TEACHING OF JESUS
TEACHING OF JESUS
(01
which by no means took from the force of the summons to repentance for sins, now seen more clearly' in the purer lij^ht. So we read in Mk G'"-, even after much of the Galilajan teacliinj^ was already given, that the Apostles ' went out and preached that men should repent ' (VVellh. I.e. p. 112, questions even whether there were any ' apostles ' during Jesus' lifetime). The spirit of the above distinction is finely given by Longfellow's lines (cited in Sir A. F. Hort's Com. on Mk lis) ;
' A voice by Jordan's shore, A summons stern and clear : Repent ! be just, and sin no more ! God's judgment draweth near 1
A voice by Galilee,
A lioKer voice I hear : Love God, thy neighbour love ! for see
God's mercy draweth near.'
The idea of the Kingdom necessarily determines the sense and emphasis given to ' repentance ' in relation to it ; and as 'righteousness' meant to Jesus something very different from what it did on John's lips, so with their respective teaching as to 'the Kingdom."
As to the ' future ' and ' present ' Kingdom, surely on Jesus' idea of the essentially spiritual nature of the Kingdom this dis- tinction loses its full force ; where the righteousness of the kingdom is, there is the Kingdom already in a real sense.
As ' preaching ' the Kingdom, He declares the fact of its near advent, so ' giving knowledge of salvation' as yet nearer than John's preaching was able to announce (Lk V^). Reception of such knowledge meant repentance for sins as unfitting the sinner for membership in the Kingdom soon to ' appear,' and confidence in the forgiveness whicli was pai't of the expected Messianic blessings. Then as ' teaching,' He gave knowledge of the laws and principles of the coming era of the Father's realized sovereignty. Relying on this teaching and obey- ing its precepts, the man who accepted the 'preach- ing ' of^ the Kingdom as at hand was assured of participation therein wiien it arrived. Of sucli ' teaching ' the Sermon on the INIount is the sum- marized expression (Mt 7-*'')- It represents 'the key of knowledge ' touching God's will, as it should be done in the true Theocracy or Kingdom, whicli the official guardians of the Law had removed out of men's reach by their traditions (Lk IP^). But the same knowledge was also given less fully and form- ally, in occasional and piecemeal fashion, in the ' teaching ' Jesus was wont in His earlier ministry to give at the Sabbath services in synagogues of Galilee, in close connexion with the reading of the Law and its regular exposition (Mk pi 6^, Lk 4^^ ; cf. v.'*^ for 'preaching' also), as well as on other and less formal occasions. Its main subject ' would seem to have been the nature of the Kingdom and the character required in its members (Sanday), treated in the light of the Fatherhood of God.
At first, moreover, His own Person formed no part of His explicit teaching. Apparently the practical recognition of His plenary authority as Revealer of the Kingdom and the truths constitu- tive of it, enforced by the object-les.son of His deeds (Lk 10-^- ^) of beneficent authority in the healing of the body and soul (see Mk 2^"^^), was what Jesus had most at heart in the earlier stage of His ministry at least. What went beyond this was allusive and suggestive ratlier than dogmatic, beinjf contained in the title by which, in preference to all others, He chose from first to last to refer to Himself and His ways — 'the Son of 'Man.' Tlie sense which He gave to it, as distinct from tlie associations currentlj' attadiing to it in various circles of Judaism, seems to be chiefly ' brother- liood with toiling and struggling humanity, which He who most thoroughly accepted its conditions was fittest al.so to save ' (Sanday). It was only as criticism ami challenge for(!ed Him to fall back upon His ultimate and inner credentials, that He referred explicitly to His mysteriously unique ex- perience of Sonshi]) to the Father as the ground of the revelation He imparted in His teachin"!; — particularly as to the Divine Fatherhood which lay
at the heart of that teaching (Mt W^*^-, Lk
In this we get some insight into one of the most significant features of Christ's teaching, viz. His pedagogic method, whicli implied that religious knowledge is not to be thought of or taught as if it were all on one level, or as if it were of little moment how it is imparted and acquired. In other words, nothing is more characteristic of ' truth as it is in Jesus ' than the psychological conditions under which it should be learned, by progressive assimilation, as the learner is able to bear it. His was the experimental method of re- ligious knowledge, to a degree surpas.sing all other teachers. This fact comes out in several con- nexions,* of which His use of parables deserves special notice.
As regards Jesus' use of the parable proper, as distinct from mere figurative maxims or illustra- tions, it is often strangely overlooked that the Gospels do not represent it as a form of communi- cating religious knowledge employed by Jesus from the first. In fact it emerges relatively late in His ministry, when already He had proved the general unreceptiveness of His hearers and the positive hostility of their official teachers. This ajipears not only from the first occasion on which, in the relatively historical order preserved in Mk., Jesus is said to have ' taught in parables ' (Mk 4^, Mt 13^ ; ]Mk 3'-^^, Lk 5^" 6^" do not prove the contrary), but also from the fact that His discijiles ask Him as to the meaning of the first recorded parable, plain as its meaning is to us (Mk 4i'*- ^^). Further, that meaning is one which implies a disappointing ex- perience of various types of hearer, — the good being in the minority, — such as suits a comparatively jirolonged period of experiment, during which Jesus had proved how unprepared the majority of His countrymen were to embrace the Kingdom as He meant it. In fact the psychological moment at which He began His full parabolic method on principle, was just that depicted in Mark's narrative (cf. Latham, oj). cif. p. 324). Already the Scribes, both local (2''- ^^) and from the religious centre in Jerusalem (3-^), the Pharisees generally (2^^- -■* 3''), and even the disciples of John, — presumably a specially prepared class, — had indicated pretty clearly that their attitude was likely to be unrecep- tive. Thus we read in Mk 3'' of His withdraw- ing froMi before Pharisaic hostility — which already felt that He must be got rid of at any cost (v.'') — with His circle of disciples, from the synagogue and the city, where friction was likely, to the sea- shore, there to continue His efibrt to win the un- sophisticated hearts of the common jseople. Then follows the selection of the Twelve from the larger body of discijiles habitually about Him, with a view to their acting as ' apostles ' or missionaries, to assist in what was opening out before Him as a longer and more arduous ministry than had, per- haps, at first seemed needful. That in itself is significant ; and its significance is enhanced by the scene which precedes the first i)arables, when He dwells on the spiritual ties binding Him to the disciples, in contrast even to His own blood rela- tions. All this implies that Jesus fell back, as it were, upon the parabolic teaching which we regard as so beautifully characteristic of Him, largely under the necessity of adjusting the form of His tea(;hing, for deep spiritual reasons, to the dis- appointing unrece])tivity of His liearers generally. Nor was tlie state of His disciples much better in point of intelligence, though their practical .self- committal to Him as tlieir trusted authority and teacher implied a moral afiinity of great latent