_LAST DAYS IN PERÆA._
MATT. xix. 1-xx. 16.
There were two main roads from Galilee to Jerusalem. One passed
through Samaria, on the west of the Jordan, the other through Peræa,
east of it. It was by the former that our Lord went northward from
Judæa to begin His work in Galilee; it is by the other that He now
goes southward to complete His sacrifice in Jerusalem. As "He must
needs go through Samaria" then, so He must needs go through Peræa now.
The main thought in His mind is the journey; but He cannot pass
through the large and important district beyond the Jordan without
bringing the kingdom of heaven near to the people, and accordingly we
read that "great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there."
We learn from St. Luke's Gospel that "He went through the cities and
villages teaching, and journeying towards Jerusalem"; and from the
details there recorded, especially the mission of the seventy which
belongs to that period, it is evident that these circuits in Peræa
must have occupied several months. Concerning the work of these months
our Evangelist is silent, just as he was silent concerning the earlier
work in Judæa and Samaria, as recorded by St. John. We are reminded by
this of the fragmentariness of these memorials of our Lord; and when
we consider how much is omitted in all the narratives (see John xxi.
25) we can understand how difficult it is to form a closely connected
history without any gaps between, and with accurately fitted joinings
at the intersections of the different accounts.
There is, however, no difficulty here; for by comparison with the
third Gospel we find that our Evangelist omits all the circuits in
Peræa, and takes up the story again when our Lord is just about to
leave that region for Jerusalem. When we take his point of view, we
can see how natural this was. It was his special calling to give a
full account of the work in Galilee. Hence the haste with which he
passes from what it was necessary for him to tell of the early years
in the south till the work in Galilee began; and in the same way, now
that the work in Galilee is done, he hastens to the great crisis in
Jerusalem. In following the journey southward he lingers only in two
places, each of them associated with special memories. The one is
Capernaum, where Jesus, as we have seen, tarried for a few days before
taking final leave of Galilee; the other is the place beyond Jordan,
in the region where in baptism He had solemnly entered on His work
(cf. John x. 40), where again He remains for a brief period before
going up to Jerusalem for the last time.
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE (vv. 3-12).
There it was, and then, that the Pharisees came to Him with their
entangling question concerning divorce. To know how entangling it was
it is necessary to remember that there was a dispute at the time
between two rival schools of Jewish theology--the school of Hillel and
that of Shammai--in regard to the interpretation of Deut. xxiv. 1. The
one school held that divorce could be had on the most trivial
grounds; the other restricted it to cases of grievous sin. Hence the
question: "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every
cause?" The answer Jesus gives is remarkable, not only for the wisdom
and courage with which He met their attack, but for the manner in
which He availed Himself of the opportunity to set the institution of
marriage on its true foundation, and give perpetual security to His
followers for the sanctity of home, by laying down in the clearest and
strongest manner the position that marriage is indissoluble from its
very nature and from its divine appointment (vv. 4-6). As we read
these clear and strong utterances, let us bear in mind, not only that
the laxity which unhappily prevailed in Rome had extended to
Palestine, but that the monarch of the country through which our Lord
was passing was himself one of the most flagrant offenders. How
inspiring it is to think that then and there should have been erected
that grand bulwark of a virtuous home: "What God hath joined together,
let not man put asunder."
The Pharisees must have felt that He spoke with authority; but they
are anxious not to lose their opportunity of getting Him into a
difficulty, so they press Him with the disputed passage in
Deuteronomy: "Why did Moses, then, command to give a writing of
divorcement, and to put her away?" Our Lord's answer exposes the
double fallacy lurking in the question. "Why did Moses command?" He
did not command; he only suffered it--it was not to further divorce,
but to check it, that he made the regulation about the "writing of
divorcement." And then, not only was it a mere matter of
sufferance,--it was a sufferance granted "because of the hardness of
your hearts." Since things were so bad among your fathers in the
matter of marriage, it was better that there should be a legal process
than that the poor wives should be dismissed without it; but from the
beginning it was not so--it was not intended that wives should be
dismissed at all. Marriage is in itself indissoluble, except by death
or by that which in its very nature is the rupture of marriage (ver.
9).
The wide prevalence of lax views on this subject is made evident by
the perplexity of the disciples. They were not at all prepared for
such stringency, so they venture to suggest that if that is to be the
law, better not marry at all. The answer our Lord gives, while it does
admit that there are circumstances in which celibacy is preferable,
plainly intimates that it is only in quite exceptional cases. Only one
of the three cases he mentions is voluntary; and while it is certainly
granted that circumstances might arise in which for the kingdom of
heaven's sake celibacy might be chosen (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 26), even then
it must be only in cases where there is special grace, and such full
preoccupation with the things of the kingdom as to render it natural;
for such seems to be the import of the cautionary words with which the
paragraph closes: "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
How completely at variance with this wise caution have been the Romish
decrees in regard to the celibacy of the clergy may go without saying.
THE CHILDREN (vv. 13-15).
"_Then_ were there brought unto Him little children"--a happy
interruption! The Master has just been laying the solid foundations of
the Christian home; and now the group of men by whom He is surrounded
is joined by a troop of mothers, some carrying infants in their arms
(for the passage in St. Luke expressly mentions infants), and some
leading their little ones by the hand, to receive His blessing. The
timeousness of this arrival does not seem to have struck the
disciples. Their hearts had not yet been opened to the lambs of the
fold, notwithstanding the great lesson at Capernaum. With as little
regard for the feelings of the mothers as for the rights of the
children, they "rebuked those that brought them," (Mark x. 13) and
motioned them away. That this wounded the heart of the Saviour appears
in His answer, which is stronger, as indicating displeasure, than is
shown in our translation; while in the second Gospel it is expressly
mentioned that Jesus "was much displeased." How can we thank the Lord
enough for that sore displeasure? A distinguished opponent of
Christianity has lately been asking whether he is expected to accept
the kind and peaceful Jesus, Who smiles in one place, or the stern
Judge, Who frowns in another--with the evident implication that it is
impossible to accept both. How any person of intelligence can find
difficulty in supposing that Christ could without inconsistency be
either gentle or stern, as the occasion required, is very marvellous;
but here is a case in which the sternness and gentleness are blended
together in one act; and who will say that there is the least
incompatibility between them? He was much displeased with the
disciples; His heart was overflowing with tenderness to the children;
and in that moment of conflicting feeling He utters that immortal
sentence, these noblest and now most familiar of household words,
"Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me: for of
such is the kingdom of heaven."
The rights of woman had been implicitly taught in the law of marriage
carried back to the original creation of male and female; the
treatment of woman had been vindicated from the rudeness of the
disciples which would have driven the mothers away; and this reception
of the children, and these words of welcome into the kingdom for all
such little ones, are the charter of the children's rights and
privileges. It is very plain that Christ has opened the kingdom of
heaven, not only to all believers, but to their children as well. That
"the kingdom of heaven" is here used in its ordinary sense throughout
this Gospel, as referring to the heavenly kingdom which Christ had
come to establish upon earth, cannot be denied; but it is a very fair
inference from the Saviour's words that, seeing the children are
acknowledged as having their place in the kingdom on earth, those of
them who pass away from earth in childhood certainly find as sure and
cordial a welcome to the kingdom above.
"The holy to the holiest leads,
The kingdoms are but one."
The porch is on earth, the palace is in heaven; and we may be very
sure that all whom the King acknowledges in the porch shall be welcome
in the palace.
What a rebuke in these words of our Lord to those who deal with
children indiscriminately, as if they were all dead in trespasses and
sins. How it must grieve the Saviour's heart when lambs of His own
fold who may have been His from their earliest infancy are taught that
they are utterly lost, and must be lost for ever, unless they pass
through some extraordinary change, which is to them only a nameless
mystery. It is a mistake to think that children as a rule need to be
dragged to the Saviour, or frightened into trusting Him: what they
need is to be _suffered_ to come. It is so natural for them to come,
that all they need is very gentle leading, and above all nothing done
to hinder or discourage them: "Suffer little children, and forbid them
not, to come unto Me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
THE RICH YOUNG MAN (vv. 16-22).
Another inference from these precious words of Christ is the
importance of seeking to win the children for Christ while yet they
are children, ere the evil days come, or the years draw nigh, when
they will be apt to say they have no pleasure in Him. It is a sad
thing to think how soon the susceptibility of the child-nature may
harden into the impenetrability which is sometimes found even in
youth. Is there not a suggestion of this in the story of the young man
which immediately follows?
There was everything that seemed hopeful about him. He was young, so
his heart could not be very hard; of good moral character, amiable in
disposition, and stirred with noble aspirations; moreover, he did the
very best thing in coming to Christ for guidance. Yet nothing came of
it, because of one obstacle, which would have been no hindrance in his
childhood, but which proved insurmountable now. Young as he was, his
affections had had time to get so intertwined with his worldly
possessions, that he could not disengage them, so that instead of
following Christ "he went away sorrowful."
The manner of our Lord's dealing with this young man is exceedingly
instructive. Some have found a difficulty in what seems to them the
strange answer to the apparently straightforward and admirable
question "What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"
Why did He not give the same answer which St. Paul afterwards gave to
the Philippian jailer? Why did He not only fail to bring Himself
forward as the way, the truth and the life, but even disclaim the
goodness which the young man had imputed to Him? And why did He point
him to the law instead of showing him the Gospel? Everything becomes
quite clear when we remember that Christ dealt with people not
according to the words they spoke, but according to what He saw to be
in their hearts. Had this young man been in a state of mind at all
like that of the Philippian jailer when he came trembling and fell
down before Paul and Silas, he would no doubt have had a similar
answer. But he was in the very opposite condition. He was quite
satisfied with his own goodness; it was not salvation he was seeking,
but some new merit to add to the large stock he already had: "what
good thing shall I do" in addition to all the well-known goodness of
my character and daily life? what extra claim can I establish upon the
favour of God? Manifestly his idea of goodness was only conventional;
it was the goodness which passes muster among men, not that which
justifies itself before the all-searching eye of God; and having no
higher idea of goodness than that, he of course used it in no higher
sense, when he addressed Christ as "good Master." There could, then,
be no more appropriate or more heart-searching question than
this,--"_Why_ callest thou Me good?" (it is only in the conventional
sense you use the term, and conventional goodness is no goodness at
all); "there is none good but One, that is God." Having thus
stimulated his easy conscience, He sends him to the law that he may
have knowledge of his sin, and so may take the first step towards
eternal life. The young man's reply to this reveals the secret of his
heart, and shows that Christ had made no mistake in dealing with him
as He did. "Which?" he asks, evidently expecting that, the Ten
Commandments being taken for granted, there will be something higher
and more exacting, the keeping of which will bring him the extra
credit he hopes to gain.
The Lord's answer to his question was well fitted to take down his
spiritual pride, pointing him as it did to the commonplace Decalogue,
and to that part of it which seemed the easiest; for the first table
of the law is passed over, and only those commandments mentioned which
bear upon duty to man. And is there not special skill shown in the way
in which they are marshalled, so as to lead up to the one which
covered his weak point? The sixth, the seventh, the eighth, the ninth,
the fifth are rapidly passed in review; then the mind is allowed to
rest on the tenth, not, however, in its mere negative form, "Thou
shalt not covet," but as involved in that positive requirement which
sums up the whole of the second table of the Law, "Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself." We can imagine how the Saviour would mark the
young man's countenance, as one after another the commandments were
pressed upon his conscience, ending with that one which should have
pierced him as with a two-edged sword. But he is too strongly encased
in his mail of self-righteousness; and he only replies, "All these
things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?" Clearly it is a
surgical case; the medicine of the Commandments will not do; there
must be the insertion of the knife: "Go, and sell that thou hast, and
give to the poor."
Let us not, however, mistake the tone. "Jesus beholding him loved him"
(Mark x. 21); and the love was never warmer than at the moment when He
made this stern demand. There was sorrow on His face and in His tone
when He told him of the hard necessity; and there was a heart full of
love in the gracious invitation which rounded off the sharp saying at
the end: "Come, and follow Me." Let us hope that the Saviour's
compassionate love was not finally lost on him; that, though he no
doubt did lose the great opportunity of taking a high place in the
kingdom, he nevertheless, before all was done, bethought him of the
Master's faithful and loving words, repented of his covetousness, and
so found an open door and a forgiving welcome.
DANGER OF RICHES (vv. 23-26).
So striking an incident must not be allowed to pass without seizing
and pressing the great lesson it teaches. No lesson was more needful
at the time. Covetousness was in the air; it was already setting its
mark on the Hebrew people, who, as they ceased to serve God in spirit
and in truth, were giving themselves over more and more to the worship
of mammon; and, as the Master well knew, there was one of the twelve
in whom the fatal poison was even then at work. We can understand,
therefore, the deep feeling which Christ throws into His warning
against this danger, and His special anxiety to guard all His
disciples against an over-estimate of this world's riches.
We shall not, however, fully enter into the mind of our Lord, if we
fail to notice the tone of compassion and charity which marks His
first utterance. He is still thinking kindly of the poor rich young
man, and is anxious to make all allowance for him. It is as if He
said, "See that you do not judge him too harshly; think how hard it is
for such as he to enter the kingdom." This will explain how it is that
in repeating the statement He found it desirable, as recorded by St.
Mark, to introduce a qualification in order to render it applicable to
all cases: "How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into
the kingdom!" But while softening it in one direction, He puts it
still more strongly in another: "Again I say unto you, it is easier
for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to
enter into the kingdom of God." We shall not enter into the trivial
discussion as to the needle's eye; it is enough to know that it was a
proverbial phrase, probably in common use, expressing in the strongest
way the insurmountable obstacle which the possession of riches, when
these are trusted in and so put in place of God, must prove to their
unfortunate owner.
The disciples' alarm expressed in the question "Who, then, can be
saved?" does them much credit. It shows that they had penetration
enough to see that the danger against which their Master was guarding
them did not beset the rich alone; that they had sufficient knowledge
of themselves to perceive that even such as they, who had always been
poor, and who had given up what little they had for their Master's
sake, might nevertheless not be free enough from the well-nigh
universal sin to be themselves quite safe. One cannot help thinking
that the searching look, which St. Mark tells us their Lord bent on
them as He spoke, had something to do with this unusual quickness of
conscience. It reminds us of that later scene, when each one asked,
"Lord, is it I?" Is there any one of us, who, when that all-seeing Eye
is fixed upon us, with its pure and holy gaze into the depths of our
being, can fail to ask, with the conscience-stricken disciples, "Who,
then, can be saved?"
The answer He gives does not at all lighten the pressure on the
conscience. There is no recalling of the strong words which suggest
the idea of utter impossibility. He does not say, "You are judging
yourselves too strictly"; on the contrary, He confirms their judgment,
and tells them that there they are right: "With men this _is_
impossible"; but is there not another alternative? "Who art thou, O
great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain;" "With
God all things are possible." A most significant utterance this for
those to ponder who, instead of following our Lord's dealing with this
case to its close, treat it as if the final word had been "If thou
wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." This favourite passage
of the legalist is the one of all others which most completely
overthrows his hopes, and shows that so deep are the roots of sin in
the heart of man, even of the most amiable and most exemplary, that
none can be saved except by the power of divine grace overcoming that
which is to men an impossibility. "Behold, God is my salvation."
It is worthy of note that it is as a hindrance to _entering_ the
kingdom that riches are here stigmatised,--which suggests the thought
that the danger is not nearly so great when riches increase to those
who have already entered. Not that there is even for them no serious
danger, nor need of watching and of prayer that as they increase, the
heart be not set upon them; but where there is true consecration of
heart the consecration of wealth follows as a natural and easy
consequence. Riches are a responsibility to those that are in the
kingdom; they are a misfortune only to those who have not entered it.
As on the question of marriage or celibacy, so on that of property or
poverty, the Romanist has pushed our Lord's words to an extreme which
is evidently not intended. It was plain even to the disciples that it
was not the mere possession of riches, but the setting the heart on
them, which He condemned. If our Lord had intended to set forth the
absolute renunciation of property as a counsel of perfection to His
disciples, this would have been the time to do it; but we look in vain
for any such counsel. He saw it to be necessary for that young man;
but when He applies the case to disciples in general, He does not say
"If any man will come after Me, let him sell all that he has, and give
to the poor," but contents Himself with giving a very strong warning
against the danger of riches coming between man and the kingdom of
God. But while the ascetic interpretation of our Lord's words is
manifestly wrong, the other extreme of reducing them to nothing is far
worse, which is the danger now.
REWARDS (xix. 27-xx. 16[15]).
The thought of sacrifice very naturally suggests as its correlative
that of compensation; so it is not at all to be wondered at that,
before this conversation ended, the impulsive disciple, so much given
to think aloud, should blurt out the honest question: "Behold, we have
forsaken all and followed Thee; what shall we have therefore?" He
could not but remember that while the Master had insisted on His
disciples denying self to follow Him, He had spoken no less clearly of
their finding life through losing it, and of their being rewarded
according to their deeds (see xvi. 24-27). A more cautious man would
have hesitated before he spoke; but it was no worse to speak it than
to think it: and then, it was an honest and fair question; accordingly
our Lord gives it a frank and generous answer, taking care, however,
before leaving the subject, to add a supplementary caution, fitted to
correct what was doubtful or wrong in the spirit it showed.
Here, again, we see how thoroughly natural is our Saviour's teaching.
"Not to destroy, but to fulfil," was His motto. This is as true of His
relation to man's nature as of His relation to the law and the
prophets. "What shall we have?" is a question not to be set aside as
wholly unworthy. The desire for property is an original element in
human nature. It was of God at the first; and though it has swelled
out into most unseemly proportions, and has usurped a place which does
by no means belong to it, that is no reason why it should be dealt
with as if it had no right to exist. It is vain to attempt to root it
out; what it needs is moderating, regulating, subordinating. The
tendency of perverted human nature is to make "What shall we have?"
the first question. The way to meet that is not to abolish the
question altogether, but to put it last, where it ought to be. To be,
to do, to suffer, to enjoy--that is the order our Lord marks out for
His disciples. If only they have it as their first anxiety to be what
they ought to be, and to do what they are called to do, and are
willing, in order to this, to take up the cross, to suffer whatever
may be theirs to suffer, then they may allow as large scope as they
please to the desire for possession and enjoyment.
Observe the difference between the young man and the disciples. He was
coming to Christ for the first time; and if our Lord had set before
him what he would gain by following Him, He would have directly
encouraged a mercenary spirit. He therefore says not a word to him
about prospects of reward either here or hereafter. Those who choose
Christ must choose Him for His own sake. Our Saviour dealt in no other
way with Peter, James and John. When first He called them to follow
Him, He said not a word about thrones or rewards; He spoke of work:
"Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men"; and it was not till
they had fully committed themselves to Him that He went so far as to
suggest even in the most general way the thought of compensation. It
would have spoiled them to have put such motives prominently before
them at an earlier stage. But it is different now. They have followed
Him for months, even years. They have been tested in innumerable ways.
They are not certainly out of danger from the old selfishness; but
with the exception of one of them, who is fast developing into a
hypocrite, all they need is a solemn word of caution now and then. The
time had come when their Master might safely give them some idea of
the prospects which lay before them, when their cross-bearing days
should be over.
The promise looks forward to an entirely altered state of things
spoken of as "the regeneration"--a remarkable term, reminding us of
the vast scope of our Saviour's mission as ever present to His
consciousness even in these days of smallest things. The word recalls
what is said in the book of Genesis as to "the generation of the
heaven and of the earth," and suggests by anticipation the words of
the Apocalypse concerning the regeneration, "Behold, I make all things
new," and "I saw a new heaven and a new earth." That the reference is
to that final restitution of all things, and not merely to the new
dispensation, seems evident from the words which immediately follow:
"When the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory." Why, then,
was the promise given in words so suggestive of those crude notions of
an earthly kingdom, above which it was so difficult and so important
for the disciples to rise? The answer is to be found in the limitation
of human language: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have
entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for
them that love Him"; accordingly, if the promise was to be of any use
to them in the way of comfort and encouragement, it must be expressed
in terms which were familiar to them then. To their minds the kingdom
was as yet bound up with Israel; "the twelve tribes of Israel" was as
large a conception of it as their thoughts could then grasp; and it
would certainly be no disappointment to them when they afterwards
discovered that their relation as apostles of the Lord was to a much
larger "Israel," embracing every kindred and nation and people and
tribe; and though their idea of the thrones on which they would sit
was then and for some time afterwards quite inadequate, it was only by
starting with what ideas of regal power they had, that they could rise
to those spiritual conceptions which, as they matured in spiritual
understanding, took full possession of their minds.
The Lord is speaking, however, not for the apostles alone, but for
all His disciples to the end of time; so He must give a word of cheer,
in which even the weakest and most obscure shall have a part (ver.
29). Observe that here also the promise is only for those who have
left what they had for the sake of Christ. We are not authorised to go
with a message after this form: "If you leave, you will get." The
reward is of such a nature that it cannot be seen until the sacrifice
is made. "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God;" until a man loses his life for Christ's sake, he cannot find it.
But when the sacrifice has been made, then appears the compensation,
and it is seen that even these strong words are not too strong: "Every
one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or
mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name's sake, shall
receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." The full
consideration of this promise belongs rather to St. Mark's Gospel, in
which it is presented without abridgment.
The supplementary caution--"But many that are first shall be last; and
the last shall be first"--is administered in apparent reference to the
spirit of the apostle's question, which exhibits still some trace of
mercenary motive, with something also of a disposition to
self-congratulation. This general statement is illustrated by the
parable immediately following it, a connection which the unfortunate
division into chapters here obscures; and not only is an important
saying of our Lord deprived in this way of its illustration, but the
parable is deprived of its key, the result of which has been that many
have been led astray in its interpretation. We cannot attempt to enter
fully into the parable, but shall only make such reference to it as is
necessary to bring out its appropriateness for the purpose our Lord
had in view. Its main purport may be stated thus: many that are first
in amount of work shall be last in point of reward; and many that are
last in amount of work shall be first in point of reward. The
principle on which this is based is plain enough: that in estimating
the reward it is not the quantity of work done or the amount of
sacrifice made that is the measure of value, but the spirit in which
the work is done or the sacrifice made. The labourers who made no
bargain at all, but went to work on the faith of their Master's honour
and liberality, were the best off in the end. Those who made a bargain
received, indeed, all they bargained for; but the others were rewarded
on a far more liberal scale, they obtaining much more than they had
any reason to expect. Thus we are taught that those will be first who
think least of wages as wages, and are the least disposed to put such
a question as, "What shall we then have?" This was the main lesson for
the apostles, as it is for all who occupy places of prominence in the
kingdom. It is thus put in later years by one of those who now for the
first time learned it: "Look to yourselves, that we lose not those
things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward" (2
John 8). "Look to yourselves," see that your spirit be right, that
there be nothing selfish, nothing mercenary, nothing vainglorious;
else much good labour and real self-denial may miss its compensation.
Besides the lesson of caution to the great ones, there is a lesson of
encouragement to the little ones in the kingdom--those who can do
little and seem to themselves to sacrifice little for Christ. Let such
remember that their labour and self-denial are measured not by
quantity but by quality, by the spirit in which the service, however
small it be, is rendered, and the sacrifice, trifling as it seems, is
made. Not only is it true that many that are first shall be last; but
also that many of the last shall be first. "If there be first a
willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not
according to that he hath not."
Neither in the general statement of our Lord, nor in the parable which
illustrates it, is there the slightest encouragement to idlers in the
vineyard--to those who do nothing and sacrifice nothing for Christ,
but who think that, when the eleventh hour comes, they will turn in
with the rest, and perhaps come off best after all. When the Master of
the vineyard asks of those who are standing in the market-place at the
eleventh hour, "Why stand ye here all the day idle?" their answer is
ready, "Because no man hath hired us." The invitation came to them,
then, for the first time, and they accepted it as soon as it was given
them. Suppose the Master of the vineyard had asked them in the
morning, and at the first hour and the second and the third, and so on
all the day, and only at the eleventh hour did they deign to notice
His invitation, how would they have fared?
[15] The latter part of ver. 16--"Many be called, but few
chosen"--does not properly belong to this passage (see R.V.); its
consideration will therefore be postponed till its proper place is
reached (see chap. xxii. 14).