CHAPTER 27.

CONTINUATION OF THE PEREAN AND JUDEAN MINISTRY.

IN THE HOUSE OF ONE OF THE CHIEF PHARISEES.[950]

On a certain Sabbath Jesus was a guest at the house of a prominent

Pharisee. A man afflicted with dropsy was there; he may have come with

the hope of receiving a blessing, or possibly his presence had been

planned by the host or others as a means of tempting Jesus to work a

miracle on the holy day. The exercize of our Lord's healing power was at

least thought of if not openly intimated or suggested, for we read that

"Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it

lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?"[951] No one ventured to reply. Jesus

forthwith healed the man; then He turned to the assembled company and

asked: "Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and

will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?"[952] The learned

expositors of the law remained prudently silent.

Observing the eager activity of the Pharisee's guests in securing for

themselves prominent places at table, Jesus instructed them in a matter

of good manners, pointing out not only the propriety but the advantage

of decent self-restraint. An invited guest should not select for himself

the seat of honor, for some one more distinguished than he may come, and

the host would say: "Give this man place." Better is it to take a lower

seat, then possibly the lord of the feast may say: "Friend, go up

higher." The moral follows: "For whosoever exalteth himself shall be

abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."[953]

This festive gathering at the house of the chief Pharisee included

persons of prominence and note, rich men and officials, leading

Pharisees, renowned scholars, famous rabbis and the like. Looking over

the distinguished company, Jesus said: "When thou makest a dinner or a

supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor

thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be

made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the

lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense

thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just."

This bit of wholesome advice was construed as a reproof; and some one

attempted to relieve the embarrassing situation by exclaiming: "Blessed

is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God."[954] The remark was

an allusion to the great festival, which according to Jewish

traditionalism was to be a feature of signal importance in the Messianic

dispensation. Jesus promptly turned the circumstance to good account by

basing thereon the profoundly significant _Parable of the Great Supper_:

"A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: And sent his servant

at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are

now ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first

said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and

see it: I pray thee have me excused. And another said, I have bought

five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.

And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. So

that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of

the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the

streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the

maimed, and the halt, and the blind. And the servant said, Lord, it is

done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. And the lord said

unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them

to come in, that my house may be filled. For I say unto you, That none

of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper."[955]

The story implies that invitations had been given sufficiently early to

the chosen and prospective guests; then on the day of the feast a

messenger was sent to notify them again, as was the custom of the time.

Though called a supper, the meal was to be a sumptuous one; moreover,

the principal meal of the day was commonly spoken of as supper. One man

after another declined to attend, one saying: "I pray thee have me

excused"; another: "I cannot come." The matters that engaged the time

and attention of those who had been bidden, or as we would say, invited,

to the feast, were not of themselves discreditable, far less sinful; but

to arbitrarily allow personal affairs to annul an honorable engagement

once accepted was to manifest discourtesy, disrespect and practical

insult toward the provider of the feast. The man who had bought a field

could have deferred the inspection; he who had just purchased cattle

could have waited a day to try them under the yoke; and the newly

married man could have left his bride and his friends for the period of

the supper that he had promised to attend. Plainly none of these people

wanted to be present. The master of the house was justly angry. His

command to bring in the poor and the maimed, the halt and the blind from

the city streets must have appealed to those who listened to our Lord's

recital as a reminiscence of His counsel given a few minutes before,

concerning the kind of guests a rich man could invite with profit to his

soul. The second sending out of the servant, this time into the highways

and hedges outside the city walls, to bring in even the country poor,

indicated boundless benevolence and firm determination on the

householder's part.

Explication of the parable was left to the learned men to whom the story

was addressed. Surely some of them would fathom its meaning, in part at

least. The covenant people, Israel, were the specially invited guests.

They had been bidden long enough aforetime, and by their own profession

as the Lord's own had agreed to be partakers of the feast. When all was

ready, on the appointed day, they were severally summoned by the

Messenger who had been sent by the Father; He was even then in their

midst. But the cares of riches, the allurement of material things, and

the pleasures of social and domestic life had engrossed them; and they

prayed to be excused or irreverently declared they could not or would

not come. Then the gladsome invitation was to be carried to the

Gentiles, who were looked upon as spiritually poor, maimed, halt, and

blind. And later, even the pagans beyond the walls, strangers in the

gates of the holy city, would be bidden to the supper. These, surprized

at the unexpected summons, would hesitate, until by gentle urging and

effective assurance that they were really included among the bidden

guests, they would feel themselves constrained or compelled to come. The

possibility of some of the discourteous ones arriving later, after they

had attended to their more absorbing affairs, is indicated in the Lord's

closing words: "For I say unto you, That none of those men which were

bidden shall taste of my supper."

COUNTING THE COST.[956]

As had been in Galilee, so was it in Perea and Judea--great multitudes

attended the Master whenever He appeared in public. When once a scribe

has presented himself as a disciple, offering to follow wherever the

Master led, Jesus had indicated the self-denial, privation and suffering

incident to devoted service, with the result that the man's enthusiasm

was soon spent.[957] So now to the eager multitude Jesus applied a test

of sincerity. He would have only genuine disciples, not enthusiasts of a

day, ready to desert His cause when effort and sacrifice were most

needed. Thus did He sift the people: "If any man come to me, and hate

not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and

sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And

whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my

disciple." Literal hatred toward one's family was not specified as a

condition of discipleship; indeed a man who indulges hatred or any other

evil passion is a subject for repentance and reformation. The

preeminence of duty toward God over personal or family demands on the

part of one who had assumed the obligations of a disciple was the

precept.[958]

As Jesus pointed out, it is good common-sense to count well the cost

before one enters upon a great undertaking, even in ordinary affairs. A

man who wishes to build, say a tower or a house, tries to determine,

before he begins the work, what the expense will be; otherwise he may be

able to do no more than lay the foundation; then, not only will he find

himself a loser, for the unfinished structure will be of no service, but

people may laugh at his lack of prudent forethought. So also a king,

finding his realm menaced by hostile invaders, does not rush into battle

recklessly; he first tries to ascertain the strength of the enemy's

forces; and then, if the odds against him be too great, he sends an

embassage to treat for peace. "So likewise," said Jesus to the people

around Him, "whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath,

he cannot be my disciple." All who entered His service would be expected

to maintain their self-sacrificing devotion. He wanted no disciples who

would become like salt that had spoiled, unsavory and useless. "He that

hath ears to hear, let him hear."[959]

SALVATION FOR "PUBLICANS AND SINNERS"--ILLUSTRATIVE PARABLES.[960]

The Pharisees in Galilee had intolerantly criticized Jesus because of

His friendly and helpful ministry among the publicans and their

associates, who were disparagingly classed together as "publicans and

sinners."[961] He had replied to these uncharitable aspersions by saying

that a physician is most needed by them that are sick, and that He had

come to call sinners to repentance. The Judean Pharisees raised a

similar complaint, and were particularly virulent when they saw that

"all the publicans and sinners" drew near to hear Him. He met their

murmurs by presenting a number of parables, designed to show the

incumbent duty of trying to recover the lost, and the joy of success in

such God-like endeavor. The first of the series of parables was that of

the _Lost Sheep_; this we have considered in connection with its earlier

delivery in the course of instruction to the disciples in Galilee.[962]

Its application in the present instance, however, is somewhat different

from that of its former presentation. The lesson on this later occasion

was directed to the self-seeking Pharisees and scribes who personified

the theocracy, and whose bounden duty it should have been to care for

the strayed and the lost. If the "publicans and sinners," whom these

ecclesiasts so generally contemned, were nearly as bad as they were

represented to be, if they were men who had broken through the

close-hedged path of the law and had become in a measure apostate, they

were the ones toward whom the helping hand of missionary service could

be best extended. In no instance of Pharisaic slur upon, or open

denunciation of, these "publicans and sinners," do we find Jesus

defending their alleged evil ways; His attitude toward these spiritually

sick folk was that of a devoted physician: His concern over these

strayed sheep was that of a loving shepherd whose chief desire was to

find them out and bring them back to the fold. This neither the

theocracy as a system nor its officials as individual ministers even

attempted to do. The shepherd, on finding the sheep that was lost,

thinks not at the time of reprimand or punishment; on the contrary,

"when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And

when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours,

saying unto them: Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was

lost."

A direct application of the parable appears in the Lord's concise

address to the Pharisees and scribes: "I say unto you, that likewise joy

shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety

and nine just persons, which need no repentance." Were they the ninety

and nine, who, by self-estimation had strayed not, being "just persons,

which need no repentance?" Some readers say they catch this note of just

sarcasm in the Master's concluding words. In the earlier part of the

story, the Lord Himself appears as the solicitous Shepherd, and by plain

implication His example is such as the theocratic leaders ought to

emulate. Such a conception puts the Pharisees and scribes in the

position of shepherds rather than of sheep. Both explications are

tenable; and each is of value as portraying the status and duty of

professing servants of the Master in all ages.

Without break in the narrative, the Lord passed from the story of the

lost sheep to the _Parable of the Lost Coin_.

"Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece,

doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till

she find it? And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her

neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece

which I had lost. Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence

of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth."

Between this parable and that of the lost sheep there are certain

notable differences, though the lesson in each is in general the same.

The sheep had strayed by its own volition; the coin[963] had been

dropped, and so was lost as a result of inattention or culpable

carelessness on the part of its owner. The woman, discovering her loss

institutes a diligent search; she sweeps the house, and perhaps learns

of dirty corners, dusty recesses, cobwebby nooks, to which she had been

oblivious in her self-complacency as an outwardly clean and conventional

housewife. Her search is rewarded by the recovery of the lost piece, and

is incidentally beneficial in the cleansing of her house. Her joy is

like that of the shepherd wending his way homeward with the sheep upon

his shoulders--once lost but now regained.

The woman who by lack of care lost the precious piece may be taken to

represent the theocracy of the time, and the Church as an institution in

any dispensational period; then the pieces of silver, every one a

genuine coin of the realm, bearing the image of the great King, are the

souls committed to the care of the Church; and the lost piece symbolizes

the souls that are neglected and, for a time at least, lost sight of, by

the authorized ministers of the Gospel of Christ. These cogent

illustrations were followed by one yet richer in imagery and more

impressively elaborate in detail. It is the never to be forgotten

_Parable of the Prodigal Son_.[964]

"And he said, A certain man had two sons; And the younger of them said

to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me.

And he divided unto them his living. And not many days after the younger

son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and

there wasted his substance with riotous living. And when he had spent

all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in

want. And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and

he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would fain have filled

his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto

him. And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my

father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I

will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have

sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be

called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. And he arose, and

came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw

him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in

thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. But the father

said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and

put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: And bring hither the

fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: For this my son

was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began

to be merry. Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew

nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. And he called one of the

servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, Thy

brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he

hath received him safe and sound. And he was angry, and would not go in:

therefore came his father out, and intreated him. And he answering said

to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither

transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me

a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: But as soon as this thy

son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast

killed for him the fatted calf. And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever

with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make

merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again;

and was lost, and is found."

The demand of the younger son for a portion of the patrimony even during

his father's lifetime, is an instance of deliberate and unfilial

desertion; the duties of family cooperation had grown distasteful to

him, and the wholesome discipline of the home had become irksome. He was

determined to break away from all home ties, forgetful of what home had

done for him and the debt of gratitude and duty by which he was morally

bound. He went into a far country, and, as he thought, beyond the reach

of the father's directing influence. He had his season of riotous

living, of unrestrained indulgence and evil pleasure, through it all

wasting his strength of body and mind, and squandering his father's

substance; for what he had received had been given as a concession and

not as the granting of any legal or just demand. Adversity came upon

him, and proved to be a more effective minister for good than pleasure

had been. He was reduced to the lowest and most menial service, that of

herding swine, which occupation, to a Jew, was the extreme of

degradation. Suffering brought him to himself. He, the son of honorable

parentage, was feeding pigs and eating with them, while even the hired

servants at home had good food in plenty and to spare. He realized not

alone his abject foolishness in leaving his father's well-spread table

to batten with hogs, but the unrighteousness of his selfish desertion;

he was not only remorseful but repentant. He had sinned against his

father and against God; he would return, confess his sin, and ask, not

to be reinstated as a son, but to be allowed to work as a hired servant.

Having resolved he delayed not, but immediately set out to find his long

way back to home and father.

The father became aware of the prodigal's approach and hastened to meet

him. Without a word of condemnation, the loving parent embraced and

kissed the wayward but now penitent boy, who, overcome by this

undeserved affection, humbly acknowledged his error, and sorrowfully

confessed that he was not worthy to be known as his father's son. It is

noteworthy that in his contrite confession he did not ask to be accepted

as a hired servant as he had resolved to do; the father's joy was too

sacred to be thus marred, he would please his father best by placing

himself unreservedly at that father's disposal. The rough garb of

poverty was discarded for the best robe; a ring was placed on his finger

as a mark of reinstatement; shoes told of restored sonship, not of

employment as a hired servant. The father's glad heart could express

itself only in acts of abundant kindness; a feast was made ready; for

was not the son, once counted as dead now alive? Had not the lost been

found again?

So far the story sustains a relation of close analogy to the two

parables that preceded it in the same discourse; the part following

introduces another important symbolism. No one had complained at the

recovery of the stray sheep nor at the finding of the lost coin; friends

had rejoiced with the finder in each case. But the father's happiness at

the return of the prodigal was interrupted by the grumbling protest of

the elder son. He, on approaching the house, had observed the evidences

of festal joy; and, instead of entering as was his right, had inquired

of one of the servants as to the cause of the unusual rejoicing. On

learning that his brother had returned and that the father had prepared

a festival in honor of the event, this elder son grew angry, and

churlishly refused to enter the house even after his father had come out

and entreated him. He cited his own faithfulness and devotion to the

routine labor of the farm, to which claim of excellence the father did

not demur; but the son and heir reproached his father for having failed

to give him so much as a kid with which to make merry with his friends;

while now that the wayward and spendthrift son had come back the father

had killed for him even the fatted calf. There is significance in the

elder one's designation of the penitent as "this thy son," rather than

"my brother." The elder son, deafened by selfish anger, refused to hear

aright the affectionate assurance; "Son, thou art ever with me, and all

that I have is thine," and with heart hardened by unbrotherly resentment

he stood unmoved by the emotional and loving outburst, "this thy brother

was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found."

We are not justified in extolling the virtue of repentance on the part

of the prodigal above the faithful, plodding service of his brother, who

had remained at home, true to the duties required of him. The devoted

son was the heir; the father did not disparage his worth, nor deny his

deserts. His displeasure over the rejoicing incident to the return of

his wayward brother was an exhibition of illiberality and narrowness;

but of the two brothers the elder was the more faithful, whatever his

minor defects may have been. The particular point emphasized in the

Lord's lesson, however, had to do with his uncharitable and selfish

weaknesses.

Pharisees and scribes, to whom this masterpiece of illustrative incident

was delivered, must have taken to themselves its personal application.

They were typified by the elder son, laboriously attentive to routine,

methodically plodding by rule and rote in the multifarious labors of the

field, without interest except that of self, and all unwilling to

welcome a repentant publican or a returned sinner. From all such they

were estranged; such a one might be to the indulgent and forgiving

Father, "this thy son," but never to them, a brother. They cared not who

or how many were lost, so long as they were undisturbed in heirship and

possession by the return of penitent prodigals. But the parable was not

for them alone; it is a living perennial yielding the fruit of wholesome

doctrine and soul-sustaining nourishment for all time. Not a word

appears in condonation or excuse for the prodigal's sin; upon that the

Father could not look with the least degree of allowance;[965] but over

that sinner's repentance and contrition of soul, God and the household

of heaven rejoiced.

The three parables which appear in the scriptural record as parts of a

continuous discourse, are as one in portraying the joy that abounds in

heaven over the recovery of a soul once numbered among the lost, whether

that soul be best symbolized by a sheep that had wandered afar, a coin

that had dropped out of sight through the custodian's neglect, or a son

who would deliberately sever himself from home and heaven. There is no

justification for the inference that a repentant sinner is to be given

precedence, over a righteous soul who has resisted sin; were such the

way of God, then Christ, the one sinless Man, would be surpassed in the

Father's esteem by regenerate offenders. Unqualifiedly offensive as is

sin, the sinner is yet precious in the Father's eyes, because of the

possibility of his repentance and return to righteousness. The loss of a

soul is a very real and a very great loss to God. He is pained and

grieved thereby, for it is His will that not one should perish.[966]

DISCIPLES INSTRUCTED BY PARABLE.

Addressing Himself more directly to the disciples present, who on this

occasion probably comprized in addition to the apostles, many believers,

including even some of the publicans, Jesus spake the _Parable of the

Unrighteous Steward_.[967]

"And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich

man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that

he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him,

How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy

stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Then the

steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh

away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.

I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the

stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. So he called

every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the

first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred

measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit

down quickly, and write fifty. Then said he to another, And how

much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And

he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the

lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely:

for the children of this world are in their generation wiser

than the children of light."

The three preceding parables show forth their lessons through the

relationship of close analogy and intimate similarities; this one

teaches rather by its contrast of situations. The steward in the story

was the duly authorized agent of his employer, holding what we would

call the power-of-attorney to act in his master's name.[968] He was

called to account because a report of his wastefulness and lack of care

had reached the master's ears. The steward did not deny his guilt, and

forthwith he received notice of dismissal. Considerable time would be

required for making up his accounts preparatory to turning the

stewardship over to his successor. This interval, during which he

remained in authority, he determined to use so far as possible to his

own advantage, even though he wrought further injustice to his master's

interests. He contemplated the condition of dependence in which he would

soon find himself. Through unthrift and extravagance he had failed to

lay by any store from his earnings; he had wasted his own and his lord's

substance. He felt that he was unfit for hard manual labor; and he would

be ashamed to beg, particularly in the community in which he had been a

lavish spender and a man of influence. With the desire to put others

under some obligation to himself so that when he was deposed he could

the more effectively appeal to them, he called his lord's debtors and

authorized them to change their bonds, bills of sale, or notes of hand,

so as to show a greatly decreased indebtedness. Without doubt these acts

were unrighteous; he defrauded his employer, and enriched the debtors

through whom he hoped to be benefited. Most of us are surprized to know

that the master, learning what his far-seeing though selfish and

dishonest steward had done, condoned the offense and actually commended

him for his foresight, "because he had done wisely" as our version

reads, or "because he had done prudently" as many scholars aver to be

the better rendering.

In pointing the moral of the parable Jesus said:[969] "For the children

of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of

unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into

everlasting habitations." Our Lord's purpose was to show the contrast

between the care, thoughtfulness, and devotion of men engaged in the

money-making affairs of earth, and the half hearted ways of many who are

professedly striving after spiritual riches. Worldly-minded men do not

neglect provision for their future years, and often are sinfully eager

to amass plenty; while the "children of light," or those who believe

spiritual wealth to be above all earthly possessions, are less

energetic, prudent, or wise. By "mammon of unrighteousness" we may

understand material wealth or worldly things. While far inferior to the

treasures of heaven, money or that which it represents may be the means

of accomplishing good, and of furthering the purposes of God. Our Lord's

admonition was to utilize "mammon" in good works, while it lasted, for

some day it shall fail, and only the results achieved through its use

shall endure.[970] If the wicked steward, when cast out from his

master's house because of unworthiness, might hope to be received into

the homes of these whom he had favored, how much more confidently may

they who are genuinely devoted to the right hope to be received into the

everlasting mansions of God! Such seems to be part of the lesson.

It was not the steward's dishonesty that was extolled; his prudence and

foresight were commended, however; for while he misapplied his master's

substance, he gave relief to the debtors; and in so doing he did not

exceed his legal powers, for he was still steward though he was morally

guilty of malfeasance. The lesson may be summed up in this wise: Make

such use of your wealth as shall insure you friends hereafter. Be

diligent; for the day in which you can use your earthly riches will soon

pass. Take a lesson from even the dishonest and the evil; if they are so

prudent as to provide for the only future they think of, how much more

should you, who believe in an eternal future, provide therefor! If you

have not learned wisdom and prudence in the use of "unrighteous mammon,"

how can you be trusted with the more enduring riches? If you have not

learned how to use properly the wealth of another, which has been

committed to you as steward, how can you expect to be successful in the

handling of great wealth should such be given you as your own? Emulate

the unjust steward and the lovers of mammon, not in their dishonesty,

cupidity, and miserly hoarding of the wealth that is at best but

transitory, but in their zeal, forethought, and provision for the

future. Moreover, let not wealth become your master; keep it to its

place as a servant, for, "No servant can serve two masters: for either

he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the

one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

DERISION OF THE PHARISEES MET; ANOTHER ILLUSTRATIVE PARABLES.[971]

The Pharisees, who were covetous, or more precisely stated, who were

lovers of money,[972] overheard the foregoing instructions to the

disciples, and openly scoffed at the Teacher and the lesson. What did

this Galilean, who owned nothing but the clothes He wore, know about

money or the best way of administering wealth? Our Lord's reply to their

words of derision was a further condemnation. They knew all the tricks

of the business-world, and could outdo the unrighteous steward in crafty

manipulation; and yet so successfully could they justify themselves

before men as to be outwardly honest and straightforward; furthermore,

they made ostentatious display of a certain type of simplicity,

plainness, and self-denial, in which external observances they asserted

superiority over the luxury-loving Sadducees; they had grown arrogantly

proud of their humility, but God knew their hearts, and the traits and

practises they most esteemed were an abomination in His sight. They

posed as custodians of the law and expounders of the prophets. The "law

and the prophets" had been in force until the Baptist's time, since

which the gospel of the kingdom had been preached, and people were eager

to enter it[973] though the theocracy strove mightily to prevent. The

law had not been invalidated; easier were it that heaven and earth pass

away than that one tittle of the law fail of fulfilment;[974] yet those

Pharisees and scribes had tried to nullify the law. In the matter of

divorce, for example, they, by their unlawful additions and false

interpretations, had condoned even the sin of adultery.

The Master gave as a further lesson the _Parable of the Rich Man and

Lazarus_:

"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and

fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a

certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full

of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from

the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his

sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was

carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also

died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in

torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and

send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water,

and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But

Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst

thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is

comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between

us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would

pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that

would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore,

father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I

have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they

also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him,

They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he

said, Nay, father Abraham; but if one went unto them from the

dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not

Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though

one rose from the dead."[975]

The afflicted beggar is honored with a name; the other is designated

simply as "a certain rich man."[976] The two are presented as the

extremes of contrast between wealth and destitution. The rich man was

clothed in the costliest attire, purple and fine linen; and his

every-day fare was a sumptuous feast. Lazarus had been brought to the

gates of the rich man's palace, and there left, a helpless mendicant,

his body covered with sores. The rich man was attended by servitors

ready to gratify his slightest desire; the poor beggar at his gates had

neither companions nor attendants except the dogs, which like himself

waited for the refuse from the rich man's table. Such is the picture of

the two in life. An abrupt change of scene brings into view the same two

on the far side of the veil that hangs between the here and the

hereafter. Lazarus died; no mention is made of his funeral; his

festering body was probably thrown into a pauper's grave; but angels

bore his immortal spirit into Paradise, the resting place of the blessed

and commonly known in the figurative lore of the rabbis as Abraham's

bosom. The rich man also died; his burial was doubtless an elaborate

affair, but we read not of any angelic escort receiving his spirit. In

hell he lifted up his eyes and saw, afar, Lazarus at peace in the abode

of Abraham.

As a Jew the man had often boasted of having Abraham for his father; and

now the wretched spirit appealed to the patriarch of his race by the

paternal address, "Father Abraham," and asked only the boon of a single

drop of water to be placed on his parched tongue; this he prayed that

Lazarus, the erstwhile beggar, might bring. The reply throws light on

certain conditions existing in the spirit world, though as in the use of

parables generally, the presentation is largely figurative. Addressing

the poor tormented spirit as "Son," Abraham reminded him of all the good

things he had kept for himself on earth, whilst Lazarus had lain a

suffering, neglected beggar at his gates; now by the operation of divine

law, Lazarus had received recompense, and he, retribution. Moreover, to

grant his pitiful request was impossible, for between the abode of the

righteous where Lazarus rested and that of the wicked where he suffered

"there is a great gulf fixed," and passage between the two is

interdicted. The next request of the miserable sufferer was not wholly

selfish; in his anguish he remembered those from whom he had been

separated by death, fain would he save his brothers from the fate he had

met; and he prayed that Lazarus be sent back to earth to visit the

ancestral home, and warn those selfish, pleasure-seeking, and yet mortal

brothers, of the awful doom awaiting them except they would repent and

reform. There may have been in this petition an insinuation that had he

been sufficiently warned he would have done better, and would have

escaped the torment. To the reminder that they had the words of Moses

and the prophets, which they should obey, he replied that if one went to

them from the dead they would surely repent. Abraham answered that if

they would not heed Moses and the prophets neither would "they be

persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

In any attempt to interpret the parable as a whole or definitely apply

any of its parts, we should bear in mind that it was addressed to the

Pharisees as an instructive rebuke for the derision and scorn with which

they had received the Lord's warning concerning the dangers attending

servitude to mammon. Jesus employed Jewish metaphors, and the imagery of

the parable is such as would most directly appeal to the official

expounders of Moses and the prophets. While as a practise it would be

critically unfair to deduce doctrinal principles from parabolic

incidents, we cannot admit that Christ would teach falsely even in

parable; and therefore we accept as true the portrayal of conditions in

the world of the disembodied. That righteous and unrighteous dwell apart

during the interval between death and resurrection is clear. Paradise,

or as the Jews like to designate that blessed abode, "Abraham's bosom,"

is not the place of final glory, any more than the hell to which the

rich man's spirit was consigned is the final habitation of the

condemned.[977] To that preliminary or intermediate state, however,

men's works do follow them;[978] and the dead shall surely find that

their abode is that for which they have qualified themselves while in

the flesh.

The rich man's fate was not the effect of riches, nor was the rest into

which Lazarus entered the resultant of poverty. Failure to use his

wealth aright, and selfish satisfaction with the sensuous enjoyment of

earthly things to the exclusion of all concern for the needs or

privations of his fellows, brought the one under condemnation; while

patience in suffering, faith in God and such righteous life as is

implied though not expressed, insured happiness to the other. The proud

self-sufficiency of the rich man, who lacked nothing that wealth could

furnish, and who kept aloof from the needy and suffering, was his

besetting sin. The aloofness of the Pharisees, on which indeed they

prided themselves, as their very name, signifying "separatists,"

expressed, was thus condemned. The parable teaches the continuation of

individual existence after death, and the relation of cause to effect

between the life one leads in mortality and the state awaiting him

beyond.

UNPROFITABLE SERVANTS.[979]

From the Pharisees, Jesus turned to His disciples and admonished them to

diligence. Having cautioned them against unguarded utterances or actions

at which others might take offense, He proceeded to impress the absolute

necessity of unselfish devotion, toleration and forgiveness. The

apostles, realizing the whole-souled service required of them, implored

the Lord, saying: "Increase our faith." They were shown that faith was

less fitly reckoned in terms of quantity than by test of quality; and

the analogy of the mustard seed was again invoked. "And the Lord said,

If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this

sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in

the sea; and it should obey you."[980] Their faith could best be gaged

by obedience and untiring service.

This was emphasized by the _Parable of the Unprofitable Servants_.

"But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle,

will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go

and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make

ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till

I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and

drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that

were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall

have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are

unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to

do."

The servant might well feel that after a day's work in the field he is

entitled to rest; but on reaching the house he finds other demands made

upon him. The master has a right to the servant's time and attention;

such was among the conditions under which the servant had been engaged;

and while his employer might thank him or give some substantial reward,

the servant cannot demand such recompense. So the apostles, who had

given themselves entirely up to their Master's service, were not to

hesitate nor demur, whatever the effort or sacrifice required. The best

they could do would be no more than their duty required; and, without

regard to the Master's estimate of their worth, they were to account

themselves as unprofitable servants.[981]

TEN LEPERS HEALED.[982]

In the course of His journey toward Jerusalem Jesus "passed through the

midst of Samaria and Galilee." Ten men afflicted with leprosy

approached, probably they came as near as the law permitted, yet they

were afar off. These men were of mixed nationality; the plague under

which they suffered in common had made them companions in distress. They

cried aloud "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us." The Lord answered: "Go

shew yourselves unto the priests."[983] This instruction implied their

ultimate healing; obedience would be the test of their faith. None who

had been leprous could be lawfully restored to community life until

pronounced clean by a priest. The stricken ten hastened to obey the

Lord's command, "and it came to pass, that, as they went, they were

cleansed."[984] One of the ten turned back, and with loud voice

glorified God; then he prostrated himself at the feet of Christ, giving

thanks. We are told that the grateful one was a Samaritan, from which we

infer that some or all of the others were Jews. Pained over the lack of

gratitude on the part of the nine, Jesus exclaimed: "Were there not ten

cleansed? but where are the nine? There are not found that return to

give glory to God, save this stranger." And to the cleansed Samaritan,

still worshiping at His feet, the Lord said: "Arise, go thy way: thy

faith hath made thee whole." Doubtless the nine who came not back were

obedient to the strict letter of the Lord's command; for He had told

them to go to the priests; but their lack of gratitude and their failure

to acknowledge the power of God in their restoration stand in

unfavorable contrast with the spirit of the one; and he was a Samaritan.

The occurrence must have impressed the apostles as another evidence of

acceptability and possible excellence on the part of aliens, to the

disparagement of Jewish claims of superiority irrespective of merit.

THE PHARISEE AND THE PUBLICAN.[985]

"And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that

they were righteous, and despised others:

"Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee,

and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus

with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are,

extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I

fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And

the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as

his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be

merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his

house justified rather than the other: for every one that

exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself

shall be exalted."

We are expressly told that this parable was given for the benefit of

certain ones who trusted in their self-righteousness as an assurance of

justification before God. It was not addressed to the Pharisees nor to

the publicans specifically. The two characters are types of widely

separated classes. There may have been much of the Pharisaic spirit of

self-complacency among the disciples and some of it even among the

Twelve. A Pharisee and a publican went up to the temple to pray. The

Pharisee prayed "with himself"; his words can hardly be construed as a

prayer to God. That he stood while praying was not an impropriety, for

the standing attitude was usual in prayer; the publican also stood. The

Pharisee thanked God that he was so much better than other men; he was

true to his class, a separatist who looked with disdain upon all who

were not like him. That he was not like "this publican" was made a point

of special thanksgiving. His boast, that he fasted twice a week and gave

tithes of all that he possessed, was a specification of worthiness above

what was required by the law as then administered; he thus implied that

God was his debtor.[986] The publican, standing afar off, was so

oppressed by his consciousness of sin and his absolute need of divine

help, that he cast down his eyes and smote upon his breast, craving

mercy as a penitent sinner. The Pharisee departed, justified in his own

conscience and before man, prouder than ever; the other went down to his

house justified before God though still a despized publican. The parable

is applicable to all men; its moral was summed up in a repetition of our

Lord's words spoken in the house of the chief Pharisee: "For every one

that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself

shall be exalted."[987]

ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.[988]

While wending His way by short stages toward Jerusalem, and while still

"beyond" or on "the farther side" of Jordan, and therefore in Perean

territory, Jesus was met by a body of Pharisees, who had come with the

deliberate purpose of inciting Him to say or do something on which they

could base an accusation. The question they had agreed to submit related

to marriage and divorce, and no subject had been more vehemently

contested in their own schools and among their own rabbis.[989] The

crafty questioners may have hoped that Jesus would denounce the

adulterous state in which Herod Antipas was then living, and so bring

upon Himself the fury of Herodias, to which the Baptist had already died

a victim. "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"

they asked. Jesus cited the original and eternal law of God in the

matter; and indicated the only rational conclusion to be drawn

therefrom: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning

made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave

father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be

one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What

therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."[990] God

had provided for honorable marriage, and had made the relation between

husband and wife paramount even to that of children to parents; the

severing of such a union was an invention of man, not a command of God.

The Pharisees had a ready rejoinder: "Why did Moses then command to give

a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" Be it remembered that

Moses had not commanded divorce, but had required that in case a man

should separate from his wife he give her a bill of divorcement.[991]

Jesus made this fact plain, saying: "Moses because of the hardness of

your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning

it was not so."

The higher requirement of the gospel followed: "And I say unto you,

Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and

shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which

is put away doth commit adultery."[992] The Mosaic provision had been

but permissive, and was justified only because of existing

unrighteousness. Strict compliance with the doctrine enunciated by Jesus

Christ is the only means by which a perfect social order can be

maintained. It is important to note, however, that in His reply to the

casuistical Pharisees, Jesus announced no specific or binding rule as to

legal divorces; the putting away of a wife, as contemplated under the

Mosaic custom, involved no judicial investigation or action by an

established court. In our Lord's day the prevailing laxity in the matter

of marital obligation had produced a state of appalling corruption in

Israel; and woman, who by the law of God had been made a companion and

partner with man, had become his slave. The world's greatest champion of

woman and womanhood is Jesus the Christ.[993]

The Pharisees retired foiled in purpose and convicted in conscience. The

Lord's strict construction of the marriage bond was startling even to

some of the disciples; these came to Him privately, saying that if a man

was so bound it would be better not to marry at all. Such a broad

generalization the Lord disapproved except so far as it might apply in

special cases. True, there were some who were physically incapacitated

for marriage; others voluntarily devoted themselves to a celibate life,

and some few adopted celibacy "for the kingdom of heaven's sake," that

thereby they might be free to render all their time and energy to the

Lord's service. But the disciples' conclusion that "it is not good to

marry" was true only in the exceptional instances stated. Marriage is

honorable;[994] for neither man without woman nor woman without man can

be perfect in the Lord's sight.[995]

JESUS AND THE LITTLE ONES.[996]

The next event of record is one of surpassing sweetness, rich in precept

and invaluable in example. Mothers brought their little children to

Jesus, reverently desiring that the lives of those little ones be

brightened by a sight of the Master and be blessed by a touch of His

hand or a word from His lips. The circumstance appears in appropriate

sequence to that of the Lord's instructions concerning the sacredness of

marriage and the sanctity of the home. The disciples, zealous that their

Master be not troubled unnecessarily, and conscious of the continuous

demands on His time and attention, rebuked those who had so ventured to

trespass. Even the disciples seem to have been yet under the influence

of the traditional conception that women and children were of inferior

status, and that for such to seek the Lord's attention was an act of

presumption. Jesus was displeased over the misdirected zeal of His

followers, and rebuked them. Then He uttered that memorable sentence of

infinite tenderness and divine affection: "_Suffer the little children

to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of

God._" Taking the children one by one into His arms, He laid His hands

upon them and blessed them.[997] Then said He: "Verily I say unto you,

Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he

shall not enter therein."[998]

"ONE THING THOU LACKEST."[999]

Jesus was accosted on the way by a young man, who came running to meet

or overtake Him, and who knelt at His feet, inquiring: "Good Master,

what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" The question was asked

in earnestness; the questioner was in very different spirit from that of

the lawyer who made a similar inquiry with the purpose of tempting the

Master.[1000] Jesus said: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good

but one, that is, God." This remark was no denial of sinlessness on the

Savior's part; the young man had called Him "good" by way of polite

compliment rather than in recognition of His Godship, and Jesus declined

to acknowledge the distinction when applied in that sense. The Lord's

remark must have deepened the young man's conception as to the

seriousness of his question. Then said Jesus: "If thou wilt enter into

life, keep the commandments." To the further inquiry, as to which

commandments were meant, Jesus cited the prohibitions against murder,

adultery, theft, and the bearing of false witness, and the requirements

as to honoring parents, and loving one's neighbor as one's self. In

simplicity and without pride or sense of self-righteousness, the young

man said: "All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I

yet?" His evident sincerity appealed to Jesus, who looked upon him

lovingly and said: "One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever

thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:

and come, take up the cross, and follow me."[1001]

The young man was disappointed and saddened. He had probably expected to

hear the great Teacher prescribe some one special observance, by which

excellence could be achieved. Luke tells us that the young man was a

ruler; this may mean that he was a presiding official in the local

synagog or possibly a Sanhedrist. He was well versed in the law, and had

been strict in obedience thereto. He desired to advance in good works

and make clear his title to an eternal heritage. But the Master

prescribed what he had least expected; "And he was sad at that saying,

and went away grieved: for he had great possessions." In his way, he

yearned for the kingdom of God, yet more devotedly he loved his great

possessions. To give up wealth, social position, and official

distinction, was too great a sacrifice; and the necessary self-denial

was a cross too heavy for him to bear, even though treasure in heaven

and life eternal were offered him. Love of worldly things was this man's

besetting weakness; Jesus diagnosed his case and prescribed a suitable

remedy. We are not warranted in saying that the same treatment would be

best in all cases of spiritual defection; but where the symptoms

indicate the need, it may be employed with confidence as to the cure.

Gazing sorrowfully upon the retreating figure of the wealthy young ruler

Jesus said to the disciples: "Verily I say unto you, That a rich man

shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven." To impress the lesson

more thoroughly He applied one of the figurative proverbs of the age,

and said: "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."[1002] At this

statement the disciples were amazed. "Who then can be saved?" they

wondered. Jesus understood their perplexity, and encouraged them with

the assurance that with God all things are possible. Thus were they

given to understand that while wealth is a means of temptation to which

many succumb, it is no insuperable obstacle, no insurmountable barrier,

in the way of entrance to the kingdom. Had the young ruler followed the

advice called forth by his inquiry, his possession of riches would have

made possible to him meritorious service such as few are able to render.

Willingness to place the kingdom of God above all material possessions

was the one thing he lacked.[1003] Everyone of us may pertinently ask,

What do I lack?

THE FIRST MAY BE LAST, AND THE LAST FIRST.[1004]

The sorrowful departure of the rich young ruler, whose great possessions

were so much a part of his life that he could not give them up at the

time, though we may hope that he afterward did, brought forth from Peter

an abrupt question, which revealed the course of his thoughts and

aspirations: "Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what

shall we have therefore?" Whether he spoke for himself alone, or by his

use of the plural "we" meant to include all the Twelve, is uncertain and

unimportant. He was thinking of the home and family he had left, and a

longing for them was pardonable; he was thinking also of boats and nets,

hooks and lines, and the lucrative business for which such things stood.

All these he had forsaken; what was to be his reward? Jesus answered:

"Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the

regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory,

ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of

Israel." It is doubtful that Peter or any other of the Twelve had ever

conceived of so great a distinction. The day of regeneration, when the

Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, as Judge and King, is

even yet future; but in that day, those of the Lord's Twelve who endured

to the end shall be enthroned as judges in Israel. The further assurance

was given that "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." Rewards of such transcendent worth could scarcely be reckoned or

their meaning comprehended. Lest those to whom they were promised might

count too surely upon successful attainment, to the neglect of effort,

and become proud withal, the Lord added this profound precept of

caution: "But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be

first."

It was the text of the sermon known to us as the _Parable of the

Laborers_.[1005] Hear it:

"For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an

householder, which went out early in the morning to hire

labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the

labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And

he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle

in the marketplace, and said unto them:

"Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will

give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the

sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh

hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto

them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him,

Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also

into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye

receive. So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith

unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire,

beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that

were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a

penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should

have received more; and they likewise received every man a

penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the

goodman of the house, saying, These last have wrought but one

hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne

the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and

said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me

for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give

unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do

what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be

called, but few chosen."

The procedure of a householder going into the marketplace to hire

laborers was common to the time and place, and is still an ordinary

occurrence in many lands. The first to be hired in the course of the

story made a definite bargain as to wages. Those who were employed at

nine, twelve, and three o'clock respectively went willingly without

agreement as to what they were to receive; so glad were they to find a

chance to work that they lost no time in specifying terms. At five

o'clock in the afternoon or evening, when but a single hour of the

working day remained, the last band of laborers went to work, trusting

to the master's word that whatever was right they should receive. That

they had not found work earlier in the day was no fault of theirs; they

had been ready and willing, and had waited at the place where employment

was most likely to be secured. At the close of the day, the laborers

came for their wages; this was in accordance with law and custom, for it

had been established by statute in Israel that the employer should pay

the servant, hired by the day, before the sun went down.[1006] Under

instructions, the steward who acted as paymaster began with those who

had been engaged at the eleventh hour; and to each of them he gave a

denarius, or Roman penny, worth about fifteen cents in our money, and

the usual wage for a day's work. This was the amount for which those who

began earliest had severally bargained; and as these saw their

fellow-workers, who had served but an hour, receive each a penny, they

probably exulted in the expectation of receiving a wage proportionately

larger, notwithstanding their stipulation. But each of them received a

penny and no more. Then they complained; not because they had been

underpaid, but because the others had received a full day's pay for but

part of a day's work. The master answered in all kindness, reminding

them of their agreement. Could he not be just to them and charitable to

the rest if he so chose? His money was his own, and he could give of it

as he liked. Were those grumblers justified in their evil displeasure

because their master was charitable and good? "So," said Jesus, passing

directly from the story to one of the lessons it was designed to teach,

"the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but

few chosen."[1007]

The parable was plainly intended for the edification of the Twelve. It

was called out by Peter's question, "What shall we have therefore?" It

stands as truly in force today as when it was delivered by the Master,

as a rebuke of the bargaining spirit in the Lord's work. God needs

workers, and such as will labor faithfully and effectively are welcomed

into the vineyard. If, before beginning they insist on the stipulation

of a wage, and this be agreed to, each shall receive his penny provided

he has not lost his place through idleness or transgression. But those

who diligently labor, knowing that the Master will give to them whatever

is right, and with thought for the work rather than for the wage, shall

find themselves more bountifully enriched. A man may work for wages and

yet not be a hireling. Between the worthy hired servant and the hireling

there is the difference that distinguishes the shepherd from the sheep

herder.[1008] Was there not a suggestion of the hireling's spirit in the

query of even the first of the apostles, "What shall we have therefore?"

The Twelve had been called into service early in the Savior's ministry;

they had responded to the call, without promise of even a penny; they

were yet to feel the burden and heat of the day; but they were solemnly

cautioned against attempt or desire to fix their reward. The Master

shall judge as to the deserts of each servant; the wage at best is a

free gift; for on the basis of strict accounting who of us is not in

debt to God? The last called is as likely as the first to prove

unworthy. No general reversal is implied whereby all the late comers

shall be advanced and all the early workers demoted. "Many that are

first shall be last" was the Lord's statement, and by implication we may

understand that not all the last, though some of them, may be counted

among the first. Of the many called or permitted to labor in the

vineyard of the Lord, few may so excel as to be chosen for exaltation

above their fellows. Even the call and ordination to the Holy

Apostleship is no guarantee of eventual exaltation in the celestial

kingdom. Iscariot was so called and placed among the first; now, verily

he is far below the last in the kingdom of God.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 27.

1. Rich Men and Their Stewards.--"'A certain rich man had a steward,' We

learn here, incidentally, how evenly balanced are the various conditions

of life in a community, and how little of substantial advantage wealth

can confer on its possessor. As your property increases, your personal

control over it diminishes; the more you possess the more you must

entrust to others. Those who do their own work are not troubled with

disobedient servants; those who look after their own affairs, are not

troubled with unfaithful overseers."--Arnot's _Parables of our Lord_, p.

454.

2. The Mammon of Unrighteousness.--The revised version of Luke 16:9,

reads: "And I say unto you, Make to yourself friends by means of the

mammon of unrighteousness, that, when it shall fail, they may receive

you into the eternal tabernacles." The Lord's counsel to the disciples

was to so use worldly wealth as to accomplish good thereby, that when

"it," i.e. all earthly possessions, fail, they would have friends to

welcome them into "the eternal tabernacles" or heavenly mansions. In

studying a parable based on contrasts, such as this one is, care must be

exercized not to carry too far any one point of analogy. Thus, we cannot

reasonably gather that Jesus intended even to intimate that the

prerogative of receiving any soul into the "eternal tabernacles" or

excluding therefrom, rests with those who on earth had been benefited or

injured through that person's acts, except so far as their witness to

his deeds may be taken into account in the final judgment. The whole

parable is full of wisdom for him who is in search of such; to the

hypercritical mind it may appear inconsistent, as so it did appear to

the Pharisees who derided Jesus for the story He had told. Luke 16:14 is

rendered in the revised version, "And the Pharisees, who were lovers of

money, heard all these things; and they scoffed at him."

3. Lazarus and Dives.--Of all our Lord's recorded parables this is the

only one in which a personal name is applied to any of the characters.

The name "Lazarus" used in the parable was also the true name of a man

whom Jesus loved, and who, subsequent to the delivery of this parable,

was restored to life after he had lain for days in the tomb. The name, a

Greek variant of Eleazar, signifies "God is my help." In many

theological writings, the rich man of this parable is called Dives, but

the name is not of scriptural usage. "Dives" is a Latin adjective

meaning "rich." Lazarus the brother of Martha and Mary (John 11:1, 2, 5)

is one of three men mentioned by name as subjects of our Lord's

beneficent miracles; the other two are Bartimeus (Mark 10:46) and

Malchus (John 18:10). Commenting on the fact that our Lord gave a name

to the beggar but left the rich man nameless in the parable, Augustine

(in Sermon xli) suggestively asks: "Seems He not to you to have been

reading from that book where He found the name of the poor man written,

but found not the name of the rich; for that book is the Book of Life?"

4. Divergent Views Concerning Divorce.--In relation to the different

opinions upon this subject among Jewish authorities in the time of

Christ, Geikie (vol. ii, p. 347-8) says: "Among the questions of the day

fiercely debated between the great rival schools of Hillel and Shammai,

no one was more so than that of divorce. The school of Hillel contended

that a man had a right to divorce his wife for any cause he might

assign, if it were no more than his having ceased to love her, or his

having seen one he liked better, or her having cooked a dinner badly.

The school of Shammai, on the contrary, held that divorce could be

issued only for the crime of adultery, and offences against chastity. If

it were possible to get Jesus to pronounce in favor of either school,

the hostility of the other would be roused, and hence, it seemed a

favorable chance for compromising Him." The following from Dummelow's

_Commentary_, dealing with Matt. 5:32, is further illustrative: "Rabbi

Akiba (Hillelite) said, 'If a man sees a woman handsomer than his own

wife he may put her [his wife] away, because it is said, If she find not

favor in his eyes.' The school of Hillel said 'If the wife cook her

husband's food ill, by over-salting or over-roasting it, she is to be

put away.' On the other hand Rabbi Jochanan (a Shammaite) said 'The

putting away of a wife is odious.' Both schools agreed that a divorced

wife could not be taken back.... Rabbi Chananiah said 'God has not

subscribed His name to divorces, except among Israelites, as if He had

said: I have conceded to the Israelites the right of dismissing their

wives; but to the Gentiles I have not conceded it.' Jesus retorts that

it is not the privilege but the infamy and reproach of Israel, that

Moses found it necessary to tolerate divorce."

5. Jesus the Ennobler of Woman.--Geikie thus paraphrases part of

Christ's reply to the Pharisee's question concerning divorce, and

comments thereon. "'I say, therefore, that whoever puts away his wife,

except for fornication, which destroys the very essence of marriage by

dissolving the oneness it had formed, and shall marry another, commits

adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away for any other cause

commits adultery, because the woman is still, in God's sight, wife of

him who had divorced her.' This statement was of far deeper moment than

the mere silencing of malignant spies. It was designed to set forth for

all ages the law of His New Kingdom in the supreme matter of family

life. It swept away for ever from His Society the conception of woman as

a mere toy or slave of man, and based true relations of the sexes on the

eternal foundation of truth, right, honor, and love. To ennoble the

House and the Family by raising woman to her true position was essential

to the future stability of His Kingdom, as one of purity and spiritual

worth. By making marriage indissoluble, He proclaimed the equal rights

of woman and man within the limits of the family, and, in this, gave

their charter of nobility to the mothers of the world. For her nobler

position in the Christian era, compared with that granted her in

antiquity, woman is indebted to Jesus Christ."--_Life and Words of

Christ_, vol. ii, p. 349.

6. The Blessing of Children.--When Christ, a resurrected Being, appeared

among the Nephites on the western continent, He took the children, one

by one, and blessed them; and the assembled multitude saw the little

ones encircled as with fire, while angels ministered unto them. (3 Nephi

17:11-25.) Through modern revelation the Lord has directed that all

children born in the Church be brought for blessing to those who are

authorized to administer this ordinance of the Holy Priesthood. The

commandment is as follows: "Every member of the church of Christ having

children, is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to

lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in

His name." (Doc. and Cov. 20:70.) Accordingly, it is now the custom in

the Church to bring the little ones to the Fast-day service in the

several wards, at which they are received one by one into the arms of

the elders, and blessed, names being given them at the same time. The

father of the child, if he be an elder, is expected to participate in

the ordinance.

The blessing of children is in no sense analogous to, far less is it a

substitution for, the ordinance of baptism, which is to be administered

only to those who have come to years of understanding, and who are

capable of repentance. As the author has written elsewhere, "Some point

to the incident of Christ blessing little children, and rebuking those

who would forbid the little ones coming unto Him, (Matt. 19:13; Mark

10:13; Luke 18:15) as an evidence in favor of infant baptism; but, as

has been tersely said:--'From the action of Christ's blessing infants,

to infer they are to be baptized, proves nothing so much as that there

is a want of better argument; for the conclusion would with more

probability be derived thus: Christ blessed infants, and so dismissed

them, but baptized them not; therefore infants are not to be

baptized.'"--The author, _Articles of Faith_, vi:14. See paragraphs

11-17 in same lecture.

7. The Camel and the Needle's Eye.--In comparing the difficulty of a

rich man entering the kingdom with that of a camel passing through the

eye of a needle, Jesus used a rhetorical figure, which, strong and

prohibitory as it appears in our translation, was of a type familiar to

those who heard the remark. There was a "common Jewish proverb, that a

man did not even in his dreams see an elephant pass through the eye of a

needle" (Edersheim). Some interpreters insist that a rope, not a camel,

was mentioned by Jesus, and these base their contention on the fact that

the Greek word _kamelos_ (camel) differs in but a single letter from

_kamilos_ (rope), and that the alleged error of substituting "camel" for

"rope" in the scriptural text is chargeable to the early copyists.

Farrar (p. 476) rejects this possible interpretation on the ground that

proverbs involving comparisons of a kind with that of a camel passing

through the eye of a needle are common in the Talmud.

It has been asserted that the term "needle's eye" was applied to a small

door or wicket set in or alongside the great gates in the walls of

cities; and the assumption has been raised that Jesus had such a wicket

in mind when He spoke of the seeming impossibility of a camel passing

through a needle's eye. It would be possible though very difficult for a

camel to squeeze its way through the little gate, and it could in no

wise do so except when relieved of its load and stripped of all its

harness. If this conception be correct, we may find additional

similitude between the fact that the camel must first be unloaded and

stripped, however costly its burden or rich its accoutrement, and the

necessity of the rich young ruler, and so of any man, divesting himself

of the burden and trappings of wealth, if he would enter by the narrow

way that leadeth into the kingdom. The Lord's exposition of His saying

is all-sufficient for the purposes of the lesson: "With men this is

impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matt. 19:26.)

8. Undue Concern as to Wages in the Lord's Service.--The instructive and

inspiring Parable of the Laborers was called forth by Peter's question

of self-interest--"What shall we have therefore?" In tender mercy the

Lord refrained from directly rebuking His impulsive servant for undue

concern as to the wage to be expected; but He turned the incident to

excellent purpose by making it the text of a valuable lesson. The

following treatment by Edersheim (vol. ii, p. 416) is worth

consideration. "There was here deep danger to the disciples: danger of

lapsing into feelings akin to those with which the Pharisees viewed the

pardoned publicans, or the elder son in the parable his younger brother;

danger of misunderstanding the right relations, and with it the very

character of the kingdom, and of work in and for it. It is to this that

the Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard refers. The principle which

Christ lays down is, that, while nothing done for Him shall lose its

reward, yet, from one reason or another, no forecast can be made, no

inferences of self-righteousness may be drawn. It does not by any means

follow, that most work done--at least, to our seeing and judging--shall

entail a greater reward. On the contrary, 'many that are first shall be

last; and the last shall be first.' Not _all_, nor yet always and

necessarily, but 'many.' And in such cases no wrong has been done; there

exists no claim, even in view of the promises of due acknowledgment of

work. Spiritual pride and self assertion can only be the outcome either

of misunderstanding God's relation to us, or else of a wrong state of

mind towards others--that is, it betokens mental or moral unfitness. Of

this the Parable of the Laborers is an illustration.... But, while

illustrating how it may come that some who were first are last, and how

utterly mistaken or wrong is the thought that they must necessarily

receive more than others, who, seemingly, have done more--how, in short,

work for Christ is not a ponderable quantity, so much for so much, nor

yet we be the judges of when and why a worker has come--it also conveys

much that is new, and, in many respects, most comforting."

FOOTNOTES:

[950] Luke 14:1-24.

[951] The question is identical with that asked of Jesus in the synagog

at Capernaum preliminary to the healing of the man with the withered

hand (Matt. 12:10).

[952] Exo. 23:5; Deut. 22:4; Luke 13:15.

[953] Compare Matt. 23:12; Luke 1:52; 18:14; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5.

[954] Compare Matt. 8:11; Rev. 19:9. The expression "eat bread" is a

Hebraism, signifying eating in full as at a feast rather than partaking

of bread only.

[955] Luke 14:16-24. Compare the parable relating to the marriage of the

king's son (Matt. 22:2-10); study points of resemblance and difference

between the two and the distinctive lessons of each. See page 536.

[956] Luke 14:25-35.

[957] Matt. 8:19, 20; compare Luke 9:57, 58; page 305 herein.

[958] Compare the requirement under the Mosaic administration, Deut.

13:6-11; and note the application of the principle to the apostles,

Matt. 10:37-39.

[959] Compare Matt. 5:13; Mark 9:50

[960] Luke 15.

[961] Matt. 9:10-13; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32. See page 193 herein.

[962] Matt. 18:12-14. See page 389 herein.

[963] That the lost piece of silver was a coin, and not a piece of

unstamped bullion nor an ornament, is apparent from the original,

"drachma," a silver coin. See page 384 herein.

[964] Luke 15:11-32.

[965] Compare Doc. and Cov. 1:31; B. of M., Alma 45:16.

[966] Compare Matt. 18:14; P. of G.P., Moses 1:39.

[967] Luke 16:1-8.

[968] Note 1, end of chapter.

[969] Luke 16:9-13.

[970] Note 2, end of chapter.

[971] Luke 16:14-31.

[972] Note 2, end of chapter.

[973] Revised version, Luke 16:16: "The law and the prophets were until

John; from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and

every man entereth violently into it."

[974] Compare Matt. 5:18; see page 233 herein.

[975] Luke 16:19-31.

[976] Note 3, end of chapter.

[977] Compare B. of M., Alma 40:11-14; see "Articles of Faith," xxi,

Note 5. "The Intermediate State of the Soul."

[978] Rev. 14:13.

[979] Luke 17:1-10.

[980] Compare Matt. 17:20; 21:21; Mark 9:23; 11:23; see page 381 herein.

[981] Compare Job 22:3; 35:7.

[982] Luke 17:11-19. Many writers treat this occurrence as having

immediately followed the repulse of Jesus and the apostles in a certain

Samaritan village (Luke 9:52-56). We give it place in the order followed

by Luke, the sole recorder of the two incidents.

[983] Compare Lev. 13:2; 14:2; see also page 189 herein.

[984] Compare case of Naaman the Syrian, 2 Kings 5:14.

[985] Luke 18:9-14. Luke's narrative, the order of which we have

followed in the events succeeding Christ's departure from Jerusalem

after the Feast of Tabernacles, includes our Lord's reply to the

Pharisee's question as to "when the kingdom of God should come," and

additions thereto (17:20-37); these matters were afterward treated with

greater fulness in a discourse near Jerusalem (Matt. 24) and will be

considered in connection with that later event. The Parable of the

Importunate Widow (Luke 18:1-7) has already received attention, (page

436).

[986] Note to what blasphemous extreme the doctrine of supererogation,

or excess of merit, was carried by the papacy in the 13th century; see

"The Great Apostasy," 913-15.

[987] Compare Luke 14:11.

[988] Matt. 19:3-12; see also Mark 10:2-12. This subject is introduced

by Matthew and Mark directly preceding that of Christ blessing little

children; which latter is recorded by Luke next after the Parable of the

Pharisee and the Publican. We therefore turn from Luke's record to the

accounts given by the other synoptic writers.

[989] Note 4, end of chapter.

[990] Compare Gen. 1:27; 2:24; 5:2; Eph. 5:31.

[991] Deut. 24:1-4.

[992] Compare Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18; see also 1 Cor. 7:10-13.

[993] Note 5, end of chapter.

[994] Compare Heb. 13:4.

[995] Compare 1 Cor. 11:11.

[996] Mark 10:13-16; compare Matt. 19:13-15; Luke 18:15-17.

[997] Compare B. of M., 3 Nephi 17:11-25. See Note 6, end of chapter.

[998] Page 386.

[999] Matt. 19:16-26; Mark 10:17-27; Luke 18:18-30.

[1000] Luke 10:25; page 429 herein.

[1001] This is Mark's record, (10:21) which is the most detailed of the

three accounts.

[1002] Note 7, end of chapter.

[1003] Consider the lessons of the parables of the Hidden Treasure, and

the Pearl of Great Price, pages 292-4.

[1004] Matt. 19:27-30; Mark 10:28-31; Luke 18:28-30.

[1005] Matt. 20:1-16. The parable is the outgrowth of the events

immediately preceding it. Matt. 19:27-30 should be read as part of the

narrative continued in chap. 20. The existing division into chapters is

unfortunate.

[1006] Deut. 24:15.

[1007] The concluding clause, "for many be called but few chosen," is

omitted from the revised version. Note 8, end of chapter.

[1008] Page 416.