Man, then, as spiritual, takes precedence of everjthing else that is. He is not a means or a thing ; he is an end in himself. In the time of Jesus, however, as has also haijpened in other periods of history, the customs and institutions wliich man had made had become his master, Mere obscuring his vision and keeping him from his true good. One of these institutions m as that of the Sabbath. A man might not heal another man on the Sabbath ; yet if a sheep had fallen into a Mell he might get it out, or if his ox or his ass Mere thirsty he might lead them to the i>ool. Jesus enforces the true order ; the Sabbath Mas made for man ; it Mas a means for his good ; it m as a custom, an institution, a thing, and, as compared Mith spirit, cKcupied a strictly subordinate place. It Mas similar m ith everv custom and institution man had made (Mt 12'-',' Mk 2^"*).
In saying this, Jesus stood emphatically for progress ; He practicallj- said also that there Mas something in the life of man Mhich neither insti- tutions nor the social order nor civic legislation could ever fully express ; man bore the infinite M-ithin him : deep and ineradicable, m ithin his life, there Mas tlie life of God. Man Mas there- fore immortal. If mc admit the premises, no other conclusion is possible. The fact, said Jesus in effect, that Me can stand in relation to God, that Me can speak Mith Him and commune Mith Him, is itself the promise and pledge of im- mortality. Because He lives. Me live also (Jn 14'*). God ' is not the GckI of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto him ' (Lk 20^*j. And thus the chief end of man Mas to know GJod and Jesus Christ Mhom He had sent (Jn 17^) ; his true voca- tion Mas to seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness (Mt 6^). Because he Mas made in God's image, and was able, in some measure, to represent Him and reveal Him, man Mas endoMed Mith a peculiar dignity. But here again Jesus sjKjke in the language of the ideal. Immortality was a possibility for man ; it Mas in some sense
11
110
MANAEN
MANAEN
an acliievement ; it was also something that could be lost. But it was something of whijh every man was capable.
In conclusion, the strongest argument for the dignity and worth of man is to be found in Jesus Himself. He called Himself the Son of Man ; whatever touched man and his well-being was His concern. His teaching and His life were such that men find it impossible to regard Him from the ordinary Iniman standpoint. They have con- ceived of Him as Divine ; they say that His entry into liunican life to share the common jmin and toil ami death was a purely voluntary act. Such is not only a view held by theologians, but one which is entertained to-day by men of science. Sir Oliver Lodge speaks of Jesus as being willing to share the life of a peasant, and as being the best race-asset that men possess (Hibbcrt Journal, Oct. 1904). From whatever standpoint, however, He is viewed, the presence of Jesus in humanity can only add incalculably to its worth and dignity. In set doctrine Jesus taught very little as to the nature of man. To really see what He thought about man and the value He set on him, we must look at Jesus" life. He came to do the will of His Father and to accomplish His work ( Jn 6^'' 9"*) ; He came to give life, and to give it abundantly (Jn U)"*) ; He came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many (Mt 20-"). That He loved men is a common- place. He, beyond all other teachers and leaders whom we know, 'stood stoutly for the human,' and made the cause of man — the true well-being of man — take precedence of every other thing aiul cause. It was not that men were better in His than in any other age ; it was that He ever saw men in the light of the ideal, and ever found at the root of man's life the life of God. To say this is to say also that among all the benefactors of humanity, Jesus of Nazareth is, par excellence, the Friend of Man. He thought that the common weal — man and man's true cause and good — was worth living for with absolute devotion ; should things so require, it was also worth dying for. And, as Jesus Himself has said, greater love hath no man than this (Jn 15'^).
Psychologically, man, in the thought of Jesus, is made up of two parts, soul and body, or spirit and flesh. But He speaks, as a moral teacher, of man in his broad general aspect, and is not concerned with minute psychological distinctions (cf. Mt 10-'8- 29 1620- 26^', Mk 8^6, Lk 16»-^).
Literature. — Grimm-Thayer, Lex. s.vv. a.vY,p, avSpure; ; Hast- ings' DB, art. 'Man'; A. B. Bruce, The Kingdom of God, and other works ; John Caird, Introduction to the Philosopliy of Religion ; A. M. Faixbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ ; Laid- law, Bibl. Doct. of Man ; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus ; N. T. Theol. of Weiss, Beyschlag, etc. ; H. E, Manning, Serinons (1844), p. 47 ; H. Bushnell, The New Life (1860), p. IG ; J. Martineau, Hours of Thought (1879), ii. p. 286; F. Paget, Faculties and Difficulties'^ (1889), p. 132 ; W. Gladden, Burning Questions (1890), p. 67 ; J. B. Lightfoot, Cambridge Sermons (1800), p. 229 ; R. W. Dale, Christian Doctrine (1894), p. 170 ; H. van Dyke, Manhood, Faith and Courage (1906), p. 1.