Download Full Version ebook - Visit ebookmeta.

com

Human-Computer Interaction in Game Development

with Python: Design and Develop a Game Interface
Using HCI Technologies and Techniques 1st Edition
Joseph Thachil George
https://ebookmeta.com/product/human-computer-interaction-in-
game-development-with-python-design-and-develop-a-game-
interface-using-hci-technologies-and-techniques-1st-edition-
joseph-thachil-george-2/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD NOW

Discover More Ebook - Explore Now at ebookmeta.com

 Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

Start reading on any device today!

Human-Computer Interaction in Game Development with

Python: Design and Develop a Game Interface Using HCI
Technologies and Techniques 1st Edition Joseph Thachil
George
https://ebookmeta.com/product/human-computer-interaction-in-game-
development-with-python-design-and-develop-a-game-interface-using-hci-
technologies-and-techniques-1st-edition-joseph-thachil-george-2/
ebookmeta.com

Human Movements in Human Computer Interaction HCI Biele

https://ebookmeta.com/product/human-movements-in-human-computer-
interaction-hci-biele/

ebookmeta.com

Game Development with MonoGame: Build a 2D Game Using Your

Own Reusable and Performant Game Engine 1st Edition Louis
Salin
https://ebookmeta.com/product/game-development-with-monogame-
build-a-2d-game-using-your-own-reusable-and-performant-game-
engine-1st-edition-louis-salin/
ebookmeta.com

Jaxon (Daddies of Pine Hollow Book 1) 1st Edition Kate

Oliver

https://ebookmeta.com/product/jaxon-daddies-of-pine-hollow-book-1-1st-
edition-kate-oliver/

ebookmeta.com
Excel 2019 Charts Graphical Representation of Figures
Peter J. Scharpff Ri

https://ebookmeta.com/product/excel-2019-charts-graphical-
representation-of-figures-peter-j-scharpff-ri/

ebookmeta.com

CUET-UG : Section-II (Domain Specific Subject : SOCIOLOGY)

Entrance Test Guide 2023rd Edition Rph Editorial Board

https://ebookmeta.com/product/cuet-ug-section-ii-domain-specific-
subject-sociology-entrance-test-guide-2023rd-edition-rph-editorial-
board/
ebookmeta.com

Internet of Things and Analytics for Agriculture Volume 3

1st Edition Prasant Kumar Pattnaik Raghvendra Kumar Souvik
Pal
https://ebookmeta.com/product/internet-of-things-and-analytics-for-
agriculture-volume-3-1st-edition-prasant-kumar-pattnaik-raghvendra-
kumar-souvik-pal/
ebookmeta.com

The Secret Book Scone Society Secret Book Scone Society

Mystery 1 Ellery Adams

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-secret-book-scone-society-secret-
book-scone-society-mystery-1-ellery-adams/

ebookmeta.com

Fundamentals of Logic Design, Enhanced Edition Jr.

Charles H. Roth

https://ebookmeta.com/product/fundamentals-of-logic-design-enhanced-
edition-jr-charles-h-roth/

ebookmeta.com
Oswaal ICSE MCQs Question Bank Class 10 Computer
Applications Book (Semester 1 Nov-Dec 2021) 1st Edition
Panel Of Teachers
https://ebookmeta.com/product/oswaal-icse-mcqs-question-bank-
class-10-computer-applications-book-semester-1-nov-dec-2021-1st-
edition-panel-of-teachers/
ebookmeta.com
Joseph Thachil George and Meghna Joseph George

Human-Computer Interaction in Game

Development with Python
Design and Develop a Game Interface Using HCI
Technologies and Techniques
Joseph Thachil George
Hannover, Germany

Meghna Joseph George

Hannover, Germany

ISBN 978-1-4842-8181-9 e-ISBN 978-1-4842-8182-6

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-8182-6

© Joseph Thachil George, Meghna Joseph George 2022

Standard Apress

Trademarked names, logos, and images may appear in this book. Rather
than use a trademark symbol with every occurrence of a trademarked
name, logo, or image we use the names, logos, and images only in an
editorial fashion and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no
intention of infringement of the trademark. The use in this publication
of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if
they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of
opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the
advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate
at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material
contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Apress imprint is published by the registered company APress

Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
The registered company address is: 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY
10004, U.S.A.
Introduction
The goal of this book is to boost your knowledge of human-computer
interaction (HCI) in the context of game production. In computer
games, interface design and development are critical. This book focuses
on and investigates human-computer interaction (HCI) design in
computer game interfaces in order to meet their collaborative and
interactive requirements.
We begin with a brief overview of HCI's essential concepts and
methods. Following that, we go into the fundamental concepts of
gaming interface design and technology. We also look at how to create a
gaming interface that is effective in terms of HCI, all using practical
Python examples.
We go through the primary concerns game developers and
publishers, as well as how various HCI approaches can help tackle these
problems. Additionally, we consider “playability” throughout the entire
game development process.
Gamification has a strong impact on human-computer interaction
based research these days, and we discuss gamification and its
applications, as well as how it improves human-computer interaction.

Human-Computer Interaction Research Topics

This book also covers a wide range of research subjects relating to
game development based on human-computer interaction with a focus
on the theory, apps, practice, and verification in the field of human-
computer interaction, with the goal of changing behavior. This
approach covers the traditional arenas, including cognition, cognitive
science, instructional technology, video games, game-based
rehabilitative services, neuro feedback, wellness, universal health care,
physical and mental health, machine intelligence, digital technology,
and so on. From these perspectives, new scientific approaches,
including test results and real-world applications, are strongly
encouraged.

Source Code
All source code used in this book can be downloaded from
github.com/apress/hci-gamedev-python.
Any source code or other supplementary material referenced by the
author in this book is available to readers on GitHub
(https://github.com/Apress). For more detailed information, please
visit http://www.apress.com/source-code.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1:​Human-Computer Interaction Tools and Methodologies
Fundamentals of Human-Computer Interaction
Digging Deeper
Designing the Interface
Adaption and Interfaces
Interfaces of Multi-Device
Evolutionary Trends
Evaluation of Usability
Bringing Usability and Accessibility Together
Analysis of Task Situations
Techniques and Tools for Human-Computer Interaction
Development
Techniques for Defining Specifications
The Cycle of Tool Life and Methodologies Taxonomy
Selecting Instruments, Techniques, and Resources
The Eye Tracking Technique and Usability
Eye Tracking Studies
User Control
Usability Testing
Why Eye Tracking?​
Creating an Effective Interface
Graphical User Interfaces
Characteristics of User Interfaces
Summary
Chapter 2:​Human-Computer Interaction Tools and Game
Development
Tools and Techniques for General Game Development
The Video Game Interface
Video Game Development and Interaction
Video Game Users’ Requirements and Needs
Interactive UI Design for a Game
Panel Design
Window Architecture
Icon Design
Color Development
Eye-Tracking Techniques
The Impact of Eye Tracking in Games
Eye Tracking in Games
Face and Eye Recognition
Modeling and Development
Conclusions and Problems
Creating the Data Structure
Modeling and Development
Conclusions and Problems
Applying Photographic Filters
Modeling and Development
Conclusions
Recognizing the Iris
Modeling and Development
Conclusions and Problems
 Edge Detection
Modeling and Development
Conclusions and Problems
Parameter Analysis on Blur, CLAHE, and CANNY Filters
Modeling and Development
Analysis
Iris Recognition (2)
Modeling and Development
Conclusions and Problems
“Average Color” Recognition
Modeling and Development
Conclusions
Project Analysis
Data Analysis
Project Conclusions
Summary
Chapter 3:​Developing a Video Game
Roles in the Video Game Industry
Producers
Publishers
Game Developers
Roles and Processes of Game Development
Game Design
Game Art Design
Game Programming
Game Testing
 Software Development
Game Development Phases
Pre-Production Phase
Outsourcing
Production Phase
Milestones:​The Cornerstones of Development
Post-Production Phase
Localization
Fan Translation
Summary
Chapter 4:​Turning Points in Game Development
Game Engines
Rendering Engine
Indie Video Games
Crowdfunding
The Case of Dreams:​Developing a Game Within a Video Game
Current Problems in the Development of Video Games
Crunch Time
Piracy
Programming Stages
Paradigms and Programming Languages
Visual Programming
Summary
Chapter 5:​Developing a Game in Python
Python and Pygame
Designing the Video Game
 Development Team
Game Design Document and Production
Game Menu
Short Introduction to Pygame
Game Interface
The Player
Powering Up
The Enemies
The Bosses
Collision Management
The Levels
Summary
Chapter 6:​Game Development – Industry Standards
Game Terminology
Overall Design of the Game
Frontend and Backend in Game Development
Verify the Token
General Description of the Game’s Services
Network Interfaces and Sequence Diagram for the Game
Development Cycle
Game Network Interfaces
Sequence Diagrams
Security of Online Games Through a Web Portal
Secure Code for Games
Secure by Design
Security Control
 Summary
Chapter 7:​Gamification in Human-Computer Interaction
Gamification Strategy
Gamification Examples
Common Risks and Mistakes
Gamification in Education
Aspects of the Game’s Foundation
The Different Game Categories
Psychology and Motivation in Gamification
The Two Different Types of Motivation
Playing and Learning
Gamification in the Classroom
Factors that Make Gamification in the Classroom Easier
How Can Gamification Help with Learning?​
Games-Based Learning vs Gamification
Solutions for an Educational Game
Designing a Gamified Application
Math Games for Kids
Gamified Applications Dedicated to Training
Methodology for Creating Gamified Applications
Web Application
Native Application
Native App vs Web App
The PhoneGap Framework
Why PhoneGap?​
PhoneGap’s Architecture
 Anaconda Python and the PyQT5 GUI Framework
Anaconda Installation
PyQT5 Installation
PyQT Events
Drawbacks to Gamification
Avoiding the Drawbacks
Summary
Chapter 8:​Human-Computer Interaction Research and
Development
Human-Computer Interaction with a Head-Mounted Display
Human-Machine Interfaces:​Future Development
The Touchscreen Revolution
Direct Communication with the Mind
Gesture Engagement Taken to a New Level
Applications of Spatial Cognition Human Contact Research
Interaction with the Voice
Interactions Between the Brain and the Computer
Summary
Chapter 9:​Recommendations and Concluding Comments
Recommendations
Broad HCI Assessment Criteria
Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
Development
New Trends
Promising HCI Technologies
Important Considerations for Building a User-Friendly
Interface
 Final Thoughts on Game Design and HCI
Summary
Index
About the Authors
Joseph Thachil George
is an IT security engineer based in
Germany. He also worked as a technical
consultant for International Game
Technology (IGT) in Italy. Joseph is
currently pursuing his PhD in computer
science and engineering at the University
of Lisbon, Portugal. He has an MS in
cybersecurity from the University of
Florence, Italy. He is also part of the
DISIA research group at the University of
Florence, Italy, and the research group
(INESC-ID Lisbon) at the University of
Lisbon, Portugal. His research interests
cover automatic exploit generation,
exploitation of vulnerabilities, chaining of vulnerabilities, security of
web applications, and JavaScript code exploits. At IGT, he has been a
part of various projects related to game configuration and integration
in various platforms, specializing in Java and Spring Boot–based
projects. He has also worked for various companies in India, Angola,
Portugal, and the UK and has seven years of experience with various IT
companies.

Meghna Joseph George

is a cloud engineer based in Germany. She is an AWS-certified solutions
architect. She has a BS in system management and an MS in economics.
About the Technical Reviewer
Deepak Jadhav
is a game developer based in Bonn,
Germany. He received a B.S. in computer
technology and an M.S. in game
programming and project management.
Deepak has been involved in developing
games on multiple platforms, including
mobiles, consoles, and PCs. He has a
strong background in C# and C++, as
well as years of experience using Unity,
Unreal Engine for Game Development,
augmented reality, mixed reality, and
virtual reality.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to APress Media, LLC, part of Springer
Nature 2022
J. T. George, M. J. George, Human-Computer Interaction in Game Development with
Python
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-8182-6_1

1. Human-Computer Interaction Tools

and Methodologies
Joseph Thachil George1 and Meghna Joseph George1
(1) Hannover, Germany

The core concepts of human-computer interaction (HCI) and its tools

and methodologies are presented in this introductory chapter. We will
also explore how a computer’s interaction with a user/player is meant
to provide them with a unique new POV that allows them to connect
with the computer. We cover usability, interface patterns, and design for
user-computer interactions. Understanding these technologies is
crucial to creating effective games and web applications that utilize
human-computer interaction.

Fundamentals of Human-Computer Interaction

HCI’s main objective is to improve user-computer interactions by
making computers more responsive to the game player’s input. This is
done through the following three interfaces: the command line, the
graphical user interface, and a standardized user interface.
Advantages of the command-line interface include:
Use of “options” allows for flexibility.
Easier for “skilled” players since operations can be accessed rapidly.
Most efficiently uses the operating system.
Advantages of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) include:
 Uses panels, icons, menu, and arrows that may be moved about with
a cursor.
The best UI for unskilled or new players. However, web
applications/games consume a lot of computer resources. Most
common interface applications/games have a similar functionality.
Advantages of the standardized user/player interface include:
Increases training velocity.
Increases trust from beginner players.
Expanded range of tasks to be solved by players.
Expanded choice of applications for the ordinary computer game
player.
Are easy to use.
To better understand what human-computer interaction and
usability are, let’s take a look at Norman’s Model 1, which identifies the
main phases of user interaction. This model provides a valid, if
simplified, logical framework for design and evaluation. There are
seven possible steps to describe human-computer interaction:
1. Formulate the goal.

2. Formulate the intention.

3. Identify the action.

4. Perform the action.

5. Perceive the status of the system.

6. Interpret the system’s status.

7. Evaluate the result against the goal.

Norman places the seven phases in the context of the cycle of an

interaction and identifies the “execution” (the difference between the
user intentions in terms of actions to be carried out and the actions
permitted by the system) and the “evaluation” (the difference between
the representations provided by the system and what it expects from
the user).
In interfaces with poor usability, where the tasks to be done are
badly supported, these two evaluations can be useful for identifying
discrepancies between what the users would like to do and what they
can do (execution) and between what the system presents and what the
users do (evaluation). See Figure 1-1. In both cases, it is possible to
identify the cognitive distance indicated by the quantity and quality of
the information processed by the users in order to bridge the gap.

Figure 1-1 Norman’s cycle of interaction

To better understand these concepts, let’s look at various examples.

Digging Deeper
A fairly intuitive example is a game that consists of the numbers 1 to 9,
which are all initially available to each of the two players. The players
play one at a time. During each turn, the players choose one of the
remaining numbers (making it unavailable). If a player has three
numbers whose sum is 15, they win.
First you need to understand the problem. Both players share a
common goal, which is to win the game. There is also another objective:
“If at a certain point I can’t win, then I want to prevent the other player
from winning”. One possible strategy is to choose a number from the
remaining numbers that might prevent the other player from winning.
So the “background” activity is remembering the numbers that you
already chose, remembering the remaining numbers (and those taken
by your opponent), and remembering whose turn it is. This game
becomes non-trivial. Suppose you need to design a user interface that
makes it easier to play this game. One solution is represented by the
interface shown in Figure 1-2.

Figure 1-2 Interface for the game that consists of a choice between numbers to add
up to 15

As you can see, it is clearly highlighted who has to play. It also shows
which numbers have been selected (in red) and which are available (in
green), as well as who has selected them. However, players still have to
understand which number to choose to prevent their opponent from
winning. There is a considerable cognitive distance between choosing
suitable actions and the user’s initial objective. An interface that limits
this cognitive load, and so is more usable, is shown in Figure 1-3.
 The idea is that the players use a substantially different interface: A
3×3 matrix where one player can place Xs and the other Os. Assuming
that the matrix corresponds to numbering, as that indicated by the
small matrix on the left, the game becomes like the Tic Tac Toe (known
in Italy as Three of a Kind), whereby the aim of the players is to place
three elements in a row or diagonally. Understanding if your opponent
is about to win now becomes very intuitive, detectable at a glance, and
doesn’t require particularly complicated processing.

Figure 1-3 A more intuitive interface for the game

A fundamental principle of HCI is understanding your users and the

tasks they intend to perform. These tasks are the activities necessary to
achieve a goal, where the goal can be modifying the status of an
application (for example, adding new data) or accessing information
contained in applications.
The user interface must allow users to carry out these activities in
the most immediate and intuitive way possible. To this purpose, an
important phase in the design is the analysis of the tasks, which aims to
identify the most relevant tasks and their characteristics.
To understand this, it is important to involve the end users in the
design and keep in mind how they currently carry out such activities.
This can be accomplished through interviews, workshops,
questionnaires, and by observing the users in the usual context.
Analyzing tasks can be done at different levels of granularity, also
depending on the objectives. It can focus on a person interacting with
an application via a computer or it can extend to the whole process and
involve several people. The interface design aids in your understanding
of the system and its goals.

Designing the Interface

Interface design is about communication with the end users. It’s about
designing forms and spaces in the context of one specific task or
problem[3]. To this purpose, you must avoid considering internal
functional aspects alone and find solutions that have a general
foundation. Don’t rely only on the designer’s intuition; instead, you
must find the right balance between method and intuition.
The aim is to define clear, economical, convincing solutions that you
can operate immediately and that can be more easily assimilated,
understood, and remembered. They should immediately attract the
users to the important aspects and allow them to reach their goals
without errors. Often the simplest solutions are the most usable. Think
about sites that, when accessed, start animations that don’t provide
particular additional information, but are simply tinsel.
Think of the user who perhaps logs in via a slow modem connection
and is having to undergo an animation, perhaps without the possibility
to skip it, for many minutes.
This does not mean that animation should never be used, but, when
it fits, it has to provide something additional and not to be an element
for its own sake. For example, animation can be useful for
understanding dynamic phenomena that evolve over time. Hence,
effective design should reduce the elements to their essence.
One example is the horizontal bar at the top the window that
contains applications in Windows PC environments and others: think
about how many tasks it can support! This area indicates the name of
the file associated with the application, the type of application, if the
window is the one currently selected, the ability to minimize or
maximize the size of the window, the ability to close it, and the ability
to move it around the screen. All thanks to a small rectangular strip,
which is also extremely unobtrusive!
 Another important aspect in designing user interfaces is how to
structure and organize their presentation. To this purpose, there are a
series of communication techniques that aim to help the users scroll
through the interface, interpret the elements, and find what they are
looking for.
What the designer must try to do is to group elements, create
hierarchies, represent relationships, indicate order between the
elements and, in the end, find an overall balance. Grouping elements is
useful for indicating those that are more semantically connected,
creating hierarchies serves to highlight the most important elements
(for example, those that are accessed most frequently), relationships
are used to make users understand how one or more elements can
influence other elements and, finally, there can be various types of
logical or temporal ordering between groups of elements.
See for example the web page of a popular newspaper in Figure 1-4
to understand how these techniques can be used. As you can see, there
is a clear hierarchy between the various elements. The information
deemed most important is highlighted in the center with a large image
and a title with large fonts. The next most important information is
underneath and uses less space, a smaller image, and a smaller font. On
the sides there are groupings of information of similar types, such as
the services of Repubblica.it and 24 hours (which contain the latest
news).

Figure 1-4 Example of design techniques applied to a web interface

 At the top, there is an example element (Site Search), which is in
relation to others. If it’s selected, it changes the page to allow users to
search the information on the site. Also in the upper area, there is the
ability to select a set of elements associated with various sections that
are logically ordered between them (politics, news, economics, etc.).
You can see, therefore, how all the various relationships are highlighted
with design techniques so users can perceive them in the most
immediate way.
In general, there are various ways to consider an interactive system.
One way is to consider the tasks to be performed to achieve the user’s
goals and the logical objects needed. This is a logical view of the system
that can be discussed with other people involved in the design (end
users, clients, interface designers, and software developers). There is
another view, which is also logical but is more focused on the interface,
and that is to consider the presentations and the interactions and how
to move from one presentation to the other. Interactions are identified
based on their semantics (the results they allow you to obtain). For
example, it can be said that at a certain point you need a selection
without specifying the type of mode required to make it (which can be,
for example, graphical, vocal, or through a gesture)
There is, then, a possible more concrete description where the
methods and techniques of interaction are specified. For example, it can
be said that, in a graphical desktop system, selections are made via a
list with a scroll bar.
Finally, there is the implementation, which can be in HTML, Java, etc.
When designing the interface, the level of abstraction of the starting
point can change depending on the case. Sometimes, the tasks to be
supported are identified, so those are the starting point and, through
subsequent refinements, lead to the implementation. In other cases,
you start from an existing implementation and try to understand if
indeed it is the best way to support the user’s activities. Because of the
abundance of information technology, interactive systems may be used
in a variety of ways. These ways can be utilized with the help of
adaption and interface techniques.

Adaption and Interfaces

The wealth of information technology allows for many uses of
interactive systems. User interfaces often have to know how to adapt to
the context, which can be considered from three points of view: those
relating to the user, the device, and the surrounding environment. As
for the user, important aspects are the objectives and related tasks,
preferences, and the level of knowledge of the application domain and
the methods of interaction.
Regarding the device used for the interaction, it is important to
consider the supported modes, the amplitude and the screen
resolution, the capabilities, and the connection speed with other
devices. Finally, the environment has various aspects that can affect the
interaction modes, such as the level of noise and light, and objects that
are available. User interfaces have to adapt to these factors for better
usability.
There are two types of adaptation. Adaptability can be the ability to
change aspects at the explicit request of the user in accordance with
predefined options, or it can be the ability of the system to dynamically
modify aspects without explicit user requests. While adaptability
essentially allows you to choose the methods of interaction with an
application from a predefined set, it implies that systems dynamically
change with respect to the context.
On the one hand, this implies greater flexibility, but on the other
hand, it means that new usability issues can arise if these changes occur
in a way that are not easily understood by the users. There are three
types of aspects that can be adapted: presentations (layouts, attributes,
graphs, etc.), dynamic behavior (navigation methods, enabling and
disabling the techniques of interaction, etc.), and the content of the
information provided. Figure 1-5 shows an example of an adaptable
interface. Depending on the type of user that’s visiting, different ways of
accessing the application are activated.
Figure 1-5 Sample adaptable interfaces
In the case of tourists, the possibilities of accessing information are
generic and they see a map of the city and the museum. They can then
select items of interest for which they will receive information. In the
case of students, the site assumes some basic knowledge, so they can
activate lists of elements on the aspects of greater interest. It also
shows an interface for an expert, who can compose detailed requests.
Always in the same area, it is possible see an example of interaction
that adapts to the device and the environment. In this case, the site
considers the users inside a museum and uses a handheld guide to aid
their visit (see Figure 1-6). The guide tries to be as unobtrusive as
possible, providing a lot of information in a vocal way, to allow the
users to appreciate the objects that are in the museum while providing
additional information. The visual channel is used by the handheld
guide to provide useful information to understand where you are and
what other elements of interest are nearby. It also checks the
parameters of the guide to access videos that provide information
about related topics that are not in the museum.

Figure 1-6 Handhelds are used as a support for visiting museums. The visitor’s
position is detected with infrared devices
This solution was adopted by the Carrara Marble Museum[2] and it
depends on the user’s location, which is automatically detected. This is
achieved through infrared devices on the ceiling at the entrance to each
room. They emit a signal that contains a room identifier (see Figure 1-
6). In fact, each device is composed of multiple infrared signal emitters
to increase the ease of detection. When the device detects the signal, it
identifies the room and automatically emits sound feedback. It shows
on the screen where the user is, after which the first selection shows
the map of the new room with icons for each work of art.2
There are icons for each type and, by selecting an icon, the user
receives additional information in a vocal way and can access videos on
related topics (if any). This solution is made possible due to the
availability of 1GB handhelds that record rich multimedia information.
This limits the interaction with the outside world to detect signals
that allow the museum to identify the environment the user is in.
Another possible solution would have been to identify the nearest work
of art and automatically activate a corresponding voice comment. The
limitation of this solution is that it can, in some cases, become too
intrusive and provide unwanted comments. Sometimes you need to use
multiple devices for such interfaces.
As an example, you can see how an app’s UI varies depending on
whether it’s in landscape or portrait mode. First of all, you need to open
the Settings app. Go to Accessibility ➤ AssistiveTouch. Make sure the
toggle at the top of the screen is in the On position. Tap one of the four
options (Single Tap, Double Tap, Long Press, or 3D Touch) and set it to
Open Menu (https://support.apple.com/en-ca/HT202658).

Interfaces of Multi-Device
One of the main issues currently impacting user interfaces is the
continuous introduction of new types of interactive devices: from
interactive digital wall-mounted telephones to PDAs, telephones UMTS,
and tablet PCs, to name a few. Interacting with interactive services
becomes a multi-device experience. It is important to understand the
new issues that are introduced into this context. The first thing to
understand is that it isn’t possible to do everything through all devices.
There are features of the devices that can make them suitable to
support tasks but are inadequate for others. For example, most users
would never use (let alone pay for) a service that allows them to use a
telephone to watch a movie or a whole game of football, as the
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
and sinners. This practice, and the fact of his neglecting the fasts
observed by the Pharisees, gave an impression of general laxity
about his conduct, which, however unjust, was perfectly natural (Mk.
ii. 15-22; Mt. ix. 10-17; Lu. v. 29-39). Here again I see no reason to
attribute bad motives to his opponents who merely felt as "church-
going" people among ourselves would feel about one who stayed
away from divine service, and as highly decorous people would feel
about one who kept what they thought low company.
Eating with unwashed hands was another of the several evidences
of his contempt for the prevalent proprieties of life which gave
offense. The resentment felt by the Pharisees at this practice was
the more excusable that Jesus justified it on the distinct ground that
he had no respect for "the tradition of the elders," for which they
entertained the utmost reverence. This tradition he unsparingly
attacked, accusing them of frustrating the commandment of God in
order to keep it (Mk. vii. 1-13; Mt. xv. 1-9). Language like this was
not likely to pass without leaving a deep-seated wound, especially if
it be true (as stated by Luke) that one of the occasions on which he
employed it was when invited to dinner by a Pharisee. Indifferent as
the washing of hands might be in itself, courtesy towards his host
required him to abstain from needless outrage to his feelings. And
when, in addition to the first offense, he proceeded to denounce his
host and host's friends as people who made the outside of the cup
and the platter clean, but were inwardly full of ravening and
wickedness, there is an apparent rudeness which even the truth of
his statements could not have excused (Lu. xi. 37-39).
Neither was the manner in which he answered the questions
addressed to him, as to a teacher claiming to instruct the people,
likely to remove the prejudice thus created. The Evangelists who
report these questions generally relate that they were put with an
evil intent: "tempting him," or some such expression being used. But
whatever may have been the secret motives of the questioners,
nothing could be more legitimate than to interrogate a man who put
forward the enormous pretensions of Jesus, so long as the process
was conducted fairly. And this, on the side of the Jews, it apparently
was. There is nowhere perceptible in their inquiries a scheme to
entrap him, or a desire to entangle him in difficulties by skillful
examination. On the contrary, the subjects on which he is
questioned are precisely those on which, as the would-be master of
the nation, he might most properly be expected to give clear
answers. And the judgment formed of him by the public would
naturally depend to a large extent on the mode in which he
acquitted himself in this impromptu trial. Let us see, then, what was
the impression he probably produced.
On one occasion the Pharisees came to him, "tempting him," to
ascertain his opinion on divorce. Might a man put away his wife?
Jesus replied that he might not, and explained the permission of
Moses to give a wife a bill of divorce as a mere concession to the
hardness of their hearts. A divorced man or woman who married
again was guilty of adultery. Even the disciples were staggered at
this. If an unhappy man could never be released from his wife, it
would be better, they thought, not to marry at all (Mk. x. 1-12; Mt.
xix. 1-12). Much more must the Pharisees have dissented from this
novel doctrine. Rightly or wrongly, they reverenced the law of
Moses, and they could not but profoundly disapprove this
assumption of authority to set it aside and substitute for its precepts
an unheard of innovation.
Another question of considerable importance was that relating to
the tribute. Some of the Pharisees, it seems, after praising him for
his independence, begged him to give them his opinion on a
disputed point: Was it lawful or not to pay tribute to the Emperor?
All three biographers are indignant at the question. They attribute it
as usual to a desire to "catch him in his words," or, as another
Evangelist puts it, to "entangle him in his talk." Jesus (they remark)
perceived what one calls their "wickedness," a second their
"hypocrisy," and the third their "craftiness." "Why do you tempt me?"
he began. "Bring me a denarium that I may see it." The coin being
brought, he asked them, "Whose image and superscription is this?"
"Cæsar's." "Then render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and
to God the things that are God's" (Mk. xii. 13-17; Mt. xxii. 15-22; Lu.
xx. 20-26). One of the Evangelists, reporting this reply, rejoices at
the discomfiture of the Pharisees, who "could not take hold of his
words before the people." Doubtless his decision had the merit that
it could not be taken hold of, but this was only because it decided
nothing. Taking the words in their simplest sense, they merely assert
what nobody would deny. No Pharisee would ever have maintained
that the things of Cæsar should be given to God; and no partizan of
Rome would ever have demanded that the things of God should be
given to Cæsar. But practically it is evident that Jesus meant to do
more than employ an unmeaning form of words. He meant to assert
that the tribute was one of the things of Cæsar, and that because
the coin in which it was paid was stamped with his image. More
fallacious reasoning could hardly be imagined, and it is not surprising
that the Pharisees "marveled at him." Nobody doubted that the
Emperor possessed the material power, and no more than this was
proved by the fact that coins bearing his effigy were current in the
country. The question was not whether he actually ruled Judea, but
whether it was lawful to acknowledge that rule by paying tribute.
And what light could it throw on this question to show that the
money used to pay it was issued from his mint? It must almost be
supposed that Jesus fell into the confusion of supposing that the
denarium with Cæsar's image and superscription upon it was in
some peculiar sense Cæsar's property, whereas it belonged as
completely to the man who produced it at the moment as did the
clothes he wore. Had the Roman domination come to an end at any
moment, the coin of the Empire would have retained its intrinsic
value, but the Romans could by no possibility have founded a right
of exacting tribute upon the circumstance of its circulation. Either,
therefore, this celebrated declaration was a mere verbal juggle, or it
rested on a transparent fallacy.
After the Pharisees had been thus disposed of, their inquiries were
followed up by a puzzle devised by the Sadducees in order to throw
ridicule on the doctrine of a future state. These sectaries put an
imaginary case. Moses had enjoined that if a man died leaving a
childless widow, his brother should marry her for the purpose of
keeping up the family. Suppose, said they, that the first of seven
brothers marries, and dies without issue. The second brother then
marries her with the like result; then the third, and so on through all
the seven. In the resurrection whose wife will this woman be, for the
seven have had her as their wife? To this Jesus replies: first, that his
questioners greatly err, neither knowing the Scriptures nor the power
of God; secondly, that when people rise from death they do not
marry, but are like angels; thirdly, that the resurrection is proved by
the fact that God had spoken of himself as the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, and that he is not the God of the dead, but of the
living (Mk. xii. 18-27; Mt. xxii. 23-33; Lu. xx. 27-40). Whether the
Sadducees were or were not satisfied by this answer we are not
told, but it is quite certain that their modern representatives could
not accept it. For the inquirers had hit upon one of the real
difficulties attending the doctrine of a future life. We are always
assured that one of the great consolations of this doctrine is the
hope it holds out of meeting again those whom we have loved on
earth, and living with them in a kind of communion not wholly unlike
that which we have enjoyed here. Earthly relationships, it is
assumed, will be prolonged into that happier world. There the parent
will find again the child whom he has lost, and the child will rejoin
his parent; there the bereaved husband will be restored to his wife,
and the widow will be comforted by the sight of the companion of
her wedded years. All this is simple enough. Complications inevitably
arise, however, when we endeavor to pick up again in another life
the tangled skein of our relations in this. Not only may the feelings
with which we look forward to meeting former friends be widely
different after many years' separation from what they were at their
death; but even in marriage there may be a preference for a first or
a second husband or wife, which may render the thought of meeting
the other positively unpleasant. And if the sentiments of the other
should nevertheless be those of undiminished love, the question may
well arise, whose husband is he, or whose wife is she of the two?
Are all three to live together? But then, along with the comfort of
meeting one whom we love, we have the less agreeable prospect of
meeting another whom we have ceased to love. Or will one of the
two wives or two husbands be preferred and the other slighted? If
so, the last will suffer and not gain by the reunion. Take the present
case. Assume that the wife loved only her first husband, but that all
the seven were attached to her. Then we may well ask, whose wife
will she be of them? Will her affections be divided among the seven,
or will they all be given to the first? In the former case, she will be
compelled to live in a society for which she has no desire; in the
latter, six of her seven husbands will be unable to enjoy the full
benefit of her presence. The question is merely evaded by saying
that in the resurrection there is neither marriage nor giving in
marriage, but that men are like angels. Either there is no consolation
in living again, or there must be some kind of repetition of former
ties. Still less logical is the argument by which Jesus attempts to
prove the reality of a future state against the Sadducees. In
syllogistic form it maybe thus stated:—
 God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God
told Moses in the bush that he was the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. Therefore they are not dead, but living
(Mk. xii. 18-27; Mt. xxii. 23-33; Lu. xx. 27-40).
What is the evidence of the major premiss? The moment it is
questioned it is seen to be invalid. Nothing could be more natural
than that Moses, or any other Hebrew, should speak of his God as
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, meaning that those great
forefathers of his race had adored and been protected by the same
Jehovah in their day, but not therefore that they were still living. The
Sadducees must have been weak indeed if such an argument could
weigh with them for a moment.
After this a scribe or lawyer drew from Jesus the important
declaration that in his opinion the two greatest commandments were
that we should love God with the whole heart, soul, mind, and
strength; and our neighbors as ourselves (Mk. xii. 28-34; Mt. xxii.
34-40; Lu. x. 25-37). How gratuitous the imputations of ill-will
thrown out against those who interrogate Jesus may be, is admirably
shown in the present instance. One Gospel (the most trustworthy)
asserts that the question about the first commandment was put by a
scribe, who thought that Jesus had answered well, and who,
moreover, expressed emphatic approval of the reply given to himself.
Such (according to this account) was his sympathy with Jesus, that
the latter declared that he was not far from the kingdom of God.
Mark now the extraordinary color given to this simple transaction in
another Gospel. The Pharisees, we are told, saw that the Sadducees
had been silenced, and therefore drew together. Apparently as a
result of their consultation (though this is not stated), one of them
who was a lawyer asked a question, tempting him, namely, Which is
the great commandment in the law? Diverse, again, from both
versions is the narrative of a third. In the first place, all connection
with the preceding questions is broken off, and without any
preliminaries, a lawyer stands up, and, tempting him, inquires,
"Master, by what conduct shall I inherit eternal life?" To which Jesus
replies by a counter-question, "What is written in the law?" and
then, strange to say, these two great commandments are
enunciated, not by him, but by the unknown lawyer, whose answer
receives the commendation of Jesus.
The bias thus evinced by the Evangelists, even in reporting the
fairest questions, seems to show that Christ did not like his opinions
to be elicited from him by this method, feeling perhaps that it was
likely to expose his intellectual weaknesses. In this way, and possibly
in others, a sentiment of hostility grew up between himself and the
dominant sects, which, until the closing scenes of his career, was far
more marked on his side than on theirs. Beautiful maxims about
loving one's enemies and returning good for evil did not keep him
from reproaching the Pharisees on many occasions. Unfortunately, a
man's particular enemies are just those who scarcely ever appear to
him worthy of love, and this was evidently the case with Jesus and
the men upon whom he poured forth his denunciations. Judging by
his mode of speaking, we should suppose that all religious people
who did not agree with him were simply hypocrites. This is one of
the mildest terms by which he can bring himself to mention the
Pharisees or the scribes. Of the latter, he declares that they devour
widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers; therefore
they would receive the greater damnation (Mk. xii. 40; Mt. xxiii. 14).
The scribes and the Pharisees, it is said, bind heavy burdens on
others, and refuse to touch them themselves (surely an improbable
charge). They do all their works to be seen of men (their outward
behavior then was virtuous). One of their grievous sins is that they
make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge the borders of their
garments. Worse still: they like the best places at dinner-parties and
in the synagogues (to which perhaps their position entitled them).
They have a pleasure in hearing themselves called "Rabbi," a crime
of which Christ's disciples are especially to beware. They shut up the
kingdom of heaven, neither entering themselves, nor allowing others
to enter. They compass sea and land to make one proselyte, but all
this seeming zeal for religion is worthless: when they have the
proselyte, they make him still more a child of hell than themselves.
They pay tithes regularly, but omit the weightier virtues; unhappily
too common a failing with the votaries of all religions. They make
the outside of the cup and platter clean, but within they are full of
extortion and excess. Like whited sepulchres, they look well enough
outside, but this aspect of righteousness is a mere cloak for
hypocrisy and wickedness. They honor God with their lips, but their
heart is far from him.[30]
He uses towards them such designations as these: "Scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites;" "you blind guides;" "you fools and blind;"
"thou blind Pharisee;" "you serpents, you generation of vipers." If
we may believe that he was the author of a parable contained only
in Luke, he used a Pharisee as his typical hypocrite, and held up a
publican—one of a degraded class—as far superior in genuine virtue
to this self-righteous representative of the hated order (Lu. xviii. 9-
14).
Had the Pharisees been actually guilty of the exceeding
wickedness which Jesus thought proper to ascribe to them, his
career would surely have been cut short at a much earlier stage. As
it was, they seem to have borne with considerable patience the
extreme license which he permitted himself in his language against
them. Nay, I venture to say that had he confined himself to
language, however strong, he might have escaped the fate which
actually befell him. And the evidence of this proposition is to be
found in the extreme mildness with which his apostles were
afterwards treated by the Sanhedrim, even when they acted in direct
disobedience to its orders (Acts iv. 15-21, and v. 27-42). Only
Stephen, who courted martyrdom by his language, was put to death,
and that for the legal offense of blasphemy. Ordinary prudence
would have saved Jesus. For his arrest was closely connected with
his expulsion of the money-changers from the temple court. Not
indeed that he was condemned to death on that account, but that
this ill-considered deed was the immediate incentive of the legal
proceedings, which subsequently ended, contrary perhaps to the
expectation of his prosecutors, in his conviction by the Sanhedrim on
a capital charge. Let us consider the evidence of this. For the
convenience of persons going to pay tribute to the temple, some
money-changers—probably neither better nor worse than others of
their trade—sat outside for the purpose of receiving the current
Roman coinage and giving the national money, which alone the
authorities of the temple received in exchange. Certain occasions in
life requiring an offering of doves, these too were sold in the
precincts of the temple, obviously to the advantage of the public.
Had Jesus disapproved of this practice, he might have denounced it
in public, and have endeavored to persuade the people to give it up.
Instead of this, he entered the temple, expelled the buyers and
sellers (by what means we do not know), upset the money-
changers' tables and the dove-sellers' seats, and permitted no one to
carry a vessel through the temple. "Is it not written," he exclaimed,
"'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations?' but you
have made it a den of thieves" (Mk. xi. 15-18; Mt. xxi. 12, 13; Lu.
xix. 45-48). The action and the words were alike unjustifiable. The
extreme care of the Jews to preserve the sanctity of their temple is
well known from secular history. Nothing that they had done or were
likely to do could prevent it from remaining a house of prayer. And
even if they had suffered it to be desecrated by commerce, was it,
they would ask, for Jesus to fall suddenly upon men who were but
pursuing a calling which custom had sanctioned, and which they had
no reason to think illegal or irreligious? Was it for him to stigmatize
them all indiscriminately as "thieves"? Plainly not. He had, in their
opinion, exceeded all bounds of decorum, to say nothing of law, in
this deed of violence and of passion. Thus, there was nothing for it
now but to restrain the further excesses he might be tempted to
commit.
No immediate steps were, however, taken to punish this outrage.
It is alleged that Jesus escaped because of the reputation he
enjoyed among the people. At any rate, the course of the authorities
was the mildest they could possibly adopt. They contented
themselves with asking Jesus by what authority he did these things,
a question which assuredly they had every right to put. He answered
by another question, promising if they answered it, he would answer
theirs. Was John's baptism from heaven or from men? Hereupon the
Evangelists depict the perplexity which they imagine arose among
the priests. If they said, from heaven, Jesus would proceed to ask
why they had not received him; if from men, they would encounter
the popular impression that he was a prophet. All this, however, may
be mere speculation; we return within the region of the actual
knowledge of the Evangelists when we come to their answer. "And
they say in answer to Jesus, 'We do not know.' And Jesus says to
them, 'Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.'"
(Mk. xi. 27-33; Mt. xxi. 23-27; Lu. xx. 1-8). Observe in this reply the
conduct of Jesus. He had promised the priests that if they answered
his question, he would also answer theirs. They did answer his
question as best they could, and he refused to answer theirs! Even
in the English version, where the contrast between him and them is
disguised by the employment of the same word "tell" as the
translation of two very different verbs in the original, the distinction
between "We cannot tell" and "I do not," that is "will not tell" is
palpable enough. But it is far more so in the original. The priests did
not by any means decline to answer the question; they simply said,
what may very likely have been true, that they did not know whence
the baptism of John was. In the divided state of public opinion about
John, nothing could be more natural. They could not reply decidedly
if their feelings were undecided. Their reply, "We do not know," was
then a perfectly proper one. The corresponding reply on the part of
Jesus would have been, "I do not know by what authority I do these
things;" but this of course it was impossible to give. The chief
priests, scribes and elders had more right to ask Jesus to produce
his authority for his assault than he had to interrogate them about
their religious opinions. But Jesus, though he had for the moment
evaded a difficulty, must have been well aware that he was not out
of danger. He found it necessary to retire to a secret spot, known
only to friends. Here, however, he was discovered by his opponents,
and brought before the Sanhedrim to answer to the charges now
alleged against his character and doctrine.
 To some extent these charges are matter of conjecture. The
Gospels intimate that there was much evidence against him which
they have not reported. Now it is impossible for us to do complete
justice to the tribunal which heard the case unless we know the
nature and number of the offences of which the prisoner was
accused. One of them, the promise to destroy the temple and
rebuild it in three days, may have presented itself to their minds as
an announcement of a serious purpose, especially after the recent
violence done to the traders. However this may be, there was now
sufficient evidence before the court to require the high priest to call
upon Jesus for his reply. He might therefore have made his defense
if he had thought proper. He declined to do so. Again the high priest
addressed him, solemnly requiring him to say whether he was the
Christ, the Son of God. Jesus admitted that such was his conviction,
and declared that they would afterwards see him return in the
clouds of heaven. Hereupon the high priest rent his clothes, and
asked what further evidence could be needed. All had heard his
blasphemy; what did they think of it? All of them concurred in
condemning him to death (Mk. xv. 53-64; Mt. xxvi. 57-66; Lu. xxii.
66-71).
The three Evangelists who report the trial all agree that the
blasphemy thus uttered was accepted at once as full and sufficient
ground for the conviction of Jesus. Now, I see no reason whatever
to doubt that the priests who were thus scandalized by his
declaration were perfectly sincere in the horror they professed. All
who have at all realized the extremely strong feelings of the Jews on
the subject of Monotheism, will easily understand that anything
which in the least impugned it would be regarded by them with the
utmost aversion. And a man who claimed to be the Son of God
certainly detracted somewhat from the sole and exclusive adoration
which they considered to be due to Jehovah. As indeed the event
has proved; for the Christian Church soon departed from pure
Monotheism, adopting the dogma of the Trinity; while Christ along
with his Father, and even more than his Father, became an object of
its worship. So that if the Jews considered it their supreme
obligation to preserve the purity of their Jehovistic faith, as their
Scriptures taught them to believe it was, they were right in putting
down Jesus by forcible means. No doubt they were wrong in holding
such an opinion. It was not, in fact, their duty to guard their faith by
persecution. They would have been morally better had they
understood the modern doctrine of religious liberty, unknown as it
was to Christians themselves until some sixteen centuries after the
death of Christ. But for their mistaken notions on this head they
were only in part responsible. They had inherited their creed with its
profound intolerance. Their history, their legislators, their prophets,
all conspired to uphold persecution for the maintenance of religious
truth. They could not believe in their sacred books, and disbelieve
the propriety of persecution. Before they could leave Jesus at large
to teach his subversive doctrines, they must have ceased to be
Jews; and this it was impossible for them to do. We must not be too
hard upon men whose only crime was that they believed in a false
religion.
According to the dictates of that religion, Jesus ought to have
been stoned. But the Roman supremacy precluded the Jews from
giving effect to their own laws. Jesus was therefore taken before the
procurator, and accused of "many things." The charge of blasphemy
of course would weigh nothing in the mind of a Roman; and it is
evident that another aspect of the indictment was brought
prominently before Pilate: namely, the pretension of Jesus to be king
of the Jews. As to the substantial truth of this second charge, we are
saved the necessity of discussion, for Jesus himself, when
questioned by Pilate, at once admitted it. But whether it was made
in malice, and in a somewhat different sense from that in which
Pilate understood it, is not so clear. Jesus at no time, so far as we
know, put forward any direct claim to immediate temporal dominion.
At the same time it must be remembered that the ideas of
Messiahship and possession of the kingdom were so intimately
connected in the minds of the Jews, that they were probably unable
to dissociate them. Unfit as Jesus plainly was for the exercise of the
government, they might well believe that, if received by any
considerable number of the people, it would be forced upon him as
the logical result of his career. Nor were these fears unreasonable.
His entry into Jerusalem riding on an ass (an animal expressly
selected as emblematic of his royalty), with palm-branches strewed
before him, and admirers calling "Hosanna!" as he went, pointed to
a very real and serious danger. Another such demonstration might
with the utmost ease have passed into a disturbance of the peace,
not to say a tumult, which the Romans would have quenched in
blood unsparingly and indiscriminatingly shed. Jesus was really
therefore a dangerous character, not so much to the Romans, as to
the Jews. Not being prepared to accept him as their king in fact,
they were almost compelled in self-preservation to denounce him as
their would-be king to Pilate.
His execution followed. His supposed resurrection, and the
renewed propagation of his faith, followed that. It has been widely
believed that because Christianity was not put down by the death of
its founder, because, indeed, it burst out again in renewed vigor,
therefore the measures taken against him were a complete failure,
and served only to confer additional glory and power on the religion
he had taught. But this opinion arises from a confusion of ideas. If
they aimed at preserving their own nation from what they deemed
an impious heresy—and I see no proof that they aimed at anything
else—the Jewish authorities were perfectly successful. Christianity,
which, if our accounts be true, threatened to seduce large numbers
of people from their allegiance to the orthodox creed, was practically
extinguished among the Jews themselves by the death of Christ.
They could not possibly believe in a crucified Messiah. Only a very
small band of disciples persisted in adhering to Jesus, justifying their
continued faith by asserting that he had risen from the tomb. But it
was no longer among the countrymen of Jesus, whom he had
especially sought to attach to his person and his doctrine, that this
small remnant of his followers could find their converts. Neither
then, nor at any subsequent time, has Christianity been able to
wean the Jews from their ancient faith. The number of those who,
from that time to this, have abandoned it in favor of the more recent
religion has been singularly small. If, as is probable, there was
during the earthly career of Jesus a growing danger that his
teaching might lead to the formation of a sect to which many minds
would be attracted, that danger was completely averted.
True, Christianity, when rejected by the Jews, made rapid progress
among the Gentiles. But it was no business of the authorities at
Jerusalem to look after the religion of heathen nations. They might
have thought, had they foreseen the future of Christianity, that a
creed which originated among themselves, and had in it a large
admixture of Hebrew elements, was better than the worship of the
pagan deities. Be this as it may, the particular form of error which
the Gentiles might embrace was evidently no concern of theirs. But
they had a duty, or thought they had one, towards their own people,
who looked to them for guidance, and that was to preserve the
religion that had been handed down from their forefathers
uncorrupted and unmixed. This they endeavored to do by stifling the
new-born heresy of Jesus before it had become too powerful to be
stifled. Their measures, having regard to the end they had in view,
were undoubtedly politic, and even just.
For were they not perfectly right in supposing that faith in Christ
was dangerous to faith in Moses? The event has proved it beyond
possibility of question. Not indeed that they could perceive the
extent of the peril, for neither Jesus nor any of his disciples has
ventured then to throw off Judaism altogether. But they did perceive,
with a perfectly correct insight, that the Christians were setting up a
new authority alongside of the authorities which alone they
recognized,—the Scriptures and the traditional interpretation of the
Scriptures. And it was precisely the adoption of a new authority
which they desired to prevent. So completely was their foresight on
this point justified, that not long after the death of Christ, his
assumed followers received converts without circumcision, that all-
essential rite; and that, after the lapse of no long period of time,
Judaism was entirely abandoned, and a new religion, with new
dogmas, new ritual, and new observances, was founded in its place.
Surely the action of the men who sat in judgment upon Jesus needs
no further justification, from their own point of view, than this one
consideration. They had no more sacred trust, in their own eyes,
than to prevent the admission of any other object of worship than
the Lord Jehovah. Christ speedily became among Christians an
object of worship. They owned no more solemn duty than to
observe in all its parts the law delivered by their God to Moses. That
law was almost instantly abandoned by the Christian Church. They
knew of no more unpardonable crime than apostasy from their faith.
That apostasy was soon committed by the Jewish Christians.
On all these grounds, then, I venture to maintain that the spiritual
rulers of Judea were not so blameworthy as has been commonly
supposed in the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. Judged by the
principles of universal morality, they were undoubtedly wrong.
Judged by the principles of their own religion, they were no less
undoubtedly right.

Subdivision 5.—What did he think of himself?

Having endeavored, as far as our imperfect information will admit,

to realize the view that would be taken of Jesus by contemporary
Jews, let us seek if possible to realize the view which he took of
himself. In what relation did he suppose himself to stand to God the
Father? And in what relation to the Hebrew law? What was his
conception of his own mission, and of the manner in which it could
best be fulfilled?
Though, in replying to these questions, we suffer somewhat from
the scarcity of the materials, we do not labor under the same
disadvantages as those we encountered in the preceding section. For
there we had to judge between two bitterly hostile parties, of which
only one had presented its case. And from the highly colored
statement of this one party we had to unravel, as best we could,
whatever circumstances might be permitted to weigh in favor of the
other. Here we have no conflicting factions to obscure the truth. The
opinion formed by Jesus of himself has been handed down to us by
his own disciples, who, even if they did not perfectly understand
him, must at least have understood him far better than anybody
else. And if the picture they give us of the conception he had formed
of his own office be consistent with itself, there is also the utmost
probability that it is true. Especially will this hold good if this
conception should be found to differ materially from that not long
afterwards framed about him by the Christian Church.
Consider first the idea he entertained concerning his Messianic
character, and his consequent relation to God. His conviction that he
was the Messiah, who was sent with a divine message to his nation,
was evidently the mainspring of his life. It was under this conviction
that he worked his cures and preached his sermons. Probably it
strengthened as he continued in his career, though of this there is no
possible evidence. Possibly, however, the instructions he gave on
several occasions to those whom he had healed, and once to his
disciples, to tell no man about him, arose from a certain diffidence
about the power by which his miracles were effected (E.g., Mk. i. 44;
Mt. ix. 30), and a reluctance to accept the honor which the populace
would have conferred upon him. However this may be, he certainly
put forward his belief on this subject plainly enough, and its
acceptance by his disciples no doubt confirmed it in his own mind,
while its rejection by the nation at large, especially the more learned
portion of it, gave a flavor of bitterness to the tone in which he
insisted upon it. The title by which he habitually designates himself
is the Son of man. This was, no doubt, selected as a more modest
name than "Son of God." The latter was never (if we exclude the
fourth Gospel) applied by Jesus to himself, but when applied to him
by others, he made no objection to it, but accepted it as his due.
The inference from his behavior is, that he liked to be thought the
Son of God (as indeed is shown by his eulogy of Peter when that
apostle had so described him) (Mt. xvi. 17; vers. 18 and 19 are
probably interpolations), but that he did not quite venture to claim
the title for himself. That he was ever imagined, either by himself or
others, to be the Son of God in the literal, materialistic sense in
which the term was afterwards understood, it would be an entire
mistake to suppose. No such notion had ever been formulated by
the Jewish mind, and it would, no doubt, have filled his earliest
disciples with horror. As Mr. Westcott truly observes, "Years must
elapse before we can feel that the words of one who talked with
men were indeed the words of God" (Canon of New Testament, p.
64). Nor was the Hebrew Jehovah the sort of divinity who would
have had a son by a young village maiden. Proceedings of that kind
were left to the heathen deities. Nor did Christ, in claiming a filial
relationship to God, ever intend to claim unity with the divine
essence, still less to assert that he actually was God himself. This
notion of identity would receive no sanction even from the fourth
Gospel, which does, quite unlike its predecessors, lend some
sanction to that of unity in nature. The best proof of this is that
Jesus never, at any period of his life, desired his followers to worship
him, either as God or as the Son of God. Had he believed of himself
what his followers subsequently believed of him, that he was one of
the constituent persons in a divine trinity, he must have enjoined his
apostles both to address him in prayer themselves, and to desire
their converts to address him. It is quite plain that he did nothing of
the kind, and that they never supposed him to have done so. Belief
in Christ as the Messiah was taught as the first dogma of apostolic
Christianity, but adoration of Christ as God was not taught at all. But
we are not left in this matter to depend on conjectural inferences.
The words of Jesus are plain. Whenever occasion arose, he asserted
his inferiority to the Father (as Milton has proved to demonstration),
[31] though, as no one had then dreamt of his equality, it is natural
that the occasions should not have been frequent. He made himself
inferior in knowledge when he said that of the day and hour of the
day of judgment no one knew, neither the angels in heaven, nor the
Son; no one except the Father (Mk. xiii. 32). He made himself
inferior in power when he said that seats on his right hand and on
his left in the kingdom of heaven were not his to give (Mk. x. 40);
inferior in virtue when he desired a certain man not to address him
as "Good master," for there was none good but God (Mk. x. 18). The
words of his prayer at Gethsemane, "all things are possible unto
thee," imply that all things were not possible to him; while its
conclusion, "not what I will, but what thou wilt," indicates
submission to a superior, not the mere execution of a purpose of his
own (Mk. xiv. 36). Indeed, the whole prayer would have been a
mockery, useless for any purpose but the deception of his disciples,
if he had himself been identical with the Being to whom he prayed,
and had merely been giving effect by his death to their common
counsels. While the cry of agony from the cross, "My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mk. xv. 34,) would have been quite
unmeaning if the person forsaken and the person forsaking had
been one and the same. Either, then, we must assume that the
language of Jesus has been misreported, or we must admit that he
never for a moment pretended to be co-equal, co-eternal, or con-
substantial with God.
Throughout his public life he spoke of himself as one who was
sent by God for a certain purpose. What was that purpose? Was it,
as the Gentile Christians so readily assumed, to abolish the laws and
customs of the Jews, and to substitute others in their stead? Did he,
for example, propose to supplant circumcision by baptism? the
Sabbath by the Sunday? the synagogue by the church? the
ceremonial observances of the law of Moses by observances of
another kind? If so, let the evidence be produced. For unless we find
among his recorded instructions some specific injunction to his
disciples that they were no longer to be Jews, but Christians, we
cannot assume that he intended any such revolution. Now, not only
can no such injunction be produced, but the whole course of his life
negatives the supposition that any was given. For while teaching
much on many subjects, he never at any time alludes to the Mosaic
dispensation as a temporary arrangement, destined to yield to a
higher law. Yet it would surely have been strange if he had left his
disciples to guess at his intentions on this all-important subject.
Moreover, it came directly in his way when he censured the
Pharisees. He frequently accuses them of overlaying the law with a
multitude of unnecessary and troublesome rules; but while objecting
to these, he never for a moment hints that the very law itself was
now to become a thing of the past. Quite the reverse. The Pharisees
were very scrupulous about paying tithes and disregarded weightier
matters; these, he says, they ought to have done, and not to have
left the other undone. If those tithes were no longer to be paid (at
least not for the same objects), why does he not say so? Again, he
charges them with transgressing the commandment of God by their
tradition; where it is the accretions round the law, and not the law
itself, which he attacks. In one case he even directly imposes an
observance of the legal requirements on a man over whom he has
influence (Mk. i. 44). Moreover, he himself evidently continued to
perform the obligations of his Jewish religion until the very end of
his life, for one of his last acts was to eat the passover with his
disciples. The only institution which he apparently desires to alter at
all is the Sabbath, and there it is plain that he aims at an
amendment in the mode of its observance, not at its entire abolition.
Indeed, he justifies his disciples by invoking the example of David,
an orthodox Hebrew; and very happily remarks, that the Sabbath
was made for man, not man for the Sabbath—one of his best and
most epigrammatic sayings. But an institution made for man was
indeed one to be rationally observed, but by no means one to be
lightly tampered with. Jesus, in fact, was altogether a Jew, and
though an ardent reformer, he desired to reform within the limits of
Judaism, not beyond them.
If further proof were needed of this than the fact that he himself
neither abandoned the religion of his birth, nor sought to obtain
disciples except among those who belonged to it, it would be found
in his treatment of the heathen woman whose daughter was
troubled with a devil. To her he distinctly declared that he was not
sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In reply to her
further persistence, he told her that it was not well to take the
children's meat and throw it to dogs. Nothing but her appropriate yet
modest answer induced him to accede to her request (Mt. xv. 21-
28). Further confirmation is afforded by his instructions to his
disciples, whom he desired not to go either to the Gentiles or the
Sâmaritans, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt. x. 5, 6).
His own practice was altogether in conformity with these
instructions. He markedly confined the benefits of his teaching to his
fellow-countrymen. Once only is he said to have visited the
neighborhood of Tyre and Sidon, and then he was anxious to
preserve the strictest incognito (Mk. vii. 24). Even when the Jews
refused to believed in him, he sought no converts among the
Gentiles. He never even intimated that he would receive such
converts without their previous adoption of the Jewish faith, and
after his decease his most intimate disciples were doubtful whether
it was lawful to associate with uncircumcised people (Acts x. 28; xi.
2, 3). Not only, therefore, had he himself never done so, but he had
left no instructions behind him that such a relaxation of Jewish
scruples might ever be permitted. True, when disappointed among
his own people, he now and then contrasted them in unflattering
terms with the heathen. Chorazin and Bethsaida were worse than
Tyre and Sidon; Capernaum less open to conviction than Sodom (Mt.
xi. 20-24). The faith of the heathen centurion was greater than any
he had found in Israel (Mt. viii. 10). But all these expressions of
embittered feeling imply that it was in Israel he had looked for faith,
towards Israel that his desires were turned. To discover faith out of it
might be an agreeable surprise, but as a general rule, was neither to
be expected nor sought.
Having, then, determined, what the purport of his mission was
not, let us try to discover what it was. The quest is not difficult. The
whole of his teaching is pervaded by one ever-recurring keynote,
which those who have ears to hear it cannot miss. He came to
announce the approach of what he termed "the kingdom of heaven."
A great revolution was to take place on earth. God was to come,
accompanied by Jesus, to reward the virtuous and to punish the
wicked. A totally new order of things was to be substituted in lieu of
the present unjust and unequal institutions. And Jesus was sent by
God to warn the children of Israel to prepare for this kingdom of
heaven. There was but little time to lose, for even now the day of
judgment was at hand. The mind of Jesus was laden with this one
great thought, to which, with him, all others were subordinate. It
runs through his maxims of conduct, his parables, his familiar
converse with his disciples. Far from him was the notion of founding
a new religion, to be extended throughout the world and to last for
ages. It was a work of much more immediate urgency which he
came to do. "Prepare for the kingdom of heaven, for it will come
upon you in the present generation;" such was the burden of his
message. Let us hear his own mode of delivering it to men.
The very beginning of his preaching, according to Mark, was in
this strain: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has
approached; repent, and believe the Gospel" (Mk. i. 15). Precisely
similar is the purport of his earliest doctrine according to Matthew
(Mt. iv. 7). How thoroughly he believed that the time was fulfilled is
shown by his decided declaration that there were some among his
hearers who would not taste of death till they had seen the kingdom
of God come with power (Mk. ix. 1), a saying which, as it would
never have been invented, is undoubtedly genuine. He told his
disciples that Elias, who was expected to precede the kingdom of
heaven, had already come (Mk. ix. 13).
Over and over again, in a hundred different ways, this absorbing
thought finds expression in his language. The one and only message
the disciples are instructed to carry to the "lost sheep of the house
of Israel" is that the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Mt. x. 17). When
a city does not receive them, they are to wipe off the dust of it
against them, and bid them be sure that the kingdom of God is near
them (Lu. x. 11). In the coming judgment, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and
above all his own place Capernaum, were to suffer more than Tyre
and Sidon. Earthly matters assume, in consequence of this
conviction of their temporary nature, a very trivial aspect. The
disciples are to take no thought for the morrow; the morrow will
take thought for itself. Nor are they to trouble themselves about food
and clothing, but to seek first the kingdom of God (Mt. vi. 31-34).
They are not to lay up treasure on earth, but in heaven, in order that
their hearts may be there (Mt. vi. 19-21). Moreover, they must be
always on the watch, as the Son of man will come upon them at an
unexpected hour. It would not do then to be engaged as the wicked
antediluvians were when overtaken by the flood, in the occupations
of eating and drinking, or marrying and giving in marriage. Instead
of this, they must be like the faithful servant whom his master on
returning to his house found watching (Mt. xxiv. 38, 42, 43; Lu. xii.
37, 38). Preparation is to be made for the kingdom which their
Father will give them by selling what they have and bestowing alms,
so laying up an incorruptible treasure; by keeping their loins girded
and their lights burning (Lu. xii. 32). Neglect of these precautions
will be punished by exclusion from the joys of the kingdom, as
shown in the parable of the ten virgins (Mt. xxv. 1-13). But the
indications of the great event are not understood by the people, who
are able to read the signs of the coming weather, but not those of
the times (Lu. xii. 54-57); an inability which might have been due to
the fact that they had had some experience of the one kind of signs
and none of the other. On another occasion, he observes that the
law and the prophets were till John; since then the kingdom of God
has been preached, and every man presses into it (Lu. xvi. 16). Here
he specially proclaims himself as the preacher of the kingdom; the
man who brought mankind this new revelation. Such was the
manner in which this revelation was announced, that some at least
of those who heard him thought that the kingdom was to come
immediately. To counteract this view he told the parable of the
nobleman who went from home to receive a kingdom, leaving his
servants in charge of certain monies, and rewarded them on his
return according to the amount of interest they had obtained by
usury, punishing one of them who had made no use of the sum
intrusted to him (Lu. xix. 11-27). He himself, of course, was the
nobleman who received his kingdom and returned again to judge his
servants. So urgent was the message he had to deliver, that
(according to one Evangelist) a man who wished to bury his father
before joining him was told to let the dead bury their dead, but to go
himself and announce the kingdom of God; while another, who
asked leave to bid farewell to his family, was warned that no man,
having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, was fit for that
kingdom (Lu. ix. 58-62).
The arrival of the kingdom was to be preceded by various signs.
There would be false Christs; there would be wars, earthquakes, and
famines; there would be persecutions of the faithful; but the Gospel
(that is, the announcement of the approach of this new state of
things) must first be published in all nations.[32] Then the sun and
moon would be darkened and the stars fall; the Son of man would
come in power and glory, and gather his elect from all parts of the
earth. The existing generation was not to pass till all these things
were done. Not even the Son knew when this would happen; but as
it might come suddenly and unexpectedly upon them, they were to
be continually on the watch (Mk. xiii.; Mt. xxiv). The apostles would
not even finish the cities of Israel before the Son of man had come
(Mt. x. 23).
Little is said in description of the nature of the kingdom of heaven
except by the method of illustration. The main result to be gathered
from numerous allusions to it is that justice is to prevail. Thus, the
kingdom of heaven is said to be like a man who sowed good seed in
his field, but in whose property an enemy maliciously mingled tares.
At the harvest the tares are to be burnt, and the wheat gathered
into the barn. This parable Jesus himself explained. The tares are
the wicked; the wheat represents "the children of the kingdom." And
as tares are burnt, so "the Son of man shall send his angels, and
collect from his kingdom all offenses, and those who do wickedness,
and shall throw them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping
and gnashing of teeth. Then the just shall shine out like the sun in
the kingdom of their Father." The same idea is expressed in the
illustration of the net cast into the sea, which gathers good fish and
bad. Just as the fishermen separate these, so the angels at the end
of the world will separate the wicked from the midst of the just.
Other comparisons represent the influence on the heart of faith in
the kingdom. Thus, the kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard
seed, which, though the smallest of seeds, becomes the largest of
herbs. Or it is like leaven leavening three measures of meal. Again, it
is like treasure hid in a field, or a pearl of great price (Mt. xiii. 24-
50).
The best qualification for preëminence in the kingdom was
humility.
When asked who was to be greatest in the kingdom of heaven,
Jesus replied that it would be he who humbled himself like a little
child (Mt. xviii. 1-4). He delights in the exhibition of striking contrasts
between the present and the future state of things. The first are to
be the last, and the last first. Those who have made great sacrifices
now are then to receive vast rewards (Mk. x. 29-31). He who has
lost his life for his sake is to find it, and he who has found it is to
lose it (Mt. x. 39). The stone rejected by the builder is to become
the head of the corner (Mk. xii. 10). The kingdom of God is to be
taken from the privileged nation and given to another more worthy
of it (Mt. xxi. 43). Publicans and harlots are to take precedence of
the respectable classes in entering the kingdom (Mt. xxi. 31). It is
scarcely possible for rich men to enter it at all, though God may
perhaps admit them by an extraordinary exertion of power (Mk. x.
23-27). Many even who trust in their high character for correct
religion will find themselves rejected. But they will be safe who have
both heard the sayings of Jesus and done them. They will have built
their houses on rocks, from which the storms which usher in the
kingdom will not dislodge them. Those, however, who hear these
sayings, and neglect to perform them, will be like foolish men who
have built their houses on sand, where the storms will beat them
down, and great will be their fall (Mt. vii. 22-29). That the kingdom
is to be on earth, not in some unknown heaven, is manifest from the
numerous references of Jesus to the time when the Son of man will
"come;" a time which none can know, yet for which all are to watch.
He never speaks of men "going" to the kingdom of heaven; it is the
kingdom of heaven which is to come to them. And the most
remarkable of the many contrasts will be that between the present
humiliation of the Son and his future glory. He will return to execute
his Father's decrees. His judges themselves will see him "sitting on
the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Mt.
xxvi. 64). Instead of standing as a prisoner at the bar, he will then
be enthroned as a judge. "When the Son of man shall come in his
glory, and all the angels with him, then he shall sit on the throne of
his glory; and all the nations shall be collected before him, and he
shall separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the
sheep from the goats; and he shall put the sheep on his right hand,
but the goats on his left." The goats, who have done harm, are then
to go into everlasting punishment; and the sheep, who have done
good, are to pass into eternal life (Mt. xxv. 31-46).
This equitable adjustment of rewards and punishments to merit
and demerit is the leading conception in the revolution which the
kingdom of heaven is to make. The faithful servant is to be made
ruler over his master's goods; the unfaithful one to be cut off and
assigned a portion with the hypocrites. The virgins whose lamps are
ready burning will be admitted to the marriage festival. The servants
who make the best use of the property committed to their charge
will be rewarded, while those who have failed to employ it properly
will be cast into outer darkness (Mt. xxiv. 42-xxv. 30). So also the
wicked husbandmen in the vineyard, who ill treated their master's
servants and killed his heir, are to be destroyed when he comes, and
the vineyard is to be committed to other cultivators (Mk. xii. 1-9). All
those, on the other hand, who have made great sacrifices for the
sake of Christ will receive a hundred-fold compensation for all that
they have now abandoned (Mt. xix. 29, 30).
Such was the sort of notion—rude, yet tolerably definite—which
Jesus had formed of the kingdom his Father was about to found, and
for the coming of which he taught his disciples to pray. This hope of
a reign of justice, of an exaltation of the lowly and virtuous, and a
depression of the proud and wicked, animated his teaching and
inspired his life. To make known this great event, so shortly to
overtake them, to mankind, was a duty with which in his opinion he
had been charged by God; to receive this message at his hands was
in his judgment the first of virtues, to spurn it the most
unpardonable of crimes.

Subdivision 6.—What did his disciples think of him?

There is on record a remarkable conversation which affords us a

glimpse, both of the rumors that were current about Christ among
the people, and also of the view taken of him by his nearest friends
during his life-time. Jesus had gone with his disciples into the towns
of Cæsarea Philippi. On the way, being apparently curious about the
state of public opinion, he asked them, "Whom do men say that I
am?" To this they replied, "John the Baptist; and some say Elias, and
others that thou art one of the prophets." To which Jesus rejoined,
"But you, whom say you that I am?" Peter returned the answer,
"Thou art the Messiah;" or "Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the
living God." It is remarkable that Peter alone is represented as
replying to this second question, as if the others had not yet attained
to the conviction which this apostle held of the Messiahship of Jesus.
Especially would this conclusion be confirmed if we adopted the
version of Matthew, where Jesus expresses his high approbation of
Peter's answer (Mk. viii. 27-30; Mt. xvi. 13-20). If this apostle was
peculiarly blessed on account of his perception of this truth, it may
be inferred that his companions had either not yet perceived, or
were not yet sure of it. That Peter did not mean by calling him the
Messiah to state that he was a portion of the deity himself, is evident
from what follows; for Jesus having predicted his future sufferings,
"Peter began to rebuke him," anxious to avert the omen. Had he
believed that it was God himself with whom he was conversing, he
could hardly have ventured to question his perfect knowledge of the
future.
The doctrine of the divinity of Christ is not, in fact, to be found in
the New Testament. Even the writer of the fourth Gospel, who holds
the highest and most mystical view of his nature, does not teach
that. Often indeed in that Gospel does Jesus speak of himself as one
with the Father. But the dogmatic force of all these expressions is
measured by the fact that precisely in the same sense he speaks of
the disciples as one with himself. As the Father and he are in one
another, so he prays that the disciples may be one in them (Jo. xvii.
21). Moreover, when the Jews charged him with making himself
God, he met them by inquiring whether it was not written in their
law, "I said, Ye are gods." If, then, those to whom the word of God
came were called gods, was it blasphemy in him, whom the Father
had sanctified and sent, to say, "I am the Son of God?" (Jo. x. 33-
37). Here, then, the term which Jesus appropriates is "Son of God,"
and this he considers admissible because the Hebrew people
generally had been called gods. Evidently, then, he does not admit
the charge of making himself God.
The authority of the fourth Gospel is, of course, of no value in
enabling us to determine what Jesus said or did, but it is of great
value as evidence of the view taken about him by those of his
disciples who, at this early period, had advanced the furthest in the
direction of placing him on a level with God himself. It is either the
latest, or one of the latest, compositions in the New Testament, and
it proves that, at the period when its author lived, even the boldest
spirits had not ventured on the dogma which afterwards became the
corner-stone of the Christian creed.
Throughout the rest of the canonical books, Jesus is simply the
Messiah, the Son of God; in whom, in that sense, it is a duty to
believe. Whoever believes this much is, according to the first epistle
of John, born of God (1 John v. 1).
Clearer still is the evidence that, in the opinion of those most
competent to judge, Jesus had no intention of abolishing the
observance of the law of Moses. So far were his disciples from
imagining that he contemplated any such change, that they were at
first in doubt whether it was allowable for them even to relax the
rules which forbade social intercourse with heathens. The writer of
the Acts of the Apostles, however, informs us that, when an
important convert was to be won over from the pagan ranks, Peter
had the privilege of a vision which enjoined him not to call anything
which God had cleansed common or unclean. Interpreting this to
mean that he might associate with the Gentiles, he received the
heathen convert, Cornelius, with all cordiality, and even preached
the gospel of Jesus to the uncircumcised company by whom he was
surrounded. That this was a novel measure is plainly evinced by the
fact that the Jewish Christians who were present were astonished
that the gift of the Holy Ghost should be poured out upon the
Gentiles. They therefore had conceived that Christianity was to be
confined to themselves (Acts x).
But there is more direct evidence of the same fact. When Peter
returned to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers there found fault
with him because he had gone in to uncircumcised men, and had
eaten with them. Peter, of course, related his vision in self-defense,
and since there was no reply to be made to such an argument as
this, they accepted the new and unexpected fact which he
announced: "Well, then, God has given repentance to life to the
Gentiles also" (Acts xi. 1-18). Paul, who was too strong-minded to
need a revelation to teach him the best way of promoting Christian
interests, also received heathen converts without requiring them to
come under Jewish obligations. But the conduct of these apostles
was far from meeting with unmixed approbation in the community.
Some men from Judea came to Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas
were, and informed the brethren there that unless they were
circumcised they could not be saved. So important was this question
deemed, that Paul and Barnabas, after much disputing with these
Judaic Christians, agreed to go with them to Jerusalem to refer the
matter to a council of the apostles and elders. Obviously, then, it
was a new case which had arisen. No authoritative dictum of Jesus
could be produced. The possibility of having to receive heathens
among his disciples was one he had never contemplated. Called to
deal with this supremely important question, on which the whole
future of the Church turned, the apostles displayed moderation and
good sense. Acting on the concurrent advice of Peter, Paul, James,
and Barnabas, they wrote to the brethren in Antioch, Syria, and
Cilicia, that they had determined to lay no greater burden upon them
than these necessary things:—1. Abstinence from meat offered to
idols; 2. from blood; 3. from things strangled; 4. from fornication.
Hence it will be seen that they absolved the heathen believers from
all Jewish observances except two, those that forbade blood and
things strangled. These, from long habit and the fixed prejudices of
their race, no doubt appeared to them to have some deeper
foundation than a mere arbitrary command. These therefore they
enjoined even upon pagans (Acts xv. 1-31).
Be it observed, however, that this dispensation applied only to
those who were not of Hebrew blood. The apostles and elders
assembled at Jerusalem had no thought of dispensing themselves
from the binding force of the law of Moses. To observe it was alike
their privilege and their duty. They did not conceive that, in
becoming Christians, they had ceased to be Jews, any more than a
Catholic who becomes a Protestant conceives that he has ceased to
be a Christian. The question whether those who had been born Jews
should abandon their ancient religion was not even raised at this
time among them. The only question was whether those who had
not been born Jews should adopt it.
Innovation, however, is not to be arrested at any given point.
Liberty having been conceded to the Gentiles, it was not unnatural
that some of the apostles, when living among the Gentiles, should
take advantage of it for themselves. No overt rule was adopted on
this subject. It seems to have been tacitly understood that all Jews
should continue to be bound by the rigor of their native customs,
except in so far as they had been modified by common consent: and
the attempt of some to escape from this burden was an occasion of
no small scandal to the more orthodox members of the sect (Acts
xxi. 20; Gal. ii. 12). Both Peter and Paul indeed, at separate times,
were compelled to make some concessions to the extremely strong
feeling in favor of the law which existed at headquarters. The
conduct of these two eminent apostles merits examination.
Peter, it appears, never gave up Judaism in his own person; but
when staying at Antioch he mixed freely with Gentiles, making no
attempt to impose the law upon them, and approving of the
proceedings of Paul. It so happened, however, that there came to
Antioch some brethren from James at Jerusalem. These men were
strict Jews, and Peter was so much afraid of them, that he
"withdrew and separated himself" from his former companions. The
other Jewish Christians, and even Barnabas, the former friend of
Paul, were induced to act in the same way. Paul, who was not likely
to lose the opportunity of a little triumph over Peter, ruthlessly
exposed his misconduct. According to his account, he publicly
addressed him in these terms: "If thou, being a Jew, livest like a
Gentile and not like a Jew, why dost thou compel the Gentiles to be
like Jews?" (Gal. ii. 11-14.). What answer Peter returned, or whether
he returned any, Paul does not inform us. His charge against Peter I
understand to be, not that the apostle had positively adopted
heathen customs, and then taken up Jewish ones again, but that he
had relaxed in his own favor the rules which forbade Jews from
eating with Gentiles. On the appearance of the stricter Christians
from Jerusalem he put on the appearance of a strictness equal to
their own. Such conduct was consistent with the character of the
disciple who had denied his master.
Paul himself, on the other hand, was a complete freethinker. Once
converted, the system of which he had formerly been the zealous
upholder no longer had any power over his emancipated mind. His
robust and logical intellect soon delivered him from the fetters in
which he had been bound. Far, however, from following his example,
the Christians at Jerusalem were shocked at the laxity of his morals.
The steps he took to conciliate them are graphically described in the
Acts of the Apostles. On visiting the capital, Paul and his companions
went to see James, with whom were assembled all the elders; and
Paul described the success he had met with among the Gentiles.
Hereupon the assembled company, or more probably James as their
spokesman, informed Paul what very disadvantageous reports were
current concerning him. "Thou seest, brother," they began, "how
many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and all are
zealots for the law; and they have been informed of thee that thou