τελος νομου χριστος πλήρωμα νομου Η αγαπη τί γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νόμος; εὐαγγέλιον προκατηγγελμένον. τί δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον; νόμος πεπληρωμένος. Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet: CHAPTER I. I will have mercy, and not sacrifice. Matt. ix. 13; xii. 7; Hos. vi. 6. THE words ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν are susceptible of two interpretations. In the one the mercy spoken of is divine; in the other human. The meaning may be either that God delights in the exercise of mercy, and 'willeth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live; or that He delights to see in men a charitable consideration for their brethren's trials and infirmities, and that such a disposition is pleasing in His sight rather than the strictest conformity with outer law. It may indeed be said that the general principle which underlies the statement admits no less the second application than the first; but a closer investigation is desirable, for the words do not only link together the old dispensation and the new and express the inner meaning of all divine legislation, but have been applied by our Lord Himself to a special controversy which the lapse of eighteen centuries has failed to deprive of either interest or importance. I. The saying is first quoted in Matt. ix. 13. 'And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. 'And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto His disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? 'But when Jesus heard that, He said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. 'But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.' The 'mercy' here spoken of, if human, must be the mercy of the publicans and sinners, or the mercy of the Pharisees, or lastly that of Christ regarded as subject to the law and exemplifying its complete fulfilment. It cannot be the first, for it is obviously foreign to the Saviour's purpose to describe those 'publicans and sinners' as other than truly sinners that have need to be called to the way of righteousness. He does not say 'these publicans, though failing in outward observance, are yet your equals or superiors in mercy, that weightier matter of the law.' He does not credit them with moral piety as a ground of acceptance despite their ritual deficiency, but implies that because they are sinners He calls them to repentance. It cannot be the mercy of the Pharisees, unless, as seems improbable, the words are designed merely to silence the objectors, and have no bearing on the mutual relations of the sinners and their Guest. He does not say: 'If you had understood the service wherein God delights the most, you would have sought to please Him by meekness and by mercy; by charitable judgment rather than by sharp censure of your brethren: for the words, thus meant, would contain a dismissal of the Pharisees with a reproof of their ignorance and self-righteousness, but would contribute nothing to the answer of the all-important question 'Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?' Against the third view, that the mercy is that whereby Christ in His humanity fulfils the Law, it may be urged that He is set forth in the context as an independent worker rather than as subject to ordinances. He is the great Physician, whose function, voluntarily chosen, is one of mercy. Sinners are those with whom He would associate. Their very sickness constitutes their claim. The interpretation which makes the mercy spoken of divine seems most appropriate. The Pharisees are surprised that one claiming to be an exponent of the divine will should thus mingle with the outcasts of society, rather than leave. them to the contempt and ruin which seemed most consonant with the purpose of the law. It was thought that the evil consequences which flow from the breaking of God's law must in themselves be well pleasing to the Lawgiver, and it had not occurred to the objectors that such consequences might be remedial. In the answer, mercy is fitly contrasted with sacrifice, and it is declared that God delights in 'showing mercy' and pity,' rather than in the exaction. of pain and suffering, which are merely retributive. This then explains why the divine Healer should have risked, as it seemed, the defilement of evil companionship, and set before Him as His worthiest aim the calling of sinners to repentance. Two remarks may be added in confirmation of the above. The first arises from a consideration of the context. The question 'Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?' being disposed of, 'then came to Him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?' or in the phraseology of St Luke (v. 33), but thine eat and drink.' The sequence is a natural one, on the supposition that the answer to the first question has direct reference to the divine purpose in the recovery of the lost. Why eat with publicans and sinners? Because 'I will have mercy.' But why eat at all? Why elect a social life in contradistinction to the asceticism of John? This second difficulty has respect to outward observances, and would have been in a measure anticipated by the commonly received solution of the first. If, however, the first answer has no direct bearing on the like outward observ 1 Stier contends for this application of Neos, but dwells upon a different aspect of θυσία. God delights to show mercy: to give grace rather than to receive oblations. For other usages of sacrifice compare Ps. li. 17; Is. xxxiv. 6. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit.' 'The Lord hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea.' ances, then the second question follows as a natural supplement to the first. Lastly, there is a significant omission of the Greek article, which has been dwelt upon by Stier, but is unrepresented in the Authorized Version. Not saints but sinners would be more exact than our English rendering, I came not to call 'the righteous but sinners' to repentance. The article before Sixalous would imply that there were some to whom the term righteous was applicable or applied. The article before åμapTwλous would imply that there were some to whom the term sinners was inapplicable. Its omission seems at variance with that 'ironica concessio' which our Lord's answer has been thought to convey. By SS. Mark and Luke the citation is omitted. 'They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance (Mark ii. 17; Luke v. 31, 32). There is first a statement of a well-known proverb, and next a spiritual application. It is the sick that have need of a physician: therefore to call sinners is the purpose of my coming. St Matthew records the answer more at length. The sick have need: it is the divine will that mercy should be shown those who need: and this explains why the divine Healer should be found with those whose souls are sick with sin. 6 II. The citation recurs in Matt. xii. 7, in answer to the charge that the disciples did that which it was not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day, when they were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.' It is shown by the example of David, that such apparent illegalities were not invariably condemned by those self-same Pharisees, and further it is proved by words of Scripture that the disciples were guiltless and the Pharisees ignorant of the law. 'Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him ; 'How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? |