From these preliminaries we turn to the exposi- tion proper, premising that we shall on principle iient Our
purpose is to survey the figure of Jesus in its specific operation, and what better situation for this can we find than the actual scene of His con- flict with His environment ? It was the friction with that environment which kindled the fire within Him ; it was His unconformity with it that gave Him the conviction of His peculiar heritage. Just as His anger at the profanation of the Temple moved Him to an involuntary display of a religious feeling superior to, and more delicate than, that of His fellows, so His collision with the leading repre- sentatives of Judaism evokes from Him not merely an indignant criticism, but also a manifestation of His ovra inherent character. In this connexion the great discourse against the Scribes and Phari- sees in Mt23 (cf. Lk IP'-^:) furnishes invaluable testimony. Even if its artificial form (cf. the seven Woes) be derivative, still the majority of the say- ings grouped in it, so expressive of individual feeling, so original in form, unmistakably show the characteristic touch of Jesus. In any case the discourse clearly reveals the distinction He drew between Himself and the Rabbis, and the traits in the latter by which the disciples, filled with His spirit, felt themselves repelled. It is, above all things, the insinceritij oi their practice, the contrast between the reality and the appearance, which is so vividly brought out in the metaphor of ' whited sepulchres ' (23"). The supreme business of the scribes, — to which they apparently devoted them- selves with surpassing zeal, — viz. tlie instruction of the people in the law of God (23^), they discharged in such a way as to superinduce the very reverse of what was intended : instead of bringing men into the Kingdom (23'*) they keep them out by im- posing intolerable burdens, in the bearing of which they render not the slightest help. It is, in fact, evident that the work of leading men to God was for them a matter of no conseq^uence whatever. A glaring light is thrown likewise upon the propa- ganda of the Pharisees (23") : under tlieir tutelage a proselyte becomes a child of hell, tw in- :i- « irked as themselves (or, as it was probaMy s|„,k,-ii at first, twice as wicked as he was lieiure). These severe verdicts show at a glance how higlily Jesus estimated the sacred and responsible otiice of the
ETHICS
ETHICS
545
leaders of the people, which they so direly abused. With keen moral indignation He passes sentence upon the complacent and self-seeking father- confessors, who, on the pretext of pastoral zeal, with 'long prayers' devour widows' houses (Mk 12*). He shows inimitably the unscrupulousness of their over-scrupulosity : straining out gnats and swallowing camels, tliey are squeamish and strait- laced in regard to trifles, in tlie great moral matters lax for themselves and lenient to others, even to the point of apathy— and such has ever since been the practice of a hierarchy clothed with authority (23-^). In these utterances Jesus reproves chiefly the scribes' insensibility to the primary moral sanctions ; they keep cup and platter clean, but are indift'erent to the nature of the contents ; non olet, even though it has been accumulated by selfishness and greed, and is gorged with unbridled self-indulgence (23'''). While with painful precision they attend to the tithing of the meanest garden produce, they neglect the weightiest matters of the Law — justice, mercy, and faithfulness (23^). In harmony with Mic 6* He enunciates the principle that the primary imperatives of morality surpass all ceremonial pre- scriptions in importance and urgency — a truth which, though ancient, needs ever to be emphasized anew. There can be no dubiety as to the purport of 'justice' or 'mercy' in this passage; they are meant to cover the great social obligations of the ruling to the dependent classes — the non-perversion of the Law, the succour of widows and orphans, the relief of the poor. As to the third injunction, the Evangelists do not seem to have been sure of its meaning; for 'faithfulness' St. Luke (U''-) substitutes the ' love of God,' probably interpret- ing Triirris as ' faith ' (as EV). Without doubt, however, Jesus intends this word also to connote a social and moral duty, viz. trustworthiness and candour in human relationships.
Mt. has in this verse inserted a clause (23-^'') which should almost certainly be deleted from Lk. (11''^), as a gloss involving a certain modification of the command. The preceding verses might lead us to infer that Jesus did not only set less store by the ceremonial law, but was \villing to do away with it altogether. This, however, says St. Matthew, is not His meaning: 'These (moral duties) ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.' The Evangelist is, in fact, keenly solicitous lest Jesus be regarded as hostile to the Mosaic law, as he shows also in 5" and the prefatory words 23^'- (neither passage in Lk. ), implying that the teaching of the scribes is good, but that their works are evil, since they do not practise what they preach. Taking into consideration the writer's date and point of view, we can quite well understand the words ; but we naturally ask whether this con- ciliatory and conservative attitude towards the ceremonial law truly re resents the mind of Jesus?