It was a popular intelligibility that was aimed at by Jesus. Exposition of a scientific kind was never intended by Him. Even in the case of conceptions which were of fundamental importance for His teaching, and which differed materially from those formed from the traditional Jewish point of view, such, for example, as the conception of the kingdom of God, He gives no express explanation, far less a formal in judging from His manifest general aim at intelligibility, to pronounce those particular utterances impossible and unhistorical in which a contrary aim appears to be expressed. When we observe in the parable-discourses given in Mark iv., several clear traces which indicate that the evangelist has restored, with light touches of his own, the sayings of Jesus already handed down by tradition in a formal stamp (cf. L. J. i. p. 30 ff.), we have every reason to distinguish the general conclusions drawn by the evangelist as a historian (ver. 33 f.) from the saying handed down by him (ver. 11 f.), which, however, stand related in thought to the sayings in the context, namely, to the parable of the unfruitfulness of the seed that fell into bad soil (ver. 3 ff.), and to the saying in regard to the mutual relation between what is given and what is received (ver. 24 f.). I cannot here go into an exposition of the meaning and ground of that saying of Jesus (Mark iv. 11 f.); the right place will be found for it later, when treating of the nature and conditions of the kingdom of God. Here I might only remark that Jesus makes the veiling of His teaching for "those who were without" the reverse side of its designed revelation for the circle of His disciples. We can also quite well understand how He could judge that His parables, just because of their aim at making plain to the people His doctrine of the kingdom of God, tended, in the unsusceptible, though not in the earnest inquirer, to divert the thought from the peculiar object of His teaching, and to a certain veiling of the doctrine of the kingdom of God. Similarly it is conceivable that, in the Johannine passage recording His farewell address, He clothed His ideas in figurative language (John xvi. 25), where He knew that the literal expression of His thoughts would remain unintelligible to them. For here also the final object is certainly not concealment, but intelligible communication. Where the disciples were as yet unable to understand the thought which occupied Him, He did not, in spite of that, impart this as unintelligible truth; nevertheless, through the figurative form of the expression, He sought to suggest at least as much as lay within the compass of their capacity, and at the same time furnish a link for their memory to take hold of, whereby at a later period they might penetrate to a fuller understanding of His meaning (ver. 25 and previous verses, cf. xiv. 26). definition. On the other hand, He possessed a masterly skill of concise portrayal of the subject in hand, and of bringing it home to those of humble, uncultured intelligence. The means He specially employed for this purpose were either concrete individualisation by example, or comparison. 3. General rules and statements which He sought to impress on His hearers, He usually makes clear at a glance by special examples. An instance of this is found in the discourse on the true nature of righteousness at the beginning of the Logia. Here the principle is laid down that the perfect righteousness of the kingdom of God, as distinguished from the inferior standard hitherto enjoined, demands the entire supremacy of righteousness in the inner man, and a corresponding absence of the manifestations of an impure spirit, even such as might appear from an external point of view to be trifling and harmless. But Jesus Himself does not at all put it in this general way. We deduce this principle from a series of particular precepts, which He contrasts as His new commandments with earlier rules enjoined upon "them of old time" (Matt. v. 21 ff.). He does not thereby indicate the mode of conduct which He enjoins, and, conversely, that which He forbids, in the general, as occurring in many particular cases, but specially, as occurring in one particular case. After declaring the culpability of anger against a brother, He does not merely emphasise the guilt of using words of hatred in general, but specially of such low terms of reproach as "fool" (Raca), and the till more damnatory term of "godless" (Moreh). Then, after laying down the rule that one should use the enmity of another, not as an occasion for retaliative hatred, but as a means offered in order to reconciliation, He illustrates this by an example showing how one should act if, in bringing an offering to the altar, he remembers the enmity of his brother (Matt. v. 22-24). Similarly, after giving the exhortation not to resist one that is evil, He subjoins the example of how to act if struck by another on the right cheek, or if robbed by him of a coat through a form of legal process, or if asked to accompany him a mile (vers. 39-41). After giving the general rule, "Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men to be seen of them," He immediately shows how to apply this rule in particular instances of good works, as alms-giving, praying, and fasting (Matt. vi. 1-18). When He sends His disciples on a preaching tour, and gives them the general exhortation to lay aside thought about their own comfort, and only to be careful about fulfilling their mission, He makes it more definite by enumerating the articles they should take for the journey, as well as what to do and to leave undone on arriving at a new place. Certainly He laid down no exhaustive and unalterable programme for their conduct in every particular case. and relation. What He regarded as essential was simply that they should be completely self-forgetful, and should strain every nerve in devotedly applying themselves to the mission they had undertaken. This general principle, however, and the manner of specially applying it, would impress itself more emphatically and enduringly upon their minds by His showing its direct application in particular cases. Again, when encouraging His discipies to trust in God's providing care, by pointing out the Divine interest in all creatures on earth, even those which are little regarded, as well as God's rich bounty and protecting power, He takes examples from the ravens and the lilies of the field (Luke xii. 24, 27), or from the sparrows (Luke xii. 6 f.). When He declares that, at His second coming, the final sentences will be determined for men independently of their outward position on earth, and that those who were nearest each other outwardly may be severed far asunder in destiny, He takes the example of two servants working together in the field, and of two maids grinding at the mill, of whom one should be taken and the other left (Matt. xxiv. 40 f.). To this department of illustrative examples belong also the narratives of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 30 ff.), of the Rich Man whose ground had brought forth plentifully (Luke xii. 16 ff.), of the Pharisee and Publican in the temple (Luke xviii. 10 ff.); also the account, in Mark's Gospel, of the Widow's Offering (xii. 41 ff.).1 These narratives have this in common with the parables of Jesus of which we have afterwards to speak, that they describe a certain supposed case which happened under definite circumstances. They are, however, distinguishable from the parable in this, that they do not present a comparison whereby from the validity of one fact we can argue the validity of another analogous fact in a different sphere. Again, in the 1 That this story of the Widow's Mite, in the original tradition, was apparently an example used by Jesus in connection with His declaration, Mark xii. 40, cf. L. J. i. p. 41. argument from example, by citing a particular case one can found upon it a general rule, which holds good for all other particular cases belonging to the same class.1 Exemplification by word is nearly related to exemplification by action. We can say that the whole active work of Jesus was an exposition of His teaching through His own example. In certain cases, indeed, He has employed certain acts for the sole purpose of illustrating His teaching. Mark (ix. Mark (ix. 33-37) relates how, when His disciples were disputing about precedence, He gave them the general reproof, "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all and servant of all," and how He then illustrated the character of this humility and service which gave a foremost place in the kingdom of God, by taking a child in His arms and declaring that such kindly reception of a child was of the highest value. Similarly in those sayings of Jesus at the last supper, recorded in the Logia, whose original connection we can recognise in Luke xxii. 14-35, after taking away the words of vers. 18-25 and 33 (which, according to Mark, have been inserted), it is related how Jesus waited upon His disciples in giving them the cup (ver. 17). He thus showed that He was among them as one that served (ver. 27), and that the greatest among them should become, that is, should comport himself as if he were, the younger, and the leader as if he were the servant (ver. 26). 2 Analogous to these two cases in which Jesus illustrated precept by example, we have the case, handed 1 Cf. Jülicher, die Gleichnissreden Jesu, 1886, i. p. 117. |