us may evolve. Perhaps I may venture to say that the longer the subject is considered, the more does reason shrink from the thought of an eternal dualism-evil struggling against good for ever and ever. And I may add that Scripture, in its most detailed description of the invisible world, seems to whisper hope to us as we contemplate the dark half of Hadesthat terrible Gehenna. It is obvious, in our Lord's parable recorded by St. Luke (xvi. 19-31), that a decided improvement is represented as having already taken place in the character of the rich man. From being careless, he has become thoughtful; from being callous, he has become sympathetic; from being wholly sensual, he has attained to some degree of spirituality. And if these are spoken of as the blessed effects of punishment in his case, we may humbly hope that, in the succession of unnumbered ages, the same results will take place with respect to others, so that at last there shall be a rejoicing because sinless universe, and "God shall be all in all." JOHN THE BAPTIST'S QUESTION TO OUR LORD. BY REV. ROBERT STEWART, SENIOR MINISTER, ST. MARK'S PARISH, GLASGOW. THE practice of putting questions to public men is not a modern one, for it is as old as the time of Christ. In the Gospels we find numerous examples of questions that were put to Jesus, and no doubt these are only specimens of many others that were asked but have not been recorded. Some of these questions were asked by His own disciples, some by the Scribes and Pharisees, and some by individuals who came to Jesus to ask Him to solve a difficulty that pressed heavily upon them. These questions range over a wide variety of subjects. Some of them relate to different aspects of the kingdom of God, such as when it was to come, and who was to be the greatest in it. Others bear upon His Messiahship, and whether He were the Messiah who was to come. Others refer to His innovations in regard to fasting, in regard to the traditions of the elders, and in regard to sabbath observance. The man of a speculative turn of mind, the man of a superstitious spirit, and the man anxious to know what he should do to inherit eternal life, they all came to Christ, and put their several questions to get light and guidance. These questions and the answers they called forth throw more or less light upon the religious condition of Judæa at the advent of our Lord. One of the earliest of these questions, if not the very first that was put to Christ, was the one asked by John the Baptist, as reported by Matthew (xi. 2, 3). "Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto Him, Art Thou He that should come, or do we look for another?" John had been cast into prison, and while lying there reports had been brought to him about the works of Christ which so astonished him as to raise doubts in his mind as to whether Christ were really the Messiah. A man of John's temperament could not rest in a state of uncertainty, and so he sent two of his disciples to ask, "Art Thou He that should come, or do we look for another?" This was a remarkable question to come from John the Baptist. He was the last man in the world from whom such a message could have been expected. It was only a short time previous to this that he had spoken of Jesus as so great and good that he was not worthy to loose the latchet of His shoe. He had also represented Him as coming, with a fan in His hand, to gather the wheat into His garner, and to burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Further, he had pointed out Jesus as "the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world," and that while He would increase, John himself would decrease. And yet soon after bearing this remarkable testimony about Christ, he sends this doubting question, " Art Thou He that should come, or do we look for another?" What was the cause of this change of attitude towards Jesus on the part of His forerunner? It was owing, we are told, to what John had heard in prison concerning the works of Christ. It is clear from this that the works of Christ were not what John had expected, and that they were not realizing the Baptist's ideal of the Messiah. This, along with other statements in the Gospels, seems to show that the kingdom of God which John had been preaching was not quite the same as that which Jesus was proclaiming. John was a religious radical, a root-and-branch man with an axe in his hand, whose mission was to destroy. His aim was a complete reformation of the religious life of Judæa, which at the time was characterized by hollowness and formality. Among the crowds that gathered around him on the banks of the Jordan were Pharisees and Sadducees, and on seeing them he denounced them as a generation of vipers. To the publicans who asked what they should do, he said they should exact no more than they were entitled to do. To the soldiers who made the same request, he said they were to abstain from violence, to accuse no one falsely, and to be content with their wages. The axe was now laid at the root of the tree, and every tree that brought not forth good fruit was to be hewn down and cast into the fire. The moral condition of Judæa was so corrupt that a mere tinkering would never satisfy such an ardent reformer. A slow and gradual reformation was a method with which a man like John had no sympathy. His ideal kingdom was one from which all the hypocritical and dishonest, all the discontented and immoral, should be excluded, and nothing tries an enthusiastic reformer more than a policy which prevents or even retards the realization of his ideal. But the reports brought to him about the sayings and doings of Jesus, led him to think He was pursuing this policy; for He was teaching that the tares and the wheat should be allowed to grow up together till the harvest. It is easy to understand how John heard this with surprise and impatience, and how, under the influence of such feelings, he sent his disciples to ask, "Art Thou He that should come, or do we look for another?" This view of the work and character of John throws light upon a remarkable statement of Jesus concerning the Baptist, which has been a puzzle to many a learned man. I refer to the well-known saying, "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." To say that the humblest member of the kingdom of heaven is greater than such an eminent man as John, seems nothing short of a paradox. John had a good deal of heroic virtue in his nature. He had the courage of his opinions, and he had no respect of persons when duty called him to reprove vice, for he denounced wickedness in high places, though at the risk of his life. The result of his fearless honesty was that he was cast into prison and cruelly put to death. But with all his sterling excellence, John was far from being a perfect man. There were weak points in his character, and they were such as unfitted him to appreciate the aim and method of Christ. He was an austere and solitary man, and therefore defective on the social side of his character. He lacked sympathy and love, and had not the patience necessary to wait for the slow and gradual development of true and faithful work in the cause of humanity. Men of this type of character are better fitted for levelling down than for building up. They fail to understand that many can be won by love who cannot be driven by force. John lacked the tenderness of Him who never brake the bruised reed, and never quenched the smoking flax. John would never have reasoned with the unbelieving Thomas as Jesus did. He would have regarded him as a heretic, and would have dealt with him as heretics have always been dealt with by the Church. While Jesus, by His sweet reasonableness, overcame the apostle's doubt, John would have silenced him by the wrath to come. Again, John would never have forgiven Peter for denying him as Jesus did, but would have plucked him up as a tare to be cast into the fire to be burned. But Jesus, in His own Divine way, not only forgave Peter, but restored him, and made him a powerful agent in building up His Church. On the other hand, John would have commended the two disciples who asked permission to bring down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans, whereas Jesus rebuked them, and said unto them, they did not know the spirit they were of, for the Son of man was not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. Work done in John's way is short-lived and doomed to failure, whereas work done in Christ's way is permanent and destined to succeed, as is proved by the history of the Church in all ages and countries. Hence the seeming paradox of Christ is true, that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist, great and eminent though he was. The view now set forth is confirmed by the answer of Christ to the doubting questions of John, namely, "Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see. The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the gospel preached unto them." The spirit and substance of this answer can hardly be mistaken. "Go and show John that the works you have seen are full of love and sympathy for the sinful and sorrowful sons of man. Many who were so blinded that they could not see the truth, have had their eyes opened so that they now see it, and are rejoicing in it. Men who were deaf to the words of wisdom are now giving heed to them. Men who were dead to the concerns of their souls are now alive to them. Men who were neglected because they were poor are now receiving sympathetic attention." What more Godlike works than these can be conceived? What more could the Messiah do to justify His being called "the Desire of the nations"? Christ ends His answer by saying, "Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in Me!" That is to say, "Blessed is he who sees nothing to object to in these works, merely because they are not in accordance with his ideal, and still more blessed is he who not only sees nothing. objectionable in them, but finds them more beneficent than he expected.' What effect the answer of Christ had upon John, we are not informed, but it is to be hoped it removed his doubts and brought him into a sounder state of mind. It is a blessed thing to receive truth from whatever quarter it comes, and even though it runs counter to our preconceived notions. But John the Baptist lacked this open-mindedness, for when he heard of the beneficent works of Christ, instead of rejoicing in them, he looked upon them with such disfavour as to doubt whether Jesus were really the Messiah who was to come. We need not be surprised that the Pharisees should have been so offended at the teachings and doings of Christ, when we see a man like John being in doubt as to the Messiahship of Jesus because of the works He was doing. There are many people who are as much offended at every new thought or new movement as John was offended at the works of Jesus, because they were not in accordance with his idea. It is well to guard against this attitude of mind, which is so great a hindrance to the reception of truth. If we cannot see eye to eye with others in non-essentials, let us at least give them credit for being as honest as we are, and as anxious to know the truth as we are. Let us have that charity which sees something good everywhere, believing all things, and hoping all things for the best. Let us pray for the same mind as Paul when he wrote those noble words, "Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some even of good will.... What then? Notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice." 312 HARPAGMOS: PHILIPPIANS II. 6: A CRITICISM AND A DEFENCE. BY PROFESSOR JOHN MASSIE, M.A. THIS perplexing word, and the difficult Christological passage in which it is one of the keys to the position, have been a battle-ground for interpreters since the earliest days of exegetical warfare. Now and then, indeed, as some one interpretation has gained the upper hand, there has been peace for a while, but over and over again has the battle been renewed. In England one particular view has of late years become so prevalent as to be adopted without apparent hesitation in the Revised Version; but in 1887 it was vigorously assailed in the Expositor, and the assault was repeated elsewhere by the same theologian in 1890, and once more in 1892. Perhaps the persistency of this attack, and the absence (so far as I know) of any corresponding defence, may be allowed to justify an attempt to ascertain how this battle of interpreters is faring, and how far any one of the interpretations is tending to hold the field. The student who would fain make up his mind on this subject finds himself face to face with four main explanations— (A) "Thought it not robbery [i.e. usurpation] to be equal with God." (D) "Deemed not His equality with God a means of enriching Himself." (A) is the rendering of most of the Latin Fathers and of the Authorized Version. (B) dates from Arius, the heresiarch of the third and fourth centuries, and is adopted by Weiss and Pfleiderer and Lipsius, among others, though the Christological tendencies are not the same in all. (C) is the rendering of Bishop Ellicott and Bishop Lightfoot, and (as the latter alleges) of the Greek Fathers; and was accepted by the Revisers of 1881. (D) is the choice of Meyer, and, with slight modifications, is the choice of Franke, in his Meyer rewritten, as also of Hofmann and of Cremer. (A) This may be quickly dismissed: it is no longer upheld by any representative critic. The translation of άprayμòç in the Old Latin, followed by the Vulgate, was rapina; and, though this word is in itself ambiguous, hovering between the abstract and the concrete, between plundering and plunder, and was perhaps selected because of this very ambiguity, yet its more usual abstract force had its influence upon Tertullian and subsequently upon Augustine, and then, after A.D. 400, upon every Latin Father. Finally, it determined every modern version except that of Luther, whose rendering, Hielt er es nicht für einen Raub, 1 The Syriac rendering is also ambiguous, with a tendency to the abstract as the more usual force. |