The teaching of Jesus

Front matter

His 4 et al it iesth ine

THE CINCINNATI BIBLE SEMINARY LIBRARY

Neto Testament Handbooks

Preface

Mopern theology concentrates its attention more ‘and more upon Jesus, — his life, character, and teaching. The numerous Lives of Christ and the many treatises upon different aspects of his doctrine, which have appeared within recent years, attest the eager interest which the Christian world feels in his person and history. The diminished emphasis which, by many schools of thought, is now placed upon other objects of religious and theological import— such as the letter of Scripture and ecclesiastical tradition — has served to increase the stress which is laid upon the supreme significance of Christ for the Christian knowledge of God. The dimming of other lights has but enhanced the brightness of his glory.

The aim of this volume is to aid in clarifying the meaning of Christ’s life and work by setting forth the principles of his teaching in a clear, succinct, and systematic form. The effort has been made to translate the thought of Jesus into modern terms, and so to correlate the different elements of his teaching as to exhibit its inner unity. His sayings have also been brought into frequent comparison with the Jewish vii viii PREFACE religious ideas of his age, in order to exhibit the historical background on which his teaching was presented, and thus to bring out into clearer relief its striking independence and originality.

The volume is designed as a text-book for schools and Bible classes and as a manual for private study. It is hoped that it will also prove useful to students of theology and ministers in their preparation for the work of teaching.

GEORGE BARKER STEVENS.

YALE UNIVERSITY, July 13, 1901.

Chapter I Jewish Religious Beliefs In The Time Of Jesus

The historical background of New Testament teaching — The legal and the prophetic tendencies in Judaism— The Jewish doctrine of God and that of Jesus contrasted — Jewish doctrine of the Kingdom of God and of the Messianic King — Reflections of these views in the New Testament — Jesus’ doctrine in contrast with them — Jewish doctrine of salvation — Its fundamental difference from that of Jesus.

Chapter II

Tuer Recorps or Jesus’ WorpDs AnD DEEDS. ; ;

The oral Gospel — Beginnings of evangelical literature — Patristic testimony concerning the Synoptics — The Logia — Two-source theory of the Synoptics — Characteristics of the three Synoptics — Historical value of these records—The fourth Gospel — Peculiarities of its type of teaching.

CHAPTER III Tue MeTHOops OF JESUS’ TEACHING

Jesus’ teaching contrasted with that of the artibes — His dialectic —Outward forms of his teaching — The parable — Its difference from the fable, the myth, the proverb, and the allegory — The interpretation of parables. ix

PAGE x CONTENTS

Chapter IV

Jesus’ ATTITUDE TOWARD THE OLD TESTAMENT Jesus’ teaching has its roots in the Old Testament — Yet is freely developed — Solution of this seeming

PAGE contradiction by the principle of fulfilment —Jesus’ - attitude toward the sacrificial system, the ceremonial law, the Sabbath — Examples of his fulfilment of the law — Scope of the principle.

Chapter V

Tue Kinepom or Gop The idea of the aned om of God i in ene Ola Toe ment and in the later Judaism — Jesus’ conception : the kingdom universal, spiritual, and both present and future — Definitions — The place of the kingdom in the teaching of Jesus.

Chapter VI

Central place of God’s fatherhood in the toachane of Jesus—God the Father of all men—The import of man’s sonship to God— How Jesus fulfils the Old Testament idea of God—‘‘He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.”’

CHAPTER VII THE Son or Man Use of the term in ie old Testament Develor ment of its Messianic meaning—Its use in the Synoptics— Theories respecting its import — Sketch of the ‘‘ Aramaic theory ’’ — Reasons for regarding it as a Messianic designation.

CHAPTER VIII Tue Son or Gop ; The use of the term in “he Old Testaments Tn later Jewish literature —In the Synoptics—In the

CONTENTS Xi

PAGE fourth Gospel — Designates the special object of the Father’s love and fayor— New Testament use of the title distinguished from the later theological meaning — The beginnings of speculative Christology.

CHAPTER IX

THE VALUE AND Destiny oF Man. ‘ . 106 Jesus’ estimate of the worth of man — His Bee eine of sin — Reasons for his divergence from the popular views— The pericope adulterae —Jesus did not pronounce sweeping judgments on human nature — Did not teach ‘‘total depravity ’’—The sin against the Holy Spirit — The basis of the belief in immortality.

CHAPTER X

Tue Narurat anp SrprriruaL Worips . : 5 Habel The problem of Jesus’ knowledge — J soca view and interpretation of nature — His attitude toward social joys — The family and divorce — Private property — Not an ascetic — Civil authority — Not a teacher of science or criticism — ‘‘ Demoniacal possession ’’ — Spoke the language of his age.

CHAPTER XI

THE RELIGION oF A Goop Lirz. . 130 Jesus’ doctrine of righteousness — Meanie mod requirements of love — Forgiveness — The passive virtues — Self-respect — Charity — Worship— Deeds and services — The grace and generosity of God — Condi-

tions on which love bestows its blessings.

.

CHAPTER XII

Tue MEANS OF SALVATION i . 140 The conditions of pepe losts saves (a) by teaching, (2) by personal example and influence, (8) by his death— Necessity for his death — His blood xii CONTENTS

PAGE shed for many —Theories concerning the saving significance of Jesus’ death — Statements of the fourth Gospel — Relation of his death to his life-work in general —Its relation to the ethical nature of God and to human sin.

CHAPTER XIII

Tre BELIEVING COMMUNITY . : . 150

Earlier and later meanings of ‘‘ chal 0 The two

passages in Matthew in which the word occurs — Dis-

cipline in the congregation — Binding and loosing —

The power of the keys — The ‘‘ primacy ’’ of Peter —

The Church and the Kingdom— Why a Christian

society was necessary — The Christian and the Jewish

Church — The ‘‘ great commission ’’ — The career of

the Church in history.

CHAPTER XIV

Tue SEeconp Comine 5 . 161

In connection with the inte of the proees Within

the lifetime of the hearers — In close connection with

the fall of Jerusalem — Shall be witnessed by the high

priest — Referred to in the parables —Summary of

the facts— Proposed explanations of the difficulties

which they present— The alternative — Conclusion

reached — Its relation to the current theories —

Christ’s coming in John.

CHAPTER XV

Tue RESURRECTION AND JUDGMENT . ; 5. Lbefirs Resurrection in the Synoptic teaching ites rosicn to Jewish thought — The subject as presented in the fourth Gospel — Jesus’ view ethical — The ‘‘ day ”’ of judgment — The parable of judgment — Various interpretations — Johannine doctrine of judgment — The principle of judgment.

——obegoo——

Chapter I Jewish Religious Beliefs In The Time Of Jesus!

Ir is now generally recognized among students of Importance the New Testament that it is necessary for the righ understanding of it to study the Jewish religious ideas which were current at the time when its books were written. These ideas constitute a background on which the teaching of the New Testament stands forth in clear relief. Accordingly we find that most recent writers who treat of the teaching of Jesus take full account of the religious beliefs which were common in his time. I propose, in this introductory chapter, to set forth some of the leading religious ideas which were current in the time of Jesus, with a view to illustrating the principal likenesses and differences between his teaching and the religious opinions of his age. The New Testament abounds with references to the thought-world of Jesus. His own discourses and parables make frequent allusions to the tenets of the

1 General References: Schiirer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ; Hausrath and Mathews on New Testament Times; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, Vol. I, Section i; Toy, Judaism and Christianity; Schiirer, Die Predigt Jesu Christi in ihrem Verhidltniss zum alten Testament und zum Judenthum; Bousset, Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judenthum; Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, ch. i; Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, ch. i; Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, Theil 1; Weber, Jiidische Theologie ; Goodspeed, Israel’s Messianic Hope.

B 1 t of the subject.

Allusions in the Gospels to the thought-world of Jesus.

The legal tendency of Judaism.

Pharisees and Sadducees. Many of the conversations which he held with his disciples, and many of the controversies which he carried on with his critics, turn upon points of current religious opinion. Objections were often made to his teaching, by the religious leaders of the period, on the ground that it was contrary to the received views and current practices of the prevailing religion. He was charged with violation of the sabbath, with failure to comply with the requirements of the law respecting lustrations and other ritual observances. By his enemies he was thought lax in the observance of the ceremonial, and even of the moral, requirements of the Old Testament. “ Why do thy disciples fast not?” was asked. ‘ Where ought men to worship?” ‘Which is the great commandment of the law?” ‘What does the Mosaic law require in this or that application of it? ” “ What attitude should one take up toward the Roman empire ? ”

Two general tendencies. are noticeable in Jewish thought, which we may roughly designate as the legal and the prophetic. The legal tendency is illustrated in the emphasis which was laid upon ritualistic and ceremonial observances, in the rigor with which the requirements of the Mosaic law were enforced, and in the importance which was attached to obedience to them in order to salvation. The legalistic spirit gave rise to the development of an oral law, full of specific exactions and minute refinements. Of these regulations the scribes were the recognized expounders. In their zeal for complete obedience to the law they had so elaborated, by argument and inference, its supposed requirements that the burden of compliance was, indeed, “ grievous to be borne.” !

1 On Scribism, see Mathews, History of N. T. Times, 161, 162; Schiirer, Jewish People, etc., Div. II, 1V, 306-351; Jewish Quarterly Review, January, 1901, 161-217.

The prophetic tendency finds its classic illustration in the moral and political teaching of the canonical prophets whose sermons have been preserved in the Old Testament. With them the principal emphasis was laid upon the moral and spiritual aspects of life. Righteousness, purity, conformity in thought and purpose with the will of God, were the burden of their

The prophetic tendency.

message. In the later Jewish period the legal ten- .

dency quite predominated over the prophetic. Religion had become a formal affair, a matter of outward observance and ritual. This is the aspect of the Jewish religion which meets us most prominently in the New Testament. It had profoundly affected both the theoretical and practical view which the Jewish people took of God and of the relations of mankind to him.

Approaching now more closely to our more immediate subject, we find that Jewish thought regarded God as sustaining a special relation to Israel. God was indeed a father, but he was preéminently, if not exclusively, the father of Israel. His relation to the rest of mankind was, to say the least, vague and undefined. It cannot be denied that this conception of God’s relation to Israel had a certain great truth and value. It tended to bind the people together into a close and compact unity. They regarded themselves as a people of God in an altogether exceptional and peculiar sense. This conviction gave them an intense realization of the presence of God in their life and history, and of his providential purpose in their development. Butit haditsdangers. It tended also to a certain narrowness in the conception which was cherished of God’s nature and character. It tended to the localization of God’s presence and to the limitation of his favor. Narrow and selfish views, conceptions of God as partial to the Jewish people, as

God as Israel’s father only.

Separation of God from the world.

Religious consequences of these conceptions.

limiting to them his grace and revelation, easily developed themselves out of this idea. We find that this danger was extensively realized, and hence in the New Testament we are assured that there is no respect of persons with God,—a statement which is intended to contradict a current opinion concerning him.

Another element in the popular Jewish idea of God is what we may call the belief in his transcendence, his remoteness from the world. This was a result of the Jewish conception of God’s holiness. By holiness was meant separateness from all that is evil. But this idea was so carried out practically as to separate God from the world and from human life altogether. Hence we find, in the late Jewish literature, that the gap between God and the world was conceived of as bridged over by a series of intermediate beings. Angels, especially, were regarded as intermediaries between God and his world. It was common to represent the law as given by angels, and all acts of God are described as done by his representatives rather than by himself. Sometimes some attribute or activity of God was personified, and was represented as performing divine functions. Hence we read of the wisdom or of the word of God as his agent in creation and providence.

This conception of transcendence, so generally held by the Jews, lent itself to the support of the judicial and legal aspect of religion. God had prescribed in detail all that men were to do, and had left them to carry out his commandments. He dwelt afar off in light unapproachable; his worshipper did not enter into vital communion with him, but performed his round of tasks and ceremonies, —the “ good works” of the law, — and when he had done this, was regarded as having done all that was required. It is easy to see how these ideas tended to the practical exclusion of the doctrine of God’s grace, and of his living presence among men. All was formal, legal, prescribed. Every act of obedience had its definite value, and would receive its appropriate reward. Under the influence of these conceptions the Jewish religion, in the scribal period, lost much of that vitality and intensity of moral conviction and spiritual power which it had possessed in earlier times. It became a tithing of mint, anise, and cummin, to the neglect of the great matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and love.

No contrast could be greater than that between this legal and external type of religion and the teaching and life of Jesus. For him religion consisted not so much in a prescribed round of religious duty, as in a certain disposition, a certain way of feeling, thinking, and choosing. Religion was for him an affair of the heart, of the inner life. The conditions of acceptance with God which he prescribed were wholly moral and spiritual. One may worship God with equal acceptance in any place. His service consists not so much in the outer forms of action as in the inward temper and character, in love to God and to man.

We may thus see how Jesus fulfilled the idea of God in the Jewish religion, as he fulfilled all its ideas which had elements of truth in them; how he penetrated to the heart of the religion of his time, rejecting its mere husk, and preserving its essential kernel of truth. He did not repudiate the laws, customs, and beliefs of his age, but he developed into fulness the kernel of truth in them, and insisted upon their inner meaning. He did not really desecrate the sabbath, but he dared to show men what the true meaning

1Yet see the earnest defence of Rabbinical theology by

Montefiore, ‘‘ Rabbinical Judaism and the Epistles of Paul,’’ Jewish Quarterly Review, January, 1901, 161-217.

Contrast between Jesus’ teaching and Judaism.

Jesus’ fulfil ment of the Old Testament religion.

Old and new in the teaching of Jesus.

The characteristic note of Israel’s piety.

and use of the sabbath were. He did not forbid ceremonial washings, the making of distinctions in meats, and the like, but he insisted upon the greater value and importance of moral purity. He took part in the sacrificial worship of his time, but constantly urged that what God primarily required of men was mercy rather than sacrifice. He summarized his teaching in the great principle of love, which he said was the sum of all commandments, the essence and basis of all true religious obligation and duty.

Thus there was in our Lord’s teaching, as related to the current beliefs of his age, something old and something new. All his principles were rooted in the Old Testament. He found there the germ of all that he had to teach; but he found the essential divine truth there contained so overlaid with tradition, and with extravagant application and false interpretation, that he was compelled to reject much that had been added to the principles of his ancestral religion. These principles he then brought out into clear expression, and enforced them with new and higher motives, and taught them in forms which could be apprehended by the people.

Let us next review the current Jewish ideas of Jesus’ age concerning the kingdom of God.

The people of Israel have been described as an incarnate hope. The most characteristic peculiarity of their life and thought was the fact that they looked forward with longing and confidence to a golden age in the future. A good and glorious time was coming. This hope was expressed in a great variety of forms, but all of these illustrate the ideality which was characteristic of Jewish thought. Sometimes this ideal was lofty and spiritual, as in the case of the great prophets; sometimes narrow and worldly, as in the case of the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ age. But

JEWISH RELIGIOUS BELIEFS T a great interest always attaches to such a hopeful view of the future as was cherished by the Jews. It illustrates their dissatisfaction with present conditions, and the persistency with which they hoped for an intervention of God in their history, and for a realization of blessedness in the coming age.

One form in which this ideal was expressed was that of a great and glorious kingdom of blessedness in which the people should be holy and happy under the dominion and favor of God. This ideal sprang from an intense sense of God’s authority and right to reign. It was founded on the theocratic idea, and on the conception that human society should be organized under the divine law and in accord with the divine will. It was a great and elevating conception. It represented society as ennobled and purified, as a state in which the will of God is done on earth as in heaven. According to this ideal, a pure worship and service was to be offered to God continually. His people were to be all righteous ; everything was to be consecrated to his service, and even on the utensils of daily life and labor was to be inscribed “ Holiness unto the Lord.”

The manner in which this ideal was cherished was determined largely by the existing religious and political conditions of the nation. When Israel became prosperous, under the reign of her great kings, David and Solomon, it was natural that her ideal for the future should be colored by the life and experience of that period. Moreover, in Israel Church and State were one. It was practically impossible to conceive of a religious ideal apart from political prosperity and happiness. Hence we find that the future golden age is often portrayed under forms of thought which were

1 On the source and nature of the Messianic expectation in

Judaism, see Mathews, op. cit., 163-168 ; Stanton, Jewish and Ohristian Messiah ; and especially Schtirer and Weber, op. cit.

The coming heavenly kingdom.

Political form of this idea.

Its moral and religious aspect.

The effect of Israel’s experiences upon the idea of the kingdom.

derived from the history of the Davidie monarchy. The literature of late Judaism discloses considerable variety in the forms of the Messianic hope. The ethieal and religious characteristics of the kingdom were strongly emphasized by some, while by others they were remanded to the background. The political element, however, was always fundamental, even when, as is commonly the case in the extant literature, Messianism was eschatological and apocalyptic.?

But while the kingdom was thus conceived of as earthly in its location and character, the idea of its heavenly origin was by no means wholly lost. It was the kingdom of heaven still for the Jewish mind, although the means by which it should be realized were quite earthly. It was a tendency in Israel to conceive of the favor of God as limited to the chosen people, which narrowed and belittled the great Old Testament conception of the coming kingdom. The prophetic descriptions of the prosperity and glory of the nation in the Messianic age were interpreted with a crude literalism which robbed them of their loftier and more spiritual suggestions. It was the Jewish particularism, the conviction that Israel was the special favorite of heaven, which exercised so unf rtunate an influence upon the Jewish conception of 41e kingdom of God. It was because the Jews had ttle idea of God’s universal fatherhood and boundles: tove to all mankind that they pictured his kingdom ¢ , a renewed and triumphant Israel.

Another circumstance which tended powerfully to this same result was the great oppre-sion to which the nation was subjected in *he later y riod of its history. Overwhelmed in a series cf wonquests by the Oriental and Occidental monarchies of the time, the

1 The best instance of non-apocalyptic Messianism is undoubtedly Ps. of Solomon, 17.

Jewish people turned with ardent longing and hope to the promise of the blessed coming age. It was natural that, in these circumstances, the hope of this kingdom should take on a more earthly character than ever before. Deliverance from the conqueror and persecutor was the ardent desire of every Jewish heart. The nation cried out in bitter anguish under the heavy yoke of the oppressor which weighed down upon it. It was during this period that apocalyptic literature took its rise,—that species of prophecy which was produced by the combination of suffering and of hope under the Greek and Roman dominations. In this later period of Jewish history, which continued down into the New Testament time, the dominant note of Israel’s hope for the future was the desire to throw off the Roman yoke, and to see the nation recover once more its freedom, prosperity, and power. This result was to be realized by Israel becoming the governing power over other nations, though the accomplishment of this through a king in Israel was not always insisted on. Jt is not strange that, under these conditions, the minds of the people should have been haunted by dreams of national glory, and that the flame of hatred against the ruling worldly powers should have burst forth with unexampled fury.

Throughout the New Testament we find traces of the ideas of the kingdom to which we have been referring. “ Wilt thon at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” men said; that is, establish the nation in strength and prosperity by overthrowing the power of its enemies. Even Christ’s own disciples entertained this conception of his kingdom. Two of them would sit, one on his right hand and the other on his left, in his kingdom. It was believed by those who followed him that his kingdom would come with observation, —

The kingdom visible and earthly

Corresponding idea of the Messiah.

Why Messiah ‘could not suffer and

die.

that is, with some sudden and powerful forth-putting of divine energy.’

The popular Jewish doctrine of the Messiah corresponded with the current conception of the kingdom of God. The Messiah was to usher in this reign of prosperity and peace. In proportion as the kingdom of God was conceived of in a worldly and political way, in that proportion did the doctrine of the Messiah take on a similar character. If the kingdom was to be a worldly empire, the Messiah must be a worldly ruler or prince. Hence we find that in the later Jewish period the person and work of the Messiah were chiefly regarded in this light. It was believed that he would lead a popular uprising against the dominant Roman power, throw off the hated yoke of political oppression, and reconstitute the nation in prosperity and peace. Under his sway their sorrows and sufferings should cease, a blessed reign of happiness should be realized, and the bright hopes of Israel concerning the future golden age find their perfect fulfilment. The Messianism of later Judaism was strongly eschatological and supernatural intone. The “coming age” was to be a new and distinct epoch, intermediate between the present evil age and the final consummation. As the vision of Israel’s glory and triumph in the present world-period grew dim and uncertain, religious thought turned to anew zon which God should introduce by direct supernatural power when Messiah should reign king of nations.

We accordingly find that in the time of Jesus the dominant conception of the Messiah was that he should be a ruler and king. Visions of power and glory filled the minds of the people of that time. They were no longer able to discern the import of the higher prophetic descriptions of Messiah’s mission. The

1 For a comparison of Jesus’ idea of the kingdom with that of the popular expectation, see Ch. IV.

representations of the suffering servant of Jehovah in Isaiah were either ignored or ingeniously explained away. The Jews of Jesus’ time did not believe in a suffering and dying Messiah. It was contrary to their whole conception of Messiah’s person and function that he should suffer defeat, and ultimately an ignominious death. How could he thus suffer, when he was ordained of God to be the victorious champion of his people? How could he fulfil the promise of deliverance if he submitted himself to death?

The conviction that the Messiah would triumph and reign, that he would defeat Israel’s enemies and lead the nation forth to a glorious victory, was greatly intensified during the years immediately preceding the appearance of Christ. The oppressions and sufferings which the nation experienced under the Roman domination, which tended so powerfully to the secularization of the doctrine of the kingdom, tended with equal power to a worldly and political conception of the Messiah. So completely were the thoughts of the Jewish people taken up with their hardships and sorrows, that they could think of little else than deliverance from the hated power of the Romans. It was not strange that their inherited view, that a good and happy time was coming, should take the form of a belief that the promised Messiah would usher in this glorious era. It was quite natural that the future blessedness should include as its most prominent element that deliverance from oppression of which they were so constantly compelled to think. When all the circumstances of the time are considered, it becomes quite feasible to explain the way in which the Messianic idea in Judaism had degenerated from the lofty spiritual conception of the old prophets to the political view of his person and work current in the time of Jesus.

We find ample illustration in the New Testament

Effect of Israel’s sufferings on the Messianic idea.

The popular views reflected in the New Testament.

Shared in part by the first disciples.

Contrast of popular view and that of Jesus.

of this popular Messianic idea of which we have been speaking. The primary significance of Christ’s temptation was that he was called upon to decide whether he would follow the popular conception of Messiah’s work, or, deserting this, choose out another and a higher course of action. One element in the popular demand for the Messiah’s work was that he should do great and startling miracles, that he should defeat his enemies by overwhelming exhibitions of divine power and authority. His temptation in the wilderness is a pictorial representation of this idea. Let Messiah, if he be truly such, cast himself down from the pinnacle of the temple; let him turn the stones of the desert into bread; let him compel the acceptance of his authority and mission by such impressive exhibitions of divine miraculous power that none could refuse to confess him to be the chosen leader of God’s people. It may be that John the Baptist cherished a view of Messiah’s work that was somewhat tinged with this conception. The Messiah was to come with a winnowing fan of divine judgment to separate the wheat from the chaff. He was to come with a signal display of his supreme majesty and power. Certain it is that many of Jesus’ disciples shared to a great extent in this theory of Messiah’s work. They hoped for positions of authority and power in his world-empire. They dreamed of a restoration of the kingdom to Israel. The course which Jesus actually pursued in propagating his truth and in founding his kingdom involved a profound disappointment to many of his followers.

How bewildered they were as he continued to do his work without fulfilling any of those conditions which they regarded as essential to the setting up of his kingdom! He founded no party; he led no popular uprising; he authorized no use of the sword; he refrained from all participation in political affairs. They could not understand that his kingdom was in the realm of the spirit, and that his object was to make himself king in the sphere of men’s inner life. Between the popular idea of Messiah’s mission and that which Jesus taught and realized there was a great gulf, which the minds of his disciples were not able to bridge. It was only gradually, under the guidance and illumination of the Spirit, that they were able to enter into the meaning of his spiritual view of his kingdom and work. But, defective as was the popular Jewish view of Messiah’s mission, far as it fell short of the higher prophetic ideal on the subject, there was still a kernel of truth preserved within it. That truth was that the gospel of Christ is a gospel for this world and for the present life of man. Its spirituality does not mean that it has no application to the duties, relationships, and experiences of this present life. It is a gospel of social well-being. It is a gospel even of political prosperity and progress, but it is this because it is, first of all, the gospel of a Godlike life. It is the gospel of man’s outer life because it is primarily the gospel of his inner life. Yet these two aspects of the teaching of Jesus were not apprehended in this relation by many to whom he spoke; it was difficult for them to place the spiritual first, and to see that the outward and temporary was of secondary interest and concern. It was one of the constant efforts of Jesus to enable men to see the meaning and application of his work in its true proportions, to enable men to place that first which is first, and thus to seek the realization of their social and political well-being through their sympathy and harmony with the holy will and purpose of God. Nor would it be correct to say that Jesus himself did not have his doctrine of Messiah’s victory and majesty. He used language as strong as that of any of the prophets concerning the world-dominion which