
tively and literally, stereotyped, and handed down in their original
form to the present day. It was a fundamental and inviolable rule
of the Religious Tract Society to issue no book or tract which did not
disclose the ' plan of salvation,' the mode and means of a sinner's
justification in the sight of God, as interpreted by the founders and
agents of the Society. The widening and ripening of Christian
thought and judgment cannot avail to modify a system of theological
ideas so pertinaciously insisted upon and widely disseminated. Much
of the so-called ' religious ' literature which has been gratuitously
showered upon the masses appears to minds un warped by dogmatic
teaching, in some things foolish and in others revolting. It is thrust
into the hands of those who may be intellectually incapable of think
ing and judging for themselves : some swallow it, as they would a
medicine vouched as beneficial, some openly reject it as a nauseous
compound, the majority take no heed of it. But it is insisted upon
as containing, multum in parvo, the Gospel, the whole Gospel, and
nothing but the Gospel. There has been a deluge of tracts which
are narrow-minded, damnatory, repulsive, which condemn innocent
enjoyment as sinful ' worldliness,' describe ' faith ' as though it were
a magic process instantaneously ' saving ' the vilest, paint ' hell ' in
frightful colours, proclaim abominable doctrines of ' endless torment,'
and yield no higher notion of ' salvation ' than that of being ' reli
gious ' on earth and ' happy for ever ' in heaven. The only limit to
the printing and dissemination of these dogmas is the amount of
money subscribed for the purpose ; as long as people continue to give,
so long will such Societies go on publishing and distributing. It is
time that better and more beneficent uses should be found for
Christian generosity. The giving of money involves responsibility
to the donors as well as to the distributors. Support should be with-

352 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM: [part ii.
held from the religious literature which is put, with the best inten
tions, but often with sad want of judgment and grave perversions of
' the gospel,' into the hands of the young and ignorant.
The claims upon Christian liberality are many, and the calls made
upon it are innumerable. How to bestow alms without producing
ultimate mischief as well as doing apparent present good, is a diffi
cult problem. Probably Hospitals stand foremost, and deserve the
largest amount of support. But it should rather be in maintaining
those in existence than in building new ones. The upper and middle
classes rarely resort to them, and when the working class rises to its
proper level of remuneration and self-dependence, the need for
gratuitous relief in sickness and accident will have passed away.
That condition of things has been brought about with respect to
education : the Board Schools have rendered Voluntary Schools,
supported by private subscriptions, superfluous. Other institutions
need assistance, not permanently, but as being 'good by reason of
the present distress.' Reformatories, Refuges and Charity Organisa
tions come under this category. Efforts on behalf of children deserve
every encouragement, such as Dr. Barnardo's, and Infant and Orphan
Asylums, though as society advances towards perfection they will
cease to be required. Institutions for the Blind, Deaf and Dumb,
Cripples and Idiots, demand sympathy and support. Yet there is no
reason why our combined efforts for good should always take the
form of charity. Probably the utmost amount of benefit to the
labouring poor would be secured by a judicious investment of capital
in Model Dwellings, the funds being provided by a multitude of
small shareholders as well as by those more wealthy. The East End
People's Palace in London marks a new departure : in such a work.
Christians, Socialists, Democrats, Aristocrats, can join hands and
efforts, and the gradual raising of the masses by that and other means
will do more towards the realisation of ' the kingdom of heaven,'
than all the preaching and mission-work in the world.
(2) The full benefit of combined effort cannot, however, be attained
until some plan is devised for gathering in, methodically and con
tinuously, the smallest contributions. Large donations are impera
tively required ; those that are rich must continue to give much, but
the trifles of the multitude, if carefully collected, would probably
amount to much more. This branch of charity is as yet an unfilled
field which would amply repay the labour of cultivation. The sub
scription lists of our most important institutions show sums of two
guineas, one guinea, half a guinea, fewer of five shillings, and fewer
still made up of yet smaller items, which are generally summarised
into one comparatively insignificant total. In the ' Globe ' news
paper of 8 October, 1888, there appeared a short article headed
' Charitable Appeals. Many a mickle maks a niuckle.' The followino-
extracts bear on this subject. ' One of the latest developments of
charity has been towards supplying poor town children with country
holidays. In the pages of daily and weekly papers, and also in the
magazines, there have been numerous appeals for funds for this
object. The chief branch of this Country Holiday charity, which
has its offices in Buckingham Street, Strand, and of which the
Princess of Wales is patroness, has already boarded out over 18,000
children for a fortnight, at a charge of ten shillings a child. The

part ii.] A STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 353
£vflAirTr:M:iSSi0\has1 boarded out 10°0 children; the Rev A
Butu\i^dnng-haSrb0aJded °Ut 400' Miss Edith Wood^A
SSdXwT?^y Td provided a holiday for 300> and «*
Sdtf I W ^nT a?,d num™ other societies or private indi-
flourish Tlfd ? th!iSame dil'ecti0n- Nor does fc^s m°™ment
sent over ^v?7 '' "^ 1S, a 00m™ttee in Glasgow which has
holidav bn, ,f SMtm lnt? the C0Untr^ and Bdfnburgh has a
S tfv ^ ndeil the SH°? °f the PurPle Pentlands, which is
entirely given up to poor children throughout the summer .
Now who supply the funds for all these holidays ? Who are the
people who answer the numerous appeals which are to be seen in
every paper during the summer months ? Doubtless these questions
must have occurred to many who have hesitated to send their mite,
or not thought it worth while to get a postal order for half-a-crown,
though they have recognised the merits of the charity which adver
tised, lake the first 60 letters received in the course of a fortnight
in answer to an appeal which appeared in a magazine.' A cheque tor
£10, another for £4, five postal orders for £1, and 10 shillings by
nine people. ' But it was the small sums which swelled the fund
. . . There were numerous five shilling, half-crown, and shilling
orders, which, added to the cheques, yielded a total of over £50 . . .
It certainly is a point worth remarking, that it is the small sums
which mount up and send thousands "of children away to breezy
commons for healthy holidays. Only £19 out of the first £50
received for the charity in question came in sums over 10s., the
other £31 came in small orders, more especially in half-crowns.
There are plenty of people who would never miss half-a-crown,
would indeed give it gladly were it not for the trouble of procuring
an order and addressing an envelope. It is not meanness, nor want
of sympathy, which keeps many of us from doing what we could ; it
is simply laziness, and an erroneous impression that it is not worth
while to be at the trouble of sending small gifts.'
The facts here disclosed are very interesting and important. They
illustrate the advantage of combined effort, and point to the necessity
of concentration. The ' Country Holiday Charity,' for instance,
might do all the advertising and collection, simply distributing the
subscriptions among the half-dozen other organisation which carry
out the same work. What an immense amount of useless expense
would thereby be saved ! Under the present system, our charities
compete with one another, like rival tradesmen. For the sake of
economy, there should be a system of combination, so that one small
staff might take the place of a multitude of paid officials, one
collector — if any collector should be found necessary — suffice for
several charities, and one advertisement appeal simultaneously for
all. But more important than this, and serving to lead up to this,
would be the establishment of a few General Subscription Funds, one
for each class of donations, ten shillings, five shillings, half a crown,
one shilling, and one penny. These funds, having no specific objects,
would not interfere with any charitable institution : they would
simply advertise for and receive donations, to be apportioned, at the
discretion of the committee, among existing charities. Each of the
five classes, 10s., 5s., 2s. 6d., Is., and Id., might be superintended by
a committee of twelve subscribers, and on the 1st of January or the

354 THE KING AND THE KINGDOM. [part ii.
1st of July in each year, whether Sunday or weekday, at a fixed hour,
and always at the same place, so that no expense of notification would
be requisite, the subscribers might be invited to attend and elect
another committee, comprising at least six new members. That
would be a sufficient safeguard against partiality in the distribution
of the funds, which might otherwise occur. Any persons willing to
serve on the Committee, which would act gratuitously, should send in
their names and addresses in the week preceeding the meeting of
subscribers. Some such plan as that would open out new ground for
charitable effort, and would doubtless result in a plenteous harvest,
sown, reaped and gathered in without any needless expenditure of
time or money. It is a matter of primary importance to avoid waste
in our methods of giving, and also to evoke the personal interest of
the givers. There are indications that the ' Half-crown Fund ' would
be at first the most popular and productive, but the ' Shilling Fund '
and ' Penny Fund ' would afford the poorest an opportunity of
giving, and of controlling their own special Fund, in the same way
as others. Possibly, aye ! probably, the result would show that the
poor had given more than all.

( i

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM
THE GOSPELS.

Ike large Roman figures denote the Chapters. The first column shows the Verse,
the second column the Series or Part, and the third column the Page.

MATTHEW.
I.
III
1
V
VI
VII. IX.
X.
1 i.
46
1 i.
30
4 i
115
4 i.
131
17
i. 148 ! 1
i. 99 ; 11
i. 214
2
46
2
31
5
116
5
132
18
148 1 2
99
12
214
3
46
3
31 1 6
116
6
132
19
148 3
100
13
214
4
46
4
31 7
116
7
132
20
148
4
14
214
5
46
5
32
S
117
8
132
21
149
5
15
216
6
46
6
9
117
9
134
22
149
6
16
216
7
47
7
32
10
119
10
134
23
149
7
17
216
8
47
8
33
11
119
11
134
24
149
8
103
18
216
9
47
9
33
12
119
12
134
25
149
9
103
19
216
10
47
10
33
13
121
13
134
26
150
10
20
216
11
47
11
34
14
122
14
135
27
150
11
104
21
218
12
47
12
in
15
122
15
28
150
12
104
22
218
13
47
13
37
16
122
16
136
29
150
13
104
23
218
14
47
14
38
17
122
17
136
14
104
24
218
15
47
15
38
18
122
18
136
15
25
219
16
47
16
38
19
122
19
137
VTTT
16
105
26
219
17
48
17
39
20
123
20
137
17
106
27
219
18
14
21
123
21
137
1
2
i. 96 96
18
201
28
219
19
14
22
123
22
137
19
201
29
220
20
14
IV
23
125
23
138
345 6789
10 11121314 15161718 19
20212223 24
25
20
201
30
21222324 25
14
24
125
24
138
21
202
31
220
1414 1515
1 i.
2 3
4 5
494949 5050
2526 272829
125125 126126126
25262728 29
138139139139 139
151151151 151
22232425 26
203 204205
206
3233 34
3536
220221221222
6
50
30
126
30
139
27
207'
37
222
II
1 i.
21
789
50 5151
313233
126127127
313233
140140 140
153153153 65
199 6566
192
ii. 82828282
i. 192 192 192
2829 30
207207
207
383940
222222223
2
21
10
52
34
128
34
142
31
207
41
223
3
4
2222
1112
5358
3536
128 128
32 33
208 208
42
224
5678 9
1011 12
13
22 222323 23232324 24
13
14 1516171819
2021
5859 5959 846969 6969
113113 113
373839
4041 42434445
128128
128 128129 129129130
130
VII.
1 i. 143
2 143
3 145
4 145
5 145
6 145
7 14.K
3435 363738 1
208
212 212212212
X. i. 213
1
23
45 6
XI. i. 227 157
14 15
16 17
24 242425
22232425
46 47 48
130 130 131
8
9
10
11
146146 146146
26272829
193194197197
234 5
213
789
10
158
18
25
12
146
30
197
6
213
11
160
19
25
V
VI.
13
147
31
197
7
213
12
160
20
212223
25252525
1 i.
2 3
115 115115
i 1
|23
t. 131131 131
14 1516
147 147 14S
32 3334
198 198198
89
10
214214
13 1415
160 160
160
ii INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPELS.

XI
16

17

18

19 i.

161

20 ii.

87

21

87

22

87

23

87

24

87

25

93

26

93

27

93

28

94

29

94

30

94

XIII.

XII.
. i. 107
! 107

108108 109

9
10 11121314 15 16 17
18 19
20 21 22 ii. 40
23 40

110 110110 111 111 111
111 111 111111

24 2526 27 2829 3031 323334 3536 37 38 39
40 41
42 43 4445 46 i. 191
47 191
48 191
49 191
50 191

4041 41 4142 424343 4545 46 46 46
46 46 474747 4848 49

1 i.
2 345

10 111213 14 1516 1718 19
20 2122 2324 252627 2829 30 31323334 35 3637 38394041 424344 4546 4748 49 50 51525354 55 56 5758

XIV.

166 166 166167 167167168 168168 169169 169170 170 170171 171171173 175175 175175177 177177177 177 177 177178178179180180 180181 181181 183 1S4
184 185 185186 186187 188 188188 190190191
209 209 209 211

10 i.
111213 14 15
16 1718 19
20 212223 24 252627 28 2930 31 323334 3536

226 226227227229 230230 231232231 235 236236 237237 237238 238238 238239239 240241 241

XVI.
1 i.
2 3
4 56 78

XVIII.

XV.

1 i. 280

1011 121314 15 1617 18 19
20 21 22232425 2627 28

299 299299300300 300300300 300 302302255256 256256 256257 258 258259259 259260260 261261 261

XIV.
1 i. 227
2 227

226226226 226226226 226

2 3
4 56 7 8 285
9
10 1112 1314 1516 17 1819
2021 2223 24 252627 28 29 303132 3334 3536 373839

XVII.
1 i. 262

280281285 285 285

286287 287287 287 288288 289289289 289289289290 290 291 291291 293293295 296296 296296 297
298 298

2 3
4 56 789
10 11 121314 15 1617 1819
20 2122 2324 25
26 27

i. 313 315 315316316316316 317317327 327327327 328328 328328 329329 329329329 329329329 329330

XX.
7 ii. 221
8 221

XIX.

9
10 111213141516 1718 19
20 2122 23242526 272829 30
31 3233 34

221 221 221221 221
221 221 222224224224226226 227227228 228228228 229238 238238238 238238

XXI.
40 ii. 286
41

4243 44 45 46

288288 288 289289

XXII.

262262 263263264 264 264267 268268268 268270 270 271271274 274274275 278278 304304 305
306

XVIII. 1 i. 308

308308309 309312 312313

1 ii.
2 3
4 5

9
10111213 14 1516 1718 19
20 2122 2324 2526 2728 29 30

3 3
181181 181 182183 183
184 185 185185
206 206207 210 210212 213213 213213214 216 217217217 219220

XXI.
1 ii. 250

XX.
1 ii. 220

220 221221221 221

2

250

3

251

4

251

5

251

•¦

252

7

254

8

254

9

256

10

260

11

260

12

274

13

274

14

274

15

278

16

278

17

18
260
19
260
20
261
21
262
22
263
23
280
24
281
25
281
26
281
27
282
28
283
29
283
30
283
31
283
32
284
33
284
34
285
35
285
36
285
37
286
38
286
39
286
1 ii
292
2
292
3
292
4
292
5
292
6
292
7
293
8
295
9
295
10
295
11
298
12
298
13
298
14
299
15
305
16
308
17
308
18
308
19
308
20
308
21
308
22
311
23
311
24
311
25
312
26
312
27
312
28
312
29
312
30
312
31
315
32
315
33
318
34
318
35
318
36
319
37
319
38
39
320
40
320
41
323
42
323
43
324
44
324
45
324
46
327
XXIII. 1 ii. 335
2 335
10
335 335335335 336336 336
INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPELS, iii

XXIII.
11
12 13 ii. 338
14

XXIV.
12 iii. i

15 16 171819
2021 22 23
24 25 2627 2829 3031 32 33343536 373839

339339340 340 340340340 340 340 340340341341 341341 341341341 341342 342343258258258

XXIV.
1 iii.
2

10 11

13 14 151617 18 19
2021 22 2324 2526 27 2829 303132 3334 353637 3839404142 434445 464748 49 5051

8
1114 1515 1515 1616
25 262626 262727 27 2829 303030 34 34353535 3636373939 393113939 393939

XXV.
1 iii.
2 34 5

10
11 121314 15 161718 19
20 212223 242526 27 2829 3031 32
33 3435 36373839
40 4142 43
44

4040 40 40 4040 404040 414141 4141 42 42
424243 434444 4444 444444 44444546 48484848 48 49494949 55555560

XXV.
45 iii. 60
46 61

XXVI.
1 iii. 65

XXVI. XXVII. XXVII.

40 iii. 183
41 183

6 ii. 246

246247 247247247247 247

14 iii. 66

151617 1819
202122 2324 2526 272829 3031 32333435 363738 39

66 6681 82848787 87
206 888890 90
92
177 177178178179 179179 180180

42 434445 464748 495051 5253 545556 575859 606162 636465 66 676869 7071 7273 7475

183183 183185 186186186 187187 190191191 192192192197197197198 198198 198199
200200 201 201201 202202203 203203204

XXVII. 1 iii. 205
2 205
3 206
4 206

5 iii.
6 789
1011 1213 14 15161718 19
202122232425 2627 2829 3031 32 333435 36 37 3839
404142 434445 46 4748

206200207 207210 210215 217217218220220 220 220221221221 221222222223 223223 223223 223227 227229229 230 232232 234235235 235236235236 240241 242243

49 iii. 243
50 244

51 5253 54555657 585960
61 6263 646566

245246 246247250250 254 254
255 256256256 256257 257258

XXVIII. 1 iii. 258

101112 1314 151617 1819
20

266266266 273273273 273274 274276 277277 277 277303310 311311317

MARK.

1 i. 43
2 31
3
4 30
5 32
6 31
7 34
89 38 3939494958 60
112112112112

101112 131415 16 17
181920

21 i.

62

41

22 23

62

4243

24

44

25

45

26

63

27

63

28
65
29
65
1
30
65
2
31
3
32
65
4
33
65
5
34
65
6
35
66
7
36
66
8
37
66
9
38
66
10
39
66
11
40
96
12
I. i. 97 97 97 9797
II. i. 99
' 999999
100100
100 101101 101103
11
13 i.
103
14
112
15
103
16
104
17
18
104
19
104
20
105
21
22
23
107
24
107
25
108
26
108
27
109
28
109
III.
1
III.
2
3
4 i.
no
5
110
6
m
7
113
8
113
9
113
10
11
12
13
14
112
15
112
16
17
112
18
19
20 ii
40
21
40
22
[I] ii
40
23
41
24
41
25
26
41
27
42
28
43
29
43
30
43
31
i.
191
32
33
34
191
35
IV.
1
i.
166
2
167
3
167
IV.
4 i. 167
5
168
6
168
7
168
8
168
9
168
10
169
11
169
12
170
13
171
14
173
15
174
16
175
17
176
18
19
20
21
189
22
189
23
190
iv INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPELS.

IV.
24 i. 190
25 190
2627282930313233
343536
3738 39
40
41

180 180
178 178
178184184
191 191
192192
193 195
194

1 i. 195
2 196
3 196
4 196
5

10
11
1213141516171819
2021222324
252627282930
31323334
3536373839
404142 43

196196
197197197197198
198198198199199199199
201201201201201201201202202
202
202202202203204204204204
204204205205205

VI.
1 i. 208
2 208
3 209
4 211

5 i

n. . 211

V
17 i

II. . 288

I
7 i

X. . 263

:
25 i

. 214

6

212 18

288

8

264

26

216

7

213 i 19

288

9

267

27

217

8

214

20

288

10

267

28

217

9

214

21

289

11

268

29

219

10

215

22

289

12

268

30

219

11

215

23

289

13

268

31

220

12

225

24

289

14

270

32

223

13

225

25

290

15

270

33

224

14

227

26

290

16

270

34

224

15

227

27

290

17

270

35

227

16

227

28

291

18

271

36

227

17

226

29

291

19

271

37

227

18

226

30

291

20

272

38

227

19

226

31

291

21

272

39

227

20

226

32

293

22

272

40

227

21

226

33

293

23

272

41

228

22

226

34

294

24

272

42

228

23

226

35

294

25

273

43

228

24

226

36

294

26

274

44

229

25

226

37

294

27

274

45

229

26

226

28

274

46

237

27

226

29
275
47
237
28
226
VIII.
30
278
48
237
29
226
1 i
2 3
45
678!)
295 295
295296
296296296296
298
31
278
49
237
30
227
32
278
50
237
31
228
33
304
51
237
32
228
34
308
52
237
33
228
35
308
34
230
36
308
35
230
37
309
XL
3637
230 230
3839
310311
1 ii
2
. 251
251
38
230
10
298
40
311
3
39
231
11
298
41
311
4
252
4041
42434445
46 47
4849 50
515253545556
231
232
1213
299300
4243444546
47 48
4950 X
1 ii
23
4 5
311
313
5
6
252252
232231235236
237237237237
239239240240240240
1415
16 17
IS19
20
2122
23242526 -•;
28
300300
300301301301
301302302
303303303303255256
313313313
314314
. 3
181
182183183
7
89
10 111213
14 1516
17 18
19
2021
252254256 256
260260260260274274274279279261261
29
256
H
182
22
262
30
258
7
182
23
262
Vll.
31
259
8
182
24
263
1 i.
279
32
259
9
182
25
264
2
279
33
258
10
186
26
273
3
280
34
260
11
186
27
280
4
280
35
260
12
186
28
280
5
280
36
13
206
29
281
6
280
37
14
206
30
281
7
280
38
261
15
206
31
281
8
280
16
207
32
281
9
281
iy
17
210
33
282
10
281
18
210
11
281
1 i.
261
19
212
TTTT
12
2
262
20
213
AJ
13
3
262
21
213
1 ii
284
14
286
4
262
22
2
284
15
286
5
263
23
213
3
285
16
1
6
263
24
214
4
285
XII.
5 ii. 285
6 286
7 286
8 286
9 286288288289305308308
308308311311312312312312
312313315315318
3193193211320
320
320328328328
335335335344
344345345
1011121314
1516171819
2021222324
2526
2728293031
32 33
34 35
363738
39
404142
4344
XIII.
1 iii.
23
4 5
141515161616
25
26 26
282828
28 30
XIII.
29
30 iii. 30
31 34
3233
34353637
343737373738
XIV.
1
iii. 65
2
65
3
ii. 246
4
247
5
247
6
247
7
•247
8
247
9
10
iii. 66
11
66
12
81
13
81
14
82
15
84
16
84
17
84
18
87
19
87
20
87
21
87
22
89
23
91
24
91
25
92
_¦¦
27
28
178
29
179
30
179
31
179
32
180
33
180
34
180
35
ISO
36
181
37
183
38
183
39
183
40
183
41
185
42
186
43
186
44
187
45
187
46
190
47
190
48
192
49
192
50
193
51
193
52
193
53
197
54
197
55
197
56
198
57
198
58
198
59
198
INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPELS, v

60 iii

V.
.198

61

198

62

199

63

200

64

200

65

201

66

201

67

201

68

202

69

202

203

XI
72 iii

V. 203

XV.

1 iii

205

2

215

3

217

4

217

5

218

6

220

7

220

8

220

9

220

XV.
10 iii. 220
11 221

12 13141516
17 1819
2021

221222222 223223223223223227227

X
22 iii

V. .228

23

228

24

230

25

230

211

232

27

234

28

235

29

235

30

235

31

235

32

235

33

240

XV.
34 iii. 241
35 242

243244245 247250
250 253
253 255
255

XI
46 iii

255

47

256

XVI.

liii

.258

2

259

3

265

4

265

5

272

6

273

7

273

8

273

XVI.
9 iii. 271

10

274

11

274

12

277

13

288

14

297

15

318

16

318

17

326

18

327

19

333

20

333

LUKE.

I.

«

III

IV.
V.
V
I.
3
53 i.
10
21 i.
18
17 i.
36
27
i. 61
31
40 i
145
3
54
10
22
18
18
36
28
62
32
41
145
3
55
10
23
18
19
58
29
62
33
i. 104
42
145
4
56
11
24
19
20
58
30
62
34
43
4
57
11
25
19
21
37
31
62
35
44
148
4
58
11
26
19
22
39
32
62
36
105
45
148
4
59
11
27
19
23
46
33
63
37
46
149
4
60
11
28
19
24
46
34
63
38
47
149
4
61
11
29
19
25
46
35
63
39
106
48
149
4
62
11
30
19
26
46
36
49
149
4
63
11
31
19
27
46
37
4
64
11
32
19
28
46
38
65
VI.
4
65
11
33
19
29
46
39
65
vn
4
66
12
34
20
30
46
40
65
1
i. 107
5
67
12
35
20
31
46
41
m
2
107
1 i
151
5
68
13
36
20
32
46
42
66
3
2
151
5
69
13
37
20
33
46
43
66
4
3
151
5
70
13
38
21
34
46
44
66
5
4
151
5
71
13
39
21
35
46
6
109
is
151
6
72
13
40
28
36
46
7
109
6
151
6
73
13
41
28
37
46
V.
8
109
7
152
6
74
13
42
28
38
46
9
110
8
152
6
75
13
43
28
1
i. 67
10
9
153
6
76
13
44
28
2
67
11
111
10
153
6
77
13
45
28
IV
3
67
12
111
11
154
6
78
13
46
28
4
67
13
111
12
154
6
79
13
47
28
1 i.
49
5
68
14
112
13
154
6
80
14
48
29
2
49
6
68
15
112
14
154
7
49
29
3
49
7
68
16
112
15
154
7
50
29
4
49
8
68
17
113
16
154
7
II
51
29
5
51
9
68
18
114
17
154
7
52
30
6
51
10
68
19
114
18
157
7
1 i.
15
7
51
11
68
20
118
19
157
7
2
15
8
52
12
96
21
118
20
157
7
3
15 TTT
9
50
13
97
22
119
21
158
7
4
15 IXI
10
50
14
23
22
158
7
5
15
1 i.
30
11
50
15
98
24
118
23
158
7
6
15
2
30
12
50
16
99
25
118
24
158
9
7
15
3
30
13
53
17
99
26
120
25
159
9
8
16
4
31
14
58
18
99
27
130
26
159
9
9
16
5
31
15
60
19
99
28
130
27
159
9
10
16
6
31
16
60
20
29
28
159
9
11
16
7
32
17
60
21
100
30
129
29
159
9
12
16
8
33
18
60
22
31
130
30
161
9
13
16
9
19
60
23
32
130
31
161
10
14
16
10
33
20
61
24
33
131
32
161
10
15
16
11
33
21
61
25
103
34
131
33
161
10
16
16
12
33
22
61
26
103
35
130
34
161
10
17
17
13
33
23
61
27
103
36
131
35
161
10
18
17
14
33
24
61
28
103
37
143
36
162
10
19
17
15
34
25
61
29
103
38
144
37
162
10
20
18
16
34
26
61
30
104
39
144
38
162
aggSg3§SS^SS^Sfe£SSS^SSggSESg^SISg8SSgS8£S^S5S:SEC55ooo~J<»&*.wts^

to to
o o
en en

toboo o
en rf-

WtCWbOtOWIOtClMHHI-iHHHHHHI-'HHHHHHHI-'
OOOOOOOOCOCDCOCDCOCDCDCOCDCDCOCCCDCOCOCDCOCDCD
WwWbOHHHHCOCOCOCOOOOOM^-^QCIiQOi^tOlOr-'H

cn ot hp>- co to i-

K «

OimaaOiCncncjiC^encnc^cjiCji^^^^hf*^^^^^  ,-»- k - . ^ ._,
S^OCDCX^mcn^CObO^OtOOO^OJCn !pMMH5c0 00^0)Oifr«|OHOtDa<1010i^C0»HO«»S0S0i*-Ml!0HO©»*101»^Ml!5H
MCOCOWCObatObObOtObObOtOtObOtObOtObObOtOtObOtO tO bOtObObObObObDtOtObObObOtObOtObObObOtOtObO to
MNtOMMMHHHMMOHoSc»MSa»^^HHOO^MWW00|O H- OCDCOQ05 0J M tO H HOOON^SH W OlOl rf* CO

itf-COtOf-'OCDOO-qCiOi^CObOl-'

s: M

I—*CO CSCiOSOlCsCsOiCSOiCTi
CD tO I— < I-* I— • I— ' I— ' h- O O O

to to to bo to to to to
ONtOWlOHl- '(—I— ' Ol
O >— 'I— ' O© CO CD CO CO CO

Cn>£-COfcOi--OCOOO,,<IOSC}irf»-CObO*

p s

tObOK- ' >-» I— ' 1— < I— • I— 'I— • I— 'I— ' h- ' H* t— • I— 't— 'I— 'H- '
UiCrt>^^^^^^^^^>f*^^^^^^C0C0^^^^^^1^^^^^^^^-'J
CDCD©OCftO<Cni^^^tO|OiOtOO©COCooOCOOOWOOCO<l^<I^CbQa)05C)i

to totobo bo
a-jtotobotobO-J-^
*.rf>-bOtOtO^->— bO)—

-OCDCO-^OsCTi^COtOI-'

p.

3

fflC^ffiCSffiQffiQC0C5Qffiffiiffi01©C^CSCi5OJO5C>WOiUitnCJ\OtCJiC^OiC cno^Osaso^03Cncncncncn^^tf^^oococ»cocototocDcDCoc»coM

C5 Cn ff^ CO to i-1

g

<!

a

NIS
oCIo lao Itea o

tototobotototctobototototoi-

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPELS, vii

XVIII.

7 ii.
89
1011 1213 14 1516 1718 1920
21 22 2324 25 2627 2829 30 3132 33 343536 3738 3940
41 42 43

XIX.

202202 203 204 204 204 204 204206 206206211 211 212 213213 213213 214216217 217219 224224 224224 230 235 235 235235 : 45
236 I 46
236 i 47
236 ' 48
236

13 ii.
14 1516 1718 19
20 21 22 23242526 27 28 29 30 3132 333435 36 3738 39
40 4142 4344

242 242243 243243 243 243243 243244 244 244244 244245250 251 251 251 252252
252 252 254256 256 257257 257257257 257 274 274279279

XX.
14 ii. 286
15 286

16
17 18192021 22 2824 2526 27 2829 30 3132 3334 35 3637 383940 4142 43 44 454647

286287287 289 305308 308 308 308308311 311311 312312 312 312312 313 313313 315 315318 318328 328 328328 334334 334

XXI.
16 iii.
17 18192021 2223 24 252627 2829 30 31 32 3334 3536 37 38

14 1516 1616
28 2828 3030 3030 34 36 363765 65

XXII.
27 iii. 126
28 126

XXII.
1 iii. 65

XIX.
1 ii. 240
2 240

XX.
1 ii. 280
2 280

345 67 89
10 1112

240210 240241 241 241241241 242242

34 56 78 9
101112 13

281281 281281282 282284285 285285286

XXI.
1 ii. 344
2 344
3 345
4 345
5 iii. 1
6 2
7 2
8 35 5 577
1212

9
1011 121314 15

234 5i; 789
10 H
12 1314 151617 18192i,2122 2324 25 26

6666 666666 81 818181 8284 848484 8485 85 8991
124124124 126 126126

29 3031 3233 34 3536 37 383940 4142 43444546 474849 505152 53 5455 5657 58 5960 616263 6465 666768 69 7071

XXIII.

126126127 128128 128130130 132 133179179 180180 184184 185 185
186 187 190190 192192 192193 197
202 202203 203 203204 201201201 197199 199199 199
200

XXIII. 1 iii. 205
2 215
3 215

4 iii.
5

9
10 1112 13 14 15161718 1920 21
22 23 2425 2627 2829 3031 3233 343536 3738 39
40 41
42 43 444546 4748 49 5051525354 5556

XXIV.

218 218218218218 219219 219219219 219 219219 222222 222 222 222
222 223 223 227228 228 228228228 228 229230235236 236 232236 236236 236239 241245 244248249 249254 254
254 255256256 256

liii.
2 3
4 56 7

10 11 1213 1415 16 17 18 19202122 2324
25 2627 28 29 3031 32 333435 36 ::738394041 4243 444546 4748 49 50 515253

259 266 273273 273 273273 273273 274275 275277 277277277 278 278278 278278278 278279 279279279 282 282282 284 288 288 288288289 289 289 289289290

301 301301301 302 302303303303303

JOHN.

1 i.
2 3
4 5
67 89
10
11 12

1
22 2 O
13
13 13
13
4040 40

I.
13 i. 41
14 41

15
16 171819
2021 222324

4242
42 43 34343434 34 34

I.
25 i.

34

26

34

27

34

28

37

29

37

30

37

31

37

32

39

33

39

34

39

35

43

36

43

I.

37383940
41 42 4344454647 48

43 43434444 44
44 44 44
45 4545

454646

II.
1 i.
2 34

II.
5 i. 55
6 56
7 56
8 56
9 56
10 56
11 57
12 58

13 ii. 274
14 274
15 274
16 274

II.
17 ii. 276
18 276
19202122 232425

276276276 276279 279280

gg£88£gS8^O?S££8£§5£5£SE£GP©»W-4 0>O..*.»bO~

^^rorororomSSS»SiS*:*:?:*:^^*'i^05 0ocowooo:>ocbOtobo

f^eneneoeo^eocDCDc^cDCDCOCDCDCOCDCDcDCOCOCOCOOOOOOOCOCOCoCOC^

£gS£gg£^&£&S2ScD&:$C^

r- <4

-• <

bObObOWbO to
en en en en en en
tfk. rfi tfx rfa. rfi. co

Sb2£gcoS^&&&coto£o-S£3^
M CDOOOOCDCCCOCOCDCOCOCOCOCO MM^^^^o^c^G^oacftCaOacnc>otCnc^^^^^^^^coco

to to to bO to t
en en en en en c
en en en en rf>- H

(-•ocoQo-^ascn^coboi— '

COCMMCOCMCOCOCWCOCOCOCOCOCOCObObStObObObDbObObObOt^mmmen^cowco^ooooooODOoc»^^^^^^Cft

=: X

»CObOh- 'OCDOO-^ClCntp-CObO

,_J|— 'I— j|_ . ,_ ¦h-'l— '?-'I— '1— 'I— 'I— ' H- ' H- Hh- ' i— '•— 'I— • I— ' >— 'I— 'OOOOOOOO
^^COCOCOCOCOtObOtOtOtObDb3bO^^I^^'J^^C71OTCrjO^O^enenCn

a: M

3§§!SSSSgSS^§&!fcSfefcfe§S^gg^tSSSgSo?^o?8SwSSg5S^SSK55Po .ooo-ao. cn^wbo^

p: X

I Noo
aa s S3os

to to
en as

INDEX TO QUOTATIONS FROM THE GOSPELS, ix

XII.
3 ii. 246247 247 247247247 250250250 254255255255 255255 255257

456 789
1011 1213 14151617 18
19

XIII.
3 iii. 117
4 117

20 iii. 67
21 67

22 2324 25 262728 29
30 313233
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 4142 4344
45 46 17
48 49
50

676767 686869 7070717273 73
73 7475757575757676 77777777 77787878

XIII.
1 iii. 117
2 117

1011121314 1516171819
20 212223 2425 26 272829 3031 32
3334 3536 37

117 118 118118118 118119 119119119119119120 122123 124
124 124 124124124 125125125 125125125 126
128 128129129129 129

XIV.
1 iii. 133
2 133

9
1011121314

134 134
135135135135135 136136
136 137138

XI
15 iii

V. 138

16

139

17

140

18

141

19

142

20

142

21

142

22

142

23

142

24

142

25

142

26

143

27

144

28

144

29

145

30

115

31

146

XVI.
3 iii. 155

XV.
1 iii. 148
2 34

«7 8
9
10 1112131415 16 171819
2021222324252627

148
1481-18148 118 149149149119 150150151151 151
151 151152153 153
153153153 153
154
154154

9
1011 1213141516 17 1819
202122 2324

156 157
157 157157 158158 158160161 161 161162162162 162 162163163163 163164165165 166
169 169169169 170

XVII.
19 iii. 176
20 176 I

XIX.
1 iii. 224

176 176177177177177

XVIII. 1 iii. 179
2 179

XVII.
1 iii. 170

XVI.
1 iii. 155
2 155

171 172173173173173174174174 175
175 175175175176
176176

3456 789
101112 1314 1516171819
20 21222324 25 2627
28 29303132333435
36 37
38 39
40

186187187188 190
190
190 191 191193194194 194194194 195195195195 195196196
202 203203
205215215 215215216216
216216216 217
220222

2 345 6
7 8 9
10 1112 13 1415 1617 18 19
2021222324 2526 27282930 31
32 3334 35 36
3738 39
404142

224224 224 224224224 224
224 225225 225 226 226227227 227229 232233233 234 230
230 240240240242 243
244250 250250250 251253
253254 255255256256

XX.
8 iii. 267
9 268

XX.
1 iii. 259
2 266

267
267 267
267 267

10 11
12 131415 161718192021 2223 2425 262728 29 3031

268268268 268 268 269269269 274290290 291291 291295 295295 296
296 296298 298

XXI.
1 iii. 304

2
3 4 5 6 7
8
9
10 11121314 15
16 1718
19
20212223
2425

304304 304304304304 305305305305 305305305305
307307 307308
308 308308308
309310

( x )

INDEX TO VAEIOUS SUBJECTS.

Age-during, I. 89, 251, 313; II. 15,
31, 122, 128, 212, 273 ; III. 172
Almsgiving, II. 344 — 354
Angels, I. 8, 183, 264, 315 ; II. 313 ;
III. 50—55
Apostles, I. 112, 216
Arnold, Matthew, II. 110, 119, 135
Articles of Eeligion, II. 58
Athanasian Creed, I. 155, 221; III.
167
Baptism, I. 32, 273, 322 ; II. 18, 207 ;
III. 313—315
Blasphemy, II. 43 ; III. 249
Church, I. 187, 257, 316—327; II.
230
Coming, III. 32, 33, 36, 47
Common Tradition, I. 106, 114, 167,
172, 241, 277, 301 ; II. 282, 289
Confirmation, II. 208
Demons, I. 63, 182, 200, 273 ; II. 49,
90
Disciples, I. 121, 129, 260 ; II. 62, 83,
117, 156, 167—172, 176, 179, 215, 231.
271, 296, 307; II. 311, 336—338 ; III.
6, 7, 49, 56—64, 68, 121, 150, 300,
312, 317, 321—326
Emulation, II. 205
Faith, I. 203, 207, 211, 274; II. 195
Fasting, I. 105
Forgiveness, I. 100—102, 134, 135,
163, 328—330; II. 44, 264; III.
292  294
Gehenna, I. 220, 313 ; II. 339
Glory, III. 280
God, I. 75, 155, 156 ; II. 316
Hell. See Gehenna.
Holy, I. 8, 40 ; II. 91
Holy Spirit, II. 8, 12, 91, 140, 328,
330 ; III. 13, 141, 143, 291
In my name, I. 310, 327 ; III. 4, 163,
313
Inspiration, I., 3, 12, 53, 56, 78, 232,
237, 281, 308 ; II. 240, 321, 330—334

Jehovah, II. 324—327
Jews, II. 3, 106—111, 250, 278
Last day, 1.247,251; II. 127
Lord's Prayer, III. 78
Lord's Supper, I. 225, 252 ; III. 84—
116
Miracles, I. 56—58, 193—195, 233, 239,
274, 297, 306; II. 236, 261; III.
298, 326
Mother of Jesus, I. 17, 209; II. 1, 50
Only-hegotten, I. 42 ; II. 17
Parables, II. 160—162 ; III. 42
Political Economy, II. 65 — 72
Politics, III. 257
Prayer, I. 133 ; H. 55, 137—139, 263
III. 17—25
Preaching, II. 37, 56, 101, 348—352
Prophecies, I. 26, 66
Repentance, III. 302
Eesurrection, I. 91 ; II. 127, 133, 151,
191, 277, 312—318 ; III. 8—10, 247
Revisers, I. 35
Righteousness, II. 300—305 ; III. 159
Sabbath, TIL 261—265
Salvation, I. 174; II. 145, 223; III.
11, 58, 182, 254, 295, 319—326
Salvation Army, II. 256 ; III. 315
Scripture-reading, II. 34
Son of God, 1.40, 246, 255; II. 330;
III. 249
Son of man, I. 101, 109, 120, 161, 218,
255 ; II. 64
Spirit, III. 140
Spiritual body, III. 285
Temptation, I. 49
Tongues, III. 327—332
Trinity, III. 167
Vengeance, II. 202
"War, II. 272, 298, 305
"Word, I. 1, 42
World, III. 3
Yoke, II. 94—96

( xL )

INDEX TO MIRACLES.

PAGE

PAGE

aling of demoniac

I. 63

Healing of ten lepers
„ two blind men .

II. 198

,, Simon's mother-in-

230

law

65

„ Malchus' ear.

III. 192

,, nobleman's son

82

Casting out of dumb and deaf

,, infirm man
84
spirit .
1.273
,, leper
,, palsied man
96
,, ,, demons into
99
swine
198
, , withered hand
109
Raising of widow's son
154
„ centurion's servant
151
„ Lazarus .
II. 125
, , demoniac
196
Turning water into wine
1.55
,, Jairus' daughter
201
Draught of fishes .
68
, , a woman
201
. . . .
III. 304
,. two blind men
206
Multiplication of loaves and
,, a Gentile woman's
fishes
1.229
daughter . .
289
n >» u
295
,, deaf, stutteringman
293
The fish and the stater
306
„ blind man .
303
Stilling of the storm .
193
„ deformed woman
11.78
"Walking on the sea
237
man bom blind
102
Cursing of the fig-tree
II. 260
,, man with dropsy ,
147
( =i )

INDEX TO PARABLES.

Marriage and fasting
Old and new cloth
"Wine and bottles .
Old and new wine
City on a hill .
Blind guides of the blind
Good and bad trees .
,, „ treasure
"Wise and foolish builders
Two debtors
The sower and the seed .
Good and bad seed
Mustard seed .
LeavenGrowing seed .
Hidden treasure .
Merchant seeking pearls .
Drag-net .
Lamp under a bushel
Householder and his treasures
Shepherdless sheep.
Harvest and labourers
Children and dogs .
Leaven of Pharisees aud llerud
Lost sheep
Two debtors
Divided kingdom, city or house
The lighted lamp
The rich fool .
Servants watching
Unwatchful householder
The faithful steward .
The unfaithful servant
Cloud and wind .
The slaughtered Galih'.ms
The tower in Siloam .
The barren fig tree .
The dead .
The ploughman
Harvest labourers

PAGE

I. 104

The wounded traveller .

105

Door, shepherd, sheep, thieves,

106

and robbers .

106

Shepherd and hireling

122

The friends and the traveller .

144

The narrow door

148

Seekers of chief seat* .

148

The great supper .

149

The builder of a tower

162

The king going to war

167

Savourless salt

177

178

The lost sheep .

179

,, „ coin

180

The father and his sons .

185

The rich man and his steward

186

„ ,, Lazarus

187

The servant and his master

122, 189

The unjust judge .

190

The Pharisee and the publican

212

The camel and the needle's eye

212

The householder and the

290

labourers

300

The cup and the baptism

316

The nobleman and his king

328

dom

11.41

The withered tig-tree

51

The two sons

61

The vineyard and tlie hus

62

bandmen.

64

The royal marriage

65

Gnat and camel .

70

The budding trees

74

The wratchman

75

The ten virgins

76

The talents

77

The sheep and tlie goats .

82

Vine, husbandman and

83

brandies

84

The green tree and the dry .

PAGE
11.98 lit 116
138143 148 153
155
156
I. 121
II. 157
II. 158158 162
172186 197
201205
214 220
227
242 260283284292
340
III. 30
37
40 4248
148228

BRADBURY AGNEW, & CO. LD., PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS