joy; it is a pearl of great price, whether measured by what its cost is to Christ, or by its value to the possessor; and this treasure, this pearl, is worth all else, is possessed only by him who forsaketh all to become Christ's disciple (Luke 14: 33). (3.) The points of contrast in the parables are not accidental. The two represent different types of experience; the first, a man who, without earnest seeking, finds, as it were by accident, the truth and life that is in Christ; the second, the seeker after truth in various quarters (goodly pearls in many markets), who finds in Christ the one thing needful (the one pearl of great price), which costs all that he hath. Nathaniel and the Samaritan woman illustrate the first, Paul and the Ethopian eunuch (Acts 8: 27) the second. (4.) Other points in the parable have been noted, e. g., The treasure hid in the field is compared to the truth hid in the external church (Trench, Alford), or in the Holy Scriptures (Jerome, Augustine); the joy that inspires the finder is the inspiration which enables him to sell all that he hath, and is a hint that Christian self-sacrifice is gainful and should be joyful; his hiding the treasure is thought to typify the young Christian's tremulous anxiety lest he lose the new-found life, or possibly his first inclination at concealment till he has measured the reality and value of his experience. Unnecessary difficulty has been occasioned by doubts concerning the morality of the course of the finder in the first parable. But Christ no more commends his course by using it, as an illustration, than he commends the merchant who devotes his life to getting goodly pearls, or the unjust judge (Luke 18: 1-7), to whom he 1-7), to whom he compares God. No difficulty need be experienced by the fact that the obtaining of the kingdom of God is compared to a purchase. This is a common symbol in the Scripture (Prov. 23: 23; Matt. 25 : 9, 10; Rev. 3: 18), and is interpreted by such declarations as the exhortation of Isaiah to "buy without money and without price" (Isaiah 55: 1, 2), and such experiences as those of Paul, who counted all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus (Phil. 3: 7, 8).

ermen draw it at both ends to the land, enclosing in it every fish not small enough to escape through its meshes. Then the separation takes place, and the useless fish are thrown away, while the good are kept for the market.

INTERPRETATION. The all but universal interpretation of the commentators is as follows: The net is the church, the fishermen are the ministry, the gathering out of the sea is the gathering into the visible church of both good and evil, the landing of the fish and the selection of the good is the day of judgment. Thus this parable is only a repetition, in a different form, of the parable of the tares. From this interpretation I dissent, because (a) it makes the central feature of the parable the present work of the ministry, while Christ's own interpretation makes the fishing a mere incident, the separation of the fish the central feature; (b) it represents the fishermen as the ministry, while Christ declares that they represent the angels; (c) it represents the church as gathering, not out of the world by moral lines, but a part of the world by mere geographical lines, and the contents of the church (the net) in nowise different morally from that of the world at large (the sea beyond); (d) it gives no significance to the drawing to the shore, and, on the contrary, represents only the church as subject to the judgment of God; (e) it repeats the parable of tares, and is thus an anticlimax in a series which otherwise possesses a true progress and development of the truth from the beginning to the close. I should hesitate to dissent from the whole current of thought in this matter, were it not that the ordinary interpretation was evidently originally adopted for controversial reasons, to silence the Donatists, who demanded a rigid discipline in the church, and has since been accepted by each new commentator, apparently on the authority of preceding writers, with little or no original investigation. To me the interpretation, which I find substantially in Arnot (to whose treatise on the parables the reader is referred for a careful and candid discussion of the subject), appears more consonant, both with the meaning of the parable and the course of the entire series. The sea is the world; out of it, by unseen but invisible influences, all humanity, good and evil, large and small, old and young, are drawn steadily, and despite their forebodings and struggles to escape, to the shore of eternity. Not until that shore is reached can the kingdom of God be fully disclosed; then the angels, who come with Christ

52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out" of his treasure things new and old.o

53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.

54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they

were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57 And they were offended in him.

But Jesus said

in his glory to judge the world (Matt. 25:31), separate the good from the bad, gathering the former into the many mansions (vessels) and casting the latter away. On verse 50, see note on verse 42, above.

This interpretation renders this parable a fitting climax in the series of seven. The Sower represents the work of Christ and the hindrances it meets in the human heart; the Tares point to the true cause of these hindrances, evil influences set at work by the evil one; the Mustard Seed gives assurance of the final victory of Christ, in the growth of the great tree from a small seed the Leaven points out the method of that growth -secret, silent, by permeation, by agitation ; the Treasure and the Pearl teach that only by a joyful choice of Christ, as a chief good, can any one come into the kingdom; and the Drag-net points out its final consummation, after death the inevitable lot, and in the judgment the inevitable test, of the whole human race. Each parable, too, receives an illustration in an historical epoch of the church. The apostolic church was the greatest of all the seed times of the church; in the ages immediately following grew up, in corruptions of life, doctrine, and worship, tares, and, by persecution, the R. C. church attempted, in vain, to distinguish between the tares and the wheat, and to destroy the one and leave the other; the little seed grew, and still grows on, more and more overshadowing all the earth; the leaven secretly, but by perpetual agitation, penetrates society; in that agitation, and in part because of it, hundreds and thousands of souls find the hid treasure; and in this later age, in which knowledge is increased, when many run to and fro seeking it, many obtain the pearl of great price, worth all else; till at last the end shall come, when all humanity shall be drawn from the sea of time to the shore of eternity, and the final and inevitable judgment shall take place.

.

51, 52. CLOSE OF THE PARABLES. Compare with these verses Mark 4: 34, "When they were alone he expounded all things to his disciples." Have ye understood? (Greek ovvíqui), i. e., συνίημι), with the heart. Compare verse 19 above and note, and Romans 10: 9. Scribe, The scribes were the theological teachers of the age. See notes on Matt. 2 : 4.

The spirit of Christ's question is that of a

father or teacher, who makes sure that his explanation has been understood. The answer is not one of undue self-confidence; though it is not to be supposed that the disciples understood the whole significance of these parables, still less the prophetic meaning which is involved in them. "Their reply must be taken as spoken from their then standing-point, from which little would be seen of that inner and deeper meaning which the Holy Spirit has since unfolded."-(Alford.) The parable of the householder which follows is interpreted by the contrast between Christ himself and the Scribes, the theologians and professional teachers of Judaism (Matt. 7: 29, and note). They, like their modern antitypes, taught by rote what they learned from the teachings of their predecessors, and in unvarying routine, without any living experience of the truth. Christ declares that the Christian scribe must bring forth out of his own treasure, i. e., his own heart experiences (compare Matt. 12 : 35), things both new and old, neither despising the old because it is old, nor rejecting the new because it is new. The contrast is not merely between the Old Testament and the New Testament, nor between old and new forms of truth, but between old and familiar disclosures, and new experiences and apprehensions of the truth. It is interpreted and applied by the charge of Robinson the Puritan pastor to his Puritan flock on the occasion of their embarking for New England: “I charge you before God and his blessed angels that you follow me no farther than you have seen me follow the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord has yet more truth to break out of his Holy Word. I cannot sufficiently bewail the condition of the Reformed churches, who are come to a period in religion and will go at present no further than the instruments of their reformation. Luther and Calvin were great and shining lights in their times, yet they penetrated not into the whole counsel of God." Our preaching should be not a mere repetition and amplification of Christ's precepts, but, like that of St. Paul, rooted in Christ, yet with its own stalk and branches.. "We must not content ourselves with old discoveries, but must be adding new." "Laying up is in order to laying out, for the benefit of others."-(Matthew Henry.)

53-58. CHRIST REJECTED AT NAZARETH. Alford and Olshausen regard this incident as

Lord's brother, as though he were an Apostle. Those are all the passages in the N. T. which refer directly to brethren or sisters of the Lord. (2.) Theories of interpretation. These are three; (a) that the term brethren is synonymous with cousins; that the brethren and sisters of our Lord were children of Mary's sister, and Lange supposes adopted by Mary into her own family; (b) that they were children of Joseph by a former wife, and so regarded as the brethren of Jesus, though not so in reality; (c) that they were younger brothers and sisters, true children of Joseph and Mary.

(3.) Arguments for the cousin theory. (a.) The term brother is sometimes used in the East to designate a more distant lateral relationship, as the term son is used to designate a more distant lineal relationship (Gen. 11 : 27, w. 13: 8, and 14; 16; 29: 12– 15). The hypothesis that these brethren were cousins or other relations of Jesus is therefore not impossible. (b.) Their names appear to identify the brethren of the Lord with certain of his Apostles. Their names are given as James, Joses (Joseph? John? see note above), Simon and Judas. Three of Christ's Apostles bore respectively the names of James, Simon and Judas. James, the Apostle, had also a brother Joses (Mark 15:40) and a brother Judas (Luke 6:16). (c.) James, the Lord's brother, is distinctly classed by Paul with the Apostles (Gal 1: 19). (d.) Christ would not at his death have commended his mother to John (John 19 : 26, 27), nor would that disciple have taken her to his own home to live, if she had at the time other children living, for they would have been her natural protectors. (e.) It is derogatory to the character of Mary and to the dignity of our Lord to suppose that children were born to her subsequent to the birth of Jesus. This last argument is, I suspect, the real foundation of the cousin theory. The whole R. C. doctrine of Mariolatry rests upon the doctrine of her perpetual virginity, and the feeling which underlies that doctrine exists also in many Protestant minds in a modified form.

(4.) Arguments against the cousin theory. (a.) The term brethren is never used in the N. T. to signify a wider relationship than true brothers; though its use in a metaphorical sense, e. g. Matt. 12: 49, is not uncommon. The O. T. references, given above, do not justify us in depriving it in the N. T. of its natural and normal meaning. (b.) The more general term kinsman (Greek ovyyɛrýs), though of frequent use in the N. T. (Mark 6:4, Luke 1: 36, 58; 2: 44; 14: 12; 21: 16; John 18: 26; Acts 10; 24; Rom. 9:3; 16: 7, 11, 21), and the more precise designations of cousin (Greek άveyios), and sister's son (Gr. γιὸς τῆς vios tū≤ úðε λ pñs), (Acts 23:16; Col. 4: 10) are never used in respect to the brethren of the Lord. (c.) In every instance in the Gospels they are mentioned in connection with Jesus' mother, and

|

in such a manner as to imply that they were part of Mary's household; while there is nothing to imply that they were either children of Joseph by a former marriage, or adopted children. (d.) | In John it is distinctly stated that Jesus' brethren did not believe in him, while it is as distinctly stated in a preceding chapter that the twelve did believe in him, despite the withdrawal of other disciples (Compare John 6: 66-69 with 7: 3-5). (e.) In Acts the brethren are said to have met with the twelve, and cannot therefore be confounded with or regarded as in part making up the number of the twelve. (f.) The language of Luke 2:7 (Comp. Matt. 1: 25 and note), "she brought forth her firstborn son," implies that other children were subsequently born to Mary. (g.) The only Scripture argument for doubting that they were true brethren of the Lord is the identity of the names of three of them with those of three of the Apostles, James, Simon, and Judas. But the frequency with which these names occur in Jewish families takes all weight from this consideration. Josephus mentions twenty-one Simons, seventeen Joses, and sixteen Judases; and in the apostolic lists are two Simons, two Judases and two Jameses. The fact that James, the Lord's brother, is called an Apostle (Gal. 1: 19), does not indicate that he was one of the twelve, for Paul and Barnabas are also called Apostles (Acts 14: 14). That title belongs not merely to the twelve, but to those who were living and personal witnesses of Christ's resurrection (1 Cor. 9:1; 15: 8, 9). That Christ commended his mother to the keeping of John does not prove, and hardly implies that there were not other children, who, since they were then unbelievers, were not in sympathy with their mother, and who also may have been without means to provide for her comfort.

For myself I can find no other reason for taking the language of the N. T., concerning the brethren of our Lord, in any except its natural sense, save a feeling, which I believe to be essentially false, that it somehow derogates from the dignity of Mary and of Jesus, to suppose that she lived in the marital relation subsequent to Christ's birth. to Christ's birth. Such a feeling, even if wellgrounded, would certainly be no basis for the interpretation of Scripture; but it is not wellgrounded. On this point Dr. Schaff's remarks are well worth pondering: "Neither his nor her honor require the perpetual virginity after his birth, unless there be something impure and unholy in the marriage relation itself. The latter we cannot admit, since God instituted marriage in the state of innocence in Paradise, and St. Paul compares it to the most sacred relation existing, the union of Christ with his church. And the Apostles and Evangelists, who are certainly much safer guides in all matters of faith

and religious feeling than even fathers and reformers, seem to have had no such feeling of repugnance to a real marriage between Joseph and Mary. It may be regarded as another proof of the true and full humanity and the condescending love of our Saviour, if he shared the common trials of family life in all its forms, and moved a brother among brothers and sisters, that he might be touched with a feeling of our infirmi- | ties." See on this subject the Introduction to Epistle to James, and note on The Apostles, their | lives and characters, Matt. ch. 10, p. 147.

Ch. 14 : 1-12.—THE DEATH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.

THE TESTIMONY OF A GUILTY CONSCIENCE (verse 2).— THE WAGES OF FAITHFUL PREACHING (Compare 2 Cor. 11: 22–27).-FEAR OF PUBLIC OPINION IS A POOR SUBSTITUTE FOR THE FEAR OF GOD (verses 5 and 9).—THE

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DANCING AND THE DANCE (verse 6 with chap. 11 : 17).-THE DANGER OF VOLUPTUOUSNESS.—A BAD PROMISE IS BETTER BROKEN THAN KEPT.—THE POWER FOR EVIL OF A WICKED WIFE AND MOTHER.—JESUS THE REFUGE OF THE AFFLICTED AND PERSECUTED (verse 12).

For parallel accounts see Mark 6 : 14-29, and Luke 3: 19, 20; 9: 7-9. Luke does not relate the death of John. Mark gives some particulars omitted here. Josephus (Ant. 18: 5) gives more fully the history of Herod's marriage to Herodias. The facts in the case, necessary to an understanding of this narrative, are these: Herodias, the grand-daughter of Herod the Great, through his favorite wife Mariamne, was an ambitious, designing, unprincipled woman. She married Herod Philip, son of Herod by another Mariamne, and heir apparent to the throne. But Philip was disinherited by his father's will, and the kingdom was divided between Antipas, Archelaus, and a second Philip; Antipas, the Herod mentioned here, being Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (see note on Luke 3: 1, and map there). married the daughter of Aretas, king of Petra, but being brought into company with Herodias, the wife of his half brother Philip, he divorced his own wife, and married Herodias, who abandoned her husband for the purpose. The king of Petra, indignant at the affront put upon him, declared war against Herod Antipas. John the Baptist, during the preparations for this war, denounced the Tetrarch for this crime, which had plunged the province into such difficulties, as well as for his other tyrannies (Luke 3:19), 3 19), and Herod, fearing the influence of his preaching, arrested him and cast him into prison.

He

Subsequent to the assassination of the Baptist, described in this chapter, Herod Antipas was totally defeated, and his army destroyed by Arctas, an event which the Jews interpreted as a divine punishment upon Herod for John's death. Later in his life, Herod, instigated by Herodias, went with her to Rome to obtain the title of king, and to complain of Agrippa, his nephew, for assuming it, was banished by Caligula to Lyons in Gaul, whence he removed to Spain, where he died, his wife sharing his exile with him. The Scripture references show him to have been tyrannical (Luke 3: 19), cunning (Luke 13: 31, 32), voluptuous, and superstitious. He is the Herod to whom Christ was sent by Pilate during the Passion week (Luke 23: 6-11), and his conduct there agrees with his character as represented here. See for full history of John's imprisonment and death Abbott's Jesus of Nazareth, chapter 21.

1. At that time. At this period of Christ's ministry. Mark gives what is the most probable chronological order. Subsequent to the parables by the sea-shore (Mark 4:1-33), followed certain miracles (Mark 4: 35–6 : 6), and the commission of the twelve (Mark 6: 7-13), recorded by Matthew more fully in Chapter 10. Their itinerant ministry added to Christ's fame and brought it to the ears of Herod. Tetrarch. Properly the governor of the fourth part of a country; but also used to designate a tributary ruler whose authority and position were not sufficient to justify the title king. Herod Antipas is generally and properly called Tetrarch, though also entitled “king" here, in verse 9, and in Mark 6 : 14, 22.

2. Therefore, i. e., because he is risen from the dead. Mighty works are at work in him. (Greek, dvráμaç évɛgyovoir.) During his life John wrought no miracles (John 10:41). Herod supposed that his resurrection had clothed him with new power. This opinion was shared by others (Matt. 16: 14; Mark 8 : 28). Luke says (Luke 9:7-9) that Herod was perplexed, and implies that his belief in John's resurrection was imbibed from others.