contemporaries as to either the meaning of the Kingdom of
God or the necessity and power of repentance. The difference between
them came in the kind of conduct which was necessary for membership in
the Kingdom of God and prescribed for repentance. It was at this point
that Jesus came into sharp conflict with the two parties previously
described, the Fourth Philosophy and the Scribes and Pharisees.

The difference between Jesus and the Pharisees was one of
interpretation. Both he and they regarded the Law as the revelation of
God's will, and Jesus himself was emphatic in declaring that it was
binding and that he did not wish to destroy it. But the Pharisees
endeavoured to make the Law cover every detail of human life by
combining it with clever verbal interpretations which stretched its
meaning in every direction. Jesus, on the other hand, appealed from
the letter of the Law to its original {30} purpose, which he held to be
the benefit of man.[18] If, therefore, there was any contradiction
between the letter of the Law and its original purpose, it was the
purpose which was dominant. No one can doubt that in this respect
Jesus followed a principle incontestably correct but extraordinarily
difficult of application. It contains, moreover, implicit in it an
appeal to conscience, for it was really by this rather than by historic
knowledge that the ultimate purpose of the Law was revealed. The final
test of formularies which appeal to the intellect is whether they are
true and of codes defining conduct whether they are right, but the
perception of truth and of right depends in the end on reason and on
conscience,[19] and the difficulty and obscurity which attend their
application constantly frighten men into trying to substitute some
easier way for that of Jesus: but here too the saying is true that
"narrow is the way that leadeth unto life."

Far more deep-seated was the difference between Jesus and the Fourth
Philosophy. It is only {31} necessary to put oneself back in the
position of a Jew of Galilee in the first century, inspired by the
patriotic teaching of Judas of Galilee and his followers, to understand
how extraordinarily unpopular the teaching of Jesus must have been in
Galilee. Such a Jew believed that the continuance of the Roman rule
was an intolerable injustice, that it ought not to be endured, that
resistance to it was right and proper and would be crowned with success
by the intervention of God. I