by the plain and simple word of truth.
Of an entirely different character are the two final antitheses, viz. those relating to non-resist- ance and love of enemies, as given in Mt 5^"^' ""■**. In the foregoing precepts we have simply the utterances of a more earnest moral sensibility ; here we have the language of exultant and heroic enthusiasm, not meant to be Judged by common- place standards. In lieu of the typically Jewish principle of retaliation, which was applied both in legal and in personal affairs, viz. ' eye for eye, tooth for tooth,' Jesus demands the entire renun- ciation of self-defence or self-vindication. Nay more ; it is not mere tranquil endurance that He enjoins, but a readiness to j)resent to the assailant the other cheek, to give more than what is asked, to surrender the cloak as well as the coat. These injunctions differ from those of St. Paul in Ro la'"--! in that they involve no thought of shaming or overcoming the adversary by pliancy and patience. St. Paul would seem, in fact, to have interpreted the words of Jesus in the prac- tical didactic sense of certain Stoic admonitions. But the distinctive feature of the passage in the Sermon on the Mount is that the demands are made without any reason being assigned or any subordinate aim proposed, precisely, indeed, as if their authority must have been perfectly self- evident to the disciples. A theological exegesis has barred the way towards a right understanding of them by always starting from the question what these words mean for us, and how wc shall obey them. And as a literal obedience to tliem seems to us impossible, recourse is had to new interpretations and modifications, by which the strength of their tremendous claims is sapped. Instead of putting such questions, we would rather ask liow the words are to be understood in tiieir original setting, and how Jesus came to utter them in that form. Now it is evident tliat their essen- tial feature is a tliorough aversion to the principle of retaliation by which the ignobler instincts of the Jewish national spirit were sustained and intensified. This av , ision on the part of Jesus is so strong that the most emphatic utterance of the opposite quality is for Him precisely the right thing ; a consummate zeal for forbearance and renunciation whets His demands to their sharpest point. But what is the source of tliis enthusiasm ? It is no mere reformer of Jewish morals that speaks here, no legislator for centuries yet unborn, but the herald and apostle of the imminent dissolution of the world and of the Kingdom of God already at the door ! Hence a man can prepare himself for that day in no more worthy or more earnest way than by the surrender of all the present life is based upon — earthly repute, business capacity, personal property ; all these are but obstacles and fetters. Whoso renounces willingly, whoso suffers gladly — he is truly free, and ready for the great day that is at hand. We can appreciate and vindicate the words only if we interpret tliem by the mood appropriate to the twelfth hour.
Jjt't these thinjjs vanish ail I
Their profit is but small :
The Kingdom still lemaineth.'
'1'!"^ sal nllmsiiisni pulsates through the
winds ahoni ]n\,- to (jiiiMiiies. It is unnece.ssary III |iainl till' liai kmimnil uf Judaism too black, to ia\il at Ihr .Irwisli 'luveto one's neighbour ' as iiaii.iw .1)1(1 partial, or even to lay too great a stiiss iipiin the 'hatred of one's enemies,' in order to iri'l tli.it the demand of Jesus is not only some- tliin- 'new,' Imt also a ijui.ssant, transcendent, snpL'rhumau iileal. He says, indeed, that the man who so acts will lie [lerfect even as God is perfect, a worthy child of the all-loving Father. Now it cannot be sufficiently urged that this obligation to love one's enemies neither issues from nor can be fulfilled amidst the normal emotions of everyday life. If it is to be real to us, i.e. truly realized and not merely assumed, then it demands an en- thusiasm which, if not ' contraiy to the nature,' is certainly ' beyond the power ' of the natural man. None but the possessor of a spirit profoundly re- ligious and animated by the love of God, could possibly love his enemies, at all events according to the special sense which Jesus gave to the uni- versal command, viz. ' Love them which hate you, pray for them which despitefully use you.'
Our view of this supreme command of Jesus thus brings us to the twofold law of love (Mk la^'"'-, Lk lO^'"'^-). It is beyond question that neither this conjoining of love to God and love to one's neighbour, nor the focusing of the whole Divine law in that ' sunima ' is a specifically original thought of Jesus. According to the oldest form of the narrative (Lk 10=^'-),* He elicits it from ascribe. Possibly enough there were earnest and pious Rabbis who, amid the jungle of thousands upon thousands of precepts, sought for some leading idea, and found in the requirement of love to God and man the nucleus of God's primal revelation : but none of them was ever able to carry such unification and simplification into full effect. Here again it is not the mere thought which matters, nor the fact that Jesus gave it utterance. The great thing is that, over and above. He furnished in His own life such an embodiment of the Law as carries conviction to all. In His personification of the ideal He welded the love of God and the love of man in an indissoluble union, in which they might foster and strengthen each other. He expressed the ideal in a perfect form, and stamped it upon the soul of the race. Since His day it has become obvious that the highest form of religion is that from which there radiates the soothing, genial, meek, and helpful love of mankind ; obvious also, that that love of man is the deepest, the truest, the most enduring, the most exacting, which has its roots in the depths of a soul pledged to the Most Hi"h, a soul which is permeated by His truth, and has been apprehended by His holy and gracious will.