iii. Use in the discourses of Jesus.— The discourses of Jesus furnish a meagre but trust- worthy starting-point for a history of the term in its Christological development. Among these dis- courses we cannot venture to reckon the saying Lk21iM = 12i^ = Mt 1019'- = Mk 13" = Jn IS^e*-), since the parallels make it probable that oroVa /cai aocpLa (cf. Lk 2*' prudentiam et os, cod. e. ) is only the characteristic Lukan mode of expressing the pro- mise of the Paraclete. All other occurrences of the word or connected idea in the discourses stand more or less closely related with one of two in- cidents : (1) Jesus' denunciation of the faithless generation Avhich rejected for opposite reasons both the Baptist's mission and His own (Mt 11), or (2) His denunciation of the scribes who blas- phemed the Spirit of God whereby He wrought, demanding a sign fiom heaven (Mt 12^^"^^). These discourses are variously distributed in our First
and Third Gospels (Mt Ip-so 1222-45 2128-32 2334-39 and Lk T^^"^^ lO^^-is- 2"- 1 1_24-26. 29-32. 49-5])^ ^^t ^ave in common a close connexion in thought and a re- semblance of language in exceptional degree as betAveen the two canonical reporters. In these two groups of discourses, therefore, must be found, if anywhere, the basis in Jesus' own utterances for the subsequent application in Christology of the conception of the Divine Wisdom.
iv. Matth^an Connexions of the two Groups of Sayings.— 1. The Mattha?an context of group (1) starts from the question of John's disciples. This is made the occa.sion by Jesus of a comparison of unrepentant Israel to children who are pleased with neither the mournful nor the gay melodies of their playmates. His hearers had been displeased at the asceticism of John, and are equally so with the genial life of the ' Friend of publicans and sinners.' As against this re- jection by the self-rigljt^us of tlie message of repentance and forgiveness, ' Wisdom's children ' (here those wlioJi«d repented at the preaching of John, cf. 2P"- J Lk 7^^*- ) afford the justification of her methods (Mt IP"^^). In Mt. the discourse con- tinues with the denunciation of ' the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done,' a paragraph which is perhaps accountable for the reading ^pya in some MSS for r^Kva in v. '8. These verses (Mt 11-""-*) are otherwise placed by Lk. ; but those which follow (Mt Ips-a^^Lk 10^"-) again relate to the wisdom of Jesus which is delivered to Him (wapedoOr] fj.01) by His Father (in contrast with the TrapdSoffLs of the scribes, Mk 7^^), and, though hid from the wise, is revealed to the 'little ones.' This in turn introduces in Mt Ips-so an invitation closely resembling those placed in the mouth of the Divine "Wisdom in the literature of this class (cf. Sir SP^"'- 6^^ and Oxyrhynchus Log. iii. [iv.]). This closes the chapter and the discourse.
2. In Mt 1238-''5 substantially the same subject is resumed, but it is now a propos of the blasphemy of the scribes against the Holy Spirit in ascribing Jesus' exorcisms to Beelzebub (122^'37), the interven- ing material (12i'^i) comprising the two Sabbath incidents of Mk 2^^-3*. In this further denuncia- tion, not of the scribes but still of ' this evil and adulterous generation,' Jesus declares that it will fare worse than the Ninevites ; for, while these repented at the warning of Jonali, this generation has rejected a greater warning (i.e. the Baptist's ; cf . 1 111-14 and Bacon, Sermon on the Mount, App. C. iv. V. pp. 216-231). It is condemned also by the Queen of the South, because she came to hear ' the wisdom of Solomon,' whereas this generation has rejected a more gracious appeal (7rXeroj'='a greater matter,' i.e. Jesus' message of forgiveness con- ceived as the ' wisdom ' of God). A concluding parable (Mt 12«-*5^Lk 1124-26) Hkens 'this evil generation,' with its Pharisaic mania purifica, to ' a house swept and garnished ' which becomes the abode of demons, because inhospitable to the Spirit of God. It is highly noteworthy that in both groups the condemnation is uttered by Jesus for rejection of the Spirit of God, which in the case of the discourse anent the Baptist is assumed to be manifest in Jesus' message of forgiveness, in the case of the blasphemy of the scribes in His healing power. The signihcance of the use of the term 'wisdom' in both cases (Mt IP** 12*^) for the gracious and winning appeal of God's redeeming, forgiving love, is made more apparent by the con- trast in both instances with the Baptist's harsher message of warning against ' tlie wrath to come.' This is manifest from the figures of wailing versus piping, mourning versus dancing, fasting versus feasting, preaching of Jonah versus A\i&dom of Solomon. V. Lukan connexions of the two groups.—
WISDOM
WISDOM
827
A further discourse, correctly connected in Lk 1149-51 ^vith group (2) (in Mt 2S^*'^- incorrectly at- tached to Mk 12^s-^»=Mb 231-12) carries to its logical conclusion the denunciation of the scribes who had blasphemed the Holy Spirit. Speak- ing now directly in the name of ' the wisdom of God' (Lk ll^**), Jesus predicts their impending fate, and in the Mattha^an form (which properly includes the pathetic appeal to Jerusalem, sepa- rated from it in Lk. [Mt 233'-=*» = Lk IS^^*-]). tlie for- saking of ' your house ' by God's Spirit. Not only have we throughout tliis context the characteristic forms and modes of expression of the Wisdom literature, but the final warning is expressly in- troduced as an utterance of ' tlie wisdom of God ' (i] <jo(pLa. Tou deov), by which should be understood not the specific title of an individual writing of this literary category, but the entire canon of ' Wisdom ' writings, inclusive of the lost work from which the extract is made. Tlie following con- siderations will make this clear : —