whole family being threatened with slavery to pay the father's debt comes in. A man cannot confine the consequences of his sin to himself. Even those who have had no share in his guilt will be involved in the misery which it produces: besides which, there is the evil effect which his vitiated character will insensibly have upon others.

In his passionate appeal for forbearance, the king's debtor promises to pay all in time, a promise unlikely to be fulfilled. The fellow-servant merely promises to pay. In his fury, the creditor injures himself in order to take vengeance. By imprisoning his debtor he made it almost impossible for him to pay. And now, for the first time, we are told that the king was angry, and this is the main lesson of the parable. An unforgiving spirit is sure to provoke the anger of God; so much so, that His free forgiveness of sinners ceases to flow to them, when in this way they offend. So to speak, it revives the guilt of their otherwise forgiven sins. This is a truth of tremendous import, and we may be thankful that this Evangelist has preserved for us a parable which teaches the truth so plainly. For we are not apt to think of what seems to be a merely negative quality,-the absence of a forgiving temper, as a fatal sin. There are many sins which we rightly regard as heinous,-breaches of the sixth, or seventh, or eighth commandment. But we are not accustomed to think that to treasure up the recollection of injuries which we think that we have received from others may be a sin that is greater than any of these. It is those that are most conscious of the incalculable amount that God has forgiven them, who are readiest to forgive all, and more than all the injuries that any man can inflict upon them. 'Let all bitterness and wrath and anger be put away from you, with all malice; and be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ hath forgiven you' (Eph. iv. 31, 32).

We do not know whether it was the feeling which had been generated in some of the Twelve by the dispute as to which was the greatest that called forth this impressive parable. But the teaching which it embodies was not new to them. We gather that it had already been set forth to the multitudes, for it appears in two places in the material which forms the Sermon on the Mount (v. 23-26, vi. 14, 15). And in Mk. we have it among the last instructions during the Holy Week (xi. 25). The love that forgives is as necessary as the faith that prays. See Montefiore, p. 685.

1 'The tormentors' is part of the literary detail in the story, and we must not interpret the detail and draw conclusions from it. A king of flesh and blood (v0рwos Baoleus) might act in this way; but we should not attribute parallel action to God. Comp. the interpolation Ecclus. xxxiii. 26.

The statement that opeλý, 'debt,' is a word found "only in N. T. Greek" (Mt. xviii. 32; Rom. xiii. 7; 1 Cor. vii. 3) has been disproved by the papyri. Deissmann gives instances, Biblical Studies, p. 221. He has also given good reasons for abandoning such an expression as "N.T. Greek": The Philology of the Greek Bible, pp. 65, 134, 135; New Light on the New Testament, pp. 30 ff.

Characteristic expressions in ch. xviii. : ἐκείνη ὥρα (1), προσέρχεσθαι (1, 21), ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (10, 14, 19), τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; (12), πορεύεσθαι (12), συνάγειν (20), τότε (21), προσφέρειν (24), σύνδουλος (28, 29, 31, 33). Peculiar: ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (1, 3, 4, 23), τάλαντον (24), ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος (35), συναίρειν (23, 24), καταποντίζεσθαι (6 and xiv. 30 only), τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον (8 and xv. 41 only), ʼn yéevva Toû TUρós (10 and v. 22 only); peculiar to this chapter: έβδομηκοντάκις (22), δάνιον (27), βασανιστής (34). The verb árodidóval is frequent in the N.T., but it is specially common in Mt. as compared with other Gospels; in Mt. 18 times, in Mk. once, in Lk. 8 times, in Jn. never. In this chapter it is frequent (25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 34). The phrase ovvalpe λóyov (23, xxv. 19) has been thought to be a Latinism, rationem conferre, compare accounts.' Zahn quotes a Fayûm papyrus (Grenfell, Hunt, Hogarth, p. 261, No. 109, 6), σvvîpμaι dóyov T❖ watρl.

XIX. 1-XX. 34. THE JOURNEY OF THE MESSIAH THROUGH PEREA TO JERUSALEM.

For a moment the three Synoptists are once more together. Mt. xix. 1, 2 = Mk. x. 1, and side by side with these we may place Lk. xvii. 11. The Third and Fourth Gospels give a great deal of material which belongs to this period of Christ's Ministry. But the so-called "Perean section" in Lk. (ix. 51-xix. 28) contains a good deal of material which evidently belongs to an earlier period, and we do not know enough about the details to say how his narrative is to be fitted into that of Jn., who, with great vividness, in chs. vii.-xi., tells a great deal that illuminates the whole situation, especially with regard to the circumstances which made the rejection of Jesus by the nation, and His death at the hands of the hierarchy, certain. Even without supernatural foresight, it might have been possible to see that, so far as immediate success was concerned, the mission of Jesus to His countrymen would fail, and that the only thing which could save Him from a violent catastrophe was flight. But it was impossible for Him to fly. He knew the Scriptures, especially those concerning Himself (Lk. xxiv. 27), as no one else knew them. He knew that the Messiah must suffer in order to reign, and must conquer by dying. The Scriptures must be fulfilled, which was only another way of saying that the will of God must be done.

The opening words of this chapter are peculiar to Mt. (see on vii. 28). After concluding a group of Christ's sayings, he commonly passes on to the next subject with the formula when He finished these words' (vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53, xxvi. 1), and here he alone expressly states that Jesus 'departed from Galilee,

although it is implied in the other narratives. It is His last departure from Galilee. Until after the Resurrection Christ does not visit it again. He crosses the Jordan, and in this more remote region, where He was less well known, He resumed His work of teaching and healing. Mk. says that He taught, Mt. that He healed. The multitudes had reassembled, and He did not send them empty away. Mt. perhaps thought that it was more necessary to record that Jesus healed than that He taught; the latter might be assumed. What follows in these two chapters (xix., xx.) is evidence of the teaching, especially of the training of the Twelve.

XIX. 3-12. The Question of Divorce.

The Pharisees are now Christ's determined enemies, bent upon His destruction; and they come to Him once more to endeavour to make Him commit Himself in some fatal way. It was known that He condemned divorce (v. 31, 32), and thus seemed to put Himself into opposition with the Mosaic Law, which allowed it (Deut. xxiv. 1); here, therefore, was a field in which it was likely that they might obtain material for fruitful charges against Him. We must study Mk. x. 2-12, if we wish for a clear and consistent account of Christ's teaching respecting divorce. All Jews held that divorce was allowable; the only question was, for what 'unseemly thing'? The stricter Jews said that unchastity on the wife's part justified divorce; the less strict said that mere dislike sufficed. According to Mk. and Lk., Christ forbade divorce altogether. The permission to divorce a wife for grave misconduct was conceded by Moses because of the low condition of society in his time; but now men ought to return to the primeval principle that marriage is indissoluble. According to Mt., both here and in v. 31, 32, Christ agreed with the stricter Jews; an unchaste wife might be divorced, and the husband might marry again. It has been shown in the comments on v. 31, 32 that it is improbable that Jesus taught this; and we may suspect that both 'for every cause' (3) and 'except for fornication' (9) are insertions made either by the Evangelist or in the authority which he is using in addition to 'Judæa' here seems to be used in the wider sense of Palestine, the land of the Jews; comp. xxiv. 16.

16

2 In xiv. 14-Mk. vi. 34 Mt. makes this change in Mk.'s narrative; and in xxi. 15 he does much the same, for there 'the wonderful things that He did' takes the place of 'His teaching' (Mk. xi. 18). On the insertion 'there' (ékeî) see on xxvii. 47.

"The word (oxλnpoκapdía) denotes the rude nature which belongs to a primitive civilization. This principle of accommodation to the time in Scripture is of inestimable importance, and of course limits finally the absoluteness of its authority. We find that the writers were subject to this limitation, as well as their readers" (Gould on Mk. x. 5).

Mk. Whoever inserted the words would think that they must have been meant, and that therefore it was right to make the meaning perfectly clear. The remark of the disciples (10) confirms the view that Christ forbade divorce, even in the case of the wife's unchastity. If that was His decision, their remark is intelligible. It would then mean that marriage is a dangerous condition, if a man cannot free himself from an adulterous wife. But, if He taught that the divorce of an adulterous wife was allowable, then their remark would mean that marriage is a hard lot, if a man may not get rid of a wife whom he dislikes; and it is hardly likely that they can have meant this. After being Christ's disciples so long, they would not hold that what even Jews of the stricter school of Shammai maintained respecting the marriage-tie was an intolerable obligation. See Allen, p. 205; Salmon, p. 394; Montefiore, p. 691.

Christ's argument for the indissoluble character of the original institution of marriage is that at the Creation God made one man and one woman, each for the other. He did not make more women than men, so as to provide for divorce. On the contrary, He created a relation between man and wife more intimate and binding than even that between parent and child. The 'and said' which Mt. (5) introduces between the two quotations from Genesis is not in Mk. (x. 6, 7), and is incorrect. In Gen. ii. 24, 'For this cause shall a man leave,' etc., are the words of Adam, not of the Almighty. With the conclusion, 'What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,' the discussion with the Pharisees is closed. Christ then retired into 'the house,' and there the disciples renewed the discussion. This break in the conversation is obscured in Mt., who, as usual (ix. 1, xv. 15, 21, xvii. 19), omits the detail about going indoors, and here makes ver. 9 part of the address to the Pharisees, whereas in Mk. it is said privately to the disciples.1

There is no parallel in Mk. or Lk. to the remarkable passage respecting celibacy (10-12), and we have no means of knowing the source of it. It does not seem to belong to the context in which Mt. has placed it; for it appears strange that our Lord, after pointing out that marriage was ordained by God for the human race from the very first, and that man ought not to sever a tie ordained by God, should at once go on to admit that, after

1 Instead of, 'And if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery,' Mt. has, 'And he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.' Mt. may have made this change because there was no provision in the Jewish law for a wife to divorce her husband (Josephus, Ant. xv. vii. 10). But κal ó ároλeλvμévŋv yaμýoas μoixâτal is omitted in DL and other important witnesses; it may come from v. 32. See Wright, Synopsis, p. 99; E. Lyttelton, JTS., July, 1904, p. 621.

all, those who can do without it should avoid marriage. Nevertheless, it may be that He thought it well to justify His own example and that of the Baptist. Marriage was instituted by God for the good of mankind, and is open to all. But no one is obliged to marry, and there are some who believe that they can live more spiritual lives by remaining single.

If we may assume that vv. 11, 12 were uttered in reply to the disciples' remark in ver. 10, then 'All do not receive this saying' probably means that it is not given to every one to see that it is not good to marry, 'this saying' referring to the remark of the disciples. This is more probable than a reference to Christ's saying that marriage ought to be regarded as indissoluble. The passage must be compared with our Lord's declaration that His disciples must be ready, if the call should come, to part with everything that they possess, even with life itself, for His sake.

XIX. 13-15. The Blessing of the Little Children.

Mt. follows Mk. in placing this incident between the discussion about marriage and the story of the rich young man, and Lk. so far agrees with Mk. in placing the incident immediately before that of the rich young man. It took place in the house, for it was 'as He was going forth into the way' (Mk. x. 17) that the rich young man came to Him. As Salmon conjectures (p. 395), the children brought to Him may have been the children of the house. On the previous occasion (xviii. 2), when He took a child as an object-lesson, this took place in the house' at Capernaum; and it is unlikely that a child had to be sent for from the outside. Here also we may imagine that the children of the house "were brought to Him to say good-night, and receive His blessing before being sent to bed." But Lk. (xviii. 15) seems to have understood the matter otherwise: 'And they brought unto Him also their babes.' Both Mk. and Lk. say that the children were brought 'that He should touch them.'1 Mt. is much more full: 'that He should lay His hands on them and pray'; and this is a reasonable inference from the fact that He did lay His hands on them and bless them (Mk. x. 16).

Jesus so frequently laid His hands on those whom He healed, that the parents naturally thought that it would be an advantage to their children to have them touched by the great Healer. To the disciples this seemed intolerable. They knew how His time was invaded and His physical strength taxed by the numbers that were brought to Him to be cured of their

1 The verb poo pépei is frequent of bringing the sick to Christ: iv. 24, viii. 16, ix. 2, etc. Mk. has it here (x. 13).