and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:1 and come, follow me."

The two narratives are thus complementary, and throw interesting lights on each other, and on the incident reported later by Matthew (xxii.) and Mark (xii.) It is noteworthy that while, in the latter passage, the scribe is declared to be "not far from the kingdom of God," there is no instance in Luke of one of his class being favourably regarded by Jesus.

JESUS ENTERTAINED BY MARTHA AND MARY. (LUKE X. 38-42. Unknown to MATTHEW and MARK.)

In this beautiful picture of hospitality we have an example of the simplicity of the reception which Jesus doubtless desired for His apostles when He sent them on their way. Who Martha and Mary were, or where their house was, Luke does not inform us, and the personages and the incident alike are unknown to Matthew and Mark. The story is in a manner parallel with, and in interesting contrast to, Luke's other reference to the ministry of women, already mentioned. Here, there is a refinement introduced on such service, which is quite in harmony with the spirit of Luke's

1 Cf. Tobit iv. 8, 9: "If thou hast abundance, give alms accordingly; if thou have but a little, be not afraid to give according to that little; for thou layest up a good treasure against the day of necessity. Because that alms doth deliver from death, and suffereth not to come into darkness."

view of the relation of the lower things of life to the soul. Martha has received Jesus into the house, and is resolved to give Him a hearty welcome, and she and Mary, her sister, set about making preparations. In a little while Mary deserts her sister to sit down near to Jesus as a learner to hear His word; and in remonstrance, Martha asks, with some natural petulance,

Lord, dost thou not care that my sister did leave me to serve alone?" urging Jesus to bid Mary to take her part in the work. Whereupon Jesus utters a gentle reproof to Martha for her being so cumbered with much serving: "Martha, Martha, thou art anxious and troubled [μεριμνᾷς καὶ θορυβάζῃ] about many things, but of one thing there is need." The words of Jesus show that it is possible to exaggerate or overdo such hospitality as is necessary to show to one like Jesus, who is living on the bounty of others. Mary, in resting satisfied with discharging a needful amount of service in order to listen to the discourse of Jesus, has earned for herself the distinction of having "chosen the good part [τὴν ἀγαθὴν μερίδα] which shall not be taken away from her," while Martha's excess of care and bustling activity as plainly exclude her from a share in that good part. One thing only is needful; the barest provision for the bodily life will suffice: and in supplying the wants of others, the greatest simplicity must be practised. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth out of the

mouth of God. No cumbrous serving; the main care is to be devoted to the life that is more than meat.

THE IMPORTUNATE FRIEND.

(LUKE xi. 5-9.

Unknown to MATTHEW and MARK.)

The first four verses of this chapter are occupied with Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer, and the occasion which called it forth from Jesus. He had been praying, and one of the disciples desired that He should teach them to pray, as John had taught his disciples. Matthew, on the other hand, introduces the prayer in the Sermon on the Mount as a model prayer, given by Jesus in contrast to the ostentatious prayers of the hypocrites, and the "vain repetitions" of the Gentiles. The prayer is not found in Mark at all. After the prayer, and by way of illustration, comes Luke's peculiar story of the Importunate Friend, followed by a general discourse on prayer, the latter being almost, with one important exception, word for word the same as in Matt. vii. 7-11.

The principal idea here enforced is the dependence of man on the bounty of God, and not only so, but man, as evil, in relation to the heavenly Father, as supremely good. In the Lord's Prayer, as given by Matthew as well as Luke, the personal requests of the petitioner are limited to three things-bread, forgiveness of, and preservation from, sin. With the first

Q

only have we to deal here. Whatever may be the meaning of eπcovσiov in both passages, Luke adds to it the qualifying phrase τὸ καθ' ἡμέραν (Matthew, σńμeρov), "day by day," just as he has done at ix. 23, in speaking of “taking up one's cross," to enforce the idea that day by day we are dependent on God for bread. This dependence is not so obvious in Matthew's version of the petition. The needs of the temporal life are thus reduced to the lowest terms, and those of the spiritual absorb them. Here follows the story of the Friend at Midnight, which throws an entirely new complexion on the whole context. In the discourse on prayer, beginning, "Ask and it shall be given unto you," which is common to Matthew and Luke, the argument is a minori ad majus: "If ye then, being evil, . . . how much more shall your heavenly Father," &c. The story of the Friend at Midnight is interposed by Luke to show the certainty that prayer will be heard by God,-a certainty which is exemplified even in the case cited, where the request is granted for bare importunity's sake. Though the friend will not give bread to his friend in his need, at midnight, for friendship's sake, even in order to save him from the disgrace of inhospitality, yet will he give him, not only three loaves but more, if required, because of his very shamelessness in asking. God is as certain to give, but not on the same grounds. He is good, but man is evil. Therefore, as He cannot be

truly typified as being thus bought off by mere importunity, the argument of the story turns on a contrast: it is, in fact, the argument, e contrario. God gives, not so much because He is importuned, but because of His very nature He cannot help giving. He cannot forsake His children, or deny them daily bread, any more than an earthly sinful father, who has a tie to his children beyond that of friendship, mocks the petitions of his son for bread by offering him a stone, for fish by offering him a serpent, or for an egg by offering him a scorpion. The principle of love, in this case, will secure the gift of sustenance desired, in a nobler way than in the case of the importunate friend, where a lower claim than friendship prevailed: how much more then will God, the heavenly Father, be certain, in virtue of His unalterable relationship to men, to give not only bread,-for that is a small matter,—or even good things (ayalà, as in Matthew), but His own Holy Spirit (as in Luke) to them that ask Him? From this important deviation in Luke's version of this passage, we learn that the course of thought is from the material to the spiritual: temporal mercies, even daily bread, are transcended altogether, and the Holy Spirit is the one supreme gift to be asked for—a possession which is not merely, as Farrar supposes, less general than Matthew's "good things," but in comparison with which bread, "good things," the life that now is, sinks into infinitesimal insignificance.