gelists were strongly prejudiced against the Pharisees on account of the final issue of their relations to Jesus, and they do not distinguish sufficiently between different times and circumstances. Again, the Pharisees were not so compactly organized a party as to form the same opinion of Jesus and adopt the same line of conduct towards him in every case. On the contrary, they differed from each other widely in these respects.

The first point to notice is, that we find the Pharisees in company with Jesus at a very early period of his ministry, and that they never withdrew from him to the end of his life. Whether friendly or hostile, they did at least feel some interest in him and in his preaching. He had never to complain of indifference on their part.

It was far otherwise with the rival school. The Sadducees paid little or no attention to Jesus. What did it matter to them that a certain Galilæan rabbi had appeared and taught? The whole thing was beneath their notice, until the fancied danger of some seditious tumult directed their attention to him, and made them wish to put him out of the way. Once or twice, even before the closing period of his life, our authorities mention the Sadducees, and also the political party of Herodians; but this appears to be due to an unintentional confusion.1

As to the third school of Jewish religion, that of the Essenes, there is no ground for supposing that Jesus ever had any connection with it. Indeed, the Essenes are not once mentioned in the Gospels; and if the fame of Jesus ever reached them, it failed to draw them from their solitude. Important inferences have sometimes been drawn from the fact that the Essenes appear to resemble Jesus in their dissatisfaction with the righteousness of the Pharisees, in their rejection of animal sacrifices, in remaining unmarried, and in forbidding oaths. But these points of agreement are accidental; for Jesus and the Essenes started from different principles, and in their main conceptions were diametrically opposed to each other. At any rate, if Jesus ever met them at all, it must have been before the beginning of his public career, for he never came into contact with them afterwards.

1 Matthew xvi. 1, 6, 11, 12 (more correctly given in Matthew xii. 38; Mark viii. 11; Luke xii. 1); Mark iii. 6, viii. 15 (more correctly in Matthew xii. 14 Luke xii. 1).

2 Compare Matthew v. 20, 23, 24, 33-37, xix. 12.

8 See p. 100.

The connection of Christianity and Essenism dates only from the Apostolic age.1

On the other hand, Jesus and the Pharisees were in constant communication. They approached each other with good-will, but with caution and reserve. They were disposed to respect one another, but held their judgment suspended, and watched each other narrowly. The Pharisees, with their zeal for religion, and their keen interest in every religious phenomenon of the day, soon fixed their attention on the new preacher of Nazareth. In his main purpose, his pursuit of righteousness and his longing for the kingdom of God, they were in perfect sympathy with him; indeed, he was their disciple. And if in spite of this they failed to win him over to their party, it certainly was not because they did not care to have him. They repeatedly invited him to their houses, carefully weighed his words and deeds, and were not disposed as yet absolutely to condemn his pretensions as a prophet, though still less prepared to admit them, without some very sufficient reason.❜ It is true that the very man who asked him to dinner for the sake of conversing with him, and considered his claim to the prophetic dignity worthy of investigation, might at the same time treat him with neglect, might look upon him with suspicion, and might be prepared to reject him at a moment's notice; but still we may say that as a general rule the Pharisees listened to him diligently, eagerly availed themselves of every opportunity of speaking to him, and sought his company at least, if not his friendship. If they freely criticised his conduct, or that of his disciples, it was no sign of hostility, but was the expression of natural surprise, or a necessary hint for his future guidance, in any case a mark of interest. Nay, to the very last some of them at least maintained their friendly relation with him, at any rate externally; and even when their resentment had reached its climax, they still observed the outward forms of respect and good-will."

Jesus, on his side, had a sincere regard for them. Though their virtue was of a frigid type that could not fail to offend him; though he must have soon perceived their formality and worship of the letter; though he knew that their style of piety was in the utmost danger of resting content with externals, and then addressing itself to the eyes of men, yet he honored what was honorable in them, and hoped to win them over to

1 See p. 17, chaps. vi. p. 544, and ix. p. 595. 8 Matthew xii. 38.

Luke xiii. 31, xvii. 20.

2 See P. 94. 4 See pp. 205 ff; compare Luke xi. 38, xiv. 1. 6 Matthew xxii. 16, 36.

his own principles of life. If he could do so, the respect vhich they enjoyed would make them powerful allies in the good cause. In comparison with the sinners, then, he called them "sound" and righteous; for most of them were men of irreproachable life, and some were really patterns of virtue and piety. He confessed that they had reached a higher stage of righteousness than any other of his fellow-countrymen. But he added that such righteousness was not enough for a citizen of the kingdom of God, and that this irreproachable life lacked the true principle of humility and love. He endeavored to influence their lives and convince them of their errors, and though he did not feel that his special mission was to them, yet he never shrank from intercourse with them, or failed to meet their advances.

Luke is our only authority for a series of invitations to dinner which various Pharisees gave to Jesus, and which he accepted. On these occasions the Evangelist represents sundry conversations, which he gives us, as having taken place. One of these scenes we have already considered. On another occasion, says the Evangelist, Jesus had been asked to dine by a certain Pharisee, and as soon as he arrived he lay down at table without having washed. Upon this his host showed signs of great surprise, and Jesus met him with a crushing rebuke. But this scene was imagined by Luke in order to furnish an occasion for a discourse, which we shall find a more suitable opportunity of giving presently.2 A third discourse, the contents of which suggest that it was uttered at table, is said to have been due to the following circumstance: Jesus had entered the house of a certain "chief of the Pharisees on a Sabbath day, to dine with him, and he noticed that all the guests picked the best places for themselves without waiting for a special invitation. The arrangement of the couches at meals among ancient peoples made the difference between the higher and lower places much more conspicuous than it is with us; and the place of honor was coveted with proportionate eagerness. So Jesus rebuked the guests, and said: "When you are asked to a wedding feast you should not choose the best place, for it may be that some more distinguished guest has been invited, and that the host will come to you and say, 'Make room for my guest here!' Then you would be filled with shame, and would go to the humblest place you could find. So when you are asked to a meal anywhere, take 1 See pp. 206, 207.

2 Luke xi. 37 ff.; compare Matthew xxiii. See chap. xxxi. p. 382.

the lowest place; and then perhaps your host will come to you and say, Friend, go up higher!' and you will be honored in the sight of all the guests. For he who exalts himself shall be humbled, and he who humbles himself shall be exalted." He had a lesson also for his host: "When you give a dinner or supper, do not invite your friends or brothers, your relatives or wealthy neighbors, for they may very likely invite you, and so return the favor. But ask the poor, the needy, the blind, the crippled. They cannot make any return, and that will bring a blessing on you; for at the resurrection of the just you will have your reward." The last words very naturally reminded one of the guests of the great wedding feast to come; and, perhaps on purpose to draw some answer from Jesus, he exclaimed, "Blessed are they who shall be admitted to lie down to meat in the kingdom of God!” Upon this Jesus uttered the parable of the great supper, which we shall consider on another occasion.1

We may safely attribute much of this scene to Luke himself, who is the least trustworthy of the three Evangelists. For instance, the Pharisees had not any "chiefs; and we may well doubt whether these discourses of Jesus are in their true places, and whether good breeding would not have prevented their being uttered on such an occasion. Finally, the commendation of the poor and helpless perhaps betrays the Ebionite proclivities of one of Luke's authorities. The expression is elsewhere used for sinners. But this is of minor con sequence.

2

We return to the relations of Jesus and the Pharisees.

It seems that the first cause of offence was the Master's conduct towards sinners. It shocked and offended the Pharisees so much, just because of the respect they entertained and the interest they felt in him. Perhaps some of them might have formally joined him, had not such offensive conduct on his part made it impossible. It was indeed bringing religion into contempt, giving that which was holy to the dogs, flinging pearls before swine, defiling the name of the Lord, when one whom many held to be a prophet, one who was undoubtedly a wonderful teacher, actually threw himself away upon the godless and abandoned class of unclean outcasts! We can hear the sound of their indignation in the question they addressed to his disciples when he invited Levi to his house. We can trace the sense of loathing on Simon's face when 1 See chap. xxiv. p. 292.

2 Luke xiv. 21.

Jesus allowed the sinful woman to touch him unrebuked. Now Jesus, on his side, never denied or excused the moral degradation of these people. He never ascribes any virtue to them, or finds any thing to commend in them except their penitence. But for the very reason that they were sinners they stood in need of him; and in defence of his conduct he appealed to the very nature of the case itself, and to the call he had experienced in his heart. Perhaps, too, he intended that citation from Hosea, "Mercy, and not sacrifice!" as an appeal to the Pharisees to raise up the despised and abominated peoples of the land, rather than congratulate themselves on their strict observance of the Law.1 In vain! Their repugnance increased rather than diminished as time went on. "He actually touches lepers and such creatures," they would say, "and tramples under foot the laws of cleanness which distinguish Israel, and mark it off from the heathen."

And all the publicans and sinners," we read, "used to come and associate with him like friends. And the Pharisees and Scribes murmured at it greatly, and said, 'This man receives sinners and eats with them!'"

And now Jesus condemned their pride and want of love in stronger terms than he had used before. He chose the form of a parable that put God's fatherly love to the repentant sinner in the strongest light, and threw into the darkest shade the cruelty of the rigid devotees of the Law. It is a masterly sketch, and all the figures in it are drawn from life:

A certain man of substance, living on his own estate, had two sons. Once on a time the younger came to him and said: "Father, let me have my share of the family possessions." He could find no peace or satisfaction any more at home, and he wanted to see something of the world, to be at liberty, to be his own master, and to live after his own fancy. Should not his father have dissuaded him from going? Should he not have kept him back by force? We must remember that there was nothing extravagant in the wish itself, for in the East the laws of inheritance were strictly regulated; disinheriting an elder and preferring a younger son were things unknown, and wills were seldom made at all. The eldest son succeeded to all his father's rights, and received a double share of his possessions. In this case, then, the second son might very well be bought out, so to speak, by the payment in advance of his third of the family effects. And this is what actually happened. The elder son remained at home 1 See p. 218.