are so altogether attractive that they can but multiply, and only as they multiply will Jesus' ideal of the new and perfect social order be fully realised within the family.

Jesus' Conception of the Ideal Home. Viewed in the light of modern conditions, Jesus' teachings regarding the family and the home are intensely practical. He simply sought to establish normal human relationships. He demanded here, as elsewhere, the frank, whole-hearted recognition of mutual social obligations. He sought to conserve the highest interests of each and all, and to make clear that these interests are not antithetic but identical. Hence, he spoke not so much of rights as of obligations. His great teaching,

It is more blessed to give than to receive,

applies equally within and without the home. As Kennedy, in his epoch-making play, "The Servant in the House," has made dramatically clear, the peacemaker, the whole-maker, the harmony-maker reigns supreme in the home, however unfavourable may be the conditions. This vivid play is in fact a superb illustration of the application of Jesus' principles to the problems of the modern home.

It is equally clear that Jesus regarded the home, not as the ultimate social group, but as the essential training-school for the development of social citizens. With his many-sided grasp of truth he warned his disciples against the danger of making loyalty to the home the one and supreme motive in their lives. He evidently had this danger in mind when he taught his followers (Lk. 1426):

If any one comes to me and hates not his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

It is evident that the word hate is here used hyperbolically, for no one taught men to love life more than did Jesus, and no one emphasised more strongly than he the importance of loyalty in the domestic relations. But in this striking declaration he

THE IDEAL HOME

251

taught the equal and even greater importance of loyalty to the larger social unit, and of readiness to serve all men whenever and wherever opportunity offered. No one was more devoted to his kinsmen than was Jesus himself; but on one dramatic occasion, when his mother and brothers with misdirected zeal came, apparently to draw him away from his perilous public ministry, he improved the opportunity publicly to define kinship in the larger terms of humanity (Mk. 332-35):

And the crowd was seated around him. And they said to him, 'Here are your mother and your brothers outside seeking you.' And he said to them in reply, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?' And looking around on those who were sitting in a circle about him, he said, 'Behold, here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God, that one is my brother and sister and mother.'

Thus logically and almost imperceptibly in Jesus' thought and teachings his exalted conception of the perfect family merges into that of the new social order (the kingdom of God), in which all men and races live together as one happy, loyal family.

XXII

JESUS' TEACHINGS REGARDING THE STATE

The Political Situation in Jesus' Day. The political conditions at the beginning of the first Christian century were complex, and yet not entirely unlike those which exist in most modern countries. Rome, ruled by the Cæsars, was the supreme central authority. Although the principle of government which the empire embodied was despotic, it had nevertheless rendered inestimable services to humanity. Peace and ample opportunity for intercommunication and commerce were only a few of its great contributions to the welfare of the peoples over which it held sway. To many of the nations under its control Rome had granted a relative autonomy; but it was exceedingly jealous of any attempt on the part of the dependent states to secure larger freedom. Its rule was a paternal despotism, but woe to the leader or nation that defied its authority!

As the representative of Rome and of the Jewish people, Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, ruled over Galilee and Perea. As long as he was loyal to Rome his authority was practically undisputed within his territory. Judea, under the control of the imperial procurators, came more directly under the rule of the Roman Emperor. All political power and responsibility had been taken out of the hands of the Jewish people. The perennial political question which agitated them was whether or not they should and could successfully defy the foreign conqueror who had wrested from them their freedom. The majority of them wisely answered this question in the negative, and submitted, though resentfully, to Rome. An active minority was ever seeking for an opportune moment at which to raise the standard of rebellion and to hazard all upon the chances of war. In Jesus' day it was more than dangerous,

POLITICAL SITUATION IN JESUS' DAY 253

therefore, it was foolhardy to discuss practical politics. It is obvious why his foes, eager to bring him under the suspicion of Rome and to undermine his authority with the people, were constantly seeking to force him to commit himself in regard to the great political questions of his day. It is equally easy to understand why he, with his large social vision, always avoided the traps which were thus set for him.

Within Judaism itself there were two political bodies. The one included the heads of the temple priesthood, who not only decided the many questions connected with the administration of the temple, but also sent their emissaries throughout the Jewish world to collect the annual poll-tax which every faithful Jew was compelled to pay for the support of this national shrine. The other executive body was the Sanhedrin, which within the ranks of Judaism administered and interpreted the Jewish law, supplementing it by additional enactments as the situation demanded. This was the supreme judicial, administrative, and legislative body in the Jewish world. Under the authority conferred on it by Rome, it even passed judgment upon civil and criminal questions. For the most part, however, it was simply the interpreter of the Jewish ceremonial and civil law. Although a Sadducee was its president, the majority of its members were Pharisees. It was, therefore, the official mouthpiece of Pharisaism, while the temple was ruled entirely by the priestly heads of the Sadducean party.

Jesus' Point of Approach to Political Questions. In no quicker way could he have destroyed his influence as a teacher and brought his career to a sudden and disastrous end than by arousing the political passions of his people. At the same time there are many indications that he was keenly interested in contemporary political conditions. His disciples and the people were constantly bringing to him information regarding passing events and asking his opinion, which ordinarily he appears to have offered freely (Lk. 131-5). At the same time he carefully avoided committing himself to a partisan position. He did so, not only for practical reasons, but because he was interested in motives and underlying principles rather than in political

parties and issues. He recognised that the form of government is subject to constant change, and that principles alone are eternal. It is evident that Jesus also built on the foundation laid by the earlier prophets, sages, and lawgivers of his race. In this field their teachings had been especially full and complete. Hence he had relatively little to add, but devoted himself to laying down broad yet far-reaching political principles which synthesise and supplement those proclaimed in concrete terms by his prophetic and priestly predecessors.

Jesus' Democracy. Jesus lived in an age when despotism was regnant; and yet he was the most thorough-going democrat that has appeared in human history. Even Plato's ideal Republic and the so-called Greek democracies were but extended oligarchies in which only the men of wealth, power, and ability exercised authority and were free and equal. In reality these commonwealths were essentially undemocratic, for at their foundation was a large dependent class which enjoyed neither freedom nor equality. The basis of Jesus' democracy was a practical as well as a theoretical recognition of the supreme importance of each individual, however humble or low in the social scale he might stand. It is impossible to think of Plato or Aristotle making friends with all classes as did Jesus. It is significant, however, that Jesus had little to say about the rights of man, but much about the responsibility of each individual. No man, woman, or child was so weak or inefficient or debased by sin that he did not strive to appeal to their sense of social responsibility. In most cases his appeal met with a worthy response. It is only gradually that through his eyes men are beginning to see that the essence of democracy is individual opportunity and responsibility. Under a despotism the despot assumes practically all responsibility as well as authority. In a true democracy not only the authority but the responsibility of government rests wholly upon the shoulders of the individual citizens. In a democracy no citizen, however humble, is exempt from this responsibility. As has been truly said, "Democracy is the political expression of the Golden Rule." As interpreted by Jesus, it means not only the rule of the people, by the people, for the people, but also that each citizen is working as