Jesus Christ
From BibleEncyclopedia.Net
jē´zus krīst (Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Iēsoús Christós):
Jesus Christ: The Founder of the Christian religion; the promised Messiah and Saviour of the world; the Lord and Head of the Christian church.
I. The Names.
1. Jesus:
(Iēsous) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Joshua” (יהושׁע, yehōshua‛), meaning “Yahweh is salvation.” It stands therefore in the Septuagint and Apocrypha for “Joshua,” and in Act_7:45 and Heb_4:8 likewise represents the Old Testament Joshua; hence, in the Revised Version (British and American) is in these passages rendered “Joshua.” In Mat_1:21 the name as commanded by the angel to be given to the son of Mary, “for it is he that shall save his people from their sins” (see below on “Nativity”). It is the personal name of the Lord in the Gospels and the Acts, but generally in the Epistles appears in combination with “Christ” or other appellative (alone in Rom_3:26; Rom_4:24; 1Co_12:3; 2Co_11:4; Phi_2:10; 1Th_4:14; Heb_7:22; Heb_10:19, etc.).
2. Christ:
(Christos) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah” (משׁיח, māshīaḥ; compare in the New Testament, Joh_1:41; Joh_4:25, “Messiah”), meaning “anointed” (see MESSIAH). It designates Jesus as the fulfiller of the Messianic hopes of the Old Testament and of the Jewish people. It will be seen below that Jesus Himself made this claim. After the resurrection it became the current title for Jesus in the apostolic church. Most frequently in the Epistles He is called “Jesus Christ,” sometimes “Christ Jesus” (Rom_8:1, Rom_8:2, Rom_8:39; 1Co_1:2, 1Co_1:30; 1Co_4:15; Eph_1:1; Phi_1:1; Col_1:4, Col_1:28 the King James Version; 1Th_2:14, etc.), often “Christ” alone (Rom_1:16 the King James Version; Rom_5:6, Rom_5:8; Rom_6:4, Rom_6:8, Rom_6:9; Rom_8:10, etc.). In this case “Christ” has acquired the force of a proper name. Very frequently the term is associated with “Lord” (kúrios) - “the (or “our”) Lord Jesus Christ” (Act_11:17; Act_15:11 the King James Version; Act_16:31 the King James Version; Act_20:21; Act_28:31; Rom_1:7; Rom_5:1, Rom_5:11; Rom_13:14; 1Co_16:23, etc.).
II. Order of Treatment.
In studying, as it is proposed to do in this article, the earthly history of Jesus and His place in the faith of the apostolic church, it will be convenient to pursue the following order:
First, as introductory to the whole study, certain questions relating to the sources of our knowledge of Jesus, and to the preparation for, and circumstances of, His historical appearance, invite careful attention (Part I).
Next, still as preliminary to the proper narrative of the life of Jesus, it is desirable to consider certain problems arising out of the presentation of that life in the Gospels with which modern thought is more specially concerned, as determining the attitude in which the narratives are approached. Such are the problems of the miracles, the Messiahship, the sinless character and supernatural claims of Jesus (Part II).
The way is then open for treatment in order of the actual events of Christ's life and ministry, so far as recorded. These fall into many stages, from His nativity and baptism till His death, resurrection and ascension (Part III).
A final division will deal with Jesus as the exalted Lord in the aspects in which He is presented in the teaching of the Epistles and remaining writings of the New Testament (Part IV).
Part I. Introductory
I. The Sources.
1. In General:
The principal, and practically the only sources for our knowledge of Jesus Christ are the four Canonical Gospels - distinction being made in these between the first three (Synoptic) Gospels, and the Gospel of John. Nothing, either in the few notices of Christ in non-Christian authors, or in the references in the other books of the New Testament, or in later Christian literature, adds to the information which the Gospels already supply. The so-called apocryphal Gospels are worthless as authorities (see under the word); the few additional sayings of Christ (compare Act_20:35) found in outside writings are of doubtful genuineness (compare a collection of these in Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Appendix C; see also LOGIA).
2. Denial of Existence of Jesus:
It marks the excess to which skepticism has gone that writers are found in recent years who deny the very existence of Jesus Christ (Kalthoff, Das Christus-Problem, and Die Entstehung des Christenthums; Jensen, Das Gilgamesch-Epos, I; Drews, Die Christusmythe; compare on Kalthoff, Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, English translation, 313 ff; Jensen is reviewed in the writer's The Resurrection of Jesus, chapter ix). The extravagance of such skepticism is its sufficient refutation.
3. Extra-Christian Notices:
Of notices outside the Christian circles the following may be referred to.
(1) Josephus.
There is the famous passage in Josephus, Ant, XVIII, iii, 3, commencing, “Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man,” etc. It is not unlikely that Josephus had some reference to Jesus, but most agree that the passage in question, if not entirely spurious, has been the subject of Christian interpolation (on the lit. and different views, see Schurer, Jewish People in the Time of Christ, Div II, volume II, 143 ff; in support of interpolation, Edersheim on “Josephus,” in Dictionary of Christ. Biography).
(2) Tacitus.
The Roman historian, Tacitus, in a well-known passage relating to the persecution of Nero (Ann. xv. 44), tells how the Christians, already “a great multitude” (ingens multitudo), derived their name “from one Christus, who was executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate.”
(3) Suetonius.
Suetonius also, in his account of Claudius, speaks of the Jews as expelled from Rome for the raising of tumults at the instigation of one “Chrestus” (impulsore Chresto), plainly a mistake for “Christus.” The incident is doubtless that referred to in Act_18:2.
4. The Gospels:
The four Gospels, then, with their rich contents, remain as our primary sources for the knowledge of the earthly life of Jesus.
(1) The Synoptics.
It may be taken for granted as the result of the best criticism that the first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) all fall well within the apostolic age (compare Harnack, Altchr. Lit., Pref; see GOSPELS). The favorite theory at present of the relations of these Gospels is, that Mk is an independent Gospel, resting on the teaching of Peter; that Mt and Lk have as sources the Gospel of Mk and a collection of discourses, probably attributable to the apostle Matthew (now commonly called Q) ; and that Lk has a third, well-authenticated source (Luk_1:1-4) peculiar to himself. The present writer is disposed to allow more independence to the evangelists in the embodying of a tradition common to all; in any case, the sources named are of unexceptionable authority, and furnish a strong guaranty for the reliability of the narratives. The supreme guaranty of their trustworthiness, however, is found in the narratives themselves; for who in that (or any) age could imagine a figure so unique and perfect as that of Jesus, or invent the incomparable sayings and parables that proceeded from His lips? Much of Christ's teaching is high as heaven above the minds of men still.
(2) The Fourth Gospel.
The Fourth Gospel stands apart from the Synoptics in dealing mainly with another set of incidents (the Jerusalem ministry), and discourses of a more private and intimate kind than those belonging to the Galilean teaching. Its aim, too, is doctrinal - to show that Jesus is “the Son of God,” and its style and mode of conception are very different from those of the Synoptic Gospels. Its contents touch their narratives in only a few points (as in Jn 6:4-21). Where they do, the resemblance is manifest. It is obvious that the reminiscences which the Gospel contains have been long brooded over by the apostle, and that a certain interpretative element blends with his narration of incidents and discourses. This, however, does not warrant us in throwing doubt, with so many, on the genuineness of the Gospel, for which the external evidence is exceptionally strong (compare Sanday, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel; Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel; and see JOHN, GOSPEL OF). The Gospel is accepted here as a genuine record of the sayings and doings of Jesus which it narrates.
II. The Preparation.
1. Both Gentile and Jewish:
In the Gospels and throughout the New Testament Jesus appears as the goal of Old Testament revelation, and the point to which all providential developments tended. He came, Paul says, in “the fullness of the time” (Gal_4:4). It has often been shown how, politically, intellectually, morally, everything in the Greco-Roman world was ready for such a universal religion as Jesus brought into it (compare Baur's History of the Church in the First Three Centuries, English translation, chapter i). The preparation in Israel is seen alike in God's revelations to, and dealings with, the chosen people in the patriarchal, Mosaic, monarchical and prophetic periods, and in the developments of the Jewish mind in the centuries immediately before Christ.
2. Old Testament Preparation:
As special lines in the Old Testament preparation may be noted the ideas of the Messianic king, a ruler of David's house, whose reign would be righteous, perpetual, universal (compare Isa 7:13 through 9:7; Isa_32:1, Isa_32:2; Jer_33:15, Jer_33:16; Psa_2:1-10, etc.); of a Righteous Sufferer (Ps 22, etc.), whose sufferings are in Isa_53:1-12 declared to have an expiatory and redeeming character; and of a Messianic kingdom, which, breaking the bounds of nationalism, would extend through the whole earth and embrace all peoples (compare Isa 60; Psa_87:1-7; Dan_2:44; Dan_7:27, etc.). The kingdom, at the same time, is now conceived of under a more spiritual aspect. Its chief blessings are forgiveness and righteousness.
3. Post-Exilian Preparation:
The age succeeding the return from exile witnessed a manifold preparation for the advent of Christ. Here may be observed the decentralization of the Jewish religious ideals through the rise of synagogue worship and the widespread dispersion of the race; the contact with Hellenic culture (as in Philo); but especially the marked sharpening of Messianic expectations. Some of these were of a crude apocalyptic character (see APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE; ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT); many were political and revolutionary; but some were of a purer and more spiritual kind (compare Luk_2:25, Luk_2:38). To these purer elements Jesus attached Himself in His preaching of the kingdom and of Himself as its Lord. Even in the Gentileworld, it is told, there was an expectation of a great One who about this time would come from Judea (Tacitus, History v. 13; Suet. Vespas 4).
III. The Outward Situation.
1. The Land:
Of all lands Palestine was the most fitted to be the scene of the culminating revelation of God's grace in the person and work of Jesus Christ, as before it was fitted to be the abode of the people chosen to receive and preserve the revelations that prepared the way for that final manifestation. At once central and secluded - at the junction of the three great continents of the Old World, Asia, Africa and Europe - the highway of nations in war and commerce - touching mighty powers on every hand, Egypt, Syria, Assyria, kingdoms of Asia Minor, as formerly more ancient empires, Hittite and Babylonian, now in contact with Greece and Rome, yet singularly enclosed by mountain, desert, Jordan gorge, and Great Sea, from ready entrance of foreign influences, Palestine has a place of its own in the history of revelation, which only a Divine wisdom can have given it (compare Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, Part II, chapter ii; G.A. Smith, Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land, Book I, chapters i, ii; Lange, Life of Christ, I, 246 ff).
Its Divisions.
Palestine, in the Roman period, was divided into four well-defined provinces or districts - Judaea, with Jerusalem as its center, in the South, the strong-hold of Jewish conservatism; Samaria, in the middle, peopled from Assyrian times by mixed settlers (2Ki_17:24-34), preponderatingly heathen in origin, yet now professing the Jewish religion, claiming Jewish descent (compare Joh_4:12), possessing a copy of the law (Sam Pentateuch), and a temple of their own at Gerizim (the original temple, built by Manasseh, circa 409 BC, was destroyed by John Hyrcanus, 109 BC); Galilee - “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Mat_4:15; compare Isa_9:1) - in the North, the chief scene of Christ's ministry, freer and more cosmopolitan in spirit, through a large infusion of Gentile population, and contact with traders, etc., of varied nationalities: these in Western Palestine, while on the East, “beyond Jordan,” was Peraea, divided up into Peraea proper, Batanea, Gaulonitis, Ituraea, Trachonitis, Decapolis, etc. (compare Mat_4:25; Mat_19:1; Luk_3:1). The feeling of bitterness between Jews and Samaritans was intense (Joh_4:9). The language of the people throughout was ARAMAIC (which see), but a knowledge of the Greek tongue was widely diffused, especially in the North, where intercourse with Greek-speaking peoples was habitual (the New Testament writings are in Greek). Jesus doubtless used the native dialect in His ordinary teaching, but it is highly probable that He also knew Greek, and was acquainted with Old Testament Scriptures in that language (the Septuagint). In this case He may have sometimes used it in His preaching (compare Roberts, Discussions on the Gospels).
2. Political Situation:
The miserable story of the vicissitudes of the Jewish people in the century succeeding the great persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt - a story made up of faction, intrigue, wars, murders, massacres, of growing degeneracy of rulers and nation, of repeated sackings of Jerusalem and terrible slaughters - till Herod, the Idumean, misnamed “the Great,” ascended the throne by favor of the Romans (37 BC), must be read in the books relating to the period (Ewald, History of Israel, V; Milman, Hist of Jews; Schurer, History of the Jewish People in Time of Christ, Div I, Vol I; Stanley, Jewish Church, III, etc.). Rome's power, first invited by Judas Maccabeus (161 BC), was finally established by Pompey's capture of Jerusalem (63 BC). Herod's way to the throne was tracked by crime and bloodshed, and murder of those most nearly related to him marked every step in his advance. His taste for splendid buildings - palace, temple (Mat_24:1; Joh_2:20), fortresses, cities (Sebaste, Caesarea, etc.) - and lavish magnificence of his royal estate and administration, could not conceal the hideousness of his crafty, unscrupulous selfishness, his cold-blooded cruelty, his tyrannous oppression of his subjects. “Better be Herod's hog (hus) than his son (huios),” was the comment of Augustus, when he heard of the dying king's unnatural doings.
Changes in Territory.
At the time of Christ's birth, the whole of Palestine was united under Herod's rule, but on Herod's death, after a long reign of 37 (or, counting from his actual accession, 34) years, his dominions were, in accordance with his will, confirmed by Rome, divided. Judea and Samaria (a few towns excepted) fell to his son Archelaus (Mat_2:22), with the title of “ethnarch”; Galilee and Perea were given to Herod Antipas, another son, with the title of “tetrarch” (Mat_14:1; Luk_3:1, Luk_3:19; Luk_23:7; Act_13:1); Herod Philip, a third son, received Iturea, Trachonitis, and other parts of the northern trans-Jordanic territory, likewise as “tetrarch” (Luk_3:1; compare Mat_14:3; Mar_6:17). A few years later, the tyranny of Archelaus provoked an appeal of his subjects to Augustus, and Archelaus, summoned to Rome, was banished to Gaul (7 AD). Thereafter Judea, with Samaria, was governed by a Roman procurator, under the oversight of the prefect of Syria.
3. The Religious Sects:
In the religious situation the chief fact of interest is the place occupied and prominent part played by the religious sects - the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and (though unmentioned in the Gospels, these had an important influence on the early history of the church) the Essenes. The rise and characteristics of these sects can here only be alluded to (see special articles).
(1) The Scribes.
From the days of Ezra zealous attention had been given to the study of the law, and an order of men had arisen - the “scribes” - whose special business it was to guard, develop and expound the law. Through their labors, scrupulous observance of the law, and, with it, of the innumerable regulations intended to preserve the law, and apply it in detail to conduct (the so-called “tradition of the elders,” Mat_15:2 ff), became the ideal of righteousness. The sects first appear in the Maccabean age. The Maccabean conflict reveals the existence of a party known as the “Assidaeans” (Hebrew ḥǎṣīdhīm), or “pious” ones, opposed to the lax Hellenizing tendencies of the times, and staunch observers of the law. These in the beginning gave brave support to Judas Maccabeus, and doubtless then embraced the best elements of the nation.
(2) The Pharisees.
From them, by a process of deterioration too natural in such cases, developed the party of legalists known in the Gospels as the “Pharisees” (“separated”), on which Christ's sternest rebukes fell for their self-righteousness, ostentation, pride and lack of sympathy and charity (Mat_6:2 ff; 23; Luk_18:9-14). They gloried in an excessive scrupulosity in the observance of the externals of the law, even in trivialities. To them the multitude that knew not the law were “accursed” (Joh_7:49). To this party the great body of the scribes and rabbis belonged, and its powerful influence was eagerly sought by contending factions in the state.
(3) The Sadducees.
Alongside of the Pharisees were the “Sadducees” (probably from “Zadok”) - rather a political and aristocratic clique than a religious sect, into whose possession the honors of the high-priesthood and other influential offices hereditarily passed. They are first met with by name under John Hyrcanus (135-106 BC). The Sadducees received only the law of Moses, interpreted it in a literal, secularistic spirit, rejected the Pharisaic traditions and believed in neither resurrection, angel nor spirit (Act_23:8). Usually in rivalry with the Pharisees, they are found combining with these to destroy Jesus (Mat_26:3-5, Mat_26:57).
(4) The Essenes.
The third party, the “Essenes,” differed from both (some derive also from the Assideans) in living in fraternities apart from the general community, chiefly in the desert of Engedi, on the Northwest shore of the Dead Sea, though some were found also in villages and towns; in rejecting animal sacrifices, etc., sending only gifts of incense to the temple; in practicing celibacy and community of goods; in the wearing of white garments; in certain customs (as greeting the sunrise with prayers) suggestive of oriental influence. They forbade slavery, war, oaths, were given to occult studies, had secret doctrines and books, etc. As remarked, they do not appear in the Gospel, but on account of certain resemblances, some have sought to establish a connection between them and John the Baptist and Jesus. In reality, however, nothing could be more opposed than Essenism to the essential ideas and spirit of Christ's teaching (compare Schurer, as above, Div. II, Vol. II, 188 ff; Kuenen, Hibbert Lects on National Religions and Universal Religions, 199-208; Lightfoot, Colossians, 114-79).
IV. The Chronology.
The leading chronological questions connected with the life of Jesus are discussed in detail elsewhere (CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT; QUIRINIUS, etc.); here it is sufficient to indicate the general scheme of dating adopted in the present article, and some of the grounds on which it is preferred. The chief questions relate to the dates of the birth and baptism of Jesus, the duration of the ministry and the date of the crucifixion.
1. Date of the Birth of Jesus:
Though challenged by some (Caspari, Bosanquet, Conder, etc., put it as late as 1 BC) the usual date for the death of Herod the Great, March, 4 BC (year of Rome 750), may be assumed as correct (for grounds of this dating, see Schurer, op. cit., Div. I, Vol. I, 464-67). The birth of Jesus was before, and apparently not very long before, this event (Mt 2). It may therefore be placed with probability in the latter part of the previous year (5 BC), the ordinary dating of the commencement of the Christian era being thus, as is generally recognized, four years too late. There is no certainty as to the month or day of the birth. The Christmas date, December 25, is first met with in the West in the 4th century (the eastern date was January 6), and was then possibly borrowed from a pagan festival. December, in the winter season, seems unlikely, as unsuitable for the pasturing of flocks (Luk_2:8), though this objection is perhaps not decisive (Andrews, Conder). A more probable date is a couple of months earlier. The synchronism with Quirinius (Luk_2:2) is considered in connection with the nativity. The earlier datings of 6, 7, or even 8 BC, suggested by Ramsay, Mackinlay and others, on grounds of the assumed Roman census, astronomical phenomena, etc., appear to leave too long an interval before the death of Herod, and conflict with other data, as Luk_3:1 (see below).
2. Date of Baptism:
John is said by Luke to have begun to preach and baptize “in the fifteenth year of Tiberius” (Luk_3:1), and Jesus “was about thirty years of age” (Luk_3:23) when He was baptized by John, and entered on His ministry. If the 15th year of Tiberius is dated, as seems most likely, from his association with Augustus as colleague in the government, 765 AUC, or 12 AD (Tacitus, Annals i. 3; Suetonius on Augustus, 97), and if Jesus may be supposed to have been baptized about 6 months after John commenced his work, these data combine in bringing us to the year 780 AUC, or 27 AD, as the year of our Lord's baptism, in agreement with our former conclusion as to the date of His birth in 5 BC. To place the birth earlier is to make Jesus 32 or 33 years of age at His baptism - an unwarrantable extension of the “about.” In accord with this is the statement in Joh_2:20 that the temple had been 46 years in building (it began in 20-19 BC) at the time of Christ's first Passover; therefore in 780 AUC, or 27-AD (compare Schurer, op. cit., Div. I, Vol. I, 410).
3. Length of Ministry:
The determination of the precise duration of our Lord's ministry involves more doubtful elements. Setting aside, as too arbitrary, schemes which would, with some of the early Fathers, compress the whole ministry into little over a single year (Browne, Hort, etc.) - a view which involves without authority the rejection of the mention of the Passover in Joh_6:4 - there remains the choice between a two years' and a three years' ministry. Both have able advocates (Turner in article “Chronology,” and Sanday in article “Jesus Christ,” in HBD, advocate the two years' scheme; Farrar, Ramsay, D. Smith, etc., adhere to the three years' scheme). An important point is the view taken of the unnamed “feast” in Joh_5:1. John has already named a Passover - Christ's first - in Joh_2:13, Joh_2:23; another, which Jesus did not attend, is named in Joh_6:4; the final Passover, at which He was crucified, appears in all the evangelists. If the “feast” of Joh_5:1 (the article is probably to be omitted) is also, as some think, a Passover, then John has four Passovers, and a three years' ministry becomes necessary. It is claimed, however, that in this case the “feast” would almost certainly have been named. It still does not follow, even if a minor feast - say Purim - is intended, that we are shut up to a two years' ministry. Mr. Turner certainly goes beyond his evidence in affirming 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.” The two years' scheme involves, as will be seen on consideration of details, a serious overcrowding and arbitrary transposition of incidents, which speak to the need of longer time. We shall assume that the ministry lasted for three years, reserving reasons till the narrative is examined.
4. Date of Christ's Death:
On the hypothesis now accepted, the crucifixion of Jesus took place at the Passover of 30 AD. On the two years' scheme it would fall a year earlier. On both sides it is agreed that it occurred on the Friday of the week of the Passover, but it is disputed whether this Friday was the 14th or the 15th day of the month. The Gospel of John is pleaded for the former date, the Synoptics for the latter. The question will be considered in connection with the time of the Last Supper. Meanwhile it is to be observed that, if the 15th is the correct date, there seems reason to believe that the 15th of Nisan fell on a Friday in the year just named, 783 AUG, or 30 AD. We accept this provisionally as the date of the crucifixion.
Part II. The Problems of the Life of Jesus
I. The Miracles.
1. The “Modern” Attitude:
Everyone is aware that the presence of miracle in the Gospels is a chief ground of the rejection of its history by the representatives of the “modern” school. It is not questioned that it is a super-natural person whose picture is presented in the Gospels. There is no real difference between the Synoptics and John in this respect. “Even the oldest Gospel,” writes Bousset, “is written from the standpoint of faith; already for Mark, Jesus is not only the Messiah of the Jewish people, but the miraculous eternal Son of God, whose glory shone in the world” (Was wissen wir von Jesus? 54, 57). But the same writer, interpreting the “modern” spirit, declares that no account embracing supernatural events can be accepted as historical. “The main characteristic of this modern mode of thinking,” he says, “rests upon the determination to try to explain everything that takes place in the world by natural causes, or - to express it in another form - it rests on the determined assertion of universal laws to which all phenomena, natural and spiritual, are subject” (What Is Religion? English translation, 283).
2. Supernatural in the Gospels:
With such an assumption it is clear that the Gospels are condemned before they are read. Not only is Jesus there a supernatural person, but He is presented as super-natural in natural in character, in works, in claims (see below); He performs miracles; He has a supernatural birth, and a supernatural resurrection. All this is swept away. It may be allowed that He had remarkable gifts of healing, but these are in the class of “faithcures” (thus Harnack), and not truly supernatural. When one seeks the justification for this selfconfident dogmatism, it is difficult to discover it, except on the ground of a pantheistic or monistic theory of the universe which excludes the personal God of Christianity. If God is the Author and Sustainer of the natural system, which He rules for moral ends, it is impossible to see why, for high ends of revelation and redemption, a supernatural economy should not be engrafted on the natural, achieving ends which could not otherwise be attained. This does not of course touch the question of evidence for any particular miracle, which must be judged of from its connection with the person of the worker, and the character of the apostolic witnesses. The well-meant effort to explain all miracles through the action of unknown natural laws - which is what Dr. Sanday calls “making both ends meet” (Life of Christ in Recent Research, 302) - breaks down in the presence of such miracles as the instantaneous cleansing of the leper, restoration of sight to the blind, the raising of the dead, acts which plainly imply an exercise of creative power. In such a life as Christ's, transcendence of the ordinary powers of Nature is surely to be looked for.
II. The Messiahship.
1. Reserve of Jesus and Modern Criticism:
A difficulty has been found in the fact that in all the Gospels Jesus knew Himself to be the Messiah at least from the time of His baptism, yet did not, even to His disciples, unreservedly announce Himself as such till after Peter's great confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mat_16:13 ff). On this seeming secrecy the bold hypothesis has been built that Jesus in reality never made the claim to Messiahship, and that the passages which imply the contrary in Mark (the original Gospel) are unhistorical (Wrede; compare on this and other theories, Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, English translation; Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research). So extreme an opinion is rejected by most; but modern critics vie with each other in the freedom with which they treat the testimony of the evangelists on this subject. Baldensperger, e.g., supposes that Jesus did not attain full certainty on His Messiahship till near the time of Peter's confession, and arbitrarily transposes the earlier sections in which the title “Son of Man” occurs till after that event (Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, 2nd edition, 246). Bousset thinks that Jesus adopted the Messianic role as the only one open to Him, but bore it as a “burden” (compare his Jesus). Schweitzer connects it with apocalyptic ideas of a wildly fantastic character (op. cit., chapter xix).
2. A Growing Revelation:
There is, however, no need for supposing that Peter's confession marks the first dawn of this knowledge in the minds of the apostles. Rather was it the exalted expression of a faith already present, which had long been maturing. The baptism and temptation, with the use of the title “Son of Man,” the tone of authority in His teaching, His miracles, and many special incidents, show, as clearly as do the discourses in John, that Jesus was from the beginning fully conscious of His vocation, and His reserve in the use of the title sprang, not from any doubt in His own mind as to His right to it, but from His desire to avoid false associations till the true nature of His Messiahship should be revealed. The Messiahship was in process of self-revelation throughout to those who had eyes to see it (compare Joh_6:66-71). What it involved will be seen later.
III. Kingdom and Apocalypse.
1. The Kingdom - Present or Future?:
Connected with the Messiahship is the idea of the “Kingdom of God” or “of heaven,” which some in modern times would interpret in a purely eschatological sense, in the light of Jewish apocalyptic conceptions (Johannes Weiss, Schweitzer, etc.). The kingdom is not a thing of the present, but wholly a thing of the future, to be introduced by convulsions of Nature and the Parousia of the Son of Man. The language of the Lord's Prayer, “Thy kingdom come,” is quoted in support of this contention, but the next petition should guard against so violent an inference. “Thy will be done,” Jesus teaches His disciples to pray, “as in heaven, so on earth” (Mat_6:10). The kingdom is the reign of God in human hearts and lives in this world as well as in the next. It would not be wrong to define it as consisting essentially in the supremacy of God's will in human hearts and human affairs, and in every department of these affairs. As Jesus describes the kingdom, it has, in the plain meaning of His words, a present being on earth, though its perfection is in eternity. The parables in Mt 13 and elsewhere exhibit it as founded by the sowing of the word of truth (Sower), as a mingling of good and evil elements (Tares), as growing from small beginnings to large proportions (Mustard Seed), as gradually leavening humanity (Leaven), as of priceless value (Treasure; Pearl; compare Mat_6:33); as terminating in a judgment (Tares, Dragnet); as perfected in the world to come (Mat_13:43). It was a kingdom spiritual in nature (Luk_17:20, Luk_17:21), universal in range (Mat_8:11; Mat_21:43, etc.), developing from a principle of life within (Mar_4:26-29), and issuing in victory over all opposition (Mat_21:44).
2. Apocalyptic Beliefs:
It is difficult to pronounce on the extent to which Jesus was acquainted with current apocalyptic beliefs, or allowed these to color the imagery of parts of His teachings. These beliefs certainly did not furnish the substance of His teaching, and it may be doubted whether they more than superficially affected even its form. Jewish apocalyptic knew nothing of a death and resurrection of the Messiah and of His return in glory to bring in an everlasting kingdom. What Jesus taught on these subjects sprang from His own Messianic consciousness, with the certainty He had of His triumph over death and His exaltation to the right hand of God. It was in Old Testament prophecy, not in late Jewish apocalypse, that His thoughts of the future triumph of His kingdom were grounded, and from the vivid imagery of the prophets He borrowed most of the clothing of these thoughts. Isa_53:1-12 e.g., predicts not only the rejection and death of the Servant of Yahweh (Isa_53:3, Isa_53:1-9, Isa_53:12), but the prolongation of His days and His victorious reign (Isa_53:10-12). Dnl, not the Book of En, is the source of the title, “Son of Man,” and of the imagery of coming on the clouds of heaven (Dan_7:13). The ideas of resurrection, etc., have their ground in the Old Testament (see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT). With the extravagant, unspiritual forms into which these conceptions were thrown in the Jewish apocalyptic books His teaching had nothing in common. The new apocalyptic school represented by Schweitzer reduces the history of Jesus to folly, fanaticism and hopeless disillusionment.
IV. The Character and Claims.
1. Denial of Christ's Moral Perfection:
Where the Gospels present us in Jesus with the image of a flawless character - in the words of the writer to the Hebrews, “holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners” (Heb_7:26) - modern criticism is driven by an inexorable necessity to deprive Jesus of His sinless perfection, and to impute to Him the error, frailty, and moral infirmity that belong to ordinary mortals. In Schweitzer's portraiture (compare op. cit.), He is an apocalyptic enthusiastic, ruled by illusory ideals, deceiving Himself and others as to who He was, and as to the impending end of the world. Those who show a more adequate appreciation of Christ's spiritual greatness are still prevented by their humanitarian estimate of His person and their denial of the supernatural in history from recognizing the possibility of His sinlessness. It may confidently be said that there is hardly a single writer of the modern school who grants Christ's moral perfection. To do so would be to admit a miracle in humanity, and we have heard that miracle is by the highest rational necessity excluded. This, however, is precisely the point on which the modern so-called “historical-critical” mode of presentation most obviously breaks down. The ideal of perfect holiness in the Gospels which has fascinated the conscience of Christendom for 18 centuries, and attests itself anew to every candid reader, is not thus lightly to be got rid of, or explained away as the invention of a church gathered out (without the help of the ideal) promiscuously from Jews and Gentiles. It was not the church - least of all such a church - that created Christ, but Christ that created the church.
(1) The Sinlessness Assured.
The sinlessness of Jesus is a datum in the Gospels. Over against a sinful world He stands as a Saviour who is Himself without sin. His is the one life in humanity in which is presented a perfect knowledge and unbroken fellowship with the Father, undeviating obedience to His will, unswerving devotion under the severest strain of temptation and suffering to the highest ideal of goodness. The ethical ideal was never raised to so absolute a height as it is in the teaching of Jesus, and the miracle is that, high as it is in its unsullied purity, the character of Jesus corresponds with it, and realizes it. Word and life for once in history perfectly agree. Jesus, with the keenest sensitiveness to sin in thought and feeling as in deed, is conscious of no sin in Himself, confesses no sin, disclaims the presence of it, speaks and acts continually on the assumption that He is without it. Those who knew Him best declared Him to be without sin (1Pe_2:22; 1Jo_3:5; compare 2Co_5:21). The Gospels must be rent in pieces before this image of a perfect holiness can be effaced from them.
(2) What This Implies.
How is this phenomenon of a sinless personality in Jesus to be explained? It is itself a miracle, and can only be made credible by a creative miracle in Christ's origin. It may be argued that a Virgin Birth does not of itself secure sinlessness, but it will hardly be disputed that at least a sinless personality implies miracle in its production. It is precisely because of this that the modern spirit feels bound to reject it. In the Gospels it is not the Virgin Birth by itself which is invoked to explain Christ's sinlessness, but the supernatural conception by the Holy Spirit (Luk_1:35). It is because of this conception that the birth is a virgin one. No explanation of the supernatural element in Christ's Person is more rational or credible (see below on “Nativity”).
2. Sinlessness and the Messianic Claim:
If Jesus from the first was conscious of Himself as without sin and if, as the converse of this, He knew Himself as standing in an unbroken filial fellowship with the Father, He must early have become conscious of His special vocation, and learnt to distinguish Himself from others as one called to bless and save them. Here is the true germ of His Messianic consciousness, from which everything subsequently is unfolded. He stood in a rapport with the Father which opened His spirit to a full, clear revelation of the Father's will regarding Himself, His mission, the kingdom He came to found, His sufferings as the means of salvation to the world, the glory that awaited Him when His earthly work was done. In the light of this revelation He read the Old Testament Scriptures and saw His course there made plain. When the hour had come He went to John for baptism, and His brief, eventful ministry, which should end in the cross, began. This is the reading of events which introduces consistency and purpose into the life of Jesus, and it is this we mean to follow in the sketch now to be given.
Part III. Course of the Earthly Life of Jesus
1. Divisions of the History:
The wonderful story of the life of the world's Redeemer which we are now to endeavor to trace falls naturally into several divisions:
A. From the Nativity to the Baptism and Temptation.
B. The Early Judean Ministry.
C. The Galilean Ministry and Visits to the Feasts. D. The Last Journey to Jerusalem.
E. The Passion Week - Betrayal, Trial, and Crucifixion.
F. The Resurrection and Ascension.
2. Not a Complete “Life”:
To avoid misconception, it is important to remember, that, rich as are the narratives of the Gospels, materials do not exist for a complete biography or “Life” of Jesus. There is a gap, broken only by a single incident, from His infancy till His 30th year; there are cycles of events out of myriads left unrecorded (Joh_21:25); there are sayings, parables, longer discourses, connected with particular occasions; there are general summaries of periods of activity comprised in a few verses. The evangelists, too, present their materials each from his own standpoint - Matthew from theocratic, Mark from that of Christ's practical activity, Luke from the universalistic and human-sympathetic, John from the Divine. In reproducing the history respect must be had to this focusing from distinct points of view.
A. From the Nativity to the Baptism and Temptation
I. The Nativity.
1. Hidden Piety in Judaism:
Old Testament prophecy expired with the promise on its lips, “Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye desire, behold, he cometh, saith Yahweh of hosts” (Mal_3:1). In the years immediately before Christ's birth the air was tremulous with the sense of impending great events. The fortunes of the Jewish people were at their lowest ebb. Pharisaic formalism, Sadducean unbelief, fanatical Zealotry, Herodian sycophantism, Roman oppression, seemed to have crushed out the last sparks of spiritual religion. Yet in numerous quiet circles in Judea, and even in remote Galilee, little godly bands still nourished their souls on the promises, looking for “the consolation of Israel” and “redemption of Jerusalem” (Luk_2:25, Luk_2:38). Glimpses of these are vouchsafed in Zacharias and Elisabeth, in Simeon, in Anna, in Joseph and Mary (Lk 1; 2; Mat_1:18 ff). It was in hearts in these circles that the stirrings of the prophetic spirit began to make themselves felt anew, preparing for the Advent (compare Luk_2:27, Luk_2:36).
2. Birth of the Baptist: (Luke 1)
In the last days of Herod - perhaps in the year 748 of Rome, or 6 BC - the aged priest Zacharias, of the course of Abijah (1Ch_24:10; compare Schurer, Div. II, Vol. I, 219 ff), was ministering in the temple at the altar of incense at the hour of evening prayer. Scholars have reckoned, if on somewhat precarious grounds, that the ministry of the order to which Zacharias belonged fell in this year in the month of April or in early October (compare Andrews, Life of our Lord). Now a wonderful thing happened. Zacharias and his wife Elisabeth, noted for their blameless piety, were up to this time childless. On this evening an angel, appearing at the side of the altar of incense, announced to Zacharias that a son should be born to them, in whom should be realized the prediction of Malachi of one coming in the spirit and power of Elijah to prepare the way of the Lord (compare Mal_4:5, Mal_4:6). His name was to be called John. Zacharias hesitated to believe, and was stricken with dumbness till the promise should be fulfilled. It happened as the angel had foretold, and at the circumcision and naming of his son his tongue was again loosed. Zacharias, filled with the Spirit, poured forth his soul in a hymn of praise - the Benedictus (Lk 1:5-25, 57-80; compare [[John The Baptist).
3. The Annunciation and Its Results: (Lk 1:26-56; Mat_1:18-25)
Meanwhile yet stranger things were happening in the little village of Nazareth, in Galilee (now en Nāṣirah). There resided a young maiden of purest character, named Mary, betrothed to a carpenter of the village (compare Mat_13:55), called Joseph, who, although in so humble a station, was of the lineage of David (compare Isa_11:1). Mary, most probably, was likewise of Davidic descent (Luk_1:32; on the genealogies, see below). The fables relating to the parentage and youth of Mary in the Apocryphal Gospels may safely be discarded. To this maiden, three months before the birth of the Baptist, the same angelic visitant (Gabriel) appeared, hailing her as “highly favored” of God, and announcing to her that, through the power of the Holy Spirit, she should become the mother of the Saviour. The words “Blessed art thou among women,” in the King James Version of Luk_1:28 are omitted by the Revised Version (British and American), though found below (Luk_1:42) in Elisabeth's salutation. They give, in any case, no support to Mariolatry, stating simply the fact that Mary was more honored than any other woman of the race in being chosen to be the mother of the Lord.
(1) The Amazing Message.
The announcement itself was of the most amazing import. Mary herself was staggered at the thought that, as a virgin, she should become a mother (Luk_1:34). Still more surprising were the statements made as to the Son she was to bear. Conceived of the Holy Spirit (Luk_1:35; Mat_1:18), He would be great, and would be called “the Son of the Most High” (Luk_1:32) - “the Son of God” (Luk_1:35); there would be given to Him the throne of His father David, and His reign would be eternal (Luk_1:32, Luk_1:33; compare Isa_9:6, Isa_9:7); He would be “holy” from the womb (Luk_1:35). His name was to be called Jesus (Luk_1:31; compare Mat_1:21), denoting Him as Saviour. The holiness of Jesus is here put in connection with His miraculous conception, and surely rightly. In no case in the history of mankind has natural generation issued in a being who is sinless, not to say superhuman. The fact that Jesus, even in His human nature, was supernaturally begotten - was “Son of God” - does not exclude the higher and eternal Sonship according to the Divine nature (Joh_1:18). The incarnation of such a Divine Being as Paul and John depict, itself implies miracle in human origin. On the whole message being declared to her, Mary accepted what was told her in meek humility (Luk_1:38).
(2) The Visit to Elisabeth.
With the announcement to herself there was given to Mary an indication of what had befallen her kinswoman Elisabeth, and Mary's first act, on recovering from her astonishment, was to go in haste to the home of Elisabeth in the hill country of Judea (Luk_1:39 ff). Very naturally she did not rashly forestall God's action in speaking to Joseph of what had occurred, but waited in quietness and faith till God should reveal in His own way what He had done. The meeting of the two holy women was the occasion of a new outburst of prophetic inspiration. Elisabeth, moved by the Spirit, greeted Mary in exalted language as the mother of the Lord (Luk_1:42-45) - a confirmation to Mary of the message she had received; Mary, on her part, broke forth in rhythmical utterance, “My soul doth magnify the Lord,” etc. (Luk_1:46-56). Her hymn - the sublime Magnificat - is to be compared with Hannah's (1Sa_2:1-11), which furnishes the model of it. Mary abode with Elisabeth about three months, then returned to her own house.
(3) Joseph's Perplexity.
Here a new trial awaited her. Mary's condition of motherhood could not long be concealed, and when Joseph first became aware of it, the shock to a man so just (Mat_1:19) would be terrible in its severity. The disappearance of Joseph from the later gospel history suggests that he was a good deal older than his betrothed, and it is possible that, while strict, upright and conscientious, his disposition was not as strong on the side of sympathy as so delicate a case required. It is going too far to say with Lange, “He encountered the modest, but unshakably firm Virgin with decided doubt; the first Ebionite”; but so long as he had no support beyond Mary's word, his mind was in a state of agonized perplexity. His first thought was to give Mary a private “bill of divorcement” to avoid scandal (Mat_1:19). Happily, his doubts were soon set at rest by a Divine intimation, and he hesitated no longer to take Mary to be his wife (Mat_1:24). Luke's Gospel, which confines itself to the story of Mary, says nothing of this episode; Matthew's narrative, which bears evidence of having come from Joseph himself, supplies the lack by showing how Joseph came to have the confidence in Mary which enabled him to take her to wife, and become sponsor for her child. The trial, doubtless, while it lasted, was not less severe for Mary than for Joseph - a prelude of that sword which was to “pierce through (her) own soul” (Luk_2:35). There is no reason to believe that Joseph and Mary did not subsequently live in the usual relations of wedlock, and that children were not born to them (compare Mat_13:55, Mat_13:56, etc.).
4. The Birth at Bethlehem: (Mat_2:1; Luk_2:1-7)
Matthew gives no indication of where the events narrated in his first chapter took place, first mentioning Nazareth on the occasion of the return of the holy family from Egypt (Mat_2:23). In Mat_2:1 he transports us to Bethlehem as the city of Christ's birth. It is left to Luke to give an account of the circumstances which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem - thus fulfilling prophecy (Mic_5:2; Mat_2:5, Mat_2:6) - at this critical hour, and to record the lowly manner of Christ's birth there.
(1) The Census of Quirinius.
The emperor Augustus had given orders for a general enrollment throughout the empire (the fact of periodical enrollments in the empire is well established by Professor W.M. Ramsay in his Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?), and this is stated to have been given effect to in Judea when Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luk_2:1, Luk_2:2). The difficulties connected with the enrollment or census here mentioned are discussed in the article QUIRINIUS. It is known that Quirinius did conduct a census in Judea in 6 AD (compare Act_5:37), but the census at Christ's birth is distinguished from this by Luke as “the first enrollment.” The difficulty was largely removed when it was ascertained, as it has been to the satisfaction of most scholars, that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria - first, after Herod's death, 4-1 BC, and again in 6-11 AD. The probability is that the census was begun under Varus, the immediate predecessor of Quirinius - or even earlier under Saturninus - but was delayed in its application to Judea, then under Herod's jurisdiction, and was completed by Quirinius, with whose name it is officially connected. That the enrollment was made by each one going to his own city (Luk_2:3) is explained by the fact that the census was not made according to the Roman method, but, as befitted a dependent kingdom, in accordance with Jewish usages (compare Ramsay).
(2) Jesus Born.
It must be left undecided whether the journey of Mary to Bethlehem with Joseph was required for any purpose of registration, or sprang simply from her unwillingness to be separated from Joseph in so trying a situation. To Bethlehem, in any case, possibly by Divine monition, she came, and there, in the ancestral city of David, in circumstances the lowliest conceivable, brought forth her marvelous child. In unadorned language - very different from the embellishments of apocryphal story - Luke narrates how, when the travelers arrived, no room was found for them in the “inn” - the ordinary eastern khan or caravanserai, a square enclosure, with an open court for cattle, and a raised recess round the walls for shelter of visitors - and how, when her babe was born, Mary wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger. The wearied pair having, according to Luke, been crowded out of, and not merely within, the inn, there is every probability that the birth took place, not, as some suppose, in the courtyard of the inn, but, as the oldest tradition asserts (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 78), in a cave in the neighborhood, used for similar purposes of lodgment and housing of cattle. High authorities look favorably on the “cave of the nativity” still shown, with its inscription, Hic de virgine Maria Jesus Christus natus est, as marking the sacred spot. In such incredibly mean surroundings was “the only begotten of the Father” ushered into the world He came to redeem. How true the apostle's word that He “emptied” Himself (Phi_2:7)! A problem lies in the very circumstances of the entrance into time of such a One, which only the thought of a voluntary humiliation for saving ends can solve.
5. The Incidents of the Infancy: (Luke 2:8-39; Mat_2:1-12)
Born, however, though Jesus was, in a low condition, the Father did not leave Him totally without witness to His Sonship. There were rifts in the clouds through which cidents of the hidden glory streamed. The scenes in the narratives of the Infancy exhibit a strange commingling of the glorious and the lowly.
(1) The Visit of the Shepherds.
To shepherds watching their flocks by night in the fields near Bethlehem the first disclosure was made. The season, one would infer, could hardly have been winter, though it is stated that there is frequently an interval of dry weather in Judea between the middle of December and the middle of February, when such a keeping of flocks would be possible (Andrews). The angel world is not far removed from us, and as angels preannounced the birth of Christ, so, when He actually came into the world (compare Heb_1:6), angels of God made the night vocal with their songs. First, an angel appearing in the midst of the Divine glory - the “Shekinah” - announced to the sorely alarmed shepherds the birth of a “Saviour who was Christ the Lord” at Bethlehem; then a whole chorus of the heavenly host broke in with the refrain, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men in whom He is well pleased” (literally, “men of good pleasure”) - since, the Christmas hymn of the generations (Luk_2:1-14). The shepherds, guided as to how to recognize the babe (Luk_2:12), went at once, and found it to be ever, as they had been told. Thence they hastened to spread abroad the tidings - the first believers, the first worshippers, the first preachers (Luk_2:15-20). Mary cherished the sayings in the stillness of her heart.
(2) the Circumcision and Presentation in the Temple.
Jewish law required that on the 8th day the male child should be circumcised, and on the same day He received His name (compare Luk_1:59-63). Jesus, though entirely pure, underwent the rite which denoted the putting off of fleshly sin (Col_2:11), and became bound, as a true Israelite, to render obedience to every Divine commandment. The name “Jesus” was then given Him (Luk_2:21). On the 40th day came the ceremony of presentation in the temple at Jerusalem, when Mary had to offer for her purifying (Lev_12:1-8; Mary's was the humbler offering of the poor, “a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons” (Lev_12:8; Luk_2:24)), and when the first-born son had to be redeemed with 5 shekels of the sanctuary (Num_18:15, Num_18:16; about $3.60). The observance was an additional token that Christ - personally sinless - did not shrink from full identification with our race in the responsibilities of its sinful condition. Ere it was completed, however, the ceremony was lifted to a Diviner level, and a new attestation was given of the dignity of the child of Mary, by the action and inspired utterances of the holy Simeon and the aged prophetess Anna. To Simeon, a righteous and devout man, “looking for the consolation of Israel,” it had been revealed that he should not die till he had seen the Lord's Christ, and, led by the Spirit into the temple at the very time when Jesus was being presented, he recognized in Him the One for whom he had waited, and, taking Him in his arms, gave utterance to the beautiful words of the Nunc Dimittis - “Now lettest thou thy servant depart, Lord,” etc. (Luk_2:25-32). He told also how this child was set for the falling and rising of many in Israel, and how, through Him, a sword should pierce through Mary's own soul (Luk_2:34, Luk_2:35). Entering at the same hour, the prophetess Anna - now in extreme old age (over 100; a constant frequenter of the temple, Luk_2:37) - confirmed his words, and spoke of Him to all who, like herself, looked “for the redemption of Jerusalem.”
(3) Visit of the Magi.
It seems to have been after the presentation in the temple that the incident took place recorded by Matthew of the visit of the Magi. The Magi, a learned class belonging originally to Chaldea or Persia (see MAGI), had, in course of time, greatly degenerated (compare Simon Magus, Act_8:9), but those who now came to seek Christ from the distant East were of a nobler order. They appeared in Jerusalem inquiring, “Where is He that is born King of the Jews?” and declaring that they had seen His star in the East, and had come to worship Him (Mat_2:2). Observers of the nightly sky, any significant appearance in the heavens would at once attract their attention. Many (Kepler, Ideler, etc.; compare Ramsay, op. cit., 215 ff) are disposed to connect this “star” with a remarkable conjunction - or series of conjunctions - of planets in 7-6 BC, in which case it is possible that two years may have elapsed (compare the inquiry of Herod and his subsequent action, Mat_2:7, Mat_2:16) from their observation of the sign. On the other hand, the fact of the star reappearing and seeming to stand over a house in Bethlehem (Mat_2:9) rather points to a distinct phenomenon (compare BETHLEHEM, STAR OF). The inquiry of the Magi at once awakened Herod's alarm; accordingly, having ascertained from the scribes that the Christ should be born at Bethlehem (Mic_5:2), he summoned the Magi, questioned them as to when exactly the star appeared, then sent them to Bethlehem to search out the young child, hypocritically pretending that he also wished to worship Him (Mat_2:7, Mat_2:8). Herod had faith enough to believe the Scriptures, yet was foolish enough to think that he could thwart God's purpose. Guided by the star, which anew appeared, the wise men came to Bethlehem, offered their gifts, and afterward, warned by God, returned by another road, without reporting to Herod. It is a striking picture - Herod the king, and Christ the King; Christ a power even in His cradle, inspiring terror, attracting homage! The faith of these sages, unrepelled by the lowly surroundings of the child they had discovered, worshipping, and laying at His feet their gold, frankincense and myrrh, is a splendid anticipation of the victories Christ was yet to win among the wisest as well as the humblest of our race. Herod, finding himself, as he thought, befooled by the Magi, avenged himself by ordering a massacre of all the male children of two years old, and under, in Bethlehem and its neighborhood (Mat_2:16-19). This slaughter, if not recorded elsewhere (compare however, Macrobius, quoted by Ramsay, op. cit., 219), is entirely in keeping with the cruelty of Herod's disposition. Meanwhile, Joseph and Mary had been withdrawn from the scene of danger (Mat_2:17 connects the mourning of the Bethlehem mothers with Rachel's weeping, Jer_31:15).
6. Flight to Egypt and Return to Nazareth: (Mat_2:13-15, Mat_2:19-23)
The safety of Mary and her threatened child was provided for by a Divine warning to retire for a time to Egypt (mark the recurring expression, “the young child and his mother” - the young child taking the lead, Mat_2:11, Mat_2:13, Mat_2:14, Mat_2:20, Mat_2:21), whither, accordingly, they were conducted by Joseph (Mat_2:14). The sojourn was not a long one. Herod's death brought permission to return, but as Archelaus, Herod's son (the worst of them), reigned in Judea in his father's stead (not king, but “ethnarch”), Joseph was directed to withdraw to Galilee; hence it came about that he and Mary, with the babe, found themselves again in Nazareth, where Luke anew takes up the story (Luk_2:39), the thread of which had been broken by the incidents in Matthew. Matthew sees in the return from Egypt a refulfilling of the experiences of Israel (Hos_11:1), and in the settling in Nazareth a connection with the Old Testament prophecies of Christ's lowly estate (Isa_11:1, nēcer, “branch”; Zec_3:8; Zec_6:12, etc.).
7. Questions and Objections:
The objections to the credibility of the narratives of the Virgin Birth have already partly been adverted to. (See further the articles on MARY; THE VIRGIN BIRTH; and the writer's volume, The Virgin Birth of Christ.)
(1) The Virgin Birth.
The narratives in Matthew and Luke are attested by all manuscripts and versions genuine parts of their respective Gospels, and as coming to us in their integrity. The narrative of Luke is generally recognized as resting on an Aramaic basis, which, from its diction and the primitive character of its conceptions, belongs to the earliest age. While in Luke's narrative everything is presented from the standpoint of Mary, in Matthew it is Joseph who is in the forefront, suggesting that the virgin mother is the source of information in the one case, and Joseph himself in the other. The narratives are complementary, not contradictory. That Mark and John do not contain narratives of the Virgin Birth cannot be wondered at, when it is remembered that Mark's Gospel begins of purpose with the Baptism of John, and that the Fourth Gospel aims at setting forth the Divine descent, not the circumstances of the earthly nativity. “The Word became flesh” (Joh_1:14) - everything is already implied in that. Neither can it be objected to that Paul does not in his letters or public preaching base upon so essentially private a fact as the miraculous conception - at a time, too, when Mary probably still lived. With the exception of the narrowest sect of the Jewish Ebionites and some of the Gnostic sects, the Virgin Birth was universally accepted in the early church.
(2) The Genealogies (Matthew 1:1-17; Luk_3:23-28)
Difficulty is felt with the genealogies in Matthew and Luke (one descending, the other ascending), which, while both professing to trace the descent of Jesus from David and Abraham (Luke from Adam), yet go entirely apart in the pedigree after David. See on this the article GENEALOGIES OF JESUS CHRIST. A favorite view is that Matthew exhibits the legal, Luke the natural descent of Jesus. There is plausibility in the supposition that though, in form, a genealogy of Joseph, Luke's is really the genealogy of Mary. It was not customary, it is true, to make out pedigrees of females, but the case here was clearly exceptional, and the passing of Joseph into the family of his father-in-law Heli would enable the list to be made out in his name. Celsus, in the 2nd century, appears thus to have understood it when he derides the notion that through so lowly a woman as the carpenter's wife, Jesus should trace His lineage up to the first man (Origen, Contra Celsus, ii. 32; Origen's reply proceeds on the same assumption. Compare article on” Genealogies” in Kitto, II).
II. The Years of Silence - The Twelfth Year.
1. The Human Development: (Luk_2:40, Luk_2:52)
With the exception of one fragment of incident - that of the visit to Jerusalem and the Temple in His 12th year - the Canonical Gospels are silent as to the history of Jesus from the return to Nazareth till His baptism by John. This long period, which the Apocryphal Gospels crowd with silly fables (see APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS), the inspired records leave to be regarded as being what it was - a period of quiet development of mind and body, of outward uneventfulness, of silent garnering of experience in the midst of the Nazareth surroundings. Jesus “grew, and waxed strong, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him ... advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luk_2:40, Luk_2:52). The incarnation was a true acceptance of humanity, with all its sinless limitations of growth and development. Not a hint is offered of that omniscience or omnipotence which theology has not infrequently imputed to Jesus even as child and boy. His schooling was probably that of the ordinary village child (He could read, Luk_4:17 ff, and write, Joh_8:6-8); He wrought at the carpenter's bench (compare Mar_6:3; Justin Martyr, following tradition, speaks of Him as making “plows and yokes,” Dial., 88). His gentleness and grace of character endeared Him to all who knew Him (Luk_2:52). No stain of sin clouded His vision of Divine things. His after-history shows that His mind was nourished on the Scriptures; nor, as He pondered psalms and prophets, could His soul remain unvisited by presentiments, growing to convictions, that He was the One in whom their predictions were destined to be realized.
2. Jesus in the Temple: (Luk_2:41-50)
Every year, as was the custom of the Jews, Joseph and Mary went, with their friends and neighbors, in companies, to Jerusalem to the Passover. When Jesus was 12 years old, it would seem that, for the first time, He was permitted to accompany them. It would be to Him a strange and thrilling experience. Everything He saw - the hallowed sites, the motley crowd, the service of the temple, the very shocks His moral consciousness would receive from contact with abounding scandals - would intensify His feeling of His own unique relation to the Father. Every relationship was for the time suspended and merged to His thought in this higher one. It was His Father's city whose streets He trod; His Father's house He visited for prayer; His Father's ordinance the crowds were assembled to observe; His Father's name, too, they were dishonoring by their formalism and hypocrisy. It is this exalted mood of the boy Jesus which explains the scene that follows - the only one rescued from oblivion in this interval of growth and preparation. When the time came for the busy caravan to return to Nazareth, Jesus, acting, doubtless, from highest impulse, “tarried behind” (Luk_2:43). In the large company His absence was not at first missed, but when, at the evening halting-place, it became known that He was not with them, His mother and Joseph returned in deep distress to Jerusalem. Three days elapsed before they found Him in the place where naturally they should have looked first - His Father's house. There, in one of the halls or chambers where the rabbis were wont to teach, they discovered Him seated “in the midst,” at the feet of the men of learning, hearing them discourse, asking questions, as pupils were permitted to do, and giving answers which awakened astonishment by their penetration and wisdom (Luk_2:46, Luk_2:47). Those who heard Him may well have thought that before them was one of the great rabbis of the future! Mary, much surprised, asked in remonstrance, “Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us?” evoking from Jesus the memorable reply, “How is it that ye sought me? knew ye not that I must be in my Father's house?” or “about my Father's business?” the King James Version (Luk_2:48, Luk_2:49). Here was the revelation of a selfconsciousness that Mary might have been prepared for in Jesus, but perhaps, in the common intercourse of life, was tending to lose sight of. The lesson was not unneeded. Yet, once it had been given, Jesus went back with Joseph and Mary to Nazareth, and “was subject unto them”; and Mary did not forget the teaching of the incident (Luk_2:51).
III. The Forerunner and the Baptism.
1. The Preaching of John: (Mat_3:1-12; Mar_1:1-8; Luke 3:1-18)
Time passed, and when Jesus was nearing His 30th year, Judea was agitated by the message of a stern preacher of righteousness who had appeared in the wilderness by the Jordan, proclaiming the imminent approach of the kingdom of heaven, summoning to repentance, and baptizing those who confessed their sins. Tiberius had succeeded Augustus on the imperial throne; Judea, with Samaria, was now a Roman province, under the procurator Pontius Pilate; the rest of Palestine was divided between the tetrarchs Herod (Galilee) and Philip (the eastern parts). The Baptist thus appeared at the time when the land had lost the last vestige of self-government, was politically divided, and was in great ecclesiastical confusion. Nurtured in the deserts (Luk_1:80), John's very appearance was a protest against the luxury and self-seeking of the age. He had been a Nazarite from his birth; he fed on the simplest products of nature - locusts and wild honey; his coarse garb of camel's hair and leathern girdle was a return to the dress of Elijah (2Ki_1:8]]), in whose spirit and power he appeared (Luk_1:17]]) (see John The Baptist).
The Coming Christ.
John's preaching of the kingdom was unlike that of any of the revolutionaries of his age. It was a kingdom which could be entered only through moral preparation. It availed nothing for the Jew simply that he was a son of Abraham. The Messiah was at hand. He (John) was but a voice in the wilderness sent to prepare the way for that Greater than himself. The work of the Christ would be one of judgment and of mercy. He would lay the axe at the root of the tree - would winnow the chaff from the wheat - yet would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mat_3:10-12; Luk_3:15-17). Those who professed acceptance of his message, with its condition of repentance, John baptized with water at the Jordan or in its neighborhood (compare Mat_3:6; Joh_1:28; Joh_3:23).
2. Jesus Is Baptized: (Mat_3:13-17; Mar_1:9-11; Luk_3:21, Luk_3:22)
John's startling words made a profound impression. All classes from every part of the land, including Pharisees and Sadducees (Mat_3:7), came to his baptism. John was not deceived. He saw how little change of heart underlay it all. The Regenerator had not yet come. But one day there appeared before him One whom he intuitively recognized as different from all the rest - as, indeed, the Christ whose coming it was his to herald. John, up to this time, does not seem to have personally known Jesus (compare Joh_1:31). He must, however, have heard of Him; he had, besides, received a sign by which the Messiah should be recognized (Joh_1:33); and now, when Jesus presented Himself, Divinely pure in aspect, asking baptism at his hands, the conviction was instantaneously flashed on his mind, that this was He. But how should he, a sinful man, baptize this Holy One? “I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?” (Mat_3:14). The question is one which forces itself upon ourselves - How should Jesus seek or receive a “baptism of repentance?” Jesus Himself puts it on the ground of meetness. “Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” (Mat_3:15). The Head was content to enter by the same gateway as the members to His specific vocation in the service of the kingdom. In submitting to the baptism, He formally identified Himself with the expectation of the kingdom and with its ethical demands; separated Himself from the evil of His nation, doubtless with confession of its sins; and devoted Himself to His life-task in bringing in the Messianic salvation. The significance of the rite as marking His consecration to, and entrance upon, His Messianic career, is seen in what follows. As He ascended from the water, while still “praying” (Luk_3:21), the heavens were opened, the Spirit of God descended like a dove upon Him, and a voice from heaven declared: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mat_3:16, Mat_3:17). It is needless to inquire whether anyone besides John (compare Joh_1:33) and Jesus (Mat_3:16; Mar_1:10) received this vision or heard these words; it was for them, not for others, the vision was primarily intended. To Christ's consecration of Himself to His calling, there was now added the spiritual equipment necessary for the doing of His work. He went forward with the seal of the Father's acknowledgment upon Him.
IV. The Temptation.
1. Temptation Follows Baptism: (Mat_4:1-11; Mar_1:13, Mar_1:14; Luk_4:1-13)
On the narrative of the baptism in the first three Gospels there follows at once the account of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. The psychological naturalness of the incident is generally acknowledged. The baptism of Jesus was a crisis in His experience. He had been plenished by the Spirit for His work; the heavens had been opened to Him, and His mind was agitated by new thoughts and emotions; He was conscious of the possession of new powers. There was need for a period of retirement, of still reflection, of coming to a complete understanding with Himself as to the meaning of the task to which He stood committed, the methods He should employ, the attitude He should take up toward popular hopes and expectations. He would wish to be alone. The Spirit of God led Him (Mat_4:1; Mar_1:12; Luk_4:1) whither His own spirit also impelled. It is with a touch of similar motive that Buddhist legend makes Buddha to be tempted by the evil spirit Mara after he has attained enlightenment.
2. Nature of the Temptation:
The scene of the temptation was the wilderness of Judea. Jesus was there 40 days, during which, it is told, He neither ate nor drank (compare the fasts of Moses and Elijah, Exo_24:18; Exo_34:28; Deu_9:18; 1Ki_19:8). Mark adds, “He was with the wild beasts” (Mar_1:13). The period was probably one of intense self-concentration. During the whole of it He endured temptations of Satan (Mar_1:13); but the special assaults came at the end (Mat_4:2 ff; Luk_4:2 ff). We assume here a real tempter and real temptations - the question of diabolic agency being considered after. This, however, does not settle the form of the temptations. The struggle was probably an inward one. It can hardly be supposed that Jesus was literally transported by the devil to a pinnacle of the temple, then to a high mountain, then, presumably, back again to the wilderness. The narrative must have come from Jesus Himself, and embodies an ideal or parabolic element. “The history of the temptation,” Lange says, “Jesus afterwards communicated to His disciples in the form of a real narrative, clothed in symbolical language” (Commentary on Matthew, 83, English translation).
3. Stages of the Temptation:
The stages of the temptation were three - each in its own way a trial of the spirit of obedience.
(1) The first temptation was to distrust. Jesus, after His long fast, was hungry. He had become conscious also of supernatural powers. The point on which the temptation laid hold was His sense of hunger - the most over-mastering of appetites. “If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” The design was to excite distrustful and rebellious thoughts, and lead Jesus to use the powers entrusted to Him in an unlawful way, for private and selfish ends. The temptation was promptly met by a quotation from Scripture: “Man shall not live by bread alone,” etc. (Mat_4:4; Luk_4:4; compare Deu_8:3). If Jesus was in this position, it was His Father who had brought Him there for purposes of trial. Man has a higher life than can be sustained on bread; a life, found in depending on God's word, and obeying it at whatever cost.
(2) The second temptation (in Luke the third) was to presumption. Jesus is borne in spirit (compare Eze_40:1, Eze_40:2) to a pinnacle of the temple. From this dizzy elevation He is invited to cast Himself down, relying on the Divine promise: “He shall give His angels charge over thee,” etc. (compare Psa_91:11, Psa_91:12). In this way an easy demonstration of His Messiahship would be given to the crowds below. The temptation was to overstep those bounds of humility and dependence which were imposed on Him as Son; to play with signs and wonders in His work as Messiah. But again the tempter is foiled by the word: “Thou shalt not make trial of (try experiments with, propose tests, put to the proof) the Lord thy God” (Mat_4:7; Luk_4:12; compare Deu_6:16).
(3) The third temptation (Luke's second) was to worldly sovereignty, gained by some small concession to Satan. From some lofty elevation - no place on a geographical map - the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them are flashed before Christ's mind, and all are offered to Him on condition of one little act of homage to the tempter. It was the temptation to choose the easier path by some slight pandering to falsehood, and Jesus definitely repelled it by the saying: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Mat_4:10; Luk_4:8). Jesus had chosen His path. The Father's way of the cross would be adhered to.
Its Typical Character.
The stages of the temptation typify the whole round of Satanic assault on man through body, mind, and spirit (Luk_4:13; compare 1Jo_2:16), and the whole round of Messianic temptation. Jesus was constantly being tempted (a) to spare Himself; (b) to gratify the Jewish signseekers; (c) to gain power by sacrifice of the right. In principle the victory was gained over all at the commencement. His way was henceforth clear.
B. The Early Judaean Ministry
I. The Testimonies of the Baptist.
1. The Synoptics and John:
While the Synoptics pass immediately from the temptation of Jesus to the ministry in Galilee the imprisonment of the Baptist (Mat_4:12; Mar_1:14, Mar_1:15; Luk_4:14), the Fourth Gospel furnishes the account, full of interest, of the earlier ministry of Jesus in Judea while the Baptist was still at liberty.
2. Threefold Witness of the Baptist: (John 1:19-37)
The Baptist had announced Christ's coming; had baptized Him when He appeared; it was now his privilege to testify to Him as having come, and to introduce to Jesus His first disciples.
A) First Testimony - Jesus and Popular Messianic Expectation: (Joh_1:19-28)
John's work had assumed proportions which made it impossible for the ecclesiastical authorities any longer to ignore it (compare Luk_3:15). A deputation consisting of priests and Levites was accordingly sent to John, where he was baptizing at Bethany beyond Jordan, to put to him categorical questions about his mission. Who was he? And by what authority did - he baptize? Was he the Christ? or Elijah? or the expected prophet? (compare Joh_6:14; Joh_7:4; Mat_16:14). To these questions John gave distinct and straightforward replies. He was not the Christ, not Elijah, not the prophet. His answers grow briefer every time, “I am not the Christ”; “I am not”; “No.” Who was he then? The answer was emphatic. He was but a “voice” (compare Isa_40:3) - a preparer of the way of the Lord. In their midst already stood One - not necessarily in the crowd at that moment - with whose greatness his was not to be compared (Joh_1:26, Joh_1:27). John utterly effaces himself before Christ.
B) Second Testimony - Christ and the Sin of the World: (Joh_1:29-34)
The day after the interview with the Jerusalem deputies, John saw Jesus coming to him - probably fresh from the temptation - and bore a second and wonderful testimony to His Messiahship. Identifying Jesus with the subject of his former testimonies, and stating the ground of his knowledge in the sign God had given him (Joh_1:30-34), he said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world” (Joh_1:29). The words are rich in suggestion regarding the character of Jesus, and the nature, universality and efficacy of His work (compare 1Jo_3:5). The “Lamb” may point specifically to the description of the vicariously Suffering Servant of Yahweh in Isa_53:11.
C) Third Testimony - Christ and the Duty of the Disciple: (Joh_1:35-37)
The third testimony was borne “again on the morrow,” when John was standing with two of his disciples (one Andrew, Joh_1:40, the other doubtless the evangelist himself). Pointing to Jesus, the Baptist repeated his former words, “Behold, the Lamb of God.” While the words are the same, the design was different. In the first “behold” the idea is the recognition of Christ; in the second there is a call to duty - a hint to follow Jesus. On this hint the disciples immediately acted (Joh_1:37). It is next to be seen how this earliest “following” of Jesus grew.
II. The First Disciples.
1. Spiritual Accretion: (Joh_1:37-51)
John's narrative shows that Jesus gathered His disciples, less by a series of distinct calls, than by a process of spiritual accretion. Men were led to Him, then accepted by Him. This process of selection left Jesus at the close of the second day with five real and true followers. The history confutes the idea that it was first toward the close of His ministry that Jesus became known to His disciples as the Messiah. In all the Gospels it was as the Christ that the Baptist introduced Jesus; it was as the Christ that the first disciples accepted and confessed Him (Joh_1:41, Joh_1:45, Joh_1:49).
A) Andrew and John - Discipleship as the Fruit of Spiritual Converse: (Joh_1:37-40)
The first of the group were Andrew and John - the unnamed disciple of Joh_1:40. These followed Jesus in consequence of their Master's testimony. It was, however, the few hours' converse they had with Jesus in His own abode that actually decided them. To Christ's question, “What seek ye?” their answer was practically “Thyself.” “The mention of the time - the 10th hour, i.e. 10 AM - is one of the small traits that mark John. He is here looking back on the date of his own spiritual birth” (Westcott).
B) Simon Peter - Discipleship a Result of Personal Testimony: (Joh_1:41, Joh_1:42)
John and Andrew had no sooner found Christ for themselves (“We have found the Messiah,” Joh_1:41) than they hastened to tell others of their discovery. Andrew at once sought out Simon, his brother, and brought him to Jesus; so, later, Philip sought Nathanael (Joh_1:45). Christ's unerring eye read at once the quality of the man whom Andrew introduced to Him. “Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas” - “Rock” or “Stone” (Joh_1:42). Mat_16:18, therefore, is not the original bestowal of this name, but the confirmation of it. The name is the equivalent of “Peter” (Pétros), and was given to Simon, not with any official connotation, but because of the strength and clearness of his convictions. His general steadfastness is not disproved by His one unhappy failure. (Was it thus the apostle acquired the name “Peter?”)
C) Philip - The Result of Scriptural Evidence: (Joh_1:43, Joh_1:44)
The fourth disciple, Philip, was called by Jesus Himself, when about to depart for Galilee (Joh_1:43). Friendship may have had its influence on Philip (like the foregoing, he also was from Bethsaida of Galilee, Joh_1:44), but that which chiefly decided him was the correspondence of what he found in Jesus with the prophetic testimonies (Joh_1:45).
D) Nathanael - Discipleship an Effect of Heart-Searching Power: (Joh_1:45-51)
Philip sought Nathanael (of Cana of Galilee, Joh_21:2) - the same probably as Bartholomew the Apostle - and told him he had found Him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets had written (Joh_1:45). Nathanael doubted, on the ground that the Messiah was not likely to have His origin in an obscure place like Nazareth (Joh_1:46; compare Joh_7:52). Philip's wise answer was, “Come and see”; and when Nathanael came, the Lord met him with a word which speedily rid him of his hesitations. First, Jesus attested His seeker's sincerity (“Behold, an Israelite indeed,” etc., Joh_1:47); then, on Nathanael expressing surprise, revealed to him His knowledge of a recent secret act of meditation or devotion (“when thou wast under the fig tree,” etc., Joh_1:48). The sign was sufficient to convince Nathanael that he was in the presence of a superhuman, nay a Divine, Being, therefore, the Christ - “Son of God ... King of Israel” (Joh_1:49). Jesus met his faith with further self-disclosure. Nathanael had believed on comparatively slight evidence; he would see greater things: heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man (Joh_1:51). The allusion is to Jacob's vision (Gen_28:10-22) - a Scripture which had possibly been theme of Philip's meditation in his privacy. Jesus puts Himself in place of that mystic ladder as the medium of reopened communication between heaven and earth.
2. “Son of Man” and “Son of God”:
The name “Son of Man” - a favorite designation of Jesus for Himself - appears here for the first time in the Gospels. It is disputed whether it was a current Messianic title (see SON OF MAN), but at least it had this force on the lips of Jesus Himself, denoting Him as the possessor of a true humanity, and as standing in a representative relation to mankind universally. It is probably borrowed from Dan_7:13 and appears in the Book of Enoch (see Apocalyptic Literature). The higher title, “Son of God,” given to Jesus by Nathanael, could not, of course, as yet carry with it the transcendental associations of John's Prologue (Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14, Joh_1:18), but it evidently conveyed an idea of superhuman dignity and unique relation to God, such as the better class of minds would seem to have attributed to the Messiah (compare Joh_5:18; Joh_10:33 ff; Mat_26:63).
III. The First Events.
An interval of a few weeks is occupied by a visit of Jesus to Cana of Galilee (Joh_2:1 ff) and a brief sojourn in Capernaum (Joh_2:12); after which Jesus returned to Jerusalem to the Passover as the most appropriate place for His public manifestation of Himself as Messiah (Joh_2:13 ff). The notes of time in John suggest that the Passover (beginning of April, 27 AD) took place about three months after the baptism by John (compare Joh_1:43; Joh_2:1, Joh_2:12).
1. The First Miracle: (Joh_2:1-11)
Prior to His public manifestation, a more private unfolding of Christ's glory was granted to the disciples at the marriage feast of Cana of Galilee (compare Joh_2:11). The marriage was doubtless that of some relative of the family, and the presence of Jesus at the feast, with His mother, brethren and disciples (as Joseph no more appears, it may be concluded that he was dead), is significant as showing that His religion is not one of antagonism to natural relations. The marriage festivities lasted seven days, and toward the close the wine provided for the guests gave out. Mary interposed with an indirect suggestion that Jesus might supply the want. Christ's reply, literally, “Woman, what is that to thee and to me?” (Joh_2:4), is not intended to convey the least tinge of reproof (compare Westcott, in the place cited.), but intimates to Mary that His actions were henceforth to be guided by a rule other than hers (compare Luk_2:51). This, however, as Mary saw (Joh_2:5), did not preclude an answer to her desire. Six waterpots of stone stood near, and Jesus ordered these to be filled with water (the quantity was large; about 50 gallons); then when the water was drawn off it was found changed into a nobler element - a wine purer and better than could have been obtained from any natural vintage. The ruler of the feast, in ignorance of its origin, expressed surprise at its quality (Joh_2:10). The miracle was symbolical - a “sign” (Joh_2:11) - and may be contrasted with the first miracle of Moses - turning the water into blood (Exo_7:20). It points to the contrast between the old dispensation and the new, and to the work of Christ as a transforming, enriching and glorifying of the natural, through Divine grace and power.
After a brief stay at Capernaum (Joh_2:12), Jesus went up to Jerusalem to keep the Passover. There it was His design formally to manifest Himself. Other “signs” He wrought at the feast, leading many to believe on Him - not, however, with a deep or enduring faith (Joh_2:23-25) - but the special act by which He signalized His appearance was His public cleansing of the temple from the irreligious trafficking with which it had come to be associated.
2. The First Passover, and Cleansing of the Temple: (Joh_2:13-25)
A like incident is related by the Synoptics at the close of Christ's ministry (Mat_21:12, Mat_21:13; Mar_11:15-18; Luk_19:45, Luk_19:46), and it is a question whether the act was actually repeated, or whether the other evangelists, who do not narrate the events of the early ministry, simply record it out of its chronological order. In any case, the act was a fitting inauguration of the Lord's work. A regular market was held in the outer court of the temple. Here the animals needed for sacrifice could be purchased, foreign money exchanged, and the doves, which were the offerings of the poor, be obtained. It was a busy, tumultuous, noisy and unholy scene, and the “zeal” of Jesus burned within Him - had doubtless often done so before - as He witnessed it. Arming Himself with a scourge of cords, less as a weapon of offense, than as a symbol of authority, He descended with resistless energy upon the wrangling throng, drove out the dealers and the cattle, overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and commanded the doves to be taken away. Let them not profane His Father's house (Joh_2:14-16). No one seems to have opposed. All felt that a prophet was among them, and could not resist the overpowering authority with which He spake and acted. By and by, when their courage revived, they asked Him for a “sign” in evidence of His right to do such things. Jesus gave them no sign such as they demanded, but uttered an enigmatic word, and left them to reflect on it, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Joh_2:19). The authenticity of the saying is sufficiently vouched for by the perverted use made of it at Christ's trial (Mat_26:61 parallel). It is a word based on the foresight which Christ had that the conflict now commencing was to end in His rejection and death. “The true way to destroy the Temple, in the eyes of Jesus, was to slay the Messiah.... If it is in the person of the Messiah that the Temple is laid in ruins, it is in His person it shall be raised again” (Godet). The disciples, after the resurrection, saw the meaning of the word (Joh_2:22).
3. The Visit of Nicodemus: (Joh_3:1-12)
As a sequel to these stirring events Jesus had a nocturnal visitor in the person of Nicodemus - a Pharisee, a ruler of the Jews, a “teacher of Israel” (Joh_3:10), apparently no longer young (Joh_3:4). His coming by night argues, besides some fear of man, a constitutional timidity of disposition (compare Joh_19:39); but the interesting thing is that he did come, showing that he had been really impressed by Christ's words and works. One recognizes in him a man of candor and uprightness of spirit, yet without adequate apprehensions of Christ Himself, and of the nature of Christ's kingdom. Jesus he was prepared to acknowledge as a Divinely-commissioned teacher - one whose mission was accredited by miracle (Joh_3:2). He was interested in the kingdom, but, as a morally living man, had no doubt of his fitness to enter into it. Jesus had but to teach and he would understand.
(1) The New Birth.
Jesus in His reply laid His finger at once on the defective point in His visitor's relation to Himself and to His kingdom: “Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Joh_3:3); “Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Joh_3:5). Nicodemus was staggered at this demand for a spiritual new birth. There is reason to believe that proselytes were baptized on being received into the Jewish church, and their baptism was called a “new birth.” Nicodemus would therefore be familiar with the expression, but could not see that it had any applicability to him. Jesus teaches him, on the other hand, that he also needs a new birth, and this, not through water only, but through the Spirit. The change was mysterious, yet plainly manifest in its effects (Joh_3:7, Joh_3:8). If Nicodemus did not understand these “earthly things” - the evidence of which lay all around him - how should he understand “heavenly things,” the things pertaining to salvation?
(2) “Heavenly Things.”
These “heavenly things” Jesus now proceeds to unfold to Nicodemus: “As Moses lifted up the serpent,” etc. (Joh_3:14). The “lifting up” is a prophecy of the cross (compare Joh_12:32-34). The brazen serpent is the symbol of sin conquered and destroyed by the death of Christ. What follows in Joh_3:16-21 is probably the evangelist's expansion of this theme - God's love the source of salvation (Joh_3:16), God's purpose not the world's condemnation, but its salvation (Joh_3:17, Joh_3:18) the self-judgment of sin (Joh_3:19 ff).
4. Jesus and John: (Joh_3:22-36)
Retiring from Jerusalem, Jesus commenced a ministry in Judea (Joh_3:22). It lasted apparently about 6 months. The earlier Gospels pass over it. This is accounted for by the fact that the ministry in Judea was still preparatory. Jesus had publicly asserted His Messianic authority. A little space is now allowed to test the result. Meanwhile Jesus descends again to the work of prophetic preparation. His ministry at this stage is hardly distinguishable from John's. He summons to the baptism of repentance. His disciples, not Himself, administer the rite (Joh_3:23; Joh_4:2); hence the sort of rivalry that sprang up between His baptism and that of the forerunner (Joh_3:22-26). John was baptizing at the time at Aenon, on the western side of the Jordan; Jesus somewhere in the neighborhood. Soon the greater teacher began to eclipse the less. “All men came to Him” (Joh_3:26). John's reply showed how pure his mind was from the narrow, grudging spirit which characterized his followers. To him it was no grievance, but the fulfillment of his joy, that men should be flocking to Jesus. He was not the Bridegroom, but the friend of the Bridegroom. They themselves had heard him testify, “I am not the Christ.” It lay in the nature of things that Jesus must increase; he must decrease (Joh_3:27-30). Explanatory words follow (Joh_3:31-36).
IV. Journey to Galilee - The Woman of Samaria.
1. Withdrawal to Galilee:
Toward the close of this Judean ministry the Baptist appears to have been cast into prison for his faithfulness in reproving Herod Antipas for taking his brother Philip's wife (compare Joh_3:24; Mat_14:3-5 parallel). It seems most natural to connect the departure to Galilee in Joh_4:3 with that narrated in Mat_3:13 parallel, though some think the imprisonment of the Baptist did not take place till later. The motive which Jn gives was the hostility of the Pharisees, but it was the imprisonment of the Baptist which led Jesus to commence, at the time He did, an independent ministry. The direct road to Galilee lay through Samaria; hence the memorable encounter with the woman at that place.
2. The Living Water:
Jesus, being wearied, paused to rest Himself at Jacob's well, near a town called Sychar, now 'Askar. It was about the sixth hour - or 6 o'clock in the evening. The time of year is determined by Joh_4:35 to be “four months” before harvest, i.e. December (there is no reason for not taking this literally). It suits the evening hour that the woman of Samaria came out to draw water. (Some, on a different reckoning, take the hour to be noon.) Jesus opened the conversation by asking from the woman a draught from her pitcher. The proverbial hatred between Jews and Samaritans filled the woman with surprise that Jesus should thus address Himself to her. Still greater was her surprise when, as the conversation proceeded, Jesus announced Himself as the giver of a water of which, if a man drank, he should never thirst again (Joh_4:13, Joh_4:14). Only gradually did His meaning penetrate her mind, “Sir, give me this water,” etc. (Joh_4:15). The request of Jesus that she would call her husband led to the discovery that Jesus knew all the secrets of her life. She was before a prophet (Joh_4:19). As in the case iof Nathanael, the heart-searching power of Christ's word convinced her of His Divine claim.
3. The True Worship:
The conversation next turned upon the right place of worship. The Samaritans had a temple of their own on Mount Gerizim; the Jews, on the other hand, held to the exclusive validity of the temple at Jerusalem. Which was right? Jesus in His reply, while pronouncing for the Jews as the custodians of God's salvation (Joh_4:22), makes it plain that distinction of places is no longer a matter of any practical importance. A change was imminent which would substitute a universal religion for one of special times and places (Joh_4:20). He enunciates the great principle of the new dispensation that God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth. Finally, when she spoke of the Messiah, Jesus made Himself definitely known to her as the Christ. To this poor Samaritan woman, with her receptive heart, He unveils Himself more plainly than He had done to priests and rulers (Joh_4:26).
4. Work at Its Reward:
The woman went home and became an evangelist to her people, with notable results (Joh_4:28, Joh_4:39). Jesus abode with them two days and confirmed the impression made by her testimony (Joh_4:40-42). Meanwhile, He impressed on His disciples the need of earnest sowing and reaping in the service of the Kingdom, assuring them of unfailing reward for both sower and reaper (Joh_4:35-38). He Himself was their Great Example (Joh_4:34).
C. The Galilean Ministry and Visits to the Feasts
1. The Scene:
Galilee was divided into upper Galilee and lower Galilee. It has already been remarked that upper Galilee was inhabited by a mixed population - hence called “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Mat_4:15). The highroads of commerce ran through it. It was “the way of the sea” (the King James Version) - a scene of constant traffic. The people were rude, ignorant, and superstitious, and were densely crowded together in towns and villages. About 160 BC there were only a few Jews in the midst of a large heathen population; but by the time of Christ the Jewish element had greatly increased. The busiest portion of this busy district was round the Sea of Galilee, at the Northeast corner of which stood Capernaum - wealthy and cosmopolitan. In Nazareth, indeed, Jesus met with a disappointing reception (Luk_4:16-30; Mat_13:54-57; compare Joh_4:43-45); yet in Galilee generally He found a freer spirit and greater receptiveness than among the stricter traditionalists of Judea.
2. The Time:
It is assumed here that Jesus returned to Galilee in December, 27 AD, and that His ministry there lasted till late in 29 AD (see “Chronology” above). On the two years' scheme of the public ministry, the Passover of Joh_6:4 has to be taken as the second in Christ's ministry - therefore as occurring at an interval of only 3 or 4 months after the return. This seems impossible in view of the crowding of events it involves in so short a time - opening incidents, stay in Capernaum (Mat_4:13), three circuits in “all Galilee” (Mat_4:23-25 parallel; Luk_8:1-4; Mat_9:35-38; Mar_6:6), lesser journeys and excursions (Sermon on Mount: Gadara); and the dislocations it necessitates, e.g. the plucking of ears of corn (about Passover time) must be placed after the feeding of the 5,000, etc. It is simpler to adhere to the three years' scheme.
A division of the Galilean ministry may then fitly be made into two periods - one preceding, the other succeeding the Mission of the Twelve in Mt 10 parallel. One reason for this division is that after the Mission of the Twelve the order of events is the same in the first three evangelists till the final departure from Galilee.
First Period - From the Beginning of the Ministry in Galilee till the Mission of the Twelve
I. Opening Incidents.
1. Healing of Nobleman's Son: (Joh_4:43-54)
From sympathetic Samaria (Joh_4:39), Jesus had journeyed to unsympathetic Galilee, and first to Cana, where His first miracle had been wrought. The reports of His miracles in Judea had come before Him (Joh_4:45), and it was mainly His reputation as a miracle-worker which led a nobleman - a courtier or officer at Herod's court - to seek Him at Cana on behalf of his son, who was near to death. Jesus rebuked the sign-seeking spirit (Joh_4:48), but, on the fervent appeal being repeated, He bade the nobleman go his way: his son lived. The man's prayer had been, “Come down”; but he had faith to receive the word of Jesus (Joh_4:50), and on his way home received tidings of his son's recovery. The nobleman, with his whole household, was won for Jesus (Joh_4:53). This is noted as the second of Christ's Galilean miracles (Joh_4:54).
2. The Visit to Nazareth: (Mat_4:13; Luk_4:16-30)
A very different reception awaited Him at Nazareth,”His own country,” to which He next came. We can scarcely take the incident recorded in Luk_4:16-30 to be the same as that in Mat_13:54-58, though Matthew's habit of grouping makes this not impossible. The Sabbath had come, and on His entering the synagogue, as was His wont, the repute He had won led to His being asked to read. The Scripture He selected (or which came in the order of the day) was Isa_61:1 ff (the fact that Jesus was able to read from the synagogue-roll is interesting as bearing on His knowledge of Hebrew), and from this He proceeded to amaze His hearers by declaring that this Scripture was now fulfilled in their ears (Luk_4:21). The “words of grace” he uttered are not given, but it can be understood that, following the prophet's guidance, He would hold Himself forth as the predicted “Servant of Yahweh,” sent to bring salvation to the poor, the bound, the broken-hearted, and for this purpose endowed with the fullness of the Spirit. The idea of the passage in Isa is that of the year of jubilee, when debts were canceled, inheritances restored, and slaves set free, and Jesus told them He had come to inaugurate that “acceptable year of the Lord.” At first He was listened to with admiration, then, as the magnitude of the claims He was making became apparent to His audience, a very different spirit took possession of them. 'Who was this that spoke thus?' 'Was it not Joseph's son?' (Luk_4:22). They were disappointed, too, that Jesus showed no disposition to gratify them by working before them any of the miracles of which they had heard so much (Luk_4:23). Jesus saw the gathering storm, but met it resolutely. He told His hearers He had not expected any better reception, and in reply to their reproach that He had wrought miracles elsewhere, but had wrought none among them, quoted examples of prophets who had done the same thing (Elijah, Elisha, Luk_4:24-28). This completed the exasperation of the Nazarenes, who, springing forward, dragged Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, and would have thrown Him down, had something in the aspect of Jesus not restrained them. With one of those looks we read of occasionally in the Gospels, He seems to have overawed His townsmen, and, passing in safety through their midst, left the place (Luk_4:28-30).
3. Call of the Four Disciples: (Mat_4:17-22; Mar_1:16-22; Luk_5:1-11)
After leaving Nazareth Jesus made His way to Capernaum (probably Tell Hum), which thereafter seems to have been His headquarters. He “dwelt” there (Mat_4:13). It is called in Mat_9:1, “his own city.” Before teaching in Capernaum self, however, He appears to have opened His ministry by evangelizing along the shores of the Sea of Galilee (Mat_4:18; Mar_1:16; Luk_5:1), and there, at Bethsaida (on topographical questions, see special articles), He took His first step in gathering His chosen disciples more closely around Him. Hitherto, though attached to His person and cause, the pairs of fisher brothers, Simon and Andrew, James and John - these last the “sons of Zebedee” - had not been in constant attendance upon Him. Since the return from Jerusalem, they had gone back to their ordinary avocations. The four were “partners” (Luk_5:10). They had “hired servants” (Mar_1:20); therefore were moderately well off. The time had now come when they were to leave “all,” and follow Jesus entirely.
A) The Draught of Fishes: (Luk_5:1-9)
Luke alone records the striking miracle which led to the call. Jesus had been teaching the multitude from a boat borrowed from Simon, and now at the close He bade Simon put out into the deep, and let down his nets. Peter told Jesus they had toiled all night in vain, but he would obey His word. The result was an immense draught of fishes, so that the nets were breaking, and the other company had to be called upon for help. Both boats were filled and in danger of sinking. Peter's cry in so wonderful a presence was, “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.”
B) “Fishers of Men”:
The miracle gave Jesus opportunity for the word He wished to speak. It is here that Mt and Mk take up the story. The boats had been brought to shore when, first to Simon and Andrew, afterward to James and John (engaged in “mending their nets,” Mat_4:21; Mar_1:19), the call was given : “Come ye after me, and I will make you fishers of men.” At once all was left - boats, nets, friends - and they followed Him. Their experience taught them to have large expectations from Christ.
4. At Capernaum: (Mat_4:13; Luk_4:31)
Jesus is now found in Capernaum. An early Sabbath - perhaps the first of His stated residence in the city - was marked by notable events.
The Sabbath found Jesus as usual in the synagogue - now as teacher. The manner of His teaching is specially noticed: “He taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes” (Mar_1:22). The scribes gave forth nothing of their own.
A) Christ's Teaching: (Mar_1:22, Mar_1:27; Luk_4:32)
They but repeated the dicta of the great authorities of the past. It was a surprise to the people to find in Jesus One whose wisdom, like waters from a clear fountain, came fresh and sparkling from His own lips. The authority also with which Jesus spoke commanded attention. He sought support in the opinion of no others, but gave forth His statements with firmness, decision, dignity and emphasis.
B) The Demoniac in the Synagogue: (Mar_1:23-27; Luk_4:33-37)
While Jesus was teaching an extraordinary incident occurred. A man in the assembly, described as possessed by “an unclean spirit” (Mar_1:23; Luk_4:33) broke forth in cries, addressing Jesus by name (“Jesus, thou Nazarene”), speaking of Him as “the Holy One of God,” and asking “What have we to do with thee? Art thou come to destroy us?” The diseased consciousness of the sufferer bore a truer testimony to Christ's dignity, holiness and power than most of those present could have given, and instinctively, but truly, construed His coming as meaning destruction to the empire of the demons. At Christ's word, after a terrible paroxysm, from which, however, the man escaped unhurt (Luk_4:35), the demon was cast out. More than ever the people were “amazed” at the word which had such power (Mar_1:27).
Demon-Possession: Its Reality.
This is the place to say a word on this terrible form of malady - demon-possession - met with so often in the Gospels. Was it a reality? Or a hallucination? Did Jesus believe in it? It is difficult to read the Gospels, and not answer the last question in the affirmative. Was Jesus, then, mistaken? This also it is hard to believe. If there is one subject on which Jesus might be expected to have clear vision - on which we might trust His insight - it was His relation to the spiritual world with which He stood in so close rapport. Was He likely then to be mistaken when He spoke so earnestly, so profoundly, so frequently, of its hidden forces of evil? There is in itself no improbability - rather analogy suggests the highest probability - of realms of spiritual existence outside our sensible ken. That evil should enter this spiritual world, and that human life should be deeply implicated with that evil - that its forces should have a mind and will organizing and directing them - are not beliefs to be dismissed with scorn. The presence of such beliefs in the time of Christ is commonly attributed to Babylonian, Persian or other foreign influences. It may be questioned, however, whether the main cause was not something far more real - an actual and permitted “hour and the power of darkness” (Luk_22:53) in the kingdom of evil, discovering itself in manifestations in the bodies and souls of men, that could be traced only to a supernatural cause (see DEMONIAC POSSESSION). (The present writer discusses the subject in an article in the Sunday School Times for June 4, 1910. It would be presumptuous even to say that the instance in the Gospels have no modern parallels. See a striking paper in Good, Words, edited by Dr. Norman MacLeod, for 1867, on “The English Demoniac.”) It should be noted that all diseases are not, as is sometimes affirmed, traced to demonic influence. The distinction between other diseases and demonic possession is clearly maintained (compare Mat_4:24; Mat_10:1; Mat_11:5, etc.). Insanity, epilepsy, blindness, dumbness, etc., were frequent accompaniments of possession, but they are not identified with it.
C) Peter's Wife's Mother: (Mat_8:14, Mat_8:15; Mar_1:29-31; Luk_4:38, Luk_4:39)
Jesus, on leaving the synagogue, entered the house of Peter. In Mark it is called “the house of Simon and Andrew” (Mar_1:29). Peter was married (compare 1Co_9:5), and apparently his mother-in-law and brother lived with him in Capernaum. It was an anxious time in the household, for the mother-in-law lay “sick of a fever” - “a great fever,” as Luke the physician calls it. Taking her by the hand, Jesus rebuked the fever, which instantaneously left her. The miracle, indeed, was a double one, for not only was the fever stayed, but strength was at once restored. “She rose up and ministered unto them” (Luk_4:39).
D) The Eventful Evening: (Mat_8:16; Mar_1:32-34; Luk_4:40, Luk_4:41)
The day's labors were not yet done; were, indeed, scarce begun. The news of what had taken place quickly spread, and soon the extraordinary spectacle was presented of 'the whole city' gathered at the door of the dwelling, bringing their sick of every kind to be healed. Demoniacs were there, crying and being rebuked, but multitudes of others as well. The Lord's compassion was unbounded. He rejected none. He labored unweariedly till every one was healed. His sympathy was individual: “He laid his hands on every one of them” (Luk_4:40).
II. From First Galilean Circuit till the Choice of the Apostles.
1. The First Circuit: (Mar_1:35-45; Luk_4:42-44; Compare Mat_4:23-25)
The chronological order in this section is to be sought in Mark and Luke; Matthew groups for didactic purposes. The morning after that eventful Sabbath evening in Capernaum, Jesus took steps for a systematic visitation of the towns and villages of Galilee.
The task He set before Himself was prepared for by early, prolonged, solitary prayer (Mar_1:35; many instances show that Christ's life was steeped in prayer). His disciples followed Him, and reported that the multitudes sought Him. Jesus intimated to them His intention of passing to the next towns, and forthwith commenced a tour of preaching and healing “throughout all Galilee.”
A) Its Scope:
Even if the expression “all Galilee” is used with some latitude, it indicates a work of very extensive compass. It was a work likewise methodically conducted (compare Mar_6:6 : “went round about the villages,” literally, “in a circle”). Galilee at this time was extraordinarily populous (compare Josephus, Wars of the Jews, III, iii, 2), and the time occupied by the circuit must have been considerable. Matthew's condensed picture (Mat_4:23-25) shows that Christ's activity during this period was incredibly great. He stirred the province to its depths. His preaching and miracles drew enormous crowds after Him. This tide of popularity afterward turned, but much of the seed sown may have produced fruit at a later day.
B) Cure of the Leper: (Mat_8:2-4; Mar_1:40-45; Luk_5:12-16)
The one incident recorded which seems to have belonged to this tour was a sufficiently typical one. While Jesus was in a certain city a man “full of leprosy” (Luk_5:12) came and threw himself down before Him, seeking to be healed. The man did not even ask Jesus to heal him, but expressed his faith, “If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.” The man's apparent want of importunity was the very essence of his importunity. Jesus, moved by his earnestness, touched him, and the man was made whole on the spot. The leper was enjoined to keep silence - Jesus did not wish to pass for a mere miracle-worker - and bade the man show himself to the priests and offer the appointed sacrifices (note Christ's respect for the legal institutions). The leper failed to keep Christ's charge, and published his cure abroad, no doubt much to his own spiritual detriment, and also to the hindrance of Christ's work (Mar_1:45).
2. Capernaum Incidents:
His circuit ended, Jesus returned to Capernaum (Mar_2:1; literally, “after days”). Here again His fame at once drew multitudes to see and hear Him. Among them were now persons of more unfriendly spirit. Pharisees and doctors, learning of the new rabbi, had come out of “every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem” (Luk_5:17), to hear and judge of Him for themselves. The chief incidents of this visit are the two now to be noted.
A) Cure of the Paralytic: (Mat_9:2-8; Mar_2:1-12; Luk_5:17-26)
In a chamber crowded till there was no standing room, even round the door, Jesus wrought the cure upon the paralytic man. The scene was a dramatic one. From Christ's words “son,” literally, “child” (Mar_2:5), we infer that the paralytic was young, but his disablement seems to have been complete. It was no easy matter, with the doorways blocked, to get the man brought to Jesus, but his four bearers (Mar_2:3) were not easily daunted. They climbed the fiat roof, and, removing part of the covering above where Jesus was, let down the man into the midst. Jesus, pleased with the inventiveness and perseverance of their faith, responded to their wish. But, first, that the spiritual and temporal might be set in their right relations, and the attitude of His hearers be tested, He spoke the higher words: “Son, thy sins are forgiven” (Mar_2:5). At once the temper of the scribes was revealed. Here was manifest evasion. Anyone could say, “Thy sins are forgiven.” Worse, it was blasphemy, for “who can forgive sins but one, even God?” (Mar_2:7). Unconsciously they were conceding to Christ the Divine dignity He claimed. Jesus perceives at once the thoughts of the cavilers, and proceeds to expose their malice. Accepting their own test, He proves His right to say, “Thy sins are forgiven,” by now saying to the palsied man, “Take up thy bed and walk” (Mar_2:9, Mar_2:11). At once the man arose, took his bed, and went forth whole. The multitude were “amazed” and “glorified God” (Mar_2:12).
B) Call and Feast of Matthew: (Mat_9:9-13; Mar_2:13-17; Luk_5:27-32)
The call of Matthew apparently took place shortly after the cure of the paralytic man. The feast was possibly later (compare the connection with the appeal of Jairus, Mat_9:18), but the call and the feast are best taken together, as they are in all the three narratives.
(1) The Call.
Matthew is called “Levi” by Luke, and “Levi, the son of Alpheus” by Mark. By occupation he was a “publican” (Luk_5:27), collector of custom-dues in Capernaum, an important center of traffic. There is no reason to suppose that Matthew was not a man of thorough uprightness, though naturally the class to which he belonged was held in great odium by the Jews. Passing the place of toll on His way to or from the lake-side, Jesus called Matthew to follow Him. The publican must by this time have seen and heard much of Jesus, and could not but keenly feel His grace in calling one whom men despised. Without an instant's delay, he left all, and followed Jesus. From publican, Matthew became apostle, then evangelist.
(2) The Feast.
Then, or after, in the joy of his heart, Matthew made a feast for Jesus. To this feast he invited many of his own class - “publicans and sinners” (Mat_9:10). Scribes and Pharisees were loud in their remonstrances to the disciples at what seemed to them an outrage on all propriety. Narrow hearts cannot understand the breadth of grace. Christ's reply was conclusive: “They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick,” etc. (Mar_2:17, etc.).
(3) Fasting and Joy.
Another line of objection was encountered from disciples of the Baptist. They, like the Pharisees, “fasted oft” (Mat_9:14), and they took exception to the unconstrained way in which Jesus and His disciples entered into social life. Jesus defends His disciples by adopting a metaphor of John's own (Joh_3:29), and speaking of Himself as the heavenly bridegroom (Mar_2:19). Joy was natural while the bridegroom was with them; then, with a sad forecast of the end, He alludes to days of mourning when the bridegroom should be taken away (Mar_2:20). A deeper answer follows. The spirit of His gospel is a free, spontaneous, joyful spirit, and cannot be confined within the old forms. To attempt to confine His religion within the outworn forms of Judaism would be like putting a patch of undressed cloth on an old garment, or pouring new wine into old wineskins. The garment would be rent; the wineskins would burst (Mar_2:21, Mar_2:22 parallel). The new spirit must make forms of its own.
3. The Unnamed Jerusalem Feast: (John 5)
At this point is probably to, be introduced the visit to Jerusalem to attend “a feast,” or, according to another reading, “the feast' of the Jews, recorded in Jn 5. The feast may, if the article is admitted, have been the Passover (April), though in that case one would expect it to be named; it may have been Purim (March), only this is not a feast Jesus might be thought eager to attend; it may even have been Pentecost (June). In this last case it would succeed the Sabbath controversies to be mentioned later. Fortunately, the determination of the actual feast has little bearing on the teaching of the chapter.
A) The Healing at Bethesda: (John 5:1-16)
Bethesda (“house of mercy”) was the name given to a pool, fed by an intermittent spring, possessing healing properties, which was situated by the sheep-gate (not “market,” the King James Version), i.e. near the temple, on the East Porches were erected to accommodate the invalids who desired to make trial of the waters (the mention of the angel, Joh_5:4, with part of Joh_5:3, is a later gloss, and is justly omitted in the Revised Version (British and American)). On one of these porches lay an impotent man. His infirmity was of long standing - 38 years. Hope deferred was making his heart sick, for he had no friend, when the waters were troubled, to put him into the pool. Others invariably got down before him. Jesus took pity on this man. He asked him if he would be made whole; then by a word of power healed him. The cure was instantaneous (Joh_5:8, Joh_5:9). It was the Sabbath day, and as the man, at Christ's command, took up his bed to go, he was challenged as doing that which was unlawful. The healed man, however, rightly perceived that He who was able to work so great a cure had authority to say what should and should not be done on the Sabbath. Meeting the man after in the temple, Jesus bade him “sin no more” - a hint, perhaps, that his previous infirmity was a result of sinful conduct (Joh_5:14).
B) Son and Father: (Joh_5:17-29)
Jesus Himself was now challenged by the authorities for breaking the Sabbath. Their strait, artificial rules would not permit even of acts of mercy on the Sabbath. This led, on the part of Jesus, to a momentous assertion of His Divine dignity. He first justified Himself by the example of His Father, who works continually in the upholding and government of the universe (Joh_5:17) - the Sabbath is a rest from earthly labors, for Divine, heavenly labor (Westcott) - then, when this increased the offense by its suggestion of “equality” with the Father, so that His life was threatened (Joh_5:18), He spoke yet more explicitly of His unique relationship to the Father, and of the Divine prerogatives it conferred upon Him. The Jews were right: if Jesus were not a Divine Person, the claims He made would be blasphemous. Not only was He admitted to intimacy with the Divine counsel (Joh_5:20, Joh_5:21; compare Mat_11:27), but to Him, He averred, was committed the Divine power of giving life (Joh_5:21, Joh_5:26), of judgment (Joh_5:22, Joh_5:27), of resurrection - spiritual resurrection now (Joh_5:24, Joh_5:25), resurrection at the last day (Joh_5:28, Joh_5:29). It was the Father's will that the Son should be honored even as Himself (Joh_5:23).
C) The Threefold Witness: (John 5:30-47)
These stupendous claims are not made without adequate attestation. Jesus cites a threefold witness: (1) the witness of the Baptist, whose testimony they had been willing for a time to receive (Joh_5:33, Joh_5:35); (2) the witness of the Father, who by Christ's works supported His witness to Himself (Joh_5:36-38); (3) the witness of the Scriptures, for these, if read with spiritual discernment, would have led to Him (Joh_5:39, Joh_5:45-47). Moses, whom they trusted, would condemn them. Their rejection of Jesus was due, not to want of light, but to the state of the heart: “I know you, that ye have not the love of God in yourselves” (Joh_5:42); “How can ye believe,” etc. (Joh_5:44).
4. Sabbath Controversies:
Shortly after His return to Galilee, if the order of events has been rightly apprehended, Jesus became involved in new disputes with the Pharisees about Sabbath-keeping. Possibly we hear in these the echoes of the charges brought against Him at the feast in Judea. Christ's conduct, and the principles involved in His replies, throw valuable light on the Sabbath institution.
A) Plucking of the Ears of Grain: (Mat_12:1-8; Mar_2:23-28; Luk_6:1-5)
The first dispute was occasioned by the action of the disciples in plucking ears of grain and rubbing them in their hands as they passed through the grainfields on a Sabbath (the note of time “second-first,” in Luk_6:1 the King James Version, is omitted in the Revised Version (British and American). In any case the ripened grain points to a time shortly after the Passover). The law permitted this liberty (Deu_23:25), but Pharisaic rigor construed it into an offense to do the act on the Sabbath (for specimens of the minute, trivial and vexatious rules by which the Pharisees converted the Sabbath into a day of wretched constraint, see Farrar's Life of Christ, Edersheim's Jesus the Messiah, and similar works). Jesus, in defending His disciples, first quotes Old Testament precedents (David and the showbread, an act done apparently on the Sabbath, 1Sa_21:6; the priests' service on the Sabbath - “One greater than the temple” was there, Mat_12:6), in illustration of the truth that necessity overrides positive enactment; next, falls back on the broad principle of the design of the Sabbath as made for man - for his highest physical, mental, moral and spiritual well-being: “The sabbath was made for man,” etc. (Mar_2:27). The claims of mercy are paramount. The end is not to be sacrificed to the means. The Son of Man, therefore, asserts lordship over the Sabbath (Mar_2:28 parallel).
B) The Man with the Withered Hand: (Mat_12:10-14; Mar_3:1-6; Luk_6:6-11)
The second collision took place on “another sabbath” (Luk_6:6) in the synagogue. There was present a man with a withered hand. The Pharisees themselves, on this occasion, eager to entrap Jesus, seem to have provoked the conflict by a question, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?” (Mat_12:10). Jesus met them by an appeal to their own practice in permitting the rescue of a sheep that had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath day (Mat_12:11, Mat_12:12), then, bidding the man stand forth, retorted the question on themselves, “Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill?” (Mar_3:4) - an allusion to their murderous intents. On no reply being made, looking on them with holy indignation, Jesus ordered the man to stretch forth his hand, and it was at once perfectly restored. The effect was only to inflame to “madness” (Luk_6:11) the minds of His adversaries, and Pharisees and Herodians (the court-party of Herod) took counsel to destroy Him (Mar_3:6 parallel).
C) Withdrawal to the