_CONFLICT IN THE TEMPLE._
MATT. xxi.-xxiii.
It had been written that the Lord should suddenly come to His Temple
(Mal. iii. 1); but He would not too hastily assert His rights. The
first day He simply "looked round about upon all things" (Mark xi.
11), and then withdrew to Bethany. The second day--without, however,
even yet assailing the authority of those in power--He assumed His
prerogative as Lord of the Temple by casting out the traffickers,
healing the blind and the lame, and accepting the hosannas of the
children. The scribes and Pharisees showed some displeasure at all
this, and raised objections; but the answer they received silenced, if
it did not satisfy them. Thus two days passed without any serious
attempt to dispute His authority; but on the third day the conflict
began. It was a dark and terrible day, and of its fateful history we
have a full account in this Gospel.
The day opens with the sight on the way to the city of the withered
fig tree, a sad symbol of the impending fate of Israel, to be decided
ere the day closed by their final rejection of their Saviour-King.
This was our Lord's single miracle of judgment; many a stern word of
warning did He speak, but there is no severity in His deeds: they are
all mercy and love. The single exception, if exception it may be
called, makes this great fact stand out only the more impressively. It
was necessary for love's sake to show that in that arm, which was
always strong to save, there was also strength to smite if the sad
necessity should come; but so tender-hearted is He that He cannot bear
to strike where the stroke can be felt, so He lets it fall on an
unconscious tree. Thus to the end He justifies His name of Jesus,
Saviour, and illustrates the blessed truth of which His whole life is
the expression, that "God is love." "The Son of man is not come to
destroy men's lives but to save them." Judgment is His strange work;
from the very thought of it He shrinks, as seems suggested to us here
by the fact that, in the use He makes of the circumstance in His
conversation with the disciples, He refrains from speaking of its dark
significance, but rather takes the opportunity of teaching from it an
incidental lesson full of hope and comfort regarding the power of
faith and the value of prayer (vv. 21, 22).
As soon as on the third day He enters the Temple the conflict begins.
It would seem that the interval our Lord had in mercy allowed for calm
reflection had been used for no other purpose than to organise a
conspiracy for the purpose of entangling Him in His words and so
discrediting His authority. We gather this from the carefully framed
questions with which He is plied by one party after another. Four
successive attacks are recorded in the passage before us: the first by
the chief priests and elders of the people demanding His authority;
the next by the Pharisees, assisted by the Herodians, who endeavoured
by means of the difficulty of the tribute money to embroil Him with
the Roman power; this was again immediately followed by a third, in
which the prime movers were the Sadducees, armed with what they
considered an unanswerable question regarding the life to come; and
when that also broke down there was a renewed attack of the Pharisees
who thought to disconcert Him by a perplexing question about the law.
We may not discuss the long sad history of these successive attacks
with any fulness, but only glance first at the challenge of our Lord's
authority and how He meets it, and next at the ordeal of questions
with which it was followed.
I.--THE CHALLENGE (xxi. 23-xxii. 14).
"By what authority doest Thou these things? And who gave Thee this
authority?" The question was fair enough; and if it had been asked in
an earnest spirit, Jesus would have given then, as always to the
honest inquirer, a kind and satisfying answer. It is not, however, as
inquirers, but as cavillers, they approach Him. Again and again, at
times and in ways innumerable, by fulfilment of prophecy, by His
mighty deeds and by His wondrous words, He had given proof of His
Divine authority and established His claim to be the true Messiah. It
was not therefore because they lacked evidence of His authority, but
because they hated it, because they would not have this man to reign
over them, that now they question Him. It was obvious that their only
object was to entangle Him; accordingly our Lord showed how in the net
they were spreading for Him their own feet were caught.
He meets their question with a counter question, "The baptism of John,
whence was it? from heaven, or of men?" The more we examine this
question, the more must we admire the consummate wisdom it displays.
We see at once how it turns the tables on His critics; but it is far
more important to notice how admirably adapted it was to lead them to
the answer of their own question, if only they would follow it out.
They dared not repudiate the baptism of John; and had not John
baptised Jesus, and solemnly borne repeated testimony to His
Messiahship? Had he not most emphatically borne that very testimony to
a formal deputation sent by themselves? (John i. 19-27). Finally, were
not the ministry and testimony of John closely associated in prophecy
with that very coming of the Lord to His Temple which gave them so
deep offence: "Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare
the way before Me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to
His temple: ... behold, He shall come, saith the Lord of hosts." Our
Lord's counter question, then, was framed with such exquisite skill as
to disappoint their malice, while at the same time it was suited to
guide the earnest inquirer to the truth.
The propounders of the question were not true men, but hypocrites. A
negative answer they _could_ not give. An affirmative they
_would_ not give. So when they refused to answer, our Lord
replied, "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things."
The Lord of the Temple now assumes the offensive, and directs against
His opponents a series of parables which He holds up to them as a
triple mirror in which from different points of view they may see
themselves in their true character, and as a set of danger signals to
warn them of their impending doom. He presents them with such
marvellous skill that He makes the Pharisees their own judges, and
constrains them to pass sentence on themselves. In the first parable
He constrains them to declare their own guilt; in the second, He makes
them decree their own punishment; in the third, He warns them of the
impending fate of the people they were leading to destruction.
We have said that in these parables Christ assumes the offensive; but
this is true only in a very superficial sense. In the deepest sense He
spoke them not against the Pharisees, but for them. His object was to
carry home to their hearts the conviction of sin, and to impress them
with a sense of their danger before it was too late. This was what
above all they needed. It was their only hope of salvation. And how
admirably suited for His purpose were these three parables! Their
application to themselves was plain enough after it was stated, but
not beforehand; the effect of which was that they were put in a
position to give an impartial verdict on their own conduct. It was the
same method so effectively employed by Nathan in bringing conviction
to the conscience of David. Had Christ charged the sin of the
Pharisees directly home upon them, they would have been at once thrown
on the defensive, and it would have been impossible to reach their
conscience through the entanglements of prejudice and personal
interest. Christ wishes to disentangle them from all that was
darkening their moral vision; and He uses the parable as the most
effective means. It is a great mistake, then, to suppose that Jesus
contented Himself with turning the tables on them, and carrying the
war, so to speak, into the enemy's country. It was with them a war of
words, but not with Him. He was seeking to save these poor lost ones.
He wished to give them His best for their worst. They had come to
entangle Him in His talk. He does His best to disentangle them from
the meshes of self-deception. The tone of all three parables is
exceptionally severe; but the spirit of them is love.
_The Two Sons_ (vv. 28-32).
The parable of the two sons is exceedingly simple; and the question
founded upon it, "Whether of them twain did the will of his father?"
admitted of but one answer--an answer which seemed, as it was spoken,
to involve only the simplest of all moral judgments; yet how keen the
edge of it when once it was disclosed! Observe the emphatic word
_did_, suggesting without saying it, that it made comparatively
little difference what they _said_ (see xxiii. 3). So far as
profession went, the Pharisees were all that could be desired. They
were the representatives of religion in the land; their whole attitude
corresponded to the answer of the second son: "I go, sir." Yet when
John--whom they themselves admitted to be a prophet of the Lord--came
to them in the way of righteousness, they set his word aside and
refused to obey him. On the other hand, many of those whose lives
seemed to say "I will not," when they heard the word of John, repented
and began to work the works of God. Thus it came to pass that many of
these had entered the kingdom, while the self-complacent Pharisee
still remained without.
The words with which the parable is pressed home are severe and
trenchant; but they are nevertheless full of gospel grace. They set in
the strongest light the welcome fact that the salvation of God is for
the chief of sinners, for those who have been rudest and most
rebellious in their first answers to the divine appeal; and then,
while they condemn so very strongly the self-deceiver, it is not for
the purpose of covering him with confusion, but in order to open his
eyes and save him from the net in which he has set his feet. Even in
that terrible sentence which puts him lower down than open and
disgraceful sinners, there is a door left still unlatched for him to
enter. "The publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God _before
you_"; but you may enter after them. If only you, like them, would
"afterward" repent--if you would repent of your hypocrisy and
insincerity, as they have repented of their rudeness and
rebellion--you would be as gladly welcomed as they into the kingdom of
God.
_The Husbandmen_ (vv. 33-46).
The second parable follows hard on the first, and presses the chief
priests and Pharisees so closely that they cannot fail to see in the
end that it is themselves they have been constrained to judge and
condemn (ver. 45). It is indeed difficult to suppose that they had not
even from the beginning some glimpse of the intended application of
this parable. The vineyard was a familiar symbol, with a definite and
well understood meaning, from which our Lord in His use of it does not
depart. The vineyard being the nation, the owner is evidently God; the
fruit expected, righteousness; the particulars mentioned (the fence,
the press, the tower) implying the completeness of the arrangements
made by the owner for securing the expected fruit. The husbandmen are
the leaders of the people, those who are responsible for their
direction and control. The going to a far country represents the
removal of God from their sight; so that they are, as it were, put
upon their honour, left to act in the matter of the vineyard according
to the prompting of their own hearts. All this is contained in the
few lines which make up verse 33, and forms the groundwork of this
great parable. Thus are set forth in a very striking manner the high
privileges and grave responsibilities of the leaders of the Jewish
people, represented at the time by the chief priests and Pharisees He
was then addressing. How are they meeting this responsibility? Let the
parable tell.
It is a terrible indictment, showing in the strongest light the guilt
of their fathers, and pointing out to them that they are on the verge
of a crime far greater still. Again and again have prophets of
righteousness come in the name of the Lord, and demanded the fruits of
righteousness which were due. How have they been received? "The
husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and
stoned another." So have their fathers acted time after time, and
still the patience of the owner is not exhausted, nor does He even yet
give up all hope of fruit from His favoured vineyard; so, as a last
resort, He sends His son, saying, "They will reverence my son."
We can imagine the tone in which the Son of God would speak these
words. What a sublime consciousness is implied in His use of them! and
how touchingly does He in this incidental way give the best of all
answers to the question with which His enemies began! Surely the son,
the only and well beloved son,[17] had the best of all authority to
act for the father! In the former parable He had appealed to the
recognised authority of John; now He indicates that the highest
authority of all is in Himself. If only their hearts had not been
wholly shut against the light, how it would have flashed upon them
now! They would have taken up the cry of the children, and said,
"Hosanna! blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord"; and the
parable would have served its purpose before it had reached its close.
But they are deaf and blind to the things of God; so the awful
indictment must proceed to the bitter end.
If there was in the heart of Christ an exalted consciousness of His
filial relation to God as He spoke of the sending of the Son, what a
pang must have shot through it as He proceeded to depict in such vivid
colours the crime they are now all ready to commit, referring
successively as He does to the arrest, the handing over to Pilate, and
the crucifixion without the gate: "They caught him, and cast him out
of the vineyard, and slew him." How appalling it must have been to Him
to speak these words! how appalling it ought to have been to them to
hear them! That they did feel the force of the parable is evident from
the answer they gave to the question, "What will he do to those
husbandmen?" and, as we have said, they must surely have had some
glimpses of its application to themselves; but it did not disturb
their self-complacency, until our Lord spoke the plain words with
which He followed up the parable, referring to that very psalm from
which the children's cry of "Hosanna" was taken. From it He selects
the symbol of the stone rejected by the builders, but by God made the
head of the corner, applying it to Himself (the rejected stone) and
them (the builders). The reference was most appropriate in itself; and
it had the further advantage of being followed by the very word which
it would be their salvation now to speak. "Hosanna" is the word which
immediately follows the quotation He makes, and it introduces a
prayer which, if only they will make their own, all will yet be well
with them. The prayer is, "Save now, I beseech Thee, O Lord"; followed
by the words, "Blessed be He that cometh in the name of the Lord." May
we not assume that our Lord paused after making His quotation, to give
them the opportunity of adopting it as their own prayer? His whole
heart was longing to hear these very words from them. Have we not the
proof of it further on, in the sad words with which at last He
abandoned the hope: "I say unto you, ye shall not see Me henceforth
till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord"
(xxiii. 39)?
Seeing they will not take the warning of the parable, and that they
refuse the opportunity given them while yet under its awe-inspiring
influence, to repent and return, He must give sentence against them:
"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from
you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." This
sentence He follows up by setting before them the dark side of the
other symbol: "Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but
on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." They were
stumbling on the stone now, and about to be broken upon it; but the
danger that lay before them if they persisted in their present
unbelief and sin, would be far greater still, when He Whom they now
despised and rejected should be at the head of all authority and power.
But all is vain. Steeling their hearts against His faithful words,
they are only the more maddened against Him, and fear alone restrains
them from beginning now the very crime against which they have just
had so terrible a warning: "When they sought to lay hands on Him,
they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet."
_The Marriage Feast_ (xxii. 1-14).
The manner in which this third parable is introduced leaves room for
doubt whether it was spoken in immediate connection with the two
preceding. The use of the word "answered" (ver. 1) would rather
suggest the idea that some conversation not reported had intervened.
But though it does not form part of a continuous discourse with the
others, it is so closely connected with them in scope and bearing that
it may appropriately be dealt with, as concluding the warning called
forth by the first attack of the chief priests and elders. The
relation between the three parables will be best seen by observing
that the first has to do with their treatment of John; the second and
third with their treatment of Himself and His apostles. The second and
third differ from each other in this: that, while the King's Son, Who
is prominent in both, is regarded in the former as the last and
greatest of a long series of heavenly messengers sent to demand of the
chosen people the fruits of righteousness, in the latter He is
presented, not as demanding righteousness, but as bringing joy. Duty
is the leading thought of the second parable, privilege of the third;
in the one sin is brought home to Israel's leaders by setting before
them their treatment of the messengers of righteousness, in the other
the sin lies in their rejection of the message of grace. Out of this
distinction rises another--viz., that while the second parable runs
back into the past, upwards along the line of the Old Testament
prophets, the third runs down into the future, into the history of the
apostolic times. The two together make up a terrible indictment,
which might well have roused these slumbering consciences, and led
even scribes and Pharisees to shrink from filling up the measure of
their iniquities.
A word may be necessary as to the relation of this parable to the
similar one recorded in the fourteenth chapter of St. Luke, known as
"The parable of the Great Supper." The two have many features in
common, but the differences are so great that it is plainly wrong to
suppose them to be different versions of the same. It is astonishing
to see what needless difficulties some people make for themselves by
the utterly groundless assumption that our Lord would never use the
same illustration a second time. Why should He not have spoken of the
gospel as a feast, not twice merely, but fifty times? There would, no
doubt, be many variations in His manner of unfolding the thought,
according to the circumstances, the audience, the particular object in
view at the time; but to suppose that because He had used that
illustration in Galilee, He must be forbidden from reverting to it in
Judæa is a specimen of what we may call the insanity of those who are
ever on the watch for their favourite "discrepancies." In this case
there is not only much variation in detail, but the scope of the two
parables is quite different, the former having more the character of a
pressing invitation, with only a suggestion of warning at the close;
whereas the one before us, while preserving all the grace of the
gospel as suggested by the figure of a feast to which men are freely
invited, and even heightening its attractiveness inasmuch as it is a
wedding feast--the most joyful of all festivities--and a royal one
too, yet has throughout the same sad tone of judgment which has been
characteristic of all these three parables, and is at once seen to be
specially appropriate to the fateful occasion on which they were
spoken.
As essentially a New Testament parable, it begins with the familiar
formula "The kingdom of heaven is like." The two previous parables had
led up to the new dispensation; but this one begins with it, and is
wholly concerned with it. The King's Son appears now, not as a
messenger, but as a bridegroom. It was not the first time that Jesus
had spoken of Himself as a bridegroom, or rather as _the_
Bridegroom.[18] The thought was a familiar one in the prophets of the
Old Testament, the Bridegroom, be it remembered, being none other than
Jehovah Himself. Consider, then, what it meant that _Jesus_
should without hesitation or explanation speak of Himself as the
Bridegroom. And let us not imagine that He simply took the figure, and
applied it to Himself as fulfilling prophecy; let us not fail to
realise that He entered fully into its tender meaning. When we think
of the circumstances in which this parable was spoken, we have here a
most pathetic glimpse into the sanctuary of our Saviour's loving
heart. Let us try with reverent sympathy to enter into the feeling of
the King's Son, come from heaven to seek humanity for His bride, to
woo and to win her from the cruel bondage of sin and death, to take
her into union with Himself, so that she may share with Him the
liberty and wealth, the purity and joy, the glory and the hope of the
heavenly kingdom! The King "made a marriage for His Son"--where is the
bride? what response is she making to the Bridegroom's suit? A
marriage for His Son! On Calvary?
It must have been very hard for Him to go on; but He will keep down
the rising tide of emotion, that He may set before this people and
before all people another attractive picture of the kingdom of heaven.
He will give even these despisers of the heavenly grace another
opportunity to reconsider their position. So He tells of the
invitations sent out first to "them that were bidden"--_i.e._, to
the chosen people who had been especially invited from the earliest
times, and to whom, when the fulness of the time had come, the call
was first addressed. "And they would not come." There is no reference
to the aggravations which had found place in the former parable (xxi.
39). These were connected not so much with the offer of grace, which
is the main purport of this parable, as with the demand for fruit,
which was the leading thought of the one before. It was enough, then,
in describing how they dealt with the invitation, to say, "They would
not come"; and, indeed, this refusal hurt Him far more than their
buffets and their blows. When He is buffeted, He is silent, sheds no
tears, utters no wail; His tears and lamentation are reserved for
them: "How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as
a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
"_They would not come._"
But the love of the King and of His Son is not yet exhausted. A second
invitation is sent, with greater urgency than before, and with fuller
representations of the great preparations which had been made for the
entertainment of the guests: "Again, he sent forth other servants,
saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner:
my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come
unto the marriage." As the first invitation was that which had been
already given and which they were now rejecting, the second refers to
that fuller proclamation of the gospel which was yet to be made after
the work of the Bridegroom-Redeemer should be finished, when it could
be said, as not before: "All things are ready."
In the account which follows, therefore, there is a foreshadowing of
the treatment the apostles would afterwards receive. Many, indeed,
were converted by their word, and took their places at the feast; but
the people as a whole "made light of it, and went their ways, one to
his farm, another to his merchandise: and the remnant took his
servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them." What was the
consequence? Jerusalem, rejecting the gospel of the kingdom, even when
it was "preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven," must be
destroyed; and new guests must be sought among the nations that up
till now had no especial invitation to the feast. This prophetic
warning was conveyed in terms of the parable; yet there is a touch in
it which shows how strongly the Saviour's mind was running on the sad
future of which the parable was but a picture: "When the king heard
thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed
those murderers, and burned up their city." Why "city"? There had been
no mention of a city in the parable. True; but Jerusalem was in the
Saviour's heart, and all the pathos of His lament over it is in that
little word. "_Their_ city" too, observe,--reminding us of "_your_
house" at the close of this sad day (xxiii. 38). In the same way the
calling of the Gentiles is most skilfully brought within the scope of
the parable, by the use of the peculiar word translated in the Revised
Version--"the partings of the highways," which seems to suggest the
thought of the servants leaving the city precincts, and going out in
all directions along the main trunk roads to "the partings of the
highways," to carry the gospel to all without distinction, wherever
could be found an ear of man to listen, or a human heart to welcome
the King's grace and the Bridegroom's love. Thus, after all, the
wedding was to be furnished with guests.
* * * * *
The parable, as we have seen, is one of grace; but righteousness too
must find a place in it. The demand for fruits of righteousness is no
less rigid in the new dispensation than it had been in the old. To
make this clear and strong the parable of the Feast is followed by the
pendant of the Wedding Garment.
There are two ways in which the heavenly marriage feast may be
despised: first, by those who will not come at all; next, and no less,
by those who try to snatch the wedding joy without the bridal purity.
The same leading thought or motive is recognisable here as in the
parable of the two sons. The man without the wedding garment
corresponds to the son who said "I go, sir," and went not, while those
who refuse altogether correspond to the son who answered "I will not."
By bearing this in mind we can understand, what to many has been a
serious difficulty--how it is that the punishment meted out to the
offender in this second parable is so terribly severe. If we simply
think of the parable itself, it does seem an extraordinary thing that
so slight an offence as coming to a wedding feast without the
regulation dress should meet with such an awful doom; but when we
consider whom this man represents, we can see the very best of reasons
for it. Hypocrisy was his crime, than which there is nothing more
utterly hateful in the sight of Him Who desireth truth in the inward
parts. It is true that the representation does not at first seem to
set the sin in so very strong a light; but when we think of it, we see
that there was no other way in which it could be brought within the
scope of this parable. It is worthy of notice, moreover, that the
distinction between the intruder and the others is not observed till
the king himself enters, which indicates that the difference between
him and the others was no outward distinction, that the garment
referred to is the invisible garment of righteousness. To the common
eye he looked like all the rest; but when the all-searching Eye is on
the company he is at once detected and exposed. He is really worse
than those who would not come at all. They were honest sinners; he was
a hypocrite--_at_ the feast with mouth and hand and eye, but not _of_
it, for his spirit is not robed in white: he is the black sheep in the
fold; a despiser within, he is worse than the despisers without.
Even to him, indeed, the king has a kindly feeling. He calls him
"Friend," and gives him yet the opportunity to repent and cry for
mercy. But he is speechless. False to the core, he has no rallying
point within to fall back upon. All is confusion and despair. He
cannot even pray. Nothing remains but to pronounce his final doom
(ver. 13).
The words with which the parable closes (ver. 14) are sad and solemn.
They have occasioned difficulty to some, who have supposed they were
meant to teach that the number of the saved will be small. Their
difficulty, like so many others, has been due to forgetfulness of the
circumstances under which the words were spoken, and the strong
emotion of which they were the expression. Jesus is looking back over
the time since He began to spread the gospel feast, and thinking how
many have been invited, and how few have come! And even among those
who have seemed to come there are hypocrites! One He specially would
have in mind as He spoke of the man without the wedding garment; for
though we take him to be the type of a class, we can scarcely think
that our Lord could fail to let His sad thoughts rest on Judas, as He
described that man. Taking all this into consideration, we can well
understand how at that time He should conclude His parable with the
lamentation: "Many are called, but few chosen." It did not follow that
it was a truth for all time and for eternity. It was true for the time
included in the scope of the parable. It was most sadly true of the
Jewish nation then, and in the times which followed on immediately;
but the day was coming, before all was done, when the heavenly
Bridegroom, according to the sure word of prophecy, should "see of the
travail of His soul, and be satisfied." No creed article, therefore,
have we here, but a cry from the sore heart of the heavenly
Bridegroom, in the day of His sorrow, in the pain of unrequited love.
II.--THE ORDEAL OF QUESTIONS (xxii. 15-46).
The open challenge has failed; but more subtle weapons may succeed.
The Pharisees have found it of no avail to confront their enemy; but
they may still be able to entangle Him. They will at all events try.
They will spring upon Him some hard questions, of such a kind that,
answering on the spur of the moment, He will be sure to compromise
Himself.
1. The first shall be one of those semi-political semi-religious
questions on which feeling is running high--the lawfulness or
unlawfulness of paying tribute to Cæsar. The old Pharisees who had
challenged His authority keep in the background, that the sinister
purpose of the question may not appear; but they are represented by
some of their disciples who, coming fresh upon the scene and
addressing Jesus in terms of respect and appreciation, may readily
pass for guileless inquirers. They are accompanied by some Herodians,
whose divergence of view on the point made it all the more natural
that they should join with Pharisees in asking the question; for it
might fairly be considered that they had been disputing with one
another in regard to it, and had concluded to submit the question to
His decision as to one who would be sure to know the truth and
fearless to tell it. So together they come with the request: "Master,
we know that Thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth,
neither carest Thou for any man: for Thou regardest not the person of
men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give
tribute unto Cæsar, or not?"
But they cannot impose upon Him: "Jesus perceived their wickedness,
and said, Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?" Having thus unmasked them,
without a moment's hesitation He answers them. They had expected a
"yes" or a "no"--a "yes" which would have set the people against Him,
or better still a "no" which would have put Him at the mercy of the
government. But, avoiding Scylla on the one hand, and Charybdis on the
other, He makes straight for His goal by asking for a piece of coin
and calling attention to Cæsar's stamp upon it. Those who use Cæsar's
coin should not refuse to pay Cæsar's tribute; but, while the relation
which with their own acquiescence they sustain to the Roman emperor
implied corresponding obligations in the sphere it covered, this did
not at all interfere with what is due to the King of kings and Lord of
lords, in Whose image we all are made, and Whose superscription every
one of us bears: "Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are
Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Thus He not only
avoids the net they had spread for Him, and gives them the very best
answer to their question, but, in doing so, He lays down a great
principle of far-reaching application and permanent value respecting
the difficult and much-to-be-vexed question as to the relations
between Church and State. "O answer full of miracle!" as one has said.
No wonder that "when they had heard these words, they marvelled, and
left Him, and went their way."
2. Next come forward certain Sadducees. That the Pharisees had an
understanding with them also seems likely from what is said both in
verse 15, which seems a general introduction to the series of
questions, and in verse 34, from which it would appear that they were
somewhere out of sight waiting to hear the result of this new attack.
Though the alliance seems a strange one, it is not the first time that
common hostility to the Christ of God has drawn together the two great
rival parties (see chap. xvi. 1). If we are right in supposing them to
be in combination now, it is a remarkable illustration of the deep
hostility of the Pharisees that they should not only combine with the
Sadducees against Him, as they had done before, but that they should
look with complacency on their using against Him a weapon which
threatened one of their own doctrines. For the object of the attack
was to cast ridicule on the doctrine of the resurrection, which
assuredly the Pharisees did not deny.
The difficulty they raise is of the same kind as those which are
painfully familiar in these days, when men of coarse minds and fleshly
imaginations show by their crude objections their incapacity even to
think on spiritual themes. The case they supposed was one they knew He
could not find fault with so far as this world was concerned, for
everything was done in accordance with the letter of the law of Moses,
the inference being that whatever confusion there was in it must
belong to what they would call His figment of the resurrection: "In
the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all
had her."
It is worthy of note that our Lord's answer is much less stern than in
the former case. These men were not hypocrites. They were scornful,
perhaps flippant; but they were not intentionally dishonest. The
difficulty they felt was due to the coarseness of their minds, but it
was a real difficulty to them. Our Lord accordingly gives them a
kindly answer, not denouncing them, but calmly showing them where they
are wrong: "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of
God."
Ye know not the power of God, or ye would not suppose that the life to
come would be a mere repetition of the life that now is, with all its
fleshly conditions the same as now. That there is continuity of life
is of course implied in the very idea of resurrection; but true life
resides not in the flesh but in the spirit, and therefore the
continuity will be a spiritual continuity; and the power of God will
effect such changes on the body itself that it will rise out of its
fleshly condition into a state of being like that of the angels of
God. The thought is the same as that which was afterwards expanded by
the apostle Paul in such passages as Rom. viii. 5-11, 1 Cor. xv. 35-54.
Ye know not the Scriptures, or you would find in the writings of Moses
from which you quote, and to which you attach supreme importance,
evidence enough of the great doctrine you deny. "Have ye not read that
which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" Here, again, Jesus not only
answers the Sadducees, but puts the great and all-important doctrine
of the life to come and the resurrection of the body on its deepest
foundation. There are those who have expressed astonishment that He
did not quote from some of the later prophets, where He could have
found passages much clearer and more to the point: but not only was it
desirable that, as they had based their question on Moses, He should
give His answer from the same source; but in doing so He has put the
great truth on a permanent and universal basis; for the argument rests
not on the authority of Moses, nor, as some have supposed, upon the
present tense "I am," but on the relation between God and His people.
The thought is that such a relation between mortal man and the eternal
God as is implied in the declaration "I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" is itself a guarantee of
immortality. Not for the spirit only, for it is not as spirits merely
but as men that we are taken into relation to the living God; and that
relation, being of God, must share His immortality: "God is not the
God of the dead, but of the living." The thought[19] is put in a very
striking way in a well-known passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews:
"But now they (the patriarchs) desire a better country, that is, an
heavenly: _wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God_: for
He hath prepared for them a city."
Our Lord's answer suggests the best way of assuring ourselves of this
glorious hope. Let God be real to us, and life and immortality will be
real too. If we would escape the doubts of old Sadducee and new
Agnostic, we must be much with God, and strengthen more and more the
ties which bind us to Him.
3. The next attempt of the Pharisees is on an entirely new line. They
have found that they cannot impose upon Him by sending pretended
inquirers to question Him. But they have managed to lay their hands on
a real inquirer now--one of themselves, a student of the law, who is
exercised on a question much discussed, and to which very different
answers are given; they will suggest to him to carry his question to
Jesus, and see what He will say to it. That this was the real state of
the case appears from the fuller account in St. Mark's Gospel. When,
then, St. Matthew speaks of him as asking Jesus a question, "tempting
Him," we are not to impute the same sinister motives as actuated those
who sent him. He also was in a certain sense tempting Jesus--_i.e._,
putting Him to the test, but with no sinister motive, with a real
desire to find out the truth, and probably also to find out if this
Jesus was one who could really help an inquirer after truth. In this
spirit, then, he asks the question, "Which is the great commandment in
the law?"
The answer our Lord immediately gives is now so familiar that it is
difficult to realise how great a thing it was to give it for the first
time. True, He takes it from the Scriptures; but think what command of
the Scriptures is involved in this prompt reply. The passages quoted
lie far apart--the one in the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy, the other
in the nineteenth of Leviticus, in quite an obscure corner; and
nowhere are they spoken of as the first and second commandments, nor
indeed were they regarded as commandments in the usually understood
sense of the word. When we consider all this, we recognise what from
one point of view might be called a miracle of genius, and from
another a flash of inspiration, in the instantaneous selection of
these two passages, and bringing them together so as to furnish a
summary of the law and the prophets beyond all praise, which the
veriest unbeliever if only he have a mind to appreciate that which is
excellent, must recognise as worthy of being written in letters of
light That one short answer to a sudden question--asked indeed by a
true man, but really sprung upon Him by His enemies who were watching
for His halting--is of more value in morals than all the writings of
all the ethical philosophers, from Socrates to Herbert Spencer.
* * * * *
It is now time to question the questioners. The opportunity is most
favourable. They are gathered together to hear what He will say to
their last attempt to entangle Him. Once more He has not only met the
difficulty, but has done so in such a way as to make the truth on the
subject in dispute shine with the very light of heaven. There could
not, then, be a better opportunity of turning their thoughts in a
direction which might lead them, if possible in spite of themselves,
into the light of God.
The question Jesus asks (vv. 41-45) is undoubtedly a puzzling one for
them; but it is no mere Scripture conundrum. The difficulty in which
it lands them is one which, if only they would honestly face it, would
be the means of removing the veil from their eyes, and leading them,
ere it is too late, to welcome the Son of David come in the name of
the Lord to save them. They fully accepted the psalm to which He
referred as a psalm of David concerning the Messiah. If, then, they
would honestly read that psalm, they would see that the Messiah when
He comes must be, not a mere earthly monarch, as David was, but a
heavenly monarch, one who should sit on the throne of God and bring
into subjection the enemies of the kingdom of heaven. If only they
would take their ideas of the Christ from the Scriptures which were
their boast, they could not fail to see Him standing now before them.
For we must remember that they had not only the words He spoke to
guide them. They had before them the Messiah Himself, with the light
of heaven in His eye, with the love of God in His face; and had they
had any love for the light, they would have recognised Him then--they
would have seen in Him, whom they had often heard of as David's son,
the Lord of David, and therefore the Lord of the Temple, and the
heavenly King of Israel. But they love the darkness rather than the
light, because their deeds are evil: therefore their hearts remain
unchanged, the eyes of their spirit unopened; they are only abashed
and silenced: "No man was able to answer Him a word, neither durst any
man from that day forth ask Him any more questions."
III.--THE HOUSE LEFT DESOLATE (xxiii.).
The day of grace is over for the leaders of the people; but for the
people themselves there may still be hope; so the Lord of the Temple
turns to "the multitude," the general throng of worshippers, mingled
with whom were several of His own disciples, and solemnly warns them
against their spiritual guides. There is every reason to suppose that
many of the scribes and Pharisees were within hearing; for when He
has finished what He has to say to the people, He turns round and
addresses them directly in that series of terrible denunciations which
follow (ver. 13, _seq._).
His warning is couched in such a way as not in the least degree to
weaken their respect for Moses, or for the sacred Scriptures, the
exposition of which was the duty of their spiritual guides. He
separates sharply between the office and the men who hold it. Had they
been true to the position they occupied and the high duties they had
been called to discharge, they would have been worthy of all honour;
but they are false men: "they say, and do not." Not only so, but they
do positive evil, making that grievous for the people which ought to
be a delight; and when they do or seem to do the right thing, it is
some petty observance, which they exaggerate for the sake of vain
display, while their hearts are set on personal pre-eminence. Such are
the leading thoughts set forth with great vigour of language and force
of illustration, and not without a touch of keen and delicate irony in
our Lord's remarkable indictment of the scribes and Pharisees recorded
by our Evangelist (vv. 2-7).
* * * * *
Then follows one of those passages of profound significance and
far-reaching application which, while admirably suiting the immediate
occasions on which they were spoken, prove to be a treasury of truth
for the ages to come. At first sight it strikes us as simply an
exhortation to cultivate a disposition the reverse of that of the
scribes and Pharisees. He has been drawing their portrait; now He
says, Be ye not like unto them, but unlike in every respect. But in
saying this He succeeds in laying down great principles for the
future guidance of His Church, the remembrance of which would have
averted most of the evils which in the course of its history have
weakened its power, hindered its progress, and marred its witness to
the truth. With one stroke He abolishes all claims of men to intervene
between the soul and God. "One is your Teacher" (R.V.), "One is your
Father," "One is your Master." Who is that One? He does not in so many
words claim the position for Himself; but it is throughout implied,
and at the end almost expressed; for, while in speaking of the Teacher
and the Father He says nothing to indicate who the One is, when He
comes to the Master, He adds "even the Christ" (R.V.). Standing thus
at the end of all, these words suggest that the office of the Christ
was to bring God within reach of every soul, so that without any
intervention of scribe or Pharisee, priest or pope, each one could go
direct to Him for instruction (Teacher), for loving recognition
(Father), for authoritative guidance and control (Master).
We must remember, too, that He was speaking to His disciples as well
as to the multitude, and to them these words would be full of meaning.
When He said, "One is your Teacher," of whom could they possibly think
but of Himself? When He said, "One is your Father," they would recall
such utterances as "I and My Father are One," and have suggested to
them the truth which was so very soon to be plainly stated: "He that
hath seen Me, hath seen the Father." It is probable, then, that even
before He reached the end, and added the words "even the Christ," the
minds of His disciples at least had anticipated Him. Thus we find in
these remarkable words an implicit claim on the part of Christ to be
the sole Prophet, Priest, and King of His people: their sole Prophet,
to teach them by the enlightening and sanctifying grace of the Holy
Spirit; their sole Priest, to open up the way of access to a
reconciled Father in heaven; their sole King, alone entitled to be the
Lord of their conscience and their heart.
If only the Christian Church had been true to all this, how different
would her history have been! Then the Word of God would have been,
throughout, the only and sufficient rule of faith, and the Holy Spirit
dealing directly with the spirits of men its sole authoritative
interpreter. Then would there have been no usurping priesthood to
stand between the souls of men and their Father in heaven, to bind
heavy burdens and grievous to be borne and lay them upon men's
shoulders, to multiply forms and observances and complicate what
should have been simplest of all--the direct way to the Father in
heaven, through Christ the great Priest of humanity. Then would there
have been no lordship over men's consciences, no ecclesiastical
usurpation, no spiritual tyranny, no inquisition, no persecution for
conscience' sake. How inexcusable has it all been! It would seem as if
pains had been taken deliberately to violate not only the spirit, but
the very letter of the Saviour's words, as _e.g._ in the one fact
that, while it is expressly written "Call no man your father upon the
earth," the Church of Rome has actually succeeded age after age in
getting the millions under its usurped spiritual control, to give a
man that very title; for the word "pope" is the very word[20] which
our Lord so expressly forbids. But all clerical assumption of
priestly power is just as certainly and as clearly in violation of
this great charter of our spiritual liberties.
"And all ye are brethren." This is the second commandment of the true
canon law, like unto the first, and springing naturally out of it, as
naturally as the love of neighbour springs out of love to God. As soon
as the time shall come when all Christians shall own allegiance alike,
full and undivided, to the one Lord of mind and heart and conscience,
then will there be an end to all ecclesiastical exclusiveness, then
shall we see realised and manifested to the world the brotherhood in
Christ of all believers.
* * * * *
Turning once again to the scribes and Pharisees, the Lord of the
Temple denounces them in words perhaps the most terrible in the whole
Bible. It is a very thunderstorm of indignation, with flash after
flash of scorn, peal after peal of woe. It is "_the_ burden of
the Lord," "the wrath of the Lamb." Is this at all inconsistent with
the meekness and lowliness of His heart, the love and tenderness of
His character? Certainly not. Love is no love at all, unless it be
capable of indignation against wrong. Besides, it is no personal
wrongs which stir the heart of Jesus, "Who when He was reviled,
reviled not again, when He suffered, He threatened not"; but the wrong
these hypocrites are doing to the poor sheep they are leading all
astray. The occasion absolutely demanded a tempest of indignation.
There is this further to be considered, that the Lord Jesus, as
Revealer of God, must display His justice as well as His mercy, His
wrath as well as His love.
This passage, terrible as it is, commends itself to all that is noblest
and best in us. Who is there who does not thank God for this scathing
denunciation of that most hateful of all abominations--hypocrisy?
See how He brands it in every sentence--"Woe unto you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites!"--how piece by piece He shows their miserable
life to be a lie. _Hypocrites!_ because you profess to sit in Moses'
seat, to have the key of knowledge, to know the way of life
yourselves, and show it to others; and all this profession is a lie
(ver. 13). _Hypocrites!_ because your pretended charity is a lie,
aggravated by the forms of devotion with which it is masked, while the
essence of it is most sordid avarice (ver. 14). _Hypocrites!_ because
your zeal for God is a lie, being really a zeal for the devil, your
converts being perverts worse than yourselves (ver. 15). _Hypocrites!_
because your morality is a lie, making the law of God of none effect
by your miserable casuistry (vv. 16-22). _Hypocrites!_ because your
devotion is a lie, consisting merely in punctilious attention to the
minutest forms, while the weighty matters of the law you set aside,
like those who "strain out the gnat and swallow the camel" (vv. 23,
24, R.V.). _Hypocrites!_ because your whole demeanour is a lie, all
fair without like a whited sepulchre, while within ye are "full of
dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness" (vv. 25-28). _Hypocrites!_
because your pretended reverence for the prophets is a lie, for had
you lived in the days of your fathers you would have done as they did,
as is plain from the way in which you are acting now; for you build
the tombs of the dead prophets and put to death the living ones (vv.
29-31).
The sin branded, sentence follows: "Fill ye up then the measure of
your fathers." Since you will not be saved, there is nothing for it
but that you go on in sin to the bitter end: serpents, "for ever
hissing at the heels of the holy," a brood of vipers, with no hope now
of escaping the judgment of Gehenna!
As in the Sermon on the Mount (see page 102) so here, when He speaks
as Judge He cannot conceal His personal majesty. All throughout He has
been speaking with authority, but has, as usual, avoided the obtrusion
of His personal prerogative. Even in saying "One is your Master, even
the Christ," it is not at all the same as if He had said, even Myself.
All it necessarily conveyed was, "One is your master, even the
Messiah," whoever he may be. But now He speaks as from His judgment
throne. He is no longer thinking of Himself as one of the prophets, or
even as the King's Son, but as Lord of all; so He says: "Wherefore,
behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some
of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge
in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon
you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth," from Abel to
Zacharias.[21] And, again, "Verily I say unto you, All these things
shall come upon this generation."
But judgment is His strange work. He has been compelled by the fire of
His holiness to break forth into this tempest of indignation against
the hypocrites, and to pronounce upon them the long-deferred sentence
of condemnation and wrath. But there has been a wail in all His woes.
His nature and His name is love, and it must have been a terrible
strain on Him to keep up the foreign tone so long. "The _wrath_ of the
_Lamb_" is a necessary but not a natural combination. We may not
wonder, then, though well we may adore, when after the tension of
these woes, His heart is melted into tenderness as He mourns over the
fate which all His love may not avert: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou
that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee,
how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Again,
observe the lofty consciousness shining out in the little pronoun
"_I_." He is a young man of little more than thirty; but His personal
consciousness runs back through all the ages of the past, through all
the times of the killing of the prophets and stoning of the messengers
of God, from Abel on to Zachariah: and not only so, but this Son of
Israel speaks in the most natural way as the brooding mother of them
all through all their generations--what wonders, not of beauty alone,
and of exquisite pathos, but of conscious majesty in that immortal
lamentation!
* * * * *
Our Saviour's public ministry is closed. He has yet many things to say
to His disciples--a private ministry of love to fulfil ere He leave
the world and go to the Father; but His public ministry is ended now.
Commenced with beatitudes, it ends with woes, because the blessings
offered in the beatitudes have been rudely rejected and trampled
underfoot. And now the Lord of the Temple is about to leave it--to
leave it to its fate, to leave it as He counselled His disciples to
leave any city or house that refused to receive them: shaking the
dust off His feet; and in doing so, as He turns from the astonished
hierarchs, He utters these solemn words, which close the time of their
merciful visitation and leave them to "eat of the fruit of their own
way, and be filled with their own devices": "Behold, your house is
left unto you desolate." _Your_ house. It was Mine. I was its glory,
and would have been its defence; but when I came unto My own, Mine own
received Me not; and now it is no longer Mine but yours, and therefore
desolate. _Desolate_; and therefore defenceless, a ready prey for the
Roman eagles when they swoop on the defenceless brood. "For I say unto
you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth till"--till when? Is there still a
door of hope? There is, even for scribes and Pharisees--hypocrites;
the door ever open here on earth: "Him that cometh unto Me, I will in
nowise cast out." The door is closed upon them for ever as leaders of
the people; as temple authorities they can never be recognised
again,--their house is left to them desolate; but for themselves there
is still this door of hope; these awful woes therefore are not a final
sentence, but a long, loud, last call to enter ere it be too late. And
as if to show, after all the wrath of His terrible denunciation, that
judgment is "His strange work" and that He "delighteth in mercy," He
points in closing to that still open door, and says, "Ye shall not see
Me henceforth, _till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the
name of the Lord_."
Why did they not say it then? Why did they not entreat Him to remain?
But they did not. So "Jesus went out, and departed from the Temple"
(xxiv. 1); and though eighteen hundred years have rolled away since
then, the time has not yet come when as a people they have said,
"Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord"; accordingly their
house is still desolate, and they are "scattered and peeled"--chickens
that will not nestle under the mother's wing.
[17] See the accounts in the second and third Gospels.
[18] Another example of the use of the same illustration more than
once. See ix. 15.
[19] Compare the same thought in Ps. xvi. 8-11.
[20] "_Papa_," pope, is the Latin translation of the Hebrew word
for Father.
[21] The reason why these two are named is sufficiently obvious, when
we remember that the second Book of Chronicles, in which the martyrdom
of Zachariah is recorded, was the last book of the Hebrew Scriptures,
just as we might say, _All_ the promises from Genesis to
Revelation. The difficulty which has been made so much of (Barachias
_v._ Jehoiada) is of no importance except to those who will not
remember that the letter killeth and the spirit giveth life.