[Transcriber's note: Superscripted letters and numbers have been markedwith 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 faithin a Christ, the claim that Jesus is the Christ, and the demandfor an intelligent faith, which indeed shall transcend but shallnot despise knowledge, or neglect to have a knowledge totranscend. _"--John Patterson Coyle

Preface

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

A word concerning the point of view adopted. The church has inherited arich treasure of doctrine concerning its Lord, the result of patient studyand, frequently, of heated controversy. It is customary to approach thegospels with this interpretation of Christ as a premise, and such a studyhas some unquestionable advantages. With the apostles and evangelists, however, the recognition of the divine nature of Jesus was a conclusionfrom their acquaintance with him. The Man of Nazareth was for themprimarily a man, and they so regarded him until he showed them that he wasmore. Their knowledge of him progressed in the natural way from the humanto the divine. The gospels, particularly the first three, are marvels ofsimplicity and objectivity. Their authors clearly regarded Jesus as theMan from heaven; yet in their thinking they were dominated by theinfluence of a personal Lord rather than by the force of an accepteddoctrine. It is with no lack of reverence for the importance and truth ofthe divinity of Christ that this book essays to bring the Man Jesus beforethe mind in the reading of the gospels. The incarnation means that Godchose to reveal the divine through a human life, rather than through aseries of propositions which formulate truth (Heb. I. 1-4). The mostperennially refreshing influence for Christian life and thought ispersonal discipleship to that Revealer who is able to-day as of old toexhibit in his humanity those qualities which compel the recognition ofGod manifest in the flesh. 

An Appendix is added to furnish references to the wide literature of thesubject for the aid of those who wish to study it more extensively andtechnically; also to discuss some questions of detail which could not beconsidered in the text. This appendix will indicate the extent of myindebtedness to others. I would acknowledge special obligation toProfessor Ernest D. Burton, of the University of Chicago, for generoushelp and permission to use material found in his "Notes on the Life ofJesus;" to Professor Shailer Mathews, also of Chicago, for very valuablecriticisms; to my colleague, Professor Charles Rufus Brown, for mostserviceable assistance; and to the editors of this series for helpfulsuggestions and criticism during the making of the book. An unmeasureddebt is due to another who has sat at my side during the writing of thesepages, and has given constant inspiration, most discerning criticism, andpractical 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 Phœnicia. 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 tocharge the Christians with the burning of Rome, he has patience for nomore than the cursory remark that the sect originated with a Jew who hadbeen put to death in Judea during the reign of Tiberius. This province wassmall and despised, and Tacitus could account for the influence of thesect which sprang thence only by the fact that all that was infamous andabominable flowed into Rome. The Roman's scornful judgment failed to graspthe nature and power of the movement whose unpopularity invited Nero'slying accusation, yet it emphasizes the significance of him who did "notstrive, nor cry, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street, " whoseinfluence, nevertheless, was working as leaven throughout the empire. 

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

3. The other two who inherited Herod's dominion were brothers, Archelausand Antipas, sons of Malthace, one of Herod's many wives. Archelaus hadbeen designated king by Herod, with Judea, Samaria, and Idumea as hiskingdom; but the emperor allowed him only the territory, with the titleethnarch. Antipas was named a tetrarch by Herod, and his territory wasGalilee and the land east of the Jordan to the southward of the Sea ofGalilee, called Perea. Antipas was the Herod under whose sway Jesus livedin Galilee, and who executed John the Baptist. He was a man of passionatetemper, with the pride and love of luxury of his father. Having Jews togovern, he held, as his father had done, to a show of Judaism, though atheart he was as much of a pagan as Philip. He, too, loved building, andTiberias on the Sea of Galilee was built by him for his capital. Hisunscrupulous tyranny and his gross disregard of common righteousnessappear in his relations with John the Baptist and with Herodias, hisparamour. Jesus described him well as "that fox" (Luke xiii. 32), for hewas sly, and worked often by indirection. While his father had energy andability which command a sort of admiration, Antipas was not only bad butweak. 

4. Both Philip and Antipas reigned until after the death of Jesus, Philipdying in A. D. 34, and Antipas being deposed several years later, probablyin 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, --acharge in which Antipas and Philip joined. The territory of Archelaus wasthen made an imperial province of the second grade, ruled by a procuratorappointed from among the Roman knights. In provinces under an imperiallegate (propraetor) the procurator was an officer for the administrationof the revenues; in provinces of the rank of Judea he was, however, therepresentative 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. Verylittle is known of the procurators appointed after the deposition ofArchelaus, until Tiberius sent Pontius Pilate in A. D. 26. He held officeuntil he was deposed in 36. Josephus gives several examples of his wantondisregard of Jewish prejudice, and of his extreme cruelty. His conduct atthe trial of Jesus was remarkably gentle and judicial in comparison withother acts recorded of his government; yet the fear of trial at Rome, which finally induced him to give Jesus over to be crucified, wasthoroughly characteristic; in fact, his downfall resulted from a complaintlodged against him by certain Samaritans whom he had cruelly punished fora Messianic uprising. 

5. There were two sorts of Roman taxes in Judea: direct, which werecollected by salaried officials; and customs, which were farmed out to thehighest 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 Jewishcourts; the customs consisted of various duties assessed on exports, andthey were gathered by representatives of men who had bought the right tocollect these dues. The chiefs as well as their underlings are calledpublicans in our New Testament, although the name strictly applies only tothe chiefs. These tax-gatherers, small and great, were everywhere despisedand execrated, because, in addition to their subserviency to a hatedgovernment, they had a reputation, usually deserved, for all sorts ofextortion. Because of this evil repute they were commonly drawn from theunscrupulous among the people, so that the frequent coupling of publicansand sinners in the gospels probably rested on fact as much as onprejudice. 

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 ofJerusalem consisted of one Roman cohort--from five to six hundredmen--which was reinforced at the time of the principal feasts. These andthe other forces at the disposal of the procurator were probably recruitedfrom the country itself, largely from among the Samaritans. The centurionof Capernaum (Matt. Viii. 5; Luke vii. 2-5) was an officer in the army ofAntipas, 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 inthe hands of the procurator; practically, however, it was left with theJewish courts, either the local councils or the great sanhedrin atJerusalem. This last body consisted of seventy-one "elders. " Its presidentwas the high-priest, and its members were drawn in large degree from themost prominent representatives of the priestly aristocracy. The scribes, however, had a controlling influence because of the reverence in which themultitude held them. The sanhedrin of Jerusalem had jurisdiction onlywithin the province of Judea, where it tried all kinds of offences; itsjudgment was final, except in capital cases, when it had to yield to theprocurator, who alone could sentence to death. It had great influence alsoin Galilee, and among Jews everywhere, but this was due to the regard allJews had for the holy city. It was, in fact, a sort of Jewish senate, which took cognizance of everything that seemed to affect the Jewishinterests. In Galilee and Perea, Antipas held in his hands the judicial aswell 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 thepriest-princes who ruled in Jerusalem after the return from the exile, they had constituted the Jewish aristocracy, and held most of the wealthof the people. It was to their interest to maintain the ritual and thetraditional customs, and they were proud of their Jewish heritage; ofgenuine interest in religion, however, they had little. This secularpriestly party was called the Sadducees, probably from Zadok, thehigh-priest in Solomon's time. What theology the Sadducees had was for themost part reactionary and negative. They were opposed to the more earnestspirit and new thought of the scribes, and naturally produced somechampions who argued for their theological position; but the mass of themcared for other things. 

9. The leaders of the popular thought, on the other hand, were chieflynoted for their religious zeal and theological acumen. They representedthe outgrowth of that spirit which in the Maccabean time had risked all todefend the sanctity of the temple and the right of God's people to worshiphim according to his law. They were known as Pharisees, because, as thename ("separated") indicates, they insisted on the separation of thepeople of God from all the defilements and snares of the heathen liferound about them. The Pharisees constituted a fraternity devoted to thescrupulous observance of law and tradition in all the concerns of dailylife. They were specialists in religion, and were the idealrepresentatives of Judaism. Their distinguishing characteristic wasreverence for the law; their religion was the religion of a book. Bypunctilious obedience of the law man might hope to gain a record of meritwhich should stand to his credit and secure his reward when God shouldfinally judge the world. Because life furnished many situations not dealtwith in the written law, there was need of its authoritativeinterpretation, in order that ignorance might not cause a man totransgress. These interpretations constituted an oral law whichpractically superseded the written code, and they were handed down fromgeneration to generation as "the traditions of the fathers. " The existenceof this oral law made necessary a company of scribes and lawyers whosebusiness 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 itsbeginning was intensely earnest, but in the time of Jesus the earnestspirit had died out in zealous formalism. This was the inevitable resultof their virtual substitution of the written law for the living God. Theirexcessive reverence had banished God from practical relation to the dailylife. They held that he had declared his will once for all in the law. Hisname was scrupulously revered, his worship was cultivated with minutestcare, his judgment was anticipated with dread; but he himself, like anOriental monarch, was kept far from common life in an isolation suitableto his awful holiness. By a natural consequence conscience gave place toscrupulous regard for tradition in the religion of the scribes. The chiefquestion with them was not, Is this right? but, What say the elders? Thesoul's sensitiveness of response to God's will and God's truth was lost ina 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 aningenious application of the principle of dedication of property to God(Mark vii. 8-13), and thus under the guise of scrupulous regard for lawdiscovered ways for legal disregard of law. Their theory of religion gaveabundant room for a piety which made broad its phylacteries and lengthenedits prayers, while neglecting judgment, mercy, and the love of God. 

10. Yet the earnest and true development in Jewish thinking was foundamong the Pharisees. The early hope of Israel was almost exclusivelynational. In the later books of the Old Testament, in connection with anenlarged sense of the importance of the individual, the doctrine of apersonal resurrection to share the blessings of the Messiah's kingdombegan to appear. It had its clear development and definite adoption aspart of the faith of Judaism, however, under the influence of thePharisees. Along with this increased emphasis on the worth of theindividual 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 inpractice, accommodating themselves to the existing state of things so longas the _de facto_ government did not interfere with the religious life ofthe people. They looked for a kingdom in which God should be evidently theking of his people; but they believed that his sovereignty was to berealized through the law, hence their sole interest was in the obedienceof God's people to that law as interpreted by the traditions. 

11. The theocratic spirit was more aggressive in a party which originatedin the later years of Herod the Great, and found a reckless leader inJudas of Galilee, who started a revolt when the governor of Syriaundertook to make a census of the Jews after the deposition of Archelaus. This party bore the name Cananeans or Zealots. They regarded withpassionate 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 thekingdom of God; it was with them that the final war against Rome began. They were found in largest numbers in Galilee, where the scholasticism ofthe scribes was not so dominating an influence as in Judea. Dr. Edersheimhas called them the nationalist party. In matters belonging strictly tothe religious life they followed the Pharisees, only holding a morematerial conception of the hope of Israel. 

12. Another development in Jewish religious life carried separatistdoctrines to the extreme. Its representatives were called Essenes, thoughwhat the significance of the name was is no longer clear. Although theywere allied with the Pharisees in doctrine, they show in some particularsthe influence of Hellenistic Judaism. This is suggested not only by theattention which Philo and Josephus give to them, but also by certain oftheir views, which were very like the doctrines of the Pythagoreans. Theycarried the pharisaic demand for separateness to the extreme ofasceticism. While they were found in nearly every town in Palestine, someof them even practising marriage, the largest group of them lived acelibate, monastic life near the shores of the Dead Sea. This communitywas recruited by the initiation of converts, who only after a novitiate ofthree years were admitted to full membership in the order. They werecharacterized by an extreme scrupulousness concerning ceremonial purity, their meals were regarded as sacrifices, and were prepared by members ofthe order, who were looked upon as priests, nor were any allowed topartake of the food until they had first bathed themselves. Their regulargarments were all white, and were regarded as vestments for use at thesacrificial meals, --other clothing being assumed as they went out to theirwork. They were industrious agriculturists, their life was communistic, and they were renowned for their uprightness. They revered Moses as highlyas did the scribes; yet they were opposed to animal sacrifices, and, although they sent gifts to the temple, were apparently excluded from itsworship. Their kinship with the Pythagoreans appears in that theyaddressed an invocation to the sun at its rising, and conducted all theirnatural functions with scrupulous modesty, "that they might not offend thebrightness of God" (Jos. Wars, ii. 8, 9). Their rejection of bloodysacrifices, and their view that the soul is imprisoned in the body and atdeath is freed for a better life, besides many features of their life thatare genuinely Jewish, such as their regard for ceremonial purity, alsoshow similarity to the Pythagoreans. It has always been a matter ofperplexity that these ascetics find no mention in the New Testament. Theyseem to have lived a life too much apart, and to have had little sympathywith the ideals of Jesus, or even of John the Baptist. 

13. The common people followed the lead of the Pharisees, though afaroff. They accepted the teaching concerning tradition, as well as thatconcerning the resurrection, conforming their lives to the prescriptionsof the scribes more or less strictly, according as they were more or lossruled by religious considerations. It was in consequence of their hold onthe people that the scribes in the sanhedrin were able often to dictate apolicy to the Sadducean majority. Jesus voiced the popular opinion when hesaid that "the scribes sit in Moses' seat" (Matt, xxiii. 2). Their leadersdespised "this multitude which knoweth not the law" (John vii. 49), yetdelighted to legislate for them, binding heavy burdens and grievous to beborne. Many of the people were doubtless too intent on work and gain to bevery regardful of the _minutiæ_ of conduct as ordained by the scribes;many more were too simple-minded to follow the theories of the rabbisconcerning the aloofness of God from the life of men. These lastreverenced the scribes, followed their directions, in the main, for theconduct of life, yet lived in fellowship with God as their fathers had, trusting in his faithfulness, and hoping in his mercy. They arerepresented in the New Testament by such as Simeon and Anna, Zachariah andElizabeth, Joseph and Mary, and the majority of those who heard and heededJohn's call to repentance. They were Israel's remnant of pure andundefiled religion, and constituted what there was of good soil among thepeople for the reception of the seed sown by John's successor. They had noname, for they did not constitute a party; for convenience they may becalled the Devout. 

14. Two other classes among the people are mentioned in the gospels, --theHerodians and the Samaritans. The Herodians do not appear outside the NewTestament, and seem to have been hardly more than a group of men in whomthe secular spirit was dominant, who thought it best for their interestsand for the people's to champion the claims of the Herodian family. Theywere probably more akin to the Pharisees than to the Sadducees, for thelatter were hostile to the Herodian claims, from the first; yet in spiritthey seem more like to the worldly aristocracy than to the pious scribes. The Samaritans lived in the land, a people despising and despised. Theirterritory separated Galilee from Judea, and they were a constant source ofirritation to the Jews. The hatred was inherited from the days of Ezra, when the zealous Jews refused to allow any intercourse with theinhabitants of Samaria. These Samaritans were spurned as of impure bloodand mixed religion (II. Kings xvii. 24-41). The severe attitude adoptedtowards them by Ezra and Nehemiah led to the building of a temple on MountGerizim, and the establishment of a worship which sought to rival that ofJerusalem in all particulars. Very little is known of the tenets of theSamaritans in the time of Jesus beyond their belief that Gerizim was theplace which, according to the law, God chose for his temple, and that aMessiah 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 isevidence of the relative influence of priests and scribes. There was noconfessed rivalry. The Pharisee was most insistent on the sanctity of thetemple and the importance of its ritual. Yet with the growing sense of thereligious significance of the individual as distinct from the nation, there arose of necessity a practical need for a system of worship possiblefor the great majority of the people, who could at best visit Jerusalembut once or twice a year. The synagogue seems to have been a developmentof the exile, when there was no temple and no sacrifice. It was thecharacteristic institution of Judaism as a religion of the law, furnishingin every place opportunity for prayer and study. The elders of eachcommunity seem ordinarily to have been in control of its synagogue, and tohave had authority to exclude from its fellowship persons who had comeunder the ban. In addition to these officials there was a ruler of thesynagogue, who had the direction of all that concerned the worship; a_chazzan_, or minister, who had the care of the sacred books, administereddiscipline, and instructed the children in reading the scripture; and twoor more receivers of alms. The Sabbath services consisted of prayers, andreading of the scriptures--both law and prophets, --and an address orsermon. It was in the sermon that the people learned to know the"traditions of the elders, " whether as applications of the law to thedaily life, or as legendary embellishments of Hebrew history and prophecy. The preacher might be any one whom the ruler of the synagague recognizedas worthy to address the congregation. 

16. The religious life which centred in the synagogue found dailyexpression in the observance of the law and the traditions. In the measureof its control by the scribes it was concerned chiefly with the Sabbath, with the various ablutions needful to the maintenance of ceremonialpurity, with the distinctions between clean and unclean food, with thetimes and ways of fasting, and with the wearing of fringes andphylacteries. These lifeless ceremonies seem to our day wearisome andpetty in the extreme. It is probable, however, that the growth of thevarious traditions had been so gradual that, as has been aptly said, thewhole usage seemed no more unreasonable to the Jews than the etiquette ofpolite society does to its devotees. The evil was not so much in theminuteness of the regulations as in the external and superficial notion ofreligion 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 allill and realize the dreams inspired by the covenant in which God hadchosen Israel for his own. In proportion as the rabbinic formalism heldcontrol of the hearts of the people, the Messianic hope lost its warmthand vigor. Yet the scribes did not abandon the prophetic optimism; theyheld to the letter of the hope, but as its fulfilment was for themdependent on perfect obedience to the law, oral and written, theirinterest was diverted to the traditions, and their strength was given tolegal disputations. Of the rest of the people, the Sadducees naturallygave little thought to the promise of future deliverance, they were tooabsorbed with regard for present concerns. Nor is there any evidence thatthe Essenes, with all their reputed knowledge of the future, cherished thehope of a Messiah. The other elements among the people who owned thegeneral leadership of the scribes looked eagerly for the coming time whenGod should bring to pass what he had promised through the prophets. Whilesome expected God himself to come in judgment, and gave no thought to anAnointed one who should represent the Most High to the people, themajority looked for a Son of David to sit upon his father's throne. Evenso, however, there were wide differences in the nature of the hope whichwas set on the coming of this Son of David. The Zealots were looking for avictory, which should set Israel on high over all his foes. To the rest ofthe people, however, the method of the consummation was not so clear, andthey were ready to leave God to work out his purpose in his own way, longing meanwhile for the fulfilment of his promise. One class inparticular gave themselves to visionary representations of the promisedredemption. They differed from the Zealots in that they saw with unwelcomeclearness the futility of physical attack upon their enemies; but theirfaith was strong, and at the moment when outward conditions seemed mostdisheartening they looked for a revelation of God's power from heaven, destroying all sinners in his wrath, and delivering and comforting hispeople, giving them their lot in a veritable Canaan situated in a renewedearth. Such visions are recorded in the Book of Daniel and the Revelationof John. They are found in many other apocalypses not included in ourBible, and indicate how persistently the minds of the people turnedtowards the promises spoken by the prophets, and meditated on theirfulfilment. The Devout were midway between the Zealots and theApocalyptists. The songs of Zachariah and Mary and the thanksgiving ofSimeon express their faith. They hoped for a kingdom as tangible as theZealots sought, yet they preferred to _wait_ for the consolation ofIsrael. They believed that God was still in his heaven, that he was notdisregardful of his people, and that in his own time he would raise upunto them their king. They looked for a Son of David, yet his reign was tobe as remarkable for its purification of his own people as for itsvictories over their foes. These victories indeed were to be largelyspiritual, for their Messiah was to conquer in the strength of the Spiritof God and "by the word of his mouth. " Such as these were ready for aministry like John's, and not unready for the new ideal which Jesus wasabout to offer them, though their highest spiritualization of theMessianic hope was but a shadow of the reality which Jesus asked them toaccept. 

18. This last conception of the Messiah is found in a group of psalmswritten in the first century before Christ, during the early days of theRoman 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; theyfitly follow the psalms of the Old Testament, though afar off. Of anothertype of contemporary literature, Apocalypse, at least two representativesbesides the Book of Daniel have come down to us from the time of Jesus orearlier, --the so-called Book of Enoch, and the fragment known as theAssumption of Moses. These writings have peculiar interest, because theyare probably the source of quotations found in the Epistle of Jude;moreover, some sayings of Jesus reported in the gospels, and in particularhis chosen title, The Son of Man, are strikingly similar to expressionsfound in Enoch. Can Jesus have read these books? The psalms of the Devoutwere the kind of literature to pass rapidly from heart to heart, until allwho sympathized with their hope and faith had heard or seen them. The casewas different with the apocalypses. They are more elaborate andenigmatical, and may have been only slightly known. Yet, as Jesus wasfamiliar with the canonical Book of Daniel, although it was not read inthe synagogue service in his time, it is possible that he may also haveread or heard other books which had not won recognition as canonical. If, however, he knew nothing of them, the similarity between the apocalypsesand some of Jesus' ideas and expressions becomes all the more significant;for it shows that these writings gave utterance to thoughts and feelingsshared by men who never read them, which were, therefore, no isolatedfancies, but characteristic of the religion of many of the people. Withthese ideas Jesus was familiar; whether he ever read the books must remaina question. 

19. This literature exists for us only in translations made in the days ofthe early church. Most of these books were originally written in Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament, or in Aramaic, the language ofPalestine in the time of Jesus. Traces of this language as spoken by Jesushave been preserved in the gospels, --the name _Rabbi; Abba_, translatedFather; _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). Itis altogether probable that in his common dealings with men and in histeachings Jesus used this language. Greek was the language of thegovernment and of trade, and in a measure the Jews were a bilingualpeople. Jesus may thus have had some knowledge of Greek, but it isunlikely 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 givento us in the epistles of Paul. His account of the appearances of the Lordafter his death and resurrection (I. Cor. Xv. 3-8) was written withinthirty years of these events. The date of the testimony, however, is muchearlier, since Paul refers to the experience which transformed his ownlife, 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 descentfrom 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 meeknessand gentleness (II. Cor. X. 1); other New Testament writings outside ofour gospels add somewhat to this restricted but very clear testimony. 

21. Secular history knows little of the obscure Galilean. The testimony ofTacitus is that the Christians "derived their name and origin from oneChrist, who in the reign of Tiberius had suffered death by the sentence ofthe procurator, Pontius Pilate" (Annals, xv. 44). Suetonius makes anobscure and seemingly ill-informed allusion to Christ in the reason heassigns for the edict of Claudius expelling the Jews from Rome (Vit. Claud. 25). The younger Pliny in the second century had learned that thenumerous Christian community in Bithynia was accustomed to honor Christas God; but he shows no knowledge of the life of Jesus beyond what must beinferred concerning one who caused men "to bind themselves with an oathnot to enter into any wickedness, or commit thefts, robberies, oradulteries, or falsify their word, or repudiate trusts committed to them"(Epistles X. 96). This secular ignorance is not surprising; but thesilence of Josephus is. He mentions Jesus in but one clearly genuinepassage, 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 bethat he was ignorant of Jesus. His appreciation of John suggests that hecould not have mentioned Jesus more fully without some approval of hislife and teaching. This would be a condemnation of his own people, whom hedesired to commend to Gentile regard; and he seems to have taken thecowardly course of silence concerning a matter more noteworthy, even forthat generation, than much else of which he writes very fully. 

22. The reason for the lack of written Christian records of Jesus' lifefrom the earliest time seems to be, not that the apostles had a smallsense of the importance of his earthly ministry, but that the earlygeneration preferred what at a later time was called the "living voice"(Papias in Euseb. Ch. Hist. Iii. 39). The impression made by Jesus wassupremely personal; he wrote nothing, did not command his disciples towrite anything, preferring to influence men's minds by personal power, appointing them, in turn, to represent him to men as he had representedthe Father to them (John xx. 21). But the time came when the firstwitnesses were passing away, and they were not many who could say, "I sawhim. " Our gospels are the result of the natural desire to preserve theapostolic testimony for a generation that could no longer hear theapostolic voice; and they are precisely what such a sense of need wouldproduce, --vivid pictures of Jesus, agreeing in general features, differingmore or less in details, reflecting individual feeling for the Master, andwritten not simply to inform men but to convince them of that Master'sclaims. One evidence of the reality of the gospel pictures is the factthat we so seldom feel the individual characteristics of each gospel. Thisis especially true of the first three, which, to the vividness of theirpicture, add a remarkable similarity of detail. Tatian, in the secondcentury, felt it necessary to make a continuous narrative for the use ofthe church by interweaving the four gospels into one, and he has had manysuccessors down to our day; but the fact that unity of impression haspractically resulted from the four pictures without recourse to such aninterweaving, invites consideration of the characteristics of theseremarkable documents. 

23. The first gospel impresses the careful reader with three things: (1) Aclear sense of the development of Jesus' ministry. The author introduceshis narrative by an account of the birth of Jesus, of the ministry of Johnthe Baptist, and of Jesus' baptism and temptation and withdrawal intoGalilee (i. 1 to iv. 17). He then depicts the public ministry by groupingtogether, first, teachings of Jesus concerning the law of the kingdom ofheaven, then a series of great miracles confirming the new doctrine, thenthe expansion of the ministry and deepening hostility of the Pharisees, leading to the teaching by parables, and the final withdrawal from Galileeto the north. This ministry resulted in the chilling of popular enthusiasmwhich had been strong at the beginning, but in the winning of a few heartsto Jesus' own ideals of the kingdom of God (iv. 18 to xvi. 20). From thispoint the evangelist leads us to Jerusalem, where rejection culminates, the sterner teachings of Jesus are massed, and his victory in seemingdefeat is exhibited (xvi. 21 to xxviii. 20). (2) The evangelist's interestis not satisfied by this clear, strong, picture; he wishes to convince menthat Jesus is Israel's Messiah, hence, throughout, he indicates thefulfilment of prophecy. The things in which he sees the fulfilment arestriking, for, with but one or two exceptions, they are features of thelife of Jesus objectionable to Jewish feeling. This fact, taken inconnection with the emphasis which the gospel gives to the death of Jesusat the hands of the Jews, and to the resurrection as God's seal ofapproval of him whom his people rejected, forms a forcible argument toprove the Messiahship of Jesus, not simply in spite of his rejection bythe Jews, but by appeal to that rejection as leading to God's signalvindication of the crucified one. (3) This evangelist, while proving thatJesus is the Messiah promised to Israel, recognizes clearly the freedom ofthe new faith from the exclusiveness of Jewish feeling. The choice ofGalilee for the Messianic ministry (iv. 12-17), the comment of Jesus onthe faith of the centurion (viii. 10-12), the rebuke of Israel in theparable of the Wicked Husbandmen (xxi. 33-46), and especially the lastcommission of the risen Lord (xxviii. 18-20), show that this gospel soughtto convince men of Jewish feeling not only that Jesus is Messiah, but alsothat 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 foundin Matthew. To its simplicity it adds a vividness of narration whichcommends Mark's account as probably representing most nearly the actualcourse of the life of Jesus. While it reports fewer incidents andteachings than either of the others, a comparison with Matthew and Lukeshows a preference in Mark for Jesus' deeds, though addresses are notwanting; and, while shorter as a whole, for matters which he reportsMark's record is most rich in detail, most dramatic in presentation, andactually longer than the parallel accounts in the other gospels. The wholenarrative is animated in style (note the oft-repeated "immediately") andfull of graphic traits. The story of Jesus seems to be reproduced from amemory which retains fresh personal impressions of events as theyoccurred. 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 allthings well" (vii. 37), and the introduction into the narrative of Aramaicwords, --_Boanerges_ (iii. 17), _Talitha, cumi_ (v. 41), and the like, which immediately have to be translated. The gospel discloses noartificial plan, the chief word of transition is "and. " While some of theincidents recorded, such as the second Sabbath controversy (iii. 1-6) andthe question about fasting (ii. 18-22), may owe their place to associationin memory with an event of like character, the book impresses us as acollection of annals fresh from the living memory, which present theactual Jesus teaching and healing, and going on his way to the cross andresurrection. After the briefest possible reference to the ministry ofJohn the Baptist and the baptism and temptation of Jesus (i. 1-13), thisgospel 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 closeswith his victory through death and resurrection (x. 1 to xvi. 8). 

25. The third gospel is more nearly a biography than any of itscompanions. It opens with a preface stating that after a study of manyearlier attempts to record the life of Jesus the author has undertaken topresent as complete an account as possible of that life from thebeginning. The book is addressed to one Theophilus, doubtless a GreekChristian, and its chief aim is practical, --to confirm convictionconcerning matters of faith (i. 1-4). The author's interest in thecompleteness of his account appears in the fact that it begins withincidents 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 representsthe ministry of Jesus as inaugurated in Galilee, and carried on thereuntil the approach of the tragedy at Jerusalem (iv. 14 to ix. 50). It isin connection with the journey to Jerusalem (ix. 51 to xix. 27) that heinserts most of that which is peculiar to his gospel. His account of therejection at Jerusalem, the crucifixion, and resurrection, follows in themain the same lines as Matthew and Mark; but he gained his knowledge ofmany particulars from different sources (xix. 28 to xxiv. 53). It ischaracteristic of Luke to name Jesus "Lord" more often than either of hispredecessors. With this exalted conception is coupled a noticeableemphasis on Jesus' ministry of compassion; here more than in any othergospel he is pictured as the friend of sinners. Moreover, we owe chieflyto Luke our knowledge of him as a man of prayer and as subject to repeatedtemptation. An artificial exaltation of Christ, such as is oftenattributed to the later apostolic thought, would tend to reduce, notmultiply, such evidences of human dependence on God. This fact increasesour confidence in the accuracy of Luke's picture. The gospel is very fullof comfort to those under the pressure of poverty, and of rebuke tounbelieving wealth, though the parable of the Unjust Steward and story ofZacchæus show that it does not exalt poverty for its own sake. If ourfirst gospel pictures Jesus as the fulfilment of God's promises to hispeople, and Mark, as the man of power at work before our very eyes, astonishing the multitude while winning the few, Luke sets before us theLord ministering with divine compassion to men subject to like temptationswith himself, though, unlike them, he knew no sin. 

26. The first three gospels, differing as they do in point of view andaim, present essentially one picture of the ministry of Jesus; for theyagree concerning the locality and progress of his Messianic work, and theform and contents of his teaching, showing, in fact, verbal identity inmany parts of their narrative. For this reason they are commonly known asthe Synoptic Gospels. Yet these gospels exhibit differences as remarkableas their likenesses. They differ perplexingly in the order in which theyarrange some of the events in Jesus' life. Which of them should be givenpreference in constructing a harmonious picture of his ministry? Theyoften agree to the letter in their report of deeds or words of Jesus, yetfrom beginning to end remarkable verbal differences stand side by sidewith remarkable verbal identities. Some of the identities of languagesuggest irresistibly that the evangelists have used, at least in part, thesame previously existing written record. One of the clearest evidences ofthis is found in the introduction, at the same place in the parallelaccounts, 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 carefullycompared it appears that Mark contains very little that is not found inMatthew and Luke, and that, with one or two exceptions, Luke presents inMark's order the matter that he has in common with the second gospel. Thesame is also true of the relation between the latter part of the Gospel ofMatthew (Matt. Xiv. 1 to the end) and the parallel portion of Mark; whilethe comparison of Matthew's arrangement of his earlier half with Marksuggests that the order in the first gospel has been determined by otherthan chronological considerations. In a sense, therefore, we may say thatthe Gospel of Mark reveals the chronological framework on which all threeof these gospels are constructed. Comparison discloses further theinteresting fact that the matter which Matthew and Luke have in common, after subtracting their parallels to Mark, consists almost entirely ofteachings and addresses. Each gospel, however, has some matter peculiar toitself. 

27. In considering the problem presented by these facts, it is well toremember that no one of these gospels contains within itself any statementconcerning the identity of its author. We are indebted to tradition forthe names by which we know them, and no one of them makes any claim toapostolic origin. The earliest reference in Christian literature which maybe applied to our gospels comes from Papias, a Christian of Asia Minor inthe 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 byChrist, for he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, asI said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teachings to the needs of hishearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord'sdiscourses. So that Mark committed no error when he thus wrote some thingsas he remembered them, for he was careful of one thing, not to omit any ofthe 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 isthe very general conclusion that the writing which Papias attributed toMark was essentially what we have in our second gospel. 

28. It is almost as universally acknowledged that the work ascribed by thesecond century elder to the apostle Matthew cannot be our first gospel;for its language has not the characteristics which other translations fromHebrew or Aramaic lead us to expect, while the completeness of itsnarrative exceeds what is suggested by the words of Papias. If, however, the matter which Matthew and Luke have in such rich measure in addition toMark's narrative be considered, the likeness between this and the writingattributed by Papias to the apostle Matthew is noteworthy. The conclusionis now very general, that that apostolic writing is in large measurepreserved in the discourses in our first and third gospels. The relationof our gospels to the two books mentioned by Papias may be conceived, then, somewhat as follows: The earliest gospel writing of which we knowanything was a collection of the teachings of Jesus made by the apostleMatthew, in which he collected with simple narrative introductions, thosesayings of the Lord which from the beginning had passed from mouth tomouth in the circle of the disciples. At a later time Mark wrote down theaccount of the ministry of Jesus which Peter had been accustomed to relatein his apostolic preaching. The work of the apostle Matthew, while muchricher in the sayings of Jesus, lacked the completeness that characterizesa narrative; hence it occurred to some early disciple to blend togetherthese two primitive gospel records, adding such other items of knowledgeas came to his hand from oral tradition or written memoranda. As his aimwas practical rather than historical, he added such editorial comments aswould make of the new gospel an argument for the Messiahship of Jesus, aswe have seen. Since the most precious element in this new gospel was theapostolic record of the teachings of the Lord, the name of Matthew and notof his literary successor, was given to the book. 

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

30. Such in the main is the conclusion of modern study of our first threegospels; it explains the general identity of their picture of Jesus and oftheir report of his teaching; it leaves room for those individualcharacteristics which give them so much of their charm; and it traces thematerials of the gospels far back of the writings as we have them, bringing us nearer to the events which they describe. The dates of thesedocuments can be only approximately known. It is probable that the"logia" collected by the apostle Matthew were written not later than 60 to65 A. D. , while the Gospel of Mark dates from before the fall of Jerusalemin 70. Our first gospel must have been made between 70 and 100, and theGospel of Luke may be dated about the year 80, --all within sixty orseventy years after the death of Jesus. 

31. The fourth gospel gives us a picture of Jesus in striking contrast tothat of the other three. These present chiefly the works of the Master andhis teachings concerning the kingdom of God and human conduct, leaving thetruth concerning the teacher himself to be inferred. John opens the heartof Jesus and makes him disclose his thought about himself in a remarkableseries of teachings of which he is the prime topic. This gospel isavowedly an argument (xx. 30, 31); its selection of material isconfessedly partial; its aim is to confirm the faith of Christians in theheavenly nature and saving power of their Lord; and its method is that ofappeal to testimony, to signs, and to his own self-disclosures. Theopening verses of the gospel have a somewhat abstract theologicalcharacter; the body of the book, however, consists of a succession ofincidents and teachings which follow each other in unstudied fashion likea collection of annals. This impression is not compromised by therecognition, at some points, of accidental displacements, like that whichhas placed xiv. 30, 31 before xv. And xvi. , or that which has left a longgap between vii. 23 and the incident of v. 1-9, to which it refers. Thetheme of the gospel is the self-disclosure of Jesus. This seems to havedetermined the evangelist's choice of material, and, as the gospel is anargument, he does not hesitate to mingle his own comments with his reportof Jesus' words, for example (iii. 16-21, 30-36; xii. 37-43). The book ischaracterized by a vividness of detail which indicates a clear memory ofpersonal experience. While it is evident that the author has the mostexalted conception of the nature of his Lord, this seems to have been theresult of loving meditation on a friend who had early won the mastery overhis heart and life, and who through long years of contemplation had forcedupon his disciple's mind the conviction of his transcendent nature. Thebook discloses a profoundly objective attitude; the Christ whom Johnportrays is not the creature of his speculations, but the Master who hasentered into his experience as a living influence and has compelledrecognition of his significance. The Son of God is for John the humanJesus who, though named at the outset the Word--the Logos, --is the Wordwho 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 threeconcerns not only the teaching of Jesus, but the scene of his ministry andits historic development as well. Whatever may be the final judgmentconcerning the fourth gospel, it is manifestly constructed as a simplecollection of incidents following each other in what was meant to appear achronological sequence. It has been seen that the biographical frameworkof the first three gospels is principally Mark's report of Peter'snarrative. Now it is a fact that in portions of Matthew and Luke, derivedelsewhere than from Mark, there are various allusions most easilyunderstood if it be assumed that Jesus visited Jerusalem before hisappearance there at the end of his ministry. Such, for instance, are theparable of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 25-37), the story of the visit toMary and Martha (Luke x. 38-42), and the lamentation of Jesus overJerusalem (Luke xiii. 34, 35; Matt, xxiii. 37-39). All three gospels, moreover, agree in attributing to emissaries from Jerusalem much of thehostility manifested against Jesus in his Galilean ministry (Luke v. 17;Mark iii. 22; Matt. Xv. 1; Mark vii. 1), and presuppose such anacquaintance of Jesus with households in and near Jerusalem as is not easyto explain if he never visited Judea before his passion (Mark xi. 2, 3;xiv. 14; xv. 43 and parallels; compare especially Matt, xxvii. 57; Johnxix. 38). These all suggest that the narrative of Mark does not tell thewhole story, a conclusion quite in accordance with the account of his workgiven by Papias. It has been assumed that Peter was a Galilean, a man offamily living in Capernaum. It is not impossible that on some of theearlier visits of Jesus to Jerusalem he did not accompany his Master, andin reporting the things which he knew he naturally confined himself to hisown experiences. If this can explain the predominance of Galileanincidents in the ministry as depicted in Mark, it will explain thepredominance of Galilee in the first three gospels, and the contradictionbetween John and the three is reduced to a divergence between two accountsof Jesus' ministry written from two different points of view. 

33. The question of the trustworthiness of the fourth gospel is greatlysimplified by the consideration of the one-sidedness of Mark'srepresentation. It is further relieved by the fact that a ministry byJesus in Jerusalem must have been one of constant self-assertion, forJerusalem represented at its highest those aspects of thought and practicewhich 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 ofJerusalem, we find him meeting it by unqualified assertion of his ownindependence and exalted claim to authority, altogether similar to thatemphasis of his own significance and importance which is the chiefcharacteristic of his teachings in the fourth gospel. If it be rememberedthat that gospel was avowedly an argument written to commend to others thereverent conclusion concerning the Lord reached by a disciple whosethought had dwelt for long years on the marvel of that life, and if werecognize that for such an argument the author would select the instancesand teachings most telling for his own purpose, and would do this asnaturally as the magnet draws to itself iron filings which are mingledwith a pile of sand, the exclusively personal character of the teachingsof Jesus in this gospel need cause little perplexity. Nor need it seemsurprising that the words of Jesus as reported in John share thepeculiarities of style which mark the work of the evangelist in theprologue to the gospel and in his epistles. His purpose was not primarilybiographical but argumentative, and he has set forth the picture of hisLord as it rose before his own heart, his memory of events beinginterwoven with contemplation on the significance of that life with whichhis had been so blessedly associated. In a gospel written avowedly toproduce in others a conviction like his own, the evangelist would not havebeen sensible of any obligation to draw sharp lines between hisrecollection of his Lord's words and his own contemplations upon them andupon their significance for his life. If these considerations be kept inmind we may accept the uniform tradition of antiquity, confirmed by theplain intimation of the gospel itself, that it is essentially the work ofJohn, 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 thegeneral course of the ministry of Jesus, --Mark and John. Even if thefourth gospel should be proved not to be the work of John, its picture ofthe ministry of Jesus must be recognized as coming from some apostolicsource. A forger would hardly have invited the rejection of his work byinventing a narrative which seems to contradict at so many points thetradition of the other gospels. The first and third gospels furnish usfrom various sources rich additions to Mark's narrative, and it is tothese 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 forJesus which produced it. 

35. A word may be due to two other claimants to recognition as originalrecords from the life of Jesus. One class is represented by that word ofthe Lord which Paul quoted to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (Acts xx. 35). Scattered here and there in writings of the apostolic and succeedingages are other sayings attributed to Jesus which cannot be found in ourgospels. A few of these so-called Agrapha seem worthy of him, and arerecognized as probably genuine. The most important of them is the story ofthe woman taken in adultery (John vii. 53 to viii. 11), which, though nota part of the gospel of John, doubtless gives a true incident from Jesus'life. They represent the "many other" things which John and the othergospels have omitted, but their small number proves that our gospels havepreserved for us practically all that was known of Jesus after the firstwitnesses fell asleep. It is certainly surprising that so little exists tosupplement the story of the gospels, for they are manifestly fragmentary, and leave much of Jesus' public life without any record. The other classof claimants is of a quite different character, --the so-called ApocryphalGospels. These consist chiefly of legends connected with the birth andearly years of Jesus, and with his death and resurrection. They are forthe most part crude tales that have entirely mistaken the real characterof 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 havingfour different pictures of the life and teachings of the Lord. Irenæus atthe close of the second century felt it to be as essential that thereshould be four gospels as that there should be "four zones of the world, four principal winds, and four faces of the cherubim" (Against HeresiesIII. Ii. 8). 

37. Before Irenæus, however, another had sought to obviate the difficultyof having four records which seem at some points to disagree, by making acombination of the gospels, to which he gave the title "Diatessaron. "Tatian, the author of this work, was converted from paganism about 152A. D. , and prepared his unified gospel, probably for the use of the Syrianchurches, sometime after 172. His work is one of the treasures of theearly Christian literature recovered for us within the lastquarter-century. It seems to have won great popularity in the Syrianchurches, having practically displaced the canonical gospels for nearlythree centuries, when, owing to its supposed heretical tendency, it wassuppressed by the determined effort of the church authorities. It is acontinuous record of Jesus' ministry, beginning with the first six versesof the Gospel of John, passing then to the early chapters of Luke. Itcloses with an account of the resurrection interwoven from all fourgospels, concluding with John xxi. 25. The arrangement follows generallythe order of Matthew, additional matter from the other gospels beinginserted at places which approved themselves to Tatian's judgment. Someportions--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 toconstruct a harmonious representation of events and teachings in theministry of Jesus, generally by setting the parallel accounts side byside, following such a succession of events as seemed most probable. Ourevangelists cared little, if they thought at all, about the requirementsof strict biography, and they have left us records not easy to arrange onany one chronological scheme. Concerning the chief events, however, thegospels agree. All four report, for instance, the beginning of the work inGalilee (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 Galileepassed its climax (Matt. Xiv. 13-23; Mark vi. 30-46; Luke ix. 10-17; Johnvi. 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 ofsuffering and victory at the end (Matt. Xxi. 1 to xxviii. 20; Mark xi. 1to 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 ofthe course of Jesus' ministry. When, however, we seek to fill in thedetails 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 gospelsmake that withdrawal the beginning of his public work. A second difficultyarises from the unnamed feast of John v. 1. By one or another scholar thisfeast has been identified with almost every Jewish festival known to us. Another problem is furnished by the long section in Luke which is sonearly peculiar to his gospel (ix. 51 to xviii. 14). If the section had noparallels in the other gospels we might easily conclude that it allbelongs to a time subsequent to the final departure for Jerusalem; but itcontains at least one incident from the earlier ministry in Galilee (Lukexi. 14-36; compare Mark iii. 19-30), and many teachings of Jesus given byMatthew in an earlier connection appear here in Luke. Furthermore, thesection has to be adjusted to that portion of the Gospel of John whichdeals with the same period and yet reports none of the same details. 

40. If Mark has furnished the narrative framework adopted in the main bythe 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 theestimate to be placed on the narrative of John. If the fourth gospel isheld to be of apostolic origin and trustworthy, the task of the harmonistis chiefly that of combining these two records of Mark and John. Thetestimony of the Baptist, with which the fourth gospel opens, must havebeen given some time after he had baptized Jesus, and the ministry whichpreceded Jesus' return to Galilee (i. 19 to iv. 42) belongs to a periodignored by the other gospels. The first three gospels contain indicationsthat Jesus must have visited Judea before the close of his life. They giveno hint, however, of the time or circumstances of such earlier Judeanlabor. In giving the emphasis they do to the work in Galilee, they presenta one-sided picture. When, therefore, we find in John a narrative of workin Judea, confirmed by hints in the other gospels, we may justly assumethat the arrangement which fills out the ministry of Jesus by inserting atthe proper places in Mark's record the events found in John is essentiallytrue. 

41. The consideration of the one-sidedness of Mark's narrative simplifiesthe problem of harmony, but it does not solve all of the perplexities. Matthew and Luke have much matter, some of it narrative, which Mark hasnot, 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), orJohn the Baptist's last message (Matt. Xi. 2-19; Luke vii. 18-35)? Itwould 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 orderof events of Jesus' life. It is probable, however, that his statement wassimply a claim that he had carefully gathered material for a record of thewhole life of Jesus, from the annunciation of his birth to his ascension. While we may believe that some trustworthy tradition led him to give theplace he has to many of the incidents which he adds to Mark's story, itseems impossible to follow him in all respects; for instance, in severingthe account of the blasphemy of the Pharisees (xi. 14-36) from the placewhich it holds in Mark (iii. 19-30). 

42. Still more uncertainty exists concerning the historic connection ofteachings of Jesus to which Matthew and Luke give different settings; forexample, the Lord's Prayer (Matt. Vi. 9-15; Luke xi. 1-4), and theexhortations against anxiety (Matt. Vi. 25-34; Luke xii. 22-31). We haveseen that much of the teaching common to these gospels is probably derivedfrom the collection of the "oracles" of the Lord made by the apostleMatthew. Everything that we can infer concerning such a collection oforacles indicates that, while some of the teachings may have beenconnected with particular historic situations (compare Luke xi. 1), manywould altogether lack such introductory words. A later example of whatsuch a collection may have been has come to light recently in theso-called "Sayings of Jesus, " discovered in Egypt and published in 1897. In these the occasion for the teaching has been quite lost; the soleinterest centres in the fact that Jesus is supposed to have said thethings recorded. If Matthew's book contained such "logia" or "oracles, " itis probable that the original connection in which most of them were spokenwas a matter of no concern to the apostle, and consequently has been lostThis in no way compromises the genuineness of these sayings of Jesus. Thetreatment of Luke ix. 51 to xviii. 14 is much simplified by thisconsideration. To Luke's industry (i. 1-4) we owe the preservation of someevents and very many teachings which no other evangelist has recorded. Some of this new material (for instance, vii. 11-17, 36-50) he hasassigned 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 hehas inserted between the close of the ministry in Galilee and the finalarrival in Judea. For many of the teachings it is now impossible to assigna time or place. That this is so will cause no surprise or difficulty ifwe remember that in the earliest days the report of what Jesus said anddid circulated in the form of oral tradition only. It was the knowledgethat first-hand witnesses were passing away that led to the writing of thegospels. During the period of oral tradition many teachings of the Lordwere doubtless kept clearly and accurately in memory after the historicsituations which led to their first utterance were quite forgotten. 

43. This fact helps to explain another perplexity in our gospelnarratives. A comparison of the two accounts of the cure of thecenturion's servant reveals differences of detail most perplexing, if weask for minute agreement in records of the same events. When we see thatof two accounts evidently reporting the same incident, one can say thatthe centurion himself sought Jesus and asked the cure of his servant(Matt. Viii. 5, 8), while the other makes him declare himself unworthy tocome in person to the Lord (Luke vii. 7), the question arises whetherother accounts, similar in the main but differing in detail, should not beidentified as independent records of one event. Were there two cleansingsof the temple (John ii. 13-22; Mark xi. 15-19), two miraculous draughts offishes (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, andthe question of identity or distinctness can be answered only after aspecial study of each case. It is important to notice that a giventeaching, particularly if it took the form of an illustration, wouldnaturally be used by Jesus on many different occasions. When, on the otherhand, we find two accounts of specific doings of Jesus similar in detailit is needful to recognize that definite historic situations do not sooften repeat themselves as do occasions for similar or identicalteachings. 

44. All these considerations show that while the general order of eventsin 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 tomany incidents and to more teachings. Such uncertainty is of smallconcern, since our unharmonized gospels have not failed during all thesecenturies to produce one fair picture, to the total impression of whicheach teaching and deed make definite contribution quite independently ofour ability to give to each its particular place in relation to the whole. The degree of certainty attainable justifies, however, a continuedinterest in the old study of harmony, because of the more comprehensiveidea it gives of the ministry depicted in the partial narratives of ourseveral gospels. 

IV

The Chronology

45. The length of the public ministry of Jesus was one of the earliestquestions which arose in the study of the four gospels. In the second andthird centuries it was not uncommon to find the answer in the passage fromIsaiah (lxi. 1, 2), which Jesus declared was fulfilled in himself. "Theacceptable year of the Lord" was taken to indicate that the ministrycovered little more than a year. The fact that the first three gospelsmention but one Passover (that at the end), and but one journey toJerusalem, seems at first to be favorable to this conclusion, and to makepeculiarly significant the care taken by Luke to give the exact date forthe opening of Jesus' ministry (iii. 1, 2). In fact, the second centuryGnostics, relying apparently on Luke, assigned both the ministry and deathof Jesus to the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar, --an interpretation whichmay have given rise to the widely spread, early tradition, found, forexample, in Tertullian (Ante-nicene Fathers, in. 160), which placed thedeath of Jesus in A. D. 29, during the consulship of L. Rubellius Geminusand C. Fufius Geminus. 

46. The theory that the ministry of Jesus extended over but little morethan one year is beset, however, by difficulties that seem insuperable. The first is presented by the three Passovers distinctly mentioned in theGospel of John (ii. 13; vi. 4; xii. 1). The last of these is plainlyidentical with the one named in the other gospels. The second gives thetime of year for the feeding of the five thousand, and agrees with themention 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 demandsa place before Mark i. 14 (compare John iii. 24). Hence it must be shownthat this first Passover is chronologically out of order in the Gospel ofJohn, 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 cleansedthe temple, and that the other gospels assign such a cleansing to theclose of the ministry, suggests the possibility that John has set it atthe opening of his narrative for reasons connected with his argument. Thisinterpretation falls, however, before the perfect simplicity of structureof John's narrative. The transitions from incident to incident in thisgospel are those of simple succession, and indicate, on the writer's part, no suspicion that he was contradicting notions concerning the ministry ofJesus familiar to his contemporaries. Whatever the conclusion reachedconcerning the authorship of the gospel, the fact that it gained currencyvery early as apostolic would seem to prove that its conception of thelength of Jesus' ministry was not opposed to the recognized apostolictestimony. It is safe to conclude, therefore, that time must be allowed inJesus' ministry for at least three Passover seasons. 

47. With this conclusion most modern discussions of the question rest, andit is possible that it may finally win common consent. The order ofMark's narrative, however, challenges it. This gospel records near thebeginning (ii. 23) a controversy with the Pharisees occasioned by the factthat Jesus' disciples plucked and ate the ripening grain as they passed ona 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 isthe beginning of the harvest (Lev. Xxiii. 5-11), his order suggests thenecessity of including two harvest seasons in the ministry in Galilee, andconsequently four Passovers in the public life of Jesus. Twoconsiderations are urged against this conclusion. (1) Papias in hisreference 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 criticsof Jesus, which represents a massing of opposition that seems unlikely atthe outset of his Galilean work. The remark of Papias must remain obscureuntil his standard of comparison is known. Some suggest that he knewJohn's order and preferred it, others that he agreed with that adopted byTatian in his Diatessaron. Mark is in accord with neither of these. Noone, however, knows what order Papias preferred. The early conflict groupdoes 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 thecall of Levi (ii. 13-17)--is clearly in its right place in Mark (seeHoltzmann, Hand-commentar, I. 10). The question about fasting (ii. 18-22)may have been asked much later, and its present place may be due toassociation in tradition with the criticism of Jesus' fellowship withpublicans (ii. 16). In like manner the cure of the withered hand (iii. 1-6) may have become artificially grouped with the incident of thecornfields. It is possible, also, that both Sabbath controversies owetheir early place in the gospel to traditional association with the earlyconflicts (ii. 1-17). If so, the plucking of the grain actually occurredsome weeks after the feeding of the five thousand, and probably after thecontroversy 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 Sabbathconflict, and left in its place the controversy about tradition. It isthus possible that the incident of the cornfields belongs also to theearly nucleus of the group; and in this case the longer ministry, including four Passovers, must be accepted. The decision of the questionis not of vital importance, but it affects the determination of thesequence of events in Jesus' life. Whatever the explanation of the remarkof Papias, the more the gospels are studied the more does Mark's order ofevents commend itself in general as representing the probable fact. Manystudents have inferred the three year ministry from the Gospel of Johnalone, identifying the unnamed feast in John v. 1 with a Passover. ButJohn'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 allthat is told us in the four gospels would cover but a small fraction ofthis time. John's statement (xx. 30) that he omitted many things fromJesus' 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 assumedin the other three. Recalling the character of the gospels as pictures ofJesus rather than narratives of his life, we may easily acknowledge theincompleteness of our record of the three years of ministry, and wonderthe more at the vividness of impression produced with such economy ofmaterial. This meagreness of material is not decisive for the shorterrather than the longer ministry, for it is evident that to effect such achange in conviction and feeling as Jesus wrought in the minds of theardent Galileans who were his disciples, required time. Three years arebetter suited to effect this change than two. 

49. Closely related to the question of the length of Jesus' ministry isanother: Can definite dates be given for the chief events in his life? Forthe year of the opening of his public activity the gospels furnish twoindependent testimonies: the remark of the Jews on the occasion of Jesus'first visit to Jerusalem, "Forty and six years was this temple inbuilding" (John ii. 20), and Luke's careful dating of the appearance ofJohn 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 thespring 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 hisreign, which closed in the spring of B. C. 19. Luke iii. 1 gives a datecontradictory to the one just found, if the fifteenth year of Tiberius isto be counted from the death of his predecessor, for Augustus died August19, A. D. 14. Reckoned from this time the opening of John's work falls inthe year A. D. 28, and the first Passover of Jesus' ministry could not beearlier than the spring of 29. This is at least two years later than isindicated by the statement in John. The remark in John is, however, soincidental and so lacking in significance for his argument that itsdefiniteness can be explained only as due to a clear historicreminiscence; but it does not follow that Luke has erred in the date givenby him. Although Augustus did not die until A. D. 14, there is evidencethat Tiberius was associated with him in authority over the army and theprovinces not later than January, A. D. 12. One who lived and wrote in thereign of Titus may possibly have applied to the reign of Tiberius a modeof reckoning customary in the case of Titus, as Professor Ramsay has shown(Was Christ born at Bethlehem, 202). If this is the fact, Luke reckonedfrom the co-regency of Tiberius; hence the fifteenth year would be A. D. 25or 26, according as the co-regency began before or after the first ofJanuary, A. D. 12. This would place the first Passover of Jesus' ministryin 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, theclose of three years of activity would, come at the Passover of 29 or 30. The former of these dates agrees with the early Christian traditionalready mentioned. But before accepting that traditional date anothermatter must be considered. Jesus was crucified on the Friday at theopening of the feast of the Passover. Whether it was the day of thesacrifice of the Passover (14 Nisan) or the day following (15 Nisan), isnot essential for the present question. As the Jewish month began with thefirst appearance of the new moon, it is evident that, in the year ofJesus' death, the month of Nisan must have begun on a day that would makethe 14th or the 15th fall on Friday. Now it can be shown that in the year30 the 14th of Nisan was Thursday (April 6) or Friday (April 7), for atbest only approximate certainty is attainable. The tradition which assignsthe passion to 29, generally names March 25 as the day of the month. Thisdate is impossible, because it does not coincide with the full moon ofthat month. The choice of March 25 by a late tradition may be explained bythe 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 soexplained. Epiphanius was familiar with copies of the Acts of Pilate, which gave March 18 as the date of the crucifixion; and it is remarkablethat this date coincides with the full moon, and also falls on Friday. Such a combination gives unusual weight to the tradition, particularly asthere 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 theyear of the passion. Without attempting to arrive at a finalconclusion, --a task which must be left for chronological specialists, --itis 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. 26to 30, is it possible to determine the date of his birth? Four hints arefurnished 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 withthe 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 visithim by observing "his star" (Matt. Ii. 1, 2). From these facts it followsthat the birth of Jesus cannot be placed later than B. C. 4, since Heroddied 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 birthof Jesus is due to the miscalculation of the monk, Dionysius the Little, who in the sixth century introduced our modern reckoning from "the year ofour Lord. "

52. But is it impossible to determine the time of Jesus' birth moreexactly? Luke (ii. 1, 2) offers what seems to be more definiteinformation, but his reference to the decree of Augustus and the enrolmentunder Quirinius are among the most seriously challenged statements in thegospels. It has been said (1) that history knows of no edict of Augustusordering a general enrolment of "the world;" (2) that a Roman census couldnot have been taken in Palestine before the death of Herod; (3) that ifsuch an enrolment had been taken it would have been unnecessary for Josephand Mary to journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem; (4) that the census takenwhen Quirinius was governor of Syria is definitely assigned by Josephus tothe year after the deposition of Archelaus, A. D. 6 (Ant. Xviii. 1. 1; seealso 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 governorof Syria at any time during the lifetime of Herod. This array ofdifficulties is impressive, and has persuaded many conservative studentsto concede that in his reference to the census Luke has fallen into error. Some recent discoveries in Egypt, however, have furnished new informationconcerning the imperial administration of that province. Inferring that apolicy adopted in Egypt may have prevailed also in Syria, Professor Ramsayhas recently put forth a strong argument for Luke's accuracy in respect ofthis census (Was Christ born at Bethlehem, 95-248). That argument may becondensed as follows: We have evidence of a system of Roman enrolments inEgypt taken every fourteen years, and already traced back to the time ofAugustus, the earliest document so far recovered belonging, apparently, tothe census of A. D. 20. It is at least possible that this system ofEgyptian enrolments may have been part of an imperial policy, of which allother trace is lost excepting the statement of Luke. It is significantthat the date of the census referred to by Josephus (A. D. 6) fits exactlythe fourteen-year cycle which obtained in Egypt. If the census of A. D. 6was preceded by an earlier one its date would be B. C. 8; that is, it wouldbe 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 censushad been taken in Judea under Augustus by Sentius Saturninus, who wasgovernor of Syria about 9 to 7 B. C. , certainly comes from some sourceindependent of the gospels, and tends to confirm Luke's account of acensus before the death of Herod. That a Roman census might have beentaken 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 intoCilicia Trachæa to assist Archelaus, the king of that country, to quell arevolt caused by native resistance to a census taken after the Romanfashion (Tacitus, Ann. Vi. 41). Herod would almost certainly resent as amark of subjection the order to enrol his people; and the fact that he wasin disfavor with Augustus during the governorship of Saturninus (Josephus, Ant. Xvi. 9. 1-3), suggests to Professor Ramsay that he may have sought toavoid obedience to the imperial will in the matter of the census. If aftersome delay Herod was forced to obey, the enrolment may have been taken inthe year 7-6. Since it is probable that the Romans would allow Herod togive the census as distinctly Jewish a character as possible, it is easyto credit the order that all Jews should be registered, so far aspossible, in their ancestral homes. Hence the journey of Joseph toBethlehem; and if Mary wished to have her child also registered as fromDavid's line, her removal with Joseph to Bethlehem is explained. Such adelay in the taking of the census would have postponed it until after therecall of Saturninus. The statement of Tertullian may therefore indicatesimply that he knew that a census was taken in Syria by Saturninus. 

54. The successor of Saturninus was Varus, who held the governorship untilafter the death of Herod. How then does Luke refer to the enrolment astaken when Quirinius was in authority? It has for a long time been knownthat this man was in Syria before he was there as legate of the emperor inA. D. 6. There seems to be evidence that Quirinius was in the East aboutthe year B. C. 6, putting down a rebellion on the borders of Cilicia, adistrict joined with Syria into one province under the early empire. Varus was at this time governor, but Quirinius might easily have beenlooked upon as representing for the time the power of the Roman arms. IfHerod was forced to yield to the imperial wish by the presence in Syria ofthis renowned captain, the statement of Luke is confirmed, and the censusat which Jesus was born was taken, according to a Jewish fashion, duringthe life of Herod, but under compulsion of Rome exacted by Quirinius, while he was in command of the Roman forces in the province ofSyria-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 itis earlier than the death of Herod, and, if born in B. C. 6, Jesus wouldhave been thirty-two at his baptism in A. D. 26. 

55. The account given in Matthew of "the star" which drew the wise men toJudea 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. 7there occurred a remarkable conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn. This was first noticed by Kepler in consequence of a similar conjunctionobserved by him in A. D. 1603. Men much influenced by astrology must havebeen impressed by such a celestial phenomenon, but that it furnishes anexplanation of the star of the wise men is not clear. If it does, itconfirms the date otherwise probable for the nativity, that is, not farfrom B. C. 6. 

56. Can we go further and determine the time of year or the month and dayof the nativity? It should be borne in mind that our Christmas festivalwas not observed earlier than the fourth century, and that the evidenceis well-nigh conclusive that December 25th was finally selected for theNativity in order to hallow a much earlier and widely spread paganfestival coincident with the winter solstice. If anything exists tosuggest the time of year it is Luke's mention of "shepherds in the fieldkeeping watch by night over their flock" (ii. 8). This seems to indicatethat it must have been the summer season. In winter the flocks would befolded, 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 hisministry was in the spring of 26 or 27; and that he was crucified in thespring 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 greatnessof Jesus as to let its thirst for wonder fill his early years with scenesin which his conduct is as unlovely as it is shocking. That he who inmanhood was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. Vii. 26), could in youth, in a fit of ill-temper, strike a companion with deathand then meet remonstrance by cursing his accusers with blindness (Gospelof Thomas, 4, 5); that he could mock his teachers and spitefully resenttheir control (Pseudo-Matthew, 30, 31); that it could be thought worthy ofhim to exhibit his superiority to common human conditions by carryingwater in his mantle when his pitcher had been broken (same, 33), or bymaking clay birds in play on the Sabbath and causing them to fly when hewas rebuked for naughtiness (same, 27);--these and many like legendsexhibit incredible blindness to the real glory of the Lord. Yet suchthings abound in the early attempts of the pious imagination to write thestory of the youth of Jesus, and the account of the nativity and itsantecedents fares as ill, being pitifully trivial where it is notrevolting. 

59. How completely foreign all this is to the apostolic thought andfeeling is clear when we notice that excepting the first two chapters ofMatthew and Luke the New Testament tells us nothing whatever of the yearswhich preceded John the Baptist's ministry in the wilderness. The gospelsare books of testimony to what men had seen and heard (John i. 14); andthe epistles are practical interpretations of the same in its bearing onreligious life and hope. The apostles found no difficulty in recognizingthe divinity and sinlessness of their Lord without inquiring how he cameinto the world or how he spent his early years; it was what he showedhimself 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 thelater legends. Notwithstanding the attempts of Keim to associate thenarratives of the infancy in the canonical and apocryphal gospels, a greatgulf separates them: on the one side there is a reverent and beautifulreserve, on the other indelicate, unlovely, and trivial audacity. 

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

61. No parts of the New Testament are challenged so widely and soconfidently as these narratives of the infancy. But if they are not to becredited with essential truth it is necessary to show what ideas cherishedin the apostolic church could have led to their invention. That John andPaul maintain the divinity of their Lord, yet give no hint that thisinvolved a miraculous birth, shows that these stories are no necessaryoutgrowth of that doctrine. The early Christians whether Jewish or Gentilewould not naturally choose to give pictorial form to their belief in theirLord's divinity by the story of an incarnation. The heathen mythsconcerning sons of the gods were in all their associations revolting toChristian feeling, and, while the Jewish mind was ready to see divineinfluence at work in the birth of great men in Israel (as Isaac, andSamson, and Samuel), the whole tendency of later Judaism was hostile toany such idea as actual incarnation. Some would explain the story of themiraculous birth as a conclusion drawn by the Christian consciousnessfrom the doctrine of the sinlessness of Jesus. Yet neither Paul nor John, who are both clear concerning the doctrine, give any idea that amiraculous birth was essential for a sinless being. Some appeal to theeagerness of the early Christians to exalt the virginity of Mary, This iscertainly the animus of many apocryphal legends. But the feeling is asforeign to Jewish sentiment and New Testament teaching as it iscontradictory to the evidence in the gospels that Mary had other childrenborn 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 ofthe cross had transformed the Christian idea of the Messiah. Thattransformed idea abounds in the Epistles and the Acts, and it is difficultto conceive how these songs (if they were later inventions) could havebeen left free of any trace of specifically Christian ideas. A JewishChristian would almost certainly have made them more Christian than theyare; a Gentile Christian could not have made them so strongly andnaturally Jewish as they are; while a non-Christian Jew would never haveinvented them. Taken with the evidence in Ignatius (Ad Eph. Xviii. , xix. )of the very early currency of the belief in a miraculous birth, theyconfirm the impression that it is easier to accept the evidence offeredfor 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; itbecomes credible only as the transcendent nature of Jesus is recognized onother grounds. It may not be said that the incarnation required amiraculous conception, yet it may be acknowledged that a miraculousconception is a most suitable method for a divine incarnation. 

63. These gospel stories are chiefly significant for us in that they showthat he in whom his disciples came to recognize a divine nature began hisearthly life in the utter helplessness and dependence of infancy, and grewthrough boyhood and youth to manhood with such naturalness that hisneighbors, dull concerning the things of the spirit, could not credit hisexalted 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 ofthe divine child as simply as that of his forerunner (Luke i. 80), or thatof the prophet of old (I. Sam. Ii. 26). The clear impression of thesestatements 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 gospelsconfirms 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 assatisfying as the apocryphal stories are revolting. The lofty Jewishconception of home and its relations is worthy of Jesus. The circumstancesof the home in Nazareth were humble (Matt. Xiii. 55; Luke ii. 24; compareLev. Xii. 8). Probably the house was not unlike those seen to-day, of butone room, or at most two or three, --the tools of trade mingling with themeagre furnishings for home-life. We should not think it a home of penury;doubtless the circumstances of Joseph were like those of his neighbors. Inone respect this home was rich. The wife and mother had an exalted placein the Jewish life, notwithstanding the trivial opinions of somesupercilious rabbis; and what the gospel tells of the chivalry of Josephrenders it certain that love reigned in his home, making it fit for thegrowth of the holy child. 

65. Religion held sway in all the phases of Jewish life. With some it wasa religion of ceremony, --of prayers and fastings, tithes and boastfulalms, fringes and phylacteries. But Joseph and Mary belonged to thesimpler folk, who, while they reverenced the scribes as teachers, knew notenough of their subtlety to have substituted barren rites for sincere lovefor the God of their fathers and childlike trust in his mercy. Jesus knewnot only home life at its fairest, but religion at its best. A father'smost sacred duty was the teaching of his child in the religion of hispeople (Deut. Vi. 4-9), and then, as ever since, the son learned at hismother's side to know and love her God, to pray to him, and to know thescriptures. No story more thrilling and full of interest, no prospect morerich and full of glowing hope, could be found to satisfy the child'sspirit of wonder than the story of Israel's past and God's promises forthe future. Religious culture was not confined to the home, however. Thetemple at Jerusalem was the ideal centre of religious life for thisNazareth household (Luke ii. 41) as for all the people, yet practicallyworship and instruction were cultivated chiefly by the synagogue (Luke iv. 16); there God was present in his Holy Word. Week after week the boy Jesusheard the scripture in its original Hebrew form, followed by translationinto Aramaic, and received instruction from it for daily conduct. Thesynagogue probably influenced the boy's intellectual life even moredirectly. In the time of Jesus schools had been established in all theimportant 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 betaught the scriptures (compare II. Tim. Iii. 15), together with thereading (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), --asufficient contradiction of the repulsive legends of the apocryphalgospels. 

66. The physical growth incident to Jesus' development from boyhood tomanhood is a familiar thought. The intellectual unfolding which belongs tothis development is readily recognized. Not so commonly acknowledged, butnone the less clearly essential to the gospel picture, is the gradualunfolding of the child's moral life under circumstances and stimulussimilar to those with which other children meet (Heb. Iv. 15). The manJesus was known as the carpenter (Matt. Xiii. 55). The learning of such atrade would contribute much to the boy's mastery of his own powers. Farmore discipline would come from his fellowship with brothers and sisterswho did not understand his ways nor appreciate the deepest realities ofhis life. Without robbing boyhood days of their naturalness and reality, we may be sure that long before Jesus knew how and why he differed fromhis fellows he felt more or less clearly that they were not like him. Theresulting sense of isolation was a school for self-mastery, lest isolationfoster any such pride or unloveliness as that with which later legenddared to stain the picture of the Lord's youth. Four brothers of Jesusare named by Mark (vi. 3), --James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon, --thegospel 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 apparentlywere not unresponsive to them. The similarity of thought and feelingbetween the sermon on the mount and the Epistle of James is not readilyexplained by the influence of master over disciple, since the days ofJames's discipleship began after the resurrection of Jesus. In any casethere is no reason to think that the companions of Jesus' home wereuncommonly irritating or in any way irreligious, only Jesus was notaltogether like them (John vii. 5), and the fact of difference was a moraldiscipline, which among other things led to that moral growth by whichinnocence passed into positive goodness. If the home was such a school ofdiscipline, its neighbors, less earnest and less favored with spiritualtraining, furnished more abundant occasion for self-mastery and growth. The very fact that in his later years Jesus was no desert preacher, likeJohn, but social, and socially sought for, indicates that he did not winhis manhood's perfection in solitude, but in fellowship with common lifeand 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, asa boy was certainly familiar not only with the prayers of home andsynagogue, but also with quiet, personal resort to the presence of God. Itwould be unjust to think of any abnormal religious precocity. Jesus wasthe best example the world has seen of perfect spiritual health, but wemust 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 torecall the rich familiarity with the whole world of nature which appearsin his parables and other teachings. The prospect which met his eye if hesought escape from the distractions of home and village life, has beendescribed by Renan: "The view from the town is limited; but if we ascend alittle to the plateau swept by a perpetual breeze, which stands above thehighest houses, the landscape is magnificent. On the west stretch the fineoutlines of Carmel, terminating in an abrupt spur which seems to run downsheer to the sea. Next, one sees the double summit which towers aboveMegiddo; the mountains of the country of Shechem, with their holy placesof the patriarchal period; the hills of Gilboa, the small picturesquegroup to which is attached the graceful or terrible recollections ofShunem and of Endor; and Tabor, with its beautiful rounded form, whichantiquity compared to a bosom. Through a gap between the mountains ofShunem and Tabor are visible the valley of the Jordan and the high plainsof Perea, which form a continuous line from the eastern side. On thenorth, 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 foryears his world. Indeed, during his whole life he went but little beyondthe familiar bounds of his childhood. For yonder, northwards, one canalmost see, on the flank of Hermon, Cæsarea-Philippi, his farthest pointof advance into the Gentile world; and to the south the less smilingaspect of these Samaritan hills foreshadows the dreariness of Judeabeyond, parched as by a burning wind of desolation and death. " In themidst of such scenes we are to understand that, with the physical growth, and opening of mind, and moral discipline which filled the early years ofJesus, there came also the gradual spiritual unfolding in which the boyrose step by step to the fuller knowledge of God and himself. 

69. That unfolding is pictured in an early stage in the story given usfrom the youth of Jesus. It was customary for a Jewish boy not long afterpassing his twelfth year to come under full adult obligation to the law. The visit to Jerusalem was probably in preparation for such assumption ofobligation by Jesus. All his earlier training had filled his mind with thesacredness of the Holy City and the glory of the temple. It is easy tofeel with what joy he would first look upon Zion from the shoulder of theMount of Olives, as he came over it on his journey from Galilee; toconceive how the temple and the ritual would fill him with awe in hisreadiness not to criticise, but to idealize everything he saw, and tothink only of the significance given by it all to the scripture; toimagine how eagerly he would talk in the temple court with the learned menof his people about the law and the promises with which in home and schoolhis youth had been made familiar. Nor is it difficult to appreciate hissurprise, when Joseph and Mary, only after long searching for him, at lastfound him in the temple, for he felt that it was the most natural placein which he could be found. In his wondering question to Mary, "Did notyou know that I must be in my Father's house?" (Luke ii. 49), there is apremonition of his later consciousness of peculiarly intimate relation toGod. The question was, however, a sincere inquiry. It was no precociousrebuke of Mary's anxiety. The knowledge of himself as Son of God was onlydawning within him, and was not yet full and clear. This is shown by hisimmediate obedience and his subjection to his parents in Nazareth throughmany years. It is safe, in the interpretation of the acts and words ofJesus, to banish utterly as inconceivable anything that savors of thetheatrical. We must believe that he was always true to himself, and thatthe subjection which he rendered to Joseph and Mary sprang from a realsense of childhood's dependence, and was not a show of obedience for anyedifying end however high. 

70. That question "Did not you know?" is the only hint we possess ofJesus' inner life before John's call to repentance rang through the land. Meanwhile the carpenter's son became himself the carpenter. Joseph seemsto have died before the opening of Jesus' ministry. For Jesus as theeldest son, this death made those years far other than a time of spiritualretreat; responsibility for the home and the pressing duties of trade musthave filled most of the hours of his days. This is a welcome thought toour healthiest sentiment, and true also to the earliest Christian feeling(Heb. Iv. 15). John the Baptist had his training in the wilderness, butJesus came from familiar intercourse with men, was welcomed in theirhomes (John ii. 2), knew their life in its homely ongoing, and was thefriend 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 schoolinstruction, or synagogue preaching, or simple daily experience, the youngman came to know the traditions of the elders and also to know thatobservance 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 consciousof nothing new in the fresh and vital conceptions of righteousness whichhe found in the law and prophets. We may be certain that much of histhought was given to Israel's hope of redemption, and that with theprophets 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 hispeople, their King, the Son of David. 

71. He must also have read often from that other book open before him ashe walked upon the hills of Nazareth. The beauty of the grass and of thelilies was surely not a new discovery to him after he began to preach thecoming kingdom, nor is it likely that he waited until after his baptism toform his habit of spending the night in prayer upon the mountain. We maybe equally sure that he did not first learn to love men and women and longfor their good after he received the call, "Thou art my beloved son" (Marki. 11). He who in later life read hearts clearly (John ii. 25) doubtlessgained that skill, as well as the knowledge of human sin and need, earlyin his intercourse with his friends and neighbors in Nazareth; while aclear conviction that God's kingdom consists in his sovereignty overloyal hearts must have filled much of his thought about the promised goodwhich God would bring to Israel in due time. Thus we may think that inquietness and homely industry, in secret life with God and open love formen, in study of history and prophecy, in longing for the actual sway ofGod in human life, Jesus lived his life, did his work, and grew in "wisdomand 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 templescene in his twelfth year, is on the banks of the Jordan seeking baptismfrom the new prophet. One of the silent evidences of the greatness ofJesus is the fact that so great a character as John the Baptist stands inour thought simply as accessory to his life. For that the prophet of thewilderness was great has been the opinion of all who have been willing toseek him in his retirement. One reason for the common neglect of John isdoubtless the meagreness of information about him. But though details arefew, the picture of him is drawn in clearest lines: a rugged son of thewilderness scorning the gentler things of life, threatening his peoplewith coming wrath and calling to repentance while yet there was time; apreacher of practical righteousness heeded by publicans and harlots butscorned by the elders of his people; a bold and fearless spirit, yetsubdued in the presence of another who did not strive, nor cry, nor causehis voice to be heard in the streets. When the people thought to find inJohn the promised Messiah, with unparalleled self-effacement he pointedthem to his rival and rejoiced in that rival's growing success. Side byside they worked for a time; then the picture fails, but for a hint of aroyal audience, with a fearless rebuke of royal disgrace and sin; a prisonlife, with its pathetic shaking of confidence in the early certainties; along and forced inaction, and the question put by a wavering faith, withits patient and affectionate reply; then a lewd orgy, a king's oath, agirl's demands, a martyr's release, the disciples' lamentation and theirreport to that other who, though seeming a rival, was known to appreciatebest the greatness of this prophet. Such is the picture in the gospels. 

73. John, unlike his greater successor, has a highly appreciative noticefrom Josephus: "Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction ofHerod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment for whathe did against John, who was called the Baptist. For Herod had had him putto death though he was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercisevirtue, both as to justice towards one another, and piety towards God, andso to come to baptism; for baptism would be acceptable to God, if theymade use of it not in order to expiate some sin, but for the purificationof the body, provided that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand byrighteousness. Now, as many flocked to him, for they were greatly moved byhearing his words, Herod, fearing that the great influence, John had overthe people might lead to some rebellion (for the people seemed likely todo anything he should advise), thought it far best, by putting him todeath, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself intodifficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of his leniencywhen it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, inconsequence of Herod's suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the fortressbefore mentioned, and was there put to death. So the Jews had the opinionthat the destruction of this army [by Aretas] was sent as a punishmentupon Herod and was the mark of God's displeasure at him" (Ant. Xviii. 5. 2). This section is commonly accepted as trustworthy. Superficiallydifferent from the gospel record and assigning quite another cause forJohn's imprisonment and death, it correctly describes his character andhis influence with the people, and leaves abundant room for a moreintimately personal motive on the part of Antipas for the imprisonment ofJohn. 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, anda 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 theman himself. Whence did he come? Everything about him is surprising. Heappears as a dweller in the desert, an ascetic, holding aloof from commonlife and content with the scanty fare the wilderness could offer; yet hewas keenly appreciative of his people's needs, and he knew theirsins, --the particular ones that beset Pharisees, publicans, soldiers. If arecluse in habit, he was far from such in thought; he was therefore noseeker for his own soul's peace in his desert life. His dress wasstrikingly suggestive of the old prophet of judgment on nationalinfidelity (I. Kings xvii. 1; II. Kings i, 8), the Elijah whom John wouldnot claim to be. His message was commanding, with its double word "Repent"and "The kingdom is near. " His idea of the kingdom was definite, thoughnot at all developed; it signified to him God's dominion, inaugurated by adivine judgment which should mean good for the penitent and utterdestruction for the ungodly; hence the prophet's call to repentance. Hisministry was one of grace, but the time was drawing near when the GreaterOne would appear to complete by a swift judgment the work which hisforerunner was beginning. That Greater One would hew down the fruitlesstree, winnow the wheat from the chaff on the threshing floor, baptize thepenitent 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 wherehe spent his youth and where he first proclaimed his message of repentanceand judgment was the chief settlement of that strange company of Jewsknown as Essenes. It has long been customary to think that during hisearly years John was associated with these fellow-dwellers in the desert, if he did not actually join the order. He certainly may have learned fromthem many things. Their sympathy with his ascetic life and with histhorough moral earnestness would make them attractive to him, but he wasfar too original a man to get from them more than some suggestions to beworked out in his own fashion. The simplicity of his teaching ofrepentance and the disregard of ceremonial in his preaching separate himfrom these monks. John may have known his desert companions, may haveappreciated some things in their discipline, but he remained independentof their guidance. 

76. The leaders of religious life and thought in his day wereunquestionably the Pharisees. The controlling idea with them, andconsequently with the people, was the sanctity of God's law. They wereconscious of the sinfulness of the people, and their demand for repentancewas constant. It is a rabbinic commonplace that the delay of the Messiah'scoming is due to lack of repentance in Israel. But near as this conceptionis 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 religiouspretence. With the quibbles of the scribes concerning small and greatcommandments, Sabbaths and hand-washings, John shows no affinity. He mayhave learned some things from these "sitters in Moses' seat, " but he wasnot of them. 

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

78. But there was another branch of the Pharisees than that which quibbledover Sabbath laws, traditions, and tithes, or that which itched to graspthe sword; they were men who saw visions and dreamed dreams like those ofDaniel and the Revelation, and in their visions saw God bringingdeliverance to his people by swift and sudden judgment. There are somemarked likenesses between this type of thought and that of John, --theimpending judgment, the word of warning, the coming blessing, were all inJohn; but one need only compare John's words with such an apocalypse asthe Assumption of Moses, probably written in Palestine during John's lifein the desert, to discover that the two messages do not move in the samecircle of thought at all; there is something practical, something severelyheart-searching, something at home in every-day life, about John'sannouncement of the coming kingdom that is quite absent from the visionsof his contemporaries. John had not, like some of these seers, a coddlingsympathy for people steeped in sin. He traced their troubles to their owndoors, and would not let ceremonies pass in place of "fruits meet forrepentance. " He came from the desert with rebuke and warning on his lips;with no word against the hated Romans, but many against hypocriticalclaimants to the privileges of Abraham; no apology for his message norartificial device of dream or ancient name to secure a hearing, but theold-fashioned prophetic method of declaration of truth "whether men willhear or whether they will forbear. " "All was sharp and cutting, imperiousearnestness about final questions, unsparing overthrow of all fictitiousshams 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 propheticclutch at men's consciences, a mighty accusation, a crushing summons tocontrite repentance and speedy sanctification" (KeimJN. II. 228). We lookin vain for a parallel in any of John's contemporaries, except in that onebefore whom he bowed, saying, "I have need to be baptized of thee. "

79. John had, however, predecessors whose work he revived. In Isaiah'swords, "Wash you, make you clean" (Isa. I 16), one recognizes the typewhich reappeared in John. The great prophetic conception of the Day of theLord--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 rangfrom 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 helearned his lesson. It is hard for us to realize how great a novelty suchsimplicity was in John's day, or how much originality it required toattain to this discipleship of the prophets. From the time when thecurtain rises on the later history of Israel in the days of the Maccabeanstruggle to the coming of that "voice crying in the wilderness, " Israelhad listened in vain for a prophet who could speak God's will withauthority. The last thing that people expected when John came was such asimple message. He was not the creature of his time, but a revival of theolder type; yet, as in the days of Elijah God had kept him seven thousandin Israel that had not bowed the knee to Baal, so, in the later time, notall were bereft of living faith. These devout souls furnished the soilwhich could produce a life like John's, gifted and chosen by God torestore and advance the older and more genuine religion. 

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

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

82. Many have held that he derived his baptism from the method ofadmitting proselytes into the Jewish fellowship. It is clear, at least, that the later ritual prescribed a ceremonial bath as well as circumcisionand sacrifice for all who came into Judaism from the Gentiles, and it isdifficult to conceive of a time when a ceremonial bath would not seemindispensable, since Jews regarded all Gentile life as defiling. Whilesuch an origin for John's baptism would give peculiar force to his rebukeof Jewish confidence in the merits of Abraham (Matt. Iii. 9), it is morelikely, as Keim has shown (JN. II. 243 and note), that in this as in hisother thought John learned of his predecessors rather than hiscontemporaries. Before the giving of the older covenant from Sinai, it issaid that Moses was required "to sanctify the people and bid them washtheir garments" (Ex. Xix. 10). John was proclaiming the establishment of anew covenant, as the prophets had promised. That the people should preparefor this by a similar bath of sanctification seems most natural. Johnappeared with a revival of the older and simpler religious ideas ofIsrael's past, deriving his rite as well as his thought from the springsof his people's religious life. 

83. This revival of the prophetic past had nothing scholastic orantiquarian about it. John was a disciple, not an imitator, of the greatmen of Israel; his message was not learned from Isaiah or any other, though he was educated by studying them. What he declared, he declared astruth immediately seen by his own soul, the essence of his power being arevival, not in letter but in spirit, of the old, direct cry, "Thus saiththe Lord. " Inasmuch as John's day was otherwise hopelessly in bondage totradition and the study of the letter, by so much is his greatnessenhanced in bringing again God's direct message to the human conscience. John's greatness was that of a pioneer. The Friend of publicans andsinners also spoke a simple speech to human hearts; he built on andadvanced from the old prophets, but it was John who was appointed toprepare 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 ofhis claims to greatness. His knowledge of the simplicity of God'srequirements in contrast with the hopeless maze of pharisaic traditions, and his insight into the characters with whom he had to deal, whether thesinless Jesus or the hypocritical Pharisees, show a man marvellouslygifted by God who made good use of his gift. This greatness appears insuperlative degree in the self-effacement of him who possessed thesepowers. Greatness always knows itself more or less fully. It was notself-ignorance that led John to claim to be but a voice, nor was it mockhumility. The confession of his unworthiness in comparison with themightier one who should follow is unmistakably sincere, as is thecompleted joy of this friend of the bridegroom rejoicing greatly becauseof the bridegroom's voice, even when the bridegroom's presence meant therecedence of the friend into ever deepening obscurity (John iii. 30). 

84. But John had marked limitations. He knew well the righteousness ofGod; he knew, and, in effect, proclaimed God's readiness to forgive themthat would turn from their wicked ways; he knew the simplicity as well asthe exceeding breadth of the divine commandment; but beyond one flash ofinsight (John i. 29-36), which did not avail to remould his thought, hedid not know the yearning love of God which seeks to save. It is notstrange that he did not. Some of the prophets had more knowledge of itthan he, his own favorite Isaiah knew more of it than he, but it was notthe thought of John's day. The wonder is that the Baptist so far freedhimself from current thought; yet he did not belong to the new order. Hethundered as from Sinai. The simplest child that has learned from theheart its "Our Father" has reached a higher knowledge and entered a higherprivilege (Matt. Xi. 11). John's self-effacement, wonderful as it was, fell short of discipleship to his greater successor; in fact, at a muchlater time there was still a circle of disciples of the Baptist who keptthemselves separate from the church (Acts xix. 1-7). He was doubtless toostrenuous a man readily to become a follower. He could yield his placewith unapproachable grace, but he remained the prophet of the wildernessstill. He seemed to belong consciously to the old order, and, by the verycircumstances ordained of God who sent him, he could not be of those who, sitting at Jesus' feet, learned to surrender to him their preconceptionsand 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 popularexcitement; publicans and soldiers, interested in the new preacher ortouched in conscience; outcasts who came in penitence, and devout souls inconsecration. The wonder of the new message was carried throughout theland and brought great multitudes to the Jordan. Jesus in Nazareth heardit, and recognized in John a revival of the long-silent prophetic voice. The summons appealed to his loyalty to God's truth, and after themultitudes had been baptized (Luke iii. 21) he too sought the prophet ofthe wilderness. 

86. The connection which Luke mentions (i. 36) between the families ofJesus and John had not led to any intimacy between the two young men. Johncertainly did not know of his kinsman's mission (John i. 31), nor was hisconception of the Messiah such that he would look for its fulfilment inone like Jesus (Matt. Iii. 10-12). One thing, however, was clear as soonas they met, --John recognized in Jesus one holier than himself (Matt. Iii. 14). With a prophet's spiritual insight he read the character of Jesusat a glance, and although that character did not prove him to be theMessiah, 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; theabsence of any confession of sin is therefore all the more noticeable. Inall generations the holiest men have been those most conscious ofimperfection, and in John's message and baptism confession and repentancewere primary demands; yet Jesus felt no need for repentance, and asked forbaptism with no word of confession. But for the fact that the totalimpression of his life begat in his disciples the conviction that "he didno sin" (I. Pet. Ii. 22; compare John viii. 46; II. Cor. V. 21), thissilence of Jesus would offend the religious sense. Jesus, however, had noair of self-sufficiency, he came to make surrender and "to fulfilall-righteousness" (Matt. Iii. 15). It was the positive aspect of John'sbaptism that drew him to the Jordan. John was preaching the coming ofGod's kingdom. The place held by the doctrine of that kingdom in the laterteaching of Jesus makes it all but certain that his thought had beenfilled with it for many years. In his reading of the prophets Jesusundoubtedly emphasized the spiritual phases of their promises, but it isnot likely that he had done much criticising of the ideas held by hiscontemporaries before he came to John. As already remarked he seems tohave been quicker to discover his affinity with the older truth than to beconscious of the novelty of his own ways of apprehending it (Matt. V. 17). When, then, Jesus heard John's call for consecration to the approachingkingdom he recognized the voice of duty, and he sought the baptism that hemight 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 ofprayer. It was an experience which concerned his innermost life with God, and it called him to communion with heaven like that in which he soughtfor wisdom before choosing his apostles (Luke vi. 12), and for strength inview of his approaching death (Luke ix. 28, 29). His outward declarationof loyalty to the coming kingdom was thus not an act of righteousness "tobe seen of men, " but one of personal devotion to him who is and who seesin secret (Matt. Vi. 1, 6). As the transfiguration followed the prayer onHermon, so this initial consecration was answered from heaven. A part ofthe answer was evident to John, for he saw a visible token of the gift ofthe divine Spirit which was granted to Jesus for the conduct of the workhe had to do, and he recognized in Jesus the greater successor for whom hewas simply making preparation (Mark i. 10; John i. 32-34). To Jesus therecame also with the gift of the Spirit a definite word from heaven, "Thouart my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased" (Mark i. 11). The languagein Mark and Luke, and the silence of the Baptist concerning the voice fromheaven (John i. 32-34), indicate that the word came to Jesus alone, andwas his summons to undertake the work of setting up that kingdom to whichhe had just pledged his loyalty. The expression "My beloved Son" had clearMessianic significance for Jesus' contemporaries (comp. Mark xiv. 62), and the message can have signified for him nothing less than a Messianiccall. It implied more than that child-relation to God which was thefundamental fact in his religious life from the beginning: it had anofficial meaning. 

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

90. The gift of the Spirit to Jesus, which furnished to John the proofthat the Greater One had appeared, was not an arbitrary sign. The oldprophetic thought (Isa. Xi. 2; xlii. 1; lxi. 1) as well as a later popularexpectation (Ps. Of Sol. Xvii. 42) provided for such an anointing of theMessiah; and in the actual conduct of his life Jesus was constantly underthe leading of this Spirit (see Matt. Xii. 28 and John iii. 34). Thetemptation which followed the baptism, and in which he faced thedifficulties in his new task, was the first result of the Spirit'scontrol. Its later influence is not so clearly marked in the gospels, butthey imply that as the older servants of God were guided and strengthenedby him, so his Son also was aided, --with this difference, however, that hepossessed completely the heavenly gift (John iii. 34). Jesus' uniformconfession of dependence on God confirms this teaching of the gift of thedivine Spirit; and his uniform consciousness of complete power andauthority confirms the testimony that he had the Spirit "without measure. "

91. The temptation to which the Spirit "drove" Jesus after his baptismgives proof that the call to assume the Messianic office came to himunexpectedly; for the three temptations with which his long struggle endedwere echoes of the voice which he had heard at the Jordan, and subtleinsinuations of doubt of its meaning. Some withdrawal to contemplate thesignificance of his appointment to a Messianic work was a mental andspiritual necessity. As has often been said, if the gospels had notrecorded the temptation, we should have had to assume one. Jesus being theman he was, could not have thought that his call was a summons to anentire change in his ideals and his thoughts about God and duty. Yet hemust have been conscious of the wide differences between his conceptionsof God's kingdom and the popular expectation. Those differences, by themeasure of the definiteness of the popular thought and the ardor of thepopular hope, were the proof of the difficulty of his task. The call meantthat the Messiah could be such as he was; it meant that the kingdom couldbe and must be a dominion of God primarily in the hearts of men andconsequently in their world; it meant that his work must be religiousrather than political, and gracious rather than judicial. These essentialsof the work which he could do contradicted at nearly every point theexpectations of his people. How could he succeed in the face of suchopposition? His long meditation during forty days doubtless showed him thedifficulty of his task in all its baldness, yet it did not shake hiscertainty that the call had come to him from God, nor his faith that whatGod had called him to do he could accomplish. 

92. The gospels show no hesitation in calling the experience of these daysa temptation, nor had the Christian feeling of the first century anydifficulty in thinking of its Lord as actually suffering temptation (Heb. Ii. 18; iv. 15). A temptation to be real cannot be hypothetical; evil mustactually present itself as attractive to the tempted soul. A suggestion ofevil that takes no hold concretely of the heart is no temptation, nor isthe resistance of it any victory. The sinlessness of him who soughtbaptism with no confession on his lips nor sense of penitence in his heartoffers no barrier to his experience of genuine temptation, unless we thinkhim incapable of sin, and therefore not "like unto his brethren. " Not onlydo the gospels repeatedly refer to his temptations (Luke iv. 13; Markviii. 31-33; Luke xxii. 28; compare Heb. V. 7-9), but they also depictclearly the reality of these initial testings. The account as given inMatthew and Luke represents the experience with which the forty days'struggle culminated. The absorption of Jesus' mind had been so completethat he had neglected the needs of his body, and when he turned to thinkof earthly things he was pressed by hunger. A popular notion at a latertime, and probably also in Jesus' day, was that the Messiah would be ableto feed his people as Moses had given them manna in the wilderness (Johnvi. 30-32; see EdersLJM. I. 176). He had just been endowed with thedivine Spirit for the work before him; it was therefore no fantastic ideawhen the suggestion came that he should use his power to supply his ownneeds in the desert. Nor was the temptation without attractiveness; hisown physical nature urged its need, and Jesus was no ascetic who founddiscomfort a way of holiness. The evil in the suggestion was that it askedhim to use his newly given powers for the supply of his own needs, as ifdoubting 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 ahint of another doubt, --"_If_ thou art God's Son. " A miracle would proveto himself his appointment and his power. The suggested doubt of his callhe passed unnoticed; distrust of God he repudiated instantly, falling backon his faith in the God he had served these many years (Deut. Viii. 3). His victory is remarkable because his spirit conquered unhesitatinglyafter a long ecstasy which would naturally have induced a reaction and asurrender for the moment to the demand of lower needs. 

93. This firmness of trust opened the way for another evil suggestion. Inthe work before him as God's Anointed many difficulties were on eitherside and across his path. He knew his people, their prejudices, and theirhardness of heart; and he knew how far he was from their ideal of aMessiah. 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, pressforward with his work, heedless of all danger and regardless of thedictates 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 inKidron below? A fanatic would have yielded to such a temptation. Manyanother 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 thetemptation by declaring that while man may trust God's care, he must notpresumptuously put it to the test (Matt. Iv. 7). The after life of Jesuswas a clear commentary on this reply. He constantly sought to avoidsituations which would compromise his mission or cut short his work (seeJohn vi. 15), and when at the end he suffered the death prepared for himby 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 ofenthusiasm and his self-mastery in all circumstances separate Jesus fromall ecstatics and fanatics. Yet presumption must have seemed the easiercourse, and could readily wear the mask of trust. He was tempted, yetwithout sin. 

94. As the refusal to doubt led to the temptation to presume, so thedetermination to be prudent opened the way for a third assault upon hisperfect loyalty to God. The world he was to seek to save was swayed bypassions; his own people were longing for a Messiah, but they must havetheir kind of a Messiah. If he would acknowledge this actual supremacy ofevil and self-will in the world, the opposition of passion and prejudicemight be avoided. If he would own the evil inevitable for the time, andaccommodate his work to it, he might then be free to lead men to higherand more spiritual views of God's kingdom. His knowledge of his people'sgrossness of heart and materialism of hope made a real temptation of thesuggestion that he should not openly oppose but should accommodate himselfto them. Jesus did not underestimate the opposition of "the kingdoms ofthe 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 inthe preceding temptations, Jesus conquered the evil suggestions byappropriating to himself truth spoken by God's servants to Israel. Temptedin all points like his brethren, he resisted as any one of them could haveresisted, and won a victory possible, ideally considered, to any other ofthe children of men. 

95. It is not idle curiosity which inquires whence the evangelists gotthis story of the temptation of Jesus. Even if the whole transaction tookplace on the plane of outer sensuous life, and Jesus was bodily carried toJerusalem and to the mountain-top, there is no probability that anywitnesses were at hand who could tell the tale. But the fact that in anycase 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 thewhole account tells in pictorial language an intensely real, innerexperience of Jesus. This in no respect reduces the truthfulness of thenarratives. Temptation never becomes temptation till it passes to thatinner scene of action and debate. Since Jesus shows in all his teaching anatural use of parabolic language to set forth spiritual truth, theinference is almost inevitable that the gospels have in like manneradopted the language of vivid picture as alone adequate to depict theessential reality of his inner struggle. In any case the narrative couldhave come from no other source than himself. How he came to tell it we donot know. On one of the days of private converse with his disciples afterthe confession at Cæsarea Philippi he may have given them this account ofhis own experience, in order to help his loyal Galileans to understandmore fully his work and the way of it, and to prepare them for thatdisappointment of their expectations which they were so slow toacknowledge as possible. 

96. From this struggle in the wilderness Jesus came forth with the clearconviction that he was God's Anointed, and in all his after life nohesitation appeared. The kingdom which he undertook to establish was thatdominion of simple righteousness which he had learned to know and love inthe 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 thatFather's sovereignty. There is no evidence that, beyond such firmconviction 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 thirdtemptation, however, shows that he was not unprepared for seeming defeat. The struggle had been long and serious, --for the three temptations of theend are doubtless typical of the whole of the forty days, --and the victorywas great and final. With the light of victory as well as the marks ofwarfare 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 Baptistcontinued his ministry of preaching and baptizing, moving northward up theJordan valley to Bethany, on the eastern side of the river, near one ofthe fords below the Sea of Galilee (John i. 28). Here Galilee, doubtless, contributed more to his audience than Judea. It is certain that some fromthe borders of the lake were at this time among his constant attendants:Andrew and Simon of Bethsaida, John the son of Zebedee, and perhaps hisbrother 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 workwould lead, sent an embassy to question John. They chose for this missionpriests and Levites of pharisaic leaning as most influential among thepeople. The impression John and his message were making on the popularmind 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 ofthese names. John's reply is the echo of his earlier proclamation of theone 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 uponthe next day John saw Jesus (John i. 29), now returned from thetemptation, and pointed him out to a group of disciples. Something inJesus' face or in his bearing, as he came from his temptation, must haveimpressed John even more than at their first meeting; for he was led tothink of a prophetic word for the most part ignored by the Messianicthought 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 forhim, and he cried, "Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sin ofthe world. " Once again on the next day the same thought rushed to his lipswhen, with two disciples, he saw Jesus passing by (John i. 35, 36). Thenas Jesus left John's neighborhood and took up again the round of ordinarylife, John seems to have reverted to his more ordinary Messianic thought, his momentary insight into highest truth standing as a thing apart in hislife. Such a moment's insight, caused by extraordinary circumstances, nomore requires that John should retain the high thought constantly thandoes Peter's confession of Christ at Cæsarea Philippi exclude his laterrebuke of his Lord (Mark viii. 32, 33), or his denials (Mark xiv. 66-72). 

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

101. These early confessions in the fourth gospel present a difficulty inview of Jesus' warm approval of Peter's acknowledgment of him at CæsareaPhilippi (Matt. Xvi. 13-20). Jesus saw in that confession a distinctadvance in the disciples' thought and faith. Yet the religious feelingwhich early questioned whether the Baptist even were not the Messiah (Lukeiii. 15) would almost certainly have concluded that John's greatersuccessor must be God's anointed. The very fact that men's thoughts aboutthe Messiah were varied and complex made them ready for some modificationsof their preconceptions. One with such subtle personal power as Jesus hadexercised was almost sure to be hailed by some with enthusiasm as thelooked-for representative of God. In fact, it is probable that at anytime in the early days of his ministry Jesus could have been proclaimedMessiah, provided he had accepted the people's terms. Such a confessionwould have been merely the outcome of enthusiasm. The people, even thedisciples, did not know Jesus. They all had high hopes and somewhat fixedideas about the Messiah, nearly every one of which was destined to rudeshock. How little they knew him Jesus realized (John i. 51), and hisself-mastery is manifest in his attitude to this early enthusiasm. He wasno visionary; he had a great work to do and a long lesson to teach, and hewas patient enough to teach it little by little. He did not rebuke theill-informed faith of a Nathanael, but sought gradually to supplant theold thought of the Messiah and of the kingdom by new truth, and to bindmen's affections to himself for his own sake and the truth's sake, notsimply 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 miraculouspowers which were to them a sign that he was in truth God's anointed. Itis probable that at the time of this miracle the disciples thought only ofthe power and the marvel, yet the sharp contrast between John's ascetichabit and Jesus' use of his divine resources to relieve embarrassment at awedding feast must have impressed every man among them. Their minds, however, were as yet too full of Messianic hopes to leave much room forreflection. 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 theywere a help to the contemporaries of Jesus. The study of Jesus' lifecannot ignore this fact, nor make little of it. It is fair to insist, however, that the question is one of evidence, not of metaphysicalpossibility. Men are wisely slow to-day to claim that they can tell whatare the limits of the possible. If the question is one of evidence, it isin an important sense true that the evidence for miracle in the life ofJesus is appreciable only when that life is viewed in its completeness. The miracles attributed to Jesus may be studied, however, for thedisclosure which they give of his character, and of his relation to commonhuman need. So it is with this first sign at Cana. Jesus had just heardthe call to be Messiah, and in his lonely struggle in the wilderness hadgiven a loyal answer to that call, and had set out to do his Father'sbusiness in his Father's way. He who by the Jordan still carried the marksof struggle, so that the Baptist saw in him the suffering Saviour ofIsaiah liii. , now returned to the ordinary daily life in Galilee, and as aguest at a wedding feast he commenced that ministry of simple humanfriendliness (Matt. Xi. 19; compare Mark ii. 15-17; Luke xv. 1, 2), whichset him in sharp contrast alike with John's asceticism and with theritualism and pedantry of the Pharisees. 

104. His human friendliness is all the more worthy of note, inasmuch as onhis return to Cana Jesus did not take up again the old relations of lifeas they existed before his baptism. This is clear from his reply to hismother when she reported the scarcity of wine (John ii. 3-5). While it istrue that the title by which Jesus addressed Mary was neitherdisrespectful nor unkind (John xix. 26), the reply itself was a warningthat now he was no longer hers in the old sense. A new mission had beengiven him, which henceforth would determine all his conduct, and in thatmission 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 understandher son nor his work until much later (John xix. 25; Acts i. 14). Thatwith such a clear sense of his new and serious mission Jesus' firstofficial act was one of kindly relief for social embarrassment is mostsignificant. He chose to show his divine authority to his new disciples ina way that brought joy to a festal company. Little as the disciples werelikely to appreciate it at the time, it was beautifully indicative of thesimplicity and everyday lovableness of Jesus' idea of the earnest serviceof God. 

105. With the disciples thus strengthened in faith, and the mother notseparated from him though unable to know his deepest thoughts, and thebrethren who could not yet nor later understand their kinsman and hiswork, Jesus went down to Capernaum (John ii. 12), which proved thenceforthto be the centre of his greatest work and teaching. There for a time, howlong cannot be known, he continued in quiet fellowship with his newfriends, until the approach of the Passover drew him to Jerusalem to makeformal opening of his Messianic work in that centre of his people'sreligious life. 

Part II

The Ministry

I

General Survey of the Ministry

106. The attempt to arrange an orderly account of the way in which Jesusset about the work to which he was called at his baptism is met at theoutset 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 thescene of the inauguration of Jesus' public ministry. The fourth gospel, onthe other hand, tells of a work of Jesus and his disciples in Judea priorto the imprisonment of John (in. 24), and makes this work follow at someinterval 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, givethem strong claim to credence. They thus record a ministry earlier thanthat narrated in the other gospels, proving that the actual inaugurationof Jesus' work occurred in Jerusalem at a Passover season previous to theimprisonment 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 sucha way as to lead Mark to set the opening of the ministry after the closeof John's activity, indicates that that beginning of work in Galileeseemed to the disciples to be in a way the actual inauguration of Jesus'constructive and successful work. Peter cannot have been ignorant of thelabors in Judea, though he may not himself have accompanied Jesus to thePassover. A new stage in the life of Jesus began, therefore, with hiswithdrawal to Galilee. 

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

109. In the use which Matthew (iv. 12 to xviii. 35) and Luke (iv. 14 toix. 50) make of Mark's record this unity is emphasized. Their treatment ofthe matter which they add, however, makes it best to study the periodtopically rather than attempt to follow closely a chronological sequence. As it is probable that the early writing ascribed by Papias to the apostleMatthew failed to preserve in many cases any record of the time and placeof the teachings of Jesus, so is it certain that the first and thirdevangelists have distributed quite differently the material which theyseem to have derived from that apostolic document. Mention need only bemade of the exhortation against anxiety which Matthew places in thesermon on the mount (vi. 19-34), and which Luke has given after the closeof the Galilean activity (xii. 22-34). It is possible to form somejudgment of the general relations of such discourses from the character oftheir contents, but in the absence of positive statement by theevangelists it is hopeless to seek to give them a more definite historicalsetting. A topical study can consider them as contributions to the periodto which they belong, while a chronological study would be lost inuncertain conjectures. A topical study may, however, disclose the factthat sequence of time was identical with development of method. This is, in general, the case with the Galilean ministry. The new lesson whichJesus began to teach after the confession at Cæsarea Philippi marked thesupreme turning point in his whole public activity. Before that crisis thework of Jesus was a constructive preparation for the question which calledforth Peter's confession. Subsequently his work was that of making readyfor the end, which from that time on he foretold. As has been stated, theGalilean ministry is the story of the first three gospels, except for twoincidents and a discourse added by John. The visit to the feast ofTabernacles (John vii. 1 to viii. 59) stands on the border between thework in Galilee and that which followed. It was one of Jesus' manyattempts to win Jerusalem, and is evidence that the author of the fourthgospel--either because of special interest in the capital, or because ofsuperior knowledge of the work of his Master in Judea--gave emphasis to aside of the life of Jesus which the other gospels have neglected. 

110. With the close of the constructive ministry in Galilee, the accountof Mark (x. 1; compare Matt xix. 1; Luke ix. 51) turns towards Jerusalemand the cross. The journey was not direct, but traversed Perea, the domainof Antipas beyond Jordan, and was accompanied by continued ministry ofteaching and healing (Mark x. 1-52; Matt. Xix. 1 to xx. 34). It is at thispoint 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 toJerusalem (xviii. 15 to xix. 28; compare Mark x. 13-52). Much of thatwhich Luke adds gives evidence that in all probability it should be placedbefore the change in method at Cæsarea Philippi, while much of itundoubtedly belongs to the last months of Jesus' life. Since the lastjourney to Jerusalem is reported with considerable fulness, it is naturalin a study of Jesus' life to treat that journey by itself. At this pointJohn contributes important additions to the record (ix. 1 to xi. 57)showing that the journey was not continuous, but was interrupted byseveral more or less hurried visits to the capital, renewed efforts ofJesus to win the city. 

111. With the final arrival in Jerusalem the four gospels come together ina 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 hadaccess to completer and more varied information than for any other part ofthe ministry. This causes some difficulties in constructing an orderedconception of the events, yet it greatly adds to the fulness of ourknowledge. It is easier, therefore, to consider the period in threeparts, --the final controversies in Jerusalem, the Last Supper, and thebetrayal, trial, and crucifixion. 

112. In a sense the resurrection and ascension form the conclusion of thefinal visit to Jerusalem, and should be treated with the last week. In alarger sense, however, they form the culmination of the whole ministry, and therefore constitute a final stage in the study of Jesus' life. Atthis point the record of the gospels is supplemented by the first chapterof the Acts and by Paul's concise report of the appearances of the risenChrist (I. Cor. Xv. 3-8). The various accounts exhibit perplexingindependence of each other. In total impression, however, they agree, andshow that the tragedy, by which the enemies of Jesus thought to end hiscareer, 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 Jesusbegan his general ministry in Jerusalem. The silence of the other recordsconcerning this beginning cannot discredit the testimony of John. Forthese other records themselves indicate in various ways that Jesus hadrepeatedly sought to win Jerusalem before his final visit at the end ofhis life (compare Luke xiii. 34; Matt. Xxiii. 37). Moreover, the fourthgospel is confirmed by the probability, rising almost to necessity, thatsuch a mission as Jesus conceived his to be must seek first to win theleaders 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 youthwas accustomed to go thither at the time of feasts (Luke ii. 41). Worshippers of God throughout the world prayed with their faces towardsJerusalem (Dan. Vi. 10). Moreover, at Jerusalem the chief of the scribes, as well as the chief of the priests, were to be found. Compared withJerusalem all other places were provincial and of small influence. AMessiah, 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 itis one sided, emphasizing those events and teachings in which Jesusdisclosed more or less clearly his claim to be the Messiah. Doubtless thefull record would show a much closer similarity between this early work inJudea and that later conducted in Galilee than a comparison of John withthe other gospels would suggest; yet it is evident that Jesus opened hisministry in Jerusalem with an unrestrained frankness that is not foundlater in Galilee. 

115. It is a mistake to think of the cleansing of the temple as a distinctMessianic manifesto. The market in the temple was a licensed affront tospiritual religion. It found its excuse for being in the requirement thatworshippers offer to the priests for sacrifice animals levitically cleanand acceptable, and that gifts for the temple treasury be made in no coinother than the sacred "shekel of the sanctuary. " The chief priestsappreciated the convenience which worshippers coming from a distance wouldfind if they could obtain all the means of worship within the templeenclosure itself. The hierarchy or its representatives seem also to haveappreciated the opportunity to charge good prices for the accommodation soafforded. 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 toworship Israel's God was filled with distraction, unseemly strife, andextortion (compare Mark xi. 17). Such despite done the sanctity of God'shouse must have outraged the pious sense of many a devout Israelite. Thereis no doubt of what an Isaiah or a Micah would have said and done in sucha situation. This is exactly what Jesus did. His act was the assumption ofa full prophetic authority. In itself considered it was nothing more. Inhis expulsion of the traders he had the conscience of the people for hisally. There is no need to think of any use of miraculous power. His moralearnestness, coupled with the underlying consciousness on the part of thetraders themselves that they had no business in God's house, readilyexplains the confusion and departure of the intruders. Even those whochallenged Jesus' conduct did not venture to defend the presence of themarket in the temple. They only demanded that Jesus show his warrant fordisturbing a condition of things authorized by the priests. 

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

117. The reply of Jesus to the challenge of his authority for hishigh-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 Johniv. 21-24). When they demanded the warrant for his act, he saw that theywere not ready to follow him, and could not appreciate the only warrant heneeded for his course. He cleansed the temple because they were destroyingit as a place where men could worship God in spirit. In reply to thechallenge, he who later taught the Samaritan woman that the worship of Godis not dependent on any place however sacred, answered that they mightfinish their work and destroy the temple as a house of God, yet he wouldspeedily re-establish a true means of approach to the Most High for thesouls of men. He clothed his reply in a figurative dress, as he was oftenwont to do in his teaching, --"Destroy this temple, and in three days Iwill raise it up. " To his unsympathetic hearers it must have beencompletely enigmatic. Even the disciples did not catch its meaning untilafter the resurrection had taught them that in their Master a new chapterin God's dealing with men had begun. 

118. The unreadiness of the Jewish leaders to receive the only kind ofmessage he had to offer produced in Jesus a decided reserve. He did notlack a certain kind of success in Jerusalem. His cures of the sick won himmany followers who seemed ready to believe almost anything of him. But theattitude taken by the leaders made it evident that Jesus must makedisciples who should understand in some measure at least his idea of God'skingdom, and, understanding, must be ready to be loyal to it through goodreport and evil. For the position taken by the leaders of the people hadan ominous significance. It could mean but one thing forJesus, --unrelenting conflict. If they could not be won, they who would solegalize the desecration of God's house would not hesitate at any extremein opposing his messenger. This possibility confronted Jesus at the veryoutset; therefore he held the popular enthusiasm in check, knowing thatas yet it had little of that kind of faith which could endure seemingdefeat. 

119. One of those who were drawn to him, however, gave Jesus opportunityto lay aside his reserve and speak clearly of the truth lie came topublish. He was a member of the Jewish sanhedrin, a rabbi apparently heldin high regard in Jerusalem. While his associates were dismissing theclaims of Jesus with a wave of the hand, Nicodemus sought out the newteacher by night, and showed his desire to learn what Jesus held to betruth concerning God's kingdom. Jesus first reminded the teacher of Israelof the old doctrine of the prophets, that Israel must find a new heartbefore God's kingdom can come (Jer. Xxxi. 31-34; Ezek. Xxxvi. 25-27), andthen declared that the heavenly truth which God now would reveal to men isthat all can have the needed new life as freely as the plague-strickenIsraelites found relief when Moses lifted up the brazen serpent. Thisconversation serves to introduce the evangelist's interpretation of Jesusas the only begotten Son of God sent in love to redeem the world (Johniii. 16-21). 

120. John's record suggests that Jesus left Jerusalem shortly after theconversation with Nicodemus. His work there was not without success, forNicodemus seems to have been henceforth his loyal advocate (compare Johnvii. 50-52; xix. 39); and it may be that at the time of this sojourn hewon the hearts of his friends in Bethany, for the first picture thegospels give of this household seems to presuppose a somewhat intimaterelation of Jesus to the family (Luke x. 38-42). It would be idle tospeculate whether it was at this time or later that he became acquaintedwith Joseph of Arimathea, or the friends who during the last week of hislife 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 theBaptist. In this way the summer and early autumn seem to have passed, Jesus growing more popular as a prophet than John himself had been. Thefact that Jesus' disciples administered baptism in connection with hiswork roused the jealousy of some of John's followers, and attracted againthe attention of Jerusalem to the new activity of the bold disturber ofthe temple market. John's disciples complained to him of Jesus' rivalry, and received his self-effacing confession, "He must increase, I mustdecrease. " The Pharisees, on the other hand, made Jesus feel that furtherwork in Judea was for the time unwise, and he withdrew into Galilee forretirement, 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 backfrom the region of the holy city must have been one of no little sadnessfor Jesus. Some urgency for haste led him by the direct road throughdespised Samaria. A seemingly chance conversation with a woman at Jacob'swell, where he was resting at noonday, gave him an opportunity forministry which was more ingenuously received than any which he had beenable to render in Judea; and to this woman he declared himself even moreplainly than to Nicodemus, and preached to her that spiritual idea ofworship which he had sought to enforce by cleansing Jerusalem's temple. Samaria was so isolated from all Jewish interest that Jesus felt no needfor reserve in this "strange" land. The few days spent there must havebeen peculiarly welcome to his heart, fresh from rejection in Judea. 

122. One reason why he wished to hasten from Judea seems to have been hisknowledge of the hostile movement which was making against John theBaptist. Either before or soon after Jesus started for Galilee Herod hadarrested John, ostensibly as a measure of public safety owing to John'sundue popularity (Jos. Ant. Xviii. 5. 2). Herod may have been encouragedto take this step by the hostility of the Pharisees to the plain-spokenprophet of the desert (see John iv. 1-3). The fourth gospel leaves itsreaders to infer that the imprisonment took place somewhere about thistime (compare iii. 24 and v. 35), while the other gospels unite in givingthis arrest as the occasion for Jesus' withdrawal into Galilee. 

123. Arrived in Galilee, Jesus seems to have returned to his home atNazareth, 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 fathersought out Jesus at Cana, having left his son sick at Capernaum. At firstJesus apparently repelled his approach, even as he had dealt with seekersafter marvels at Jerusalem; but on hearing the father's cry of need andtrust, he at once spoke the word of healing. This event is in so many waysa duplicate of the cure of a centurion's servant recorded in Matthew andLuke, that to many it seems but another version of the same incident. Considering the variations in the story reported by Matthew and Luke, itis clearly not possible to prove that John tells of a different case. Yetthe simple fact of similarity of some details in two events should notexclude the possibility of their still being quite distinct. The receptionwhich Jesus gave the two requests for help is very different, and the casereported in John is in keeping with the attitude of Jesus before he beganhis new ministry in Galilee. On his arrival in Galilee he wished to avoida mere wonder faith begotten of the enthusiasm he excited in Jerusalem, yet this wish yielded at once when a genuine need sought relief at hishands. 

124. The apparent result of this first activity in Judea wasdisappointment and failure. He had won no considerable following in thecapital. He had definitely excited the jealousy and opposition of theleading men of his nation. Even such popular enthusiasm as had followedhis mighty works was of a sort that Jesus could not encourage. Thesituation in Judea had at length become so nearly untenable that hedecided to withdraw into seclusion in Galilee, where, as a prophet, hecould be "without honor. " He had gone to Jerusalem eager to begin there, where God should have had readiest service, the ministry of the kingdom ofGod. Challenge, cold criticism, and superficial faith were the results. Anew beginning must be made on other lines in other places. Meanwhile Jesusretired 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 Syrophœnician 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 thefirst three gospels, began with a removal from Nazareth to Capernaum, andthe calling of four fishermen to be his constant followers. The readyobedience which Simon and Andrew and James and John gave to this call isan interesting evidence that they did not first come to know Jesus at thetime of this summons. The narrative presupposes some such earlierassociation as is reported in John, followed by a temporary return totheir old homes and occupations, while Jesus sought seclusion after hiswork in Judea. The first evangelist has most vividly indicated thedevelopment of the Galilean ministry, directing attention to two points ofbeginning, --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 theenthusiastic multitudes, the second of them marking his choice of a morerestricted audience and a less popular message. Within the first of theseperiods 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' ministryof healing, and the feeding of the five thousand when the popularenthusiasm reached its climax (John vi. 14, 15). These events fall notfar apart, and mark two different phases of the same stage of developmentin his work. The first is emphasized by Matthew, the second by John; bothhelp to a clearer understanding of the narrative which Mark has furnishedto the other gospels for their story of the Galilean ministry. The tableat the head of this chapter indicates in outline the probable successionof events in the Galilean period. The order adopted is that of Mark, supplemented by the other gospels. Luke's additions are inserted in hisorder where there is not some reason for believing that he himselfdisregarded the exact sequence of events. Thus the rejection at Nazarethis placed late, as in Mark. Much of the material in the long sectionpeculiar to Luke is assigned in general to this Galilean period, since allknowledge 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 theclearest general view of the Galilean work, it shows the greatestdisarrangement of details, and aids but little in determining the sequenceof events. The material from that gospel is assigned place in accordancewith such hints as are discoverable in parallel or associated parts ofMark or Luke. Of John's contributions one--the feeding of themultitudes--is clearly located by its identity with a narrative found inall the other gospels. The visit to Jerusalem at the unnamed feast can beonly tentatively placed. 

126. Viewing this gospel story as a whole, the parallel development ofpopular enthusiasm and official hostility at once attracts attention. Jesus' first cures in the synagogue at Capernaum roused the interest andwonder of the multitudes to such an extent that he felt constrained towithdraw to other towns. On his return to Capernaum he was so beset withcrowds that the friends of the paralytic could get at him only by breakingup the roof. It was when Jesus found himself followed by multitudes fromall parts of the land that he selected twelve of his disciples "that theymight be with him and that he might send them forth to preach, " andaddressed to them in the hearing of the multitudes the exacting, althoughunspeakably winsome teaching of the sermon on the mount. This condition ofthings continued even after Herod had killed John the Baptist, for whenJesus, having heard of John's fate, sought retirement with his disciplesacross the sea of Galilee, he was robbed of his seclusion by throngs whoflocked to him to be healed and to hear of the kingdom of God. 

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

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

129. The wonder is, not that popular enthusiasm for Jesus was great, butthat it was so hesitating in its judgment about him. The province whichprovided a following to Judas of Galilee a generation earlier than thepublic ministry of Jesus, and which under John of Gischala furnished thechief support to the revolt against Rome a generation later, could havebeen excited to uncontrollable passion by the simple idea that a leaderwas present who could be made to head a movement for Jewish liberty. Butthere was something about Jesus which made it impossible to think of himas such a Messiah. He was much more moved by sin lurking within than bywrong inflicted from without. He looked for God's kingdom, as did theZealots, but he looked for it within the heart more than in outwardcircumstances. Even the dreamers among the people, who were as unready asJesus for any uprising against Rome, and who waited for God to show hisown hand in judgment, found in Jesus--come to seek and to save that whichwas lost--something so contradictory of their idea of the celestial judgethat they could not easily think of him as a Messiah. Jesus was a puzzleto the people. They were sure that he was a prophet; but if at any timesome were tempted to query, "Can this be the Son of David?" theincredulous folk expected ever a negative reply. 

130. This was as Jesus wished it to be. An unreasoning enthusiasm couldonly hinder his work. When his early cures in Capernaum stirred the ardentfeelings of the multitudes, he took occasion to withdraw to other townsand allow popular feeling to cool. When later he found himself pressedupon by crowds from all quarters of the land, by the sermon on the mounthe set them thinking on strange and highly spiritual things, far removedfrom the thoughts of Zealots and apocalyptic dreamers. 

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

132. Jesus' caution brings to light one aspect of his aim in the Galileanministry, --he sought to win acceptance for the truth he proclaimed. Hismessage as reported in the synoptic gospels was the near approach of thekingdom of God. Any such proclamation was sure of eager hearing. At firsthe seems to have been content to gather and interest the multitudes bythis preaching and the works which accompanied it. But he early tookoccasion to state his ideas in the hearing of the multitudes, and in termsso simple, so concerned with every-day life, so exacting as respectsconduct, and so lacking in the customary glowing picture of the future, that the people could not mistake such a teacher for a simple fulfiller oftheir ideas. In this early sermon in effect, and later with increasingplainness, he set forth his doctrine of a kingdom of heaven coming notwith observation, present actually among a people who knew it not, like aseed growing secretly in the earth, or leaven quietly leavening a lump ofmeal. By word and deed, in sermon and by parable, he insisted on thissimple 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 threeclasses found their most cherished ideals set at nought by the newchampion of the soul's inner life in fellowship with the living God. Inall his teaching there was a claim of authority and a manifestindependence which indicate certainty on his part concerning his ownmission. Yet so completely is the personal question retired for the time, that in his rebuke of the blasphemy of the Pharisees he took pains todeclare 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 Spiritof God, whose presence was manifest in his works. He wished, primarily, towin disciples to the kingdom of God. 

133. Yet Jesus was not indifferent in Galilee to what the people thoughtabout himself. The question at Cæsarea Philippi shows more fully the aimof his ministry. During all the period of the preaching of the kingdom henever hesitated to assert himself whenever need for such self-assertionarose. This was evident in his dealing with his pharisaic critics. Herarely argued with them, and always assumed a tone of authority which wasabove challenge, asserting that the Son of Man had authority to forgivesins, was lord of the Sabbath, was greater than the temple or Jonah orSolomon. Moreover, in his positive teaching of the new truth he assumedsuch an authoritative tone that any who thought upon it could but remarkthe extraordinary claim involved in his simple "I say unto you. " He wishedalso to win disciples to himself. 

134. The key to the ministry in Galilee is furnished in Jesus' answer tothe message from John the Baptist. John in prison had heard of the worksof his successor. Jesus did so much that promised a fulfilment of theMessianic hope, yet left so much undone, contradicting in so many ways thecurrent idea of a Messiah by his studied avoidance of any demonstration, that the older prophet felt a momentary doubt of the correctness of hisearlier conviction. It is in no way strange that he experienced a reactionfrom that exalted moment of insight when he pointed out Jesus as the Lambof God, particularly after his restless activity had been caged within thewalls of his prison. Jesus showed that he did not count it strange, by histreatment of John's quesestion and by his words about John after themessengers had gone. Yet in his reply he gently suggested that thequestion already had its answer if John would but look rightly for it. Hesimply 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 ofIsaiah (xxxv. 5f. , lxi. 1f. ), --and added a blessing for such as "shouldfind nothing to stumble at in him. " Here Jesus emphasized his works, andallowed his message to speak for itself; but he frankly indicated that heexpected people to pass from wonder at his ministry to an opinion abouthimself. At Cæsarea Philippi he showed to his disciples that this opinionabout himself was the significant thing in his eyes. Throughout theministry in Galilee, therefore, this twofold aim appears. Jesus wouldfirst divert attention from himself to his message, in order that he mightwin disciples to the kingdom of God as he conceived it. Having so attachedthem to his idea of the kingdom, he desired to be recognized as thatkingdom's prince, the Messiah promised by God for his people. He retiredbehind his message in order that men might be drawn to the truth which heheld dear, knowing that thus they would find themselves led captive tohimself in a willing devotion. 

135. This aim explains his retirement when popularity pressed, hisexacting teaching about the spirituality of the kingdom of God, and hisinjunctions of silence. He wished to be known, to be thought about, to beaccepted as God's anointed, but he would have this only by a genuinesurrender to his leadership. His disciples must own him master and followhim, however much he might disappoint their misconceptions. This aim, too, explains his frank self-assertions and exalted personal claims inopposition to official criticism. He would not be false to his own senseof masterhood, nor allow people to think him bold when his critics wereaway, and cowardly in their presence. Therefore, when needful, he invitedattention to himself as greater than the temple or as lord of theSabbath. This kind of self-assertion, however, served his purpose as wellas his customary self-retirement, for it forced people to face thecontradiction which he offered to the accepted religious ideas of theirleaders. 

136. The method which Jesus chose has already been repeatedlyindicated, --teaching and preaching on the one hand, and works ofhelpfulness to men on the other. The character of the teaching of thisperiod is shown in three discourses, --the Sermon on the Mount, theDiscourse in Parables, and the Instructions to the Twelve. The sermon onthe mount is given in different forms in Matthew and Luke, that in Matthewbeing evidently the more complete, even after deduction has been made ofthose parts which Luke has assigned with high probability to a later time. This address was spoken to the disciples of Jesus found among themultitudes who flocked to him from all quarters. It opened with words ofcongratulation for those who, characterized by qualities often despised, were yet heirs of God's kingdom. The thought then passed to theresponsibility 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 havesuggested to men that he was indifferent to the older religion of hispeople, he carefully explained that he came, not to set aside the old, butto realize the spiritual idea for which it stood, by establishing a moreexacting standard of righteousness. This more exacting righteousness Jesusillustrated by a series of restatements of the older law, and then by agroup of criticisms of current religious practice. The sermon closed withwarnings against complacent censoriousness in judging other men'sfailures, and a solemn declaration of the vital seriousness of "thesesayings of mine. " The righteousness required by this new law is not onlymore exacting but unspeakably worthier than the old, being more simplymanifested in common life, and demanding more intimate filial fellowshipwith the living God. 

137. The teachings included in the sermon by the first gospel, but placedlater by Luke, supplement the sermon by bidding God's child to lead atrustful life, knowing that the heavenly Father cares for him. That Lukehas omitted much which from Matthew's account clearly belonged to theoriginal sermon may be explained by the fact that Gentile readers did notshare the interest which Jesus' hearers had, and which the readers of thefirst gospel had, in the relation of the new gospel to the older law. Hence the restatement of older commands and the criticism of currentpractice was omitted. Similar to the teachings which the first gospel hasincluded in the sermon, are many which Luke has preserved in the sectionpeculiar to himself. It is not unlikely that they belong also to theGalilean ministry. They urge the same sincere, reverent life in the sightof God, the same trust in the heavenly Father, the same certainty of hislove and care; and they do not have that peculiar note of impendingjudgment which entered into the teachings of Jesus after the confession atCæsarea Philippi. 

138. In the story of Mark, which is reproduced in the first and thirdgospels, the use of parable was first introduced in a way to attract theattention of the disciples, after pharisaic opposition to Jesus had becomesomewhat bitter and there was need of checking a too speedy culminationof opposition. He chose at that time a form of parable which was enigmaticto his disciples, and could but further puzzle hearers who had no sympathywith him and his message. Mark (iv. 12) states that this perplexity was inaccordance with the purpose of Jesus. But it is equally clear that Jesusmeant to teach the teachable as well as to perplex the critical by theseillustrations, for in explaining the Sower he suggested that the disciplesshould have understood it without explanation (Mark iv. 13). Many ofJesus' parables, however, had no such enigmatic character, but wereintended simply to help his hearers to understand him. He made use of thiskind of teaching from first to last. The pictures of the wise and foolishbuilders with which the sermon on the mount concludes show that it was notthe use of illustration which surprised the disciples in the parablesassociated with the Sower, but his use of such puzzling illustrations. Some of the parables of Luke's peculiar section may belong to the Galileanministry, and even to the earlier stages of it. These have none of theenigmatic character; the parables of the last days of Jesus' life alsoseem to have been simple and clear to his hearers. The Oriental mindprefers the concrete to the abstract, and its teachers have ever madelarge use of illustration. Jesus stands unique, not in that he usedparables, but in the simplicity and effective beauty of those which heused. These illustrations, whether Jesus intended them for the moment toenlighten or to confound, served always to set forth concretely some truthconcerning the relation of men to God, or concerning his kingdom and theirrelation to it. The form of teaching was welcome to his hearers, andserved as one of the attractions to draw men to him. 

139. The first gospel assigns another extended discourse to this Galileanperiod, --the Instructions to the Twelve. The mission of the twelve formeda new departure as Jesus saw the Galilean crisis approaching. He soughtthereby to multiply his own work, and commissioned his disciples to healand 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 himselfduring the Galilean period (Matt. Xv. 24). Comparison with the accounts inMark and Luke, as well as the character of the instructions found inMatthew, show that here the first evangelist has followed his habit ofgathering together teachings on the same general theme from differentperiods in Jesus' life. Much in the tenth chapter of Matthew indicatesclearly that the ministry of Jesus had already passed the period ofpopularity, and that his disciples could now look for little but scorn andpersecution. This was the situation at the end of Jesus' public life, andparallel sayings are found in the record of the last week in Jerusalem. 

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

141. Jesus drew the multitudes after him not only by his teachings, butalso by his mighty works. He certainly was for his contemporaries awonder-worker and healer of disease, and, in order to appreciate theimpression which he made, the miracles recorded in the gospels must beallowed to reveal what they can of his character. The mighty works whichenchained attention in Galilee were chiefly cures of disease, withoccasional exhibitions of power over physical nature, --such as thestilling of the tempest and the feeding of the five thousand. Thesignificant thing about them is their uniform beneficence of purpose andsimplicity 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 hisgeneration, --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 needymultitudes he had furnished signs in abundance, for his deeds both gaveevidence of heavenly power and revealed the character of the Father whohad sent him. 

142. One of the commonest of the ailments cured by Jesus is described inthe gospels as demoniac possession, the popular idea being that evilspirits were accustomed to take up their abode in men, speaking with theirtongues and acting through their bodies, at the same time afflicting themwith various physical diseases. Six specific cures of such possession arerecorded in the story of the Galilean ministry, besides general referencesto the cure of many that were possessed. Of these specific cases theGadarene demoniac shows symptoms of violent insanity; the boy cured nearCæsarea Philippi, those of epilepsy; in other cases the disease was morelocal, showing itself in deafness, or blindness, or both. In the curesrecorded Jesus addressed the possessed with a command to the invadingdemon to depart. He was ordinarily greeted, either before or after such acommand, with a loud outcry, often accompanied with a recognition of himas God's Holy One. 

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

144. The similarity of the symptoms of so-called possession to recognizedmental and physical derangements such as insanity, epilepsy, and hysteria, suggests the conclusion that possession should be classed with otherailments due to ill adjustment of the relations of the mental and physicallife. If this conclusion is valid, the idea of actual possession by evilspirits becomes only an ancient effort to interpret the mysterioussymptoms in accordance with wide-spread primitive beliefs. Thisexplanation would doubtless be generally adopted were it not that it seemsto compromise either the integrity or the knowledge of Jesus. The gospelsplainly represent him as treating the supposed demoniac influence as real, addressing in his cures not the invalid, but the invading demon. If he didthis knowing that the whole view was a superstition, was he true to hismission to release mankind from its bondage to evil and sin? If he sharedthe superstition of his time, had he the complete knowledge necessary tomake him the deliverer he claimed to be? These questions are serious anddifficult, but they form a part of the general problem of the extent ofJesus' knowledge, and can be more intelligently discussed in connectionwith that whole problem (sects. 249-251). It is reasonable to demand, however, that any conclusion reached concerning the nature of possessionin the time of Jesus must be considered valid for similar manifestationsof disease in our own day. 

145. What astonished people in Jesus' cures was not so much that he healedthe sick as that he did it with such evidence of personal authority. Hiscures and his teachings alike served to attract attention to himself andto invite question as to who he could be. Yet a far more powerful means tothe end he had in view was the subtle, unobtrusive, personal influencewhich without their knowledge knit the hearts of a few to himself. Inreality both his teaching and his cures were only means ofself-disclosure. His permanent work during this Galilean period was thewinning of personal friends. His chief agency in accomplishing his workwas what Renan somewhat too romantically has called his "charm. " It wasthat in him which drew to his side and kept with him the fishermen ofGalilee and the publican of Capernaum, during months of constantdisappointment of their preconceived religious ideas and Messianic hopes;it was that which won the confidence of the woman who was a sinner, andthe constant devotion of Mary Magdalene and Susanna and the others whofollowed him "and ministered to him of their substance. " The outstandingwonder of early Christianity is the complete transformation not only oflife but of established religious ideas by the personal impress of Jesuson a Peter, a John, and a Paul. The secret of the new element of theChristian religion--salvation through personal attachment to JesusChrist--is simply this personal power of the man of Nazareth. Themultitudes followed because they saw wonderful works or heard wonderfulwords; many because they hoped at length to find in the new prophet thechampion of their hopes in deliverance from Roman bondage. But thesesooner or later fell away, disappointed in their desire to use the newleader for their own ends. It was only because from out the multitudesthere were a few who could answer, "To whom shall we go? thou hast thewords of eternal life, " when Jesus asked, "Will ye also go away?" that thework in Galilee did not end in complete failure. These few had felt hispersonal power, and they became the nucleus of a new religion of love to apersonal Saviour. 

146. The test of the personal attachment of the few came shortly after theexecution of John the Baptist by Antipas. Word of this tragedy wasbrought to Jesus by John's disciples about the time that he and the twelvereturned to Capernaum from their tour of preaching. At the suggestion ofJesus they withdrew to the eastern side of the lake in search of rest. Itis not unlikely that the little company also wished to avoid for the timethe territory of the tyrant who had just put John to death, for Jesus wasnot yet ready for the crisis of his own life. Such a desire for seclusionwould be intensified by the continued impetuous enthusiasm of themultitudes who flocked about him again in Capernaum. In fact, so insistentwas their interest in Jesus that they would not allow him the quiet hesought, but followed around the lake in great numbers when they learnedthat he had taken ship for the other side. He who came not to beministered unto but to minister could not repel the crowds who came tohim, and he at once "welcomed them, and spake to them of the kingdom ofGod, and them that had need of healing he healed" (Luke ix. 11). The dayhaving passed in this ministry, he multiplied the small store of bread andfish brought by his disciples in order to feed the weary people. This workof power seemed to some among the multitudes to be the last thing neededto prove that Jesus was to be their promised deliverer, and they "wereabout to come and take him by force and make him king" (John vi. 15), whenhe withdrew from them and spent the night in prayer. 

147. This sudden determination on the part of the multitudes to force thehand of Jesus was probably due to the prevalence of an idea, found also inthe later rabbinic writers, that the Messiah should feed his people asMoses had provided them manna in the desert. The rebuff which Jesusquietly gave them did not cool their ardor, until on the following day, inthe synagogue in Capernaum, he plainly taught them that they had quitemissed the significance of his miracle. They thought of loaves andmaterial sustenance. He would have had them find in these a sign that hecould also supply their spirits' need, and he insisted that this, and thisalone, was his actual mission. From the first the popular enthusiasm hadhad to ignore many contradictions of its cherished notions. But his powerand the indescribable force of his personality had served hitherto to holdthem to a hope that he would soon discard the perplexing rôle which he hadchosen for the time to assume, and take up avowedly the proper work of theMessiah. This last refusal to accept what seemed to them to be his evidentduty caused a revulsion in the popular feeling, and "many of his disciplesturned back and walked no more with him" (John vi. 66). The time ofsifting had come. Jesus had known that such a rash determination to makehim king was possible to the Galilean multitudes, and that whenever itshould come it must be followed by a disillusionment. Now the openministry had run its course. As the multitudes were turning back andwalking no more with him, he turned to the twelve with the question, "Willye 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 foundwhat was better than their preconceptions. 

148. It is the fourth gospel that shows clearly the critical significanceof this event. The others tell nothing of the sudden determination of themultitude, nor of the revulsion of feeling that followed Jesus' refusal toyield to their will. Yet these other gospels indicate in their narrativesthat from this time on Jesus avoided the scenes of his former labors, andshow that when from time to time he returned to the neighborhood ofCapernaum he was met by such a spirit of hostility that he withdrew againimmediately to regions where he and his disciples could have time forquiet intercourse. 

149. The months of toil in Galilee show results hardly more significantthan the grain of mustard seed or the little leaven. Popular enthusiasmhad risen, increased, reached its climax, and waned. Official oppositionhad early been aroused, and had continued with a steadily deepenedintensity. The wonderful teaching with authority, and the signs wrought onthem that were sick, had been as seed sown by the wayside or in thorny orin stony ground, except for the little handful of hearers who had felt thepersonal power of Jesus and had surrendered to it, ready henceforth tofollow where he should lead, whether or not it should be in a path oftheir choice. These, however, were the proof that those months had been atime of rewarded toil. 

IV

The Ministry in Galilee--The New Lesson

150. With the crisis in Capernaum the ministry in Galilee may be said inone sense to have come to an end. Yet Jesus did not immediately go up toJerusalem. Once and again he was found in or near Capernaum, while thetime 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 wasto meet before they had seen the end of the opposition to their Lord. Thetime intervening between the collapse of popularity and Jesus' finaldeparture from Galilee may well be thought of, then, as a time of furtherdiscipline of the faith of his followers and of added instructionconcerning the truth for which their Master stood. The length of thissupplementary period in Galilee is not definitely known. It extended fromthe Passover to about the feast of Tabernacles (April to October, see Johnvi. 4 and vii. 2). The record of what Jesus did and said in this time ismeagre, only enough being reported to show that it was a time of repeatedwithdrawals from Galilee and of private instruction for the disciples. 

151. The disciples were trained in faith by further exhibitions of thecomplete break between their Master and the leaders of the people. Thisbreak appeared most clearly, soon after the feeding of the multitudes, inhis reply to a criticism of the disciples for disregard of pharisaictraditions concerning hand-washing (Mark vii. 1-23). The critics insistedon the sacredness of their traditions. Jesus in reply scored them fordisregard for the plain demands of God's law, and with a word freed menfrom 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 tothe regions of Tyre. On his return a little later to the west side of thesea of Galilee he was met by hostile Pharisees with a demand for a sign(Mark viii. 11-13), and after refusing to satisfy the unbelievingchallenge, --signs in plenty having been before their eyes since theopening of his work among them, --he and his disciples withdrew again fromGalilee towards Cæsarea Philippi. As they went on their way, Jesusdistinctly warned them against the influence of their leaders, religiousand political (Mark viii. 14f. ). So far as our records tell us Jesus wasbut once again in Capernaum. Then he was met with the demand that he paythe temple tax (Matt. Xvii. 24-27). This tax was usually collected justbefore the Passover. As this last visit to Capernaum was probably not farfrom the feast of Tabernacles, Jesus seems to have been in arrears. Thismay have been due to his absence from Capernaum at the time of thecollection. The prompt answer of Peter may indicate that he knew that inother years Jesus had paid this tax, as it is altogether probable that hedid. The question, however, implies official suspicion that Jesus wasseeking to evade payment, and exhibits further the straining of therelations between him and the Jewish leaders. The conversation of Jesuswith Peter served to show his clear consciousness of superiority, and wasa further summons to the disciples to choose between him and hisopponents. 

153. Within the limits of the Holy Land the faith of the disciples hadbeen constantly tested by the increasing opposition between their masterand their old leaders. When the little company withdrew to Gentileregions, however, Jesus had regard for their Jewish feeling. The timewould come when he would send them forth to make disciples of all thenations. For the present he made it his business to nurture their faith inhim, and when appealed to for help by one of these foreigners, he refusedto "take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs" (Mark vii. 27). Jesus had assumed a different attitude to the Samaritans before theopening of his work in Galilee, and in general had shown ready sympathyfor all in distress. In fact it seems as if he welcomed the Syrophœnicianwoman's great faith with a feeling of relief from a restriction that hehad felt it wise to adopt for his work in Phœnicia. It appears from hislater 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 ofhis disciples' faith in the case of the Syrophœnician, he felt no longerobliged to check his natural readiness to help the needy who sought himout. Although in one instance, for reasons no longer known to us, Jesuscharged a man whom he had cured to keep it secret (Mark vii. 32-37), ingeneral his work in these heathen regions seems, after the visit toPhœnicia, to have been quite unrestrained, and to have produced the sameenthusiasm that had earlier brought the multitudes to him in Galilee (Markviii. 1f. ). 

154. This continued activity of healing must have served greatly tostrengthen the determination of the disciples to cling to Jesus, let theleaders say what they would. We can only conjecture what various teachingsfilled the days, and what personal fellowship the disciples had with himwho spake as never man spake. There was need for advance in the faith ofthese loyal friends. Their enthusiastic declaration when the multitudesturned away could easily have been followed by reaction. Each newexhibition of the irrevocableness of the break between Jesus and theleaders was a severe test of their loyalty. These weeks of withdrawal weredoubtless filled, therefore, with new proofs that Jesus had the words ofeternal life. 

155. Before he put to his disciples the crucial question, he who knew whatwas in man (John ii. 25) was confident that they were ready for it. It wasafter the rebuff in Galilee, when the unbelieving Pharisees had againdemanded a sign of his authority, and after he had definitely warned thedisciples against the influence of their leaders, that Jesus led hislittle company far to the north towards the slopes of Hermon. There, nearthe recently built Cæsarea Philippi, Jesus plainly asked his discipleswhat the people thought of him (Mark viii. 27-30). We have seen howgradually sentiment in Galilee concerning the new teacher crystallizeduntil, from thinking him a prophet, the people, first timidly, thenboldly, concluded that such a teacher and worker of signs must be thepromised king. We have seen also how the popular estimate changed whenJesus refused to be guided by the popular will. Now, after the lapse of afew 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 ofthe men of old had been revived; but not a whisper remains of the formerreadiness to hail him as the Messiah. It was in the face of such adefinite revulsion in the popular feeling, in the face, too, of theincreasing hostility of all the great in the nation, that Peter answeredfor the twelve that they believed Jesus to be the Messiah, God's appointedDeliverer of his people (Matt. Xvi. 16 ff. ). In form this confession wasno more than Nathanael had rendered on his first meeting with Jesus (Johni. 49), and was practically the same as the report made by Andrew to Simonhis brother, and by Philip to Nathanael (John i. 41, 45). In both idea andexpression the reply to Jesus' question, "Will ye also go away?" (John vi. 68, 69), was virtually equivalent to this later confession of Peter. YetJesus found in Peter's answer at Cæsarea Philippi something so significantand remarkable that he declared that the faith that could answer thuscould spring only from a heavenly source (Matt. Xvi. 17). The earlyconfessions were in fact no more than expressions of more or lessintelligent expectation that Jesus would fulfil the confessor's hopes. Theconfession at Capernaum followed one of Jesus' mightiest exhibitions ofpower, and was given before the disciples had had time to consider theextent of the defection from their Master. Here at Cæsarea Philippi, however, the word was spoken immediately after an acknowledgment that thepeople had no more thought of finding in Jesus their Messiah. It wasspoken after the disciples had had repeated evidence of the determinedhostility of the leaders to Jesus. All the disappointment he had given totheir cherished ideas was emphasized by the isolation in which the littlecompany now found itself. One after another their ideas of how a Messiahshould act and what he should be had received contradiction in what Jesuswas and did. Yet after the weeks of withdrawal from Galilee, Peter couldonly in effect assert anew what he had declared at Capernaum, --that Jesushad the words of eternal life. It was a faith chastened by perplexity, andtaught at length to follow the Lord let him lead where he would. It was anactual surrender to his mastery over thought and life. Here at lengthJesus had won what he had been seeking during all his work in Galilee, --acorner-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 fullmastery 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 methodin the work which, because of this confession, he could now proceed to domore 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 togive to others as the key to eternal life. The salvation they are topreach is a salvation by personal attachment; that is, by faith. The rockon which he will build his church is personal attachment, faith that isready to leave all and follow him. Peter, not the substance of hisconfession, was its corner-stone, but Peter, as the first clear confessorof a faith that is ready to leave all, a faith whose very nature it is tobe 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, thesurrender of his heart to his Lord's guidance and control. This was thedistinctive mark of the new religious life inaugurated by Jesus ofNazareth. 

157. If anything were needed to prove that the idea that he was theMessiah was no new thought to Jesus, it could be found in the new lessonwhich he at once began to teach his disciples. The confession of Peterindicated to him simply that the first stage in his work had beenaccomplished. He immediately began to prepare the disciples for the endwhich for some time past he had seen to be inevitable. He taught them morethan that his death was inevitable; he declared that it was divinelynecessary that he should be put to death as a result of the hostility ofthe Jews to him ("the Son of Man must suffer"). All the contradictionswhich he had offered to the Messianic ideas of his disciples paled intoinsignificance beside this one. When they saw how he failed to meet thehopes that were commonly held, they needed only to urge themselves topatience, expecting that in time he would cast off the strange mask andtake to himself his power and reign. But it was too much for the lateconfessed and very genuine faith of Peter to hear that the Messiah mustdie. So unthinkable was the idea, that he assumed that Jesus had becomeunduly discouraged by the relentlessness of the opposition which haddriven him first out of Judea and later out of Galilee. Accordingly Petersought to turn his Master's mind to a brighter prospect, asserting thathis forebodings could not be true. It is hard for us to conceive the chillof heart which must have followed the glow of his confession when he heardthe stern rebuke of Jesus, who found in Peter's later words the voice ofthe Evil One, as before in his confession he had recognized the Spirit ofGod. 

158. The sternness of Jesus' rebuke escapes extravagance only in view ofthe fact that the words of Peter had greatly affected Jesus himself. Atthe outset of his public life he had faced the difficulty of doing theMessiah's work in his Father's way, and had withstood the temptation toaccommodate himself to the ideas of his world, declaring allegiance to Godalone (Matt. Iv. 10). Yet once and again in the course of his ministry heshowed that this allegiance cost him much. Luke reports a saying in whichJesus confessed that, in view of this prospect of death which Peter wasopposing so eagerly, he was greatly "straitened" (xii. 50), and at thenear 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 allthe Messianic ideas of his people. In these, glory, not rejection anddeath, was to be the Messiah's portion. That he was always superior tocurrent expectations is no sign that he did not feel their force. Theyquite mistake who find the bitterness of Jesus' "cup" simply in hisphysical shrinking from suffering. The temptation was ever with him tofind some other way to the goal of his work than that which led throughdeath. What Peter said hid a force greater than any word of thedisciple's. It voiced the crucial temptation of Jesus' life. The answeraddressed to Peter showed that his words had drawn the thought of Jesusaway from the disciple to that earlier temptation which was never absentfrom 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 declaredthat 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 theMessiah's death unthinkable. Jesus, however, saw in it the general law, that life must ever win its goal by disregard of itself, and called hisdisciples also to walk in the path of self-sacrifice. In order that thenew lesson might not quite overwhelm the yet feeble faith of thesefollowers, Jesus assured them that after his death and resurrection hewould come as Messianic Judge and fulfil the hopes which his prediction ofdeath seemed to blot out utterly (Mark viii. 34 to ix. 1). 

160. That this new lesson was a difficult one for master as well asdisciple seems to be shown by the experience which came a few days laterto 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 ofheaven came into his face, and his disciples were granted a vision of himin celestial glory, conversing with Moses and Elijah, representatives ofOld Testament law and prophecy. The theme of the discourse was that deathwhich had so troubled the disciples, and which then and later weighedheavily on Jesus' own spirit (Luke ix. 31). At the conclusion of thevision came a divine injunction to hear him who now was superseding lawand prophets. The effect of the transfiguration can only be inferred. Itdoubtless brought strengthening to Jesus for his difficult task (compareHeb. V. 7), and at least a silencing of remonstrance when he spoke againto his disciples of his approaching death. This he did while the littlecompany was making its way back towards Capernaum (Mark ix. 30-32), andrepeatedly 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 pleaof a father and healed his epileptic son, out of whom the disciples wereunable to cast the demon (Mark ix. 14-29; compare vi. 7, 13). It may havebeen the shock which the new lesson had given the disciples that accountedfor 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 withwhich 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), theycould not have concealed the fact that their faith had received greatencouragement. Whatever the cause, hope revived for the disciples, for onthe way back to Capernaum a dispute arose among them concerning personalprecedence in the kingdom which their Master should soon set up. In thisrapid reaction from unbelief to faith the disciples seem to have forgottenthe lesson of self-denial recently given them (Mark viii. 34, 35). InPeter's confession the corner-stone of the church was laid; but thesuperstructure was yet far out of sight. Although his own soul, taking itsway down into the valley of shadows, might rightly have asked for sympathyand complained of its lack, Jesus simply set a little child in the midstof them, and taught them again the first lessons of faith, --gentlehumility and trust. Thereby he rebuked the spirit of rivalry and asked ofhis disciples a generous, unselfish, and forgiving spirit (Matt, xviii. 1-35). 

162. It was possibly at this time, certainly near the end of the Galileanministry, that Jesus was approached by his own brethren, who urged him totry to win the capital. Their attitude was not one of indifference, thoughclearly not one of actual faith in his claim (John vii. 2-5). They seem tohave felt that Jesus had not made adequate effort to secure a following inJerusalem, and that he could not hope for success in his work if hecontinued to confine his attention to Galilee. Jesus knew conditions inJerusalem far better than they did, and had no idea as yet of resuming ageneral ministry there. He therefore dismissed the suggestion, and lefthis brethren to go up to the feast disappointed in their desire that hemake 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. Hisrepeated efforts to win Jerusalem mean nothing if we do not recognize thathe hoped against hope that many of the people might yet turn and let himlead them. With some such purpose, therefore, he went up a little laterwithout ostentation, and quietly appeared in the temple teaching. Theeffect of this unannounced arrival was that the opposition was not readyfor 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 ofhim. This course resulted in a division of sentiment among the people, somuch so that when the leaders, both secular and religious, sought tocompass his arrest, the officers sent to take Jesus were themselvesentranced by his teaching. In spite of the wish of the leaders Jesuscontinued to teach, and many of the people began to think of him withfavor. When, however, he tried to lead them on to become "disciplesindeed, " they took offence, and showed that they were not ready yet tofollow him. This effort to "gather the children of Jerusalem" resulted innew proof that they preferred his death to his message (John vii. 2 toviii. 59). 

163. Interesting evidence of the fact that "Jesus did many other signswhich are not written" in our accepted gospels is found in the story ofhis dealing with an adulteress whom the Pharisees brought to him forjudgment (John vii. 53 to viii. 11). This narrative had no secure place inany of the gospels in the earliest days, yet was so highly regarded thatmen would not let it go. Hence in the manuscripts which contain it, it isfound in various places. Some give it in Luke after chapter xxi. , some atthe end of the Gospel of John, one placing it after John vii. 36. Manyconsiderations 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 ofJesus. In scene it belongs to the temple, therefore in time to one of theJerusalem visits. To which of those visits it should he assigned is notnow discoverable. The ancient copyists who assigned it to this feast ofTabernacles, chose as well as later students can. If the incident belongsto this visit, it illustrates the patience and the keen insight of Jesusin his effort to win self-satisfied Jerusalem. 

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

165. Two years had nearly passed since Jesus withdrew from Judea to starthis ministry anew in a different region and following a different method. The fruit of that ministry was small, but significant. His proclamation ofthe coming kingdom and his call to a deeper righteousness, coupled as theywere with his works of heavenly power, had won at first an enthusiasticfollowing. Realizing that an uncontrolled enthusiasm would thwart hispurpose to introduce a kingdom of the spirit, Jesus had kept his Messianicclaim in the background, seeking first to win disciples to the kingdomthat he was proclaiming. Yet emphasize his message as he would, he couldnot conceal his personal significance. In fact he wished by winningdisciples to his doctrine of the kingdom to attach followers to himself, the bearer of the words of eternal life. The great development of popularenthusiasm did not deceive him, nor did he hesitate, when the multitudewould force him to do its will, to show clearly how far he was from beinga fulfiller of their desires. By successive disappointments of the popularideas he sifted his followers until a few were ready to follow himwhithersoever he might lead. With these he allowed time for the fact ofhis unpopularity to appear, giving them opportunity to consider therelentless hostility of their national leaders to the teacher fromGalilee. Then when the time was ripe he drew from the loyal few theirdeclaration that they would follow him in spite of disappointments andunpopularity, their confession that he had come to be to them more thantheir cherished preconceptions, that he had won the mastery over theirthought and life. He began then to prepare them for the end he had longforeseen, and at length, after giving them time for that perplexingmystery to find place in their hearts, he was ready to move on toward thecrisis which he knew his public appearance in Jerusalem would precipitate. Before setting out on this journey his desire still to seek to winJerusalem, if perchance it would repent, led him to visit the capitalunannounced at the feast of Tabernacles. This taught him that, howeverready some might be superficially to believe in him, he could as yet winin Jerusalem only hatred and plots against his life, and he returned tohis 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 feastof Dedication Jesus withdrew beyond Jordan to the place where John at thefirst was baptizing (x. 40). Matthew and Mark also say that at the closeof the ministry in Galilee Jesus departed and came into the borders ofJudea and beyond Jordan, and that in this new region the multitudes againflocked 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 byJohn, and only in scant fashion by the other two. They tell of adiscussion with the Pharisees concerning divorce (Mark x. 2-12); of thewelcome extended by Jesus to certain little children (Mark x. 13-16); ofthe disappointment of a rich young ruler, who wished to learn from Jesusthe way of life, but loved better his great possessions (Mark x. 17-31);of a further manifestation of the unlovely spirit of rivalry among thedisciples in the request of James and John for the best places in thekingdom (Mark x. 35-45), --a request following in the records directlyafter 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), theserecords come into coincidence with John in the account of the Messianicentry into Jerusalem just before the last Passover. 

167. The fourth gospel tells in addition of a considerable activity ofJesus in and near Jerusalem during this period. In making the journeybeyond Jordan start from Jerusalem (x. 40), John shows that Jesus musthave returned to the capital after his withdrawal from the feast ofTabernacles. When and how this took place is not indicated. Later, afterhis retirement from the feast of Dedication Jesus hastened at the summonsof 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 therehe started towards Jerusalem when the Passover drew near. This record ofJohn has, as Dr. Sanday has recently remarked (HastBD II. 630), so manymarks of verisimilitude that it must be accepted as a true tradition. Itdemands thus that in our conception of the last journey from Galilee roombe found for several excursions to Jerusalem or its neighborhood. One ofthese at least--to the feast of Dedication (x. 22)--represents anothereffort to "gather the children of Jerusalem. " While not without success, for at least the blind man restored by Jesus gave him the full faith hesought (ix. 35-38), it showed with fuller clearness the determinedhostility 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 hasbeen called. For it opens with a final departure from Galilee, and comesat its close into parallelism with the record of Matthew and Mark. Yetsome parts of this section in Luke belong in the earlier Galileanministry. The blasphemy of the Pharisees (xi. 14-36) is clearly identicalwith the incident recorded in Mark iii. 22-30, and Matt. Xii. 22-45; whileseveral incidents and discourses (see outline prefixed to Chapter III. )bear so plainly the marks of the ministry before the revulsion of popularfavor, that it is easiest to think of them as actually belonging to theearlier time, but assigned by Luke to this peculiar section because hefound 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 whenJesus referred openly to his rejection by the Jewish people. The note oftragedy characteristic of later discourses appears in the replies of Jesusto certain would-be disciples (ix. 57-62), and in his warning that hisfollowers count the cost of discipleship (xiv. 25-35). The woes spoken ata Pharisee's table (xi. 37-52), the warning to the disciples againstpharisaism (xii. 1-12), and the encouragement of the "little flock" (xii. 22-34), with many other paragraphs from this part of the gospel (seeoutline at the head of this chapter), evidently were spoken at the timeof the approaching end. Some narratives reflect the neighborhood ofJerusalem, and naturally corroborate the indications in the fourth gospelthat Jesus was repeatedly at the capital during this time. The parable ofthe good Samaritan, for instance, must have been spoken in Judea, else whychoose the road from Jerusalem to Jericho for the illustration? The visitto Mary and Martha shows Jesus at Bethany, and the parable of the Phariseeand the Publican, naming the temple as the place of prayer, belongsnaturally to Judea. 

169. The effort to find the definite progress of events in this part ofLuke has not been successful. There are three hints of movement towardsJerusalem, --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 passingthrough 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 laststages of the final journey seems artificial. Confessedly the expression"through the midst of Samaria and Galilee" is obscure. It is much easierto understand, however, if the journey so described is identified with thevisit to Samaria with which the departure from Galilee opened. It seemsprobable 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 theaccount of the passion, much as later some copyist found the story of theadulteress (John vii. 53 to viii. 11), and, certain that it was a trueincident, gave it a place in connection with the visit to the feast ofTabernacles (perhaps influenced by John viii. 15). It must always beremembered that the earliest apostolic writing--Matthew's Logia--probablyconsisted of just such disconnected records (see sects. 28, 42), and that, as Jülicher (Einleitung i. D. NT. 235) has said, the early church was notinterested 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 withmuch 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 toPerea (John x. 22, 40-42). He started southward through Samaria (Luke ix. 51 ff. ), and probably in connection with the early stages of the journeyhe sent out the seventy "into every city and place whither he himself wasabout to come" (Luke x. 1). It is not unlikely that, after the sending outof these heralds, he went with a few disciples to make one more effort toturn the heart of Jerusalem to himself (John ix. , x. ). It is impossible todetermine whither the seventy were sent. The "towns and cities" whitherJesus was about to come may have included some from all portions of theland, not excepting Judea. The matter must be left in considerableobscurity. This, however, may be said, that the reasons offered forholding 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. A68). The connection in Luke of the woes against Capernaum, Bethsaida, andChorazin with the instruction of the seventy is very natural, and marksthis mission as belonging to the close of the Galilean period, while themission of the twelve belongs to the height of Jesus' popularity. 

171. Our knowledge of Jesus' visit to the feast of Dedication is due toJohn's interest in the cure at about that time of one born blind (Johnix. , x. ). The prejudice of the sanhedrists who excommunicated the man forhis loyalty to Jesus led him in indignation to contrast their method ofcaring for God's "sheep" with his own love and sympathy and genuineministry 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 GoodShepherd, he was ready to lay down his life for the sheep, rather thanleave them to the heartlessness of leaders who cared only for themselves(x. 11-18). The critics of Jesus could not, or would not, understand hischarge against them, and accused him of madness for his extraordinaryclaims. There were some, however, who could not credit the notion thatJesus had a devil (John x. 21). It is possible that it was at this timethat the lawyer questioned him about the breadth of interpretation to begiven to the word "neighbor" in the law of love, and was answered by theparable of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 25-37). Possibly the parable of thePharisee and the Publican (Luke xviii. 9-14) belongs also to this time. Ingeneral, however, the visit proved anew that Jerusalem was in no mood toaccept Jesus (John x. 24-39). His enemies sought to draw from him adeclaration of his claim to be the Messiah, and Jesus appealed to hisworks, asserting that only their incorrigible prejudice prevented theirrecognizing his claims. He added that his Father, with whom he was ever inperfect accord, had drawn some faithful followers to him, and thereupon, angered by his claim to close kinship with God, they appealed to the roughlogic of violence (John x. 31-39; compare viii. 59). 

172. After this added attempt to win Jerusalem Jesus withdrew to theregion beyond Jordan, where John had carried on his ministry to the eagermultitudes. Here he anew attracted great attention, causing people tocontrast his ministry with the less remarkable work of John, and toacknowledge that John's testimony to him was true (John x. 40-42). Possibly it was in this place that the seventy found Jesus when theyreturned to report the success of their mission (Luke x. 17-24), for thethanksgiving which Jesus rendered for the faith of the common people incontrast with the unbelief of the "wise and prudent" might well expresshis feeling after the fresh evidence he had at the feast of Dedicationthat Jerusalem would none of his mission. The invitation to all the heavyladen to take his yoke illustrates, though under another figure, his claimto be the Good Shepherd (Matt. Xi. 28-30). We have no means of knowing howmuch more of what the gospels assign to the last journey to Jerusalemshould be put in connection with this sojourn across the Jordan. Themultitudes that came to him there may have included the Pharisees whoquestioned him about divorce (Mark x. 2-12), and the young ruler who lovedhis great possessions (Mark x. 17-31), as well as the parents who eagerlysought the Lord's blessing for their children (Mark x. 13-16). Some partsof Luke's narrative seem to belong still later in this journey, yet such asection as the reply of Jesus to the report of Pilate's slaughter of theGalileans (xiii. 1-9), or the parable of the Great Supper (xiv. 15-24), issuitable to any stage of it. 

173. This sojourn on the other side of Jordan was brought to a close bythe summons to come to the aid of his friends in Bethany (John xi. ). It isnot strange that the disciples feared his return to Judea, nor that Jesusdid not hesitate when he recognized the call of duty as well as offriendship. In no recorded miracle of Jesus is his power more signally setforth, yet here more clearly than anywhere else he is represented asdependent on his Father in his exercise of that power. The words of Jesusat the grave (John xi. 41, 42) show that he was confident of theresurrection 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 confidenceof safety when the time came for him to expose himself again to thehostility of Judea. Jesus indicated not only that on this occasion he hadhelp from above in doing his miracles, but that it was the rule in hislife to seek such help and guidance (xi. 42). In fact, at a later time heascribed all his works to the Father abiding in him (John xiv. 10; comparex. 25). The effect of the resurrection of Lazarus was such as to intensifythe determination of the leaders in Jerusalem--both Pharisees andSadducees--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 alreadypresent (John vii. 25, 32; viii. 59; x. 31, 39). The miracle does notappear in John as the cause of the apprehension of Jesus, but rather asone influence leading to it. It was indeed the total contradiction betweenJesus and all current and cherished ideas that led to his condemnation;the raising of Lazarus only showed that he was becoming dangerouslypopular, and made the priestly leaders feel the necessity of haste. Thesilence of the first three gospels concerning this event is trulyperplexing, yet it is not any more difficult of explanation, as Beyschlag(LJ I. 495) has shown, than the silence of all four evangelists concerningthe appearance of the risen Jesus to James, or to the five hundredbrethren (I. Cor. Xv. 6, 7). Room must be allowed in our conception of thelife 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 greatenthusiasm of the multitudes over Jesus when he entered Jerusalem (Lukexix. 37-40; Mark xi. 8-10) is most easily understood if he had made somesuch manifestation of power as the restoration of Lazarus. 

174. After the visit to Bethany Jesus withdrew to a little town namedEphraim, on the border between Judea and Samaria, and spent some timethere in seclusion with his disciples (John xi. 54), doubtlessstrengthening his personal hold on them preparatory to the shock theirfaith was about to receive. Of the length of this sojourn nothing is toldus, 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 theHoly City at Jericho (Mark x. 46). It may be that he descended fromEphraim direct to Jericho some days before the Passover, rejoining theresome of the people who had been impressed by his recent ministry in theregion "where John at the first was baptizing. " It is natural to supposethat it was on this journey to Jericho that he warned his disciples againof the fate which he saw before him in Jerusalem (Mark x. 32-34), andquite probably it was at this time that he rebuked the crude ambition ofthe sons of Zebedee by reminding them that his disciples must be moreambitious to serve than to rule, since even "the Son of Man came not to beministered 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 enthusiasticmultitudes. The feeling they had for him may perhaps be inferred from thecry 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 inJericho of a chief of the publicans, a shock which Jesus probably intendedto give, for much the same reason that led him afterwards on his way up toJerusalem to teach his followers in the parable of the pounds that theymust 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 hisdisciples left Jericho and went up to Bethany preparatory to his finalappearance in Jerusalem (John xii. 1). 

175. The interval between the final departure from Galilee and the publicentry into Jerusalem was given to three different tasks: the renewedproclamation of the coming of the kingdom, further efforts to winacceptance in Jerusalem, if perchance she might learn to know the thingsthat belonged to her peace; and continued training of the disciples, specially needed because of the ill-considered enthusiasm with which theywere inclined to view the probable issue of this journey to Jerusalem. Thefirst of these tasks was conducted as the earlier work in Galilee hadbeen, both by teaching and healing, in which Jesus used his disciples evenmore extensively than before. It proved that here as in Galilee the commonpeople were ready to hear him gladly, until he showed too radical adisappointment of their hopes. In this new ministry to the people Jesusspoke very frankly of the seriousness of the opposition which the leadersof the people were manifesting, and of the need that those who would behis 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 mostscathing rebuke to the Pharisees for the superficiality and hypocrisy oftheir religious life and teaching (Luke xi. 37-54), --a rebuke which isemphasized by the parable in which, on another occasion, he taught God'spreference for a contrite sinner over a complacent saint (Luke xviii. 9-14). When reminded of Pilate's outrage upon certain Galileanworshippers, he used the calamity to warn his hearers that personalgodliness was the only protection which could secure them against a moreserious outbreak of the hostility of the Roman power (Luke xiii. 1-9); andit was probably in reply to such an appeal as accompanied this report ofPilate's cruelty that Jesus spoke the parable of the Unjust Judge (Lukexviii. 1-8), teaching that God's love may be trusted to be no lessregardful 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, eventhough each new effort for Jerusalem proved that genuine acceptance of itssaviour was increasingly improbable. As the denunciations of the olderprophets ever left open a way of escape _if _ Israel would return and seekthe Lord, so the anticipation of rejection and death which filled theheart of Jesus does not banish a like _if_ from his own thought ofJerusalem in his repeated efforts to "gather her children. " Thecombination of the new popular enthusiasm and the fresh proofs of thehopelessness of winning Jerusalem made more important the third task, --thefounding 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'scause could not sweep it. It was for them that much of his instruction ofthe multitudes was doubtless primarily intended; they needed above allothers to count the cost of discipleship (Luke xiv. 25-35), and thewarnings against the spirit of Pharisaism (Luke xii. ) were addressedprincipally 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 tocast upon the earth" (Luke xii. 49-53), --a confession which had anotherexpression when he found it needful to rebuke the personal ambition of thesons of Zebedee (Mark x. 35-45). As for Jesus himself, the popularenthusiasm had not deceived him, nor the obdurate unbelief of Jerusalemdaunted him, nor his disciples' misconception of his kingdom disheartenedhim; 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 ofJesus and in his deeds, but they thought oftenest of the victory which byhis resurrection he won out of seeming defeat. This is proved by the factthat of the first two gospels over one third, of Luke over one fifth, andof the fourth gospel nearly one half are devoted to the story of thepassion and resurrection. This preponderance is not strange in view of theshock which the death of Jesus caused his disciples, and the new lifewhich the resurrection brought to their hearts. The resurrection was thefundamental theme of apostolic preaching, the supreme evidence that Jesuswas the Messiah. Hence the cross early became the object of exultantChristian joy and boasting; and in this the church entered actually intothe Lord's own thought, for through the cross he looked for his exaltationand glory (Mark viii. 31; John xii. 23-36). From the time of theconfession at Cæsarea Philippi, he had had his death avowedly in view, andhad repeatedly checked the ambitious and unthinking enthusiasm of hisdisciples by reminding them of what he must receive at the hands of theleaders of the people. The few months preceding his final appearance inJerusalem had been devoted to the journey to the cross. This explains thenote of tragedy which appears in his teachings at this period. The peoplehad shown that they would none of his ministry. In this they had writtentheir national and religious death warrant, and as he approached Jerusalemfor the final crisis he declared, though with almost breaking heart, "Yourhouse is left unto you desolate" (Luke xiii. 31-35). Each new effort ofJesus to turn aside the impending judgment of his people by winning theiracceptance of himself and his message resulted in a new certainty of hisultimate rejection, and thus in confirmation of the early recognizednecessity, that, if he continued the work God had given him to do, heshould suffer many things, and die at the hands of his own people. 

178. The last chapter in his public ministry began with his arrival atBethany six days before the Passover. It is probable that the caravan withwhich Jesus was travelling reached Bethany not far from the sunset whichmarked the beginning of the Sabbath preceding the feast. Jesus had friendsthere who gladly gave him entertainment, and the Sabbath was doubtlessspent 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 theydesired. The general cordiality of welcome expressed itself in a feastgiven in the house of one Simon, a leper who had probably experienced thepower of Jesus to heal. He may have been a relative also of Lazarus, forMartha assisted in the entertainment, and Lazarus was one of the guests ofhonor (Mark xiv. 3; John xii. 2). During the feast, Mary, the sister ofLazarus, poured forth on the head and feet of Jesus a box of the rarestperfume. This act of costly adoration seemed extravagant to some, particularly to one of Jesus' disciples, who complained that the moneycould have been better spent. This criticism of one who had not countedcost 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 theclear reference to his approaching death, led Judas to decide to abandonthe apparently waning cause of his Master, and bargain with the leaders inJerusalem to betray him (Mark xiv. 3-11). 

179. The day following the supper at Bethany--that is, the first day ofthe week--witnessed the welcome of Jesus to Jerusalem by the jubilantmultitudes. His mode of entering the city affords a marked contrast tohis treatment of the determination to make him king after he had fed themultitudes in Galilee (John vi. 15). In some respects the circumstanceswere similar. A multitude of the visitors to the feast, hearing that Jesuswas at Bethany on his way to Jerusalem, went out to meet him with awelcome that showed their enthusiastic confidence that at last he wouldassume Messianic power and redeem Israel (John xii. 12, 13). Jesus was nowready for a popular demonstration, for the rulers were unwilling longer totolerate his work and his teaching. He had never hesitated to assert hissuperiority to official criticism, and at length the hour had come toproclaim the full significance of his independence. In fact it was forthis that some months before he had set his face steadfastly to go toJerusalem. When, therefore, the crowd from Jerusalem appeared, Jesus tookthe initiative in a genuine Messianic demonstration. He sent two of hisdisciples to a place near by to borrow an ass's colt, on which he mightride into the city, fulfilling Zechariah's prophecy of the "king thatcometh meek, and riding upon an ass" (see Matt. Xxi. 4, 5). At this, theenthusiasm of his followers, and of those who had come to meet him, becameunbounded, and without rebuke from Jesus they proceeded towards Jerusalemcrying, "Hosanna; Blessed _is_ he that cometh in the name of the Lord"(Mark xi. 9, 10). Notwithstanding the remonstrances of certain Phariseesamong the multitude (Luke xix. 39), Jesus accepted the hosannas, for theyserved to emphasize the claim which he now wished, without reserve orambiguity, to make in Jerusalem. The time for reserve had passed. Themass of the people with their leaders had shown clearly that for histruth, and himself as bearer of it, they had no liking; while the few hadbecome attached to him sufficiently to warrant the supreme test of theirfaith. He could not continue longer his efforts to win the people, forboth Galilee and Judea were closed to him. Even if he had been content, without contradicting popular ideas, to work wonders and proclaim promisesof coming good, he could with difficulty have continued this work, forHerod had already been regarding him with suspicion (Luke xiii. 31). Hehad run his course and must measure strength with the hostile forces inJerusalem. For the last encounter he assumed the aggressive, and enteredthe city as its promised deliverer, the Prince of Peace. The very methodof his Messianic proclamation was a challenge of current Jewish ideas, forthey were not looking for so meek and peaceful a leader as Zechariah hadconceived; this entrance emphasized the old contradiction between Jesusand his people's expectations. He accepted the popular welcome with fullknowledge of the transitoriness of the present enthusiasm. As he advancedhe saw in thought the fate to which the city and people were blindlyhurrying, 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, asit was late, returned to Bethany with the twelve for the night. 

180. On the following day Jesus furnished to his disciples a parable inaction illustrating the fate awaiting the nation; for it is only as aparable that the curse of the barren fig-tree can be understood. The ideathat Jesus showed resentment at disappointment of his hunger when he foundno figs on the tree out of season is too petty for consideration. He wasdrawn to it by the early foliage, for it was not yet the season for eitherfruit or leaves. One is tempted to believe, as Dr. Bruce has suggested, that he had small expectation of finding fruit, and that even before hereached the tree with its early leaves he felt a likeness between it andthe nation of hypocrites whose fate was so clear in his mind. Thewithering of the fig-tree set his disciples thinking; and Jesus showedthat it was an object lesson, promising that the disciples, by theexercise of but a little faith, could do more, even removemountains, --such mountains of difficulty as the opposition of the wholeJewish nation would offer to the success of their work in their Master'sname. 

181. The curse upon the barren fig-tree was spoken as Jesus was going fromBethany to Jerusalem on the morning after his Messianic entry, that is, onMonday, and it was Tuesday when the disciples found it withered away (Markxi. 12-14, 20-25). On Monday Jesus entered into the temple and taught andhealed (Luke xix. 47; Matt. Xxi. 14-16). It is at this point that Markinserts the cleansing of the temple which John shows to belong rather toJesus' first public visit to Jerusalem. The place which this incidentholds in the first three gospels has already been explained by the factthat it furnished one cause for the official hostility to Jesus, and thatMark's story included no earlier visit to the holy city (sect. 116; see A39). 

182. Tuesday, the last day of public activity, exhibits Jesus in fourdifferent lights, according as he had to do with his critics, with thedevout widow, with the inquiring Greeks, and with his own disciples. Theopposition to him expressed itself, after the general challenge of hisauthority, in three questions put in succession by Pharisees andHerodians, by Sadducees, and by a scribe, more earnest than most, whom thePharisees put forward after they had seen how Jesus silenced theSadducees. Jesus met the opening challenge by a question about John'sbaptism (Mark xi. 29-33) which completely destroyed the complacency of hiscritics, putting them on the defensive. This was more than a cleverstroke, they could not know what his authority was unless they had a quicksense for spiritual things. His question would have served to bring thisto the surface if they had possessed it. Their reply showed them incapableof receiving a real answer to their question. It also gave him opportunityto say in three significant parables (Matt. Xxi. 28 to xxii. 14) whattheir spiritual blindness signified for them and their nation, giving thusa turn to the interview not at all to their minds. As Jesus' rebuke wasspoken in the hearing of the people, a determined effort was at once madeto discredit him in the popular mind. The question (Mark xii. 13-17) withwhich the Pharisees and Herodians hoped to ensnare him was most subtle, for the popular feeling was as sensitive to the mark of subserviency whichthe payment of tribute kept ever before them as the Roman authorities wereto the slightest suspicion of revolt against their sway. In none of hiswords had Jesus so clearly asserted the simple other-worldliness of hisdoctrine of the kingdom of God as in his answer to the question abouttribute. For him loyalty to the actual earthly sovereign was quitecompatible with loyalty to God, the lower obligation was in fact a summonsto be scrupulous also to render to God his due, --a duty in which thisnation was sadly delinquent. The reply gave no ground for an accusationbefore the governor; but the popular feeling against Rome was so strongthat it is not unlikely that it contributed somewhat to the readiness ofthe multitude a few days later to prefer Barabbas to Jesus. 

183. A second assault was made by some Sadducees who put to him a crudequestion about the relations of a seven-times married woman in theresurrection (Mark xii. 18-27). If this question was asked with theexpectation of making Jesus ridiculous in the sight of the people it was amarked failure, for his reply was so simple and straightforward that hewon the admiration even of some of the Pharisees. The most significantfeature of it was his argument from God's reference to himself as God ofAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for in that he taught that the fact offellowship with God implies that God's servants share with him a life thatdeath cannot vanquish. The skill with which Jesus met these two questionsinterested some of his hearers and showed to his opponents that they mustput forward their ablest champions to cope with him. The next test wasmore purely academic in character, --as to what class of commands isgreatest in the law (Mark xii. 28-34). For the pharisaic scholars this wasa favorite problem. For Jesus, however, the question contained no problem, since all the law is summed up in the two commandments of love. Hiscontemporaries were not without power to see the truth of hisgeneralization, and their champion in this last attack was moved withadmiration for the fineness and sufficiency of Jesus' answer. 

184. All of the assaults served only to show freshly the clearness andprofoundness of his thought; his critics were quite discomfited in theireffort to entangle him. They had done with him, but he had still a wordfor them. The business of these scribes was the study of the scriptures. They furnished the people with authoritative statements of truth. One ofthe common-places of the current thought was that the Messiah should beDavid's son. Jesus did not deny the truth of this view, yet he showed themhow partial their ideas were by quoting a word of scripture in which theMessiah is shown as David's Lord. If they had been open-minded they mighthave inferred from this that perhaps the man before them was not soimpossible a Messiah as they thought. This last question closed thecolloquy; there awaited yet, however, Jesus' calm, scathing arraignment ofthe hypocrisy of these religious leaders. There was no longer any need forprudence and every reason for a clear indication of the difference betweenhimself and the scribes in motive, in teaching, and in character. Thefinal conflict was on, and Jesus freely spoke his mind concerning theirwhole life of piety without godliness. Never have sharper words ofreproach fallen from human lips than these which Jesus directed againstthe scribes and Pharisees; they are burdened with indignation for themisleading of the people, with rebuke for the misrepresentation of God'struth, and with scorn for their hollow pretence of righteousness. Throughit all breathes a note of sorrow for the city whose house was now left toher desolate. The change of scene which introduces the widow offering hergift in the temple treasury heightens the significance of thecontroversies through which Jesus had just passed. In his comment on theworth of her two mites we hear again the preacher of the sermon on themount, and are assured that it is indeed from him that the severe rebukeswhich have fallen on the scribes have come. There is again a reference tothe insight of him who sees in secret, and who judges as he sees; whileallusion is not lacking to the others whose larger gifts attracted a widerattention. The whole scene is like a commentary on Matt. Vi. 2-4. 

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

186. In all the earlier events of the day the disciples of Jesus appearbut little. He is occupied with others, accepting the challenge of theleaders, 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 wordswith his friends. The comment on the widow's gift was meant for them, andthe uncovering of his own soul when the Greeks sought him was in theirpresence. After he had left the temple and the city he gave himself tothem more exclusively. His disciples were perplexed by what they saw andfelt, for the temper of the people toward their Master could not bemistaken. Yet they were sure of him. The leaders among them, therefore, asked him privately to tell them when the catastrophe should come, towhich during the day he had made repeated reference. The conversationwhich followed is reported for us in the discourse on the destruction ofJerusalem and the end of the world (Mark xiii. And parallels), in whichJesus taught his disciples to expect trouble in their ministry, as he wasmeeting trouble in his; and to be ready for complete disappointment oftheir inherited hopes for the glory of their holy city. He also taughtthem to expect that his work would shortly be carried to perfection, andto live in expectancy of his coming to complete all that he was nowseeming to leave undone. This lesson of patience and expectancy isenforced in a group of parables preserved for us in Matthew (chap. Xxv. ), closing with the remarkable picture of the end of all things when theMaster should return in glory as judge of all to make final announcementof the simplicity of God's requirement of righteousness, as it had beenexhibited in the life which by the despite of men was now drawing to itsclose. 

187. The bargain made by Judas to betray his Lord has always beendifficult to understand. The man must have had fine possibilities or Jesuswould not have chosen him for an apostle, nor would the little companyhave made him its treasurer (John xii. 6; xiii. 29). The fact that Jesusearly discovered his character (John vi. 64) does not compel us to thinkthat his selection as an apostle was not perfectly sincere; the man musthave seemed to be still savable and worthy thus to be associated with theeleven others who were Jesus' nearest companions. It has often beennoticed that he was probably the only Judean among the twelve, forKerioth, his home, was a town in southern Judea. The effort has frequentlybeen made to redeem his reputation by attributing his betrayal to somehigh motive--such as a desire to force his Master to use his Messianicpower, and confound his opponents by escaping from their hands and settingup the hoped-for kingdom. But the remorse of Judas, in which De Quinceyfinds support for this theory of the betrayal, must be more simply andsadly understood. It is more likely that the traitor illustrates Jesus'words: "No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one andlove the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Yecannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. Vi. 24). The beginning of his fall mayhave been his disappointment when Jesus showed clearly that he would notestablish a kingdom conformed to the popular ideas. As the enthusiasmwhich drew him to Jesus cooled, personal greed, with something ofresentment at the cause of his disappointment, seem to have takenpossession of him, and they led him on until the stinging rebuke whichJesus administered to the criticism of Mary at Bethany prompted the man toseek a bargain with the authorities which should insure him at least someprofit in the general wreck of his hopes. His remorse after he saw in itsbald hideousness what he had done was psychologically inevitable. AlthoughJesus was aware of Judas' character from the beginning (John vi. 64), hethat came to seek and to save that which was lost was no fatalist; andthis knowledge was doubtless--like that which he had of the fate hangingover Jerusalem--subject to the possibility that repentance might changewhat was otherwise a certain destiny. As the event turned he could onlysay, "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. Thegospels suggest a day of quiet retirement following these controversiesand warnings, with their fresh demonstration of the irreconcilablehostility of people of all classes to him and his work. After theseclusion of that day, he returned to give final proof of completeobedience to his Father's will. 

VII

The Last Supper

189. On Thursday Jesus and his disciples returned to Jerusalem for thelast time. Knowing the temper of the leaders, and the danger of arrest atany time, Jesus was particularly eager to eat the Passover with hisdisciples (Luke xxii. 15), and he sent two of them--Luke names them asPeter and John--to prepare for the supper. In a way which would give noinformation to such a one as Judas, he directed them carefully how to findthe house where a friend would provide them the upper room that was neededfor an undisturbed meeting of the little band, and the two went on inadvance to make ready. When the hour was come Jesus with the others wentto the appointed place and sat down for the supper (Mark xiv. 17; Lukexxii. 14; Matt. Xxvi. 20). 

190. The gospels all report the last evening which the little companyspent together. There is a perplexing divergence, however, between Johnand the others concerning the relation of this supper to the feast of thePassover. In their introduction of the story, Mark and his companiongospels indicate that the supper which Jesus ate was the Passover mealitself. John, on the other hand, declares that it was "before the feast ofthe Passover" (xiii. 1) that Jesus took this meal with his disciples. John's account is consistent throughout, for he states that on the nextday the desire of the Jews to "eat the Passover" forbade them to enter thehouse of the governor lest they should incur defilement (xviii. 28). Theother gospels, moreover, hint in several ways that the day of Jesus' deathcould not have been the day after the Passover; that is, the first day ofthe feast of unleavened bread. Dr. Sanday has recently enumerated theseafresh, remarking that "the Synoptists make the Sanhedrin say beforehandthat they will not arrest Jesus 'on the feast day, ' and then actuallyarrest 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; thatthe trial was also held on the feast day, which would be unlawful; thatthe feast day would not be called simply Preparation (see Mark xv. 42, andcompare John xix. 31); that the phrase 'coming from the field' (Mark xv. 21 [Greek]) means properly 'coming from work;' that Joseph of Arimathea isrepresented as buying a linen cloth (Mark xv. 46) and the women aspreparing spices and ointments (Luke xxiii. 56), all of which would becontrary to law and custom" (HastBD ii. 634). In these particulars thefirst three gospels seem to confirm the representation of the fourth thatthe day of the last supper was earlier than the regular Jewish Passover. On the other hand, a strong argument, though one that has not commendeditself to other specialists in Jewish archæology, has been put forth byDr. Edersheim (LJM ii. 567f. ) to prove that John also indicates that thelast supper was eaten at the time of the regular Passover. In the presentcondition of our knowledge certainty is impossible. If John does differfrom the others, his testimony has the greatest weight. While notconclusive, it has some significance that Paul identified Christ with thesacrifice of the passover (I. Cor. V. 7), a statement which may indicatethat he held that Jesus died about the time of the killing of the paschallamb. If John be taken to prove that the last supper occurred a day beforethe regular Passover, Jesus must have felt that the anticipation wasnecessary in order to avoid the publicity and consequent danger of acelebration at the same time with all the rest of the city. 

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

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

193. The paschal memories furnished to Jesus an opportunity to establishfor his disciples an institution which should symbolize the new covenantwhich he was soon to seal with his blood. Jesus regarded this new covenantas that which was promised by the prophets, especially Jeremiah (xxxi. 31-34), and his thought, like that of the prophets, goes back to the storyof the covenant established at Sinai (Ex. Xxiv. 1-11). In this way he gaveto his disciples a conception of his death, which later, if notimmediately, would help them to regard it as a necessary part of his workas Messiah. They were now oppressed by the evident certainty that the nearfuture would bring their Master to death; he accordingly gave them asacred reminder of himself and of his death as an essential part of hisself-giving "for them;" for whatever the conclusion concerning thedisputed text of Luke (xxii. 19), the institutional character of the actand words of Jesus is clear. As Holtzmann remarks (NtTh i. 304): "Thewords 'this do in remembrance of me' were perhaps not spoken; all the morecertainly do they of themselves express what lay in the situation and madeitself felt with incontestable conclusiveness. "

194. Several hints in the records seem to connect the meal in variousdetails with what is known of ancient custom in the celebration of thePassover. The hymn with which according to Mark and Matthew the supperclosed is easily identified with the last part (Psalms cxv. To cxviii. ) ofthe 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) agreeswith the repeated cups of the Passover ritual; so also do the sop and thedipping of it with which Jesus indicated to John who the traitor was (Johnxiii. 23-26; Mark xiv. 20). If it could be proved that the customsrecorded in the Talmud correctly represent the usage in Jesus' time itwould be of extreme interest to seek to connect what is told us of thelast 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 originatedlong before it was recorded, and that as the last supper was a meal whichJesus and his disciples celebrated as a Passover, it is probable that somesuch 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 theprediction of his threefold denial; Luke, however, adds that in connectionwith it Jesus assured Peter of his restoration, and charged him tostrengthen his brethren (Luke xxii. 31-34). John alone gives the long andfull discourse of admonition and comfort, followed by Jesus' prayer forhis disciples (xiii. 31 to xvii. 26). It is evident from the words ofJesus as he entered the garden of Gethsemane (Mark xiv. 33, 34), as fromthose which had escaped him when the Greeks sought him the last day in thetemple (John xii. 27), that his own heart was greatly troubled during thesupper by the apparent defeat which was now close at hand. His quietnessand self-possession during the supper, particularly when tenderlyreproving his disciples for petty ambition, or when solemnly dismissingthe traitor, or warning Peter of his denials, must not blind us to thedepth of the emotion which was stirring his own soul. It is only as weremember his trouble of heart that it is possible justly to value theministry which in varied ways he rendered to his disciples that night. Inthe discourses reported by John he showed that he realized that theapproaching separation would sorely try the faith of his followers, and hesought to strengthen them by showing his own calmness in view of it, andby promising them another who should abide with them spiritually as hisrepresentative, and continue for them the work which he had begun. Hetherefore urged them to maintain their devotion to him, still to seek andfind the source of their life and secret of their strength in fellowshipwith him--present, though unseen among them. He sought to convince themthat his departure was to be for their advantage, that fellowship with himspiritually would be far more real and efficacious than the intercoursethey had already enjoyed. He whose own heart was "exceeding sorrowful evenunto death" bade his disciples not to let their hearts be troubled norafraid. How long the conversation continued, of when the company left theupper chamber, cannot be told. At some time before the arrival atGethsemane Jesus turned to God in prayer for the disciples whom he wasabout to leave to the severe trial of their faith, asking for them thatrealization of eternal life which he had enjoyed and exemplified in hisown intimate life with his Father. With this his ministry to them closedfor the time, and, crossing the Kidron, he entered the garden ofGethsemane 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 theKidron, on the slope of the Mount of Olives. Tradition has long pointed toan enclosure some fifty yards beyond the bridge that crosses the ravine onthe road leading eastward from St. Stephen's gate. Most students feel thatthis is too near the city and the highway for the place of retreat chosenby Jesus. Archæologically and sentimentally the identification of placesconnected with the life of Jesus is of great interest. Practically, however, it is easy to over-emphasize the importance of such anidentification. Granted the fact that in some olive grove on themountain-side, where an oil-press gave a name to the place (Gethsemane), Jesus withdrew with his disciples on that last night, and all that isimportant is known. It is of far higher importance to see rightly therelation of what took place in that garden to the things which precededand followed it in the life of Jesus. At that time Jesus saw pressed tohis lips the "cup" from the bitterness of which his whole soul shrank. Itwas not an unlooked-for trial; some time earlier he had sought to cool theardor of the ambition of James and John by telling them that they shoulddrink of his cup, and declared that even the Son of Man came not to beministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. The fourth gospel, whose representation omits the agony of Gethsemane andonly reports its victory, tells how Jesus rebuked the violent impulse ofPeter with the word, "The cup which my Father hath given me to drink shallI not drink it?" (John xviii. 11^b); and all the gospels exhibit themarvellous quietness of spirit and dignity of self-surrender whichcharacterized Jesus throughout his trial and execution. In Gethsemane, however, we see the struggle in which that calmness and self-mastery werewon. 

197. It is unbecoming to consider that scene with any vulgar curiosity toknow 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" (Markxiv. 36), an intense longing of his own soul's life had expression. Therewas something in the fate which he saw before him from which his wholebeing shrank. But stronger than this was his fixed desire to do hisFather's will. Here was supremely illustrated the truth that "he came downfrom 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 mostdelicately constituted nature from pain and death completely fails toaccount for this dread of Jesus. He was no coward, drawing back fromsufferings which for simple physical pain were over and again more thanmatched by many of the martyrs to truth who preceded and followed him. Hehimself declared to the sons of Zebedee that they should share a cup inkind like unto his, suffering for the kingdom of God, for the salvationof the world. Yet there is a difference evident between what others havehad to bear and the cup from which Jesus shrank. The death which now stoodbefore him in the path of obedience had in it a bitterness quiteunexplained by the pain and disappointment it entailed. That excess ofbitterness can probably never be understood by us. A hint of its naturemay 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 astumbling 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 tohis Father's will; but it was a costly obedience, a complete emptying ofhimself (Phil. Ii. 7, 8). 

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

199. The band that arrested Jesus was accompanied by a Roman cohort fromthe garrison of the city, but it was not needed, for the disciples offeredno appreciable resistance; on the contrary, "they all forsook him andfled" (Mark xiv. 50). Having arrested Jesus, the band took him to Annas, the actual leader of Jewish affairs, though not at the time the officialhigh-priest. He had held that office some time before, but had beendeposed by the Roman governor of Syria after being in power for nineyears. His influence continued, however, for although he was neverreinstated, he seems to have been able to secure the appointment formembers of his own family during a period of many years. Caiaphas, thelegal high-priest, was his son-in-law. Annas, as the leader ofaristocratic opinion in Jerusalem, had doubtless been foremost in thesecret counsels which led to the decision to get rid of Jesus, hence thecaptive was, as a matter of course, taken first to his house. The trial bythe Jewish authorities was irregular. There seems to have been an informalexamination of Jesus and various witnesses, first before Annas, and thenbefore Caiaphas and a group of members of the sanhedrin, the outcome ofwhich was complete failure to secure evidence against Jesus from theirfalse witnesses, and the formulation of a charge of blasphemy inconsequence of his answer to the high-priest acknowledging himself to bethe Messiah (Mark xiv. 61-64). The early hours before the day were givenover to mockery and ill-usage of the captive Jesus. When morning wascome, the sanhedrin was convened, and he was condemned to death on thecharge of blasphemy (Mark xv. 1; Luke xxii. 66-71), and then was led inbonds to the Roman governor for execution, since the Romans had taken fromthe sanhedrin the authority to execute a death sentence (John xviii. 31). Before Pilate the Jews had to name an offence recognized by Roman law; hisaccusers therefore falsified his claim and made him out a politicalMessiah, hostile to Roman rule (Luke xxiii. 1, 2). Pilate soon saw thatthe charge was trumped up, and sought in every way, while keeping thegood-will of the people, to escape the responsibility of giving sentenceagainst Jesus. His first effort was a simple declaration that he found nofault in the prisoner (Luke xxiii. 4); then, having heard that he was aGalilean, he tried to transfer the case to Herod, who happened to be inthe city at the time (Luke xxiii. 5-12); he then sought to compromise byagreeing to chastise Jesus and then release him (Luke xxiii. 13-16); nexthe offered the people their choice between the innocent Jesus andBarabbas, a convicted insurrectionist (Mark xv. 6-15; Luke xxiii. 16-24), and the people, instructed by the priests, chose Barabbas, caring nothingfor a Messiah who would allow himself to be arrested without resistance;the fourth gospel tells of Pilate's still further effort, by appealing tothe people's sympathy, to escape giving sentence, even after he haddelivered Jesus to the soldiers for the preliminary scourging. Finding theJews ready to urge, at length, a religious charge, Pilate's superstitiousfear was roused (John xix. 7-12), and he sought again to release him, butwas finally cowed by the threat of an accusation against him at Rome, and, mocking the people by sitting in judgment to condemn Jesus as theirking, he gave sentence against the man whom he knew to be innocent (Johnxix. 12-16). 

200. Some of Jesus' disciples and friends were witnesses of the earlystages of the informal trial, in particular, John (John xviii. 15) andPeter. It was during the progress of the early examination that Peter wasdrawn into his denials by the comments made by the bystanders on hisconnection with the accused. It has been suggested that the house of thehigh-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 viewfrom the court. In this case it is easy to see how Jesus could overhearhis disciple's strenuous denials of any acquaintance with him, and couldturn and give him that look which sent him out to weep bitterly (Lukexxii. 61, 62). If it be further assumed that Annas and Caiaphas occupieddifferent sides of the same high-priestly palace, the double examinationreported by John would still be within hearing from the one court in whichthe faithless disciple was a fascinated witness of his Master's trial. 

201. Humanly speaking, it may be said that the fate of Jesus was sealedwhen the Sadducean leaders came to look on him seriously as a danger tothe State (John xi. 47-50, note the mention of chief priests). Thereligious opposition was serious, and might have brought trouble, in somesuch 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 wouldhave given much attention to a charge not urged by the men of influence inJerusalem. 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 ofJesus' aim and purpose; disappointed in him, they would be the earliest tocry out against him, especially when the choice lay between him and agenuine insurrectionist. 

202. Each fresh study of the trial of Jesus gives a fresh impression ofhis greatness. He who but a few hours before was pouring out his soul inprayer that his cup might pass, stands forth as the one calm andundisturbed actor among all those who took part in the tragic doings ofthat day. His judges and foes were all swayed by passion and self-interestand were ready to make travesty of justice, from the leaders of thesanhedrin who condemned him on one charge and accused him to the governoron another, to the governor himself, who appeared determined to releasehim if he could do it without risk of personal popularity, and who yet, inorder to avoid accusation at Rome, gave sentence according to the people'swill. The fickle populace crying "crucify him, " the disciples who forsookhim, 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 oftumult. In all this, of which he was the occasion and centre, he standsthe supreme example of dignity, self-mastery, and quietness. This is seenin his silence in the presence of Annas and Caiaphas, and later beforePilate; in his frank avowal of his Messianic claim in reply to thehigh-priest's challenge, and of his kingly rank in answer to thegovernor's question; and in the look of reproof which he turned uponPeter. Not that he was without feeling. There is strong sense of outragein his words, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but ifwell, why smitest thou me?" It was not the quietness of stoicindifference, but of perfect self-devotion to the Father's will. Hemaintained it from the time of his arrest to the last cry of trust withwhich he committed his spirit to his Father. 

203. The scourging over, the mock homage of the soldiers done, he was ledout beyond the city wall to be crucified. The exact place of thecrucifixion can be determined as little as that of Gethsemane, thoughthere is a tradition from the fourth century, and in addition there aremany conjectures. Jesus was led, apparently, to the ordinary place ofcriminal execution, and with two others, probably insurrectionary robberslike those with whom Barabbas had been associated, he was crucified. Twoepisodes in the journey to the place of crucifixion are recorded, --thehelp which Simon of Cyrene was compelled to give to Jesus in carrying hiscross (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 andoften. It would be difficult to exaggerate it. The death by the cross wasa death by hunger and exhaustion in ordinary cases; it was thus tortureprolonged for many hours. It is noticeable, however, that it is not thesuffering but the disgrace and shame of the cross that occupied thethought of the apostolic days. Indeed, were physical suffering chiefly tobe considered, it would have to be owned that the fact that Jesus diedwithin a few hours released him from the most excruciating pains incidentto this barbarous form of execution. The later ascetic thought loved, andstill loves, to dwell on the physical torments of the Lord's death. Theywere severe enough to give us awe; but the biblical writers show a muchhealthier mind, and their thought does not invite comparison between thepains endured by the Master and those which some of his martyred followersbore 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 patentproof of the curse of God (Deut. Xxi. 23). The obedience of Jesus wasunlimited when he submitted to death (Phil. Ii. 8). It is on the shame ofthe cross, and on the sacrifice of himself for the life of the world whenin obedience to his Father's will he "despised the shame, " that thethought of the apostolic day laid emphasis. In this experience Jesus foundhimself in truth numbered with the transgressors; he was the object ofscorn for all them that passed by, they mocked at him, at his works, andat his confident trust in God. In this last extremity the darkness ofGethsemane again swept over Jesus' soul, when he cried out "My God, myGod, " recalling the words of one of the saints of old in his hour ofdistress (Ps. Xxii. ). Yet, like him, Jesus kept hold on the certainty ofdeliverance; the darkness passed at length. 

205. The evangelists preserve several sayings of Jesus from the cross, therecords of the different gospels being remarkably diverse. Mark andMatthew record the exclamation, "My God, my God _(Eloi, Eloi_), why hastthou forsaken me, " which the bystander misconstrued as a call for Elijah, thinking this pseudo-Messiah was reproaching Elijah for failing to come tohis 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 crythe prayer of trust, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (xxiii. 46). Earlier, however, this gospel tells of Jesus' word to the penitentrobber, "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise" (xxiii. 43), and of theprayer for his foes, that is, for the Jewish people who blindly condemnedhim (xxiii. 34). The oldest manuscripts cause some doubt whether this lastsaying was originally a part of the Gospel of Luke. If it was not it wouldbelong in the same class with the story of the sinful woman which we nowfind in John, both being authentic records of the life of Jesus, thoughfrom some other source than that in which we now find them. The fourthgospel gives quite an independent group of sayings. It interprets thedying cry as, "It is finished" (xix. 30), and preceding this it gives thecry, "I thirst" (xix. 28), which led to the offering of the vinegar ofwhich the first two gospels speak. Earlier it tells of the committal ofMary to the care of the beloved disciple (xix. 26, 27). Of these sevensayings, "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 crucifiedone, after the darkness of which the first three gospels speak hadovershadowed the land. Of the cause of that darkness they give no hint, for Luke's expression cannot mean an eclipse, since an eclipse at Passovertime, that is, at full moon, is an impossibility. The conjecture thatdense 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 atthe death of the Son of God. During the hours of the darkness the wavesswept 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 sayingsall express Jesus' continued spirit of ministry, showing even in hisbitter pain his accustomed thoughtfulness for others' need. 

206. It is futile to speculate on the cause of Jesus' early death. Hecertainly suffered a much shorter time than was ordinarily the case, asappears in the fact that at sunset it was necessary to break the legs ofthe robbers so as to hasten death, Jesus having already been some timedead. There is something attractive in the theory of Dr. Stroud (ThePhysical 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 argumentare insufficient for proof. To the Jews the death of their victim did notgive all the satisfaction they desired. In the first place, Pilateinsisted 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 hadbrought the crime into close proximity to the feast which they were eagerto keep from defilement; so that they had still to beg of Pilate that hewould hasten the death of the victims, that their bodies might not remainto desecrate the following Sabbath sanctity (John xix. 31-37); while forthose who witnessed it the death of Jesus deepened the impression that ahideous crime had been committed in the slaughter of an innocent man (Markxv. 39). 

207. Among the bystanders few of the disciples of Jesus were to befound--they were hiding in fear. Yet some faithful women, and twocourageous councillors of Jerusalem, were bold enough to make theirloyalty known. These two men, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, weremembers of the sanhedrin, but they had had no part in the condemnation ofJesus; and after knowing that he was dead, Joseph begged of Pilate thebody, and he and Nicodemus took Jesus down from the cross and laid him ina tomb which Joseph owned near the place of crucifixion, rendering suchtender ministries as were possible in the closing hours of the day. Thewomen who had witnessed his end meanwhile were arranging also to anointthe body. They took notice where the two friends had laid him, and thenwent 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 oftheir holy feast (John xix. 31). They had eagerly guarded their conductthat no ceremonial defilement might prevent their sharing in the paschalfeast. They believed that they had rid their nation of a dangerousdisturber of its peace, and men whose conscience shrank not from makingGod's house a house of merchandise, who would punish one who ventured tocure a mortal disease if it chanced to cross their Sabbath traditions, whohad condemned to death the holiest man and godliest teacher the world hadever seen because he did not square with their heartless formalism, --suchmen hardly had conscience enough to feel repentance or remorse for thecowardly injustice and crime with which of their own choice they hadreddened their hands (Matt, xxvii. 25). They doubtless kept their feastwith satisfaction. Not a few hearts, however, were heavy with grief anddisappointed hope. They had believed that Jesus "was he that should redeemIsrael" (Luke xxiv. 21). Stunned, they could not throw away the faithwhich 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 certaintyof triumph through it all (John xx. 9). What remained for them was thelast 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 theresurrection of Jesus from the dead. This is very clear in the preachingand writings of Paul. The first distinctively Christian feature in hisaddress at Athens is his statement that God had designated Jesus to bethe judge of men by having "raised him from the dead" (Acts xvii. 31), andfor 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 haveseen the risen Lord (I. Cor. Ix. 1). The early preaching as recorded inActs shows the same feature, for after repeated testimony to the fact thatGod had raised up Jesus, Peter summed up his address with the declaration, "Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath madehim both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts ii. 36). Infact the buoyancy of hope and confidence of faith which gave to thedespised followers of the Nazarene their strength resulted directly fromthe experiences of the days which followed the deep gloom that settledover the disciples when Jesus died. 

210. It can but seem strange to us that after Jesus had so often foretoldhis death and the resurrection which should follow it, his disciples werethrown into despair by the cross. Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus whenthey embalmed his body may not have known of these teachings which Jesusgave to the nearer circle of his followers, but it is difficult to believethat the women who prepared their spices to anoint his body (Mark xvi. 1)had heard nothing of these predictions, and it is certain that theapostles who received with incredulity the first news of the resurrectionwere the men whom Jesus had sought to prepare for this glorious victory. The disciples do not seem to have finished "questioning among themselveswhat the rising again from the dead should mean" (Mark ix. 10, compareLuke xviii. 34) until Jesus himself explained it by his return to themafter his crucifixion. It was formerly common to conclude from thescepticism of the disciples that Jesus could not have told them, as he isreported to have done, that he would rise again the third day. It is nowwidely conceded, however, that if he foresaw and foretold his death, hesurely coupled with it a promise of resurrection, otherwise he must havesurrendered his own conviction that he was Messiah; for a Messiah takenand held captive by death was apparently as foreign to Jesus' thought asit was unthinkable for the men of his generation. The inability of thedisciples to adjust their Messianic ideas to the death of their Master wasnot removed by the rebuke Jesus administered to Peter at Cæsarea Philippi;their objections were only silenced. It would seem that even when they sawhis death to be inevitable, they were simply dumb with hope that in someway he would come off victor; the cross and the tomb crushed out thathope--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 onlysay, "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 ofideas and the springing of hope from a faith which would not die. Theuniform early tradition is that Jesus showed himself alive to hisdisciples "on the third day, " that is, a little over thirty-six hours fromthe time of his death. Not only the gospels, but Paul, who wrote manyyears before our evangelists, testify to this (I. Cor. Xv. 4), as does thevery 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 thegospels which made use of our Gospel of Mark (compare parallels with Markviii. 81; ix. 31; x. 34, and see Holtzmann, NtTh I. 309). Of the eventswhich occurred on that third day and after, our earliest account is thatof 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 ofhis earliest teaching (I. Cor. Xv. 4-8). He gives definite date to none ofthese appearances, indicating only their sequence. He tells of sixdifferent manifestations, beginning with an appearance to Cephas on thethird day, then to the twelve, then to a large company ofdisciples, --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 sameclass with the appearances of the first Easter morning. Two of theseinstances are found only in Paul's account, the appearance to James and tothe five hundred brethren, though this last may probably be the same as isreferred to in the Gospel of Matthew (xxviii. 16-20). 

212. The gospel records are much fuller, but they differ from each othereven more than they do from Paul. Mark is unhappily incomplete, for thelast twelve verses in that gospel, as we have it, are lacking in theoldest manuscripts, and were probably written by a second-centuryChristian named Aristion, as a substitute for the proper end of the gospelwhich seems by some accident to have been lost. These twelve verses areclearly compiled from our other gospels. They have value as indicating thecurrency of the complete tradition in the early second century, but theycontribute nothing to our knowledge of the resurrection. All, then, thatMark tells is that the women who came early on the first day of the weekto anoint the body of Jesus found the tomb open and empty, and saw anangel who bade them tell the disciples that the Lord had risen. How therecord originally continued no one knows, for Matthew and Luke use thesame general testimony up to the point where Mark breaks off, and then goquite 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 anappearance 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 inGalilee, and his parting commission to them. It gives no account of theascension. Luke agrees with Mark in general concerning the visit of thewomen to the tomb, the angelic vision, and the report to the disciples. Hesays nothing of an appearance of Jesus to the women on their flight fromthe 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 toEmmaus, to Simon, and to the eleven in Jerusalem, --this last being blendedconsciously or unconsciously with the final meeting of Jesus with thedisciples before his ascension. The genuine text of the gospel (xxiv. 50)says nothing of the ascension itself, but clearly implies it. In contrastwith Matthew it is noticeable that Luke shows no knowledge of anyappearance of Jesus to his disciples in Galilee. John is quite independentof Mark, as well as of Matthew and Luke. He mentions only Mary Magdalenein connection with the early visit to the tomb, though perhaps he impliesthe presence of others with her ("we" in xx. 2). He tells of a visit ofPeter 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 laterto the eleven, including Thomas. So far this gospel makes no reference toappearances in Galilee; but in the appendix (chapter xxi. ) there is addeda manifestation to seven disciples as they were fishing on the Sea ofGalilee. 

214. Criticism which seeks to discredit the gospels, for instance mostrecently Réville in his "Jésus de Nazareth, " discovers two separate andmutually exclusive lines of tradition, --one telling of appearances inGalilee, represented by Mark and the last chapter in John, the othertelling of appearances in or near Jerusalem, and found in Luke and thetwentieth chapter of John. It is said that the gospels have sought toblend the two cycles, as when Matthew tells of an appearance to the womenin Jerusalem on their way from the tomb, and when the last chapter of Johnadds to the original gospel a Galilean appearance. Luke, however, whomakes no reference at all to Galilean manifestations, is taken to provethat originally the one cycle knew nothing of the other. This theoryfalls, however, before the uniform tradition of appearances on the thirdday, which must have been in Jerusalem, and the very early testimony ofPaul to an appearance to above five hundred brethren at once, which couldnot have been in Judea. It need not surprise us that there should havebeen two cycles of tradition, not however mutually exclusive, if Jesus didappear both in Jerusalem and in Galilee. The same kind of local interestwhich is supposed to explain the one-sidedness of the synoptic story ofthe public ministry would easily account for one line of tradition whichreported Galilean appearances, and another which reported those inJerusalem. Luke may have had access to information which furnished himonly the Jerusalem story. John and Peter, however, must have known thewider facts. The very divergences and seeming contradictions of thegospels, troublesome as they are, indicate how completely certaintyregarding the fact of the resurrection removed from the thought of theapostolic day nice carefulness concerning the testimony to individualmanifestations of the risen Lord. Doubtless the first preaching rested, asin the case of Paul, on a simple "I have seen the Lord. " When later thedetailed testimony was wanted for written gospels, it had suffered the lotcommon to orally transmitted records, and divergences had sprung up whichit 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 whichfollowed can be constructed from our gospels and Paul. Early on the firstday of the week certain women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the motherof James and Joses, Salome, Joanna, and others, came to anoint the body ofJesus. On their arrival they found that the stone had been rolled backfrom the tomb. Mary Magdalene saw that the grave was empty and ran to tellPeter and John. The others saw also a vision of angels which said thatJesus was alive and would see his disciples in Galilee, and ran to reportthis to the disciples. Meanwhile Mary Magdalene returned, following Peterand John who ran to see the tomb, and found it empty as she had said. Shelingered after they left, and Jesus appeared to her, she mistaking him atfirst for the gardener. She then went to tell the disciples that she hadseen the Lord. These events evidently occurred in the early morning. Thenext incident reported is that of the walk of two disciples, not of thetwelve, to Emmaus, and the appearance of Jesus to them. At first they didnot recognize him, not even when he taught them out of the scriptures thenecessity that the Messiah should die. He was made known when at eveninghe sat down with them to a familiar meal. Either before or after thisevent he had shown himself to Peter. This is the first manifestationreported by Paul. If Luke xxiv. 12 is genuine (see R. V. Margin), he alsotells that when the two again reached Jerusalem the apostles received themwith the news that Peter had seen the Lord. That same evening Jesusappeared suddenly among the disciples in their well-guarded upper room. His coming was such that he had to convince the disciples that he was notsimply a disembodied spirit. Luke says that he did this by bidding themhandle 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. Aweek later, presumably in Jerusalem, Jesus again manifested himself to thelittle company, Thomas being with them, and dispelled the doubt of thatdisciple who loved too deeply to indulge a hope which might onlydisappoint. He had but to see in order to believe, and make supremeconfession of his faith. The next appearance was probably that to theseven disciples by the Sea of Galilee, when Peter, who denied thrice, wasthrice tested concerning his love for his Lord. Then apparently followedthe meeting on the mountain reported in Matthew, which was probably thesame as the appearance to the five hundred brethren; then, probably stillin Galilee, Jesus appeared to his brother James, who from that time on wasa leader among the disciples. The next manifestation of which record ispreserved was the final one in Jerusalem, after which Jesus led hisdisciples out as far as Bethany and was separated from them, henceforth tobe thought of by them as seated at the right hand of God. 

216. This construction of the story as given in the New Testament doesviolence to the accounts in one particular. It holds that Matthew's reportof the meeting of Jesus with the women on their way from the tomb onEaster 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 thetradition 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 thefirst Christians, while for the historic interest of our days itconstitutes a discrepancy. The difficulty is less on this supposition thanon any other. It is highly significant that the account of the mostindubitable fact in the view of the early Christians is the most difficultportion of the gospels for the exact harmonist to deal with. This is notof serious moment for the historical student. It is rather a warningagainst theoretical ideas of inspiration. 

217. The universal acknowledgment that the early Christians firmlybelieved in the resurrection of their Lord has made the origin of thatfirm conviction a question of primary importance. The simple facts as setforth in the New Testament serve abundantly to account for the faith ofthe early church, but they not only involve a large recognition of themiraculous, they also contain perplexities for those who do not stumble atthe supernatural; hence there have been many attempts to find othersolutions of the problem. Some of the explanations offered may bedismissed with a word: for instance, those which, in one form or other, renew the old charge found in the first gospel, that the disciples stolethe body of Jesus, and then declared that he had risen; and those whichassume that the death of Jesus was apparent only, that he fainted on thecross, and then the chill of the night air and of the sepulchre served torevive him, so that in the morning he was able to leave the tomb andappear to his disciples as one risen from the dead. This apparent-deaththeory involves Jesus in an ugly deception, while the theory that thedisciples or any group of them removed the body of Jesus and then gavecurrency to the notion that he had risen, builds the greatest ethical andreligious movement known to history on a lie. A slightly differentexplanation which was very early suggested was that the Jews themselves, or perhaps the gardener, had the body removed, and that when Mary foundthe tomb empty she let her faith conclude that his absence must be due tohis resurrection. 

218. This last explanation has in recent times been revived in connectionwith the so-called vision-hypothesis by Renan and Réville. Mary found thetomb empty, and being herself of a highly strung nervous nature--she hadbeen cured by Jesus of seven devils--by thinking about the empty tomb shesoon worked herself into an ecstasy in which her eyes seemed to beholdwhat 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, andit is the report of these that we have in the gospels. Thevision-hypothesis takes with some, Strauss for instance, a different form. These deny that the tomb was found empty at all, and regard this story asa contribution of the later legend-making spirit. They hold that thedisciples fled from Jerusalem as soon as the death of Jesus was an assuredfact, and not until after they found themselves amid the familiar scenesof Galilee, did their faith recover from the shock it had received inJerusalem. In Galilee the experiences of their life with Jesus were livedover again, and the old confidence in him as Messiah revived. Thusthinking about the Lord, their hearts would say, "He cannot have died, "and after a while their faith rose to the conviction which declared, "Heis not dead;" then they passed into an ecstatic mood and visions followedwhich are the germ out of which the gospel stories have grown. 

219. These different forms of the vision-hypothesis have been subjected tomost searching criticism by Keim, who is all the more severe because hisown thought has so much that is akin to them. There are two objectionswhich refute the hypothesis. The first is that the uniform traditionwhich connects the resurrection and the first appearances with the "thirdday" after the crucifixion leaves far too short a time for the recovery offaith and the growth of ecstatic feeling which are requisite for thesevisions, even supposing that the disciples' faith had such recuperativepowers. The second is that once such an ecstatic mood was acquired itwould be according to experience in analogous cases for the visions tocontinue, if not to increase, as the thought of the risen Lord grew moreclear and familiar; yet the tradition is uniform that the appearances ofthe risen Christ ceased after, at most, a few weeks. The only later onewas that which led to the conversion of Paul; and though Paul was a mansomewhat given to ecstatic experiences (see II. Cor. Xii. ), he carefullydistinguishes in his own thought his seeing of the Lord and his heavenlyvisions. In a word, the disciples of Jesus never showed a more healthy, normal life than that which gave them strength to found a church ofbelievers in the resurrection in the face of persecution and scorn. 

220. Keim seeks to avoid the difficulties which his own acute criticismdisclosed in the ordinary vision-theory, by another which rejects thegospel stories as legendary, yet frankly acknowledges that the faith ofthe apostles in the resurrection was based on a miracle. Their certaintywas so unshakable, so uniform, so abiding, that it can be accounted foronly 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 theglorified Lord had withdrawn when he died. In his spiritual estate hemanifested himself to his disciples, by a series of divinely caused andtherefore essentially objective visions, in which he proved to themabundantly that he was alive, was victor over death, and had been exaltedby 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 disclosuresof himself to them by the glorified Lord. The difficulty with the theoryis that it relegates the empty tomb to the limbo of legend, though it is afeature of the tradition which is found in all the gospels and clearlyimplied in Paul (I. Cor. Xv. 4; compare Rom. Vi. 4); it also fails to showhow this glorified Christ came to be thought of by the disciples as_risen_, rather than simply glorified in spirit. This criticism brings usback to the necessity of recognizing a resurrection which was in some realsense corporeal, difficult as that conception is for us. The gospelsassert this with great simplicity and delicate reserve. They representJesus as returning to his disciples with a body which was superior to thelimitations which hedge our lives about. It may be well described byPaul'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 tothe 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 inthe 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 possibleconditions of the fully perfected life are not such as to warrant greatdogmatism in criticising the account. The empty tomb, the objectivepresence of the risen Jesus, the renewed faith of his followers, and theirnew power are established data for our thought. With these, many of thedetails may be left in mystery, because we have not yet light sufficientto reveal to us all that we should like to know. 

221. The ascension of the risen Christ to his Father is the presuppositionof all the New Testament teaching. The Acts, the Epistles, and theApocalypse join in the representation that he is now at the right hand ofGod. In fact it may be said that such a view is involved in the doctrineof the resurrection, for the very idea of that victory was that death hadno more dominion over him. It is a fact, however, that none of our gospelsin their correct text (see Luke xxiv. 51, R. V. Margin) tell of theascension. Luke clearly implies it, and John says that Jesus told Mary totell the disciples that he was about to ascend to his Father and theirFather. In Luke's later book, however (Acts i. 1-11), he gives a fullaccount of a last meeting of Jesus with the disciples, and ofhis ascension to heaven before their eyes. This withdrawal in the cloudmust be understood as an acted parable; for, in reality, there is noreason for thinking that the clouds which hung over Olivet that day wereany nearer God's presence than the ground on which the disciples stood. For them, however, such a disappearance would signify vividly thecessation of their earthly intercourse with their Lord, and his return tohis home with the Father. The word of Jesus to Mary (John xx. 17) mayfairly be interpreted to mean that Jesus had ascended to the Father onthe day of the resurrection, and that each of his subsequentmanifestations of himself were like that which later he granted to Paulnear Damascus. In fact it is easier to view the matter in this way than toconceive of Jesus as sojourning in some hidden place for forty days afterhis resurrection. What the disciples witnessed ten days before Pentecostwas a withdrawal similar to those which had separated him from themfrequently during the recent weeks, only now set before their eyes in sucha way as to tell them that these manifestations had reached an end; theymust henceforth wait for the other representative of God and Christ, theSpirit, given to them at Pentecost. 

222. The faith with which the disciples waited for the promised spirit wasa very different faith from that which Peter confessed for his fellows atCæsarea Philippi. It had the same supreme attachment to a personal friendwho had proved to be God's Anointed; the same readiness to let him leadwhithersoever he would; the same firm expectation of a restitution of allthings, in which God should set up his kingdom visibly, with Jesus as theKing of men. Now, however, their trust was much fuller than before, andthey looked for a still more glorious kingdom when their friend and Lordshould come from heaven to assume his reign. They expected Christ toreturn soon in glory, yet his death and victory made them ready to endureany persecution for him, certain that, like the sufferings which heendured, it would lead to victory. These disciples had no idea that inpreaching a religion of personal attachment to their Master, in fillingall men's thoughts with his name, in building all hope on his return, andguiding all life by his teaching and spirit, they were cutting theirmoorings from the religion of their fathers. They remained loyal to thelaw, they were constant in the worship; but they had poured new wine intothe bottles, and in time it proved the inadequacy of the old forms andrevolutionized 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 Baptistappear more clearly than in their attitude towards common social life. John had his training and did his work apart from the homes of men. Thewilderness was his chosen and fit scene of labor. From this solitude hesent forth his summons and warning to his people. They who sought him forfuller teaching went after him and found him where he was. They thenreturned to their homes and their work, leaving the prophet with his fewdisciples in their seclusion. With Jesus it was otherwise. His first act, after attaching to himself a few followers, was to go into Galilee to thetown of Cana, and there with them to partake in the festivities of awedding. 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 howoften his ministry found its occasion as he was sitting at table in thehouse of some friend, real or feigned. The genuine friendships of Jesus asthey appear in the gospels are among the most characteristic features ofhis life--witness the home at Bethany, the women who followed him even tothe cross, and ministered to him of their substance, and the "beloveddisciple. " Jesus calls attention to this contrast between himself andJohn, reminding the people how some of the scornful pointed the finger athimself as "a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans andsinners. " He received his training as a carpenter while John was in hiswilderness solitude. Men who would probably have stood with admirationbefore John had he visited their synagogue, found Jesus too much one ofthemselves, 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. Thesewere revered by the people, in part perhaps because they held the commonfolk in such contempt. Their attitude was frank--"this multitude whichknoweth not the law is accursed" (John vii. 49). The popular enthusiasmfor Jesus filled them with scorn, until it began to give them alarm. Theywere glad to be reverenced by the people, to interpret the law for them"binding heavy burdens and grievous to be borne;" but showed littlegenuine interest in them. Jesus, on the other hand, not only had thereverence of the multitudes, but welcomed them. First his words and hisworks drew them, then he himself enchained their hearts. Outcasts, richand poor, crowded into his company, and found him not only a teacher, aprophet of righteousness rebuking their sins and calling to repentance, but a friend, who was not ashamed to be seen in their homes, to have themamong his closest attendants, and to be known as their champion. It waswhen such as these were pressing upon him to hear him that Jesus repliedto the criticism of the scribes in the three parables of recoveredtreasure which stand among the rarest gems of the Master's teaching (Lukexv. ). 

225. One class only in the community failed of his sympathy, --theself-righteous hypocrites, who thought that godliness consisted inscrupulous regard for pious ceremonies, and that zeal was most laudablewhen directed to the removal of motes from their brothers' eyes. For theseJesus had words of rebuke and burning scorn. It has been common with someto emphasize his friendship for the poor as if he chose them for theirpoverty, and the unlettered for their ignorance. Yet Jesus had no fasterfriends than the women who followed from Galilee and ministered to him oftheir substance, and the two sanhedrists, Joseph whose new tomb receivedhis body, and Nicodemus whose liberality provided the spices whichembalmed him; for these, and not the Galilean fishermen, were faithful tothe last at the cross and at the grave. In no home did Jesus find a fulleror more welcome friendship than in Bethany, where all that is told us ofits conditions suggests the opposite of poverty. The rich young ruler, whoshowed his too great devotion to his possessions, would hardly have soughtout Jesus with his question, if he was known as the champion of poverty asin itself essential to godliness. The demand made of him surprised him, and was suited to his special case. Jesus saw clearly the difficultieswhich wealth puts in the way of faith, but he recognized the power of Godto overcome them, and when Zaccheus turned disciple, the demand forcomplete surrender of possessions was not repeated. On the contrary Jesustaught his disciples that even "the unrighteous mammon" should be used towin friends (Luke xvi. 9), so ministering unto some of "the least of thesemy brethren" (Matt. Xxv. 40). The beatitude in Luke's report of thesermon on the mount (Luke vi. 20) was not for the poor as poor simply, butfor those poor folk lightly esteemed who had spiritual sense enough tofollow Jesus, while the well-to-do as a class were content with the"consolation" already in hand. Jesus' interest was in character, whereverit was manifest, whether in the repentance of a chief of the publicans, orin the widow woman's gift of "all her living;" whether it appeared in thehunger for truth shown by Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, or in the womanthat was a sinner who washed his feet with her tears. He was the greatrevealer of the worth of simple humanity, in man, woman, or child. Ourworld has never seen another who so surely penetrated all masks ordisguising circumstances and found the man himself, and having found himloved him. 

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

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

228. Jesus' interest in common life was genuine, and he entered into itwith his heart. The incident of the anointing of his feet as he sat aguest in a Pharisee's house shows that he was keenly sensitive to thetreatment he received at the hands of men. He had nothing to say of theslights his host had shown him, until that host began mentally tocriticise the woman who was ministering to him in her love and penitence. Then with quiet dignity Jesus mentioned the several omissions of courtesywhich he had noticed since he came in, contrasting the woman's attentionwith Simon's neglect (Luke vii. 36-50). One of the saddest things aboutGethsemane was Jesus' vain pleading with his disciples for sympathy in hisawful hour. They were too much dazed with awe and fear to lend him theirhearts' support. He recognized indeed that it was only a weakness of theflesh; yet he craved their friendship's help, and repeatedly asked them towatch with him, for his soul was exceeding sorrowful. In contrast withthis disappointment stands the joy with which Jesus heard from Peter theconfession which proved that the falling off of popular enthusiasm had notshaken the loyalty of his chosen companions, --"Blessed art thou, SimonBar-Jonah: for flesh and blood have not revealed it unto thee, but myFather which is in heaven" (Matt. Xvi. 17). There is the sorrow ofloneliness 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 (Lukexiii. 34). 

229. The independence of human sympathy which Jesus often showed is allthe more glorious for the evidence the gospels give of his longing forit. When he put the question to the twelve, "Would ye also go away?" (Johnvi. 67), there is no hint in his manner that their defection with the restwould turn him at all from faithfully fulfilling the task appointed to himby his Father. In fact only now and then did he allow his own hunger toappear. Ordinarily he showed himself as the friend longing to help, butnot seeking ministry from others; he rather sought to win his disciples tounselfishness by showing as well as saying that he came not to beministered unto but to minister. He washed the feet of his disciples torebuke their petty jealousies, but we have no hint that he showed that hefelt 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 forthe sympathy of his nearest friends in Gethsemane, yet when the band cameto 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 bywhich he is oftenest named in the gospels is Teacher, --translated Masterin the English versions and the equivalent of Rabbi in the language usedby Jesus (John i. 38). People thought of him as a rabbi approved of God byhis power to work miracles (John iii. 2), but it was not the miracles thatmost impressed them. The popular comment was, "He taught them as onehaving authority, and not as the scribes" (Matt. Vii. 29). Two leadingcharacteristics of the scribes were their pride of learning, and theirbondage to tradition. In fact the learning of which they were proud wasknowledge of the body of tradition on whose sanctity they insisted; theirteaching was scholastic and pedantic, an endless citing of precedents anddiscussion 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, " evenwhen his dictum stood opposed to that which had been said to them of oldtime. 

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 tothe 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 themclearly from their ordinary teachers, and held them both to be prophets. One thing involved in this authoritative method was a frank appeal to theconscience of men. So completely had the scribes substituted memory oftradition for appeal to the simple sense of right, that they were utterlydazed when Jesus undertook to settle questions of Sabbath observance andceremonial cleanliness by asking his hearers to use their religious commonsense, and consider whether a man is not much better than a sheep, orwhether a man is not defiled rather by what comes out of his mouth than bywhat enters into it (Matt. Xii. 12; Mark vii. 15). Jesus was for hisgeneration the great discoverer of the conscience, and for all time thechampion of its dignity against finespun theory and traditional practice. All his teaching has this quality in greater or less degree. It appearswhen by means of the parable of the Good Samaritan he makes the lawyeranswer his own question (Luke x. 25-37), when he bids the multitude inJerusalem "judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteousjudgment" (John vii. 24), when he asks his inquisitors in the temple whoseimage and superscription the coin they used in common business bears (Markxii. 16). His whole work in Galilee was proof of his confidence that inearnest souls the conscience would be his ally, and that he could impresshimself on them far more indelibly than any sign from heaven could enforcehis claim. 

232. Jesus was not only independent of the traditions of the scribes, hewas also very free at times with the letter of the Old Testament. When bya word he "made all meats clean" (Mark vii. 19), he set himself againstthe permanent validity of the Levitical ritual. When the Pharisees pleadedMoses for their authority in the matter of divorce, Jesus referred themback of Moses to the original constitution of mankind (Matt. Xix. 3-9). His general attitude to the Sabbath was not only opposed to the traditionsof the scribes, it also disregarded the Old Testament conception of theSabbath as an institution. Yet Jesus took pains to declare that he camenot to set aside the old but to fulfil it (Matt. V. 17). The contrastswhich 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. Jesusdid not so conceive them. He rather thought of them as fresh statements ofthe idea which underlay the old; they fulfilled the old by realizing morefully that which it had set before an earlier generation. He was the mostradical teacher the men of his day could conceive, but his work wasclearing rubbish away from the roots of venerable truth that it might bearfruit, 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 withits stories and its language. In the teachings which have been preservedfor us he has made use of writings from all parts of the Jewishscriptures--Law, Prophets, and Psalms. The Old Testament furnished him theweapons 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 inhis teaching. When inquirers sought the way of life he pointed them to thescriptures (Mark x. 19; see also John v. 39), and declared that the risingof one from the dead would not avail for the warning of those who wereunmoved by Moses and the prophets (Luke xvi. 31). When Jesus' personalattitude to the Old Testament is considered it is noticeable that whilehis quotations and allusions cover a wide range, and show very generalfamiliarity with the whole book, there appears a decided predominance ofDeuteronomy, the last part of Isaiah, and the Psalms. It is not difficultto see that these books are closer in spirit to his own thought than muchelse in the old writings; his use of the scripture shows that some partsappealed to him more than others. 

234. Jesus as a teacher was popular and practical rather than systematicand theoretical. The freshness of his ideas is proof that he was notlacking in thorough and orderly thinking, for his complete departure fromcurrent conceptions of the kingdom of God indicates perfect mastery ofethical and theological truth. It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that so much of his profoundest teaching seems to have been almostaccidental. The most formal discourse preserved to us is the sermon on themount, in which human conduct is regulated by the thought of God as Fatherand Searcher of hearts. For the rest the great ideas of Jesus haveutterance in response to specific conditions presented to him in hisministry. His most radical sayings concerning the Sabbath followed acriticism of his disciples for plucking ears of grain as they passedthrough the fields on the Sabbath day (Mark ii. 23-28); his authority toforgive sins was announced when a paralytic was brought to him forhealing (Mark ii. 1-12); so far as the gospels indicate, we should havemissed Jesus' clearest statement of the significance of his own death butfor the ambitious request of James and John (Mark x. 35-45). Examples ofthe occasional character of his teaching might be greatly multiplied. Hedid not seek to be the founder of a school; important as his teachingswere, they take a place in his work second to his personal influence onhis followers. He desired to win disciples whose faith in him wouldwithstand all shocks, rather than to train experts who would pass on hisideas to others. His disciples did become experts, for we owe to them thevivid presentation we have of the exalted and unique teaching of theirMaster; but they were thus skilful because they surrendered themselves tohis personal mastery, and learned to know the springs of his own life andthought. 

235. Nothing in the teaching of Jesus is more remarkable than hisconfidence that men who believed in him would adequately represent him andhis message to the world. The parable of the Leaven seems to have setforth his own method. We owe our gospels to no injunction given by him towrite 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 ideasas a photographic plate is to light, teaching them his truth in forms thatdid not at first show any effect on their thought, but were developed intostrength and clearness by the experiences of the passing years. Christianethics and theology are far more than an orderly presentation of theteaching of Jesus; in so far as they are purely Christian they are thesystematic setting forth of truth involved, though not expressed, in whathe said and did in his ministry among men. His ideas were radical andthoroughly revolutionary. His method, however, had in it all the patienceof God's working in nature, and the hidden noiseless power of an evolutionis its characteristic. Hence it was that he chose to teach some thingsexclusively in figure. So great and unfamiliar a truth as the gradualdevelopment of God's kingdom was unwelcome to the thought of his time. Hemade it, therefore, the theme of many of his parables; and although thedisciples did not understand what he meant, the picture remained withthem, and in after years they grew up to his idea. 

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

237. Another figure has become almost identified with the name ofJesus, --such abundant and incomparable use did he make of it. Parablewas, however, no invention of his, for the rabbis of his own and latertimes, as well as the sages and prophets who went before them, made use ofit. As distinguished from other forms of illustration, the parable is apicture true to actual human life, used to enforce a religious truth. Thepicture 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 parableof the Leaven (Matt. Xiii. 33); but it always retains its character as anarrative true to human experience. It is this that gives parable thepeculiar value it has for religious teaching, since it brings unfamiliartruth close home to every-day life. Like all the illustrations used byJesus, the parable was ordinarily chosen as a means of making clear thespiritual truth which he was presenting. Illustration never finds place asmere ornament in his addresses. His parables, however, were sometimes usedto baffle the unteachable and critical. Such was the case on the occasionin Jesus' life when attention is first called in the gospels to this modeof teaching (Mark iv. 1-34). The parable of the Sower would mean little tohearers who held the crude and material ideas of the kingdom whichprevailed among Jesus' contemporaries. It was used as an invitation toconsider a great truth, and for teachable disciples was full of suggestionand meaning; while for the critical curiosity of unfriendly hearers it wasonly a pointless story, --a means adopted by Jesus to save his pearls frombeing trampled under foot, and perhaps also to prevent too early adecision against him on the part of his opponents. 

238. In nothing is Jesus' ease in handling deepest truth more apparentthan in his use of irony and hyperbole in his illustrations. In hisreference to the Pharisees as "ninety and nine just persons which need norepentance" (Luke xv. 7), and in his question, "Many good works have Ishewed 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 rhetoricalexaggeration of his accusation against the scribes, "You strain out a gnatand swallow a camel" (Matt, xxiii. 24), or his declaration that "it iseasier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man toenter into the kingdom of God" (Mark x. 25), or his charge, "If a mancometh unto me and hateth not his own father and mother . .. He cannot bemy disciple" (Luke xiv. 26). The force of these statements is in theirhyperbole. Only to an interpretation which regards the letter above thespirit can they cause difficulty. In so far as they remove Jesus utterlyfrom the pedantic carefulness for words which marked the scribes they areamong the rare treasures of his teachings. The simple spirit will not busyitself about finding something that may be called a needle's eye throughwhich a camel can pass by squeezing, nor will it seek a camel which couldconceivably be swallowed, nor will it stumble at a seeming command to hatethose 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 ofGod's kingdom readily understands this warning against the snare ofriches, this rebuke of the hypocritical life, and this demand for a lovefor the Master which shall take the first place in the heart. 

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

240. The simplicity and homeliness of Jesus' teaching are not moreremarkable than the alertness of mind which he showed on all occasions. The comment of the fourth gospel, "he needed not that any one should bearwitness concerning man, for he himself knew what was in man" (ii. 25), doubtless refers to his supernatural insight, but it also tells of hisquick perception of what was involved in each situation in which he foundhimself. Whether it was Nicodemus coming to him by night, or the lawyerasking, "Who is my neighbor?" or a dissatisfied heir demanding that hisbrother divide the inheritance with him, or a group of Pharisees seekingto undermine his power by attributing his cures to the devil, or trying toentrap him by a question about tribute, Jesus was never caught unawares. His absorption in heavenly truth was not accompanied by any blindness toearthly facts. He knew what the men of his day were thinking about, whatthey hoped for, to what follies they gave their hearts, and what sins hidGod from them. He was eminently a man of the people, thoroughly acquaintedwith all that interested his fellows, and in the most natural, human way. Whatever of the supernatural there was in his knowledge did not make itunnatural. As he was socially at ease with the best and most cultivatedof his day, so he was intellectually the master of every situation. Thisappears nowhere more strikingly than in his dealing with his pharisaiccritics. When they were shocked by his forgiveness of sins, or offended byhis indifference to the Sabbath tradition, or goaded into blasphemy by hisgrowing influence over the people, or troubled by his disciples' disregardof the traditional washings, or when later they conspired to entrap him inhis speech, --from first to last he was so manifestly superior to hisopponents that they withdrew discomfited, until at length they in madnesskilled, without reason, him against whom they could find no adequatecharge. His lack of "learning" (John vii. 15) was simply his innocence ofrabbinic training; he had no diploma from their schools. In keenness ofargument, however, and invincibleness of reasoning, as well as in theclearness of his insight, he was ever their unapproachable superior. Hisreply to the charge of league with Beelzebub is as merciless an exposureof feeble malice as can be found in human literature. He was as worthy tobe 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, --theKingdom of God, and Himself. His thought about himself calls for separateconsideration, but it may be remarked here that as his ministry progressedhe spoke with increasing frankness about his own claims. It became moreand 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 ideaswere constantly urged on his disciples, and they were summed up in hisconception of the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of heaven. This was thetopic, directly or indirectly, of far the greater part of his teaching. The phrase was as familiar to his contemporaries as it is common in hiswords; but his understanding of it was radically different from theirs. Heand 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 theyconceived quite differently. Strictly speaking there is nothing novel inthe idea of God as Father which abounds in the teaching of Jesus. He neveroffers it as novel, but takes it for granted that his hearers are familiarwith the name. It appears in some earlier writers both in and out of theOld Testament. Yet no one of them uses it as constantly, as naturally, andas confidently as did Jesus. With him it was the simple equivalent of hisidea of God, and it was central for his personal religious life as well asfor his teaching. "My Father" always lies back of references in histeaching to "your Father. " This is the key to what is novel in Jesus' ideaof the kingdom of God. His contemporaries thought of God as the covenantking of Israel who would in his own time make good his promises, rid hispeople of their foes, set them on high among the nations, establish hislaw in their hearts, and rule over them as their king. The wholeconception, while in a real sense religious, was concerned more with thenation than with individuals, and looked rather for temporal blessingsthan for spiritual good. With Jesus the kingdom is the realization ofGod's fatherly sway over the hearts of his children. It begins when mencome to own God as their Father, and seek to do his will for the lovethey bear him. It shows development towards its full manifestation whenmen as children of God look on each other as brothers, and govern conductby love which will no more limit itself to friends than God shuts off hissunlight from sinners. From this love to God and men it will grow into anew 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 notset aside the idea of a judgment, but while his fellows commonly made itthe inauguration, he made it the consummation of the kingdom; they thoughtof it as the day of confusion for apostates and Gentiles, he taught thatit 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 tolove and obey God as their Father, and to love and live for men as theirbrothers--attaches to itself naturally all the various phases of theteaching of Jesus, including his emphasis on himself; for he made thatemphasis in order that, as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, he might leadmen unto the Father. 

III

Jesus' Knowledge of Truth

242. The note of authority in the teaching of Jesus is evidence of his ownclear 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 theunderlying truth which should stand till heaven and earth shall pass(Matt. V. 18); in the ceremonies of his people's religion he saw soclearly the spiritual significance that he did not hesitate to sacrificethe passing form (Mark vii. 14-23); such a theological development as thepharisaic doctrine of the resurrection he unhesitatingly adopted becausehe saw that it was based on the ultimate significance of the soul'sfellowship with God (Mark xiii. 24-27); he reduced religion and ethics tosimplicity 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 doneon the finality of conduct and the necessity of obedience (Matt. Vii. 21-27). His penetration to the heart of an idea was nowhere more clearthan in his doctrine of the kingdom of God as realized in the filial soul, and as involving a judgment which should take cognizance only ofbrotherliness of conduct. It would not be difficult to show that all thesedifferent aspects of his teaching grew naturally out of his knowledge ofGod 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 spiritualtruth, it would still have marked him as one apart from ordinary men. There were other directions, however, in which he surpassed the commonmind. The fourth gospel declares that "he knew what was in man" (ii. 25), and all the evangelists give evidence of such knowledge. Not only thedesignation of Judas as the traitor, and of Peter as the one who shoulddeny him, before their weakness and sin had shown themselves, but alsoJesus' quick reading of the heart of the paralytic who was brought to himfor 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 andNathanael (John i. 42, 47, ) as well as his sure perception of the intentof the various questioners whom he met, indicate that he had powers ofinsight unshared by his fellow men. 

244. Furthermore, the gospels state explicitly that Jesus predicted hisown 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 firstcommunicated it to his disciples (Matt. Xvi. 23; Mark ii. 20). He viewedhis approaching death, moreover, as a necessity (Mark viii. 31-33), yet hewas no fatalist concerning it. He could still in Gethsemane plead with hisFather, to whom all things are possible, to open to him some other way ofaccomplishing his work (Mark xiv. 36). The old Testament picture of thesuffering and dying servant of Jehovah (Isa. Liii. ) was doubtlessfamiliar to Jesus. Although it was not interpreted Messianically by thescribes, Jesus probably applied it to himself when thinking of his death;yet the predictions of the prophets always provided for a non-fulfilmentin case Israel should turn unto the Lord in truth (see Ezek. Xxxiii. 10-20). Moreover, the contradiction which Jesus felt between his ideas andthose cherished by the leaders of his people, whether priests or scribes, was so radical that his death might well seem inevitable; yet it waspossible that his people might repent, and Jerusalem consent to accept himas God's anointed. Neither prophecy, nor the actual conditions of hislife, therefore, would give Jesus any fatalistic certainty of his comingdeath. In Gethsemane his heart pleaded against it, while his will bowedstill to God in perfect loyalty. It is not for us to explain hisprediction of death by appealing to the connection which the apostolicthought established between the death of Christ and the salvation of men, for we are not competent to say that God could not have effectedredemption in some other way if the repentance of the Jews had, humanlyspeaking, removed from Jesus the necessity of death. All that can be saidis that he knew the prophetic picture, knew also the hardness of heartwhich had taken possession of the Jews, and knew that he must not swervefrom 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 prejudiceand passion, he saw that he must die, and that such a death was one of thesteps in his establishment of God's kingdom among men. So he went on hisway ready "not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give hislife a ransom for many" (Mark x. 45). 

245. With his prediction of his death the gospels usually associate aprophecy of his speedy resurrection. As has been already remarked (sect. 210), it is being generally recognized that if Jesus believed that he wasthe Messiah, he must have associated with the thought of death that ofvictory over death, which for all Jewish minds meant a resurrection fromthe dead. Jesus certainly taught that his death was part of his Messianicwork, it could not therefore be his end. The prediction of theresurrection is the necessary corollary of his expectation of death; andit may reverently be believed that his knowledge of it was intimatelyinvolved 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 hiswork, but that he should return in glory from heaven to realize fully allthat was involved in the idea of God's kingdom. His predictions resemblein form the representations found in the Book of Daniel and the Book ofEnoch; and the understanding of them is involved in difficulties likethose which beset such apocalyptic writings. In general, apocalypses werewritten in times of great distress for God's people, and represented thedeliverance which should usher in God's kingdom as near at hand. Onefeature of them is a complete lack of perspective in the picture of thefuture. It may be that this fact will in part account for one greatperplexity in the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus. In the chief of these(Mark xiii. And parallels), predictions of the destruction of Jerusalemare so mingled with promises of his own second coming and the end of allthings that many have sought to resolve the difficulty by separating thediscourse into two different ones, --one a short Jewish apocalypsepredicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of the Son of Manwithin the life of that generation; the other, Jesus' own prediction ofthe end of all things, concerning which he warns his disciples that theybe not deceived, but watch diligently and patiently for God's fullsalvation. The difficulties of this discourse as it stands are so greatthat any solution which accounts for all the facts must be welcomed. Sofar as this analysis seeks to remove from the account of Jesus' own wordsthe references to a fulfilment of the predictions within the life of thatgeneration, it is confronted by other sayings of Jesus (Mark ix. 1) and bythe problem of the uniform belief of the apostolic age that he wouldspeedily return. That belief must have had some ground. What more naturalthan that words of Jesus, rightly or wrongly understood, led to the commonChristian expectation? Some such analysis may yet establish itself as thetrue solution of the difficulties; it may be, however, that in adoptingthe apocalyptic form of discourse, Jesus also adopted its lack ofperspective, and spoke coincidently of future events in the progress ofthe kingdom, which, in their complete realization at least, were widelyseparated in time. In such a case it would not be strange if the discipleslooked for the fulfilment of all of the predictions within the limitassigned for the accomplishment of some of them. 

247. Whatever the explanation of these difficulties, the gospels clearlyrepresent Jesus as predicting his own return in glory to establish hiskingdom, --a crowning evidence of his claim to supernatural knowledge. Itis all the more significant, therefore, that it is in connection with hisprediction of his future coming that he made the most definite declarationof his own ignorance: "Of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not eventhe angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark xiii. 32). This confession of the limitation of his knowledge is conclusive. Yet itis not isolated. With his undoubted power to read "what was in man, " hewas not independent of ordinary ways of learning facts. When the woman washealed who touched the hem of his garment, Jesus knew that his power hadbeen exercised, but he discovered the object of his healing by asking, "Who touched me?" and calling the woman out from the crowd to acknowledgeher blessing (Mark v. 30-34); when the centurion urged Jesus to heal hisboy without taking the trouble to come to his house, Jesus "marvelled" athis faith (Matt. Viii. 10); when he came to Bethany, assured of hisFather's answer to his prayer for the raising of Lazarus, he asked assimply as any other one in the company, "Where have ye laid him?" (Johnxi. 34). It should not be forgotten that his knowledge of approachingdeath, resurrection, and return in glory did not prevent the earnestpleading in Gethsemane, and it may be that his reply to the ambition ofJames and John, it "is not mine to give" (Mark x. 40), is a confession ofignorance as well as subordination to his Father. 

248. The supernatural knowledge of Jesus, so far as its exercise isapparent in the gospels, was concerned with the truths intimately relatedto his religious teaching or his Messianic work. There is no evidencethat it occupied itself at all with facts of nature or of historydiscovered by others at a later day. When he says of God that "he makethhis sun to rise on the evil and the good" (Matt. V. 45), there is noevidence that he thought of the earth and its relation to the sundifferently from his contemporaries; it is probable that his thoughtanticipated Galileo's discovery no more than do his words. Much the samemay be said with reference to the purely literary or historical questionsof Old Testament criticism, now so much discussed. If it is proved by justinterpretation of all the facts that the Pentateuch is only in an idealsense to be attributed to Moses, and that many of the psalms inscribedwith his name cannot have been written by David, the propriety of Jesus'references to what "Moses said" (Mark vii. 10), and the validity of hisargument for the relative unimportance of the Davidic descent of theMessiah, will not suffer. Had Jesus had in mind the ultimate factsconcerning the literary structure of the Pentateuch, he could not havehoped to hold the attention of his hearers upon the religious teaching hewas seeking to enforce, unless he referred to the early books of the OldTestament as written by Moses. Jesus did repeatedly go back of Moses tomore primitive origins (Mark x. 5, 6; John vii. 22); yet there is nolikelihood that the literary question was ever present in his thinking. This phase of his intellectual life, like that which concerned hisknowledge of the natural universe, was in all probability one of thepoints in which he was made like unto his brethren, sharing, as matter ofcourse, their views on questions that were indifferent for the spiritualmission he came to fulfil. If this was the case, his argument from the onehundred and tenth Psalm (Mark xii. 35-37) would simply give evidence thathe accepted the views of his time concerning the Psalm, and proceeded touse it to correct other views of his time concerning what was of mostimportance in the doctrine of the Messiah. The last of these was of vitalimportance for his teaching; the first was for this teaching quite asindifferent a matter as the relations of the earth and the sun in thesolar system. 

249. A more perplexing difficulty arises from his handling of the cases ofso-called demoniac possession. He certainly treated these invalids as ifthey were actually under the control of demons: he rebuked, banished, gavecommands to the demons, and in this way wrought his cures upon thepossessed. It has already been remarked that the symptoms shown in thecases cured by Jesus can be duplicated from cases of hysteria, epilepsy, or insanity, which have come under modern medical examination. Threequestions then arise concerning his treatment of the possessed. 1. Did heunquestioningly share the interpretation which his contemporaries put uponthe symptoms, and simply bring relief by his miraculous power? 2. Did heknow that those whom he healed were not afflicted by evil spirits, andaccommodate himself in his cures to their notions? 3. Does he prove by histreatment that the unfortunates actually were being tormented bydiabolical agencies, which he banished by his word? The last of thesepossibilities should not be held to be impossible until much more is knownthan we now know about the mysterious phenomena of abnormal psychicalstates. If this is the explanation of the maladies for Jesus' day, however, it should be accepted also as the explanation of similar abnormalsymptoms when they appear in our modern life, for the old hypothesis of aspecial activity of evil spirits at the time of the incarnation isinadequate to account for the fact that in some quarters similar maladieshave been similarly explained from the earliest times until the presentday. If, however, he knew his people to be in error in ascribing theseafflictions to diabolical influence, he need have felt no call to correctit. If the disease had been the direct effect of such a delusion, Jesuswould have encouraged the error by accommodating himself to the popularnotion. The idea of possession, however, was only an attempt to explainvery real distress. Jesus desired to cure, not to inform his patients. Thenotion in no way interfered with his turning the thought of those hehealed 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 ofsuperstition if he accommodated himself to their belief concerningdemoniac possession. His cure, and his infusion of true thoughts of Godinto the heart, furnished an antidote to superstition more efficaciousthan any amount of discussion of the truth or falseness of the currentexplanation of the disease. On the other hand, if we are not ready toconclude that the action of Jesus has demonstrated the validity of theancient explanation, we may acknowledge that it would do no violence tohis power, or dignity, or integrity, if it should be held that he did notconcern himself with an inquiry into the cause of the disease whichpresented itself to him for help, but adopted unquestioningly theexplanation held by all his contemporaries, even as he used theirlanguage, dress, manner of life, and in one particular, at least, theirrepresentation 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 asthe explanation of a common disease he simply shared the ideas of histime. In this case, when one so afflicted came under his treatment, heapplied his supernatural power, even as in cases of leprosy or fever, andcured the trouble, needing no scientific knowledge of its cause. Ifaccommodation or ignorance led Jesus to treat these sick folk aspossessed, it does not challenge his integrity nor his trustworthiness inall the matters which belong properly to his own peculiar work. 

250. There is one incident in the gospels which favors the conclusion thatJesus definitely adopted the current idea, --the permission granted by himto the demons to go from the Gadarene into the herd of swine, and theconsequent drowning of the herd (Mark v. 11-13). On any theory thisincident is full of difficulty. Bernhard Weiss (LXt II. 226 ff. ) holdsthat Jesus accommodated himself to current views, and that the man, havingreceived for the possessing demons permission to go into the swine, was atonce seized by a final paroxysm, and rushed among the swine, stampedingthem so that they ran down the hillside into the sea. 

251. In recent years the view has been somewhat widely advocated that hispower over demoniacs was to Jesus himself one of the chief proofs of hisMessiahship. His words are quoted: "If I, by the Spirit of God, cast outdemons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you" (Matt. Xii. 28); and "Ibeheld Satan falling as lightning from heaven" (Luke x. 18). The first ofthese is in the midst of an _ad hominem_ reply of Jesus to the charge thathe owed his power to a league with the devil (Matt. Xii. 28); and thesecond was his remark when the seventy reported with joy that the demonswere subject unto them (Luke x. 18). The gospels, however, trace hiscertainty of his Messiahship to quite other causes, primarily to hisknowledge of himself as God's child, then to the Voice which, coming atthe baptism, summoned him as God's beloved Son to do the work of theMessiah. Throughout his ministry Jesus exhibits a certainty of his missionquite independent of external evidences, --"Even if I bear witness ofmyself, 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 Philippihe brought into prominence the question which during the earlier stages ofthe Galilean ministry he had studiously kept in the background. This is noindication, however, that he was late in reaching a conclusion for himselfconcerning his relation to the kingdom which he was preaching. From thetime of his baptism and temptation every manifestation of the inner factsof his life shows unhesitating confidence in the reality of his call andin his understanding of his mission. This is the case whether the fourthgospel or the first three be appealed to for evidence. It is generallyfelt that the Gospel of John presents its sharpest contrast to thesynoptic gospels in respect of the development of Jesus' self-disclosures. A careful consideration of the first three gospels, however, shows thatthe difference is not in Jesus' thought about himself. 

253. The first thing which impressed the people during the ministry inGalilee was Jesus' assumption of authority, whether in teaching or inaction (Mark i. 27; Matt. Vii. 28, 29). His method of teachingdistinguished him sharply from the scribes, who were constantly appealingto the opinion of the elders to establish the validity of theirconclusions. Jesus taught with a simple "I say unto you. " In this, however, he differed not only from the scribes, but also from theprophets, to whom in many ways he bore so strong a likeness. Theyproclaimed their messages with the sanction of a "Thus saith the Lord;" hedid not hesitate to oppose the letter of scripture as well as thetradition of the elders with his unsupported word (Matt. V. 38, 39; Markvii. 1-23). His teaching revealed his unhesitating certainty concerningspiritual truth, and although he reverenced deeply the Jewish scriptures, and knew that his work was the fulfilment of their promises, he used themalways as one whose superiority to God's earlier messengers was ascomplete as his reverence for them. He was confident that what theysuggested of truth he was able to declare clearly; he used them as amaster does his tools. 

254. More striking than Jesus' independence in his teaching is thecalmness of his self-assertion when he was opposed by pharisaic criticismand hostility. He preferred to teach the truth of the kingdom, working hiscures in such a way that men should think about God's goodness rather thantheir healer's significance. Yet coincidently with this method of hischoice he did not hesitate to reply to pharisaic opposition withunqualified self-assertion and exalted personal claim. Even if theconflicts 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, thenucleus of the group belongs to the early time. Since the people greatlyreverenced his critics, he felt it unnecessary to guard against arousingundue enthusiasm by this frank avowal of his claims. He consequentlyasserted his authority to forgive sins, his special mission to the sick insoul whom the scribes shunned as defiling, his right to modify theconception of Sabbath observance; even as, later, he warned his critics oftheir fearful danger if they ascribed his good deeds to diabolical power(Mark iii. 28-30), and as, after the collapse of popularity, he rebukedthem for making void the word of God by their tradition (Mark vii. 13). His attitude to the scribes in Galilee from the beginning discloses asdefinite Messianic claims as any ascribed by the fourth gospel to thisearly period. 

255. These facts of the independence of Jesus in his teaching and hisself-assertion in response to criticism confirm the impression that hisanswer to John the Baptist (Matt. Xi. 2-6) gives the key to his method inGalilee. In John's inquiry the question of Jesus' personal relation to thekingdom was definitely asked. The answer, "Blessed is he whosoever shallfind none occasion of stumbling in me, " showed plainly that Jesus was inno doubt in the matter, although for the time he still preferred to lethis ministry be the means of leading men to form their conclusionsconcerning him. What he brought into prominence at Cæsarea Philippi, therefore, was that which had been the familiar subject of his ownthinking from the time of his baptism. 

256. In the ministry subsequent to the confession of Peter theself-disclosures of Jesus became more frequent and clear. His predictionsof his approaching death were at the time the greatest difficulty to hisdisciples; when considered in their significance for his own life, however, they prove that his conviction of his Messiahship was asindependent of current and inherited ideas as was his teaching concerningthe kingdom. When he came to see that death was the inevitable issue ofhis work, he at once discovered in it a divine necessity; it does not seemto have shaken in the least his certainty that he was the Messiah. Associated with this conception of his death is the conviction whichappears in all the later teachings, that in rejecting him his people werepronouncing their own doom. Because she would not accept him as herdeliverer, Jerusalem's "house was left unto her desolate" (Luke xiii. 35). His sense of his supreme significance appears most clearly in some of thelater 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 thecondemnation of the chosen people with their rejection of God's Son. Twoother sayings in the first three gospels express the personal claim ofJesus in the most exalted form, --his declaration on the return of theseventy: "All things have been delivered unto me of my Father, and no manknoweth who the Son is save the Father, and who the Father is save theSon, 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: "Butof that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark xiii. 32). The confession ofignorance, by the position given to the Son in the climax which deniedthat any save the Father had a knowledge of the time of the end, is quiteas extraordinary as the claim to sole qualification to reveal the Father. 

257. The similarity of these last two sayings to the discourses in thefourth gospel has often been remarked; the likeness is particularly closebetween them and the claims of Jesus recorded in the fifth chapter ofJohn. It is interesting to note that in the incident which introduces thediscourse in that chapter Jesus shows that he preferred, after healing theman at the pool, to avoid the attention of the multitudes, precisely as inGalilee he sought to check too great popular excitement by withdrawingfrom Capernaum after his first ministry there (Mark i. 35-39), andenjoining silence on the leper who had been healed by him (Mark ii. 44). When, however, he found himself opposed by the criticism of the Phariseeshe spoke with unhesitating self-assertion and exalted personal claim, evenas he did in like situations in Galilee. During his earlier ministry inJudea he had not shown this reserve. The cleansing of the temple, althoughit was no more than any prophet sure of his divine commission would havedone, was a bold challenge to the people to consider who he was whoventured thus to criticise the priestly administration of God's house. Inhis subsequent dealings with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman Jesusmanifested a like readiness to draw attention to himself. From the time ofthe feeding of the multitudes all four of the gospels represent him asasserting his claims, with this difference, however, that in John it isthe rule rather than the exception to find sayings similar to the two inwhich the self-assertion in the other gospels reaches its highestexpression. Although the method of Jesus varied at different times and indifferent localities, yet it is evident that he stood before the peoplefrom the first with the consciousness that he had the right to claimtheir allegiance as no one of the prophets who preceded him would havebeen bold to do. 

258. During the course of his ministry Jesus used of himself, or sufferedothers to use with reference to him, many of the titles by which hispeople were accustomed to refer to the Messiah. Thus he was named "theMessiah" (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 evidentthat none of these titles was common; they represent, rather, the boldventure of more or less intelligent faith on the part of men who wereimpressed by him. There are two names, however, that are more significantof 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 NewTestament only in the sayings of Jesus, and its precise significance isstill a subject of learned debate. The expression is found in the OldTestament as a poetical equivalent for Man, usually with emphasis on humanfrailty (Ps. Viii. 4; Num. Xxiii. 19; Isa. Li. 12), though sometimes itsignifies special dignity (Ps. Lxxx. 17). Ezekiel was regularly addressedin 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 hadoppressed God's people and were to be destroyed were symbolized by beaststhat came up out of the sea, --a winged lion, a bear, a four-headed wingedleopard, and a terrible ten-horned beast; in contrast with these thekingdom of the saints of the Most High was represented by "one like unto ason of man, " who came with the clouds of heaven (vii. 13, 14). Here thelanguage is obviously poetic, and is used to suggest the unapproachablesuperiority of the kingdom of heaven to the kingdoms of the world. Theexpression "one like unto a son of man" is equivalent, therefore, to "oneresembling mankind. " The vision in Daniel had great influence over theauthor of the so-called Similitudes of Enoch (Book of Enoch, chaptersxxxvii. To lxxi. ). He, however, personified the "one like unto a son ofman, " and gave the title "the Son of Man" to the heavenly man who willcome 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 forthe Messiah in these Similitudes. 

261. The facts thus stated do not account for Jesus' use of theexpression. Many of his sayings undoubtedly suggest a development of theDaniel vision resembling that in the Similitudes. This does not prove thatJesus or his disciples had read these writings, though it does suggest thepossibility that they knew them. It is probable, however, that theapocalypses gave formulated expression to thoughts that were more widelycurrent than those writings ever came to be. The likeness between thelanguage of Jesus and that found in the Similitudes may therefore prove nomore than that the Daniel vision was more or less commonly interpreted ofa personal Messiah in Jesus' day. 

262. Much of the use of the title by Jesus, however, is completely foreignto the ideas suggested by Enoch and Daniel. Besides apocalyptic sayingslike those in Enoch (Mark viii. 38 and often), the name occurs inpredictions of his sufferings and death (Mark viii. 31 and often), and inclaims 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 Enochwritings, therefore, the name "the Son of Man" as he used it was his owncreation. 

263. Students of Aramaic have in recent years asserted that it was notcustomary 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, thatif our gospels be read substituting "man" for "the Son of Man" wherever itappears, it will be found that many supposed Messianic claims becomegeneral statements of Jesus' conception of the high prerogatives of man, while in other places the name stands simply as an emphatic substitute forthe personal pronoun. Thus, for instance, Jesus is found to assert thatauthority 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 mustmeet with suffering (Mark viii. 31), and will come on the clouds to judgethe world (Mark viii. 38). The proportion of cases in which the generalreference is possible is, however, very small; and even if theequivalence of "man" and "son of man" should be established, most of thestatements of Jesus in which our gospels use the latter expression exhibita conception of himself which challenges attention, transcending thatwhich would be tolerated in any other man. The debate concerning the usagein the language spoken by Jesus is not yet closed, however, and Dr. GustafDalman (WJ I. 191-197) has recently argued that the equivalence of the twoexpressions holds only in poetic passages, precisely as it does in Hebrew, and that our gospels represent correctly a distinction observed by Jesuswhen they report him, for instance, as saying in one sentence, "theSabbath was made for man" (Mark ii. 27), and in the next, "the Son of Manis lord even of the Sabbath. " The antecedent probability is so great thatthe dialect of Jesus' time would be capable of expressing a distinctionfound in the Hebrew of the Old Testament and in the Syriac of thesecond-century version of the New Testament, that Dalman's opinion carriesmuch weight. 

264. Many of those who look for a distinct significance in the title "theSon 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 sharplyin contrast with "the Son of God, " which is held to express his claim todivinity. So understood, the titles represent truth early recognized bythe church in its thought about its Lord. Yet it must be acknowledged thatthe conception "the ideal man" is too Hellenic to have been at home in thethought of those to whom Jesus addressed his teaching. If the phrasesuggested anything more to his hearers than the human frailty or thehuman dignity of him who bore it, it probably had a Messianic meaning likethat found in the Similitudes of Enoch. A hint of this understanding ofthe name appears in the perplexed question reported in John (xii. 34): "Wehave heard out of the law that the Messiah abideth forever; and how sayestthou, The Son of Man must be lifted up? who is this Son of Man?" Here thedifficulty arose because the people identified the Son of Man with theMessiah, yet could not conceive how such a Messiah could die. In fact, ifthe conception of the Son of Man which is found in Enoch had obtained anygeneral currency among the people, either from that book or independentlyof it, it was so foreign to the earthly condition and manner of life ofthe Galilean prophet, that it would not have occurred to his hearers totreat his use of the title as a Messianic claim until after that claim hadbeen published in some other and more definite form. Their Son of Man wasto come with the clouds of heaven, seated on God's throne, to executejudgment on all sinners and apostates; the Nazarene fulfilled none ofthese conditions. The name, as used by Jesus, was probably always anenigma to the people, at least until he openly declared its Messianicsignificance in his reply to the high-priest's question at his trial (Markxiv. 62), and gave the council the ground it desired for a charge ofblasphemy against him. 

265. What did this title signify to Jesus? His use of it alone can furnishanswer, 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 ownlife in contrast with John the Baptist (Matt. Xi. 18, 19). "The Son ofMan hath not where to lay his head" was his reply to one over-zealousfollower (Matt. Viii. 20). Unseemly rivalry among his disciples wasrebuked by the reminder that "even the Son of Man came not to beministered unto but to minister" (Mark x. 42-45). When it became needfulto prepare the disciples for his approaching death he taught them that"the Son of Man must suffer many things . .. And be killed, and after threedays rise again" (Mark viii. 31). On the other hand, the paralytic's curewas made to demonstrate that "the Son of Man hath authority upon the earthto forgive sins" (Mark ii. 10). Similarly it is the Son of Man who afterhis exaltation shall come "in the glory of his Father with the holyangels" (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 anddeath which were the common lot of other sons of men were appointed forthis Son of Man by a divine necessity. The name is, therefore, more than asubstitute for the personal pronoun; it expresses Jesus' consciousness ofa mission that set him apart from the rest of men. 

266. We do not know how Jesus came to adopt this title. Its associationwith the predictions of his coming glory shows that he knew that in himthe Daniel vision was to have fulfilment. The predictions of suffering anddeath, however, are completely foreign to that apocalyptic conception, being akin rather, as Professor Charles has suggested, to the propheciesof 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 toheavenly authority a hint of the thought of the eighth Psalm, "Thou madesthim to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all thingsunder his feet" (see Dalman WJ I. 218). Although the name expresses aconsciousness of dignity, vicarious ministry, and authority, similar tothoughts found in Daniel, Isaiah, and the Psalms, it was not deduced fromthese scriptures by any synthesis of diverse ideas. It rather indicatesthat Jesus in his own nature realized a synthesis which no amount of studyof scripture would ever have suggested. He drew his conception of himselffrom his own self-knowledge, not from his Messianic meditations. On hislips, then, "the Son of Man" indicates that he knew himself to be the Manwhom God had chosen to be Lord over all (compare Dalman as above). Thelowly estate which contradicted the Daniel vision prevented Jesus' hearersfrom recognizing in the title a Messianic claim; for him, however, it wasthe expression of the very heart of his Messianic consciousness. 

267. If Jesus gave expression to his official consciousness when he usedthe name "the Son of Man, " the title "the Son of God" may be said toexpress his more personal thought about himself. It is necessary todistinguish between the meaning of this title to the contemporaries ofJesus and his own conception of it. In the popular thought "the Son ofGod" was the designation of that man whom God would at length raise up andcrown with dignity and power for the deliverance of his people. Thismeaning followed from the Messianic interpretation of the second Psalm, inwhich the theocratic king is called God's son (Ps. Ii. 7). In anotherpsalm, which Jesus himself quotes (John x. 34), magistrates and judges arecalled "sons of the Most High" (lxxxii. 6). Another Old Testament usecasts light on this, --the designation of Israel as God's son, hisfirstborn (Ex. Iv. 22; Hos. I. 10), with which may be compared aremarkable expression in the so-called Psalms of Solomon (xviii. 4), "Thychastisement was upon us [that is, Israel] as upon a son, firstborn, onlybegotten. " In all these passages that which constitutes a man the son ofGod is God's choice of him for a special work, while Israel collectivelybears the title to suggest God's fatherly love for the people he had takenfor his own. The Messianic title, therefore, described not a metaphysical, but an official or ethical, relation to God. It is certainly in this sensethat the high-priest asked Jesus "Art thou the Messiah the son of theBlessed?" (Mark xiv. 61), and that the crowd about the cross flung theirtaunts at him (Matt, xxvii. 43), and the demoniacs proclaimed theirknowledge of him (Mark iii. 11; v. 7). The name must be interpreted inthis sense also in the confession of Nathanael (John i. 49); moreover, itwas not the coupling of the names "Messiah" and "son of the living God" inPeter's confession that gave it its great significance for Jesus. In allof these cases there is no evidence that there has been any advance overthe theocratic significance which made the title "the Son of God" fittingfor 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 hisbaptism (Mark i. 11). The difference here, however, arises not fromanything in the name as used on this occasion, but from that in Jesuswhich acknowledged and accepted the title. With Jesus the consciousnessthat God was his Father preceded the knowledge that as "his Son" he was toundertake the work of the Messiah. The force of the call at the baptism isfound in the response which his own soul gave to the word "Thou art mySon. " The nature of that response is seen in his habitual reference to Godas in a peculiar sense _his_ Father. The name "Father" for God was used byhim in all his teaching, and there is no evidence that he or any of hishearers regarded it as a novelty. Psalm ciii. 13 and Isaiah lxiii. 16indicate that the conception was natural to Jewish thinking. The uniquefeature in Jesus' usage is his careful distinction between the generalreferences to "your Father" and his constant personal allusions to "myFather. " Witness the reply to his mother in the temple (Luke ii. 49); hisword to Peter, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but myFather which is in heaven" (Matt. Xvi. 17), his solemn warning, "Not everyone 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 . .. Himwill I also confess before my Father" (Matt. X. 32). In the fourth gospelthe same intimate reference is common: so, for example, the temple is "myFather's house" (ii. 16), the Sabbath cure is defended because "my Fatherworketh 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). Thismode of expression discloses a consciousness of unique filial relation toGod which is independent of, even as it was antecedent to, theconsciousness of official relation. 

269. The full name "the Son of God" was seldom applied by Jesus tohimself, 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 thetitle 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 preferredthe simpler phrase "the Son. " This mode of expression occurs often inJohn, and is found also in the two passages, already noticed, in which theother gospels give clearest expression to the extraordinary self-assertionof Jesus (Matt. Xi. 27; Luke x. 22; and Mark xiii. 32). In the first ofthem his claim to be the only one who can adequately reveal God is foundedon the consciousness that the relation between himself and God is sointimate that God alone adequately knows him, whom men were so ready toset at nought, and he alone knows God. This relation, in which he and Godstand together in contrast with all other men, is expressed by theunqualified names, "the Father" and "the Son. " In the second passage Jesusconfessed the limitation of his knowledge, but again in such a way as toset himself and God in contrast not only with men, but also with "theangels in heaven. " Such assertions as these indicate that he who, knowinghis full humanity, chose the title "the Son of Man" to express hisconsciousness that he had been appointed by God to be the Messiah, was yetaware in his inner heart that his relation to God was even closer thanthat in which he stood to men. 

270. There is no word in John which goes beyond the two self-declarationsof Jesus which crown the record of the other evangelists, yet in thefourth gospel the same claim to unique relation to God is more frequentlyand frankly avowed. The most unqualified assertion of intimacy--"I and theFather are one" (x. 30)--states what is clearly implied throughout thegospel (so xiv. 6-11; xvi. 25; and particularly xvii. 21, "that they maybe one, even as we are one"). It has often been said, and truly, that thisclaim to unity with the Father, taken by itself, signifies no more thanperfect spiritual and ethical harmony with God. Yet when the words areconsidered in their connection, and more particularly when the two supremeself-declarations in the synoptic gospels are associated with them, theyexpress a sense of relation to God so utterly unique, so stronglycontrasting the Father and the Son with all others, that we cannotconceive of any other man, even the saintliest, taking like words upon hislips. 

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

272. It is highly significant that the gospel which records most fully theclaim of Jesus to be more closely related to God than he was to men, mostfully records also his definite acknowledgment of dependence on hisFather, and of that Father's supremacy over him and all others. "The Soncan 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 thanI" (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 ofreverence. It appears as clearly in his habitual submission to hisFather's will, --"My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and toaccomplish his work" (John iv. 34); "I am come down from heaven, not to domine own will, but the will of him that sent me" (John vi. 38). Thissubmission reached its fulness in the prayer of Gethsemane, recorded inthe earlier gospels, --"Father, all things are possible unto thee; removethis 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 alsothroughout his ministry he habitually sought his Father in that communionin 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 inCapernaum (Mark i. 35), before choosing the twelve (Luke vi. 12), beforethe question at Cæsarea Philippi (Luke ix. 18), at the transfiguration(Luke ix. 29), on the cross (Luke xxiii. 46), --at all the crises of hislife he turned to God in prayer. Moreover, prayer was his habit, for itwas after a night of prayer which has no connection with any crisisreported for us (Luke xi. 1), that he taught his disciples the Lord'sprayer in response to their requests. The prayer beside the grave ofLazarus (John xi. 41, 42) suggests that his miracles were often, if notalways (compare Mark ix. 29), preceded by definite prayer to God. Hishabit of prayer was the natural expression of his trust in God. From theresistance to the temptations in the wilderness to the last cry, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, " his life is an example of childlikefaith in God. 

273. Yet throughout his life of obedience and trust Jesus never gave oneindication that he felt the need of penitence when he came before God. Heperceived as no one else has ever done the searching inwardness of God'slaw, and demanded of men that they tolerate no lower ambition than to belike God, yet he never breathed a sigh of conscious failure, or gave signthat he blushed when the eternal light shone into his own soul. He wasbaptized, but without confession of sin. He challenged his enemies toconvict him of sin (John viii. 46). Such a challenge might have rested ona man's certainty that his critics did not know his inner life; buthypocrisy has no place in the character of Jesus. The reply to the richyoung ruler, "Why callest thou me good?" (Mark x. 18), even if it was aconfession that freedom from past sin was still far less than thatabsolute goodness that God alone possesses, simply sets in stronger lighthis silence concerning personal failure, and his omission in all hispraying to seek forgiveness. It is probable, however, that that replydeals not with the "good" as the "ethically perfect, " but as the"supremely beneficent, " so that Jesus simply reminded the seeker afterlife that God alone is the one to be approached as the Gracious andMerciful One by sinful men (see Dalman WJ I. 277). Thus the reply becomesa fresh expression of the reverence of Jesus, and still further emphasizeshis 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 andthirsted and grew weary, like them he longed for friendship and forsympathy, like them he trusted God and prayed to God and learned still totrust when his request was denied. He stands before us also as a manconscious of being anointed by God for the great work which all theprophets had foretold, and of being fully equipped with authority andpower and the promise of unapproachable dignity. Of deep religious spiritand great reverence for the scriptures of his people, he yet used thesescriptures as a master does his tools, to serve his work rather than toinstruct him in it. He drew his knowledge from within and from above, andproclaimed his own fulfilment of the scriptures when he filled them withnew meaning. A man always devout, always at prayer, he is never seen, likeIsaiah, prostrate before the Most High, crying, "I am undone" (Isa. Vi. 5). In his moments of greatest seriousness and most manifest communionwith heaven he looked to God as his nearest of kin, and felt himself astranger on the earth fulfilling his Father's will. He felt heaven to behis home not simply by God's gracious promise, but by the right ofprevious possession. His kinship with men was a condescension, his naturalfellowship 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 mysteriousthings recorded for us in the story of the past or occurring under theincredulous observation of our scientific generation. They all pale, however, before the unaccountable exception presented to universal humanexperience by this Man of Nazareth. It confronts us when we think of theunschooled Jew who, in his thought of God, rose not only above all of hisgeneration, but higher than all who had gone before him, or have comeafter, one who built on the foundation of the past a superstructure ofreligion new, and simple, and clearly heavenly. It confronts us when wethink of this Man who believed that it was given to him to establish thekingdom that should fill the whole earth, and who had the boldness and thefaith to ignore the opposition of all the world's wisdom and of all itsenthroned power, and to fulfil his task as the woman does who hides herleaven in the meal, content to wait for years, or millenniums, until histruth shall conquer in the realization of God's will on earth even as itis done in heaven. It confronts us when we consider that the Man who hasshown his brethren what obedience means, who has taught them to pray, whohas been for all these centuries the Way, the Truth, the Life, by whomthey come to God, habitually claimed without shadow of abashment orslightest hint of conscious presumption, a nature, a relation to God, afreedom from sin, that other men according to the measure of theirgodliness would shun as blasphemy. If the personal claim was true, and notthe blind pretence of vanity, the Jesus of the gospels is the exception tothe uniform fact of human nature, but he is no longer unaccountable; andif his claim was true, his knowledge of the absolute religion, and hischoice of the irresistible propaganda, are no less extraordinary, but theyare not unaccountable. Paul, whose life was transformed and his thinkingrevolutionized by his meeting with the risen Jesus, thought on thesethings and believed that "the name which, is above every name" was his byright 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 whomeditated 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 hisears, 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 theperplexities of doubt, amidst all the obscurings of irrelevantspeculations, the hearts of men to-day turn to this Jesus of Nazareth astheir supreme revelation of God, and find in him "the Master of theirthinking and the Lord of their lives. "

"Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And wehave 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 maybefound at the close of the article JESUS CHRIST by Zockler in_Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge_. Of the earlier ofthe modern works it is well to mention David Friedrich Strauss, _Das LebenJesu_ (2 vols. 1835), in which he sought to reduce all the gospel miraclesto myths. August Neander, _Das Leben Jesu Christi_, 1837, wrote inopposition to the attitude taken by Strauss. Both of these works have beentranslated into English. Ernst Renan, _Vie de Jésus_ (1863, 16th ed. 1879), translated, _The Life of Jesus_ (1863), is a charming, though oftensuperficial and patronizing, presentation of the subject. For vivid wordpictures of scenes in the life of Jesus his book is unsurpassed. Renan'sinability to appreciate the more serious aspects of the work of Christappears constantly, while his effort to discover romance in the life ofJesus is offensive. More important than any of these is Theodor Keim, _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_ (1867-72, 3 vols. ), translated, _The Historyof Jesus of Nazara_ (1876-81, 6 vols. ). The author rejects the fourthgospel and holds that Matthew is the most primitive of the synopticgospels; he does not reject the supernatural as such, but reduces it asmuch as possible by recognizing a legendary element in the gospels. Whenthe work is read with these peculiarities in mind, it is one of the moststimulating and spiritually illuminating treatments of the subject. 

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

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

4. The most important treatment of the subject is the article JESUS CHRISTby William Sanday in the _Hastings Bible Dictionary_ (1899). It is of thehighest value, discussing the subject topically with great clearness andwith a rare combination of learning and common sense. S. T. Andrews, _TheLife of Our Lord_ (2d ed. 1892), is a thorough and very useful study ofthe gospels, considering minutely all questions of chronology, harmony, and geography. It presents the different views with fairness, and offersconservative conclusions. G. H. Gilbert, _The Student's Life of Jesus_(1896), is complete in plan and careful in treatment, while being veryconcise. Dr. Gilbert faces the problems of the subject frankly, and histreatment is scholarly and reverent. James Stalker, _The Life of JesusChrist_ (1880), is a short work whose value lies in the good conceptionwhich 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 ofdate. _Studies in the Life of Christ_, by A. M. Fairbairn (1882), is ofgreat value for the topics considered. The title indicates that thetreatment is fragmentary. The long treatises of Farrar (1875, 2 vols. ) andGeikie (1877, 2 vols. ) are useful as commentaries on the words and worksof Jesus. Farrar often interprets most helpfully the essence of anincident, and Geikie furnishes a mass of illustrative material fromrabbinic sources, though with less criticism than even Edersheim has used. Neither of these works, however, deals with the fundamental problems ofthe composition of the gospels, nor are they satisfactory on otherperplexing questions, for example, the miraculous birth. 

5. The most important accessory for the study of the life of Jesus is EmilSchürer, _Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi_ (2ded. 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, 5vols. ). The political history of the Jews from 175 B. C. To 135 A. D. , andthe intellectual and religious life of the times in which Jesus lived, with the Jewish literature of Palestine and the dispersion, are alltreated with thoroughness and masterful learning. W. Baldensperger, _DasSelbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der messianischen Hoffnungen seinerZeit_ (2d ed. 1892), furnishes in the first part a survey of the Messianichopes of the Jews which is in many respects the most satisfactory accountthat 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 forthe study of the physical features of the land as they bear on itshistory, and on the work of Jesus. The maps are the best that have yetappeared. 

6. Discussions of the Teaching of Jesus in works on Biblical Theology havemuch that is important for the study of Jesus' life. The most significantis H. H. Wendt, _Die Lehre Jesu_ (1886, 2 vols. ). The second volume hasbeen translated _The Teaching of Jesus_ (1892, 2 vols. ); the first volumeof the original work is an elaborate discussion of the sources, and hasnot 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). GustafDalman, _Die Worte Jesu_ (1898), of which the first volume only hasappeared, is a study of the meaning of the most significant expressionsused in the gospel records of the teaching of Jesus, made with the aid ofthorough knowledge of Aramaic usage and of the language of post-canonicalJewish 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 thedivergencies of the parallel accounts in the gospels as faithfully as theagreements. A good synopsis of the Greek text of the first three gospelsis Huck, _Synapse_ (1892). Robinson's _Greek Harmony of the Gospels_, edited by M. B. Biddle, using Tischendorf's text, has also valuable notesdiscussing 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 physicalcharacteristics, its political divisions, its climate, its roads, and itsvarying civilization, SmithHGHL is unsurpassed. Its identifications ofdisputed localities are cautions. Robinson, _Biblical Researches inPalestine_, and Thomson, _The Land and the Book_, give fuller detailconcerning particular localities, but no such general view as Smith. 

9. On Political conditions, SchürerJPTX I. I. And ii. Is the fullest andmost trustworthy treatise. More concise essays are Oscar Holtzmann, _Nt. Zeitgeschichte_ (1895), 57-118; S. Mathews, _History of NT Times inPalestine_ (1899), 1-158; Riggs, _Maccabean and Roman Periods of JewishHistory_ (1900), especially §§ 206-234, 257-267, 276-282. On the ReligiousLife 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. Inaddition 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 SchürerJPTXII. Iii. ; BaldSJ. 3-122; EdersLJM I. 31-39; Deane, _Pseudepigrapha_(1891); Thomson, _Books which influenced our Lord_, etc. (1891); andspecial editions, such as Alexandre, _Sibylline Oracles_ (1869); Deane, _The Wisdom of Solomon_ (1881); Charles, _The Book of Enoch_ (1893), _TheApocalypse of Baruch_ (1896), _The Assumption of Moses_ (1897), and _TheBook 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 theLife 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 alsoSchürerJPTX I. Ii. 143-149; RévilleJN I. 272-280. On the individualgospels see Burton, _The Purpose and Plan of the Four Gospels_ (Univ. Chic. Press, 1900); Bruce, _With Open Face_, 1-61; Weiss, _Introduction toN. 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 Bibleas 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 FourGospels_ (1890) and _Some NT Problems_ (1898), defends the oral traditiontheory 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; WatkinsSBD^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 historyof opinion see Watkins, _Bampton Lecture_ for 1890; Holtzmann, _Einl. _^3433-438. P. Ewald, _Hauptproblem der evang. Frage_, argues theauthenticity of the fourth gospel from the one-sidedness of the synopticstory. See also Jour. Bib. Lit. 1898, I. 87-102. 

14. Réville proposes to reconstruct Jos. Ant. Xviii. 3. 3 thus: "'At thattime appeared Jesus, a wise man, who did astonishing things. That is why agood number of Jews and also of Greeks attached themselves to him. ' Thenfollows some phrase probably signifying that these adherents had committedthe error of proclaiming him Christ, and then 'denounced by the leadingmen 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, andstill to-day there exists a class of people who take from him their nameChristians. '"

15. On the testimony of Papias (Euseb. _Ch. Hist_. Iii. 39. 4) seeLightfoot, 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 SprucheJesu_, 154-161, and Amer. Jour. Theol. 1897, 758-776; Resch, _Agrapha_, gives a much longer list. He is criticised by Ropes. On lost anduncanonical gospels see Salmon, _Intr. _^7 173-190, 580-591; Kruger, _EarlyChristian Literature_, 50-57. For the recently discovered Gospel of Petersee 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 convenientlyfound in _Ante-nicene Fathers_, VIII. 361-476. 

III

The Harmony of the Gospels

17. The Diatessaron of Tatian is translated with notes by Hill, _TheEarliest 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 inessentially 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 Christborn at Bethlehem_; and von Soden in EnBib. I. 799-812. For patristicopinion concerning the length of Jesus' ministry, see HastBD I. 410. Forthe 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 AndLOL189-198; 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 maintainhistoricity. 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, andJN I. 361-408; HoltzmannNtTh I. 409-415. On the early years ofJesus see EdersLJM I. 217-254; WeissLX I. 275-293; Hughes, _Manliness ofXt_, 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 ofJesus, see the so-called _Protevangelium of James_, the _Gospel ofPseudo-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 onLuke, iii. 23-38. These refer Luke's genealogy to Marv. Hervey SBD^21145-1148, Plummer on Luke, iii. 23, EdersLJM I. 149, GilbertLJ 81f. , with the early fathers (see Plummer), refer both to Joseph. For the viewthat they are unauthentic see Holtzmann, _Hand-comm. _ I. 39-41; Bacon inHastBD 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 andMary. Lightfoot, _Galatians_^10, 252-291, regards them as sons of Josephby a former marriage. 

VI

John the Baptist

24. On the character and work of John the Baptist see KeimJN II. 201-266and references in the index under John the Baptist. Keim's is much themost satisfactory treatment; it is, moreover, Keim at his best. See alsoEwald, _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 theProphets_. Reynolds, _John the Baptist_, obscures its excellencies by avast 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. ConsultLightfoot, _Colossians_, 400 ff. ; Baldensperger, _Der Prolog des viertenEvangeliums_, 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 andthe opening of one perfectly new" (322); KeimJN II. 290-299 makes it anact of consecration, but eliminates the Voice and Dove; BeysLJ I. 215-231thinks that Jesus, conscious of no sin, yet not aware of his Messiahship, sought the baptism carrying "the sins and guilt of his people on hisheart, as if they were his own" (229). Against Beyschlag see E. Haupt inStudien u. Kritiken, 1887, 381. Baldensperger shows clearly that theMessianic call was a revelation to Jesus, not a conclusion from a courseof reasoning. 

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

28. The locality of the baptism of Jesus cannot be determined. Traditionhas fixed on one of the fords of the Jordan near Jericho, see SmithHGHL496, note 1. On the probable location of Bethany (Bethabarah) (Jn. I. 28)see discussion in AndLOL 146-151; EnBib 548; and especially Smith's noteas 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 Jesussee 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 tothe 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 tohave needed a like divine equipment, notwithstanding his divine nature. See GilbertLJ 121f. 

30. How this Messianic anointing is to be related to the doctrine ofJesus' essential divine nature cannot be determined with certainty. Itmust not be forgotten, however, that it is a _datum_ for Christology, andthat it cannot be explained away. It indicates one of the particulars inwhich Jesus was made like unto his brethren. What was involved when theSon 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 sectsseem rightly to have been rejected. The Docetic view, held by someGnostics of the 2d cent. , dates the incarnation from the baptism, butdistinguishes Christ from the human Jesus, who only served as a vehiclefor the manifestation of the Son of God; the Christ descended on Jesus atthe baptism, ascending again to heaven from the cross, compare Mt. Iii. 16and 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 firstcomplete at the baptism though the Logos had been associated with Jesusfrom 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 Jerichocalled _Quarantana_, see AndLOL 155; the tradition seems to date nofurther back than the crusades. It is, however, probable that the"wilderness" (Mt. Iv. 1, Mk. I. 12, Lk. Iv. 1) is the same wildernessmentioned 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) holdthat the temptation took place in the desert regions SE of the sea ofGalilee; this is possibly correct, though the record in the gospelssuggests the wilderness of Judea. On the source of the temptation storysee 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; AndLOL155-165; EdersLJM I. 336-363; BeysLJ II. 129-148 (assigns here aconsiderable part of the synoptic account of work in Capernaum). 

33. _The early confessions_. On the genuineness of the Baptist's testimonyto "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 theevangelist added "who taketh away the sin of the world"); Holtzmann, _Hand-comm. _ IV. 38f. Holds that the evangelist has put in the mouth ofthe 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. SeeEnBib and HastBD, also AndLOL 162-164. 

35. _The miracles of Jesus_ are challenged by modern thought. It iscustomary in reading other documents than the N. T. Instantly to relegatethe miraculous to the domain of legend. Miracles, however, are integralparts of the story of Jesus' life, and those who attempt to write thatlife eliminating the supernatural are constrained to recognize that he hadmarvellous power as an exorcist and healer of some forms of nervousdisease. So E. A. Abbott, _The Spirit on the Waters_, 169-201. Ourknowledge of nature does not warrant a dogmatic definition of the limitsof the possible; see James, _The Will to Believe_, vii. -xiii. , 299-327. The question is confessedly one of adequate evidence. The evidence for thesupreme miracle--the transcendent character of Jesus--is clear, see PartIII. Chap. Iv. ; and the miraculous element in the story of his life mustbe considered in view of this supreme miracle. In association with him hismiracles gain in credibility. In estimating the evidence for them theirdignity and worthiness is important. What the devout imagination would doin 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 notexplicable in terms of ordinary human experience. It is therefore futileto attempt to picture the miracles of Jesus in their occurrence, for theimagination has no material except that furnished by ordinary experience. For our day the miracles are of importance chiefly for the exhibition theygive of the character of Jesus; they can be studied with this in viewwithout regard to the curious question how they happened. ReadSandayHastBD II. 624-628; and see Fisher, _Grounds of Christian andTheistic Belief, _ chaps, iv. --vi. , _Supernatural Origin ofChristianity_^3, chap, xi. ; Bruce, _Miraculous Element in the Gospels;Apologetics_, 409 ff. ; Illingworth, _Divine Immanence_; Rainy, Orr, andDods, _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 thejourney was in December. EdersLJM I. 419f. ; Turner in HastBD I. 408, findindication of early summer. Some treat iv. 35 as a proverb with nochronological significance; so Alford, _Comm. On John_. 

39. Geographical notes. _Aenon_ near Salim has not been identified. Mostfavor a site in Samaria, seven miles from a place named Salim, which layfour 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 baptizingin Samaria? WeissLX II. 28 says "it is perfectly impossible that he [John]can have taken up his station in Samaria. " Other suggestions are: someplace 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 AndLOL173-175. _Sychar_ is the modern 'Askar, about a mile and three-quartersfrom Nablus (Shechem), and half a mile N of Jacob's well. See SmithHGHL367-375. 

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) aresimilar in respect of Jesus' indignation, its cause, its expression, itsresult, and a consequent challenge of his authority. They differ in thetime of the event (John assigns to first Passover, synoptics to the last)and in a possibly greater sternness in the synoptic account. Thesedifferences are no greater than appear in other records of identicalevents (compare Mt. Viii. 5-13 with Lk. Vii. 2-10), while the repetitionof such an act would probably have been met by serious opposition. If thetemple was cleansed but once, John indicates the true time. At thebeginning of the ministry it was a demand that the people follow the newleader in the purification of God's house and the establishment of a truerworship. At the end it could have had only a vindictive significance, since the people had already signified to the clear insight of Jesus thatthey would not accept his leadership. For two distinct cleansings see thediscussion 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 cleansingat the beginning see WeissLX II. 6 ff. ; BeysLJ II. 149 ff. ; GilbertLJ 159ff. 

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 fromthe south introducing work in Galilee; yet the reasons given for thejourney are different (compare Jn. Iv. 1-3 with Mk. I. 14). If thePharisees 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 leaveJudea. He may not have heard of John's imprisonment until after hisdeparture, or some time before he opened his new ministry in Galilee. SeeGilbertLJ 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 andMark differ from each other concerning the bearers of the centurion'smessages to Jesus. John's account is similar to synoptic superficially, but is probably not a doublet. Compare Syro-Phœnician'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 andKhan Minyeh. Tell Hum is advocated by Thomson, _Land and Book, CentralPal. And Phœnicia_ (1882), 416-420; Khan Minyeh, by SmithHGHL 456, EnBibI. 696 ff. Latter is probably correct. See AndLOL 224-237. 

_Bethsaida_. The full name is Bethsaida Julias, located at entrance ofJordan into the Sea of Galilee. SmithEnBib I. 565f. , SmithHGHL457f. , shows that there is no need of the hypothesis of a second Bethsaidato meet the statement in Mk. Vi. 45, or that in Jn. I. 44. See also AndLOL230-236. 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 ofthe lake. More definite location is not possible. See AndLOL 268f. ;EdersLJM I. 524. The traditional site, the Horns of Hattin, is a hilllying about seven miles SW from Khan Minyeh, which has near the top alevel place (Lk. Vi. 17) flanked by two low peaks or "horns. "

46. _The country of the Gerasenes, Gadarenes, or Gergesenes_. Gadarenes isthe best attested reading in Mt. Viii. 28, Gerasenes in Mk. V. 1 and Lk. Viii. 26; Gergesenes has only secondary attestation. Gadara is identifiedwith Um Keis on the Yarmuk, some six miles SE of the Sea of Galilee. Thiscannot have been the site of the miracle, though it is possible thatGadara may have controlled the country round about, including the shoresof 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, andit clearly cannot have been the scene of the miracle. Near the E shore ofthe sea Thomson discovered the ruins of a village which now bears the nameKhersa. The formation of the land in the neighborhood closely suits thenarrative 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 thatGadara had jurisdiction over the region of Khersa; the names "Gerasenes"and "Gergesenes" may be derived directly and independently from Khersa, ormay be corruptions due to the obscurity of Khersa. 

47. _The feeding of the five thousand_ took place on the E of the sea, ina desert region, abundant in grass, and mountainous, and located in theneighborhood of a place named Bethsaida. Near the ruins of BethsaidaJulias is a plain called now Butaiha, "a smooth, grassy place near the seaand the mountains, " which meets the requirements of the narrative. SeeAndLOL 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 Philipand "_the Decapolis_. " This latter name applies to a group of free Greekcities, situated for the most part E of the Jordan. Most of the cities ofthe group were farther S than the Sea of Galilee; some, however, were Eand NE of that sea, hence Jesus' approach from Cæsarea Philippi orDamascus 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 isknown 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. SeeSBD^2, HastBD, and En Bib. 

50. _Cæsarea Philippi_ was situated at the easternmost and most importantof 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 Greatbuilt a temple which he dedicated to Cæsar; Philip the Tetrarch enlargedthe town and called it Cæsarea Philippi. See SBD^2; HastBD; EnBib. 

51. _The mountain of the transfiguration_. The traditional site, since thefourth century, is Tabor in Galilee. Most recent opinion has favored oneof the shoulders of Hermon, owing to the supposed connection of the eventwith the sojourn near Cæsarea Philippi. WeissLX III. 98 points out thatthere is no evidence that Jesus lingered for "six days" (Mk. Ix. 2) nearthat town, and that therefore the effort to locate the transfiguration isfutile. GilbertLJ 274 thinks that Mk. Ix. 30 is decisive in favor of aplace outside Galilee; he therefore holds to the common view that Hermonis 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 thatread like independent traditions of the same event; they agree concerningthe place, the teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath, the astonishmentof the Nazarenes, their scornful question, and Jesus' rejoinder. Lukemakes no reference to the disciples (Mk. Vi. 1) nor to the working ofmiracles (Mk. Vi. 5); Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, say nothing ofan 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 afterthe ministry in Capernaum had won renown, which agrees with the placegiven the rejection in Mark. The general statement (Lk. Iv. 14f. ) suggeststhat the visit to Nazareth is given at the beginning as an instance of"preaching in their synagogues. " The three accounts probably refer to oneevent reported independently. For identification see WeissLX III. 34;Plummer on Luke iv. 30; GilbertLJ 254f. For two rejections see Godet'ssupplementary note on Lk. Iv. 16-30; Meyer on Mt. Xiii. 53-58; EdersLJM I. 457, note 1; Wieseler, _Synopsis_, 278. BeysLJ I. 270 identifies butprefers Luke's date. 

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

54. _Where in the synoptic story should the journey to the feast inJerusalem_ (Jn. V. ) _be placed?_ There is nothing in John's narrative toidentify the feast, although it is his custom to name the festivals towhich 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 "afeast" (the MSS. Vary, A B D and seven other uncials omit the article), itwould be impossible to decide between Passover and Tabernacles. Theomission of the article suggests either that the feast was of minorimportance, or that its identification was of no significance for theunderstanding of the following discourse. Since a year and four monthsprobably elapsed between the journey into Galilee (Jn. Iv. 35) and thenext Passover mentioned in John (vi. 4), v. 1 may refer to any one of thefeasts of the Jewish year. The commonest interpretation prefers Purim, afestival of a secular and somewhat hilarious type, which occurred on the14th and 15th of Adar, a month before the Passover. It is difficult tobelieve that this feast would have called Jesus to Jerusalem. See WeissLXII. 391; GilbertLJ 137-139, 142, 234-235. Against this interpretation seeEdersLJM II. 765. Edersheim advocates the feast of Wood Gathering on the15th of Ab--about our August. On this day all the people were permitted tooffer wood for the use of the altar in the temple, while during the restof the year the privilege was reserved for special families. See LJM II765f. ; Westcott, _Comm. On John_, add. Note on v. 1, argues for the feastof Trumpets, or the new moon of the month Tisri, --about ourSeptember, --which was celebrated as the beginning of the civil year. Others have suggested Pentecost, fifty days after the Passover; the day ofAtonement--but this was a fast, not a feast; and Tabernacles. The majorityof those who do not favor Purim prefer the Passover, notwithstanding thedifficulty of thinking that John would refer to this feast simply as "afeast of the Jews. " Read AndLOL 193-198, remembering that the questionmust be considered independently of the question of the length of Jesus'ministry. The impossibility of determining the feast renders theadjustment of this visit to the synoptic story very uncertain. It may bethat there was some connection between the Sabbath controversy in Galilee(Mk. Ii. 23-28) and the criticism Jesus aroused in Jerusalem (Jn. V. ). Ifso, one of the spring feasts, Passover or Pentecost, would best suit thecircumstances; but this arrangement is quite uncertain. 

55. _Do the five conflicts of Mk. Ii. 1 to iii. 6 belong at the earlyplace in the ministry of Jesus to which that gospel assigns them_? It iscommonly held that they do not, and the argument for a two-year ministryrests on this assumption (see SandayHastBD II. 613). Holtzmann, _Hand-commentar_ I. 9f. , remarks that at least for the cure of theparalytic and for the call and feast of Levi (Mk. Ii. 1, 13, 15) theevangelist 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 thefour, Mk. I. 16-20, and that of the twelve, iii. 16-19. The question aboutfasting may owe its place (Mk. Ii. 18-22) to association with thecriticism of Jesus for eating with publicans (Mk. Ii. 16). In like mannerthe 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 noteworthythat Mark records only these two Sabbath conflicts; moreover, the plot ofHerodians and Pharisees to kill Jesus strongly suggests a later time forthe 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. 51ff. , discusses the Sabbath controversies after the feeding of themultitudes. 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; Matthewhas therefore anticipated in assigning it to the beginning. The identityof the two sermons (Mt. V. 1 to vii. 27; Lk. Vi. 20-49) is shown by thefact that each begins with beatitudes, each closes with the parables ofthe wise and foolish builders, each is followed by the cure of acenturian's servant in Capernaum (Mt. Viii. 5-13; Lk. Vii. 1-10), and theteachings which are found in each account are given in the same order. Matthew is much fuller than Luke, many teachings given in the sermon inMatthew being found in later contexts in Luke. Much of the sermon inMatthew, however, evidently belonged to the original discourse, and wasomitted by Luke, perhaps because of less interest to Gentile than toJewish Christians. The following sections are found elsewhere in Luke, andwere 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 explainalso the presence in his sermon of teachings which he himself hasduplicated 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. Matthewvii. 22, 23 has the character of the teachings which follow the confessionat Cæsarea Phillipi, and is quite unlike the other early teachings. It maybelong to the later time, for it was natural for the early Christians toassociate together teachings which the Lord uttered on widely separatedoccasions. The sermon as originally given may be analyzed as follows: Theprivileges 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 ofmorality, 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 thispoint (xiii. ), Mark (iv. 1-34) has three, one of them is not given inMatthew, 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 ofMark's Seed growing secretly (iv. 26-29); so Weiss LX II. 209 note, against which view see WendtLJ I. 178 f. , and Bruce, _Parabolic Teachingof Xt_, 119. Matthew has probably made here a group of parables, as inchapters v. To vii. He has made a group of other teachings. Theinterpretation of the Tares, and of the Draw-net (xiii. 40-43, 49, 50), may indicate that these parables were spoken after Jesus began to teachplainly concerning the end of the world (Mk. Viii. 31 to ix. 1), Lukegives the Mustard Seed and Leaven in another connection (xiii. 18-21), andit may be that Matthew has taken them out of their true context toassociate them with the other parables of his group; yet in popularteaching it must be recognized that illustrations are most likely to berepeated in different situations. On the parables see Goebel, _TheParables of Jesus_ (1890), Bruce, _The Parabolic Teaching of Christ_, 3ded. (1886), Jülicher, _Die Gleichnissreden Jesu_ (2 vols. 1899), and thecommentaries on the gospels. 

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

59. _Did Jesus twice feed the multitudes_? All the gospels record thefeeding 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 alsothe feeding of the four thousand. The similarities are so great that thetwo accounts would be regarded as doublets if they occurred in differentgospels. The difficulty with such an identification is chiefly thereference which in both Matthew (xvi. 9, 10) and Mark (viii. 19, 20) Jesusis said to have made to the two feedings. The evangelists clearlydistinguished the two. In view of this fact the differences between theaccounts become important. These concern the occasion of the two miracles, the number fed, the nationality of the multitudes (compare Jn. Vi. 31 andMk. Vii. 31), the number of loaves and of baskets of broken pieces (thename for basket is different in the two cases, and is preservedconsistently 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 givehis 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 atCæsarea Philippi, since there is no evidence that all of the longdiscourse of Jn. Vi. Was spoken in Capernaum the day after the feeding ofthe five thousand. This may be correct, yet the marked recognition whichJesus gave to the confession at Cæsarea Philippi does not demand that hefirst at that time received a confession of his disciples' faith. Theconfession in Jn. Vi. 68, 69 declared that the twelve were not shaken intheir faith by the recent defection of many disciples. At Cæsarea Philippithe confession was made after the revulsion of popular feeling had beenmade fully evident, and after the twelve had had time for reaction ofenthusiasm consequent upon the growing coldness of the multitudes andactive opposition of the leaders. The confession of Cæsarea Philippi holdsits unique significance, whether or not Jn. Vi. 68 is identified with it. 

61. _The journey to Tabernacles_ (Jn. Vii. ). Where in the synoptic storyshould it be placed? Lk. Ix. 51 ff. Records the final departure fromGalilee. The journey of Jn. Vii. Is the last journey from Galilee given inJohn. Yet the two are very different. In John, Jesus went in haste, unpremeditatedly, in secret, and unaccompanied, and confronted the peoplewith 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, withcareful plans, announcing his coming in advance, accompanied by manydisciples, with whom he went from place to place, arriving in Jerusalemlong after he had set out. The two journeys cannot be identified. Johnseems to keep Jesus in the south after the Tabernacles, but his accountdoes not forbid a return to Galilee between Tabernacles and Dedication (x. 22). After the hurried visit to Tabernacles, Jesus probably went back toGalilee, and gathered his disciples again for the final journey towardshis cross--for the visit to Jerusalem had given fresh evidence of the kindof 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 thewithdrawal to Cæsarea Philippi (376); this is possible, but it seems morenatural to place it during the sojourn in Capernaum after the return fromthe 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 ofPersonality_, 325-356; James, _Psychology, _ I. 373-400; and the articleson 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 continueduntil the arrival in Bethany six days before the last Passover. 

65. Geographical notes. _Perea_--a part of the domain of Antipas--was theJewish territory E of the Jordan. Its northern limit seems to have beenmarked by Pella (Jos. Wars, iii 3. 3) or Gadara (Wars, iv. 7. 3), and itsE boundary was marked by Philadelphia (Ant. Xx. 1. 1); it extended S tothe domain of Aretas, king of Arabia. The population was mixed, thoughpredominatingly Jewish. Cities of the Decapolis, however, lay within thelimits of Perea, and introduced Greek life and ideas to the people. On thehighlands 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 266ff. 

67. _Ephraim_, (John xi. 54) is generally identified with the Ephron ofII. Chron. Xiii. 19 (Jos. Wars, iv. 9. 9). Robinson located it at etTaiyibeh, 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 twomissions, 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. SoWeissLX II. 307 ff. , BeysLJ I. 275, WendtLJ I. 84f. In favor of thisconclusion emphasis is given to the fact that in Jewish thought seventysymbolized the nations of the world as twelve symbolized Israel. It issuggested that in his search for full records Luke came upon an account ofthe mission of disciples which had already been modified in the interestsof Gentile Christianity, and failing to recognize its identity with theaccount of the mission furnished by Mark, he added it in his peculiarsection. The similarity of the instructions given follows from the natureof the case. A second sending out of disciples is suitable in view of theentrance into a region hitherto unvisited. As Dr. Sanday has remarked, thesayings connected by Luke with this mission bear witness to theauthenticity of the account. There is therefore no need to identify thetwo missions. See particularly SandayHastBD II. 614, also GilbertLJ226-230, Plummer's _Comm. On Luke_, 269 ff. Luke probably gives thecorrect place for the thanksgiving, self-declaration, and invitation ofJesus, 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 assent to the various cities of Perea (see AndLOL 381-383). Were it not forthe words "whither he himself was about to come" (Lk. X. I), it would benatural to conclude that they were sent E to Gerasa and Philadelphia, andS to the regions of the Dead Sea. If John's account is accepted, Jesusspent not a little time of the interval between his departure from Galileeand his final arrival in Bethany in and near Jerusalem. It may be thatafter the withdrawal from the Dedication he went far into the Pereandistricts. But John x. 40 is against it. The question must be leftunanswered. The messengers may have visited places in all parts ofPalestine. 

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 thepassover" (xii. I). Synoptists place it after the day of controversy, onthe 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 probablyassociated in the thought of the disciples with his later treachery;consequently the synoptists report the plot of Judas and this supper inclose connection. 

72. _The Messianic entry into Jerusalem_ is regarded by Réville as asurrender by Jesus of his lofty Messianic ideal in response to thetemptation to seek a popular following. Keim with finer insight says, "Even if it had certainly been his wish to bring the kingdom of heavennear in Jerusalem quietly and gradually, and with a healthy mentalprogress, as in Galilee, yet . .. In the face of the irritability of hisopponents, in the face of the powerful means at their disposal of crushinghim . .. There remained but one chance, --reckless publicity, the conquestof the partially prepared nation by means, not of force, but of idea. .. . He came staking his life upon the venture, but also believing that Godmust finish his work through life or death" (JN V. 100f. ). 

73. _The question about the resurrection_ was probably a familiarSadducean problem with which they made merry at the expense of thescribes. On the resurrection in Jewish thought see Charles, _Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian_, by index. For the scepticism of theSadducees 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 littleJewish apocalypse written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, which has been blended with genuine predictions of Jesus concerning hissecond 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 monotheismand its pure ethics the finest spirits of paganism. But few of them, however, submitted to circumcision, and became thus proselytes. Most ofthem constituted the class of "them that fear God" to whom Paul constantlyappealed in his apostolic mission. The Greeks of Jn. Xii. 20 ff. Wereprobably 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 _JudasIscariot_ is an elaborate defence. 

VII

The Last Supper

78. GilbertLJ 335-354; WeissLX III. 273-318; EdersLJM II. 479-532; AndLOL450-497; 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 theday 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 similaritybetween the Passover ritual as tradition has preserved it, and the courseof events at the supper. Unless interpretation can remove thecontradiction, John must have the preference. WeissLX III. 273-282, BeysLJII. 390-399, accept John and correct the synoptists by him; thus thesupper anticipated the Passover. Some hold that John can be interpretedharmoniously with synoptists, and be shown to indicate that the supper wason the 14th Nisan. So EdersLJM II. 508, 566f. , 612f. ; AndLOL 452-481;GilbertLJ 335-339. Others believe that a true interpretation of synoptistsshows that in calling the last supper a Passover they correctly representthe character, but misapprehend the time, of the meal. For this argumentsee Muirhead, _Times of Xt_, 163-169, and read SandayHastBD II. 633-636and his references. The debate is still on, but the advantage seems to bewith those who assign the supper to the 13th and the crucifixion to the14th Nisan. 

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

81. _The Passover ritual_. The order according to the rabbis was thefollowing: the first cup of wine and water was taken by the leader, whogave 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 withthis the washing of the disciples' feet, which changed the ceremony froman act of distinction into one of humble service; after this the disheswere brought on the table, then the leader dipped some of the bitter herbsinto salt water or vinegar, spoke a blessing, and partook of them, thenhanded them to each of the company; then one of the loaves of unleavenedbread was broken; after this a second cup was filled, and before it wasdrunk the significance of the Passover was explained by the leader inreply to a question by the youngest of the company, after which the firstpart of the Hallel (Ps. Cxiii. , cxiv. ) was sung, and then the cup wasdrunk; then followed the supper itself beginning with "the sop, "--a pieceof the paschal lamb, a piece of unleavened bread, and bitter herbs, wrapped together and dipped in the vinegar, --which was passed around thecompany (compare the sop which Jesus gave to Judas); after the supper camea third cup, known as "the cup of blessing" (see I. Cor. X. 16); thenfollowed grace after meat; then a fourth cup, in connection with which theremainder of the Hallel was sung (Ps. Cxv. To cxviii. ), followed bycertain other songs and prayers. See EdersLJM II. 496-512; AndLOL 488-494. 

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

83. _Did Jesus twice predict Peter's denials_? Mark (xiv. 26-31) andMatthew (xxvi. 30-35) place the prediction after the departure forGethsemane; Luke (xxii. 31-34) and John (xiii. 36-38), during the supper. AndLOL 494 ff. Thinks Peter was warned twice, EdersLJM. II. 535-537 holdsto one warning on the way to Gethsemane. Antecedent probability favorsthis 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 and33. There is no break at this point, and it remains a mystery why John'saccount of the passion omitted this central feature of early Christianbelief and practice. The omission argues for rather than against apostolicauthorship, as a forger would not have ventured to disregard the leadingservice 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 toxvi. 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; SandayHastBDII. 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, _ seeAndLOL 505-516; GilbertLJ 359-363. The _legality of the trial_ has beencarefully 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 foundin 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 importantgroup of MSS. ([Hebrew: aleph]^aBD*) and some early versions. The sayingis almost certainly authentic, though it may have been added to Luke bysome 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 stillvalid criticism of the position of RévilleJN II. 428-478; see also WeissLXIII. 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 oldestMSS ([Hebrew: aleph]B) and by the recently discovered Sinaitic Syriac, aswell as by other versions and fathers. An Armenian MS. Has been foundascribing the section to one Ariston, or Aristion, a second century elder, and this explanation of the origin of the verses is widely accepted. Thegospel cannot have ended with the words "for they were afraid, " but nosatisfactory explanation of the condition of its text has been found. Fora recent hypothesis see Rohrbach, _Der Schluss des Markusevangeliums_; onAristion 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 versesof 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, isaltered in parallels in Matthew and Luke to "on the third day" (seeConcordance). Jesus died on Friday, lay in the tomb over Saturday, androse very early Sunday morning. Thus he spent a part of Friday, and a partof Sunday, and all of Saturday in the grave. According to Jewish reckoningthis was counted three days. 

94. _Emmaus_. A village about 60 furlongs from Jerusalem. Cannot have beenthe Emmaus in the Shephelah, 20 m. From Jerusalem. May have been elKubeibeh, 63 furlongs distant on the road from Jerusalem to Lydda. SeeAndLOL 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 insect. 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 theN. T. _ 41-64, 199-212. On the title "Son of Man" see particularly DalmanWJI. 191-219; Charles, _Eschatology_, 214f. Note; against, A. Meyer, _JesuMuttersprache_, 91-101, and others. See also HoltzmannNtTh I. 246-264. On the name "Son of God, " see Dalman WJ I. 219-237; HoltzmannNtTh I. 265-278; Stalker, _Christology_, 86-123; Gilbert, as above. On thepersonal religion of Jesus see Burton, Bib. Wld. 1899, II. 394-403. Forthe total impression of the character of Jesus, read Bushnell, _TheCharacter 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 261xix. 10 78xxiv. 1-11 183

Lev. 

xii. 8 61xxiii. 5-11 47

Num. 

xxiii. 19 254

Deut. 

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

I. Sam. 

ii. 26 61

I. Kings. 

xvii. 1 72

II. Kings. 

i. 8xvii. 24-41 14

Ps. 

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

Isa. 

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

Jer. 

xxxi. 31-34 111, 183

Ezek. 

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

Dan. 

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

Hos. 

i. 10 261

Joel. 

ii. 1-14 76

Micah. 

vi. 8 76

Matt. 

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

Mark. 

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

Luke. 

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

John. 

i. 14 58, 2691. 19 to iv. 42 40, 101i. 25 78i. 26f. 93i. 28 92, 284i. 29 93i. 29-36 80i. 30-34 93i. 31 82i. 32-34 84i. 35f. 93i. 38 20, 226i. 40f. , 43-45 92i. 41-45 142i. 42-47 239i. 44 290i. 49 94, 142, 254, 261, 263i. 51 95ii. 3-5 97ii. 11 222ii. 12 97ii. 13 46ii. 13-22 43, 106, 288ii. 16 262ii. 20 49ii. 22 96ii. 23 to iii. 15 106ii. 25 68, 141, 234, 239iii. 2 226iii. 16-21, 30-36 32iii. 22-30 106iii. 24 46, 101iii. 23 288iii. 24, 35 113iii. 30 80iii. 34 85, 86iv. 1-3 113iv. 1-3, 44 112iv. 1-4 289iv. 1-42 106iv. 1-45 102iv. 21-24 109iv. 25 14iv. 26 254iv. 30 95iv. 34 265iv. 35 107, 288, 293iv. 42 40iv. 43-45 39, 106, 286iv. 46-54 102, 106, 115, 289v. 1 40, 48, 293v. 1-9 32v. 1-47 102, 115v. 17 262v. 19 264v. 25 263v. 30 265v. 39 229vi. 1-15 39, 116vi. 1-71 102vi. 4 46, 138, 293vi. 14 25vi. 14f. 119vi. 15 89, 120, 135, 170vi. 16-21 116vi. 22-71 116vi. 30-32 87vi. 38 189, 265vi. 64 178, 180vi. 66 136vi. 67 225vi. 67-71 298vi. 68 81, 123vi. 68f. 142vi. 69 254vii. 1-10 39, 298vii. 1-52 117vii. 1 to viii. 59 103, 149vii. 2 138vii. 2-5 148vii. 5 64vii. 10 150vii. 15 235vii. 22 244vii. 23 32vii. 24 227vii. 25, 32 160vii. 31 95vii. 32 299vii. 36 149vii. 40 254vii. 45-52 299vii. 49 13, 220vii. 50-52 111vii. 53 to viii. 11 37, 117, 149, 157viii. 12-59 117viii. 14 248viii. 15 157viii. 46 83, 266viii. 59 160, 299ix. 1 to x. 39 153ix. 1 to xi. 57 104ix. 10 158, 159ix. 35 263ix. 35-38 156x. 11-18 159x. 18 89x. 21 159x. 22 150, 155, 298x. 22, 40-42 58x. 24-39 159x. 25 161, 262x. 29 265x. 30 264x. 31-39 160x. 32 233x. 34 261x. 36 263x. 39 156x. 40 154, 155, 301x. 40-42 153, 160xi. 1-7 155xi. 1-46 153, 161xi. 4 263xi. 6 161xi. 34 243, 258xi. 41f. 161, 265xi. 47-50 193xi. 47-54 153, 161xi. 54 155, 162, 300xi. 55 to xii. 11 166xi. 55 to xix. 42 104xii. 1 46, 102, 163, 301xii. 1 to xxi. 25 39xii. 2 169xii. 4-8 301xii. 6 178xii. 7 169xii. 12f. 170xii. 12-19 166xii. 20-36 166, 176, 302xii. 23-36 168xii. 36^b(-50) 166xii. 37-43 32xiii. 1 181, 303xiii. 1-15 234, 304xiii. 1-30 167xiii. 21-30 184xiii. 23-26 185xiii. 29 178, 303xiii. 31 to xvi. 33 32, 167, 305xiii. 32f. 305xiii. 36-38 305xiv. 6-11 264xiv. 10 161, 265xiv. 28 265xiv. 30f. 32xv. 32, 167, 305xv. 1 262xvi. 32, 167, 305xvi. 25 264xvii. 1-26 167xvii. 21 264xviii. 1 167xviii. 1-12 167xviii. 8 190xviii. 11^b 189xviii. 12-27 167xviii. 15 193xviii. 28 182, 303xviii. 28 to xix. 16 167xviii. 31 192xviii. 33, 36f. 254xix. 7-12 192xix. 12-16 193xix. 14 606xix. 16-37 167xix. 19-22 198xix. 25 97xix. 26 97xix. 26f. 197, 306xix. 28 197, 306xix. 30 197, 306xix. 31 182, 199, 303xix. 31-37 198xix. 38 34xix. 38-42 167xix. 39 111xix. 42 303xx. 1-10 201xx. 2 206xx. 5-8 43xx. 8 203xx. 9 200xx. 9f. , 24f. 93, 94xx. 14-18 201xx. 17 209, 214xx 19-25 201xx. 21 23xx. 26-29 201xx. 30 49xx. 30f. 32, 107xxi. 206xxi. 2 92xxi. 1-24 201xxi. 3-14 293xxi. 25 39

Acts. 

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

Rom. 

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

I. Cor. 

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

II. Cor. 

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

Gal. 

iii. 13 190

Phil. 

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

II. Tim. 

iii. 15 63

Heb. 

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

I. Pet. 

ii. 22 83