On the second occasion to which our texts refer we have the Apostle far more deeply conscious of his sin than he was on the first. He remembered his denial, and no doubt he remembered also the secret interview that Jesus Christ had with him on the day of the Resurrection, when, no doubt, He communicated to him His frank and full a.s.surance of forgiveness, He knows far more of Christ"s dignity and character and nature after the Resurrection than he had done on that day, long ago, by the banks of the lake. The deeper sense of his own sin, and the clearer and loftier view of who and what Jesus Christ was, send him struggling to his Master, and make him blessed only at His feet.
Ah yes, brother! the superficial knowledge of my evil may drive me away from Jesus Christ; the deepest conviction of it will send me right into His arms. A partial knowledge of the divine nature as revealed in Him as judge, and punitive and necessarily antagonistic to the blackness of my sin, in the l.u.s.trous whiteness of His purity, may drive me away from Him, but the deeper knowledge of G.o.d manifested in Jesus Christ, the long-suffering, the gentle, loving, pardoning, will send me to Him in all the depth of my self-abas.e.m.e.nt and in the confidence in His love as covering over my sin and accepting me. Where does the child go when it has transgressed against its mother"s word? Into its mother"s arms to hide its face upon her bosom near her heart. "Against Thee, Thee only have I sinned"; and therefore to Thee, Thee only will I go. Only in nearness to Jesus Christ can we get the anodyne that quiets the conscience--the blessed a.s.surance of forgiveness that lightens us of our burden and dread, and the power for holiness that will change our impurity into the likeness of His own purity. He, and He only, can forgive. He, and He only, brings the loving G.o.d into the midst of unloving men. He, and He only, hath offered the sacrifice in which all sin is done away. He, and He only, by the communication of His Spirit and life to me, will make me pure and deliver me from the burden of my sin.
And so the man who knows his own need and Christ"s grace will not say, "Depart from me for I am a sinful man," but he will say, "Leave me never, nor forsake me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord; but in Thee I have forgiveness and righteousness."
Dear friends! that consciousness of demerit once evoked in a man"s heart, however imperfectly, as I believe it is in some of your hearts now, must issue in one of two things. Either it will send you further into darkness to get away from the light, as the bats in a cave will flit to the deepest recesses of it in order to escape the torch, or it will bring you nearer to Him, and at His feet you will find cleansing.
Oh, dear friends!--strangers many of you, but all friends--let me beseech you that, if the merciful Spirit of G.o.d is in any measure using my poor words to touch your consciences and hearts, you would not venture to seek escape from the convictions which are stirring in you by any other way than by betaking yourselves to the Cross.
Let it not be, I pray you, that because you know yourselves to be in need of forgiveness, and to stand in peril of judgment, you say to G.o.d," Depart from us, for we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways."
But rather do you cast yourselves into Christ"s arms and keep near Him; saying as this same Peter did, on another occasion, "Lord! to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life."
BLASPHEMER, OR--WHO?
"And it came to pa.s.s on a certain day, as He was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judea, and Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was present to heal them. 18. And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before Him. 19. And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the mult.i.tude, they went upon the house-top, and let him down through the tiling, with his couch, into the midst before Jesus. 20. And when He saw their faith, He said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
21. And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but G.o.d alone? 22. But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He, answering, said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts? 23. Whether is easier to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk! 24. But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (He said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go unto thine house.
25. And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying G.o.d. 26. And they were all amazed, and they glorified G.o.d, and were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things to-day."--LUKE v. 17-26.
Luke describes the composition of the unfriendly observers in this crowd with more emphasis and minuteness than the other Evangelists do. They were Pharisees and doctors, and they were a.s.sembled from every part of Galilee, and even from Judea, and, what was most remarkable, from Jerusalem itself. Probably the conflict with the authorities in the capital recorded in John v. had taken place by this time, and if so, a deputation from the Sanhedrim would very naturally be despatched to Capernaum, and its members would as naturally summon the local lights to sit with them, and watch this revolutionary young teacher, who had no licence from them, and apparently not much reverence for them.
One can easily imagine that these heresy-hunters would be much too superior persons to mix with the crowd about the door of Peter"s house, and would, as Luke says, be "sitting by," near enough to see and hear, but far enough to show that they had no share in the vulgar enthusiasm of these provincial peasants. They were too holy to mingle with the mob, so they kept together by themselves, and waited hopefully for some heresy or breach of their mult.i.tudinous precepts. They got more than they expected.
We may note the contrast between their cynical watchfulness and the glorious manifestations for which they had no eyes. "The power of the Lord"--that is, of Christ--"was" (operative) "in His healing,"
or, according to another reading, "to heal them." But the critics took no heed of that. There is a temper of mind which is sharp-eyed as a lynx for faults, and blind as a bat to evidences of divine power in the Gospel or its adherents. Some noses are keen to smell stenches, and dull to perceive fragrance. The race of such inquisitors is not extinct.
They contrast, too, with the earnestness of the four friends who brought the paralysed man. The former sat cool and critical, because they had no sense of need either for themselves or for others. The latter made all the effort they could to fight through the crowd, and then took to the roof by some outside stair, and hastily stripping off enough of the tiling, lowered their friend, bed and all, right down in front of the young Rabbi. The house would be low, and the roof slight, and Jesus was probably seated in an open inner court or verandah, At any rate, the description gives a piece of local colour, and presents no improbability.
Earnestness in striving to come oneself or to bring a dear one to Christ"s feet seems a supremely absurd waste of energy to a cynical critic, who feels no need of anything that Christ can give. It looks rather different to the paralytic on his couch, and to the friends who long for his healing.
The first lesson from this incident is that our deepest need is forgiveness. No doubt, something in the paralytic"s case determined Christ"s method with him. Perhaps his sickness had been brought on by dissipation, and possibly conscience was lashing him with a whip of scorpions, so that, while his friends sought for his healing, he himself was more anxious for pardon. It is very unlikely that Jesus would have offered forgiveness unless He had known that it was yearned for. But whether that is so or not, we may fairly generalise the order of givings in this miracle, and draw from it the lesson that what Jesus then gave first is His chief gift. In most of His other miracles He gave bodily healing first. First or second, it is always Christ"s chief gift in the beginning of discipleship. His miracles of bodily healing are parables of that higher miracle. This incident brings out what is always the order of relative importance, whether it is that of chronological sequence or not.
And we all need to lay that truth to heart for ourselves. No tinkering with superficial discomforts, or culture of intellect and taste, or success in worldly pursuits, will avail to stanch the deep wound through which our life-blood is ebbing out. We need something that goes deeper than all these styptics. Only a power which can deal with our sense of sin, and soothe that into blessed a.s.surance of pardon, is strong enough to grapple with our true root of misery.
It is useless to give a man dying of cancer medicine for pimples.
That is what all attempts to make man happy and restful while sin remains unforgiven, are doing.
Social reformers need this lesson. Many voices proclaim many gospels to-day. Culture, economical or social reconstruction, is trumpeted as the panacea. But it matters comparatively little how society is organised. If its individual members retain their former natures, the former evils will come back, whatever its organisation. The only thorough cure for social evils is individual regeneration. Christ deals with men singly, and remoulds society by renewing the individual. The most elaborate machinery may be used for filtering the black waters. What will be the good of that if the fountain of blackness is not sealed up, or rather purified, at its hidden source? Make the tree good, and its fruit will be good. To make the tree good, you must begin with dealing with sin.
The second lesson from this incident is that Christ"s claim to forgive sins is either blasphemy or the manifest token of divinity.
These Pharisees scented heresy at once. They were blind to the pathos of the story, and hard as millstones towards the poor sufferer"s wistful looks. But they pounced at once gleefully on Christ"s words. They were perfectly right in their premises that forgiveness was a divine prerogative which no man could share. For sin is the name of evil, when considered in its relation to G.o.d. He only can forgive it, for "against Thee, Thee only," as David confessed, is it committed. True, the same act may be full of harmful results to men, and may be a breach of human law, but in its character as sin it refers to G.o.d only. Forgiveness is the outpouring of G.o.d"s love on a sinner, uninterrupted by his sin. Only G.o.d can pour out that love.
But the cavillers were quite wrong in their conclusion. He did not "blaspheme." The fact that Jesus knew and answered their whispered or unspoken "reasonings in their hearts" might have taught them that here was more than a rabbi, or even a prophet. But He goes on to reiterate His a.s.sertion that He has power to forgive sins.
Observe that He does not deny their premises. Nor does He, as He was bound in common honesty to do, set them right if they were wrong in supposing that He had claimed divine power. A wise religious teacher, who saw himself misunderstood as a.s.serting that he could give what he only meant to a.s.sure a penitent that G.o.d would give, would have instantly said, "Do not mistake me. I am only doing what every servant of G.o.d"s should and can do, telling this poor brother that G.o.d is ready to forgive. G.o.d forbid that I should be supposed to do more than to declare his forgiveness!" Christ"s answer is the strongest possible contrast to that. He knew what these Pharisees supposed Him to have meant by His authoritative words, and knowing it, He repeats them, and points to the miracle about to be done as their vindication.
Is there any possible way of escaping from the conclusion that Jesus solemnly and deliberately laid claim to exercise the divine prerogative of dispensing pardon? If He did, what shall we say of Him? Surely there is no third judgment of Him and His words possible; but either the Pharisees were right, and "this man," this pattern of all meekness and perfect example of humility, blasphemed, or else Peter was right when he said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living G.o.d."
The third lesson is that the visible effects of Christ"s power attest the reality of His claim to produce the invisible effects of peaceful a.s.surance of forgiveness. It was equally easy to say, "Thy sins are forgiven thee," and to say, "Take up thy bed and walk." It was equally impossible for a mere man to forgive, and to give the paralytic muscular force to move. But the one saying could be tested, and its fulfilment verified by sight. The other could not; but if the visible impossibility was done, it was a witness that the invisible one could be.
The striking way in which our Lord weaves in His command to the palsied man to take up his bed with His words to the Pharisees is preserved in all the Gospels, and gives vividness to the narrative, while it brings out the main purpose of the miracle. It was a demonstration in the visible sphere of Christ"s power in the invisible. Both were divine acts, and that which could be verified by sight established the reality of that which could not.
The same principle may be widely extended. It includes all the outward effects of Christ"s gospel in the world. There are abundance of these which are patent to fair-minded observers. If one wishes to know what these are, he has only to contrast heathen lands with those in which, however imperfectly, Jesus is recognised as King and Example. The lives of His disciples are full of faults, but they should, and in a measure, do, witness to the reality of His gifts of forgiveness and conquest of sin. He has done more to restore strength to humanity paralysed for good than all other would-be physicians put together have done; and since He has visibly effected such manifest changes on outward lives, it is no rash conclusion to draw that He can change the inward nature. If He has healed the palsy, that is a work surpa.s.sing human power, and it proves that He can forgive the sin which brought the paralysis, and tied the helpless sufferer to his couch of pain.
LAWS OF THE KINGDOM
"And He lifted up His eyes on His disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of G.o.d, 21. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. 22. Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man"s sake. 23. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy; for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. 24. But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
25. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger.
Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. 26. Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
27. But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28. Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. 29. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also. 30. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. 31. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."--LUKE vi. 20-31.
Luke condenses and Matthew expands the Sermon on the Mount. The general outline is the same in both versions. The main body of both is a laying down the law for Christ"s disciples. Luke, however, characteristically omits what is prominent in Matthew, the polemic against Pharisaic righteousness, and the contrast between the moral teaching of Christ and that of the law. These were appropriate in a Gospel which set forth Jesus as the crown of earlier revelation, while Luke is true to the broad humanities of his Gospel, in setting forth rather the universal aspect of Christian duty, and gathering it all into the one precept of love.
The fragment which forms the present pa.s.sage falls into two parts--the description of the subjects of the kingdom and their blessedness, contrasted with the character of the rebels; and the summing up of the law of the kingdom in the all-including commandment of love.
I. The subjects and blessedness of the kingdom, and the rebels. It is to be well kept in view that the discourse is addressed to "His disciples." That fact remembered would have saved some critics from talking nonsense about the discrepancy between Luke and Matthew, and supposing that the former meant merely literal poverty, hunger, and tears. No doubt he omits the decisive words which appear in Matthew, who appends "in spirit" to "poor," and "after righteousness" to "hunger and thirst," but there is no ground for supposing that Luke meant anything else than Matthew.
Notice that in our pa.s.sage the sayings are directly addressed to the disciples, while in Matthew they are cast into the form of general propositions. In that shape, the additions were needed to prevent misunderstanding of Christ, as if He were talking like a vulgar demagogue, flattering the poor, and inveighing against the rich.
Matthew"s view of the force of the expressions is involved in Luke"s making them an address _to the disciples.,_ "Ye poor" at once declares that our Lord is not thinking of the whole cla.s.s of literally needy, but of such of these as He saw willing to learn of Him. No doubt, the bulk of them were poor men as regards the world"s goods, and knew the pinch of actual want, and had often had to weep.
But their earthly poverty and misery had opened their hearts to receive Him, and that had trans.m.u.ted the outward wants and sorrows into spiritual ones, as is evident from their being disciples; and these are the characteristics which He p.r.o.nounces blessed. In this democratic and socialistic age, it is important to keep clearly in view the fact that Jesus was no flatterer of poor men as such, and did not think that circ.u.mstances had such power for good or evil, as that virtue and true blessedness were their prerogatives.
The foundation characteristic is poverty of spirit, the consciousness of one"s own weakness, the opposite of the delusion that we are "rich and increased with goods." All true subjection to the kingdom begins with that accurate, because lowly, estimate of ourselves. Humility is life, lofty mindedness is death. The heights are barren, rivers and fertility are down in the valleys.
Luke makes hunger the second characteristic, and weeping the third, while Matthew inverts that order. Either arrangement suggests important thoughts. Desire after the true riches naturally follows on consciousness of poverty, while, on the other hand, sorrow for one"s conscious lack of these may be regarded as preceding and producing longing. In fact, the three traits of character are contemporaneous, and imply each other. Outward condition comes into view, only in so far as it tends to the production of these spiritual characteristics, and has, in fact, produced them, as it had done, in some measure, in the disciples. The ant.i.thetical characteristics of the adversaries of the kingdom are, in like manner, mainly spiritual; and their riches, fullness, and laughter refer to circ.u.mstances only in so far as actual wealth, abundance, and mirth tend to hide from men their inward dest.i.tution, starvation, and misery.
But what paradoxes to praise all that flesh abhors, and to declare that it is better to be poor than rich, better to feel gnawing desire than to be satisfied, better to weep than to laugh! How little the so-called Christian world believes it! How dead against most men"s theory and practice Christ goes! These Beat.i.tudes have a solemn warning for all, and if we really believed them, our lives would be revolutionised. The people who say, "Give me the Sermon on the Mount: I don"t care for your doctrines, but I can understand _it," have not felt the grip of these Beat.i.tudes.
Note that the blessings and woes are based on the future issues of the two states of mind. These are not wholly in the future life, for Jesus says, "Yours _is_ the kingdom." That kingdom is a state of obedience to G.o.d, complete in that future world, but begun here.
True poverty secures entrance thither, since it leads to submission of will and trust. True hunger is sure of satisfaction, since it leads to waiting on G.o.d, who "will fulfil the desire of them that fear Him." Sorrow which is according to G.o.d, cannot but bring us near Him who "will wipe away tears from off all faces."
On the other hand, they who in condition are prosperous and satisfied with earth, and in disposition are devoid of suspicion of their own emptiness, and draw their joys and sorrows from this world alone, cannot but have a grim awaking waiting for them. Here they will often feel that earth"s goods are no solid food, and that nameless yearnings and sadness break in on their mirth; and in the dim world beyond, they will start to find their hands empty and their souls starving.
The fourth of Luke"s Beat.i.tudes contrasts the treatment received from men by the subjects and the enemies of the kingdom. Better to be Christ"s martyr than the world"s favourite! Alas, how few Christians wear the armour of that great saying! They would not set so much store by popularity, nor be so afraid of being on the unpopular side, if they did.
II. The second part of the pa.s.sage contains the summary of the laws of the kingdom from the lips of the King. Its keynote is love. The precept follows strikingly on the predictions of excommunication and hatred. The only weapon to fight hate is love. "The hate of hate, the scorn of scorn," are not Christian dispositions, though Tennyson tells us that they are the poet"s. So much the worse for him if they are! First, the commandment, so impossible to us unless our hearts are made Christlike by much dwelling with Christ, is laid down in the plainest terms. Enmity should only stimulate love, as a gash in some tree bearing precious balsam makes the fragrant treasure flow.
Who of us has conformed to that law which in three words sums up perfection? How few of us have even honestly tried to conform to it!
But the command becomes more stringent as it advances. The sentiment is worth much, but it must bear fruit in act. So the practical manifestations of it follow. Deeds of kindness, words of blessing, and highest of all, and the best help to fulfilling the other two, prayer, are to be our meek answers to evil. Why should Christians always let their enemies settle the terms of intercourse? They are not to be mere reverberating surfaces, giving back echoes of angry voices. Let us take the initiative, and if men scowl, let us meet them with open hearts and smiles. "A soft answer turneth away wrath." "It takes two to make a quarrel." Frost and snow bind the earth in chains, but the silent sunshine conquers at last, and evil can be overcome with good.
Our Lord goes on to speak of another form of love--namely, patient endurance of wrong and unreasonableness. He puts that in terms so strong that many readers are fain to pare down their significance.
Non-resistance is commanded in the most uncompromising fashion, and ill.u.s.trated in the cases of a.s.sault, robbery, and pertinacious mendicancy. The world stands stiffly on its rights; the Christian is not to bristle up in defence of his, but rather to suffer wrong and loss. This is regarded by many as an impossible ideal. But it is to be observed that the principle involved is that love has no limits but itself. There may be resistance to wrong, and refusal of a request, if love prompts to these. If it is better for the other man that a Christian should not let him have his way or his wish, and if the Christian, in resisting or refusing, is honestly actuated by love, then he is fulfilling the precept when he says "No" to some pet.i.tion, or when he resists robbery. We must live near Jesus Christ to know when such limitations of the precept come in, and to make sure of our motives.