Let Us Do Our Father’s Business #JesusFollowers

 

Jesus went out into the world to do something, not for himself, but for his Father, and he devoted himself to it entirely. 

He was continually engaged in it himself, while he remained here, going from place to place, encountering hardship and danger and suffering, and all without any reference to his own selfish interests, but regarding solely the work he had to do for the salvation of men.

And at last, when he left the world, his final charge to his disciples was, that they should be faithful and persevering in carrying forward this work.

It is surprising how much the example of Jesus loses its power over us, simply on account of the absolute perfection of it. If he had been partly a lover of pleasure, if he had, for instance, built himself a splendid mansion, and ornamented his grounds, and devoted some portion of his time to selfish enjoyment there.

Or if he had entered into political life, and devoted a share of his attention to promoting his own honor, and yet if he had torn himself away from these temptations, so as finally to have devoted his chief time and attention to the glory of God and the good of men, than perhaps then we would view his example as within our reach.

But as it is, since he gave himself up wholly to his duty, since he relinquished the world altogether, Christians seem to think, that his bright example is only, to a very limited extent, an example for them. 

Jesus was a man. His powers were human powers. His feelings were human feelings, and his example is strictly and exactly an example for all the world. Still few consider him a fair example. 

Most Christians think that the general principles which regulated his conduct, ought to regulate theirs, and the most they think of doing is to follow in his steps slowly and hesitatingly, and at a great distance behind.

How perfectly clear it is, that a very large proportion of professing Christians are doing their own business in this world, and not their Father's. There are a great number of nominal Christians who have no idea of the position Christianity takes in regard to our duty.

Our business here is to comfort everyone, and to relieve everyone's suffering. We cannot persuade great multitudes of men to love and obey God, as Jesus endeavored to, but we may lead our brothers and sisters to do it, by our silent influence and happy example. 

We can bear sufferings patiently, and take injuries meekly, and thus exhibit the character which God wishes to have prevail here.

The light we let shine may be a feeble light, and it may illuminate only a narrow circle around you; but if it is the light of genuine piety, it will be in fact, the glory of God.

The example of Jesus is an example for all humanity. It is intended for universal imitation, and they who pass through life without imitating it, must find themselves condemned when they come to their account.

And how strange it is, that God should find so very few willing to do His business in this world. Even of those few, most, instead of entering into it, heart and soul, do some good accidentally, and call themselves Christians, but they seem to have no idea that God has any work for them to do.

Does God have work for us to do? Yes! There is a world to be restored to holiness and happiness, and He asks our help in doing it. 

The Simple Gospel Of Jesus Doesn't Vilify Reason #JesusFollowers

  

God has never enjoined on human beings the duty of believing without evidence. He has never addressed us other than as rational beings, capable of discerning between truth and falsehood, and expected to do so on our own responsibility.

Revelation came not to supersede reason, or to set aside its deductions; but to enlighten its course, to expand its views, to enlarge its field of action, to dispel the earth-born mists that obscured its vision, to give it broader and more solid premises, on which to build its conclusions, and to prep its wings for a higher flight.

It never calls for the subjection of reason - the 'prostration' of the understanding, to its dictates. On the contrary, it is itself subjected to the decision of reason; and must abide the test. It must be received or rejected according to the dictates of our sober judgment on the evidence presented. And as with the evidence on which it rests, so with the doctrines it contains.

These too, are subjected to the test of reason. We believe them just in so far as we understand them; and no farther. The provinces of faith and reason are not distinct, the one beginning where the other ends. They cover the same ground. 

It seems to us a mere identical proposition to state that what is not understood, cannot be believed. In this case no object is presented to the mind for it to receive or reject. What is not understood is to me no revelation. If a man say that he believes what he does not pretend either to explain or comprehend, he deceives himself. His faith is merely verbal and illusory.

Doubtless there may be many truths both in nature and in scripture, of which we are ignorant. But to us, so long as we remain ignorant of them, they are nothing - they are to us as though they did not exist. 

We pretend not to comprehend the nature and perfections of the Divine Being, for example; but in so far as they are displayed, they are perfectly plain and intelligible - 'he that runs may read them.' And what is not displayed is no concern of ours.

My eye cannot penetrate the deep infinitude of the space that surrounds me; but within the verge of my own horizon I can see clearly, and move freely. Let it not be said that we exalt reason at the expense of revelation. We do but assign to each its appropriate sphere.

Reason, we must admit, was weak and inefficient by itself. And why? It lacked authority to still the clamor of the passions, that disturbed its operations. It lacked facts to render its conclusions certain.

Above all, it wanted sanctions to bind them on the conscience. All this revelation has supplied; and thus, it has completed the system of God's dispensations to humanity.

Those who vilify and degrade human reason; representing it as corrupt and debased; cautioning us continually against trusting to its guidance, and making it the test of a docile and humble spirit, and urging us to embrace doctrines from which reason recoils; do justice neither to reason, nor to scripture; neither to human beings, nor our Maker.

(Adapted from “Presumptive Arguments in Favor of Unitarianism" Jan. 1834, by Rev. Martin Luther Hurlbut)

What Do We Owe God, And Others? #JesusFollowers

  

What do we owe to God? What do we owe to others? Many today might answer that we owe God and others nothing. Instead, they might say, we owe it to ourselves to focus on building up ourselves, alone.

This message is reinforced in almost every aspect of the society in whichwe live. Advertising tells us that we owe it to ourselves to seek to fill our every desire, without hesitation.

We are told that we deserve every luxury and every Indulgence of which we can think. It's very easy to fall into this trap, to believe that by gratifying ourselves that we will somehow be happy. 

Even some preachers teach that we owe it to ourselves to be rich - and that God endorses our quest for riches. They even say that our main religious goal in life is a Self-centered goal to "get saved," and save our souls for the next life. Once that's accomplished (and it's done quickly and easily, they claim - with just one prayer!) we may continue to focus on getting rich, and they tell us that we have no other obligations, to either God or other people.

And many church leaders rarely speak of OUR duties, but speak of, and sing about, holding GOD to HIS promises to us, which seems backwards. 

But as we have seen again and again, people who have lived in luxury beyond our wildest dreams have the same feelings of unhappiness, of being unfulfilled, of feeling alone and unloved that we all experience.

It's almost a stereotype and a truism that money and fame does not really bring lasting happiness. And yet some still believe it, and chase that false hope.

If we follow Jesus, however, then the question of what we owe God and what we owe others is a simple one to answer. We owe everything to God and we owe complete and total service to others in the name of Jesus, whom we are called to serve and emulate

When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, he said that we are to love our God with all our hearts all our minds all our strength and all our understanding, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:29-31; Luke 10:37)

Some say this is just a simplistic and easy summary of all the laws of God. And while it is a summary, for sure, it is not simplistic, but an incredible, powerful challenge that Jesus calls us to take up daily.

Because if we owe everything to God, our creator, we will live our lives full of gratitude to him for His creation and our lives in it. If we owe everything to others, we will serve them and love them and cherish them. We will do everything to comfort them, to ensure they have what they need to survive and spiritually thrive in this world.

When we understand that our lives here are meant to build up an Earthly kingdom of God, one that reflects the spiritual Perfection of our Creator, we will do all we can to alleviate others' suffering, comfort those in pain, and fill the needs of  those who lack basic necessities. (Matt. 6:10)

This leaves little room for simply piling up riches. In fact, Jesus repeatedly calls on us to reject riches for riches' sake, saying (perhaps most clearly) that it's easier for a rich man to go through the eye of needle than to enter into the Kingdom. (Mark 10:25) 

Perhaps not as well known, but just as important, is his warning that we ought to, "be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in an abundance of possessions." (Luke 12:15)

This is the selfless vision and the mission Jesus was sent out to preach. Jesus calls us to individually reach out to those among us and serve them. We literally owe it to others to do so. 

We as Jesus followers are called to deny ourselves, not focus on gratifying ourselves - to put others first, even ahead of our own enrichment. Jesus calls us to pick up the cross of service, the cross of love, and the crosses of self-sacrifice and love of our neighbor.

Jesus actually warns AGAINST seeking to save oneself. To do so means we will actually lose ourselves. (Matt. 10:38-39) Jesus seemed to know that we lose our souls when we focus inward, not outward.

And he specifically says that simple praise, crying out or reflexively using repetitive phrases or long prayers will not impress God, and will not save us, either. Only by doing what he commands us to do leads directly to Godliness, and pleases God. (Matt. 6:7; 7:21-23; Luke 6:46)

We should seek to live in a way that lets God's spirit flow through us in the same way in which it flowed through Jesus, our Master. 

When we do this, we are obeying our Master, whom God sent to us as an example and our teacher. We are then telling God that we are living lives of gratitude and service, just as his chosen son, Jesus, called us to do.

As his followers, we ought to do no less.

The Nature of Gospel Salvation. #JesusFollowers

 

The Gospel presents us with clear and comprehensive views of the Nature and character of the Deity. 

It teaches that there is but one God: by this simple principle, expressed in every way which is necessary to make it fully understood and cordially received, putting an end to heathen idolatry.

It teaches us that this great Being is a Spirit; possessed of every natural and moral excellence in an infinite degree; almighty, all-wise, all-just, all-holy, and all-gracious; exercising a righteous moral administration over His creatures; rewarding the righteous, and punishing the wicked.

In short, He is perfect goodness, pure and unlimited Love, our Friend and our Father; yet at the same time a Being of perfect Righteousness, our Sovereign, and our Judge.

The Gospel teaches us what the requirements of this great and gracious Being are. It instructs, by precept and by example, that we should love Him with supreme affection; that we should exercise a steady faith and a devout and holy communion with Him; and that we should make it our first and highest concern to do His will.

It requires that we should exercise a careful government over our own hearts; that we should suppress all inordinate affections and all high thoughts of ourselves; that we should be sober, temperate, and chaste in all things; that we should be humble and watchful, earnestly desirous to be, as well as to do, what God commands. In short, the religion that is pure and undefiled before God is to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:27)

Jesus is never represented as the cause, but as the effect of the Father's love: and to imagine that God was not disposed to be merciful to mankind till Jesus wrested pardon from him (as it has sometimes been expressed), is to contradict the simple but all-important assertion of the Gospel, that "God so loved the world…" (John 3:16)

It is nowhere stated in the Scriptures that God could not forgive sins without the death of Jesus, or without some other full satisfaction: but many passages prove that though perfectly just, God is also essentially merciful; and which supply us with Divine declarations of pardon to the repentant sinner, and examples of the extension of it, without any reference to the death of Jesus.

The justice of God, as far as we have the means of knowing, consists in the due distribution of rewards and punishments according to the moral condition and character of the objects of His justice.

Jesus suffered for the completion of his spiritual excellence, and it was for the welfare of his followers that he should set them an example that they should follow in his steps – an example of meekness, of fortitude, of patience, of gentleness and mercy, of firm endurance and self-denial, of boundless love to man, and of obedience unto death.

When considering the effects and purposes of the death of Jesus, it should never be forgotten that they were all in view in the apostles’ minds, as a whole, as they should be in ours; and then we cannot fail to perceive that the effects on the spiritual excellence of our Master’s character, and the perfecting of his example, and all their blessed influences in the hearts of his disciples, are among the purposes of his death.

The death of Jesus is of service to only those who through the work of Jesus are redeemed from all iniquity; and its efficacy in effecting our salvation depends on its producing, through the influence of his sufferings, his precepts, doctrines, spirit and example, that spiritual sanctification, and eternal purification, which will make us dead to sin, and alive to God.

If neither our Master himself, during his ministry on earth, nor his apostles whose preaching is recorded in the book of Acts teach the doctrine that the death of Jesus was a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of men, is it reasonable to conclude that it cannot be essential to salvation?

There is no passage in support of the doctrine that the death of Jesus had some mysterious, unknown, immediate efficacy in obtaining from God the pardon of sin.

Persons who entertain this doctrine of atonement, should shrink from the notion that Jesus was in any strict sense punished for the sins of men, or that he was substituted for them to bear the Father's displeasure, or that he thus made satisfaction for their sins: still less should they allow that the death of Jesus appeased the wrath of God, and made him merciful.

Of such a doctrine, often taught by theologians, I do not hesitate to declare that it is not Christianity, that it is not Judaism, that it is heathenism.

(Adapted from an 1843 sermon by Rev. Lant Carpenter)

"Christianity As Jesus Christ Preached It" [JesusFollowers]

"Lord, to whom shall we go? You Have the words of eternal life." JOHN 6:38.

WHO will show us any good? Where are we to look for the clearest, truest setting forth of religion? There is such a variety of Churches, there are such differences of form and of creed, there is such a babel-confusion of ecclesiastical tongues, and so many of them asserting that theirs is the only faith by which any man can be saved; and meanwhile some think it doubtful if any faith can stand. Where shall we find some real light, - some solid ground to rest upon?

Am I mistaken in saying that this is a craving widely felt at the present time? The heart of society just now is in a curiously puzzled and perplexed condition. It is not satisfied. Men have the answers of their various Churches. These tell them in creed and catechism, in article and confession, what it is that man must believe, and which shall be "saving faith" to him. And all the points are well backed up by "proof texts," which sound clear and unmistakeable; yet, when all is said, people are not satisfied. It may not be that they have come actually to disbelieve these doctrines, but they do not feel that they go to the root and reality of the matter. The creeds may be all right and true, and yet even those who still hold them, or think they do, do not like to hear them much insisted on; they feel that there is something deeper. They feel that, behind all those doctrinal differences which separate them, there are there must be some deeper realities, a few great thoughts of faith and love, something far simpler and more practical than these matters that divines have wrangled over, and something on which they might join hands, and feel brotherly and friendly, and get rid of all their miserable doubts about each other's acceptance and salvation in the world to come.

Now I want to set before you what I believe to be the true way out of these perplexities and doubts, the true way to this broader, simpler, more practical religion, upon which men might be able to agree, -or at least to see their differences in their true light, as minor matters. That way, I believe to be, to look simply to Christianity as Christ preached it; to go back, as near as we can, through the narratives of the Gospels, to Christ as he went about among the people, himself preaching his own "good tidings," his own religion. See what he himself said; how he answered people's questions; what he urged them to believe or to do; what it was that he was constantly putting before them in his parables, and beautiful deep sayings. You know that often-quoted saying of Chillingworth's: "The Bible, and the Bible only, the religion of Protestants." Well, we Unitarians want to bring that idea to a brighter point still, and would say, -" Christ, and Christ only, the special teacher for Christians."

See, at the outset, one thing which surely should be a great recommendation of this principle. It is not a new principle, and it is not a sectarian one, nor in any way a partial or exclusive one. The thought which lies at the bottom of it, and on which it is founded, is one which is owned by every church in Christendom. There is not a church throughout the world that does not own Christ to be its teacher; there is not one that does not wish its belief and its thought to be his thought and faith; there is not one that does not hold its doctrines under the idea that they are those which he meant men to hold. Why, the man who wrote the Athanasian Creed, wrote it because he believed that he should by it make clearer to men the thought of Christ. John Calvin, in all his sternest, gloomiest doctrines about some being elected to be saved, and the rest of mankind being elected to be damned, sincerely believed that he had penetrated to Christ's deeper thought, and was interpreting it more clearly than ever before. Martin Luther attacked the Papacy, because he believed that it had hidden Christ from men. John Wesley went forth to the hill-sides and by-ways, because he felt that the churches of his time were not preaching "Christianity as Christ preached it." So that it is a very broad, comprehensive principle, and one which in the abstract the members of all Churches must gladly approve.

The real difficulty occurs when we come to the practical application of it. Many of those who quite believe, in the abstract, in holding for Christianity as Christ preached it, have been accustomed to fancy that, in some way, that light of Christ's teaching operates and shines throughout the whole Bible. So they will admit a text from one part just as readily as from another; and they are apt to think that any other plan amounts to rejecting the Scriptures. People have said to me sometimes, when I have been urging this matter, "What? are we to have nothing to do with the rest of the Bible? are we to put it all aside as useless or superfluous, and to read the four Gospels only?"

We do not mean anything of the kind For my own part I believe that the whole of that old Hebrew literature, for it is a literature rather than a book, which is bound up together as our Bible, is helpful and valuable. But it is not all helpful in the same way, nor in the same degree. Nobody would say that the histories of the Wars of the Israelites are as useful as the Parables of Jesus, or as the Sermon on the Mount. Even those who believe that every writer in the Bible was inspired would hardly say that they were all equally inspired, and that the light of the religious truth revealed shines equally brightly and equally clearly in all parts. And that is all I ask, in order to bring out the principle I am advocating; for surely that light of the world, which shines all through the course of the Hebrew religion, came to its very brightest in Christ. It was only twilight before, compared to that perfect day. And I think no one would say that it was ever quite so bright again. The light was wonderfully reflected in the Apostles, and in all the early Christian life; but it kept fading a little. Even Paul, and John, and the rest, holy men as they were, were not preserved from all errors by their inspiration. As Emerson says, "When God makes the prophet he does not unmake the man." Paul had to withstand Peter to the face, once. They preached the Gospel with all their might; and still, if they had been asked whether they or their Master best understood and best taught the Gospel, can any one doubt what their answer would have been? I should be sorry if Paul's epistles were lost, but still, if the four lives of Christ were left us, surely we should not lose the knowledge of what Christianity is. They would be sufficient, -those four Gospel accounts of how Christ himself preached, -surely not only sufficient, but the best of all would be left to us. And so, even though we are thankful that they are not all that is left us, yet still we ought to give them the very first and highest place. Did you ever read what Luther wrote to Eck, one of his adversaries, who was defending the authority of the Catholic Church? He said, "It is certainly impudent in anyone to teach as the Philosophy of Aristotle any doctrine which cannot be proved by his authority. You grant this. Well, then, all the more, it is the most impudent of all things to affirm in the church, and among Christians, any thing that Jesus Christ himself has not taught." It is true that Luther himself did not half keep to his principle; but that is no new thing in the world. The principle is good, and it is exactly the principle that we plead for.

It is, then, to the Gospels, as giving us Christianity as Christ himself preached it, that, as Christians, we ought to look. We may not have a perfect record, even there, of all that he was, or of all that he taught; but we have at least one so full-or rather four, so full, so artless, so bearing the mark of being honest personal recollections of him, on the face of them, that we may be sure we lack no material feature in his character, and no essential part of what he taught us. 

And, look for a moment at what a simplifying of the problem of Christianity this is. Why, what a task it is that any one has before him who shall sit down to the whole Bible without any feeling of any one part being more especially adapted for him than the rest! Christianity was given to be a "glad tidings" for the poor; but what could poor unlearned a poor make out of it, turned loose upon the whole Bible, without any guidance as to where he may find what he wants most clearly put? Fancy him trying to make his way through the strange visions of Ezekiel or Daniel! Imagine his difficulties with some of David's curses for his enemies in the Psalms! Think how much light he would get from that mystical book, the Revelation, the meaning of which is quite as much disputed by those who believe it inspired as by those who do not. Why, is it not exactly this way of consulting the whole Bible, indiscriminately, as if it was all on one dead level of authority-is it not this which has led to so much diversity and contradiction among Christians? Men have thought they found this or that doctrine stated, somewhere--and, anywhere in the Bible it must be absolutely true; and so everything else must be consistent with it. Thus one sect has started from one point, and another from a different point; and from those different points they have argued against one another, and might go on arguing, and never agreeing, to the end of time! And is it not a wonderful simplifying of the matter to be able to say :-Turn to the Gospels; there you have the life of Jesus himself, his very teachings as he went about trying to convert men to his Gospel. There you have everything that you need, and there you have it in its greatest simplicity. There you have the very heart of Christianity. Make that the chief study. Let that be the criterion of what the religion of Christ is. If any doctrine be put before you, and urged upon you as part of Christianity, turn to the Gospels, see whether Christ preached it. If you have been accustomed to regard any doctrine as part of Christianity, if you have been used to think that, without that doctrine, any system of religion must be a questionable sort of Christianity, again, I say, -turn to the Gospels: see whether it is something that Christ taught. Even if you fancy you can discern some trace of it in his words, do not be satisfied with that! See if it is really something that he put before men and urged upon them, if not, then do not admit it as any essential part of Christianity! That is no reason for not thinking about it; there are points that Christ did not touch upon, which we cannot help thinking about, and forming some thought or hope about. It was meant to be so. Jesus Christ is "the Foundation," not the Building,- the strong foundation of religious truth on which our thoughts are to build and climb. 

So think, and build, but do not insist upon what you make out as, a part of Christianity! For that, keep to "Christianity as Christ preached it."

Adapted from an 1875 Sermon by Rev. Brooke Hereford

The Unique Character Of Jesus #JesusFollowers

Guest sermon by Dr. William Ellery Channing

In the Gospels, we're struck with the uniqueness of the Author of Christianity: that while all other men are formed in a measure by the spirit of the age, we can discover in Jesus no impression of the period in which he lived. 

We know with considerable accuracy the state of society, the modes of thinking, the hopes and expectations of the country in which Jesus was born and grew up; and he is as free from them, and as exalted above them, as if he had lived in another world, or, with every sense closed to the objects around him.

His character has in it nothing local or temporary. It can be explained by nothing around him. His history shows him to us a solitary being, living for purposes which none but himself comprehended, and enjoying not so much as the sympathy of a single mind.

His apostles, his chosen companions, brought to him the spirit of the age; and nothing shows its strength more strikingly, than the slowness with which it yielded in these honest men to the instructions of Jesus

Jesus came to a nation expecting a Messiah; and he claimed this character. But instead of conforming to the opinions which prevailed in regard to the Messiah, he resisted them completely and without reserve to a people anticipating a triumphant leader, under whom vengeance as well as ambition was to be glutted by the prostration of their oppressors, he came as a spiritual leader, teaching humility and peace.

This hostility to the hopes and prejudices of his nation; this deliberate exposure of himself to rejection and hatred, cannot easily be explained by the common principles of human nature, and excludes the possibility of selfish aims in the Author of Christianity.

One striking peculiarity in Jesus is the extent and the vastness of his views. While all around him looked for a Messiah to liberate God's ancient people, while to every other Jew, Judea was the exclusive object of pride and hope, Jesus came, declaring himself to be the deliverer and light of the world, and in his whole teaching and life, you see a consciousness – which never forsakes him – of a relation to the whole human race. This idea of blessing mankind, of spreading a universal religion, was the most magnificent which had ever entered man's mind.

Compare next these views of Jesus with his station in life. He was of humble birth and education, with nothing in his lot, with no extensive means, no rank, or wealth, or patronage, to infuse vast thoughts and extravagant plans.

The shop of a carpenter, the village of Nazareth, were not spots for ripening a plan more aspiring and extensive than had ever been formed. It is a principle of human nature, that except in case of insanity, some proportion is observed between the power of an individual, and his plans and hopes. The purpose to which Jesus devoted himself was as ill-suited to his condition as an attempt to change the seasons, or to make the sun rise in the west.

That a young man, in obscure life, belonging to an oppressed nation, should seriously think of subverting the time-hallowed and deep-rooted religions of the world, is a strange fact; but with this purpose we see the mind of Jesus thoroughly imbued; and, sublime as it is, he never falls below it in his language or conduct, but speaks and acts with a consciousness of superiority, with a dignity and authority, becoming this unparalleled destination.

The most striking trait in Jesus was, undoubtedly, benevolence; and although this virtue had existed before, yet it had not been manifested in the same form and extent. Jesus' benevolence was distinguished first by its expansiveness. At that age, an unconfined philanthropy, proposing and toiling to do good without distinction of country or rank, was unknown.

Love to men as men, love, comprehending the hated Samaritan and the despised publican, was a feature which separated Jesus from the best men of his nation and of the world. Another characteristic of the benevolence of Jesus was its gentleness and tenderness, forming a strong contrast with the hardness and ferocity of the spirit and manners which then prevailed, and with that sternness and inflexibility which the purest philosophy of Greece and Rome inculcated as the perfection of virtue.

The character of Jesus, then, was real. Its reality is the only explanation of the mighty revolution produced by his religion. And how can we account for it, but by that cause to which he always referred it, a mission from the Father.

- Written by Dr. William Ellery Channing, 1826, adapted from "Discourses on the Evidences of Revealed Religion" in Tracts of the American Unitarian Association, Vol. 1, 1827.

The Beatitudes: Jesus' Doctrine of Happiness #JesusFollowers

            

The Beatitudes: Jesus' Doctrine of Happiness [#JesusFollowers Weekly Message]: 

Matt. 5:3-12; Luke 6:20-23

The Beatitudes contain Jesus Christ's doctrine of happiness. A strange doctrine it must sound to worldly ears! It seems a series of paradoxes, or even contradictions, amounting together to a declaration that the miserable are the happy. Nowhere does the boldness of the preacher of Galilee appear more conspicuously than in the opening sentences of the Sermon on the Mount.

This man has faith in the power of his Gospel to cope with every evil. He speaks as one who has Good News for all classes of men, and for all possible conditions. There is no human experience which Jesus regards with despair, and his doctrine is as original as it is bold. 

It is not to be confounded with that of any philosophical school. It is not Stoicism. The Stoic preached submission to misery as inevitable, and offered to his disciples the peace of despair. Jesus looks on evil as something that can be transmuted into good, and all sufferers have a hope, a reward, an outlook. It is not mere optimism, however. The optimist denies evil or explain It away, and thinks to cure human misery by fine praises. 

Jesus admits the evil that is in the world, And speak of it in plain terms; only, unlike the pessimist, he declines to regard it as final and unsurmountable. 

The kind of happiness that Jesus offers is obviously something different. Its both novel and peculiar. When he says blessed are the poor, the hungry, the sorrowful, he means either that they are blessed In spite of their misery or that they are blessed through their misery. In either case, the blessedness must be something different from what the world usually counts as happiness, something in the soul. Jesus invites us to reach felicity by the method of inwardness, Representing it as within the reach of all, just because that is the way to it.

These sayings on happiness prefixed to the Sermon on the Mount might have formed a part of the sermon in the synagogue of Nazareth on the Acceptable Year of the Lord. It is only once written in the Gospel narrative, but they might have been spoken by him many times. They would have served to show the nature of his message. They might have been, and probably were, themes sounded by Jesus many times in his ministry. 

They are certainly among the most characteristic utterances of the new era of Hope. It has been remarked of the Sermon on the Mount that it seems to be a mixture of two distinct sorts of doctrine, one specially suited for the ears of disciples, and the other such as would more suitably be addressed to the multitude. 

In the judgment of critics, the former kind of doctrine predominates, so that the Sermon may be represented as a disciple-discourse with popular elements, interspersed.

There is a certain amount of truth in this view, and the mixture, discernible throughout, is traceable at the commencement. Some of the Beatitudes are for all of humanity, while some are spoken specifically for the benefit of the disciples. 

One set seems specifically for the woes of humanity at large, another brings consolation for the tribulations of Believers. The distinction is most apparent in Luke's version of the Sermon. There, three Beatitudes are spoken to the hungry, the poor, those that weep; then follows one comprehensive Beatitude for the faithful servants of the Kingdom suffering for truth and righteousness. 

It was necessary that there should be Beatattudes for both. No Gospel is complete, which has no consolations for both ordinary suffering mortals and those saints who were already battling moral evil.

In Luke's version of the discourse, they seem to refer to literal poverty, hunger, and sorrow. Christ Jesus appears there, saying, "Blessed are you poor;” “Blessed are you that hunger now;” “Blessed are you who weep now.” 

In Matthew's version, the terms employed to describe the classes addressed in the two first sentences have attached to them qualifying  phrases which make the characteristics spiritual, and limit the scope of the sayings, turning them in fact into special Beatitudes pertaining to the children of the Kingdom.

If the question is asked: which of the two forms is the more original? Our judgment inclines to that of Luke. Speaking generally, the more pregnant, kernel-like form of any saying of  Jesus is always the more likely to have been likely to have been that actually used by Him. The briefer, less developed form is most in keeping with the striking originality of His teaching. 

Jesus, as befits the Sage, loved short, suggestive sentences,  revealing much, hiding much, arresting the attention of the memory, provoking thought, demanding explanation.

(Adapted from the book "Galilean Gospel" by Dr. Aleander Balmain Bruce, 1882)