traditionalists - were they also blind? But, nay, they had misunderstood Him by leaving

out the moral element, thus showing themselves blind indeed. It was not the calamity of

blindness; but it was a blindness in which they were guilty, and for which the y were

responsible,56 which indeed was the result of their deliberate choice: therefore their sin -

not their blindness only - remained!

The closing words which Jesus had spoken to those Pharisees who followed Him

breathe the sadness of expected near judgment, rather than the hopefulness of

expostulation. And the Discourse which followed, ere He once more left Jerusalem, is of

the same character. It seems, as if Jesus could not part from the City in holy anger, but

ever, and only, with tears. All the topics of the former Discourses are now resumed and

applied. They are not in any way softened or modified, but uttered in accents of loving

sadness rather than of reproving monition. This connection with the past proves, that

the Discourse was spoken immediately after, and in connection with, the events

recorded in the previous chapters. At the same time, the tone adopted by Christ

prepares us for His Peræ n Ministry, which may be described as that of the last and

a

fullest outgoing of His most intense pity. This, in contrast to what was exhibited by the

rulers of Israel, and which would so soon bring terrible judgment on them. For, if such

things were done in 'the green tree' of Israel's Messiah-King, what would the end be in

the dry wood of Israel's commonwealth and institutions?

It was in accordance with the character of the Discourse presently under consideration,

that Jesus spake it, not, indeed, in Parables in the strict sense (for none such are

recorded in the Fourth Gospel), but in an allegory1 in the Parabolic form,2 hiding the

higher truths from those who, having eyes, had not seen, but revealing them to such

whose eyes had been opened. If the scenes of the last few days had made anything

plain, it was the utter unfitness of the teachers of Israel for their professed work of

feeding the flock of God. The Rabbinists also called their spiritual leaders 'feeders,'

Parnasin (Nysnrp) - a term by which the Targum renders some of the references to 'the

Shepherds' in Ezek. xxxiv. and Zech xi.3 The term comprised the two ideas of 'leadi ng'

and 'feeding,' which are separately insisted on in the Lord's allegory. As we think of it,

no better illustration, nor more apt, could be found for those to whom 'the flock of God'