(4) It is evident that Jesus held the institution of the family in profound reverence. He ex- pounded His theology in terms of its relationships. He displayed a peculiarly anxious concern in dealing with questions that affected its integrity. The state of things in His day urgently called for outspoken protest and Avarning. There was an increasing laxity of view and practice with regard to marriage. Divorce (which see) was common, and resorted to upon meagre enough grounds. The school of Hillel sanctioned it for no better reason than that a Avife had spoilt her husband's dinner, this opinion being- founded upon a liberal interpretation of Dt 24^ There is no subject on Avhicli Jesus spoke more uncompromisingly and uneqiiivocally. He recog- nized that the stability and Avholesomeness of social life depend largely on the health and purity of domestic life. While recognizing its physical basis, Jesus conceived of marriage as an essentially spiritual union. He regarded it as a Divine insti-
tution and ordinance, Avhich involved the parties entering into it in the most solemn and sacred mutual obligations. In the highest, and to Him the only legitimate vicAv of it, it Avas a consumma- tion of mutual love mediated by God Himself (Mt 19^). That was therefore no true marriage which Avas entered into for the gratification of sensual passion or on the score of worldly con- siderations. It was not Avithin the province of man to sunder those Avhom God had joined, i.e. to cancel their voavs and annul the relationship that had bound them to one another. No human laAv- court has the right to undo the tie made and sealed by God Himself. See, further, artt. Adultery, Divorce, Eunuch, Family, Marriage.
(5) Jesus, then, acquiesced in the indefinite con- tinuance of the ordinary relationships of life then obtaining, as constituting the normal state of society. He gave no countenance to anarchism. He Himself offered an example of laAV-abiding citizenship, consistently demanding that due respect be paid to the requirements and enact- ments of the civil poAver legislating Avithin its OAvn proper sphere. He rebuked the spirit of revolt Avhich demurred to the right of government to levy taxes. He himself submitting to be taxed, even Avhen He might have claimed exemption (Mt IT''"'")- He consistently acquiesced in the right of properly constituted authorities to act in accordance Avith their legal powers ; He Avould permit of no resist- ance to the emissaries of the Sanhedrin sent to arrest Him. The case against Him founded on charges of law-breaking collapsed. Pilate, with the best will, could find no fault in Him (Lk 23").
i. Jesus nevertheless did not fail to denounce Avith vehemence current injustices and abuses. His recognition of the prevalence of oppression, extortion, corrupt practices, and the pinched poverty due to them, not only finds explicit and scathing utterance (Lk 20*^), but is reflected in many of His parables and implied in many of His sayings. Yet He does not speak as if the emergence of these Avere the inevitable outcome of established social conditions. The blame is ahvays laid upon individuals Avho guiltily abused their poAvers and opportunities. He alloAved no Avord to escape His lips Avhich might countenance the methods of violent revolution. He started no popular agitation to secure social reconstruction. No forcible altera- tion in the mere externalities of life would ensure the disappearance of prevalent evils. Jesus plainly taught that social amelioration must be brought about by the gradual assimilation of the mass to the ideal type, and the infusion of the principles of His gospel into all the veins of the body politic (Mt 13^^). By evolution, not by revolution, lay the path to the realization of the Kingdom of heaven. Jesus did not share the prophetic enthusiasm of impatient expectation to Avhich the Day of the Lord seemed already at the doors. From the beginning He impressed it upon His disciples that it Avas indefinitely far off (Mk 426ff-, Mt 24"). He had a profound appreciation of the protracted manner in Avhich a regenerate state of society of a stable kind may only be attained, through the Avorking of healthy spiritual forces in individual hearts (Mt 51^). In this He stood alone. His doctrine surprised and perplexed His disciples. It Avas out of harmony Avith the traditional beliefs and hopes on Avhich they had been nurtured (Mk IS^""-)-
Nevertheless, Jesus did not anticipate that the Kingdom Avould come by a peaceful and progressive process of evolution, Avithout the shocks of revolu- tion. He foresaAv that the forces of reform Avould rouse the strenuous hostility of antagonistic spiritual elements in society, Avith the consequent outbreak of anarchic convulsions (Mt 24^*^-). In- deed, He anticipated that the ideal society Avould
SOCIAL LIFE
SOCIAL LIFE
649
never be attained as the result of pure evolution. Tlie forces of evil would refuse to be ousted, and would prove too strong to be suppressed. Suc- cessive Divine interferences would be required, culminating in a linal catastrophic one, to secure their suppression and the realization of the Kingdom of iieaven on earth in stable and universal sway (Mt lO-^ W^ 13^'-'^).
5. Fundamental principles of Christ's social teaching, and their outcome.— (1) Jesus laid the foundation of the social structure of the future by His doctrine of the cmial essential ivorth of the indloldiud. This had already been preached with conviction and power, but with little practical out- come. Rigid lines of demarcation continued to separate the various classes in Roman society (cf. Dill, Roman Society, p. 270 ft'.). It was through Jesus that the doctrine ceased to be little more tlian an academic proposition, and became a vitalizing element in civilization, and a regulative principle in the development of the new social organism. He laid the foundations of a pure, universal democracy — a democracy based, not on equality of personal possessions, but on equality of individual rights. He awakened a new sense of the essential dignity of human nature, and gave a meaning and a value to the most obscure life. He invested the common people with a new self- respect which elevated and fortified, and with a sense of personal responsibility which steadied and deepened, while eliminating the dangerous sense of purposelessness and insignificance. Every human being was a storehouse of Divine potentialities ; His whole ministry consistently enforced and illustrated this pregnant truth. Though consenting to social inequalities, He did not allow these to be regarded as the sign or token of any differences in the intrinsic worth of the human soul. In His intercourse witii all sorts and conditions He mani- fested a lofty indifference to rank and position, practically ignoring the artificial distinctions of society (Lk 1^"-). There was no human being beneatii respectful regard or outside the radius of brotherly love. This He drove home by incarnating God's concern for the outcasts and the fallen, the pariahs of society. The express purpose of His mission was to seek and save that which was lost. By His self-sacrifice on the Cross, necessitated to procure redemption, approved and accepted by the Father, He made plain that the worth of the indi- viduiil soul was, in God's regard, beyond calculation. Thus was a new sense of the sacredness of per- sonality impressed uj)on the mind and heart of the world. From the accei^tance of this doctrine flowed many and far-reaching consequences. Life might no longer be held cheap. Every human being, whatever his position, had certain rights which must be respected.