IMPRESSIONS _vs._ LITERAL ACCURACY
A Syrian's chief purpose in a conversation is to convey an impression
by whatever suitable means, and not to deliver his message in
scientifically accurate terms. He expects to be judged not by what he
_says_, but by what he _means_. He does not expect his hearer to
listen to him with the quizzical courtesy of a "cool-headed Yankee,"
and to interrupt the flow of conversation by saying, with the least
possible show of emotion, "Do I understand you to say," etc. No; he
piles up his metaphors and superlatives, reinforced by a theatrical
display of gestures and facial expressions, in order to make the hearer
_feel_ his meaning.
The Oriental's speech is always "illustrated." He speaks as it were in
pictures. With him the spoken language goes hand in hand with the more
ancient gesture language. His profuse gesticulation is that phase of
his life which first {116} challenges the attention of Occidental
travelers in the East. He points to almost everything he mentions in
his speech, and would portray every feeling and emotion by means of
some bodily movement. No sooner does he mention his eye than his index
finger points to or even touches that organ. "Do you understand me?"
is said to an auditor with the speaker's finger on his own temple. In
rebuking one who makes unreasonable demands upon him, a Syrian would be
likely to stoop down and say, "Don't you want to ride on my back?"
One of the most striking examples of this manner of speech in the Bible
is found in the twenty-first chapter of the Book of Acts. Beginning
with the tenth verse, the writer says: "And as we tarried there [at
Cæsarea] many days, there came down from Judea a certain prophet, named
Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound
his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall
the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall
{117} deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." Now an Occidental
teacher would not have gone into all that trouble. He would have said
to the great apostle, "Now you understand I don't mean to interfere
with your business, but if I were you I would n't go down to Jerusalem.
Those Jews there are not pleased with what you are doing, and would be
likely to make things unpleasant for you." But in all probability such
a polite hint would not have made Paul's companions weep, nor caused
him to say, "What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am
ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name
of the Lord Jesus."
It is also because the Syrian loves to speak in pictures, and to
subordinate literal accuracy to the total impression of an utterance,
that he makes such extensive use of figurative language. Instead of
saying to the Pharisees, "Your pretensions to virtue and good birth far
exceed your actual practice of virtue," John the Baptist cried: "O
generation of vipers, who hath warned {118} you to flee from the wrath
to come? Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance: and think
not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say
unto you that God is able _of these stones_ to raise up children unto
Abraham."
Just as the Oriental loves to flavor his food strongly and to dress in
bright colors, so is he fond of metaphor, exaggeration, and
positiveness in speech. To him mild accuracy is weakness. A host of
illustrations of this thought rise in my mind as I recall my early
experiences as a Syrian youth. I remember how those jovial men who
came to our house to "sit"--that is, to make a call of indefinite
duration--would make their wild assertions and back them up by vows
which they never intended to keep. The one would say, "What I say to
you is the truth, and if it is not, I will cut off my right
arm"--grasping it--"at the shoulder." "I promise you this,"--whatever
the promise might be,--"and if I fail in fulfilling my promise I will
pluck out my right eye."
{119}
To such speech we always listened admiringly and respectfully. But we
never had the remotest idea that in any circumstances the speaker would
carry out his resolution, or that his hearers had a right to demand it
from him. He simply was in earnest; or as an American would say, "He
meant that he was right."
Such an Oriental mode of thought furnishes us with the background for
Jesus' saying, "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it
from thee. If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from
thee."[1]
To many Western Christians, especially in the light of the Protestant
doctrine of the infallibility of the letter of the Bible, these sayings
of Christ present insurmountable difficulties. To such the question,
"How can I be a true disciple of Christ, if I do not obey what he
commands?" makes these misunderstood sayings of Christ great stumbling
blocks. Some time ago a lady wrote me a letter saying that at a
prayer-meeting which she attended, the minister, after {120} reading
the fifth chapter of Matthew, which contains these commands, said, "If
we are true Christians we must not shrink from obeying these explicit
commands of our Lord."
My informant stated also that on hearing that, she asked the preacher,
"Suppose the tongue should offend, and we should cut it off; should we
be better Christians than if we did endeavor to atone for the offense
in some other way?" The preacher, after a moment of perplexed silence,
said, "If there is no one here who can answer this question, we will
sing a hymn."
The best commentary on these sayings of Christ is given by Paul in the
sixth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. This is precisely what the
Master meant: "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of
unrighteousness unto sin; but yield yourselves unto God, as those that
are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of
righteousness unto God." Cutting or mutilation of the body has nothing
to do with either passage, nor indeed with the Christian life. The
amputation of an {121} arm that steals is no sure guaranty of the
removal of the desire to steal; nor would the plucking out of a lustful
eye do away with the lust which uses the eye for an instrument.
With this should be classed also the following commands: "Whosoever
shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." "If
any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have
thy cloak also; and whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with
him twain."[2]
The command to give the coat and the cloak to a disputant, rather than
to go to law with him, will seem much more perplexing when it is
understood that these words mean the "under garment" and the "upper
garment." The Orientals are not in the habit of wearing a coat and a
cloak or overcoat. In the Arabic version we have the _thaub_ ("th" as
in "throw") and the _rada'_. The _thaub_ is the main article of
clothing--the ample gown worn over a shirt next to the body. The
_rada'_ is the cloak worn {122} on occasions over the _thaub_. The
Scriptural command literally is, "To one who would quarrel with thee
and would take thy _thaub_, give him the _rada'_ also." It may be
clearly seen here that literal compliance with this admonition would
leave the non-resistant person, so far as clothes are concerned, in a
pitiable condition.
The concluding portion of this paragraph in the fifth chapter of St.
Matthew's Gospel--the forty-second verse--presents another difficulty.
It says, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow
of thee turn not thou away." Of all those whom I have heard speak
disparagingly of this passage I particularly recall a lawyer, whom I
knew in a Western State, whose dislike for these words of Christ
amounted almost to a mental affliction. It seems to me that on every
single occasion when he and I discussed the Scriptures together, or
spoke of Christianity, I found him armed with this passage as his most
effective weapon against the innocent Nazarene. "What was Jesus
thinking of," he would say, "when he {123} uttered these words? What
would become of our business interests and financial institutions if we
gave to every one that asked of us, and lent money without good
security to every Tom, Dick, and Harry?"
The thought involved in this text suffers from the unconditional manner
in which it is presented, and which gives it its Oriental flavor.
Seeing that he was addressing those who knew what he meant, the writer
did not deem it necessary to state exactly the reason why this command
was given. It seems, however, that when Jesus spoke those words he had
in mind the following passage: "And if thy brother be waxed poor, and
his hand fail with thee; then thou shalt uphold him: as a stranger and
a sojourner shall he live with thee. Take thou no interest of him or
increase, but fear thy God: that thy brother may live with thee. _Thou
shalt not give him thy money upon interest_, nor give him thy victuals
for increase."[3] According to this legal stipulation, an Israelite
could not {124} lawfully charge a fellow Israelite interest on a loan.
Therefore, "as a matter of business," the money-lenders preferred to
lend their money to the Gentiles, from whom they were permitted to take
interest, and to "turn away" from borrowers of their own race. And as
the teachers of Israel of his day often assailed Jesus for his
non-observance of the law, he in turn never failed to remind them of
the fact that their own practices did greater violence to the law than
his own liberal interpretation of it in the interest of man.
From all that I know of Oriental modes of thought and life I cannot
conceive that Jesus meant by all these sayings to give brute force the
right of way in human life. He himself drove the traders out of the
temple by physical force. These precepts were not meant to prohibit
the use of force in self-defense and for the protection of property,
but were given as an antidote to that relentless law of revenge which
required "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." The Master does
not preach a gospel {125} of helplessness, but enjoins a manly attitude
toward peace and concord, in place of a constantly active desire for
vengeance and strife.
Again let me say that an Oriental expects to be judged chiefly by what
he means and not by what he says. As a rule, the Oriental is not
altogether unaware of the fact that, as regards the letter, his
statements are often sadly lacking in correctness. But I venture to
say that when a person who is conversing with me knows that I know that
what he is saying is not exactly true I may not like his manner of
speech, yet I cannot justly call him a liar.
A neighbor of mine in a Mount Lebanon village makes a trip to Damascus
and comes to my house of an evening to tell me all about it. He would
not be a Syrian if he did not give wings to his fancy and present me
with an idealistic painting of his adventure, instead of handing me a
photograph. I listen and laugh and wonder. I know his statements are
not wholly correct, and he knows exactly how I feel about it. We both
are aware, however, that {126} the proceedings of the evening are not
those of a business transaction, but of an entertainment. My friend
does not maliciously misrepresent the facts; he simply loves to speak
in poetic terms and is somewhat inhospitable to cross-examination.
Certainly we would not buy and sell sheep and oxen and fields and
vineyards after that fashion, but we like to be so entertained. Beyond
the wide margin of social hospitality and the latitude of intellectual
tolerance, I am aware of the fact that in all the flourish of metaphor
and simile, what my visitor really meant to say was either that his
trip to Damascus was pleasant or that it was hazardous, and that there
were many interesting things to see in that portion of the world; all
of which was indubitably true.
While on a visit to Syria, after having spent several years in this
country, where I had lived almost exclusively with Americans, I was
very strongly impressed by the decidedly sharp contrast between the
Syrian and the American modes of thought. The years had worked many
{127} changes in me, and I had become addicted to the more compact
phraseology of the American social code.
In welcoming me to his house, an old friend of mine spoke with
impressive cheerfulness as follows: "You have extremely honored me by
coming into my abode [_menzel_], I am not worthy of it. This house is
yours; you can burn it if you wish. My children also are at your
disposal; I would sacrifice them all for your pleasure. What a blessed
day this is, now that the light of your countenance has shone upon us";
and so forth, and so on.
I understood my friend fully and most agreeably, although it was not
easy for me to translate his words to my American wife without causing
her to be greatly alarmed at the possibility that the house would be
set on fire and the children slain for our pleasure. What my friend
really meant in his effusive welcome was no more or less than what a
gracious American host means when he says, "I am delighted to see you;
please make yourself at home."
{128}
Had the creed-makers of Christendom approached the Bible by way of
Oriental psychology, had they viewed the Scriptures against the
background of Syrian life, they would not have dealt with Holy Writ as
a jurist deals with legislative enactments. Again, had the unfriendly
critics of the Bible real acquaintance with the land of its birth, they
would not have been so sure that the Bible was "a mass of
impossibilities." The sad fact is that the Bible has suffered violence
from literalists among its friends, as from its enemies.
For example, in their failure to heal a sick lad[4] the disciples came
to Jesus and asked him why they could not do the beneficent deed.
According to the Revised and the Arabic versions, the Master answered,
"Because of your unbelief; for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith
as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove
hence to yonder place, and it shall remove." Colonel Robert Ingersoll
never tired of challenging the Christians {129} of America to put this
scripture to a successful test, and thus _convince_ him that the Bible
is inspired. In the face of such a challenge the "believer" is likely
to feel compelled to admit that the church does not have the required
amount of faith, else it could remove mountains.
To one well acquainted with the Oriental manner of speech this saying
was not meant to fix a rule of conduct, but to idealize faith. In
order to do this in real Syrian fashion, Jesus spoke of an
infinitesimal amount of faith as being capable of moving the biggest
object on earth. His disciples must have understood him clearly,
because we have no record that they ever tried to remove mountains by
faith and prayer. It would be most astounding, indeed, if Christ
really thought that those disciples, who forsook all and followed him,
had not as much faith as a grain of mustard seed, and yet said to them,
"Ye are the light of the world. Ye are the salt of the earth."
Of a similar character is the Master's saying, {130} "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,"[5] which has quickened the exegetical genius
of commentators to mighty efforts in "expounding the Scriptures."
Judging by the vast number of persons in this country who have asked my
opinion, as a Syrian, concerning its correctness, and the fact that I
have myself seen it in print, the following interpretation of this
passage must have been much in vogue.
The walled cities and feudal castles of Palestine, the explanation
runs, have large gates. Because of their great size, such gates are
opened only on special occasions to admit chariots and caravans.
Therefore, in order to give pedestrians thoroughfare, a smaller opening
about the size of an ordinary door is made in the center of the great
gate, near to the ground. Now this smaller door through which a camel
cannot pass is the eye of the needle mentioned in the Gospel.
{131}
I once heard a Sunday-School superintendent explain this passage to his
scholars by saying that a camel could pass through this eye of a
needle--meaning the door--if he was not loaded. Therefore, and by
analogy, if we cast off our load of sin outside, we can easily enter
into the kingdom of heaven.
Were the camel and the gate left out, this statement would be an
excellent fatherly admonition. There is perhaps no gate in the
celestial city large enough to admit a man with a load of sin strapped
to his soul. However, the chief trouble with these explanations of the
"eye-of-the-needle" passage is that they are wholly untrue.
This saying is current in the East, and in all probability it was a
common saying there long before the advent of Christ. But I never knew
that small door in a city or a castle gate to be called the needle's
eye; nor indeed the large gate to be called the needle. The name of
that door, in the common speech of the country, is the "plum," and I am
certain the {132} Scriptural passage makes no reference to it whatever.
The Koran makes use of this expression in one of its purest classical
Arabic passages. The term employed here--_sûm-el-khiat_--can mean only
the sewing instrument, and nothing else.
Nothing can show more clearly the genuine Oriental character of this
New Testament passage and that of the Teacher who uttered it, than the
intense positiveness of its thought and the unrestrained flight of its
imagery. I can just hear the Master say it. Jesus' purpose was to
state that it was extremely difficult "for them that trust in riches to
enter into the Kingdom of God."[6] To this end he chose the biggest
animal and the smallest opening known to his people and compared the
impossibility of a camel passing through the eye of a needle with that
of a man weighted down with earthly things becoming one with God.
The Master's rebuke of the scribes and pharisees, {133} "Ye blind
guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel,"[7] expresses a
similar thought in a different form and connection. There is no need
here to puzzle over the anatomical problem as to whether the throat of
a Pharisee was capacious enough to gulp a camel down. The strong and
agreeable Oriental flavor of this saying comes from the sharp contrast
between the size of the gnat and that of the camel. So the Master
employed it in order to show the glaring contradictions in the precepts
and practices of the priests of his day, who tithed mint and rue, but
"passed over judgment and the love of God."
One of the most interesting examples of Oriental speech is found in the
eighteenth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, the twenty-first verse:
"Then came Peter and said to him, Lord how oft shall my brother sin
against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him,
I say not unto thee, until seven times; but, until seventy times
seven." Did Jesus {134} really mean that an offender should be
forgiven four hundred and ninety times? Would it be to the interest of
the offender himself and to society at large to forgive an embezzler, a
slanderer or a prevaricator four hundred and ninety times? Is not
punishment which is guided by reason and sympathy, and whose end is
corrective, really a great aid in character-building? Let us try to
interpret this passage with reference to certain scenes in Jesus' own
life. In the sixteenth chapter of Matthew, the twenty-first verse, we
read: "From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how
that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders
and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the
third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Lord:
this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, _Get
thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence to me_: for thou savourest
not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."
In the second chapter of St. John's Gospel, {135} the thirteenth verse,
we are told: "And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to
Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and
doves, and the changers of money sitting: _and when he had made a
scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple_, and the
sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew
the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, Take these things
hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise."
The forgiving "seventy times seven" did not apply, as it seems, in
these cases. In the very chapter from which this saying comes,[8] the
Master gives us two superb examples of certain and somewhat swift
retribution for offenses. In the fifteenth verse, he says: "Moreover,
if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go tell him his fault
between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy
brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two
more, that in the mouth {136} of two or three witnesses every word may
be established. And if he neglect to hear them, tell it unto the
church; but if he neglect to hear the church, _let him be unto thee as
an heathen man and a publican_."
The parable of the "certain king" and the "wicked servant" follows
immediately the "seventy times seven" passage. "Therefore is the
kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account
of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto
him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not
to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children,
and all that he had, and payment be made. The servant therefore fell
down and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I
will pay thee all. Then the Lord of that servant was moved with
compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same
servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him
an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, {137} and took him by the
throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell
down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and
I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into
prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw
what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord
all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said
unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because
thou desiredst me: shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy
fellow-servant, even as I had pity on thee? _And his lord was wroth,
and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was
due unto him_. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you,
if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their
trespasses."
Now as a matter of fact the lord of the wicked servant did not forgive
him seventy times seven, but "delivered him to the tormentors" for his
first offense. Will the heavenly Father do {138} _likewise_? Do we
not have irreconcilable contradictions in these Scriptural passages?
No doubt there are difficulties here. But once the
"seventy-times-seven" passage is clearly understood, the difficulties
will, I believe, disappear. In harmony with his legalistic
preconception, Peter chose the full and sacred number "seven" as a very
liberal measure of forgiveness. Apparently Jesus' purpose was to make
forgiveness a matter of disposition, sympathy, and discretion, rather
than of arithmetic. To this end he made use of an Oriental saying
which meant _indefiniteness_, rather than a fixed rule. This saying
occurs in one of the most ancient Old Testament narratives, and, most
fittingly, in a bit of poetry:[9]
"And Lamech said unto his wives:
Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech:
For I have slain a man for wounding me,
And a young man for bruising me:
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold
Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."
{139}
In both Testaments the meaning of the saying is the
same--indefiniteness. It is one of that host of Bible passages and
current Oriental sayings which must be judged by what they _mean_, and
not by what they _say_. The writer of the eighteenth chapter of
Matthew grouped those seemingly contradictory passages together,
because they all dealt with forgiveness. That they must have been
spoken under various circumstances is very obvious. The object of the
admonition concerning the trespassing brother (verses 15-17) is to
encourage Christians to "reason together" in a fraternal spirit about
the differences which may arise between them, and, _if at all
possible_, to win the offending member back to the fold. And the
object of the parable of the "wicked servant" is to contrast the spirit
of kindness with that of cruelty.
[1] Matt. v: 29-30.
[2] Matt. v: 39-41.
[3] Lev. xxv: 35; Revised Version.
[4] Matt. xvii: 19.
[5] Matt. xix: 24.
[6] Mark x: 24.
[7] Matt. xxiii: 24.
[8] Matt. xviii.
[9] Gen. iv: 23; Revised Version.
{140}