|
Chapter 10 | Table
of Contents | Chapter 12
The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Alfred Edersheim
1883
Book IV
THE DESCENT: FROM THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION
INTO THE VALLEY OF HUMILIATION AND DEATH.
Chapter 11
THE FIRST PERAEAN DISCOURSES
TO THE PHARISEES CONCERNING THE TWO KINGDOMS
THEIR CONTEST
WHAT QUALIFIES A DISCIPLE
FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND HOW ISRAEL WAS BECOMING SUBJECT TO THAT
OF EVIL.
(St. Matthew 12:22-45; St. Luke
11:14-36.)
It was well that Jesus should, for the present, have parted
from Jerusalem with words like these. They would cling about His hearers like
the odour of incense that had ascended. Even 'the schism' that had come among
them1
concerning His Person made it possible not only to continue His Teaching, but
to return to the City once more ere His final entrance. For, His Perĉan
Ministry, which extended from after the Feast of Tabernacles to the week
preceding the last Passover, was, so to speak, cut in half by the brief visit
of Jesus to Jerusalem at the Feast of the Dedication.2
Thus, each part of the Perĉan Ministry would last about three months; the
first, from about the end of September to the month of December;3
the second, from that period to the beginning of April.4
Of these six months we have (with the solitary exception of St. Matthew xii.
22-45),5 no other
account than that furnished by St. Luke,6
7
although, as usually, the Jerusalem and Judĉan incidents of it are described by
St. John.8 After
that we have the account of His journey to the last Passover, recorded, with
more or less detail, in the three Synoptic Gospels.
1. St. John x. 19.
2. St. John x. 22-39.
3. 28 a.d.
4. 29 a.d.
5. The reasons for his insertion of this part must be sought in the character of this
Discourse and in the context in St. Matthew's Gospel.
6. St. Luke xi. 14 to xvii. 11.
7. On the characteristics of this Section, Canon Cook has some very
interesting remarks in the Speaker's Commentary, N.T. vol. i. p. 379.
8. St. John x. 22-42; xi. 1-45; xi. 46-54.
It will be noticed that this section is peculiarly lacking in incident.
It consists almost exclusively of Discourses and Parables, with but few
narrative portions interspersed. And this, not only because the season of the
year must have made itinerancy difficult, and thus have hindered the
introduction to new scenes and of new persons, but chiefly from the character
of His Ministry in Perĉa. We remember that, similarly, the beginning of
Christ's Galilean Ministry had been chiefly marked by Discourses and Parables.
Besides, after what had passed, and must now have been so well known,
illustrative Deeds could scarcely have been so requisite in Perĉa. In fact, His
Perĉan was, substantially, a resumption of His early Galilean Ministry, only
modified and influenced by the much fuller knowledge of the people concerning
Christ, and the greatly developed enmity of their leaders. This accounts for
the recurrence, although in fuller, or else in modified, form, of many things
recorded in the earlier part of this History. Thus, to begin with, we can
understand how He would, at this initial stage of His Perĉan, as in that of His
Galilean Ministry, repeat, when asked for instruction concerning prayer, those
sacred words ever since known as the Lord's Prayer. The variations are so
slight as to be easily accounted for by the individuality of the reporter.9
They afford, however, the occasion for remarking on the two principal
differences. In St. Luke the prayer is for the forgiveness of 'sins,' while St.
Matthew uses the Hebraic term 'debts,' which has passed even into the Jewish
Liturgy, denoting our guilt as indebtedness (wnytwbwx yrm# lb qwxm). Again, the 'day by day'
of St. Luke, which further explains the petition for 'daily bread,' common both
to St. Matthew and St. Luke, may be illustrated by the beautiful Rabbinic
teaching, that the Manna fell only for each day, in order that thought of their
daily dependence might call forth constant faith in our 'Father Which is in
heaven.'10 11
Another Rabbinic saying places12
our nourishment on the same level with our redemption, as regards the thanks
due to God and the fact that both are day by day.13
Yet a third Rabbinic saying14
notes the peculiar manner in which both nourishment and redemption are always
mentioned in Scripture (by reduplicated expressions), and how, while redemption
took place by an Angel,15
nourishment is attributed directly to God.16
9. The concluding Doxology should be omitted from St. Matthew's report of the prayer. As regards the different readings which have been adopted into the Revised Version, the reader is advised, before accepting the proposed alterations, to consult Canon Cook's judicious notes (in the Speaker's Commentary ad
loc.).
10. Yoma 76 a, lines 14-16 from top.
11. The same page of the Talmud contains, however, some absurdly profane legends about the manna.
12. According to Ps. cxxxvi. 24, 25.
13. Ber. R. 20, ed. Warsh. p. 39 b, last line.
14. Ber. R. 97.
15. Gen. xlviii. 16.
16. Ps. cxiv. 16.
But to return. From the introductory expression: 'When (or whenever)
ye pray, say' - we venture to infer, that this prayer was intended, not only as
the model, but as furnishing the words for the future use of the Church. Yet
another suggestion may be made. The request, 'Lord, teach us to pray, as John
also taught his disciples,'17
seems to indicate what was 'the certain place,' which, now consecrated by our
Lord's prayer, became the school for ours. It seems at least likely, that the
allusion of the disciples to the Baptist may have been prompted by the
circumstance, that the locality was that which had been the scene of John's
labours - of course, in Perĉa. Such a note of place is the more interesting,
that St. Luke so rarely indicates localities. In fact, he leaves us in
ignorance of what was the central place in Christ's Perĉan Ministry, although
there must have been such. In the main, the events are, indeed, most likely
narrated in their chronological order. But, as Discourses, Parables, and incidents
are so closely mixed up, it will be better, in a work like the present, for
clearness' and briefness' sake, to separate and group them, so far as possible.
Accordingly, this chapter will be devoted to the briefest summary of the Lord's
Discourses in Perĉa, previous to His return to Jerusalem for the Feast of the
Dedication of the Temple.
17. St. Luke xi. 1.
The first of these was on the occasion of His casting out a
demon,18 and
restoring speech to the demonised; or if, as seems likely, the cure is the same
as that recorded in St. Matt. xii. 22, both sight and speech, which had
probably been paralysed. This is one of the cases in which it is difficult to
determine whether narratives in different Gospels, with slightly varying
details, represent different events or only differing modes of narration. It
needs no argument to prove, that substantially the same event, such as the
healing of a blind or dumb demonised person, may, and probably would, have
taken place on more than one occasion, and that, when it occurred, it would
elicit substantially the same remarks by the people, and the same charge
against Christ of superior demoniac agency which the Pharisees had now
distinctly formulated.19
Again, when recording similar events, the Evangelists would naturally come to
tell them in much the same manner. Hence, it does not follow that two similar
narratives in different Gospels always represent the same event. But in this
instance, it seems likely. The earlier place which it occupies in the Gospel by
St. Matthew may be explained by its position in a group denunciatory of the
Pharisees; and the notice there of their blasphemous charge of His being the
instrument of Satan probably indicates the outcome of their 'council,' how they
might destroy Him.20
21
18. St. Luke xi. 14.
19. See Book III. ch. xxii.
20. St. Matt. xii. 14.
21. It marks the chronological place of this miracle that it seems suitably to follow the popular charge against Jesus, as expressed in St. John viii. 48 and x. 20.
It is this charge of the Pharisees which forms the main subject
of Christ's address, His language being now much more explicit than formerly,22
even as the opposition of the Pharisees had more fully ripened. In regard to
the slight difference in the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke, we mark
that, as always, the Words of the Lord are more fully reported by the former,
while the latter supplies some vivid pictorial touches.23
The following are the leading features of Christ's reply to the Pharisaic
charge: First, It was utterly unreasonable,24
and inconsistent with their own premisses,25
showing that their ascription of Satanic agency to what Christ did was only
prompted by hostility to His Person. This mode of turning the argument against
the arguer was peculiarly Hebraic, and it does not imply any assertion on the
part of Christ, as to whether or not the disciples of the Pharisees really cast
out demons. Mentally, we must supply - according to your own professions, your
disciples cast out demons. If so, by whom are they doing it?
22. St. Mark iii. 22; see Book III. ch. xxii.
23. See for example St. Luke xi. 22, 22.
24. St. Matt. xii. 25.
25. vv. 27-30.
But, secondly, beneath this logical argumentation lies deep and
spiritual instruction, closely connected with the late teaching during the
festive days in Jerusalem. It is directed against the flimsy, superstitious,
and unspiritual views entertained by Israel, alike of the Kingdom of evil and
of that of God. For, if we ignore the moral aspect of Satan and his kingdom,
all degenerates into the absurdities and superstitions of the Jewish view
concerning demons and Satan, which are fully described in another place.26
On the other hand, introduce the ideas of moral evil, of the concentration of
its power in a kingdom of which Satan is the representative and ruler, and of
our own inherent sinfulness, which makes us his subjects - and all becomes
clear. Then, truly, can Satan not cast out Satan - else how could his kingdom
stand; then, also, is the casting out of Satan only by 'God's Spirit,' or
'Finger:' and this is the Kingdom of God.27
Nay, by their own admission, the casting out of Satan was part of the work of
Messiah.28 29
Then had the Kingdom of God, indeed, come to them - for in this was the Kingdom
of God; and He was the God-sent Messiah, come not for the glory of Israel, nor
for anything outward or intellectual, but to engage in mortal conflict with
moral evil, and with Satan as its representative. In that contest Christ, as
the Stronger, bindeth 'the strong one,' spoils his house (divideth his spoil),
and takes from him the armour in which his strength lay ('he trusted') by
taking away the power of sin.30
This is the work of the Messiah - and, therefore also, no one can be
indifferent towards Him, because all, being by nature in a certain relation
towards Satan, must, since the Messiah had commenced His Work, occupy a
definite relationship towards the Christ Who combats Satan.31
32
26. See the Appendix on Angelology and Demonology.
27. St. Matt. xii. 25-28.
28. Yalkut on Is. lx.
29. See Book II. ch. v., and the Appendix to it, where the passage is given in full.
30. v. 29.
31. The reason of the difference between this and the somewhat similar passage, St. Luke ix 50, is, that there the relationship is to the disciples, here to
the Person of the Christ.
32. v. 30.
It follows, that the work of the Christ is a moral contest
waged through the Spirit of God, in which, from their position, all must take a
part. But it is conceivable that a man may not only try to be passively, but
even be actively on the enemy's side, and this not by merely speaking against
the Christ, which might be the outcome of ignorance or unbelief, but by
representing that as Satanic which was the object of His Coming.33
Such perversion of all that is highest and holiest, such opposition to, and
denunciation of, the Holy Spirit as if He were the manifestation of Satan,
represents sin in its absolute completeness, and for which there can be no
pardon, since the state of mind of which it is the outcome admits not the
possibility of repentance, because its essence lies in this, to call that
Satanic which is the very object of repentance. It were unduly to press the
Words of Christ, to draw from them such inferences as, whether sins unforgiven
in this world might or might not be forgiven in the next, since, manifestly, it
was not the intention of Christ to teach on this subject. On the other hand,
His Words seem to imply that, at least as regards this sin, there is no room
for forgiveness in the other world. For, the expression is not 'the age to
come' ()wbl dyt(), but, 'the world to come' ()bh Mlw(, or, yt)d )ml(), which, as
we know, does not strictly refer to Messianic times. but to the future and
eternal, as distinguished both from this world (Mlw( hzh), and from 'the days
of the Messiah' (xy#mh twmy).34
33. vv. 31, 32.
34. See Book II. ch. xi. vol. i. p. 267.
3. But this recognition of the spiritual, which was the
opposite of the sin against the Holy Ghost, was, as Christ had so lately
explained in Jerusalem, only to be attained by spiritual kinship with it.35
The tree must be made good, if the fruit were to be good; tree and fruit would
correspond to each other. How, then, could these Pharisees 'speak good things,'
since the state of the heart determined speech and action? Hence, a man would
have to give an account even of every idle word, since, however trifling it
might appear to others or to oneself, it was really the outcome of 'the heart,'
and showed the inner state. And thus, in reality. would a man's future in
judgment be determined by his words; a conclusion the more solemn, when we
remember its bearing on what His disciples on the one side, and the Pharisees
on the other, said concerning Christ and the Spirit of God.
35. St. Matt. xii. 33-37.
4. Both logically and morally the Words of Christ were
unanswerable; and the Pharisees fell back on the old device of challenging
proof of His Divine Mission by some visible sign.36
But this was to avoid the appeal to the moral element which the Lord had made;
it was an attempt to shift the argument from the moral to the physical. It was
the moral that was at fault, or rather, wanting in them; and no amount of
physical evidence or demonstration could have supplied that. All the signs from
heaven would not have supplied the deep sense of sin and of the need for a
mighty spiritual deliverance,37
which alone would lead to the reception of the Saviour Christ. Hence, as under
previous similar circumstances,38
He would offer them only one sign, that of Jonas the prophet. But whereas on
the former occasion Christ chiefly referred to Jonas' preaching (of
repentance), on this He rather pointed to the allegorical history of
Jonas as the Divine attestation of his Mission. As he appeared in Nineveh, he
was himself 'a sign unto the Ninevites;'39
the fact that he had been three days and nights in the whale's belly, and that
thence he had, so to speak, been sent forth alive to preach in Nineveh, was
evidence to them that he had been sent of God. And so would it be again. After
three days and three nights 'in the heart of the earth' - which is a Hebraism
for 'in the earth'40
- would His Resurrection Divinely attest to this generation His Mission. The
Ninevites did not question, but received this attestation of Jonas; nay, an
authentic report of the wisdom of Solomon had been sufficient to bring the
Queen of Sheba from so far; in the one case it was, because they felt their
sin; in the other, because she felt need and longing for better wisdom than she
possessed. But these were the very elements wanting in the men of this
generation; and so both Nineveh and the Queen of Sheba would stand up, not only
as mute witnesses against, but to condemn, them. For, the great Reality of
which the preaching of Jonas had been only the type, and for which the wisdom
of Solomon had been only the preparation, had been presented to them in Christ.41
36. St. Matt. xii. 38.
37. ver. 39.
38. St. Matt. xvi. 1-4.
39. St. Luke xi. 30.
40. This is simply a Hebraism of which, as similar instances, may be quoted, Exod. xv. 8 ('the heart of the sea'); Deut. iv. 11 ('the heart of heaven'); 2 Sam. xviii. 14 ('the heart of the terebinth'). Hence, I cannot agree with Dean Plumptre,
that the expression 'heart of the earth' bears any reference to Hades.
41. St. Matt. xii. 39-42.
5. And so, having put aside this cavil, Jesus returned to His
former teaching42
concerning the Kingdom of Satan and the power of evil; only now with
application, not, as before, to the individual, but, as prompted by a view of
the unbelieving resistance of Israel, to the Jewish commonwealth as a whole.
Here, also, it must be remembered, that, as the words used by our Lord were
allegorical and illustrative, they must not be too closely pressed. As compared
with the other nations of the world, Israel was like a house from which the
demon of idolatry had gone out with all his attendants, really the
'Beel-Zibbul' whom they dreaded. And then the house had been swept of all the
foulness and uncleanness of idolatry, and garnished with all manner of
Pharisaic adornments. Yet all this while the house was left really empty; God
was not there; the Stronger One, Who alone could have resisted the Strong One,
held not rule in it. And so the demon returned to it again, to find the house
whence he had come out, swept and garnished indeed, but also empty and
defenceless. The folly of Israel lay in this, that they thought of only one
demon - him of idolatry - Beel-Zibbul, with all his foulness. That was all very
repulsive, and they had carefully removed it. But they knew that demons were
only manifestations of demoniac power, and that there was a Kingdom of evil.
So this house, swept of the foulness of heathenism and adorned with all the
self-righteousness of Pharisaism, but empty of God, would only become a more
suitable and more secure habitation of Satan; because, from its cleanness and
beauty, his presence and rule there as an evil spirit would not be suspected.
So, to continue the illustrative language of Christ, he came back 'with seven
other spirits more wicked than himself' - pride, self-righteousness, unbelief,
and the like, the number seven being general - and thus the last state - Israel
without the foulness of gross idolatry and garnished with all the adornments of
Pharisaic devotion to the study and practice of the Law - was really worse than
had been the first with all its open repulsiveness.
42. vv. 43-45.
6. Once more was the Discourse interrupted, this time by a
truly Jewish incident. A woman in the crowd burst into exclamations about the
blessedness of the Mother who had borne and nurtured such a Son.43
The phraseology seems to have been not uncommon, since it is equally applied by
the Rabbis to Moses,44
and even to a great Rabbi.45
More striking, perhaps, is another Rabbinic passage (previously quoted), in
which Israel is described as breaking forth into these words on beholding the
Messiah: 'Blessed the hour in which Messiah was created; blessed the womb
whence He issued; blessed the generation that sees Him; blessed the eye that is
worthy to behold Him.'46
47
43. St. Luke xi. 27.
44. Shem. R. 45.
45. Chag. 14 b.
46. Persiqta, ed. Buber, p. 149 a, last lines.
47. For the full quotation see Book II. ch. v., and the reference to it in
Appendix IX.
And yet such praise must have been peculiarly unwelcome to
Christ, as being the exaltation of only His Human Personal excellence,
intellectual or moral. It quite looked away from that which He would present:
His Work and Mission as the Saviour. Hence it was, although from the opposite
direction, as great a misunderstanding as the Personal depreciation of the
Pharisees. Or, to use another illustration, this praise of the Christ through
His Virgin-Mother was as unacceptable and unsuitable as the depreciation of the
Christ, which really, though unconsciously, underlay the loving care of the
Virgin-Mother when she would have arrested Him in His Work,48
and which (perhaps for this very reason) St. Matthew relates in the same
connection.49
Accordingly, the answer in both cases is substantially the same: to point away
from His merely Human Personality to His Work and Mission - in the one case:
'Whosoever shall do the Will of My Father Which is in heaven, the same is My
brother, and sister, and mother;' in the other: 'Yea rather, blessed are they
that hear the Word of God and keep it.'50
48. See Book III. ch. xxii.
49. St. Matt. xii. 46, 47.
50. In view of such teaching, it is indeed difficult to understand the cultus of the Virgin - and even much of that tribute to the exclusively human in Christ which is so characteristic of Romanism.
7. And now the Discourse draws to a close51
by a fresh application of what, in some other form or connection, Christ had
taught at the outset of His public Ministry in the 'Sermon on the Mount.'52
Rightly to understand its present connection, we must pass over the various
interruptions of Christ's Discourse, and join this as the conclusion to the
previous part, which contained the main subject. This was, that spiritual
knowledge presupposed spiritual kinship.53
Here, as becomes the close of a Discourse, the same truth is practically
applied in a more popular and plain, one might almost say realistic, manner. As
here put, it is, that spiritual receptiveness is ever the condition of
spiritual reception. What was the object of lighting a lamp? Surely, that it
may give light. But if so, no one would put it into a vault, nor under the
bushel, but on the stand. Should we then expect that God would light the
spiritual lamp, if it be put in a dark vault? Or, to take an illustration of it
from the eye, which, as regards the body, serves the same purpose as the lamp
in a house. Does it not depend on the state of the eye whether or not we have
the sensation, enjoyment, and benefit of the light? Let us, therefore, take
care, lest, by placing, as it were, the lamp in a vault, the light in us be
really only darkness.54
On the other hand, if by means of a good eye the light is transmitted through
the whole system - if it is not turned into darkness, like a lamp that is put
into a vault or under a bushel, instead of being set up to spread light through
the house - then shall we be wholly full of light. And this, finally, explains
the reception or rejection of Christ: how, in the words of an Apostle, the same
Gospel would be both a savour of life unto life, and of death unto death.
51. St. Luke xi. 33-36.
52. St. Matt. v. 15; vi. 22, 23.
53. See above, page 199 &c.
54. In some measure like the demon who returned to find his house empty, swept and garnished.
It was a blessed lesson with which to close His Discourse, and
one full of light, if only they had not put it into the vault of their darkened
hearts. Yet presently would it shine forth again, and give light to those whose
eyes were opened to receive it; for, according to the Divine rule and spiritual
order, to him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be
taken away even that he hath.
Chapter 10 | Table
of Contents | Chapter 12
research-bpr@philologos.org
|
