would they have had to say? And He ever speaks for us, when we cannot answer for ourselves. From their own standpoint and contention, nay, also in their own form of speech, He answered the Pharisees. And He not only silenced their gain-saying, but further opened up the meaning of His acting, nay, His very purpose and Mission. 'No need have they who are strong and in health [b The latter in St. Luke v. 31.] of a physician, but they who are ill.' It was the very principle of Pharisaism which He thus set forth, alike as regarded their self-exclusion from Him and His consorting with the diseased. And, as the more Hebraic St. Matthew adds, applying the very Rabbinic formula, so often used when superficial speciousness of knowledge is directed to further thought and information: 'Go and learn!' [1 , a very common formula, where further thought and instruction are required. So common, indeed, is it, that it is applied in the sense of'let,' such or such thing 'come and teach' (). Sometimes the formula is varied, as , 'come and see' (Baba Bath. 10 a), or, 'go and see' (u. s., b).] Learn what? What their own Scriptures meant; what was implied in the further prophetic teaching, as correction of a one-sided literalism and externalism that misinterpreted the doctrine of sacrifices, learn that fundamental principle of the spiritual meaning of the Law as explanatory of its mere letter, 'I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.' They knew no mercy that was not sacrifice [2 Even in that beautiful page in the Talmud (Succ. 49 b) righteousness and sacrifices are compared, the former being declared the greater; and
then righteousness is compared with works of kindness with alms, &c] with merit attaching; He no sacrifice, real and acceptable to God, that was not mercy. And this also is a fundamental principle of the Old Testament, as spiritually understood; and, being such a fundamental principle, He afterwards again applied this saying of the prophet [c Hos. vi. 6.] to His own mode of viewing and treating the Sabbath-question, [d St. Matt. xii. 7.]
This was one aspect of it, as Jesus opened up anew the Old Testament, of which their key of knowledge had only locked the door. There was yet another and higher, quite explaining and applying alike this saying and the whole Old Testament, and thus His Own Mission. And this was the fullest unfolding and highest vindication of it: 'For, I am not come to call righteous men, but sinners.' [1 Mark the absence of the Article.] The introduction of the words 'torepentance' in some manuscripts of St. Matthew and St. Mark shows, how early the full meaning of Christ's words was misinterpreted by prosaic apologetic attempts, that failed to fathom their depth. For, Christ called sinners to better and higher than repentance, even to Himself and His Kingdom; and to 'emendate' the original record by introducing these words from another Gospel [2 See the note on p. 507.] marks a purpose, indicative of retrogression. And this saying of Christ concerning the purpose of His Incarnation and Work: 'to call not righteous men, but sinners,' also marks the standpoint of the Christ, and the relation which each of us, according to his view of self, of righteousness, and of sin, personally, voluntarily, and deliberately, occupies towards the Kingdom and the Christ.
The history of the call of St. Matthew has also another, to some extent subordinate, historical interest, for it was no doubt speedily followed by the calling of the other Apostles, [a St. Matt. x. 2-4; St. Mark iii. 13-19; St. Luke vi. 12-19.] This is the chronological succession in the Synoptic narratives. It also affords some insight into the history of those, whom the Lord chose as bearers of His Gospel. The difficulties connected with tracing the family descent or possible relationship between the Apostles are so great, that we must forego all hope of arriving at any certain conclusion. Without, therefore, entering on details about the genealogy of the Apostles, and the varied arrangement of their names in the Gospels, which, with whatever uncertainty remaining in the end, may be learned from any work on the subject, some points at least seem clear. First, it appears that only the calling of those to the Apostolate is related, which in some sense is typical, viz. that of Peter and Andrew, of James and John, of Philip and Bartholomew (or Bar Telamyon, or Temalyon, [b Vayyik. R. 6; Pesiq, R. 22, ed. Friedm. p. 113 a.] generally supposed the same as Nathanael), and of Matthew the publican. Yet, secondly, there is something which attaches to each of the others. Thomas, who is called Didymus (which means 'twin'), is closely connected with Matthew, both in St. Luke's Gospel and in that of St. Matthew himself. James is expressly named as the son of Alphaeus or Clopas. [c St. John xix. 25.][3 Thus he would be the same as 'James the Less,' or rather 'the Little,' a son of Mary, the sister-in-law of the Virgin-Mother.] This we know to have been also the name of Matthew-Levi's father. But, as the name was a common one, no inference can be drawn from it, and it does not seem likely that the father of Matthew was also that of James, Judas, and Simon, for these three seem to have been brothers. Judas is designated by St. Matthew as Lebbaeus, from the Hebrew lebh, a heart, and is also named, both by him and by St. Mark, Thaddaeus, a term which, however, we would not derive, as is commonly done, from thad, the 'female breast,' but following the analogy of the Jewish name Thodah, from 'praise.' [1 As is done in the Rabbinic story where Thaddaeus appeals to Ps. c. 1 (superscription) to save his life, while the Rabbis reply by appealing to Ps. 1. 23: 'Whoso offereth praise (thodah) glorifieth Me' (Sanh. 43 a, Chesr. haSh.).] In that case both Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus would point to the
heartiness and the Thanksgiving of the Apostle, and hence to his character. St. Luke simply designates him Judas of James, which means that he was the brother (less probably, the son) of James, [a St. Luke vi. 15; comp. St. John xiv. 22.] Thus his real name would have been Judas Lebbaeus, and his surname Thaddaeus. Closely connected with these two we have in all the Gospels, Simon, surnamed Zelotes or Cananaean (not Canaanite), both terms indicating his original connection with the Galilean Zealot party, the 'Zealots for the Law.' [b War. iv. 3, 9.] His position in the Apostolic Catalogue, and the testimony of Hegesippus, [c Euseb. H. E. iii. 11; iv. 22.] seem to point him out as the son of Clopas, and brother of James, and of Judas Lebbaeus. These three were, in a sense, cousins of Christ, since, according to Hegesippus, Clopas was the brother of Joseph, while the sons of Zebedee were real cousins, their mother Salome being a sister of the Virgin. [2 As to the identity of the names Alphaeus and Clopas, comp. Wetzel in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. for 1883, Heft iii. See also further remarks on the sons of Clopas, in the comment on St. John xix. 25 in Book V. ch. xv.] Lastly, we have Judas Iscariot, or Ish Kerioth, 'a man of Kerioth,' a man of Kerioth,' a town inJudah. [d Josh. xv. 25.] Thus the betrayer alone would be of Judaean origin, the others all of Galilean; and this may throw light on not a little in his after-history.
No further reference than this briefest sketch seems necessary, although on comparison it is clear that the Apostolic Catalogues in the Gospels are ranged in three groups, each of them beginning with respectively the same name (Simon, Philip, and James the son of Alphaeus). This, however, we may remark, how narrow, after all, was the Apostolic circle, and how closely connected most of its members. And yet, as we remember the history of their calling, or those notices attached to their names which afford a glimpse into their history, it was a circle, thoroughly representative of those who would gather around the Christ. Most marked and most solemn of all, it was after a night of solitary prayer on the mountain-side, that Jesus at early dawn 'called His disciples, and of them He chose twelve, whom also He named Apostles,' 'that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sickness and to cast out devils.' [1 As to the designation Boanerges (sons of thunder), see note 2, p. 514.]
THE ASCENT: FROM THE RIVER JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST AND RABBINIC TEACHING. [1 As it was impossible to quote separately the different verses in the Sermon on the Mount, the reader is requested to have the Bible before him, so as to compare the verses referred to with their commentation in this chapter.]
CHAPTER XV
in
(St. Matt, v.-vii.)
It was probably on one of those mountain-ranges, which stretch to the north of Capernaum, that Jesus had spent the night of lonely prayer, which preceded the designation of the twelve to the Apostolate. As the soft spring morning broke, He called up those who had learned to follow Him, and from among them chose the twelve, who were to be His Ambassadors and Representatives, [a
St. Luke vi. 13.] [2 It is so that we group together St. Luke vi. 12, 13, 17-19, compared with St. Mark iii. 13-15 and St. Matthew v. 1, 2.] But already the early light had guided the eager multitude which, from all parts, had come to the broad level plateau beneath to bring to Him their need of soul or body. To them He now descended with words of comfort and power of healing. But better yet had He to say, and to do for them, and for us all. As they pressed around Him for that touch which brought virtue of healing to all, He retired again to the mountain-height,
