CHAPTER XII.

JESUS PASSES THROUGH JERICHO TOWARDS JERUSALEM-HE TEACHES THAT ALL ARE EQUAL IN HIS CHURCH-GIVES SIGHT TO BLIND

BARTIME US, THE BEGGAR-DINES WITH ZACCHE'US, AND DELIVERS

THE PARABLE OF THE TALENTS.

March, A. D. 30.

When now on his way from Perea to the great national festival about to be solemnised in the capital, and when the apostles thought the time approached in which they would receive their reward, James and John made a formal request that they might hold the chief offices in the court which Jesus, as they believed, was on the point of establishing. 'Are ye,' replied the Saviour, are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of ?' 'Yes,' was their ready answer. Indeed,' rejoined Jesus, 'you will drink of my cup; nevertheless, only those that are prepared can hold office in my kingdom.' So blind were these two men, that they did not enter into the meaning of our Lord's words. In order to show them how unwise was their request, he intimated that the sufferings which he was about to pass through, and the endurance of which was the doorway to his court, would be too severe and heavy for their strength. But when, without knowing what his words intended, they eagerly announced themselves ready to bear the test, Jesus, knowing that his disciples must more or less be involved in his own destiny, added, that in truth they would have to drink out of the cup which he should drink; and, notwithstanding, it did not follow that they would receive a high position in the new kingdom, for that honour was reserved exclusively for those who, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, should be raised to the needful spirituality of mind and largeness of heart.

The ten became aware of the request that had been made, and were indignant at this unfair attempt to pre-engage the highest appointments. How lamentable this variance on the very eve of the last trial! Dissension among themselves must augment the difficulties which already were so numerous and so great. This was felt by Jesus, who, doubtless regretting that his pacific counsels had had so little effect, called the apostles around him, and endeavoured to make them feel that they were all equal, that no lordship or superiority could exist among them, and that the only ground of chiefship was in lowly and devoted service: Whosoever wishes to be chief among you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.'

Thus to the last there remains the broadest contrast between Jesus and his most trusted and most favoured disciples, as if to give a full assurance that as they were from below, so he was from above; that as their culture was of the earth, so his, though developed and perfected from the elements of his own nature, was in its essential features divine in its origin and its supports, as well as in its results (Matt. xx, 20-28; Mark x. 35—45).

6

In all probability, Jesus had joined the caravan which was going from Perea to the festival in Jerusalem. As this large travelling company went forward they would increase in numbers, and the fame of their approach spread far and wide before them. A special interest this year would surround the train, for it was rumoured abroad that the great Teacher was in the midst of it. News of his coming, therefore, reached Jericho before himself. As the long suite of men and camels passed over the Jordan, there was one who, though sightless, waited near the city, straining with his eye-balls to catch the first notice of the Messiah's approach. This was the beggar, blind Bartimeus, who sat on his usual spot by the way-side. When at length he heard that Jesus was passing by, he cried out, Jesus, son of David (or Messiah), have mercy on me!' He was rebuked by those around. 'What rudeness!' said one-'What impertinence!' exclaimed another,—‘a blind beggar thus to accost the Christ; what if he should take offence and consume our city ?' No sooner, however, had Jesus heard the beseeching tones of the beggar's voice, than he stood still, and commanded some one to call him. And a few were there near who understood the character of Jesus. When they heard the invitation, they said to Bartime'us, 'Be of good comfort; rise, he calleth thee.' Immediately disencumbering himself of his large upper garment, or plaid, the man hastened to Jesus. What wilt thou?" "Lord, that I may receive my sight.' And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed him on the way' (Matthew xx. 29-34; Mark x. 46-52; Luke xviii. 35-43).

6

Bartimeus followed Jesus and was not forbidden, nor was silence enjoined on him. The reason is, that the time for concealment was past. Jesus had gained the opportunities he needed for preaching the gospel, and was now going publicly to Jerusalem to make an open claim of the high office of the Messiah.

The way in which Mark speaks of this blind man is striking. 'Blind Bartimeus, the son of Time'us.' 'Bartimeus' means 'the son of Timeus,' and was the man's ordinary appellation. Writing in Greek, Mark translates the term and writes, "the son of Timeus.' Remembering that the man was mostly known by his Aramaic name of Bartimeus, Mark fails not to use that common designation, intimating that he meant the blind beggar whom

so many had seen sitting by the way-side. These are pains which a deceiver, if he could, would not take, because likely to aid in his own exposure. The writer evidently laboured to make persons know well who was meant, in order that they might have satisfactory evidence of the cure, and so be led to Christ. And who could be ignorant of 'Bartimeus, the blind beggar,' who used for years to sit there, near Jericho, on the high road running from the Jordan through Jericho up into the wilderness, and so to Jerusalem? Bartimeus was known far and near, and could still be seen and questioned.

In the last two incidents occur specimens of the inconsiderable and really unimportant diversities which are occasionally found on comparing together accounts of the same event furnished in different Gospels, and by exaggerating or perverting which Strauss, in his celebrated work, Das Leben Jesu (Life of Jesus'), has contrived to gain an appearance of support to his truly anti-christian notions. In narrating the request of James and John, Matthew says it was made by their mother, while Mark ascribes it to James and John themselves. It is almost a waste of words to explain such a variation. If in Matthew the mother begins the request, the young men take it up and complete it; while from their presence, and probably from their manner, Jesus understood that if the mother was the speaker, John and James were in truth applicants; for in the substance of his answer he addresses them, and they reply. 'Are ye able?' 'We are able.' Mark does not intimate that the mother was present, neither does he contradict Matthew, who brings her prominently forward. For any thing that appears in Mark, she may have taken part in the transaction, as Matthew affirms she did. Matthew may have had his reasons for mentioning the mother. These reasons may have been unknown to or unshared by Mark. But let the difference, if it must be so, be accounted inexplicable. What then? All you can say is, that in two records made near the time of an event which took place 1800 years ago, there is a slight diversity. What then? In truth, the wonder is that the actual diversities are not much more numerous and much more considerable.

The other variation to which we referred, is found in relation to the cure of Bartimeus. Mark speaks emphatically of one wellknown man; Luke speaks of a certain man, and Matthew of two men. Here again is a diversity, but not a contradiction. Mark's knowledge supplements Luke's ignorance. If you want to know who Luke's certain blind man' was, Mark will inform you. And if you ask how Matthew spoke of two, while the other reporters speak of one, it is sufficient to answer that Matthew knew more on the point than either Luke or Mark.

Another difference, which at first looks more like a discrepancy, occurs in relation to the exact spot where the miracle

was performed. Matthew and Mark make it to have taken place after Jesus had left Jericho; that is, on the west of the city. Luke, in the common version, says it was done as he was come nigh unto Jericho.' Now these words, as they thus stand, do not of necessity mean 'as he drew near to Jericho;' that is, was on the eastern side of the place. He was come nigh' to Jericho equally when on the eastern as when on the western side. In truth, the original word denotes to be nigh, as well as to draw nigh. Employing this acceptation, the three evangelists agree in describing the spot where the gift of sight was conferred on Timeus as being near Jericho. Luke does, indeed, after narrating the miracle, say, 'Jesus entered and passed through Jericho' (Luke xix. 1). Hence it may be argued that he intended to represent it as having been performed on the east of the city. But the sequence of words does by no means imply a corresponding sequence of events. Luke does not follow a strictly chronological order in the arrangement of his materials. Luke's words just cited were used, not to mark the time, but as explanatory of the event he was about to narrate, namely, that Zacche'us climbed up into a tree in order to catch a sight of Jesus as he passed by. Let it, however, be supposed that Luke places the miracle on the east, while Matthew and Mark place it on the west of the city; again we ask, what consequence can be drawn unfavourable to the general credibility of the narrative? Luke, at any rate, shows his independence by deviating from Matthew and Mark; and where there are several witnesses, an assurance of independence is a guarantee of truth. Whether the miracle took place on the east or on the west side of the town, all three unite in speaking of it as a reality, and describe it in terms which agree in every other important particular.

Near Jericho it was that Jesus became acquainted with Zacche'us, a rich man, who was comptroller of the taxes payable to the Romans in the district. Probably the caravan of which Jesus and his disciples formed a part proceeded at once straight through the city, and, as it was going to Jerusalem, encamped on its eastern side. Having done so, those who formed the cavalcade were free to enter Jericho to make purchases or visit friends. Zacche'us, as well as Bartime'us, had heard of the approach of the alleged Messiah, and earnestly desired to see him. Too impatient to wait, and too low of stature to be able to discern Jesus in the crowd of pilgrims, he 'ran before and climbed up into a sycamore tree,' standing on the side of the road where he knew the Saviour was about to pass. The act did not escape the observant eye of Jesus, who, in the earnestness which it indicated, saw a token which spoke well of his moral condition. 'Zaccheus,' the Saviour therefore said, 'Zaccheus, make haste and come down, for to-day I must abide at thy house. And he made haste and came down, and received him joyfully.' But what a

scandal!

'The Messiah gone to be a guest with a man that is a sinner! Considerable excitement seems to have ensued, for Zaccheus felt himself called on to defend his character. Jesus, passing by the petty objection, and announcing one of the grand principles of his religion, The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost,' declared before them all that Zaccheus, being in his faith like Abraham, the father of the faithful, was accepted of God unto salvation (Luke xix. 1—10). And hence the reader may learn what, with Jesus, a saving faith was. The faith of Zaccheus was a saving faith. But in what did it consist, except in an earnest desire to see, and a readiness to obey and entertain, the Lord Jesus Christ? A saving faith, then, is a certain state of the heart-a love of truth and of holiness, so earnest and deep as to prompt its possessor to the eager employment of all means given of God for becoming acquainted with his will and conforming to his law. This faith Jesus accounted as an indispensable prerequisite, as of salvation, so of the exertion of his miraculous power, knowing well that unless the heart is turned to God, evidence of his presence and working is nugatory, and the first step in the way of salvation is not set. But this favourable condition of soul is itself a result of God's holy influence operating in union with man's higher capabilities. Hence Jesus represents those who really come unto him, as being drawn by his heavenly Father (John vi. 44). Religion in man's soul, in consequence, like religion in itself, is divine in its origin, its operation, and its effects. Paul expressed the same great truth when he said, 'By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God' (Ephes. ii. 8).

The sy'camore (sycamine, Luke xvii. 6), or wild fig-tree-so called because it resembles the fig (syka) in its fruit, and the mulberry (moros) in its form-was common in Palestine, especially in the low lands along the coast. It is one of the larger and higher kind of trees, and from the fact that its outrunning branches bend towards the trunk, it is easy of ascent. Its fruit is not so pleasing to the taste as the fig, and serves, therefore, as nutriment for the poor, to whom it is a great benefit, inasmuch as it produces fruit several times in the year, and is scarcely ever without a great quantity. The wood, being firm and durable, supplies timber for building, as well as for other purposes.

The city of Jericho is no less renowned than ancient. Its origin goes back before the invasion of Palestine by the Hebrews, for it was the seat of a Canaanitish king (Joshua xii. 9). One interpretation ('fragrant') given to its name, seems to bear reference to the vegetable treasures for which the district was remarkable, and may have been a special allusion to the balsam that once grew there in abundance. Another appellation it beyond a doubt acquired from a tree whose native beauty far