While on a visit to Syria, after having spent several years in this country, where I had lived almost exclusively with Americans, I was very strongly impressed by the decidedly sharp contrast between the Syrian and the American modes of thought. The years had worked many {127} changes in me, and I had become addicted to the more compact phraseology of the American social code.
In welcoming me to his house, an old friend of mine spoke with impressive cheerfulness as follows: "You have extremely honored me by coming into my abode [_menzel_], I am not worthy of it. This house is yours; you can burn it if you wish. My children also are at your disposal; I would sacrifice them all for your pleasure. What a blessed day this is, now that the light of your countenance has shone upon us"; and so forth, and so on.
I understood my friend fully and most agreeably, although it was not easy for me to translate his words to my American wife without causing her to be greatly alarmed at the possibility that the house would be set on fire and the children slain for our pleasure. What my friend really meant in his effusive welcome was no more or less than what a gracious American host means when he says, "I am delighted to see you; please make yourself at home."
{128}
Had the creed-makers of Christendom approached the Bible by way of Oriental psychology, had they viewed the Scriptures against the background of Syrian life, they would not have dealt with Holy Writ as a jurist deals with legislative enactments. Again, had the unfriendly critics of the Bible real acquaintance with the land of its birth, they would not have been so sure that the Bible was "a ma.s.s of impossibilities." The sad fact is that the Bible has suffered violence from literalists among its friends, as from its enemies.
For example, in their failure to heal a sick lad[4] the disciples came to Jesus and asked him why they could not do the beneficent deed.
According to the Revised and the Arabic versions, the Master answered, "Because of your unbelief; for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove." Colonel Robert Ingersoll never tired of challenging the Christians {129} of America to put this scripture to a successful test, and thus _convince_ him that the Bible is inspired. In the face of such a challenge the "believer" is likely to feel compelled to admit that the church does not have the required amount of faith, else it could remove mountains.
To one well acquainted with the Oriental manner of speech this saying was not meant to fix a rule of conduct, but to idealize faith. In order to do this in real Syrian fashion, Jesus spoke of an infinitesimal amount of faith as being capable of moving the biggest object on earth. His disciples must have understood him clearly, because we have no record that they ever tried to remove mountains by faith and prayer. It would be most astounding, indeed, if Christ really thought that those disciples, who forsook all and followed him, had not as much faith as a grain of mustard seed, and yet said to them, "Ye are the light of the world. Ye are the salt of the earth."
Of a similar character is the Master"s saying, {130} "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of G.o.d,"[5] which has quickened the exegetical genius of commentators to mighty efforts in "expounding the Scriptures."
Judging by the vast number of persons in this country who have asked my opinion, as a Syrian, concerning its correctness, and the fact that I have myself seen it in print, the following interpretation of this pa.s.sage must have been much in vogue.
The walled cities and feudal castles of Palestine, the explanation runs, have large gates. Because of their great size, such gates are opened only on special occasions to admit chariots and caravans.
Therefore, in order to give pedestrians thoroughfare, a smaller opening about the size of an ordinary door is made in the center of the great gate, near to the ground. Now this smaller door through which a camel cannot pa.s.s is the eye of the needle mentioned in the Gospel.
{131}
I once heard a Sunday-School superintendent explain this pa.s.sage to his scholars by saying that a camel could pa.s.s through this eye of a needle--meaning the door--if he was not loaded. Therefore, and by a.n.a.logy, if we cast off our load of sin outside, we can easily enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Were the camel and the gate left out, this statement would be an excellent fatherly admonition. There is perhaps no gate in the celestial city large enough to admit a man with a load of sin strapped to his soul. However, the chief trouble with these explanations of the "eye-of-the-needle" pa.s.sage is that they are wholly untrue.
This saying is current in the East, and in all probability it was a common saying there long before the advent of Christ. But I never knew that small door in a city or a castle gate to be called the needle"s eye; nor indeed the large gate to be called the needle. The name of that door, in the common speech of the country, is the "plum," and I am certain the {132} Scriptural pa.s.sage makes no reference to it whatever.
The Koran makes use of this expression in one of its purest cla.s.sical Arabic pa.s.sages. The term employed here--_sm-el-khiat_--can mean only the sewing instrument, and nothing else.
Nothing can show more clearly the genuine Oriental character of this New Testament pa.s.sage and that of the Teacher who uttered it, than the intense positiveness of its thought and the unrestrained flight of its imagery. I can just hear the Master say it. Jesus" purpose was to state that it was extremely difficult "for them that trust in riches to enter into the Kingdom of G.o.d."[6] To this end he chose the biggest animal and the smallest opening known to his people and compared the impossibility of a camel pa.s.sing through the eye of a needle with that of a man weighted down with earthly things becoming one with G.o.d.
The Master"s rebuke of the scribes and pharisees, {133} "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel,"[7] expresses a similar thought in a different form and connection. There is no need here to puzzle over the anatomical problem as to whether the throat of a Pharisee was capacious enough to gulp a camel down. The strong and agreeable Oriental flavor of this saying comes from the sharp contrast between the size of the gnat and that of the camel. So the Master employed it in order to show the glaring contradictions in the precepts and practices of the priests of his day, who t.i.thed mint and rue, but "pa.s.sed over judgment and the love of G.o.d."
One of the most interesting examples of Oriental speech is found in the eighteenth chapter of St. Matthew"s Gospel, the twenty-first verse: "Then came Peter and said to him, Lord how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, until seven times; but, until seventy times seven." Did Jesus {134} really mean that an offender should be forgiven four hundred and ninety times? Would it be to the interest of the offender himself and to society at large to forgive an embezzler, a slanderer or a prevaricator four hundred and ninety times? Is not punishment which is guided by reason and sympathy, and whose end is corrective, really a great aid in character-building? Let us try to interpret this pa.s.sage with reference to certain scenes in Jesus" own life. In the sixteenth chapter of Matthew, the twenty-first verse, we read: "From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, _Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence to me_: for thou savourest not the things that be of G.o.d, but those that be of men."
In the second chapter of St. John"s Gospel, {135} the thirteenth verse, we are told: "And the Jews" pa.s.sover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: _and when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple_, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers" money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father"s house an house of merchandise."
The forgiving "seventy times seven" did not apply, as it seems, in these cases. In the very chapter from which this saying comes,[8] the Master gives us two superb examples of certain and somewhat swift retribution for offenses. In the fifteenth verse, he says: "Moreover, if thy brother shall trespa.s.s against thee, go tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth {136} of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, _let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican_."
The parable of the "certain king" and the "wicked servant" follows immediately the "seventy times seven" pa.s.sage. "Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment be made. The servant therefore fell down and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the Lord of that servant was moved with compa.s.sion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, {137} and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: shouldest not thou also have had compa.s.sion on thy fellow-servant, even as I had pity on thee? _And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him_. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespa.s.ses."
Now as a matter of fact the lord of the wicked servant did not forgive him seventy times seven, but "delivered him to the tormentors" for his first offense. Will the heavenly Father do {138} _likewise_? Do we not have irreconcilable contradictions in these Scriptural pa.s.sages?
No doubt there are difficulties here. But once the "seventy-times-seven" pa.s.sage is clearly understood, the difficulties will, I believe, disappear. In harmony with his legalistic preconception, Peter chose the full and sacred number "seven" as a very liberal measure of forgiveness. Apparently Jesus" purpose was to make forgiveness a matter of disposition, sympathy, and discretion, rather than of arithmetic. To this end he made use of an Oriental saying which meant _indefiniteness_, rather than a fixed rule. This saying occurs in one of the most ancient Old Testament narratives, and, most fittingly, in a bit of poetry:[9]
"And Lamech said unto his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: For I have slain a man for wounding me, And a young man for bruising me: If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."
{139}
In both Testaments the meaning of the saying is the same--indefiniteness. It is one of that host of Bible pa.s.sages and current Oriental sayings which must be judged by what they _mean_, and not by what they _say_. The writer of the eighteenth chapter of Matthew grouped those seemingly contradictory pa.s.sages together, because they all dealt with forgiveness. That they must have been spoken under various circ.u.mstances is very obvious. The object of the admonition concerning the trespa.s.sing brother (verses 15-17) is to encourage Christians to "reason together" in a fraternal spirit about the differences which may arise between them, and, _if at all possible_, to win the offending member back to the fold. And the object of the parable of the "wicked servant" is to contrast the spirit of kindness with that of cruelty.
[1] Matt. v: 29-30.
[2] Matt. v: 39-41.
[3] Lev. xxv: 35; Revised Version.
[4] Matt. xvii: 19.
[5] Matt. xix: 24.
[6] Mark x: 24.
[7] Matt. xxiii: 24.
[8] Matt. xviii.
[9] Gen. iv: 23; Revised Version.
{140}
CHAPTER VI
SPEAKING IN PARABLES
Teaching and conversing in parables and proverbs is a distinctly Oriental characteristic. A parable is a word picture whose purpose is not to construct a definition or to establish a doctrine, but to convey an impression. However, the Oriental makes no distinction between a proverb and a parable. In both the Hebrew and the Arabic, the word _mathel_ signifies either a short wise saying, such as may be found in the Book of Proverbs, or a longer utterance, such as a New Testament parable. In the Arabic Bible, the wise sayings of the Book of Proverbs are called _amthal_, and the parabolic discourses of Jesus are also called _amthal_. This term is the plural of _mathel_ (parable or proverb). This designation includes also any wise poetical saying, or any human state of fortune or adversity. Thus a very generous man becomes a _mathel bilkaram_ (a parable of generosity); and a man {141} of unsavory reputation becomes a _mathel beinenna.s.s_ (a saying or a by-word among the people). In the forty-fourth Psalm, the fourteenth verse, the poet cries: "Thou makest us a by-word among the nations, a shaking of the head among the people." A fine ill.u.s.tration of the _mathel_ as a poetical saying, although not strictly allegorical, is the opening pa.s.sage of the twenty-ninth chapter of the Book of Job, where it is said:--
"And Job again took up his parable and said, Oh that I were as in the months of old, As in the days when G.o.d watched over me; When his lamp shined upon my head, And by his light I walked through darkness; As I was in the ripeness of my days, When the friendship of G.o.d was upon my tent; When the Almighty was yet with me, And my children were about me; When my steps were washed with b.u.t.ter, And the rock poured me out rivers of oil!"[1]
Where in human literature can we find a pa.s.sage to surpa.s.s in beauty and tenderness this introspective utterance?
{142}
Parabolic speech is dear to the Oriental heart. It is poetical, mystical, sociable. In showing the reason why Jesus taught in parables, Biblical writers speak of the indirect method, the picture language, the concealing of the truth from those "who had not the understanding," and so forth. But those writers fail to mention a most important reason, namely, the _sociable_ nature of such a method of teaching, which is so dear to the Syrian heart. In view of the small value the Orientals place upon time, the story-teller, the speaker in parables, is to them the most charming conversationalist. Why be so prosy, brief, and abstract? The spectacular charm and intense concreteness of the parable of the Prodigal Son is infinitely more agreeable to the Oriental mind than the general precept that G.o.d will forgive his truly penitent children. How romantic and how enchanting to me are the memories of those _sehrat_ (evening gatherings) at my father"s house! How simple and how human was the homely wisdom of the stories and the parables which were spoken on {143} those occasions.
The elderly men of the clan loved to speak of what "was said in the ancient days" (_qadeem ezzeman_). "_Qal el-wathel_" (said the parable) prefaced almost every utterance. And as the speaker proceeded to relate a parable and to reinforce the ancient saying by what his own poetic fancy could create at the time of kindred material, we listened admiringly, and looked forward with ecstatic expectation to the _maana_ (meaning, or moral). Oral traditions, the Scriptures, Mohammedan literature, and other rich sources are drawn upon, both for instruction in wisdom and for entertainment.
In picturing the condition of one who has been demoralized beyond redemption, the entertaining speaker proceeds in this fashion: "Once upon a time a certain man fell from the housetop and was badly injured.
The neighbors came and carried him into the house and placed him in bed. Then one of his friends approached near to the injured man and said to him, "Asaad, my beloved friend, how is your condition [_kief halak_]?" The much-pained man {144} opened his mouth and said, "My two arms are broken; my back and one of my legs are broken; one of my eyes is put out; I am badly wounded in the breast, and feel that my liver is severed. But I trust that G.o.d will restore me." Whereupon his friend answered, "Asaad, I am distressed. But if this is your condition, it will be much easier for G.o.d to make a new man to take your place than to restore you!""
One of the most beautiful parables I know, and which I often heard my father relate, bears on the subject of partiality, and is as follows:--
"Once upon a time there were two men, the one named Ibrahim, the other Yusuf. Each of the men had a camel. It came to pa.s.s that when Yusuf fell sick he asked of his neighbor Ibrahim, who was about to journey to Alappo, to take his camel with him also, with a load of merchandise.