JESUS
CHRIST
way
of
comment
on
some
casual
incident,
or
of
a
re-joinder
made
to
a
question
or
an
objection.
On
other
occasions,
e.g.
wlienpreacUngin
the
synagogue,
we
must
suppose
Him
to
have
treated
of
some
large
subject
in
a
set
discourse,
but
it
is
unlikely
that
any
one
con-tained
more
than
an
exposition
of
an
OT
passage
(Lk
4'6<'),
or
the
message
ot
one
of
the
parables
(Mt
13<«).
The
grand
characteristic
of
His
manner
of
teaching
has
been
described
as
the
combination
of
the
utmost
degree
of
popular
intelligibility
with
memorable
pregnancy
of
expression
(Wendt,
§
2).
(a)
The
means
by
which
intelligibilitv
was
attained
was
the
copious
use
of
the
concrete
example,
and
of
the
comparison
of
ideas.
The
comparison
is
used
in
three
forms
—
the
simile,
the
metaphor,
and
the
parable.
The
parables,
again,
obviously
fall
into
three
classes.
In
one
class
we
have
a
story
which
illustrates
by
a
concrete
example
an
attitude
which
Jesus
desired
to
commend
or
to
condemn
(the
Good
Samaritan,
Lk
lO™-
;
the
Pharisee
and
the
Publican,
IS'"*).
Those
of
a
second
class
draw
attention
to
a
law
operating
in
the
natural
world
which
has
its
counterpart
in
the
Kingdom
of
God
(the
Seed
Growing
Secretly,
Mk
4»-2»;
the
Mustard
Seed,
43»i«).
In
a
third
class
there
is
a
description
of
an
event
which
has
occurred
in
special
circum-stances,
whether
in
nature
or
in
the
dealings
of
man
with
man,
and
the
particular
event
is
employed
to
illustrate
some
aspect
of
the
Divine
message
(the
Sower,
Mt
13i«-;
the
Prodigal
Son,
Lk
15"«-).
(6)
The
second
note
of
the
teaching
of
Jesus,
which
might
perhaps
be
called
indsiveness,
is
illustrated
in
the
numerous
short
sayings,
or
aphorisms,
into
which
He
condenses
a
body
of
doctrine
or
precept
(Mk
422-
1
10").
It
is
also
seen
in
the
naked,
often
paradoxical,
fashion,
in
which
He
states
a
principle.
The
doctrine
of
non-resistance,
e.g.,
He
teaches
in
uncompromising
form
by
means
of
the
special
instance
(Mt
S^'-^').
and
leaves
it
to
the
disciple
to
discover
the
other
considera-tions
which
cross
and
limit
its
application.
The
latter
observation
is
of
importance
as
a
preservative
against
the
errors
of
an
excessive
literalism
in
the
interpretation
ot
the
teaching
of
Jesus.
It
is
also
desirable
to
bear
in
mind
the
rule,
which
is
one
of
the
gains
of
modern
exegesis,
that
each
of
the
parables
of
Jesus
is
to
be
regarded
as
the
vehicle
of
one
great
lesson,
and
that
it
is
illegitimate
to
treat
it
as
an
allegory
every
detail
ot
which
has
been
consciously
filled
with
didactic
meaning.
As
regards
the
aim
of
Jesus
in
His
teaching,
it
might
be
thought
self-evident
that
it
could
be
nothing
else
than
to
make
His
message
clear
to
His
hearers.
It
is
therefore
sur-prising
to
read
that
the
parables
are
spoken
by
Jesus
with
the
purpose
of
obscuring
to
them
that
are
with-out
the
truths
which
they
reveal
to
the
disciples
—
'
that
seeing
they
may
see,
and
not
perceive;
and
hearing
they
may
hear,
and
not
understand'
(Mk
411-",
Mt
13'°i5,
Lk
89-
'»).
That
the
teaching
of
Jesus
was
largely
misapprehended
is,
of
course,
true,
and
also
that
it
had
the
effect
of
making
those
worse
who
rejected
it,
but
this
would
appear
to
be
an
instance
in
which
the
Church
has
misreported
a
tragic
consequence
as
an
original
and
deliberate
intention.
(ii)
The
mighty
works
(cf.
Bruce,
The
Miraculous
Ele-ment
in
the
Gospels,
1886).
—
The
teaching
ministry
was
accompanied
from
the
first
by
acts
of
healing,
and
these
were
followed
later
by
other
acts
involving
super-human
power.
The
Synoptic
account
of
the
mighty
works
may
be
briefly
summarized.
—
(1)
They
were
very
numerous,
and
were
of
different
kinds.
In
addition
to
the
miracles
which
are
described
in
detail,
there
are
references
of
a
general
sort
which
imply
that
Jesus'
work
was
cast
to
a
large
extent
in
the
form
of
a
healing
ministry
(Mk
1^-
»).
Some
of
the
miracles
might
be
understood
as
faith-cures
wrought
upon
persons
suffering
from
nervous
disorders
or
mental
derangement,
but
those
are
inextricably
bound
up
with
others
which
are
JESUS
CHRIST
not
explained
by
moral
therapeutics,
while
a
third
group
not
explained
imply
a
supernatural
control
of
the
forces
of
external
nature.
The
healing
miracles
may
be
divided
as
follows:
—
(a)
cure
of
organic
defects
(the
blind,
Mk
10'«-52;
the
deaf
and
dumb,
7"-");
(6)
disease
(leprosy,
Mk
V-^^
Lk
17"-";
fever,
Mk
l™-'';
dropsy,
Lk
14i-«;
paralysis,
Mk
2'-«
Mt
8'-");
(c)
death
(Mk
B'"'-,
Lk
8").
As
a
special
group,
conceived
as
miracles
in
the
spirit
world,
are
the
cures
of
epilepsy
and
lunacy
(Mk
1"-"
S'-™
y^-'"
9"").
The
Nature-miracles
have
been
classified
as
(«)
miracles
of
creative
power
(feeding
of
the
multitude,
Mk
6^-"
S^-">;
walk-ing
on
the
water,
6"-
si);
{^)
Miracles
of
Providence,
including
(i.)
miracles
of
blessing
(the
miraculous
draught
of
fishes,
Lk
S'-";
the
stilling
of
the
tempest,
Mk
42S-41);
and
(11.)
a
miracle
of
judgment
(the
cursing
of
the
fig-tree,
Mk
1112-11.
20;
cf.
Westcott,
Introd.
to
the
Gospels',
1896,
App.
E).
—
(2)
The
work-ing
of
miracles
was
conditioned
in
various
ways.
The
general
condition
on
the
side
of
the
patients
was
the
presence
of
faith
(the
woman
with
the
issue,
Mk
5"*-^;
Bartimaeus,
Mk
10"-52).
In
the
absence
of
faith
Jesus
could
do
nothing
or
little
(Mk
6'-«,
Mt
13'*).
It
was
not,
however,
necessary
that
this
faith
should
be
personal:
in
some
cases
it
was
the
vicarious
faith
of
a
parent
or
of
a
friend
that
had
power
and
pre-vailed
(the
centurion's
servant,
Mt
8'-":
the
daughter
of
the
Syrophcenician
woman,
Mk
72*-'").
In
some
instances
the
miracle
is
represented
as
having
its
spring
in
sympathy,
apart
from
any
reference
to
the
spiritual
condition
of
the
sufferer
(the
fever,
Mk
12»-m;
dropsy,
Lk
141
■«)
;
while
in
cases
of
possession
it
could
take
place
in
the
face
of
reluctance
and
antagonism
(the
unclean
spirit.
Mk
12ifl-:
the
man
in
the
tombs,
5'-").
As
regards
the
powers
of
Jesus,
the
impression
is
not
given
that
He
was
in
possession
of
an
omnipotence
which
He
was
able
to
wield
at
will.
For
what
He
is
able
to
accompUsh
He
is
dependent
on
the
Father,
who
supplies
Him
with
power
in
the
measure
in
which
it
is
needed
for
the
dis-charge
of
His
mission.
In
the
background
of
the
miracles
was
the
life
of
communion
with
God
which
Jesus
lived.
'This
kind,'
He
significantly
says,
'can
come
out
by
nothing,
save
by
prayer'
(Mk
92»).
It
would
also
appear
that
the
cures
made
a
demand
upon
His
energies
which
gave
rise
to
a
feeling
of
physical
exhaustion
(Mk
5'°).
—
(3)
The
significance
of
the
miracles.
The
leading
point
of
view
in
which
they
are
regarded
in
the
Gospels
Is
undeniably
the
evidential.
In
the
fundamental
narrative
the
argument
advances
from
the
testimonies
as
the
first
link,
to
the
mighty
works
as
the
second
link,
in
the
chain
of
Messianic
proof.
It
would
be
impossible
to
state
the
evidential
aspect
more
strongly
than
is
done
in
the
reply
to
the
question
of
John
the
Baptist
(Mt
112ff).
(ill)
The
calling
and
teaching
of
disciples
(cf.
Bruce,
The
Training
of
the
Twelve,
1877).
—
The
effect
of
the
Ministry
was
that
Jesus,
like
the
prophets
of
old,
John
the
Baptist,
and
the
Rabbis,
gathered
around
Him
a
group
ot
disciples.
The
great
body
of
those
who
regarded
Him
as
a
Divinely
sent
teacher
must
have
remained
in
their
homes,
and
been
content
to
hear
Him
when
they
had
a
convenient
opportunity;
and
there
is
no
reason
to
think
that
they
were
organized
in
any
way
into
societies,
except
in
so
far
as
a
natural
instinct
would
prompt
them
to
meet
and
speak
one
to
another
of
the
things
which
they
had
seen
and
heard.
There
was
a
second
body
of
disciples,
sometimes
large
but
fluctuating
in
size,
which
accompanied
Jesus
on
His
journeys.
Some
He
invited
to
join
this
company,
others
He
sternly
invited
to
count
the
cost
(Mt
8'™).
Within
this
company
He
formed
an
inner
circle
of
twelve,
who
left
all
for
His
sake,
and
with
a
few
breaks
were
found
constantly
at
His
side.
The
call
of
Simon
and
Andrew,
James
and
John
(Mk
l'™).
is
related
to
have
occurred
in
the
first
days
of
the
Galilsean
ministry.
An
early
Christian
tradition
(Ep.
Barn.
5)
