On the other hand, signs are not wanting that Jesus recognized an essential difterence between the casting out of demons and the curing of bodily disease— 'I cast out demons and perform cures' (Lk 13^2, cf. Mt 108, Mk 6i3_ l]- 91 gni.). gt. Matthew, moreover, records the same distinction IB his account of the early Galilfean ministry (SaiMoj/ifoAt^fous KoX <Te\y]viat:o/j.dpov9, 4=^, with which cf. Mk p2-34). -vve may also note in passing that instances are not wanting of references to disease without mention of these agents (cf. e.q. Mt O^'-^" Mk V^-'-r, Lk 17"-").
Looking then at this last aspect of the question, and noting the way in which He employed the language current in His day about this mysterious phenomenon, we perceive Jesus' knowledge to be m advance of that possessed by His countrymen. We see the workings of that love which, while it appeals to man as he i.s, yet ever strives to draw him upwards by gradually stripping him of the clogging weights of superstition and of false con- ceptions. See artt. Demon, Lunatic, Possession. (c) In harmony with this characteristic habit of Jesus is His general method of imparting definite instruction. It is impossible not to be struck with the way in which He, not content with telling His hearers directly what He wshes them to know, approaches them from another side — the side of reason and its resultant freedom and in- dependence of thought. The Sermon on the Mount is not a body of precepts like the Mosaic code, so nmch as a series of paradoxes which arrest ana lix the attention, calling out and developing the powers of rational deduction. The same
feature runs through the parabolic form which His teaching so largely took, and which was so admirably suited to maintain the studied reserve in the content of His communications. Notice the way m which He keeps back, all through the earliest period of His ministry, the revelation of His claims to be the Messiah (Mk l"'3'- S^ Lk44i cf. Mt 12'" 8^ etc.); and even to the Twelve He does not impart the nature of those claims till they slowly worked out for themselves the con- viction to which St. Peter gave such emphatic expression at Coesarea Philippi (Mk 82» = Mt 161" =
(1) Popularly intelligible and highly impressive, the parables of Jesus have been the wonder and admiration of every age. The OT is not -ivithout examples of this mode of teaching (2 S 12'"'- 14«'- 1 K 2039'-, Is 5i-«), and the Rabbinical writings afford numerous examples of parables (see Eders- heim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i. p. 580 f.) some of which bear a striking resem- blance to those of Jesus (cf. Midrash on Ca 1'). The object of parabolic teaching was twofold, and was thus purposely employed by Him (Mt 13"-"). By it He meant to conceal the truth ' from the wise and clever' (awb cro0cii/ Kal (rvfeTuv, Mt ll^s [see Moifntt's -Histor. NP, p. 316 f.]). By it He at the same time intended to unfold the same truth ' to babes ' (i/i/iri'ois). According to the Markan narrative, there was an adaptation to the capaci- ties of His hearers even within the zone of His parabolic teaching. He did not, that is to say, employ this method indiscriminately or harshly, but in a tentative and gentle fashion, proportion- ate to the intelligences of those who heard Him (Mk 4»s).
Such was the aim and intention of Jesus ; and in connexion with this it will not be unimportant to note how, as His experience widened, and the stress of opposition increased, and the bitterness of the enmity to which He was exposed intensified, the parable enters more and more largely into His public teaching, and gradually assumes a more admonitory, controversial, and sometimes a warn- ing judicial tone. It is impossible to draw up any hard and fast rule exemplifying this statement, but a comparison of the parables grouped in Mt 13 with those in Lk 14'-" IS"-" U^^-'^ 16'-'^ '""^i igi'--" etc. will show the gradual development of method in the employment of the parable by Jesus to drive home the meaning of His message to the heart and understanding of His hearers. See Parable.
(2) Without entering into a discussion as to the difference between the parable, the fable, the allegory, and other forms of instruction by figure, it is important to note that Jesus never disdains to use popular figurative expressions in order to point the truth He is aiming to disclose. Just as in its outward form and method He conformed to the usages of His time (cf. Mt 5\ Lk 4=», Jn 8=, Mt 13"- etc.), so in His choice of language He did not disdain to employ what He found ready to His hand, though it was manifestly imperfect. He did not, for example, correct the popular notions as to the local positions of Heaven and Hades. The one was regarded as being situated at an indefinite height above the earth (see Ac l'**-), the other ' as a dark deep underworld in which the deceased continued to exist' (Salmond, art. 'Hades' in Hastings' DB ii. 275). The ethical teaching of Jesus is not disturbed by these crudities. On more than one occasion He uses them as illustra- tions of His meaning. Capernaum, because it rejected the unparalleled opportunities afforded by His presence and works. He addressed with the question, ' Shalt Uiou be exalted unto heaven ? ' answering it Himself at the same time, ' Thou