chæus (Luke 19. 1-10). It is our best hope for a new social order to-day. Unlimited competition, industrial war, class antagonism will not help us. Our only hope is that on both sides of all economic questions we shall have a generous resolve to do justice. Then we shall have to determine scientifically with great pains and experiment what that justice will be. Jesus will not do that work for us. We must not expect to find in his teachings schemes of profit-sharing, plans of industrial democracy, details of minimum wage and maximum labor. These matters change with social conditions, and must be the subject of continual readjustment in accordance with scientific knowledge. But the great human motives of mutual respect and mutual friendship, the emphasis of duties above rights, the supremacy of persons over property-these come to us from Jesus; these are the crying need of the social life of to-day.

DIRECTIONS FOR STUDY

1. Read Luke 1 and 2; Mark 6. 1-3; John 19. 25-27. Note each statement that gives any suggestion as to the financial condition of Jesus's family.

2. Consider modern conditions in which wealth is made the supreme good in family and social life, in industry, in national policies, in international relations. What are the consequences of that attitude?

3. When Jesus said that the cares of this age and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word (Matt 13. 22), could his message have any application to a poor man? Is it possible for the poor to make wealth the supreme good?

4. Consider the moral dangers of wealth in modern society on the basis of Jesus's teaching. How much would one have to own in order to become subject to these dangers?

5. Consider how vested interests in modern life halt the progress of the kingdom of God.

6. Note that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16. 19-31) was spoken in response to the scorn of the Pharisees (vv. 14f.). Using the common imagery of the time regarding the future life, Jesus taught not that all rich men are bad and all poor men are good, but that when true values are really

measured they may be very different from what our superficial property system assumes. What did Jesus really condemn in this particular rich man?

7. Read Luke 16. 1-13. The trickery of the steward was not, of course, commended by Jesus. This is a case where a moral principle is illustrated from an immoral example. Jesus shows that worldly men know the value of money in making friends. What, then, is his teaching about the use that a good man ought to make of his money?

8. Why did not Jesus discuss right and wrong ways of getting wealth? Does his teaching have anything to do with this pressing modern problem? On what grounds would you say that a man who gets money by oppression and gives it away in charity does not follow the teachings of Jesus?

9. Consider the possibility of settling economic differences when both sides are more anxious to give justice than to get it. Is it conceivable that earnest Christians may adopt that attitude in commercial transactions, industrial organizations, and even in international affairs? Is there any great hope for human society except in this attitude? Do we not, then, see why the social teachings of Jesus are religious?

10. Why has slavery disappeared from Christendom? What similar conditions of social injustice are sure to disappear? What is the practical program to secure such results?

CHAPTER XXXV

ORGANIZED SOCIETY

§ 1. THE ABSence of a POLITICAL PROGRAM

JESUS grew up in a political order that was full of social complication. There was the municipal jurisdiction of the Jewish elders who administered the Mosaic law. This was accepted without question as satisfactory. There was the higher jurisdiction of the temple authorities, which Jesus recognized in common with his countrymen by paying his taxes (Matt 17. 24-27), and by commanding obedience to its regulations (Matt 8. 4; Mark 1. 44; Luke 5. 14; 17. 14). There was the territorial sovereignty of Herod Antipas which was essentially alien and pagan and for both reasons highly objectionable to the Jews. There was the overlordship of the Roman empire, which was bitterly resented because it meant the contemptible subjection of the proud Hebrew race. There was in all of this the intense political expectation of national independence through the coming of the kingdom of God.

Jesus accepted the political situation. He did not denounce the Herods or the Romans. He accepted the friendship of the publicans, though their business was to levy taxes upon the people to support a foreign tyranny. When the politicians tried to make him take sides on the question of paying tribute he said to them, "You know what you have to give to Cæsar; do you also know what is due to God?" (Matt 22. 15-22; Mark 12. 13-17; Luke 20. 20-26). Jesus looked for the new kingdom, but its political aspects he did not discuss. Who should rule in an ideal social order? This question he did not answer. He did not offer a political program, because he went deeper, to the discussion of motives.

man society is

posal. De sviri s te grid of sovereignty,

stat sems metod in peration and doubtless had set that I produces a fairly workable society. The arring hand of Herod the Great had put down the bandits

Sabee and had brought order into the affairs of Palesme. The might of the Roman empire had brought peace teen the world over a large area, though it was the peace of the suzerain over the dependent. The fact that a man who songite to injure his neighbor was in danger of being injured Amell & much toward preventing aggression, though the strongest generally gained the day. In fact, the world of Tesus's day was much like the world of our day. A fair degree of justice was secured by the organization of society on the principle of securing people in their rights by force. yet still, to some extent, inevitably might made right.

Jesus saw the inadequacy of the policy of force. It may prevent a man stealing if he thinks he will be found out,

but it does not prevent him from wanting to steal. If he is caught stealing and imprisoned, it makes him sorry that he was caught, but not sorry that he sinned. One may obtain legal redress for an injury, but he has gained the enmity of the beaten party and the issue is hatred and the hope of revenge. Blow for blow may satisfy the feeling of outraged dignity, but the quarrel is increased by the conflict.

Jesus dared to believe in the kingdom of God. He believed that men could live together in mutual respect and love. He believed that a society could be founded on love. His countrymen wanted the kingdom of God when freedom, justice, peace should reign. He told them that they could have the life of the kingdom if they would make the great adventure. He said that it was better to forego rights than to fight for them. He put it very definitely in the prohibition of the resistance of him that is evil (Matt 5. 39). Aggression upon one's rights is best met by yielding more rights; tyranny and oppression are best met by giving to the oppressor more than he demands; importunity is best met by compliance (vv. 40-42). It is not merely nonresistance, not merely a passive acceptance of wrong, it is a positive endeavor to overcome evil with good.

This fundamental teaching was put into its most extreme form in the statement, "The meek shall inherit the earth" (v. 5). In Jesus's day the Romans inherited the earth by the might of their legions. As the apocalypses showed, the world empires had all, like ravening beasts, taken the world by force. The Jewish hope of the kingdom of God was that celestial armies should destroy the terrestrial tyrants, and the saints should inherit the earth under the strong hand of the Almighty (Dan 2. 44; 7. 26f.; 8.25; compare the description of the destruction of Rome (Rev 18). But Jesus proposed the principle of love as the conquering power in human society. He believed that men would yield to love and that by love alone could society be regenerated.

If we really want to understand Jesus, there is nothing