ealth on 'the possessor may be so inj--"^.^ ''^^'^^lif e'' lie interests that he must renounce it if he is to entei into lite, bee also Property.
Lttfraturf, -Rogge, Ber irdiseke Besitz im JVT, 1897 ; Jacoby, jl'^sChM ruutk irdischen Outer, 187.5 ; Holtzmann, ;^e ersten Christen und die sociale Frage,' and KamWi, Uas Eigenthum im Licht des Evangeliums/ both m ^*^«««««f^^«^ vAe Vortrdge uber religiose Fragen, 1882 Wendt, Das Eigentum nlch christlicher Beurte.lung in 27%K 1898 isr^nmann Jesus als Volksmami, 1894 Peabod>, Jesus cnrisi ^nd^heShcMQ^tion, 1900; Orello Cone Rich and Poor in "^fi^r, 1^2; Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums, 1901 Hpnver The Teaehinqs of Jesus concerning Wealth, 1903, ^^eer The Prin%les\f Jesus, 1902; Dickie, The Christian Whics of Social Life, 1903; Stubbs, Christ and Economics, im AhhoZchristidnity akd Social Problems, 1896 ; Denney 'PhVi<irs Teachino- on Monev' in Union Magazine, September 19oV;"ott£"'^tSicTof Property MnZ,o,r,Mrd|^re^^m L^ Tames Varieties of Religious Experience, 1902, Heme, Mine Sanontsche Ueherliefering desLuhas f^^; Campbell C^^^^^ cal Studies on Luke, 1891; Milligan, 'A Group of Parables fLos Sevt 1892; Hicks, 'The Communistic Experiment of &i. an^d iv.!- i-PO^-. Jan. 1906; also Lives of J^susb^ Strauss, Eenan, Keim, Weiss, Beysch ag etc ^-^.^'^^'J^^
Theol. 1880; Beyschlag, NT ^'^«°'- J^^"^- *": ^S's • coml Teaching of Jesus, 1892; various works on the Parables, com _ mentaries on Mt. and Lk., esp. Plummer's St. Lu^e in iCC , ^rtt. ' Matthew,' ' Luke,' and ' Gospels in J^^^^^g^f ;rER.
WEARINESS.— The one reference to the weari- ness of our Lord which we find in the Gospels occurs in the account of His journey from Judaea into Galilee. We read that on His way, beaten down by heavy toil (/ccKOTrta^cis) He sat upon the well near to the village of Sychar (Jn 4''). The allusion is an eloquent testimony to the fact that He who is touched by the feeling of our infirmity shared that infirmity in its commonest ettect ot physical exhaustion. See HUMANITY OF Christ.
IJiij^siv.^, ^ ^ HOLDSWORTH.
WEAVING.— In our Lord's day weaving was done by hand-looms, as still in the East generally, ihe loom, with its ' beam ' and ' shuttle,' which furnished to OT poet and prophet figures of life s swiftness and brevity (cf. Job 7«, Is 38i'^), is not directly mentioned in the Gospels. While m the earlier days in Palestine weaving was done mostly by men, later it fell more and more into the hands ot women. The Rabbis did not give it a high place among the crafts. Among the materials used in weaving were flax, wool, camel's hair and goat s hair Flax and wool made ' soft clothing for the royal and the rich (Mt 11«, Lk 16"), the rest were wrought into the coarser garments of the more austere, like John the Baptist (Mt 3^) into the sackcloth of the mourner (Mt IPS Lk W\ or mto tents or sails. Jesus wore a seamless garment (Xtrcb^ &ppa<t>o^, Jn 19=^=5), woven in one piece, from the top throughout, made probably by taithtui, ministering women (Lk S^S Mt 27^») ; and when He was buried, the cloth in which His body was wrapped was of linen (Mk 15^, Mt 2V\ Lk 24l^ Jn 19«).
E. B. Pollard. WEDDING GARMENT.— The parable in which the incident of the wedding garment occurs is recorded in Mt 22iff-. As there is good reason to believe that the similar story told m Lk 14 -is not a different version of the same parable, but another teaching given on a different occasion there mil be no attempt made to find what light Lk.'s parable of the Great Supper throws on it. The wedding garment fits in as naturally witli Mt.'s story as it would be out of place in Lk. s. Questions have been discussed with much learn- ing as to whether the wedding garment means the righteousness of Christ or the righteousness ot good works, whether it be something that we must do for ourselves or something that is done for us. The story, however, makes it quite plain that
it is nothing we can do for ourselves. Those gathered from the highways and lanes had certainly no opportunity for making themselves garments that would be fit for the royal presence There is no occasion to search for illustrations showing that in the East it was not uncommon at high testivais to provide guests with suitable garments, because whether that was the case or not historically, it is certainly the case parabolically. The attitude ot the king throughout the story is represented as so generous that it is inconceivable that he should lino- one of his guests into a dungeon because he was^unable to find for himself a suitable marriage garment. The man is punished for his impudence m supposing that he could come into the king s presence just as he was. If, then, we inquire what the truth is that our Lord wishes to express, it is plainly this, which we find again and again in Scripture, that no one is clean m Gods sight. And when this sinful condition is contrasted with God's absolute holiness, no conclusion can be drawn but that man as he is cannot stand in God's presence. The wedding garment means, then, something that God supplies, enabling the sinner to stand m His presence. Now there is nothing in the spiritual world that properly answers to a cloak or garment. Here dress may effect a deception, may make a man appear to be what he is not, but there all is real, and the character is seen through and through. Commentators have therefore rightly felt that the weddin"- garment must denote an element m char- acter. It is not, on the one hand, what is popu- larly known as good works, because they may have no root in the character ; nor is it some hctitious imputation of what does not really belong to us ; nor is it, as Archer Butler suggests, a spirit of sympathetic joy with the wedding festivities It is something the lack of which deserves searching judgment, the presence of which is absolutely necessary. What is it? Is it not that definite relationship with Christ which is so clearly ex- pressed in the hymn—