Why then, it may be asked, resort to this obscurer form of instruction ? Because He m as noiv passing on to a new side or aspect of His teaching. Henceforth the more unambiguous form of declaration would have met immediately with a summary rejection X so decisive as to jeopard-
* Surely Dr. Sanday (Hastings' DB ii. 618) does not allow enough for the change of spirit between Jesus' own reference to the law of continued insensibility involved in Isaiah, and the less sympathetic use of the words in John. Hence he speaks of their 'strange severity' in Mark's context, 'which would be mitigated if they could be put later in the ministry, where thej' occur in St. John.' We have argued that even in Mk. they do belong to a relati\ely late stage in the ministry ; but we would give them a gentler sense on Jesus' own lips, viz. one of sadness, not of severity.
t Which is, as Matthew Henry puts it, a ' shell that keeps good fruit /or the diligent, but keeps it from the slothful' ; cf. also Bruce, I.e. pp. 21 23.
{ The lessons as to the slow and gradual progress of the Kingdom, as bound up with its spirituality, 'were so strange to the Jews . . . that He had to adopt a method of instruction that might conciliate and provoke reflection, and gradually make a way to their minds for new truth ' (Salmond on Mk 4i in Century Bible).
TEACHING OF JESUS
TEACHIA^G OF JESUS
703
ize the very completion of His own ministry and cut sliort the training of His disciples, the actual nucleus of the coming Kingdom, on whom its future realization depended. The popular receptivity towards such a Kingdom as Jesus had in mind, one radically spiritual, — as distinct from national and hedonistic, ^had already been tested by clear enunciation of its ethical nature and re- quirements ; and but few had definitely responded. That was the daunting experience which had been His for some months at least, months of such ethical intensity for all within range of His influence as to mean more than as many years of the ordinary testing of life. Already He saw that His lot was to be akin to that of the prophets of old, who achieved tlieir mission only after and through a period of general rejection, during which disciples learned their message vitally, and then helped in the conversion of Israel. But while this was the case on the whole, there were still individuals to be gained over one by one to the 'little flock' of His disciples, if only they had time to ponder the new ideal of the Kingdom — as coming only gradiialhj, from a very small nucleus (Mk A-*^-^-). Elect souls could do so most profitably under the veiy stimulus of curiosity aroused by the parabolic or suggestive method, regarded on its positive side ; while for the im- patient mass it had only its negative function, veiling the full truth from the profane gaze of those insensible as swine to the real charm of pearls— and apt, when disappointed, to turn like swine and rend the bearer of jewels. Hence Jesus spoke His parables publicly, to call such prepared or preparing souls, as well as to instruct His own inner circle in the deeper or more trying aspects of the Kingdom they had already in principle and at heart received. For this seems the point of Mark's ' To you the secret * (mystery) hath been given, touching the kingdom of God ' (v."). Disciples as such had the qualifying ' secret ' in their souls, the key to further understanding in the detailed know- ledge of the Kingdom It is rather this latter that Mt. and Lk have in mind in writing (according to the form of the saying most familiar to them), ' to you it hath been given to recognize the secrets (mysteries) of the kingdom.' This probably repre- sents a later turn given to the original thought as found in Mk., the truth of which is borne out by what fallows at once in Mt 13'- ' he that hath, to him shall be given,' etc. Here the possession that is the basis for further additions, must be primarily the recognition of the Kingdom in prin- ciple. When this fundamental issue, as conditioned by the original historic situation, faded more and more into the background, and various detailed aspects of the Kingdom came practically to the front in the Church's experience, it was natural that the saying should be coloured thereby and its shade of meaning changed. Further, we can see how the later form would lend itself to the grow- ing reflective tendency which showed itself in Gnosticism, a mode of thought alike unbiblical and un-Jewish in spirit, but akin to Greek intel- lectualism or one-sided reliance on 'knowledge' (ffnosis) as such. Yet rightly understood, i.e. in relation to the whole genius of Christ's 'teaching' in the Synoptic Gospels at least, f not even the
* The 'secret' consisted of the true nature of the King^dom itself, as being such as .Jesus revealed it in Himself and His ministry of deed and word (corresponding to ' seeing and 'hearing in the next verse). This fundamental 'secret 'made its possessor a ' disciple ' (of. .Mt 1352 • every scribe made a disciple to for 'by'l the kingdom of heaven' ijtMeyiriuBiU -rri ?a.inXua. t. oipxvwv), corresponding to the ' initiated ' in the Greek and other Mysteries. Those who shared it not were 'those outside," who move wholly in the sphere of 'parable,' the outer simile never opening and revealing the inner truth or reality thus kept 'secret.'