that the persons referred to in the passage did not belong to the number of the Apostles

"The things," said Christ, "which are impossible with men are possible with God." What man cannot do by his unaided powers he can accomplish by the power of GOD. By enunciating this truth as the result of his whole course of remark, he showed its point of departure and its aim. While the rest stood, as it were, stupified, Peter ventured to say, "Does what you have said apply to us? Lo, we have left all and followed thee." Then uttered the Saviour those words, so full of consoling promise: "There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." The first part of the promise (referring to this life) was enough to show even those whose minds were filled with carnal and Chiliastic expectations, that the whole was to be taken, not literally, but spiritually; Christians were to receive back all that they had sacrificed, increased and glorified, in the communion of the higher life on earth. The second part expressed the common inheritance of believers -everlasting life in heaven.

§ 228.-Believers are to Reign with Christ.

Matthew mentions in this connexion (xix. 28) the promise of Christ to his disciples, that, when the Son of Mau should appear with dominion corresponding to his glory in the renewed and glorified world, they should "sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The word "judging" includes the idea of "governing," according to its ancient acceptation. The collocation of this passage may be one of those instances in which Matthew arranges his matter more according to the connexion of thought than of time; but there is no reason to question its originality. The idea of a participation of believers with Christ in the government and judgment of the future world is bound up with the whole mode of representing the kingdom of GOD in the New Testament; our duty must be to separate the idea from its symbolical form derived from the old Theocratic mode of thought, and to recognize the new Spirit that

* Luke xviii. 26, supports this.

C

The form of the question of Peter given by Matthew (xix. 27) implies a looking for reward on his part. But had this been his object in putting it, Christ would have more emphatically reproved it.

Cf. p. 243. Various passages of Paul (1 Cor. vi. 2, &c.) pre-suppose Auch sayings of Christ.

was to be developed from it The passage (like the other promises in the context) recognizes degrees in the share of governinent and judgment allotted to believers. Not only the Head, but also all the organs of the kingdom of GOD are to share in its dominion; because its dominion is to be universal. This is an important idea for Christian ethics. There are to be "judges" and "judged," "rulers" and "ruled"-but in an exalted sensee-in the new form of the Theocracy as well as in the old.

CHAPTER XV.

JESUS IN BETHANY.

§ 229.-The Family of Lazarus.—Martha and Mary; their different Tendencies. (Luke x. 38, seq.)

A PRESSING call induced Christ to leave Peræa, where he found so susceptible a soil, perhaps sooner than he would otherwise have done.

About a mile and a half from Jerusalem, at the foot of the Mount of Olives, lay the village of Bethany, where dwelt a family, two sisters and a brother, with whom Christ had formed, during his repeated and protracted visits to the city, a close and affectionate intimacy. Luke has left us a description of this family agreeing perfectly (without design or concert) with that given by Johnd (xi. 1-5). On one occasion, when Christ was partaking of their hospitality, one of the sisters, Martha, showed more anxiety to provide for the bodily comforts of her exalted guest, and to give him a worthy re

The passage in John probably refers to the earlier period of this intimacy. It is true, Luke (x. 38) does not mention the name of the village; the account transmitted to him probably did not contain it, and here, as in other cases, he would not insert the name merely for the sake of giving definiteness to the narrative. The event itself, as a very significant one, had been faithfully kept and transmitted; the locality, being unimportant to the interest of the event, was probably forgotten. It is true, the position of the passage in the account of Christ's last journey to Jerusalem, might lead to the inference that the place was at some distance from the city; but, as we have already said, the account itself mingles two journeys together, as is especially evident in the single case before us. De Wette nas remarked this. Luke simply adhered to the account he had received, which gave him no information about the locality; this last we must learn from John. The probabilities, in regard to time, are favourable to our supposition. The undesigned coincidence, therefore, of John with Luke, in the description of the family, &c. is a strong proof of credibility. Strauss, however, adduces Luke's silence in regard to Lazarus as invalidating John's credibility, but without the slightest reason; Luke's objec was to make prominent the relation of the two sisters to Christ, and the tention of Lazarus was, therefore, not at all necessary.

ception, than to secure the blessings for her soul which his presence so richly offered; while her more spiritual sister, Mary, gave herself wholly to listening to the words of life from the lips of the Saviour. Martha, finding all the cares of the family thrown upon her, complained to Jesus thereof; and he made use of the occasion to impress upon her mind the general truth which he so often, and under so many diversified forms, taught to his hearers: "Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things, but one thing is needful, and Mary hath chosen that good part (that which is good in itself; the only worthy aim of human effort), which shall not be taken from her (a possession that shall be everlasting, not perishable, like these worldly things)."

It is wholly contrary to the sense of history to interpret this narrative [as some do] so as to make Martha represent the practical and Mary the contemplative tendency, and thence to infer that Christ ascribes superiority to the latter. The antithesis is between that turn of mind which forgets, in a multiplicity of objects, the one fundamental aim; and that, on the other hand, which devotes itself solely to the one object from which all others should proceed. Christ demands of his followers constant activity in his service, and therefore could not have approved an entirely contemplative spirit. What he honours in Mary is the spirit which ought to be the centre and animating principle of all activity. It is true, Martha is more practical and worldly; Mary more contemplative and spiritual; but these manifestations do not necessarily indicate character; although in this instance (and, indeed, commonly) the manifestation corresponds to the character. It was not necessary that Martha's multiplied cares should distract her from the one thing needful; Christ blamed her, not for her cares, but for not making them subordinate-for so surrendering herself to them as to put the greater interest in the background.

§ 230.-The Sickness of Lazarus; Christ's Reply to the Messengers who informed him of it. (John xi. 1-4.)

While Christ was in Peræa, about a day's journey from Bethany, LAZARUS, the brother of Martha and Mary, was taken

This clause is wanting in Cod. Cantab. and other Latin authorities · but nothing would be lost to the sense even if it were left out; for "that good part which cannot be lost" is the "one thing" to which life should be supremely devoted, in contrast with the "many things" which waste and dissinate a divided mind.

sick, and the sisters sent to inform the Saviour of it, doubtless in the hope of obtaining his assistance. His reply gave this consolation, at least, to the sisters-that their brother should not be separated from them by death; although its true import was not obvious until afterward: "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby."

Now, as Lazarus actually died, these words appear to need explanation. Did Christ, in view of the symptoms that were reported to him, really think that Lazarus would not die? and was the object of his message simply to console the sisters with the assurance that the mercy and power of GOD would be glorified in themselves and their brother, by saving the latter from death? Was the latter part of the message, "That the Son might be glorified," added by the Evangelist himself, incorporating his own explanation with Christ's words?

Certainly we shall not assert that Christ could not but foreknow, infallibly, in the exercise of his superhuman knowledge, the result of the disease; it may have been the case that he described it, in view of the symptoms at the time, as not necessarily fatal, although it afterward took another turn. But if all this were granted, there is something else to be considered. Christ could not, consistently with his character, have given so positive a prediction on the deceptive evidence of mere symptoms; he could not have mocked his friends with baseless hopes, so soon to be scattered. We must take it for granted, therefore, that his confidence was founded on a far surer basis; it was the Divine nature, dwelling in him, that illuminated his human mind. To be sure, it is possible that his confident conviction that Lazarus would be saved may have been coupled with uncertainty as to whether he should be saved from sickness, or from death; but the language of his reply, although it might admit this construction, is not at all inconsistent with absolute certainty on his part that Lazarus would die. The reply was intended to comfort the sisters, and to them it could make no difference whether their brother was saved from apparent or real death, in case the latter were of short duration; and Christ may, therefore, have wished to avoid presenting the naked idea of death in his words. And the partial ambiguity of his language may also have been designed to test the faith of the sisters. It is possible that with this view he uttered the words “ ὑπὲρ τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ,” and stopped there, the rest being (possibly) added by the Evangelist.

§ 231-The Death of Lazarus; Christ's Conversation with the Disciples in regard to it. (John xi. 11, seq.)

The affliction of Lazarus determined Jesus to leave Perea. where his labours had been so fruitful. Still, he remained there two days (v. 6), continuing his ministry. But although his course was thus decided by circumstances, he very well knew that the result would produce the happiest religious effects upon the sisters.

It was probably on the very evening of the return of the messengers that Lazarus died. What comfort could Christ's encouraging language now afford them! The word of promise seemed to be broken; his word, whom they had always known as the Faithful and True; his word, which they had never seen come to naught. What conflicting feelings must have struggled for the mastery in their hearts! Either they sent a second messenger to the Saviour,f or the latter became aware of the event by his own supernatural knowledge. When he announced to his disciples that Lazarus "slept," they thought at first that he had heard it in some way, and took it as a sign of recovery. Thereupon he said to them in express terms, "Lazarus is dead; and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe" (still further). Not, however, by any means asserting that he had purposely stayed away, that Lazarus might die and their faith be confirmed by his resurrection; but, in fact, implying that although his delay had been caused by other reasons, he rejoiced at the means it would afford of strengthening their faith at a time when such rude shocks were at hand. His words imply, also, that if he had been in Bethany, he would not have suffered the family to reach such a pitch of anguish merely for the sake of relieving them, and displaying the highest degree of miraculous power

f John's not mentioning a second messenger (v. 11) does not prove that none was sent. Moreover, when John is giving any instance of the exercise of Christ's supernatural knowledge, he generally intimates it in some way; here he gives no such intirnation. When Christ told the disciples that Lazarus "slept," they understood his words in a natural sense; and it appears most probable that they thought he had received a message from the sisters. Be the case decided as it may, John's language is not such as would be used by a man who wished to give special prominence to the supernatural.

The disciples knew, at least, that persons believed to be dead had been restored by Christ; they knew, also, that " sleep" was a common image of death; yet their misunderstanding is by no means inexplicable, as some suppose; nor does it throw the least shade upon the credibility of the Evangelist.