Matthew's account of the invaluable address, known as the Sermon on the Mount, is closed with a forceful sentence of his own. A striking characteristic of Christ's ministry was the entire absence of any claim of human authority for His words or deeds. His addresses, whether delivered to multitudes or spoken in relative privacy to few, were free from the labored citations in which the teachers of the day delighted. His authoritative "I say unto you" took the place of invocation of authority and exceeded any possible array of precedent commandment or deduction.
The centurion had faith that Christ could heal his servant, and invoked the intercession of the Jewish elders to beg of the Master the boon desired. A military officer, a centurion or captain of a hundred men, was stationed in Capernaum. Attached to the household of this officer was an esteemed servant, who was ill, "and ready to die"
The centurion, probably learning of the approach of the little company, hastily sent other envoys to say that he did not consider himself worthy to have Jesus enter his home. We may well contrast this man's conception of Christ's power with that of the nobleman of the same town, who had requested Jesus to hasten in person to the side of his dying son. The centurion seems to have reasoned in this way: He himself was a man of authority, though under the direction of superior officers. To his subordinates he gave orders which were obeyed. "But," ran the message of supplication, "say in a word, and my servant shall be healed"
He did not find it necessary to personally attend to the carrying out of his instructions. Surely One who had such power as Jesus possessed could command and be obeyed. Jesus is said to have marveled at the centurion's manifestation of faith, and, turning to the people who followed, He thus spake: "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel."
This remark may have caused some of the listeners to wonder. The Jews were unaccustomed to hear the faith of a Gentile so extolled. A Gentile, even though an earnest proselyte to Judaism, was accounted essentially inferior to even the least worthy of the chosen people. Our Lord's comment plainly indicated that Gentiles would be preferred in the kingdom of God if they excelled in worthiness. This lesson, that the supremacy of Israel can be attained only through excellence in righteousness, is reiterated and enlarged upon in the Lord's teachings, as we shall see.
On the day after that of the miracle last considered, Jesus went to the little town of Nain, and, as usual, many people accompanied Him. This day witnessed what in human estimation was a wonder greater than any before wrought by Him. He had already healed many, sometimes by a word spoken to afflicted ones present, and again when He was far from the subject of His beneficent power. But, though the sick who were nigh unto death had been saved from the grave, we have no earlier record of our Lord having commanded dread death itself to give back one it had claimed. The only son of a widow was being borne to the tomb; the body was carried according to the custom of the day on an open b
Our Lord looked with compassion upon the sorrowing mother, now bereft of both husband and son. He said in gentle tone, "Weep not." He touched the stretcher upon which the dead man lay, and the bearers stood still. Then addressing the corpse He said: "Young man, I say unto thee, Arise" And the dead heard the voice of Him who is Lord of all, and immediately sat up and spoke. We read without wonder that there came a fear on all who were present, and that they glorified God, testifying that a great prophet was amongst them. Reports of this miracle were carried throughout the land, and even reached the ears of John the Baptist, who was confined in the prison
Even before Jesus had returned to Galilee after His baptism and the forty days of solitude in the wilderness, John the Baptist had been imprisoned by order of Herod Antipas. Herod had listened to John gladly, and had imprisoned him through a reluctant yielding to the importunities of Herodias, whom Herod claimed as a wife under cover of an illegal marriage. The tetrarch had some regard for John, having found him to be a holy man; and many things had Herod done on the direct advice of the Baptist or because of the influence of the latter's general teaching.
Herodias had been and legally was still the wife of Herod's brother Philip, from whom she had never been lawfully divorced. Her pretended marriage to Herod Antipas was both adulterous and incestuous under Jewish law. The Baptist had fearlessly denounced this sinful association; to Herod he had said: "It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife" Herod feared an uprising of the people in the event of John being slain by his order.
In the course of his long imprisonment John had heard much of the marvelous preaching and works of Christ. Particularly was he informed of the miraculous raising of the young man at Nain. He commissioned two of his disciples to bear a message of inquiry to Jesus. These came to Christ and reported the purpose of their visit. The messengers found Jesus engaged in beneficent ministrations. He continued His labor, relieving in that same hour many who were afflicted by blindness or infirmities, or who were troubled by evil spirits.
The words of John's inquiring disciples were answered by wondrous deeds of beneficence and mercy. When the reply was reported to John, the imprisoned prophet could scarcely have failed to remember the predictions of Isaiah, that by those very tokens of miracle and blessing should the Messiah be known. The reproof must have been convincing and convicting as he called to mind his own citations of Isaiah's prophecies, when he had proclaimed in fiery, withering eloquence the fulfilment of those earlier predictions in his own mission and in that of the Mightier One to whom he had borne personal testimony.
"Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me," said the Lord. Misunderstanding is the prelude to offense. Christ has been an offender to many because they, being out of harmony with His words and works, have of themselves taken offense.
John's situation must be righteously considered by all who assume to render judgment as to his purpose in sending to inquire of Christ, "Art thou he that should come?" John thoroughly understood that his own work was that of preparation; he had so testified and had openly borne witness that Jesus was the One for whom he had been sent to prepare. But, left in prison, he may have become despondent, and may have permitted himself to wonder whether that Mightier One had forgotten him.
He knew that were Jesus to speak the word of command the prison of Machærus could no longer hold him; nevertheless Jesus seemed to have abandoned him to his fate. It may have been a part of John's purpose to call Christ's attention to his pitiable plight. In this respect his message was rather a reminder than a plain inquiry based on actual doubt.
After the envoys had departed, Jesus addressed Himself to the people who had witnessed the interview. He reminded them of the time of John's popularity, when some of those then present, and multitudes of others, had gone into the wilderness to hear the prophet's stern admonition. They had found in John a prophet indeed, yea, more than a prophet.
Other prophets had told of the Messiah's coming, but John had seen Him, had baptized Him, and had been to Jesus as a body servant to his master. Nevertheless from the day of John's preaching to the time at which Christ then spoke, the kingdom of heaven had been rejected with violence. Concerning John, the Lord continued: "And if ye will... receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come" It is important to know that the designation, Elias, here applied by Jesus to the Baptist, is a title rather than a personal name, and that it has no reference to Elijah, the ancient prophet called the Tishbite.
Many of those who heard the Lord's eulogy on the Baptist rejoiced, for they had accepted John, and had turned from him to Jesus. But Pharisees and lawyers were present, those of the class that John had so vehemently denounced as of a generation of vipers, and those who had rejected the counsel of God in refusing to heed the Baptist's call to repentance. At this point the Master resorted to analogy to make His meaning clearer. He compared the unbelieving and dissatisfied generation to fickle children at play, disagreeing among themselves. Some wanted to enact the pageantry of a mock wedding, and though they piped the rest would not dance. Then they changed to a funeral procession and essayed the part
John the Baptist had come amongst them like the eremitic prophets of old, as strict as any Nazarite, refusing to eat with the merry-makers or drink with the convivial. The Master explained that such inconsistency, such wicked trifling with matters most sacred, would surely be revealed in their true light, and the worthlessness of boasted learning would appear. "But," said He, "wisdom is justified of all her children."
From reproof for unbelieving individuals He turned to unappreciative communities. He upbraided the cities in which He had wrought so many mighty works, and wherein the people repented not. Seemingly faint at heart over the unbelief of the people, Jesus sought strength in prayer.
With the eloquence of soul for which one looks in vain save in the anguish-laden communion of Christ with His Father, He voiced His reverent gratitude that God had imparted a testimony of the truth to the humble and simple rather than to the learned and great. Turning again to the people, He urged anew their acceptance of Him and His gospel, and His invitation is one of the grandest outpourings of spiritual emotion known to man. He invited them from drudgery to pleasant service; from the well-nigh unbearable burdens of ecclesiastical exactions and traditional formalism, to the liberty of truly spiritual worship; from slavery to freedom; but they would not.
The gospel He offered them was the embodiment of liberty, but not of license. It entailed obedience and submission; but even if such could be likened unto a yoke, what was its burden in comparison with the incubus under which they groaned? DEATH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. We are left without information as to how he received and understood the reply to his inquiry, as brought by his messengers. His captivity was destined soon to end, though not by restoration to liberty on earth. The hatred of Herodias increased against him. An opportunity for carrying into effect her fiendish plots against his life soon appeared. The king celebrated his birthday by a great feast, to which his lords, high captains, and
So enchanted were Herod and his guests that the king bade the damsel ask whatever she would, and he swore he would give it unto her. She retired to consult her mother as to what she should ask, and, being instructed, returned with the appalling demand: "I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist" The king was astounded; his amazement was followed by sorrow and regret; nevertheless, he dreaded the humiliation that would follow a violation of his court.
Herod was sorely troubled over the murder he had ordered. So ended the life of the prophet-priest, the direct precursor of the Christ. Thus was stilled the mortal voice of him who had cried so mightily in the wilderness. After many centuries his voice has been heard again, as the voice of one redeemed and resurrected. In this the touch of his hand has again been felt, in this the dispensation of restoration and fulness.
Luke's narration of events suggests an attitude of condescension on the part of the host. Jesus accepted the Pharisee's invitation, as He had accepted the invitations of others, including even publicans, and those called by the rabbis, sinners. His reception at Simon's house appears to have been somewhat lacking in warmth, hospitality and honorable attendance.
It was the custom of the times to treat a distinguished guest with marked attention. Jesus took His place, probably on one of the divans or couches on which it was usual to partly sit, partly recline, while eating. Such an attitude would place the feet of the person outward from the table. It was not unusual at that time in Palestine for visitors and even strangers, usually men, to enter a house at meal time, observe the procedure and even speak to the guests, all without bidding or invitation.
Among those who entered Simon's house while the meal was in progress, was a woman. She approached Jesus from behind, and bent low to kiss His feet. As she leaned over the feet of Jesus her tears rained upon them. She may have been one of those who had heard His gracious words, spoken possibly that day.
The woman wiped the Lord's feet with her hair and anointed them with ointment. Jesus graciously permitted the woman to proceed unrebuked and uninterrupted in her humble service inspired by contrition and reverent love. Simon had observed the whole proceeding; by some means he had knowledge as to the class to which this woman belonged. He said: "This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner"
Jesus asked Simon, "Which of them will love him most?" Simon gave, though apparently with some hesitation or reserve. "I suppose" he ventured, "that he, to whom he forgave most." Jesus said, "Thou hast rightly judged," and proceeded: "Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head" The Pharisee could not fail to note so direct a reminder of his having omitted the ordinary rites of respect to a specially invited guest. The lesson of the story had found its application in him, even as Nathan's parable had drawn
"Wherefore," Jesus continued, "I say unto thee, her sins, which are many, are forgiven" Simon and the others at table murmured within themselves, "Who is this that forgiveth sins also?" Christ addressed the woman again, saying, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace"
Some writers have represented Mary of Bethany as the woman who anointed the head of Jesus with spikenard. This is an unjustifiable reflection upon the earlier life of Mary, the devoted and loving sister of Martha and Lazarus. Equally wrong is the attempt made by others to identify this repentant and forgiven sinner with Mary Magdalene, no period of her life was marked by the sin of unchastity so far as the scriptures aver. The importance of guarding against mistakes in the identity of these women renders advisable the following addition to the foregoing treatment. In the chapter following that in which are recorded the incidents last considered, Luke states that Jesus went throughout the region, visiting every city and village, preaching the gospel of the
With Him on this tour were the Twelve, and also "certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities" Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance. Further reference is made to some or all of these honorable women in connection with the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord.
Mary Magdalene became one of the closest friends Christ had among women. Her devotion to Him as her Healer and as the One whom she adored as the Christ, was unswerving. To say that this woman, chosen from among women as deserving of such distinctive honors, was once a fallen creature, her soul seared by the heat of unhallowed lust, is to contribute to the perpetuating of an error for which there is no excuse.
The false tradition, arising from early and unjustifiable assumption, that this noble woman, distinctively a friend of the Lord, is the same who, admittedly a sinner, washed and anointed the Savior's feet in the house of Simon the Pharisee has so tenaciously held its place in the popular mind through the centuries. We are not considering whether the mercy of Christ could have been extended to such a sner as Mary of Magdala is wrongly reputed to have been. Man cannot measure the bounds nor fathom the depths of divine forgiveness. If it were so that this Mary and the repentant sinner who ministered to Jesus were one and the same, the question would stand affirmatively answered, for that
We are dealing with the scriptural record as a history, and nothing said therein warrants the really repellent though common imputation of unchastity to the devoted soul of Mary Magdalene. At the time of our Lord's earthly ministry, the curing of the blind, deaf, or dumb was regarded as among the greatest possible achievements of medical science or spiritual treatment. The subjection or casting out of demons was ranked among the attainments impossible to rabbinical exorcism. Demonstrations of the Lord's power to heal and restore, even in cases universally considered as incurable, had the effect of intensifying the hostility of the sacerdotal classes. They, represented by the Pharisaic party, evolved the wholly inconsistent
While the Lord was making His second missionary tour through Galilee, the absurd theory that Christ was Himself a victim of demoniacal possession was urged and enlarged upon. Jesus had withdrawn himself from the more populous centers, where He was constantly watched by emissaries, whom the ruling classes had sent from Jerusalem into Galilee. But even in the smaller towns and rural districts He was followed and beset by great multitudes, to whom He ministered for both physical and spiritual ailments.
He urged the people to refrain from spreading His fame. Matthew sees in the Lord's injunctions against publicity a fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy that the chosen Messiah would not strive nor cry out on the street to attract attention. He would not fail nor be discouraged, but would victoriously establish just judgment upon the earth for the Gentiles, as well as, by implication, for Israel.
The figure of the bruised reed and the smoking flax is strikingly expressive of the tender care with which Christ treated even the weakest manifestation of faith, whether exhibited by Jew or Gentile. Soon after His return from the missionary tour referred to, an excuse for the Pharisees to assail Him was found in His healing of a man who was under the influence of a demon, and was both blind and dumb. This combination of sore afflictions, affecting body, mind, and spirit, was rebuked, and the sightless, speechless demoniac was relieved of his three-fold burden. At this triumph over the powers of evil the people were the more amazed and said: "Is not this the son of David?"
Jesus took up the malicious charge and replied thereto, not in anger but in terms of calm reason and sound logic. He laid the foundation of His defense by stating the evident truth that a kingdom divided against itself cannot endure but must surely suffer disruption. If their assumption were in the least degree founded on truth, Satan through Jesus would be opposing Satan.
By the acceptance of either proposition, and surely one was true, the Pharisees stood defeated and condemned. But the illustration went further. Christ had attacked the stronghold of Satan, had driven his evil spirits from the human tabernacles of which they had unwarrantably taken possession. How could Christ have done this had He not first subdued the "strong man," the master of devils, Satan himself? And yet those ignorant scholars dared to say in the face of such self-evident refutation of their own premises, that the powers of Satan were subdued by Satanic agency. There could be no agreement, no truce nor armistice between the contending powers of Christ and Satan.
Jesus said: "He that is not with me is against me" He then condemned the sin of condemning the power and authority by which Satan was overcome. He had proved to them on the basis of their own proposition that He, having subdued Satan, was the embodiment of the Spirit of God, and that through Him the kingdom of God was brought to them. What blasphemy could be greater? He continued: "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men"
"To speak against the authority He possessed, and particularly to ascribe that power and authority to Satan, was very near to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, for which sin there could be no forgiveness" "If they admitted that the result of His labors was good, why did they not acknowledge that the power by which such results were attained, in other words that the tree itself was good?"
"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?" "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment" "The Master's lesson fell on ears that were practically deaf to spiritual truth"
"Master, we would see a sign from thee," they asked. "Had not the blind and the deaf, the dumb and the infirm, the palsied and the dropsical, and people afflicted with all manner of diseases, been healed in their houses, on their streets, and in their synagogs?" They would have some surpassing wonder wrought, to satisfy curiosity, or perhaps to afford them further excuse for action against Him. Small wonder, that "he sighed deeply in his spirit" when such demands were made.
To the scribes and Pharisees who had shown such inattention to His words, He replied: "There shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas." The sign of Jonas (or Jonah) was that for three days he had been in the belly of the fish and then had been restored to liberty. So would the Son of Man be immured in the tomb, after which He would rise again. That was the only sign He would give them, and by that would they stand condemned. Against them and their generation would the men of Nineveh rise in judgment.
When a demon is cast out, he tries after a season of loneliness to return to the house or body from which he had been expelled. He calls other spirits more wicked than himself, and they take possession of the man. In this weird example is typified the condition of those who have received the truth. They renounce the good, open their souls to the demons of falsehood and deceit, and become more corrupt than before. "Even so," declared the Lord, "shall it be also unto this wicked generation."
Christ's mother and His brethren were present and desired to speak with Him. A woman in the company raised her voice in an invocation of blessing on the mother who had given birth to such a Son, and on the breasts that had suckled Him. While not rejecting this tribute of reverence, which applied to both mother and Son, Jesus answered: "Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it"
He asked, "Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?" Answering His own question and expressing in the answer the deeper thought in His mind, He said, pointing toward His disciples: "Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother"
We are not justified in construing these remarks as evidence of disrespect, far less of filial and family disloyalty. Devotion, similar in kind at least, was expected by Him of the apostles, who were called to devote without reserve their time and talents to the ministry. The purpose on which the relatives of Jesus had come to see Him is not made known; we may infer, therefore, that it was of no great importance beyond the family circle.
It was then allowable to speak of one who causes something to be done as doing that thing himself. A man may say he has built a house, when in reality others did the work of building though at his instance. An architect may with propriety be said to have constructed a building, when as a matter of fact he made the design, and directed others who actually reared the structure. 2. Jesus marveled at the faith shown by the centurion, who begged that his beloved servant be healed (Matt. 8:10; Luke 7:9). Some have queried how Christ, whom they consider to have been omniscient during His life in the flesh, could have marveling at anything.
The meaning of the passage is evident in the sense that when the fact of the centurion's faith was brought to His attention, He pondered over it, and contemplated it, probably as a refreshing contrast to the absence of faith He so generally encountered. In similar way, though with sorrow in place of joy, He is said to have marveled at the peoples' unbelief (Mark 6:6). 3. Sequence of the Miracles of Raising the Dead. —As stated and reiterated in the text the chronology of the events in our Lord's ministry, as recorded by the Gospel-writers, is uncertain. We have record of three instances of miraculous restoration of the dead to life at the word of Jesus.
Of course the placing of the raising of Lazarus as the latest of the three is based on certainty. Dr. Richard C. Trench, in his scholarly and very valuable Notes on the Miracles of our Lord, definitely asserts that theraising of the daughter of Jairus is the first.
The raising of the damsel is an instance of recalling to life one who had but just died. Luke, the sole recorder of the miracle at Nain, places the event before that of the daughter of Jairus, with many incidents between. We cannot consistently conceive of these cases as offering grades of greater or lesser difficulty to the power of Christ. In each case His word of authority was sufficient to reunite the spirit and body of the dead person.
The great preponderance of evidence is in favor of considering the three miracles in the order followed herein. Herod Antipas is distinctively called the tetrarch in Matt. 14:1; Luke 3:1, 19; 9:7; and Acts 13:1. According to the historian Josephus, the prison to which John the Baptist was consigned by Herod Antips was the strong fortress Machærus.
In our English version of the Holy Bible the word "offend" and its cognates, are used in place of several different expressions which occur in the original Greek. In passing it may be well to observe that whatever of reproof or rebuke these words may connote, the lesson was given in the gentlest way and in the form most easy to understand.
In other instances even the works of righteousness are construed as causes of offense to the wicked. This is so, not because the good works were in any way offenses against law or right, but because the law-breaker takes offense thereat. The convicted felon, if unrepentant and still of evil mind, is offended and angry at the law by which he has been brought to justice. To him the law is a cause of offense. In a very significant sense Jesus Christ stands as the greatest offender in history.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is designated by Peter as "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient" (1 Peter 2:8; compare Paul's words, Romans 9:33). Indeed blessed is he to whom the gospel is welcome, and who finds therein no cause for offense. 7. The exalted nature of the mission of John the Baptist was thus testified to by Jesus: "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptists"
of the Church , under date named): "It could not have been on account of the miracles John performed, for he did no miracles; but it was—First, because he was trusted with a divine mission of preparing the way before the face of the Lord. Second, he was trusting and it was required at his hands, to baptise the Son of Man. Who ever did that? Who ever had so great a privilege or glory?" Third, John at that time was the only legal administrator holding the keys of power there was on earth. The keys, the kingdom, the power, the glory had departed from the Jews; and John, the son of Zacharias, by the holy anointing and decree of
John the Baptist said, "Notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" The true meaning may be, that surpassingly great as was John's distinction among the prophets, he had not learned, at the time of the incident under consideration, the full purpose of the Messiah's mission. Through latter-day inspiration we learn that "it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance" and that "The glory of God in intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth" (Doc. and Cov. 93:36).
The Baptist's inquiry showed that he was then lacking in knowledge, imperfectly enlightened and unable to comprehend the whole truth of the Savior's appointed death and subsequent resurrection. Jesus in no wise intimated that John would remain less than the least in the kingdom of heaven. As he increased in knowledge of the vital truths of the kingdom, and rendered obedience thereto, he would surely advance, and become great in the Kingdom of heaven as he was great among the prophets of earth.
"Elias" is both a name and a title of office. Revelation in the present dispensation we learn of the separate individuality of Elias and Elijah. We learn that the office of Elias is that of restoration (Doc. and Cov. 27:6, 7; 76:100; 77:9, 14).
Under date of March 10, 1844, the following is recorded ( Hist. of Church ) as the testimony of the prophet Joseph Smith. "The spirit of Elias is to prepare the way for a greater revelation of God, which is the Priesthood of Elias" "We find the apostles endowed with greater power than John: their office was more under the spirit and power of Elijah than Elias"
This shows the distinction between the two powers. Paul went and baptized them, for he knew what the true doctrine was, and he knew that John had not baptized them. And these principles are strange to me, that men who have read the Scriptures of the New Testament are so far from it.
"John did not transcend his bounds, but faithfully performed that part belonging to his office" "That person who holds the keys of Elias hath a preparatory work" "This is the Elias spoken of in the last days, and here is the rock upon which many split" "I speak with boldness, for I know verily my doctrine is true" "Sat at meat" is stated by good authority to be a mistranslation.
The custom of reclining on couches set around the table seems to date back long before the days of Jesus (Amos 3:12; 6:4) The Roman usage of arranging the tables and adjoining couches along three sides of a square, leaving the fourth side open for the passage of the attendants who served the diners was common in Palestine. Tables and couches so placed constituted the triclinium.
The attempt to identify the contrite sinner who anointed the feet of Jesus in the house of Simon the Pharisee with Mary of Bethany is strongly condemned by Farrar (p. 228, note): "Those who identify this feast at the house with the long-subsequent feast at Simon the leper, at Bethany, adopt principles of criticism so reckless and arbitrary that their general acceptance would rob the Gospels of all credibility, and make them hardly worth study as truthful narratives"
Simon and Judas were at least as common among the Jews of that day as Smith and Jones among ourselves. There are five or six Judes and nine Simons mentioned in the New Testament. The custom still continues. The incident (of anointing with ointment) is one quite in accordance with the customs of the time and country, and there is not the least improbability in its repetition under different circumstances. (Eccles. 9:8; Cant. 4:10; Amos 6:6.)
The learned canon is fully justified in his vigorous criticism. As stated in our text, there is an entire absence of trustworthy evidence that Mary Magdalene was ever tainted with the sin for which the repentant woman in the Pharisee's house was so graciously pardoned by our Lord. The nature of the awful sin against the Holy Ghost, against which the Lord warned the Pharisaic accusers who sought to ascribe His divine power to Satan, is more fully explained in modern revelation.
Concerning them and their dreadful fate, the Almighty has said:—"I say that it had been better for them never to have been born, for they are vessels of wrath" "They are doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity" "There is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come"
They shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment. An Adulterous Generation Seeking after Signs. "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign" (Matt. 6:4-6; B. of M., Alma 39:6.) "The end, the width, the height, the depth, and the misery thereof, they understand not, neither any man except them who are ordained unto this condemnation" (Doc. and Cov. 76:31-48)
"Adulterous" could only be interpreted by the Jews as a supreme reproof. Adam Clarke in his commentary on Matt. 12:39, says of this phase of our topic: "There is the utmost proof from their own writings, that in the time of our Lord, they were most literally an adulterous race of people" Rabbi Jachanan ben Zacchi abrogated the trial by the bitter waters of jealousy, because so many were found to be thus criminal. The sin of adultery was included among capital offenses (Deut. 22:22-25).
The severity of the accusation as applied by Jesus was intensified by the fact that the older scriptures represented the covenant between Jehovah and Israel as a marriage bond. Convicted on such a charge those sign-seeking Pharisees and scribes understood that Jesus classed them as worse than the idolatrous heathen. The words "adultery" and "idolatry" are of related origin, each connoting the act of unfaithfulness and the turning away after false objects of affection or worship.
The attempt of Mary and some members of her family to speak with Jesus on the occasion referred to in the text has been construed by many writers to mean that the mother and sons had come to protest against the energy and zeal with which Jesus was pursuing His work. The scriptural record furnishes no foundation for even a tentative conception of the kind. The purpose of the desired visit is not intimated.
It is a fact as will be shown in pages to follow, that some members of Mary's household had failed to understand the great import of the work in which Jesus was so assiduously engaged. We are told that some of His friends (marginal rendering, "kinsmen,") on one occasion set out with the purpose of laying hold on Him and stopping His public activities by physical force. These facts, however, scarcely warrant the assumption that the desire of Mary and her sons to speak with Him on the occasion referred to was other than peaceful.
The statement that the brethren of Jesus did not believe on Him at the time referred to by the recorder (John 7:5) is no proof that some or even all of those same brethren did not later believe on their divine Brother. Immediately after the Lord's ascension, Mary, the mother of Jesus, and His brethren were engaged in worship and supplication with the Eleven and other disciples (Acts 1:14). The attested fact of Christ's resurrection converted many who had before declined to accept Him as the Son of God.
Paul records a special manifestation of the resurrected Christ to James (1 Cor. 15:7) The specific family relationship of our Lord to James, Joses, Simon, Judas and the sisters referred to by Matthew (13:55, 56), and Mark (6:3), has been questioned. The Eastern or Epiphanian hypothesis holds, on no firmer basis than assumption, that the brethren of Jesus were children of Joseph of Nazareth by a former wife, and not the children of Mary the Lord's mother.
The Hieronymian hypothesis is based on the belief that the persons referred to as brethren and sisters of Jesus were children of Clopas (Alpheus) and Mary the sister of the Lord's mother, and therefore cousins to Jesus. It is beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was regarded by those, who were acquainted with the family of Joseph and Mary, as a close blood relative of other sons and daughters belonging to the household. (See Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25.)
The acceptance of this relationship between Jesus and His "brethren" and "sisters" mentioned by the synoptists constitutes what is known in theological literature as the Helvidian view. Matt. 7:29; compare Luke 4:32; John 7:46. Luke 7:1-10; compare Matt. 8:5-13. John 4:46-53; see page 177 . Note 2 , end of chapter.
13:57; 24:10; 26:31; Mark 6:3; 14:27; John 6:61. Note that Jesus compared the sufferings of John while in prison as in part comparable to those He would Himself have to endure. They did unto John "whatsoever they listed" (Matt. 17:12; Mark 9:13). Luke 7:24-30; see also Matt. 11:7-14; compare Christ's testimony of John Baptist delivered at Jerusalem, John 5:33-35.
Matt. 12:38-45; compare 16:1; Mark 8:11; Luke 11:16, 29; John 2:18; 1 Cor. 1:22. Doc. and Cov. 46:9; compare 63:7-12. Luke 2:49. Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21. John 19:25; 20:1, 13, 18.