The dispute in the early Church in relation to the Gentiles, regarding which so much has been made, was not about preaching the gospel to tiiem, but about the conditions on which they were to receive salvation and be admitted into the Church. No instructions on these matters had been given by the Lord Jesus, and difference of opinion was inevitable until the truth was made plain. St. Peter's reluctance to go to Cornelius did not arise from any unwillingness to preach to him, but from the natural shrinking of a strict Jqw from entering the house of a Gentile. The accusa- tion which was brought against him at Jerusalem by those who M-ere of the circumcision was, not tliat he had preached the gospel to a Gentile, but that he had gone in to 'men uncircumcised and had eaten with them ' (Ac 1 P). It was ' they of the circumcision,' and not the first disciples, who glori- fied God, saying, 'Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life' (Ac IP^). These considerations are sufficient to establish the knowledge of the missionary command by the first disciples, and to account for the apparent delay (if any) in canying it out.
7. The progress of mission work tvithin the NT record.— T\\Q order is admirably given by Turner in his art. 'Chronology of the NT' in Hastings' DB. He says that ' tlie picture in Acts is cut up, as it were, into six panels, each labelled with a general summary of progress ' ; and his arrangement IS adopted here. First stage, the beginning at
Jerusalem (Ac 1^-6') ; second stage, the extension of the Church throughout Palestine (Ac 6^-9^^) ; third stage, the extension of the Church to Antioch (Ac 9^--12-^) ; fourth stage, the extension of the Church to Asia Minor, as a result of St. Paul's first missionary journey (Ac 12-^-16^) ; fifth stage, the extension of the Church to Europe, resulting from St. Paul's second missionary journey (A.c 16^- 19-") ; sixth stage, the extension of the Church to Rome (Ac 19-i-28»i). ^Yhile that is the view of progress Avhicli is presented in Acts, it is not to be taken as complete. It exhibits for the most part the movement as connected with the great mis- sionaries, St. Peter and St. Paul. The labours of the majority of the company of the Apostles are not recorded, and their activity might to some extent modify the above order of progi-ession. ^Missionary enthusiasm also was not confined to the Apostles. Unnamed disciples, as in the case of Antioch (Ac 11^), and certainly also in the case of Rome, may have carried the gospel into many places of which no mention is made. But for general purposes the sketch as given above repre- sents the line of advance up to the year a.d. 70. Progress after that belongs to the general history of missions.
Literature. — Horton, Bible as a MUsionary Book ; Bruce, Training of the Twelve ; Latham, Pastor Pastorum ; Hort, Judaistic Christianity ; Seiby, Ministry of the Lord Jesus, pp. 86-118 ; Moffatt, Historical XT, pp. 647-650 ; Lambert, Sacrainents in the XT, pp. 38 ff., 234 ff. ; F. C. Conybeare, Ex- positor, IV. viii. [1893] 241-254 ; J. H. Bernard, ib. vi. v. [1902] 43 ff. ; H. B. Swete, ib. vi. vi. [1903] 241 ff. ; art. 'Baptism' in Hastings' Z>S. JOHN ReID.
MITE.— See Money.
MOCKERY. — The Evangelists relate in the Passion history a series of narratives describing the brutal mockery of Jesus by the authorities and by their soldiers and servants. The passages are the following : {a) Mk 14«5 = Mt 266'- «8=Lk 22^- « ; (b) Lk 23" ; (c) Mk 15 i"-2» = Mt 272^-31 = Jn 192- 3.
There is no necessity to regard these stories as duplicates. A person who was condemned for the claims that Jesus was supposed to put forward was likely to meet with derision and brutality at every turn. Of course, if the story that Jesus was sent to Herod, which is peculiar to Lk., is unhistorical, the second of the stories would have to be struck out. If, however, that narrative is historical, and there is no cogent reason for doubting it, it was perfectlj- natural that Herod and his guards should mock one who claimed to be king. It is possible, in- deed, that the narratives may have exerted an influence upon each other, but nothing compels us to affirm that anj- of them is unhistorical.
The first narrative records the mockery and ill- treatment inflicted on Jesus immediatelj- after His condemnation by the Sanhedrin. Two stages are mentioned in ]Mark. The first consisted of spitting, blindfolding, buffeting, and the request that He should prophesy. Then, following this, we have a statement as to the attendants, the meaning of which is not perfectly clear. The better reading in Mk 14^5 is eXa^ov. Several MSS, however, read IjSaWov or ^jSaXov (see Field). It is not quite clear how we should translate or explain the better reading. Swete renders ' they caught Him with blows,' others 'they took Him in charge \vith blows.' paTria-fxaaiv means blows with the open hand, not blows with the rod. Another question touches the authors of this outrage. According to Mt., it is the members of the Sanhedrin. This seems to be Mk.'s meaning also, except that he limits it to ' some. ' He mentions the servants at the close. Lk. rejiresents the attendants who had charge of Jesus as alone concerned. Difficulties are also raised by the command to 2>rophesy. Mt. and Lk. both explain it as a challenge to Jesus to proijhesy who it was that smote Him. This in itself is perfectly natural, but it implies that Jesus was blindfolded, thougli there is no reference to