Christ's Discourses in Peræa - Close of the Peræan Ministry (part 1 of 3)

(St. Luke xiii. 23-30, 31-35; xiv. 1-11, 25-35; xvii. 1-10.)

From the Parables we now turn to such Discourses of the Lord as belong to this period of His Ministry. Their consideration may be the more brief, that throughout we find points of correspondence with previous or later portions of His teaching.

Thus, the first of these Discourses, of which we have an outline,⁴⁷⁰⁸ recalls some passages in the Sermon on the Mount,'⁴⁷⁰⁹ as well as what our Lord had said on the occasion of healing the servant of the centurion.⁴⁷¹⁰ But, to take the first of these parallelisms, the differences are only the more marked for the similarity of form. These prove incontestably, not only the independence of the two Evangelists⁴⁷¹¹ in their narratives, but, along with deeper underlying unity of thought in the teaching of Christ, its different application to different circumstances and persons. Let us mark this in the Discourse as outlined by St. Luke, and so gain fresh evidential confirmation of the trustworthiness of the Evangelic records.

The words of our Lord, as recorded by St. Luke,⁴⁷¹² are not spoken, as in The Sermon on the Mount,' in connection with His teaching to His disciples, but are in reply to a question addressed to Him by some one - we can scarcely doubt, a representative of the Pharisees:⁴⁷¹³ Lord, are they few, the saved ones [that are being saved]?' Viewed in connection with Christ's immediately preceding teaching about the Kingdom of God in its wide and deep spread, as the great Mustard-Tree from the tiniest seed, and as the Leaven hid, which pervaded three measures of meal, we can scarcely doubt that the word saved' bore reference, not to the eternal state of the soul, but to admission to the benefits of the Kingdom of God - the Messianic Kingdom, with its privileges and its judgments, such as the Pharisees understood it. The question, whether few' were to be saved, could not have been put from the Pharisaic point of view, if understood of personal salvation;⁴⁷¹⁴ while, on the other hand, if taken as applying to part in the near-expected Messianic Kingdom, it has its distinct parallel in the Rabbinic statement, that, as regarded the days of the Messiah (His Kingdom), it would be similar to what it had been at the entrance into the land of promise, when only two (Joshua and Caleb), out of all that generation, were allowed to have part in it.⁴⁷¹⁵ Again, it is only when understanding both the question of this Pharisee and the reply of our Lord as applying to the Kingdom of the Messiah - though each viewing the Kingdom' from his own standpoint - that we can understand the answering words of Christ in their natural and obvious sense, without either straining or adding to them a dogmatic gloss, such as could not have occurred to His hearers at the time.⁴⁷¹⁶

Thus viewed, we can mark the characteristic differences between this Discourse and the parallels in the Sermon on the Mount,' and understand their reason. As regarded entrance into the Messianic Kingdom, this Pharisee, and those whom he represented, are told, that this Kingdom was not theirs, as a matter of course - their question as to the rest of the world being only, whether few or many would share in it - but that all must struggle⁴⁷¹⁷ [agonise] to enter in through the narrow door.'⁴⁷¹⁸ When we remember, that in the Sermon on the Mount' the call was only to enter in,' we feel that we have now reached a period, when the access to the narrow door' was obstructed by the enmity of so many, and when it needed violence' to break through, and take the Kingdom' by force.'⁴⁷¹⁹ This personal breaking through the opposing multitude, in order to enter in through the narrow door, was in opposition to the many - the Pharisees and Jews generally - who were seeking to enter in, in their own way, never doubting success, but who would discover their terrible mistake. Then, when once the Master of the house is risen up,' to welcome His guests to the banquet, and has shut to the door, while they, standing without, vainly call upon Him to open it, and He replies: I know you not whence ye are,' would they begin to remind Him of those covenant-privileges on which, as Israel after the flesh, they had relied (we have eaten and drunk in Thy presence, and Thou hast taught in our streets'). To this He would reply by a repetition of His former words, now seen to imply a disavowal of all mere outward privileges, as constituting a claim to the Kingdom, grounding alike His disavowal and His refusal to open on their inward contrariety to the King and His Kingdom: Depart from Me, all ye workers of iniquity.' It was a banquet to the friends of the King: the inauguration of His Kingdom. When they found the door shut, they would, indeed, knock, in the confident expectation that their claims would at once be recognised, and they admitted. And when the Master of the house did not recognise them, as they had expected, and they reminded Him of their outward connection, He only repeated the same words as before, since it was not outward but inward relationship that qualified the guests, and theirs was not friendship, but antagonism to Him. Terrible would then be their sorrow and anguish, when they would see their own patriarchs (we have eaten and drunk in Thy Presence') and their own prophets (Thou hast taught in our streets') within, and yet themselves were excluded from what was peculiarly theirs - while from all parts of the heathen world the welcome guests would flock to the joyous feast. And here pre-eminently would the saying hold good, in opposition to Pharisaic claims and self-righteousness: There are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.'⁴⁷²⁰

As a further characteristic difference from the parallel passage in the Sermon on the Mount,' we note, that there the reference seems not to any special privileges in connection with the Messianic Kingdom, such as the Pharisees expected, but to admission into the Kingdom of Heaven generally.⁴⁷²¹ In regard to the latter also the highest outward claims would be found unavailing; but the expectation of admission was grounded rather on what was done, than on mere citizenship and its privileges. And here it deserves special notice, that in St. Luke's Gospel, where the claim is that of fellow-citizenship (eaten and drunk in Thy Presence, and Thou hast taught in our streets'), the reply is made, I know you not whence ye are;' while in the Sermon on the Mount,' where the claim is of what they had done in His Name, they are told: I never knew you.' In both cases the disavowal emphatically bears on the special plea which had been set up. With this, another slight difference may be connected, which is not brought out in the Authorised or in the Revised Version. Both in the Sermon on the Mount'⁴⁷²² and in St. Luke's Gospel,⁴⁷²³ they who are bidden depart are designated as workers of iniquity.' But, whereas, in St. Matthew's Gospel the term (noma) really means lawlessness,' the word used in that of St. Luke should be rendered unrighteousness'⁴⁷²⁴ (dika). Thus, the one class are excluded, despite the deeds which they plead, for their real contrariety to God's Law; the other, despite the plea of citizenship and privileges, for their unrighteousness.⁴⁷²⁵ And here we may also note, as a last difference between the two Gospels, that in the prediction of the future bliss from which they were to be excluded, the Gospel of St. Luke, which had reported the plea that He had taught' in their streets,' adds, as it were in answer, to the names of the Patriarchs,⁴⁷²⁶ mention of all the prophets.'

2. The next Discourse, noted by St. Luke,⁴⁷²⁷ had been spoken in that very day,'⁴⁷²⁸ as the last. It was occasioned by a pretended warning of certain of the Pharisees' to depart from Peræa, which, with Galilee, was the territory of Herod Antipas, as else the Tetrarch would kill Him. We have previously⁴⁷²⁹ shown reason for supposing secret intrigues between the Pharisaic party and Herod, and attributing the final imprisonment of the Baptist, at least in part, to their machinations. We also remember, how the conscience of the Tetrarch connected Christ with His murdered Forerunner, and that rightly, since, at least so far as the Pharisees wrought on the fears of that intensely jealous and suspicious prince, the imprisonment of John was as much due to his announcement of the Messiah as to the enmity of Herodias. On these grounds we can easily understand that Herod should have wished to see Jesus,⁴⁷³⁰ not merely to gratify curiosity, nor in obedience to superstitious impulses, but to convince himself, whether He was really what was said of Him, and also to get Him into his power. Probably, therefore, the danger of which these Pharisees spoke might have been real enough, and they might have special reasons for knowing of it. But their suggestion, that Jesus should depart, could only have proceeded from a ruse to get Him Out of Peræa, where, evidently, His works of healing⁴⁷³¹ were largely attracting and influencing the people.

But if our Lord would not be deterred by the fears of His disciples from going into Judæa,⁴⁷³² feeling that each one had his appointed working day, in the light of which he was safe, and during the brief duration of which he was bound to walk,' far less would He recede before His enemies. Pointing to their secret intrigues, He bade them, if they chose, go back to that fox,' and give to his low cunning, and to all similar attempts to hinder or arrest His Ministry, what would be a decisive answer, since it unfolded what He clearly forsaw in the near future. Depart?'⁴⁷³³ - yes, depart' ye to tell that fox,' I have still a brief and an appointed time⁴⁷³⁴ to work, and then I am perfected,' in the sense in which we all readily understand the expression, as applying to His Work and Mission. Depart!' Yes, I must "depart," or go My brief appointed time: I know that at the goal of it is death, yet not at the hands of Herod, but in Jerusalem, the slaughter-house of them that "teach in her streets."'

And so, remembering that this message to Herod was spoken in the very day, perhaps the very hour that He had declared how falsely the workers of wickedness' claimed admission on account of the teaching in their streets,' and that they would be excluded from the fellowship, not only of the fathers, but of all the prophets' whom they called their own - we see peculiar meaning in the reference to Jerusalem as the place where all the prophets perished.⁴⁷³⁵ One, Who in no way indulged in illusions, but knew that He had an appointed time, during which He would work, and at the end of which He would perish,' and where He would so perish, could not be deterred either by the intrigues of the Pharisees nor by the thought of what a Herod might attempt - not do, which latter was in far other hands. But the thought of Jerusalem - of what it was, what it might have been, and what would come to it - may well have forced from the lips of Him, Who wept over it, a cry of mingled anguish, love, and warning.⁴⁷³⁶ It may, indeed, be, that these very words, which are reported by St. Matthew in another, and manifestly most suitable, connection,^47374738 are here quoted by St. Luke, because they fully express the thought to which Christ here first gave distinct utterance. But some such words, we can scarcely doubt, He did speak even now, when pointing to His near Decease in Jerusalem.

3. The next in order of the Discourses recorded by St. Luke⁴⁷³⁹ is that which prefaced the Parable of the Great Supper,' expounded in a previous chapter.⁴⁷⁴⁰ The Rabbinic views on the Sabbath-Law have been so fully explained, that a very brief commentation will here suffice. It appears, that the Lord condescended to accept the invitation to a Sabbath-meal in the house of one of the Rulers of the Pharisees' - perhaps one of the Rulers of the Synagogue in which they had just worshipped, and where Christ may have taught. Without here discussing the motives for this invitation, its acceptance was certainly made use of to watch Him.' And the man with the dropsy had, no doubt, been introduced for a treacherous purpose, although it is not necessary to suppose that he himself had been privy to it. On the other hand, it is characteristic of the gracious Lord, that, with full knowledge of their purpose, He sat down with such companions, and that He did His Work of power and love unrestrained by their evil thoughts. But, even so, He must turn their wickedness also to good account. Yet we mark, that He first dismissed the man healed of the dropsy before He reproved the Pharisees.⁴⁷⁴¹ It was better so - for the sake of the guests, and for the healed man himself, whose mind quite new and blessed Sabbath-thoughts would fill, to which all controversy would be jarring.

And, after his departure, the Lord first spake to them, as was His wont, concerning their misapplication of the Sabbath-Law, to which, indeed, their own practice gave the lie. They deemed it unlawful to heal' on the Sabbath-day, though, when He read their thoughts and purposes as against Him, they would not answer His question on the point.⁴⁷⁴² And yet, if a son,⁴⁷⁴³ or even an ox,' of any of them, had fallen into a pit,' they would have found some valid legal reason for pulling him out! Then, as to their Sabbath-feast, and their invitation to Him, when thereby they wished to lure Him to evil - and, indeed, their much-boasted hospitality: all was characteristic of these Pharisees - only external show, with utter absence of all real love; only self-assumption, pride, and self-righteousness, together with contempt of all who were regarded as religiously or intellectually beneath them - chiefly of the unlearned' and sinners,' those in the streets and lanes' of their city, whom they considered as the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.'⁴⁷⁴⁴ Even among themselves there was strife about the first places' - such as, perhaps, Christ had on that occasion witnessed,⁴⁷⁴⁵ amidst mock professions of humility, when, perhaps, the master of the house had afterwards, in true Pharisaic fashion, proceeded to re-arrange the guests according to their supposed dignity. And even the Rabbis had given advice to the same effect as Christ's⁴⁷⁴⁶ - and of this His words may have reminded them.⁴⁷⁴⁷

But further - addressing him who had so treacherously bidden Him to this feast, Christ showed how the principle of Pharisaism consisted in self-seeking, to the necessary exclusion of all true love. Referring, for the fuller explanation of His meaning,⁴⁷⁴⁸ to a previous chapter,⁴⁷⁴⁹ we content ourselves here with the remark, that this self-seeking and self-righteousness appeared even in what, perhaps, they most boasted of - their hospitality. For, if in an earlier Jewish record we read the beautiful words: Let thy house be open towards the street, and let the poor be the sons of thy house,'⁴⁷⁵⁰ we have, also, this later comment on them,⁴⁷⁵¹ that Job had thus had his house opened to the four quarters of the globe for the poor, and that, when his calamities befell him, he remonstrated with God on the ground of his merits in this respect, to which answer was made, that he had in this matter come very far short of the merits of Abraham. So entirely self-introspective and self-seeking did Rabbinism become, and so contrary was its outcome to the spirit of Christ, the inmost meaning of Whose Work, as well as Words, was entire self-forgetfulness and self-surrender in love.

4. In the fourth Discourse recorded by St. Luke,⁴⁷⁵² we pass from the parenthetic account of that Sabbath-meal in the house of the Ruler of the Pharisees,' back to where the narrative of the Pharisees' threat about Herod and the reply of Jesus had left us.⁴⁷⁵³ And, if proof were required of the great influence exercised by Jesus, and which, as we have suggested, led to the attempt of the Pharisees to induce Christ to leave Peræa, it would be found in the opening notice,⁴⁷⁵⁴ as well as in the Discourse itself which He spoke. Christ did depart - from that place, though not yet from Peræa; but with Him went great multitudes.' And, in view of their professed adhesion, it was needful, and now more emphatically than ever, to set before them all that discipleship really involved, alike of cost and of strength - the two latter points being illustrated by brief Parables' (in the wider sense of that term). Substantially, it was only what Christ had told the Twelve, when He sent them on their first Mission.⁴⁷⁵⁵ Only it was now cast in a far stronger mould, as befitted the altered circumstances, in the near prospect of Christ's condemnation, with all that this would involve to His followers.

At the outset we mark, that we are not here told what constituted the true disciple, but what would prevent a man from becoming such. Again, it was now no longer (as in the earlier address to the Twelve), that he who loved the nearest and dearest of earthly kin more than Christ - and hence clave to such rather than to Him - was not worthy of Him; nor that he who did not take his cross and follow after Him was not worthy of the Christ. Since then the enmity had ripened, and discipleship become impossible without actual renunciation of the nearest relationship, and, more than that, of life itself.⁴⁷⁵⁶ Of course, the term hate' does not imply hatred of parents or relatives, or of life, in the ordinary sense. But it points to this, that, as outward separation, consequent upon men's antagonism to Christ, was before them in the near future, so, in the present, inward separation, a renunciation in mind and heart, preparatory to that outwardly, was absolutely necessary. And this immediate call was illustrated in twofold manner. A man who was about to begin building a tower, must count the cost of his undertaking.⁴⁷⁵⁷ It was not enough that he was prepared to defray the expense of the foundations; he must look to the cost of the whole. So must they, in becoming disciples, look not on what was involved in the present following of Christ, but remember the cost of the final acknowledgement of Jesus. Again, if a king went to war, common prudence would lead him to consider whether his forces were equal to the great contest before him; else it were far better to withdraw in time, even though it involved humiliation, from what, in view of his weakness, would end in miserable defeat.⁴⁷⁵⁸ So, and much more, must the intending disciple make complete inward surrender of all, deliberately counting the cost, and, in view of the coming trial, ask himself whether he had, indeed, sufficient inward strength - the force of love to Christ - to conquer. And thus discipleship, then, and, in measure, to all time, involves the necessity of complete inward surrender of everything for the love of Christ, so that if, and when, the time of outward trial comes, we may be prepared to conquer in the fight.⁴⁷⁵⁹ He fights well, who has first fought and conquered within.

Or else, and here Christ breaks once more into that pithy Jewish proverb - only, oh! how aptly, applying it to His disciples - Salt is good;' salt, if it have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted?'⁴⁷⁶⁰ We have preferred quoting the proverb in its Jewish form,^47614762 to show its popular origin. Salt in such condition was neither fit to improve the land, nor, on the other hand, to be mixed with the manure. The disciple who had lost his distinctiveness would neither benefit the land, nor was he even fit, as it were, for the dunghill, and could only be cast out. And so, let him that hath ears to hear, hear the warning!

5. We have still to consider the last Discourses of Christ before the raising of Lazarus.⁴⁷⁶³ As being addressed to the disciples,⁴⁷⁶⁴ we have to connect them with the Discourse just commented upon. In point of fact, part of these admonitions had already been spoken on a previous occasion, and that more fully, to the disciples in Galilee.⁴⁷⁶⁵ Only we must again bear in mind the difference of circumstances. Here, they immediately precede the raising of Lazarus,⁴⁷⁶⁶ and they form the close of Christ's public Ministry in Peræa. Hence they come to us as Christ's parting admonitions to His Peræan followers.

Thus viewed, they are intended to impress on the new disciples these four things: to be careful to give no offence;⁴⁷⁶⁷ to be careful to take no offence;⁴⁷⁶⁸ to be simple and earnest in their faith, and absolutely to trust its all-prevailing power;⁴⁷⁶⁹ and yet, when they had made experience of it, not to be elated, but to remember their relation to their Master, that all was in His service, and that, after all, when everything had been done, they were but unprofitable servants.⁴⁷⁷⁰ In other words, they urged upon the disciples holiness, love, faith, and service of self-surrender and humility.

Most of these points have been already considered, when explaining the similar admonitions of Christ in Galilee.⁴⁷⁷¹ The four parts of this Discourse are broken by the prayer of the Apostles, who had formerly expressed their difficulty in regard to these very requirements:⁴⁷⁷² Add unto us faith.' It was upon this that the Lord spake to them, for their comfort, of the absolute power of even the smallest faith,⁴⁷⁷³ and of the service and humility of faith.⁴⁷⁷⁴ The latter was couched in a Parabolic form, well calculated to impress on them those feelings which would keep them lowly. They were but servants; and, even though they had done their work, the Master expected them to serve Him, before they sat down to their own meal and rest. Yet meal and rest there would be in the end. Only, let there not be self-elation, nor weariness, nor impatience; but let the Master and His service be all in all. Surely, if ever there was emphatic protest against the fundamental idea of Pharisaism, as claiming merit and reward, it was in the closing admonition of Christ's public Ministry in Peræa: When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do.'

And with these parting words did He most effectually and for ever separate, in heart and spirit, the Church from the Synagogue.

CHAPTER XXI. THE DEATH AND THE RAISING OF LAZARUS - THE QUESTION OF MIRACLES AND OF THIS MIRACLE OF MIRACLES - VIEWS OF NEGATIVE CRITICISM ON THIS HISTORY - JEWISH BURYING-RITES AND SEPULCHRES.

(St. John xi. 1-54.)

From listening to the teaching of Christ, we turn once more to follow His working. It will be remembered, that the visit to Bethany divides the period from the Feast of the Dedication to the last Paschal week into two parts. It also forms the prelude and preparation for the awful events of the End. For, it was on that occasion that the members of the Sanhedrin formally resolved on His Death. It now only remained to settle and carry out the plans for giving effect to their purpose.

This is one aspect of it. There is yet another and more solemn one. The raising of Lazarus marks the highest point (not in the Manifestation, but) in the ministry of our Lord; it is the climax in a history where all is miraculous - the Person, the Life, the Words, the Work. As regards Himself, we have here the fullest evidence alike of His Divinity and Humanity; as regards those who witnessed it, the highest manifestation of faith and of unbelief. Here, on this height, the two ways finally meet and part. And from this high point - not only from the resolution of the Sanhedrists, but from the raising of Lazarus - we have our first clear outlook on the Death and Resurrection of Christ, of which the raising of Lazarus was the typical prelude. From this height, also, have we an outlook upon the gathering of the Church at His empty Tomb, where the precious words spoken at the grave of Lazarus received their full meaning - till Death shall be no more. But chiefly do we now think of it as the Miracle of Miracles in the history of the Christ. He had, indeed, before this raised the dead; but it had been in far-off Galilee, and in circumstances essentially different. But now it would be one so well known as Lazarus, at the very gates of Jerusalem, in the sight of all men, and amidst surroundings which admitted not of mistake or doubt. If this Miracle be true, we instinctively feel all is true; and Spinoza was right in saying,⁴⁷⁷⁵ that if he could believe the raising of Lazarus, he would tear to shreds his system, and humbly accept the creed of Christians.

But is it true? We have reached a stage in this history when such a question, always most painful, might seem almost uncalled for. For, gradually and with increasing clearness, we have learned the trustworthiness of the Evangelic records; and, as we have followed Him, the conviction has deepened into joyous assurance, that He, Who spake, lived, and wrought as none other, is in very deed the Christ of God. And yet we ask ourselves here this question again, on account of its absolute and infinite importance; because this may be regarded as the highest and decisive moment in this History; because, in truth, it is to the historical faith of the Church what the great Confession of Peter was to that of the disciples. And, although such an inquiry may seem like the jarring of a discord in Heaven's own melody, we pursue it, feeling that, in so doing, we are not discussing what is doubtful, but rather setting forth the evidence of what is certain, for the confirmation of the faith of our hearts, and, as we humbly trust, for the establishment of the faith as it is in Jesus.

At the outset, we must here once more meet, however briefly, the preliminary difficulty in regard to Miracles, of which the raising of Lazarus is, we shall not say, the greatest - for comparison is not possible on such a point - but the most notable. Undoubtedly, a Miracle runs counter, not only to our experience, but to the facts on which our experience is grounded; and can only be accounted for by a direct Divine interposition, which also runs counter to our experience, although it cannot logically be said to run counter to the facts on which that experience is grounded. Beyond this it is impossible to go, since the argument on other grounds than of experience, be it phenomenal [observation and historical information] or real [knowledge of laws and principles] - would necessitate knowledge alike of all the laws of Nature and of all the secrets of Heaven.

On the other hand (as indicated in a previous part⁴⁷⁷⁶ ), to argue this point only on the ground of experience (phenomenal or real), were not only reasoning à priori, but in a vicious circle. It would really amount to this: A thing has not been, because it cannot be; and it cannot be, because, so far as I know, it is not and has not been. But, to deny on such à priori prejudgment the possibility of Miracles, ultimately involves a denial of a Living, Reigning God. For, the existence of a God implies at least the possibility, in certain circumstances it may be the rational necessity, of Miracles. And the same grounds of experience, which tell against the occurrence of a Miracle, would equally apply against belief in a God. We have as little ground in experience (of a physical kind) for the one as for the other. This is not said to deter inquiry, but for the sake of our argument. For, we confidently assert and challenge experiment of it, that disbelief in a God, or Materialism, involves infinitely more difficulties, and that at every step and in regard to all things, than the faith of the Christian.

But we instinctively feel that such a Miracle as the raising of Lazarus calls for more than merely logical formulas. Heart and mind crave for higher than questions of what may be logically possible or impossible. We want, so to speak, living evidence, and we have it. We have it, first of all, in the Person of the Incarnate God, Who not only came to abolish death, but in Whose Presence the continuance of disease and death was impossible. And we have it also in the narrative of the event itself. It were, indeed, an absurd demand to prove a Miracle, since to do so were to show that it was not a Miracle. But we may be rationally asked these three things: first, to show, that no other explanation is rationally possible than that which proceeds on the ground of its being a Miracle; secondly, to show, that such a view of it is consistent with itself and with all the details of the narrative; and, thirdly, that it is harmonious with what precedes and what follows the narrative. The second and third of these arguments will be the outcome of our later study of the history of this event; the first, that no other explanation of the narrative is rationally possible, must now be briefly attempted.

We may here dismiss, as what would not be entertained by any one familiar with historical inquiries, the idea that such a narrative could be an absolute invention, ungrounded on any fact. Again, we may put aside as repugnant to, at least English, common sense, the theory that the narrative is consistent with the idea that Lazarus was not really dead (so, the Rationalists). Nor would any one, who had the faintest sympathy with the moral standpoint of the Gospels, entertain the view of M. Renan,⁴⁷⁷⁷ that it was all a pious fraud' concocted between all parties, and that, in order to convert Jerusalem by a signal miracle, Lazarus had himself dressed up as a dead body and laid in the family tomb. Scarcely more rational is M. Renan's latest suggestion, that it was all a misunderstanding: Martha and Mary having told Jesus the wish of friends, that He should do some notable miracle to convince the Jews, and suggesting that they would believe if one rose from the dead, when He had replied, that they would not believe even if Lazarus rose from his grave - and that tradition had transformed this conversation into an actual event! Nor, finally, would English common sense readily believe (with Baur), that the whole narrative was an ideal composition to illustrate what must be regarded as the metaphysical statement: I am the Resurrection and the Life.' Among ourselves, at least, no serious refutation of these and similar views can be necessary.

Nor do the other theories advanced require lengthened discussion. The mythical explanation of Strauss is, that as the Old Testament had recorded instances of raising from the dead, so Christian tradition must needs ascribe the same to the Messiah. To this (without repeating the detailed refutation made by Renan and Baur), it is sufficient to reply: The previous history of Christ had already offered such instances, why needlessly multiply them? Besides, if it had been a legend,' such full and minute details would not have been introduced, and while the human element would have been suppressed, the miraculous would have been far more accentuated. Only one other theory on the subject requires notice: that the writer of the Fourth Gospel, or rather early tradition, had transformed the Parable of Dives and Lazarus into an actual event. In answer, it is sufficient to say: first, that (as previously shown) there is no connection between the Lazarus of the Parable and him of Bethany; secondly, that, if it had been a Parable transformed, the characters chosen would not have been real persons, and that they were such is evident from the mention of the family in different circumstances in the three Synoptic Gospels,⁴⁷⁷⁸ of which the writer of the Fourth Gospel was fully aware.⁴⁷⁷⁹ Lastly, as Godet remarks, whereas the Parable closes by declaring that the Jews would not believe even if one rose from the dead, the Narrative closes on this wise:⁴⁷⁸⁰ Many therefore of the Jews, which came to Mary and beheld that which He did, believed on Him.'⁴⁷⁸¹

In view of these proposed explanations, we appeal to the impartial reader, whether any of them rationally accounts for the origin and existence of this history in Apostolic tradition? On the other hand, everything is clear and consistent on the supposition of the historical truth of this narrative: the minuteness of details; the vividness and pictorialness of the narrative: the characteristic manner in which Thomas, Martha, and Mary speak and act, in accordance with what we read of them in the other Gospels or in other parts of this Gospel; the Human affection of the Christ; the sublime simplicity and majesty of the manner of the Miracle; and the effects of it on friend and foe. There is, indeed, this one difficulty (not objection), that the event is not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels. But we know too little of the plan on which the Gospels, viewed as Lives of Christ, were constructed, to allow us to draw any sufficient inference from the silence of the Synoptists, whilst we do know that the Judæan and Jerusalem Ministry of Christ, except so far as it was absolutely necessary to refer to it, lay outside the plan of the Synoptic Gospels, and formed the special subject of that by St. John. Lastly, we should remember, that in the then state of thought the introduction of another narrative of raising from the dead could not have seemed to them of such importance as it appears to us in the present state of controversy - more especially, since it was soon to be followed by another Resurrection, the importance and evidential value of which far overshadowed such an event as the raising of Lazarus. Their Galilean readers had the story of the raising of the window's son at Nain, and of Jairus' daughter at Capernaum; and the Roman world had not only all this, but the preaching of the Resurrection, and of pardon and life in the Name of the Risen One, together with ocular demonstration of the miraculous power of those who preached it. It remained for the beloved disciple, who alone stood under the Cross, alone to stand on that height from which he had first full and intense outlook upon His Death, and the Life which sprang from it, and flowed into all the world.

We may now, undisturbed by preliminary objections, surrender ourselves to the sublimeness and solemnity of this narrative. Perhaps the more briefly we comment on it the better.

It was while in Peræa, that this message suddenly reached the Master from the well-remembered home at Bethany, the village of Mary' - who, although the younger, is for obvious reasons first mentioned in this history - and her sister Martha,' concerning their (younger) brother Lazarus: Lord, behold he whom Thou lovest is sick!' They are apparently the very words which the sisters' bade their messenger tell. We note as an important fact to be stored in our memory, that the Lazarus, who had not even been mentioned in the only account preserved to us of a previous visit of Christ to Bethany,⁴⁷⁸² is described as he whom Christ loved.' What a gap of untold events between the two visits of Christ to Bethany - and what modesty should it teach us as regards inferences from the circumstance that certain events are not recorded in the Gospels! The messenger was apparently dismissed by Christ with this reply: This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, in order that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.' We must here bear in mind, that this answer was heard by such of the Apostles as were present at the time.⁴⁷⁸³ They would naturally infer from it that Lazarus would not die, and that his restoration would glorify Christ, either as having foretold it, or prayed for it, or effected it by His Will. Yet its true meaning - even, as we now see, its literal interpretation, was, that its final upshot was not to be the death of Lazarus, but that it was to be for the glory of God, in order that Christ as the Son of God might be made manifest. And we learn, how much more full are the Words of Christ than they often appear to us; and how truly, and even literally, they may bear quite another meaning than appears to our honest misapprehension of them - a meaning which only the event, the future, will disclose.

And yet, probably at the very time when the messenger received his answer, and ere he could have brought it to the sisters, Lazarus was already dead! Nor - and this should be especially marked - did this awaken doubt in the minds of the sisters. We seem to hear the very words which at the time they said to each other when each of them afterwards repeated it to the Lord: Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother would not have died.'⁴⁷⁸⁴ They probably thought the message had reached Him too late, that Lazarus would have lived if Christ had been appealed to in time, or had been able to come - at any rate, if He had been there. Even in their keenest anguish, there was no failure of trust, no doubt, no close weighing of words on their part - only the confidence of love. Yet all this while Christ knew that Lazarus had died, and still He continued two whole days where He was, finishing His work. And yet - and this is significantly noted before anything else, alike in regard to His delay and to His after-conduct - He loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.' Had there been no after-history, or had it not been known to us, or before it became known, it might have seemed otherwise - and in similar circumstances it often does seem otherwise to us. And again, what majestic calm, what Self-restraint of Human affections and sublime consciousness of Divine Power in this delay: it is once more Christ asleep, while the disciples are despairing, in the bark almost swamped in the storm! Christ is never in haste: least of all, on His errands of love. And He is never in haste, because He is always sure.

It was only after these two days that Christ broke silence as to His purposes and as to Lazarus. Though thoughts of him must have been present with the disciples, none dared ask aught, although not from misgiving, nor yet from fear. This also of faith and of confidence. At last, when His work in that part had been completed, He spoke of leaving, but even so not of going to Bethany, but into Judæa. For, in truth, His work in Bethany was not only geographically, but really, part of His work in Judæa; and He told the disciples of His purpose, just because He knew their fears and would teach them, not only for this but for every future occasion, what principle applied to them. For when, in their care and affection, they reminded the Rabbi' - and the expression here almost jars on us - that the Jews were even now seeking to stone' Him, He replied by telling them, in figurative language, that we have each our working day from God, and that while it lasts no foe can shorten it or break up or work. The day had twelve hours, and while these lasted no mishap would befall him that walked in the way [he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world]. It was otherwise when the day was past and the night had come. When our God-given day has set, and with it the light been withdrawn which hitherto prevented our stumbling - then, if a man went in his own way and at his own time, might such mishap befall him, because,' figuratively as to light in the night-time, and really as to guidance and direction in the way, the light is not in him.'

But this was only part of what Jesus said to His disciples in preparation for a journey that would issue in such tremendous consequences. He next spoke of Lazarus, their friend,' as fallen asleep' - in the frequent Jewish (as well as Christian) figurative sense of it,⁴⁷⁸⁵ and of His going there to wake him out of sleep. The disciples would naturally connect this mention of His going to Lazarus with His proposed visit to Judæa, and, in their eagerness to keep Him from the latter, interposed that there could be no need for going to Lazarus, since sleep was, according to Jewish notions, one of the six,⁴⁷⁸⁶ or, according to others,⁴⁷⁸⁷ five symptoms or crises in recovery from dangerous illness. And when the Lord then plainly stated it, Lazarus died,' adding, what should have aroused their attention, that for their sakes He was glad He had not been in Bethany before the event, because now that would come which would work faith in them, and proposed to go to the dead Lazarus - even then, their whole attention was so absorbed by the certainty of danger to their loved Teacher, that Thomas had only one thought: since it was to be so, let them go and die with Jesus. So little had they understood the figurative language about the twelve hours on which God's sun shone to light us on our way; so much did they need the lesson of faith to be taught them in the raising of Lazarus!

We already know the quiet happy home of Bethany.⁴⁷⁸⁸ When Jesus reached it, He found' - probably from those who met Him by the way^47894790 - that Lazarus had been already four days in the grave. According to custom, he would be buried the same day that he had died.⁴⁷⁹¹ Supposing his death to have taken place when the message for help was first delivered, while Jesus continued after that two whole days in the place where He was, this would leave about a day for His journey from Peræa to Bethany. We do not, indeed, know the exact place of His stay; but it must have been some well-known centre of activity in Peræa, since the sisters of Bethany had no difficulty in sending their messenger. At the same time we also infer that, at least at this period, some kind of communication must have existed between Christ and His more intimate disciples and friends, such as the family of Bethany - by which they were kept informed of the general plan of His Mission-journeys, and of any central station of His temporary sojourn. If Christ at that time occupied such a central station, we can the more readily understand how some of His Galilean disciples may, for a brief space, have been absent at their Galilean homes when the tidings about Lazarus arrived. Their absence may explain the prominent position taken by Thomas; perhaps, also, in part, the omission of this narrative from the Synoptic Gospels. One other point may be of interest. Supposing the journey to Bethany to have occupied a day, we would suggest the following as the order of events. The messenger of the Sisters left Bethany on the Sunday (it could not have been on the Sabbath), and reached Jesus on the Monday. Christ continued in Peræa other two days, till Wednesday, and arrived at Bethany on Thursday. On Friday the meeting of the Sanhedrists against Christ took place, while He rested in Bethany on the Friday, and, of course, on the Sabbath, and returned to Peræa and Ephraim' on the Sunday.

This may be a convenient place for adding to the account already given,⁴⁷⁹² in connection with the burying of the widow's son at Nain, such further particulars of the Jewish observances and rites,⁴⁷⁹³ as may illustrate the present history. Referring to the previous description, we resume, in imagination, our attendance at the point where Christ met the bier at Nain and again gave life to the dead. But we remember that, as we are now in Judæa, the hired mourners - both mourning-men (for there were such) and mourning-women - would follow, and not, as in Galilee, precede, the body.⁴⁷⁹⁴ From the narrative we infer that the burial of Lazarus did not take place in a common burying-ground, which was never nearer a town than 50 cubits,⁴⁷⁹⁵ dry and rocky places being chosen in preference. Here the graves must be at least a foot and a half apart. It was deemed a dishonour to the dead to stand on, or walk over, the turf of a grave. Roses and other flowers seem to have been planted on graves.⁴⁷⁹⁶ But cemeteries, or common burying-places, appear in earliest times to have been used only for the poor,⁴⁷⁹⁷ or for strangers.⁴⁷⁹⁸ In Jerusalem there were also two places where executed criminals were buried.⁴⁷⁹⁹ All these, it is needless to say, were outside the City. But there is abundant evidence, that every place had not its own burying-ground; and that, not unfrequently, provision had to be made for the transport of bodies. Indeed, a burying-place is not mentioned among the ten requisites for every fully-organised Jewish community.⁴⁸⁰⁰ The names given, both to the graves and to the burying-place itself, are of interest. As regards the former, we mention such as the house of silence;'⁴⁸⁰¹ the house of stone;'⁴⁸⁰² the hostelry,' or, literally, place where you spend the night;' the couch;' the resting-place;' the valley of the multitude,' or of the dead.' The cemetery was called the house of graves;'⁴⁸⁰³ or the court of burying;' and the house of eternity.' By a euphemism, to die' was designated as going to rest,' been completed;' being gathered to the world' or to the home of light;' being withdrawn,' or hidden.' Burial without coffin seems to have continued the practice for a considerable time, and rules are given how a pit, the size of the body, was to be dug, and surrounded by a wall of loose stones to prevent the falling in of earth. When afterwards earth-burials had to be vindicated against the Parsee idea of cremation, Jewish divines more fully discussed the question of burial, and described the committal of the body to the ground as a sort of expiation.⁴⁸⁰⁴ It was a curious later practice, that children who had died a few days after birth were circumcised on their graves. Children not a month old were buried without coffin or mourning, and, as some have thought, in a special place.⁴⁸⁰⁵ In connection with a recent controversy it is interesting to learn that, for the sake of peace, just as the poor and sick of the Gentiles might be fed and nursed as well as those of the Jews, so their dead might be buried with those of the Jews, though not in their graves.⁴⁸⁰⁶ On the other hand, a wicked person should not be buried close to a sage.⁴⁸⁰⁷ Suicides were not accorded all the honours of those who had died a natural death, and the bodies of executed criminals were laid in a special place, whence the relatives might after a time remove their bones.⁴⁸⁰⁸ The burial terminated by casting earth on the grave.⁴⁸⁰⁹

But, as already stated, Lazarus was, as became his station, not laid in a cemetery, but in his own private tomb in a cave - probably in a garden, the favourite place of interment. Though on terms of close friendship with Jesus, he was evidently not regarded as an apostate from the Synagogue. For, every indignity was shown at the burial of an apostate; people were even to array themselves in white festive garments to make demonstration of joy.⁴⁸¹⁰ Here, on the contrary, as we gather from the sequel, every mark of sympathy, respect, and sorrow had been shown by the people in the district and by friends in the neighbouring Jerusalem. In such case it would be regarded as a privilege to obey the Rabbinic direction of accompanying the dead, so as to show honour to the departed and kindness to the survivors. As the sisters of Bethany were disciples,' we may well believe that some of the more extravagant demonstrations of grief were, if not dispensed with, yet modified. We can scarcely believe, that the hired mourners' would alternate between extravagant praises of the dead and calls upon the attendants to lament;⁴⁸¹¹ or that, as was their wont, they would strike on their breast, beat their hands, and dash about their feet,⁴⁸¹² or break into wails and mournings songs, alone or in chorus.⁴⁸¹³ In all probability, however, the funeral oration would be delivered - as in the case of all distinguished persons⁴⁸¹⁴ - either in the house,⁴⁸¹⁵ or at one of the stations where the bearers changed, or at the burying-place; perhaps, if they passed it, in the Synagogue.⁴⁸¹⁶ It has previously been noted, what extravagant value was, in later times, attached to these orations, as indicating both a man's life on earth and his place in heaven.⁴⁸¹⁷ The dead was supposed to be present, listening to the words of the speaker and watching the expression on the face of the hearers. It would serve no good purpose to reproduce fragments from these orations.⁴⁸¹⁸ Their character is sufficiently indicated by the above remarks.⁴⁸¹⁹

When thinking of these tombs in gardens,⁴⁸²⁰ we so naturally revert to that which for three days held the Lord of Life, that all details become deeply interesting. And it is, perhaps, better to give them here rather than afterwards to interrupt, by such inquiries, our solemn thoughts in presence of the Crucified Christ. Not only the rich, but even those moderately well-to-do, had tombs of their own, which probably were acquired and prepared long before they were needed, and treated and inherited as private and personal property.⁴⁸²¹ In such caves, or rock-hewn tombs, the bodies were laid, having been anointed with many spices,⁴⁸²² with myrtle,⁴⁸²³ aloes, and, at a later period, also with hyssop, rose-oil, and rose-water. The body was dressed and, at a later period, wrapped, if possible, in the worn cloths in which originally a Roll of the Law had been held.⁴⁸²⁴ The tombs' were either rock-hewn' or natural caves'⁴⁸²⁵ or else large walled vaults, with niches along the sides. Such a cave' or vault' of 4 cubits' (6 feet) width, 6 cubits' (9 feet) length, and 4 cubits' (6 feet) height, contained niches' for eight bodies - three on each of the longitudinal sides, and two at the end opposite the entrance. Each niche' was 4 cubits (6 feet) long, and had a height of seven and a width of six handbreadths. As these burying niches' were hollowed out in the walls they were called Kukhin.⁴⁸²⁶ The larger caves or vaults were 6 cubits (9 feet) wide, and 8 cubits (12 feet) long, and held thirteen bodies - four along each side-wall, three opposite to, and one on either side of the entrance.⁴⁸²⁷ These figures apply, of course, only to what the Law required, when a vault had been contracted for. When a person constructed one for himself, the dimensions of the walls and the number of Kukhin might, of course, vary. At the entrance to the vault was a court' 6 cubits (9 feet) square, to hold the bier and its bearers. Sometimes two caves' opened on this court.' But it is difficult to decide whether the second cave,' spoken of, was intended as an ossary⁴⁸²⁸ (ossarium). Certain it is, that after a time the bones were collected and put into a box or coffin, having first been anointed with wine and oil, and being held together by wrappings of cloths.⁴⁸²⁹ This circumstance explains the existence of the mortuary chests, or osteophagi, so frequently found in the tombs of Palestine by late explorers, who have been unable to explain their meaning.⁴⁸³⁰ This unclearness⁴⁸³¹ is much to be regretted, when we read, for example, of such a chest' as found in a cave near Bethany.⁴⁸³² One of the explorers⁴⁸³³ has discovered on them fragments of Hebrew inscriptions. Up to the present, only few Hebrew memorial inscriptions have been discovered in Palestine. The most interesting are those in or near Jerusalem, dating from the first century b.c. to the first a.d.⁴⁸³⁴ There are, also, many inscriptions found on Jewish tombs out of Palestine (in Rome, and other places), written in bad Greek or Latin, containing, perhaps, a Hebrew word, and generally ending with shalom, peace,' and adorned with Jewish symbols, such as the Seven-branched Candlestick, the Ark, the festive emblems of the Feast of Tabernacles, and others.⁴⁸³⁵ In general, the advice not to read such inscriptions,⁴⁸³⁶ as it would affect the sight, seems to imply the common practice of having memorial inscriptions in Hebrew. They appear to have been graven either on the lid of the mortuary chest, or on the Golel, or great stone rolled' at the entrance to the vault, or to the court' leading into it, or else on the inside walls of yet another erection, made over the vaults of the wealthy,⁴⁸³⁷ and which was supposed to complete the burying-place, or Qebher.

These small buildings surmounting the graves may have served as shelter to those who visited the tombs. They also served as monuments,'⁴⁸³⁸ of which we read in the Bible, in the Apocrypha,⁴⁸³⁹ and in Josephus.^48404841 In Rabbinic writings they are frequently mentioned, chiefly by the name Nephesh,⁴⁸⁴² soul,' person' - transferred in the sense of monument,'⁴⁸⁴³ or, by the more Scriptural name of bamah,⁴⁸⁴⁴ or, by the Greco-Aramaic,⁴⁸⁴⁵ or the Hebrew designation for a building generally. But of gravestones with inscriptions we cannot find any record in Talmudic works. At the same time, the place where there was a vault or a grave was marked by a stone, which was kept whitened,⁴⁸⁴⁶ to warn the passer-by against defilement.⁴⁸⁴⁷