The Evangelist is inspired to introduce these accounts of two, Sabbaths here. Very probably also they took place at this point of time. If so, it is because the moral object of the Spirit in Luke coincided here with the historical order. This we may infer from a comparison with the order of Mark, who, as a rule, cleaves to the sequence of events. In Matthew, on the contrary, these facts are reserved for a much later point of his Gospel (ch. 12). A vast compass both discourses and miracles is introduced by him before he speaks of these two Sabbath days. And the reason is manifest. Matthew here, as often, departs from the order of occurrence in order to show the long-continued and ample testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus, before he makes use of these incidents on the Sabbath, which even the Jews themselves felt to slight their sabbatical practice, and threatened the legal covenant. Ezekiel speaks of the Sabbath as a sign between Jehovah and Israel (ch. 20:12, 20). And now this was about to vanish away. Hence these actions on the Sabbath day are extremely significant. They occur in Matthew, in the chapter where our Lord announces the unforgivable sin of that generation, as also at the close He disowns His natural ties, and speaks of the formation of a new and spiritual relationship, founded on doing the will of His Father in heaven. Then forthwith, in the next chapter, He shows the kingdom of heaven and its course, which was about to be introduced because of the utter apostasy of Israel and the consequent rupture of that economy.
In Mark and Luke this is not the immediate object. They are given, it would appear, as they occurred, and Mark had to tell. Still, it is evident that their mention here falls in with Luke’s design remarkably. He takes notice, we saw in the last chapter, of the working of Divine grace, which calls not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Nor will the new things of Christ, the Second Man, mix with the old things. Yet man’s preference is undisguised for the old because it suits his habits and self-importance. Grace exalts God, and must be paramount.
In this chapter we are told, “It came to pass” that not on the second Sabbath after the first, but “on the second-first Sabbath” — a very peculiar phrase, which has perplexed the commentators and critics immensely. It is found in no place or author but here. The only thing which really explains it seems to be a reference to Jewish customs and their feasts.
On one of these occasions (Lev. 23:10-1210Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: 11And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. 12And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the Lord. (Leviticus 23:10‑12)) the first cut sheaf of corn was waved before God. The disciples were now going through the cornfields. Thus the connection was evident. It was the earliest Sabbath after the first-fruits had been offered. This adds to the striking character of the instruction. The Passover took place immediately before; as we know: the paschal lamb was killed on the fourteenth of Nisan between the evenings. Then followed the great Sabbath immediately, and on the day after, the first sheaf of corn was waved before the Lord. It was the type of Christ’s resurrection. The corn of wheat had fallen into the ground and died, but was now risen again. As the killing of the Iamb was the type of His death, so was this wave sheaf of His resurrection. From the day on which it was offered, seven weeks were counted complete (of course with their Sabbaths), and then came the next great feast, or that of weeks. The first of these Sabbaths in the seven weeks, counted from the day of the wave sheaf, was not the great paschal Sabbath, but it followed next in succession. The Sabbath that opened the feast of unleavened bread after the Passover was the first, and the following Sabbath day was “the second-first.” It was “second” in relation to that great day, the paschal. Sabbath, but “first” of the seven which immediately ensued. Thus it was the first Sabbath-day after the wave sheaf; and no “Israelite indeed” could have counted it lawful to have eaten of corn till after Jehovah had received His portion.136a
On that Sabbath, then, the disciples, in passing through the cornfields, “were plucking the ears of corn, and eating [them], rubbing them in their hands.” This was always allowed, and is still, in Eastern countries round the Holy Land — no doubt a remaining trace of the old traditional habit of the Jews. It is allowed as an act of charity to the hungry. What a condition for the followers of the Lord Jesus to be in What a proof of His shame and of their need!
But nothing moved the Pharisees: religious bitterness steels the natural heart. “But some of the Pharisees said to them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath”137 The Lord answered instead of the disciples, “Have ye not read so much as this, what David did when he hungered, he and those who were with him; how he went into the house of God, and took the shewbread, and ate and gave to them also who were with him; which it is not lawful that [any] eat unless the priests alone?” The Spirit of God here takes up only David — not the priests of whom also Matthew treats, which was very suitable. He, writing for Jews, would use a proof of the folly of their objection which was before their eyes every day. But Luke refers to the moral analogy in the history of the great king David, who, after his anointing, and before coming to the throne (which was just the Lord’s position now), was educed to such excessive straits that the holy bread was made profane for his sake. God, as it were, refused to hold to ritual where the anointed king and his followers were destitute of the barest necessaries of life. For what did it imply? The depth of evil that ruled the nation. How could God sanction holy bread in such a condition? How could He accept of the shewbread of the people as the food of His priests, when all the foundations were clearly out of course? Was not this evident in the hunger of His anointed and of His trusty band? Was not the rejected Son of David as free as the rejected David?
The Lord closes this part of the subject with the declaration that “the Son of man is Lord of the, sabbath also.” Thus there is another reason yet more powerful. David was not the Son of man as Jesus was. The Son of plan had, in in His own person and position, rights altogether superior to any ritual. He was entitled to abrogate it. He would do so formally in due time; for this attached to His personal glory. “The Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also,” which David was not.
Nor is this all. The Lord Jesus on another Sabbath enters the synagogue and teaches, where “there was a man whose right140 hand was withered.” And now the scribes and Pharisees with deadly hatred are watching141 to see “whether he would heal on the sabbath, that they might find something of which to accuse him.” Such was man on one side on the other there was a Stranger come down from heaven; a Man also, to fallen man, and with a heart to display heaven’s and God’s mind perfectly. But those who prided themselves upon their righteousness and wisdom are afraid lest men should be healed by Him at the expense of their ceremonies, and they seek to fasten an accusation against Him. “But he knew their thoughts,142 and said to the man who had the withered hand, Rise up and stand in the midst. And having risen up, he stood [there].” The thing was not done in a corner, but boldly, in presence of them all.
The Lord even challenges them publicly, and says, “I will ask you if it is lawful on the sabbath. to do good or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy [it]?” They were doing evil; it was His to do good. They were seeking to destroy His life; He was willing to save theirs. “And having looked around on them all, he said to him, Stretch out thy hand.” It was enough: the man did so, “and his hand was restored as the other.” How simple, and yet how truly Divine! Was this, then, a work done? Was the Son’s healing what God had forbidden? Was this unworthy of God? Was it not, on the contrary, the very expression of what God is? Is not God always doing good? Does He forbear to do good on the Sabbath day? Was not the very Sabbath itself a witness how God loved to do good, and a pledge that He will bring His people into His own rest? Was not Jesus doing so to this sufferer, and giving a witness of the gracious power that will do so fully by and by?
And what was the effect upon unbelief? “They were filled with madness, and spoke together among themselves what they should do to Jesus”; and this because He had shown that God never foregoes His title to do good even on the Sabbath day in a world that is ruined by man’s sin and Satan’s wiles. A superior power has entered and manifests the defeat of Satan. But, meanwhile, the instruments of Satan are filled, first with his lies, and secondly with his murderous hatred. “They spoke together among themselves what they should do to Jesus.” For indeed they had no communion with God and with His mind. They were only filled with madness, and communed one with another how to injure the Lord, the manifest children of their father: such did not Abraham.143
The pronounced enmity of the religious leaders led our Lord to special prayer. From man He turns to God. But there was another reason. He was about to call others to take up the work in which He had been engaged, and to carry it out to the ends of the earth. “And it came to pass in those days that he went out into the144 mountain to pray, and he spent the night in prayer to God.” This special prayer suited both the circumstances of evil on man’s side, and the fresh mission of grace on God’s part. “And when it was day, he called his disciples; and having chosen out twelve from them whom also he named apostles.”145 These were to be His chief envoys in the work.146
“And having descended with them, he stood on a level place.” This has been often misunderstood, and some have contrasted the discourse in “the plain” here with the discourse on “the mountain” in Matthew 5; 6; 7. There is no ground for this. The expression does not really mean a plain, but a plateau or level place on the mountain. It was the same discourse, which Matthew set down, without presenting the special circumstances which led to particular parts of it — questions, &c.; whereas Luke was inspired to give it in detached portions here and there, and generally with the questions or other circumstances which led to each particular part.147 The two inspired writers, I doubt not, were governed in this by the special design of the Holy Ghost in each.
It has been irreverently asked whether Luke could thus have written with the Gospel of Matthew before him. The answer is, It would be the highest degree of improbability on mere human principles. Had his Gospel no higher source than a skillful use of existing documents, he could not, in my judgment, have ventured to differ so widely from Matthew, in the disposition of facts and teachings, if he regarded his apostolic predecessor as inspired, and desired to strengthen his testimony, not to perplex souls, nor to furnish objections to men of speculative mind, The course he has pursued is the weightiest conceivable proof of his own direct inspiration, as the fruit of a special design on the part of the Holy Ghost whether Luke had or had not the Gospel of Matthew in his hands. This I say, accepting fully the identity of the two discourses; for the attempt of the late M. Ganssen and others to establish their difference has long seemed to me a failure, not only in fact but in principle, from reducing the function of the Spirit to that of a reporter instead of an editor, in either case of course unerring.
Here, then, Jesus stood, where a vast multitude might hear Him. “And a crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea-coast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases. And those that were beset by unclean spirits 148 were healed. And all the crowd sought, to touch him; for power went out from him and healed all.”
But now we come to what was still better, not for the body nor for this world, but for the soul in relation with God. “And he, lifting up his eyes149 upon his disciples, said, Blessed [are] ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” There is this remarkable difference in the manner of presenting the discourse on the mount here and in the first Gospel. That in Matthew gives it in the abstract, presenting each blessing to such and such a class. “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” Luke makes it a more personal address “Blessed be ye poor.”
The reason is manifest. In the one case it is the prophet greater than Moses, Who lays down the principles of the kingdom of heaven in contrast with all Jewish thought, and feeling, and expectation. In the other case it is the Lord comforting the actually gathered disciples, addressing themselves as so separated to Himself, and not merely legislating, so to speak. It was now the time of sorrow; for as bringing the promises in His person, man would not have Him.
Again, it is always “the kingdom of God” in Luke. “The kingdom of heaven” is more dispensational, and finds its perfect place in Matthew. Luke, as ever, holds to that which is moral. Certainly the poor were little in man’s kingdom. “Blessed,” were they, said the Lord, “for (theirs) is the kingdom of God.”
Further, it may be remarked that there is no such fullness here as in Matthew, where we have the complete sevenfold classes of the kingdom, with the supernumerary blessings pronounced on those persecuted, whether (1) for righteousness’ sake, or (2) for Christ’s sake.
But here we have another difference very notable. There are but four classes of blessing — not seven; but then they are followed by four woes, which in Matthew are reserved to a still greater completeness in chapter 23, at the end of His ministry, for the same dispensational reason which is adhered to throughout his Gospel. Luke, on the other hand, presents at once, first, the blessings; and immediately after, the woes. It was not the time of ease; judgment was coming. This flows from the moral character of his Gospel, just as we find Moses in Deuteronomy, which has a similar purpose, telling the people that he sets before them the blessing and at the same time the curse (ch. 28).
The first blessing, it will be noticed, is that which man always counts the greatest misery. So the poor in this world look to be despised; but “yours is the kingdom of God.”149 The next blessing is hungering now, with the certainty of being filled. The third is present sorrow with joy promised (that is, in the morning).150 Lastly “blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you.151 [from them], and shall reproach [you], and cast out your name as wicked, for the Son of man’s sake.” Luke, it will be noticed, leaves out entirely persecution for righteousness’ sake, which finds its fitting, though not exclusive, place in Matthew. “Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy: for behold, your reward is great in the heaven: for after this manner did their fathers act towards the prophets.” This supposes exercised faith, with the greatest resulting blessing. But the fact that Luke confines himself to the blessedness of those persecuted for the Son of man’s sake, beautifully accords with the direct addresses in his four classes. As the blessed here are immediately before the Lord, so the persecuted here are only for His sake. All is intensely personal.
Then follow the woes. “But woe unto you rich! for ye have received your consolation.” Nothing more dangerous than ease and satisfaction in this world — there is no greater snare even to the disciple. So again: “Woe unto you that are filled! for ye shall hunger.” This, of course, has its moral bearing. There is leanness for the soul where the heart has all that it desires. “Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.” A still further carrying out of the danger of man’s heart. “Woe when all men shall speak well of you!” Here it is not personal only, but relative satisfaction.152 “For after this manner did their fathers to the false prophets.” In all respects it is a complete picture of that which is spiritually desirable or to be dreaded. And thus our Evangelist closes this pact of the discourse.
There is no such open contrast with Matthew law as in Matthew 5-7. The reason is manifest. Matthew has the Jews full in view, and therefore our Lord contrasts “Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you,” etc. All that Luke says is, “But I say unto you that hear, I say.” The disciples actually addressed were Jews, but the instruction in its own nature goes out to any: man, and is profitable for all the faithful, to the Gentile as much as to the Jew. Notwithstanding it was pre-eminently important for a Sew who had been formed on the principles of earthly righteousness. None the less was it full of instruction for the Gentiles when should be called to hear. The Gentile believer has the same heart as the Jew, is in the same world, has to do with enemies and those that hate. Hence the value of such a word, “Unto you that Love your enemies, do good to those that hate you, bless those that curse you, pray for those that use you despitefully.” This is entirely contrary to nature; it is the revelation of what God is applied to govern the heart of His children. “Love your enemies, do good to those that hate you.” It is this that He was doing and showing in Christ, and the children are called to imitate their Father. “Be ye therefore as dear children.” This is of the deepest importance practically, for Christ is our real key according to that revelation of Him which is given in the New Testament and this alone enables us to use rightly and intelligently the Old Testament. The Christian who is under grace understands the law far better than the Jew who was under law least, he ought to enter into it, as a whole and in all its parts, With a deeper perception of it, than the saints who had to do with its ordinances and ritual. Such is the power of Christ and such the wisdom of God which is our portion in Him.
But, besides these unfolding’s of truth, there are the affection that one proper to the Christian, “Bless those that curse you and pray for those that use you despitefully.” The Lord looks for the activity of good, and the looking to God on behalf of those who might treat themselves despitefully. Thus it is not only kindness and pity, but there is the earnest and sincere pleading with God for their blessing.
Verse 29 is remarkable as compared with the corresponding portion (vss. 39, 40) of Matthew 5. They both deserve our particular consideration and well illustrate the difference of the Gospels, and, what is also of the greatest importance, the manner of inspiration generally. It is a mistake to think that the Spirit of God is limited to a mere report even of what Jesus said. He exercises sovereign rights, while He gives the truth and nothing but the truth; and inasmuch as His aim is to give the whole truth, He is not tied down to the same expression, even while He is furnishing the substance of all that is needed for God’s glory.
Thus in the Gospel of Matthew the case is of one who sues at law. In that case the object is to take away the coat; and the Lord bids the disciple to let the cloak be taken also. Luke, on the contrary, writes, “him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to thy vest also.” It is not a case of legal suing, but of illegal violence; and the spoiler who would take the outer garment is not to be resisted if he proceeds to take the inner one also. This clearly gives a far greater fullness of truth than if the Spirit of God had restricted Himself to only one or other of the two cases. The apparent discrepancies of the Gospels are therefore their perfection, if indeed we value the entire truth of God. Only thus could the different sides of truth be presented in their integrity. The Jew would require especially to be guarded on the side of law; but there is also violence in the world contrary to law; and it was necessary that the disciples should see it to be their calling and privilege to hold fast their heavenly principles in the face of man’s force, no less than law. To maintain the character of Christ in our pray lice, is of greater consequence than to keep one’s cloak or coat also.
Then the Lord says, “Give to every man that asketh of thee.” It is no question of foolish prodigality, but of an open hand and heart to every call of need. “From him that taketh away what is thine ask it not back.” It is of all consequence that, as there should he the patient endurance of personal wrong– “unto him that smiteth thee on the cheek, offer also the other―” so there should he also the testimony that our life does not consist in the things which we possess. At the same time, He adds for our own guidance towards others, “As ye wish that men154 should do to you, do ye also to them in like manner: and if ye love those that love you, what thank155 is it to you? for even sinners love those that love them.” To, love those who love us is not the point for a Christian; it a mere human principle — as the Lord emphatically says here, “sinners also love those that love them.” It is not as in Matthew, publicans or Gentiles, but “sinners,” according to the ordinary moral tone of Luke. This was true of man everywhere, and the word “sinner” has a great propriety and emphasis. Not only men, but bad men, may love those who love them. So, too, the doing good to those who do good to us is but a righteous return of which the evil are capable; as indeed lending, when they hope to borrow or to receive. Sinners do quite as much.155a But for us the word is “love your enemies, and do good and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward shall be great.” Nor is the reward all. “And ye shall be sons of [the] Highest.” How soon it was made their conscious relationship! Thus it becomes the desire and aim — to acquit ourselves according to the relationship grace has given us. “For he is good to the unthankful and wicked.” How truly Divine! We ourselves are the witnesses of it in our unconverted days.
Hence the call in our Gospel does not follow as in Matthew, “Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect,” but “Be ye therefore merciful, even as your Father also is merciful.” The perfection in Matthew seems to be in allusion to the call on Abraham, whose perfection was to walk in integrity, confiding in the shadow of the Almighty. The disciple, instructed of Jesus, had the Father’s name declared, and his perfection is to illustrate his Father’s Character in indiscriminate grace — not in the spirit of law. Writing for the Gentiles, Luke simply calls them to be merciful as their Father was merciful. This would be obvious even to such as had not a minute acquaintance with the Old Testament, and therefore incapable of appreciating the delicate allusions to its contents here or there. Any believer could understand the force of such an exhortation as “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.” The tendency to censoriousness, the imputation of evil motives, and the danger of sure retribution, are here brought before us. “Condemn not, and ye shall in nowise be condemned”156a
On the other hand, says our Master, “remit, and it shall be remitted unto you.” It is the spirit of grace in the experience of wrongs. “Give, and it shall be given unto you.” It is the spirit of large generosity; and who ever knew a giver with nothing to give or receive? Yea, “good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over shall be given157 into your bosom.” Men are very far from giving thus; and the Lord leaves it entirely vague. It might be by men or by believers certainly God thus acts. Whoever gives will find his account sure in the far-surpassing goodness of God. “For with the same measure with which ye mete, it Shall be measured to you again” — whatever the means that He employs and whatever the time of recompense.
The first principle that the Lord here lays down is the necessity of a man himself seeing in order to lead others aright. This has been constantly lost sight of in Christendom. It was not in the same way necessary to priesthood in Israel, though there were duties of a priest which needed discernment, to judge between clean and unclean. Still, their function lay in mere outward things, which required no spiritual power. But it is not so in Christianity, though there are moral principles — first principles of everyday life — which are unchangeable. Yet as a whole, Christianity does suppose a new nature and the Spirit of God; and he who has not that nature and the power of the Spirit is incapable of rightly helping others. Now, ministry demands this, even in the Gospel. There are varying states; and unless a man is capacitated by his own personal faith as well as by the Word of God, he will misapply Scripture. But it is still clearer in the instruction and guidance practically of believers. He who is called to help them on must necessarily be taught of God, not in mind only but in heart and conscience, well and thoroughly furnished in Scripture, so as rightly to divide the Word of truth. The blind, therefore, cannot lead the blind. Neither is it Christianity that the Seeing should lead the blind. The true principle of our calling is, that the seeing should lead the seeing — the very reverse of the blind leading the blind.
Although every believer is supposed to see, yet he may not see clearly. He has the capacity, but may not yet have been exercised in using it. But when the truth has been brought clearly out, he is able to see it without more ado, and, it may be, as distinctly as he who had taught it. Thus that which he receives (whatever the means employed) stands on the Word of God and not on the authority either of Church or of teacher. If the teacher is removed or goes astray, still he sees the truth for himself in the light of God.
Thus it remains true that the seeing, whom God has qualified to lead others, teach the seeing who have light enough from God to follow, and who know that they are not following man but God, in that they intelligently follow those who are taught of God, and who lead them according to His word, that which commends itself by the Holy Spirit to the Conscience. So far is ministry therefore from being incompatible with Christianity, that it is characteristic of it. Strictly speaking, it was now distinctive feature of Judaism. They had priests to transact their religious business for them; but Christians have ministry in order to guide and cheer them on, and strengthen them by God’s grace, in doing that which pertains to the whole body of which ministers are but a part. “Can a blind [man] lead a blind [man]? Shall not both fall into [the] ditch?”158 This is precisely what Christendom, by confounding Christianity with Judaism, is falling into rapidly. Some take the side of infidelity, some of superstition. But they both fall into the ditch, on the one side or the other.
On the other hand, “the disciple is not above his teacher.” Our portion is according to Christ. Christ was despised, and so are we. Christ was persecuted, and so must the disciple he content to be. He has Christ’s portion: if above, so upon earth. “Every one that is perfected shall be as his teacher.”158a Then there is another danger, and that is of censoriousness. The habit of always seeing faults in others is exceedingly to be deprecated and watched against. “And why lookest thou on the mote that is in thy brother’s eye?” What is the true root of it? Invariably, where there is the habit of beholding faults in others, there is an overlooking of our own. “Why lookest thou on the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” In that state of things we cannot help others: we must have our own evil dealt with first. “For how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, allow [me], I will cast out the mote that is in thine eye” (love would meet another’s want: self is blind and busy, forgets its own faults, but can be zealous in correcting others for its own glory) — “thyself not seeing the beam that is in thine eye?” Our own fault, unjudged, always obstructs our affording real aid to another. Whereas, where we have judged ourselves, it is not only that we can see more clearly, but we can enter upon the work more humbly and lovingly. It is this that makes a man spiritual. Nothing but self-judgment can ever do it, coupled with the sense of the Lord’s great grace and holiness, which is the crown of self-judgment, by the Spirit’s power. But it is only the sense of the Saviour’s grace and regard for His holiness, which produces self-judgment; as, on the other hand, the exercise of self-judgment increases our sense of that grace, and keeps us bright in it, instead of letting ourselves be lowered to the level of surrounding circumstances, and the state to which the allowance of flesh would ever reduce us. The Lord speaks very severely of such — “Hypocrite!” and I believe censoriousness as a rule does tend directly to hypocrisy. It leads persons to assume a spirituality which they do not possess; and is this truthful? A person who is continually commenting on others you may set down as more or less hypocritical in pretending to a holiness which is certainly beyond his measure. Such is the Lord’s judgment; and you may be sure that the word which He has spoken will so decide at the last day. People forget that there is no way of pretending to spirituality more cheap and more imposing on thoughtless minds than this readiness to speak of the faults of others; but there is scarcely anything that the Lord Jesus more sternly refutes and condemns. “Hypocrite! cast out first the beam out of thine eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.”
Then He shows how clearly it is a question of nature. “For here is no good tree which produceth corrupt fruit, nor a corrupt tree which produceth good fruit.” You cannot change the nature; “Every tree is known by its own fruit; for figs are not gathered from thorns, nor grapes vintage from a bramble.” The Lord did not as yet show the action of two natures, and the way in which the fruits of the new creation might be hindered by the allowance of the old. He simply points out the fact that there are two natures, but not their co-existence in the same person, which is the matter of fact even in the real believer. “Every tree is known by its own fruit.” This is peculiar to Luke — I mean the putting it in so strong a manner. Matthew says, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Luke makes it more comprehensive and emphatic. “Every tree is known by its own fruit.” “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good; and the wicked [man] out of the wicked bringeth forth that which is wicked: for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.” This is another addition of Luke’s in this place. Our words are very weighty in the sight of God, as Matthew reveals in chapter 12. of his Gospel, quite in a different connection: “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” He had in view particularly the great dispensational change when the Jews should be cut off, not only for speaking against the Son of man, but for blaspheming against the Holy Ghost — the sin that cannot be forgiven, into which also the Jews fell. They rejected, not only the humbled Lord Jesus, the Son of man, but they refused the Holy Ghost’s testimony to Him when He was glorified. They rejected every evidence that God gave them, and all advance in the ways of God was utterly loathsome to them. The consequence was that they broke out in violent rejection, according to their own evil, of God’s good things. “Out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.”158b Their mouth spoke, and they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment, even as men generally shall; of every idle word they shall give account. The Jews have thus lost their place for the time, and God has brought in a new thing.
But Luke presents the matter far more as a moral principle. It is true of every man, that Out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh: and this is an important test for the state of our souls. Our lips betray the condition of our heart — of our affections. Then there is another thing. If we own Christ to be Lord in word, how come we not to do what He says? The very saying that He is Lord implies the obligation of subjection to Him. “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things that I say? Every one that cometh to me, and heareth my words, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like. He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation on a rock.” Nothing could shake that house. “But a great rain coming, the stream broke upon that house.” But in vain when the flood arose, it could not be shaken; “for it had been founded on the rock.” The heeding the words of Christ is that which survives every shock of the adversary. He who proves his faith thus in his obedience shall never be moved nor ashamed. “And he that has heard and not done,” which is precisely what has characterized Christendom and Judaism then and since — “is like a man who hath built a house on the ground, without a foundation, on which the stream broke, and immediately it fell; and the breach of that house was great.” So it shall be. The heaviest blow of the Lord returning in glory will fall, not upon pagans who have never heard, but upon the baptized who have heard and not obeyed the Gospel.
Moralizing for others, or bare unfruitful hearing even of Christ’s words, is but adding to one’s own condemnation. Nothing can be substituted for real obedience of heart. Christ was the obedient as well as the dependent Man, the bright moral contrast of the first man; and such must be and are those who are His. In all respects the discourse supposes and insists on a reproduction of His character in His disciples. It is not only promise come and fulfilled in Christ, but the manifestation of God in Him, and this now forming the disciples who are thus morally and actually distinguished from the nation.159
Endnotes
136 Verse 1.― The operation referred to at the end of the textual note goes by the name of “dittography.” It is Meyer’s explanation, and cf. Field ad loc. Salmon characterizes such explanations as “complicated and lame.” Neander, Winer, De Wette, and Hahn uphold the common reading.
136a Delitzsch: “In the interpretation of this I agree with John Lightfoot, understanding the first Sabbath after the second Easter day, the second Sabbath after the day of offering the barley sheaf (Lev. 23:1515And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: (Leviticus 23:15)), the second Sabbath with sephirah, ha‘omer (computation of the omer).” That is (cf. Lev. 23:44These are the feasts of the Lord, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. (Leviticus 23:4)). the omen offering on the morrow after the first great Sabbath (second day unleavened bread). “It seems, therefore, to have taken place a week after Passover” (Briggs. p. 14). Wellhausen has recently written, “It does not rest merely on a blunder.”
137 Verse 2.― “Not lawful on the Sabbath.” See Mishna “Sabbath,” 7:2 and Bennett’s whole chapter 5. We learn from this passage how the Lord put an end to the whole taboo of the Sabbath, as, in Mark 7:1919Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? (Mark 7:19), He did to that meats.
138 Verse 5.―The added words in “D” are shown in transcript opposite to 32 of Paterson Smyth’s “How We Got Our Bible.” James and Paul both use the words, “transgressor of the law” (παραβάτης τοῦ νομοῦ). Only Blass among Edd, (see his “Philology of the Gospels,” pp. 153-155) has ventured to print the insertion in text, as 5a between verses 10 and 11.
139 Verses 6―11. — Neander observes that “the accounts of this event in Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written independently of each other” (“Life of Christ,” p. 275).
140 Verse 6.― “Right hand.” Dr. Belcher (“Our Lord’s Ministry of Healing,” p. 123) notes this as mark of a physician’s exactitude. For some “advanced” writers it has only the value of an accretion in the manner of tradition. But see Harnack.
141 Verse 7.―Observe the use of παρατηεῖν, as to which see ante on 17:20.
142 Verse 8.―Another link with the fourth Gospel.
For the independence of the Synoptists of each other in verses 6-11, see C. E. Stuart, p. 68f.
144 Verse 12.―As to the definite article before “mountain,” see note 39 on Mark (3:13). It is not a particular mountain, as Wetstein and others have supposed. Wellhausen recognizes the principle, illustrated by some modern languages, in his “Introduction,” p. 26. As to prayer, see note 28, and Rom. 12:1212Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer; (Romans 12:12).
145 Verse 15.― “Zealot” we have substitution of a Greek for a Hebrew name. Matt, 10:4 has “Cananæan.” The Zealots were the most extreme and violent of the Pharisees (Joseph. “Antiqq.,” 18:1, 6). The Jewish historian states that they originated in Galilee (cf. note 121).
146 Verse 16.― “Judas,” so John 14:2222Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? (John 14:22). The same, it is supposed as Matthew’s “Thaddeus,” “was the”; American Revv. rightly “became a” (or, “proved,” ἐγένετο).
147 Verses 17 f.―The corresponding passages in Matthew (5-7, 107 verses) of the so-called Sermon on the Mount should be compared throughout with those of Luke (30 verses only in this chapter) in the following order: Luke 6:20-2320And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. 21Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. 22Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. 23Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. (Luke 6:20‑23) with Matt. 5:3-12; 14:343Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. (Matthew 5:3‑12)
34And when they were gone over, they came into the land of Gennesaret. (Matthew 14:34)f. with Matt. 5:13; 8:1613Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. (Matthew 5:13)
16When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: (Matthew 8:16) and 11:33 (critics’ “doublet”) with Matt. 5:15; 16:1715Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. (Matthew 5:15)
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 16:17) with Matt. 5:18; 12:58f: with Matt. 5:25; 16:1825Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. (Matthew 5:25)
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18) with Matt. 5:32; 6:2732But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? (Matthew 6:27) with Matt. 5:44; 11:1-444But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (Matthew 5:44)
1And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities. 2Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, 3And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? 4Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see: (Matthew 11:1‑4) with Matt. 6:9-13; 11:34-36 with Matt. 6:2222The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. (Matthew 6:22)f.; 16:13 with Matt. 6:24; 12: 22-3124No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Matthew 6:24) with Matt. 6:25-33; 12:3425Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? 26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? 27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? 28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (Matthew 6:25‑33)
34O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. (Matthew 12:34) with Matt. 6:21; 6:37, 38, 41 f. with Matt. 7:1-5; 11:9-131Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1‑5)
9But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. 10For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. 13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. (Matthew 11:9‑13) with Matt. 7:7-11; 13:247Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? (Matthew 7:7‑11)
24Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: (Matthew 13:24) with Matt. 7:13; 6:43f, with 7:16, 20; 6:45 with Matt. 5:37; 6:46 with Matt. 7:2121Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21); and 6:47-19 with Matt. 7:24-2724Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Matthew 7:24‑27).
In aid of detailed comparison of the two records, reference may be made to Salmon, pp. 109-145.
This most notable of the Synoptic discourses raises the question of the relation of Morality to Religion, and of this to Theology. Each of these, accordingly, will be discussed in the sub-sections immediately following.
A RELIGION in general has already been briefly considered in note 9 on joint. As distinct from Theology, which is the study of Religion, the one is “subjective” or personal, the other is “objective.” Unhappily, the two are often confounded.
For the source and nucleus of Religion as conceived by the late Herbert Spencer, see his “Principles of Sociology,” vol. iii., p. 6, “The Religious Idea,” §584: “Belief in a being of the kind we call supernatural―a spirit.” This describes as “The essential element of a cult.”
Auguste Comte has divided the history of Religion into three stages: 1. Supernatural. 2. Metaphysical. 3. Positive (his own system, the “Religion of Humanity”: cf. note 450).
“One of the strongest implications of the doctrine of Evolution,” writes Fiske, “is the Everlasting Reality of Religion” (“Through Nature to God,” p. 111). Cf. Max Midler, “Origin and Growth of Religion,” Lect. ii. Spencer (op. cit., vol. 1. §146) and Tylor (“Primitive Culture,” p. 428) alike discredit the entire deficiency of any tribe of mankind in religious ideas. At the root of Religion lies Faith (see note on 18:8), with both emotional (the dominant) and intellectual elements, crude forms of which pass under the name of “Superstition.” The form of religion at the same time highest and deepest is called “Mysticism” (see “Psychology of Religion,” pp. 154-173, 244f.), one expression of the Christian form of which is found in Paul’s words, a “life hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3:33For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. (Colossians 3:3): cf. Gal. 2:2020I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)). This has nothing to do with the “Mysteries” or worship of pagan deities of the Earth or Sea, as to which see Sir W. Ramsay’s article in “Encyclopædia Britamnica,” or Sir R: Anderson’s “The Bible or the Oilmen,” ch. 8., and the late Archdeacon Cheetham’s Hulsean Lectures on “Christian Mysteries.”
A recent masterly book on Christian Mysticism is that of Dr. Rufus Jones, the American Quaker scholar. A man’s religion, as the word is used by Christians, is that which expresses, from his own point of view, his relations to a supernatural Being. All the leading religions, beginning with Judaism (see Abrahams, ch. 6.), have produced mystics, whose tone of mind in the Christian element is described as “spiritual.”
“Control of the individual,” writes Grubb, “by a knowledge larger than his own, is what we call authority,” and “Every one who can see further than others into the truth of things speaks with some authority” (“Authority and the Light Within,” p.11 f.).
The “Seat of Authority” in Christianity is variously determined by different “schools”: those of the Catholic type find it in the Church; Unitarians, in the individual Conscience; whilst those roughly described as “Evangelical” refer everything to Scripture. The last-named position, of course that of the present volume, is well represented by Sir R.’ Anderson’s above-named book, the writer of which insists on the difference between “The Christian Religion” and “Christianity” (“The Bible or the Church,” p. 94f.). It is, of course, true that Christianity is not strictly a “religion” in the sense in which this word was used by Archbishop Laud.
Where any religion has borrowed from another, there is said to be “Syncretism” (mixture). Fairbairn has observed, “The last religion one could describe [Gunkel does] as syncretism is the Christian... its founders too ignorant,” he adds, “of other religions... it was a living organism” (“Philosophy of the Christian Religion,” p. 518f.).
Religion as represented by large communities of men or nations had always to the time of Christ been mixed up with Politics, by which, as in Mohammedanism, it is still much affected. Thus the seventeenth century philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, regarded Religion only as a department of the State. The English “Free Church Council,” representing six denominations, in 1900 emphasized “the claim of political activity upon the Nonconformist conscience”: this “militant” attitude doubtless, however unhappily, does but express the logical outcome of the Puritan policy in the seventeenth century. But what a far cry from our generation to that of Cromwell, to say nothing of Calvin, or Savonarola, referred to at the Swansea Conference by S. Horne! We “live and learn.”
The fundamental ideas and practices (in particular, worship) of Religion, in its highest element, as commonly understood, start from recognition of the claim of some Higher invisible Power on man in this life, which is therefore regulated by the principles of his religion in view of rendering account after death. And so Hobbes found the natural cause of Religious anxiety about the future (Routledge’s edition of Leviathan, 1904, p. 68). For the Jew, such principles are found in the scriptures of the Old Testament; for the Christian, in the whole Bible; whilst the faith and conduct of the Moslem are referable to the Quran, and so on. Hence, throughout the various forms of Religion — the monotheistic of particular (witness Mohammed’s reiterated confession of need of forgiveness his sins) — runs the idea of SIN (in conflict with “Holiness”), its consequences and remedies, which will be dealt with in note on 24:47 below. “Ethical Religion” — to which Buddhism is akin — affects to dispense with this idea altogether (sub-section B).
Comte’s “metaphysical” religion is simply Theology (sub-section C); whilst his “positive” stage is doubtless the precursor of the worship of the Apocalyptic “Beast.” At present it is but a sublimated form of Herbert Spencer’s genesis of Religion, i.e., the apotheosis of deceased heroes, such as Romulus among the ancient Romans. According to this, Jehovah (Yehceh) should have been no more than Emerson’s “superman” (plagiarized by Nietzsche).
“Theosophy” is a jumble, registering the occult ideas of the world in general. In this country it is chiefly advocated by women; many of its Society’s publications are written by them. Thus amongst books “recommended for beginners” are Elements of Theosophy, by Lilian Edger; First Steps in Theosophy, by Ethel M. Mallet; and The Path of Discipleship, by Annie Besant, the most prolific writer of all. The system is Eastern in the main.
“Religion,” strange as it may seem, is still “the special sphere of Satan’s influence” (“The Bible or the Church,” p. 162f.).
Höffding is a standard writer on the “Philosophy of Religion,” as T. H. Green and Dr. John Caird in this country, with whose works rank that of Max Midler, “Introduction to the Science of Religion.” None of these writers, however, able as they were, can be said to have gone to the heart of the matter, which the last-named reached only in his closing days. Liddon’s “Elements of Religion” introduces its reader to a more Biblical element, as does Fairbairn’s valuable work. An article by McPheeters, in Hastings’ “Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels,” deals with authority in Religion. On the distinctly so-called “liberal” side there is “Religions of Authority and the Religion of the Spirit,” by Auguste Sabatier.
The study of Comparative Religion has been usefully served by the series of “Sacred Books of the East,” edited by Max Muller, with which intending Christian Missionaries in that part of the field do well to make themselves familiar. Reinach's recent book entitled “Orpheus” affords a handy repertoire of information, which has been followed by Gilmore’s article in Schaff-Herzog, vol. iii. CHRISTIANITY, of course, is for its adherents the absolute and final religion (John 14:66Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)), which alone brings humanity to “the City of God” (MacCulloch, “Comparative Theology,” p. 2), Its most formidable rival at present is Islam.
B. MORALITY, from being largely concerned with men’s relations to one another (“Righteousness”), is by those who disclaim adherence to any form of supernatural Religion regarded as covering and meeting the whole of their higher needs. For writers such as Leslie Stephen its very genesis is “simply from the felt need of human beings living in society” (“Science of Ethics,” p. 107). Nevertheless, as far back as History goes, Morality (Conscience) is, in fact, found connected with Religion (God consciousness) as its parent (cf. Anderson, “The Bible or the Church,” p. 16); and amongst the old Greeks, Morality was first detached from religion by Aristotle, in the fourth century B.C. whose “Nichomachean Ethics” remain unsurpassed as a system of purely mundane DUTY, the performance of which is now being substituted for recognition of GOD. Such it was with Emerson, the American sage (“superman”). Cf. the “Ethical Hymn Book,” No. 327. Which makes use of the canticle in the second part. of Ps. 19, but substituting “Duty” for “Jehovah.”
In the East, Confucianism is regarded as merely Chinese Hate morality. And so with the religion, such as it is, called “Shinto,” of the Japanese. Both these nations of the yellow race, however, acknowledge a future state of existence, in connection with which reverence (worship) of ancestors cultivated, as expedient for the present life at least. In Japan, writes Baron Kikuchi, they “talk very little of rights,” Duty being paramount. Buddhism is purely ethical, on the lines of morality expounded in the West by writers like David Hume, who distinguished the various types of national morality (not ignored by Christians).
For the Jews, Religion and Old Testament morality remain intertwined.
Abrahams says: “Pentecost celebrates... the inseparable conjunction of the service of God with the service of man” (p. 55).
Christians for the most part are guided by the Decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount and Apostolic precepts developing it, which together constitute their Code of righteousness: this teaches beyond all question (Acts 10:3535But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. (Acts 10:35)) that righteousness is what Stanton Coit describes as “the holiest reality” (“Ethical Lecture on the Ten Commandments,” p. 6).
The morality of Moslems is derivable from their sacred book.
Outside the Bible, writers in countries of Christian civilization who have surrendered their allegiance to Gen. 3., trace the origin of Morality to parental affection. Thus Fiske “The relation between mother and child must have furnished the first occasion for the sustained and regular devilment of the altruistic feelings” (op. cit. pp. 121, 133ff.). Cf. Hume’s judgment of Society, expressed as “self-judgment” (Fairbairn, p. 66). By such writers treating sense of Duty as a social feeling implanted in the breast, “The Mosaic Record of the Fall” and of the acquirement of Conscience is deemed an allegory and nothing more, so that Morality is for then, from first to last, a human creation, in no wise proceeding from Revelation. The present writer has heard a lecturer of a London Ethical Society attempt to dispose of the doctrine of original Sin so-called by reference to a child’s treatment of its doll; no distinction being made between the sexes; no allowance for the working of anticipated maternal instinct in a girl; and the derivation of the name of the fetish from “idol” ignored, if indeed apprehended.
The Biblical idea of Sacrifice, that of the individual for the race — so well understood by the Christian soldier, C. J. Gordon — is purloined by the votaries of “Ethical Religion.”
Bishop Butler wrote: “Duties arise out of relations” (“Analogy,” part ii., book ii., § 2). Secular Ethics, on the other hand, as expounded by such as Tolstoi, “makes Duty flow from man’s moral power” (supposing that man is able to do his duty if he will) (W. Kelly, “Exposition of the Epistles of John.” p. 190). Butler was followed by Kant, who, at the close of his “Critique of Practical Reason,” declared himself impressed by (1) the heavens above, (2) the moral law — the moral faculty or conscience within. By writing that work he signified his sense of the insufficiency of his previous classical treatise on Pure Reason. For his bringing the religious element back into the calculation, Kant has been denounced by the nineteenth century Nietzsche as an “idiot”; that is, by the man who could write that “God is dead;” and yet became himself in his last days definitely insane: this should afford reflection for Agnostics enamored with his “Zarathustra.” Harnack brings man back to saner sentiment: he has described virtuous Agnostics as “parasites, living on the faith of others.”
Socialists have attempted to enlist the “Sermon on the Mount” in the service of their nostrums. But, to speak only of Property: Christ’s words as to sacrifice suppose individual ownership. “Christian Socialism” was a plank in Bishop Westcott’s platform: in his “Social Aspects of Christianity” he speaks of the saving, not only of men, but of the world (p. 86). Again, the Bishop Truro (Dr. Stubbs), in his “Vox Clamantium,” would make the object of the Church the reorganization of society (p. 355). For healthier teaching, Hs, D. M. Panton, “Socialism and the Sermon on the Mount.”
Notable are words of George Washington in his last presidential address “National morality cannot prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Of the so-called “Ethical Religion” imported into England from America (its prophet was Emerson), Prof. Foster, of Chicago, redeeming some earlier utterances, has written: “What does it mean that a society of religionless men are to be the Religion of the Future? On the basis of history it is a fact that moral idea, have always found access and evinced their power in the life of peoples only in connection with the corresponding religious ideas” (The American Journal Theology, April, 1908, pp. 118, 122). Again, Prof. Michael Sadler, in his paper contributed to the Proceedings of the International Congress on Moral Education (1908), has expressed his settled conviction that “there are cert parts of moral education necessary to the good life which are inseparable from one or other form of religious belief.” The recent controversy, however, in connection with a Parliamentary Education Bill, lay rather between advocates of moral training of the “Positivist” type and representatives of Theology, of what is called “definite” religious instruction: this comes in for consideration next.
The case from that point of view has been ably presented by Ernest R. Hull, S.J., in his pamphlet, “Why Should I be Moral?” Upon Synoptic teaching as to Righteousness, see Stalker, “The Ethic of Jesus,” chapter 4.
C. THEOLOGY (cf. Kattenbusch, in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopædia, vol. xi., pp. 394-397), concerned with systematic, logical development of TRUTH (see Fairbairn, p. 263), as a process collects and formulates religious ideas; in the form of “Biblical” Theology doing this for Revelation in the light of the periods during which that was vouchsafed; in the form of “Symbolic” Theology treating of the fundamentals of the Faith as these were investigated in the age of the first Church Councils, which issued “Catholic Creeds”(cf. note on 18:8); whilst “Dogmatic” Theology has to do with the development of such doctrine in the light of spiritual experience; and so on.
By a “Theologian” in the narrower and strict sense of the term is meant one who is scientifically, as distinct from ecclesiastically, “dogmatic.” Origen le I the way among Christians; with him may be classed Maimonides amongst Jews. Origen has been followed by Athanasius, the Cappadocian “Fathers” (Basil and the brothers Gregory) and Augustine; by Calvin, Hooker, Jonathan Edwards, Newman, Martineau, Dorner, Dale, etc.
By “dogma” in the ecclesiastical sense is meant a truth to which submission is due (Kaftan, Gore, etc.); or as expressed by Orr, “doctrine ecclesiastically sanctified.” Harnack, its great living historian, calls it Doctrine which is held by the CHURCH as such. Those who conform to what is current in their own generation are by their contemporaries deemed “Orthodox.” Höffding has observed that “within the Protestant Churches it is the laity, far more than any Church authorities, who control the orthodoxy of the preachers” (p. 320). They go by what they were taught in their youth and resist “innovation.” There is, unhappily, an indisposition to view Truth like “a growing tree” (J. N. Darby).
When this takes the form of attempting to supersede the Revelation of the New Testament (2 John 99Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. (2 John 9)), faithful Christians refuse “Development.” But that any have been entirely free from this tendency, as allied to the dictates of experimental expediency, Newman was right in denying. Very many non-Catholics could agree with him in regarding Infant Baptism, in whatever form it has presented itself, as a product of Development. This aspect of Truth is connected with that which has given rise of late to “Pragmatism,” an apostle of which was the late Prof. William James in America. The Pragmatic method he speaks of as the “interpretation of a notion by the light of its supposed practical consequences” (“Lectures,” p. 45). “Truth in our ideas means their power to work” (ibid., p. 58). Thus the propounder of a theory as to the χαρίσματα the first Corinthian Epistle; in a conversation related by him to the present writer, with the late Professor Tholuck, to whom it was personally explained, was old by that distinguished man that he was of the same opinion, but that he doubted if it would work; to which J. N. Darby rejoined: “Have you ever tried it?” Of course, difference will exist in each case as to the measure of success obtained. For an attack by Nietzsche on those who have “theological in their veins,” see his “Antichrist,” § 9.
148 Verse 18. — The distinction again appears here between disease and demoniacal possession, which modern inquirers are loath to admit. Carpenter, because of “the vast accumulation of evidence from the ages both before and after Christ” (cf. the works of E. B. Tylor, and, in particular, art. Demonology in “Encyclopædia Britannica”), says that “the hypothesis of a peculiar outburst of demoniac energy in the time of Jesus falls in complete collapse.” One has, however, only to read such books as Mrs. Howard Taylor’s Memoir of “Pastor Hsi,” to learn how prevalent it is to our own day in certain quarters.
On this topic, cf. Orr, “The Bible under Trial,” pp. 222-224.
149 Verse 20, — “Lifted up His eyes.” This, B. Weiss observes, is an expression characteristic of the source that he has named “L” (note 41.), rather than of “Q” (“Sources of Synoptic Tradition,” p. 256).
As to glib acceptance of the teaching here, Maclaren remarks: “The people, who say, 'Give me the Sermon on the Mount — I don’t care for your doctrines, but I can understand it,’ have not felt the grip of these Beatitudes (“Expositions,” &c., vol. i., 128).
149a “Poor,” without qualification, cf. 2 Cor. 6:1010As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things. (2 Corinthians 6:10), James 2:55Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? (James 2:5). For the personal element in this Gospel, of 22:20, and see note on verse 22 below. Some (as Schmiedel, art. Gospels, in “Encyclop. Bibl.,” § 123; of his “Jesus in Modern Criticism,” p. 70 ff.) have suggested Luke made use of an Ebionite source here, and for verse 35f., 11:41, 12:33, 14:21f. and 33, 18:22, 19:8. Tuffs idea is discredited even by Michel; (Introduction, § 27, p. 206, E. T.). The Ebionites’ system would be far too unpalatable to an Evangelist for him to resort to their literature. It should be observed that according to vii. 1, the Lord is addressing a miscellaneous audience. The Apostles themselves, as Salmon says, were not chosen from the very poor, but belong at least to the “lower middle class” (p. 116; cf. Ramsay, Expositor, April, 1909, p. 306). One must not exaggerate this aspect. The thought in this as in Matthew’s Gospel is based on Old Testament passages, such as Ps. 32:2, Prov. 9:23, Isa. lvii. 15 (“an established Old Testament principle,” Schlottmann, Compendium, § 148), with which Gentile readers could familiarize themselves from the LXX. Nevertheless, it is true that the soil in which Christianity at first was sown was characteristically that of poverty, in Greece as well as in Judæa see Deissmann, in Expositor, February, March, 1909.
Again, an attempt has been made to connect the teaching here with the system of the Essenes (alien to Buddhism), as to whom see Lightfoot on “Colossians,” pp. 158-179, Edersheim, “Sketches, etc.,” chapter 15., and Harnack, “Missions,” i. 337). Eusebius (3:27) seems to have referred the name of this sect to the poverty of their intellect in observing sabbaths and oilier Jewish rites.
By “rich” must probably be understood the Pharisees: see 16:14. The opinion of some (as Harnack), founded on 6:24, 16:19, 18:24f., that Luke had a bias against the wealthy, is negatived by cognate passages in Matthew (as 19:21) and Mark (as 10:23). With just as much reason might it be said that Mark had a bias in the contrary direction, because of 14:7 in his Gospel.
150 Verse 21. — Our Lord was for Nietzsche the great type of aristocratic morality, a joyful rather than a suffering Christ!
151 Verse 22 f. — “Separate,” usually taken as from the synagogue (John 16:22They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. (John 16:2)); but De Wette took it, like the English translation, as from their society in general. “Cast out”: spread abroad, i.e., bring you into bad repute (Wellhausen).
Son of Man: Matthew’s parallel has “my” (verse 11): of note on 12:8 below. “Rejoice”: as did the excellent John Chrysostom who, when dying, said, “Thanks be to God for all” the persecution he suffered (el. 1 Thess. 5:16-1816Rejoice evermore. 17Pray without ceasing. 18In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. (1 Thessalonians 5:16‑18)).
152 Verse 26. — Wesley in his Note asks, “But who will believe this?”
153 Verses 27-36. — For Ritschl, GOD is LOVE, and nothing else, cf. Pfleiderer. “The Development of Theology,” E. T., p. 186. As to Montefiore’s strictures on our Lord’s invective against the Pharisees, see note on 7:40.
154 Verse 31. — cf., of course, Matthew’s form of words (7:12), and also Tobit, 4:15. This golden rule was called by Hillel “the quintessence of the Law” (Pirqe; Aboth); but he stated it negatively (Murray, “Christian Ethics,” p. 66f), as did also the Chinese sage Kung-fu-tse (Legge, “The Religions of China,” pp. 137-139).
155 Verse 32. — “Thank,” or “grace” (χάρις): Vulg. “gratia.” Matthew (v. 46) has “reward,” for which in verse 24 Luke has “consolation.”
155a Verse 33. — Such also was a maxim of Lao-tse, contemporary of Confucius (cf. note 154).
156 Verse 35,ff. — “Hoping for nothing in return”: so Vulgate (followed in. A.V.). Erasmus, Beza, Grotius Wetstein. Godet and Meyer take ἀπελπίζειν as “despair,” after Old Lat. (cf. LXX. of Isa. 29:1919The meek also shall increase their joy in the Lord, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. (Isaiah 29:19)); the Revv., in the sense of lack of faith in God’s own’ recompense (Humphry). Field, however, supports A.V. with the remark, “The context is too strong for philological quibbles.”
Plato regarded the object of the life of man as becoming like God.
156a The closing words of this section (of. Matt. 6:1414For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: (Matthew 6:14)f.) bear on the question, of communion between God and any who have entered into the relationship of children upon initial Repentance and Faith.
With verse 36, cf. Pss. 111:4, 122:4.
157 Verse 38. — “Shall be given.” Strictly, “They shall give.” As in the Aramaic of Daniel, the passive is avoided, so that the agent has not to be expressed. Cf. verse 44 and 12:20, 14:35, 18:23, 23:31.
158 Verse 39. — As to blind leaders, cf. Matt. 15:1414Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. (Matthew 15:14). It alludes to shepherds’ custom, when angry with their flock, of giving them a blind sheep as a leader. And so of bad administrators of a town (Neubauer, in “Studio, Biblica,” vol. 1., p. 52, note). These words have a bearing on the subject of Interpretation of Scripture. As to which see note 13 above.
158a Verse 40. — “The disciple, etc.” Cf. in this Gospel 22:64 with Acts 23:2; 23:12And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. (Acts 23:2)
1And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. (Acts 23:1) with Acts 22:30; 23:230On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them. (Acts 22:30)
2And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. (Acts 23:2) with Acts 24:5; 23:4, 14, 225For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: (Acts 24:5)
4And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? (Acts 23:4)
14And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul. (Acts 23:14)
22So the chief captain then let the young man depart, and charged him, See thou tell no man that thou hast showed these things to me. (Acts 23:22) with Acts 23:29; 25:2529Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. (Acts 23:29)
25But when I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death, and that he himself hath appealed to Augustus, I have determined to send him. (Acts 25:25) and 26:31 respectively, as showing “resemblances very marked” (Moffatt, p. 264, note). See also 2.Tim. 3:17 and note 129a above ... For these two verses reference may be made to Luther’s discourse in “Sermons,” pl. 49, and Spurgeon’s Sermon, No. 1248.
159 Verse 46 ff — See Spurgeon’s Sermon, No. 1702.