Wit and Humor of the Bible Part 7

A certain clergyman who had been addicted to bawling and roaring in the pulpit said, "I once thought it was the thunder that killed, and know now that it is the lightning that does the execution. I mean to thunder less and lighten more." Sir Thomas Overbury punctures certain pretensions thus: "The man who has not anything to boast of but his ill.u.s.trious ancestors, is like a potato--the only good belonging to him is underground."

Thompson, of the _Westminster Review_, defended the Radicals against the attacks of the Whigs in this manner: "Noah was a Radical when, hearing the world was to be drowned, he went about such a commonsense proceeding as making for himself a ship to swim in. An antediluvian Whig would have laid together half-a-dozen sticks for an ark and called it a 'virtual representation.'"

The principle that underlies these instances is obvious. The form may vary but in every case there is an a.n.a.logy that serves all the purposes of formal logic,--"an a.n.a.logy which immediately exposes the absurdity of an action or proposition." The writers of the Bible understood and employed the same principle.

I.

One of the best examples of its use is found in Nathan's parable. He goes to David and tells him: "There were two men in our city; the one rich, the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds; but the poor man had nothing save one little ewe lamb, which he had brought and nourished up; and it grew up together with him and with his children; and it did eat of his own meat and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd to dress it for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb and dressed it for the man that was come unto him." Such an action is so atrocious that it kindles David's wrath. He little suspects the purpose of the wily prophet. "As the Lord liveth," he cries, "the man that hath done this thing shall surely die! And he shall restore the lamb four-fold because he did this thing, and because he had no pity." Beware, David, beware! This Nestor-prophet, this Nathan of the subtle wit and keen-edged tongue hath digged a pit for thee and thou hast fallen into it. Swiftly the prophet smites the bewildered king with the conclusion, "_Thou art the man!_" Could a volume of reasoning have so impressed David with the enormity of his crime as this simple "a.n.a.logy" of Nathan?

A similar instance is found in the first book of Kings. Ahab the king of Israel had allowed the Syrian general, Ben-hadad, to escape. One of the prophets, determined to rebuke him, disguised himself and sat by the wayside, waiting until the king should pa.s.s by. "And as the king pa.s.sed by, he cried unto the king and said: Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle, and behold a man turned aside and brought a man unto me and said, Keep this man; if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life or else thou shalt pay a talent of silver. And as thy servant was busy here and there he was gone." Ahab does not suspect the snare of the prophet. What would my lord, the king, decide? Shall thy servant pay the forfeit? "And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgment be; thyself hath decided it." And he made haste, removed his disguise, and said to the king: "Thus saith the Lord: _Because thou hast let go out of thine hand a man whom I had appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people_."

Ahab has judged himself. No wonder he was vexed. "And the king of Israel went to the house heavy and displeased." Nothing so disconcerts one as the recoil of his own logic.

Let us place side by side with these ill.u.s.trations one or two pieces of the same kind of reasoning from Shakespeare. The Court Fool endeavors to show Lear his own pitiful lack of wisdom in giving away his kingdom to his daughters:--

"FOOL.--Nuncle, give me an egg, and I'll give thee two crowns.

"LEAR.--What two crowns shall they be?

"FOOL.--Why, after I have clove the egg i' the middle and eat up the meat, the two crowns of the egg. When thou clovest thy crown i' the middle and gavest away both parts, thou borest thine a.s.s on thy back o'er the dirt; thou hadst little wit in thy bald crown when thou gavest thy golden one away."

Upon another occasion the following dialogue occurs:--

"FOOL.--Canst thou tell how an oyster makes his sh.e.l.l?

"LEAR.--No.

"FOOL.--Nor I neither; but I can tell why a snail has a house.

"LEAR.--Why?

"FOOL.--Why to put his head in; not to give it away to his daughters and leave his horns without a case."

Lear is so stung with the sense of his folly by these "a.n.a.logies" of his jester that he exclaims in rage and bitterness, "I shall forget my nature!" It is the argument of Nathan, "Thou art the man."

Upon the same principle, but in a different way, the Psalmist reasons with those who "slay the widow and the stranger and murder the fatherless," and who say, "The Lord shall not see, neither shall the G.o.d of Jacob regard it." Thus he argues: "Understand, ye brutish among the people; and ye fools, when will ye be wise? _He that planted the ear, shall he not hear?

he that formed the eye, shall he not see?_"

Under this head must we also place the judgment of Solomon, when the two women came before him, each claiming the living child. "Then said the king, The one saith, This is my son that liveth and thy son is dead; and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead and mine is the living one.

And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other. Then spoke the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her heart yearned upon her son, and she said, O my Lord, give her the living child and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither thine nor mine, but divide it. Then the king answered and said, Give her (the first) the living child, and in no wise slay it; she is the mother thereof." Solomon had to use a sharp argument, but he settled the controversy.

II.

The "suggestion of an a.n.a.logy that immediately exposes the absurdity of an action or proposition," was the favorite method of argument with Jesus.

He spun no metaphysical cobwebs, he used no long chains of linked propositions; it is no irreverence to say that his quick wit was his main reliance. In a sentence or two, with a simple, homely figure, he reduced to an absurdity the conduct he censured and the proposition he opposed.

On one occasion he was asked, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?"

"What man shall there be among you," he answered, "that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it and bring it out? _How much more, then, is a man better than a sheep?_ Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath day."

At another time the same subject came up. Because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath day, the ruler of the synagogue was filled with indignation and made a very grotesque spectacle of himself. He stormed, scolded, and roared to the people, "There are six days in which men ought to work; in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day." Jesus answered: "Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or his a.s.s from the stall and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, _be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day_?" The indignant ruler had to smother his wrath. "And when he (Jesus) had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed." The people enjoyed their confusion, and evidently applauded the sharp-witted young prophet who had silenced the fault-finding tongues of the rulers. "All the people rejoiced for the glorious things that were done by him!"

The Scribes and Pharisees were once murmuring and complaining that he mingled with publicans and sinners, and even condescended to eat with them. "And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance!"

When the Pharisees and Sadducees desired that he would show them a sign from heaven, he answered and said unto them, "When it is evening, ye say that it will be fair weather for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to-day; for the sky is red and lowering. O, ye hypocrites, _ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?_" He uses essentially the same argument for a similar request: "When ye see a cloud rise out of the West, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower, and so it is. And when ye see the South wind blow, ye say, There will be heat, and it cometh to pa.s.s. Ye hypocrites, _ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?_" Says Geike, "With biting irony, he turned on them in a few brief, incisive sentences. * * * An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign of the approach of the Kingdom of G.o.d, while it is blind to the signs around that the Messiah must come, if the nation is not to perish."

In a similar manner he shows how ridiculous are the doubts of those who fear that G.o.d will not answer prayer. "If a son ask bread of any of you that is a father, will ye give him a stone?" How this must have arrested the attention of his auditors; how they began to listen, curious to know what was coming next. "Or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?" Now they exchange glances as much as to say, "No, no; surely we would not do that!" But only for a moment. The expectant faces are again turned upon the Great Teacher. "Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?" "No, no!" and now they are eager for the conclusion: "_If ye then being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?_" It is the climax of absurdity for you to think that you are better than G.o.d, and will do more for your children than the Great Father will do for his children!

The disciples of Jesus came to tell him that the Pharisees are offended at some of his sayings. His only reply is, "Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

When he charges the Pharisees with t.i.thing mint, anise, and c.u.mmin, while neglecting judgment, mercy and faith, he stamps their conduct with an "a.n.a.logy" that makes them ludicrous forever, "Ye blind guides _which strain out a gnat and swallow a camel_."

At dinner, he was rebuked by his host for permitting a penitent woman to wash his feet with her tears and wipe them with the hairs of her head.

"Simon," calmly returned the guest, "I have somewhat to say to thee."

"Master, Say on." Jesus then proceeds to impale him upon the following question: "There was a certain creditor which had two debtors; the one owed him five hundred pence, the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me, therefore, which of them will love him most?" Simon understands whither the question tends, and slowly and reluctantly comes his answer: "I--suppose--that--he--to--whom--he-- forgave most." "Thou hast rightly judged." Yes, Simon, but thou hast condemned thyself and justified the woman.

The story of the vineyard and its application are similar to Nathan's parable. "There was a certain householder which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about and digged a wine-press in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first; and they did unto them likewise. But last of all, he sent unto them his Son; saying, They will reverence my Son. But when the husbandmen saw the Son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on the inheritance. And they caught him and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him."

This is the story. Jesus turns to the Pharisees: "When the Lord, therefore, of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto these husbandmen?"

Priests and Pharisees are moved with indignation. This is horrible; it almost exceeds belief. Those husbandmen were monsters of ingrat.i.tude and wickedness! The Pharisees answer: "He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons."

Fatal answer for you, O Scribes and Pharisees! "Therefore I say unto you, _the Kingdom of G.o.d shall be taken from_ YOU, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." There is a touch of humor in Matthew's description of the manner in which the real object of this story dawned upon the minds of the hearers. "And when the Pharisees had heard his parable, _they perceived that he spake of them_." Are we not irresistibly reminded of Falstaff, when the fairies in the forest turned out to be flesh and blood, "I do begin to perceive that I am made an a.s.s?" Do we not feel about many of these condensed arguments of Jesus, as Milton did about the "sophist sweating and turmoiling under the inevitable and merciless dilemmas of Socrates," that "he who reads, were it Saturn himself, would be robbed of more than a smile?"

Let us add by way of comparison, a pa.s.sage from the Athenian Master. Here is a fragment of dialogue upon the enslaving power of money.

"Come, now, and let us reason with the unjust who is not intentionally in error. 'Sweet sir,' we will say to him, 'what think you of things esteemed n.o.ble and ign.o.ble? Is not the n.o.ble that which subjects the beast to the man, or rather to the G.o.d in man? and the ign.o.ble that which subjects the man to the beast?' He can hardly avoid saying Yes,--can he now?"

"Not if he has any regard for my opinion."

"But if he admit this, we may ask him another question,--How would a man profit if he received gold and silver on condition that he was to enslave the n.o.blest part of him to the worst? Who can imagine that a man who sold his son or daughter into slavery for money, especially if he sold them into the hands of fierce and evil men, would be the gainer, however large might be the sum which he received? And will any one say that he is not a miserable caitiff who sells his own divine being to that which is most atheistical and detestable, and has no pity?"

This selection will enable us to see that the method commonly used by Socrates was essentially the method that Jesus so frequently employed.

III.

When we pa.s.s on to other portions of the New Testament, we find examples of the same kind of reasoning in James and Paul.

Most admirably does James show the futility of faith without works. "What shall it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith and hath not works? Can faith save him? If a brother and sister be naked and dest.i.tute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

The cla.s.s of people referred to by James are aptly described by Fielding in the character of Peter Pounce. "Sir," said Adams, "my definition of charity is a generous disposition to relieve the distressed." "There is something in that definition," answered Peter, "which I like well enough; it is, as you say, a disposition to do it, and does not so much consist in the act as in the disposition to do it. But, alas! Mr. Adams, who are meant by the distressed? Believe me, the distresses of mankind are mostly imaginary, and it would be rather folly than goodness to relieve them."

"Sure, sir," replied Adams, "hunger and thirst, cold and nakedness, and other distresses which attend the poor, can never be said to be imaginary evils." "How can any man complain of hunger," said Peter, "in a country where such excellent salads are to be gathered in almost every field? or of thirst, where every river and stream produce such delicious potations?

And as for cold and nakedness, they are evils introduced by luxury and custom. A man naturally wants clothes no more than a horse or any other animal; and there are whole nations who go without them." Peter Pounce would have said to the "brother or sister naked and dest.i.tute of daily food," "_Depart in peace; be ye warmed and filled._"

The declaration of James that "faith without works is dead," is ill.u.s.trated in the sayings of others also:

"Sweet words, empty hands."--_Telugu._