CHAPTER X. TO THOSE WHO HAVE, IS GIVEN.

The Teaching by Parables.

We have, on our way to this point, while tracing the course of Christ’s Schooling of the Apostles every now and then caught sight of the working of the principle, “to whomsoever hath, shall be given.”

This apopthegm is recorded to have been three times spoken; first, as has been just mentioned, when our Lord gave to His disciples His reasons for teaching in parables, and again as the moral at the end of the parables of the talents and of the pounds. We draw from it that our Lord was about to exercise selection and deal with different hearers in different ways. Up to this time He had put His lessons into terse sayings, like pearls strung on a string; a hearer could easily carry a single one away, he had only to listen and learn. For a multitude who came and went like the shifting atoms of a cloud, this was the most that could be done. But among those who now listened to the parables at Capernaum were apostles, disciples, and listeners variously disposed, and they received a lesson from which different hearers drew profit in very different degrees.

The time now began to draw in sight when the most momentous duties that ever fell to men, would be laid on the Twelve, and to them our Lord now turned with an interest which daily grew more intent. The Apostles were not mere recipients as the crowd had been. They were not mere passive hearers receiving and storing wise sayings. What they heard was meant to set their minds at work, and the good they got from it depended on themselves.

In the crowd on the Lake shore which stood listening to our Lord as He spoke from the boat, there were characters of all sorts disposed towards Jesus in every variety of way. There were many followers and some foes, while perhaps nearly half were neither the one nor the other, but merely the loiterers who throng every eastern town: these would go where others went, glad of anything which broke the sameness of the day. They had come to listen—after their way of listening, taking no heed how they heard—many a time before, and no good had come of it, though the teaching was so plain that he who ran might read; with all their opportunities they had got nothing, and so from them was taken “what they seemed to have,” that is to say, these very opportunities themselves. They now heard only what appeared to be the story of an every-day event, and they wondered what good it could do to them. Thus, this mode of teaching sorted out its auditory by a self-acting mechanism. It threw off the light, while it attracted earnest and enquiring minds who, never doubting of a deep meaning in all our Lord said, asked themselves and one another what this meaning could be.

The aphorism “that to him who had, more was given” was, as applied to material wealth, in some form or other probably familiar to the shrewd men of the time, just as the saying, that “nothing succeeds like success” is among ourselves now. But what was startling was, that this principle should be adopted by Christ and laid down as one of those upon which God’s government is carried on. For this inequality in human conditions, and the tendency to rise faster the higher one gets and to sink faster the lower one falls, was a thing that was commonly regarded as a defect in the world’s arrangement, due to some inherent perversity in matter or in man.

People’s minds, in those days, were possessed by the notion that God must have intended to make things fair and equal for all, but that inequality had slipt into the world in the making, when God’s eye was off it for a moment: soon, however, the Messiah would come and set this right among other things. Hence it startled our Lord’s hearers to find this defect, as they deemed it, in the order of the world brought forward by Him, and not only not explained away as they would have expected, but set forth as among the Laws according to which the Spiritual Order of the world was carried on. From the prominence given to this statement in the narrative of the three earlier gospels we see what a deep impression it made.

Our Lord applies this aphorism, solely, to the advantages and opportunities which men should have for learning the ways of God. But the analogy between this principle and some observed principles of economic and organic science is very striking and interesting, to say no more; while in education the working of this rule is abundantly obvious in every school. That the world is ordered on a basis not of equality but of inequality, is a patent fact; and lately it has been shewn that it is of inequality that all progress comes. One little superiority, due to what seems an accidental variation, gives an advantage for gaining a greater superiority and so on. Uniformity, indeed, implies stagnation. If all men had just the same powers and minds and characters, would not such a world stagnate from its insupportable dulness and the want of stimulus for the faculties of men? If, at every step, it grew harder to get farther on, then no one could go very far. A bullet fired into a tree, which hardens from the bark to the core, is brought to a standstill very soon. Such a state of things would preclude exalted eminence; mediocrity would reign supreme and the onward march of mankind would be checked.

Our Lord, as a fact, asserts not only that inequalities widen, but also that they are purposely so widened. As the explorer advances, he is brought into more open ground and is better recompensed for his toil. Spiritual progress was to be brought about after the plan upon which all other human progress proceeds. It was to originate in individuals, who should push forward, seize upon posts in the foreground and hold them till the rest came up: it is not the way of Humanity to advance in line along the whole front. All progress comes of individual excellence and the world is so ordered as to favour the growth of one beginning to out-top the rest. It is an aid in this direction, that in education advance becomes commonly easier, and always more pleasurable as we proceed. Education moreover sorts out men. A hundred boys, near of an age, thrown together in a school seem at first nearly on a par; but an aristocracy develops itself wonderfully soon, both in the school and out of doors, and every half year the distinctions between boy and boy grow wider and become more strongly marked. However conscientiously the teachers may distribute their pains, the abler boy gets more attention, because he asks more intelligent questions and, seeing his interest in his work, the teacher’s thoughts in spare moments revert to him. The same holds of spiritual life, for when a man attains a sense of communion with God he becomes conscious of an inward joy, which illuminates his life, and this helps him on. Nothing is more striking in the Acts than the “exceeding great joy” which with the Apostles was the habitual state.

A very material point as to the bearing of this principle is brought out in the two parables in which it occurs. What is spoken of as that which a man _hath_, is not what has been given him or what he has inherited, but only what he has acquired for himself. It is not so much the possession of the pounds or the talents which is the ground of reward, as the assiduity, energy and intelligence, by which they have been earned.

I will consider the pair of parables(228) just mentioned, before the discourse in which the saying first occurs, although they stand later in the history, because they shew most clearly what Christ’s meaning was. In both parables we remark the following points.

(1) The rewards are proportioned, not to the amount of the original arbitrary gifts, which, I suppose, stand for natural advantages, but to what has been obtained by turning these gifts to account.

(2) What the servants are recompensed for is administrative efficiency. This shews that our Lord had in view some active service in God’s cause and not internal self-improvement alone.

(3) The rewards are not such that the servants can use them for their own gratification, they are not given money for their own use, but they are promoted to wider governments. He who has made five talents is given the rule of a larger province. And the servants are not so promoted merely for their own sake, the general welfare of the ruler’s domain is the paramount object, and in order to promote this those who have proved themselves the ablest are given the amplest charge.

In the parable of the talents, the “man going into a far country” entrusts to his servants sums varying in amount, “to each according to his several abilities.” With these they are to carry on business on his behalf during his absence. One of them, he who was of the lowest capacity, received only one talent—with him I am not now concerned; but the rest double the capital which had been put into their hands and all of these, those who have made two talents as well as those who have made five receive the same reward. To each is said “Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” Here the rewards are not in proportion to the original gifts, which were as five and two, but are in proportion to the rate of profit, which was in both cases the same. All have shewn the same diligence and all are recompensed alike.

The same principle appears in the parable of the pounds. The like sum, one pound, is entrusted to each servant; and the difference in the returns, one making ten pounds and the other five, is wholly due to the difference of judgment or diligence in using the money. The reward is exactly proportional to the amount which each servant has earned.

The greater charge is given to him who had made ten pounds—not purely as a _reward_, but because he has shewn himself twice as well adapted to govern the ten cities as the servant who had only made five pounds.

A few words in the parable of the pounds shew how well our Lord knew what the prevalent notion about equality was. The notion I mean that God must have intended men to share all advantages alike. When the pound is taken from him who has left it unused and given to him who has turned his own pound into ten, the bystanders in the parable, who, we may suppose, represent common current opinion, are surprised, not at the pound being taken away, but at its being so bestowed as to augment the inequality. They would have looked to see it go to him who had made five pounds, so as to bring the conditions of the two servants more nearly to a par. They say, “Lord, he hath ten pounds,” implying “Why give more to him who has so much already?” Men are jealous of God’s prodigality in reward, although such reward may not diminish what they obtain themselves. The master in this parable makes no reply to the bystanders, and our Lord concludes the parable with the moral,

“I say unto you, that unto every one that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him.”(229)

The pounds in this parable, be it observed, are not bestowed on the servants as absolute gifts, they represent money held on trust, and this is the case not only with the original pound, but with the profit as well. The Lord (St Luke xix. 23) evidently regards all the produce as his own. The ten pounds have never been given over to the servant who gained them, so as to be absolutely his. Neither is the forfeited pound bestowed on him as a free gift, it is only an addition to the ten pounds of profit, which formed a fresh amount of capital in the hands of the most diligent of the servants to be used in his new employ. All this agrees with the view which I have taken, that the question in the parable is not one merely of reward and amercement but of putting the greatest opportunities into the best hands. In like manner our Lord looks to a practical end and adopts practical means. The paramount object that He has in view is the effective carrying forward of God’s work; and those who shall prove most efficient are to receive as their reward,—not anything they can sit down to and enjoy,—but a wider sphere of activity, an extended range of opportunities, and of duties answering thereunto.

This remark of the bystanders, so casual in its form and so weighty in its substance, exemplifies our Lord’s way of dealing with erroneous ideas. A hint is dropped, attention is called to what many had taken for granted, and there the matter is left. It might be many days before the world would find the seed thus cast upon the waters, but found, some day or other, it would be. When there is question of practical evil our Lord is plain and positive enough. The Pharisees are upbraided sharply, for making the Law of no effect by their traditions, and the Sadducees are told that in denying the resurrection “they do greatly err.” But as regards the enigmas of life He only drops hints, which men may take or not.

I now come to the discourse, which I had put aside for a moment that the parables might be discussed.

As soon as our Lord had ended the parable of the Sower

“The disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?”(230)

Observe the words _unto them_. It is not about themselves that they ask, but the crowd. They were desirous to see our Lord’s influence increase, and were perhaps anxious that new proselytes should swell their number, and so they were puzzled at this new form of teaching, which seemed calculated to repel converts. “In order to win men over,” they would say to themselves, “it would surely be best to speak in the plainest and most direct way.”

The fullest version of the reply is that given by St Mark.

“And he said unto them, Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them.”(231)

This is followed by the interpretation of the parable of the Sower. And then comes a discourse explaining for what purposes the teaching by parables was employed, which throws a strong light both on this matter and on education in its highest sense. Here the principle comes to the front, that it is not so much what is done upon the man, or for the man, as what is done by the man himself, that transforms him into a higher creature. “Unto you,” says our Lord, turning to the disciples and the Twelve, “is given the mystery of the kingdom of God.” The mystery was given not to save their thinking but to set them thinking on a right track. What bore on the practical conduct of life had been preached to all, but the glimpse of the underlying spiritual order was vouchsafed to few: all must learn to tell time from a clock, but all need not know how it works. It is not the application of the parable which is here the difficulty—that is told the hearers at once—but it lies in the original differences between men, how far these come of men’s own selves, how far of heredity, and how far men are answerable for their own dispositions; here we come on great difficulties which beset all creeds alike. In the parable of the Tares we are confronted with the origin of moral ill; the Apostles are to _contemplate_ these mysteries, and they are given a way of looking at them which will serve for the practical purposes of life, but they are by no means led to believe that they can see to the bottom of them.

The second passage brings out a positive use of parables. They are not primarily meant to hide truth but to show it. The matter is only for a moment put out of sight, in order that men may search after it, prize it when found, and, bringing to it eyes sharpened by keen search, may discern all particulars more truly and well. The sifting of the auditory of which I have spoken above was only a secondary and subordinate use of the parable; its primary one was this; it enshrined an abstract truth in such a portable concrete form that it was made accessible to men; it put it into a shape, familiar to Orientals, a shape to which the Eastern tongue lent itself with ease, and which fitted readily into the minds of men; they could carry the story about with them, and they would in so doing learn its lesson by degrees.

There was also another point; the meaning of these new utterances gave men some pains to find, and when they had found it, they delighted in it as something they had conquered for themselves. Our Lord lets men into this secret of all learning. Did they suffer those words of His which “were Spirit and which were Life” to fecundate their hearts, turning them over in their minds again and again? The words “with what measure ye mete”(232) have no bearing on outward dealings here; what they mean is, “In proportion to the pains and attention which you bestow in searching out all that my words contain, so will the profit be. If you bestow thought freely, and time as well, freely will God requite the same—something will you then have, and more shall be given you.” To him who had been faithful over a few things a wider range of duties, and that alone, would be given as reward.

I note a connection between the introduction of the new form of teaching and the course of events. When our Lord began to teach in parables “His departure which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem”(233) was shaping itself more and more definitely in His mind. Time was getting short, and so He now spake for those only who had ears to hear. The nature of this departure was too shocking to Jewish notions and too inexplicable to be declared in plain terms to the mass. We know that even the Twelve were bewildered with the hints that our Lord drops about the end, and we can easily see how ill-suited such declarations would have been for the people at large.

Again, we can understand that as the end in all its awfulness came more and more distinctly into view, our Lord should confine His teaching very much to those to whom was committed the mystery of the Kingdom of God; and, inasmuch as the Twelve differed in spiritual capacity among themselves and higher duties were to be laid on some than on others, within that body a further selection had to be made. Peter and James and John form an inner circle, they are chosen as witnesses of the things that were not to be proclaimed until the Son of Man should come.(234) It is worth noting that in St John’s Gospel we find no trace of the preeminence of these three; this falls in with the hypothesis of the author being the Apostle John, who carefully avoids mention of himself.

This choosing of the Three Apostles who should be preferred before the rest touches my purpose closely in another way; it was no insignificant part of the Schooling of the Twelve. They would learn from it that Christ gave what charge He would to whom He would; that in God’s service it is honour enough to be employed at all; and that no man is to be discouraged because he sees allotted to another what appears to be a higher sphere of work than his own. We all know how heavily jealousy among subordinates who administer affairs clogs the wheels of the state, and it was of the highest importance that this vice should be eradicated, with a view to the practical business of the Church.

So the great lesson taught to the Apostles—and in the end it was taught more completely than ever men were taught it before—was self abnegation. They came at last not to think about themselves at all. This unselfishness is never preached to them, because it cannot be taught by preaching. If a man has self-surrender pressed incessantly upon him, this keeps the idea of self ever before his view. Christ does not cry down _self_, but he puts it out of a man’s sight by giving him something better to care for, something which shall take full and rightful possession of his soul. The Apostles, without ever having any consciousness of sacrificing self, were brought into a habit of self sacrifice by merging all thoughts for themselves in devotion to a Master and a cause, and in thinking what they could do to serve it themselves.

Have not most of us known cases of men, seemingly immersed in amusements and frivolities, who would gladly have flung these to the winds, if only we could have found them something which would fill their hearts. If such people are selfish, it is not because they really care very much for themselves; but because self seems a little more real and a little more under their own control than anything else. They have found unreality in many things; perhaps when they have attempted to do good they have been thrown back by ridicule or discouragement, and are thereby brought to feel at a loss for an interest in life; and in this case an evil one, who is always by, has seemed to whisper, “Do good to thyself and the world will speak well of thee.” If now, at the right moment, you could shew these men a real good, they would be glad enough to throw aside the _self_ which they have been only trying to persuade themselves that they cared for, and would seize upon anything which appeared to answer to the secret hope, asleep, but still alive in their hearts.

It is a good test of the nature of the devotion above spoken of to be able to endure the preference of others to ourselves. If the Apostles generally had resented the preeminence of the three, it would have shewn that they had not realised “what spirit they were of.” We see from St Luke xxii. 24 that they had not quite overcome all personal feeling, but we hear at this time no word of murmur, though they ventured pretty freely to murmur when they were displeased: from this I gather that, little by little they were losing personal ambition and merging themselves in their Master’s cause. Thus this selection of the Three out of the body carried with it a lesson in the postponement of self.

This reserving of special attention for those only who shewed promise is, as I said just now, connected with the appearance on the horizon of the End at Jerusalem. “Times and seasons” the Father “had put in His own power,” and it may not have been till a year before the Passion that our Lord had known how short a time was left for Him on earth. Before He had preached unto all alike, now, his time and pains were reserved for the hopeful few. Something of this same reservation of teaching for those likely to profit by it, was seen when the Apostles were sent out two and two. They were only to be a few days away, consequently they were to waste no time over cases that were hopeless; when one city would not receive them they were to go to another.

Resumption of the Narrative.

I left the narrative at the point where the vessel with the Apostles, whom our Lord had joined upon the sea, had just reached the shores of the country of Gennesaret. The multitude sought Him on His arrival bringing their sick to be healed. Our Lord’s words addressed to them suit the occasion so exactly, that we may be sure they belong to this place. The discourse(235) is preserved only by St John. It was probably begun upon the shore and was afterwards continued by our Lord in the synagogue.

This discourse is very ably treated by Mr Sanday,(236) and the doctrinal matters of which it treats do not fall within my sphere. It is the character of St John’s versions of our Lord’s discourses that we find it hard to trace in them the progress of thought. One or two points usually form the burden; in this case these points are “I am the bread of life” and “I will raise him up at the last day.” This mannerism suits with the supposition that St John’s Gospel was written by a very old man; for this recurrence to the dominant topic is a marked peculiarity of the utterances of old age. St John had probably preached on these discourses over and over again, and he set them down in the Gospel in the form in which they were most familiar to him, with, possibly, something of the amplification required to adapt them to homiletic use.

This speech is pitched in so high a spiritual key that it was not all who had ears to hear it: it notably effected the purpose of separating the chaff from the wheat. What the people expected of the Messiah, and what they looked for in the future life may be gathered from the gospels or from Jewish books;(237) our Lord’s words gave no promise of His fulfilling these hopes of theirs, and so we read—

“Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.”(238)

Another cause of offence arose at this time.

The Pharisees and certain of the Scribes who had come from Jerusalem had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, “that is unwashed hands.” These persons had not come from Jerusalem at this time—Passover time—without serious intentions, and these we may be sure were not friendly to our Lord. They fasten on this point of washing before meals, a process not enjoined by Moses but resting on a “tradition of the elders.” The stress however laid on it by the Rabbis was excessively great,(239) and the provisions with regard to it were so minute and troublesome that only those classes who possessed leisure could possibly observe them. Here we come upon a self-righteous exclusiveness; but what was worse than all was the low idea of God involved in the notion that He gave or withdrew his favour according as men were or were not punctilious about trivial acts.

Our Lord turns the attack against His assailants, “Full well,” said He, “do you reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your traditions.” He shews how by a Rabbinical fiction they evaded the natural duty of maintaining their parents in their age.

“And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, Hear me all of you, and understand: there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him: but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.”(240)

It is to be noted that here our Lord turns _to the multitude_. He calls—not only disciples and not only scribes, but every one—to listen to this vindication of the ways of God. These are our Lord’s last words to the people of Capernaum, and the discourse in the synagogue is nearly His last utterance in a place of worship. He would not leave them without a denunciation of that stress upon outward observances, which prevented spiritual religion from growing in their souls. His words are wide, I believe intentionally so, and sweep away those ordinances about meats clean and unclean, which, as sanitary measures, had done good, no doubt, in their time, but which now led one man to think that because he did not eat what another did, he stood religiously on a higher level than his brother. For spiritual religion to become possible, men must be freed from the idea that God’s favour depended on what they eat or drank.

This notion however was, by heredity, part and parcel of the mental constitution of every Jew. The disciples regard this statement of our Lord as so bold that it cannot be intended to be taken literally, they call it “the parable.” We can understand, they would say, this about eating with unclean hands, but the Master’s words would go to do away with all distinction of meats, and this surely He cannot intend. No explanation does our Lord give; He restates in the plainest terms what was matter of offence. He expresses wonder that the disciples should be startled at His words—there was that in store which would offend them more—

“Many therefore of his disciples, when they heard _this_, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it? But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble? _What_ then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life.”(241)

As far as affection and loyalty went our Lord carried them with Him. But their minds had not kept pace with their hearts, habit was their master still. That many who had counted themselves disciples should have taken offence at this bold assertion, “whatsoever from without goeth into the man it cannot defile him,” is easily conceived. It did away with a ready source of self congratulation. If a Jew’s conscience pricked him, he turned for comfort to the thought that he had never eaten anything unclean.

So many fell away that our Lord’s company was reduced to a handful. He had expected, and probably intended, to thin it considerably, but the withdrawals among the disciples appear to have surprised Him, He says to the Apostles, “Will ye also go away?” Puzzled by our Lord’s declarations no doubt they were, but of one thing they were sure: having known Christ they could follow no one else but Him. The mountain journey clenched their devotion and their faith.

“And from thence he arose, and went away into the borders of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered into a house, and would have no man know it: and he could not be hid.”(242)

Now at last does our Lord find for the Apostles the rest which He had desired to give them before. It is not a missionary journey, He does not preach to the people; and the miracles which He performs are no longer illustrations of God’s Kingdom, but works of beneficence wrung from Him by the sight of suffering. The cures are wrought as privately as is possible. The Syro-Phœnician woman obtains what she desires by her exceptional openness to Divine impression: when He entered into a house “and would have no man know it,” she sought Him out. The man who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech, is taken “aside from the multitude privately,” and our Lord charged the witnesses “that they should tell no man.”(243) So again with the blind man at Bethsaida (probably Bethsaida Julias at the head of the lake)(244) “He took hold of the blind man by the hand and brought him out of the village,” and at the end “He sent him away to his home, saying, Do not even enter into the village.”(245)

Our Lord appears to have returned southwards along the valley and down the eastern side of the Lake, where the miracle of the feeding of the four thousand took place.

This country on the east of the Sea of Galilee, contained a mixed population, of which only the smaller part were of Israelite descent. The four thousand had followed day after day seeking cures; but there was no fear of these men trying to make Jesus a King, for there was little nationalist feeling on that side the sea. Our Lord might therefore exert His beneficence without imprudence. It seems strange that the disciples should not have thought of the feeding of the five thousand; but they may have thought that it was out of the question that a miracle should be wrought for people who were mostly heathen; or it may have been one of those not uncommon cases in which a man has seen his mistake and supposes that he can never make it again, and yet when circumstances arise, similar except for some slight variation, he does exactly what he did before.

When the four thousand were sent away, our Lord takes boat and crosses the lake to Magada in “the parts of Dalmanutha.” Of this region we know nothing except that it must have been on the western side of the lake. Here our Lord again finds himself among the haunts of men, and, since wherever there was a town population Pharisees were to be found, these “came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a Sign from heaven, tempting him.”(246)

Perhaps they had heard of the feeding of the four thousand and wanted to put Him to what they considered a conclusive test. “Could He shew a Sign in Heaven?” This iterated cry shewed the poorness of the soil, they had nothing else to utter but a demand for credentials. If our Lord had worked a “Sign in Heaven” they would have examined it to find a flaw, and even if they had been driven to admit that it was valid, no change whatever would have ensued in the men themselves. Chronic evil requires, not a passing shock but a long continued reparative process for its cure. So, here, to those who have not nothing is given, indeed nothing could be given to any purpose, and they soon lose even what they had, viz. our Lord’s presence, for He leaves them and goes elsewhere.

On the way across the Lake, while this circumstance is still in His mind, our Lord warns the Apostles against this Pharisaic spirit, the leaven of the Pharisees, which would kill all that is spiritual in religion by reducing every thing to matter of dry proof and dead authority. On the mistake of the disciples, “It is because we have no bread,” I have already spoken (p. 7), it is to me a proof of the genuineness of the story. Who would have introduced it, and who has not met scores of people who would have clung to the literal sense of the words just as the Apostles did?

Our Lord and the band of apostles travel along the upper valley of the Jordan to the neighbourhood of Cæsarea Philippi. Most if not all of the outer disciples had by this time fallen away, and the opportunity for giving His higher inmost teaching had come.

Never yet, except to the woman of Samaria, had Our Lord spoken of Himself as the Messiah. The notions of the Jews about the Messiah varied greatly, but the notion of an era of material physical enjoyment was dominant in all, and this had the demoralising effect of leading men to regard sensuous well being as the supreme good. If our Lord had proclaimed Himself the Messiah, crowds would have rallied to his side, hoping to have found one who would give them what they desired. This would have been fatal to all spiritual growth. Our Lord’s reticence about the Messiah and also about His own nature, is very significant: I think it means that truth absolute about heavenly things is not within the reach of man.

What follows, is so important, that it must be given in the words of St Matthew whose narrative is the most full.

“Now when Jesus came into the parts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? And they said, Some _say_ John the Baptist; some, Elijah: and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.”(247)

The doctrinal and ecclesiastical bearings of this passage are beyond my scope, they have been fully treated over and over again; but one point belongs to my special province—Peter’s knowledge had not come from anything he had been told. Our Lord had not breathed it to him, but it had grown up in him as great truths have grown up in prophetic souls by the prompting of God. This is the true inspiration of God; He whispers thoughts into the hearts of men, some nurse them and bring them to maturity, with others they take no hold. Blessed are those with whom they rest. Our Lord had said in the synagogue at Capernaum

“No man can come to me, except the Father which sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.”(248)

Peter had been drawn towards Him in this way.

Another point is to be noted. Henceforth the Apostles had a secret—they were to “tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.”

So long as the belief in our Lord as the Messiah was only a surmise, growing in Peter’s mind more and more into positive shape, he was not lifted up by it; but now he had become, as he thought, a species of chief minister, and he looked to the declaration of an earthly kingdom; so that when, immediately after the promise of power, our Lord speaks of sufferings and death, Peter replies, “These things be far from thee.” He never doubts but that our Lord would use His powers in self-defence. He looks on His words only as evil boding, and it strikes him that it is impolitic to utter them, because they will confuse and dishearten both the disciples and the Twelve.

This remonstrance of Peter’s drew from our Lord the first stern words which an Apostle had received from His lips, and very stern they were.

“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumblingblock unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.”(249)

It will help us to understand what moved our Lord so deeply if we go back to the Temptations. St Luke ends his account of the Temptations thus,

“And when the devil had completed every temptation, he departed from him for a season.”(250)

The words “for a season” imply that Temptations recurred from time to time, and that our Lord, now and again, heard inward voices harping on the old themes, one of the most persistent being that which said “Employ supernatural might to bring your Kingdom about.” Peter now spoke in the same strain. Could it be that even His “own familiar friend” had gone over to the foe.

The following discourse sounds a new note. Now for the first time our Lord speaks of the sufferings that awaited his followers.

“Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it.”(251)

The Apostles understood this probably as applying to the hardships and vicissitudes of the campaign which would result in the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel; for they looked for such a restoration up to the last (see St Luke xxiv. 21). This notion might have been removed no doubt; but what could have been put in its place? the idea of a Kingdom over men’s consciences, could not be implanted in men by words or in a short time. It could come about only by long experience in seeing and sharing suffering and toil, and by turning again and again to the abiding recollections of the Cross. Notions mischievously erroneous would have sprouted up in the Apostles’ minds from any thing they could have been told in a few words.

One promise however made at this time must have seemed to them to afford just what they wanted.

“And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There be some here of them that stand _by_, which shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.”(252)

I understand this verse in a way with which not every body will agree.

I take it as referring entirely to the Transfiguration, and I consider that the strong expression “shall in no wise taste of death” means that the witnesses should see what is spoken of during their actual earthly lives. Many might be blessed enough to behold this after death; but what was to distinguish the chosen witnesses from other men was this, that _while in the body_ they should see the Kingdom of God come with power. This boon is given, not to those who needed assurance, but to those who possessed it most; it seems given only to those to whom it is superfluous. The Law of the working of Signs (see pp. 142, 143) is rigorously observed. The vision on the Mount of Transfiguration coerced no one into belief.

During those six days we may suppose that the Apostles were busy in their minds, they would wonder who these “some” were to be, and why, supposing that the Kingdom of God came with the kind of power they looked for—a legion of angels for instance—why they should not all see it at once. Of the Transfiguration itself and the lessons it contains, the superseding of the teaching of the Law and the Prophets by the revelation of the incarnate Word, I have spoken fully in Chap. IV. (p. 94). We shall see as we go farther on, that our Lord is careful that there shall be nothing so rigid in His teaching as to prevent its being applicable to all races and conditions of men. It was no longer Moses, and no longer the prophets embodied in the person of Elijah, to whom men were to listen now. Hitherto all had rested on authority—on the letter of written Law. In the place of this were given words which “were Spirit and which were life.” Henceforth for their knowledge of God they were to turn to Christ. He manifests God unto the world, both in His own Personality depicted in the Gospels and by Spiritual Communion, whispering unto the end of the world to those who are ready to hear.

One point that was gained by this manifestation may be noted here. Supposing that the foes of Jesus had dispatched Him at the Feast of Tabernacles, still something would have been already accomplished, something secured for the world. There would have been three witnesses—men not given to visions or dreaming—who could declare that a voice from Heaven had sounded in their ears, and that while Moses and Elias were standing by, a voice from Heaven had declared that they were superseded as the Divine teachers of men by Jesus of Nazareth, of whom it declared, “This is my beloved Son, HEAR HIM.”

As soon as these words are uttered, all that is wondrous disappears. The Apostles find themselves with their Master on the mountain top, and all is as it was before He had begun to pray. If there had been but one witness he would have found it hard to convince men that he had seen all this with his waking eyes; but there were three Apostles to say “we were together and awake when we saw it.” Is it likely that three men should have fallen asleep together and have waked at the same moment, having all dreamed the same dream?

The supposition, however, of a vision affords a means of escape from accepting the narration. This exemplifies the Law that in every revelation delivered to men not already convinced, room is left for them to disbelieve if they like, because assent to proof which is irrefragable is not moral belief at all. There were people who would have said of this Transfiguration “we would rather believe that you all three slept and dreamed the same dream than that your story is true.” And some ground is left for such men to stand upon, though we who believe may think them straitened for room. With the three Apostles themselves, the conviction that their Master was Divine, already formed part of their being, it could hardly be strengthened; acceptance was not forced on them for they already accepted all. What they beheld did not act upon them as additional proof, but as a glimpse of another world, a revelation of new modes of existence—something to give shape to that message of eternal life which is henceforth the ground theme of our Lord’s teaching.

It may seem surprising that this revelation of their Master’s glory should cause so little disturbance in the Apostles’ minds, or in their freedom of intercourse with the Lord. If one whom we ourselves held in honour changed his mortal guise in the way described, not only would the shock upset our judgment but never after could we approach our friend in the old familiar way; he would belong to another order and have his true existence in another plane. We read, it is true, that the Apostles were for a moment “sore afraid,” but this was superficial fear due to the spectacle, to impression on the outward sense. St Peter, who is persuaded that they have been removed to a strange and blessed country, quickly regains self-possession. Following his instincts as a worker with his hands, he bethinks himself at once, as was said in Chapter VIII. (p. 248), of what is to be done. When our Lord and the three take their way down the mountain we find again the old confident relation of Master and disciple existing among them, it was so deep-rooted that all were sure that nothing could disturb that. Their Master’s spiritual exaltation did not put a gulf between Him and them, because they were so far one with Him that they were in a measure uplifted together; what was His, was also in part their own; whether in earth or heaven, or wherever their Master’s Kingdom should be, they felt sure they must be by His side. They could not be estranged from Him by awe of a newly discovered dignity, for they had been sure of His possessing this before, and only wondered that it had not come more patently to light.

Thus the complete love of the three which transfused their being into Christ and rendered the idea of separation inconceivable, made it possible for them to receive that as a blessing which if given to others might have proved a bewilderment. They already possessed something which made them capable of receiving more.

Our Lord makes no comment on the manifestation witnessed by the three beyond charging them “that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.”(253) What they had beheld contained a varied store of lessons, and men in the after times of the world would draw out one or another according to the turn taken by their thoughts. The Apostles, at the moment, only understood a small part of what this revelation conveyed. No exposition given in words could have brought to the comprehension of the three a perception of the whole bearing of what they had seen, but they would live into more of its meaning in time. If our Lord had discoursed on this manifestation, and represented its purport in this view or in that, men might have supposed that He meant His account to be exhaustive, and that the fact contained no lessons beyond those which He Himself set forth. Here we come I think upon a possible reason why our Lord is sparing of exposition regarding the facts of revelation. He could not briefly point out _every_ truth that a fact embodied, and if in an exposition, which was seemingly full, He should pass any lessons by, these it might be supposed He intended to exclude; in this way His reticence preserves for us the many-sidedness of Divine truth and engages men to ponder on it for themselves.

For the Apostles to have been allowed to spread abroad the story of the solemn scene upon the Mount would have been damaging to the work both for the world and themselves. The old cry might again have been raised to take Jesus and make Him a king; or the people might have been seized with a fever of curiosity, and the scribes would have grown all the more bitter in their hatred from its being leavened with awe. The ill effect on the Apostles of becoming authorised to promulgate such momentous tidings is easy enough to perceive. When people run about to disseminate some scrap of news which they alone possess the result is usually not beneficial either to character or to mind. From this temptation the Apostles were guarded. What they have seen and heard is not matter which they may use to magnify their importance or excite envy—it is a sacred trust. This signal manifestation besides being a light to help to the understanding of what Christ meant by eternal life, was to furnish them with a reserve of certitude. The three might never need to draw on it for themselves, but it would be of no slight avail with Jewish converts to be able to assure them that Christ had visibly appeared in Glory and that God had directed men henceforth to listen, not to the Law or the Prophets, not to Moses or Elijah, but to Him.

It is significant that this is to be kept secret not only until our Lord’s death but until His Resurrection. The three were not allowed to use it to comfort and reassure the rest as soon as their Master had suffered on the cross. The nine were to go through this trial unaided, eight stood the test, and held together in Jerusalem. When the Resurrection came, the Apostles “were glad when they saw the Lord,” and then in the delight and exultation of that moment the three may have poured forth the secret they had in store.

The Apostles were not surprised at being told that they were to tell no man; they had received the same charge when they had seen Jairus’ daughter raised to life; but they were greatly puzzled by the words “till the Son of man were risen from the dead.” They believed probably in a Resurrection, but that was to be ages hence, whereas this rising of Christ from the dead must take place in their own lifetime, because after it had happened they were to be free to speak of the Vision on the Mount. They asked each other what this rising could be, and perhaps some fancied that our Lord would permanently assume the glorified existence of which He had given them a glimpse.

Then came the question of Elijah. Our Lord turns the allusion to the prophets towards His coming rejection. Men had ill-treated the prophets; they will set at nought the Son of man too. “Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them.”(254) This news is broken to the disciples gently and little by little, but they never believe that it is literally true. Their cause must, they were sure, succeed in the end, Christ would not have engaged them in failure. What leader ever prophesied his own discomfiture and death? Our Lord first broke this truth to Peter at Cæsaræa Philippi, then to the three, and again, as we shall see presently, to all the Twelve on their way to Capernaum; thus the stream of communication broadens out.

We learn from St Luke(255) that it was not till the next day that our Lord “came down from the hill and much people met him,” so that in the night, and in the long day’s walk down to the inhabited country, the Apostles had ample time for quietly thinking over all that had taken place. Our Lord is always careful to leave time for one impression to fix itself, before another takes its place.