(Luk 10:1-16; Mat_9:36-38; Mat_11:20-24; Luk_10:17-24; Mat_11:25-30; Mat_13:16; Luk_10:25; Luk_10:38-42)

Although, for the reasons explained in the previous chapter, the exact succession of events cannot be absolutely determined, it seems most likely, that it was on His progress southwards at this time that Jesus ‘designated’ those ‘seventy’ ‘others,’ who were to herald His arrival in every town and village. Even the circumstance, that the instructions to them are so similar to, and yet distinct from, those formerly given to the Twelve, seems to point to them as those from whom the Seventy are to be distinguished as ‘other.’ We judge, that they were sent forth at this time, first, from the Gospel of Luke, where this whole section appears as a distinct and separate record, presumably, chronologically arranged; secondly, from the fitness of such a mission at that particular period, when Jesus made His last Missionary progress towards Jerusalem: and, thirdly, from the unlikelihood, if not impossibility, of taking such a public step after the persecution which broke out after His appearance at Jerusalem on the Feast of Tabernacles. At any rate, it could not have taken place later than in the period between the Feast of Tabernacles and that of the Dedication of the Temple, since, after that, Jesus ‘walked no more openly among the Jews.’

With all their similarity, there are notable differences between the Mission of the Twelve and this of ‘the other Seventy.’ Let it be noted, that the former is recorded by the three Evangelists, so that there could have been no confusion on the part of Luke. But the mission of the Twelve was on their appointment to the Apostolate; it was evangelistic and missionary; and it was in confirmation and manifestation of the ‘power and authority’ given to them. We regard it, therefore, as symbolical of the Apostolate just instituted, with its work and authority. On the other hand, no power or authority was formally conferred on the Seventy, their mission being only temporary, and, indeed, for one definite purpose; its primary object was to prepare for the coming of the Master in the places to which they were sent: and their selection was from the wider circle of disciples, the number being now Seventy instead of Twelve. Even these two numbers, as well as the difference in the functions of the two classes of messengers, seem to indicate that the Twelve symbolised the princes of the tribes of Israel, while the Seventy were the symbolical representatives of these tribes, like the seventy elders appointed to assist Moses.  This symbolical meaning of the number Seventy continued among the Jews. We can trace it in the LXX. (supposed) translators of the Bible into Greek, and in the seventy members of the Sanhedrin, or supreme court.

There was something very significant in this appearance of Christ’s messengers, by two and two, in every place He was about to visit. As John the Baptist had, at the first, heralded the Coming of Christ, so now two heralds appeared to solemnly announce His Advent at the close of His Ministry; as John had sought, as the representative of the Old Testament Church, to prepare His Way, so they, as the representatives of the New Testament Church. In both cases the preparation sought was a moral one. It was the national summons to open the gates to the rightful King, and accept His rule. Only, the need was now the greater for the failure of John’s mission, through the misunderstanding and disbelief of the nation. This conjunction with John the Baptist and the failure of his mission, as regarded national results, accounts for the insertion in Matthew’s Gospel of part of the address delivered on the Mission of the Seventy, immediately after the record of Christ’s rebuke of the national rejection of the Baptist. For Matthew, who (as well as Mark) records not the Mission of the Seventy – simply because (as before explained) the whole section, of which it forms part, is peculiar to Luke’s Gospel – reports ‘the Discourses’ connected with it in other, and to them congruous, connections.

We mark, that, what may be termed ‘the Preface’ to the Mission of the Seventy, is given by Matthew (in a somewhat fuller form) as that to the appointment and mission of the Twelve Apostles; and it may have been, that kindred words had preceded both. Partially, indeed, the expressions reported in Luk_10:2 had been employed long before. Those ‘multitudes’ throughout Israel – nay, those also which ‘are not of that flock’ – appeared to His view like sheep without a true shepherd’s care, ‘distressed and prostrate,’ and their mute misery and only partly conscious longing appealed, and not in vain, to His Divine compassion. This constituted the ultimate ground of the Mission of the Apostles, and now of that of the Seventy, into a harvest that was truly great. Compared with the extent of the field, and the urgency of the work, how few were the labourers! Yet, as the field was God’s, so also could He alone ‘thrust forth labourers’ willing and able to do His work, while it must be ours to pray that He would be pleased to do so.

On these introductory words, which ever since have formed ‘the bidding prayer’ of the Church in her work for Christ, followed the commission and special directions to the thirty-five pairs of disciples who went on this embassy. In almost every particular they are the same as those formerly given to the Twelve. We mark, however, that both the introductory and the concluding words addressed to the Apostles are wanting in what was said to the Seventy. It was not necessary to warn them against going to the Samaritans, since the direction of the Seventy was to those cities of Peraea and Judaea, on the road to Jerusalem, through which Christ was about to pass. Nor were they armed with precisely the same supernatural powers as the Twelve. Naturally, the personal directions as to their conduct were in both cases substantially the same. We mark only three peculiarities in those addressed to the Seventy. The direction to ‘salute no man by the way’ was suitable to a temporary and rapid mission, which might have been sadly interrupted by making or renewing acquaintances. Both the Mishnah and the Talmud lay it down, that prayer was not to be interrupted to salute even a king, nay, to uncoil a serpent that had wound round the foot. On the other hand, the Rabbis discussed the question, whether the reading of the shema and of the portion of the Ps called the halel might be interrupted at the close of a paragraph, from respect for a person, or interrupted in the middle, from motives of fear. All agreed, that immediately before prayer no one should be saluted, to prevent distraction, and it was advised rather to summarise or to cut short than to break into prayer, though the latter might be admissible in case of absolute necessity. None of these provisions, however, seems to have been in the mind of Christ. If any parallel is to be sought, it would be found in the similar direction of Elisha to Gehazi, when sent to lay the prophet’s staff on the dead child of the Shunammite.

The other two peculiarities in the address to the Seventy seem verbal rather than real. The expression, ‘if the Son of Peace be there,’ is a Hebraism, equivalent to ‘if the house be worthy,’ and refers to the character of the head of the house and the tone of the household. Lastly, the direction to eat and drink such things as were set before them is only a further explanation of the command to abide in the house which had received them, without seeking for better entertainment. On the other hand, the whole most important close of the address to the Twelve – which, indeed, forms by far the largest part of it – is wanting in the commission to the Seventy, thus clearly marking its merely temporary character.

In Luke’s Gospel, the address to the Seventy is followed by a denunciation of Chorazin and Bethsaida. This is evidently in its right place there, after the Ministry of Christ in Galilee had been completed and finally rejected. In Matthew’s Gospel, it stands (for a reason already indicated) immediately after the Lord’s rebuke of the popular rejection of the Baptist’s message. The ‘woe’ pronounced on those cities, in which ‘most of His mighty works were done,’ is in proportion to the greatness of their privileges. The denunciation of Chorazin and Bethsaida is the more remarkable, that Chorazin is not otherwise mentioned in the Gospels, nor yet any miracles recorded as having taken place in (the western) Bethsaida. From this two inferences seem inevitable. First, this history must be real. If the whole were legendary, Jesus would not be represented as selecting the names of places, which the writer had not connected with the legend. Again, apparently no record has been preserved in the Gospels of most of Christ’s miracles – only those being narrated which were necessary in order to present Jesus as the Christ, in accordance with the respective plans on which each of the Gospels was constructed.

As already stated, the denunciations were in proportion to the privileges, and hence to the guilt, of the unbelieving cities. Chorazin and Bethsaida are compared with Tyre and Sidon, which under similar admonitions would have repented, while Capernaum, which, as for so long the home of Jesus, had truly ‘been exalted to heaven,’ is compared with Sodom. And such guilt involved greater punishment. The very site of Bethsaida and Chorazin cannot be fixed with certainty. The former probably represents the ‘Fisherton’ of Capernaum, the latter seems to have almost disappeared from the shore of the Lake. Jerome places it two miles from Capernaum. If so, it may be represented by the modern Kerâzeh, somewhat to the north-west of Capernaum. The site would correspond with the name. For Kerâzeh is at present ‘a spring with an insignificant ruin above it,’ and the name Chorazin may well be derived from keroz (כְּרוֹז) a water-jar – Cherozin, or ‘Chorazin,’ the water-jars. If so, we can readily understand that the ‘Fisherton’ on the south side of Capernaum, and the well-known springs, ‘Chorazin,’ on the other side of it, may have been the frequent scene of Christ’s miracles. This explains also, in part, why the miracles there wrought had not been told as well as those done in Capernaum itself. In the Talmud a Chorazin, or rather Chorzim, is mentioned as celebrated for its wheat. But as for Capernaum itself – standing on that vast field of ruins and upturned stones which marks the site of the modern Tell Hûm, we feel that no description of it could be more pictorially true than that in which Christ prophetically likened the city in its downfall to the desolateness of death and ‘Hades.’

Whether or not the Seventy actually returned to Jesus before the Feast of Tabernacles, it is convenient to consider in this connection the result of their Mission. It had filled them with the ‘joy’ of assurance; nay, the result had exceeded their expectations, just as their faith had gone beyond the mere letter unto the spirit of His Words. As they reported it to Him, even the demons had been subject to them through His Name. In this they had exceeded the letter of Christ’s commission; but as they made experiment of it, their faith had grown, and they had applied His command to ‘heal the sick’ to the worst of all sufferers, those grievously vexed by demons. And, as always, their faith was not disappointed. Nor could it be otherwise. The great contest had been long decided; it only remained for the faith of the Church to gather the fruits of that victory. The Prince of Light and Life had vanquished the Prince of Darkness and Death. The Prince of this world must be cast out. In spirit, Christ gazed on ‘Satan fallen as lightning from heaven.’ As one has aptly paraphrased it: While you cast out his subjects, I saw the prince himself fall.’ It has been asked, whether the words of Christ referred to any particular event, such as His Victory in the Temptation. But any such limitation would imply grievous misunderstanding of the whole. So to speak, the fall of Satan is to the bottomless pit; ever going on to the final triumph of Christ. As the Lord beholds him, he is fallen from heaven – from the seat of power and of worship; for, his mastery is broken by the Stronger than he. And he is fallen like lightning, in its rapidity, dazzling splendour, and destructiveness. Yet as we perceive it, it is only demons cast out in His Name. For still is this fight and sight continued, and to all ages of the present dispensation. Each time the faith of the Church casts out demons – whether as formerly, or as they presently vex men, whether in the lighter combat about possession of the body, or in the sorer fight about possession of the soul – as Christ beholds it, it is ever Satan fallen. For, he sees of the travail of His soul, and is satisfied. And so also is there joy in heaven over every sinner that repenteth. The authority and power over ‘the demons,’ attained by faith, was not to pass away with the occasion that had called it forth. The Seventy were the representatives of the Church in her work of preparing for the Advent of Christ. As already indicated, the sight of Satan fallen from heaven is the continuous history of the Church. What the faith of the Seventy had attained was now to be made permanent to the Church, whose representatives they were. For, the words in which Christ now gave authority and power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the Enemy, and the promise that nothing should hurt them, could not have been addressed to the Seventy for a Mission which had now come to an end, except in so far as they represented the Church Universal. It is almost needless to add, that those ‘serpents and scorpions’ are not to be literally but symbolically understood.  Yet it is not this power or authority which is to be the main joy either of the Church or the individual, but the fact that our names are written in heaven. And so Christ brings us back to His great teaching about the need of becoming children, and wherein lies the secret of true greatness in the Kingdom.

It is beautifully in the spirit of all this, when we read that the joy of the disciples was met by that of the Master, and that His teaching presently merged into a prayer of thanksgiving. Throughout the occurrences since the Transfiguration, we have noticed an increasing antithesis to the teaching of the Rabbis. But it almost reached its climax in the thanksgiving, that the Father in heaven had hid these things from the wise and the understanding, and revealed them unto babes. As we view it in the light of those times, we know that ‘the wise and understanding’ – the Rabbi and the Scribe – could not, from their standpoint, have perceived them; nay, that it is matter of never-ending thanks that, not what they, but what ‘the babes,’ understood, was – as alone it could be – the subject of the Heavenly Father’s revelation. We even tremble to think how it would have fared with ‘the babes,’ if ‘the wise and understanding’ had had part with them in the knowledge revealed. And so it must ever be, not only the Law of the Kingdom and the fundamental principle of Divine Revelation, but matter for thanksgiving, that, not as ‘wise and understanding,’ but only as ‘babes’-as ‘converted,’ ‘like children’ – we can share in that knowledge which maketh wise unto salvation. And this truly is the Gospel, and the Father’s good pleasure.

The words, with which Christ turned from this Address to the Seventy and thanksgiving to God, seem almost like the Father’s answer to the prayer of the Son. They refer to, and explain, the authority which Jesus had bestowed on His Church: ‘All things were delivered to Me of My Father;’ and they afford the highest rationale for the fact, that these things had been hid from the wise and revealed unto babes. For, as no man, only the Father, could have full knowledge of the Son, and, conversely, no man, only the Son, had true knowledge of the Father, it followed, that this knowledge came to us, not of Wisdom or learning, but only through the Revelation of Christ: ‘No one knoweth Who the Son is, save the Father; and Who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him.’

Matthew, who also records this – although in a different connection, immediately after the denunciation of the unbelief of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum – concludes this section by words which have ever since been the grand text of those who, following in the wake of the Seventy, have been ambassadors for Christ. On the other hand, Luke concludes this part of his narrative by adducing words equally, congruous to the occasion which, indeed, are not new in the mouth of the Lord. From their suitableness to what had preceded, we can have little doubt that both that which Matthew, and that which Luke, reports was spoken on this occasion. Because knowledge of the Father came only through the Son, and because these things were hidden from the wise and revealed to ‘babes,’ did the gracious Lord open His Arms so wide, and bid all that laboured and were heavy laden come to Him. These were the sheep, distressed and prostrate, whom to gather, that He might give them rest, He had sent forth the Seventy on a work, for which He had prayed the Father to thrust forth labourers, and which He has since entrusted to the faith and service of love of the Church. And the true wisdom, which qualified for the Kingdom, was to take up His yoke, which would be found easy, and a lightsome burden, not like that unbearable yoke of Rabbinic conditions; and the true understanding to be sought, was by learning of Him. In that wisdom of entering the Kingdom by taking up its yoke, and in that knowledge which came by learning of Him, Christ was Himself alike the true lesson and the best Teacher for those ‘babes.’ For He is meek and lowly in heart. He had done what He taught, and He taught what He had done; and so, by coming unto Him, would true rest be found for the soul.

These words, as recorded by Matthew – the Evangelist of the Jews – must have sunk the deeper into the hearts of Christ’s Jewish hearers, that they came in their own old familiar form of speech, yet with such contrast of spirit. One of the most common figurative expressions of the time was that of ‘the yoke’(עול), to indicate submission to an occupation or obligation. Thus, we read not only of the ‘yoke of the Law,’ but of that of ‘earthly governments,’ and ordinary ‘civil obligations.’ Very instructive for the understanding of the figure is this paraphrase of Son_1:10 : ‘How beautiful is their neck for bearing the yoke of Thy statutes: and it shall be upon them like the yoke on the neck of the ox that plougheth in the field, and provideth food for himself and his master.  This yoke might be ‘cast off,’ as the ten tribes had cast off that ‘of God,’ and thus brought on themselves their exile. On the other hand, to ‘take upon oneself the yoke’ (קבל עול) meant to submit to it of free choice and deliberate resolution. Thus, in the allegorism of the Midrash, in the inscription, Pro_30:1, concerning ‘Agur, the son of Jakeh’ – which is viewed as a symbolical designation of Solomon – the word ‘masa,’ rendered in the Authorized Version ‘prophesy,’ is thus explained in reference to Solomon: ‘masa, because he lifted on himself (nasa) the yoke of the Holy One, blessed be He.’ And of Isaiah it was said, that he had been privileged to prophesy of so many blessings, ‘because he had taken upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven with joy.  And, as previously stated, it was set forth that in the ‘shema,’ or Creed – which was repeated every day – the words, Deu_6:4-9, were recited before those in Deu_11:13-21, so as first generally to ‘take upon ourselves the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and only afterwards that of the commandments.’  And this yoke all Israel had taken upon itself, thereby gaining the merit ever afterwards imputed to them.

Yet, practically, ‘the yoke of the Kingdom’ was none other than that ‘of the Law’ and ‘of the commandments;’ one of laborious performances and of impossible self-righteousness. It was ‘unbearable,’ not ‘the easy’ and lightsome yoke of Christ, in which the Kingdom of God was of faith, not of works. And, as if themselves to bear witness to this, we have this saying of theirs, terribly significant in this connection: ‘Not like those formerly (the first), who made for themselves the yoke of the Law easy and light; but like those after them (those afterwards), who made the yoke of the Law upon them heavy!’ And, indeed, this voluntary making of the yoke as heavy as possible, the taking on themselves as many obligations as possible, was the ideal of Rabbinic piety. There was, therefore, peculiar teaching and comfort in the words of Christ; and well might He add, as Luke reports, that blessed were they who saw and heard these things. For, that Messianic Kingdom, which had been the object of rapt vision and earnest longing to prophets and kings of old had now become reality.

Abounding as this history is in contrasts, it seems not unlikely, that the scene next recorded by Luke stands in its right place. Such an inquiry on the part of a ‘certain lawyer,’ as to what he should do to inherit eternal life, together with Christ’s Parabolic teaching about the Good Samaritan, is evidently congruous to the previous teaching of Christ about entering into the Kingdom of Heaven. Possibly, this Scribe may have understood the words of the Master about these things being hid from the wise, and the need of taking up the yoke of the Kingdom, as enforcing the views of those Rabbinic teachers, who laid more stress upon good works than upon study. Perhaps himself belonged to that minority, although his question was intended to tempt – to try whether the Master would stand the Rabbinic test, alike morally and dialectically. And, without at present entering on the Parable which gives Christ’s final answer (and which will best be considered together with the others belonging to that period), it will be seen how peculiarly suited it was to the state of mind just supposed.

From this interruption, which, but for the teaching of Christ connected with it, would have formed a terrible discord in the heavenly harmony of this journey, we turn to a far other scene. It follows in the course of Luke’s narrative, and we have no reason to consider it out of its proper place. If so, it must mark the close of Christ’s journey to the Feast of Tabernacles, since the home of Martha and Mary, to which it introduces us, was in Bethany, close to Jerusalem, almost one of its suburbs. Other indications, confirmatory of this note of time, are not wanting. Thus, the history which follows that of the home of Bethany, when one of His disciples asks Him to teach them to pray, as the Baptist had similarly taught his followers, seems to indicate, that they were then on the scene of John’s former labours – north-east of Bethany; and, hence, that it occurred on Christ’s return from Jerusalem. Again, from the narrative of Christ’s reception in the house of Martha, we gather that Jesus had arrived in Bethany with His disciples, but that He alone was the guest of the two sisters. We infer that Christ had dismissed His disciples to go into the neighbouring City for the Feast, while Himself tarried in Bethany. Lastly, with all this agrees the notice in Joh_7:14, that it was not at the beginning, but ‘about the midst of the feast,’ that ‘Jesus went up into the Temple.’ Although travelling on the two first festive days was not actually unlawful, yet we can scarcely conceive that Jesus would have done so – especially on the Feast of Tabernacles; and the inference is obvious, that Jesus had tarried in the immediate neighbourhood, as we know He did at Bethany in the house of Martha and Mary.

Other things, also, do so explain themselves – notably, the absence of the brother of Martha and Mary, who probably spent the festive days in the City itself. It was the beginning of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the scene recorded by Luke would take place in the open leafy booth which served as the sitting apartment during the festive week. For, according to law, it was duty during the festive week to eat, sleep, pray, study – in short, to live – in these booths, which were to be constructed of the boughs of living trees. And, although this was not absolutely obligatory on women, yet, the rule which bade all make ‘the booth the principal, and the house only the secondary dwelling,’ would induce them to make this leafy tent at least the sitting apartment alike for men and women. And, indeed, those autumn days were just the season when it would be joy to sit in these delightful cool retreats – the memorials of Israel’s pilgrim-days! They were high enough, and yet not too high; chiefly open in front; close enough to be shady, and yet not so close as to exclude sunlight and air. Such would be the apartment in which what is recorded passed; and, if we add that this booth stood probably in the court, we can picture to ourselves Martha moving forwards and backwards on her busy errands, and seeing, as she passed again and again, Mary still sitting a rapt listener, not heeding what passed around; and, lastly, how the elder sister could, as the language of Luk_10:40 implies, enter so suddenly the Master’s Presence, bringing her complaint.

To understand this history, we must dismiss from our minds preconceived, though, perhaps, attractive thoughts. There is no evidence that the household of Bethany had previously belonged to the circle of Christ’s professed disciples. It was, as the whole history shows, a wealthy home. It consisted of two sisters – the elder, Martha (a not uncommon Jewish name, being the feminine of mar, and equivalent to our word ‘mistress’); the younger, Mary; and their brother Lazarus, or, laazar. Although we know not how it came, yet, evidently, the house was Martha’s, and into it she received Jesus on His arrival in Bethany. It would have been no uncommon occurrence in Israel for a pious, wealthy lady to receive a great Rabbi into her house. But the present was not an ordinary case. Martha must have heard of Him, even if she had not seen Him. But, indeed, the whole narrative implies, that Jesus had come to Bethany with the view of accepting the hospitality of Martha, which probably had been proffered when some of those ‘Seventy,’ sojourning in the worthiest house at Bethany, had announced the near arrival of the Master. Still, her bearing affords only indication of being drawn towards Christ – at most, of a sincere desire to learn the good news, not of actual discipleship.

And so Jesus came – and, with Him and in Him, Heaven’s own Light and Peace. He was to lodge in one of the booths, the sisters in the house, and the great booth in the middle of the courtyard would be the common living apartment of all. It could not have been long after His arrival – it must have been almost immediately, that the sisters felt they had received more than an Angel unawares. How best to do Him honour, was equally the thought of both. To Martha it seemed, as if she could not do enough in showing Him all hospitality. And, indeed, this festive season was a busy time for the mistress of a wealthy household, especially in the near neighbourhood of Jerusalem, whence her brother might, after the first two festive days, bring with him, any time that week, honoured guests from the City. To these cares was now added that of doing sufficient honour to such a Guest – for she, also, deeply felt His greatness. And so she hurried to and fro through the courtyard, literally, ‘distracted about much serving.’

Her younger sister, also, would do Him all highest honour; but, not as Martha. Her homage consisted in forgetting all else but Him, Who spake as none had ever done. As truest courtesy or affection consists, nor in its demonstrations, but in being so absorbed in the object of it as to forget its demonstration, so with Mary in the Presence of Christ. And then a new Light, another Day had risen upon her; a fresh life had sprung up within her soul: ‘She sat at the Lord’s Feet, and heard his Word.’ We dare not inquire, and yet we well know, of what it would be. And so, time after time – perhaps, hour after hour – as Martha passed on her busy way, she still sat listening and living. At last, the sister who, in her impatience, could not think that a woman could, in such manner, fulfil her duty, or show forth her religious profiting, broke in with what sounds like a querulous complaint: ‘Lord, dost Thou not care that my sister did leave me to serve alone?’ Mary had served with her, but she had now left her to do the work alone. Would the Master bid her resume her neglected work? But, with tone of gentle reproof and admonition, the affectionateness of which appeared even in the repetition of her name, Martha, Martha – as, similarly, on a later occasion, Simon, Simon – did He teach her in words which, however simple in their primary meaning, are so full, that they have ever since borne the most many-sided application: ‘Thou art careful and anxious about many things; but one thing is needful; and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.’ It was, as we imagine, perhaps the first day of, or else the preparation for, the Feast. More than that one day did Jesus tarry in the home of Bethany. Whether Lazarus came then to see Him – and, still more, what both Martha and Mary learned, either then, or afterwards, we reverently forbear to search into. Suffice it, that though the natural disposition of the sisters remained what it had been, yet henceforth, ‘Jesus loved Martha and her sister.’