Produced by Distributed Proofreaders




[Transcriber's note: Superscripted letters and numbers have been marked
with a preceding caret (^).]




The Life of Jesus of Nazareth

_A Study_

By

Rush Rhees

1902




_Copyright, 1900,_
By Charles Scribner's Sons




To

C. W. McC.

In Recognition of Wise Counsel, Generous Help and Loving Appreciation




"_I would preach ... the need to the world of the faith
in a Christ, the claim that Jesus is the Christ, and the demand
for an intelligent faith, which indeed shall transcend but shall
not despise knowledge, or neglect to have a knowledge to
transcend._"--John Patterson Coyle




Preface



The aim of this book is to help thoughtful readers of the gospels to
discern more clearly the features of him whom those writings inimitably
portray. It is avowedly a study rather than a story, and as a companion to
the reading of the gospels it seeks to answer some of the questions which
are raised by a sympathetic consideration of those narratives. These
answers are offered in an unargumentative way, even where the questions
are still in debate among scholars. This method has been adopted because
technical discussion would be of interest to but few of those whom the
book hopes to serve. On some of the questions a non-committal attitude is
taken in the belief that for the understanding of the life of Jesus it is
of little importance which way the decision finally goes. Less attention
has been given to questions of geography and archæology than to those
which have a more vital biographical significance.

A word concerning the point of view adopted. The church has inherited a
rich treasure of doctrine concerning its Lord, the result of patient study
and, frequently, of heated controversy. It is customary to approach the
gospels with this interpretation of Christ as a premise, and such a study
has some unquestionable advantages. With the apostles and evangelists,
however, the recognition of the divine nature of Jesus was a conclusion
from their acquaintance with him. The Man of Nazareth was for them
primarily a man, and they so regarded him until he showed them that he was
more. Their knowledge of him progressed in the natural way from the human
to the divine. The gospels, particularly the first three, are marvels of
simplicity and objectivity. Their authors clearly regarded Jesus as the
Man from heaven; yet in their thinking they were dominated by the
influence of a personal Lord rather than by the force of an accepted
doctrine. It is with no lack of reverence for the importance and truth of
the divinity of Christ that this book essays to bring the Man Jesus before
the mind in the reading of the gospels. The incarnation means that God
chose to reveal the divine through a human life, rather than through a
series of propositions which formulate truth (Heb. i. 1-4). The most
perennially refreshing influence for Christian life and thought is
personal discipleship to that Revealer who is able to-day as of old to
exhibit in his humanity those qualities which compel the recognition of
God manifest in the flesh.

An Appendix is added to furnish references to the wide literature of the
subject for the aid of those who wish to study it more extensively and
technically; also to discuss some questions of detail which could not be
considered in the text. This appendix will indicate the extent of my
indebtedness to others. I would acknowledge special obligation to
Professor Ernest D. Burton, of the University of Chicago, for generous
help and permission to use material found in his "Notes on the Life of
Jesus;" to Professor Shailer Mathews, also of Chicago, for very valuable
criticisms; to my colleague, Professor Charles Rufus Brown, for most
serviceable assistance; and to the editors of this series for helpful
suggestions and criticism during the making of the book. An unmeasured
debt is due to another who has sat at my side during the writing of these
pages, and has given constant inspiration, most discerning criticism, and
practical aid.

The Newton Theological Institution, April, 1900.




Contents



Part I

Preparatory



I

The Historical Situation

Sections 1-19. Pages 1-20

   Section 1. The Roman estimate of Judea. 2, 3. Herod the Great and his
   sons. 4. Roman procurators in Palestine. 5. Taxes. 6. The army. 7.
   Administration of justice. 8. The Sadducees. 9,10. The Pharisees. 11.
   The Zealots. 12. The Essenes. 13. The Devout. 14. Herodians and
   Samaritans. 15. The synagogue. 16. Life under the law. 17. The
   Messianic hope. 18. Contemporary literature. 19. Language of Palestine.


II

Sources of Our Knowledge of Jesus

Sections 20-35. Pages 21-37

   Section 20. The testimony of Paul. 21. Secular history. 22. The written
   gospels. 23. Characteristics of the first gospel. 24. Of the second.
   25. Of the third. 26-30. The synoptic problem. 31-32. The Johannine
   problem. 34. The two narrative sources. 35. Agrapha and Apocrypha.


III

The Harmony of the Gospels

Sections 36-44. Pages 38-14

   Section 36. The value of four gospels. 37. Tatian's Diatessaron. 38.
   Agreement of the gospels concerning the chief events. 39. The principal
   problems. 40. Relation of Mark and John. 41, 42. Matthew and Luke. 43.
   Doublets. 44. The degree of certainty attainable.


IV

The Chronology

Sections 45-57. Pages 45-56

   Sections 45-48. The length of Jesus' public ministry. 49. Date of the
   first Passover. 50. Date of the crucifixion. 51-56. Date of the
   nativity. 57. Summary.


V

The Early Years of Jesus

Sections 58-71. Pages 57-69

   Section 58. Apocryphal stories. 59. Silence of the New Testament
   outside the gospels. 60-62. The miraculous birth. 63. The childhood of
   Jesus. 64. Home. 65. Religion, Education. 66. Growth. 67. Religious
   development. 68. The view from Nazareth. 69 The first visit to
   Jerusalem. 70-71. The carpenter of Nazareth.


VI

John the Baptist

Sections 72-84. Pages 70-81

   Section 72. The gospel picture. 73. Notice by Josephus. 74.
   Characteristics of the prophet 75-78. John's relation to the Essenes;
   the Pharisees; the Zealots; the Apocalyptists. 79. John and the
   Prophets. 80-82. Origin of his baptism. 83. His greatness. 84. His
   limitations and self-effacement.


VII

The Messianic Call

Sections 85-96. Pages 82-91

   Sections 85, 86. John and Jesus. 87. The baptism of Jesus. 88, 89. The
   Messianic call. 90. The gift of the Spirit. 91-94. The temptation. 95.
   Source of the narrative. 96. The issue.


VIII

The First Disciples

Sections 97-105. Pages 92-97

   Section 97. John at Bethany beyond Jordan. 98. The deputation from the
   priests. 99. John's first testimony. 100. The first disciples. 101. The
   early Messianic confessions. 102. The visit to Cana. 103. The miracles
   as disclosures of the character of Jesus. 104. Jesus and his mother.
   105. Removal to Capernaum.



Part II

The Ministry


I

General Survey of the Ministry

Sections 106-112. Pages 101-105

   Section 106. The early Judean ministry. 107. Withdrawal to Galilee; a
   new beginning. 108. The ministry in Galilee a unit. 109. Best studied
   topically. 110. The last journey to Jerusalem. 111. The last week. 112.
   The resurrection and ascension.


II

The Early Judean Ministry

Sections 113-124. Pages 106-114

   Outline of events in the Early Judean ministry. Section 113. The
   opening ministry at Jerusalem. 114. The record incomplete. 115. The
   cleansing of the temple. 116. Relation to synoptic account. 117. Jesus'
   reply to the challenge of his authority. 118. The reserve of Jesus.
   119. Discourse with Nicodemus. 120. Measure of success in Jerusalem.
   121. The Baptist's last testimony. 122. The arrest of John. 123. The
   second sign at Cana. 124. Summary.


III

The Ministry in Galilee--Its Aim and Method

Sections 125-149. Pages 115-137

   Outline of events in the Galilean ministry. Section 125. General view.
   126, 127. Development of popular enthusiasm. 128. Pharisaic opposition.
   129, 130. Jesus and the Messianic hope. 131. Injunctions of silence.
   132-135. Jesus' twofold aim in Galilee. 136, 137. Character of the
   teaching of this period: the sermon on the mount. 138. The parables.
   139. The instructions for the mission of the twelve. 140. Jesus' tone
   of authority. 141. His mighty works. 142-144. Demoniac possession. 145.
   Jesus' personal influence. 146. The feeding of the five thousand. 147,
   148. Revulsion of popular feeling. 149. Results of the work in Galilee.


IV

The Ministry in Galilee--The New Lesson

Sections 150-165. Pages 138-152

   Section 150. The changed ministry. 151. The question of tradition. 152.
   Further pharisaic opposition. 153. Jesus in Phoenicia. 154. Confirmation
   of the disciples' faith. 155. The question at Cæsarea Philippi. 156.
   The corner-stone of the Church. 157-159. The new lesson. 160. The
   transfiguration. 161. Cure of the epileptic boy. 162. The feast of
   Tabernacles. 163. Story of Jesus and the adulteress. 164. The new note
   in Jesus' teaching. 165. Summary of the Galilean ministry.


V

The Journey through Perea to Jerusalem

Sections 166-176. Pages 153-165

   Outline of events. Section 166. The Perean ministry. 167. Account in
   John. 168, 169. Account in Luke. 170. The mission of the seventy. 171.
   The feast of Dedication. 172. Withdrawal beyond Jordan. 173. The
   raising of Lazarus. 174. Ephraim and Jericho. 175,176. Summary.


VI

The Final Controversies in Jerusalem

Sections 177-188. Pages 166-180

   Outline of events in the last week of Jesus' life. Section 177. The
   cross in apostolic preaching. 178. The anointing in Bethany. 179. The
   Messianic entry. 180. The barren fig-tree. 181. The Monday of Passion
   week. 182-186. The controversies of Tuesday. 187. Judas. 188.
   Wednesday, the day of seclusion.


VII

The Last Supper

Sections 189-195. Pages 181-187

   Section 189. Preparations. 190,191. Date of the supper. 192. The lesson
   of humility. 193. The new covenant. 194. The supper and the Passover.
   195. Farewell words of admonition and comfort; the intercessory prayer.


VIII

The Shadow of Death

Sections 196-208. Pages 188-200

   Sections 196, 197. Gethsemane. 198. The betrayal. 199. The trial. 200.
   Peter's denials. 201. The rejection of Jesus. 202. The greatness of
   Jesus. 203, 204. The crucifixion. 205. The words from the cross. 206.
   The death of Jesus. 207. The burial. 208. The Sabbath rest.


IX

The Resurrection

Sections 209-222. Pages 201-216

   Section 209. The primary Christian fact. 210. The incredulity of the
   disciples. 211-216. The appearances of the risen Lord. 217-220. Efforts
   to explain the belief in the resurrection. 221. The ascension. 222. The
   new faith of the disciples.



Part III

The Minister


I

The Friend of Men

Sections 223-229. Pages 219-225

   Section 223. The contrast between Jesus' attitude and John's towards
   common social life. 224. Contrast with the scribes. 225, 226. His
   interest in simple manhood. 227. Regard for human need. 228, 229.
   Sensitiveness to human sympathy.


II

The Teacher with Authority

Sections 230-241. Pages 226-237

   Section 230. Contrast between Jesus and the scribes. 231. His appeal to
   the conscience. His attitude to the Old Testament. 234. His teaching
   occasional. 235. The patience of his method. 236. His use of
   illustration. 237. Parable. 238. Irony and hyperbole. 239. Object
   lessons. 240. Jesus' intellectual superiority. 241. His chief theme,
   the kingdom of God.


III

Jesus' Knowledge of Truth

Sections 242-251. Pages 238-248

   Sections 242, 243. Jesus' supernatural knowledge. 244. His predictions
   of his death. 245. Of his resurrection. 246. His apocalyptic
   predictions. 247, 248. Limitation of his knowledge. 249, 250. Jesus and
   demoniac possession. 251. His certainty of his own mission.


IV

Jesus' Conception of Himself

Sections 252-275. Pages 249-269.

   Section 252. Jesus' confidence in his calling. 253. His independence in
   teaching. 254. His self-assertions in response to pharisaic criticism.
   255. His desire to beget faith in himself. 256,257. His extraordinary
   personal claim. 258. His acceptance of Messianic titles. 259-266. The
   Son of Man. 267-269. The Son of God. 270, 271. His consciousness of
   oneness with God. 272. His confession of dependence; his habit of
   prayer. 273. No confession of sin. 274, 275. The Word made flesh.


Appendix

Index of Names and Subjects

Index of Biblical References

Map of Palestine




Part I


Preparatory




I

The Historical Situation



1. When Tacitus, the Roman historian, records the attempt of Nero to
charge the Christians with the burning of Rome, he has patience for no
more than the cursory remark that the sect originated with a Jew who had
been put to death in Judea during the reign of Tiberius. This province was
small and despised, and Tacitus could account for the influence of the
sect which sprang thence only by the fact that all that was infamous and
abominable flowed into Rome. The Roman's scornful judgment failed to grasp
the nature and power of the movement whose unpopularity invited Nero's
lying accusation, yet it emphasizes the significance of him who did "not
strive, nor cry, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street," whose
influence, nevertheless, was working as leaven throughout the empire.

2. Palestine was not under immediate Roman rule when Jesus was born. Herod
the Great was drawing near the close of the long reign during which, owing
to his skill in securing Roman favor, he had tyrannized over his unwilling
people. His claim was that of an adventurer who had power to succeed, even
as his method had been that of a suspicious tyrant, who murdered right and
left, lest one of the many with better right than he should rise to
dispute with him his throne. When Herod died, his kingdom was divided
into three parts, and Rome asserted a fuller sovereignty, allowing none of
his sons to take his royal title. Herod's successors ruled with a measure
of independence, however, and followed many of their father's ways, though
none of them had his ability. The best of them was Philip, who had the
territory farthest from Jerusalem, and least related to Jewish life. He
ruled over Iturea and Trachonitis, the country to the north and east of
the Sea of Galilee, having his capital at Cæsarea Philippi, a city built
and named by him on the site of an older town near the sources of the
Jordan. He also rebuilt the city of Bethsaida, at the point where the
Jordan flows into the Sea of Galilee, calling it Julias, after the
daughter of Augustus. Philip enters the story of the life of Jesus only as
the ruler of these towns and the intervening region, and as husband of
Salome, the daughter of Herodias. Living far from Jerusalem and the Jewish
people, he abandoned even the show of Judaism which characterized his
father, and lived as a frank heathen in his heathen capital.

3. The other two who inherited Herod's dominion were brothers, Archelaus
and Antipas, sons of Malthace, one of Herod's many wives. Archelaus had
been designated king by Herod, with Judea, Samaria, and Idumea as his
kingdom; but the emperor allowed him only the territory, with the title
ethnarch. Antipas was named a tetrarch by Herod, and his territory was
Galilee and the land east of the Jordan to the southward of the Sea of
Galilee, called Perea. Antipas was the Herod under whose sway Jesus lived
in Galilee, and who executed John the Baptist. He was a man of passionate
temper, with the pride and love of luxury of his father. Having Jews to
govern, he held, as his father had done, to a show of Judaism, though at
heart he was as much of a pagan as Philip. He, too, loved building, and
Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee was built by him for his capital. His
unscrupulous tyranny and his gross disregard of common righteousness
appear in his relations with John the Baptist and with Herodias, his
paramour. Jesus described him well as "that fox" (Luke xiii. 32), for he
was sly, and worked often by indirection. While his father had energy and
ability which command a sort of admiration, Antipas was not only bad but
weak.

4. Both Philip and Antipas reigned until after the death of Jesus, Philip
dying in A.D. 34, and Antipas being deposed several years later, probably
in 39. Archelaus had a much shorter rule, for he was deposed in A.D. 6,
having been accused by the Jews of unbearable barbarity and tyranny,--a
charge in which Antipas and Philip joined. The territory of Archelaus was
then made an imperial province of the second grade, ruled by a procurator
appointed from among the Roman knights. In provinces under an imperial
legate (propraetor) the procurator was an officer for the administration
of the revenues; in provinces of the rank of Judea he was, however, the
representative of the emperor in all the prerogatives of government,
having command of the army, and being the final resort in legal procedure,
as well as supervising the collection of the customs and taxes. Very
little is known of the procurators appointed after the deposition of
Archelaus, until Tiberius sent Pontius Pilate in A.D. 26. He held office
until he was deposed in 36. Josephus gives several examples of his wanton
disregard of Jewish prejudice, and of his extreme cruelty. His conduct at
the trial of Jesus was remarkably gentle and judicial in comparison with
other acts recorded of his government; yet the fear of trial at Rome,
which finally induced him to give Jesus over to be crucified, was
thoroughly characteristic; in fact, his downfall resulted from a complaint
lodged against him by certain Samaritans whom he had cruelly punished for
a Messianic uprising.

5. There were two sorts of Roman taxes in Judea: direct, which were
collected by salaried officials; and customs, which were farmed out to the
highest bidder. The direct taxes consisted of a land tax and a poll tax,
in the collection of which the procurator made use of the local Jewish
courts; the customs consisted of various duties assessed on exports, and
they were gathered by representatives of men who had bought the right to
collect these dues. The chiefs as well as their underlings are called
publicans in our New Testament, although the name strictly applies only to
the chiefs. These tax-gatherers, small and great, were everywhere despised
and execrated, because, in addition to their subserviency to a hated
government, they had a reputation, usually deserved, for all sorts of
extortion. Because of this evil repute they were commonly drawn from the
unscrupulous among the people, so that the frequent coupling of publicans
and sinners in the gospels probably rested on fact as much as on
prejudice.

6. In Samaria and Judea soldiers were under the command of the procurator;
they took orders from the tetrarch, in Galilee and Perea. The garrison of
Jerusalem consisted of one Roman cohort--from five to six hundred
men--which was reinforced at the time of the principal feasts. These and
the other forces at the disposal of the procurator were probably recruited
from the country itself, largely from among the Samaritans. The centurion
of Capernaum (Matt. viii. 5; Luke vii. 2-5) was an officer in the army of
Antipas, who, however, doubtless organized his army on the Roman pattern,
with officers who had had their training with the imperial forces.

7. The administration of justice in Samaria and Judea was theoretically in
the hands of the procurator; practically, however, it was left with the
Jewish courts, either the local councils or the great sanhedrin at
Jerusalem. This last body consisted of seventy-one "elders." Its president
was the high-priest, and its members were drawn in large degree from the
most prominent representatives of the priestly aristocracy. The scribes,
however, had a controlling influence because of the reverence in which the
multitude held them. The sanhedrin of Jerusalem had jurisdiction only
within the province of Judea, where it tried all kinds of offences; its
judgment was final, except in capital cases, when it had to yield to the
procurator, who alone could sentence to death. It had great influence also
in Galilee, and among Jews everywhere, but this was due to the regard all
Jews had for the holy city. It was, in fact, a sort of Jewish senate,
which took cognizance of everything that seemed to affect the Jewish
interests. In Galilee and Perea, Antipas held in his hands the judicial as
well as the military and financial administration.

8. To the majority of the priests religion had become chiefly a form.
They represented the worldly party among the Jews. Since the days of the
priest-princes who ruled in Jerusalem after the return from the exile,
they had constituted the Jewish aristocracy, and held most of the wealth
of the people. It was to their interest to maintain the ritual and the
traditional customs, and they were proud of their Jewish heritage; of
genuine interest in religion, however, they had little. This secular
priestly party was called the Sadducees, probably from Zadok, the
high-priest in Solomon's time. What theology the Sadducees had was for the
most part reactionary and negative. They were opposed to the more earnest
spirit and new thought of the scribes, and naturally produced some
champions who argued for their theological position; but the mass of them
cared for other things.

9. The leaders of the popular thought, on the other hand, were chiefly
noted for their religious zeal and theological acumen. They represented
the outgrowth of that spirit which in the Maccabean time had risked all to
defend the sanctity of the temple and the right of God's people to worship
him according to his law. They were known as Pharisees, because, as the
name ("separated") indicates, they insisted on the separation of the
people of God from all the defilements and snares of the heathen life
round about them. The Pharisees constituted a fraternity devoted to the
scrupulous observance of law and tradition in all the concerns of daily
life. They were specialists in religion, and were the ideal
representatives of Judaism. Their distinguishing characteristic was
reverence for the law; their religion was the religion of a book. By
punctilious obedience of the law man might hope to gain a record of merit
which should stand to his credit and secure his reward when God should
finally judge the world. Because life furnished many situations not dealt
with in the written law, there was need of its authoritative
interpretation, in order that ignorance might not cause a man to
transgress. These interpretations constituted an oral law which
practically superseded the written code, and they were handed down from
generation to generation as "the traditions of the fathers." The existence
of this oral law made necessary a company of scribes and lawyers whose
business it was to know the traditions and transmit them to their pupils.
These scribes were the teachers of Israel, the leaders of the Pharisees,
and the most highly revered class in the community. Pharisaism at its
beginning was intensely earnest, but in the time of Jesus the earnest
spirit had died out in zealous formalism. This was the inevitable result
of their virtual substitution of the written law for the living God. Their
excessive reverence had banished God from practical relation to the daily
life. They held that he had declared his will once for all in the law. His
name was scrupulously revered, his worship was cultivated with minutest
care, his judgment was anticipated with dread; but he himself, like an
Oriental monarch, was kept far from common life in an isolation suitable
to his awful holiness. By a natural consequence conscience gave place to
scrupulous regard for tradition in the religion of the scribes. The chief
question with them was not, Is this right? but, What say the elders? The
soul's sensitiveness of response to God's will and God's truth was lost in
a maze of traditions which awoke no spontaneous Amen in the moral nature,
consequently there was frequent substitution of reputation for character.
The Pharisees could make void the command, Honor thy father, by an
ingenious application of the principle of dedication of property to God
(Mark vii. 8-13), and thus under the guise of scrupulous regard for law
discovered ways for legal disregard of law. Their theory of religion gave
abundant room for a piety which made broad its phylacteries and lengthened
its prayers, while neglecting judgment, mercy, and the love of God.

10. Yet the earnest and true development in Jewish thinking was found
among the Pharisees. The early hope of Israel was almost exclusively
national. In the later books of the Old Testament, in connection with an
enlarged sense of the importance of the individual, the doctrine of a
personal resurrection to share the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom
began to appear. It had its clear development and definite adoption as
part of the faith of Judaism, however, under the influence of the
Pharisees. Along with this increased emphasis on the worth of the
individual came a large development of the doctrine of angels and spirits.
Towards both of these doctrines the Sadducees took a reactionary position.
Politically the Pharisees were theocratic in theory, but opportunists in
practice, accommodating themselves to the existing state of things so long
as the _de facto_ government did not interfere with the religious life of
the people. They looked for a kingdom in which God should be evidently the
king of his people; but they believed that his sovereignty was to be
realized through the law, hence their sole interest was in the obedience
of God's people to that law as interpreted by the traditions.

11. The theocratic spirit was more aggressive in a party which originated
in the later years of Herod the Great, and found a reckless leader in
Judas of Galilee, who started a revolt when the governor of Syria
undertook to make a census of the Jews after the deposition of Archelaus.
This party bore the name Cananeans or Zealots. They regarded with
passionate resentment the subjection of God's people to a foreign power,
and waited eagerly for an opportune time to take the sword and set up the
kingdom of God; it was with them that the final war against Rome began.
They were found in largest numbers in Galilee, where the scholasticism of
the scribes was not so dominating an influence as in Judea. Dr. Edersheim
has called them the nationalist party. In matters belonging strictly to
the religious life they followed the Pharisees, only holding a more
material conception of the hope of Israel.

12. Another development in Jewish religious life carried separatist
doctrines to the extreme. Its representatives were called Essenes, though
what the significance of the name was is no longer clear. Although they
were allied with the Pharisees in doctrine, they show in some particulars
the influence of Hellenistic Judaism. This is suggested not only by the
attention which Philo and Josephus give to them, but also by certain of
their views, which were very like the doctrines of the Pythagoreans. They
carried the pharisaic demand for separateness to the extreme of
asceticism. While they were found in nearly every town in Palestine, some
of them even practising marriage, the largest group of them lived a
celibate, monastic life near the shores of the Dead Sea. This community
was recruited by the initiation of converts, who only after a novitiate of
three years were admitted to full membership in the order. They were
characterized by an extreme scrupulousness concerning ceremonial purity,
their meals were regarded as sacrifices, and were prepared by members of
the order, who were looked upon as priests, nor were any allowed to
partake of the food until they had first bathed themselves. Their regular
garments were all white, and were regarded as vestments for use at the
sacrificial meals,--other clothing being assumed as they went out to their
work. They were industrious agriculturists, their life was communistic,
and they were renowned for their uprightness. They revered Moses as highly
as did the scribes; yet they were opposed to animal sacrifices, and,
although they sent gifts to the temple, were apparently excluded from its
worship. Their kinship with the Pythagoreans appears in that they
addressed an invocation to the sun at its rising, and conducted all their
natural functions with scrupulous modesty, "that they might not offend the
brightness of God" (Jos. Wars, ii. 8, 9). Their rejection of bloody
sacrifices, and their view that the soul is imprisoned in the body and at
death is freed for a better life, besides many features of their life that
are genuinely Jewish, such as their regard for ceremonial purity, also
show similarity to the Pythagoreans. It has always been a matter of
perplexity that these ascetics find no mention in the New Testament. They
seem to have lived a life too much apart, and to have had little sympathy
with the ideals of Jesus, or even of John the Baptist.

13. The common people followed the lead of the Pharisees, though afar
off. They accepted the teaching concerning tradition, as well as that
concerning the resurrection, conforming their lives to the prescriptions
of the scribes more or less strictly, according as they were more or loss
ruled by religious considerations. It was in consequence of their hold on
the people that the scribes in the sanhedrin were able often to dictate a
policy to the Sadducean majority. Jesus voiced the popular opinion when he
said that "the scribes sit in Moses' seat" (Matt, xxiii. 2). Their leaders
despised "this multitude which knoweth not the law" (John vii. 49), yet
delighted to legislate for them, binding heavy burdens and grievous to be
borne. Many of the people were doubtless too intent on work and gain to be
very regardful of the _minutiæ_ of conduct as ordained by the scribes;
many more were too simple-minded to follow the theories of the rabbis
concerning the aloofness of God from the life of men. These last
reverenced the scribes, followed their directions, in the main, for the
conduct of life, yet lived in fellowship with God as their fathers had,
trusting in his faithfulness, and hoping in his mercy. They are
represented in the New Testament by such as Simeon and Anna, Zachariah and
Elizabeth, Joseph and Mary, and the majority of those who heard and heeded
John's call to repentance. They were Israel's remnant of pure and
undefiled religion, and constituted what there was of good soil among the
people for the reception of the seed sown by John's successor. They had no
name, for they did not constitute a party; for convenience they may be
called the Devout.

14. Two other classes among the people are mentioned in the gospels,--the
Herodians and the Samaritans. The Herodians do not appear outside the New
Testament, and seem to have been hardly more than a group of men in whom
the secular spirit was dominant, who thought it best for their interests
and for the people's to champion the claims of the Herodian family. They
were probably more akin to the Pharisees than to the Sadducees, for the
latter were hostile to the Herodian claims, from the first; yet in spirit
they seem more like to the worldly aristocracy than to the pious scribes.
The Samaritans lived in the land, a people despising and despised. Their
territory separated Galilee from Judea, and they were a constant source of
irritation to the Jews. The hatred was inherited from the days of Ezra,
when the zealous Jews refused to allow any intercourse with the
inhabitants of Samaria. These Samaritans were spurned as of impure blood
and mixed religion (II. Kings xvii. 24-41). The severe attitude adopted
towards them by Ezra and Nehemiah led to the building of a temple on Mount
Gerizim, and the establishment of a worship which sought to rival that of
Jerusalem in all particulars. Very little is known of the tenets of the
Samaritans in the time of Jesus beyond their belief that Gerizim was the
place which, according to the law, God chose for his temple, and that a
Messiah should come to settle all questions of dispute (John iv. 25).

15. Although the religious life of the Jews centred ideally in the temple,
it found its practical expression in the synagogue. This in itself is
evidence of the relative influence of priests and scribes. There was no
confessed rivalry. The Pharisee was most insistent on the sanctity of the
temple and the importance of its ritual. Yet with the growing sense of the
religious significance of the individual as distinct from the nation,
there arose of necessity a practical need for a system of worship possible
for the great majority of the people, who could at best visit Jerusalem
but once or twice a year. The synagogue seems to have been a development
of the exile, when there was no temple and no sacrifice. It was the
characteristic institution of Judaism as a religion of the law, furnishing
in every place opportunity for prayer and study. The elders of each
community seem ordinarily to have been in control of its synagogue, and to
have had authority to exclude from its fellowship persons who had come
under the ban. In addition to these officials there was a ruler of the
synagogue, who had the direction of all that concerned the worship; a
_chazzan_, or minister, who had the care of the sacred books, administered
discipline, and instructed the children in reading the scripture; and two
or more receivers of alms. The Sabbath services consisted of prayers, and
reading of the scriptures--both law and prophets,--and an address or
sermon. It was in the sermon that the people learned to know the
"traditions of the elders," whether as applications of the law to the
daily life, or as legendary embellishments of Hebrew history and prophecy.
The preacher might be any one whom the ruler of the synagague recognized
as worthy to address the congregation.

16. The religious life which centred in the synagogue found daily
expression in the observance of the law and the traditions. In the measure
of its control by the scribes it was concerned chiefly with the Sabbath,
with the various ablutions needful to the maintenance of ceremonial
purity, with the distinctions between clean and unclean food, with the
times and ways of fasting, and with the wearing of fringes and
phylacteries. These lifeless ceremonies seem to our day wearisome and
petty in the extreme. It is probable, however, that the growth of the
various traditions had been so gradual that, as has been aptly said, the
whole usage seemed no more unreasonable to the Jews than the etiquette of
polite society does to its devotees. The evil was not so much in the
minuteness of the regulations as in the external and superficial notion of
religion which they induced.

17. Optimism was the mood of Israel's prophets from the earliest times.
Every generation looked for the dawning of a day which should banish all
ill and realize the dreams inspired by the covenant in which God had
chosen Israel for his own. In proportion as the rabbinic formalism held
control of the hearts of the people, the Messianic hope lost its warmth
and vigor. Yet the scribes did not abandon the prophetic optimism; they
held to the letter of the hope, but as its fulfilment was for them
dependent on perfect obedience to the law, oral and written, their
interest was diverted to the traditions, and their strength was given to
legal disputations. Of the rest of the people, the Sadducees naturally
gave little thought to the promise of future deliverance, they were too
absorbed with regard for present concerns. Nor is there any evidence that
the Essenes, with all their reputed knowledge of the future, cherished the
hope of a Messiah. The other elements among the people who owned the
general leadership of the scribes looked eagerly for the coming time when
God should bring to pass what he had promised through the prophets. While
some expected God himself to come in judgment, and gave no thought to an
Anointed one who should represent the Most High to the people, the
majority looked for a Son of David to sit upon his father's throne. Even
so, however, there were wide differences in the nature of the hope which
was set on the coming of this Son of David. The Zealots were looking for a
victory, which should set Israel on high over all his foes. To the rest of
the people, however, the method of the consummation was not so clear, and
they were ready to leave God to work out his purpose in his own way,
longing meanwhile for the fulfilment of his promise. One class in
particular gave themselves to visionary representations of the promised
redemption. They differed from the Zealots in that they saw with unwelcome
clearness the futility of physical attack upon their enemies; but their
faith was strong, and at the moment when outward conditions seemed most
disheartening they looked for a revelation of God's power from heaven,
destroying all sinners in his wrath, and delivering and comforting his
people, giving them their lot in a veritable Canaan situated in a renewed
earth. Such visions are recorded in the Book of Daniel and the Revelation
of John. They are found in many other apocalypses not included in our
Bible, and indicate how persistently the minds of the people turned
towards the promises spoken by the prophets, and meditated on their
fulfilment. The Devout were midway between the Zealots and the
Apocalyptists. The songs of Zachariah and Mary and the thanksgiving of
Simeon express their faith. They hoped for a kingdom as tangible as the
Zealots sought, yet they preferred to _wait_ for the consolation of
Israel. They believed that God was still in his heaven, that he was not
disregardful of his people, and that in his own time he would raise up
unto them their king. They looked for a Son of David, yet his reign was to
be as remarkable for its purification of his own people as for its
victories over their foes. These victories indeed were to be largely
spiritual, for their Messiah was to conquer in the strength of the Spirit
of God and "by the word of his mouth." Such as these were ready for a
ministry like John's, and not unready for the new ideal which Jesus was
about to offer them, though their highest spiritualization of the
Messianic hope was but a shadow of the reality which Jesus asked them to
accept.

18. This last conception of the Messiah is found in a group of psalms
written in the first century before Christ, during the early days of the
Roman interference in Judea. These Psalms of Solomon, as they are called,
are pharisaic in point of view, yet they are not rabbinic in their ideas.
Their feeling is too deep, and their reliance on God too immediate; they
fitly follow the psalms of the Old Testament, though afar off. Of another
type of contemporary literature, Apocalypse, at least two representatives
besides the Book of Daniel have come down to us from the time of Jesus or
earlier,--the so-called Book of Enoch, and the fragment known as the
Assumption of Moses. These writings have peculiar interest, because they
are probably the source of quotations found in the Epistle of Jude;
moreover, some sayings of Jesus reported in the gospels, and in particular
his chosen title, The Son of Man, are strikingly similar to expressions
found in Enoch. Can Jesus have read these books? The psalms of the Devout
were the kind of literature to pass rapidly from heart to heart, until all
who sympathized with their hope and faith had heard or seen them. The case
was different with the apocalypses. They are more elaborate and
enigmatical, and may have been only slightly known. Yet, as Jesus was
familiar with the canonical Book of Daniel, although it was not read in
the synagogue service in his time, it is possible that he may also have
read or heard other books which had not won recognition as canonical. If,
however, he knew nothing of them, the similarity between the apocalypses
and some of Jesus' ideas and expressions becomes all the more significant;
for it shows that these writings gave utterance to thoughts and feelings
shared by men who never read them, which were, therefore, no isolated
fancies, but characteristic of the religion of many of the people. With
these ideas Jesus was familiar; whether he ever read the books must remain
a question.

19. This literature exists for us only in translations made in the days of
the early church. Most of these books were originally written in Hebrew,
the language of the Old Testament, or in Aramaic, the language of
Palestine in the time of Jesus. Traces of this language as spoken by Jesus
have been preserved in the gospels,--the name _Rabbi; Abba_, translated
Father; _Talitha cumi_, addressed to the daughter of Jairus; _Ephphatha_,
to the deaf man of Bethsaida; and the cry from the cross, _Eloi, Eloi,
lama sabachthani_ (John i. 38; Mark xiv. 36; v. 41; vii. 34; xv. 34). It
is altogether probable that in his common dealings with men and in his
teachings Jesus used this language. Greek was the language of the
government and of trade, and in a measure the Jews were a bilingual
people. Jesus may thus have had some knowledge of Greek, but it is
unlikely that he ever used it to any extent either in Galilee, or Judea,
or in the regions of Tyre and Sidon.




II

Sources of Our Knowledge Of Jesus



20. The earliest existing record of events in the life of Jesus is given
to us in the epistles of Paul. His account of the appearances of the Lord
after his death and resurrection (I. Cor. xv. 3-8) was written within
thirty years of these events. The date of the testimony, however, is much
earlier, since Paul refers to the experience which transformed his own
life, and so carries us back to within a few years of the crucifixion.
Other facts from Jesus' life may be gathered from Paul, as his descent
from Abraham and David (Rom. i. 3; ix. 5); his life of obedience (Rom. v.
19; xv. 3; Phil. ii. 5-11); his poverty (II. Cor. viii. 9); his meekness
and gentleness (II. Cor. x. 1); other New Testament writings outside of
our gospels add somewhat to this restricted but very clear testimony.

21. Secular history knows little of the obscure Galilean. The testimony of
Tacitus is that the Christians "derived their name and origin from one
Christ, who in the reign of Tiberius had suffered death by the sentence of
the procurator, Pontius Pilate" (Annals, xv. 44). Suetonius makes an
obscure and seemingly ill-informed allusion to Christ in the reason he
assigns for the edict of Claudius expelling the Jews from Rome (Vit.
Claud. 25). The younger Pliny in the second century had learned that the
numerous Christian community in Bithynia was accustomed to honor Christ
as God; but he shows no knowledge of the life of Jesus beyond what must be
inferred concerning one who caused men "to bind themselves with an oath
not to enter into any wickedness, or commit thefts, robberies, or
adulteries, or falsify their word, or repudiate trusts committed to them"
(Epistles X. 96). This secular ignorance is not surprising; but the
silence of Josephus is. He mentions Jesus in but one clearly genuine
passage, when telling of the martyrdom of James, the "brother of Jesus,
who is called the Christ" (Ant. xx. 9. 1). Of John the Baptist, however,
he has a very appreciative notice (Ant, xviii. 5. 2), and it cannot be
that he was ignorant of Jesus. His appreciation of John suggests that he
could not have mentioned Jesus more fully without some approval of his
life and teaching. This would be a condemnation of his own people, whom he
desired to commend to Gentile regard; and he seems to have taken the
cowardly course of silence concerning a matter more noteworthy, even for
that generation, than much else of which he writes very fully.

22. The reason for the lack of written Christian records of Jesus' life
from the earliest time seems to be, not that the apostles had a small
sense of the importance of his earthly ministry, but that the early
generation preferred what at a later time was called the "living voice"
(Papias in Euseb. Ch. Hist. iii. 39). The impression made by Jesus was
supremely personal; he wrote nothing, did not command his disciples to
write anything, preferring to influence men's minds by personal power,
appointing them, in turn, to represent him to men as he had represented
the Father to them (John xx. 21). But the time came when the first
witnesses were passing away, and they were not many who could say, "I saw
him." Our gospels are the result of the natural desire to preserve the
apostolic testimony for a generation that could no longer hear the
apostolic voice; and they are precisely what such a sense of need would
produce,--vivid pictures of Jesus, agreeing in general features, differing
more or less in details, reflecting individual feeling for the Master, and
written not simply to inform men but to convince them of that Master's
claims. One evidence of the reality of the gospel pictures is the fact
that we so seldom feel the individual characteristics of each gospel. This
is especially true of the first three, which, to the vividness of their
picture, add a remarkable similarity of detail. Tatian, in the second
century, felt it necessary to make a continuous narrative for the use of
the church by interweaving the four gospels into one, and he has had many
successors down to our day; but the fact that unity of impression has
practically resulted from the four pictures without recourse to such an
interweaving, invites consideration of the characteristics of these
remarkable documents.

23. The first gospel impresses the careful reader with three things: (1) A
clear sense of the development of Jesus' ministry. The author introduces
his narrative by an account of the birth of Jesus, of the ministry of John
the Baptist, and of Jesus' baptism and temptation and withdrawal into
Galilee (i. 1 to iv. 17). He then depicts the public ministry by grouping
together, first, teachings of Jesus concerning the law of the kingdom of
heaven, then a series of great miracles confirming the new doctrine, then
the expansion of the ministry and deepening hostility of the Pharisees,
leading to the teaching by parables, and the final withdrawal from Galilee
to the north. This ministry resulted in the chilling of popular enthusiasm
which had been strong at the beginning, but in the winning of a few hearts
to Jesus' own ideals of the kingdom of God (iv. 18 to xvi. 20). From this
point the evangelist leads us to Jerusalem, where rejection culminates,
the sterner teachings of Jesus are massed, and his victory in seeming
defeat is exhibited (xvi. 21 to xxviii. 20). (2) The evangelist's interest
is not satisfied by this clear, strong, picture; he wishes to convince men
that Jesus is Israel's Messiah, hence, throughout, he indicates the
fulfilment of prophecy. The things in which he sees the fulfilment are
striking, for, with but one or two exceptions, they are features of the
life of Jesus objectionable to Jewish feeling. This fact, taken in
connection with the emphasis which the gospel gives to the death of Jesus
at the hands of the Jews, and to the resurrection as God's seal of
approval of him whom his people rejected, forms a forcible argument to
prove the Messiahship of Jesus, not simply in spite of his rejection by
the Jews, but by appeal to that rejection as leading to God's signal
vindication of the crucified one. (3) This evangelist, while proving that
Jesus is the Messiah promised to Israel, recognizes clearly the freedom of
the new faith from the exclusiveness of Jewish feeling. The choice of
Galilee for the Messianic ministry (iv. 12-17), the comment of Jesus on
the faith of the centurion (viii. 10-12), the rebuke of Israel in the
parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (xxi. 33-46), and especially the last
commission of the risen Lord (xxviii. 18-20), show that this gospel sought
to convince men of Jewish feeling not only that Jesus is Messiah, but also
that as Messiah he came to bring salvation to all the world.

24. The second gospel is much simpler in construction than the first,
while presenting essentially the same picture of the ministry as is found
in Matthew. To its simplicity it adds a vividness of narration which
commends Mark's account as probably representing most nearly the actual
course of the life of Jesus. While it reports fewer incidents and
teachings than either of the others, a comparison with Matthew and Luke
shows a preference in Mark for Jesus' deeds, though addresses are not
wanting; and, while shorter as a whole, for matters which he reports
Mark's record is most rich in detail, most dramatic in presentation, and
actually longer than the parallel accounts in the other gospels. The whole
narrative is animated in style (note the oft-repeated "immediately") and
full of graphic traits. The story of Jesus seems to be reproduced from a
memory which retains fresh personal impressions of events as they
occurred. Hence the frequent comments on the effect of Jesus' ministry,
such as "We never saw it on this fashion" (ii. 12), or "He hath done all
things well" (vii. 37), and the introduction into the narrative of Aramaic
words,--_Boanerges_ (iii. 17), _Talitha, cumi_ (v. 41), and the like,
which immediately have to be translated. The gospel discloses no
artificial plan, the chief word of transition is "and." While some of the
incidents recorded, such as the second Sabbath controversy (iii. 1-6) and
the question about fasting (ii. 18-22), may owe their place to association
in memory with an event of like character, the book impresses us as a
collection of annals fresh from the living memory, which present the
actual Jesus teaching and healing, and going on his way to the cross and
resurrection. After the briefest possible reference to the ministry of
John the Baptist and the baptism and temptation of Jesus (i. 1-13), this
gospel proceeds to set forth the ministry in Galilee (i. 14 to ix. 50).
The narrative then follows Jesus to Jerusalem, by way of Perea, and closes
with his victory through death and resurrection (x. 1 to xvi. 8).

25. The third gospel is more nearly a biography than any of its
companions. It opens with a preface stating that after a study of many
earlier attempts to record the life of Jesus the author has undertaken to
present as complete an account as possible of that life from the
beginning. The book is addressed to one Theophilus, doubtless a Greek
Christian, and its chief aim is practical,--to confirm conviction
concerning matters of faith (i. 1-4). The author's interest in the
completeness of his account appears in the fact that it begins with
incidents antecedent to the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus. Moreover,
to his desire for completeness we owe much of the story of Jesus,
otherwise unrecorded for us. Like the first two gospels, Luke represents
the ministry of Jesus as inaugurated in Galilee, and carried on there
until the approach of the tragedy at Jerusalem (iv. 14 to ix. 50). It is
in connection with the journey to Jerusalem (ix. 51 to xix. 27) that he
inserts most of that which is peculiar to his gospel. His account of the
rejection at Jerusalem, the crucifixion, and resurrection, follows in the
main the same lines as Matthew and Mark; but he gained his knowledge of
many particulars from different sources (xix. 28 to xxiv. 53). It is
characteristic of Luke to name Jesus "Lord" more often than either of his
predecessors. With this exalted conception is coupled a noticeable
emphasis on Jesus' ministry of compassion; here more than in any other
gospel he is pictured as the friend of sinners. Moreover, we owe chiefly
to Luke our knowledge of him as a man of prayer and as subject to repeated
temptation. An artificial exaltation of Christ, such as is often
attributed to the later apostolic thought, would tend to reduce, not
multiply, such evidences of human dependence on God. This fact increases
our confidence in the accuracy of Luke's picture. The gospel is very full
of comfort to those under the pressure of poverty, and of rebuke to
unbelieving wealth, though the parable of the Unjust Steward and story of
Zacchæus show that it does not exalt poverty for its own sake. If our
first gospel pictures Jesus as the fulfilment of God's promises to his
people, and Mark, as the man of power at work before our very eyes,
astonishing the multitude while winning the few, Luke sets before us the
Lord ministering with divine compassion to men subject to like temptations
with himself, though, unlike them, he knew no sin.

26. The first three gospels, differing as they do in point of view and
aim, present essentially one picture of the ministry of Jesus; for they
agree concerning the locality and progress of his Messianic work, and the
form and contents of his teaching, showing, in fact, verbal identity in
many parts of their narrative. For this reason they are commonly known as
the Synoptic Gospels. Yet these gospels exhibit differences as remarkable
as their likenesses. They differ perplexingly in the order in which they
arrange some of the events in Jesus' life. Which of them should be given
preference in constructing a harmonious picture of his ministry? They
often agree to the letter in their report of deeds or words of Jesus, yet
from beginning to end remarkable verbal differences stand side by side
with remarkable verbal identities. Some of the identities of language
suggest irresistibly that the evangelists have used, at least in part, the
same previously existing written record. One of the clearest evidences of
this is found in the introduction, at the same place in the parallel
accounts, of the parenthesis "then saith he to the sick of the palsy"
which interrupts the words of Jesus in the cure of the paralytic (Mark ii.
10; Matt. ix. 6; Luke v. 24). When the three gospels are carefully
compared it appears that Mark contains very little that is not found in
Matthew and Luke, and that, with one or two exceptions, Luke presents in
Mark's order the matter that he has in common with the second gospel. The
same is also true of the relation between the latter part of the Gospel of
Matthew (Matt. xiv. 1 to the end) and the parallel portion of Mark; while
the comparison of Matthew's arrangement of his earlier half with Mark
suggests that the order in the first gospel has been determined by other
than chronological considerations. In a sense, therefore, we may say that
the Gospel of Mark reveals the chronological framework on which all three
of these gospels are constructed. Comparison discloses further the
interesting fact that the matter which Matthew and Luke have in common,
after subtracting their parallels to Mark, consists almost entirely of
teachings and addresses. Each gospel, however, has some matter peculiar to
itself.

27. In considering the problem presented by these facts, it is well to
remember that no one of these gospels contains within itself any statement
concerning the identity of its author. We are indebted to tradition for
the names by which we know them, and no one of them makes any claim to
apostolic origin. The earliest reference in Christian literature which may
be applied to our gospels comes from Papias, a Christian of Asia Minor in
the second century. He reports that an earlier teacher had said, "Mark,
having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not,
indeed, in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by
Christ, for he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as
I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teachings to the needs of his
hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's
discourses. So that Mark committed no error when he thus wrote some things
as he remembered them, for he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of
the things which he had heard and not to state any of them falsely....
Matthew wrote the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language [Aramaic],
and every one interpreted them as he was able" (Euseb. Ch. Hist. iii. 39).
The result of many years' study by scholars of all shades of opinion is
the very general conclusion that the writing which Papias attributed to
Mark was essentially what we have in our second gospel.

28. It is almost as universally acknowledged that the work ascribed by the
second century elder to the apostle Matthew cannot be our first gospel;
for its language has not the characteristics which other translations from
Hebrew or Aramaic lead us to expect, while the completeness of its
narrative exceeds what is suggested by the words of Papias. If, however,
the matter which Matthew and Luke have in such rich measure in addition to
Mark's narrative be considered, the likeness between this and the writing
attributed by Papias to the apostle Matthew is noteworthy. The conclusion
is now very general, that that apostolic writing is in large measure
preserved in the discourses in our first and third gospels. The relation
of our gospels to the two books mentioned by Papias may be conceived,
then, somewhat as follows: The earliest gospel writing of which we know
anything was a collection of the teachings of Jesus made by the apostle
Matthew, in which he collected with simple narrative introductions, those
sayings of the Lord which from the beginning had passed from mouth to
mouth in the circle of the disciples. At a later time Mark wrote down the
account of the ministry of Jesus which Peter had been accustomed to relate
in his apostolic preaching. The work of the apostle Matthew, while much
richer in the sayings of Jesus, lacked the completeness that characterizes
a narrative; hence it occurred to some early disciple to blend together
these two primitive gospel records, adding such other items of knowledge
as came to his hand from oral tradition or written memoranda. As his aim
was practical rather than historical, he added such editorial comments as
would make of the new gospel an argument for the Messiahship of Jesus, as
we have seen. Since the most precious element in this new gospel was the
apostolic record of the teachings of the Lord, the name of Matthew and not
of his literary successor, was given to the book.

29. The third gospel is ascribed, by a probably trustworthy tradition, to
Luke, the companion of Paul. The author himself says that he made use of
such earlier records as were accessible, among which the chief seem to
have been the writings of Mark and the apostle Matthew. To Luke's
industry, however, we owe our knowledge of many incidents and teachings
from the life of Jesus which were not contained in these two records, and
with which we could ill afford to part. Some of these he doubtless found
in written form, and some he gathered from oral testimony. His close
agreement with Mark in the arrangement of his narrative suggests that he
found no clear evidence of a ministry of wider extent in time and place.
He therefore used Mark as his narrative framework, and of the rich
materials which he had gathered made a gospel, the completest of any
written up to his time.

30. Such in the main is the conclusion of modern study of our first three
gospels; it explains the general identity of their picture of Jesus and of
their report of his teaching; it leaves room for those individual
characteristics which give them so much of their charm; and it traces the
materials of the gospels far back of the writings as we have them,
bringing us nearer to the events which they describe. The dates of these
documents can be only approximately known. It is probable that the
"logia" collected by the apostle Matthew were written not later than 60 to
65 A.D., while the Gospel of Mark dates from before the fall of Jerusalem
in 70. Our first gospel must have been made between 70 and 100, and the
Gospel of Luke may be dated about the year 80,--all within sixty or
seventy years after the death of Jesus.

31. The fourth gospel gives us a picture of Jesus in striking contrast to
that of the other three. These present chiefly the works of the Master and
his teachings concerning the kingdom of God and human conduct, leaving the
truth concerning the teacher himself to be inferred. John opens the heart
of Jesus and makes him disclose his thought about himself in a remarkable
series of teachings of which he is the prime topic. This gospel is
avowedly an argument (xx. 30, 31); its selection of material is
confessedly partial; its aim is to confirm the faith of Christians in the
heavenly nature and saving power of their Lord; and its method is that of
appeal to testimony, to signs, and to his own self-disclosures. The
opening verses of the gospel have a somewhat abstract theological
character; the body of the book, however, consists of a succession of
incidents and teachings which follow each other in unstudied fashion like
a collection of annals. This impression is not compromised by the
recognition, at some points, of accidental displacements, like that which
has placed xiv. 30, 31 before xv. and xvi., or that which has left a long
gap between vii. 23 and the incident of v. 1-9, to which it refers. The
theme of the gospel is the self-disclosure of Jesus. This seems to have
determined the evangelist's choice of material, and, as the gospel is an
argument, he does not hesitate to mingle his own comments with his report
of Jesus' words, for example (iii. 16-21, 30-36; xii. 37-43). The book is
characterized by a vividness of detail which indicates a clear memory of
personal experience. While it is evident that the author has the most
exalted conception of the nature of his Lord, this seems to have been the
result of loving meditation on a friend who had early won the mastery over
his heart and life, and who through long years of contemplation had forced
upon his disciple's mind the conviction of his transcendent nature. The
book discloses a profoundly objective attitude; the Christ whom John
portrays is not the creature of his speculations, but the Master who has
entered into his experience as a living influence and has compelled
recognition of his significance. The Son of God is for John the human
Jesus who, though named at the outset the Word--the Logos,--is the Word
who was made flesh, that men through him might become the sons of God.

32. The contrast which the Gospel of John presents to the other three
concerns not only the teaching of Jesus, but the scene of his ministry and
its historic development as well. Whatever may be the final judgment
concerning the fourth gospel, it is manifestly constructed as a simple
collection of incidents following each other in what was meant to appear a
chronological sequence. It has been seen that the biographical framework
of the first three gospels is principally Mark's report of Peter's
narrative. Now it is a fact that in portions of Matthew and Luke, derived
elsewhere than from Mark, there are various allusions most easily
understood if it be assumed that Jesus visited Jerusalem before his
appearance there at the end of his ministry. Such, for instance, are the
parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 25-37), the story of the visit to
Mary and Martha (Luke x. 38-42), and the lamentation of Jesus over
Jerusalem (Luke xiii. 34, 35; Matt, xxiii. 37-39). All three gospels,
moreover, agree in attributing to emissaries from Jerusalem much of the
hostility manifested against Jesus in his Galilean ministry (Luke v. 17;
Mark iii. 22; Matt. xv. 1; Mark vii. 1), and presuppose such an
acquaintance of Jesus with households in and near Jerusalem as is not easy
to explain if he never visited Judea before his passion (Mark xi. 2, 3;
xiv. 14; xv. 43 and parallels; compare especially Matt, xxvii. 57; John
xix. 38). These all suggest that the narrative of Mark does not tell the
whole story, a conclusion quite in accordance with the account of his work
given by Papias. It has been assumed that Peter was a Galilean, a man of
family living in Capernaum. It is not impossible that on some of the
earlier visits of Jesus to Jerusalem he did not accompany his Master, and
in reporting the things which he knew he naturally confined himself to his
own experiences. If this can explain the predominance of Galilean
incidents in the ministry as depicted in Mark, it will explain the
predominance of Galilee in the first three gospels, and the contradiction
between John and the three is reduced to a divergence between two accounts
of Jesus' ministry written from two different points of view.

33. The question of the trustworthiness of the fourth gospel is greatly
simplified by the consideration of the one-sidedness of Mark's
representation. It is further relieved by the fact that a ministry by
Jesus in Jerusalem must have been one of constant self-assertion, for
Jerusalem represented at its highest those aspects of thought and practice
which were fundamentally opposed to all that Jesus did and taught.
Whenever in Galilee, in the ministry pictured by the first three gospels,
Jesus came in contact with the spirit and feeling characteristic of
Jerusalem, we find him meeting it by unqualified assertion of his own
independence and exalted claim to authority, altogether similar to that
emphasis of his own significance and importance which is the chief
characteristic of his teachings in the fourth gospel. If it be remembered
that that gospel was avowedly an argument written to commend to others the
reverent conclusion concerning the Lord reached by a disciple whose
thought had dwelt for long years on the marvel of that life, and if we
recognize that for such an argument the author would select the instances
and teachings most telling for his own purpose, and would do this as
naturally as the magnet draws to itself iron filings which are mingled
with a pile of sand, the exclusively personal character of the teachings
of Jesus in this gospel need cause little perplexity. Nor need it seem
surprising that the words of Jesus as reported in John share the
peculiarities of style which mark the work of the evangelist in the
prologue to the gospel and in his epistles. His purpose was not primarily
biographical but argumentative, and he has set forth the picture of his
Lord as it rose before his own heart, his memory of events being
interwoven with contemplation on the significance of that life with which
his had been so blessedly associated. In a gospel written avowedly to
produce in others a conviction like his own, the evangelist would not have
been sensible of any obligation to draw sharp lines between his
recollection of his Lord's words and his own contemplations upon them and
upon their significance for his life. If these considerations be kept in
mind we may accept the uniform tradition of antiquity, confirmed by the
plain intimation of the gospel itself, that it is essentially the work of
John, the son of Zebedee, written near the close of his life in Ephesus,
in the last decade of the first century.

34. We have in our gospel records, therefore, two authorities for the
general course of the ministry of Jesus,--Mark and John. Even if the
fourth gospel should be proved not to be the work of John, its picture of
the ministry of Jesus must be recognized as coming from some apostolic
source. A forger would hardly have invited the rejection of his work by
inventing a narrative which seems to contradict at so many points the
tradition of the other gospels. The first and third gospels furnish us
from various sources rich additions to Mark's narrative, and it is to
these two with the fourth that we turn chiefly for the teachings of Jesus.
Each gospel should be read, therefore, remembering its incompleteness,
remembering also the particular purpose and individual enthusiasm for
Jesus which produced it.

35. A word may be due to two other claimants to recognition as original
records from the life of Jesus. One class is represented by that word of
the Lord which Paul quoted to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (Acts xx.
35). Scattered here and there in writings of the apostolic and succeeding
ages are other sayings attributed to Jesus which cannot be found in our
gospels. A few of these so-called Agrapha seem worthy of him, and are
recognized as probably genuine. The most important of them is the story of
the woman taken in adultery (John vii. 53 to viii. 11), which, though not
a part of the gospel of John, doubtless gives a true incident from Jesus'
life. They represent the "many other" things which John and the other
gospels have omitted, but their small number proves that our gospels have
preserved for us practically all that was known of Jesus after the first
witnesses fell asleep. It is certainly surprising that so little exists to
supplement the story of the gospels, for they are manifestly fragmentary,
and leave much of Jesus' public life without any record. The other class
of claimants is of a quite different character,--the so-called Apocryphal
Gospels. These consist chiefly of legends connected with the birth and
early years of Jesus, and with his death and resurrection. They are for
the most part crude tales that have entirely mistaken the real character
of him whom they seek to exalt, and need only to be read to be rejected.




III

The Harmony of the Gospels



36. The church early appreciated the value and the difficulty of having
four different pictures of the life and teachings of the Lord. Irenæus at
the close of the second century felt it to be as essential that there
should be four gospels as that there should be "four zones of the world,
four principal winds, and four faces of the cherubim" (Against Heresies
III. ii. 8).

37. Before Irenæus, however, another had sought to obviate the difficulty
of having four records which seem at some points to disagree, by making a
combination of the gospels, to which he gave the title "Diatessaron."
Tatian, the author of this work, was converted from paganism about 152
A.D., and prepared his unified gospel, probably for the use of the Syrian
churches, sometime after 172. His work is one of the treasures of the
early Christian literature recovered for us within the last
quarter-century. It seems to have won great popularity in the Syrian
churches, having practically displaced the canonical gospels for nearly
three centuries, when, owing to its supposed heretical tendency, it was
suppressed by the determined effort of the church authorities. It is a
continuous record of Jesus' ministry, beginning with the first six verses
of the Gospel of John, passing then to the early chapters of Luke. It
closes with an account of the resurrection interwoven from all four
gospels, concluding with John xxi. 25. The arrangement follows generally
the order of Matthew, additional matter from the other gospels being
inserted at places which approved themselves to Tatian's judgment. Some
portions--in particular the genealogies of Jesus--were omitted altogether,
in accordance with views held by the compiler.

38. From Tatian's time to the present there have been repeated attempts to
construct a harmonious representation of events and teachings in the
ministry of Jesus, generally by setting the parallel accounts side by
side, following such a succession of events as seemed most probable. Our
evangelists cared little, if they thought at all, about the requirements
of strict biography, and they have left us records not easy to arrange on
any one chronological scheme. Concerning the chief events, however, the
gospels agree. All four report, for instance, the beginning of the work in
Galilee (Matt. iv. 12, 17; Mark i. 14, 15; Luke iv. 14, 15; John iv.
43-45); the feeding of the five thousand when Jesus' popularity in Galilee
passed its climax (Matt. xiv. 13-23; Mark vi. 30-46; Luke ix. 10-17; John
vi. 1-15); the departure from Galilee for the final visit to Jerusalem
(Matt. xix. 1, 2; Mark x. 1; Luke ix. 51; John vii. 1-10); and the week of
suffering and victory at the end (Matt. xxi. 1 to xxviii. 20; Mark xi. 1
to xvi. 8 [20]; Luke xix. 29 to xxiv. 53; John xii. 1 to xxi. 25).

39. These facts are enough to give us a clear and unified impression of
the course of Jesus' ministry. When, however, we seek to fill in the
details given in the different gospels, difficulties at once arise. Thus,
first, what shall be done with the long section which John introduces (i.
19 to iv. 42) before Jesus' withdrawal into Galilee? The other gospels
make that withdrawal the beginning of his public work. A second difficulty
arises from the unnamed feast of John v. 1. By one or another scholar this
feast has been identified with almost every Jewish festival known to us.
Another problem is furnished by the long section in Luke which is so
nearly peculiar to his gospel (ix. 51 to xviii. 14). If the section had no
parallels in the other gospels we might easily conclude that it all
belongs to a time subsequent to the final departure for Jerusalem; but it
contains at least one incident from the earlier ministry in Galilee (Luke
xi. 14-36; compare Mark iii. 19-30), and many teachings of Jesus given by
Matthew in an earlier connection appear here in Luke. Furthermore, the
section has to be adjusted to that portion of the Gospel of John which
deals with the same period and yet reports none of the same details.

40. If Mark has furnished the narrative framework adopted in the main by
the first and third gospels, the problem of the order of events in Jesus'
life becomes a question of the chronological value of Mark, and of the
estimate to be placed on the narrative of John. If the fourth gospel is
held to be of apostolic origin and trustworthy, the task of the harmonist
is chiefly that of combining these two records of Mark and John. The
testimony of the Baptist, with which the fourth gospel opens, must have
been given some time after he had baptized Jesus, and the ministry which
preceded Jesus' return to Galilee (i. 19 to iv. 42) belongs to a period
ignored by the other gospels. The first three gospels contain indications
that Jesus must have visited Judea before the close of his life. They give
no hint, however, of the time or circumstances of such earlier Judean
labor. In giving the emphasis they do to the work in Galilee, they present
a one-sided picture. When, therefore, we find in John a narrative of work
in Judea, confirmed by hints in the other gospels, we may justly assume
that the arrangement which fills out the ministry of Jesus by inserting at
the proper places in Mark's record the events found in John is essentially
true.

41. The consideration of the one-sidedness of Mark's narrative simplifies
the problem of harmony, but it does not solve all of the perplexities.
Matthew and Luke have much matter, some of it narrative, which Mark has
not, and for which he suggests no place. Where shall we put, for instance,
the cure of the centurion's servant (Matt. viii. 5-13; Luke vii. 1-10), or
John the Baptist's last message (Matt. xi. 2-19; Luke vii. 18-35)? It
would simplify matters if we could take Luke's statement that he had
"traced the course of all things accurately from the first" (Luke i. 3),
as indicating that he had arrived at exact certainty concerning the order
of events of Jesus' life. It is probable, however, that his statement was
simply a claim that he had carefully gathered material for a record of the
whole life of Jesus, from the annunciation of his birth to his ascension.
While we may believe that some trustworthy tradition led him to give the
place he has to many of the incidents which he adds to Mark's story, it
seems impossible to follow him in all respects; for instance, in severing
the account of the blasphemy of the Pharisees (xi. 14-36) from the place
which it holds in Mark (iii. 19-30).

42. Still more uncertainty exists concerning the historic connection of
teachings of Jesus to which Matthew and Luke give different settings; for
example, the Lord's Prayer (Matt. vi. 9-15; Luke xi. 1-4), and the
exhortations against anxiety (Matt. vi. 25-34; Luke xii. 22-31). We have
seen that much of the teaching common to these gospels is probably derived
from the collection of the "oracles" of the Lord made by the apostle
Matthew. Everything that we can infer concerning such a collection of
oracles indicates that, while some of the teachings may have been
connected with particular historic situations (compare Luke xi. 1), many
would altogether lack such introductory words. A later example of what
such a collection may have been has come to light recently in the
so-called "Sayings of Jesus," discovered in Egypt and published in 1897.
In these the occasion for the teaching has been quite lost; the sole
interest centres in the fact that Jesus is supposed to have said the
things recorded. If Matthew's book contained such "logia" or "oracles," it
is probable that the original connection in which most of them were spoken
was a matter of no concern to the apostle, and consequently has been lost
This in no way compromises the genuineness of these sayings of Jesus. The
treatment of Luke ix. 51 to xviii. 14 is much simplified by this
consideration. To Luke's industry (i. 1-4) we owe the preservation of some
events and very many teachings which no other evangelist has recorded.
Some of this new material (for instance, vii. 11-17, 36-50) he has
assigned a place in the midst of Mark's narrative. Most of it, however,
he has gathered together in what seems to be a sort of appendix, which he
has inserted between the close of the ministry in Galilee and the final
arrival in Judea. For many of the teachings it is now impossible to assign
a time or place. That this is so will cause no surprise or difficulty if
we remember that in the earliest days the report of what Jesus said and
did circulated in the form of oral tradition only. It was the knowledge
that first-hand witnesses were passing away that led to the writing of the
gospels. During the period of oral tradition many teachings of the Lord
were doubtless kept clearly and accurately in memory after the historic
situations which led to their first utterance were quite forgotten.

43. This fact helps to explain another perplexity in our gospel
narratives. A comparison of the two accounts of the cure of the
centurion's servant reveals differences of detail most perplexing, if we
ask for minute agreement in records of the same events. When we see that
of two accounts evidently reporting the same incident, one can say that
the centurion himself sought Jesus and asked the cure of his servant
(Matt. viii. 5, 8), while the other makes him declare himself unworthy to
come in person to the Lord (Luke vii. 7), the question arises whether
other accounts, similar in the main but differing in detail, should not be
identified as independent records of one event. Were there two cleansings
of the temple (John ii. 13-22; Mark xi. 15-19), two miraculous draughts of
fishes (Luke v. 4-11; John xxi. 5-8), two rejections at Nazareth (Mark vi.
1-6; Luke iv. 16-30), two parables of the Leaven, of the Mustard Seed
(Matt. xiii. 31-33; Luke xiii. 18-21), and of the Lost Sheep (Matt, xviii.
12-14; Luke xv. 4-7)? Such similar records are often called doublets, and
the question of identity or distinctness can be answered only after a
special study of each case. It is important to notice that a given
teaching, particularly if it took the form of an illustration, would
naturally be used by Jesus on many different occasions. When, on the other
hand, we find two accounts of specific doings of Jesus similar in detail
it is needful to recognize that definite historic situations do not so
often repeat themselves as do occasions for similar or identical
teachings.

44. All these considerations show that while the general order of events
in the life of Jesus may be determined with a good degree of probability,
we must be content to remain uncertain concerning the place to be given to
many incidents and to more teachings. Such uncertainty is of small
concern, since our unharmonized gospels have not failed during all these
centuries to produce one fair picture, to the total impression of which
each teaching and deed make definite contribution quite independently of
our ability to give to each its particular place in relation to the whole.
The degree of certainty attainable justifies, however, a continued
interest in the old study of harmony, because of the more comprehensive
idea it gives of the ministry depicted in the partial narratives of our
several gospels.




IV

The Chronology



45. The length of the public ministry of Jesus was one of the earliest
questions which arose in the study of the four gospels. In the second and
third centuries it was not uncommon to find the answer in the passage from
Isaiah (lxi. 1, 2), which Jesus declared was fulfilled in himself. "The
acceptable year of the Lord" was taken to indicate that the ministry
covered little more than a year. The fact that the first three gospels
mention but one Passover (that at the end), and but one journey to
Jerusalem, seems at first to be favorable to this conclusion, and to make
peculiarly significant the care taken by Luke to give the exact date for
the opening of Jesus' ministry (iii. 1, 2). In fact, the second century
Gnostics, relying apparently on Luke, assigned both the ministry and death
of Jesus to the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar,--an interpretation which
may have given rise to the widely spread, early tradition, found, for
example, in Tertullian (Ante-nicene Fathers, in. 160), which placed the
death of Jesus in A.D. 29, during the consulship of L. Rubellius Geminus
and C. Fufius Geminus.

46. The theory that the ministry of Jesus extended over but little more
than one year is beset, however, by difficulties that seem insuperable.
The first is presented by the three Passovers distinctly mentioned in the
Gospel of John (ii. 13; vi. 4; xii. 1). The last of these is plainly
identical with the one named in the other gospels. The second gives the
time of year for the feeding of the five thousand, and agrees with the
mention of "the green grass" in the account of Mark and Matthew (Mark vi.
39; Matt. xiv. 19). John's first Passover falls in a section which demands
a place before Mark i. 14 (compare John iii. 24). Hence it must be shown
that this first Passover is chronologically out of order in the Gospel of
John, or the one year ministry advocated by the second century Gnostics,
by Clement of Alexandria, by Origen, and of late years by Keim and others,
is seen to be impossible. The fact that at this Passover Jesus cleansed
the temple, and that the other gospels assign such a cleansing to the
close of the ministry, suggests the possibility that John has set it at
the opening of his narrative for reasons connected with his argument. This
interpretation falls, however, before the perfect simplicity of structure
of John's narrative. The transitions from incident to incident in this
gospel are those of simple succession, and indicate, on the writer's part,
no suspicion that he was contradicting notions concerning the ministry of
Jesus familiar to his contemporaries. Whatever the conclusion reached
concerning the authorship of the gospel, the fact that it gained currency
very early as apostolic would seem to prove that its conception of the
length of Jesus' ministry was not opposed to the recognized apostolic
testimony. It is safe to conclude, therefore, that time must be allowed in
Jesus' ministry for at least three Passover seasons.

47. With this conclusion most modern discussions of the question rest, and
it is possible that it may finally win common consent. The order of
Mark's narrative, however, challenges it. This gospel records near the
beginning (ii. 23) a controversy with the Pharisees occasioned by the fact
that Jesus' disciples plucked and ate the ripening grain as they passed on
a Sabbath day through the fields. As Mark places much later (vi. 30-34)
the feeding of the five thousand, which occurred at a Passover, that is
the beginning of the harvest (Lev. xxiii. 5-11), his order suggests the
necessity of including two harvest seasons in the ministry in Galilee, and
consequently four Passovers in the public life of Jesus. Two
considerations are urged against this conclusion. (1) Papias in his
reference to the Gospel of Mark criticises the order of the gospel; (2)
Mark ii. 1 to iii. 6 contains a group of five conflicts with the critics
of Jesus, which represents a massing of opposition that seems unlikely at
the outset of his Galilean work. The remark of Papias must remain obscure
until his standard of comparison is known. Some suggest that he knew
John's order and preferred it, others that he agreed with that adopted by
Tatian in his Diatessaron. Mark is in accord with neither of these. No
one, however, knows what order Papias preferred. The early conflict group
does appear like a collection drawn from different parts of the ministry.
Yet the nucleus of the group--the cure of the paralytic (ii. 1-12) and the
call of Levi (ii. 13-17)--is clearly in its right place in Mark (see
Holtzmann, Hand-commentar, I. 10). The question about fasting (ii. 18-22)
may have been asked much later, and its present place may be due to
association in tradition with the criticism of Jesus' fellowship with
publicans (ii. 16). In like manner the cure of the withered hand (iii.
1-6) may have become artificially grouped with the incident of the
cornfields. It is possible, also, that both Sabbath controversies owe
their early place in the gospel to traditional association with the early
conflicts (ii. 1-17). If so, the plucking of the grain actually occurred
some weeks after the feeding of the five thousand, and probably after the
controversy about tradition (vii. 1-23), with which, according to Mark,
Jesus' activity in Galilee practically closed. It is not clear, however,
what principle of association drew forward to the early group the Sabbath
conflict, and left in its place the controversy about tradition. It is
thus possible that the incident of the cornfields belongs also to the
early nucleus of the group; and in this case the longer ministry,
including four Passovers, must be accepted. The decision of the question
is not of vital importance, but it affects the determination of the
sequence of events in Jesus' life. Whatever the explanation of the remark
of Papias, the more the gospels are studied the more does Mark's order of
events commend itself in general as representing the probable fact. Many
students have inferred the three year ministry from the Gospel of John
alone, identifying the unnamed feast in John v. 1 with a Passover. But
John's allusion to that feast is so indefinite that the length of Jesus'
ministry must be determined quite independently of it.

48. So long a ministry as three years presents some difficulties, for all
that is told us in the four gospels would cover but a small fraction of
this time. John's statement (xx. 30) that he omitted many things from
Jesus' life in making his book is evidently true of all the evangelists,
and long gaps, such as are evident in the fourth gospel, must be assumed
in the other three. Recalling the character of the gospels as pictures of
Jesus rather than narratives of his life, we may easily acknowledge the
incompleteness of our record of the three years of ministry, and wonder
the more at the vividness of impression produced with such economy of
material. This meagreness of material is not decisive for the shorter
rather than the longer ministry, for it is evident that to effect such a
change in conviction and feeling as Jesus wrought in the minds of the
ardent Galileans who were his disciples, required time. Three years are
better suited to effect this change than two.

49. Closely related to the question of the length of Jesus' ministry is
another: Can definite dates be given for the chief events in his life? For
the year of the opening of his public activity the gospels furnish two
independent testimonies: the remark of the Jews on the occasion of Jesus'
first visit to Jerusalem, "Forty and six years was this temple in
building" (John ii. 20), and Luke's careful dating of the appearance of
John the Baptist, "in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar" (iii. 1, 2).
John ii. 20 leads to the conclusion that the first Passover fell in the
spring of A.D. 26 or 27, since we learn from Josephus (Ant. xv. 11. 1)
that Herod began to rebuild the temple in the eighteenth year of his
reign, which closed in the spring of B.C. 19. Luke iii. 1 gives a date
contradictory to the one just found, if the fifteenth year of Tiberius is
to be counted from the death of his predecessor, for Augustus died August
19, A.D. 14. Reckoned from this time the opening of John's work falls in
the year A.D. 28, and the first Passover of Jesus' ministry could not be
earlier than the spring of 29. This is at least two years later than is
indicated by the statement in John. The remark in John is, however, so
incidental and so lacking in significance for his argument that its
definiteness can be explained only as due to a clear historic
reminiscence; but it does not follow that Luke has erred in the date given
by him. Although Augustus did not die until A.D. 14, there is evidence
that Tiberius was associated with him in authority over the army and the
provinces not later than January, A.D. 12. One who lived and wrote in the
reign of Titus may possibly have applied to the reign of Tiberius a mode
of reckoning customary in the case of Titus, as Professor Ramsay has shown
(Was Christ born at Bethlehem, 202). If this is the fact, Luke reckoned
from the co-regency of Tiberius; hence the fifteenth year would be A.D. 25
or 26, according as the co-regency began before or after the first of
January, A.D. 12. This would place the first Passover of Jesus' ministry
in the spring of 26 or 27, in agreement with the hint found in John.

50. If the public ministry of Jesus began with the spring of 26 or 27, the
close of three years of activity would, come at the Passover of 29 or 30.
The former of these dates agrees with the early Christian tradition
already mentioned. But before accepting that traditional date another
matter must be considered. Jesus was crucified on the Friday at the
opening of the feast of the Passover. Whether it was the day of the
sacrifice of the Passover (14 Nisan) or the day following (15 Nisan), is
not essential for the present question. As the Jewish month began with the
first appearance of the new moon, it is evident that, in the year of
Jesus' death, the month of Nisan must have begun on a day that would make
the 14th or the 15th fall on Friday. Now it can be shown that in the year
30 the 14th of Nisan was Thursday (April 6) or Friday (April 7), for at
best only approximate certainty is attainable. The tradition which assigns
the passion to 29, generally names March 25 as the day of the month. This
date is impossible, because it does not coincide with the full moon of
that month. The choice of March 25 by a late tradition may be explained by
the fact that it was commonly regarded as the date of the spring equinox,
the turning of the year towards its renewing. Mr. Turner has shown
(HastBD. I. 415) that another date found in an early document cannot be so
explained. Epiphanius was familiar with copies of the Acts of Pilate,
which gave March 18 as the date of the crucifixion; and it is remarkable
that this date coincides with the full moon, and also falls on Friday.
Such a combination gives unusual weight to the tradition, particularly as
there is no ready way to account for its rise, as in the case of March 25.
From this supplementary tradition the year 29 gains in probability as the
year of the passion. Without attempting to arrive at a final
conclusion,--a task which must be left for chronological specialists,--it
is safe to assume that Jesus died at the Passover of A.D. 29 or 30.

51. Concluding that Jesus' active ministry fell within the years A.D. 26
to 30, is it possible to determine the date of his birth? Four hints are
furnished by the gospels: he was born before the death of Herod (Matt. ii.
1; Luke i. 5); he was about thirty years of age at his baptism (Luke iii.
23); he was born during a census conducted in Judea in accordance with
the decree of Augustus at a time when Quirinius was in authority in Syria
(Luke ii. 1, 2); after his birth wise men from the East were led to visit
him by observing "his star" (Matt. ii. 1, 2). From these facts it follows
that the birth of Jesus cannot be placed later than B.C. 4, since Herod
died about the first of April in that year (Jos. Ant. xvii. 6. 4; 8. 1,
4). The awkwardness of having to find a date _Before Christ_ for the birth
of Jesus is due to the miscalculation of the monk, Dionysius the Little,
who in the sixth century introduced our modern reckoning from "the year of
our Lord."

52. But is it impossible to determine the time of Jesus' birth more
exactly? Luke (ii. 1, 2) offers what seems to be more definite
information, but his reference to the decree of Augustus and the enrolment
under Quirinius are among the most seriously challenged statements in the
gospels. It has been said (1) that history knows of no edict of Augustus
ordering a general enrolment of "the world;" (2) that a Roman census could
not have been taken in Palestine before the death of Herod; (3) that if
such an enrolment had been taken it would have been unnecessary for Joseph
and Mary to journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem; (4) that the census taken
when Quirinius was governor of Syria is definitely assigned by Josephus to
the year after the deposition of Archelaus, A.D. 6 (Ant. xviii. 1. 1; see
also Acts v. 37); (5) that if Luke's reference to this census as the
"first" be appealed to, it must be replied that Quirinius was not governor
of Syria at any time during the lifetime of Herod. This array of
difficulties is impressive, and has persuaded many conservative students
to concede that in his reference to the census Luke has fallen into error.
Some recent discoveries in Egypt, however, have furnished new information
concerning the imperial administration of that province. Inferring that a
policy adopted in Egypt may have prevailed also in Syria, Professor Ramsay
has recently put forth a strong argument for Luke's accuracy in respect of
this census (Was Christ born at Bethlehem, 95-248). That argument may be
condensed as follows: We have evidence of a system of Roman enrolments in
Egypt taken every fourteen years, and already traced back to the time of
Augustus, the earliest document so far recovered belonging, apparently, to
the census of A.D. 20. It is at least possible that this system of
Egyptian enrolments may have been part of an imperial policy, of which all
other trace is lost excepting the statement of Luke. It is significant
that the date of the census referred to by Josephus (A.D. 6) fits exactly
the fourteen-year cycle which obtained in Egypt. If the census of A.D. 6
was preceded by an earlier one its date would be B.C. 8; that is, it would
be actually taken in B.C. 7, in order to secure the full acts for B.C. 8.

53. The statement of Tertullian (Against Marcion, iv. 19) that a census
had been taken in Judea under Augustus by Sentius Saturninus, who was
governor of Syria about 9 to 7 B.C., certainly comes from some source
independent of the gospels, and tends to confirm Luke's account of a
census before the death of Herod. That a Roman census might have been
taken in Palestine during Herod's life is seen from the fact that in A.D.
36 Vitellius, the governor of Syria, had to send Roman forces into
Cilicia Trachæa to assist Archelaus, the king of that country, to quell a
revolt caused by native resistance to a census taken after the Roman
fashion (Tacitus, Ann. vi. 41). Herod would almost certainly resent as a
mark of subjection the order to enrol his people; and the fact that he was
in disfavor with Augustus during the governorship of Saturninus (Josephus,
Ant. xvi. 9. 1-3), suggests to Professor Ramsay that he may have sought to
avoid obedience to the imperial will in the matter of the census. If after
some delay Herod was forced to obey, the enrolment may have been taken in
the year 7-6. Since it is probable that the Romans would allow Herod to
give the census as distinctly Jewish a character as possible, it is easy
to credit the order that all Jews should be registered, so far as
possible, in their ancestral homes. Hence the journey of Joseph to
Bethlehem; and if Mary wished to have her child also registered as from
David's line, her removal with Joseph to Bethlehem is explained. Such a
delay in the taking of the census would have postponed it until after the
recall of Saturninus. The statement of Tertullian may therefore indicate
simply that he knew that a census was taken in Syria by Saturninus.

54. The successor of Saturninus was Varus, who held the governorship until
after the death of Herod. How then does Luke refer to the enrolment as
taken when Quirinius was in authority? It has for a long time been known
that this man was in Syria before he was there as legate of the emperor in
A.D. 6. There seems to be evidence that Quirinius was in the East about
the year B.C. 6, putting down a rebellion on the borders of Cilicia, a
district joined with Syria into one province under the early empire.
Varus was at this time governor, but Quirinius might easily have been
looked upon as representing for the time the power of the Roman arms. If
Herod was forced to yield to the imperial wish by the presence in Syria of
this renowned captain, the statement of Luke is confirmed, and the census
at which Jesus was born was taken, according to a Jewish fashion, during
the life of Herod, but under compulsion of Rome exacted by Quirinius,
while he was in command of the Roman forces in the province of
Syria-Cilicia. This gives as a probable date for the birth of Jesus B.C.
6, which accords well with the hints previously considered, inasmuch as it
is earlier than the death of Herod, and, if born in B.C. 6, Jesus would
have been thirty-two at his baptism in A.D. 26.

55. The account given in Matthew of "the star" which drew the wise men to
Judea gives no sure help in determining the date of the birth of Jesus,
but it is at least suggestive that in the spring and autumn of B.C. 7
there occurred a remarkable conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn.
This was first noticed by Kepler in consequence of a similar conjunction
observed by him in A.D. 1603. Men much influenced by astrology must have
been impressed by such a celestial phenomenon, but that it furnishes an
explanation of the star of the wise men is not clear. If it does, it
confirms the date otherwise probable for the nativity, that is, not far
from B.C. 6.

56. Can we go further and determine the time of year or the month and day
of the nativity? It should be borne in mind that our Christmas festival
was not observed earlier than the fourth century, and that the evidence
is well-nigh conclusive that December 25th was finally selected for the
Nativity in order to hallow a much earlier and widely spread pagan
festival coincident with the winter solstice. If anything exists to
suggest the time of year it is Luke's mention of "shepherds in the field
keeping watch by night over their flock" (ii. 8). This seems to indicate
that it must have been the summer season. In winter the flocks would be
folded, not pastured, by night.

57. It therefore seems probable that Jesus was born in the summer of B.C.
6; that he was baptized in A.D. 26; that the first Passover of his
ministry was in the spring of 26 or 27; and that he was crucified in the
spring of 29 or 30.




V

The Early Years of Jesus

Matt. i. 1 to ii. 23; Luke i. 5 to ii. 52; iii. 23-38



58. It is surprising that within a century of the life of the apostles,
Christian imagination could have so completely mistaken the real greatness
of Jesus as to let its thirst for wonder fill his early years with scenes
in which his conduct is as unlovely as it is shocking. That he who in
manhood was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. vii.
26), could in youth, in a fit of ill-temper, strike a companion with death
and then meet remonstrance by cursing his accusers with blindness (Gospel
of Thomas, 4, 5); that he could mock his teachers and spitefully resent
their control (Pseudo-Matthew, 30, 31); that it could be thought worthy of
him to exhibit his superiority to common human conditions by carrying
water in his mantle when his pitcher had been broken (same, 33), or by
making clay birds in play on the Sabbath and causing them to fly when he
was rebuked for naughtiness (same, 27);--these and many like legends
exhibit incredible blindness to the real glory of the Lord. Yet such
things abound in the early attempts of the pious imagination to write the
story of the youth of Jesus, and the account of the nativity and its
antecedents fares as ill, being pitifully trivial where it is not
revolting.

59. How completely foreign all this is to the apostolic thought and
feeling is clear when we notice that excepting the first two chapters of
Matthew and Luke the New Testament tells us nothing whatever of the years
which preceded John the Baptist's ministry in the wilderness. The gospels
are books of testimony to what men had seen and heard (John i. 14); and
the epistles are practical interpretations of the same in its bearing on
religious life and hope. The apostles found no difficulty in recognizing
the divinity and sinlessness of their Lord without inquiring how he came
into the world or how he spent his early years; it was what he showed
himself to be, not how he came to be, that formed their conception of him.
Yet the early chapters of Matthew and Luke should not be classed with the
later legends. Notwithstanding the attempts of Keim to associate the
narratives of the infancy in the canonical and apocryphal gospels, a great
gulf separates them: on the one side there is a reverent and beautiful
reserve, on the other indelicate, unlovely, and trivial audacity.

60. The gospel narratives have, however, perplexities of their own, for
the two accounts agree only in the main features,--the miraculous birth in
Bethlehem in the days of Herod, Mary being the mother and Joseph the
foster-father, and Nazareth the subsequent residence. In further details
they are quite different, and at first sight seem contradictory. Moreover,
while Matthew sheds a halo of glory over the birth of Jesus, Luke draws a
picture of humble circumstances and obscurity. These differences, taken
with the silence of the rest of the New Testament concerning a miraculous
birth, constitute a real difficulty. To many it seems strange that the
disciples and the brethren of Jesus did not refer to these things if they
knew them to be true. But it must not be overlooked that any familiar
reference to the circumstances of the birth of Jesus which are narrated in
the gospels would have invited from the Jews simply a challenge of the
honor of his home. Moreover, as the knowledge of these wonders did not
keep Mary from misunderstanding her son (Luke ii. 19, 51; compare Mark in.
21, 31-35), the publication of them could hardly have helped greatly the
belief of others. The fact that Mary was so perplexed by the course of
Jesus in his ministry makes it probable that even until quite late in her
life she "kept these things and pondered them in her heart."

61. No parts of the New Testament are challenged so widely and so
confidently as these narratives of the infancy. But if they are not to be
credited with essential truth it is necessary to show what ideas cherished
in the apostolic church could have led to their invention. That John and
Paul maintain the divinity of their Lord, yet give no hint that this
involved a miraculous birth, shows that these stories are no necessary
outgrowth of that doctrine. The early Christians whether Jewish or Gentile
would not naturally choose to give pictorial form to their belief in their
Lord's divinity by the story of an incarnation. The heathen myths
concerning sons of the gods were in all their associations revolting to
Christian feeling, and, while the Jewish mind was ready to see divine
influence at work in the birth of great men in Israel (as Isaac, and
Samson, and Samuel), the whole tendency of later Judaism was hostile to
any such idea as actual incarnation. Some would explain the story of the
miraculous birth as a conclusion drawn by the Christian consciousness
from the doctrine of the sinlessness of Jesus. Yet neither Paul nor John,
who are both clear concerning the doctrine, give any idea that a
miraculous birth was essential for a sinless being. Some appeal to the
eagerness of the early Christians to exalt the virginity of Mary, This is
certainly the animus of many apocryphal legends. But the feeling is as
foreign to Jewish sentiment and New Testament teaching as it is
contradictory to the evidence in the gospels that Mary had other children
born after Jesus.

62. Moreover, the songs of Mary (Luke i. 46-55) and Zachariah (Luke i.
68--79) bear in themselves the evidence of origin before the doctrine of
the cross had transformed the Christian idea of the Messiah. That
transformed idea abounds in the Epistles and the Acts, and it is difficult
to conceive how these songs (if they were later inventions) could have
been left free of any trace of specifically Christian ideas. A Jewish
Christian would almost certainly have made them more Christian than they
are; a Gentile Christian could not have made them so strongly and
naturally Jewish as they are; while a non-Christian Jew would never have
invented them. Taken with the evidence in Ignatius (Ad Eph. xviii., xix.)
of the very early currency of the belief in a miraculous birth, they
confirm the impression that it is easier to accept the evidence offered
for the miracle than to account for the origin of the stories as legends.
The idea of a miraculous birth is very foreign to modern thought; it
becomes credible only as the transcendent nature of Jesus is recognized on
other grounds. It may not be said that the incarnation required a
miraculous conception, yet it may be acknowledged that a miraculous
conception is a most suitable method for a divine incarnation.

63. These gospel stories are chiefly significant for us in that they show
that he in whom his disciples came to recognize a divine nature began his
earthly life in the utter helplessness and dependence of infancy, and grew
through boyhood and youth to manhood with such naturalness that his
neighbors, dull concerning the things of the spirit, could not credit his
exalted claims. He is shown as one in all points like unto his brethren
(Heb. ii. 17). Two statements in Luke (ii. 40, 52) describe the growth of
the divine child as simply as that of his forerunner (Luke i. 80), or that
of the prophet of old (I. Sam. ii. 26). The clear impression of these
statements is that Jesus had a normal growth from infancy to manhood,
while the whole course of the later life as set before us in the gospels
confirms the scripture doctrine that his normal growth was free from sin
(Heb. iv. 15).

64. The knowledge of the probable conditions of his childhood is as
satisfying as the apocryphal stories are revolting. The lofty Jewish
conception of home and its relations is worthy of Jesus. The circumstances
of the home in Nazareth were humble (Matt. xiii. 55; Luke ii. 24; compare
Lev. xii. 8). Probably the house was not unlike those seen to-day, of but
one room, or at most two or three,--the tools of trade mingling with the
meagre furnishings for home-life. We should not think it a home of penury;
doubtless the circumstances of Joseph were like those of his neighbors. In
one respect this home was rich. The wife and mother had an exalted place
in the Jewish life, notwithstanding the trivial opinions of some
supercilious rabbis; and what the gospel tells of the chivalry of Joseph
renders it certain that love reigned in his home, making it fit for the
growth of the holy child.

65. Religion held sway in all the phases of Jewish life. With some it was
a religion of ceremony,--of prayers and fastings, tithes and boastful
alms, fringes and phylacteries. But Joseph and Mary belonged to the
simpler folk, who, while they reverenced the scribes as teachers, knew not
enough of their subtlety to have substituted barren rites for sincere love
for the God of their fathers and childlike trust in his mercy. Jesus knew
not only home life at its fairest, but religion at its best. A father's
most sacred duty was the teaching of his child in the religion of his
people (Deut. vi. 4-9), and then, as ever since, the son learned at his
mother's side to know and love her God, to pray to him, and to know the
scriptures. No story more thrilling and full of interest, no prospect more
rich and full of glowing hope, could be found to satisfy the child's
spirit of wonder than the story of Israel's past and God's promises for
the future. Religious culture was not confined to the home, however. The
temple at Jerusalem was the ideal centre of religious life for this
Nazareth household (Luke ii. 41) as for all the people, yet practically
worship and instruction were cultivated chiefly by the synagogue (Luke iv.
16); there God was present in his Holy Word. Week after week the boy Jesus
heard the scripture in its original Hebrew form, followed by translation
into Aramaic, and received instruction from it for daily conduct. The
synagogue probably influenced the boy's intellectual life even more
directly. In the time of Jesus schools had been established in all the
important towns, and were apparently under the control of the synagogue.
To such a school he may have been sent from about six years of age to be
taught the scriptures (compare II. Tim. iii. 15), together with the
reading (Luke iv. 16-19), and perhaps the writing, of the Hebrew language.
Of his school experience we know nothing beyond the fact that he grew in
"wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man" (Luke ii. 52),--a
sufficient contradiction of the repulsive legends of the apocryphal
gospels.

66. The physical growth incident to Jesus' development from boyhood to
manhood is a familiar thought. The intellectual unfolding which belongs to
this development is readily recognized. Not so commonly acknowledged, but
none the less clearly essential to the gospel picture, is the gradual
unfolding of the child's moral life under circumstances and stimulus
similar to those with which other children meet (Heb. iv. 15). The man
Jesus was known as the carpenter (Matt. xiii. 55). The learning of such a
trade would contribute much to the boy's mastery of his own powers. Far
more discipline would come from his fellowship with brothers and sisters
who did not understand his ways nor appreciate the deepest realities of
his life. Without robbing boyhood days of their naturalness and reality,
we may be sure that long before Jesus knew how and why he differed from
his fellows he felt more or less clearly that they were not like him. The
resulting sense of isolation was a school for self-mastery, lest isolation
foster any such pride or unloveliness as that with which later legend
dared to stain the picture of the Lord's youth. Four brothers of Jesus
are named by Mark (vi. 3),--James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon,--the
gospel adds also that he had sisters living at a later time in Nazareth.
They were all subject with him to the same home influences, and apparently
were not unresponsive to them. The similarity of thought and feeling
between the sermon on the mount and the Epistle of James is not readily
explained by the influence of master over disciple, since the days of
James's discipleship began after the resurrection of Jesus. In any case
there is no reason to think that the companions of Jesus' home were
uncommonly irritating or in any way irreligious, only Jesus was not
altogether like them (John vii. 5), and the fact of difference was a moral
discipline, which among other things led to that moral growth by which
innocence passed into positive goodness. If the home was such a school of
discipline, its neighbors, less earnest and less favored with spiritual
training, furnished more abundant occasion for self-mastery and growth.
The very fact that in his later years Jesus was no desert preacher, like
John, but social, and socially sought for, indicates that he did not win
his manhood's perfection in solitude, but in fellowship with common life
and in victory over the trials and temptations incident to it (Heb. ii.
17, 18).

67. Yet he must have been familiar with the life which is in secret (Matt.
vi. 1-18). He who in his later years was a man of much prayer, who began
(Luke iii. 21) and closed (Luke xxiii. 46) his public life with prayer, as
a boy was certainly familiar not only with the prayers of home and
synagogue, but also with quiet, personal resort to the presence of God. It
would be unjust to think of any abnormal religious precocity. Jesus was
the best example the world has seen of perfect spiritual health, but we
must believe that he came early to know God and to live much with him.

68. It is instructive in connection with this inwardness of Jesus' life to
recall the rich familiarity with the whole world of nature which appears
in his parables and other teachings. The prospect which met his eye if he
sought escape from the distractions of home and village life, has been
described by Renan: "The view from the town is limited; but if we ascend a
little to the plateau swept by a perpetual breeze, which stands above the
highest houses, the landscape is magnificent. On the west stretch the fine
outlines of Carmel, terminating in an abrupt spur which seems to run down
sheer to the sea. Next, one sees the double summit which towers above
Megiddo; the mountains of the country of Shechem, with their holy places
of the patriarchal period; the hills of Gilboa, the small picturesque
group to which is attached the graceful or terrible recollections of
Shunem and of Endor; and Tabor, with its beautiful rounded form, which
antiquity compared to a bosom. Through a gap between the mountains of
Shunem and Tabor are visible the valley of the Jordan and the high plains
of Perea, which form a continuous line from the eastern side. On the
north, the mountains of Safed, stretching towards the sea, conceal St.
Jean d'Acre, but leave the Gulf of Khaifa in sight. Such was the horizon,
of Jesus. This enchanted circle, cradle of the kingdom of God, was for
years his world. Indeed, during his whole life he went but little beyond
the familiar bounds of his childhood. For yonder, northwards, one can
almost see, on the flank of Hermon, Cæsarea-Philippi, his farthest point
of advance into the Gentile world; and to the south the less smiling
aspect of these Samaritan hills foreshadows the dreariness of Judea
beyond, parched as by a burning wind of desolation and death." In the
midst of such scenes we are to understand that, with the physical growth,
and opening of mind, and moral discipline which filled the early years of
Jesus, there came also the gradual spiritual unfolding in which the boy
rose step by step to the fuller knowledge of God and himself.

69. That unfolding is pictured in an early stage in the story given us
from the youth of Jesus. It was customary for a Jewish boy not long after
passing his twelfth year to come under full adult obligation to the law.
The visit to Jerusalem was probably in preparation for such assumption of
obligation by Jesus. All his earlier training had filled his mind with the
sacredness of the Holy City and the glory of the temple. It is easy to
feel with what joy he would first look upon Zion from the shoulder of the
Mount of Olives, as he came over it on his journey from Galilee; to
conceive how the temple and the ritual would fill him with awe in his
readiness not to criticise, but to idealize everything he saw, and to
think only of the significance given by it all to the scripture; to
imagine how eagerly he would talk in the temple court with the learned men
of his people about the law and the promises with which in home and school
his youth had been made familiar. Nor is it difficult to appreciate his
surprise, when Joseph and Mary, only after long searching for him, at last
found him in the temple, for he felt that it was the most natural place
in which he could be found. In his wondering question to Mary, "Did not
you know that I must be in my Father's house?" (Luke ii. 49), there is a
premonition of his later consciousness of peculiarly intimate relation to
God. The question was, however, a sincere inquiry. It was no precocious
rebuke of Mary's anxiety. The knowledge of himself as Son of God was only
dawning within him, and was not yet full and clear. This is shown by his
immediate obedience and his subjection to his parents in Nazareth through
many years. It is safe, in the interpretation of the acts and words of
Jesus, to banish utterly as inconceivable anything that savors of the
theatrical. We must believe that he was always true to himself, and that
the subjection which he rendered to Joseph and Mary sprang from a real
sense of childhood's dependence, and was not a show of obedience for any
edifying end however high.

70. That question "Did not you know?" is the only hint we possess of
Jesus' inner life before John's call to repentance rang through the land.
Meanwhile the carpenter's son became himself the carpenter. Joseph seems
to have died before the opening of Jesus' ministry. For Jesus as the
eldest son, this death made those years far other than a time of spiritual
retreat; responsibility for the home and the pressing duties of trade must
have filled most of the hours of his days. This is a welcome thought to
our healthiest sentiment, and true also to the earliest Christian feeling
(Heb. iv. 15). John the Baptist had his training in the wilderness, but
Jesus came from familiar intercourse with men, was welcomed in their
homes (John ii. 2), knew their life in its homely ongoing, and was the
friend of all sorts and conditions of men. After that visit to Jerusalem,
a few more years may have been spent in school, for, whether from school
instruction, or synagogue preaching, or simple daily experience, the young
man came to know the traditions of the elders and also to know that
observance of them is a mockery of the righteousness which God requires.
Yet he seems to have felt so fully in harmony with God as to be conscious
of nothing new in the fresh and vital conceptions of righteousness which
he found in the law and prophets. We may be certain that much of his
thought was given to Israel's hope of redemption, and that with the
prophets of old and the singer much nearer his own day (Ps. of Sol. xvii.
23), he longed that God, according to his promise, would raise up unto his
people, their King, the Son of David.

71. He must also have read often from that other book open before him as
he walked upon the hills of Nazareth. The beauty of the grass and of the
lilies was surely not a new discovery to him after he began to preach the
coming kingdom, nor is it likely that he waited until after his baptism to
form his habit of spending the night in prayer upon the mountain. We may
be equally sure that he did not first learn to love men and women and long
for their good after he received the call, "Thou art my beloved son" (Mark
i. 11). He who in later life read hearts clearly (John ii. 25) doubtless
gained that skill, as well as the knowledge of human sin and need, early
in his intercourse with his friends and neighbors in Nazareth; while a
clear conviction that God's kingdom consists in his sovereignty over
loyal hearts must have filled much of his thought about the promised good
which God would bring to Israel in due time. Thus we may think that in
quietness and homely industry, in secret life with God and open love for
men, in study of history and prophecy, in longing for the actual sway of
God in human life, Jesus lived his life, did his work, and grew in "wisdom
and in stature and in favor with God and man" (Luke ii. 52).




VI

John The Baptist

Matt. iii. 1-17; iv. 12; xiv. 1-12; Mark i. 1-14; vi. 14-29; Luke i. 5-25,
57-80; iii. 1-22; ix. 7-9; John i. 19-37; iii. 22-30.



72. The first reappearance of Jesus in the gospel story, after the temple
scene in his twelfth year, is on the banks of the Jordan seeking baptism
from the new prophet. One of the silent evidences of the greatness of
Jesus is the fact that so great a character as John the Baptist stands in
our thought simply as accessory to his life. For that the prophet of the
wilderness was great has been the opinion of all who have been willing to
seek him in his retirement. One reason for the common neglect of John is
doubtless the meagreness of information about him. But though details are
few, the picture of him is drawn in clearest lines: a rugged son of the
wilderness scorning the gentler things of life, threatening his people
with coming wrath and calling to repentance while yet there was time; a
preacher of practical righteousness heeded by publicans and harlots but
scorned by the elders of his people; a bold and fearless spirit, yet
subdued in the presence of another who did not strive, nor cry, nor cause
his voice to be heard in the streets. When the people thought to find in
John the promised Messiah, with unparalleled self-effacement he pointed
them to his rival and rejoiced in that rival's growing success. Side by
side they worked for a time; then the picture fails, but for a hint of a
royal audience, with a fearless rebuke of royal disgrace and sin; a prison
life, with its pathetic shaking of confidence in the early certainties; a
long and forced inaction, and the question put by a wavering faith, with
its patient and affectionate reply; then a lewd orgy, a king's oath, a
girl's demands, a martyr's release, the disciples' lamentation and their
report to that other who, though seeming a rival, was known to appreciate
best the greatness of this prophet. Such is the picture in the gospels.

73. John, unlike his greater successor, has a highly appreciative notice
from Josephus: "Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of
Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment for what
he did against John, who was called the Baptist. For Herod had had him put
to death though he was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise
virtue, both as to justice towards one another, and piety towards God, and
so to come to baptism; for baptism would be acceptable to God, if they
made use of it not in order to expiate some sin, but for the purification
of the body, provided that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by
righteousness. Now, as many flocked to him, for they were greatly moved by
hearing his words, Herod, fearing that the great influence, John had over
the people might lead to some rebellion (for the people seemed likely to
do anything he should advise), thought it far best, by putting him to
death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into
difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of his leniency
when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, in
consequence of Herod's suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the fortress
before mentioned, and was there put to death. So the Jews had the opinion
that the destruction of this army [by Aretas] was sent as a punishment
upon Herod and was the mark of God's displeasure at him" (Ant. xviii. 5.
2). This section is commonly accepted as trustworthy. Superficially
different from the gospel record and assigning quite another cause for
John's imprisonment and death, it correctly describes his character and
his influence with the people, and leaves abundant room for a more
intimately personal motive on the part of Antipas for the imprisonment of
John. If the jealousy of Herodias was the actual reason for John's arrest,
it is highly probable that another cause would be named to the world, and
a likelier one than that given by Josephus could not be found.

74. The first problem that offers itself in the study of this man is the
man himself. Whence did he come? Everything about him is surprising. He
appears as a dweller in the desert, an ascetic, holding aloof from common
life and content with the scanty fare the wilderness could offer; yet he
was keenly appreciative of his people's needs, and he knew their
sins,--the particular ones that beset Pharisees, publicans, soldiers. If a
recluse in habit, he was far from such in thought; he was therefore no
seeker for his own soul's peace in his desert life. His dress was
strikingly suggestive of the old prophet of judgment on national
infidelity (I. Kings xvii. 1; II. Kings i, 8), the Elijah whom John would
not claim to be. His message was commanding, with its double word "Repent"
and "The kingdom is near." His idea of the kingdom was definite, though
not at all developed; it signified to him God's dominion, inaugurated by a
divine judgment which should mean good for the penitent and utter
destruction for the ungodly; hence the prophet's call to repentance. His
ministry was one of grace, but the time was drawing near when the Greater
One would appear to complete by a swift judgment the work which his
forerunner was beginning. That Greater One would hew down the fruitless
tree, winnow the wheat from the chaff on the threshing floor, baptize the
penitent with divine power, and the wicked with the fire of judgment,
since his was to be a ministry of judgment, not of grace.

75. Whence, then, came this strange prophet? Near the desert region where
he spent his youth and where he first proclaimed his message of repentance
and judgment was the chief settlement of that strange company of Jews
known as Essenes. It has long been customary to think that during his
early years John was associated with these fellow-dwellers in the desert,
if he did not actually join the order. He certainly may have learned from
them many things. Their sympathy with his ascetic life and with his
thorough moral earnestness would make them attractive to him, but he was
far too original a man to get from them more than some suggestions to be
worked out in his own fashion. The simplicity of his teaching of
repentance and the disregard of ceremonial in his preaching separate him
from these monks. John may have known his desert companions, may have
appreciated some things in their discipline, but he remained independent
of their guidance.

76. The leaders of religious life and thought in his day were
unquestionably the Pharisees. The controlling idea with them, and
consequently with the people, was the sanctity of God's law. They were
conscious of the sinfulness of the people, and their demand for repentance
was constant. It is a rabbinic commonplace that the delay of the Messiah's
coming is due to lack of repentance in Israel. But near as this conception
is to John's, we need but to recall his words to the Pharisees (Matt. iii.
7) to realize how clearly he saw through the hollowness of their religious
pretence. With the quibbles of the scribes concerning small and great
commandments, Sabbaths and hand-washings, John shows no affinity. He may
have learned some things from these "sitters in Moses' seat," but he was
not of them.

77. John's message announced the near approach of the kingdom of God. It
is probable that many of those who sought his baptism were ardent
nationalists,--eager to take a hand in realizing that consummation.
Josephus indicates that it was Herod's fear lest John should lead these
Zealots to revolt that furnished the ostensible cause of his death. But
similar as were the interests of John and these nationalists, the distance
between them was great. The prophet's replies to the publicans and to the
soldiers, which contain not a word of rebuke for the hated callings (Luke
iii. 13, 14), show how fundamentally he differed from the Zealots.

78. But there was another branch of the Pharisees than that which quibbled
over Sabbath laws, traditions, and tithes, or that which itched to grasp
the sword; they were men who saw visions and dreamed dreams like those of
Daniel and the Revelation, and in their visions saw God bringing
deliverance to his people by swift and sudden judgment. There are some
marked likenesses between this type of thought and that of John,--the
impending judgment, the word of warning, the coming blessing, were all in
John; but one need only compare John's words with such an apocalypse as
the Assumption of Moses, probably written in Palestine during John's life
in the desert, to discover that the two messages do not move in the same
circle of thought at all; there is something practical, something severely
heart-searching, something at home in every-day life, about John's
announcement of the coming kingdom that is quite absent from the visions
of his contemporaries. John had not, like some of these seers, a coddling
sympathy for people steeped in sin. He traced their troubles to their own
doors, and would not let ceremonies pass in place of "fruits meet for
repentance." He came from the desert with rebuke and warning on his lips;
with no word against the hated Romans, but many against hypocritical
claimants to the privileges of Abraham; no apology for his message nor
artificial device of dream or ancient name to secure a hearing, but the
old-fashioned prophetic method of declaration of truth "whether men will
hear or whether they will forbear." "All was sharp and cutting, imperious
earnestness about final questions, unsparing overthrow of all fictitious
shams in individual as in national life. There are no theories of the law,
no new good works, no belief in the old, but simply and solely a prophetic
clutch at men's consciences, a mighty accusation, a crushing summons to
contrite repentance and speedy sanctification" (KeimJN. II. 228). We look
in vain for a parallel in any of John's contemporaries, except in that one
before whom he bowed, saying, "I have need to be baptized of thee."

79. John had, however, predecessors whose work he revived. In Isaiah's
words, "Wash you, make you clean" (Isa. i 16), one recognizes the type
which reappeared in John. The great prophetic conception of the Day of the
Lord--the day of wrath and salvation (Joel ii. 1-14)--is revived in John,
free from all the fantastic accompaniments which his contemporaries loved.
The invitations to repentance and new fidelity which abound in Isaiah,
Ezekiel, Hosea, and Joel; the summons to simple righteousness, which rang
from the lips of Micah (vi. 8), and of the great prophet of the exile
(Isa. lviii.), these tell us where John went to school and how well he
learned his lesson. It is hard for us to realize how great a novelty such
simplicity was in John's day, or how much originality it required to
attain to this discipleship of the prophets. From the time when the
curtain rises on the later history of Israel in the days of the Maccabean
struggle to the coming of that "voice crying in the wilderness," Israel
had listened in vain for a prophet who could speak God's will with
authority. The last thing that people expected when John came was such a
simple message. He was not the creature of his time, but a revival of the
older type; yet, as in the days of Elijah God had kept him seven thousand
in Israel that had not bowed the knee to Baal, so, in the later time, not
all were bereft of living faith. These devout souls furnished the soil
which could produce a life like John's, gifted and chosen by God to
restore and advance the older and more genuine religion.

80. If John was thus a revival of the older prophetic order, a second
question arises: Whence came his baptism, and what did it signify? The
gospels describe it as a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins"
(Mark i. 4). John's declaration that his greater successor should baptize
with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt. iii. 11) shows that he viewed his
baptism as a symbol, rather than as a means, of remission of sin. But it
was more than a sign of repentance, it was a confession of loyalty to the
kingdom which John's successor was to establish. It had thus a twofold
significance: (_a_) confession of and turning from the old life of sin,
and (_b_) consecration to the coming kingdom. Whence, then, came this
ordinance? Not from the Essenes, for, unlike John's baptism, the bath
required by these Jewish ascetics was an oft-repeated act. Further, John's
rite had a far deeper religious significance than the Essene washings.
These performed their ablutions to secure ritual cleanness as exemplary
disciples of the Mosaic ideal. The searching of heart which preceded
John's baptism, and the radical change of life it demanded, seem foreign
to Essenism. The baptism of John, considered as a ceremony of consecration
for the coming kingdom, was parallel rather to the initiatory oaths of the
Essene brotherhood than to their ablutions. Their custom may have served
to suggest to John a different application of the familiar sacred use of
the bath; indeed John could hardly have been uninfluenced by the usage of
his contemporaries; yet in this, as in his thought, he was not a product
of their school.

81. John's baptism was equally independent of the pharisaic influence. The
scribes made much of "divers washings," but not with any such significance
as would furnish to John his baptism of repentance and of radical change
of life. That he was not following a pharisaic leading appears in the
question put to him by the Pharisees, "Why, then, baptizest thou?" (John
i. 25). They saw something unique in the ceremony as he conducted it.

82. Many have held that he derived his baptism from the method of
admitting proselytes into the Jewish fellowship. It is clear, at least,
that the later ritual prescribed a ceremonial bath as well as circumcision
and sacrifice for all who came into Judaism from the Gentiles, and it is
difficult to conceive of a time when a ceremonial bath would not seem
indispensable, since Jews regarded all Gentile life as defiling. While
such an origin for John's baptism would give peculiar force to his rebuke
of Jewish confidence in the merits of Abraham (Matt. iii. 9), it is more
likely, as Keim has shown (JN. II. 243 and note), that in this as in his
other thought John learned of his predecessors rather than his
contemporaries. Before the giving of the older covenant from Sinai, it is
said that Moses was required "to sanctify the people and bid them wash
their garments" (Ex. xix. 10). John was proclaiming the establishment of a
new covenant, as the prophets had promised. That the people should prepare
for this by a similar bath of sanctification seems most natural. John
appeared with a revival of the older and simpler religious ideas of
Israel's past, deriving his rite as well as his thought from the springs
of his people's religious life.

83. This revival of the prophetic past had nothing scholastic or
antiquarian about it. John was a disciple, not an imitator, of the great
men of Israel; his message was not learned from Isaiah or any other,
though he was educated by studying them. What he declared, he declared as
truth immediately seen by his own soul, the essence of his power being a
revival, not in letter but in spirit, of the old, direct cry, "Thus saith
the Lord." Inasmuch as John's day was otherwise hopelessly in bondage to
tradition and the study of the letter, by so much is his greatness
enhanced in bringing again God's direct message to the human conscience.
John's greatness was that of a pioneer. The Friend of publicans and
sinners also spoke a simple speech to human hearts; he built on and
advanced from the old prophets, but it was John who was appointed to
prepare the people for the new life, "to make ready the way of the Lord"
(Mark i. 3). The clearness of his perception of truth is not the least of
his claims to greatness. His knowledge of the simplicity of God's
requirements in contrast with the hopeless maze of pharisaic traditions,
and his insight into the characters with whom he had to deal, whether the
sinless Jesus or the hypocritical Pharisees, show a man marvellously
gifted by God who made good use of his gift. This greatness appears in
superlative degree in the self-effacement of him who possessed these
powers. Greatness always knows itself more or less fully. It was not
self-ignorance that led John to claim to be but a voice, nor was it mock
humility. The confession of his unworthiness in comparison with the
mightier one who should follow is unmistakably sincere, as is the
completed joy of this friend of the bridegroom rejoicing greatly because
of the bridegroom's voice, even when the bridegroom's presence meant the
recedence of the friend into ever deepening obscurity (John iii. 30).

84. But John had marked limitations. He knew well the righteousness of
God; he knew, and, in effect, proclaimed God's readiness to forgive them
that would turn from their wicked ways; he knew the simplicity as well as
the exceeding breadth of the divine commandment; but beyond one flash of
insight (John i. 29-36), which did not avail to remould his thought, he
did not know the yearning love of God which seeks to save. It is not
strange that he did not. Some of the prophets had more knowledge of it
than he, his own favorite Isaiah knew more of it than he, but it was not
the thought of John's day. The wonder is that the Baptist so far freed
himself from current thought; yet he did not belong to the new order. He
thundered as from Sinai. The simplest child that has learned from the
heart its "Our Father" has reached a higher knowledge and entered a higher
privilege (Matt. xi. 11). John's self-effacement, wonderful as it was,
fell short of discipleship to his greater successor; in fact, at a much
later time there was still a circle of disciples of the Baptist who kept
themselves separate from the church (Acts xix. 1-7). He was doubtless too
strenuous a man readily to become a follower. He could yield his place
with unapproachable grace, but he remained the prophet of the wilderness
still. He seemed to belong consciously to the old order, and, by the very
circumstances ordained of God who sent him, he could not be of those who,
sitting at Jesus' feet, learned to surrender to him their preconceptions
and hopes, and in heart, if not in word, to say, "To whom shall we go,
thou hast the words of eternal life?" (John vi. 68).




VII

The Messianic Call

Matt. iii. 13 TO iv. 11; Mark i. 9-13; Luke iii. 21, 22; iv. 1-13; John i.
30-34



85. In the circle about John all classes of the people were represented:
Pharisees and Sadducees, jealous of innovation and apprehensive of popular
excitement; publicans and soldiers, interested in the new preacher or
touched in conscience; outcasts who came in penitence, and devout souls in
consecration. The wonder of the new message was carried throughout the
land and brought great multitudes to the Jordan. Jesus in Nazareth heard
it, and recognized in John a revival of the long-silent prophetic voice.
The summons appealed to his loyalty to God's truth, and after the
multitudes had been baptized (Luke iii. 21) he too sought the prophet of
the wilderness.

86. The connection which Luke mentions (i. 36) between the families of
Jesus and John had not led to any intimacy between the two young men. John
certainly did not know of his kinsman's mission (John i. 31), nor was his
conception of the Messiah such that he would look for its fulfilment in
one like Jesus (Matt. iii. 10-12). One thing, however, was clear as soon
as they met,--John recognized in Jesus one holier than himself (Matt. iii.
14). With a prophet's spiritual insight he read the character of Jesus
at a glance, and although that character did not prove him to be the
Messiah, it prepared John for the revelation which was soon to follow.

87. The reply of Jesus to the unwillingness of John to give him baptism
(Matt. iii. 15) was an expression of firm purpose to do God's will; the
absence of any confession of sin is therefore all the more noticeable. In
all generations the holiest men have been those most conscious of
imperfection, and in John's message and baptism confession and repentance
were primary demands; yet Jesus felt no need for repentance, and asked for
baptism with no word of confession. But for the fact that the total
impression of his life begat in his disciples the conviction that "he did
no sin" (I. Pet. ii. 22; compare John viii. 46; II. Cor. v. 21), this
silence of Jesus would offend the religious sense. Jesus, however, had no
air of self-sufficiency, he came to make surrender and "to fulfil
all-righteousness" (Matt. iii. 15). It was the positive aspect of John's
baptism that drew him to the Jordan. John was preaching the coming of
God's kingdom. The place held by the doctrine of that kingdom in the later
teaching of Jesus makes it all but certain that his thought had been
filled with it for many years. In his reading of the prophets Jesus
undoubtedly emphasized the spiritual phases of their promises, but it is
not likely that he had done much criticising of the ideas held by his
contemporaries before he came to John. As already remarked he seems to
have been quicker to discover his affinity with the older truth than to be
conscious of the novelty of his own ways of apprehending it (Matt. v. 17).
When, then, Jesus heard John's call for consecration to the approaching
kingdom he recognized the voice of duty, and he sought the baptism that he
might do all that he could to "make ready the way of the Lord."

88. This act of consecration on Jesus' part was one of personal obedience.
There were no crowds present (Luke iii. 21), and his thoughts were full of
prayer. It was an experience which concerned his innermost life with God,
and it called him to communion with heaven like that in which he sought
for wisdom before choosing his apostles (Luke vi. 12), and for strength in
view of his approaching death (Luke ix. 28, 29). His outward declaration
of loyalty to the coming kingdom was thus not an act of righteousness "to
be seen of men," but one of personal devotion to him who is and who sees
in secret (Matt. vi. 1, 6). As the transfiguration followed the prayer on
Hermon, so this initial consecration was answered from heaven. A part of
the answer was evident to John, for he saw a visible token of the gift of
the divine Spirit which was granted to Jesus for the conduct of the work
he had to do, and he recognized in Jesus the greater successor for whom he
was simply making preparation (Mark i. 10; John i. 32-34). To Jesus there
came also with the gift of the Spirit a definite word from heaven, "Thou
art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased" (Mark i. 11). The language
in Mark and Luke, and the silence of the Baptist concerning the voice from
heaven (John i. 32-34), indicate that the word came to Jesus alone, and
was his summons to undertake the work of setting up that kingdom to which
he had just pledged his loyalty. The expression "My beloved Son" had clear
Messianic significance for Jesus' contemporaries (comp. Mark xiv. 62),
and the message can have signified for him nothing less than a Messianic
call. It implied more than that child-relation to God which was the
fundamental fact in his religious life from the beginning: it had an
official meaning.

89. For Jesus the sense of being God's child was normally human, and in
his ministry he invited all men to a similar consciousness of sonship. Yet
his early years must have brought to him a realization that he was
different from his fellows. That in him which made a confession at the
baptism unnatural and which led to John's word, "I have need to be
baptized by thee," was ready to echo assent when God said, "Thou art my
Son." He accepted the call and the new office and mission which it
implied, and he must have recognized that it was for this moment that all
the past of his life had been making preparation.

90. The gift of the Spirit to Jesus, which furnished to John the proof
that the Greater One had appeared, was not an arbitrary sign. The old
prophetic thought (Isa. xi. 2; xlii. 1; lxi. 1) as well as a later popular
expectation (Ps. of Sol. xvii. 42) provided for such an anointing of the
Messiah; and in the actual conduct of his life Jesus was constantly under
the leading of this Spirit (see Matt. xii. 28 and John iii. 34). The
temptation which followed the baptism, and in which he faced the
difficulties in his new task, was the first result of the Spirit's
control. Its later influence is not so clearly marked in the gospels, but
they imply that as the older servants of God were guided and strengthened
by him, so his Son also was aided,--with this difference, however, that he
possessed completely the heavenly gift (John iii. 34). Jesus' uniform
confession of dependence on God confirms this teaching of the gift of the
divine Spirit; and his uniform consciousness of complete power and
authority confirms the testimony that he had the Spirit "without measure."

91. The temptation to which the Spirit "drove" Jesus after his baptism
gives proof that the call to assume the Messianic office came to him
unexpectedly; for the three temptations with which his long struggle ended
were echoes of the voice which he had heard at the Jordan, and subtle
insinuations of doubt of its meaning. Some withdrawal to contemplate the
significance of his appointment to a Messianic work was a mental and
spiritual necessity. As has often been said, if the gospels had not
recorded the temptation, we should have had to assume one. Jesus being the
man he was, could not have thought that his call was a summons to an
entire change in his ideals and his thoughts about God and duty. Yet he
must have been conscious of the wide differences between his conceptions
of God's kingdom and the popular expectation. Those differences, by the
measure of the definiteness of the popular thought and the ardor of the
popular hope, were the proof of the difficulty of his task. The call meant
that the Messiah could be such as he was; it meant that the kingdom could
be and must be a dominion of God primarily in the hearts of men and
consequently in their world; it meant that his work must be religious
rather than political, and gracious rather than judicial. These essentials
of the work which he could do contradicted at nearly every point the
expectations of his people. How could he succeed in the face of such
opposition? His long meditation during forty days doubtless showed him the
difficulty of his task in all its baldness, yet it did not shake his
certainty that the call had come to him from God, nor his faith that what
God had called him to do he could accomplish.

92. The gospels show no hesitation in calling the experience of these days
a temptation, nor had the Christian feeling of the first century any
difficulty in thinking of its Lord as actually suffering temptation (Heb.
ii. 18; iv. 15). A temptation to be real cannot be hypothetical; evil must
actually present itself as attractive to the tempted soul. A suggestion of
evil that takes no hold concretely of the heart is no temptation, nor is
the resistance of it any victory. The sinlessness of him who sought
baptism with no confession on his lips nor sense of penitence in his heart
offers no barrier to his experience of genuine temptation, unless we think
him incapable of sin, and therefore not "like unto his brethren." Not only
do the gospels repeatedly refer to his temptations (Luke iv. 13; Mark
viii. 31-33; Luke xxii. 28; compare Heb. v. 7-9), but they also depict
clearly the reality of these initial testings. The account as given in
Matthew and Luke represents the experience with which the forty days'
struggle culminated. The absorption of Jesus' mind had been so complete
that he had neglected the needs of his body, and when he turned to think
of earthly things he was pressed by hunger. A popular notion at a later
time, and probably also in Jesus' day, was that the Messiah would be able
to feed his people as Moses had given them manna in the wilderness (John
vi. 30-32; see EdersLJM. I. 176). He had just been endowed with the
divine Spirit for the work before him; it was therefore no fantastic idea
when the suggestion came that he should use his power to supply his own
needs in the desert. Nor was the temptation without attractiveness; his
own physical nature urged its need, and Jesus was no ascetic who found
discomfort a way of holiness. The evil in the suggestion was that it asked
him to use his newly given powers for the supply of his own needs, as if
doubting that God would care for him as for any other of his children.
There was more than distrust of God suggested; the temptation came with a
hint of another doubt,--"_If_ thou art God's Son." A miracle would prove
to himself his appointment and his power. The suggested doubt of his call
he passed unnoticed; distrust of God he repudiated instantly, falling back
on his faith in the God he had served these many years (Deut. viii. 3).
His victory is remarkable because his spirit conquered unhesitatingly
after a long ecstasy which would naturally have induced a reaction and a
surrender for the moment to the demand of lower needs.

93. This firmness of trust opened the way for another evil suggestion. In
the work before him as God's Anointed many difficulties were on either
side and across his path. He knew his people, their prejudices, and their
hardness of heart; and he knew how far he was from their ideal of a
Messiah. He knew also the watchful jealousy of Rome. Others before him,
like Judas of Galilee, had tried the Messianic rôle and had failed. He,
however, was confident of his divine call: should he not, therefore, press
forward with his work, heedless of all danger and regardless of the
dictates of prudence,--as heedless as if, trusting God's promised care,
he should cast himself down from a pinnacle of the temple to the rocks in
Kidron below? A fanatic would have yielded to such a temptation. Many
another than Jesus did so,--Theudas (Acts v. 36), the Egyptian (Acts xxi.
38); and Bar Cochba (Dio Cassius, lxix. 12-14; Euseb. Ch. Hist. iv. 6).
Jesus, however, showed his perfect mental health, repudiating the
temptation by declaring that while man may trust God's care, he must not
presumptuously put it to the test (Matt. iv. 7). The after life of Jesus
was a clear commentary on this reply. He constantly sought to avoid
situations which would compromise his mission or cut short his work (see
John vi. 15), and when at the end he suffered the death prepared for him
by his people's hatred, it was because his hour had come and he could say,
"I lay down my life of myself" (John x. 18). His marvellous control of
enthusiasm and his self-mastery in all circumstances separate Jesus from
all ecstatics and fanatics. Yet presumption must have seemed the easier
course, and could readily wear the mask of trust. He was tempted, yet
without sin.

94. As the refusal to doubt led to the temptation to presume, so the
determination to be prudent opened the way for a third assault upon his
perfect loyalty to God. The world he was to seek to save was swayed by
passions; his own people were longing for a Messiah, but they must have
their kind of a Messiah. If he would acknowledge this actual supremacy of
evil and self-will in the world, the opposition of passion and prejudice
might be avoided. If he would own the evil inevitable for the time, and
accommodate his work to it, he might then be free to lead men to higher
and more spiritual views of God's kingdom. His knowledge of his people's
grossness of heart and materialism of hope made a real temptation of the
suggestion that he should not openly oppose but should accommodate himself
to them. Jesus did not underestimate the opposition of "the kingdoms of
the world," but he truly estimated God's intolerance of any rivalry (Matt.
iv. 10), and he was true to God and to his own soul. Again, in this as in
the preceding temptations, Jesus conquered the evil suggestions by
appropriating to himself truth spoken by God's servants to Israel. Tempted
in all points like his brethren, he resisted as any one of them could have
resisted, and won a victory possible, ideally considered, to any other of
the children of men.

95. It is not idle curiosity which inquires whence the evangelists got
this story of the temptation of Jesus. Even if the whole transaction took
place on the plane of outer sensuous life, and Jesus was bodily carried to
Jerusalem and to the mountain-top, there is no probability that any
witnesses were at hand who could tell the tale. But the fact that in any
case the vision of the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time (Luke iv.
5) could have been spiritual only, since no mountain, however high (Matt.
iv. 8), could give, physically, that wide sweep of view, suggests that the
whole account tells in pictorial language an intensely real, inner
experience of Jesus. This in no respect reduces the truthfulness of the
narratives. Temptation never becomes temptation till it passes to that
inner scene of action and debate. Since Jesus shows in all his teaching a
natural use of parabolic language to set forth spiritual truth, the
inference is almost inevitable that the gospels have in like manner
adopted the language of vivid picture as alone adequate to depict the
essential reality of his inner struggle. In any case the narrative could
have come from no other source than himself. How he came to tell it we do
not know. On one of the days of private converse with his disciples after
the confession at Cæsarea Philippi he may have given them this account of
his own experience, in order to help his loyal Galileans to understand
more fully his work and the way of it, and to prepare them for that
disappointment of their expectations which they were so slow to
acknowledge as possible.

96. From this struggle in the wilderness Jesus came forth with the clear
conviction that he was God's Anointed, and in all his after life no
hesitation appeared. The kingdom which he undertook to establish was that
dominion of simple righteousness which he had learned to know and love in
the years of quiet life in Nazareth. He set out to do his work fearlessly,
but prudently, seeking to win men in his Father's way to acknowledge that
Father's sovereignty. There is no evidence that, beyond such firm
conviction and purpose, he had any fixed plan for the work he was to do,
nor that he saw clearly as yet how his earthly career would end. The third
temptation, however, shows that he was not unprepared for seeming defeat.
The struggle had been long and serious,--for the three temptations of the
end are doubtless typical of the whole of the forty days,--and the victory
was great and final. With the light of victory as well as the marks of
warfare on his face, he took his way back towards Galilee.




VIII

The First Disciples

John i. 19 TO ii. 12



97. After the withdrawal of Jesus into the wilderness, John the Baptist
continued his ministry of preaching and baptizing, moving northward up the
Jordan valley to Bethany, on the eastern side of the river, near one of
the fords below the Sea of Galilee (John i. 28). Here Galilee, doubtless,
contributed more to his audience than Judea. It is certain that some from
the borders of the lake were at this time among his constant attendants:
Andrew and Simon of Bethsaida, John the son of Zebedee, and perhaps his
brother James, probably also Philip of Bethsaida and Nathanael of Cana
(John i. 40, 41, 43-45; compare xxi. 2).

98. The leaders in Jerusalem, becoming apprehensive whither this work
would lead, sent an embassy to question John. They chose for this mission
priests and Levites of pharisaic leaning as most influential among the
people. The impression John and his message were making on the popular
mind is seen in the questions put to him, "Art thou the Messiah?"
"Elijah?" "The prophet?" (see Deut. xviii. 15), and in the challenge,
"Why, then, baptizest thou?" when John disclaimed the right to any of
these names. John's reply is the echo of his earlier proclamation of the
one mightier than he who should baptize with the Spirit (Mark i. 7, 8),
only now he added that this one was present among them (John i. 26, 27).

99. This interview occurred several weeks after Jesus' baptism, for upon
the next day John saw Jesus (John i. 29), now returned from the
temptation, and pointed him out to a group of disciples. Something in
Jesus' face or in his bearing, as he came from his temptation, must have
impressed John even more than at their first meeting; for he was led to
think of a prophetic word for the most part ignored by the Messianic
thought of his day, "He was brought as a lamb to the slaughter" (Isa.
liii. 7). As he looked on Jesus the mysterious oracle was illuminated for
him, and he cried, "Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of
the world." Once again on the next day the same thought rushed to his lips
when, with two disciples, he saw Jesus passing by (John i. 35, 36). Then
as Jesus left John's neighborhood and took up again the round of ordinary
life, John seems to have reverted to his more ordinary Messianic thought,
his momentary insight into highest truth standing as a thing apart in his
life. Such a moment's insight, caused by extraordinary circumstances, no
more requires that John should retain the high thought constantly than
does Peter's confession of Christ at Cæsarea Philippi exclude his later
rebuke of his Lord (Mark viii. 32, 33), or his denials (Mark xiv. 66-72).

100. The disciples who heard these testimonies from John understood them
to be Messianic (John i. 30-34), though their later consternation, when
the cross seemed to shatter their hopes (John xx. 9, 10, 24, 25), shows
that they did not comprehend their deeper meaning. Two of these disciples
at once attached themselves to Jesus, and one of them, Andrew of
Bethsaida, was so impressed by the new master that, having sought out his
brother Simon, he declared that they had found the Messiah. The other of
these earliest followers was John the son of Zebedee, and it is possible
that he also found his brother and introduced James from the very first
into the circle of the disciples. Jesus was about to take his departure
for Galilee, and on the next day, as he was leaving, added Philip of
Bethsaida to the little company of followers. Philip, impressed as Andrew
had been, brought Nathanael of Cana to Jesus. The undefined something
about Jesus which drew noble hearts irresistibly to himself, and his
marvellous knowledge of this new comer, produced the same effect in
Nathanael, as was seen earlier in Andrew and Philip, and he acknowledged
the new master as "Son of God, King of Israel" (John i. 49).

101. These early confessions in the fourth gospel present a difficulty in
view of Jesus' warm approval of Peter's acknowledgment of him at Cæsarea
Philippi (Matt. xvi. 13-20). Jesus saw in that confession a distinct
advance in the disciples' thought and faith. Yet the religious feeling
which early questioned whether the Baptist even were not the Messiah (Luke
iii. 15) would almost certainly have concluded that John's greater
successor must be God's anointed. The very fact that men's thoughts about
the Messiah were varied and complex made them ready for some modifications
of their preconceptions. One with such subtle personal power as Jesus had
exercised was almost sure to be hailed by some with enthusiasm as the
looked-for representative of God. In fact, it is probable that at any
time in the early days of his ministry Jesus could have been proclaimed
Messiah, provided he had accepted the people's terms. Such a confession
would have been merely the outcome of enthusiasm. The people, even the
disciples, did not know Jesus. They all had high hopes and somewhat fixed
ideas about the Messiah, nearly every one of which was destined to rude
shock. How little they knew him Jesus realized (John i. 51), and his
self-mastery is manifest in his attitude to this early enthusiasm. He was
no visionary; he had a great work to do and a long lesson to teach, and he
was patient enough to teach it little by little. He did not rebuke the
ill-informed faith of a Nathanael, but sought gradually to supplant the
old thought of the Messiah and of the kingdom by new truth, and to bind
men's affections to himself for his own sake and the truth's sake, not
simply for the idea which he impersonated to them.

102. The visit to Cana seems to have found a place in the fourth gospel,
because there the new disciples discovered in their master miraculous
powers which were to them a sign that he was in truth God's anointed. It
is probable that at the time of this miracle the disciples thought only of
the power and the marvel, yet the sharp contrast between John's ascetic
habit and Jesus' use of his divine resources to relieve embarrassment at a
wedding feast must have impressed every man among them. Their minds,
however, were as yet too full of Messianic hopes to leave much room for
reflection. They were content to have a sign, for in the view of Jesus'
contemporaries signs were essential marks of the Messiah (John vi. 30;
vii. 31; Mark viii. 11). They did their reflecting later (John ii. 22).

103. Miracles are as great a stumbling-block to modern thought as they
were a help to the contemporaries of Jesus. The study of Jesus' life
cannot ignore this fact, nor make little of it. It is fair to insist,
however, that the question is one of evidence, not of metaphysical
possibility. Men are wisely slow to-day to claim that they can tell what
are the limits of the possible. If the question is one of evidence, it is
in an important sense true that the evidence for miracle in the life of
Jesus is appreciable only when that life is viewed in its completeness.
The miracles attributed to Jesus may be studied, however, for the
disclosure which they give of his character, and of his relation to common
human need. So it is with this first sign at Cana. Jesus had just heard
the call to be Messiah, and in his lonely struggle in the wilderness had
given a loyal answer to that call, and had set out to do his Father's
business in his Father's way. He who by the Jordan still carried the marks
of struggle, so that the Baptist saw in him the suffering Saviour of
Isaiah liii., now returned to the ordinary daily life in Galilee, and as a
guest at a wedding feast he commenced that ministry of simple human
friendliness (Matt. xi. 19; compare Mark ii. 15-17; Luke xv. 1, 2), which
set him in sharp contrast alike with John's asceticism and with the
ritualism and pedantry of the Pharisees.

104. His human friendliness is all the more worthy of note, inasmuch as on
his return to Cana Jesus did not take up again the old relations of life
as they existed before his baptism. This is clear from his reply to his
mother when she reported the scarcity of wine (John ii. 3-5). While it is
true that the title by which Jesus addressed Mary was neither
disrespectful nor unkind (John xix. 26), the reply itself was a warning
that now he was no longer hers in the old sense. A new mission had been
given him, which henceforth would determine all his conduct, and in that
mission she could not now share. Here is one of the many indications
(compare Mark iii. 21, 31-35; Luke ii. 48) that Mary did not understand
her son nor his work until much later (John xix. 25; Acts i. 14). That
with such a clear sense of his new and serious mission Jesus' first
official act was one of kindly relief for social embarrassment is most
significant. He chose to show his divine authority to his new disciples in
a way that brought joy to a festal company. Little as the disciples were
likely to appreciate it at the time, it was beautifully indicative of the
simplicity and everyday lovableness of Jesus' idea of the earnest service
of God.

105. With the disciples thus strengthened in faith, and the mother not
separated from him though unable to know his deepest thoughts, and the
brethren who could not yet nor later understand their kinsman and his
work, Jesus went down to Capernaum (John ii. 12), which proved thenceforth
to be the centre of his greatest work and teaching. There for a time, how
long cannot be known, he continued in quiet fellowship with his new
friends, until the approach of the Passover drew him to Jerusalem to make
formal opening of his Messianic work in that centre of his people's
religious life.






Part II

The Ministry




I

General Survey of the Ministry



106. The attempt to arrange an orderly account of the way in which Jesus
set about the work to which he was called at his baptism is met at the
outset by a problem. The vivid and familiar words of Mark (i. 14),
seconded by the representation in both Matthew (iv. 12) and Luke (iv. 14),
indicate the imprisonment of John as the occasion, and Galilee as the
scene of the inauguration of Jesus' public ministry. The fourth gospel, on
the other hand, tells of a work of Jesus and his disciples in Judea prior
to the imprisonment of John (in. 24), and makes this work follow at some
interval after the inauguration of the Messianic ministry in Jerusalem.
The minuteness of detail of time and place in the early chapters of John
(i. 19 to iv. 43), together with the vividness of their narrative, give
them strong claim to credence. They thus record a ministry earlier than
that narrated in the other gospels, proving that the actual inauguration
of Jesus' work occurred in Jerusalem at a Passover season previous to the
imprisonment of John. This is known as the Early Judean Ministry.

107. The fact that Peter was wont to tell the story of Jesus' life in such
a way as to lead Mark to set the opening of the ministry after the close
of John's activity, indicates that that beginning of work in Galilee
seemed to the disciples to be in a way the actual inauguration of Jesus'
constructive and successful work. Peter cannot have been ignorant of the
labors in Judea, though he may not himself have accompanied Jesus to the
Passover. A new stage in the life of Jesus began, therefore, with his
withdrawal to Galilee.

108. The story of the Galilean ministry is given chiefly by the first
three gospels, John contributing but two incidents to the period covered
by that ministry,--a second miracle at Cana (iv. 46-54), and a visit to
Judea (v. 1-47),--and relating more fully the story of the feeding of the
multitudes (vi. 1-71). The journey from Judea through Samaria (John iv.
1-45) should be identified with the removal to Galilee which stands at the
beginning of Mark's record (i. 14; Matt. iv. 12; Luke iv. 14). Mark's
account of the Galilean activity of Jesus (i. 14 to ix. 50) is one of such
simple and steady progress that the whole period must be considered as a
unit.

109. In the use which Matthew (iv. 12 to xviii. 35) and Luke (iv. 14 to
ix. 50) make of Mark's record this unity is emphasized. Their treatment of
the matter which they add, however, makes it best to study the period
topically rather than attempt to follow closely a chronological sequence.
As it is probable that the early writing ascribed by Papias to the apostle
Matthew failed to preserve in many cases any record of the time and place
of the teachings of Jesus, so is it certain that the first and third
evangelists have distributed quite differently the material which they
seem to have derived from that apostolic document. Mention need only be
made of the exhortation against anxiety which Matthew places in the
sermon on the mount (vi. 19-34), and which Luke has given after the close
of the Galilean activity (xii. 22-34). It is possible to form some
judgment of the general relations of such discourses from the character of
their contents, but in the absence of positive statement by the
evangelists it is hopeless to seek to give them a more definite historical
setting. A topical study can consider them as contributions to the period
to which they belong, while a chronological study would be lost in
uncertain conjectures. A topical study may, however, disclose the fact
that sequence of time was identical with development of method. This is,
in general, the case with the Galilean ministry. The new lesson which
Jesus began to teach after the confession at Cæsarea Philippi marked the
supreme turning point in his whole public activity. Before that crisis the
work of Jesus was a constructive preparation for the question which called
forth Peter's confession. Subsequently his work was that of making ready
for the end, which from that time on he foretold. As has been stated, the
Galilean ministry is the story of the first three gospels, except for two
incidents and a discourse added by John. The visit to the feast of
Tabernacles (John vii. 1 to viii. 59) stands on the border between the
work in Galilee and that which followed. It was one of Jesus' many
attempts to win Jerusalem, and is evidence that the author of the fourth
gospel--either because of special interest in the capital, or because of
superior knowledge of the work of his Master in Judea--gave emphasis to a
side of the life of Jesus which the other gospels have neglected.

110. With the close of the constructive ministry in Galilee, the account
of Mark (x. 1; compare Matt xix. 1; Luke ix. 51) turns towards Jerusalem
and the cross. The journey was not direct, but traversed Perea, the domain
of Antipas beyond Jordan, and was accompanied by continued ministry of
teaching and healing (Mark x. 1-52; Matt. xix. 1 to xx. 34). It is at this
point that Luke has inserted the long section peculiar to his gospel (ix.
51 to xviii. 14), becoming again parallel with Mark as Jesus drew near to
Jerusalem (xviii. 15 to xix. 28; compare Mark x. 13-52). Much of that
which Luke adds gives evidence that in all probability it should be placed
before the change in method at Cæsarea Philippi, while much of it
undoubtedly belongs to the last months of Jesus' life. Since the last
journey to Jerusalem is reported with considerable fulness, it is natural
in a study of Jesus' life to treat that journey by itself. At this point
John contributes important additions to the record (ix. 1 to xi. 57)
showing that the journey was not continuous, but was interrupted by
several more or less hurried visits to the capital, renewed efforts of
Jesus to win the city.

111. With the final arrival in Jerusalem the four gospels come together in
a record of the last days and the crucifixion (Mark xi. 1 to xv. 47; Matt,
xxi 1 to xxvii. 66; Luke xix. 29 to xxiii. 56; John xi. 55 to xix. 42).
The evangelists, in their accounts of the last week, seem to have had
access to completer and more varied information than for any other part of
the ministry. This causes some difficulties in constructing an ordered
conception of the events, yet it greatly adds to the fulness of our
knowledge. It is easier, therefore, to consider the period in three
parts,--the final controversies in Jerusalem, the Last Supper, and the
betrayal, trial, and crucifixion.

112. In a sense the resurrection and ascension form the conclusion of the
final visit to Jerusalem, and should be treated with the last week. In a
larger sense, however, they form the culmination of the whole ministry,
and therefore constitute a final stage in the study of Jesus' life. At
this point the record of the gospels is supplemented by the first chapter
of the Acts and by Paul's concise report of the appearances of the risen
Christ (I. Cor. xv. 3-8). The various accounts exhibit perplexing
independence of each other. In total impression, however, they agree, and
show that the tragedy, by which the enemies of Jesus thought to end his
career, was turned into signal triumph.

   Outline of Events in the Early Judean Ministry


   The first Passover of the public ministry: Cleansing of the
   temple--John ii. 13-22.

   Early results in Jerusalem: Discourse with Nicodemus--John ii. 23 to
   iii. 15.

   Withdrawal into rural parts of Judea to preach and baptize--John in.
   22-30; iv. 1, 2.

   Imprisonment of John the Baptist--Matt. iv. 12; Mark i. 14.

   Withdrawal from Judea through Samaria--John iv. 1-42.

   Unlooked-for welcome in Galilee--John iv. 43-45.

   ? Second sign at Cana: Cure of the Nobleman's son--John iv. 46-54 (see
   sect. A 41).

   [Retirement at Nazareth, the disciples resuming their accustomed
   calling. Inferred from Matt. iv. 13; Luke iv. 31; Matt. iv. 18-22 and
   ||s.]

   Events marked ? should possibly be given a different place; ||s stands
   for "parallel accounts;" for sections marked A--as A 41--see Appendix.




II

The Early Ministry in Judea



113. We owe to the fourth gospel our knowledge of the fact that Jesus
began his general ministry in Jerusalem. The silence of the other records
concerning this beginning cannot discredit the testimony of John. For
these other records themselves indicate in various ways that Jesus had
repeatedly sought to win Jerusalem before his final visit at the end of
his life (compare Luke xiii. 34; Matt. xxiii. 37). Moreover, the fourth
gospel is confirmed by the probability, rising almost to necessity, that
such a mission as Jesus conceived his to be must seek first to win the
leaders of his people. The temple at Jerusalem was the centre of worship,
drawing all Jews sooner or later to itself--even as Jesus in early youth
was accustomed to go thither at the time of feasts (Luke ii. 41).
Worshippers of God throughout the world prayed with their faces towards
Jerusalem (Dan. vi. 10). Moreover, at Jerusalem the chief of the scribes,
as well as the chief of the priests, were to be found. Compared with
Jerusalem all other places were provincial and of small influence. A
Messiah, who had not from the outset given up hope of winning the capital,
cannot have long delayed his effort to find a following there.

114. Arriving at Jerusalem at the Passover season, in the early spring,
Jesus remained in Judea until the following December (John iv. 35).
Evidently the record which John gives of these months is most fragmentary,
and from his own statement (xx. 30, 31) it seems highly probable that it
is one sided, emphasizing those events and teachings in which Jesus
disclosed more or less clearly his claim to be the Messiah. Doubtless the
full record would show a much closer similarity between this early work in
Judea and that later conducted in Galilee than a comparison of John with
the other gospels would suggest; yet it is evident that Jesus opened his
ministry in Jerusalem with an unrestrained frankness that is not found
later in Galilee.

115. It is a mistake to think of the cleansing of the temple as a distinct
Messianic manifesto. The market in the temple was a licensed affront to
spiritual religion. It found its excuse for being in the requirement that
worshippers offer to the priests for sacrifice animals levitically clean
and acceptable, and that gifts for the temple treasury be made in no coin
other than the sacred "shekel of the sanctuary." The chief priests
appreciated the convenience which worshippers coming from a distance would
find if they could obtain all the means of worship within the temple
enclosure itself. The hierarchy or its representatives seem also to have
appreciated the opportunity to charge good prices for the accommodation so
afforded. The result was the intrusion of the spirit of the market-place,
with all its disputes and haggling, into the place set apart for worship.
In fact, the only part of the temple open to Gentiles who might wish to
worship Israel's God was filled with distraction, unseemly strife, and
extortion (compare Mark xi. 17). Such despite done the sanctity of God's
house must have outraged the pious sense of many a devout Israelite. There
is no doubt of what an Isaiah or a Micah would have said and done in such
a situation. This is exactly what Jesus did. His act was the assumption of
a full prophetic authority. In itself considered it was nothing more. In
his expulsion of the traders he had the conscience of the people for his
ally. There is no need to think of any use of miraculous power. His moral
earnestness, coupled with the underlying consciousness on the part of the
traders themselves that they had no business in God's house, readily
explains the confusion and departure of the intruders. Even those who
challenged Jesus' conduct did not venture to defend the presence of the
market in the temple. They only demanded that Jesus show his warrant for
disturbing a condition of things authorized by the priests.

116. The temple cleansing is recorded in the other gospels at the end of
Jesus' ministry, just before the hostility of the Jews culminated in his
condemnation and death. Inasmuch as these gospels give no account of a
ministry by Jesus in Jerusalem before the last week of his life, it is
easy to see how this event came to be associated by them with the only
Jerusalem sojourn which they record. The definite place given to the event
in John, together with the seeming necessity that Jesus should condemn
such authorized affront to the very idea of worship, mark this cleansing
as the inaugural act of Jesus' ministry of spiritual religion, rather than
as a final stern rebuke closing his effort to win his people. Against the
conclusion commonly held that Jesus cleansed the temple both at the
opening and at the close of his course is the extreme improbability that
the traders would have been caught twice in the same way. The event fits
in closely with the story of the last week, because it actually led to the
beginning of opposition in Jerusalem to the prophet from Galilee. At the
first the opposition was doubtless of a scornful sort. Later it grew in
bitterness when it saw how Jesus was able to arouse a popular enthusiasm
that seemed to threaten the stability of existing conditions.

117. The reply of Jesus to the challenge of his authority for his
high-handed act shows that he offered it to the people as an invitation;
he would lead them to a higher idea and practice of worship (compare John
iv. 21-24). When they demanded the warrant for his act, he saw that they
were not ready to follow him, and could not appreciate the only warrant he
needed for his course. He cleansed the temple because they were destroying
it as a place where men could worship God in spirit. In reply to the
challenge, he who later taught the Samaritan woman that the worship of God
is not dependent on any place however sacred, answered that they might
finish their work and destroy the temple as a house of God, yet he would
speedily re-establish a true means of approach to the Most High for the
souls of men. He clothed his reply in a figurative dress, as he was often
wont to do in his teaching,--"Destroy this temple, and in three days I
will raise it up." To his unsympathetic hearers it must have been
completely enigmatic. Even the disciples did not catch its meaning until
after the resurrection had taught them that in their Master a new chapter
in God's dealing with men had begun.

118. The unreadiness of the Jewish leaders to receive the only kind of
message he had to offer produced in Jesus a decided reserve. He did not
lack a certain kind of success in Jerusalem. His cures of the sick won him
many followers who seemed ready to believe almost anything of him. But the
attitude taken by the leaders made it evident that Jesus must make
disciples who should understand in some measure at least his idea of God's
kingdom, and, understanding, must be ready to be loyal to it through good
report and evil. For the position taken by the leaders of the people had
an ominous significance. It could mean but one thing for
Jesus,--unrelenting conflict. If they could not be won, they who would so
legalize the desecration of God's house would not hesitate at any extreme
in opposing his messenger. This possibility confronted Jesus at the very
outset; therefore he held the popular enthusiasm in check, knowing that
as yet it had little of that kind of faith which could endure seeming
defeat.

119. One of those who were drawn to him, however, gave Jesus opportunity
to lay aside his reserve and speak clearly of the truth lie came to
publish. He was a member of the Jewish sanhedrin, a rabbi apparently held
in high regard in Jerusalem. While his associates were dismissing the
claims of Jesus with a wave of the hand, Nicodemus sought out the new
teacher by night, and showed his desire to learn what Jesus held to be
truth concerning God's kingdom. Jesus first reminded the teacher of Israel
of the old doctrine of the prophets, that Israel must find a new heart
before God's kingdom can come (Jer. xxxi. 31-34; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27), and
then declared that the heavenly truth which God now would reveal to men is
that all can have the needed new life as freely as the plague-stricken
Israelites found relief when Moses lifted up the brazen serpent. This
conversation serves to introduce the evangelist's interpretation of Jesus
as the only begotten Son of God sent in love to redeem the world (John
iii. 16-21).

120. John's record suggests that Jesus left Jerusalem shortly after the
conversation with Nicodemus. His work there was not without success, for
Nicodemus seems to have been henceforth his loyal advocate (compare John
vii. 50-52; xix. 39); and it may be that at the time of this sojourn he
won the hearts of his friends in Bethany, for the first picture the
gospels give of this household seems to presuppose a somewhat intimate
relation of Jesus to the family (Luke x. 38-42). It would be idle to
speculate whether it was at this time or later that he became acquainted
with Joseph of Arimathea, or the friends who during the last week of his
life showed him hospitality (Mark xi. 2-6; xiv. 12-16).

121. For a time after his withdrawal from Jerusalem he lingered in Judea,
carrying on a simple ministry of preparation like that of John the
Baptist. In this way the summer and early autumn seem to have passed,
Jesus growing more popular as a prophet than John himself had been. The
fact that Jesus' disciples administered baptism in connection with his
work roused the jealousy of some of John's followers, and attracted again
the attention of Jerusalem to the new activity of the bold disturber of
the temple market. John's disciples complained to him of Jesus' rivalry,
and received his self-effacing confession, "He must increase, I must
decrease." The Pharisees, on the other hand, made Jesus feel that further
work in Judea was for the time unwise, and he withdrew into Galilee for
retirement, since "a prophet has no honor in his own country" (John iv.
1-3, 44). Baffled in his first effort to win his people, this journey back
from the region of the holy city must have been one of no little sadness
for Jesus. Some urgency for haste led him by the direct road through
despised Samaria. A seemingly chance conversation with a woman at Jacob's
well, where he was resting at noonday, gave him an opportunity for
ministry which was more ingenuously received than any which he had been
able to render in Judea; and to this woman he declared himself even more
plainly than to Nicodemus, and preached to her that spiritual idea of
worship which he had sought to enforce by cleansing Jerusalem's temple.
Samaria was so isolated from all Jewish interest that Jesus felt no need
for reserve in this "strange" land. The few days spent there must have
been peculiarly welcome to his heart, fresh from rejection in Judea.

122. One reason why he wished to hasten from Judea seems to have been his
knowledge of the hostile movement which was making against John the
Baptist. Either before or soon after Jesus started for Galilee Herod had
arrested John, ostensibly as a measure of public safety owing to John's
undue popularity (Jos. Ant. xviii. 5. 2). Herod may have been encouraged
to take this step by the hostility of the Pharisees to the plain-spoken
prophet of the desert (see John iv. 1-3). The fourth gospel leaves its
readers to infer that the imprisonment took place somewhere about this
time (compare iii. 24 and v. 35), while the other gospels unite in giving
this arrest as the occasion for Jesus' withdrawal into Galilee.

123. Arrived in Galilee, Jesus seems to have returned to his home at
Nazareth, while his disciples went back to their customary occupations,
until he summoned them again to join him in a new ministry (see sect.
125). John assigns to this time the cure of a nobleman's son. The father
sought out Jesus at Cana, having left his son sick at Capernaum. At first
Jesus apparently repelled his approach, even as he had dealt with seekers
after marvels at Jerusalem; but on hearing the father's cry of need and
trust, he at once spoke the word of healing. This event is in so many ways
a duplicate of the cure of a centurion's servant recorded in Matthew and
Luke, that to many it seems but another version of the same incident.
Considering the variations in the story reported by Matthew and Luke, it
is clearly not possible to prove that John tells of a different case. Yet
the simple fact of similarity of some details in two events should not
exclude the possibility of their still being quite distinct. The reception
which Jesus gave the two requests for help is very different, and the case
reported in John is in keeping with the attitude of Jesus before he began
his new ministry in Galilee. On his arrival in Galilee he wished to avoid
a mere wonder faith begotten of the enthusiasm he excited in Jerusalem,
yet this wish yielded at once when a genuine need sought relief at his
hands.

124. The apparent result of this first activity in Judea was
disappointment and failure. He had won no considerable following in the
capital. He had definitely excited the jealousy and opposition of the
leading men of his nation. Even such popular enthusiasm as had followed
his mighty works was of a sort that Jesus could not encourage. The
situation in Judea had at length become so nearly untenable that he
decided to withdraw into seclusion in Galilee, where, as a prophet, he
could be "without honor." He had gone to Jerusalem eager to begin there,
where God should have had readiest service, the ministry of the kingdom of
God. Challenge, cold criticism, and superficial faith were the results. A
new beginning must be made on other lines in other places. Meanwhile Jesus
retired to his home and his followers to theirs.

   Outline of Events in the Galilean Ministry (Chapters III. And IV.)


   The imprisonment of John and the withdrawal of Jesus into
   Galilee--Matt. iv. 12-17; Mark i. 14, 15; Luke iv. 14, 15.

   Removal from Nazareth to Capernaum--Matt. iv. 13-16; Luke iv. 31.

   The call of Simon and Andrew, James and John--Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark i.
   16-20; Luke v. 1-11.

   First work in Capernaum--Matt. viii. 14-17; Mark i. 21-34; Luke iv.
   31-41.

   First circuit of Galilee--Matt. iv. 23; viii. 2-4; Mark i. 35-45; Luke
   iv. 42-44; v. 12-16.

   Cure of a paralytic in Capernaum--Matt. ix. 2-8; Mark ii. 1-12; Luke v.
   17-26.

   The call of Matthew--Matt. ix. 9-13; Mark ii. 13-17; Luke v. 27-32.

   ? The question about fasting--Matt ix. 14-17; Mark ii. 18-22; Luke v.
   33-39 (see sects. 47; A 54).

   ? Sabbath cure at Jerusalem at the unnamed feast--John v. 1-47 (see
   sect. A 53).

   ? The Sabbath controversy in the Galilean grain fields--Matt. xii. 1-8;
   Mark ii. 23-28; Luke vi. 1-5 (see sects. 47; A 54).

   ? Another Sabbath controversy: cure of a withered hand--Matt. xii.
   9-14; Mark iii. 1-6; Luke vi. 6-11 (see sects. 47; A 54).

   Jesus followed by multitudes from all parts--Matt. iv. 23-25; xii.
   15-21; Mark iii. 7-12; Luke vi. 17-19.

   The choosing of the twelve--Matt. x. 2-4; Mark iii. 13-19; Luke vi.
   12-19.

   The sermon on the mount--Matt. v. 1 to viii. 1; Luke vi. 20 to vii. 1
   (see sect. A 55).

   The cure of a centurion's servant--Matt. viii. 5-13; Luke vii. 1-10;
   John iv. 46-54.

   The restoration of the widow's son at Nain--Luke vii. 11-17.

   The message from John in prison--Matt. xi. 2-19; Luke vii. 18-35.

   The anointing of Jesus by a sinful woman--Luke vii. 36-50.

   The companions of Jesus on his second circuit of Galilee--Luke viii.
   1-3.

   Cure of a demoniac in Capernaum and blasphemy by the Pharisees--Matt.
   xii. 22-45; Mark iii. 19^a-30; Luke xi. 14-36.

   The true kindred of Jesus--Matt. xii. 46-50; Mark iii. 31-35; Luke
   viii. 19-21.

   The parables by the sea--Matt. xiii. 1-53; Mark iv. 1-34; Luke viii.
   4-18 (see sect. A 56).

   The tempest stilled--Matt. viii. 18, 23-27; Mark iv. 35-41; Luke viii.
   22-25.

   Cure of the Gadarene demoniac--Matt. viii. 28-34; Mark v. 1-20; Luke
   viii. 26-39.

   The restoration of the daughter of Jairus and cure of an invalid
   woman--Matt. ix. 1, 18-26; Mark v. 21-43; Luke viii. 40-56.

   Cure of blind and dumb--Matt. ix. 27-34.

   Rejection at Nazareth--Matt. xiii. 54-58; Mark vi. 1-6^a; Luke iv.
   16-30 (see sect. A 52).

   Third circuit of Galilee--Matt. ix. 35; Mark vi. 6^b.

   The mission of the twelve--Matt. ix. 36 to xi. 1; Mark vi. 7-13; Luke
   ix. 1-6 (see sect. A 57).

   The death of John the Baptist--Matt. xiv. 1-12; Mark vi. 14-29; Luke
   ix. 7-9.

   Withdrawal of Jesus across the sea and feeding of the five
   thousand--Matt. xiv. 13-23; Mark vi. 30-46; Luke ix. 10-17; John vi.
   1-15.

   Return to Capernaum, Jesus walking on the water--Matt. xiv. 24-36; Mark
   vi. 47-56; John vi. 16-21.

   Teaching about the Bread of Life in the synagogue at Capernaum--John
   vi. 22-71 (see sect. A 59).

   Controversy concerning tradition: handwashing, etc.--Matt. xv. 1-20;
   Mark vii. 1-23.

   Withdrawal to regions of Tyre and Sidon: the Syrophoenician woman's
   daughter--Matt. xv. 21-28; Mark vii. 24-30.

   Return through Decapolis--Matt. xv. 29-31; Mark vii. 31-37.

   ? The feeding of the four thousand--Matt. xv. 32-38; Mark viii. 1-9
   (see sect. A 58).

   Pharisaic challenge in Galilee, and warning against the leaven of the
   Pharisees--Matt xv. 39 to xvi. 12; Mark viii. 10-21.

   Cure of blind man near Bethsaida--Mark viii. 22-26.

   Peter's confession of Jesus as Christ near Cæsarea Philippi--Matt. xvi.
   13-20; Mark viii. 27-30; Luke ix. 18-21.

   The new lesson, that the Christ must die--Matt. xvi. 21-28; Mark viii.
   31 to ix. 1; Luke ix. 22-27.

   The transfiguration--Matt. xvii. 1-13; Mark ix. 2-13; Luke ix. 28-36.

   Cure of the epileptic boy--Matt. xvii. 14-20; Mark ix. 14-29; Luke ix.
   37-43^a.

   Second prediction of approaching death and resurrection--Matt. xvii.
   22, 23; Mark ix. 30-32; Luke ix. 43^b-45.

   Return to Capernaum: the temple tax--Matt. xvii. 24-27; Mark ix. 33^a.

   Teachings concerning humility and forgiveness--Matt. xviii. 1-35; Mark
   ix. 33-50; Luke ix. 46-50.

   Visit of Jesus to Jerusalem at the feast of Tabernacles--John vii.
   1-52; viii. 12-59 (see sect. A 60).

   ? The woman taken in adultery--John vii. 53 to viii. 11 (see sect.
   163).

   The following probably belong to the Galilean ministry before the
   confession at Cæsarea Philippi (see sect. 168):--

   The disciples taught to pray--Matt. vi. 9-15; vii. 7-11; Luke xi. 1-13.

   The cure of an infirm woman on the Sabbath--Luke xiii. 10-17.

   Two parables: mustard-seed and leaven--Matt. xiii. 31-33; Luke xiii.
   18-21 (see sect. A 56).

   The parable of the rich fool--Luke xii. 13-21.

   Cure on a Sabbath and teaching at a Pharisee's table--Luke xiv. 1-24.

   Five parables--Luke xv. 1 to xvi. 31.

   Certain disconnected teachings--Luke xvii. 1-4.




III

The Ministry In Galilee--its Aim And Method



125. The work of Jesus in Galilee, which is the principal theme of the
first three gospels, began with a removal from Nazareth to Capernaum, and
the calling of four fishermen to be his constant followers. The ready
obedience which Simon and Andrew and James and John gave to this call is
an interesting evidence that they did not first come to know Jesus at the
time of this summons. The narrative presupposes some such earlier
association as is reported in John, followed by a temporary return to
their old homes and occupations, while Jesus sought seclusion after his
work in Judea. The first evangelist has most vividly indicated the
development of the Galilean ministry, directing attention to two points of
beginning,--the beginning of Jesus' preaching of the kingdom (Matt. iv.
17) and the beginning of his predictions of his own sufferings and death
(xvi. 21). Between these two beginnings lies the ministry of Jesus to the
enthusiastic multitudes, the second of them marking his choice of a more
restricted audience and a less popular message. Within the first of these
periods two events mark epochs,--the mission of the twelve (Matt. ix. 36;
x. I) to preach the coming kingdom of God and to multiply Jesus' ministry
of healing, and the feeding of the five thousand when the popular
enthusiasm reached its climax (John vi. 14, 15). These events fall not
far apart, and mark two different phases of the same stage of development
in his work. The first is emphasized by Matthew, the second by John; both
help to a clearer understanding of the narrative which Mark has furnished
to the other gospels for their story of the Galilean ministry. The table
at the head of this chapter indicates in outline the probable succession
of events in the Galilean period. The order adopted is that of Mark,
supplemented by the other gospels. Luke's additions are inserted in his
order where there is not some reason for believing that he himself
disregarded the exact sequence of events. Thus the rejection at Nazareth
is placed late, as in Mark. Much of the material in the long section
peculiar to Luke is assigned in general to this Galilean period, since all
knowledge of its precise location in time and place has been lost for us,
as it not unlikely was for Luke. Although Matthew is the gospel giving the
clearest general view of the Galilean work, it shows the greatest
disarrangement of details, and aids but little in determining the sequence
of events. The material from that gospel is assigned place in accordance
with such hints as are discoverable in parallel or associated parts of
Mark or Luke. Of John's contributions one--the feeding of the
multitudes--is clearly located by its identity with a narrative found in
all the other gospels. The visit to Jerusalem at the unnamed feast can be
only tentatively placed.

126. Viewing this gospel story as a whole, the parallel development of
popular enthusiasm and official hostility at once attracts attention.
Jesus' first cures in the synagogue at Capernaum roused the interest and
wonder of the multitudes to such an extent that he felt constrained to
withdraw to other towns. On his return to Capernaum he was so beset with
crowds that the friends of the paralytic could get at him only by breaking
up the roof. It was when Jesus found himself followed by multitudes from
all parts of the land that he selected twelve of his disciples "that they
might be with him and that he might send them forth to preach," and
addressed to them in the hearing of the multitudes the exacting, although
unspeakably winsome teaching of the sermon on the mount. This condition of
things continued even after Herod had killed John the Baptist, for when
Jesus, having heard of John's fate, sought retirement with his disciples
across the sea of Galilee, he was robbed of his seclusion by throngs who
flocked to him to be healed and to hear of the kingdom of God.

127. The popular enthusiasm was not indifferent to the question who this
new teacher might be. At first Jesus impressed the people by his
authoritative teaching and cures. After the raising of the widow's son at
Nain the popular feeling found a more definite declaration,--"a great
prophet has risen up among us." The cure of a demoniac in Capernaum raised
the further incredulous query, "Can this be the Son of David?" The notion
that he might be the Messiah seems to have gained acceptance more and more
as Jesus' popularity grew, for at the time of the feeding of the
multitudes the enthusiasm burst into a flame of determination to force him
to undertake the work for which he was so eminently fitted, but from which
for some inexplicable reason he seemed to shrink (John vi. 15).

128. Parallel with the growth of popular enthusiasm, and in part because
of it, the religious leaders early assumed and consistently maintained an
attitude of opposition. The gospels connect the critics of Jesus now and
again with the Pharisees of the capital--the Galilean Pharisees being
represented as more or less friendly. At the first appearance of Jesus in
Capernaum even the Sabbath cure in the synagogue passed unchallenged; but
on the return from his first excursion to other towns, Jesus found critics
in his audience (Luke connects them directly with Jerusalem). From time to
time such censors as these objected to the forgiveness by Jesus of the
sins of the paralytic (Mark ii. 6, 7), criticised his social relations
with outcasts like the publicans (Mark ii. 16), took offence at his
carelessness of the Sabbath tradition in his instruction of his disciples
(Mark ii. 24), and sought to turn the tide of rising popular enthusiasm by
ascribing his power to cure to a league with the devil (Mark iii. 22).
Baffled in one charge, they would turn to another, until, after the
feeding of the multitudes, Jesus showed his complete disregard of all they
held most dear, replying to a criticism of his disciples for carelessness
of the ritual of hand-washing by an authoritative setting aside of the
whole body of their traditions, as well as of the Levitical ceremonial of
clean and unclean meats (Mark vii. 1-23).

129. The wonder is, not that popular enthusiasm for Jesus was great, but
that it was so hesitating in its judgment about him. The province which
provided a following to Judas of Galilee a generation earlier than the
public ministry of Jesus, and which under John of Gischala furnished the
chief support to the revolt against Rome a generation later, could have
been excited to uncontrollable passion by the simple idea that a leader
was present who could be made to head a movement for Jewish liberty. But
there was something about Jesus which made it impossible to think of him
as such a Messiah. He was much more moved by sin lurking within than by
wrong inflicted from without. He looked for God's kingdom, as did the
Zealots, but he looked for it within the heart more than in outward
circumstances. Even the dreamers among the people, who were as unready as
Jesus for any uprising against Rome, and who waited for God to show his
own hand in judgment, found in Jesus--come to seek and to save that which
was lost--something so contradictory of their idea of the celestial judge
that they could not easily think of him as a Messiah. Jesus was a puzzle
to the people. They were sure that he was a prophet; but if at any time
some were tempted to query, "Can this be the Son of David?" the
incredulous folk expected ever a negative reply.

130. This was as Jesus wished it to be. An unreasoning enthusiasm could
only hinder his work. When his early cures in Capernaum stirred the ardent
feelings of the multitudes, he took occasion to withdraw to other towns
and allow popular feeling to cool. When later he found himself pressed
upon by crowds from all quarters of the land, by the sermon on the mount
he set them thinking on strange and highly spiritual things, far removed
from the thoughts of Zealots and apocalyptic dreamers.

131. The manifest contradiction of popular Messianic ideas which Jesus
presented in his own person usually served to check undue ardor as long
as he was present. But when some demoniac proclaimed the high station of
Jesus, and thus seemed to the people to give supernatural testimony; or
when some one in need sought him apart from the multitudes, Jesus
frequently enjoined silence. These injunctions of silence are enigmas
until they are viewed as a part of Jesus' effort to keep control of
popular feeling. In his absence the people might dwell on his power and
easily come to imagine him to be what he was not and could not be. Jesus
was able by these means to restrain unthinking enthusiasm until the
multitudes whom he fed on the east side of the sea determined to force him
to do their will as a Messiah. Then he refused to follow where they
called, and that happened which would doubtless have happened at an
earlier time but for Jesus' caution,--the popular enthusiasm subsided, and
his active work with the common people was at an end. But he had held off
this crisis until there were a few who did not follow the popular
defection, but rather clung to him from whom they had heard the words of
eternal life (John vi. 68).

132. Jesus' caution brings to light one aspect of his aim in the Galilean
ministry,--he sought to win acceptance for the truth he proclaimed. His
message as reported in the synoptic gospels was the near approach of the
kingdom of God. Any such proclamation was sure of eager hearing. At first
he seems to have been content to gather and interest the multitudes by
this preaching and the works which accompanied it. But he early took
occasion to state his ideas in the hearing of the multitudes, and in terms
so simple, so concerned with every-day life, so exacting as respects
conduct, and so lacking in the customary glowing picture of the future,
that the people could not mistake such a teacher for a simple fulfiller of
their ideas. In this early sermon in effect, and later with increasing
plainness, he set forth his doctrine of a kingdom of heaven coming not
with observation, present actually among a people who knew it not, like a
seed growing secretly in the earth, or leaven quietly leavening a lump of
meal. By word and deed, in sermon and by parable, he insisted on this
simple and every-day conception of God's rule among men. With Pharisee,
Zealot, and dreamer, he held that "the best is yet to be," yet all three
classes found their most cherished ideals set at nought by the new
champion of the soul's inner life in fellowship with the living God. In
all his teaching there was a claim of authority and a manifest
independence which indicate certainty on his part concerning his own
mission. Yet so completely is the personal question retired for the time,
that in his rebuke of the blasphemy of the Pharisees he took pains to
declare that it was not because they had spoken against the Son of Man,
that they were in danger, but because they had spoken against the Spirit
of God, whose presence was manifest in his works. He wished, primarily, to
win disciples to the kingdom of God.

133. Yet Jesus was not indifferent in Galilee to what the people thought
about himself. The question at Cæsarea Philippi shows more fully the aim
of his ministry. During all the period of the preaching of the kingdom he
never hesitated to assert himself whenever need for such self-assertion
arose. This was evident in his dealing with his pharisaic critics. He
rarely argued with them, and always assumed a tone of authority which was
above challenge, asserting that the Son of Man had authority to forgive
sins, was lord of the Sabbath, was greater than the temple or Jonah or
Solomon. Moreover, in his positive teaching of the new truth he assumed
such an authoritative tone that any who thought upon it could but remark
the extraordinary claim involved in his simple "I say unto you." He wished
also to win disciples to himself.

134. The key to the ministry in Galilee is furnished in Jesus' answer to
the message from John the Baptist. John in prison had heard of the works
of his successor. Jesus did so much that promised a fulfilment of the
Messianic hope, yet left so much undone, contradicting in so many ways the
current idea of a Messiah by his studied avoidance of any demonstration,
that the older prophet felt a momentary doubt of the correctness of his
earlier conviction. It is in no way strange that he experienced a reaction
from that exalted moment of insight when he pointed out Jesus as the Lamb
of God, particularly after his restless activity had been caged within the
walls of his prison. Jesus showed that he did not count it strange, by his
treatment of John's quesestion and by his words about John after the
messengers had gone. Yet in his reply he gently suggested that the
question already had its answer if John would but look rightly for it. He
simply referred to the things that were being done before the eyes of all,
and asked John to form from them a conclusion concerning him who did them.
One aid he offered to the imprisoned prophet,--a word from the Book of
Isaiah (xxxv. 5f., lxi. 1f.),--and added a blessing for such as "should
find nothing to stumble at in him." Here Jesus emphasized his works, and
allowed his message to speak for itself; but he frankly indicated that he
expected people to pass from wonder at his ministry to an opinion about
himself. At Cæsarea Philippi he showed to his disciples that this opinion
about himself was the significant thing in his eyes. Throughout the
ministry in Galilee, therefore, this twofold aim appears. Jesus would
first divert attention from himself to his message, in order that he might
win disciples to the kingdom of God as he conceived it. Having so attached
them to his idea of the kingdom, he desired to be recognized as that
kingdom's prince, the Messiah promised by God for his people. He retired
behind his message in order that men might be drawn to the truth which he
held dear, knowing that thus they would find themselves led captive to
himself in a willing devotion.

135. This aim explains his retirement when popularity pressed, his
exacting teaching about the spirituality of the kingdom of God, and his
injunctions of silence. He wished to be known, to be thought about, to be
accepted as God's anointed, but he would have this only by a genuine
surrender to his leadership. His disciples must own him master and follow
him, however much he might disappoint their misconceptions. This aim, too,
explains his frank self-assertions and exalted personal claims in
opposition to official criticism. He would not be false to his own sense
of masterhood, nor allow people to think him bold when his critics were
away, and cowardly in their presence. Therefore, when needful, he invited
attention to himself as greater than the temple or as lord of the
Sabbath. This kind of self-assertion, however, served his purpose as well
as his customary self-retirement, for it forced people to face the
contradiction which he offered to the accepted religious ideas of their
leaders.

136. The method which Jesus chose has already been repeatedly
indicated,--teaching and preaching on the one hand, and works of
helpfulness to men on the other. The character of the teaching of this
period is shown in three discourses,--the Sermon on the Mount, the
Discourse in Parables, and the Instructions to the Twelve. The sermon on
the mount is given in different forms in Matthew and Luke, that in Matthew
being evidently the more complete, even after deduction has been made of
those parts which Luke has assigned with high probability to a later time.
This address was spoken to the disciples of Jesus found among the
multitudes who flocked to him from all quarters. It opened with words of
congratulation for those who, characterized by qualities often despised,
were yet heirs of God's kingdom. The thought then passed to the
responsibility of such heirs of the kingdom for the help of a needy world.
Next, since much in the words and works of Jesus hitherto might have
suggested to men that he was indifferent to the older religion of his
people, he carefully explained that he came, not to set aside the old, but
to realize the spiritual idea for which it stood, by establishing a more
exacting standard of righteousness. This more exacting righteousness Jesus
illustrated by a series of restatements of the older law, and then by a
group of criticisms of current religious practice. The sermon closed with
warnings against complacent censoriousness in judging other men's
failures, and a solemn declaration of the vital seriousness of "these
sayings of mine." The righteousness required by this new law is not only
more exacting but unspeakably worthier than the old, being more simply
manifested in common life, and demanding more intimate filial fellowship
with the living God.

137. The teachings included in the sermon by the first gospel, but placed
later by Luke, supplement the sermon by bidding God's child to lead a
trustful life, knowing that the heavenly Father cares for him. That Luke
has omitted much which from Matthew's account clearly belonged to the
original sermon may be explained by the fact that Gentile readers did not
share the interest which Jesus' hearers had, and which the readers of the
first gospel had, in the relation of the new gospel to the older law.
Hence the restatement of older commands and the criticism of current
practice was omitted. Similar to the teachings which the first gospel has
included in the sermon, are many which Luke has preserved in the section
peculiar to himself. It is not unlikely that they belong also to the
Galilean ministry. They urge the same sincere, reverent life in the sight
of God, the same trust in the heavenly Father, the same certainty of his
love and care; and they do not have that peculiar note of impending
judgment which entered into the teachings of Jesus after the confession at
Cæsarea Philippi.

138. In the story of Mark, which is reproduced in the first and third
gospels, the use of parable was first introduced in a way to attract the
attention of the disciples, after pharisaic opposition to Jesus had become
somewhat bitter and there was need of checking a too speedy culmination
of opposition. He chose at that time a form of parable which was enigmatic
to his disciples, and could but further puzzle hearers who had no sympathy
with him and his message. Mark (iv. 12) states that this perplexity was in
accordance with the purpose of Jesus. But it is equally clear that Jesus
meant to teach the teachable as well as to perplex the critical by these
illustrations, for in explaining the Sower he suggested that the disciples
should have understood it without explanation (Mark iv. 13). Many of
Jesus' parables, however, had no such enigmatic character, but were
intended simply to help his hearers to understand him. He made use of this
kind of teaching from first to last. The pictures of the wise and foolish
builders with which the sermon on the mount concludes show that it was not
the use of illustration which surprised the disciples in the parables
associated with the Sower, but his use of such puzzling illustrations.
Some of the parables of Luke's peculiar section may belong to the Galilean
ministry, and even to the earlier stages of it. These have none of the
enigmatic character; the parables of the last days of Jesus' life also
seem to have been simple and clear to his hearers. The Oriental mind
prefers the concrete to the abstract, and its teachers have ever made
large use of illustration. Jesus stands unique, not in that he used
parables, but in the simplicity and effective beauty of those which he
used. These illustrations, whether Jesus intended them for the moment to
enlighten or to confound, served always to set forth concretely some truth
concerning the relation of men to God, or concerning his kingdom and their
relation to it. The form of teaching was welcome to his hearers, and
served as one of the attractions to draw men to him.

139. The first gospel assigns another extended discourse to this Galilean
period,--the Instructions to the Twelve. The mission of the twelve formed
a new departure as Jesus saw the Galilean crisis approaching. He sought
thereby to multiply his own work, and commissioned his disciples to heal
and preach as he was doing. The restriction of their field to Israel
(Matt. x. 5, 6) simply applied to them the rule he adopted for himself
during the Galilean period (Matt. xv. 24). Comparison with the accounts in
Mark and Luke, as well as the character of the instructions found in
Matthew, show that here the first evangelist has followed his habit of
gathering together teachings on the same general theme from different
periods in Jesus' life. Much in the tenth chapter of Matthew indicates
clearly that the ministry of Jesus had already passed the period of
popularity, and that his disciples could now look for little but scorn and
persecution. This was the situation at the end of Jesus' public life, and
parallel sayings are found in the record of the last week in Jerusalem.

140. When the teaching of the sermon and the parables is compared with
Jesus' self-assertion in his replies to pharisaic criticism and blasphemy,
the difference is striking. Ordinarily he avoided calling attention to
himself, wishing men to form their opinion of him after they had learned
to know him as he was. Yet when one looks beneath the surface of his
teaching, the tone of authority which astonished the multitudes is
identical with the calm self-confidence which replied to pharisaic
censure: "The Son of Man hath authority on the earth to forgive sins."

141. Jesus drew the multitudes after him not only by his teachings, but
also by his mighty works. He certainly was for his contemporaries a
wonder-worker and healer of disease, and, in order to appreciate the
impression which he made, the miracles recorded in the gospels must be
allowed to reveal what they can of his character. The mighty works which
enchained attention in Galilee were chiefly cures of disease, with
occasional exhibitions of power over physical nature,--such as the
stilling of the tempest and the feeding of the five thousand. The
significant thing about them is their uniform beneficence of purpose and
simplicity of method. Nothing of the spectacular attached itself to them.
Jesus repeatedly refused to the critical Pharisees a sign from heaven.
This was not because he disregarded the importance of signs for his
generation,--witness his appeal to his works in the reply to John (Matt.
xi. 4-6); but he felt that in his customary ministry to the needy
multitudes he had furnished signs in abundance, for his deeds both gave
evidence of heavenly power and revealed the character of the Father who
had sent him.

142. One of the commonest of the ailments cured by Jesus is described in
the gospels as demoniac possession, the popular idea being that evil
spirits were accustomed to take up their abode in men, speaking with their
tongues and acting through their bodies, at the same time afflicting them
with various physical diseases. Six specific cures of such possession are
recorded in the story of the Galilean ministry, besides general references
to the cure of many that were possessed. Of these specific cases the
Gadarene demoniac shows symptoms of violent insanity; the boy cured near
Cæsarea Philippi, those of epilepsy; in other cases the disease was more
local, showing itself in deafness, or blindness, or both. In the cures
recorded Jesus addressed the possessed with a command to the invading
demon to depart. He was ordinarily greeted, either before or after such a
command, with a loud outcry, often accompanied with a recognition of him
as God's Holy One.

143. The record of such maladies and their cure is not confined to the New
Testament. The evil spirit which came upon King Saul is a similar case,
and Josephus tells of Jewish exorcists who cured possessed persons by the
use of incantations handed down from King Solomon. The early Christian
fathers frequently argued the truth of Christianity from the way in which
demons departed at the command of Christian exorcists, while in the middle
ages and down to modern times belief in demoniac possession has been
common, particularly among some of the more superstitious of the peasantry
in Europe. Moreover, from missionaries in China and other eastern lands it
is learned that diseases closely resembling the cases of possession
recorded in the New Testament are frequently met with, and are often cured
by native Christian ministers.

144. The similarity of the symptoms of so-called possession to recognized
mental and physical derangements such as insanity, epilepsy, and hysteria,
suggests the conclusion that possession should be classed with other
ailments due to ill adjustment of the relations of the mental and physical
life. If this conclusion is valid, the idea of actual possession by evil
spirits becomes only an ancient effort to interpret the mysterious
symptoms in accordance with wide-spread primitive beliefs. This
explanation would doubtless be generally adopted were it not that it seems
to compromise either the integrity or the knowledge of Jesus. The gospels
plainly represent him as treating the supposed demoniac influence as real,
addressing in his cures not the invalid, but the invading demon. If he did
this knowing that the whole view was a superstition, was he true to his
mission to release mankind from its bondage to evil and sin? If he shared
the superstition of his time, had he the complete knowledge necessary to
make him the deliverer he claimed to be? These questions are serious and
difficult, but they form a part of the general problem of the extent of
Jesus' knowledge, and can be more intelligently discussed in connection
with that whole problem (sects. 249-251). It is reasonable to demand,
however, that any conclusion reached concerning the nature of possession
in the time of Jesus must be considered valid for similar manifestations
of disease in our own day.

145. What astonished people in Jesus' cures was not so much that he healed
the sick as that he did it with such evidence of personal authority. His
cures and his teachings alike served to attract attention to himself and
to invite question as to who he could be. Yet a far more powerful means to
the end he had in view was the subtle, unobtrusive, personal influence
which without their knowledge knit the hearts of a few to himself. In
reality both his teaching and his cures were only means of
self-disclosure. His permanent work during this Galilean period was the
winning of personal friends. His chief agency in accomplishing his work
was what Renan somewhat too romantically has called his "charm." It was
that in him which drew to his side and kept with him the fishermen of
Galilee and the publican of Capernaum, during months of constant
disappointment of their preconceived religious ideas and Messianic hopes;
it was that which won the confidence of the woman who was a sinner, and
the constant devotion of Mary Magdalene and Susanna and the others who
followed him "and ministered to him of their substance." The outstanding
wonder of early Christianity is the complete transformation not only of
life but of established religious ideas by the personal impress of Jesus
on a Peter, a John, and a Paul. The secret of the new element of the
Christian religion--salvation through personal attachment to Jesus
Christ--is simply this personal power of the man of Nazareth. The
multitudes followed because they saw wonderful works or heard wonderful
words; many because they hoped at length to find in the new prophet the
champion of their hopes in deliverance from Roman bondage. But these
sooner or later fell away, disappointed in their desire to use the new
leader for their own ends. It was only because from out the multitudes
there were a few who could answer, "To whom shall we go? thou hast the
words of eternal life," when Jesus asked, "Will ye also go away?" that the
work in Galilee did not end in complete failure. These few had felt his
personal power, and they became the nucleus of a new religion of love to a
personal Saviour.

146. The test of the personal attachment of the few came shortly after the
execution of John the Baptist by Antipas. Word of this tragedy was
brought to Jesus by John's disciples about the time that he and the twelve
returned to Capernaum from their tour of preaching. At the suggestion of
Jesus they withdrew to the eastern side of the lake in search of rest. It
is not unlikely that the little company also wished to avoid for the time
the territory of the tyrant who had just put John to death, for Jesus was
not yet ready for the crisis of his own life. Such a desire for seclusion
would be intensified by the continued impetuous enthusiasm of the
multitudes who flocked about him again in Capernaum. In fact, so insistent
was their interest in Jesus that they would not allow him the quiet he
sought, but followed around the lake in great numbers when they learned
that he had taken ship for the other side. He who came not to be
ministered unto but to minister could not repel the crowds who came to
him, and he at once "welcomed them, and spake to them of the kingdom of
God, and them that had need of healing he healed" (Luke ix. 11). The day
having passed in this ministry, he multiplied the small store of bread and
fish brought by his disciples in order to feed the weary people. This work
of power seemed to some among the multitudes to be the last thing needed
to prove that Jesus was to be their promised deliverer, and they "were
about to come and take him by force and make him king" (John vi. 15), when
he withdrew from them and spent the night in prayer.

147. This sudden determination on the part of the multitudes to force the
hand of Jesus was probably due to the prevalence of an idea, found also in
the later rabbinic writers, that the Messiah should feed his people as
Moses had provided them manna in the desert. The rebuff which Jesus
quietly gave them did not cool their ardor, until on the following day, in
the synagogue in Capernaum, he plainly taught them that they had quite
missed the significance of his miracle. They thought of loaves and
material sustenance. He would have had them find in these a sign that he
could also supply their spirits' need, and he insisted that this, and this
alone, was his actual mission. From the first the popular enthusiasm had
had to ignore many contradictions of its cherished notions. But his power
and the indescribable force of his personality had served hitherto to hold
them to a hope that he would soon discard the perplexing rôle which he had
chosen for the time to assume, and take up avowedly the proper work of the
Messiah. This last refusal to accept what seemed to them to be his evident
duty caused a revulsion in the popular feeling, and "many of his disciples
turned back and walked no more with him" (John vi. 66). The time of
sifting had come. Jesus had known that such a rash determination to make
him king was possible to the Galilean multitudes, and that whenever it
should come it must be followed by a disillusionment. Now the open
ministry had run its course. As the multitudes were turning back and
walking no more with him, he turned to the twelve with the question, "Will
ye also go away?" and found that with them his method had borne fruit.
They clung to him in spite of disillusionment, for in him they had found
what was better than their preconceptions.

148. It is the fourth gospel that shows clearly the critical significance
of this event. The others tell nothing of the sudden determination of the
multitude, nor of the revulsion of feeling that followed Jesus' refusal to
yield to their will. Yet these other gospels indicate in their narratives
that from this time on Jesus avoided the scenes of his former labors, and
show that when from time to time he returned to the neighborhood of
Capernaum he was met by such a spirit of hostility that he withdrew again
immediately to regions where he and his disciples could have time for
quiet intercourse.

149. The months of toil in Galilee show results hardly more significant
than the grain of mustard seed or the little leaven. Popular enthusiasm
had risen, increased, reached its climax, and waned. Official opposition
had early been aroused, and had continued with a steadily deepened
intensity. The wonderful teaching with authority, and the signs wrought on
them that were sick, had been as seed sown by the wayside or in thorny or
in stony ground, except for the little handful of hearers who had felt the
personal power of Jesus and had surrendered to it, ready henceforth to
follow where he should lead, whether or not it should be in a path of
their choice. These, however, were the proof that those months had been a
time of rewarded toil.




IV

The Ministry in Galilee--The New Lesson



150. With the crisis in Capernaum the ministry in Galilee may be said in
one sense to have come to an end. Yet Jesus did not immediately go up to
Jerusalem. Once and again he was found in or near Capernaum, while the
time between these visits was spent in regions to the north and northwest.
In fact, the disciples were far from ready for the trial their loyalty was
to meet before they had seen the end of the opposition to their Lord. The
time intervening between the collapse of popularity and Jesus' final
departure from Galilee may well be thought of, then, as a time of further
discipline of the faith of his followers and of added instruction
concerning the truth for which their Master stood. The length of this
supplementary period in Galilee is not definitely known. It extended from
the Passover to about the feast of Tabernacles (April to October, see John
vi. 4 and vii. 2). The record of what Jesus did and said in this time is
meagre, only enough being reported to show that it was a time of repeated
withdrawals from Galilee and of private instruction for the disciples.

151. The disciples were trained in faith by further exhibitions of the
complete break between their Master and the leaders of the people. This
break appeared most clearly, soon after the feeding of the multitudes, in
his reply to a criticism of the disciples for disregard of pharisaic
traditions concerning hand-washing (Mark vii. 1-23). The critics insisted
on the sacredness of their traditions. Jesus in reply scored them for
disregard for the plain demands of God's law, and with a word freed men
from bondage to the whole ritual of ceremonial cleanness and uncleanness
(Mark vii. 19), thus attacking Judaism in its citadel.

152. It was immediately after this that he withdrew with his disciples to
the regions of Tyre. On his return a little later to the west side of the
sea of Galilee he was met by hostile Pharisees with a demand for a sign
(Mark viii. 11-13), and after refusing to satisfy the unbelieving
challenge,--signs in plenty having been before their eyes since the
opening of his work among them,--he and his disciples withdrew again from
Galilee towards Cæsarea Philippi. As they went on their way, Jesus
distinctly warned them against the influence of their leaders, religious
and political (Mark viii. 14f.). So far as our records tell us Jesus was
but once again in Capernaum. Then he was met with the demand that he pay
the temple tax (Matt. xvii. 24-27). This tax was usually collected just
before the Passover. As this last visit to Capernaum was probably not far
from the feast of Tabernacles, Jesus seems to have been in arrears. This
may have been due to his absence from Capernaum at the time of the
collection. The prompt answer of Peter may indicate that he knew that in
other years Jesus had paid this tax, as it is altogether probable that he
did. The question, however, implies official suspicion that Jesus was
seeking to evade payment, and exhibits further the straining of the
relations between him and the Jewish leaders. The conversation of Jesus
with Peter served to show his clear consciousness of superiority, and was
a further summons to the disciples to choose between him and his
opponents.

153. Within the limits of the Holy Land the faith of the disciples had
been constantly tested by the increasing opposition between their master
and their old leaders. When the little company withdrew to Gentile
regions, however, Jesus had regard for their Jewish feeling. The time
would come when he would send them forth to make disciples of all the
nations. For the present he made it his business to nurture their faith in
him, and when appealed to for help by one of these foreigners, he refused
to "take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs" (Mark vii. 27).
Jesus had assumed a different attitude to the Samaritans before the
opening of his work in Galilee, and in general had shown ready sympathy
for all in distress. In fact it seems as if he welcomed the Syrophoenician
woman's great faith with a feeling of relief from a restriction that he
had felt it wise to adopt for his work in Phoenicia. It appears from his
later attitude in the Gentile regions of the Decapolis (Mark vii. 31-37;
Matt. xv. 21-31) that, having once shown his regard for the limitations of
his disciples' faith in the case of the Syrophoenician, he felt no longer
obliged to check his natural readiness to help the needy who sought him
out. Although in one instance, for reasons no longer known to us, Jesus
charged a man whom he had cured to keep it secret (Mark vii. 32-37), in
general his work in these heathen regions seems, after the visit to
Phoenicia, to have been quite unrestrained, and to have produced the same
enthusiasm that had earlier brought the multitudes to him in Galilee (Mark
viii. 1f.).

154. This continued activity of healing must have served greatly to
strengthen the determination of the disciples to cling to Jesus, let the
leaders say what they would. We can only conjecture what various teachings
filled the days, and what personal fellowship the disciples had with him
who spake as never man spake. There was need for advance in the faith of
these loyal friends. Their enthusiastic declaration when the multitudes
turned away could easily have been followed by reaction. Each new
exhibition of the irrevocableness of the break between Jesus and the
leaders was a severe test of their loyalty. These weeks of withdrawal were
doubtless filled, therefore, with new proofs that Jesus had the words of
eternal life.

155. Before he put to his disciples the crucial question, he who knew what
was in man (John ii. 25) was confident that they were ready for it. It was
after the rebuff in Galilee, when the unbelieving Pharisees had again
demanded a sign of his authority, and after he had definitely warned the
disciples against the influence of their leaders, that Jesus led his
little company far to the north towards the slopes of Hermon. There, near
the recently built Cæsarea Philippi, Jesus plainly asked his disciples
what the people thought of him (Mark viii. 27-30). We have seen how
gradually sentiment in Galilee concerning the new teacher crystallized
until, from thinking him a prophet, the people, first timidly, then
boldly, concluded that such a teacher and worker of signs must be the
promised king. We have seen also how the popular estimate changed when
Jesus refused to be guided by the popular will. Now, after the lapse of a
few weeks, in answer to his inquiry concerning the common opinion of him,
he is told that the people look on him as a prophet, in whom the spirit of
the men of old had been revived; but not a whisper remains of the former
readiness to hail him as the Messiah. It was in the face of such a
definite revulsion in the popular feeling, in the face, too, of the
increasing hostility of all the great in the nation, that Peter answered
for the twelve that they believed Jesus to be the Messiah, God's appointed
Deliverer of his people (Matt. xvi. 16 ff.). In form this confession was
no more than Nathanael had rendered on his first meeting with Jesus (John
i. 49), and was practically the same as the report made by Andrew to Simon
his brother, and by Philip to Nathanael (John i. 41, 45). In both idea and
expression the reply to Jesus' question, "Will ye also go away?" (John vi.
68, 69), was virtually equivalent to this later confession of Peter. Yet
Jesus found in Peter's answer at Cæsarea Philippi something so significant
and remarkable that he declared that the faith that could answer thus
could spring only from a heavenly source (Matt. xvi. 17). The early
confessions were in fact no more than expressions of more or less
intelligent expectation that Jesus would fulfil the confessor's hopes. The
confession at Capernaum followed one of Jesus' mightiest exhibitions of
power, and was given before the disciples had had time to consider the
extent of the defection from their Master. Here at Cæsarea Philippi,
however, the word was spoken immediately after an acknowledgment that the
people had no more thought of finding in Jesus their Messiah. It was
spoken after the disciples had had repeated evidence of the determined
hostility of the leaders to Jesus. All the disappointment he had given to
their cherished ideas was emphasized by the isolation in which the little
company now found itself. One after another their ideas of how a Messiah
should act and what he should be had received contradiction in what Jesus
was and did. Yet after the weeks of withdrawal from Galilee, Peter could
only in effect assert anew what he had declared at Capernaum,--that Jesus
had the words of eternal life. It was a faith chastened by perplexity, and
taught at length to follow the Lord let him lead where he would. It was an
actual surrender to his mastery over thought and life. Here at length
Jesus had won what he had been seeking during all his work in Galilee,--a
corner-stone on which to build up the new community of the kingdom of God.
Peter was the first to confess openly to this simple surrender to the full
mastery of Jesus. He was the first stone in the foundation of the new
"building of God."

156. In his commendation of Peter Jesus revealed the secret of his method
in the work which, because of this confession, he could now proceed to do
more rapidly. He cuts loose utterly from the method of the scribes. He,
the new teacher, commits to them no body of teaching which they are to
give to others as the key to eternal life. The salvation they are to
preach is a salvation by personal attachment; that is, by faith. The rock
on which he will build his church is personal attachment, faith that is
ready to leave all and follow him. Peter, not the substance of his
confession, was its corner-stone, but Peter, as the first clear confessor
of a faith that is ready to leave all, a faith whose very nature it is to
be contagious, and associate with itself others of "like precious faith."
His faith was as yet meagre, as he showed at once; but it was genuine, the
surrender of his heart to his Lord's guidance and control. This was the
distinctive mark of the new religious life inaugurated by Jesus of
Nazareth.

157. If anything were needed to prove that the idea that he was the
Messiah was no new thought to Jesus, it could be found in the new lesson
which he at once began to teach his disciples. The confession of Peter
indicated to him simply that the first stage in his work had been
accomplished. He immediately began to prepare the disciples for the end
which for some time past he had seen to be inevitable. He taught them more
than that his death was inevitable; he declared that it was divinely
necessary that he should be put to death as a result of the hostility of
the Jews to him ("the Son of Man must suffer"). All the contradictions
which he had offered to the Messianic ideas of his disciples paled into
insignificance beside this one. When they saw how he failed to meet the
hopes that were commonly held, they needed only to urge themselves to
patience, expecting that in time he would cast off the strange mask and
take to himself his power and reign. But it was too much for the late
confessed and very genuine faith of Peter to hear that the Messiah must
die. So unthinkable was the idea, that he assumed that Jesus had become
unduly discouraged by the relentlessness of the opposition which had
driven him first out of Judea and later out of Galilee. Accordingly Peter
sought to turn his Master's mind to a brighter prospect, asserting that
his forebodings could not be true. It is hard for us to conceive the chill
of heart which must have followed the glow of his confession when he heard
the stern rebuke of Jesus, who found in Peter's later words the voice of
the Evil One, as before in his confession he had recognized the Spirit of
God.

158. The sternness of Jesus' rebuke escapes extravagance only in view of
the fact that the words of Peter had greatly affected Jesus himself. At
the outset of his public life he had faced the difficulty of doing the
Messiah's work in his Father's way, and had withstood the temptation to
accommodate himself to the ideas of his world, declaring allegiance to God
alone (Matt. iv. 10). Yet once and again in the course of his ministry he
showed that this allegiance cost him much. Luke reports a saying in which
Jesus confessed that, in view of this prospect of death which Peter was
opposing so eagerly, he was greatly "straitened" (xii. 50), and at the
near approach of the end "his soul was exceeding sorrowful" (Mark xiv.
34). It should never be forgotten that Jesus was a Jew, and heir to all
the Messianic ideas of his people. In these, glory, not rejection and
death, was to be the Messiah's portion. That he was always superior to
current expectations is no sign that he did not feel their force. They
quite mistake who find the bitterness of Jesus' "cup" simply in his
physical shrinking from suffering. The temptation was ever with him to
find some other way to the goal of his work than that which led through
death. What Peter said hid a force greater than any word of the
disciple's. It voiced the crucial temptation of Jesus' life. The answer
addressed to Peter showed that his words had drawn the thought of Jesus
away from the disciple to that earlier temptation which was never absent
from him more than "for a season" (Luke iv. 13).

159. Jesus was not content with a mere rebuke of his impulsive disciple.
In his first announcement of his death as necessary he had also declared
that it would not be a tragedy, but would be followed by a resurrection.
This the disciples could not appreciate, as they found the idea of the
Messiah's death unthinkable. Jesus, however, saw in it the general law,
that life must ever win its goal by disregard of itself, and called his
disciples also to walk in the path of self-sacrifice. In order that the
new lesson might not quite overwhelm the yet feeble faith of these
followers, Jesus assured them that after his death and resurrection he
would come as Messianic Judge and fulfil the hopes which his prediction of
death seemed to blot out utterly (Mark viii. 34 to ix. 1).

160. That this new lesson was a difficult one for master as well as
disciple seems to be shown by the experience which came a few days later
to Jesus and his three closest friends. He had withdrawn with them to a
"high mountain" for prayer (Luke ix. 28f.). While he prayed the light of
heaven came into his face, and his disciples were granted a vision of him
in celestial glory, conversing with Moses and Elijah, representatives of
Old Testament law and prophecy. The theme of the discourse was that death
which had so troubled the disciples, and which then and later weighed
heavily on Jesus' own spirit (Luke ix. 31). At the conclusion of the
vision came a divine injunction to hear him who now was superseding law
and prophets. The effect of the transfiguration can only be inferred. It
doubtless brought strengthening to Jesus for his difficult task (compare
Heb. v. 7), and at least a silencing of remonstrance when he spoke again
to his disciples of his approaching death. This he did while the little
company was making its way back towards Capernaum (Mark ix. 30-32), and
repeatedly later before the end came (Mark x. 32-34; Matt. xxvi. 1f.).

161. On Jesus' return from the mountain, he was met by the despairing plea
of a father and healed his epileptic son, out of whom the disciples were
unable to cast the demon (Mark ix. 14-29; compare vi. 7, 13). It may have
been the shock which the new lesson had given the disciples that accounted
for the reproof of their lack of faith. The new evidence of Jesus' power,
coupled with this reproof, seems to have restored their confidence in him.
Perhaps, too, there was something contagious about the spirit of hope with
which the three came from their vision of the Master's glory. For,
although they were not free to tell what they had seen (Mark ix. 9), they
could not have concealed the fact that their faith had received great
encouragement. Whatever the cause, hope revived for the disciples, for on
the way back to Capernaum a dispute arose among them concerning personal
precedence in the kingdom which their Master should soon set up. In this
rapid reaction from unbelief to faith the disciples seem to have forgotten
the lesson of self-denial recently given them (Mark viii. 34, 35). In
Peter's confession the corner-stone of the church was laid; but the
superstructure was yet far out of sight. Although his own soul, taking its
way down into the valley of shadows, might rightly have asked for sympathy
and complained of its lack, Jesus simply set a little child in the midst
of them, and taught them again the first lessons of faith,--gentle
humility and trust. Thereby he rebuked the spirit of rivalry and asked of
his disciples a generous, unselfish, and forgiving spirit (Matt, xviii.
1-35).

162. It was possibly at this time, certainly near the end of the Galilean
ministry, that Jesus was approached by his own brethren, who urged him to
try to win the capital. Their attitude was not one of indifference, though
clearly not one of actual faith in his claim (John vii. 2-5). They seem to
have felt that Jesus had not made adequate effort to secure a following in
Jerusalem, and that he could not hope for success in his work if he
continued to confine his attention to Galilee. Jesus knew conditions in
Jerusalem far better than they did, and had no idea as yet of resuming a
general ministry there. He therefore dismissed the suggestion, and left
his brethren to go up to the feast disappointed in their desire that he
make a demonstration at that time. Yet Jesus still yearned over Jerusalem.
He knew in what organized opposition a general demonstration would result.
There were some, however, in the capital who had real faith in him. His
repeated efforts to win Jerusalem mean nothing if we do not recognize that
he hoped against hope that many of the people might yet turn and let him
lead them. With some such purpose, therefore, he went up a little later
without ostentation, and quietly appeared in the temple teaching. The
effect of this unannounced arrival was that the opposition was not ready
for him. The multitude was compelled to form an opinion of him for itself,
and he had opportunity to make his own impression for a time,
independently of official suggestion as to what ought to be thought of
him. This course resulted in a division of sentiment among the people, so
much so that when the leaders, both secular and religious, sought to
compass his arrest, the officers sent to take Jesus were themselves
entranced by his teaching. In spite of the wish of the leaders Jesus
continued to teach, and many of the people began to think of him with
favor. When, however, he tried to lead them on to become "disciples
indeed," they took offence, and showed that they were not ready yet to
follow him. This effort to "gather the children of Jerusalem" resulted in
new proof that they preferred his death to his message (John vii. 2 to
viii. 59).

163. Interesting evidence of the fact that "Jesus did many other signs
which are not written" in our accepted gospels is found in the story of
his dealing with an adulteress whom the Pharisees brought to him for
judgment (John vii. 53 to viii. 11). This narrative had no secure place in
any of the gospels in the earliest days, yet was so highly regarded that
men would not let it go. Hence in the manuscripts which contain it, it is
found in various places. Some give it in Luke after chapter xxi., some at
the end of the Gospel of John, one placing it after John vii. 36. Many
considerations combine to prove that it was no part of the Gospel of John,
but as many show that it preserves a true incident in the ministry of
Jesus. In scene it belongs to the temple, therefore in time to one of the
Jerusalem visits. To which of those visits it should he assigned is not
now discoverable. The ancient copyists who assigned it to this feast of
Tabernacles, chose as well as later students can. If the incident belongs
to this visit, it illustrates the patience and the keen insight of Jesus
in his effort to win self-satisfied Jerusalem.

164. John is silent concerning the doings of Jesus after the feast of
Tabernacles. In x. 22 he notes that Jesus was at Jerusalem at the feast of
Dedication, which followed two months later. It seems probable that after
his hurried and private journey to the feast of Tabernacles (John vii. 10)
he returned to Galilee and gathered to himself again the little company of
his loyal followers, preparatory to that final journey to Jerusalem which
should bring the end foreseen, unless, perchance, Israel should yet repent
and turn unto the Lord. As the shadow deepened over his own life, and the
persistency of the unbelief of his people appeared more and more clearly,
the teachings of Jesus took on a new note of tragedy which was not
characteristic of the earlier preaching in Galilee. Even when his topic
was similar and his treatment of it not unlike some earlier discourse,
there appeared in it here and there a warning of impending judgment. This
is seen as early as the reply to the criticism of the disciples for
disregard of traditions (Matt. xv. 13f.). Many discourses in the section
peculiar to Luke show by the presence of this note of doom that they
belong to this later time rather than to the Galilean period proper. (See
the table prefixed to Chapter V.)

165. Two years had nearly passed since Jesus withdrew from Judea to start
his ministry anew in a different region and following a different method.
The fruit of that ministry was small, but significant. His proclamation of
the coming kingdom and his call to a deeper righteousness, coupled as they
were with his works of heavenly power, had won at first an enthusiastic
following. Realizing that an uncontrolled enthusiasm would thwart his
purpose to introduce a kingdom of the spirit, Jesus had kept his Messianic
claim in the background, seeking first to win disciples to the kingdom
that he was proclaiming. Yet emphasize his message as he would, he could
not conceal his personal significance. In fact he wished by winning
disciples to his doctrine of the kingdom to attach followers to himself,
the bearer of the words of eternal life. The great development of popular
enthusiasm did not deceive him, nor did he hesitate, when the multitude
would force him to do its will, to show clearly how far he was from being
a fulfiller of their desires. By successive disappointments of the popular
ideas he sifted his followers until a few were ready to follow him
whithersoever he might lead. With these he allowed time for the fact of
his unpopularity to appear, giving them opportunity to consider the
relentless hostility of their national leaders to the teacher from
Galilee. Then when the time was ripe he drew from the loyal few their
declaration that they would follow him in spite of disappointments and
unpopularity, their confession that he had come to be to them more than
their cherished preconceptions, that he had won the mastery over their
thought and life. He began then to prepare them for the end he had long
foreseen, and at length, after giving them time for that perplexing
mystery to find place in their hearts, he was ready to move on toward the
crisis which he knew his public appearance in Jerusalem would precipitate.
Before setting out on this journey his desire still to seek to win
Jerusalem, if perchance it would repent, led him to visit the capital
unannounced at the feast of Tabernacles. This taught him that, however
ready some might be superficially to believe in him, he could as yet win
in Jerusalem only hatred and plots against his life, and he returned to
his faithful friends in Galilee.

   Outline of Events in the Journey through Perea to Jerusalem


   The final departure from Galilee--Matt. xix. 1, 2; viii. 19-22; Mark x.
   1; Luke ix. 51-62.

   The mission of the seventy--Matt. xi. 20-30; Luke x. 1-24.

   The visit to the feast of Dedication--John ix. 1 to x. 39.

   Possibly at this time: The parable of the Good Samaritan--Luke x.
   25-37. The visit to Mary and Martha--Luke x. 38-42.

   Return to Perea--John x. 40-42.

   The visit to Bethany and the raising of Lazarus--John xi. 1-46.

   The withdrawal to Ephraim--John xi. 47-54.

   Events connected with the last journey to Jerusalem, which cannot be
   more definitely located:

   The question whether few are saved--Luke xiii. 22-30.

   Reply to the warning against Herod, probably near the close--Luke xiii.
   31-35.

   The cure of ten lepers--Luke xvii. 11-19.

   The question of the Pharisees concerning divorce--Matt. xix. 3-12; Mark
   x. 2-12.

   The blessing of little children--Matt. xix. 13-15; Mark x. 13-16; Luke
   xviii. 15-17.

   The question of the rich young ruler--Matt. xix. 16 to xx. 16; Mark x.
   17-31; Luke xviii. 18-30.

   The third prediction of death and resurrection--Matt xx. 17-19; Mark x.
   32-34; Luke xviii. 31-34.

   The ambitious request of the sons of Zebedee--Matt. xx. 20-28; Mark x.
   35-45.

   The last stage, Jericho to Jerusalem:

   The blind men near Jericho--Matt. xx. 29-34; Mark x. 46-52; Luke xviii.
   35-43.

   The visit to Zacchæus--Luke xix. 1-10.

   The parable of the pounds (minæ)--Luke xix. 11-28. Events and
   discourses found in Luke ix. 51 to xviii. 14, which probably belong
   after the confession of Peter, and very likely to some stage of the
   journey to Jerusalem:

   Woes against the Pharisees, uttered at a Pharisee's table--Luke xi.
   37-54.

   Warnings against the spirit of pharisaism--Luke xii. 1-59.

   Comment on the slaughter of Galileans by Pilate--Luke xiii. 1-9.

   Discourse on counting the cost of discipleship--Luke xiv. 25-35.

   Discourse on the coming of the kingdom--Luke xvii. 20-37.

   Parable of the Unjust Judge--Luke xviii. 1-8.

   Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican--Luke xviii. 9-14.




V

The Journey through Perea to Jerusalem



166. The fourth gospel says that after the visit to Jerusalem at the feast
of Dedication Jesus withdrew beyond Jordan to the place where John at the
first was baptizing (x. 40). Matthew and Mark also say that at the close
of the ministry in Galilee Jesus departed and came into the borders of
Judea and beyond Jordan, and that in this new region the multitudes again
flocked to him, and he resumed his ministry of teaching (Matt. xix. 1f.;
Mark x. 1). What he did and taught at this time is not shown at all by
John, and only in scant fashion by the other two. They tell of a
discussion with the Pharisees concerning divorce (Mark x. 2-12); of the
welcome extended by Jesus to certain little children (Mark x. 13-16); of
the disappointment of a rich young ruler, who wished to learn from Jesus
the way of life, but loved better his great possessions (Mark x. 17-31);
of a further manifestation of the unlovely spirit of rivalry among the
disciples in the request of James and John for the best places in the
kingdom (Mark x. 35-45),--a request following in the records directly
after another prediction by Jesus of his death and resurrection (Mark x.
32-34). Then, after a visit to Jericho (Luke xviii. 35 to xix. 28), these
records come into coincidence with John in the account of the Messianic
entry into Jerusalem just before the last Passover.

167. The fourth gospel tells in addition of a considerable activity of
Jesus in and near Jerusalem during this period. In making the journey
beyond Jordan start from Jerusalem (x. 40), John shows that Jesus must
have returned to the capital after his withdrawal from the feast of
Tabernacles. When and how this took place is not indicated. Later, after
his retirement from the feast of Dedication Jesus hastened at the summons
of his friends from beyond Jordan to Bethany when Lazarus died (xi. 1-7).
From Bethany he went not to the other side of Jordan again, but to Ephraim
(xi. 54), a town on the border between Judea and Samaria, and from there
he started towards Jerusalem when the Passover drew near. This record of
John has, as Dr. Sanday has recently remarked (HastBD II. 630), so many
marks of verisimilitude that it must be accepted as a true tradition. It
demands thus that in our conception of the last journey from Galilee room
be found for several excursions to Jerusalem or its neighborhood. One of
these at least--to the feast of Dedication (x. 22)--represents another
effort to "gather the children of Jerusalem." While not without success,
for at least the blind man restored by Jesus gave him the full faith he
sought (ix. 35-38), it showed with fuller clearness the determined
hostility to Jesus of the influential class (x. 39).

168. It has been customary to find in the long section peculiar to Luke
(ix. 51 to xviii. 14) a fuller account of the Perean ministry, as it has
been called. For it opens with a final departure from Galilee, and comes
at its close into parallelism with the record of Matthew and Mark. Yet
some parts of this section in Luke belong in the earlier Galilean
ministry. The blasphemy of the Pharisees (xi. 14-36) is clearly identical
with the incident recorded in Mark iii. 22-30, and Matt. xii. 22-45; while
several incidents and discourses (see outline prefixed to Chapter III.)
bear so plainly the marks of the ministry before the revulsion of popular
favor, that it is easiest to think of them as actually belonging to the
earlier time, but assigned by Luke to this peculiar section because he
found no clear place offered for them in the record of Mark. Not a little,
however, of what Luke records here manifestly belongs to the time when
Jesus referred openly to his rejection by the Jewish people. The note of
tragedy characteristic of later discourses appears in the replies of Jesus
to certain would-be disciples (ix. 57-62), and in his warning that his
followers count the cost of discipleship (xiv. 25-35). The woes spoken at
a Pharisee's table (xi. 37-52), the warning to the disciples against
pharisaism (xii. 1-12), and the encouragement of the "little flock" (xii.
22-34), with many other paragraphs from this part of the gospel (see
outline at the head of this chapter), evidently were spoken at the time
of the approaching end. Some narratives reflect the neighborhood of
Jerusalem, and naturally corroborate the indications in the fourth gospel
that Jesus was repeatedly at the capital during this time. The parable of
the good Samaritan, for instance, must have been spoken in Judea, else why
choose the road from Jerusalem to Jericho for the illustration? The visit
to Mary and Martha shows Jesus at Bethany, and the parable of the Pharisee
and the Publican, naming the temple as the place of prayer, belongs
naturally to Judea.

169. The effort to find the definite progress of events in this part of
Luke has not been successful. There are three hints of movement towards
Jerusalem,--the introductory mention of the departure from Galilee (ix.
51); a statement that Jesus went on his way through cities and villages,
journeying on unto Jerusalem (xiii. 22); and again a reference to passing
through the midst of Samaria and Galilee on the way to Jerusalem (xvii.
11). The attempt to make the third of these belong actually to the last
stages of the final journey seems artificial. Confessedly the expression
"through the midst of Samaria and Galilee" is obscure. It is much easier
to understand, however, if the journey so described is identified with the
visit to Samaria with which the departure from Galilee opened. It seems
probable that Luke found these records of events and teachings in Jesus'
life, and was unable to learn exactly their connection in time and place,
so placed them after the close of the Galilean story and before the
account of the passion, much as later some copyist found the story of the
adulteress (John vii. 53 to viii. 11), and, certain that it was a true
incident, gave it a place in connection with the visit to the feast of
Tabernacles (perhaps influenced by John viii. 15). It must always be
remembered that the earliest apostolic writing--Matthew's Logia--probably
consisted of just such disconnected records (see sects. 28, 42), and that,
as Jülicher (Einleitung i. d. NT. 235) has said, the early church was not
interested in _when_ Jesus said or did anything. Its interest was in
_what_ he said and did.

170. The time of the departure from Galilee for Jerusalem may be set with
much probability not long before the feast of the Dedication in December;
for at that feast Jesus was again in Jerusalem, and from it he returned to
Perea (John x. 22, 40-42). He started southward through Samaria (Luke ix.
51 ff.), and probably in connection with the early stages of the journey
he sent out the seventy "into every city and place whither he himself was
about to come" (Luke x. 1). It is not unlikely that, after the sending out
of these heralds, he went with a few disciples to make one more effort to
turn the heart of Jerusalem to himself (John ix., x.). It is impossible to
determine whither the seventy were sent. The "towns and cities" whither
Jesus was about to come may have included some from all portions of the
land, not excepting Judea. The matter must be left in considerable
obscurity. This, however, may be said, that the reasons offered for
holding that the story of the sending out of the seventy is only a
"doublet" of the mission of the twelve are not conclusive (see sect. A
68). The connection in Luke of the woes against Capernaum, Bethsaida, and
Chorazin with the instruction of the seventy is very natural, and marks
this mission as belonging to the close of the Galilean period, while the
mission of the twelve belongs to the height of Jesus' popularity.

171. Our knowledge of Jesus' visit to the feast of Dedication is due to
John's interest in the cure at about that time of one born blind (John
ix., x.). The prejudice of the sanhedrists who excommunicated the man for
his loyalty to Jesus led him in indignation to contrast their method of
caring for God's "sheep" with his own love and sympathy and genuine
ministry to their needs. He saw clearly that his course must end in death,
unless a great change should come over his enemies; yet, as the Good
Shepherd, he was ready to lay down his life for the sheep, rather than
leave them to the heartlessness of leaders who cared only for themselves
(x. 11-18). The critics of Jesus could not, or would not, understand his
charge against them, and accused him of madness for his extraordinary
claims. There were some, however, who could not credit the notion that
Jesus had a devil (John x. 21). It is possible that it was at this time
that the lawyer questioned him about the breadth of interpretation to be
given to the word "neighbor" in the law of love, and was answered by the
parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 25-37). Possibly the parable of the
Pharisee and the Publican (Luke xviii. 9-14) belongs also to this time. In
general, however, the visit proved anew that Jerusalem was in no mood to
accept Jesus (John x. 24-39). His enemies sought to draw from him a
declaration of his claim to be the Messiah, and Jesus appealed to his
works, asserting that only their incorrigible prejudice prevented their
recognizing his claims. He added that his Father, with whom he was ever in
perfect accord, had drawn some faithful followers to him, and thereupon,
angered by his claim to close kinship with God, they appealed to the rough
logic of violence (John x. 31-39; compare viii. 59).

172. After this added attempt to win Jerusalem Jesus withdrew to the
region beyond Jordan, where John had carried on his ministry to the eager
multitudes. Here he anew attracted great attention, causing people to
contrast his ministry with the less remarkable work of John, and to
acknowledge that John's testimony to him was true (John x. 40-42).
Possibly it was in this place that the seventy found Jesus when they
returned to report the success of their mission (Luke x. 17-24), for the
thanksgiving which Jesus rendered for the faith of the common people in
contrast with the unbelief of the "wise and prudent" might well express
his feeling after the fresh evidence he had at the feast of Dedication
that Jerusalem would none of his mission. The invitation to all the heavy
laden to take his yoke illustrates, though under another figure, his claim
to be the Good Shepherd (Matt. xi. 28-30). We have no means of knowing how
much more of what the gospels assign to the last journey to Jerusalem
should be put in connection with this sojourn across the Jordan. The
multitudes that came to him there may have included the Pharisees who
questioned him about divorce (Mark x. 2-12), and the young ruler who loved
his great possessions (Mark x. 17-31), as well as the parents who eagerly
sought the Lord's blessing for their children (Mark x. 13-16). Some parts
of Luke's narrative seem to belong still later in this journey, yet such a
section as the reply of Jesus to the report of Pilate's slaughter of the
Galileans (xiii. 1-9), or the parable of the Great Supper (xiv. 15-24), is
suitable to any stage of it.

173. This sojourn on the other side of Jordan was brought to a close by
the summons to come to the aid of his friends in Bethany (John xi.). It is
not strange that the disciples feared his return to Judea, nor that Jesus
did not hesitate when he recognized the call of duty as well as of
friendship. In no recorded miracle of Jesus is his power more signally set
forth, yet here more clearly than anywhere else he is represented as
dependent on his Father in his exercise of that power. The words of Jesus
at the grave (John xi. 41, 42) show that he was confident of the
resurrection of Lazarus, because he had prayed and was sure he was heard.
It may be that his delay after hearing of the sickness of his friend (xi.
6) was a time of waiting for answer, and that this explains his confidence
of safety when the time came for him to expose himself again to the
hostility of Judea. Jesus indicated not only that on this occasion he had
help from above in doing his miracles, but that it was the rule in his
life to seek such help and guidance (xi. 42). In fact, at a later time he
ascribed all his works to the Father abiding in him (John xiv. 10; compare
x. 25). The effect of the resurrection of Lazarus was such as to intensify
the determination of the leaders in Jerusalem--both Pharisees and
Sadducees--to get rid of Jesus as dangerous to the quiet of the nation
(John xi. 47-54). In this it simply served to fix a determination already
present (John vii. 25, 32; viii. 59; x. 31, 39). The miracle does not
appear in John as the cause of the apprehension of Jesus, but rather as
one influence leading to it. It was indeed the total contradiction between
Jesus and all current and cherished ideas that led to his condemnation;
the raising of Lazarus only showed that he was becoming dangerously
popular, and made the priestly leaders feel the necessity of haste. The
silence of the first three gospels concerning this event is truly
perplexing, yet it is not any more difficult of explanation, as Beyschlag
(LJ I. 495) has shown, than the silence of all four evangelists concerning
the appearance of the risen Jesus to James, or to the five hundred
brethren (I. Cor. xv. 6, 7). Room must be allowed in our conception of the
life of Jesus for many things of which no record remains, all the more,
therefore, for incidents to which but one of the gospels is witness.
Moreover, after the collapse of popularity in Galilee, the great
enthusiasm of the multitudes over Jesus when he entered Jerusalem (Luke
xix. 37-40; Mark xi. 8-10) is most easily understood if he had made some
such manifestation of power as the restoration of Lazarus.

174. After the visit to Bethany Jesus withdrew to a little town named
Ephraim, on the border between Judea and Samaria, and spent some time
there in seclusion with his disciples (John xi. 54), doubtless
strengthening his personal hold on them preparatory to the shock their
faith was about to receive. Of the length of this sojourn nothing is told
us, nor of the road by which Jesus left Ephraim for Jerusalem (John xii.
1). The first three gospels show that he began his final approach to the
Holy City at Jericho (Mark x. 46). It may be that he descended from
Ephraim direct to Jericho some days before the Passover, rejoining there
some of the people who had been impressed by his recent ministry in the
region "where John at the first was baptizing." It is natural to suppose
that it was on this journey to Jericho that he warned his disciples again
of the fate which he saw before him in Jerusalem (Mark x. 32-34), and
quite probably it was at this time that he rebuked the crude ambition of
the sons of Zebedee by reminding them that his disciples must be more
ambitious to serve than to rule, since even "the Son of Man came not to be
ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many"
(Mark x. 35-45). At Jericho he was at once crowded upon by enthusiastic
multitudes. The feeling they had for him may perhaps be inferred from the
cry of blind Bartimeus, "Thou son of David, have mercy on me" (Mark x.
48). This enthusiasm received a shock when Jesus chose to be guest in
Jericho of a chief of the publicans, a shock which Jesus probably intended
to give, for much the same reason that led him afterwards on his way up to
Jerusalem to teach his followers in the parable of the pounds that they
must be ready for long delay in his actual assumption of his kingly right
(Luke xix. 11-28). Finally, six days before the Passover, he and his
disciples left Jericho and went up to Bethany preparatory to his final
appearance in Jerusalem (John xii. 1).

175. The interval between the final departure from Galilee and the public
entry into Jerusalem was given to three different tasks: the renewed
proclamation of the coming of the kingdom, further efforts to win
acceptance in Jerusalem, if perchance she might learn to know the things
that belonged to her peace; and continued training of the disciples,
specially needed because of the ill-considered enthusiasm with which they
were inclined to view the probable issue of this journey to Jerusalem. The
first of these tasks was conducted as the earlier work in Galilee had
been, both by teaching and healing, in which Jesus used his disciples even
more extensively than before. It proved that here as in Galilee the common
people were ready to hear him gladly, until he showed too radical a
disappointment of their hopes. In this new ministry to the people Jesus
spoke very frankly of the seriousness of the opposition which the leaders
of the people were manifesting, and of the need that those who would be
his disciples should count the cost of their allegiance (Luke xiii. 22-30;
xiv. 25-35; xii. 1-59). He did not hesitate to administer the most
scathing rebuke to the Pharisees for the superficiality and hypocrisy of
their religious life and teaching (Luke xi. 37-54),--a rebuke which is
emphasized by the parable in which, on another occasion, he taught God's
preference for a contrite sinner over a complacent saint (Luke xviii.
9-14). When reminded of Pilate's outrage upon certain Galilean
worshippers, he used the calamity to warn his hearers that personal
godliness was the only protection which could secure them against a more
serious outbreak of the hostility of the Roman power (Luke xiii. 1-9); and
it was probably in reply to such an appeal as accompanied this report of
Pilate's cruelty that Jesus spoke the parable of the Unjust Judge (Luke
xviii. 1-8), teaching that God's love may be trusted to be no less
regardful of his people's cry than a selfish man's love of ease would be.

176. The second of these tasks must not be held to be perfunctory, even
though each new effort for Jerusalem proved that genuine acceptance of its
saviour was increasingly improbable. As the denunciations of the older
prophets ever left open a way of escape _if _ Israel would return and seek
the Lord, so the anticipation of rejection and death which filled the
heart of Jesus does not banish a like _if_ from his own thought of
Jerusalem in his repeated efforts to "gather her children." The
combination of the new popular enthusiasm and the fresh proofs of the
hopelessness of winning Jerusalem made more important the third task,--the
founding of the faith of the disciples on the rock of personal certainty,
from which the rising floods of hatred and seeming ruin for the Master's
cause could not sweep it. It was for them that much of his instruction of
the multitudes was doubtless primarily intended; they needed above all
others to count the cost of discipleship (Luke xiv. 25-35), and the
warnings against the spirit of Pharisaism (Luke xii.) were addressed
principally to them, even as it was to them that Jesus confessed the
"straitening" of his own soul in view of the "fire which he had come to
cast upon the earth" (Luke xii. 49-53),--a confession which had another
expression when he found it needful to rebuke the personal ambition of the
sons of Zebedee (Mark x. 35-45). As for Jesus himself, the popular
enthusiasm had not deceived him, nor the obdurate unbelief of Jerusalem
daunted him, nor his disciples' misconception of his kingdom disheartened
him; he still steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.

   Outline of Events in the Last Week of Jesus' Life


   _Saturday_ (?). The anointing in Bethany six days before the
   Passover--Matt. xxvi. 6-13; Mark xiv. 3-9; John xi. 55 to xii. 11.

   _Sunday_ (?). The Messianic entry--Matt. xxi. 1-11; Mark xi. 1-11; Luke
   six. 29-44; John xii. 12-19.

   _Monday_ (?). Visit to the temple: the cursing of the barren
   fig-tree--Matt. xxi. 18-19, 12-17; Mark xi. 12-14, 15-18; Luke xix. 45,
   47, 48.

   Return to Bethany for the night--Matt. xxi. 17; Mark xi. 19; Luke xxi.
   37, 38.

   _Tuesday_ (?). Visit to the temple: the fig-tree found withered--Matt,
   xxi 20-23; Mark xi. 20-27; Luke xx. 1.

   Challenge of Jesus' authority--Matt. xxi. 23-27; Mark xi. 27-33; Luke
   xx. 1-8.

   Three parables against the religious leaders--Matt. xxi. 28 to xxii.
   14; Mark xii. 1-12; Luke xx. 9-19.

   The question about tribute--Matt. xxii. 15-22; Mark xii. 13-17; Luke
   xx. 20-26.

   The question of the Sadducees about the resurrection--Matt. xxii.
   23-33; Mark xii. 18-27; Luke xx. 27-40.

   The question of the Pharisees about the great commandment--Matt. xxii.
   34-40; Mark xii. 28-34.

   Jesus' counter-question about David's son and Lord--Matt. xxii. 41-46;
   Mark xii. 35-37; Luke xx. 41-44.

   Jesus' denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees--Matt, xxiii. 1-39;
   Mark xii. 38-40; Luke xx. 45-47.

   The widow's two mites--Mark xii. 41-44; Luke xxi. 1-4.

   The visit of the Greeks--John xii. 20-36^a.

   Final departure from the temple--John xii. 36^b (-50).

   Discourse concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the
   world--Matt. xxiv. 1 to xxvi. 2; Mark xiii. 1-37; Luke xxi. 5-38.

   Plot of Judas to betray Jesus--Matt. xxvi. 3-5, 14-16; Mark xiv. 1, 2,
   10, 11; Luke xxii. 1-6.

   _Wednesday_. Retirement at Bethany. (?)

   _Thursday_. The Last Supper--Matt. xxvi. 17-30; Mark xiv. 12-26; Luke
   xxii. 7-30; John xiii. 1-30.

   The farewell words of admonition and comfort--John xiii. 31 to xvi. 33.

   The intercessory prayer--John xvii. 1-26.

   _Friday_. The agony in Gethsemane--Matt. xxvi. 30, 36-46; Mark xiv. 26,
   32-42; Luke xxii. 39-46; John xviii. 1.

   The betrayal and arrest--Matt xxvi. 47-56; Mark xiv. 43-52; Luke xxii.
   47-53; John xviii. 1-12.

   Trial before the high-priests and sanhedrin--Matt. xxvi. 57 to xxvii.
   10; Mark xiv. 53 to xv. 1^a; Luke xxii. 54-71; John xviii. 12-27.

   Trial before Pilate--Matt, xxvii. 11-31; Mark xv. 1-20; Luke xxiii.
   1-25; John xviii. 28 to xix. 16^a.

   The crucifixion--Matt, xxvii. 32-56; Mark xv. 21-41; Luke xxiii. 26-49;
   John xix. 16-37.

   The burial--Matt, xxvii. 57-61; Mark xv. 42-47; Luke xxiii. 50-56; John
   xix. 38-42.

   _Saturday_. The Sabbath rest--Luke xxiii. 56^b.

   The watch at the tomb--Matt, xxvii. 62-66.




VI

The Final Controversies in Jerusalem



177. The early Christians were greatly interested in the teachings of
Jesus and in his deeds, but they thought oftenest of the victory which by
his resurrection he won out of seeming defeat. This is proved by the fact
that of the first two gospels over one third, of Luke over one fifth, and
of the fourth gospel nearly one half are devoted to the story of the
passion and resurrection. This preponderance is not strange in view of the
shock which the death of Jesus caused his disciples, and the new life
which the resurrection brought to their hearts. The resurrection was the
fundamental theme of apostolic preaching, the supreme evidence that Jesus
was the Messiah. Hence the cross early became the object of exultant
Christian joy and boasting; and in this the church entered actually into
the Lord's own thought, for through the cross he looked for his exaltation
and glory (Mark viii. 31; John xii. 23-36). From the time of the
confession at Cæsarea Philippi, he had had his death avowedly in view, and
had repeatedly checked the ambitious and unthinking enthusiasm of his
disciples by reminding them of what he must receive at the hands of the
leaders of the people. The few months preceding his final appearance in
Jerusalem had been devoted to the journey to the cross. This explains the
note of tragedy which appears in his teachings at this period. The people
had shown that they would none of his ministry. In this they had written
their national and religious death warrant, and as he approached Jerusalem
for the final crisis he declared, though with almost breaking heart, "Your
house is left unto you desolate" (Luke xiii. 31-35). Each new effort of
Jesus to turn aside the impending judgment of his people by winning their
acceptance of himself and his message resulted in a new certainty of his
ultimate rejection, and thus in confirmation of the early recognized
necessity, that, if he continued the work God had given him to do, he
should suffer many things, and die at the hands of his own people.

178. The last chapter in his public ministry began with his arrival at
Bethany six days before the Passover. It is probable that the caravan with
which Jesus was travelling reached Bethany not far from the sunset which
marked the beginning of the Sabbath preceding the feast. Jesus had friends
there who gladly gave him entertainment, and the Sabbath was doubtless
spent quietly in this retreat. The holy day closed with the setting sun,
and then his hosts were able to show him the special attention which they
desired. The general cordiality of welcome expressed itself in a feast
given in the house of one Simon, a leper who had probably experienced the
power of Jesus to heal. He may have been a relative also of Lazarus, for
Martha assisted in the entertainment, and Lazarus was one of the guests of
honor (Mark xiv. 3; John xii. 2). During the feast, Mary, the sister of
Lazarus, poured forth on the head and feet of Jesus a box of the rarest
perfume. This act of costly adoration seemed extravagant to some,
particularly to one of Jesus' disciples, who complained that the money
could have been better spent. This criticism of one who had not counted
cost in her service was rebuked by Jesus, who defended and commended Mary;
for in the act he recognized her fear that he might not be long with her
(Mark xiv. 8; John xii. 7). It is probable that this rebuke, with the
clear reference to his approaching death, led Judas to decide to abandon
the apparently waning cause of his Master, and bargain with the leaders in
Jerusalem to betray him (Mark xiv. 3-11).

179. The day following the supper at Bethany--that is, the first day of
the week--witnessed the welcome of Jesus to Jerusalem by the jubilant
multitudes. His mode of entering the city affords a marked contrast to
his treatment of the determination to make him king after he had fed the
multitudes in Galilee (John vi. 15). In some respects the circumstances
were similar. A multitude of the visitors to the feast, hearing that Jesus
was at Bethany on his way to Jerusalem, went out to meet him with a
welcome that showed their enthusiastic confidence that at last he would
assume Messianic power and redeem Israel (John xii. 12, 13). Jesus was now
ready for a popular demonstration, for the rulers were unwilling longer to
tolerate his work and his teaching. He had never hesitated to assert his
superiority to official criticism, and at length the hour had come to
proclaim the full significance of his independence. In fact it was for
this that some months before he had set his face steadfastly to go to
Jerusalem. When, therefore, the crowd from Jerusalem appeared, Jesus took
the initiative in a genuine Messianic demonstration. He sent two of his
disciples to a place near by to borrow an ass's colt, on which he might
ride into the city, fulfilling Zechariah's prophecy of the "king that
cometh meek, and riding upon an ass" (see Matt. xxi. 4, 5). At this, the
enthusiasm of his followers, and of those who had come to meet him, became
unbounded, and without rebuke from Jesus they proceeded towards Jerusalem
crying, "Hosanna; Blessed _is_ he that cometh in the name of the Lord"
(Mark xi. 9, 10). Notwithstanding the remonstrances of certain Pharisees
among the multitude (Luke xix. 39), Jesus accepted the hosannas, for they
served to emphasize the claim which he now wished, without reserve or
ambiguity, to make in Jerusalem. The time for reserve had passed. The
mass of the people with their leaders had shown clearly that for his
truth, and himself as bearer of it, they had no liking; while the few had
become attached to him sufficiently to warrant the supreme test of their
faith. He could not continue longer his efforts to win the people, for
both Galilee and Judea were closed to him. Even if he had been content,
without contradicting popular ideas, to work wonders and proclaim promises
of coming good, he could with difficulty have continued this work, for
Herod had already been regarding him with suspicion (Luke xiii. 31). He
had run his course and must measure strength with the hostile forces in
Jerusalem. For the last encounter he assumed the aggressive, and entered
the city as its promised deliverer, the Prince of Peace. The very method
of his Messianic proclamation was a challenge of current Jewish ideas, for
they were not looking for so meek and peaceful a leader as Zechariah had
conceived; this entrance emphasized the old contradiction between Jesus
and his people's expectations. He accepted the popular welcome with full
knowledge of the transitoriness of the present enthusiasm. As he advanced
he saw in thought the fate to which the city and people were blindly
hurrying, and his day of popular triumph was a day of tears (Luke xix.
41-44). The city was stirred when the prophet of Nazareth thus entered it;
but he simply went into the temple, looked about with heavy heart, and, as
it was late, returned to Bethany with the twelve for the night.

180. On the following day Jesus furnished to his disciples a parable in
action illustrating the fate awaiting the nation; for it is only as a
parable that the curse of the barren fig-tree can be understood. The idea
that Jesus showed resentment at disappointment of his hunger when he found
no figs on the tree out of season is too petty for consideration. He was
drawn to it by the early foliage, for it was not yet the season for either
fruit or leaves. One is tempted to believe, as Dr. Bruce has suggested,
that he had small expectation of finding fruit, and that even before he
reached the tree with its early leaves he felt a likeness between it and
the nation of hypocrites whose fate was so clear in his mind. The
withering of the fig-tree set his disciples thinking; and Jesus showed
that it was an object lesson, promising that the disciples, by the
exercise of but a little faith, could do more, even remove
mountains,--such mountains of difficulty as the opposition of the whole
Jewish nation would offer to the success of their work in their Master's
name.

181. The curse upon the barren fig-tree was spoken as Jesus was going from
Bethany to Jerusalem on the morning after his Messianic entry, that is, on
Monday, and it was Tuesday when the disciples found it withered away (Mark
xi. 12-14, 20-25). On Monday Jesus entered into the temple and taught and
healed (Luke xix. 47; Matt. xxi. 14-16). It is at this point that Mark
inserts the cleansing of the temple which John shows to belong rather to
Jesus' first public visit to Jerusalem. The place which this incident
holds in the first three gospels has already been explained by the fact
that it furnished one cause for the official hostility to Jesus, and that
Mark's story included no earlier visit to the holy city (sect. 116; see A
39).

182. Tuesday, the last day of public activity, exhibits Jesus in four
different lights, according as he had to do with his critics, with the
devout widow, with the inquiring Greeks, and with his own disciples. The
opposition to him expressed itself, after the general challenge of his
authority, in three questions put in succession by Pharisees and
Herodians, by Sadducees, and by a scribe, more earnest than most, whom the
Pharisees put forward after they had seen how Jesus silenced the
Sadducees. Jesus met the opening challenge by a question about John's
baptism (Mark xi. 29-33) which completely destroyed the complacency of his
critics, putting them on the defensive. This was more than a clever
stroke, they could not know what his authority was unless they had a quick
sense for spiritual things. His question would have served to bring this
to the surface if they had possessed it. Their reply showed them incapable
of receiving a real answer to their question. It also gave him opportunity
to say in three significant parables (Matt. xxi. 28 to xxii. 14) what
their spiritual blindness signified for them and their nation, giving thus
a turn to the interview not at all to their minds. As Jesus' rebuke was
spoken in the hearing of the people, a determined effort was at once made
to discredit him in the popular mind. The question (Mark xii. 13-17) with
which the Pharisees and Herodians hoped to ensnare him was most subtle,
for the popular feeling was as sensitive to the mark of subserviency which
the payment of tribute kept ever before them as the Roman authorities were
to the slightest suspicion of revolt against their sway. In none of his
words had Jesus so clearly asserted the simple other-worldliness of his
doctrine of the kingdom of God as in his answer to the question about
tribute. For him loyalty to the actual earthly sovereign was quite
compatible with loyalty to God, the lower obligation was in fact a summons
to be scrupulous also to render to God his due,--a duty in which this
nation was sadly delinquent. The reply gave no ground for an accusation
before the governor; but the popular feeling against Rome was so strong
that it is not unlikely that it contributed somewhat to the readiness of
the multitude a few days later to prefer Barabbas to Jesus.

183. A second assault was made by some Sadducees who put to him a crude
question about the relations of a seven-times married woman in the
resurrection (Mark xii. 18-27). If this question was asked with the
expectation of making Jesus ridiculous in the sight of the people it was a
marked failure, for his reply was so simple and straightforward that he
won the admiration even of some of the Pharisees. The most significant
feature of it was his argument from God's reference to himself as God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for in that he taught that the fact of
fellowship with God implies that God's servants share with him a life that
death cannot vanquish. The skill with which Jesus met these two questions
interested some of his hearers and showed to his opponents that they must
put forward their ablest champions to cope with him. The next test was
more purely academic in character,--as to what class of commands is
greatest in the law (Mark xii. 28-34). For the pharisaic scholars this was
a favorite problem. For Jesus, however, the question contained no problem,
since all the law is summed up in the two commandments of love. His
contemporaries were not without power to see the truth of his
generalization, and their champion in this last attack was moved with
admiration for the fineness and sufficiency of Jesus' answer.

184. All of the assaults served only to show freshly the clearness and
profoundness of his thought; his critics were quite discomfited in their
effort to entangle him. They had done with him, but he had still a word
for them. The business of these scribes was the study of the scriptures.
They furnished the people with authoritative statements of truth. One of
the common-places of the current thought was that the Messiah should be
David's son. Jesus did not deny the truth of this view, yet he showed them
how partial their ideas were by quoting a word of scripture in which the
Messiah is shown as David's Lord. If they had been open-minded they might
have inferred from this that perhaps the man before them was not so
impossible a Messiah as they thought. This last question closed the
colloquy; there awaited yet, however, Jesus' calm, scathing arraignment of
the hypocrisy of these religious leaders. There was no longer any need for
prudence and every reason for a clear indication of the difference between
himself and the scribes in motive, in teaching, and in character. The
final conflict was on, and Jesus freely spoke his mind concerning their
whole life of piety without godliness. Never have sharper words of
reproach fallen from human lips than these which Jesus directed against
the scribes and Pharisees; they are burdened with indignation for the
misleading of the people, with rebuke for the misrepresentation of God's
truth, and with scorn for their hollow pretence of righteousness. Through
it all breathes a note of sorrow for the city whose house was now left to
her desolate. The change of scene which introduces the widow offering her
gift in the temple treasury heightens the significance of the
controversies through which Jesus had just passed. In his comment on the
worth of her two mites we hear again the preacher of the sermon on the
mount, and are assured that it is indeed from him that the severe rebukes
which have fallen on the scribes have come. There is again a reference to
the insight of him who sees in secret, and who judges as he sees; while
allusion is not lacking to the others whose larger gifts attracted a wider
attention. The whole scene is like a commentary on Matt. vi. 2-4.

185. Still a different side of Jesus' life appears when the Greeks seek
him in the temple. They were probably proselytes from some of the Greek
cities about the Mediterranean where the synagogue offered to the
earnest-minded a welcome relief from the foolishness and corruption of
what was left of religion in the heathen world. Having visited Jerusalem
for the feast, they heard on every hand about the new teacher. They were
not so bound to rabbinic traditions as the Jews themselves, they had been
drawn by the finer features of Judaism,--its high morality and its noble
idea of God. What they heard of Jesus might well attract them, and they
sought out Philip, a disciple with a Greek name, to request an interview
with his Master. The evangelist who has preserved the incident (John xii.
20-36) evidently introduced it because of what it showed of Jesus' inner
life; hence we have no report of the conversation between him and his
visitors. The effect of their seeking him was marked, however, for it
offered sharp contrast to the rejection which he already felt in his
dealings with the people who but two days before had hailed him as
Messiah. This foreign interest in him did not suggest a new avenue for
Messianic work, it only brought before his mind the influence which was to
be his in the world which these inquirers represented, and immediately
with the thought of his glorification came that of the means thereto,--the
cross whose shadow was already darkening his path. Excepting Gethsemane,
no more solemn moment in Jesus' life is reported for us. A glimpse is
given into the inner currents of his soul, and the storm which tossed them
is seen. It is in marked contrast to the calmness of his controversy with
the leaders, and to the gentleness of his commendation of the widow. The
agitation passed almost at once, but it left Jesus in a mood which he had
not shown before on that day; in it his own thoughts had their way, and
the doctrine of the grain of wheat dying to appear in larger life, of the
Son of Man lifted up to draw all men unto him, had utterance, greatly to
the perplexity of his hearers. It seems to have been one of the few times
when Jesus spoke for his own soul's relief.

186. In all the earlier events of the day the disciples of Jesus appear
but little. He is occupied with others, accepting the challenge of the
leaders, and completing his testimony to the truth they refused to hear.
The quieter hours of the later part of the day gave time for further words
with his friends. The comment on the widow's gift was meant for them, and
the uncovering of his own soul when the Greeks sought him was in their
presence. After he had left the temple and the city he gave himself to
them more exclusively. His disciples were perplexed by what they saw and
felt, for the temper of the people toward their Master could not be
mistaken. Yet they were sure of him. The leaders among them, therefore,
asked him privately to tell them when the catastrophe should come, to
which during the day he had made repeated reference. The conversation
which followed is reported for us in the discourse on the destruction of
Jerusalem and the end of the world (Mark xiii. and parallels), in which
Jesus taught his disciples to expect trouble in their ministry, as he was
meeting trouble in his; and to be ready for complete disappointment of
their inherited hopes for the glory of their holy city. He also taught
them to expect that his work would shortly be carried to perfection, and
to live in expectancy of his coming to complete all that he was now
seeming to leave undone. This lesson of patience and expectancy is
enforced in a group of parables preserved for us in Matthew (chap. xxv.),
closing with the remarkable picture of the end of all things when the
Master should return in glory as judge of all to make final announcement
of the simplicity of God's requirement of righteousness, as it had been
exhibited in the life which by the despite of men was now drawing to its
close.

187. The bargain made by Judas to betray his Lord has always been
difficult to understand. The man must have had fine possibilities or Jesus
would not have chosen him for an apostle, nor would the little company
have made him its treasurer (John xii. 6; xiii. 29). The fact that Jesus
early discovered his character (John vi. 64) does not compel us to think
that his selection as an apostle was not perfectly sincere; the man must
have seemed to be still savable and worthy thus to be associated with the
eleven others who were Jesus' nearest companions. It has often been
noticed that he was probably the only Judean among the twelve, for
Kerioth, his home, was a town in southern Judea. The effort has frequently
been made to redeem his reputation by attributing his betrayal to some
high motive--such as a desire to force his Master to use his Messianic
power, and confound his opponents by escaping from their hands and setting
up the hoped-for kingdom. But the remorse of Judas, in which De Quincey
finds support for this theory of the betrayal, must be more simply and
sadly understood. It is more likely that the traitor illustrates Jesus'
words: "No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and
love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye
cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. vi. 24). The beginning of his fall may
have been his disappointment when Jesus showed clearly that he would not
establish a kingdom conformed to the popular ideas. As the enthusiasm
which drew him to Jesus cooled, personal greed, with something of
resentment at the cause of his disappointment, seem to have taken
possession of him, and they led him on until the stinging rebuke which
Jesus administered to the criticism of Mary at Bethany prompted the man to
seek a bargain with the authorities which should insure him at least some
profit in the general wreck of his hopes. His remorse after he saw in its
bald hideousness what he had done was psychologically inevitable. Although
Jesus was aware of Judas' character from the beginning (John vi. 64), he
that came to seek and to save that which was lost was no fatalist; and
this knowledge was doubtless--like that which he had of the fate hanging
over Jerusalem--subject to the possibility that repentance might change
what was otherwise a certain destiny. As the event turned he could only
say, "Good were it for that man if he had not been born" (Mark xiv. 21).

188. With this the curtain falls on the public ministry of Jesus. The
gospels suggest a day of quiet retirement following these controversies
and warnings, with their fresh demonstration of the irreconcilable
hostility of people of all classes to him and his work. After the
seclusion of that day, he returned to give final proof of complete
obedience to his Father's will.




VII

The Last Supper



189. On Thursday Jesus and his disciples returned to Jerusalem for the
last time. Knowing the temper of the leaders, and the danger of arrest at
any time, Jesus was particularly eager to eat the Passover with his
disciples (Luke xxii. 15), and he sent two of them--Luke names them as
Peter and John--to prepare for the supper. In a way which would give no
information to such a one as Judas, he directed them carefully how to find
the house where a friend would provide them the upper room that was needed
for an undisturbed meeting of the little band, and the two went on in
advance to make ready. When the hour was come Jesus with the others went
to the appointed place and sat down for the supper (Mark xiv. 17; Luke
xxii. 14; Matt. xxvi. 20).

190. The gospels all report the last evening which the little company
spent together. There is a perplexing divergence, however, between John
and the others concerning the relation of this supper to the feast of the
Passover. In their introduction of the story, Mark and his companion
gospels indicate that the supper which Jesus ate was the Passover meal
itself. John, on the other hand, declares that it was "before the feast of
the Passover" (xiii. 1) that Jesus took this meal with his disciples.
John's account is consistent throughout, for he states that on the next
day the desire of the Jews to "eat the Passover" forbade them to enter the
house of the governor lest they should incur defilement (xviii. 28). The
other gospels, moreover, hint in several ways that the day of Jesus' death
could not have been the day after the Passover; that is, the first day of
the feast of unleavened bread. Dr. Sanday has recently enumerated these
afresh, remarking that "the Synoptists make the Sanhedrin say beforehand
that they will not arrest Jesus 'on the feast day,' and then actually
arrest him on that day; that not only the guards, but one of the disciples
(Mark xiv. 47), carries arms, which on the feast day was not allowed; that
the trial was also held on the feast day, which would be unlawful; that
the feast day would not be called simply Preparation (see Mark xv. 42, and
compare John xix. 31); that the phrase 'coming from the field' (Mark xv.
21 [Greek]) means properly 'coming from work;' that Joseph of Arimathea is
represented as buying a linen cloth (Mark xv. 46) and the women as
preparing spices and ointments (Luke xxiii. 56), all of which would be
contrary to law and custom" (HastBD ii. 634). In these particulars the
first three gospels seem to confirm the representation of the fourth that
the day of the last supper was earlier than the regular Jewish Passover.
On the other hand, a strong argument, though one that has not commended
itself to other specialists in Jewish archæology, has been put forth by
Dr. Edersheim (LJM ii. 567f.) to prove that John also indicates that the
last supper was eaten at the time of the regular Passover. In the present
condition of our knowledge certainty is impossible. If John does differ
from the others, his testimony has the greatest weight. While not
conclusive, it has some significance that Paul identified Christ with the
sacrifice of the passover (I. Cor. v. 7), a statement which may indicate
that he held that Jesus died about the time of the killing of the paschal
lamb. If John be taken to prove that the last supper occurred a day before
the regular Passover, Jesus must have felt that the anticipation was
necessary in order to avoid the publicity and consequent danger of a
celebration at the same time with all the rest of the city.

191. Whatever the conclusion concerning the date of the last supper, and
consequently of the crucifixion, the last meal of Jesus with his disciples
was for that little company the equivalent of the Passover supper. Luke
states that the desire of Jesus had looked specially to eating this feast
with his disciples (xxii. 15). The reason must be found in his certainty
of the very near end, and in his wish to make the meal a preparation for
the bitter experiences which were overhanging him and them.

192. It is customary to connect as occasion and consequence the dispute
concerning precedence which Luke reports (xxii. 24-30), and the rebuke
which Jesus administered by washing the disciples' feet (John xiii. 1-20).
The jealousies of the disciples may have arisen over the allotment of
seats at the table, as Dr. Edersheim has most fully shown (LJM ii.
492-503); such a controversy would be the natural sequel of earlier
disputes concerning greatness, and particularly of the request of James
and John for the best places in the coming kingdom (Mark x. 35-45), and
would lead as naturally to the distress of heart with which Jesus declared
that one of the disciples should betray him, and that another of them
should deny him. The narrative in Mark favors the withdrawal of Judas
before the new rite was appointed. This must seem to be the probability in
the case, for the presence of Judas would be most incongruous at such a
memorial service. John's mention of his departure before the announcement
of Peter's approaching fall confirms this interpretation of Mark (Mark
xiv. 18-21; John xiii. 21-30).

193. The paschal memories furnished to Jesus an opportunity to establish
for his disciples an institution which should symbolize the new covenant
which he was soon to seal with his blood. Jesus regarded this new covenant
as that which was promised by the prophets, especially Jeremiah (xxxi.
31-34), and his thought, like that of the prophets, goes back to the story
of the covenant established at Sinai (Ex. xxiv. 1-11). In this way he gave
to his disciples a conception of his death, which later, if not
immediately, would help them to regard it as a necessary part of his work
as Messiah. They were now oppressed by the evident certainty that the near
future would bring their Master to death; he accordingly gave them a
sacred reminder of himself and of his death as an essential part of his
self-giving "for them;" for whatever the conclusion concerning the
disputed text of Luke (xxii. 19), the institutional character of the act
and words of Jesus is clear. As Holtzmann remarks (NtTh i. 304): "The
words 'this do in remembrance of me' were perhaps not spoken; all the more
certainly do they of themselves express what lay in the situation and made
itself felt with incontestable conclusiveness."

194. Several hints in the records seem to connect the meal in various
details with what is known of ancient custom in the celebration of the
Passover. The hymn with which according to Mark and Matthew the supper
closed is easily identified with the last part (Psalms cxv. to cxviii.) of
the so called _Hallel_, which was sung at the close of the Passover meal.
The mention of two cups in the familiar text of Luke (xxii. 17-20) agrees
with the repeated cups of the Passover ritual; so also do the sop and the
dipping of it with which Jesus indicated to John who the traitor was (John
xiii. 23-26; Mark xiv. 20). If it could be proved that the customs
recorded in the Talmud correctly represent the usage in Jesus' time it
would be of extreme interest to seek to connect what is told us of the
last supper with that Passover ritual as Dr. Edersheim has done (LJM ii.
490-512). The antiquity of the rabbinic record is so uncertain, however,
that it is only useful as showing what possibly may have been the case.
All that can be asserted is that the rabbinic ritual probably originated
long before it was recorded, and that as the last supper was a meal which
Jesus and his disciples celebrated as a Passover, it is probable that some
such ritual was more or less closely followed.

195. Luke and John give the fullest reports of what was said at the table.
All the gospels tell of Peter's declaration of superior loyalty and the
prediction of his threefold denial; Luke, however, adds that in connection
with it Jesus assured Peter of his restoration, and charged him to
strengthen his brethren (Luke xxii. 31-34). John alone gives the long and
full discourse of admonition and comfort, followed by Jesus' prayer for
his disciples (xiii. 31 to xvii. 26). It is evident from the words of
Jesus as he entered the garden of Gethsemane (Mark xiv. 33, 34), as from
those which had escaped him when the Greeks sought him the last day in the
temple (John xii. 27), that his own heart was greatly troubled during the
supper by the apparent defeat which was now close at hand. His quietness
and self-possession during the supper, particularly when tenderly
reproving his disciples for petty ambition, or when solemnly dismissing
the traitor, or warning Peter of his denials, must not blind us to the
depth of the emotion which was stirring his own soul. It is only as we
remember his trouble of heart that it is possible justly to value the
ministry which in varied ways he rendered to his disciples that night. In
the discourses reported by John he showed that he realized that the
approaching separation would sorely try the faith of his followers, and he
sought to strengthen them by showing his own calmness in view of it, and
by promising them another who should abide with them spiritually as his
representative, and continue for them the work which he had begun. He
therefore urged them to maintain their devotion to him, still to seek and
find the source of their life and secret of their strength in fellowship
with him--present, though unseen among them. He sought to convince them
that his departure was to be for their advantage, that fellowship with him
spiritually would be far more real and efficacious than the intercourse
they had already enjoyed. He whose own heart was "exceeding sorrowful even
unto death" bade his disciples not to let their hearts be troubled nor
afraid. How long the conversation continued, of when the company left the
upper chamber, cannot be told. At some time before the arrival at
Gethsemane Jesus turned to God in prayer for the disciples whom he was
about to leave to the severe trial of their faith, asking for them that
realization of eternal life which he had enjoyed and exemplified in his
own intimate life with his Father. With this his ministry to them closed
for the time, and, crossing the Kidron, he entered the garden of
Gethsemane weighed down by the sorrow of his own soul.




VIII

The Shadow of Death



196. Of the garden of Gethsemane it is only known that it was across the
Kidron, on the slope of the Mount of Olives. Tradition has long pointed to
an enclosure some fifty yards beyond the bridge that crosses the ravine on
the road leading eastward from St. Stephen's gate. Most students feel that
this is too near the city and the highway for the place of retreat chosen
by Jesus. Archæologically and sentimentally the identification of places
connected with the life of Jesus is of great interest. Practically,
however, it is easy to over-emphasize the importance of such an
identification. Granted the fact that in some olive grove on the
mountain-side, where an oil-press gave a name to the place (Gethsemane),
Jesus withdrew with his disciples on that last night, and all that is
important is known. It is of far higher importance to see rightly the
relation of what took place in that garden to the things which preceded
and followed it in the life of Jesus. At that time Jesus saw pressed to
his lips the "cup" from the bitterness of which his whole soul shrank. It
was not an unlooked-for trial; some time earlier he had sought to cool the
ardor of the ambition of James and John by telling them that they should
drink of his cup, and declared that even the Son of Man came not to be
ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
The fourth gospel, whose representation omits the agony of Gethsemane and
only reports its victory, tells how Jesus rebuked the violent impulse of
Peter with the word, "The cup which my Father hath given me to drink shall
I not drink it?" (John xviii. 11^b); and all the gospels exhibit the
marvellous quietness of spirit and dignity of self-surrender which
characterized Jesus throughout his trial and execution. In Gethsemane,
however, we see the struggle in which that calmness and self-mastery were
won.

197. It is unbecoming to consider that scene with any vulgar curiosity to
know what it was that made Jesus so draw back from the drinking of his
"cup." It is not unfitting, however, to recognize that in his cry, "Abba,
Father, all things are possible unto thee; remove this cup from me" (Mark
xiv. 36), an intense longing of his own soul's life had expression. There
was something in the fate which he saw before him from which his whole
being shrank. But stronger than this was his fixed desire to do his
Father's will. Here was supremely illustrated the truth that "he came down
from heaven, not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him"
(John vi. 38). The fullest allowance for the shrinking of the most
delicately constituted nature from pain and death completely fails to
account for this dread of Jesus. He was no coward, drawing back from
sufferings which for simple physical pain were over and again more than
matched by many of the martyrs to truth who preceded and followed him. He
himself declared to the sons of Zebedee that they should share a cup in
kind like unto his, suffering for the kingdom of God, for the salvation
of the world. Yet there is a difference evident between what others have
had to bear and the cup from which Jesus shrank. The death which now stood
before him in the path of obedience had in it a bitterness quite
unexplained by the pain and disappointment it entailed. That excess of
bitterness can probably never be understood by us. A hint of its nature
may be found in the "shame of the cross" which the author of Hebrews (xii.
2; xiii. 13) emphasizes, and in the "curse" of the cross which made it a
stumbling block to Paul and his Jewish brethren (Gal. iii. 13; I. Cor. i.
23). Jesus came from the garden ready to endure the cross in obedience to
his Father's will; but it was a costly obedience, a complete emptying of
himself (Phil. ii. 7, 8).

198. The loneliness of Jesus in his struggle is emphasized in the gospels
of Mark and Matthew. In search of sympathy he had confessed to the
disciples his trouble of heart, and had taken his three intimates with him
when he withdrew from the others for prayer, asking them to watch with
him. They were too heavy of heart and weary of body to stand by in his
bitter hour, and instead of being in readiness to warn him of the approach
of the hostile band, he had to awake them to their danger. The fourth
gospel reports that after the struggle Jesus bore marks of majesty which
astonished and overawed his foes when he calmly told them that he was the
one they were seeking. Their fear was overcome, however, when Judas gave
the appointed sign by kissing his Master (Mark xiv. 45). The thought for
the disciples' safety which John records (xviii. 8) is another proof that
the fight had been won, and Jesus had fully resumed the self-emptying
ministry appointed to him by his Father.

199. The band that arrested Jesus was accompanied by a Roman cohort from
the garrison of the city, but it was not needed, for the disciples offered
no appreciable resistance; on the contrary, "they all forsook him and
fled" (Mark xiv. 50). Having arrested Jesus, the band took him to Annas,
the actual leader of Jewish affairs, though not at the time the official
high-priest. He had held that office some time before, but had been
deposed by the Roman governor of Syria after being in power for nine
years. His influence continued, however, for although he was never
reinstated, he seems to have been able to secure the appointment for
members of his own family during a period of many years. Caiaphas, the
legal high-priest, was his son-in-law. Annas, as the leader of
aristocratic opinion in Jerusalem, had doubtless been foremost in the
secret counsels which led to the decision to get rid of Jesus, hence the
captive was, as a matter of course, taken first to his house. The trial by
the Jewish authorities was irregular. There seems to have been an informal
examination of Jesus and various witnesses, first before Annas, and then
before Caiaphas and a group of members of the sanhedrin, the outcome of
which was complete failure to secure evidence against Jesus from their
false witnesses, and the formulation of a charge of blasphemy in
consequence of his answer to the high-priest acknowledging himself to be
the Messiah (Mark xiv. 61-64). The early hours before the day were given
over to mockery and ill-usage of the captive Jesus. When morning was
come, the sanhedrin was convened, and he was condemned to death on the
charge of blasphemy (Mark xv. 1; Luke xxii. 66-71), and then was led in
bonds to the Roman governor for execution, since the Romans had taken from
the sanhedrin the authority to execute a death sentence (John xviii. 31).
Before Pilate the Jews had to name an offence recognized by Roman law; his
accusers therefore falsified his claim and made him out a political
Messiah, hostile to Roman rule (Luke xxiii. 1, 2). Pilate soon saw that
the charge was trumped up, and sought in every way, while keeping the
good-will of the people, to escape the responsibility of giving sentence
against Jesus. His first effort was a simple declaration that he found no
fault in the prisoner (Luke xxiii. 4); then, having heard that he was a
Galilean, he tried to transfer the case to Herod, who happened to be in
the city at the time (Luke xxiii. 5-12); he then sought to compromise by
agreeing to chastise Jesus and then release him (Luke xxiii. 13-16); next
he offered the people their choice between the innocent Jesus and
Barabbas, a convicted insurrectionist (Mark xv. 6-15; Luke xxiii. 16-24),
and the people, instructed by the priests, chose Barabbas, caring nothing
for a Messiah who would allow himself to be arrested without resistance;
the fourth gospel tells of Pilate's still further effort, by appealing to
the people's sympathy, to escape giving sentence, even after he had
delivered Jesus to the soldiers for the preliminary scourging. Finding the
Jews ready to urge, at length, a religious charge, Pilate's superstitious
fear was roused (John xix. 7-12), and he sought again to release him, but
was finally cowed by the threat of an accusation against him at Rome,
and, mocking the people by sitting in judgment to condemn Jesus as their
king, he gave sentence against the man whom he knew to be innocent (John
xix. 12-16).

200. Some of Jesus' disciples and friends were witnesses of the early
stages of the informal trial, in particular, John (John xviii. 15) and
Peter. It was during the progress of the early examination that Peter was
drawn into his denials by the comments made by the bystanders on his
connection with the accused. It has been suggested that the house of the
high-priest where Jesus was tried was built, like other Oriental houses,
about a court so that the room where Jesus was examined was open to view
from the court. In this case it is easy to see how Jesus could overhear
his disciple's strenuous denials of any acquaintance with him, and could
turn and give him that look which sent him out to weep bitterly (Luke
xxii. 61, 62). If it be further assumed that Annas and Caiaphas occupied
different sides of the same high-priestly palace, the double examination
reported by John would still be within hearing from the one court in which
the faithless disciple was a fascinated witness of his Master's trial.

201. Humanly speaking, it may be said that the fate of Jesus was sealed
when the Sadducean leaders came to look on him seriously as a danger to
the State (John xi. 47-50, note the mention of chief priests). The
religious opposition was serious, and might have brought trouble, in some
such way as it seems to have done to John the Baptist (see Matt. xvii.
10-13; Luke xiii. 31, 32); but it is doubtful whether the governor would
have given much attention to a charge not urged by the men of influence in
Jerusalem. The notable thing in connection with the last days of Jesus'
life is the joint opposition of Sadducean priests and Pharisaic scribes.
That the populace easily changed their cry from "hosanna" to "crucify him"
is not surprising. Their hosannas were due to a complete misconception of
Jesus' aim and purpose; disappointed in him, they would be the earliest to
cry out against him, especially when the choice lay between him and a
genuine insurrectionist.

202. Each fresh study of the trial of Jesus gives a fresh impression of
his greatness. He who but a few hours before was pouring out his soul in
prayer that his cup might pass, stands forth as the one calm and
undisturbed actor among all those who took part in the tragic doings of
that day. His judges and foes were all swayed by passion and self-interest
and were ready to make travesty of justice, from the leaders of the
sanhedrin who condemned him on one charge and accused him to the governor
on another, to the governor himself, who appeared determined to release
him if he could do it without risk of personal popularity, and who yet, in
order to avoid accusation at Rome, gave sentence according to the people's
will. The fickle populace crying "crucify him," the disciples who forsook
him, the rock-apostle who denied even so much as knowledge of the man,
show how all the currents of life about him were stirred and full of
tumult. In all this, of which he was the occasion and centre, he stands
the supreme example of dignity, self-mastery, and quietness. This is seen
in his silence in the presence of Annas and Caiaphas, and later before
Pilate; in his frank avowal of his Messianic claim in reply to the
high-priest's challenge, and of his kingly rank in answer to the
governor's question; and in the look of reproof which he turned upon
Peter. Not that he was without feeling. There is strong sense of outrage
in his words, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if
well, why smitest thou me?" It was not the quietness of stoic
indifference, but of perfect self-devotion to the Father's will. He
maintained it from the time of his arrest to the last cry of trust with
which he committed his spirit to his Father.

203. The scourging over, the mock homage of the soldiers done, he was led
out beyond the city wall to be crucified. The exact place of the
crucifixion can be determined as little as that of Gethsemane, though
there is a tradition from the fourth century, and in addition there are
many conjectures. Jesus was led, apparently, to the ordinary place of
criminal execution, and with two others, probably insurrectionary robbers
like those with whom Barabbas had been associated, he was crucified. Two
episodes in the journey to the place of crucifixion are recorded,--the
help which Simon of Cyrene was compelled to give to Jesus in carrying his
cross (Mark xv. 21), and the word of Jesus to those who, following him,
bewailed his fate (Luke xxiii. 27-31).

204. Of the cruelty and torture of crucifixion much has been written and
often. It would be difficult to exaggerate it. The death by the cross was
a death by hunger and exhaustion in ordinary cases; it was thus torture
prolonged for many hours. It is noticeable, however, that it is not the
suffering but the disgrace and shame of the cross that occupied the
thought of the apostolic days. Indeed, were physical suffering chiefly to
be considered, it would have to be owned that the fact that Jesus died
within a few hours released him from the most excruciating pains incident
to this barbarous form of execution. The later ascetic thought loved, and
still loves, to dwell on the physical torments of the Lord's death. They
were severe enough to give us awe; but the biblical writers show a much
healthier mind, and their thought does not invite comparison between the
pains endured by the Master and those which some of his martyred followers
bore with great fortitude. The disgrace of the cross was the uttermost;
for the Romans it was the death of a slave, for the Jews it was patent
proof of the curse of God (Deut. xxi. 23). The obedience of Jesus was
unlimited when he submitted to death (Phil. ii. 8). It is on the shame of
the cross, and on the sacrifice of himself for the life of the world when
in obedience to his Father's will he "despised the shame," that the
thought of the apostolic day laid emphasis. In this experience Jesus found
himself in truth numbered with the transgressors; he was the object of
scorn for all them that passed by, they mocked at him, at his works, and
at his confident trust in God. In this last extremity the darkness of
Gethsemane again swept over Jesus' soul, when he cried out "My God, my
God," recalling the words of one of the saints of old in his hour of
distress (Ps. xxii.). Yet, like him, Jesus kept hold on the certainty of
deliverance; the darkness passed at length.

205. The evangelists preserve several sayings of Jesus from the cross, the
records of the different gospels being remarkably diverse. Mark and
Matthew record the exclamation, "My God, my God _(Eloi, Eloi_), why hast
thou forsaken me," which the bystander misconstrued as a call for Elijah,
thinking this pseudo-Messiah was reproaching Elijah for failing to come to
his help. The same gospels tell of the loud cry with which Jesus died.
Luke omits the call _Eloi_, and gives in place of the last expiring cry
the prayer of trust, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (xxiii.
46). Earlier, however, this gospel tells of Jesus' word to the penitent
robber, "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise" (xxiii. 43), and of the
prayer for his foes, that is, for the Jewish people who blindly condemned
him (xxiii. 34). The oldest manuscripts cause some doubt whether this last
saying was originally a part of the Gospel of Luke. If it was not it would
belong in the same class with the story of the sinful woman which we now
find in John, both being authentic records of the life of Jesus, though
from some other source than that in which we now find them. The fourth
gospel gives quite an independent group of sayings. It interprets the
dying cry as, "It is finished" (xix. 30), and preceding this it gives the
cry, "I thirst" (xix. 28), which led to the offering of the vinegar of
which the first two gospels speak. Earlier it tells of the committal of
Mary to the care of the beloved disciple (xix. 26, 27). Of these seven
sayings, "Eloi," "I thirst," "Father, into thy hand I commend my spirit,"
and "It is finished" belong to the last hours of the life of the crucified
one, after the darkness of which the first three gospels speak had
overshadowed the land. Of the cause of that darkness they give no hint,
for Luke's expression cannot mean an eclipse, since an eclipse at Passover
time, that is, at full moon, is an impossibility. The conjecture that
dense clouds hid the sun is common, and is as suitable as any other.
Whatever the cause, the evangelists saw in it a token of nature's awe at
the death of the Son of God. During the hours of the darkness the waves
swept over his soul, as the cry "my God" shows to our reverent thought.
But the last word of trust proves that the dying Jesus was not forsaken,
and that Calvary, like Gethsemane, was a battle won. The earlier sayings
all express Jesus' continued spirit of ministry, showing even in his
bitter pain his accustomed thoughtfulness for others' need.

206. It is futile to speculate on the cause of Jesus' early death. He
certainly suffered a much shorter time than was ordinarily the case, as
appears in the fact that at sunset it was necessary to break the legs of
the robbers so as to hasten death, Jesus having already been some time
dead. There is something attractive in the theory of Dr. Stroud (The
Physical Cause of Christ's Death) that Jesus died of rupture of the heart.
It may have been true, but the evidences on which he based his argument
are insufficient for proof. To the Jews the death of their victim did not
give all the satisfaction they desired. In the first place, Pilate
insisted on mocking them by posting over the head of Jesus the placard,
"The King of the Jews" (see John xix. 19-22); moreover, their haste had
brought the crime into close proximity to the feast which they were eager
to keep from defilement; so that they had still to beg of Pilate that he
would hasten the death of the victims, that their bodies might not remain
to desecrate the following Sabbath sanctity (John xix. 31-37); while for
those who witnessed it the death of Jesus deepened the impression that a
hideous crime had been committed in the slaughter of an innocent man (Mark
xv. 39).

207. Among the bystanders few of the disciples of Jesus were to be
found--they were hiding in fear. Yet some faithful women, and two
courageous councillors of Jerusalem, were bold enough to make their
loyalty known. These two men, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, were
members of the sanhedrin, but they had had no part in the condemnation of
Jesus; and after knowing that he was dead, Joseph begged of Pilate the
body, and he and Nicodemus took Jesus down from the cross and laid him in
a tomb which Joseph owned near the place of crucifixion, rendering such
tender ministries as were possible in the closing hours of the day. The
women who had witnessed his end meanwhile were arranging also to anoint
the body. They took notice where the two friends had laid him, and then
went away to rest on the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.

208. To the Jews it was a high day, the first Sabbath in the eight days of
their holy feast (John xix. 31). They had eagerly guarded their conduct
that no ceremonial defilement might prevent their sharing in the paschal
feast. They believed that they had rid their nation of a dangerous
disturber of its peace, and men whose conscience shrank not from making
God's house a house of merchandise, who would punish one who ventured to
cure a mortal disease if it chanced to cross their Sabbath traditions, who
had condemned to death the holiest man and godliest teacher the world had
ever seen because he did not square with their heartless formalism,--such
men hardly had conscience enough to feel repentance or remorse for the
cowardly injustice and crime with which of their own choice they had
reddened their hands (Matt, xxvii. 25). They doubtless kept their feast
with satisfaction. Not a few hearts, however, were heavy with grief and
disappointed hope. They had believed that Jesus "was he that should redeem
Israel" (Luke xxiv. 21). Stunned, they could not throw away the faith
which he had kindled in their hearts. Yet he was dead, and only faintly,
if at all, did they recall his prediction of suffering and his certainty
of triumph through it all (John xx. 9). What remained for them was the
last tender ministry to their dead Lord.

   Outline of Events after the Resurrection


   _The day of the resurrection--Sunday_. The visit of the women to the
   tomb--Matt. xxviii. 1-8; Mark xvi. 1-8; Luke xxiv. 1-12; John xx. 1-10.

   Jesus' first appearance; to Mary--Matt. xxviii. 9 10; [Mark xvi. 9-11];
   John xx. 11-18.

   The report of the watch--Matt. xxviii. 11-15.

   The appearance to Simon Peter--I. Cor. xv. 5.

   The walk to Emmaus--[Mark xvi 12,13]; Luke xxiv. 13-35.

   The appearance to the ten in the evening--[Mark xvi. 14]; Luke xxiv.
   36-43; John xx. 19-25; I. Cor. xv. 5.

   _One week later--Sunday_. The appearance to the eleven, with
   Thomas--John xx. 26-29.

   _Later appearances_. To seven disciples by the sea of Galilee--John
   xxi. 1-24.

   To a company of disciples in. Galilee--Matt, xxviii. 16-20; [Mark xvi.
   15-18]; I. Cor. xv. 6.

   The appearance to James--I. Cor. xv. 7.

   To the disciples in Jerusalem, followed by the ascension--Mark xvi. 19,
   20; Luke xxiv. 44-53; Acts i. 1-12; I. Cor. xv. 7.



IX

The Resurrection



209. Christianity as a historic religious movement starts from the
resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This is very clear in the preaching
and writings of Paul. The first distinctively Christian feature in his
address at Athens is his statement that God had designated Jesus to be
the judge of men by having "raised him from the dead" (Acts xvii. 31), and
for him the resurrection was the demonstration of the divinity of Christ
(Rom. i. 4), and the confirmation of the Christian hope (I. Cor. xv.).
With him the prime qualification for an apostle was that he should have
seen the risen Lord (I. Cor. ix. 1). The early preaching as recorded in
Acts shows the same feature, for after repeated testimony to the fact that
God had raised up Jesus, Peter summed up his address with the declaration,
"Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made
him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts ii. 36). In
fact the buoyancy of hope and confidence of faith which gave to the
despised followers of the Nazarene their strength resulted directly from
the experiences of the days which followed the deep gloom that settled
over the disciples when Jesus died.

210. It can but seem strange to us that after Jesus had so often foretold
his death and the resurrection which should follow it, his disciples were
thrown into despair by the cross. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus when
they embalmed his body may not have known of these teachings which Jesus
gave to the nearer circle of his followers, but it is difficult to believe
that the women who prepared their spices to anoint his body (Mark xvi. 1)
had heard nothing of these predictions, and it is certain that the
apostles who received with incredulity the first news of the resurrection
were the men whom Jesus had sought to prepare for this glorious victory.
The disciples do not seem to have finished "questioning among themselves
what the rising again from the dead should mean" (Mark ix. 10, compare
Luke xviii. 34) until Jesus himself explained it by his return to them
after his crucifixion. It was formerly common to conclude from the
scepticism of the disciples that Jesus could not have told them, as he is
reported to have done, that he would rise again the third day. It is now
widely conceded, however, that if he foresaw and foretold his death, he
surely coupled with it a promise of resurrection, otherwise he must have
surrendered his own conviction that he was Messiah; for a Messiah taken
and held captive by death was apparently as foreign to Jesus' thought as
it was unthinkable for the men of his generation. The inability of the
disciples to adjust their Messianic ideas to the death of their Master was
not removed by the rebuke Jesus administered to Peter at Cæsarea Philippi;
their objections were only silenced. It would seem that even when they saw
his death to be inevitable, they were simply dumb with hope that in some
way he would come off victor; the cross and the tomb crushed out that
hope--at least from most of them. If one disciple, his closest friend,
recalled and believed his words when he saw the empty tomb (John xx. 8),
others were cast into still deeper sorrow by the report, and could only
say, "But we hoped that it was he which should redeem Israel" (Luke xxiv.
21).

211. The light which banished the gloom from the hearts of Jesus'
followers dawned suddenly. There was no time for gradual readjustment of
ideas and the springing of hope from a faith which would not die. The
uniform early tradition is that Jesus showed himself alive to his
disciples "on the third day," that is, a little over thirty-six hours from
the time of his death. Not only the gospels, but Paul, who wrote many
years before our evangelists, testify to this (I. Cor. xv. 4), as does the
very early observance of the first day of the week as "the Lord's day,"
and the substitution of "the third day" for "after three days" in the
gospels which made use of our Gospel of Mark (compare parallels with Mark
viii. 81; ix. 31; x. 34, and see Holtzmann, NtTh I. 309). Of the events
which occurred on that third day and after, our earliest account is that
of Paul. He gives a simple catalogue of the appearances of the risen Lord,
referring to them as well known, in fact as the familiar subject matter of
his earliest teaching (I. Cor. xv. 4-8). He gives definite date to none of
these appearances, indicating only their sequence. He tells of six
different manifestations, beginning with an appearance to Cephas on the
third day, then to the twelve, then to a large company of
disciples,--above five hundred,--then to James, then to all the apostles.
The sixth in the list is his own experience, which he puts in the same
class with the appearances of the first Easter morning. Two of these
instances are found only in Paul's account, the appearance to James and to
the five hundred brethren, though this last may probably be the same as is
referred to in the Gospel of Matthew (xxviii. 16-20).

212. The gospel records are much fuller, but they differ from each other
even more than they do from Paul. Mark is unhappily incomplete, for the
last twelve verses in that gospel, as we have it, are lacking in the
oldest manuscripts, and were probably written by a second-century
Christian named Aristion, as a substitute for the proper end of the gospel
which seems by some accident to have been lost. These twelve verses are
clearly compiled from our other gospels. They have value as indicating the
currency of the complete tradition in the early second century, but they
contribute nothing to our knowledge of the resurrection. All, then, that
Mark tells is that the women who came early on the first day of the week
to anoint the body of Jesus found the tomb open and empty, and saw an
angel who bade them tell the disciples that the Lord had risen. How the
record originally continued no one knows, for Matthew and Luke use the
same general testimony up to the point where Mark breaks off, and then go
quite different ways. Of the two Matthew is closer to Mark than is Luke.
The first gospel adds to the record of the second an account of an
appearance of Jesus to the women as they went to report to the disciples,
and then tells of the meeting of Jesus with the disciples on a mountain in
Galilee, and his parting commission to them. It gives no account of the
ascension. Luke agrees with Mark in general concerning the visit of the
women to the tomb, the angelic vision, and the report to the disciples. He
says nothing of an appearance of Jesus to the women on their flight from
the tomb, but, if xxiv. 12 is genuine (see R.V. margin), he, like John,
tells of Peter's visit to the sepulchre.

213. Luke further reports the appearances of Jesus to two on their way to
Emmaus, to Simon, and to the eleven in Jerusalem,--this last being blended
consciously or unconsciously with the final meeting of Jesus with the
disciples before his ascension. The genuine text of the gospel (xxiv. 50)
says nothing of the ascension itself, but clearly implies it. In contrast
with Matthew it is noticeable that Luke shows no knowledge of any
appearance of Jesus to his disciples in Galilee. John is quite independent
of Mark, as well as of Matthew and Luke. He mentions only Mary Magdalene
in connection with the early visit to the tomb, though perhaps he implies
the presence of others with her ("we" in xx. 2). He tells of a visit of
Peter and John to the tomb, of an appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene,
of an appearance to ten of the disciples in the evening, and a week later
to the eleven, including Thomas. So far this gospel makes no reference to
appearances in Galilee; but in the appendix (chapter xxi.) there is added
a manifestation to seven disciples as they were fishing on the Sea of
Galilee.

214. Criticism which seeks to discredit the gospels, for instance most
recently Réville in his "Jésus de Nazareth," discovers two separate and
mutually exclusive lines of tradition,--one telling of appearances in
Galilee, represented by Mark and the last chapter in John, the other
telling of appearances in or near Jerusalem, and found in Luke and the
twentieth chapter of John. It is said that the gospels have sought to
blend the two cycles, as when Matthew tells of an appearance to the women
in Jerusalem on their way from the tomb, and when the last chapter of John
adds to the original gospel a Galilean appearance. Luke, however, who
makes no reference at all to Galilean manifestations, is taken to prove
that originally the one cycle knew nothing of the other. This theory
falls, however, before the uniform tradition of appearances on the third
day, which must have been in Jerusalem, and the very early testimony of
Paul to an appearance to above five hundred brethren at once, which could
not have been in Judea. It need not surprise us that there should have
been two cycles of tradition, not however mutually exclusive, if Jesus did
appear both in Jerusalem and in Galilee. The same kind of local interest
which is supposed to explain the one-sidedness of the synoptic story of
the public ministry would easily account for one line of tradition which
reported Galilean appearances, and another which reported those in
Jerusalem. Luke may have had access to information which furnished him
only the Jerusalem story. John and Peter, however, must have known the
wider facts. The very divergences and seeming contradictions of the
gospels, troublesome as they are, indicate how completely certainty
regarding the fact of the resurrection removed from the thought of the
apostolic day nice carefulness concerning the testimony to individual
manifestations of the risen Lord. Doubtless the first preaching rested, as
in the case of Paul, on a simple "I have seen the Lord." When later the
detailed testimony was wanted for written gospels, it had suffered the lot
common to orally transmitted records, and divergences had sprung up which
it is no longer possible for us to resolve. They do not, however,
challenge the fact which lies behind all the varied testimony.

215. A general view of the events of that third day and those which
followed can be constructed from our gospels and Paul. Early on the first
day of the week certain women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother
of James and Joses, Salome, Joanna, and others, came to anoint the body of
Jesus. On their arrival they found that the stone had been rolled back
from the tomb. Mary Magdalene saw that the grave was empty and ran to tell
Peter and John. The others saw also a vision of angels which said that
Jesus was alive and would see his disciples in Galilee, and ran to report
this to the disciples. Meanwhile Mary Magdalene returned, following Peter
and John who ran to see the tomb, and found it empty as she had said. She
lingered after they left, and Jesus appeared to her, she mistaking him at
first for the gardener. She then went to tell the disciples that she had
seen the Lord. These events evidently occurred in the early morning. The
next incident reported is that of the walk of two disciples, not of the
twelve, to Emmaus, and the appearance of Jesus to them. At first they did
not recognize him, not even when he taught them out of the scriptures the
necessity that the Messiah should die. He was made known when at evening
he sat down with them to a familiar meal. Either before or after this
event he had shown himself to Peter. This is the first manifestation
reported by Paul. If Luke xxiv. 12 is genuine (see R.V. margin), he also
tells that when the two again reached Jerusalem the apostles received them
with the news that Peter had seen the Lord. That same evening Jesus
appeared suddenly among the disciples in their well-guarded upper room.
His coming was such that he had to convince the disciples that he was not
simply a disembodied spirit. Luke says that he did this by bidding them
handle him, and by eating part of a fish before them. According to John,
Thomas was not with the others at this first meeting with the disciples. A
week later, presumably in Jerusalem, Jesus again manifested himself to the
little company, Thomas being with them, and dispelled the doubt of that
disciple who loved too deeply to indulge a hope which might only
disappoint. He had but to see in order to believe, and make supreme
confession of his faith. The next appearance was probably that to the
seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee, when Peter, who denied thrice, was
thrice tested concerning his love for his Lord. Then apparently followed
the meeting on the mountain reported in Matthew, which was probably the
same as the appearance to the five hundred brethren; then, probably still
in Galilee, Jesus appeared to his brother James, who from that time on was
a leader among the disciples. The next manifestation of which record is
preserved was the final one in Jerusalem, after which Jesus led his
disciples out as far as Bethany and was separated from them, henceforth to
be thought of by them as seated at the right hand of God.

216. This construction of the story as given in the New Testament does
violence to the accounts in one particular. It holds that Matthew's report
of the meeting of Jesus with the women on their way from the tomb on
Easter morning is to be identified with his meeting with Mary Magdalene.
This can be done only if it is supposed that in the transmission of the
tradition the commission given the women by the angel (Mark xvi. 6f.)
became blended with the message given to Mary by the Lord (John xx. 17),
the result being virtually the same for the religious interest of the
first Christians, while for the historic interest of our days it
constitutes a discrepancy. The difficulty is less on this supposition than
on any other. It is highly significant that the account of the most
indubitable fact in the view of the early Christians is the most difficult
portion of the gospels for the exact harmonist to deal with. This is not
of serious moment for the historical student. It is rather a warning
against theoretical ideas of inspiration.

217. The universal acknowledgment that the early Christians firmly
believed in the resurrection of their Lord has made the origin of that
firm conviction a question of primary importance. The simple facts as set
forth in the New Testament serve abundantly to account for the faith of
the early church, but they not only involve a large recognition of the
miraculous, they also contain perplexities for those who do not stumble at
the supernatural; hence there have been many attempts to find other
solutions of the problem. Some of the explanations offered may be
dismissed with a word: for instance, those which, in one form or other,
renew the old charge found in the first gospel, that the disciples stole
the body of Jesus, and then declared that he had risen; and those which
assume that the death of Jesus was apparent only, that he fainted on the
cross, and then the chill of the night air and of the sepulchre served to
revive him, so that in the morning he was able to leave the tomb and
appear to his disciples as one risen from the dead. This apparent-death
theory involves Jesus in an ugly deception, while the theory that the
disciples or any group of them removed the body of Jesus and then gave
currency to the notion that he had risen, builds the greatest ethical and
religious movement known to history on a lie. A slightly different
explanation which was very early suggested was that the Jews themselves,
or perhaps the gardener, had the body removed, and that when Mary found
the tomb empty she let her faith conclude that his absence must be due to
his resurrection.

218. This last explanation has in recent times been revived in connection
with the so-called vision-hypothesis by Renan and Réville. Mary found the
tomb empty, and being herself of a highly strung nervous nature--she had
been cured by Jesus of seven devils--by thinking about the empty tomb she
soon worked herself into an ecstasy in which her eyes seemed to behold
what her heart desired to see. She communicated her vision to the others,
and by a sort of nervous contagion, they, too, fell to seeing visions, and
it is the report of these that we have in the gospels. The
vision-hypothesis takes with some, Strauss for instance, a different form.
These deny that the tomb was found empty at all, and regard this story as
a contribution of the later legend-making spirit. They hold that the
disciples fled from Jerusalem as soon as the death of Jesus was an assured
fact, and not until after they found themselves amid the familiar scenes
of Galilee, did their faith recover from the shock it had received in
Jerusalem. In Galilee the experiences of their life with Jesus were lived
over again, and the old confidence in him as Messiah revived. Thus
thinking about the Lord, their hearts would say, "He cannot have died,"
and after a while their faith rose to the conviction which declared, "He
is not dead;" then they passed into an ecstatic mood and visions followed
which are the germ out of which the gospel stories have grown.

219. These different forms of the vision-hypothesis have been subjected to
most searching criticism by Keim, who is all the more severe because his
own thought has so much that is akin to them. There are two objections
which refute the hypothesis. The first is that the uniform tradition
which connects the resurrection and the first appearances with the "third
day" after the crucifixion leaves far too short a time for the recovery of
faith and the growth of ecstatic feeling which are requisite for these
visions, even supposing that the disciples' faith had such recuperative
powers. The second is that once such an ecstatic mood was acquired it
would be according to experience in analogous cases for the visions to
continue, if not to increase, as the thought of the risen Lord grew more
clear and familiar; yet the tradition is uniform that the appearances of
the risen Christ ceased after, at most, a few weeks. The only later one
was that which led to the conversion of Paul; and though Paul was a man
somewhat given to ecstatic experiences (see II. Cor. xii.), he carefully
distinguishes in his own thought his seeing of the Lord and his heavenly
visions. In a word, the disciples of Jesus never showed a more healthy,
normal life than that which gave them strength to found a church of
believers in the resurrection in the face of persecution and scorn.

220. Keim seeks to avoid the difficulties which his own acute criticism
disclosed in the ordinary vision-theory, by another which rejects the
gospel stories as legendary, yet frankly acknowledges that the faith of
the apostles in the resurrection was based on a miracle. Their certainty
was so unshakable, so uniform, so abiding, that it can be accounted for
only by acknowledging that they did actually see the Lord. This seeing,
however, was not with the eyes of sense, but with the spiritual vision,
which properly perceives what pertains to the spirit world into which the
glorified Lord had withdrawn when he died. In his spiritual estate he
manifested himself to his disciples, by a series of divinely caused and
therefore essentially objective visions, in which he proved to them
abundantly that he was alive, was victor over death, and had been exalted
by God to his right hand. This theory is not in itself offensive to faith.
It concedes that the belief of the disciples rested on actual disclosures
of himself to them by the glorified Lord. The difficulty with the theory
is that it relegates the empty tomb to the limbo of legend, though it is a
feature of the tradition which is found in all the gospels and clearly
implied in Paul (I. Cor. xv. 4; compare Rom. vi. 4); it also fails to show
how this glorified Christ came to be thought of by the disciples as
_risen_, rather than simply glorified in spirit. This criticism brings us
back to the necessity of recognizing a resurrection which was in some real
sense corporeal, difficult as that conception is for us. The gospels
assert this with great simplicity and delicate reserve. They represent
Jesus as returning to his disciples with a body which was superior to the
limitations which hedge our lives about. It may be well described by
Paul's words, "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body."
Yet the records indicate that when he willed Jesus could offer himself to
the perception of other senses than sight and hearing--"handle me and see"
is not an invitation that we expect from a spiritual presence. If,
however, we have to confess an unsolved mystery here, and still more in
the record of his eating in the presence of the disciples (Luke xxiv.
41-43), it is permitted us to own that our knowledge of the possible
conditions of the fully perfected life are not such as to warrant great
dogmatism in criticising the account. The empty tomb, the objective
presence of the risen Jesus, the renewed faith of his followers, and their
new power are established data for our thought. With these, many of the
details may be left in mystery, because we have not yet light sufficient
to reveal to us all that we should like to know.

221. The ascension of the risen Christ to his Father is the presupposition
of all the New Testament teaching. The Acts, the Epistles, and the
Apocalypse join in the representation that he is now at the right hand of
God. In fact it may be said that such a view is involved in the doctrine
of the resurrection, for the very idea of that victory was that death had
no more dominion over him. It is a fact, however, that none of our gospels
in their correct text (see Luke xxiv. 51, R.V. margin) tell of the
ascension. Luke clearly implies it, and John says that Jesus told Mary to
tell the disciples that he was about to ascend to his Father and their
Father. In Luke's later book, however (Acts i. 1-11), he gives a full
account of a last meeting of Jesus with the disciples, and of
his ascension to heaven before their eyes. This withdrawal in the cloud
must be understood as an acted parable; for, in reality, there is no
reason for thinking that the clouds which hung over Olivet that day were
any nearer God's presence than the ground on which the disciples stood.
For them, however, such a disappearance would signify vividly the
cessation of their earthly intercourse with their Lord, and his return to
his home with the Father. The word of Jesus to Mary (John xx. 17) may
fairly be interpreted to mean that Jesus had ascended to the Father on
the day of the resurrection, and that each of his subsequent
manifestations of himself were like that which later he granted to Paul
near Damascus. In fact it is easier to view the matter in this way than to
conceive of Jesus as sojourning in some hidden place for forty days after
his resurrection. What the disciples witnessed ten days before Pentecost
was a withdrawal similar to those which had separated him from them
frequently during the recent weeks, only now set before their eyes in such
a way as to tell them that these manifestations had reached an end; they
must henceforth wait for the other representative of God and Christ, the
Spirit, given to them at Pentecost.

222. The faith with which the disciples waited for the promised spirit was
a very different faith from that which Peter confessed for his fellows at
Cæsarea Philippi. It had the same supreme attachment to a personal friend
who had proved to be God's Anointed; the same readiness to let him lead
whithersoever he would; the same firm expectation of a restitution of all
things, in which God should set up his kingdom visibly, with Jesus as the
King of men. Now, however, their trust was much fuller than before, and
they looked for a still more glorious kingdom when their friend and Lord
should come from heaven to assume his reign. They expected Christ to
return soon in glory, yet his death and victory made them ready to endure
any persecution for him, certain that, like the sufferings which he
endured, it would lead to victory. These disciples had no idea that in
preaching a religion of personal attachment to their Master, in filling
all men's thoughts with his name, in building all hope on his return, and
guiding all life by his teaching and spirit, they were cutting their
moorings from the religion of their fathers. They remained loyal to the
law, they were constant in the worship; but they had poured new wine into
the bottles, and in time it proved the inadequacy of the old forms and
revolutionized the world's religious life.





Part III

The Minister




I

The Friend of Men



223. In nothing does the contrast between Jesus and John the Baptist
appear more clearly than in their attitude towards common social life.
John had his training and did his work apart from the homes of men. The
wilderness was his chosen and fit scene of labor. From this solitude he
sent forth his summons and warning to his people. They who sought him for
fuller teaching went after him and found him where he was. They then
returned to their homes and their work, leaving the prophet with his few
disciples in their seclusion. With Jesus it was otherwise. His first act,
after attaching to himself a few followers, was to go into Galilee to the
town of Cana, and there with them to partake in the festivities of a
wedding. While it is true that most of his teaching was by the wayside,
among the hills, or by the sea, it is still a surprise to discover how
often his ministry found its occasion as he was sitting at table in the
house of some friend, real or feigned. The genuine friendships of Jesus as
they appear in the gospels are among the most characteristic features of
his life--witness the home at Bethany, the women who followed him even to
the cross, and ministered to him of their substance, and the "beloved
disciple." Jesus calls attention to this contrast between himself and
John, reminding the people how some of the scornful pointed the finger at
himself as "a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and
sinners." He received his training as a carpenter while John was in his
wilderness solitude. Men who would probably have stood with admiration
before John had he visited their synagogue, found Jesus too much one of
themselves, and would none of him as a prophet (Mark vi. 2, 3).

224. A like contrast sets Jesus apart from the scribes of his day. These
were revered by the people, in part perhaps because they held the common
folk in such contempt. Their attitude was frank--"this multitude which
knoweth not the law is accursed" (John vii. 49). The popular enthusiasm
for Jesus filled them with scorn, until it began to give them alarm. They
were glad to be reverenced by the people, to interpret the law for them
"binding heavy burdens and grievous to be borne;" but showed little
genuine interest in them. Jesus, on the other hand, not only had the
reverence of the multitudes, but welcomed them. First his words and his
works drew them, then he himself enchained their hearts. Outcasts, rich
and poor, crowded into his company, and found him not only a teacher, a
prophet of righteousness rebuking their sins and calling to repentance,
but a friend, who was not ashamed to be seen in their homes, to have them
among his closest attendants, and to be known as their champion. It was
when such as these were pressing upon him to hear him that Jesus replied
to the criticism of the scribes in the three parables of recovered
treasure which stand among the rarest gems of the Master's teaching (Luke
xv.).

225. One class only in the community failed of his sympathy,--the
self-righteous hypocrites, who thought that godliness consisted in
scrupulous regard for pious ceremonies, and that zeal was most laudable
when directed to the removal of motes from their brothers' eyes. For these
Jesus had words of rebuke and burning scorn. It has been common with some
to emphasize his friendship for the poor as if he chose them for their
poverty, and the unlettered for their ignorance. Yet Jesus had no faster
friends than the women who followed from Galilee and ministered to him of
their substance, and the two sanhedrists, Joseph whose new tomb received
his body, and Nicodemus whose liberality provided the spices which
embalmed him; for these, and not the Galilean fishermen, were faithful to
the last at the cross and at the grave. In no home did Jesus find a fuller
or more welcome friendship than in Bethany, where all that is told us of
its conditions suggests the opposite of poverty. The rich young ruler, who
showed his too great devotion to his possessions, would hardly have sought
out Jesus with his question, if he was known as the champion of poverty as
in itself essential to godliness. The demand made of him surprised him,
and was suited to his special case. Jesus saw clearly the difficulties
which wealth puts in the way of faith, but he recognized the power of God
to overcome them, and when Zaccheus turned disciple, the demand for
complete surrender of possessions was not repeated. On the contrary Jesus
taught his disciples that even "the unrighteous mammon" should be used to
win friends (Luke xvi. 9), so ministering unto some of "the least of these
my brethren" (Matt. xxv. 40). The beatitude in Luke's report of the
sermon on the mount (Luke vi. 20) was not for the poor as poor simply, but
for those poor folk lightly esteemed who had spiritual sense enough to
follow Jesus, while the well-to-do as a class were content with the
"consolation" already in hand. Jesus' interest was in character, wherever
it was manifest, whether in the repentance of a chief of the publicans, or
in the widow woman's gift of "all her living;" whether it appeared in the
hunger for truth shown by Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, or in the woman
that was a sinner who washed his feet with her tears. He was the great
revealer of the worth of simple humanity, in man, woman, or child. Our
world has never seen another who so surely penetrated all masks or
disguising circumstances and found the man himself, and having found him
loved him.

226. This sympathy for simple manhood was manifested in a genuine interest
in the common life of men in business, pleasure, or trouble. It is
significant that the first exercise of his miraculous power should have
been to relieve the embarrassment of his host at a wedding feast.
Doubtless we are to understand that the miracle had a deeper purpose than
simply supplying the needed wine (John ii. 11); but the significant thing
is that Jesus should choose to manifest his glory in this way. It shows a
genuine appreciation of social life quite impossible to an ascetic like
the Baptist. The same appears in the way Jesus allowed his publican
apostle to introduce him to his former associates, to the great scandal of
the Pharisees; for a feast at which Jesus and a number of publicans were
the chief guests accorded not with religion as they understood it. Jesus,
however, seems to have found it a welcome opportunity to seek some of his
lost sheep. The illustrations which he used in his teaching were often his
best introduction to the common heart, for they were drawn from the
occupations of the people who came to listen; while the aid Jesus gave to
his disciples in their fishing showed not only his power, but also his
respect for their work, a respect further proved when he called them to be
fishers of men.

227. Beyond this interest in life's joy and its occupations was that
unfailing sympathy with its troubles which drew the multitudes to him. He
was far more than a healer; he studied to rid the people of the idea that
he was a mere miracle-monger. He healed them because he loved them, and he
asked of those who sought his help that they too should feel the personal
relation into which his power had brought them. This seems to be in part
the significance of his uniform demand for faith. Doubtless Mary, out of
whom he had cast seven devils, and Simon the leper, who seems to have
experienced his power to heal, are only single instances of many who found
in him far more than at first they sought. No further record remains of
the paralytic who carried off his bed, but left the burden of his sins
behind, nor of the woman who loved much because she had been forgiven
much, nor of the Samaritan whose life he uncovered that he might be able
to give her the living water. Some who had his help for body or heart may
have gone away forgetful, after the fashion of men, but in the company of
those who were bold to bear his name after his resurrection there must
have been many who could not forget.

228. Jesus' interest in common life was genuine, and he entered into it
with his heart. The incident of the anointing of his feet as he sat a
guest in a Pharisee's house shows that he was keenly sensitive to the
treatment he received at the hands of men. He had nothing to say of the
slights his host had shown him, until that host began mentally to
criticise the woman who was ministering to him in her love and penitence.
Then with quiet dignity Jesus mentioned the several omissions of courtesy
which he had noticed since he came in, contrasting the woman's attention
with Simon's neglect (Luke vii. 36-50). One of the saddest things about
Gethsemane was Jesus' vain pleading with his disciples for sympathy in his
awful hour. They were too much dazed with awe and fear to lend him their
hearts' support. He recognized indeed that it was only a weakness of the
flesh; yet he craved their friendship's help, and repeatedly asked them to
watch with him, for his soul was exceeding sorrowful. In contrast with
this disappointment stands the joy with which Jesus heard from Peter the
confession which proved that the falling off of popular enthusiasm had not
shaken the loyalty of his chosen companions,--"Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood have not revealed it unto thee, but my
Father which is in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 17). There is the sorrow of
loneliness as well as rebuke in his complaint, "O faithless generation,
how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you?" (Mark ix.
19), and the lamentation over Jerusalem comes from a longing heart (Luke
xiii. 34).

229. The independence of human sympathy which Jesus often showed is all
the more glorious for the evidence the gospels give of his longing for
it. When he put the question to the twelve, "Would ye also go away?" (John
vi. 67), there is no hint in his manner that their defection with the rest
would turn him at all from faithfully fulfilling the task appointed to him
by his Father. In fact only now and then did he allow his own hunger to
appear. Ordinarily he showed himself as the friend longing to help, but
not seeking ministry from others; he rather sought to win his disciples to
unselfishness by showing as well as saying that he came not to be
ministered unto but to minister. He washed the feet of his disciples to
rebuke their petty jealousies, but we have no hint that he showed that he
felt personal neglect. His own heart was full of "sorrow even unto death,"
but his word was, "Let not your heart be troubled;" he asked in vain for
the sympathy of his nearest friends in Gethsemane, yet when the band came
to arrest him he pleaded, "Let these, the disciples, go their way."




II

The Teacher with Authority



230. To his contemporaries Jesus was primarily a teacher. The name by
which he is oftenest named in the gospels is Teacher,--translated Master
in the English versions and the equivalent of Rabbi in the language used
by Jesus (John i. 38). People thought of him as a rabbi approved of God by
his power to work miracles (John iii. 2), but it was not the miracles that
most impressed them. The popular comment was, "He taught them as one
having authority, and not as the scribes" (Matt. vii. 29). Two leading
characteristics of the scribes were their pride of learning, and their
bondage to tradition. In fact the learning of which they were proud was
knowledge of the body of tradition on whose sanctity they insisted; their
teaching was scholastic and pedantic, an endless citing of precedents and
discussion of trifles. To all this Jesus presented a refreshing contrast.
In commending truth to the people, he was content with a simple "verily,"
and in defining duty he rested on his unsupported "I say unto you," even
when his dictum stood opposed to that which had been said to them of old
time.

231. In this freedom from the bondage of tradition Jesus was not alone.
John the Baptist's message had been as simple and unsupported by appeal to
the elders. Jesus and John both revived the method of the older prophets,
and it is in large measure due to this that the people distinguished them
clearly from their ordinary teachers, and held them both to be prophets.
One thing involved in this authoritative method was a frank appeal to the
conscience of men. So completely had the scribes substituted memory of
tradition for appeal to the simple sense of right, that they were utterly
dazed when Jesus undertook to settle questions of Sabbath observance and
ceremonial cleanliness by asking his hearers to use their religious common
sense, and consider whether a man is not much better than a sheep, or
whether a man is not defiled rather by what comes out of his mouth than by
what enters into it (Matt. xii. 12; Mark vii. 15). Jesus was for his
generation the great discoverer of the conscience, and for all time the
champion of its dignity against finespun theory and traditional practice.
All his teaching has this quality in greater or less degree. It appears
when by means of the parable of the Good Samaritan he makes the lawyer
answer his own question (Luke x. 25-37), when he bids the multitude in
Jerusalem "judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous
judgment" (John vii. 24), when he asks his inquisitors in the temple whose
image and superscription the coin they used in common business bears (Mark
xii. 16). His whole work in Galilee was proof of his confidence that in
earnest souls the conscience would be his ally, and that he could impress
himself on them far more indelibly than any sign from heaven could enforce
his claim.

232. Jesus was not only independent of the traditions of the scribes, he
was also very free at times with the letter of the Old Testament. When by
a word he "made all meats clean" (Mark vii. 19), he set himself against
the permanent validity of the Levitical ritual. When the Pharisees pleaded
Moses for their authority in the matter of divorce, Jesus referred them
back of Moses to the original constitution of mankind (Matt. xix. 3-9).
His general attitude to the Sabbath was not only opposed to the traditions
of the scribes, it also disregarded the Old Testament conception of the
Sabbath as an institution. Yet Jesus took pains to declare that he came
not to set aside the old but to fulfil it (Matt. v. 17). The contrasts
which he draws between things said to them of old and his new teachings
(Matt. v. 21-48) look at first much like a doing away of the old. Jesus
did not so conceive them. He rather thought of them as fresh statements of
the idea which underlay the old; they fulfilled the old by realizing more
fully that which it had set before an earlier generation. He was the most
radical teacher the men of his day could conceive, but his work was
clearing rubbish away from the roots of venerable truth that it might bear
fruit, rather than rooting up the old to put something else in its place.

233. The Old Testament was for Jesus a holy book. His mind was filled with
its stories and its language. In the teachings which have been preserved
for us he has made use of writings from all parts of the Jewish
scriptures--Law, Prophets, and Psalms. The Old Testament furnished him the
weapons for his own soul's struggle with temptation (Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10),
it gave him arguments for use against his opponents (Mark xii. 24-27; ii.
25-27), and it was for him an inexhaustible storehouse of illustration in
his teaching. When inquirers sought the way of life he pointed them to the
scriptures (Mark x. 19; see also John v. 39), and declared that the rising
of one from the dead would not avail for the warning of those who were
unmoved by Moses and the prophets (Luke xvi. 31). When Jesus' personal
attitude to the Old Testament is considered it is noticeable that while
his quotations and allusions cover a wide range, and show very general
familiarity with the whole book, there appears a decided predominance of
Deuteronomy, the last part of Isaiah, and the Psalms. It is not difficult
to see that these books are closer in spirit to his own thought than much
else in the old writings; his use of the scripture shows that some parts
appealed to him more than others.

234. Jesus as a teacher was popular and practical rather than systematic
and theoretical. The freshness of his ideas is proof that he was not
lacking in thorough and orderly thinking, for his complete departure from
current conceptions of the kingdom of God indicates perfect mastery of
ethical and theological truth. It is all the more remarkable, therefore,
that so much of his profoundest teaching seems to have been almost
accidental. The most formal discourse preserved to us is the sermon on the
mount, in which human conduct is regulated by the thought of God as Father
and Searcher of hearts. For the rest the great ideas of Jesus have
utterance in response to specific conditions presented to him in his
ministry. His most radical sayings concerning the Sabbath followed a
criticism of his disciples for plucking ears of grain as they passed
through the fields on the Sabbath day (Mark ii. 23-28); his authority to
forgive sins was announced when a paralytic was brought to him for
healing (Mark ii. 1-12); so far as the gospels indicate, we should have
missed Jesus' clearest statement of the significance of his own death but
for the ambitious request of James and John (Mark x. 35-45). Examples of
the occasional character of his teaching might be greatly multiplied. He
did not seek to be the founder of a school; important as his teachings
were, they take a place in his work second to his personal influence on
his followers. He desired to win disciples whose faith in him would
withstand all shocks, rather than to train experts who would pass on his
ideas to others. His disciples did become experts, for we owe to them the
vivid presentation we have of the exalted and unique teaching of their
Master; but they were thus skilful because they surrendered themselves to
his personal mastery, and learned to know the springs of his own life and
thought.

235. Nothing in the teaching of Jesus is more remarkable than his
confidence that men who believed in him would adequately represent him and
his message to the world. The parable of the Leaven seems to have set
forth his own method. We owe our gospels to no injunction given by him to
write down what he said and did. He impressed himself on his followers,
filled them with a love to himself which made them sensitive to his ideas
as a photographic plate is to light, teaching them his truth in forms that
did not at first show any effect on their thought, but were developed into
strength and clearness by the experiences of the passing years. Christian
ethics and theology are far more than an orderly presentation of the
teaching of Jesus; in so far as they are purely Christian they are the
systematic setting forth of truth involved, though not expressed, in what
he said and did in his ministry among men. His ideas were radical and
thoroughly revolutionary. His method, however, had in it all the patience
of God's working in nature, and the hidden noiseless power of an evolution
is its characteristic. Hence it was that he chose to teach some things
exclusively in figure. So great and unfamiliar a truth as the gradual
development of God's kingdom was unwelcome to the thought of his time. He
made it, therefore, the theme of many of his parables; and although the
disciples did not understand what he meant, the picture remained with
them, and in after years they grew up to his idea.

236. Jesus' use of illustration is one of the most marked features of his
teaching. In one sense this simply proves him to be a genuine Oriental,
for to contemplate and present abstract truths in concrete form is
characteristic of the Semitic mind. In the case of Jesus, however, it
proves more: the variety and homeliness of his illustrations show how
completely conversant he was alike with common life and with spiritual
truth. There is a freedom and ease about his use of figurative language
which suggests, as nothing else could, his own clear certainty concerning
the things of which he spoke. The fact, too, that his mind dealt so
naturally with the highest thoughts has made his illustrations unique for
profound truth and simple beauty. Nearly the whole range of figurative
speech is represented in his recorded words, including forms like irony
and hyperbole, often held to be unnatural to such serious speech as his.

237. Another figure has become almost identified with the name of
Jesus,--such abundant and incomparable use did he make of it. Parable
was, however, no invention of his, for the rabbis of his own and later
times, as well as the sages and prophets who went before them, made use of
it. As distinguished from other forms of illustration, the parable is a
picture true to actual human life, used to enforce a religious truth. The
picture may be drawn in detail, as in the story of the Lost Son (Luke xv.
11-32), or it may be the concisest narration possible, as in the parable
of the Leaven (Matt. xiii. 33); but it always retains its character as a
narrative true to human experience. It is this that gives parable the
peculiar value it has for religious teaching, since it brings unfamiliar
truth close home to every-day life. Like all the illustrations used by
Jesus, the parable was ordinarily chosen as a means of making clear the
spiritual truth which he was presenting. Illustration never finds place as
mere ornament in his addresses. His parables, however, were sometimes used
to baffle the unteachable and critical. Such was the case on the occasion
in Jesus' life when attention is first called in the gospels to this mode
of teaching (Mark iv. 1-34). The parable of the Sower would mean little to
hearers who held the crude and material ideas of the kingdom which
prevailed among Jesus' contemporaries. It was used as an invitation to
consider a great truth, and for teachable disciples was full of suggestion
and meaning; while for the critical curiosity of unfriendly hearers it was
only a pointless story,--a means adopted by Jesus to save his pearls from
being trampled under foot, and perhaps also to prevent too early a
decision against him on the part of his opponents.

238. In nothing is Jesus' ease in handling deepest truth more apparent
than in his use of irony and hyperbole in his illustrations. In his
reference to the Pharisees as "ninety and nine just persons which need no
repentance" (Luke xv. 7), and in his question, "Many good works have I
shewed you from the Father, for which of these works do you stone me?"
(John x. 32), the irony is plain, but not any plainer than the rhetorical
exaggeration of his accusation against the scribes, "You strain out a gnat
and swallow a camel" (Matt, xxiii. 24), or his declaration that "it is
easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to
enter into the kingdom of God" (Mark x. 25), or his charge, "If a man
cometh unto me and hateth not his own father and mother ... he cannot be
my disciple" (Luke xiv. 26). The force of these statements is in their
hyperbole. Only to an interpretation which regards the letter above the
spirit can they cause difficulty. In so far as they remove Jesus utterly
from the pedantic carefulness for words which marked the scribes they are
among the rare treasures of his teachings. The simple spirit will not busy
itself about finding something that may be called a needle's eye through
which a camel can pass by squeezing, nor will it seek a camel which could
conceivably be swallowed, nor will it stumble at a seeming command to hate
those for whom God's law, as emphasized indeed by Jesus (Mark vii. 6-13),
demands peculiar love and honor. The childlike spirit which is heir of
God's kingdom readily understands this warning against the snare of
riches, this rebuke of the hypocritical life, and this demand for a love
for the Master which shall take the first place in the heart.

239. Jesus sometimes used object lessons as well as illustrations, and
for the same purpose,--to make his thought transparently clear to his
hearers. The demand for a childlike faith in order to enter the kingdom of
God was enforced by the presence of a little child whom Jesus set in the
midst of the circle to whom he was talking (Mark ix. 35-37). The unworthy
ambitions of the disciples were rebuked by Jesus' taking himself the
menial place and washing their feet (John xiii. 1-15).

240. The simplicity and homeliness of Jesus' teaching are not more
remarkable than the alertness of mind which he showed on all occasions.
The comment of the fourth gospel, "he needed not that any one should bear
witness concerning man, for he himself knew what was in man" (ii. 25),
doubtless refers to his supernatural insight, but it also tells of his
quick perception of what was involved in each situation in which he found
himself. Whether it was Nicodemus coming to him by night, or the lawyer
asking, "Who is my neighbor?" or a dissatisfied heir demanding that his
brother divide the inheritance with him, or a group of Pharisees seeking
to undermine his power by attributing his cures to the devil, or trying to
entrap him by a question about tribute, Jesus was never caught unawares.
His absorption in heavenly truth was not accompanied by any blindness to
earthly facts. He knew what the men of his day were thinking about, what
they hoped for, to what follies they gave their hearts, and what sins hid
God from them. He was eminently a man of the people, thoroughly acquainted
with all that interested his fellows, and in the most natural, human way.
Whatever of the supernatural there was in his knowledge did not make it
unnatural. As he was socially at ease with the best and most cultivated
of his day, so he was intellectually the master of every situation. This
appears nowhere more strikingly than in his dealing with his pharisaic
critics. When they were shocked by his forgiveness of sins, or offended by
his indifference to the Sabbath tradition, or goaded into blasphemy by his
growing influence over the people, or troubled by his disciples' disregard
of the traditional washings, or when later they conspired to entrap him in
his speech,--from first to last he was so manifestly superior to his
opponents that they withdrew discomfited, until at length they in madness
killed, without reason, him against whom they could find no adequate
charge. His lack of "learning" (John vii. 15) was simply his innocence of
rabbinic training; he had no diploma from their schools. In keenness of
argument, however, and invincibleness of reasoning, as well as in the
clearness of his insight, he was ever their unapproachable superior. His
reply to the charge of league with Beelzebub is as merciless an exposure
of feeble malice as can be found in human literature. He was as worthy to
be Master of his disciples' thinking as he was to be Lord of their hearts.

241. In the teaching of Jesus two topics have the leading place,--the
Kingdom of God, and Himself. His thought about himself calls for separate
consideration, but it may be remarked here that as his ministry progressed
he spoke with increasing frankness about his own claims. It became more
and more apparent that he sought to be Lord rather than Teacher simply,
and to impress men with himself rather than with his ideas. Yet his ideas
were constantly urged on his disciples, and they were summed up in his
conception of the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of heaven. This was the
topic, directly or indirectly, of far the greater part of his teaching.
The phrase was as familiar to his contemporaries as it is common in his
words; but his understanding of it was radically different from theirs. He
and they took it to mean the realization on earth of heavenly conditions
(kingdom of heaven), or of God's actual sovereignty over the world
(kingdom of God); but of the God whose will was thus to be realized they
conceived quite differently. Strictly speaking there is nothing novel in
the idea of God as Father which abounds in the teaching of Jesus. He never
offers it as novel, but takes it for granted that his hearers are familiar
with the name. It appears in some earlier writers both in and out of the
Old Testament. Yet no one of them uses it as constantly, as naturally, and
as confidently as did Jesus. With him it was the simple equivalent of his
idea of God, and it was central for his personal religious life as well as
for his teaching. "My Father" always lies back of references in his
teaching to "your Father." This is the key to what is novel in Jesus' idea
of the kingdom of God. His contemporaries thought of God as the covenant
king of Israel who would in his own time make good his promises, rid his
people of their foes, set them on high among the nations, establish his
law in their hearts, and rule over them as their king. The whole
conception, while in a real sense religious, was concerned more with the
nation than with individuals, and looked rather for temporal blessings
than for spiritual good. With Jesus the kingdom is the realization of
God's fatherly sway over the hearts of his children. It begins when men
come to own God as their Father, and seek to do his will for the love
they bear him. It shows development towards its full manifestation when
men as children of God look on each other as brothers, and govern conduct
by love which will no more limit itself to friends than God shuts off his
sunlight from sinners. From this love to God and men it will grow into a
new order of things in which God's will shall be done as it is in heaven,
even as from the little leaven the whole lump is leavened. Jesus did not
set aside the idea of a judgment, but while his fellows commonly made it
the inauguration, he made it the consummation of the kingdom; they thought
of it as the day of confusion for apostates and Gentiles, he taught that
it would be the day of condemnation of all unbrotherliness (Matt. xxv.
31-46). This central idea--a new order of life in which men have come to
love and obey God as their Father, and to love and live for men as their
brothers--attaches to itself naturally all the various phases of the
teaching of Jesus, including his emphasis on himself; for he made that
emphasis in order that, as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, he might lead
men unto the Father.




III

Jesus' Knowledge of Truth



242. The note of authority in the teaching of Jesus is evidence of his own
clear knowledge of the things of which he spoke. As if by swift intuition,
his mind penetrated to the heart of things. In the scriptures he saw the
underlying truth which should stand till heaven and earth shall pass
(Matt. v. 18); in the ceremonies of his people's religion he saw so
clearly the spiritual significance that he did not hesitate to sacrifice
the passing form (Mark vii. 14-23); such a theological development as the
pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection he unhesitatingly adopted because
he saw that it was based on the ultimate significance of the soul's
fellowship with God (Mark xiii. 24-27); he reduced religion and ethics to
simplicity by summing up all commandments in one,--Thou shalt love (Matt.
xxii. 37-40); and at the same time insisted as no other prophet had done
on the finality of conduct and the necessity of obedience (Matt. vii.
21-27). His penetration to the heart of an idea was nowhere more clear
than in his doctrine of the kingdom of God as realized in the filial soul,
and as involving a judgment which should take cognizance only of
brotherliness of conduct. It would not be difficult to show that all these
different aspects of his teaching grew naturally out of his knowledge of
God as his Father and the Father of all men; they were the fruit,
therefore, of personal certainty of ultimate and all-dominating truth.

243. If the knowledge of Jesus had been shown only in matters of spiritual
truth, it would still have marked him as one apart from ordinary men.
There were other directions, however, in which he surpassed the common
mind. The fourth gospel declares that "he knew what was in man" (ii. 25),
and all the evangelists give evidence of such knowledge. Not only the
designation of Judas as the traitor, and of Peter as the one who should
deny him, before their weakness and sin had shown themselves, but also
Jesus' quick reading of the heart of the paralytic who was brought to him
for healing, and of the woman who washed his feet with her tears (Mark ii.
5; Luke vii. 47), and his knowledge of the character of Simon and
Nathanael (John i. 42, 47,) as well as his sure perception of the intent
of the various questioners whom he met, indicate that he had powers of
insight unshared by his fellow men.

244. Furthermore, the gospels state explicitly that Jesus predicted his
own death from a time at least six months before the end (Matt. xvi. 21),
and they indicate that the idea was not new to him when he first
communicated it to his disciples (Matt. xvi. 23; Mark ii. 20). He viewed
his approaching death, moreover, as a necessity (Mark viii. 31-33), yet he
was no fatalist concerning it. He could still in Gethsemane plead with his
Father, to whom all things are possible, to open to him some other way of
accomplishing his work (Mark xiv. 36). The old Testament picture of the
suffering and dying servant of Jehovah (Isa. liii.) was doubtless
familiar to Jesus. Although it was not interpreted Messianically by the
scribes, Jesus probably applied it to himself when thinking of his death;
yet the predictions of the prophets always provided for a non-fulfilment
in case Israel should turn unto the Lord in truth (see Ezek. xxxiii.
10-20). Moreover, the contradiction which Jesus felt between his ideas and
those cherished by the leaders of his people, whether priests or scribes,
was so radical that his death might well seem inevitable; yet it was
possible that his people might repent, and Jerusalem consent to accept him
as God's anointed. Neither prophecy, nor the actual conditions of his
life, therefore, would give Jesus any fatalistic certainty of his coming
death. In Gethsemane his heart pleaded against it, while his will bowed
still to God in perfect loyalty. It is not for us to explain his
prediction of death by appealing to the connection which the apostolic
thought established between the death of Christ and the salvation of men,
for we are not competent to say that God could not have effected
redemption in some other way if the repentance of the Jews had, humanly
speaking, removed from Jesus the necessity of death. All that can be said
is that he knew the prophetic picture, knew also the hardness of heart
which had taken possession of the Jews, and knew that he must not swerve
from his course of obedience to what he saw to be God's will for him.
Since that obedience brought him into fatal opposition to human prejudice
and passion, he saw that he must die, and that such a death was one of the
steps in his establishment of God's kingdom among men. So he went on his
way ready "not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his
life a ransom for many" (Mark x. 45).

245. With his prediction of his death the gospels usually associate a
prophecy of his speedy resurrection. As has been already remarked (sect.
210), it is being generally recognized that if Jesus believed that he was
the Messiah, he must have associated with the thought of death that of
victory over death, which for all Jewish minds meant a resurrection from
the dead. Jesus certainly taught that his death was part of his Messianic
work, it could not therefore be his end. The prediction of the
resurrection is the necessary corollary of his expectation of death; and
it may reverently be believed that his knowledge of it was intimately
involved with his certainty that it was as Messiah that he was to die.

246. From the time when he began to tell his disciples that he must die,
Jesus began also to teach that his earthly ministry was not to finish his
work, but that he should return in glory from heaven to realize fully all
that was involved in the idea of God's kingdom. His predictions resemble
in form the representations found in the Book of Daniel and the Book of
Enoch; and the understanding of them is involved in difficulties like
those which beset such apocalyptic writings. In general, apocalypses were
written in times of great distress for God's people, and represented the
deliverance which should usher in God's kingdom as near at hand. One
feature of them is a complete lack of perspective in the picture of the
future. It may be that this fact will in part account for one great
perplexity in the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus. In the chief of these
(Mark xiii. and parallels), predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem
are so mingled with promises of his own second coming and the end of all
things that many have sought to resolve the difficulty by separating the
discourse into two different ones,--one a short Jewish apocalypse
predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of the Son of Man
within the life of that generation; the other, Jesus' own prediction of
the end of all things, concerning which he warns his disciples that they
be not deceived, but watch diligently and patiently for God's full
salvation. The difficulties of this discourse as it stands are so great
that any solution which accounts for all the facts must be welcomed. So
far as this analysis seeks to remove from the account of Jesus' own words
the references to a fulfilment of the predictions within the life of that
generation, it is confronted by other sayings of Jesus (Mark ix. 1) and by
the problem of the uniform belief of the apostolic age that he would
speedily return. That belief must have had some ground. What more natural
than that words of Jesus, rightly or wrongly understood, led to the common
Christian expectation? Some such analysis may yet establish itself as the
true solution of the difficulties; it may be, however, that in adopting
the apocalyptic form of discourse, Jesus also adopted its lack of
perspective, and spoke coincidently of future events in the progress of
the kingdom, which, in their complete realization at least, were widely
separated in time. In such a case it would not be strange if the disciples
looked for the fulfilment of all of the predictions within the limit
assigned for the accomplishment of some of them.

247. Whatever the explanation of these difficulties, the gospels clearly
represent Jesus as predicting his own return in glory to establish his
kingdom,--a crowning evidence of his claim to supernatural knowledge. It
is all the more significant, therefore, that it is in connection with his
prediction of his future coming that he made the most definite declaration
of his own ignorance: "Of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even
the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark xiii. 32).
This confession of the limitation of his knowledge is conclusive. Yet it
is not isolated. With his undoubted power to read "what was in man," he
was not independent of ordinary ways of learning facts. When the woman was
healed who touched the hem of his garment, Jesus knew that his power had
been exercised, but he discovered the object of his healing by asking,
"Who touched me?" and calling the woman out from the crowd to acknowledge
her blessing (Mark v. 30-34); when the centurion urged Jesus to heal his
boy without taking the trouble to come to his house, Jesus "marvelled" at
his faith (Matt. viii. 10); when he came to Bethany, assured of his
Father's answer to his prayer for the raising of Lazarus, he asked as
simply as any other one in the company, "Where have ye laid him?" (John
xi. 34). It should not be forgotten that his knowledge of approaching
death, resurrection, and return in glory did not prevent the earnest
pleading in Gethsemane, and it may be that his reply to the ambition of
James and John, it "is not mine to give" (Mark x. 40), is a confession of
ignorance as well as subordination to his Father.

248. The supernatural knowledge of Jesus, so far as its exercise is
apparent in the gospels, was concerned with the truths intimately related
to his religious teaching or his Messianic work. There is no evidence
that it occupied itself at all with facts of nature or of history
discovered by others at a later day. When he says of God that "he maketh
his sun to rise on the evil and the good" (Matt. v. 45), there is no
evidence that he thought of the earth and its relation to the sun
differently from his contemporaries; it is probable that his thought
anticipated Galileo's discovery no more than do his words. Much the same
may be said with reference to the purely literary or historical questions
of Old Testament criticism, now so much discussed. If it is proved by just
interpretation of all the facts that the Pentateuch is only in an ideal
sense to be attributed to Moses, and that many of the psalms inscribed
with his name cannot have been written by David, the propriety of Jesus'
references to what "Moses said" (Mark vii. 10), and the validity of his
argument for the relative unimportance of the Davidic descent of the
Messiah, will not suffer. Had Jesus had in mind the ultimate facts
concerning the literary structure of the Pentateuch, he could not have
hoped to hold the attention of his hearers upon the religious teaching he
was seeking to enforce, unless he referred to the early books of the Old
Testament as written by Moses. Jesus did repeatedly go back of Moses to
more primitive origins (Mark x. 5, 6; John vii. 22); yet there is no
likelihood that the literary question was ever present in his thinking.
This phase of his intellectual life, like that which concerned his
knowledge of the natural universe, was in all probability one of the
points in which he was made like unto his brethren, sharing, as matter of
course, their views on questions that were indifferent for the spiritual
mission he came to fulfil. If this was the case, his argument from the one
hundred and tenth Psalm (Mark xii. 35-37) would simply give evidence that
he accepted the views of his time concerning the Psalm, and proceeded to
use it to correct other views of his time concerning what was of most
importance in the doctrine of the Messiah. The last of these was of vital
importance for his teaching; the first was for this teaching quite as
indifferent a matter as the relations of the earth and the sun in the
solar system.

249. A more perplexing difficulty arises from his handling of the cases of
so-called demoniac possession. He certainly treated these invalids as if
they were actually under the control of demons: he rebuked, banished, gave
commands to the demons, and in this way wrought his cures upon the
possessed. It has already been remarked that the symptoms shown in the
cases cured by Jesus can be duplicated from cases of hysteria, epilepsy,
or insanity, which have come under modern medical examination. Three
questions then arise concerning his treatment of the possessed. 1. Did he
unquestioningly share the interpretation which his contemporaries put upon
the symptoms, and simply bring relief by his miraculous power? 2. Did he
know that those whom he healed were not afflicted by evil spirits, and
accommodate himself in his cures to their notions? 3. Does he prove by his
treatment that the unfortunates actually were being tormented by
diabolical agencies, which he banished by his word? The last of these
possibilities should not be held to be impossible until much more is known
than we now know about the mysterious phenomena of abnormal psychical
states. If this is the explanation of the maladies for Jesus' day,
however, it should be accepted also as the explanation of similar abnormal
symptoms when they appear in our modern life, for the old hypothesis of a
special activity of evil spirits at the time of the incarnation is
inadequate to account for the fact that in some quarters similar maladies
have been similarly explained from the earliest times until the present
day. If, however, he knew his people to be in error in ascribing these
afflictions to diabolical influence, he need have felt no call to correct
it. If the disease had been the direct effect of such a delusion, Jesus
would have encouraged the error by accommodating himself to the popular
notion. The idea of possession, however, was only an attempt to explain
very real distress. Jesus desired to cure, not to inform his patients. The
notion in no way interfered with his turning the thought of those he
healed towards God, the centre of help and of health. He is not open,
therefore, to the charge of having failed to free men from the thraldom of
superstition if he accommodated himself to their belief concerning
demoniac possession. His cure, and his infusion of true thoughts of God
into the heart, furnished an antidote to superstition more efficacious
than any amount of discussion of the truth or falseness of the current
explanation of the disease. On the other hand, if we are not ready to
conclude that the action of Jesus has demonstrated the validity of the
ancient explanation, we may acknowledge that it would do no violence to
his power, or dignity, or integrity, if it should be held that he did not
concern himself with an inquiry into the cause of the disease which
presented itself to him for help, but adopted unquestioningly the
explanation held by all his contemporaries, even as he used their
language, dress, manner of life, and in one particular, at least, their
representation of the life after death (Luke xvi. 22--Abraham's bosom).
His own confession of ignorance of a large item of religious knowledge
(Mark xiii. 32) leaves open the possibility that in so minor a matter as
the explanation of a common disease he simply shared the ideas of his
time. In this case, when one so afflicted came under his treatment, he
applied his supernatural power, even as in cases of leprosy or fever, and
cured the trouble, needing no scientific knowledge of its cause. If
accommodation or ignorance led Jesus to treat these sick folk as
possessed, it does not challenge his integrity nor his trustworthiness in
all the matters which belong properly to his own peculiar work.

250. There is one incident in the gospels which favors the conclusion that
Jesus definitely adopted the current idea,--the permission granted by him
to the demons to go from the Gadarene into the herd of swine, and the
consequent drowning of the herd (Mark v. 11-13). On any theory this
incident is full of difficulty. Bernhard Weiss (LXt II. 226 ff.) holds
that Jesus accommodated himself to current views, and that the man, having
received for the possessing demons permission to go into the swine, was at
once seized by a final paroxysm, and rushed among the swine, stampeding
them so that they ran down the hillside into the sea.

251. In recent years the view has been somewhat widely advocated that his
power over demoniacs was to Jesus himself one of the chief proofs of his
Messiahship. His words are quoted: "If I, by the Spirit of God, cast out
demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you" (Matt. xii. 28); and "I
beheld Satan falling as lightning from heaven" (Luke x. 18). The first of
these is in the midst of an _ad hominem_ reply of Jesus to the charge that
he owed his power to a league with the devil (Matt. xii. 28); and the
second was his remark when the seventy reported with joy that the demons
were subject unto them (Luke x. 18). The gospels, however, trace his
certainty of his Messiahship to quite other causes, primarily to his
knowledge of himself as God's child, then to the Voice which, coming at
the baptism, summoned him as God's beloved Son to do the work of the
Messiah. Throughout his ministry Jesus exhibits a certainty of his mission
quite independent of external evidences,--"Even if I bear witness of
myself, my witness is true; for I know whence I came and whither I go"
(John viii. 14).




IV

Jesus' Conception of Himself



252. When Jesus called forth the confession of Peter at Cæsarea Philippi
he brought into prominence the question which during the earlier stages of
the Galilean ministry he had studiously kept in the background. This is no
indication, however, that he was late in reaching a conclusion for himself
concerning his relation to the kingdom which he was preaching. From the
time of his baptism and temptation every manifestation of the inner facts
of his life shows unhesitating confidence in the reality of his call and
in his understanding of his mission. This is the case whether the fourth
gospel or the first three be appealed to for evidence. It is generally
felt that the Gospel of John presents its sharpest contrast to the
synoptic gospels in respect of the development of Jesus' self-disclosures.
A careful consideration of the first three gospels, however, shows that
the difference is not in Jesus' thought about himself.

253. The first thing which impressed the people during the ministry in
Galilee was Jesus' assumption of authority, whether in teaching or in
action (Mark i. 27; Matt. vii. 28, 29). His method of teaching
distinguished him sharply from the scribes, who were constantly appealing
to the opinion of the elders to establish the validity of their
conclusions. Jesus taught with a simple "I say unto you." In this,
however, he differed not only from the scribes, but also from the
prophets, to whom in many ways he bore so strong a likeness. They
proclaimed their messages with the sanction of a "Thus saith the Lord;" he
did not hesitate to oppose the letter of scripture as well as the
tradition of the elders with his unsupported word (Matt. v. 38, 39; Mark
vii. 1-23). His teaching revealed his unhesitating certainty concerning
spiritual truth, and although he reverenced deeply the Jewish scriptures,
and knew that his work was the fulfilment of their promises, he used them
always as one whose superiority to God's earlier messengers was as
complete as his reverence for them. He was confident that what they
suggested of truth he was able to declare clearly; he used them as a
master does his tools.

254. More striking than Jesus' independence in his teaching is the
calmness of his self-assertion when he was opposed by pharisaic criticism
and hostility. He preferred to teach the truth of the kingdom, working his
cures in such a way that men should think about God's goodness rather than
their healer's significance. Yet coincidently with this method of his
choice he did not hesitate to reply to pharisaic opposition with
unqualified self-assertion and exalted personal claim. Even if the
conflicts which Mark has gathered together at the opening of his gospel
(ii. 1 to iii. 6) did not all occur as early as he has placed them, the
nucleus of the group belongs to the early time. Since the people greatly
reverenced his critics, he felt it unnecessary to guard against arousing
undue enthusiasm by this frank avowal of his claims. He consequently
asserted his authority to forgive sins, his special mission to the sick in
soul whom the scribes shunned as defiling, his right to modify the
conception of Sabbath observance; even as, later, he warned his critics of
their fearful danger if they ascribed his good deeds to diabolical power
(Mark iii. 28-30), and as, after the collapse of popularity, he rebuked
them for making void the word of God by their tradition (Mark vii. 13).
His attitude to the scribes in Galilee from the beginning discloses as
definite Messianic claims as any ascribed by the fourth gospel to this
early period.

255. These facts of the independence of Jesus in his teaching and his
self-assertion in response to criticism confirm the impression that his
answer to John the Baptist (Matt. xi. 2-6) gives the key to his method in
Galilee. In John's inquiry the question of Jesus' personal relation to the
kingdom was definitely asked. The answer, "Blessed is he whosoever shall
find none occasion of stumbling in me," showed plainly that Jesus was in
no doubt in the matter, although for the time he still preferred to let
his ministry be the means of leading men to form their conclusions
concerning him. What he brought into prominence at Cæsarea Philippi,
therefore, was that which had been the familiar subject of his own
thinking from the time of his baptism.

256. In the ministry subsequent to the confession of Peter the
self-disclosures of Jesus became more frequent and clear. His predictions
of his approaching death were at the time the greatest difficulty to his
disciples; when considered in their significance for his own life,
however, they prove that his conviction of his Messiahship was as
independent of current and inherited ideas as was his teaching concerning
the kingdom. When he came to see that death was the inevitable issue of
his work, he at once discovered in it a divine necessity; it does not seem
to have shaken in the least his certainty that he was the Messiah.
Associated with this conception of his death is the conviction which
appears in all the later teachings, that in rejecting him his people were
pronouncing their own doom. Because she would not accept him as her
deliverer, Jerusalem's "house was left unto her desolate" (Luke xiii. 35).
His sense of his supreme significance appears most clearly in some of the
later parables, such as The Marriage of the King's Son (Matt. xxii. 1-14)
and The Wicked Husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 33-44), which definitely connect the
condemnation of the chosen people with their rejection of God's Son. Two
other sayings in the first three gospels express the personal claim of
Jesus in the most exalted form,--his declaration on the return of the
seventy: "All things have been delivered unto me of my Father, and no man
knoweth who the Son is save the Father, and who the Father is save the
Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him" (Luke x. 22;
Matt. xi. 27); and his confession of the limits of his own knowledge: "But
of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark xiii. 32). The confession of
ignorance, by the position given to the Son in the climax which denied
that any save the Father had a knowledge of the time of the end, is quite
as extraordinary as the claim to sole qualification to reveal the Father.

257. The similarity of these last two sayings to the discourses in the
fourth gospel has often been remarked; the likeness is particularly close
between them and the claims of Jesus recorded in the fifth chapter of
John. It is interesting to note that in the incident which introduces the
discourse in that chapter Jesus shows that he preferred, after healing the
man at the pool, to avoid the attention of the multitudes, precisely as in
Galilee he sought to check too great popular excitement by withdrawing
from Capernaum after his first ministry there (Mark i. 35-39), and
enjoining silence on the leper who had been healed by him (Mark ii. 44).
When, however, he found himself opposed by the criticism of the Pharisees
he spoke with unhesitating self-assertion and exalted personal claim, even
as he did in like situations in Galilee. During his earlier ministry in
Judea he had not shown this reserve. The cleansing of the temple, although
it was no more than any prophet sure of his divine commission would have
done, was a bold challenge to the people to consider who he was who
ventured thus to criticise the priestly administration of God's house. In
his subsequent dealings with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman Jesus
manifested a like readiness to draw attention to himself. From the time of
the feeding of the multitudes all four of the gospels represent him as
asserting his claims, with this difference, however, that in John it is
the rule rather than the exception to find sayings similar to the two in
which the self-assertion in the other gospels reaches its highest
expression. Although the method of Jesus varied at different times and in
different localities, yet it is evident that he stood before the people
from the first with the consciousness that he had the right to claim
their allegiance as no one of the prophets who preceded him would have
been bold to do.

258. During the course of his ministry Jesus used of himself, or suffered
others to use with reference to him, many of the titles by which his
people were accustomed to refer to the Messiah. Thus he was named "the
Messiah" (Mark viii. 29; xiv. 61; John iv. 26); "the King of the Jews"
(Mark xv. 2; John i. 49; xviii. 33, 36, 37); "the Son of David" (Mark x.
47, 48; Matt. xv. 22; xxi. 9, 15); "the Holy One of God" (John vi. 69;
compare Mark i. 24); "the Prophet" (John vi. 14; vii. 40). It is evident
that none of these titles was common; they represent, rather, the bold
venture of more or less intelligent faith on the part of men who were
impressed by him. There are two names, however, that are more significant
of Jesus' thought about himself,--"the Son of God" and "the Son of Man."

259. The latter of these titles is unique in the use Jesus made of it.
Excepting Stephen's speech (Acts vii. 56), it is found in the New
Testament only in the sayings of Jesus, and its precise significance is
still a subject of learned debate. The expression is found in the Old
Testament as a poetical equivalent for Man, usually with emphasis on human
frailty (Ps. viii. 4; Num. xxiii. 19; Isa. li. 12), though sometimes it
signifies special dignity (Ps. lxxx. 17). Ezekiel was regularly addressed
in his visions as Son of Man (Ezek. ii. 1 and often; see also Dan. viii.
17), probably in contrast with the divine majesty.

260. In one of Daniel's visions (vii. 1-14) the world-kingdoms which had
oppressed God's people and were to be destroyed were symbolized by beasts
that came up out of the sea,--a winged lion, a bear, a four-headed winged
leopard, and a terrible ten-horned beast; in contrast with these the
kingdom of the saints of the Most High was represented by "one like unto a
son of man," who came with the clouds of heaven (vii. 13, 14). Here the
language is obviously poetic, and is used to suggest the unapproachable
superiority of the kingdom of heaven to the kingdoms of the world. The
expression "one like unto a son of man" is equivalent, therefore, to "one
resembling mankind." The vision in Daniel had great influence over the
author of the so-called Similitudes of Enoch (Book of Enoch, chapters
xxxvii. to lxxi.). He, however, personified the "one like unto a son of
man," and gave the title "the Son of Man" to the heavenly man who will
come at the end of all things, seated on God's throne, to judge the world.
This author used also the titles "the Elect One" and "the Righteous One"
(or "the Holy One of God"), but "the Son of Man" is the prevalent name for
the Messiah in these Similitudes.

261. The facts thus stated do not account for Jesus' use of the
expression. Many of his sayings undoubtedly suggest a development of the
Daniel vision resembling that in the Similitudes. This does not prove that
Jesus or his disciples had read these writings, though it does suggest the
possibility that they knew them. It is probable, however, that the
apocalypses gave formulated expression to thoughts that were more widely
current than those writings ever came to be. The likeness between the
language of Jesus and that found in the Similitudes may therefore prove no
more than that the Daniel vision was more or less commonly interpreted of
a personal Messiah in Jesus' day.

262. Much of the use of the title by Jesus, however, is completely foreign
to the ideas suggested by Enoch and Daniel. Besides apocalyptic sayings
like those in Enoch (Mark viii. 38 and often), the name occurs in
predictions of his sufferings and death (Mark viii. 31 and often), and in
claims to extraordinary if not essentially divine authority (Mark ii. 10,
28 and parallels); it is also used sometimes simply as an emphatic "I"
(Matt. xi. 19 and often). Whatever relation Jesus bore to the Enoch
writings, therefore, the name "the Son of Man" as he used it was his own
creation.

263. Students of Aramaic have in recent years asserted that it was not
customary in the dialect which Jesus spoke to make distinction between
"the son of man" and "man," since the expression commonly used for "man"
would be literally translated "son of man." It is asserted, moreover, that
if our gospels be read substituting "man" for "the Son of Man" wherever it
appears, it will be found that many supposed Messianic claims become
general statements of Jesus' conception of the high prerogatives of man,
while in other places the name stands simply as an emphatic substitute for
the personal pronoun. Thus, for instance, Jesus is found to assert that
authority on earth to forgive sins belongs to man (Mark ii. 10), and,
toward the end of his course, to have taught simply that he himself must
meet with suffering (Mark viii. 31), and will come on the clouds to judge
the world (Mark viii. 38). The proportion of cases in which the general
reference is possible is, however, very small; and even if the
equivalence of "man" and "son of man" should be established, most of the
statements of Jesus in which our gospels use the latter expression exhibit
a conception of himself which challenges attention, transcending that
which would be tolerated in any other man. The debate concerning the usage
in the language spoken by Jesus is not yet closed, however, and Dr. Gustaf
Dalman (WJ I. 191-197) has recently argued that the equivalence of the two
expressions holds only in poetic passages, precisely as it does in Hebrew,
and that our gospels represent correctly a distinction observed by Jesus
when they report him, for instance, as saying in one sentence, "the
Sabbath was made for man" (Mark ii. 27), and in the next, "the Son of Man
is lord even of the Sabbath." The antecedent probability is so great that
the dialect of Jesus' time would be capable of expressing a distinction
found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament and in the Syriac of the
second-century version of the New Testament, that Dalman's opinion carries
much weight.

264. Many of those who look for a distinct significance in the title "the
Son of Man," find in it a claim by Jesus to be the ideal or typical man,
in whom humanity has found its highest expression. It thus stands sharply
in contrast with "the Son of God," which is held to express his claim to
divinity. So understood, the titles represent truth early recognized by
the church in its thought about its Lord. Yet it must be acknowledged that
the conception "the ideal man" is too Hellenic to have been at home in the
thought of those to whom Jesus addressed his teaching. If the phrase
suggested anything more to his hearers than the human frailty or the
human dignity of him who bore it, it probably had a Messianic meaning like
that found in the Similitudes of Enoch. A hint of this understanding of
the name appears in the perplexed question reported in John (xii. 34): "We
have heard out of the law that the Messiah abideth forever; and how sayest
thou, The Son of Man must be lifted up? who is this Son of Man?" Here the
difficulty arose because the people identified the Son of Man with the
Messiah, yet could not conceive how such a Messiah could die. In fact, if
the conception of the Son of Man which is found in Enoch had obtained any
general currency among the people, either from that book or independently
of it, it was so foreign to the earthly condition and manner of life of
the Galilean prophet, that it would not have occurred to his hearers to
treat his use of the title as a Messianic claim until after that claim had
been published in some other and more definite form. Their Son of Man was
to come with the clouds of heaven, seated on God's throne, to execute
judgment on all sinners and apostates; the Nazarene fulfilled none of
these conditions. The name, as used by Jesus, was probably always an
enigma to the people, at least until he openly declared its Messianic
significance in his reply to the high-priest's question at his trial (Mark
xiv. 62), and gave the council the ground it desired for a charge of
blasphemy against him.

265. What did this title signify to Jesus? His use of it alone can furnish
answer, and in this the variety is so great that it causes perplexity.
"The Son of Man came eating and drinking" is his description of his own
life in contrast with John the Baptist (Matt. xi. 18, 19). "The Son of
Man hath not where to lay his head" was his reply to one over-zealous
follower (Matt. viii. 20). Unseemly rivalry among his disciples was
rebuked by the reminder that "even the Son of Man came not to be
ministered unto but to minister" (Mark x. 42-45). When it became needful
to prepare the disciples for his approaching death he taught them that
"the Son of Man must suffer many things ... and be killed, and after three
days rise again" (Mark viii. 31). On the other hand, the paralytic's cure
was made to demonstrate that "the Son of Man hath authority upon the earth
to forgive sins" (Mark ii. 10). Similarly it is the Son of Man who after
his exaltation shall come "in the glory of his Father with the holy
angels" (Mark viii. 38). In these typical cases the title expresses Jesus'
consciousness of heavenly authority as well as self-sacrificing ministry,
of coming exaltation as well as present lowliness; and the suffering and
death which were the common lot of other sons of men were appointed for
this Son of Man by a divine necessity. The name is, therefore, more than a
substitute for the personal pronoun; it expresses Jesus' consciousness of
a mission that set him apart from the rest of men.

266. We do not know how Jesus came to adopt this title. Its association
with the predictions of his coming glory shows that he knew that in him
the Daniel vision was to have fulfilment. The predictions of suffering and
death, however, are completely foreign to that apocalyptic conception,
being akin rather, as Professor Charles has suggested, to the prophecies
of the suffering servant in the Book of Isaiah (Book of Enoch, p.
314-317). Moreover, it may not be fanciful to find in his claims to
heavenly authority a hint of the thought of the eighth Psalm, "Thou madest
him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things
under his feet" (see Dalman WJ I. 218). Although the name expresses a
consciousness of dignity, vicarious ministry, and authority, similar to
thoughts found in Daniel, Isaiah, and the Psalms, it was not deduced from
these scriptures by any synthesis of diverse ideas. It rather indicates
that Jesus in his own nature realized a synthesis which no amount of study
of scripture would ever have suggested. He drew his conception of himself
from his own self-knowledge, not from his Messianic meditations. On his
lips, then, "the Son of Man" indicates that he knew himself to be the Man
whom God had chosen to be Lord over all (compare Dalman as above). The
lowly estate which contradicted the Daniel vision prevented Jesus' hearers
from recognizing in the title a Messianic claim; for him, however, it was
the expression of the very heart of his Messianic consciousness.

267. If Jesus gave expression to his official consciousness when he used
the name "the Son of Man," the title "the Son of God" may be said to
express his more personal thought about himself. It is necessary to
distinguish between the meaning of this title to the contemporaries of
Jesus and his own conception of it. In the popular thought "the Son of
God" was the designation of that man whom God would at length raise up and
crown with dignity and power for the deliverance of his people. This
meaning followed from the Messianic interpretation of the second Psalm, in
which the theocratic king is called God's son (Ps. ii. 7). In another
psalm, which Jesus himself quotes (John x. 34), magistrates and judges are
called "sons of the Most High" (lxxxii. 6). Another Old Testament use
casts light on this,--the designation of Israel as God's son, his
firstborn (Ex. iv. 22; Hos. i. 10), with which may be compared a
remarkable expression in the so-called Psalms of Solomon (xviii. 4), "Thy
chastisement was upon us [that is, Israel] as upon a son, firstborn, only
begotten." In all these passages that which constitutes a man the son of
God is God's choice of him for a special work, while Israel collectively
bears the title to suggest God's fatherly love for the people he had taken
for his own. The Messianic title, therefore, described not a metaphysical,
but an official or ethical, relation to God. It is certainly in this sense
that the high-priest asked Jesus "Art thou the Messiah the son of the
Blessed?" (Mark xiv. 61), and that the crowd about the cross flung their
taunts at him (Matt, xxvii. 43), and the demoniacs proclaimed their
knowledge of him (Mark iii. 11; v. 7). The name must be interpreted in
this sense also in the confession of Nathanael (John i. 49); moreover, it
was not the coupling of the names "Messiah" and "son of the living God" in
Peter's confession that gave it its great significance for Jesus. In all
of these cases there is no evidence that there has been any advance over
the theocratic significance which made the title "the Son of God" fitting
for the man chosen by God for the fulfilment of his promises.

268. The case is different with the name by which Jesus was called at his
baptism (Mark i. 11). The difference here, however, arises not from
anything in the name as used on this occasion, but from that in Jesus
which acknowledged and accepted the title. With Jesus the consciousness
that God was his Father preceded the knowledge that as "his Son" he was to
undertake the work of the Messiah. The force of the call at the baptism is
found in the response which his own soul gave to the word "Thou art my
Son." The nature of that response is seen in his habitual reference to God
as in a peculiar sense _his_ Father. The name "Father" for God was used by
him in all his teaching, and there is no evidence that he or any of his
hearers regarded it as a novelty. Psalm ciii. 13 and Isaiah lxiii. 16
indicate that the conception was natural to Jewish thinking. The unique
feature in Jesus' usage is his careful distinction between the general
references to "your Father" and his constant personal allusions to "my
Father." Witness the reply to his mother in the temple (Luke ii. 49); his
word to Peter, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
Father which is in heaven" (Matt. xvi. 17), his solemn warning, "Not every
one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven,
but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. vii.
21), and the promise, "Every one who shall confess me before men ... him
will I also confess before my Father" (Matt. x. 32). In the fourth gospel
the same intimate reference is common: so, for example, the temple is "my
Father's house" (ii. 16), the Sabbath cure is defended because "my Father
worketh even until now" (v. 17), the cures are done "in My Father's name"
(x. 25), "I am the vine, and my Father is the husbandman" (xv. 1). This
mode of expression discloses a consciousness of unique filial relation to
God which is independent of, even as it was antecedent to, the
consciousness of official relation.

269. The full name "the Son of God" was seldom applied by Jesus to
himself, the only recorded instances being found in the fourth gospel (v.
25; ix. 35?; x. 36; xi. 4). He frequently acquiesced in the use of the
title by others in addressing him (for example, John i. 49; Matt. xvi. 16;
xxvi. 63f.; Mark xiv. 61f.; Luke xxii. 70); but for himself he preferred
the simpler phrase "the Son." This mode of expression occurs often in
John, and is found also in the two passages, already noticed, in which the
other gospels give clearest expression to the extraordinary self-assertion
of Jesus (Matt. xi. 27; Luke x. 22; and Mark xiii. 32). In the first of
them his claim to be the only one who can adequately reveal God is founded
on the consciousness that the relation between himself and God is so
intimate that God alone adequately knows him, whom men were so ready to
set at nought, and he alone knows God. This relation, in which he and God
stand together in contrast with all other men, is expressed by the
unqualified names, "the Father" and "the Son." In the second passage Jesus
confessed the limitation of his knowledge, but again in such a way as to
set himself and God in contrast not only with men, but also with "the
angels in heaven." Such assertions as these indicate that he who, knowing
his full humanity, chose the title "the Son of Man" to express his
consciousness that he had been appointed by God to be the Messiah, was yet
aware in his inner heart that his relation to God was even closer than
that in which he stood to men.

270. There is no word in John which goes beyond the two self-declarations
of Jesus which crown the record of the other evangelists, yet in the
fourth gospel the same claim to unique relation to God is more frequently
and frankly avowed. The most unqualified assertion of intimacy--"I and the
Father are one" (x. 30)--states what is clearly implied throughout the
gospel (so xiv. 6-11; xvi. 25; and particularly xvii. 21, "that they may
be one, even as we are one"). It has often been said, and truly, that this
claim to unity with the Father, taken by itself, signifies no more than
perfect spiritual and ethical harmony with God. Yet when the words are
considered in their connection, and more particularly when the two supreme
self-declarations in the synoptic gospels are associated with them, they
express a sense of relation to God so utterly unique, so strongly
contrasting the Father and the Son with all others, that we cannot
conceive of any other man, even the saintliest, taking like words upon his
lips.

271. These titles in which Jesus gave expression to his official and his
personal consciousness present clearly the problem which he offers to
human thought. Jesus stands before us in the gospels as a man aware of
completest kinship with his brethren, yet conscious at the same time of
standing nearer to God than he does to men.

272. It is highly significant that the gospel which records most fully the
claim of Jesus to be more closely related to God than he was to men, most
fully records also his definite acknowledgment of dependence on his
Father, and of that Father's supremacy over him and all others. "The Son
can do nothing of himself" (John v. 19), "I speak not from myself" (xiv.
10), "my Father is greater than all" (x. 29), "the Father is greater than
I" (xiv. 28),--these confessions join with the common reference to God as
"him that sent me" (v. 30 and often) in giving voice to his own spirit of
reverence. It appears as clearly in his habitual submission to his
Father's will,--"My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to
accomplish his work" (John iv. 34); "I am come down from heaven, not to do
mine own will, but the will of him that sent me" (John vi. 38). This
submission reached its fulness in the prayer of Gethsemane, recorded in
the earlier gospels,--"Father, all things are possible unto thee; remove
this cup from me: howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt" (Mark xiv.
36). Jesus was a man of prayer; not only in Gethsemane, but also
throughout his ministry he habitually sought his Father in that communion
in which the soul of man finds its light and strength for life's duty.
When he was baptized (Luke iii. 21), after the first flush of success in
Capernaum (Mark i. 35), before choosing the twelve (Luke vi. 12), before
the question at Cæsarea Philippi (Luke ix. 18), at the transfiguration
(Luke ix. 29), on the cross (Luke xxiii. 46),--at all the crises of his
life he turned to God in prayer. Moreover, prayer was his habit, for it
was after a night of prayer which has no connection with any crisis
reported for us (Luke xi. 1), that he taught his disciples the Lord's
prayer in response to their requests. The prayer beside the grave of
Lazarus (John xi. 41, 42) suggests that his miracles were often, if not
always (compare Mark ix. 29), preceded by definite prayer to God. His
habit of prayer was the natural expression of his trust in God. From the
resistance to the temptations in the wilderness to the last cry, "Father,
into thy hands I commend my spirit," his life is an example of childlike
faith in God.

273. Yet throughout his life of obedience and trust Jesus never gave one
indication that he felt the need of penitence when he came before God. He
perceived as no one else has ever done the searching inwardness of God's
law, and demanded of men that they tolerate no lower ambition than to be
like God, yet he never breathed a sigh of conscious failure, or gave sign
that he blushed when the eternal light shone into his own soul. He was
baptized, but without confession of sin. He challenged his enemies to
convict him of sin (John viii. 46). Such a challenge might have rested on
a man's certainty that his critics did not know his inner life; but
hypocrisy has no place in the character of Jesus. The reply to the rich
young ruler, "Why callest thou me good?" (Mark x. 18), even if it was a
confession that freedom from past sin was still far less than that
absolute goodness that God alone possesses, simply sets in stronger light
his silence concerning personal failure, and his omission in all his
praying to seek forgiveness. It is probable, however, that that reply
deals not with the "good" as the "ethically perfect," but as the
"supremely beneficent," so that Jesus simply reminded the seeker after
life that God alone is the one to be approached as the Gracious and
Merciful One by sinful men (see Dalman WJ I. 277). Thus the reply becomes
a fresh expression of the reverence of Jesus, and still further emphasizes
his failure to confess his sinfulness.

274. In all this thought about himself Jesus stands before us as a man,
conscious of his close kinship with his fellows. Like them he hungered and
thirsted and grew weary, like them he longed for friendship and for
sympathy, like them he trusted God and prayed to God and learned still to
trust when his request was denied. He stands before us also as a man
conscious of being anointed by God for the great work which all the
prophets had foretold, and of being fully equipped with authority and
power and the promise of unapproachable dignity. Of deep religious spirit
and great reverence for the scriptures of his people, he yet used these
scriptures as a master does his tools, to serve his work rather than to
instruct him in it. He drew his knowledge from within and from above, and
proclaimed his own fulfilment of the scriptures when he filled them with
new meaning. A man always devout, always at prayer, he is never seen, like
Isaiah, prostrate before the Most High, crying, "I am undone" (Isa. vi.
5). In his moments of greatest seriousness and most manifest communion
with heaven he looked to God as his nearest of kin, and felt himself a
stranger on the earth fulfilling his Father's will. He felt heaven to be
his home not simply by God's gracious promise, but by the right of
previous possession. His kinship with men was a condescension, his natural
fellowship was with God.

275. The miracles with which the gospels have filled the record of Jesus'
life have caused perplexity to many, and they belong with other mysterious
things recorded for us in the story of the past or occurring under the
incredulous observation of our scientific generation. They all pale,
however, before the unaccountable exception presented to universal human
experience by this Man of Nazareth. It confronts us when we think of the
unschooled Jew who, in his thought of God, rose not only above all of his
generation, but higher than all who had gone before him, or have come
after, one who built on the foundation of the past a superstructure of
religion new, and simple, and clearly heavenly. It confronts us when we
think of this Man who believed that it was given to him to establish the
kingdom that should fill the whole earth, and who had the boldness and the
faith to ignore the opposition of all the world's wisdom and of all its
enthroned power, and to fulfil his task as the woman does who hides her
leaven in the meal, content to wait for years, or millenniums, until his
truth shall conquer in the realization of God's will on earth even as it
is done in heaven. It confronts us when we consider that the Man who has
shown his brethren what obedience means, who has taught them to pray, who
has been for all these centuries the Way, the Truth, the Life, by whom
they come to God, habitually claimed without shadow of abashment or
slightest hint of conscious presumption, a nature, a relation to God, a
freedom from sin, that other men according to the measure of their
godliness would shun as blasphemy. If the personal claim was true, and not
the blind pretence of vanity, the Jesus of the gospels is the exception to
the uniform fact of human nature, but he is no longer unaccountable; and
if his claim was true, his knowledge of the absolute religion, and his
choice of the irresistible propaganda, are no less extraordinary, but they
are not unaccountable. Paul, whose life was transformed and his thinking
revolutionized by his meeting with the risen Jesus, thought on these
things and believed that "the name which, is above every name" was his by
right of nature as well as by the reward of obedience (Phil. ii. 5-11).
John, who leaned on Jesus' breast during his earthly life, and who
meditated on the meaning of that life through a ministry of many decades,
came to believe that he whom he had seen with his eyes, heard with his
ears, handled with his hands, was, indeed, "the Word made flesh" (John i.
14), through whom the very God revealed his love to men. Through all the
perplexities of doubt, amidst all the obscurings of irrelevant
speculations, the hearts of men to-day turn to this Jesus of Nazareth as
their supreme revelation of God, and find in him "the Master of their
thinking and the Lord of their lives."

"Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we
have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God."




Appendix

Books of Reference on the Life of Jesus



1. A concise account of the voluminous literature on this subject maybe
found at the close of the article JESUS CHRIST by Zockler in
_Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge_. Of the earlier of
the modern works it is well to mention David Friedrich Strauss, _Das Leben
Jesu_ (2 vols. 1835), in which he sought to reduce all the gospel miracles
to myths. August Neander, _Das Leben Jesu Christi_, 1837, wrote in
opposition to the attitude taken by Strauss. Both of these works have been
translated into English. Ernst Renan, _Vie de Jésus_ (1863, 16th ed.
1879), translated, _The Life of Jesus_ (1863), is a charming, though often
superficial and patronizing, presentation of the subject. For vivid word
pictures of scenes in the life of Jesus his book is unsurpassed. Renan's
inability to appreciate the more serious aspects of the work of Christ
appears constantly, while his effort to discover romance in the life of
Jesus is offensive. More important than any of these is Theodor Keim,
_Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_ (1867-72, 3 vols.), translated, _The History
of Jesus of Nazara_ (1876-81, 6 vols.). The author rejects the fourth
gospel and holds that Matthew is the most primitive of the synoptic
gospels; he does not reject the supernatural as such, but reduces it as
much as possible by recognizing a legendary element in the gospels. When
the work is read with these peculiarities in mind, it is one of the most
stimulating and spiritually illuminating treatments of the subject.

2. Critically more trustworthy, and exegetically very valuable, is
Bernhard Weiss, _Das Leben Jesu_ (3d ed. 1889, 2 vols.), translated from
the first ed., _The Life of Christ_ (1883, 3 vols.). It is more helpful
for correct understanding of details than for a complete view of the Life
of Jesus. Rivalling Weiss in many ways, yet neither so exact nor so
trustworthy, though more interesting, is Willibald Beyschlag, _Das Leben
Jesu_ (3d ed. 1893, 2 vols.). The most important discussion in English is
Alfred Edersheim, _The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_ (1883 and
later editions, 2 vols.). This is valuable for its illustration of
conditions in Palestine in the time of Jesus by quotations from the
rabbinic literature. The material used is enormous, but is not always
treated with due criticism, and the book should be read with the fact in
mind that most of the rabbinic writings date from several centuries after
Christ. Schürer (see below) should be used wherever possible as a
counter-balance. Dr. Edersheim follows the gospel story in detail; his
book is, therefore, a commentary as well as a biography.

3. Albert Réville, _Jesus de Nazareth_ (1897, 2 vols.), aims to bring the
work of Renan up to date, and to supply some of the lacks which are felt
in the earlier treatise. The book is pretentious and learned. In some
parts, as in the treatment of the youth of Jesus, and of the sermon on the
mount, it is helpfully suggestive. The Jesus whom the author admires,
however, is the Jesus of Galilee. The journey to Jerusalem was a sad
mistake, and the assumption of the Messianic rôle a fall from the high
ideal maintained in the teaching in Galilee. In criticism M. Réville
accepts the two document synoptic theory, and assigns the fourth gospel to
about 140 A.D. He rejects the supernatural, explaining many of the
miracles as legendary embellishments of actual events.

4. The most important treatment of the subject is the article JESUS CHRIST
by William Sanday in the _Hastings Bible Dictionary_ (1899). It is of the
highest value, discussing the subject topically with great clearness and
with a rare combination of learning and common sense. S. T. Andrews, _The
Life of Our Lord_ (2d ed. 1892), is a thorough and very useful study of
the gospels, considering minutely all questions of chronology, harmony,
and geography. It presents the different views with fairness, and offers
conservative conclusions. G. H. Gilbert, _The Student's Life of Jesus_
(1896), is complete in plan and careful in treatment, while being very
concise. Dr. Gilbert faces the problems of the subject frankly, and his
treatment is scholarly and reverent. James Stalker, _The Life of Jesus
Christ_ (1880), is a short work whose value lies in the good conception
which it gives of the ministry of Jesus viewed as a whole. In simplicity,
insight, and clearness the book is a classic, though now somewhat out of
date. _Studies in the Life of Christ_, by A.M. Fairbairn (1882), is of
great value for the topics considered. The title indicates that the
treatment is fragmentary. The long treatises of Farrar (1875, 2 vols.) and
Geikie (1877, 2 vols.) are useful as commentaries on the words and works
of Jesus. Farrar often interprets most helpfully the essence of an
incident, and Geikie furnishes a mass of illustrative material from
rabbinic sources, though with less criticism than even Edersheim has used.
Neither of these works, however, deals with the fundamental problems of
the composition of the gospels, nor are they satisfactory on other
perplexing questions, for example, the miraculous birth.

5. The most important accessory for the study of the life of Jesus is Emil
Schürer, _Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi_ (2d
ed. 1886, 1890, 2 vols. A 3d ed. of 2d part in 2 vols., 1898), translated,
_A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ_ (1885-6, 5
vols.). The political history of the Jews from 175 B.C. to 135 A.D., and
the intellectual and religious life of the times in which Jesus lived,
with the Jewish literature of Palestine and the dispersion, are all
treated with thoroughness and masterful learning. W. Baldensperger, _Das
Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der messianischen Hoffnungen seiner
Zeit_ (2d ed. 1892), furnishes in the first part a survey of the Messianic
hopes of the Jews which is in many respects the most satisfactory account
that is accessible. The second part discusses the problem of Jesus'
conception of himself in a reverent and learned way. George Adam Smith,
_The Historical Geography of the Holy Land_ (1894), is indispensable for
the study of the physical features of the land as they bear on its
history, and on the work of Jesus. The maps are the best that have yet
appeared.

6. Discussions of the Teaching of Jesus in works on Biblical Theology have
much that is important for the study of Jesus' life. The most significant
is H. H. Wendt, _Die Lehre Jesu_ (1886, 2 vols.). The second volume has
been translated _The Teaching of Jesus_ (1892, 2 vols.); the first volume
of the original work is an elaborate discussion of the sources, and has
not been done into English. Reference may be made especially to H. J.
Holtzmann, _Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie_ (1897, 2 vols.),
and also to G. H. Gilbert, _The Revelation of Jesus_ (1899). Gustaf
Dalman, _Die Worte Jesu_ (1898), of which the first volume only has
appeared, is a study of the meaning of the most significant expressions
used in the gospel records of the teaching of Jesus, made with the aid of
thorough knowledge of Aramaic usage and of the language of post-canonical
Jewish literature.

7. A good synopsis or Harmony of the gospels is most useful. The best
_Harmony is_ that of Stevens and Burton (1894), which exhibits the
divergencies of the parallel accounts in the gospels as faithfully as the
agreements. A good synopsis of the Greek text of the first three gospels
is Huck, _Synapse_ (1892). Robinson's _Greek Harmony of the Gospels_,
edited by M. B. Biddle, using Tischendorf's text, has also valuable notes
discussing questions of harmony.




Abbreviations



AndLOL        Andrews, The Life of Our Lord, 2d ed., 1892.
BaldSJ        Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, 2d ed., 1892.
BeysLJ        Beyschlag, Das Leben Jesu, 3d ed., 2 vols., 1893.
BovonNTTh     Bovon, Théologie du Nouveau Testament, 1892.
DalmanWJ      Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, I., 1898.
EdersLJM      Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2 vols.,
              1883.
FairbSLX      Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, 1882.
GilbertLJ     Gilbert, The Student's Life of Jesus, 1896.
GilbertRJ     Gilbert, The Revelation of Jesus, 1899.
HoltzNtTh     Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, 2 vols., 1897.
KeimJN        Keim, The History of Jesus of Nazara, 6 vols., 1876-81.
RévilleJN     Réville, Jésus de Nazareth, 2 vols., 1897.
SandayHastBD  Sanday, the article JESUS CHRIST in the Hastings Bible
              Dictionary, 1899.
SchürerJPTX   Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Time of
              Jesus Christ, 1885-86. Division I. vols. i. and ii.; Division
              II. vols. i., ii., and iii.
SmithHGHL     Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 1894.
SB            Stevens and Burton, Harmony of the Gospels, 1894.
WeissLX       Weiss, The Life of Christ, 3 vols., 1883.
WendtLJ       Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, 2 vols., 1886.
WendtTJ       Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, 2 vols., 1892.
EnBib         Encyclopedia Biblica, 1899.
HastBD        Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, 1898.
SBD^2         Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, revision of the first volume
              of the original English edition, 1893.




References



Part I.--Preparatory


I

The Historical Situation

8. Read SandayHastBD II. 604-609. On the Land, its physical
characteristics, its political divisions, its climate, its roads, and its
varying civilization, SmithHGHL is unsurpassed. Its identifications of
disputed localities are cautions. Robinson, _Biblical Researches in
Palestine_, and Thomson, _The Land and the Book_, give fuller detail
concerning particular localities, but no such general view as Smith.

9. On Political conditions, SchürerJPTX I. i. and ii. is the fullest and
most trustworthy treatise. More concise essays are Oscar Holtzmann, _Nt.
Zeitgeschichte_ (1895), 57-118; S. Mathews, _History of NT Times in
Palestine_ (1899), 1-158; Riggs, _Maccabean and Roman Periods of Jewish
History_ (1900), especially §§ 206-234, 257-267, 276-282. On the Religious
Life and Parties in Palestine, SchürerJPTX II. i. and ii.; O. Holtzmann,
_NtZeitg_, 136-177; Mathews, _NT Times_, see index; Riggs, _Mac. and Rom.
Periods_, §§ 235-256; Muirhead, _The Times of Christ_ (1898), 69-150. In
addition Wellhausen, _Die Pharisdäer und die Sadducäer_ (1874); on the
_Essenes_, Conybeare in HastBD I. 767-772, also Lightfoot, _Colossians_,
80-98, 347-419; Wellhausen, _Isr. u. jüd. Geschichte_^3 (1897), 258-262;
on the Samaritans, A. Cowley, in _Expos_. V. i. 161-174; Jew. Quar. Rev.
VIII. (1896) 562-575.

10. On the Messianic hope, SchürerJPTX II. ii. 126-187; BaldSJ 3-122;
Muirhead, _Times of Xt._, 112-150; Briggs, _Messiah of the Gospels_
(1894), 1-40; WendtTJ I. 33-84; Mathews, _NT Times_, 159-169; Riggs, _Mac.
and Rom. Periods_, §§ 251-256.

11. On the language of Palestine see Arnold Meyer, _Jesu Muttersprache_
(1896); DalmanWJ I. 1-57; SchürerJPTX II. i. 8-10, 47-51; Neubauer,
_Studia Biblica_, I. 39-74.

12. On Jewish literature dating near the times of Jesus see SchürerJPTX
II. iii.; BaldSJ. 3-122; EdersLJM I. 31-39; Deane, _Pseudepigrapha_
(1891); Thomson, _Books which influenced our Lord_, etc. (1891); and
special editions, such as Alexandre, _Sibylline Oracles_ (1869); Deane,
_The Wisdom of Solomon_ (1881); Charles, _The Book of Enoch_ (1893), _The
Apocalypse of Baruch_ (1896), _The Assumption of Moses_ (1897), and _The
Book of Jubilees_ (1895); Charles and Morfill, _The Secrets of Enoch_
(1896); Ryle and James, _The Psalms of the Pharisees_ [Psalms of Solomon]
(1891); Bensly and James, _Fourth Esdras_ (1895); Charles, EnBib I.
213-250; HastBD I. 109f.; Porter, HastBD I. 110-123; James, EnBib I.
249-261.


II

The Sources

13. On the sources outside the gospels see Anthony, _Introduction to the
Life of Jesus_, 19-108; KeimJN I. 12-59; BeysLJ I. 59-72; GilbertLJ 74-78;
Knowling, _Witness of the Epistles_; Stevens, _Pauline Theol_. 204-208;
Sabatier, _Apostle Paul_, 76-85. On Josephus as a source see also
SchürerJPTX I. ii. 143-149; RévilleJN I. 272-280. On the individual
gospels see Burton, _The Purpose and Plan of the Four Gospels_ (Univ.
Chic. Press, 1900); Bruce, _With Open Face_, 1-61; Weiss, _Introduction to
N.T._, II. 239-386; Jülicher, _Einleitung i. d. NT_, 189-207. On Matthew,
Burton Bib. Wld. I. 1898, 37-44, 91-101; on Mark, Swete, _Comm. on Mark_,
ix-lxxxix; on Luke, Plummer, _Comm. on Luke_, xi-lxx; Mathews, Bib. Wld.
1895, I. 336-342, 448-455; on John, Burton, Bib. Wld. 1899, I. 16-41,
102-105; Westcott, _Comm. on John_, v-lxxvii; Rhees in Abbott's _The Bible
as Literature_, 281-297. On the synoptic question see Sanday SBD^2,
1217-1243, and Expositor, Feb.-June, 1891; Woods, _Studia Biblica_, II.
59-104; Salmon, _Introduction_^7, 99-151, 570-581; Stanton in HastBD II.
234-243; Jülicher, _Einl._ 207-227. A. Wright, _Composition of the Four
Gospels_ (1890) and _Some NT Problems_ (1898), defends the oral tradition
theory in a modified form. On possible dislocations in John see Spitta,
_Urchristentum_, I. 157-204; Bacon, Jour. Bib. Lit. 1894, 64-76; Burton,
Bib. Wld. 1899, I. 27-35. For the history of opinion see specially H. J.
Holtzmann, _Einl._^3 340-375. On the Johannine question see Sanday,
Expositor, Nov. 1891-May 1892; Schürer, Cont. Rev. Sept. 1891; Watkins
SBD^2 1739-1764; Burton, Bib. Wld. 1899, I. 16-41; Reynolds in HastBD II.
694-722; Zahn, _Einl._ II. 445-564 (defends Johannine authorship);
Jülicher, _Einl._ 238-250 (rejects Johannine authorship). For the history
of opinion see Watkins, _Bampton Lecture_ for 1890; Holtzmann, _Einl._^3
433-438. P. Ewald, _Hauptproblem der evang. Frage_, argues the
authenticity of the fourth gospel from the one-sidedness of the synoptic
story. See also Jour. Bib. Lit. 1898, I. 87-102.

14. Réville proposes to reconstruct Jos. Ant. xviii. 3. 3 thus: "'At that
time appeared Jesus, a wise man, who did astonishing things. That is why a
good number of Jews and also of Greeks attached themselves to him.' Then
follows some phrase probably signifying that these adherents had committed
the error of proclaiming him Christ, and then 'denounced by the leading
men of the nation, this Jesus was condemned by Pilate to die on the cross.
But those who had loved him before persevered in their sentiment, and
still to-day there exists a class of people who take from him their name
Christians.'"

15. On the testimony of Papias (Euseb. _Ch. Hist_. iii. 39. 4) see
Lightfoot, Cont. Rev. 1875, II. 379 ff., and McGiffert's notes in his
_Eusebius_, 170 ff.

16. For a collection of probably genuine Agrapha see Ropes, _Die Spruche
Jesu_, 154-161, and Amer. Jour. Theol. 1897, 758-776; Resch, _Agrapha_,
gives a much longer list. He is criticised by Ropes. On lost and
uncanonical gospels see Salmon, _Intr._^7 173-190, 580-591; Kruger, _Early
Christian Literature_, 50-57. For the recently discovered Gospel of Peter
see Swete, _The Gospel of Peter_; and on the so-called _Sayings of Jesus_
found in Egypt in 1896 see Harnack, _Expositor_, V. vi. 321-340, 401-416,
and essay by Sanday and Lock. _Apocryphal Gospels_ are most conveniently
found in _Ante-nicene Fathers_, VIII. 361-476.


III

The Harmony of the Gospels

17. The Diatessaron of Tatian is translated with notes by Hill, _The
Earliest Life of Christ_. See also _Ante-nic. Fathers_, IX. 35-138.

18. For the extreme position concerning Doublets see Holtzmann,
_Hand-commentar zum NT_ I. passim. E. Haupt, Studien u. Kritiken, 1884,
25, remarks that Jesus must often have repeated his teaching in
essentially the same form.


IV

Chronology

19. For data and discussion of the various problems see Wieseler,
_Chronological Synopsis_; Lewin, _Fasti Sacra; _ KeimJN II. 379-402;
AndLOL 1-52; SchürerJPTX I. ii. 30-32, 105-143; O. Holtzmann, _NtZeitg_,
118-124, 125-127, 131-132; Turner HastBD I. 403-415; Ramsay, _Was Christ
born at Bethlehem_; and von Soden in EnBib. I. 799-812. For patristic
opinion concerning the length of Jesus' ministry, see HastBD I. 410. For
the argument for a one-year ministry, see KeimJN II. 398; O. Holtzmann,
_NtZeitg_, 131f. For two years, see Wieseler, _Chron. Synop_. 204-220;
WeissLX I. 389-392; Turner, in HastBD. For three years, see AndLOL
189-198; note by Robertson in Broadus, _Harmony of the Gospels_, 241-244.
Compare RévilleJN II. 227-231; Zahn, _Einl._ II. 516f.


V

The Early Years

20. On the problem of the Virgin birth see GilbertLJ 79-89; WeissLX I.
211-233; Swete, _Apos. Creed_, 42-55; Bruce, _Apologetics_, 407-413;
Ropes, Andover Rev. 1893, 695-712; FairbSLX 30-45; Godet, _Comm. on Luke_,
Rem. on chaps. I. and II.; BovonNTTh I. 198-217. These maintain
historicity. The other side: BeysLJ I. 148-174; Meyer, _Comm. on Matt_.,
Rem. on 1.18; Keim JN II. 38-101; Réville, New World, 1892, 695-723, and
JN I. 361-408; HoltzmannNtTh I. 409-415. On the early years of
Jesus see EdersLJM I. 217-254; WeissLX I. 275-293; Hughes, _Manliness of
Xt_, 35-60; WendtTJ I. 90-96; Stapfer, _Jesus Christ before his Ministry;
_ FairbSLX 46-63; BeysLJ II. 44-65; RévilleJN I. 409-438.

21. For some of the early legends concerning the birth and childhood of
Jesus, see the so-called _Protevangelium of James_, the _Gospel of
Pseudo-Matthew_, and the _Gospel of Thomas_, Ante-nic. Fathers, VIII.
361-383, 395-398. For Jewish calumnies see Laible, _J. X. im Thalmud_,
9-39.

22. On the two genealogies see AndLOL 62-68; WeissLX I. 211-221; Godet on
Luke, iii. 23-38. These refer Luke's genealogy to Marv. Hervey SBD^2
1145-1148, Plummer on Luke, iii. 23, EdersLJM I. 149, GilbertLJ 81f.,
with the early fathers (see Plummer), refer both to Joseph. For the view
that they are unauthentic see Holtzmann, _Hand-comm._ I. 39-41; Bacon in
HastBD II. 137-141.

23. On the "brethren" of Jesus see Mayor, HastBD I. 320-326;
AndrewsLOL 111-123. These make the brethren sons of Joseph and
Mary. Lightfoot, _Galatians_^10, 252-291, regards them as sons of Joseph
by a former marriage.


VI

John the Baptist

24. On the character and work of John the Baptist see KeimJN II. 201-266
and references in the index under John the Baptist. Keim's is much the
most satisfactory treatment; it is, moreover, Keim at his best. See also
Ewald, _Hist, of Israel_, VI. 160-200; WeissLX I. 307-316; FairbSLX 64-79;
W. A. Stevens, Homil. Rev. 1891, II. 163 ff.; Bebb in HastBD II. 677-680;
Wellhausen _Isr. u. judische Geschichte_, 342f.; Feather, _Last of the
Prophets_. Reynolds, _John the Baptist_, obscures its excellencies by a
vast amount of irrelevant discussion.

25. On the existence of a separate company of disciples of John see Mk.
ii. 18, Mt. ix. 14, Lk. v. 33; Mk. vi. 29, Mt. xiv. 12; Mt. xi. 2f., Lk.
vii. 18f.; Lk. xi. 1; Jn. i. 35f.; iii. 25; Ac. xix. 1-3. Consult
Lightfoot, _Colossians_, 400 ff.; Baldensperger, _Der Prolog des vierten
Evangeliums_, 93-152.


VII

The Messianic Call

26. On the baptism of Jesus see WendtTJ I. 96-101; EdersLJM I. 278-287;
BaldSJ 219-229. WeissLX I. 316-336 says that the baptism meant for Jesus,
already conscious of his Messiahship, "the close of his former life and
the opening of one perfectly new" (322); KeimJN II. 290-299 makes it an
act of consecration, but eliminates the Voice and Dove; BeysLJ I. 215-231
thinks that Jesus, conscious of no sin, yet not aware of his Messiahship,
sought the baptism carrying "the sins and guilt of his people on his
heart, as if they were his own" (229). Against Beyschlag see E. Haupt in
Studien u. Kritiken, 1887, 381. Baldensperger shows clearly that the
Messianic call was a revelation to Jesus, not a conclusion from a course
of reasoning.

27. On the temptation see WendtTJ I. 101-105; WeissLX I. 337-354; EdersLJM
I. 299-307; FairbairnSLX 80-98; BaldSJ 230-236; BeysLJ I.
231-237; KeimJN II. 317-329. All these see in temptation the necessary
result of the Messianic call at the baptism.

28. The locality of the baptism of Jesus cannot be determined. Tradition
has fixed on one of the fords of the Jordan near Jericho, see SmithHGHL
496, note 1. On the probable location of Bethany (Bethabarah) (Jn. i. 28)
see discussion in AndLOL 146-151; EnBib 548; and especially Smith's note
as above.

29. On the anointing of Jesus with the Holy Spirit see WeissLX I. 323-336;
BeysLJ I. 230f. For the influence of the Spirit in the later life of Jesus
see Mk. i. 12; Mt. iv. 1; Lk. iv. 1; iv. 14, 18, 21; Mk. iii. 29, 30; Mt.
xii. 28; Jn. iii. 34; compare Ac. i. 2; x. 38. Clearly these refer not to
the ethical and religious indwelling of the Divine Spirit (comp. Rom. i.
4), but to the special equipment for official duty. This is the OT sense,
see Ex. xxxi. 2-5; Jud. iii. 10; I. Sam. xi. 6; Isa. xi. 1f.; xlii. 1;
lxi. 1; and consult Schultz, _Old Test. Theol._ II. 202f. Jesus seems to
have needed a like divine equipment, notwithstanding his divine nature.
See GilbertLJ 121f.

30. How this Messianic anointing is to be related to the doctrine of
Jesus' essential divine nature cannot be determined with certainty. It
must not be forgotten, however, that it is a _datum_ for Christology, and
that it cannot be explained away. It indicates one of the particulars in
which Jesus was made like unto his brethren. What was involved when the
Son of God "emptied himself and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil.
ii. 7) we can only vaguely conceive. Two views of early heretical sects
seem rightly to have been rejected. The Docetic view, held by some
Gnostics of the 2d cent., dates the incarnation from the baptism, but
distinguishes Christ from the human Jesus, who only served as a vehicle
for the manifestation of the Son of God; the Christ descended on Jesus at
the baptism, ascending again to heaven from the cross, compare Mt. iii. 16
and xxvii. 50 in the Greek; see Schaff _Hist. of Xn Church_^2, II. 455f.
The recently discovered Gospel of Peter presents this view, Gosp. Pet. §
5. The Nestorian view represents that the baptism was, in a sense, Jesus'
"birth from above" (Jn. iii. 3, 5); thus the incarnation was first
complete at the baptism though the Logos had been associated with Jesus
from the beginning. See Schaff, _Hist, of Xn Church_^2, III. 717 ff.;
Conybeare, _History of Xmas_, Amer. Jour. Theol. 1899, 1-21.

31. The traditional locality of the temptation is a mountain near Jericho
called _Quarantana_, see AndLOL 155; the tradition seems to date no
further back than the crusades. It is, however, probable that the
"wilderness" (Mt. iv. 1, Mk. i. 12, Lk. iv. 1) is the same wilderness
mentioned in connection with John's earlier life and work (Mt. iii. 1, Mk.
i. 4), the region W and NW of the Dead Sea, see SmithHGHL 317. Others
(Stanley, _Sinai and Palestine_, 308; EdersLJM I. 300, 339 notes) hold
that the temptation took place in the desert regions SE of the sea of
Galilee; this is possibly correct, though the record in the gospels
suggests the wilderness of Judea. On the source of the temptation story
see WeissLX I. 339 ff.; BeysLJ I. 234; Bacon, Bib. Wld. 1900, I. 18-25.


VIII

The First Disciples

32. SandayHastBD II. 612f.; GilbertLJ 144-157; WeissLX I. 355-387; AndLOL
155-165; EdersLJM I. 336-363; BeysLJ II. 129-148 (assigns here a
considerable part of the synoptic account of work in Capernaum).

33. _The early confessions_. On the genuineness of the Baptist's testimony
to "the Lamb of God" see M. Dods in _Expos. Gk. Test_. I .695f.; Westcott,
_Comm. on John_, 20; EdersLJM 1. 342 ff.; WeissLX 1. 362f. (thinks the
evangelist added "who taketh away the sin of the world"); Holtzmann,
_Hand-comm._ IV. 38f. holds that the evangelist has put in the mouth of
the Baptist a conception which was first current after the death of Jesus.
On the confessions of Nathanael and the others, see Jour. Bib. Lit. 1898,
21-30.

34. _Cana_ is probably the modern Khirbet Kana, eight miles N of Nazareth.
A rival site is Kefr Kenna, three and one-half miles NE from Nazareth. See
EnBib and HastBD, also AndLOL 162-164.

35. _The miracles of Jesus_ are challenged by modern thought. It is
customary in reading other documents than the N.T. instantly to relegate
the miraculous to the domain of legend. Miracles, however, are integral
parts of the story of Jesus' life, and those who attempt to write that
life eliminating the supernatural are constrained to recognize that he had
marvellous power as an exorcist and healer of some forms of nervous
disease. So E. A. Abbott, _The Spirit on the Waters_, 169-201. Our
knowledge of nature does not warrant a dogmatic definition of the limits
of the possible; see James, _The Will to Believe_, vii.-xiii., 299-327.
The question is confessedly one of adequate evidence. The evidence for the
supreme miracle--the transcendent character of Jesus--is clear, see Part
III. chap. iv.; and the miraculous element in the story of his life must
be considered in view of this supreme miracle. In association with him his
miracles gain in credibility. In estimating the evidence for them their
dignity and worthiness is important. What the devout imagination would do
in embellishing the story of Jesus is exhibited in the apocryphal gospels;
the miracles of the canonical gospels are of an entirely different type,
which commends them as authentic. By definition a miracle is an event not
explicable in terms of ordinary human experience. It is therefore futile
to attempt to picture the miracles of Jesus in their occurrence, for the
imagination has no material except that furnished by ordinary experience.
For our day the miracles are of importance chiefly for the exhibition they
give of the character of Jesus; they can be studied with this in view
without regard to the curious question how they happened. Read
SandayHastBD II. 624-628; and see Fisher, _Grounds of Christian and
Theistic Belief, _ chaps, iv.--vi., _Supernatural Origin of
Christianity_^3, chap, xi.; Bruce, _Miraculous Element in the Gospels;
Apologetics_, 409 ff.; Illingworth, _Divine Immanence_; Rainy, Orr, and
Dods, _The Supernatural in Christianity_.



Part II.--The Ministry


I

General Survey

36. SandayHastBD II. 609f.; GilbertLJ 136-143; AndLOL 125-137; BeysLJ I.
256-295.


II

The Early Ministry in Judea

37. SandayHastBD II. 612^b-613^b; WeissLX II. 3-53; EdersLJM I. 364-429;
BeysLJ II. 147-168; GilbertLJ 158-179.

38. On _the chronological significance of John iv_. 35 see AndLOL 183;
WeissLX II. 40; Wieseler, _Synop_. 212 ff, who find indication that the
journey was in December. EdersLJM I. 419f.; Turner in HastBD I. 408, find
indication of early summer. Some treat iv. 35 as a proverb with no
chronological significance; so Alford, _Comm. on John_.

39. Geographical notes. _Aenon_ near Salim has not been identified. Most
favor a site in Samaria, seven miles from a place named Salim, which lay
four miles E of Shechem, see Conder, _Tent Work in Palestine_, II. 57, 58;
Stevens, Jour. Bib. Lit. 1883, 128-141. But can John have been baptizing
in Samaria? WeissLX II. 28 says "it is perfectly impossible that he [John]
can have taken up his station in Samaria." Other suggestions are: some
place in the Jordan valley (but then why remark on the abundance of water,
Jn. iii. 23?); near Jerusalem; and in the south of Judea. See AndLOL
173-175. _Sychar_ is the modern 'Askar, about a mile and three-quarters
from Nablus (Shechem), and half a mile N of Jacob's well. See SmithHGHL
367-375.

40. General questions. _Was the temple twice cleansed?_ (see sect. 116).
Probably not. The two reports (Jn. ii. 13-22; Mk. xi. 15-18 ¶s) are
similar in respect of Jesus' indignation, its cause, its expression, its
result, and a consequent challenge of his authority. They differ in the
time of the event (John assigns to first Passover, synoptics to the last)
and in a possibly greater sternness in the synoptic account. These
differences are no greater than appear in other records of identical
events (compare Mt. viii. 5-13 with Lk. vii. 2-10), while the repetition
of such an act would probably have been met by serious opposition. If the
temple was cleansed but once, John indicates the true time. At the
beginning of the ministry it was a demand that the people follow the new
leader in the purification of God's house and the establishment of a truer
worship. At the end it could have had only a vindictive significance,
since the people had already signified to the clear insight of Jesus that
they would not accept his leadership. For two distinct cleansings see the
discussion in AndLOL 169f., 437; EdersLJM I. 373; Plummer on Luke xix.
45f. For one cleansing at the end see KeimJN V. 113-131. For one cleansing
at the beginning see WeissLX II. 6 ff.; BeysLJ II. 149 ff.; GilbertLJ 159
ff.

41. _The journey to Galilee_. Do John (iv. 1-4, 43-45) and Mark (i. 14 =
Mt. iv. 12; Lk. iv. 14) report the same journey? Both are journeys from
the south introducing work in Galilee; yet the reasons given for the
journey are different (compare Jn. iv. 1-3 with Mk. i. 14). If the
Pharisees had a hand in John's "delivering up" (Mk. i. 14; comp. Jos. Ant.
xviii. 5. 2), the same hostile movement may have impelled Jesus to leave
Judea. He may not have heard of John's imprisonment until after his
departure, or some time before he opened his new ministry in Galilee. See
GilbertLJ 173f. AndLOL 176-182 argues against the identification.

42. _The nobleman's son_ (Jn. iv. 46-54). Is this a doublet of Mt. viii.
5-13; Lk. vii. 2-10? John differs from synoptics in the time, the place,
the disease, the suppliant, his plea, and Jesus' attitude. Matthew and
Mark differ from each other concerning the bearers of the centurion's
messages to Jesus. John's account is similar to synoptic superficially,
but is probably not a doublet. Compare Syro-Phoenician's daughter (Mk. vii.
29f.). See GilbertLJ 202; Meyer on John iv. 51-54; Plummer on Luke vii.
10. WeissLX II. 45-51 identifies. Read SandayHastBD II. 613.



III and IV

The Ministry in Galilee

43. Read SandayHastBD II. 613-630; GilbertLJ 180-283. Consult WeissLX II.
44 to III. 153; EdersLJM I. 472 to II. 125; BeysLJ II. 140-147,168-294.
See AndLOL 209-363 for discussion of details, and KeimJN III. 10 to IV.
346 for an illuminating, though not unprejudiced, topical treatment.

44. Geographical notes. _Capernaum_. The site is not clearly identified,
two ruins on the NW of Sea of Galilee are rival claimants,--Tell Hum and
Khan Minyeh. Tell Hum is advocated by Thomson, _Land and Book, Central
Pal. and Phoenicia_ (1882), 416-420; Khan Minyeh, by SmithHGHL 456, EnBib
I. 696 ff. Latter is probably correct. See AndLOL 224-237.

_Bethsaida_. The full name is Bethsaida Julias, located at entrance of
Jordan into the Sea of Galilee. SmithEnBib I. 565f., SmithHGHL
457f., shows that there is no need of the hypothesis of a second Bethsaida
to meet the statement in Mk. vi. 45, or that in Jn. i. 44. See also AndLOL
230-236. Ewing HastBD I. 282f. renews the argument for two Bethsaidas.

_Chorazin_ was probably the modern Kerazeh, about one mile N of Tell Hum,
and back from the lake. See SmithEnBib I. 751; SmithHGHL 456;
AndLOL 237f.

45. _The mountain of the sermon on the mount_ (Mt. v. 1; Lk. vi. 12)
probably refers to the Galilean highlands as distinct from the shore of
the lake. More definite location is not possible. See AndLOL 268f.;
EdersLJM I. 524. The traditional site, the Horns of Hattin, is a hill
lying about seven miles SW from Khan Minyeh, which has near the top a
level place (Lk. vi. 17) flanked by two low peaks or "horns."

46. _The country of the Gerasenes, Gadarenes, or Gergesenes_. Gadarenes is
the best attested reading in Mt. viii. 28, Gerasenes in Mk. v. 1 and Lk.
viii. 26; Gergesenes has only secondary attestation. Gadara is identified
with Um Keis on the Yarmuk, some six miles SE of the Sea of Galilee. This
cannot have been the site of the miracle, though it is possible that
Gadara may have controlled the country round about, including the shores
of the sea. Gerasa is the name of a city in the highlands of Gilead,
twenty miles E of Jordan, and thirty-five SE of the Sea of Galilee, and
it clearly cannot have been the scene of the miracle. Near the E shore of
the sea Thomson discovered the ruins of a village which now bears the name
Khersa. The formation of the land in the neighborhood closely suits the
narrative of the gospels. This is now accepted as the true identification.
See Thomson _Land and Book, Central Palestine_, 353-355; SBD^2 1097-1100;
HastBD II. 159f.; AndLOL 296-300. The name "Gadarenes" may indicate that
Gadara had jurisdiction over the region of Khersa; the names "Gerasenes"
and "Gergesenes" may be derived directly and independently from Khersa, or
may be corruptions due to the obscurity of Khersa.

47. _The feeding of the five thousand_ took place on the E of the sea, in
a desert region, abundant in grass, and mountainous, and located in the
neighborhood of a place named Bethsaida. Near the ruins of Bethsaida
Julias is a plain called now Butaiha, "a smooth, grassy place near the sea
and the mountains," which meets the requirements of the narrative. See
AndLOL 322f.

48. _The return of Jesus from the regions of Tyre "through Sidon"_ (Mk.
vii. 31) avoided Galilee, crossing N of Galilee to the territory of Philip
and "_the Decapolis_." This latter name applies to a group of free Greek
cities, situated for the most part E of the Jordan. Most of the cities of
the group were farther S than the Sea of Galilee; some, however, were E
and NE of that sea, hence Jesus' approach from Cæsarea Philippi or
Damascus could be described as "through Decapolis." See SmithHGHL 593-608;
En Bib I. 1051 ff.; SchürerJPTX II. i. 94-121.

49. Of _Magadan_ (Mt. xv. 39) or _Dalmanutha_ (Mk. viii. 10) all that is
known is that they must have been on the W coast of the Sea of Galilee.
They have never been identified, though there are many conjectures. See
SBD^2, HastBD, and En Bib.

50. _Cæsarea Philippi_ was situated at the easternmost and most important
of the sources of the Jordan, it is called Panias by Jos. Ant. xv. 10.3,
now Banias. Probably a sanctuary of the god Pan. Here Herod the Great
built a temple which he dedicated to Cæsar; Philip the Tetrarch enlarged
the town and called it Cæsarea Philippi. See SBD^2; HastBD; EnBib.

51. _The mountain of the transfiguration_. The traditional site, since the
fourth century, is Tabor in Galilee. Most recent opinion has favored one
of the shoulders of Hermon, owing to the supposed connection of the event
with the sojourn near Cæsarea Philippi. WeissLX III. 98 points out that
there is no evidence that Jesus lingered for "six days" (Mk. ix. 2) near
that town, and that therefore the effort to locate the transfiguration is
futile. GilbertLJ 274 thinks that Mk. ix. 30 is decisive in favor of a
place outside Galilee; he therefore holds to the common view that Hermon
is the true locality. See AndLOL 357f.

52. General questions. _Was Jesus twice rejected at Nazareth?_ (comp. Lk.
iv. 16-30 with Mk. vi. 1-6^a; Mt. xiii. 54-58). Here are two accounts that
read like independent traditions of the same event; they agree concerning
the place, the teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath, the astonishment
of the Nazarenes, their scornful question, and Jesus' rejoinder. Luke
makes no reference to the disciples (Mk. vi. 1) nor to the working of
miracles (Mk. vi. 5); Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, say nothing of
an attempt at violence. These differences are no more serious, however,
than appear in the two accounts of the appeal of the centurion to Jesus
(Mt. viii. 5-8; Lk. vii. 3-7). Moreover, Lk. iv. 23 indicates a time after
the ministry in Capernaum had won renown, which agrees with the place
given the rejection in Mark. The general statement (Lk. iv. 14f.) suggests
that the visit to Nazareth is given at the beginning as an instance of
"preaching in their synagogues." The three accounts probably refer to one
event reported independently. For identification see WeissLX III. 34;
Plummer on Luke iv. 30; GilbertLJ 254f. For two rejections see Godet's
supplementary note on Lk. iv. 16-30; Meyer on Mt. xiii. 53-58; EdersLJM I.
457, note 1; Wieseler, _Synopsis_, 278. BeysLJ I. 270 identifies but
prefers Luke's date.

53. _Were there two miraculous draughts of fish?_ Lk. v. 1-11 is sometimes
identified with Jn. xxi. 3-13. So WendtLJ I. 211f., WeissLX II. 57f., and
Meyer on Luke v. 1-11. Against the identification see Alford, Godet, and
Plummer on the passage in Luke. The two are alike in scene, the night of
bootless toil, the great catch at Jesus' word. They differ in personnel,
antecedent relations of the fishermen with Jesus, the effect of the
miracle on Peter, and the subsequent teaching of Jesus, as well as in
time. These differences make identification difficult.

54. _Where in the synoptic story should the journey to the feast in
Jerusalem_ (Jn. v.) _be placed?_ There is nothing in John's narrative to
identify the feast, although it is his custom to name the festivals to
which he refers (Passover, ii. 13, 23; vi. 4; xi. 55; xii. 1; Tabernacles,
vii. 2; Dedication, x. 22). Even if John wrote "the feast," rather than "a
feast" (the MSS. vary, A B D and seven other uncials omit the article), it
would be impossible to decide between Passover and Tabernacles. The
omission of the article suggests either that the feast was of minor
importance, or that its identification was of no significance for the
understanding of the following discourse. Since a year and four months
probably elapsed between the journey into Galilee (Jn. iv. 35) and the
next Passover mentioned in John (vi. 4), v. 1 may refer to any one of the
feasts of the Jewish year. The commonest interpretation prefers Purim, a
festival of a secular and somewhat hilarious type, which occurred on the
14th and 15th of Adar, a month before the Passover. It is difficult to
believe that this feast would have called Jesus to Jerusalem. See WeissLX
II. 391; GilbertLJ 137-139, 142, 234-235. Against this interpretation see
EdersLJM II. 765. Edersheim advocates the feast of Wood Gathering on the
15th of Ab--about our August. On this day all the people were permitted to
offer wood for the use of the altar in the temple, while during the rest
of the year the privilege was reserved for special families. See LJM II
765f.; Westcott, _Comm. on John_, add. note on v. 1, argues for the feast
of Trumpets, or the new moon of the month Tisri,--about our
September,--which was celebrated as the beginning of the civil year.
Others have suggested Pentecost, fifty days after the Passover; the day of
Atonement--but this was a fast, not a feast; and Tabernacles. The majority
of those who do not favor Purim prefer the Passover, notwithstanding the
difficulty of thinking that John would refer to this feast simply as "a
feast of the Jews." Read AndLOL 193-198, remembering that the question
must be considered independently of the question of the length of Jesus'
ministry. The impossibility of determining the feast renders the
adjustment of this visit to the synoptic story very uncertain. It may be
that there was some connection between the Sabbath controversy in Galilee
(Mk. ii. 23-28) and the criticism Jesus aroused in Jerusalem (Jn. v.). If
so, one of the spring feasts, Passover or Pentecost, would best suit the
circumstances; but this arrangement is quite uncertain.

55. _Do the five conflicts of Mk. ii. 1 to iii. 6 belong at the early
place in the ministry of Jesus to which that gospel assigns them_? It is
commonly held that they do not, and the argument for a two-year ministry
rests on this assumption (see SandayHastBD II. 613). Holtzmann,
_Hand-commentar_ I. 9f., remarks that at least for the cure of the
paralytic and for the call and feast of Levi (Mk. ii. 1, 13, 15) the
evangelist was confident that he was following the actual order of events;
note the call of the fifth disciple, Mk. ii. 13, between the call of the
four, Mk. i. 16-20, and that of the twelve, iii. 16-19. The question about
fasting may owe its place (Mk. ii. 18-22) to association with the
criticism of Jesus for eating with publicans (Mk. ii. 16). In like manner
the second Sabbath conflict (Mk. iii. 1-6) may be attached to the first
(ii. 23-28) as a result of the identity of subject, for it is noteworthy
that Mark records only these two Sabbath conflicts; moreover, the plot of
Herodians and Pharisees to kill Jesus strongly suggests a later time for
the actual occurrence of this criticism. The first Sabbath question,
however, may belong early, as Mark has placed it. Weiss, Markusevangelium,
76, LX II. 232 ff., places these conflicts late. Edersheim, LJM II. 51
ff., discusses the Sabbath controversies after the feeding of the
multitudes. RévilleJN II. 229 places the first of them early.

56. _The sermon on the mount._ Luke (vi. 12-19 = Mk. iii. 13-19^a
indicates the place in the Galilean ministry; Matthew has therefore
anticipated in assigning it to the beginning. The identity of the two
sermons (Mt. v. 1 to vii. 27; Lk. vi. 20-49) is shown by the fact that
each begins with beatitudes, each closes with the parables of the wise and
foolish builders, each is followed by the cure of a centurian's servant in
Capernaum (Mt. viii. 5-13; Lk. vii. 1-10), and the teachings which are
found in each account are given in the same order. Matthew is much fuller
than Luke, many teachings given in the sermon in Matthew being found in
later contexts in Luke. Much of the sermon in Matthew, however, evidently
belonged to the original discourse, and was omitted by Luke, perhaps
because of less interest to Gentile than to Jewish Christians. The
following sections are found elsewhere in Luke, and were probably
associated with the sermon by the first evangelist: Mt. v. 25, 26; Lk.
xii. 58, 59; Mt. vi. 9-13; Lk. xi. 2-4; Mt. vi. 19-34; Lk. xii. 21-34; xi.
34-36; xvi. 13; Mt. vii. 7-11; Lk. xi. 9-13; Mt. vii. 13, 14; Lk. xiii.
24. The first evangelist's habit of grouping may explain also the presence
in his sermon of teachings which he himself has duplicated later, thus:
Mt. v. 29, 30 = xviii. 8,9; v. 32 = xix. 9, comp. Mk. x. 11, ix. 43-47,
Lk. xvi. 18; Mt. vi. 14, 15 = Mk. xi. 25. Matthew vii. 22, 23 has the
character of the teachings which follow the confession at Cæsarea
Phillipi, and is quite unlike the other early teachings. It may belong to
the later time, for it was natural for the early Christians to associate
together teachings which the Lord uttered on widely separated occasions.
The sermon as originally given may be analyzed as follows: The privileges
of the heirs of the kingdom of God, Mt. v. 3-13; Lk. vi. 20-26; their
responsibilities, Mt. v. 13-16; the relation of the new to the old, Mt. v.
17-19; the text of the discourse, Mt. v. 20; the new conception of
morality, Mt. v. 21-48; Lk. vi. 27-36; the new practice of religion, Mt.
vi. 1-8, 16-18; warning against a censorious spirit, Mt. vii. 16-20; Lk.
vi. 43-46; the wise and foolish builders, Mt. vii. 24-27; Lk. vi. 47-49.

57. _The discourse in parables._ Matthew gives seven parables at this
point (xiii.), Mark (iv. 1-34) has three, one of them is not given in
Matthew, Luke (viii. 4-18) gives in this connection but one,--the Sower.
Many think that the Tares of Matthew (xiii. 24-30, 36-43) is a doublet of
Mark's Seed growing secretly (iv. 26-29); so Weiss LX II. 209 note,
against which view see WendtLJ I. 178 f., and Bruce, _Parabolic Teaching
of Xt_, 119. Matthew has probably made here a group of parables, as in
chapters v. to vii. he has made a group of other teachings. The
interpretation of the Tares, and of the Draw-net (xiii. 40-43, 49, 50),
may indicate that these parables were spoken after Jesus began to teach
plainly concerning the end of the world (Mk. viii. 31 to ix. 1), Luke
gives the Mustard Seed and Leaven in another connection (xiii. 18-21), and
it may be that Matthew has taken them out of their true context to
associate them with the other parables of his group; yet in popular
teaching it must be recognized that illustrations are most likely to be
repeated in different situations. On the parables see Goebel, _The
Parables of Jesus_ (1890), Bruce, _The Parabolic Teaching of Christ_, 3d
ed. (1886), Jülicher, _Die Gleichnissreden Jesu_ (2 vols. 1899), and
the commentaries on the gospels.

58. _The instructions to the twelve_. Mt. ix. 36 to xi. 1. x. 1, 5-14
corresponds in general with Mk. vi. 7-11; Lk. ix. 1-5. The similarity is
closer, however, between x. 7-15 and Lk. x. 3-12--the instructions to the
seventy (see sect. A 68). The rest of Mt. x. (16-42) is paralleled by
teachings found in the closing discourses in the synoptic gospels, and in
teachings preserved in the section peculiar to Luke (ix. 51 to xviii. 14.
See SB sects. 88-92, footnotes). It is probable that here the first
evangelist has made a group of instructions to disciples gathered from all
parts of the Lord's teachings; such a collection was of great practical
value in the early time of persecution.

59. _Did Jesus twice feed the multitudes_? All the gospels record the
feeding of the five thousand (Mt. xiv. 13-23; Mk. vi. 30-46; Lk. ix.
10-17; Jn. vi. 1-15), Matthew (xv. 32-38) and Mark (viii. 1-9) give also
the feeding of the four thousand. The similarities are so great that the
two accounts would be regarded as doublets if they occurred in different
gospels. The difficulty with such an identification is chiefly the
reference which in both Matthew (xvi. 9, 10) and Mark (viii. 19, 20) Jesus
is said to have made to the two feedings. The evangelists clearly
distinguished the two. In view of this fact the differences between the
accounts become important. These concern the occasion of the two miracles,
the number fed, the nationality of the multitudes (compare Jn. vi. 31 and
Mk. vii. 31), the number of loaves and of baskets of broken pieces (the
name for basket is different in the two cases, and is preserved
consistently in Mk. viii. 19, 20; Mt. xvi. 9, 10). See GilbertLJ 259-262,
Gould, and Swete, on Mk. viii. 1-9; Meyer, Alford, on Mt. xv. 32-38.
WeissLX II. 376f., BeysLJ I. 279f., WendtLJ I. 42, Holtzmann _Hand-comm._
I. 186 ff., identify the accounts. See also SandayHastBD II. 629.

60. _Did Peter twice confess faith in Jesus as Messiah_? Synoptics give
his confession at Cæesarea Philippi (Mk. viii. 27-30; Mt. xvi. 13-20; Lk.
ix. 18-21). John, however, gives a confession earlier at Capernaum (vi.
66-71). WeissLX III. 53 identifies the two, placing that in John at
Cæsarea Philippi, since there is no evidence that all of the long
discourse of Jn. vi. was spoken in Capernaum the day after the feeding of
the five thousand. This may be correct, yet the marked recognition which
Jesus gave to the confession at Cæsarea Philippi does not demand that he
first at that time received a confession of his disciples' faith. The
confession in Jn. vi. 68, 69 declared that the twelve were not shaken in
their faith by the recent defection of many disciples. At Cæsarea Philippi
the confession was made after the revulsion of popular feeling had been
made fully evident, and after the twelve had had time for reaction of
enthusiasm consequent upon the growing coldness of the multitudes and
active opposition of the leaders. The confession of Cæsarea Philippi holds
its unique significance, whether or not Jn. vi. 68 is identified with it.

61. _The journey to Tabernacles_ (Jn. vii.). Where in the synoptic story
should it be placed? Lk. ix. 51 ff. records the final departure from
Galilee. The journey of Jn. vii. is the last journey from Galilee given in
John. Yet the two are very different. In John, Jesus went in haste,
unpremeditatedly, in secret, and unaccompanied, and confronted the people
with himself unexpectedly during the feast. In Luke (Mk. x. 1 and Mt. xix.
1 are so general that they give no aid) he advanced deliberately, with
careful plans, announcing his coming in advance, accompanied by many
disciples, with whom he went from place to place, arriving in Jerusalem
long after he had set out. The two journeys cannot be identified. John
seems to keep Jesus in the south after the Tabernacles, but his account
does not forbid a return to Galilee between Tabernacles and Dedication (x.
22). After the hurried visit to Tabernacles, Jesus probably went back to
Galilee, and gathered his disciples again for the final journey towards
his cross--for the visit to Jerusalem had given fresh evidence of the kind
of treatment he must expect in the capital (Jn. vii. 32, 45-52; viii. 59).
See AndLOL 369-379. Andrews suggests that the feast occurred before the
withdrawal to Cæsarea Philippi (376); this is possible, but it seems more
natural to place it during the sojourn in Capernaum after the return from
the north (Mk. ix. 33-50). See SB, sects. 82-85.

62. On the phenomena and interpretation of _Demoniac Possession_ see J. L.
Nevius, _Demon Possession and allied Themes_; Conybeare, Jew. Quar. Rev.
VIII. (1896) 576-608, IX. (1896-7) 59-114, 444-470, 581-603; J. Weiss in
_Reälencyklopädie_,^3 Hauck-Herzog, IV. 408-419; Binet, _Alterations of
Personality_, 325-356; James, _Psychology, _ I. 373-400; and the articles
on DEMONS in EnBib and HastBD.


The Journey through Perea to Jerusalem

63. Read SandayHastBD II. 630-632; see GilbertLJ 298-310: WeissLX III.
157-223; KeimJN V, 1-64; BeysLJ I. 287-294. II. 333-419; AndLOL 365-420;
EdersLJM II. 126-360.

64. This journey began sometime between Tabernacles and Dedication
(October and December) of the last year of Jesus' life, and continued
until the arrival in Bethany six days before the last Passover.

65. Geographical notes. _Perea_--a part of the domain of Antipas--was the
Jewish territory E of the Jordan. Its northern limit seems to have been
marked by Pella (Jos. Wars, iii 3. 3) or Gadara (Wars, iv. 7. 3), and its
E boundary was marked by Philadelphia (Ant. xx. 1. 1); it extended S to
the domain of Aretas, king of Arabia. The population was mixed, though
predominatingly Jewish. Cities of the Decapolis, however, lay within the
limits of Perea, and introduced Greek life and ideas to the people. On the
highlands back from the Jordan it was a fertile and well populated land.
See SmithHGHL 539f.; SchürerJPTX II. i. 2-4.

66. On _Bethany and Jericho_ see BDs and, for the latter, SmithHGHL 266
ff.

67. _Ephraim_, (John xi. 54) is generally identified with the Ephron of
II. Chron. xiii. 19 (Jos. Wars, iv. 9. 9). Robinson located it at et
Taiyibeh, 4 m. NE of Bethel, and 14 from Jerusalem. See HastBD l. 728;
SBD^2 975.

68. General questions. _The mission of the seventy_. Luke records two
missions, that of the twelve (ix. 1-6), and that of the seventy (x. 1-24).
Many regard these as doublets, similar to the two feedings in Mark. So
WeissLX II. 307 ff., BeysLJ I. 275, WendtLJ I. 84f. In favor of this
conclusion emphasis is given to the fact that in Jewish thought seventy
symbolized the nations of the world as twelve symbolized Israel. It is
suggested that in his search for full records Luke came upon an account of
the mission of disciples which had already been modified in the interests
of Gentile Christianity, and failing to recognize its identity with the
account of the mission furnished by Mark, he added it in his peculiar
section. The similarity of the instructions given follows from the nature
of the case. A second sending out of disciples is suitable in view of the
entrance into a region hitherto unvisited. As Dr. Sanday has remarked, the
sayings connected by Luke with this mission bear witness to the
authenticity of the account. There is therefore no need to identify the
two missions. See particularly SandayHastBD II. 614, also GilbertLJ
226-230, Plummer's _Comm. on Luke_, 269 ff. Luke probably gives the
correct place for the thanksgiving, self-declaration, and invitation of
Jesus, in which the synoptists approach most nearly to the thought of John
(Lk. x. 21, 22; Mt. xi. 25-30). The return of the seventy (Lk. x. 17-20)
followed the woes addressed to the unbelieving cities (Lk. x. 13-16; Mt.
xi. 20-24).

69. _The destination of the seventy_. It is customary to think of them as
sent to the various cities of Perea (see AndLOL 381-383). Were it not for
the words "whither he himself was about to come" (Lk. x. I), it would be
natural to conclude that they were sent E to Gerasa and Philadelphia, and
S to the regions of the Dead Sea. If John's account is accepted, Jesus
spent not a little time of the interval between his departure from Galilee
and his final arrival in Bethany in and near Jerusalem. It may be that
after the withdrawal from the Dedication he went far into the Perean
districts. But John x. 40 is against it. The question must be left
unanswered. The messengers may have visited places in all parts of
Palestine.


VI

The Controversies of the Last Week

70. See GilbertLJ 311-335; WeissLX III. 224-270; AndLOL 421-450; KeimJN V.
65-275; BeysLJ II. 422-434; EdersLJM II. 363-478; SandayHastBD II 632f.

71. _The supper at Bethany_. John is definite, "six days before the
passover" (xii. I). Synoptists place it after the day of controversy, on
the Wednesday preceding the Passover (Mk. xiv. I, 3-9; Mt. xxvi. 2, 6-13).
John is probably correct. The rebuke of Judas (Jn. xii. 4-8) was probably
associated in the thought of the disciples with his later treachery;
consequently the synoptists report the plot of Judas and this supper in
close connection.

72. _The Messianic entry into Jerusalem_ is regarded by Réville as a
surrender by Jesus of his lofty Messianic ideal in response to the
temptation to seek a popular following. Keim with finer insight says,
"Even if it had certainly been his wish to bring the kingdom of heaven
near in Jerusalem quietly and gradually, and with a healthy mental
progress, as in Galilee, yet ... in the face of the irritability of his
opponents, in the face of the powerful means at their disposal of crushing
him ... there remained but one chance,--reckless publicity, the conquest
of the partially prepared nation by means, not of force, but of idea....
He came staking his life upon the venture, but also believing that God
must finish his work through life or death" (JN V. 100f.).

73. _The question about the resurrection_ was probably a familiar
Sadducean problem with which they made merry at the expense of the
scribes. On the resurrection in Jewish thought see Charles, _Eschatology,
Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian_, by index. For the scepticism of the
Sadducees see also Ac. xxiii. 8; Jos. Wars, ii, 8. 14.

74. On the "_great commandment_" see EdersLJM II. 403 ff.

75. The eschatological discourse presents serious exegetical difficulties.
Many cut the knot by assuming that Mk. xiii. and ||s contain a little
Jewish apocalypse written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem,
which has been blended with genuine predictions of Jesus concerning his
second coming. See Charles, _Eschatology_, 323-. 329; WendtLJ I. 9-21;
HoltzmannNtTH I. 325 ff.; and Bruce's criticism in _Expos. Gk. Test_. I.
287f., also Sanday's note in HastBD II. 635f.

76. On _the relation of proselytes_ to Judaism see SchürerJPTX II. ii.
291-327. The synagogue in heathen lands drew to itself by its monotheism
and its pure ethics the finest spirits of paganism. But few of them,
however, submitted to circumcision, and became thus proselytes. Most of
them constituted the class of "them that fear God" to whom Paul constantly
appealed in his apostolic mission. The Greeks of Jn. xii. 20 ff. were
probably circumcised proselytes.

77. On _Judas_ see Plummer in HastBD II. 796 ff.; EdersLJM II. 471-478;
WeissLX III. 285-289; AndLOL by index. De Quincey's essay on _Judas
Iscariot_ is an elaborate defence.


VII

The Last Supper

78. GilbertLJ 335-354; WeissLX III. 273-318; EdersLJM II. 479-532; AndLOL
450-497; KeimJN V. 275-343; BeysLJ II. 434-448; SandayHastBD II. 633-638.

79. _The day of the last supper_. John seems clearly to place it on the
day before the Passover--13 Nisan. See xiii. I, 29; xviii. 28; xix. 14,
31, 42. Synoptists as clearly declare that the supper was prepared on the
"first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover" (Mk.
xiv. 12; see also Lk. xxii. 15); this is confirmed by the similarity
between the Passover ritual as tradition has preserved it, and the course
of events at the supper. Unless interpretation can remove the
contradiction, John must have the preference. WeissLX III. 273-282, BeysLJ
II. 390-399, accept John and correct the synoptists by him; thus the
supper anticipated the Passover. Some hold that John can be interpreted
harmoniously with synoptists, and be shown to indicate that the supper was
on the 14th Nisan. So EdersLJM II. 508, 566f., 612f.; AndLOL 452-481;
GilbertLJ 335-339. Others believe that a true interpretation of synoptists
shows that in calling the last supper a Passover they correctly represent
the character, but misapprehend the time, of the meal. For this argument
see Muirhead, _Times of Xt_, 163-169, and read SandayHastBD II. 633-636
and his references. The debate is still on, but the advantage seems to be
with those who assign the supper to the 13th and the crucifixion to the
14th Nisan.

80. _Did Jesus institute a memorial sacrament_? Read SandayHastBD II.
636-638, and Thayer, in Jour. Bib. Lit. 1899, 110-131; see also
McGiffert, _Apostolic Age_, 68 ff. note; HoltzmannNtTh I. 296-304.

81. _The Passover ritual_. The order according to the rabbis was the
following: the first cup of wine and water was taken by the leader, who
gave thanks over it, and then it was shared by all (compare Lk. xxii. 17);
then the head of the company washed his hands--Dr. Edersheim connects with
this the washing of the disciples' feet, which changed the ceremony from
an act of distinction into one of humble service; after this the dishes
were brought on the table, then the leader dipped some of the bitter herbs
into salt water or vinegar, spoke a blessing, and partook of them, then
handed them to each of the company; then one of the loaves of unleavened
bread was broken; after this a second cup was filled, and before it was
drunk the significance of the Passover was explained by the leader in
reply to a question by the youngest of the company, after which the first
part of the Hallel (Ps. cxiii., cxiv.) was sung, and then the cup was
drunk; then followed the supper itself beginning with "the sop,"--a piece
of the paschal lamb, a piece of unleavened bread, and bitter herbs,
wrapped together and dipped in the vinegar,--which was passed around the
company (compare the sop which Jesus gave to Judas); after the supper came
a third cup, known as "the cup of blessing" (see I. Cor. x. 16); then
followed grace after meat; then a fourth cup, in connection with which the
remainder of the Hallel was sung (Ps. cxv. to cxviii.), followed by
certain other songs and prayers. See EdersLJM II. 496-512; AndLOL 488-494.

82. _The washing of the disciples' feet_. John (xiii. 1-11) says this
occurred "during supper" (v. 2), and before the designation of the
traitor. Luke (xxii. 23-30) tells of a dispute about greatness among the
disciples. This dispute may have arisen over the assignment of places at
table (compare Lk. xiv. 7 ff.; Mk. x. 33-45); if so, the reason for the
lesson in humility is apparent. See AndLOL 482-484; EdersLJM II. 492-503.

83. _Did Jesus twice predict Peter's denials_? Mark (xiv. 26-31) and
Matthew (xxvi. 30-35) place the prediction after the departure for
Gethsemane; Luke (xxii. 31-34) and John (xiii. 36-38), during the supper.
AndLOL 494 ff. thinks Peter was warned twice, EdersLJM. II. 535-537 holds
to one warning on the way to Gethsemane. Antecedent probability favors
this view.

84. _Where in John should the institution of the sacrament be placed_?
Probably after the departure of Judas (Mark xiv. 21f.; Matt. xxvi. 26),
thus not before xiii. 30. The most likely place is between, verses 32 and
33. There is no break at this point, and it remains a mystery why John's
account of the passion omitted this central feature of early Christian
belief and practice. The omission argues for rather than against apostolic
authorship, as a forger would not have ventured to disregard the leading
service of the church in an account of the life of its Lord. See Westcott,
_Comm. on John_, 188.

85. On the possible _disarrangement of the last discourses_ (xiii. 31 to
xvi. 33) in our text of John see Spitta, _Urchristentum_, I. 168-193;
Bacon, Jour. Bib. Lit. 1894, 64-76; Burton, Bib. Wld. 1899 I. 32.


VIII

The Shadow of the Cross

86. See GilbertLJ 354-384; AndLOL 497-588; WeissLX III. 319-381; BeysLJ I.
390-432, II. 448-473; EdersLJM II. 533-620; KeimJN VI. 1-274; SandayHastBD
II. 632f.

87. On the location of _Gethsemane and Golgotha_ see AndLOL 499f.,
575-588; and HastBD II. 164, 226f.

88. On the progress of _Jesus' trial by the Jewish authorities, _ see
AndLOL 505-516; GilbertLJ 359-363. The _legality of the trial_ has been
carefully discussed by A. T. Innes, _The Trial of Jesus Christ_.

89. On the form and sequence of _Peter's denials_, see Westcott, _Comm.
on John_, 263-266; AndLOL 516-521.

90. The _Words from the Cross_. Matthew (xxvii. 46) and Mark (xv. 34)
report one; Luke (xxiii. 34?, 43, 46) adds three, omitting the one found
in Matthew and Mark; John adds three more (xix. 26f., 28, 30). Luke xxiii.
34 is bracketed by Westcott and Hort because omitted by a very important
group of MSS. ([Hebrew: aleph]^aBD*) and some early versions. The saying
is almost certainly authentic, though it may have been added to Luke by
some early copyist. See Westcott and Hort, _N.T. in Greek_, II. Appendix,
68; and Plummer, _Comm. on Luke_, 544f.


IX

The Resurrection and Ascension

91. Read SandayHastBD II. 638-643; see KeimJK VI. 274-383, for a still
valid criticism of the position of RévilleJN II. 428-478; see also WeissLX
III. 382-409; BeysLJ I. 433-481, II. 474-493; BovonNTTh I. 350-375;
GilbertLJ 385-405; Loofs, _Die Auferstehungsberichte und ihr Wert_;
EdersLJM II. 621-652; AndLOL 589-639.

92. The last twelve verses of Mark (xvi. 9-20) are omitted by the oldest
MSS ([Hebrew: aleph]B) and by the recently discovered Sinaitic Syriac, as
well as by other versions and fathers. An Armenian MS. has been found
ascribing the section to one Ariston, or Aristion, a second century elder,
and this explanation of the origin of the verses is widely accepted. The
gospel cannot have ended with the words "for they were afraid," but no
satisfactory explanation of the condition of its text has been found. For
a recent hypothesis see Rohrbach, _Der Schluss des Markusevangeliums_; on
Aristion as the author, see Conybeare in Expos. IV. viii. (1893) 241, IV.
x. 219, V. ii. 401; see also SandayHastBD II. 638f., Bruce, _Expos. Gk.
Test_. I. 454f. For discussion of textual evidence see Westcott and Hort,
_NT in Greek_, II. Appendix, 28-51, and Burgon, _The last twelve verses
of St. Mark_ (a passionate defence).

Luke xxiv. 51 is omitted by [Hebrew: aleph]*D and several old Latin MSS.
See Plummer and Bruce on the passage.

93. "_After three days_." This formula, which appears often in Mark, is
altered in parallels in Matthew and Luke to "on the third day" (see
Concordance). Jesus died on Friday, lay in the tomb over Saturday, and
rose very early Sunday morning. Thus he spent a part of Friday, and a part
of Sunday, and all of Saturday in the grave. According to Jewish reckoning
this was counted three days.

94. _Emmaus_. A village about 60 furlongs from Jerusalem. Cannot have been
the Emmaus in the Shephelah, 20 m. from Jerusalem. May have been el
Kubeibeh, 63 furlongs distant on the road from Jerusalem to Lydda. See
AndLOL 617-619; but also HastBD I. 700.




Part III.--The Minister


I

The Friend of Men

95. Head Mathews, _The Social Teachings of Jesus, _ especially 132-174;
see also Robinson, _The Saviour in the Newer Light_, 343 ff.


II

The Teacher with Authority

96. See WendtTJ I. 106-151; Stevens, _Theol. of the N.T._ 1-16; Beyschlag,
_N.T. Theology, I_. 31-34. In particular on the Parables see references in
sect. A 56. On the content of Jesus' teaching see WendtTJ 2 vols.;
Dalman, _Die Worte Jesu; Stevens, Theol. of the N.T._ 17-244; Beyschlag,
_N.T. Theol_. I. 27-299; Mathews, _Social Teaching of Jesus_; Gilbert,
_The Revelation of Jesus_; Bruce, _The Kingdom of God_.


III

Jesus' Knowledge of Truth

97. Adamson, _The Mind in Christ_; GilbertRJ 169f., 240-242; Schwartzkopf,
_The Prophecies of Jesus Christ_.


IV

Jesus' Conception of Himself

98. BaldSJ 125-282; Stalker, _Christology of Jesus_, HoltzmannNtTh I.
234-304; WendtTJ II. 122-183; GilbertRJ 167-228; Stevens, _Theol. of the
N.T._ 41-64, 199-212. On the title "Son of Man" see particularly DalmanWJ
I. 191-219; Charles, _Eschatology_, 214f. note; against, A. Meyer, _Jesu
Muttersprache_, 91-101, and others. See also HoltzmannNtTh I.
246-264. On the name "Son of God," see Dalman WJ I. 219-237; Holtzmann
NtTh I. 265-278; Stalker, _Christology_, 86-123; Gilbert, as above. On the
personal religion of Jesus see Burton, Bib. Wld. 1899, II. 394-403. For
the total impression of the character of Jesus, read Bushnell, _The
Character of Jesus_.




Indexes




Index of Names and Subjects



[References are to pages.]


Ænon, site of, 288.
"After three days," 307.
Agrapha, 36, 149, 281.
Andrew, of Bethsaida, 92, 94, 118.
Angels, doctrine of, 10.
Annas, 191, 193, 194.
Antipas, 4, 192.
Apocalypse, 17f., 122, 124, 241.
Apocryphal gospels, 37, 281, 282.
Archelaus, 4, 5.
Aristion, author of Mark xvi. 9-20, 204f., 306f.
Assumption of Moses, 75

Baptism of John, see _John the Baptist_.
Baptism of Jesus, 83-86, 283f.
Barabbas, 174, 192.
Bethany beyond Jordan, 92, 284.
Bethany, supper at, 169, 301.
Bethsaida, site of, 290.
Books of reference, 273-277.
Brethren of Jesus, 63f., 283.

Cæsarea Philippi;, 4, 291.
  confession at, see _Peter_.
Caiaphas, 191, 193, 194.
Cana of Galilee, 95, 222, 286.
Cananeans or Zealots, party of, 11, 74.
Capernaum, site of, 290.
Census under Quirinius, 11, 52-55.
Chorazin, site of, 290.

Dalmanutha, 291.
Dalmanutha, Books of, 17f., 241, 254f.
Decapolis, the, 140, 291.
Dedication, feast of, 150, 154.
Demoniac possession, 131-133, 245-248, 299.
Devout, the, 13, 17.
Diatessaron of Tatian, 38, 47, 281.
Doublets, 44, 281.
Draughts of fish, miraculous, 293.

Emmaus, site of, 307.
Enoch, Book of, 241, 256-258.
Ephraim, site of, 300.
Essenes, manner of living, 11-12;
  their hope of Messiah, 16;
  their settlement, 73;
  relation to John the Baptist, 73, 77.

Five thousand, the feeding of, 135f., 291.

Gadarenes, country of, 247, 290f.
Genealogies of Jesus, 282.
Gethsemane, 177, 186, 188f., 265, 305.
Golgotha, 305.

Herod the Great, 3;
  began to rebuild temple, 49;
  census during his reign, 54.
Herod Antipas, 4, 192.
Herodians, 14, 173.

James, brother of John, 92, 94, 118.
Jesus, language of, 19, 62, 279;
  date of birth, 52-56;
  the miraculous conception, 58-61;
  growth, physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, 61-66;
  his brothers and sisters, 64;
  visit to Jerusalem in his twelfth year, 66-68;
  life in Nazareth, 68f.;
  his baptism, 83-86;
  his temptation, 86-91;
  his first disciples, 92-95;
  at Cana, 95;
  his social friendliness, 96, 219f.;
  the cleansing of the temple, 108-110;
  talk with Nicodemus, 111;
  the woman of Samaria, 112;
  cure of nobleman's son, 113;
  in retirement in Galilee, 113f.;
  call of four disciples, 118;
  popular enthusiasm and pharisaic opposition, 119-121;
  his withdrawals and injunctions of silence, 122 ff.;
  blasphemy of the Pharisees, 124;
  the reply to John's message, 125;
  his twofold aim in Galilee, 126;
  his method, 127;
  the sermon on the mount, 127f.;
  the parables, 128f., 231f., 296f.;
  instruction of the twelve, 130, 297;
  his mighty works, 131f.;
  his personal influence, 133;
  the feeding of the five thousand, 135f.;
  the revulsion in popular feeling, 136;
  the controversy about hand washing, 139;
  the withdrawal to the north, 138;
  the demand for a sign, 139;
  disciples warned against the Pharisees, 139;
  the question at Cæsarea Philippi, 141f.;
  commendation of Peter, 143;
  announcement of approaching death, 144;
  rebuke of Peter, 145;
  the transfiguration, 146f.;
  the epileptic boy, 147;
  rebuke of worldly ambition, 147f.;
  Jesus and his brethren, 148;
  at the feast of Tabernacles, 148;
  return to Galilee, 150;
  final departure from Galilee, 154;
  the mission of the seventy, 158;
  visit to the feast of Dedication, 159;
  in Perea, 160;
  the summons to Bethany, 161f.;
  official determination to get rid of him, 161;
  at Ephraim, 162;
  question about divorce, 154;
  blessing little children, 154;
  the rich young ruler, 154;
  request of Salome, 163;
  Bartimeus, 163;
  Zacchæus, 163;
  anointing at Bethany, 169;
  the Messianic entry, 170f.;
  the barren fig-tree, 172;
  the questions of the leaders, 173f.;
  counter question, 175;
  denunciation of scribes, 175;
  the widow's mites, 176;
  visit of the Greeks. 176f.;
  the eschatological discourse, 178;
  bargain of Judas, 169, 178f.;
  the last supper, 181-184;
  dispute and foot washing, 184;
  withdrawal of Judas, 184;
  prediction of Peter's denials, 185;
  discourse and prayer, 185-187;
  Gethsemane, 188-190;
  betrayal and arrest, 190f.;
  trial by Jews, 191f.;
  trial by Pilate, 192-194;
  crucifixion, 195-198;
  burial of Jesus, 199;
  the resurrection, 201-210;
  the ascension, 214f.;
  Jesus' attitude to common life, 219-223;
  his hunger for sympathy, 223;
  Jesus as a teacher, 226f.;
  his attitude to Old Testament, 227-229;
  his confidence in men, 230f.;
  his use of illustration, 231-233;
  his alertness of mind, 234;
  his leading ideas, 235 ff.;
  his supernatural knowledge, 239-244;
  his confession of ignorance, 243;
  his kinship with men, 244f.;
  treatment of demoniac possession, 245-248;
  his certainty of his Messianic call, 249-254;
  his adoption of Messianic titles, 254-264;
  his consciousness of dependence on God, 264-266;
  the problem of Jesus, 267-269.
John, Gospel of, 32-36, 40f., 181, 280, 305.
John the Baptist, 70-81;
  notice by Josephus, 71f., 279f.;
  his idea of the kingdom of God, 73;
  his relation to current thought, 73-76;
  his baptism, 77f., 83;
  baptism of Jesus, 82-84;
  the embassy from the priests, 92;
  testimony--"the Lamb of God," 93, 286;
  baptizing at Ænon, 112;
  his self-effacing witness to Jesus, 79, 112;
  hostility of the Pharisees, 113, 289;
  arrest by Antipas, 71f., 113;
  his message to Jesus, 125;
  death in prison, 134f.; his significance, 79-81, 226;
  the disciples of John, 112, 283;
  literature about John, 283.
John, son of Zebedee, 36, 92, 94, 118, 193,269.
John of Gischals, 121.
Joseph of Arimathea, 182, 199.
Josephus, 22;
  notice of John the Baptist, 71, 279f.
Judas of Galilee, 11, 121.
Judas the betrayer, 169, 181, 302;
  the bargain, 178;
  his selection as an apostle, 179;
  his criticism of Mary at Bethany, 179;
  his kiss, 190;
  his remorse, 179.
Judea, province of, 6f.

Kingdom of God, 68, 86, 90, 173, 190, 231, 232, 235 ff., 238, 241.

Language used by Jesus, 19, 62, 279.
Last supper, the, 181-187, 303-305.
Lawyers, see _Scribes_.
Length of Jesus' ministry, 45-49.
Literature of the Jews, 18f., 279.
"Logia," ascribed to Matthew, 32, 42, 158.
Luke, Gospel of, 26f., 31f., 280.

Mark, Gospel of, 25f., 27, 29, 32, 40, 42, 280, 294f.;
  last twelve verses of, 204f., 306f.
Mary Magdalene, 134, 208.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, 59;
  had other children, 60, 63f., 283.
Matthew, Gospel of, 23 ff., 27, 30f., 32, 280.
Messianic entry into Jerusalem, 170, 301f.
Messianic hope, the, 16-18, 87, 175, 279.
Miracles of Jesus, 96, 267, 286f.
Miraculous birth, the, 57-61, 232.
Mission of the twelve, 130, 297.
Mission of the seventy, 158, 300f.

Nathanael, of Cana, 92, 94, 286.
Nazareth, the view from, 65f.
  rejection at, 292.
Nicodemus, 111, 199.

Papias, 22, 29, 34, 47, 102, 281.
Parables of Jesus, 128f., 231f., 296f.
Passover, the, 181, 187, 304.
Paul, 21, 36, 201, 206, 268.
Pentateuch, Jesus' references to, 244.
Perea, 104, 153f., 158, 299f.
Peter, 29, 34, 92, 94, 118, 185, 193, 305, 306;
  confession of, 136, 142 ff., 297f.
Pharisees, the, 8-10;
  attitude to John the Baptist, 82, 113, 289;
  their blasphemy, 124, 156;
  question about divorce, 154;
  about tribute, 173;
  about the great commandment, 174, 302.
Philip of Bethsaida, 92, 94, 176.
Philip the tetrarch, 4.
Pliny the younger, 21.
Pontius Pilate, 5, 192, 195.
Priests, the, 7f., 107;
  and the temple market, 108.
Proselytes, 78, 176, 302.
Psalms, Jesus' use of the, 244.
Psalms of Solomon, 18, 261.
Publicans, 6, 72, 222.

Quirinius, census under, 52-55.

Religion of Jesus, 264 ff., 308.
Resurrection, pharisaic doctrine of, 10, 241;
  Sadducean rejection of 10, 174.

Sadducees, the, 8, 16, 82;
  the question about the resurrection, 174, 303;
  attitude towards Jesus, 193.
Samaria, 6f.
  Jesus' journey through, 112.
Samaritans, how regarded, 14.
Sanhedrin, the great, at Jerusalem, 7, 13, 192.
Scribes, their business, 9;
  power in the sanhedrin, 13;
  their influence over the religious life, 14;
  their hope of a Messiah, 16;
  their washings, 78;
  chief of them at Jerusalem, 107;
  their pride of learning and their bondage to tradition, 228.
Sermon on the mount, 127, 290, 295f.
Signs, essential marks of the Messiah, 95, 131.
Soldiers in Palestine, 6, 72, 191.
Son of Man, the, 124f., 130f., 254-260, 308.
Son of God, the, 260-264, 308.
Star of the wise men, 56.
Suetonius, 21.
Sychar, site of, 288.
Synagogue, the, 14.
Synoptic gospels, 28.
Synoptic problem, 27-32, 279f.

Tabernacles, feast of, 148, 150, 298f.
Tacitus, 3, 21, 54.
Tatian, 23, 38, 47, 281.
Taxes, Roman, in Judea, 6.
Temple at Jerusalem, 107;
  market in 107;
  cleansing of, 107, 288f.
Temptation of Jesus, 86-91, 145, 284;
  locality of, 285;
  source of the record, 90, 285.
Tertullian, 45, 53.
Thomas, 208.
Tiberius, 1, 21, 50.
Traditions of the elders, 9, 15f., 68, 74, 139.
Transfiguration, the, 146f., 292.
Trial of Jesus, the, 191-195, 305.

Words from the cross, 196 ff., 306.

Zealots, the, 11, 74, 122, 124.




Index of Scripture References



Ex.

iv. 22                 261
xix. 10                 78
xxiv. 1-11             183



Lev.

xii. 8                  61
xxiii. 5-11             47



Num.

xxiii. 19              254



Deut.

vi. 4-9                 62
viii. 3                 88
xviii. 15               92
xxi. 23                196



I. Sam.

ii. 26                  61



I. Kings.

xvii. 1                 72



II. Kings.

i. 8
xvii. 24-41             14



Ps.

ii. 7                  261
viii. 4                254
xxii.                  196
lxxx. 17               254
lxxxii. 6              261
ciii. 13               262
cxiii., cxiv.          304
cxv. to cxviii.        185, 304



Isa.

i. 16                   76
vi. 5                  267
xi. 2                   85
xxxv. 5f.              126
xlii. 1                 85
li. 2                  254
liii.                   96, 239
liii. 7                 93
lviii.                  76
lxi. 1f.                45, 85, 126
lxiii. 16              262



Jer.

xxxi. 31-34            111, 183



Ezek.

ii. 1                  254
xxxiii. 10-20          240
xxxvi. 25-27           111


Dan.

vi. 10                 107
vii. 1-14              254
vii. 13f.              255
viii. 17               254


Hos.

i. 10                  261


Joel.

ii. 1-14                76


Micah.

vi. 8                   76


Matt.

i. 1 to iv. 17          23
ii. 1, 2                52
iii. 7                  74
iii. 9                  78
iii. 10-12              82
iii. 11                 77
iii. 14                 82
iii. 15                 83
iii. 16                285
iv. 4, 7, 10           228
iv. 7                   89
iv. 8                   90
iv. 10                  90, 145
iv. 12                 101, 102, 106, 289
iv. 12-17               24, 39, 115
iv. 12 to xviii. 35    102
iv. 13                 106
iv. 13-16              115
iv. 17                 118
iv. 18-22              106, 115
iv. 18 to xvi. 20       24
iv. 23                 115
iv. 23-25              115
v. 1                   290
v. 3-12                296
v. 13-16               296
v. 17                   83, 228
v. 17-19               296
v. 18                  238
v. 20                  296
v. 21-48               228, 296
v. 25f.                295
v. 29f.                295
v. 32                  295
v. 38, 39              250
v. 45                  244
vi. 1-6                 84
vi. 1-18                64, 296
vi. 2-4                176
vi. 9-15                 4, 117, 295
vi. 19-34              103, 295
vi. 24                 179
vi. 25-34               42
vii. 1-6               296
vii. 7-11              117, 295
vii. 13f.              295
vii. 15-21             296
vii. 21                262
vii. 21-27             238
vii. 22f.              295
vii. 24-27             296
vii. 28, 29            226, 249
viii. 2-4              115
viii. 5                  7
viii. 5, 8              43
viii. 5-13              41, 115, 288, 289
viii. 10               243
viii. 10-12             24
viii. 14-17            115
viii. 18, 23-27        116
viii. 19-22            153
viii. 20               259
viii. 28-34            116
ix. 1, 18-26           116
ix. 2-8                115
ix. 9-13               115
ix. 14-17              115
ix. 27-34              116
ix. 35                 116
ix. 36 to xi. 1        116, 118, 297
x. 1, 5-15             297
x. 5f.                 130
x. 7-15                297
x. 16-42               297
x. 32                  262
xi. 2-6                251
xi. 2-19                41, 116
xi. 4-6                131
xi. 11                  80
xi. 18f.               259
xi. 19                  96, 220, 256
xi. 20-24              301
xi. 20-30              153
xi. 25-30              300
xi. 27                 252, 263
xi. 28-30              160
xii. 1-8               115
xii. 9-14              115
xii. 12                227
xii. 15-21             115
xii. 22-45             116, 156
xii. 28                 85, 248
xii. 46-50             116
xii. 50                145
xiii. 1-53             116, 296
xiii. 24-30            296
xiii. 31-33             44, 17
xiii. 40-43, 49, 50    296
xiii. 54-58            116, 292
xiii. 55                61, 63
xiv. 1-12              116
xiv. 1 to xxviii. 20    28
xiv. 13-23              39, 116, 297
xiv. 19                 46
xiv. 21-36             116
xv. 1                   43
xv. 1-20               116
xv. 13f.               150
xv. 21-28              116
xv. 21-31              140
xv. 22                 254
xv. 24                 130
xv. 29-31              117
xv. 32-38              117, 297
xv. 39                 291
xv. 39 to xvi. 12       17
xvi. 9f.               297
xvi. 13-20              94, 117, 298
xvi. 16                263
xvi. 16ff.             142
xvi. 17                142, 224, 262
xvi. 21                118, 239
xvi. 21-28             117
xvi. 21 to xxviii. 20   24
xvi. 23                239
xvii. 1-13             117
xvii. 10-13            193
xvii. 14-20            117
xvi. 22-23             117
xvii. 24-27            117, 139
xviii. 1-35            117, 148
xviii. 4               220
xviii. 12-14            44
xix. 1f.                39, 153, 154, 298
xix. 1 to xx. 34       104
xix. 3-9               228
xix. 3-12              153
xix. 13-15             153
xix. 16 to xx. 16      153
xx. 17-19              153
xx. 20-28              153
xx. 29-34              153
xxi. 1-11              166
xxi. 1 to xxvii. 66    104
xxi. 1 to xxviii. 20    39
xxi. 4f.               170
xxi. 9-15              254
xxi. 14-16             172
xxi. 17                166
xxi. 18-19, 12-17      166
xxi. 20-23             166
xxi. 23-27             166
xxi. 28 to xxii. 14    166, 173
xxi. 33-46              25, 252
xxii. 1-14             252
xxii. 15-22            166
xxii. 23-33            166
xxii. 34-46            166, 238
xxii. 41-46            166
xxiii. 1-39            166
xxiii. 2                13
xxiii. 24              233
xxiii. 37-39            34, 106
xxiv. 1 to xxvi. 2     167
xxiv. 6-13             166
xxv.                   178
xxv. 37-46             237
xxv. 40                221
xxvi. 1f.              147
xxvi. 2, 6-13          301
xxvi. 3-5, 14-16       167
xxvi. 11-13            167
xxvi. 20               181
xxvi. 25               200
xxvi. 26               305
xxvi. 30, 36-46        167
xxvi. 30-35            305
xxvi. 47-56            167
xxvi. 57 to xxvii. 10  167
xxvi. 63f.             263
xxvii. 11-31           167
xxvii. 32-56           167
xxvii. 43              261
xxvii. 46              197, 306
xxvii. 50              285
xxvii. 57               34
xxvii. 57-61           167
xxvii. 62-66           167
xxviii. 1-8            201
xxviii. 9, 10          201
xxviii. 11-15          201
xxviii. 16-20          201, 204
xxviii. 18-20           25


Mark.

i. 1-13                 26
i. 3                    79
i. 4                    77
i. 7f.                  93
i. 10                   84
i. 11                   68, 84, 261
i. 14                  101, 102, 106, 289
i. 14f.                 39, 115
i. 14 to ix. 50         26, 102
i. 16-20               115
i. 21-34               115
i. 24                  254
i. 27                  249
i. 35                  265
i. 35-39               253
i. 35-45               115
ii. 1-12                47, 115, 230, 294
ii. 1-17                48
ii. 1 to iii. 6         47, 48, 250, 204f.
ii. 5                  239
ii. 6f.                121
ii. 10                  28, 256, 259
ii. 10, 28 and ||s     256
ii. 12                  25
ii. 13-17               47, 115, 294
ii. 15-17               96
ii. 16                  47, 121
ii. 18-22               26, 47, 115
ii. 20                 239
ii. 23                  47
ii. 23-28              115, 229, 294f.
ii. 25-27              228
ii. 27                 257
ii. 44                 253
iii. 1-6                26, 115, 295
iii. 7-12              115
iii. 11                261
iii. 13-19             115, 295
iii. 17, 41             25
iii. 19-30              40, 42, 116
iii. 21, 31-35          59, 97
iii. 22                 34, 121
iii. 22-30             156
iii. 28-30             251
iii. 31-35              59, 97, 116
iv. 1-34               116, 232, 296
iv. 3                   64
iv. 12                 129
iv. 13                 129
iv. 26-29              296
iv. 35-41              116
v. 1                   290
v. 1-20                116
v. 7                   261
v. 11-13               139
v. 21-43               116
v. 30-34               243
v. 41                   20
vi. 1-6                 43, 116, 292
vi. 2f.                220
vi. 6b                 116
vi. 7-11               297
vi. 7-13               116, 147
vi. 14-29              116
vi. 15                 290
vi. 30-34               47
vi. 30-46               39, 40, 116, 297
vi. 39                  46
vi. 47-56              116
vii. 1                  34
vii. 1-23, 48           48, 116, 121, 139, 250
vii. 6-13              233
vii. 8-13               10
vii. 10                244
vii. 13                251
vii. 14-23             238
vii. 15                227
vii. 19                130, 228
vii. 24-30             116
vii. 27                140
vii. 29f.              289
vii. 31                291
vii. 31-37             117, 297
vii. 34                 20
vii. 37                 25
viii. 1f.              141
viii. 1-9              117, 297
viii. 10               291
viii. 10-21            117
viii. 11                96
vii. 11-13             139
viii. 14f.             139
viii. 19f.             297
viii. 22-26            117
viii. 27-30            117, 141, 298
viii. 29               254
viii. 31               168 ,20, 256, 259
viii. 31-33             87, 239
viii. 31-ix. 1         117, 296
viii. 32f.              93
viii. 34f.             147
viii. 34 to ix. 1      146
viii. 38               256, 259
ix. 1                  242
ix. 2                  292
ix. 2-13               117
ix. 6                   28
ix. 9                  147
ix. 10                 203
ix. 14-29              117, 147
ix. 19                 224
ix. 29                 265
ix. 30-32              117, 147
ix. 31                 204
ix. 33-50              117, 299
ix. 35-37              234
ix. 43-47              295
x. 1                     9, 104, 153, 154, 298
x. 1 to xvi. 8          26
x. 2-12                153, 154, 298
x. 5f.                 244
x. 11                  153, 154, 160
x. 13-16               104
x. 17-31               153, 155, 160
x. 18                  226
x. 19                  229
x. 25                  233
x. 32-34               147, 153, 155, 162
x. 35-45               153, 155, 163, 165, 184, 230, 304
x. 40                  243
x. 42-45               259
x. 45                  241
x. 46                  162
x. 46-52               153
x. 47f.                254
x. 48                  163
xi. 1-11               166
xi. 1 to xv. 47        104
xi. 1 to xvi. 8 [20]    39
xi. 2f.                 34
xi. 2-5                112
xi. 8-10               162
xi. 9f.                170
xi. 12-14, 15-18       166
xi. 12-14, 20-25       172
xi. 14-36               42
xi. 15-19               43, 288
xi. 17                 108
xi. 19                 166
xi. 20-27              166
xi. 25                 295
xi. 27-33              166
xi. 29-33              173
xii. 1-12              166
xii. 13-17             166, 173
xii. 16                227
xii. 18-27             166, 174
xii. 24-27             228
xii. 27                186
xii. 28-34             166, 174
xii. 35-37             166, 245
xii. 38-40             166
xii. 41-44             166
xiii. and ||s          178, 241, 302
xiii. 1-37             167
xiii. 24-27            238
xiii. 32               243, 247, 252, 263
xiv. 1f., 10f.         167
xiv. 3                 169
xiv. 3-9               166, 301
xiv. 3-11              169
xiv. 8                 169
xiv. 12                303
xiv. 12-16             112
xiv. 12-26             167
xiv. 14                 34
xiv. 17                181
xiv. 18-21             184
xiv. 20                185
xiv. 21                180
xiv. 26, 32-42         167
xiv. 26-31             305
xiv. 33f.              186
xiv. 34                145
xiv. 36                 20, 189, 239, 265
xiv. 43-52             167
xiv. 45                190
xiv. 50                182
xiv. 53 to xv. 1       190
xiv. 61                167
xiv. 61f.              254, 261
xiv. 61-64             263
xiv. 62                191
xiv. 66-72              85, 258
xv. 1                  192
xv. 1-20               167
xv. 2                  254
xv. 6-15               192
xv. 21                 182, 195
xv. 21-41              167
xv. 22                 305
xv. 34                  20, 197, 306
xv. 42                 182
xv. 42-47              167
xv. 43                  34
xv. 46                 182
xvi. 1                 202
xvi. 1-8               201
xvi. 6f.               209
xvi. [9-20]            204f., 306
xvi. [9-11]            201
xvi. [12f.]            201
xvi. [14]              201
xvi. [15-18]           201
xvi. [19f.]             201



Luke.


i. 1-4                  26, 42
i. 3                    41
i. 5                    52
i. 36                   82
i. 46-55                60
i. 68-79                68-79
i. 80                   61
ii. 1f.                 52
ii. 8                   56
ii. 19-51               59
ii. 24                  61
ii. 40-52               61
ii. 41                  62, 107
ii. 48                  97
ii. 49                  67, 262
ii. 52                  63, 69
iii. 1f.                45, 49, 52
iii. 13f.               74
iii. 15                 94
iii. 21                 64, 82, 85, 265
iii. 23                 52
iv. 5                   90
iv. 13                  87, 146
iv. 14                 101, 102, 289
iv. 14, 15              39, 115, 292
iv. 14 to ix. 50        26, 102
iv. 16                  62
iv. 16-19               63
iv. 16-30               43, 116, 292
iv. 23                 292
iv. 31                 106, 115
iv. 31-41              115
iv. 42-44              115
v. 1-11                115, 293
v. 4-11                 43
v. 12-16               115
v. 17                   34
v. 17-26               115
v. 24                   28
v. 27-32               115
v. 33-39               115
vi. 1-5                115
vi. 6-11               115
vi. 12                  84, 265, 290
vi. 12-19              115, 295
vi. 17                 290
vi. 20                 222
vi. 20 to vii. 1       115, 295
vi. 20-26              296
vi. 27-42              296
vi. 43-46              296
vi. 47-49              296
vii. 1-10               41, 115, 288, 289
vii. 2-5                 7
vii. 7                  43
vii. 11-17              42, 116
vii. 18-35              41, 116
vii. 36-50              42, 116, 224
vii. 47                239
viii. 1-3              116
viii. 4-18             116, 296
viii. 19-21            116
viii. 22-25            116
viii. 26               290
viii. 26-39            116
viii. 40-56            116
ix. 1-6                116, 297, 300
ix. 7-9                116
ix. 10-17               39, 116, 297
ix. 11                 135
ix. 18                 265
ix. 18-21              117, 298
ix. 22-27              117
ix. 28f.                84, 146
ix. 28-36              117
ix. 29                 265
ix. 31                 146
ix. 37-42              117
ix. 43-45              117
ix. 46-50              117
ix. 51                  39, 157
ix. 51f.               158, 298
ix. 51-62              153
ix. 51 to xviii.        40, 42, 104, 154, 156
ix. 51 to xix. 27       26
ix. 57-62              156
x. 1                   158, 301
x. 3-12                297
x. 1-24                153, 300
x. 13-16               301
x. 17-20               301
x. 17-24               160
x. 18                  248
x. 22                  252, 263, 300
x. 25-37                34, 153, 159, 227
x. 28-37               159
x. 38-42                34, 111, 153
xi. 1                   42, 265
xi. 1-4                 42, 295
xi. 1-13               117
xi. 9-13               295
xi. 14-36               40, 116, 156
xi. 34-36              295
xi. 37-52              156
xi. 37-54              154, 164
xii. 1-12              156
xii. 1-59              154, 164, 165
xii. 13-21             117
xii. 22-31              42
xii. 22-34             103, 516, 295
xii. 49-53             165
xii. 58f.              295
xiii. 1-9              154, 161, 164
xiii. 10-17            117
xiii. 18-21             44, 117, 296
xiii. 22               157
xiii. 22-30            153, 164
xiii. 24               295
xiii. 31f.             171, 193
xiii. 31-35            153, 168
xiii. 32                 5
xiii. 34f.              34, 106, 224
xiii. 35               252
xiv. 1-24              117
xiv. 7ff.              304
xiv. 15-24             161
xiv. 25-35             154, 156, 164, 165
xiv. 26                233
xv.  1f.                96
xv. 1 to xvi. 31       117
xv. 4-7                 44
xv. 7                  233
xv. 11-32              232
xvi. 13                295
xvi. 22                247
xvi. 31                229
xvii. 1-4              117
xvii. 11               157
xvii. 11-19            153
xvii. 20-37            154
xviii. 1-8             154, 164
xviii. 9-14            154, 159
xviii. 15-17           153
xviii. 15 to xix. 28   104
xviii. 18-30           153
xviii.  31-34          153
xviii.  34             203
xviii.  35-43          153
xviii. 35 to xix. 28   155, 164
xix. 1-10              154
xix. 11-28             154, 163
xix. 28 to xxiv. 53     27
xix. 29-44             166
xix. 29 to xxiii. 56   104
xix. 29 to xxiii. 53    39
xix. 37-40             162
xix. 39                170
xix. 41-44             170
xix. 45f.              289
xix. 45-47f.           166
xix. 47                172
xx. 1                  166
xx. 1-8                166
xx. 9-19               166
xx. 20-26              166
xx. 27-40              166
xx. 41-44              166
xx. 45-47              166
xxi. 1-4               166
xxi. 5-38              167
xxii. 37-38            166
xxii. 1-6              167
xxii. 7-30             167
xxii. 14               181
xxii. 15               181, 183, 303
xxii. 17               304
xxii. 17-20            185
xxii. 19               184
xxii. 23-30            304
xxii. 28                87
xxii. 31-34            185, 305
xxii. 39-46            167
xxii. 47-53            167
xxii. 54-71            167
xxii. 61f.             193
xxii. 66-71            192
xxii. 70               263
xxiii. 1f.             192
xxiii. 1-25            167
xxiii. 4               192
xxiii. 5-12            192
xxiii. 13-16           192
xxiii. 16-24           192
xxiii. 26-49           167
xxiii. 27-31           195
xxiii. 34              197, 306, 307
xxiii. 43              197, 306
xxiii. 46               64, 197, 265, 306
xxiii. 50-56           167
xxiii. 56              182
xxiv. 1-12             201
xxiv. 12               205
xxiv. 13-35            201
xxiv. 21               200, 203
xxiv. 36-43            201
xxiv. 41-43            213
xxiv. 44-53            201
xxiv. 50               205
xxiv. 51               214, 307



John.


i. 14                   58, 269
1. 19 to iv. 42         40, 101
i. 25                   78
i. 26f.                 93
i. 28                   92, 284
i. 29                   93
i. 29-36                80
i. 30-34                93
i. 31                   82
i. 32-34                84
i. 35f.                 93
i. 38                   20, 226
i. 40f., 43-45          92
i. 41-45               142
i. 42-47               239
i. 44                  290
i. 49                   94, 142, 254, 261, 263
i. 51                   95
ii. 3-5                 97
ii. 11                 222
ii. 12                  97
ii. 13                  46
ii. 13-22               43, 106, 288
ii. 16                 262
ii. 20                  49
ii. 22                  96
ii. 23 to iii. 15      106
ii. 25                  68, 141, 234, 239
iii. 2                 226
iii. 16-21,30-36        32
iii. 22-30             106
iii. 24                 46, 101
iii. 23                288
iii. 24,35             113
iii. 30                 80
iii. 34                 85, 86
iv. 1-3                113
iv. 1-3, 44            112
iv. 1-4                289
iv. 1-42               106
iv. 1-45               102
iv. 21-24              109
iv. 25                  14
iv. 26                 254
iv. 30                  95
iv. 34                 265
iv. 35                 107, 288, 293
iv. 42                  40
iv. 43-45               39, 106, 286
iv. 46-54              102, 106, 115, 289
v. 1                    40, 48, 293
v. 1-9                  32
v. 1-47                102, 115
v. 17                  262
v. 19                  264
v. 25                  263
v. 30                  265
v. 39                  229
vi. 1-15                39, 116
vi. 1-71               102
vi. 4                   46, 138, 293
vi. 14                  25
vi. 14f.               119
vi. 15                  89, 120, 135, 170
vi. 16-21              116
vi. 22-71              116
vi. 30-32               87
vi. 38                 189, 265
vi. 64                 178, 180
vi. 66                 136
vi. 67                 225
vi. 67-71              298
vi. 68                  81, 123
vi. 68f.               142
vi. 69                 254
vii. 1-10               39, 298
vii. 1-52              117
vii. 1 to viii. 59     103, 149
vii. 2                 138
vii. 2-5               148
vii. 5                  64
vii. 10                150
vii. 15                235
vii. 22                244
vii. 23                 32
vii. 24                227
vii. 25,32             160
vii. 31                 95
vii. 32                299
vii. 36                149
vii. 40                254
vii. 45-52             299
vii. 49                 13, 220
vii. 50-52             111
vii. 53 to viii. 11     37, 117, 149, 157
viii. 12-59            117
viii. 14               248
viii. 15               157
viii. 46                83, 266
viii. 59               160, 299
ix. 1 to x. 39         153
ix. 1 to xi. 57        104
ix. 10                 158, 159
ix. 35                 263
ix. 35-38              156
x. 11-18               159
x. 18                   89
x. 21                  159
x. 22                  150, 155, 298
x. 22, 40-42            58
x. 24-39               159
x. 25                  161, 262
x. 29                  265
x. 30                  264
x. 31-39               160
x. 32                  233
x. 34                  261
x. 36                  263
x. 39                  156
x. 40                  154, 155, 301
x. 40-42               153, 160
xi. 1-7                155
xi. 1-46               153, 161
xi. 4                  263
xi. 6                  161
xi. 34                 243, 258
xi. 41f.               161, 265
xi. 47-50              193
xi. 47-54              153, 161
xi. 54                 155, 162, 300
xi. 55 to xii. 11      166
xi. 55 to xix. 42      104
xii. 1                  46, 102, 163, 301
xii. 1 to xxi. 25       39
xii. 2                 169
xii. 4-8               301
xii. 6                 178
xii. 7                 169
xii. 12f.              170
xii. 12-19             166
xii. 20-36             166, 176, 302
xii. 23-36             168
xii. 36^b(-50)         166
xii. 37-43              32
xiii. 1                181, 303
xiii. 1-15             234, 304
xiii. 1-30             167
xiii. 21-30            184
xiii. 23-26            185
xiii. 29               178, 303
xiii. 31 to xvi. 33     32, 167, 305
xiii. 32f.             305
xiii. 36-38            305
xiv. 6-11              264
xiv. 10                161, 265
xiv. 28                265
xiv. 30f.               32
xv.                     32, 167, 305
xv. 1                  262
xvi.                    32, 167, 305
xvi. 25                264
xvii. 1-26             167
xvii. 21               264
xviii. 1               167
xviii. 1-12            167
xviii. 8               190
xviii. 11^b            189
xviii. 12-27           167
xviii. 15              193
xviii. 28              182, 303
xviii. 28 to xix. 16   167
xviii. 31              192
xviii. 33, 36f.        254
xix. 7-12              192
xix. 12-16             193
xix. 14                606
xix. 16-37             167
xix. 19-22             198
xix. 25                 97
xix. 26                 97
xix. 26f.              197, 306
xix. 28                197, 306
xix. 30                197, 306
xix. 31                182, 199, 303
xix. 31-37             198
xix. 38                 34
xix. 38-42             167
xix. 39                111
xix. 42                303
xx. 1-10               201
xx. 2                  206
xx. 5-8                 43
xx. 8                  203
xx. 9                  200
xx. 9f., 24f.           93, 94
xx. 14-18              201
xx. 17                 209, 214
xx 19-25               201
xx. 21                  23
xx. 26-29              201
xx. 30                  49
xx. 30f.               32, 107
xxi.                   206
xxi. 2                  92
xxi. 1-24              201
xxi. 3-14              293
xxi. 25                 39



Acts.


i. 1-11                214
i. 1-12                201
i. 14                   97
ii. 36                 202
v. 36                   89
v. 37                   53
vii. 56                254
xvii. 31               202
xix. 1-7                80
xx. 35                  36
xxi. 38                 89
xxiii. 8               302



Rom.


i. 3                    21
i. 4                   202
v. 19                   21
ix. 5                   21
xv. 3                   21



I. Cor.


i. 23                  190
v. 7                   183
ix. 1                  202
x. 16                  304
xv.                    202
xv. 3-8                 21, 105, 204
xv. 4                  204, 213
xv. 5                  201
xv. 6                  201
xv. 6f.                162
xv. 7                  201



II. Cor.


v. 21                   83
viii. 9                 21
x. l                    21
xii.                   212



Gal.


iii. 13                190



Phil.


ii. 5-11                21, 269
ii. 7f.                190, 285
ii. 8                  196



II. Tim.


iii. 15                 63



Heb.


ii. 17                  61
ii. 17f.                64
ii. 18                  87
iv. 15                  61, 63, 67
v. 7                   147
v. 7-9                  87
vii. 26                 57
xii. 2                 190
xii. 13                190



I. Pet.


ii. 22                  83










End of Project Gutenberg's The Life of Jesus of Nazareth, by Rush Rhees