18

CHAPTER 18.

AS ONE HAVING AUTHORITY.


Matthew's account of the invaluable address, known to us as the Sermon
on the Mount, is closed with a forceful sentence of his own, referring
to the effect of the Master's words upon the people: "For he taught them
as one having authority, and not as the scribes."[550] A striking
characteristic of Christ's ministry was the entire absence of any claim
of human authority for His words or deeds; the commission He professed
to have was that of the Father who sent Him. 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. In this His words differed essentially from the erudite
utterances of scribes, Pharisees and rabbis. Throughout His ministry,
inherent power and authority were manifest over matter and the forces of
nature, over men and demons, over life and death. It now becomes our
purpose to consider a number of instances in which the Lord's power was
demonstrated in divers mighty works.


THE CENTURION'S SERVANT HEALED.[551]

From the Mount of Beatitudes Jesus returned to Capernaum, whether
directly or by a longer way marked by other works of power and mercy is
of little importance. There was at that time a Roman garrison in the
city. A military officer, a centurion or captain of a hundred men, was
stationed there. Attached to the household of this officer was an
esteemed servant, who was ill, "and ready to die." 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. These elders
implored Jesus most earnestly, and urged the worthiness of the man, who,
though a Gentile, loved the people of Israel and out of his munificence
had built for them a synagog in the town. Jesus went with the elders,
but 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, from which sense of
unworthiness he had not ventured to make his request in person.[552]
"But," ran the message of supplication, "say in a word, and my servant
shall be healed." 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.[553]

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. 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. Moreover, the man may have heard of the marvelous restoration of
the nobleman's dying son, in accomplishing which the Lord spoke the
effective word when miles away from the sufferer's bed. That the
centurion's trust and confidence, his belief and faith, were genuine, is
not to be doubted, since Jesus expressly commended the same. The
afflicted one was healed. Jesus is said to have marveled[554] at the
centurion's manifestation of faith, and, turning to the people who
followed, He thus spake: "I say unto you, 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, for, according to the traditionalism of the day, 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. Turning to Matthew's
record we find this additional teaching, introduced as usual with "I say
unto you"--"That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit
down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But
the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."[555] 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.


A YOUNG MAN OF NAIN RAISED FROM THE DEAD.[556]

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; bodily diseases had been overcome, and
demons had been rebuked at His command; 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.[557] As Jesus and His followers approached the town, they met a
funeral cortege of many people; 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 bier. Our Lord looked with compassion upon the sorrowing mother,
now bereft of both husband and son; and, feeling in Himself[558] the
pain of her grief, 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,[559] and immediately
sat up and spoke. Graciously Jesus delivered the young man to his
mother. 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 and that God has visited His people. Reports of this
miracle were carried throughout the land, and even reached the ears of
John the Baptist, who was confined in the prison of Herod. The effect of
the information conveyed to John concerning this and other mighty works
of Christ, now claims our attention.


JOHN BAPTIST'S MESSAGE TO JESUS.

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, tetrarch of Galilee and
Perea.[560] During the subsequent months of our Lord's activities, in
preaching the gospel, teaching the true significance of the kingdom,
reproving sin, healing the afflicted, rebuking evil spirits and even
raising the dead to life, His forerunner, the God-fearing, valiant John,
had lain a prisoner in the dungeons of Machaerus, one of the strongest of
Herod's citadels.[561]

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. Indeed,
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. Herodias had been and
legally was still the wife of Herod's brother Philip, from whom she had
never been lawfully divorced; and 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." Though Herod
might possibly have ignored this stern rebuke, or at least might have
allowed it to pass without punishment, Herodias would not condone. It
was she, not the tetrarch, who most hated John; she "had a quarrel
against him," and succeeded in inducing Herod to have the Baptist seized
and incarcerated as a step toward the consummation of her vengeful plan
of having him put to death.[562] Moreover, Herod feared an uprising of
the people in the event of John being slain by his order.[563]

In the course of his long imprisonment John had heard much of the
marvelous preaching and works of Christ; these things must have been
reported to him by some of his disciples and friends who were allowed to
visit him.[564] Particularly was he informed of the miraculous raising
of the young man at Nain;[565] and forthwith he commissioned two of his
disciples to bear a message of inquiry to Jesus.[566] These came to
Christ and reported the purpose of their visit thus: "John Baptist hath
sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for
another?" The messengers found Jesus engaged in beneficent
ministrations; and, instead of giving an immediate reply in words, He
continued His labor, relieving in that same hour many who were afflicted
by blindness or infirmities, or who were troubled by evil spirits. Then,
turning to the two who had communicated the Baptist's question, Jesus
said: "Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard;
how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf
hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. And
blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me."

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;[567] and 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.[568]

The concluding sentence of our Lord's answer to John was the climax of
what had preceded, and a further though yet gentle rebuke of the
Baptist's defective comprehension of the Messiah's mission. "Blessed is
he, whosoever shall not be offended in me," said the Lord.
Misunderstanding is the prelude to offense. Gaged by the standard of the
then current conception of what the Messiah would be, the work of Christ
must have appeared to many as failure; and those who were looking for
some sudden manifestation of His power in the conquest of Israel's
oppressors and the rehabilitation of the house of David in worldly
splendor, grew impatient, then doubtful; afterward they took offense and
were in danger of turning in open rebellion against their Lord. Christ
has been an offender to many because they, being out of harmony with His
words and works, have of themselves taken offense.[569]

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.
With the inauguration of Christ's ministry, John's influence had waned,
and for many months he had been shut up in a cell, chafing under his
enforced inactivity, doubtless yearning for the freedom of the open, and
for the locusts and wild honey of the desert. Jesus was increasing while
he decreased in popularity, influence, and opportunity; and he had
affirmed that such condition was inevitable.[570]

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
Machaerus could no longer hold him; nevertheless Jesus seemed to have
abandoned him to his fate, which comprized not only confinement but
other indignities, and physical torture.[571] It may have been a part of
John's purpose to call Christ's attention to his pitiable plight; and in
this respect his message was rather a reminder than a plain inquiry
based on actual doubt. Indeed, we have good grounds for inference that
John's purpose in sending disciples to inquire of Christ was partly, and
perhaps largely, designed to confirm in these disciples an abiding faith
in the Christ. The commission with which they were charged brought them
into direct communication with the Lord, whose supremacy they could not
well fail to comprehend. They were personal witnesses of His power and
authority.

Our Lord's commentary on John's message indicated that the Baptist had
no full understanding of what the spiritual kingdom of God comprized.
After the envoys had departed, Jesus addressed Himself to the people who
had witnessed the interview. He would not have them underrate the
importance of the Baptist's service.[572] 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; and they had found him to be no reed, shaken by the wind,
but a firm and unbending oak. They had not gone to see a man in
fashionable attire; those who wore soft raiment were to be looked for in
the court of the king, not in the wilderness, nor in the dungeon where
John now lay. They had found in John a prophet indeed, yea, more than a
prophet; "For," affirmed the Lord, "I say unto you, Among those that are
born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but
he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."[573] What
stronger testimony of the Baptist's integrity is needed? 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, and this even
though all the prophets and even the fundamental law had told of its
coming, and though both John and Christ had been abundantly predicted.

Concerning John, the Lord continued: "And if ye will receive it, this is
Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him
hear."[574] 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.[575] 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
as from the lesser to the Greater; as from the priest to the great High
Priest, as from the herald to the King. 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.[576]

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 of mourners, but the others would not weep as the rules of the
game required. Ever critical, ever skeptical, by nature fault-finders
and defamers, hard of hearing and of heart, they grumbled. 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, and they had said "He hath a devil." Now came the
Son of Man,[577] without austerity or hermit ways, eating and drinking
as a normal man would do, a guest at the houses of the people, a
participant in the festivities of a marriage party, mingling alike with
the publicans and the Pharisees--and they complained again, saying:
"Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and
sinners!" The Master explained that such inconsistency, such wicked
trifling with matters most sacred, such determined opposition to truth,
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, and upbraided the cities in which He had wrought so many
mighty works, and wherein the people repented not: "Woe unto thee,
Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were
done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented
long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more
tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And
thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to
hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been
done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto
you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of
judgment, than for thee."[578]

Seemingly faint at heart over the unbelief of the people, Jesus sought
strength in prayer.[579] 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;
though misunderstood by men He was known for what He really was by the
Father. 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: "Come unto me, all ye
that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke
upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye
shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is
light."[580] 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.

Reverting to John Baptist in his dungeon solitude, 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.[581] The king
celebrated his birthday by a great feast, to which his lords, high
captains, and the principal officials of Galilee were bidden. To grace
the occasion, Salome, daughter of Herodias though not of Herod, came in
and danced before the company. 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, even though the gift were half of his kingdom.

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 the oath he had sworn in the presence of his court; so, summoning an
executioner, he immediately gave the fatal order; and John was forthwith
beheaded in the dungeon. The headsman returned, carrying a dish in which
lay the ghastly trophy of the corrupt queen's vengeance. The bloody gift
was delivered to Salome, who carried it with inhuman triumph to her
mother. Some of John's disciples came, secured the corpse, laid it in a
tomb; and bore the tidings of his death to Jesus. Herod was sorely
troubled over the murder he had ordered; and when, later, the marvels
wrought by Jesus were reported to him, he was afraid, and said: "That
John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do
shew forth themselves in him." To those who dissented, the terrified
king replied: "It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the
dead."[582]

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: "Prepare ye the way of the Lord." After many
centuries his voice has been heard again, as the voice of one redeemed
and resurrected; and the touch of his hand has again been felt, in this
the dispensation of restoration and fulness. In May, 1829, a resurrected
personage appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, announced himself
as John, known of old as the Baptist, laid his hands upon the two young
men, and conferred upon them the priesthood of Aaron, which comprizes
authority to preach and minister the gospel of repentance and of baptism
by immersion for the remission of sins.[583]


IN THE HOUSE OF SIMON THE PHARISEE.

"And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he
went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat."[584]

From the place of this incident in Luke's narration of events, it
appears that it may have occurred on the day of the visit of John's
messengers. 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. The
narrative suggests an attitude of condescension on the part of the host.
It was the custom of the times to treat a distinguished guest with
marked attention; to receive him with a kiss of welcome, to provide
water for washing the dust from his feet, and oil for anointing the hair
of the head and the beard. All these courteous attentions were omitted
by Simon. Jesus took His place, probably on one of the divans or couches
on which it was usual to partly sit, partly recline, while eating.[585]
Such an attitude would place the feet of the person outward from the
table. In addition to these facts relating to the usages of the time it
should be further remembered that dwellings were not protected against
intrusion by such amenities of privacy as now prevail. It was not
unusual at that time in Palestine for visitors and even strangers,
usually men however, 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; and the presence of a woman, though somewhat unusual, was
not strictly a social impropriety and could not well be forbidden on
such an occasion. But this woman was one of the fallen class, a woman
who had been unvirtuous, and who had to bear, as part of the penalty for
her sins, outward scorn and practical ostracism from those who professed
to be morally superior. She approached Jesus from behind, and bent low
to kiss His feet as a mark of humility on her part and of respectful
homage to Him. She may have been one of those who had heard His gracious
words, spoken possibly that day: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and
are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Whatever her motive in
coming, she had certainly come in a repentant and deeply contrite state.
As she leaned over the feet of Jesus her tears rained upon them.
Seemingly oblivious of her surroundings and of disapproving eyes
watching her movements, she shook out her tresses and wiped the Lord's
feet with her hair. Then, opening an alabaster box of ointment, she
anointed them, as a slave might do to his master. 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; and though not aloud,
within himself 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 read the man's thoughts, and thus spake: "Simon, I have
somewhat to say unto thee," to which the Pharisee replied, "Master, say
on." Jesus continued, "There was a certain creditor which had two
debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when
they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me
therefore, which of them will love him most?" But one answer could be
given with reason, and that Simon gave, though apparently with some
hesitation or reserve. He possibly feared that he might involve himself.
"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. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in
hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint:
but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment."

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 from David the king a self-convicting answer.[586]
"Wherefore," Jesus continued, "I say unto thee, her sins, which are
many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven,
the same loveth little." Then to the woman He spake the words of blessed
relief: "Thy sins are forgiven." Simon and the others at table murmured
within themselves, "Who is this that forgiveth sins also?" Understanding
their unspoken protest, Christ addressed the woman again, saying, "Thy
faith hath saved thee; go in peace."

The latter part of the narrative brings to mind another occasion on
which Christ granted remission of sins, and because of opposition in the
minds of some hearers, opposition none the less real because unvoiced,
had supplemented His authoritative utterance by another
pronouncement.[587]

The name of the woman who thus came to Christ, and whose repentance was
so sincere as to bring to her grateful and contrite soul the assurance
of remission, is not recorded. There is no evidence that she figures in
any other incident recorded in scripture. By certain writers she has
been represented as the Mary of Bethany who, shortly before Christ's
betrayal, anointed the head of Jesus with spikenard;[588] but the
assumption of identity is wholly unfounded,[589] and constitutes 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 whose 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[590] states that Jesus went throughout the region,
visiting every city and village, preaching the gospel of the kingdom and
showing the glad tidings thereof. 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, and of Mary Magdalene particular
mention appears.[591] Mary Magdalene, whose second name is probably
derived from her home town, Magdala, had been healed through the
ministrations of Jesus from both physical and mental maladies, the
latter having been associated with possession by evil spirits. Out of
her we are told Christ had cast seven devils,[592] but even such
grievous affliction affords no warrant for the assertion that the woman
was unvirtuous or unchaste.

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; she stood close by the cross while other women
tarried afar off in the time of His mortal agony; she was among the
first at the sepulchre on the resurrection morning, and was the first
mortal to look upon and recognize a resurrected Being--the Lord whom she
had loved with all the fervor of spiritual adoration. 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. Nevertheless 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 and gained the boon
of forgiveness through contrition, has so tenaciously held its place in
the popular mind through the centuries, that the name, Magdalene, has
come to be a generic designation for women who fall from virtue and
afterward repent. We are not considering whether the mercy of Christ
could have been extended to such a sinner as Mary of Magdala is wrongly
reputed to have been; man cannot measure the bounds nor fathom the
depths of divine forgiveness; and if it were so that this Mary and the
repentant sinner who ministered to Jesus as He sat at the Pharisee's
table were one and the same, the question would stand affirmatively
answered, for that woman who had been a sinner was forgiven. 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.


CHRIST'S AUTHORITY ASCRIBED TO BEELZEBUB.[593]

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; and 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; and they,
represented by the Pharisaic party, evolved the wholly inconsistent and
ridiculous suggestion that miracles were wrought by Jesus through the
power of the prince of devils, with whom He was in league.[594]

While the Lord was making His second missionary tour through Galilee,
going about through "all the cities and villages, teaching in their
synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every
sickness and every disease among the people,"[595] the absurd theory
that Christ was Himself a victim of demoniacal possession, and that He
operated by the power of the devil, was urged and enlarged upon until it
became the generally accepted explanation among the Pharisees and their
kind. Jesus had withdrawn Himself for a time from the more populous
centers, where He was constantly watched by emissaries, whom the ruling
classes had sent from Jerusalem into Galilee; for the Pharisees were in
conspiracy against Him, seeking excuse and opportunity to take His life;
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.[596]

He urged the people to refrain from spreading His fame; and this He may
have done for the reason that at that stage of His work an open rupture
with the Jewish hierarchy would have been a serious hindrance; or
possibly He desired to leave the rulers, who were plotting against Him,
time and opportunity to brew their bitter enmity and fill to the brim
the flagons of their determined iniquity. 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, nor would He use His mighty power to crush even a bruised
reed, or to quench even the smoking flax; 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.[597] 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 and genuine desire to learn the truth, 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.[598] At this triumph over the powers of evil the
people were the more amazed and said: "Is not this the son of David?" in
other words, Can this be any other than the Christ we have been so long
expecting? The popular judgment so voiced maddened the Pharisees, and
they told the almost adoring people: "This fellow doth not cast out
devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of devils." 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.
Then, referring to the superstitious practises and exorcisms of the
time, by which some such effects as we class today under mind cures were
obtained, He asked: "If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your
children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges." And to
make the demonstration plainer by contrast, He continued: "But if I cast
out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come upon
you." By the acceptance of either proposition, and surely one was true,
for the fact that Jesus did cast out devils was known throughout the
land and was conceded in the very terms of the charge now brought
against Him, the accusing Pharisees stood defeated and condemned.

But the illustration went further. Jesus continued: "Or else how can one
enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first
bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house." 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. Offering a suggestion of self-judgment to
His accusers, that they might severally decide on which side they were
aligned, Jesus added: "He that is not with me is against me; and he that
gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

Then, the demonstration being complete, and the absurdity of His
opponents' assumption proved, Christ directed their thoughts to the
heinous 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. They
rejected the Spirit of God, and sought to destroy the Christ through
whom that Spirit was made manifest. What blasphemy could be greater?
Speaking as one having authority, with the solemn affirmation "I say
unto you," He continued: "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be
forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be
forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man,
it shall be forgiven him: but whosover speaketh against the Holy Ghost,
it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the
world to come."

Who among men can word a more solemn and awful warning against the
danger of committing the dread unpardonable sin?[599] Jesus was merciful
in His assurance that words spoken against Himself as a Man, might be
forgiven; but 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. Then, in stronger terms, which developed into cutting
invective, He told them to be consistent--if they admitted that the
result of His labors was good, as the casting out of devils surely was,
to be likened unto good fruit--why did they not acknowledge that the
power by which such results were attained, in other words that the tree
itself, was good? "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or
else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known
by his fruit." With burning words of certain conviction He continued: "O
generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out
of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." By the truths He had
made so plain it was evident that their accusing words were drawn from
hearts stored with evil treasure. Moreover their words were shown to be
not only malicious but foolish, idle and vain, and therefore doubly
saturated with sin. Another authoritative declaration followed: "But I
say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give
account thereof in the day of judgment."


SEEKERS AFTER SIGNS?[600]

The Master's lesson, enforced though it was by illustration and analogy,
by direct application, and by authoritative avowal, fell on ears that
were practically deaf to spiritual truth, and found no place in hearts
already stuffed with great stores of evil. To the profound wisdom and
saving instruction of the word of God to which they had listened, they
responded with a flippant request: "Master, we would see a sign from
thee." Had they not already seen signs in profusion? 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; had not devils been
cast out and their foul utterances been silenced by His word; and had
not the dead been raised, and all by Him whom they now importuned for a
sign? They would have some surpassing wonder wrought, to satisfy
curiosity, or perhaps to afford them further excuse for action against
Him--they wanted signs to waste on their lust.[601] Small wonder, that
"he sighed deeply in his spirit" when such demands were made.[602] To
the scribes and Pharisees who had shown such inattention to His words,
He replied: "An evil and adulterous generation[603] seeketh after a
sign; and 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, for they, wicked as they were, had repented at the
preaching of Jonas; and behold a greater than Jonas was among them.[604]
The queen of Sheba would rise in judgment against them, for she had
journeyed far to avail herself of Solomon's wisdom; and behold a greater
than Solomon stood before them.[605]

Then, reverting to the matter of unclean and evil spirits, in connection
with which they had spread the accusation that He was one of the devil's
own, He told them, that 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; and, finding that house in order, sweet and clean since
his filthy self had been forced to vacate it, he calls other spirits
more wicked than himself, and they take possession of the man, and make
his state worse than it was at first.[606] In this weird example is
typified the condition of those who have received the truth, and thereby
have been freed from the unclean influences of error and sin, so that in
mind and spirit and body they are as a house swept and garnished and set
in cleanly order, but who afterward 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."

Though the scribes and Pharisees were mostly unconvinced, if at all
really impressed by His teachings, our Lord was not entirely without
appreciative listeners. 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."[607]


CHRIST'S MOTHER AND BRETHREN COME TO SEE HIM.[608]

While Jesus was engaged with the scribes and Pharisees, and a great
number of others, possibly at or near the conclusion of the teachings
last considered, word was passed to Him that His mother and His brethren
were present and desired to speak with Him. On account of the press of
people they had been unable to reach His side. Making use of the
circumstance to impress upon all the fact that His work took precedence
over the claims of family and kinship, and thereby explaining that He
could not meet His relatives at that moment, 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."

The incident reminds one of the answer He made to His mother, when she
and Joseph had found Him in the temple after their long and anxious
search: "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about
my Father's business?"[609] In that business He was engaged when His
mother and brethren desired to speak with Him as He sat amidst the
crowd. The superior claims of His Father's work caused Him to let all
minor matters wait. 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.[610] 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.[611]


NOTES TO CHAPTER 18.

1. The Two Accounts of the Miracle.--In the commentary on the miraculous
healing of the centurion's servant, as given in the text, we have
followed in the main Luke's more circumstantial account. Matthew's
briefer statement of the officer's petition, and the Lord's gracious
compliance therewith, represents the man as coming in person to Jesus;
while Luke refers to the elders of the local synagog as presenting the
request. There is here no real discrepancy. It was then allowable, as in
our time it is, to speak of one who causes something to be done as doing
that thing himself. One may properly be said to notify another, when he
sends the notification by a third party. 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.--Both Matthew and Luke tell us that 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 marveled 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. Literature on
the subject embodies much disputation and demonstrates absence of any
near approach to agreement among Biblical scholars. We have record of
three instances of miraculous restoration of the dead to life at the
word of Jesus--the raising of the son of the widow of Nain, the raising
of the daughter of Jairus, and the raising of Lazarus; and on the
sequence of two of these there is difference of opinion. 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 the raising
of the daughter of Jairus is the first of the three works of restoration
to life. Dr. John Laidlaw, in _The Miracles of our Lord_, treats this
first among the miracles of its class though without affirming its
chronological precedence; many other writers make it the second of the
three. The incentive to arrange the three miracles of this group in the
sequence indicated may, perhaps, be found in the desire to present them
in the increasing order of apparent greatness--the raising of the damsel
being an instance of recalling to life one who had but just died,
("hardly dead" as some wrongly describe her condition), the raising of
the young man of Nain being the restoration of one on the way to the
tomb, and the raising of Lazarus an instance of recalling to life one
who had lain four days in the sepulchre. 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. Luke, the sole recorder
of the miracle at Nain, places the event before that of the raising of
the daughter of Jairus, with many incidents between. The great
preponderance of evidence is in favor of considering the three miracles
in the order followed herein, (1) the raising of the young man of Nain,
(2) that of the daughter of Jairus, and (3) that of Lazarus.

4. Tetrarch.--This title by derivation of the term and as originally
used was applied to the ruler of a fourth part, or one of four divisions
of a region that had formerly been one country. Later it came to be the
designation of any ruler or governor over a part of a divided country,
irrespective of the number or extent of the fractions. Herod Antipas is
distinctively called the tetrarch in Matt. 14:1; Luke 3:1, 19; 9:7; and
Acts 13:1; and is referred to as king in Matt. 14:9; Mark 6:14, 22, 25,
26.

5. Machaerus.--According to the historian Josephus (Antiquities xviii;
5:2), the prison to which John the Baptist was consigned by Herod
Antipas was the strong fortress Machaerus.

6. Christ an Offender to Many.--The concluding part of our Lord's
message to the imprisoned Baptist, in answer to the latter's inquiry,
was, "Blessed is he whosoever is not offended in me." 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. As Deems has written, "Instead of saying 'Woe to him
who is offended in me,' He puts it in the softer way 'Blessed is he who
is not offended.'" 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. Thus, actual infractions
of the law, sin, and wickedness in general are all called offenses, and
the perpetrators of such are guilty offenders who deserve punishment. In
other instances even the works of righteousness are construed as causes
of offense to the wicked; but 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; for all who reject His gospel, take offense thereat. On the
night of His betrayal Jesus told the apostles that they would be
offended because of Him (Matt. 26:31; see also verse 33). The Lord's
personal ministry gave offense not alone to Pharisees and priestly
opponents, but to many who had professed belief in Him (John 6:61;
compare 16:1). 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 Greatness of the Baptist's Mission.--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 Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the
kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (Matt. 11:11; compare Luke 7:28).
In elucidation of the first part of this testimony, the prophet Joseph
Smith said, in the course of a sermon delivered May 24, 1843, (_Hist. 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. Who was trusted with such a mission before or
since? No man. Second, he was trusted 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? Who ever led the Son of God into the waters of
baptism, beholding the Holy Ghost descend upon Him in the sign of a
dove? No man. 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 heaven, held the keys of
power at that time."

The latter part of our Lord's statement--"notwithstanding he that is
least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (John), has given
rise to diverse interpretations and comment. 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, and such he would surely have to
learn before he became eligible for admission into the kingdom of
heaven; therefore, the least of those who through knowledge gained and
obedience rendered, would be prepared for a place in the kingdom of
which Jesus taught, was greater than was John the Baptist at that time.
Through latter-day inspiration we learn that "it is impossible for a man
to be saved in ignorance" (Doc. and Cov. 131:6), 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 as the
Redeemer of the world. But we must not lose sight of the fact, that
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.

8. John the Baptist the Elias that was to Come.--In the days of Christ
the people clung to the traditional belief that the ancient prophet
Elijah was to return in person. Concerning this tradition the Dummelow
_Commentary_ says, on Matt. 11:14: "It was supposed that his [Elijah's]
peculiar activity would consist in settling ceremonial and ritual
questions, doubts and difficulties and that he would restore to Israel
(1) the golden pot of manna, (2) the vessel containing the anointing
oil, (3) the vessel containing the waters of purification, (4) Aaron's
rod that budded and bore fruit." For this belief there was no scriptural
affirmation. That John was to go before the Messiah in the spirit and
power of Elias was declared by the angel Gabriel in his announcement to
Zacharias (Luke 1:17); and our Lord made plain the fact that John was
that predicted Elias. "Elias" is both a name and a title of office.
Through revelation in the present dispensation we learn of the separate
individuality of Elias and Elijah, each of whom appeared in person and
committed to modern prophets the particular powers pertaining to his
respective office (Doc. and Cov. 110:12, 13). 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, or the Priesthood that Aaron was
ordained unto. And when God sends a man into the world to prepare for a
greater work, holding the keys of the power of Elias, it was called the
doctrine of Elias, even from the early ages of the world.

"John's mission was limited to preaching and baptizing; but what he did
was legal; and when Jesus Christ came to any of John's disciples, He
baptized them with fire and the Holy Ghost.

"We find the apostles endowed with greater power than John: their office
was more under the spirit and power of Elijah than Elias.

"In the case of Philip, when he went down to Samaria, when he was under
the spirit of Elias, he baptized both men and women. When Peter and John
heard of it, they went down and laid hands upon them, and they received
the Holy Ghost. This shows the distinction between the two powers.

"When Paul came to certain disciples, he asked if they had received the
Holy Ghost? They said, No. Who baptized you, then? We were baptized unto
John's baptism. No, you were not baptized unto John's baptism, or you
would have been baptized by John. And so 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.

"What I want to impress upon your minds is the difference of power in
the different parts of the Priesthood, so that when any man comes among
you, saying, 'I have the spirit of Elias,' you can know whether he be
true or false; for any man that comes having the spirit and power of
Elias, he will not transcend his bounds.

"John did not transcend his bounds, but faithfully performed that part
belonging to his office; and every portion of the great building should
be prepared right and assigned to its proper place; and it is necessary
to know who holds the keys of power, and who does not, or we may be
likely to be deceived.

"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, thinking the time was past in the days of John and
Christ, and no more to be. But the spirit of Elias was revealed to me,
and I know it is true; therefore I speak with boldness, for I know
verily my doctrine is true."

9. At the Pharisee's Table.--The expression "sat at meat," as in Luke
7:37 and in other instances, is stated by good authority to be a
mistranslation; it should be rendered "lay" or "reclined" (see Smith's
_Comp. Dict. of the Bible_, article "Meals"). That sitting was the early
Hebrew posture at meals is not questioned (Gen. 27:19; Judges 19:6; 1
Sam. 16:11; 20:5, 18, 24; 1 Kings 13:20); but 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_.
In reference to the ceremonial of the Pharisees in the matter of
prescribed washing of articles used in eating, Mark (7:4) specifies
"tables"; this mention is conceded to be a mistranslation, as couches or
literally beds, are meant by the Greek expression. (See marginal
reading, "beds" in Oxford Bible, and others.) A person reclining at
table would have the feet directed outward. Thus it was a simple matter
for the contrite woman to approach Jesus from behind and anoint His feet
without causing disturbance to others at the table.

10. The Woman's Identity not Specified.--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 thus strongly condemned by Farrar (p.
228, note): "Those who identify this feast at the house of Simon the
Pharisee, in Galilee, with the long-subsequent feast at the house of
Simon the leper, at Bethany, and the anointing of the feet by 'a woman
that was a sinner' in the city, with the anointing of the head by Mary
the sister of Martha, 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. As
for the names Simon and Judas, which have led to so many identifications
of different persons and different incidents, they 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, and two Judes and two Simons among the Apostles alone;
Josephus speaks of some ten Judes and twenty Simons in his writings, and
there must, therefore, have been thousands of others who at this period
had one of these two names. 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 custom still
continues."

The learned canon is fully justified in his vigorous criticism;
nevertheless he endorses the commonly-accepted identification of the
woman mentioned in connection with the meal in the house of Simon the
Pharisee with Mary Magdalene, although he admits that the foundation of
the assumed identification is "an ancient tradition,--especially
prevalent in the Western Church, and followed by the translation of our
English version" (p. 233). 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.

11. The Unpardonable Sin.--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, and its
dread results are more explicitly set forth 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, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and
his angels in eternity; concerning whom I have said there is no
forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come.... They shall go
away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is
eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity,
where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their
torment; and the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their
torment, no man knows, neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will
be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof:
nevertheless I, the Lord, show it by vision unto many, but straightway
shut it up again; wherefore 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; see
also Heb. 6:4-6; B. of M., Alma 39:6.)

12. An Adulterous Generation Seeking after Signs.--Our Lord's reply to
those who clamored for a sign, that "An evil and adulterous generation
seeketh after a sign" (Matt. 12:39; see also 16:4; Mark 8:38) could only
be interpreted by the Jews as a supreme reproof. That the descriptive
designation "adulterous" was literally applicable to the widespread
immorality of the time, they all knew. Adam Clarke in his commentary on
Matt. 12:39, says of this phase of our topic: "There is the utmost proof
from their [the Jews'] own writings, that in the time of our Lord, they
were most literally an adulterous race of people; for at this very time
Rabbi Jachanan ben Zacchi abrogated the trial by the bitter waters of
jealousy, because so many were found to be thus criminal." For the
information concerning the trial of the accused by the bitter waters,
see Numb. 5:11-31. Although Jesus designated the generation in which He
lived as adulterous, we find no record that the Jewish rulers, who by
their demand for a sign had given occasion for the accusation, ventured
to deny or attempt to repel the charge. The sin of adultery was included
among capital offenses (Deut. 22:22-25). The severity of the accusation
as applied by Jesus, however, was intensified by the fact that the older
scriptures represented the covenant between Jehovah and Israel as a
marriage bond (Isa. 54:5-7; Jer. 3:14; 31:32; Hos. 2:19, 20); even as
the later scriptures typify the Church as a bride, and Christ as the
husband (2 Cor. 11:2; compare Rev. 21:2). To be spiritually adulterous,
as the rabbis construed the utterances of the prophets, was to be false
to the covenant by which the Jewish nations claimed distinction, as the
worshipers of Jehovah, and to be wholly recreant and reprobate.
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.

13. The Mother and the Brethren of Jesus.--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. Some indeed have gone so far as to say that the
visiting members of the family had come to put Him under restraint, and
to stem, if they could, the tide of popular interest, criticism, and
offense, which surged about Him. 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; and 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,
for they said "He is beside himself." (Mark 3:21); furthermore we learn
that His brethren did not believe on Him (John 7:5). 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. And to assume that Mary, His mother, had so far forgotten the
wondrous scenes of the angelic annunciation, the miraculous conception,
the heavenly accompaniments of the birth, the more than human wisdom and
power exhibited in youth and manhood, as to believe her divine Son an
unbalanced enthusiast, whom she ought to restrain, is to assume
responsibility for injustice to the character of one whom the angel
Gabriel declared was blessed among women, and highly favored of the
Lord.

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) and the James here referred to
may be the same person elsewhere designated as "the Lord's brother"
(Gal. 1:19); compare Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3. It appears that "brethren of
the Lord" were engaged in the work of the ministry in the days of Paul's
active service (1 Cor. 9:5). 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; and several
theories have been invented in support of divergent views. Thus, 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 Levirate theory assumes that Joseph of Nazareth and Clopas
(the latter name, it is interesting to note, is regarded as the
equivalent of Alpheus, see footnote page 224) were brothers; and that,
after the death of Clopas or Alpheus, Joseph married his brother's widow
according to the levirate law (page 548). 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. (See Matt. 27:56; Mark
15:40; John 19:25.) 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. If these others were children of Joseph and Mary, they
were all juniors to Jesus, for He was undoubtedly His mother's firstborn
child. 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.