Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (756 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
2.17Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
 
also tlie declaration that tlie labourer is worthy of hi? liire (v. 7.
comp. Matt. x. 10); tlie discourse on tlic apostolic salutation and its effect (Matt. v. 12 f. Luke v. 5 f.); tlie denunciation of those who should reject the apostles and their message (Matt. v. 15; Luke v.
12); and finally, the words, Behold, I send you forth as lambs, &c. (Matt. v. 16 ; Luke. v. 3.) Tlie sequence of tliese propositions is about equally natural in botli cases. Their completeness is alternately greater in tlie one tlian in the other; but Matthew’s additions
DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS.369
 
generally turn on essentials, as in v. 16: those of Luke on externals, as in v. 7, 8, and in v. 4, where tliere is the singular injunction to salute no man by the way, which might appear an unhistorical exaggeration of tlie urgency of the apostolic errand, did we not know that tlie Jewisli greetings of tliat period were not a little ceremonious.’* Sieffcrt observes tliat tlie instructions which Jesus gave-according to Matthew, to the twelve, according to Luke, to the seventy-might, so far as tlieir tenor is concerned, have been imparted with equal fitness on either occasion; but I doubt this, for it seems to me improbable tliat Jesus should, as Luke states, dismiss his more confidential disciples witli scanty rules for tlieir outward conduct, and tliat to tlie seventy lie should make communications of much greater moment and pathos, f Tlie above critic at length decides in favour of Luke, wliose narrative appears to him more precise, because it distinguishes tlie seventy from the twelve. We
‘ 0*/
 
have already discussed this point, and. have found that a comparison is rather to tlie advantage of Matthew. Tlie blessing pronounced on him wlio sliould give even a cup of cold water to tlie disciples of Jesus (v. 42), is at least more judiciously inserted by Mattliew as the conclusion of tlie discourse of instructions, than in tlic endless confusion of the latter part of Mark ix. (v. 41), where ear, (tf), and os-ttv, {ic/iosoever), seem to form tlie only tie between the successive propositions.
 
The case is otherwise when we regard those portions of tlie discourse which Luke places in his twelfth chapter, and even later, and which in Matthew are distinguishable as a second part of the same discourse.
 
Such arc tlie directions to the apostles as to tlieir conduct before tribunals (Matt. x. 19 f.; Luke xii. 11); the exhortation not to fear tliose wlio can only kill the body (Matt. v. 28 ; Luke v.
4 f.); the warning against tlic denial of Jesus (Matt. v. 32 f.; Luke v. 8 f.); tlie discourse on tlie general disunion of wliicli lie would be the cause (Matt. v. 34 ff. ; Luke v. 51 ff.); a passage to which Matthew, prompted apparently by tlie enumeration of tlic members of a family, attaches tlie declaration of Jesus that these arc not to be valued above him, tliat his cross must be taken, &c., winch lie partly repeats on a subsequent occasion, and in a more suitable connexion (xvi. 24 f.); further, predictions wliicli recur in tlie discourse on tlic Mount of Olives, relative to the universal persecution of the disciples of Jesus (v. 17 f. 22. cornp. xxiv. 9, 13); tlic saying whicli Luke inserts in the sermon on the mount (vi. 40), and which also appears in John (xv. 20), tliat tlie disciple has no claim to a better lot tlian his master (v. 24 f.); lastly, tlie direction, which is peculiar to tlic discourse in Mattliew, to flee from one city to another, witli tlie accompanying consolation (v. 23).
 
These commands and exhortations have been justly pronounced by criticsf to be unsuitable to tlie first mission of the twelve, wliicli, like tlic alleged mission of
* Vid. De Wette, Archaol. § 2(i.’>, and in loc.^ Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb.
 
370 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
the seventy, had no other than happy result? (Luke ix. 10; x. 17);
 
they presuppose the troublous circumstances which supervened after tlie deatli of Jesus, or perhaps in the latter period of his life. According to this, Luke is more correct tlian Matthew in assigning tliesc discourses to the last journey of Jesus ;* unless, indeed, such descriptions of the subsequent fate of the apostles and other adherents of Jesus were produced ex eventu, after his death, and put into his mouth in the form of prophecies ; a conjecture which is strongly suggested by the words, He who taJceth not up his cross, &c.
(v.’38.).t
The next long discourse of Jesus in Matthew (chap. xi.) we have already considered, so far as it relates to the Baptist. From v. 2024, there follow complaints and threatcnings against tlie Galilean cities, in wliicli most of his mighty works were done, and which, nevertheless, believed not. Our modern critics are perhaps right in their opinion that these apostrophes are less suitable to the period of liis Galilean ministry, in wliicli Matthew places them, tlian to that in wliicli they are introduced by Luke (x. 13 ft’.); namely, wlien Jesus had left Gablee, and was on his way to Judea and Jerusalem, witli a view to liis final experiment, j: But a consideration of the immediate context seems to reserve the probability. In Matthew, the description of the ungracious reception which Jesus and John had alike met witli, leads very naturally to tlie accusations against tliose places which liad been the chief theatres of the ministry of the former; but it is difficult to suppose, according to Luke, that Jesus would speak of liis past sad experience to tlie seventy, wliose minds must have been entirely directed to tlie future, unless v,’c conceive that he chose a subject so little adapted to the exigencies of those whom he was addressing, in order to unite tlie threatened judgment on the Galilean cities, with that which lie had just denounced against the cities tliat should reject liis messengers. But it is more likely that this association proceeded solely from tlie writer, who, by tlie comparison of a city that should prove rciractorv to tlie disciples of Jesus, to Sodom, was reminded of the analogous comparison to Tyre and Sidon, of places that had been disobedient to Jesus himself, without perceiving the incongruity of the one with the circumstances which liad dictated tlie othcr.S
 
The joy, ayaU^aan;, expressed by Jesus (v, 25-27) on account of the insiglit afforded to babes, vrfn’wiq, is but loosely attached by Matthew to the preceding maledictions. As it supposes a change in the mental frame of Jesus, induced by pleasing circumstanced, Luke (x. 17. 21 ff.) would have all the probabilities on his side, in making the return of tlie seventy with satisfactory tidings tlie cause
* The satisfactory connexion which modern criticism fin’i of Luke, I am as little alilc to discover as Tholuck, Ausk’^un;
 
who has strikingly exposed the partiality of Schleiermachef i Matthew,f VL1. Us Wette, in loc.t Schleiermacln’r, i, Schneckenliurgcr, lUier dun Ursprung u. a. f, S. 32 f. § Cr’ii
‘ tlirrtiiH’hoiit the 12th chap.
; di.r Kergpredigt, S. 13 f..
r i.like, to the prejudice of ,.r ilen Lukas, S. 1(;’J f. ;
 
i,. l)e Wette, exeg. Handb.
 
DISCOUESES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIKST GOSPELS.371
 
of the above expression; were it not that the appointment of tlie seventy, and consequently their return, are altogether problematical ; besides it is possible to refer tlie passage in question to tlie return of tlie twelve from their mission. Matthew connects with this rejoicing of Jesus liis invitation to tlie vxary and heavy laden (v. 28-30).
 
This is wanting in Luke, who, instead, makes Jesus turn to liis disciples privately, and pronounce them blessed in being privileged to see and hear tilings which many prophets and kings yearned after in vain (23 f.); an observation wliicli does not so specifically agree with the preceding train of thought, as the context assigned to it by Matthew, and which is moreover inserted by the latter evangelist in a connexion (xiii. 16 f.): that may be advantageously confronted with that of Luke.
 
§ 78. THE PARABLES.
 
ACCORDING to Matthew (cliap. xiii.), Jesus delivered seven parables, all relating to the Raai^eia r&v ovpav&v. Modern criticism, however, has doubted whether Jesus really uttered so many of these symbolical discourses on one occasion.* The parable, it lias been observed, is a kind of problem, to be solved by the reflection of the hearer; liencc after every parable a pause is requisite, if it be tlie object of tlie teacher to convey real instruction, and not to distract by a multiplicity of ill-understood images.f It will, at least, be admitted, witli Neandcr, that parables on tlie same or closely-related subjects can only be spoken consecutively, wlien, under manifold forms, and from various points of view, they lead to the same result.:):
 
Among the seven parables in question, tliose of tlie mustard-seed and tlie leaven have a common fundamental idea, differently shadowed forth-tlie gradual growth and ultimate prevalence of tlie kingdom of God: tliose of tlie net and the tares represent tlie mingling of the good witli the bad in tlie kingdom of God; tliose of the treasure and tlie pearl inculcate tlie inestimable and all-indemnifying value of tlie kingdom of God; and tlie parable’of tlie sower depicts the unequal susceptibility of men to the preaching of the kingdom of God.
 
Thus there arc no less than four separate fundamental ideas involved in tills collection of parables-ideas wliicli are indeed connected by their general relation to tlie kingdom of God, but which present tills object under aspects so widely different, tliat for their thorough comprehension a pause after eacli was indispensable.
Hence, it lias been concluded, Jesus would not. merit tlie praise of being a judicious teacher, if as Mattliew represents, lie liad spoken all tlie above parables in rapid succession.§ If we suppose in this instance, again, an assemblage of discourses similar in kind, but delivered on different occasions, we are anew led to tlie discussion
• Splin1» r.lir
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
as to whether Matthew was aware of the latter circumstance, or whether lie believed that lie was recording a continuous harangue.
The introductory form, And fie spake many things to them m parables, (v. 3.): aal i^d/^aev av-ol<; Tro/l/la KV TapafSo^al^, and tlic concluding one, vihen Jesus had finished these parables (v. 53): 5re ETv^eaEv b ‘ITJOOVC; Tag TrapaftoA.iK; ~av-ac, seem to be a clear proof that lie did not present tlie intermediate matter as a compilation. Mark, indeed, narrates (iv. 10), that at the close of the first parable, the disciples being again, Ka-af.iovac;, in private, with Jesus, asked him for its interpretation; and hence it lias been contended* that there was an interruption of tlic discourse at this point; but tills cannot serve to explain tlie account of Matthew, for lie represents tlie request of tlic disciples as being preferred on the spot, witliout any previous retirement from tlie crowd; thus proving that lie did not suppose such an interruption. Tlie concluding form wliicli Mattliew inserts after tlie fourth parable (v. 34 f.), might, witli better reason, be adduced as intimating an interruption, for lie there comprises all the foregoing parables in one address by tlie words, All t/tcse i/iings spake Jesus in. parables, c&c., rav-a navro, KAa^rjasv b ‘ITJOOVC; iv TTapa0oXal(; n. r. /I., and makes the pause still more complete by tlie application of an Old Testament prophecy; moreover, Jesus is here said (36) to change his locality, to dismiss tlie multitude to whom lie liad hitherto been speaking on tlic shore of tlie Galilcan sea, and enter the house, eic; T’’I{V olniav, where lie gives three new parables, in addition to tlic interpretation which his disciples had solicited of the second.
 
But tliat tlie delivery of tlie last three parables was separated from that of tlic preceding ones bv a change of place, and consequently by a short interval of time, very little alters tlio state of tlic case. For it is highly improbable that Jesus would witliout intermission tax tlie memory of tlic populace, wliose minds it was so easy to ovcrburthen, -with four parables, two of wliicli were highly significant; and tliat lie sliould forthwith overwhelm Ills disciples, whose power of comprehension lie had been obliged to aid in the application of tlie first two parables, with three new ones, instead of ascertaining if they were capable of independently expounding the. third and fourth. Further, we have only to look more closely at Matthew’s narrative, in order to observe, tliat lie lias fallen quite involuntarily on the interruption at v. 34 ff. If it were his intention to communicate a series of parables, witli tlie explanations tliat Jesus privately gave to his disciples of the two wliicli were most important, and were therefore to be placed at tlic head of tlic series, there were only three methods on wliicli lie could proceed.
 
First, he might make Jesus, immediately after tlie enunciation of a parable, give its interpretation to his disciples in tlic presence of tlic multitude, as lie actually does in tlie case of tlie first parable (10-23). But tlic representation is beset witli tlie difficulty of conceiving how Jesus, surrounded by a crowd, wliose expectation was on tlie stretch,

Other books

Michelle Sagara by Cast in Sorrow
The Billionaire Playboy by Christina Tetreault
Off Limits by Lindsay McKenna
Naked by Stacey Trombley