Jesus Christ
JESUS CHRIST
The Son of God, the Messiah and Savior of the World, the first and principal object of the prophecies; who was prefigured and promised in the Old Testament; was expected and desired by the patriarchs; the hope and salvation of the Gentiles; the glory, happiness, and consolation of Christians. The name JESUS, in Hebrew JEHOSHUAH or Joshua, signifies Savior, or Jehovah saves. No one ever bore this name with so much justice, nor so perfectly fulfilled the signification of it, as Jesus Christ, who saves from sin and hell, and has merited heaven for us by the price of his blood. It was given to him by divine appointment, Mat 1:21, as the proper name for the Savior so long desired, and whom all the myriads of the redeemed in heaven will for ever adore as their only and all-glorious Redeemer.JESUS was the common name of the Savior; while the name CHRIST, meaning the Anointed One, The Messiah, was his official name. Both names are used separately, in the gospels and also in the epistles; but JESUS generally stands by itself in the gospels, which are narratives of his life; while in the epistles, which treat of his divine nature and of his redeeming work, he is called CHRIST, CHRIST JESUS, or THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. See CHRIST.Here, under the Redeemer’s human name, belong the facts relating to his human nature and the history of his life upon earth. His true and complete humanity, having the soul as well as the body of man, is everywhere seen in the gospel history. He who is “God over all, blessed forever,” was an Israelite “as concerning the flesh,” 1Ch 9:5, and took upon him our whole nature, in order to be a perfect Savior. As a man, Jesus was the King of men. No words can describe that character in which such firmness and gentleness, such dignity and humility, such enthusiasm and calmness, such wisdom and simplicity, such holiness and charity, such justice and mercy, such sympathy with heaven and with earth, such love to God and love to man blended in perfect harmony. Nothing in it was redundant, and nothing was wanting. The world had never produced, nor even conceived of such a character, and its portraiture in the gospels is a proof of their divine origin, which the infidel cannot gainsay. Could the whole human race, of all ages, kindreds, and tongues, be assembled to see the crucified Redeemer as he is, and compare earth’s noblest benefactors with Him, there would be but one voice among them. Every crown of glory and every meed of praise would be given to Him who alone is worthy-for perfection of character, for love to mankind, for sacrifices endured, and for benefits bestowed. His glory will forever be celebrated as the Friend of man; the Lamb sacrificed for us.The visit of JESUS CHRIST to the earth has made it forever glorious above less favored worlds, and forms the most signal event in its annals. The time of his birth is commemorated by the Christian era, the first year of which corresponds to about the year 753 from the building of Rome. It is generally conceded, however, that the Savior was born at least four years before A. D. 1, and four thousand years after the creation of Adam. His public ministry commenced when he was thirty years of age; and continued, according to the received opinion, three and a half years. Respecting his ancestors, see GENEALOGY.The life of the Redeemer must be studied in the four gospels, where it was recorded under the guidance of supreme wisdom. Many efforts have been made, with valuable results, to arrange the narrations of the evangelists in the true order of time. But as neither of the gospels follows the exact course of events, many incidents are very indeterminate, and are variously arranged by different harmonists. No one, however, has been more successful than Dr. Robinson in his valuable “Harmony of the Gospels”.The divine wisdom is conspicuous not only in what is taught us respecting the life of Jesus, but in what is withheld. Curiosity, and the higher motives of warm affection, raise numerous questions to which the gospels give no reply; and in proportion as men resort to dubious traditions, they lose the power of a pure and spiritual gospel. See further, concerning Christ, MESSIAH, REDEEMER, etc.Jesus was not an uncommon name among the Jews. It was the name of the father of Elymas the sorcerer, Mal 13:6 ; and of Justus, a fellow-laborer and friend of Paul, Col 4:11 . It is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua, or Jeshua, borne by the high priest in Ezra’s time, and by the well-known leader of the Jews in to the Promised Land. See also 1Sa 6:14 2Ki 23:8 . The Greek form of the word, Jesus, is twice used in the New Testament when Joshua the son of Nun is intended, Mal 7:45 Heb 4:8 .
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Jesus Christ
See Christ, Christology.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
JESUS CHRIST
The Lord and Saviour of mankind. He is called Christ (anointed, ) because he is anointed, furnished, and sent by God to execute his mediatorial office; and Jesus (Saviour, ) because he came to save his people from their sins. For an account of his nativity, offices, death, resurrection, &c. the reader is referred to those articles in this work. We shall here more particularly consider his divinity, humanity, and character. The divinity of Jesus Christ seems evident, if we consider,
1. The language of the New Testament, and compare it with the state of the Pagan world at the time of its publication. If Jesus Christ were not God, the writers of the New Testament discovered great injudiciousness in the choice of their words, and adopted a very incautions and dangerous style. The whole world, except the small kingdom of Judea, worshipped idols at the time of Jesus Christ’s appearance. Jesus Christ; the evangelists, who wrote his history; and the apostles, who wrote epistles to various classes of men, proposed to destroy idolatry, and to establish the worship of one only living and true God. To effect this purpose, it was absolutely necessary for these founders of Christianity to avoid confusion and obscurity of language, and to express their ideas in a cool and cautious style.
The least expression that would tend to deify a creature, or countenance idolatry, would have been a source of the greatest error. Hence Paul and Barnabas rent their clothes at the very idea of the multitude’s confounding the creature with the Creator, Act 14:1-28 : The writers of the New Testament knew that in speaking of Jesus Christ, extraordinary caution was necessary; yet, when we take up the New Testament, we find such expressions as these: “The word was God, Joh 1:1. God was manifest in the flesh, 1Ti 3:16. God with us, Mat 1:23. The Jews crucified the Lord of glory, 1Co 2:8. Jesus Christ is Lord of all, Act 10:36. Christ is over all; God blessed for ever, Rom.ix. 5.” These are a few of many propositions, which the New Testament writers lay down relative to Jesus Christ. If the writers intended to affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ, these are words of truth and soberness; if not, the language is incautious and unwarrantable; and to address it to men prone to idolatry, for the purpose of destroying idolatry, is a strong presumption against their inspiration. It is remarkable, also, that the richest words in the Greek language are made use of to describe Jesus Christ. This language, which is very copious, would have afforded lower terms to express an inferior nature; but it could have afforded none higher to express the nature of the Supreme God.
It is worthy of observation, too, that these writers addressed their writings not to philosophers and scholars, but to the common people, and consequently used words in their plain popular signification. The common people, it seems, understood the words in our sense of them; for in the Dioclesian persecution, when the Roman soldiers burnt a Phrygian city inhabited by Christians; men, women, and children submitted to their fate, calling upon Christ, THE GOD OVER ALL.
2. Compare the style of the New Testament with the state of the Jews at the time of its publication. In the time of Jesus Christ, the Jews were zealous defenders of the unity of God, and of that idea of his perfections which the Scriptures excited. Jesus Christ and his apostles professed the highest regard for the Jewish Scriptures; yet the writers of the New Testament described Jesus Christ by the very names and titles by which the writers of the Old Testament had described the Supreme God. Compare Exo 3:14. with Joh 8:58. Is. 44: 6. with Rev 1:11; Rev 1:17. Deu 10:17. with Rev 17:14. Psa 24:10. with 1Co 2:8. Hos 1:7. with Luk 2:1-52. Dan 5:23. with 1Co 15:47. 1Ch 29:11. with Col 2:10. If they who described Jesus Christ to the Jews by these sacred names and titles intended to convey an idea of his deity, the description is just and the application safe; but if they intended to describe a mere man, they were surely of all men the most preposterous. They chose a method of recommending Jesus to the Jews the most likely to alarm and enrage them. Whatever they meant, the Jews understood them in our sense, and took Jesus for a blasphemer, Joh 10:33.
3. Compare the perfections which are ascribed to Jesus Christ in the Scriptures, with those which are ascribed to God. Jesus Christ declares, “All things that the Father hath are mine, ” Joh 16:15. a very dangerous proposition, if he were not God. The writers of revelation ascribe to him the same perfections which they ascribe to God. Compare Jer 10:10. with Isa 9:6. Exo 15:13. with Heb 1:8. Jer 32:19. with Is. 9: 6. Psa 102:24; Psa 102:27. with Heb 13:8. Jer 23:24. with Eph 1:20; Eph 1:23. 1Sa 2:5. with Joh 14:30. If Jesus Christ be God, the ascription of the perfections of God to him is proper; if he be not, the apostles are chargeable with weakness or wickedness, and either would destroy their claim of inspiration.
4. Consider the works that are ascribed to Jesus Christ, and compare them with the claims of Jehovah. Is creation a work of God? “By Jesus Christ were all things created, ” Col 1:1-29. Is preservation a work of God? “Jesus Christ upholds all things by the word of his power, ” Heb 1:3. Is the mission of the prophets a work of God? Jesus Christ is the Lord God of the holy prophets; and it was the Spirit of Christ which testified to them beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow, Neh 9:30. Rev 22:6; Rev 22:16. 1Pe 1:11. Is the salvation of sinners a work of God? Christ is the Saviour of all that believe, Joh 4:42. Heb 5:9. Is the forgiveness of sin a work of God? The Son of Man hath power to forgive sins, Mat 9:6. The same might be said of the illumination of the mind; the sanctification of the heart; the resurrection of the dead: the judging of the world; the glorification of the righteous; the eternal punishment of the wicked; all which works, in one part of Scripture, are ascribed to God; and all which, in another part of Scripture, are ascribed to Jesus Christ. Now, if Jesus Christ be not God, into what contradictions these writers must fall! They contradict one another: they contradict themselves. Either Jesus Christ is God, or their conduct is unaccountable.
5. Consider that divine worship which Scriptures claim for Jesus Christ. It is a command of God, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, ” Mat 4:20. yet the Scriptures command “all the angels of God to worship Christ, ” Heb 1:6. Twenty times, in the New Testament, grace, mercy, and peace, are implored of Christ, together with the Father. Baptism is an act of worship performed in his name, Mat 28:19. Swearing is an act of worship; a solemn appeal in important cases to the omniscient God; and this appeal is made to Christ, Rom 9:1. The committing to the soul to God at death is a sacred act of worship: in the performance of this act, Stephen died, saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit, Act 7:59. The whole host of heaven worship him that sitteth upon the throne, and the Lamb, for ever and ever, Rev 5:14; Rev 15:1-8 :
6. Observe the application of Old Testament passages which belong to Jehovah, to Jesus in the New Testament, and try whether you can acquit the writers of the New Testament of misrepresentation, on supposition that Jesus is not God. St. Paul says, “We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.” That we shall all be judged, we allow; but how do you prove that Christ shall be our Judge? Because, adds the apostle, it is written, “As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God, ” Rom 14:10-11, with Is. 45: 20, &c. What sort of reasoning is this? How does this apply to Christ, if Christ be not God? And how dare a man quote one of the most guarded passages in the Old Testament for such a purpose? John the Baptist is he who was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, Prepare ye the way, Mat 3:1; Mat 3:3. Isaiah saith, Prepare ye the way of THE LORD; make straight a highway for OUR GOD, Is. 40: 3, &c. But what has John the Baptist to do with all this description if Jesus Christ be only a messenger of Jehovah, and not Jehovah himself? for Isaiah saith, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah. Compare also Zec 12:10. with Joh 19:1-42. Is. 6: with Joh 12:39. Is. 8: 13, 14. with 1Pe 2:8. Allow Jesus Christ to be God, and all these applications are proper. If we deny it, the New Testament, we must own is one of the most unaccountable compositions in the world, calculated to make easy things hard to be understood.
7. Examine whether events have justified that notion of Christianity which the prophets gave their countrymen of it, if Jesus Christ be not God. The calling of the Gentiles from the worship of idols to the worship of the one living and true God, is one event, which, the prophets said, the coming of the Messiah should bring to pass. If Jesus Christ be God, the event answers the prophecy; if not, the event is not come to pass, for Christians in general worship Jesus, which is idolatry, if he be not God, Isa 2:1-22 : Zep 2:11. Zec 14:9. the primitive Christians certainly worshipped Him as God. Pliny, who was appointed governor of the province of Bithynia by the emperor Trajan, in the year 103, examined and punished several Christians for their non-conformity to the established religion of the empire. In a letter to the emperor, giving an account of his conduct, he declares, “they affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was that they met on a certain slated day, before it was light, and addressed themselves in a form of prayer to Christ as to some God.”
Thus Pliny meant to inform the emperor that Christians worshipped Christ. Justin Martyr, who lived about 150 years after Christ, asserts, that the Christians worshipped the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Besides his testimony, there are numberless passages in the fathers that attest the truth in question; especially in Tertullian, Hippolytus, Felix, &c. Mahomet, who lived in the sixth century, considers Christians in the light of infidels and idolaters throughout the Koran; and indeed, had not Christians worshipped Christ, he could have had no shadow of a pretence to reform their religion, and to bring them back to the worship of one God. That the far greater part of Christians have continued to worship Jesus, will not be doubted; now, if Christ be not God, then the Christians have been guilty of idolatry; and if they have been guilty of idolatry, then it must appear remarkable that the apostles, who foretold the corruptions of Christianity, 2Ti 3:1-17 : should never have foreseen nor warned us against worshiping Christ. In no part of the Scripture is there the least intimation of Christians falling into idolatry in this respect. Surely if this had been an error which was so universally to prevail, those Scriptures which are able to make us wise unto salvation, would have left us warning on so important a topic. Lastly, consider what numberless passages of Scripture have no sense, or a very absurd one, if Jesus Christ be a mere man.
See Rom 1:3. 1Ti 3:16. Joh 14:9; Joh 17:5. Php 2:6. Psa 110:1; Psa 110:4. 1Ti 1:2. Act 22:12; Act 9:17.
But though Jesus Christ be God, yet for our sakes, and for our salvation, he took upon him human nature; this is therefore called his humanity. Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus, and many other heretics, denied Christ’s humanity, as some have done since. But that Christ had a true human body, and not a mere human shape, or a body that was not real flesh, is very evident from the sacred Scriptures, Is. 7: 12. Luk 24:39. Heb 2:14. Luk 1:42. Php 2:7-8. Joh 1:14. Besides, he ate, drank, slept, walked, worked, and was weary, He groaned, bled, and died, upon the cross. It was necessary that he should thus be human, in order to fulfil the divine designs and prophecies respecting the shedding of his blood for our salvation, which could not have been done had he not possessed a real body. It is also as evident that he assumed our whole nature, soul as well as body. If he had not, he could not have been capable of that sore amazement and sorrow unto death, and all those other acts of grieving, feeling, rejoicing, &c. ascribed to him. It was not, however, our sinful nature he assumed, but the likeness of it, Rom 8:2. for he was without sin, and did no iniquity. His human nature must not be confounded with his divine; for though there be an union of natures in Christ, yet there is not a mixture or confusion of them or their properties.
His humanity is not changed into his deity, nor his deity into humanity; but the two natures are distinct in one person. How this union exists is above our comprehension; and, indeed, if we cannot explain how our own bodies and souls are united, it is not to be supposed we can explain this astonishing mystery of God manifest in the flesh.
See MEDIATOR. We now proceed to the character of Jesus Christ, which, while it affords us the most pleasing subject for meditation., exhibits to us an example of the most perfect and delightful kind. “Here, ” as an elegant writer observes “every grace that can recommend religion, and every virtue that can adorn humanity, are so blended, as to excite our admiration, and engage our love. In abstaining from licentious pleasures, he was equally free from ostentatious singularity and churlish sullenness. When he complied with the established ceremonies of his countrymen, that compliance was not accompanied by any marks of bigotry or superstition: when he opposed their rooted prepossessions, his opposition was perfectly exempt from the captious petulance of a controversialist, and the undistinguishing zeal of an innovator. His courage was active in encountering the dangers to which he was exposed, and passive under the aggravated calamities which the malice of his foes heaped upon him: his fortitude was remote from every appearance of rashness, and his patience was equally exempt from abject pusillanimity: he was firm without obstinacy, and humble without meanness.
Though possessed of the most unbounded power, we behold him living continually in a state of voluntary humiliation and poverty; we see him daily exposed to almost every species of want and distress; afflicted without a comforter, persecuted without a protector; and wandering about, according to his own pathetic complaint, because he had not where to lay his head. Though regardless of the pleasures, and sometimes destitute of the comforts of life, he never provokes our disgust by the sourness of the misanthrope, or our contempt by the inactivity of the recluse. His attention to the welfare of mankind was evidenced not only by his salutary injunctions, but by his readiness to embrace every opportunity of relieving their distress and administering to their wants. In every period and circumstance of his life, we behold dignity and elevation blended with love and pity; something, which, though it awakens our admiration, yet attracts our confidence. We see power; but it is power which is rather our security than our dread; a poser softened with tenderness, and soothing while it awes. With all the gentleness of a meek and lowly mind, we behold an heroic firmness, which no terrors could restrain. In the private scenes of life, and in the public occupation of his ministry; whether the object of admiration or ridicule, of love or of persecution; whether welcomed with hosannas, or insulted with anathemas, we still see him pursuing with unwearied constancy the same end, and preserving the same integrity of life and manners.
” White’s Sermons, ser. 5. Considering him as a Moral Teacher, we must be struck with the greatest admiration. As Dr. Paley observes, “he preferred solid to popular virtues, a character which is commonly despised, to a character universally extolled, he placed, in our licentious vices, the check in the right place, viz. upon the thoughts; he collected human duty into two well-devised rules; he repeated these rules, and laid great stress upon them, and thereby fixed the sentiments of his followers; he excluded all regard to reputation in our devotion and alms, and, by parity of reason, in our other virtues; his instructions were delivered in a form calculated for impression; they were illustrated by parables, the choice and structure of which would have been admired in any composition whatever: he was free from the usual symptoms of enthusiasm, heat, and vehemence in devotion, austerity in institutions, and a wild particularity in the description of a future state; he was free also from the depravities of his age and country; without superstition among the most superstitious of men, yet not decrying positive distinctions or external observances, but soberly recalling them to the principle of their establishment, and to their place in the scale of human duties; there was nothing of sophistry or trifling, though amidst teachers, remarkable for nothing so much as frivolous subtilties and quibbling expositions: he was candid and liberal in his judgment of the rest of mankind, although belonging to a people who affected a separate claim to divine favour, and, in consequence of that opinion, prone to uncharitableness, partiality, and restriction; in his religion there was no scheme of building up a hierarchy, or of ministering to the views of human governments; in a word, there was every thing so grand in doctrine, and so delightful in manner, that the people might well exclaim
Surely, never man spake like this man!” As to his example, bishop Newcome observes, “it was of the most perfect piety to God, and of the most extensive benevolence and the most tender compassion to men. He does not merely exhibit a life of strict justice, but of overflowing benignity. His temperance has not the dark shades of austerity; his meekness does not degenerate into apathy; his humility is signal, amidst a splendour of qualities more than human; his fortitude is eminent and exemplary in enduring the most formidable external evils, and the sharpest actual sufferings. His patience is invincible; his resignation entire and absolute. Truth and sincerity shine throughout his whole conduct. Though of heavenly descent, he shows obedience and affection to his earthly parents; he approves, loves, and attaches himself to amiable qualities in the human race; he respects authority, religious and civil; and he evidences regard for his country, by promoting its most essential good in a painful ministry dedicated to its service, by deploring its calamities, and by laying down his life for its benefit. Every one of his eminent virtues is regulated by consummate prudence: and he both wins the love of his friends, and extorts the approbation and wonder of his enemies.
Never was a character at the same time so commanding and natural, so resplendent and pleasing, so amiable and venerable. There is a peculiar contrast in it between an awful greatness, dignity, and majesty, and the most conciliating loveliness, tenderness, and softness. He now converses with prophets, lawgivers, and angels; and the next instant he meekly endures the dulness of his disciples, and the blasphemies and rage of the multitude. He now calls himself greater than Solomon; one who can command legions of angels; and giver of life to whomsoever he pleaseth; the Son of God, who shall sit on his glorious throne to judge the world: at other times we find him embracing young children; not lifting up his voice in the streets, nor quenching the smoking flax; calling his disciples not servants, but friends and brethren, and comforting them with an exuberant and parental affection. Let us pause an instant, and fill our minds with the idea of one who knew all things, heavenly and earthly; searched and laid open the inmost recesses of the heart; rectified every prejudice, and removed every mistake of a moral and religious kind; by a word exercised a sovereignty over all nature, penetrated the hidden events of futurity, gave promises of admission into a happy immortality, had the keys of life and death, claimed an union with the Father; and yet was pious, mild, gentle, humble, affable, social, benevolent, friendly, and affectionate. Such a character is fairer than the morning star. Each separate virtue is made stronger by opposition and contrast: and the union of so many virtues forms a brightness which fitly represents the glory of that God ‘who inhabiteth light inaccessible.'”
See Robinson’s Plea for the Divinity of Christ, from which many of the above remarks are taken; Bishop Bull’s Judgment of the Catholic Church; Abbadie, Waterland, Hawker, and Hey, on the Divinity of Christ; Reader, Stackhouse, and Doyley’s Lives of Christ; Dr. Jamieson’s View of the Doctrine of Scripture, and the Primitive Faith concerning the Deity of Christ; Owen on the Glory of Christ’s Person; Hurrion’s Christ Crucified; Bishop Newcome’s Observation on our Lord’s Conduct; and Paley’s Evidences of Christianity.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Jesus Christ
Origin of the Name of JesusIn this article, we shall consider the two words — “Jesus” and “Christ” — which compose the Sacred Name.
The Holy Name of JesusWe give honour to the Name of Jesus, because it reminds us of all the blessings we receive through our Holy Redeemer.
Early Historical Documents Concerning Jesus ChristIn this article, we discuss the ancient historical documents — pagan, Jewish, and Christian — referring to Christ’s life and work.
Chronology of the Life of ChristIn this article, we shall endeavour to establish the absolute and relative chronology of our Lord’s life.
The Character of Jesus ChristHere we consider the character of Jesus as manifested first in His relation to men, then in His relation to God.
The Mystery of the IncarnationThe Incarnation is the mystery and dogma of the Word made Flesh.
The Resurrection of Jesus ChristResurrection is the rising again from the dead, the resumption of life. In this article, we shall treat of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, including its characteristics and importance.
Devotion to the Sacred Heart of JesusDevotion to the Sacred Heart is but a special form of devotion to Jesus.
ChristologyChristology is that part of theology which deals with Our Lord Jesus Christ. In its full extent it comprises the doctrines concerning both the person of Christ and His works; but in the present article we shall limit ourselves to a consideration of the person of Christ.
———————————–
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Jesus Christ
( , ; sometimes by Paul in the reverse order Christ Jesus), the ordinary designation of the incarnate Son of God and Savior of mankind. This double designation is not, like Simon Peter, John Mark, Joses Barnabas, composed of a name and a surname, but, like John the Baptist, Simon Magus, Bar-Jesus Elymas, of a proper name and an official title. JESUS was our Lord’s proper name, just as Peter, James, and John were the proper names of three of his disciples. To distinguish our Lord from others bearing the name, he was termed Jesus of Nazareth (Joh 18:7, etc., strictly Jesus the Nazarene, ), and Jesus the son of Joseph (Joh 6:42, etc.).
I. Import of the name. There can be no doubt that Jesus is the Greek form of a Hebrew name, which had been borne by two illustrious individuals in former periods of the Jewish history the successor of Moses and introducer of Israel into the promised land (Exo 24:13), and the high priest who, along with Zerubbabel (Zec 3:1), took so active a part in the reestablishment of the civil and religious polity of the Jews on their return from the Babylonish captivity. Its original and full form is Jehoshua (Num 13:16). By contraction it became Joshua, or Jeshua; and when transferred into Greek, by taking the termination characteristic of that language, it assumed the form Jesus. It is thus that the names of the illustrious individuals referred to are uniformly written in the Sept., and the first of them is twice mentioned in the New Testament by this name (Act 7:45; Heb 4:8).
The original name of Joshua was Hoshea (, saving), as appears in Num 13:8; Num 13:16, which was changed by Moses into Jehoshua (, Jehovah is his salvation), as appears in Num 12:16; 1Ch 7:27, being elsewhere Anglicized Joshua. After the exile he is called by the abridged form of this name, Jeshua (, id.), whence the Greek name , by which this is always represented in the Sept. This last Heb. form differs little from the abstract noun from the same root, , yeshuah’, deliverance, and seems to have been understood as equivalent in import (see Mat 1:22 comp. Ecclesiastes 46:1). The name of Jesus (Php 2:10) is not the name Jesus, but the name above every name (Php 2:9); i.e. the supreme dignity and authority with which the Father has invested Jesus Christ as the reward of his disinterested exertions in the cause of the divine glory and human happiness; and the bowing is obviously not an external mark of homage when the name Jesus is pronounced, but the inward sense of awe and submission to him who is raised to a station so exalted.
The conferring of this name on our Lord was not the result of accident, or of the ordinary course of things, but was the effect of a direct divine order (Luk 1:31; Luk 2:21), as indicative of his saving function (Mat 1:21). Like the other name Immanuel (q.v.), it does not necessarily import the divine character of the wearer. This, however, clearly results from the attributes given in the same connection, and is plainly taught in numerous passages (see especially Rom 1:3-4; Rom 9:5). for the import and application of the name CHRIST, SEE MESSIAH.
For a full discussion of the name Jesus, including many fanciful etymologies and explanations, with their refutation, see Gesenius, Thes. Heb. 2, 582; Simon. Onom. V. T. p. 519 sq.; Fritzsche, De nomine Jesu (Freiburg, 1705); Clodius, De nom. Chr. et Marioe Arabicis (Lips. 1724); Hottinger, Hist. Orient. p. 153,157; Seelen, Meditat. exeg. 2, 413; Thiess, Krit. Comment. 2, 395; A. Pfeiffer, De nomine Jesu, in his treatise De Talmude Judoeorum, p. 177 sq.; Baumgarten, Betracht. d. Namens Jesu (Halle, 1736); Chrysander, De vera forma atque emphasi nominis Jesu (Rintel. 1751); Osiander, Harmonia Evangelica (Basil. 1561), lib. 1, c. 6; Chemnitius, De nomine Jesu, in the Thes. Theol. Philol. (Amst. 1702), vol. 2, p. 62; Canini, Disquis. in loc. aliq. N.T., in the Crit. Sac. ix; Gass, De utroque J.C. nomine, Dei filii et nominis (Vratistl. 1840); and other monographs cited in Volbeding’s Index, p. 6, 7; and in Hase’s Leben Jesu, p. 51.
II. Personal Circumstances of our Lord. These, of course, largely affected his history, notwithstanding his divinity.
1. General View. The following is a naked statement of the facts of his career as they may be gathered from the evangelical narratives, supposing them to be entitled simply to the credit due to profane history. (For literature, see Volbeding, p. 56; Hase, p. 8.) The founder of the Christian religion was born (B.C. 6) at Bethlehem, near Jerusalem, under the reign of the emperor Augustus, of Mary, at the time betrothed to the carpenter () Joseph, and descended from the royal house of David (Mat 1:1 sq.; Luk 3:23 sq.; comp. Joh 7:42). Soon after his birth he was compelled to escape from the murderous designs of Herod the Great by a hasty flight into the adjacent parts of Egypt (Mat 2:13 sq.; according to the tradition at Matarea, see Evangel. infant. Arab. c. 24; apparently a place near old Heliopolis, where is still shown a very old mulberry tree under which Mary is said to have rested with the babe, see Prosp. Alpin, Rer. AEg. 1, 5, p. 24; Paulus, Samml. 3, 256 sq.; Tischendorf, Reisen, 1, 141 sq.; comp. generally Hartmann, Erdbeschr. v. Africa, 1, 878 sq.). SEE EGYPT; SEE HEROD.
But immediately after the death of this king his parents returned to their own country, and settled again (Luk 1:26) in Nazareth (q.v.), in Lower Galilee (Mat 2:23; comp. Luk 4:16; Joh 1:46, etc.), where the youthful Jesus so rapidly matured (Luk 2:40; Luk 2:52), that in his twelfth year the boy evinced at the metropolis traits of an uncommon religious intelligence, which excited astonishment in all the spectators (Luk 2:41 sq.). With this event the history of his youth concludes in the canonical gospels, and we next find him, about the thirtieth year of his age (A.D. 25), in the neighborhood of the Dead Sea, at the Jordan, where he suffered himself to be consecrated for the introduction of the new divine dispensation ( ) by the symbol of water baptism at the hands of John the Baptist (Mat 3:13 sq.; Mar 1:9 sq.; Luk 3:21 sq.; Joh 1:32 sq.). He now began, after a forty-days’ fast (comp. 1Ki 19:8) spent in the wilderness of Judea (Mat 4:1-11; Mar 1:12 sq.; Luk 4:1-13) in quiet meditation upon his mission, to publish openly in person this kingdom of God, by earnestly summoning his countrymen to repentance, i.e. a fundamental reformation of their sentiments and conduct, through a new birth from the Holy Spirit (Joh 3:3 sq.).
He repeatedly announced himself as the mediator of this dispensation, and in pursuance of this character, in correction of the sensual expectations of the people with reference to the long hoped for Redeemer (comp. Luk 4:21), he chose from among his early associates and Galilaean countrymen a small number of faithful disciples (Matthew 10), and with them traveled, especially at the time of the Paschal festival and during the summer months, in various directions through Palestine, seizing every opportunity to impress pure and fruitful religious sentiments upon the populace or his immediate disciples, and to enlighten them concerning his own dignity as God’s legate ( ), who should abolish the sacrificial service, and teach a worship of God, as the. common Father of mankind, in spirit and in truth (Joh 4:24). With these expositions of doctrine, which all breathe the noblest practical spirit, and were so carefully adapted to the capacity and apprehension of the hearers that in respect to clearness, simplicity, and dignified force they are still a pattern of true instruction, he coupled, in the spirit of the Old Testament prophets, and as his age expected from the Messiah, wonderful deeds, especially charitable cures of certain diseases at that time very prevalent and regarded as incurable, but to these he himself appears to have attributed a subordinate value. By this means he gathered about him a considerable company of true adherents and thankful disciples, chiefly from the middle class of the people (Joh 7:49; and even from the despicable publicans, Mat 9:9 sq. Luk 5:27 sq.); for the eminent and learned were repelled by the severe reproofs which he uttered against their corrupt maxims (Mar 12:38 sq.), their sanctimonious (Luk 12:1; Luk 18:9 sq.) and hypocritical punctiliousness (Luk 11:39 sq.; Luk 18:9 sq.), and against their prejudices, as being subversive of all true religion (Joh 8:33; Joh 9:16), as well as by the slight regard which (in comparison with their statutes) he paid to the Sabbath (Joh 5:16); and as he in no respect corresponded to their expectations of the Messiah, full of animosity, they made repeated attempts to seize his person (Mar 11:18; Joh 7:30; Joh 7:44). At last they succeeded, by the assistance of the traitor Judas, in taking him prisoner in the very capital, where he had just partaken of a parting meal in the familiar circle of his friends (the Passover), upon which he engrafted the initiatory rite of a new covenant; and thus, without exciting any surprise on his part, in surrendering him into the hands of the Roman authorities as a popular insurrectionist. He was sentenced to death by crucifixion, as he had often declared to his disciples would be his fate, and suffered himself, with calm resignation, to be led to the place of execution between two malefactors (on their traditional names, see Thilo, Apocryph. 1, 580 sq.; comp. Evang. infant. Arab. c. 23); but he arose alive on the third day from the grave which a grateful disciple had prepared for him, and after tarrying forty days in the midst of his disciples, during which he confidently intrusted the prosecution of the great work into their hands, and promised them the divine help of a Paraclete (), he finally, according to one of the narrators, soared away visibly into the sky (A.D. 29). (See Volbeding, p. 6.)
2. Sources of Information. The only trustworthy accounts respecting Jesus are to be derived from the evangelists. (See Volbeding, p. 5.) SEE GOSPELS, SPURIOUS. They exhibit, it is true, many chasms (Causse, De rationibus ob quas non plura quam quoe extant ad J.C. vitam pertinentia ab Evang. literis sint consignata, Franckf. 1766), but they wear the aspect of a true, plain, lively narrative. Only two of these derive their materials from older traditions, doubtless from the apostles and companions of Jesus; but they were all first written down a long time after the occurrences: hence it has often been asserted that the historical matter was even at that time no longer extant in an entirely pure state (since the objective and the subjective, both in views and opinions, are readily interchanged in an unscientifically formed style); but that after Jesus had been so gloriously proved to be the Messias, the incidents were improved into prodigies, especially through a consideration of the Old Testament prophecies (Kaiser, Bibl. Theol. 1, 199 sq.).
Yet in the synoptical gospels this could only be shown in the composition and connection of single transactions; the facts themselves in the respective accounts agree too well in time and circumstances, and the narrators confine themselves too evidently to the position of writers of memoirs, to allow the supposition of a (conscious) transformation of the events or any such developments from Old Testament prophecy: moreover, if truth and pious poetry had already become mingled in the verbal traditionary reports, the eyewitnesses Matthew and John would have known well, in a fresh narration, how to distinguish between each of these elements with regard to scenes which they had themselves passed through (for memory and imagination were generally more lively and vigorous among the ancients than with us) (Br. ub. Rationalismus, p. 248 sq.; compare Heydenreich, Ueb. Unzulassigkeit d. myth. Auffassung des Histor. im N.T. und im Christenth. Herborn, 1831-5; see Hase, p. 9). Sooner would we suppose that the fertile-minded John, who wrote latest, has set before us, not the pure historical Christ, but one apprehended by faith and confounded with his own spiritual conceptions (Br. ber Rational. p. 352). But while it is altogether probable that even he, by reason of his individuality and spiritual sympathy with Jesus, apprehended and reflected the depth and spirituality of his Master more truly than the synoptical evangelists, who depict rather the exterior phenomena of his character, at the same time there is actually nothing contained in the doctrinal discourses of Jesus in John, either in substance or form, that is incompatible with the Christ of the first three evangelists (see Heydenreich, in his Zeitschr fur Predigermiss. 1, pt. 1 and 2); yet these latter represent Jesus as speaking comparatively seldom, and that in more general terms, of his exaltation, dignity, and relation with the Father, whereas that Christ would have explained himself much more definitely and fully upon a point that could not have remained undiscussed, is of itself probable (see Hase, p. 10). Hence also, although we cannot believe that in such representations we are to understand the identical words of Christ to be given (for while the retention of all these extended discourses in the memory is improbable, on the other hand a writing of them down is repugnant to the Jewish custom), yet the actual sentiments of Jesus are certainly thus reported. (See further, Bauer, Bibl. Theol. N.T. 2, 278 sq.; B. Crusius, Bibl. Theol. p. 81; Fleck, Otium theolog. Lips. 1831; and generally Krummacher, Ueber den Geist und die Form der evang. Gesch. Lpz. 1805; Eichhorn, Einleit. 1, 689 sq.; on the mythicism of the evangelists, see Gabler, Neuest. theol. Journ. 7, 396; Bertholdt, Theol. Journ. 5, 235 sq.)
In the Church fathers, we find very little that appears to have been derived from clearly historical tradition, but the apocryphal gospels breathe a spirit entirely foreign to historical truth, and are filled with accounts of petty miracles (Tholuck, Glaubwurdigkeit, p. 406 sq.; Ammon, Leb. Jesu, 1, 90 sq.; compare Schmidt, Einl. ins N.T. 2, 234 sq., and Biblioth. Krit. u. Exegese, 2, 481 sq.). The passage of Josephus (Ant. 18, 3, 3; see Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. 24), which Eusebius (Hist. Ecclesiastes 1, 11; Demonstr. Ev. 3, 7) was the first among Christian writers to make use of, has been shown (see Hase, p. 12), although some have ingeniously striven to defend it (see, among the latest, Bretschneider, in his Diss. capita theolog. Jud. dogmat. e Josepho collect. Lips. 1812; Bohmert, Ueber des Jos. Zeugniss von Christo, Leipz. 1823; Schodel, Fl. Joseph. de J. Chr. testatus, Lips. 1840), to be partly, but not entirely spurious (see Eichstadt, Flaviani de Jesu Christo testimonii quo jure nuper rursus defensa sit, Jena, 1813; also his 6 Progr. m. einenz auctar, 1841; Paulus, in the Heidelberg Jahrb. 1813, 1, 269 sq.; Theile, in the N. kritisch. Journ. d. theolog. Lit. 2, 97 sq.; Heinichen, Exc. 1 zu Euseb. H.E. 3, 331 sq.; also Suppl. notarius ad Eusebium, p. 73 sq.; Ammon, Leben Jesu, 1, 120 sq.). SEE JOSEPHUS. (See Volbeding, p. 5.) The Koran (q.v.) contains only palpable fables concerning Jesus (Hottinger, Histor. Or. 105 sq.; Schmidt, in his Bibl. f. Krit. u. Exegese, 1, 110 sq.; D’Herbelot, Biblioth. Orientale, 2, 349 sq.; compare Augusti, Christologioe Koran lineam. Jena, 1799), and the Jewish History of Jesus ( , edit. Huldrici, Lugd. Bat. 1703; and in Wagenseil, Tela ign. Satan. Altdorf, 1681) betrays itself as an abortive fabrication of Jewish calumny, destitute of any historical value (see Ammon, Bibl. Theol. 2, 263), while the allusions to Jesus in the Talmud and the Rabbins have only a polemical aim (see Meelfuhrer, Jesus in Talmude, Altdorf, 1699, 2, 4; Werner, Jesus in Talmude Stadae, 1731; comp. Bynaeus, De natali J.C. 2, 4). (See Volbeding, p. 5.) The genuine Acts of Pilate (Acta Pilati, Eusebius, Chron. Arm. 2, 267; compare Henke, Opusc. p. 199 sq.) are no longer extant, SEE PILATE; what we now possess under this title is a later fabrication (see Ammon, 1, 102 sq.). In the Greek and Roman profane authors, Jesus is only incidentally named (Tacitus, Annal. 15, 44, 3; Pliny, Epist. 10, 97; Lamprid. Vit. Alex. Sev. c. 29, 43; Porphyry, De philosoph. ex. orac. in Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. 3, 7; Liban. in Socr. Hist. Ev. 3, 23; Lucian, Mors peregr. c. 11, 13). On Suidas, s.v. see Walter, Codex in Suida mendax de Jesu (Lips. 1724). Whether by Chrestus in Suetonius (Claud. p. 25) is to be understood Christ, is doubted by some (comp. Ernesti and Wolf, ad loc.; SEE CLAUDIUS ), but the unusual name Christus might easily undergo this change (see also Philostr. Soph. 2, 11) in popular reference (see generally Eckhard, Non-Christianor. de Christo testimonia, Quedlinb. 1737; Koecher, Hist. Jesu Christo ex scriptorib. profan. eruta, Jena, 1726; Meyer, Versuche Vertheid. u. Erlaut. der Geschichte Jesu u. d. Apostol. a. griech. u. rom. Profanscrib. Hannov. 1805; Fronmller, in the Studien der wurtemb. Geistl. 10, 1. On the Jesus of the book of Sirach , 43, 25, see Seelen, De Jesu in Jesu Sirac. frustra quoesito, Lubec. 1724; also in his Medit. exeg. 1, 207 sq.).
3. The scientific treatment of the life of Jesus belongs to the modern period of theological criticism. Among earlier contributions of a critico- chronological character is that of Offerhaus (De vita J. C. privata et publica, in his Spicil. histor. chronol. Groningen, 1739). Greiling (Halle, 1813) first undertook the adjustment in a lively narrative, of the recent (rationalistic) exposition that has resulted, to the actual career of Christ. An independent but, on the whole, unsatisfactory treatise is that of Planck (Gesch. d. Christenth. in der Periode seiner ersten Einfuhr. in die Welt durch Jesum u. die Apostel, Gttingen, 1818). Kaiser has attempted an analysis (Bibl. Theol. 1, 230 sq.). Still more severe in his method of criticism is Paulus (Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Gesch. d. Urchristenth. Heidelb. 1828), and bold to a degree that has alarmed the theological world is D.F. Strauss (Leben J. krit. bearbeit. Tubing. 1835, and since). The latter anew reduced the evangelical histories (with the exception of a few plain transactions) to a mythical composition springing out of the Old Test. prophecies and the expectations of the Messiah in the community, and, in his criticism upon single points, generally stands upon the shoulders of the preceding writers. In opposition to him, numerous men of learning and courage rose up to defend the historical Christ, some of them insisting upon the strictly supernatural interpretation (Lange; Harless; Tholuck, Glaubwurdigkeit der evangel. Gesch. Hamb. 1838; Krabbe, Vorles. ber das Leben Jesu, Hamb. 1839), while others concede or pass over single points in the history (Neander, Leben J. Chr. Hamburg, 1837). Into this controversy, which grew highly personal, a philosophical writer (Weisse, Evang. Geschichte Krit. u. philosoph. Bearbeitung, Leipz. 1840) became involved, and attempted, by an ingenious but decidedly presumptuous criticism, to distinguish the historical and the unhistorical element in the evangelical account. At the same time, Theile (Zur Biographie Jesu, Leipzig, 1837) gave a careful and conciliatory summary of the materials of the discussion, but Hase has published (in the 4th ed. of his Leben Jesu, Leipz. 1840) a masterly review, showing the gradual rejection of the extravagances of criticism since 1829. The substance of the life of Jesus has thus now become established in general belief as historical truth; yet Bauer (Krit. der evangel. Gesch. d. Synoptiker, Leipz. 1841), after an analysis of the gospels as literary productions, calls the original narrative concerning Jesus a pure creation of the Christian consciousness, and he pronounces the evangelical history generally to be solved. Thenius has met him with a proof of the evangelical history, drawn from the N. Test. epistles, in a few but striking remarks (Das Evang. ohne die Evangelien, Leipz. 1843), but A. Ebrard (Viss. Krit. d. evang. Gesch. Frankf. 1842) has fully refuted him in a learned but not unprejudiced work (see also Weisse, in the Jen. Lit.-Zeit. 1843, No. 7-9, 13-15). But this heartless and also peculiarly insipid criticism of Bauer which, indeed, often degenerates into the ridiculous appears to have left no impression upon the literary world, and may therefore be dismissed without further consideration (comp. generally Grimm, Glaubwurdigkeit d. evangel. Gesch. in Bezug auf Strauss und Bauer, Jena, 1845). Lately, Von Ammon (Gesch. d. Leb. Jesu; Leipz. 1842) undertook, in his style of combination, carefully steering between the extremes, a narrative of the life of Jesus full of striking observations. Whatever else has been done in this department (Gfrorer, Geschichte des Urchristenth. Stuttg. 1838; Salvador, Jesus Christ et sa doctrine, Par. 1838) belongs rather to the origin of Christianity than to the data of the life of Jesus. In Catholic literature little has appeared on this subject (Kuhn, Leben Jesus wissensch. bearbeitet, Mainz, 1838; of a more general character are the works of Francke, Leipz. 1838, and Storch, Leipz. 1841). (On the bearing of subjective views upon the treatment of the gospel history, there are the monographs cited in Volbeding, p. 6.) See literature below, and compare the art. SEE CHRISTOLOGY.
4. Chronological Data.
a. The year of Christ’s birth (for the general condition of the age, see Knapp, De statu temp. nato Christo, Hal. 1757; and the Church histories of Gieseler, Neander, etc.; on a special point, see Masson, Jani templ. Christo nascente reseratum, Rotterdam, 1700) cannot, as all investigations on this point have proved (Fabricii Bibl. antiquar. p. 187 sq., 342 sq.; Thiess, Krit. Comment. 2, 339 sq.; comp. especially S. van Tilde, de anno, mense et die nati Chr. Lugd. Bat. 1700, praef. J.G. Walch, Jena, 1740; K. Michaeles, Ueber das Geburts- u. Sterbejahr J.C. Wien, 1796, 2, 8), be determined with full certainty (Reccard, Pr. in rationes et limites incertitudinis circa temp. nat. Christi, Reg. 1768); yet it is now pretty generally agreed that the vulgar era (Hamberger, De epochoe Dionys. ortu et auctore, Jen. 1704; also in Martini Thes. Diss. 3, 1, 341 sq.), of which the first year corresponds to 4714 of the Julian Period, or 754 (and latter part of 753; see Jarvis, Introd. to Hist of the Church, p. 54, 610) of Rome (Sanclemente, De vulg. oeroe emendat. Rom. 1793; Ideler, Chronol. 2, 383 sq.), has assigned it a date too late by a few years (see Strong’s Harm. and Expos. Append. 1), since the death of Herod the Great (Mat 2:1 sq.), according to Josephus (Ant. 17, 8, 1; comp. 14, 14, 5; 17, 9, 3), must have occurred before Easter in B.C. 4 (see Browne’s Ordo Soeclorum, p. 27 sq.). Hence Jesus may have been born in the beginning of the year of Rome 750, four years before the epoch of our era, or even earlier (Uhland, Christum anno ante oer. Vulg. 4 exeunte nature esse, Tubing. 1775; so Bengel, Anger, Wieseler, Jarvis), but in no case later (comp. also Offerhaus, Spicileg. p. 422 sq.; Paulus, Comment. 1, 206 sq.; Vogel, in Gabler’s Journ. f. auserl. theolog. Lit. 1, 244 sq.; and in the Studien der wurtemberg. Geistlichk. 1, 1, 50 sq.). A few passages (as Luk 3:1; Luk 3:23; Mat 2:2 sq.) afford a closer determination, SEE CYRENIUS; the latter gave occasion to the celebrated Kepler to connect the star of the Magi with a planetary conjunction (of Jupiter and Saturn), and more recent writers have followed this suggestion (Wurm, in Bengel’s Archiv. 2, 1, 261 sq.; Ideler, Handb. d. Chronol. 2, 399 sq., and Lehrb. d. Chronol. p. 428 sq.; compare also Munter, Stern der Weisen, Copenh. 1827; Klein’s Oppositionsschr. 5, 1, 90 sq.; Schubert, Lehrb. d. Sternkunde, p. 226 sq.), fixing upon B.C. 6 as the true year of the nativity. SEE NATIVITY.
But Mat 2:16 seems to state that the Magi, who must have arrived at Jerusalem soon after the birth of Jesus, had indicated the first appearance of the phenomenon as having occurred a long time previously (probably not exactly two years before), and on that view Jesus might have been born earlier than B.C. 6, the more so inasmuch as the accession of Mars to the same conjunction, occurring in the spring of B.C. 6, according to Kepler, may have first excited the full attention of the Magi. Lately Wieseler (Chronolog. Synopse, p. 67 sq.) has brought down the nativity to the year B.C. 4, and in additional confirmation of this date holds that a comet, which, according to Chinese astronomical tables, was visible for more than two months in this year, was identical with the star of the wise men, at the same time adducing Luk 2:1 sq.; Luk 3:23, as pointing to the same year. But if the Magi had first been incited to their journey by the appearance of that comet, they could not well have designated to Herod as the Messianic star the planetary conjunction of A.U.C. 747 or 748, then almost two years ago, seeing this was an entirely distinct phenomenon. Under this supposition, too, Herod would have made more sure of his purpose if he had put to death children three years old. According to this view, then, we should place Christ’s birth rather in B.C. 7 than B.C. 4. Some uncertainty, however, must always attend the use of these astronomical data. SEE STAR IN THE EAST.
As an element in determining the year of the nativity, Luk 3:1, comp. 23, must also be taken into the account. Jesus is there positively stated to have entered upon his public ministry at thirty years of age, and indeed soon after John the Baptist, whose mission began in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, so that by reckoning back about thirty years from this latter date (August, 781, to August, 782, of Rome, A.D. 28-29), we arrive at about B.C. 3 as the year of Christ’s birth, which corresponds to the statements of Irenaeus (Hoeret. 3, 25), Tertullian (Adv. Jud 1:8), and Eusebius (Hist. Ev. 1, 5), that Jesus was born in the year 41 (42) of the reign of Augustus, i.e. 751 of Rome, or B.C. 3 (Ideler, Chronolog. 2, 385). As Luke’s language in that passage is somewhat indefinite (about, ), we may presume that Christ was rather over than under thirty years of age; and this will agree with the computation of the fourth year before the Dionysian era, i.e. 750 of Rome. If, however, we suppose (but see Browne, Ordo Soeclorum, p. 67) the joint reign of Tiberius with Augustus, i.e. his association with him in the government especially of the provinces (Vell. Paterc. Hist. Rom. 2, 121; Sueton. 3, 20, 21; Tacitus, Annal. 1, 3; Dio Cass. Hist. Rom. 2, 103), three and a half years before his full reign (Janris, Introd. p. 228-239), to be meant, we shall again be brought to about B.C. 6, or possibly 7, as the year of the nativity. The latest conclusion of Block (Das wahre Geburtsjahr Christi, Berl. 1843), that Jesus was born in the year 735 of Rome, or nineteen years before the beginning of the vulgar era, based upon the authority of the later Rabbins, does not call for special examination (yet see Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 132). SEE ADVENT.
The month and day of the birth of Christ cannot be determined with a like degree of approximation, but it could not, at all events, have fallen in December or January, since at this time of the year the flocks are not found in the open fields during the night (Luk 2:8), but in pens ( the first rain descends the 17th of the month Marchesvan [November], and then the cattle returned home; nor did the shepherds any longer lodge in huts in the fields, Gemara, Nedar. 63); moreover, a census (), which made traveling necessary (Luk 2:2 sq.), would not have been ordered at this season. We may naturally suppose that the month of March is the time for driving out cattle to pasture, at least in Southern Palestine (Suskind, in Bengel’s Archiv. 1, 215; comp. A.J. u. d. Hardt, De momenteis quibusd. hist. et chron. ad determin. Chr. diem natal. Helmst. 1754; Korner, De die natali Servatoris, Lips. 1778; Funck, De die Servat. natali, Rint. 1735; also in his Dissert. Acad. p. 149 sq.; Minter, Stern der Weisen, Copenh. 1827, p. 110 sq.). If we can rely upon a statement of the Jewish Rabbins, that the first of the twenty-four courses of priests entered upon their duties in the regular cycle the very week in which the Temple was destroyed by the Romans (Mishna, 3, 298, 3), we are furnished with the means, by comparison with the time of the service of Zachariah (Luk 1:5; Luk 1:8), who belonged to the eighth division (1Ch 24:10), of determining with considerable certainty (Browne’s Ordo Soeclorum, p. 33 sq.) the date of the nativity as occurring, if in B.C. 6, about the month of August (Strong’s Harm. and Expos. Append. 1, p. 23). The attempts of Scaliger and Bengel to determine the month of the nativity from this element (compare Maurit. De sortit. p. 334 sq.) are unsatisfactory (see Van Til, ut sup. p. 75 sq.; Allix, Diatr. de anno et mense J.C. nat. p. 44 sq.; Paulus, Comment. 1, 36 sq.). Lately Jarvis (Introd. p. 535 sq.) has endeavored to maintain the traditionary date of Christmas of the Latin Church; and Seyffarth has anew adopted the conclusion (Chronoloq. Sacra, p. 97 sq.) that John the Baptist was born on the 24th of June, and consequently Jesus on the 25th (22d in his Summary of recent Discoveries in Chronology, N. York, 1857, p. 236) of December, based on the supposition that the Israelites reckoned by solar months: this pays no regard to Luk 2:8 (see Hase, p. 67). SEE CHRISTMAS.
b. The year of Christ’s crucifixion is no less disputed (comp. Paulus, Comment. 3, 784 sq.). The two extreme limits of the date are the above- mentioned 15th year of Tiberius, in which John the Baptist began his career (Luk 3:1), i.e. Aug. 781 to Aug. 782 of Rome (A.D. 28-29), and the year of the death of that emperor, 790 of Rome (A.D. 37), in which Pilate had already left the province of Judaea. Jesus appears to have begun his public teaching soon after John’s entrance upon his mission; for the message of the Sanhedrim to John, which is placed in immediate connection with the beginning of Christ’s public ministry (Joh 1:19; comp. Joh 2:1), and comes in just before the Passover (Joh 2:12 sq.), must have been within a year after John’s public appearance. This being assumed, a further approximation would depend upon the determination of the number of Passovers which Jesus celebrated during his ministry; but this itself is quite a difficult question (see under No. 5, below). It is now generally conceded that he could not well have passed less than three Paschal festivals, and probably not more than four (i.e. one at the beginning of each of Christ’s three years, and a fourth at the close of the last); thus we ascertain as the terminus a quo of these festivals the year A.D. 28, and as the probable terminus ad quem the year A.D. 32; or, on the supposition (as above) that the joint reign of Tiberius is meant, we have as the limits of the Passovers of Jesus A.D. 25-29. This result would be rendered more definite and certain if we could ascertain whether in the last of these series of years (A.D. 29 or 32) the Jewish Passover fell on a Friday (Thursday evening and the ensuing day), as this was the week day on which the death of Christ is generally held to have taken place. There have been various calculations by means of lunar tables (Linbrunn, in the Abhandlung der bayerschen Akademie der Wiss. vol. 6; Wurm, in Bengel’s Archiv. 2, 1, 292 sq.; Anger, De temporumn in Act. Apost. ratione ciss. 1, Lips. 1830, p. 30 sq.; Browne, Ordo Soeclorum. Lond. 1844, p. 504), to determine during which of the years of this period the Paschal day must have occurred on Friday (see Strong’s Harm. and Exposit. Append. 1, p. 8 sq.); but the inexactness of the Jewish calendar makes every such computation uncertain (Wurm, ut sup. p. 294 sq.). Yet it is worthy of notice that the two most recent investigations of Wurm and Anger both make the year A.D. 31, or 784 of Rome, to be such a calendar year as we require. Wieseler, Chronol. Synops. p. 479), on the other hand, protests against the foregoing computations, and insists that in A.D. 30 alone the Paschal day fell on Friday. According to other calculations, A.D. 29 and 33 are the only years of this period in which the Paschal eve fell on Thursday (see Browne, Ordo Soeclorum, p. 55), while so great discrepancy prevails between other computations (see Townsend’s Chronological N.T. p. *159) that little or no reliance can be placed upon this argument (see Strong’s Harm. and Exposit. Append. 1, p. 8 sq.). SEE PASSOVER.
The opinion of some of the ancient writers (Irelenus, 2, 22, 5), that Jesus died at 40 or 50 years of age (compare Joh 8:57), is altogether improbable (see Pisanski, De errore Irenoei in determinanda oetate Christi, Regiom. 1777). The most of the Church fathers (Tertull. Adv. Jud 1:8; Lactantius, Institut. 4, 10; Augustine, Civ. dei, 18, 54; Clem. Alex. Stromn. 1, p. 147, etc.) assign but a single year as the duration of Christ’s ministry, and place his death in the consulship of the two Gemini (VIII Cal. April. Coss. C. Rubellio Gemino et C. Rufio Gemino), i.e. 782 of Rome, A.D. 29, the 15th year of Tiberius’s reign, which Ideler (Chronology, 2, 418 sq.) has lately (so also Browne, Ordo Soeclorum, p. 80 sq.) attempted to reconcile with Luk 3:1 (but see Seyffarth, Chronol. Sacra, p. 115 sq.; Eusebius, in his Chronicles Armen. 2, p. 264, places the death of Jesus in the 19th year of Tiberius, which Jerome, in his Latin translation, calls the 18th; on the above reckoning of the fathers, see Petavius, Animadvers. p. 146 sq.; Thilo, Cod. Apocr. 1, 497 sq.). On the observation of the sun at the crucifixion (Mat 27:45; Mar 15:33; Luk 23:44), SEE ECLIPSE, (On the chronological elements of the life of Jesus, see generally Hottinger, Pentas dissertat. bibl.-chronol. p. 218 sq.; Voss, De annis Christi dissertat. Amst. 1643; Lupi, De notis chronolog. anni mortis et nativ. J.C. dissertat. Rom. 1744; Horix, Observat. hist. chronol. de annis Chr. Mogunt. 1789; compare Volbeding, p. 20; Hase, p. 52.) SEE CHRONOLOGY.
5. The two family registers of Jesus (Matthew 1 and Luke 3), of which the first, is descending and the latter ascending, vary considerably from each other; inasmuch as not only entirely different names of ancestors are given from Joseph upwards to Zerubbabel and Salathiel (Mat 1:12 sq.; Luk 3:27), but also Matthew carries back Joseph’s lineage to David’s son Solomon (Luk 3:6 sq.), while Luke refers it to another son Nathan (Luk 3:31). Moreover, Matthew only goes back as far as Abraham (as he wrote for Jewish readers), but Luke (in agreement with the general scope of his gospel) as far as Adam (God). This disagreement early engaged the attention of the Church fathers (see Eusebius, Hist. Ev. 1, 7), and later interpreters have adopted various hypotheses for the reconcilement of the two evangelists (see especially Surenhus. , p. 320 sq.: Rus, Harmon. evang. 1, 65 sq.; Thiess, Krit. Commentar, 2, 271 sq.; Kuinol, Proleg. in Matt. 4). There are properly only two general representations possible. For the history of Christ’s parents, SEE JOSEPH; SEE MARY.
(a) Matthew traces the lineage through Joseph, Luke gives the maternal descent (comp. also Neander, p. 21); so that the person called Eli in Luk 3:23, appears to have been the father of Mary (see especially Helvicus, in Crenii Exercitat. philol. hist. 3, p. 332 sq.; Spanheim, Dubia evang. 1, 13 sq.; Bengel, Heumann, Paulus, Kuinol, in their Commentaries; Wieseler, in the Studien u. Krit. 1845, p. 361 sq.; on the contrary, Bleek, Beitrage z. Evangelienkrit. p. 101 sq.). But, in the first place, in that case Luke would hardly have written so expressly the son of Eli ( ), since we must understand all the following genitives to refer to the actual fathers and not to the fathers-in-law (the appeal to Rth 1:11 sq., for the purpose of showing that a daughter-in-law could be called daughter among the Hebrews, is unavailing for the distinction in question); although, in the second place, we need not understand the Salathiel and Zerubbabel named in one genealogy to have been both different persons from those mentioned in the other (Paulus, Comment. 1, 243 sq.; Robinson, Gr. Harmony, p. 186), which is a very questionable expedient (see especially Hug, Einleitung, 2:266; Methodist Quarterly Review, Oct. 1852, p. 602 sq.). Aside from the fact that Luke does not even mention the mother of Jesus (but only Mat 1:16), and from the further fact that the Jews were not at all accustomed to record the genealogies of women (Baba Bathra, f. 110, The father’s family, not the mother’s, is accounted the true lineage; compare Wetstein, 1, 231), we might make an exception in the case of the Messiah, who was to be descended from a virgin (compare also Paulus, Leben J. 1, 90). A still different explanation (Voss, ut sup.; comp. also Schleyer, in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1836, p. 403 sq., 539 sq.), namely, that Eli; although the father of Mary, is here introduced as being the grandfather of Joseph (according to the supposition that Mary was an heiress, Num 27:8), proceeds upon an entirely untenable interpretation (see Paulus, Comment. 1, 243, 261). Notwithstanding the foregoing objection to the view under consideration, it meets, perhaps better than any other, the difficulties of the subject. SEE GENEALOGY.
(b) Some assume that the proper father of Joseph was Eli: he, as a brother, or (as the difference of the names up to Salathiel necessitates) as the nearest relative (half-brother?), had married Mary, the wife of the deceased childless Jacob, and according to the Levirate law (q.v.) Joseph would appear as the son of Jacob, and would, in fact, have two fathers (so Ambrosius); or conversely, we may suppose that Jacob was the proper father of Joseph, and Eli his childless deceased uncle (comp. Julius Afric. in Eusebius, Hist. Ev. 1, 7; Calixtus, Clericus). This hypothesis, which still conflicts with the Levirate rule that only the deceased is called father of the posthumous son (Deu 25:6), Hug (Einl. 2, 268 sq.), has been so modified as to presume a Levirate marriage as far back as Salathiel, by which the mention of Salathiel and Zerubbabel in both lists would be explained; and Hug also introduces such a marriage between the parents of Joseph, and still another among more distant relatives. This is ingenious, but too complicated (see generally Paulus, ut sup. p. 260). If a direct descent of Jesus could have been laid down from David, there remains no reason why, when the natural extraction of the Messiah straight from David was so important, the very evangelist who wrote immediately for Jewish readers should have traced the indirect lineage. But if so many as three Levirate marriages had occurred together (as Hug thinks), we should suppose that Matthew, on account of the infrequency of such a case, would have given his readers some hint, or at least not have written (Deu 25:16) begat () in a manner quite calculated to mislead. Moreover, this hypothesis of Hug rests upon an interpretation of 1Ch 3:18 sq., which that scholar himself could only have chosen in a genealogical difficulty. SEE LEVIRATE LAW
(c) If both the foregoing explanations be rejected, there remains no other course than to renounce the attempt to reconcile the two family lines of Jesus, and frankly acknowledge a discrepancy between the evangelists, as some have done (Stroth, in Eichhorn’s Repert. 9, 131 sq.; Ammon, Bibl. Theol. 2, 266; Thiess, Krit. Comment. 2, 271 sq.; Fritzsche, ad Matthew p. 35; Strauss, 1, 105 sq.; De Wette, B. Crusius, Alford, on Luke 3). In the decayed family of Joseph it might not have been possible, especially after so much misfortune as befell the country and people, to recover any written elements for the construction of a family register back to David. Were the account of Julius Africanus (in Eusebius, 1, 7; compare Schottgen, Hor. Hebr. p. 885), that king Herod had caused the family records of the Jews to be burned, correct, the want of such information would be still more evident (but see Wetstein, 1, p. 232; Wieseler, in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1845, p. 369). In that case, after the need of such registers had arisen, persons would naturally have set themselves to compiling them from traditional recollections, and the variations of these may readily have resulted in a double lineage. But even on this view it has been insisted that both lines present the descent of Joseph and not of Mary, since it was unusual to exhibit the maternal lineage, and the Jews would not have regarded such an extraction from David as the genuine one. There are, at all events, but two positions possible: either the supernatural generation of Jesus by the Holy Spirit was admitted, or Jesus was considered a son of Joseph (Luk 3:33). In the latter case a family record of Joseph entirely sufficed for the application of the O.T. oracles to Jesus; in the former case it has been conceived that such a register would have been deemed superfluous, and every natural lineage of Jesus from David (Rom 1:3) would have thrown his divine origin into the background. This has been alleged as the reason why John gives no genealogy at all, and generally says nothing of the extraction of Jesus from the family of David (see Von Ammon, Leb. Jes. 1, 179 sq.). The force of these arguments, however, is greatly lessened by the consideration that the early Christians, in meeting the Jews, would be very anxious, if possible, to prove Christ’s positive descent from David through both his reputed and his real parent; the more so, as the former was avowed to be only nominally such, leaving the whole actual lineage to be made out on the mother’s side. (See generally Baumgarten, De genealogia Chr. Hal. 1749; Durr, Genealogia Jesu, Gott. 1778; Busching’s Harmon. d. Evang. p. 187 sq., 264 sq.) SEE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST.
6. The wonderful birth of Jesus through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, which only the synoptical gospels relate (Luk 1:26 sq.; Mat 1:18 sq.; the apocryphal gospels, in order to remove all idea of the conception of Mary by Joseph, make him to have been absent a long time from home at work, Histor. Josephi, c. 5; Hist. de Nativ. Marics, c. 10), has been imagined by many recent interpreters (Ammon, Biblic. Theol. 2, 251 sq., and Comm. in narrationum de primordus J.C. fontes, incrementa et nexum c. rel. Chr. Gott. 1798; also in his Nov. Opusc. p. 25 sq.; Bauer, Theol. N.T. 1, 310 sq.; Briefe ber Rationalismus, p. 229 sq.; Kaiser, Bibl. Theolog. 1, 231 sq.; Greiling, p. 24 sq.) to have been a myth suggested by the O. Test. prophecies (Isa 7:14), and they have held Joseph to be the proper father of Jesus (as it is well known that many in the earliest Church, and individuals later, from time to time, have done, Unschuld. Nachr. 1711, p. 622 sq.; Walther, Vers. eines schriftmass. Beweisse dass Joseph der wahre Vater Christi sei, Berl. 1791; on the contrary, Oertel, Antijosephismus oder Kritik des Schriftm. Bew., etc., Germ. 1793; Hasse, Josephum verum patrem e Scriptura non fuisse, Reg. 1792; Ludewig, Histor. Untersuch. ber die versch. Meinungen v. d. Abkunft Jes. Wolfenbuttel, 1831 ; comp. also Korb, Anticarus oder histor.-krit. Beleuchtung der Schrift; Die naturl. Geburt Jesu u. s. w. Leipzig, 1831) on the following noways decisive grounds:
(a) John, who stands in so near a relation to Jesus, and must have known the family affairs, relates nothing at all of this wonderful birth, although it was very apposite to his design. But this evangelist shows the high dignity of Jesus only from his discourses, the others from public evidences and a few astonishing miracles; moreover, his prologue (1, 1-18) declares dogmatically pretty much the same thing as the synoptical gospels do historically in this respect. (Compare also the deportment of Mary, Joh 2:3 sq.; see Neander, p. 16. sq.) (b) Neither Jesus nor an apostle ever appeals in any discourse to this circumstance. Paul always says simply that Jesus was born of the seed of David’ (Rom 1:3; 2Ti 2:8); once (Gal 4:4), more definitely, of a woman’ ( , not ). It must be admitted, however, that an appeal to a fact which only one individual could positively know by experience would be very ineffectual; and an apostle would be very likely to subject himself to the charge of irrelevancy if he resorted to such an appeal (comp. Niemeyer, Pr. ad illustrand. plurimor. N.T. scriptorum silentium de primordiis vitoe J.C. Halle, 1790). But this would be laying as improper an emphasis upon the word (Gal 4:4) as that of the older theologians upon (Isa 7:14).
(c) Mary calls Joseph, without qualification, the father of Jesus (Luk 2:48), and also among the Jews Jesus was generally called Joseph’s son (Mat 13:55; Mar 6:3; Luk 3:23; Luk 4:22; Joh 1:46; Joh 6:42). This last argument is wholly destitute of force; but Mary might naturally, in common parlance, call Joseph Jesus’ father, just as, in modem phrase, a foster-father is generally styled father when definiteness of expression is not requisite.
(d) The brothers of Jesus did not believe in him as the Messiah (Joh 7:5), which would be inexplicable if the Deity had already indicated him as the Messiah from his very birth. Yet these brothers had not themselves personally known the fact; and it is, moreover, not uncommon that one son in a family who is a general favorite excites the ill will of the others to such a degree that they even deny his evident superiority, or that brothers fail to appreciate and esteem a mentally distinguished brother.
(e) History shows in a multitude of examples that the birth of illustrious men has been embellished with fables (Wetstein, N.T. 1, p. 236); especially is the notion of a birth without connection with a man () wide spread in the ancient world (Georgi, Alphabet. Tibet. Rom. 1762, p. 55 sq., 369 sq.), and among the Indians and Chinese it is even applied to the founders of religion (Paul. a Bartholom. System. Brahman. p. 158; Du Halde, Beschr. d. Chines. Reichs, 3, 26). In case it is meant by this that a wonderful generation of a holy man, effected immediately by the Spirit of God, was embraced in the circle of Oriental belief (Rosenmller, in Gabler’s Journ. ausserl. theol. Liter. 2, 253 sq.), this argument might make the purely historical character of the doctrine in question dubious, were it capable of proof that such an idea also harmonizes with the principles of the Israelitish monotheism, or could it be made probable (Weisse, Leben Jesu, 1, 176 sq.) that this account of the birth of Jesus is a heathen production (see, on the contrary, Neander, p. 12 sq.). On the other hand, however, this statement stands so isolated in the Christian tradition, and so surpasses the range of the profane conceptions, that we can hardly reject the idea that it must have operated to enhance the estimate of Christ’s dignity. It has been suggested as possible (Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, 97 sq.) that the hope had already formed itself in the soul of Mary that she would become the mother of the Messiah (which, however, is contradicted by her evident surprise and difficulty at the announcement, Luk 1:29; Luk 1:34), and that this had drawn nourishment from a vision in a dream, as the angelic annunciation (Luk 1:26 sq.) has been (but with the greatest violence) interpreted (see, however, Van Oosterzee, De Jesu e Virgine nato, Utr. 1840). SEE CONCEPTION.
Bethlehem, too (Wagner, De loco nat. J. Chr. Colon. Brandenb. 1673), as the place of Christ’s birth, has been deemed to belong to the mythical dress of the narrative (comp. Mic 5:1; see Thess, Krit. Comment. 2, 414), and it has therefore been inferred that Jesus was not only begotten in Nazareth, but also born there (Kaiser, Bibl. Theol. 1, 230) which, nevertheless, does not follow from Joh 1:46. That Jesus was born in Bethlehem is stated in two of the evangelical accounts (Mat 2:1; Luk 2:4), as may also be elsewhere gathered from the events which follow his birth. But a more direct discrepancy between Matthew and Luke (Hase, p. 44), respecting Joseph’s belonging to Bethlehem (Mat 2:22-23; Luk 1:26; Luk 2:4), cannot be substantiated (compare generally Gelpe, Jugendgesch. d. Herrn, Berne, 1841.) SEE BETHLEHEM.
7. Among the relatives of Jesus, the following are named in the N. Test.:
(a) Mary, Jesus’ mother’s sister (Joh 19:25). According to the usual apprehension of this passage, SEE SALOME, she was married to one Clopas or Alphaeus (q.v.), and had as sons James (q.v.) the younger (Act 1:13) and Joses (Mat 27:56; Mar 15:40). SEE MARY.
(b) Elizabeth, who is called the relative (, cousin) of Mary (Luk 1:36). Respecting the degree of relationship, nothing can be determined: it has been questioned (Paulus, Comment. 1, 78) whether she was of the tribe of Levi, but this appears certain from Luk 1:5. In a fragment of Hippolytus of Thebes (in Fabricii Pseudepimr. 2, 290) she is called Sube, the daughter of Mary’s mother’s sister. She was married to the priest Zacharias, and bore to him John the Baptist (Luk 1:57 sq.). SEE ELIZABETH.
(c) Brethren of Jesus (, Mat 12:46, and parallel passages; Joh 2:12; Joh 7:3; Joh 7:5; Joh 7:10; Act 1:14; , 1Co 9:5), by the name of James, Joses (q.v.), Simon, and Judas (Mat 13:55, and the parallel passage, Mar 6:3). (On these see Clemen. in the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 3; 329 sq.; A. H. Bloom, De et , . , Lugd. Bat. 1839; Wieseler, in the Studien u. Kritik. 1842, 1, 71 sq.; Schaff, Das Verhaltn. des Jacob. Brud. d. Herrn zu Jacob. Alphai, Berl. 1842, p. 11 sq., 34 sq.; Grimm, in the Hall. Encycl. 2, sect. 23, p. 80 sq.; Method. Quar. Rev. Oct. 1851, p. 670-672; on their descendants, Euseb. Hist. Ev. 3, 20, 33; see Korner, De propinquor. Servatoris persecutione, Lips. 1782.) In the passages Mat 12:46; Mat 13:55; Joh 2:12; Act 1:14, are unquestionably to be understood proper brothers, as they are all together named conjointly with the mother of Jesus (and with Joseph, Mat 13:55); the same is the natural inference from the statement (Joh 7:5) that the brethren () of Jesus had not believed in him as the Messiah. On James, the brother of the Lord ( , Gal 1:19), SEE JAMES.
These brethren were regarded as mere relatives, or, more exactly, cousins (namely, sons of Mary, Jesus’ mother’s sister), by the Church fathers (especially Jerome, ad Matt. 12, 46); also lately by Jessieu (Authentic. epist. Jud. p. 36 sq.), Schneckenburger (Ep. Jac. p. 144 sq.), Olshausen (Comment. 1, 465 sq.), Glockler (Evang. 1, 407), Kuhn (Jahrb. f. Theol. und christl. Philos. 1834, 3, pt. 1), and others, partly on the ground that the names James and Joses appear among the sons of the other Mary (Mat 27:56), partly that it is not certain that Mary, after her first conception by the Holy Spirit, ever became the mother of other children by her husband (see Origen, in Matt. 3, 463. ed. de la Rue; comp. Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiastes 2, 1). The latter argument is of no force (see Schaff, p. 29); on the former, see below. But the term brethren (), since it does of itself indicate blood relatives, cannot without utter confusion be used of mere cousins in immediate connection with the mother. And if it denotes proper brothers, as also Bloom and Wieseler suppose, the question still remains whether these had both parents the same with Jesus (i.e. were his full brothers), or were the sons of Joseph by a former marriage (halfbrothers; compare Theophyl. ad 1 Corinthians 9). The latter opinion, SEE JOSEPH, which is based upon an old (Ebionitic) tradition (see Fabricius, Pseudepigr. 1, 291; Thilo, Cod. Apocr. 1, 109, 208, 362 sq.), is held as probable by Grotius (ad Jac. 1, 1), Vorstius (De Hebr. Nov. Test. ed. Fischer, p. 71 sq.), Paulus (Comment. 1, 6113), Bertholdt (Einleit. 5, 656 sq.), and others; the former by Herder (Briefe zweener Bruder J. p. 7 sq.), Pott (Proleg. in Ep. Jac. p. 90), Ammon (Bibl. Theol. 2, 259), Eichhorn (Einl. ins N.T. 3, 570 sq.), Kuinol (ad Mat 12:46), Clement (ut sup.), Bengel (in his N. Archiv, 2, 9 sq.), Stier (Andeut. 1, 404 sq.), Fritzsche (ad Matt. 481), Neander (Leb. Jesu, p. 39 sq.), Wieseler and Schaff (ut sup.), and others. An intimation that favors this last view is contained in the expression first-born (Mat 1:25; Luk 2:7), which is further corroborated by the statement of abstinence from matrimonial intercourse until the birth of Jesus (Mat 1:25; but see Olshausen, ad loc.), which seems to imply that the brothers in question were later sons of Joseph and Mary. The circumstance that the sister of Jesus’ mother had two sons similarly named James and Joses (or three, if we understand [Luk 6:16] to mean brother of James, SEE JUDAS ) is not conclusive against this view, since in two nearly-related families it is not even now unusual to find children of the same name, especially if, as in the present case, these names were in common use. Eichhorn’s explanation (ut sup. p. 571) is based upon a long since exploded hypothesis, and requires no refutation. Joh 19:26, contains no valid counter argument: the brothers of Jesus may have become convinced by his resurrection (Mat 28:10), and, even had they been so at his death, yet perhaps the older and more spiritually- kindred John may have seemed to Jesus more suitable to carry out his last wishes than even his natural brothers (see Pott, ut sup. p. 76 sq.; Clement, ut sup. p. 360 sq.). At all events, the brothers of Jesus are not only expressed as having become at length believers in him, but they even appear somewhat later among the publishers of the Gospel (Act 1:14; 1Co 9:5). SEE BROTHERS.
(d) Sisters of Jesus are mentioned in Mat 13:56; Mar 6:3 (in Mar 3:32, the words are of very doubtful authenticity). Their names are not given. That we are to understand own sisters is plain from the foregoing remarks respecting his brothers.
(e) Finally, an ecclesiastical tradition makes Salome, the wife of Zebedee, and mother of the apostles James and John (Mar 15:40; Mar 16:1, etc.), to have been a relative of Jesus. (See Hase, p. 55.) SEE SALOME.
8. Jesus was educated at Nazareth (Hase, p. 57; Weisse, De J.C. educatione, Helmst. 1698; Lange, De profectib. Christi adolesc. Altdorf, 1699), but attended no (Rabbinical) schools (Joh 7:15). He appears, according to the custom of the times, to have learned the trade of his adopted father (Justin Mart. c. Tryph. 88, p. 316, ed. Col.; comp. Theodor. Hist. Eccl. 3, 23; Sozomen, 6, 2, etc.), but this he did not continue to practice at the same time with his career of teaching, as was usual with all the Rabbins (compare Neander, p. 54). By this means he may in part have acquired his subsistence (comp. Mar 6:3; but Origen, Contra Celsum, 6, p. 299, denies this statement, and Tischendorf omits ). Besides, his followers supplied him with liberal presents, and, on his journeys, the Oriental usages of hospitality (Joh 5:45; Joh 12:2) served him in good stead (see Rau, Unde Jes. alimenta vitoe acceperit, Erlang. 1794). SEE HOSPITALITY.
A number of grateful women also accompanied him for a considerable time, who cared for his maintenance (Luk 8:2; Mar 15:41). He had a common traveling purse with the apostles (Joh 12:6; Joh 13:29), from which the stock of provisions for the journey was provided (Luk 9:13; Mat 14:17 sq., etc.). We certainly cannot regard Jesus as properly poor in the sense of indigent (see Walch, Miscell. Sacr. p. 866 sq.), for this appears (Henke’s Mus. 2, 610 sq.) neither from Mat 8:20 (see Lunze, De Christi divitiis. et pautpertate, Lips. 1784), nor yet from 2Co 8:9 (see Beitrage z. vernunftigen Denk. 4, 160 sq.), and Joh 19:23, rather shows the contrary (comp. Bar-Hebraeus, Chron. p. 251); yet his parents were by no means in opulent circumstances (see Luk 2:24; comp. Lev 12:8), and he himself possessed (Mat 8:20) at least no real estate whatever (see generally Rau, De causis cur J.C. patupertati se subjecerit proecipuis, Erlang. 1787; Siebenhaar, in the Sachs. eget. Stud. 2, 168 sq.). SEE HUMILIATION. During his public career of teaching, Jesus (when not traveling) staid chiefly and of choice at Capernaum (Mat 4:13), and only on one or two occasions (Luk 4:16; Mar 6:1) visited Nazareth (see Kiesling, De J. Nazar. ingrata patria exule, Lips. 1741). In exterior he constantly observed the customs of his people (see A. Gesenius, Christ. decoro gentis suoe se accommodasse, Helmst. 1734; Gude, De Christo et discipulis ejus decori studiosis, in the Nov. miscellan. Lips. 3, 563 sq.), and, far from wishing to attract attention by singularity or austerity he took part in the pleasures of social life (Joh 2:1 sq.; Luk 7:31 sq.; Mat 11:16 sq.; compare 9:14 sq.). Nevertheless, he never married (compare Clem. Alex. Strom. 3, 191 sq.; see Schleiermacher, Der Christliche Glaube, 1st ed. 2, 526), for the supposition of Schulthess (Neutest. theolog. Nachr. 1826, 1, 20 sq.; 1828, 1, 102 sq.) that Jesus was married according to Jewish usage, with the addition that his wife (and, perhaps, several children by her) had died before his entrance upon public life, is a pure hypothesis that at least deserves no countenance from the silence in the N.T. as to any such occurrences; and the stupendous design already in the mind of the youthful Jesus afforded no motive for marriage, and, indeed, did not admit (compare Mat 19:12) such a confinement to a narrower circle (see Weisse, Leben Jesu, 1, 249 sq.; comp. Hase, p. 109). Additional literature may be seen in Volbeding, p. 17, 18; Hase, p. 59. SEE NAZARENE.
9. The length of Jesus’ public ministry (beginning about the 30th year of his age, Luk 3:24; see Rosch, in the Brem. u. Verd. Bibliothl. 3, 813 sq.), as well as the chronological sequence of the single events related in the Gospels, is very variously estimated. (See Hase, p. 17.) The first three evangelists give, as the scene of their transactions (after his temptation and the imprisonment of the Baptist, Mat 4:1-13), almost exclusively Galilee (De Galilee opportuno Servatoris miraculor. theatro, Gott. 1775), inasmuch as Jesus had his residence then in the city Capernaum, especially in the winter months (Mat 4:13; Mat 8:5; Mat 17:24; Mar 1:21; Mar 2:1, etc.). For the most part, we find him in the romantic and thickly settled neighborhood of the Sea of Tiberias, or upon its surface (Mat 8:23 sq; Mat 13:1 sq; Mat 14:13; Luk 8:22), also on the other side in Peraea (Mat 8:28; Luk 8:26; Mar 7:31). Once he went as far as within the Phoenician boundaries (Mat 15:21; Mar 7:24 sq.). But in the synoptical gospels he only appears once to have visited Jerusalem, at the time of the last Passover (Matthew 21 sq.; Mark 11 sq.; Luke 19 sq.). According to this, the duration of his teaching might be limited to a single year (Euseb. 3, 24), and many (appealing to Luk 4:19; comp. Isa 61:1 sq.; see Origen, Horn. 32; comp. Tertull. Adv. Jud. c. 8; but see Kirner, p. 4) already in the ancient Church (Clem. Alex. Strom. 1, p. 147; Origen, Princip. 4, 5) only allow this space to his public mission (compare Mann, Three Years of the Birth and Death of Christ, p. 161; Priestly, Harmony of the Evangelists, London, 1774, 2, 4; Browne, Ordo Soeclorum, p. 634 sq.); although, independently of all the others, Luk 6:1 (second-first Sabbath) affords indication of a second Passover which Jesus celebrated during his public career. SEE SABBATH.
On the other hand, John’s Gospel shows (comp. Jacobi, Zur Chronol. d. Lebens J. im Evang. Joh. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, 4, 845 sq.) that Jesus was not only oftener, but generally in Judaea (whence he once traveled through Samaria to Galilee, Joh 4:4; compare his return, Luk 17:11), namely, in the holy city Jerusalem (but this difference agrees with the respective designs of the several gospels; see Neander, p. 385 sq.), and informs us of five Jewish festivals which Jesus celebrated at Jerusalem. The first, occurring soon after the baptism of Jesus (Joh 2:13), is a Passover; the second (Joh 5:1) is called indefinitely a feast of the Jews ( ); the third was the Festival of Tabernacles (Joh 7:2); the fourth the Feast of Dedication (Joh 10:22); and, lastly, the fifth (John 12, 13) again a Passover: mention is also made (Joh 6:4) of still another Passover which Jesus spent in Galilee. Hence it would seem that Jesus was engaged some three years (Origen, Contra Celsum, 2, p.67) as a public teacher; and if by the feast of Joh 5:1 we are also to understand a Passover (Paulus, Comm. 1, 901 sq.; Suskind, in Bengel’s Archiv. 1, 182 sq.; B. Crusius, ad loc.; Seyffarth, Chronol. Sacra, p. 114; Robinson, Harmony, p. 193), which, however, is not certain (Lcke, ad loc.; Anger, De temp. in Act. Apost. ratione, 1, 24 sq.; Jacobi, ut sup. p. 864 sq.), we must assign a period of three and a half years (Eusebius, 1, 10, 3), as lately Seyffarth has done (Summary of recent Discoveries in Chronol. N.Y. 1857, p. 183), although on the most singular grounds (see Alford, Commentary on Joh 5:1). Otherwise the evangelists hardly afford more than two years and a few months (see Anger, ut sup. p. 28; Hase, p. 17 sq.) to the public labors of Jesus (see generally Laurbeck, De annis ministerii Chr., Altdorf, 1700; Korner, Quot Paschata Christus post baptism. celebraverit, Lips. 1779; Pries, De numero Paschatum Christi, Rostock, 1789; Lahode, De die et anno ult. Pasch. Chr. Hal. 1749; Marsh’s remarks in Michaelis’s Introd. 2, 46 sq.). Again, as the apostles were not uninterruptedly in company with Jesus, the time of their proper association with him might be still further reduced somewhat, although we can not (with Hanlein, De temporis, quo J.C. cume Apostol. versatus est, duratione, Erl. 1796) assume it to have been barely some nine months.
Under these three (or four) Paschal festivals writers have repeatedly endeavored, for historical and particularly apologetic purposes, to arrange all the single occurrences which the first evangelists mention without chronological sequence, and so to obtain a complete chronological view of Jesus’ entire journeys and teaching. Yet, notwithstanding so great a degree of ingenuity has been expended upon this subject, none of the Gospel Harmonies hitherto constructed can be regarded as more than a series, of historical conjectures, since the narrative of the first three evangelists presents but little that can guide to a measurably certain conclusion in such an arrangement, and John himself does not appear to relate the incidents in strictly chronological order according to these Passovers (see generally Eichhorn, Einl. ins N.T., 692 sq.). The most important of these attempts are, Lightfoot, Chronicle of the O.T. and N.T. Lond. 1655; Doddridge, Expositor of the N.T. London, 1739; Rus, Harmonia Evangelistar. Jen. 1727; Macknight, Harmony of the four Gospels, London, 1756, Latine fecit notasque adjecit Ruckersfelder, Brem. 1772; Bengel, Richt. Harmonie der 4 Evangel. 3d edit. Tubing. 1766; Newcome, Harmony of the Gospels, Dublin, 1778; Paulus, Comment. 1, 446 sq.; 2, 1 sq., 384 sq.; 3, 82 sq.; Kaiser, Ueb. die synopt. Zusammenstell. der 4 Evang. Nuremb. 1828; Clausen, Quat. evangel. tabuloe synopt. sec. rationem tempor. Copenhagen, 1829; Wieseler, Chronolog. Synopse der 4 Evang. Hamb. 1843; Townsend’s Chronol Arrang. of the N. Test. Lond. 1821, Bost. 1837; Greswell, Harmonia Evang. Lond. 1830; Robinson, Harmony of the Gospels (Greek), Bost. 1845 (Engl. id.); Tischendorf, Synopsis Evangel. Leipz. 1851; Strong, Harmony of the Gospels (English), N.Y. 1852 (Greek), ib. 1854; Stroud, Greek Harmony, Lond. 1853. SEE HARMONIES.
10. Besides the twelve apostles (q.v.), Jesus also chose seventy (q.v.) persons as a second more private order (Luk 10:1 sq.), who have been supposed by some to correspond to some Jewish notion of the seventy nations of the world, inasmuch as Luke shows a tendency to such generalization; but this number was probably selected (see Kuinol, ad loc.) with reference to the seventy elders of the Jews (Num 11:16 sq.), composing the Sanhedrim, just as the twelve apostles represented the twelve tribes of Israel (compare generally Burmann, Exercit. Acad. 2, 95 sq.; Heumann, De 70 Christi legatis, Gotting. 1743). Their traditional names (see Assemani, Biblioth. Or. 3, 1, 319 sq.: Fabric. Lux, p. 115 sq.), some of which are cited by Eusebius (1, 12), might have some historical ground but for the manifest endeavor to place in the illustrious rank of the seventy every conspicuous individual of the apostolical age, concerning whom nothing positive was known to the contrary. The account of Luke himself has sometimes been called in question as unhistorical (Strauss, 1, 566 sq.; Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeitalter, 2, 45; see, on the other hand, Neander, p. 541 sq.).
Respecting the characteristics of Jesus’ teaching (see especially Winkler, Ueber J. Lehrfahigkeit und Lehrart, Leipz. 1797; Behn, Ueb. die Lehrart Jesu u. seiner Apostel, Lubeck, 1791; Hauff, Bemerkungen ber die Lehrart Jesu, Offenbach, 1788; H. Ballauf, Die Lehrart Jesu als vortrefflich gezeigt, Hannov. 1817; H.N. la Cle, De Jesu Ch. instituendi methodo horn. ingenia excolente, Groning. 1835; Ammon, Bibl. Theol. 2, 328 sq.; Planck, Geschichte d. Christenth. 1, 161 sq.; Hase, Leben Jes. p. 123 sq.; Neander, p. 151 sq.; Weisse, 1, 376 sq.), we may remark that all his discourses, which were delivered sometimes in the synagogues (Mat 13:54; Luk 4:22, etc.), sometimes in public places, and even in the open field, sometimes in the Temple court, were suggested on the occasion (Joh 4:32 sq.; Joh 7:37 sq.), either by some transaction or natural phenomenon, or else by some recital (Luk 13:1), or expression of others (Mat 8:10). He loved especially to clothe his sentiments in comparisons (see Greiling, p. 201 sq.), parables (Mat 13:11 sq., Mat 13:34 sq.) (for these are preeminently distinguished for simplicity, conciseness, natural beauty, intelligibleness, and dignity; see especially Unger, De parabolar. Jesu natura, intepretatione, usu, Leipz. 1828), allegories (Joh 6:32 sq.; Joh 6:10; John 15), and apothegms (Matthew 5), sometimes also paradoxes (Joh 2:19; Joh 6:53; Joh 8:58), which exactly suited the comprehension of his audience (Mar 4:33; Luk 13:15 sq.; Luk 14:5 sq.); and he even adapted the novelty and peculiarity of his doctrines to familiar Jewish forms, which in his mouth lose that ruggedness and unaesthetic character in which they have come down to us in the Talmud (comp. Weisse, De more Domini acceptos a magistris Jud. loquedi ac disserendi modos sapienter emendandi; Viteb. 1792). SEE ALLEGORY; SEE PARABLE.
In contests with learned Jews, Jesus knew how, by simple clearness of intellect, to defeat their arrogant dialectics, and yet was able to pursue their own method of inferential argument (Mat 12:25). When they proposed to him captious questions, he brought. them, not unfrequently by similar questions, mostly in the form of a dilemma (Mat 21:24; Mat 22:20; Luk 10:29 sq.; Luk 20:3 sq.), or by appeal to the explicit written law or to their sacred history (Mat 9:13; Mat 12:3 sq.; Mat 19:4 sq.; Luk 6:2 sq.; Luk 10:26 sq.; Luk 20:28 sq.), or by analogies from ordinary life (Mat 12:10 sq.), to maintain silence, or put them to embarrassment with all their sagacity and legal zeal (Mat 22:42 sq. Joh 8:3 sq.); sometimes he disarmed them by the exercise of his miraculous power (Luk 5:24). With a few exceptions, John alone assigns longer speeches of a dogmatic character to Jesus; nor is it any matter of surprise that the Wisdom which delivered itself to the populace in maxims and similes should permit itself to be understood, in the circle of the priests and those erudite in the law, connectedly and mystically on topics of the higher gnosis, although even in John, of course, we can not expect the ipsissima verba. In a formal treatment, moreover, his representations, especially those addressed to the people, could not be free from accommodation (P. van Hemert, Ueb. Accommod. im N.T. Dortmund and Leipz. 1797); but whether he made use of the material (not merely negative) species of accommodation is not a historical, but a dogmatic question (comp. thereon Bretschneider, Handb. d. Dogm. 1, 420 sq.; Wegschneider, Institut. p. 119 sq.; De Wette, Sittenlehre, 3, 131 sq.; Neander, p. 216 sq.). SEE ACCOMMODATION.
Like the O.T. prophets, he sometimes also employed symbolical acts (Joh 13:1 sq., Joh 13:20; Joh 13:22; comp. Luk 9:47 sq.). A dignified expression, a keen but affectionate look, a gesticulation reflecting the inward inspiration (Hegemeister, Christum gestus pro concione usurpasse, Servest. 1774), may have contributed not a little to the force of his words, and gained for him, in opposing the Pharisees and lawyers, the eulogium of eloquence (compare Joh 7:46; Joh 18:6; Mat 7:28 sq.). The tuition which Jesus imparted to the apostles (comp. Greiling, p. 213 sq.), was apparently private (Mat 13:11 sq.; see Colln, Bibl. Theol. 2, 14). SEE APOSTLE.
Finally, Jesus commonly spoke Syro-Chaldee (comp. e.g. Mar 3:17; Mar 5:41; Mar 7:34; Mat 27:47; see Malala, Chronograph. p. 13), like the Palestinian Jews generally, SEE LANGUAGE, not Greek (Diodati, De Christo Groece loquente, Neap. 1767, translated in the Am. Bibl. Repos. Jan. 1844, p. 180 sq.; comp. on the contrary, Ernesti, Neueste theol. Bibl. 1, 269 sq.), although he might have understood the latter language, or even Latin (Wernsdorf, De Christo Latine loquente, Viteb.; see generally Reiske, De lingua vern. J. C. Jen. 1670; Bh. de Rossi, Della lingua propria di Christo, Parm. 1773; Zeibich, De lingua Judoeor. temp. Christi et. Apost. Vitebsk, 1791; Wisemann, in his Hor. Syriac. Rom. 1828). No writings of his are extant (the spuriousness of the so-called letter to the king of Edessa, given by Eusebius, 1, 13, is evident; comp. also Rohr’s Krit. Prediger-biblioth. 1, 161 sq. SEE ABGAR: the alleged written productions of Jesus may be seen in Fabricii Cod. Apocr. 1, 303 sq.), nor was there need of any, since he had provided for the immediate dissemination of his doctrines through the apostles, and he wished even to turn away attention from the literature of the age to the spirit and life of a thorough piety (compare Hauff, Briefe d. Werth der schriftl. Rel.-Urkund. betreffnd, 1, 94 sq.; Sartorius, Cur Christus scripti nihil reliquerit, Leipz. 1815; Witting, Warum J. nichts Schriftl. hinterlassen, Bschw. 1822; Giesecke, Warum hat J.C. ber sich u. s. Relig. nichts Schriftl. hinterlassen, Lineb. 1823; B. Crusius, Bibl. Theol. p. 22 sq.; Neander, p. 150; comp. Hase, p. 11). Jesus has been improperly entitled a Rabbi, or high rank of religious teacher (, ), in the sense of the Jewish schools, as having been thus styled not only by the populace (Mar 10:51; Joh 20:16), or his disciples (Joh 1:39; Joh 1:50; Joh 4:31; Joh 9:2; Joh 11:8; Mat 26:25, etc.), but also by Nicodemus (Joh 3:2), and even his enemies (Joh 6:25) themselves (Vitringa, Synag. vet. p. 706; Paulus, Leben Jes. 1, 122 sq.; see, on the contrary, C. E. Schmid, De promotione acad. Christo ejusque discipulis perperam tributa, Lips. 1740). In the time of Jesus persons had no occasion to aspire to the formality of learned honors, as in later ages (Neander, p. 50), and Jesus had little sympathy with such an ostentatious spirit (Joh 7:15). SEE RABBI. (Additional literature may be seen in Volbeding, p. 25.) SEE PROPHET.
11. The Jews expected miracles of the Messiah (Joh 7:31; John 4 Esdr. 13:50; comp. Mat 8:17; Joh 20:30 sq.; see Bertholdt, Christologia Judoeor. p. 168 sq.), such as Jesus performed (, , ). These all had a moral tendency, and aimed at beneficent results (on Mat 8:28 sq., see Paulus, ad loc.; Bretschneider, Handb. d. Dogm. 1, 307 sq.; Hase, Leben Jesu, p. 134; on Mat 21:18 sq., see Fleck. Vertheid. d. Christenth. p. 138 sq.), in which respects they are in striking contrast with the silly thaumaturgy of the apocryphal gospels (see Tholuck, Glaubwurdigk. d. evang. Gesch. p. 406 sq.), consisting mostly of raising the dead and the cure (Mar 6:56) of such maladies as had baffled all scientific remedies (insanity, epilepsy, palsy, leprosy blindness, etc.). He asked no reward (comp. Mat 10:8), and performed no miracles to gratify curiosity (Mat 16:1 sq.; Mar 8:11 sq.), or to excite the astonishment of a sensuous populace; rather he repeatedly forbade the public report of his extraordinary deeds (Mat 9:30; Mar 1:44; Mar 7:36; Mar 8:26; Luk 5:14; Luk 8:56; Plitt, in the Hess. Heboper, 1850, p. 890 sq., takes an erroneous view of Mar 5:19, for in Mar 5:20 Jesus bids the man relate his cure to his relatives only), and he avoided the popular outbursts of joy, which would have swelled loudly at his particularly successful achievements (Joh 5:13), only suffering these miracles to be acknowledged to the honor of God (Luk 8:39 sq.; Luk 17:16 sq.). In effecting cures he sometimes made use of some means (Mar 7:33; Mar 8:23; Joh 9:6 sq.; comp. Spinoza, Tract. theol. pol. c. 6, p. 244, ed. Paul.; Med.-herm. Untersuch. p. 335 sq.; Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, 223), but in general he employed simply a word (Mat 8:1 sq.; Joh 5:8, etc.), even at a distance (Mat 8:5 sq.; Luk 7:6 sq.; Joh 4:50), or merely a touch of the invalid (Mat 8:3; Mat 8:15) or the afflicted member (blind eyes, Mat 9:29; Mat 20:34; see Seiler, Christ. an in operibus mirabilib. arcanis usus sit remedus, Erlang. 1795; also, Jesus an miracula suis ipsius viribus ediderit, ib. 1799); on the other hand, likewise, a cure was experienced when the infirm touched his garment (Mat 9:20 sq.; Mat 14:36), but in such a case always on the presumption of a firm faith (Mat 9:28; compare Joh 5:6), so that when this failed the miraculous power was not exercised (Mat 13:58; Mar 11:5). On this very account some moderns have asserted (Gutsmuth, Diss. de Christo Med. Jen. 1812 [on the opposite, Ammon’s Theolog. Journ. 1, 177 sq.]; Ennemoser, Magnetism. p. 473 sq.; Kieser, Syst. des Tellurism. 2, 502 sq.; Meyer, Naturanalogien od. die Erschein. d. anim. Magnet. mit Hins. auf Theol. Hamb. 1839; comp. Weisse, 1, 349 sq.) that these cures were principally effected by Jesus through the agency of animal magnetism (comp. Luk 8:48; see generally Pfau, De Christo academ. N.T. medico primario, Erlang. 1743; Schulthess, in the Neuest. theol. Nachr. 1829, p. 360 sq.). SEE HEALING.
That the Jewish Rabbis and the Essenes performed, or perhaps only pretended to perform, similar cures, at least upon demoniacs, appears from Mat 12:27; Luk 11:19; Mar 9:38 sq.; comp. Josephus, War, 2, 8, 6; Ant. 8, 2, 5). The sentiments of Jesus himself as to the value and tendency of his miracles are undeniable: he disapproved that eagerness for wonders displayed by his contemporaries (Mat 16:1; Joh 2:18) which sprung from sensuous curiosity or from pure malevolence (Mat 12:39; Mat 16:4; Mar 8:11 sq.), or else had a thankless regard merely to their own advantage (Joh 4:48; Joh 6:24), but which ever desired miracles merely as such, while he regarded them as a national method for attaining his purpose of awakening and calling forth faith (Joh 11:42; comp. Mat 11:4 sq.; Luk 7:21 sq.), and hence often lamented their ineffectualness (Mat 11:20 sq.; Luk 10:13; see especially Nitzsch, Quantum Christus miraculis tribuerit, Viteb. 1796; Schott, Opusc. 1, 111 sq.; Lehnerdt, De nonnullis Chr. effatis unde ipse quid quantumq. tribuerit miraculis cognoscetur, Regiom. 1833; comp. Paulus, in the Neu. theol. Journ. 9, 342 sq., 413 sq.; Storr, in Flatt’s Mag. 4, 178 sq.; Eiseln, in the Kirchenblatter fur das Bisth. Rottenburg, 1, 161 sq.; De Wette, Biblisch. Dogm. p. 196 sq.; Strauss, Glaubenslehre, 1, 86 sq.). As an undeniably effective means of introducing Christianity, these miracles have ever retained a profound significance, of which they cannot be deprived by any efforts to explain them on natural principles (Br. ub. Rationalismus, p. 215 sq.), or to ascribe them to traditional exaggeration; for all investigations of this character have as yet generally resulted only in a contorted exegesis, and are oftentimes more difficult of belief than the miraculous incidents themselves (see on the subject generally Koster, Immanuel oder Charact. der neutest. Wundererzahlungen, Lpz. 1821; Johannsen, in Schroter and Klein’s Oppositionschr. 5, 571 sq.; 6, 31 sq.; Miller, De mirac. J. Ch. nat. et necess. Marburg and Hal. 1839; Neander, p. 256 sq.). SEE MIRACLE.
12. Several of the circumstances of Christ’s passion (q.v.) are explained under SEE BLOODY SWEAT, SEE CROSS, SEE LITHOSTROTON, SEE PILATE, SEE ECLIPSE, etc. (compare Merillii Notoe in passion. J. Chr. Par. 1622, Fref. and Lips. 1740; Walther, Jurist.-histor. Betracht. ub. d. Geschichte u. d. Leid. u. Sterb. Christi, Breslau, 1738, 1774; Die Leidensgesch. Jesu exegetisch und archaolog. bearbeitet, Stuttg. 1809; Hug, in the Zeitschr. f. d. Erzbisth. Freiburg, 5, 1 sq.; Friedlieb, Archaol. d. Leidensgesch. Bonn, 1843). The question of the legality or illegality of the sentence of death pronounced upon Jesus by the Sanhedrim and procurator has of late been warmly discussed (see, for the former view, Salvador, Histoire des institutions de Moise, Bruxel. 1822, 2, c. 3; also, Jesus Christ et sa doctrine, Par. 1838; Hase, Leben Jes. p. 197 sq.; on the opposite, Dupin, L’aine Jesus devant Caiphe et Pilate, Par. 1829; Ammon, Fortbild. 1, 341 sq.; B. Crusius, Opusc. p. 149 sq.; Neander, p. 683 sq.; comp. also Daumer, Syst. der specul. Philos. p. 41 sq.; and Neubig, Ist J. mit voll. Rechte den Tod eines Verbrechers gestorben? Erl. 1836). The Sanhedrim condemned Jesus as a blasphemer of God (Mat 26:65 sq.; Mar 14:64; compare Joh 19:7), for which the Law prescribed capital punishment (Lev 24:16); but he would have been guilty of this crime if he had falsely claimed (Mat 26:63 sq.; Luk 22:67 sq.) to be the Messiah (Son of God), and the fact of this profession was substantiated indirectly by witnesses (Mat 26:60 sq.; Mar 14:57 sq.), and directly by Jesus’ own declaration (Mat 26:63 sq.; Mar 14:61 sq.). So far the transaction might seem to be tolerably regular, except that swearing the prisoner as to his own crime is an unheard of process in law. Moreover, there was more than a single superficial examination of witnesses (Mat 26:60), and Jesus had really uttered (Joh 2:19) what the deponents averred. But that Jesus could not be the Messiah was presupposed by the Sanhedrim on the ground of their Christological views; and here were they chiefly to blame. More exact inquiries concerning the teachings and acts of Jesus would have surely corrected their impression that Jesus was a blasphemer, and perhaps led them to a rectification of their expectations respecting the Messiah. Another point is entitled to consideration in estimating their judicial action. The Sanhedrim’s broader denunciation of Jesus before Pilate as a usurper of royal power, and their charging him with treason (crimen loesoe majestatis) (Mat 27:11; Mar 15:2; Luk 23:2; Joh 18:33), is explained by the fact that the Messiah was to be a theocratic king, and that the populace for a few days saluted Jesus with huzzas as the Son of David (Matthew 21; John 12). Jesus certainly did not aspire to royalty in the political sense, as he declared before Pilate (Joh 18:36 sq.): this the Sanhedrim, if they had been dispassionate judges, must have been assured of, even if they had not previously inquired or ascertained how far Jesus was from pretensions to political authority. The sentence itself is therefore less to be reprobated than that the high court did not, as would have been worthy itself, become better informed respecting the charges; their indecorous haste evinces an eagerness to condemn the prisoner at all hazards, and their vindictive manner clearly betrays their personal malice against him. That Pilate passed and executed the sentence of death contrary to his better judgment as a civil officer is beyond all doubt. SEE PILATE.
That Jesus passed through a merely apparent death has been supposed by many (see especially Bahrdt, Zwecke Jesu, 10, 174 sq.; Paulus, Comment. 3, 810 sq., and Leben Jesu, 1, 2, 281 sq.; on the contrary, see Richter, De morte Servatoris in cruce, Gott. 1757, also in his Diss. 4 med. p. 1 sq.; Gruner, De Jes. C. morte vera, non simulata, Jena, 1805; Schmidtmann, Medic.-philos. Beweis, dass J. nach s. Kreuzigung nicht von einer todtahnl. Ohnmacht befallen gewesen, Osnabr. 1830). The piercing of the side of Jesus by the lance of a Roman soldier (Joh 19:34; his name is traditionally given as Longinus, see Thilo, Apocr. p. 586) has been regarded as the chief circumstance upon which everything here depends (Triller, De mirando lateris cordisque Christi vulnere, in Gruner’s Tract. de doemoniacis, Jena, 1775; Eschenbach, Scripta med.-bibl. p. 82 sq.; Bartholini, De latere Christi aperto, Lugd. Bat. 1646), inasmuch as before this puncture the above cited physicians assume but a torpor and swoon, which might seem the more probable because crucifixion could hardly have caused death in so short a time (Mar 15:44). SEE CRUCIFY.
But the account of the wound in the side is not such as to allow the question to be by that means fully and absolutely determined (see Briefe ber Rationalismus, p. 236 sq.), since the evangelist does not state which side () was pierced, nor where, nor how deeply. It is therefore surely a precarious argument to presume the left side (although the position of the soldier, holding the spear in his right hand and thrusting it opposite him, would strongly countenance this supposition), and equally so to assume a very deep incision, penetrating the pericardium and heart, thus changing a swoon into actual death; nevertheless, comp. Joh 20:25-26, in favor of this last particular. The purpose of the stab to ascertain whether the crucified person was still alive also demanded a forcible thrust, and the issue of blood and water vouched for by the evangelist ( v , perhaps a hendiadys for bloody water) would certainly point to real death as immediately resulting. By this we must understand the clotted blood (cruor) in connection with the watery portion (serum), which both flow together from punctures of the larger blood vessels (veins) of bodies just dead (from the arteries of the breast, as supposed by Hase [Heb. Jesu, 2d ed. p. 193], no blood would issue, for these are usually empty in a corpse), and the piercing of the side would therefore not cause, but only indicate death. SEE BLOOD AND WATER. In fine, the express assertion of the evangelists, that Jesus breathed his last ( [Mar 15:37; Luk 23:46], a term exactly equivalent to the Latin expiravit, he expired, and so doubtless to be understood in its common acceptance of death), admits no other hypothesis than that of actual and complete dissolution. SEE AGONY.
The fact of the return of Jesus alive from the grave (comp. Ammon, De vera J. C. reviviscentia, Erlang. 1808; Griesbach, De fontib. unde Evangel. suas de resurrectione Domini narrationes hauserint, Jena, 1783; Friedrich, in Eichhorn’s Biblioth. 7, 204 sq.; Doderl. De J.C. in vit. reditu, Utr. 1841) is not invalidated by Strauss’s ingenious hypotheses (2, 645; see Hase, p. 212; Theile, p. 105 sq.; comp. Kihn, Wie ging Ch. durch des Grabes Thur, Strals. 1838); but if Jesus had been merely dead in appearance, so delicate a constitution, already exhausted by sufferings before crucifixion, would certainly not have revived without special that is, medical assistance (Neander, p. 708): in the cold rock vault, in an atmosphere loaded with the odor of aromatics, bound hand and foot with grave clothes, in utter prostration, he would, in the ordinary course of things, have rather been killed than resuscitated. His return to life must therefore be regarded as a true miracle. SEE RESURRECTION. On the grave of Jesus, SEE GOLGOTHA.
After he had risen (he lay some thirty-six hours in the grave; not three full days, as asserted by Seyffarth, Summary of Chronol. Discov. N.Y. 1857, p. 188), he first showed himself to Mary Magdalene (Mat 28:9. Mar 16:9; Joh 20:14; but about the same hour to the other women, see Strong’s Greek Harmony, p. 364), then to his apostles in various places in and about Jerusalem (Luk 24:13 sq., (Luk 24:36 sq.; Joh 20:19 sq.), and was recognized by them not immediately, it is true (for the few past days of suffering may have considerably disfigured him bodily), but yet unequivocally as their crucified teacher (Neander, p. 715 sq.), and even handled, although with some reserve (Luk 24:37; Joh 21:12). He did not appear in public; had he done so, his enemies would have found opportunity to remove him a second time out of the way, or to represent him to the people as a sham Jesus: his resurrection could have its true significance to his believers only (see generally Jahn, Nachtrage, p. 1 sq.). After a stay of 40 days, he was visibly carried up into the sky before the eyes of his disciples (Luk 24:51; Act 1:9. Mar 16:19, is of doubtful authenticity). Of this, three evangelical witnesses (Matthew, Mark, and John) relate nothing (for very improbable reasons of this, see Flatt’s Magaz. 8, 55 sq.), although the last implies it in the words of Jesus, I ascend to my Father, and closes his Gospel with the last interview of Jesus in Galilee, at the Sea of Tiberias (John 21; compare Mat 28:16). The apostles, in the doctrinal expositions, occasionally allude to this ascension () of Jesus (Act 3:21; 1Ti 3:16; Rev 12:5), and often speak (Act 2:33; Act 5:31; Act 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1) of Christ as seated at the right hand of God (see Griesbach, Sylloge locor. N.T. ad adscens. Christi in coel. spectantium, Jena, 1793; also in his Opuscal. 2, 471 sq.; B. Crusius, Bibl. Theol. p. 400). Over the final disposal of the body of Christ after its ascension from the earth, an impenetrable veil must ever rest. The account of the ascension (see Stud. und Krit. 1841, 3, 597 sq.) is still treated by many of the critical theologians (comp. Ammon, Ascensus J. C. in coel. histor. Bibl. Gotting. 1800, also in his Nov. opusc. theol.; Horst, in Horn’s Gotting. Museum f. Theol. 1, 2, 3 sq.; Br. ber Rational. p. 238 sq.; Strauss, 2, 672 sq.; Hase, p. 220) as one of the myths (molded on the well known O.T. examples, Gen 5:24; 2Ki 2:11, and serving as a basis of the expectation of his visible return from heaven, Act 1:11; for, that the Jews of that day believed in an ascension of the Messiah to heaven [comp. Joh 6:62], appears from the book Zohar [Schottgen, Horoe Hebr. 2, 596]: the comparisons with heathen apotheoses are not in point [B. Hasse, Historioe de Chr. in vitum et coel. redeunte ex narraat. Liv. de Romulo illustratio, Regiom. 1805; Gfrorer, Urchristenth. 1, 2, 374 sq.], and the theories of Bauer in Flatt’s Mag. 16, 173 sq., Seller, Weichert, and Himly [see Bretschneider, Syst. Entwickel. p. 589; Otterbein, De adscensione in coelum adspectabili modo facta, Duisb. 1802; or Fogtmann, Comm. de in coelum adscensu, Havn. 1826] are as little to the purpose that originated among the Christians, or were even invented by the apostles (Gramberg, Religionsid. 2, 461) a view that is forbidden by the close proximity of the incident in point of time (London [Wesleyan] Review, July, 1861). It can, therefore, only be regarded as a preternatural occurrence (Neander, p. 726). SEE ASCENSION.
13. Respecting the personal appearance of Jesus we know nothing with certainty. According to Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 7, 18), the woman who was cured of her hemorrhage (Mat 9:20) had erected from thankfulness a brazen statue (see Hasaei Dissertat. sylloge, p. 314 sq.; comp. Heinichen, Exc. 10 ad Eusebius, 3, 397 sq.; Thilo, Cod. apocr. 1, 562 sq.) of Jesus at Paneas (Caesarea-Philippi), which was destroyed (Sozom. Hist. Eccl. 5, 21) at the command of the emperor Julian (compare Niceph. Hist. Eccl. 6, 15). Jesus himself, according to several ancient (but scarcely trustworthy) statements (Evagr. 4:27; Niceph. 2:7), sent his likeness to Abgarus (q.v.) at Edessa (comp. Bar-Hebr. Chron. p. 118), where was also said to have been found the handkerchief of Christ with an imprint of his countenance (Cedrenus, Hist. p. 176; Bar-Hebraeus, Chron. p. 168). Still another figure of Jesus is also mentioned (Nicephorus, ut sup.; this credulous historian names the evangelist Luke as the painter successively of Jesus, Mary, and several apostles), and a certain Publius Lentulus, a Roman officer (according to one MS. a proconsul) is reported to have composed a description of Christ’s personal appearance, which (with great variation of the text) is still exhibited as extant (comp. Fabricii Cod. apocr. N, Test. 1, 301 sq.; Pseudolentuli, Joa. Damasc. et Niceph [Hist. Eccles. 1, 40] prosopograph. J. C. edit. Carpzov, Helmst. 1774). This last, according to the text of Gabler (in Latin), reads as follows: A man of tall stature, good appearance, and a venerable countenance, such as to inspire beholders both with love and awe. His hair worn in a circular form and curled, rather dark and shining, flowing over the shoulders, and parted in the middle of the head, after the style of the Nazarenes. His forehead, smooth and perfectly serene, with a face free from wrinkle or spot, and beautified with a moderate ruddiness, and a faultless nose and mouth. His beard full, of an auburn color like his hair, not long, but parted. His eyes quick and clear. His aspect terrible in rebuke, placid and amiable in admonition, cheerful without losing its gravity: a person never seen to laugh, but often to weep, etc. (compare Niceph. 1, 40). (See Volbeding, p. 6.) The description given by Epiphanius (Monach. p. 29, ed. Dressel) has lately been discovered by Tischendorf (Cod. Ven. cl. 1, cod. 3, No. 12,000) in a somewhat different and perhaps more original form (in Greek), as follows: But my Christ and God was exceedingly beautiful in countenance. His stature was fully developed, his height being six feet. He had auburn hair, quite abundant, and flowing down mostly over his whole person. His eyebrows were black, and not highly arched; his eyes brown, and bright. He had a family likeness, in his fine eyes, prominent nose, and good color, to his ancestor David, who is said to have had beautiful eves and a ruddy complexion. He wore his hair long, for a razor never touched it; nor was it cut by any person, except by his mother in his childhood. His neck inclined forward a little, so that the posture of his body was not too upright or stiff. His face was full, but not quite so round as his mother’s; tinged with sufficient color to make it handsome and natural; mild in expression, like the blandness in the above description of his mother, whose features his own strongly resembled. This production bears evident marks of being a later fabrication (see Gabler, 2 Progr. in authentiam epist. Lentuli, etc., Jen. 1819, 1822; also in his Opusc. 2, 638 sq.). There is still another notice of a similar kind (see the Jen. Lit.-Zeit. 1821, sheet 40), and also an account of the figure of Jesus, which the emperor Alexander Severus is said to have had in his lararium or household shrine (see Zeibich in the Nov. Miscell. Lips. 3, 42 sq.). SEE CHRIST, IMAGES OF.
From the New Test. the following particulars only may be gathered: Jesus was free from bodily defects (for so much is implied in the type of an unblemished victim under the law, and otherwise the people would not have recognized in him a prophet, while the Pharisees would have been sure to throw any physical deformity in his teeth), but his exterior could have presented nothing remarkable, since Mary Magdalene mistook him for the gardener (Joh 20:15), and the two disciples on the way to Emmaus (Luk 24:16), as well as the apostles at his last appearance by the Sea of Gennesareth (Joh 21:4 sq.), did not at first recognize him; but his form then probably bore many permanent marks of his severe sufferings. The whole evangelical narrative indicates sound and vigorous bodily health. In look and voice he must have had something wonderful (Joh 18:6), but at the same time engaging and benevolent: his outward air was the expression of the high, noble, and free spirit dwelling within him. The assertions of the Church fathers (Clem. Alex. Poedag. 3, 92; Strom. 6, 93; Origen, Cels. 6, 327, ed. Spenc.) that Christ had an unprepossessing appearance are of no authority, being evidently conformed to Isaiah 53 (but see Piiartii Assertio de singulari J. Ch. pulchritudine, Par. 1651; see generally, in addition to the above authorities, F. Vavassor, De forma Christi, Paris, 1649; on the portraits of Jesus, Reiske, De imaginibus Christi, Jena, 1685; Jablonsky, Opusc. edit. Te Water, 3, 377; Junker, Ueber Christuskopfe, in Ieusel’s Miscell. artist. Inh. pt. 25, p. 28 sq.; Ammon, Ueb. Christuskopfe, in his Magazin. f. christl. Pred. 1, 2, 315 sq.; Tholuck, Literar. Anzeig. 1834, No. 71; Grimm, Die Sage und Ursprung der Christusbilder, Berl. 1843; Mrs. Jameson, Hist. of our Lord exemplified in Works of Art [Lond. 1865]). (See further in Volbeding, p. 19; Hase, p. 65; Meth. Quart. Rev. Oct. 1862, p. 679.)
14. It might be an interesting question, had we the means of accurately determining, how and by what instrumentalities Jesus, in a human point of view, attained his spiritual power, or to what influence (aside from divine inspiration) he owed his intellectual formation as a founder of religion (Ammon, Bibl. Theolog. 1, 234 sq.; Handbuch der christl. Sittenlehre, 1, 43 sq.; Kaiser, Bibl. Theolog. 1, 234 sq.; De Wette, Bibl. Dogm. p. 185 sq.; Colln, Bibl. Theolog. 2, 8 sq.; Hase, p. 56 sq.; compare Rau, De momentis us quoe ad Jes. divinar. rerum scientia imbuendum viri habuisse, videantur, Erlang. 1796; Greiling, Leben Jesu, p. 58 sq.; Planck, 1, 23 sq.; Briefe ber Rational. p. 154 sq.). But while there has evidently been on the one side a general tendency to exaggerate the difficulties which the natural improvement of Jesus had to overcome (Reinhard, Plan Jesu, p. 485 sq.), yet none of the hypotheses proposed for the solution of the question has satisfied the conditions of the problem, or been free from clear historical difficulties. Many, for instance, suppose that Jesus had his religious education in the order of the Essenes (q.v.), and they think that in the Christian morals they especially find many points of coincidence with the doctrines of that Jewish sect (Reim, Christus und die Vernunft. p. 668 sq.; Staudlein, Gesch. d. Sittenlehre Jesu, 1, 570 sq.; see, on the contrary, Luderwald, in Helke’s Magaz. 4, 378 sq.; Bengel, in Flatt’s Magaz. 7, 126 sq.; J. H. Dorfmller, De dispari Jesu Essoeorumque disciplina Wunsidel. 1803; Wegnern, in Illgen’s Zeitschr. 1841, pt. 2; comp. Heubner, 5th Append. to his edit. of Reinhard’s Plan Jesu). Others attribute the culture of Jesus to the Alexandrio-Jewish religious philosophy (Bahrdt, Briefe ber die Bibel in Volkston, 1, 376 sq.; Gfrorer, in the Gesch. des Urchristenth.).
Still others imagine that Sadduceeism, SEE SADDUCEE , or a comparison of this with Pharisaism, SEE PHARISEE, was the source of the pure religious views of Jesus (Henke, Mgaz. 5, 426 sq.; Des Cotes, Schutzschr. fur Jesus von Nazareth, p. 128 sq.). Although single points in the teaching and acts of Jesus might be illustrated by each of these theories (as could not fail to be the case with respect to one who threw himself into the midst of the religious efforts of the age, and combined efficiency with right aims), yet the whole of his spiritual life and deeds, the high clearness of understanding, the purity of sentiment, and, above all, the independence of spirit and matchless moral power which stamp each particular with a significance that was his alone, cannot be thus explained (Thomson, Land and Book, 2, 86 sq.). A richly-endowed and profound mind is, moreover, presupposed in all such hypotheses (comp. Paulus, Leb. Jesu, 1, 89), Our object is simply to investigate the influences that aroused these spiritual faculties, unfolded them, and directed them in that path. And in determining these, it is clear at the outset that a powerful impulse must have been given to the natural development of Jesus’ mind (Luk 2:52) by a diligent study of the Holy Scriptures, especially in the prophetical books (Isaiah and the Psalms, Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, 119 sq.), which contained the germs of an improved monotheism, and are, for the most part, free from Jewish niceties.
He would also derive assistance from a comparison of the Pharisaical statutes, which were unquestionably known to Jesus, and particularly of the Jewish Hellenism, Alexandrianism; SEE ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL, with those simple doctrines of the old Mosaism, especially as spiritualized by the prophets. How much may have been derived from outward circumstances we do not know; that the maternal training, and even the open (Luk 4:29) and romantic situation of Nazareth, had a beneficial influence in unfolding and cultivating his mind (Greiling, Leb. Jesu, p. 48), scarcely admits a doubt, nor that the neighborhood of Gentile inhabitants in the entire vicinity might have already weakened and repressed in the youthful soul of Jesus the old Jewish narrow mindedness. The age also afforded a crisis for bringing out and determining the bent of his genius. Learned instruction (see No. 6 above) Jesus had not enjoyed (Mat 13:54 sq.; Joh 7:15), although the Jewish fables (Toledoth Jesu, p. 5) assign him a youthful teacher named Elhanan (), and Christian tradition (Histo in Joseph, c. 48 sq.) attributes to him wonderful aptness in learning (see generally Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, 121 sq.). In addition to all these natural influences operating upon his human spirit, there was, above all, the plenary inspiration (Joh 3:34) which he enjoyed from the intercommunication of the divine nature; for the bare facts of his career, even on the lowest view that can be taken of the documents attesting these, are incapable of a rational explanation on the ground of his mere humanity (see J. Young, Christ of History, Lond. 1855, N.Y. 1857). SEE CHRIST. (For additional literature, see Volbeding, p. 36 sq.) His prediction of future events would not of itself be an evidence of a higher character than that of other prophets. SEE PROPHECY.
15. Respecting the enterprise on behalf of mankind which Jesus had conceived, and which he undeviatingly kept in view (see especially Reinhard, Versuch. ub. d. Plan den der Stifter der chr. Rel. zum Besten der Mensch. entwarf, 5th edit. by Heubner, Wittemb. 1830 [compare the Neues theol. Journ. 14, 24 sq.]; Der Zweck Jesu geschichtl. u. seelkundl. dargestellt, Leipz. 1816; Planck, 1, 7 sq., 86 sq.; Greiling. p. 120 sq.; Strauss, 1, 463 sq.; Neander, p. 115 sq.; Weisse, 1, 117 sq.), a few observations only can here be indulged. SEE REDEMPTION.
That Jesus sought not simply to be a reformer of Judaism (Joh 4:22; Mat 15:24; compare Mat 5:17), SEE LAW, much less the founder of a secret association (Klotzsch, De Christo ab instituenda societate clandestina alieno, Viteb. 1786), but to unite all mankind in one great sacred family, is vouched for by his own declarations (Joh 4:23; Joh 10:16), by the whole tendency of his teaching, by his constant expression of the deepest sympathy with humanity in general, and finally by the selection of the apostles to continue his work; only he wished to confine himself personally to the boundaries of Judaea in the publication of the kingdom of God (Mat 15:24), whereas his disciples, led by the Holy Spirit, should eventually traverse the world as heralds of the truth (Mat 27:19 sq.). It is evident that to Jesus himself the outline of his design was always clearly defined in the course of his labors, but, on account of the dogmatic conformity of the delineations in John’s Gospel, and the loose, unchronological development of it in the synoptical gospels, it is impossible accurately to show historically the gradual realization of this subjective scheme.
But that Jesus at any moment of his life whatever had stated the political element of the theocracy as being blended with his spiritual emoluments (Hase, Leb. Jesu, p. 86 sq., 2d edit.) is an unwarrantable position (comp. Heubner, in Reinhard, ut sup. p. 394 sq.; Lcke, Pr. examinatur sententia de mutato per eventa adeogue sensim emendato Christi consilio, Gott. 1831; Neander, p. 121 sq.). The reason why he did not directly announce himself to the popular masses as the expected Messiah (indeed, he even evaded the question, Luk 20:1 sq., and forbade the spread of this report, Mat 16:20) unquestionably was, that the minds of the Jews were incapable of separating their carnal anticipations from the true idea of the Messiah (q.v.). He strove, therefore, on every occasion to set this idea itself in a right position before them, and occasionally suggested the identification of his person with the Messiah, partly by the epithet Son of Man, which he applied to himself (see especially Mat 12:8), partly by explicit statements (Mat 13:16 sq.; Luk 4:21). Hence it is not surprising that the opinion of the people respecting him declined, and the majority regarded him only as a great prophet, chiefly interesting for his wonder working. He decidedly announced himself as the Messiah only to individual susceptible hearts (Joh 4:26; Joh 9:36 sq.), and also to the high priest at the conclusion of his career (Mat 26:64). The disciples required it merely for the confirmation of the faith they had already attained (Mat 16:13 sq.; Luk 9:20). SEE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
The moral and religious character of Jesus (humanly considered), which even in the synoptical gospels, that are certainly chargeable with no embellishment, appears in a high ideality, has never yet been depicted with accurate psychological skill (see Volbeding, p. 35), but usually as a model of virtue in general (yet see Jerusalem, Nachgelass. Schrift, 1, 75 sq.; Greiling, p. 9 sq.; E.G. Winckler, Vers. e. Psychocographie Jesu, Lpz. 1826; Ullmann, Sundlosig. Jes. p. 35 sq.; Ammon, Leb. Jes. 1, 240 sq.; Thiele, in the Darmst. Kirch.-Zeit. 1844, No. 92-94). (Comp. Hase, p. 62, 64.) On the (choleric) temperament of Jesus, see J.G. Walch, De temperamento Christi hom. Jen. 1753. Deep humility before God (Luk 18:19), and ardent love towards men in view of the determined sacrifice (Joh 10:18), were the distinguishing traits of his noble devotion, while the divine zeal that stirred his great soul concentrated all his virtues upon his one grand design. Jesus appears as the harmonious complete embodiment of religious resignation; but this was so far from being a result of innate weakness (although Jesus might have had a slender physical constitution), that his natural force of character subsided into it (for examples of high energy in feeling and act, see Joh 2:16 sq.; Joh 8:44 sq.; Mat 16:23; Mat 23:5, etc.). Everywhere to this deep devotion was joined a clear, prudent understanding a combination which alone can preserve a man of sensibility and activity from the danger of becoming a reckless enthusiast or a weak sentimentalist. This is most unmistakably exhibited in the account of his passion and death.
Neither do we find in Jesus any trace of the austerity and gloomy sternness of other founders of religion, or even of his contemporary the Baptist (Mat 11:18 sq.). In the midst of eager listeners in the public streets or in the Temple, he spoke with the high dignity of a messenger of God; yet how affectionately sympathetic (Joh 11:35), how solicitous, how self-sacrificing did he exhibit himself in the bosom of the family, in the dear circle of his friends! What tender sympathy expressed itself in him on every occasion (Luk 7:13; Mat 9:36; Mat 14:14; Mat 20:34). He was both (compare Rom 12:15) tearful among the tearful (Joh 11:35), and cheerful among the cheerful (Joh 2:1 sq.; Luk 7:34). On this very account the character of Jesus has at all times so irresistibly won the hearts of the good and noble of all people, since it evinces not merely the rarest magnanimity, such as to cause amazement, but at the same time the purest, most disinterested humanity, and thus presents to the observer not simply an object of esteem, but also of love. The history of Jesus’ life is equally interesting to the child and the full-grown man, and certainly his example has effected at all times not less than his precepts. In accordance with this unmistakable sum of his character, certain single passages of the Gospels (e.g. Mat 12:46 sq.; Mat 15:21 sq.; Joh 2:4), which, verbally apprehended, SEE CANA, might perplex us concerning Jesus (comp. J.F. Volbeding, Utrum Christus matrem genusque suum dissimulaverit et despexerit, Viteb. 1784; K.J. Klemm, De necessitudine J. Christo c. consanguineis intercedente, Lips. 1846), may be more correctly explained see Ammon, Leb. Jesu, 1, 243 sq.), and may be placed in harmony with others (e.g. Luk 2:51; compare Lange, De subjectione Chr. sub parentib. Lips. 1738). SEE ENSAMPLE.
The task of the world’s redemption, acting as an ever present burden upon the Savior’s mind, produced that pensiveness, not to say sadness, which was a marked characteristic of all his deportment. Rarely did his equanimity rise to exuberant joy, and that only in connection with the great ruling object of his life (Luk 10:21); oftener did it experience dejection of spirit (Joh 12:27), at times to the depths of mental anguish (Mar 14:34). SEE AGONY. It was this interior pressure that so frequently burst forth in sighs and tears (Joh 11:33; Luk 19:41), and made Jesus the ready sympathizer with human affliction (Joh 11:35). It is such spiritual and unselfish trials that ripen every truly great moral character, and it was accordingly needful that God, in bringing many sons unto glory, should make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. The fact that Jesus was emphatically a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, is the real key to the subdued and self-collected tone of his entire demeanor. SEE KENOSIS.
For an adequate explanation of the astonishing power which our Savior exercised over his auditors, and, indeed, exerted over all who came within his circle of influence, we are doubtless to look to two or three facts which have never yet been exhibited, at least in connection, with such graphic portraiture as to make his life stand out to the modern reader in its true moral grandeur, force, and vividness. These elements are partly suggested in the evangelist’s statement that those who first hung upon the Redeemer’s lips found in his discourses a new and divine assurance: He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes (Mat 7:29).
(1.) His doctrines were novel to his hearers. It was not so much because he announced to them the ushering in of a new dispensation, for upon this he merely touched in his introductory addresses and by way of arresting their attention; all details respecting that fresh era which could gratify curiosity, or even awaken it, he sedulously avoided, and he seemed anxious to divert the popular expectation from himself as the central figure in the coming scenes. It was the spiritual truths he communicated that burned upon the hearts of the listening populace with a strange intensity. True, the essential features of a religious life had been illustrated in their sacred books for centuries by holy men of old, and the most vital doctrines of the Gospel may be said to have been anticipated in the Mosaic code and the prophetical comments; nay, living examples were not wanting to confirm the substantial identity of religious experience under whatever outward economy. Yet, at the time of our Lord’s advent, the fundamental principles of sound piety seem to have been forgotten or overlooked, especially by the Pharisees whose views and practices were regarded as the models by the nation at large. When, therefore, our Lord brought back the popular attention to the simple doctrines of love to God and man, not only as lying at the foundation of the O.T. ethics, but as comprising the whole duty of man, the simplicity, pertinence, and truthfulness of the sentiment came with an irresistible freshness of conviction to the minds of the humblest hearers. For this, too, they had already been prepared by the sad contrast between the precepts and the conduct of the highest sectaries of the day, by the tedious burden of the Mosaic ritual, and, above all, by the bitter yearnings after religious liberty in their own souls, which the current system of belief failed to supply. Sin yet lay as a load of anguish upon their hearts, and they eagerly embraced the gentle invitations of the Redeemer to the bosom of their offended heavenly Father. It was precisely the resurrection of these again obscured teachings that gave such power to the preaching of Luther, Whitefield, Wesley, Edwards, and others in subsequent times, and which converted the moral desert of their day into a spiritual Eden. But there was this to enhance the effect in the Savior’s promulgations, that they awakened the expectation of a millennial reign; an idea misconstrued, indeed, by many of the Jews into that of a temporal dominion, but on that very account productive of a more boundless and extravagant enthusiasm. The national spirit was roused, and Jesus even found it necessary to repress and avoid the fanatical and disloyal manifestations to which it was instantly prone. Yet in those hearts which better understood the kingdom of heaven, there arose the dawn of that Sabbatic day of which the Pentecostal effusion brought the meridian glory. (For the best elucidation of this difference between Christ’s and his predecessors’, as well as rivals’ teaching, see Stier’s Words of Jesus, passim.)
(2.) He spoke as God. Later preachers and reformers have felt a heroic boldness, and have realized a marvelous effect in their utterances, when fully impressed with the conviction of the divinity of their mission and the sacred character of their communications; but Jesus was no mere ambassador from the court of heaven; he was the Word of the Lord himself. Ancient prophets had made their effata by an inspired impulse, and corroborated them by outward miracles that enforced respect, if they did not command obedience; but Jesus possessed no restricted measure of the Spirit, and wrought wonders in no other’s name; in him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and the Sheknah stood revealed in his every act, look, and breath. Never man spake like this, was the significant confession extorted from his very foes. He who came from the bosom of the Father told but the things he had seen and known when he unveiled eternal verities to men. His daily demeanor, too, under whatever exigency, or temptation, or provocation, was a most pungent and irrefragable comment on all he said a faultless example reflecting a perfect doctrine. Unprecedented as were his miracles, his life itself was the greatest wonder of all. The manner, it is often truly observed, is quite as important in the public speaker as the matter; and, we may add, his personal associations with his hearers are often more influential with them than either. In all these particulars Christ has no parallel he had no defect. (See this argument admirably treated in Bushnell’s Nature and the Supernatural, chap. 10)
(3.) The author of Ecce Homo (a work which admirably illustrates the human side of Christ and his religion, although it lamentably ignores the divine element in both) forcibly points (chap. 5) to the fact that the bare miracles of Jesus, although they were so public and so stupendous as to compel the credit and awe of all, were in themselves not sufficient to command even reverence, much less a loving trust; nay, that, had they been too freely used, they were even calculated to repel men in affright (comp. Luk 5:8) and consternation (see Luk 8:37). It was the self- restraint which the Possessor of divine power evidently imposed upon himself in this respect, and especially his persistent refusal to employ his supernatural gift either for his own personal relief and comfort, or for the direct promotion of his kingdom by way of a violent assault upon hostile powers, that intensified the astonished regard of his followers to the utmost pitch of devoted veneration. This penetrating sense of attachment to one to whom they owed everything, and who seemed to be independent of their aid, and even indifferent to his own protection while serving others, culminated at the tragedy, which achieved a world’s redemption at his own expense. It was the combination of greatness and self-sacrifice which won their hearts, the mighty powers held under a mighty control, the unspeakable condescension, the Cross of Christ (p. 57) a topic that ever called forth the full enthusiasm of Paul’s heart, and that fired it with a heroic zeal to emulate his Master. III. Narrative of our Savior’s Life and Ministry.(For the further literature of each topic, see the articles referred to at each.) SEE GOSPELS.
About four hundred years had elapsed since Malachi, the last of the prophets, had foretold the coming of the Messiah’s forerunner, and nearly the same interval had transpired since Ezra closed the sacred canon, and composed the concluding psalm (119); a still greater number of years had intervened since the latest miracle of the Old Test. had been performed, and men not only in Palestine, but throughout the entire East, were in general expectation of the advent of the universal Prince (Suetonius, Vesp. 4; Tacitus, Hist. 5, 13) an event which the Jews knew, from their Scriptures (Dan 9:25), was now close at hand (see Luk 2:26; Luk 2:38). SEE ADVENT.
It was under such circumstances, at a time when the Roman empire, of which Judea then formed a part, was in a state of profound and universal peace (Orosius, Hist. 6, fin.), under the rule of Augustus (Luk 2:1), that an incident occurred which, although apparently personal and inconsiderable, broke like a new oracle the silence of ages (comp. 2Pe 3:4), and proved the dawn of the long looked for day of Israel’s glory (see Luk 1:78). A priest named Zachariah was performing the regular functions of his office within the holy place of the Temple at Jerusalem, when an angel appeared to him with the announcement that his hitherto childless and now aged wife, Elisabeth, should bear him a son, who was to be the harbinger of the promised Redeemer (Luk 1:5-25). SEE ZACHARIAS. To punish and at the same time remove his doubts, the power of articulate utterance was miraculously taken from him until the verification of the prediction (probably May, B.C. 7). SEE JOHN THE BAPTIST.
Nearly half a year after this vision, a still more remarkable annunciation (q.v.) was made by the same means to a maiden of the now obscure lineage of David, resident at Nazareth, and betrothed to Joseph, a descendant of the same once-royal family, SEE GENEALOGY: namely, that she was the individual selected to become the mother of the Messiah who had been expected in all previous ages (Luk 1:26-38). SEE MARY. Her scruples having been obviated by the assurance of a divine paternity, SEE INCARNATION, she acquiesced in the providence, although she could not have failed to foresee the ignominy to which it would expose her, SEE ADULTERY, and even joined her relative Elizabeth in praising God for so high an honor (Luk 1:39-56). As soon as her condition became known, SEE CONCEPTION, Joseph was divinely apprised, through a dream, of his intended wife’s innocence, and directed to name her child Jesus (see above), thus adopting it as his own (Mat 1:18-25; probably April, B.C. 6). SEE JOSEPH.
Although the parents resided in Galilee, they had occasion just at this time to visit Bethlehem (q.v.) in order to be enrolled along with their relatives in a census now in progress by order of the Roman authorities, SEE CYRENIUS, and thus Jesus was born, during their stay in the exterior buildings of the public khan, SEE CARAVANSERAI, at that place (Luk 2:1-7), in fulfilment of an express prediction of Scripture (Mic 5:2), prob. Aug. B.C. 6. SEE NATIVITY.
The auspicious event was heralded on the same night by angels to a company of shepherds on the adjacent plains, and was recognized by two aged saints at Jerusalem, SEE SIMEON; SEE ANNA, where the mother presented the babe at the usual time for the customary offerings at the Temple, the rite of circumcision (q.v.) having been meanwhile duly performed (Luk 2:8-39; prob. Sept. B.C. 6). Public notice, however, was not attracted to the event till, on the arrival at the capital of a party of Eastern philosophers, SEE MAGI, who had been directed to Palestine by astronomical phenomena as the birthplace of some noted infant, SEE STAR OF THE WISE MEN, the intelligence of their inquiries reached the jealous ears of Herod (q.v.), who thereupon first ascertaining from the assembled Sanhedrim the predicted locality sent the strangers to Bethlehem, where the holy family appear to have continued, pretending that he wished himself to do the illustrious babe reverence, but really only to render himself more sure of his destruction (Mat 2:1-12). This attempt was foiled by the return of the Magi home by another route, through divine intimation, and the child was preserved from the murderous rage of Herod by a precipitous flight of the parents (who were in like manner warned of the danger) into Egypt, SEE ALEXANDRIA, under a like direction (prob. July, B.C. 5). Here they remained SEE EGYPT until, on the death of the tyrant, at the divine suggestion, they returned to Palestine; but, avoiding Judea, where Archelaus, who resembled his father, had succeeded to the throne, they settled at their former place of residence, Nazareth, within the territory of the milder Antipas (Mat 2:19-23; prob. April, B.C. 4). SEE NAZARENE.
The evangelists pass over the boyhood of Jesus with the simple remark that his obedience, intelligence, and piety won the affections of all who knew him (Luk 2:40; Luk 2:51-52). A single incident is recorded in illustration of these traits, which occurred when he had completed his twelfth year an age at which the Jewish males were expected to take upon them the responsibility of attaching themselves to the public worship, as having arrived at years of discretion (Luk 2:41-50; see Lightfoot and Wetstein, ad loc.). Having accompanied his parents, on this occasion, to the Passover at Jerusalem, the lad tarried behind at the close of the festal week, and was discovered by them, as they turned back to the capital from their homeward journey, after considerable search, sitting in the midst of the Rabbis in one of the anterooms of the sacred edifice, seeking information from them on sacred themes (or probably rather imparting than eliciting truth, after the manner of the Socratic questionings) with a clearness and profundity so far beyond his years and opportunities as to excite the liveliest astonishment in all beholders (April, A.D. 8). His pointed reply to his mother’s expostulation for his seeming neglect of filial duty evinces a comprehension already of his divine character and work: Knew ye not that I must be at my Father’s? ( ).
1. Introductory Year. Soon after John the Baptist had opened his remarkable mission at the Jordan, among the thousands of all classes who flocked to his preaching and baptism (q.v.), Jesus, then thirty years old, presented himself for the same initiatory rite at his hands as the only acknowledged prophet extant who was empowered to administer what should be equivalent to the holy anointing oil of the kingly and priestly offices (Mat 3:13-17; Luk 3:1-18; Luk 3:23; and parallels). SEE MESSIAH.
John did not at once recognize Jesus as the Messiah, although he had just declared to the people the near approach of his own Superior; yet, being doubtless personally well acquainted with his relative, in whom he must have perceived the tokens of an extraordinary religious personage, he modestly declined to perform a ceremony that seemed to imply his own preeminence; but upon his compliance with the request of Jesus, on the ground of the propriety of this preliminary ordinance, a divine attestation, both in a visible, SEE DOVE, and an audible, SEE BATH-KOL, form, was publicly given as to the sacred character of Jesus, and in such clear conformity to a criterion which John himself had already received by the inward revelation, that he at once began to proclaim the advent of the Messiah in his person (prob. August, A.D. 25). SEE JOHN THE BAPTIST.
After this inauguration of his public career, Jesus immediately retired into the desert of Judaea, where, during a fast of forty days, he endured those interior temptations of Satan which should suffice to prove the superiority of his virtue to that power to which Adam had succumbed; and at its close he successfully resisted three special attempts of the devil in a personal form to move him first to doubt and then to presume upon the divine care, and finally to bribe him to such barefaced idolatry that Jesus indignantly repelled him from his presence (Mat 4:1-11, and parallels). SEE TEMPTATION.
The effect of John’s open testimony to the character of Jesus, as he began his preaching afresh the next season on the other side of the Jordan, was such as not only to lead to a deputation of inquiry to him from the Sanhedrim on the subject, but also to induce two of the Baptist’s disciples to attach themselves to Christ, one of whom immediately introduced his own brother to his newly found Master, and to these, as he was departing for Galilee, were added two others of their acquaintance (Joh 1:19-36). On arriving at Cana (q.v.), whither he had been invited with his relatives and friends to a wedding festival, Jesus performed his first miracle by changing water into wine for the supply of the guests (Joh 2:1-11; prob. March, A.D. 26).
2. First more public Year. After a short visit at Capernaum, Jesus returned to Judea in order to attend the Passover; and finding the entrance to the Temple choked with various kinds of merchant stalls, he forcibly expelled their sacrilegious occupants, and vindicated his authority by a prediction of his resurrection, which was at the time misunderstood (Joh 2:12-22). His miracles during the Paschal week confirmed the popular impression concerning his prophetic character, and even induced a member of the Sanhedrim to seek a private interview with him, SEE NICODEMUS; but his doctrine of the necessity of a spiritual change in his disciples, SEE REGENERATION, and his statement of his own passion, SEE ATONEMENT, were neither intelligible nor agreeable to the worldly minds of the people (Joh 2:23-25; Joh 3:1-21). Jesus now proceeded to the Jordan, and by the instrumentality of his disciples continued the inaugural baptism of the people instituted by John, who had meanwhile removed further up the river, where, so far from being jealous of Jesus’ increasing celebrity, he gave still stronger testimony to the superior destiny of Jesus (Joh 3:22-36); but the imprisonment of John not long afterwards by order of Herod (Mat 14:3 sq.; Mar 6:17 sq.; Luk 3:19) rendered it expedient (Mat 4:12; Mar 1:14), in connection with the odium excited by the hierarchy (Joh 4:1-3), that Jesus should retire into Galilee (Luk 4:14). On his way thither, his conversation with a Samaritan female at the well of Jacob (q.v.), near Shechem, on the spiritual blessings of God’s true worshippers, led to her conversion, with a large number of her fellow citizens, among) whom he tarried two days (Joh 4:4-42; prob. December, A.D. 26). On his arrival in Galilee he was received with great respect (Joh 4:43-45), and his public announcements of the advent of the Messianic age (Mat 4:17; Mar 1:14-15) in all the synagogues of that country spread his fame still more widely (Luk 4:14-15). In this course of preaching he revisited Cana, and there, by a word, cured the son of one of Herod’s courtiers that lay at the point of death at Capernaum (Joh 4:46-54).
Arriving at Nazareth, he was invited by his townsmen to read the Scripture lesson (Isa 61:1-2) in the synagogue, but they took such offence at his application of it to himself, and still more at his comments upon it, that they hurried him tumultuously to the brink of a precipice, and would have thrown him off had he not escaped from their hands (Luk 4:16-30). Thenceforward he fixed upon Capernaum (q.v.) as his general place of residence (Mat 4:13-16). In one of his excursions in this neighborhood, after addressing the people on the lake shore from a boat on the water, he directed the owners of the boat to a spot further out from the shore, where they caught so evidently miraculous a draft of fish as to convince both them and their partners of his superhuman character, and then invited all four of the fishermen to become his disciples, a call which they promptly obeyed (Luk 5:1-10; Mat 4:19-22; and parallels). On his return to Capernaum he restored a daemoniac among the assembly whom he addressed in the synagogue, to the astonishment of the audience and vicinity (Mar 1:21-29, and parallels), and, retiring to the house of one of these lately chosen followers, he cured his mother-in-law of a fever, as well as various descriptions of invalids and deranged persons, at sunset of the same day (Mar 1:29-34; Mat 8:17; and parallels). Rising the next morning for solitary prayer before any of the family were stirring, he set out, notwithstanding the remonstrances of his host as soon as he had discovered him, to make a general tour of Galilee, preaching to multitudes who flocked to hear him from all directions, and supporting his doctrines by miraculous cures of every species of physical and mental disease (Mar 1:35-38; Mat 4:23-25; and parallels; prob. February, A.D. 27). One of these cases was a leper, whose restoration to purity caused such crowds to resort to Jesus as compelled him to avoid public thoroughfares (Mar 1:40-45, and parallels). On his return to Capernaum his door was soon thronged with listeners to his preaching, including many of the learned Pharisees from Jerusalem; and the cavils of these latter at his pronouncing spiritual absolution upon a paralytic whom earnest friends had been at great pains to let down at the feet of Jesus by removing the balcony roof above him, he refuted by instantly enabling the helpless man to walk home, carrying his couch (Luk 5:17-26, and parallels; prob. March, A.D. 27). On another excursion by the lake shore, after preaching to the people, he summoned as a disciple the collector of the Roman imposts (Mar 2:13-14, and parallels; probably April, A.D. 27). SEE MATTHEW.
3. Second more public Year. The Passover now drew near, which Jesus, like the devout Jews generally, was careful to attend at Jerusalem (Saturday, April 12, A.D. 27). SEE PASSOVER.
As he passed by the pentagonal pool of Bethesda, near the sheep gate of the city, he observed in one of its porches an invalid awaiting the intermittent influx of the water, to which the populace had attributed a miraculously curative power to the first bather thereafter; but, learning that he had been thus infirm for thirty- eight years, and ascertaining from him that he was even too helpless to reach the water in time to experience its virtue, he immediately restored him to vigor by a word. SEE BETHESDA.
This, happening to occur on the Sabbath, so incensed the hierarchy that they charged the author of the cure with a profanation of the day, and thus drew from Jesus a public vindication of his mission and an exposure of their inconsistency (Joh 5:1-47). As he was preparing to return to Galilee, on the Sabbath ensuing the Paschal week (Saturday, April 19, A.D. 27), his disciples chanced to pluck, as strangers were privileged to do (Deu 23:25), a few of the ripe heads from the standing barley, through which they were at the time passing, in order to allay their hunger; and this being captiously alleged by some Pharisee bystanders as a fresh violation of the sacred day, Jesus took occasion to rebuke their over scrupulousness as being confuted by the example of David (1Sa 21:1-6), the practice of the priests themselves (Num 28:9-19), and the tenor of Scripture (Hos 6:6; compare Samuel 15:22), and, at the same time, to point out the true design of the Sabbath (q.v.), namely, man’s own benefit (Mat 12:1-8, and parallels). On an ensuing Sabbath (prob. Saturday, April 26, A.D. 27), entering the synagogue (apparently of Capernaum), he once more excited the same odium by curing a man whose right hand was palsied; but his opponents, who had been watching the opportunity, were silenced by his appeal to the philanthropy of the act, yet they thenceforth began to plot his destruction (Mar 3:1-6, and parallels). Retiring to the Sea of Galilee, he addressed the multitudes who thronged here from all quarters, and cured the sick and daemoniacs among them (Mar 3:7-12; Mat 12:17-21, and parallels). After a night spent in prayer on a mountain in the vicinity, he now chose twelve persons from among his followers to be his constant attendant and future witnesses to his career (Luk 6:12-16, and parallels). SEE APOSTLE.
Then, descending to a partial plain, he cured the diseased among the assembled multitude (Luk 6:17-19), and, seating himself upon an eminence, he proceeded to deliver his memorable sermon exhibiting the spirituality of the Gospel in opposition to the formalism of the prevalent theology (Mat 5:1-12; Luk 6:24-26; Mat 5:17-24; Mat 5:27-30; Mat 5:33-48; Mat 6:1-8; Mat 6:16-18; Mat 7:1-5; Mat 7:12; Mat 7:15-18; Mat 7:20-21; Mat 7:24-27; Mat 8:1, and parallel passages; prob. May. A.D. 27). SEE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
On his return to Capernaum, Jesus, at the instance of the Jewish elders, cured the son of a modest and pious centurion, who, although a Gentile, had built the village synagogue, and whose faith in the power of Jesus to restore by his mere word the distant invalid excited the liveliest interest in the mind of Jesus himself (Luk 7:1-10, and parallel). The ensuing day, passing near Nain, he met a large procession issuing from the village for the interment of the only son of a widow, and, commiserating her double bereavement, he restored the youth instantly to life, to the astonishment of the beholders (Luk 7:11-17). John the Baptist, hearing while in prison of these miracles, sent two messengers to Jesus to obtain more explicit assurance from his own lips as to the Messiah, which he seemed so slow plainly to avow; but, instead of returning a direct answer, Jesus proceeded to perform additional miracles in their presence, and then referred them to the Scripture prophecies (Isa 61:1; Isa 35:5-6) of these distinctive marks of the Messianic age; but as soon as the messengers had departed, he eulogized the character of John, although the introducer of an sera less favored than the period of Jesus himself, and concluded by severe denunciations of the cities (especially Capernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida) which had continued impenitent under his own preaching (Luk 7:18-35; Mat 11:20; Mat 11:24; and parallels). About this time, a Pharisee invited him one day to dine with him, but, while he was reclining at the table, a female notorious for her immorality came penitently behind him and bedewed with her tears his unsandaled feet extended beyond the couch, then wiped them with her hair, and finally affectionately anointed them with ointment brought for that purpose, while the host scarcely restrained his surprise that Jesus should suffer this familiarity; but, in a pointed parable of two debtors released from dissimilar amounts, Jesus at once justified the love of the woman and rebuked the sordidness of the host, who had neglected these offices of respect, and then confirmed the woman’s trembling hopes of pardon for her past sins (Luk 7:36-50). He next set out on his second tour of Galilee (summer of A.D. 27), accompanied by several grateful females who bore his expenses (Luk 8:1-3).
No sooner had he returned to Capernaum (prob. Oct. A.D. 27) than such crowds reassembled at his house that his friends sought to restrain what they deemed his excessive enthusiasm to address them, while the jealous hierarchy from Jerusalem, who were present, scrupled not to attribute to collusion with Satan the cure of a blind and dumb daemoniac which he wrought. But, refuting this absurd cavil (since his act was directly in opposition to diabolical influences), he denounced it as an unpardonable crime against the Holy Spirit, who was the agent, and proceeded to characterize the rancor of heart that had prompted it; then, after refusing to gratify the curiosity of one of his enemies, who interrupted him by demanding some celestial portent in confirmation of his claims (for he declared no further miracle should be granted to them except his eventual resurrection, which he compared to the restoration of Jonah from the maw of the fish), he contrasted the obduracy of the generation that heard him with the penitence of the Ninevites and the eagerness of the queen of Sheba to listen to far inferior wisdom, and closed by comparing their aggravated condition to that of a relapsed demoniac (Mar 3:19-21; Mat 12:22-45; and parallels). A woman present pronounced his mother happy in having such a son, but he declared those rather happy who obeyed his teaching (Luk 11:27). At that moment, being informed of the approach of his relatives, and their inability to reach him through the crowd, he avowed his faithful followers to be dearer than his earthly kindred (Mat 12:46-50, and parallels). A Pharisee (q.v.) present invited him to dinner, but, on his evincing surprise that his guest did not perform the ablutions customary before eating, Jesus inveighed against the absurd and hypocritical zeal of the sect concerning externals, while they neglected the essentials of piety; and when a devotee of the law, SEE LAWYER complained of the sweeping character of these charges, he denounced the selfish and ruinous casuistry of this class likewise with such severity that the whole party determined to entrap him, if possible, into some unguarded expression against the religious or civil power (Luk 11:37-42; Luk 11:44-46; Luk 11:52-54, and parallel). SEE SCRIBE.
On his way home he continued to address the immense concourse, first against the hypocrisy which he had just witnessed, and then taking occasion from the demand of a person present that he would use his authority to compel his brother to settle their father’s estate with him, which he refused on the ground of its irrelevancy to his sacred functions he proceeded to discourse on the necessity and propriety of trust in divine Providence for our temporal wants, illustrating this duty by the parable of the sudden death of a rich worldling, by a comparison with various natural objects, by contrast with the heathen, and by the higher importance of a preparation for heaven (Luk 12:1; Luk 12:6-7; Luk 12:13-31; Luk 12:33-34, and parallels). Being informed of a recent atrocity of Herod against some Galileans, he declared that an equally awful fate awaited the impenitent among his hearers, and enforced the admonition by the parable of the delay in cutting down a fruitless tree (Luk 13:1-9). Again leaving his home the same day, he delivered, while sitting in a boat, to a large audience upon the lake shore, the several parables of the different fate of various portions of seed in a field, the true and false wheat growing together till harvest, the gradual but spontaneous development of a plant of grain, the remarkable growth of the mustard shrub from a very small seed, and the dissemination of leaven throughout a large mass of dough (Mat 13:1-9; Mat 13:24-30; Mar 4:26-29; Mat 13:31-36; and parallels); but it was only to the privileged disciples (as he informed them) in private that he explained, at their own request, the various elements of the first of these parables as referring to the different degrees of improvement made by the corresponding classes of his own hearers, adding various admonitions (by comparisons with common life) to diligence on the part of the apostles, and then, after explaining the parable of the false wheat as referring to the divine forbearance to eradicate the wicked in this scene of probation, he added the parable of the assortment of a heterogeneous draft of fish in a common net, indicative of the final discrimination of the foregoing characters, with two minor parables illustrating the paramount value of piety, and closed with an exhortation to combine novelty with orthodoxy in religious preaching, like the varied stores of a skilful housekeeper (Mat 13:10-11; Mat 13:13-23; Mat 5:14-16; Mat 6:22-23; Mat 10:26-27; Mat 13:12; Mat 13:36-43; Mat 13:47-50; Mat 13:44-46; Mat 13:51-53; and parallels). SEE PARABLE, As Jesus was setting out, towards evening of the same day, to cross the lake, a scribe proposed to become his constant disciple, but was repelled by being reminded by Jesus of the hardships to which he would expose himself in his company; two others of his attendants were refused a temporary leave of absence to arrange their domestic affairs, lest it might wean them altogether from his service (Mat 8:18-22; Luke 11:61, 62; and parallels). While the party were crossing the lake, Jesus, overcome with the labors of the day, had fallen asleep on the stern bench of the boat, when so violent a squall took them that, in the utmost consternation, they appealed to him for preservation, and, rebuking their distrust of his defending presence, he calmed the tempest with a word (Mat 8:23-27, and parallels). SEE GALILEE, SEA OF.
On reaching the eastern shore, they were met by two frantic daemoniacs, roaming in the deserted catacombs of Gadara, who prostrated themselves before Jesus, and implored his forbearance; but the Satanic influence that possessed them, on being expelled by him, with his permission seized upon a large herd of swine feeding near (probably raised, contrary to the law, for supplying the market of the Greek-imitating Jews), and caused them to rush headlong into the lake, where they were drowned, SEE DAEMONIAC; and this loss offended the worldly-minded owners of the swine that the neighbors generally requested Jesus to return home. which he immediately did, leaving the late maniacs to fill the country with the remarkable tidings of their cure (Mar 5:1-21, and parallels). Not long afterwards, on occasion of a large entertainment made for Jesus by Matthew, the Pharisees found fault with the disciples because their Master head condescended to associate with the tax gatherers and other disreputable persons that were guests; but Jesus declared that such had most need of his intercourse, his mission being to reclaim sinners (Mat 9:10-13, and parallels). At the same time he explained to an inquirer why he did not enjoin seasons of fasting like the Baptist, that his presence as yet should rather be a cause of gladness to his followers, and he illustrated the impropriety of such severe requirements prematurely by the festivity of a marriage week, and by the parables of a new patch on an old garment, and new wine in old skin bottles (Mat 9:14-17, and parallels). In the midst of these remarks he was entreated by a leading citizen named Jairus (q.v.) to visit his daughter, who lay at the point of death; and while going for that purpose he cured a female among the crowd of a chronic hemorrhage (q.v.) by her secretly touching the edge of his dress, which led to her discovery and acknowledgment on the spot; but in the meantime information arrived of the death of the sick girl: nevertheless, encouraging the father’s faith, he proceeded to the house where her funeral had already begun, and, entering the room with her parents and three disciples only, restored her to life and health by a simple touch and word, to the amazement of all the vicinity (Mar 5:22-43, and parallels). As he was leaving Jairus’ house two blind men followed him, whose request that he would restore their sight he granted by a touch; and on his return home he cured a dumb demoniac, upon which the Pharisees repeated their calumny of his collusion with Satan (Mat 9:27-34).
Visiting Nazareth again shortly afterwards, his acquaintances were astonished at his eloquence in the synagogue on the Sabbath, but were so prejudiced against his obscure family that but few had sufficient faith to warrant the exertion of his miraculous power in cures (Mar 6:1-6, and parallel). About this time (probably Jan. and Feb. A.D. 28), commiserating the moral destitution of the community, Jesus sent out the apostles in pairs on a general tour of preaching and miracle working in different directions (but avoiding the Gentiles and Samaritans), with special instructions, while he made his third circuit of Galilee for a like purpose (Mat 9:35-38; Mat 10:1; Mat 10:5-14; Mat 10:40-42; Mat 11:1; Mar 6:12-13; and parallels). Upon their return, Jesus, being apprized of the execution of John the Baptist by Herod (Mar 6:21-29; probably March, A.D. 28), and of the tetrarch’s views of himself (Mar 6:14-16; SEE JOHN THE BAPTIST ), retired with them across the lake, followed by crowds of men, with their families, whom at evening he miraculously fed with a few provisions at hand (Mar 6:30-44, and parallels), an act that excited such enthusiasm among them as to lead them to form the plan of forcibly proclaiming him their political king (Joh 6:14-15); this design Jesus defeated by dismissing the multitude, and sending away the disciples by themselves in a boat across the lake, while he spent most of the night alone in prayer on a neighboring hill; but towards daylight he rejoined them, by walking on the water to them as they were toiling at the oars against the wind and tempestuous waves, and suddenly calming the sea, brought them to the shore, to their great amazement; then, as he proceeded through the plain of Gennesareth, the whole country brought their sick to him to be cured (Mat 14:22-36, and parallels), the populace whom he had left on the eastern shore meanwhile missing him, returned by boats to Capernaum (Joh 6:22-24; prob. Thursd. and Friday, March 25 and 26, A.D. 28). Meeting them in their search next day in the synagogue, he took occasion, in alluding to the recent miracle, to proclaim himself to them at large as the celestial manna for the soul, but cooled their political ambition by warning them that the benefits of his mission could only be received through a participation by faith in the atoning sacrifice shortly to be made in his own person; a doctrine that soon discouraged their adherence to him, but proved no stumbling block to the steadfast faith of eleven of his apostles (Joh 6:25-71; prob. Saturday, March 27, A.D. 28).
4. Third more public Year. Avoiding the malicious plots of the hierarchy at Jerusalem by remaining at Capernaum during the Passover (Joh 7:1; probably Sunday, March 28, A.D. 28), Jesus took occasion, from the fault found by some Pharisees from the capital against his disciples for eating with unwashed hands, SEE ABLUTION, to rebuke their traditional scrupulousness as subversive of the true intent of the Law, and to expound to his disciples the true cause of moral defilement, as consisting in the corrupt affections of the heart (Mar 7:1-16; Mat 15:12-20; and parallels). Retiring to the borders of Phoenicia, he was besought with such importunity by a Gentile woman to cure her daemoniac daughter, that, after overcoming with the most touching arguments his assumed indifference, her faith gained his assent, and on reaching home she found her daughter restored (Mat 15:21-28, and parallel; prob. May, A.D. 28). Thence returning through the Decapolis, publicly teaching on the way, he cured a deaf and dumb person, with many other invalids, and, miraculously feeding the great multitude that followed him, he sailed across to the western shore of the lake (Mar 7:31-37; Mat 15:30-39; and parallels), where he rebuked the Pharisees’ demand of some celestial prodigy by referring them to the tokens of the existing sera, which were as evident as signs of the weather, and admonishing them of the coming retribution (Mat 16:1-3; Mat 5:25-26), and, again hinting at the crowning miracle of his resurrection, he returned to the eastern side of the lake, warning his disciples on the way of the pernicious doctrine of the sectaries, which he compared to leaven (Mat 16:4-12, and parallels). Proceeding to Bethsaida (in Peraea), he cured a blind man in a gradual manner by successive touches of his eyes (Mar 8:22-26), and on his way through the environs of Caesarea-Philippi, after private devotion, he elicited from the disciples a profession of their faith in him as the Messiah, and conferred upon them the right of legislating for his future Church, but rebuked Peter for demurring at his prediction of his own approaching passion, and enjoined the strictest self denial upon his followers, in view of the eventual retribution shortly to be foreshadowed by the overthrow of the Jewish nation (Mat 16:13-28, and parallels; prob. May, A.D. 28). A week afterwards, taking three disciples only with him, he ascended a lofty mountain in the vicinity (prob. Hermon), where his person experienced a remarkable luminousness, SEE TRANSFIGURATION, with other prodigies, that at first alarmed the disciples; and, on descending the mountain, he explained the allusion (Mal 4:5-6) to Elijah (who, with Moses, had just conversed with him in a glorified state) as meaning John the Baptist, lately put to death (Mat 17:1-13, and parallels).
On his return to the rest of the disciples, he found them disputing with the Jewish sectaries concerning a daemoniac deaf mute child whom the former had vainly endeavored to cure; the father now earnestly entreating Jesus to exercise his power over the malady, although of long duration, he immediately restored the lad to perfect soundness, and privately explained to the disciples the cause of their failure as lying in their want of faith (Mar 9:14-28, and parallels), which would have rendered them competent to any requisite miracle (Luk 17:5-6, and parallel) if coupled with devout humility (Mar 9:29, and parallel). Thence passing over into Galilee, he again foretold his ignominious crucifixion and speedy resurrection to his disciples, who still failed to apprehend his meaning (Mar 9:30-32, and parallels). On the return of the party to Capernaum, the collector of the Temple tax waited upon Peter for payment from his Master, who, although stating his exemption by virtue of his high character, yet, for the sake of peace, directed Peter to catch a fish, which would be found to have swallowed a piece of money sufficient to pay for them both (Mat 17:24-27; prob. June, A.D. 28)., About this time Jesus rebuked the disciples for a strife into which they had fallen for the highest honors under their Master’s reign by placing a child in their midst as a symbol of artless innocence; and upon John’s remarking that they had lately silenced an unknown person acting in his name, he reprimanded such bigotry, enlarging by various similes upon the duty of tenderly dealing with new converts, and closing with rules for the expulsion of an unworthy. member from their society, adding the parable of the unmerciful servant to enforce the doctrine of leniency (Mar 9:33-40; Mar 9:42; Mar 9:49-50; Mat 18:10; Mat 18:15-35; and parallels). Some time afterwards (prob. September, A.D. 28) Jesus sent seventy of the most trusty among his followers, in pairs, through the region which he intended shortly to visit, with instructions similar to those before given to the apostles, but indicative of the opposition they would be likely to meet with (Luk 10:1-3; Mat 7:6; Mat 10:23-26; and parallels); and then, after declining to accompany his worldly minded brothers to the approaching festival of Tabernacles at Jerusalem, to which they urged him as a favorable opportunity for exhibiting his wonderful powers, near the close of the festal week he went thither privately (Joh 7:2-10), experiencing on the way the inhospitality of the Samaritans with a patience that rebuked the indignation of one of his disciples (Luk 9:51-56), and receiving the grateful acknowledgments of a single Samaritan among ten lepers whom he cured (Luk 17:11-19).
5. Last half Year. On the opening of the festival at Jerusalem (Sunday, Sept. 21, A.D. 28), the hierarchy eagerly inquired for Jesus among the populace, who held discordant opinions concerning him; but, on his arrival, he boldly taught in the Temple, vindicating his course and claims so eloquently that the very officers sent by his enemies to arrest him returned abashed, while the people continued divided in their sentiments, being inclined to accept his cordial invitations (Mat 11:28-30), but deterred by the specious objections of the hierarchy (Joh 7:11-53). Next morning, returning from the Mt. of Olives (prob. the residence of Lazarus at Bethany), in the midst of his teaching in the Temple he dismissed, with merely an admonition, a female brought to him as an adulteress (q.v.), with a view to embarrass him in the disposal of the case, none of his conscience-stricken accusers daring to be the first in executing the penalty of the law when allowed to do so by Jesus (Joh 8:1-11). He then continued his expostulations with his captious hearers respecting his own character, until at length, on his avowing his divine preexistence, they attempted to stone him as guilty of blasphemy, but he withdrew from their midst (Joh 8:12-59). The seventy messengers returning shortly afterwards (prob. Oct. A.D. 28) with a report of great success, Jesus expressed his exultation in thanks to God for the humble instrumentality divinely chosen for the propagation of the Gospel (Luk 10:17-21, and parallel). Being asked by a Jewish sectary the most certain method of securing heaven, he referred him to the duty, expressed in the law (Deu 6:5; Lev 19:8), of supreme love to God and cordial philanthropy, and, in answer to the other’s question respecting the extent of the latter obligation, he illustrated it by the parable of the benevolent Samaritan (Luk 10:25-37). Returning at evening to the home of Lazarus, he gently reproved the impatient zeal of the kind Martha in preparing for him a meal, and defended Mary for being absorbed in his instructions (Luk 10:38-42). After a season of private prayer (prob. in Gethsemane, on his way to Jerusalem, next morning), he dictated a model of prayer to his disciples at their request, stating the indispensableness of a placable spirit towards others in order to our own forgiveness by God, and adding the parable of the guest at midnight to enforce the necessity of urgency in prayer, with assurances that God is more willing to grant his children’s petitions for spiritual blessings than earthly parents are to supply their children’s temporal wants (Luk 11:1-13, and parallels).
As he entered the city, Jesus noticed a man whom he ascertained to have been blind from his birth, and to the disciples’ inquiry for whose sin the blindness was a punishment, he answered that it was providentially designed for the divine glory, namely, in his cure, as a means to which he moistened a little clay with spittle, touched the man’s eyes with it, and directed him to wash them in the Pool of Siloam (Saturday, Nov. 28, A.D. 28); but the hierarchy, learning the cure from the neighbors brought the man before them, because the transaction had taken place on the Sabbath, and disputed the fact until testified to by his parents, and then alleging that the author of the act, whose name was yet unknown even to the man himself, must have been a sinner, because a violator of the sacred day, they were met with so spirited a defense of Jesus by the man himself, that, becoming enraged, they immediately excommunicated him. Jesus, however, meeting him shortly after, disclosed to his ready faith his own Messianic character, and then discoursed to his captious enemies concerning the immunities of true believers in him under the simile of a fold of sheep (John 9; Joh 10:1-21). The same figure he again took up at the ensuing Festival of Dedication, upon the inquiry of the Jewish sectaries directly put to him in Solomon’s portico of the Temple, as to his Messiahship, and spoke so pointedly of his unity with God that his auditors would have stoned him for blasphemy had he not hastily withdrawn from the place (cir. Dec. 1, A.D. 28), and retired to the Jordan, where he gained many adherents (Joh 10:22-42). Lazarus at this time falling sick, his sisters sent to Jesus, desiring his presence at Bethany; but after waiting several days, until Lazarus was dead, he informed his disciples of the fact (which he assured them would turn out to the divine glory), and proposed to go thither. On their arrival, he was met first by Martha and then by Mary, with tearful expressions of regret for his absence, which he checked by assurances (not clearly apprehended by them) of their brother’s restoration to life; then causing the tomb to be opened (after overruling Martha’s objection), he summoned the dead Lazarus forth to life, to the amazement of the spectators (Joh 11:1-46; probably Jan. A.D. 29). SEE LAZARUS.
This miracle aroused afresh the enmity of the Sanhedrim, who, after consultation, at the haughty advice of Caiaphas, determined to accomplish his death, thus unwittingly fulfilling the destined purpose of his mission (Joh 11:47-53). Withdrawing in consequence to the city of Ephron (Joh 11:54), and afterwards to Perea, Jesus continued his teaching and miracles to crowds that gathered about him (Mar 10:1, and parallel). As he was preaching in one of the synagogues of this vicinity one Sabbath, he cured a woman of chronic paralysis of the back, and refuted the churlish cavil of one of the hierarchy present at the day on which this was done, by a reference to ordinary acts of mercy even to animals on the Sabbath (Luk 13:10-17; prob. Feb. A.D. 29). Jesus now turned his steps towards Jerusalem, teaching on the way the necessity of a personal preparation for heaven, without trusting to any external recommendations (Luk 13:22-30); and replying to the Pharisees’ insidious warning of danger from Herod, that Jerusalem alone was to a destined place of peril for him (Luk 13:31-33). On one Sabbath, while eating at the house of an eminent Pharisee, he cured a man of the dropsy, and silenced all objections by again appealing to the usual care of domestic animals on that day; he then took occasion, from the anxiety of the guests to secure the chief places of honor at the table, to discourse to the company on the advantages of modesty and charity, closing by an admonition to prompt compliance with the offers of the Gospel in the parable of the marriage feast and the wedding garment (Luk 14:1-15; Mat 22:1-14, anti parallel; prob. March, A.D. 29).
To the multitudes attending him he prescribed resolute self denial as essential to true discipleship (Luk 15:25-26, and parallel), under various figures (Luk 14:28-33) ; while he corrected the jealousy of the Jewish sectaries at his intercourse with the lower classes (Luk 15:1-2), by teaching the divine interest in penitent wanderers from him (Luk 19:10, and parallel), under the parables of stray sheep (Luk 15:3-7, and parallel), the lost piece of money, and the prodigal son (Luk 15:8-32). At the same time, he illustrated the prudence of securing the divine favor by a prudent use of the blessings of this life in the parable of the fraudulent steward (Luk 16:1-12), showing the incompatibility of worldliness with devotion (Luk 16:13, and parallel); and the self sufficiency of the Pharisees he rebuked in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luk 16:14-15; Luk 16:19-31), declaring to them that the kingdom of the Messiah had already come unobserved (Luk 17:20-21). He impressed upon both classes of his hearers the importance of perseverance, and yet humility, in prayer, by the parables of the importunate widow before the unjust judge, and the penitent publican in contrast with the self- righteous Pharisee (Luk 18:1-14). To the insidious questions of the Jewish sectaries concerning divorce, he replied that it was inconsistent with the original design of marriage, being only suffered by Moses (with restrictions) on account of the inveterate customs of the nation, but really justifiable only in cases of adultery; but at the same time explained privately to the disciples that the opposite extreme of celibacy was to be voluntary only (Mat 19:3-12, and parallels). He welcomed infants to his arms and blessing, as being a symbol of the innocence as required by the Gospel (Mar 10:13-16, and parallels). A rich and honorable young man visiting him with questions concerning the way of salvation, Jesus was pleased with his frankness, but proposed terms so humbling to his worldly attachments that he retired with, out accepting them, which furnished Jesus an opportunity of discoursing to his followers on the prejudicial influence of wealth on piety, and (in reply to a remark of Peter) of illustrating the rewards of self-denying exertion in religious duty by the parables of the servant at meals after a day’s work, and the laborers in the vineyard (Mar 10:17-29; Mat 19:28-29; Luk 17:7-10; Mat 20:1-16; and parallels).
As they had now arrived at the Jordan opposite Jerusalem, Jesus once more warned the timid disciples of the fate awaiting him there (Mar 10:32-34); but they so little understood him (Luk 17:34), that the mother of James and John ambitiously requested of him a prominent post for her sons under his administration, they also ignorantly professing their willingness to share his sufferings, until Jesus checked rivalry between them and their fellow disciples by enjoining upon them all a mutual deference in imitation of his self-sacrificing mission (Mat 20:20-28). As they were passing through Jericho, two blind men implored of him to restore their sight, and, although rebuked by the by-standers, they urged their request so importunately as at length to gain the ear of Jesus, who called them, and with a touch enabled them to see (Mar 10:46-52, and parallels). Passing along, he observed a chief publican, named Zacchaeus (q.v.), who had run in advance and climbed a tree to get a sight of Jesus, but who now, at Jesus’ suggestion, gladly received him to his house, and there vindicated himself from the calumnies of the insidious hierarchy by devoting one half his property to charity, an act that secured his commendation by Jesus (Luk 19:2-9), who took occasion to illustrate the duty of fidelity in improving religious privileges by the parable of the talents or pounds (Luk 19:11-28, and parallel). Reaching Bethany a week before the Passover, when the Sanhedrim were planning to seize him, Jesus was entertained at the house of Lazarus, and vindicated Mary’s act in anointing (q.v.) his head with a flask of precious ointment, from the parsimonious objections of Judas, declaring that it should ever be to her praise as highly significant in view of his approaching burial (Joh 11:55-57; Joh 12:1-11; and parallels).
6. Passion Trek. The entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem next morning (Monday, March 14, A.D. 29) was a triumphal one, the disciples having mounted him upon a young ass, which, by his direction, they found in the environs of the city, and spread their garments and green branches along the road, while the multitude escorting him proclaimed him as the expected descendant of David, to the chagrin of the hierarchy, who vainly endeavored to check the popular declamations, SEE HOSANNA; Jesus meanwhile was absorbed in grief at the ruin awaiting the impenitent metropolis (Mat 21:19; Joh 12:16-17; Joh 12:19; Luk 19:39-44; and parallels). Arriving at the Temple amid this general excitement, he again cleared the Temple courts of the profane tradesmen, while the sick resorted to him for cure, and the children prolonged his praise till evening, when he returned to Bethany for the night (Mat 21:10-17. and parallels). On his way again to the city, early in the morning, he pronounced a curse upon a green but fruitless fig tree (q.v.) (to which he had gone, not having yet breakfasted, as if in hopes of finding on it some of last year’s late figs), as a symbol of the unproductive Jewish nation, the day being occupied in teaching at the Temple (where the multitude of his hearers prevented the execution of the hierarchal designs against him), and the night, as usual, at Bethany. On the ensuing morning the fig tree was found withered to the very root, which led Jesus to impress upon the disciples the efficacy of faith, especially in their public functions (Mat 21:18-19; Luk 21:37-38; Luk 19:47-48; Mat 21:20-22). This, the last day of Jesus’ intercourse with the public, was filled with various discussions (Wednesday, March 16, A.D. 29). The hierarchy, demanding the authority for his public conduct, were perplexed by his counter question as to the authority of the Baptist’s mission, and he seized the occasion to depict their inconsistency and criminality by the parables of the two sons sent by their father to work, and the murderous gardeners, with so vivid a personal reference as to cover them with confusion (Mat 21:23-46, and parallels). The mooted question of the lawfulness of tribute to a Gentile power, being insidiously proposed to him by a coalition of the Pharisees and Herodians, was so readily solved by him by an appeal to the very coin paid in tribute, that they again retired, unable to make it a ground for public charges against him (Mat 22:15-22, and parallels). The case of seven brothers successively married (under the Levirate law) to the same woman being next supposed by the Sadducees, he as easily disposed of the imaginary difficulty concerning her proper husband in the other world by declaring the non-existence of such relations there, and refuted their infidelity as to the future life by citing a passage of Scripture (Mat 22:23-33, and parallels). Seeing the Sadducees so completely silenced, one of the Pharisaical party undertook to puzzle Jesus by raising that disputed point, What Mosaic injunction is the most important? but Jesus cited the duties of supreme devotion to God and general benevolence to man as comprising all other moral enactments, to which the other so cordially assented as to draw a commendation from Jesus on his hopeful sentiments (Mar 12:28-34, and parallel).
Jesus now turned the tables upon his opponents by asking them, Whose descendant the Messiah should be? and on their replying, David’s, of course, he then asked how (as in Psalm Exodus , 1) he could still be David’s Lord? which so embarrassed his enemies that they desisted from this mode of attack (Mat 22:41-46). Jesus then in plain terms denounced before the concourse the hypocrisy and ostentation of the hierarchy, especially their priest craft, their sanctimony, their ambition, their extortion, their casuistry, and their intolerance, and bewailed the impending fate of the city (Mat 23:1-12; Mat 23:14-21; Mat 23:29-39, and parallels). Observing a poor widow drop a few of the smallest coins into the contribution box in the Temple, he declared that she had shown more true liberality than wealthier donors, because she had given more in proportion to her means, and with greater self-denial (Mar 12:41-44, and parallel). A number of proselytes, SEE HELENIST requesting through Philip an interview with Jesus, he met them with intimations of his approaching passion, while a celestial voice announced the glory that should thereby accrue to God, and he then retired from the unbelieving public with an admonition to improve their present spiritual privileges (Joh 12:20-50). As he was crossing the Mount of Olives, his disciples calling his attention to the noble structure of the Temple opposite, he declared its speedy demolition, and on their asking the time and tokens of this catastrophe, he discoursed to them at length, first on the coming downfall of the city and nation (warning them to escape betimes from the catastrophe), and then (by a gradual transition, in which, under varied imagery, he represented both events more or less blended) he passed to the scenes of the final judgment (described as a forensic tribunal), interspersing constant admonitions (especially in the parable of the ten virgins) to preparation for an event the date of which was so uncertain (Mat 24:1-8; Mat 10:17-20; Mat 10:34-36; Mat 24:9-10; Mat 10:28; Mat 24:13-37; Luk 21:34-36; Mat 24:3; Mat 24:44; Luk 12:41-42; Mar 13:31; Mar 13:34; Mat 24:45-51; Luk 12:47-48; Mat 24:42; Mat 25:1-12; Luk 12:35-38; Mat 25:13; Mat 25:31-46). As the Passover was now approaching, the Sanhedrim held a secret meeting at the house of the high priest, where they resolved to get possession, but by private means, of the person of Jesus (Thursday, March 17, A.D. 29), and Judas Iscariot, learning their desire, went and engaged to betray his Master into their hands, on the first opportunity, for a fixed reward (Mat 26:1-5; Mat 26:14-16, and parallels).
The same day Jesus sent two of his disciples into the city, with directions where to prepare the Passover meal (Luk 22:7-13), and at evening, repairing thither to partake of it with the whole number of his apostles, SEE LORDS SUPPER, he affectionately reminded them of the interest gathering about this last repast with them; then, while it was progressing, he washed their feet to reprove their mutual rivalry and enforce condescension to one another by his own example, SEE WASHING THE FEET, and immediately declared his own betrayal by one of their number, fixing the individual (by a sign recognized by him alone) among the amazed disciples (Luk 22:14-17; Luk 22:24; Joh 13:1-15; Luk 22:25-30; Joh 13:17-19; Joh 13:21-22; Mat 26:22-24; Joh 13:23-26; Mat 26:25; and parallels). Judas immediately withdrew, full of resentment, but without the rest suspecting his purpose; relieved of his presence, Jesus now began to speak of his approaching fate, when he was interrupted by the surprised inquiries of his disciples, who produced their weapons as ready for his defense, while Peter stoutly maintained his steadfastness, although warned of his speedy defection (Joh 13:27-33; Joh 13:36-38; Mat 26:31-33; Luk 22:31-38; and parallels); then, closing the meal by instituting the Eucharist (q.v.) (Mat 26:26-29, and parallels), Jesus lingered to discourse at length to his disciples (whose questions showed how little they comprehended him) on his departure at hand, and the gift (in consequence) of the Holy Spirit, with exhortations to religious activity and mutual love, and, after a prayer for the divine safeguard upon them (Joh 14:1 to Joh 15:17; Joh 13:34-35; Joh 15:18 to Joh 17:26), he retired with them to the Mount of Olives (Joh 18:1, and parallels).
Here, entering the garden of Gethsemane, he withdrew, with three of the disciples, a short distance from the rest, and, while they fell asleep, he three times prayed, in an agony (q.v.) that forced blood-tinged sweat from the pores of his forehead, for relief from the horror-stricken anguish of his soul, SEE BLOODY SWEAT, and was partially relieved by an angelic message; but Judas, soon appearing with a force of Temple guards and others whom he conducted to this frequent place of his Master’s retirement, indicated him to them by a kiss (q.v.); Jesus then presented himself to them with such a majestic mien as to cause them to fall back in dismay, but while Peter sought to defend him by striking off with his sword the ear of one of the assailants (which Jesus immediately cured with a touch, at the same time rebuking his disciple’s impetuosity), Jesus, after a short remonstrance upon the tumultuous and furtive manner of his pursuers’ approach, and a stipulation for his disciples’ security, suffered himself to be taken prisoner, with scarcely one of his friends remaining to protect him (Mat 26:36-50; Joh 18:4-9; Luk 22:49; Mat 26:51-56; Mar 14:51-52; and parallels). SEE BETRAYAL.
He was first led away to the palace of the ex-pontiff Annas, who, after vainly endeavoring to extract from him some confession respecting himself or his disciples (while Peter, who, with John, had followed after, three times denied any connection with him, SEE PETER, when questioned by the various servants in the courtyard, but was brought to pungent penitence by a look from his Master within the house), sent him for further examination to the acting high priest Caiaphas (Joh 18:13-16; Joh 18:18; Joh 18:17; Joh 18:25; Joh 18:19-23; Joh 18:26-27; Luk 22:61-62; John 23:24; and parallels). This functionary, assembling the Sanhedrim at daylight (Friday, March 18, A.D. 29), at length, with great difficulty, procured two witnesses who testified to Jesus’ threat of destroying the Temple (see Joh 2:19), but with such discrepancy between themselves that Caiaphas broke the silence of Jesus by adjuring him respecting his Messianic claims, and on his avowal of his character made use of his admission to charge him with blasphemy, to which the Sanhedrim present assented with a sentence of death; the officers who held Jesus thereupon indulged in the vilest insults upon his person (Mat 26:57; Mat 26:59-63; Luk 22:67-71; Luk 22:63-65; and parallels). SEE CAIAPHAS.
After a formal vote of the full Sanhedrim (q.v.) early in the forenoon, Jesus was next led to the procurator Pilate’s mansion for his legal sanction upon the determination of the religious court, where the hierarchy sought to overcome his reluctance to involve himself in the matter (which was increased by his examination of Jesus himself, who simply replied to their allegations by giving Pilate to understand that his claims did not relate to temporal things) by charging him with sedition, especially in Galilee, an intimation that Pilate seized upon to remand the whole trial to Herod (who chanced to be in Jerusalem at the time), as the civil head of that province (Joh 18:28-38; Mat 27:12-14; Luk 23:4-7). Herod, however, on eagerly questioning Jesus, in hopes of witnessing some display of his miraculous power, was so enraged at his absolute silence that he sent him back to Pilate in a mock attire of royalty (Luk 23:8-12). The procurator, thus compelled to exercise jurisdiction over the case, convinced of the prisoner’s innocence (especially after a message from his wife to that effect), proposed to the populace to release him as the malefactor which custom required him to set at liberty on the holiday of the Passover (q.v.); but the hierarchy insisted on the release of a notorious criminal, Barabbas, instead, and enforced their clamor for the crucifixion of Jesus with so keen an insinuation of Pilate’s disloyalty to the emperor, that, after varied efforts to exonerate himself and discharge the prisoner (whose personal bearing enhanced his idea of his character), he at length yielded to their demands, and, after allowing Jesus to be beaten, SEE FLAGELLATION and otherwise shamefully handled by the soldiers, SEE MOCKING, he pronounced sentence for his execution on the cross (Luk 23:13-16; Mat 15:17-19; Mat 15:16; Mat 15:20-30; Joh 19:4-16; and parallels). SEE PILATE.
The traitor Judas, perceiving the enormity of his crime, now that, in consequence of his Master’s acquiescence, there appeared no chance of his escape, returned to the hierarchy with the bribe, which, on their cool reply of indifference to his retraction, he flung down in the Temple, and went and hung himself in despairing remorse (Mat 27:3-10). SEE JUDAS.
On his way out of the city to Golgotha, where he was to be crucified, Jesus fainted under the burden of his cross, which was therefore laid upon the shoulders of one Simon, who chanced to pass at the time, and as they proceeded Jesus bade the disconsolate Jewish females attending him to weep rather for themselves and their nation than for him; on reaching the place of execution, SEE GOLGOTHA, after refusing the usual narcotic, he was suspended on the cross between two malefactors, while praying for his murderers; and a brief statement of his offence (which the Jews in vain endeavored to induce Pilate to change as to phraseology) was placed above his head, the executioners meanwhile having divided his garments among themselves: while hanging thus, Jesus was reviled by the spectators, by the soldiers, and even by one of his fellow sufferers (whom the other penitently rebuking, was assured by Jesus of speedy salvation for himself, SEE THIEF ON THE CROSS ), and committed his mother to the care of John; then, at the close of the three hours’ preternatural darkness SEE ECLIPSE, giving utterance (in the language of Psalms 22) to his agonized emotions, SEE SABACTHANI amid the scoffs of his enemies, he called for something to quench his thirst. which being given him, he expired with the words of resignation to God upon his lips, while an earthquake (q.v.) and the revivification of the sleeping dead bore witness to his sacred character, as the by standers, SEE CENTURION were forced to acknowledge (Mat 27:31-32; Luk 23:27-31; Mar 15:22-23; Mar 15:25; Mar 15:27-28; Luk 23:34; Joh 19:19-24; Mat 27:36; Mat 27:39-43; Luk 23:36-37; Luk 23:39; Luk 23:43; Joh 19:25-27; Mat 27:45-47; Mat 27:49; Joh 19:28-30; Luk 23:46; Mat 27:51-53; Luk 23:47-48; and parallels). SEE PASSION.
Towards evening, on account of the approaching. Sabbath, the Jews petitioned Pilate to cause the crucified persons to be killed by the usual process of hastening their death, SEE CRUCIFIXION, and their bodies removed from so public a place; and as the soldiers were executing this order, they were surprised to find Jesus already dead; one of the soldiers, however, tested the body by plunging a spear into the side, when water mixed with clots of blood issued from the wound (Joh 19:31-37). SEE BLOOD AND WATER. A rich Arimathaean, named Joseph (q.v.), a secret believer in Jesus, soon came and desired the body of Jesus for burial. and Pilate, as soon as he had ascertained the actual death of Jesus, gave him permission; accordingly, with the help of Nicodemus, he laid it in his own new vault, temporarily wrapped in spices, while the female friends of Jesus observed the place of its sepulture (Mar 15:42-44; Joh 19:38-42; Luk 23:25-26; and parallels). SEE SEPULCHRE. Next day (Saturday, March 19, A.D. 29) the hierarchy, remembering Jesus’ predictions of his own resurrection, persuaded Pilate to secure the entrance to the tomb by a large stone, a seal, and a guard, SEE WATCH, at the door (Mat 27:62-66). The women, meanwhile, prepared additional embalming materials in the evening for the body of Jesus (Mar 16:1). SEE EMBALM.
Very early next morning (Sunday, March 20, A.D. 29) Jesus arose alive from the tomb, SEE RESURRECTION, which an angel opened, the guards swooning away at the sight (Mat 28:2-4, and parallel). The women soon appeared on the spot with the spices for completing the embalming, but, discovering the stone removed from the door, Mary Magdalene hastily returned to tell Peter, while the rest, entering, missed the body, but saw two angels at the entrance, who informed them of the resurrection of their Master, and. as they were returning to inform the disciples, they met Jesus himself; but the disciples, on their return, disbelieved their report (Mar 11:2-4; Joh 20:2; Luk 24:3-8; Mat 28:7-10; Luk 24:9-10; and parallels). The guard, however, had by this time recovered, and, on reporting to the hierarchy, they were bribed to circulate a story of the abreption of the body during their sleep (Mat 23:11-15). Mary Magdalene meanwhile had roused Peter and John with the tidings of the absence of the body, and, on their hastening to the tomb, they both observed the state of things there, without arriving at any satisfactory explanation of it); but Mary, who arrived soon after they had left, as she stood weeping, saw a person of whom, mistaking him for the keeper of the garden, she inquired for the body, but was soon made aware by his voice that it was Jesus himself, when she fell at his feet, being forbidden a nearer approach, but bidden to announce his resurrection to the disciples (Joh 20:11-18; Mar 16:11; and parallels). On the same day Jesus appeared to two of the disciples who were going to Emmaus, and discoursed to them respecting the Christology of the Old Test., but they did not recognize him till they were partaking the meal to which, at their journey’s end, they invited him, and then they immediately returned with the news to Jerusalem, where they found that he had in the meanwhile appeared also to Peter (Luk 24:13-33, and parallels).
At this moment Jesus himself appeared in their midst, and overcame their incredulity by showing them his wounds and eating before them, and then gave them instructions respecting their apostolical mission (Luk 24:36-49; Joh 20:21; Mar 16:15-18; Joh 10:4; Joh 10:22-23; and parallels). Thomas, who had been absent from this interview, and therefore refused to believe his associates’ report, was also convinced, at the next appearance of Jesus a week afterwards (Sunday evening, March 27, A.D. 29), by handling him personally (Joh 20:24-29). Some time afterwards (prob. Wednesday, March 30, A.D. 29) Jesus again appeared to his disciples on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias, as they were fishing; and, after they had taken a preternatural quantity of fish at his direction, coming ashore, they partook of a meal which he had prepared, after which he tenderly reproved Peter for his unfaithfulness, and intimated to him his future martyrdom (Mat 28:16; Joh 21:1-23). Soon afterwards (probably Thursday. March 31, A.D. 29) he appeared to some five hundred of his disciples (1Co 15:6) at an appointed meeting on a mountain in Galilee, where he commissioned his apostles afresh to their work (Mat 28:16-20). Next he appeared to James (1Co 15:7), and finally to all the apostles together, SEE APPEARANCE (OF RISEN CHRIST), to whom, at the end of forty days from his passion (Thursday, April 28, A.D. 29), he now gave a general charge relative to their mission, SEE APOSTLE, and, leading them towards Bethany, while blessing them he was suddenly carried up bodily into the sky, SEE ASCENSION and enfolded from their sight in a cloud, SEE INTERCESSION; angels at the same time appearing and declaring to them, in their astonishment, his future return in a similar manner (Act 1:2-12, and parallels): (For a fuller explanation of the details of the foregoing narrative, see Strong’s Harmony and Exposition of the Gospels, N.Y., 1852.) SEE GOSPELS.
IV. Literature. Much of this has been cited under the foregoing heads. We present here a general summary.
1. The efforts to produce a biography of the Savior of mankind may be said to have begun with the attempts to combine and harmonize the statements of the evangelists (see Hase, Leben Jesu, p. 20). SEE HARMONIES. The early Church contented itself simply with collating the narratives of the different apostles and an occasional comment on some passages. SEE MONOTESSARON. In the Middle Ages, as also later in the Roman Catholic Church, the works written on the life of Christ were uncritical, fantastic, and fiction like, being mere religious tracts (Hase, p. 26). Even after the Reformation had given rise to speculation and religious theory, the works on the life of Christ continued to be of a like character. It was not till near the close of the 18th century, when the Wolfenbuttel Fragmentists had attacked Christianity, SEE LESSING, that the Apologists felt themselves constrained to treat the history of Christ in his twofold nature, as God and also as man. This period was therefore the first in which the life of Christ was treated in a critical and pragmatical manner (comp. Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 1). Soon, however, these efforts degenerated into humanitarianism, and even profanity. Herder, the great German poet and theologian, wrote distinct treatises on the life of the Son of God and on the life of the Son of man. Some treated of the prophet of Nazareth (Bahrdt, Venturini; later Langsdorf); others even instituted comparisons with men like Socrates, oftentimes drawing the parallel in favor rather of the latter. Others (Paulus, Greiling), in order to suit the tendency of the age, hesitated not to strip the life of Christ of all the miraculous, and painted him simply as the humane and wise teacher. Such a theory was, of course, the reductio ad absurdum of a rationalism pure and simple (compare Plumptre, Christ and Christendom, Boyle Lect. 1866, p. 329). The more modern theology (we refer here mainly to German theology since Schleiermacher) attempted to crowd forward the ideal. Thus Hase proposed for his task the treatment how Jesus of Nazareth, according to divine predestination, by the free exercise of his own mind, and by the will of his age, had become the Savior of the world.
A still more destructive attitude (comp. Lange, 1, 10 sq.) was assumed by Strauss, who, while not denying that Jesus had lived, yet recognized in the accounts of the gospels simply a mythical reflex of what the young Christian society had invented to connect with the prophetical announcements of the old covenant, though, of course, he added that it had been done unconsciously and thoughtlessly. Thus the (poetico-speculative) truth of the ideal Christ was to be maintained, but it soon vanished in the clouds like a mist. In a modified form this mythical theory was advocated by Weisse, who, like others before him, endeavored to solve the miraculous in .the life of Christ by the introduction of higher biology (magnetism, etc.), and used Strauss’s hypotheses in order to dispose of whatever he found impracticable in his own view. The Tbingen theologian, Bruno Bauer (Kritik. der evangel. Gesch. vol. 3), went further, and declaring that he could not see in the accounts of the apostles a harmless poesy, branded them as downright imposture. A much more moderate position was taken by one who utterly disbelieved the fulfilment of the prophecies, Salvador the Jew. He acknowledged the historical personality of Jesus, though the Savior, in his treatment, came to be nothing but a Jewish reformer (and, of course, a demagogue also).
It must be acknowledged, however, that these criticisms provoked a more thorough study of the subject, and that orthodox Christianity is therefore in no small measure indebted to German rationalism for the great interest which has since been manifested in the history of our Lord. The rationalistic works called forth innumerable critiques and rejoinders (most prominent among: which were those of W. Hoffman, Stuttg. 1838 sq.; Hengstenberg. in the Evangel. Kirchenzeitung, 1836; Schweizer, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1837, No. 3; Tholuck,. Hamburg, 1838; Ullmann, Hamb. 1838); and finally resulted in the publication of a vast number of protections on the life of Jesus.
We call attention, likewise, to the efforts of the Dutch theologians, among whom are Meijboom (Groning. I861), Van Osterzee, and others. A new treatment of the-subject was promised by the late chevalier Bunsen (Preface to his Hippolytus, p. 49) but it never made its appearance. Ewald, however, continued his work on the Jews (Gesch. d. Volkes Israel), closing in a fifth volume with the life of Christ (Lebenz Christus). The author evidently is a non-believer in our Lord’s godhead (compare Liddon, Bampt. Lecture, 1866, p. 505). His method of dealing with the subject has something of the same indefiniteness which characterized the work of Schleiermacher (compare Plumptre, Boyle Lecture, 1866; p. 336). Ewald views Jesus as the fulfilment of the O.T. as the final, highest, fullest, clearest revelation of God as the true Messiah, who satisfies all right longing for God and for deliverance from the curse-as the eternal King of the kingdom of God. But with all: this, and while he depicts our Lord’s person and work in its love, activity, and majesty, with a beauty that is not often met with, there is but one nature accorded to this perfect Person, and that nature is human. Of a very different character from all these works are the lectures of Prof. C. J. Riggenbach, of Basle, who presents us the picture of our Lord from a harmonistico-apologetic point of view.
Here deserve mention also the labors of Neander, who, in the conviction, which runs through his Church History, that Christendom rests upon the personality of Christ, was not a little alarmed by the production of Strauss, and with fear and trembling, feeling that controversy was a duty, and yet also that it marred the devotion of spirit in which alone the life of his Lord and Master could be contemplated rightly, entered the lists against rationalistic combatants. His excellent work has found a worthy translator in the late Rev. Dr. M’Clintock. We pass over men like Hare, who reproduce more or less the rationalism of Paulus (perhaps the first conspicuous work of the rationalistic Germans, though it failed to awaken the general interest that Strauss’s work did; comp. Plumptre, Boyle Lect. 1866, p. 329); others also, who, like Ebrard and Lange, avowedly assume the position of apologists, though their works are at least evidence (as are bishop Ellicott’s Hulsean Lect., and the many elaborate commentaries on the Gospels in our country and abroad) that orthodox theologians do not shrink from the field of inquiry thus opened.
A time of quiet and rest seemed now to have dawned upon this polemical field of Christian theology, when suddenly, in 1863, the learned Frenchman Renan appeared with his Vie de Jesus, and stirred anew the spirits, as Strauss had done thirty years before. Most arbitrarily did Mr. Renan deal with the data upon which his work professed to be based; while theologically he proceeded throughout on a really atheistic assumption, disguised beneath the veil of a pantheistic phraseology … It is, however, when we look at the Vie de Jesus from a moral point of view that its shortcomings are most apparent in their length and breadth. Its hero is a fanatical impostor, who pretends to be and to do that which he knows to be beyond him, but who, nevertheless, is held up to our admiration as the ideal of humanity (Liddon, p. 506). It is sufficient to reply to this caricature by Mr. Renan that, If this be the founder of Christianity, and if Christianity be the right belief, then all religion must cease from the earth; for not only is this character unfit to sustain Christianity, but it is unfit to sustain any religion; it wants the bond (Lange, 1, 18). Yet it may be that to the thousands whose thoughts have either rested in the symbols of the infancy and the death which the cultures of the Latin Church brings so prominently before them, or who, having rejected these, have accepted nothing in their place, the Vie de Jesus has given a sense of human reality to the Gospel history which they never knew before, and led them to study it with a more devout sympathy (Plumptre, p. 337).
Countless editions and translations were made of the work, and it was read everywhere with as much interest as if it had been simply a work of fiction; indeed German theologians, even the Rationalists, hesitated not to rank it among French novels. Innumerable are the works which were written against and in defense of this legendary hypothesis. In Germany, especially, the contest raged fiercely, and for a time it seemed as if the materialistic Frenchman was to uproot all Christian feelings in the hearts of the common people of Germany when Strauss suddenly reappeared on the stage in behalf of his mythical theory with a new edition of his Leben Jesu, this time prepared for the wants of the German people, and the new work, more popular in form, more caustic and sneering in its hostility, has been read as widely as the old. Mustering all old objections and starting anew, he seeks to prove that the first three gospels contradict each other and the forth. Without entering into the more elaborate theories as to their origin and their relation to the several parties and sects in early Christendom, as Baur did afterwards, he has a general theory which accounts for them. Men’s hopes and wishes, their reverence and awe, tend at all times to develop themselves into myths … The myths were not cunningly devised,’ but were the spontaneous, unconscious growth of the time in which they first appeared. If men asked what, then, was left them to believe in what was the idea which had thus developed itself through what had been worked on as the facts of Christianity, the answer was that God manifested himself, not in Christ, but in humanity at large humanity is the union of the two natures, the finite and the infinite, the child of the visible mother and the invisible father … The outcry against the book was, as might be expected, enormous. It opened the eyes of those who had dallied with unbelief to see that they were naked, and it stripped off the fig leaf covering of words and phrases with which they had sought to hide their nakedness. What was offered as the compensation for all this work of destruction; if it were offered in any other spirit than that of the mockery even then, and yet more now, so characteristic of the author, was hardly enough to give warmth and shelter to any human soul (Plumptre, p. 334). The ablest among Christian divines and scholars came forward to refute, the naked falsehoods, and up to our day the contest rages, nor can it be said how soon it will be ended; it is certain, however, that orthodox Christianity is daily gaining ground, even in the very core of the heart of Rationalism. In France it drew forth the able work of Pressense, Jesus Christ son Temps, sa Vie son (OEuvre (Paris, 1865), which has since appeared in an English dress in this country. In England, Ecce Homo, a survey of the life and work of Jesus Christ (London, 1866), was a response to French and German Rationalists, in so far as the reality of our Savior’s human career is concerned. (See above, 2, 3.)
Great service has also been done for the truth by the productions of Weiss (Sechs Vortrage ber die Person Jesut Christi, Ingolst. 1864), Liddon (Bampton Lecture, 1866; see Christiac Remembrancer, Jan. 1868, article 6), and particularly by Row (London, 1868; N.Y. 1871; see Princeton Rev. 1810, art. 5), Plumptre’ (Boyle Lect. 1866), R. Payne Smith (Bampton Lecture, 1869), Leathes, Witness of St. John to Christ (Boyle Lect. 1870), Andrews, and Hanna. Several popular treatises on the subject were also produced in Germany, England, and America, among which are those of Abbott and Eddy. Henry Ward Beecher has just published vol. 1 of a similar work. 2. The following is a list of the most important of the very numerous works relating to the person and history of Christ, of which Germany has been especially fruitful (comp. Walch, 3, 404; Hase, p. 28, 37, 41; Andrews, Preface).
(1.) Of a general character are treatises by the following authors, respecting the proper method of investigating the career of Christ: Doderlein (Jena, 1783 sq.), Semler (Hal. 1786), Eberhard (Hal. 1787), Albers (Gbtt. 1793), Ammon (Gitt. 1794), Bruggeman (Gott. 1795), Stuckert (Francfort, 1797), Muller (Stuttg. 1785), Piper (Gott. 1835), Sextroth (Gott. 1785), Peterson (Lub. 1838), Scholten (Traj. 1840), Wiggers (Rost. 1837). On profane and apocryphal materials: Kocher (Jena, 1726), Meyer (Hamb. 1805), Augusti (Jena, 1799), Huldric (L.B. 1705), Werner (Stad. 1781). Diatessura of the Gospel history have been composed by the following: J.F. Bahrdt (Lpz. 1772), Roos (Tbingen, 1776), Mutschelle (Munch. 1784), C.F. Bahrdt (Berl. 1787), Bergen (Giessen, 1789 sq.),White (Oxon. 1800), Keller (Stuttg. 1802). Hom (Nurnburg, 1803), Sebastiani (Lpzg. 1806), Muller (Wien, 1807), Langsdorf (Mannheim, 1830), Kuchler (Lips. 1835), and others. SEE HARMONIES.
Discussions on the life of Jesus, in a more historical form; of a hostile character, are by the following: Reimar (Braunschweig, 1778 sq.), C.F. Bahrdt (Halle, 1782; Berl. 1784 sq.), J. G. Schulthess (Zur. 1783),Venturini (Kopen. 1800), Langsdorf (Mannh. 1831), D. F. Strauss (Tibing. 1835, 1837, 1838 [the work which provoked the innumerable critiques and rejoinders, as above stated], Sack (Bonn, 1836), Theile (Lpzg. 1832), Hahn (Leipzig, 1839).
Of an apologetic character [besides those in express opposition to Strauss] are the following: Reinhard (Wittenburg, 1781; 5th edition, with additions by Heubner, 1830), Hess (Zurich, 1774, rewritten 1823), Vermehren (Halle, 1799), Opitz (Zerbst, 1812), Planck (Gott. 1818), Bodent [Rom. Cath.] (Gernund. 1818 sq.), Paulus (Heidell). 1828), J. Schulthess (Zurich, 1830), Hase (Lpzg. 1829,1835), Neander (Hamb. 1837; translated M’Clintock and Blumenthal, N.Y. 1840), Kleuker (Brem. 1776; Ulm. 1793), Basedow (Lpz. 1784), Wizenman (Lpz. 1780), Herder (Riga, 1796), Hacker (Leipzig, 1801-3), Schorch (Lpzg. 1841), Kolthoff (Hafn. 1852), Hofmann (Leipzig, 1852), Keim (Zir. 1861,1864), Wisenmann (1864), Weiss (Ingolst. 1864). SEE RATIONALISM. Among those of a more practical character are the following: Walch (Jena, 1740), Huniber (Frankf. 1763), Hoppenstedt (Hannov. 1784 sq.), Hunter (Lond. 1785), Fleetwood (Lond.), Cramer (Lpz. 1787), Marx (Munster, 1789, 1830), Gosner (Leipzig, 1797; Zurich, 1818), Sintenis (Zerbst, 1800), Meister (Basel, 1802), Reichenberger (Wien, 1793, 1826), Gerhard and Muller (Erfurt, 1801), Bauriegel (Neustadt, 1801,1821), Greiling (Halle, 1813), Jacobi (Gotha, 1817; Sonders. 1819), Pflaum (Nurnburg, 1819), Ammon (Lpzg. 1842-7, 3 vols.), Muller (Berlin, 1819,1821), Schmidt (Wien, 1822,1826), Francke (Bresl. 1823, Lpzg. 1838,1842), Buchfelner (Mnch. 1826), Neavels (Aachen, 1826), Stephani (Magdeb. 1830), Onymus (Sulzb. 1831), Blunt (London, 1835), Hartmann (Stuttg. 1837), Weisse (Lpzg. 1838), Kuhn (Mainz, 1838), Lehrreich (Quedl. 1840), Hirscher (Tubing. 1839), Wurkerts (Meiss. 1840), Hug (1840), Krane (Cass. 1850), Lichtenstein (Erl. 1855), Rougemont (Paris and Lausanne, 1856), J. Bucher (Stuttgard, 1859), Krummacher (Bielf. 1854), Baumgarten (Brunsw. 1859), Uhlhorn (Hamb. 1866; Bost. 1868), Ellicott (London, 1859), Andrews (N.Y. 1862).
Among those pictorially illustrated are the works of Schleich (Munch. 1821), Langer (Stuttgart, 1823), Kitto (Loud. 1847), Abbott (N.Y. 1864), Crosby (N.Y. 1871).
Among those of a poetical character are Juvencus, ed. Arevalus (Rom. 1792),Vida (L.B. 1566, ed. Muller; Hamb. 1811), Wilmsen (Berlin, 1816, 1826), Gittermann (Hannov. 1821), Schincke (Hal. 1826), Klopstock (Hal. 1751, and often), Lavater (Winterth. 1783), Halem (Hannov. 1810), Weihe (Elberf. 1822, 1824), Wilmy (Sulzb. 1825), Kirsch (Lpz. 1825), Gopp (Lpz. 1827).
(2.) Of a more special nature are treatises on particular portions of Christ’s outward history or circumstances, e.g. his relatives: Walther (Berl. 1791), Oertel (Germ. 1792), Hasse (Regiom. 1792; Berl. 1794), Ludewig (Wolfenb. 1831). Tiliander (Upsal. 1772), Gever (Viteb. 1777), Blom (L. Bat. 1839), Oosterzee (Traj. a. R. 1840); and his country: Konigsman (Slesvic. 1807). Among those on his birth: Korb (Lpz. 1831), Meerheim (Viteb. 1785), Reimer (Lubec, 1653), Oetter (Numbers, 1774); and in a chronological point of view, among others: Masson (Roterd. 1700), Maius (Kilon. 1708; id. 1722), Reineccius (Hal. 1708), Liebknecht (Giess. 1735), Hager (Chemnit. 1743), Mann (Lond. 1752), Jost (Wirceb. 1754), Haiden (Prague, 1759), Reccared (Region. 1768; id. 1766), Horix (Mogunt. 1789), Sanclemente (Rome, 1795), Michaelis (Wien, 1797), Munter (Kopenh. 1827), Feldhoff (Frankf 1832), Mayer (Gryph. 1701), Hardt (Helmstadt, 1754), Korner (Lipsiae, 1778), Mynster (Kopenh. 1837), Huschke (Bresl. 1840), Caspari (Hamb. 1869); compare Stud. u. Krit. 1870, 2, 357; 1871, 2; Baptist Quarterly, 1871, p. 113 sq.; and see Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi (Leipzig, 1869). On his infancy, education, etc.: Niemeyer (Halle, 1790), Ammon (Gitting. 1798), Schubert (Gryph. 1813), Carpzov (Helmst. 1771), Weise (Helmst. 1798), Lange (Ald. 1699), Arnold (Regiom. 1730), Rau (Erl. 1796), Bandelin (Lub. 1809). On the duration of his ministry: Chrysander (Brunsw. 1750), Pisanski (Regiom. 1778), Loeber (Altenb. 1767), Korner (Lips. 1779), Priestley (Birmingham, 1780), Newcome (Dublin, 1780), Priess (Rost. 1789), Hinlein (Erlang. 1796). SEE APOSTLE. On his baptism, SEE JOHN THE BAPTIST. On his travels: Schmidt (Ilmenau, 1833; Paris, 1837). On his celibacy: Niedner (Schneeberg, 1815). On his teaching: Tschucke (Lipsiae, 1781), Bahrdt (Berlin, 1786), Manderbach (Elberf. 1813), Martini (Rost. 1794), Stier (Leipzig, 1853 sq.; Edinb. 1856 sq.). SEE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. On his alleged writings: Ittig (Lipsiae, 1696), Epistola apocrypha J.C. ad Petrum (Rom. 1774), Sartorius (Basil. 1817), Gieseke (Lunenb. 1822), Witting (Braunschw. 1823). SEE ABGAR On his miracles (q.v.): Heumann (Gott. 1747), Pfaff (Tbingen, 1752), Pauli (Riga, 1773), Trench (Lond. 1848; N.Y. 1850). On his transfiguration (q.v.): Reusmann (Getting. 1747), Georgi (Viteb. 1744), anonymous Essay (Lond. 1788), Haubold (Gott. 1791), Eger (1794), Rau (Erl. 1797); and his white garment, Franke (Lips. 1672), Sagittarius (Jena, 1673). On his temptation (q.v.): Baumgarten (Halle, 1755), De Saga (Gdtt. 1757), Farmer (London, 1671), Sauer (Bonn, 1789), Postius (Zweibr. 1791), Ziegenhagen (Franckfort, 1791), Domey (Upsal. 1792), Schutze (Hamb. 1793), Dahl (Upsal. 1800), Bertholdt (Erl. 1812), Gellerichts (Altenb. 1815), Richter (Viteb. 1825), Schweizer (Zurich, 1833), Ewald (Bayreuth, 1833); comp. the Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1870, p. 188 sq. On his passion (q.v.): Iken (Brem. 1743 Tr. a. R. 1758), Baumgarten (Halle, 1757), Glanz (Stuttg. 1809), Henneberg (Lpzg. 1823), Schlegel (Lpzg. 1775), Mosche (Franckfort, 1785), Ewald (Lemgo, 1785), Fischer (Lpzg. 1794), Kindervater (Lpzg. 1797), Mosler (Eisenb. 1816), Krummacher (Berl. 1817), Jongh (Tr. a. R. 1827), Adriani (Tr. a. R. 1827),Walther (Bresl. 1738; Lpzg. 1777). On his crucifixion (q.v.): Schmidtman (Osnabr. 1830), Neubig (Erl. 1836), Hasert (Berl. 1839), Karig (Lpzg. 1842), Stroud (Lond. 1847). SEE AGONY; SEE ATONEMENT. On his words upon the cross: Hopner (Lips. 1641), Dankauer (Arg. 1641), Luger (Jena, 1739), Scharf (Viteb. 1677), Niemann (Jena, 1671), Lokerwitz (Viteb. 1680). On his burial: Te Water [i.e. Wesseling] (Traj. a. Rh. 1761). SEE CALVARY. On his resurrection (q.v.): among others, Buttstedt (Gerae, 1749), Sherlock (London, 1751), Seidel (Helmst. 1758), Weickhmann (Viteb. 1767), Burkitt (Meining. 1774), Rehkopf (Helmstadt, 1775), Lderwald (Helmst. 1778). Less (Gott. 1779), Scheibel (Frankf. 1779), Mosche (Frankf. 1779), Semler (Halle, 1780), Moldenhauer (Hamb. 1779), Velthusen (Helmst. 1780), Pfeiffer (Erlang. 1779,1787), Michaelis (Hal. 1783), Schmid (Jena, 1784), Plessing (Hal. 1788), Volkmar (Bresl. 1786), Henneberg (Lpzg. 1826), Frege (Hamb. 1833), Griesbach (Jena, 1784), Niemeyer (Hal. 1824), Rosenmller (Erlang. 1780), Paulus (Jena, 1795), Pisansky. (Regiom. 1782), Zeibich (Gerae, 1784), Rusmeyer (Gryph. 1734), Feuerlein (Gott. 1752), Gutschmidt (Halle, 1753), Miller (Hafi. 1836). On his ascension (q.v.), among others: Griesbach (Jena, 1793), Seller (Erlang. 1798,1803), Ammon (Gott. 1800), Otterbein (Duisb. 1802), Flgge (Argent. 1811),Weichert (Viteb. 1811), Fogtmann (Havn. 1826), Hamna, The Forty Days after our Lord’s Resurrection (London, 1863).
The following are some of the treatises on the personal traits of Jesus, e.g. his physical constitution: Weber (Hal. 1825), Engelmann (Lpz. 1834), Gieseler (Gtting. 1837). On his dress: Zeibich (Witt. 1754), Gerberon (Par. 1677). His language: Reiske (Jena, 1670), Kleden (Viteb. 1739), Diodati (Neapol. 1767), Pfannkuche (in Eichhorn’s Allg. Bibl. 7, 365-480), Wiseman (in his Hor. Seyr. Rome, 1828), Zeibich (Viteb. 1791), Paulus (Jena, 1803). On his mode of life: Lunze (Lips. 1784), Rau (Erl. 1787, 1796), Jacobaeus (Hafn. 1703), Schreiber (Jena, 1743), Tragard (Gryph. 1781). On his intercourse with others: Gesenius (Helmstadt, 1734), Jetze (Liegn. 1792). Respecting the inner nature of his character, the following may be named, e.g. on his (human) disposition and temperament: Woytt (Jena, 1753), Bucking (Stendal. 1793), Schinmaier (Flensb. 1774 sq.), Winkler (Lpz. 1826), Dorner (Stuttg. 1839); on his psychology, see the Biblioth. Sacra, April, 1870. On his sinlessness, among others: Walther (Viteb. 1690), Baumgarten (Hal. 1740), Erbstein (Meiss. 1787), Weber (Viteb. 1796), Ewald (Hannov. 1798; Gerae, 1799), Ullmann (Hamburg, 1833, translated in Clark’s Biblical Cabinet, Edinburgh), Fritzsche (Halle, 1835). SEE MESSIAH. Jesus Christ, Orders of.
These were formed of temporal knights in the countries paying homage to the Roman see for the protection and promotion of the Roman Catholic religion.
1. Such was the order founded under this name, also known as the Order of Dobrin, in 1213, by duke Conrad of Masovia and Kujavia, Poland. They followed the rules of St. Augustine as a religious society, and their aim was to counteract the influences of the heathenish Prussians, their western neighbors. Their stronghold was the burgh of Dobrin, in Prussia. The insignia and dress of the order were a white mantle, on the left breast a red sword, and a five-pointed red star. The order was merged into the German order in 1234.
2. In Spain such an order was founded in 1216 by Dominicus. The knights bound themselves to practice monastic duties, and to battle in defense of their Church. It was approved by pope Honorius III, and confirmed, under various names, by different popes. When Pius V founded the congregation of St. Peter the Martyr at Rome, composed of the cardinals, grand inquisitors, and other dignitaries of the Holy Office, this order was merged into it. In 1815 king Ferdinand VII commanded the members of the Inquisition to wear the insignia of the order.
3. Another of like name was started in Portugal in 1317 by king Dionysius of Portugal, in concert with pope John XXII, and was composed of the knights of the former Knights Templars (q.v.). SEE CHRIST, ORDER OF, vol. 2, p. 268.
4. Another of this class was the Order of Jesus and Mary, and was founded in 1643 by Eudes (q.v.). Their insignia are a gilded Maltese cross, enameled with blue, surrounded by a golden border, and in the center of which is the name of Jesus: it is worn at the buttonhole. The full-dress cloak is of white camlet, with the cross of the order in blue satin, with gilt border, and name on the left side. The order consists of a grand master, thirty-three commanders (in commemoration of the years of Christ’s life), knights of uprightness and of grace, chaplains, and serving brethren. Sec Herzog, Real-Encyklop. 6, 615; Pierer, Unv. Lex. 8, 809.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Jesus Christ
(See JESUS.) (“Jehovah salvation”); for “He Himself (autos, not merely like Joshua He is God’s instrument to save) saves His people from their sins” (Mat 1:21). CHRIST, Greek; MESSIAH, Hebrew, “anointed” (1Sa 2:10; Psa 2:2; Psa 2:6 margin; Dan 9:25-26). Prophets, priests, and kings (Exo 30:30; 1Ki 19:15-16) were anointed, being types of Him who combines all three in Himself (Deu 18:18; Zec 6:13). “By one offering He hath perfected forever them that are being sanctified” (Heb 10:5; Heb 10:7; Heb 10:14; Heb 7:25). “Christ,” or the Messiah, was looked for by all Jews as “He who should come” (Mat 11:3) according to the Old Testament prophets. Immanuel “God with us” declares His Godhead; also Joh 1:1-18. (See IMMANUEL.) The New Testament shows that Jesus is the Christ (Mat 22:42-45).
“Jesus” is His personal name, “Christ” is His title. Appropriately, in undesigned confirmation of the Gospels, Acts, and epistles, the question throughout the Gospels is, whether Jesus is “The” (the article is always in the Greek) Christ (Mat 16:16; Joh 6:69), so in the first ministry of the word in Acts (Act 2:36; Act 9:22; Act 10:38; Act 17:3). When His Messiahship became recognized “Christ” was used as His personal designation; so in the epistles.
“Christ” implies His consecration and qualification for the work He undertook, namely, by His unction with the Holy Spirit, of which the Old Testament oil anointings were the type; in the womb (Luk 1:35), and especially at His baptism, when the Holy Spirit (as a dove) abode on Him (Mat 3:16; Joh 1:32-33). Transl. Psa 45:7; “O God (the Son), Thy God (the Father) hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.” Full of this unction without measure (Joh 3:34) He preached at Nazareth as the Fulfiller of the scripture He read (Isa 61:1-3), giving “the oil of joy for mourning,” “good tidings unto the meek” (Luk 4:17-21). Jesus’ claim to be Messiah or “the Christ of God” (Luk 9:20), i.e. the anointed of the Father to be king of the earth (Psa 2:6-12; Rev 11:15; Rev 12:10), rests:
(1) On His fulfilling all the prophecies concerning Messiah, so far as His work has been completed, the earnest of the full completion; take as instances Isaiah 53; Psalm 22; Micah 5; Hos 6:2-3; Gen 49:10, compare Luke 2; “the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy” (Rev 19:10; Luk 24:26; Luk 24:44-46; Act 3:22-25).
(2) On His miracles (Joh 7:31; Joh 5:36; Joh 10:25; Joh 10:38). Miracles alleged in opposition, or addition, to Scripture cannot prove a divine mission (2Th 2:9; Deu 13:1-3; Mat 24:24), but when confirmed by Scripture they prove it indisputably.
“Son of David” expresses His title to David’s throne over Israel and Judah yet to be (Luk 1:32-33). “King of Israel” (Joh 1:49), “King of the Jews” (Mat 2:2; Mat 21:5), “King of Zion.” As son of David He is David’s “offspring”; as “root of David” (in His divine nature) He is David’s “lord” (Rev 22:16, compare Mat 22:42-45). His claim to the kingship was the charge against Him before Pilate (Joh 18:37; Joh 19:3; Joh 19:12). The elect of God (Luk 23:35, compare Isa 42:1). The inspired summary of His life is, “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, for God was with Him” (Act 10:38). To be “in Christ,” which occurs upward of 70 times in Paul’s epistles, is not merely to copy but to be in living union with Him (1Co 15:18; 2Co 12:2), drawn from Christ’s own image (Joh 15:1-10). In Christ God is manifested as He is, and man as he ought to be. Our fallen race lost the knowledge of man as utterly as they lost the knowledge of God.
Humanity in Christ is generic (1Co 15:45; 1Co 15:47), as the second “man” or “last Adam,” “the Son of man” (a title used in New Testament only by Himself of Himself, except in Stephen’s dying speech, Act 7:56; from Dan 7:13; marking at once His humiliation as man’s representative Head, and His consequent glorification in the same nature: Mat 20:28; Mat 26:64.) Sinless Himself, yet merciful to sinners; meek under provocation, yet with refined sensibility; dignified, yet without arrogance; pure Himself, yet with a deep insight into evil; Christ is a character of human and divine loveliness such as man could never have invented; for no man has ever conceived, much less attained, such a standard; see His portraiture, Mat 12:15-20. Even His own brethren could not understand His withdrawal into Galilee, as, regarding Him like other men, they took it for granted that publicity was His aim (Joh 7:3-4; contrast Joh 5:44). Jesus was always more accessible than His disciples, they all rebuked the parents who brought their infants for Him to bless (Luk 18:15-17), they all would have sent the woman of Canaan away.
But He never misunderstood nor discouraged any sincere seeker, contrast Mat 20:31 with Mat 20:32-24. Earthly princes look greatest at a distance, surrounded with pomp; but He needed no earthly state, for the more closely He is viewed the more He stands forth in peerless majesty, sinless and divine. (On His miracles, see MIRACLES and on His parables, see PARABLES.) He rested His teaching on His own authority, and the claim was felt by all, through some mysterious power, to be no undue one (Mat 7:29). He appeals to Scripture as His own: “Behold I send unto you prophets,” etc. (Mat 23:34; in Luk 11:49, “the Wisdom of God said, I will send them prophets”.) His secret spring of unstained holiness, yet tender sympathy, was His constant communion with God; at all times, so that He was never alone (Joh 16:32), “rising up a great while before day, in a solitary place” (Mar 1:35).
Luke tells us much of His prayers: “He continued all night in prayer to God,” before ordaining the twelve (Luk 6:12); it was as He was “praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended, and (the Father’s) voice came from heaven, Thou art My beloved Son,” etc. (Luk 3:22); it was “as He prayed, the fashion of His countenance was altered, and His raiment was white and glistering” (Luk 9:29); when the angel strengthened Him in Gethsemane, “in an agony He prayed more earnestly,” using the additional strength received not to refresh Himself after His exhausting conflict, but to strive in supplication, His example confirming His precept, Luk 13:24 (Luk 22:44; Heb 5:7). His Father’s glory, not His own, was His absorbing aim (Joh 8:29; Joh 8:50; Joh 7:18); from His childhood when at 12 years old (for it was only in His 12th year that Archelaus was banished and His parents ventured to bring Him to the Passover: Josephus, Ant. 17:15) His first recorded utterance was, cf6 “Wist ye not that I must be about My Father’s business?” or else “in My Father’s places” (Luk 2:49; Psa 40:6; Psa 40:8).
Little is recorded of His childhood, but as much as the Spirit saw it safe for us to know; so prone is man to lose sight of Christ’s main work, to fulfill the law and pay its penalty in our stead. The reticence of Scripture as remarkably shows God’s inspiration of it as its records and revelations. Had the writers been left to themselves, they would have tried to gratify our natural curiosity about His early years. But a veil is drawn over all the rest of His sayings for the first 30 years. “He waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom … He increased in wisdom” (Luk 2:40; Luk 2:52), which proves that He had a” reasonable soul” capable of development, as distinct from His Godhead; Athanasian Creed: “perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.” His tender considerateness for His disciples after their missionary journey, and His compassion for the fainting multitudes, outweighing all thought; of His own repose when He was weary, and when others would have been impatient of their retirement being intruded on (Mar 6:30-37), are lovely examples of His human, and at the same time superhuman, sympathy (Heb 4:15). Then how utterly void was He of resentment for wrongs.
When apprehended, instead of sharing the disciples’ indignation He rebuked it; instead of rejoicing in His enemy’s suffering, He removed it (Luk 22:50-51); instead of condemning His murderers He prayed for them: cf6 “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luk 23:34). What exquisite tact and tenderness appear in His dealing with the woman of Samaria (John 4), as He draws the spiritual lesson from the natural drink which He had craved of her, and leads her on to convict herself of sin, in the absence of His disciples, and to recognize Him as the Messiah. So in the account of the woman caught in adultery. When “every man went unto his own house” He who had not where to lay His head “went to the mount of Olives,” His wonted resort for prayer; “early in the morning He came again into the temple.” Then followed the scribes’ accusation of the woman from the law, but He who wrote on stone that law of commandments now writes with His finger on the ground (the law of mercy), showing the power of silence to shame the petulant into self recollection, the censorious into self condemnation. His silent gesture spoke expressively.
Then His single speech, cf6 “he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (Joh 8:7). followed by the same silent gesture, made them feel the power of conscience and withdraw. Then she stays, though her accusers were gone, awaiting His sentence and is made to feel the power of His holiness, condemning her sin yet not herself, cf6 “Go and sin no more.” Joh 8:11. The same spirit appears here as in His atonement, which makes sin unspeakably evil, yet brings the sinner into loving union with God in Christ. Other systems, which reject the atonement, either make light of sin or else fill the sinner with slavish and unconquerable dread of wrath. Stoning was the penalty of unfaithfulness in one betrothed. If Jesus decided she should be stoned, He would be opposing Rome which claimed power of deciding all capital cases (Joh 18:31). If Jesus decided to let her off, He would forfeit the favor of the Jews, as a setter aside of Moses’ law. His reply maintained the law, but limited its execution to those free from sexual uncleanness, which none of her accusers were. The lesson is not for magistrates, but for self constituted judges and busybodies, whose dragging of filthy stories against others into the social circle is only defiling.
They were not witnesses in court; there was no judicial trial. The context (Joh 8:12, cf6 “I am the light of the world”, referring to the rising sun and the lighted lamps at the feast of tabernacles, Joh 7:37; and Joh 8:15, cf6 “ye judge after the flesh, I judge no man”.) confirms the genuineness of the passage, which is omitted from good manuscripts. His birth was in the year 750 from Rome’s foundation, four before the era “Anno Domini”, some months before Herod’s death. The first Adam was created, and not born; the Second Adam, in His manhood, both born and created with a body free from the inherited taint of original sin (Heb 10:5). The census of the Roman empire ordered by Augustus led Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem, the city of David their ancestor, in fulfillment of Micah’s prophecy (Micah 5). Spring was probably the season for the shepherds beginning to watch over their flocks by night. The season when winter deadness gives place to new vegetation and life was the appropriate birth time of Him who “maketh all things new.” So Son 2:10-13. Spring was the Passover season, Israel’s national birthday. So that the spiritual, national, and natural eras, in this view, coincide.
To allow time between the presentation in the temple and the arrival of the wise men and the other events before Herod’s death, perhaps February may be fixed on. The grotto at Bethlehem is mentioned by Justin Martyr in the second century as the scene of His birth. The humble (1Co 1:26-31) Jewish shepherds were the earliest witnesses of the glory which attended His birth. For in every successive instance of His voluntary humiliation, the Father, jealous for the honour of His co-equal on, provided for His glorification (Luk 2:8-18; so Luk 22:43; Luk 23:4; Luk 23:40-43; Luk 23:47; Mat 3:14-17; Joh 12:28). Simeon and Anna were the divinely appointed welcomers of the Son of God at His lowly presentation in the temple, the former discerning in Him” God’s salvation,” the “light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory (especially) of His people Israel”; the latter “speaking of Him to all who looked for redemption in Jerusalem.”
The Gentile wise men of the East (Persian magi possibly, the Zend religion teaching the expectation of a “Zoziosh” or “Redeemer”; or magoi being used generally, these wise men coming from Balaam’s region, the East, and knowing his prophecy, “there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel”: Num 24:17; Num 23:7, whence they ask for the “King of the Jews” and mention the “star”) came later, and found Him no longer in a manger where the shepherds found Him, but in a “house” (Mat 2:11). They were the firstfruits of the Gentile world; their offering of gold is thought to mark His kingship, the frankincense His priesthood, and the myrrh His coming burial, in God’s purpose if not theirs. Herod, being an Edomite who had supplanted the Jewish Asmonaeans or Maccabees, was alarmed to hear of one “born king of the Jews,” and failing to find Jesus slew all children from two years old and under (Herod fixed on this age as oriental mothers suckle infants until they are two years old). (See HEROD.) God saved His Son by commanding the mother and Joseph to flee to Egypt, the land of the type Israel’s sojourn, when fleeing from famine, and the land from whence God called His Son Israel (Hos 11:1; Mat 2:15); not by miracle, but by ordinary escaping from persecution, as sharing His people’s trials (Mat 10:23).
His interview with the doctors in the temple shows that His human consciousness already knew His divine mission and was preparing for it. Stier describes His one utterance in childhood as “a solitary floweret out of the wonderful enclosed garden of 30 years, plucked precisely there where the swollen bud at the distinctive crisis bursts into the flower.” The description “He increased … in stature … and in favor with God and men,” (Luk 2:52) combined with Psa 45:2, “Thou art fairer than the children of men, grace is poured into Thy lips,” implies that His outward form was a temple worthy of the Word made flesh. Isa 53:2 expresses men’s rejection of Him, rather than the absence of graces inward or outward in Him to cause that rejection. In the 15th year of the emperor Tiberius, dating from his joint rule with Augustus (15 years from 765 after the founding of Rome, i.e. two years before Augustus’ death in 767), i.e. 780 (30 counted back bring our Lord’s birth to 750), when Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea and Annas and Caiaphas jointly in fact exercised the high priesthood, Caiaphas being nominally the high priest (Joh 18:13), John Baptist, as last prophet of the Old Testament dispensation, by preaching repentance for sin and a return to legal obedience, prepared the way for Messiah, the Saviour from sin; whereas the people’s desire was for a Messiah who would deliver them from the hated foreign, yoke. (See ANNAS; CAIAPHAS.)
Wieseler thinks John’s preaching took place on the sabbatical year, which, if it be so, must have added weight to his appeals. We know at all events that he came “in the spirit and power of Elias.” Jesus received His solemn consecration to His redeeming work by John’s baptism with water (to which He came not, as all others, confessing sin, but undertaking to “fulfill all righteousness”) and at the same time by the Holy Spirit’s descent permanently, accompanied by the Father’s acceptance of Him as our Redeemer, “this is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” namely, as undertaking to become man’s Saviour. Thus “Christ glorified not Himself to be made an high priest, but He that said Thou art My Son” (Psa 2:7; Heb 5:5; Mat 3:14). John, though knowing His goodness and wisdom before, as he must have known from the intimacy between the cousin mothers, Mary and Elisabeth (Luke 1), and knowing that Messiah should come, and when Jesus presented Himself feeling a strong presentiment that this was the Messiah, yet knew not definitely Jesus’ Messiahship, until its attestation by God the Father with the Holy Spirit at His baptism (Joh 1:31-33).
Under the power of the Spirit received at His baptism He encountered Satan in the wilderness. The mountain of Quarantania, a perpendicular wall of rock 1,400 feet above the plain, on this side of Jordan, is the traditional site. Satan’s aim was to tempt Him to doubt His sonship, “if Thou be the Son of God,” etc. The same voice spoke through His mockers at the crucifixion (Mat 27:40). Faith answers with Nathanael (Joh 1:49). Mar 1:13 says “He was with the wild beasts,” a contrast to the first Adam among the beasts tame and subject to man’s will. Adam changed paradise into a wilderness, Jesus changed the wilderness into paradise (Isa 11:6-9). Jesus’ answer to all the three temptations was not reasoning, but appeal to God’s written word, “it is written.” As Christ was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners” (Heb 7:26), the temptation must have been from without, not from within: objective and real, not subjective or in ecstasy. The language too, “led up … came … taketh Him up … the Spirit driveth Him” (ekballei, a necessary though a distasteful conflict to the Holy One), etc., implies reality (Mat 4:1; Mat 4:3; Mat 4:5; Mar 1:12).
In fallen man suggestions of hatred of God, delight in inflicting pain, cruel lust, fierce joy in violating law, are among the inward temptations of Satan; but Jesus said before His renewed temptation in Gethsemane, cf6 “the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me” (Joh 14:30). As 40 is the number in Scripture implying affliction, sin, and punishment (Gen 7:4; Gen 7:12; Num 14:33; Num 32:13-14 Psa 95:10; Deu 25:3; Eze 29:11; Eze 4:6; Jon 3:4), Christ the true Israel (Deu 8:3; Deu 8:16; Deu 9:9; Deu 9:11-25) denied Himself 40 days, answering to Israel’s 40 years’ provocation of God and punishment by death in the wilderness. Not by His almighty power, but by His righteousness, Jesus overcame. First Satan tried Him through His sinless bodily wants answering to “the flesh” in fallen man. But Jesus would not, when hungry, help Himself, though He fed multitudes, for He would not leave His voluntarily assumed position of human absolute dependence on God. He who nourished crowds with bread Would not one meal unto Himself afford O wonderful the wonders left undone, And scarce less wonderful than those He wrought!
O self restraint passing all human thought, To have all power and be as having none! O self denying love, which felt alone For needs of others, never for His own! The next temptation in the spiritual order (Matthew gives probably the chronological order) was, Satan tried to dazzle Him, by a bright vision of the world’s pomps “in a moment of time,” to take the kingdoms of the world at his hands (as “delivered” to him, owing to man’s fall) without the cross, on condition of one act of homage to him “the prince of this world.” But Jesus herein detected the adversary, and gives him his name, cf6 “Get thee behind Me, Satan” (His very words to Peter, who, as Satan’s tool, for the moment urged the same avoidance of the cross: Mat 16:23), for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord,” (Luk 4:8) etc. The kingdom of the world shall come to Him, just because His cross came first (Phi 2:5-11; Rev 11:15; Isa 53:12). To the flesh and the world succeeds the last and highest temptation, the devil’s own sin, presumption. Satan turns Jesus’ weapon, the word, on Himself, quoting Psa 91:11-12, and omitting the qualification “in all thy ways,” namely, implicit reverent faith and dependence on God, which were “Christ’s ways.”
Christ would no more presume because He was God’s Son than doubt that He was so. To cast Himself from the temple S.W. wall pinnacle, then 180 feet above the valley before soil accumulated, or the topmost ridge of the royal portico, to test God’s power and faithfulness, would be Israel’s sin in “tempting Jehovah, saying, Is Jehovah among us or not?” though having had ample proofs already (Exo 17:7; Psa 78:18-20; Psa 78:41; Deu 6:16, which Jesus quotes). All His quotations are from the same book, which rationalism now assails. Thus the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, which lured the first Adam, could not entice the Second (Gen 3:6; compare 1Jo 2:16-17). The assault against man’s threefold nature, the body (the lack of bread), the soul (craving for worldly lordship without the cross), and the spirit (the temptation on the temple pinnacle), failed in His case. It was necessary the foundation should be tested, and it stood the trial (Isa 28:16). Satan left Him “for a (rather until the) season,” namely, until he renewed the attack at Gethsemane, “and angels came and ministered unto Him,” God fulfilling the promise of Psalm 91: in Christ’s, not Satan’s, way.
Then began His public course of teaching and of miracles, which were not mere wonders, but “signs,” i.e. proofs, of His divine commission; and not merely signs of supernatural power, but expressive intimations of the aim of His ministry and of His own all loving character; the spiritual restoration, which was His main end, being shadowed forth in the visible works of power and mercy. The Jews understood them and His words as His setting up the claim to be equal with God (Joh 5:1-19; Joh 10:30-33). It is certain that He made the claim (Joh 14:8-11). Such a Holy One as He would never have made it if it were not true. His whole character excludes the notion of self-deceiving enthusiasm. They evaded the force of His miracles (while recognizing their truth, which they would have denied if they could) by attributing them to Beelzebub (Mat 12:24).
His incarnation being once granted, His divine sympathy, expressed by miracles of healing man’s sufferings, follows as the necessary consequence (Mat 8:17, compare Isa 53:4). His death in our nature to atone for our sins, and His resurrection, are the culminating point of His suffering with us and for us, that He and we through Him should be free from sin, sorrow, and death forever (1Pe 3:18; 1Pe 4:1-2; Rom 6:4-11). John’s testimony to Him, “Behold the Lamb of God,” followed but a few days after the temptation, Jesus meeting John at the Jordan valley on His homeward journey toward Galilee. John’s words so impressed his two disciples Andrew and probably John (the apostle) that they left the Baptist for Christ. On the third day after leaving Bethany (Joh 1:28, the Sinaiticus, Vulgate and Alexandrinus manuscripts; Joh 2:1) He reached Cana of Galilee and performed His first miracle. He who would not work a miracle in the wilderness at the outset of His ministry, to supply His own needs, worked one to supply our luxuries. As His ministry began, so it ended. with a social meal.
The poet happily describes the miracle, “the modest water saw its God and blushed” (“vidit et erubuit lympha pudica Deum”.) Next, He goes to Capernaum, a more suitable center for His ministry amidst the populous western shores of the Galilean lake than secluded Nazareth. Next, He went to Jerusalem for His first Passover during His ministry, and drives out of the temple court of the Gentiles the sheep and oxen, and overthrows the money changers’ tables (for the traffic was an insult to the Gentile worshipper, and was not practiced in the court of the Israelites, and made devotion impossible), not by mere force but moral power. The whip of small cords was a puny weapon, but symbolized His coming universal empire. The act repeated at the close (Mat 21:12) of His ministry, as at its beginning, befitted Him who came as purifier of the temple literal and spiritual (Mal 3:1-4).
His own divinely formed body (the Sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, of God; naos) was typified by that literal (hieron) temple (Joh 2:18-20); its being destroyed by the Jews, and raised up by Himself in three days, was the sign He gave to those who challenged His authority in purging the temple of stone. John describes His officially taking possession of that temple which when a boy He called His Father’s house (Luk 2:49, “in My Father’s places,” Greek), with a punitive scourge, the symbol of authority. The synoptical three evangelists describe the final purgation before the close of His ministry, without the scourge. A mere word and awe inspiring look made all, as in Gethsemane, fall back abashed before Him alone. The interview with Nicodemus issuing in his ultimate conversion occurred toward the close of the paschal week (John 3). (See NICODEMUS.) Then He passed to northeastern Judea, where by His disciples He baptized many (Joh 3:22-26; Joh 4:1-2) and stayed to nearly the end of the year. After His eight months’ ministry in Judea, upon John’s imprisonment which threatened danger to His infant church, He proceeded through Samaria, the shortest route, to the safe retreat of Galilee.
At Jacob’s well the chief reason for His “must needs go through Samaria” appeared in the conversion of the Samaritan woman, His first herald in Sychem, the firstfruits of the harvest gathered in by Philip the deacon after His ascension (Act 8:5 ff). It was now December, four months before harvest (Joh 4:35); but the fields were “white already to harvest” spiritually. His two days’ ministry in Samaria, without miracles, produced effects not realized by His eight months’ stay in Judea with miracles. Proceeding to “His own country” Galilee (the place of His rearing) He was received by the Galileans only because they had seen His miracles when at the feast in Jerusalem; as mournfully at Cana, the scene of His first miracle, which He now revisits, He tells the nobleman who sought healing for his son, cf6 “Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe”. (Joh 4:48)
The care was followed by the conversion of the nobleman and his whole house. Jesus returned to Jerusalem at “the feast” of Passover (Joh 5:1; the Sinaiticus manuscript reads “the”; the Alexandrinus and Vaticanus manuscripts omit it, which would favor the view that the feast was Purim); thus there would be four Passovers during His ministry: Joh 2:13; Joh 5:1; Joh 13:1 (the last), besides the one He stayed away from because of threatened violence (Joh 6:4; Joh 7:1); and thus His ministry lasted three and a half years; not two and a half, as making the feast to be Purim would imply. The cure of the man infirm for 38 years at Bethesda pool followed on the sabbath, proving that He who had shown Himself Lord of the temple is Lord also of the sabbath. (See BETHESDA.) This was the turning point in His history; henceforth “the Jews” (i.e. the hierarchical party, adherents of the sanhedrim, in John’s usage), on His claiming unity in working, dignity, and honour with the Father as justifying His healing on the sabbath, commenced that rancorous opposition which drove Him in a day or two after from Jerusalem.
He only visited the capital twice again before His last Passover; namely, seven months afterward at the feast of tabernacles in the middle of October (Joh 7:1, etc.), and at the feast of dedication in December (Joh 10:22-23); probably the two months between these two feasts were spent in Judea. He returned to Nazareth in Galilee, His old home. Luk 4:15 refers summarily to the same visit to Galilee as Joh 4:3-43. A chasm then intervenes in Luke between Luk 4:15 and Luk 4:16; Luk 4:14 refers to the earlier visit while He was fresh from the “Spirit’s” baptism, Joh 1:43, etc., 2; and Luk 4:16, etc., refers to the visit to Galilee implied in Joh 6:1, succeeding the visit to Jerusalem (Joh 5:1-10). By the next sabbath He was in Nazareth, and preached from Isa 61:1. Though at first wondering at His gracious words, His hearers were so offended at His announcing God’s sovereignty in ministering mercy to the Gentiles, sometimes, rather than to Israel when apostate, that they sought to cast Him down from the brow of the hill (a precipice of the western hill, that by the Maronite church) whereon their city was built; but “He passed through the midst of them.” (Luk 4:30)
His main Galilean ministry begins with this, as recorded in the Synoptical Gospels: Mat 4:12; Mat 4:17, Mar 1:14-15; after John’s imprisonment, which had not taken place at the earlier visit (Joh 3:24; Joh 1:45; John 2; Joh 4:1-3, etc.). (See GOSPELS.) His Judaean ministry is John’s main subject. However, Luke from Luk 9:51 to Luk 19:28 records Christ’s ministry between the feast of tabernacles in October, A.U.C. 782, and the triumphal entry before the last Passover, April, 783. Eusebius (H.E. iii. 24.) states that the three synoptical evangelists recount” what was done by our Saviour in the space of one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist.” This period is divided into two by the feeding of the 5,000 about the time of that Passover which our Lord was debarred from keeping at Jerusalem by the murderous designs of the hierarchical party there. The events up to and including the feeding, a period of little more than three weeks, are fully detailed; those of the remaining period are only in part narrated. Luke’s order of events seems from his own statement (Luk 1:3, “from the very first,” namely, the Baptist’s birth, “to write in order”) to be the chronological one; in the first portion (namely, that before the feeding) it, is confirmed by Mark, also by John.
Matthew’s grouping of the discourses and events in clusters is designed for other than chronological sequence: the Sermon on the Mount, the instructions to the twelve before their mission, the collection of parables (Matthew 13), that of miracles (Matthew 8 and Matthew 9): he notices place, where the order of time is not observed, showing it was not ignorance of the order of time which caused his non-observance of it (Mat 8:5; Mat 8:14; Mat 8:18; Mat 8:28; Mat 9:1; Mat 12:9; Mat 13:1). In fulfillment of Isa 9:1 He, after His rejection at Nazareth (Mat 4:13-17), settled at Capernaum hard by the populous plain of Gennesar, a “people that sat in darkness,” being half gentilized by the neighbouring nations. (See CAPERNAUM.) The people remembering His miracle on the nobleman’s son a few weeks before (Joh 4:46) “pressed upon Him to hear God’s word” (Luk 5:1); then the miraculous draught of fish was the occasion of His drawing Simon, (Andrew), James and John permanently from earthly fishing to become cf6 “fishers of men” (Luk 5:1-10; Mat 4:18-22; Mar 1:14-20).
Zebedee being a man of means, and with ship and “hired servants” (Luk 5:7; Mar 1:20; John’s acquaintance with the high priest, Joh 18:15, implies the same), the report of the miracle and its effect on the four attracted many to hear Jesus Christ next sabbath in the synagogue. Then followed the casting out of the demon (whose wild cry is recorded in Mar 1:24, Ea), and the cure of the fever of Simon’s wife’s mother (Luk 4:33-39), transposed in Luke to bring into better contrast by juxtaposition Christ’s rejection the sabbath before at Nazareth and His welcome this sabbath at Capernaum. Mark chronologically places the two cures after the miraculous draught, not before. Fevers are generated at the marshy land of Tabiga, especially in spring, the season in question. Luke as a “physician” calls it “a great fever,” in contradistinction to “a small.” Jesus “rebuked” it, as He did the sea (Mat 8:26), as the outbreak of some hostile power (compare Isa 13:16), and infused in her full strength, enabling her to minister. In the casting out demons three things are noteworthy:
(1) the patient’s loss of conscious personality (Mar 5:7), so that he becomes identified with the demon whose mouthpiece he is;
(2) the appalled demon’s recognition of the Son of God;
(3) Christ’s prohibiting the demon to testify to Him, that the people’s, belief might not rest on such testimony, giving color to the Jews’ slander (Mat 12:24; Mar 1:34).
His ceaseless energy in crowding the day with loving deeds vividly appears in Mar 1:32-34; Luk 4:40-41. Retiring for communion with God into a solitary place long before day, He was tracked by Simon and the people; but He told them He must go and preach to the other “village towns” (koinopoleis) also, with which the Gennesareth plain was studded. His circuit lasted until the eve of the next sabbath, when (Mar 2:1) He was again in Capernaum. The only incident recorded of the circuit was He healed the leper in the synagogue by His holy touch.
Emissaries of the hostile hierarchy from Jerusalem (Luk 5:17) now watched His movements: at first “reasoning in their hearts,” which His omniscience detected, as if His assuming the power, to forgive sins in the case of the palsied man were “blasphemy” (Mar 2:6; Mar 2:8); then “murmuring” at His eating with the publican Levi whom He called that day before the sabbath (Mar 2:14-17; Luk 5:30); then objecting to His not fasting, from whence He was called “a winebibber and glutton,” to which He replied by images from the wine before them and the garments they wore, the spirit of the new dispensation must mould its own forms of outward expression and not have those of the old imposed on it, nor can the two be pieced together without injury to both; lastly “filled with madness” at His healing on the sabbath a man with withered right hand, besides His previous justification of the disciples against their censure for plucking grain ears on the sabbath, “the first of a year standing second in a sabbatical cycle” (Ellicott, Life of Christ; Luk 6:1, the Alexandrinus manuscript, but the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus manuscripts omit it), and proclaiming Himself its Lord. They resolve to “destroy” Him (Mar 2:23-28; Mar 3:1-6; Mat 12:1-14).
This resolve at Capernaum was the same as they had already formed at Jerusalem (Joh 5:1-18), and on the same plea. Nay, they even joined the Herodians their political opponents to compass their end (Mar 3:6). Seven miracles He performed on the sabbath (Mar 1:21-29; Mar 3:1-2; Joh 5:9; Joh 9:14; Luk 13:14; Luk 14:1). Their murderous plotting was the time and occasion of His withdrawal to the solitary hills W. of the lake, and choosing 12 apostles who should be His witnesses when He was gone. The horned hill of Hattin was probably the scene of their being chosen (Luk 6:12-13), and of the Sermon on the Mount. The beginning and end of this sermon are the same in Luke 6 as Matthew 5-7; the general order is the same; and the same miracle, the centurion’s servant, succeeds. Some of the expressions are found in other collocations in Luke (who gives only the summary in Luke 6), our Lord giving the same precepts on more occasions than one (compare Mat 5:18; Mat 6:19-21; Mat 6:24; Mat 7:13; Mat 7:22, respectively, with Luk 12:58; Luk 12:33; Luk 16:13; Luk 13:24-25; Luk 13:27).
The sermon’s unity precludes its being thought a collection of discourses uttered at different times. Possibly, though not so probably, the longer form was spoken at the top of the hill (Mat 5:1) to the apostles and disciples, the shorter when “He came down and stood on the level” a little below the top (Luk 6:17), to the “great multitude.” The variations in the two forms are designed by the Holy Spirit to bring out fresh lights of the same truths. Luke’s does not notice the portion on almsgiving, prayer, and fasting (Matthew 6). The healing of the centurion’s servant follows: the first Gentile healed, without seeing Him, by a word, at the request preferred twice by others before he presumed himself to ask (Luk 7:3-6; Mat 8:5-6). The next day, He ascended the steep up to the hamlet Nain, and restored to the sorrowing widow her son who was being carried for burial, probably to the sepulchral caves on the W. of Nain, of which traces remain. The anointing of His feet (only) in Simon’s house in some neighbouring town by the sinful but forgiven woman followed. Mary of Bethany anointed His head as well as His feet.
Both wiped His feet with their hair, the sinful woman also kissed and washed His feet with her tears (Luk 7:38; Joh 12:3; Mar 14:3). Not Mary Magdalene, whose possession by demons does not prove impurity, as on the other hand this woman’s impurity does not prove demoniacal possession. About the same time John Baptist from his dungeon at Machaerus sent two disciples to inquire whether Jesus is He that should come; primarily to convince them (as Jesus in fact did from His miracles and His gospel preaching: Luk 7:18-23; Mark. 11) that thus to the last he should be the Bridegroom’s friend, introducing the bride to Him (Joh 3:1-29; Joh 3:27-30); secondarily to derive for himself the incidental comfort of accumulated conviction. Next, followed the short circuit of a couple of days preaching from city to city, attended by ministering women (Luk 8:1-3): Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and many others, including possibly the woman who “loved much” and evidenced it because she knew by “faith … her many sins forgiven” (Luk 7:46-50).
He returned to His “home” at Capernaum (margin Mar 3:19-20), and the multitude flocked together so eagerly that the disciples “could not so much as eat bread”; so His kinsmen “went out (of their temporary abode at Capernaum) to lay hold on Him, saying, He is beside Himself.” A few verses later (Mar 3:31) they with His mother arrived at the house “desiring to speak with Him,” and He replied to His informants, “My mother and My brethren are these which hear the word of God and do it.” The cure of the demoniac blind and dumb was the occasion of the Pharisees attributing His miracle to Beelzebub (a charge repeated again subsequently: Luk 11:14-15), and elicited His warning that they were verging toward the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit, namely, the expression of their inward hatred of what they knew and felt divine so as to lose the power of fulfilling the conditions required for forgiveness. On the evening of the same day from a fishing vessel He spoke the series of parables beginning with that one recorded by all the three synoptical Gospels, that of the sower, as His eyes rested on the grainfields reaching to the margin of the lake.
At the close the apostles took away from the lingering multitude their wearied Master “as He was” (Mar 4:36), in the vessel toward the eastern shore. A storm wind from one of the deep ravines in the high plateau of Jaulan, which “act like gigantic funnels to draw down the winds from the mountains” (Thomson, Land and Book) and converge to the head of the lake, burst upon the waters (Luk 8:23, “came down” appropriately, for the lake is 600 ft. lower than the Mediterranean), and the ship filled and they were in jeopardy. His word sufficed to quell the sea in the world of nature, as previously the demons in the spirit world. On reaching the eastern shore the two Gergesene demoniacs (of whom the prominent one alone is noticed by Mark and Luke) met Him. The tombs where was their home still are visible in the ravines E. of the lake. The manifold personality of the one, his untameable wildness, self mutilation with stones, his kneeling, shouting, and final deliverance are graphically told by Mark (Mark 5). By our Lord’s command he became first preacher to his own friends, and then in Decapolis (Luk 8:39).
On Christ’s return to the western shore followed the raising of Jairus’ daughter with studied privacy (contrast the public raisin; of the Nain widow’s son, each being dealt with as He saw best for them and for His all wise ends), preceded by the cure of the woman with the issue of blood. Again He visited Nazareth and taught on the sabbath. The same incredulity of His countrymen (Joh 1:11), though now expressed by contempt rather than by violence as before, showed itself: “is not this the carpenter?” etc. (Mar 6:1-6, referring probably to His having worked with Joseph the carpenter in youth.) Their unbelief, which made Him “marvel,” stayed His hand of power and love (Isa 59:2); but even the promiscuous and exceptional cures He wrought there manifested His divine grace and power. Soon after John Baptist’s murder the twelve returned and “told Jesus all they had done and taught” (Mar 6:30, etc.), and He considerately invited them to retire to the further side of the lake for rest, to the neighbourhood of Bethsaida Julias. Five thousand people soon broke in on His retirement, and instead of sending them away He first fed their souls, then their bodies, making them sit on the green grass table land N.E. of the lake, or else the plain by the Jordan’s mouth (Luk 9:10-17).
The miracle constrained them to confess, “this is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world” (Joh 6:14); it is one of the seven selected by John to be recorded. On the same evening that the Jerusalem multitudes were having the paschal lambs slain for the feast, He the true Lamb in eastern Galilee was feeding other multitudes, and on the following day in the Capernaum synagogue discoursed on the bread of life and His flesh which must be eaten in order to have life (Joh 6:22, etc.). From ministering in Judaea He had gone to minister in eastern Galilee, which was the more Judaized part. Now He proceeds to the more Gentile part, namely, northern Galilee. Teaching and preaching characterized this period, as miracles had the former. Thus, a progressive character is traceable in Christ’s ministry. Luke devotes to this period only from Luk 9:18-50, Mark from Mar 6:45-49. Matthew gives the fullest record of it. Christ’s performance of miracles was regulated by the faith of those to whom He ministered; amidst the imperfect faith of the northern frontier lands little scope for them was afforded, and they were few.
After feeding the 5,000 Christ directed His disciples (Mar 6:45) to cross to Bethsaida (not Julius at the head of the lake, but on the W. at Khan Minyeh, or Bat-Szaidu, or “the house of fish,” a name likely to belong to more than one place on a lake so famous for fish. The gale which brought boats from Tiberius to the N.E. coast, but delayed a passage to the W., must have been from the S.W.: Joh 6:23. Therefore the Bethsaida here was a town on the W. coast which the apostles were making for, but in vain). It was “evening” (Mat 14:15), i.e. the “first evening” or opsia, between three and six o’clock, toward its close, before the 5,000 sat down, the day being “far spent” (Mar 6:85). At the beginning of the second evening (from sunset to darkness) after six the disciples embark (Joh 6:16), and before its close reach the mid lake (Mar 6:47; Mat 14:24) and encounter the gale which, beginning after sunset, was now at its height. For hours they made slow progress, until Jesus “in the fourth watch” came walking to them on the waters (the attribute of God: Job 9:8; Psa 77:19).
He had “departed into a mountain Himself alone” because He perceived that the people would come and take Him by force to make Him king (Joh 6:15). Now He comes to the relief of His disciples. “He would have passed them,” to elicit their faith and prayers (Mar 6:48; Luk 24:28); also leading the way toward the desired haven. Then followed Peter’s characteristically impulsive act of faith, and failure through looking at the dangers instead of to Jesus, and his rescue in answer to his cry (Psa 94:18). This miracle “amazed the disciples sore beyond measure,” so that “they worshipped Him, saying, Of a truth Thou art the Son of God”. (Mat 14:33) The people on the E. side of the lake followed after Jesus to the W. side in some of the boats which had come from Tiberias (the W. side), and found Him at Capernaum. It was the 15th day of Nisan, a day of “holy convocation, in which no servile work was done,” the day succeeding the Passover eve (Lev 23:6-7).
Appropriately, as His miracle of the loaves the evening before answered to the Passover, so His discourse in Capernaum synagogue on Himself as the Bread of life (in His incarnation “coming down from heaven,” and in His atoning death where He gave His flesh “for the life of the world,” appropriated by faith, Joh 6:35; Joh 6:50-52) was on the day of holy assembly the first of the seven. (See CAPERNAUM.) Less malignity appears in His hearers than on His former visit (Luk 6:7; Luk 6:11); for the emissaries of the hostile faction from Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem, were away celebrating the Passover in the metropolis. Some doubters and cavilers of the hostile party (called by John “the Jews,” Joh 6:41) murmured at His calling Himself “the Bread which came down from heaven.” But the multitude who had come after Him in the earlier part of His discourse questioned in a less unfriendly spirit. Some disciples “went back and walked no more with Him”; but Peter in the name of the twelve declared “we are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” (Sin. and Vat. and other best manuscripts read “THE HOLY ONE OF GOD”; received reading is evidently a marginal correction from Mat 16:16).
The reference to the Eucharist can only be indirect, for it was not yet instituted: the saved thief on the cross never partook of it; “the son of perdition,” Judas, did. The eating of His flesh which is essential to salvation can only therefore be spiritual (Joh 6:63). Healings in the Gennesaret plain near Capernaum for a few days followed (Mat 14:34-36; Mar 6:55-56). Pharisees and scribes then came from Jerusalem (Matthew 15; Mark 7). Having craftily gained entrance into the disciples’ social meetings they observed and now charge Jesus with His disciples transgressing the tradition of the elders which forbade eating with unwashen hands. He in reply condemned them because they also transgressed God’s fifth commandment, to honour parents, and in their hearing calls the multitude and warns the latter that defilement comes from within, not from without. Both the truth and the publicity grievously offended the Pharisees. Herod very shortly before, perplexed on hearing the fame of Jesus, had surmised with others that “this is John Baptist risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do show forth themselves in him” (Mat 14:2).
The I is emphatical in Luk 9:9; “John have I beheaded, but who is this?” Guilty conscience recalls his perpetrated murder, and fills him with superstitious fears. Sadducean unbelief on the other hand whispered that his fears might be groundless after all. So he desired to see Him to satisfy himself. Eastern Galilee was no longer a safe place for Jesus and His apostles, therefore the Lord with drew to the N.W. to the confines of Tyre and Sidon (Mar 7:24; Mat 15:22) for quiet Seclusion, where He might further instruct the twelve. He did not cross into the pagan territory, but a Syro-phoenician woman crossed from it to Him. Descended from the Canaanite idolaters who fled to the extreme N. from Palestine on its conquest by Israel, she yet exhibited a faith which triumphed over repeated trials whereby the Lord designedly tested it. She extended His mission beyond “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” to include her. Counting herself a “dog” she by faith was counted by God His child (Gal 3:26). The demon was cast out, her child healed, and herself commended for a faith which almost surprises the Giver of it, and which was irresistible with Him: “O woman, great is thy faith! Be it unto thee even as thou wilt.”
Thence He returned through the half pagan Decapolis, which was almost wholly on the E. side of the sea of Galilee. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, besides the very ancient manuscript of Beza and others, old Latin, Vulgate and Copt. manuscripts, read Mar 7:31, “from the coasts of Tyre He came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee.” This implies that Jesus actually passed on to the pagan Sidon, the stronghold of Baal and Astarte worship. Thus the climax of mercy was reached; an earnest of the extension of His kingdom, after His ascension, from Jerusalem to Judaea, from Judaea to Samaria and half Judaized half pagan Galilee, and from thence to the uttermost parts of the Gentile world (Act 1:8). Thence He began His southeastern circuit through Decapolis to the shore E. of the sea of Galilee. A deaf man with an impediment in his speech was cured there.
In his case and that of the blind man at Bethsaida Julius there is the peculiarity (probably to awaken attention to His act in both the patient and the non-spiritual crowd) that He took each away from the crowd and He used the action of touching (compare 1Jo 1:1 spiritually; Dan 10:15-16; Psa 51:15; Eph 6:19) and spitting (comp, spiritually Psa 34:8) on the parts affected; and in the blind man the cure was gradual (compare Mar 4:31-32; Mar 7:32-35; Mar 8:22-25). The half Gentile Decapolitans thereupon glorified the God of Israel (Mat 15:31), drawn by the divine Son to recognize the Father and to take Israel’s God for their God. Then followed the feeding of the 4,000 with seven loaves (probably on the high ground E. of the lake near the ravine opposite to Magdala, now wady Semak). The place was near that of the feeding of the 5,000; but the number of loaves in the miracle of the 4,000 was greater; the number of the fish also (“a few” among the 4,000, only two among the 5,000: Mar 6:38; fish naturally would be forthcoming, the apostles being fishermen and near the lake); the number of baskets of remnants less (seven spurides, but from the 5,000, 12 kofinoi); the number of people less; the time they had been with Jesus longer, three days, only a day in the case of the 5,000 (Mar 6:33-35; Mar 8:2).
The impulsive coast villagers of the N. and W. (for they had run on foot after our Lord from the W., round the N. end of the lake, and received accessions to their numbers from Bethsaida Julius: Mar 6:33; Mat 14:13) would have made Jesus Christ a king had He not withdrawn (Joh 6:15). The Decapolitans and men of the E. coasts made no such attempt. The 4,000 Decapolitans were mainly Gentile; the 5,000 N. and W. Galileans were Jewish. The distinction (though unobserved in the English “baskets”) is accurately maintained between the spurides of the miracle of the 4000 and the kofinoi of the 5,000. When our Lord refers back to both miracles (Mat 16:9-10), with the undesigned minute accuracy that characterizes truth He says, “Do ye not remember the five loaves of the 5,000; and how many kofinoi ye took up? neither the seven loaves of the 4,000, and how many spurides ye took up?” Compare Greek, Mat 16:9-10, with Mat 14:20; Mat 15:37. Spuris expresses in Act 9:25 the basket in which Paul was let down, therefore it was capacious. Kofinos was the common provision basket, therefore smaller; there were 12, as each of the apostles carried one.
Possibly the amount of remnants in the seven spurides was as much as, or more than, that of the 12 kofinoi. The company of 5,000 sat on “the green grass, much” of which was in the place (Mar 6:39; Joh 6:10); the 4,000 sat “on the ground” (Mat 15:35; Mar 8:6). Next, He crosses to Magdala (on the W. of the lake, now el Mejdel, a village of a few huts; the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts read Magadan) or to Dalmanutha (from darab, “pointed”, i.e. among the cliffs) in its neighbourhood (Mar 8:10, compare Mat 15:39). The Pharisees for the first time now in concert with the Sadducees hypocritically (for they had no real desire to be convinced) desired a “sign from heaven, tempting Him.” The only sign He vouchsafed to this spiritually “adulterous” generation, which could not discern the signs of the times, was that of Jonah. Jesus was about to cast Himself into the angry waves of justice which would have otherwise overwhelmed us, as a piacular victim, and then rise again on the third day like the prophet.
His stay was brief. Embarking again in the ship in which He had come (Mar 8:13), and warning His disciples against the leaven of their doctrine, He comes to Bethsaida Julius and heals the blind man, with significant actions accompanying the healing, and by a gradual process. Next, He journeys northwards to Caesarea Philippi. In this region occurred Peter’s famous confession of Jesus Christ as “the Christ the Son of the living God,” a truth which Jesus charged them not to make known, as His time was not yet come and premature announcement might have excited popular outbreaks to force on His kingdom. There is a “fainess of time” for which all God’s dispensations wait. Here also for the first time formally Jesus announced what seemed so contrary to His divine claims, His coming death, which offended Peter and brought on him sharp rebuke as his previous confession brought him praise.
Here too, six days later (Mar 9:2; Mat 17:1; “about eight days after,” Luk 9:28), occurred the transfiguration on Mount Hermon near Caesarea (Mar 9:3, where the reading “as snow,” omitted in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts but supported by the Alexandrinus manuscript, that of Beza, and the Old Latin and Vulgate, favors snowy Hermon, which is moreover near Caesarea Philippi, in the neighbourhood of which the transfiguration took place, not Tabor with a fortified town on its top). Moses and Elias appeared with our Lord, to show that the law and the prophets were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, whose “decease” was the subject of their conversation (Luk 9:31), the very thing from which Peter shrank (Mat 16:21-23). The glory then revealed was a counterpoise to the announcement of His sufferings, from which Peter had shrunk, and would confirm the three primates among the twelve so as not to lose faith because of His sufferings foretold just before. (Mat 16:21; (Mat 16:27-28; (Mat 17:1 ff) The following day, on His descent from the mountain, He found the scribes questioning with the disciples respecting their inability, through defective faith, to cure a deaf and dumb demoniac.
What a contrast! Heavenly beings on the mountain, devils and unbelieving disciples below! His face still beamed with the glory of the transfiguration, just as Moses’ face shone after being in Jehovah’s presence (Exo 34:29-35); so that “the people were greatly amazed, and running to Him saluted Him” (Mar 9:15). The Lord rebuked the “faithless (the disciples; compare before, Mat 17:19-21) and perverse (the scribes) generation”; the demoniac’s paroxysm became more violent “when he saw Him” (Mar 9:20; so in the case Luk 4:34), so that he fell foaming and wallowing. The father said, “if Thou canst do anything, have compassion”; Jesus replied (The question is not, if I can do, but) cf6 “if thou canst believe; all things are possible to him that believeth”. (Mar 9:23) With tears the father cried, “Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief.” Seeing the people running together, and the father’s faith having been now proved, Jesus by a rebuke cast out the demon, and with His hand lifted up the lad, almost dead with the reaction (as Mark describes with the vividness of an eyewitness, Peter being his prompter).
Next, the Lord turned S., and at Capernaum by a miracle paid the half shekel apiece, for Himself and Peter, appointed to be paid by every male from 20 years old for the temple service (Exo 30:13; 2Ki 12:4; 2Ch 24:6; 2Ch 24:9). The late demand of the tax levied months before is attributed by Ellicott (Life of Jesus Christ) to the Lord’s frequent absences from Capernaum. As son of the temple’s King He might claim exemption from the temple tribute, but His dignity shone only the brighter by His submission. Elation at their Master’s power now bred contention among the disciples for preeminence; instead of laying to heart His prediction of His being delivered into wicked men’s hands, they did not even understand His meaning and were afraid to ask Him. Forgetting their own late inability through want of faith to cast out the demon at the foot of the transfiguration mountain, they forbade one casting out demons in Jesus’ name, because “he followed not with them.”
(This combined with the confidence implied in his character, Mar 10:38-39, shows that John had not merely the feminine softness and meditative quiet commonly assigned to him, but was also a “son of thunder,” implying fiery zeal: 2Jo 1:10-11; 3Jo 1:9-10.) The Lord replied, “Forbid him not, for he that is not against us is for us” (Luk 9:50). This is the maxim of charity toward others. The seemingly contrary maxim (Luk 11:23) is that of decision in regard to ourselves. (Therefore the Greek in Luk 9:50 is hos ouk estin, but in Luk 11:23 ho mee on.) We are to hail the fact of the outward adhesion of others to Christ’s cause in any degree, the judgment of their motive resting with Him; but we are to search our own motives, as before Him who knows them and will judge us accordingly. Compare Num 11:28; Act 15:8-9.
A misgiving that they had acted wrongly probably suggested John’s mention of the fact after Jesus set the little child in the midst and said, cf6 “whosoever shall receive one of such children in My name receiveth Me”; the man in question had used Christ’s name without avowedly receiving Him; not numbered among the apostles, yet by faith exercising apostolic powers. At this period lowliness, guarding against offending the little ones at any earthly cost, love and forgiveness, illustrated by the parables of the one lost sheep and the unforgiving though forgiven debtor, were the chief subjects of Christ’s teaching (Mar 9:33-50; Matthew 18). Here a new and distinct phase of Christ’s ministry begins, “the time that He should be received up” (Luk 9:51). This period begins with His journey in October to the feast of tabernacles, and ends with His arrival at Bethany six days before the Passover.
The priestly party’s design to kill Him was now matter of public notoriety, and the Pharisees sent officers to take Him (Joh 7:25; Joh 7:30; Joh 7:32). Luk 9:51-18;Luk 9:15 in Luke’s Gospel has no parallel notices in Matthew and Mark, except Luk 11:17; Luk 13:18, probably the repetition of the same truths on a later occasion (Mar 3:24; Mar 4:30). From Luk 18:15 Luke coincides fully with Matthew and Mark. The connection is earlier renewed; compare Luk 17:11 with Mat 19:1-2; Mar 10:1; Luke alluding to the journey from Ephraim (Joh 11:54) through “Samaria and Galilee,” Matthew and Mark through Perea “beyond” or “the further side of Jordan.” But at Luk 18:15 the account of the blessing of the infants undoubtedly reunites the three synoptists. The notes of time and place in the portion of Luke (Luk 9:51-18;Luk 9:15) are vague, the Holy Spirit’s design there being to supply what the other evangelists had not recorded and which He saw fit for the edification of the church.
John supplies three chronological notices of three journeys toward Jerusalem in this period. Luk 9:51-53 answers to His journey to the feast of tabernacles Joh 7:10), when “He went up not openly, but as it were in secret,” so that it was only because “His face was as though He would go to Jerusalem” that the Samaritans would not receive Him. “The time that He should be received up” includes not merely His last journey there, but the whole period between the close of His regular ministry and His last Passover; a season preparatory for His death and His being received up, and preceded by prophecies of it (Mar 9:31). Again, Luk 13:22 corresponds to Joh 10:40; Joh 11:1, His second journey three months later toward Jerusalem, but not reaching further than Bethany, from beyond Jordan where He had withdrawn. He had remained previously in Judea between the feast of tabernacles and that of the dedication (Joh 7:2; Joh 7:10; Joh 10:22; Joh 10:40), His third journey, in Luk 17:11, answers to Mat 19:1; Mar 10:1, and to His previous retirement to Ephraim, near the wilderness or hill country N.E. of Jerusalem (Joh 11:54); and shortly precedes the last Passover.
Soon after the feast of dedication Jesus Christ retired to the Peraean Bethany (Joh 10:40), and during His stay there many believed on Him, the place where John baptized suggesting the remembrance of his testimony concerning Jesus Christ and how true it proved to be. Thence began His second journey toward Jerusalem (Joh 11:7; Luk 13:22) ending at Bethany (Joh 11:47; Joh 11:54), from whence He turned to N.E. to Ephraim; thence the third journey began through Samaria, Galilee, Peraea, to Bethany six days before the Passover, about April 1, A.U.C. 783. His brethren (cousins) practically disbelieving His Godhead, yet recognizing His miraculous power, urged Him to go to Judea, and display there those wondrous works which might attract to Him that public acceptance which, as worldly men, they took it for granted was His aim (contrast Joh 7:3-4 with Joh 5:41; Joh 5:44): “no man doeth anything in secret, and he himself (personally) seeketh to be known openly,” as Thou who claimest to be Messiah must necessarily desire to be. He replied to them, as to His mother formerly, “My time (for being glorified) is not yet come,” “I go not up yet unto this feast” (Joh 7:6-8) (the Sinaiticus manuscript and manuscript of Beza read” I go not up unto,” i.e. in your careful, self seeking spirit, I go not up to it at all; but the Vaticanus manuscript and Vulgate support KJV reading, “not yet.”.)
“He went up as it were in secret,” (Joh 7:10) subsequently, after His brethren; not to work astounding wonders, but to win souls from among those gathered to the feast. His disciples accompanied Him; their way was through Samaria, the less frequented route than Perea (Luk 9:52; Luk 9:54). One at least showed the same zeal to follow Jesus which had appeared among the Samaritans at His former visit (John 4); but Jesus pathetically told him now, cf6 “Foxes have holes, … the Son of man hath not where to lay His head”. A similar answer to a scribe in Mat 8:19-21 is differently connected, the same incident probably occurring twice. Jesus about the midst of the feast went up to the temple, and taught the throngs crowding now in its courts. The residents of Jerusalem (Joh 7:25, as distinguished from both “the people,” Joh 7:20, or general multitude, and the hostile “Jews,” Joh 7:15) expressed wonder that the rulers allowed Him whom notoriously they sought to kill to speak openly, adding that He could not be the Christ, since they knew from whence He was. But many of the multitude believed (Joh 7:31) because of His miracles. The priestly party thereupon sent officers to take Him.
Fear of the multitude and the awe inspired in the officers by hearing Him (“never man spoke like this man,” Joh 7:45-46) prevented His immediate apprehension; and Nicodemus’ pertinent and bold (Joh 7:50, contrast him Joh 3:2) question, appealing to their own law which, with all their boasting of it, they were violating, stayed further proceedings. Meantime, Jesus had for the first time publicly announced to the adverse “Jews” His removal: “ye shall seek Me and not find Me, and where I am there ye cannot come” (Joh 7:34; Joh 7:36); and on the last and great day of the feast (the eighth, a solemn sabbath, Lev 23:36), alluding to the libations on the altar, of water from Siloam, on each of the seven previous days, He invited all to come to Him for the living waters of the Spirit which He was to give upon His ascension (Joh 7:37; Joh 7:39). The account of the woman taken in adultery follows; not in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts Ellicott on the authority of some cursive manuscripts, and because of its style resembling Luke’s, and because of similar temptations of Jesus occurring in Luke 20, transposes it to the end of Luke 21; but see above.
Then followed His discourse concerning the Father’s testimony combining with His own: cf6 “the Father hath not left Me alone, for I do always those things that please Him” (Joh 8:29); words which converted many of His opponents. These He taught that it is only by “continuing in His word” that they can become disciples indeed, and know and be made free by the truth. The objection of some that they were free already, as being Abraham’s seed, drew forth His reply that, like Abraham’s seed, Ishmael, east out of the house as son of the bondwoman, so they, as long as they committed sin, were its bondslaves, not sons of the free, who alone abide in the Father’s house forever (Gal 4:23-31). He further charges those seeking to kill Him for telling the truth with being children of the devil, a murderer and liar from the beginning. They sneered at Him as a Samaritan, possibly because of His converse with that people for their salvation (John 4).
He challenges them, cf6 “which of you convicteth me of sin?” (Joh 8:46) and declares that Abraham, whose seed they claimed to be, rejoiced to see His day, and was glad, and that “before Abraham was (came into created being, Greek) I am” (essentially) (Joh 8:58). Understanding this rightly to be a claim to Godhead, they would have stoned Him but that He passed through their midst as in Luk 4:30. On the sabbath He healed the “beggar” (Joh 9:8, “seen him that he was a beggar,” the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus manuscripts), blind from birth; anointing his eyes with clay, and making the cure depend on his going and washing in Siloam. The noteworthy features in the man were implicit faith (contrast Naaman’s pride at first, 2 Kings 5); fearless confession of the miracle to his neighbours and the hostile Pharisees; disregarding consequences, even at the risk of expulsion from the synagogue, which his very parents shrank from; his brave retort on their “we know that this Man is a sinner,” with “I know … I was blind, now I see … we know that God heareth not sinners”; his simplicity confounding the wise, his belief in and worship of Jesus Christ as the Son of God (he had previously believed in His being the Son of man) as instantly on Jesus revealing Himself as he had obeyed His direction for the cure of his bodily blindness.
Then followed the loving discourse on Himself as the Good Shepherd and the Door. Next, He sent forth the severity (Luk 10:1), their number intimating the coming worldwide extension of the gospel, for at the feast of tabernacles shortly before (John 7) sacrifices, according to custom, were offered for 70 pagan nations as representing the world; whereas the twelve represented Israel alone (Mat 10:5), to whom the first gospel offer was restricted. During the interval between the feast of tabernacles and that of the dedication (Joh 10:22) comes the series of discourses beginning with the good Samaritan (Luk 10:25) and ending with the cure of the woman with a spirit of infirmity (Luk 13:10-17). The rich fool and the barren fig tree (Luk 12:16; Luk 13:6) are characterized by a feature frequent in the parables in Luke, they are suggested by some incident. Judea probably was the scene; here in Bethany at this time Jesus visited Mary and Martha (Luk 10:38).
The cure of a mute demoniac (Luk 11:14-15) and the Jews’ blasphemy seem to have occurred now a second time; the blasphemy originating first with the Pharisees (Mat 9:32-34; Mat 12:22-24) “a devil blind and dumb” was reiterated by others. The enmity of the priestly party was intensified by His open denunciations of their hypocrisy (Luk 11:39-54). The cure in the synagogue on the sabbath of the woman bound by Satan 18 years was made ground for censuring Him on the part of the ruler; but He so answered that His adversaries were shamed to silence, and. the people all rejoiced. After a two months’ ministry in Judea, on the Feast of Dedication (Joh 10:22; Joh 10:28), about December 20, He was again at Jerusalem. (See FEAST OF DEDICATION.) Formerly in Galilee He had forbidden His disciples to divulge His Messiahship (Mat 16:20); but now openly in Solomon’s porch (the cloister on the E. side of the temple had in part escaped burning, 2Ki 25:9), which afforded some cover, it being “winter,” He proclaims His divine oneness with God (Joh 10:30).
Jewish custom did not at this time assign the title “the Son of God” to Messiah (Joh 10:24). So Jesus did not plainly avow Himself Messiah to the Jews whose Messianic hopes were carnal and the watchword of rebellion but includes it in the higher title proclaiming His Godhead. Thereupon a third time (Joh 5:18; Joh 8:59; Joh 10:31) the Jews sought to kill Him for blasphemy, now as on the second occasion taking up the stones that lay about the cloisters which had suffered from fire in the revolt against Sabinus, and were being restored (Josephus, Ant. 17:10, section 2, 20:9). The Greek (ebastasan) implies not merely “they took up (eeran; Joh 8:59) hastily stones,” but deliberately held them in their hands ready for use; so in verse 32, “for which … do ye stone (are ye stoning) Me?” Jesus Christ replies (Joh 10:32), If God calls the rulers to whom the word of God (constituting them such) came, “gods,” as being His representatives, a fortiori He who is the Word of God “whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world” (Joh 17:18-19; Luk 1:35) may claim without blasphemy to be “the Son of God.”
He thereupon withdrew to the scene of John Baptist’s ministry, Peraean Bethany (the oldest reading for Bethabara, near the Jordan ford nigh Jericho) (Joh 10:40; Joh 1:28). Here He stayed until His second journey to Bethany nigh Jerusalem (Luk 13:22), which He moved “toward” slowly, “teaching” in the several “cities and villages.” The Pharisees seeking to get Him again in Judaea to kill Him, and impatient of His success in Persea, urged Him to “depart,” on the plea that “Herod would kill Him.” But Herod’s aim was that He should depart, being perplexed whether to honour or persecute Him (Luk 9:7; Luk 9:9); the Pharisees’ aim was to get Him out of Herod’s land, where He was comparatively safe, to Judea where they might kill Him. Herod used the Pharisees as his tools. So, reading the hearts of both, He said, cf6 “Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold. I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow (i.e. for two days in his territory), and the third day I shall be (I am being, i.e. soon and certainly) perfected” (Luk 13:32), i.e. shall begin that journey which (though retraced from Ephraim, Joh 11:54) will be the last to Jerusalem (for the second journey ended in Bethany, then back to Ephraim, thence to Jerusalem), and to My sacrifice to be there perfected.
(Compare the apostles’ fear of that journey as likely to close in His death, Joh 11:8; Joh 11:16.) This naturally suggested the pathetic apostrophe to Jerusalem (Luk 13:34-35), which with some variation He repeated later, after His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The people’s acclamation, “blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” (i.e. having His attributes, compare Exo 23:21 ff), was but a partial pledge of His prophecy’s final fulfillment, a slight earnest of Israel’s universal acceptance of Messiah hereafter (Luk 19:38; Mar 11:9; Zec 12:10; Zec 14:9). A sample of His “cures today and tomorrow” is given (Luke 14), that of the dropsical man (one of the seven performed on the sabbath) in the chief Pharisee’s house, who had invited Him for the purpose of watching Him. He answered the cavil as to the cure on the sabbath, as in Luk 13:15. Naturally at the Pharisee’s entertainment He exhorted the entertainer in making a feast to invite the poor, and to look for his recompense at “the resurrection of the just”; also in answer to a guest’s remark He spoke the parable of the great supper.
The crowding of “all the publicans” to Him (Luk 15:1) would be likely in the productive region near the Jordan’s fords, where they were numerous. The Pharisees’ murmurs thereat drew from Him the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, the prodigal son; and to His disciples, in the Pharisees’ hearing (Luk 16:1; Luk 16:14), the unjust steward and Lazarus and the rich man. It was just before this Jesus received the sisters’ message as to Lazarus’ illness. Jesus’ thoughts would be upon him; naturally then He would use the name (Eleazar, “God’s help”) in the parable; the words” neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead,” are thus prophetical; so far from being persuaded by His raising Lazarus presently after, they sought to kill both Him and Lazarus (Joh 11:53; Joh 12:10-11). From Perea, where He received Mary and Martha’s message (Luk 10:40; Luk 11:1-6; Luk 11:7), after two days’ delay (the “today and tomorrow” of Luk 13:33), He proceeded a two days’ journey (from Jordan to Jericho five miles, thence to Jerusalem, 18 miles) to Bethany, where Lazarus had been four days dead.
His raising Lazarus there, whereby He conquered corruption as well as death, converted even some of His adversaries (Joh 11:45) and attracted crowds to see the raised man; the multitude of eyewitnesses in His train were met by the people from Jerusalem, who heard of the miracle, and who had come to the feast, so that a vast number with palm branches escorted Him at His triumphal entry upon an donkey colt, crying “Hosanna, blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord,” fulfilling Zec 9:9. On the other hand the miracle roused the Pharisees to convene a council, at which they expressed their fears that if they let Him alone all would believe on Him, and the Romans take away their nation. Whereupon Caiaphas under the Spirit said, “It is expedient that one man should die for the people, and the whole nation perish not”; the Spirit intending thereby that He should die for Jews and Gentries, Caiaphas meaning thereby only a pretext for killing Him (Joh 11:49-52; compare 2Pe 1:20).
Jesus therefore withdrew to Ephraim (Joh 11:54), on the borders of Samaria, 20 miles N.E. of Jerusalem; here He stayed a month or five weeks. (See EPHRAIM.) Then began His third and least journey recorded by the three synoptical Gospels, “through the midst of Samaria and Galilee, probably meaning on the border between Samaria and Galilee” (Luk 17:11), to Bethany, six days before His last Passover at Jerusalem. On the Samaritan frontier probably He healed, the ten lepers, and received the adoring thanks of the only grateful one, the Samaritan (Luk 17:16-18), a miracle characterized by the cure not taking place until the subjects proved their faith by obedience. In His passing through Galilee the Pharisees asked when the kingdom of God should come. His reply foretells the concomitants of the Lord’s coming; the parable of the unjust judge follows, which shows that importunate prayer “day and night” is the means whereby the now widowed elect church will bring the Lord in person to vindicate her speedily (Isa 62:6-7; Act 26:7; Luk 2:37; 1Ti 5:5), in opposition to Satan’s accusations “day and night” (Rev 12:10).
From Galilee He passed to the parts of Peraea near Judaea, where He had preached shortly before (Mat 19:1; Mar 10:1). “He came to the frontiers of Judea, His route lying on the other side of Jordan” (Ellicott); multitudes renewed Him while there, and were healed. The Pharisees questioned Him about divorce, to compromise Him with either the school of Hillel who allowed divorce “for every cause,” or the school of Shammai who allowed it only for adultery; also to endanger Him with the adulterous tetrarch in whose dominions He then was. In beautiful contrast to their cunning follows the parents’ bringing of “their infants” (Greek, Luk 18:15) “that He should lay His hands on them (in sign of blessing them) and pray” (Jam 5:16). Jesus’ prayers, as He is God not merely “man,” avail not only much but altogether. Here also lived the rich youth whose amiabilities Jesus loved, but whose love of his possessions kept him from the sacrifice which Jesus required. Now Jesus goes before on the way to His death. The disciples, “amazed” and with foreboding, follow (Mar 10:32). With like steadfastness He had set His face toward Jerusalem at His former journey (Luk 9:51, compare Isa 50:7).
Privately He foretells to the twelve His coming death and resurrection (Mar 10:31-33), to the multitude He avoids giving offense by announcing it. Even the twelve so little understood Him, their minds being full of temporal Messianic expectations, that James and John coveting the highest and nearest place to Christ prompted their mother Salome to beg it for them, as they were ashamed to ask it themselves. He reaches Jericho, and heals two blind men, of whom Bartimeus (for reconciliation of seeming discrepancies, also see JERICHO.) was the prominent one, who importuned the Lord on His entry and was healed with another blind man as Jesus left Jericho. (See BARTIMEUS.) Their cry “Thou Son of David” anticipates by faith that of the palm bearing multitude escorting Zion’s King and David’s Heir to His capital. Near Jericho Zacchaeus, a rich publican, from a sycamore sought to see Jesus, not from mere curiosity but with a heart yearning for “salvation,” which accordingly in the person of Jesus spontaneously came to his house, whereas like the publican (Luk 18:13) he would have been content to be allowed even to “stand afar off …. All murmured at Jesus going to be guest of a sinner.”
Still they cherished hopes of His now setting up the kingdom of God “immediately” at Jerusalem (Luk 19:11). Jesus checks this expectation as to its immediate realization, but confirms its ultimate consummation in the parable of the pounds (distinct from the talents, Mat 25:14-15). Six days before the Passover He reached Bethany (Joh 12:1), on Friday Nisan 7, or Friday evening, just after the sabbath began, i.e. in Jewish reckoning Nisan 8. These six days are as momentous to the new creation as the six days of Genesis 1 to the original creation. In the mountain hamlet of Bethany, 15 furlongs E.S.E. from Jerusalem (Joh 11:18), He passed His last sabbath. In the house of Simon the leper, whom doubtless Christ had healed (Mat 27:6; some guess him to be the one grateful leper of the ten Luk 17:16; Luk 17:18, but he is designated “a stranger” and “Samaritan”), and who was a close relative or friend (father according to Theophylact, husband others say), of Martha, the sisters made a feast in honour of Jesus (Joh 12:1-3). Martha served, Lazarus the raised one was at table. Mary lavished her costly ointment, which proved to be for His burial; Judas hypocritically pretended concern for the poor as if this cost were waste, but Christ immortalized her for the act (Mar 14:1; Mar 14:3-9).
This provoked Judas’ spite, so that Mark records it in connection with “two days before the Passover,” when Judas made his bargain with the chief priests (Mat 26:12-14), instead of in its right place six days before the Passover. Matthew and Mark for the same reason record the feast after the triumphal entry instead of before it (the right place), in order to connect Judas’ bad spirit at the feast with his subsequent treachery. The triumphal entry followed on the day succeeding the sabbath (our Lord’s day); the thrice repeated “these things” marks the disciples’ act, Zechariah’s prophecy of it (Zec 9:9), and their subsequent recognition of its being the prophecy’s fulfillment (Joh 12:16). Christ’s route was the most southern of three routes from Bethany to Jerusalem. On coming “over against Bethphage,” separated by a narrow valley from His route, He sends His disciples for the donkey and” colt” (an ass, the animal used in peace, Jdg 5:10; Jdg 10:4, as the horse for war, was the fit bearer of “the Prince of peace”) “tied by the door without in a place where two ways met,” (Mar 11:4) saying, “the Lord hath need of them” (Mar 11:3) (contrast Act 17:25.
What condescension that He should stoop to need anything from His creatures!). On coming in sight of Zion, the city of David, from the ridge of the S. slope of Olivet, “the whole multitude of disciples first” raised the Hosanna, then the general multitude going before, and that which followed Jesus (the two latter because of the miracle upon Lazarus: Joh 12:12; Joh 12:17-18, see above), took up the cry (Luk 19:37; Mat 21:9; Mar 11:9). (See HOSANNA.) They cast their garments on the colt as a saddle, and in the way as a token (still practiced) of honour. Their acclamations were in the inspired psalmist’s (Psa 118:26) and the angels’ words (Luk 2:14), substituting “peace in heaven” for “peace on earth”; compare Col 1:20, contrast Rev 12:7. At one point of the southern route, from a ledge of smooth rock, the whole city burst on Jesus’ view, rising as “out of a deep abyss” (Stanley). In this His hour of triumph He wept over it, seeing its coming doom, because it “knew not the time of its visitation,” though He wept not over His own near agony.
(See JERUSALEM, on the fulfillment of His prophecy that the foe should “cast a trench about, and compass round, and keep it in on every side.”) Josephus estimates from the 256,500 lambs sacrificed, allowing ten for every lamb, that two and a half million attended the Passover. Thus the temporary recognition of Jesus as their Messianic King, and the subsequent rejection of Him, were the acts not merely of the sanhedrim but of the nation (Act 2:36; Act 3:14-15; Mar 15:9-13; Joh 18:40). His temporary triumph was no result of an appeal to the multitude’s political prejudices, no false enthusiasm in Him. His tears over the city as doomed were utterly opposed to the general expectations of an immediate earthly deliverer of the Jews from Rome. The acclamations were overruled to suit a then spiritual kingdom, of which salvation (as Hosanna, “save we pray”) is the prominent feature, though expressing also a future visibly manifested kingdom (Rom 11:26; Heb 9:28). Jesus therefore, so far from forbidding them, told the objecting Pharisees, “if these should hold their peace the stones would immediately cry out” (Luk 19:40, compare Luk 3:8).
He repaired at once to His Father’s house, “and when He had looked round about upon all things (with one all-comprehensive glance that instantly detected the desecration at its height in the Gentiles’ court), and now the eventide was come, He returned to Bethany with the twelve.” Early on the morrow (Monday) He went forth from Bethany, and on His way cursed the precociously leafy but fruitless fig tree, from which He had vainly sought figs to allay His hunger (compare Heb 4:15); emblem of the early privileged, professing, but spiritually barren people of God, now doomed (Heb 6:7-8). (See Fig Tree.) Next He purges again the temple at the close of His ministry, even as He had done at the opening of it (Joh 2:13-14). His former cleansing had not prevented the resumption of usurious and thievish (Jer 7:11) gains in exchanging Gentile for temple coin, and in selling doves, and in carrying vessels through the Gentiles’ court, interrupting all devotion, that God’s house ceased to be “an house of prayer for all nations” (Mar 11:17; Isa 56:7). Now He was not armed with the “whip of small cords” as before; awe of His majestic presence sufficed to check all opposition while He overthrew the tables and cast out the sellers.
Works of mercy followed judgment; the blind and lame came to Him though at all other times excluded (Mat 21:14; Lev 21:17-18; 2Sa 5:8; Act 3:2), as Lord of and greater than the temple (Mat 12:6), fulfilling Hag 2:6; Hag 2:9; Mal 3:1. The children about took up the cry of their elders on the previous day, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” The ruling priests, full of “fear” for their own influence being supplanted and “envy” (Mar 11:18; Mat 27:18), indignantly remonstrated with Him, and heard that it was the due fulfillment of Psa 8:2, “out of the mouth of babes … Thou hast perfected praise.” (Mat 21:16) Again He returned to Bethany. Next day (Tuesday) on His way to the city the disciples saw “the fig tree dried up from the roots.” Jesus thence drew the lesson, already taught after their inability to cast out the demon (Mat 17:20), that faith can remove mountains and believing prayer attain all our desires. But lest the previous miracle should mislead them, as if faith would enable them to take vengeance on enemies, He charges them to forgive others whenever they prayed, else God would not forgive them (Mar 11:20-26).
Again in the temple He preached early to the people hanging on His lips (Luk 19:48 “were very attentive,” exekreemato, Luk 21:38). A deputation from the sanhedrin, consisting of chief priests (heads of the 24 courses), scribes (expounders and transcribers of the law), and elders (heads of the Jews’ chief families), questioned Him, “by what authority doest Thou these things?” (Mat 21:23) namely, the temple cleansing and the cure of the blind and lame in it which they had witnessed (Mat 21:15). If He replied by a claim of Godhead it would afford a charge before the sanhedrim against Him; if not, why did He act as divine, misleading the people? He replies by a question situated between the like alternative difficulties into which they tried to draw Him: “the baptism of John, was it from heaven or of men?” It was fit they should declare their view of John’s mission first, for John had testified to a similar deputation of them the answer to the very question they now ask concerning Jesus (Joh 1:19-27). They reply, “we cannot (really will not) tell. Then by two parables, those of the two sons, and the vineyard, He showed them their perversity individually and nationally, and its fatal end.
The publicans were the son that said to God’s commands, “I will not,” but afterward repented; the Pharisees, etc., were the second son, who hypocritically professed but never performed. The husbandmen slaying the heir points to their murderous designs as official representatives of the nation; the nation’s rejection is foretold as the just punishment of their rejecting Messiah. Again, when perceiving His meaning and wishing to seize Him the chief priests were deterred by fear of the multitude, He spoke the parable of the marriage of the king’s son. The hypocritical Pharisees enlisted their political opponents, the time-serving Herodians, to entangle Him into some speech which would compromise Him with Caesar’s stern representative, the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. Feigning themselves sincere inquirers on a case of conscience, they ask, “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?” (Mat 22:17; Mar 12:15) Judas the rebel of Galilee (Act 5:37) made this his plea, that “God alone is king.” The temple of God, thronged with Passover keepers on one hand, and the Roman fortress Antonia at its N.W. corner on the other hand, suggested conflicting answers.
His tempters flattered Him first that He might answer it is not lawful; “we know Thou art true and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest Thou for any man, for Thou regardest not the person of men.” (Mat 22:16) If so, Pilate would have had no scruple about shedding His blood at the altar, as he had mingled other Galileans’ blood with their sacrifices (Luk 13:1). If He said it is, His influence with the multitude who looked for Messiah to shake off Rome’s yoke would be lost. (See HERODIANS for His reply.) To give to Caesar what is Caesar’s is not giving a gift but paying a due. Duty to God and duty to Caesar are not to be put in opposition, but to be united in all lawful things, for by God Caesar rules (Rom 13:1). The rabbis themselves owned, “where the king’s coin is current, there the inhabitants recognize the king” (Maimonides, in Gezelah, 5). Marveling at His answer, His foes by their silence admitted its force. The Pharisees and Herodians having been foiled, the Sadducees, who in spite of denying a future life had members in the Sanhedrin, try Him with a question: “when seven brothers in succession had the same wife without issue, according to the law (Deu 25:5, for the Sadducees accepted the law but rejected tradition), in the resurrection whose shall she be?” He tells them: cf6 “ye err, because
(1) cf6 ye know not the Scriptures,
(2) cf6 neither the power of God” (Mar 12:24).
In the very Pentateuch (“Moses showed at the bush,” i.e. in the passage concerning the burning bush) which ye quote, God’s declaration (Exo 3:6) “I am the God of Abraham” suffices to prove Abraham lives, for God said it to Moses when Abraham’s body was long dead, and “God is not the God of the dead but of the living.” Moreover, when God covenanted with Abraham he was in the body, therefore God’s promise will be fulfilled to him not as a disembodied spirit but in his renewed body. “God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He hath prepared for them city” (Heb 11:16). The functions of life require the presence of the body. Abraham’s soul now receives blessings from God, but when raised in the body will live unto God, even as Jesus “in that He liveth liveth unto God” in the resurrection life (Rom 6:10-11). Further you ignore (in your disbelief if not in your question) God’s power to make those counted worthy to obtain the resurrection from the dead (Phi 3:11-21) equal to the angels, no longer marrying as in the earthly state (1Co 6:13-14), nor liable to death, but fully enjoying the perfections of “the children of God, being the children of the resurrection” (Luk 20:27-38; Rom 8:23; 1Jo 3:2; 1Co 15:44).
The multitude were astonished; even certain scribes said, Thou hast well said: and one, while the mouthpiece of his, party who “tempted” Jesus (seeking to compromise Him with some of the conflicting schools of religious opinion), had a real desire himself to learn from Him who had shown such marvelous spiritual wisdom “which is the first commandment of all?” (compare Mat 22:35 with Mar 12:28.) Jesus put first love to God supremely, then love to one’s neighbour as one’s self. The scribe’s better feelings, breaking through the casuistry of party, heartily recognized that such love is “more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” Jesus commended him, cf6 “thou art not far from the kingdom of God”. (Mar 12:33-34) A lawyer had once before (Luk 10:25) similarly answered Jesus’ query, “what is written in the law?” which was our Lord’s reply to his tempting question, “what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” But that lawyer’s definition was an answer to the general question as to the whole law’s substance; this lawyer tried whether Jesus would single out one command as preeminent above the rest.
Then Jesus, ‘having baffled His foes’ attempts to entrap Him as to His authority, politics, doctrine, and speculative opinions, and having left them unable to ask further, in His turn asks the silenced Pharisees and scribes in the people’s hearing, “How say they that Christ is David’s Son?” They could or would not see that as man He is David’s Son, as God David’s Lord. Rev 22:16 is the answer, at once “Root” and “Offspring” (Psa 110:1; Act 2:34). Upon their silence avowing their defeat He adds the warning to them, Matthew 23, closing with repeating the apostrophe to Jerusalem (compare Luk 13:34-35). After denouncing them as “devouring widows’ houses,” as “He sat over against the treasury” He beheld the rich casting in much into the chests, 13 in number, the openings shaped like trumpets, narrow above, broad below (Lightfoot); a poor widow, such as Jesus said were the scribes’ victims, came and cast in two mites, her all, (she might have kept one, but she gave both: Mar 12:40-44,) illustrating “love to God with all one’s strength” (Mar 12:30; 2Co 8:12).
They gave of their abundance, she of her penury (Luk 21:4). So her act is in everlasting remembrance, a pattern to all ages. While still He was within the temple precincts, perhaps in the women’s court, the farthest they could enter, giving them too the privilege of hearing Him, certain Greeks accosted Philip, “we would see Jesus.” Philip with wise caution told Andrew his fellow townsman of Bethsaida (Joh 1:44; Joh 12:20-22). Being “Greeks” (not merely Hellenists or Greek speaking Jews) they were “proselytes of the gate,” wont to attend the great feasts; instinctively they apply to one whose Graecized name attracted them, and who belonging to Galilee of the Gentiles would sympathize with them in their desire to see “the Light to lighten the Gentiles.” Jesus accepted this as a pledge of His speedy glorification and the gathering in of the Gentiles; addressing Joh 12:23 to Philip and Andrew, and the rest of His reply in the hearing of the Greeks and the people (Joh 12:29).
From nature He takes the seed grain as an image; if falling into the ground and dying, it continues no longer solitary, but multiplies itself manifold. “His (human) soul was troubled,” (Joh 12:27) not at mere physical death, but at death in its close connection with sin, from which the Holy One shrank, but which now is to be laid immediately on Him though none was in Him. “Save Me from this hour (if it be possible, consistently with saving men); but (as it is not possible, I willingly meet it, for) for this cause came I unto this hour” (Joh 12:27; Luk 22:53). He shrank too from the now renewed and sharpest conflict with the powers of darkness deferred “for a season” after the temptation (Luk 4:13; Luk 22:42-44; Luk 22:53). But God’s glory (Joh 12:28, etc.) was still uppermost in His desires: “Father, glorify Thy name.” (Joh 12:28) That filial cry, so honouring to God, brought, as at His baptism and His transfiguration (Luk 3:21-22; Luk 9:29-35), the audible echo of His prayer, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again” (Joh 12:28); to the people it seemed only “thunder,” to the more receptive a speech, which they thought an angel’s; to His own intimate disciples the Father’s words, which one of them, John, records.
Jesus declared this voice to be for their sakes, a pledge of Satan’s overthrow, and of His own drawing all to Himself in His death. Jesus then hid Himself from His foes, and from the people who notwithstanding His miracles believed not, fulfilling, according to John, Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 6:1; Isa 6:9-10), the evangelist identifying JEHOVAH there with Jesus here (Joh 12:36-41). Several “chief rulers” however believed; but, fearing expulsion from the synagogue by the Pharisees, they did not confess Him (Joh 12:42-43; Joh 5:44); contrast the noble blind beggar (Joh 9:34-41). Before His leaving the temple a disciple, remembering His former words, “behold your house is left unto you desolate” (Luk 13:35), remarked on the stupendous stones of the temple (Mar 13:1; Luk 21:5), implying that its speedy overthrow seemed amazing. He confirms His former prophecy, adding cf6 “there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” (Mat 24:2; Mar 13:2; Luk 21:6)
Upon reaching Olivet, as He sat facing the temple on the W., Peter, James, John, and Andrew, as spokesmen of the twelve who were present, ask Him privately, “when (1) shall these things be, and what the sign of (2) Thy coming and of the end of the world?” (the consammation of the age, Greek) Mat 24:3; Mar 13:3-4. Their idea connected Christ’s coming with the destruction of the temple and the Jewish theocracy. Jesus makes this destruction to prefigure that of the outward church of Christendom by the apostasy which shall immediately precede His visible personal coming to gather His elect (2 Thessalonians 2). At Mat 24:28-29 He passes from the destruction of Jerusalem to its antitypical analogue, the destruction of the apostate church and the antichristian confederacy at the Lord’s coming to judge them and gather the saints and His dispersed elect nation Israel. The corrupt Jewish church was then the “carcass” with the human form, but not the life reflecting God’s image; the eagles were the Roman world power. The apostate woman or harlot must therefore be judged by the beast or world power on whom she had leaned instead of upon God (Revelation 17).
The same eternal principle (Ezekiel 23) shall be manifested again, when apostate Christendom shall be judged by the God-opposed world (to whom she has conformed) in its last form, antichrist. Then on the same Olivet on which Jesus sat, and from which He ascended, shall He descend and judge antichrist and save Israel (Zec 14:4; Eze 11:23; Eze 43:2). Luke parts the answers to the two queries into separate discourses: verse 17 the end of the age or dispensation, and verse 21 the destruction of Jerusalem; adding also that when “the times of the Gentiles” are fulfilled, and “Jerusalem trodden down of the Gentiles” the appointed time, “they shall see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.” The “beginning of all these things coming to pass,” i.e. the events preceding Jerusalem’s overthrow, about to take place in “this generation,” is a pledge that the rest will follow, as the budding “fig tree” indicates summer’s approach. “But of that day (in contrast to ‘all these things’ in ‘this generation.’) knoweth no man,” etc. (Mat 24:32-34; Mat 24:36; Luk 21:24-32.)
The parables of the ten virgins and the talents, and the explicit description of the King’s separation of the sheep and the goats, complete the answer to the disciples’ question and to the Saviour’s public ministry. The Sanhedrin consulted together, during Jesus’ retirement (Joh 12:36) on the Wednesday (Mat 26:3), “how to kill Him by subtlety”; but it was ordained to be a public act of Jews and Gentiles, kings and people, together. So Satan now entered Judas Iscariot, “the son of perdition” (a title restricted to him and antichrist: Joh 17:12; 2Th 2:3), and availing himself of his Master’s retirement he went and covenanted to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver (Luk 22:3). The last supper He celebrated so late on Thursday as to be really on the beginning of the 14th Nisan, the day of killing the lamb in preparation for the Passover. The 14th Nisan, though not strictly part of the festival but one day before the time (Joh 18:28), was popularly counted so and called “the first day of unleavened bread” (leaven being carefully put away): Mat 26:17; Luk 22:8-11. (But see PASSOVER for a different view of John.)
On His disciples asking where He would have them to prepare for Him the Passover, He sent Peter and John to follow a man whom they should meet bearing a pitcher of water into the house, and say to the owner of the house (evidently a disciple), The Master saith, Where is the guest chamber where I shall eat the Passover with My disciples? The message implies something extraordinary and unusual; also Luk 22:15, “with desire I have desired to eat this Passover.” Joh 19:14 calls the day “the preparation of the Passover,” i.e. the day before it; the sabbath in that Passover week was “a high day” (Joh 19:31; Joh 19:42), because it coincided with the sacred Nisan 15. The day on which Jesus suffered was Nisan 14, on the eve commencing which day He ate the Passover supper. The priest party had despaired of taking Him at the feast because of His popularity: “not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people” (Mar 14:2). After His triumphal entry they had said, “perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold the world is gone after Him” (Joh 12:19).
How then did it come to pass, He was crucified at the time of slaying the lamb between 12 and 3 o’clock, 14th of Nisan? Pilate did not wish it, nor Herod, nor the Jews originally. It was God’s ordering, carried out by agents unconsciously fulfilling the prophetical types and announcements (Act 4:28). That on the day of His crucifixion there was not the sabbatical rest proper to Nisan 15 appears from Mat 27:59-60; Mar 15:21; Mar 15:42; Mar 15:46; Luk 23:54-56. He died the very day and hour (the ninth) when the paschal lamb was slain. Exo 12:6 margin,” between the two evenings,” i.e. from afternoon to sunset about two hours and a half (1Co 5:7). Joh 13:1-2 expressly says the supper was “before” the Passover feast. In A.D. 30, the year of His crucifixion, Nisan 14 was on Friday, which accords with this view. “Supper having begun” (Joh 13:2; not “being ended”; genomenou, “having begun to be”), Jesus performed an act of condescending love (twice before performed by woman’s love for Himself: Luk 7:38; Joh 12:3) well calculated to repress the spirit of rivalry among the disciples as to who should be nearest Him (Luk 22:24-30).
Rising from table, laying aside His garments, taking a towel, and pouring water into a basin, He began to wash His disciples’ feet (even perhaps the devilmoved Judas’ feet) and wipe them with the towel. He then drew the lesson: if I your Master have washed your feet (a slave’s office) ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. The converted jailer did so literally (Act 16:33). All Christians should in spirit do the same “by love serving one another” (Gal 5:13; Gal 6:1-2); especially in regard to our brethren’s faults, which are the soils contracted by the feet in the daily life walk, and which need the Lord’s washing (Rom 15:1; Heb 12:13). Jesus “troubled in spirit” testified, “one of you shall betray Me,” speaking generally, “one of the twelve that dippeth with Me in the dish” (Mar 14:20, fulfilling Psa 41:9), then especially indicating to the beloved disciple privately (which He could do from John’s “lying on Jesus’ breast”), “he it is to whom I shall give a sop,” and giving it to Judas.
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts make Peter (reclining on the other side of Jesus) first, and then John, ask Jesus, “Who is it?” reading, “Simon Peter beckons, and saith to Him, Say, who is it?” Alexandrinus manuscript reads; as KJV, Judas among the rest (Joh 13:22; Luk 22:23) asked, “Master, is it I?” Jesus replied (It is as) “thou hast said” (Mat 26:22; Mat 26:25). After receiving the sop Judas yielded himself up wholly to Satan, and immediately went out in the night. It was “after supper” Jesus took the cup and made it the sacrament of His blood. But after this still Jesus saith, “the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table” (Luk 22:20-22; 1Co 11:25); so that the giving of the sop to Judas must have been after both the paschal supper and the Lord’s Supper. The fulfillment of the Passover in Himself He marks in Luk 22:16-18; He institutes the Lord’s supper (Luk 22:19-20); the strife which should be greatest elicited His condescension in washing the disciples’ feet (Luk 22:24-30).
The announcement of Judas’ treachery and his departure took place either before the washing (Luke) or after it (John), the Spirit marking the chronological order in one Gospel, the spiritual in the other. Loving ministration to the brethren is to be shown, even though false brethren be present, for we are not the judges; much more so when all are true brethren in Christ. “Drink ye all” implies that the whole twelve, Judas included, were at the Lord’s supper. His words “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” point on to the marriage supper of the Lamb at His coming again (Mat 26:29; Rev 19:9; 1Co 11:26). He alludes to the fruit of the vine just consecrated as a sacrament in His similitude, Joh 15:1, which chapter and John 16 and John 17 (in the latter of which He reviews His all but finished work, and commends it and His beloved disciples to the Father), He spoke in the act of departure from the paschal chamber, being the resumption of His discourse (Joh 14:31).
He evidently lingered among His loved ones, it being His last opportunity of private communion with them, and confirming them against the trial under which He foresaw their faith would temporarily fail, before going to the agony of Gethsemane (Luk 22:31-34). Crossing the Kedron brook at the foot of the ravine which divides Olivet on the E. from the city, He reached His favorite resort, the garden named from its “oil presses” (Gath shemanee); here the True Olive was bruised to give light to the world (Exo 27:20). Leaving the rest in its outskirts, with Peter, James, and John, whom He took at once to be eyewitnesses to the church of His agony and to afford Him their sympathy, He advanced from the moonlit part into the deep shade thrown by the rocks and buildings on the other side of the ravine. Mat 26:37-40; “watch with Me.” There is a beautiful gradation in His prayer. Shrinking from contact with Satan, sin, and death (Luk 22:41; Luk 22:53), He knelt and fell forward on the earth (Mar 14:35) a stone’s cast distant from the disciples, praying:
(1) cf6 “if it be possible (consistently with Thy glory and man’s salvation) let this cup pass from Me, nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt.”
(2) cf6 “Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee,” etc. (lest He in His first prayer should seem for a moment to doubt the Father’s power.)
(3) cf6 “Father, if Thou be willing,” etc. (for Thy will is the only limit of Thy power.)
(4) cf6 “If this cup may not pass away from Me except I drink it, Thy will be done.”
(5) John’s record (Joh 18:11), though not mentioning the (See AGONY at all, yet undesignedly coinciding with the synoptical Gospels in giving Jesus’ subsequent words, the climax of His victory of faith, cf6 “the cup which My Father hath given Me shall I not drink it?”
The Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus manuscripts omit Luk 22:43-44 as to the angel strengthening Him, and His using that imparted physical strength only to agonize in prayer even to bloody sweat, falling in drops to the ground. But manuscript of Beza, the Guelferbitine manuscript and the oldest Latin versions have the verses. Thrice Jesus returned to the slumbering apostles, each time to find them slumbering, and so having lost the precious opportunity which afterwards they would look back on with bitter regret; but for their want of watchfulness they might have comforted their Lord by sympathy, a work which angels might desire, and which in lack of their human ministry an angel, so far as strengthening Him was concerned, supplied. As it was, He endured the conflict bereft of human sympathy and alone. A band from the Roman cohort stationed in Antonia came now, under the guidance of the priestly party’s officers, elders, captains of the temple, chief priests, and Judas, with torches and lanterns, though i was full moon, to prevent the possibility of escape under the shadow of the olive trees.
Jesus in calm dignity came forth to meet them. The traitor gave his studied kiss (katafileoo, not merely fileoo). Jesus is first to question them, cf6 “whom seek ye?” “Jesus of Nazareth.” cf6 “I am He.” At the words they fell back to the ground; the Divine I AM showed how they were at His mercy and how voluntary was His surrender. So He could dictate His terms in behalf of His disciples, for whom His only solicitude was (John 18). These in their turn sought to defend Him, and Peter with the sword rashly smote off the high priest’s servant Malchus’ ear, which Jesus immediately healed with a touch, and uttered His meek protest at their coming out as against a thief. Then the disciples all fled, among them a young man having a linen cloth (sindon, elsewhere used only of a shroud) cast about his naked body; the young men laid hold on him, and he fled naked, leaving the linen cloth. Possibly Lazarus, who hastily put it on, the trophy of his restoration, and followed Jesus from Bethany, roused up on hearing of Jesus’ seizure in Gethsemane across the Olivet ridge; or else Mark himself (Mar 14:50-52).
John and Peter soon returned. Jesus was bound and led for a private informal examination (until the Sanhedrin met) before Annas first, who though deposed by the former Roman procurator, Valer. Gratus, from the high priesthood, wielded much of its real power, being regarded as high priest in point of right, and being father-in-law to the actual one Caiaphas. The two had a common official residence. Annas questioned Jesus about His disciples and teaching; Jesus told him to ask those who had heard Him, whereupon an officer struck Him with the palm of his hand. Peter’s three denials now took place; and the second cock crowing, at the beginning of the fourth watch, between three and four o’clock, announced the first dawn, just as Jesus was being led to Caiaphas across the court where Peter was standing. (Translated the Greek aorist, Joh 18:24, “Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas”.) The Sanhedrin was already assembled at Caiaphas’ house, the case being urgent and privacy suiting their purpose: “as soon as it was day” (Luk 22:66) refers to the close of the trial which he summarizes.
Beginning it before day was informal (Gemara (Babylonian), Sanhedr., 6:1); but the council went through the form of producing witnesses whose testimony so disagreed that it broke down (Mar 14:55-59). “He opened not His mouth,” as was foretold (Isa 53:7), alike before the scornful Herod and before the legal but unjustly proceeding tribunal, the Sanhedrin. Before Annas’ informal examination He replied with repelling dignity; before Pilate with forbearing condescension witnessing to the truth. The high priest, foiled in his hope from the false witnesses (Isa 29:20 ff), himself adjures or puts Jesus under the obligation of an oath (Lev 5:1), asking “art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Tradition held that Messiah should build a more glorious temple; so the testimony of the false witness as to Jesus’ saying that “in three days He would build one without hands” suggested the high priest’s question. Jesus avowed, “I am, and moreover (besides My assertion) ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power (not ‘nevertheless,’ but furthermore, moreover: Mat 26:64), and coming in the clouds of heaven” (as foretold Dan 7:13).
This claim to Godhead was the ground of His condemnation by the Jews (Joh 19:7). Caiaphas (standing up) rent his clothes (from the neck straight down in front, not behind). The excited Sanhedrin put again the same question (Luk 22:70), and on His reaffirming His divine Sonship without further witnesses condemned Him as a blasphemer and “guilty of death” (Lev 24:16; Deu 18:20). After the grossest insults to the meek Sufferer, spitting (Isa 50:6), buffeting, and jeers, after covering His face, Prophesy who smote Thee? His foes assembled the court again in full numbers in (rather “about,” epi) the morning (Mar 15:1) and led Him to Pilate, who alone had power to execute sentence of death. The judgment hall, or governor’s residence, was Herod’s former palace in the upper or western city. The wretched traitor, blinded by covetousness and disappointed ambition, now first sees the atrocity of his act, forces his way into the inner sanctuary (Mat 27:5, naos) of the priests, in despairing remorse exclaims “I have betrayed the innocent blood,” and is told that is no concern of theirs but his, flings down the price of blood, and, Ahithophel like (2Sa 7:23), went and hanged himself; then “falling headlong, he burst asunder, and all his bowels gushed out” (Act 1:18; Act 1:25); so “he went to his own place” (Isa 30:33).
The council members, true to their characteristic straining out gnats while swallowing camels (just as the priests would not put the 30 pieces into the treasury as being the price of blood) similarly stood with their Prisoner before Pilate’s residence, not entering the Gentile’s house, to shun defilement, shrinking from leaven but not from innocent blood. Pilate comes out to answer their demand for the Prisoner’s execution, and with the Roman regard for legal forms requires to know the accusation against Him. They evade the question at first (Joh 18:30), then answer, “we found this Fellow perverting the nation, forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that He Himself is Christ a king” (Luk 23:2); the very thing they tempted Him to, but which He foiled them in so admirably (Mat 22:21). How subtly they changed their accusation from the religious ground, which they held before the high priest, to what was the only one Pilate would entertain, the political!
The Roman governor was too shrewd not to discover speedily that Jesus’ claim to kingship was such as constituted no crime against Caesar, and that the charge was the offspring of religious animosity; he knew them too well to believe they would persecute one to death for seeking to deliver them from Rome. Ironically he replied (Joh 18:31) to their first evasive answer (Joh 18:30), If your decision must be accepted as final, then “judge” i.e. execute, Him “according to your law”; but as Rome reserves capital cases to its jurisdiction, both the judicial trial and execution belong to me, and I will not be your mere executioner. It was divinely ordered that Rome should be His executioner, that Jesus’ prophecy of His mode of death should be fulfilled, crucifixion being the Romish, stoning the Jewish punishment, one which the Jews had more than once attempted to execute on Him for blasphemy. To the priests’ “many” specific accusations Jesus answered nothing (Mat 27:12-14), so that Pilate marvelled. Jesus’ majestic bearing awed and attracted him.
His affirmative answer to the governor’s query (though He would not answer the priests), “art Thou a King? …. to this end was I born that I should bear witness of the truth,” elicited Pilate’s question of pity for the unpractical Enthusiast as He seemed to this practical man of the world, “what is truth?” Pilate waited for no answer, for he regarded “truth” in religion as the dream of visionaries undeserving the attention of sensible men of the world and politicians. “The Gentile people then regarded all religions equally true, the philosophers equally false, and the magistrates equally useful.” On the accusers mentioning “Galilee” as the starting point of His teaching Pilate made it his plea for sending Him to Herod, who was then at Jerusalem a worshipper (!) at the Passover (compare Act 25:9). Hereby he at once shifted the responsibility off himself, and conciliated by this act of courtesy a ruler whom he had previously offended (Luk 13:1; Luk 23:5-12). Herod had long desired to see a miracle wrought by Jesus, but when foiled in his superstitious curiosity he mocked and arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe as a mock king, and sent Him back to Pilate (Luk 9:7-9; Mat 14:2).
Superstition and profanity are nearly related and soon succeed one another. A second time He stands before Pilate, who was now fully satisfied that He was innocent. The governor calls together the priests and people, and tells them that neither he nor Herod had found any guilt in Him, but proposes, in order to satisfy them, to scourge Him, whom he himself pronounced innocent! This concession betraying his readiness to concede principle to external pressure only stimulated them to demand more loudly His execution. The people meanwhile were clamouring for the customary release of a prisoner to them at the Passover. Pilate still hoped the multitude who had so recently escorted Jesus in triumph would, upon being appealed to, call for Jesus’ release, for he knew that His apprehension was the act of the envious priests not of the people (Mar 15:8-13). But the chief priests moved the people to call for Barabbas, a notorious robber, city insurrectionist, and murderer.
Ascending the judgment seat (a movable tribunal from which judgments were given), in this case set on a pavement, the Gabbatha (from gab, Hebrew, “a ridge” on which it was laid) in front of his official palace, he receives a message from his wife (by tradition named Procula, who probably had previously heard of Jesus; contrast Herod’s bad wife as to John, Mat 14:1-8. Former Roman laws prohibiting magistrates taking wives with them were now ignored) warning him, “have thou nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him.” He now puts it to the people whether they will have Jesus or Barabbas, and they with prompted unanimity clamour, “not this Man, but Barabbas.” The disappointed governor, from no natural tenderness but from the workings of conscience, remonstrated with them, “why, what evil hath He done?” But trifling with convictions and delay in duty could only have one result. Pilate yields to the threatening tumult, and by symbolically washing his hands (Deu 21:6-7) tries to transfer from himself to them the guilt of the innocent blood; but in vain, for to all ages the Christian creeds brand his name as Jesus’ judicial murderer, “suffered under Pontius Pilate.”
The people all accepted that awful legacy of guilt, to the misery of themselves and of their children to this day. Then followed the preliminary scourging, the crown of thorns, the reed as a mock sceptre put in His right hand, and the smiting His head with the reed, and spitting on Him, the scarlet robe (the soldiers’ cloak): the Gentiles’ mockery, as the Jews’ mockery had been before. (See CROWN.) Pilate made a last appeal to their humanity at that moving sight, Jesus coming forth wearing the thorn crown and purple robe, “Behold the Man.” The priestly cries were only the more infuriate: “Crucify Him; by our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.” Pilate returned to question Jesus. Receiving no answer, he said: “Knowest Thou not that I have power to crucify and to release Thee?” Jesus answered (Joh 19:6-11): “Thou couldest have no power against Me except it were given thee from above; therefore he (Caiaphas and the Jews: Mar 15:1; Joh 11:48-52) that delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin.”
Pilate, to whom the supreme Judge delegated power as a magistrate, sins indeed in letting himself be another’s tool to kill Jesus against his convictions; but Caiaphas, who had not this plenary power of execution but who had the power given of knowing Jesus’ divine Sonship, and yet delivered Jesus to Pilate to be executed, has the greater guilt, for he sins against light and the clearest evidence. The Lord’s words awed and moved Pilate to make a last effort to save Him. But convictions all gave way before the dangerous cry, “if thou let this Man go thou art not Caesar’s friend, whosoever maketh himself a king sinneth against Caesar.” (Joh 19:12) He knew well how small a matter was enough to ground a charge of treason on before the cruel and jealous Tiberius; but he escaped not by sacrificing Jesus, but was disgraced, banished by the emperor, and died by his own hand: we often bring on us the evil we fear, by doing evil to escape it. Again he mounts the judgment seat to give the unjust sentence, yet shows that his own moral sense revolted against it by his bitter taunt against his instigators, “behold your King.” (Joh 19:14)
“Away with Him; crucify Him.” “Shall I crucify your King?” “We have no king but Caesar.” (Joh 19:15) God took them at their hypocritical word. Judah’s “sceptre” centered in Jesus the “Shiloh” (Joh 18:33); delivering Him up to Rome, they delivered up their kingdom until Israel’s final restoration (Gen 49:10); meantime “unto Him is the gathering of the (Gentile) people.” Pilate passes sentence, and Jesus, stripped of the scarlet robe, is led to Golgotha, a slightly rising ground without the gate. (See GOLGOTHA.) The Sanhedrin members were the crucifiers the Roman soldiers but the instruments (Act 5:30). Luke (Luk 23:27-31), who especially records the women’s ministrations mentions that “a great company of women bewailing followed Him; but Jesus turning said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me but for yourselves and your children”: namely, for the woes coming on Jerusalem; since if He the green (ever living, fruitful) vine suffer so in judgment for men’s imputed sin, how terrible will be the judgment of the impenitent who as a dry withered branch (void of life and fruit of righteousness) are cast forth (John 15; 1Pe 4:18).
The Saviour’s exhausted strength now sank under the cross; Simon of Cyrene, passing by as he came in from the country, is laid hold upon to bear it after Jesus (an enviable honour spiritually: Luk 14:27). They offer vinegar and gall to stupefy Him; but He will consciously meet His pain in all its unmitigated bitterness. They strip off His outer mantle and inner vest, and then crucify Him, the sacred body being raised aloft and the feet being separately nailed. The apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus represents a linen cloth to have been bound round His loins. Pilate wrote the trilingual title over His head, and would not alter it for the chief priests, “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews” (John giving the Greek form (Joh 19:19); Matthew the Hebrew, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (Mat 27:37); Mark, with characteristic brevity, the Latin without admixture of foreign words, “The King of the Jews,” (Mar 15:26) to which Luke prefixes “this is” from the Hebrew (Luk 23:38)). The three elements of humanity appear here united by Him on the cross: Greek: refinement; Roman: law, polity and dominion; and Hebrew: divine revelation.
God made Pilate in spite of himself proclaim a blessed verity, which the Jews’ remonstrance could not make him retract: His kingship of the Jews the mean of universal blessing to the Gentiles. The soldiers divided in four the outer mantle, and cast lots for the seamless inner vest: the former (as Elijah’s mantle fell on Elisha, so Christ’s mantle fell upon His church) symbolizing the diffusion of the gospel externally to the four world quarters, the latter the inner unity of the true church. As the Jewish church represents the unity, so the Gentile churches the diversity and worldwide diffusion. The four soldiers then sat down, stolidly impassive as they watched Him. It was now, when they crucified Him the third hour or about nine o’clock (Mar 15:25; Mar 15:33); His death was six hours subsequently at the ninth hour. John calls the hour of His sentence the sixth hour (Joh 19:14); John probably counted the hours differently from the Jewish mode, and in the Asiatic mode, so that Pilate’s sentencing Jesus was at six o’clock in our mode of counting from 12 midnight to 12 noon, and the actual crucifixion was at nine.
Between nine and twelve o’clock occurred the mockeries by the ruling priests, the soldiers, the passers by, and the thieves; whereas the people “stood beholding” probably with silent relentings (Mat 27:39-43; Luk 23:35-37). The arch-tempter’s voice betrays itself again under his agents’ taunt, “if Thou be the Son of God” (Mat 4:3; Mat 4:6). “Himself He cannot save,” because He cannot deny Himself, and He had covenanted man’s redemption; and, such is His love, He cannot sacrifice us by saving Himself. “He saved others.” Yes, He came to seek and save the lost, they unconsciously confess. Throughout God provided for His Son’s glorification amidst His sufferings: the priests who could find no witness against Him, Herod, Pilate, the soldiers decking Him as a king, the penitent thief (robber), and the centurion.
From His cross as a throne He gave admission to paradise to the penitent, “remembering” when there His former companion in sorrow, as worldly men seldom do (Gen 40:14; Gen 40:23). From it too He committed the bereaved virgin mother, who with Mary her sister, Clopas’ wife, and Mary Magdalene, stood by, to John’s care. That apostle at once took her away from the harrowing scene (Luk 2:35; Joh 19:27; in undesigned coincidence with which the virgin is not mentioned among the women “beholding afar off,” but Mary Magdalene is (Mat 27:55-56), and returned in time to witness what he records in Mat 27:28-37. Sympathizing nature at the sixth hour spread a supernatural pall of gloom over the land until the ninth hour; compare Amo 8:9. He all this time, unseen by mortal gaze, encountered the last desperate onslaught of the powers of darkness amidst the infinitely more trying darkness of the Father’s withdrawal of His consciously felt presence, of which the external gloom was but the shadow.
No evangelist records the mysteries of these three hours. The first glimpse of them we get is the complaining yet trusting cry (Isa 50:10) from the Son at the close, His pent-up feelings seeking relief in the prayer, cf6 “My God, My (Mine still though I be apparently forsaken) God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” (Mat 27:46; Psa 22:1, compare Job 13:15.) Like the Psalm, which begins with His filial cry of complaint yet trust, and ends in triumph, so Jesus, who appropriated the 22nd Psalm, passed inwardly and outwardly from darkness to brightness. As the bright light illumined the night of His birth (Luk 2:9), so it dispelled the gloom at His death directly after and in consequence of His cry (Heb 5:7). When the darkness cleared away there stood the inscription “The King of the Jews,” foreshadowing His coming reign over Israel and the nations in the flesh with His transfigured saints. The Jews, knowing well His meaning, yet blasphemously perverted His moving cry, El-I, My God, into a mock, as though He called for Elias.
One of them however in mercy offered a sponge with vinegar (the soldier’s acid wine refreshing to the palate) when He said, cf6 “I thirst”, (Joh 19:28) while the rest checked him, saying, “let be, let us see whether Elias will come” (Mat 27:48-49; Mar 15:36); he took up their contemptuous phrase, yet, under cover of mockery, perseveres in his humane act. With a loud cry of redemption accomplished for man, cf6 “It is finished”, (Joh 19:30) His farewell to men, and then trustful committal of His spirit to God, cf6 “Father, into Thine hands I commend My spirit”, (Luk 23:46) His entrance greeting to paradise, Jesus gave up the ghost. His sentences on the cross were the perfect seven: Luk 23:34; Luk 23:43; Joh 19:26-27; Mat 27:46; Joh 19:28; Joh 19:30; Luk 23:46. The physical cause of His death seems to be rupture of the heart; so Psa 69:20, “reproach hath broken My heart.” Crucifixion alone, not touching any vital part (Mar 15:41), would not so soon have killed Him, as it did not the thieves (Joh 19:31-33).
His bloody sweat on the chilly night, and His piercing cry, “cf6 Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? (My God! My God! Why hast Thou forsaken me?)” (Mat 27:46) prove the intensity of the strain on His heart. His loud voice just before He died shows He did not die of exhaustion. The pericardium, or sac in which the heart pulsates, bursting, the blood separated into crassamentum and serum, so that when the soldier thrust the spear in the side “blood and water” flowed out. The rending of the temple veil answers to His flesh, i.e. pericardium, burst open, whereby spiritually a new and living way, by water and blood (1Jo 5:6), i.e. the sanctifying Spirit and the justifying atonement, is opened to us into His inmost sanctuary, His heart, as well as His immediate presence (Mat 27:51; Heb 10:19-22). But Christ voluntarily Himself laid down His life (Joh 10:18). The high priest on the day of atonement entered on one side of the veil, but now it “was rent in the midst … in twain, from the top to the bottom.” (Luk 23:45; Mat 27:51; Mar 15:38)
“The earth quaked, the rocks rent, graves opened, (at the moment of the death of Him who by death conquered death), and many saints’ bodies arose, and came out of the graves (not until) after His resurrection (for He being ‘the firstfruits’ of the resurrection must take precedence of them: 1Co 15:23; Col 1:18), and appeared unto many” (Mat 27:51-53) during the 40 days of His post resurrection sojourn. The centurion in charge, and those with him, were awestruck in seeing the earthquake and the things done, and, remembering His claim for which the Jews condemned Him (Joh 19:7), are constrained to confess “truly this was the Son of God.” See Luk 23:47, “truly this Man was righteous,” i.e. justified in His claim to the divine Sonship for which He was condemned. The centurion’s spiritual perception was deeper than that of the others with him: they were astonished by the earthquake, he also by the divine words and tone in which Jesus sealed with His dying breath His Sonship (“when he saw that He so cried out” “with a loud voice,” Mar 15:37; Mar 15:39), cf6 “Father into Thy hands I commend My spirit” (Luk 23:46) (a deliberate voluntary delivering up of His “spirit,” as an act in His own power, Joh 10:18).
Like Samson the type, “He slew more at His death than in His life” (Jdg 16:30). “All the people” who came as spectators, at the prodigies, the darkness and earthquake, now smite their breasts in unavailing self reproach, renewed afterward on Pentecost (Act 2:37). So also the women who stood “afar off” (Psa 38:11). Two now come forward to honour His sacred body. Joseph, a rich man of Arimathea, “a disciple of Jesus (waiting for the kingdom of God), but secretly for fear of the Jews … went boldly (now casting off unworthy fear) to Pilate and craved” it. Pilate marveled if He could be already dead, but on the centurion’s testimony freely gave Joseph the body. The Father rescued that holy temple from the indignity of committal to one of the two common sepulchres of malefactors. Joseph “wrapped in linen” and took the body to “his own new sepulchre (a loculus tomb, with rolling stone at the cave entrance (see TOMB)) which he had hewn out in the rock,” “wherein was never man yet laid”; it was “in the garden, in the place where He was crucified.”
Nicodemus, who at first “came to Jesus by night,” now fearlessly in open day comes forward to honour with a princely gift of 100 pounds of mixed myrrh and aloes, to be sprinkled freely in the linen swathes wrapping the body of the Crucified One. (Isa 53:9; Isa 53:12.) Like Joseph he too was a ruler of the Jews. Two of the council that condemned Jesus thus not only practically protest against the condemnation, but at all risks avow their reverent love to Him. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses, stupefied with sorrow, sat over against the sepulchre, while the two rulers performed the last rites. When the latter rolled the stone from the side recess down the incline into its proper place, closing the low mouth of the tomb, in the face of the rock, the women returned to the city to buy spices and ointments, in order to complete after the approaching sabbath the rites (which necessarily had been done in haste) by spreading liquid perfumes over the sacred body, besides the powdered spices already sprinkled in the linen swathes. On the close of the sabbath (Saturday evening) the chief priests, still fearing their sleeping Victim, determined to foil His prophecy, cf6 “after three days I will rise again”.
So they got a Roman guard to be placed at their disposal to watch the tomb (“ye have a watch” implies that already they had a Roman guard granted during the feast), and they sealed the stone; but as in the case of Daniel (Dan 6:17), His type, they only made His miraculous resurrection the more unquestionable. The Father raised Him, as He was God’s prisoner, and He waited for God to set Him free (Act 2:24). But His resurrection was also His own act (Joh 2:19; Joh 10:18). His resurrection body is a sample of what His saints’ bodies shall be (Phi 3:21); on the one hand having flesh and bones capable of being touched (Luk 24:39; Joh 20:27); on the other appearing and disappearing with mysterious powers such as it had not before (Joh 20:19; Joh 20:26; Joh 21:4-7). Angels witnessed to Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and Salome, who went early to the tomb to anoint Him, that Jesus was risen. The brevity of the two first evangelists on the resurrection, as compared with the fuller record of the two last, who detail selected appearances to show His identity, accounts for the difficulty of harmonizing the particulars which a little more knowledge would at once clear up.
The first two attest the fact; the latter two the reality of His risen body, as proved by His being handled and His eating (Luk 24:30-43; Act 1:3; Act 10:41; Joh 20:20; Joh 20:27; Joh 21:12-13). Matthew attests His appearance first in Judea, then by His own appointment in Galilee. So also Mark. Luke does not mention the appearance in Galilee, but dwells upon those in Judea supplementary to the first two. John (chapter 21) details an appearance in Galilee unnoticed by the first two, and by Paul (1 Corinthians 15). The resurrection of Jesus Christ, including His ascension tacitly as its necessary sequel, was the grand theme of the apostles’ preaching (Act 1:22; Act 2:31; Act 4:33). Hence, John (Joh 20:17) takes the ascension for granted, without recording it; for it virtually began from the moment of His resurrection, cf6 “I ascend unto My Father”, etc. His return to His divine throne began already when He arose. Mark (Mar 16:19) and Luke (Luk 24:51; Act 1:9) alone of the four explicitly record it. but all presuppose it.
The women, besides “the spices and ointments” they “prepared” on Friday evening before the sabbath (Luk 23:56), “bought spices” (only) at the close of the sabbath, Saturday evening (Mar 16:1). So “very early,” “when it was yet dark,” “as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week” (Sunday; “at the rising of the sun,” in Mar 16:2, can only be a general definition of time, for his “very early” implies the sun had not actually risen, for if it had the time would not be “very early “) they set out for the tomb. On their way, while they anxiously thought “who shall roll us away the stone from the sepulchre door?” an earthquake rocked the ground under their feet, as a dazzlingly bright angel from heaven rolled back the stone and sat thereon. The guards through fear became as dead men. The women, beholding the sight partially and from some distance, were afraid; but when they reach the garden all is quiet, and the angel said, “fear not ye (emphatical in the Greek), for I know, ye seek Jesus.” The “for” in Mar 16:4, “when they looked they saw the stone rolled away, for it was great,” gives the reason why “looking up” they could see it from a distance. It also gives the reason for their previous anxiety and for God’s interposition, for our extremity is His opportunity.
The angel’s appearing and removing the stone announced that Jesus had already risen indeed. The removal of the stone was not to set Jesus free, but after He had risen, when exactly is not revealed; Joh 20:6-7, shows it was without haste, in calm and deliberate order. Mary Magdalene, on seeing the stone rolled into its receptacle on one side of the rocky tomb’s mouth, ran away to Jerusalem at once to tell Peter. Fearing from the stone’s removal that the tomb had been violated and the sacred body stolen, she instinctively ran to men for help, and those the Lord’s foremost disciples Peter and John, generally associated, and now probably in John’s house with the Virgin (Joh 19:27). The women left behind afterwards went in different directions to the homes of the other apostles, and so did not meet Peter as he came to the tomb (Joh 20:1-3). In harmonizing the accounts we must remember “the sacred writer who records more particulars includes the fewer of the other writers, he who records fewer does not deny the more” (LeClerc). Thus, John includes tacitly other women besides Mary Magdalene; her words (Joh 20:2) “we know not where,” etc., prove that other women had been with her to the tomb.
Mark records the women’s seeing an angel, “a young man,” on the right side, on their entering the tomb after Mary Magdalene’s departure. Matthew mentions the angel as sitting on the stone outside the tomb. Luke mentions that when they were “much perplexed” at not finding the Lord’s body in the tomb they saw two men in shining garments stand by them and say, “why seek ye the living among the dead?” etc. In their excitement some of the women saw but one, others both, of the angels. One angel, being the speaker, moved from his position on the stone at the entrance outside to the inside and declared Jesus’ resurrection, and that according to His promise He would appear to them in Galilee, as recorded in Matthew (Mat 26:32; Mat 28:10) and Mark (Mar 16:7; Mar 14:28). Mark, writing under Peter’s superintendence, records Jesus’ special message of love to Peter, to cheer him under his despondency because of his threefold denial of Jesus,” go, tell His disciples and Peter.”
The trembling women returned from the sepulchre, not saying aught to any they met through awe, but when they reached the apostles telling the tidings “with great joy” that Jesus is risen, and as He said on the eve of His passion “is going before” the heretofore “scattered sheep” into Galilee, to gather them together again (Mat 28:8; Mar 16:7-8; Mar 14:27-28; Joh 10:4). When Mary Magdalene and the other women first reported the tidings to “the eleven” (namely, Mary Magdalene to Peter and John, the other women to the remaining nine apostles), “they seemed to them idle tales, and they believed them not” (Luk 24:9). Peter however and John, on Mary Magdalene’s report, ran to the tomb. John reached it first, and stooping down saw the linen clothes lying, but with reverent awe shrank from entering. Peter with impulsive promptness entered, and contemplated “with deep interest” (theorei) the linen swathes and the head napkin duly folded, laid aside separately.
Contrast Lazarus rising “bound hand and foot with grave-clothes,” because he was to return to corruption (Joh 20:4-7; Joh 11:44); but Jesus being “raised dieth no more,” therefore the grave-clothes were laid aside orderly, without haste or confusion, such as would have been had the body been stolen away. John saw this evidence and believed. Mary Magdalene followed to the tomb, but Peter and John were gone before she reached it, otherwise John would have imparted to her his faith. He and Peter soon communicated what they had seen to the other apostles and brethren (Luk 24:12; Luk 24:24). Meantime Mary Magdalene stood without at the sepulchre weeping. Stooping, she saw within the sepulchre two angels in the attitude of watching, one at the head the other at the feet, where His body had lain, so that she might be sure none could have stolen Him so guarded. Stier suggests that her rapt and longing eye saw the angels whom the apostles owing to their lesser degree of susceptibility saw not. The other women had been afraid at the angelic vision; eagerness to recover the lost body of her Lord banishes from Mary Magdalene every other feeling.
“They say, cf6 Woman, why weepest thou?” (Joh 20:15) “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where,” etc. (When the other women were with her she had said, “they have taken away the Lord, and we know not where they have laid Him”; now how naturally, when feeling all alone, she says “my Lord,” and “I know not.”) Turning back, as though even angels’ sympathy in His absence could not console her, she saw Jesus standing, but knew Him not. Her absorbing sorrow so shut out hope that she recognized not the very One whom she longed for. “Her tears wove a veil concealing Him who stood before her; seeking the dead prevents our seeing the living” (Stier). To His query, the same as the angel’s question, why weepest thou? she replied, “If thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away.” How true to nature her taking for granted that the unknown stranger would know whom she meant, though she forgot to name Him, her heart was so full of Him. His one word in tones fondly remembered, cf6 “Mary”, (Joh 20:16) reveals Him. At once she reverts to His former relation to her, “Rabboni,” “my Master” or “Teacher,” not yet rising to His higher relations as her Lord and God. Her deep joy could find vent in no other utterance than the one.
A touch of her clasping hand accompanied it, to assure herself it is her Lord, the very one whose loving disciple she had been. Her eager touch He checked, cf6 “Be not touching Me” (haptou) (Joh 20:17), implying that a mere earthly love expressed in the embrace between friends in the flesh is unsuited to the new relations between His people and Himself now in His resurrection body (compare 2Co 5:16); cf6 “for I am not yet ascended to My Father”, (Joh 20:17) assuring her for her comfort that the close intercourse, now not yet seasonable, shall be restored, and that His people shall touch Him, but with the hand of faith, more palpably than ever though no longer carnally, when He shall have ascended and the Spirit shall have consequently descended (Eph 4:8). cf6 “But go tell My brethren, I am ascending (My ascension has already begun) to My Father”, (Joh 20:17) etc. Finally when He shall return, of which His ascension is the pledge and type (Act 1:11), He shall be in nearest contact of all with His people, themselves also then in their resurrection bodies. Thus she was the first divinely commissioned preacher of His resurrection and ascension to those whom “He is not ashamed to call brethren” (Heb 2:10-11).
“They, when they heard that He was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.” (Mar 16:11) Some believed Peter’s and John’s confirmation of the women’s report that His body was not in the sepulchre; but as “Him they saw not,” they regarded her report of having seen Him as the hallucination of an excited mind. Whether the angels just seen had borne away His body as Moses’ (Deu 34:6), or what had become of it, they knew not; but hope of His appearing in person they had given up (Luk 24:23-24). But now the other women, just after (for the clause “as they went to tell His disciples,” Mat 28:9, is not in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts and oldest versions) they had brought the tidings as to the empty tomb and the angels to the other apostles besides Peter and John, on their way back to the tomb met Jesus, who said, cf6 “All hail”, (Mat 28:9) and they clasped His feet and “worshipped Him,” not merely as their Teacher (like Mary Magdalene, Joh 20:16) but as their risen Lord. (before His resurrection it was usually others rather than the disciples that worshipped Him). The Lord added, cf6 “Go tell My brethren (namely, the eleven and all the rest then at Jerusalem, Luk 24:9) that they go into Galilee, there shall they see Me.” (Mat 28:10)
Meantime, the watch informed the Sanhedrin, who after consultation gave large sums of money to the soldiers, and invented a lie for them: “Say His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we slept.” (Mat 28:13) If they slept how could they know the disciples stole Him? Would they have charged themselves with a capital offense, sleeping on guard, unless they were assured of impunity? Would the Sanhedrin and Roman authorities have let them escape punishment? If they were awake the Gospel account is true. The carefully folded grave-clothes confute the notion of theft. The Sanhedrin never examined the soldiers and the disciples publicly as to the alleged theft. Evidently they did not believe their own story; yet they propagated the lie, as Justin Martyr (Trypho, 108,117,17) charges them, by missionaries sent “over the whole world” to counteract Christianity. The third testimony to the still doubting eleven was that of the disciples who started for Emmaus (now Khamasa, close to the Roman road from Jerusalem by Solomon’s pools to Belt Jibrin) about noon on the same day, after having heard possibly but not credited Mary Magdalene’s and the other women’s statement of having seen Him.
One was named Cleopas, i.e. Cleopater, not to be confounded with Clopas or Alphaeus (Joh 19:25). Their sad report to Jesus, who joined them unrecognized, as to the apostles who went to see whether the women’s report as to the empty tomb were true, was “Him they saw not”: they took no direct notice of the women’s having subsequently seen Jesus, whether from disbelieving or from not having heard it. Jesus rebuked their slowness to believe, and showed “in all the scriptures (Jesus thus authenticating as inspired the Old Testament) the things concerning Himself,” that “Christ ought to have suffered these things and (then) enter into His glory.” Then at their constraining entreaty, it being “toward evening,” He stayed with them, and in blessing and breaking bread “He was known of them,” their eyes being “opened” so as no longer to be “holden” and incapable of discerning through His appearing “in another form” (Mar 16:12; Luk 24:13-35). The transfiguration before His passion shows how His resurrection body could be the same body, yet altered so as at will to be more or less recognizable to beholders. The process of its progressive glorification probably began from His resurrection, and culminated at His ascension.
Returning to Jerusalem after His vanishing from them, they found “the eleven and those with them” (the other disciples, Act 1:14) with eager joy exclaiming “the Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon” (1Co 15:5). They did not credit the women, but they are convinced by one of the apostles, and that one Peter. The Emmaus disciples told concerning His being recognized by them in breaking of bread. As neither of the two were of the twelve, they had not been at the institution of the Lord’s supper, and therefore this “breaking of bread” was an ordinary meal, at which His well remembered gestures and mode of blessing the bread (Mat 14:19; Mat 15:36) by thanksgiving occasioned their recognition of Him. “The eleven” is either used as a general designation (Luk 24:33), not exactly, as there were but ten, Thomas being away; or else Thomas left them just after the Emmaus pair came in, and before Jesus appeared (Luk 24:36-49; Joh 20:19-25).
Other disciples (Luk 24:33) besides the apostles were present, so that Christ’s commission (Joh 20:19-23) belongs to the whole church (John says, Joh 20:19, “the disciples,” not merely the apostles), which exercises it generally by its ministers as its representatives, but not exclusively. The apostles “remitted sins,” just as they saved souls, instrumentally by the ministry of the word (Act 13:38; Act 10:43), not by priestly absolution. The apostles infallibly also wrote the word; their successors learn and teach it (Jam 5:20). The parallel Luk 24:47 expresses how they remitted sins; Luk 24:49, in what sense “He breathed on them the Holy Spirit,” namely, gave them a measure of grace and faith, assuring them of “the promise of His Father” to be fulfilled in the Spirit’s outpouring on Pentecost, for which until then they were to wait in believing prayer (Act 1:14). The words Joh 20:22-23, were not used in ordinations for the first 12 centuries. The apostles’ inspiration was not transmitted by ordination to their successors. Thomas’s absence alone would prove that no final gifts of apostleship were then bestowed, else he would have forfeited them.
In Mat 16:19 Peter, and Mat 28:18 all the disciples, constituting collectively “the church,” are given the power to loose and bind THINGS, i.e, to legislate and declare obligatory or otherwise (Acts 10 and 15); in Joh 20:23 to remit or retain a PERSON’S sins. The apostles by the miraculous gift of discerning spirits in part did so (Act 5:1-11; Act 8:21; Act 13:9), but mainly by ministry of the word. The former is not transmitted; the latter is the whole church’s province in all ages, exercised through its ministers chiefly but not exclusively. Doubts still mingled with the faith of the disciples, even after Christ’s appearance to Peter and then to the two Emmaus disciples. His humble appearance as an ordinary traveler, and His sitting down to a social meal in the body, seemed at variance with their ideas of His being an unsubstantial “spirit” (Mar 16:12-13). In spite of their profession “the Lord is risen indeed,” they were “affrighted” when He actually stood in the midst of them (Luk 24:36, etc.). “The doors were shut for fear of the Jews,” so that His risen body had properties to which material substances were no hindrance (compare Luk 24:31; Luk 24:40; Joh 20:19).
To reassure them He showed them His hands and side and feet, and desired them to handle Him and see that He had “flesh and bones.” The “handling” is peculiar to Luke; but John undesignedly hints (a strong corroboration of the authenticity of both evangelists) at it by recording the form which Thomas’ unbelief took just afterward, “except I put my finger into the print of the nails (the cavity left by them being smaller, and such as the finger could fit into), and thrust my hand into His side (the cavity left by the spear being large, and such as the hand would fit into), I will not believe.” They could scarcely believe for joy and wonder (compare the type, Gen 45:26), but their fright was all gone. He vouchsafes then the sign before given to show the reality of the raising to life of Jairus’ daughter (Mar 5:4), by partaking of fish and honeycomb. Like the angels who ate of Abram’s food (Gen 18:8), He had the power, not the need, to eat; not from hunger or thirst, but to teach and convince His disciples (Act 10:41). His appearing on two successive first days of the week stamped that day with sanctity as the Lord’s day” (Rev 1:10).
The consecration of one day in seven rests on the Old Testament law from the beginning; the transference from the last day of the week to the first was gradual, the apostolical usage resting on the Lord’s hallowing it in act by His resurrection and reappearances on it. In gracious condescension He vouchsafed to Thomas the tangible material proof which his morbid slowness to believe demanded. Thomas, now convinced, recognizes not merely that which feeling Christ’s body demonstrated, namely His humanity, but rises to avow what faith, not sense, revealed, His Divinity, “my Lord and my God!” Jesus gently reproves while commending him, “because thou hast seen Me thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, yet have believed” (Heb 11:1; 1Pe 1:8; 2Co 5:7). John (John 21) in an appendix recounts the Lord’s appearance to seven of the apostles (or else five apostles and two disciples) at the sea of Tiberias. At first they did not recognize Him standing on the shore, though near enough to hear His voice. The phrase “showed (manifested) Himself” implies perhaps, that after His resurrection He was visible only by a distinct act of His will.
However, their non-recognition may have been due to the dimness of the twilight. Supposing possibly His inquiry, cf6 “children, have ye any meat?” (Joh 21:5) was a stranger’s friendly call whether they had any fish to sell, they replied, “No”. At His suggestion they cast the net on the right side of the ship, then could not draw it for the multitude of fish. John with his greater spiritual discernment first perceived, “it is the Lord.” (Joh 21:7) Peter with his impulsive ardor was the first to go to Him. As this miraculous draught answers to that in Luke 5, so Peter’s plunging into the water answers to his desire to walk to Jesus on the water; but there are characteristic differences. In Luke 5 the net broke; here not so. Type respectively of their past breaking of their resolution of devotedness to Jesus (their very fishing now was a temporary desertion of their higher calling), and of their henceforth not breaking it. There an indefinite number of fish, small and great; here “153 great fish.” In Mat 14:28-31 Peter’s faith failed through fears; here he plunges fearlessly into the water to reach Jesus. The present dispensation with good and bad mixed answers to Luke 5 (compare Mat 13:47-48.) All are not secure who are in the gospel net; just as the net broke.
But the future dispensation will be (as in John 21) an unbroken net, containing the full definite number of the elect, all “great” before God. Christ at the dawn of that day shall be waiting on the shore to welcome His ministering servants. The fish brought to the ship still in the sea (Luke 5) answer to the present gathering in of converts by the ministry in the midst of a still perilous tempting world. Those drawn to shore (John 21) answer to the saints safely landed and with Jesus, who makes them sit down to His banquet (Joh 21:12, “come and have breakfast,” the “morning meal”, ariston, with Rev 19:9). The “fire of coals, and fish laid thereon, and bread” were of Jesus’ miraculous provision, and typified the heavenly feast to which He will invite His servants; then shall every man’s special work have its special reward of grace, answering to “bring of the fish which ye have caught” (Dan 12:3; Luk 19:16-19; 2Jo 1:8; 1Co 4:5). Something mysterious and majestic about Jesus’ form, rather felt than seen, combined with the extraordinary provision He had made for their meal, awed the disciples; they might have been inclined to ask explanations, but reverent fear and their knowledge “that it was the Lord” checked them.
This early meal was a kind of resumption of the last supper. Again Peter and John are nearest their loved Lord. He tests Peter’s love so loudly professed at the last, supper (Luk 22:33-34). As then He foretold his threefold denial, so now He elicits thrice his “love” patent to the all-knowing Saviour. He delicately glances at Peter’s past overweening self confidence,” though all (the disciples) shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never” (Mat 26:33); cf6 “lovest thou Me more than these” thy fellow disciples? (Joh 21:15) Peter needed to be set right as to these, as well as in respect to Jesus. Then Jesus explicitly foretells Peter’s crucifixion, already at the last supper implied obscurely (Joh 13:36), adding cf6 “follow Me”, (Joh 21:19) the same call as the first of all (Mat 4:19). Jesus then commenced withdrawing, Peter followed, and on turning he saw John too following, and asked, “Lord, and what shall this man do?” Jesus replied, “if I will that he tarry (on earth) until I come (till the destruction of Jerusalem, when begins the series of events which together constitute the theme of the Apocalypse, called ‘the coming of the Lord’ Matthew 24, to be consummated in His personal appearing in order to reign), what is that to thee?” (Joh 21:21-22)
The danger of oral tradition (to guard against which the Gospel word was soon written) is illustrated in that the brethren, even so near the Fountain of truth, misinterpreted “this saying” as if it meant John should not die. The Lord’s promise and command (Mat 28:7; Mat 28:10; Mat 28:16, etc.) previously announced by the angel led the disciples in general (besides “the eleven” specified by Matthew) to go to a mountain in Galilee (perhaps that of the beatitudes) where “He was seen of 500 brethren at once” (1Co 15:6). Some even still doubted the evidence of their senses (probably until He drew nearer, for at first He was seen at a distance, perhaps on the mountain top). But the eleven worshipped Him.
Jesus confirmed His claim to worship by drawing near and declaring cf6 “all power is given unto Me in heaven and earth”, (Mat 28:18) realizing Dan 7:14, and commissioning all His disciples (not the apostles only, Act 8:2; Act 8:4), cf6 “go and disciple all the nations, baptizing them (the persons) into the name (not names, for God is ONE) of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, (Mat 28:19) i.e. into living union with God in the threefold personality as revealed: cf6 “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”, (Mat 28:20) for full instruction in Christ’s word is the necessary complement of baptism; cf6 “and (on this condition, not otherwise) I am (Jesus the great I AM, not merely ‘I shall be’) with you always unto the consummation of the age” (Mat 28:20) (Joh 14:16; Joh 16:13). The commission is to all the church, and is mostly executed by its ministers and teachers, the mode of whose appointment is not definitely prescribed. He has never left Himself without witnesses, however the church as a general body has apostatized. The Lord’s appearance to James the Less was after that to the 500, and marked him as one especially honoured, from whence afterward he presided over the Jerusalem church (1Co 15:6). (See JAMES.)
In Galilee remote from Jerusalem the 500 could meet more safely. Thus, 120 who met at Jerusalem after the ascension were exclusive of those in Galilee. Toward the close of the forty days (Act 1:3) the disciples went up to Jerusalem, as the feast of Pentecost was near. Then for the last time they (“all the apostles,” 1Cor 15:7, besides the twelve, probably others, e.g. Andronicus and Junia, “of note among the apostles” or witnesses of the resurrection, “in Christ before Paul,” Rom 16:7) saw Him, Luk 24:44-49 answering to Act 1:4-8; and He charged them not to leave Jerusalem until they received the promised Spirit from on high. He led them out from the city over the ridge of Olivet, descending toward Bethany, the district being called “Bethany “; compare Luk 24:50 with Act 1:12, where the distance of Olivet from Jerusalem “a sabbath day’s journey” is thought by Alford to be specified, because the ascension was on the Saturday or sabbath of the seventh week from the resurrection, which suits the phrase “forty days” as well as the Thursday, usually made Ascension day.
“They asked, wilt Thou at this time restore again (the apo of the compound marks the establishing as something due by God’s oft repeated promises) the kingdom to Israel?” (Act 1:6-7) He recognizes the fact, and only rebukes their requiring to know cf6 “the times or seasons put in the Father’s own power” (Deu 29:29; Dan 7:27; Isa 1:26). After His promise that they should be His witnesses from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the earth, their last glimpse of Him was in the act of blessing them (Luk 24:51) with uplifted hands, even as His Sermon on the Mount began with blessing (compare Act 3:26). He was “carried up into heaven,” “a cloud receiving Him out of their sight,” even as His elect shall be caught up in clouds (1Th 4:17) and as “behold He cometh with clouds” (Rev 1:7).
Angels announced to the disciples, gazing with strained eyes upward, that “the same Jesus shall return in like manner as they saw Him go into heaven,” probably at the same mountain (Zec 14:4-5). Thus, there were ten appearances of the risen Saviour recorded, nine in the Gospels and Acts, and one in 1 Corinthians 15, namely, to James, on the independent testimony of Paul, who mentions all those to men which the Gospels record, also the special one to himself after the Lord’s ascension. Most of the above is gathered, with occasional differences however, from Bishop Ellicott’s valuable Life of Christ. Four stages of development in the order and fullness of Christ’s teaching have been traced:
(1) In the first year a slight advance on the teaching of John the Baptist.
(2) The second year inaugurated by the Sermon on the Mount.
(3) The third year the teaching of parables, setting forth the nature, constitution, and future prospects of the church.
(4) The fourth year, the sublime discourses in the upper chamber, recorded by John, just before His betrayal and crucifixion.
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
JESUS CHRIST
Jesus was a common Jewish name and appears in the Greek language of the New Testament as the equivalent of the Hebrew Joshua in the Old Testament. The name meant Yahweh (Jehovah) is our Saviour, and therefore was a fitting name to give to the one who would save his people, Yahwehs people, from their sins (Mat 1:21). Christ was a Greek word equivalent to the Hebrew Messiah (Mat 22:42). (For the significance of this name see MESSIAH.)
Life of Jesus
The writers of the four Gospels provide most of the information concerning Jesus life and teaching, but they make no attempt to give a detailed biography of Jesus. They wrote at different times, for different people, in different places, for different purposes, and they selected their material accordingly (Luk 1:1-4; Joh 20:30-31). Yet there is no disagreement in the picture of Jesus they present: he is God in human flesh, the Lord and Saviour of the world. (See also GOSPELS.)
For convenience we can divide the Gospels record of Jesus life into three main sections. The first has to do with his birth and early childhood, the second concerns his public ministry (i.e. his teachings, healings, miracles and other recorded activities) and the third centres on the events of his death and resurrection.
Stories that describe events surrounding Jesus birth are recorded at some length. Nothing more is recorded of Jesus childhood till he was twelve years old. Even at that early age Jesus knew that he existed in a special relation with God; for he was Gods Son (Luk 2:42; Luk 2:49).
There is no record of the next eighteen years or so of Jesus life. Then, when about thirty years of age (Luk 3:23), he was baptized and began his public ministry. His baptism showed on the one hand his complete willingness to carry out all Gods purposes, and on the other his complete identification with the people whose sins he would bear. God then showed, through the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove upon Jesus, that he had equipped him for this task (Mat 3:13-17; Act 10:38; see BAPTISM; HOLY SPIRIT). Jesus had the Spirits power in unlimited measure (Joh 3:34), but he had to exercise it in keeping with his position of willing submission to the Father.
Almost immediately after Jesus received this special power from the Father, Satan tempted him to use it according to his own will, independently of the Father; but Jesus overcame the temptation (Mat 4:1-11; see TEMPTATION). He then began to move about doing the work that his Father had entrusted to him.
This public ministry of Jesus seems to have lasted about three and a half years. He did much of his work in the northern part of Palestine known as Galilee (Mat 4:12; Mat 4:23), though he met his fiercest opposition in Judea in the south, particularly in Jerusalem, which was the centre of Jewish religious power.
The Jewish leaders considered that Jesus claim to be the Son of God was blasphemy (Mar 2:7; Mar 3:22; Mar 14:61-64; Joh 7:25; Joh 7:40-44; Joh 8:56-59; Joh 11:55-57). Jesus knew that he eventually would be killed by the Jews in Jerusalem (Mat 16:21; Mat 20:18-19; Luk 9:51), but he knew also that first he had to complete the work his Father had sent him to do (Joh 4:34; Joh 9:4). Only when he had finished that work and the time appointed by his Father had come would he allow the Jews to take him and crucify him (Joh 7:30; Joh 10:18; Joh 13:1; Joh 17:4-11).
Jesus final week in Jerusalem was full of tension and activity and is recorded in greater detail than any other part of his life. He entered Jerusalem as Israels Messiah-King, cleansed the temple, debated with the Jews and gave teaching to his disciples on many subjects. He then allowed his enemies to arrest him, treat him cruelly, condemn him falsely and finally crucify him. Three days later he rose from the dead and during the next six weeks appeared to his disciples and others on a number of occasions in various places (Act 1:3). His final appearance concluded with his ascension to heaven, though heavenly messengers reassured his disciples that one day he would come again (Act 1:9-11; cf. Joh 14:3).
God in human form (the Incarnation)
In Jesus Christ, God became incarnate; that is, he took upon himself human form. Jesus Christ was the embodiment of God and, by coming into the world, made God known to the world. This shows that Jesus must have existed as God before he was born into this world; for only one who was previously with God could make God known (Joh 1:1; Joh 1:18; Joh 3:13; Joh 12:41; Joh 17:5; 1Co 10:4). When he came into the world, Jesus added humanity to the deity that he always had (Joh 1:14; Heb 1:3).
As the eternally existent Son of God, Jesus had no beginning (Joh 8:58; Col 1:17; Rev 1:8), but as a human being he had a beginning when he was born as a baby in Bethlehem. God became flesh (Joh 1:14; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; 1Jn 1:1-4; see SON OF GOD; WORD). This came about through the miraculous work of Gods Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary, so that the child who was born, though having no human father, was nevertheless fully human. He was not an ordinary person whom God adopted as his Son, but a unique person who was actually Gods Son (Luk 1:27; Luk 1:31; Luk 1:35).
In becoming a human being, Jesus did not cease to be God. His deity was not lessened in any way. When Php 2:7 says that Jesus, in being born into the world, emptied himself, it does not mean that he lost, voluntarily or otherwise, any of his divine attributes or qualities. Its meaning is well explained in the verses before and after, where it is clear that to empty oneself means to deny oneself totally, to sacrifice all self-interest.
Jesus from all eternity had existed as God, yet he willingly sacrificed the supreme glory of heaven and took instead the place of a servant. What he sacrificed was not his deity, but the heavenly glories that were his by right. The limitation that he accepted in being born a human being was not a lessening of his divine powers or being, but the limitation of living like other human beings in a world of imperfection and suffering (Php 2:5-8; cf. Joh 17:5; 2Co 8:9; Heb 2:9).
Not only Jesus physical form but also his human nature was like that of human beings in general; except that, whereas the human nature common to all other people is infected by sin from birth, Jesus human nature was not. Because his oneness with humankind was complete, he was able to die for his fellow human beings and so free them from the evil results of sin (Rom 8:3; 2Co 5:21; Heb 2:14-15).
Fully divine yet fully human
Though human, Jesus retained his divine being and powers (Col 1:19; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13). His human and divine natures existed together complete, united and inseparable without either one lessening the other.
Jesus was still the creator and controller of the universe (Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2-3), the Lord of life (Luk 7:22; Joh 5:21; Joh 5:26; Joh 8:51; Joh 10:10; Joh 10:28), the forgiver of sins (Mar 2:5; Mar 2:7; Mar 2:10; 2Co 5:19), and the judge of the world (Mat 13:41-43; Mat 25:31-32; Joh 5:26-27; 2Co 5:10). He was still the originator of divine truth (Mat 5:22; Mat 5:28; Mat 5:32; Mat 5:34; Mat 5:39; Mat 5:44; Mat 12:5-8; Mar 13:31; Joh 14:6; Joh 14:10), the possessor of superhuman knowledge (Joh 6:64; Joh 11:14; Joh 18:4), the satisfier of peoples deepest needs (Mat 11:28-30; Joh 4:14; Joh 6:35; Joh 11:25) and the object of peoples worship (Mat 2:11; Joh 5:23; Joh 9:38).
Being the Son of God, Jesus was equal in deity with the Father (Joh 10:30). So completely were they united that Jesus could say that whoever saw him saw the Father (Joh 14:9; cf. Mat 1:23; 2Co 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). Therefore, whoever received him received the Father and whoever rejected him rejected the Father (Mat 10:40; Luk 10:16; Joh 12:44; Joh 15:23; 1Jn 2:23). Because he was God, Jesus demanded that total allegiance which only God could demand (Mat 10:37-39; Mar 8:34-35; Joh 3:36).
At the same time Jesus was fully human (1Ti 2:5; 1Jn 1:1). He knew how it felt to be hungry, thirsty and tired (Mat 21:18; Joh 4:6; Joh 19:28). He experienced poverty and sorrow as well as joy (Luk 9:58; Luk 10:21; Joh 11:33-36; Joh 15:11; Heb 5:7). He showed some of the emotional reactions common to human nature such as astonishment, disappointment, pity and anger (Mar 3:5; Mar 6:6; Mar 8:2; Mar 10:14; Luk 7:9). He was inwardly troubled as he saw his crucifixion drawing near, and he desired the sympathetic company of his closest friends during his time of spiritual conflict in Gethsemane the night before his death (Mar 14:32-41; Luk 12:50; Joh 12:27).
A person who can help
Jesus exercised self-control in all aspects of his life and behaviour, and had the same sorts of temptations that other people have (Mat 4:1-11; Heb 2:17-18; Heb 4:15; 1Pe 2:23). Yet through it all he never sinned (Heb 4:15). Those who lived closest to him, and who saw more of him than anyone else, asserted that he never sinned (1Pe 1:19; 1Pe 2:22; 1Jn 3:5). Even his enemies, when challenged to accuse him of sin, were unable to do so (Joh 8:46; cf. Mat 27:3-4).
On account of Jesus endurance and obedience through all his temptations and sufferings, his life was one of continuous yet perfect development and maturing. The perfect boy grew into the perfect man, who thus became the perfect Saviour for all people (Luk 2:40; Luk 2:52; Heb 2:10; Heb 5:8). He can sympathize with the human weaknesses that people normally experience, but more than that he can help them triumph over those weaknesses (Heb 2:18; Heb 4:15). Their Saviour is God, but he is a God who has lived as one of them in their world.
To deny that Jesus was either fully divine or fully human is to deny that which is basic to Christian faith (1Jn 2:22-25; 1Jn 4:2-3; 1Jn 5:6-12). Only because of the divine oneness between Father and Son can Jesus bring God to the people of the world, and only because of the human oneness between Jesus and his fellow humans can he bring people back to God (Joh 14:6-10; 1Ti 2:4-6).
The obedient servant
In becoming human Jesus accepted the limitations that his humanity required. If, for example, he wanted to go from one place to another, he travelled the same as others and put up with the weariness of the journey. He did not use his divine powers to avoid the trials of human existence (Joh 4:3-6). He had taken upon himself the nature of a servant and he lived in obedience to and dependence on his Father. That was one reason why he prayed constantly (Mar 1:35; Mar 6:46; Luk 6:12).
Jesus acceptance of the limitations of human life meant also that if he wanted information he asked questions (Luk 2:46; Mar 5:30; Mar 6:38; Mar 9:21). Being God, he must have had all knowledge, but his human consciousness of that knowledge and the way he used it were always in submission to his Fathers will.
Certain areas of Jesus knowledge, therefore, may have been deliberately kept below the level of his human consciousness so that he could have no unnatural advantage over his fellows. But if his Father directed, Jesus could draw upon that knowledge (Joh 12:49; Joh 14:10; Joh 14:24). As the obedient Son who took the humble place of a servant, he knew, and desired to know, only what his Father wanted him to know (Mar 13:32; Joh 8:55).
This may help to explain why on some occasions Jesus knowledge was limited but on other occasions it was not. The Father allowed him certain knowledge that was in keeping with the mission for which the Father had sent him into the world. In these cases Jesus superhuman knowledge was not to give him a kind of magical solution to a problem, but to enable him to carry out the specific work that his Father required him to carry out at that particular time (Luk 6:8; Joh 1:47-49; Joh 2:25; Joh 4:18; Joh 4:29; Joh 11:11-14; Joh 12:49).
The superhuman knowledge that Jesus showed on such occasions was fully in keeping with the divine knowledge he repeatedly displayed in relation to the work his Father had sent him to do. That is why none of the events surrounding his death took him by surprise. He knew in advance that those events were part of his Fathers will for him (Mat 12:40; Mat 16:21; Mat 20:18; Joh 3:14; Joh 6:64; Joh 12:7; Joh 13:38; Joh 14:29; Joh 16:32).
In summary, then, Jesus exercised his divine knowledge in the same way as he exercised his divine power always in complete dependence upon and obedience to his Father. He never exercised it for his personal benefit (Joh 5:19; Joh 5:30; Joh 7:16; Joh 12:49; cf. Mat 26:53-54).
If Satan tempted Jesus to use his divine powers for his own benefit, Jesus must have possessed those powers (Mat 4:3-4; Mat 26:53-54). Any limitation on Jesus physical capacity or knowledge was an indication not of a lessening of his divinity but of his submission to his Fathers will (Joh 8:28-29). Although Jesus lived a genuinely human life, he did so in the perfection that his deity demanded.
Mission and teaching
All that Jesus did and said was in some way a revelation of who he was. He was not simply a doer of good works or a teacher of religious truths, but the Son of God who came into the world to be its Saviour. His works and words are inseparably tied up with the nature of his person and mission (Joh 5:19; Joh 5:24; Joh 5:30; Joh 5:36; Joh 14:7; Joh 14:10; see SON OF GOD).
A central theme in all the works and teaching of Jesus was that in him the kingdom of God had come visibly into the world. The kingdom of God is the kingly rule of God, and Jesus proclaimed and exercised that rule as he released sick and demonized people from the power of Satan (Mat 4:23-24; Mat 12:28). Even among people who were not diseased, Jesus preached the kingdom, urging them to enter the kingdom voluntarily in humble faith and so receive eternal life (Mar 1:15; Mat 6:33; Mat 18:3; Mat 19:16; Mat 19:19-23; see KINGDOM OF GOD). He assured the repentant and the unrepentant that they would stand before him, for better or for worse, when he returns at the end of the age to bring the kingdom to its triumphant climax (Mat 13:47-50; Mat 19:28; Mat 25:34; Mat 25:41; cf. 2Co 5:10).
In relation to the kingdom of God, Jesus often referred to himself as the Son of man. This title was taken from the heavenly figure of Dan 7:13-14, to whom the Almighty gave a kingdom that was worldwide and everlasting (Mat 24:30-31; Mat 25:31; Mar 8:38; Mar 14:62; see SON OF MAN). Jesus rarely referred to himself as the Messiah, probably because of the widespread misunderstanding among Jews concerning the sort of Messiah they wanted.
Jesus preferred the title Son of man because it made people think about who he was. He wanted people to see for themselves that he, the Son of man, was both a heavenly figure and the Davidic Messiah (Mat 16:13-16; Mar 2:10; Mar 2:28; Joh 6:62; Joh 9:35-36; Joh 12:23; Joh 12:34; see MESSIAH). He wanted people to see also that he was the Lords suffering servant. The Messiah had to die before he could reign in the full glory of his kingdom (Mat 16:21; Mat 20:28; see SERVANT OF THE LORD).
Likewise Jesus miracles were directed towards revealing who he was, though in a way designed to lead people to saving faith (Mar 2:9-12; Luk 4:18; Joh 9:16-17; Joh 20:30-31; see MIRACLES). His parables had a similar purpose. They made people think, and those who understood and accepted their message entered the kingdom of their Saviour-Messiah (Mat 13:10-16; see PARABLES).
Having entered that kingdom, people had to live by its standards. Jesus moral teaching, however, was not a code of legal regulations like the law of Moses; nor was it like the burdensome system of the rabbis. He wanted to change people inwardly and so produce a quality of life and character that no law-code could ever produce (Mat 5:21-22; Mat 5:27-28; Mat 7:29; see ETHICS; SERMON ON THE MOUNT).
Jesus teaching had authority because he came from God, made known the character of God, brought people into a relationship with the living God, and enabled them to reproduce within themselves something of the character of God (Mat 5:48; Mat 11:25-27; Joh 7:16-18).
Jesus as Lord
The Greek word kurios (i.e. Lord) in the New Testament is the same word that was used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament for the Hebrew word yahweh (i.e. Jehovah) (cf. Psa 32:2 with Rom 4:8; cf. Isa 40:13 with Rom 11:34). In the original Hebrew, Yahweh, the name of God, was a mysterious name that Jews of later times considered so sacred that they refused to speak it. The name was linguistically connected with the words I am and referred to the eternal, unchangeable, ever-present God (Exo 3:13-16; see YAHWEH). Jesus identified himself with Yahweh by calling himself I am (Joh 8:58; see also Joh 4:26; Joh 6:35; Joh 8:12; Joh 10:7; Joh 10:11; Joh 11:25; Joh 14:6; Joh 18:5; Mar 14:62).
The New Testament writers also emphasized this identification of Jesus with the God of the Old Testament. Repeatedly they quoted Old Testament references to Yahweh as applying to Jesus (cf. Psa 16:8 with Act 2:24-25; cf. Isa 40:3 with Mar 1:1-3; cf. Jer 9:23-24 with 1Co 1:30-31; cf. Isa 8:13 with 1Pe 3:15; cf. Psa 110:1 with Mat 22:41-45).
Both the words of Jesus and the quotations of the New Testament writers reflect the Hebrew background of the New Testament. According to that background, to call Jesus Lord is to call him God.
Most of the early Christians, however, did not come from a Hebrew background. They were Gentiles, not Jews, and they had no history of the usage of the name Yahweh to influence their thinking. Yet to them also, to call Jesus Lord (kurios) was to call him God. Their understanding of kurios came from its usage in the Greek-speaking Gentile world in which they lived.
In common speech, kurios may sometimes have meant no more than sir or master (Mat 21:30; Luk 12:45; Joh 12:21; Act 25:26), but it was also the usual word people used when referring to the Greek and Roman gods (1Co 8:5). The Greek-speaking Christians use of this word for Jesus showed that they considered him to be God; not just one of many gods, but the one true God who was the creator and ruler of the universe, the controller of life and death (Act 1:24; Act 13:10-12; Act 17:24; Rom 14:9; Rom 14:11; 1Ti 6:15-16).
Through the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ, God declared dramatically the absolute lordship of Christ (Act 2:36; Rom 1:4; Php 2:9-11). Believers in Christ gladly acknowledge him as Lord. They submit to him as to one who has complete authority over their lives, yet they love him as one who has saved them and given them new joy, peace and hope (Joh 20:28; Act 10:36; Rom 10:9; 1Co 1:2-3; Eph 1:22-23; 2Th 3:16; Rev 22:20).
One day Jesus Christ will return in power and glory. In that great day there will be universal acknowledgment that he is indeed Lord (1Co 15:24-26; Php 2:11; 2Th 1:7; Rev 19:16; see DAY OF THE LORD).
The death of Jesus
Great though the incarnation and unique life of Jesus may be, they are not in themselves enough to meet the needs of a sinful human race. The incarnate Son of God had also to die. Salvation is not through the birth of Christ, nor through his life, but through his death (Mat 20:28; Rom 3:25; 1Co 15:2-3; Heb 9:12-14; Rev 5:9-10).
Jesus knew that the chief purpose for which he had been given a human life was that he might offer that life back to God as a sacrifice for peoples sins. But the offering of that life could be an acceptable sacrifice only because Jesus lived it in full obedience to his Father, without sin (Joh 4:34; Joh 6:38; Joh 6:51; Joh 8:29; Joh 12:27; Rom 5:19; Heb 10:5-10).
This devotion to his Fathers will drove Jesus on, even though he knew it was leading to crucifixion (Mar 8:31; Mar 9:31; Mar 14:36; Luk 9:51; Luk 12:50; Joh 12:23-24; see CRUCIFIXION). He saw the whole of his life, including his suffering and crucifixion, as a fulfilment of the Old Testament Scriptures (Mat 26:53-54; Mar 14:21; Mar 14:27; Luk 4:18-21; Luk 18:31-34; Luk 22:37; Luk 24:25-27; Luk 24:44-46). This did not mean that he felt no distress or temptation in the face of death. More likely it increased his suffering, but he resisted all attempts to turn him away from the cross. He gave his life willingly (Mat 16:21-23; Mat 26:53; Joh 10:18; Joh 12:27).
Jesus death, then, was not an unfortunate accident, nor was it the heroic deed of a martyr. It was the great act, the only act, by which God could deal with sin and release the guilty from sins punishment. Jesus gave his life as a ransom. He paid the price to deliver guilty sinners from the power of sin and death (Mat 20:28; Mat 26:26-28; 1Ti 1:15; Heb 9:12-14; 1Pe 1:18-20; see FORGIVENESS; REDEMPTION).
Although Jesus was crucified by wicked men, his death was according to Gods plan (Act 2:23). He was under the curse of God as he hung on the cross, but it was the curse he bore on behalf of sinners (Gal 3:13). He who was sinless bore the sins of those who were sinful (2Co 5:21; 1Pe 2:24; see JUSTIFICATION). He who was not under Gods judgment bore that judgment in place of those who were. He bore the wrath of God so that he might bring guilty sinners back to God (Rom 3:23-25; Col 1:20; 1Jn 2:2; 1Jn 4:10; see BLOOD; PROPITIATION; RECONCILIATION).
Christs one sacrifice is sufficient to bring complete salvation. It needs nothing to be added to it. It does not need to be repeated. It is a finished work complete, final, perfect (Heb 9:12; Heb 9:25-26; Heb 10:12-14; cf. Joh 17:4; Joh 19:30; Rom 8:31-39; Col 2:13-15).
Resurrection and exaltation
Jesus death was not for his own sins (for he had none) but for the sins of others. Therefore, death could have no power over him. He rose from death as proof to all that the Father was pleased with the Sons entire work. Jesus had made full atonement for sin and was the triumphant Lord, Messiah and Saviour (Act 2:24; Act 2:36; Act 3:13; Rom 1:4; Rom 4:25; 1Co 15:3-4; Php 2:8-11; Heb 2:14-15).
The resurrection body of Jesus, however, was not simply a corpse brought back to life. It was a glorified spiritual body, belonging to an entirely new order of existence that he brought into being and that all believers will one day share in (1Co 15:20-23; 1Co 15:42-49). God raised him up and gave him glory, exalting him to heavens highest place (Act 2:32-33; Act 5:30-31; Eph 1:20-22; Eph 2:6; Heb 1:3; Heb 2:9; 1Pe 1:21).
Although he now existed in a glorified and exalted state, Jesus graciously made a number of appearances to his disciples over a period of forty days after his resurrection (Act 1:3). Besides giving them further teaching, he proved to them that although his resurrection was a literal bodily resurrection, his resurrection state was uniquely different from his previous state. He could make himself visible to human eyes, or invisible, as he wished (Luk 24:31; Luk 24:39; Luk 24:43; Joh 20:19; Joh 20:26-27; see RESURRECTION).
When he disappeared from his disciples for the last time, Jesus showed by the means of his departure that he would appear to them no more. He would, however, send the Holy Spirit to be with them, as he himself had been with them. Jesus meanwhile would remain in the heavenly world, exalted in his Fathers presence, till the time came for him to return (Luk 24:50-51; Joh 16:7; Act 1:9-11; Act 2:33; 1Pe 3:22; see HOLY SPIRIT).
Even in his exalted place in heaven, Jesus continues his work on behalf of his people. He claims the blessings of God for them, defends them against the accusations of Satan, and guarantees the continued forgiveness of their sins, all on the basis of his sacrificial death (Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25; Heb 9:24; 1Jn 1:7-9; 1Jn 2:1; see ADVOCATE; PRIEST, sub-heading The high priesthood of Jesus).
Christs return and final triumph
In considering the second coming of Jesus, we should not think of it independently of his first coming. His return and the events connected with it form the climax of what he did through his life, death and resurrection. All that he achieved at his first coming will find its full and final expression in the events of his second coming: the conquest of sin, death and Satan (1Co 15:54-57; Rev 20:10; cf. Heb 2:14); the salvation of sinners (Heb 9:28; cf. Eph 2:8); the gift of eternal life (Mat 25:46; 2Co 5:4; cf. Joh 5:24); the healing of the physical world (Rom 8:18-23; cf. Mar 1:31; Mar 1:42; Mar 4:39); and the establishment of Gods kingdom (Mat 25:34; 1Co 15:24-28; cf. Luk 17:21).
Jesus second coming is that great and final day of the Lord that people of both Old and New Testament eras saw as the climax of the worlds history. God will intervene in human affairs and bring his purposes to fulfilment (Zec 14:9; 1Co 1:7-8; 2Pe 3:11-13; see DAY OF THE LORD).
Preceding and accompanying this day of the Lord there will be great wonders in the heavens and great distress upon earth. In an event as sudden, as open and as startling as a flash of lightning, Jesus will return in power and glory to save his people and judge his enemies (Mat 24:27-31; 2Th 1:7-10; 2Th 2:8; Rev 19:11-16). Believers of former generations will be raised from death and, along with believers still alive, will enter a new order of existence in imperishable, spiritual bodies. They will then be with Christ for ever (1Co 15:20-23; 1Co 15:42-57; Php 3:21; 1Th 4:13-18; see RESURRECTION).
The above characteristics of Christs return are expressed in the three Greek words that the New Testament most commonly uses of it. Christs return is an apokalupsis, indicating a revealing of himself in majesty and power (1Co 1:7; 2Th 1:7; 1Pe 1:7; 1Pe 1:13; 1Pe 4:13). It is an epiphaneia, indicating his appearing visibly before peoples eyes (2Th 2:8; 1Ti 6:14; 2Ti 1:10; 2Ti 4:1; 2Ti 4:8; Tit 2:13). It is a parousia, indicating his coming, arrival and presence (Mat 24:3; Mat 24:27; Mat 24:37; 1Th 2:19; 1Th 3:13; 1Th 4:15; 2Th 2:1; 2Th 2:8; 1Jn 2:28).
Judgment is an inevitable consequence of Christs return (Mat 24:30-31; Mat 24:40-42; Mat 25:31-32; Mat 25:46). While unbelievers will have no way of escaping condemnation and punishment, believers can face the coming judgment with confidence. They know that Christ has already delivered them from the wrath of God (Rom 5:9; 1Th 1:10; 1Th 5:9).
Yet, though saved from eternal condemnation, believers are not saved from all judgment. They are answerable to God for the way they have lived on earth, and on that day they will face God and their lives will be examined (Rom 14:10; 2Co 5:10; 1Th 2:19; see JUDGMENT).
The second coming of Jesus, therefore, though it is something Christians look forward to (Tit 2:13; see HOPE), is also something that urges them to be holy, diligent and sincere in the way they live now (Php 1:10; 1Th 3:13; 1Th 5:23; 2Ti 4:8; 2Pe 3:11-13; Rev 22:12). In addition it makes them more earnest in spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world (Mat 24:14; 2Pe 3:9-10; Rev 22:12-14). Since Jesus will return when least expected, Christians must be ready always (Mat 24:42-44; 1Th 5:2-6).
Not only believers, but the physical creation also will be redeemed at Christs return. The world of nature, which has suffered because of human sin, will receive its full glory. The triumph of Christs kingdom is seen in a triumphant Christ reigning with his redeemed people over a redeemed earth ( Rom 8:19-23; 2Ti 2:12; Rev 5:9-10; Rev 20:4).
Finally, having destroyed all enemies and removed all wickedness, Jesus Christ will have the satisfaction of seeing that the victory he achieved at the cross is effectual throughout the universe (Php 2:10-11; Rev 11:15; Rev 20:10). The Father had entrusted to him the work of overcoming all rebellion and bringing all things into perfect submission to the sovereign God. That work will now have reached its triumphant climax (1Co 15:24-28).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Jesus Christ
JESUS CHRIST.There is no historical task which is more important than to set forth the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, and none to which it is so difficult to do justice. The importance of the theme is sufficiently attested by the fact that it is felt to be His due to reckon a new era from the date of His birth. From the point of view of Christian faith there is nothing in time worthy to be set beside the deeds and the words of One who is adored as God manifest in the flesh, and the Saviour of the world. In the perspective of universal history. His influence ranks with Greek culture and Roman law as one of the three most valuable elements in the heritage from the ancient world, while it surpasses these other factors in the spiritual quality of its effects. On the other hand, the superlative task has its peculiar difficulties. It is quite certain that a modern European makes many mistakes when trying to reproduce the conditions of the distant province of Oriental antiquity in which Jesus lived. The literary documents, moreover, are of no great compass, and are reticent or obscure in regard to many matters which are of capital interest to the modern biographer. And when erudition has done its best with the primary and auxiliary sources, the historian has still to put the heart-searching question whether he possesses the qualifications that would enable him to understand the character, the experience, and the purpose of Jesus. He who would worthily write the Life of Jesus Christ must have a pen dipped in the imaginative sympathy of a poet, in the prophets fire, in the artists charm and grace, and in the reverence and purity of the saint (Stewart, The Life of Christ, 1906, p. vi.).
1. The Literary Sources
(A) Canonical
(1) The Gospels and their purpose.It is now generally agreed that the Gospel according to Mk. is the oldest of the four. Beginning with the Baptism of Jesus, it gives a sketch of His Public Ministry, with specimens of His teaching, and carries the narrative to the morning of the Resurrection. The original conclusion has been lost, but there can be no doubt that it went on to relate at least certain Galilan appearances of the risen Lord. This Gospel supplies most of our knowledge of the life of Jesus, but its main concern is to bring out the inner meaning and the religious value of the story. It is, in short, a history written with the purpose of demonstrating that Jesus was the expected Messiah. In proof of this it is sufficient to point out that it describes itself at the outset as setting forth the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mar 1:1), that the faith of the disciples culminates in Peters confession that He is the Christ (Mar 8:29), that the ground of His condemnation is that He claims to be the Christ, the Son of the Blessed (Mar 14:61-62), and that the accusation written over His cross is The King of the Jews (Mar 15:26).
The Gospel according to Mt. is now usually regarded as a second and enlarged edition of an Apostolic original. The earlier version, known as the Logia on the ground of a note of Papias (Euseb. HE iii. 39), was a collection of the Memorabilia of Jesus. As the Logia consisted mainly of the sayings of our Lord, the later editor combined it with the narrative of Mk. in order to supply a more complete picture of the Ministry, and at the same time added fresh material from independent sources. Its didactic purpose, like that of Mk., is to exhibit Jesus as the Messiah, and it supports the argument by citing numerous instances of the fulfilment in the life of Jesus of OT prediction. It is sometimes described as the Gospel of the Jewish Christians; and it appears to have addressed itself specially to the difficulties which they felt in view of the destruction of Jerusalem. Could Jesus, they may well have asked, be the Messiah, seeing that His mission had issued, not in the deliverance of Israel, but in its ruin? In answer to this the Gospel makes it plain that the overthrow of the Jewish State was a punishment which was foreseen by Jesus, and also that He had become the head of a vaster and more glorious kingdom than that of which, as Jewish patriots, they had ever dreamed (Mat 28:18-20).
The Gospel according to Luke is also dependent on Mk. for the general framework, and derives from the original Mt. a large body of the teaching. It follows a different authority from Mt. for the Nativity, and to some extent goes its own way in the history of the Passion; while the great interpolation (Luk 9:51 to Luk 18:14), made in part from its special source, forms a priceless addition to the Synoptic material. Lk. approached his task in a more consciously scientific spirit than his predecessors, and recognized an obligation to supply dates, and to sketch in the political background of the biography (Luk 2:2, Luk 3:1; Luk 3:23). But for him also the main business of the historian was to emphasize the religious significance of the events, and that by exhibiting Jesus as the Saviour of the world, the Friend of sinners. He is specially interested, as the companion and disciple of St. Paul, in incidents and sayings which illustrate the graciousness and the universality of the gospel. Prominence is given to the rejection of Jesus by Nazareth and Jerusalem (Luk 4:16-30, Luk 19:41-44), and to His discovery among the Gentiles of the faith for which He sought (Luk 17:18-19). It is also characteristic that Lk. gives a full account of the beginnings of the missionary activity of the Church (Luk 10:1-20).
The author of the Fourth Gospel makes considerable use of the narratives of the Synoptists, but also suggests that their account is in important respects defective, and in certain particulars erroneous. The serious defect, from the Johannine point of view, is that they represent Galilee as the exclusive scene of the Ministry until shortly before the end, and that they know nothing of a series of visits, extending over two years, which Jesus made to Jerusalem and Juda in fulfilment of His mission. That there was a design to correct as well as to supplement appears from the displacement of the Cleansing of the Temple from the close to the beginning of the Ministry, and from the emphatic way in which attention is drawn to the accurate information as to the day and the hour of the Crucifixion. And still more designedly than in the earlier Gospels is the history used as the vehicle for the disclosure of the secret and the glory of the Person of Jesus. The predicate of the Messiah is reaffirmed, and as the Saviour He appears in the most sublime and tender characters, but the Prologue furnishes the key to the interpretation of His Person in a title which imports the highest conceivable dignity of origin, being, and prerogative: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth (Joh 1:1; Joh 1:14).
Trustworthiness of the Gospels.It is impossible to proceed on the view that we possess four biographies of Jesus which, being given by inspiration, are absolutely immune from error. The means by which they were brought into shape was very different from the method of Divine dictation. The Evangelists were severely limited to the historical data which reached them by ordinary channels. They copied, abridged, and amplified earlier documents, and one document which was freely handled in this fashion by Mt. and Lk. was canonical Mk. That mistakes have been made as to matters of fact is proved by the occurrence of conflicting accounts of the same events, and by the uncertainty as to the order of events which is often palpable in Mt. and Mk., and which to some extent baffled Lk. in his attempt to trace the course of all things accurately. There is also considerable diversity in the report of many of our Lords sayings, which compels us to conclude that the report is more or less inaccurate. Whether giving effect to their own convictions, or reproducing changes which had been made by the mind of the Church on the oral tradition, writers coloured and altered to some extent the sayings of our Lord. At the same time the Synoptics, when tested by ordinary canons, must be pronounced to be excellent authorities. They may be dated within a period of forty to fifty years after the death of ChristMk. about a.d. 69, Mt. and (probably) Lk. not later than a.d. 80. The great mass of the Synoptic Gospels had assumed its permanent shape not later than the decade a.d. 6070, and the changes which it underwent after the great catastrophe of the fall of Jerusalem were but small, and can without difficulty be recognized (Sanday, Outlines). Further, that Gospels composed in the second generation can be trusted to have reproduced the original testimony with general accuracy may be held on two grounds. There is every reason to believe the ecclesiastical traditions that the contents of original Mt. were compiled by one of the Twelve, and that the reminiscences of Peter formed the staple of Mk. (Euseb. HE iii. 39). It is also certain that the Synoptic material was used throughout the intervening period in the Christian meetings for worship, and the memory of witnesses must thus have been in a position to ensure the continuity of the report, and to check any serious deviations from the oldest testimony. The general trustworthiness is further supported by the consideration of the originality of the Synoptic picture of Jesus and His teaching. The character of Jesus, and the acts in which it is revealed, form a whole which has the unmistakable stamp of historical reality, and forbids us to think that to any great extent it can have been the product of the collective Christian mind. Jesus, in short, is needed to explain the Church and cannot be Himself explained as the product of His own creation. It is also to be noticed that the Synoptic teaching has a clear-cut individuality of its own which shows that it has sturdily refused to blend with the Apostolic type of theology.
With the Fourth Gospel the case stands somewhat differently. If it be indeed the work of John the beloved disciple, its authority stands higher than all the rest. In that case the duty of the historian is to employ it as his fundamental document, and to utilize the Synoptics as auxiliary sources. In the view of the present writer the question is one of great difficulty. It is true that there is a powerful body of Patristic testimony in support of the tradition that the Fourth Gospel was composed by the Apostle Johnin Ephesus in his old ageabout a.d. 95. It is also true that the Gospel solemnly stakes its credit on its right to be accepted as the narrative of an eye-witness (Joh 19:35; Joh 21:24). And its claim is strengthened by the fact that, in the judgment even of many unsympathetic witnesses, it embodies a larger or smaller amount of independent and valuable information. On the other hand, it is a serious matter that a Gospel, appearing at the close of the century, should practically recast the story of Jesus which had circulated in the Church for sixty years, and should put forward a view of the course of the Ministry which is not even suspected in the other Apostolic sources. Passing to the teaching, we find that the process which was in discoverable in the Synoptic report has here actually taken place, and that the discourses of Jesus are assimilated to a well-marked type of Apostolic doctrine. There is reason to believe that for both history and doctrine the author had at his disposal Memorabilia of Jesus, but in both cases also it would seem that he has handled his data with great freedom. The treatment of the historical matter, it may be permitted to think, is more largely topical, and the chronological framework which it provides is less reliable, than is commonly supposed. The discourses, again, have been expanded by the reporter, and cast in the moulds of his own thought, so that in them we really possess a combination of the words of Jesus of Nazareth with those of the glorified Christ speaking in the experience of a disciple. The hypothesis which seems to do justice to both sets of phenomena is that John was only the author in a similar sense to that in which Peter was the author of Mk., and Matthew of canonical Mt., and that the actual composer of the Fourth Gospel was a disciple of the second generation who was served heir to the knowledge and faith of the Apostle, and who claimed considerable powers as an executor. In view of these considerations, it is held that a sketch of the life of Jesus is properly based on the Synoptic record, and that in utilizing the Johannine additions it is desirable to take up a critical attitude in regard to the form and the chronology. There is also much to be said for expounding the teaching of Jesus on the basis of the Synoptics, and for treating the Johannine discourses as primarily a source for Apostolic doctrine. It is a different question whether the interpretation of Christ which the Fourth Gospel supplies is trustworthy, and on the value of this, its main message, two remarks may be made. It is, in the first place, substantially the same valuation of Christ which pervades the Pauline Epistles, and which has been endorsed by the saintly experience of the Christian centuries as answering to the knowledge of Christ that is given in intimate communion with the risen Lord. Moreover, the doctrine of Providence comes to the succour of a faith which may be distressed by the breakdown of the hypothesis of inerrancy. For it is a reasonable belief that God, in whose plan with the race the work of Christ was to be a decisive factor, took order that there should be given to the after world a record which should sufficiently instruct men in reply to the question, What think ye of Christ?
(2) The Epistles.From the Epistles it is possible to collect the outstanding facts as to the earthly condition, the death, and the resurrection of Christ. Incidentally St. Paul shows that he could cite His teaching on a point of ethics (1Co 7:11), and give a detailed account of the institution of the Lords Supper (1Co 11:23 ff.). It is also significant that in allusions to the Temptation (Heb 4:15), the Agony (Heb 5:7), and the Transfiguration (2Pe 1:17), the writers can reckon on a ready understanding.
(B) Extra-Canonical Sources
(1) Christian
(a) Patristic references.The Fathers make very trifling additions to our knowledge of the facts of the life of Jesus. There is nothing more important than the statement of Justin, that as a carpenter Jesus made ploughs and yokes (Dial. 88). More valuable are the additions to the canonical sayings of Jesus (Westcott, Introd. to the Gospels8, 1895; Resch, Agrapha2, 1907). Of the 70 Logia which have been claimed, Ropes pronounces 43 worthless, 13 of possible value, and 14 valuable (Die Sprche Jesu, 1896). The following are deemed by Huck to be noteworthy (Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien3, 1906):
(1) Ask great things, and the small shall be added to you; and ask heavenly things, and the earthly shall be added to you (Origen, de Orat. 2).
(2) If ye exalt not your low things, and transfer to your right hand the things on your left, ye shall not enter into my kingdom (Acta Philippi, ch. 34).
(3) He who is near me is near the fire, he who is far from me is far from the kingdom (Origen, Hom. in Jer 20:3).
(4) If ye kept not that which is small, who will give you that which is great? (Clem. Rom. ii. 8).
(5) Be thou saved and thy soul (Exc. e. Theod. ap. Clem. Alex. [Note: lex. Alexandrian.] 2).
(6) Show yourselves tried bankers (Clem. Alex. [Note: lex. Alexandrian.] Strom. i. 28).
(7) Thou hast seen thy brother, thou hast seen God ib. i. 19).
More recent additions to the material are to be found in Grenfell and Hunt, Sayings of our Lord (1897) and New Sayings of Jesus (1904).
(b) Apocryphal Gospels.These fall into three groups according as they deal with the history of Joseph and Mary (Protevangelium of James), the Infancy (Gospel of Thomas), and Pilate (Acts of Pilate). They are worthless elaborations, with the addition of grotesque and sometimes beautiful fancies (Apocryphal Gospels, Acts and Revelations, vol. xvi. of the Ante-Nicene Library, 1870). Of more value are the fragments of the Gospels of the Hebrews, the Egyptians, and Peter (Hilgenfeld, NT extra canonem receptum2, 187684; Swete, The Akhmim Fragment of the Gospel of Peter, 1903).
(2) Jewish sources.Josephus mentions Jesus (Ant. XX. ix. 1), but the most famous passage (XVIII. iii. 3) is mainly, if not entirely, a Christian interpolation. The Jews remembered Him as charged with deceiving the people, practising magic and speaking blasphemy, and as having been crucified; but the calumnies of the Talmud as to the circumstances of His birth appear to have been comparatively late inventions (Huldricus, Sepher Toledot Jeschua, 1705; Laible, Jesus Christus im Talmud, 1900).
(3) Classical sources.There is evidence in the classical writers for the historical existence, approximate date, and death of Jesus, but otherwise their attitude was ignorant and contemptuous (Tac. Ann. xv. 44; Suetonius, Lives of Claudius and Nero; the younger Pliny, Epp. x. 97, 98; Lucian, de Morte Peregrini; Celsus in Origen; cf. Keim, Jesus of Nazara [Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] ], 1876, i. pp. 2433).
2. Presuppositions.It is impossible to write about Christ without giving effect to a philosophical and religious creed. The claim to be free from presuppositions commonly means that a writer assumes that the facts can be accommodated to a purely naturalistic view of history. As a fact, there is less reason to construe Christ in naturalistic terms than to revise a naturalistic philosophy in the light of the fact of Christ. A recent review of the whole literature of the subject (Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede, 1906) shows how profoundly the treatment has always been influenced by a writers attitude towards ultimate questions, and how far the purely historical evidence is from being able to compel a consensus sapientium. There are, in fact, as many types of the Life of Christ as there are points of view in theology, and it may be convenient at this stage to indicate the basis from which the work has been done in the principal monographs.
Types of the Life of Christ
I. Elimination of the supernatural, from the standpoint of (1) Eighteenth Century DeismPaulus, Das Leben Jesu, 1828; (2) Modern PantheismD. F. Strauss, Leben Jesu, 183536 (Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1846); (3) Philosophical ScepticismRenan, La Vie de Jsus, 1863 (Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1864).
II. Reduction of the supernatural, with eclectic reservation, from the standpoint of TheismSeeley, Ecce Homo, 1866; Hase, Die Gesch. Jesu, 1876; Keim, Die Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, 186772 (Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 187377); O. Holtzmann, Das Leben Jesu, 1901 (Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1904).
Within the rationalistic school there have emerged somewhat radical differences in the conception formed of Jesus and His message. One group conceives of Him as a man who is essentially modern because the value of His ideas and of His message is perennial (Harnack, Das Wesen des Christenthums, Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1901); another regards Him as, above all, the spokesman of unfulfilled apocalyptic dreams (J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 1892). Bousset mediates between the two views (Jesus. 1906).
III. Reproduction of the Biblical account in general agreement with the faith of the ChurchNeander, Das Leben Jesu Christi, 1837 (Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1848); B. Weiss, Das Leben Jesu, 1882 (Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1883); Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1884; Didon, Jesus Christ, 1891; Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, 1906.
The books of this group have a second common feature in their acceptance of the Fourth Gospel as a valuable history. The works of Weiss and Sanday dispose of the arrogant assumption of Schweitzer (op. cit.) that competent scholarship now regards the cardinal questions as settled in a negative sense. (For a full bibliography see Schweitzer, op. cit., art. Jesus Christ in PRE [Note: RE Real-Encykl. fr protest. Theol. und Kirche] 3).
3. The Conditions in Palestine (Schrer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des Jdischen Volkes.] 3 [HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] ii. i. 1 ff.]).The condition of the Jews at the birth of Christ may be summarily described as marked by political impotence and religious decadence.
(1) The political situation.From the age of the Exile, the Jews in Palestine were subject to a foreign dominationPersian, Greek, Egyptian, Syrian, in rapid succession. Following upon a century of independence under the Maccabees, the country was incorporated in the Roman Empire as a division of the province of Syria. In certain circumstances, which have a parallel in British India, the Romans recognized a feudatory king, and it was with this status that Herod the Great reigned over Palestine. At his death in b.c. 4, his dominions were divided among his three sons; but on the deposition of Archelaus in 6 a.d., Juda and Samaria were placed under a Roman procurator. Herod Antipas and Philip continued to rule as vassal princes, with the title of tetrarchs, over Galilee and Itura respectively. The pressure of the Roman rule was felt in the stern measures which were taken to suppress any dangerous expressions of national feeling, and also in the exactions of the publicans to whom the taxes were farmed. Internal administration was largely an affair of the Jewish Church. To a highly spirited people like the Jews, with memories of former freedom and power, the loss of national independence was galling; and their natural restlessness under the foreign yoke, combined as it was with the Messianic hopes that formed a most vital element of their religion, was a source of anxiety not only to the Roman authorities but to their own leaders.
(2) The religious situation.From the religious point of view it was a decadent age. No doubt there is a tendency to exaggerate the degradation of the world at our Lords coming, on the principle that the darkest hour must have preceded the dawn; and in fairness the indictment should be restricted to the statement that the age marked a serious declension from the highest level of OT religion. It had, in fact, many of the features which have re-appeared in the degenerate periods of the Christian Church. (a) One such feature was the disappearance of the prophetic man, and his replacement as a religious authority by representatives of sacred learning. As the normal condition of things in the Christian Church has been similar, it cannot in itself be judged to be symptomatic of anything worse than a silver age that the exponents of the Scriptures and of the tradition were now the chief religious guides of the people (see Scribes). Moreover, a very genuine religious originality and fervour had continued to find expression in the Apocalyptic literature of later Judaism (see Apocalyptic Literature). (b) A more decisive proof of degradation is the exaltation of the ceremonial and formal side of religion as a substitute for personal piety and righteousness of life. This tendency had its classic representatives in the Pharisees. The best of their number must have exhibited, as Josephus shows, a zeal for God and a self-denial like that of Roman Catholic saintsotherwise the veneration of the people, which Josephus shared, would be inexplicable (Ant. XVII. ii. 4); but as a class our Lord charges them with sins of covetousness and inhumanity, which gave the colour of hypocrisy to their ritualistic scruples (Mat 24:1-51; see Pharisees). (c) A further characteristic of decadence is that the religious organization tends to come in the place of God, as the object of devotion, and there appears the powerful ecclesiastic who, though he may be worldly and even sceptical, is indispensable as the symbol and protector of the sacred institution. This type was represented by the Sadduceesin their general outlook men of the world, in their doctrine sceptics with an ostensible basis of conservatism,who filled the priestly offices, controlled the Sanhedrin, and endeavoured to maintain correct relations with their Roman masters. It can also well be believed that, as Josephus tells us, they professed an aristocratic dislike to public business, which they nevertheless dominated; and that they humoured the multitude by an occasional show of religious zeal (see Sadducees).
In this world presided over by pedants, formalists, and political ecclesiastics, the common people receive a fairly good character. Their religion was the best that then had a footing among men, and they were in earnest about it. They had been purified by the providential discipline of centuries from the last vestiges of idolatry. It is noteworthy that Jesus brings against them no such sweeping accusations of immorality and cruelty as are met with in Amos and Hosea. Their chief fault was that they were disposed to look on their religion as a means of procuring them worldly good, and that they were blind and unreceptive in regard to purely spiritual blessings. The influence which the Pharisees had over them shows that they were capable of reverencing, and eager to obey, those who seemed to them to speak for God; and their response to the preaching of John the Baptist was still more to their honour. There is evidence of a contemporary strain of self-renouncing idealism in the existence of communities which sought deliverance from the evil of the world in the austerities of an ascetic life (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XVIII. i. 5; see Essenes). The Gospels introduce us to not a few men and women who impress us as exemplifying a simple and noble type of pietynourished as they were on the religion of the OT, and waiting patiently for the salvation of God. Into a circle pervaded by this atmosphere Jesus was born.
4. Date of Christs Birth (cf. art. Chronology, p. 135b, and in Hastings DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ).If John began to baptize in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Csar (Luk 3:1)being a.d. 29and if Jesus Was thirty years of age when He was baptized (v. 23), the traditional date fixed by Dionysius Exiguus would be approximately correct. But it is probable that the reign of Tiberius was reckoned by Lk. from his admission to joint-authority with Augustus in a.d. 1112, so that Jesus would be thirty in a.d. 256, and would be born about b.c. 5. This agrees with the representation of Mt. that He was born under Herod, since Herod died b.c. 4, and a number of events of the Infancy are mentioned as occurring before his death. A reference in Joh 2:20 to the forty-six years during which the Temple had been in course of construction leads to a similar resultviz. a.d. 26 for the second year of the Ministry, and b.c. 5 for the Birth of Jesus.
5. Birth and Infancy (cf. Sweet, The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, 1907).Mt. and Lk. have a narrative of the Infancy, and agree in the following pointsthat Jesus was of Davids line, that He was miraculously conceived, that He was born in Bethlehem, and that the Holy Family permanently settled in Nazareth. The additional incidents related by Mt. are the appearance of the angel to Joseph (Mat 1:18-24), the adoration of the Magi (Mat 2:1-12), the flight into Egypt (Mat 2:13-15), the massacre at Bethlehem (Mat 2:16-18). Lk.s supplementary matter includes the promise of the birth of John the Baptist (Mat 1:5-23), the Annunciation to Mary (Luk 1:26-38), the visit of Mary to Elisabeth (Luk 1:39-56), the birth of the Baptist (Luk 1:57-80), the census (Luk 2:1 ff.), the vision of angels (Luk 2:8-14), the adoration of the shepherds (Luk 2:15-20), the circumcision (Luk 2:21), the presentation in the Temple Luk 2:22-23).
The narratives embody two ideas which are singly impressive, and in conjunction make a profound appeal to the feelings and the imagination. The humiliation of the Saviour is emphasized by one set of eventsthe lowly parentage, the birth in a stable, the rage of Herod, the flight of His parents to a distant land. The other series shows Him as honoured and accredited by heaven, while earth also agrees, in the representatives of its wealth and its poverty, its wisdom and its ignorance, to do Him honour at His coming. A halo of miracles is formed around the central miracle, comparable to the rays of the rising sun (Lange, Life of Christ, Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] i. 257, 258).
At this point the influence of theological standpoint makes itself acutely felt. In the Lives written from the naturalistic and Unitarian standpoints, the mass of the material is described as mythical or legendary, and the only points left over for discussion are the sources of invention, and the date at which the stories were incorporated with the genuine tradition. The residuum of historical fact, according to O. Holtzmann, is that Jesus was born at Nazareth in Galilee, the son of Joseph and Mary, being the eldest of five brothers and several sisters, and there He grew up (Life of Jesus, Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] p. 89). The chief grounds on which the negative case is rested may be briefly considered.
(1) The narratives of the Infancy are not a part of the original tradition, since they are known to only two of the Evangelists, and have no Biblical support outside these Gospels. To this it seems a sufficient reply that additions may have been made later from a good source, and that there were obvious reasons why some at least of the incidents should have been treated for a time with reserve.
(2) The two Gospels which deal with the Infancy discredit one another by the incompatibility of their statements. Mt., it is often said, supposes that Bethlehem was Josephs home from the beginning; Lk. says that he made a visit to Bethlehem on the occasion of a census. According to Mt., the birth in Bethlehem was followed by a flight into Egypt; according to Lk., they visited Jerusalem and then returned to Nazareth. But the difficulties have been exaggerated. Though it is quite possible that Mt. did not know of an original residence in Nazareth, he does not actually deny it. And although neither Evangelist may have known of the others history, it is quite possible, without excessive harmonistic zeal, to work the episodes of Mt. into Lk.s scheme. The accounts may be combined with considerable plausibility if we suppose that Joseph and Mary remained a full year in Bethlehem, during which the presentation in the Temple took place, and that the visit of the Magi was much later than the adoration of the shepherds (Gloag, Introd. to the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 136, 137).
(3) The events narrated are said to be inconsistent with the indirect evidence of other portions of the Gospels. If they really occurred, why was Mary not prepared for all that followed? and why aid Jesus brethren not believe in Him? (Mar 3:21; Mar 3:31 ff., Mat 12:46-50). In particular, the body of the Gospels contains, it is said, evidence which is inconsistent with the Virgin-birth. The difficulty is a real one, but hardly greater than the difficulty presented in the fact that the mighty works of the Ministry did not overbear doubt and disbelief in those who witnessed them.
(4) The narratives in question are also said to have had their origin in mans illusory ideas as to the proper manner of the coming of a Divine messenger. The history of the founders of other religionse.g. Confucius and Gautamashows a fond predisposition to invest the birth of a Saviour or a mighty prophet with a miraculous halo; and it is suggested that similar stories were invented about Christ, with the effect of obscuring the distinctive thought and purpose of God. They are deforming investitures, misplaced, like courtdresses on the spirits of the just (Martinean, Loss and Gain). There is undeniable force in this, but it will be noticed that it is an observation which would make an end, as indeed those who use it intend, of the whole miraculous element in the life. If, on the other hand, we believe that the life of Christ was supernatural, it is easily credible that the rising of the Sun was heralded, in Langes image, by rays of glory.
Of the events of the glorious cycle which have the joint support of Mt. and Lk. there are three which have been felt to have religious significance.
(1) The Davidic descent.It was an article of common belief in the primitive Church that Jesus was descended from David (Rom 1:3). Mt. and Lk. supply genealogies which have the purpose of supporting the belief, but do not strengthen it prima facie, as one traces the descent through Solomon (Mat 1:6), the other through a son of David called Nathan (Luk 3:31). The favourite way of harmonizing them is to suppose that Mt. gives the descent through Joseph, Lk. through Mary, while others think that Mt. gives the list of heirs to the Davidic throne, Lk. the actual family-tree of Jesus. It may well be believed that descendants of the royal house treasured the record of their origin; and on the other hand it seems unlikely that Jesus could have been accepted as Messiah without good evidence of Davidic origin, or that a late fabrication would have been regarded as such.
(2) The Virgin-birth (cf. Gore, Dissertations on the Incarnation, 1895; Lobstein, The Virgin-Birth of Christ, Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1903).The student is referred for a full statement on both sides to the works above cited, but a remark may be made on the two branches of the evidence. (a) The objections based on historical and literary grounds, as distinct from anti-dogmatic prejudice, are of considerable weight. No account of Mk.s purpose satisfactorily explains his omission if he knew of it, and it seems incredible that, if known, it would not have been utilized in the Pauline theology. Upon this it can only be said that it may have been a fact, although it had not yet come to the knowledge of Mk. and Paul. Further, Mt. and Lk. themselves raise a grave difficulty, since the whole point of the genealogies seems to be that Jesus was descended from David through Joseph. The usual, though not quite convincing, answer is, that Jesus was legally the son of Joseph, and therefore Davids heir. It must probably be admitted that the original compilers of the genealogies shared the ignorance of the earliest Gospel, but ignorance or silence is not decisive as to a fact. (b) It has been common to exaggerate the doctrinal necessity of the tenet. It is usually held to have been necessary to preserve Jesus from the taint of original sin; but as Mary was truly His mother, an additional miracle must have been necessary to prevent the transmission of the taint through her, and this subsidiary miracle could have safeguarded the sinlessness of Jesus without the miraculous conception. Nor can it be said that it is a necessary corollary of the Eternal Sonship of Christ; since it is found in the Gospels which say nothing of His pre-existence, and is absent from the Gospel which places this in the forefront. And yet it would be rash to say that it has no value for Christian faith. The unique character of Christ, with its note of sinless perfection, cannot be explained by purely natural factors; and the doctrine of the Virgin-birth at least renders the service of affirming the operation of a supernatural causality in the constitution of that character. It must also be said that the negation is generally felt to be a phase of an anti-supernatural campaign to which the overthrow of this position means the capture of an outwork, and a point of departure for a more critical attack. It is also difficult for a Christian thinker to abandon the dogma without feeling puzzled and distressed by the alternative explanations which open up.
(3) The Birth at Bethlehem (cf. Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? 1902).For the birth at Bethlehem we have the statement of the Gospels. Lk. seems to have investigated the point with special care, and explains the presence of Joseph and Mary at Bethlehem as due to a census which had been ordered by Augustus (Luk 2:1). It has frequently been assumed that Lk. has blundered, as Quirinius was not governor of Syria until a.d. 6, when he made an enrolment; and the impossible date to which we are thus led seems to discredit the whole combination. In defence of Lk. it is pointed out that Quirinius held a military appointment in Syria about b.c. 6 which may have been loosely described as a governorship, and that there is evidence for a twelve years cycle in Imperial statistics which would give a first enrolment about the same date.
6. Years of Preparation (cf. Keim, vol. ii. pt. 2).The silence of the Gospels as to the boyhood and early manhood of Jesus is broken only by the mention of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luk 2:41 ff.). Even if it be true that none of His townsfolk believed on Him, it might have been expected that the piety of His disciples would have recovered some facts from the public memory, and that in any case the tradition would have been enriched at a later date by members of the family circle. The only possible explanation of the silence is that during the years in Nazareth Jesus did and said nothing which challenged notice. It is also evident that the silence is an indirect testimony to the credibility of the great events of the later years, as there was every reason why the tradition, had it not been bound by facts, should have invested the earlier period with supernatural surprises and glories.
(1) Education of Jesus.Earliest in time, and probably chief in importance, was the education in the home. The Jewish Law earnestly impressed upon parents, especially upon fathers, the duty of instructing their children in the knowledge of God, His mighty acts and His laws, and also of disciplining them in religion and morality. We take most pains of all, says Josephus, with the instruction of children, and esteem the observation of the laws, and the piety corresponding with them, the most important affairs of our whole life (c. Apion, i. 12). We know the laws, he adds, as well as our own name. It was the home in Nazareth that opened to Jesus the avenues of knowledge, and first put Him in possession of the treasures of the OT. It also seems certain that in His home there was a type of family life which made fatherhood stand to Him henceforward as the highest manifestation of a love beneficent, disinterested, and all-forgiving. It is probable that Jesus had other teachers. We hear in the course of the same century of a resolution to provide teachers in every province and in every town; and before the attempt was made to secure a universal system, it was natural that tuition should be given in connexion with the synagogue to boys likely to profit above their equals. Of the officers connected with the synagogue, the ruler and the elders may sometimes have done their work as a labour of love, and there is evidence that it could be laid on the chazzan as an official duty. The stated services of the synagogue, in which the chief part was the expounding of the Scriptures by any person possessed of learning or a message, must have been an event of the deepest interest to the awakening mind of Jesus. From early childhood He accompanied His parents to Jerusalem to keep the Feastthe utmost stress being laid by the Rabbis upon this as a means for the instilment of piety. It has also been well pointed out that the land of Palestine was itself a wonderful educational instrument. It was a little country, in size less than the Scottish Highlands, of which a great part could be seen from a mountain-top, and every district visited in a few days journey; and its valleys and towns, and, above all, Jerusalem, were filled with memories which compelled the citizen to live in the story of the past, and to reflect at every stage and prospect on the mission of his people and the ways of God (Ramsay, The Education of Christ, 1902). To these has to be added the discipline of work. Jesus learned the trade of a carpenter, and appears to have practised this trade in Nazareth until He reached the threshold of middle age (Mar 6:3). It is perhaps remarkable that none of His imagery is borrowed from His handicraft. One has the feeling that the work of the husbandman and the vinedresser had more attraction for Him, and that His self-sacrifice may have begun in the workshop. The deeper preparation is suggested in the one incident which is chronicled. The point of it is that even in His boyhood Jesus thought of God as His Father, and of His house as His true sphere of work (Luk 2:49. The holy of holies in the silent years was the life of communion with God in which He knew the Divine Fatherhood to be a fact, and became conscious of standing to Him in the intimate relationship of a Son.
(2) Knowledge of Jesus.There is no reason to suppose that Jesus studied in the Rabbinical schools. Nor is there more ground for the belief, which has been made the motive of certain Lives of Christ (Venturini, Natrliche Gesch. des grossen Propheten von Nazareth, 18002), that He had acquired esoteric wisdom among the Essenes. It has also become difficult for those who take their impressions from the historical records to believe that, while in virtue of His human nature His knowledge was progressive and limited, in virtue of His Divine nature He was simultaneously omniscient. All we can say is that He possessed perfect knowledge within the sphere in which His vocation lay. The one book which He studied was the OT, and He used it continually in temptation, conflict, and suffering. He knew human nature in its littleness and greatnessthe littleness that spoils the noblest characters, the greatness that survives the worst pollution and degradation. He read individual character with a swift and unerring glance. But what must chiefly have impressed the listeners were the intimacy and the certainty with which He spoke of God. In the world of nature He pointed out the tokens of His bounty and the suggestions of His care. The realm of human affairs was to Him instinct with principles which illustrated the relations of God and man. He spoke as One who saw into the very heart of God, and who knew at first hand His purpose with the world, and His love for sinful and sorrow-laden men.
7. Jesus and the Baptist.The religious common-placeness of the age, which has been described above, was at length broken by the appearance of John the Baptist, who recalled the ancient prophets. He proclaimed the approach of the Day of the Lord, when the Messiah would take to Himself His power and reign. He rejected the idea that the Jews could claim special privileges on the ground of birth (Mat 3:9), and proclaimed that the judgment, with which His work would begin, would be searching and pitiless. Along with other Galilans Jesus repaired to the scene of the ministry in the lower Jordan valley, and received baptism (Mar 1:9), not, indeed, as though He needed repentance, but as a symbol and means of consecration to the work which lay before Him. The Gospels are more deeply interested in the impression made by Jesus on John, modern writers in the influence exerted by John upon Jesus. According to all the Synoptics, John proclaimed the near advent of the Messiah; according to Mt., he may have implied that Jesus was the Messiah (Mar 3:14); while the Fourth Gospel states that he explicitly pointed Him out as the Messiah to his disciples (Mar 1:29; Mar 1:36). If we suppose that Jesus held intercourse for a time with the Baptist, it is easy to believe that the stainlessness and commanding greatness of His character at least evoked from the Baptist an avowal of his own inferiority. That he went so far as to declare Him the Messiah whom he preached is a statement which it is difficult to accept literally, or as meaning more than that the school of the Baptist pointed to its consummation in the school of Christ. On the other hand, contact with the Baptists ministry evidently precipitated the crisis in the life of Christ. The man who re-discovered the need and the power of a prophetic mission was an instrument in bringing Jesus face to face with His prophetic task; while his proclamation of the impending advent of the Messiah must have had the character for Jesus of a call to the work for which, as the unique Son, He knew Himself to be furnished. It is evident that the act of baptism was accompanied by something decisive. According to Mk., Jesus then had a vision of the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove, and heard a voice from heaven, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Mar 1:10-11). This is more probable than the statement that it was a public revelation (Luk 3:21-22), or that it was the Baptist to whom the vision was vouchsafed (Joh 1:32). We shall hardly err if we suppose that Jesus spoke to the disciples of His baptism as the time when His Messianic consciousness became clear, and He received an endowment of strength for the task to which He was called.
8. The Temptation.The view taken of the significance of the Baptism is confirmed by the narrative of the Temptation, which would naturally follow closely upon the acceptance of the Messianic vocation (Mar 1:12-13, Mat 4:1-11, Luk 4:1-13). Like the scene at the Baptism, the temptations probably came to Jesus in the form of a vision, which He afterwards described to His disciples. It has generally been agreed that the temptations must be understood as growing out of the Messianic commission, but there is wide difference of opinion as to their precise significance. The view which seems most probable to the present writer may be briefly set forth, it being premised that Lukes order seems to answer best to the logic of the situation. Assuming that in the Baptism Jesus accepted the Messianic call, the possibilities of the ensuing ordeal of temptation were threethat He should recoil from the task, that He should misconceive it, or that, rightly apprehending it, He should adopt wrong methods. The first temptation, accordingly, may very naturally be supposed to have consisted in the suggestion that He should choose comfort rather than hardshipthat He should turn back, while there was yet time, from the arduous and perilous path, and live out His days in the sheltered life of Nazareth. This He rejected on the ground that there are higher goods than comfort and security; man shall not live by bread alone (Mat 4:4). The heroic course resolved on, the great question to be next faced was if He was to aim at establishing a kingdom of the political kind which the people generally expected, or a kingdom of a spiritual order. To found and maintain an earthly kingdom. He knew, meant the use of violence, craft, and other Satanic instruments; and of such means, even if the end had approved itself to Him as His vocation, He refused to make use (Mat 4:8 ff.). This decision taken, the question remained as to the way in which He was to win belief for Himself and His cause. For one with perfect trust in God it was a natural suggestion to challenge God to own Him by facing risks in which His life could be saved only through the interposition of a stupendous miracle (4:5ff.). But this He put aside as impious, and cast upon the Father the care of making His path plain, while He awaited, prudently as well as bravely, the gradual disclosure of His call to work and danger.
9. Duration of the Ministry (cf. art. Chronology above and in DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ).The Synoptics give no certain indication of the length of the period. It is argued that the incident of plucking the ears of corn (Mar 2:23) points to April or June of one year, and that at the feeding of the five thousand we are in the spring (green grass, Mar 6:39) of the year following; while at least another twelve months would be required for the journeys which are subsequently recorded. The chronological scheme usually adopted is based on the Fourth Gospel, which has the following notes of time:a Passover (Joh 2:13), four months to harvest (Joh 4:35), a feast of the Jews (Joh 5:1), another Passover (Joh 6:4), the feast of Tabernacles (Joh 7:2), the feast of Dedication (Joh 10:22), the last Passover (Joh 11:55). The first four can be combined in more than one way to fit into a single yeare.g. (a) PassoverMayany lesser feastPassover; or (b) PassoverJanuaryPurim (February)Passover. From Joh 6:4 to Joh 11:55 the space covered is exactly a year, the autumn Feast of Tabernacles (Joh 7:2), and the winter Feast of Dedication (Joh 10:22), being signalized in the course of it (art. Chronology in DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] i. 409a, 408a).
It was a wide-spread opinion in Patristic times, supported by the phrase the acceptable year of the Lord (Luk 4:19), that the ministry lasted only one year; and in the opinion of some modern scholars it can be maintained that even the Fourth Gospel includes its material between two Passovers (Westcott and Hort, Greek Test.; Briggs, New Light on the Life of Jesus). On the other hand, it was asserted by Irenus (adv. Hr. ii. 22) on the ground of Joh 8:57, and of an alleged Johannine tradition, that from ten to twenty years elapsed between the Baptism and the Crucifixion. Joh 8:57 is quite inconclusive, and the best authority for the Johannine tradition must be the Gospel, the evidence of which may be summed up by saying that while two years must, not more than two years can, be allowed for the interval from Joh 2:13; Joh 2:23 to Joh 11:55 (art. Chronology in DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ).
10. Periods of the Life of Christ.The divisions are necessarily affected by the view which is taken of the value of the chronological scheme of the Fourth Gospel.
Keim, who generally follows the guidance of the Synoptics, divides as follows:
Preliminary period of self-recognition and decision.
1. The Galilan spring-time, beginning in the spring of a.d. 34 [certainly much too late], and lasting for a few months. Characteristics: the optimism of Jesus, and the responsiveness of the people.
2. The Galilan storms, extending over the summer and autumn of a.d. 34 and the spring of the following year. Scene: Galilee and the neighbouring regions. Characteristics: increasing opposition, and intensification of the polemical note in the teaching of Jesus.
3. The Messianic progress to Jerusalem, and the Messianic death at the Passover of a.d. 35. Scene: Pera and Jerusalem (Jesus of Nazara).
The Johannine material can be combined with the Synoptic in two periods, each of which lasted about a year. The following is the scheme of Hase:
Preliminary history.
1. The acceptable year of the Lord, marked by hopefulness, active labour, and much outward success. Scene: Juda and Galilee. Time: from the Baptism to the Feeding of the Multitude (some months before Passover of the year a.d. 30 or 31 to shortly before Passover of the following year).
2. The year of conflict. Scene: Galilee, Pera, Juda. Time: from the second to the last Passover.
3. The Passion and Resurrection. Scene: Jerusalem. Time: Passover (Gesch. Jesu).
The months between the Baptism and the first Passover may be regarded as a period with distinct characteristics, and we may distinguish (1) the year of obscurity, (2) the year of public favour, (3) the year of opposition (Stalker, Life of Jesus Christ, 1879).
The division into sub-periods has been most elaborately carried out by Dr. Sanday (Outlines of the Life of Jesus Christ).
A. Preliminary periodfrom the Baptism to the call of the leading Apostles. Sources: Mat 3:1 to Mat 4:11, Mar 1:1-13, Luk 3:1 to Luk 4:13, Joh 1:6 to Joh 4:54. Scene: mainly in Juda, but in part also in Galilee. Time: winter a.d. 26 to a few weeks before Passover, a.d. 27.
B. First active or constructive period. Sources: Mat 4:13 to Mat 13:53, Mar 1:14 to Mar 6:13, Luk 4:14 to Luk 9:6, Joh 5:1-47. Scene: mainly in Galilee, but also partly in Jerusalem. Time: from about Pentecost, a.d. 27, to shortly before Passover, a.d. 28.
C. Middle or culminating period of the active ministry. Sources: Mat 14:1 to Mat 18:35, Mar 6:14 to Mar 9:50, Luk 9:7-50, Joh 6:1-71. Scene: Galilee. Time: Passover to shortly before Tabernacles, a.d. 28.
D. Close of the active periodthe Messianic crisis in view. Sources: Mat 19:1 to Mat 20:34, Mar 10:1-52, Luk 9:51 to Luk 19:28, Joh 7:1 to Joh 11:57. Scene: Juda and Pera. Time: Tabernacles, a.d. 28, to Passover, a.d. 29.
E. The Messianic crisisthe last week, passion, resurrection, ascension. Sources: Mat 21:1 to Mat 28:20, Mar 11:1 to Mar 16:8 [Mar 16:9-20], Luk 19:29 to Luk 24:52, Joh 12:1 to Joh 21:23. Scene: mainly in Jerusalem. Time: six days before Passover to ten days before Pentecost, a.d. 29.
Weisss scheme agrees with the above so far as regards the duration of the ministry (from 2 to 3 years), and the date of the Crucifixion (Passover, a.d. 29). His periods are: (1) the preparation, corresponding to Dr. Sandays preliminary period down to the wedding in Cana of Galilee; (2) the seed-time, including the remainder of the preliminary period, and the first active or constructive period; (3) the period of first conflicts, and (4) the period of crisis, corresponding to the middle or culminating period; (5) the Jerusalem period, corresponding to the close of the active period; (6) the Passion and the subsequent events.
Useful as the above schemes of Weiss and Sanday are for arranging the subject-matter, and deserving as they are of respect for their scholarly grounding, the writer doubts if we can pretend to such exact knowledge of the course of events. Even if we assume that the Fourth Gospel gives a reliable chronological framework, it is a very precarious assumption that the Synoptic material, which is largely put together from a topical point of view, can be assigned its proper place in the scheme. Further, it is by no means clear that we are right in supposing that there was a Judan ministry which ran parallel with the Galilan ministry. There is much to be said for the view that the narratives of the Fourth Gospel presuppose a situation towards the close of them inistry, and that in interweaving them with the Synoptic narratives of the Galilan period, we anticipate the actual march of the history. The view here taken is that there was a Galilan ministry, for which the Synoptics are almost the sole source; that this was followed for some months before the end by a Judan ministry, the materials of which are supplied mainly by the Fourth Gospel; and that finally the sources unite to give a picture of the Last Week, the Passion, and the Resurrection.
(A) The Galilan Ministry.Jesus seems to have remained with the Baptist until the latter was put in prison (Mar 1:14), when He returned to Galilee. The change of scene, which in any case was natural in view of the blow that had been struck, served to mark the distinctness of His mission from that of John. He may also have been influenced by His knowledge of the greater receptiveness of the Northern stock. The centre of His activity was the populous district, studded with prosperous towns, which lay around the Sea of Galilee. From Capernaum, in which He lived for a time (Mat 4:13, Mar 9:33), He had easy access to the other cities on the Lake, and He also appears to have made wider circuits throughout Galilee, in the course of which He preached in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luk 4:16 ff.). At the close of the period He penetrated to the regions beyondbeing found on the borders of Tyre and Sidon (Mar 7:24), then in the heathen district of Decapolis to the east of Jordan (Mar 7:31), afterwards in the towns of Csarea Philippi in the dominions of the tetrarch Philip (Mar 8:27). Except for the incidental references above referred to, there is nothing to fix the duration of the Galilan ministry; but though crowded with labours and incidents, it seems to have been comparatively short. Its importance is measured by the fact that it set the Christian gospel in circulation in the world, and laid the foundation of the Christian Church.
(1) Treatment of the materials.In dealing with this period, the characteristic task of the historian may almost be said to begin where that of the Evangelists ends. The modern student is not only interested in chronology and in the details of the environment, but he tries to bring the course of events under the point of view of development, and to penetrate to the causes which explain the movement and the issue of the history. The Gospels, on the other hand, contribute a picture rather than a historya picture, moreover, in which the setting is presupposed rather than described, while they leave us in ignorance of much that we should like to know about hidden forces and springs of action. It seems advisable to begin by reproducing in its salient aspects the Synoptic picture of the Galilan ministry, based primarily on Mk., and thereafter to advert to some contributions which have been made to the better elucidation of the course of events.
(2) The picture of the Galitan Ministry.The principal source is the sketch in Mk., which sets forth the Ministry from the point of view of one who regarded it as the manifestation of the Messiah. The chronological order of events is necessarily mirrored to some extent, as the narrative describes a mission and its outcome; but the arrangement as well as the selection of the material is largely governed by topical considerations. The topics of Mk. may be summarized as follows:(a) the preliminary attestation of Jesus as the Messiah; (b) the Messianic activities; (c) the opposition to Jesus, and His self-vindication; (d) the attitude of Jesus Himself to the question of His Messiahship; (e) the results of the Galilan Ministry.
The above argument is taken over by Mt., with some change in the order of the sections, while he supplements from the older Apostolic source the meagre account given by Mk. of the contents of the teaching of Jesus. Lk. follows Mk. more closely in the sections dealing with the Galilan ministry, but incidentally shows the uncertainty of the chronological scheme by transferring to the beginning the visit to Nazareth (Luk 4:16-30; cf. Mar 6:1-6, Mat 13:53-58), on the apparent ground that it could be regarded as in some respects a typical incident.
(a) The preliminary attestation.The Synoptic tradition puts in the forefront certain credentials of Jesus. John the Baptist predicted His coming (Mar 1:7-8), a voice from heaven proclaimed Him to be the Son (Mar 1:11), the demons knew Him (Mar 1:23-24; cf. Mar 5:7); while the chosen few, though as yet not knowing Him for what He is, instinctively obeyed His call (Mar 1:18), and the multitude recognized in Him an extraordinary man (Mar 1:22). Apart from the references to the Baptist and the vision at the Baptism, the facts which underlay this apologetic argument were that demoniacs were peculiarly susceptible to His influence, and that upon the uncorrupted and unprejudiced heart Jesus made the impression of a commanding authority which was entitled to be obeyed.
(b) The Messianic activities.Upon the credentials follows a description of the labours by which Jesus proceeded to carry out His plan, and which revealed Him as the Messiah. The means employed were threeto teach the nature, the blessings, and the laws of the Kingdom, to exemplify its power and its spirit in mighty works, and to call and train men who should exemplify the new righteousness, and also share and continue His labours.
(i) The ministry of teaching (cf. Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1892).The work which lay nearest to the hand of Jesus, as the Messiah, was to preach. He needed to preach repentance, as the condition of the reception of the Kingdom; He needed to gain entrance for a true conception of its nature; and He had to legislate for the society which was to own Him as its King. It is accordingly as the Messiah prophet that He is introduced: Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel (Mar 1:14-15). Following upon a similar notice (Mar 4:23), Mt. interpolates the Sermon on the Mount, in which the principles of the gospel of the Kingdom are set forth, on the one hand as a revision of the OT moral code, on the other as an antithesis to the maxims and the practice of contemporary Judaism. The meagre specimens of our Lords teaching which Mk. thought it sufficient for his purpose to give, are further supplemented by Mt. in his collection of the parables of the Kingdom, and by Lk. in the peculiar section which includes the parables of the Lost Coin, the Lost Sheep, and the Lost Son.
The synagogues were open, at least in the first period, to Jesus. He also taught wherever opportunity offeredin the house, on the mountain-side, from a boat moored by the shore of the Lake. To a large extent His teaching was unsystematic, being drawn forth by way of comment on some casual incident, or of a rejoinder made to a question or an objection. On other occasions, e.g. when preaching in the synagogue, we must suppose Him to have treated of some large subject in a set discourse, but it is unlikely that any one contained more than an exposition of an OT passage (Luk 4:16 ff.), or the message of one of the parables (Mat 13:1 ff.). The grand characteristic of His manner of teaching has been described as the combination of the utmost degree of popular intelligibility with memorable pregnancy of expression (Wendt, 2). (a) The means by which intelligibility was attained was the copious use of the concrete example, and of the comparison of ideas. The comparison is used in three formsthe simile, the metaphor, and the parable. The parables, again, obviously fall into three classes. In one class we have a story which illustrates by a concrete example an attitude which Jesus desired to commend or to condemn (the Good Samaritan, Luk 10:30 ff.; the Pharisee and the Publican, Luk 18:10 ff.). Those of a second class draw attention to a law operating in the natural world which has its counterpart in the Kingdom of God (the Seed Growing Secretly, Mar 4:26-29; the Mustard Seed, Mar 4:30-32). in a third class there is a description of an event which has occurred in special circumstances, whether in nature or in the dealings of man with man, and the particular event is employed to illustrate some aspect of the Divine message (the Sower, Mat 13:1 ff.; the Prodigal Son, Luk 15:11 ff.). (b) The second note of the teaching of Jesus, which might perhaps be called incisiveness, is illustrated in the numerous short sayings, or aphorisms, into which He condenses a body of doctrine or precept (Mar 4:22; Mar 4:24; Mar 10:31). It is also seen in the naked, often paradoxical, fashion, in which He states a principle. The doctrine of non-resistance, e.g., He teaches in uncompromising form by means of the special instance (Mat 5:38-41), and leaves it to the disciple to discover the other considerations which cross and limit its application. The latter observation is of importance as a preservative against the errors of an excessive literalism in the interpretation of the teaching of Jesus. It is also desirable to bear in mind the rule, which is one of the gains of modern exegesis, that each of the parables of Jesus is to be regarded as the vehicle of one great lesson, and that it is illegitimate to treat it as an allegory every detail of which has been consciously filled with didactic meaning. As regards the aim of Jesus in His teaching, it might be thought self-evident that it could be nothing else than to make His message clear to His hearers. It is therefore surprising to read that the parables are spoken by Jesus with the purpose of obscuring to them that are without the truths which they reveal to the disciplesthat seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand (Mar 4:10-12, Mat 13:10-15, Luk 8:9-10). That the teaching of Jesus was largely misapprehended is, of course, true, and also that it had the effect of making those worse who rejected it, but this would appear to be an instance in which the Church has misreported a tragic consequence as an original and deliberate intention.
(ii) The mighty works (cf. Bruce, The Miraculous Element in the Gospels, 1886).The teaching ministry was accompanied from the first by acts of healing, and these were followed later by other acts involving superhuman power. The Synoptic account of the mighty works may be briefly summarized.(1) They were very numerous, and were of different kinds. In addition to the miracles which are described in detail, there are references of a general sort which imply that Jesus work was cast to a large extent in the form of a healing ministry (Mar 1:33-34). Some of the miracles might be understood as faith-cures wrought upon persons suffering from nervous disorders or mental derangement, but those are inextricably bound up with others which are not explained by moral therapeutics, while a third group not explained imply a supernatural control of the forces of external nature. The healing miracles may be divided as follows:(a) cure of organic defects (the blind, Mar 10:46-52; the deaf and dumb, Mar 7:31-37); (b) disease (leprosy, Mar 1:40-45, Luk 17:11-16; fever, Mar 1:29-31; dropsy, Luk 14:1-6; paralysis, Mar 2:1-12, Mat 8:5-13); (c) death (Mar 5:22 ff., Luk 8:41). As a special group, conceived as miracles in the spirit world, are the cures of epilepsy and lunacy (Mar 1:21-28; Mar 5:1-20; Mar 7:24-30; Mar 9:14 ff.). The Nature miracles have been classified as (a) miracles of creative power (feeding of the multitude, Mar 6:35-44; Mar 8:1-10; walking on the water, Mar 6:48; Mar 6:51); () Miracles of Providence, including (i.) miracles of blessing (the miraculous draught of fishes, Luk 5:1-11; the stilling of the tempest, Mar 4:35-41); and (ii.) a miracle of judgment (the cursing of the fig-tree, Mar 11:12-14; Mar 11:20; cf. Westcott, Introd. to the Gospels3, 1895, App. E [Note: Elohist.] ).(2) The working of miracles was conditioned in various ways. The general condition on the side of the patients was the presence of faith (the woman with the issue, Mar 5:25-34; Bartimus, Mar 10:46-52). In the absence of faith Jesus could do nothing or little (Mar 6:4-6, Mat 13:58). It was not, however, necessary that this faith should be personal: in some cases it was the vicarious faith of a parent or of a friend that had power and prevailed (the centurions servant, Mat 8:5-13 : the daughter of the Syrophnician woman, Mar 7:24-30). In some instances the miracle is represented as having its spring in sympathy, apart from any reference to the spiritual condition of the sufferer (the fever, Mar 1:29-34; dropsy, Luk 14:1-6); while in cases of possession it could take place in the face of reluctance and antagonism (the unclean spirit. Mar 1:21 ff.: the man in the tombs, Mar 5:1-17). As regards the powers of Jesus, the impression is not given that He was in possession of an omnipotence which He was able to wield at will. For what He is able to accomplish He is dependent on the Father, who supplies Him with power in the measure in which it is needed for the discharge of His mission. In the background of the miracles was the life of communion with God which Jesus lived. This kind, He significantly says, can come out by nothing, save by prayer (Mar 9:29). It would also appear that the cures made a demand upon His energies which gave rise to a feeling of physical exhaustion (Mar 5:30).(3) The significance of the miracles. The leading point of view in which they are regarded in the Gospels is undeniably the evidential. In the fundamental narrative the argument advances from the testimonies as the first link, to the mighty works as the second link, in the chain of Messianic proof. It would be impossible to state the evidential aspect more strongly than is done in the reply to the question of John the Baptist (Mat 11:2 ff.).
(iii) The calling and teaching of disciples (cf. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, 1877).The effect of the Ministry was that Jesus, like the prophets of old, John the Baptist, and the Rabbis, gathered around Him a group of disciples. The great body of those who regarded Him as a Divinely sent teacher must have remained in their homes, and been content to hear Him when they had a convenient opportunity; and there is no reason to think that they were organized in any way into societies, except in so far as a natural instinct would prompt them to meet and speak one to another of the things which they had seen and heard. There was a second body of disciples, sometimes large but fluctuating in size, which accompanied Jesus on His journeys. Some He invited to join this company, others He sternly invited to count the cost (Mat 8:19 ff.). Within this company He formed an inner circle of twelve, who left all for His sake, and with a few breaks were found constantly at His side. The call of Simon and Andrew, James and John (Mar 1:16 ff.). Is related to have occurred in the first days of the Galilan ministry. An early Christian tradition (Ep. Barn. 5) speaks of the Apostles as reclaimed sinners of the worst type, but this is manifestly an exaggeration designed to illustrate the regenerative power of the gospel. The leading members of the band were fishermenof a craft which is pursued under a sense of dependence on Providence, and therefore tends to foster the spirit of piety. The sons of Zebedee seem to have been in better circumstances than the rest, and Matthew the tax-gatherer doubtless wielded a competent pen; but they were ignorant men as tested by the standard of the schools, whether ancient or modern. Humility, sincerity, and prudence, coupled with trust in God and devotion to Himself, were the qualifications which chiefly guided Jesus in selecting them (Mat 10:5 ff; Mat 16:17). In calling the Apostles, Jesus was satisfying a need of His own inner life. It was a maxim of the Rabbis that it was a sin to have no friend with whom to discourse of the Divine Law, and for Jesus this opportunity was provided by their intimate converse. It is also evident that He was wont to feel strengthened by their sympathy (Mar 14:37). On the other hand, He needed them for the work of the Kingdom. It was necessary that in them the righteousness of the Kingdom should be personally manifested, so that men might see their good works and glorify the Father (Mat 5:16). For this reason we find that it becomes increasingly the peculiar care of Jesus to perfect their training in knowledge and in character. He also looked to them as instruments to aid Him in His work.
To the disciples were left the details of the daily provision of food; they furnished the boat, they rowed Him across the lake; sometimes one and sometimes another of them executed His commissions; they were His channels of communication with the people, with the sick, with the Pharisees (Keim, iii. p. 280).
They were to Jesus arms and eyes, and even in a sense an extended personality. He assigned to them powers and duties similar to His own. He appointed twelve that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach and to have authority to cast out devils (Mar 3:14 f.). And they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them (Mat 6:12-13).
(c) The opposition and self-vindication.Two sections in Mk., with parallels in Mt. and Lk., are devoted to explaining why certain classes refused to believe in Jesus, and to showing how He replied to their objections. The charges may be reduced to three headsblasphemy, irreligious conduct, and insanity.
(i) The charge of blasphemy was early brought against Jesus by certain of the scribes, on the ground that He professed to forgive sins (Mat 2:7). The reply of Jesus is that in healing the paralytic He gives evidence that He has received this authority from God. The same general charge is implied in the request of the Pharisees, seeking of Him a sign from heaven, tempting him (Mat 8:11)the ground taken being that it was impious to teach as He did, unless He could produce satisfying evidence of a Divine sanction. Had the Evangelist edited his material with inventive licence, we should have expected to this question the same reply as was sent to John the Baptist. Instead, we have the startlingly authentic word, Why doth this generation seek a sign? There shall no sign be given (Mat 8:12). It is incredible that this should mean that Jesus disclaimed to work miracles; but it certainly implies that He did not, and probably that He could not, when He was challenged to perform them out of connexion with moral conditions, and as a mere contribution to a controversy.
(ii) Irreligious conduct.There are charges of sins of omission and of sins of commission. Among the sins of omission charged against Jesus is His neglect of fastinga recognized exercise of the holy life, which had been enforced by John the Baptist (Mat 2:18). The reply is that there is a time to fast, and that the time will come for His disciples when their Master is taken away (Mat 2:19-20). To the same category belongs the accusation which was preferred by the Pharisees and certain of the scribes, that some of His disciples neglected the laws of ceremonial purity and ate with unwashed hands (Mat 7:1 ff). Jesus replies that defilement consists in the impure heart, which is the source of all evil (Mat 7:20). Of the sins of commission the chief transgression charged was that He and His disciples did not keep the Sabbath (Mat 2:23-23), and He defended Himself by appealing to OT precedent, and by laying down the principle that the Sabbath law could not be broken by doing good to man on that day. It was also a common ground of accusation that His manner of life, especially His consorting with disreputable persons, stamped Him as wanting in the character of sanctity (Mat 2:16). He replied that He visited them as a physician (Mat 2:17).
(iii) The charge of insanity was also made. The Evangelist does not shrink from recording that some of His friends thought that He was beside Himself (Mar 3:21). Scribes from Jerusalem repeated this in the form that He was the tool of diabolical influences (Mar 3:22). How can Satan, He asked, cast out Satan? (Mar 3:23).
(d) The attitude of Jesus Himself to the Messiahship.While the Synoptics labour to show by accumulated proofs that Jesus was the Messiah, they do not represent Him as obtruding the claim. On the contrary, He enjoins silence upon those who know. He forbids the spirits to testify (Mat 1:25), He even takes steps to keep secret the notable miraclessuch as the healing of the leper (Mar 1:44), and the raising of the daughter of Jairus (Mat 5:43), which would have been likely to carry conviction to the general mind. The impression which is conveyed is that Jesus desired that His disciples, without being prompted, and as the result of their knowledge of Him, should draw the right inference as to His dignity and mission. Even when the grand discovery was made and proclaimed by Peter at Csarea Philippiand in all the Gospels this confession is recognized as momentousJesus enjoined reserve (Mat 8:27-30, Mat 16:13 ff.). Henceforward, He spoke of it freely to the Twelve with the purpose of preparing them for the unexpected issue of His Messiahship in suffering and death. Following upon Peters confession, He began to teach them that he must suffer many things, and be killed, and on the third day rise again (Mat 8:31). The same was the burden of His teaching on the last journey through Galilee (Mat 9:30-32). These predictions of His Passion, it may be added, were manifestly precious to the Primitive Church as removing a stumbling-block in the way of believing the Messiahship. The Crucifixion was a very real difficulty to faith, but it would have been much greater had not the Apostolic witnesses testified that He who claimed to be the Messiah had also foretold His own death.
(e) The results of the Galilan ministry.The Synoptic tradition, while not concealing the darker side of the picture, is most concerned with the achievements and the gains of the Galilan period. It is well known that, as Jesus foretold, much of the seed fell on bad soil or came to nothing. We read of a Woe pronounced by Jesus on Chorazin and Bethsaida which expresses a sense that He had failed to produce a general change for the better in the cities by the Lake (Mat 11:20 ff.). Luke, in particular, puts in the forefront His rejection by the people of His own town (Luk 4:28-30). But as the Primitive Christians looked back on it, it might well seem, in the light of later confidence and optimism, that the success was more conspicuous than the failure. The people reverenced in Him One of superlative greatnesseither the Baptist, or Elijah, or the prophet (Mar 8:28). He had gathered round Him a body of disciples, who were the germ of the future Church (Mat 16:18). Above all, they had risen, in spite of prejudice and opposition, to a heroic avowal of the faith in His Person and in His mission which was to move and to transform the world (Mar 8:29).
The epic treatment of the Galilan ministry.In the treatment of this period many modern Lives proceed on the footing that the Galilan ministry has the tragic interest of a splendid failure following on the brightest hopes. It has been common enough in public life for great men to sink from popularity, through conflict, to neglect and impotence; and there is not a little to suggest that it was so with Jesus in Galilee. The usual representation is that, after being borne along on a tide of popular enthusiasm, the opposition grew more persistent and envenomed, He was forsaken by the multitude, and was forced to move from place to place with a handful of faithful followers. The dramatic effect is sedulously laboured by Keim, who represents Him as becoming a homeless fugitive, seeking safety from His enemies in distant journeys or in obscure places. Graphic pictures are drawn of the change in the popular attitude. Formerly the multitude of hearers thronged Jesus, so that He could not eat in the house in peace, and had to betake Himself from the shore to the lake. Now He sits alone in the house with the disciples, and the collectors of the Temple-tax know not whether they are to assess Him as still a member of their community (O. Holtzmann. Christus, 1907, p. 71). In explanation of His desertion by the multitude, use is made of the incident recorded in Mar 7:1 ff., which, it is thought, was popularly regarded as meaning that He had been definitely repudiated by the highest religious tribunal. The latter, it is supposed, moved the Galilan authorities to action which menaced the liberty of Jesus, and even His life.
This dramatic treatment is not wholly justified by the records and is to some extent dependent on inherent probability in the idyllic early days, when we are told that only the first murmurs of opposition were heard, Mk. says that the cry of blasphemy and of Sabbath-breaking was already raised against Jesus, and that there was a conspiracy to murder Him (Mar 3:6). At the close of the period, again, when He is pictured as a discredited popular hero, the verdict of Galilee still is that He is a Divine messenger (Mar 8:28), while at the Transfiguration, which falls in the darkest days, a great multitude still attends upon His steps (Mar 9:4). The truth would seem to be that the Synoptics, especially Mk., have given insufficient expression to the element of movement and to the proportion of failure, and that modern biographers have striven too much after strong effects. At the same time the modern work has certainly brought into clearer relief certain points. It seems certain that there was a growing bitterness and violence on the part of the religious authorities, as seen in the fact that Jesus ceased to preach in the synagogues. There was also a measure of popular disappointment, which was the inevitable result of the absence of the patriotic note from the teaching of Jesus, and of the high-pitched spirituality of His demands. Jesus, moreover, regarded the response of Galilee to His preaching as having been representatively given, and as tantamount to a refusal to repent and believe the gospel. As to the motive of the journeys of the last months, there are various considerations to be taken into account. That one motive was to avoid the machinations of His enemies is quite possible, as this would have been in accordance with a counsel given by Him to His disciples (Mat 10:23). But this was quite consonant with a purpose to proclaim the gospel in regions hitherto unevangelized. And if, as is true, there is little evidence that these journeys had a missionary aim, it may well be that for Jesus the most pressing necessity now was to devote Himself to the training of the disciples, and in their society to prepare them, along with Himself, for the trials and the tasks that awaited them at Jerusalem.
Theories of development.It is characteristic of the modern writing of history to postulate a process of evolution and to try to explain its causes; and reference may here be made to the treatment from this point of view of the central theme of the periodthe Messianic consciousness of Jesus. The Gospels know of development only in the form of a growth in the faith of the disciples, and of a modification of the educative method of Jesus; but the question is raised whether the original plan of Jesus, and the means by which He proposed to accomplish it, were not also altered during its course. The theories which may be noticed are those of (1) a modification of His earlier ideas under the influence of John the Baptist; (2) the substitution of the idea of a purely spiritual Kingdom for that of a theocratic State, under the impression which had been made upon Him by the providential course of events; (3) His more complete adoption, also as the outcome of experience, of the Apocalyptic conception of a heavenly Kingdom to be founded on the ruins of the earthly world.
(1) The Galilan ministry which has been described is supposed by Renan to represent a declension from an earlier stage. He supposes that for some months, perhaps a year, previously. Jesus had laboured in Galilee as the teacher of a simple gospel of Divine and human love. On joining John the Baptist He absorbed his ideas and his spirit, and after the arrest of the latter began to publish a new message Jesus is no longer simply a delightful moralist; aspiring to express simple lessons in short and lively aphorisms, He is the transcendent revolutionary who essays to revolutionize the world from its very basis, and to establish on earth an ideal which He had conceived (Life of Jesus, Eng tr p 106). It is clear, as already said, that a time came when Jesus became certain of His Messianic vocation; but that He was already engaged in teaching before He came into contact with the Baptist, there is no evidence whatever. And the Galilan spring-tide, as Keim calls it. certainly does not bear out the idea that the influence of the Baptist had tinged the spirit of Jesus with gloom.
(2) According to Hase, the experiences of the Galilan ministry led to a modification of the hopes and plans of Jesus. At the outset He expected to found a Kingdom such as the OT prophets had foretold, viz. a Kingdom which, while distinguished by piety and righteousness, would be in form a glorious revival of the Kingdom of David. He also hoped that the people as a whole would repent and believe the gospel, and accept Him as the great emancipator. Down to the time when His earthly career was approaching the catastrophe, we never hear a rebuke of the worldly hopes which the Messianic idea everywhere called forth; and on the other hand, He spoke of the Apostles as sitting on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and answered questions of the disciples about places of supreme honour and power. But when, in view of the falling away of the people. His earthly destruction seemed impending, He recognized it to be the purpose of God, and made it His own purpose to establish only a spiritual Kingdom in loyal hearts, and left it to the wonder-working energy of His Heavenly Father to make it grow into a world-power (Gesch. Jesu, 517 ff.). This construction derives a certain plausibility from the fact that it seems to be a general law of Providence that God only gradually reveals His purpose to His chosen instruments, and that the founding and reformation of religions has seldom been carried out in accordance with a predetermined plan. But apart from the doctrinal difficulty of supposing that Jesus was ignorant of a matter so vital, the weight of the historical evidence is against the hypothesis. The story of the Temptation makes it clear that Jesus from the beginning rejected the idea of a Messiahship resting on a basis of political power. He was, moreover, too deeply versed in OT history not to know the usual fate of the prophets. An early saying is preserved, in which He compared the Galilan spring-tide to a wedding which would be followed by bereavement and mourning (Mar 2:19-20).
(3) A more recent phase of the discussion was initiated by Baldensperger (Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, 1888). who made use of the ideas of the Jewish Apocalyptic literature to explain the later teaching of Jesus. He differs from Hase in that he holds that the political ideal was completely rejected in the wilderness, and that during the Galilan period Jesus made prominent the spiritual nature of the Kingdomalthough not knowing when and how it was to be realized. At the later date, when the fatal issue became probable, He would welcome the thought of His death as solving many difficulties, while He more fully appropriated the current Apocalyptic ideas of the Kingdom, and promised to return in the clouds to establish by supernatural means a Kingdom of a heavenly pattern. The interesting fact brought out by this line of investigation is that in His Messianic utterances Jesus applied to Himself, to a much greater extent than was formerly supposed, the contemporary Jewish conceptions about the Messiah, the manner of His advent, and the exercise of His power. But the attempt so to enter into His consciousness as to trace a development in His attitude towards these ideas is too speculative to be readily endorsed.
At the opposite pole is the theory of Wrede (Das Messias-geheimniss, 1901), who denies that Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah, and regards the relative passages, and also the injunctions to secrecy, as fiction. But even the Resurrection would not have created the belief in the Messiahship had Jesus not made the claim in life (Jlicher, Neue Linien, 1906, p. 23).
(B) The Judan Ministry.In seeking to follow the footsteps of Jesus after His departure from Galilee, we have to choose between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. All that the former directly tell us is that He next entered upon a mission in Juda and beyond Jordan, Mar 10:1 (Juda beyond Jordan, Mat 19:1). and that after an undefined interval He travelled by way of Jericho, with a company, to keep the last Passover in Jerusalem. According to the Fourth Gospel, the Peran sojourn was only an episode in a Southern ministry which extended over six months, and of which the scene was laid mainly in Jerusalem. There can be little doubt that at this point the Fourth Gospel is in possession of reliable information. Mk. and Mt. are very vague in their notices, and Lk. uses the journey to Jerusalem (Luk 9:51 to Luk 18:14) as the framework of a mass of material which obviously belongs to a number of different places and times. It is to be noticed that there are incidental references in Mk. and Lk. which imply that there were visits to Jerusalem before the endnotably the incident at the inhospitable Samaritan village, which may well have occurred when Jesus went up on an earlier occasion from Galilee (Luk 9:51-55; cf. Luk 17:11-19). We may hold, as Tatian held, that the Fourth Gospel misplaces important events, and even that events of the Judan ministry are altogether ante-dated; but it seems certain that it is right in placing a mission to Jerusalem immediately after the closing scenes in Galilee. Apart from the confidence and circumstantiality of the report, there are various considerations which make it probable that He proceeded to Jerusalem. For Jesus Himself, with His knowledge of the destined end, felt the necessity of bringing things to a decisive issue. He was straitened till His baptism should be accomplished (Luk 12:50). From the point of view of the disciples, who could not believe in the tragic event, it was natural to expect Him to lay before the religious leaders and the people of the capital the evidence that had created their own faith. We also hear of a natural taunt of those who believed not. Why hesitate to submit the case to those who are really competent to judge? (Joh 7:4). On the other hand, there are facts which are difficult to explain on the supposition that Jesus only arrived in Jerusalem a few days before the Crucifixion. The knowledge and the hatred of His enemies disclosed in the last week, point to earlier collisions, and an earlier ministry of some duration seems clearly implied in the words, How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Mat 23:37).
(1) Sequence of events.At the Feast of Tabernacles, which fell in the third week of the month Tishri (Sept.Oct.), Jesus appeared in Jerusalem, where He taught and disputed in the courts of the Temple, making many disciples (Joh 8:30). The healing of the man blind from his birth belongs to this time. After a brief retirement (Joh 8:59), He returned to the Feast of Dedication (Joh 10:22) on the last week of the ninth month (Nov.Dec.), when His claims and rebukes led to a threat of stoning, and to plans for His arrest (Joh 10:31; Joh 10:39). He next withdrew beyond Jordan, where His ministry met with much success (Joh 10:40-42, with which matter in Mar 10:1-52, Mat 19:1-30; Mat 20:1-34, Luk 18:15 to Luk 19:27 may be parallel). Hence He returns to Bethany on hearing of the sickness of Lazarus, whom He raises from the dead (Joh 11:1-46). Next follows a sojourn with His disciples at Ephraim, a town supposed to be in the N.E. of Juda (Joh 11:54). The narratives are combined by the hypothesis that from Ephraim He proceeded to join the train of Galilan pilgrimsprobably at Jericho (Mar 10:46, Mat 20:29, Luk 18:35); and that in their company He made His last journey to Jerusalem. He arrived on the Friday, before the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath, and lodged at Bethany (Joh 12:1).
(2) The Johannine picture.In passing from the Synoptics to the Fourth Gospel we are conscious of many differences. In contrast to the free movement of act and speech, there is something stereotyped in the way in which events develop and arguments are sustained. In place of the vividness and the rich variety of the Synoptic discourses, we have the frequent recurrence of a few themes, and the citeration and exemplification of the fundamental ideas of the Gospel. But what is most noticeable is that, while with the Synoptics the Messiahship of Jesus is a secret which is spoken of only after a great venture of faith in the Apostolic circle, there is here no evidence whatever of reserve. The confession of Peter is mentioned (Joh 6:69), but many have known Him before,Andrew as far back as the Baptism (Joh 1:41). Moreover, the point of most of the discourses delivered by Jesus is that He is the Messiah, and more than the Messiah, and that His claim rests upon the strongest authentication. That this was the burden of His teaching after Csarea Philippi, we may well believe, for it is quite in accordance with the situation disclosed by the Synoptics at the close of the Galilan ministry, that Jesus, after being assured of the faith of the Apostles, should have proceeded to urge His claim in the boldest and most public way. But for the same reason it is difficult to believe that the discourses connected with earlier visits to Jerusalem, which contain the same message, are properly dated. The interview with Nicodemus, as well as the cleansing of the Temple, may well belong to the later phase of the ministry; and the story of the woman of Samaria may be an incident of the journey from Galilee to the Feast of Tabernacles. The supposition that the Fourth Gospel has interwoven with the Galilan period events which all belong to the one Judan ministry of the last six months seems to the writer to go far to lighten the difficulties of the harmonist, and to make it possible to profit, without being misled, by its history.
(a) The self-witness of Jesus.He publicly claims to be the Messiah. If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not, (Joh 10:24-25; cf. Joh 9:35-37). There is also developed a high doctrine of His origin and primordial dignity. He is from God (Joh 7:29); He is before Abraham was (Joh 8:58); He and the Father are one (Joh 10:30)which last is interpreted to mean that being a man, He makes Himself God (Joh 10:33). Proportional to His dignity are the blessings which He bestowsrepose and refreshment of soul (Joh 7:37; cf. Joh 4:14), true life (Joh 5:40), spiritual freedom (Joh 8:32), resurrection and life everlasting (Joh 11:25).
(b) The proof of Christs claim.To the repeated demand for corroboration Jesus appeals to God as His witness. The source of His doctrine, God also attests its truth (Joh 8:18). In this connexion the healing of the blind man (ch. 7) is thought of as decisive: When the Christ shall come, the multitude ask, will he do more signs than those which this man hath done? (Joh 8:31). His Divine mission, it is further declared, is accredited by His disinterested zeal for Gods glory (Joh 8:49-50). On the other hand, great stress is laid on the fact that the attitude to Christ is determined by the spirit and the life of those who come in contact with Him. Those who are of the truth instinctively recognize Him for what He is, as the sheep know the voice of their shepherd (Joh 10:4, cf. Joh 18:37). To a good man Christ is self-evidencing. If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching whether it be of God (Joh 7:17).
(c) The explanation of the Passion.He speaks of His sufferings and death not merely to His disciples, but to the half-believing (Joh 3:14), and before the multitude (Joh 10:1-20). The points of view under which the Passion is presented are that it is not an evidence of Gods rejection, but an act of self-surrender which calls forth the Fathers love (Joh 10:17), that death comes in the line of the vocation of a good shepherd (Joh 10:11 ff.), that it is His own voluntary act (Joh 10:18), and that it is at once the ground of salvation (Joh 3:14 f.) and the secret of the gospels spell (Joh 12:32).
(d) The response of the hearers.The Fourth Gospel shows us Jesus surrounded by three classesa band of believers, the multitude which, though divided and wavering, is deeply impressed, and the religious leaders who regard Him with hatred or contempt. The charges, as in Galilee, are mainly Sabbath-breaking (Joh 7:23) and blasphemous utterances (Joh 10:33); and the attempt is made further to discredit Him as unlearned (Joh 7:15) and a Galilan (Joh 7:41). Finally, a definite resolution is formed to destroy Him. What brought matters to a head, according to this Gospel, was the raising of Lazarus, which produced a popular excitement that portended the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, and gave reason to fear the infliction of the most severe retribution by the Romans (Joh 11:48).
11. The week of the Passion.A view may be given of the probable order of events between the arrival of Jesus in Bethany on the eve of the Sabbath and the Crucifixion.
Saturday: the supper in the house of Simon the leper (Joh 12:1 ff., Mar 14:3 ff.).
Sunday: the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mar 11:1-10 ||), visit to the Temple, return to Bethany (Mar 11:11).
Monday: visit to Jerusalem, the cursing of the fig-tree (Mar 11:12-14), the cleansing of the Temple (Mar 11:15-18||), return to Bethany (Mar 11:19).
Tuesday: visit to Jerusalem, teaching in the Temple, interrogation by members of the Sanhedrin (Mar 11:27-33 ||), Pharisees (Mar 12:13-17), and Sadducees (Mar 12:18-27||), and others; parables (Mar 12:1-12||); return to Bethany.
Wednesday: visit to Jerusalem, denunciation of the Pharisees (Mar 12:38-40||), discourse on the last things (Mar 13:5-37||), deliberations of the Sanhedrin (Mar 14:4), the overtures of Judas (Mar 14:10), return to Bethany.
Thursday: preparation for the Passover (Mar 14:12-16), the Last Supper (Mar 14:17-26||) the Agony (Mar 14:32-42||), the betrayal and the arrest (Mar 14:43 ff.||).
The chief difficulties presented by the narratives may be briefly noticed. (a) The Synoptists make the triumphal entry take place on the arrival of Jesus with the pilgrims from Galilee (Mar 11:1 ff.), while according to John it was arranged while Jesus was staying at Bethany (Mar 12:1; Mar 12:12). () The anointing in Bethany, which is seemingly placed by Mk. (Mar 14:1) two days before the Passover, is expressly dated by Jn. (Mar 12:1) six days before the Passover, () The day of our Lords death, according to all accounts, was on the Friday; but while the Synoptics make this to have been the Passover day, or the 15th Nisan (Mar 14:12; Mar 14:17), the Fourth Gospel represents it as the day before the Feast of the Passover (Mar 13:1), or the 14th Nisan. In each of these cases there is reason to believe that the Fourth Gospel is accurate. As regards the day of our Lords death, it is unlikely that the Passover day, which had the sanctity of a Sabbath, would have been profaned by the Jewish authorities engaging in business, while the evidence of haste in carrying out the crucifixion points to the same conclusion.
(1) The activity of Jesus.In agreement with the general view of the Judan ministry given in the Fourth Gospel, the work of Jesus during the last week falls mainly under the point of view of an affirmation of His Messiahship in deed and word. Naturally, also, His mind is turned to the future, and His discourses set forth the power and glory reserved for the crucified Messiah in the counsels of God. The explanation and vindication of His mission have their counterpart in an attack upon the principles of those who had rejected Him and who were plotting His destruction.
(i) The Messianic acts.The triumphal entry, in which Jesus was offered and accepted the homage of the multitude (Mar 11:1 ff.), is decisive evidence that He made the claim to be the Messiah. Evidently, also, there is a natural connexion between the public assumption of His dignity and the cleansing of the Temple. According to one account, Jesus proceeded immediately after His triumphal entry to carry out the reform of the Temple of God (Mat 21:12-13).
(ii) The Messianic discourses.The burden of the discourses in which the Messlanic claim is prominent is that there awaits Him the same fate as the prophetsthat He will be rejected by His people and put to death (parables of the Vineyard, Mar 12:1-12; and the Marriage Feast, Mat 22:1-14). But beyond this seeming failure, two vistas open up into the future. The death is the prelude to a glorious future, when Christ will return a second time, accompanied by the angels, and will have at His command all power needed for the establishment and defence of His Kingdom. For this type of teaching the main source is the so-called Synoptic Apocalypse (Mar 13:5-37, Mat 24:4-36, Luk 21:8-36), with the topics of the Day of the Son of Man, the Passover, and the Last Judgment. The other leading thought is that the guilt of the rejection of their Messiah will be terribly avenged upon the Jews in the horrors of the last days, and especially in the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple (Mar 13:1-2, Mat 24:1-2; Mat 24:15 ff.).
(iii) The polemics.The self-vindication of Jesus naturally involved an examination of the position of those who rejected His claim. We have already seen the nature of His replies to the detailed objections which were made to His teaching. As the crisis approaches, He advances, in the manner represented by the Fourth Gospel to be characteristic of the whole Judan ministry, to an attack upon the religions position of His adversariesespecially of the professed saints and religious guides. Their hypocrisy, their spiritual pride, their blindness, the cupidity and cruelty which their pretended sanctity cannot wholly mask, are exposed in the most merciless invective (the Woes of Mat 23:1-36).
(2) Reasons for the hatred of Jesus.We are accustomed to think of the opposition to Jesus as due to a temporary ascendency of a diabolic element in human nature, but as a fact the hatred of the principal parties, and the murderous conspiracy in which it issued, are too easily intelligible from the point of view of average political action. The chief responsibility rests with the Sadducees, who dominated the Sanhedrin, and who set in motion the machinery of the law. As we saw, they were statesmen and ecclesiastics, and it is the recognized business of the statesman to maintain social order, of the ecclesiastic to defend the interests of an institution, by such measures as the exigencies of the case seem to demand. And if they were convinced that the popular excitement aroused by Jesus was likely to be made a pretext by the Romans for depriving them of the last vestiges of national existence (Joh 11:48); and if, on the other hand, His reforming zeal in the Temple was an attack on one of the sources of the revenues of the priesthood (Mar 11:15-18), they could claim that what they did was to perform an administrative act under the compulsion of higher expediency. The Pharisees, while less able to strike, exhibited a more venomous hatred. They represented the standpoint of religious conservatism; and it has been no uncommon thing, or universally censured, for men to believe that what is essential in religion is old and unchangeable, and that it is a duty to God to suppress, if necessary by violence, the intrusion of new and revolutionary ideas. And though it is true that the old, to which they clung, itself contained the promise of the new, the new approached them in such unexpected shape that the conservative spirit could feel justified in attempting to crush it. Again, political and ecclesiastical leaders depend greatly on public respect and confidence, and are moved by the instinct of self-preservation to protect themselves against those who humiliate them or threaten to supplant them. It is therefore no surprising conjunction that soon after the exposure of the religion of the scribes and Pharisees, we read of a consultation to take him and kill him (Mar 14:1, Mat 26:2, Luk 20:19). On the whole, therefore, it would appear, not indeed that the enemies of Jesus were excusable, but that they were so closely representative of normal ways of judging and acting in public life as to involve mankind, as such, in the guilt of the plot which issued in the death of Jesus.
(3) The preparation of a case.Unless resort was to be had to assassination, it was necessary to frame a capital charge which could be substantiated before a legal tribunal, and a series of attempts were made at this time to extract from Jesus statements which could be used for this purpose. To convict Him of blasphemy might be sufficient, but as the consent of the Roman authorities had to be procured to the death penalty, it was an obvious advantage to have the charge of sedition in reserve. The first question, evidently framed by the Sanhedrin, was as to His authority (Mar 11:27-33||). If we may believe the Fourth Gospel, He had often enough claimed to be from God, and to speak the things which the Father had showed Him; but He refuses to fall in with their design, and puts a question about John the Baptist which reduces them to confusion. It is quite probable that the incident of the woman taken in adultery (Joh 7:53 to Joh 8:11) occurred at the same timethe intention being to compromise Jesus by eliciting a merciful judgment which would have the character of the repudiation of a Mosaic commandment. Jesus avoided the snareinasmuch as He did not challenge the law which visited adultery with death, but at the same time made an appeal to the consciences of the accusers which constrained them to fall away from the charge. The question about the lawfulness of paying tribute to Csar (Mar 12:13-17||) was designed to procure a deliverance which would support the charge of treason. The answer of Jesus clearly meant that He regarded the Roman rule as part of the providential order which He did not propose to disturb, while yet it implied that there was a region into which the authority of Rome did not extend. While this answer baulked the immediate purpose of His questioners, it may be that it so far served their end as to damp the popular enthusiasm with which He had been welcomed to Jerusalem. The question of the Sadducees about re-marriage and immortality (Mar 12:18-27) does not seem to have had any more serious purpose than to make a sceptical point; while the question of the scribe touching the first commandment of all likewise appears to have lain outside of the plot (Mar 12:28 ff.||).
(4) The maturing of the plan.On the Wednesday a meeting of the Sanhedrin was held in the house of Caiaphas (Mat 26:3; cf. Mar 14:1), at which it was resolved to apprehend Jesus. It was of importance to avoid a tumult, and they found a welcome instrument in Judas, who could undertake to guide them to His place of retirement (Mar 14:10-11). It is suggested in all accounts that the motive was mercenary (Mar 14:11; cf. Joh 12:6), but it is also implied that Judas was beside himself when he lent himself to such an act of treachery (Luk 22:3, Joh 13:27). Many moderns, following De Quincey, have thought that the action of Judas was intended to force Jesus to put forth His power. It would thus be of a kind with the policy of Themistocles when he knew that the Greek fleet could conquer if driven into a corner, and sent a seemingly treacherous message to the Persians urging them to advance to the attack. It is more probable that Judas was a patriotic fanatic who could not reconcile himself to the new conception of the Messiah, and now judged it to be a lost cause.
12. The Last Supper.The Wednesday night, as before, was passed at Bethany. On the forenoon of the Thursday Jesus sent two of His disciples into the city, to bespeak a room from one of His friends, and to make the necessary preparation for the Paschal meal. The chronological difficulty already referred to is best surmounted by supposing that Jesus in partaking of the Passover with His disciples anticipated by a day the regular celebration. The matters recorded are the feet-washing (Joh 13:1 ff.), the announcement of the betrayal (Mar 14:18-21||), the institution of the sacrament of the Lords Supper (Mar 14:22-25, Mat 26:26-29, Luk 22:15-20, 1Co 11:23 ff.), and the farewell discourses (Joh 14:1-31; Joh 15:1-27; Joh 16:1-33; Joh 17:1-26).
13. The Institution of the Lords Supper.It was in accordance with a deeply human instinct that Jesus, knowing the hour of separation to be at hand, desired to celebrate in the company of His disciples, whom He sometimes called His children, the most solemn domestic observance of OT religion (Luk 22:15). It was further in agreement with His method of teaching that, in distributing to them bread and wine, He should have given to the act the significance of a parable and made it to testify of spiritual things (Mar 14:22 ff.).
In the older period of controversy the questions agitated were, of a kind which could be settled only by high doctrinal considerations, but there has been a recent discussion of the whole subject, conducted on literary and historical grounds, in which the following questions have been raised. (1) Did Jesus intend to institute a rite which should be repeated among His followers as the sacrament of the Lords Supper? The main reason for denying it is that there is no injunction to repeat it in Mk. or Mt., or in the oldest text of Lk., and that we are thus thrown back on St. Paul as the sole authority. Some have therefore thought of the Apostle, who was familiar with the power of mysteries, as the founder of the institution (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] . Gardner, The Origin of the Lords Supper, 1893). But the recollection of its repetition as a sacrament goes back to the earliest days of the Church (Act 2:42; Act 2:46); and, besides, it is incredible that a usage which was practically the invention of St. Paul could have spread from an outlying Gentile Church over the whole of Christendom (Sanday, Outlines).
(2) Are the elements of bread and wine an essential part of the observance? It has been contended by Harnack (TU [Note: U Texte und Untersuchungen.] vii. 2) that in the primitive usage the only constant element was bread, and that water was frequently, if not commonly, used in place of wine. If a liberty is to be allowed with the original institution, there is less to be said infavour of unfermented wine, which destroys the symbolism, than of water, which was expressly used by our Lord as an emblem of the highest blessings which He bestows (Joh 4:14; Joh 7:37).
(3) How was the sacrament intended to be observed? Was it intended to become an element in a purely religious service, or to be grafted as an actual meal upon the social life of a community? It was certainly instituted in connexion with a common meal; in Apostolic times it followed on, if it was not identical with, the Agape; and this mode of observance continued to be popular, as Augustine attests, down to the fifth century. But, while there may be reason to regret that a mode of observance ceased which was calculated to have a hallowing influence in the sphere of social intercourse, now almost entirely secularized, we must believe with St. Paul that the primitive association of it with a common supper entailed the greater danger of secularizing, and even profaning, the sacrament (1Co 11:21-22).
(4) What meaning did Jesus intend the sacrament to convey? In recent discussion it has been conceived as essentially predictive in characteri.e. as a foretaste of the communion which the disciples would enjoy with their Master in the future Kingdom of Heaven. Its central lesson has also been declared to be that food and drink when rightly used are a means of gracethat they become the food of the soul when partaken of with thanksgiving, in memory of Christs death (Harnack). Without denying to these suggestions an element of truth, it may be firmly held that the average thought of the Church has more nearly divined the meaning of Jesus in interpreting it as a parable of salvation through His sacrifice. The bread and wine were symbols of the strength and joy which Christ bestowed through His life-giving gospel, and He desired His death to be remembered as the sacrifice which in some way ratified and ushered in the new dispensation (Mar 14:24).
The attitude of the Fourth Gospel to the Lords Supper is enigmatical. It relates the incident of the feet-washing (Joh 13:2 ff.), and furnishes in another context a discourse which has the aspect of containing the sacramental teaching of the Gospel (Joh 6:5 ff.). It is incredible that there was a purpose of denying the institution of the ordinance by Christ, but it may well be that the Fourth Gospel intended to emphasize the truth that eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ is a spiritual act which is not tied exclusively to the rite of the Lords Supper.
14. The inner life of Jesus during the period.The soul of Jesus was agitated by a succession of deep and conflicting emotions. Amid the hosannas of the triumphal entry He wept over Jerusalem (Luk 19:41). In pain and wrath He contended with His enemies, and in the intervals of conflict He spoke of a peace which the world could not take away, and uttered words of thanksgiving and joy. He was gladdened by tokens of faith and devotion from His followers (Joh 12:3), and He was also wounded in the house of His friends, when one of the Twelve became the tool of His enemies, and even Peters faith failed. More and more exclusively He felt Himself thrown for sympathy on the unseen presence of the Father (Joh 16:32). Every night he went out, and lodged in the mount that is called the mount of Olives (Luk 21:37). He probably spent the night in the open air and gave hours of vigil to the duty, which He now so earnestly enforced, of watching and praying. It was to look around and before, and to look upward to the Father, that He left the supper-room and went unto a place called Gethsemane (Mar 14:32-42). It may well be that there were many thoughts that burdened His mind in the Agony, but the plain sense of the narrative is that He prayed that He might be enabled, in some other way than through shame and death, to accomplish the work which had been given Him. Being truly man, He could shrink from the impending ordeal of humiliation and suffering, and ask to be spared; being the perfect Son, He added, howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt (Mar 14:36). To such a prayer the only possible answer was that He received from the Father the assurance that according to His holy and loving counsel there was no other possible way (Weiss, ii. 500). Then He arose and went forward to meet the armed band which Judas had guided through the darkness to His retreat.
15. The Passion.The order of events.
The arrest, in Gethsemane on the Thursday, some time before midnight (Mar 14:4-52, Mat 26:47-56, Luk 22:47-53, Joh 18:1-12).
Removal to the palace of the high priest, private examination by Annas (Joh 18:13 ff.)
Trial in the early morning before the Sanhedrin, meeting in the high priests palace, and presided over by Caiaphas, condemnation and buffeting (Mar 14:53-65, Mat 26:57; Mat 26:68, Luk 22:66-71), Peters denial (Mar 14:66-72||).
Trial before Pilate at daybreak, probably in the Fort of Antonia (Mar 15:2-5, Mat 27:11-14, Luk 23:2-5, Joh 18:33-38).
Jesus before Herod (Luk 23:6-12).
The Roman trial resumed, the sentence, the mocking, and the scourging (Mar 15:6-20, Mat 27:16-30, Luk 23:13-25, Joh 18:39; Joh 19:16).
The journey to the Cross (Mar 15:20-23, Mat 27:31-34, Luk 23:26-32, Joh 19:16-17)
The Crucifixion, beginning at 9 a.m. (Mar 15:25), or after noon-day (Joh 19:14); death and burial (Mar 15:34-47, Mat 27:46; Mat 27:61, Luk 23:44-56, Joh 19:28-42).
The primary source is the narrative in Mk., which, however, becomes meagre and somewhat external in its report of the events subsequent to Peters fall. The author of the Fourth Gospel claims to have had opportunities for a more intimate view of things (Joh 18:15), and as a fact gives illuminating information about the more secret proceedings of the authorities. Lk. adds some incidents, notably the appearance before Herod.
(1) The trials.In the Jewish trial there are usually distinguished two stagesa private examination before Annas (Joh 18:13 ff.), and the prosecution before the Sanhedrin under the presidency of Caiaphas (Mar 14:53). There is, moreover, reason to suppose that the second of these was a meeting of a committee of the Sanhedrin held during the night, or of the Sanhedrin meeting as a committee, and that it was followed by a regular session of the Council at daybreak, at which the provisional finding was formally ratified (Mar 15:1).
(i) The examination before Annas.Annas, who had been deposed from the high priesthood twenty years before, continued to be the de facto leader of the Council, and it was natural for him to wish to see Jesus, with a view to putting matters in train. In reply to his question about His disciples and His teaching, Jesus asked him to call his witnessesthe point being that according to Jewish law a man was held to be innocent, and even unaccused, until hostile witnesses had stated their case.
(ii) The trial before the Sanhedrin.At the subsequent meeting of the Council the ordinary procedure was followed, and the indictment was made by witnesses. The charge which they brought forward was a constructive charge of blasphemy, founded on the statement that He had attacked sacred institutions in threatening to destroy the Temple (Mar 14:58). The evidence not being consistent (Mar 14:69), the high priest appealed directly to Jesus to say if He claimed to be the Christ (Mar 14:61). Though this question was contrary to law, which forbade any one to be condemned to death on his own confession, Jesus answered I am. The supernatural claim was forthwith declared, with signs of horror and indignation, to amount to blasphemy, and He was condemned to be worthy of death (Mar 14:64). That a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin was thereafter held to ratify the judgment is implied in Mar 15:1, and was probably necessary to regularize the proceedings, as capital trials might be begun only in the daytime. (On this and cognate points, see Taylor Innes, The Trial of Jesus Christ, 1905.)
(iii) The Roman trial.It is not quite certain whether the Sanhedrin had the right of trying a person on a capital charge; in any case, a death-sentence required to be endorsed by the Roman governor. The Jews obviously took the position that in a case of the kind it was the duty of the governor to give effect to their judgment without going into its merits; but Pilate insisted on his right to make a full review of the charge and its grounds. In this situation, against which they protested, they felt the difficulty of securing sentence on the religious charge of blasphemy, and accordingly fell back on the political charge of treason. They began to accuse him, saying. We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Csar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king (Luk 23:2). In reply to Pilates question, Jesus claimed to be a king, but doubtless disarmed the governors suspicion by some such addition as that He was a king in the realm of the truth (Joh 18:36). Then follow three devices of Pilate to evade responsibilitythe remand to the tribunal of the vassal-prince of Galilee, Herod Antipas (Luk 23:8 ff.); the proposal to scourge Him and release Him (Luk 23:16); and the reference to the multitude (Mar 15:6 ff.). Foiled in each attempt, he still hesitated, when the accusers put the matter in a light which overwhelmed his scruples. They threatened to complain that he had not supported them in stamping out treason (Joh 19:12). Tiberius was known to be peculiarly sensitive on the point of laesa majestas, while Pilates hands were not so clean that he could welcome any investigation; and he therefore pronounced Him guilty of sedition as the pretended king of the Jews, and delivered Him to be crucified (Joh 19:16). He was then scourged, dressed with mock emblems of royalty, treated with derision and insult, and led forth to the place of execution (Mar 15:16 ff.).
The action of the judges.There has been considerable discussion of the action of the judges of Jesus from the point of view of Jewish and Romao law. That the procedure and verdict of the Jewish authorities were according to the law which they were set to administer has been ably argued by Salvador (Hist. des Institutions de Moise 3, 1862), but it seems to have been shown that in the proceedings the most sacred principles of Jewish jurisprudence were violated, and that the process had neither the form nor the fairness of a judicial trial (Taylor Innes, op. cit.). It has also been argued that, in view of the requirements of the Roman law, and of the duties of his position, Pilate was right in passing sentence of death (Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity). On this it must be said that as Pilate did not believe Jesus to be guilty of the crime imputed to Him, he must be held to have transgressed the spirit of Roman justice. On the other hand, it is true that the claim of Jesus was truly inconsistent with the claim of the State which Csar represented. and that in sentencing Jesus to death Pilate faithfully, if unconsciously, interpreted the antagonism of the Roman Empire and the, Christian religion (Taylor Innes, op. cit. p. 122).
(2) The disciples in the crisis.The disciples made no heroic figure in the catastrophe. They took to flight at the arrest (Mar 14:50), and Peter, who followed afar off, denied his Master with curses (Mar 14:66 ff.). It is also significant that no attempt was made to capture the Apostles; apart from Jesus it was evidently thought that they were quite negligible. In fairness it should, however, be remembered that the two opportunities which they might have had of showing their courage were denied themthey were forbidden by Jesus to resist when He was arrested (Mat 26:52), and no witnesses were allowed to come forward in His defence at the trial. The beloved disciple, along with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and two other women, was present at the crucifixion (Joh 19:25).
(3) The bearing of Jesus.The words of Jesus during the last day were few. For the most part He listened to the accusations, and bore the indignities, in silence. The oldest report, while making Him testify that He suffered and died as the Messiah, represents Him as deliberately refusing to answer the false witnesses, or to plead before Pilate. The other accounts relate that He condescended, as is probable enough, to point out the iniquity of the procedure (Mat 26:55, Joh 18:21), and to explain to Pilate the true nature of His claim (Joh 18:36). The decision in Gethsemane gave Him the insight and the resolution that bore Him unshaken through the ordeal of the trials. He expressed the assurance that, had He asked, the Father would have delivered Him by His angels (Mat 26:53); but He knew the Fathers will, to which He had bowed, to be that, according to the Scriptures (Mat 26:54), He should be led as a lamb to the slaughter. What He felt towards His enemies can only be gathered from His silencewhich may have had in it an element of holy scorn, but certainly also involved compassion for the blinded men who were now fixedly committed to their murderous purpose. Whether actually heard by witnesses or not, the first word on the cross (Luk 23:34) assuredly expresses an authentic thought of Him who had taught, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you (Mat 5:44). Only less striking is the self-forgetting sympathy that came to expression in the journey of Jesus to the cross, when the women bewailed and lamented Him: Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children (Luk 23:28).
(4) The Crucifixion.The scene of the execution was Golgotha (Mar 15:22), possibly so named from the skull-like contour of the eminence. Crucifixion was a form of death by torture which was reserved by the Romans for slaves and rebels, and that combined the height of ignominy with the extremity of suffering. Terrible were the sufferings caused by the piercing of the hands and the feet in the most sensitive parts, the extension of the limbs with their hurning wounds, the impeding of the circulation of the blood, the growing oppression and exhaustion, the increasing thirst under the long-drawn mortal agonies (Weiss, ii. 536). The indignity of such a death was heightened by the spectacle of the soldiers casting lots for His garments (Mar 15:24), and by the taunts of His fellow-sufferers, of the multitude, and of the priests (Mar 15:29-32). The narcotic draught which was usually offered to the victim, was refused by Jesus (Mar 15:23). For six hours, according to Mar 15:25; Mar 15:34, His torments endured; and late in the afternoon, with a loud cry, He expired (Mar 15:37). The accompanying signs, according to Mk., were a darkness lasting for three hours (Mar 15:33), and the rending of the veil of the Temple (Mar 15:38), to which Mt. adds the portentmany bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised (Mat 27:52). Both, along with Lk. (Luk 23:47), record a confession of faith by the Roman centurion. Jn. relates, with a solemn affirmation of the authority of an eye-witness, that a soldier pierced his side with a spear, and straightway there came out blood and water (Luk 19:34).
The Seven Words on the cross are commonly supposed to have been spoken in the following order:
(1) Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luk 23:34)assigned to the time when He was being nailed to the cross.
(2) To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise (Luk 23:43)spoken to the penitent robber.
(3) Woman, behold thy son; Behold thy mother (Joh 19:26-27)spoken to Mary, and to the beloved disciple.
(4) I thirst (Joh 19:28).
(5) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mar 15:34, Mat 27:46).
(6) It is finished (Joh 19:30).
(7) Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit (Luk 23:48).
The words are not all equally certain. On textual grounds (1) is placed by WH [Note: H Westcott and Horts text.] in double brackets, and is regarded by Weiss as unquestionably a second-century gloss. The incident of the penitent robber was unknown to the oldest tradition. Evidently there was also uncertainty as to the last utterance of Jesus. That reported by Mk.-Mt. is certainly authentic; none could have invented a saying which ascribed to Jesus a sense of desertion by the Father in the hour of death. On the other hand, the character of Jesus requires us to believe that upon the agony there supervened the filial trust and resignation which find expression in the Lukan and Johannine words.
(5) The burial.There were friends of Jesus who, though powerless to resist the general will, were at least able to secure the seemly burial of the body. With Pilates permission, Joseph of Arimatha, with whom Nicodemus is associated (Joh 19:39), had the corpse removed from the cross, wrapped in a linen cloth, and laid in a rock-hewn tombthe entrance to which was closed by a great stone (Mar 15:43 ff.||). Mt. adds that, at the request of the Jewish authorities, the stone was sealed, and a guard set over the tomb (Mat 27:62-63).
16. The Resurrection.Nothing in history is more certain than that the disciples of Jesus believed that, after being crucified, dead and buried, He rose again from the dead on the third day, and that at intervals thereafter He met and conversed with them in different places. The proof that they believed this is the existence of the Christian Church. It is simply inconceivable that the scattered and disheartened remnant could have found a rallying-point and a gospel in the memory of one who had been put to death as a criminal, if they had not believed that God had owned Him and accredited His mission in raising Him up from the dead. There are many difficulties connected with the subject, and the narratives, which are disappointingly meagre, also contain irreconcilable discrepancies; but those who approach it under the impression of the uniqueness of Christs Person and of His claim on God, find the historical testimony sufficient to guarantee the credibility of the central fact.
(1) The rising on the third day.There is a consensus of testimony in the Gospels to the following factsthat on the morning of the first day of the week certain women went to the sepulchre, that they found the stone rolled away and the grave empty, that they were informed by an angel that Jesus was risen, and that they were bidden to convey the news to the other disciples. Whether the discovery was first made by Mary Magdalene alone (Joh 20:1), or in company with other women (Mar 16:1); whether there was one angel (Mat 28:2), or two (Joh 20:12); whether fear or joy preponderated (Mar 16:8, Mat 28:8), were points on which the report varied. A more serious discrepancy is that, according to the oldest source, the message to the disciples was that they would meet the risen Lord in Galilee (Mar 16:7, Mat 28:7); while as a fact all the Gospels, except the mutilated Mk., proceed to narrate appearances in Jerusalem, and Lk. knows of no other. It cannot, however, be said that the inconsistency is insuperable, as Mt. has consciously combined the Galilan promise with a reference to a preliminary appearance in Jerusalem (Mat 28:8-10).
(2) The places and number of the appearances.Subject to the possibility of confusion arising from the slightness of the allusions, the Biblical list is as follows:
(1) To certain women as they returned from the sepulchre (Mat 28:8-10).
(2) To Mary Magdalene on the same day (Joh 20:11-18).
(3) To Peter, on the day of the Resurrection, in Jerusalem (Luk 24:34, 1Co 15:5).
(4) To two disciples on the same day on the way to Emmaus (Luk 24:13-35; cf. Mar 16:12-13).
(5) To the ten Apostles on the same day in Jerusalem (Mar 16:14-18, Luk 24:36-49, Joh 20:19-23, 1Co 15:5).
(6) To the eleven Apostles a week later in Jerusalem (Joh 20:26-29).
(7) To several disciples, including at least four Apostles, at the Sea of Galilee (Joh 21:1-23).
(8) To five hundred brethren (1Co 15:6; cf. perhaps Mat 28:16-20).
(9) To James (1Co 15:7).
(10) To the Apostles at Jerusalem before the Ascension (Luk 24:50-52, Act 1:3; Act 1:8; cf. Mar 16:19). St. Paul adds the appearance to himself on the way to Damascus (1Co 15:8; 1Co 9:1). (Milligan, Resurrection of our Lord, 259261).
The accounts present many difficulties. Why does Mt. relate the appearance in Jerusalem to the women only, and ignore the all-important manifestations to the Twelve? If, according to the message of the angel, the scene of the intercourse of the risen Lord with His disciples was to be in Galilee, why does Lk. record only appearances in Jerusalem and in the neighbourhood? Further, as the disciples are in Jerusalem eight days after the Resurrection, and again at the Ascension, it seems difficult to interpolate a return to Galilee in which the Apostles resumed their former avocations (Joh 21:3). It has been supposed by some that after the Crucifixion the disciples returned to Galilee, that it was among the haunts which were instinct with memories of Him that Jesus returned to them in vision, and that this older recollection, though not altogether eradicated, has been blurred in the Gospels by later manipulation. But the most certain of all the facts is that belief in the Resurrection began on the third daywhich points to Jerusalem; while the difficulty about fitting the Galilan appearances into the chronological scheme is reduced by consideration of the rapidity with which the little country could be traversed.
(3) The mode of existence of the risen Christ.There are two sets of notices which are not easily combined in an intelligible conception. On the one hand, there are several statements which create the impression that Jesus resumed the same mode of bodily existence which was interrupted at His death upon the cross. The story of the empty tomb (Mar 16:1-8||) meant that the body which had hung upon the cross was revivified. That it was a body of flesh and blood, capable of being handled, and sustained by food and drinknot an apparition of a spiritualistic kind,is a point which is specially emphasized in details of the narratives (Joh 20:27, Luk 24:30). On the other hand, it is far from being a normal life in the body. His face and form have a strange aspect. He appears suddenly in the midst, the doors being shut (Joh 20:26), and as suddenly vanishes out of their sight (Luk 24:31). To this series belong the references of St. Paul, who places the appearance to himself on a level with the others, and speaks of Christ as possessing a body which is not of flesh and blood, but has been transfigured and glorified (1Co 15:50, Php 3:21). The explanation of the phenomena, according to Schleiermacher, is that in the one set of statements we have the matter described from the side of the risen Christ, in the other an account of the impression which He made on the disciples (Leben Jesu). Others conceive that while after the Resurrection He existed as a spiritual being, He yet assumed material substance and form at special moments for special purposes (Rothe, Theologische Ethik). The primitive theory probably was that after the Resurrection His mode of existence was the same as during the ministry, with an augmentation of the power over His body which He even then possessed (Mar 6:45-50), and that only at the Ascension was the body transformed. Some modern theologians hold that the body was raised from the grave as a spiritual body, others that it was gradually spiritualized in the period between the Resurrection and the Ascension. The phenomena belong to a sphere about which we cannot dogmatize.
(4) Denial of the Resurrection.The negative case has two branches: (1) a critical examination of the historical evidence; (2) a hypothesis which shall explain how the Church came to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. On the first head it has already been suggested that it is unfair to magnify the discrepancies and ignore the important consensus.
The explanations began with (1) the theory of imposture. The disciples, it was said, were unwilling to return to work, and in order that they might still have a message, they stole the body, and pretended that Christ had risen (Reimarus, Von dem Zwecke Jesu u. seiner Jnger, 1892). No one now believes that any great religion, least of all Christianity, was founded on fraud. The disciples might indeed have been themselves deceived by finding the tomb empty. Joseph of Arimatha might have removed the body to another grave without the knowledge of the disciples (O, Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, 1901). But it is difficult to believe that a misapprehension so easily corrected could have been allowed to develop into the universal belief that He had been seen alive.
(2) In the school of Eighteenth Century Rationalism the favourite explanation was that Jesus did not really die on the cross, but revived in the cool of the sepulchre, and again appeared among His disciples (most recently Hase, Gesch. Jesu2, 727 ff.). It is true that to escape with His life after being nailed to the cross might have been described as a resurrection from the dead; but it is incredible that the Roman soldiers should have failed to carry out the execution of a condemned man, and equally incredible that a lacerated and emaciated man, who soon afterwards died of His wounds, should have made the impression of having come off as more than a conqueror.
(3) The usual explanation now given from the naturalistic stand point is that the appearances were purely visionary. Visions are common phenomena of the religious life in times of excitement; they are, moreover, often contagious, and it is supposed that they began with the women, probably with Mary Magdalene (Renan, Life of Jesus, Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] p 296), and were repeated for a time in the Apostolic circle. The most weighty objections to this hypothesis are, that while in other cases the visions have followed faith, in the case before us they created it out of sorrow and despair, and also that while other visions have led to nothing considerable, these brought the Church into existence and immeasurably enriched the higher life of the world.
(4) The hypothesis of Keim is to the effect that the appearances were real in so far that Jesus, whose spirit had returned to God, produced upon the minds of believers impressions which they interpreted as bodily manifestations. Christian faith oversteps these boundaries (of the natural order), not merely in the certain assurance that Jesus took His course to the higher world of spirits, but also in the conviction that it was He and no other who, as dead yet risen again, as celestially glorified even if not risen, vouchsafed visions to His disciples. It thus completes and illumines what to science remained an obscure point and a vexatious limitation of its knowledge (Jesus of Nazara, Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] vi. p. 360). This theory deserves to be treated with more respect than it has commonly received from apologists. It at least rejects the idea that the visions were hallucinations; and we are not so well-informed as to the nature of existence as to be able to deny reality to what is given in experiences which are due to the power, and which are according to the purpose, of God. The most serious difficulty for those who follow the records is that it supposes that the grave was not left empty, and that the body underwent corruption.
(5) Another theory, which has recently had some currency (Martineau, Seat of Authority in Religion, pp. 3637) finds the basis of the belief in a physical resurrection in a misconception of the meaning of mystical utterances of the disciples about union and communion with Christ. It is, however, clear that St. Paul distinguished very clearly between the experience that to him to live was Christ, or that Christ lived in him, and the appearance which he had witnessed on the way to Damascus. They said they had seen Jesus after His death, and their hearers understood them to mean they had seen Him in the body. If they were not put right by the Apostles, it is fairly said that this some what compromised their character for candour (Bruce, Apologetics 2, 396 f.).
The impression conveyed by a review of the various theories is that the phenomena which generated the faith of the Church have not been explained on naturalistic principles. They are intelligible only as an intermingling of two universes of being ordinarily kept distinct. They have something in common with the phenomena of Spiritualism, and as a fact the Spiritualist claims to understand elements in the story which Christians have humbly accepted in faith, and to find supremely credible what the ordinary rationalism dismisses as superstition. It is, however, only in a very indirect way, if at all, that Christian faith can derive support from Spiritualism. It seems to be proved that if communication is established at all with the spirit-world, it is merely with the dregs and lees of the unseen universewith spirits who either have not the power or else the will to communicate anything of importance to man; and, this being so, the Resurrection and appearances of Christ, with their unique and far-reaching spiritual result, come under a totally different Divine economy. In the risen Christ we have the one authentic glimpse of the world which otherwise can do no more than attest its existence to those who peep and mutter (Waite, Studies in Mysticism, 1906).
(5) Significance of the Resurrection.(a) In the Primitive Church the Resurrection was regarded as at once the authentication of Christianity, and a vitally important element of doctrine. Its apologetic value was appraised equally highly in the appeal to Jews and to Gentiles (Act 4:10; Act 17:31). The argument was that God had accredited Jesus mission and accepted His work in raising Him up from the dead. In recent apologetic, at least of the English school, there has been a tendency to stake the truth of Christianity on the evidence for the Resurrection (Row, Christian Evidences, 1887); but it is always to be remembered that the evidence for the miracle itself depends for its credibility on the anterior impression of the supernatural made by the Person of Christ. It is not so generally recognized that the Resurrection has the value of a vindication of the ways of God. Had the Ruler of the Universe given no sign when the spotless and loving Christ was made away with by His murderers, the problem of evil would have been well-nigh overwhelming, and faith in the supremacy of a moral order would have lacked one of its strongest supports. (b) Doctrinally the Resurrection was regarded as possessing a high significance for Christ Himself. It is, indeed, an exaggeration to say that for St. Paul the Resurrection had the importance which earlier thought claimed for the Baptism, and later thought for the Virgin Birth, viz. of constituting Jesus Son of God; but he at least regarded it as marking the transition from the foreshadowing to the full reality of the power and glory of the Son of God (Rom 1:4). It was also the source of the most characteristic and vital elements of his eschatological teaching. In the life of the risen Christ he saw the prototype of the life which awaits those that are His in the future state (Php 3:21). He also used the resurrection of Christ, though assuredly without any suggestion that it was only a figure, as a parable of the beginning, the manifestations, and the goal of the new life (Rom 6:4).
16. The character of Jesus.In this section it is not proposed to deal with the doctrine of the Person of Christ (see Person of Christ), but only to gather up the main features of the character of the Man Christ Jesus as it is portrayed in the Gospels. The point of view is somewhat modern, but does not necessarily imply a naturalistic or Unitarian interpretation of Christ (Keim, Jesus of Nazara, Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] vol. ii.; Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Christian Character, 1906, ch. 2.).
The task of describing the character of Jesus is difficult. Jesus is one of the most real and life-like figures in history, and there is a way of observing, feeling, and judging which is unmistakably Christ-like; but when we try to describe Him we are in danger of setting forth a mere personified system of morals and psychology, consisting of a catalogue of all possible virtues and capabilities (Hase). There is therefore something to be said for leaving the matter where it is left by the Gospels, which simply reveal the character in telling the story of the life. The general observation which is most convincing is that in Jesus there were combinations of qualities which are usually found in isolation, and regarded as mutually inconsistent. This holds good, first, in the region of temperament. It is easy to show that at least three of the recognized temperamentsthe sanguine, the melancholic, and the choleric, were manifested by Jesus, and that what is good in the phlegmatic had its counterpart in His repose and purposefulness. From a similar point of view it has been said that there was in Him the woman-heart as well as the manly brainall that was most manly and all that was most womanly (F. W. Robertson, Serm. ii. 231; but contrariwise Hase: His character was thoroughly masculine, 31). It has been held by some that He belonged to the class of ecstatic men, by others that He reasoned and acted with the serenity of the sage: the truth is that repose was the normal condition of His spirit, but that it was intermittently broken by prophetic experiences of vision and tumult. On the intellectual side we find the abstract power which unerringly seizes upon the vital principle, united with the poets mind which delights to clothe the idea with form and colour and to find for it the most perfect artistic expression. Another and more impressive contrast is presented in the force and the gentleness of His character. From Him there went out an influence which either awed men into docile submission or roused them to a frenzy of opposition, while the same Jesus spoke words of tender solace to a penitent Magdalene, and called the little children to His side. He also combined with wide outlook and sublime purpose an active interest in small things and in inconsiderable persons. Recognizing it as His vocation to build the Kingdom of God, He did not consider a day lost in which He conversed with a woman of Samaria at a wayside well.
While these and similar traits help to give greater vividness to our conception of Jesus, the essential content of what is called His character lies in His attitude, on the one hand to the Father, on the other to the problems of duty which arise for a man among men.
(1) Beginning with the God-ward side of the character of Jesus, that which we describe as piety, we find that it combines familiar traits with others which are novel and unique. To a large extent it is a fulfilment of the Jewish ideal of piety, but it shows impressive omissions and deviations from the OT pattern. He fulfils it in that He has a constant sense of the presence of God, and regards all events as instinct with a Divine meaning of guidance, of blessing, or of judgment. He lives in habitual prayerfulness, giving thanks, supplicating, interceding for others. He shows a sensitive reverence for all that is called GodHis name, His word, His house, and is full of prophetic zeal for His honour. It is His meat and His drink to labour in the tasks which are made known to Him as the will of God. When that will approaches Him as a call to suffer and die, He trusts implicitly in the wisdom and goodness of the Father, and prays that His will be done.
There are, however, two significant particulars in which the religion of Jesus, if we may so term it, differed from the piety of Hebrew saints, as well as of the saints of Christian times, (a) The penitential note is one of the most distinctive features of the OT. The depth of the sense of sin may almost be said to be the measure of sanctity, and the same may be said of those whom the Christian Church has chiefly venerated as its religious heroes. But of penitence the experience of Jesus shows no trace. While teaching His disciples to pray, Forgive us our debts, He Himself never confessed sin. Neither in Gethsemane nor on the cross, when the near approach of death challenged Him to pass righteous judgment on His past life, was He conscious of any lapse from fidelity to the Fathers commands.(b) A second note of Hebrew piety is a sense of dependence upon God, accompanied by the knowledge that to Him belongs the glory, and that the human instrument counts for nothing in comparison. But Jesus, while confessing His dependence on the Father in teaching and healing, does not speak of Himself as a mere agent who delivers a message and accomplishes a workand is forthwith forgotten. Enjoying a filial intimacy with God which contrasts markedly with the aloofness of God in OT times, and the fear manifested in His presence even by prophets, He claimed prerogatives which they would have regarded as a usurpation of the sphere of God. For He forgave sins, claimed a faith and a devotion toward Himself which were indistinguishable from worship, and foretold that He would return to judge the world. What makes these utterances the more striking is that He simultaneously invited men to learn of Him as meek and lowly in heart (Mat 11:29). We therefore seem to be driven to the conclusion that Jesus was less than a saint, unless He was more than a man. Unless He was sinless, He was guilty of a self-righteousness which was more blinded than that of the Pharisees; and unless He had a unique dignity and commission, He was guilty of an overweening arrogance. The hypothesis of a unique experience and vocation, or the belief that He was in a unique sense Divine, is more credible than the charge of imperfect piety.
(2) In studying the character of Jesus on the ethical side, it is useful to observe the form in which He recognized and realized the fundamental virtues. Wisdom He would scarcely have described as a virtue. He did not Himself possess or value it in the range which it began to have with the Greeks, but He assuredly had wisdom in the grand way of thinking deep thoughts about God and man which have been worked up in philosophical systems, and also in the homely form of prudent dealing with tasks and dangers. Courage He certainly did not illustrate in the typical form that it assumes in a man of war; but there is abundant proof of physical as well as of moral courage in the heroism which led Him, while discarding force and foreseeing the issue, to go up to confront His powerful enemies in the name of God and truth. One glimpse of His bearing is unforgettable. And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going before them; and they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid (Mar 10:32). The virtue of temperance or self-control might seem to lie on a plane on which He did not condescend to be tried. But in its essence, as the virtue which requires the surrender of the lower for the higher, of the temporary for the enduring good, it has its illustration, not merely in the victory of the Temptation, but in the mould of self-sacrifice in which His whole life was cast. Justice, as the virtue which renders to all their due, entered deeply into the thought and life of Jesus. The parable of the Unjust Steward, which on a superficial view makes light of dishonesty, is placed in a setting of words of Jesus from which it appears that He thought it useful to give His disciples the test of an honest man, and even made common honesty a condition of admission to life (Luk 16:10-12). It is also noteworthy how often He commends the wise and faithful servant; while His own ideal might be summed up as the performance with fidelity of His appointed work. Not even the sympathy of Jesus is more distinctive than His conscientiousness in regard to the claims both of God and of man.
The character of Jesus also exemplified the fundamental quality of steadfastness. He praised it in others: John the Baptist, who was no reed shaken with the wind; Simon, whom He surnamed the rock-like man. His whole ministry, which began with victory in the Temptation, had behind it the force of steady and of resolute purpose. He steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem (Luk 9:51) may serve for a description of the way in which He held straight on to His preconceived and predetermined goal.
On this general groundwork of character there emerges the love of Jesus, which was marked by extraordinary range and intensity. For man as man He had a prodigality of sympathy and looked on Himself as a debtor to all who were burdened by suffering or sin. It may indeed be observed that His love, while all-embracing, had degrees. The centurion of Capernaum and the Syrophnician woman came within its scope, but He looked on the people of Israel as those who had the first claim on His affection and service. He shared the feelings for Jerusalem which are expressed in many of the Psalms, and yearned over the holy city more than over the cities of the Lake. Within the house of Israel there were threeperhaps four classes, whom He regarded with a peculiar tenderness. First in order came the disciples, next the common people and the social outcasts, and doubtless we may add the children. It is hard to believe that the family-circle at Nazareth was not also one of the nearer groups, but during the period of the Ministry the attitude of His kinsfolk, with the probable exception of Mary (Joh 19:26), diverted His strong natural affection to those who were His kinsfolk after the spirit. The ways in which His love expressed itself were on the one hand to seek to make those He loved truly His own by binding them to Himself by their faith and devotion; on the other, to bestow on them, and that at whatever cost to Himself, all benefits which it lay within his vocation to confer. The forms of service to which His sympathy prompted Him were as many as the forms of human distress. His mission, indeed, proceeded on the footing that the worst evils from which men suffer are spiritual, and that the benefactor whom they chiefly need is one who will lead them to repentance and show them the Father. But no small part of His ministry also was occupied with works of the philanthropic kind, which it would be altogether wrong to interpret on the analogy of some modern enterprises, as having the mere purpose of creating a favourable disposition for the gospel. His distinctive work was to comfort by saving, but He also acted as one who felt that the relief of pain had its own independent claim.
In seeming contrast with the gentleness of the sympathetic Christ was the sternness which marked many of His words and acts. It is of interest to note that the disciple, whom Jesus loved is remembered in the Synoptics (Luk 9:49-56) chiefly as a man with a capacity for fiery indignation; and this quality may well have been one that drew Jesus and John more closely together. If there were some sins that moved Jesus chiefly to compassion, there were others that roused Him to holy wrath. Those who, like prodigals and fallen women, could be described as their own worst enemy, He chiefly pitied, but sterner measure was never meted out than by Jesus to those whose guilt had the quality of profanity or of inhumanity. The profanity which irreverently dealt with the things of Godin swearing, in corrupting His word, in polluting His Temple, was unsparingly rebukedon one memorable occasion by act; and the great offence of the Pharisees in His eyes was that, while making a parade of sanctity before men, they were insulting God by acting a lie. The second type of sin which provoked His burning invective was inhumanity towards the weak. An example is the sin of those who make one of the little ones to offend (Mat 18:6), which may perhaps be taken literally of those who pervert children; and the unpardonable aggravation of the guilt of the scribes was that, while making long prayers, they devoured widows houses (Mar 12:40||).
While the character of Jesus has commonly been regarded, even by non-Christians, as the noblest that the world has seen, it has not escaped criticism in ancient or modem times. Two forms of the indictment may be alluded to. Renan professes to find evidence of deterioration, and in this the real tragedy of the life of Jesus. Writing of the last days, he says: His natural gentleness seems to have abandoned Him: He was sometimes harsh and capricious, contact with the world pained and revolted Him. The fatal law which condemns an idea to decay as soon as it is applied to convert men applied to Him. He is even said to have yielded to the wishes of His enthusiastic friends; and to have acquiesced in a pretended miracle by which they sought to revive His sinking cause. His death was a happy release from the fatal necessities of a position which each day became more exacting and more difficult to maintain (p. 252). To a pessimistically tinged scepticism there may be something congenial in this representation. As a fact the idea of degeneration is borrowed from the career of Mohammed, and has no support except in the assumption that Jesus was uncommissioned to represent the Divine wrath against sin. Very different was the insight of him who wrote that He learned obedience by the things which he suffered, and was thus made perfect (Heb 5:8-9).
From the Hellenic point of view it is a common criticism that the character of Jesus is one-sided or fragmentary. There are, it is said, elements of human excellence which He either did not possess or which He deliberately undervalued and renounced. There were whole spheres of valuable human experience into which He did not entermarried life, political service, scientific labour, the realm of sthetic interests. His attitude, also, to the economic side of human affairs was unsatisfactory: He taught men to despise wealth and distribute it among the poor, and thus struck at the very foundations of the social fabric. In reply to this indictment, it is sometimes urged that the character of Jesus actually included most elements which enter into the Hellenic idealnotably the sthetic sense as seen in His close observance and love of things beautiful, intellectual vitality and acquisitivness, and the temperate enjoyment of the pleasures of the table in the society of His friends. It is also pointed out that His principles sanction a much wider range of activity than He Himself actually exemplified. In His love to man, which designed to bestow every form of real good, there lay the sanction of all the activitiesscientific, economic, political, as well as religious and philanthropic, which fill out with helpful service the various spheres of duty in the modern world. At the same time it must be admitted that Jesus was not the universal man in the literal sense, but was limited in His equipment and aim by the special character of His mission. He was ascetic in the sense that in His scheme of values He severely subordinated all the goods of this world to spiritual blessings, and taught that the first were to be despised and renounced in the measure in which they imperilled the second. He exemplified self-limitation and self-sacrifice, not indeed as an end in itself, but as a necessary condition of accomplishing the highest for God and man.
17. The fundamental ideas of our Lords teaching.It is one of the gains of modern theology that Biblical Theology is separated from Dogmatics, and that the sacred writers are allowed to speak for themselves without being forced into consistency with a system of ecclesiastical doctrine. In pursuance of this historical task, interest has centred chiefly in the attempt to expound and systematize the teaching of Jesus. It was naturally felt that no Christian documents are so valuable for an understanding of the Christian religion as those which contain the teaching of the Founder, and that, indispensable as the Apostolic writings are, they are in a very real sense derivative and supplementary. Experience also showed that the teaching of Jesus, which in the oral tradition was for a time the main sustenance of the Primitive Church, has been able to quicken and refresh the religious life of not a few in the modern world who had ceased to feel the power of the stereotyped phrases of a traditional theology. An account of our Lords teaching, it has to be added, is properly based on the Synoptics. The authentic matter of the Fourth Gospel is so inextricably blended with believing experience and reflexion that it can only be set forth as a supplement to the heads of doctrine collected from the Synoptists (Wendt), or utilized as a source for the Johannine Theology (Weiss).
In addition to the sketches in the great manuals of NT Theology (Weiss, Bibl. Theol. des NT, Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 18823; Beyschlag, NT Theol Eng. tr 1891; Holtzmann. Lehrbuch der NT Theol., 1897; Stevens, Theol. of NT, 1899), there are numerous monographs, of which the most important is Wendt, Lehre Jesu (Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1892), and the most interesting are Bruce, The Kingdom of God, 1890, and Harnack, Das Wesen des Christenthums (Eng. tr. [Note: translate or translation.] 1901).
A. The Kingdom of God.The Evangelists give as the summary description of the message of Jesusthe gospel of the kingdom. And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom (Mat 4:23; cf. Mar 1:14-15, Luk 8:1). As Jesus was conscious of being the promised Messiah, it was natural that His teaching ministry should be largely directed to setting forth the nature, the privileges, and the laws of the Messianic Kingdom. Most modern expositors, accordingly, have treated the idea of the Kingdom as central, and as supplying a scheme under which the whole body of the teaching may be systematically arranged. Thus, after determining the nature of the Kingdom in relation to the past of Israel, and to the ideas of contemporary Judaism, Weiss treats of the coming of the Kingdom in the Messiah and His work, of its realization in the righteousness and the privileges of its members, and of its predicted consummation in the future.
(1) The nature of the Kingdom.In elucidating Christs conception of the Kingdom, it is usual to begin by contrasting it with pre-existing ideas. In the first place, it is clear that, while Jesus claimed to fulfil OT prophecy, and to be the Messiah for whom the people waited, He broke with the general strain of Messianic prophecy and expectation in the important particular that He rejected the conception that the Kingdom would exist in the form of a political organization. It was a very natural aspiration for the Jews to desire to be free and powerful, and more than a respectable ambition, when it is remembered that the Empire of which they dreamed was to carry in its train the worship and service of the true God; but Jesus substituted for the political conception the idea of a Kingdom which was spiritual in its nature, and by consequence universal. Its essentially spiritual character is shown by the nature of its blessingsamong which there is frequent mention of the forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and the like, but little of earthly good and nothing of political power. A Kingdom which cometh not with observation (Luk 17:20) could not be of the same kind with the kingdom of the Maccabees or the Roman Empire. And if it was a spiritual Kingdom, in which membership was granted on terms of faith and love, it followed that it was in principle a universal Kingdom. It was no monopoly of those of Jewish birth, for not all Jews had faith, and of some who were Gentiles He said that He had not found so great faith in Israel (Mat 8:10). Many shall come from the east and the west but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness (Mat 8:11-12).
The further elucidation of its nature may be carried out by the help of an analysis of the idea of a kingdom. It involves authority and rule (doctrine of God and of the Messiah), blessings which are enjoyed by the citizens (the Kingdom as a good, the privileges), laws which are enacted and enforced (the righteousness of the Kingdom), a title to citizenship (conditions of entrance), an organization of the subjects in community of life and service (the Kingdom as a community, doctrine of the Church), a future and a destiny (doctrine of the Last Things).
The Kingdom as present and as future.One of the difficulties of the subject is that in some passages Jesus speaks of the Kingdom as present, while in many others He speaks of it as future; and there has been a wide difference of opinion as to the relation of the two sets of utterances, and the importance to be attributed to the eschatological series.
(i) The Kingdom as a present reality.That the Kingdom had come, and was a present reality on earth when He taught and laboured, is stated in a number of passages. He speaks of His mighty works as proof. If I by the spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you (Mat 12:28; cf. Luk 10:18). In the same sense it is said the kingdom of God is among you, (not within you, which could not have been said to the Pharisees (Luk 17:21)). It is also implied that there are those who are already in the Kingdom (Mat 11:11). The parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (Mat 13:31-33), and also of the Seed Growing Secretly (Mar 4:26-29), seem clearly to teach that the Kingdom was then present in the world in small and lowly beginnings, which were to be succeeded by a process of wonderful growth and expansion.
(ii) The Kingdom as a future event.In a larger number of cases He spoke of the Kingdom, and of entrance into it, as future. Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven (Mat 5:20). Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world (Mat 25:34). Moreover, a very large portion of His teaching is concerned with the man tier of the establishment of the Kingdom in the last days, and with the sublime events by which it is to be ushered in and established.
The time of the Consummation, Jesus declared, was unknown even to the Son (Mar 13:32), but it would be heralded by various signspersecution, apostasy, the preaching of the gospel throughout the world (Mat 24:1-51). Upon this would follow the return of the Son of Man, who would come in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Mat 24:30, Mat 25:31; cf. Mar 14:62). The immediate purpose of the Return is to sift the righteous and the wicked, to execute judgment upon the enemies of God, and to gather together the elect from the four winds (Mat 24:29 ff.). Thereafter there is established a Kingdom which cannot be moved, in which the blessed enjoy all that is promised them in the love of God. The scene appears to be laid on earth (Mat 5:4). So far as the picture is elaborated it is by utilizing the tones and the colours of earthly experience, as well as familiar forms of dignity, power, and enjoyment (Mar 10:40; Mar 14:25, Mat 8:11). At the same time the spiritual blessings are of course the chiefest (Mat 5:8), and the transfiguration of the natural is suggested in a significant particular (Mar 12:25).
(iii) Relation of the two aspects of the Kingdom.There are three main views as to the relation of the two sets of utterances about the Kingdom; they may be distinguished as the traditional, the liberal; and the eschatological.
(a) According to the traditional view, both groups of sayings are authentic, and are easily combined into a consistent whole. Jesus could say that the Kingdom was present in respect that it had come, and future in respect that it had not yet fully come in power and glory. Its history falls into two stages, one of which is now under the dispensation of the Spirit, the other to come in stupendous acts of judgment and mercy at the Second Advent.
(b) The liberal view of modern theology is that the eschatological outlook of Jesus was borrowed from, or accommodated to, temporary forms of Jewish thought, and that the valuable and enduring element is the conception of the Kingdom as entering into the life of mankind in this world, growing in range and power, and destined to permeate society and all its institutions with its Divine spirit. From this point of view the Second Coming, the central event of the history, is to be understood as a spiritual return which has been taking place in the events of history from Pentecost down to the present hour. Similarly the Last Judgment is interpreted as a continuous process which runs parallel with the history of nations and churches. That this view has some support in the Fourth Gospel must be admitted. The return or which Christ there speaks with much fulness is the mission of the Spirit, and the Judgment which is before the mind of the Evangelist is almost always the judgment which is simultaneous with character and conduct. There may even be claimed for it some support from the Synoptic teachingas in the dating of the Return from now (Mat 26:64), and the distinction of days of the Son of Man (Luk 17:22), and also in the association of the Second Coming with the destruction of Jerusalem (Mat 24:1-51). But on the whole it must be said that the attempt to impute the purely spiritual conception to Jesus is unhistorical. It may be argued that His sayings are examples of prophecy, and that theology has a warrant to recast prophetic sayings in new forms. But it can hardly be gainsaid that Jesus thought of the Return as a definite event, visible and impressive, which would challenge the attention of all mankind, and involve acts that would revolutionize the order of our world.
(c) Some modern scholars hold that the distinctive teaching of Jesus was that the Kingdom was a supernatural Kingdom, to be established by Divine power at His Second Coming, and that the references in the Gospels to a present Kingdom with a gradual development are either illusory or unauthentic (J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes). On this view Jesus claimed to be the Messiah only in the sense that He looked forward to becoming the Messiah. He was, like John the Baptist, a forerunner, but with the difference that the future Messiah to whom He bore witness was the Jesus of the Second Advent. The textual evidence which supports the view that Jesus founded a present Kingdom of God on earth before His death is discounted on the ground that an event which is imminent may be intelligibly said to be present. Thus the confession at Csarea Philippi is to be taken proleptically: it merely meant that Peter believed that He was the Messiah designate, or the heir to the office. Jesus departed this life with the consciousness that the Kingdom was not yet established (J. Weiss). The parables which speak of a gradual development of the Kingdom of God are explained either as having been interpolated or as teaching a different lesson. But this accentuation of the eschatological side of our Lords teaching is hardly likely to be accepted, as Schweitzer claims, as an assured result of criticism. If even in the OT the Jewish State was sometimes conceived of as the present Kingdom of God, and if the Rabbinical theology sometimes spoke of the Kingdom of God as a power to be yielded to now, it is difficult to see why Jesus should not have entertained the similar conception which is contained or implied in the texts quoted. Above all, it is impossible to believe that Jesus, who taught that the highest blessings are enjoyed in communion with God, did not hold that the Kingdom was present among those who experienced His love and who obeyed His will.
B. The Heavenly Father and His Children.It may be doubted if the teaching of Jesus is most satisfactorily set forth under the forms of the Kingdom. The difficulty even of the traditional conception, the doubts as to the correctness of this conception which have been referred to, and also the transitoriness of types of political constitution, suggest that the organizing idea may better be sought in another sphere. As a fact the central conceptions of His religious and ethical teaching are borrowed not from the political, but from the domestic sphere. When it is said that one is your Father, and that all ye are brethren (Mat 23:8; Mat 23:8), we have the description of a family. To the writer it therefore seems that the teaching is best expounded under the rubric of the Heavenly Father and His children, or the holy family, and in what follows we shall confine ourselves mainly to the elucidation of the heads of this gospel of Divine and human love.
(1) The Heavenly Father.Christ could take for granted in His hearers the elements of the knowledge of God set forth in the OT, as one God, all-powerful, all-wise, all-holy, all-good. This splendid spiritual inheritance He enriched by the content of His doctrine of God as the Heavenly Father. The name, indeed, was not new. Even the Greeks spoke of Zeus as the father of gods and men; while in not a few OT passages God is likened to and even named a Father. For the Greeks, however, the Fatherhood of God hardly meant more than that He was the God of Creation and Providence, while in OT thought God, as Father was the protecting God of Israel, or the Father of the Messianic King. On the lips of Jesus the name meant that God was the Father of individual men, who lavished upon each the utmost resources of a Fathers wise and tender care. It may, in fact, be said that if we study human fatherhood at its best, note every lovely and gracious feature which is realized or adumbrated in an earthly home, and then attribute these in perfected form to the heart and the will of the Almighty, we discover the heads of the teaching of Jesus concerning God.
The relation of an earthly father to his children involves at least seven pointsto him they owe their existence, from him they borrow his nature and likeness, he provides for their wants, he educates and disciplines them, he holds intimate intercourse with them, he is graciously disposed to forgive their offences, and he makes them his heirs. All this, now, Jesus has affirmed of God in relation to men. The first two pointsthat it is He that made us, and not we ourselves, and that we are made in His imagewere articles of OT doctrine which He did not need to emphasize; though it may be pointed out that His conception of the infinite value of the individual soul had its roots in His belief that man hears the image of the Heavenly Father. The other points mentioned are quite explicitly emphasized.
(a) God provides for the wants of His children. He is aware of their bodily wants (Mat 6:32): the God who feeds the fowls and clothes the lilies will not suffer His children to be in want. This, in fact, is deduced directly from the idea of fatherhood. If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? (Mat 7:11). That the provision includes spiritual blessings as its chief part is made explicit in Luk 11:13.
(b) God educates and disciplines His children. Jesus does not say this expressly, but it may be noticed that there are two aspects of a childs earthly training which are reproduced in what He says about the Divine education of souls. A childs education, though arduous and painful, is designed for its good; and similarly, Jesus says, Blessed are the poor, the mourners, the persecuted, the reviled (Mat 5:3 ff.). The second aspect is that the children do not always appreciate the wisdom and kindness of the discipline, but must be asked to take it on trust. Similarly, the earthly child must often trust the Heavenly Fathers love where he cannot comprehend His purpose, saying, Yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight (Mat 11:26).
(c) God holds intimate intercourse with His children. It does not lie in the idea of an earthly parent to hold aloof from his children, and God admits His to close communion with Himself. On their side it takes the form of prayer, on His of response. They are encouraged to seek both spiritual and material blessings, and that importunately (parables of the Importunate Widow, Luk 18:1 ff.; the Friend at Midnight, Luk 11:5 ff.), and they are assured that whatsoever they shall ask in prayer, believing, they shall receive (Mat 21:22).
(d) God is graciously disposed to forgive His childrens offences. His way with sinners is not the way of a man with his enemy, to whom he refuses on any terms to be reconciled, or of a creditor with his debtor, who insists on full payment, but that of a father, who meets a penitent son in a spirit of magnanimity, rejoices over his return, and receives him back to his home. The point of the three great parables in Luk 15:1-32 is that, while the respectable world was sceptical about the restoration of the erring, and frowned on those who attempted it, there is in heaven a charity that believeth all things, and joy unspeakable over one sinner that repenteth.
(e) God destines His children to an inheritance. This is itself, as has been indicated, a distinct and large topic of the teaching of Jesus, and it is sufficient here to refer to a text in which the logic of the relationship is clearly brought out: Fear not, little flock, for it is your Fathers good pleasure to give you the kingdom (Luk 12:32).
In the light of the above analysis we are in a position to deal with the much-discussed question, Did Jesus conceive of God as the Father of all men, or only as the Father of those who are within the family-Kingdom? It may be that Jesus applies the name of Father to God only in relation to the children of the Kingdom, but the palpable meaning of His teaching is that God is the Father of all men, while yet it is not possible for Him to be the Father, in the full sense of the word, of those who are living in impenitence and in alienation from Him. He is the Father of all to the extent that they are created by Him, are made in His image, have their wants supplied by Him, and are disciplined by Him; but just as it is impossible for an earthly father to forgive a contumacious son, to hold intercourse with an absent son, and to make an heir of a son who has already squandered his portion, so is it impossible for God to be in the full sense a Father to those who shun His face and spurn His gifts.
(2) The terms of sonship.The next great theme is the question how men become members of the family-Kingdom. Negatively Jesus teaches that we are not born into it, as one was born into the Jewish State, and also that membership is not an order of merit conferred in recognition of distinguished attainments in piety and virtue. The most important and comprehensive utterance of our Lord on the point is thisExcept ye turn and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven (Mat 18:3). Here again we can trace the fidelity of the detail to the fundamental idea of the family-Kingdom: what should be so necessary in the son as childlikeness? On examination childlikeness proves to include a variety of qualities which are elsewhere declared by Jesus to be conditions of sonship: (a) Trustfulness.When Jesus proposed the children as a model, there can be little doubt that He had prominently in mind the childs capacity of faith. He would have His followers trust in the wisdom and the love of the Father with the sublime confidence with which a child naturally trusts in an earthly parent. There are examples of the joy which He felt at unexpected cases of heroic faith, e.g. of the centurion of Capernaum and the Syrophnician woman. The grand object of this faith was God. Have faith, He says, in God (Mar 11:22). But this faith in God included also faith in Himself as the appointed instrument for the performance of Gods great work with men. (b) Sense of need.A child, being cast upon others for the supply of its wants, has a keen sense of need. And this sense, which from one point of view is humility, is also a prominent mark of the children of the Kingdom. We are asked to admire the publican, who, in contrast to the self-satisfied Pharisee, confessed his unworthiness and his need of mercy (Luk 18:13). The self-complacency of the Rich Young Ruler showed that though not far from, he was still outside of, the Kingdom of God (Mar 10:17 ff.). The Beatitude is for those who hunger and thirst after righteousness (Mat 5:6). (c) The penitential spirit.With childlikeness may also be associated the grace of penitence, for childhood, when not spoiled by hardening influences, is the period of the sensitive conscience. In any case penitence is closely bound up with faith as the essential condition. He came into Galilee preaching and saying, Repent ye and believe the gospel (Mar 1:15). The stages of penitence are vividly illustrated in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luk 15:11-32). (d) Resolution.A fourth parallel is that in the child there is, along with a sense of need, a resolute determination to secure what it values. There are some, it is true, who receive the heavenly blessings in response to an invitation, or almost under compulsion, but the rule is that they are like the merchantman seeking goodly pearls, and willing to make any sacrifice to secure what they seek. The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force (Mat 11:12).
(3) The privileges of the children.The enumeration of these has already been anticipated in what has been said of the implications of the Divine Fatherhood. The children possess, in fact or in promise, the fulness of the blessings which God as the Heavenly Father, who is also all-powerful, is disposed to bestow. They include the forgiveness of sins, access to the Father in prayer, the provision needed for the supply of bodily and spiritual wants, guidance in perplexity, protection in danger, power of a supernatural kind, and the assurance that their names are written in heaven (Luk 10:20). The privileges are summarily described as life (Mat 7:14, Mar 9:43) and as salvation (Luk 19:9), Their exceeding value is emphasized in particular maxims (Mat 16:26), and in the parables of the Hid Treasure and of the Pearl of Price (Mat 13:44-46). In spite of the hardships and perils of the life to which they are called, the habitual mood of the children is one of repose and even of joy (Mat 11:28-30, Luk 6:23).
(4) The filial and fraternal obligationsThe observation that the teaching of Jesus is in substance a system built up out of the higher elements of family life is confirmed when we approach its practical ideal. This is made up of filial obligations towards God, and of fraternal obligations towards men.
(i) The duties towards God are those which naturally devolve upon the children in consideration of the Fathers greatness, wisdom, and goodness. Love being the great thing manifested by God towards them, their fundamental duty is to love Him in return with all their heart, and with all their soul, and with all their mind, and with all their strength (Mar 12:30). Their special duties towards God, which are also privileges, are theseto trust Him wholly, to make their desires known to Him in prayer, to perform with fidelity the work He gives them to do, and to submit in meekness and patience when He calls them to suffer.
(ii) Duty towards man.The supreme fraternal obligation, like the filial, is love. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, (Mar 12:31). By our neighbour we are to understand all who are in need, and whom it is in our power to help (parable of the Good Samaritan, Luk 10:30 ff.). When we inquire how this principle manifests itself, it appears that the Christian ethic has three features which are commonly described as inwardness, self-sacrificing service, and the passive virtues. Without going into detail, it is sufficient to illustrate how these form an ethical ideal which has its prototype in the life of the family.
(a) Inwardness.A distinctive feature of the ethical teaching of Jesus is the insistence that it is not sufficient to refrain from overt acts of wrong, and to perform the overt acts which duty requires. The heart must be pure and the motive right. From this point of view benefactions that are not accompanied by sympathy lose half their value. On the other hand, the evil purpose has the quality of an evil act; hatred is murder in the minor degree. Now, startling as is the demand for a perfect heart in an ethic of general obligation, it is familiar enough in family life. There a woman counts all benefactions as worthless if she do not possess her husbands love; or, again, the hatred of brothers and sisters is at once felt to have an enormity of guilt beyond that of most evil deeds.
(b) Disinterested service.In what is said of the forms of service the ideal is manifestly suggested by brotherhood. Of the chief forms may be distinguished first beneficence, which is specially directed to the relief of the poor, the entertainment of the homeless, the tending of the sick, the visiting of captives (Mat 25:34 ff.), the comforting of the sorrowful, the reconciliation of those who are at feud (Mat 5:9). Another is the ministry of teaching; without doubt Jesus intended His disciples, as one of their chief forms of service, to follow Him in the disseminating of the truths which He taught. A third is the spiritual ministry proper, which has the same end as His own pastoral workto save souls from sin, and to help them to rise to higher ends of excellence and nobility. The ideal here, in short, is that the kind of things which the parent, the brother, and the sister do, or may be expected to do, in accordance with the spirit of family life, are made binding in their application to our fellow-men as such. We may also notice two accompanying rules. () The service is to be disinterested. This is enforced by the counsel that we are preferably to perform acts of kindness to those who are not in a position to make a return (Luk 6:34 f.). () They are also to be done unostentatiouslynot as by the Pharisees, who blow a trumpet before them, but so that the left hand knoweth not what the right hand doeth (Mat 6:2-4). In the first of these counsels we see a reflexion of the spirit which has its purest expression in maternal devotion. The second states the condition without which the best service in any sphere loses its grace.
(c) The passive virtues.A third group of graces, specially known as the passive virtues, includes meekness and patience under adversity and wrong, and the forgiveness of injuries. Very great stress is laid on forgiving injuries, of which Jesus alludes to three kindsinjury to the person (Mat 5:39), loss of property (Mat 5:40), and defamation of character (Mat 5:11). Instructions are given as to the steps to be taken in securing reconciliation, beginning with private expostulation (Mat 18:15). As motives to forgiveness we are reminded that we ought to forgive as we hope to be forgiven, and also that, as God sets the example of ready clemency, the child ought to imitate the Father (Mat 5:45). These virtues, it will again be noticed, were not new on the soil of family life. From the beginning there have been women who within the sphere of the home have borne hardship meekly, endured wrong patiently, and been ready to forgive unto seventy times seven.
(5) The unique Son and His work.It may be thought that the scheme which has been followed is inconsistent with the witness borne by Jesus to His Person and His work, inasmuch as His claims have no obvious counter-part in the life of the family. The whole subject is treated in a special article (Person of Christ), but must be glanced at here in the general context of Synoptic doctrine. In the first place, it is certainly true that Jesus asserted for Himself a peculiar dignity, and for His work a peculiar efficacy. He calls Himself not a Son, but the Son (Mat 11:27), who stands in a unique relation to the Father, and who also makes upon the other children a demand for faith and obedience. If now we ask what it is that makes Christ unique, we find that the stress is laid upon three particulars(a) He is in the Fathers confidence, and from Him the other children obtain their knowledge of the Father (ib.). (b) He fully possesses the privileges and fulfils the obligations which are involved in sonship. (c) His death was the means of procuring for them the highest blessings (Mar 14:24||). Now, all these things, if not explained by, have at least parallels in, the life of the family. The son, who in all respects obeys his fathers will, enjoys a position of peculiar intimacy and influence. The eldest son in many countries, and not least in the Jewish tradition, often occupies an intermediate position between the head and the subordinate members of the family. And if Jesus, as He certainly did, looked upon Himself as the eldest brother of the family-Kingdomwho first realized its privileges and its righteousness, and as the Son in whom the Father was well pleased, and whom consequently He took into His deepest confidencewe can see how He could teach that faith in Him was an element in the gospel. Nor are the references to the necessity of His death, as is sometimes said, inconsistent with the gospel of the Heavenly Father. Every death in a family tends to be a means of grace; the death in a noble cause of one who is revered and loved is an almost matchless source of inspiration; and there were reasons, apart from deeper theological explanations, why Jesus should teach that His death would do more even than His life to make effective the gospel of Divine and human love.
(6) The brotherhood as a society.It followed from the nature of the teaching of Jesus that His followers should form themselves into a society. Community of faith and aim made it natural for them to do so, and those whose relations were of the nature of brotherhood were bound to realize it in a common life and common service as well as in common institutions. That the purpose of Jesus went in this direction from the first appears from the call and training of the twelve Apostles. In the later period of His Ministry we have references to a Christian society under the name of the Church (Mat 16:18; Mat 18:15-20). These references have indeed been thought by some critics to be of later ecclesiastical origin; but when the breach with the Jewish authorities became inevitable, He must, in thinking of the future, have conceived of His followers as a separate society. The omissions are as remarkable as the provisions. There is nothing said about forms of worship, nothing about ecclesiastical constitution. The few provisions may be gathered up under the following heads:
(a) General principles.The ruling spirit is the desire of each member to help all and each according to the measure of his ability. Titles which involve the assumption of personal authority are to be avoided (Mat 23:8). Honour and influence are to be proportionate to service (Mar 10:43-44). It is to be a contrast to the natural society in two respectsthat no one seeks his own but only the general good, and that there are no distinctions of rank and power resting upon accident, intrigue, or violence. In the light of these maxims the promise to Peter must be interpreted (Mat 16:18). It certainly meant that Peter was the chief instrument by which in the primitive period the Church was to be built up, but the promise was to Peter as confessing Christ, and by implication to all who make themselves his successors by sharing his faith.
(b) The work of the Christian society.There can be no doubt that this is formulated by Jn. in accordance with the mind of Jesus in the wordsAs thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them into the world (Mat 17:18; cf. Mar 3:14 ff.). His instructions to the Twelve, and to the Seventy, in which He appoints and equips them for a ministry like His own, show that He conceived of the society as an instrument which should carry on His works of preaching and healing. The risen Lord lays on the conscience the duty of making disciples of all nations (Mat 28:19). The work of the Church which is spoken of in most detail is discipline, the aim of which is declared to be the improvement of the erring brother, while the stages of the procedure are laid down (Mat 18:15 ff.). Importance is also attached to the function of binding and loosing (Mat 18:18), which is regarded as the prerogative of the Christian society as a whole, not of a particular class. The reference is to forbidding and permittingi.e. framing maxims and rules of life which should be recognized as operative within the society.
(c) The religious rites.There is every reason to believe that Jesus instituted two simple rites to be observed in the society. That baptism was appointed by Him has been denied, on the ground that it is vouched for only in the narrative of the post-resurrection life, and that it embodies a Trinitarian formula (Mat 28:19). It is, however, antecedently probable, from the connexion of Jesus with the Baptist, that He took over the rite of baptism, while its use from the beginning of the Christian Church as the sacrament of initiation presupposes its appointment or sanction by Jesus. The institution of the Lords Supper as a standing ordinance has already been referred to.
(7) The future and the inheritance.The teaching of Jesus about the future, so far as it deals with the Return, has already been touched on, and it is sufficient now to note(1) references to the growth of the Christian society on earth; (2) the glimpses of the final inheritance.
(a) The development of the society.There are a number of passages, especially in the parables, which imply a history of the Church marked by three featuresa gradual growth to a world-leavening and world-overshadowing influence, debasement through a large admixture of evil elements, and experiences of trial and persecution (Mat 13:1-58).
(b) The final portion.It is in vain that we look in the teaching of Jesus for instruction upon many eschatological questions which have exercised the minds of theologians. His message may be summed up in the two articles, that there is a fearful punishment reserved for those who come to the Judgment in unbelief and impenitence, and that for those who are His there remains a great and an enduring inheritance. As to the conditions and the content of the blessedness of those who enter into life there is a large measure of reserve. He has no doctrine of the intermediate state. He fixes our gaze on the final state in which there is no longer any human impediment to prevent the bestowal of all that is in the heart of the Father to givepeace, blessedness, glory, with opportunity of service. As to the ultimate fate of the wicked, we can only say that it is a problem for the solution of which the letter of certain sayings makes in one direction (Mat 25:46), while His proclamation of the Fathers unlimited and untiring love makes in the other.
18. The credibility of the teaching.The teaching of Jesus contains two salient features (apart from the Christology), which are of such fundamental importance in a view of life that they may be briefly touched on from an apologetic point of view. The questions areIs the Fatherhood of God, as Jesus proclaimed it, a fact? Is the Christian ethic, as expounded in the Sermon on the Mount, practicable?
(1) The doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood, on which virtually everything turns, is inexpressibly beautiful and consoling; but there is evidence that Jesus Himself was conscious of difficulties. Otherwise He would not have spoken of faith as making a demand on the will. His insistence on the need of importunity in prayer shows that He felt that events do not always, and at the first glance, fit into a scheme of things in which the hand of the Heavenly Father is manifest. In Gethsemane and on the cross, if words mean anything, He felt to the full the trial of faith. When we question human experience, there are numberless persons who say that they have been unable to trace the tender individualizing discipline of a Heavenly Father which Jesus assumed, and that things rather seem to have been governed, except in as far as they have themselves compelled results, by a blind and deaf fate. Modern views of the reign of law increase the difficulty. If the Universe is a vast mechanism, grinding on in accordance with inviolable laws to predetermined issues, where is the possibility of the intervention of a Fathers hand to control the individual lot, and to mete out such blessings as we need or pray for? These are real difficulties which burden many a sincere mind and trouble many a sensitive heart. But it is to be considered that, apart from the authority which may be claimed for a revelation, there is good ground for believing in the title of man to interpret God, as Jesus did, in the light of the idea of Fatherhood. God is revealed in His works; among these works the greatest thing that has come into view on earth is the self-sacrificing love and the disinterested service which are associated with the sanctities of family life; and we may well be sceptical that God is less in goodness than a human parent, or His purpose with mankind less generous than that of an earthly father with his family. Theistic philosophy construes God in the light of mans rational and moral nature; Christs method was similar, except that He took as His clue the moral nature as it is revealed at its best, namely, in the life of the home. Nor are the objections of the strength which is often supposed. The Universe is no doubt machine-like, but it does not therefore follow that it puts it out of the power of God to deal paternally and discriminatingly with His children. In the first place, Gods greatest gifts consist of things with which the mechanism of nature has absolutely nothing to dosuch as communion with God, forgiveness of sins, peace, joy, spiritual power. And as regards the outward circumstances of our lot, with which it has to do, it is quite possible to hold, as many profound thinkers have held, that God works in and through general laws, and yet is able by their instrumentality to accomplish particular providences and to vouchsafe answers to prayer. Nor does it seem that any bitter human experience can be such as to justify disbelief in the Divine Fatherhood, because the witnesses to the truth include those who have tasted the extremity of human sorrow. The paradox of it is that the belief in the Fatherhood of God comes to us attested by many who were beyond others sons and daughters of affliction; and owes its place in the worlds heart above all to Him who, dying in unspeakable agony, said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.
(2) The Christian ethic.The modern criticisms of the morality of the Sermon on the Mount are twothat it is imperfect, and that it is impracticable. The first objection has already been touched on in part, and we need refer now only to the line of criticism which finds fault with its exaltation of the passive virtues as a mark of weakness. What lends some colour to this is that, as a matter of fact, many weak characters naturally behave in a way that bears some resemblance to the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount. They endure wrongs meekly, do not strike back, and are incapable of sustaining a feud. But it may still be, and actually is, a great thing for a strong man to do from principle what a weakling does from indolence or cowardice. The objection that the Christian ethic is impracticable is more frequently heard, at least in Great Britain. Even the Church finds it impracticable to act on our Lords principle of secrecy in the matter of giving, while it would seem that the individual who carried out His precepts in business would be ruined, and that the nation which followed His programme of non-resistance would perish. The weight of the objection is so far reduced by the observation that our Lords precepts are designed to be followed, not in the letter, but in the spiritso that, e.g., the really important thing is, not to give to a thief who may have stolen a coat a cloak in addition, but to cherish kindly feelings for him, and to act in his best interests, which may mean putting him in gaol. Similarly, our duty to the poor is to give wise expression to our love of them, which may very properly take account of the experience that indiscriminate charity increases the distress which it professes to relieve. The really essential thing is that brotherly love should prevail, that that which is to a large extent a fact in the sphere of the family should become truly operative in the class, the community, the nation, and among the peoples of the earth. It is to be remembered, too, that every ideal which has become practicable was once deemed impracticablethere have been states of society in which it seemed impossible to be honest, or temperate, or chaste; and though the Christian ideal towers high above the general practice of our generation, it may be that that practice will one day be looked back on as belonging to the half-savage practice of the worlds youth. And in the present it has often been made sublimely practicable for those whom the Holy Spirit touched, and whose hearts were set aflame with a Christ-like love of man.
W. P. Paterson.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Jesus Christ
One of the glorious names of him which is, and, which was, and which is to come. (Rev 1:8; Rev 1:11) The name of Jesus, which is originally so called in the Greek tongue, signifies a Saviour. Hence the Hebrews call him, Jehoshuah, or Joshua, or Joshuah, he who shall save; and as Christ means, anointed of JEHOVAH, the Sent, the Sealed of the Father; full of grace and truth; both names together carry this blessed meaning with them, Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world by the anointing of JEHOVAH to all the purposes, of salvation. See Christ. I only detain the reader just to remark on the blessed name, that all that bore it in the Old Testament church became types, more or less, of the Lord Jesus. Joshua the successor of Moses, and Joshua the high priest in the church, after the church was brought back from Babylon. (See Zec 3:1)
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ, The ordinary designation of the incarnate Son of God, and Savior of mankind. This double designation is not, like Simon Peter, John Mark, Joses Barnabas, composed of a name and a surname, but, like John the Baptist, Simon Magus, Bar-Jesus Elymas, of a proper name, and an official title. Jesus was our Lord’s proper name, just as Peter, James, and John were the proper names of three of his disciples. The name seems not to have been an uncommon one among the Jews (Act 13:6; Col 4:11). To distinguish our Lord from others bearing the name, he was termed Jesus of Nazareth (Joh 18:7, etc.), and Jesus the son of Joseph (Joh 6:42, etc.).
The conferring of this name on our Lord was not the result of accident, or of the ordinary course of things, there being ‘none of his kindred,’ so far as we can trace from the two genealogies, ‘called by that name’ (Luk 1:61). It was the consequence of a twofold miraculous interposition. The angel who announced to his virgin mother that she was to be ‘the most honored of women,’ in giving birth to the Son of God and the Savior of men, intimated also to her the name by which the holy child was to be called: ‘Thou shall call his name Jesus’ (Luk 1:31). And it was probably the same heavenly messenger who appeared to Joseph, and, to remove his suspicions and quiet his fears, said to him, ‘That which is conceived in thy wife Mary is of the Holy Ghost, and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus’ (Mat 1:20-21). The pious pair were ‘not disobedient to the heavenly vision.’ ‘When eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb’ (Luk 2:21).
The precise import of the name has been a subject of doubt and debate among interpreters. As to its general meaning there is all but an unanimous concurrence. It was intended to denote that he who bore it was to be a Deliverer or Savior. But while some interpreters hold that it simply signifies ‘he shall save,’ others hold that it is a compound word equivalent to ‘The Salvation of the Lord,’ or ‘The Lord the Savior.’ It is not a matter of vital importance.
The ‘name of Jesus’ (Php 2:10) is not the name Jesus, but ‘the name above every name’ (Php 2:9), i.e. the supreme dignity and authority with which the Father has invested Jesus Christ, as the reward of his disinterested exertions in the cause of the divine glory and human happiness; and the bowing ‘at the name of Jesus’ is obviously not an external mark of homage when the name Jesus is pronounced, but the inward sense of awe and submission to him who is raised to a station so exalted.
Christ
This is not, strictly speaking, a proper name, but an official title. Jesus Christ, or rather, as it generally ought, to be rendered, Jesus the Christ, is a mode of expression of the same kind as John the Baptist, or Baptizer. In consequence of not adverting to this, the force and even the meaning of many passages of Scripture are misapprehended. When it is stated that Paul asserted, ‘This Jesus whom I preach unto you is Christ’ (Act 17:3), that he ‘testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ’ (Act 18:5), the meaning is, that he proclaimed and proved that Jesus was the Christ, or Messiahthe rightful owner of a title descriptive of a high official station which had been the subject of ancient prediction. When Jesus himself says that ‘it is life eternal to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent’ (Joh 17:3), he represents the knowledge of himself as the Christ, the Messiah, as at once necessary and sufficient to make men truly and permanently happy. When he says, ‘What think ye of Christ? whose son is He?’ (Mat 22:42), he does not mean, What think ye of me, or of my descent? but, What think ye of the Christthe Messiahand especially of his paternity. There can be no doubt that the word, though originally an appellative, and intended to bring before the mind a particular official character possessed by him to whom it is applied, came at last, like many other terms of the same kind, to be often used very much as a proper name, to distinguish our Lord from other persons bearing the name Jesus. This is a sense, however, of comparatively rare occurrence in the New Testament.
Proceeding, then, on the principle that Christ is an appellative, let us inquire into its origin and signification as applied to our Lord. Christ is the English form of a Greek word, corresponding in meaning to the Hebrew word Messiah, and the English word Anointed. ‘The Christ’ is just equivalent to ‘the Anointed One.’ The important question, however, remains behind, What is meant, when the Savior is represented as the Anointed One? To reply to this question satisfactorily, it will be necessary to go somewhat into detail.
Unction, from a very early age, seems to have been the emblem of consecration, or setting apart to a particular, and especially to a religious, purpose. Under the Old Testament economy high-priests and kings were regularly set apart to their offices, both of which were, strictly speaking, sacred ones, by the ceremony of anointing, and the prophets were occasionally designated by the same rite. This rite seems to have been intended as a public intimation of a Divine appointment to office. Thus Saul is termed ‘the Lord’s anointed’ (1Sa 24:6); David, ‘the anointed of the God of Israel’ (2Sa 23:1); and Zedekiah, ‘the anointed of the Lord’ (Lam 4:20). The high-priest is called ‘the anointed priest’ (Lev 4:3).
From the origin and design of the rite, it is not wonderful that the term should have, in a secondary and analogical sense, been applied to persons set apart by God for important purposes, though not actually anointed. Thus Cyrus, the King of Persia, is termed ‘the Lord’s anointed’ (Isa 45:1); the Hebrew patriarchs, when sojourning in Canaan, are termed ‘God’s anointed ones’ (Psa 105:15); and the Israelitish people receive the same appellation from the prophet Habakkuk (Hab 3:13).
In the prophetic Scriptures we find this appellation given to an illustrious personage, who, under various designations, is so often spoken of as destined to appear in a distant age as a great deliverer. The royal prophet David seems to have been the first who spoke of the great deliverer under this appellation (Psa 2:2; Psa 20:6; Psa 45:7). In all the passages in which the great deliverer is spoken of as ‘the anointed one,’ by David, he is plainly viewed as sustaining the character of a king.
The prophet Isaiah also uses the appellation, ‘the anointed one,’ with reference to the promised deliverer, but, when he does so, he speaks of him as a prophet or great teacher. He introduces him as saying, ‘The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord God hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them who are bound, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all that mourn,’ etc. (Isa 61:1, etc.).
Daniel is the only other of the prophets who uses the appellation ‘the anointed one’ in reference to the great deliverer, and he plainly represents him as not only a prince, but also a high-priest, an expiator of guilt (Dan 9:24-26).
During the period which elapsed from the close of the prophetic canon till the birth of Jesus, no appellation of the expected deliverer seems to have been so common as the Messiah or Anointed One; and this is still the name which the unbelieving Jews ordinarily employ when speaking of him whom they still look for to avenge their wrongs and restore them to more than their former honors.
Messiah, Christ, Anointed, is, then, a term equivalent to consecrated, sacred, set apart; and as the record of Divine revelation is called, by way of eminence, The Bible, or book, so is the Great Deliverer called The Messiah, or Anointed One, much in the same way as he is termed The Man, The Son of Man.
The import of this designation as given to Jesus of Nazareth may now readily be apprehended.( 1.) When he is termed the Christ it is plainly indicated that He is the great deliverer promised under that appellation, and many others in the Old Testament Scriptures, and that all that is said of this deliverer under this or any other appellation is true of Him. No attentive reader of the Old Testament can help noticing that in every part of the prophecies there is ever and anon presented to our view an illustrious personage destined to appear at some future distant period, and, however varied may be the figurative representations given of him, no reasonable doubt can be entertained as to the identity of the individual. It is quite obvious that the Messiah is the same person as the ‘seed of the woman’ who was to ‘bruise the head of the serpent’ (Gen 3:15); ‘the seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed’ (Gen 22:18); the great ‘prophet to be raised up like unto Moses,’ whom all were to be required to hear and obey (Deu 18:15); the ‘priest after the order of Melchizedek;’ ‘the rod out of the stem of Jesse, which should stand for an ensign of the people to which the Gentiles should seek’ (Isa 11:1; Isa 11:10); the virgin’s son whose name was to be Immanuel (Isa 7:14); ‘the branch of Jehovah’ (Isa 4:2); ‘the Angel of the Covenant’ (Mal 3:1); ‘the Lord of the Temple,’ etc. etc. (ib.). When we say, then, that Jesus is the Christ, we in effect say, ‘This is He of whom Moses, in the law, and the prophets did write’ (Joh 1:45); and all that they say of Him is true of Jesus.
Now what is the sum of the prophetic testimony respecting him? It is thisthat he should belong to the very highest order of being, the incommunicable name Jehovah being represented as rightfully belonging to him; that ‘his goings forth have been from old, from everlasting’ (Mic 5:2); that his appropriate appellations should be ‘Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God’ (Isa 9:6); that he should assume human nature, and become ‘a child born’ of the Israelitish nation of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10), of the family of David (Isa 11:1); that the object of his appearance should be the salvation of mankind, both Jews and Gentiles (Isa 49:9); that he should be ‘despised and rejected’ of his countrymen; that he should be ‘cut off, but not for himself;’ that he should be ‘wounded for men’s transgressions, bruised for their iniquities, and undergo the chastisement of their peace;’ that ‘by his stripes men should be healed;’ that ‘the Lord should lay on him the iniquity’ of men; that ‘exaction should be made and he should answer it;’ that he should ‘make his soul an offering for sin;’ that after these sufferings he should be ‘exalted and extolled and made very high;’ that he should ‘see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied, and by his knowledge justify many’ (Isaiah 53 passim ); that Jehovah should say to him, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool’ (Psa 110:1); that he should be brought near to the Ancient of Days, and that to him should be given ‘dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, and nations, and languages should serve himan everlasting dominion which shall not pass away,a kingdom that shall not be destroyed’ (Dan 7:13-14). All this is implied in saying Jesus is the Christ. In the plainer language of the New Testament ‘Jesus is the Christ’ is equivalent to Jesus is ‘God manifest in the flesh’ (1Ti 3:16),the Son of God, who, in human nature, by his obedience, and sufferings, and death in the room of the guilty, has obtained salvation for them, and all power in heaven and earth for himself, that he may give eternal life to all coming to the Father through him.
(2.) While the statement ‘Jesus is the Christ’ is thus materially equivalent to the statement ‘all that is said of the Great Deliverer in the Old Testament Scriptures is true of Him,’ it brings more directly before our mind those truths respecting him which the appellation ‘the Anointed One’ naturally suggests. He is a prophet, a priest, and a king. He is the great revealer of divine truth; the only expiator of human guilt, and reconciler of man to God; the supreme and sole legitimate ruler over the understandings, consciences, and affections of men. In his person, and work, and word, by his spirit and providence, he unfolds the truth with respect to the divine character and will, and so conveys it into the mind as to make it the effectual means of conforming man’s will to God’s will, man’s character to God’s character. He has by his spotless, all-perfect obedience, amid the severest sufferings, ‘obedience unto death even the death of the cross,’ so illustrated the excellence of the divine law and the wickedness and danger of violating it, as to make it a righteous thing in ‘the just God’ to ‘justify the ungodly,’ thus propitiating the offended majesty of heaven; while the manifestation of the divine love in appointing and accepting this atonement, when apprehended by the mind under the influence of the Holy Spirit, becomes the effectual means of reconciling man to God and to his law, ‘transforming him by the renewing of his mind.’ And now, possessed of ‘all power in heaven and earth,’ ‘all power over all flesh,’ ‘He is Lord of All.’ All external events and all spiritual influences are equally under his control, and as a king he exerts his authority in carrying into full effect the great purposes which his revelations as a prophet, and his great atoning sacrifice as a high-priest, were intended to accomplish.
(3.) But the full import of the appellation the Christ is not yet brought out. It indicates that He to whom it belongs is the anointed prophet, priest, and kingnot that he was anointed by material oil, but that he was divinely appointed, qualified, commissioned, and accredited to be the Savior of men. These are the ideas which the term anointed seems specially intended to convey. Jesus was divinely appointed to the offices he filled. He did not ultroneously assume them, ‘he was called of God as was Aaron’ (Heb 5:4; Isa 11:2-4). He was divinely commissioned: ‘The Father sent him’ (Isa 49:6). He is divinely accredited (Act 2:22; Joh 5:37). Such is the import of the appellation Christ.
If these observations are clearly apprehended there will be little difficulty in giving a satisfactory answer to the question which has sometimes been proposedwhen did Jesus become Christ? when was he anointed of God? We have seen that the expression is a figurative or analogical one, and therefore we need not wonder that its references are various. The appointment of the Savior, like all the other divine purposes, was, of course, from eternity. ‘He was set up from everlasting’ (Pro 8:23); he ‘was foreordained before the foundation of the world’ (1Pe 1:20). His qualifications, such of them as were conferred, were bestowed in or during his incarnation, when ‘God anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with power’ (Act 10:38). His commission may be considered as given him when called to enter on the functions of his office. He himself, after quoting, in the synagogue of Nazareth, in the commencement of his ministry, the passage from the prophecies of Isaiah in which his unction to the prophetical office is predicted, declared ‘This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.’ And in his resurrection and ascension, God, as the reward of his loving righteousness and hating iniquity, ‘anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows’ (Psa 45:7), i.e. conferred on him a regal power, fruitful in blessings to himself and others, far superior to that which any king had ever possessed, making him, as the Apostle Peter expresses it, ‘both Lord and Christ’ (Act 2:36). As to his being accredited, every miraculous event performed in reference to him or by him may be viewed as included in this species of anointingespecially the visible descent of the Spirit on him in his baptism.
These statements, with regard to the import of the appellation ‘the Christ,’ show us how we are to understand the statement of the Apostle John, ‘Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God’ (1Jn 5:1), i.e. is ‘a child of God,’ ‘born again,’ ‘a new creature;’ and the similar declaration of the Apostle Paul, ‘No man can say that Jesus is the Lord,’ i.e. the Christ, the Messiah, ‘but by the Holy Ghost’ (1Co 12:3). It is plain that the proposition,’ Jesus is the Christ,’ when understood in the latitude of meaning which we have shown belongs to it, contains a complete summary of the truth respecting the divine method of salvation. To believe that principle rightly understood is to believe the Gospelthe saving truth, by the faith of which a man is, and by the faith of which only a man can be, brought into the relation or formed to the character of a child of God; and though a man may, without divine influence, be brought to acknowledge that ‘Jesus is the Lord,’ ‘Messiah the Prince,’ and even firmly to believe that these words embody a truth, yet no man can be brought really to believe and cordially to acknowledge the truth contained in these words, as we have attempted to unfold it, without a peculiar divine influence.
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ. The name of the Saviour, signifying his work and authority; Jesus (the Greek form of the Hebrew Joshua) means Jehovah saves, or Saviour, Mat 1:21. Christ (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah) means anointed. Jesus was his common, name during his life on earth) generally used in the gospels. Christ is his official name, frequently used alone or with Jesus in the epistles. Jesus occurs in the Bible 711 times; Christ 304 times; Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, and Christ Jesus (anointed Saviour), 244 times, and Messiah 4 times. He has many other titles and names in Scripture, as “Immanuel,” Mat 1:23; “Son of God,” Joh 1:34; “Son of man,” Joh 8:28; “Son of David,” etc., Mar 10:47-48; in all, upwards of 100 titles, indicating his character, life, and work.
The predictions concerning Christ were manyabout 150 or moreand were made at various periods of Old Testament history. He was to be born in Bethlehem, a small village, Mic 5:2; he was to be a king with a universal and perpetual empire, Psa 2:6; Psa 45:2-7; Psa 72:1-20; Isa 9:6-7; yet would be despised and rejected. Isa 53:1-12. He was to open the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf, Isa 35:5-6, and yet to be betrayed, sold and slain and his grave appointed with the wicked. Yet his sufferings should make many righteous. Isa 11:1-9; Isa 60:1-11. He was to do the work of a prophet, Isa 42:1-7; of a priest, Psa 110:4; Zec 6:13; and of a king. Dan 7:14. These predictions, and many others of like nature, were all fulfilled in Jesus the Son of Mary.
He is the centre of all Jewish and Christian history; the “Holy of Holies” in the history of the world. There is space here for the briefest outline only of his human life, Ms mysterious person, and his work.
His Life.While Augustus was emperor of Rome, and Herod the Great king in Jerusalem, Jesus was born four years before 1 a.d., the Christian era having been fixed by Dionysius Exiguus of the sixth century, four years too late. Mary, a virgin, betrothed to Joseph of Nazareth, gave birth to Jesus at Bethlehem according to Micah’s prophecy. Mic 5:2. Angels celebrated it with songs, and wise men from the East brought precious gifts to the new-born babe. To escape Herod’s threats, the child Jesus was taken to Egypt, but later settled with his parents at Nazareth. Only one event of his childhood is knowna visit when 12 years old to Jerusalem, when he astonished the doctors by his words and questions. He was trained as other Jewish lads of his station. At three the boy was weaned, and wore for the first time the fringed or tasselled garment prescribed by Num 15:38-41 and Deu 22:12. His education began at first under the mother’s care. At five he was to learn the law, at first by extracts written on scrolls of the more important passages, the Shem or creed of Deu 2:4; the Hallel or festival psalms, Psa 114:1-8; Psa 118:1-29; Psa 136:1-26, and by catechetical teaching in school. At 12 he became more directly responsible for Ms obedience to the law; and on the day when he attained the age of 13, put on for the first time the phylacteries which were worn at the recital of his daily prayer. In addition to this, Jesus learned the carpenter’s trade of Joseph.
Ministry.His public ministry is usually regarded as lasting upwards of three years. John records more of the Judan ministry, Luke more of his Peran ministry, while Matthew and Mark give his Galilean ministry, as does Luke also. John the Baptist, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, Luk 3:1, produced a deep impression by preaching repentance. Jesus sought baptism at his hands, and was tempted of the devil. He then went to Cana of Galilee, where he worked his first miracle at a wedding. With some disciples, he set out for Jerusalem to keep the passover. His first work was the cleansing of the temple from traffickers and money-changerswhich he repeated near the close of his ministry. Mat 21:12. He received a visit by night from Nicodemus. Presently the Baptist was thrown into prison and the Saviour withdrew to Galilee. On his way through Samaria he conversed with a woman at Jacob’s well. At Nazareth ho was rejected by the people, and went to Capernaum, which henceforth became “his own city.” Here he called Peter and Andrew and James and John, and made his first tour through Galilee, performing many miracles. Early in the second year of his ministry Jesus went up to Jerusalem to a feast of the Jews, Joh 5:1, and healed a lame man at the pool of Bethesda, explained the right use of the Sabbath, a subject which he resumed when his disciples were plucking ears of corn on Ms return to Galilee. When he reached the Sea of Galilee multitudes followed him. He appointed the twelve apostles and delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and commenced a second tour in Galilee, during which he delivered the series of parables in Mat 13:1-58, stilled the storm on Galilee, healed the demoniacs of Gadara, raised the daughter of Jairus, and after other miracles came again to Nazareth, where he was again rejected. He then made a third tour in Galilee, and sent forth the apostles, giving the instructions recorded in Mat 10:11. After an interval of some months the twelve returned, and with them he retired to the Sea of Galilee, fed the 5000, walked on the water, and delivered his sermon on the bread or life, Joh 6:1-71, in the synagogue at Capernaum. Early in the third year of his ministry, Jesus disputed with the Pharisees about eating with unwashed hands, and went toward the northwest, healed the daughter of the Syrophnician woman, and then passed around to Decapolis, where he wrought many miracles and fed 4000. Near Csarea Philippi Peter made his confession of faith, and then Jesus foretold his own death and resurrection and the trials of Ms followers. The transfiguration followed, and the next morning the healing of an epileptic child. On the way back to Capernaum he again foretold his sufferings, and exhorted the disciples to humility, forbearance, and brotherly love. About this time he instructed and sent out the 70 on their mission. Then he left Galilee, and having cleansed ten lepers came to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles. Joh 7:2. Here he taught in public, and answered a lawyer’s question with the parable of the Good Samaritan. The healing of the man born blind led to a long discourse, which aroused the rulers, and Jesus retired beyond Jordan. In Pera, on his way to Jerusalem, he uttered the parables of the lost sheep, the unjust steward, the rich man and Lazarus, and the pharisee and the publican; five precepts concerning divorce: blessed little children; taught the rich young ruler. He raised Lazarus at Bethany. A third time he foretold his death and resurrection, and approaching Jericho healed blind men, called Zacchus, and gave the parable of the pounds. He arrived at Bethany six days before the passover. At supper, in Simon’s house, he is anointed. At the beginning of the last week before the crucifixion Jesus made a public entry into the city, spoke parables and warnings, lamented over Jerusalem, praised the widow’s mite, met certain Greeks and predicted his second coming with solemn warnings confirmed by the parables of the ten virgins, the five talents, and the sheep and the goats. At the last or fourth passover with the twelve, Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, delivered his farewell discourses, and withdrew to Gethsemane. After the agony in the garden he was arrested and in the night brought before Annas, and then Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, and in the morning before Pilate and Herod. Pilate yielded to the Jews, delivered Jesus to be mocked and crucified. He was buried and a watch set upon the tomb. On the morning of the third day the tomb was found empty, and soon he appeared to the women, then to the disciples, who could hardly believe the fact. During 40 days he taught them, and then, near Bethany, ascended to heaven in their sight.
Mysterious Person. The great peculiarity of the Scripture doctrine of the person of Christ is that he is God and man united, two natures forming one personality. “He is not divine alone, nor human alone, but divine-human.” He is the Eternal Word, Joh 1:1-51, the Son of God, and he is also the Son of man. Mar 11:13. This may be difficult for us to comprehend; but if a finite mind could comprehend the whole of Christ’s nature, Christ could not be the infinite God he is declared to be. Joh 1:4.
Work and Offices of Christ. These are usually presented as threefold. The Bible and Evangelical creeds describe the Mediator as a prophet, priest, and king. As prophet he perfectly reveals the will of the Father to man; as priest he is the perfect offering for sin, procuring redemption for all who will accept of it; as king, he is and will become rightful ruler and judge of this world, and be exalted above every name that is named, putting all things under him, receiving the praises of all created intelligences.
Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible
Jesus Christ
Je’sus Christ. “The life and character of Jesus Christ,” says Dr. Schaff, “is the Holy of Holies in the history of the world.”
I. Name. — The name Jesus signifies saviour. It is the Greek form of Jehoshua (Joshua). The name Christ signifies anointed. Jesus was both priest and king.
Among the Jews, priests were anointed, as their inauguration to their office. 1Ch 16:22. In the New Testament, the name Christ is used as equivalent to the Hebrew, Messiah. (anointed), Joh 1:41, the name given to the long-promised Prophet and King whom the Jews had been taught by their prophets to expect. Mat 11:3; Act 19:4. The use of this name, as applied to the Lord, has always a reference to the promises of the prophets.
The name of Jesus is the proper name of our Lord, and that of Christ is added to identify him with the promised Messiah. Other names are sometimes added to the names Jesus Christ, thus, “Lord,” “a king,” “King of Israel,” “Emmanuel,” “Son of David,” “chosen of God.”
II. Birth. — Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, God being his father, at Bethlehem of Judea, six miles south of Jerusalem. The date of his birth was most probably in December, B.C. 5, four years before the era from which we count our years. That era was not used till several hundred years after Christ. The calculations were made by a learned monk, Dionysius Exiguus, in the sixth century, who made an error of four years; so that to get the exact date from the birth of Christ we must add four years to our usual dates; that is, A.D. 1882 is really 1886 years since the birth of Christ.
It is also more than likely that our usual date for Christmas, December 25, is not far from the real date of Christ’s birth. Since the 25th of December comes when the longest night gives way to the returning sun on his triumphant march, it makes an appropriate anniversary to make the birth of him who appeared in the darkest night of error and sin as the true Light of the world.
At the time of Christ’s birth, Augustus Caesar was emperor of Rome, and Herod the Great was king of Judea, but a subject of Rome. God’s providence had prepared the world for the coming of Christ, and this was the fittest time in all its history. All the world was subject to one government, so that the apostles could travel everywhere: the door of every land was open for the gospel. The world was at peace, so that the gospel could have free course. The Greek language was spoken everywhere with their other languages. The Jews were scattered everywhere with synagogues and Bibles.
III. Early Life. — Jesus, having a manger at Bethlehem for his cradle, received a visit of adoration from the three wise men of the East. At forty days old, he was taken to the Temple at Jerusalem; and returning to Bethlehem, was soon taken to Egypt to escape Herod’s massacre of the infants there. After a few months stay there, Herod having died in April, B.C. 4, the family returned to their Nazareth home, where Jesus lived till he was about thirty years old, subject to his parent, and increasing “in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.”
The only incident recorded of his early life is his going up to Jerusalem to attend the Passover when he was twelve years old, and his conversation with the learned men in the Temple. But we can understand the childhood and youth of Jesus better when we remember the surrounding influences amid which he grew. The natural scenery was rugged and mountainous, but full of beauty. He breathed the pure air. He lived in a village, not in a city. The Roman dominion was irksome and galling. The people of God were subject to a foreign yoke. The taxes were heavy. Roman soldiers, laws, money, every reminded them of their subjection, when they ought to be free and themselves the rulers of the world.
When Jesus was ten years old, there was a great insurrection, Act 5:37, in Galilee. He who was to be King of the Jews heard and felt all this. The Jewish hopes of a Redeemer, of throwing off their bondage, of becoming the glorious nation promised in the prophet, were in the very air he breathed. The conversation at home and in the streets was full of them. Within his view, and his boyish excursions, were many remarkable historic places, — rivers, hills, cities, plains, — that would keep in mind the history of his people and God’s dealings with them.
His school training. Mr. Deutsch, in the Quarterly Review, says, “Eighty years before Christ, schools flourished throughout the length and the breadth of the land: education had been made compulsory. While there is not a single term for ‘school’ to be found before the captivity, there were by that time about a dozen in common usage. Here are a few of the innumerable popular sayings of the period: ‘Jerusalem was destroyed because the instruction of the young was neglected.’ ‘The world is only saved by the breath of the school-children.’ ‘Even for the rebuilding of the Temple the schools must not be interrupted.’ “
His home training. According to Ellicott, the stages of Jewish childhood were marked as follows: “At three, the boy was weaned, and wore, for the first time, the fringed or tasselled garment prescribed by Num 15:38-41 and Deu 22:12. His education began at first under the mother’s care. At five, he was to learn the law, at first by extracts written on scrolls of the more important passages, the Shema or creed of Deu 2:4, the Hallel or festival psalms, Psalms 114; Psalms 118; Psalms 136, and by catechetical teaching in school.
At twelve, he became more directly responsible for his obedience of the law; and on the day when he attained the age of thirteen, put on for the first time, the phylacteries which were worn at the recital of his daily prayer.” In addition to this, Jesus no doubt learned the carpenter’s trade of his reputed father Joseph, and, as Joseph probably died before Jesus began his public ministry, he may have contributed to the support of his mother.
(IV. Public Ministry. — All the leading events recorded of Jesus’ life are given at the end of this volume in the Chronological Chart and in the Chronological Table of the life of Christ; so that here will be given only a general survey.
Jesus began to enter upon his ministry when he was “about thirty years old;” that is, he was not very far from thirty, older or younger. He is regarded as nearly thirty-one by Andrews (in the tables of chronology referred to above) and by most others. Having been baptized by John early in the winter of 26-27, he spent the larger portion of his year in Judea and about the lower Jordan, till in December he went northward to Galilee through Samaria. The next year and a half, from December, A.D. 27, to October or November, A.D. 29, was spent in Galilee and norther Palestine, chiefly in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee.
In November, 29, Jesus made his final departure from Galilee, and the rest of his ministry was in Judea and Perea, beyond Jordan, till his crucifixion, April 7, A.D. 30. After three days, he proved his divinity by rising from the dead; and after appearing on eleven different occasions to his disciples during forty days, he finally ascended to heaven, where he is the living, ever present, all-powerful Saviour of his people.
Jesus Christ, being both human and divine, is fitted to be the true Saviour of men. In this, as in every action and character, he is shown to be “the wisdom and power of God unto salvation.” As human, he reaches down to our natures, sympathizes with us, shows us that God knows all our feelings and weaknesses and sorrows and sins, brings God near to us, who otherwise could not realize the Infinite and Eternal as a father and friend. He is divine, in order that he may be an all-powerful, all-loving Saviour, able and willing to defend us from every enemy, to subdue all temptations, to deliver from all sin, and to bring each of his people, and the whole Church, into complete and final victory. Jesus Christ is the centre of the world’s history, as he is the centre of the Bible. — Editor).
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
JESUS CHRIST
foolish, forbidden
Pro 26:19; Eph 5:4
Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible
Jesus Christ
the son of God, the Messiah, and Saviour of the world, the first and principal object of the prophecies, prefigured and promised in the Old Testament, expected and desired by the patriarchs; the hope of the Gentiles; the glory, salvation, and consolation of Christians. The name Jesus, or, as the Hebrews pronounce it, , Jehoshua or Joshua, , signifies, he who shall save. No one ever bore this name with so much justice, nor so perfectly fulfilled the signification of it, as Jesus Christ, who saves even from sin and hell, and hath merited heaven for us by the price of his blood. It is not necessary here to narrate the history of our Saviour’s life, which can no where be read with advantage except in the writings of the four evangelists; but there are several general views which require to be noticed under this article.
1. Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or Messiah promised under the Old Testament. That he professed himself to be that Messiah to whom all the prophets gave witness, and who was, in fact, at the time of his appearing, expected by the Jews; and that he was received under that character by his disciples, and by all Christians ever since, is certain. And if the Old Testament Scriptures afford sufficiently definite marks by which the long announced Christ should be infallibly known at his advent, and these presignations are found realized in our Lord, then is the truth of his pretensions established. From the books of the Old Testament we learn that the Messiah was to authenticate his claim by miracles; and in those predictions respecting him, so many circumstances are recorded, that they could meet only in one person; and so, if they are accomplished in him, they leave no room for doubt, as far as the evidence of prophecy is deemed conclusive. As to MIRACLES, we refer to that article; here only observing, that if the miraculous works wrought by Christ were really done, they prove his mission, because, from their nature, and having been wrought to confirm his claim to be the Messiah, they necessarily imply a divine attestation. With respect to PROPHECY, the principles under which its evidence must be regarded as conclusive will be given under that head; and here therefore it will only be necessary to show the completion of the prophecies of the sacred books of the Jews relative to the Messiah in one person, and that person the founder of the Christian religion.
The time of the Messiah’s appearance in the world, as predicted in the Old Testament, is defined, says Keith, by a number of concurring circumstances, which fix it to the very date of the advent of Christ. The last blessing of Jacob to his sons, when he commanded them to gather themselves together that he might tell them what should befall them in the last days, contains this prediction concerning Judah: The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be, Gen 49:10, The date fixed by this prophecy for the coming of Shiloh, or the Saviour, was not to exceed the time during which the descendants of Judah were to continue a united people, while a king should reign among them, while they should be governed by their own laws, and while their judges should be from among their brethren. The prophecy of Malachi adds another standard for measuring the time: Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall come suddenly to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts, Mal 3:1. No words can be more expressive of the coming of the promised Messiah; and they as clearly imply his appearance in the second temple before it should be destroyed. In regard to the advent of the Messiah before the destruction of the second temple, the words of Haggai are remarkably explicit: The desire of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of Hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former, and in this place will I give peace,
Hag 2:7. The Saviour was thus to appear, according to the prophecies of the Old Testament, during the time of the continuance of the kingdom of Judah, previous to the demolition of the temple, and immediately subsequent to the next prophet. But the time is rendered yet more definite. In the prophecies of Daniel, the kingdom of the Messiah is not only foretold as commencing in the time of the fourth monarchy, or Roman empire, but the express number of years that were to precede his coming are plainly intimated: Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know, therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks,
Dan 9:24-25. Computation by weeks of years was common among the Jews, and every seventh was the sabbatical year; seventy weeks, thus amounted to four hundred and ninety years. In these words the prophet marks the very time, and uses the very name of Messiah, the Prince; so entirety is all ambiguity done away. The plainest inference may be drawn from these prophecies. All of them, while, in every respect, they presuppose the most perfect knowledge of futurity; while they were unquestionably delivered and publicly known for ages previous to the time to which they referred; and while they refer to different contingent and unconnected events, utterly undeterminable and inconceivable by all human sagacity; accord in perfect unison to a single precise period where all their different lines terminate at once,the very fulness of time when Jesus appeared. A king then reigned over the Jews in their own land; they were governed by their own laws; and the council of their nation exercised its authority and power. Before that period, the other tribes were extinct or dispersed among the nations. Judah alone remained, and the last sceptre in Israel had not then departed from it. Every stone of the temple was then unmoved; it was the admiration of the Romans, and might have stood for ages. But in a short space, all these concurring testimonies to the time of the advent of the Messiah passed away. During the very year, the twelfth of his age, in which Christ first publicly appeared in the temple, Archelaus the king was dethroned and banished; Coponius was appointed procurator; and the kingdom of Judea, the last remnant of the greatness of Israel, was debased into a part of the province of Syria. The sceptre was smitten from the tribe of Judah; the crown fell from their heads; their glory departed; and, soon after the death of Christ, of their temple one stone was not left upon another; their commonwealth itself became as complete a ruin, and was broken in pieces; and they have ever since been scattered throughout the world, a name but not a nation. After the lapse of nearly four hundred years posterior to the time of Malachi, another prophet appeared who was the herald of the Messiah. And the testimony of Josephus confirms the account given in Scripture of John the Baptist. Every mark that denoted the time of the coming of the Messiah was erased soon after the crucifixion of Christ, and could never afterward be renewed. And with respect to the prophecies of Daniel, it is remarkable, at this remote period, how little discrepancy of opinion has existed among the most learned men, as to the space from the time of the passing out of the edict to rebuild Jerusalem, after the Babylonish captivity, to the commencement of the Christian era, and the subsequent events foretold in the prophecy.
The predictions contained in the Old Testament respecting both the family out of which the Messiah was to arise, and the place of his birth, are almost as circumstantial, and are equally applicable to Christ, as those which refer to the time of his appearance. He was to be an Israelite, of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David, and of the town of Bethlehem. That all these predictions were fulfilled in Jesus Christ; that he was of that country, tribe, and family, of the house and lineage of David, and born in Bethlehem, we have the fullest evidence in the testimony of all the evangelists; in two distinct accounts of the genealogies, by natural and legal succession, which, according to the custom of the Jews, were carefully preserved; in the acquiescence of the enemies of Christ in the truth of the fact, against which there is not a single surmise in history; and in the appeal made by some of the earliest Christian writers to the unquestionable testimony of the records of the census, taken at the very time of our Saviour’s birth by order of Caesar. Here, indeed, it is impossible not to be struck with the exact fulfilment of prophecies which are apparently contradictory and irreconcilable, and with the manner in which they were providentially accomplished. The spot of Christ’s nativity was distant from the place of the abode of his parents, and the region in which he began his ministry was remote from the place of his birth; and another prophecy respecting him was in this manner verified: In the land of Zebulun and Naphtali, by the way of the sea beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations, the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined, Isa 9:1-2; Mat 4:16. Thus, the time at which the predicted Messiah was to appear; the nation, the tribe, and the family from which he was to be descended; and the place of his birth,no populous city, but of itself an inconsiderable place,were all clearly foretold; and as clearly refer to Jesus Christ; and all meet their completion in him.
But the facts of his life, and the features of his character, are also drawn with a precision that cannot be misunderstood. The obscurity, the meanness, and the poverty of his external condition are thus represented: He shall grow up before the Lord like a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form or comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Thus saith the Lord to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, Isa 53:2; Isa 49:7. That such was the condition in which Christ appeared, the whole history of his life abundantly testifies. And the Jews, looking in the pride of their hearts for an earthly king, disregarded these prophecies concerning him, were deceived by their traditions, and found only a stone of stumbling, where, if they had searched their Scriptures aright, they would have discovered an evidence of the Messiah. Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not this the son of Mary? said they; and they were offended at him. His riding in humble triumph into Jerusalem; his being betrayed for thirty pieces of silver, and scourged, and buffered, and spit upon; the piercing of his hands and of his feet; the last offered draught of vinegar and gall; the parting of his raiment, and casting lots upon his vesture; the manner of his death and of his burial, and his rising again without seeing corruption, were all expressly predicted, and all these predictions were literally fulfilled, Zec 9:9; Zec 11:12; Isa 50:6; Psa 22:16; Psa 69:21; Psa 22:18; Isa 53:9; Psa 16:10. If all these prophecies admit of any application to the events of the life of any individual, it can only be to that of the Author of Christianity. And what other religion can produce a single fact which was actually foretold of its founder?
The death of Christ was as unparalleled as his life; and the prophecies are as minutely descriptive of his sufferings as of his virtues. Not only did the paschal lamb, which was to be killed every year in all the families of Israel, which was to be taken out of the flock, to be without blemish, to be eaten with bitter herbs, to have its blood sprinkled, and to be kept whole that not a bone of it should be broken; not only did the offering up of Isaac, and the lifting up of the brazen serpent in the wilderness, by looking upon which the people were healed, and many ritual observances of the Jews, prefigure the manner of Christ’s death, and the sacrifice which was to be made for sin; but many express declarations abound in the prophecies, that Christ was indeed to suffer. But Isaiah, who describes, with eloquence worthy of a prophet, the glories of the kingdom that was to come, characterizes, with the accuracy of a historian, the humiliation, the trials, and the agonies which were to precede the triumphs of the Redeemer of a world; and the history of Christ forms, to the very letter, the commentary and the completion of his every prediction. In a single passage, Isa 52:13, &c; 53, the connection of which is uninterrupted, its antiquity indisputable, and its application obvious, the sufferings of the servant of God (who under that same denomination, is previously described as he who was to be the light of the Gentiles, the salvation of God to the ends of the earth, and the elect of God in whom his soul delighted, Isa 42:10; Isa 49:6) are so minutely foretold, that no illustration is requisite to show that they testify of Jesus. The whole of this prophecy thus refers to the Messiah. It describes both his debasement and his dignity; his rejection by the Jews; his humility, his affliction, and his agony; his magnanimity and his charity; how his words were disbelieved; how his state was lowly; how his sorrow was severe; how he opened not his mouth but to make intercession for the transgressors. In diametrical opposition to every dispensation of Providence which is registered in the records of the Jews, it represents spotless innocence suffering by the appointment of Heaven; death as the issue of perfect obedience; God’s righteous servant as forsaken of him; and one who was perfectly immaculate bearing the chastisement of many guilty; sprinkling many nations from their iniquity, by virtue of his sacrifice; justifying many by his knowledge; and dividing a portion with the great and the spoil with the strong, because he hath poured out his soul in death. This prophecy, therefore, simply as a prediction prior to the event, renders the very unbelief of the Jews an evidence against them, converts the scandal of the cross into an argument in favour of Christianity, and presents us with an epitome of the truth, a miniature of the Gospel in some of its most striking features. The simple exposition of it sufficed at once for the conversion of the eunuch of Ethiopia. To these prophecies may, in fact, be added all those which relate to his spiritual kingdom, or the circumstances of the promulgation, the opposition, and the triumphs of his religion; the accomplishment of which equally proves the divine mission of its Author, and points him out as that great personage with whom they stand inseparably connected.
2. But if Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, in that character his Deity also is necessarily involved, because the Messiah is surrounded with attributes of divinity in the Old Testament; and our Lord himself as certainly lays claim to those attributes as to the office of the Christ. Without referring here to the Scriptural doctrine of a Trinity of divine Persons in the unity of the Godhead, (see Trinity,) it is sufficient now to show that both in the Old and New Testament Scriptures, the Messiah is contemplated as a divine Person. In the very first promise of redemption, his superiority to that great and malignant spirit who destroyed the innocence of man, and blighted the fair creation of God, is unquestionably implied; while the Angel of the Divine Presence, the Angel of the Covenant, who appears so prominent in the patriarchal times, and the early periods of Jewish history, and was understood by the early Jews as the future Messiah, is seen at once as a being distinct from Jehovah and yet Jehovah himself; bearing that incommunicable name; and performing acts, and possessing qualities of unquestionable divinity. As the Redeemer of Job, he is the object of his trust and hope, and is said to be then a living Redeemer; to see whom at the last was to see God. As Shiloh, in the prophecy of Jacob, he is represented as having an indefinitely extensive reign over the people gathered to him; and in all subsequent predictions respecting this reign of Christ, it is represented so vast, so perfect, so influential upon the very thoughts, purposes, and affections of men, that no mere creature can be reasonably supposed capable of exercising it. Of the second Psalm, so manifestly appropriated to the Messiah, it has been justly said, that the high titles and honours ascribed in this Psalm to the extraordinary person who is the chief subject of it, far transcend any thing that is ascribed in Scripture to any mere creature. But if the Psalm be inquired into more narrowly, and compared with parallel prophecies; if it be duly considered, that not only is the extraordinary person here spoken of called the Son of God, but that title is so ascribed to him as to imply, that it belongs to him in a manner that is absolutely singular, and peculiar to himself, seeing he is said to be begotten of God, Isa 49:7, and is called, by way of eminence, the Son, Isa 49:12; that the danger of provoking him to anger is spoken of in so very different a manner from what the Scripture uses in speaking of the anger of any mere creature, Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little; that when the kings and judges of the earth are commanded to serve God with fear, they are at the same time commanded to kiss the Son, which in those times and places was frequently an expression of adoration; and, particularly, that, whereas other Scriptures contain awful and just threatenings against those who trust in any mere man, the Psalmist nevertheless expressly calls them blessed who trust in the Son here spoken of;all these things taken together make up a character of unequivocal divinity: and, on the other hand, when it is said, that God would set this his Son as his King on his holy hill of Zion, Isa 49:6, this, and various other expressions in this Psalm, contain characters of that subordination which is appropriate to that divine Person who was to be incarnate, and engage in a work assigned to him by the Father. The former part of the forty-fifth Psalm is by the inspired authority of St. Paul applied to the Christ, who is addressed in these lofty words, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. In the same manner Psa 102:25-28, is applied to Christ by the same authority, and there he is represented as the creator of all things, changing his creations as a vesture, and yet himself continuing the same unchanged being amidst all the mutations of the universe. In Psalm cx, David says, Jehovah said unto my Lord, (Adonai,) Sit thou upon my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. And in Isaiah vi, the same Adonai is seen by the prophet seated upon a throne, high and lifted up, receiving the adoration of seraphs, and bearing the title, Jehovah, Lord of Hosts, of which passage St. John makes a direct application to Christ. Isaiah predicts his birth of a virgin, under the title of Immanuel, God with us. The same prophet gives to this wonderful child the style of the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace; so that, as Dr. Pye Smith justly observes, if there be any dependence on words, the Messiah is here drawn in the opposite characters of humanity and Deity,the nativity and frailty of a mortal child, and the incommunicable attributes of the omnipresent and eternal God. Twice is he called by Jeremiah, Jehovah our righteousness. Daniel terms him the Ancient of Days, or The Immortal; and Micah declares, in a passage which the council of the Jews, assembled by Herod, applied to the Messiah, that he who was to be born in Bethlehem was even he whose comings forth are from eternity, from the days of the everlasting period. Thus the prophetic testimony describes him, as entitled to the appellation of Wonderful, since he should be, in a sense peculiar to himself, the Son of God, Psa 2:7; Isa 9:6; as existing and acting during the patriarchal and the Jewish ages, and even from eternity, Psa 40:7-9; Mic 5:2; as the guardian and protector of his people, Isa 40:9-11; as the proper object of the various affections of piety, of devotional confidence for obtaining the most important blessings, and of religious homage from angels and men, Psa 2:12; Psa 97:7; and, finally, declares him to be the eternal and immutable Being, the Creator, God, the Mighty God, Adonai, Elohim, Jehovah.
In perfect accordance with these views, does our Saviour speak of himself. He asserts his preexistence, as having come down from heaven; and as existing before Abraham; and as being in heaven while yet before the eyes of his disciples on earth. In the same peculiar manner does he apply the term Son of God to himself, and that with so manifest an intention to assume it in the sense of divinity, that the Jews attempted on that account to stone him as a blasphemer. The whole force of the argument by which he silenced the Pharisees when he asked how the Messiah, who was to be the Son of David, could be David’s Lord, in reference to the passage in the Psalms before quoted, arose out of the doctrine of the Messiah’s divinity; and when he claims that all men should honour him as they honour the Father, and asserts that as the Father hath life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself, that he quickeneth whom he will, that where two or three meet in his name he is in the midst of them, and would be with his disciples to the end of the world; who does not see that the Jews concluded right, when they said that he made himself equal with God,an impression which he took no pains to remove, although his own moral character bound him to do so, had he not intended to confirm that conclusion. So numerous are the passages in which divine titles, acts, and qualities, are ascribed to Christ in the apostolical epistles, and so unbroken is the stream of testimony from the apostolic age, that the Deity of their Saviour was the undoubted and universal faith of his inspired followers, and of those who immediately succeeded them, that it is not necessary to quote proofs. The whole argument is this: If the Old Testament Scriptures represent the Messiah as a divine Person; the proofs which demonstrate Jesus to be the Messiah, demonstrate him also by farther and necessary consequence to be divine. Yet, though there is a union of natures in Christ, there is no mixture or confusion of their properties: his humanity is not changed into his Deity, nor his Deity absorbed by his humanity; but the two natures are distinct in one Person. How this union exists, is above our comprehension; and, indeed, if we cannot explain how our bodies and souls are united, it is not to be supposed that we can comprehend the mystery of God manifest in the flesh. So truly does Christ bear the name given to him in prophecy, Wonderful.
3. The doctrine of the Deity of Christ derives farther confirmation from the consideration, that in no sound sense can the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments be interpreted so as to make their very different and often apparently contradictory statements respecting him harmonize. How, for instance, is it that he is arrayed in the attributes of divinity, and yet is capable of being raised to a kingdom and glory?that he is addressed, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, and yet that it should follow God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows?that he should be God, and yet, by a human birth, God with us?that he should say, I and my Father are one, and, My Father is greater than I?that he is supreme, and yet a servant?that he is equal and yet subordinate?that he, a man, should require and receive worship and trust?that he should be greater than angels, and yet made lower than the angels?that he should be made flesh, and yet be the Creator of all things?that he should raise himself from the dead, and yet be raised by the power of the Father? These and many other declarations respecting him, all accord with the orthodox view of his person; and are intelligible so far as they state the facts respecting him; but are wholly beyond the power of interpretation into any rational meaning on any theory which denies to him a real humanity on the one hand, or a real and personal divinity on the other. So powerfully, in fact, has this been felt, that, in order to evade the force of the testimony of Scripture, the most licentious criticisms have been resorted to by the deniers of his divinity; such as would not certainly have been tolerated by scholars in the case of an attempt to interpret any other ancient writing.
4. Being, therefore, not only a teacher sent from God, but the divine Son of God himself, it might be truly said by his wondering hearers, Never man spake like this man. On our Lord’s character as a teacher, therefore, many striking and just remarks have been made by different writers, not excepting some infidels themselves, who, in this respect, have been carried into admiration by the overwhelming force of evidence. This article, however, shall not be indebted to a desecrated source for an estimate of the character of his teaching, and shall rather be concluded with the following admirable remarks of a Christian prelate:
When our Lord is considered as a teacher, we find him delivering the justest and most sublime truths with respect to the divine nature, the duties of mankind, and a future state of existence; agreeable in every particular to reason, and to the wisest maxims of the wisest philosophers; without any mixture of that alloy which so often debased their most perfect production; and excellently adapted to mankind in general, by suggesting circumstances and particular images on the most awful and interesting subjects. We find him filling, and, as it were, overpowering our minds with the grandest ideas of his own nature; representing himself as appointed by his Father to be our Instructer, our Redeemer, our Judge, and our King; and showing that he lived and died for the most benevolent and important purposes conceivable. He does not labour to support the greatest and most magnificent of all characters; but it is perfectly easy and natural to him. He makes no display of the high and heavenly truths which he utters; but speaks of them with a graceful and wonderful simplicity and majesty.
Supernatural truths are as familiar to his mind, as the common affairs of life are to other men. He revives the moral law, carries it to perfection, and enforces it by peculiar and animating motives: but he enjoins nothing new beside praying in his name, mutual love among his disciples, as such, and the observance of two simple and significant positive laws which serve to promote the practice of the moral law. All his precepts, when rightly explained, are reasonable in themselves and useful in their tendency: and their compass is very great, considering that he was an occasional teacher, and not a systematical one. If from the matter of his instructions we pass on to the manner in which they were delivered, we find our Lord usually speaking as an authoritative teacher; though occasionally limiting his precepts, and sometimes assigning the reasons of them. He presupposes the original law of God, and addresses men as rational creatures. From the grandeur of his mind, and the magnitude of his subjects, he is often sublime; and the beauties interspersed throughout his discourses are equally natural and striking. He is remarkable for an easy and graceful manner of introducing the best lessons from incidental objects and occasions. The human heart is naked and open to him; and he addresses the thoughts of men, as others do the emotions of their countenance or their bodily actions. Difficult situations, and sudden questions of the most artful and ensnaring kind, serve only to display his superior wisdom, and to confound and astonish all his adversaries. Instead of showing his boundless knowledge on every occasion, he checks and restrains it, and prefers utility to the glare of ostentation. He teaches directly and obliquely, plainly and covertly, as wisdom points out occasions. He knows the inmost character, every prejudice and every feeling of his hearers; and, accordingly, uses parables to conceal or to enforce his lessons; and he powerfully impresses them by the significant language of actions. He gives proofs of his mission from above, by his knowledge of the heart, by a chain of prophecies, and by a variety of mighty works.
He sets an example of the most perfect piety to God, and of the most extensive benevolence and the most tender compassion to men. He does not merely exhibit a life of strict justice, but of overflowing benignity. His temperance has not the dark shades of austerity; his meekness does not degenerate into apathy. His humility is signal, amidst a splendour of qualities more than human. His fortitude is eminent and exemplary, in enduring the most formidable external evils and the sharpest actual sufferings: his patience is invincible; his resignation entire and absolute. Truth and sincerity shine throughout his whole conduct. Though of heavenly descent, he shows obedience and affection to his earthly parents. He approves, loves, and attaches himself to amiable qualities in the human race. He respects authority, religious and civil; and he evidences his regard for his country by promoting its most essential good in a painful ministry dedicated to its service, by deploring its calamities, and by laying down his life for its benefit. Every one of his eminent virtues is regulated by consummate prudence; and he both wins the love of his friends, and extorts the approbation and wonder of his enemies. Never was a character at the same time so commanding and natural, so resplendent and pleasing, so amiable and venerable. There is a peculiar contrast in it between an awful greatness, dignity, and majesty, and the most conciliating loveliness, tenderness, and softness. He now converses with prophets, lawgivers, and angels; and the next instant he meekly endures the dulness of his disciples and the blasphemies and rage of the multitude. He now calls himself greater than Solomon, one who can command legions of angels, the Giver of life to whomsoever he pleaseth, the Son of God who shall sit on his glorious throne to judge the world. At other times we find him embracing young children, not lifting up his voice in the streets, not breaking the bruised reed, nor quenching the smoking flax; calling his disciples, not servants, but friends and brethren, and comforting them with an exuberant and parental affection. Let us pause an instant, and fill our minds with the idea of one who knew all things heavenly and earthly, searched and laid open the inmost recesses of the heart, rectified every prejudice, and removed every mistake, of a moral and religious kind, by a word exercised a sovereignty over all nature, penetrated the hidden events of futurity, gave promises of admission into a happy immortality, had the keys of life and death, claimed a union with the Father; and yet was pious, mild, gentle, humble, affable, social, benevolent, friendly, affectionate. Such a character is fairer than the morning star. Each separate virtue is made stronger by opposition and contrast; and the union of so many virtues forms a brightness which fitly represents the glory of that God who inhabiteth light inaccessible.’ Such a character must have been a real one. There is something so extraordinary, so perfect, and so godlike in it, that it could not have been thus supported throughout by the utmost stretch of human art, much less by men confessedly unlearned and obscure. We may add, that such a character must also have been divine. His virtues are human in their class and kind, so that he was our example; but they were sustained and heightened by that divinity which was impersonated in him, and from which they derived their intense and full perfection.
5. A great deal has been written concerning the form, beauty, and stature of Jesus Christ. Some have asserted, that he was in person the noblest of all the sons of men. Others have maintained, that there was no beauty nor any graces in his outward appearance. The fathers have not expressed themselves on this matter in a uniform manner. St. Jerom believes that the lustre and majesty which shone about our Saviour’s face were capable of winning all hearts: it was this that drew the generality of his Apostles with so much ease to him; it was this majesty which struck those down who came to seize him in the olive garden. St. Bernard and St. Chrysostom contend in like manner for the beauty of Jesus Christ’s person; but the most ancient fathers have acknowledged, that he was not at all handsome. Homo indecorus et passibilis, says Irenaeus. Celsus objected to the Christians, that Jesus Christ, as a man, was little, and ill made, which Origen acknowledged in his answer to have been written of him. Clemens Alexandrinus owns, in several places, that the person of Jesus Christ was not beautiful, as does also Cyril of Alexandria. Tertullian says plainly, vultu et aspectu inglorius; that his outward form had nothing that could attract consideration and respect. St. Austin confesses, that Jesus Christ, as a man, was without beauty and the advantage of person; and the generality of the ancients, as Eusebius, Basil, Theodoret, Ambrose, Isidore, &c, explain the passage in the Psalm, Thou art fairer than the children of men, as relating to the beauty of Jesus Christ according to his divinity. This difference in opinion shows that no certain tradition was handed down on this subject. The truth probably is, that all which was majestic and attractive in the person of our Lord, was in the expression of the countenance, the full influence of which was displayed chiefly in his confidential intercourse with his disciples; while his general appearance presented no striking peculiarity to the common observer.