CHAPTER III: THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE
3. THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL TEACHING
HOME | Contents | Chapter III: < PART II | PART III: 54.The choosing of the twelve Apostles | 55-75.The sermon on the mount | Conclusion | PART IV >.
The choosing of the twelve Apostles (54).
Luke vi.12-16; Mark iii.13-19; Matthew x.1-4.
We come now to a decisive moment in the ministry of Jesus.
At first He had
preached repentance because the kingdom of God was at hand;
and as the evangelists
have preserved for us only one feature of that early preaching
we are led to
think that it was all in the style of the prophets of old, especially Isaias,
dwelling specially, as in the sermon at Nazareth,
on the mercy shown by God
in thus intervening in human affairs.
But we find Him already, at that early
hour, gathering disciples about Him,
among them Levi the publican, since known
as Matthew.
Nathanael was in all probability the disciple we know as Bartholomew.
Others also - how many we know not - were in the habit of spending more or
less frequent periods in his company.
The Pharisees had been led by their very instinct
to meet Him with opposition, but the questions by which they sought to trap
Him had provided the Master with an opportunity for revealing that His teaching
was based on new principles very different from theirs.
He had let it be seen
that His work would still be carried on after He was gone. [Mark
ii.20.]
He had therefore
to train these followers of His and bestow on them an authority derived from
His own:
they must be the first
hearers of His teaching and also His witnesses.
He decided that they should
number twelve, which was the number of the tribes of Israel:
for just as
the patriarchs born of Jacob were the glorious ancestors of the whole nation
and the pride of each separate tribe, a bond also which bound them together
in one family, so the twelve Apostles were to be the forefathers of the new
Israel that Jesus had come to found.
Before taking this step, which was already decided on as part of His work,
Jesus betook Himself to prayer.
He went up the mountain and passed the night
in earnest supplication.
As man, it was His duty to pray;
but He also set
us an example,
and here teaches His Church to make special prayers to beg God
for faithful pastors.
Seven of the twelve had already been admitted to a privileged intimacy with
Him;
as for the rest, we do not know when they first felt drawn towards Him.
They were Thomas,
James the son of Alpheeus (so called to distinguish him from
the son of Zebedee),
Simon surnamed qanana, Aramaic for zealous but not necessarily
' the zealot,'
though there is only one word for both meanings in Greek.
We
use the term Zealots to denote a Jewish sect inspired with a fierce zeal for
the independence of Israel,
maintaining that none should be obeyed but God.
The ideal was a praiseworthy one,
but in practice it was only too often spoilt
by excesses of the worst kind.
But as Simon's surname is retained in the list
of the Apostles we ought to understand it in its more general sense of fervent
zeal for God.
With Simon is generally associated a Judas whom we call Jude
in order to distinguish him from the traitor.
With the same object Luke calls
him the son of James,
while Mark and Matthew mention him only by his surname
Thaddaeus, 'big-chested.'
The last is Judas Iscariot, a word which means the
man of Kerioth, a small town in the south of Judaea.
The fact that the traitor
is placed among the twelve is enough of itself to prove that this number was
determined by Jesus.
Unless this had been notorious no one would have dared
to introduce Judas into the group of the Master's intimate friends.
Simon,
though he had not been the first to come to Jesus, is always mentioned first
with his surname Peter.
This alone shows the specially important position he
occupied amongst the disciples.
Andrew, his brother, is not always put in the second place.
To James and John,
who will more than once be associated with Peter in the Master's special favour,
Jesus gave the name of Boanerges, Sons of Thunder,
because of their impetuous
ardour.
top
The Sermon on the Mount (55-75).
The Twelve had been chosen in order to be leaders;
but they were not leaders yet.
They were, however, the first to be initiated
into the doctrine of the kingdom of God.
Jesus was now to make a plain declaration,
though He had already given certain clear glimpses of what was His attitude
to the revealed Law, and of what was that higher perfection to which He was
calling those willing to follow Him.
As was befitting, this declaration was
made with a certain solemnity, though there is nothing of ostentation about
it.
All who read the gospel with the simplicity of those who wrote it are struck
by this trait in the character of Jesus:
He had so little liking for pomp and display that it would be shocking to mention
the word theatrical in connection with His actions even if only to dismiss
it.
Nevertheless, His Sermon on the Mount has been compared with the promulgation
of the Old Law on Sinai.
But where are the lightnings and thunders, the holy
fear that seized the Israelites, the command not to approach the smoking mountain?
As once before Jesus had a boat for a pulpit, so now he sits on the ground
surrounded by the multitude.
He is on a mountain simply because He has gone
up there to pray and to choose His disciples, and the crowd has followed Him.
For the sake of convenience He comes down a little way from the mountain-top
to a plain where everyone can sit in comfort.
[There is no difficulty in harmonizing Matthew, who speaks
of a mountain,
and Luke, who speaks of a plain,
for Luke too has placed the call of the disciples upon a mountain:
he is merely showing that Jesus has descended to a flat place on the mountain
side.]
The plateau of Qurn-Hattin,
which is overlooked by hills but at the same time high up and far from Capharnaum,
fulfils the conditions quite well.
Others have proposed Um Barakât (the Mother
of Blessings), overlooking Tabga.
The commotion aroused by Jesus had become so wide-spread that it was no longer
confined to Galilee.
People came even from the south of Jerusalem, that is
to say from Idumaea, which had not long ago been conquered by the Hasmonean
kings and was still smouldering with hostility towards Judaism.
Inhabitants
of Tyre and Sidon also, to the extreme north of the Promised Land, came begging
to be healed.
When Jesus saw this multitude waiting upon Him He opened His
mouth and spoke.
His discourse has been recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke in somewhat different
ways.
We should be led to conclude that they were giving two different discourses,
were not the resemblances so close, especially if it were possible to suppose
that Jesus had on two different occasions pronounced an opening discourse.
It is preferable to admit that Luke, since he was writing for Gentiles, confined
himself to what concerned the new way of perfection which consists in the law
of charity;
Matthew, however, faithfully preserved that which gave to the
discourse its historical character, namely the contrast between the new doctrine
and the old, and the bond which made them one;
the bond is the bond of charity,
but it is a charity which goes further than what is demanded by the Law, though
at the same time it grows out of the old revelation like the fruit fulfilling
the promise of the flower.
We must therefore go to St. Matthew's text in order
to appreciate the primitive character of the sermon:
there we seem to hear
the words, the tone, the very accent of Jesus when we read it for ourselves.
Here we cannot attempt more than a modest analysis of the discourse.
The sermon opens with a sort of introduction which we call the beatitudes;
Luke adds a complementary counterpart by showing the unhappiness that comes
from the dispositions contrary to the beatitudes.
But the contrast thus created
actually adds nothing that is essential.
The main part of the sermon is made up of two points:
what relation has the teaching of Jesus to the Law and the Prophets,
and how
is His spirit different from the spirit of the hypocritical Pharisees?
Secondly,
what ought to be the attitude and practice of His disciples?
Then in a brief
exhortation the hearers are called upon to put His teaching into practice.
The introduction alone contains a complete doctrine, treasured by mystics of
every age.
St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas have treated of it in its broad outlines,
while Pascal has dealt with it in a way to please the modern mind.
It is the
doctrine that truth cannot bear fruit in the soul -
nay, it cannot even be
understood -
unless the will, what we call the heart, is first rightly disposed
towards God.
If the heart is barren of feeling towards God the intelligence
remains blind.
Therefore, to begin with,
instead of those ordinary inclinations
which a man feels for the good things of this world,
he must substitute the
contrary desires which are based upon appreciation of the real value of things,
whether they are the deceitful pleasures of the senses
or the things which
are of real worth.
In this way there must be brought about a reversal of values,
and a conviction that happiness will in the end be the lot of those who seem
to lack those false pleasures that men seek so eagerly.
In St. Luke the contrast between poverty and riches, laughter and tears,
is
set down in so striking a manner
that a superficial reader might easily consider
the matter as one entirely concerning temporal prosperity,
and think that Jesus,
like a good revolutionary,
had promised to the poor their revenge upon the
rich who looked down upon them;
and further, that this revenge was not long to be delayed.
But this would be
a mistaken idea.
For in what way does this desire,
this vindictive desire of
others' goods
which can be appeased by depriving the wealthy in a spirit of
vengeance,
resemble the call to renunciation that echoes through the whole
Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Indeed St. Luke, like St. Matthew, has from the very
first line shown us from what point of view we are to read what he has written.
There will, indeed, be a transformation,
but it will be in the kingdom of God:
and here we are to understand the kingdom of God in eternity.
Far from stirring
up His disciples to seize those temporal possessions of which they now suffer
such a lack,
He goes on to promise them humiliation and ill-treatment for His
name's sake,
reminding them that their reward will be in Heaven.
We have to
admit, therefore, that these abrupt and violently contrasted sentences of St.
Luke,
conceived as they are in a style to suit the intelligence of Semites,
needed to be toned down to suit other readers;
hence the amplifications in
the Greek of St. Matthew,
where we are reminded in every sentence of the true
spiritual sense of the sayings.
Matthew does not simply say 'the poor,'
but'
the poor in spirit,'
which means
those who feel their own powerlessness to satisfy their longing for the kingdom
of God.
The thirsty are athirst 'for righteousness.'
The merciful,
the clean
of heart,
the peacemakers,
are already on the way to the kingdom of God;
we must therefore understand 'the meek' and 'they that mourn ' in the same
sphere of religious and moral life.
Similarly, to inherit the earth will not
mean increasing one's earthly domain,
but entering Heaven as a child of God.
The only reward the disciples are to look for in this world is to suffer persecution
as did the prophets in the early history of Israel.
This glance into the past, with its implication that the disciples of Jesus
are the successors of the prophets, furnishes a neat introduction for the first
point of the sermon.
What is the position of Jesus in regard to the Old Law?
[There will be found in our Commentary on St. Matthew the
reasons for regarding as additions to the primitive discourse certain passages,
which, moreover, are not found in St. Luke's sermon, namely, Matthew v.13-16,
18, 25-26; vi.7-15 (the Pater), 19-34; vii.7-11, 22-23.
Matthew has, however, established a close connection between verses 17 and 18
of chapter v, and has shown the full meaning of the perpetuity of the Law, both
by the position of his treatment of that idea and by the words with which he
ends verse 18.]
This is one of the
greatest problems of the New Testament and one that the Apostles themselves
had to solve in several matters, for the Master had only laid down a general
principle and given a few applications of it.
According to some, indeed, St.
Paul is not in agreement with Jesus about the principle.
The Master asserts,
they say, that the Law will not pass away:
the Apostle regards it as abrogated.
And it is not enough to reply that Jesus meant that He was bringing the Law
to its full perfection.
When we find Christians doing away with the rite of
circumcision,
the very symbol of the covenant between God and His chosen people,
what becomes of Christ's declaration that 'not one jot or tittle of the Law
shall pass away'?
Jot (iota) is the Greek name for iod, the smallest letter of the
Hebrew alphabet;
a tittle represents one of those tiny orthographical marks
by means of which certain similar letters of the Hebrew alphabet are distinguished
one from another.
Does this mean, then, that Jesus accepted the claim of the
rabbis that the written text of the Law, even down to the very letters, was
to remain unaltered right to the end of the world?
So scrupulous were the
rabbis in the work of safeguarding this material integrity of the sacred writings
that they took the most minute precautions, even to the extent of counting
all the letters of the Scriptures, in order to make sure that each new copy
contained them all.
It was not by a scrupulous zeal of such a kind, however, that Jesus was inspired.
But did He at least intend to say that every single one of the commands of
the Law should be retained for all time?
If so, then He was contradicted by
St. Paul, and St. Matthew has even made Him contradict Himself in what follows
the above declaration.
The opinion of the rabbis on this point also, the question,
namely, of the everlasting character of the Mosaic ordinances, was entirely
puerile and impossible.
According to their view, the Law was made up of a list
of commandments, some positive, others negative in character, the number of
these commands being so fixed that they could be neither added to nor diminished.
Such a law as that is impossible of observance over a very long period, and
the Mosaic Law itself was modified as time went on;
nay, even Moses himself,
during the journey of the Israelites through the desert, had amplified certain
of the laws which he had formerly promulgated as binding for ever. [Cf.
Numbers ix.6 ff. with Exodus xii.14 ff.]
We must understand the expression 'for ever ' in this connexion as meaning
stable and permanent, as opposed to laws of a merely temporary character.
To
think otherwise would be to subscribe to that rabbinic mentality
which is irreconcilable
with the ordinary exigences of human life.
But Jesus was far from doing that.
Taking divine revelation as a whole, comprising both the Law and the Prophets,
He asserted His right, not indeed to change it but 'to fulfil' it:
that is
to say, to bring it to its perfection. [Matthew v.17.]
His meaning here is beyond all doubt,
and therefore ought to serve as a basis for the right understanding of that
other saying of His which is so difficult:
'Amen I say unto you:
till heaven and earth pass,
not one jot or tittle of the Law shall pass till all has been fulfilled.'
[ Matthew v.18.]
There could have been no object in the making of this twofold
declaration other than to show that the Law, unchangeable in substance because
it has man's perfection for its aim, was to continue its application during
the period which was just beginning.
Do not let us understand Jesus as saying
that the purpose of His coming is to accomplish the Law and the Prophets, or
that the Law and the Prophets are to remain in their
entirety until everything they contain has been accomplished.
[To 'accomplish' does not mean to bring to perfection but
to carry out.]
To understand
Him thus would be to regard His mission as an end in itself.
It was indeed
an end, but it was also a beginning.
We have to bear in mind that the Law
and the Prophets are religious and moral truth.
Now how is a truth fulfilled?
Surely by the fact that, while remaining unchangeable
in substance,
it becomes ever clearer to the minds of men,
revealing more and
more its content of ideas,
manifesting an ever greater fruitfulness in its
effects.
Truth in God is the source of an inexhaustible activity,
and when that truth
is revealed to men it is impossible that it should remain as a mere dead letter.
Truth does not change -
it is error that changes and so perishes -
yet truth
in order to come to its perfection undergoes a real development,
such a development
as is essential in everything that serves the purposes of human life.
Not one
jot or tittle, then, of the essential elements of the ancient revelation shall
perish.
The words in which Jesus makes this declaration contain a parable.
Just as
a Jewish scribe watches with anxious care lest he should leave out a single
jot or tittle which he considers essential to the correct reading of the Scriptures,
so God also keeps careful watch of each seed of truth which He has sown in
His revelation.
An essential development was given to that revelation by Christ,
a development such as was destined never to be repeated.
What we have said
of the original revelation we must say also of the truth thus amplified by
Christ:
it will stand for ever until it too shall have attained that complete
development to which it is destined by God.
A real progress will mark its development,
whether that progress is a consequence of revelations granted to private individuals
or of the contemplation and practice of truths already revealed;
and in all
this it is the Holy Spirit who is always the guide.
[John xvi.12 ff. provides us with the key to this difficult
passage in St. Matthew:
'The Spirit of truth will lead you to the complete
truth.']
To deny that Christ had
in mind what was to come to pass after the end of His earthly mission would
be equivalent to making Him say that the world was to end with Him.
[Read the fine analysis of Newman's thought in M. Jacques Chevalier's conference
at Oxford (Les Lettres, July, 1927): 'Identity of form can only be
an identity of death.
Identity of life supposes continual change, the very continuity of
which is sufficient to ensure unity and identity. ...
In the notion of time
is contained the idea of continual change, but the very purpose of that change
is in order that things may remain the same. ...']
Having laid down the principle, Jesus begins to draw certain conclusions by
way of application.
The Law forbade homicide:
Jesus will not have us even
to become angry.
Not only must we pardon those who have offended us,
we must
be the first to seek reconciliation even when all the fault has been on the
other side.
Again, the Law condemned adultery:
we must understand that as
a condemnation of every impure desire.
The Law permitted a man to repudiate
his wife,
though in so doing it merely tolerated for the time being a thing
that was in itself undesirable:
what the Law in reality demands is that perfect union between husband and wife
which death alone has the power to dissolve.
[The question was proposed in a solemn fashion by the Pharisees
and we shall return to it (on Mark x.11 ff. and Matt. xix.9). Cf. ch.iv. §
214.]
The Law forbade perjury,
but
a true disciple of Jesus will avoid all oaths and will content himself with
a simple ' yes' or ' no.'
The Law prescribed retaliation for injuries:
'An
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.'
Jesus does not condemn this in so many
words.
Formerly, in those states of society possessing no public authority
strong enough to repress crime, people freely took the work of vengeance into
their own hands:
and in such circumstances it was found necessary to keep
things within bounds by determining that the satisfaction required by the avenger
must be measured by the damage done by the offender.
Christ's ideal, however,
was that we ought not to resist evil in those cases, at least, where the injury
is done to one's own person.
In heroic words He recommends to us a patience
that is beyond the ordinary powers of human nature:
'If anyone strike thee on the right cheek,
turn to him the left also.'
It is evident that there is
in this no question of a command:
Jesus puts the matter on so high a plane
in order to win from us at least a little kindness towards others:
'If anyone compel thee to go one mile,
go with him other two.'
In the teaching put forward by the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms,
insistence
had been laid upon the love of one's neighbour.
But who was this neighbour?
This is a question which will come again later. [Cf. ch.iv,
§§ 157-8.]
Surely the neighbour belonged to a special privileged category:
and there
was another category, that of one's enemies.
Every good Israelite, like certain
of the psalmists,
thought it right to
hate and curse his enemies,
for were they not also the enemies of God?
Hence
the Law did not forbid hatred,
provided one had a just motive for the hatred:
so at least thought the Pharisees.
Jesus, expressing His thought in a Semitic language -
and Semitic language
is barren of expressions for fine shades of meaning,
using the same form in
order to express what is of precept
and what is merely tolerated-sums up in
these words
the current opinion of the time concerning the traditional teaching
of the Law on this subject:
'Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thy enemy.'
[Matthew v.43.]
[The first part of this sentence is found
written in the Law (Lev. xix.18), but not the second.
Moreover, Jesus does not cite the exact words of the Law.
Thus it is clear that it is His intention to oppose His own revelation to
the false interpretation of the old revelation.
His own revelation is based on what is expressly commanded in the Law,
and
He makes the formal precept of the Law concerning charity cover all the situations
in which, according to the ancient dispensation, it was considered legitimate
to hate certain enemies.]
But Jesus shows a better understanding of
the all-embracing power of the precept of charity.
Charity, as everybody knows, makes a man forget injuries;
but
He shows how it goes further still.
It extends even to our enemies.
There are
no more limits to it than there are limits to the loving-kindness of the heavenly
Father who makes His sun to rise upon the good and upon the bad.
Are we to
love only our friends?
Why, the very publicans do as much.
The disciple of
Jesus must aim higher than that:
his model is no less than God:
'Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.'
Thus Jesus gradually passes from an express
command of the Law
to this maxim with which He concludes,
in which one might
say was represented the whole spirit of the Law.
He contrasts the perfection
that He has come to teach
with the Law and its insufficiency,
and with the
distorted interpretations of the Law.
He next proceeds to speak of certain practices which, though quite good in
themselves,
are really pleasing to God only if performed solely for His sake.
How could it be possibly pleasing to Him when a man gives alms, or prays, or
fasts
merely to show off his piety before his neighbours?
Doubtless there
will always be found everywhere some who act thus,
but Jesus has in mind a
distinct class of hypocrites.
He refrains from mentioning the Pharisees more
explicitly,
but no one could mistake His meaning.
The Jerusalem Talmud speaks
of one class of Pharisees who wear their good deeds on their backs so that
they may get praised for them. [Cf. Commentary on Mark xii.40.]
This is a well-known characteristic of the
whole sect.
The religious aristocracy of Israel were convinced that God's honour
was in their keeping;
and hence, the Jews by their good or bad deeds caused
God to be honoured or despised in the eyes of the Gentiles.
This sense of responsibility
was a strong inducement to avoid evil, but at the same time to conceal evil
from notice if they had committed any.
In this they justified themselves on
the ground that the glory of God was safeguarded by thus keeping up their own
reputation for goodness.
But their party spirit went to even greater lengths.
The sole source of Pharisaic authority was their reputation for learning and
religious zeal;
but in reality they were working for the honour of their own
sect, even when they distinguished themselves from the common run of the people
by their devotion for the Law and their good works.
When they gave alms they
contrived that others should know it;
they prayed in the corners of the streets
where, while able to pray undisturbed, they could still be seen;
they fasted
often, and ordinary devout people went into raptures over their emaciated appearance
and ascetic features.
Thus they received the reward they coveted, the esteem
of men.
But, in order to please our Father in heaven, we must seek Him in secret:
Jesus lets fall from His lips words that are touched with a delicate humour
and not without a touch of exaggeration:
'Therefore, when thou dost an alms-deed, sound not a trumpet. ...
Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth';
[Matthew vi.2.
The rabbis well knew how unpleasant it was to see a man making a show of almsgiving, and from Proverbs xxi.14:
'A secret present quencheth anger ' (in him to whom it is given) they concluded that alms must be given in secret.
This apparently similar example shows clearly llic difference between them and Jesus in spirit and method of teaching.]
and again:
'But thou, when thou prayest,
enter into thy chamber and having shut the door,
pray to thy Father who is in secret';
and finally:
'When thou fastest,
anoint thy head and wash thy face.'
In this
way He taught us to perform what we do for God's sake alone,
and, what is more,
to take care that our good deeds shall not be known.
It should be enough for
us that God is pleased,
and if we love Him truly we shall not desire our good
deeds to be seen by others.
Then there is the wonderful truth that man's love for
God flows out towards his neighbour also.
In charity towards our neighbour
consists the whole of the Law, and we can make sure of observing that Law
perfectly by following a very simple rule:
'All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you
do you also to them;
for this is the Law and the Prophets.'
[Matthew vii.12.]
But, it is to be noted, it is the Law and Prophets understood according
to the new spirit which brings them to their perfection.
Hillel, who had been
the leader of the Pharisees before the time in which Jesus lived, had said
something of the same kind but at the same time very different:
'That which you do not like
don't do to anybody else;
this is the whole of the Law,
and all the rest is only the explanation of it.'
[Talmud, Chabbat, 31a.]
And such indeed is the standard
of justice.
But while charity too respects the boundaries which mark off our
neighbours' rights,
it is not content with merely abstaining from doing wrong
to others.
See how intensely everyone loves himself, with what far-sightedness
and skill he pursues his own interests!
What a noble ideal it would be to
use the same ardour in the service of our neighbour!
It was in this that St.
Augustine placed the golden rule.
But of course that golden rule cannot be
observed until the love of God has driven out self-love
and so made way for
the love of our neighbour.
Thus, for prayer we seek solitude;
but if our neighbour
should enter on the scene,
charity will make us leave our solitude and become
active.
Such is the substance of the New Law.
The Old Law consisted entirely
of exhortations to good works;
and under the New Law too there must be no
falling off in good works now that they are to be inspired by a pure love of
God and our neighbour.
Not a word did Jesus utter in His preaching such as
would lead anyone to believe that the knowledge of His doctrine is a kind of
charm which of itself ensures eternal life.
Nothing would be further from the truth.
Whoever has listened to His words,
even if he has believed them,
will be rejected by Him unless he has put those
words into practice.
The doctrine of Jesus is not like one of the pagan mysteries:
it is offered to all indiscriminately, and is not like knowledge communicated
to a privileged few which brings special benefit to the hearers of it.
In a
word, there is nothing savouring of a passive pseudo-mysticism in the doctrine
of Jesus.
It is a call to action, but our action is to take the shape of doing our
heavenly Father's will:
'Not everyone that saith to Me, Lord, Lord,
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven;
but he that doth the will of My Father.'
[Matthew vii.21.]
Ever since that saying was uttered Christian philosophers li.ivc pondered
over the question of moral conduct and the conditions requisite for Christian
perfection.
Their teaching more and more reduces itself to this:
that the
whole of perfection consists in uniting ourselves with the will of God by fulfilling
it to the best of our ability, or at least by resigning ourselves to it.
But
all that was made plain by Jesus in one word.
top
Conclusion.
This opening sermon of Jesus, which bears the character of a kind of programme
and has in view a new order of things, is clearly meant for a period during
which things were to be better, but a period nevertheless situated in the same
conditions as those of the existing world.
For had Jesus merely intended to
put Himself forward as the Prophet of a kingdom of God which was to be set
up in a world completely transformed by innocence and happiness, and built
upon the ruins of the present wicked world condemned by God to destruction,
then the whole Sermon on the Mount would be unintelligible:
nay, it would
be a standing example of absurdity.
But, on the contrary, He declares that
His disciples will have need of all their endeavours in order to preserve their
goodness;
they will have to live constantly in the face of bad example against
which they must be ever on their guard.
The new era that is now beginning is
to be a time of conflict;
the time will be long, and nothing is said to determine
how long it will be.
The followers of Christ are to go on living under the
same conditions of the world as obtained formerly, for the old Law will still
apply, but they must live under the guidance of a new principle.
By its very definition a law is composed of a number of precepts the observance
of which must be within the power of all who are subjects of the law.
It is
of the nature of a law to command, not to offer advice;
though all are free,
if they wish, to undertake things that imply greater perfection than what the
law prescribes.
Had the Law of Moses
been nothing more than a mere body of precepts intended to govern a man's conduct
in the performance of his positive duties, social and even religious, it
might have been argued that the coming of Jesus abrogated that law, since
He wished men to act from a motive that is higher than mere obligation, the
motive, that is to say, of charity;
and it is of the nature of charity that
it is capable of always greater perfection.
Far from laying down rules demanding
the minimum of good conduct,
He gives counsels of perfection that are bounded
by no limits.
The paradoxical form in which some of His directions are expressed
is clearly intended to show that in this way of the counsels charity can
always surpass itself.
Truly we can join with St. Paul in saying that we
are no longer under the Law,
but under the regime of grace. [Romans vi.15.]
Yet the Law itself had given some glimpse of this truth in those burning exhortations
to love God which we find in Deuteronomy.
It was through the medium of this
fundamental principle concerning the love of God, and through all the moral
consequences flowing from this principle, that the Law had to remain in force
for ever.
Jesus taught very simply,
not by any process of reasoning,
but in
a concrete fashion by the use of examples,
what St. Paul was later to bring
out more clearly in his dialectical manner.
The Master's teaching is none the
less of a very practical character,
suited to all times and conditions,
for
human nature is the same in all ages.
It is clear that He has no intention
of proposing a visionary golden age to take the place of living under obedience
to the Law;
He merely sums up the Law in the one precept of charity,
but a
charity that is better understood and better practised,
and practised all the
better for the reason that it will still have difficulties to overcome.
The
whole of His teaching aims at giving us a higher ideal of righteousness,
so
that everyone, now that God begins again to reign in the world,
may reach the
kingdom of God that is above,
where alone is to be found perfect happiness
in union with God.
top