fact, that, of those who had heen healed or raised from the dead by Christ, some were still alive, and all were well known, [a Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 3.] On the otherhand, the only real ground for rejecting this narrative is disbelief in the Miraculous, including, of course, rejection of the Christ as the Miracle of Miracles. But is it not vicious reasoning in a circle, as well as begging the question, to reject the Miraculous because we discredit the Miraculous? and does not such rejection involve much more of the incredible than faith itself?
And so, with all Christendom, we gladly take it, in simplicity of faith, as a true record by true men, all the more, that they who told it knew it to be so incredible, as not only to provoke scorn, [b Acts xvii. 32; xxvi. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 12-19.] but to expose them to the charge of cunningly
devising fables, [c 2 Pet. i. 16.] But they who believe, see in this history, how the Divine Conqueror, in His accidental meeting with Death, with mighty arm rolled back the tide, and how through the portals of heaven which He opened stole in upon our world the first beam of the new day. Yet another, in some sense lower, in another, practically higher, lesson do we learn. For, this meeting of the two processions outside the gate of Nain was accidental, yet not in the conventional sense. Neither the arrival of Jesus at that place and time, nor that of the funeral procession from Nain, nor their meeting, was either designed or else miraculous. Both happened in the natural course of natural events, but their concurrence [ 1[ The term rendered in the A.V. 'chance' (St. Luke x. 31), means literally, the coming together, the meeting, A.V. 'chance' (St. Luke x. 31), means literally, the coming together, the meeting, or concurrence of events.] was designed, and directly God-caused. In this God-caused, designed concurrence of events, in themselves ordinary and natural, lies the mystery of special Providences, which, to whomsoever they happen, he may and should regard them as miracles and answer to prayer. And this principle extends much farther: to the prayer for, and provision of, daily bread, nay, to mostly all things, so that, to those who have ears to hear, all things around speak in parables of the kingdom of Heaven.
But on those who saw this miracle at Nain fell the fear [2 Lit. 'fear took all]of the felt Divine Presence, and over their souls swept the hymn of Divine praise, because God had visited [4 Significaltly, the same expression as in St. Luke i. 68.] His people. And further and wider spread the wave, over Judaea, and beyond it, until it washed, and broke in faint murmur against the prison-walls, within which the Baptist awaited his martyrdom. Was He then the 'Coming One?' and, if so, why did, or how could, those walls keep His messenger within grasp of the tyrant? [5 The embassy of the Baptist will be described in connection with the account of his martyrdom.]
THE ASCENT: FROM THE RIVER JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION. THE WOMAN WHICH WAS A SINNER CHAPTER XXI
(St. Luke vii. 36-50.)
The precise date and place of the next recorded event in this Galilean journey of the Christ are left undetermined. It can scarcely have occurred in the quiet little town of Nain, indeed, is scarcely congrous with the scene which had been there enacted. And yet it must have followed almost immediately upon it. We infer this, not only from the silence of St. Matthew, which in this instance might have been due, not to the temporary detention of that Evangelist in Capernaum, while the others had followed Christ to Nain, but to whaat may be called the sparingness of detail in the Gospel-narratives, each Evangelist relating mostly only one in a group of kindred events. [1 This is specially characteristic of the Gospel by St. Luke.] But other indications determine our inference. The embassy of the Baptist's disciples (which will be described in another connection [2 See note in previous chapter.] undoubtedly followed on the raising of the young man of Nain. This embassy would scarcely have come to Jesus in Nain. It probably reached Him on His farther Missionary journey, to which there seems some reference in the passage in the First Gospel [a St.
Matt. xi. 20-30] which succeeds the account of that embassy. The actual words there recorded can, indeed, scarcely have been spoken at that time. They belong to a later period on that Mission-journey, and mark more fully developed opposition and rejection of the Christ than in those early days. Chronologically, they are in their proper place in St. Luke's Gospel, [b St. Luke x. 13-22] where they follow in connection with that Mission of the Seventy, which, in part at least, was prompted by the growing enmity to the Person of Jesus. On the other hand, this Mission of the Seventy, is not recorded by St. Matthew. Accordingly, he inserts those prophetic denunciations which, according to the plan of his Gospel, could not have been omitted, at the beginning of this Missionary journey, because it marks the beginning of that systematic opposition, [a St. Matt. xi. 16-19] the full development of which, as already stated, prompted the Mission of the Seventy.
Yet, even so, the impression left upon us by St. Matt. xi. 20-30 (which follows on the account of the Baptist's embassy) is, that Jesus was on a journey, and it may well be that those precious words of encouragement and invitation, spoken to the burdened and wearily labouring, [b St. Matt. xi. 28-30] formed part, perhaps the substance, of His preaching on that journey. Truly these were 'good tidings,' and not only to those borne down by weight of conscious sinfulness or deep sorrow, who wearily toiled towards the light of far-off peace, or those dreamt-of heights where some comprehensive view might be gained of life with its labours and pangs. 'Good news,' also, to them who would fain have 'learned' according to their capacity, but whose teachers had weighted 'the yoke of the Kingdom' [1 Made 'the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven' () equal to 'the yoke of ihe Law' () or to that 'of the commandments' ().] to a heavy burden, and made the Will of God to them labour, weary and unaccomplishable. But, whether or not spoken at that special time, we cannot fail to recognise their special suitableness to the 'forgiven sinner' in the Pharisee's house, [c St. Luke vii. 36] and their inward, even if not outward, connection with her history.
Another point requires notice. It is how, in the unfolding of His Mission to Man, the Christ progressively placed Himself in antagonism to the Jewish religious thought of His time, from out of which He had historically sprung. In this part of His earthly course the antagonism appeared, indeed, so to speak, in a positive rather than negative form, that is, rather in what He affirmed than in what He combated, because the opposition to Him was not yet fully developed; whereas in the second part of His course it was, for a similar reason, rather negative than positive. From the first this antagonism was there in what He taught and did; and it appeared with increasing distinctness in proportion as He taught. We find it in the whole spirit and bearing of what he did and said, in the house at Capernaum, in the Synagogues, with the Gentile Centurion, at the gate of Nain, and especially here, in the history of the much forgiven woman who had much sinned. A Jewish Rabbi could not have so acted and spoken; he would not even have understood Jesus; nay, a Rabbi, however gentle and pitiful, would in word and deed have taken precisely the opposite direction from that of the Christ.
As St. Gregory expresses it, this is perhaps a history more fit to be wept over than commented upon. For comments seem so often to interpose between the simple force of a narrative and our hearts, and few events in the Gospel-history have been so blunted and turned aside as this history, through verbal controversies and dogmatic wrangling.
The first impression on our minds is, that the history itself is but a fragment. We must try to learn from its structure, where and how it was broken off. We understand the infinite delicacy that
left her unnamed, the record of whose 'much forgiveness' and great love had to be joined to that of her much sin. And we mark, in contrast, the coarse clumsiness which, without any reason for the assertion, to meet the cravings of morbid curiosity, or for saint-worship, has associated her history with the name of Mary Magdalene. [1 The untenablenessof this strange hypothesis has been shown in almost all commentaries. There is not a tittle of evidence for it.] Another, and perhaps even more painful, mistake is the attempt of certain critics to identify this history with the much later anointing of Christ at Bethany, [a St. Matt. xxvi. 6&c. and parallels.] and to determine which of the two is the simpler, and which the more ornate, which the truer of the accounts, and whence, or why each case there was a 'Simon', perhaps the commonest of Jewish names; a woman who anointed; and that Christ, and those who were present, spoke and acted in accordance with other passages in the Gospel- history: [2 The objections of Keim, though bulking largely when heaped together by him, seem not only unfair, but, when examined one by one, are seen to be groundless.] that is, true to their respective histories. But, such twofold anointing, the first, at the beginning of His works of mercy, of the Feet by a forgiven, loving sinner on whom the Sun had just risen; the second, of His Head, by a loving disciple, when the full-orbed Sun was setting in blood, at the close of His Ministry, is, as in the twofold purgation of the Temple at the beginning and close of His Work, only like the completing of the circle of His Life.
The invitation of Simon the Pharisee to his table does not necessarily indicate, that he had been impressed by
