inDl133UU03 p ii?lSJ3AIUn 3H1 
 
 •aiBD ipiM 
 
 3SB3ld 
 
 T153 QQ2mS3T Q 
 
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF 
 JESUS THE CHRIST 
 
Works by the same Author 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH 
 AND CHRISTIAN REUNION 
 
 (Bampton Lectures, 1920) 
 
 HISTORY, AUTHORITY AND 
 THEOLOGY 
 
 ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY 
 
 THE MIRACLES OF THE NEW 
 TESTAMENT 
 
 London, John Murray 
 
THE >^ 
 
 LIFE AND TEACHING 
 
 OF ^^ 
 
 JESUS THE CHRIST 
 
 -^eh 
 
 \a 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. ARTHUR C. HEADLAM, C.H., D.D. 
 
 BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER 
 FOEMERLY FELLOW OF ALL SOULS COLLEGE, OXFORD, 
 PRINCIPAL OF king's COLLEGE, LONDON 
 AND REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 
 
 WITH MAP 
 
 NEW YORK 
 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 AMERICAN BRANCH: 35 West 32ND Street 
 
 LONDON, TORONTO, MELBOURNE & BOMBAY 
 
 1923 
 
copyright, 1923 
 
 By Oxford University Press 
 
 american branch 
 
 Iff 0^ 
 
 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES Of AMERICA 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This work is a fragment of a larger design on which I 
 have been engaged for nearly ten years, and is devoted to 
 one particular problem — namely, the general credibility of 
 the traditional account of the life and work of our Lord. 
 
 There are widely prevalent at the present time two 
 schools of criticism, which would deny to a greater or less 
 degree this credibility. The one which prevails somewhat 
 largely, I believe, in America, denies entirely the historical 
 character of the Founder of Christianity, and seeks the ori- 
 gin of the Christian religion exclusively in myths and tend- 
 encies. These theories in this extreme form have never re- 
 ceived the assent of competent scholars, and need hardly 
 be treated seriously; in any case, if there is any value at 
 all in the investigations contained in this volume they may 
 certainly be dismissed. The second demands more serious 
 consideration. It maintains that, although we may accept 
 as certain the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a real per- 
 son and the Founder of the Christian religion, and may ac- 
 cept also some portion of what is narrated about Him, yet 
 we must also recognize that the greater part of the contents 
 of the Gospel tells us not what He taught, but what the 
 Christian Church which grew up after His death thought. 
 
 It is with this school that I am mainly concerned; for 
 in one form or another it prevails widely, and its teaching 
 is accepted by many whose learning and reputation give 
 them some authority to speak. It is true that when we 
 examine the matter a little more closely this authority 
 seems a little less strong, for although there is an agreement 
 that a large part of the Gospel is not authentic, there is 
 not the same agreement as to what that is. When we ask 
 what is the original and historical nucleus, we find the 
 greatest variety of opinion. Some would have us accept 
 a purely ethical Gospel, others would lay the greatest stress 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 on the expectation of a world catastrophe which made 
 
 ethical considerations of very slight importance; some 
 
 would allow that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, others 
 would ascribe that opinion to a blunder of the Apostles. 
 And when we turn to the particular narratives, we find 
 the same diversity of opinion. In fact, it becomes clear 
 that behind this negative criticism there is no scientific 
 method to give certain or even probable results. 
 
 It is against such theories as these that the argument of 
 this book is directed. I have aimed, in the first place, at 
 showing that, accepting the results of modern criticism, 
 there is every reason to think that the subject-matter of 
 the first three Gospels represents the traditions about the 
 life and work of Jesus of Nazareth as they were current 
 in the earliest years of the Christian Church. Then, 
 secondly, that it harmonizes with all that we know of the 
 times when Jesus lived and the environment in which He 
 taught. Thirdly, that the teaching of Jesus is harmonious 
 throughout, natural in its language and form to the cir- 
 cumstances and representing a unity of thought transcend- 
 ing anything that had existed before. And then, fourthly, 
 that the life as narrated forms a consistent whole. The re- 
 sult of these investigations is to satisfy myself, at any rate, 
 that we have a trustworthy account of the life and teach- 
 ing of Jesus. It is undeniably fragmentary. There is the 
 difiiculty which we find in all study of past history of re- 
 constructing the way in which things happened. No claim 
 to infallibiHty or inerrancy is possible. But, so far as I 
 am personally concerned, I feel that we have good and 
 trustworthy material on which to work. Whether I have 
 sufficient grounds for such a conclusion I must leave to my 
 readers to Judge. 
 
 This book was begun in the most thrilling days of the 
 Great War, at a time when the British Army was advanc- 
 ing from Egypt to Palestine, when the scenes and places 
 which had so often played a great part in history were 
 daily mentioned in the despatches of our army, when the 
 great maritime road saw once more the advance of an 
 armed host, when Gaza was once more besieged, and Jeru- 
 salem taken, and Jericho again fell; when at Megiddo a 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Vll 
 
 world conflict was once more decided, and English and 
 Australian cavalry . fought where Coeur de Lion had fought, 
 traversed the plain of Esdraelon, and rode through the 
 streets of Nazareth and past the Sea of Galilee on the 
 great advance to Damascus. Peace has not brought all 
 that we hoped for in the exhilaration of victory, but we 
 may pray that the hills and valleys where Jesus lived and 
 taught, and His peaceful home at Nazareth, and the beau- 
 tiful shores and waters of the Sea of Galilee, and Caper- 
 naum, and Bethsaida, and Caesarea of sacred memory, may 
 never again be brought under the blighting influence of 
 Turkish and Mohammedan rule. 
 
 It remains to say that a considerable part of this book 
 was delivered as lectures, first in the University of Oxford 
 and then in King's College, London. I have not thought 
 it necessary to alter the signs of their origin. The personal 
 touch which should never be absent from a lecture will, 
 I hope, be felt to be not out of place. Too great formalism 
 does not suit the biography which cannot aim at complete- 
 ness and can only paint aspects of a Hfe which in its 
 reality is beyond our full comprehension. 
 
 I must express my thanks to my friend Dr. C. H. Turner 
 for reading the whole book through before it was put into 
 type, and for much acute and helpful criticism, to Dr. 
 Burney for reading the first proofs, and to the Rev. R. G. 
 Plumptre for the final revision. My wife has again assisted 
 
 me in the index. 
 
 ARTHUR C. HEADLAM 
 
 Christ Church, 
 Oxford. 
 
 September, 1922. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 The Critical Attitude pages 1-44 
 
 The purpose of this work. The need for it. The authorities for the Ufa 
 of Jesus. 
 
 1. The four Gospels. The meaning and value of criticism. The Sjti- 
 optic problem. The two sources. 
 
 2. St. Mark's Gospel. A literary unit. Its historical value. Its au- 
 thor. Its sources. Its date. 
 
 3. The Discourses. Its probable origin. Its contents. Relation to 
 St. Mark. Its date. 
 
 4. St. Luke's Gospel. Its author and date. Method of composition. 
 Its sources. Use of St. Mark, and of T/ie Discourses. Other sources. 
 
 5. St. Matthew's Gospel. Its origin. Written for Jewish Christians. 
 Structure of the Gospel. Use of sources. 
 
 6. The value of the Synoptic material. Theory of Wellhausen. Not 
 supported by the evidence. The Synoptic material earlier than the 
 fall of Jerusalem, Galilaean in origin, little influenced by Christian 
 theology. How the Synoptic Gospels should be used. 
 
 7. St. John's Gospel. Difference from the S3moptic Gospels. DiflS- 
 culties as to authorship. Its Aramaic character. Use of S3Tioptic 
 Gospels. Signs of independent tradition. Character of teaching. 
 Method of use. 
 
 8. Secondary sources. The Christian Church. Need of accounting 
 for it. The problem of the life of Jesus. 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 Palestine, Civil and Religious, at the Time of the Chris- 
 tian Era pages 45-93 
 
 The beginnings of the Roman Empire. Longing for peace. Virgil's Mes- 
 sianic Eclogue. His ' unconscious prophecy. The Jewish attitude. 
 The two ideals. 
 
 1. The death of Herod the Great. Accession of Archelaus. Revolts 
 in Palestine. The settlement of Augustus. Reign of Archelaus. His 
 banishment. 
 
 2. Judaea a Roman province. The settlement under Quirinius. The 
 census. Judas the Galilaean. The fourth sect of the Jews. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 , The Roman procurators. Coponius. Ambibulus. Rufus. Valerius 
 Gratus. The succession of high priests. Annas and Caiaphas. Pon- 
 tius Pilate. His misgovernment. His banishment. 
 
 , The tetrarchy of Philip. His good government. The tetrarchy of 
 Antipas. Galilee. Peraea. Character of his rule. Herodias. His 
 banishment. The Decapolis. The neighbouring territories. The Na- 
 bataeans. Lysanias. Parthia. 
 
 , The Rabbinical schools. The Rabbis. Hillel. His teaching. Sham- 
 mai. The severity of his rules. Jewish exegesis. Schools of Hillel 
 and Shammai. The value of the teaching. 
 
 , Religion and piety in Israel. The testimony of St. Luke. The 
 songs of the Virgin and of Simeon. The Blessings of the synagogue 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 The Education of Jesus pages 94-132 
 
 Jesus of Nazareth. His home and family, 
 
 1. GaUlee. Its fertility. Its roads. Nazareth. The language of the 
 Gospels. Reminiscences of the country. Agriculture. Animals, 
 wild and domestic. Domestic life. Proof of authenticity. The hu- 
 man characteristics of Jesus. 
 
 2. The spiritual environment. Jewish education. Visits to Jerusalem. 
 Reading and writing. The language of Jesus. The religion of 
 Galilee. The scribes and Pharisees. The Herodians. The Zealots. 
 Hellenic thought. Apocalyptic literature. 
 
 3. Intellectual presuppositions of the Gospels. Cosmology. Heaven. 
 Paradise. Hades. Gehenna. Psychology. The heart. The soul. 
 The spirit. The body. The flesh. Angelology. Demonology. Satan. 
 
 4. The use of the Jewish Scriptures by Jesus. Methods of interpreta- 
 tion. The legahstic. Midrashic. Allegorical. The spiritual interpre- 
 tation of Jesus. His theological language that of His own time. 
 The kingdom of Heaven. Messianic titles. The servant of Jehovah. 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 John the Baptist pages 133-169 
 
 The expectation of the day of the Lord. 
 
 1. John the Baptist; his birth, his training, his message, his baptism, 
 his preaching, his expectation of the Messiah. 
 
 2. The Baptism of Jesus; its significance. Jesus and John. Jesus as 
 the disciple of John. 
 
 3. The imprisonment of John. The dispersal of his disciples. He 
 sends his disciples to Jesus. The death of John. 
 
 4. The explanation of John's ministry. Not unhistorical. No connec- 
 tion with the Essenes. Not merely eschatological. John as prophet. 
 
CONTENTS xi 
 
 In what sense Elijah. His witness to Jesus. The significance of 
 his prophetic mission. His place in history. 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 The Galilaean Ministry pages 170-206 
 
 The Lake of Galilee. Gennesaret. Capernaum. 
 
 1. Jesus comes to Capernaum. The call of the disciples. The first 
 day. The Galilaean Ministry. The journeys. The synagogue. Suc- 
 cess. 
 
 2. Causes of influence. Authority. Sympathy. Mercy. 
 
 3. The possessed. The prevailing theory. The casting out of devils. 
 The attitude of Jesus. 
 
 4. Miracles of healing. The evidence. Dependent "on faith. The fail- 
 ures. Evidence of spiritual authority. The reserve of Jesus. The 
 purpose of miracles. 
 
 5. The opposition. The forgiveness of sins. Association with publi- 
 cans and sinners. Fasting. The Sabbath. Separation from the 
 synagogue. 
 
 6. The organization of the Church. Discipleship. The Twelve; The 
 devout women. The mission of the Twelve. 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 The New Teaching . ' pages 207-239 
 
 J Jesus as a teacher. The "Sermon on the Mount" in St. Matthew. The 
 "Sermon on the Plain" in St. Luke. The critical problem. 
 
 1. The Beatitudes. Contrast with the Old Testament. Who are the 
 poor? Contrast with later Christian teaching. The acts of Paul and 
 Thecla. 
 
 2. The New Law and the Old Law. The paradox of Christ's teaching. 
 The fulfilment which supersedes. External and internal. Negative 
 and positive. The law of love. Of loving your enemies. The Jew- 
 ish rule. The originality of Christianity. The word agape. 
 
 3. The Christian ideal. Comparison with the Greek ideal. The as- 
 cetic ideal. Christian humanism. The ideal of duty. Is the Chris- 
 tian ideal possible? Can we love our enemies? The law of non- 
 resistance. Tolstoi. The conduct of the Christian. 
 
 4. Religious duties. Almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. The importance 
 of prayer. The Lord's Prayer. The religion of the spirit. The story 
 of the Samaritan woman. 
 
 5. The purpose of life. The vanity of wealth. Anxiety about worldly 
 things. The true end. The pursuit of righteousness. 
 
 6. The golden rule. The Jewish form. The Christian rule positive 
 not negative. Regards thoughts as well as deeds. Righteous judg- 
 ment. 
 
 7. Fundamental principle of the new life. Trust in God. The two ways. 
 
xii CONTENTS 
 
 The morality of Jesus. How far authentic? How far original? The 
 criticism of Nietzsche. The Christian principle harmonizes with the 
 reaUty of the world. 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 The Kingdom of God pages 240-264 
 
 The "Kingdom of God" sums up the teaching of Jesus. 
 
 1. A popular religious expression. Derived from the Old Testament. 
 The Davidic kingdom. The Divine Sovereignty. Righteousness. 
 The day of the Lord. The Resurrection. 
 
 2. The Jewish expectation. An earthly kingdom. A kingdom of 
 righteousness. The Apocalyptic hope. The sovereignty of God on 
 earth. What did people hope for at the time of our Lord? 
 
 3. The "Kingdom of God" as used by Jesus. The parables of the king- 
 dom. Why did He speak in parables? The three meanings of the 
 kingdom — the word of God, the Christian dispensation, the final 
 consummation. 
 
 4. The kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. John the Baptist 
 and the kingdom. The kingdom and righteousness. The kingdom 
 and the Hfe to come. The coming of the kingdom. The kingdom 
 and the supremacy of the divine will. Christianity. 
 
 5. The kingdom and the Parousia. The purpose of Jesus. One har- 
 monious to His position, consistent with His other teaching, different 
 from later ideals. 
 
 6. The golden age. The kingdom the sphere in which God's will is 
 done. The two aspects of Christianity. The individualistic view 
 and the hope of a future life. The social view and the well-being of 
 mankind. True Christianity transcends both. 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 The Crisis of the Ministry pages 265-289 
 
 The crisis and its causes. 
 
 1. The mission of the Apostles. The charge to them. Effect of the 
 mission. Herod Antipas hears of Jesus. The return of the Apostles. 
 Retirement of Jesus. 
 
 2. The feeding of the multitude. The people would make Jesus King. 
 Voyage on the lake. The walking on the water. The character of 
 the event. The discourse on the Bread of Life. 
 
 3. The landing at Gennesaret. Dispute with the Pharisees. The ritual 
 law. The demand for a. sign. Dangers of the situation. The re- 
 treat of Jesus. Journey to north and return by Decapolis to Beth- 
 saida. 
 
 4. Caesarea Philippi. The confession of Peter. Jesus acknowledged 
 as Messiah. His methods. The suffering Messiah and the lesson of 
 suffering. 
 
 5. The transfiguration. Jesus prepares for the end. 
 
CONTENTS xiii 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 The Messiah pages 290-314 
 
 The temptation. The genuineness of the story. Its impHcations. 
 
 1. The Jewish expectation of the Messiah. The ideal monarchy. The 
 ideal King. 
 
 2. The later Jewish hope. The book of Daniel. The Messiah of the 
 tribe of Levi. The book of Enoch. The Psalms of Solomon. The 
 Jewish conception. Its omissions. 
 
 3. The titles of Jesus. His claim to be the Messiah. The Son of God. 
 The Son of Man. The servant. The Lord. The Son of David. 
 
 4. The Messiah in Jewish theology. Desire of a sign. "Signs" in 
 Jewish literature. Difference of our Lord's conceptions. 
 
 5. Conclusion. The credibility of the life of Christ. Naturalness of 
 the miracles. The teaching of Jesus. Its spiritual character. The 
 Messiah. 
 
 Note on Chronology page 315 
 
 Chronological Table " 320 
 
 Notes on the Map " 322 
 
 Index " 327 
 
 Map of Palestine in the Time of Our Lord at end of hook 
 
TO THE MEMORY OF THE 
 MEN OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE 
 WHO IN THE GREAT WAR 
 LAID DOWN THEIR LIVES FOR 
 THAT HOLY LAND WHERE 
 JESUS LIVED AND TAUGHT 
 AND DIED. 
 
THE LIFE AND TEACHING OF JESUS 
 THE CHRIST 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 It is the aim of this work to give some account of the life 
 and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, the founder of Chris- 
 tianity. Such a task may be held to be both unnecessary 
 and presumptuous. It may be pointed out that we have 
 four original books, accessible to all, written by those who 
 were either themselves witnesses of what they described or 
 had lived in the closest intimacy with those who were, that 
 these contain an inimitable account of the life of Jesus, 
 and that nothing can supersede or even supplement them. 
 Every reader has all that can be known before him, and 
 no one can add to or increase our knowledge. 
 
 Of course, fundamentally, that contention is true. No 
 one can supersede the four Gospels, and no one wishes 
 to do so. But two grave reasons make a work such as the 
 present one not unnecessary. It is well known that an im- 
 posing amount of learned criticism has appeared which has 
 cast grave doubts on the credibility of, at any rate, a por- 
 tion of these accounts, and there is a natural demand for 
 some estimate of the value of this criticism. And then, 
 also, the documents in question are all of them of a frag- 
 mentary character. They were written more than eighteen 
 hundred years ago. The environment in which the life of 
 Jesus was lived is unknown to those who have not studied 
 it. The language and thought of that day were different 
 from our own. Much may be learnt by combining and 
 comparing the various accounts, and interpreting them in 
 the light of all the knowledge that we can accumulate. The 
 Gospels need translation for us, not only in language, but 
 in thought. 
 
2 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 If this be so, I think the presumption may be excused, 
 provided that we are prepared to approach our task with 
 fitting humihty and reverence. Many others have made the 
 same attempt, and the works that they have produced may 
 be to us both a warning and an encouragement — an en- 
 couragement, because I suppose that there is not one of 
 them from which we may not learn something; a warning, 
 because there is not one the inadequacy and imperfection 
 of which is not apparent. They have each served their 
 time in their circle and have passed away. What we may 
 hope is that, if our spirit be right, we too may render 
 some service to our own generation.^ 
 
 The first duty of anyone who would write a biography is 
 to estimate the extent and value of his authorities. The 
 authorities for the life of Jesus are twofold — primary and 
 secondary. The primary are the four Gospels; to the 
 examination of these the main part of our task must be 
 directed. The secondary are somewhat varied, and, so far 
 as regards the life of Jesus Himself, most fragmentary. 
 They include such information as may be elicited from Jo- 
 sephus,^ from Greek and Roman authors and from Jewish 
 tradition.^ Then there are the extra-canonical and apoc- 
 ryphal records of our Lord's life, and such sayings ascribed 
 to Him as have been preserved by Christian tradition.'* 
 More important than these for our estimation of Jesus is 
 the evidence afforded by the opinions held about Him and 
 the character of His influence in the Early Church. If we 
 desire to know what manner of person a man may be, we 
 ask not only what he has done and said, but also what 
 
 1 The most brilliant account of the attempts to write the life of Christ 
 is that contained in Von Rcimarns zii Wrede, Eine Geschichie der Leben- 
 Jesu-Forschung, by Albert Schweitzer (Tubingen, 1906), translated into 
 English, under the title of The Quest of the Historical Christ, by W. M. 
 Montgomery, with a preface by F. C. Burkitt. 
 
 2 On Josephus, see Schiirer, Geschichte (third and fourth editions), I., 
 
 PP- 77/, 544/- 
 
 3 On Jewish tradition, see R. T. Herford, Christianity in Talmtid and 
 Midrash, London, 1903. 
 
 ^ See, on the extra-canonical sayings of Jesus, Alfred Resch, Agrapha in 
 Texte und U titer suchimgen, Neue Folge, vol. xv., 3, 4; Lock and Sanday, 
 Two Lectures on the "Sayings of Jesus," Oxford, 1897. 
 
THE AUTHORITIES 3 
 
 people with whom he came in contact thought of him, what 
 impression he made on his own generation, and what in- 
 fluence he left behind him in the world. All these are im- 
 portant elements in the final picture that we can construct. 
 So it is with Jesus. The ApostoHc Church must be ac- 
 counted for. Not only what it recorded of Him, not only 
 what it thought of Him, although both of these are of fun- 
 damental importance, but also the fact that it existed. The 
 Christian Church is the great witness to its Founder; and 
 no life of Christ which fails to account for Christianity 
 can be adequate. 
 
 To all this we must add the picture that we are able to 
 form of the circumstances in which Jesus lived. To paint 
 that picture needs a full acquaintance with the life and 
 literature of the times; and it is certainly remarkable that 
 He should have lived in the great days of the Roman Em- 
 pire — a period in the history of the ancient world when 
 from literary remains, from inscriptions, from antiquities, 
 and from the fact that that Empire summed up in a re- 
 markable way the history of the past, our knowledge is so 
 ample. Let us remember, also, that for studying the con- 
 temporary life and thought of Judaism we have a rich 
 store of material which is only gradually becoming known. 
 We have the books of Josephus; we have the great body of 
 apocryphal and pseudonymous Jewish literature,^ on which 
 so much has been done in recent years and particularly in 
 Oxford; we have the works of Philo; and we have the Jew- 
 ish tradition embodied in the Targums, the Mishna, and 
 the rest of the Talmud, the Midrash and later literature.^ 
 In all these directions there is full opportunity for research 
 and discovery, and there is still much to be learned towards 
 illustrating, directly or indirectly, the Hfe of Jesus. 
 
 ^ This has been collected together for English readers in The Apocrypha 
 and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, edited by R. H. Charles 
 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1913). 
 
 ^ The fullest information on all these points may be found in Schiirer, 
 Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesii Christi, third and fourth 
 editions (Leipzig, 1898-1907). There is an English translation of an earlier 
 edition. 
 
4 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 I 
 
 We turn now to our primary authorities, the four 
 Gospels, and the criticism of them which has grown up in 
 the last hundred and fifty years. 
 
 Let me begin by saying one word of what we mean by 
 "criticism," or, as it is often called, to distinguish it from 
 textual criticism, "higher criticism," and what is its 
 purpose. It is sometimes spoken of as if it were in itself 
 wrong and dangerous. It is, of course, nothing of the sort. 
 It means the application of everything that we know of 
 the history of a document — external criticism — and of 
 everything that we can learn by an examination of its 
 contents — internal criticism — towards discovering as 
 much as possible about its origin, its authorship, and its 
 historical value. There is no more fascinating question 
 that we can ask than this: How did the Gospels grow up? 
 Under what circumstances were they written? There is no 
 more important question that we can ask than whether 
 they contain true history. These are the two main ques- 
 tions with which critics of the New Testament are con- 
 cerned, and it must be recognized that not only in regard to 
 our study of the life of Jesus, but also in relation to the 
 foundation of Christian doctrine and life, they are of tran- 
 scendent importance. 
 
 But how far is criticism equal to the task? Let me give 
 you an instance of this higher criticism. You know that 
 Sir Walter Scott originally published the Waverley Novels 
 anonymously, that they were an extraordinary success, and 
 that naturally the question who was their author roused the 
 greatest interest. Now Scott was already well known as a 
 poet, the author of vigorous and romantic poems dealing 
 with Scottish history, and an able and ingenious work was 
 written proving that Scott, the author of the Lay of the 
 Last Minstrel and the Lady of the Lake, was also the author 
 of Waverley. The writer examined the external circum- 
 stances, the style, the subject-matter, the personal tastes 
 and interests of the two authors, and showed strong grounds 
 for believing that they were the same person.^ Here we 
 
 1 See Letters to Richard Hcbcr, Esq., containing Critical Remarks on the 
 Series of Novels beginmng with "Waverley," and an Attempt to ascertain its 
 
THE FOUR GOSPELS 5 
 
 have an instance of a careful and intelligent higher criticism 
 which was found to be correct. The same methods have 
 been pursued in many varied fields of literature, often in a 
 way to carry conviction. The problems of the New Testa- 
 ment are for many reasons peculiarly difhcult, since the 
 literature is unique in character, but there is no reason for 
 doubting that a careful and painstaking enquiry may 
 ultimately teach us a good deal about the composition of 
 the documents of which it is made up. 
 
 With this amount of preface let me turn to the Gospels, 
 and attempt to put before you, so far as I can, what appear 
 to me to be the assured results of criticism as applied to 
 them. I cannot hope to give you anything original, but 
 it is necessary that, as an introduction to the study of our 
 Lord's hfe, our critical attitude should be defined.^ 
 </ It is well known that the four Gospels may be divided 
 into two groups. The first three — those known as St. 
 Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke — have marked resem- 
 blances to one another and certain marked differences from 
 St. John, and, because they give a common picture of our 
 Lord's life, are known as the Synoptic Gospels. If you read 
 them carefully you cannot help noticing that they have a 
 large amount of matter in common, but that each also has 
 its own special features. It is the need for explaining these 
 resemblances and differences which forms what is called the 
 Synoptic problem, and on this an imposing amount of 
 thought and work has been expended during the last cen- 
 tury and a half. 
 
 In particular let us remember that much able and scien- 
 tific work has been produced in Oxford, under the inspira- 
 tion of the late Dr. Sanday. Many of the contributions 
 thus made are of real value, and in particular the re- 
 
 Author (London, 1821). The author was John Leycester Adolphus of 
 St. John's College, Oxford (see Dictionary of National Biography, sub. voc). 
 The work is referred to favourably in the Introduction to the Fortunes of 
 Nigel. 
 
 ^ The best single work to which the reader may be referred is, I think, 
 Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents (Cambridge: The University 
 Press, 1903-1920). A very full account of opinion on the subject will be 
 found in MoiJatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament 
 (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 191 1). 
 
6 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 searches of Sir John Hawkins have been accepted in the 
 world of scholars as of supreme importance in establish- 
 ing results which may be considered certain.^ They are 
 patient, cautious, and methodical. They attack a problem 
 limited in scope with completeness, and within the sphere 
 outlined arrive at conclusions which have been accepted. 
 "It is impossible," writes Professor von Harnack, "to 
 overrate Hawkins." 
 
 As I do not wish to go over ground which has been suf- 
 ficiently worked, it will be enough to state shortly what 
 may be considered to be agreed on as to the composition 
 of the first three Gospels. Let me take the summary given 
 us by Dr. Stanton.^ It may be recognized, he says, that 
 the resemblances between the three Synoptic Gospels are 
 so great as to imply a common Greek source, and greater 
 than can be explained by the influence of oral tradition. 
 Neither did St. Matthew make regular use of St. Luke, 
 nor St. Luke of St. Matthew; they are almost if not com- 
 pletely independent of one another. It is, moreover, al- 
 most universally agreed that either St. Mark's Gospel or a 
 record virtually identical with it was used by the First and 
 Third Evangelists. It is further agreed that they had a 
 second common source which contained a record of the 
 words of Jesus. This is by many writers called "Q", a 
 designation selected as quite neutral, and not implying 
 any theory. It is the initial letter of the German word 
 Quelle, which means "source." I propose to call it The 
 Discourses. The practical result is that we must accept the 
 priority of St. Mark's Gospel and recognize that it was 
 used by St. Matthew and St. Luke, and that there was 
 also a second early source common to these two Gospels. 
 
 I do not think that I need labour the arguments which 
 have convinced critics of the priority of St. Mark.^ Anyone 
 
 ^ See Studies in the Synoptic Problem, by Members of the University of 
 Oxford, edited by W. Sanday (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 191 1), and Horae 
 Synopticae, by the Rev. Sir John C. Hawkins, Bart., second edition (Oxford: 
 Clarendon Press, 1909). 
 
 ^ See Stanton, op. cit., II., chap, i., pp. 1-60. 
 
 ^ It may be convenient to state here that I use the names St. Matthew, 
 St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John without committing myself to any opinion 
 as to the correctness of the traditional attribution. 
 
THE SOURCf:S OF THE GOSPELS 7 
 
 who will can test the matter for himself. Let him compare 
 the three Gospels together, and he will find that the greater 
 part of St. Mark is contained in the other two Gospels, and 
 for the most part in the same order; and that while St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke — especially St. Matthew — occa- 
 sionally differ from the Mar can order, they never agree in 
 their differences. Further, let him compare the individual 
 narratives together. He will see that whereas St. Matthew 
 and St. Mark agree together against St. Luke, and St. Luke 
 and St. Mark agree together against St. Matthew, it rarely 
 happens that St. Matthew and St. Luke agree together 
 against St. Mark in these common narratives, and hardly 
 ever in any important point.^ The reason for believing in 
 a second common source is that if we eliminate from St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke all the matter they share with St. 
 Mark, there is still a considerable amount that they have 
 in common with one another, and the resemblances are in 
 many cases so close as to demand that this common source 
 should be literary. 
 
 Only on one point may it be considered that there is still 
 room for some difference of opinion. St. Luke omits a 
 considerable portion of St. Mark, and it has been held (as, 
 for example, by Dr. Stanton) that he had before him an 
 earlier edition of that Gospel which omitted certain pas- 
 sages which might be held to be interpolations.^ But I 
 think that the arguments on the other side, given by Sir 
 John Hawkins, are fairly conclusive.^ They are first of all 
 the unity of style exhibited by the whole of the second Gos- 
 pel, and, secondly, the fact that adequate reasons harmo- 
 nizing with the Hterary habits of St. Luke may be found for 
 his omission of these sections. St. Luke is careful to avoid 
 repetitions; and it will be found that generally, when he 
 omits matter contained in St. Mark, it is because it appears 
 to be a repetition of what occurs elsewhere in his Gospel. 
 
 1 The most recent discussion on this point will be found in The Study 
 of the New Testament, 1883 and 1920, by Cuthbert H. Turner (Oxford: 
 Clarendon Press, 1920), p. 36. 
 
 ^ Stanton, op. cit., pp. 150 J'. 
 
 ^ Hawkins, Three Limitations to St. Luke's Use of St. Mark's Gospel in 
 Horae Syno plicae, pp. 29-94. 
 
8 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 There are one or two other Hterary habits of his 
 which also influence him, such as the adapting of his Gos- 
 pel to the needs of his Gentile readers, and consequently 
 the omission or curtailment of what would not concern them 
 — for instance, detailed references to Jewish customs and 
 the Jewish law. Personally I am fairly certain that St. 
 Luke had our St. Mark before him pretty much as we have it. 
 
 II 
 
 Our first business, then, will be to find out all that we 
 can know about St. Mark's Gospel. 
 
 To begin with, it is a literary unit. It is a book with a 
 style of its own, and is not a compilation, and this style is 
 found throughout the whole Gospel. This unity, of course, 
 does not mean that the author may not have had sources 
 out of which he constructed his work, just as the other 
 Gospels had, but it does, I think, mean that we should have 
 a good deal of difhculty in discovering them. This point 
 we shall discuss later. Again, this unity is quite compatible 
 with some clumsiness of construction. Not all writers are 
 very skilful at constructing a book. What is impHed, I 
 think, is that the author had a definite purpose before him 
 which he carried out fairly consistently, and that he had a 
 clear conception of the work and life of our Lord. 
 
 I would ask you now to study with care the life of Jesus 
 as presented in this Gospel, and to assist you in doing 
 that I would refer to a brilliant exposition of it by Dr. 
 Burkitt in his book on The Gospel History and Us Trans- 
 mission} He discusses the two questions: "Does the story 
 of Jesus Christ, as given by St. Mark, approve itself as 
 an adequate historical outline of the main events?" and 
 ''Does the story of Jesus Christ fit into general history?" 
 To both questions he gives an affirmative answer, and he 
 gives, as I think, adequate grounds for doing so. 
 
 He points out how the Gospel begins by describing the 
 impression which the preaching of Jesus first made. His 
 power, His authority, and His popularity. Then comes 
 
 * The Gospel History mid its Transmission, by F. Crawford Burkitt 
 (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1906), pp. 65-104. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK 9 
 
 the early opposition from the constitutional authorities, and 
 for a time we have on the one side a growing popularity, 
 on the other an increasing opposition. The result is a 
 breach with the synagogue. That naturally leads to the 
 organization of the new community apart from official 
 Judaism. At first Jesus preaches in the synagogues; later 
 we find that He does not do so except on one occasion at 
 Nazareth. So He chooses His apostles, the first step in the 
 organization of the Christian Church. The second result 
 is more serious. John had been beheaded, and Herod 
 Antipas learns about Jesus. That means that henceforth 
 His life is in danger. But His work is not accomplished; 
 His time has not yet come; a prophet cannot perish except 
 in Jerusalem. So Jesus for a time avoids danger. The 
 next period of ministry is one of retirement, and, as seems 
 probable, the private instruction of His disciples. The 
 district which is dangerous for Jesus is the territory of 
 Herod Antipas. So we find Him at Bethsaida, or travelling 
 in the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, or at Caesarea Philippi, or 
 in the Decapolis. It is a period of retreat. Its culmination 
 is the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi. Then comes 
 the final journey to Jerusalem with the conscious expecta- 
 tion of the end. 
 
 We shall work out this in greater detail when we come 
 to our history. I have only sketched it here, as it bears 
 on the historical character of St. Mark. That Gospel gives, 
 as I believe, a coherent and intelligible, but by no means 
 a complete, account of our Lord's ministry, and one which 
 harmonizes with the political circumstances of the time. It 
 has the appearance of being authentic history. That is the 
 point for which Professor Burkitt contends, and I believe 
 that his contention is sound. 
 
 And now I will ask you to turn to what we can learn 
 from external sources about the Gospel. We have a well- 
 known statement of the early Christian writer Papias, who 
 lived in the first half of the second century, often quoted 
 and often commented on: 
 
 "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter wrote 
 down accurately everything that he remembered, without, 
 however, recording in order what was said or done by 
 
lo THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he 
 follow Him; but afterwards, as I said, attended Peter, who 
 adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers), but 
 had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord's 
 discourses. So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus 
 wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he 
 made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, 
 or to set down any false statement thereon." ^ 
 
 Apart from the criticisms which were, perhaps, intended 
 to contrast St. Mark with the systematic account of our 
 Lord's teaching given by St. Matthew, and the chrono- 
 logical framework of Jewish feasts given by St. John, the 
 important point that we learn from this is that the Gospel 
 was written by St. Mark, and that it gives us, so far as 
 the writer remembered them, the substance of St. Peter's 
 instructions on the life of our Lord. 
 
 To this we may add a statement of Irenaeus, who lived 
 in the latter half of the second century, that after the death 
 of Peter and Paul, "Mark, who was the disciple and inter- 
 preter of Peter [whose knowledge of Greek it is implied had 
 been imperfect], handed down to us in writing the preach- 
 ing of Peter." ^ 
 
 Now if our analysis of the character of the Gospel be 
 correct, this external tradition fits in admirably with the 
 internal evidence. If the history gives a coherent account 
 of our Lord's life, it must come from a good authority, and 
 all the more as it is probable that the history is much better 
 than the author realized. It is doubtful, it seems to me, 
 whether he understood what was implied in the order of 
 events as he narrated them, and this may, perhaps, explain 
 the few narratives which do not cohere with the general 
 scheme. The point is that there was behind St. Mark an 
 authentic account of the life of Jesus, narrated by one who 
 had himself taken part in it, and therefore giving material 
 from which we can construct a coherent story. 
 
 Nor is this all. Many of the narratives seem to me to 
 
 ^ The fragment is given by Eusebius, Hist. EccL, iii., 39, 15. I have 
 used the translation given by Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, p. 529. 
 * Irenaeus, Adv. Haereses, iii., i, 2. 
 
THE EVIDENCE OF ST. PETER ii 
 
 show traces of their actual origin. At the beginning of the 
 Gospel we have given us what seems to be an account of 
 an actual day at Capernaum, with notes of times appended. 
 The call of the disciples, the preaching in the synagogue on 
 the Sabbath day, the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, the 
 cure of the sick and those possessed with devils "at even, 
 when the sun was set," the retirement of Jesus into solitude 
 to pray ''in the morning a great while before day," the 
 anxiety of Simon that He should respond to the demand of 
 the people, and the journey through Galilee — all these fol- 
 low one another in a natural and orderly sequence. Surely 
 we have it all given thus clearly, because it was the memory 
 of the greatest day in Peter's life. It was the day when his 
 discipleship had begun. Again and again he must have 
 told the story, and the vividness of the impression would 
 never fade. Many years afterwards, when in distant Rome 
 his life's work was coming to its end, he would look back 
 to that great day by the Sea of Galilee, when the call had 
 come and the response been made — a day of such infinite 
 importance in his own life and in the Gospel history. 
 Surely no mere power of historic imagination has given 
 us these scenes. 
 
 Nor is this a solitary instance. If we contrast the narra- 
 tive with those of St. Luke and St. Matthew, both in its 
 general characteristics and in its details, we shall note cer- 
 tain marked differences. Both these other Gospels, and 
 especially St. Matthew's, from time to time upset the 
 chronological order of St. Mark, and in doing so spoil the 
 coherency of the narrative. It is quite impossible out of 
 these Gospels to construct the same succession of events. 
 And if we compare the separate narratives as they appear 
 in these later Gospels with those in St. Mark, we shall see 
 how much they have lost in picturesqueness, in simplicity, 
 and in a sort of photographic accuracy. St. Mark seems 
 to have written down the stories as they appeared to one 
 who had seen them. Just the touches which convey that 
 impression are often omitted in the other Gospels. He tells 
 us how the men that bore the paralytic could not come nigh 
 Jesus for the crowd, and how they broke up the roof. He 
 tells us how Jesus spake to His disciples that a little boat 
 
12 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 should wait on Him. He gives that detailed and vivid 
 picture of the woman with the issue of blood. He ends the 
 story of Jairus' daughter with the command that something 
 should be given her to eat. He tells us of the green grass, 
 and the men sitting down by companies at the feeding of 
 the multitude. We need not multiply instances. There 
 are few stories in St. Mark which do not give one a vivid 
 picture of the event, and they are generally spoiled in 
 St. Matthew. 
 
 It is, however, maintained that much of what is said 
 about our Lord in St. Mark is so improbable as to be in- 
 consistent with a Petrine origin. The theory put forward 
 as to the purpose of the parables, the story of the mission 
 of the Twelve, the injunction of silence as to miracles — all 
 these, it is maintained, cannot be historical. On most of 
 these points I believe that St. Mark is right and the critics 
 are wrong, and that will appear as our history proceeds.^ 
 There is, however, one difficulty to which I must refer, 
 which seems to me to be a very real one — namely, the 
 date of the Last Supper. According to St. Mark (and the 
 other Synoptists) the Last Supper was a Passover. Accord- 
 ing to St. John it was a day earlier. Now it is extraordi- 
 narily difficult to believe that the arrest, the trial, and the 
 crucifixion of our Lord could have taken place on the Pass- 
 over, while the indecent hurry with which all the proceed- 
 ings were conducted can be well explained if the desire was 
 to get it over before the Passover began. The date of the 
 Last Supper given by St. Mark is, therefore, not probable. 
 But even if this be so, I do not feel that it need conffict 
 with the belief that the Gospel is based on Petrine sources. 
 It is not in the least unlikely that, whatever were the real 
 facts, the Apostolic Church should quite early have learnt to 
 think of the Last Supper as a Passover, and this may have 
 influenced St. Mark's narrative. It is exactly the point on 
 which tradition might quite easily get confused. 
 
 I beheve, then, that tradition is right in telling us that 
 this Gospel is the work of St. Mark, recording the teaching 
 of St. Peter. But was that St. Mark's only source? Can 
 we be certain that everything in the Gospel has the au- 
 
 ^ See below, chapter VII., 7. 
 
THE SOURCES OF ST. MARK 13 
 
 thority of St. Peter? I think that there are fairly good rea- 
 sons for thinking that there is information in St. Mark de- 
 rived from other sources. Turn to the narrative of the 
 feeding of the four thousand. I cannot but beheve that 
 this is a doublet of the feeding of the five thousand — that 
 is, it is another account of the same event. There is a re- 
 markable similarity between the two stories, but that of 
 the five thousand has all the vividness which characterizes 
 a Marcan narrative, while that of the four thousand is sin- 
 gularly bald. Apart from this the two stories (except for the 
 numbers) are almost identical. Then we notice that the sec- 
 ond story is narrated as if there had been no similar event 
 previous to it; and that while the first story takes its 
 proper place in the narrative, the second story seems quite 
 unconnected with what precedes it. If, then, as is probable, 
 these two stories are doublets, the same will be true of the 
 later reference to them, dealing specifically with each event. 
 This would have arisen as a conflation of the two sources. 
 
 Now, if these two narratives are different accounts of the 
 same event, there are three deductions which we can make. 
 The first is, as on other grounds would be likely, that St. 
 Mark has collected information from more than one source. 
 The second is even more important. Here we have 
 two independent accounts of the same event, and they 
 differ from one another as independent accounts would, 
 particularly as regards the numbers, on which point ac- 
 curacy and agreement is rarely attainable. But essentially 
 they tell us exactly the same story. The deduction that 
 I would make from this is that traditions so corroborated 
 have a reasonable right to be considered trustworthy. The 
 third point that I would make is that whatever actually 
 happened the tradition belongs to the oldest Gospel strata. 
 The feeding of the multitude is found in the oldest Gospel, 
 and the author of that Gospel gives us two independent 
 accounts of it. 
 
 Now, if this be the case, it is reasonable to suppose that 
 there may be other passages in St. Mark which do not come 
 from St. Peter, and some corroboration has been found for 
 this. In some places it is thought there are signs of ill- 
 joining in the narrative, as if a certain number of incidents 
 
14 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 had been inserted from other sources. One of them may, 
 perhaps, be the eschatological discourse in the thirteenth 
 chapter. I do not think we can go with any confidence much 
 further than that. You will find in some books an elaborate 
 arrangement of sources. That is, I think, for the most part 
 mere guesswork, based on the author's preconceived notions 
 of what the narrative should be. The utmost we can 
 reasonably say is that we cannot in all cases feel certain 
 that what is contained in St. Mark comes from St. Peter. 
 There were other sources, oral or written, from which some 
 matter is incorporated. 
 
 The Gospel of St. Mark was thus written by John Mark, 
 the companion first of St. Paul, then of St. Peter. He was 
 a member in early days of the Jerusalem Church. Although 
 probably not himself a direct disciple of our Lord, he was 
 intimately associated with those who had been. He had 
 ample opportunities of becoming acquainted with the tra- 
 ditions of the Hfe of Jesus in their earliest form, and his 
 narrative, both by its intelligent account of the progress of 
 events and by the life-like pictures that it gives, seems to 
 imply that it is based on such traditions. The fact that it is 
 the principal narrative source, both of St. Matthew and 
 St. Luke, shows that in the opinion of those writers it was 
 by far the best available account of our Lord's life. 
 
 As to its date I am inclined, on the whole, to accept 
 that given us by Irenaeus, that it was written after the 
 deaths of St. Peter and St. Paul — that is, after a.d. 64. 
 I would add, not very long afterwards. It must, however, 
 be recognized that there are no very strong reasons against 
 a considerably earlier date. It might quite easily have 
 been writte;;i before a.d. 60. Some difficulty has been felt 
 about the apocalyptic passage in the thirteenth chapter. 
 It has been maintained that it is an independent docu- 
 ment, owing little in its present form to the words of our 
 Lord, but composed under the influence of the fall of 
 Jerusalem. The whole question of the apocalyptic teaching 
 will demand treatment in detail later, but I hardly think 
 that in any case it requires so late a date. No doubt its 
 language may have been coloured by the troubled times 
 which prevailed for many years before the fall of Jerusalem, 
 
THE DISCOURSES 15 
 
 which to many seemed to be the "Woes of the Messiah," 
 the necessary prelude, according to current Jewish expec- 
 tation, of the final revelation of the Son of Man; but there 
 is Uttle sign of its being influenced by the specific events 
 of that period. It presents many features in common with 
 the general apocalyptic language of the time, and there is 
 no reason why we should not look upon it as an instance 
 of teaching given by our Lord in such current apocalyptic 
 language. Tradition may have coloured the record a little, 
 but in the main there seems no reason why we should not 
 accept it as authentic. 
 
 Ill 
 
 We come next to the document often called "Q," which 
 I propose to call The Discourses. This is a hypothetical 
 document, but it must have existed in some form or other. 
 Let us first consider the reason for requiring its existence. 
 It is that in St. Matthew and St. Luke there is still, when 
 we have eliminated St. Mark, a considerable amount of 
 common matter. This is found to consist almost entirely 
 of teaching. If a narrative occurs, it is as an occasion for 
 teaching. The sayings of our Lord contained in this com- 
 mon matter are generally quite short, often of an epigram- 
 matic or oracular character; often, too, although not al- 
 ways, the resemblance between the two reports is very 
 close; sometimes they are almost verbally identical. More- 
 over, the sayings occur to a large extent in the same order. 
 All these facts seem to point to a common written source. 
 
 I am now going to ask you to turn to another statement 
 given us by that Papias to whom I have already referred. 
 He tells us that "Matthew composed the Logia'^ in the 
 Aramaic language, and each one interpreted them as he 
 would. "^ These words have led to much discussion, and it 
 is difiicult to find any agreement as to their meaning. We 
 may, to begin with, take it as reasonably certain that this 
 
 ^ The Greek word "Logia" means "oracles," or perhaps short oracular 
 sa3dngs. It was technically used to mean "the Scriptures." 
 
 ^ Eus., Hist. Eccl., 'in., 39, 16. The Greek has "in the Hebrew lan- 
 guage," but there can be no doubt that what is meant is Aramaic, the 
 popular language of Palestine at the time of our Lord. 
 
i6 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 tradition (whatever may have been the opinion of Papias) 
 could not refer to oilr St. Matthew. That Gospel was not 
 written in Hebrew or Aramaic, but in Greek, and was put 
 together out of more than one Greek document. There is 
 a good deal of hesitation among scholars in adopting any 
 positive theory, but I cannot help thinking that there is 
 considerable probability that this tradition refers to the 
 collection of "discourses" or "oracles" of the Lord (that 
 expression would be a very suitable one) which was used 
 by St. Matthew and St. Luke. That hypothesis will ex- 
 plain a good many facts. It will explain how St. Mat- 
 thew's Gospel obtained its name. If there was more than 
 one translation of these discourses in existence (as Papias 
 suggests), it will explain why, in some cases, the verses in 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke are almost identical, and in 
 some they differ widely. Although, for some reason or 
 other, this identification of the common source of the two 
 Gospels with the Logia or oracles of St. Matthew is not as 
 popular as it was, I must confess that it appears to me to 
 be the most probable hypothesis. 
 
 What were the contents of this book? If you study the 
 many writers who have devoted themselves to the Synoptic 
 problem, you will find a good deal of speculation on this 
 subject. Some have included in it much that appears in 
 only one Gospel, and have even made it a source of St. 
 Mark. Others, like Wellhausen, depreciate it, and consider 
 that it was largely made up out of St. Mark. These are all 
 mere guesses. All we can say is that in all probability it 
 contained most, if not all, the passages common to St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke which are not in St. Mark. It is, 
 of course, possible that there were two common sources, or 
 that some common passages were derived directly from oral 
 tradition. But it is a wise rule in criticism that the sim- 
 plest and least complicated solution is also the most prob- 
 able. On the other hand, it is fairly certain that in some 
 cases it contained the same discourse or narrative which we 
 have in St. Mark, in a somewhat different form; it is pos- 
 sible, also, that it contained some things which St. Matthew 
 has given us, but not St. Luke; but this is less certain. 
 Take, for example, the comparison of the Old and New Law 
 
THE DISCOURSES AND ST. MARK 17 
 
 at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. It might 
 quite well be argued that this is just what St. Luke might 
 omit as being of little interest to Gentile readers. On the 
 other hand, it is also possible to argue that it is just what 
 St. Matthew might have put together from different sources 
 as eminently useful for his Jewish Christian readers. That 
 instance will show us the uncertainty of all such specula- 
 tions. It is better to keep to what has positive argument 
 in its support. There must have been a common source for 
 the matter common to the first and third Gospels and those 
 alone: there is a strong probability that this was a collec- 
 tion of the discourses of our Lord, and it may have been 
 that collection said to have been made by St. Matthew.^ 
 
 There is a further point of much interest. This source 
 contained, as we have said, matter also found in St. Mark. 
 We know this by the occurrence of what are called doub- 
 lets. That is to say, the same passage is found twice in one 
 Gospel, because it has been derived from two different 
 sources. A good example is our Lord's teaching about di- 
 vorce. This occurs once in the Sermon on the Mount, 
 where it seems to resemble more closely the account in St. 
 Luke;^ once later in St. Matthew, where it is clearly taken 
 from St. Mark.^ Sometimes St. Luke gives a story in one 
 form, St. Mark in another, and St. Matthew seems to have 
 combined the two. For example, take the discourse on 
 casting out devils in the name of Beelzebub."* If you will 
 compare the version in St. Mark with that in St. Luke, you 
 will notice considerable differences, and you will see that 
 the two versions are combined in St. Matthew. Or again, 
 St. Mark gives us the parable of the mustard seed, St. 
 Luke gives it in a different version and in a different con- 
 text with the parable of the leaven attached. St. Matthew 
 follows the arrangement of St. Mark, adds the parable of 
 the leaven, and in the parable of the mustard seed shows the 
 
 ^ The best book on The Discourses or Login is Harnack, Spriiche und 
 Reden Jesu (Leipzig, 1907). There is an English translation with the title 
 The Sayings of Jesus (Williams and Norgate). 
 
 2 Mt. V. 31, 32; cf. Lk. xvi. 18. 
 
 2 Mt. xix. 3-9; cf. Mk. X. 2-12. 
 
 * Mt. xii. 22-32, Mk. iii. 22-30, Lk. xi. 14-23. 
 
i8 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 influence of both St. Mark and St. Luke.^ The deduction 
 that we make is that it was contained both in The Dis- 
 courses and in St. Mark, and that there was considerable 
 verbal variation between the two reports of the parable. 
 
 An important question, therefore, arises. Did St. Mark 
 use The Discourses, or The Discourses St. Mark, or do they 
 give independent accounts of the same tradition? Well- 
 hausen thinks that The Discourses were dependent on St. 
 Mark, but few, I think, follow him. It is more common 
 to hold that St. Mark used The Discourses. My own opin- 
 ion is that he did not. If he had had it before him, and 
 used it at all, he would probably have used much more. I 
 cannot think that he would have left out the parable of the 
 leaven. Moreover, when he does give us anything which is 
 also found in The Discourses, there are considerable varia- 
 tions in his report. My own behef is that he gives an in- 
 dependent report of the same traditions. 
 
 If that be so, we have further instances of what we no- 
 ticed in respect to the feeding of the multitude. We have 
 independent reports of the same traditions, and we are able 
 to compare them. They vary as reports which are inde- 
 pendent must do; but they both give us the same teach- 
 ing, and there is nothing which would compel us to think 
 the tradition erroneous. There are occasional discrepancies. 
 It would be unnatural if there were not; but substantially 
 both represent the teaching of our Lord in the same way. 
 Now, if this be so where we can compare traditions, we 
 have a reasonable amount of certainty that it is also true 
 in other instances where we have not the opportunity of 
 comparing them. 
 
 We have, then, in The Discourses an early account of 
 our Lord's teaching which, up to a certain point, we can 
 reconstruct with a fair measure of certainty. It contained 
 much information of the greatest importance. It certainly 
 contained a considerable portion of the Sermon on the 
 Mount, although how far that was collected in one dis- 
 course must be uncertain. It contained a long section 
 about John the Baptist. It contained some of the parables 
 of the kingdom. It contained some of our Lord's most 
 
 ^ Mt. xiii. 31-33, Mk. iv. 30-32, Lk. xiii. 18-21. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE ig 
 
 striking utterances. It did not contain an account of the 
 Passion. We should be glad to have more accurate infor- 
 mation than we possess of its date. That we unfortunately 
 cannot obtain. It must have been earlier than St. Matthew 
 or St. Luke. Sir William Ramsay has maintained that the 
 absence of any reference to the Passion implied that it was 
 composed in the lifetime of our Lord. But this is a pre- 
 carious argument. If the story of the Passion was part of 
 the ordinary Christian teaching (as seems probable), then 
 a collection of discourses might naturally omit it. To 
 many of us The Discourses have all the marks of being a 
 very primitive document, but others consider that it bears 
 marks of later dogmatic influence, and the arguments on 
 either side are too subjective for us to place much reliance 
 on them. We must be content to say that it was an early 
 record of our Lord's teaching. That must suffice. 
 
 IV 
 
 We come next to St. Luke's Gospel. I think I may take- 
 certain things as proved about it. I see no reason for 
 doubting the arguments by which Sir John Hawkins here 
 and Professor von Harnack in Germany — to mention only 
 the two most distinguished of recent writers who have 
 discussed the question — have convinced most of us that 
 the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were written 
 by St. Luke, the companion of St. Paul, and that, there- 
 fore, we are dealing, not with an anonymous book, but with 
 one about whose author we have considerable knowledge.^ 
 
 As to its date some uncertainty must prevail. There 
 are really two chronological schemes possible with regard 
 to the Gospels. The one would put the composition of 
 St. Mark's Gospel during the life of St. Peter, probably 
 before the year 60. Then St. Luke would have been written 
 before the year 64, and St, Matthew's Gospel somewhere 
 
 ^ Horae Synopticae, pp. 174-197; von Harnack, Lukas der Arzt (Leip- 
 zig, 1906), translated under the title Luke the Physician (Williams and Nor- 
 gate, 1907). There does not seem to me to be anything in Dr. Foakes Jackson's 
 and Dr. Kirsopp Lake's recent volume, The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. 
 ii. (Macmillan and Co., 1922), to shake that conclusion. 
 
 3 
 
20 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 about the year 70. The second scheme would place the 
 composition of St. Mark's Gospel after the deaths of St. 
 Peter and St. Paul — that is, after the year 64 — and the 
 other two Gospels about the year 80. As all these Gospels 
 were probably known to the author of the fourth Gospel, it is 
 not possible to put any of them much later than that date. 
 My own opinion, on the whole, inclines to the later date, 
 but there are no conclusive arguments on either side.^ 
 
 There is one further point that I think I ought to men- 
 tion. It has been maintained with some persistency by cer- 
 tain scholars that St. Luke was acquainted with the writ- 
 ings of Josephus. That would necessarily imply a still later 
 date. The Jewish Wars was published not much before the 
 year 79, the Antiquities about the year 94. I must own 
 that this argument has never appealed to me, mainly be- 
 cause of the fact that St. Luke's statements are often in- 
 consistent with those of Josephus. It demands, in fact, an 
 almost incredible carelessness on the part of St. Luke, and 
 that is not justified by what we know of his writings other- 
 wise. I think it would be much more correct to argue that 
 the reason why St. Luke has probably made some mistakes 
 in secular history is that the works of Josephus had not yet 
 been published. If they had been, he would have been 
 much better able to correlate the Evangelical history with 
 the circumstances of the time.^ 
 
 I must, I think, allude also to the ingenious theory put 
 forward recently by Dr. Streeter. He suggests that St. 
 Luke wrote a first edition of his Gospel, probably during 
 the period when St. Paul was in captivity in Caesarea. 
 
 ^ The statement that the author of the fourth Gospel was acquainted 
 with the Synoptists is said by Professor Schmiedel {Encyclopaedia Biblica, 
 II., 2,540) to need no proof. The implications of this hardly seem to be 
 realized. The fourth Gospel can with difficulty be put later than a.d. 100. 
 And it implies that the other three Gospels must be earlier. This rules 
 out as impossible such a date as a.d. 115 suggested as possible for the Acts of 
 the Apostles and the third Gospel by Dr. Kirsopp Lake and Dr. Foakes 
 Jackson {Beginnings of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 358). 
 
 ^ The latest statement of the arguments in favour of the use of Josephus 
 by St. Luke is contained in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. ii., pp. 355— 
 358. To me the instances given prove that St. Luke had not seen 
 Josephus's works. 
 
ST. LUKE AS AN HISTORIAN 21 
 
 Then, at a later date, no doubt in Rome, he came across 
 St. Mark's Gospel and combined it with the work he had 
 already written, pubhshing the enlarged Gospel about the 
 year 80. In the same way he wrote the travel diary prob- 
 ably before the death of St. Paul, and then, at a later date, 
 produced the completed Acts. The point in which this 
 theory differs from some others is that it recognizes the 
 unity of style which runs through the two works, a recogni- 
 tion which we do not always find among advocates of par- 
 tition theories, and that it accounts fairly well both for the facts 
 which imply an early and those which imply a later date.^ 
 However, to confine ourselves to what we may consider 
 certain: we have in these books historical works written 
 by an educated Greek, or Greek-speaking Jew, who mod- 
 elled his compositions on Greek literary work. He has paid 
 attention to his sources. There were many others, he tells 
 us, who had written narratives about the life and teaching 
 of Jesus. He makes no claim to be an eyewitness, but he 
 does claim to have received his information from those 
 "who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers 
 of the word." Now we know that he was justified in this 
 statement. He had had every opportunity of collecting 
 information. After travelling with St. Paul, he had in his 
 company visited Jerusalem, where he would be able to 
 collect all the traditions, written and oral, of the early 
 Christian community. He had probably been there or 
 at Caesarea during the whole period of St. Paul's imprison- 
 ment. He had then travelled with him to Rome, where he 
 must have come in contact with other Christians — very 
 probably with both St. Peter and St. Mark. He had had, 
 therefore, abundant opportunites of acquiring information. 
 He also claims to have treated all things accurately from 
 the first. When we come to examine his history, we find 
 
 ^ Dr. Streeter's theory may be found in the Hibbert Journal, vol. xx., 
 No. I, October, 192 1, pp. 103-112, "P>esh Light on the Synoptic Problem." 
 I do not think that in the form in which he has stated it it is correct, as there 
 is not suflicient evidence to justify us in assuming two editions; but it has, 
 I believe, this amount of truth — St. Luke had probably collected much 
 material and planned his work before he came in contact with St. Mark's 
 Gospel, which he would not do until he reached Rome. 
 
22 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 that he has done his best to settle the chronology (perhaps 
 not quite successfully) ; he has arranged the information 
 which he has collected from several independent sources, as 
 far as he could, in chronological order, and he has formed a 
 fairly clear idea of the course of events. In the Acts, in 
 particular, he traces with considerable skill the steps by 
 which the Christian Church developed and expanded, and 
 thus suggests a solution of the problem of the kingdom of 
 heaven. He correlates his history to some extent with 
 contemporary events in secular history; and he shows con- 
 siderable interest in the civic organization of the provinces 
 and cities that he describes. On the whole, he seems to 
 represent a high type of historian. 
 
 Let us turn to the study of his sources. He made use 
 of St. Mark's Gospel, and it is interesting to notice the 
 manner in which he treats it, as we shall find that St. 
 Matthew's method is different. In the first place he inserts 
 it into his narrative in three considerable sections.^ Then, 
 secondly, St. Luke omits a very considerable amount of 
 St. Mark, in particular the whole of a long section begin- 
 ning at chapter vi. 45, and extending to chapter viii. 27. 
 It used to be assumed (as we said above) that the reason 
 of this was that St. Luke had before him an earlier edition 
 of St. Mark which was without this section. Now it is al- 
 most universally agreed that he omits what he does omit 
 because he wishes to economize space, and because most of 
 the incidents in this section have parallels elsewhere in his 
 Gospel. Then, thirdly, when the same event was contained 
 in some other source, he seems to prefer that source to St. 
 Mark. He gives the parable of the mustard seed, the dis- 
 course on casting out devils in the name of Beelzebub, and 
 our Lord's teaching on divorce, in a form taken from The 
 Discourses. He gives quite a different form of the story 
 about the woman who washed our Lord's feet, and omits 
 the story in St. Mark. He has a different account of the 
 visit to Nazareth, and the calling of the first apostles, and 
 of various other events. Fourthly, when St. Mark is his 
 
 ^ One of these extends from iv. 31 to vi. 19, the second from viii. i to 
 ix. 51, the third from xviii. 15 to the end of the Gospel, with much addi- 
 tional information from other sources. 
 
SOURCES OF ST. LUKE 23 
 
 source, he generally reproduces it with considerable accu- 
 racy, but tries to represent the circumstances in which the 
 event occurred. For instance, he adds a short preface to 
 the story of heahng the paralytic man, explaining that there 
 were Pharisees and Doctors of the Law present. This is 
 derived from information contained in the story, but is 
 somewhat ampHfied by the statement that these persons 
 had come from Jerusalem, a point which occurs in St. Mark 
 in later stories only and is probably here inaccurate.^ Then, 
 lastly, I would ask you to notice that although St. Luke 
 had a large amount of information about Jesus derived from 
 several sources, he does not appear to have had anything 
 Hke a consecutive history except St. Mark. If there were 
 other consecutive histories, he certainly preferred St. Mark, 
 and that Gospel provides the main part of his narrative. 
 
 The second source that he had was the collection of The 
 Discourses of our Lord. These he treats in a somewhat 
 different way from St. Matthew. There they are collected 
 together in somewhat lengthy discourses, and combined 
 with matter of a similar character obtained from St. Mark 
 or elsewhere. In St. Luke we have them given much more 
 often in a series of isolated sayings, probably as they oc- 
 curred in the original. These sayings are found mainly in 
 three sections.^ 
 
 But there is still much information which does not come 
 from either of these sources. Whence was it derived? 
 Now, as regards this, we have no documentary assistance. 
 Any conclusion must be purely conjectural. It is interest- 
 ing, therefore, to notice how many writers first reconstruct 
 their sources according to their own imaginations, and 
 then argue from them as if they really existed. We can- 
 not, of course, tell whether most of this information comes 
 
 ^ Compare Lk. v. 17-26 with Mk. ii. 1-12 and iii. 22. 
 
 ^ Chapters iii.-iv. 13; vi. 20-vii. 35; ix. 57-xvii. 33; in the last section 
 mixed up with a good deal of matter probably from other sources. As Dr. 
 Streeter points out, the matter from The Discourses (Q) is generally com- 
 bined with that from other sources, while that from St. Mark appears for 
 the most part in large blocks. This suggests, as he points out, that the 
 combination of Q with other sources had taken place at an earlier stage 
 than the combination with St. Mark. 
 
24 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 from one source or from several, or how far any of it may 
 have been derived from oral traditions. What we do know 
 is that St. Luke was at Jerusalem and at Caesarea about 
 A.D. 60, that he was likely to meet people who had them- 
 selves some knowledge of the events described, and that 
 there were, as he tells us, many collections about our 
 Lord's life. It is probable that he had a third written 
 source, and that perhaps he collected together some oral 
 tradition himself. Some of the additional episodes that he 
 records, or details that he has added, do not compare 
 favourably with St. Mark, and may have come from tradi- 
 tion, but a good deal of his special material seems to be 
 excellent. I should like you, however, to remember how 
 precarious are judgments of this sort, purely subjective as 
 they are.^ 
 
 It has, however, been noticed that there are a considerable 
 number of episodes peculiar to St. Luke which have a defi- 
 nite character of their own: the story of the Good Samari- 
 tan, of the Rich Fool, of the Lost Sheep, of the Lost Piece 
 of Silver, of the Prodigal Son, of the Rich Man and Laza- 
 rus, of the Ten Lepers, of the Pharisee and the Publican, of 
 Zaccheus, of the Penitent Thief. All these emphasize Di- 
 vine Mercy and Forgiveness, Salvation through the Gospel 
 and its extension to those outside the circle of the privi- 
 leged. Their motto is: "The Son of man is come to seek 
 and to save that which is lost." We may conjecture that 
 these stories come from a document put together by some- 
 one to whom Christianity appealed especially as a doctrine 
 of universal salvation. It may, indeed, quite possibly be 
 St. Luke himself that made the selection. The Gospel 
 shows signs throughout that the material was carefully 
 chosen. St. Luke took it from the books which were before 
 him in such a way as to bring out his conception of what 
 Christianity meant. 
 
 We are concerned with St. Luke's historical accuracy. 
 We know in two cases a good deal about the sources that 
 he made use of. We know that they were good sources. 
 
 ^ The greater amount of this special information comes in the section 
 ix. 51-xviii. 14, but mixed up with a good deal of matter apparently from 
 The Discourses. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW 25 
 
 We know that he used them well and with historical insight. 
 On no point can we detect any serious discrepancy. We 
 may conjecture, as regards other sources, that he would use 
 them in the same way, and there is no reason why we 
 should neglect any information because it occurs only in 
 this Gospel.^ 
 
 V 
 
 Of St. Matthew's Gospel we know nothing except what 
 we learn from itself. It probably obtained its name from 
 the collection of The Discourses, which was one of its chief 
 sources, and was, perhaps, correctly ascribed to St. Mat- 
 thew; perhaps, also, from the fact that the tradition pre- 
 served by Papias was supposed to refer to it. That tradi- 
 tion certainly does not apply to the first Gospel, which 
 was not written in Aramaic, but in Greek, and is not 
 the work of an eyewitness. As to its date, it must be later 
 than St. Mark and earlier than St. John, and so nearly con- 
 temporary with St. Luke that probably neither writer had 
 had the opportunity of seeing the work of the other. It 
 must, moreover, have been composed under the influence 
 of the fall of the Jewish state, and of the apocalyptic move- 
 ment that accompanied it. It might have been written 
 during the disturbances which preceded the destruction of 
 the city, but was more probably, perhaps, produced shortly 
 after that event. It was the work of a Jewish Christian or, 
 at any rate, of one closely interested in the relation of 
 Christianity to Judaism. While St. Mark and St. Luke 
 wrote for Gentile readers, St. Matthew wrote for those who 
 were in close contact with the Jewish question. He lays 
 great stress on the argument from prophecy. He dwells on 
 the contrast between the old dispensation and the new. He 
 
 1 There are some interesting remarks on St. Luke's use of St. Mark by 
 Dr. Burkitt in The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. ii., pp. 106-120. He con- 
 cludes (pp. 116, 117) that "in style and treatment it is worthy of its noble 
 subject," that "the sketch which it gives of the Ministry of Jesus is charac- 
 terized by 'general historical truth.'" "Luke is not inventing, but simply 
 retelling, without essential change, tales that are to a large extent founded 
 on the reminiscences of those who had heard the Master." He notices, on 
 the other hand, that he has to a certain extent confused the chronological 
 development in combining different documents, and suggests that the same 
 may have happened in the Acts. 
 
26 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 emphasizes, and possibly exaggerates, the anti- Jewish 
 teaching of our Lord. He is the determined enemy of 
 scribe and Pharisee. He is also more influenced than the 
 other Evangelists by contemporary Jewish thought, and 
 by apocalyptic and eschatological speculations, and this 
 influence may possibly have coloured to some extent the 
 report of our Lord's words. 
 
 If we turn to the structure of the Gospel, we notice a 
 marked contrast to that of St. Luke. Both aUke largely use 
 St. Mark, but while St. Luke introduces the matter derived 
 from him in certain large sections, St. Matthew bases the 
 whole structure of his Gospel upon it, and disposes of the 
 other matter that he has obtained — mostly records of 
 teaching — in eight discourses, some of considerable length, 
 which he inserts at suitable places in the narrative, in 
 some cases amplifying a discourse already existing. It is, 
 I think, clear that for the most part these discourses have 
 been put together by the author from material derived from 
 different sources. A further point to notice is the large 
 number of passages from the Old Testament, introduced 
 to carry out the purpose noted above of showing how 
 prophecy has been fulfilled. 
 
 A difference from St. Luke may also be noticed in the 
 way in which the sources are used. St. Luke, you will 
 remember, leaves out a considerable part of St. Mark. 
 St. Matthew gives almost the whole, but whenever it is 
 possible shortens the narrative, and in doing so generally 
 omits all those living touches which add so much to the 
 vividness of St. Mark. It has been maintained that he 
 does much more than this, and modifies the information he 
 receives in dogmatic interests. The question is, of course, 
 important, as it has been used to detract from the value of 
 the Gospel, and demands some investigation. 
 
 St. Matthew was not a mere copyist. So far as he was 
 selecting and arranging his material, he was doing what any 
 modern historian would do in writing a life of our Lord, 
 designed to bring out what he beHeved to be a true account 
 of Him. Is there any reason to think that in doing this he 
 faked his material? No doubt a modern critic of a certain 
 type, when he sets himself to write a life of our Lord, does 
 
ST. MATTHEW'S USE OF ST. MARK 27 
 
 omit quite unscrupulously everything which conflicts with 
 his conception of that Hfe without thinking it necessary to 
 give any adequate reason. He does not scruple to alter 
 or modify it, and he interprets it to suit the opinions he has 
 formed, often in a way most difficult to justify. A good 
 instance would be the narrative of the healing of the para- 
 lytic, where the whole episode about the forgiveness of sins 
 is omitted, because it is held that our Lord could not have 
 claimed to forgive sins. Now it is natural that a modern 
 critic should suspect an ancient writer who was engaged 
 in composing the life of our Lord of doing the same thing 
 as he does himself, and it is obvious that it would be a 
 serious matter if this is what he did. Are there any good 
 grounds for suspecting it? 
 
 What do we think an historian should do? We do not 
 expect him merely to copy his sources. We expect him to 
 give us a narrative which shows us what he believed 
 happened. We expect him to select his material intelli- 
 gently. He cannot give us everything. But if he leaves 
 out material which would seriously modify our impression, 
 or if he alters it so as to give us something which represents 
 his material quite erroneously, then we should consider him 
 untrustworthy. We know, too, that we must not expect 
 something more than human. There will certainly be 
 some tendency for the opinions of the time when the author 
 wrote to show themselves, and some signs of his own bias. 
 That we must expect and allow for, and we shall find in the 
 case before us some instances of it. The question is really 
 one of degree. 
 
 It has been maintained that St. Matthew persistently 
 exaggerates the miraculous, that he holds a more advanced 
 view of the Person of Christ than St. Mark and modifies 
 the narrative to suit it, and that he omits or softens what 
 might reflect on the character of the disciples. Now the 
 fundamental point is that he shortens the narrative of 
 St. Mark whenever he can, and that leads to his omitting 
 all those references to personal feelings and emotions which 
 are so characteristic of St. Mark; but any real intention or 
 tendency seems to be taken away by the fact that he inserts 
 as well as omits. Is it likely, if the aim of St. Matthew had 
 
28 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 been to eliminate passages which reflected on the disciples, 
 that he would have added the story of St. Peter's attempt 
 to walk on the sea with the rebuke, ''O thou of little faith, 
 wherefore didst thou doubt?" or have added to the story of 
 the rebuke of Peter after his confession, "Thou art a 
 stumbling-block"? Or if he had wished to exaggerate the 
 miraculous would he have systematically cut short every 
 narrative of the miraculous with one or two exceptions? 
 or would it be likely that of the seven sections of St. Mark 
 that he omits there should be four which have reference to 
 the miraculous? It is, I think, possible to maintain that 
 there was some tendency, probably unconscious, in St. 
 Matthew to omit expressions which might seem to be over- 
 familiar from a sense of reverence, but that is the utmost 
 that can be maintained. 
 
 There is one passage on which greater stress has been 
 laid. We are told in St. Mark that one ran unto Jesus and 
 asked Him: "Good Master, what shall I do that I may 
 inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him. Why callest 
 thou me good? there is none good save one, that is, God." 
 In St. Matthew (but not in St. Luke) it becomes: "Mas- 
 ter, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal 
 life? But He said unto him: Why askest thou me con- 
 cerning the good? one is the good." 
 
 It is maintained that the story in St. Mark is quite in- 
 consistent with a behef in our Lord's divinity, that St. Mat- 
 thew perceived this (although St. Luke did not), and that 
 he has therefore changed it with a dogmatic purpose. I 
 doubt whether any of these statements are true. Jesus did 
 not mean to deny any divine functions, but to correct a 
 thoughtless use of a word which meant so much more than 
 its colloquial use implied. St. Matthew corrected it, be- 
 cause the first part of the dialogue seemed to be irrelevant 
 to the rest of the story. 
 
 I feel certain that this instance is made to carry more 
 than it can bear, and that the attempt to find any strong 
 dogmatic tendency in such alterations is not successful. 
 The real question is this, If we read St. Mark through, and 
 then read St. Mark as edited by St. Matthew, shall we find 
 any real difference in the presentment of Jesus? And the 
 
THE SOURCES OF ST. MATTHEW 29 
 
 answer must be, I think, that we cannot. St. Matthew 
 gives the stories to a certain extent in his own words. He 
 shortens them considerably. He occasionally seems to 
 correct what he considers blunders. He sometimes adds 
 information from another source, and some of his narratives 
 show signs of conflation, perhaps, also, he softens harsh or 
 common expressions; but there is no evidence for any 
 dogmatic purpose, deliberate or even unconscious, in the 
 alterations he makes. 
 
 We can in all essentials trust St. Matthew's use of St. 
 Mark, and we may assume that his use of his other sources 
 was similar. One of these was The Discourses. The 
 question arises whether much in St. Matthew which is not 
 contained in St. Luke came from The Discourses. Was the 
 section, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount on the 
 relation of the Old and New Law in The Discourses? It is 
 extremely probable that it was. St. Luke has preserved 
 some few verses, and it was natural that he should omit 
 the subject as hardly interesting to his readers in the same 
 way that it was to the Jewish readers of St. Matthew. 
 But it might, of course, also be argued that the section had 
 been compiled by St. Matthew for that reason, and in any 
 case it shows signs of being a compilation. There is nothing 
 more than probabiHty either way. We may conjecture, 
 but we have no means of ascertaining whether we possess 
 more of this second source than we can recover by compar- 
 ing St. Matthew and St. Luke. 
 
 Of other sources we have no means of even forming a 
 conjecture. There are a considerable number of parables 
 preserved in St. Matthew alone, which are among the most 
 interesting in the Gospels. There are some few incidents 
 which might seem to have come direct from a floating 
 popular tradition. I do not think, however, that we are 
 justified in speaking of this secondary matter in so dis- 
 paraging a way as some do. It seems to me to be most of 
 it of the same stuff as the rest of the Synoptic tradition. 
 St. Luke had other and trustworthy sources besides St. Mark 
 and The Discourses. He tells us that in his time there were 
 many accounts of our Lord's Hfe and words in existence. 
 There is no reason for thinking that St. Matthew had not 
 
30 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 other good sources: and it is reasonable to believe that 
 the information that he gives has come from such a source 
 unless there are obvious reasons for thinking the contrary. 
 
 VI 
 
 We have, then, four primary sources for the life of our 
 Lord: The Discourses so far as we can reconstruct that 
 document, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Matthew. We 
 may safely assume that they all date from the first century, 
 and could not have been written much, if at all, later than 
 A.D. 80, for they were all used by St. John, and that they 
 may have been written a good deal earlier. We have now 
 to enquire what historical value is to be attached to these 
 documents. 
 
 It has been maintained by the German Old Testament 
 writer Wellhausen that the three Gospels may be dis- 
 tinguished as representing three successive stages in the 
 development of Christian doctrine, and especially of the 
 conception "the kingdom of God."^ These opinions are 
 echoed by Dr. Kirsopp Lake, who maintains that the value 
 of the Gospels is to give us an account of the teaching of 
 the Apostolic Church, and that only very partially do any 
 of them give us information about the teaching of Jesus. 
 The simple eschatological meaning of the kingdom is, it is 
 alleged, found in St. Mark; in St. Matthew it means the 
 Church, clearly a later development, and the subject-matter 
 of that Gospel is inspired by the organization of the Apos- 
 tohc Church; in St. Luke the meaning is rather that of the 
 unseen Christian Hfe, "The kingdom of God is within you." 
 
 It must be remembered that Wellhausen approaches the 
 study of the New Testament with the presuppositions 
 which his work on the Old Testament has given him. 
 There, completing what former scholars had begun, he had 
 been able to distinguish three or four great strata of ma- 
 terial in the Pentateuch, which he held (and his contention 
 has been generally accepted) to represent successive stages 
 
 ^ J. Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei erslen Evangelien. (Zweite Aus- 
 gabe, Berlin, 191 1). By far the most useful summary of criticism of this 
 type for English readers is that given by Montefiore in The Synoptic 
 Gospels (London, 1909). 
 
WELLHAUSEN ON THE GOSPELS 31 
 
 in the development of the religion of Israel. Coming to the 
 study of the New Testament, he is naturally inclined to 
 pursue the same method of investigation and to expect the 
 same results. The question is whether he is justified either in 
 his method or in his expectation. The position is really very 
 different. There the different documents were easily dis- 
 tinguishable by marked differences of style. There were 
 centuries during which they were composed. They are the 
 product of a long history. It is, therefore, quite reasonable 
 to suppose that there may be sufficient signs of growth for 
 the process to be discovered. But is it probable that the 
 same can be said of documents which were produced within 
 thirty years (at the most) of one another? It hardly seems so. 
 
 Now it may quite reasonably be admitted that both St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke have written their Gospels with the 
 interest of the Christian community before them. It is dif- 
 ficult to conceive how they could have done anything else. 
 It is equally natural that in selecting the material at their 
 disposal they should choose that which was most suitable to 
 their circumstances. St. Matthew, therefore, writing for 
 Jewish Christians, retains many passages dealing with Jew- 
 ish controversy which St. Luke discards. St. Matthew, 
 writing under the dominant influence of the last agonies of 
 Jerusalem, emphasizes, probably over-emphasizes, the escha- 
 tological element in our Lord's teaching. St. Luke selects 
 particularly the stories which illustrate our Lord's care for 
 the outcast and sinner. Nor, again, would one expect that 
 either Evangelist would be entirely free from the influences 
 of his own time. For example, it is quite possible that St. 
 Matthew's warning against false prophets, "Beware of false 
 prophets which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly 
 are ravening wolves,"^ is a later application of our Lord's 
 words which follow. All such things are quite probable. 
 
 But Wellhausen means much more than this. He means 
 that a large part of the teaching ascribed to our Lord in 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke did not come from Him, but 
 was the creation of the Apostolic Church. This he holds 
 particularly of the teaching about "the Kingdom" which 
 he makes apparently the crucial point. Now, if he were able 
 1 Mt. vii. 15, 16. 
 
32 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 to prove the use of "the Kingdom" for "the Church" 
 occurred only in later documents, he might have something 
 substantial to go on; but that he cannot do. The parable 
 of the mustard seed occurs in both the earliest sources, and 
 must refer to some such conception of the Kingdom as is 
 implied by the idea of the Church. So far, in fact, as there 
 is any development it is in the other direction. The apoca- 
 lyptic or eschatological idea is much more developed in 
 St. Matthew than in the other Gospels. For instance, in 
 St. Mark we read: "Verily I say unto you, there be some 
 of those standing here which shall in no wise taste of death 
 till they see the kingdom of God come with power." ^ 
 These words are, it may be noted, quite neutral in their 
 content, and are compatible with any interpretation of the 
 kingdom. But in St. Matthew we read, "till they see the 
 Son of man coming in his kingdom."^ Here there can be 
 no doubt the words are intended to apply to the Parousia. 
 It will be found, also, on examination that the number of 
 instances in which "the Kingdom" must be interpreted in 
 an apocalyptic sense is far greater in St. Matthew than in 
 any other Gospel. The fact is that Wellhausen's generaliza- 
 tion is not sound, and can only be supported in defiance of 
 the evidence.^ 
 
 In a similar way he contends not only that St. Mark is 
 prior to St. Matthew and St. Luke, and that the history, as 
 recorded in that Gospel, is more authentic, but that St. 
 Mark may be looked upon as almost our only authority. 
 St. Mark, it is contended, inserted in his Gospel everything 
 that was known to him about our Lord, not only narrative, 
 but teaching. It is impossible, it is said, to believe that he 
 left out anything contained in other sources. In speeches, 
 as well as in narrative, his account is prior. The Sermon 
 on the Mount was not only unknown to him, but is incon- 
 sistent with what he tells us about Jesus. The same is true 
 of the Lord's Prayer. There may be a few fragments of 
 early tradition in the other Gospels, but most of what they 
 give us is neither authentic nor historical.'* Now as far as I 
 
 1 Mk. ix. I. 2 Mt. xvi. 28. 
 
 ^ This subject is worked out at greater length in Chapter VI. 
 ^ Wellhausen, op. cit., pp. 77, 78. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 33 
 
 can see there is no proof given in support of these asser- 
 tions. They seem to be mere dogmatism. So far as I can 
 judge, most of the material in the later Gospels is not only 
 as early, but often, perhaps, more original that what is 
 contained in St. Mark. 
 
 Let us now put aside all these and suchlike negative 
 theories which seem to have very little to commend them, 
 and approach the definite question whether we have good 
 grounds for thinking that the great bulk of the material 
 contained in the Synoptic Gospels gives us authentic in- 
 formation about our Lord's life and teaching? What can 
 we learn from the character of the contents? I would 
 suggest to you the following points. First, the narrative 
 of these books reflects the political and social conditions 
 which prevailed in Palestine before the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, and the change made by that event was so 
 great that narratives such as these could not have been 
 composed at a later time. Then, secondly, the religious 
 ideas implied are those of a Judaism which was speedily 
 transformed. As regards a large part of the narrative also, 
 the life that is behind it is quite clearly that of Galilee and 
 not of Jerusalem. Then, thirdly, the teaching, both as re- 
 gards its content and its phraseology, represents something 
 but httle affected by later Christian theology. It is 
 markedly different from what was built up afterwards by 
 the early Church on the basis of our Lord's words. 
 
 You will find in Dr. Sanday's Bampton Lectures on In- 
 spiration an admirable investigation of the first of the 
 points just enumerated. He depicts the tremendous in- 
 fluence of that world-shaking catastrophe, the fall of Jeru- 
 salem, and then he proceeds: 
 
 *'Was there ever an easier problem for the critic to decide 
 whether the sayings and narratives which lie before him 
 come from the one side of this chasm or the other? 'If 
 therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there 
 rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, 
 leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first 
 be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy 
 gift.' 'Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say. Whoso- 
 ever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whoso- 
 
34 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 ever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor. 
 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the 
 temple that hath sanctified the gold?' A leper is cleansed: 
 'And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go 
 thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that 
 Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.' 'And when 
 the days of their purification according to the law of Moses 
 were fulfilled, they brought Him up to Jerusalem, to pre- 
 sent Him to the Lord . . . and to offer a sacrifice accord- 
 ing to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of 
 turtle doves or two young pigeons.' 'And there was one 
 Anna, a prophetess . . . which departed not from the 
 temple, worshipping with fasting and supplications night 
 and day. And coming up at that very hour she gave 
 thanks unto God, and spake of Him to all them that were 
 looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.' 'And they send 
 unto Him certain of the Pharisees and the Herodians, that 
 they might catch Him in talk. And when they were come 
 they say unto Him ... Is it lawful to give tribute unto 
 Caesar or not? ' ' Verily I say unto you. Ye shall not have gone 
 through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come? ' " ^ 
 
 It may be noticed that the greater number of these in- 
 stances are taken from the secondary matter of the Gos- 
 pels, and represent therefore that portion which could 
 generally be looked upon as later. As regards the strong 
 Galilaean element, I shall discuss that when I speak of the 
 Education of Jesus.^ It will, I think, be found that there 
 is a remarkable homogeneity of style and method in the 
 greater part of our Lord's teaching which impHes an honio- 
 geneity of source. 
 
 Then as regards the teaching. On the one side we have 
 considerable knowledge of the thoughts and ideas of con- 
 temporary Judaism. There are many expressions and 
 phrases which were clearly current at the time. All these 
 are reflected in the Gospel teaching. It takes its place as 
 something which, humanly speaking, could only have been 
 produced at that period of the world's history and in 
 
 1 Inspiration. Eight Lectures on the Early History and Origin of the Doc- 
 trine of Biblical Inspiration. Being the Bampton Lectures for 1893, by W. 
 Sanday (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1893), pp. 284, 285. 
 
 2 See chapter II. 
 
THE TEACHING OF THE GOSPEL 35 
 
 Palestine. Equally interesting is the contrast which the 
 Gospels offer with later Christian development. We know 
 from the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles the teach- 
 ing of the first generation of Christians. It is probable 
 that the majority of the Epistles were written before our 
 Gospels took their present form. St. Mark and St. Luke 
 were written for Gentile readers, and there are signs that 
 these Gospels were in some ways adapted to the needs of 
 those for whom they wrote, but there are few signs of adap- 
 tation in the actual teaching of Jesus as it is reported in 
 them. Such an expression as "the Son of man" never oc- 
 curs in the Epistles; it occurs constantly in the Gospels, 
 and we know that it was used in later Judaism. The "king- 
 dom of heaven" would have been almost meaningless in 
 Athens or Corinth. It might even have been dangerous. 
 Only occasionally do we find it in the Epistles, and then 
 clearly as a recognized archaism. It is the normal expres- 
 sion in the Gospels. 
 
 And there are few or no anachronisms. When the Gos- 
 pels were written the Christian Church existed as an or- 
 ganized society. It would inevitably have been the case 
 that if much of the Gospel teaching had originated at a 
 time after the death of our Lord, it would have reflected 
 the conditions of the Christian Society. But it is singularly 
 difficult to discover even possible anachronisms. It has 
 been maintained that we find one such in the introduction 
 of the word ecclesia in St. Matthew. It may be so, al- 
 though personally I see no reason why our Lord should not 
 have used it, as it is an expression which comes straight 
 from the Psalms. But even if it has come into the narra- 
 tive later, we must notice how the words that accompany 
 it concerning "binding and loosing," and the phraseology 
 used in the promise to St. Peter, are not derived from 
 Christian teaching, but are entirely Jewish in their associa- 
 tions. Perhaps the most marked contrast between the lan- 
 guage of the Gospels and that of later Christianity is the 
 rare occurrence in the words of Our Lord of any reference 
 to the Spirit. I know nothing which could be a more con- 
 vincing proof of the authenticity of the teaching. The 
 Apostolic period was the period of the Spirit. St. Luke 
 
 4 
 
36 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 wrote two works. In the second, which deals with the 
 Apostolic Church, references to the work of the Spirit 
 abound; in the former they occur but seldom, and hardly at 
 all in the words of Jesus. Whereas in St. John's Gospel (which, 
 whatever we may think of it, clearly presents a later 
 phraseology) there are important references to the Spirit, in 
 the Synoptic Gospels they are but few. The Synoptic nar- 
 ratives represent a pre-apostolic stratum of Christian teaching. 
 
 I hope that what I have said may suggest to you that we 
 have strong grounds for thinking that in the Synoptic 
 Gospels we have authentic information about the life and 
 teaching of Jesus. The Gospels, as we have them, are the 
 product of the second generation of Christians; they con- 
 tain the records of our Lord's life as they were written 
 down by the first generation, and as they had been delivered 
 orally from the beginning. A further test of this authenticity 
 will be furnished, if we are able to construct out of them some 
 homogeneous account of the life and teaching of our Lord. 
 
 It remains to ask how we should use them. It is the 
 custom to lay great stress on what is contained in St. Mark 
 or in The Discourses, or in both, and to depreciate the matter 
 peculiar to St. Luke, and still more that in St. Matthew, 
 I doubt very much whether that attitude is really justified. 
 I certainly think that it has been carried too far. There 
 are, no doubt, both in St. Matthew and in St. Luke, some 
 narratives which may represent a doubtful tradition; the 
 same is probably true of St. Mark. There are, however, 
 no good reasons for thinking that the special source (what- 
 ever it may have been) of St. Luke, and the sources from 
 which St. Matthew derived the bulk of his peculiar teach- 
 ing, were inferior to the other two sources that we possess. 
 If Dr. Streeter's conjectures have anything in them (and 
 they help, as we have seen, to solve certain problems), 
 St. Luke came across his special source a considerable 
 time before he came across St. Mark, very probably, in 
 fact, before St. Mark was written. It is, therefore, not 
 only earlier in date, but perhaps in some ways more origi- 
 nal. These facts suggest a different method. We have 
 really, at least, four independent sources. We have St. 
 Mark, The Discourses, St. Luke's special source, and St. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN 37 
 
 Matthew's source or sources. We must give the greater 
 weight to such aspects of our Lord's teaching as may be 
 gathered from all these sources, or at any rate may har- 
 monize with what they tell us. Isolated teaching we shall 
 be more cautious in admitting. I cannot, however, see any 
 justification for the statement which I find so confidently 
 made that the parables of the tares or of the sheep and 
 goats, to take two instances, are not authentic. In style 
 and subject-matter alike they harmonize with other teach- 
 ing of our Lord, and they fill in details in the picture which 
 we construct from all these sources. We shall gradually, 
 from the evidence before us, construct our story. It will be 
 the consistency of the whole which will be some verification 
 of our process. What I think scientific criticism would cer- 
 tainly forbid would be to rule out any aspects of life and 
 teaching on a priori grounds. It may be quite possible 
 that when we have finished we may find alien elements 
 which refuse to combine. If we do, we shall rightly dis- 
 card them. What is unscientific is to begin by discarding. 
 
 VII 
 
 We come now to St. John's Gospel. You will recognize 
 that at present there is nothing very convincing to be said 
 about it. The whole critical question is in confusion, and 
 neither those who hold the traditional view nor their op- 
 ponents are able to put forward a theory which commands 
 assent. It is quite clear from external testimony that a 
 date much later than 100 a.d. is quite impossible. In fact, 
 it may be doubted if the Gospel can be as late as that. 
 This much the investigations of the last century appear 
 to have established. Then, again, the tradition of the 
 Johannine authorship is very strong. On the other hand, 
 a study of its contents places serious difficulties in the way 
 of ascribing it directly to a contemporary and first-hand 
 authority. It differs so remarkably from the Synoptic 
 Gospels. 
 
 The style of the speeches is so different. There are 
 so many apparent anachronisms. The language is just 
 what the language of the Synoptists is not, influenced 
 by later theology. I do not say that these characteristics 
 
38 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 present insuperable objections to the traditional theory, 
 but they demand consideration. Then, again, persistent 
 arguments are brought forward to show that John, the son 
 of Zebedee, so far from living to a great age and being the 
 last survivor of the apostolic band, had really been put to 
 death by the Jews in the early days of the Church, prob- 
 ably at the same time as his brother James. Again, I do 
 not think the arguments convincing, but they throw much 
 uncertainty over the whole problem. Some have attempted 
 to make use of John the presbyter to solve the problem. 
 Some have invented a beloved disciple a Jerusalem con- 
 vert. Some have thought that the beloved disciple was 
 never intended to be a real person, but was an ideal cre- 
 ation, that person who had never existed who was able to 
 really understand his Master. I am not going now to 
 attempt to solve these problems, but I am going to look 
 at the Gospel from another point of view, and setting 
 aside entirely the question of authorship, ask whether it 
 shows signs of containing independent and sound historical 
 tradition. 
 
 To begin with, let me say that we may, I think, be 
 satisfied that so far as concerns everything except the 
 language the book is not Greek. In a sense, indeed, this is 
 true even of the language, for the style of St. John's Gospel 
 is such that no real Greek would ever have written it. The 
 Dean of St. Paul's has told us that the fourth Gospel may 
 be looked upon as a handbook to a Greek mystery religion. 
 There is, I believe, no justification at all for such a state- 
 ment. The author of the Gospel was a Jew, whose thoughts 
 and ideas were drawn almost exclusively from Jewish 
 sources. Even the famous term the Logos has antecedents, 
 as Westcott pointed out, not only in the Old Testament, 
 but in Rabbinical Judaism, and it is not probable that the 
 author of the Gospel went further afield than the Jew Philo 
 or some follower of his for the Hellenic colouring (if, in- 
 deed, there be such) in the use of the word. The style is 
 throughout Semitic, and as Dr. Burney has shown, it may 
 be easily retranslated into Aramaic.^ That does not, I 
 
 1 The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, by the Rev. C. F. Burney, 
 M.A., D.Litt. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1922). Dr. Burney's work is 
 
ST. JOHN AND THE SYNOPTICS 39 
 
 think, mean, as he suggests, that there was an Aramaic 
 original, but that the author, an Aramaic-speaking Jew, 
 thought in that language, and had created for himself this 
 somewhat curious Greek medium for expressing his 
 thoughts. Moreover, the tendency of all recent investiga- 
 tion has been to emphasize more decisively how much in 
 the Gospel harmonizes with traditional Jewish thought. 
 Many parallels to its teaching may be found in the Midrash. 
 The hfe and society that is depicted is that of Jerusalem 
 when the Temple was standing. Its whole contents belong 
 to an epoch which passed away when Jerusalem was de- 
 stroyed. 
 
 If we turn to the contents there are, I think, quite clear 
 signs that the author was acquainted with all the three 
 Synoptic Gospels. He might use them for the incidents 
 that he described, which were almost always introduced as 
 the occasion of instruction, and to a certain extent he has 
 done so; but the interesting fact is that he generally pre- 
 fers to tell us something which they did not, and even 
 when he does follow them he adds information, or even ap- 
 pears to be silently correcting them. Was all this imagina- 
 tive reconstruction, as some have held, or had the author 
 independent knowledge, whether gained from tradition, or 
 from written sources, or from his own personal acquaint- 
 ance with the events that he describes? 
 
 Let us examine some of the narratives. I will begin with 
 the story of the feeding of the multitude. Here a statement 
 is made, which is not in the other Gospels, and is clearly 
 of great importance. We are told that the people wished to 
 make Jesus a king. Now this is hardly a trait which the 
 writer would have been likely to invent or to imagine. It 
 has little to do with his purpose in narrating the incident, 
 which was mainly as an introduction to the discourse on 
 the Bread of Life. Yet, if it be true, it throws great light 
 'on the story as we have it in the Synoptic Gospels. It 
 helps to make the narrative of the ministry comprehensible. 
 It explains the crisis that had been reached. The full 
 
 one of great importance. It seems to me at least sufficient to prove that 
 the author thought in Semitic form, and that the affinities of his subject- 
 matter are Jewish and not Hellenic. 
 
40 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 meaning will come out in our narrative; the point I wish to 
 emphasize now is that here we have information which is 
 independent, which has the appearance of being authentic, 
 and was not hkely to have been invented by the author.^ 
 
 So, again, if we turn to the beginning of the Gospel, we 
 learn that there was an early connection between the dis- 
 ciples of Jesus and John, that some of them had been fol- 
 lowers of John, and that Jesus Himself had been more or 
 less associated with the preaching of John. Now all this 
 seems to supplement what we read in the Synoptic Gospels. 
 Why is it that St. Mark tells us that it was after John was 
 delivered up that Jesus came to Galilee? Surely this implies 
 that there had been a close connection between the two, 
 just as we are told in St. John's narrative. Why, again, 
 does St. Peter in the Acts, when he describes the qualifica- 
 tion of an apostle, state that their witness began with the 
 baptism of John? Surely that impKes that the disciples of 
 Jesus were drawn from those who had followed the Baptist. 
 Here, again, we seem to have authentic information.^ 
 
 Or let us turn to the other end of the ministry. Accord- 
 ing to St. John's Gospel, our Lord was first brought before 
 Annas. Now for many reasons this was extremely prob- 
 able. Annas was the power behind the throne. High priest 
 himself for only a short time, owing probably to the Roman 
 fear of the man who was too strong, his sons held the office 
 in succession, and Caiaphas was his son-in-law. Moreover, 
 if, as tradition says, the unlawful gains from the traffic in the 
 Temple court were the chief source of the wealth of his 
 family, he had a personal grievance. The incident is quite 
 probable, and it is a little difficult to see why it should have 
 been invented. Here, again, we seem to have good in- 
 formation. 
 
 A still more important point is the date of the crucifixion. 
 That we mentioned as one of the great difficulties in the story 
 of St. Mark. It is difficult to believe that the trial and 
 crucifixion should have taken place on the actual day of 
 the Passover. It is quite natural that the indecent haste 
 which characterized the trial of our Lord arose from the 
 desire that it should be over before the festival began. 
 1 See below, Chapter VII. ^ See Chapter III. 
 
TEACHING IN ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL 41 
 
 Here, again, the narrative of St. John appears to preserve 
 an authentic tradition. 
 
 There are other narratives, also, which present similar 
 signs of authenticity. It is clear that our account of the 
 Galilaean narrative is very fragmentary and presents large 
 gaps. Visits to Jerusalem, also, are certainly probable; 
 Jesus, as a loyal Jew, would wish to keep the feasts. We 
 have, therefore, I hold, reason for thinking that (whatever 
 opinion we hold about the authorship of the fourth Gospel) 
 it certainly contains authentic and independent tradition. 
 We know that there must have been a much larger 
 amount remembered about Jesus than is contained in the 
 other three Gospels. We know that there were other 
 sources of written information available. Much might be 
 explained if it were true that the author or source of the 
 Gospel was an elderly disciple who combined with a vivid 
 memory of some events a great power of spiritual insight. 
 The point that is important for our purpose and that I 
 wish to emphasize is that we have in the fourth Gospel 
 information which we may use to supplement and illustrate 
 what we obtain from other sources. 
 
 As regards the teaching, there can, I think, be httle 
 doubt that, as we have it, it represents a development; 
 that it has been translated into the language and forms of 
 thought of a later time; that it is influenced in a way that 
 the teaching in the other Gospels is not by the theological 
 ideas and expressions which grew up in the ApostoKc 
 Church. But having recognized so much, we may still 
 hold that it represents a real tradition. The writer knew 
 and understood our Lord's teaching, and interpreted it in a 
 way which would harmonize with the thought of his own 
 time. He wished us to understand what seemed to him to 
 have been Our Lord's real meaning. No doubt in doing 
 this he would go beyond the actual words of Jesus, but that 
 does not mean that his knowledge was not derived from a 
 good source nor his interpretations correct. 
 
 Our method of using the Gospel must, I am afraid, at 
 present be a somewhat eclectic one. Our aim is to write 
 a history, not a theology. We want to know what Jesus 
 actually did and said, and how He said it. We must be 
 
42 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 prepared, therefore, to judge each incident on its merits, 
 and see how far it is possible to combine it with the Syn- 
 optic narrative. We have, indeed, to do that to a certain 
 extent in relation to the earlier Gospels. So as regards the 
 teaching. We can use it particularly when it seems to bring 
 out and strengthen the Synoptic tradition. Very often it 
 gives a meaning to it. But we have to be on our guard 
 against developments which are natural and represent the 
 purpose of our Lord's Ministry, but do not represent what 
 He actually said. We shall not understand the method of 
 that ministry if we confuse legitimate development with ac- 
 tual teaching. Our attitude must be the same as that 
 habitual in writing secular history. We have to construct 
 our picture from all material available, and estimate the 
 relative value of different authorities. We must not begin 
 our work by ruhng any out. 
 
 VIII 
 
 Of the secondary sources which have been enumerated 
 above I need not say anything further, with the exception 
 of the evidence of the Apostolic Church. You will find it 
 often asserted that the Gospels were the creation of the 
 Christian Church — "Mark," say Dr. Kirsopp Lake and 
 Dr. Foakes Jackson, "is far more a primary authority for 
 the thought of the ApostoHc Age than for the Hfe of Jesus. 
 We have, indeed, no better authority; but it must be taken 
 for what it is."^ It may be hoped that the investigations 
 just concluded will constitute some evidence towards 
 throwing doubt on this proposition, but a question is raised 
 which must be often in our minds. If the Church created 
 the Gospels, what created the Church? The problem before 
 anyone who attempts to write about the life of Jesus is to 
 explain the Apostolic Church and the fact of Christianity. 
 The cause for these remarkable phenomena must be one 
 really sufficient. 
 
 What this problem means a single illustration will dis- 
 close. In the two Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians 
 we have documents of whose date, authorship, and authen- 
 ticity there can be no doubt. From them we can get a 
 
 ^ The Beginnings of Christianity, vol. i., p. 268. 
 
THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH 43 
 
 fairly clear and sufficient account of what was the character 
 of a nascent Christianity. We can put together a picture 
 of the Christian Church at that time. We can learn its be- 
 liefs, its theology, and its ethics. The picture that is pre- 
 sented to us is a remarkable one; the religious, spiritual 
 and moral Hfe there portrayed represent a most remarkable 
 human achievement. We can compare it with anything 
 that ever existed before, whether Jewish or Gentile, and 
 there is nothing like it. A complete revolution in thought 
 and hfe has been created. It has grown up in the short 
 space of some twenty-five years. It was undoubtedly the 
 result of the Hfe and teaching of Jesus. We must so de- 
 scribe that life as to account for this new spiritual epoch. 
 
 In the literature of the ApostoHc Church we find some 
 striking new ideas. One is the new position which the word 
 agape or love and the ideas that it represents have attained. 
 The word is almost new. The idea is in quite a novel form. 
 We find it clearly represented as the great motive of life in 
 St. Paul, we find it in St. John and St. Peter. It becomes 
 at once a normal and the most essential part of Christian 
 ethics. There is nothing similar in any pre-Christian writ- 
 ings Jewish or Gentile. When we turn to our sources we 
 find it part of the teaching of Jesus, although in St. Mark, 
 at any rate, the reference to it is slight. Yet this reference 
 is sufficient to show that it came from the teaching of 
 Jesus himself, and enables us to see how Christian ethical 
 teaching was created by the words of its founder. 
 
 In the same way we have in this apostolic literature a 
 remarkable conception of the person of Jesus. The several 
 writers have each their own character; their manner of 
 expression is not uniform, but they all agree in depicting a 
 person quite different from anything that had ever appeared 
 elsewhere. Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfilment of Jewish 
 expectations; He is the Son of God; He is the Lord; He is 
 the Saviour of Mankind; He is the source of life and light 
 to the world; He is the object of human devotion and 
 adoration; His coming has created a new epoch in the 
 world. Human nature has been transformed. Human hfe 
 has a higher meaning. There is no limitation to the wonder 
 and glory that is ascribed to Him. All this happened with- 
 
44 THE CRITICAL ATTITUDE 
 
 in the lifetime of many that knew his earthly life. Almost 
 the complete development, if it be a development, occurs 
 within a generation. Who or what was He that He could 
 be so spoken of amongst those who knew Him? 
 
 A Christian Church grew up. It began in Jerusalem, 
 but it spread with extreme rapidity throughout the world. 
 Wherever it appeared it aroused extraordinary devotion 
 and enthusiasm among those who became members of it. 
 They were ready to give themselves up for this new cause 
 even unto death. Their whole life was transformed. Their 
 ideas were marvellously changed. They had attained a new 
 power. All this was believed to be owing to the life and 
 teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. Who and what was He 
 that He could produce this new life? 
 
 I have very shortly thus sketched the problem that is 
 before us. We have certain documents which describe to 
 us the life of Jesus. We have from these to try to imagine 
 what He was, remembering what the generation of those 
 who had known Him thought of Him, and what He made 
 them become. The problem of Jesus is the problem of 
 Christianity. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 PALESTINE CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS AT THE TIME OF 
 THE CHRISTL\N ERA 
 
 Those educated in the profound peace of Victorian England 
 have in the last four years learnt to understand the joy and 
 hope with which the civilized world greeted the establish- 
 ment of the Augustan age.^ For more than three years we 
 have seen Europe and Asia devastated by the horrors of 
 war. We have seen France and Belguim, Poland and 
 Galicia, Serbia, Roumania, Italy, overrun by hostile armies, 
 their wealth plundered and their people enslaved. We have 
 seen the Christians of Armenia and Syria massacred. We 
 are watching the chaos of a great revolution in the most 
 conservative country of Europe. A new and hideous piracy 
 has endangered the seas. The armies that have been 
 fighting are greater than history has recorded or imagined. 
 There are over 40,000,000 men under arms. More than 
 5,000,000 have laid down their lives. The hope of a genera- 
 tion has been destroyed. No wonder there is a great long- 
 ing for peace, and men, stirred by the scenes which they 
 have witnessed and the contest in which they have fought, 
 are dreaming of a new Europe and a reconstructed world. 
 How infinitely greater must have been the longing for 
 peace during the birth travail of the Roman Empire! For 
 a hundred years at home and abroad the civilized world had 
 endured a continuous succession of wars, of murders, of 
 rebelhons and fratricidal strife. Their great men had been 
 murdered, from the Gracchi to Caesar and Cicero. They 
 had seen twelve civil wars and five great massacres. They 
 might have walked for 150 miles along the highway from 
 Rome to Capua and seen, extending the whole distance, the 
 crosses bearing the bodies of the captured gladiators. They 
 
 1 This chapter was written in the spring of 191 8. I have not thought 
 it necessary to rewrite this passage. 
 
 45 
 
46 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 had seen the seas teeming with pirates, the East in the 
 hands of barbarians, the Roman citizens of the provinces 
 massacred. The forum had resounded with the complaints 
 of the plundered provinces, and the country far and wide 
 revealed the decay of agriculture and of honest industry.^ 
 No wonder the victory of Caesar and the generosity that he 
 exhibited — it seemed the sign of a new age — roused lofty 
 hopes. His murder dashed them to the ground. Expecta- 
 tions were concentrated on his heir, the young Octavius. 
 Brundisium brought peace, but a peace which was falla- 
 cious. At length Actium brought victory and peace. The 
 gates of Janus were closed. 
 
 The world enjoyed at last freedom from war, a stable 
 government, a well-ordered commonwealth, seas free for 
 peaceful commerce, agriculture and industry restored. An 
 outburst of material prosperity heralded the dawn of a new 
 age, and Virgil, the poet of Roman greatness in the past, 
 was the prophet of a recreated world." When in 40 B.C. 
 the rulers of the world had made peace at Brundisium, and 
 Polio, the poet, was consul, and Augustus was expecting 
 the birth of an heir, he sang how the last aeon of the world's 
 history, the kingdom of God that the Cumaean sibil fore- 
 told, had now come. A new cycle of the ages had begun. 
 The ancient kingdom of Saturn would be restored. The 
 age of gold was at hand. Justice once more would visit the 
 earth she had so long deserted. From heaven would de- 
 scend a child of promise. The whole earth rejoiced at his 
 coming, and the heavens greeted the advent of the heaven- 
 sent ruler who would complete the work his father had be- 
 gun. A new peace would fall on the world. The strife of 
 animals, as of men, would end. All evil things would cease 
 
 1 I am indebted for this paragraph to Professor Conway, Virgil's Mes- 
 sianic Eclogue, p. 33. 
 
 ^ The EngUsh reader may learn all that is necessary about the Fourth 
 Eclogue of Virgil in Virgil's Messianic Eclogue, its Meaning, Occasion, and 
 Sources, three studies by Joseph B. Mayor, W. Warde Fowler, R. S. Con- 
 way, with the text of the eclogue and a verse translation by R. S. Conway 
 (London: John Murray, 1907). He will find the problems treated with 
 learning, insight, and intelligence, and if he desires to wander further into 
 the literature of the subject, which is vast, it will serve him as an intro- 
 duction. 
 
THE AUGUSTAN PEACE 47 
 
 to hurt. The earth would bear more rich and varied fruits, 
 and the bounty of nature would imitate all the arts of man, 
 Virgil never loses faith in a new world of justice, mercy, and 
 peace inaugurated by the divine Julian race.^ 
 
 Our hopes of the future are seldom realized in the way 
 that we form them. We seldom attain what we desire. 
 But however different the result may be from our anticipa- 
 tions, our spiritual aspirations are not in vain. The son 
 whose birth Augustus expected and Virgil foretold was 
 never born. The Roman Empire fulfilled its part in the 
 world's history, and prepared the way, as we shall have to 
 narrate, for the rise and triumph of Christianity, but it was 
 a poor reflection of the hopes of the poet. Yet Virgil was 
 all unconsciously the prophet of the greatest spiritual revo- 
 lution the world had seen; he has attained a fame which 
 he could not have understood as the herald of a new reli- 
 gion, and his poem has played an all unexpected part in 
 the religious history of the world. 
 
 In contrast to the joy with which the world greeted the 
 new Empire was the attitude of the Jews in Palestine — an 
 attitude of sullen resistance. It took the form of opposi- 
 tion to whatever government they might have. When they 
 were under their own Hasmonaean kings there was no lan- 
 guage too strong to express their hatred. Herod succeeded 
 and, in a vulgar Eastern way, reproduced for his kingdom 
 the law and order, the peace and material prosperity, that 
 Augustus had given the world; yet their hatred of him and 
 his family was profound. They demanded to Hve accord- 
 ing to their own laws under the immediate rule of the 
 Romans. When granted their request, they exhibited for 
 the priestly aristocracy that governed them the most pro- 
 found contempt, and Roman rule produced a bitter oppo- 
 sition which consolidated into the sect of the Zealots, now 
 suppressed, now bursting out afresh, continued until the 
 final rebellion and the indescribable horrors of the fall of 
 Jerusalem. It may be held that this attitude of resentment 
 was due to the unfortunate character of the rulers. That 
 no doubt increased the evil, but it was not the cause. 
 
 1 Compare Virgil, Eel, iv., 4-7, 50-53; ix., 4-7; Aen., i., 291-294; vi., 
 792-795; 852-854. 
 
48 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 Rather the harshness of the rule was largely the result of 
 the turbulence of the people, which was of a character 
 beyond the endurance of any ordinary ruler. The funda- 
 mental cause was the revolt of a religious sense, often no 
 doubt much perverted, against a purely material and en- 
 tirely irreligious civilization. It must be recognized that 
 the Roman Empire was in its essence unspiritual — so the 
 literature of the Augustan age reveals it. And if Virgil per- 
 haps throws a halo of romance around it, that was an ideal- 
 ism which few shared, Augustus accomplished his task, 
 but he had no vision himself, and gave no inspiration to 
 the world that he had recreated. The old religions were de- 
 stroyed. The new state rehgion of the imperial cult could 
 never arouse any conviction. To many it was blasphemous, 
 to many ridiculous. It produced at best a certain social 
 cohesion. The Empire gave law and order and stabihty; 
 it secured the merchant his gains; it enabled the farmer 
 to sow in peace; it made a life of pleasure easy; but it 
 had destroyed the old ideals and could not create new ones. 
 
 The world, weary of disorder, acquiesced in the loss of 
 liberty; disillusioned and without faith, it acquiesced in 
 religious unreaHty. There were few that were dissatisfied. 
 But the Jew had a real belief and cherished his hope and 
 his faith. The result was twofold. There were those who 
 clung to old poUtical aims. They were zealous, but with a 
 perverted zeal. They never accepted the necessity of Roman 
 rule. They had to submit to force, but they never neg- 
 lected an opportunity of resistance. The slightest inci- 
 dent fanned the flame. So the next seventy years are the 
 history of an opposition, now concealed, now open, of a 
 destructive fire at times smouldering, at times breaking out 
 into flame, until it ended in the final conflagration. 
 
 But side by side with this was another history. There 
 were many who cherished the most spiritual ideals of Israel. 
 In all the turmoil and strife these were never lost. They 
 preserved the loftiest hopes of the Prophets, and practised 
 the profound religion of the Psalms. They lived in piety 
 and obscurity. To them a message came, a gospel of good 
 tidings, which could satisfy their hopes, which showed them 
 how religion could accept the rule of Rome, and enabled 
 
THE DEATH OF HEROD 49 
 
 them to fulfil the mission that their nation had to accom- 
 pUsh for the world. 
 
 These are the two threads of history we have to follow. 
 
 At the beginning of the Christian era the Jewish nation 
 was approaching its end. The brilliant episode of the 
 Maccabees had ended in moral failure and disillusionment. 
 The campaign of Pompey in the east had destroyed the 
 reality of independence, though the appearance might still 
 remain. Herod the Great, during his long reign (37-4 B.C.), 
 had suppressed disorder, established a strong rule, created 
 material prosperity, introduced some measure of Greco- 
 Roman civiUzation, and brought his kingdom into Hne with 
 the rest of the Empire. He had partly conciHated, partly 
 suppressed, often with a fierce ruthlessness, the religious 
 opposition. The closing years of the reign of the fierce 
 tyrant had been marked by domestic murders and public 
 cruelty. Augustus is reputed to have said that it would be 
 better to be Herod's sow than his son. The Gospel narra- 
 tive has preserved for us an account of the massacre of the 
 young children at Bethlehem, an incident entirely harmo- 
 nious with the character of the king; and the Jewish historian 
 has told us how Herod burnt ahve the Rabbis who had in- 
 stigated the destruction of the idolatrous figure of an eagle 
 on the pinnacle of the temple. When his death came it let 
 loose the forces of discontent which had long been smouldering.^ 
 
 Herod died 4 B.C., shortly before the Passover. He had 
 left to Archelaus Judaea and Samaria with the title of king; 
 but it was necessary that the Emperor should confirm the 
 will, and Archelaus, followed by the whole family of Herod, 
 
 ^ Our main authority for the history of the period contained in this 
 chapter is Josephus in his two works the J elvish War and the Antiquitfes. 
 Unfortunately for the greater part of it, his information was somewhat 
 scanty. During the reign of Herod the Great he was able to draw on the 
 history of Nicolaus of Damascus, who, as Herod's secretary and minister, 
 had ample knowledge. But that authority almost immediately ceases, and 
 we have little information until we reach the period of Josephus's own life. 
 It is a matter of regret that just for the most important period we have no 
 fullness of detail. 
 
50 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 by deputations of Jews and of the Greek cities, shortly went 
 to Rome to plead his cause before Augustus. 
 
 But before this happened disturbances began. Archelaus 
 buried his father with great pomp. The funeral was fol- 
 lowed by a public mourning for the murdered Rabbis, who 
 were regarded as martyrs for the law, and violent disturb- 
 ances in which over 3,000 were slain were the result. At 
 Pentecost, after Archelaus had started for Rome, more 
 severe revolts broke out throughout the whole country. 
 Those at Jerusalem resulted in great loss of life and much 
 damage to the newly built temple, but the disturbances 
 elsewhere were more significant. 
 
 In Idumaea, to the south, 2,000 of Herod's old soldiers 
 fought against Achiabus, Herod's cousin, and drove him 
 into the mountains. In Galilee Judas, the son of the robber 
 Ezekias, whom Herod had killed, seized the arsenal at 
 Sepphoris, armed his followers, and spread terror through 
 the country. He was apparently aiming at being king. 
 In Peraea a former servant of Herod called Simon, distin- 
 guished for his height and personal beauty, "placed a dia- 
 dem on his head." He led a wild mob across the Jordan, 
 and plundered and burnt Herod's palace at Jericho. He 
 was attacked and defeated, and his head was cut off. 
 Other insurgents in Peraea destroyed Herod's palace 
 in Betharamphtha beyond Jordan. An even more for- 
 midable rebel was a certain Athronges, a shepherd by pro- 
 fession, distinguished for personal bravery and courage. He 
 too called himself king, and with his four brothers harried 
 Judaea and Samaria with robber bands. They attacked 
 and cut off isolated detachments of Roman soldiers, and it 
 was long before the last of them submitted to Archelaus.^ 
 
 1 We have a reference to these events in the apocryphal work styled the 
 "Assumption of Moses": "And he (Herod) will beget sons that shall suc- 
 ceed him and shaU reign for shorter times. Into their parts shall come the 
 strong, and a mighty king of the West who shall conquer them and lead 
 them captive and shall burn part of their temple with fire and shall crucify 
 them around their colony" {Assmnptio Mosis, vi.). 
 
 There can be no doubt that this refers to the reign of Archelaus, and the 
 war in 4 B.C., when the troops left under the charge of Sabinus burnt the 
 cloisters of the temple. Archelaus reigned a much shorter period than his 
 father (nine years), but Herod Antipas reigned forty-three years, and Philip 
 
MESSIANIC CLAIMANTS 51 
 
 We need not linger over the story of the suppression of 
 these revolts, but a few words must be said as to their 
 character. 
 
 We owe our knowledge of it to Josephus, who, with a 
 Gentile audience in view, systematically conceals or under- 
 estimates the rehgious element. No doubt it was the 
 mutiny of Herod's soldiers that made the revolt formidable, 
 but it must be noticed that it broke out at the feast of 
 Pentecost, which may be taken as evidence that the under- 
 lying cause was, as always in Jewish unrest, rehgious. The 
 departure to Rome of all the leading members of the family 
 of Herod seemed to give an opportunity for revolt, the 
 exactions of the Roman procurator fanned the flames, but 
 we have here a renewed sign of the deep-seated religious 
 ferment which again and again shows itself in such wild out- 
 bursts. The affection that the Sanhedrin exhibited for 
 Ezekias, a robber whom Herod had put to death, is evidence 
 that Josephus obscured the true character of that move- 
 ment, which must have been religious. His son Judas, who 
 would preserve the traditions — even if he were not the 
 Judas who founded the sect of Zealots — Simon, Athronges, 
 were not merely insurgents who aimed at royal power, but 
 were false Chris ts; and if Theudas,^ who gave himself out 
 to be someone, belongs to this period, he is further evidence 
 of the same spirit. Jewish unrest would not have been as 
 formidable as it was if it had not been that it was always 
 inspired by rehgion. 
 
 We need not follow the history of the events in Rome, 
 
 thirty-seven, so that it is most probable that this work was written shortly 
 after the death of Archelaus. It must have been produced at a time when 
 the memory of the assault on the temple was fresh in the writer's mind. 
 ^ Acts V. 36. irpb yap tovtcov tuv rjijiepwi' avkoTT) GeySds \tyuiv dval nva 
 eavTov, u) irpoaeKXWpj dvbpojv apidp-os ws TerpaKoaicov. 6s avrjptdr], Kal iravres 
 oaoi kireldovTo avTih SuXWr/ffap Kal kykvovro els ovSkv. This is mentioned as 
 taking place before the rising of Judas the Galilaean. There are three alter- 
 native explanations: (i) St. Luke has made a mistake, and put into the mouth 
 of Gamahel a reference to a rebellion which took place some years later. (2) 
 That this was one of the disturbances referred to by Josephus, Antt., xvii., 
 285, BJ., ii., 55, without the name of the leader being mentioned. (3) That 
 Theudas was the second name of some other leader. See Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 
 903, p. 124. See also Hastings, Bible Dictionary, iv., 750. 
 
 5 
 
52 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 where the fate of Palestine had to be decided in the coun- 
 cil of Augustus, although the detailed account of imperial 
 administration that we have is full of interest. 
 
 Augustus substantially confirmed Herod's will. He gave 
 Samaria, Judaea, and Idumaea to Archelaus. He was to 
 have the title of Ethnarch, which was to be changed to that 
 of King if he governed virtuously — that is, if he kept order 
 and a fair measure of contentment. Antipas obtained 
 Galilee and Peraea; Philip, Trachonitis and the country to 
 the north. The Samaritans had a quarter of their taxes 
 taken ofT, because they had not joined in the revolt. Joppa, 
 Jerusalem, Sebaste, and Caesarea were left to Archelaus, 
 but the Greek cities Gaza, Gadara, and Hippos obtained 
 their freedom and were joined to the province. Salome had 
 the revenues of Jamnia, Ashdod, and Phasaelis, to which 
 Augustus added Herod's palace in Ascalon, but her pos- 
 sessions were under the government of Archelaus. There 
 were many other legacies, but Augustus gave up all that 
 was left to him with the exception of certain personal 
 memorials. The revenue of Archelaus was said to be 600 
 talents, of Antipas 200, of Philip 100, and of Salome 50. 
 
 So Archelaus came back estabHshed in his government. 
 The story of his journey was well known, and may have 
 supplied the incidents for the parable of the nobleman who 
 went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom.^ 
 We are told that his citizens hated him and sent an embassy 
 after him, saying, "We will not have this man to reign over 
 us." He was a man who demanded full return without 
 mercy: "Thou knowest that I am a hard man, taking up 
 that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow." 
 His final words were: "Howbeit these mine enemies, which 
 would not that I should reign over them, bring them forth 
 and slay them before me." 
 
 From this time onwards we cease to have any detailed 
 account of the affairs of Judaea, as we lose the guidance of 
 Nicolaus of Damascus, and we have not yet reached the 
 period of Josephus's own life, so we have no information as 
 to what happened when Archelaus returned. We may, 
 however, feel certain that any member of the Jewish 
 
 ^ Luke xLx. 12-27. 
 
ARCHELAUS 53 
 
 embassy to Augustus who had the hardihood to return to 
 Palestine would pay the penalty for his rashness. 
 
 Of the reign of Archelaus we are almost devoid of in- 
 formation. On his return to Judaea he accused Joazar, son 
 of Boethus the high priest, of sedition — probably of having 
 supported the embassy sent to Rome — and appointed his 
 brother Eleazar in his place. Not long afterwards Eleazar 
 was deposed and Jesus, son of See, appointed. Like other 
 Herods, Archelaus showed himself a builder. He restored 
 the royal palace at Jericho which Simon had destroyed; 
 he extended the palm groves, diverting the water from 
 a village called Neara for their irrigation; he commemorated 
 his own name by building a village there which he called 
 Archelais. He outraged the religious feehngs of the nation 
 by marrying Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, King of 
 Cappadocia, and widow of his brother Alexander, by whom 
 she had had three children. His own wife was still living, 
 and Glaphyra had married as her second husband Juba, 
 King of Mauretania, who was also ahve. But it was the 
 marriage with his brother's widow, more than the double 
 adultery, which was condemned. 
 
 All our accounts tell us that Archelaus was the most 
 brutal of all the sons of Herod. His own relations, with the 
 exception of Philip, had been vehemently opposed to his 
 appointment as his father's successor. He had certainly 
 shown no scruples in suppressing the insurrection on his 
 succession, and the butchery of 3,000 unarmed men might 
 lay him open to the charge of ferocity. He had succeeded 
 in stamping out the rebellion of Athronges and his brothers. 
 He had probably punished with severity those who opposed 
 his succession. Of the rest of his reign we know nothing. 
 What is known is that, after enduring him for nine years, 
 the leading men of Judaea and Samaria could no longer put 
 up with his tyranny and barbarity, and accused him to 
 Augustus. As a result of enquiry the Emperor seems to 
 have had no doubt of the truth of the charge and refused 
 even to communicate with Archelaus personally. He sent a 
 message to him by his steward, who himself bore the same 
 name, to summon him to Rome, and banished him to 
 Vienne in Gaul, depriving him even of his personal wealth. 
 
54 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 Augustus had had sufficient experience of Herods. Judaea 
 was now brought under direct Roman rule, being sub- 
 ordinate to the province of Syria, but under a procurator 
 of its own. This took place in a.d. 6. 
 
 II 
 
 To organize the new province Augustus sent Publius 
 Sulpicius Quirinius. He was an excellent example of the 
 capable man, soldier and administrator alike, by whom the 
 Emperor was served. He was consul in the year 12 B.C., 
 shortly afterwards Proconsul of Asia. He had already held 
 the office of Governor of Syria, and had conducted a suc- 
 cessful war against the mountain tribes of Cilicia, for which 
 he had obtained the ornaments of a triumph.^ During his 
 tenure of the office the first census had been held in Syria. 
 Later he had been appointed adviser to Gaius Caesar when 
 he held a high command in the East against Armenia, 
 which included the province of Syria. He therefore came to 
 his work with wide experience in Eastern affairs, and laid 
 the foundation of Roman rule in Palestine on a basis which, 
 so far as we know, preserved a considerable measure of 
 peace until the disastrous governorship of Pontius Pilate. 
 
 Special regulations were made for the government of 
 Judaea. It became part of the province of Syria, but was 
 placed under a procurator, or governor of the third class of 
 knightly and not senatorial rank. It was advisable that the 
 outward signs of Roman rule should be inconspicuous. So 
 far as was possible the country was given self-government. 
 There were no Roman legionary troops, only auxiliaries, 
 
 1 On this see Tacitus, Ami., iii., 48; Strabo, xii., 6, 5. The reasons for 
 thinking that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria are: (i) The statement 
 of Tacitus that he had carried on war against the Homonadenses in Cilicia 
 before his post in attendance on Gaius. This he could only have done had 
 he been governor of a province with military power, and that could only 
 have been Syria (to which Cilicia was joined); (2) The existence of a muti- 
 lated inscription in honour of someone who was twice governor of Syria, 
 which seems most suitably to fit Quirinius {C.I.L., xiv., 3613). The date 
 of the first governorship is fixed by Mommsen, in a.d. 2-3, but Ramsay 
 gives reasons, on the strength of two inscriptions of Antioch in Pisidia, for 
 placing it earlier (Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthi- 
 ness of the New Testament, pp. 275-300; Schiirer, Geschichte, i., 322-324). 
 
JUDAEA UNDER THE ROMANS 55 
 
 and some of these had formed part of Herod's old army. 
 The administration of justice was mainly in the hands of the 
 native courts. The chief duty of the procurator was finan- 
 cial. He was, of course, responsible for the maintenance 
 of law and order, and alone had the power of life and death. 
 The exact position in relation to the Governor of Syria is 
 not defined for us. The latter had the supreme military 
 authority, and, if need be, he could be called in with the 
 legions which he had under his command. He could en- 
 quire into complaints of misgovernment, and, although 
 perhaps only when acting with direct instructions from 
 Rome, he could in an emergency regulate the affairs of the 
 country. So we find that the Samaritans appealed to 
 Vitellius, the Governor of Syria, against Pontius Pilate, 
 whom he sent to Rome to answer his accusers, and that 
 VitelHus shortly afterwards visited Jerusalem himself, and 
 showed great discretion in appeasing the Jews. 
 
 The Roman province of Palestine was confined to the 
 territories of Judaea (which now always included the district 
 to the south, called Idumaea) and Samaria, and not all of 
 that, for some of the Greek towns, certainly Gaza and 
 Ascalon, were independent, and directly subject to the 
 Governor of Syria. The residence of the procurator was 
 Caesarea, which tended more and more to become a heathen 
 city. Only occasionally at the time of the feasts and for 
 other particular purposes would he visit Jerusalem, where 
 the great palace-fortress of Herod on the western hill would 
 be both his place of residence and also the praetorium, 
 where he would dispense justice. The nucleus of the forces 
 under his command was formed by the Sebasteni, a portion 
 of the army of Herod, who numbered about 3,000 — 500 
 cavalry and five cohorts of infantry. These were stationed 
 at Caesarea. There was normally a cohort of infantry with 
 some mounted troops attached in the castle of Antonia 
 at Jerusalem, and there were troops at Samaria. Whether 
 any other places were garrisoned we do not know. 
 
 So far as possible the Jews were allowed to live after their 
 own laws — that is, the government was in the hands of the 
 Sanhedrin, composed mainly of the priestly aristocracy, with 
 the high priest as president. Within the limits of Judaean 
 
56 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 territory, they with the local Sanhedrins exercised juris- 
 diction over all Jews. Except possibly for certain offences 
 they had not power of life and death, and therefore a 
 capital sentence imposed by them had to be confirmed 
 by the procurator. We are particularly told that on the 
 question of violating the sanctity of the temple their 
 jurisdiction extended even to Roman citizens. It did not, 
 however, extend into Samaria, nor into any Greek cities, 
 not even those who were still subject to the procurator, nor, 
 except for the case just mentioned, over Greek or Roman 
 citizens. The power which Herod had claimed of appoint- 
 ing and removing high priests was exercised by the proc- 
 urator, but the worship at Jerusalem was protected and 
 encouraged, and everything reasonable was done to avoid 
 offending Jewish susceptibilities. Augustus, who does not 
 appear to have offered sacrifice in the temple when he 
 visited the East during the reign of Herod, and specially 
 commended Caius because he did not sacrifice during his 
 visit, now endowed at his own cost a daily burnt oft'ering of 
 an ox and two lambs, and both he and the Empress Livia, 
 and other members of his household, presented cups and 
 vessels for the drink offering. The Jews in return offered 
 two sacrifices daily, and on feast days hecatombs for the 
 Emperor and Roman people at the cost of the nation. In 
 the synagogues, also, prayers were said for the Emperor, 
 and the fortunes of the Roman State commemorated so far 
 as the law permitted. Some further authority over the wor- 
 ship of the temple was gained by the custody of the sacred 
 garments of the high priests, which were preserved with 
 great reverence in the castle of Antonia, and only given out 
 on the great festivals. 
 
 For purposes of administration — probably both taxation 
 and justice — Judaea was divided into eleven toparchies: 
 Jerusalem, Gophna, and Akrabatta to the north; Thamna, 
 Lydda, Emmaus, and Bethletepha to the west; Idumaca, 
 Engaddi, and Herodeion to the south; and Jericho to the 
 east. The whole district of Samaria was probably under 
 the city of Sebaste, and was governed by a senate. Whether 
 at this period it was divided into toparchies we do not 
 know. The remainder of the province was made up of the 
 
THE TAXING 57 
 
 territory of Greek or quasi-Greek cities, such as Caesarea, 
 Antipatris, Joppa, and Jamnia. 
 
 The danger of disturbance between the Romans and Jews 
 was, as it appeared, greatest on the question of taxation. 
 Up to this time the Jews had paid no direct taxes to the 
 Empire, although certainly at some periods there had been 
 tribute imposed upon the country as a whole. The first 
 step in the organization of a Roman province was the hold- 
 ing of a census, in order that a basis might be provided for 
 taxation. It was for this purpose, in particular, that 
 Quirinius was sent, but it must be pointed out that his com- 
 mission was confined to Palestine, but included the whole of 
 Syria.^ It is probable, therefore, that the occasion coin- 
 cided with the regular census, which was held, so far as we can 
 gather, every fourteen years, certainly in some provinces of the 
 Empire and perhaps in all. There is nothing, therefore, that 
 necessarily prevents a previous census having been held 
 some fourteen years before this date over the whole of Syria.^ 
 
 Recent discoveries in Egypt have provided us with a large 
 amount of information on the subject of a Roman census, 
 and we have considerable knowledge of the method by 
 which it was carried on. No doubt, first of all, a proc- 
 lamation was issued in the name of the governor or the 
 commissioners appointed for the purpose, announcing that 
 a census would be held. It was followed apparently by one 
 summoning everyone to return to his own home for the 
 purpose of being enrolled.^ The census was of two kinds — 
 
 1 Josephus is quite clear on this point (Anil., xvii., 355): aTroTLixTja-oixevos 
 re ra tv Hvplq. Kai tov 'Apxf^aov awo&waoiitvos oIkov, and he is corroborated 
 by an inscription which states of a certain Q. Aemilius Secundus that "jussu 
 Quirini censum egi Apamenae civitatis millium hominum civium CXVII." 
 
 2 On the census see especially Mitteis and Wilcken, Grundziige und 
 Chrestoniathie der Papyruskimde, I., i., 185; ii., 231; Grenfell and Hunt 
 Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ii., 207 _^.; Kenyon, Catalogue of the Greek and Roman 
 Papyri in the British Museum, ii., 19; Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethle- 
 hem? and Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New 
 Testament; Schiirer, Geschichte, i., 508, whose bibliography is very valuable; 
 unfortunately, he is so determined to prove St. Luke wrong that he has 
 made many unnecessarily dogmatic assertions which subsequent discovery 
 has disproved. We owe the beginnings of new light to Kenyon, Classical 
 Review, 1893, p. no. The whole subject is still very difficult. 
 
 ' Here is an instance (Papyrus London iii., n. 904, p. 125, lines 18^., 
 
58 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 the census of persons and the census of property. In the 
 case of the one the head of the house made a declaration 
 stating the names of all persons belonging to his house, in 
 the other he enumerated all the property that he possessed. 
 Both alike were made on oath, the terms of which were 
 generally joined to the declaration. On the personal re- 
 turns, which included everyone over fourteen, the poll tax 
 and the Habihty to military service (from which apparently 
 all Jews were exempt) were based; on the property returns 
 the income tax and property tax. Such probably were the 
 general characteristics of the census; what particular fea- 
 tures may have characterized it as held in Syria and Judaea 
 we cannot say. 
 
 This census caused great disturbances. No direct taxa- 
 tion had ever before been paid to the Romans, and even if 
 there had been a census under Herod, whatever difficulties 
 it may have caused it did not seem to imply foreign do- 
 minion. Now it was different, and there were serious signs 
 of resentment. At some period of which we have no direct 
 knowledge Joazar, son of Boethus, had been restored to the 
 position of high priest, apparently through a definite popu- 
 lar demand. His influence over the people was sufficient to 
 persuade the greater number to submit. The returns were 
 made and the taxes paid. As it was at their own request 
 that the Jews had been placed under direct Roman rule, 
 it was characteristic of them that they should immediately 
 resent it. Some remained obstinate. In particular one 
 Judas, called the Galilaean, and a Pharisee of the name of 
 Zadok became leaders of a revolt. They are reported to 
 have said that taxation was no better than slavery; they 
 called on the nation to make an effort to renew their 
 liberty, and said that failure would mean the honour of 
 martyrdom. No one must expect divine help unless they 
 were prepared to venture their lives and undertake heroic 
 
 edd. Kenyon-Bell, see Mitteis and Wilcken, op. cit., I., ii., p. 235): 
 Talos OiitjStos Ma^iMos iivapxas AiyvirTOV Xtyet. Trjs Kar oldav aTroypa<l>fjs 
 kpe(7T<j}(rr)s avayKoiof eariv iva.<nv rols koB' ^vriva drrn-ore airiav airoSrjfxovaiv 
 &ir6 T03V vonuv TrpoaayyeWeadai, eTraveXOelv eis to. kavTCOf e^eoTia, ti'd 
 Kal Tfjv (Tvvr}dr] olKovop.lav ttjs aTroypa4)rjs TrXrjpuauaLU Kal ry -rrpoariKoiKTig avrols 
 yeoipylq. TrpoaKaprtpiiauaLv, 
 
THE ZEALOTS 59 
 
 acts. The immediate result was unsuccessful. Not many 
 joined the revolt. It was suppressed, and Judas was killed. 
 But the seed sown bore evil fruit. Judas is styled the 
 founder of the fourth sect of the Jews, who were named the 
 Cananaeans or Zealots, and sometimes also, perhaps, Gali- 
 laeans.^ They had, said Josephus, the same opinions as the 
 Pharisees, but added to them an unquenchable attachment 
 to liberty, and the principle that God alone was their Ruler 
 and Lord. They made hght of death; they cared nothing 
 for the risk .of exposing their friends or relations to suffering. 
 Neither fear nor torture would make them call any man lord. 
 
 For a time the people acquiesced. Nothing happened to 
 cause irritation, or to give power to the extreme party. 
 The infection remained dormant. But later misgovernment 
 increased. A series of bad procurators gave abundant 
 occasion for discontent. The growth and development of 
 Christianity added to the sense of failure and exasperation. 
 The new generation became adherents of the doctrine of 
 violence, and the terrible disorders of the last days of 
 Judaism began. Josephus, as a patriotic Jew and a close 
 observer of his country's fate, traces the beginning of all its 
 misfortunes to the taxing of Quirinius and the teaching of 
 Judas of Gahlee. That is true enough, but had the Romans 
 exercised a wise, strong, and good government, nothing of 
 what happened need have been necessary. But Judaea 
 became the prey of inferior officials, and the Emperors 
 showed less and less wisdom as time went on in governing 
 it. Religious fanaticism would have been powerless if it 
 had not been helped by oppressive rule. 
 
 Yet the issue was a fundamental one, and touched the 
 innermost principles of Judaism. The strict Jew looked 
 upon the theocracy as the only tolerable form of govern- 
 ment. He would have no foreigner or native king to rule 
 over him; but for many centuries he had had, with only a 
 short period of independence, to submit to the inevitable 
 
 ^ The Galilaeans are mentioned among Jewish heretics (Justin, Dialogue 
 80, and Hegesippus ap. Eus., H.E., iv., 22). The fact that this name was 
 used of the sect implies that it may have that connotation in the Gospels 
 and other places. The accusation of being a Galilaean would imply a sus- 
 picion of treason. The word " Cananaean " is the Hebrew form of ZrjXwTrjs. 
 
6o PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 force of circumstances. There were two possible lines of 
 conduct. There were those who were content if they had 
 freedom to live according to the law, and to have their 
 Uves regulated by their traditional customs. More than 
 this they did not ask for. Politics, they held, did not con- 
 cern them. They would acquiesce in foreign rule provided 
 they had religious liberty. Then there were those also who 
 never willingly acquiesced in any authority. In the Dias- 
 pora the Jew had learnt indifference to politics; he could 
 practise his religion wherever he might be; many of those 
 in Palestine were equally satisfied with a pohcy of non-re- 
 sistance; the Essenes had always adopted a quietist at- 
 titude. But others hardened. We shall find that the right 
 relations to Rome and the legitimacy of paying tribute were 
 among the hard questions put to our Lord. The spread of 
 Christianity helped to increase the bitterness. While many 
 of the more pious and moderate Jews became Christians, 
 their defection seemed to the more fanatical party dis- 
 loyalty. The exactions of the Roman governors and their 
 incapacity for dealing with such a turbulent people became 
 intolerable. The two issues of Judaism became clear. The one 
 implied a religious zeal which refused to recognize the re- 
 straint of reason or the teaching of wisdom, and led to anarchy 
 and destruction; the other ended in spiritual sovereignty. 
 
 Ill 
 
 But for a time the evil issues were delayed. The first 
 Roman procurator was Coponius (a.d. 6-9). The only event 
 that is recorded under his rule exhibited the bitter feeling 
 of the Samaritan for the Jew. It was the custom for the 
 gates of the temple to be opened at the Passover shortly 
 after midnight. Some Samaritans took advantage of this. 
 They came secretly by night and brought into the temple a 
 number of dead bodies which they threw about the cloisters, 
 thus defiling the temple and preventing the Passover from 
 being duly celebrated. Henceforth the Jews excluded the 
 Samaritans from the temple. Coponius was succeeded by 
 Marcus Ambibulus (a.d. 9-12). Under him died Salome, 
 Herod's old sister. She left all her possessions to Livia, the 
 
THE ROMAN PROCURATORS 6i 
 
 wife of Caesar — Jamnia, Phasaelis, and Archelais which 
 seems to have come into her possession with its great grove 
 of palm trees. This would not affect the political status of 
 these towns. Ambibulus was succeeded by Annius Rufus 
 (a.d. 12-15). No procurator so far had been in office for 
 more than two or three years, but in a.d. 14 Augustus died, 
 and was succeeded by Tiberius. He introduced a change 
 which was designed in the interest of the provinces. He 
 cynically observed that if a governor held office only a short 
 time he would find himself obliged to plunder severely in 
 order to get the wealth he desired; if he had a longer period 
 of office the province would not have to satisfy so many 
 claims and exactions would be less frequent.^ During the 
 whole of his reign he only appointed two governors for 
 Palestine, Valerius Gratus (15-26) and Pontius Pilate (26- 
 36). About this time a petition was received by the Emperor 
 from the provinces of Palestine and Syria asking for a reduc- 
 tion of tribute. Whether it was granted we do not know. 
 During these years there had been constant change in the 
 office of high priest. Archelaus had followed the arbitrary 
 ways of his father, and the Roman procurators had claimed 
 the same privileges. Archelaus had removed, as we have 
 seen, Joazar, son of Boethus. He w^as unpopular with the 
 stricter Jews because he had taken the place of Matthias, 
 who was accused of s^onpathy with the Rabbis who had 
 been burnt to death by Herod the Great, while Archelaus 
 complained that he had helped the insurgents. In his place 
 was appointed Eleazar his brother. He in no long time was 
 removed and Jesus, son of See, was appointed in his place. 
 How long he remained in that position we do not know. 
 When Archelaus was exiled we find Joazar again in office, 
 a position he had obtained by popular demand. He did 
 good service to the Romans by persuading the people to 
 acquiesce in the imposition of tribute, but this made him 
 unpopular, so Quirinius appointed in his place Annas, the 
 son of Sethi. He was the richest and most powerful mem- 
 ber of the temple aristocracy. He held office for nine years, 
 and six of his sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas all occupied 
 
 ^ He is reported to have said that it is better to leave a gorged fly on a 
 sore than to drive it off {Antt., xviii., 171-176). 
 
62 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 that office. The family apparently obtained their wealth 
 through the possession of booths or shops called the ''booths 
 of the sons of Annas," and the monopoly that they pos- 
 sessed of the sale of all the articles for sacrifice. These 
 booths, or some of them, are said to have been erected in 
 the temple courts. The wealth and avarice of the family 
 aroused bitter resentment. "Woe to the house of Annas! 
 Woe to their serpent-like hissings!" is a saying preserved in 
 Jewish tradition. When disorder and violence increased 
 and the Jewish people became exasperated, it was the house of 
 Annas that was conspicuous for its violence and insolence.^ 
 
 For some reason not recorded Valerius Gratus deprived 
 Annas of the high-priesthood. Probably he felt that he was 
 too powerful. The next three, Ismail, son of Phiabi, Elea- 
 zar, son of Annas, and Simon, son of Kamithos, held office 
 for little more than a year each; then Valerius appointed 
 Joseph, called Caiaphas, who was son-in-law of Annas. He 
 remained in office eighteen years (a.d. 18-36), and has at- 
 tained an evil name in history. He was probably a man of 
 little force of character, supple enough to keep on good 
 terms with both the Roman rulers and his powerful father- 
 in-law. The picture which is presented to us at this period 
 of the highest and most sacred office of Judaism, incomplete 
 though it is, is sufficient. It is not pleasing, and no doubt 
 was one of the causes why the sacrificial system ceased to 
 have any real hold on the religious life of the people. 
 
 In the year 26 Valerius Gratus was succeeded by Pontius 
 Pilate. He was appointed under the influence of Sejanus, 
 and Sejanus is said to have dishked the Jews. It is prob- 
 able, therefore, that his conduct was the result not merely of 
 cruelty and incapacity, but of pohcy. Certainly he suc- 
 ceeded in obtaining an evil reputation. He was said to be 
 inflexible, merciless, and obstinate. We are told of his 
 corruption, his insolence, his robberies, his outrages, his 
 threats, the constant succession of indiscriminate murders, 
 his intolerable and barefaced cruelty. ^ The language ap- 
 pears exaggerated, but incidents that are related show con- 
 siderable justification for what is said. 
 
 ^ On the sons of Annas see Edersheim, Life of Jesus the Messiah, iii., 5; 
 Derenbourg, p. 465; Pesikta S7a. ^ Philo, Leg. ad Caiuni, 38. 
 
PONTIUS PILATE 63 
 
 It had always been the custom that the Roman troops 
 should remove the images of the emperors from their 
 standards when they entered Jerusalem out of respect for 
 the prejudices of the people. Pilate, with obvious dehbera- 
 tion, departed from this practice, and, when the troops 
 arrived from Caesarea to Jerusalem to take up their winter 
 quarters, they brought in by night the standards with the 
 images still on them. As soon as this was known great 
 numbers of Jews came down to Caesarea and tried to per- 
 suade him to remove them. He refused, pleading respect 
 for the Emperor. They remained firm, so he determined to 
 try force. He made secret preparations, summoned them 
 before him in the open ground outside the city, and at a 
 signal from him they were surrounded by armed soldiers. 
 He threatened them with death; but their conduct discon- 
 certed him. They threw themselves on the ground, bared their 
 necks, and said that they would gladly die rather than allow 
 the wisdom of their laws to be transgressed. Their inflexi- 
 bility won, and the images were brought back to Caesarea. 
 
 He next attempted to benefit the city. He constructed 
 or repaired an aqueduct to bring water from a distance of 
 twenty-five miles. No doubt this was one of the aqueducts 
 from Solomon's pools. To carry this out he made use of 
 the temple treasure. The Jews were again displeased, and 
 demanded with clamours and threats that he should leave 
 off his designs. He lost his temper, and sent a number of 
 soldiers among the people armed with clubs. These at- 
 tacked with great violence, making no distinction between 
 the guilty and innocent. They killed some and wounded 
 others, and suppressed the disturbance. 
 
 Another instance of his cruelty is mentioned in St. Luke's 
 Gospel. Some Galilaeans — perhaps the word means merely 
 natives of Galilee, perhaps followers of Judas of Gahlee — 
 had caused or taken part in disturbances at the feast. Pilate 
 had again repressed disorder relentlessly, and in the im- 
 pressive words of the Gospels he had mingled their blood 
 with the sacrifices. They had probably been butchered in 
 the temple.^ 
 
 ^ Luke xiii. 1-5. 
 
64 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 A letter of Agrippa's quoted by Philo gives another 
 instance of Pilate's tactlessness and of the difSculty of 
 governing the Jews. He had put up in the palace of Herod 
 at Jerusalem, now the official residence of the governor, 
 golden shields in honour of Tiberius. This might seem 
 sufficiently harmless. There were no images of any sort 
 on them. They bore only the dedication and the name of 
 the Emperor. But the Jews resented this, and associated 
 with them in their protest the four sons of Herod and other 
 members of his family. Both sides were obstinate. At 
 length the Jews wrote to Tiberius, who ordered the shields 
 to be placed in the temple of Augustus at Caesarea, thus 
 preserving, as Agrippa points out, both the honour of the 
 Emperor and the sanctity of the Jewish laws.^ 
 
 It was an event in Samaria which finally brought his 
 governorship to a close. A religious impostor had collected 
 together a crowd of people on Mount Gerizim by promising 
 to reveal the place where Moses had buried the sacred ves- 
 sels. They assembled in great numbers, but when they at- 
 tempted to go up the mountain they were attacked by a 
 body of horsemen sent by Pilate. They were dispersed, 
 many were slain, many taken prisoners, and all the more 
 important of them were executed by Pilate's orders. The 
 Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, the governor 
 of Syria, complaining of Pilate. They had had, they said, 
 no intention of revolting against Rome. Vitellius sent a 
 friend of his own, Marcellus, to act as procurator, and 
 ordered Pilate to proceed to Rome to answer for his con- 
 duct to Tiberius. Before he arrived there Tiberius was 
 dead. We know nothing of his subsequent history.' 
 
 It is noticeable that two of these incidents are only re- 
 ferred to in incidental allusions, and they suggest that there 
 were others which have not been recorded. During all this 
 period the record of Josephus is incomplete. Pilate was 
 certainly unfit to govern Judaea. He was tactless, un- 
 sympathetic, obstinate, and weak; like other weak men, he 
 was cruel and relentless. At the same time the difficulty of 
 
 * Philo, Leg. ad Caium, loc. cit. 
 
 2 According to Cassiodorus he committed suicide: "His coss. Pilatus 
 in multas incidens calamitates propria se manu interfecit." 
 
THE TETRARCHY OF PHILIP 65 
 
 his position is obvious. The Jews were turbulent, suspi- 
 cious, intolerant, and the impression is left on our minds 
 that they were ceasing to be amenable to reason, that self- 
 ishness and fanaticism were rapidly getting the upper hand, 
 and that all the material was being prepared which would 
 burst out into flame at the great catastrophe. 
 
 IV 
 
 The remainder of Herod's dominions were divided into 
 the two tetrarchies of Philip and Herod Antipas and the 
 confederation of the Greek towns of the Decapolis. 
 
 The tetrarchy of Philip, the most northern part of the 
 country, was formed of the districts of Trachonitis, Aura- 
 nitis, Batanea, Gaulonitis, and Ituraea. It was often spoken 
 of as Trachonitis or, as by St. Luke, Trachonitis and 
 Ituraea. It was bounded on the north by the territory of 
 Lysanias and by Damascus, on the east by the kingdom of 
 the Nabataeans, on the south by Peraea and the cities of 
 the Decapolis, on the west by the River Jordan and by 
 Galilee. Trachonitis was the district in the north-east, and 
 received its name and its character from the rugged lava of 
 which it was composed. Auranitis, the modern Hauran, was 
 the fertile plateau south of Damascus, through which ran 
 then, as now, the pilgrim road by which the Babylonian 
 Jews came to Jerusalem as the Mohammedan now goes to 
 Mecca. Batanea occupied the low-lying valleys to the 
 southeast in the upper waters of the Yarmuk. Gaulonitis — 
 the modern Jaulan — lay on the east side of the Jordan 
 northwards from the Sea of Gahlee. Ituraea lay on the 
 southern side and eastern slopes of Mount Hermon. The 
 whole country was rich and well watered, the soil volcanic, 
 the rainfall sufficient.^ Form_erly the territory of Zenodotus, 
 a robber chief defeated by Herod, it had borne an evil 
 reputation. The rocky and inaccessible defiles of Tracho- 
 nitis had been the lurking-place of bands of robbers; the 
 more open country was overrun by the desert Arabs; so 
 great was the insecurity that the people dwelt not in cities, 
 
 ^ On the character of this trans- Jo rdanic region see G. A. Smith, His- 
 torical Geography of the Holy Land, p. 609. 
 
66 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 but in the safer seclusion of caves, in which the district 
 abounded. Augustus had given it to Herod, who imme- 
 diately attacked the evil with all his fierce energy. He 
 waged continuous war against robbers and Arabs alike. He 
 took steps to secure a settled and industrious population. 
 "The inhabitants of Trachonitis," says Josephus, "after 
 Caesar had added the country to Herod, were no longer 
 able to rob, but were forced to plough the land and live 
 quietly, which was a thing they did not like."^ While 
 Herod was in Rome they took advantage and revolted, 
 and Herod inflicted a bloody punishment upon them. In 
 order to pacify the country he settled 3,000 Idumaeans in 
 it, transferring the robbers to Idumaea. At a later date 
 he established in Batanea a colony of Babylonian Jews. A 
 certain Zamaris had come out of Babylonia with a large 
 following, men trained in Parthian fashion to shoot arrows on 
 horseback. Herod granted them land free of taxes. They 
 built strongholds and villages, and guarded the pilgrims' 
 way south of Damascus. The country thus secured and 
 settled speedily attracted a large Jewish immigration, and 
 cultivation spread. When Zamaris died he was succeeded 
 by a son, Jacimus, and he by one whose name, Philip, 
 records the friendly relations which existed with the Te- 
 trarch. These Babylonian Jews provided the ruler with a 
 bodyguard, and protected the country. 
 
 Thus were laid the foundations of the well-being of this 
 region. New towns sprang up, the inhabitants left their 
 caves and retreats, the land — a rich corn district — was 
 cultivated. The frontier towards the desert was guarded 
 by the Nabataeans, who were obliged to show respect 
 towards the Roman peace. Then, when Trajan guarded 
 and fortified the frontier by the establishment of the prov- 
 ince of Arabia, the great period of prosperity began. 
 
 For thirty-seven years (4 B.C. to a.d. 34) Trachonitis was 
 governed by Philip with wisdom and moderation. Unlike 
 the other sons of Herod, he was neither cruel nor avaricious 
 nor tyrannical. One characteristic of his father he inherited 
 — like him, he was a builder. At Paneas, where the Jordan 
 in full stream bursts forth from a great cave and rushes 
 ^ Josephus, AntL, xvi., 271. 
 
THE CHARACTER OF PHILIP 67 
 
 down in cataracts to the valley, a place of great beauty and 
 natural sanctity, where Herod had built a white marble 
 temple in honour of Augustus, on the southern slopes of 
 Hermon, he founded Caesarea Philippi;^ further south, at 
 the head of the Lake of Galilee, he transformed the village 
 of Bethsaida into a city, and named it Julias in honour of 
 the daughter of Augustus. He hved on friendly terms with 
 the two Emperors, Augustus and Tiberius, and was the 
 first member of his family to place their effigies on his 
 coins, a clear sign that a large portion of the population was 
 heathen.^ He married Salome, his niece, the daughter of 
 Herodias and his brother Herod. His reign was as un- 
 eventful as it appears to have been happy, and Josephus 
 concludes his account of him with the following panegyric: 
 
 "He had shown himself a man of moderation and quiet- 
 ness in his government. He lived regularly in his own 
 country, and made constant progresses through it with a 
 small retinue, and always was accompanied on his journeys 
 by the tribunal on which he administered justice. When- 
 ever anyone met him who appealed for his assistance, he 
 made no delay, but had the tribunal at once set down 
 
 1 G. A. Smith, Historical Geography, p. 473: "Paneas lies scarcely an 
 hour to the north of Tell-el-Kadi. From the latter you pass a well-watered 
 meadow, covered by trees, and then a broad terrace with oaks, like an Eng- 
 lish park, till you come to the edge of a deep gorge, through which there 
 roars a headlong stream, half stifled by bush. An old Roman bridge takes 
 you over, and then through a tangle of trees, brushwood, and fern you break 
 into sight of a high cliff of limestone reddened by the water that oozes over 
 its face from the iron soil above. In the cliff is a cavern. Part of the upper 
 rock has fallen, and from the debris of boulders and shingles below there 
 bursts and bubbles along a line of 30 feet a full-born river. The place is 
 a very sanctuary of waters, and from time immemorial men have drawn 
 near it to worship. As you stand within the charm of it — and this is a 
 charm not uncommon in the Lebanon — you understand why the early 
 Semites adored the Baalim of the subterranean waters even before they 
 raised their gods to heaven, and thanked them for the rain." 
 
 2 On the coins of Philip, see Hill, Catalogue, etc., Palestine, xcvii., 228, 
 plate xxiv., 19-21; Madden, Coins of the Jeivs, 123-127. "The effigy of 
 the Roman Emperor on these coins was a grave infringement of the Mosaic 
 law. But it has been suggested that this infraction took place at some dis- 
 tance from the centre of religion, in a town inhabited for the most part by 
 Greeks." The coins were probably struck at Caesarea Philippi, as on one 
 in the British Museum PhiUp describes himself as /crtor^s (founder). 
 
 6 
 
68 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 wherever he might happen to be, and, sitting upon it, heard 
 the complaint. The guilty when convicted he punished, 
 those unjustly accused he acquitted." ^ 
 
 He died at Julias, and was buried with great pomp in the 
 tomb he had built for himself (a.d. 34). 
 
 Herod Antipas ruled over Galilee and Peraea. Galilee, 
 divided into Upper and Lower, stretched from the great 
 gorge of the Litany to the southern edge of the plain of 
 Esdraelon, and from the Jordan and the Sea of Galilee to 
 the territory of the maritime cities Ptolemais and Tyre. 
 Upper Galilee was a region of fertile tablelands, more than 
 2,000 feet above the sea, sloping down from Lebanon; 
 Lower Galilee a region of broad valleys with low hills 
 between them, ending in the plain of Esdraelon. It was 
 a rich and fertile land. Its people were brave and hardy, 
 and distinguished in the Great War for their loyalty, their 
 patriotism, and their endurance. 
 
 "These two Galilees," says Josephus, "of so great large- 
 ness and encompassed with so many nations of foreigners, 
 have always shown great resolution in war. The country 
 has never suffered from want of courage in its men or small- 
 ness of population, for it is rich and fruitful and abounds in 
 every sort of trees. The whole is well cultivated, and no 
 part lies idle. Its cities and villages are very numerous 
 and thickly populated." 
 
 He estimates the population in his day at 3,000,000, per- 
 haps an exaggerated computation.^ 
 
 The district of Peraea was that part of the territory 
 beyond Jordan which was situated between the River Arnon 
 on the south and the Yarmuk on the north, except such 
 portions as formed the territory of the Greek cities. On 
 the east it was bounded, harassed, or defended by the 
 kingdom of the Nabataeans. An elevated and healthy 
 district, it was, says Josephus, compared with Galilee, 
 uncultivated and thinly populated, and not suitable for 
 growing the more delicate fruits. Yet it was not unfertile. 
 
 * Josephus, Antiquities, xviii., 106-108. 
 
 2 Josephus gives a full description of Galilee in B.J., iii., 35-43- For a 
 description of the scenery see G. A. Smith, op. ciL, chap, xx., p. 411. 
 
HEROD ANTIPAS 69 
 
 "It has a moist soil," he says, "and produces all kinds of 
 fruits. Its plains are planted with trees, especially the olive, 
 the vine, and the palm. It is well watered with torrents 
 from the mountains and springs that never fail." It is a 
 land of fruit and forest trees, of flocks and herds. ^ 
 
 Over these two districts Herod Antipas ruled for forty- 
 three years (4 B.C. to a.d. 39). He was, like his father, 
 violent and tyrannical, crafty — our Lord designates him as 
 "that fox" — and fond of luxury, but he was less energetic. 
 He succeeded in governing his tetrarchy with a reasonable 
 amount of success. A founder of cities, he restored the 
 ruined Sepphoris, which he named Autocratoris. Later it 
 became Diocaesarea. On the eastern side of Jordan he 
 fortified the old settlement of Betharamphtha, which was 
 named Livias and Julias after the wife of Augustus. Later 
 he built, as the capital of his tetrarchy, Tiberias, named after 
 the Emperor. He selected the most beautiful and attrac- 
 tive spot on the shores of the Lake of Galilee, near the hot 
 springs of Emmaus. But he encountered unexpected diffi- 
 culties. A portion of the site was discovered to have been 
 a graveyard, and the stricter Jews refused — at any rate 
 for some time — to live there. So in order to secure suffi- 
 cient population he collected men of every degree, not only 
 from Galilee but other countries, tempting them to settle 
 by building them excellent houses. It was a city of great 
 beauty, built in the Greek fashion, with fine colonnades 
 and public buildings, with marble statues, in particular 
 with the largest synagogue in Gahlee. The palace of 
 Herod himself, which he built there, was of great magnifi- 
 cence and rich in treasure.^ 
 
 Of the events of Herod's fife we have for some time little 
 record. He had married a daughter of Aretas, King of the 
 Nabathaeans — a politic action, for friendly relations with 
 the Arabs were most necessary for the well-being of the 
 country. He lived with her many years, but once, on his 
 
 1 On Peraea see B.J., iii., 44-47; G. A. Smith, op. cit., chaps, xxiv-xxvii. 
 
 2 On Tiberias see Smith, op. cit., p. 447^.; Schiirer, Geschidde,'^ ii., 216; 
 Josephus, Vita, 65, 68, 85^., 277. Of the palace it is said, t6p oIkov t6v 
 iird 'HpuSov tov rerpapxav KaraaKtvaad'evTa ^c^oiv ^,op<l)a% txovra tuip vojiosv 
 ovTOis TL Karaa-Keva^eLf dirayopevoi'TUP. Its gilded roof and rich furniture are 
 
70 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 way to Rome, about a.d. 29, he stayed with his brother 
 Herod, the son of the second Mariamne. This Herod had 
 married his niece Herodias, daughter of Aristobulus, who 
 was a woman at this time between thirty and forty. She 
 appears, as her career shows, to have been ambitious and 
 unscrupulous, mahcious and revengeful. With her Antipas 
 fell in love. She persuaded him to promise to marry her, 
 and to divorce his own wife, the daughter of Aretas. The 
 latter discovered his intentions. She managed to arrange 
 that she should be sent to Machaerus, the fortress of Herod 
 on the southern boundary of his kingdom, and from there 
 escaped to her father. This was the beginning of strained 
 relations between Herod and Aretas. A boundary dispute 
 aggravated the irritation, and a war followed between the 
 two countries, clearly inconsistent with the authority of the 
 Roman Empire. Neither king took the field in person, and 
 the army of Antipas, it is said owing to treachery, was 
 defeated about a.d. 32. It is possible that this is the in- 
 cident to which our Lord refers when he speaks of a ruler 
 going to war without counting the cost. "What king, as 
 he goeth to encounter another king in war, will not sit down 
 first and take counsel whether he is able with 10,000 to 
 meet him that cometh against him with 20,000?"^ Aretas 
 probably had been the aggressor. He was clearly, to a 
 certain extent, the wronged party, and Antipas, we know, 
 was of an indolent and unenterprising character. Aretas 
 had, therefore, been guilty of violating the Roman peace, 
 and Antipas wrote to Tiberius to complain. 
 
 Tiberius did not interfere at once, for circumstances in 
 the east compelled delay. 2 There were difficulties in 
 Parthia which threatened to be serious, and thither first 
 Vitellius, the Governor of Syria, had to turn; the Roman 
 army was concentrated on the banks of the Euphrates, and 
 
 mentioned: Xuxfla-L 8' rjaav KopivdLai ravra ku rpcnre^ai twv ^aaiXiKuv Kal 
 acrrj/jLov apyvpiov (ttoBhos iKavos. Josephus showed great energy in trying to 
 save this. The S)Tiagogue was a large building: ds riiv Tvpocrtvxhv ulyiarov 
 o'iKrifj.a Kai ttoXvv 6x>^ov eiridk^aadai. dwafievov. The hot springs are mentioned 
 by Pliny, N.H., v., 15. 
 
 1 Lk. xiv. 31. 
 
 ^ On the dates of these events, which have some bearing on the Gospel 
 chronology, see the Note on Chronology. 
 
HEROD AND ARETAS 71 
 
 Herod, as an allied ruler, was summoned with his troops. 
 He was present when the treaty of peace was made between 
 Rome and Artabanus, King of Parthia (a.d. 36). The two 
 parties met, as was customary, in the middle of a bridge 
 thrown across the Euphrates; there Herod, emulating the 
 magnificence of his father, had erected a sumptuous tent, 
 and entertained the Parthian King and the Roman Pro- 
 consul at a great banquet. In order to conciliate himself 
 also with Tiberius, he sent special messengers with the news 
 of the conclusion of the treaty, and these arrived before the 
 official messengers sent by Vitellius. This may have pleased 
 the Emperor, but it irritated (as Herod afterwards dis- 
 covered) the Governor, and the Governor outlived the Em- 
 peror. 
 
 When the affairs of Parthia were settled the Syrian 
 legions were free for other work, and Vitellius was directed 
 to punish Aretas. As he was annoyed with Antipas he 
 did not hurry. With an army consisting of two legions and 
 auxihary troops he began his march through Judaea, but 
 the Jews requested him not to do so, as the land would be 
 contaminated by the images on the standards. He readily 
 complied with their request, and sent his army to the Plain 
 of Esdraelon, while he went to Jerusalem, offered sacrifices, 
 and arranged other matters. While he was there a mes- 
 senger came informing him of the death of Tiberius (March 
 16, A.D. 37), and he immediately gave up the expedition. 
 
 The Emperor's death was to have an unfortunate in- 
 fluence on the career of Herod. Agrippa, a son of Aristo- 
 bulus, who had been in disgrace with Tiberius and kept in 
 prison, was an intimate personal friend of Caligula, the new 
 Emperor. He was immediately set at liberty and given the 
 tetrarchy of Philip (which since Philip's death in a.d. 34 
 had been administered directly by Rome) with the title of 
 King. The honour thus conferred on him roused the jeal- 
 ousy and ambition of his sister Herodias. When she went 
 with her husband to Jerusalem at the time of the feasts she 
 could not endure the symbols of royal dignity with which 
 her brother and his wife were adorned, and was determined 
 that her husband, too, should be King. He was naturally 
 reluctant to do anything, but she was insistent. So Herod 
 
72 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 and Herodias and a large retinue went off to Rome that 
 he might obtain this new honour. Agrippa, however, showed 
 his family affection by defeating this plan. He sent off a 
 messenger of his own to the Emperor, who travelled with 
 great celerity and took information accusing Antipas of 
 having conspired with Sejanus against Tiberius, and now of 
 a treacherous agreement with Artabanus. As a proof of 
 this statement it was alleged that Antipas had prepared the 
 equipment for an army of 70,000 men. There seems to have 
 been some truth in this last allegation, and Antipas could 
 not deny it. So Caligula deprived him of his tetrarchy and 
 all his property, and banished him to Lyons in Gaul, giv- 
 ing his territory to Agrippa. It may be said to the credit of 
 Herodias that, although Caligula was prepared to treat her 
 with kindness as sister of Agrippa, she preferred to be true 
 to the husband on whom she had brought so many mis- 
 fortunes, and followed him into banishment. 
 
 In reviewing the reigns of these two tetrarchs — Antipas 
 and Philip — during what was, we know, so critical a period 
 in the history of Judaism, we shall notice as the most strik- 
 ing feature the absence of disturbance and sedition. So far 
 as our accounts go during all this time Galilee, Peraea, and 
 Trachonitis were free from any unrest or sedition, and it is 
 hardly likely that any event of great importance should 
 have escaped the knowledge of Josephus. It was not that 
 the Galilaeans were not capable of resistance; later, when 
 war broke out with Rome, they were among the most sedi- 
 tious. Though the home of Judas the Zealot, Gahlee had 
 not to pay taxes to Rome, so no disturbance had yet taken 
 place there. Although deep religious passions existed, they 
 were for a time dormant, and during these years the 
 country enjoyed, to an unusual extent, peace and pros- 
 perity. There was but slight danger of attacks from with- 
 out, order was well preserved, the land increased in wealth, 
 and those who would might turn their thoughts to higher things. 
 
 A fourth division of Palestine was constituted by the 
 DecapoHs.^ This term denoted, not a homogeneous stretch 
 of country, but a league of Greek cities. Each of these 
 
 ^ On the DecapoHs see G. A. Smith, Historical Geography, chap, xxviii.; 
 Schiirer, Geschichte,* ii., 148 J". 
 
THE DECAPOLIS 73 
 
 had its own territory/ stretching in some cases over a 
 considerable area; each its own constitution, its rights, 
 and pri\dleges. Their boundaries would be settled by 
 tradition or by definite deeds and grants. They might have 
 acquired, by treaty, rights of water or pasturage. They 
 were associated with one another by common interests and 
 obligations. But the different cities did not necessarily 
 march with one another, and they were separated by terri- 
 tory which belonged to the tetrarchy. The majority of 
 these cities had been founded in the early days of the Mace- 
 donian conquest, they had suffered from the religious zeal 
 of the Maccabees, and they most of them owed their free- 
 dom to Pompey, from whose expedition they dated their 
 era. A league of Greek cities in the midst of a barbarian 
 and unsympathetic population, they were bound together by 
 their common Hellenism, by Hellenic culture, hfe,and religion. 
 
 The cities of the DecapoUs were ScythopoHs, the ancient 
 Bethshan on the western side of the Jordan, guarding the 
 entrance to the Plain of Esdraelon; on the eastern side 
 Hippus, Gadara, and Pella, whose territories were contigu- 
 ous; on the road which ran south from Pella were Dium, 
 Gerasa, and Philadelphia — the ancient Rabbath Ammon; 
 on the road west from Gadara, Raphana and Kanatha, 
 which lay at the foot of the Jebel Hauran; finally, to the 
 north was Damascus. 
 
 The sites of these cities are remarkable at the present day 
 for the striking ruins of the Empire that they preserve. 
 Their theatres, their amphitheatres, their temples still stand 
 in ruined magnificence; their aqueducts stretch for miles 
 across the country; their bridges and their roads survive 
 as memorials of a past when the country was civilized; their 
 great columned streets may still be traced; at Gerasa there 
 are still 200 columns standing. One may wander still 
 among the side streets, and see the remains of shop and 
 store and private dwelHng-place.^ 
 
 ^ We have the territory of the Hippos mentioned under the name of Hip- 
 pene ('iTnrrjvrj) , B.J.,m., 37; of Gadara, Gadaritis, (FaSapirts), B.J., iii., 542; 
 of Philadelphia, Philadelphene {^t.\ad€\(f>rivri) , B.J., iii., 47. 
 
 ^ Smith, op. cit., p. 603: "Approach any of these sites of the Decapolis, 
 and this is the order in which you are certain to meet with their remains. 
 
74 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 They were strongholds of Hellenism in a Jewish land. 
 Their Gods were Greek — • Zeus and Pallas, Heracles, 
 Dionysus, Artemis; their language was Greek; they were 
 the homes of men famous in Greek hterature. From 
 Gadara came Philodemus the epicurean, Meleager the epi- 
 grammatist, Menippus the satirist, Theodorus the rhetori- 
 cian. Galilee, says Josephus, was surrounded by foreign 
 nations. It is not without significance that within sight of 
 the Sea of GaHlee, on the hills above the valley of the 
 Jordan, might be seen the signs of the religion and culture of 
 the Greek world, and that Greek language and thought 
 were permeating even Jewish life.^ 
 
 Such was the political condition of Palestine at the time 
 when it was to be the scene of the greatest events in the 
 world's history. Let us cast an eye for a moment on the 
 neighbouring countries. The safety of Palestine depended 
 largely on the Arabian kingdom which guarded the desert 
 
 Almost at the moment at which your eye catches a cluster of columns, or the 
 edge of an amphitheatre against the sky, your horse's hoofs will clatter 
 upon pavement. You cannot ride any more. You must walk up this cause- 
 way, which the city laid out far from its gates. You must feel the clean 
 tight slabs of basalt, so well laid at first that most of them lie square still. 
 You must draw your hand along the ruts worn deep by the chariot wheels 
 of fifteen, eighteen centuries ago. If the road runs between banks there 
 will be tombs in the limestone, with basalt lintels, and a Roman name on 
 them in Greek letters, perhaps a basalt or a limestone sarcophagus, flung 
 out on the road by some Arab hunter for treasure. If it is a waterless 
 site like Gadara you will find an aqueduct running with the road, the pipes 
 hewn out of sohd basalt, with a diameter Hke our drain pipes, and fitting 
 to each other, as these do, with flanges. But if it be the more character- 
 istic site by a stream, you will come to a bridge, one of those narrow para- 
 petless Roman bridges which were the first to span the Syrian rivers, and 
 have had so few successors. You reach the arch, or heap of ruins, that 
 marks the old gateway. Within is an open space, probably the forum, and 
 from this right through the city you can trace the line of the long colon- 
 naded street. Generally nothing but the bases of the columns remains, as 
 in the street called Straight of Damascus, or as at Gadara; but at Phila- 
 delphia ten or twelve columns still stand to their full height, and in the 
 famous street of Gerasa nearly two hundred. This last street was lined by 
 public and private buildings with very rich fagades. At Gadara you can 
 still see a by-street with plain vaulted buildings, probably stores or bazaars. 
 The best preserved buildings, however, are the amphitheatres, the most 
 beautiful are the temples." 
 
 ^ G. A. Smith, p. 607: "The temples of Zeus, Pallas, and Astarte 
 
• THE BORDER STATES 75 
 
 frontier. From the year 9 B.C. to the year a.d. 40 it was 
 governed by Aretas IV, The only event of importance 
 recorded of his reign has already been related, but he has 
 left an interesting memorial of himself in the numerous coins 
 that he issued. They imply considerable commercial vigour 
 and prosperity, and the inscriptions upon many of them 
 are an indication of the character of his reign. The title 
 by which he calls himself is "Charithath, King of the 
 Nabataeans, Lover of His People." This is not a meaning- 
 less title. It implies that he wishes to be known, not as 
 Lover of Greece, Lover of Rome, or Lover of Caesar — such 
 names were eagerly sought by these client princes — but as 
 lover of his own country.^ 
 
 To the north of Palestine still remained some of the 
 smaller principalities through whom the mountain tribes 
 were governed. Abilene, a portion of the Ituraean territory, 
 had as tetrarch a Lysanias, a member of the same family 
 as the Lysanias of the times of Herod and perhaps a son of 
 Zenodorus.- Of the neighbouring Chalcis at this time we 
 have no knowledge, and Commagene, to the north of Syria, 
 had now been joined to the province, but Arethusa and 
 Emesa still preserved a measure of independence. 
 
 The great question always present in the East was that of 
 the Parthian Empire and the Euphrates. It never ceased to 
 cause agitation, and it always remained a problem. The 
 imperial policy formulated by Augustus had fixed the limits 
 beyond which the Empire was not to advance, and he al- 
 ways refused to deal in a thorough manner with the Par- 
 crowned a height opposite to that which gave its name to the Sermon on 
 the Mount. Bacchus, under his Greek name, rules the territory down the 
 Jordan valley to Scythopolis. There was another temple to Zeus on the 
 other side of Galilee at Ptolemais, almost within sight of Nazareth. We can- 
 not believe that the two worlds, which this one landscape embraced, did 
 not break into each other." 
 
 ^ On Aretas IV. see Schiirer, Geschichte, i., 736; on the coins Head, Hist. 
 Num?, p. 811; Gutschmid, Verzcichniss der nabataische Konige, in Euting, 
 Nabataische Inschriften aus Arabia (Berlin, 1885), Hill, British Museum 
 Catalogue, Arabia, etc. 
 
 ^ On this Lysanias see Schiirer, Geschichte, i., 717. The existence of a 
 younger Lysanias, contemporary with our Lord, is proved both by Josephus 
 and by inscriptions; the opposite opinion is maintained by Schmidt in an 
 article in Encyclopaedia Biblica, iii., 2842, which exhibits all the wrong- 
 
76 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 thian question. Whether he was right or not is one of 
 those questions which may provoke endless and inconclusive 
 discussion, but a different pohcy might have had a profound 
 influence on the future of the world. The Roman policy 
 aimed at securing its frontier by making its neighbours 
 weak. Parthia was continually torn by domestic dissen- 
 sions, which were largely fomented by the undignified in- 
 trigues of the Emperor. Rome did not desire to cross the 
 Euphrates, and the buffer state of Armenia provided a cer- 
 tain mild antagonism between the two great empires. While 
 the Governor of Syria was in normal times entrusted with 
 the administration of the Euphrates front, and it was only 
 in Syria that legions were stationed, from time to time mem- 
 bers of the imperial family were entrusted with special mis- 
 sions. Under the guidance of an experienced statesman and 
 general they visited the famous cities of the ancient world, 
 and marched with an army into Armenia, whose capture 
 they celebrated. There was sometimes fighting, and the ex- 
 pedition concluded by a meeting on a bridge over the Eu- 
 phrates and a solemn treaty which neither side had the in- 
 tention to observe or the courage to break. So in the year 
 I B.C. came Caius Caesar, and twenty years later Ger- 
 manicus. 
 
 After a period of domestic and national strife a Median, 
 not of the royal house, who is known as Artabanus III., 
 ruled in Parthia from a.d. io to 40. His reign was followed 
 by another period of domestic dissension, and for the time 
 the Eastern menace was dead. To the land of Syria, which 
 always bore the first impetus of a hostile invasion, the terror 
 of the Parthian cavalry was very vivid. The memory of 
 the great disaster of Crassus still survived, and the impor- 
 tant fact at this period was that through the wise and cau- 
 tious, if uninspiring, policy of Augustus the fear seemed 
 gone. A prospect of profound peace reigned in the East. 
 Not yet had the angel "poured out his vial upon the Eu- 
 phrates, and the waters thereof been dried up, that the way 
 
 headedness which makes that publication so untrustworthy and even ri- 
 diculous. The determination to prove, in the face of obvious evidence, 
 that the New Testament is wrong is considered by many persons a sign of 
 unbiassed research. 
 
JESUS AMONG THE RABBIS 77 
 
 might be made ready for the kings of the East that come 
 from the sun-rising."^ 
 
 V 
 
 It is related by St. Luke that when Jesus had reached the 
 age of twelve He went up with His parents to the Passover 
 at Jerusalem, and that when they returned He stayed be- 
 hind and was found in the temple sitting among the 
 teachers, hearing them and asking them questions. It ap- 
 pears that it was a custom at the festivals and Sabbaths for 
 members of the Sanhedrin to give public instruction on the 
 law on the terrace of the temple, and it is probable that an 
 occasion like this is referred to.^ The historian Josephus 
 tells us a similar story about himself. While he was still a 
 boy about fourteen years of age, he was the object of uni- 
 versal praise for his love of learning, and the chief priests 
 and great men of the city came together at times to receive 
 an accurate exposition from him on points of law.^ The con- 
 trast between the conceit of the historian and the modest 
 claims of the Evangelist is certainly remarkable, but the 
 story told by Josephus may suggest that the narrative of St. 
 Luke is not so improbable as has been supposed. That 
 Jesus, as He increased in wisdom and stature, should desire 
 to know the true meaning of the law in which He was being 
 instructed was probable enough, and this incident will make 
 us desire to know who \vere the teachers who at this time 
 were the official exponents of the rehgion of Israel. 
 
 The Jews in our Lord's day were an educated nation. 
 Probably the vast majority could read and write. They 
 were taught to read the Scriptures, and learnt the principles 
 of their religion. That was for many their interest in life, 
 
 ^ Rev. xvi. 12. 
 
 2 On this incident see Edersheim, Life of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i., chap. 
 X. The extent to which these early incidents recorded in Jerusalem are his- 
 torical must always be doubtful, but there is nothing improbable, certainly 
 nothing impossible, in the story. Even those who deny the divine character 
 of Christ must recognize that He was certainly one who, at any period of 
 His life, must have been remarkable alike for religious piety and intelli- 
 gence. 
 
 ' Josephus, Life, § 9. 'in 5' avTlirais wv irepl TeacrapecrKaideKaTov eras 3td 
 TO (piXoypd/xnaTov vtto iravroiv €Tr-(ivovix7}v avviovTuv aet tuv apxiepeuv nal tuv 
 T'^s TToXews irpwTUU virep rov trap' ep,ov irepl TUf voix'iixwv aKpi^ecrrepop rt yi'ui'ai. 
 
78 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 and they would desire to gain as much information and 
 as accurate knowledge as circumstances allowed. The 
 machinery consisted of the synagogue, the elementary 
 school attached to the synagogue, and the higher school or 
 University. The one school was called the Beth-ha-Sepher, 
 the other the Beth-ha-Midrash. The relation of the two may 
 be learnt from a Rabbinical commentary on Genesis, which 
 teaches us the later custom. "Esau and Jacob," it said, 
 "went together until they had passed the thirteenth year, 
 when they parted, the former entering the house of idols, 
 and the latter the Beth-ha-Midrash.'"^ The synagogue and 
 the elementary school were found throughout Palestine, and 
 all Jewish boys could have the opportunity of learning. 
 The local courts of justice and the synagogue would imply 
 the presence of scribes and teachers trained in the law in 
 every important town, and much discussion and teaching 
 about the law and the meaning of the Scriptures would pre- 
 vail everywhere, but it would all depend upon the great 
 school at Jerusalem. It was here that scribes and teachers 
 were trained, here the great Rabbis taught, and from here 
 decisions went out to the strict and devout Jews through- 
 out Israel. If we may trust later tradition, there was a 
 great school or schools — Beth-ha-Midrash-ha-Gadol — situ- 
 ated in the temple, probably somewhere under the porticoes 
 by which it was surrounded. Here was the centre from 
 which the growth and development of Judaism were dis- 
 seminated.^ 
 
 It is our task now to give some account of the charac- 
 teristics of Rabbinical teaching at this time. It is one which 
 it is difhcult to perform with accuracy. Our earliest sources 
 concerning it are those contained in the Mishna, which was 
 not written down until the end of the second century, nearly 
 two hundred years later; and although we may recognize 
 that the later date may be compensated for by the great 
 power of memory developed in the schools, by the training 
 of each student to learn by heart the decisions and teaching 
 
 ^ Gen. k. Ixiii. lo. 
 
 ^ On the organization of Jewish schools and learning see Schurer, Ge- 
 schichie* vol. ii., §§ 26, 27, with the references there given. See also article 
 on Bait-ha-Midrash in Jewish Encyclopaedia, vol. iii., 116^. 
 
RABBINICAL TEACHING 79 
 
 of his instructors, and by the weight laid on the scrupulous 
 preservation of tradition, yet a study of the contents of 
 Jewish hterature will convince us that even men with 
 trained memories will tend to remember things as they wish, 
 and make us distrust the historical accuracy of the com- 
 pilers. We feel ourselves in the presence of a singular type 
 of mind. There is an absence of any historical sense. Instead 
 of history or biography there are stories often trivial 
 and absurd. A desire for what seems edification entirely 
 overpowers any conception of historical truth. The present 
 is read into the past, which is reconstructed on a priori 
 lines. It is noticeable that the further our sources are re- 
 moved from the event recorded, the fuller they become. 
 The history is often neither edifying nor trustworthy, but it 
 has another sort of truth. It enables us to form a not un- 
 faithful conception of the manner of mind and teaching ex- 
 hibited by the Rabbis. In what follows we shall quote both 
 the story and the tradition, with the conviction that, if not 
 always verbally true, the general picture that it presents is 
 faithful.^ 
 
 At the beginning of the Christian era the great name of 
 the Rabbinical schools was that of Hillel,^ the founder of 
 the traditional exegesis. He was, we are told, a Jew of 
 Babylon,^ of the seed of Da\'id. He had progressed far in 
 
 •^ The English reader may gain some direct conception of the character 
 of Rabbinical teaching from translations of the Talmud: Eightaen Treatises 
 of the Mishna, translated by De Sola and Raphall (ed. London, 1845); Bar- 
 clay, The Talmud (London, 1878); Pirke Aboth, translated by Dr. C. Tay- 
 lor (Cambridge, 1897), and in Charles, Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic 
 Literature, vol. ii., pp. 686-741, ed. Herford. The only important Haggadic 
 work of which I know an English translation is the Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, by 
 Gerald Friedlander (London: Kegan Paul, 1916). On the literature of the 
 subject generally see Oesterley and Box, TJie Religion and Worship of the 
 Synagogue. ■ ., ^ 
 
 2 On HiUel by far the best account that I have been able to find is that 
 of Ewald, History of Israel, E.T., vol. vi., p. 21, and that is incomplete. 
 See also Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten,^ vol. i., i-io; art. Hillel, Jewish En- 
 cyclopaedia, vol. vi., p. 397; Schiirer, op. cit., p. 424^., and the literature 
 there cited; Delitzsch, Jesus and Hillel, in Jewish Artisan Life, E.T. (Lon- 
 don, 1877). There does not appear to have been any scholarly and com- 
 plete investigation of his life and the traditions about him. 
 
 ' It is a characteristic example of the way the Rabbis write history that 
 
8o PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 learning in the schools of his own home, and so great was his 
 enthusiasm for the study of the law that he had travelled 
 to Jerusalem in order to add what its doctors might have to 
 teach to his own learning. He had to endure the severest 
 poverty. By working at his trade he earned a victoriatus a 
 day — about 5d. On half of it he supported his family; 
 with the other half he was able to pay his entrance fee for the 
 lectures of Shemaiah and Abtalion. One Sabbath eve in 
 winter he had no money to pay his entrance fee, so he 
 climbed up into the window that he might hear all that was 
 said. Unable to bear the intense cold he fainted. The 
 lecture lasted all night, and he was only discovered in the 
 morning, when it was noted how slowly the morning light 
 penetrated into the school house. They found him lying 
 insensible, buried in the snow. He was extricated and 
 revived. As the students performed this charitable work 
 they remarked characteristically: "He is worthy that on his 
 account the Sabbath should be broken." In process of time 
 this poor student became the head of the Rabbinical schools 
 and the fountain-head of Jewish theology. 
 
 He was clearly a man of strong character. He was de- 
 voted to the study of the law, but he had less than other 
 Rabbis of the harshness and bitterness which so often seems 
 to have characterized them. He was gentle in disposition, 
 displayed a caustic but not unkind wit. He was leader of 
 the more moderate school of Theology, and laid down the prin- 
 ciples on which in later generations the law continued to be 
 interpreted. These characteristics are revealed by the sayings 
 recorded in Pirke Aboth} "Be of the disciples of Aaron," 
 he said, "one that loves peace, that pursues peace, that 
 loves mankind and brings them nigh to the Torah." "Say 
 not: when I am at leisure I will study: perchance thou 
 shalt not be at leisure." He exhibits that scorn of the ig- 
 norant which was undoubtedly a characteristic of the 
 Rabbis: "No uneducated man is quick to shrink from sin, 
 
 they described him as having lived for three periods of forty years, the first 
 in Babylon, the second as learner in Jerusalem, the third as head of the 
 Rabbinical school. The object of such history was to make his life parallel 
 to that of Moses. 
 
 ^ See Pirke Aboth, chap, i., §§ 12-14; ii-. §§ S~8. 
 
HILLEL AND SHAMMAI 8i 
 
 no man of the people is religious." "No one devoted to 
 trade becomes wise." There is a certain shrewd wisdom in 
 the following maxim: "No one who is too timid learns 
 well, and no one who is too angry teaches well." His cynical 
 view of common life, and his exaltation of learning are con- 
 trasted in the following maxim: "The more flesh one hath, 
 the more worms; the more treasures the more care; the 
 more women the more superstition; the more maidservants 
 the more unchastity; the more menservants the more 
 theft; the more law the more life; the more schools of law 
 the more wisdom; the more counsel the more insight; the 
 more righteousness the more peace. If one gains a good 
 name, one gains it for oneself; if one gains knowledge of 
 the law, one gains the life to come." 
 
 The great rival and opponent of Hillel was Shammai,^ and 
 many of the stories which are related turn on the contrast 
 between the two. "Let a man be always gentle like Hillel, 
 and not hasty hke Shammai." Shammai is always depicted 
 as teaching the law in its harshest and most rigid aspect. 
 While Hillel attracted proselytes, Shammai drove them 
 away: "The passionateness of Shammai sought to drive us 
 out of the world; the gentleness of Hillel has brought us 
 under the wings of the divine glory." This was illustrated 
 by many stories somewhat puerile in character, and one of 
 them embodies Hillel's most famous saying. "A heathen 
 came to Shammai with the request that he would accept him 
 as a proselyte, and teach him the whole law while he was 
 standing on one foot. Shammai drove him away with the 
 measuring rod which he had in his hand. Hillel accepted 
 him and said: 'That which is to thee hateful do not to the 
 neighbour. This is the whole law; the rest is commentary; 
 go away and practise it.'"^ 
 
 It seems characteristic of the Rabbinical tradition that 
 it should put together in this way the ridiculous and the 
 
 ^ On Shammai see Schurer, op. cit., pp. 424, 425, and the references 
 there given. 
 
 2 These stories of the proselytes who came to Hillel and Shammai are 
 given in full in Ewald, op. cit., p. 22. They come from Shabhath, fol. 30b 
 and 31a. 
 
82 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 sublime without seeing the incongruity.^ The story seems to 
 belong to the later days of Judaism, when no great thoughts 
 or deeds stirred the minds of the narrow circle of pedants 
 who composed the Mishna and the Gemara. It does not 
 harmonize with the religious earnestness of the school which 
 trained St. Paul or hardened the nation for the last great 
 revolt. We may dismiss the story as legendary, and accept 
 the maxim as historical. It is based upon the teaching of 
 the Old Testament. It is found in a slightly different form 
 in the book of Tobit: "What thou thyself hatest do to no 
 man." It has its parallel amongst heathen writers; and it 
 may be held to represent the highest point which a sober 
 and somewhat utilitarian morality may attain. Hillel 
 showed clear insight in seeing that here was the essential 
 point of the law of which perhaps it represents the highest 
 attainment, but there is a wide difference between what he 
 taught and the Christian ethic which puts the rule before 
 us in its positive and not in its negative side, turns it into 
 a great imperative of moral enthusiasm, and allows it to 
 permeate all teaching and life. As we read the other re- 
 corded sayings of Hillel and his school, nothing ever reminds 
 us that he had the intuition to see where the root of 
 law and morality lies; as we read the Christian tradition we 
 never feel far from its great law of Love.^ 
 
 If on this point Hillel approached near to the teaching of 
 Christ, on other points he was far removed from it. While 
 Shammai and his school maintained that no one should 
 divorce his wife except for unchastity, Hillel apparently 
 himself, and certainly his school, allowed divorce for any 
 cause, "even if she spoiled his food," and it is noted that 
 Rabbi Aqiba at the end of the century said, "even if he 
 find another woman more beautiful." But it is pointed out 
 
 ^ A custom seems to have prevailed in the Rabbinical schools of pre- 
 serving, exaggerating, or inventing stories illustrating the character and 
 idiosyncrasies of leading men, much in the same way as in Oxford or Cam- 
 bridge stories partly true, partly untrue, are told. In both cases, even if 
 historically the evidence be doubtful, there is no doubt of their poetic 
 truth. 
 
 ^ On this maxim of Hillel's by far the best exposition from the Jewish 
 point of view is that of Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism, "The Greatest 
 Commandment," p. 19 (Cambridge, 191 7). The Christian need not hesi- 
 
JEWISH EXEGESIS 83 
 
 that these were intended to be rather theoretical rules 
 asserting the abstract right of the husband than recommen- 
 dations of what should actually be done. Hillel would pre- 
 vent divorce by compelling the husband to return the whole 
 of the wife's dowry. ^ 
 
 The most striking maxim recorded of Shammai seems to 
 imply his severity: ''Make thy Torah a fixed duty; say 
 little and do much : and receive every man with the look of 
 a cheerful face." Stories were circulated telling how rigidly 
 he carried out the law. He is said to have wanted to make 
 his son, while still a child, conform to the law concerning 
 fasting on the day of Atonement, and when his daughter- 
 in-law gave birth to a boy on the Feast of Tabernacles, he 
 was said to have broken through the roof of the chamber in 
 which she lay in order to make a Sukkah or booth of it, so 
 that the new-born child might keep the festival. Yet 
 while Hillel would teach the law to all, Shammai would only 
 teach it to those who were wise, humble, and of godly, well- 
 to-do parentage. 
 
 It was as the founder of Jewish exegesis, and as laying 
 down — in a more systematic manner than had hitherto 
 been done — the principles on which it developed, that 
 Hillel probably exercised the greatest influence on posterity, 
 an influence which really counteracted any more liberal 
 elements there may have been in his teaching. The pur- 
 pose of this exegesis was, it must be remembered, primarily 
 the interpretation of the law as a rule of life. When once 
 the conception of a fixed law as ruling life has been at- 
 tained, some authority that can declare and interpret the 
 law becomes necessary, and that authority requires rules 
 for its guidance. The first necessity in the case of the Jew- 
 ish law arose from the conflict of rules. When there was an 
 apparent discrepancy between different passages in the 
 Pentateuch, it required a careful exegesis to reconcile them. 
 The second difficulty arose from the fact that any law, if it 
 
 tate to recognize the highest point attained by Rabbinical exegesis, for the 
 fact will always remain that Christian morality has always been built on 
 this principle, and Rabbinical teaching has not. 
 
 ^ See on this Abrahams, op. cit., "Jewish Divorce in the First Century" 
 p. 66. 
 
 7 
 
84 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 is rigidly applied, becomes impossible. The law has to be 
 interpreted so as to harmonize with the facts of life. How 
 can its severity be mitigated? The third difficulty arose 
 from the incompleteness of the law. No code could ever 
 cover every case; how, then, could new cases be decided? 
 In order, therefore, to adapt the law to all cases, a recog- 
 nized system of interpretation was required.^ It was this 
 that Hillel came from Babylon to learn at the feet of She- 
 maiah and Abtalion; this he taught himself; and his prin- 
 ciples were embodied in seven rules which, afterwards ex- 
 panded into thirteen, were looked upon not only as authori- 
 tative, but as one of the most sacred possessions of Judaism. 
 
 Here are the seven rules. The first was "light and 
 heavy," which is interpreted to mean the argument a 
 fortiori. An instance given is that Josa ben Jochanan 
 of Jerusalem argued that whatever was true of his wife 
 was even more true of all women. The second was "a like 
 decision," the argument from analogy. The third was "a 
 conclusion from a single text." The fourth, "a conclusion 
 from two texts." The fifth, "from the particular to the 
 general and the general to the particular." The sixth, "to 
 the like in another place" — that is, applying a similar 
 method to a different passage. The last, "the argument 
 from the context." It is only necessary to remark that a 
 judicious employment of these principles would make it 
 possible to arrive at any desired result.^ 
 
 A particular instance of Hillel's legislative ingenuity was 
 an ordinance which bore the enigmatic name of Prosbol. 
 This showed how he was able to harmonize the ordinances 
 of the law with the realities of life. It is well known that 
 according to the Mosaic code all debts contracted were 
 remitted during the Sabbatical year. The natural result 
 of such a law was a great reluctance to lend, a result which 
 had indeed been foreseen: "Beware," it was said, "that 
 there be not a base thought in thine heart, saying, The 
 
 1 On Jewish exegesis and its purpose see Schiirer, op. cil., pp. 391- 
 
 399- 
 
 2 On the seven rules of Hillel see Schiirer, Geschichte* ii., 397. They 
 are found in the Tosephta Sanhedrin, vii., fui. (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 427), 
 the Abbot de Rabbi Nathan, c. 37, and in the introduction to the Siphra 
 
THE SUCCESSORS OF HILLEL 85 
 
 seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye 
 be evil against they poor brother, and thou give him 
 nought." In order to remedy this Hillel ruled that if a 
 creditor made a declaration before the judge that he re- 
 served to himself the right to collect his debts whenever he 
 chose, the Sabbath year did not remit them. In other 
 words, he introduced a system of "contracting out."^ 
 
 His industry, his learning, and his character — gentle and 
 mild, but determined — gave Hillel an ascendancy in his 
 own day which survived long after his death, and if we are 
 to believe later tradition a continuous succession of his de- 
 cendants acquired almost a monopoly of the position of 
 head of the Rabbinic schools. His Son, Simeon I., was 
 distinguished for his modesty and his godliness, and the 
 only saying of his recorded is certainly characteristic: "All 
 my days I have grown up among the Wise, and I have not 
 found anything better than silence; and not study, but ac- 
 tion is the chief thing; and whoso makes many words occa- 
 sions sin." His son, Gamaliel I., was the teacher of St. 
 Paul, the wise counsellor of the Acts. Then in succession 
 came Simeon II., Gamaliel II., Simeon III., Judah the 
 Prince, who compiled the Mishna, and Gamaliel III. But 
 there are some who think that the succession in office has 
 created the story of genealogical descent from Hillel, and 
 that even the succession in ofhce itself is not historical. 
 
 The controversy between Hillel and Shammai was con- 
 tinued by their schools, 2 and the Mishna bears witness 
 to the many differences of opinion between the house of 
 Hillel and the house of Shammai — so they were designated. 
 
 (Ugolini, Thesaurus, t, xiv., 595). See on them the Jeivish Encyclopaedia, 
 xii., pp. 30-33. They were expanded into thirteen rules ascribed to the 
 Rabbi Ishmael. These are contained in the Jewish prayer-books, and 
 supposed to be recited by each Jew every day. 
 
 1 On tlie Proshol see Schebiith, x., 3-7 (the treatise of the Mishna on 
 the Sabbatical year); Schurer, op. cit., pp. 427-8; Jewish Encyclopaedia, 
 X., 219. The word is most probably derived from the Greek irpoa^oXr], and 
 perhaps represents the Latin adjcciio — a clause added to and modifying 
 a contract. 
 
 2 On the schools of Hillel and Shammai see Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten, 
 p. II. and the articles "Bet Hillel" and "Bet Shammai" in the Jewish En- 
 cyclopaedia, vol. iii., p. 115. 
 
86 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 So constant was the dispute between them, so many were 
 the different conclusions, that it was said the one law had 
 become two laws. The same features were preserved in the 
 schools as had been shown by their founders, and the fol- 
 lowers of Hillel were supposed to be distinguished for the 
 leniency of their interpretations, those of Shammai for their 
 severity. In 316 places in the Mishna are the differences of 
 these two schools cited, and in only fifty-three of them is 
 the milder decision that of the school of Shammai. During 
 the years that preceded the fall of Jerusalem, a fundamental 
 dispute between them was concerned with the relation to 
 the Roman power. While the followers of Hillel strove 
 to assuage the increasing bitterness, those of Shammai 
 encouraged it. In order to increase the bitterness, they 
 laid down that no Jew should engage in buying or selling 
 with Gentiles. A violent discussion is said to have taken 
 place at which many followers of Hillel were murdered — it 
 is difficult to say whether we are dealing with sober history 
 or Rabbinical Midrash — and as a result the eighteen ar- 
 ticles which intensified the evil were adopted. At any rate 
 this is certain: The policy of harshness and violence tri- 
 umphed; all moderate counsels were suppressed; and this 
 unrestrained bitterness resulted in the revolt and the de- 
 struction of the Jewish state. For a time the poKcy of 
 Shammai prevailed, and its results were evil. When the 
 schools of law were restored, first at Jamnia, then at Ti- 
 berias, it was the precepts of Hillel that became dominant. 
 It was, as we have seen, his descendants or reputed de- 
 cendants who, after the destruction of Jerusalem, became 
 heads of the Rabbinical schools, and therefore presidents of 
 the Sanhedrin in its new aspect, and it was his descendant. 
 Rabbi Judah, the Prince, to whom his nation was indebted 
 for the compilation of the Mishna. 
 
 A perusal of the pages of the Talmud will reveal to us 
 the subjects of debate between the two schools. The follow- 
 ing, taken from the tract of the Mishna called Berakhoth, 
 or "Blessings," may serve as an instance: 
 
 "These are the controversies relating to meals between 
 the schools of Shammai and Hillel. The school of Shammai 
 says, 'One must say the blessing of the day, and then bless 
 
SCHOOLS OF HILLEL AND SHAMMAI 87 
 
 the wine'; but the school of Hillel says, 'One must say the 
 blessing on the wine, and then bless the day.' 
 
 "The school of Shammai say, 'Men must pour water on 
 the hands and then mix the goblet'; but the school of 
 Hillel say, 'The goblet must be mixed, and then water 
 poured on the hands.' 
 
 "The school of Shammai say, 'One is to wipe his hands 
 on the napkin and lay it on the table'; but the school of 
 Hillel say, 'on the cushion.' 
 
 "The school of Shammai bless 'the light, the food, the 
 spices, and the distinction of the day'; but the school of 
 Hillel bless 'the light, the spices, the food and the dis- 
 tinction of the day.' The school of Shammai say, 'Who 
 created the hght of fire'; but the school of Hillel say, 
 'Creator of the light of lire.' 
 
 "If one have eaten and forgotten and not blessed? The 
 school of Shammai say, 'He must return to his place and 
 bless.' But the school of Hillel say, 'He may bless in the 
 place where he recollects.' How long is one obliged to 
 bless? 'Until the food in his stomach be digested.'" ^ 
 
 One of the instances given in which the school of Hillel 
 was more rigid than that of Shammai was deemed of suffi- 
 cient importance to give a name to a whole tract of the 
 Mishna, that of Beza, or "The Egg." Hillel held that an 
 egg laid on a feast day might not be eaten; Shammai was 
 of a contrary opinion.^ 
 
 We may give one more instance of the controversy be- 
 tween these schools, taking it from the Haggada and not 
 the Halakha: 
 
 "The school of Shammai said: 'The heavens were cre- 
 ated first, and the earth afterwards, as it is said, "In the 
 beginning God created the heaven and the earth."' The 
 school of Hillel said: 'The earth was created first, and the 
 heavens afterwards, as it is said, "Of old hast thou laid 
 the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work 
 of thy hands." ' " 
 
 The two schools continued to quote texts against one 
 another, each of them relying on the order in which the 
 
 ^ Berakhoth (the treatise on Blessings), viii. 
 2 Beza, i., i; Eduolh, iv., i. 
 
88 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 heavens and earth were mentioned in the texts cited; at 
 last the account ends: 
 
 "Contention arose between them on this question; un- 
 til the Holy Spirit rested between them, and they both 
 agreed that both (heaven and earth) were created in one 
 hour and at one moment. What did the Holy One, blessed 
 be He, do? He put forth His right hand, and stretched 
 forth the heavens, and He put forth His left hand and 
 founded the earth, as it is said:- 'Yea, Mine hand hath 
 laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand hath 
 spread out the heavens.'" ^ 
 
 It is difficult for us to form a just estimate of these 
 schools and their teaching. It is presented to us in so unat- 
 tractive a form, it is so alien to all our thoughts, it is so 
 inconsistent with any sound methods of exegesis and inter- 
 pretation, that we can hardly have patience with it. Yet 
 from time to time some learned Rabbi attempts to apolo- 
 gize for his religion, and a bold claim has been advanced 
 that all Christianity is to be found in the Talmud.^ It is, 
 indeed, true that grains of gold may be extracted from the 
 mass of teaching; that occasionally we find a shrewd re- 
 mark, an elevated thought, or a parable picturesque in its 
 language and spiritual in its teaching. We remember, in- 
 deed, that we are concerned with a religious development 
 which has its roots in the Old Testament, *|and that it could 
 never completely lose what it drew from such an origin. 
 We may make every allowance for the care for religion, the 
 
 1 Pirke der Rabbi Eliezer, ed. Friedlander, pp. 134, 135. 
 
 2 By far the most moderate and thoughtful defence of Rabbinism is 
 that of Abrahams in the work already cited. We may quote with much 
 approval the words with which he ends his preface: "I am well aware of 
 the many imperfections of the studies here presented. But I do claim that 
 I have not written apologetically. Still less have I been moved by contro- 
 versial aims. Only on rare occasions have I directly challenged the picture 
 of Pharisaism drawn in Germany by Professor Shiirer, and in England by 
 Canon Charles. I have preferred to supplement their views by a positive 
 presentation of another view. In this sense only are these studies apolo- 
 getic and controversial ... I have never consciously suppressed defects in 
 the Pharisaic position, nor have I asserted in behalf of it more than the 
 facts, as known to me, have demanded." We may recognize the fairness, 
 
RABBINISM 89 
 
 earnestness, the industry of the Rabbinic schools, and the 
 piety of some of their members. Yet the fact remains that 
 we may turn over page after page of the Talmud and that 
 each passage seems more trivial and even repulsive than 
 its predecessor, that the matters in dispute were puerile, 
 and all the weighty matters of morality and the Jewish law 
 were left far behind. If we turn to the Midrashic commen- 
 tary, we find legend and folklore, stories trivial and often 
 unedifying, and an exegesis which is pedantic and fantastic. 
 Whether we judge them intellectually or spiritually, the 
 Rabbinic interpretations are unsatisfying and erroneous; 
 they are marked by incoherent reasonings, verbal quibbles, 
 and bad logic. An interested history may attempt, on the 
 basis of one or two recorded sayings of Hillel, to put him 
 forward as a forerunner or rival of our Lord, and some 
 shght resemblance has been found in one or two words or 
 maxims, but all such attempts are really absurd. If we 
 consider the proportion the more rational sayings bear to 
 the rest of his teaching, if we consider how little bearing 
 they have on the system which he built up, how little bear- 
 ing they have on the thoughts of his followers, it is seen 
 how unsubstantial are all these claims. 
 
 Judaism has, indeed, never been spiritually dead. It 
 has preserved something always of the sap of the trunk from 
 which it has sprung. However distorted in mind, in morals, 
 in religion might be the Rabbis, they yet have always had 
 in their way a zeal for God, although little according 
 to knowledge. We have great earnestness and strong 
 characters. We find sometimes a strange element of 
 mysticism. But all is vitiated by self-will, by narrowness 
 and pedantry. Their eyes are darkened, their ears are dull 
 of hearing. They have shut off from themselves the high- 
 est gift of the Spirit, which is wisdom. We shall see again 
 and again, as our history proceeds, how our Lord sweeps 
 away the cobwebs of pedantry with which religion had been 
 
 the piety, and the humanism of Dr. Abrahams, but at the same time our 
 judgment must be that his presentation is unhistorical and the judgment 
 of Schiirer and Charles is right. The modern Jew has learnt much from 
 Christianity, and seeks to find his new faith in his old books, and he finds 
 what he seeks, but forgets the dross that he rejects. 
 
90 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 obscured, and illuminates it by a single flash of insight and 
 inspiration. 
 
 VI 
 
 It is one of the most difficult of problems to estimate 
 the real religious life of a country, even of a country we 
 know well and in our own days. How much harder of one 
 remote from our own times, concerning which but scanty 
 records have been preserved. Often it is the singular, the 
 exceptional, and even the debased that becomes most con- 
 spicuous. The real piety of a nation does not court pub- 
 licity, and lies concealed and unnoticed. We have depicted, 
 so far as we have been able, the most conspicuous currents 
 of the thought of Israel in Palestine at this time, the Sad- 
 ducean priesthood, the Galilaean zealots, the learned students 
 of the law. The picture is an unattractive one. In its 
 most conspicuous developments Israel seems to have lacked 
 the essential quality of piety. Religion seems to have failed 
 as a guide to life. Do these, we may ask, give us a complete 
 or true picture of the Ufe of the nation? It may be doubted. 
 What is best hardly appears in this way. These uncouth, 
 distorted developments represent the perversion of the true 
 religion which they help to conceal. They testify to a 
 reality behind them, without which they could not have been 
 possible. All this exaggeration and distortion could only 
 arise among a people that really cared for religion, and if 
 there was real piety to be found. It must be remembered 
 that the roots of national piety, the Scriptures of the Old 
 Testament, were everywhere known. The law and the 
 prophets were read in every synagogue, the religious worship 
 of the temple still preserved the ideals and memories of the 
 past, the psalms were the organ of public worship and the 
 expression of personal piety. There were many who strove 
 to fashion their lives on the pure morality of the Old Testa- 
 ment, undisturbed by the pedantic philosophy, the party 
 strife, and the religious fantasies which prevailed so widely. 
 
 It is this aspect of Jewish life which is presented to us 
 with singular beauty by the Evangelist^ St. Luke in his 
 
 ^ I do not feel competent, for we have not the evidence, to pronounce 
 
THE PIETY OF ISRAEL 91 
 
 story of the births of John and Jesus. It must be frankly 
 confessed that there is much reasonable doubt as to the 
 hmits of what is history and what is legend in the story, 
 and the criticism, whether positive or negative, which would 
 speak dogmatically goes far beyond the evidence available, 
 but there is no reason to doubt that we have put before us 
 true types of religious life as it existed at that day in Pales- 
 tine. It may be noticed that throughout there are no 
 special Christian traits, and both the theology and the re- 
 ligious life are purely Jewish in character. 
 
 The official priesthood might be corrupt, but Zacharias 
 and Elisabeth were righteous and devout. Mary, the 
 maiden of Nazareth, was one who had found favour with 
 God. Joseph, her husband, was a just and upright man. 
 Living in Jerusalem, worshipping in the temple, untouched 
 by the evil around them, lived men Hke Symeon, pious and 
 religious, waiting for the consolation of Israel; and in the 
 temple and its courts might be found those like Hannah the 
 prophetess, who served God night and day, was constant 
 in prayer and fasting, and is represented as having the 
 insight to recognize the Messiah when He came. How 
 many were there, quiet and devout, looking for the redemp- 
 tion of Jerusalem? 
 
 The aspirations of these people are put before us in 
 Psalms, drawn from the language and thoughts of the Old 
 Testament. In nothing do they go beyond the limits of 
 what might be learnt from Jewish prophecy in its more 
 exalted form. The thoughts are based on the pious accept- 
 ance of God as the all-powerful ruler of the world, and on 
 resigned submission to His will. No word of God is without 
 power. God is my Saviour. Holy is His name. His 
 mercy is for all generations of them that love Him. My soul 
 doth magnify the Lord, my Spirit hath rejoiced in God my 
 Saviour. The proud, the princes on their thrones, the 
 
 on the origin and source of the stories, and especially the psalms in the 
 narrative of the Birth as given by St. Luke. Our knowledge of the methods 
 of ancient historians may make us suspect that these songs have been writ- 
 ten to present to us the fervid hopes and the religious feelings of their al- 
 leged authors, and there is some improbability in the supposition of their 
 genuineness, but we may use them with confidence as presentations of Jew- 
 ish life and religion. 
 
92 PALESTINE, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS 
 
 mighty upon earth, the rich are powerless against Him. To 
 the poor, the suffering, the meek, the lowly He is full of 
 kindness. His special love is for Israel. He is the God of 
 Israel. He remembers the covenant which he made with 
 Abraham and the oath which he swore unto Jacob. 
 
 All that has been foretold by the prophets will be accom- 
 plished. The Messiah, the Son of God, will sit on the throne 
 of David His servant, and rule over Israel for ever. Of His 
 kingdom there shall be no end. He brings redemption and 
 salvation to His people. He will raise a horn of salvation in 
 the house of His servant David; salvation from our enemies 
 and from the hands of all that hate us. He will shine upon 
 those who are sitting in darkness and the shadow of death; 
 He is the light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of His 
 people Israel. The end of salvation is that they may be 
 able to serve God in holiness and righteousness. He will 
 guide their feet into the way of peace. 
 
 We may perhaps seek further evidence of the religious life 
 of Israel at this time in the eighteen Blessings which form 
 part of the synagogue prayers.^ They were composed in 
 their present form towards the end of the first century, and 
 some of the petitions were added after the fall of Jerusalem, 
 but the great body of the prayers seems to have been written 
 at an earlier date, and may reflect the religious aspirations 
 of the period we are treating, and, at any rate, will show us 
 what the religion was which the Jew would learn in his 
 services. God is blessed as the God of Israel, the God of our 
 Fathers. From Him come help and salvation. He is 
 Almighty, Eternal, Mighty to help. He giveth grace to the 
 living, life to the dead, support to the fallen. "Lead us 
 back to Thy law, and bring us to Thy service." God is 
 asked to forgive the sins of His people and show them 
 mercy, to give blessings to the land and all the fruits of the 
 earth, to give freedom to the land and assemble the dis- 
 persed from the four ends of the world. His justice and 
 righteousness are praised, and His hatred of evil. "Judge us 
 
 1 On these see Schurer, op. cit., pp. 538/-, who gives a German transla- 
 tion; Hirsch, article "Shemoneh 'Esreh" in Jeu'ish Encyclopaedia, xl, 
 pp. 270-282; Oesterley and Box, op. oil., pp. 2>Z2,-35S\ Singer, Service of 
 the Synagogue, pp. 44~54« 
 
THE BLESSINGS 93 
 
 in righteousness. Destroy our enemies. Build up the 
 throne of David in our midst. Let everything that Hveth 
 praise Thee." The outlook throughout is purely Jewish, 
 and there is not any Messianic expectation in the more re- 
 stricted sense, although the salvation of Israel is hoped for; 
 but the blessings breathe a deep and strong religious sense, 
 a firm beUef in God, a submission to His overruUng provi- 
 dence, a consciousness of hoUness and righteousness and 
 justice such as the pedantic and unreal study of the law 
 often decreased, but never destroyed. 
 
 When Jesus the Messiah came to Israel, there was much 
 evil in the land, and history always records the evil; there 
 was much perversion of what was good, and it is what is 
 perverted and strange that attracts attention, but it must 
 never be forgotten that the religion of Judaism was based 
 at all times in its history on the Old Testament with its 
 message of righteousness and holiness, and on the traditional 
 piety of the Jewish people. The unattractive developments 
 were the perversion or exaggeration of what was good. The 
 law was holy and spiritual. Israel was a people more 
 devoted to religion than any nation has ever been. That 
 religion was a high and lofty one. There was a strong, if 
 rigid, system of education, of worship, of life established in 
 the land. There were indeed perversion and exaggeration. 
 A dominant heathenism and the influence of Hellenic life 
 caused continual strife and often violence. The ideal of 
 Israel had failed. But the nation still preserved the seed of 
 true religion, and there were many ready to respond to the 
 divine message when it came among them. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 The name by which Jesus was ordinarily called was Jesus 
 of Nazareth.^ In Nazareth He lived some thirty years 
 previous to the baptism of John and the beginning of His 
 ministry. He seems to have been known as the Son of 
 Mary,^ and it is a reasonable conjecture that Joseph, who 
 is last mentioned when He was twelve years old, was dead.^ 
 Like Joseph, He followed the trade of a carpenter. ^ He 
 was therefore brought up, as we may conjecture, in the 
 
 1 In St. Mark (i. 24; x. 47; xiv. 67; xvi. 6) and twice in St. Luke (iv. 
 34; xxiv. 19), according to Westcott and Hort's text, Nafaprjj/os; in St. 
 Matthew (ii. 23; xxvi. 71), once in St. Luke (xviii. 37), in St. John (xviii, 
 5, 7; xix. 19), and Acts (ii. 22; iii. 6; iv. 10; vi. 14; xxii. 8) Nafcopalos. 
 
 ^ Mc. vi. 3: ovx ovTos k<TTLv 6 TtKTuv, 6 vios Tijs Mapttts; This is the form 
 of the passage in St. Mark. In St. Matthew (xiii. 55) it is changed to 
 6 Tov TeKTOvos vios', ovx V A"7''''?P ciVTOv 'KeyeTai Mapid/t; In St. Luke (iv. 23) 
 to OVX'' vios ecFTLV 'luar)(t> oCtos; 
 
 There is no doubt about the reading in St. Mark, although attempts 
 are made to suggest, on the authority of late uncials and certain latet' 
 MSS. with the Armenian and Aethiopian versions, that it should be reKTOPos 
 vlos Kai Mapias, which would be awkward Greek. So Loisy, Evangiles 
 Syno ptiques , i., p. 833 n. 
 
 The designation of Jesus as Son of Mary is a most unusual expression. 
 Only twice in the Old Testament is anyone designated by the mother's 
 name, and hardly ever, if at all, in Rabbinical Hebrew, and it would natu- 
 rally be corrected. Renan ascribes it to the fact that Mary was a widow 
 and Jesus was probably her only son. Or it may be intended as a term of 
 contempt, and have alluded to suspicions and calumnies such as we find 
 later among the Jews as to His birth. 
 
 3 While the mother and brethren of Jesus are several times mentioned 
 in the Gospel narratives, Joseph is never referred to after the commence- 
 ment of our Lord's ministry; in fact, his name does not occur in St. Mark's 
 Gospel at all. The only passage which might be quoted as implying that 
 he was still living is Jn. vi. 42: Ouxi ovtos iarLv 'Irjaov-i 6 w6s '\u><Tri4>, ov 
 •finels o'iSafiev tov Tarepa Kal tt/v firjrkpa; 
 
 * Mc. vi. 3 (as quoted above). Cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue 88: 
 Kai kXdovTos TOV 'IijcroD kici tov 'lopdavrjv Kai vofxi^onkvov 'Ico(r7)0 tov teKTOvos 
 
 94 
 
THE FAMILY OF JESUS 95 
 
 modest and respectable position of an artisan. It must 
 be noted, however, that the brother of Joseph, if we are 
 to trust what seems to be a sound early tradition, bore 
 the name of Clopas,^ which is Greek — the shorter form, in 
 fact, of Cleopatros — and the adoption of a Greek name 
 implies some worldly position. It is probable also that 
 Salome, the wife of Zebedee, who was a fisherman of means 
 at Capernaum, and employed hired servants, was His 
 mother's sister,- and if this conjecture be correct it may 
 be the reason why Capernaum became later the home of His 
 family and the centre of His preaching. 
 
 Four sons of Joseph are mentioned, James and Joses, 
 Judas and Simon. He had also daughters, who, it appears, 
 
 vlov VTrdpxii-i' Kai aei5ovs cos at ypa<t)al tKrjpvaGov <j)aLvonei'ov Kal TfKTOvos 
 vom^opivov, ravra yap to. TtKToviKO. epya eipya^ero kv avOpuirois &v, aporpa 
 Kal ^vya, Sia tovtwv Kal to. rfjs SiKaioffVPTjs (Tvp0o\a bidacTKUiv Kal evtpyfj fiiou. 
 Celsus ap. Origen, Cont. Celsum, vi., 36: elra wai^oiv to. irepl tov ^v\ov 
 airb hvo totvojv airo x^^^^t^i- ^eyojv 5td tovto avro irapaXapffafeaOai,, ffTOi 
 iwel aravpu tvr)\i!o9r] 6 8i8aaKa\o^ ijpuv fj trrel TtKTWv rjv njc Tkxvriv. 
 Origen, however, says in reply: ovSapov tuv kv rals eKK\r]CTiais (pepopevuv 
 evayyeXloov reKTuv avros 6 'Irjffovs avaykypawTai. This may imply that 
 Origen had a different reading in St. IMark. 
 
 ^ Clopas is definitely stated by Hegesippus {ap. Eus. iii., 11; iv., 22; see 
 Zahn, Forschimgen, vi., 235) to be brother of Joseph and his son Symeon 
 to be cousin of our Lord, and there is no reason to doubt the statement. 
 He is presumably the Clopas mentioned in Jn. xix. 25 (Mapta 17 roD KXcoTra). 
 This may mean Mary, the wife of Clopas, or the daughter of Clopas. The 
 parallelism of the clauses makes it impossible to identify her with the Vir- 
 gin's sister, but it is quite possible she may be the mother of James the 
 Little and of Joses mentioned in Mk. xv. 40, 47; xvi. i. In this case we 
 should have three cousins of Jesus, James the Little, Joses, and Sj^meon; 
 and the sobriquet "the Little" may have been employed to distinguish 
 him from his cousin James, the Lord's brother. The only difficulty in this 
 identification is that in three cases we have cousins bearing the same name. 
 
 It may be noted that the identification of Alpheus with Clopas has noth- 
 ing to be said for it, and that neither the brothers nor the cousins of our 
 Lord were among the Apostles. 
 
 ^ The identification of Salome with the mother of Zebedee's children is 
 probable. The lists of those present at the Cross in Mark (xv. 40) and 
 Matthew (xxvii. 56) appear to be identical, and in one is metitioned Salome 
 and in the other the mother of Zebedee's children. The further identifica- 
 tion with "the sister of the ISIother of Jesus" in Jn. xix. 25 is probable, as 
 thus the names in John would refer to the same persons as those in Mat- 
 thew and Mark, with the addition of Mary, the mother of Jesus. That 
 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were cousins of Jesus does not, in 
 
96 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 married and settled in Nazareth.^ These are always 
 referred to as the brothers and sisters of Jesus, and some 
 of His brothers played a not unimportant part in the early 
 history of Christianity.^ Of their life and profession we 
 know nothing, but the grandsons of Judas a hundred years 
 later are found occupying the position of small farmers.^ 
 
 Externally Jesus lived, as a boy and young man, the 
 ordinary hfe of an artisan in simple surroundings, but not 
 in poverty, and it may be noted that He always seems to 
 speak of the poor from outside. Our story must begin 
 with some account of His home and His home life. It will 
 be necessary as the preliminary to our history to investigate 
 the environment in which He grew up; to consider the 
 natural features, the political and social conditions, the 
 religious beliefs and the mental atmosphere of Nazareth 
 and Galilee; to describe the education He would have 
 received and the intellectual equipment with which, as a 
 boy brought up in a country town, He would have been 
 furnished. Historical records supply us with considerable 
 and accurate information, while the study of the recorded 
 
 the face of their position, seem improbable, and it is consistent with the 
 whole practice of the fourth Gospel that neither Zebedee nor Salome nor 
 either of the sons of Zebedee should be mentioned by name. 
 
 1 This is a reasonable conjecture from the words (Mc. vi. 3) Kal ovk 
 eiaiv al a8e\(j>ai avTov co5e irpos tj/xas. They were married and settled in 
 Nazareth, while the rest of the family had moved to Capernaum. Matthew 
 (xiii. 56) adds irda-ai, which would imply more than three. 
 
 2 On the many complicated questions which have been raised about the 
 brothers of Jesus see Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte dcs neutestametUliches 
 Kanons, VI., ii., "Bruder und Vettern Jesu"; Lightfoot, St. PauVs Epistle 
 to the Galatians, Dissertation II., "The Brethren of the Lord." There seems 
 to be no reason (except a dogmatic one) for adopting the conjecture of Je- 
 rome that they were cousins, and no evidence in favour of the Epiphanian 
 theory that they were half-brothers against the Helvidian that they were 
 the sons of Mary. The reasons against the latter view are not derived 
 from history. 
 
 ^ Euscbiiis (Hist. EccL, iii. 20) tells us on the authority of Hegesippus 
 that certain grandsons of Judas, called the brother of the Lord according 
 to the flesh, were accused before Domitian as being of the race of David, 
 and therefore presumably dangerous rebels. They pleaded their poverty. 
 The property of the two amounted only to 9,000 denarii, and this not in 
 money but in land, their estate amounting to thirty-nine acres, which they 
 cultivated themselves (see Zahn, Forschungen, vi., 239). 
 
GALILEE 97 
 
 words of Jesus will throw abundant light on the external 
 conditions which determined the form of His teaching, and 
 will contribute much to the understanding of it. 
 
 Nazareth was a city of Southern Gahlee, situated to the 
 north of the plain of Esdraelon.^ It lay in a basin in the 
 southernmost range of the Galilaean mountains, some thou- 
 sand feet above the sea, surrounded on all sides by low hills. 
 
 The province of Galilee had well-marked natural features. 
 It was rich, fertile, and well watered, famous for its crops, 
 its vines, and its olives. Copious streams burst out from 
 the hills, and there are places where the grass is green even 
 in summer. It presents a marked contrast to the hot, 
 sterile ridges of Judaea. The one was green and smiling, 
 the other hard and stern and brown; the one a country of 
 gardens and fields and vineyards, the other the feeding- 
 place of scattered flocks or the haunt of the wild animal. 
 
 Different, too, from Judaea were the relations of Galilee 
 to other lands. No one would climb the steep valleys of 
 Jerusalem save for the sake of visiting it. No highways 
 passed through Judaea. Safe in its rocky isolation it had 
 often defied the armies of far larger states, and when it had 
 yielded to the might of Rome, it could still remain the 
 asylum of a stern creed, difficult of access to new ideas. 
 But Galilee was traversed by great roads. 2 The traveller 
 from Egypt, after following the coast-line nearly as far as 
 Mount Carmel, turned inland to the plain of Esdraelon, and, 
 passing either north or south of the Sea of Tiberias, went 
 on his way to Damascus and Antioch, and the lands beyond 
 the Euphrates. The roads from Ptolemais and the Phoeni- 
 cian coast to the Greek cities of the Decapolis, to Damascus 
 and to the East, passed through it. Nazareth itself lay 
 
 ^ On Galilee and Nazareth see especially Galilee in the Time of Christ, 
 by the Rev. Selah Merrill, D.D. This seems to be the source of most of 
 the modern information on the subject. G. A. Smith, Historical Geography 
 of the Holy Land, chap, xx., brings out the salient features admirably. 
 Renan, Vie de Jesus, chap, ii., gives an attractive picture. 
 
 ^ See especially G. A. Smith, op. cit., p. 425: "The next great features 
 of Gahlee are her roads. The Garden of the Lord is crossed by many of 
 
98 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 somewhat secluded, shut off from the world beyond the 
 hills that surrounded it, but travellers have described to us 
 how different a scene would be presented to anyone who 
 climbed to the summit of the ridge. To the south he would 
 see the pilgrim road which led to Jerusalem emerging from 
 the mountains of Samaria, and the great highway from 
 Egypt would lie before him in its whole length from Megiddo 
 as far as Beth-shan. To the north he would look down on 
 the road from Ptolemais to the Sea of Galilee, at that time 
 an even more important route. Nor need there be any 
 doubt that along these two roads, the great arteries of 
 the country and of all the regions beyond Jordan, there 
 would be a continuous and varied traffic. However secluded 
 the village of Nazareth might be, it was very close to the 
 greater life of the Gentile world. 
 
 So Galilee was in close proximity to another world. 
 While the territory of Judaea was still largely a sanctuary 
 of Judaism, protected by various privileges and httle con- 
 taminated by any close touch with heathen life, Galilee, 
 although an essentially Jewish territory, was in close con- 
 tact with Greek cities on all sides. Samaria, the cities of the 
 DecapoHs and of the Phoenician coast were distant but a few 
 miles, and the view from the hill- tops round Nazareth would 
 reflect something of the varied life of the Roman Empire. 
 
 Nazareth at the present day has a population of about 
 10,000.^ It is an ordinary Oriental town, with small, flat- 
 roofed houses, crowded together along narrow, winding 
 streets running up the hill-side. A single fountain provides 
 it with water, and it is surrounded by gardens, by ohve- 
 yards and vineyards. No doubt in some of its character- 
 istics it is little changed from what it was in the first cen- 
 tury of the Christian era, but there is one fundamental fact 
 which must not be forgotten. For centuries Nazareth, like 
 
 the world's most famous highways. We saw that Judaea was on the road 
 to nowhere; GaUlee is covered with roads to everywhere — roads from the 
 harbours of the Phoenician coast to Samaria, Gilead, Hau-ran, and Damas- 
 cus; roads from Sharon to the valley of the Jordan; roads from the sea to 
 the desert; roads from Egypt to Assyria." 
 
 1 The present population of Nazareth is given differently in different 
 authorities. I take 10,000 from the last edition of the Encyclopaedia Britan- 
 nica. 
 
NAZARETH 99 
 
 the whole of Palestine, has suffered under the rule of the 
 Turk, and an aspect of squalor has impressed itself on the 
 country. Then it was inhabited by a people with an in- 
 herited discipline of Hfe, and although there is no reason to 
 think that the houses were more luxurious than those we see 
 now or the homes less simple, yet undoubtedly there was a 
 tradition of orderly local government, there were cleanly and 
 decent sanitary customs which have been lost under the 
 neglect of Mohammedan and Turkish rule. Nazareth is 
 described as a city.^ That means that it was larger in size 
 than at present and was an organized community. If we 
 may trust Josephus, it may have had some fifteen or twenty 
 thousand inhabitants. Often, as we travel through the 
 Turkish Empire, we notice how where once stood a city 
 now there is but a village; and the broken columns, the 
 half-ruined tombs, and the fragments of inscriptions are all 
 the signs of former importance that remain. Some such 
 change, has no doubt been experienced by Nazareth. It 
 would be governed by a Council of Elders and law and 
 custom demanded that they should care for the roads and 
 streets as well as for the synagogue. The market would be 
 carefully regulated. The laws of property were strict. 
 The morals of the inhabitants would be duly supervised. 
 There was much wealth and hospitality. The Hfe of that 
 day in Palestine was no doubt simple, but it was well 
 ordered and dignified. We must not read back into the 
 past the decadence of the Turkish Empire. 
 
 Even now it is a pleasant place. Its air is fresh and 
 healthy, even cold in winter; it is surrounded by gardens 
 and vineyards. It is in the centre of a fertile and well- 
 wooded district. 
 
 "The road which goes up from the Bay of Carmel to 
 Nazareth," says Sir George Adam Smith, "winds as among 
 Enghsh glades, with open woods of oak and an abundance 
 
 ^ Lc. i. 26: eis TToXii' TTJs TaXiXaias 77 ovofia Nafaper, Mt. ii. 13. It must 
 be remembered that the name city does not imply size so much as an or- 
 ganized community with its own territor>^ surrounding it and some form of 
 self-government. Josephus (Life, xlv., § 235) says that Galilee contained 
 204 cities and villages, the smallest of which numbered above 15,000 in- 
 habitants. On this statement see Merrill, op. cil., p. 62. 
 
 8 
 
loo THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 of flowers and grass. Often, indeed, as about Nazareth, 
 the limestone breaks out not less bare and dusty than in 
 Judaea itself, but over the most of Lower Galilee there is 
 a profusion of bush, with scattered forest trees — holly-oak, 
 maple, sycamore, bay tree, myrtle, arbutus, sumac, and 
 others — and in the valleys olive orchards and stretches of 
 fat corn-land."^ 
 
 In the time of our Lord, instead of the desolation of 
 misgovernment, there would be all the signs of a prosperous 
 life and a richly cultivated land.^ 
 
 A careful study of the language of the Gospels will both 
 illustrate and be illustrated by the picture of Galilaean life 
 as we can reconstruct it.^ The words of our Lord reveal 
 an experience which harmonizes with what we may learn 
 from other sources, and at the same time enriches our 
 knowledge. The imagery and similitudes that He employs, 
 His parables and proverbial sayings, correspond with the 
 environment that history gives. He speaks as one who has 
 observed life closely under all the aspects which the country 
 presents. Nazareth was a country town, entirely occupied 
 with country interests and pursuits. While there are 
 reminiscences of the market-place, the synagogue, the streets 
 and lanes of the city, our attention is mainly directed to the 
 
 ^ G. A. Smith, op. cit., p. 419. 
 
 ^ Renan {Vie de Jesus, p. 28) gives a somewhat idyllic description: 
 "Meme aujourd'hui, Nazareth est un delicieux sejour, le seul endroit peut- 
 etre de la Palestine ou I'ame se sente un peu soulagee du fardeau qui 
 Toppresse au milieu de cette desolation sans egale. La population est aimable 
 et souriante: les jardins sont frais et verts. Antonin Martyr, a la fin du 
 VI° siecle, fait un tableau enchanteur de la fertilite des environs, qu'il com- 
 pare au paradis. Quelques vallees du cote de I'ouest justifient pleinement 
 sa description. La fontaine ou se concentraient autrefois la vie et la 
 gaiete de la petite ville est detruite: ses canaux crevasses ne donnent plus 
 qu'une eau troublee. Mais la beaute des femmes qui s'y rassemblent le 
 soir, cette beaute qui etait deja remarquee au VI° siecle et ou Ton voyait 
 un don de la vierge Marie, s'est conservee d'une maniere frappante. C'est 
 le type syrien dans toute sa grace pleine de langueur. Nul doute que Marie 
 n'ait ete la presque tous les jours, et n'ait pris rang, I'urne sur I'^paule, 
 dans la file de ses compatriotes restees obscures." 
 
 ^ By far the best analysis of the circumstances implied by our Lord's 
 words is contained in a paper published in Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xxix., July, 
 1872, pp. 510-531, by the Rev. Selah Merrill, Salmon Falls, N.H., on 
 "Christ as a Practical Observer of Nature, Persons, and Events." The same 
 
COUNTRY LIFE IN THE GOSPELS lor 
 
 farm and to agriculture, to the large estate, to the vineyard 
 and the cornland, to the shepherd with his sheep, to animals 
 wild and tame, to trees and fruits and flowers. From all 
 these sources our Lord draws constant illustrations. Nor 
 need it be altogether fanciful to see in the many allusions 
 to travelling the influence of the situation of Nazareth near 
 the great commercial routes, and of the commercial enter- 
 prise of the Jewish people. To these must be added the 
 details of domestic life, while the wedding feast, that con- 
 spicuous festival of the well-to-do countryside, is a favourite 
 subject of parable. 
 
 Some illustrations in detail will fill in the picture. The 
 large household and the well-managed estate were features 
 in the economic life of Galilee. We read of the faithful and 
 wise servant whom the lord hath set over his household, 
 and, in contrast, of the dishonest steward who wastes his 
 master's goods. We read of the rich man whose ground 
 brings forth plenteously, who will pull down his barns and 
 build greater, who says to his soul. Take thine ease, eat, 
 drink, and be merry. There is the enterprising landlord 
 who plants a vineyard, and sets a hedge about it, and digs 
 a winepress, and builds a tower, and lets it out to husband- 
 men. We notice how often there are allusions to the wealth, 
 the worldliness, and the good living of the people. Many 
 have large numbers of slaves or of hired servants. It is 
 the custom of most men to strive to lay up earthly treasure. 
 The householder brings out of his treasure things new and 
 old. One man has bought a farm, another five yoke of 
 oxen. The picture that is presented to us is that of a 
 wealthy and prosperous agricultural community. 
 
 Some of the estates are held by those who travel abroad 
 and leave them in the hands of stewards. There are traders 
 and rich merchants. There is the young man who is led 
 by a spirit of adventure to leave the family and squander 
 his inheritance, in riotous living, and the wise elder brother 
 who lives a steady life at home. 
 
 All the Hfe of agriculture was full of interest to our Lord 
 as to the community in which He lived. He draws His 
 
 method is followed in a popular way in T. R. Glover, The Jesus of History, 
 chap, ii., "Childhood and Youth." 
 
I02 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 illustrations from the vineyard, the cornfield, and the 
 sheep farm; from the ploughman, the sower, and the gather- 
 ing of the harvest; from the continual succession of natural 
 phenomena; from the corn of wheat which falls into the 
 ground and dies. "Lift up your eyes, and look on the 
 fields, that they are white already unto harvest." "Pray ye 
 therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth 
 labourers into his harvest." "Gather up first the tares, and 
 bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat 
 into my barn." Above all, the life of the shepherd with his 
 sheep has impressed itself on the language of the Gospels. 
 "They were scattered as sheep not having a shepherd." 
 "Behold, I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves." 
 "What man of you, having an hundred sheep, and having 
 lost one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the 
 wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find 
 it?" "I am the good shepherd." When our Lord is 
 speaking of the souls that are saved and tells us that they 
 shall go in and out and find pasture, we feel that He uses 
 this imagery to express His thoughts because He had lived 
 much of His life in the country where there were many 
 flocks of sheep. Such language has become largely con- 
 ventional for us now; it was not so for Him. 
 
 He was interested, too, in the wild life of the country as 
 well as in domestic animals. "Foxes have holes and the 
 birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not 
 where to lay his head." We read of wolves, of scorpions 
 and serpents, of eagles and ravens, of the she-ass with her 
 young colt running beside her, such as may be seen any 
 day in Palestine now, of the dog, the Eastern scavenger, 
 and the swine, of the hen that gathers her chickens under 
 her wing, of the camel, the ox, the calf, the kid and the 
 goat. Galilee in the spring-time is a land of flowers, and 
 what traveller in Palestine would not echo the words: 
 " Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil 
 not, neither do they spin: yet I say unto you, that even 
 Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these." 
 The wonderful economy of nature which we study now with 
 such scientific zeal is put before us quite simply: "Behold 
 the birds of heaven, that they sow not, neither do they 
 
NATURE OF THE GOSPELS 103 
 
 reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father 
 feedeth them." *'Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of 
 thistles?" is the proverb a gardener would use, speaking to 
 those who were gardeners. We read, too, of the grass of the 
 field, of the thorns and tares, of the bramble bush, the vine, 
 the fig, and the sycamore.^ The allusions to nature are 
 natural and spontaneous; they hardly ever appear to be 
 literary. They are the language of a countryman, speaking 
 to countrymen. Our Lord speaks of the great mustard 
 plant which bears seed so attractive to small birds that 
 they lodge in its branches,^ of the reed in the marshes of 
 the great plain shaken by the wind, of the watercourse 
 swollen by the winter spate, and the waterless places like 
 the limestone ridges above Nazareth. 
 
 Another interesting side of the picture is the domestic life 
 that is presented. We read of the women grinding at the 
 mill, the leaven that is hid in three measures of meal, the 
 salt that has lost its savour, the lamp placed on a stand 
 to Hght the house, the woman who fights her lamp in the 
 small, dark house to find the lost piece of silver, the old 
 garments which have to be mended and the worn-out wine- 
 skins, the oven heated with dried grass, the children's 
 bread, the servants and the master of the house. The 
 allusions all sound simple and natural and true. And then 
 beyond the household comes the fife of the town, the well 
 of water springing up into eternal life, such as the spring 
 of Nazareth, the children playing in the street, the men 
 standing idle in the market-place, the disputes about an 
 
 1 It is a curious fact that there is no mention at all of the olive tree in 
 the words of our Lord, and yet Galilee was famous for its olives. "It is 
 easier," they said, "to raise a legion of olive-trees in Galilee than to raise 
 one child in Judaea" (Neubauer, Geographic du Talmud, p. i8o; see Merrill, 
 op. cit., p. 35). The only reference to the production of oil is in the parable 
 of the unjust steward (Lc. xvi. 6). 
 
 2 The reference to the mustard seed is not quite free from difficulty. We 
 are assured, however, that it attains in one year a growth of lo or 12 feet 
 in good soil, and that birds are fond of its seed, and so rest on its stalks. 
 But it is curious to notice that this is the only instance in such descrip- 
 tions of nature where we seem to have a literary allusion. The reference to 
 birds lodging in its branches appears to be a reminiscence of Dan. iv. 12: 
 "And the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the branches thereof." 
 
I04 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 inheritance, the field with hidden treasure — a characteristic 
 Eastern touch then, as now — the local court with its judges, 
 the prison, and the synagogue. 
 
 The great festival of Eastern life is the wedding, and the 
 wedding with all its accompaniments provides many a 
 suitable illustration in our Lord's words: *'Can the sons 
 of the bride-chamber mourn so long as the bridegroom is 
 with them?" We read of the virgins who trim their lamps 
 and go forth to meet the bride when the marriage procession 
 brings her home at night; of the servants who wait for their 
 lord coming back from the marriage-feast; of the brilliantly 
 lighted hall where the marriage-feast is held, in contrast to 
 the darkness outside; of the marriage garment. Hospitality 
 has always been a recognized Eastern virtue. The father 
 kills the fatted calf for the returned prodigal. Those who 
 are bidden to the feast should take the lower place, and the 
 lesson is given that he that humbleth himself shall be 
 exalted. Most people asked their rich neighbours when they 
 gave a feast, but Jesus bids us ask "the poor, the maimed, 
 the lame, and the bhnd." 
 
 It is possible to carry exegesis of this type to a fanciful 
 and unreal extent. It is easy to lay too much stress on 
 single allusions, or to make deductions from what is obviously 
 commonplace. There is, however, a wealth of illustration 
 to be drawn from the Gospels which guards us, I think, 
 sufficiently against such a danger. A portion of the imagery 
 of the Gospels is due, no doubt, to the Sea of Galilee and 
 the life of the towns which surrounded it. Some small part 
 reflects scenes at Jerusalem. But it is early impressions 
 that, above all, form the mind, and we cannot doubt that 
 continually in the Synoptic Gospels and less often in 
 St. John^ we have the reflection and influence of the life of 
 our Lord at Nazareth. 
 
 1 It must be noticed that while it is true that there are considerable 
 sections of St. John's Gospel which in style and method differ so markedly 
 from the Synoptic language that it is difficult to believe that in their present 
 form they could represent what our Lord taught, yet throughout the Gos- 
 pel there are also passages which seem to show the same character of 
 observation and to imply the same environment as they do, and most prob- 
 ably represent a sound tradition. 
 
THE W»R#S tF JEStS 105 
 
 Three things may be learnt from this analysis of our 
 Lord's words. It teaches us first something of the Galilaean 
 country hfe. The picture is that of a well-to-do rural 
 community. There are no great signs of poverty. There 
 is much comfortable wealth. There is much vigour and 
 enterprise in trade. There is good agriculture. There are 
 rich flocks and herds. The hfe is a prosperous and happy 
 one. Nature is fertile and its aspect is pleasing. The 
 picture is one which harmonizes with what we may learn 
 from other sources, and forbids us to think of Nazareth as 
 a poor and mean city, -^ 
 
 Then, next, it helps to assure us that the words of Jesus 
 correspond to, and are the natural outcome of, the circum- 
 stances in which He lived. They are not such as could 
 have come from a dweller in Jerusalem; they are very un- 
 like anything which an educated Jew of that city would ha\'e 
 spoken; they are not for the most part such as would come 
 from the circumstances of the infant Church. This, of 
 course, cannot be applied to all the words of Jesus; it does 
 not take away from the possibiHty that the diction and 
 style of our Lord might be imitated by the Christian 
 Church. But if a tradition was created there must have been 
 someone to create that tradition, and it will remain true that 
 the words of our Lord are just such as might be spoken in 
 the circumstances which the Gospel narrative itself describes — 
 that they are, in fact, the natural words of Jesus of Nazareth. 
 
 And, lastly, it tells us much of our Lord's human charac- 
 teristics. It suggests a power of keen observation of human 
 life and of the world of Nature, of deep sympathy with 
 Nature as with man, a power to see behind the veil of 
 material things. It implies the experience of one who has 
 grown up and Hved in a household of modest means, in a 
 rich and fertile country district, who loves natural things, 
 whose outlook on the greater world is from outside. He 
 had lived among the townspeople and the landlords and the 
 shepherds; He had seen the merchants and the rich trav- 
 eller, the soldiers and the courtiers as they passed along the 
 roads on either side of His home. The Gospels reflect the 
 characteristics of Gahlee. 
 
io6 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 II 
 
 We pass from the external circumstances in which Jesus 
 grew up to the spiritual environment. It is one of the / 
 principal facts that we have to remember that He lived/ 
 among an educated and religious people. Unlike most ofl 
 their neighbours, to an extent and in a manner different | 
 to any other nation of the ancient world, the Jews were \ 
 an educated race. If not every child, at any rate every I 
 child of respectable parents would have attended a syna-/ 
 gogue school, would have learnt to read and very probabm 
 to write, and would possess an inbred knowledge of the\ 
 Scriptures. Even more important was the fact that the 
 whole hfe of the people, in the family, in the local society, 
 and in the nation, was based upon an intense and rational 
 religion. 
 
 The educational system of the Jews has been already 
 described. We may presume that a boy brought up at 
 Nazareth would attend the school attached to the syna- 
 gogue, that there he would learn to read, and in particular to 
 read the Scriptures, and would acquire some knowledge of 
 Hebrew. He would probably also learn to write, although 
 this was not so common an accomplishment. He would, in 
 the family and in the school, learn all the ordinary obHga- 
 tions of the law, the great 'deeds of Jewish history, and the 
 principles of the religion of Israel. This was an integral 
 part of the national life and bound up with the thoughts of 
 the people. But the Jew of Galilee Hved in the near neigh- 
 bourhood of a Gentile population, and was in constant 
 intercourse with Gentiles who passed through the land or 
 were employed in trade or commerce or government. The 
 contrast of the two systems of life was apparent, and the 
 Jewish system of life and religion was possessed, not as 
 something inherited and half understood, but with intelli- 
 gence and conviction. The ordinances, the customs, and 
 the precepts of religion were steadily observed.^ 
 
 To the influences of local life were added the inspiration 
 and education of the constant visits to Jerusalem for the 
 
 1 All this is very fully worked out in Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus 
 the Messiah, book ii., chap, ix., "The Child Life in Nazareth." 
 
JEWISH EDUCATION 107 
 
 feasts. After he had attained the age of twelve or thirteen 
 (there seems to have been some variation in the custom) 
 a Jewish boy might accompany his parents to Jerusalem, 
 There were, no doubt, families, whose circumstances allowed 
 it and whose piety prompted it, who would attend the great 
 feasts at the temple three times each year, and every city 
 and village of Galilee would send its quota of pilgrims each 
 time. This continued intercourse, this circulation of life 
 and thought, must have been a constant stimulus to religion. 
 The temple and its services, the glory of Sion, the magni- 
 ficence of the city, were known to the whole people. They 
 , formed an integral part of their thoughts. Galilee would 
 hear of all the events at Jerusalem regularly and speedily. 
 Emissaries from the Sanhedrin went through the land; 
 delegates from the cities would take up the temple tribute; 
 the offerings of first-fruits were presented in the temple. 
 Herod's influence had permeated the whole country. The 
 news of his death created disturbances everywhere. The 
 teaching of John the Baptist quickly collected hearers from 
 all Palestine, and when a new prophet arose in Galilee, it 
 would at once be a concern to the rulers of the nation in 
 Jerusalem.^ 
 \ Under such circumstances Jesus grew up. The Gospels 
 /represent Him as reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the 
 I synagogue.^ He entered the synagogue at Nazareth, as 
 /His custom was, on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 
 Ta roll containing the book of the prophet Isaiah was given 
 I Him. He opened it at the sixty-first chapter of Isaiah — 
 whether this was the alio ted portion for the day or a 
 passage that He chose Himself we cannot say — and read 
 and expounded it. If the exposition would be in the popu- 
 lar Aramaic there can be no doubt that the original read- 
 ing was in Hebrew. It is doubtful whether any Aramaic 
 Targum was written at this time. Even if there were, 
 Hebrew would be the language of the synagogue reading. 
 The statement of St. Luke is further corroborated by the 
 many references to the reading of the Scriptures in the 
 words of our Lord: "Have ye not read in the Scriptures?" 
 
 2 Ibid., chap. x. ^ Lk. iv, i6. 
 
io8 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 Although the reading is that of those that He addresses, 
 the words suggest, if they do not require, that He, too, had 
 read the passages referred to. The Scriptures and the 
 reading of the Scriptures were certainly habitually in His 
 thoughts. 
 
 It is not possible to speak with the same certainty about 
 writing. We know that in the ancient world writing was 
 much more a professional matter than it is at the present 
 day, and writing is not referred to with the same frequency 
 as reading. Yet amongst the Jews there is evidence that 
 it must have been fairly widely diffused. The commercial 
 needs of the nation, as the requirements of government, 
 would demand an extended acquaintance with it. In the 
 parable of the unjust steward all the debtors appear to be 
 represented as keeping their own accounts: "Take thy bill 
 quickly and write fifty." A disciple like Matthew, who 
 had been a tax-gatherer, must have habitually made use 
 of writing. The only special reference, however, to writing 
 on the part of our Lord is in the story of the adulterous 
 woman, where our Lord stoops down and writes on the 
 ground.^ It has also been held that the reference to the 
 "yod" and the "horn" in the Hebrew script implies an 
 acquaintance with the alphabet.^ The argument is not 
 conclusive, as the expression was probably proverbial, but 
 the inference in favour of a knowledge of writing is probable. 
 The statement made in St. John's Gospel, "How knoweth 
 this man letters, having never learnt?"^ does not imply 
 more than that our Lord was not a professed theologian 
 and had not been trained in a Rabbinical school. The 
 most reasonable deduction from the evidence as a whole is 
 that Jesus was able to read and write, and that He was 
 acquainted with the Scriptures in Hebrew. 
 
 It is clear, on the other hand, that our Lord had never 
 received any of that higher education which was given in 
 the Rabbinical schools. His words show no trace of its 
 influence, and the opportunity for receiving instruction 
 was absent. Neither in Nazareth nor probably any- 
 where in Galilee did such schools exist, and the visit to the 
 
 ^ Jn. viii, 6, ^ ^^^^ y. i8. ^ j^ yjj j^ 
 
THE LANGUAGE OF JESUS 109 
 
 doctors in Jerusalem must be regarded as an isolated event. 
 So far as our Lord shows any acquaintance with such 
 teaching, it is to condemn it, but the significant point is 
 that His language and phraseology are entirely unaffected 
 by it. 
 
 A further question has been raised as to His acquaintance 
 with the Greek language. It has been maintained, indeed, 
 that He habitually spoke Greek. That opinion may be 
 dismissed. The quotations from the actual words that He 
 used on certain occasions are, in all cases, in the current 
 Aramaic, and we know that that was the ordinary language 
 of the people of Palestine outside the Greek cities. But, 
 although Aramaic was the language of the people, the use of 
 Greek must have been widely spread. It was the language 
 in the East of Roman administration and of commerce. 
 Any native of Galilee who wished to trade in the Greek 
 cities of Syria must have possessed some knowledge of it. 
 The use of a Greek as well as a Hebrew name was common. 
 We have already mentioned Clopas. Stress, however, 
 cannot be laid on Greek forms such as Peter and Didymus, 
 as they may have been given at a later period of Apostolic 
 history. The greater number of the names, however, 
 mentioned in the Gospels are not Greek, and show no Greek 
 influence. The circumstances of our Lord's life did not, 
 except quite occasionally, bring Him into contact with 
 Greek-speaking people, and His words do not exhibit any of 
 the influence of Greek ideas. 
 
 ] Our Lord, then, had been educated in the rehgious habits 
 
 /^nd teaching of Judaism. Like most other Jewish boys — ■ 
 
 ' at any rate those of respectable parents — He had learnt to 
 
 read and write. He had been educated in the Scriptures, 
 
 J and could read them in the Hebrew tongue. His language 
 
 / was Aramaic, and even if He had some acquaintance with 
 
 ( Greek, which is possible, but not probable, it exercised no 
 
 I influence on His words. He shows no acquaintance with 
 
 1 the learned speculations of His own fellow-countrymen, nor 
 
 \ with any of the secular knowledge of the times. ^ 
 
 1 There is a large literature on the language of our Lord. See Roberts, 
 Greek the Language of Christ and His Apostles (1888); W. H. Simcox, Lan- 
 guage of the New Testament (1889); T. K. Abbott, Essays, chiefly on the 
 
no THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 The people of Galilee were sincere Jews, and when the 
 revolt from Rome came they were conspicuous for their 
 loyalty and fanaticism, but the religion of- Israel as exhibited 
 there represents certain differences from that in Judaea, 
 and we are able, by a careful study of our Lord's own words 
 in comparison with what history has recorded of the re- 
 ligious situation, to define the influences under which He 
 was brought up. 
 
 The different sects and parties of the Jews — the Pharisees, 
 Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots — are well known. Of these, 
 it may be said quite definitely that there is no trace of any 
 Essene influence in the Gospels. It would not be likely that 
 there should be. The Essenes were confined, for the most 
 part, to the country round the Dead Sea and to the city of 
 Jerusalem, and we do not appear to have any evidence of 
 their presence in Galilee, nor is there any trace to be found 
 of any specific characteristics of Essenism in our Lord's 
 teaching. Equally marked is the absence, except in the 
 Jerusalem sections, of any reference to the Sadducees or 
 their teaching. They were confined in their influence and 
 importance to Jerusalem.^ 
 
 The scribes and Pharisees, on the other hand, were a 
 definite and important element in the record of the Galilaean 
 ministry. There were scribes ■ — that is, men who had made 
 a profession of studying law — even in villages, and the 
 scribes are more often mentioned than any other repre- 
 sentatives of what we may term official Judaism in the 
 portions of the Gospels relating to the Galilaean ministry.^ 
 There cannot be any reasonable doubt that in a city like 
 Nazareth there would be members of this class. Their 
 services would be required in relation to the worship of the 
 synagogue, the local Sanhedrin, and the body of elders who 
 would administer in .accordance with the law the local 
 government of the community. Less frequently are the 
 
 Original Texts of Old Testament and New Testament (1891); Dalman, 
 The Words of Jesus, English translation (1902). 
 
 ^ The only passage where the Sadducees are mentioned outside Jeru- 
 salem is Mt. xvi. 1-12, a passage which may have been displaced. 
 
 2 They are mentioned in St. Matthew twenty- three times, in St. JMark 
 twenty-two times, in St. Luke fifteen times, in St. John not once (once in 
 
RELIGION IN GALILEE m 
 
 Pharisees mentioned.^ On one occasion, at least, we are 
 specially told that those who disputed with our Lord had 
 come down from Jerusalem,=^ but no doubt in the larger 
 cities of Galilee some members of the party might be seen 
 who made themselves conspicuous by their religious pre- 
 tensions and by their affected dress. Yet it is clear enough, 
 from the narrative of the Gospels, that these aspects of 
 reHgion were alien to the normal life of the country districts. 
 They represent an element outside the religion of the people, 
 regarded probably partly with respect, partly with resent- 
 ment. Their rehgion was not the religion of Galilee. Jesus 
 had learnt nothing from them. 
 
 There were other movements of thought that influenced 
 Judaism, the echoes of which we find in the Gospels. There 
 were the Herodians, the partisans of the Herod dynasty, 
 who may probably have found in the brilhancy of that 
 worldly monarchy a fulfilment of the national hopes of 
 Israel. Twice they appear on the scene, once in Gahlee.^ 
 No doubt, as long as Antipas reigned and provided the 
 people with peace and a considerable measure of security 
 and prosperity, he would have his convinced and enthusias- 
 tic supporters. Jesus, however, had for the Herodian dy- 
 nasty no respect. There were, again, the movements against 
 foreign taxation. It must be remembered that this was not 
 now a burning question in Galilee. Although the movement 
 against paying tribute received its name from that province, 
 and there were the elements latent of a strong and even 
 fanatical nationalism, yet so long as there was a national 
 ruler like Antipas these movements were in abeyance. It 
 was natural, therefore, that the question of the lawfulness 
 of giving tribute to Caesar should be raised in Jerusalem, 
 where it must have been one of practical politics, since 
 Judaea was, after a.d. 6, directly under Roman rule.^ 
 
 the Pericope AduUerae). The references cover the whole period of the 
 ministry, but it is significant that the name is most common in proportion 
 to its length in St. Mark. 
 
 1 The Pharisees are mentioned in St. Mark twelve times, St. Matthew 
 thirty-one times, St. Luke twenty-eight times, St. John nineteen times. 
 
 2 Mt. XV. I. 
 
 2 Mk. iii. 6, 13; Mt. xxii. 16. 
 
 * Mk. xii. 14-17; Mt. xxii. 17-21; Lc. xx. 22-25. 
 
112 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 There is, however, abundant evidence that Jesus was not 
 concerned with any such movements, and that so far as He 
 had come in contact with them they had aroused in Him 
 nothing but antagonism. They were alien to the true 
 religious tradition of Israel. The ardent nationalist had 
 confused his religion with worldly and poHtical hopes. 
 
 Some Jews in Palestine, and many outside, had been 
 strongly influenced by Hellenic life and thought. In the 
 study of the history of Apostolic Christianity the develop- 
 ments of Hellenistic Judaism demand careful attention, but 
 we have in the Gospel no trace of Hellenism. It has been 
 pointed out how Galilee was surrounded by Greek cities, 
 and how near it was to the life of the world outside. The 
 columns and the pediments of Greek temples must have been 
 visible from many a hill-top. The customs of the Gentiles 
 must have been a matter of knowledge and observation 
 in a manner not possible in the villages [of Judaea. While 
 the holy city was remote from the direct trafhc of the world, 
 it flowed through Galilee. Ptolemais, Caesarea, Sebaste, 
 Scythopolis, Gadara, Paneas, were all near, and exhibited 
 many signs of idolatry. There was on Mount Carmel a 
 temple of licentious nature worship. But all this influence 
 was entirely external. The religion of the people was as 
 little affected by Greek culture as is that of the fellaheen of 
 Palestine at the present day by Western thought, and it is 
 hard to find any traces of such influence in the Gospel 
 narrative. 
 
 There was one movement of thought of which we can 
 trace the influence — that which we are accustomed to 
 call Eschatological or Apocalyptic. This means in its 
 essence that transformation of Judaism which began in the 
 Maccabean period, and built up the religious life of the 
 people on the basis of belief in a future life. In this form 
 it permeates the Gospel narrative. It was a movement of 
 thought which was not confined to any one school, but 
 had become the common inheritance of Judaism, the only 
 exception being, of course, the Sadducees, who still clung 
 to the old-fashioned theology. It is suggested that this 
 development was a particular product of Galilee, and it has 
 been maintained that the Apocalyptic writings which we 
 
ESCHATOLOGY 113 
 
 possess were produced in that country. Of this there is no 
 evidence. There may, perhaps, be this amount of truth in 
 the statement, that in Gahlee the influence of the temple 
 cult, of the priests who attended to it, and of the Sadducean 
 rulers must have been remote and slight; that the absorbing 
 study of the law was less felt; and that there was room for 
 a freer and more imaginative rehgious development. 
 
 The religion of Gahlee was the inherited religion of Israel 
 in the form that it had attained in the Herodian epoch. It 
 was built up on the reading of the Scriptures and the teach- 
 ing of the synagogues. It implied obedience to the law as 
 the traditional principle of the life of Israel, but little 
 interest in its too rigid interpretation. Galilee was, as the 
 history of the Great War showed, intensely national and 
 patriotic, but during the period of which we are speaking 
 these elements were in abeyance. It was because it was 
 not a home of Rabbinical knowledge, or the Pharisaic rule 
 of life, that to the strict Jew Galilee was a place of con- 
 tempt. "Search and see that out of Galilee ariseth no 
 prophet." "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" 
 "Galilee, Galilee, thou hatest the law, therefore thou shalt 
 yet find employment among robbers," is a saying ascribed 
 to Jochanan-ben-Zaccai.^ To the Rabbis the people of 
 Gahlee were "the people of the land." No such man can be 
 pious, said Hillel. "To frequent the synagogues of the 
 people of the land puts a man out of the world." 2 "This 
 people that knoweth not the law is accursed." 
 
 There seems, on the whole, sufficient evidence to show 
 that the great body of the people of Galilee did not belong 
 to any of the Jewish sects of the day. They performed 
 their religious duties — some well, some, no doubt, ill. They 
 
 ^ Jerus., Shabbath, is d. Jochanan-ben-Zaccai was a pupil of Hillel, 
 and probably, therefore, a contemporary of our Lord. On the estimation 
 of Galilee see Neubauer, Geographie du Tahmid, pp. 177-233. The criti- 
 cisms on the strictures by Merrill, Galilee in the Time of our Lord, p. 104, 
 are really beside the mark. No one supposes that Galilee was really a con- 
 temptible place, but there seems to be sufficient evidence, both BibUcal and 
 Talmudic, to show that the people of Jerusalem looked down upon the 
 speech, the manners, and the customs of the provincial, and the learned ec- 
 clesiastics on the commonplace if devout religion of the country. 
 
 2 Pirke Aboth. 
 
114 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 worshipped God as their fathers had worshipped Him, and 
 although they might feel some attraction towards this or 
 that movement of the times, they did not exhibit any 
 tendency towards extravagant religious developments. 
 The Pharisees might receive a certain amount of the respect 
 that religious pretentiousness often obtains, but the burdens 
 which scribe and Pharisee sought to impose would be 
 resented. 
 
 In such an atmosphere Jesus grew up. At that time 
 Galilee was religious, patriotic, and peaceful. The people 
 adhered to the law, they went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem 
 at the great festivals, they worshipped in the synagogues. 
 Some discipline was administered by the local Sanhedrin. 
 The local scribes were the depositories of legal knowledge, 
 and attempted to raise the standard of observance. A less 
 frequent figure was that of the Pharisee with his conspicuous 
 dress, but occasionally a deputation might come down from 
 Jerusalem on some special mission, as they did when John 
 preached, and afterwards to Jesus. An atmosphere such as 
 this is reflected in the Gospel narratives, especially in those 
 portions which narrate the Galilaean ministry. They are 
 true to the environment which they depict. 
 
 1 . ™ . 
 
 / The teaching of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels is 
 inroughout expressed in language which clearly and exactly 
 r_reflects the characteristics of the time when He Hved. The 
 theological implications of that fact do not at present con- 
 cern us, nor the question as to the amount of authority 
 that should be ascribed to statements which are expressed in 
 the ordinary vehicle of the times for the expression of ideas. 
 I What it is important to recognize is that the science, the 
 / cosmology, the psychology implied in our Lord's words are 
 ' those of the Jewish people of that day, and that on those 
 subjects He makes no pretension to advance their knowl- 
 edge. It will assist us in understanding the meaning and 
 conditions of His teaching if we describe briefly the popu- 
 \ lar beliefs on these subjects. 
 . The literature of later Judaism enables us to learn the 
 /sort of things that people believed or imagined, on the 
 
THE POPULAR COSMOLOGY 115 
 
 structure of the world and the order of nature. The book 
 
 of Enoch, for example, contains a large amount of strange 
 
 speculations of cosmological and astronomical subjects, 
 
 on heaven and hell, on the motions of the heavenly bodies, 
 
 on the causes of the changes of seasons and times. Ideas 
 
 such as these must have been in the minds of those who 
 
 heard our Lord's words, but it must be noticed, and it is 
 
 a point of importance, that there is a complete absence in 
 
 1 His teaching of anything resembling the fantastic imaginings 
 
 / that fill that work. In fact, it may be held that He wished 
 
 I to impress upon His hearers the unimportance of all such 
 
 I knowledge and speculation compared with a real spiritual 
 
 I insight: "Ye know how to discern the face of the heavens; 
 
 \^ but ye cannot discern the signs of the times." ^ 
 
 ] The earth was conceived as a flat surface over which was 
 
 I stretched the vault of heaven. If a man travelled far 
 
 / enough he would reach ''the ends of the earth whereon the 
 
 / heaven rests, and the portals of the heaven open."^ Heaven 
 
 I was the abode of God and His holy Angels, and all the 
 
 / resources of imagination were employed in attempting to 
 
 J describe its glory and its awfulness. Daniel describes to 
 
 V^us the majesty of God as judge of the earth: 
 
 "I beheld till the thrones were placed and one that was 
 ancient of days did sit: his raiment was white as snow, and 
 the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery 
 flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire. A fiery stream 
 issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands 
 ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand 
 stood before him: the judgment was set and the books were 
 opened"^ 
 
 Enoch more than once attempts in his visions to describe 
 the wonders of the heavens: 
 
 "Behold, in the vision clouds invited me and a mist 
 summoned me, and the course of the stars and the lightnings 
 sped and hastened me, and the winds in the vision caused 
 me to fly and lifted me upward and bore me into heaven. 
 . . . And I beheld a vision, and lo! there was a second 
 house, greater than the former, and the entire portal stood 
 
 ^ Mt. xvi. 3. ^ Enoch xxxiii. 2 ' Dan. vii. 9, 10. 
 
 9 
 
ii6 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 open before me, and it was built of flames of fire. And in 
 every respect it so excelled in splendour and magnificence 
 and extent that I cannot describe to you its splendour and 
 extent. And its floor was of fire, and above it were light- 
 nings, and the path of the stars, and its ceiling also was 
 flaming fire. And I looked and saw therein a lofty throne: 
 its appearance was as crystal, and the wheels thereof as the 
 shining sun, and there was the vision of cherubim. And 
 from underneath the throne came streams of flaming fire, 
 so that I could not look thereon. And the Great Glory sat 
 thereon, and His raiment shone more brightly than the sun 
 and was whiter than any snow. None of the angels could 
 enter and could behold His face by reason of the magnifi- 
 cence and glory, and no flesh could behold Him. The flam- 
 ing fire was round about Him, and a great fire stood before 
 Him, and none around could draw nigh Him: ten thousand 
 times ten thousand stood before Him, yet He needed no 
 counsellor. And the most holy ones who were nigh to Him 
 did not leave by night nor depart from Him."^ 
 
 In heaven were not only the abodes of God and His angels, 
 but also the "Mansions of the Elect and the Mansions 
 of the Holy, "2 who "dwell in the garden of life."^ One 
 writer describes to us this Paradise, which is in the third 
 heaven: 
 
 "And these men took me from thence, and brought me 
 to the third heaven, and placed me in the midst of a garden 
 ■ — a place such as has never been known for the goodliness 
 of its appearanca. And I saw all the trees of beautiful 
 colours and their fruits ripe and fragrant, and all kinds of 
 food which they produced springing up with delightful fra- 
 grance. And in the midst there is the tree of Hfe, on which 
 God rests, when he comes into Paradise."^ 
 
 Here, too, were the treasuries of the stars and the man- 
 sions of the sun and moon: 
 
 "And I saw the chambers of the sun and moon, whence 
 they proceed, and whither they come again and their 
 glorious return, and how one is superior to the other, and 
 their stately orbit . . . and first the sun goes forth and 
 
 ^ Enoch xiv. 8-23, tr. Charles. ^ Enoch xli. 2. ^ Enoch Lxi, 12. 
 
 * Book of the Secrets of Enoch, viii. 1-3, ed. Morfill and Charles. 
 
PARADISE 117 
 
 traverses his path according to the commandment of the 
 Lord of Spirits, and mighty is His name for ever and ever. 
 And after that I saw the hidden and the visible path of the 
 moon, and she accompHshes the course of her path in that 
 place by day and night — the one holding a position op- 
 posite to the other before the Lord of Spirits. And they 
 give thanks and praise and rest not; for unto them is their 
 everlasting rest."^ 
 
 Here, too, were the portals of the winds: 
 
 "And at the ends of the earth I saw twelve portals open 
 to all the quarters of the heaven, from which the winds go 
 forth and blow over the earth." ^ 
 
 Round about the earth were great mountains, where some 
 at any rate fancied were the place of punishment and the 
 paradise of the righteous. To the west, according to one 
 theory, was Sheol,^ or the underworld, where the spirits 
 waited until the day of judgment: 
 
 "These hollow places have been created for this very 
 purpose, that the spirits of the souls of the dead should 
 assemble therein, yea, that all the souls of the children of 
 men should assemble here. And these places have been 
 made to receive them till the day of their judgment and 
 till their appointed period, till the great judgment comes 
 upon them."^ 
 
 So to the east was Paradise,^ or the Garden of the 
 Righteous : 
 
 "And I came to the garden of righteousness, and saw 
 beyond those trees many large trees growing there and of 
 
 ^ Enoch xli. 5-7. ^ Enoch kxvi. i. 
 
 2 Hades or Sheol ("AtS???, 71^^) was used in the Old Testament of the 
 underworld, the abode of the dead, a hollow place under the earth, but its 
 meaning had become extended, and might be used either in the Old Testa- 
 ment sense or in a modern sense as equivalent to Gehenna. In the last 
 sense Enoch xcix. 11: "Woe to you who spread evil to your neighbours; 
 for you shall be slain in Sheol." With the former sense compare Enoch 
 xxii. 3, quoted above. 
 
 * Enoch xxii. 3, 4. 
 
 ^ The word "paradise" is generally considered to have been derived from 
 the Persian (Zend, pairidaeza), where it was used to mean a park or gar- 
 den. From there it passed both into Greek, and Hebrew. In the Hebrew 
 
ii8 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 goodly fragrance, large, very beautiful, and glorious, and 
 the tree of wisdom whereof they eat and know great 
 wisdom."^ 
 
 In the very midst of the earth was Jerusalem, "a blessed 
 and a holy mountain," ^ and by it were deep and rocky 
 ravines. The one was the valley of judgment, the other, 
 Gehenna,^ the valley of punishment: 
 
 "This accursed valley is for those who are accursed for 
 ever; here shall all the accursed be gathered together who 
 utter with their lips against the Lord unseemly words and 
 of His glory speak lewd things. Here shall they be gathered 
 together, and here shall be their place of punishment. In 
 
 Old Testament it is used in its literal signification (Eccles. ii. s; Neh. ii. 
 8); in the LXX. it is used also with a figurative meaning of Eden, see es- 
 pecially Ezek. xxxi. 8, 9, where Eden is called the Paradise of God: /cat 
 e^rjXwaev avTov to. ^v\a tov irapabelaov rrjs Tpocpijs tov deov (in A.V., "so 
 that all the trees of Eden that were in the garden of God envied him"). 
 In Apocalyptic literature it is used of the abode of the blest, and there are 
 two Paradises, an earthly and a heavenly; so Secrets of Enoch, viii. 1,3: 
 "And these men took me from thence and brought me to the third heaven, 
 and placed me in the midst of a garden. . . . And in the midst there is 
 the tree of life, in that place, on which God rests, when he comes into Para- 
 dise" . . . the four streams which go forth from the tree of life "go down 
 to the Paradise of Eden, between corruptibility and incorruptibility." So 
 again, xlii. 3: "I went out to the East, to the Paradise of Eden, where 
 rest has been prepared for the just, and it is open to the third heaven, and 
 shut from this world. 
 
 Paradise was sometimes thought of in heaven, sometimes in the moun- 
 tains of the East, sometimes, perhaps, as a part of Sheol, and was con- 
 ceived either as the eternal home of the righteous, or the place where the 
 righteous might await the judgment. Nor must we expect any clear or 
 accepted teaching on the subject. 
 
 1 Enoch xxxii. 3. ^ Enoch xxvi. i. 
 
 ' Geherma (yetwa: Hcb. OJH '3) represents both as a name and an idea 
 a development of Old Testament usage. Originally it meant the deep valley 
 to the south of Jerusalem, which was for ever accursed in Jewish eyes as 
 the place where children were burnt to Moloch. The preparation for later 
 usage is found in Jer. vii. 32, 33: "Therefore, behold, the days come, said 
 the Lord, that it shall be no more called Topheth, nor the valley of the 
 sons of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter; for they shall bury in Topheth, 
 till there be no place to bury. And the carcases of this people shall be 
 meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and 
 none shall fray them away." In this passage the death is purely physical, 
 
•EIENNA 119 
 
 the last days there shall be upon them the spectacle of 
 righteous judgment in the presence of the righteous for ever: 
 here shall the merciful bless the Lord of Glory, the Eternal 
 King."i 
 
 These extracts are given as specimens of the sort of 
 picture of the world which the contemporaries of our Lord 
 constructed. When fancy and imagination are the sole 
 source of knowledge there will be little exactness or con- 
 sistency of portrayal. Each speculator will construct his 
 scheme of the universe as he pleases, and it is unwise to 
 attempt to harmonize or discriminate the different theories. 
 It is sufficient to realize that conceptions such as these would 
 be what our Lord's words would raise in those who heard 
 them, and that associations such as these would be attached 
 to them. 
 
 We turn from the conception of the universe to that of 
 human nature. The psychology of our Lord's words offers 
 no apparent change from that of the Old Testament. It is 
 popular and primitive, and must not be judged from a 
 scientific or philosophical point of view; but it has one 
 characteristic of great importance. It presents a clear 
 conception of the unity of human nature. There is no 
 duahsm. ^ 
 
 The words used in the New Testament, as in the Old, and 
 as in all primitive systems of thought, to describe the 
 nature of man, are all in their origin material — body, flesh, 
 heart, soul, spirit; to none of them can fixed meanings be 
 assigned or definite functions be allotted. They are used 
 often with meanings that overlap, and it may be considered 
 
 and the prophet depicts the slaughter of the Israelites just in the place 
 where they had sinned most deeply. The conception is the same in Isa. 
 Ixvi. 24. The idea of a future punishment first occurs in Dan. xii. 2, and is 
 developed at great length in the Book of Enoch in the passages quoted and 
 others. The term Gehenna is used habitually in Rabbinic literature for the 
 place of punishment, and no doubt was used much earlier, as the references 
 to the accursed valley in Enoch show; but the earliest actual use of the 
 term outside the New Testament appears to be in IV. Ezra, vii. 36 (ed. 
 Box, p. 124). The furnace of Gehenna shall be made manifest aitd over against 
 it the Paradise of delight. Of course, it is quite easy to rewrite other pas- 
 sages so as to get it in, as Charles does {Assumpt. Mosis x. 10). 
 ^ Enoch xxvii. 2. 
 
ISO THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 that they rather describe the human being from a particular 
 point of view than represent some particular part of a man, 
 a means of dividing him up according to different elements 
 of which he was believed to be composed. The heart/ 
 for example, was looked upon as the place where what 
 we call the mental and emotional functions of a man 
 have their seat. It might be used in a purely physical 
 sense. It might be looked upon as the seat of thoughts, 
 of passions, of appetites and affections. It might be used 
 of the understanding, of the will and character. It might 
 be used generally of the whole inner man. It represents 
 the human personality as looked at from the point of view 
 of what was believed to be the physical location of its 
 higher being. We can use the word in almost exactly the 
 same way, but with us it is the survival of an archaic 
 phraseology, and is consciously metaphorical. 
 
 The word "soul"^ or psyche meant the principle of life, 
 the ultimate cause which makes a man an animated living 
 being, and as all his mental characteristics were supposed 
 to be derived from this living principle, it came to mean 
 the soul as the seat of feelings, desires, and affections, and 
 
 ^ Heart, KapSia, Heb. ^7, ^^7 (Icb, lebab), is used in the Old Testament 
 of tlie inner life 257 times, of the emotions 166 times, of the intellect 204, 
 of volition 195. In the Gospels (Mt. 17; Mc. 12; Lc. 23; Jn. 7) it is 
 used of the inner man, as "God knoweth our hearts" (Lc. xvi. 15), "Let 
 not your heart be troubled" (Jn. xiv. i); of the emotions (Mt. xxii. 37): 
 "Thou shalt love with all thy heart" (here it is coupled with "soul"); of 
 the intellect (Lc. v. 22): "Why do ye reason in your hearts?" (Mt. xiii. 
 15); of the will or purpose (Mt. vi. 21): "Where your treasure is there will 
 your heart be"; of the moral nature (Mt. v. 8): "the pure in heart." 
 It may be the source of good or evil: "From within out of the heart of 
 man proceed evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murders," etc. (Mc. vii. 21); 
 so (Jn. xiii. 2) the devil puts it into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus. 
 The heart rather than the flesh seems to be the home of evil. "We still 
 use the term ' heart ' in a popular psychical sense, but every educated man 
 knows that he is using it metaphorically. What the educated man fre- 
 quently does not know, or, at any rate, forgets, is the fact that such usage 
 is not metaphor in the Bible, but represents the extent of current scientific 
 knowledge" (H. Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man, pp. 21, 
 22). 
 
 ^ Soul, \l/vxr), Heb. ^'^? (nephesh), is used in the Old Testament of the 
 principle of life (282 times), in a psychical sense (249), of the person (223). 
 The starting-point is animistic; "the actual principle of life is credited with 
 
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS 121 
 
 has often just the same meaning as the heart. As in these 
 characteristics might be held to He the true nature of the 
 man, it might be used as our word "personality"; and as 
 it was that which constituted the source of being, it was 
 looked upon as that which gave permanence to man, which 
 was not dissolved by death, which in a particular way 
 survived the life in this world. While it might represent 
 higher functions than the body, it might be used in contrast 
 to the spirit, as something characteristically human, as 
 opposed to what was spiritual and in harmony with the 
 divine. 
 
 Similar, and yet different in range, was the use of the 
 word "spirit."^ The breath which animates and vivifies the 
 body — something invisible, unseen, and yet potent in its 
 force — might be looked upon as the source of all that was 
 highest in him. So it might be used of his rational nature, 
 of his will, of his desires. It might seem sometimes to be 
 used in the same way as the soul for the more permanent 
 element in human nature, or it might be contrasted with 
 the soul as representing something akin to the divine in 
 antithesis to what was human. It was a man's self, or his 
 higher self, or it might be that element in him which re- 
 its emotional manifestations, and at the same time may denote their sub- 
 ject or agent" (Wheeler, op. cit., p. 17). In the Gospels (Mt. 16; Mc. 
 9; Lc. 14; Jn. 10) its primary meaning is life — Mt. xx. 28: "to give his 
 life a ransom for many"; as such it is coupled with the body: "Take 
 no thought for your life what ye shall eat, or your body what ye shall put 
 on" (Mt. vi. 25), but it comes to be used of the soul or principle of hfe 
 which is more permanent than the body: "Fear not those that are able 
 to kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul"; " Fear rather him that 
 is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Mt. x. 28); and hence 
 the two meanings "life" and "soul" are contrasted. "He that seeks to 
 save his life shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find 
 it" (Mt. X. 39). As in the Old Testament, it is used of man's psychical 
 nature: "Ye shall find rest for your souls" (Mt. xi. 29); as the seat of 
 the emotions: "My soul is very sorrowful" (Mt. xxvi. 28); "Now is my 
 soul troubled" (Jn. xii. 27). In this sense it corresponds to KapSia. 
 
 ^ The spirit, irvtvfj.a, Heb. ^"^"^ (ruach), occurs with considerable fre- 
 quency in all the Gospels, but with great variety of usage and rarely with 
 a psychological meaning. Generally it is used either of the Divine Spirit 
 or of evil spirits. It is contrasted with the flesh once in our Lord's words 
 (Mc. xiv. 38), but it is not used normally as it is in St. Paul of the human 
 spirit. 
 
122 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 sponded to the influence of God's Spirit, or of the power 
 of evil. There were spiritual powers or principles in the 
 world, good or bad, and what was spiritual in man was 
 easily influenced by spirits outside. 
 
 Looked at from the material side a man might be described 
 as body^ or flesh. As a body he was looked upon as an 
 organism, a being composed of many parts rationally bound 
 together; as flesh or flesh and blood he was looked at from 
 the point of view of the material of which he was formed. 
 As a man was known by his bodily form, the term "body" 
 might convey the meaning of personaHty, and the human 
 body was conceived of in some form or other as surviving 
 death — both soul and body suffer in Gehenna. 
 
 The term " flesh "^ meant originally the material substance 
 out of which a man is formed. But that material substance 
 was conceived as in a sense the seat of everything in man 
 which was not divine. It would include, therefore, his 
 whole human nature — his desires and affections so far as 
 they seem to be associated with his fleshly nature. The 
 natural body might be the home of evil influences, so it 
 might be used in contrast to the spirit, yet it was never 
 looked at as necessarily evil. It might be cleansed and 
 purified, just as the spirit might become evil. 
 
 No single one of these terms used psychologically implies 
 a separate function of mankind or a separate division of 
 the human being apart from other divisions. A more 
 correct explanation is to say that each of them looks at 
 the human personality from a particular point of view. 
 No one of them was the source of evil in mankind; each of 
 them might be dominated by evil or by good. They 
 represent aspects, not parts of a man. Hence there is no 
 dualism in the conception of human nature. The future 
 
 ^ The body, auna, is the human body looked on as an organism, and is 
 the visible and material aspect of man's personality. It is vitalized by the 
 \pvxr], and inspired by the irvevna, but it is a necessary, an inseparable, and 
 permanent part of man. Soul and body alike suffer in Gehenna (Mt. x. 
 28). 
 
 ^ The flesh {aapi, Heb. "'''?'?, basar) is not of frequent recurrence in the 
 Gospels, and does not have the importance it possesses as a psychological term 
 in St. Paul (Mt. 3: Mc. 3; Lc. i; Jn. ii.) Flesh and blood represent the 
 
THE FLESH 123 
 
 life was conceived of as lived in the body. At the Resur- 
 rection the body arose, although it would be transformed 
 and purified. If a man were evil, evil permeated his whole 
 being; if a man were good, his nature would be transformed. 
 It would not be destroyed. 
 
 Neither the source of good nor the source of evil lay in 
 a man's self. Both alike came to him from outside, for 
 the world was peopled by innumerable spiritual beings, 
 some good, some evil, which were the source of good and 
 ill to mankind. 
 
 In popular thought in the time of our Lord, the lore of 
 Angels played a great part. It had its roots in pre-exilic 
 theology, where the Angel, as messenger of Jehovah, seems 
 often to be identified with Jehovah himself. In post- 
 exihc times, whether owing to Babylonian or Zoroastrian 
 influence, or to the emergence and development of native 
 beliefs, the doctrine of Angels occupied in some circles of 
 thought and certain types of literature a conspicuous place. 
 The belief was not, indeed, universal. While the Essenes 
 laid great stress on it, the Sadducees denied the existence 
 of Angels or spirits. The Pharisees, however, the popular 
 rehgious thought, and above all the Apocalyptic literature, 
 were strongly influenced by it. In Daniel the Angels are 
 conspicuous; still more in Enoch. It tells us of the thou- 
 sands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand 
 who stood before the Lord of Spirits. It enumerates the 
 four Angels of the Presence, or, as they came to be called. 
 Archangels: Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel. Special 
 work is assigned to each of these and others who are else- 
 where mentioned by name. There are angels that preside 
 over each country and nation. They represent the majesty 
 and glory of God, and also are His messengers to mankind. 
 
 material elements out of which a man is made, and so the flesh may be 
 used for the personality: "they twain shall be one flesh" (Mt. xix. 6). It 
 is contrasted with irvevfia — once in St. Matthew and St. Mark — "the 
 spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Mt. xxvi. 41; Mc. xiv. 38), and once 
 in St. John: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing" 
 (Jn. vi. 63). But it is characteristic of the absence of anything like dual- 
 ism in the use of the term, or in the conception of the human personality, 
 that spiritual communion with our Lord should be described as eating His 
 flesh and drinking His blood. 
 
124 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 In particular the law is said to have been given through 
 Angels, and the whole of the Book of Jubilees is a further 
 revelation which arises through them. They guard the 
 souls of men, they control and have power over evil spirits, 
 they preside over Tartarus and are the agents of punish- 
 ment. No doubt they tilled a very wide place in popular 
 thought.^ 
 
 This belief is reflected in our Lord's words, but the place 
 that it occupies is not large. In one case in the Gospels 
 an Angel is mentioned by name, but never by Him. With 
 Him they are spoken of as the guardians of mankind, and 
 especially of little children; they represent the providential 
 care of God for man.^ More particularly (as is natural) 
 are they mentioned as the agents of divine judgment and 
 punishment. The Angels shall come forth and sever the 
 wicked from among the righteous, and shall cast them into 
 the furnace of fire; " there shall be the weeping and gnashing 
 of teeth." 3 
 
 Just as there are good spirits, so there is a great army of 
 evil spirits. Even more than the lore of Angels, the lore 
 of demons occupied people's minds. The behef in them 
 came from many sources. They were the false gods of 
 heathen nations, the fallen Angels, the offspring of the sons 
 of God and the daughters of men.* They had many and 
 strange names. They had taught mankind all the evil arts 
 — enchantments, astrology, omens, fornication, and the arts 
 associated with it. Through them sin and wickedness had 
 come into the world. Everywhere they were present, the 
 source of evil, suffering, and misery. 
 
 This behef, also, is reflected in our Lord's words. They 
 were under a supreme head who is spoken of as Satan and 
 
 ^ The current belief in Angels can be illustrated most fully from the Book 
 of Enoch. On their names see Enoch xx., xl.; in relation to the phe- 
 nomena of nature, Lxi., lo; in relation to punishment, hii. 3; of the fall of 
 Angels, vi.; of the law given by Angels, Gal. iii. 19, Heb. ii. 2; and Jubi- 
 lees, i. 27: "And He said to the angel of the presence: 'Write for Moses 
 from the beginning of creation till My sanctuary has been built among them 
 for all eternity.'" 
 
 2 Mt. xviii. 10: "In heaven their angels do always behold the face of 
 my Father which is in heaven." 
 
 ' Mt. xiii, 41, 42. * See especially Enoch vi. ^. 
 
ANGELS AND SPIRITS 125 
 
 Beelzebub, as the devil, the evil one, the tempter.^ There 
 are also many subordinate spirits. It must be recognized 
 that it was held that many of the physical and spiritual 
 evils to which men are exposed come from the work of evil 
 spirits; certainly all forms of what we should call mental 
 or nervous disease, lunacy, madness, epilepsy, and deafness, 
 dumbness, and blindness. So, also, the source of human 
 wickedness lies in the temptations of the evil spirit. It is 
 because Satan enters into his heart that Judas decides to 
 betray Jesus;- it is the devil that tempts our Lord; it is 
 the evil spirits that dwell in man who are the source of all 
 wickedness. Opposed to God and His rule is a kingdom 
 of evil which represents the embodiment of all wickedness. 
 This does not take away human responsibility. It is only 
 because man prepares a home for him, and because his 
 heart is empty, swept, and garnished, that the devil can 
 enter in; it is only becaus'e he listens to temptation that he 
 falls. But man is weak, and the devil is powerful and subtle, 
 so that man easily succumbs. 
 
 These two doctrines of Angels and spirits were part of the 
 popular belief of the time and are reflected in our Lord's 
 words, nor is there any reason to think that He did not 
 share the belief. But they express two fundamental truths. 
 The ministry of Angels signifies the providential care of 
 God for mankind. The belief in a personal evil spirit and 
 a kingdom of evil implies that sin is no part of man's nature. 
 His flesh may be weak, his heart may become full of evil! 
 imaginings; but the source of these is outside him. He 
 listens to temptation, but it comes to him. No part of 
 him is necessarily evil, no part of him need be cast away. 
 For if the evil be cast out from him the Divine Spirit of 
 God may dwell in him and sanctify the whole of his nature. 
 It is not the material part of him that is the cause of evil, 
 and redemption means not the destruction but the sanctifi- 
 cation of the body. 
 
 ^ Satan. The lore about Satan was rich and varied. The most inter- 
 esting passage is Job i. 6-12, ii. i-io. On Satan in our Lord's words see 
 Mt. iv. 10; Mk. iii. 23, iv. 15, viii. 33; Lc. x. 18. The demon lore in Enoch 
 is full, as is the angel lore. See especially Enoch xl. 7. 
 
 ^ Lc. xxii. 3; Jn. xiii. 27. 
 
126 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 rv 
 
 So far as may be judged by His recorded words, our Lord 
 in all cases spoke in accordance with the intellectual con- 
 ceptions of the day. On any subject on which discovery or 
 advance was possible for the human mind He added nothing 
 to thought. It was not His work or function. He spoke 
 in the language and according to the ideas of those whom 
 He addressed. The same truth is true of the expression of 
 His religious teaching. His teaching was throughout drawn 
 from the Jewish Scriptures, and the language that He used 
 was in greater or less degree the natural theological language 
 of those who heard Him. Its originality, its profound 
 originality, will become apparent as our story proceeds. 
 At present we are concerned with the meaning and origin 
 of the terms that He used, with the sources from whence 
 they came, and with the influences that are clearly traceable 
 in His teaching. In this investigation we come now to our 
 Lord's use of the Jewish Scriptures. 
 
 It must be recognized, indeed, that we cannot hope to 
 be able to attain great exactness in such a study. We have 
 our Lord's words in translations, and they have passed 
 through one or two stages before our records. We cannot 
 analyze His use of the Old Testament as we can that of 
 St. Paul, for example. It is always possible that a passage 
 introduced by the writer by way of illustration has become 
 part of our Lord's words. The translation into Greek may 
 very probably have been taken from the existing transla- 
 tions, and so we should be unable to say how far we may 
 have the exact words used. We cannot make deductions 
 from single passages, but if certain broad results come from 
 our investigation and we find that the same books have 
 a tendency to be quoted throughout the record, the results 
 attained may be considered trustworthy. 
 
 We find that our Lord makes a considerable use of the 
 actual words of the Old Testament, but not to such an ex- 
 tent as to take from the originality and spontaneity of His 
 teaching. The quotations range over the greater part of 
 it; they are numerous from the Pentateuch, the Prophets, 
 and the Psalms, occasional from the Historical Books, but 
 very rare from the Wisdom Literature. Of four books in 
 
THE USE #F THE SCRIPTURES 127 
 
 particular He made a marked use: the Book of Deuter- 
 onomy, the prophetic expression of the law, the Book of 
 Psalms, the expression of Israel's spiritual hfe, the Book of 
 Isaiah, the most evangelical of the prophets, and the Book 
 of Daniel, the source of current eschatological thought.^ It 
 will be found, moreover, that this indebtedness means not 
 merely that great ideas are drawn from these books, but 
 that there is that adoption of words and phraseology which 
 we are accustomed rightly to look on as implying intimate 
 acquaintance and profound study.- We shall see how John 
 Baptist had drawn his teaching from such intimate study 
 of the prophets. We have abundant evidence that Jesus 
 had lived in the words of God. "Man doth not live by 
 bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the 
 mouth of God." The Scriptures were God's word, and in 
 them He lived. 
 
 In doing this he would be conforming to the practice of 
 all rehgious men in Israel, but in the manner of doing it He 
 exhibited a marked contrast. There were various con- 
 temporary methods of interpretation, of which we have some 
 considerable knowledge. All these perverted the sense of 
 the Bible or exaggerated some particular characteristic, 
 and all these He deliberately put aside. He interpreted 
 rather according to its most spiritual signification. 
 
 Most conspicuous among the Biblical schools of inter- 
 pretation of the time was that which looked on the Scrip- 
 tures purely from a legal standpoint. The law having come 
 
 ^ The following are the number of quotations of each book as I have 
 computed them: 
 
 Used frequently: Deuteronomy 20, Psalms 22, Isaiah 20, Daniel 10. 
 
 Less frequently: Genesis 7, Exodus 9, Leviticus 6, Jeremiah 5, Zechariah 
 6, Hosea 4. 
 
 Seldom quoted: Numbers i, Samuel 2, Kings 3, Chronicles i, Proverbs 
 I, Job I, Ezekiel 3, Joel i, Malachi 3, Micah 2, Jonah i, Zephaniah i. 
 
 Not quoted: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesi- 
 astes. Canticles, Lamentations, Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Haggai. 
 
 The quotations in St. John are less numerous than in the other Gospels, 
 but come mainly from Psalms and Isaiah. 
 
 ^ Notice in Mt. v. 34, 35, how the words are taken from Is. Ixvi. i, Ps. 
 xlviii. 2, although the context is quite different. Notice, again, the way in 
 which the words of Mt. xiii. 32 come from Dan. iv. 12, 21. 
 
128 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 to be accepted as a guide for life to which a scrupulous ad- 
 herence was demanded, it became necessary, as we have ex- 
 plained, to apply it to every circumstance, and to interpret 
 it in such a way as to find the assistance required. It be- 
 came necessary also to find some way of escape from regula- 
 tions which, if rigidly enforced, would have been impossible. 
 So a gigantic system of casuistry was built up, based on a 
 hard, a minute, and a non-natural exegesis, and has been 
 preserved to us in the pages of the Talmud. This method 
 our Lord not only repudiated, but explicitly condemned. 
 "Ye make the Word of God of none effect by your tradi- 
 tion," He said. "If the blind lead the blind, shall they not 
 both fall into the pit?" 
 
 Then there was the Midrashic interpretation. This aimed 
 at being interesting and edifying. Its purpose was the 
 illustration of moral and religious truth by interesting 
 stories. It rewrote the sacred narrative, and filled up many 
 gaps. It collected a mass of tradition and folklore. It was 
 often frivolous, sometimes indecent and offensive. The 
 story of Jannes and Jambres, alluded to in the Epistle to 
 Timothy, is an illustration. We have many works remain- 
 ing in which we can study it. About a century earlier than 
 our Lord's ministry was written the Book of Jubilees; very 
 probably, somewhere contemporary with it, the work known 
 to us as Philo's Antiquities of the Jews} The stories, the 
 illustrations, and the reconstruction of national history that 
 this method supplied, were largely used (we have reason to 
 believe) in the sermons of the synagogue, and have survived 
 also in the Midrashic Commentaries. It is interesting, 
 perhaps remarkable, that in our Lord's dealing with 
 Scripture there is no trace of any such method. 
 
 Then, again, there was the allegorical interpretation. 
 This, perhaps, was most common in Hellenistic writers. Its 
 classical representative is Philo. It largely influenced the 
 literature of Christianity. But it also prevailed in Palestinian 
 literature, and we find examples in St. Paul. Natural and 
 
 ^ The first translation in English, in a sense the first publication which 
 has shown its significance, is that of Dr. M. R. James, The Biblical Anti- 
 quities of Philo now first translated from the Old Latin Version. (London: 
 S.P.C.K., 1917.) 
 
THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE 129 
 
 often impressive if occasionally employed for poetical or 
 devotional use, it soon becomes extraordinarily tedious, and 
 if used in relation to doctrine, it may be made to prove any- 
 thing. Of this, again, we find Httle if any trace in our 
 Lord's teaching. 
 
 In contrast to all these methods, our Lord's interpretation 
 is simple, Hteral, and* spiritual. He takes the words of the 
 Old Testament in their plain and natural meaning, and 
 makes them the vehicle for imparting the religious truths 
 which were not, indeed, derived from the Old Testament, 
 but represented the goal and end to which it pointed. 
 
 There is no reason to think that here, any more than in 
 any other departments of thought, Jesus had knowledge 
 of the scientific kind differing from that of His own time. 
 He quotes the Pentateuch as the work of Moses, the Psalms 
 as the work of David. He knows nothing of the two or 
 more Isaiahs which delight modern scholars. He knows 
 nothing of scientific exegesis or critical history. These were 
 matters which concerned Him as little as the correct motions 
 of the heavenly bodies, or the geological history of the earth. 
 He did not come to teach science or criticism. He came 
 to teach religion. He had read and pondered over the 
 Scriptures in the Hebrew tongue. They were part of His 
 very being, the food of His mind. In them, as nowhere else, 
 God spake. And with an insight which was divine He learnt 
 from them, in a way in which no prophet of Israel had yet 
 learnt, their message for mankind. 
 
 A careful study of the Gospels thus reveals to us the fact 
 that, so far as regards what we may call the mental equip- 
 ment that they display, it is that of the writers' own epoch. 
 We are not yet concerned with any direct enquiry as to the 
 nature and personality of Jesus of Nazareth; we are at 
 present only concerned with an examination of the evidence 
 which the records that we possess yield, and it is undoubted 
 that they do not reveal any secular knowledge which trans- 
 cends the natural environment of the time. Although 
 the Gospels which we possess are written in Greek, there are 
 signs that they record speeches which were originally de- 
 livered in Aramaic, the language current in Palestine at the 
 beginning of the first century. The religious phraseology, 
 
I30 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 the conception of the universe, the psychology, the scientific 
 ideas, the social conditions are all those of His own genera- 
 tion. If we are to understand them aright, it can only be 
 from the point of view of the time when they were written, 
 and of the conditions of thought that prevailed. Jesus 
 speaks in the language of the day; He is concerned with the 
 thoughts and aspirations then current. His words would 
 be such as would be comprehensible to any peasant of 
 Nazareth or fisherman on the Sea of Galilee. We must 
 learn to interpret Him from His environment. 
 
 But this investigation into the conditions of His environ- 
 ment will give us further assistance. It will form a not 
 inadequate means of testing the authenticity of our Lord's 
 teaching. We know that its starting-point must have been 
 the Old Testament rehgion, and in particular the Old 
 Testament Scriptures. A test of the teaching ascribed 
 to Him, which may be appHed with some degree of certainty, 
 will be whether it is of such a character as might reasonably, 
 so far as the vehicle of expression goes, be derived from 
 those Scriptures, or from the current religious conceptions 
 of the day. For it is as true of the form in which the 
 teaching of our Lord is given as of His other intellectual 
 characteristics that it must be natural to the day. There 
 must be no anachronism in it. 
 
 Let us apply this principle in certain details. We have 
 seen that one of the books which, as is shown by clear signs, 
 had influenced the mind of Jesus is the Book of Daniel. 
 Amongst the most interesting and, in some ways, novel 
 conceptions of that book is that of the kingdom of God: 
 *'And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven 
 set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall 
 the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall 
 break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall 
 stand for ever."^ "His kingdom is an everlasting dominion, 
 and all dominions shall serve and obey him."^ The ex- 
 pression was, in this definite form, novel, although it was 
 the natural and legitimate interpretation of the visions of 
 the prophets who had described in such glowing colours the 
 
 1 Dan. ii. 44. ^ Dan. vii. 27. 
 
RELIGIOUS PHRASEOLOGY 131 
 
 day of the Lord. It is this expression — probably one that 
 had become common in current phraseology — that Jesus 
 adopts, and makes the central feature of His teaching and 
 thought. Through it He presented His ethical, religious, 
 and social Gospel. 
 
 A study of the Book of Psalms, of the prophet Isaiah, 
 and of Daniel will present us with a series of titles, some of 
 which already had been used with a Messianic signification, 
 some had not. The Psalms spoke of the anointed King, who 
 was also the Son of God; the Book of Isaiah, in its later 
 chapters, had pictured the servant of Jehovah as one 
 through whom the hopes of Israel would be fulfilled; Daniel 
 had seen the vision of one like unto a Son of Man exalted in 
 glory. It seems entirely natural that it should be through 
 these titles that our Lord should present His mission. He 
 had learnt them from the books that He had read, and they 
 were titles in a greater or less degree recognized and known. 
 In and through them He had thought of His mission. In 
 and through them He taught it. 
 
 But the Book of Isaiah revealed other traits which He had 
 learnt. He had thought of Himself as the Servant of 
 Jehovah "who would proclaim the acceptable year of the 
 Lord." But the servant had been depicted as one whose 
 lot was suffering, rejection, scorn, sorrow; as one who was 
 to bear other persons' transgressions and sorrows, who was 
 an offering for sin, to bear the sins of others, whose triumph 
 would come through his suffering. So from the beginning 
 there is a note of sorrow in His teaching, an expectation of 
 the end, a conception of Himself not as triumphant, but as 
 rejected, a knowledge that it was through His death 
 salvation would come. 
 
 If we take all the main lines of thought which we find 
 in the Gospel teaching, it will become apparent that it has 
 its root and starting-point in the Old Testament, not as 
 interpreted conventionally, but as Jesus would read it. All 
 these ideas are natural to the time and situation, and 
 therefore we may with full confidence accept the teaching 
 as original and authentic. We may study it as the teaching 
 of Jesus, not merely of the Church. For the new conception, 
 which in this case is the realization of the spiritual signi- 
 
132 THE EDUCATION OF JESUS 
 
 ficance of the Old Testament, is the work, not of the suc- 
 cessors, but of the founder. It was He who had studied the 
 Scriptures as no one had ever done before, and saw what 
 they meant and to what they pointed. 
 
 This was the starting-point. But through His divine 
 impulse was thus created a germinant idea, simple and 
 almost unimpressive in its origin, which became the source 
 of new spiritual life to all future generations, continually 
 reveahng deeper potentialities. It is the history of this 
 idea, which begins in the transformation of the Old Testa- 
 ment, that we have to trace. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 When Pontius Pilate became governor of Judaea it was 
 not an unnatural expectation that the day of the Lord was 
 at hand. The religious-minded Israelite had grievously 
 suffered. Since the great days of the Maccabees blow had 
 fallen upon blow. The failure of the high-priestly dynasty, 
 the coming of the Romans, the fall of Jerusalem, the con- 
 tinuous devastation of foreign and domestic warfare, the 
 insolence of Herod and his sons, the loss of independence, 
 and the outrage of foreign taxation imposed on the holy 
 people — were not these the birth-pangs of the Messiah? ^ 
 And now in the place of a succession of governors who, if 
 foreigners, had governed with some measure of justice, had 
 come Pontius Pilate, deliberately sent, as it seems, by Se- 
 janus to insult the prejudices of the Jews, and marking the 
 culmination of the infamy. 
 
 Nor if he turned to the rulers among his own people had 
 such an Israelite any ground for consolation. An almost 
 contemporary writer, the author of the Assumption of 
 Moses,^ who lived shortly after the beginning of the century, 
 tells of the rule of pestilent and insolent men claiming to be 
 righteous, of their avariciousness and their gluttony. They 
 were devourers of poor men's houses, under pretence of 
 justice. They were full of iniquity; from sunrise to sunset 
 they cried: " Give us banquets and luxury, let us eat and drink, 
 so will we reckon ourselves great men." They trafficked with 
 the unclean; they spoke great words: "Touch me not lest 
 thou shouldst pollute me where I stand." It is the popular 
 judgment on the Sadducean aristocracy, the arrogant and 
 
 * On the "birth-pangs," a regular Messianic phrase (Mk. xiii. 8), or 
 woes of the Messiah, see Volz, Jiidische Eschatologie, p. ijsff. 
 
 2 On the Assumption of Moses see above, p. 50, the edition of Charles, 
 1897, and in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. Charles, 
 vol. ii., pp. 407-424, and Schiirer, Geschichte, iii., p. 213. 
 
 133 
 
134 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 avaricious sons of Annas. But does not the writer suggest 
 also that the pious Jew resented the rehgious pretensions of 
 the Pharisees, who claimed to be pre-eminently the just, and 
 to preserve their purity by keeping themselves aloof from the 
 common herd? We shall hear later a repetition of these 
 charges from more authoritative sources. 
 
 The writer proceeds to describe the future as he imagined it. 
 There will come a period of great wrath and vengeance for all 
 such, and a time of renewed and more violent persecution, and 
 the righteous shall perish. Then the kingdom of God shall ap- 
 pear, and the devil shall have an end, and sadness shall be 
 taken away. The Heavenly One shall arise from the throne of 
 His kingdom, and shall come out of His holy habitation with 
 indignation and wrath for His children. The earth shall quake, 
 the heavens be darkened, the sea shall fall into the abyss, the 
 fountains of waters shall fail, because the Most High God, 
 the Eternal, the Only God shall arise to punish the nations. 
 
 "Then shalt thou be happy, thou O Israel, 
 And shalt mount on the neck and wings of the eagle, 
 And the days of thy sorrow shall be ended, 
 And God shall exalt thee 
 And bring thee to the heaven of the stars, 
 The place of his habitation. 
 
 And thou shalt look from on high, and behold thy adversaries on the earth 
 And shalt know them and rejoice, 
 And give thanks, and acknowledge thy Creator." 
 
 The preservation of this document illustrates for us 
 the bitterness, the suffering, and the expectations, half 
 religious, half secular, of the times when John the Baptist 
 and our Lord preached. There was the soil in which the 
 seeds of teaching might quickly grow and fructify. There 
 was an anxious and wistful hope among the people who were 
 soon to hear proclaimed more authoritatively than ever 
 before, but in a novel and unexpected way, the cry, "The 
 kingdom of heaven is at hand." 
 
 I 
 
 It was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius ^ — that is, some- 
 time between August a.d. 28 and August a.d. 29 — that a 
 
 ^ The fifteenth year of Tiberius was counted from August 19, a.d. 28, 
 to August 18, A.D. 29. On this date see the Chronological Notes. 
 
THE BEGINNING OF HIS MINISTRY 135 
 
 new prophet appeared in Israel, the last of the great roll of 
 the prophets of the old dispensation.* John, the son of 
 Zacharias and his wife Elisabeth, was of priestly race.- He 
 was born of pious parents — "they were both righteous be- 
 fore God, walking in all the commandments of the Lord blame- 
 less" — who dwelt not in Jerusalem among the great 
 famihes of the priests, but in the hill country of Judaea, the 
 home of Jewish piety. It was said of him that from his 
 earliest years, like a Nazirite, he drank no wine nor strong 
 drink. Even from his mother's womb he was filled with the 
 Holy Spirit. Like many other Israelites, like Elijah in the 
 wilderness of Beersheba, like Amos the herdsman of Tekoa 
 in the same uplands, he found in the solitudes of that un- 
 inhabited land a place for contemplation and life with God. 
 There were others in those hard times who sought solitude 
 among these mountains. The hills above the Dead Sea were 
 the home of the Essenes, and Josephus tells us how he be- 
 came the disciple for three years of a certain Bannus who 
 
 ^ Our sources for our knowledge of John the Baptist are — (i) Certain 
 passages in St. Mark's Gospel, viz., Mk. i. 2-1 1, 14; ii. 18; vi. 14-29; xl. 
 3o~33- (2) A considerable number of passages found in St. Matthew and 
 St. Luke and undoubtedly derived from Tlie Discourses: (o) Mt. iii. 7-17; 
 Lk. iii. 7-17; {b) Mt. xi. 2-19; Lk. vii. 18-27, 3i~3S; ^vi. 16. The ac- 
 count of these Gospels of John's preaching and baptism is formed by a com- 
 bination of the material in St. Mark and The Discourses. The information 
 in the latter concerning John's teaching seems to be particularly good. (3) 
 Some passages given by St. Matthew or St. Luke alone. There seems no 
 reason why these also should not be derived from The Discourses, as there 
 is no reason for thinking that the common matter exhausted the contents 
 of that document. There was nothing about him derived from the Lucan 
 special sources. (4) The birth narratives in Lk. i. (5) Independent tra- 
 ditions given by St. John (Jn. i. 19-42; iii. 22-36; iv. 1-3). Much diversity 
 of opinion prevails about them. By some they are looked upon as not his- 
 torical at all. They are used with some criticism, but with little hesitation 
 in the present account. (6) An account contained in Josephus, AntL, xviii., 
 116-119. There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of this passage. 
 See Schiirer, Geschichte^^, i., 436-439; Abrahams, Studies, p. 30. 
 
 ^ Lk. i. 5. Cf. The Gospel according to the Hebrews in Hilgenfeld, Novum 
 Testamentum extra canonem reccptum, iv., 33. But there is no reason for 
 thinking this latter to be an independent authority. How far the stories 
 in the first chapter of St. Luke are historical we cannot tell, but the con- 
 ceptions of John's ministry and of the Messiah implied in them are early 
 and of great interest. 
 
136 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 lived in the desert, and "used no other clothing than that 
 which came from the trees and had no other food than what 
 grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water 
 frequently, both by night and day, to preserve his purity."^ 
 So John also was in the desert until his showing unto Israel. 
 
 To him, as to Jeremiah, as to any other Old Testament 
 prophet, there came the word of God — that is, the clear 
 and certain conviction that he was entrusted with a definite 
 message for the people, and from his desert retreat he went 
 out to preach to them. In appearance, too, he was like 
 the prophets of old. Like Elijah he wore a rough mantle 
 of camel's hair and a leathern girdle about his loins, and his 
 long hair streamed down over his shoulders. He had lived 
 on such food as the desert produced — locusts and wild honey. 
 
 His message, too, was simple, as had been those of the 
 prophets. He was essentially a messenger of righteousness. 
 ''He bid the Jews," said Josephus, writing so as to suit 
 Greek taste, "to practise virtue and righteousness towards 
 one another and piety towards God." He came "in the 
 way of righteousness," said our Lord. "Many of the 
 children of Israel," the angel Gabriel is represented as 
 foretelhng, "shall he turn unto the Lord their God. He 
 shall go before the face of the Lord in the spirit and power 
 of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, 
 and the disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the righteous." 
 
 The burden of his preaching was: "Repent, for the king- 
 dom of heaven is at hand." The great day of the Lord 
 would shortly come, the advent of the Messiah was near. 
 "The axe was laid to the root of the tree." The Messiah 
 would come for judgment. "Every tree, therefore, that 
 brought not forth good fruit, would be hewn down and cast 
 into the fire." All men must prepare for this judgment 
 by turning away from their sins, by a change of heart and 
 hfe. 
 
 As a sign of this changed life, and the washing away of 
 sins, those that came to him were baptized. The symbolism 
 of washing as a sign of spiritual cleansing is almost universal, 
 and prevailed widely in the Greco-Roman world. ^ To be 
 
 ^ Josephus, Life, § ii. 
 
 ^ See the article on Baptism in Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and 
 
THE BAPTISM OF JOHN 137 
 
 more correct, of course, it is true to say that the idea of 
 spiritual purity was developed out of the physical purity 
 which was so often an indispensable condition of early 
 religious rites. Baptism began by being what we now term 
 ceremonial, although it did not so appear in earlier times, 
 and then became moral in its significance, and often it is 
 difhcult to distinguish the two ideas. Among the Jews the 
 demand for ritual purity was exacting, and in order to attain 
 it there were both for priests and people strict rules for 
 lustrations. Water, too, became looked upon as a symbol 
 for repentance, and a custom grew up at some uncertain 
 time in the history of Judaism of bathing on the eve of the 
 Atonement with confession of sins.^ Among the rehgious 
 devotees, also, of this time ceremonial and sacramental 
 washings, for they are not easily distinguished, were common. 
 We know of them among the Essenes, the instance of Ban- 
 nus has been quoted, and now or at a somewhat later period 
 arose the sect of Hemerobaptists, who are stated to have 
 been distinguished, as their name implies, by a habit of 
 daily baptism.^ A more important instance is one which 
 may have been present in the mind of John and influenced 
 his language. Certainly at a later date, almost certainly in 
 the days of which we are speaking, it was the rule that all 
 heathen who became Jews should be baptized.^ From men 
 circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice were required; from 
 women (who were the larger number), baptism and sacrifice. 
 The purpose of this baptism was, primarily at any rate, 
 ceremonial. The heathen were in a state of uncleanness, 
 and only if ritually clean could they be received "under the 
 wings of the divine presence," so proselytism was described. 
 There is, in fact, abundant evidence that baptism was a 
 
 Ethics, vol. ii., which collects together the customs of a large number of 
 different races. 
 
 1 See Abrahams, Studies, pp. 36/., Pharisaic Baptism. 
 
 2 On the Hemerobaptists see Hegesippus ap. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iv., 
 22; Epiphanius, Panarion, I., i., 17, p. 37, ed. Petavius. 
 
 3 On the baptism of proselytes see Schurer, Geschichte^, iii., 129-132; 
 Edersheim, Jesus tlie Messiah^, ii., 745; Ahraha.m5, Studies in Pharisaism 
 attd the Gospels, iv., pp. 36-46. There seems quite adequate evidence for 
 the custom of baptizing proselytes before the fall of Jerusalem, (i) "The 
 heathen was in a state of uncleanness, and must at least as emphatically 
 
138 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 recognized symbol of moral purification, and a sign of the 
 entry into a new life. 
 
 But none of these were the direct source of the Baptist's 
 action. It must be recognized, and it will become more 
 apparent as our history proceeds, that the inspiration of the 
 last prophet was drawn directly from the prophetical books 
 of the Old Testament, and in these baptism appears as a 
 definite sign of the Messianic age. "I will sprinkle clean 
 water upon you," it is said in Ezekiel,^ "and ye shall be 
 clean: from all your filthiness and from all your idols, will 
 I cleanse you." "O Jerusalem," said Jeremiah, "wash 
 thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved." ^ 
 "In that day," said Zechariah, "there will be a fountain 
 opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness."^ Let us remember 
 that John in his desert retreat was not only communing with 
 nature, but with the word of God. That as he pondered 
 over the Scriptures, and read the signs of the times, he 
 became convinced that the day of the Messiah was at hand, 
 
 as the Jew in a similar state have undergone the ritual of bathing. Only 
 in a state of ritual cleanness would the newcomer be received 'under the 
 Wings of the Divine Presence ' — a common Rabbinic phrase for prosely- 
 tism" (Abrahams, p. 36). (2) The Mishna has the following ruling: "A 
 stranger who was proselytized on the eve of the passover? " The school of 
 Shammai says, "He may be baptized and eat his passover in the evening"; 
 but the school of Hillel says, "He who has just departed from the foreskin 
 is as legally unclean as he who just departs from the grave" {Pesachim, 
 viii., 8). (3) A story told in the Jerusalem Talmud strengthens this. 
 "Rabbi Eleazar ben Jacob says: Soldiers were guards of the gates in Jeru- 
 salem; they were baptized and ate their paschal lambs in the evening" 
 {T. J. Pesachim, viii.; Tosefta Pesachim, vii., 13). This must have been 
 before the destruction of Jerusalem. (4) The ordinary Jewish rule laid 
 down three rites for the reception of proselytes: circumcision, baptism, sac- 
 rifice. This rule must be earlier in its origin than the destruction of the 
 temple. (5) On the other hand, I do not feel that the passage of the Sibyl- 
 line Oracles, iv., 165, which demands baptism and repentance for the world, 
 can be quoted, as it seems to me Christian and not Jewish. A Jewish docu- 
 ment would not omit every distinctive Jewish rite. While there is, there- 
 fore, sufficient evidence for the rite, there seems little reason for seeing in 
 it the origin of John's baptism, for it was ceremonial in character, and only 
 intended to produce the necessary ceremonial purity. 
 
 ^ Ezek. xxxvi. 25. ^ Jer. iv. 14. ^ Zech. xiii. i. 
 
MESSIANIC BAPTISM 139 
 
 and the divine will called him to prepare the way of the 
 Lord. From the Scriptures he would learn the nature of 
 the last things, the signs of the coming, and the way to 
 prepare. Baptism with water was, it seemed, clearly laid 
 down as part of the method of preparation, and so in 
 obedience to the word of God, as the prophets had foretold, 
 he called people to baptism in direct preparation for the 
 coming of the Messiah.^ 
 
 The condition of this baptism which John preached was 
 repentance; it was accompanied by a confession of sins, and 
 its result would be in the Messianic times which were to 
 come a remission of sins. The exhortation of the Baptist 
 was to repent. Once more we have an echo of the prophets' 
 message: "Return unto me, and I will return unto you, 
 saith the Lord of Hosts." ^ "O Israel, return unto the Lord 
 thy God."^ "Wash you, make you clean," said Isaiah; 
 "put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; 
 cease to do evil; learn to do well, seek judgment, relieve 
 the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow."* 
 Ezekiel had spoken of the clean heart, the result of sprin- 
 kHng. "A new heart also will I give you . . . and I will 
 take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give 
 you a heart of flesh." ^ The meaning of this Messianic bap- 
 tism was to turn away from sin, and to change the heart, 
 and to turn unto the Lord as the Prophets had always 
 preached.^ So all who came to John to be baptized must 
 
 ^ The word "baptism" is one of those which are a new creation. The 
 verb /SaTrrifoj was used in classical writers as the intensitive of PdirTu, and 
 seems generally to have implied being overwhelmed in the water, totally 
 immersed. It was rarely used in the LXX. The nouns /SaTrrto-^uos, ^airriafia, 
 and PaiTTiaTTjs do not seem to be used except of Johannine or Christian 
 baptism (in the New Testament and in Josephus). The phraseology was 
 created by Christianity, and it is thus a sign of a rite with a new signifi- 
 cance, and, like some other of the fundamental words of Christianity, was 
 not derived from the LXX. It belongs to the time when Christianity was 
 preached in Aramaic, and the colloquial Aramaic was translated into Greek. 
 
 2 Zech. i. 3; see also Mai. iii. 7. * Hos. xiv. i. * Is. i. 16, 17. 
 
 * Ezek. xxxvi. 26. 
 
 ^ The word "repentance" {neravodv, ixtTavoia) is another instance of 
 a word used in a new sense in Christian literature. In classical literature 
 the word means change of mind or after- thought; in the LXX it is used 
 as the translation of ^^'1, meaning to grieve or be sorry for sin, but the 
 
I40 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 confess their sins — "they were baptized in Jordan, confessing 
 their sins." This was clearly the necessary preparation for 
 the new life. And the end of the Messianic days to which 
 this preparation pointed would be the forgiveness of sin. 
 Those who really confessed and repented of their sins, who 
 changed their heart and life and were baptized, would, when 
 the Messiah came, have their sins forgiven, and be held fit 
 for the Messianic kingdom. 
 
 So John's baptism was essentially ethical. The exact 
 relation between repentance and baptism, the relation 
 between the symbol and the thing symbolized, would be in 
 this case as difficult to define as it is really futile to enquire. 
 It was enough to know that repentance, confession, baptism, 
 a new life were essential, that the result would be remission 
 of sins.^ It is apparently some such conception as this 
 that Josephus desires to represent in the stilted language 
 in which he describes John's baptism. "Baptism," he 
 said, "would be acceptable to God, if it was looked upon, 
 not as a means of passing over certain sins, but as a purifica- 
 tion of the body, when the soul had already been purified 
 by righteousness." That is, it was not a magical formula 
 which would bring immunity from the effects of sin, it was 
 not a mere ceremonial rite, but its value depended on the 
 cleanness of the heart. It was that elevated, ethical, reli- 
 gious ordinance which we call a sacrament. 
 
 Christian use is for the prophetic ^'^^ ^ which means to turn from sin, and is 
 generally translated by eTnaTpt4)ui. Its new meaning is a transformation and 
 renewal of life, a change from sin, and a putting on of holiness. It is noted 
 that neither word occurs at all in the Gospel or Epistles of St. John. It 
 is for the most part a Lucan word. "An examination of these few passages 
 would seem to show that the teaching of Jesus, which the disciples cared 
 most to preserve, did not directly harp upon the mere term and word 're- 
 pentance.' Jesus took a more original line of effecting an end, one com- 
 mon both to himself and to John. He encouraged, stimulated, comforted. 
 He did not merely din a summons to repentance into people's ears" 
 (Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels, ii., 463). 
 
 1 Forgiveness of sins {a<t>e<ns anapTtibv) is an expression used most com- 
 monly by St. Luke, and never by St. John. It occurs of the baptism of 
 John in St. Mark, but was omitted apparently purposely by St. Matthew, 
 who uses it only in connection with the Last Supper. It is used here of the 
 characteristics of .the Messianic Age. It became the distinctive expression 
 used of Christian baptism. 
 
THE PREACHING OF JOHN 141 
 
 It may be that the first preaching of John was in the 
 desert where he had learnt his message, but probably that 
 was not the case. As soon as he became conscious of his 
 mission he would go out among men, and his conception of 
 the need of baptism would impel him to the sacred banks of 
 Jordan that he might baptize there. The scene of his 
 ministry was the Jordan valley,- and the fact that some 
 part of this valley was in Judaea, some in the territory of 
 Herod Antipas, some belonging to the free cities of the De- 
 capohs, would make it a safe refuge. If he began to preach 
 in Judaea, it is probable that later on, after the Jewish hier- 
 archy had shown an excessive and dangerous interest in his 
 career, he crossed over to the opposite bank, where he would 
 be in the jurisdiction of Antipas. 
 
 The scene of his activity then was, as St. Luke tells us, 
 the valley of the Jordan, and the various places mentioned 
 by St. John — Bethany or Bethabara, and Aenon or "the 
 springs" — were in that neighbourhood. 
 
 Thither, when the news had gone forth that a new prophet 
 had arisen, came a great multitude to hear him, says 
 Josephus, and they heard him gladly. All Jerusalem and 
 Judaea came, says St. Mark, and were baptized in Jordan, 
 confessing their sins. Thither, too, came representatives 
 of the great men of the Jews, of the Sadducees whose evil 
 lives were so notorious, of the Pharisees who had learnt 
 to trust in their own righteousness. They came to learn 
 what he was like, to act as spies on him, perhaps to de- 
 nounce and prosecute him. He detected their insincerity, and 
 condemned it in language which revealed still more the pur- 
 port of his message: 
 
 "Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the 
 wrath to come? Bring forth, therefore, fruits worthy of 
 repentance; and think not to say within yourselves, We 
 have Abraham for our father; for I say unto you, that God 
 is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." 
 
 Here was the significant feature of John's message. It 
 had become almost an axiom that to be an Israelite was all 
 that was needed in the final judgment. The judgment 
 
 ^ It was on the day that I was revising this passage that we learnt that 
 British troops had occupied the Jordan valley. 
 
142 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 had come to be looked at merely from the point of view of 
 God's own people. They had suffered much in the past; 
 the Gentiles had triumphed over them. When Messiah 
 and the judgment came the position would be reversed. 
 For the Gentiles were prepared wrath and destruction, for 
 the holy nation rest and peace. They would rejoice when 
 they saw the fate of their enemies and persecutors. The 
 privileged position of being descended from Abraham was 
 all that was needed as a condition of salvation in the 
 Messianic days. 
 
 But John, as always, goes back to the prophetic message. 
 He delivers the same call to Israel to repent as the prophets 
 had delivered. He denounces, as they had done, the sins of 
 the chosen people. No privilege will avail when God comes 
 to judgment. He demands righteousness from all. The 
 Pharisee would baptize the proselyte that all uncleanness 
 might be removed. He is told that he, too, is unclean, in 
 spite of his scrupulous adherence to the law. He must 
 repent and change his Hfe and bring forth fruits meet for 
 repentance and confess his sins and be himself baptized. 
 The Sadducee, the priest who offered the sacrifices for 
 Israel, and purified himself when he performed his priestly 
 rites, might say that he was pure and clean. His ritual 
 purity was useless. The coming of the Messiah was a 
 revelation of righteousness, with righteousness would He 
 judge, in righteousness must His people prepare for Him. 
 The Baptist's message was to make ready a people prepared 
 for the Lord. 
 
 Nor could he lay stress on his descent from Abraham. 
 Just as Amos had threatened destruction to the sinners of 
 Israel, just as Hosea had said, "Ye are not my people and I 
 will not be your God," so John announces the divine wrath 
 against the sinners of Israel in his day. Descent from 
 Abraham will count as nothing. As God sent His Spirit 
 into dry bones and they became a great army, so He might 
 of the stones that lay around make children for Abraham. 
 
 Justice, mercy, charity are his message. "What shall we 
 do?" said the people. "He that hath two coats, let him 
 give to him that hath none and he that hath food let him do 
 likewise." To the tax-gatherers he said: "Extort no more 
 
THE MESSAGE OF JOHN 143 
 
 than is due to you." To the soldiers: "Be content with 
 your pay, do not add to it by robbery and violence," 
 
 This simple and sincere message, so different from the 
 religious fantasies of the day, went straight to the heart of 
 the people. "All men counted John as a prophet." There 
 was a great stir in the land, and, as was natural, the respon- 
 sible spiritual rulers of the people desired to know who he 
 claimed to be. His answer was clear and explicit. "He 
 was not the Messiah." There had been much speculation 
 and conjecture as to the preparation for the coming of the 
 Messiah, and various messengers who would precede him, 
 suggested by different passages in Scripture, had been 
 described. He refused to be identified with any of these. 
 Moses had spoken of the Prophet whom God would raise 
 up like unto himself.^ He was not that Prophet. Malachi 
 had foretold how the Lord would send Elijah the prophet 
 before the great and terrible day, and much strange and 
 curious legend had grown up round his name.- John would 
 not allow that he was Elijah. He describes himself with terms 
 of depreciation drawn from the great prophetic book which 
 had inspired his teaching as " the voice of one crying in the 
 desert. Prepare ye the way of the Lord."^ 
 
 Then, in clear unmistakable words, he speaks of the 
 Messiah that is to come. One who comes after him will be 
 greater than he. He was unworthy to perform even the 
 most menial offices for Him. "I baptize with water, he will 
 baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. He will sift 
 the wheat from the chaff, he will gather the wheat into his 
 garner and burn the chaff in unquenchable fire." 
 
 The outpouring of the Spirit, and the revelation of the 
 Lord in fire, were alike characteristics of the Messianic age. 
 Ezekiel,'* immediately after speaking of the baptism with 
 
 1 Deut. xviii. 15. On 'the Prophet' see Volz, op. cit., p. 190. 
 
 2 Mai. iii. 2, 3/.;iv. 5/. See Volz, op. cit., 192; Edersheim, Life, ii., 706. 
 2 Jn. i. 23. I have little doubt but that the fourth Gospel is correct in 
 
 ascribing these words to the Baptist himself. They are drawn direct from 
 the prophets, and would not have been used of him by others. The text 
 others would use is, of course, Mai. iii. 5, as is shown by its insertion into 
 the quotation from Isaiah in Mk. i. i. 
 * Ezek. xxxvi. 27. 
 
144 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 water, had said: "I will put my spirit within you." Zech- 
 ariah^ had said: "I will pour upon the house of David, 
 and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace 
 and suppHcation." Isaiah: - "I will pour my spirit upon thy 
 seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring." "I shall pour 
 out my spirit upon all flesh," said Joel.^ 
 
 And the revelation will be with fire. "Who may abide 
 the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he 
 appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire."^ ''Behold, the 
 day Cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the proud, 
 and all that work wickedness shall be stubble; and the day 
 that Cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord."^ "Be- 
 hold, the Lord will come with fire."^ 
 
 Whatever may have been the original conception of the 
 writers of these passages (most of them, indeed, were for them 
 Messianic), and whoever may have been their authors, they 
 certainly existed for John as clear revelations of the divine 
 purpose. He believed the day of the Lord was at hand, and 
 it was to him a great revelation of the spirit and power of 
 God. All this he expresses in the terse, picturesque language 
 which characterizes his recorded utterances. The Spirit of 
 God will come into the world and stir men's hearts and give 
 them a new life. God's fire will burn in men's hearts; it 
 will cleanse them from all evil and sin, and clear away the 
 dross.^ All the worthless it will consume away. The new 
 heart which will be put into men will be free from all evil, 
 and goodness will have the strength and power of fire. 
 There will be an enthusiasm and zeal for all that is clean and 
 bright and true such as has never been known before. The 
 world is on the brink of a new age. "The world's great age 
 begins anew." 
 
 ^ Zech. xii. lo. ^ Is. xliv. 3. ' Joel ii. 28. 
 
 * Mai. iii. 2. * Mai. iv. i. * Is. Lxvi. 15. 
 
 ^ On baptism by fire see Abrahams, Studies, pp. 44-45: "The idea is 
 carried out most fully in a saying of Abbahu (end of third century). 
 Schottgen has already cited this parallel from T.B., Sanhedrin, 3ga. Ab- 
 bahu explains that when God buried Moses He bathed Himself in fire as 
 it is written: 'For, behold, the Lord will come with fire' (Is. lxvi. 15). 
 Abbahu goes on to say, 'By fire is the essential baptism,' and he quotes: 
 'All that abideth not the fire ye shall make to go through the water' (Num. 
 xxxi. 23). Thus baptism by fire is the divine analogue to man's baptism 
 
THE MESSIANIC AGE 145 
 
 The language, although derived from the prophets, is in 
 its form and apphcation new and creative. John had clearly 
 a higher conception of what the Messianic age meant than 
 his contemporaries. In their phraseology and thought 
 they are different from the manner in which such ideas were 
 expressed afterwards in Christianity. They are unique as 
 they are original. They were the genuine utterances of 
 John, as they were a true delineation of the real Messianic 
 age. It may still remain a question whether they were a 
 general picture of the age to come, or whether, as the fourth 
 Gospel would suggest, they were directly applied to Jesus. 
 The fact that they are preserved for us in a general form is no 
 argument against their having a special application, as the 
 Christian Church could never have considered that they were 
 spoken with any other reference than that to Jesus, and 
 the definite attribution of them as a prophecy of His coming 
 in the fourth Gospel would be the interpretation which every 
 Christian of the early Church would assume to be correct. 
 But whether they were actually spoken after John had seen 
 and known Jesus, or whether they had no reference to Him 
 as originally spoken, must remain a question which does not 
 admit of an easy solution. 
 
 n 
 
 Amongst those who came to John to be baptized was 
 Jesus of Nazareth in Galilee. There seems no reason for 
 thinking that previous to this He had been a religious 
 teacher. The Gospel narratives all imply that it was after 
 His baptism that His preaching began. He was known only 
 as the carpenter, the son of Mary. Equally is it certain that 
 He, like John, had met the religious questions of the day 
 by an earnest and, as we have already learnt, a simple and 
 spiritual study of the Scriptures; that men would have 
 said of Him that He was stirred deeply by the things 
 of religion; and that the news that a prophet had arisen 
 in Israel would profoundly affect His thoughts and aspirations. 
 
 by water. Man could not bear the more searching test." These Rabbinical 
 parallels are interesting as showing that such ideas (as they were drawn 
 from the Old Testament) were natural to Judaism, but they throw no light 
 on the origin of John's teaching, which was drawn directly from the Old 
 Testament. 
 
146 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 When jesus came to be baptized we are told in one 
 account how John prevented Him with the words, "I have 
 need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" The 
 answer that Jesus gave was, "Suffer it to be so now, for thus 
 it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." He was 
 baptized, and as He came out of the water He saw the 
 heavens opened, and the Spirit of God coming down on Him 
 as a dove, and a voice from heaven saying: "Thou art my 
 son, my beloved, in thee I am well pleased." 
 
 Such is the narrative. But the imagination must be 
 allowed to picture what lay behind it. We need not think 
 of John's baptism as impersonal and indiscriminate. Those 
 who flocked from all sides to hear him would listen to his 
 preaching, careless of any material comfort, living easily, 
 as would always be possible in the warm Jordan valley, in 
 the open air, eating the scanty food they had brought with 
 them. They would be, for a time at any rate, his disciples, 
 sitting at his feet. They would learn from him and reveal 
 themselves to him. Not all would wish to be baptized, not 
 all would be admitted to baptism. Those who were bap- 
 tized, we are specially told, would confess their sins. The 
 master would reveal to the disciple and the disciple to the 
 master his deepest thought. We learn from the fourth Gos- 
 pel that John did not know Jesus until He came to him, 
 a statement which may have been inserted because of the 
 story of a relationship given by St. Luke. But Jesus could 
 not come to be baptized without intercourse between the 
 two. If Jesus heard the message of John, John would learn 
 from Jesus His deepest visions.^ 
 
 John had spoken of himself as the voice of one crying in 
 the wilderness. Jesus, as soon as He begins His preaching, 
 
 1 On this compare Abbott, Fourfold Gospel, Section ii., The Beginning, 
 p. 96: "Jesus arrived (we may reasonably infer from the context) not 
 alone, but with other postulants for baptism. These postulants the prophet 
 must have tested in some way before baptizing them. To test such a mul- 
 titude — some of whom he rejected as being ' offspring qf vipers ' — must 
 have taken time. For a time, then, Jesus may have been a disciple of John 
 either in one and the same place, or 'following behind him' from place to 
 place in the circle of the Jordan. True, Matthew tells us that John said to 
 Jesus, 'I have need to be baptized of Thee'; but Matthew gives us no 
 grounds for supposing that John said this to Jesus in view of any previous 
 acquaintance or connection between them." 
 
JESUS IS BAPTIZED 147 
 
 identifies Himself with the servant of the Lord.'^ From the 
 Old Testament as a whole, and the book of Isaiah in par- 
 ticular, both alike had drawn their inspiration, and John 
 would learn from his intercourse with Jesus that while to 
 him had come the conviction that his mission was to prepare 
 the way, Jesus knew that He was God's servant in a sense 
 different to any other. And when at the baptism John 
 learnt that Jesus had received the full consciousness of the 
 gift of the Spirit, he would feel that He it was who should 
 baptize with the Spirit and with fire, as he had foretold, 
 while it was natural that Jesus should feel as God's servant 
 that the whole scheme of divine and human righteousness 
 must be fulfilled by Him. John must have known enough 
 to feel that he should desire that Jesus should bestow on 
 him the fuller baptism of the Spirit which he expected, and 
 to hesitate to baptize Him. The story as it is told is quite 
 probable.^ 
 
 As Jesus came forth out of the water He saw the heavens 
 opened, as Ezekiel had seen in his vision, and He saw the 
 Spirit come down upon Him as a dove from heaven, and He 
 heard the voice saying to Him, *'Thou art my son, my 
 beloved, in thee am I well pleased." 
 
 The account in St. Mark represents this vision as having 
 been seen by Jesus only, and is probably correct; it may be 
 doubted, also, whether John had any direct consciousness 
 
 » Lk. iv. 17/. 
 
 2 Compare Abbott, Fourfold Gospels, ibid., p. 91. "By the laws of evi- 
 dence — laws which men who know them are bound morally as well as 
 logically to observe — we are not justified in accepting either the Matthaean 
 or the Johannine tradition in its exact words, as having an authority equal 
 to that of a saying of Christ supported by the threefold Synoptic testimony. 
 But we are justified in accepting both as being neither inventions nor gross 
 and absurd exaggerations, nor mere anachronisms, but honest and reason- 
 able attempts to hand down, in a reasonable though somewhat idealized 
 form, the Christian traditions, accepted at the time, about the attitude of 
 John the Baptist towards Jesus of Nazareth. From a spiritual point of 
 view, these early Christian traditions may well be regarded, even by the 
 keenest and most ardent lovers of scientific and historical research, as being 
 no overstatement, but perhaps an understatement of the truth." I should 
 not be inclined to consider that a statement repeated in three Gospels is 
 of greater value than that contained in one, but the importance of these 
 words is that it reminds us that what lies behind an imperfect narrative is 
 something more wonderful than it gives, not less so. 
 
 II 
 
148 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 of it apart from what he learned from Jesus. The imagery 
 employed suggests that the voice of God spoke as it had 
 spoken to Samuel, and the symbol of a dove, suggested 
 perhaps by the opening words of the book of Genesis, was 
 natural in itself and in accordance with Jewish conceptions.^ 
 The account of the vision or, as we should say in more 
 modern language, spiritual experience, was probably derived 
 direct from our Lord, and He described His experience, just 
 as He did His experience in the Temptation, in a symbolism 
 natural to the religious instincts of the day. There seems 
 no reason for demanding a too literal interpretation of the 
 words. To insist that there was a clear and audible voice 
 heard by all round, and a real and physical dove, is to 
 translate the language of poetry into prose. The spiritual 
 experience was real, as real and profound as any such 
 experience has been since the world began, but it is described, 
 as all such experiences must be, in a natural symbolical 
 language with phrases and with imagery suited to the time.^ 
 
 ^ Abrahams, Studies, v., pp. 47-50, gives full reference to this symbol- 
 ism in Rabbinic literature. "It is quite in keeping with this whole range of 
 ideas to find the Targum (Cant. ii. 12) interpreting as the 'voice of the Holy 
 Spirit of Salvation' the text, the 'voice of the turtle-dove is heard in our 
 land.' In particular, these ideas come into the interpretation of Gen. i. 2. 
 'The spirit of God was brooding on the face of the waters like a dove 
 which broods over her young, but does not touch them'" (Cf. Talmud, 
 Hagiga, 15a, Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten, ed. 2, vol. i., p. 423). Compare 
 also B. T. Barakhoth, fol. 3a: "I heard a Bath-Qol moaning as a dove, 
 and saying: Woe to the children through whose iniquities I laid waste 
 My Temple." 
 
 2 This is emphasized very strongly by Origen. In a fragment (No. 20) 
 on St. John's Gospel (Brooke, The Commentary of Origen on St. John, i., 
 p. 237) he argues: We must enquire how the Holy Spirit was seen by John. 
 There are two ways of seeing, with the senses and with the understanding 
 {its T€ Trjv a'iad-qaiv /cat r-qv voriuiv). The visions of prophets and holy men 
 have always been seen with the understanding, and not the senses, for 
 things which have no bodily form we can only see symbolically (5i' o.va\6yov 
 Tivos). The Holy Spirit has no bodily form, and therefore is represented 
 by the idea of a dove (ojs Trepicrrepas v6ri<TLv dextTcn). That the concep- 
 tion was thus symbolical is proved by the use of the phrase 'coming down' 
 when the Holy Spirit is not affected by motion, which means change of 
 place (nera^aTLKus ov KLvovfikvov) ; by the expression 'remaining' — no one 
 could see the Holy Spirit 'remaining'; by the statement that 'the heavens 
 were opened,' which is a physical impossibility. And he ends, "All these 
 things, then, I mean the coming down from heaven of the Holy Spirit 
 
THE SYMBOLISM OF THE BAPTISM 149 
 
 There is an early and interesting variation in the text 
 of St. Luke's Gospel. A series of patristic authorities, 
 starting from Justin, and deriving their information in all 
 probabihty from the Gospel of the Hebrews, have substi- 
 tuted for the words of the message a quotation from the 
 Psalms: "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee."^ 
 That this was not original may be considered quite certain. 
 It arose partly from dogmatic causes, partly from the pas- 
 sage in the Psalms. The correctness of the ordinary text is 
 substantiated on internal grounds. It combines the sonship 
 
 upon Jesus and its remaining on Him, were written for edification 
 ioiKovo/jnas 'iviKiv yeypairTai.), and do not contain an historical narrative 
 (ovx iffTopmriv 8i,rjyr]<7Lv exovra), but a vision of the understanding, as has been 
 already said." A similar argument is used in Contra Celsum, i., 48: "For 
 I do not suppose that the visible heaven was actually opened and its physi- 
 cal structure divided in order that Ezekiel should be able to record such 
 an occurrence. Should not, therefore, the same be believed of the Saviour 
 by every intelligent hearer of the Gospel? Although such an occurrence 
 may be a stumbling-block to the simple, who, in their simplicity, would 
 set the whole world in movement, and split in sunder the compact and 
 mighty body of the whole heavens. . . ." He describes it more as a matter 
 known by a kind of divine perception than perceived b}^ the senses, and in 
 this way particularly explains Jn. i. 32-34. 
 
 ' There is some textual and considerable patristic evidence for the read- 
 ing, "Thou art my son, this day hav^e I begotten thee" {kyu aiinepov ytykvvrjKo. 
 at). The earliest evidence for it is probably that in the Gospel of the 
 Ebionites: "When the people had been baptized, Jesus also came and was 
 baptized by John. And when He came up from the water, the heav^ens were 
 opened, and He saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descending and 
 coming upon Him. And a voice came from heaven saying, 'Thou art My 
 beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased.' And again, 'This day have I be- 
 gotten Thee.' And immediately a great light shone around about the place. 
 And again a voice from heaven to Him, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom 
 I am well pleased.' And then John, falling down before Him, said, 'I be- 
 seech Thee, Lord, do Thou baptize me.' But He prevented him, saying, 
 'Suffer it to be so, for thus it is fitting that all things be fulfilled.'" But 
 the narrative of the baptism is given with these words in Justin Martyr, 
 Dial., 88, 103; Clement Alex., Paed., i., 6, 25; Acta Petri et Paull, c. 29; 
 Methodius, Lactantius, Juvencus, and Const. A post. St. Augustine (De 
 consensu ev., ii., xiv., 31) states that these words are not found in the oldest 
 Greek MSS. This reading is found, however, in D., and certain old Latin 
 MSS. in St. Luke. There is no doubt that this reading was widely dis- 
 tributed at an early date, but both external and internal evidence is against 
 its genuineness. It arose through the influence of the verse in the Psalms 
 (ii. 7), from which it is quoted, and was adopted for dogmatic reasons by 
 
I50 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 of the Psalms with the divine servant of Isaiah. "The Lord 
 said unto me, Thou art my son." "Behold my servant, 
 whom I uphold; my beloved in whom my soul dehghteth. 
 I have put my spirit upon him."^ If our analysis of the 
 thoughts of Jesus is correct, it corresponds exactly with 
 what was in His mind when He went forth on His mission. 
 The conception of the divine son and the divine servant had 
 formed the centre of His thoughts, the great lesson He had 
 learned from Scripture. The experience of His baptism 
 confirmed and strengthened the sense of His mission. 
 
 The baptism of Jesus was very early a subject of specula- 
 tion. To all those who were frightened at the reality of 
 our Lord's human nature it seemed to provide a means of 
 escape from their difhculties. They fancied that the divine 
 sonship had at this time come down and taken up its abode 
 in Jesus; His being now hailed as son was a sign that the 
 sonship had at this moment come; and the alteration in the 
 words addressed to Him arose from this theory .^ But on the 
 other side there were difficulties felt which have left their 
 mark on early apocryphal narratives.^ Why should it be 
 
 those like the Ebionites who denied the virgin birth, and those like the 
 Gnostic sects who, holding docetic views, believed that the Christ entered 
 into the man Jesus at the baptism. The words might, of course, be inter- 
 preted in an orthodox way, and were so taken, but there is no reason for 
 thinking them original. 
 
 1 Is. xlii. i: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen (or be- 
 loved) in whom my soul delighteth." The quotation does not come from 
 the LXX. 
 
 ^ Such, for example, was the teaching of Cerinthus (Iren., i., 21, ed. Har- 
 vey): Jesus was not bom from a virgin, but was the son of Joseph and 
 Mary, just like other men, but with greater righteousness, prudence, and 
 wisdom. After His baptism the Christ descended on Him from that region 
 which is above all in the form of a dove, and announced to Him the un- 
 known Father; and at the end the Christ left Jesus, and Jesus suffered 
 and rose again. 
 
 ' The' Gospel of the Nazarenes gives the following story (Hieronymus 
 adv. Pelagianos iii., 2, 0pp., ii., 782; Hilgenfeld, Novum Testanientum extra 
 canonem receptum, iv., 15): Behold, the mother of the Lord and His breth- 
 ren said to Him: John Baptist baptizes to the remission of sins; let 
 us go and be baptized by him. He said to them: How have I sinned that 
 I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, perchance, this very thing 
 that I have said is ignorance. Jesus was compelled by his mother, Mary, 
 almost unwillingly to receive the baptism of John (De Rebapiismate, 17). 
 
THE MEANING OF THE BAPTISM 151 
 
 necessary that He, the Son of God, who had done no sin, 
 should be baptized, as other men who were sinners? Why- 
 should He prepare for the day of His own coming? If He 
 were the Son of God, surely all this was derogatory to Him. 
 It may be for these reasons that the objections of the 
 Baptist were conceived, and later times put into his mouth 
 the questions that they would have liked to ask themselves, 
 but, as has been pointed out, the words might be entirely 
 natural in the position in which they are recorded, and they 
 have a uniqueness of expression which does not suggest a 
 later date. If the Baptist knew the mind of Jesus — and 
 why should he not have learnt it? — he would feel that it 
 was more fitting that He should receive that baptism 
 with the Spirit which he had foretold. And the answer of 
 Jesus, adapting Himself to a complete human experience, 
 harmonizes with all that we know of the thoughts of His 
 life. 
 
 The narratives of the Gospels make it quite clear that His 
 baptism was for Jesus a great spiritual crisis, that in such a 
 way as never before He was conscious of His divine power 
 and mission, that He felt, as not previously, that he was 
 the Son of God, the servant summoned for God's work. 
 The Baptism means the Temptation, and the beginning 
 of His ministry. He knew for what He was called. There 
 has been and is much discussion on the self-consciousness of 
 Jesus. That is one of those subjects which must in any case 
 remain beyond our comprehension and experience. We 
 cannot analyze the manner in which the divine conscious- 
 ness was united to the human. We have no experience or 
 analogy to guide us. All that is possible for us is to narrate 
 faithfully the account that comes to us — directly or indi- 
 
 This is the account of the baptism in the Gospel according to the Hebrews 
 (Gospel of the Nazarenes), Hilgenfeld, loc. ciL {De Rebaptismate, loc. cit.); 
 Hieronymus ad les., xi., i {0pp., iv., 156): "When Jesus was baptized, fire 
 was seen on the water. But it came to pass when the Lord had ascended 
 from the water there descended the whole fountain of the Holy Spirit (fons 
 omnis spiritus sancti) and rested upon Him and said to Him: 'My Son, in 
 all the prophets I was expecting Thee, that Thou shouldst come, and I should 
 rest in Thee. For Thou art my rest, Thou art my first-begotten Son, who 
 reignest for ever.'" That these are later reconstructions, and inconsistent 
 with the spirit of the Gospel, must be apparent to any reader. 
 
152 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 rectly from His own lips — of Himself, and build up our con- 
 ception as we proceed. This is certain, that the baptism 
 is represented as a unique crisis in the life of Jesus, and 
 henceforth He knows His mission. 
 
 It has been pointed out that the fourth Gospel does not 
 give any account of the baptism, but only refers to it, and 
 that in it the baptism of John (who is never called the 
 Baptist) is entirely subordinated to his witness. The 
 allusive manner in which the actual baptism is referred to 
 is entirely in accordance with the method of the Gospel, 
 which does not trouble to narrate what is known and 
 emphasizes what has been in the opinion of the author 
 passed over and misunderstood; but the question is raised: 
 Is St. John correct in suggesting a very much closer union 
 between Jesus and John than is described in the other 
 Gospels, and in particular in asserting that John definitely 
 bore witness to the mission of Jesus? 
 
 Most definitely is the very remarkable testimony con- 
 tained in the words, "Behold the Lamb of God, which 
 taketh away the sin of the world," questioned. It is held to 
 be an anachronism, and to represent the manner in which the 
 fourth Gospel reads into an earlier period the language of a 
 later time. It is possible that some reflection may make us 
 hesitate to accept that criticism. It has been suggested 
 more than once already that the language, the thoughts and 
 ideas of John, as of Jesus, are derived from a fresh and 
 intimate study of the prophets, and that Jesus from the 
 beginning of His ministry thought of Himself as the servant 
 of the Lord and applied to Himself these passages. But in 
 the imagery of the prophet the figure of the lamb had been 
 used of the servant.^ On the servant was laid the iniquity 
 of us all, and he bare the sins of many. There is nothing 
 in the words put into the Baptist's mouth which he might 
 not have learnt from the book of Isaiah, and applied to 
 Him Who already felt Himself to be "the Servant" with all 
 that it implied. It is remarkable also that this conception 
 of the "Lamb of God" is not as universal or as constant as 
 we expect. It occurs but little outside the Apocalypse, and 
 
 1 Is. liii. 7, II, 12. 
 
JESUS AS THE DISCIPLE OF JOHN 153 
 
 it is as likely that the language of the Baptist represented 
 the origin of the image as that it was derived from later 
 thought. 
 
 There is a definite tradition of close intercourse between 
 John and Jesus. Jesus knows at once of the death of 
 John. He speaks of him often. He praises him highly. 
 It is not probable that the Gospel narrative would have 
 begun with the baptism of John if he had not been associ- 
 ated most intimately with the work of Jesus. Why, too, 
 should we be told in St. Mark that it was after the imprison- 
 ment of John that Jesus went from Judaea into Galilee? 
 Again, according to the fourth Gospel, some of our Lord's 
 disciples had previously been disciples of John, and this 
 seems corroborated by other traditions. The quaUfications of 
 an apostle, as stated at the time of the election of Matthias, 
 were that he was a witness of the life of Jesus, beginning 
 with the baptism of John. These words, if pressed, would 
 mean that all the apostles had been at any rate hearers of 
 John. It may be taken certainly to imply that the work of 
 the two was looked upon as continuous, and that some at 
 least of our Lord's disciples had been hearers of the Baptist. 
 
 For a time, the length of which we are unable to estimate, 
 Jesus, in the eyes of the world, was a disciple of John. He 
 collected disciples round Him, and His activities for the most 
 part were placed in the Jordan valley and perhaps else- 
 where in Judaea. It was natural that such a position might 
 seem to imply rivalry, and some rivalry grew up among 
 John's disciples, who were jealous for their master and un- 
 able to appreciate his profounder insight. There was a dis- 
 cussion, we are told, between John's disciples and a Jew 
 about purifying. Presumably they held that their master's 
 washing, once performed, was sufficient, and that there was 
 no need for the elaborate purifications of the law. This led 
 to an altercation, and, as a result, the disciples of St. John 
 were told that their cause was a failing one, and that it was 
 Jesus who was now making disciples. "He that was with 
 thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, 
 behold the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." The 
 answer of the Baptist is in style and matter alike charac- 
 teristic. It is given with the richness of figurative language 
 
154 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 which he had learnt from the prophets; it reveals the great- 
 ness of his spiritual character, **He that hath the bride 
 is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom who 
 standeth and heareth him rejoiceth greatly because of the 
 bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He 
 must increase, but I must decrease." Isaiah had spoken 
 of the joy of her sons in Jerusalem as the joy of the bride- 
 groom over the bride.^ In a similar strain John pictures 
 himself as the friend rejoicing in the presence of the bride- 
 groom. He exhibited no petty jealousy, as was expected, 
 but saw in Jesus the fulfilment of all his visions.^ 
 
 One more note of this time is given on which it is worth 
 pausing, although it may not be quite possible to estimate 
 its significance. Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His 
 disciples did. Thus He refused to be considered a rival 
 and retired with His disciples into Galilee. 
 
 Our information is too slight, and the chronological 
 arrangement of our material is too uncertain to enable us to 
 estimate the real character of this early period of ministry. 
 It seems to represent a time when Jesus worked in harmony 
 with or even in subservience to John. And only gradually 
 did His deeper spiritual message become clear. His teaching 
 would be much Hke that of John. The full character of His 
 mission was not revealed. Yet many would look back on 
 these early days in the Jordan valley as a period of hope and 
 expectation. They felt that more was to come. They were 
 eager and excited. The note of sorrow had not yet been 
 heard .^ 
 
 ^ Is. Ixii. 5. 
 
 2 It must be noticed that the passage (Jn. iii. 31-36) clearly does not 
 come from the Baptist, but contains the Evangelist's own comment on the 
 incident that we have just quoted. While the preceding words are such as 
 the Baptist might have used, and harmonize with his style, the verses that 
 follow are as clearly in the style, and express the theology, of the Evan- 
 gelist. A similar judgment must be passed on vv. 16-21 of the same chap- 
 ter. These instances show us that the Evangelist is in the habit of passing 
 from the words or incidents he records to his own comment without not- 
 ing the transition, and that consideration must be our guide in studying 
 the Gospel. 
 
 ' I do not feel able to see my way clearly through the stories at the be- 
 ginning of St. John's Gospel. It is quite possible to hold that that Gospel 
 contains much good tradition without considering its chronological order 
 
RESENTMENT AGAINST JOHN 155 
 
 III 
 
 For how long John preached we have no knowledge. 
 Some would extend his ministry over several years, others 
 would confine it within very narrow Hmits. On that point 
 we must be content to remain ignorant. It must be re- 
 marked, however, that popular rehgious movements develop 
 very rapidly in the East, and that it was not a characteristic 
 of members of the Herodian family to allow any movement 
 likely to be injurious to their authority to become formidable 
 if it could be checked in time. It is probable that the atti- 
 tude of the authorities in Jerusalem had been for some time 
 threatening, and that John had tended more and more to 
 find refuge in the territory of Herod Antipas. The latter 
 had pleasure, we are told, in listening to John.^ He would 
 be anxious to be popular with the people and might even 
 have wished to constitute himself a sort of patron of the 
 prophet. But any possibihty of this was taken away by the 
 course of events. The adulterous and incestuous connection 
 between Antipas and Herodias became known and John 
 was stern in his condemnation. As Elijah had stood up to 
 Ahab and Jezebel, so he stood up before kings and was not 
 ashamed. He was the prophet of righteousness, and his 
 message was as much for kings as for people. "It is not 
 lawful for thee to have her." 
 
 It is needless to say that the fury and resentment of 
 Herodias was directed against him, and that Herod also 
 became his enemy. Josephus gives as a cause of the event 
 that followed that he feared the influence that John exer- 
 cised over the people.^ No doubt this was true, and there is 
 nothing in this inconsistent with the more special reason for 
 action which the EvangeHsts give. When Herodias' anger 
 
 in all cases correct. It was natural that the discourse of Nicodemus, whether 
 historical or not, should be put in close connection with the baptism on 
 which it is a comment. It is possible also to believe that the Gospel pre- 
 serves the tradition of St. John, and even was written by him, without 
 considering that his memory was always accurate, or that he always told 
 the story in chronological order. I hesitate, for example, to accept the 
 Johannine date for the Cleansing of the Temple. 
 
 1 Mk. vi. 20. 
 
 ^ Josephus, AntL, xviii. § ii8. 
 
156 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 was aroused it would transform Herod's hesitating fears into 
 action. He therefore arrested him. He did not wish to 
 put him to death, but confined him in the fortress of 
 Machaerus, situated among the mountains in the southern 
 confines of his kingdom. 
 
 The result of this would, of course, be to break up and 
 disperse the whole body of John's disciples, except some who 
 attended their master, and to put an end to the movement. 
 Jesus returned to Gahlee^ and His disciples to their own 
 homes. But although the movement apparently came to 
 an end the arrest of the Baptist was, as is so often in such 
 circumstances the case, the cause or the occasion of its real 
 end being fulfilled. So far Jesus had taught, in appearance 
 at any rate, under the shadow of the Baptist. Henceforth 
 He assumes His own ofhce and ministry. The direct result 
 of the imprisonment of the Baptist is the Galilaean ministry. 
 
 One more incident is narrated of John's Hfe. While he 
 was in prison he heard of the work that Jesus did, and in 
 a spirit of hope, of uncertainty, of expectation, perhaps of 
 some disappointment, he sent disciples to ask Him directly 
 whether He was the Christ. "Art thou he that should come, 
 or look we for another? "^ Jesus' answer is significant. 
 In the first place, we shall notice that it is expressed in 
 language which would be full of meaning to John, which 
 would remind him alike of his own mission and of that 
 insight that he had had into the mind of Jesus. It has 
 been pointed out how much of the recorded sayings and 
 teaching of the Baptist has been drawn from the language 
 of the prophets, and especially from the great prophecy 
 
 ^ Mc. i. 14. It must be emphasized that the reason given for Jesus' 
 departure to Galilee and beginning to preach on his own behalf — the fact 
 that John had been cast into prison — is evidence for the connection of 
 Jesus with John previously. It seems to support the Johannine account of 
 a period of discipleship. 
 
 2 There is apparently no parallel in contemporary Jewish literature for 
 the phrase, "he that should come," or "the coming one" — 6 epxcfxevos. It 
 is, then, a term created by John, and, as usual, out of Old Testament ex- 
 pressions. That the day "cometh," or the Lord "cometh," is almost a tech- 
 nical phrase, and the transition to "he that cometh" is easy. So, Is. xl. 
 ID, Behold the Lord God cometh as a mighty one — i8ov Kvpios Kvpios nera 
 iaxvos fpx^Tai, 
 
THE IMPRISONMENT OF JOHN 157 
 
 which concludes the book of Isaiah. This Jesus now uses. 
 He appeals to his works: "Go and tell John what you 
 have seen and heard. The works of the- servant of the 
 Lord have been accomphshed. To the poor the Gospel is 
 preached, the dead are raised, the bHnd receive their sight, 
 the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear," and 
 he adds words which have been taken as a rebuke, but 
 may be a commendation: "Blessed is he whosoever is not 
 offended in me."^ 
 
 Much difhculty has been found with this event as in- 
 consistent with the testimony that the Baptist had already 
 given. It may be suggested rather that it entirely 
 harmonizes with it. Had, indeed, the Baptist had what 
 some people would have us believe, a direct message in- 
 forming him that the Christ had come — a theory neither 
 demanded by the narrative, nor consistent with anything 
 that we know of the methods of Divine revelation — it 
 would be so. But if God's Spirit, working through his natural 
 powers, had taught him through the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures of the coming and the character of the Christ, if he 
 had seen in Jesus of Nazareth, whom he baptized, that 
 spiritual power which made him feel that here was "the 
 coming one," whom he greeted as "the Lamb of God," 
 it was natural, when the ministry of Galilee began, that 
 his hopes would be raised, that he would feel his intuitions 
 justified, his expectations fulfilled, and should send his 
 disciples to ask the definite question, Was he the long 
 expected Messiah? 
 
 1 An admirable instance of the methods of modern criticism may be 
 studied in Encyclopaedia Biblica, ii., 2501. St. Matthew tells us that the 
 message of the Baptist to Jesus was sent when John was in prison. Dr. 
 Cheyne does not accept this. At once the question arises, Why did not 
 John come himself? So a reason has to be found in the urgency of his work. 
 But why should we prefer a nineteenth-century conjecture to the evidence 
 of a contemporary? It is a characteristic of certain modern criticism that 
 it never accepts any statement in original documents if it can avoid doing 
 so, and prefers to reconstruct the history in a purely conjectural manner. 
 The question has been asked: Would John in prison have the freedom and 
 the opportunity to be able to know about Jesus, to have intercourse with 
 his disciples, and to send a message? The answer is, Certainly, under the 
 normal conditions of Oriental confinement. It would mean httle more than 
 
158 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 How long John was kept in prison we have no certain 
 information. The end was a grim tragedy. Herod cele- 
 brated a great birthday feast, and Salome, the daughter 
 of Herodias by her first husband, afterwards the wife of 
 Philip the Tetrarch, danced before him and gave him great 
 pleasure. He promised her whatsoever she should ask, 
 and, prompted by her mother, she demanded the head of 
 John the Baptist. Herod was grieved; but he had promised, 
 he had promised pubHcly, and he kept his word. He sent 
 and beheaded John in prison, and Herodias had her desire. 
 But the whole Jewish people condemned the murder, and 
 when, not long afterwards, Herod's army suffered a severe 
 defeat at the hands of Aretas, it was looked upon as the 
 divine vengeance for the crime. 
 
 John died, and the movement he had originated lost its 
 vitaHty. He had indeed collected a body of disciples round 
 him. Under his influence they had Uved a religious Hfe. 
 He had taught them to pray; they had their rules of fasting, 
 which they fulfilled; they continued to baptize. Like other 
 small sects they kept together, and we find traces of their 
 influence two generations later in remote parts of the world. 
 More than that, in the strange religious atmosphere of the 
 East, we hear of new sects which honoured his name and 
 claimed to preserve his teaching and rites. But all these 
 are but the curiosities and by-ways of religion. They 
 grew up in the deserts of Judaea, in Syria, in Mesopotamia, 
 and gave, no doubt, some strange religious satisfaction to 
 the Httle coteries which were formed, but they exercised 
 no influence on the great current of the world's life, and 
 the true succession of John's teaching was otherwise 
 preserved. 
 
 John died, but the hope in which he lived was not dis- 
 appointed. The mission which he had undertaken had 
 been accomplished. The Messiah of whom he was the 
 forerunner had come. Initiated by him, inspired by his 
 teaching, using his language and his rites, starting from 
 that great appeal to the primal fact of a righteous 
 life, that withdrawal of religion from the fantasies and 
 
 the restraint of liberty. The Eastern prison does not generally mean soli- 
 tary confinement or seclusion as we conceive it. 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE NARRATIVE 159 
 
 crudities and narrowness in which it had been involved, 
 a great movement had been started which, honouring him 
 in all his sternness and austerity as its forerunner, but 
 bearing the more sweet and blessed name of that neophyte 
 whom he had greeted as the Lamb of God, had swept for- 
 ward into the great world, had attacked the citadel where 
 evil seemed to be enthroned, had conquered pagan civihza- 
 tion, had transformed it with a new hfe, and raised the 
 mighty fabric of the Christian Church. 
 
 IV 
 
 What are we to say of John the Baptist? 
 
 I may be allowed, I think, to dismiss uninvestigated 
 the various theories which look upon him as a mythical 
 person and explain the story of the baptism of our Lord 
 as an astral event.^ We cannot afford to spend time over 
 such learned trifling. Let us recognize fundamentally that 
 we are dealing with a great movement which started in 
 Palestine in the preaching of John, and spread thence 
 throughout the world, that the herald and first preacher 
 of the kingdom was a man of virile character, of stern 
 morahty and deep piety, whose Hneaments can be discerned 
 very clearly in the fragmentary but vivid records which 
 have been preserved to us, and that the great movements of 
 the world are not created by fantastic fables. Our history 
 deals with reahty and a creation as real as the Christian 
 
 ^ Here is an instance taken from The Christ Myth of Professor Drews, 
 p. 122: "Under the name John, which in Hebrew means 'pleasing to God', 
 is concealed the Babylonian water-god, Cannes (Ea). Baptism is connected 
 with this worship, and the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan represents the re- 
 flection upon earth of what originally took place among the stars. That is 
 to say, the sun begins its yearly course with a baptism, entering as it does 
 immediately after its birth the constellation of the water-carrier (Aquarius), 
 and the fishes (Pisces). But this celestial water-kingdom, in which each 
 year the day-star (sun) is purified and born again, is the Eridanus, the 
 heavenly Jordan, or Year-stream (Egyptian, iaro or iero, the river), where- 
 in the original baptism of the Divine Saviour of the world took place." 
 It is obviously possible to write like this to an unlimited extent, for such 
 speculation is not controlled by reason or evidence or probability. An ex- 
 amination of this and similar theories may be found in Thorburn, The 
 Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, p. 118. 
 
i6o JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 Church must have been created by founders who were real 
 and had the spiritual power to accomplish their task. 
 
 We may dismiss again many of the critical objections 
 which have been raised to details of the narrative. It may 
 be, indeed, that this or that story is not correctly given, and 
 the fact of discrepancies between the different accounts 
 shows that we are not to expect an accuracy here . which 
 we never find in secular history, and that it is necessary 
 for us, as for other investigators, to balance one version 
 of a narrative against another in order to discover the real 
 sequence of events. But there is no reason for thinking 
 that information could not be preserved, or that it did not 
 exist. There is a tendency in modern times to underrate 
 the literary activity and the intelligence of periods when 
 the conditions of life were in many ways so unlike our own. 
 It must be remembered that the great body of the Jews 
 were able to read and write, that the study and knowledge 
 of the Scriptures was widely diffused, and that there was 
 a considerable popular literature. Moreover, the memory 
 of the student was carefully trained, and a great body of 
 oral tradition was preserved in that way. The retirement 
 of John in the desert would not mean an illiterate life. 
 He would read and reread the rolls of Scripture, and ponder 
 over the passages imprinted on his memory. When a body 
 of disciples gathered round him they would listen to his 
 words, they would con them as did the students in the 
 schools of the Rabbis, as do those in the mosque of El Azhar 
 in Egypt at the present day. His vivid, picturesque lan- 
 guage would impress itself on their minds. Some might 
 write them down, and a record of his teaching, preserving 
 words that had touched the imagination and giving incidents 
 that had been remembered, but destitute of chronological 
 order and of the details demanded by academic histories, 
 would quickly come into being. Books were not long, but 
 a vivid, popular intelligence would preserve a picture 
 accurate in all points that mattered in short words. A 
 truthful history would be created. 
 
 And the narrative bears all the marks of truth. The 
 message throughout is consistent. It is emphatically the 
 message of the prophet. It is a simple message, it is like 
 
THE ESSENES i6i 
 
 that of Jesus; but it is without that profound rehgious 
 insight that He exhibited. Its contents were such as might 
 be learned from the prophets by one who could penetrate 
 to their spirit. It is expressed in a style which is markedly 
 John's own, a style also which, Hke the thoughts, is derived 
 directly from the study of the prophets. They exhibit few 
 or no signs of having been coloured by later thought. The 
 language and thought of John are simple, direct, personal, 
 but they differ from the simplicity and reality of Jesus. 
 
 We may accept, then, the narrative as we can construct 
 it from our different authorities as giving a history truthful 
 in all that matters, and investigate the origin and character 
 of the Baptist's teaching as it has been depicted to us. 
 
 It is not unreasonable to seek this in some kind of rela- 
 tionship with a community like that of the Essenes. They 
 dwelt, we know, in the same place that tradition assigns to 
 his novitiate, the wilderness of Judaea. Like him they were 
 ascetics in their life, pure in their morals, fervent in their 
 rehgion. Like him they laid great stress on a ceremonial 
 washing which, with them, was constantly repeated. It 
 seems not unnatural to find here the direct source of his 
 message. But a more careful enquiry will reveal to us 
 differences which are perhaps less obvious, but are, for all 
 that, most profound. The Essene had no thought of a 
 Hfe except one which was Hved apart from the world. He 
 had no gospel to give except for those who retired from the 
 business, the pleasures, and the temptations of life. But 
 John's message was for those who Hved in the world. The 
 Essene would have bidden the soldier shun a profession 
 which imphed the destruction of life and was accompanied 
 by so much evil, but John contemplates him continuing in 
 his calling, and only bids him act justly and avoid outrage 
 and cruelty. The Essene would have told the tax-gatherer 
 that the wealth with which he was always busied was evil, 
 and that the public society which was supported by the 
 taxes which he collected was the kingdom of the Evil One, 
 and that he must shun all worldly combinations if he would 
 live the Hfe God had ordered for him. But John was 
 satisfied with bidding him to practise his calling justly and 
 avoid extortion. The gospel of John was for men living 
 
i62 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 in the world, the gospel of the Essene was for the recluse, 
 the ascetic, and the eccentric. Nor was the analogy with 
 John's baptism more than superficial. The Essene sur- 
 rounded his life with a multitude of minute observances. 
 He was never tired of creating prohibitions. He was con- 
 cerned with a great number of unimportant trivialities. 
 He was scrupulous and pedantic and tiresome. But John 
 spoke of judgment, and repentance, and a clean heart, and 
 his baptism was but the symbol of that change. Between 
 the strong, stern prophet, with a clear message for the world, 
 and the white-robed Essene, surrounding himself with a 
 mass of formalities, thinking of his clothes and his food and 
 every triviaHty of Hfe, troubling himself about so many 
 things that did not really matter at all, and with no possible 
 gospel for the world, what real analogy was there? 
 
 There were other sects that arose now or at a later date 
 with similar tendencies whose names are recounted in the 
 obscure and confused pages of Epiphanius. Some of these, 
 such as the Hemerobaptists, no doubt also laid stress on 
 washings and baptism. The existence of these sects is 
 undoubted evidence of the religious activity and interest 
 of the times, but most of them were the result rather than 
 the inspiration of John's teaching, and not only is our 
 knowledge of them imperfect, but there is a complete 
 absence of any evidence of connection, and we cannot 
 build up history on conjectures unsupported by any 
 testimony. 
 
 But this much may be conceded on the relation of John's 
 baptism to other movements of the time. While it is true, 
 as we believe, that it was directly from the prophets that 
 he drew his conception of baptism as characteristic of the 
 Messianic times, it is also true that we are guided always 
 by our environment in what we can see in the Scriptures 
 and learn from them. We read them in accordance with 
 the circumstances of the day, and learn from them the 
 lesson needed for the times. The fact that baptisms in 
 some form or other were so much in the mind of teachers 
 of religion would inevitably turn John's mind in his re- 
 searches, however unconsciously it might be, to the refer- 
 ences he might find to it in the Scriptures. We may put it 
 
JOHN AS A PROPHET 163 
 
 somewhat deeper: The Hfe of the times and the exceeding 
 sinfulness of men (as people held) made earnest people ask 
 how all this sin might be washed away from the world. 
 A cleansing seemed to be the need of the times, and custom, 
 tradition, symbolism, turned their thoughts to the cleansing 
 purity of water, John, as others, desired a cleansing, and 
 he turned to the prophet and read of a sprinkling with 
 water and a cTiange of heart and the pouring forth of the 
 Holy Spirit and the purifying fire of God, and he preached 
 a baptism of repentance, and bid men change their heart, 
 and looked forward earnestly to the pouring forth of the 
 Spirit and the lire which would cleanse the good and destroy 
 the evil. 
 
 A similar judgment may be passed on the apocalyptic 
 interpretation of the Baptist's preaching.^ It is obviously 
 true that he has eschatological conceptions. He looks 
 forward to judgment, and bids men prepare for it; he ex- 
 pects the Messiah who is to come. It is true, also, that 
 there was much eschatological expectation in the air, and all 
 men are influenced by their environment. But the inspira- 
 tion of John was drawn directly from the prophets of the 
 Old Testament, and not from the fantastic imaginings of 
 the book of Enoch. It was natural enough that when so 
 many dreams and visions of the future filled people's minds, 
 and men were seeking for some alleviation to the miseries 
 of the times in these visions of vengeance and glory, that 
 John, poring over the Old Testament, should seek there its 
 message for the future. But the fundamental point is that 
 his message is prophetic and not apocalyptic. Its essence 
 lay, not in looking for or in revealing strange mysteries, 
 
 1 The apocalyptic interpretation of John Baptist's life is insisted on by 
 Schweitzer, Tlic Quest of the Historical Jesus, E.T., see especially p. 366: 
 "Historically regarded, the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul are simply the cul- 
 minating manifestations of Jewish apocalyptic thought." P. 368: "The 
 Baptist and Jesus are not, therefore, borne upon the current of a general 
 eschatological movement. The period offers no event calculated to give an 
 impulse to eschatological enthusiasm. They themselves set the times in 
 motion by acting, by creating eschatological facts." P. 377: "The baptism 
 of John was therefore an eschatological sacrament, pointing forward to the 
 pouring forth of the spirit, and to the judgment, a provision for 'salva- 
 tion.'" And much of the same sort. 
 
 12 
 
i64 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 but rather in the renewed conception of the righteousness 
 of God, and in the preparation for the judgment, the 
 kingdom, and the Messiah, by leading a righteous life and the 
 cleansing from sin. John's message is profoundly ethical. 
 
 We shall continually, in the course of our investigation, 
 be confronted by the introduction of apocalyptic and 
 eschatological interpretations, and we may rightly express 
 our obligations to those scholars who have emphasized this 
 element in the religious thought of the time and its influence 
 on the teaching of our Lord. It is, however, a cause of 
 failure in many scholars that, instead of following their 
 texts, they allow themselves to be overpowered by some 
 mastering idea, and then pour the history into that mould. 
 This is true in a marked manner of the modern eschatological 
 interpretation. It has given a meaning to much which 
 was obscure, and illuminated the whole period. But it is 
 only one current of thought, and the first duty of any 
 investigator of difficult historical problems must be to hold 
 any theory or hypothesis or explanation with the question 
 ever present subconsciously in his mind, whether such 
 theory is true or applicable to the particular circumstances. 
 Many strands of varied colour are woven together into the 
 Gospel narrative, and we do not explain it by allowing 
 ourselves to see only one colour. Imperfect generaHzations 
 must not dominate our history. 
 
 If we turn from the region of modern conjecture to the 
 more sober records of history, we shall find an answer to 
 our questions easier. The teaching of our Lord on the 
 ministry of John was as clear and expKcit as it was authori- 
 tative. John was, above all, a prophet. So the people 
 had always believed. "All men counted John as a 
 prophet." So tradition definitely asserted. "He shall be 
 called the prophet of the Most Highest." He was more 
 than that, he was the greatest of the prophets. In his 
 strength and austerity he is contrasted with the reed shaken 
 by the wind or the courtier clothed in soft raiment. There 
 was none greater among those born of women. 
 
 John was Elijah too. So our Lord had taught. He 
 was the messenger who had been predicted: "Behold, I 
 send my messenger and he shall prepare the way before 
 
JOHN AS A WITNESS 165 
 
 me." After the vision of the Transfiguration there was 
 discussion among the disciples. They were pondering over 
 the question whether Jesus was the Messiah, and wondering 
 whether all the signs of His coming had been fulfilled. One 
 of the signs, so the scribes said, was that EHjah must first 
 come. Our Lord assented. Ehjah was to come and 
 restore all things. He had come, but he had had to suffer 
 as the Son of Man, too, must suffer. "If ye are ready to 
 receive it, this is that Elijah which was to come." 
 
 Much discussion has arisen as to the reason which caused 
 John to deny that he was Ehjah. ^ It seems a hazardous 
 suggestion to offer, that the reason that he did so was the 
 fact that he knew that in no real sense of the word was he 
 Elijah. He knew — for God had spoken to him — that the 
 day was at hand, he knew that it was his function to pre- 
 pare for it, and that the preparation was the message of 
 righteousness; but no conviction or voice told him that he 
 was Elijah, so he said only what he felt and described his 
 consciousness of his mission in language drawn from the 
 prophet. It was quite another matter that Christian tradi- 
 tion should look upon him as having come in the spirit and 
 power of Elijah, and that our Lord, conscious of his Mes- 
 sianic office, should be able to explain that the Messianic 
 signs were all fulfilled, for Elijah had come — John was Elijah. 
 
 There is one more aspect of John's Hfe which must be 
 emphasized. It has been remarked that the fourth Gospel 
 lays Uttle stress on his preaching or his baptism. These 
 are merely referred to, although in a manner which shows 
 that the writer knew of them, and instead the whole em- 
 phasis is laid on the work of the forerunner as one who 
 witnessed to Christ. Great emphasis is laid on the im- 
 portance of this witness. Not only is the testimony on at 
 least two occasions recorded, but there are references to 
 it at other places in the narrative: "Ye have sent unto 
 John and he hath borne witness unto the truth, but the 
 witness that I have is greater than that of John." And 
 
 ^ It is interesting to notice that this denial occurs only in the fourth 
 Gospel, and that those critics who leap at the statement, as it seems to 
 make a difficulty, resolutely refuse to accept the unsupported testimony of 
 that Gospel in other cases where it provides no material for fault-finding. 
 
i66 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 we are told of the people where John first baptized, how 
 they said, "John did no miracle, but all things whatsoever 
 John spake of this man are true." Now the whole of this 
 aspect of John's ministry has been doubted; it has been 
 maintained that it is an anachronism, and that John really 
 never knew anything of Jesus until he heard of Jesus 
 preaching while he was in prison. If that were the case it 
 would be difficult to know why the story should have been 
 developed, and such emphasis laid upon it. It is true that 
 disciples of John remained, and that even in Asia there were 
 those who knew only of the baptism of John, but it is 
 difficult to believe that they were of sufficient impor- 
 tance to have made it necessary to forge a whole string 
 of incidents and discourses so as to prove the Messiahship 
 of Jesus. 
 
 It is indeed a hazardous conjecture, but it may be sug- 
 gested that it is possible that the reason of this conception 
 of John's mission is that it was a true one. The story tells 
 us that an unnamed disciple of John had been induced by 
 the master's testimony to attach himself to Jesus, and 
 tradition has held that that disciple was the author of the 
 Gospel, or at any rate the recorder of the traditions con- 
 tained in the Gospel. It was clear that he had learnt about 
 Jesus from the witness of John, and that to him the witness 
 was of great importance, so naturally he records it and 
 emphasizes it. The hypothesis is a simple one, is it there- 
 fore untrue? Or is it not possible that when the natural 
 interpretation of a record harmonizes with common sense it 
 may be more likely to be true than wrong-headed learning? 
 It was the testimony of John that first sent the disciple 
 to Jesus, and the disciple had never since doubted the 
 value to himself of that testimony. "^ 
 
 It is difficult for us to realize what feelings amongst the 
 
 1 It may be convenient to put together the reasons for considering that 
 the connection of our Lord with John Baptist was closer than would be 
 gathered at first sight from the Synoptic Gospels, (i) The language of our 
 Lord about the Baptist implies close intimacy. (2) The fact that all the 
 Gospels place the work of the Baptist at the beginning of their narrative 
 of Jesus' preaching implies that it was thought that there was a real con- 
 nection between the two movements. (3) The qualification of an apostle 
 is described as being a witness from the preaching of John. This suggests 
 
JOHN AS A PROPHET 167 
 
 religious-minded Israelites must have been aroused by the 
 knowledge that a prophet had once more risen in Israel.^ 
 The consciousness that for so many centuries God had not 
 spoken to Israel through a prophet was keenly felt. The 
 canon of the prophetic books had been closed. There was 
 no more open vision. It is significant how at the very 
 moment of the Maccabean triumph, when Jerusalem had 
 been recovered and the temple was being purified, the 
 stones of the polluted altar were laid aside "until there 
 should come a prophet to give an answer concerning them "; 
 and when Simon is formally accepted as leader and high 
 priest, it is stated that it is done "until there should arise 
 a faithful prophet."^ Neither the subtleties of the scribes 
 nor the fantasies of the apocalyptic writers satisfied the 
 spiritual sense of the people. Now at last a prophet had 
 arisen. The people had heard him and accepted him; the 
 publicans and harlots had repented of their sins; but the 
 scribes and Pharisees did not beHeve him. He had created 
 so great an impression that when Jesus began to preach 
 there were many who thought that JoTin the Baptist had 
 arisen from the dead. The feeling which has so often 
 prevailed that some great hero or popular saint could not 
 really have died and would appear again showed itself in 
 his case. As Arthur waits with all his court under Cadbury 
 Hill, as the Pyrenees will once more echo to the trumpets 
 of Charlemagne and his Paladins, as EHas was to come 
 again, so John had again appeared on earth. 
 
 that some or most of the disciples had been at least hearers of John. (4) 
 The statement that Jesus returned to Galilee after the Baptist was im- 
 prisoned means that up to that time he had been associated with him. 
 (s) If the tradition of St. John be accepted the whole story is much more 
 coherent and self-consistent. 
 
 ^ The significance of the revival of the prophetic office is admirably ex- 
 pressed by the author of Ecce Homo, pp. 2, 3. "It was the glory of John 
 the Baptist to have successfully revived the function of a prophet. For 
 several centuries the function had remained in abeyance. . . . When John 
 the Baptist appeared, not the oldest man in Palestine could remember to have 
 spoken in his earliest childhood with any man who had seen a prophet. . . . 
 In these circumstances it was an occurrence of the first magnitude, more 
 important far than war or revolution, when a new prophet actually ap- 
 peared." 
 
 2 I Mace. iv. 46; xiv. 41. 
 
i68 JOHN THE BAPTIST 
 
 The statement that John was a prophet reveals to us the 
 real significance of his ministry. He came in the way of 
 righteousness. It is significant how much stress is laid in 
 the story of his birth on this conception. His parents were 
 righteous before God. He will teach the disobedient to 
 walk in the wisdom of the just. Israel in the days of the 
 Messiah is to serve in holiness and righteousness before God, 
 They are to walk in the way of peace. Peace towards God, 
 righteousness among men, is the note of prophecy. The 
 extreme eschatological interpretation has no support in our 
 texts. The expectation of judgment and a speedy end of 
 this order of things did not mean that a righteous life in the 
 world was of quite subordinate interest. It meant that 
 it was of supreme importance. The preaching of John 
 meant in fact the restoration of the true genius of Israel, 
 of that aim which had been the richest possession of the 
 chosen people since they first learnt that Jehovah was a 
 god unlike those of the surrounding nations. It was for 
 this they had fought and suffered against the assaults of 
 Syrian nature worship; it was this that had been their 
 strength in the days of the captivity and had been the 
 guiding principle in the restoration of the theocratic state; 
 it was for this that under the Maccabees they had resisted 
 the cruel attacks of Hellenism, and now in the last days of 
 the Jewish nation, before Judaism had attained its con- 
 summation the message of righteousness is heard with the 
 clear, ringing voice of the last prophet. 
 
 So, said Jesus, the days of John the Baptist are the end 
 of an old order of things and the beginning of a new. From 
 Moses to John had been the epoch of the law and the 
 prophets. Their work was accomplished; their reign was 
 over. With John had come the first dawn of the kingdom 
 of God — a new and higher condition of life — the least who 
 has heard and accepted the message- of the kingdom is 
 greater than John. 
 
 The message of John, then, was the preparation for the 
 Messianic Age by the restoration of the simple but profound 
 Jewish conception of religion as righteousness in the sight 
 of God. Many of the Jewish people had fallen away and 
 learnt to copy the evil fife of the heathen, many others 
 
THE PREACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS 169 
 
 followed an imperfect way of religion. They learnt to rely 
 on the temple and the cult and all the privileges of the 
 nation, or they had substituted an unreal and ecclesiastical 
 system consisting in the scrupulous performance of a 
 ceremonial morality for the justice and holiness which 
 the prophets had taught, or they had been attracted by 
 fanciful ways of hfe or systems of thought. John comes, 
 and with clearness, simplicity, and conviction recalls them 
 to the true way of Israel's religion. It was the highest 
 revelation of Hfe which had yet been given to man; it 
 was the necessary preparation for the higher revelation which 
 was to come. It was the condition of preaching the Gospel. 
 For the religion of Israel, great and holy as it was, and 
 essential as it was to a preparation for the reUgion of Christ, 
 had the defect of all systems of simple morality. It had 
 no universal attractiveness, it burned with no hidden fire, 
 it saw no vision. The Jewish people had been dispersed 
 throughout the world, and their manner of hfe had attracted 
 much curiosity, and philosophers had enquired into it, and 
 some few had accepted its message, but it had shown no 
 power to warm the heart or to illuminate the understanding 
 or fire the spirit. It was the preparation, the necessary 
 preparation, for the true revelation of reHgion, but it was 
 not rehgion. That was why the prophet looked forward 
 to the baptism of the Spirit and of fire, and why Jesus had 
 said that he that was least in the kingdom of heaven was 
 greater than John. For the kingdom of heaven had come, 
 and from his days the violent had rent it. A powerful 
 solvent had come into the world. A message of mercy and 
 love, but a message which would often bring not peace 
 but a sword. A message which would discriminate good 
 from evil, which would rouse up violent passions that 
 would be too strong for it, and might rend it asunder. 
 It is the revelation of religion that we have next to study.^ 
 
 1 It is in this that the author of Ecce Homo finds the significance of 
 Christ's teaching, p. 8: "The phrase 'baptize with fire' seems at first sight 
 to contain a mixture of metaphors. Baptism means cleansing, and fire 
 means warmth. How can warmth cleanse? The answer is that moral 
 warmth does cleanse. No heart is pure that is not passionate; no virtue 
 is safe that is not enthusiastic. And such an enthusiastic virtue Christ was 
 to introduce." 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 "Jehovah," said the Rabbis, "hath created seven seas, 
 but the sea of Gennesaret is His dehght." The Lake of 
 GaHlee, of Tiberias, of Gennesaret, for by all these names 
 was it known, is situated in the Upper Jordan valley about 
 thirty miles from its source at Caesarea Philippi and seventy 
 from the Dead Sea.^ It is about thirteen miles long from 
 north to south and seven broad, and lies nearly 700 feet 
 below the level of the sea. It is surrounded by high 
 ground rising some 2,000 feet above its surface; on the 
 east by steep limestone cliffs, the edge of the platform of 
 the Hauran; on the west by hills more rounded in form and 
 less precipitous. A narrow strip of level ground, broadening 
 in places into small plains, intervenes between the hills 
 and the lake, and north and south the Jordan has created 
 wide alluvial expanses. Seen from the south its main 
 features are the deep blue of the water, often dancing in the 
 wind and sunshine, the dark, bare, sombre mountains that 
 surround it, and the great white peak of Hermon dominating 
 the landscape. 
 
 At the present day it presents a prospect of almost com- 
 plete desolation. Though its waters abound in fish, no sail 
 appears upon its surface, and though its shores are rich 
 and fertile, but little is reaped from them. One solitary 
 decayed town, marking the site of Tiberias, alone remains. 
 But in the days of our Lord it was the centre of a large 
 population. Its fish were exported over the whole of the 
 Eastern Mediterranean, and the fishing industry employed 
 great fleets of boats. It was famous for its rich fruits, for 
 its corn and wine and oil. Nine populous towns, many of 
 them with names made known throughout the world by 
 the Gospel narrative, were situated on its shores. 
 
 1 On the Lake of Galilee see George Adam Smith, The Historical Geog- 
 raphy of Palestine, pp. 437-463. 
 
 170 
 
THE SEA OF GALILEE 171 
 
 Where the waters of Jordan left the lake on its western 
 side stood Taricheae/ that gave its name to a salt fish, the 
 great industry of the lake. It was a populous city; when 
 it was taken by Vespasian the able-bodied captives num- 
 bered over 30,000. Some five and a half miles north on its 
 western side lay Tiberias,- newly built [by Herod Antipas, 
 and named in honour of the Emperor, with its great citadel 
 and palace dominating the town, its market-place and syna- 
 gogue on the lower ground, and some two miles to the south 
 its famous hot springs. At first shunned by stricter Jews for 
 its heathen associations and the accusation of impurity, 
 in later days, after the destruction of Jerusalem, it became 
 the seat of the Rabbinical Schools and the home of strict 
 Judaism. Three miles further on came Magdala, and then 
 the plain of Gennesaret, with Capernaum and its copious 
 springs at the northern end. Chorazin was on the slope 
 of the hills to the north, and on the east bank of the Jordan, 
 \vhere it flowed into the lake, stood Bethsaida Julias,^ the 
 city which Philip had built in honour of Julia, daughter 
 of Augustus. Beyond was another small grass-grown plain. 
 , On the east side the Jordan, shortly after leaving the 
 lake, is joined by the Yarmuk, and the junction of the two 
 rivers has created a wide fertile plain, on the high cliffs 
 above which stood the Greek city Gadara. Its temples, 
 its amphitheatre, and its villas dominating the landscape 
 might be seen far up the lake, and were visible evidence of 
 Hellenic life. Further north, on the same side, were Gamala 
 and Hippos; the former rising in great terraces on both sides 
 of the mountain, the latter crowning the height with its 
 temples.^ It is a point of some importance that while the 
 western side of the lake was included in the territory of 
 Herod Antipas, and was therefore Jewish, the eastern side 
 was partly in the territory of Philip, partly in that of Greek 
 cities of the Decapohs. 
 
 ^ On Taricheae see Smith, op. cit., pp. 451^., who gives ample refer- 
 ences. 
 
 2 Smith, op. cit., pp. 447 Jf. 
 
 ^ Ibid., pp. 457-8. There seems to be no reason for requiring two places 
 of this name (see Chapter VII., p. 271). 
 
 * On these three towns see Smith, op. cit., p. 459; on Gamala, Schiirer, 
 Ceschichte, i., 615, 616; on Hippos, ibid., ii., 155; on Gadara, ii., 157. 
 
172 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 It is certainly remarkable that the same Sea of Gen- 
 nesaret, which is of such surpassing interest to us as the 
 centre of our Lord's ministry, should in little more than 
 thirty years have been conspicuous in the great war as the 
 residence of the historian Josephus when governor of 
 Gahlee, and that therefore our knowledge of it should be 
 considerable. It is his description which makes us realize 
 what the country was Hke in the days of its prosperity, 
 before the terrible blight of Mohammedan and Turkish 
 rule had fallen upon it. He dwells on the rich fertility of 
 the district, the purity of the waters of the lake, and its 
 great supphes of fish. He depicts for us its crowded life, 
 when it was the great centre of Jewish patriotism, its strong 
 and well-built cities, its great fleet of ships, so large that 
 they could be used in war, the turbulence and craft of its 
 people. Now all has passed away, and as we gaze upon 
 its beautiful landscape, we wonder whether the great events 
 of our own day will mean for it some measure of good 
 government and restored prosperity. 
 
 In this famous land the most fertile spot was the plain 
 of Gennesaret. Thus Josephus describes it:^ "Along the 
 shores of Gennesaret there runs a district of the same 
 name, of wonderful fertihty and beauty. There is no 
 manner of trees that it does not produce, such is its fertility, 
 and the inhabitants have planted every kind. The air, too, 
 is so well tempered as to suit all alike. Walnuts, the most 
 hardy of trees, flourish there in vast numbers, as also do 
 palms, which demand a hot climate, and hard by these you 
 may see figs and olives which demand a more temperate 
 climate. One might call it the ambition of nature, forcing 
 things that contend each with the other to come together 
 in one place. It is a goodly strife of the seasons, each in 
 its turn claiming the country for itself. For indeed it not 
 only produces in a marvellous way the different fruits, but 
 it preserves them. It supplies continually for ten months 
 the most royal fruits, the fig and the grape, and all others 
 throughout the year as they become ripe. In addition to 
 the beauty of the climate it is watered by a most prolific 
 spring, called Capharnaum by its inhabitants." 
 
 1 Josephus, B. J., iii., § 506-521, and other places. 
 
CAPERNAUM 173 
 
 It was at the northern end of this plain Just where its 
 warm springs ran into the sea that Capernaum, the central 
 spot of the ministry of our Lord, was situated.^ His hfe 
 and teachings were perhaps independent of the accident of 
 place, but we may notice that the warm and pleasant 
 climate, the bountiful supply of food, and the easy Hfe 
 would create just the conditions under which such a ministry 
 could be carried on, and that from the simple and inde- 
 pendent fishermen of the lake were chosen the most faithful 
 of His followers, men who in after-life in such different 
 surroundings testified to what they had learnt by the Sea of 
 Galilee and sealed their testimony with their death. 
 
 It was to Capernaum that Jeus came after the imprison- 
 ment of John had broken up the body of disciples that 
 surrounded him. The motive that led Him to that place 
 must be a matter of conjecture. It has been thought that 
 it had become the home of His mother and brothers, but 
 for that there is no evidence; in fact, the narrative makes 
 it quite clear that He was Kving apart from them. It is 
 more probable that it was because there He would find 
 those whom He wished to make His disciples. There is 
 considerable probability that the sons of Zebedee were His 
 cousins; it is even more probable that all the first four 
 disciples had been with Jesus Himself disciples of the 
 Baptist, that under these circumstances they had become 
 attached to Him, that He thus knew them, and thought 
 of them when the time had come for His own independent 
 ministry to begin.- Some such circumstarices would best 
 explain all the facts. The action of our Lord was purpose- 
 
 * The site of Capernaum has long been the subject of controversy. The 
 two rival sites are Khan Minyeh on the northern edge of Gennesaret, and 
 Tell Hum, about two miles further north. See Smith, p. 456; Sanday, 
 Sacred Sites of the Gospels (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1903), pp. 36-45. 
 The literature on the subject is large. My own belief is that it was a strag- 
 gling, unwalled town or village which extended over both sites. 
 
 ^ St. John (i. 35-42) definitely implies that the first disciples had been 
 with the Baptist, and this corresponds with other indications (see above, 
 p. 167). 
 
174 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 ful. The times were fulfilled. The new work must begin. 
 The purpose must be accomplished. To carry it out, He be- 
 gins by summoning those who were to be His first disciples. 
 
 So Jesus walked by the Sea of Galilee and saw Simon 
 and Andrew his brother casting their nets into the sea, and 
 He said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you fishers 
 of men." ^ It is needless to suppose that events happened 
 as abruptly as the narrative might imply. It is the charac- 
 teristic of the short, pregnant language of St. Mark that 
 it concentrates attention on the essential point, and gives 
 just that striking sentence which would inevitably fix 
 itself indelibly on the memory of those who heard it. 
 St. Luke gives a fuller story, wliich had probably come to 
 him by tradition.^ But it is in the words recorded by 
 both that the true significance of the event Hes. Jesus 
 summoned them to Him as a rehgious teacher, with the 
 intention of preaching a Gospel to mankind. He already 
 thought of Himself as a Shepherd of Souls. He came to 
 convert and to save. It is sometimes maintained now 
 that Jesus had no conception of His true mission, that He 
 had no purpose to preach a Gospel, or to gather a Church. 
 Such a theory is not, on other grounds, tenable and is quite 
 inconsistent with these words. As Jesus drew all men 
 unto Him, so Peter and those others whom He summoned 
 to be His disciples were henceforth to catch men. 
 
 Jesus passes on and summons likewise the two sons of 
 Zebedee.^ All these first disciples were men of substance 
 and position. They belonged to a class simple and inde- 
 pendent. They were prepared to give up their worldly 
 calling at the word of a Master whom as yet they im- 
 perfectly knew, and they were to find that they had obeyed 
 a summons to work far greater than anything their 
 imaginations had conceived. Meanwhile it seems as if 
 Peter's house became the Master's home. Peter and his 
 brother, the two sons of Zebedee, and perhaps others, 
 became His constant attendants. 
 
 Thus began the Galilaean ministry. It is probable that to 
 Peter himself we owe the effective but restrained account 
 of this beginning. On the next Sabbath Jesus entered the 
 
 » Mk. i. 16-18. 2 Lk, V. i-ii. 3 Mk. i. 19-20. 
 
THE FIRST DAY 175 
 
 synagogue and began to preach. All that heard Him felt 
 that they were Hstening to something new and wonderful. 
 The nervous tension stirred the unbalanced mind of one 
 of those half-witted men, whom the thought of the day 
 held to be- possessed of an unclean spirit, and a disturbance 
 took place. But the same authority and spiritual power 
 which had been shown in the teaching rebuked and calmed 
 the lunatic. Is it wonderful that the repute of this new 
 Teacher with such strange power began to spread at once 
 through the crowded villages and towns surrounding the 
 Sea of Galilee?^ 
 
 From the synagogue Jesus went with His disciples to 
 Peter's house — henceforth to be His home. There Peter's 
 wife's mother lay suffering from a fever. He took her 
 by the hand, and raised her up. The fever left her, and 
 she became one of that group of women who ministered to 
 His needs."^ The Sabbath was now over. The sun had set. 
 The knowledge of these new and strange events and of this 
 wonderful Teacher had spread through all the town, so the 
 sick and the afflicted were brought to the house, and the 
 people crowded round the door, and "Jesus healed many 
 that were sick and cast out many devils."^ 
 
 But there was yet another experience. To the enthusiastic 
 minds of the first disciples it might seem that a new age had 
 come. They had listened to teaching such as no man had 
 yet heard. They had witnessed the work of a strange 
 and spiritual power. Would not all evil and misery speedily 
 pass away? Jesus had begun to teach about the kingdom. 
 Had not the kingdom of God upon earth come? They were 
 full of expectation as to what would happen when morning 
 came. But when morning came Jesus was nowhere in the 
 house. He had risen very early and gone forth to be alone 
 and pray. He had come to teach men spiritual things. 
 Was He to be a mere miracle worker? One whom the 
 crowds could follow as they did some charlatan or imposter? 
 So that they might be cured without troubling themselves 
 about anything more. What seemed to these young and 
 enthusiastic disciples the sign of His success might seem 
 
 1 Mk. i. 21-28. 2 Mk. i. 29-31. » Mk. i. 32-34. 
 
 
176 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 to Him failure. So when His disciples came to seek Him 
 to bring Him back to the crowds that were asking for Him, 
 He met their request by saying that they must begin and 
 preach through all the villages round. For it was to preach 
 that He had come. So they began to journey through 
 Gahlee.i 
 
 Thus began the Galilaean ministry. Its centre was 
 Capernaum, and the villages round the lake, in particular 
 Chorazin and Bethsaida. At Capernaum He taught some- 
 times in the town, either in the house or in the synagogue, 
 sometimes by the seashore. At times we are told how He 
 sought solitude either alone or with His disciples on the 
 range of hills behind the town. It is spoken of as the 
 mountain. Then at intervals His ministry has a wider 
 area. Accompanied by His disciples He goes on extended 
 tours through "GaUlee, preaching from village to village. 
 How far these missionary journeys extended must be to a 
 certain extent a matter of conjecture. Once he visited 
 Nazareth, with singular want of success.^ St. Luke tells 
 us of an incident which took place at Nain, on the south side 
 of the plain of Esdraelon.^ This imphes that His journeys 
 had a fairly wide circuit. Once, at any rate, we are told 
 how, perhaps to avoid the crowds, perhaps for reasons of 
 safety as a temporary retreat, He crossed over to what 
 was probably Greek territory on the further side of the 
 lake; but that visit also seems not to have been successful.'* 
 
 On His earlier journeys He was accompanied by a small 
 body of disciples. Later the whole twelve were his com- 
 panions, and St. Luke tells us how a number of women, 
 some of whom He had saved from a hfe of sin, or cured of 
 disease, followed Him and supplied His wants. Among 
 them there seem to have been women of position. It is 
 most probable that these journeys took place during the 
 warm weather of the summer, when the low land by the lake 
 might be too hot, and journeyings on the higher hills would 
 
 1 Mk. i. 35-39. 
 
 2 Mk. vi. 1-6. The position which St. Luke ascribes to this incident 
 at the beginning of the ministry is obviously incorrect, as the narrative 
 refers to events at Capernaum (Lk. iv. 16-30). 
 
 ' Lk. vii. 11-17. * Mk. v. 1-20, 
 
THE PREACHING OF JESUS 177 
 
 be easier. Sometimes there would be those who would 
 be ready to receive and entertain the company. We read 
 of rich men with whom He dined, and occasionally even 
 of Pharisees. Many villages and towns might Ijave guest 
 chambers. It would be the custom then, as now, in the 
 East, to display ready hospitality, especially for a religious 
 teacher. Probably this would be common early in the 
 ministry, before an official opposition had grown up. Often 
 and especially later, there would be no place for them to 
 sleep but on the hill-side. "Foxes have holes and the birds 
 of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where 
 to lay His head."^ 
 
 The main purpose of the ministry was to preach, and 
 always, as long as it was possible, in the synagogue. Here 
 was the centre of the religious life of the people and here — 
 such was the custom of the day — was the opportunity for 
 any new prophet or teacher to be heard. The synagogue, 
 which might be found in every town or village, was generally 
 a long, rectangular building. In the larger synagogues 
 the roof would be supported by rows of columns. At one 
 end was the Ark where the rolls of Scripture were kept, 
 and in front of it the chief seats where the elders of the 
 town or village and the ruler of the synagogue sat. At the 
 opposite end was the gallery for women. 
 
 St. Luke has given us a typical picture of Jesus preaching 
 in a synagogue.^ Jesus entered, he tells us, on the Sabbath 
 day into the synagogue as He was accustomed. When the 
 Prayers, the Shema, and the Blessings were finished, came 
 the reading of the Scripture. It would be the custom to 
 call upon members of the congregation present to take 
 part in the reading, and in particular any well-known Rabbi 
 or teacher who was present would be asked to read and 
 interpret. "They gave unto him the book of Isaiah the 
 prophet, and he stood up to read. When He had opened 
 the book He found the place that is written. The Spirit 
 of the Lord is upon me, because that he hath anointed 
 me to preach the Gospel to the poor, and to preach deliver- 
 ance to the captives, and to the blind sight, to assure the 
 
 1 Lk. ix. 58. 2 Lk. iv. 16-30. 
 
178 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 contrite of deliverance, and to preach the acceptable year 
 of the Lord. And he rolled up the book, and gave it to 
 the minister, and sat down." All eyes, we are told, were 
 turned on Him, and He proceeded to explain how these 
 words were even then being fulfilled. The selection of the 
 passage is significant because it informs us that Jesus 
 intended to identify Himself with the Divine Servant of 
 the prophet Isaiah, and shows us in what way He felt that 
 the Kingdom of God was at hand. They wondered at the 
 beauty of His teaching, but in this case the spirit of 
 opposition grew up and questions and controversy (as often 
 elsewhere) followed the address. 
 
 The result of the teaching of Jesus and of the spiritual 
 fervour that He displayed was widespread fame. Wherever 
 He went crowds flocked to hear him. People came to Him 
 from all sides. When He was in a house they crowded 
 round the door, so that no one could get in or out. They 
 prevented Him from eating by their importunities. In 
 order that He might have a means of escape from them, 
 His disciples provided a small boat to be ready in case of 
 need, and He used it to address them.^ Often He retires 
 for prayer and solitude. But always His fame seemed to 
 increase, and people came from many distant parts to hear 
 Him. They came not only from Galilee, but from Judaea 
 and Jerusalem, from the country beyond Jordan, and even 
 from the heathen cities of Tyre and Sidon. 
 
 II 
 
 On what did the influence of Jesus depend? What were 
 the characteristics which caused His fame? It was, in the 
 first place. His teaching. Of the burden of His message 
 we shall speak shortly; we shall consider now its external 
 characteristics. The most fundamental point might be 
 summed up in one word, "authority." "They were 
 astonished at His teaching: for He taught them as having 
 authority, and not as the scribes. It was a new teaching."^ 
 No doubt there was a dignity and charm of manner which 
 contributed to this authority. There was, too, a distinction 
 
 1 Mk. iii. 9. 2 Mk. i. 27. 
 
THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS 179 
 
 and originality of form singularly attractive. The teaching 
 of Jesus is preserved to us, sometimes in short, sharp, 
 pregnant, almost epigrammatic sayings, sometimes in fuller 
 parables. It is vivid and picturesque. It expresses its 
 meaning by simple homely metaphors which would strike 
 the attention, would be easily remembered, and would 
 appeal to an audience which was intelhgent but little 
 educated. 
 
 But the signs of authority are something deeper than 
 this. Turn to the Sermon on the Mount, and Usten to the 
 words of the Beatitudes. Who is this who, with such a 
 note of calm authority, lays down the conditions of in- 
 heriting the Kingdom of Heaven? or of being called sons 
 of God? or who can make a promise that men shall see 
 God? Who is He who would be so bold as to say that He 
 had not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. The 
 commandments had been given from Sinai, inscribed by 
 the finger of God on the two tables of stone; who was this 
 who said, "Ye have heard that it was said to Moses of old 
 time, ^ but I say unto you . . ."? Here were claims very 
 different from any which scribe or prophet had made; what 
 wonder if people were astonished and impressed and at- 
 tracted by His teaching, "for He taught them as one having 
 authority, and not as the scribes." 
 
 But it soon became clear that there were other unusual 
 characteristics. There was no class of men more disliked 
 than those who farmed the taxes of the country which were 
 paid to a foreign Government. Their occupation was not 
 only one exceedingly offensive in itself, but inconsistent 
 with the stricter religious sense of the people. Then, again, 
 to a person who professed to be at all a religious man, what 
 could be more repulsive than a Jew who had adopted Greek 
 ways, associated with Greeks at their meals, showed no 
 scruples in the matter of food, and was in many ways faith- 
 less to ancestral traditions? It might be necessary for a 
 business man to have dealings with the foreigner, but there 
 was no excuse for anyone whose profession was religion. 
 Capernaum was a place where both these classes of people — 
 publicans and sinners — would no doubt be found. One of 
 
 1 Mt. V. 17/. 
 
 13 
 
i8o THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 the great roads from the sea-coast to the interior came over 
 the hills to the plain of Gennesareth, and thence ran north- 
 wards skirting the lake. The customs dues on this road 
 belonged to the Empire, and here there would be a toll- 
 house. It was something strange that it should be one of 
 the tax-gatherers sitting at the receipt of custom that 
 accepted the call to join the Master and become His disciple; 
 it was still more strange that He should be seen sitting at 
 meat in Levi's house with a company of tax-gatherers and 
 of lax Jews, and even possibly of Greeks. And it was 
 something very new that He said: "They that are whole 
 have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: 
 I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to 
 repentence."^ 
 
 And it was soon found that there were many others, 
 whom the conventional religion of the day left on one side, 
 for whom the new Teacher cared. He was sitting at meat 
 in a Pharisee's house, and a woman who was a professional 
 harlot came in and began to wash His feet with her tears, 
 and to wipe them with her hair, and kissed His feet, and 
 anointed them with ointment; for He was weary and travel- 
 stained. No wonder people were shocked. No wonder 
 His host was astonished when He was compared dis- 
 paragingly with the woman: "Simon, I entered into thy 
 house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath 
 wetted my feet with her tears, and wiped them with her 
 hair. Thou gavest me no kiss: but she since the time I 
 came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with 
 oil thou didst not anoint; but she hath anointed my feet 
 with ointment." How great, too, must have been the 
 astonishment when He went on: "Her sins which are 
 many are forgiven; for she loved much," and when He 
 turned to the woman and said, "Thy sins are forgiven; 
 thy faith has saved thee; go in peace." Here was a new 
 pity and a new authority. "Who is this that even for- 
 giveth sins?"^ 
 
 His teaching, indeed, might be summed up in the words: 
 
 ^ Mk. ii. 13-17. 
 
 ^ Lc. vii. 36-50. St. Luke derived this story, not from St. Mark, but 
 from oral traditions or his special source. What relation it bears to the 
 
THE CASTING OUT OF DEVILS 
 
 i»i 
 
 "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which 
 was lost." It was not merely that He taught this. He 
 carried it out in action. He lived Himself as a poor man, 
 and those who were associated with Him, even if they had 
 wealth, did the same. He spoke always of the dangers of 
 riches and the blessings of poverty. Towards the poor, 
 the outcast, and the sinners he exhibited neither scorn 
 nor repulsion. He was always ready to help the afflicted, 
 to show compassion to the suffering, and to the sinner that 
 turned to Him there was forgiveness. "Come unto Me, 
 all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you 
 rest."^ Is it wonderful that the outcast and the suffering 
 came to Him, and that a company of women, some of whom 
 had been saved by His sympathy from a life of shame and 
 suffering, should have become his attendants, and have 
 shown their love and gratitude by ministering to Him? 
 Mary of Magdala has come to typify this spirit of the 
 Gospel. 
 
 Ill 
 
 It seems to have been the almost . universal beHef of 
 the human race in primitive times that human infirmities 
 were to be ascribed to the operation of evil spirits, and this 
 in relation to bodily as well as mental diseases. The right 
 method, therefore, of dealing with sickness and of working 
 cures was by some form of exorcism by which the evil spirit 
 might be controlled and vanquished. Even when medical 
 knowledge had advanced so far that as regards bodily 
 infirmities this belief had grown weaker, or rather men were 
 left in a somewhat confused state of mind in which the two 
 theories were allowed to exist side by side, so that heahng 
 might be performed partly by the art of the physician and 
 partly by the power of the exorcist, there would still be 
 few who would doubt that most of the diseases which we 
 describe as nervous, all feeble-mindedness, lunacy, epilepsy, 
 and madness were the direct result of the work of evil 
 spirits. 
 
 story contained in St. Mark, and referred by St. John to Mary the sister 
 of Martha, must be doubtful. 
 
 1 Mt. xi. 28. . 
 
i82 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 So in Palestine in the time of our Lord it was almost 
 universally believed that behind the material world, and 
 exercising great influence both over it and over mankind, 
 was a powerful army of spiritual beings, some good and 
 some evil. The evil spirits were largely responsible for the 
 prevalence of sin and sorrow and suffering. They were 
 looked upon as a disciplined army under a leader who was 
 called Satan, or Beelzebub, or by some other name, and 
 there were many to be found everywhere who suffered from 
 their machinations. Many of these sufferers no doubt had 
 sinned, and it was generally believed that this demoniacal 
 possession was something for which people were themselves 
 to blame. We need not now discuss the various theories 
 which might be needed to reconcile the existence of these 
 evil powers with the supremacy of a just and good God. 
 They were looked upon as a kingdom of evil over against 
 and in conflict with the kingdom of God, and it would 
 inevitably be thought that the triumph of divine rule would 
 mean the suppression of the power of these evil spirits 
 and consequently the cure of those who suffered. It was 
 naturally believed that it was one of the functions of religion 
 to promote the cure of such afflictions, and many elaborate 
 forms of exorcism had become associated with religious life. 
 
 It was also the inevitable result of the prevalence of 
 these theories that those who were "possessed" should 
 themselves be influenced by such views, and in their strange 
 mental condition, often such as would be described now 
 as that of possessing a double personality, should firmly 
 beheve that there were evil spirits dwelling in them. They 
 would be conscious of something which impeded the action 
 of their will, and would beheve that it was the work of the 
 spirit in them, or they would think that they were them- 
 selves the evil spirit. In the days of trials for witchcraft 
 in England, the unfortunate victims of superstition were 
 often firmly convinced that they had the powers ascribed 
 to them, that they were witches; and they attempted to 
 exercise these powers that they believed themselves to 
 possess. 
 
 It was also an old behef that those who were possessed, 
 whether, as was sometimes held, by a god or some other 
 
THE PHENOMENA OF POSSESSION 183 
 
 beneficent being, or by an evil spirit, had a knowledge 
 which was more than human. There are indeed many 
 phenomena which might seem to justify such a belief. 
 There is often a very near kinship between the mind of 
 some types of genius when it is over-excited and the mind 
 of a madman. The half-witted will often say openly what 
 the sane man with all the inhibitions which prudence and 
 common sense create, will hesitate to reveal or express. The 
 phenomena, in fact, as presented in the Gospels were 
 exactly what might be expected. There we find those who 
 were possessed with devils — that is, the half-witted and 
 the insane — ready to express the half -felt intuitions of 
 the people, showing their resentment and respect before a 
 power which seemed to force their will, clearly identifying 
 themselves with the spirits which were supposed to dwell 
 in them, and becoming violent when they were controlled. 
 
 It has sometimes been thought that the circumstances 
 of the time had created an especial outbreak of this evil. 
 There is no need to think this. It is true, indeed, that 
 the phenomenon is mentioned much more frequently in the 
 New Testament than in the Old, but that really only implies 
 a changed point of view. At the present day in England 
 the workhouse, the asylum, and the infirmary provide 
 homes for all such cases, but in old days the village idiot 
 was a well-known institution; and if, as in the time of our 
 Lord, all those who are now cared for and protected were 
 left to wander about, often tormented and persecuted, 
 always neglected, with no one to control them, finding 
 homes in soHtary places or tombs or caves, the misery 
 described in the Gospels would be reproduced. 
 
 To cast out devils, to cure those possessed of evil spirits, 
 is represented as the work of our Lord more constantly 
 than any other miraculous activity. So certainly was His 
 power recognized that His Pharisaic opponents though it 
 necessary to ascribe His cures to Beelzebub, the prince of 
 the devils. We are particularly told how, on His first 
 journey through the villages of Galilee, He preached and 
 cast out devils.^ When He sent out the Twelve He gave 
 them authority over unclean spirits.^ The seventy, St. Luke 
 
 ^ Mk. i. 39. '^ Mk. vi. 7. 
 
i84 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 tells us, returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the devils 
 are subject unto us in thy name." Jesus answered, "I 
 beheld Satan falling as lightning from heaven." ^ The 
 power over unclean spirits was a sign of victory over the 
 kingdom of evil. 
 
 The characteristics of this evil as they are recorded were 
 sometimes violent madness and struggles exhibiting great 
 strength. The unfortunate victim falls into the fire or the 
 water; he foams at the mouth, he grinds his teeth, he has 
 convulsions. Sometimes it is uncontrolled excitement, 
 sometimes such afflictions as blindness, deafness, dumbness, 
 diseases which, it may be noted, are often of purely nervous 
 origin. Sometimes the lines between illness and possession 
 are much confused — a confusion quite in accordance with 
 popular superstition. 
 
 What was particularly recorded and caused so much 
 astonishment was the authority that Jesus exercised over 
 these spirits. He heals by His word, He particularly tells 
 us that it is by the Spirit or finger of God that He has this 
 power. ^ He rebukes the spirits, they obey His express 
 command. In His name His disciples cast out devils. 
 When they fail it is through want of faith. 
 
 It is also noticed how the evil spirits recognize our Lord's 
 divine power. "I know thee who thou art, the Holy One 
 of Israel."^ "What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou 
 Son of the Most High God? I adjure thee by God, torment 
 me not."^ This violent recognition of Him as the Messiah 
 might have been very dangerous to Him during the Galilaean 
 ministry (as will become apparent), and Jesus, we are 
 particularly told, suffered not the devils to speak because 
 they knew Him. The meaning which was given to posses- 
 sion may be further illustrated by the fact that Jesus 
 Himself was looked upon as mad and in the power of the 
 devil. John the Baptist was said to have had a devil. 
 In St. John's Gospel our Lord is said to be possessed of a 
 devil because He says they are seeking to kill Him. "Thou 
 art a Samaritan, and hast a devil." "He hath a devil and 
 is mad." 
 
 1 Lk. X. 17, 18. " Lk. xi. 20; Mt. xii. 28. 
 
 3 Mk. i. 24. «Mk. V. 7. 
 
THE ATTITUDE OF OUR LORD 185 
 
 I do not think that any distinction can be made between 
 the characteristics of possession and the theories held about 
 it as they are presented to us in the New Testament and 
 the widespread behefs of the time. Our Lord's language 
 is completely in accordance with the religious and scientific 
 ideas of His contemporaries. He acts recognizing fully 
 what both the onlookers and those whom He cured would 
 think. It is obvious that nothing else would have been 
 possible on His part. Let us ask of those who feel troubled 
 by this, what particular theory our Lord should have 
 substituted for that current in His time. Do they think 
 that He ought to have talked in the scientific and medical 
 language of the present day? It is obvious that to have 
 done so would have conveyed no meaning to anyone who 
 heard Him, deprived Him of power and influence, made 
 His actions vain and ineffectual. The one condition of 
 being able to exercise His ministry as a man teaching men 
 was that He should do it in accordance with the thought 
 and ideas of the day. What theological theory is implied 
 by this fact is a matter of future enquiry. We are not 
 concerned at the present time with that problem. What 
 is necessary to point out is that a religious teacher who in 
 the first century of the Christian era adopted the scientific 
 language and ideas of the present day would have talked 
 in a language utterly incomprehensible to the people. 
 
 But further than that, what justification have we for 
 thinking that the particular ideas that we have at present 
 are in any absolute sense true or final? We may perhaps, 
 with some reason, flatter ourselves that they represent 
 a considerable scientific advance, but the science of psychol- 
 ogy which deals with them is as yet only in its infancy. 
 We are certain that the opinions held a hundred years ago 
 are largely erroneous, are we quite certain that that will 
 not be the opinion held a hundred years hence of what 
 we think now? The only suggestion that from this point 
 of view would be intelligible would be that our Lord should 
 have given an absolutely true and final account of the real 
 nature of mental disorders, and thus should have saved 
 the human race from the necessity of scientific investigation 
 and discovery, so that we should never have had to find 
 
i86 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 out anything for ourselves. I think that we shall all 
 recognize how entirely inconsistent with all His methods 
 and purposes this would have been. Our Lord's purpose 
 was to teach mankind religion and not science. He did 
 not come to do away with the necessity of human effort. 
 He came to teach them to fulfil His will and thus hve a Ufe 
 in which they might learn about God's work. So in every 
 direction His science was the science of His own time, and 
 not least in dealing with the phenomenon of possession. 
 
 In order to bring help and relief to the sufferings of His 
 own time, Jesus spoke and worked in the way that har- 
 monized with men's thoughts. That does not mean that 
 their thoughts were true thoughts, or that His thoughts 
 were not true. It means that He gave His message in the 
 language and thought of the day. His power over these 
 poor sufferers was very really the power of His Spirit 
 exercised by His influence on their spirits. There are many 
 phenomena at the present day which may afford us some 
 analogy to His actions. It is quite certain that many men 
 can exercise healing power over those afflicted with nervous 
 diseases, and the experiences and investigations of the war 
 have added much to our power and knowledge. It is 
 equally true that a man's spiritual nature has much to do 
 with his mental state. A sound, healthy religious influence 
 will do much to create a state of mental sanity and to nerve 
 a man to resist unhealthy mental tendencies. All these 
 analogies help us to the comprehension of our Lord's work, 
 and have enabled many to accept, perhaps in a somewhat 
 modified form, the truths of the Gospel narrative who could 
 not otherwise have done so. But these analogies must not 
 bhnd us to the differences. There was a power and au- 
 thority about our Lord's actions which was unparalleled 
 then as it is unparalleled now. He exercised a spiritual au- 
 thority which was unique. 
 
 IV 
 
 But it was not only the mentally afflicted that our Lord 
 healed, He exercised the same power over bodily suffering. 
 *'He healed many that were sick with various diseases." If 
 not perhaps to the same extent as mental cures, yet the heal- 
 
HEALING THE SICK 187 
 
 ing of bodily illness is represented by all our authorities as 
 part of His ministerial work. It is narrated that while 
 John the Baptist was lying in prison before his execution, 
 he heard of the Galilaean ministry of Jesus. He was still 
 in doubt. Jesus was certainly a great prophet, but He 
 was hardly the Messiah as John had imagined Him. He 
 did not do at all the things that people demanded. Was 
 He the Messiah Himself, or was He only a great forerunner? 
 So he sent his disciples to enquire. The answer of our 
 Lord was characteristic. He did not openly desire even 
 then to claim to be the Messiah. He did not depart from 
 His normal attitude of reserve. We shall discuss, later on, 
 the reason for this. But He bid the messengers tell John 
 what they had heard and seen and leave him to draw the 
 inference. "Go your way and tell John the things which 
 ye do hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the 
 lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and 
 the dead are raised up, and the poor have good tidings 
 preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not 
 be offended in me."^ 
 
 These words are significant. They are significant in their 
 appeal to Scripture. Our Lord claims to be the complete 
 fulfilment of the old dispensation. They are significant 
 in the fact that they recognize the difficulties that many 
 would have in accepting a Messiah such as He was. They 
 are remarkable as being one of the rare occasions when 
 our Lord is definitely represented as appeahng to His 
 miracles. It has been suggested that the passage is to be 
 taken throughout in a spiritual sense, that it is the spiritu- 
 ally blind, the spiritually deaf, the spiritual lepers, the spirit- 
 ually dead that are referred to. It is difficult to believe 
 this is the right interpretation, for the quotation from the 
 Old Testament has been modified so as to introduce the 
 reference to the miraculous. The passage comes from one of 
 the earliest sources of the Gospel narrative, and implies 
 that the spiritual power exercised by Jesus for the relief of 
 human suffering was with the preaching of the Gospel 
 
 ^ Mt. xi. 2-6; Lk. vii. 19-23. The passage clearly comes from The 
 Discourses. 
 
i88 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 message to be taken as a sign that the days of the Messiah 
 had come, even if there was so little that corresponded to 
 the conventional expectation. 
 
 If we examine the narratives of our Lord's life as we 
 possess them, we shall see that they not only narrate stories 
 of miracles, but also imply as part of the structure of the 
 narrative and of the characteristics of the ministry that 
 He possessed miraculous powers. Jesus had the reputation 
 of working miracles. The centurion of Capernaum comes 
 to Him because he has heard of these miracles.^ The 
 people flock round Him as He enters into a boat: "for He 
 had healed many: insomuch that as many as had plagues 
 pressed upon Him, that they might touch Him."^ When 
 He preaches in the synagogue at Nazareth, it is not only 
 His wisdom, but His reputation for miracles which causes 
 comment: "What is the wisdom that is given unto this 
 man, and what mean these mighty works wrought by his 
 hands?" ^ When they come to the land of Gennesaret, 
 "straightway the people knew him and ran round about 
 the whole district, and began to carry about on their beds 
 those that were sick, when they heard where he was. And 
 wheresoever he entered, into villages, or into cities, or into 
 the country, they laid the sick in the market places and 
 besought him that they might touch if it were but the 
 border of his garment: and as many as touched him were 
 made whole." ^ 
 
 The narratives of miracles may be found in all the Gospels 
 and in all the various sources. They are told, like other 
 Gospel stories, in a manner that wins assent, and if we 
 were not troubled by doubts about the possibility of the 
 miraculous we should have no doubt about their authen- 
 ticity. It will be most profitable if we examine some of 
 the phenomena which are presented by these stories. 
 
 The condition of a miracle was faith. In the story of 
 the paralytic Jesus commends the faith that urged the men 
 to make such efforts to bring the sick man into His presence: 
 "And Jesus seeing their faith saith unto the sick of the 
 
 ^ Mt. viii. S-io; Lc. vii. i-io, from The Discourses. 
 
 2 Mk. iii. lo. 3 yi-^ yj_ 2. * yi^ yj^ 54-56. 
 
NATURE OF MIRACLES 189 
 
 palsy, Son, thy sins are forgiven thee."^ To the centurion 
 of Capernaum He said: "Verily I say unto you, I have 
 not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. ... Go thy 
 way; as thou hast believed so be it done unto thee."^ To 
 the woman with a bloody flux: "Daughter, thy faith hath 
 made thee whole." ^ "All things are possible to him that 
 believeth." "Have faith in God; verily I say unto you. 
 Whosoever shall say unto this mountain. Be thou taken 
 up and cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, 
 but shall believe that what he saith cometh to pass; he 
 shall have it,"^ And so the absence of faith prevents 
 miracles being worked. At Nazareth we are told: "He 
 could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands 
 upon a few sick folk and healed them. And he marvelled 
 because of their unbelief."^ A failure of His disciples to 
 cure a demoniac is ascribed to the same cause: "And I 
 spake to thy disciples that they should cast it out: and they 
 were not able. And he answereth them and saith, O faith- 
 less generation, how long shall I be with you? How long 
 shall I bear with you?"^ 
 
 To most persons, I venture to think, these statements of 
 failure will be strong evidence of the truth of the narratives. 
 If there had been any desire to conceal what might seem 
 to be inconsistent with what was claimed for Jesus, they 
 would probably have been omitted. Had the other stories 
 been moulded and fashioned, as has been suggested, to 
 prove the theories of the authors, it is hardly likely that 
 these incidents would not have suffered in the same way. 
 They help to give the impression which the whole style of 
 the narratives supports, that we are reading truthful stories 
 of things as they happened. Moreover, the absence of 
 anything mechanical about the healing power exercised by 
 Jesus harmonizes with all that we learn in other ways about 
 God's dealings with men. Jesus is not a magician and 
 wonder worker. His power is spiritual and requires for 
 its effectiveness response. He has a deep insight into all 
 
 1 Mk. ii. s. 2 Mt. viii. lo, 13. ^ Mk. v. 34- 
 
 * Mk. xi. 23; Mt. xvii. 20, xxi. 21; Lk. xvii. 6. This saying was 
 reported in more than one source. 
 
 ^ Mk. vi. 5. ^ Mk. ix. 18, 19. 
 
T90 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 who come to Him. He knows the reahty of their spiritual 
 nature, and His work shows liow the spiritual can influence 
 and triumph over the material. 
 
 This power of healing was an evidence of our Lord's 
 spiritual authority, and He Himself, when needs be, appeals 
 to it. When the scribes object to His forgiving sins. He 
 asks "whether it is easier to say to the sick of the palsy, 
 Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, 
 and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man 
 hath power on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick 
 of the palsy), Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy 
 house." ^ But although on occasions He may appeal to His 
 miracles, His general attitude is that of reluctance to lay 
 stress on them, and even often to perform them. He avoids 
 the multitude. He goes apart into a desert place to pray. 
 He crosses over to the other side to escape from the people 
 that crowded Him. He heals the sick because He has 
 compassion on them, and not to exalt His own reputa- 
 tion. So He is anxious that those who are healed shall not 
 pubHsh His fame abroad. To the leper He says: "See 
 thou say nothing to anyone." When He raises up the 
 daughter of Jairus, He charges him that no man should 
 know this. Yet this is not always His action. To the 
 demoniac (the incident, it must be noted, did not occur in 
 Jewish territory) He says, "Go to thy house unto thy 
 friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done 
 for thee, and how he had mercy on thee."^ 
 
 The reasons for the reserve and economy that our Lord 
 exercised about miracles were more than one. He did not 
 come as a wonder worker, but as a teacher. If the people 
 flocked round Him for no other reason than for the miracles 
 that He did. His whole purpose would have been lost. The 
 miracles would obscure the teaching. Nor would He ever 
 work anything as a sign. When the Pharisees demanded a 
 sign — that is, some conspicuous abnormal action so per- 
 formed that it might be held to be a certain proof of His 
 claims — He refused. It is not so that He will win men's 
 hearts. There is to be no mechanical proof. But the mira- 
 
 1 Mk. ii. 9, lo. 2 Mk. V. 19. 
 
J^f MIRACLES AND THE GOSPEL 191 
 
 cles were all the same an integral and essential part of His 
 ministry. When Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, sums up 
 the characteristics of our Lord's work, he says that He went 
 about doing good.^ The miracles, in fact, were the transla- 
 tion of His Gospel into life. St. Matthew, when he repeats 
 St. Mark's statement about the miracles which Jesus had 
 wrought at Capernaum, adds the comment: "That it might 
 be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, 
 Himself took our infirmities and bare our diseases."^ It 
 was part of His general beneficent work for man. That is 
 why spiritual and physical activity is so closely bound 
 together. He rescues men both from the burden of their 
 sins and the burden of their diseases. That was the mean- 
 ing of the miracles and the reason for their value as 
 supports of His claims. They harmonized with His spiritual 
 mission. 
 
 And thus they reveal how Christianity should act towards 
 human want and misery. The purpose of Christianity was 
 not directly to satisfy the material wants of mankind, or 
 even primarily to diminish material suffering. Its message 
 was spiritual, to make us be what we should be, to teach 
 us to fulfil the Divine Will. But it is the Divine Will 
 that we should help one another, and therefore the in- 
 exdtable result of the Christian message is to impel men 
 to do all they can to help and succour their fellow-men. So 
 it has always brought with it the hospital and the nurse 
 and the sister of mercy. But hospitals and nurses are not 
 Christianity, and if we once begin to think so the emotions 
 which create them will begin to fail. They are the inevitable 
 accompaniment of true Christianity. Its aim is to make 
 us fashion our lives according to the pattern God has given 
 us. Just in the same way to work miracles was not the 
 work of Christ. The work of Christ was to teach mankind 
 and to save men from their sins, but because the essence 
 and motive of the Gospels is love, therefore it was by works 
 of mercy that Jesus revealed to mankind His spiritual 
 power. 
 
 And this will help us to understand the nature of miracles. 
 The attitude of scientific men has to a large extent changed 
 
 1 Acts X. 38, 2 Mt. viii. 17. 
 
192 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 in certain directions. It is recognized that the mind has 
 a far larger influence over the body than was at one time 
 realized. It is also recognized that the power of suggestion 
 exercised by one mind over another is very considerable, 
 and that the combined power of two minds thus working 
 together may produce real bodily cures. It is recognized 
 further that mental conditions, and in particular religious 
 emotions, are an important feature in the control of health. 
 As a result of all these new points of view the attitude of 
 some of those who are called critics towards the Gospel 
 miracles has changed. They no longer maintain that the 
 events did not happen, but they say that they are not 
 miracles. It may be doubted whether this easy solution 
 is really tenable. The phenomena described will not really 
 come within these particular formulae, and the position of 
 believing just so much as the fashionable theories of the 
 moment allow is hardly inteUigent. We are still, I think, 
 left in the position of either refusing to accept what appears 
 to be quite good evidence, or of accepting phenomena which 
 are inconsistent with ordinary experience. 
 
 The miracles of our Lord, even the miracles of healing, 
 really present something which, if they happened in any 
 way as is related, are different from any phenomena which 
 are within ordinary human experience. It is possible to 
 explain them away, but not so as to carry complete con- 
 viction. Some would divide them into two classes, and call 
 some natural and some unnatural. The difficulty about 
 that is that our acceptance or not, or our partial acceptance, 
 depends upon the particular scientific theory in vogue at 
 the moment. Now the great mass of miracles of healing 
 are widely accepted. A few years ago they were not. Another 
 change in scientific methods might make new theories about 
 miracles possible. Many which were condemned in old days 
 are now accepted. We have, indeed, no certainty that every 
 miracle recorded in the Gospel happened as is described. 
 But the moral I draw is that the evidence for miracles 
 (not every miracle) is good, and that to attempt to deny 
 them on a priori grounds is singularly unscientific.^ 
 
 * On miracles I would refer to what I have written in The Miracles of 
 the New Testament (London: John Murray, 1914), where the literature of 
 
THE OPPOSITION 193 
 
 If we try to sum up the impression created by the Gali- 
 laean ministry as it is described in the Gospels, we may 
 say that it presents a unique exhibition of spiritual power. 
 It is shown by the spiritual character of our Lord's teaching, 
 by His wonderful personal influence, by His power of 
 healing those who were afflicted, whether in their minds or 
 bodies. It stirred up the people of Galilee; the fame of it 
 spread throughout the neighbouring countries; it made 
 much questioning and debate as to who this Teacher, so 
 wonderful, but so different to conventional expectation, 
 might be, and it roused, as might be expected, the inevitable 
 opposition. 
 
 It was, indeed, hardly to be expected that teaching such 
 as that of Jesus should go on without arousing opposition, 
 nor that these great popular demonstrations should fail to 
 cause anxiety to the authorities. We have now to recount 
 the steps by which a breach gradually grew up between 
 Jesus and the official religion. A series of incidents recorded 
 by St. Mark at this stage in the narrative are clearly de- 
 signed to point out to us this situation, and their evidence is 
 corroborated by other incidents recorded elsewhere. They 
 give us a quite clear presentation of the points of difference, 
 but there must be some doubt as to whether they are the 
 story of a series of actual events which followed one another 
 in the manner described, and give us a consecutive account 
 of the development of the quarrel, or whether they are 
 typical instances collected by St. Mark from different 
 sources and arranged as they are without regard to chrono- 
 logical sequence. For the purpose of our narrative it does 
 not make much difference which is the case. Even if the 
 order is chronological, they cannot give us a connected 
 history, as they are far too fragmentary. 
 
 If we take the Sermon on the Mount as in any way repre- 
 senting our Lord's preaching, it is obvious that it must have 
 
 the subject is fully discussed. I would add here the definition which I 
 have suggested of a miracle (p. 33s): "A miracle means really the su- 
 premacy of the spiritual forces of the world to an extraordinarily marked 
 degree over the mere material." 
 
194 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 aroused criticism and opposition. There were throughout 
 all the towns and villages of Galilee scribes who were the 
 professional teachers of the law. They were attached to 
 the synagogues, they assisted in the administration of 
 justice, and were no doubt often engaged in teaching. Their 
 tendency would, no doubt, as professional lawyers, be 
 towards a strict and uninspiring insistence on the legal 
 elements of religion, and as the people of Galilee tended to 
 show a somewhat daring laxity in their views they would 
 often be in opposition to the more popular forms of religion. 
 Galilee, we must remember, had a bad reputation in 
 Jerusalem. The majority of the scribes were probably 
 attached to the party of the Pharisees, as the stricter sect, 
 and we have, indeed, a special reference to ''the scribes of 
 the Pharisees."' With the scribes would be associated such 
 local members as there were of the party of the Pharisees. 
 It may be doubted whether they were very numerous. But, 
 clearly, there were already in Galilee, on the one side, a 
 populace which would be very ready to hear teaching like 
 that of Jesus, on the other side an official class which 
 would resent it. Then, as the Ministry progressed, as the 
 fame of it became wider, Pharisees and others would come 
 down from Jerusalem, sent, perhaps, by the Sanhedrin 
 to report on and, if possible, repress this dangerous 
 movement. 
 
 The first instance that is given us of the beginnings of 
 criticism is at the healing of the paralytic. A great crowd 
 had assembled in and about the house, and among them 
 were some scribes, no doubt already present in a critical 
 spirit. The purpose of the assembly was to listen to the 
 teaching of Jesus. When the sick man was brought in 
 and Jesus said to him, "Thy sins are forgiven thee," it is 
 not wonderful that it aroused misgivings. "Why does 
 this man speak so? He is speaking blasphemy. Who can 
 forgive sins but God only?" The criticism was not un- 
 reasonable. Jesus was making claims which demanded 
 acceptance or rejection. An attitude of toleration was 
 hardly possible.^ 
 
 1 Mk. ii. I-I2. 
 
THE SABBATH 195 
 
 It is, however, often the smaller things which are more 
 likely to cause an open breach, and the violation by a 
 popular religious teacher of the customs of rehgion and the 
 rules of social exclusiveness was just what would create 
 bitterness. Not only did Jesus admit a member of the 
 hated publican class among His disciples, but He was quite 
 willing to enter his house and to sit at meat with a mixed 
 company of "pubHcans and sinners" — that is, probably 
 of lax Jews, and perhaps even Greeks — and he never 
 deviated from this custom.^ He was always prepared to 
 associate with Himself the outcast and the sinner. Some 
 of the women who followed Him were probably drawn from 
 the class of professional harlots, and in an incident recorded 
 by St. Luke the complaint is made against Him that He 
 allows a woman to minister to Himself without apparently 
 recognizing her character. No doubt all this unconventional 
 conduct seemed very shocking in a religious teacher. 
 
 There was another complaint. Why did not this man 
 who made such great religious pretensions impose on His 
 disciples any rule of fasting? All really religious people, 
 it was said, fasted; why did not they? Surely all this was 
 inconsistent with the claims that He made? ^ 
 
 But the most serious cause of difference was the question 
 of the Sabbath. This was just the point where the question 
 of the interpretation of the law touched practical life. 
 Much of the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount might be 
 irritating, but it was rather in the air. No real harm, it 
 might be said, could come from it. It was different with 
 the Sabbath. Here the most sacred prejudices of Judaism 
 were touched. There is always a tendency in a certain 
 type of religious mind towards a scrupulous strictness of 
 observance, and this in the case of the Jews had appeared 
 in its most rigid form in the regulations that had grown up 
 about the Sabbath. It was these customs that more than 
 anything else preserved the separation between Jew and 
 Gentile, and the mere fact of the inconvenience that it 
 might cause to a Jew living among the heathen, and the 
 great temptation that there would be to laxity, would 
 
 1 ML ii. 13-17. ^ Mk. ii. 18-22. 
 
 14 
 
196 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 increase the determination to be strict. In the Hellenizing 
 period before the Maccabaean revolt, one of the signs of 
 unfaithfulness was extreme laxity concerning the Sabbath, 
 and that will help us to understand the fanatical adherence 
 to what was supposed to be the law, which caused over 
 a thousand refugees to be massacred in a cave without 
 making any defence rather than be guilty of breaking the 
 Sabbath. This incident led to some modification of the 
 custom, but there were many other occasions in history 
 when the Jews allowed their strict adherence to religious 
 rule to hamper them in warfare. 
 
 But there were other directions in which an over-strict 
 rule caused an over-elaborateness of regulation. First of 
 all, a series of regulations were laid down as to what a man 
 might or might not do on the Sabbath. Then, when the 
 keeping of these rules was found to be impossible, there 
 was developed a curious system of casuistry, by which many 
 of them might be evaded. An essential part of the teaching 
 of Jesus was to reveal a spiritual religion in the place of a 
 formal one, and it was in relation to the Sabbath that the 
 clash came between what He and the Rabbis taught. He 
 would have nothing to do with all their strict rules and 
 all these shams and evasions. Here, as conspicuously as 
 anywhere, we have strong spiritual principles. The Sabbath 
 was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Is it 
 lawful to do good on the Sabbath Day, to save Hfe or to 
 kill? We may notice with interest that at the very begin- 
 ning of our Lord's ministry He had cast out an unclean 
 spirit on the Sabbath Day in the synagogue, and afterwards 
 had healed Peter's mother-in-law, and there had been no 
 criticism. People were so impressed by His authority 
 and the wonder of the cure that criticism had not begun. 
 But when the opposition grew up it was on this more than 
 anything else that it fastened itself, for here Jesus was in 
 constant opposition to the conventional religious life, and 
 it was here in all probabihty that the breach between Him 
 and the organized religion of the day became acute. 
 
 He entered into a synagogue according to His custom 
 on the Sabbath Day. We are not told the place, but it 
 was probably at Capernaum, for the centre of His teaching 
 
THE OPPOSITION GROWS 197 
 
 must have been always the centre of opposition to Him. 
 There was a man there with a withered hand. The whole 
 scene may have been prepared beforehand as a trap to 
 ensnare him, for there were Pharisees present on the look- 
 out. The opposition was apparent, but our Lord did not 
 shrink from the crisis. It was a clear case which exhibited 
 the different principles. Was it lawful to break the rule of 
 the Sabbath in order to do good? No real answer could be 
 given, so those who were determined to crush His teaching 
 remained silent. Jesus was grieved at the hardness of 
 their hearts and healed the man. 
 
 Events gradually reached a crisis, and a conspiracy was 
 formed between the strict Judaizers and the Herodians. 
 These supporters of the Herods were opposed to any 
 dangerous popular manifestation which might shake the 
 position of that dynasty. For such half-native rulers were 
 only tolerated by the Romans as the best means of keep- 
 ing order among a turbulent people. In particular, any 
 Messianic movement was dreaded by these courtiers. It 
 would not only cause disturbances, but it seemed to reflect 
 on the lawfulness of the Herodian rule. On the question at 
 issue between the Pharisees and Jesus they were probably 
 indifferent. But they were glad to have the support of 
 these earnest and fanatical people. So this unholy alliance 
 was formed. 
 
 It is perhaps the case that now began the separation of 
 Jesus from the synagogue.^ It is noticeable that after 
 this on only one occasion in St. Mark are we told of Jesus 
 preaching in the synagogue, and that was the incident at 
 Nazareth which may have been wrongly dated. Henceforth 
 for a time His addresses are to crowds in the open, on the 
 mountain slopes, or by the sea, or in some solitary place 
 to which He had retired. Whether He was definitely 
 expelled from the synagogue we do not know, but this open 
 breach would, in any case, create a public scandal. This 
 may have been the reason why those about Him (whoever 
 they were) tried to lay hold on Him, saying that He was 
 
 1 As Dr. Burkitt thinks {The Gospel History and its Transmission, 
 p. 80). 
 
iqS the galilaean ministry 
 
 mad.^ Another and even more significant fact is that on 
 the next occasion when we have any account of controversy, 
 it is scribes that have come down from Jerusalem that 
 take part in it.^ It is no longer a mere local question. 
 The authorities at Jerusalem are disturbed. They have 
 obviously sent down representatives to investigate and 
 check this dangerous teaching, and they do this by spread- 
 ing the accusation, no doubt a serious one in those days, that 
 Jesus was in league with evil spirits, that He worked, as 
 would have been said in the Middle Ages, by black magic. 
 It is obvious that the breach has become serious. 
 
 But as yet there was no check to His popularity. Crowds 
 come together from all parts to hear Him, so great that 
 while they throng about Him along the shores of the sea, 
 His disciples find it necessary to have a boat ready to enable 
 Him to escape from their importunities.^ 
 
 VI 
 
 This separation from the synagogue had an important 
 result. It meant the beginning of the organization of the 
 Christian Church. 
 
 In a sense, perhaps, the Church began at the moment 
 when our Lord attached to Himself the first disciple; from 
 another point of view, the Christian Church began after His 
 death, on the day of Pentecost; but the time when this 
 breach between Him and the representatives of official 
 Judaism in Galilee became acute may well be looked on 
 as the decisive point in the development. For what did it 
 mean? It meant that the Jewish people in their existing 
 organization would not accept Him. Crowds might come 
 to hear Him; the people might be full of expectation and 
 enthusiasm; but if He entered the synagogue there would 
 be no call upon Him to speak. It is probable that the 
 breach was not as yet final. We do not hear of any ex- 
 communication, or that He had been turned out of the 
 synagogue. Occasionally He might still have an oppor- 
 tunity of preaching there. But henceforth the national 
 organization was not at His disposal, and the nation as a 
 whole could not follow Him. 
 
 1 Mk. iii. 21. 2 -^i]^^ iii_ 22. 2 Mk. iv. i. 
 
THE DISCIPLES 199 
 
 From the beginning Jesus had attached disciples to 
 Himself. What discipleship meant beyond personal attach- 
 ment we have no certain knowledge. If the statement of 
 St. John be correct, He continued the custom of baptism 
 which He had inherited from the Baptist, and as we are 
 particularly told that He did not Himself baptize, but only 
 His disciples,^ the account has the element of probabiHty. 
 It is not likely that the custom which had begun with the 
 baptism of John should have been left off for a time and 
 then been resumed after our Lord's death. He Himself 
 had been baptized that He might fulfil all righteousness,^ 
 and if such was the estimation in which this new baptism 
 was held, it is not likely that it would have been suddenly 
 dropped. The reason that there is no reference to it other- 
 wise in the Gospel is that the Evangehsts had described 
 the beginning, and otherwise they did not further dwell 
 on what was normal. 
 
 What else was implied in discipleship we do not know. 
 Probably what was remarked at the time was the complete 
 absence of anything in the way of formal rule. An ordinary 
 rehgious teacher in the East would impose a rule — probably 
 a strict rule of hfe. The Essenes would be the most remark- 
 able example of this. John the Baptist seems to have had 
 some rules. It is most probable that Jesus imposed none. 
 It was a complaint against Him that His disciples did not 
 fast as did those of John the Baptist. It was not until 
 they asked Him that He gave them a prayer, and then one 
 remarkable for its shortness and its contrast to the vain 
 repetitions so often associated with religion. It is quite 
 probable that at an early period in the ministry there was 
 some form of common meal which was sacramental in 
 character from the first, and finally consecrated at the 
 Last Supper. But, fundamentally, there would be no rules. 
 His followers were being trained to worship the Father in 
 Spirit and in truth. 
 
 Apart from mere hearers there were soon many disciples 
 who followed Jesus.^ We are particularly told that there 
 were many of them, and that from the beginning some of 
 
 ^ Jn. iii. 22, iv. i. 2 Mt. iii. 15. ^ Mk. ii. 15. 
 
200 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 them were very closely attached to His person. But if the 
 sequence of events as given in St. Mark is correct, and it 
 has, indeed, all the signs of probability, it was just after 
 the breach with the stricter Jews that He took the definite 
 step of selecting the Twelve. The occasion seems to have 
 been the coming together of a great multitude from many 
 places and distant cities. It is probable that the presence 
 of this great body of strangers would make demands on 
 His care and forethought. Some, at any rate, would need 
 help and assistance. When this multitude was assembled 
 on the seashore Jesus went up to His place of retirement 
 on the mountain above the town. He summoned to Him 
 those whom He had chosen, and appointed the Twelve. 
 
 They are spoken of on one occasion as Apostles.^ That 
 was certainly the name that they bore later, but it is one 
 seldom used in the Gospel narrative. They are normally 
 called the disciples, being included in the general company, 
 and when the reference is to them particularly, the name 
 by which they are known is "the Twelve." The purpose 
 of their selection, as the name Apostle implies, is that 
 they might be sent out to preach; but it is probable that 
 the more important duty was that which is mentioned by 
 St. Mark, "that they might be with Him." These words 
 throw real light on the purpose of our Lord, and imply 
 that a definite stage has now been reached in the foundation 
 of the Church and the fulfilment of what Jesus designed to 
 accomplish. If His work was not to be carried out by the 
 national Jewish Church — and it had become plain that it 
 could not be — then other means must be found. Crowds 
 might come to Hear Him preach, or still more be attracted 
 by the fame of His miracles, but how could they help to 
 the fulfilment of His purpose? So far as they had any 
 expectations, they were looking forward, as will become 
 apparent later, to the restoration of the Kingdom of Israel. 
 How could the true teaching which Jesus had come to 
 bring to mankind be preserved and taught? There must 
 be a body of men trained to accomplish this, men who 
 would be always with Him, to whom He might entrust His 
 
 ^ Mk. vi. 30. The words "whom also he named Apostles" in iii. 14 
 are very doubtful. 
 
THE TWELVE 201 
 
 deepest teaching, who might learn much which the people 
 could not understand, who might carry on the message 
 when the Master was taken away. It is certainly significant 
 that henceforth we hear less of popular teaching, and more 
 of instruction of disciples. In a short time we shall find 
 Him taking a wide journey with them where many oppor- 
 tunities could be given for their private teaching, and very 
 soon He tells them: "To you is given the mystery of the 
 kingdom of God."^ 
 
 We have four lists altogether of the Apostles, and it is 
 somewhat remarkable that there should be variation not 
 only in the order, but in the actual names. This seems 
 clear evidence that some of them had but little importance 
 in the future history of Christianity. While the leaders 
 were in a real sense founders of the Church, the majority 
 are seldom mentioned in the Gospel narrative, and soon 
 were nothing but names. This seems a sufficient ground 
 for thinking that this list of the Twelve is authentic. If, 
 as some have suggested, the list had been drawn up at a 
 later date without any sound tradition, names would have 
 been inserted which were known in later history. For the 
 same reason also we may believe that the choice of Matthias 
 described in the Acts was historical. Had the event been 
 imagined at a later date, a name would have been selected 
 which was not entirely insignificant. 
 
 The list of these Apostles is, in all our sources,' divided 
 into three groups of four each. To the first group belong 
 the best known names. At the head in every list stands 
 Simon Barjonas. His designation of "First" impHes that 
 he was looked upon as the chief and leader of the Apostolic 
 band, a position which the narratives of the Gospel and 
 Acts alike support. Either now, or perhaps earlier, he had 
 received the name of Cephas, but the Gospels, influenced 
 by his subsequent fame, know him best by the Greek form 
 of it, Peter. It was necessary to distinguish him from 
 other Simons, as the name was common, and Jesus had 
 clearly selected him as the one on whose faith and en- 
 thusiasm He would found the Church. He had been one 
 
 ^ Mk. iv. II. On this subject see Latham, Pastor Paslorum. 
 
202 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 of the disciples of the Baptist. In those early days he had 
 already become attached to Jesus, and if the conjecture we 
 have ventured on be true it was to seek him that Jesus 
 came to Capernaum. He had an impulsive, generous nature, 
 but there was a curious strain of weakness in his character. 
 He eagerly steps forward on the waters, but his faith fails 
 him when he begins to sink. Yet there was always a loving 
 hand ready to save him; and his impulsive enthusiasm was 
 just what was wanted to give men a lead. If he once 
 started others would follow, and some who were a little 
 hesitating at the beginning might show themselves a little 
 firmer when the test came. So, in spite of his faults he is 
 the rock on which the Church is founded, and at the end 
 of an adventurous life in which he played a part greater, 
 perhaps, than he understood, in spite (if legend may be 
 believed) of one characteristic shrinking, he crowned his 
 life by a martyr's death in the imperial city and gave his 
 name to the proudest monarchy of the world. 
 
 His brother Andrew never played any such part, but if 
 the story in St. John's Gospel may be trusted, he has one 
 great title to fame. He it was who came first to Jesus, 
 and he it was who brought Peter to Him. There are many 
 men who have performed on,e essential act in their lives and 
 have then been content to play a secondary part. 
 
 The two brothers James and John, the sons of Zebedee, 
 were very different characters. It has already been pointed 
 out that possibly they were cousins of Jesus, their mother 
 Salome being the sister of the Virgin. They had also been 
 disciples of the Baptist, and they, with Peter and Andrew, 
 were the first called. With Peter they formed the inner 
 circle of the Apostles, and were on all special occasions the 
 chosen companions of their Master; they were present at 
 the Transfiguration and at the agony in the Garden. The 
 two brothers were named Boanerges, which is interpreted 
 for us as "the sons of thunder."^ It seems fairly certain 
 that there is some corruption in the text, but the interpreta- 
 tion need not be a mistake. There was something fierce in 
 the enthusiasm of these two sons of Zebedee. They were too 
 eager for the reputation of their Master, and too eager for 
 
 1 Mk. iii. 17. 
 
THE TWELVE 203 
 
 their own positions in relation to Him. They would call 
 down fire from heaven on the churHsh Samaritan village, 
 and received a stern rebuke.^ They would seek for them- 
 selves a too prominent place in the Messianic kingdom, and 
 learnt another hard lesson.^ But their fault was but the 
 over-eagerness of a too warm affection and an over-zealous 
 loyalty, and they, too, received the due reward of their 
 faith. James was the first of the Apostles to follow in the 
 steps of his Master and lay down his Hfe. But what of 
 John? Did he, too, perish early, as some would hold, or 
 was the son of Zebedee the disciple whom Jesus loved, 
 who in after years, an old man in distant lands, told, on 
 the shores of the Aegean, the last stories of the wonderful 
 days by the Sea of Gahlee? 
 
 The second group was headed by Philip, a native of 
 Bethsaida, a disciple of the Baptist, the bearer of a Greek 
 name. The most interesting of the personal memories of him, 
 which we find in the fourth Gospel, makes him the agent 
 through whom the Greeks desired to come to Jesus. Does 
 that imply not only a Greek name, but a Greek origin? 
 And did he also become one of the wanderers from Palestine 
 who ended their days in Asia? Or was this a confusion 
 with the Philip who was one of the Seven? 
 
 With Philip is always associated Bartholomew. The 
 name is a patronymic, the son of Tolmai, and no doubt he 
 had also a personal name. Again a problem arises. May 
 we identify him, as has often been done, with that Na- 
 thanael, "the Israelite in whom was no guile," who had been 
 one of the followers of the Baptist and whose call the fourth 
 Gospel brings into close connection with Philip? 
 
 The next pair were Matthew and Thomas. Matthew 
 was identified by the author of the first Gospel with that 
 Levi, the son of Alphaeus, who had been a tax-gatherer.^ 
 There is nothing else to support the identification, which 
 may naturally cause some questioning. Was it the result 
 of the association of his name with that Gospel? And does 
 it embody any early tradition? Thomas bore the Greek 
 name of Didymus or the twin, the Apostle who was ready 
 ' Lk. ix. 54. 2 ]yj]^ ^ 25. 
 
 * Mk. ii. 14; Lk. v. 27; Mt. ix. 9, 
 
204 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 to go to Bethany to die with his Master, who doubted and 
 confirmed the Resurrection. 
 
 At the head of the third group came James, the son of 
 Alpheus, hardly to be identified with any other James, but 
 perhaps the brother of the pubUcan Levi.^ With him was 
 Thaddaeus, of whom nothing is known, for whom St. Luke 
 substituted, probably by a doubtful identification, Judas 
 the son of James.^ More interest attaches to Simon the 
 Zealot, whose designation tells us that he was a Hnk between 
 the disciples of Jesus and that fourth sect of the Jews (as 
 it is called by Josephus), the followers of Judas of Galilee, 
 who represented national aspirations in their most extreme 
 form. Last of all came Judas, called Iscariot; possibly 
 the name means the man of Kerioth in Judaea, in which 
 case he would be the only Judaean member of the band. 
 He was the betrayer. 
 
 The fist of the Apostles contains the names of a few men 
 well known in Gospel tradition and in history, of others 
 almost unknown. Its nucleus was formed by a body of 
 fishermen from the Sea of Galilee, who were the first called, 
 the most faithful, and the most conspicuous. Some of the 
 Apostles had Greek names, and may have been of Greek 
 origin. One had perhaps belonged to the hated class of 
 tax-gatherers; one had taken part in the wildest nationalist 
 movement of the times. Most of them were not men of 
 any distinction, but all, with one exception, were, so far 
 as we know, loyal and faithful followers of their Master 
 during His early hfe, and after His death in the early 
 days bore their part in recording His Hfe and teaching and 
 in organizing the kingdom which was called after His 
 name. 
 
 With these disciples there was associated a body of women 
 who were the companions on some occasions of His wander- 
 ings and ministered to Him of their substance. St. Mark 
 tells us that there were present at the crucifixion Mary 
 Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James the Little and of 
 Joses, and Salome, who when He was in Galilee followed Him 
 
 1 Since "son of Alpheus," in Mk, ii. 14, iii- 18, is most naturally inter- 
 preted as referring to the same Alpheus. 
 
 2 Lk. vi. 16; Acts i. 13. 
 
MARY MAGDALENE 205 
 
 and ministered to Him.^ St. Luke tells us that He was 
 accompanied by certain women who had been healed from 
 evil spirits and sickness — Mary, called the Magdalene, from 
 whom went forth seven devils; and Joanna, the wife of 
 Chuza, Herod's steward; and Susanna, and many others. 
 "These ministered to Him of their substance.""^ 
 
 Of these the most famous was Mary Magdalene. She 
 came from Magdala, a rich town in the plain of Gennesa- 
 reth, of evil reputation, and the Christian Church has al- 
 ways held that she had been rescued from a life of sin, 
 Salome was the wife of Zebedee and probably the sister of 
 the Virgin. Mary, the mother of James the Less and of 
 Joses, was the wife of Cleopas, the brother of Joseph.^ The 
 mention by St. Luke of Joanna, who was the wife of an offi- 
 cial in Herod's court, is interesting, for it is among the 
 characteristics of St. Luke's writings that he seems to have 
 a certain amount of knowledge of the Herodian court. She 
 was one who attended the Lord to the end.^ Of Susanna we 
 know nothing further. 
 
 Some of these women were, no doubt, persons of sub- 
 stance, as may no doubt also have been some of the Twelve. 
 Whether there were other men besides the Twelve who were 
 at this time associated in any close intimacy with Jesus 
 we do not know. The whole company lived, it seems, a 
 communistic life. They had a common purse which was 
 entrusted to Judas Iscariot, who showed himself, we are 
 told, unworthy of the trust.^ They formed a Httle flock 
 who accompanied Jesus in His wanderings and became the 
 depositaries of His teaching. 
 
 The first appointment of the Twelve was followed by a 
 period of preaching and teaching to the crowds who had 
 come to hear this new Prophet. But a time came when, 
 either wearied with the effort and desiring soKtude, or 
 perhaps wishing to carry His message further, Jesus crossed 
 the Sea of Gahlee and landed at a place called Gerasa or 
 Gergesa on the opposite coast.^ The result does not seem 
 to have been satisfactory. Later came another and perhaps 
 
 * Mk. XV. 40, 41. ^ Lk. viii. 2, 3. 
 
 * This conjecture comes by combining Mk. xv. 40 with Jn. xix. 25. 
 
 * Lk. xxiv. 10. ^ Jn. xii. 6. ^ Mk. v. i. 
 
2o6 THE GALILAEAN MINISTRY 
 
 a longer tour through GaHlee. It included an unsuccessful 
 visit to His own home, Nazareth.^ This tour occupied some 
 time, and was followed by a further extension of the work 
 of preaching. The Twelve had now been with Him some 
 considerable time. They had learnt something of the 
 mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, and now they are sent 
 forth two and two to carry their message from village to 
 village.^ This mission of the Twelve marks the close of 
 the Galilaean ministry, for events were happening which 
 brought to an end the first stage of our Lord's work. 
 
 How long this GaHlaean ministry continued- we have no 
 certain means of knowing. There are no definite indications 
 of time, and it is as uncertain as is the whole length of our 
 Lord's ministry. One thing seems to me clear. We must 
 not unduly shorten it. It included at least two tours of 
 some length through Galilee, it had seen the growth of a 
 considerable measure of popularity and the development of 
 a strong opposition, it had seen the organization of an embryo 
 Church. A period of two years would certainly not be too 
 great. 
 
 1 Mk. vi. I. * Mk. vi. 7. 
 
J 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 The Gospel of St. Mark impresses upon us the fact that 
 the most important work of Jesus was His teaching. It 
 was that, above all things, and probably more than His 
 miracles, which attracted attention. ''They were astonished 
 at his teaching." "Let us go to the villages round about 
 that I may preach there, for for this purpose I came forth." 
 Before the miracle of the five thousand we are told that 
 "he began to teach them many things." Later, again, 
 towards the close of the ministry, it is said: "And as he 
 was accustomed he again taught them."^ 
 
 But though from St. Mark we gather that the ministry 
 of Jesus was a teaching ministry, about the teaching itself 
 he tells us Httle. He gives us only fragmentary specimens. 
 There is no attempt to present the message in at all a 
 systematic form. The reason for this was most probably 
 that other documents were in existence which contained 
 this teaching, and that the main purpose of the second 
 Gospel was to describe His life and works. At any rate, 
 this is what it does. This deficiency in St. Mark is made 
 up by St. Matthew, who in the "Sermon on the Mount"^ 
 gives us a carefully arranged account of the teaching of 
 Jesus, and supplements it by other long discourses. 
 
 There are certain preliminary questions to which we 
 should like an answer. How far is the sermon as we have 
 it due to the compiler, and how far does it come from 
 earher sources? Does it represent an actual sermon spoken 
 by our Lord on some pre-eminent occasion? Or is it only 
 a compilation of His sayings? If it represents an actual 
 
 ^ Mk. i. 22, 38; vi. 34; X. I. 
 
 2 St. Matthew, chapters v.-vii. The sermon in St. Luke is in chap. vi. 
 20-49. There is a very large literature on the subject. In Hastings' Dic- 
 tionary of the Bible, Extra Volume, there is a convenient summary which 
 gives references to all the more important works. 
 
 207 
 
2o8 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 sermon, at what time and on what occasion was it dehvered? 
 If not, how far may it be looked upon as an actual repre- 
 sentation of His teaching? 
 
 Besides the sermon in St. Matthew there is a similar one 
 in St. Luke, sometimes called the "Sermon on the Plain," 
 as it is stated to have been preached there. A considerable 
 part of it seems to cover the same ground as does St. 
 Matthew, but it is far shorter. There is sufficient resem- 
 blance to show that for a large amount of it there must be 
 a common source. It is not only that there is identity of 
 subject-matter, there is also identity of order. But which 
 represents the original form? In St. Matthew's sermon 
 there are 107 verses, of these 58 have parallels in St. Luke, 
 but only 26 in the sermon; the remaining 32 are in other 
 chapters and in different contexts. In St. Luke's sermon 
 there are about 8 verses which do not occur in St, Matthew, 
 there are 4 verses common to St. Mark, and a few which 
 are also reported in other places in St. Matthew's Gospel. 
 
 If we take St. Matthew's sermon by itself we may look 
 upon it as a new law: it was to take the place of the old 
 law delivered on Mount Sinai, and for that reason it was 
 placed at the beginning of the Gospel. As when the law 
 was made on Ebal and Gerizim there were the blessings 
 and the curses, so we have the Beatitudes, and there were 
 also, in one form of the tradition, the woes. Then comes 
 the relation of the Old Law and the New Law, and the 
 character of the New Law is put before us in a series of 
 illustrations. Then comes the New Worship, in its three- 
 fold division of Almsgiving, Prayer, and Fasting. From 
 this we pass on to the fundamental characteristics of the 
 New Life. It is a life which concerns itself with things 
 eternal, and not with the things of this world. The new 
 life also has its rules for our conduct. Then there is an 
 appeal to Hve this higher life; and the sermon ends with 
 the contrast between the Hfe founded on the rock, the words 
 of Jesus, and the life founded on the shifting sands of 
 worldhness. St. Matthew gives us a well-arranged account 
 of the ethical teaching of Jesus. 
 
 But is this the earliest form of the document which we 
 can arrive at? We know from other instances that it was 
 
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 209 
 
 St. Matthew's habit to collect together words of our Lord 
 from different sources and belonging to different occasions 
 and to arrange them according to their subject-matter. 
 
 This might lead us to think that the sermon as he gives it 
 was mainly due to his editorial skill, but there are reasons 
 which might make us modify this conclusion. A consider- 
 able portion of the sermon of St. Matthew which is omitted 
 by St. Luke dealt with a subject which was of vital interest 
 in the time of our Lord and to the Jewish Church, but had 
 little concern for the Gentile Christians for whom St. Luke 
 wrote. It might be held, therefore, that he omits them 
 for that reason. Moreover, the sermon as we have it in 
 St. Luke reads very much like a Summary in which only 
 the most striking passages have been preserved. On the 
 other hand, it is difficult to see why, if St. Luke had before 
 him in a connected form all the verses which he gives in 
 other contexts, he should have taken the trouble to arrange 
 them differently and remove them from the contexts in 
 which the sermon gave them. 
 
 There is some reason, then, for thinking that the two 
 writers had a source before them in w^hich a considerable 
 part, but not the whole, of the sermon was contained in 
 a connected form. What were its limits must be, however, 
 so much a matter of conjecture that it is hardly worth 
 while to attempt to solve the problem. If we examine the 
 various reconstructions that have been attempted, we shall 
 find in them the differences which always must arise in 
 dealing with the history of documents where so much of 
 the evidence is internal and subjective. 
 
 But was this original sermon a compilation, or did it 
 go back to an actual sermon of our Lord? Again we must 
 be content with considerable incertitude. Jesus preached 
 many times. The same teaching must have been given 
 on many occasions, to many audiences, in language some- 
 times the same, sometimes different. A single discourse 
 intended as a great pronouncement would not have been 
 consistent with what we can surmise of His methods. He 
 did not, as we shall see, begin by making claims about His 
 person. He gradually led 'His disciples on so that they 
 might arrive at their own conclusions. So in the new 
 
2IO THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 teaching. We should not expect a great and startling 
 pronouncement, or a systematic exposition. We should 
 expect Him by parable, by proverb, by epigram, by taking 
 advantage of any incident that occurred or any question 
 that was asked, gradually to lead men on to these new 
 ^ conceptions. His teaching, therefore, seems to have been 
 \ preserved originally in fragments, in short sayings, in 
 characteristic remarks, often repeated, easily impressed upon 
 the memory; sometimes (it might seem) contradictory to 
 one another. Gradually He would, by His words and acts, 
 make an impression. Gradually what He said would appear 
 as having definite principles and systematic ideas behind it, 
 but the systematic exposition of philosophic teaching is 
 often the work of the chronicler and the compilgrj_ It has 
 been done very well for us by the author of the first 
 Gospel, assisted as he was by the source that he used, and 
 we shall not make a mistake in following his guidance. 
 Jesus was an ethical teacher, but He did not produce 
 a system of ethics any more than Socrates a system of 
 philosophy. 
 
 I have grave doubt, therefore, whether we can look on 
 the sermon as we have it either in St. Matthew or St. Luke 
 as a discourse delivered in this form. But, on the other 
 hand, we need have no doubt that the substance of the 
 teaching is original, or that St. Matthew gives us a correct 
 impression of the teaching by his systematic arrangement. 
 The combined testimony of the first and third Gospels 
 tells us that for the great body of it we have an early 
 source. There are parallels to some passages in St. Mark, 
 and the amount of variation which exists between the 
 different traditions is so small as to be nearly negligible. 
 But more than that, there are abundant parallels to the 
 subject-matter of the teaching in our Lord's words, as 
 reported elsewhere in these two Gospels and in St. Mark. 
 The tradition, too, of Christian teaching preserved in 
 St. John's Gospel and in St. Paul's writings harmonizes 
 with it. There is, in fact, no reason for thinking that we 
 have not a quite authentic tradition of the ethical teaching 
 of Jesus. The variations in the tradition are neither 
 considerable nor important. 
 
THE BEATITUDES 211 
 
 If these conclusions be correct, there is no occasion for 
 the final question, When was the sermon delivered? Both 
 Evangelists find occasions for it in connection with incidents 
 recorded in St. Mark. St. Matthew connects it with a 
 great influx of disciples from all parts, but transfers it to 
 the beginning of the ministry. He wishes to introduce the 
 account of our Lord's life by a summary of His teaching. 
 St. Luke connects it with the call of the Twelve. No doubt 
 on both these occasions our Lord gave much teaching; 
 probably He said many of the things that we have in these 
 sermons; but there is no certainty that these actual dis- 
 courses, as we have them, were connected with these 
 particular occasions. It will be most useful for our purpose 
 if, following the example of St. Matthew, we arrange in a 
 way suited to the point of view of the present day, the 
 great principles of our Lord's teaching. 
 
 WTien the law was proclaimed on the mountains of Ebal 
 and Gerizim, blessings were promised to all those who 
 hearkened to the voice of the Lord, the blessing of a pros- 
 perous and successful life: 
 
 "Blessed shalt thou be in the city and blessed shalt thou 
 be in the field. 
 
 "Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit 
 of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle. 
 
 "Blessed shall be thy basket and thy kneading trough. 
 
 "Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in and when 
 thou goest out."^ 
 
 The new law also begins with a promise of blessing, but 
 to those who had been brought up in the temporal aspira- 
 tions of the old law or under the shadow of the material 
 Graeco-Roman civilization, how startling must have seemed 
 the contrast! 
 
 " Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of 
 heaven. 
 
 * Deut. xxviii. 2-6. 
 
 IS 
 
212 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be com- 
 forted. 
 
 "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. 
 
 "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteous- 
 ness, for they shall be filled. 
 
 "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. 
 
 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 
 
 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called 
 the children of God. 
 
 "Blessed are they that are persecuted, for righteousness' 
 sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."^ 
 
 What is the idea that these words imply? Who are the 
 poor to whom belongs the kingdom of heaven? 
 
 It may be remarked with interest, and its significance 
 will be shortly apparent, how much in these Beatitudes is 
 directly drawn from the Old Testament. That is in a 
 marked way true of the leading conception. "The poor" 
 had become a recognized name for the pious and devout.^ 
 It is a regular refrain of the Psalms, that God for- 
 getteth not the cry of the poor. "Arise, O Lord; O God 
 Hft up thine hand; forget not the poor."^ The poor, "the 
 Lord is his refuge."^ "Turn thou unto me and have 
 mercy upon me, for I am destitute and in misery."^ "I 
 am poor and needy, yet the Lord careth for me!"^ In 
 contrast to this it is the wicked and the proud who spoil 
 the poor. "He doth ravish the poor when he getteth 
 
 ' Mt. V. 3-10; Lk. vi. 20-22. 
 
 2 I owe the following note to Dr. Burney: " 'Poor in spirit' is not at 
 all what we mean by 'poor-spirited.' There are two expressions, like each 
 other in form and nearly related in meaning, which frequently occur to- 
 gether in O.T. One of these is usually translated 'meek' and the other 
 'poor'; but a more correct rendering would be 'humble' (before God), 
 and 'humbled' (by external circumstances — e.g., the persecutions of the 
 godless). The phrase in the Gospel denotes those who are 'humbled' 
 because they are 'humble' (towards God) — i.e., because for religious mo- 
 tives (their attitude towards God) they refuse to take steps to avenge them- 
 selves or assert their rights. The best commentary on the two expressions 
 is to be found in i Peter ii. 23, 'who, when he was reviled, reviled not 
 again; when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to him 
 that judgeth righteously.' This is the true Christian spirit." 
 
 3 Ps. X. 12. ■* Ps. xiv. 6. 
 5 Ps. XXV. 16. * Ps. xl. 17. 
 
THE POOR 213 
 
 him into his net,"^ It is the proud particularly whom the 
 Lord abhorreth. 
 
 The reasons for this usage go back to the days after the 
 exile. While the rich aristocracy of the temple always 
 tended towards latitudinarianism, if not to actual disloyalty 
 to their faith, there grew up a body of Jews for the most 
 part, no doubt, actually poor and socially inferior, who 
 were devoted to the law and religion of Israel. They were 
 in a humble position. They were subject, no' doubt, to a 
 great deal of contempt. A time came when, under Hellen- 
 istic rule, they were bitterly persecuted. But their deHght 
 was in the law of the Lord: they were eager to fulfil the 
 will of God, and they put spiritual above material aims. 
 As the Chasidim they were a devoted if difficult body of 
 men at the time of the Maccabees. From them sprang the 
 Ph nji ri f^f^ s wbO; wh p n th e }'- nrgnired nnthnrit}" and position, 
 hpcn^p thfmselves the j^roud. But their representatives 
 had always remained in Israel, men who preferred piety to 
 wealth or honour or power. 
 
 It was these that our Lord described as "the Blessed," 
 the men who cared for heavenly riches and not for earthly, 
 who were often poor in earthly things, and always poor in 
 thinking little of wealth, who*were humble, who hungered 
 after righteousness, who were sincere in their heart, merciful 
 in their judgment and disposition, who were prepared to 
 endure any form of persecution for the sake of what they 
 held to be righteousness; and it was these who would 
 ultimately attain the promises, the blessedness of a life 
 lived in harmony with God, the acquisition of righteousness, 
 which is the greatest of all possessions, mercy in God's 
 judgment, the inheritance of the earth, and the kingdom 
 of heaven. 
 
 There is in these promises a curious and interesting 
 mixture of the spiritual and earthly, and often the language 
 is ambiguous. No doubt by many our Lord's words were 
 taken in a simple way. The poor, the wretched, the hungry, 
 the persecuted would soon find their condition changed. 
 The Messianic kingdom would shortly be established. In 
 that kingdom it was they who would be rich and prosperous 
 
 ^ Ps. X. Q. 
 
214 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 and become the chief men of the earth. Some expected 
 all these things; and it was true that Jesus cared for the 
 poor and needy, and had compassion on all infirmity. We 
 shall often come on such misinterpretations, and this was 
 the reason why, at a great crisis of His ministry, when it 
 became apparent that this was not what He was going to 
 accomplish, many forsook Him. But that was not the 
 main thought of Jesus. His conceptions were very different. 
 He was thinking of the blessedness of the spiritually-minded, 
 and the blessings were to be spiritual. To them was the 
 kingdom and the inheritance, but that meant that all their 
 spiritual longings would be satisfied, that they would be 
 the sons of God, and would attain the beatific vision of the 
 sight of God. 
 
 We have already compared the ideal with that of the 
 Old Testament. We might illustrate it also by the contrast 
 that it affords to the ecclesiastical ideal which grew up in 
 the Christian Church. From the Acts of Paul and Thecla, 
 an apocryphal story which dates probably from the end 
 of the second century, we learn how it was thought neces- 
 sary to rewrite the Beatitudes and thus make up for the de- 
 ficiencies of the Gospel. 
 
 When Paul, we are told, entered into the house of Onesi- 
 phorus there was great joy and bending of the knees and 
 a breaking of bread and a word of God on asceticism and 
 resurrection, and Paul said: 
 
 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see 
 God. 
 
 "Blessed are they that have preserved their flesh pure, 
 for they shall become the temple of God. 
 
 "Blessed are the ascetics, for to them God will speak. 
 
 "Blessed are they that have resigned the world, for they 
 shall forthwith be called. 
 
 "Blessed are they that have wives as though they had 
 none, for they shall inherit God. 
 
 "Blessed are they that have fear of God, for they shall 
 become Angels of God. 
 
 "Blessed are they that have preserved their baptism, for 
 they shall rest in the Father and the Son. 
 
 "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy 
 and shall not see bitterness in the day of judgment. 
 
THE NEW LAW AND THE OLD 215 
 
 ''Blessed are the bodies of the virgins, for they are well 
 pleasing to God and shall not lose the reward of their 
 chastity."^ 
 
 The contrast between the apocryphal and the genuine 
 tradition is most illuminating. This later interpretation 
 introduces imperfect ideals, quite inconsistent with the 
 universality, the comprehensiveness, and spiritual elevation 
 of the words of Jesus. 
 
 II 
 
 If our Lord's message was so startling in its novelty, 
 what was to be its relation to the existing order of things? 
 He recognized that His message was something new. He 
 describes it as new wine. It could not be put into old 
 bottles. The new wine would burst the old wine skins. 
 There must be new bottles for the new wine of the Gospel. 
 You cannot mend the rent in the old garment by sewing 
 in a piece of strong new cloth. If you do the old cloth will 
 be torn even more. New garments will be necessary.^ Such 
 metaphors imply that Jesus contemplated as the result of 
 His teaching a new order of things. The old order was 
 passing away. 
 
 Teaching such as His was bound, indeed, to stir up all 
 sorts of questionings. Practically the great difficulty arose, 
 as we have seen, on the question of the Sabbath. Here 
 was something which touched the customs of ordinary life 
 and the most cherished prejudices of Judaism; but if iso- 
 lated as a practical illustration, it was really only the result 
 of the normal teaching of Jesus. The question must in- 
 evitably arise. What was His relation to the law? The 
 law, it was held, was the greatest thing in the world. It 
 had been dehvered to mankind by God Himself through 
 the medium of angels. Some of the Rabbis had said that 
 the world was created that the law might be kept. The 
 law, it was believed, was obeyed in heaven as well as on 
 earth, and the heavenly conclave waited impatiently to 
 know the judgment of the Rabbis on the problems before 
 
 1 Ada Paiili et Theclae, 5, 6; in Tischendorf, Acta Apostolorum Apoc- 
 rypha, p. 42. 
 
 2 Mk. ii. 21, 22. 
 
2i6 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 them.^ If that were so, if the law was holy and just and 
 good, how could it ever come to an end? The will of God 
 must be eternal. How, then, if the teaching of Jesus con- 
 flicted with it, could that teaching be (as He claimed) 
 divine? 
 
 No doubt questions like this often arose, and St. Matthew 
 has selected for us various and apparently conflicting 
 sayings on the subject. Jesus said: "I am not come to 
 destroy but to fulfil." He said: "No jot or tittle of the 
 law shall pass away until all be fulfilled." He said: "Except 
 your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the 
 scribes and Pharisees, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven."^ 
 
 Our critics would suggest to us that sayings such as these 
 represent the later controversies of the Church. Clearly 
 the same person could not say such contradictory things. 
 Some of them came from those who thought that the whole 
 law should continue to be kept, some of them came from 
 the Pauline party. Clearly they are inconsistent with one 
 another. 
 
 But another point of view is possible. If there were two 
 such distinct parties in the Church, does it not suggest that 
 both of them alike might have reason for claiming that 
 they represented the real tradition and had genuine sayings 
 of Jesus on which they supported their claims? Did He 
 not often put His teaching in u form which was puzzling, 
 even contradictory? His clear, incisive statements were 
 often almost paradoxical. How could both of these parties 
 feel that they were loyal to their Master, if they had not 
 words of His to which they could appeal? 
 
 And when we understand His teaching, we shall find 
 that it reflects both these points of view. We shall not 
 understand it, unless we realize that it was just the whole 
 of the Old Testament that He claimed to fulfil. It was 
 owing to this completeness that there were large elements 
 in His teaching to which there were no parallels in current 
 Judaism. The Scriptures as a whole had a meaning to 
 
 ^ On the authority of the law, see Die Lehren des Talmud, by Ferdinand 
 Weber (Leipzig, 1880), chap. viii. 
 ^ Mt. V. 17-20. 
 
THE NEW LAW AND THE OLD 217 
 
 Him. But this meaning was not the conventional one, 
 neither was it anything fanciful or allegorical. It was a 
 deep spiritual principle that underlay and inspired the 
 partial manifestations of the old law. It was the new law 
 and the new covenant and the spirit which Ezekiel looked" 
 on as a sign of the Messianic times. So He said that He 
 had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it; He said 
 that no point of the law should pass away, but yet that He 
 came to give a teaching which would make it obsolete, a 
 righteousness greater than anything which scribe or Pharisee 
 had found in it. There was a permanent and a spiritual 
 element in the law, and that He preserved, but it might 
 mean the passing away of much that was temporary. 
 
 It is this that the Sermon on the Mount makes us realize. 
 The author of the First Gospel has collected together for us 
 from various sources illustrations of the way in which the 
 new teaching comprehended but superseded the old. Some 
 of these illustrations we have in other accounts of our Lord's 
 teaching, such as His method of dealing with the law of 
 divorce and marriage, and they are all consistent illustra- 
 tions of one principle. They are introduced by the words: 
 "Ye have heard that it was said to men of old time, but 
 I say unto you," which imply that Jesus was dehberately 
 and consciously giving a new law to expand the old, or 
 rather, as will become clear, substituting Hfe for law. 
 
 When we come to examine these instances, we see that 
 they lead us up to certain profound ethical principles. The 
 old law was a system of rule, admirable in character as 
 rules go, but with all the hmitations of such a system. The 
 new law was one of principles. The old law forbade murder; 
 the new law forbade angry thoughts. The old law forbade 
 adultery; the new law forbade evil thoughts. If we banish 
 all our evil and impure thoughts, the evil actions which 
 arise from them will be impossible. 
 
 But we can advance further. The old law was negative. 
 Its maxim was "Thou shalt not." The new law is positive. 
 The old law said "Thou shalt not kill," the new law says 
 "Thou shalt love." The old law distinguishes between 
 those who have done good to you and those who have done 
 evil. To each was due his fitting recompense. It was a 
 
2i8 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 law of retaliation. The new law tells us that all mankind 
 are to be the subject of our affection. 
 
 "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy 
 neighbour and shall hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, 
 Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; 
 that ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven; 
 for he maketh the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and 
 sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. If ye love them 
 which love you, where is the merit? the publicans also love 
 them; and if ye do good to those which do good to you, 
 where is the merit? even the Gentiles do the same."^ 
 
 So we are brought to the great Christian precept of love. 
 It was clearly a fundamental part of our Lord's teaching. 
 In St. Mark's Gospel we are told how a scribe asked which 
 was the first commandment. It is significant that the 
 answer is given in the words of the Old Testament Scriptures. 
 The first commandment was "Hear, O Israel, the Lord 
 our God is one God," and "Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
 God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all 
 thy mind and with all thy strength." The second was, 
 "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."^ To this 
 St. Luke appends a parable, which probably formed one of 
 those which he had collected to illustrate the universal 
 humanity of Jesus, and is of particular interest to us in 
 this connection. The scribe, anxious to justify himself, 
 asked. Who is my neighbour? a very apposite question. 
 There follows the story of the good Samaritan, the particular 
 point of which was that the Samaritan, the enemy by race 
 and religion, exhibited just the compassion and love towards 
 a man in difficulties which the priest and Levite failed to 
 show, and that thus we might learn that the obligations 
 of Christian charity transcend race and creed.^ 
 
 The essence of our Lord's teaching is that all command- 
 ments may be summed up in the one commandment of love. 
 If you have the right feelings towards other men, you 
 inevitably abstain from all those wrongs, murder, theft, 
 adultery, slander, which in the old order were forbidden 
 by specific enactments. Now it is of deep significance that 
 here, as almost always, our Lord draws His teaching from 
 
 ^ Mt. V. 43-47. ^ Mk. xii. 28-34. ' Lk. x. 26-37. 
 
THE LAW OF LOVE 219 
 
 the Old Testament. It is certainly remarkable that there 
 should be found in it, only waiting to be discovered and 
 drawn forth and placed in its proper proportion, the more 
 spiritual rehgion which we call Christianity, and, we might 
 add, it is equally impressive with what unerring touch our 
 Lord extracts just those spiritual principles. But the 
 Hmits within which the rule of loving your neighbour should 
 prevail were either not fixed or fixed only in a narrow way 
 in the Old Testament. Its teaching imposed spiritual and 
 humanitarian rights and ' duties within the Hmits of the 
 Jewish nation. There was indeed the broader element on 
 which Jesus built up the teaching of Christianity, but the 
 natural deduction from its language was that which bid 
 you hate your enemies, and that was the deduction which 
 the Jewish commentators arrived at. 
 
 That teaching is summed up by the great Talmudic 
 scholar, Lightfoot, as follows: 
 
 "Here those poysonous Canons might be produced 
 whereby they are trained up in eternal hatred against the 
 Gentiles, and against Israelites themselves who do not in 
 every respect walk with them in the same traditions and 
 rites. Let this one example be instead of very many 
 which are to be met with everywhere. 'The heretical 
 Israehtes, that is they of Israel, that worship idols, or 
 who transgress to provoke God: also Epicurean Israehtes, 
 that is Israelites who deny the Law and the Prophets 
 are by precept to be slain, if any can slay them and that 
 openly; but if not openly you may compass their death 
 secretly and by subtlety.' And a Httle after (O! ye ex- 
 treme charity of the Jews towards the Gentiles): 'But as 
 to the Gentiles with whom we have no war, and likewise 
 to the shepherds of smaller cattel and others of that sort, 
 they do not so plot their death, but it is forbidden them to 
 dehver them from death, if they are in danger of it.' For 
 instance, 'a Jew sees one of them fallen into the sea,' let 
 him by no means let him out thence: for it is written. Thou 
 shalt not rise up against the blood .pf thy neighbour: but 
 this is not thy neighbour.' And further: 'An Israelite who 
 alone sees another Israel i^te transgressing, and admonisheth 
 him, if he repent not, is bound to hate him.'"^ 
 
 ^ Lightfoot, Works (London, 1684), vol. ii., p. 152, quoting Maimonides. 
 
220 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 The Old Testament contained, then, the germs and 
 principles of the New, but it did not teach them, and this 
 may be our answer to the question as to the originality of 
 our Lord's teaching. Parallels with it have been extracted 
 from many and varied sources, from the Rabbinical writings, 
 from Greek and Roman moralists, from Eastern religions. 
 And these bear witness to the reality of the teaching, and 
 show how universal is the recognition of the power of love 
 as an ethical principle. But it is one thing to recognize 
 the principle, it is another to make it the rule of conduct. 
 It is one thing to realize its power, another to see its scope 
 as wide as humanity. What Christianity accomplished is 
 shown by the fact that it created what we may look on as 
 a new word. The word agape had, up to the time of our 
 Lord, been little used. From that time onwards it is the 
 recognized word for a fundamental principle of conduct. 
 A new word was needed, one which would express the power 
 of a pure passion without that element of sensuality which 
 must always be found in eros or epithumia, and with an 
 element of emotion which is hardly present in philia. But 
 this conception of the principle of love as universal and 
 including within its scope all mankind had a wider effect. 
 It inevitably made Christianity the universal rehgion, and, 
 further, it created the conception of the solidarity of 
 humanity. All barriers of race and language must ulti- 
 mately vanish, when once it is recognized that our relations 
 to one another are to be controlled by the principle of 
 brotherly love, and that the obligation of that love must be 
 extended as wide as the human race. 
 
 Ill 
 v/ 
 
 The Christian ethical system, then, is based on "love," 
 or, as it was called by our forefathers, "charity." It may 
 be interesting to compare it with other great principles in 
 which the motive of human conduct has been sought. 
 
 The Greek system made arete or virtue the ideal of con- 
 duct. Its word for good was kalos, a word which contains 
 as part of its connotation the ideas of the honourable and 
 the beautiful. The highest moral conduct to the Greek 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND ASCETICISM 221 
 
 must have an element of external magnificence. It had no 
 place for what was common or vulgar. The virtue of a 
 moral act performed in commonplace surroundings by 
 those of no account would count little in their estimation. 
 To die for your country would be glorious, especially if 
 it were done in a glorious way. To sacrifice your life for a 
 slave or a person of no account would be absurd. There 
 is no need to eUminate the idea of beauty from the highest 
 morality; it is, indeed, part of it; but it is not that beauty 
 is moral, but that the moral is beautiful. 
 
 Then there has always been a tendency for humanity to 
 base morality on negatives, to make abstinence and asceti- 
 cism the norm of conduct. This has been a striking charac- 
 teristic of many Eastern forms of religion, and has often 
 been associated with a dualistic belief in the evil of matter. 
 This tendency has in varied forms invaded the Christian 
 Church, whether it is that of abstinence from all sexual 
 indulgence, as in the days of the early Christian Church, 
 and to some extent in the mediaeval — an abstinence which 
 was often a natural reaction from the extreme impurity 
 of the surrounding society — or in the hard morahty of the 
 Puritans, which seems to have been a reaction from the 
 over-enjoyment of hfe which the Renaissance taught, or 
 in the singularly meagre morality of the modern temperance 
 devotee. There will, of course, always be an element of 
 asceticism in the highest morality, for love will demand self- 
 restraint and self-sacrifice, but in its essence the ascetic 
 motive in morality as an end in itself is fundamentally 
 non-Christian. It was an accusation against Jesus in His 
 Ufetime that He was not ascetic. His disciples had had no 
 rules of fasting given them. He Himself (unlike the 
 ordinary professed religious teacher) was ready to accept 
 hospitality of a very mixed character; He took part in the 
 marriage feast; He did not shrink with horror from the 
 professedly immoral, but recognized even there the elements 
 of piety and devotion. Jesus Himself notes the contrast: 
 "Whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto 
 children sitting in the marketplaces which call unto their 
 fellows, and say. We piped unto you and ye did not dance; 
 we wailed and ye did not mourn. For John came neither 
 
222 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The 
 Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold 
 a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of pubhcans 
 and sinners!"^ 
 
 There is, in fact, in the teaching of Jesus just that element 
 of what we call humanism, an interest in humanity in itself, 
 which is so often absent from Eastern religions while it has 
 been fortified in Christianity by Hellenic influence. Asceti- 
 cism alone can never form an adequate basis for conduct. 
 It creates often a hard and unattractive type of character. 
 There is nothing positive about it. Christianity demands'* 
 positive actions. It bids you do. It does not think much, 
 any more than Jesus did, of human lapses. It thinks of 
 beneficent actions. The ideal is the man who, inspired by 
 the love of God and man, or in our modern language by a 
 passion for humanity, or by sympathy with the sufferer, is 
 prepared to sacrifice himself for what is good. It does not 
 care for the house swept and garnished, but for the living 
 power of the Spirit. It makes a man strong to overcome 
 the temptations of the flesh by the ardour and enthusiasm 
 of Hfe which it creates, for here is an emotion and a passion, 
 and not a rule. 
 
 Another great ideal that has inspired human conduct 
 is that of duty, the conviction that a man has a place and 
 work assigned to him in the world, and that he is responsible 
 to God and to his fellow-men for fulfilHng that duty. This 
 we look upon particularly as the ideal of ancient Rome, and 
 of the Stoic philosophy, at any rate in its Western form. 
 It is depicted for us by Seneca and Epictetus and Marcus 
 Aurehus. It has created and attracted many great minds. 
 It was an appeal recognized by Jesus Himself: "I must 
 work the work of him that sent me while it is day."^ The 
 Christian, of course, does his duty. Duty is, indeed, a part 
 of love. But duty by itself is but a cold and bare motive. 
 It does not rouse our enthusiasm or kindle our imagination. 
 The soldier or the statesman does his duty to his country, 
 not only because it is his duty, but because patriotism, the 
 love of his country, stirs all his emotions. Loyalty to the 
 Sovereign has often made hardships and self-sacrifice easy 
 
 * Mt. xi. 16-19; Lk. vii. 31-34. ^ Jn. ix. 4. 
 
THE LOVE OF ENEMIES 223 
 
 to be borne. The love of God and of humanity transforms 
 the burden of the law into the freedom of the Gospel. The 
 supremacy of the Christian ideal hes in the fact that it 
 marshals our emotions on the side of righteousness. 
 
 A further question arises: How far is the Christian ideal 
 a possible one? Is it possible in this world to carry out 
 consistently and sincerely the Christian ethical system? Is 
 it one which would practically work in the world and not 
 produce chaos? Is it possible, for example, to love our 
 enemies? Can I really feel the emotion that we call love 
 for those who are enemies to us and have done us wrong? 
 Our Lord, however, explains to us what He means: we are 
 to do good to them that hate us, bless them that curse us, 
 and pray for them which despitefully use us. Now towards 
 masses of men we can hardly have the emotions which we 
 call love, but we can (and have attempted to) treat our 
 enemies justly. Can we, further, actually love an enemy? 
 That is, can we towards the individual enemy with whom 
 we are brought in contact exhibit feelings of sympathy 
 and compassion? Can we help him when he is suffering? 
 Are we able to act so as to make his lot an easier one? 
 There can be no doubt that again and again it has been 
 done. Men have exhibited such conduct both towards those 
 who are enemies to their country and also to personal 
 enemies; and the fact that it has so often been found possible 
 has done much to mitigate human suffering. Men have 
 learnt to check and restrain resentful feeling towards those 
 who have injured them. In rehgious disputes they have 
 sometimes learnt to separate resentment against error from 
 hatred against the heretic. All these things have been 
 possible; nor is there any reason why such Christian senti- 
 ment should not prevail more widely, except the imperfec- 
 tion of human nature and a widespread disloyalty to the 
 Christian message. It is not that the Christian ethics are 
 impossible, for they have been tried and found successful, 
 but that people do not like them. 
 
 A second difficulty is raised by the law of non-resistance. 
 Resist not evil. Turn the other cheek also. Give up thy 
 cloak. Give to him that asketh thee. How impossible 
 such conduct would be! If we were to act like this, society 
 
224 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 would quickly come to an end, and wrongdoing would be 
 rampant. The strong would oppress the weak. What 
 would happen if we allowed the enemy to invade the 
 country without opposing him, and the forces of anarchy 
 and disorder to destroy the work of civihzation? Such, it 
 is claimed, is the necessary interpretation of these words, 
 and, in fact, as thus interpreted, they have been made the 
 basis of a scheme of hfe by Tolstoi. With great insistence, 
 but without an equal amount of argument, he claims that 
 here is a definite command of our Master which must be 
 literally obeyed. He would maintain that if the use of 
 force in resisting evil were done away with, the ideal 
 Christian society would be created. An examination of this 
 claim will be of value in enabling us to understand our 
 Lord's' methods. 
 
 Throughout in the teaching of Jesus there is an element 
 of paradox, and it might seem of exaggeration. Sometimes 
 His commands seem mutually contradictory. But if they 
 sometimes seem impossible in practice, that is no reason 
 why they should not be true as ideals. The Christian rule 
 of marriage is, perhaps, one which it would be impossible 
 to impose absolutely in a state of society such as exists at 
 present, but it is the ideal basis of a happy society and 
 may well be the self-imposed rule of a section of the com- 
 munity. No one can Hve without taking thought for the 
 morrow, and it would be wrong to try to do so, but the 
 less a man is troubled with worldly forebodings the greater 
 his happiness will be. Commands such as these cannot be 
 fulfilled literally now, but if society were constituted as it 
 ought to be, it would be easy to fulfil them. If the will of 
 God prevailed absolutely, then the full and literal fulfilment 
 of these rules would be normal. Our conduct is necessarily 
 conditioned by the state of society. 
 
 How, then, can we act? It will often happen that in 
 the present imperfect condition of human society two 
 principles of conduct must conflict. Christianity bids us 
 do good to others; it therefore bids us protect the weak 
 and suffering. To accomplish that I must take the necessary 
 means. That implies that the use of force to fulfil our 
 Christian duty is necessary and legitimate. But it still 
 
RELIGIOUS DUTIES 225 
 
 remains true that the gentle answer and the refusal to 
 resent injury are often among the most efiEicacIous means 
 of restraining violence. The more it is possible to act 
 according to the precept and example of Christ, the better 
 society will become. A society in which an insult demands 
 a duel will become one of strife and evil passions. If 
 adultery may be justified by killing the injured husband, 
 it is the bravo that will benefit. The more we act as 
 Christians, the more Christian society will become; and 
 when society is Christian the only possible rules of conduct 
 will be Christian. 
 
 IV 
 
 The practice of religion has always been associated with 
 the performance of certain external acts which are often 
 looked upon as its most essential elements. What was the 
 relation of Jesus to such acts? 
 
 There were, it must be remembered, two systems of 
 religion in Israel. There was the old traditional sacrificial 
 system which was bound up with the national life; but, as 
 since the reform of Josiah and the exile this system had 
 been confined to Jerusalem, it was something outside the 
 ordinary religious life of the people, certainly in districts 
 as remote as Gahlee. Its place had been taken by the 
 synagogue system. 
 
 We have reason to believe that our Lord as a loyal Jew 
 would attend the temple of Jerusalem at the time of the 
 greater feasts. Such visits are recorded in St. John's 
 Gospel, and there is nothing in the other Gospels which 
 could make such visits improbable. But there is Httle 
 teaching as to sacrifice. He expresses his approval, indeed, 
 of the scribe who said that the love of God and of our 
 neighbour is much more than all whole burnt offerings and 
 sacrifices. He bids the man who would present a gift 
 before the altar be first reconciled to his brother, and then 
 offer the gift — that is, moral and spiritual duties come first. 
 
 Again, He speaks with severe condemnation of the devo- 
 tion on the part of the Pharisees to external religion, and 
 this condemnation becomes stronger as His ministry ad- 
 vances. The ceremonial washing of the hands and of 
 
226 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 vessels, the distinction of meats and so on, are of little 
 or no importance. What did matter was the state of a 
 man's heart towards God. If the heart was good, good 
 things would come out of it; if the heart was evil, evil 
 things, and good thoughts and words and actions were what 
 mattered. 
 
 In the ordinary life of Judaism, the life of the man who 
 had been brought up on the precepts of the law, there were 
 three great religious observances — almsgiving, prayer, and 
 fasting. In the book of Tobit, which contains the best 
 presentation of the simple religion of an ordinary Israelite, 
 we read: "Good is prayer with fasting and alms and 
 righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than 
 much with unrighteousness. It is better to give alms than 
 to lay up gold: alms doth deliver from death, and it shall 
 purge away all sin."^ There was a tendency to exalt alms- 
 giving into a meritorious act which might bring atonement: 
 ''This money goes for alms that my sons may live, and 
 that I may obtain the world to come." "A man's table 
 now expiates by alms, as heretofore the altar did by sacri- 
 fice." "If you offer alms out of your purse, God will keep 
 you from all damage and harm." The value of alms done 
 in secret was fully recognized: "He that doth alms in secret 
 is greater than our master Moses himself."^ But there is 
 ample evidence of ostentation in almsgiving, then as now. 
 Prayer had become organized. There were three stated 
 hours of prayer, and it was held that where a man was 
 there he should pray. This was the occasion or the excuse 
 for much prayer in the streets which might become, and 
 often was, mere ostentation.^ So with fasting: "They say 
 of Rabbi Joshua ben Ananiah that, all the days of his life, 
 his face was black by reason of his fastings." That was 
 from the ashes he put on his head. "On the day of ex- 
 piation it was forbidden to eat, to drink, to wash, to anoint 
 themselves."* In fact, there was a certain inheritance of 
 
 ^ Tobit xii. 8, 9. 
 
 * On Jewish sayings regarding almsgiving see Lightfoot, Works (London, 
 1684), vol. ii., pp. 153, 155- 
 
 ' On prayer see Lightfoot, op. cit., ii., 156. 
 
 * On fasting, ibid., ii. 161. 
 
PRAYER 227 
 
 ostentatious customs, and the dominant religion tended to 
 be ostentatious. 
 
 In contrast to this, Jesus taught that rehgion was to be 
 something inward, spiritual, and sincere. It was a matter 
 between the devout soul and God. He did not lay any 
 stress on fasting. Fasting was not a custom of His dis- 
 ciples; although He spoke of the time when their natural 
 sorrow after He was taken away would make them fast. 
 In fact, people were not to fast because they thought they 
 ought to do so, but because it was the natural expression 
 of their religious feehngs, and so the very essence of it was 
 that it should be secret. "Be not seen of men to fast, but 
 of thy Father which is in secret."^ 
 
 On one occasion we are told how He watched men casting 
 alms into the treasury. Many that were rich cast in much, 
 but a poor widow cast in two mites that make a farthing. 
 Jesus said to His disciples: "The poor widow has cast in 
 more than they all. They cast in of their superfluity; she 
 hath cast in all that she had."- It is the sacrifice involved 
 in the gift, and not the amount, that matters. So here, 
 again, ostentation is condemned. "Let not your left 
 hand know what your right hand doeth."^ 
 
 The rule of prayer is the same. Prayer is the secret 
 converse of the heart with God. "But thou, when thou 
 prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and having shut 
 thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret. And thy 
 Father which seeth in secret shall recompense thee."^ But 
 while Jesus laid but httle weight on almsgiving and fasting, 
 it is prayer — and the point is significant — that He looks 
 upon as the most important exercise in religion. He dwells 
 continuously on the efficacy of prayer. "Ask and ye shall 
 receive. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be 
 opened unto you."^ This He states without qualifications. 
 "All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, beHeving, 
 ye shall receive."^ He deduces this behef from the Father- 
 hood of God. Earthly parents will answer the requests of 
 their sons; how much more will God who is our Father in 
 heaven?^ 
 
 1 Mt. vi. 18. 2 Mk. xii. 41-44. ' Mt, vi. 3. 
 
 * Mt. vi. 6. 6 Mt. vii. 7. ^ Mt. xxi. 22. '' Mt. vii. 11. 
 
 16 
 
228 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 Like so many other of Jesus' maxims these statements 
 are made in an extreme and almost exaggerated form. We 
 can gloss them if we like, and He also could have done so 
 had it been necessary, but that was not what He was 
 concerned with. What He aimed at was to impress on us 
 that we are in the hands of a Father in heaven, and that 
 in our prayers we tell Him our most secret needs. 
 
 Yet the right spirit is always assumed. We cannot ask 
 forgiveness of our Father unless we, too, forgive. We must 
 ask in faith, and faith would be inconsistent with petitions 
 which would only show our faithlessness. Our prayer must 
 be simple and sincere, and based on a desire to fulfil God's 
 will. That is what Jesus taught His disciples when they 
 asked Him how to pray: 
 
 ''Our Father, which art in heaven. 
 Hallowed be thy name. 
 Thy kingdom come. 
 
 Thy will be done in earth, as in heaven. 
 Give us this day the food sufficient for our needs. 
 Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive our trespassers. 
 And lead us not into temptation; 
 But deliver us from evil."^ 
 
 In these seven short petitions He sums up our right 
 relation to God: His fatherhood in heaven — that is. His 
 transcendency and providence; the promotion of His glory 
 as the final end of creation; the fulfilment of His purpose 
 in the coming of His kingdom — that is, the fulfilment of 
 His will in the world; our dependence on Him for our 
 earthly sustenance; our need of forgiveness and a forgiving 
 heart, and salvation. 
 
 Throughout our Lord's teaching on worship and the 
 religious life there runs a single note. In the place of the 
 great external system of worship which had been built up 
 at Jerusalem, in the place of the mass of formalism and 
 externalism which Pharisaism had come to be, in opposition 
 to the meaningless and often disgusting ceremonialism of 
 the heathen, he preached a religion of the Spirit. In 
 St. John's Gospel we are told how Jesus, talking to the 
 
 1 Mt. vi. 9-13; Lk. xi. 2-4. 
 
WEALTH AND RICHES 229 
 
 woman of Samaria, told her of the higher worship which 
 would take the place of that of Jerusalem or Gerizim: 
 ''Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when neither in this 
 mountain nor in Jerusalem ye shall worship the Father. . , . 
 The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers 
 shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for such 
 doth the Father seek to be His worshippers. God is a 
 Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in 
 spirit and in truth."' 
 
 We are not able to say whether the author of the fourth 
 Gospel had here a tradition which has not been preserved 
 elsewhere, or whether the story is what would be called in 
 Jewish literature a "Midrash" — that is, a story written 
 for spiritual and religious edification. The language is 
 certainly that of a later time, and whether the story be 
 true or not, the teaching has been translated both in letter 
 and in content so as to suit later ideals. But the important 
 point for us is that the story correctly interprets the spirit 
 which underlies all that Jesus taught about the religious 
 life, whether it is contained in the Sermon on the Mount, 
 or found elsewhere in the Gospels, 
 
 The essential thing in life Jesus taught was righteousness 
 and sincerity of aim. "If thine eye be single, thy whole 
 body will be full of light." ^ That is, if your mind be set 
 on the true end of life and pursue it without any mixed 
 and unworthy motives, your life will be right. All depends, 
 not on a number of particular rules, but on having a right 
 principle of life, and pursuing it whole-heartedly. 
 
 What, then, is the purpose of life? To most men wealth 
 and riches, with all their accompaniments, were the only aim, 
 then as now. Jesus continually emphasized how worthless 
 such an aim was. "A man's life," he said, "consisteth 
 not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth."^ 
 He told the story of a rich man whose wealth increased, 
 who pulled down his barns and built greater ones, who 
 looked forward to many years of worldly happiness: "Soul, 
 
 1 Jn. iv. 21-24. 2 -^ii vi, 22; Lk. xi. 34. ^ Lk. xii. 15. 
 
230 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine 
 ease, eat, drink, and be merry." But God said unto him: 
 "Thou fool, this night thy soul is required of thee. Where 
 shall thy treasure be?"^ He tells us, too, of the rich 
 young man, who claimed to have kept all the command- 
 ments: "One thing thou lackest," said Jesus. "Go, sell 
 whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt 
 have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."^ "How 
 hardly shall they that have riches (or that trust in riches), 
 enter into the kingdom of heaven."^ He bid men lay not 
 up treasure upon earth, for earthly treasure decays, but 
 in heaven where there is no rust or corruption, and He 
 adds these words which show the significance of His teach- 
 ing. " Where your treasure is, there will your heart be 
 also."^ It is not the mere possession of earthly wealth or 
 the acquisition of it that He condemns, but the harm done 
 to a man's moral nature by the imaginations of the heart 
 being set on the wrong things. 
 
 It is not, indeed, the enjoyment of wealth that he is 
 concerned with, but the anxious troubling about worldly 
 things. We are not to be over-anxious about our life, 
 our food, our clothes, our personal appearance. We ought 
 not to be always wondering what our future will be, whether 
 we shall have enough in days to come. These are not the 
 really important things. "Sufficient unto the day is the 
 evil thereof."^ We are told how once Jesus entered a certain 
 village and was entertained by two sisters, Martha and 
 Mary. Mary sat at Jesus' feet and heard His word; Martha 
 was cumbered about much serving. Martha complained 
 to Jesus that she was left by her sister to do the work alone. 
 "Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou 
 art careful and troubled about many things: but one thing 
 is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which 
 shall not be taken away from her."^ 
 
 If, then, all these things — food, and drink, and wealth, 
 and all the enjoyment and business of life — all these things 
 which seem to be men's natural aims, are wrong, what is 
 right? The answer is, "Seek the kingdom," and if we 
 
 ^ Lk. xii. 19, 20. 2 Mk. x. 21. ^ Mk. x. 23; Lk. xviii. 24. 
 
 * Mt. vi. 21. 5 Mt. vL 34. ^ Lk. x. 38-42. 
 
SEEK THE KINGDOM 231 
 
 must know what that means, we may for the present be 
 content with the interpretation gWen by St. Matthew, 
 "righteousness."^ That must be our aim. 
 
 Now, what view of the world does this imply? Does it 
 mean that we are to live an ascetic life, indifferent to the 
 hfe of the world? That is hardly possible, for Jesus Him- 
 self did not give us an example of such a life. He pursued 
 His work, and to that he gave up everything, but He never 
 refused or objected to the enjoyments of life when they 
 came to Him. It was one of the accusations against Him 
 that He, as a religious teacher, did not refuse the invitations 
 of the rich men whose reputations were so doubtful. "The 
 Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say. Behold 
 a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans 
 and sinners."^ He was always anxious to relieve the 
 distressed and to heal the sick. He bids us use our wealth 
 for the well-being of the poor. If we are to care for the 
 earthly well-being of others, if (as Christianity has always 
 done) we are to care for the good estate of the poor, it is 
 a proof that material goods are not in themselves evil. 
 
 Or does it mean that Jesus thought that the great day 
 of the Lord was at hand, that this present dispensation 
 would pass away, and that therefore we need not trouble 
 about mere transitory things? The only thing that matters 
 is to secure an entrance into the kingdom when it comes. 
 This problem will meet us more fully later; at present it is 
 sufficient to ask what could be the purpose, if this was all 
 that life meant, of this elaborate teaching about human 
 conduct and human life? It is true that our Lord and His 
 disciples appear to have Hved without any thought for 
 worldly things at all, in quite a literal way; it was the right 
 condition for their work, and there were many who minis- 
 tered to Him. But did Jesus mean everyone was to do 
 as He did? It has been maintained that He did and in 
 order to support this theory all the teaching iri the Gospels 
 inconsistent with such a view of human life has been 
 ehminated. But surely the fact that such an elimination is 
 necessary must make us hesitate to adopt such a theory. 
 The real meaning of our Lord was none of these things, 
 
 ^ Mt. vi. ^$. 2 Mt. xi. 19; Lk. vii. 34. 
 
232 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 but one which harmonizes with all that was most funda- 
 mental in His teachiiTg; it was the transcendent importance 
 of spiritual things — that is, the fulfilling of the will of God, 
 and this will was righteousness. We find it emphasized 
 in the story of the Temptation: ''Man shall not live by 
 bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the 
 mouth of God."^ It is this principle that gives a meaning 
 and coherence to all those maxims which we have been 
 discussing, and is the lesson that Jesus Himself lived and 
 died to give. The first principle of life must be to fulfil 
 God's will — that is, do right; the rest does not matter, 
 whether it comes or not. Compared with this all earthly 
 things are indifferent; wealth, pleasure, comfort, luxury — 
 to trouble about these things does not bring happiness, but 
 misery. If happiness is made the end of our hfe, we shall 
 not attain it; if we do not seek it, we may have it. 
 
 For the promise is quite explicit: "Seek ye first the 
 kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things 
 shall be added unto you."- Is that a meaningless promise? 
 At any rate it is not isolated. For example, in St. Mark's 
 Gospel we read how, when Peter said, "We have left all 
 and followed thee," Jesus said, " Verily, I say unto you, 
 There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, 
 or mother, or father, or children, or lands for my sake, 
 but he shall receive an hundred fold now in this time."^ 
 
 Are such promises to be looked upon as meaningless? 
 Are they inconsistent with the Spirit of the Gospel? Or 
 do they represent a fundamental principle of the Gospel 
 and give the reasons why it is good news for mankind? 
 The answer is this: The first condition of human well-being 
 is that we should fulfil the will of God. If we are too eager 
 for the acquisition and enjoyment of wealth, we shall ulti- 
 mately lose all. If we prefer wealth to righteousness, 
 wealth will ultimately perish. If we prefer righteousness 
 to wealth, it will be the gain of the world. If the world 
 were absolutely righteous, it would mean the highest human 
 well-being. But there may be many who, to attain right- 
 eousness, may have to sacrifice everything. Just as the 
 
 1 Mt. iv. 4; Lk. iv. 4. " Mt. vi. 35; cf. Lk, xii. 31. 
 
 2 Mk. X. 29, 30. 
 
THE GOLDEN RULE 233 
 
 well-being of a nation can only be attained if its citizens 
 are willing to make every necessary sacrifice for it, so the 
 well-being of the world depends upon our being willing to 
 sacrifice the world for righteousness. Each man's indi- 
 vidual well-being consists in the pursuit of righteousness. 
 If he sincerely seeks righteousness, it is well with him, 
 whatever may happen. Other goods may come to him, 
 at any rate the well-being of the world will be increased. 
 
 VI 
 
 "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do 
 unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the 
 law and the prophets."^ Thus Jesus summed up the rules 
 of practical life. This Golden Rule had long been taught 
 in the negative forms. "What thou hatest thyself, do to 
 no one," said Tobit.^ That which is hateful to thyself 
 do it not to thy neighbour: this is the whole law, the rest 
 is commentary." So said Hillel.^ 
 
 It is most significant that in Christ's words we should 
 have the law summed up in a maxim which had its source 
 in Judaism. It is equally significant that it should transcend 
 previous teaching by being no longer merely negative, but 
 positive. Here, indeed, we have the whole essence of 
 Christ's teaching. It is not anything out of harmony with 
 its historical sources and their development. It gives us 
 all that is most spiritual in the Old Testament. That Old 
 Testament, it must be remembered, was also the source of 
 Rabbinism. How could the Rabbis avoid giving much 
 sound moral teaching when they were but expounding the 
 word of God? They may have often overlaid and concealed 
 the simpler truths, but they could not destroy them. It 
 was its living continuity with the religion of His own times 
 that made the teaching of Jesus so suitable for those who 
 heard it. 
 
 But it always transcends its source. The fundamental 
 principle of Christian morality is that it does not content 
 itself with directions as to what is not to be done. It always 
 
 1 Mt. vii. 12; cf. Lk. vi. 31. ^ Tobit iv. 15. 
 
 ' See above, p. 81. 
 
234 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 lays stress on what we are to do. If a man's inspiration is 
 love, he will be full of eagerness to do all he can for those 
 around him. But what is to be the standard of his con- 
 duct? How can he know in what way to exhibit his love 
 to others? The standard given is, Do unto others as you 
 would they should do unto you. Under this heading will 
 come all the commandments, and given as it is in this 
 positive form it is not only a rule, but an inspiration. 
 
 Nor is it to be limited to acts. Words and thoughts also 
 come within its scope. There is nothing more harmful 
 than the hard judgments which people pass on one another. 
 In judging others we have to remember ourselves. "Judge 
 not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye 
 judge, ye shall be judged."^ Nothing is more evil than 
 over-censoriousness. Do we wish other people to take a 
 lenient view of our faults? Let us be lenient to them. 
 "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto 
 .you."^ How often it is that those who are most convinced 
 of the defect of others are entirely obHvious of their own. 
 "Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's 
 eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own 
 eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother. Let me pull 
 out the mote out of thine eye; and behold a beam is in thine 
 own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out 
 of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast 
 out the mote out of thy brother's eye."^ 
 
 Here, as always, we notice that the morality of Jesus 
 is not limited by a concern with actions, but because it 
 has gone down right to the fundamental principles of life, 
 therefore it deals with the springs as well as with the 
 external manifestations of conduct. 
 
 VII 
 
 We have attempted to sketch the "New Teaching" of 
 Jesus, as it has been depicted for us in the Sermon on the 
 Mount and in other records. It is a teaching remarkable 
 for its unity. It deals with human life and its conditions 
 from a definite point of view. It starts from a belief in 
 
 1 Mt. vii. I, 2. 2 ji,ifi^ 3 Mt. vii. 3-5. 
 
THE TWO PATHS 235 
 
 God as the Father of mankind. ''If God so clothe the grass 
 of the field which to-day is and to-morrow is cast into the 
 oven shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little 
 faith?" "Your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have 
 need of all these things before you ask him."^ Mankind 
 is dependent upon God, whose relations to them are those 
 of a loving Father, and therefore it is essential to their 
 well-being that they should live in accordance with God's 
 will. God's will is love and righteousness, that men should 
 love Him and reveal that love by righteousness and love 
 for their fellow-men. 
 
 The result of this teaching is that if it be rightly appre- 
 hended, the good life is an inspiration and not a burden. 
 If the love of God and men is once kindled in our heart, 
 we do all that we ought towards God and men alike as the 
 natural outcome of what we are. All the strength of the 
 purest emotion is enlisted on the side of righteousness, and 
 as this means the satisfaction of what is best in us, we in 
 this way attain the end of our being. 
 
 There are two ways, two paths for man. The one is the 
 way of the world, the other is the way of life. The one 
 means making worldly success the motive of your life, 
 whatever form it may take for you, and pursuing after that 
 with anxious care. It seems attractive, but it means 
 ultimately failure. The other means caring for the things 
 of God and His righteousness. It is the latter which brings 
 man his highest good. The worldly man and the righteous 
 man may pursue the same calling. Both alike may be 
 statesmen, or merchants, or soldiers: it is their motive and 
 their method which will be different. 
 
 Now, the characteristic of our Lord's teaching is that He 
 bases His morality throughout on these principles. Every- 
 thing is ultimately referred to this one principle, the love 
 of God and man, so that rules and laws and commandments 
 become unnecessary. The Christian no longer requires 
 directions for each particular action, his heart and his 
 conscience will be better than all such rules. No doubt 
 experience, wisdom, and knowledge should be added, and 
 without them mistakes will be made. But the point is that 
 
 ^ Mt. vi. 30-32. 
 
236 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 if the right fundamental principle be secured, if the heart 
 be pure and the eye be single, the details will be quickly 
 _^learnt. 
 
 Such is the moral teaching of Jesus. There are two 
 further questions which have been raised, the one as to its 
 authenticity, the other as to its originality. It might seem 
 at first sight superfluous to discuss the first question. But 
 it has been maintained that this teaching represents not so 
 much what our Lord taught as what the Church devised 
 for the instruction of its members. Now, it may be recog- 
 nized (as we have seen) that this may possibly be true of 
 the codification of these principles which we have in St. 
 Matthew's Gospel, and that the Sermon on the Mount 
 may in that sense be the work of the nascent Church. 
 That is, however, a very different thing from thinking that 
 the subject-matter does not come from our Lord. Yet it 
 is maintained that at any rate large sections of the sermon 
 are not genuine. There is, I believe, very little to support 
 such a contention. It must be noticed in the first place that 
 a large part of the teaching occurs elsewhere in the Gospel 
 and in other forms. We learn the same things in St. Luke 
 and in St. Mark. We find it in parables, in incident, in 
 isolated sayings. Then we notice further that, although 
 the Sermon on the Mount may have been constructed by 
 putting together material coming from different sources 
 and spoken on different occasions in our Lord's ministry, 
 yet there is a remarkable homogeneity about it. We have 
 analyzed its fundamental characteristics. We find that 
 they permeate the whole body of the teaching. Surely 
 there could not be this sort of uniformity if much of it were 
 unauthentic. 
 
 Or compare it with the teaching reported in St. Mark. 
 This is much more fragmentary in character, but it will be 
 found to cover a great deal of the same ground. It often 
 appears not as definite doctrinal teaching, but in the form 
 of apparently casual remarks forming part of a narrative. 
 But if we analyze the principles implied in the teaching 
 in St. Mark, we shall find them to be the same as those of 
 the sermon. There is the same teaching of the love of 
 God and man, of marriage and divorce, of riches and poverty. 
 
AUTHENTIC AND ORIGINAL 237 
 
 The duty of self-sacrifice, humility, and self-abnegation are 
 emphasized. Prayer, forgiveness, the care for the things of 
 God, are all enjoined. There is the same disUke of cere- 
 moniahsm. What is remarkable about the Gospel as 
 contained in St. Mark is that, although seemingly so frag- 
 mentary, it is really extraordinarily complete and that, 
 although there is much less detail, much less amplification, 
 much less system, it teaches us Just the same view of Christ's 
 teaching that the Sermon on the Mount does. I do not feel 
 any doubt that in every substantial and important point 
 we have the genuine teaching of our Lord. 
 
 But how far is this teaching original? Parallels to much 
 that is contained in it have been found in many places: 
 in Plato, in the Stoics, in Confucianism, in Buddhism. If 
 the moral principles that underlie it are really universal, 
 it is, of course, quite natural that there should be much 
 resemblance between what Christ came to teach and the 
 highest attainments of human thinkers. Christianity could 
 not appeal to us as true unless it harmonized with, even if 
 it transcended, human experience. But having admitted 
 the resemblance, the difference is real and striking. Neither 
 Platonism nor Stoicism nor Confucianism nor Buddhism 
 are Christianity. There are vast differences between it 
 and them, and no one of them seriously claims to give us 
 a system of life and morality suitable to the present day. If 
 Christian morality is thought to be superseded, it is not 
 by them. 
 
 It is true also that (as we have seen) parallels to the 
 teaching of our Lord are found elsewhere in Judaism. It 
 has its roots in the Old Testament. There are sayings of 
 the Rabbis which teach the same lessons. It is possible 
 (but hardly probable) that fragments of Rabbinical teaching 
 have even crept into the Gospel. But none of these things 
 interfere with the profound originality of the whole con- 
 ception. As Renan says, the teaching looks very different 
 when we see it in the Gospels. That is because here it is 
 part of an harmonious principle. It is not this or that 
 ethical rule that forms the essence or causes the originality 
 of our Lord's teaching, but the new point of view — funda- 
 mentally true and comprehensive. Christian morality 
 
238 THE NEW TEACHING 
 
 excels other systems of morality, not because it gives new 
 rules of conduct, but because it places all conduct on a 
 fundamentally right principle. 
 
 The close of the nineteenth century was signalized by a 
 determined attempt to challenge the supremacy of the 
 Christian moral system. It is associated with the name 
 of Nietzsche, perhaps somewhat unfairly. At any rate he 
 has supplied in the expression "Will to Power" the phrase 
 which perhaps best sums up its characteristics. Christianity 
 is described as a slave morahty. The specifically Christian 
 virtues of humility, self-sacrifice, self-abnegation are con- 
 demned. Asceticism in all its forms is looked upon as 
 damaging to human life. The ideal man is not the man 
 who is good to others, but good to himself, the man who 
 can assert himself, who transcends others not in goodness, 
 but in power, who, regardless of the rights of others, and 
 indifferent to any call of duty, fashions for himself his own 
 career, and wins for himself what the world has to give. 
 Not love but power is the highest motive of action. 
 
 It is possible that to a certain extent what Nietzsche 
 revolted from was not Christianity, but certain incomplete 
 and one-sided representations of Christianity. Asceticism 
 is not Christianity. Every Christian must be prepared for 
 the most extreme self-sacrifice, just as every patriot must 
 be ready to die on the field of battle, but self-sacrifice is not 
 Christianity any more than it is patriotism. The Christian 
 is humble and practises self-abnegation, not because he is 
 timid or servile, but because he must respect the rights 
 and feelings and position of others. There are often occa- 
 sions when self-assertion is incumbent on him. The mistake 
 has come from making subordinate manifestations a sub- 
 stitute for what is supreme. The fundamental principle 
 of Christianity is righteousness, and love for our fellow-men. 
 This may imply asceticism, self-sacrifice, and humihty; 
 but they are only ways of self-assertion. 
 
 But, of course, the will to power is fundamentally opposed 
 to this. For it means the assertion of your own will without 
 regard to right or justice. It is maintained that as the 
 evolution of the human race has come by the survival of the 
 fittest, it is not the man who bends and yields, but the man 
 
EVOLUTION AND RIGHTEOUSNESS 239 
 
 who asserts himself who will survive, and therefore nature 
 demands the strong man, or the superman (as Nietzsche 
 calls him), the man who is too great to care for restraint. 
 
 The argument really begs the question. Evolution 
 teaches the survival of what is adapted to the environment, 
 and the real question is, what is the nature of our environ- 
 ment? If the world be the expression of the will of God 
 and God be righteous, then our environment is one in which 
 the righteous will survive. The evolution of the human 
 race has been a development of morahty which seems to 
 show that the environment to which men have adapted 
 themselves is moral. That has also been human experience. 
 Ever since the Greek chorus morahzed on those who 
 trampled on the altar of justice and the psalmist spoke of 
 the downfall of the proud, it has been the ultimate ex- 
 perience of mankind that the world is governed by moral 
 principles. If this be true, the superman of the modern 
 world will go the way of the proud and impious of the 
 tragedian and of the psalmist. Whether the events of the 
 twentieth century have supported the moral revolt of the 
 nineteenth, time must judge. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE KINGDOM OF GOD 
 
 We are told by St. Mark that the beginning of Jesus' 
 teaching was the kingdom of God. "And after John was 
 cast into prison, Jesus came into GaHlee preaching the 
 Gospel of God: The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of 
 God is at hand: repent ye and beHeve in the Gospel."^ 
 When He ate the Last Supper with His disciples He said: 
 "I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day 
 when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."^ Throughout 
 His ministry it appears to have been the expression under 
 which most commonly He summed up the contents and 
 purpose of His teaching. What did the Kingdom of God, 
 or (as St. Matthew puts it, using a conventional paraphrase) 
 the Kingdom of Heaven, mean? 
 
 The expression is taken from popular religious phraseology, 
 Joseph of Arimathea is spoken of as "looking for the 
 kingdom of God."^ The disciples ask our Lord after the 
 Resurrection: "Dost thou at this time restore the kingdom 
 to Israel?"'* As he enters Jerusalem before His crucifixion 
 the people greet Him with the cry: "Blessed is the kingdom 
 that cometh, the kingdom of our father David." ^ It 
 would not, I think, be any exaggeration to say that all the 
 hopes and expectations of the Jewish people, of every sect 
 and class, were expressed by this word, the "kingdom." 
 It summed up for them all that Israel had waited for through 
 all the centuries. It was the note of every great movement 
 among the people. When, therefore, the call sounded, 
 "The kingdom of heaven is at hand," it inevitably aroused 
 
 1 Mk. i. 14, 15. - iSIk. xiv. 25. •'' Mk. xv. 43. 
 
 * Acts i. 6. ^ Mk. xi. 10. 
 
 240 
 
THE KINGDOM OF DAVID 241 
 
 a stir throughout the country. But what did the people 
 expect? And what did Jesus mean? 
 
 The root of the idea goes back to the Old Testament. 
 It is not the least remarkable characteristic of the people 
 of Israel that they never lost their hope of a great destiny 
 for the nation, and that, however terrible might be the 
 misfortunes that they had to endure, their faith in their 
 future was never extinguished. From quite an early time 
 they looked forward to the revival of the kingdom of David. 
 Once, under a ruler whose personal character exhibited all 
 those traits which might arouse hero-worship, Israel had 
 been a powerful military monarchy. The rule of David 
 had extended from the frontiers of Egypt to the River 
 Euphrates, and Jerusalem had become one of the important 
 cities of the world. The greatness was transitory, but it 
 created an ideal, and the hope of the kingdom of David 
 never failed. "Then shall there enter in," said Jeremiah, 
 "by the gates of this house kings sitting upon the throne 
 of David, riding in chariots and on horses."^ Whatever 
 might be the misfortunes of Israel this hope always re- 
 mained in some form or other. It encouraged the endurance 
 and aroused the aspirations of the nation. 
 
 But there was another ideal which superseded or trans- 
 formed the national hopes, the sovereignty of God. Two 
 great ideas were, in the religion of Israel, associated with 
 Jehovah, divine sovereignty and righteousness, testified to 
 alike by nature and by human society. "The heavens 
 declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his 
 handiwork."^ "The Lord hath estabhshed his throne in 
 the heavens and his kingdom ruleth over all."^ "All thy 
 works shall give thanks unto thee, O Lord, and thy saints 
 shall bless thee. They shall speak of the glory of thy 
 kingdom and talk of thy power. Thy kingdom is an ever- 
 lasting kingdom and thy dominion endureth throughout all 
 generations."^ Everywhere God was supreme. He ruled 
 over the world of nature and would extend His sway over 
 mankind, and the essence of his rule was righteousness. 
 
 These conceptions had a powerful influence on the ideal of 
 
 1 Jer. xxii. 4. * Ps. xix. i. 
 
 ' Ps. ciii. 19. * Ps. cxlv. 10-13. 
 
242 THE KINGDOM OF GOD 
 
 Israel. The hope of a Davidic kingdom became the hope 
 also of a righteous kingdom: "Behold a king shall reign 
 in righteousness and princes shall rule in judgment."^ "I 
 have made a covenant with my chosen. I have sworn unto 
 David my servant , . . strong is thy hand and high is thy 
 right hand. Righteousness and judgment are the founda- 
 tions of thy throne. Mercy and truth go before thy face."^ 
 The future kingdom is to be a righteous kingdom. 
 
 But there is another Hne of thought that we find running 
 through the history of Israel. If the kingdom was to be 
 a perfectly righteous kingdom, could any earthly king 
 satisfy the condition? Even at the first, the kingly ideal 
 is looked upon as one really inconsistent with the Divine 
 purpose of the nation. It was remembered that there had 
 been a time when there was no king in Israel. It was 
 remembered how Samuel the prophet had warned the 
 people of the evil of kingly rule. "The Lord their God 
 was their king." So at a later period the future of Israel 
 became associated among many of the devout, not with 
 an earthly kingdom, but with the establishment of the 
 theocracy. "The Holy One of Israel is our king."^ What 
 men looked forward to was the renewal of the covenant, 
 a change of heart, a new law, the restoration of Divine grace. 
 
 God might be the king of Israel; but His sway was not 
 acknowledged through the whole earth. So the further 
 idea grew up of a day when He would assert His authority 
 over all mankind and establish His kingdom. "In that 
 day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, 
 and the fruit of the land shall be excellent and comely."^ 
 "It shall come to pass in that day, that the root of Jesse, 
 which standeth for an ensign of the people, unto him shall 
 the nations seek; and his resting place shall be glorious."^ 
 With this day will come not only righteousness, but happi- 
 ness. "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new 
 earth. ... Be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which 
 I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rej'oicing, and her 
 people a j*oy."^ 
 
 ^ Is. xxxii. I. 2 Ps, Ixxxbc. 3, 13, 14. 
 
 ' Ps. Ixxxix. 18. * Is. iv. 2. 
 
 ^ Is. xi. 10. * Is. kv. 17, 18. 
 
THE VISION OF DANIEL 243 
 
 The latest development in the Old Testament of these 
 ideas is presented to us by the book of Daniel. As in other 
 books of the Maccabaean period, all reference to the house 
 of David is absent, but the idea of the Divine kingdom is 
 prominent. When the succession of the kingdoms of the 
 world is depicted in the image of gold and silver, of brass 
 and iron, the stone which destroys them and becomes a 
 great mountain represents the kingdom of God, "And 
 in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up 
 a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the 
 sovereignty thereof be left to another people: but it shall 
 break in pieces all those kingdoms, and it shall stand for 
 ever."^ And in the vision of the Ancient of Days we are 
 told how "the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness 
 of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to 
 the people of the saints of the Most High: his kingdom is 
 an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and 
 obey him."^ 
 
 To the ideas inherited from older prophets the circum- 
 stances of the Maccabaean period have added a new idea, 
 of which there had been intimations perhaps before, but 
 which here appears for the first time quite explicitly. In 
 old days the future of Israel had been the only problem, 
 the individual was not considered. But gradually the 
 religious development and the eventful history of the days 
 since the exile had made religion more personal. It became 
 no longer merely the fate of the nation, but that of the 
 individual that was a matter of moment. When, in the 
 days of persecution, the faithful adherent of the law had 
 died for his faith, it was felt that a future that did not give 
 to such a due reward was inadequate. To the ideas of 
 the kingdom and of the judgment, is added that of the 
 Resurrection. Deliverance is for everyone whose name is 
 written in the book of life, but for them alone: "And many 
 of them that sleep in the dust shall arise, some to ever- 
 lasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt."^ 
 
 From this time onwards all these varied hopes continued 
 to prevail in Israel, interpreted in many different ways. 
 To what extent the expression "The Kingdom," "The 
 
 ^ Dan. ii> 44. * Dan. vii. 27. ^ Dan. xii. 2. 
 
 17 
 
244 THE KINGDOM OF GOD 
 
 Kingdom of God," or "The Kingdom of Heaven" was in 
 popular use is a matter of discussion. It has been held that 
 in this as in other cases Jesus had adopted an Old Testa- 
 ment phrase and given it a distinction and importance 
 which it had not possessed before. That may be so, but I 
 doubt it. It was a Biblical term. It certainly was used; 
 and it seems to me more probable that it was the form in 
 which the ideals of the nation were normally expressed. 
 
 II 
 
 In what way did the Jews think of the kingdom? No 
 doubt to the vast majority, and especially to the people of 
 Galilee, it presented itself in a crude and worldly form. It 
 meant the restoration of Jewish independence. Under the 
 chosen ruler the people would revolt from the Romans; 
 they would restore again the kingdom to Israel; they would 
 be freed from alien rule and alien tax-gatherers. Instead of 
 being the servants of the Gentiles, they would be their 
 masters. It was a dream such as this which, at the time 
 of the enrolment, had stirred John of Gamala to found the 
 sect of the Galilaeans. It was this ideal which had stirred 
 up so many revolts, and which finally caused the whole 
 nation to wreck themselves in a hopeless, if heroic, contest 
 with the military power of Rome. 
 
 But this ideal of a temporal sovereignty r^ight be held 
 also in a lofty and elevated form, so that the restored king- 
 dom might mean the fulfilment of the highest ideals of the old 
 Israel. In this form it presents itself to us in the Psalms 
 of Solomon, an apocryphal collection belonging to the years 
 that followed on Pompey's conquest of Jerusalem. It 
 mourns over the fall of the city and exalts over the death of 
 the conqueror, an event which is described in picturesque 
 language inspired by national hatred. The following 
 passage represents the most brilHant description of the 
 national hope: "But as for us, we will hope in God, our 
 Saviour, for the might of our God endureth to everlasting 
 with mercy. And the kingdom of our God is unto everlast- 
 ing over the heathen in judgment. Thou, O Lord, didst 
 choose David to be king over Israel, and didst swear unto 
 
A KINGDOM OF RIGHTEOUSNESS 245 
 
 him touching his seed for ever, that his kingdom should not 
 fail before thee." The characteristics of this kingdom, a 
 kingdom under a son of David, are to be hoHness and 
 righteousness. Jerusalem is to be purified. The ungodly 
 nations are to be destroyed. ''He shall gather together a 
 holy people whom he shall rule in righteousness, and shall 
 judge the tribes of the people that hath been sanctified by 
 the Lord his God. And he shall not suffer iniquity to lodge 
 in their midst; and none that knoweth wickedness shall 
 dwell with them. He shall purge Jerusalem and make it 
 holy, even as it was in the days of old. So that the nations 
 may come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, bring- 
 ing as gifts her sons that had fainted. And may see the 
 glory of the Lord, wherewith God hath glorified her." All 
 this will come because God is king of Israel. "The Lord, 
 he is our king from henceforth and even for evermore."^ 
 
 But it had long been apparent to the wiser that any fulfil- 
 ment of the hopes of Israel which rested on worldly sover- 
 eignty in any form was not likely to be attained. Many 
 had even come to hope that it never would be attained. 
 The military monarchy of the Maccabees, after the first 
 period of enthusiasm and high ideals was over, had been an 
 outrage on the religious sense of the nation. No restoration 
 of this must come. How, then, were the hopes of Israel to 
 be fulfilled? There were many passages of the Old Testa- 
 ment which spoke of the "day," of the culmination of this 
 period of the world's history, of the coming of God to judge 
 the earth. He himself would intervene, or sometimes this 
 judgment of God was imagined as exercised for Him 
 by a supernatural being who represented Him and who as 
 having the divine Spirit poured out on Him is called the 
 Anointed or the Messiah. 
 
 This expectation, as it was largely the product of the 
 imagination, might be held in a great variety of forms, 
 but there were certain features which were common if not 
 universal. It was believed that the present aeon or period 
 in the world's history was swiftly drawing to its close. 
 The wickedness and faithlessness which prevailed were a 
 sign that the judgment was at hand. But before the end 
 
 1 Psalms of Solomon, xvii. 
 
246 THE KINGDOM OF GOD 
 
 came there would be worse evils which were sometimes 
 described as the birth pangs or woes of the Messiah, the 
 final effort of the powers of evil to assert themselves, the 
 great outburst of wickedness before it should be destroyed. 
 Then would appear the Messiah or the Anointed One. He 
 would judge the world and sweep away all wickedness 
 and evil. The old order would come to an end. The new 
 world would begin. 
 
 The future might be imagined in various ways. All evil 
 being destroyed, the Messiah might take away all those that 
 were true to Him to His heavenly abode, and there God's 
 sovereignty would be supreme. Or it might be held (as 
 was, in fact, often the case) that He would establish on earth 
 a kingdom which should last a thousand years, when the 
 redeemed would enjoy every form of human happiness, 
 often described in most materiahstic language. Then, at 
 the end of the thousand years, would come the second 
 resurrection, and the establishment of a new heaven and a 
 new earth. This double picture of an earthly kingdom 
 of the Messiah, followed after a long period by a heavenly 
 kingdom, really arose from the desire to reconcile the two 
 different forms of expectation, the one looking forward 
 to an earthly Messianic kingdom, the other to a future Ufa 
 in heaven. 
 
 It is not necessary to find any coherency or consistency 
 in these dreams. The importance for us is that the whole 
 action is looked upon as something supernatural and catas- 
 trophic. No help seemed possible through any ordinary 
 human channels, the forces of evil were too powerful. But 
 God would avenge His people. Suddenly the Messiah would 
 appear from heaven. He would destroy all the forces of evil 
 and establish a reign of righteousness. "He will cause the 
 sinners to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of 
 the earth, and those that have led the world astray. With 
 chains shall they be bound, and in their assemblage-place 
 of destruction shall they be imprisoned, and all their works 
 vanish from the face of the earth, and from thenceforth 
 there shall be nothing corruptible."^ And here is an account 
 of the future kingdom: "In that day mine Elect One shall 
 1 The Book of Enoch (ed. Charles), kix. 27, 28. 
 
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD 247 
 
 sit on the throne of glory and shall try their works, and their 
 places of rest shall be innumerable. And their souls shall 
 grow strong within them, when they see mine elect ones 
 and those who have called upon my glorious name: Then 
 will I cause mine Elect One to dwell among them. And 
 I will transform the heaven and make it an eternal bless- 
 ing and Hght, and I will transform the earth and make 
 it a blessing: and I will cause mine elect ones to dwell upon 
 it, but the sinners and evil-doers shall not set foot thereon. 
 For I have provided and satisfied with peace my righteous 
 ones and have caused them to dwell before me."^ 
 
 One further point must be noticed. As is usual in all 
 such imaginations concerning the future, much is expressed 
 in symbolical language, and it is hardly possible to know 
 where the symbolism ends and the literal presentation begins. 
 No one doubts that the four beasts and the great image of 
 the Book of Daniel are S3mibolical; how far was the vision 
 of the Ancient of Days intended to be more than a pictorial 
 representation of spiritual truths? Some of the greatest 
 errors in theology have come from the literal and dogmatic 
 interpretation of what was intended to be poetical. 
 
 There was a third way besides the expectation of a great 
 temporal kingdom or the apocalyptic dream of a new earth 
 in which the kingdom of heaven and the hope of Israel were 
 interpreted. The normal meaning of the kingdom of God 
 is, in Aramaic, the sovereignty or rule of God — that is. His 
 divine rule on the earth,^ Under the Rabbis this phrase 
 was largely used to mean the acceptance by Israel of the 
 rule of God over them. "Before our father Abraham 
 came into the world, God was, as it were, only the king of 
 heaven; but when Abraham came he made Him to be king 
 over heaven and earth." ^ At the Red Sea and at Sinai 
 Israel gave allegiance to this sovereignty of God. "The 
 proselyte who adopts the law takes upon himself the sover- 
 eignty of heaven."^ To read the Shema was to take upon 
 
 1 Book of Enoch, xlv. 3-6. 
 
 ^ On this conception see Dalman, The Words of Jesus (English Trans- 
 lation, Edinburgh, 1902), p. gi ff. 
 
 ^ Quoted by Dalman, p. 96, from Siphre Dt., 113 (Fr. 134'^). 
 * Simeon ben Lakish (c. a.d. 260). See Dalman, p. 97. 
 
248 THE KINGDOM OF GOD 
 
 oneself the yoke of the sovereignty of God. The sovereignty 
 of God belongs therefore to the current age. It is as yet 
 acknowledged only by Israel. It is Hmited by the fact that 
 the peoples of the world do not acknowledge this divine 
 sovereignty. The final consummation will only come when 
 all idolatrous worship shall be aboHshed and all mankind 
 shall acknowledge the rule of God: "Then shall God alone 
 be absolute in all the world, and His sovereignty will endure 
 for ever and ever."^ 
 
 The kingdom of heaven may thus mean the acceptance 
 of God as your sovereign to whom you personally owe alle- 
 giance, as one to whom you are responsible for your conduct 
 on earth. It may therefore be, at any rate to a considerable 
 extent, independent of any question of earthly sovereignty 
 and dominion. It would mean, therefore, the theocracy. 
 It meant obedience to the law. Thus "the kingdom" was 
 possible under very varied earthly conditions. Many of 
 the Chasidim in the days of the Maccabees seem to have 
 been quite reconciled to foreign domination, provided they 
 were allowed the free exercise of their religion. Many Jews 
 of the Dispersion did not feel their position in foreign lands 
 inconsistent with the claims of their religion, provided noth- 
 ing was done to prevent them from keeping the law. The 
 restoration of Israel was perhaps never quite forgotten by 
 any, but if the recognition of God's sovereignty was attained, 
 all that was essential would be secured. 
 
 Such were the different forms which the expectation of the 
 kingdom might assume among the Jews. How far any one 
 of them was held and in what circles when Jesus preached 
 is a more difficult enquiry. That in Galilee, as has been said, 
 for the great mass of the people the kingdom meant the 
 restoration of temporal sovereignty there can be little doubt. 
 This was always hoped for, but at the time of our Lord's 
 ministry it would not be held with such intensity as it had 
 been, because Herodian rule, however unsatisfactory, did 
 remove some causes of friction. But what form did the 
 hope of Simeon take, "who looked for the consolation of 
 Israel"?^ or of Anna the prophetess, "who spake of him to 
 
 ^ Dalman, p. 99, from Mechilta (ed. Friedmann), 56*. 
 ^ Lk. ii. 25. 
 
THE HOPE OF THE KINGDOM 249 
 
 all those who looked for the redemption of Jerusalem,"^ 
 or of Joseph of Arimathea "who also hunself was looking 
 for the kingdom of God?"^ Was it temporal rule? or 
 the apocalyptic crisis? or the extension of the theocracy 
 throughout the world? We have not really adequate evi- 
 dence, but my own opinion would be that at this time the 
 apocalyptic hopes were somewhat in abeyance. They had 
 been strong in the days of the Maccabees, they became 
 strong again after the fall of Jerusalem. The expectation 
 also of the extension of the divine sovereignty of God 
 throughout the world by the nations acknowledging His 
 Law — that is, the conception of the universality of God's 
 will without sovereign power for the people of Israel, was 
 one which was more natural to Rabbinism when it became 
 organized after the fall of Jerusalem. Our evidence for it is 
 for the most part late, yet it is the development of a thought 
 which had always existed in Israel. The mass of the people 
 would hope for temporal rule, and it was that that was ulti- 
 mately the motive power of the great revolt. The higher 
 minds would hold that expectation in the elevated form of 
 the Psalms of Solomon. Some few, perhaps, placed their 
 hopes for the future in the triumph of divine law and right- 
 eousness. 
 
 Ill 
 
 It is clear, then, that when Jesus spoke of the kingdom of 
 God he was making use of a well-known phrase. It came 
 directly from the Old Testament. It was probably the word 
 which would best express the ideals of the day, and it was 
 part of the recognized religious phraseology. Everyone 
 hoped for the kingdom. 
 
 But in what sense did Jesus Himself use the phrase? 
 On this point there have been differences of opinion. Some 
 would interpret it in a purely apocalyptic sense. Jesus 
 thought that He would shortly come as the Messiah from 
 heaven, and would destroy all evil from the world and 
 establish His kingdom. It has been maintained by others 
 that the kingdom that He spoke of is something present, 
 
 1 Lk. ii. 38. 2 Mk. xv. 43. 
 
250 THE KINGDOM OF GOD 
 
 that it did not mean any form of external or worldly rule, 
 but the divine sovereignty established in the hearts of 
 men, and the overthrow in that way of the kingdom of 
 evil. A third explanation would be that the kingdom of 
 God meant the Christian Church. On one point almost 
 all are agreed, that Jesus had definitely repudiated the idea 
 of any earthly kingdom established by earthly means. 
 The popular expectations of the people of Galilee he con- 
 demned as mistaken and wrong. 
 
 The difficulty of deciding in what sense Jesus used the 
 term is increased by uncertainty or supposed uncertainty 
 as to the authenticity of the words of the Gospel. It is the 
 custom of many who write on these things to maintain that 
 any recorded saying of our Lord which conflicts with their 
 particular view represents the thought of a later time. 
 The method is a simple and easy way of evading difficulties, 
 but as, unfortunately, there is no agreement as to which 
 are the spurious sayings, the uncertainty must remain. 
 There are some theologians who would ehminate all passages 
 which demand an eschatological explanation, others would 
 eliminate the Church, others think that references to the 
 kingdom of God established in men's hearts represent an 
 elaboration of later times. How arbitrary all this is is shown 
 by a statement that I read lately to the effect that a passage 
 can only be genuine if it be given a particular meaning. 
 Clearly such speculation is much too subjective. There is 
 no solid basis. The proper method must be to examine 
 all the instances recorded of the use of the expression, to 
 ask what they mean, to see whether they can be brought 
 under one general conception, to consider whether they are 
 inconsistent with one another, and to ask whether our in- 
 terpretation harmonizes with the rest of our Lord's teach- 
 ing. Only after we have done that may we eliminate any 
 incongruous passages as unauthentic. 
 
 It is clear that this problem of the kingdom was one which 
 caused much questioning. Jesus had said that the kingdom 
 of Heaven was at hand. But when would it come? And 
 how would it come? We are told on one occasion that 
 certain Pharisees asked "when the kingdom of God cometh." 
 And it must have been in answer to such questions that the 
 
PARABLES OF THE KINGDOM 251 
 
 many parables which begin by reference to the kingdom 
 were spoken. It was shortly after the first serious breach 
 between Jesus and the ecclesiastical authorities, and just 
 after the appointment of the Twelve, that we find Him giv- 
 ing definite instruction on this subject and in the form of 
 parables. How many parables he dehvered on this occasion 
 we cannot say. St. Matthew (as is usual with him) takes 
 the opportunity of bringing together several parables on the 
 subject, and it is possible that St. Mark may have done the 
 same, but even if this we^e so, the fact that all these 
 parables may not have been spoken at the same time does 
 not necessarily take away from their authenticity.^ 
 
 Why did our Lord speak in parables? The obvious answer 
 to give is, because of the attractiveness of such a method 
 of exposition. People would readily come to hear one whose 
 discourse was interesting and attractive and appealed to 
 their imagination. But a different and deeper reason is 
 given in the Gospel. Jesus, we are told, said: "Unto you is 
 given the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them 
 that are without, all things are done in parables: that see- 
 ing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may 
 hear, and not understand; lest haply they should turn again, 
 and it should be forgiven them."^ These words have caused 
 great difficulties, and their authenticity is now widely denied. 
 It is said that not only this statement but the explanations 
 which are given of the parables are the work of the early 
 Church, if not of the Evangelist himself. It is maintained 
 that the parables are quite easy to understand, and that 
 it is only the misconception of their meaning at a later date 
 which led to the production of the elaborate and erroneous 
 systems of interpretation which are given us. It is un- 
 fortunate that when we turn to the explanations given by 
 these modern commentators we find that they differ among 
 themselves as to what the parables do mean, and this will, 
 I am afraid, prevent us from accepting the statement that 
 they are quite easy without some qualification. 
 
 I would ask you to consider for a moment the circum- 
 stances under which the parable of the sower was spoken. 
 It was clearly intended to reveal the mystery of the kingdom. 
 1 Mk. iv. 1-34; Mt. xiii. 1-53. 2 mj^, jy. u^ 12. 
 
252 THE KINGDOM OF GOD 
 
 The expectations which Jesus aroused by His proclamation, 
 by His teaching, by His personality, by His miracles, had 
 created a great stir among the people. His apparent un- 
 orthodoxy must have accentuated the perplexity. A great 
 crowd, mostly of common people, had collected together 
 anxious for explanations, and they hear a story of a man 
 going out to sow seed. What bewilderment this must have 
 caused! It was not in the least what they wanted or 
 expected. They wanted to know when and how the king- 
 dom would come. Was Jesus* shortly going to lead them 
 against the Romans? It was difficult to see how this story 
 could answer their questions. 
 
 Now to the early Church there would have been little 
 difficulty. The preaching of the Word was something they 
 could understand. It was going on continually. To them 
 the meaning of the parable would have been clear. But 
 to the multitude by the sea, eager to hear of a real kingdom 
 being established, it meant nothing, unless there were some 
 of real spiritual understanding. They were listening to a 
 pleasing but enigmatical story. 
 
 But this and other parables, spoken either then or at a 
 later time, taught just what was necessary. You ask: 
 What is the kingdom? When will it come? The kingdom 
 of heaven is now come, it is indeed here, but you are not 
 able to see or understand. It is the word that is spoken. It 
 is the message that I am giving. It does not come with 
 power or might. It is no great spectacular event. It is like 
 seed, which only brings forth fruit if it fall on good ground. 
 The coming of the kingdom depends upon the growth of 
 the Word of God in men's hearts, and as there are many in 
 whom it does not bring forth fruit, the kingdom cannot come 
 speedily. The growth of the kingdom is a slow and secret 
 process; it is like seed growing secretly. What happens we 
 cannot see, but ultimately the plant springs up and flowers 
 and produces its seed, and so the consummation is reached. 
 Its beginnings are very small, but little by little it will become 
 great and spread throughout the world as the small seed 
 becomes the great Xree. The kingdom is the word of God. It 
 is God's secret process working through a long period of time. 
 It is the little community growing into a great Church. 
 
PARABLES OF THE KINGDOM 253 
 
 Exactly the same teaching is given us in the series of 
 parables added by St. Matthew. What more appropriate 
 parable to describe the growth of Christianity in the world 
 than the leaven leavening the dough? What better parables 
 could there be to tell us that the kingdom of heaven is some- 
 thing which is not primarily to make a show in the world, 
 but is a personal possession of unlimited value, than the 
 treasure hidden in the field and the pearl of great price? 
 To obtain these it is worth while to give up everything. 
 
 Two more parables put before us other aspects of the 
 kingdom. Will there be a time in this world when all men 
 will do righteously? Will the kingdom be a place where 
 there are no traitors or disloyal persons? That is not what 
 we are to expect. Just as in a field you cannot separate 
 the wheat from the tares, just as if you cast a net into the 
 sea it will be filled with fishes good and bad, so in the world 
 the sons of the kingdom will have to live side by side with 
 the sons of the devil. It is only at the end of all things that 
 the final estabUshment of the kingdom will take place. Then 
 good and exdl will be separated. The tares will be burnt. 
 The bad fish will be cast away. So the angels will come and 
 sever the wicked from among the righteous, and cast them 
 into the furnace of fire, but the righteous will shine forth as 
 the sun in the kingdom of their Father. 
 
 If we sum up the meaning of the kingdom of God as 
 presented in these parables, there seem to be three concep- 
 tions, not entirely separate from one another, but merging 
 in one another. The first is that the kingdom means a 
 principle of Hfe and conduct in men's hearts. As such, it 
 is not something which is to come in outward show and 
 splendour, but something which is already here. It is a 
 process which is now working, not a new revelation to come 
 from heaven. So it might be described as Christianity or 
 the Christian dispensation, the new state of things inaugu- 
 rated by the preaching of Jesus. It has often, secondly, 
 been interpreted as the Christian Church. That is, I beheve, 
 too narrow a meaning. It would be better to say that it is 
 Christianity looked on as a great power or process working 
 in the world, of which process the Christian Church is the 
 definitely visible aspect. But this does not exhaust the 
 
254 THE KINGDOM OF GOD 
 
 thought. There is a third point of view. The kingdom 
 ultimately will be the final consummation of all things. 
 
 It has been maintained that here we have three different 
 meanings of the kingdom, not merely different aspects of 
 one idea, but different interpretations belonging to different 
 times and circles of thought. All are more or less incon- 
 sistent with the teaching of Jesus, and belong to a later 
 period in the Christian Church. Now I think that you will 
 admit that there is a good deal of difficulty in taking this 
 view about teaching based upon parables which appear to 
 represent the most individual and personal utterances of 
 Jesus. The parables are a part of the Gospel narrative 
 which it is most difficult, on literary grounds, to eliminate. 
 In order, however, to investigate the problem fully, I pro- 
 pose next to examine the rest of the evidence of the Gospels 
 bearing on the kingdom, then to consider how far these 
 different aspects can be looked at as the working out of one 
 idea, and finally to ask whether there is anything in the 
 statement that they are impossible in the mouth of Jesus. 
 
 When our Lord is accused by the Pharisees of casting out 
 devils through Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. He asks 
 if Satan be divided against himself how his kingdom will 
 stand. And then He adds, "If I by the Spirit of God cast 
 out devils, then is the Kingdom of God come upon you."^ 
 Here the conception seems clear. There is a kingdom of evil, 
 the working of which is revealed in all the sin and misery of 
 the world. If a power has now been revealed in the world 
 which is able to overcome these powers of evil, it means that 
 God's sovereignty is already being asserted, and that there- 
 fore in some sense, although not perhaps in its most com- 
 plete manifestation, the kingdom of God has come. 
 
 Again, when our Lord is speaking of John the Baptist, He 
 says: "Verily I say unto you, there is not among those born 
 of woman a greater than John the Baptist. But he that is 
 least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. But 
 from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom 
 
 ^ Lk. xi. 20. 
 
MEANING OF THE KINGDOM 255 
 
 of heaven suffereth violence, and violent persons ravage it. 
 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John."^ 
 The obvious meaning of this passage seems clear. There 
 are two dispensations. The one is that of the law and the 
 prophets. This has had its consummation in John, who 
 was more than a prophet because he was, in fact, the herald 
 of a new order. Then begins a new dispensation inaugurated 
 by Jesus Himself, the kingdom of heaven, and in it God's 
 rule or sovereignty asserts itself in a wholly new way. 
 
 Once when Jesus has been speaking of the futility of 
 ordinary worldly aspirations, he adds, "Seek ye his kingdom 
 and these things shall be added unto you,"^ and this is 
 explained by St, Matthew, "Seek ye first his kingdom and 
 his righteousness."^ Here seeking the kingdom means 
 adopting a certain aim in hfe. The message that Jesus has 
 to give is that God's kingdom is what we are to strive for, 
 and the explanation is righteousness. God's kingdom means 
 living in accordance with God's law of righteousness. 
 
 A rich young man came to our Lord and said: "Good 
 Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" 
 After answering his question Jesus said: "How hardly shall 
 they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God. It is 
 easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for 
 a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.""* The 
 comment on this is: "Then who can be saved?" The 
 kingdom seems here to be used in an eschatological sense, 
 not, however, of the sudden appearance of the Son of Man 
 to judgment, but simply of "eternal life." 
 
 "It is better," said Jesus, "to enter into the kingdom of 
 God with one eye than having two eyes to be cast into hell 
 fire."^ This has been explained in the preceding verse as 
 "entering into life," and the life is one which is not con- 
 fined to life hereafter. The expression to "enter into the 
 kingdom of heaven" is thus often used of "salvation." The 
 language in some cases seems to harmonize best with the Kfe 
 here, sometimes with the hfe hereafter. It is not, indeed, 
 necessary to distinguish too carefully the two ideas. Life 
 
 1 From The Discourses, Mt. xi. 11-13; cf. Lk. xvi. 16. 
 
 2 Lk. xii. 31. 3 ]yjt_ yi. 2,:^. 
 
 * Mk. X. 17-31. 5 Mk. ix. 47; Mt. xviii. 9. 
 
256 THE KINGDOM OF GOD 
 
 begins here because to live in accordance with God's will 
 is the true life, and life hereafter is but the continuation, 
 the fulfilment and the consummation of that life. 
 
 We are told that once the Pharisees came to Jesus and 
 asked him "when the kingdom of God cometh."^ Their 
 expectations may have been of an eschatological character, 
 or they may have expected the establishment to an earthly 
 monarchy and the restoration of the kingdom of Israel. 
 The reply that Jesus gives implies that all such expectations 
 are erroneous, and based on an imperfect conception of 
 God's purpose. "The kingdom of God cometh not with 
 observation." There will be no spectacular and dramatic 
 action. In fact, the kingdom of God is already here in your 
 midst. 
 
 Now what is the conception underlying all these varied 
 usages? St. Matthew, if not our Lord Himself, has given 
 us an explanation. In the Lord's Prayer we are bidden to 
 pray, "Thy kingdom come," and immediately afterwards 
 in the version of the first Gospel are the words "Thy will 
 be done."^ The kingdom of God is God's sovereignty or 
 rule and that means the fulfilment of His will. This con- 
 ception will embrace and harmonize all the varied uses which 
 have been described. Jesus came to establish a kingdom. 
 In order to do so. His plan was to teach people to live in 
 accordance with God's will. That is why He was the 
 preacher of righteousness, that is why He laid down a rule of 
 life lofty and exacting, and yet such that He might describe 
 His yoke as easy. So soon as this preaching begins, the 
 kingdom of God begins — that is to say, the assertion of 
 God's sovereignty against the kingdoms of the world and the 
 kingdom of evil. In this way there is established a new dis- 
 pensation which succeeds to the old and therefore will take 
 its place as the sphere of God's sovereignty. Into this king- 
 dom only those may come who have acknowledged God's 
 sway in their hearts. All such may be said to have life. 
 But the life here is only the beginning of a life which is to 
 last for all eternity. The kingdom here is something imper- 
 fect and incomplete. There will be a time at the end of 
 all things when God's sovereignty will be universally estab- 
 
 ^ Lk. xvii. 20. . * Mt. vi. 10. 
 
VARIOUS MEANINGS OF THE KINGDOM 257 
 
 lished and all who have fulfilled God's will will inherit 
 eternal life. 
 
 The kingdom, then, meant what we call Christianity or 
 the Christian dispensation, or in some of its aspects the 
 Christian Church. When, then, our Lord began His minis try- 
 by saying, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand, repent 
 and beheve the Gospel," He was using language which might 
 have different meanings for different persons. Some might 
 think: "At last the yoke of the Gentile will be cast off. 
 The kingdom of our father David will be established. The 
 chosen people will once more be free and independent in 
 their own land and will triumph over the Gentiles. Jeru- 
 salem will be the centre of the whole earth." Others might 
 think: "The day of the Lord is at hand. The Son of Man 
 will come to judgment. A new heaven and a new earth 
 will be estabHshed. All that is evil will be condemned and 
 cast into Gehenna, the rich and wealthy kings of the earth, 
 all those who are the elect, for whom it is prepared, will 
 enter into the heavenly kingdom where God will reign with 
 His saints." But Jesus did not mean any of these things. 
 He meant: "I am come to teach you to fulfil God's will. I 
 am come to teach you the true righteousness. I will sow 
 in your heart the word of God. I am come to destroy the 
 kingdom of evil, not with earthly might, but in the spirit 
 of God. This is the kingdom which God has prepared for 
 you from the foundation of the world. It will not come sud- 
 denly, but slowly. Its growth will not be conspicuous. It 
 will permeate the world as the leaven, but gradually it will 
 become a force and power beneficent throughout the whole 
 earth." 
 
 It has been thought that the conception of the kingdom 
 "of God which has just been sketched is not possible as part 
 of the teaching of our Lord, but that it represents the 
 developed conception of the Christian Church. Jesus' own 
 conception of the kingdom was, it is maintained, purely 
 apocalyptic; He expected, it is said, the speedy coming of 
 the day of the Lord. At first He thought that He would 
 come as the Son of God in His own lifetime. Then, when 
 
2s8 THE KINGDOM OF GOD 
 
 in that He was disappointed, He began to realize His death 
 must come first, but after His death He would come again 
 soon as the Son of Man to judge the world and estabhsh 
 His kingdom. It was the continued failure of the Parousia 
 which created Christianity. It is inconceivable, it is said, 
 that Jesus should have had such far-reaching views, and 
 they must have been the creation of the Christian Church. 
 This criticism demands some consideration. 
 
 What is the result of the examination of the evidence? 
 The account which I have given of our Lord's teaching is 
 put together almost entirely from what are generally held 
 to be the earhest portions of the Gospel narrative. It does 
 not, so far as documents can help us, represent a later de- 
 velopment. Parables and sayings of our Lord which repre- 
 sent the kingdom as present, as a spiritual process, as the 
 Gospel dispensation, almost as the Church, occur both in 
 St. Mark's Gospel and in The Discourses, and it is only by 
 explaining away the obvious meaning of these passages or by 
 maintaining in quite an arbitrary way that they are un- 
 authentic that any other theory can be maintained. The 
 exposition that I have given rests on a sound critical and 
 exegetical basis. 
 
 It will be convenient next to examine three passages in 
 which a purely apocalyptic meaning is claimed for "the 
 kingdom." The first is one which tells us of the coming of 
 the kingdom of God with power. Shortly before the Trans- 
 figuration Jesus said: "Verily I say unto you that there are 
 some of those standing here who shall not taste of death 
 until they see the kingdom of God coming with power." ^ 
 That is how the passage is given in St. Mark. In St. Mat- 
 thew it is given a more definite eschatological turn by sub- 
 stituting the words "until they see the Son of Man coming 
 in his kingdom." We know that among some, at any rate, 
 in the ApostoHc age, the Parousia was believed to be close 
 at hand, and such a belief has often prevailed at subsequent 
 periods in Christian history. This alteration suggests, then, 
 that there was a tendency to modify the words of our Lord 
 in an eschatological sense. Now it is maintained that here 
 we have a definite prophecy of the nearness of the Parousia. 
 
 1 Mk. ix. i; Mt. xvi. 28. 
 
THE ESCHATOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION 259 
 
 There is, however, nothing in the words themselves to com- 
 pel such an interpretation. The kingdom of God coming 
 with power might be equally well exhibited by the descent 
 of the Holy Ghost, by the power of the Spirit in the Church, 
 and by the triumphant march of Christianity through the 
 world. All these interpretations would harmonize with the 
 conception of the kingdom put before us in the parables and 
 taught elsewhere in St. Mark. 
 
 A second instance is in the words used at the Last Supper: 
 *' Verily I say unto you, I will no more drink of the fruit of 
 the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom 
 of God."^ It is maintained that these words mean that 
 there was a conviction in the mind of Jesus that the kingdom 
 of God in an eschatological sense would shortly be estab- 
 lished. But the words are surely intended to be interpreted 
 in a purely figurative manner. We know that, according 
 to one strain of Jewish expectation, the Messianic kingdom 
 was looked forward to as a time of materiahstic, sometimes 
 grossly materialistic, enjoyment, and, in particular, that it 
 was spoken of in terms of eating and drinking. Jesus occa- 
 sionally adopts this type of language, as when he says that 
 many shall come from the east and the west and shall sit 
 down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom 
 of heaven.^ The kingdom is represented as a great banquet. 
 Now, no one but the Chiliasts of the early Church and their 
 even less intelligent imitators take such words as these in 
 their hteral signification, and clearly the words of the Lord, 
 so far as speaking of the Messianic banquet, would not be 
 so taken; why, then, should the remainder of the verse be 
 held to be literal? The whole passage is figurative. Jesus 
 is taking a solemn farewell of His disciples. His earthly 
 Ufe is over. He will meet them again w^hen with Him they 
 share in the joys of the heavenly kingdom in its final con- 
 summation which is eternal fife. Here, also, the kingdom 
 must be interpreted as in other places in St. Mark's Gospel. 
 
 It is significant that in The Discourses there is no passage 
 to be interpreted in a purely eschatological sense. The 
 only other that I think need concern us comes from St. 
 Luke's account of the Last Supper: "But ye are they 
 
 * Mk. xiv. 25. 2 Mt. viii. ii. 
 
26o THE KINGDOM OF GOD 
 
 which have continued with me in my temptations; and I 
 appoint unto you a kingdom even as my Father appointed 
 unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my 
 kingdom; and ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve 
 tribes of Israel."^ It might be possible (as any critic would 
 do who did not like the passage) to assert that this as being 
 inserted by St. Luke came from a later source. But that is 
 not necessary. There is no reason for thinking it not genu- 
 ine. St. Luke had, if not a second history of the Passion and 
 Crucifixion, at any rate much fuller information, probably 
 correct, about it. This passage harmonizes with the words 
 following the institution and should be interpreted in the 
 same way. There can be no doubt that here as elsewhere 
 Jesus uses language such as was common in Jewish expecta- 
 tion. Even by the Jew it was probably regarded as figura- 
 tive and symbolical. Jesus, too, used it in that way, and 
 a passage like this must be interpreted in harmony with the 
 rest of His teaching. 
 
 Now let us ask what is implied in the suggestion that an 
 insight into the future of the Christian community would 
 not have been possible for our Lord. It is maintained, I 
 suppose, that so narrow and Hmited were His ideals that 
 He could not have thought of the Christian community as 
 a great tree which filled all the earth, or that He had never 
 pictured to Himself a new world in which good and evil were 
 mingled, and that He had no insight into the power of God 
 as working in the world. Why was not this possible? Jesus, 
 we know, looked upon Himself as fulfiUing all the expecta- 
 tions of the Old Testament, but He always interpreted them 
 in their most spiritual meaning. In Him the hopes of Israel 
 attained their fruition. Such hopes might be and had been 
 interpreted in very crude and worldly ways, but if anyone 
 read the Old Testament with spiritual insight there could be 
 no doubt what it had taught. The kingdom there, too, 
 always meant the sovereignty of God, and therefore 
 righteousness. In all ages there had been those who had 
 recognized this, but the needs and circumstances of the times 
 were such that they could never make them effective, nor 
 had they the power to do so. The Chasidim and all those 
 
 1 Lk. xxii. 29, 30; cf. Mt. xix. 28. 
 
THE VISION OF THE KINGDOM 261 
 
 writers in the Psalms who cared so Uttle for any external 
 success, provided only they were allowed to worship God 
 according to His will, had held such views. So it was that 
 Jesus, grasping all that was most spiritual in the Old Testa- 
 ment, and proclaiming it as the central fact of His teaching, 
 saw the kingdom of God as the full recognition of the divine 
 sovereignty, as the fulfdment of the di\dne will and therefore 
 righteousness. 
 
 The Old Testament had seen a \^sion of the nations of 
 the world flowing to the mountain of the Lord's house, and 
 the Gentiles coming to see His light. It had spoken of the 
 word of the Lord going forth from Jerusalem. WTiy, then, 
 should not Jesus have thought of His kingdom extending 
 throughout all the world, or reahzed that His teaching must 
 be disseminated in one way only, by preaching the Word. 
 The existence and supremacy of all such ideas must depend 
 upon their hold upon men's hearts. They created a spiritual 
 life. Those who accepted them might be called the sons of 
 the kingdom; the time when this message was preached rep- 
 resented a new dispensation, one in which "the kingdom 
 would pass to another nation." A new Israel would succeed 
 to the old Israel. 
 
 Now, I do not see any reason why this should not have 
 been Jesus' plan or purpose, why He should not have ex- 
 hibited the breadth of vision and the far-reaching outlook 
 which a true and deep spiritual insight into the Old Testa- 
 ment could give Him. Could anything less than that have 
 created Christianity? 
 
 Nor is there any reason for thinking that such ideas could 
 have grown up in the Apostolic age, if they had not been 
 inherited from Jesus. This new conception of the kingdom 
 was profound and far-reaching. The founder of a religion 
 is he who has the creative mind which enables him to im- 
 press himself on those who follow him. The successors are 
 but interpreters. Apart from St. Paul — and we know that 
 he taught something quite different and much less impressive 
 — and in a certain sense perhaps the author of the fourth 
 Gospel, we have no reason for thinking the men of the 
 Apostolic age were men of great power and genius. We 
 know, too (of this there can be little doubt), that the words 
 
262 THE KINGDOM OF GOD 
 
 of the Lord were interpreted literally, that a common belief 
 was the speedy coming of the Son of Man, and that there 
 was a tendency to modify the tradition in this direction. Is 
 it likely that in these circumstances a conception would be 
 formed of the kingdom which implied this far vision of the 
 future? The existence of the teaching of our Lord as 
 recorded in the Gospels will account for all the different 
 elements of the ApostoHc age; it is not what the primitive 
 Church was capable of creating. 
 
 But the decisive argument in favour of the correctness of 
 the interpretation that I have maintained of our Lord's 
 use of the kingdom is that it harmonizes with the rest of 
 His work and words. This will become clearer the further 
 we advance. The essential point is the harmony between the 
 teaching of the kingdom and the new law of righteousness. 
 We have given the lesson of the Sermon on the Mount. 
 We saw that it implied a transformation of the idea of 
 righteousness so profound as to supersede and yet fulfil the 
 ancient law, so profound as to mean a reconstruction of 
 human ideals and ultimately to produce a change in all the 
 conditions of earthly Hfe. Now, what purpose would all 
 this have if the final end of all things was to come im- 
 mediately? Clearly, it would be a futile waste of labour. 
 What purpose would there be in promulgating a universal 
 morality which might form a system for the whole world 
 if it was only intended to be taught to a limited number 
 of people, mostly Jews, for a few years only? The Sermon 
 on the Mount, if correctly understood, means the preaching 
 of a universal Gospel and a spiritual interpretation of the 
 kingdom. 
 
 Finally, we know how a later generation would have ex- 
 pressed all these ideas. We have in the Gospel according to 
 St. John an interpretation of our Lord's words in accord- 
 ance with the teaching of a later age, and there we find that 
 the "kingdom" has to be translated into a language more 
 consonant to the times, and the phrase used is "Hfe" or 
 "eternal life," following our Lord's own pattern. So St. Paul 
 interprets it as righteousness, and the growing Christian com- 
 munity when they wanted to contrast the old dispensation 
 and the new began to talk of a Christian Church, again 
 
THE GOLDEN AGE 263 
 
 perhaps following indications given by Jesus Himself. The 
 teaching of the Apostolic age is the natural development 
 of the teaching of the Gospel, and expresses itself in quite 
 new language. The transformation of the Jewish idea of 
 the kingdom must be the work of Jesus Himself. 
 
 VI 
 
 The idea of the kingdom was the form in which the Jewish 
 hope of a golden age which was to come was expressed. 
 Such an expectation of a golden age has been an almost 
 invariable possession of every nation which has raised itself 
 above the level of unthinking acquiescence in the dull routine 
 of normal existence. It has taken many forms and been 
 adorned with much poetry and romance. To some it has 
 been a kingdom on earth, to others it has been a kingdom 
 in heaven. Some have thought of an ultimate time when 
 our successors and descendants in generations to come shall 
 dwell peacefully and happily under ideal conditions of 
 human Ufe. Others have thought of the city in the 
 heavens of which we ourselves with all others who have 
 been thought worthy of it will be the inhabitants. 
 
 This life of the future, as it was the heritage of the Jewish 
 people, held by some worthily, by others unworthily, Jesus 
 used as the vehicle ot his teaching and transformed in using. 
 Into the new conception he brought everything worthy 
 which Israel gave; he eliminated everything national, tem- 
 porary, particularist. He said the kingdom simply means 
 doing God's will. "Whosoever shall do the will of my 
 Father which is in heaven, the same is my mother, and my 
 sister, and my brother." It was neither simply earthly nor 
 simply heavenly, neither simply now nor simply to come, 
 neither simply individual nor simply social. It was all of 
 these. For the kingdom was wherever God's will was done. 
 
 And this shows us the one-sidedness of two different 
 interpretations of Christianity. The one has looked only 
 to the future Kfe of the individual. It has thought Httle, 
 directly at any rate, of human Hfe and obligation on earth. 
 It has placed its earthly ideal in the monastery, and earthly 
 duty merely in so living as to ensure for the individual eternal 
 salvation. Christian altruism and the performance of works 
 
264 THE KINGDOM OF GOD 
 
 of mercy and the benefit of our fellow-men are commended 
 as the means by which we are to attain the kingdom in 
 heaven which is eternal life. All this is very inadequate, be- 
 cause it fails to realize that Christian righteousness and love 
 are in themselves beneficial here because they benefit human 
 life, that the life here is in itself good because it is a life 
 lived according to God's will and just so far as it is that, 
 and that the happiness and human well-being which come 
 from the practice of righteousness are part of the promise of 
 the Father. 
 
 But there is another perversion which comes as a reaction 
 from such Christian other-worldhness. It is felt that the 
 material well-being of our fellow human beings is a right 
 ideal for us to seek. Christianity has always tended the sick, 
 and cared for the orphan and the widow, and relieved the 
 distressed. It is only carrying out such an ideal in a modern 
 way, it is urged, to make social reform the main object 
 of Christian effort. That, it is maintained, is the modern 
 and scientific method of doing what Christian charity has 
 always aimed at. And it is not a great step on from this 
 to identify the kingdom with the particular enthusiasm 
 which is attracting the higher minds of the day. All this is 
 natural, but it is to mistake the whole meaning of Christ's 
 teaching. The kingdom is not merely for the world to come. 
 The well-being of mankind here is not to be despised or set 
 aside as something Christianity is not concerned with. But 
 the essence of Christ's teaching is that that well-being is 
 not to be sought in any particular form of polity, whether 
 the divine right of kings, as some of our fathers thought, 
 or the establishment of democracy, as is more popular at the 
 present day, or the social revolution, as some would believe; 
 nor in the action of the state; nor in the spread of educa- 
 tion; nor in the increase of material wealth, in fruitful com- 
 merce and wisely organized industry; but simply in each 
 person seeking to live according to God's will and act 
 righteously. If we all do that other goods will inevitably 
 come. This is the secret of Christianity, and just so far as 
 the world has accepted it has there been real human pro- 
 gress. The Golden Age comes by each man acting rightly. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE CRISIS OF THE MINISTRY 
 
 The Galilaean Ministry was only a stage in the work of 
 Jesus. In it He had preached and exhibited the Gospel, 
 but not the whole of the Gospel. It was necessary that it 
 should come to an end in order that He might attain the 
 triumph of His ministry and the whole content of the 
 Christian revelation be revealed. A series of events which 
 formed the crisis of the ministry led, it might seem almost 
 accidentally, to the necessary consummation. 
 
 First there was the disappointment caused by the failure 
 of Jesus to respond to the wishes of the people. They began 
 to hope that the Messiah had come, but they found that 
 His aims were very different to anything that they had 
 expected. An attempt at something hke revolution appears 
 to have been made by them. Jesus could have nothing to 
 do with this, but the suspicions of the authorities were 
 aroused. If Jesus was not to meet at the hands of Herod 
 the fate of John the Baptist, a fate which would have left 
 His work half complete and have deprived it of its power 
 to influence the world, then there must be a change of 
 method. For a time the public ministry seems to have 
 ceased. Jesus spent some months either alone or with His 
 disciples in a wandering life, for some time outside Jewish 
 territory, and always outside that of Herod Antipas. It 
 has been reasonably conjectured that this period was devoted 
 to the training of the Apostles. That may not have been 
 true of the whole time. At the end, however, we find Him 
 accompanied by them, and their training reached its cul- 
 mination in the confession of St. Peter. The disciples had, 
 after much doubt and hesitation, accepted the Messiahship, 
 and immediately a new note comes in. The disciples have 
 now to learn that it is a suffering Messiah that has been 
 foretold. They have to learn the deeper note of the Gospel. 
 
 265 
 
266 THE CRISIS OF THE MINISTRY 
 
 Jesus henceforth looks stedfastly forward to the end. The 
 time has come when He must go up to Jerusalem to claim 
 His kingdom and to die. 
 
 The beginning of the great crisis of the ministry was the 
 mission of the Apostles. Whatever opposition there may 
 have been, the success of the preaching of Jesus and the 
 influence of His spiritual power became daily greater. 
 Crowds came to hear Him. Wherever He went they re- 
 ceived Him with eagerness. The work was greater than 
 He could accomplish. The harvest was plenteous. The 
 labourers were few.^ For some time now the Apostles had 
 been associated with Him. They had heard His preaching. 
 They knew His methods. They could deliver His message. 
 So now He sends them forth two and two to continue His 
 work.^ 
 
 There are various interesting points that we can gather 
 about this mission.^ It was only for Israel: "Go not into 
 any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the 
 Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of 
 Israel."* There was never any direct address to Gentiles 
 in the ministry of Jesus. It was His work to teach the 
 
 1 From The Discourses, Lk. x. 2; Mt. ix. 37. 
 
 2 Mk. vi. 7. 
 
 ' The "charge" to the Apostles presents various critical problems which 
 can only be conjecturally solved. There are four versions: (i) Mk. vi. 7-1 1. 
 (2) Mt. X. 5-42. (3) Lk. ix. 1-6 (taken from Mk.). (4) Lk. x. 2-12, ad- 
 dressed to the Seventy. St. Matthew makes this the occasion for one of his 
 long conflate speeches in which he puts together material from various 
 sources. One of these was, as usual, St. Mark; a second was The Discourses, 
 from which came also Lk. x. 2-12; the remainder came from words of Our 
 Lord, used on other occasions which might seem appropriate here. In The 
 Discourses, the words here quoted were, it would appear, recorded without 
 the occasion on which they were delivered being mentioned. St. Matthew 
 assigns them, probably correctly, to this occasion. It was, in fact, a second 
 and independent report of the charge of Our Lord narrated in St. Mark. St. 
 Luke appends it to the story he found in another source of sending out the 
 Seventy. It must be recognized, however, that here is an element of uncer- 
 tainty in this reconstruction. 
 
 * Mt. X. s, 6. These words probably came from The Discourses, but were 
 omitted by St. Luke as inconsistent with his design. 
 
THE MISSION OF THE TWELVE 267 
 
 Gospel — that is, to teach mankind true rehgion, and to 
 proclaim His position as the Jewish Messiah. The expansion 
 was to come, not through any direct teaching or command 
 that He gave, but through the inherent force of a religion 
 which was universal in its essence, and through the uni- 
 versalis t ideas latent in Judaism. 
 
 " Go your way," He said unto them. " Behold I send 
 you forth as lambs in the midst of wolves."^ They were 
 to go forth as a Sadhu goes forth in India, with just one 
 cloak, with sandals on their feet, and with a staff in their 
 hand, but with nothing else, no purse, no scrip, no money, 
 no food.^ They were to enjoy the hospitality and live at 
 the charge of those to whom they preached, for the labourer 
 was worthy of his hire.^ When they entered a house it 
 was with the solemn religious benediction, "Peace be to 
 this house," a peace which would settle on it if it were 
 worthy."* There they were to stay, not wandering from 
 house to house in any city or village where they might be, 
 like people seeking entertainment or amusement.^ Where 
 people received them, there let them give all that they could. 
 As for those who rejected them, it would be more tolerable 
 for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for 
 that city.^ 
 
 The burden of their message was that of their Master, 
 "The kingdom of heaven is at hand," and like their Master 
 they also proclaim the kingdom by their spiritual power. 
 They received a commission from Him which gave them 
 authority over evil spirits. They, too, like Him, could 
 soothe the disordered brain. We are told, also, that they 
 anointed the sick with oil and healed many. 
 
 The effect of this mission must have been considerable. 
 Up till now the authorities might ignore what Jesus was 
 doing. His activities might be neglected. He was but 
 one man. He might arouse a certain amount of popular 
 
 ^ From The Discourses, Lk. x. 3; Mt. x. 16. 
 
 2 Mk. vi. 8, 9. St. Mark's version is clearly correct. 
 
 ' From The Discourses, Lk. x. 7; Mt. x. 11. 
 
 * From The Discourses, Mt. x. 12; Lk. x. 6. 
 
 5 Mk. vi. 10. 
 
 ^ From The Discourses, Mt. x. 15; Lk. x. 12. 
 
268 THE CRISIS OF THE MINISTRY 
 
 enthusiasm and excitement, but it had all been on a small 
 scale. It was something very different if preachers sent 
 by Him should be travelling through the country with that 
 dangerous cry, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." It 
 looked like real revolution. People were being disorganized. 
 The time would come when they would rise up, as they had 
 often done before, to follow this new Messiah. For the 
 people of Gahlee were always turbulent. There was, in- 
 deed, a good deal of speculation going on. People were 
 wondering who this new teacher who was beginning to exer- 
 cise so great an influence could be. Was he Elijah, whom 
 the scribes, following the words of the prophet Malachi, said 
 must come before the great and terrible day of the Lord, or 
 was it a new prophet that had arisen?^ 
 
 It is this situation which is presented to us by the narra- 
 tive of St. Mark. Herod Antipas heard of Jesus and of 
 what He was accomplishing. He had had to deal with a 
 dangerous movement like this once before. When the 
 crowds collected round John the Baptist, he was not un- 
 moved by what he had heard, and he did not consider it 
 dangerous, until a definite attack had been made on his own 
 conduct. Even then, had it not been for the influence of 
 his adulterous wife, he would not have proceeded to extreme 
 measures. Now his conscience begins to work. He feels 
 guilty, and thinks that John the Baptist has risen from the 
 dead and is continuing his work. Righteousness could not 
 be destroyed by the influence of power. 
 
 It is probable that to this time must be referred the words 
 of Jesus, reported by St. Luke, in answer to the warning 
 that Herod wishes to kill Him. The warning, we are told, 
 came from some Pharisees who desired to frighten Him away 
 and thus check His activity. The answer that He makes is, 
 "Go and say to that fox, Behold I cast out devils and 
 perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I 
 am perfected. Nevertheless I must walk to-day and 
 to-morrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a 
 prophet perish out of Jerusalem." This implies that Jesus 
 had a definite conception of His work and mission. He had 
 
 ^ Mk. vi. 14-17. 
 
THE RETIREMENT OF JESUS 269 
 
 certain things to accomplish. He must carry out His plan. 
 He did not fear to give up His life, but His life must not be 
 taken until He was ready. Then He would go up to 
 Jerusalem. For the present it was necessary to be careful 
 and avoid danger.^ 
 
 It was probably not long before this that the murder of 
 John the Baptist had taken place. At some time during 
 the Galilaean ministry disciples of John had come to Jesus 
 with a message, asking who He was, and whether the hopes 
 that John had had were to be disappointed; and Jesus had 
 not only answered the question in a very striking way, but 
 also had borne testimony to John.^ Again, when John was 
 beheaded, a message announcing what had happened had 
 come to Jesus.^ It was a definite warning of what He was 
 to expect, and it was obvious that if He was to accomplish 
 His purpose. He must take precautions. A death like 
 that of John the Baptist at the hand of Herod, in a distant 
 border fortress, would have been a disaster. If His ministry 
 was to be accomplished by His death — and that thought 
 was always in His mind — it was in Jerusalem as a prophet 
 of Israel that He must die. 
 
 So as soon as the disciples came back from their journey — 
 perhaps even, as has been suggested, their mission was cut 
 short by these disquieting rumours — Jesus takes them 
 across the lake to a place where He knew that they would 
 be in safety. St. Matthew definitely tells us that He with- 
 drew, because of the message about the death of John the 
 Baptist.** St. Mark gives other reasons. The disciples tell 
 Jesus everything they had done. He bids them come with 
 Him to a place of retirement where they may rest. It is 
 quite possible that they were elated with their success and 
 the crowds about them, and like all enthusiastic followers 
 were contemplating immediate action. But Jesus did not 
 want immediate action. He did not want crowds. He 
 wanted rest and time for contemplation, and an opportunity 
 to train His disciples. So they crossed over the Sea of 
 GaHlee, and went to a retired place on the other side at the 
 
 ^ Lk. xiii. 31-33. 
 
 2 From The Discourses, Mt. xi. 2-19; Lk. vii. 18-35. 
 
 ^ Mt. xiv. 12. ^ Mt. xiv. 13. 
 
270 THE CRISIS OF THE MINISTRY 
 
 foot of the hills in the plain beyond Bethsaida. Here they 
 were in the territory of Philip. They were at present safe 
 from all danger, and they might hope to be free from the 
 crowds.^ 
 
 But if Jesus sought sohtude He could not easily attain 
 it. Excitement had now grown great. There was a feeling 
 abroad that the time had come. No doubt the danger 
 from Herod would accelerate matters, and the people would 
 not be restrained. They saw where He went and began to 
 flock thither from all the villages round. No doubt the word 
 would pass from one to another, and a common impulse 
 would lead everyone after Him. When Jesus came down 
 from the hill-side where He had retired with His disciples, 
 He saw a great multitude, and He had compassion on them 
 because they were as sheep having no shepherd.^ He began 
 to teach them many things — very probably St. Luke is right 
 in adding, about the kingdom of heaven.^ It would be 
 teaching which they would not altogether understand and 
 might quite easily interpret incorrectly. When they heard 
 the word "kingdom," they would think that Jesus would 
 mean what they meant. 
 
 The rest of the story shall be told in the words of the 
 Evangelist: "And when the day was now far spent, his 
 disciples came unto him and said. This is a desert place, 
 and now the time is far passed; send them away, that they 
 may go into the country and villages round about, and buy 
 themselves wherewith they may eat. He answered and said 
 unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him. 
 Shall we go and buy bread for two hundred denarii and give 
 them to eat? He saith to them, How many loaves have 
 ye? go and see. And when they knew, they say. Five and 
 two fishes. And he commanded them to make all sit down 
 by companies on the green grass. And they sat down in 
 ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties. And when he had taken 
 the five loaves and the two fishes he looked up to heaven 
 and blessed and brake the loaves and gave to his disciples 
 
 1 Mk. vi. 31, 32. 2 Mk. vi. 34. ^ Lk. ix. 11 
 
THE FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE 271 
 
 to set before them; and the two jfishes he divided among them 
 all. And they did all eat and were filled. And they took up 
 twelve baskets full of the fragments and of the fishes. And 
 they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men."^ 
 
 The fourth Gospel tells us that when the people saw the 
 signs that He did, they said, "This is of a truth the prophet 
 that should come into the world," and that they wanted to 
 come by force and make Him king.^ In order probably to 
 prevent His disciples from being contaminated by such 
 worldly ambitions, He hurried them off to the boat to go 
 to the head of the lake to Bethsaida.^ He Himself sent the 
 multitude away and retired to a mountain to pray. 
 
 But the disciples in the boat were not able to accompHsh 
 their purpose; a strong north wind was blowing, and they 
 could not reach Bethsaida. We give the rest of the narra- 
 tive in the words of the Evangelist: "And when even was 
 come, the ship was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on 
 the land. And he saw them toiling in rowing, for the wind 
 was contrary to them, and about the fourth watch of the 
 night he cometh to them walking on the sea; and he was 
 intending to pass them by. But they, when they saw him 
 walking upon the sea, thought that it was a ghost and cried 
 out, for all saw him and were troubled. And immediately 
 he talked with them and said unto them, Be of good cheer, 
 it is I. Be not afraid. And he went up unto them into 
 the ship and the wind ceased. And they were sore amazed 
 in themselves, for they understood not the loaves for their 
 heart was blinded."^ 
 
 The result of the contrary wind was that instead of having 
 made their way up the lake to Bethsaida, they had been 
 
 1 Mk. vi. 35-44. 
 
 2 Jn. vi. 14, 15. 
 
 ^ According to the ordinary text, St. Mark reads: "He constrained his 
 disciples to enter into the boat and to go before him unto the other side to 
 Bethsaida" (vi. 45). The difficulty of ets to irtpav is that Bethsaida is 
 not on the other side. If the reading is kept, we must interpret it to mean 
 "across the bay," or in some such way, but very probably we should omit 
 els TO wepav with Syr Sin and some Greek MSS. supposing it had come 
 in from Mt. xiv. 22 where it is correct. There is, however, a suspicion that 
 Syr Sin has been revised in the interest of correct geography. 
 
 * Mk. vi. 47-52. 
 
272 THE CRISIS OF THE MINISTRY 
 
 blown across to the other side, and landed near the place 
 whence they had started on the plain of Gennesaret.^ 
 Here, according to St. Mark, the people heard of His 
 landing, and brought the sick from all sides that He might 
 heal them. The fourth Gospel tells us that many of the 
 people from the other side had come over in boats which 
 had come from Tiberias,^ and gives us here a long discourse 
 which is represented as having taken place in the synagogue. 
 The final result, according to that Gospel, is that "many of 
 his disciples went back and walked no more with him." 
 
 Such is the narrative as we can reconstruct it from our 
 different sources, and it makes a consistent and coherent 
 story, but there are a series of points which demand comment. 
 
 The first is the statement of the fourth Gospel that the 
 multitude desired to make Jesus king. It is this that gives 
 a meaning to the whole narrative. To lead a multitude into 
 the wilderness — that is to say, into the scantily inhabited 
 mountain district beyond Jordan — would be the natural 
 prelude to an attempt at rebellion, and the assertion of 
 claims to be king of Israel. It was what Theudas at a later 
 date attempted, when he promised that the waters of the 
 Jordan would divide to allow the multitude that he led 
 to pass over.^ It was, as we learn from the Acts of the 
 Apostles, what the Egyptian did when he collected a crowd 
 in the wilderness to march with them to the Mount of 
 Olives.^ Jesus had no such purpose, but here were the 
 crowds collected together on the edge of the mountains. 
 Could He not now be persuaded to declare Himself the 
 Messiah, to take His place at the head of the multitudes 
 who could have readily followed Him, and march with them 
 to Jerusalem and seize the kingdom? 
 
 This was a natural desire of the people. It was equally 
 obvious that it was inconsistent with the whole of Jesus' 
 purpose. He did not wish them to raise a rebellion in the 
 desert. It was not an earthly kingdom that He desired. 
 The time would come when He must assert Himself as 
 Messiah, but not in this way. Meanwhile there was much 
 
 1 Mk. vi. 53. ^ Jn. vi. 23. 
 
 'Josephus, Antt. xx., §§ 97-99. 
 
 *Acts xxi. 38. Josephus, AntL, xx., §§ 169-172; B.J., ii., §§ 261-263. 
 
THE FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE 273 
 
 to be done. If our Lord's purpose was in any way what 
 we have gathered it to be from the Gospels, there was 
 clearly need for His disciples to learn much more. They 
 must learn somehow to keep free from all these worldly 
 complications, and yet recognize His Messianic office. It 
 was necessary, therefore, in order to check poUtical aims, 
 that the disciples should be removed as quickly as possible, 
 and that a period of silence, which on all grounds was 
 demanded should begin. It is significant that the place to 
 which he desired them to go was Bethsaida, outside the 
 territory of Herod Antipas. 
 
 The result as regards the enthusiasm of His followers 
 was that it was for a time checked. Jesus had disappointed 
 them. He had spoken of a kingdom; but when He was 
 offered it by a great body of enthusiastic, even fanatical, 
 Galilaeans, who as little on this occasion as on any other 
 thought of consequences. He refused. So people began to 
 lose faith in Him.^ 
 
 But now we come to a second and more difficult question. 
 What really happened? The narrative of St. ]\Iark gives, 
 in vivid and picturesque language, the story of an event 
 which has all the appearance of having been miraculous, and 
 has been so taken. But there are some difficulties. Why 
 was it, as we are told more than once, that the disciples 
 understood not concerning the loaves for their heart was 
 blinded? The miracle was very easy to understand; was 
 it a spiritual message that they had not understood? 
 Shortly afterwards, when the disciples have forgotten to 
 take bread, Jesus tells them to beware of the leaven of the 
 Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod, and it is apparent 
 that they are bewildered by His remark, and He asks them 
 why they have not understood what happened when five 
 thousand were fed and twelve basketfuls were taken up.^ 
 On this occasion it appears that their defect was a failure 
 to understand the spiritual significance of the event. There 
 seems, therefore, to have been some ambiguity in tradition. 
 
 From a more modern point of view, difficulties have been 
 found in the nature of the miracle. It has been pointed 
 out that, unlike other miracles of our Lord, it might be 
 
 * Jn. vi. 66. 2 Mk. viii. 14-21. 
 
274 THE CRISIS OF THE MINISTRY 
 
 classed as a sign, as something of a miraculous and wonder- 
 ful character done so as to impress the multitude, and that it 
 is, in fact, inconsistent with the story of the temptation 
 and the refusal of Jesus to turn stones into bread. It has 
 further been pointed out that it implies an interference 
 with the laws of natural phenomena, and with the ordinary 
 processes of nature, so great as to be inconceivable to the 
 scientific mind, or, in fact, to anyone with ordinary common 
 experience. Therefore, it is held that it is impossible that 
 it could happen, and this argument we find embelhshed with 
 a good deal of rhetoric. 
 
 It has been maintained, therefore, that what really 
 happened was some sort of sacramental meal. It is sug- 
 gested (and it is not an unreasonable suggestion) that the 
 solemn partaking of bread, blessed and broken by the 
 Master, was a custom of Jesus and His disciples quite early 
 in the ministry, and that later this custom was consecrated 
 and made permanent at the Last Supper. What Jesus did, 
 then, was to consecrate the multitude for the kingdom in 
 some such sacramental feast; what He really gave was 
 spiritual food. Then, probably under the influence of Old 
 Testament stories, this was transformed into a miraculous 
 event. An analogy in particular has been found with a 
 story told of Elisha: 
 
 "And there came a man from Baal-shalishah, and brought 
 the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loaves of 
 barley, and fresh ears of corn in his sack. And he said, 
 Give unto the people, that they may eat. And his servant 
 said. What, shall I set this before an hundred men? But 
 he said. Give the people that they may eat; for thus saith 
 the Lord, They shall eat and shall leave thereof. So he 
 set it before them, and they did eat, and left thereof, accord- 
 ing to the word of the Lord."^ 
 
 The story of the feeding of the multitude was (it is main- 
 tained) constructed in imitation of this story, or, at any rate, 
 modified so as to harmonize with it, and is a proof of the 
 desire of the early Church to construct a life of Christ 
 modelled on the hves of the greater prophets. 
 
 ^ 2 Kings iv. 42-44. I must own that to me the resemblance is so slight 
 as to seem fanciful. 
 
THE FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE 275 
 
 It may be doubted whether this reconstruction will hold. 
 We must notice in the first place that the story is placed in 
 the same category as all, or almost all, the other miracles 
 recorded in the Gospel, by the statement that it arose from 
 the compassion that Jesus felt for the multitude: "In those 
 days when there was again a great multitude, as they had 
 nothing to eat, he called unto him his disciples and saith 
 unto them, I have compassion on the multitude because they 
 continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat, 
 and if I send them away fasting to their homes, they will 
 faint in the way: and some of them are come from far."^ 
 When there was suffering it was inevitable that Jesus 
 should reheve it, although to relieve suffering was not the 
 purpose of His ministry. There is, in fact, no hint in either 
 of St. Mark's accounts that there was any desire of working 
 a sign, no hint that there was any other motive but that of 
 reUeving distress and suffering. 
 
 Nor was the result of the miracle at all in accordance 
 with this supposed spiritual character. A spiritual signi- 
 ficance was not obvious. The people wanted to make Him 
 king — just the result which might come from some ex- 
 hibition of power, just the result which would not come from 
 a purely spiritual sacrament; and the further result is the 
 retirement of Jesus for some considerable time from the 
 danger to which He was exposed. Something happened 
 which first roused in a way inconsistent with the purpose 
 of the ministry the enthusiasm of the multitude, and then 
 led to a great disappointment. If we have interpreted 
 rightly the attitude of Jesus, His reluctance to perform 
 miracles arose from the fact that they created a wrong sort 
 of enthusiasm, and were inconsistent with the spiritual 
 character of His mission. We have an echo of this in the 
 fourth Gospel: "Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, 
 but because ye ate of the loaves and were filled."^ They 
 did not understand the spiritual significance of the miracle, 
 but thought that the kingdom of God was coming, as many 
 had imagined it, as a time of great material prosperity. 
 
 ^ Mk. viii. 1-3. On the relation of this narrative to that in chapter 
 vi. see the note p. 277. 
 * Jn. vi. 26 
 
 19 
 
276 THE CRISIS OF THE MINISTRY 
 
 The banquet and the feast were regular terms used of the 
 days of the Messiah, and were by some taken Hterally. 
 The whole attitude was, indeed, natural if there had been a 
 real feeding, but it is difficult to reconstruct the history 
 if we think it was only a sacramental meal. 
 
 But if there was such a feeding, it is not necessary to 
 trouble about the means by which it took place. A miracle 
 and a wonderful event may have taken place in many ways, 
 and we need not disbelieve it because our imagination can- 
 not picture to ourselves the way in which it could have hap- 
 pened. I would venture to suggest therefore that, exercising 
 a certain amount of suspense of judgment, we should refuse 
 to rule out the story on a priori grounds, as necessarily un- 
 natural or impossible, and should recognize that something 
 occurred so wonderful as to stir up the people in a remarkable 
 way. I would suggest, also, that we should not be too 
 anxious to adopt a rationalistic explanation of the walking 
 on the waves and the stilling of the storm, and should there 
 also exercise a certain suspense of judgment. It is quite 
 easy to devise rationaKstic explanations, but they are never 
 really convincing. 
 
 In St. John's Gospel the story of the feeding of the 
 multitude is followed by a long discourse on the bread of 
 life, which it is stated was delivered in the synagogue at 
 Capernaum. It may be doubted whether such a discourse 
 was ever spoken. There is no record of such an event 
 in the other Gospels, and we have seen how the period of 
 preaching in the synagogue had probably come to an end. 
 It is not, indeed, impossible that such an event should have 
 happened, but it is improbable. If we turn to the discourse, 
 it will appear as an admirable example of the way in which 
 the discourses of the fourth Gospel, although not (certainly 
 in many cases) the record of discourses actually delivered, 
 interpret, and interpret correctly, the teaching of Jesus 
 and the meaning of His life. Jesus did mean us to draw 
 spiritual lessons from all that He did. The symbolism of 
 spiritual food and the use of imagery drawn from food to 
 express our spiritual sustenance were entirely in accordance 
 with His teaching. We find this symboHsm in the tempta- 
 tion: ''Man does not Hve by bread alone, but by every word 
 
JESUS DESERTED BY DISCIPLES 277 
 
 which proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord."^ "I have 
 meat to eat that ye know not of."^ "Labour not for 
 the meat that perisheth."^ All this was natural to Jesus' 
 teaching. It was the sort of lesson that He would have had 
 His disciples draw from the miracle of the loaves. So it was 
 quite in accordance with the whole spirit of His teaching 
 that the ideas of the bread from heaven and of Jesus giving 
 us spiritual food should be put before us in this discourse, 
 and that the early Church should have seen in the feeding 
 of the multitude a symbol of the Eucharist, or perhaps 
 rather should have seen in the Eucharist a symbol of 
 the teaching which Jesus by His action had meant to 
 give. 
 
 It is, I think, important to recognize the significance of 
 all these events. Jesus had aroused popular enthusiasm, 
 but had disappointed it. People had begun to think that 
 He was the sort of Messiah that they wanted, but when they 
 had attempted to carry out this hope by making Him king 
 that He might be the leader in a revolt, and might establish 
 a kingdom such as they desired, He had failed them. The 
 disappointment must have been great. It is probably a 
 correct tradition that has been preserved, which tells us 
 that many of the disciples went back and walked no more 
 with Him. It was, therefore, a real testing to His disciples, 
 and those that remained true to Him, although they had not 
 in the least really understood all that it imphed, showed 
 themselves more clearly than they had yet done as worthy 
 to be His disciples. Meanwhile the gathering of this large 
 body of men could not have remained unknown to the 
 authorities, and must have seriously increased the danger 
 of the position. 
 
 ni 
 
 When Jesus and His disciples landed (contrary to their 
 intention) on the shores of the plain of Gennesaret, it soon 
 became obvious that they were in a position of considerable 
 danger.^ It was close to Tiberias, the residence of Herod. 
 
 1 Mt. iv. 4. * Jn. iv. 32. ' Jn. vi. 27. 
 
 * I have omitted Mk. viii. 1-26 as a repetition from another source of 
 the events contained in vi. 30 to vii. 37. It was pointed out in the Introduc- 
 
278 THE CRISIS OF THE MINISTRY 
 
 There could be no doubt but that some account, probably 
 largely perverted, would soon reach him of the unfortunate 
 demonstration on the other side of the lake. Jesus might 
 hope to keep His presence from being known, but that was 
 soon shown to be impossible. Wherever He came there 
 were demonstrations of popular excitement. "And when 
 they were come out of the boat, straightway the people 
 knew him and ran round about the whole region, and began 
 to carry about on their beds those that were sick when they 
 heard where he was. And wheresoever he entered into 
 villages or into cities, or into the country, they laid the sick 
 in the market-places, and besought him that they might 
 touch, if it were but the border of his garment; and as many 
 as touched him were made whole." ^ Clearly nowhere on 
 the shores of the Sea of Galilee could He conceal His presence. 
 * But there were other dangers. We know how there had 
 been earlier a conspiracy against Him of the Herodians 
 and the Pharisees, and that already the report of His 
 preaching in Galilee had begun to create anxiety in Jerusalem. 
 On this side, too, there are difficulties, and we have double 
 evidence on the point. Scribes had again come down from 
 Jerusalem, and important discussions took place with them 
 and the Pharisees. We may postpone for the present the 
 
 tion (p. 13) that the feeding of the 5,000 and the feeding of the 4,000 are 
 doublets — that is, stories of the same event drawn from different sources 
 — and the same is, I think, true of other incidents. The parallelism may be 
 shown as follows: 
 
 vi. 30-44 The 5,000. viii. 1-9 The 4,000. 
 
 45-52 Walking on the sea. 
 
 53-56 Visit to Gennesaret. 10 Dalmanutha. 
 
 vii. 1-23 Dispute with Pharisees. 11-13 Pharisees demand a 
 
 sign. 
 14-21 Leaven of Herod and 
 the Pharisees (con- 
 flate). 
 24-30 Journey to Tyre, etc. 
 
 31 Return to Sea of Gali- (22 Return to Bethsaida 
 
 lee 
 (32-37 Heals the deaf man.) (22-26 Heals the blind man). 
 
 St. Mark would, of course, omit any event in the second source which ob- 
 viously overlapped. 
 2 Mk. vi. 54-56. 
 
DISPUTE WITH PHARISEES 279 
 
 detailed consideration of the discussion, but we may notice 
 that the main subject was the question of the obligation of 
 ritual observances, and that Jesus enunciates the great 
 principle of the supremacy of the ethical above the cere- 
 monial, whether in the law of ablution or the law of food. 
 "That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the 
 man. For from within out of the heart of man proceed 
 evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, 
 covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, 
 blasphemy, pride, foohshness: all these evil things come 
 from within and defile the man."^ 
 
 We learn, too, that the Pharisees demanded a sign.^ 
 No doubt they said: "If you put before us such anarchical 
 and blasphemous teaching, you must show some sign which 
 will be your credentials." What they meant by a sign is 
 shown by two striking illustrations which are given by 
 Dr. Edersheim. A certain Rabbi was asked by his disciples 
 about the time of the Messiah's coming. He replied: "I am 
 afraid you will ask me for a sign." When they promised 
 they would not do so, he told them that the gate of Rome 
 would fall and be rebuilt, and fall again, when there would 
 not be time to restore it, ere the Son of David came. On 
 this they pressed, despite his remonstrance, for "a sign," 
 when this was given them — that the waters which issued 
 from the cave of Paneas were turned into blood. Again, 
 as regards "a sign from heaven," it is said that Rabbi 
 EHezer, when his teaching was challenged, successively 
 appealed to certain "signs." First, a locust tree moved at 
 his bidding a hundred, or, according to some, four hundred, 
 cubits. Next the channel of water was made to flow back- 
 wards. Then the walls of the Academy leaned forward, 
 and were only arrested at the bidding of another Rabbi. 
 Lastly, Eliezer exclaimed: "If the law is as I teach, let it 
 be proved from heaven!" when a voice fell from the sky 
 (the Bath Qol) : " What have ye to do with Rabbi Ehezer, 
 for the Halakhah is as he teaches."^ To give signs such 
 as this was quite inconsistent with the whole method of 
 Jesus' life. 
 
 ^ Mk. vii. 20-23. ^ Mk. viii. 11-13. (See note p. 277.) 
 
 * Edersheim, Life of Jesus the Messiah, ii. pp. 68, 69. 
 
28o THE CRISIS OF THE MINISTRY 
 
 But all this was in present circumstances very incon- 
 venient. It would increase the danger if Herod felt that he 
 could have Jewish piety on his side, when he took steps 
 against this popular and dangerous religious teaching. 
 
 The sequel was natural. It was clear that unless the 
 ministry of Jesus was to be prematurely brought to an end, 
 Jesus must escape this danger. If He desired to appear in 
 Jerusalem as Messiah, He must avoid what was threatening 
 Him. He knew, we beheve, that He must lay down His 
 Ufe, but it must be at Jerusalem. So He went, and went, 
 it might seem, somewhat speedily, away from Gennesaret, 
 straight through Galilee into the territory of Tyre. Here 
 He was outside Herod's jurisdiction. From here He went 
 farther afield, crossed the River Litany, and entered the 
 territory of Sidon, and then by a long circuit, probably 
 through the mountainous ranges to the north, into the 
 territory of the Greek cities of the Decapolis. It is curious 
 how lightly this journey is passed over by many commenta- 
 tors. Because it is narrated in but a few verses it seems 
 a slight thing. As a matter of fact, it must have occupied 
 many months, certainly all the summer, the only period 
 during which such a journey would be likely.^ 
 
 It was clearly not a preaching tour. Jesus wished to 
 remain hidden. In the case of the only incident recorded, 
 the healing of the child of the Syro-Phoenician woman, we 
 are told that He entered into a house and would have no 
 one know it. Then He passes farther afield, and in the 
 mountainous region on the slopes of Lebanon and Hermon 
 He would have for a time rest and safety. 
 
 This journey, then, was a retirement from public life for 
 the sake of safety; but was it more than this? Were His 
 disciples with Jesus? It has been conjectured reasonably 
 enough that they were, but it must be noticed that in the 
 narrative of St. Mark there is no mention of them. It has, 
 indeed, been surmised that one of the objects, perhaps 
 even the main object, of this retirement was that Jesus 
 might be alone with His disciples, and that under these 
 conditions He might train them for the work that they were 
 
 ^ Mk. vii. 24, 31. 
 
CAESAREA PHILIPPI 281 
 
 to accomplish. At any rate their instruction was necessary. 
 They must learn to understand His office and ministry; 
 not only must they recognize Him as the Messiah, but they 
 must learn what the office implied, and that would mean 
 a great transformation of their ideals. They must learn 
 more intimately than they had yet done, or than they could 
 be taught in popular discourses, what His message was, and 
 what the message was that they would have to give when 
 their turn came. I do not feel quite certain that we can 
 maintain that this process of teaching was going on all 
 through this period of retirement, but at any rate we shall 
 come shortly to the result of continued intercourse with Him 
 in the more complete adhesion of His disciples and a higher 
 understanding, and we shall be able to see how then Jesus 
 led them on to a still more complete comprehension, both of 
 the nature of His person and work and the meaning of His 
 Gospel. 
 
 IV 
 
 The journey ended among the cities of Decapolis and 
 at the Sea of Galilee.^ Jesus probably did not at this time 
 cross the lake, but made His way to Bethsaida and from 
 there northward, keeping in the territory of Philip, until He 
 reached the district of Caesarea Philippi. This place is 
 memorable for what happened, and is of striking interest 
 in itself. Situated at the head waters of the Jordan, it is 
 one of the most beautiful spots in Palestine. Here, on the 
 slopes of Mount Hermon, the river bursts forth from a cave, 
 already a large stream, and the place from earlier days 
 had been looked on as sacred. As a sanctuary of the old 
 religion it was called Baal-Gad; under Greek influence it 
 had been named Paneas, and was believed to be a haunt 
 of the god Pan. Here Herod the Great founded a city and 
 fortress, for the place — just where the road for Damascus 
 started over the hills — had great strategic importance, and 
 built a temple of white marble in honour of Augustus. 
 His son Philip, on succeeding to the tetrarchy, had adorned 
 and beautified the city and given it his name. It was in this 
 
 ^ See note, p. 277 above. 
 
282 THE CRISIS OF THE MINISTRY 
 
 neighbourhood that St. Peter's confession was made, and 
 high up on the mountain behind the event called the 
 Transfiguration took place. 
 
 While they were travelHng together Jesus asked His 
 disciples: Whom do men say that I am? They repHed: 
 some John the Baptist, others Elias, others one of the 
 prophets. He then asked them: But whom say ye that 
 I am? Peter answered and said to him: Thou art the 
 Christ. He bade them tell no man.^ 
 
 St. Matthew adds to this the following: Jesus said unto 
 him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood 
 have not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in 
 heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon 
 this rock I will build my church, and hell's gates shall not 
 prevail against it. I will give to thee the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on 
 earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt 
 loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.^ 
 
 Of these additional words we may postpone the dis- 
 cussion at present, only saying this, that the fact that they 
 are not contained in St. Mark's Gospel does not necessarily 
 prove that they are not genuine. We know that it is a 
 habit of St. Matthew to attempt to make a story complete 
 by conflating two different versions. In some cases we have 
 the two versions before us, the one contained in St. Mark, 
 the other derived from The Discourses and contained in 
 St. Luke. The same thing was doubtless done in some 
 other cases where we cannot prove it in the same way, 
 because St. Luke does not happen to have incorporated the 
 portion in question from The Discourses. Again, we know 
 how St. Matthew amplifies a speech by adding material 
 taken from another source, and very often spoken at another 
 time. This may have been done on this occasion. The 
 promise given to St. Peter as an explanation of his new name 
 may have been given on some other occasion and the record 
 preserved in this short saying, which St. Matthew feels may 
 very suitably be placed here. The point I want to make is 
 that there is no external reason which need imply that the 
 
 1 Mk. viii. 27-30. ^ Mt, xvi. 18, 19. 
 
THE CONFESSION OF PETER 283 
 
 words are not genuine. But the questions involved are 
 different in character to those that now confront us, and we 
 had better postpone to another occasion our treatment of 
 them. 
 
 The confession of Peter was the result on the disciples 
 of their continued intercourse with Jesus, and the outcome 
 of His method of self-revelation. The question of the 
 Messianic secret has been discussed at great length by- 
 many commentators, and various theories, some more, 
 some less derogatory to the authority of Jesus, have been 
 put forward. It has been maintained that only gradually 
 did He learn to think of Himself as Messiah, even that it was 
 Peter's eager confession that first gave Him the courage 
 to desire the office. It must be pointed out that all such 
 theories are inconsistent with the story as we have it. If 
 you desire to maintain such a position, you must not only 
 reject the story of the baptism and of the temptation, but 
 the whole character of the teaching of Jesus. Had He not 
 thought of Himself as the Messiah, He could not have 
 taught with the authority that He did. He could not have 
 claimed to supersede as He did the old law and introduce 
 a higher theory of life than it had given. The whole record 
 of His life, even if you wish to omit the most obvious facts, 
 the miracles, the forgiveness of sins, the authoritative power 
 over evil and over man's destiny, is inconsistent with any 
 less claim; for the claims of Jesus are just as great in what 
 is non-miraculous and apparently normal in His ministry. 
 
 Why, then, it may be asked, did He not formally make 
 a claim to the position which He believed that He held? 
 It we take the narrative as it is given us in St. Mark — 
 and that, as we have seen, appears for the most part to pre- 
 serve the correct chronological sequence of events — there is 
 nothing, with the possible exception of the occasional use 
 of the term Son of Man, which might seem to be an assump- 
 tion of any unusual position. Why, then, this reticence? 
 I venture to think that a few minutes' reflection will show 
 you that our Lord's action and plan was the only course 
 possible for Him. Suppose that He had begun by pro- 
 claiming Himself as the Messiah, what reason could people 
 have had for believing Him? It would obviously have 
 
284 THE CRISIS OF THE MINISTRY 
 
 exposed 'Him to the question, What justification have you 
 to offer for what you say? How can we reasonably know 
 that it is true? It would, in fact, have taken away from 
 the authority of His words. And if some had at once 
 beheved Him, as people had beheved all the various im- 
 posters who had arisen, it would have been just those who 
 had the most conventional and the most unworthy con- 
 ceptions of what the Messiah should be. And as a result 
 all the troubles which arose from the secular aspiration of 
 the GaHlaeans would have been intensified, and the dangers 
 also. Had He definitely proclaimed himself as the Messiah, 
 the opposition of Herod and of the authorities of the Jewish 
 Church would have been far more vigorous, and their action 
 would have been prompt. They would have feared a 
 disturbance, and would have treated Him as an imposter. 
 
 The action of Jesus was dictated by political wisdom, 
 and (as has been pointed out recently) by true psychological 
 insight. He so acted as to lead those who were worthy to 
 think Him the Messiah. He proclaimed the kingdom. He 
 taught in a way which would inspire all who heard Him. 
 He taught as only the Messiah had a right to teach. He 
 made it clear by His spiritual power, beneficently exercised, 
 that the kingdom of God had come. His answer to John 
 the Baptist is significant of His message. Do you think 
 that an imaginative writer of the early Church could have 
 had enough historical insight to conceive the situation? 
 He did not say what He claimed to be, but he spoke and 
 acted in such a way that those that understood would know. 
 And so as regards the disciples, He gradually influences 
 them by His teaching, by His spiritual power, by His 
 personality, until, although many of the conventional signs 
 and characteristics of the Messiah were absent, they beheved 
 in Him. So when they are asked the question. Whom say 
 ye that I am? Peter answers. Thou art the Christ. 
 
 This purposeful action seems corroborated by the events 
 which are narrated as following shortly afterwards, perhaps 
 not immediately. We are told that from this time Jesus 
 began to speak of His death and sufferings. We are told 
 how Peter, who had just confessed His faith, was full of 
 what he considered an entirely natural indignation and 
 
THE METHOD OF JESUS 285 
 
 received a most severe rebuke, and then how Jesus more 
 clearly and definitely than ever before began to expound 
 the Gospel of the Cross, that ultimate and complete self- 
 sacrifice which is the fundamental rule of the Christian life. 
 I need not remind you that all this — as it appears to me 
 natural sequence of events — is condemned by some critics 
 as unhistorical, that we are asked to believe that someone 
 thirty years or so later invented it, that Jesus had no in- 
 timation of the end that awaited Him, that the protest of 
 Peter was introduced to work out the thesis which was one 
 of the fancies of St. Mark's Gospel, that the Apostles were 
 a singularly stupid body of men, and that the meaning of 
 Christ's death in its bearings on the Christian life was a 
 discovery of the early Church towards which they had no 
 help from the teaching of Jesus. I am afraid that all 
 criticism of this sort seems to me so baseless that I do not 
 feel able to deal with it with that patience which no doubt 
 I ought to display. We shall deal later with our Lord's 
 conception of His Messianic office and of the suffering 
 Messiah. What I will put to you now is this: Is it in 
 the least hkely that a writer a generation later would have 
 thought it necessary to devise this elaborate scheme of 
 events, or, in fact, had the historical imagination to do so? 
 And is not the succession of events, as they are described, 
 reasonable and natural? It was, as we have shown, im- 
 possible for our Lord to have taught His Messianic claims 
 in any other way than He did. It was natural that 
 gradually His intimate disciples should have become con- 
 vinced. It was natural that it should be Peter who made 
 the confession. It was natural, if our Lord was convinced 
 of the necessity of His death, that it should be after His 
 disciples had attained a full conviction about Him that 
 He should begin to give this higher revelation. It was 
 natural (if one considers all that was involved in the 
 ordinary beliefs about the Messiah) that this should mean 
 a severe shock to them and that Peter, impulsive as always 
 and eager for what he believed was for the honour of His 
 Master, should be the one to express this. It was natural 
 that our Lord should have rebuked him (and could such 
 a rebuke have been invented?) exactly on the grounds 
 
286 THE CRISIS OF THE MINISTRY 
 
 that He did, for they are consistent with His teaching. 
 It was natural that Jesus should now begin to show how 
 the fate which awaited Him harmonized with all the deepest 
 realities of the spiritual life. And certainly from this time 
 onward there is a deeper and a sadder note in the teaching 
 of Jesus, a note which reveals itself in many discourses and 
 incidents and parables. 
 
 And then, again, are we to think that it was from Jesus, 
 or from His followers, that the deepest characteristics of 
 His teaching should come? Jesus had taught the Gospel 
 of love, an ethical system which finally resolved itself into 
 the maxim, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But 
 the man who loves his neighbour as himself must be prepared, 
 if called on, to lay down his life for his neighbour. Jesus 
 felt that He must fulfil this law. He could not accomplish 
 His work unless He was prepared to die. How long He 
 had had this conviction we cannot say. It is probable that 
 the consciousness of coming suffering must always have been 
 with Him, for He looked upon Himself as the Servant of 
 God, and suffering was the lot of the Servant. But the 
 inner consciousness of Jesus must be something of which 
 we can only have glimpses. In any case, the progress of 
 events had now made it clear that He could not expect to 
 accomphsh His purpose without a break with official 
 Judaism which must mean His death. Thus He would 
 exhibit Himself that law of Hfe which He had laid down. 
 And now was the right time to make His followers realize 
 the ultimate principle which His own Ufe was to exhibit — 
 the law of self-sacrifice. 
 
 The verses that follow are among the most impressive 
 even in the Gospels.^ *'Do you wish," He says to the people, 
 "to be a follower of Mine. Then you must do as I do. 
 You must be prepared to give up everything. You must be 
 
 1 It may be noted also that these are some of the best attested sayings of 
 our Lord. Mk. viii. 34 recurs not only in the two parallel passages (Mt. 
 xvi. 24; Lk. ix. 23), but also in Mt. x. 38 and Lk. xiv. 27, though in a nega- 
 tive form, probably from The Discourses. Mk. viii. 35 occurs in two paral- 
 lels (Mt. xvi. 25; Lk. ix. 24), in Mt. x. 39 and Lk. xvii. Z3- These two verses 
 last referred to differ so much in phraseology that they possibly come from 
 separate sources. It also occurs in Jn. xii. 25. See Hawkins, Horae Synop- 
 ticae, pp. 86-88). 
 
THE LAW OF SACRIFICE 287 
 
 prepared to take up the life that I lead, and to die the death 
 that I will die, if you are called to it. If you care only for 
 your life and the things of this life, you will lose everything 
 even here. If you are prepared for My sake and the sake 
 of the Gospel to give up everything, you will gain everything. 
 The things of this world and all its wealth can do no good to 
 one who has lost his own soul. A time will come when 
 you will have to give an account of your life, and if you are 
 ashamed now of Me and of My words, then the Son of Man 
 will be ashamed of you when He comes to judge the world." 
 The meaning, no doubt, from one point of view is eschato- 
 logical, but it is not only eschatological. It never is in the 
 Gospels. A man's life, even here, is quite independent of 
 the things of the world. 
 
 It all harmonizes together: Jesus' conception of His 
 own end, His Gospel, and His lesson to the people. It is the 
 fundamental note of Christianity, and I do not feel able 
 to believe that it comes from those followers of His who 
 found it so difficult to learn, and even after His death were 
 not without inadequate ideas of His mission. If any of 
 you are frightened of the phrase "let him take up his 
 cross," you are quite at Hberty to believe that the passage 
 has been modified by the influence of later phraseology 
 without necessarily thinking that the whole passage has 
 been interpolated, but I do not see why Jesus should not 
 have used it. The cross was a symbol of a degraded death, 
 its cruelty had often been exhibited in Palestine, and every- 
 one who came in contact with the Roman authorities would 
 know that it might be his lot. 
 
 But one more incident. Six days afterwards, accom- 
 panied only by Peter and James and John, Jesus sought 
 the solitude of the higher mountains, probably the upper 
 slopes of Hermon, and there He was transfigured before 
 them. His raiment became shining, exceeding white as 
 snow: so as no fuller on earth can whiten it. And there 
 appeared unto them Moses and EHas : and they were talking 
 with Jesus. And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, 
 
288 THE CRISIS OF THE MINISTRY 
 
 it is good for us to be here; and let us make three taber- 
 nacles: one for thee and one for Moses and one for Elias. 
 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid. And 
 there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice 
 came out of the cloud, saying, "This is my Beloved Son; 
 hear him." 
 
 I am not going to trouble you with all the vagaries of 
 modern criticism. This story was, of course, invented by the 
 early Church. Perhaps it was a reconstruction of some res- 
 urrection story. Peter and James and John were selected as 
 witnesses to give an air of credibility to the story. The six 
 days are the six days of creation, or the six days that Moses 
 spent on the mountain — the parallel is singularly inade- 
 quate, as Jesus does not spend six days on the mountain. 
 It would really be convenient if the Evangelist had ex- 
 plained to us these rather far-fetched symbols and parallels, 
 as they are certainly difficult to discover. 
 
 I could only put this to you: It may well be that there 
 are elements of exaggeration in the story. We do not 
 expect experiences of this nature to be reported in a literal 
 and exact manner. But is there anything that we have 
 recorded here which would not be consistent with the 
 intense spiritual experience through which the Apostles 
 and our Lord had passed? We read and narrate amid all 
 the cornmonplace comfort of our modern life these stories 
 of great spiritual experiences which have modified the history 
 of the world. The confession of the Messiah, the prediction 
 of His sufferings, the exaltation of the life of Christ, the 
 coming of the Lord in glory, were not all these tremendous 
 spiritual facts? Could all this happen without mind and 
 spirit being strained? For Jesus and His disciples all 
 this must have meant a great crisis. Has a great spiritual 
 teacher never before or since sought the solitude of the 
 mountains — alone or with his disciples — urged by the 
 intense desire to commune with God? And would, for 
 such men, the spiritual experience be quite normal? We 
 shall gradually find out, as we proceed, what we are to 
 think and believe about Jesus; but even to those who do 
 not accept all that Christian tradition implies, I would say, 
 Can you really reduce the spiritual experiences which 
 
THE TRANSFIGURATION 289 
 
 created the Gospel to the dull level of our commonplace 
 lives? And could a great movement, which has so pro- 
 foundly modified the world, have come into being without 
 such experiences? I am not prepared to say exactly what 
 happened at the Transfiguration, and semi-rationalistic 
 reconstructions seem to me always singularly unconvincing, 
 but I see nothing in the story, as we have it, that might not 
 have been told by the disciples as a truthful description of 
 what they believed had happened. 
 
 The great crisis of Jesus' Hfe was now passed. There had 
 been the period of early and enthusiastic reception, when 
 it might have been thought that the kingdom would speedily 
 be established in men's hearts. There had been growing 
 opposition and danger. There had been a time of retirement 
 and rest. Then had come the conviction and confession of 
 the disciples, and the growing consciousness of the end. 
 The preparation had been made. Now there was nothing 
 left but to set His face to go to Jerusalem. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE MESSIAH 
 
 We are told how, after His baptism, Jesus was led by the 
 Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. He 
 had, we remember, passed through a spiritual crisis of great 
 intensity. The full conviction of His mission had come 
 upon Him. He had realized that He was the Messiah, the 
 Son of God, the Servant of the Lord. I have pointed out 
 to you how, as we can gather from His teaching. His mind 
 had been formed (if we may use the term) by the earnest 
 and spiritual study of the word of God. The conception of 
 the person and work of the Messiah, what He was and what 
 He must do, had gradually fashioned itself, and in His 
 baptism came the final conviction of His calling. Naturally 
 enough He sought the solitude of the desert, as holy men 
 of old had done, and naturally enough there temptation 
 and struggle came to Him, for He had a tremendous decision 
 to make.^ 
 
 He was hungry with fasting, and the devil came and 
 tempted Him. He was conscious of powers such as other 
 men had not; why should not He use them for His own 
 advantage? If, as the Baptist said, God out of these 
 stones could raise up children to Abraham, why should not 
 He, the Son of God, command that these stones be made 
 bread? Why should not He secure for Himself a hfe free 
 from care and want? The temptation might go further. 
 There was widespread want and misery in the world. 
 Why should not He use the powers that He possessed 
 for at once introducing the Messianic kingdom that men 
 expected, and times of wealth and ease and material 
 happiness? 
 
 ^ The story of the Temptation comes from The Discourses. Mt. iv. i-ii; 
 Lk. iv. 1-13; see also Mk. i. 12, 13. 
 
 290 
 
THE TEMPTATION 291 
 
 All this was natural enough. Have not most of us had 
 similar dreams of some miracle increasing human well-being, 
 and solving all those anxious problems of Hfe which men 
 have? But one thing was clear to Jesus. All this was 
 absolutely inconsistent with what He knew was His work. 
 He had not come to get comfort or material well-being for 
 Himself, or even for others. His work was spiritual. Man 
 doth not live by bread alone, but by every word which pro- 
 ceedeth out of the mouth of God. 
 
 But there were other ways in which He might use His 
 powers. How was He, with this message which was forming 
 in His mind, to win credence? Would people be likely 
 to believe Him? He must bring some credentials. The 
 prophet had foretold that the Lord would suddenly come 
 to His temple, and the Rabbis had elaborated this so as 
 to create one of the signs of the Messiah.^ He would appear 
 suddenly on the topmost pinnacle of the temple, and descend 
 among the expectant people. What better way could be 
 conceived of asserting His Messianic claims? No one who 
 had seen that happen could doubt that He had come with 
 divine credentials, and they would readily hear His message. 
 No doubt the angels of God would support Him in His 
 descent. But it would mean presuming upon His powers. 
 It would be tempting God. It would mean commending 
 His message in the wrong way. 
 
 The ordinary expectation of the Messiah was that He 
 would be a great king and conqueror. He would be endowed 
 with more than natural power, and under His leadership the 
 armies of Israel would be supreme in the world. The great 
 Messianic kingdom would be created. He, as Messiah, 
 would rule the world in righteousness, and then the golden 
 age would come. It was a natural dream, and He knew 
 that He had the power, but it would not attain what He 
 had come to accomplish, for men would not be any better 
 than they had been, and He could only bring it about 
 by using means quite inconsistent with His whole nature. 
 It would mean employing the methods of the world; it 
 would mean the appeal to force; it would mean not the 
 coming of the kingdom of God, but the submission of the 
 
 ^ See Edersheim, Life of Jesus the Messiah, I. p. 293. 
 
292 THE MESSIAH 
 
 Messiah to the prince of evil. To worship God only, to 
 fulfil His will, to work His righteousness, was the one thing 
 demanded of man. 
 
 We need not look on the story of the temptation as a 
 literal account of actual events. Origen first pointed out 
 for us that it is a figurative story describing in picturesque 
 language the temptations to which Jesus would be exposed.^ 
 We can well be content with Origen's support, and refuse 
 to turn poetry into prose. But what I would first point 
 out to you is how entirely suitable and natural to the 
 situation the Temptation as depicted is, Jesus is conscious 
 of His mission and His spiritual power. He knows, too, 
 the right way of fulfilling that mission, and He has already 
 an intuition of what it will lead to. It means toil and 
 suffering, and perhaps death. There were other very 
 plausible ways of doing what He wished. Why should He 
 not fulfil all the highest natural hopes of His countrymen? 
 Why should He not do something startling and wonderful 
 to draw all men to Himself? Why not secure material 
 comfort for Himself and all the world? We know how 
 the people wanted to make Him king, how the Pharisees 
 demanded a sign, how people crowded round Him that he 
 might heal them, and were anxious to eat His bread, but 
 did not care for His spiritual teaching. Clearly there was 
 a higher and lower way, and much temptation to choose the 
 lower way, and that temptation Jesus resists. 
 
 But is the story of the Temptation true, or is it an 
 imaginative effort of a later theologian? If it is true 
 it must come from Jesus Himself. Just as He described 
 the spiritual experience of His baptism in the natural 
 figurative language which might convey His meaning, so 
 He would describe His Temptation. But did He do so? 
 I can point out to you that it is contained in a very early 
 source, and it shows a psychological insight which I could 
 hardly expect from any other than Himself. Further than 
 that, it exactly harmonizes with the situation depicted in 
 the Gospels. The difficulty some people would feel about 
 it is that it presupposes a Christ with miraculous powers. 
 As they think that such a conception is impossible, they are 
 
 ^ Origen, De Principiis, IV. i. i6. 
 
THE MESSIANIC HOPE 293 
 
 compelled to assume a later origin. To that I can only 
 reply that the conception of Jesus as recorded for us in 
 the authorities that we possess exactly corresponds with 
 the Jesus of the Temptation stories. The Gospels tell us 
 of one who was the Messiah of the Jews, but throughout 
 His life disappointed their expectations because He would 
 not be the Messiah that they wanted. He had great spiritual 
 powers, and is represented as being able to work miracles, 
 but there is a curious self-restraint in the way in which He 
 uses these powers. He will not work a sign, He will not use 
 them for His own advantage, He will make no appeal to 
 force and power. On the contrary. His one aim is to arouse 
 and create the spiritual life of those among whom He works. 
 He will do none of the things they wish, but bids them fulfil 
 God's will. Now the Temptation tells us that Jesus had 
 dehberately rejected all these imperfect ideals, that He had 
 had the natural human desire to work in that way, but that 
 He knew they were entirely inconsistent with the fulfilment 
 of His purpose, and He had had the strength to resist what 
 must have seemed an overpowering temptation. Our 
 narrative is throughout self-consistent; it is psychologically 
 true; it depicts just what must have been the temptation of 
 the Jesus of the Gospel. For my part, it is easier to believe 
 that all these things are true than that they are the result 
 of later imaginings. 
 
 The hope of a Messiah was among the most remarkable 
 features of the rehgion of Israel. How did it come about that 
 this small and obscure nation should have had such a 
 vitaHty of hope, should have looked forward continually, 
 in spite of all adversity and misfortune, to the coming of one 
 in whom should be accomplished for them their destiny, 
 a destiny which should extend their influence and power 
 over the whole earth? 
 
 It was quite early in Israel's history that the hope grew 
 up of the coming of the ideal monarchy of the house of 
 David. The promise of it comes first in the address of 
 Nathan to David — a passage which dates in its present form 
 from some time towards the close of the monarchy, but con- 
 
294 THE MESSIAH 
 
 tains an early and probably authentic element; "When thy 
 days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, 
 I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out 
 of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall 
 build an house for my name, and I will establish the 
 throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he 
 shall be my son."^ This conception of the greatness of Israel 
 associated with the house of David occurs in a series of 
 passages in the prophets. ''In that day," says Amos, "will 
 I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen. ... I will 
 bring again the captivity of my people Israel, and they shall 
 build the waste cities . . . and I will plant them upon 
 their land, and they shall no more be plucked up out of their 
 land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God."^ 
 "The children of Israel," says Hosea, "shall return, and 
 seek the Lord their God and David their king, and shall 
 come with fear unto the Lord, and to his presence in the 
 latter days."^ And Jeremiah: "Behold, the days come, 
 saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous 
 branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and 
 shall execute judgment and Justice in the land. . . . And 
 this is his name whereby he shall be called. The Lord is 
 our righteousness."^ 
 
 Let us notice one thing. You will find that many of our 
 critical friends will tell you that these Messianic passages 
 in the pre-exilic prophets have been interpolated, and belong 
 to a later period. I am afraid that the arguments that 
 they use are not very convincing to me, but for the present 
 purpose the criticism does not matter. We are not con- 
 cerned with the chronology of the Messianic idea, but with 
 the fact. Exactly how that idea grew up may well be an 
 interesting subject of investigation; the important point for 
 us is that it was there, and whether it was formulated a 
 little earlier or a little later does not really matter. 
 
 This conception of the ideal sovereignty of the house 
 of David is summed up for us in a great passage in the 
 Psalms, which must have played a considerable part in the 
 development of thought: 
 
 * 2 Sam. vii. 12-14. ^ Amos, ix. 11-15. 
 
 * Hos. iii. 5. * Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. 
 
THE SON OF DAVID 295 
 
 I have found David my servant ; 
 
 With my holy oil have I anointed him: . . . 
 
 My faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him ; 
 
 And in my name shall his horn be exalted. . . . 
 
 I will also make him my firstborn, 
 
 The highest of the kings of the earth. . . . 
 
 My covenant will I not break, 
 
 Nor alter the thing that has gone out of my lips. 
 
 Once have I sworn by my hoUness, 
 
 I will not lie unto David. 
 
 His seed shall endure for ever, 
 
 And his throne as the sun before me.* 
 
 When I was speaking about the kingdom you will re- 
 member how I laid stress on the way in which the reign of 
 David had created an ideal for Israel; it was natural, 
 therefore, that all the highest conceptions for the future 
 ruler should be expressed in language connected with the 
 race of David. 
 
 Then we get also a definite expectation of an individual 
 person. In the Book of Micah there is an ideal picture 
 drawn of the future for Jerusalem, a future of peace and 
 prosperity, of honour among the nations, and a great 
 position in the world — "Out of Zion shall go forth instruc- 
 tion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,"^ — and this 
 ideal future is associated with the ideal ruler of Israel. "He 
 shall stand and shall feed his flock in the strength of the 
 Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God: and 
 they shall abide; for now shall he be great unto the ends 
 of the earth." 3 
 
 And then there are the great passages of the book of 
 Isaiah: "And there shall come forth a shoot out of the 
 stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit: 
 and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him . . . with 
 righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with 
 equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the 
 earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his 
 lips shall he slay the wicked. . . ." "And it shall come 
 to pass in that day, that the root of Jesse, which standeth 
 for an ensign of the peoples, unto him shall the nations seek: 
 and his resting place shall be glorious."* 
 
 * Ps. Ixxxix. 20-36. 2 Mic. iv. 2. ^ Ihid. v. 4. * Is. xi. i-io. 
 
296 THE MESSIAH 
 
 Or, if we turn to the Psalms, we get the same ideas in a 
 more religious setting: 
 
 The kings of the earth set themselves, 
 
 And the rulers take counsel together, 
 
 Against the Lord and against his Anointed. . . . 
 
 I will tell of a decree: 
 
 The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son; 
 
 This day have I begotten thee, 
 
 Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, 
 
 And the uttermost part of the earth for thy possession.^ 
 
 We do not know when this Psalm was written, nor do we 
 know what are the circumstances which called it forth, 
 but the pious Jew, as he pondered over its words, might 
 wonder who was the Anointed and who was the Son, and 
 what was this dominion over the whole earth, and the 
 conception would grow up of the Messiah who was the Son 
 of God. 
 
 Or what hopes had inspired, and what visions were 
 aroused by that poetical description of the ideal reign of 
 the ideal king? 
 
 Give the king thy judgments, O God, 
 
 And thy righteousness unto the king's son. 
 
 He shall judge thy people with righteousness 
 
 And thy poor with judgment. ... 
 
 In his days shall the righteous flourish 
 
 And abundance of peace, till the moon be no more. 
 
 Yea, all kings shall fall down before him. 
 
 All nations shall serve him.^ 
 
 I believe that Psalms such as these are historical poems, 
 the product of that great creative age of Hebrew hterature 
 when under the shadow of the second temple the pious 
 IsraeHte idealized the history of his country, and gave 
 us this fanciful picture of the reign of Solomon, modelled 
 on the empire of the Ptolemies. But the power of such a 
 poem in building up the hopes of Israel cannot be exaggerated. 
 
 Or once more, when the Jew read: 
 
 The Lord saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, 
 Until I make thine enemies thy footstool. 
 The Lord shall send forth the rod of thy strength out of Zion 
 Rule them in the midst of thine enemies.* 
 
 ^ Ps. ii. 2 Ps. Ixxii. * Ps. ex. i. 
 
THE LATER HOPE 297 
 
 he would ask who is this Lord whom the Lord addresses. 
 It may be (although I do not feel at all certain that it is 
 so) that it is Simon the Maccabee that is here referred to, 
 but the origin of the Psalm does not really concern us. 
 However it arose it would help to build up the conception 
 of the ideal king of Israel, with his close association with 
 the God of Israel, and if the second Psalm suggested the 
 title Messiah, this would suggest the designation Lord. 
 
 The passages which we have examined come from many 
 writers and different periods, but they all help to build up 
 the expectations of an ideal future for Israel associated with 
 an ideal ruler. Israel was Httle enough in the eyes of the 
 world; it had to submit to the great conquerors who one 
 after another traversed its country, to Nebuchadnezzar, 
 and to Cyrus, and to Alexander, to the Ptolemies and the 
 Seleucidae, but there never died out this unconquerable 
 hope for the future, and this hope is, in most writers, as- 
 sociated with an ideal figure who concentrates in his own 
 person the great national characteristic of righteousness. 
 
 II 
 
 We come next to the later Jewish hope. During the 
 time of the Maccabees, the ordinary Messianic hope appears 
 to have been in abeyance. The actul struggle with Hellen- 
 ism absorbed all the energies of the people; for a time they 
 were dazzled with a brilliant and unhoped-for success, and left 
 off thinking of the future. Moreover, when the leaders of 
 the people were of the tribe of Levi, it was hardly courteous 
 to talk about a Messiah of the house of Da\dd. Yet the 
 book of Daniel made an important contribution to thought, 
 when it described the vision of the Ancient of Days and 
 one like unto a Son of Man who came unto Him, to whom 
 was given the dominion and glory and kingdom.^ To the 
 prophet no doubt this was a representation of the ideal 
 Israel, and it is interpreted shortly afterwards as the Saints 
 of the Most High, but an expression had been evolved sus- 
 ceptible of a far deeper meaning than the writer himself 
 had ever contemplated. 
 
 ^ Dan. vii. 13, 14. 
 
298 THE MESSIAH 
 
 It is possible that as the Maccabean monarchy became 
 established a new conception of the Messiah grew, which 
 seemed more consonant with what was actually happening. 
 Why, it might be asked, was it necessary that the Messiah 
 should be of the house of David; why not of the house of 
 Levi, that tribe from which came the high priest and all the 
 priesthood, from which in these later days had come the 
 Saviours of Israel; why should not it be the holy stock 
 through which redemption was to come? It is perhaps 
 to the days of John Hyrcanus, the high priest, who was 
 also the prophet and the king, that is due the new concep- 
 tion of a Messiah of the house of Levi, as it is represented 
 to us in one of the most interesting and difficult of Jewish 
 writings, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 
 
 The Patriarch Levi is represented as saying: "I saw seven 
 men in white raiment, saying unto me: Arise, put on the 
 robe of the priesthood, and the crown of righteousness, 
 and the breastplate of understanding, and the garment of 
 truth, and the plate of faith, and the mitre of the head, and 
 the ephod of prophecy. And they severally carried these 
 things and put them on me, and said unto me: From hence- 
 forth become a priest of the Lord, thou and thy seed for ever 
 . . . and they said to me: Levi, thy seed shall be divided 
 into three offices, for a sign of the glory of the Lord who is 
 to come. And the first portion shall be great: yea, greater 
 than it shall none be. The second shall be in the priesthood. 
 And the third shall be called by a new name, because a king 
 shall arise in Judah, and shall establish a new priesthood 
 after the fashion of the Gentiles, and his presence is beloved, 
 as a prophet of the Most High, of the seed of Abraham 
 our father."^ This passage implies the attribution of great 
 honour to the house of Levi, and may perhaps be the origin 
 of a form of thought which associated the hope of Israel 
 with that tribe. In the Testaments as we have them the 
 Messiah comes from Levi and Judah, but that probably 
 means a conflation of the traditions. This form of ex- 
 pectation never prevailed widely, but sporadically we have 
 references to a Messiah of the house of Levi. 
 
 1 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (ed. Charles, Adam and Charles 
 Black, 1908). Lev. viii. 
 
THE VISION OF ENOCH 299 
 
 It was in the disastrous period of the first century that 
 the Messianic hope became strong. The degeneration of 
 the Hasmonaean monarchy, and the terrible cruelties of 
 Alexander Jannaeus, dissipated the feeling of satisfaction 
 which the stirring events of the Maccabaean revolt had 
 raised, and soon Israel found itself under the iron yoke of 
 Rome. The feehng arose, how long will the Lord withhold 
 His hand? When will He come to avenge His people? And 
 rehgious visions began to grow as the realities of life became 
 more grim. A writer whose work is preserved to us under 
 the name of Enoch elaborated the great conception of 
 Daniel. He saw a vision of "One who had a head of days, 
 and his head was white like wool, and with him was another 
 being whose countenance had the appearance of a man, 
 and his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy 
 angels. . . . This is the Son of Man who hath righteous- 
 ness."^ He is called also the Elect One, and the Anointed. 
 It is His function to execute judgment. There will be a 
 resurrection of all Israel. The books of the living are opened. 
 All judgment is committed unto the Son of Man. He will 
 judge angels and men, and particularly those who oppressed 
 the saints. The fallen will be cast into a fiery furnace. 
 The kings of the earth will be tortured in Gehenna. The 
 righteous shall have eternal life, and the Elect One shall 
 dwell among them. 
 
 I have already given you an account of the Messianic 
 kingdom as it is depicted in the Psalms of Solomon,^ it 
 remains only to add the description of the Messiah: "A 
 righteous king and taught of God is he that reigneth over 
 them; and there shall be no iniquity in his days in their 
 midst, for all shall be holy and their king is the Lord Messiah. 
 He shall not put his trust in horse and rider and bow, nor 
 shall he multiply unto himself gold and silver for war, nor 
 by ships shall he gather confidence for the day of battle. 
 The Lord himself is his King, and the hope of him that is 
 strong is the hope of God. He shall have mercy upon all 
 the nations that come before him in fear. He shall bless 
 the people of the Lord with wisdom and gladness. He 
 
 1 The Book of Eiwch (ed. Charles, Oxford, 191 2), xlvi. 1-3. 
 
 2 See above, p. 244. 
 
300 THE MESSIAH 
 
 himself also is pure from sin. He shall not faint all his 
 days because he leaneth upon his God. Who can stand 
 against him? for he is mighty in his works and strong in the 
 fear of God, tending the flock of the Lord with faith and 
 righteousness; and he shall suffer none among them to faint 
 in their pasture. In holiness shall he lead them all, and 
 there shall be no pride among them that any, should be 
 oppressed."^ 
 
 It has sometimes been maintained that the Messianic 
 expectation did not really exist before it was created by 
 Christianity. There were, indeed, passages which might 
 be so interpreted in the Old Testament, but their significance 
 had never been realized. I do not think that it is really 
 possible to maintain this paradox, for such it is. No doubt 
 there were periods in the history of Israel when the belief 
 was more faint, and there were circles of thought in which 
 it did not prevail, but that is the utmost that can be con- 
 ceded. No doubt Josephus says little about it, but he was 
 writing for Romans as the parasite of a Roman emperor, 
 and the thought of a rival sovereign, however visionary, was 
 not palatable in such quarters. On the other hand, the 
 many attempts at rebellion which he narrates in his history 
 can be understood only if there was such a hope among the 
 people. If we turn to the Gospel narrative, it clearly 
 impHes such an expectation among the people, and we have 
 quite sufficient literary evidence to support it. 
 
 It would be more correct to say that when Jesus came 
 there was a widespread expectation of the coming of the 
 Messiah. It was based upon the Old Testament. It took 
 various forms, and was interpreted according to the spiritual 
 and intellectual standpoint of different individuals. It 
 might take the form of an earthly king, the Son of David, 
 or a supernatural being, the Son of Man. The Messiah was 
 the Son of God, the Lord the Holy One of Israel. Associated 
 sometimes with the thought of an earthly kingdom, some- 
 times with eschatological expectations, there was almost 
 always an element of universaHsm in it — either the Jews 
 would rule over the hated Gentiles, or it would be a light 
 
 1 Psalms of Solomon (ed. Ryle and James, Cambridge, 1891), xvii. 
 35-46. 
 
THE CLAIMS OF JESUS 301 
 
 to lighten the Gentiles. The whole earth would acknowledge 
 the one God. 
 
 The Jewish conception did not include all the elements 
 of hope in the Old Testament. There was not apparently 
 any reference to the prophetic idea. There were expectations 
 of the coming of a great prophet Hke Moses, but his work 
 was not associated with the Messiah. There was also no 
 doctrine of a suffering Messiah, and the servant of the Lord 
 in the second part of Isaiah was not interpreted in this 
 sense. The servant was Israel. There was no doctrine, 
 again, of atonement associated with the Messiah, or of 
 redemption through Him. The Messianic times, indeed, 
 were times of cleansing and redemption, but the idea of a 
 Messiah being a sacrifice for sin had no existence. Nor, 
 again, except so far as there was an expectation of a Messiah 
 of the house of Levi (and such a form of the belief was not 
 common), was there any reference to the fulfilment of the 
 priestly ideas of the Old Testament. In fact, if we compare 
 the current Jewish ideas with the Old Testament, we shall 
 notice that, although they are more definite and precise, 
 they are far less spiritual and far narrower in their outlook. 
 
 Ill 
 
 In what way did Jesus think of His office? He had come 
 as the Messiah, the expected of Israel; He had gradually 
 taught His disciples to recognize who He was. But what 
 sort of Messiah did He claim to be? 
 
 It is recorded how, at His baptism, Jesus heard a voice 
 saying unto him, "Thou art my son, my beloved," and it 
 has been pointed out that in these words were implied two 
 great Old Testament conceptions. The Messiah was Son 
 of God; this was clear to anyone who studied the Psalms, 
 for the same Psalm which spoke of Him as the Anointed 
 spoke of Him as the Son. But what did the Son of God mean? 
 
 We are told that at the trial or preliminary investigation 
 before the Sanhedrin, the high priest asked Jesus, "Art 
 thou the Christ, the son of the Blessed?" Jesus answered, 
 "I am." It was His only definite pubHc claim to the 
 title and office of the Messiah. It was made with the 
 
302 THE MESSIAH 
 
 expectation of death before Him, and in full consciousness 
 of what it would mean. Jesus died because he claimed 
 to be the Messiah and the Son of God. The high priest 
 in the form of his questions showed that to him the two 
 names were identical. Son of God was a recognized title 
 of the Messiah. It was, therefore, natural enough that 
 Jesus had never used it of Himself — to have done so would 
 have been to make a public claim before the time — but 
 there is quite sufficient evidence that He thought of Himself 
 as, in an especial way, related to the Father, and that He 
 was Son in a sense that no one else could claim to be. In 
 the agony in the garden He prayed that if possible the hour 
 might pass from Him; "Father," He prayed, "all things 
 are possible to thee; take away this cup from me; but 
 not what I will, but what thou wiliest."^ "Not every one 
 that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom 
 of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is 
 in heaven."^ "I appoint you a kingdom as my Father hath 
 appointed unto me."^ "The angels of the little ones 
 behold always the face of my Father which is in heaven."* 
 The term the "Son of God" might be used with many 
 varieties of signification. It might be little more than an 
 honorary title for a king; it might have a purely moral 
 signification; it might mean only the good man who could 
 be called the Son of God; but it seems as if Jesus used it 
 in a different and much more intimate signification. In 
 St. Mark's Gospel, when speaking of the last things, He adds, 
 "Of that day and of that hour knoweth no one, neither the 
 angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father."^ ^ It is hardly 
 likely that this passage which seems to limit Jesus' know- 
 ledge would have been the work of the Christian Church, 
 yet, though it limits the knowledge, it means the claim of 
 a position transcending angels and men. In The Discourses 
 was found another saying of Jesus even more remarkable, 
 "All things are delivered to me by my Father, and no one 
 knoweth the Son but the Father, nor does any one know 
 the Father save the Son and he to whom the Son shall 
 reveal him."^ 
 
 1 Mk. xiv. 36. 2 Mt. vii. 21. ' Lk. xxii. 29. 
 
 * Mt. xviii. 10. 5 jvik. xiii. 32. ^ Mt. xi. 27; Lk. x. 22. 
 
SON OF MAN 303 
 
 When we turn to St. John's Gospel, we find this relation- 
 ship of the Father and the Son worked out at length. Even 
 if we do not consider that the speeches in which this is 
 done represent more than the interpretation of the writer, 
 yet it has already been suggested on more than one occasion 
 that the Johannine interpretation represents the spirit of 
 Christ. Jesus did not talk or talk often as St. John repre- 
 sents Him; but St. John represents Him as so talking be- 
 cause he knew, what the other Gospels tell us, that Jesus, 
 when He thought of Himself as the Son of God, meant that 
 God was in Him, and He in God, and this in a different way 
 to any other. Jesus thought of Himself as the Son of God, 
 for the Scriptures told Him that the Messiah was the Son of 
 God, but in Him this term, as all others that He uses, has a 
 deeper and more spiritual signification. 
 
 When Jesus confessed to the high priest that He was 
 the Messiah, the Son of God, He added, "Ye shall see the 
 Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming 
 with the clouds of heaven,"^ claiming for Himself, that is, 
 both the title Son of Man and also the functions ascribed 
 in the Old Testament to the Messiah. "The Son of Man 
 would come with the clouds of heaven." ^ The Lord would 
 sit on God's right hand, and all His enemies would fall 
 beneath His feet. Unlike the title Son of God, the title Son 
 of Man is represented in the Gospels as one habitually used 
 by Jesus, and it hardly occurs elsewhere in the New Testa- 
 ment. Under these circumstances the claim of Bousset that 
 the title was never used by our Lord but was given Him by 
 the Church seems somewhat bold. 
 
 The title itself has a complicated history. When the phrase 
 first meets us it is a paraphrase for man, following a natural 
 Semitic idiom: "Lord, what is man that thou art mindful of 
 him, or the Son of Man that thou visitest him?"^ It occurs 
 regularly in Ezekiel as the title used by the Almighty in 
 addressing the prophet, and in Daniel, as we have seen, it 
 means a being of human form. But Daniel had created a 
 picture of the Son of Man, and through him it became a 
 title designating the Messiah as a supernatural being. So it 
 was used in the book of Enoch, and perhaps elsewhere. 
 
 ^ Mk. xlv. 62. 2 Dan. vii. 13. ' Ps. cxliv. 3. 
 
304 THE MESSIAH 
 
 The usage by our Lord has caused some perplexity. He 
 employs it generally in the third person, "The Son of Man 
 is Lord also of the Sabbath." "Hereafter shall ye see the 
 heaven open and the Son of Man descending in power." 
 And the question has been asked, Did Jesus so think of 
 Himself? Was He not rather as a humble prophet merely 
 foretelling the coming of the Messiah? But His disciples 
 misunderstood Him and thought he spake of Himself. 
 The test for such theories is. Do they apply universally? 
 Are there passages which may reasonably be considered 
 authentic to which they do not apply? I think it is clear 
 that the words addressed to the high priest must have come 
 from Jesus, and that He is speaking of Himself. And what 
 of the following: "Foxes have holes and the birds of the air 
 have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his 
 head."^ These words clearly come from Jesus; He is 
 speaking of Himself and designating Himself as the Son of 
 Man. I do not think there are any legitimate grounds for 
 distrusting the obvious interpretation of the Gospels. 
 
 But this leads us to Jesus' use of the term. The Son of 
 Man in Daniel is associated with a vision of the Almighty. 
 In Enoch it represents the Messiah as coming to judgment. 
 When Jesus used it, it meant that He claimed to be the 
 Messiah from heaven, that He believed that to Him as the 
 Messiah was extended dominion and authority, that the 
 final judgment of all men, the reward of the righteous and 
 the punishment of the wicked, would be exercised through 
 Him, and He uses in the description of His ofhce the language 
 of Jewish imagination. We certainly need not be too 
 anxious to take all the phraseology literally, but we cannot 
 doubt that Jesus claimed for Himself the functions associated 
 with the word. 
 
 But we have not yet exhausted the meaning of the word 
 as used by Him. The Son of Man represented to earlier 
 writers the glory and exaltation of the Messiah, but Jesus 
 always employs it when He wishes to speak of His humilia- 
 tion:. "The Son of Man is delivered into the hands of men; 
 and they shall slay him." And equally significant is the use 
 of the word in regard to the human sympathies of Jesus: 
 
 1 Mt. viii. 20; Lk, ix. 58. 
 
THE SERVANT 305 
 
 "The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which is 
 lost."^ Although when Jesus thought of Himself as the 
 Son of Man He claimed a more than human office, yet He 
 saw His glory always through His abasement, and He 
 thought of His divine functions in relation to the suffering 
 of humanity. 
 
 It may be asked why it was this designation that Jesus 
 particularly used. I think that it is probable that the 
 phrase was less common as a designation of the Messiah 
 than some others, and would not arouse such suspicion and 
 resentment. It enabled Him to speak of the judgment and 
 divine retribution in a manner which would carry conviction, 
 and there were associations connected with the word which 
 enabled it to express not only His divine prerogatives, but 
 also His human sympathies. The word is used in St. John's 
 Gospel in a way which interprets and develops these 
 thoughts. Jesus is the Son of Man which is in heaven, but 
 it is the Son of Man who is glorified in the Passion and 
 Crucifixion. 
 
 When at the baptism Jesus is addressed as "the beloved 
 in whom I am well pleased," a new idea is associated with 
 the Messianic conception. The reference is clearly to a 
 well-known passage of Isaiah: "Behold my servant, whom 
 I uphold; my chosen in whom my soul delighteth: I have 
 put my spirit upon him."^ It is clear that Jesus thought 
 of Himself as the Servant of Jehovah, whose miseries and 
 sufferings are delineated in the latter part of the book of 
 Isaiah, and it was on that book more than any other in 
 the Old Testament that his conceptions were formed. 
 When He first preached at Nazareth (St. Luke tells us) 
 He read the passage beginning, "The Spirit of the Lord is 
 upon me, because he anointed me to preach good tidings 
 to the poor,"^ and stated that that day was the Scripture 
 fulfilled. He quoted the same passage in His answer to 
 John the Baptist,'^ and elsewhere it is the words of this book 
 that have helped to fashion His language and mould His 
 thought. But if, as is clear. He thought of Himself as the 
 Servant, other ideas must inevitably come in. The Servant 
 
 1 Lk. xix. 10. 2 Is. xlii. i. 
 
 3 Lk. iv. 18. * Mt. xi. 5; Lk. vii. 22. 
 
3o6 THE MESSIAH 
 
 suffered, and His sufferings were redemptive, and these 
 ideas, therefore, must also have helped in fashioning His 
 teaching. That which was written had to be fulfilled in 
 Him, "And he was reckoned among the transgressors "; '^ 
 and when he said, "The Son of Man hath not come to be 
 ministered to, but to minister and to give his Ufe a ransom 
 for many," 2 he was no doubt thinking of such passages as 
 "He shall see of the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied; 
 by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many: 
 and he shall bear their iniquities."^ The original Messianic 
 idea depicted a king and a conqueror, the apocalyptic 
 dreamer thought of a divine Messiah pre-existent in heaven, 
 but when Jesus reading with His clear and penetrating mind 
 modelled His thoughts on the conception of the Servant of 
 the Lord, new ideas came in of suffering, death, redemption, 
 and the full meaning of the work of the Messiah began to 
 be realized. 
 
 In the later days of the Apostolic Church, when the 
 phraseology of Christianity began to adapt itself to Gentile 
 ideas, one of the commonest designations of Jesus Christ 
 was "the Lord." That was natural enough. It had a 
 meaning which no other word could then have had. It was 
 used ahke of kingly and divine prerogatives, and was a 
 common designation of the heathen gods. It was natural 
 that the title, "the Son of Man," which had no association 
 outside Judaism, should give way to what had become a 
 more expressive term. But "the Lord" was a term which 
 also had its roots in Judaism,^ and was probably accepted 
 by Jesus as part of the designation of the Messiah. When the 
 Psalmist said "the Lord said unto my Lord," he may very 
 probably have been designating an earthly ruler, but when 
 the original meaning had been lost, it would be naturally 
 associated with the Messiah, and I do not doubt that that 
 is the origin of the expression "the Lord Messiah" which 
 meets us in the Psalms of Solomon. The word "Lord" was 
 addressed to Jesus, He is spoken of as the Lord, and the use 
 
 1 Lk. xxii. 37. 2 ]v[Ij_ X. 45. ^ Is. liii. 11. 
 
 * As a proof of the fact that the title Lord is not exclusively of Greek origin 
 may be cited the words "Maran atha" (the Lord is at hand) (i Cor. xvi. 
 22), which show that it was current in Aramaic. 
 
SON OF DAVID 307 
 
 of the term seems to hover between a title of courtesy and 
 respect, and a fuller religious meaning. "Not every one that 
 saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is 
 in heaven,"^ and when Jesus asks, "if David in spirit 
 calleth him Lord, how is he his Son?"^ He is ascribing to 
 the Messiah the functions of Lordship. 
 
 One of the commonest of the popular designations of the 
 Messiah was Son of David. How did Jesus think of this? 
 It was a term used in addressing Him. When the company 
 of enthusiastic Galilaeans is marching to Jerusalem from 
 Jericho on the final journey, bhnd Bartimaeus cries out to 
 Him, "Thou Son of David, have mercy upon me,"^ and as 
 Jesus enters into Jerusalem to declare Himself as Messiah, 
 it is the kingdom of our father David ^ that expresses the 
 hopes of the people. No doubt that was what most men 
 longed for. But Jesus never used the designation. It was 
 not that he rejected the hopes of a new kingdom of David, 
 or that He did not claim to fulfil them, but He believed that 
 they would be fulfilled in quite a difi^erent way to what 
 men had expected, and He could not use the term that was 
 likely to be misleading. So He did not speak of Himself 
 as the Son of David. 
 
 IV 
 
 It seems probable that there was among Jewish theo- 
 logians much discussion about the Messiah. There was a 
 desire to know when he w^ould come, what his work and 
 office would be, above all, how, when he came, his presence 
 would be known, and how the true Messiah might be dis- 
 tinguished from false Messiahs. Knowing as we do the 
 character of Jewish theology, we may suspect that the signs 
 of the Messiah would largely consist of a number of external 
 characteristics based very often on a doubtful exegesis. 
 We have some instances of this in the New Testament. 
 Herod enquires of the chief priests and scribes where the 
 Messiah should be born, and they answer in Bethlehem of 
 Judaea, basing their answer on the words of the prophet 
 
 ^ Mt. vii. 21. 2 Mk. xii. 37. 
 
 ' Mk. X. 47. 4 Mk. xi. 10. 
 
 21 
 
3o8 THE MESSIAH 
 
 Micah. So the disciples coming down from the mountain 
 after the Transfiguration are concerned because the scribes 
 say that EHas must first come. Here was another sign of 
 the Messiah which might be deduced from the words of 
 Malachi. So again Jesus asks, How say the scribes that 
 the Christ is the Son of David? No doubt there were many 
 other signs of the Messiah discussed in learned circles. 
 
 It was natural that, in the early days of the Christian 
 Church, the disciples who searched the Scriptures in order 
 that they might show how they testified to the Christ should 
 seek to prove that Jesus was the Messiah according to the 
 correct methods of the time. This is just what St. Matthew, 
 who was writing for Jewish Christians, does. He gives us 
 a genealogy to prove a genuine Davidic descent. He 
 describes and lays emphasis on the birth at Bethlehem, 
 as a signal proof of Jesus' claims. He gives a number of 
 incidents, all of which he represents as the literal fulfilment 
 of Old Testament prophecies. Throughout the Gospel, 
 whenever an opportunity seems to occur, he shows how the 
 incident recorded had been foretold. The whole was for 
 his readers a very convincing series of arguments. 
 
 To us they have not quite the same value. There is no 
 reason for thinking that the facts may not have been in 
 many cases as they are described. There is no improba- 
 bility in Joseph and Mary being of the tribe of Judah, and 
 reputed descendants of David, and genealogies among the 
 Jews would be carefully preserved. The reason given by 
 St. Luke for the birth at Bethlehem has been shown by recent 
 discovery to be quite possible. Whether others of the birth 
 stories are historical or not we cannot say. In some cases 
 we certainly seem to be in the region of poetry and myth. 
 Some of the passages of the Old Testament quoted are used 
 in a way which would seem to us legitimate; in other cases 
 we could not now justify the methods of exegesis. The 
 words "out of Egypt have I called my son" certainly did 
 not refer to the Messiah when they were first spoken. The 
 voice that was heard in Ramah, and the weeping of Rachel, 
 did not in Jeremiah refer to Bethlehem at all. In fact, 
 while St. Matthew's argument would probably have seemed 
 to many contemporaries convincing, it presents to modern 
 
THE SIGNS OF THE MESSIAH 309 
 
 readers great difficulties. And the same might be said of 
 much that we read in Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho 
 the Jew and other patristic expositions of the Messianic 
 claim, 
 
 ■ I do not myself feel certain of the historical character of 
 all the early stories about our Lord, and I am certain that 
 a great deal of the exegesis is untenable, but I do not think 
 we need really be troubled by either of these things, for 
 what I want you to notice is how entirely absent from our 
 Lord's teaching are any of these things. As has already 
 been pointed out. His use of Scripture is quite different, 
 and He never bases His claim on the fulfilment of con- 
 ventional signs. He does, indeed, claim that John had 
 fulfilled the prophecy about Elijah, but this was not a 
 small point. It was part of the great spiritual movement 
 which was consummated in Himself. He seems to doubt 
 whether the claim that the Messiah was to be a Son of 
 David gave an adequate explanation of the office, and He 
 does not seek to fulfil conventional prophecies in a Hteral 
 way. There is one very significant exception. When He 
 enters Jerusalem to assert His claims as Messiah, He re- 
 members the prophecy of Zechariah: "Rejoice greatly, O 
 daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold 
 thy king cometh unto thee; he is just and having salvation; 
 lowly and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an 
 ass,"^ and in this way He enters the holy city. It was a 
 symbolism quite in accordance with the methods of the 
 prophets. It might testify how different was this King to 
 what the Jews had expected, how different His kingdom; 
 lowhness, righteousness, salvation were to be the notes of 
 His reign. It was a fitting prelude to the Passion. And it 
 was characteristic of St. Matthew that the important point 
 for him lay in a literal verbal fulfilment, the she-ass with 
 the young colt running by her side. 
 
 The conception Jesus had of His office was far different 
 from anything that people had imagined. He had, we have 
 seen reason to believe, formed His mind (if we may venture 
 to use the phrase) on a spiritual study of the word of God, 
 the books of the Old Testament. They foretold (as almost 
 
 ^ Zech. ix. 9, 
 
310 THE MESSIAH 
 
 all men held) the coming of a Messiah, but when Jesus read 
 them and pondered over them, it became very clear that 
 the Messiah that they foretold was very different from what 
 most people expected. He knew Himself the Messiah — 
 when or how the conviction came to Him we cannot tell. 
 It was certainly confirmed and completed in His baptism; 
 and knowing Himself to be the Messiah, He felt that He 
 was fulfilling all God's purpose in the Old Testament. He 
 had come to fulfil all righteousness. He was not come to 
 destroy but to fulfil. So He thought of Himself as fulfilhng 
 all the lines of hope of the Old Testament. He was, indeed, 
 the King of the house of David, but the kingdom which He 
 would found was to be a kingdom of righteousness. That 
 was what the prophets taught Him, What an ideal vision 
 of the future had they seen! "A new heart also will I 
 give you, and a new spirit will I put within you."^ He 
 thought of Himself as Lord, but His rule was in the hearts 
 of His followers. They would not fulfil His purpose by 
 calling Him Lord, but by doing the will of the Father. He 
 thought of Himself as the Son of God, but it meant not only 
 an honorific title of the Messiah, but an intimate union 
 between Himself and God, of which He was conscious. He 
 thought of Himself as the Son of Man; it implied lofty 
 claims, for Daniel had seen the vision of the Son of Man 
 coming to the Ancient of Days, but He connected it also 
 with His life on earth. His humiliations and suffering. He 
 thought of Himself as the Servant of the Lord, and that 
 meant beneficent work for God among men, but also 
 suffering and death for Himself in the fulfilment of His 
 ministry, and redemption through death. These do not 
 exhaust His conception of His office, but they all harmonize 
 with the fulfilment of everything that was most spiritual 
 in the Old Testament. 
 
 For there were in the Old Testament many and various 
 elements, and at different times in the history of Israel 
 different aspects had been prominent. The remarkable 
 thing is that all alike seem to be summed up in Christ, and 
 that so naturally and spontaneously that we hardly realize 
 the origin of the picture. Dr. Sanday has expressed this 
 
 * Ezek. xviii. 31. 
 
THE CONCLUSION 311 
 
 admirably in one of the most eloquent and luminous 
 passages of his Bampton Lectures on Inspiration. "We 
 turn the page," he writes, "which separates the New 
 Testament from the Old. We look at the Figure which is 
 deHneated there, and we find in it a most marvellous meeting 
 of traits derived from the most different and distant sources, 
 from Nathan, from Amos, from First Isaiah, from Second 
 Isaiah, from Zechariah, from Daniel, from the second Psalm, 
 from the twenty-second, from the sixty-ninth, from the 
 hundred and tenth. And these traits do not meet, as we 
 might expect them to do, in some laboured and artificial 
 compound, but in the sweet and gracious figure of Jesus of 
 Nazareth — King, but not as men count kingship; crowned, 
 but with the crown of thorns; suffering for our redemption, 
 but suffering only that he may reign." ^ 
 
 We have now completed some portion of our task, and 
 may pause to review our progress. We have set out to 
 describe the life and teaching of Jesus the Christ. We 
 recognize that it is a task of grave difficulty, that many have 
 attempted it, and that although all may have achieved 
 something, all have failed. All we can hope is that we, 
 too, may have achieved something. Our purpose was to 
 construct a hfe on the basis of the material before us, with- 
 out presuppositions either positive or negative; not to as- 
 sume what Christian tradition has taught about Jesus, but 
 not to deny it. The one presupposition that we have al- 
 lowed ourselves is that we must be able to account for the 
 fact of Christianity. A religion of such universal spiritual 
 significance could not be the result of astral fancies or any 
 such thing. Our method has been to construct our story out 
 of our material, primary and secondary, as we might do 
 in secular history, and then consider whether we have suc- 
 ceeded in producing a coherent and consistent narrative. 
 
 Our first business is with the life itself. The narrative of 
 St. Mark, studied without presuppositions, seems to give us 
 a story, both probable in itself and one that harmonizes 
 
 * Inspiration, by W. Sanday, D.D., pp. 404, 405 
 
^312 THE MESSIAH 
 
 with what we know of the circumstances of the time and 
 country. Both in St. Luke and St. Matthew the probable 
 sequence of events seems to have been somewhat disturbed, 
 but the further material that they have given us will 
 generally, if not always, fit into the rest of the story. The 
 Gospel of St. John will demand further examination, but 
 it seems to preserve independent tradition of considerable 
 value. The history, as so far constructed, I would put 
 before you as giving an account of the Hfe of Jesus as it may 
 well have happened — an accout I would submit, at any 
 rate, more probable than some others which begin by casting 
 doubts on the credibility of their source. 
 
 But there is one particular historical phenomenon, which 
 demands separate investigation — the question of miracles. 
 Here, again, I started without assuming either that they 
 had occurred or that they could not have occurred. I 
 assumed that there might be spiritual phenomena incon- 
 sistent with ordinary experience — that is to say, I did not 
 rule them out on a priori grounds. What I would suggest 
 to you as the result of our examination is that these miracles 
 of the Gospel harmonize with the rest of the picture of the 
 work of Christ. They are restrained; they are beneficent; 
 they are not made the main purpose of the ministry; they 
 rather take their place as something characteristic but 
 subordinate; they exhibit the same spiritual authority 
 and power as the words and work of Jesus. They are in 
 keeping with the rest of the narrative. I must leave it to 
 each person to decide whether he feels compelled to eliminate 
 them on grounds clearly other than critical. 
 
 The most important part of our investigation was the 
 teaching of Jesus, and here the relation of our sources is 
 somewhat different. Our information comes from a wider 
 field. We have at least four different collections of the 
 words of Jesus — St. Mark, The Discourses, a collection of 
 sayings and parables in St. Luke, a considerable amount of 
 material in St. Matthew. All these collections seem to 
 present to us the teaching of our Lord, as it was preserved 
 in the first Christian generation. Occasionally there might 
 seem to be later elements, but for the most part it is 
 homogeneous in character. There are few, if any, signs of 
 
THE CENTRAL FACTS OF CHRISTIANITY 313 
 
 successive strata of teaching or of development of doctrine. 
 On the basis of that material, with occasional illustrations 
 from St. John's Gospel, we have attempted to construct 
 the teaching of Jesus about the Christian life, the kingdom 
 of heaven, and the conception of the Messiah. We have 
 found a remarkable consistency in these presentations. In 
 the first place, there is not in this teaching any sign of 
 anachronisms. In the language, in the categories of thought, 
 in the problems that it discusses, it fits in with all that we 
 know of the ideas and aspirations of the time. We tried 
 to reconstruct the education of Jesus, the influences to 
 which He must have been subject in His home in Galilee, 
 and we saw how in its form and presentation the teaching 
 exactly corresponded to these circumstances. 
 
 And then as to its content. While it is throughout 
 derived from, and based on, the Old Testament, it represents 
 a most remarkable transformation of that material. It 
 seizes on and develops its most spiritual ideas, and puts on 
 one side everything that is temporary and inadequate. It 
 makes the whole of life dependent on the fulfilment of the 
 will of God, and the right attitude of the devout soul to 
 God. It makes faith and love the central fact in the 
 Christian Hfe. It looks upon the kingdom of God as the 
 ideal for man, and sees in the kingdom of God the fulfilment 
 of God's will and righteousness. All these things come from 
 the Old Testament. Some few had found this or that rule 
 of life, but in Jesus they mean the transformation of all 
 human life. 
 
 Jesus was the Messiah. As such He fulfilled all that the 
 Old Testament had to teach, but He always transcended it. 
 As the Son of God He lived in intimate union with the 
 Father. As the Servant of God He fulfilled God's will on 
 earth. As the Son of Man He was the Judge of mankind. 
 
 Our task is only half completed, but I would suggest to 
 you that there is a homogeneity and consistency about the 
 life and the teaching, which we cannot but look upon as a 
 strong proof of authenticity; and the teaching bears the 
 impress of a single mind. I do not mean to say that that 
 would be true of everything in the Gospels. If Jesus had 
 once taught in a particular way, those who heard Him, and 
 
314 THE MESSIAH 
 
 those who heard of Him, might construe and interpret that 
 teaching as, indeed, the author of the fourth Gospel seems 
 to have done. What I do mean is, that the teaching of 
 Jesus, as contained in the Gospels, is not a collection of 
 different opinions held by various individuals during a 
 period of from fifty to seventy years, but a homogeneous 
 whole coming from one teacher of intense spiritual power. 
 What further this may imply we must leave to the sequel 
 of our investigation. 
 
NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE 
 GOSPELS 
 
 The chronology of the hfe of our Lord is a subject on which it 
 is not possible at present to arrive at conclusions which will be 
 universally accepted. The data are few, and it is not easy to 
 reconcile them. The limits of variation, indeed, are not great; 
 but the construction of an exact and certain chronology, such 
 as is so great a help to sound history, is not yet possible. In 
 these notes, I have taken as my starting-point Dr. Turner's 
 article on "Chronology" in Hastings' Bible Dictionary (vol. i., 
 pp. 403 /[.) — although I do not always agree with his conclusions 
 — and the detailed information in Lewin's Fasti Sacri. 
 
 I. The Date of the Birth of Jesus. — The birth of Jesus 
 was: 
 
 (i) During the reign of Herod the Great. On this all authori- 
 ties agree. That is, it was before the Passover of the year 4 B.C. 
 Probably, also, it was, as the narrative in St. Matthew suggests, 
 some little time before, not less than two years. 
 
 (2) According to St. Luke, about thirty years before the 
 beginning of His minstry. This took place some time after the 
 summer of 28 B.C., and perhaps early in a.d. 30. The word 
 "about" gives us considerable latitude, and side by side with 
 it must be placed the tradition given by Irenaeus on the au- 
 thority of the elders that Jesus was above forty years old at the 
 time of His death (Iren., Adv. Haer., H., xxxiii. 4). 
 
 (3) According to St. Luke, at the time of a census. This was 
 a census of the whole Roman Empire, ordered by Augustus, the 
 first of a series, and carried out in Syria by Quirinius. " This 
 was the first enrolment made while Quirinius was Governor of 
 Syria (Lk. ii. 2)." 
 
 To discuss the many difficulties raised by this verse would 
 need more than one dissertation. It will be sufficient for us to 
 concentrate our attention on certain leading points. 
 
 (i.) There was quite certainly a census held by Quirinius in 
 A.D. 6, when Archelaus was deposed, and it has been held that 
 the introduction of this date is a blunder of St. Luke, probably 
 based on a careless reading of Josephus. 
 
 (ii.) In St. Luke's narrative we must distinguish carefully 
 between the fact of the census and the date. The former is 
 supported by the narrative, the latter may be only a mistaken 
 attempt at fixing the chronology. If that is the explanation, 
 
 31S 
 
3i6 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS 
 
 the deduction that I would draw is that St. Luke had not read 
 Josephus; if he had done so, he would probably have avoided the 
 error. 
 
 (iii.) Discoveries of papyri made in Egypt have thrown much 
 light on the census in the Roman Empire. It has been shown 
 that the story contained in St. Luke was probable and, in par- 
 ticular, that it was the custom to summon people to their own 
 homes to be enrolled. The census, as later evidence shows, was 
 held systematically at intervals of fifteen years, and if there was 
 one held in a.d. 6-7, then there may have been one held in 9-8 B.C. 
 
 (iv.) Tertullian tells us there was a census held in Judaea 
 under C. Sentius Saturninus, who was Governor of Syria about 
 9-6 B.C. (Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem., iv. 19.) 
 
 (v.) The tendency, therefore, of recent discovery is, on the 
 whole, perhaps to corroborate the suggestion of Lewin (Fasti 
 Sacri, p. xxiii^., 115) and of Dr. Turner (op. cit., p. 405), that 
 the Nativity took place at the time of the first census of Pales- 
 tine, held under Saturninus, in 8-6 B.C. St. Luke, then, is right 
 as to the fact, but wrong as to the name of the Governor — quite 
 a possible mistake. 
 
 (vi.) But we have not quite done with Quirinius. There is 
 considerable evidence that he was twice governor of Syria, and 
 in that capacity carried on a campaign against the Homona- 
 denses some time before the mission of Gaius Caesar to the East. 
 This earlier Governorship is placed by Schiirer and Mommsen 
 in 3-2 B.C., but Sir WiUiam Ramsay has produced considerable 
 evidence, based on more recent discoveries, to show that the 
 campaign against the Homonadenses — and, therefore, the first 
 governorship of Quirinius — should be placed earlier. He may, 
 then, have been Governor between 6 and 8 B.C., at the time of 
 a census, or more probably held a special command, which 
 would account for St. Luke putting the census under Quirinius 
 and Tertullian remembering the name of Saturninus. We had 
 better, on this matter, suspend our judgment, and await further 
 discovery. 
 
 The conclusion of this argument is that the Nativity was 
 probably about 8 B.C., or perhaps, recognizing the possibility 
 of delay in carrying out the census, we might place it, with Dr. 
 Turner, in 7 b.c. Lewin's date of 6 B.C. is probably too late. 
 
 2. The Beginning of the Preaching of John the Baptist. 
 — St. Luke gives a series of synchronisms for this event. "Now 
 in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius 
 Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of 
 Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea 
 and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the high 
 priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came unto 
 John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness" (Lk. iii. i). 
 
THE LENGTH OF THE MINISTRY 317 
 
 The fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar is ahnost 
 the only fixed and definite date given in the New Testament. It 
 was counted from August 19, a.d. 28, to August 19, a.d. 29. 
 Difliculties have been raised, however. 
 
 (i.) It has been suggested (as by Dr. Turner in Hastings' 
 Bible Dictionary, i. 405) that the years of his reign were com- 
 puted from the time when he was associated with Augustus 
 (a.d. II or 12), and not from the latter 's death. But while there 
 is no instance of computation from this date, that from the 
 actual succession is well known and occurs on coins of the eastern 
 provinces, and, in particular, on coins of Palestine (see Lewin, 
 Fasti Sacri, p. liii.; Hill, Coins of Palestine in the British Museum, 
 pp. 251-260). It must be remembered that the Western system 
 of dating by the years of Tribunician power must have been quite 
 meaningless in the East, and the substitution of the regnal year 
 was natural. 
 
 (ii.) It has been affirmed that the date refers not to the begin- 
 ning of the Baptist's ministry, but to the year in which he bap- 
 tized our Lord. This, however, is quite contrary to St. Luke's 
 statement, which is that in this year the word of the Lord came 
 to John. 
 
 (iii.) It has further been asked, On what evidence did St. 
 Luke arrive at this very exact date? And is he accurate? The 
 first question we cannot answer, but it is probable that he had 
 some definite information. As to the second, it is possible that 
 St. Luke was mistaken; but when a careful historian who wrote 
 not fifty years afterwards and clearly shows abundant evidence 
 of enquiry gives us a fixed date, we should accept it unless proof 
 of its incorrectness can be produced. 
 
 3. The Length of Our Lord's Ministry. — I cannot think 
 that this was less than three years. The attempt to compress 
 it within a year seems to me contrary to the evidence and to 
 probability. 
 
 (i.) The Galilaean ministry requires, I think, not less than two 
 years. There were probably at least two full circuits of preaching 
 in Galilee which would, it may be held, take place during the 
 summer months (see p. 206). 
 
 (ii.) The feeding of the multitude took place, according to St. 
 John, about the time of the Passover (Jn. vi. 4). This statement 
 is corroborated by St. Mark, who tells us that they sat down on 
 the green grass (Mk. vi. 39). This would only be possible in the 
 early spring. 
 
 (iii.) This was followed by a long tour through the districts of 
 Tyre, Sidon, and the Decapolis, which probably lasted most of 
 the summer. It ends with the confession at Caesarea Philippi 
 and the Transfiguration. This must have taken place before the 
 winter, when the slopes of Hermon would be covered with snow. 
 
3i8 THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS 
 
 (iv.) The final journey to Jerusalem was probably during the 
 autumn of this year. 
 
 4. The Death of John the Baptist. — Josephus {Antt., 
 xviii., § 116) tells us that the Jews thought that the defeat of 
 Herod Antipas by Aretas was a judgment upon him for the execu- 
 tion of John the Baptist. The defeat was probably, therefore, 
 not very long after the death of John. 
 
 This defeat was probably not later than the year a.d. 33. 
 We are told that it was caused by the bad conduct of a con- 
 tingent from the Tetrarchy of Philip (ibid., § 114). It occurred, 
 therefore, probably before the death of Philip, which took place 
 during the twentieth year of Tiberius (between August 19, 33, 
 and August 19, 34). It may have been as early as a.d. 32, and 
 the death of John may have taken place during the winter 31-32, 
 so that news of it would come to Jesus shortly before the feeding 
 of the multitude. 
 
 5. The Date of the Crucifixion. — The Crucifixion took 
 place : 
 
 (i.) During the Governorship of Pontius Pilate — i.e., between 
 A.D. 27 and 37. 
 
 (ii.) When Caiaphas was high priest — that is, before a.d. 36. 
 
 (iii.) In a year when the Passover fell either on a Thursday 
 or Friday. We cannot be more precise. The computation of 
 the date of the Passover is a problem for the experts, and they 
 seem agreed that the three possible years are a.d. 29, 30, and 33. 
 If the conclusions reached above are correct, 29 and 30 are too 
 early, and 33 remains — a year which harmonizes sufiiciently 
 with the other data. 
 
 6. The approximate dates, then, for the ministry of Jesus are: 
 
 a.d. 
 
 28-29 
 
 . . Preaching of John the Baptist. 
 
 ?? 
 
 29-30 
 
 . . The Baptism of Jesus. 
 
 >} 
 
 30 
 
 . . Imprisonment of John the Baptist, 
 The Galilaean Ministry. 
 
 jy 
 
 31 
 
 . . The Galilaean Ministry. 
 
 >) 
 
 3^-32 
 
 . . Death of John the Baptist. 
 
 )} 
 
 32 Spring 
 
 Feeding the Multitude. 
 Retreat to Tyre and Sidon. 
 Journey to Jerusalem. 
 
 )) 
 
 33 
 
 . . Passover. 
 
 The Crucifixion. 
 
NOTES ON THE CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE (p. 320) 
 
 ' The years of Herod seem to have been counted from i January or i 
 Nisan, 37 B.C. 
 
 2 The reign of Augustus seems always to have been calculated in Syria from 
 31 B.C., the Battle of Actium, "the year of vie tor j'-," and its years began on 
 September 2. 
 
 ^ "Nihil ad veterem et patriciam Sulpiciorum familiam Quirinius pertinuit, 
 ortus apud municipium Lanuvium: sed impiger militae, et acribus ministeriis, 
 consulatum sub D. Augusto, mox expugnatis per, Ciliciam Homonadensium 
 castellis, insignia triumplii adeptus, datusque rector C. Caesari, Armeniam 
 obtinenti." — Tac. Ann. iii. 48. 
 
 ^ Lustrum solus feci Censorino et Asinio coss. — Monumentmn Ancyranuin. 
 
 ^ This was the first year of Archelaus, of Herod Antipas, and of Philip. 
 Presumably the year began with their succession about April i, and not 
 from their recognition by Augustus. 
 
 ^ The years of Tiberius in Syria, and probably the East generally, appear 
 to have been calculated from his actual succession, as we know from syn- 
 chronisms on coins of Herod Antipas and elsewhere. 
 
 319 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL 
 
 B£. 
 
 A.U.C. 
 
 Years oj 
 Herod. 
 
 Years of 
 Augustus. 
 
 Roman History. 
 
 Province of Syria. 
 
 12 
 
 742 
 
 26> 
 
 19' 
 
 P. Sulpicius Quirinius, Consul.' 
 
 — 
 
 II 
 
 743 
 
 27 
 
 20 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 ,10 
 
 744 
 
 28 
 
 21 
 
 — 
 
 M. Titius (?) 
 
 9 
 
 745 
 
 29 
 
 22 
 
 Census year of Empire (?) 
 
 P. Sulpicius Quirinius (?) 
 Campaign against Homona- 
 denses ' 
 
 8 
 
 746 
 
 30 
 
 23 
 
 Census at Rome under Augustus 
 completed.* 
 
 C. Sentius Saturninus (9-6) 
 
 7 
 
 747 
 
 31 
 
 24 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 6 
 
 748 
 
 32 
 
 25 
 
 — 
 
 P. Quintilius Varus (6-4) 
 
 S 
 
 749 
 
 3i 
 
 26 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 4 
 
 750 
 
 34 
 
 Year oJ 
 
 Herod 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 
 
 Anlipas 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 751 
 
 2 
 
 28 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 752 
 
 3 
 
 29 
 
 Mission of Gaius to the East. 
 
 — 
 
 I 
 
 /l.Z>. 
 
 753 
 
 4 
 
 30 
 
 — 
 
 Gaius Caesar (to a.d. 4). 
 
 I 
 
 754 
 
 S 
 
 31 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 755 
 
 6 
 
 32 
 
 Death of Lucius Caesar. 
 
 — 
 
 3 
 
 756 
 
 7 
 
 33 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 4 
 
 757 
 
 8 
 
 34 
 
 Death of Gaius Caesar. 
 
 L. Volusius Saturninus (4-5). 
 
 S 
 
 758 
 
 9 
 
 35 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 6 
 
 759 
 
 10 
 
 36 
 
 Census year of Empire (?) 
 
 P. Sulpicius Quirinius for the 
 second time. 
 
 7 
 
 760 
 
 II 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 8 
 
 761 
 
 12 
 
 38 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 9 
 
 762 
 
 13 
 
 39 
 
 Defeat of Varus in Germany, 
 
 — 
 
 lO 
 
 763 
 
 14 
 
 40 
 
 — 
 
 ■ — 
 
 II 
 
 764 
 
 IS 
 
 41 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 12 
 
 765 
 
 16 
 
 42 
 
 — 
 
 Q. Caecilius Creticus Silanus 
 
 13 
 
 766 
 
 17 
 
 43 
 
 — 
 
 - C(i2-i7). 
 
 14 
 
 767 
 
 18 
 
 44 
 Year of 
 Tiberius 
 
 Death of Augustus (Aug. 19). 
 Accession of Tiberius. 
 
 
 15 
 
 768 
 
 19 
 
 I ^ 
 2 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 i6 
 
 769 
 
 20 
 
 3 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 17 
 
 770 
 
 21 
 
 4 
 
 — 
 
 Cn. Calpurnius Piso (17-19) 
 
 i8 
 
 771 
 
 22 
 
 5 
 
 — 
 
 - — - 
 
 19 
 
 772 
 
 23 
 
 6 
 
 Death of Germanicus. 
 
 Cn. Sentius Saturninus (19- 
 
 20 
 
 773 
 
 24 
 
 7 
 
 — 
 
 - C21). 
 
 21 
 
 774 
 
 25 
 
 8 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 22 
 
 775 
 
 26 
 
 9 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 23 
 
 776 
 
 27 
 
 10 
 
 Death of Drusus. 
 
 — 
 
 24 
 
 777 
 
 28 
 
 II 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 25 
 
 778 
 
 29 
 
 12 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 26 
 
 779 
 
 30 
 
 13 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 27 
 
 780 
 
 31 
 
 14 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 28 
 
 781 
 
 32 
 
 15 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 29 
 
 782 
 
 33 
 
 16 
 
 Death of Livia. 
 
 — 
 
 30 
 
 783 
 
 34 
 
 17 
 
 — 
 
 J — 
 
 31 
 
 784 
 
 35 
 
 18 
 
 Death of Sejanus. 
 
 — 
 
 32 
 
 78s 
 
 36 
 
 19 
 
 — 
 
 L. Aelius Lamia (until 32). 
 L. Pomponius Flaccus (32- 
 [35). 
 
 33 
 
 786 
 
 37 
 
 20 
 
 — t 
 
 — 
 
 34 
 
 787 
 
 38 
 
 21 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 35 
 
 788 
 
 39 
 
 22 
 
 — 
 
 L. Vitellius (35-39)- 
 
 36 
 
 789 
 
 40 
 
 23 
 
 — . 
 
 Treaty between Rome and 
 
 37 
 
 790 
 
 41 
 
 24 
 
 Death of Tiberius. 
 (March 16). 
 
 — [Parthia. 
 
 See Notes i to 6, p. 321 
 
TABLE 
 
 Palestine. 
 
 Herod visits Rome. 
 Dedication of Caesarea. 
 Herod's Third Visit to Romc(?) 
 
 Murder of Alexander and 
 
 Aristobulus. 
 
 Murder of Antipater. 
 Death of Herod (April i). 
 Accession of Archelaus, Anti 
 pas and PbiUp. 
 
 High Priests. 
 
 Simon, 
 
 son of Boethos 
 
 — [(2 -5 B.C.) 
 
 Banishment of Archelaus 
 Census in Judaea 
 Coponius Procurator. 
 
 M. Ambibulus. 
 
 Death of Salome, sister of 
 
 — [Herod. 
 
 Annius Rufus. 
 
 Valerius Gratus. 
 
 — lus (s-4) 
 Matthias, son of Theophi 
 Joseph, son of Ellem. 
 Josar, son of Boethos. 
 
 Eleasar, son of Boethos. 
 
 Jesus, son of See (?) 
 
 Joasar, son of Boethos 
 (the second time). 
 
 Annas, son of Sethi (6-15) 
 
 Christian History. 
 
 B.C. 
 
 Nativity of Jesus Christ 
 
 Pontius Pilate. 
 
 Herod Antipas builds Tiberias, 
 
 Herod meets Herodias. 
 His wife flees to her father. 
 
 War between Herod and 
 Aretas. 
 
 Death of Philip the Tetrarch, 
 
 Banishment of Pontius Pilate. 
 Expedition of Vitellius 
 
 against Aretas stopped by 
 
 death of Tiberius. 
 
 Ismael, son of Phiabi. 
 Eleazar, son of Annas. 
 Simon, son of Kamithos. 
 Joseph Caiaphas (18-36). 
 
 Vitellius deposes Caiaphas. 
 
 John the Baptist. 
 
 Baptism of Jesus. 
 .\rrest of John. 
 The Galilaean Ministry. 
 The Galilaean Ministry. 
 Death of John. 
 Feeding the Multitude. 
 Journey to Tyre and Sidon 
 Last Journey to Jerusalem 
 The Crucifixion (April 3). 
 
NOTES ON THE MAP OF PALESTINE 
 
 The political divisions of Palestine at the time of our Lord, 
 starting from the north, were as follows: 
 
 1. The Country of the Ituraeans. — The Ituraeans were a 
 warlike mountain tribe, the nucleus of whose territory was the 
 mountains of the Lebanon and the plain of Marsyas. The limits 
 varied considerably. At one time it had included a considerable 
 part of Galilee, and had stretched to the south east to Trachonitis. 
 
 At this time it was divided into four portions: 
 
 (i) The northern part of the plain of Marsyas towards Laodi- 
 
 cea. This was governed, after a.d. 38, by a certain Soemus. 
 
 What was its position at this time we do not know. 
 
 (2) The southern part of this plain with its capital, Chalcis. 
 This was granted in a.d. 41 to Herod, grandson of Herod the 
 Great, and brother of Agrippa L 
 
 (3) The district of Abilene, with its capital Abila, to the east 
 towards Damascus on the upper waters of the Barada or 
 Chrysorrhoas, the river of Damascus. At this time it was 
 ruled by a Tetrarch of the name of Lysanias, as is correctly 
 stated by St. Luke (iii. i). In a.d. 41 it was granted by Claudius 
 to Agrippa I. 
 
 (4) The southern portion, called the House of Zenodorus, 
 formed part of the dominions of Philip (see below). 
 
 2. The Territory of the Phoenician and Greek Cities on 
 the Coast: Sidon, Tyre, and Ptolemais. — How large the 
 territory of these cities was we have no correct knowledge, but 
 Josephus tells us that Mount Carmel belonged to Tyre, and if his 
 statement that the northern boundary of Galilee was the terri- 
 tory of Tyre be correct, it must have stretched a considerable 
 distance inland. 
 
 3. The Tetrarchy of Philip. — This was really that portion 
 of the dominions of Herod the Great which had formerly belonged 
 to Zenodorus, and was called the House of Zenodorus (see Josephus, 
 AntL, XV. 342-364; xvii. 189, 319; xviii. 106; BJ. 398, 399). 
 It included the southern part of the territory of the Ituraeans, 
 with the district called Paneas; Batanea, the ancient Bashan or, 
 rather, a portion of it, the country round Ashtaroth and Edrei; 
 Trachonitis, the rugged lava country to the north towards 
 Damascus; Auranitis, the modern Hauran, the rich corn-growing 
 country to the south; and Gaulanitis, the country on the eastern 
 
 322 
 
THE JOURNEYS OF OUR LORD 323 
 
 bank of Jordan, south of Paneas. Within this area there were, 
 however, certain districts belonging to the Greek cities of the 
 DecapoHs, which were not under PhiUp's jurisdiction. Its Kmits 
 to the south are fixed by the fact that the towns of Bosra and 
 Salcha belonged to the Nabataeans. 
 
 4. The Tetrarchy of Antipas. — This consisted of the terri- 
 tories of Galilee and Peraea. Galilee was, according to Josephus 
 (B. J., iii. 35-38), bounded on the west by Ptolemais and Carmel; 
 on the south by Samaria and Scythopolis; on the east by the 
 territories of Hippos and Gadara, and by Gaulanitis; on the 
 north by Tyre and the country of the Tyrians. It extended to 
 the southern edge of the plain of Esdraelon. 
 
 Peraea, in its full size, was all the country beyond Jordan 
 between the Yarmuk and the Arnon, but a considerable part of 
 this belonged to the cities of the Decapolis. Josephus describes it 
 {B. J., iii. 46, 47) as bounded on the north by Pella, and on the 
 east by the territories of Gerasa and Philadelphia and the 
 Arabians. Its most southern town was Machaerus. 
 
 5. The Decapolis. — This was a league of Greek cities, each 
 with its separate territory forming enclaves in the different 
 districts; but between Galilee and Peraea they were contiguous 
 and covered a considerable stretch of country. They were 
 Scythopolis or Bethshan on the western bank of Jordan; Hippos, 
 Gadara, and Pella on the eastern bank. Further inland were 
 Abila, Dium, Gerasa, and Philadelphia on the eastern boundary 
 of Peraea. Raphana and Kanatha were in the territory of Philip, 
 and Damascus to the north. 
 
 6. The Roman Province, under the direct rule of the Pro- 
 curators, consisting of Samaria, Judaea, and Idumaea. The 
 Greek town of Gaza was, however, a free city; and the revenues 
 of Jamnia, Azotus, and Phasaelis were the property of Salome, 
 the sister of Herod, and then, after her death, of Livia. They 
 were, however, for political purposes under the Procurators. 
 
 7. The Kingdom of the Nabataeans. — Its capital was 
 Petra; it appears to have extended all along the eastern border 
 of Palestine, and at times, Damascus, in order probably to pro- 
 tect itself from attacks of Ituraeans, was under its protection or 
 suzerainty. 
 
 The Journeys of Our Lord 
 
 We have not sufficient data to .trace these with any accuracy. 
 Besides short journeys to different places on the Sea of Galilee, 
 there were probably — 
 
 (i.) Two longer circuits through Galilee. During these He 
 visited besides Nazareth, Nain and a place called Cana. 
 
324 NOTES ON THE MAP OF PALESTINE 
 
 (ii.) Journeys across the lake to Gerasa, or Gergesa, and to 
 Bethsaida. 
 
 (iii.) A long journey through the territories of Tyre, Sidon, and 
 part of the Decapolis. This must have implied a considerable 
 circuit through the mountainous region to the north. 
 
 (iv.) Journeys to Jerusalem — how many we cannot say. Both 
 St. John and St. Luke are evidence that He passed through 
 Samaria, and almost certainly on two different journeys. He 
 also, probably on one occasion at least, travelled by the road 
 through Peraea. Whether there was a full Peraean ministry may 
 be doubted. 
 
 In the accompanying map the divisions of territory have been 
 marked very roughly, so as to avoid the impression that we 
 have accurate knowledge. It is, of course, impossible to fix the 
 limits of the different city states, or to represent with any 
 correctness the way in which they existed as enclaves in the 
 surrounding territory. The journeys of our Lord are also 
 largely conjectural, but it is possible to bring out the significance 
 of the long journey through the territories of Tyre and Sidon 
 and the Decapolis. 
 
 The Roads 
 
 At this period the roads of Palestine would be of two classes. 
 There would be connecting every town and village the old 
 native tracks, varying in character according to the nature of 
 the soil, similar to the roads which exist at the present day 
 where Western methods have not been introduced, but probably 
 better cared for than under Turkish rule. They would be 
 suitable for walking or riding, but not well fitted for wheeled 
 traffic. 
 
 There would be, secondly, the great international highways. 
 They would probably, by this time, have become under Roman 
 influence well-built paved roads. It would be along such a 
 road that the Ethiopian eunuch was driving in his chariot 
 (Acts viii. 28). 
 
 The main roads would be: 
 
 1. The great maritime road from Egypt. This seems to have 
 followed the coast, a few miles inland, until it reached Mt. 
 Carmel, where it turned further into the country and, passing by 
 Megiddo, reached the plain of Esdraelon. Here it divided into 
 three. One branch turned again to the coast and went on to 
 the Phoenician cities. A second, to the right, passed Scythopolis, 
 or Bethshan and so crossed the Jordan. Between the two a 
 third branch went over the hills to the Sea of Galilee, and then 
 by Caesarea Philippi to Damascus. 
 
 2. Roads from Jerusalem: 
 
 (a) To Lydda and Joppa. 
 
 (b) To Jericho and across Jordan. 
 
THE ROADS 325 
 
 (f) North to Shechem (Neapolis), Samaria (Sebaste), and so 
 to the plain of Esdraelon and GaUlee. 
 
 3. A road from Ptolemais inland to the Sea of Galilee, and 
 from there onwards to Damascus on one side and the cities of 
 the Decapolis on the other. 
 
 4. There seem to have been roads running north on both sides 
 of the Jordan valley, which were probably continued on both 
 sides of the Sea of Galilee. 
 
 5. From Damascus south two great roads ran, one to 
 Caesarea Philippi described above, the other — the Pilgrims' 
 Road — running through the Hauran as far as Philadelphia (Rab- 
 bath-Ammon), and from there to the Jordan by Jericho. 
 
 The best accounts of the roads of Palestine are those by Sir 
 George Adam Smith in his Historical Geography of Palestine, and 
 in an article on "Trade and Commerce" in Encyclopaedia 
 Biblica, vol. iv. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abbahtj, Rabbi, 144 
 
 Abbot, Rev. E. A., D.D., 146 
 
 — Rev. T. K., 109 
 Abila, 322 
 
 — in Decapolis, 323 
 Abilene, 75, 322 
 
 Abraham, descent from, 141, 142 
 Abrahams, I., M.A., 82, 88, 137, 
 
 138, 144, 148 
 Abtalion, Rabbi, 80 
 Achiabus, 50 
 Actium, 46 
 
 Adolphus, John Leycester, 
 Agape. See Love 
 Agrippa I., son of Aristobulus, 64 
 
 — released by Caligula, 71 
 
 — receives tetrarchy of Philip, 71 
 
 — receives title of King, 72 
 
 • — accuses Herod Antipas of treason, 
 
 — receives territory of Herod Anti- 
 pas, 72 
 
 Akrabetta, 56 
 
 Alexander, brother of Archelaus, 53 
 Alexander the Great, 289 
 Alexander Jannaeus, 304 
 Almsgiving, 226^. 
 Alpheus, 95, 203, 204 
 Ambibulus, jVIarcus, Procurator, 61 
 Amos, the Prophet, 135 
 Ancient of Days, 243, 247, 297 
 Andrew, the Apostle, 174, 202 
 Angels, 124 
 
 - — in our Lord's words, 124 
 Anna, the prophetess, 91, 248 
 Annas, son of Sethi, high priest, 40, 
 62 
 
 — the sons of, 62, 134 
 
 Anointed, the, 131, 147, 299. See 
 
 also Messiah 
 Antipas. See Herod Antipas 
 Antipatris, 57 
 
 Antiquities of the Jews, 128 
 Antonia, Castle of, 55, 56 
 Apocalj'ptic movement, the, 112 
 
 — interpretation, value of, 164 
 
 of Baptist's message, 163 
 
 Apocalyptic interpretation, King- 
 
 • dom of Heaven, 243 
 
 Apostles, the, 200/. 
 
 — calling of, 22, 174 
 
 — mission of, 266 j[. 
 
 Apostohc Church, evidence of the, 
 
 42 
 Aqiba, Rabbi, teaching on Divorce, 
 
 82 
 Archelais, 53, 61 
 
 Archelaus, 49, 50, 52, 53, 61, 315 
 Aretas IV., King of the Naba- 
 
 taeans, 69, 75, 158 
 
 — called Lover of his Country, 75 
 
 — coins of, 95 
 Armenia, 76 
 Arnon, 68, 323 
 
 Artabanus III., King of Parthia, 
 
 71, 76 
 Arthur, King, 167 
 Ascalon, 52, 55 
 Asceticism, 221 
 Ashdod, 52 
 Ashtaroth, 322 
 
 Assumption of Moses, the, 50, 133, 
 Athronges, a robber, 50, 51 
 Augustan Age, the, 45 
 Augustine of Hippo, 150 
 Augustus, Roman Emperor, 46, 48, 
 
 50, 52, 53, 61, 281, 314 
 
 — his religious policy in Palestine, 
 
 Auranitis, 65, 322 
 Aurelius, Marcus, 222 
 Authority of Jesus, 178, 179 
 Autocratoris, 69 
 Azotus, 323 
 
 Baal-Gad, 281 
 Baal-Shalishah, 274 
 Bannus, a hermit, 135, 137 
 Baptism, 137, 199 
 
 — the word, 139 
 
 — a sign of the Messianic Age, 138 
 
 — with the Holy Ghost, 143 
 
 — necessary even for Israel, 141 
 
 — of Jesus, 150, 151, 152 
 
 — a rite of the day, 162, 163 
 
 — of fire, 143, 169 
 
 — of proselytes, 137, 138 
 Braada, 322 
 
 327 
 
328 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Bartholomew, the Apostle, 203 
 Bartimaeus, 308 
 Batanea, 65, 322 
 Bath-Qol, the, 28, 148 
 Beatitudes, the, 179, 211/. 
 
 — based on the Old Testament, 212 
 Beelzebub, 125, 182, 254. 
 
 — casting out devils through, 1 7, 
 22, 198 
 
 Berachoth, treatise of the Mishna, 87 
 
 Bethabara, 141 
 
 Bethany (or Bethabara), 141 
 
 Betharamptha, 50, 69 
 
 Beth-ha-Midrash, 78 
 
 Beth-ha-Sepher, 78 
 
 Bethlatepha, 56 
 
 Bethsaida Julias, 9, 67, 170, 171, 
 
 176, 270, 281, 323 
 Beth-shan, 73, 98 
 Beza, treatise of the Mishna, 87 
 Blessings of the Synagogue Service, 
 
 the, 92 
 Boanerges, 202 
 Body, the, 122 
 Bosra, 323 
 
 Bousset, Dr. William, 302 
 Bread of Life, discourse on the, 39, 
 
 276 
 Broolce, A. E., 148 
 Brundisium, 46 
 
 Burkitt, Dr. F. Crawford, 2, 8, 25 
 Burney, Rev. C. F., D.Litt., 38, 212 
 
 Caesar, Caius Julius, 45, 46 
 
 Caesarea, 52, 55, 57 
 
 Caesarea Philippi, 9, 63, 67, 281/., 
 
 317, 324 
 Caiaphas, Joseph, high priest, 62 
 Caius Caesar Caligula, 56 
 Cana, 323 
 
 Canaanaeans. See Zealots, 59 
 Capernaum, 11, 171, 176 
 Capharnaum, 173 
 Capua, 45 
 
 Carmel, Mount, 97, 112, 323, 324 
 Census, the, 57/, 316 
 Cerinthus, 150 
 Chalcis, 75, 322 
 Charlemagne, 167 
 Charles, Dr. R. H., 3 
 Chasidim, the, 213 
 Cheyne, Dr. T. K., 157 
 Chihasts, the, 161 
 Chorazin, 171, 176 
 Christ. See Messiah; also Jesus 
 
 Christ 
 Christianity and material needs, 
 
 191 
 
 — and other-worldliness, 263 
 
 — and social reform, 264 
 
 Chronological tables, 318, 320 
 Chrysorrhoas, 322 
 Church, the Christian, 44 
 
 — beginnings of the, 198 
 Chuza, Herod's steward, 205 
 Cicero, M. Tullius, 45 
 Cilicia, 54 
 
 Clopas, brother of Joseph, 95 
 Commagene, 75 
 Conway, Professor R. S., 46 
 Coponius, Roman Procurator, 60 
 Corinthians, Epistles to the, 42 
 Cosmology of the Jews, the, 114/. 
 Crassus, M. Licenus, 76 
 Criticism, higher, 4 
 
 — of New Testament; difference 
 from Old Testament, 31 
 
 — characteristics of, 157 
 Cross, the, 287 
 
 — the Gospel of the, 285 
 Crucifixion, date of the, 40, 31S 
 Cyrenius. See Quirinius. 
 Cyrus, King of Persia, 289 
 
 Dalman, Professor Gustav, no, 247 
 Dalmanutha, 278 
 Damascus, 65, 73, 323, 324, 325 
 David, kingdom of, 241 
 
 — son of, 307 
 
 Day of the Lord, 133, 134, 136 
 
 Dead Sea, 135, 170 
 
 Decapolis, 65, 73, 98, 140, 281, 
 
 323, 325 
 Devil. See also Satan, 125 
 Devils. See Spirits, Evil 
 
 — casting out, 181 
 Diocaesarea, 69 
 Disciples, 199 
 
 — their instructions, 283 
 
 — of John the Baptist, 201 
 Discourses, The, 6, 15/ 
 
 — contents of, 16 
 
 — identical with the Logia, 16 
 
 — whether used by St. Mark, 18 
 
 — date of, 19 
 
 — how used by St. Luke, 23 
 Dispersion, the, 254 
 
 Dium, 73, 323 
 
 Divorce, teaching of our Lord on, 17 
 
 — Jewish teaching on, 83 
 Docetae, 149 
 
 Domitian, the Emperor, 96 
 Doublets, 17 
 
 Dove, symbolism of the, 148 
 Drews, Professor 159 
 
 Earth, description of the, 115 
 East, kings of the, 77 
 Ebionites, Gospel of the, 140 
 Ecce Homo, author of, 167, 169 
 
INDEX 
 
 325 
 
 Ecclesia. See also Church, 35 
 
 Eden, 118 
 
 Edersheim, Dr. Alfred, 77, 106, 279, 
 
 291 
 Edrei, 322 
 Education of Jesus, 94^. 
 
 — Jewish, 78, 106 
 Egypt, 324 
 Egyptians, the, 272 
 
 El Azhar, Mosque of, 160 
 
 Elders, council of, 99 
 
 Eleazar, son of Annas, high priest, 
 
 62 
 Eleazar, son of Boethus, high 
 
 priest, 53 
 Eleazar ben Jacob, Rabbi, 138 
 Eleazar, son of Joazar, high priest, 61 
 Eleazer, Rabbi, 279 
 Elect, mansions of the, 116 
 Elect One, the, 246, 247, 299 
 Elijah or Elias, 136, 166, 282, 288 
 Elisabeth, mother of John the 
 
 Baptist, 91, 135 
 Emmaus, in Judaea, 56 
 
 — hot springs of, 69 
 Emperor, sacrifices for, 56 
 Enemies, can we love our, 223 
 Engaddi, 56 
 
 Enoch, Book of, 115, 124, 163, 202, 
 
 299 
 Epictetus, 222 
 Epiphanian theory, 96 
 Epiphanies, 162 
 
 Esdraelon, plain of, 68, 97, 323 
 Eschatological Movement, the, 112 
 
 See also Apocalj^tic 
 
 Essenes, the, no, 123, 135, 137, 
 
 162, 199 
 Eternal life, 299 
 Ethics, Christian, compared with 
 
 Roman, 222 
 
 -with Greek, 221 
 
 -not ascetic, 221 
 
 Ethnarch, 52 
 Eucharist, the, 277 
 Euphrates, the, 76 
 Eusebius of Caesarea, 10, 15 
 Ezekias, 50, 51 
 
 Faith a condition of miracles, 189 
 
 Fasting, 195, 226/. 
 
 Father, the, 302 
 
 Feeding of the Multitude, 13, 39, 
 
 270/., 317 
 Flesh, the, 122 
 Forgiveness of sins, 140, 180, 181, 
 
 194 
 
 Gabriel, the archangel, 123, 136 
 Gadara, 52, 73, 171, 323 
 
 Gadaritis, 73 
 
 Gains Caesar, 54, 76, 316 
 
 Galilaean Ministry, the, 170/ 
 
 — length of, 206 
 
 Galilaeans, the, their blood mingled 
 with their sacrifices, 63 
 
 — See Zealots 
 
 Galilee, 52, 65, 68/., 97/., 248 
 
 — its boundaries, 323 
 
 — disturbances in, 50 
 
 — period of peace, 72 
 
 — surrounded by foreign nations, 74 
 
 — its patriotism, 113 
 
 — Rabbinic contempt of, 113 
 
 — religion of, no, 113 
 
 — its provincialism, 114 
 Galilee, Lake of, 170/., ^21; 
 Gamala, 171 
 
 Gamaliel I., Rabbi, 85 
 
 — II., Rabbi, 85 
 
 — III., Rabbi, 85 
 Gaulonitis, 65, 322, 323 
 Gaza, 52, 55, 323 
 Gehenna, 108, 299 
 Gemara, the, 82 
 
 Gennesaret, Lake of. See Galilee, 
 Lake of 
 
 — 171, 172, 272, 277, 278 
 Gerasa, 73, 323 
 
 — or Gergesa, 205, 323 
 Gergesa, 205, 323 
 Gerizim, Mount, 64 
 Germanicus, 76 
 
 Glaphyra, daughter of Archelaus, 
 
 King of Cappadocia, 53 
 God, will of, 256 
 
 — sovereignty of, 241 , 247 
 
 — as Father of Mankind, 235 
 Golden Rule, the, 233 
 Gophna, 56 
 
 Gospel of the Ehionites, 149 
 Gospel of the Hebrews, 151 
 Gospel of the Nazarenes, 151 
 Gospel of the Cross, 285 
 Gospel of St. Matthew, 7, 25/. 
 its date, 19, 25 
 
 — — not written in Aramaic, 16 
 
 25 
 
 the purpose of, 25 
 
 the use of St. Mark, 26 
 
 — — spoils the stories in St. Mark, 
 12 
 
 the use of the Old Testament, 
 
 26 
 
 method of composition, 27 
 
 its trustworthiness, 27 
 
 ■ — — the use of The Discourses, 29 
 Gospel of St. Mark, 8/. 
 
 priority of, 6/ 
 
 a literary unit, 8 
 
330 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Gospel of St. Mark, sources of, lo 
 
 vividness of detail, ii 
 
 succession of events in, ii 
 
 supposed inconsistency with 
 
 Petrine origin, 12 
 
 the apocalyptic passage, 14 
 
 Did it use The Discourses'^ 18 
 
 its date, 19 
 
 Gospel of St. Luke, 17, 19 J". 
 
 its authorship, 19 
 
 theory of Dr. Streeter, 20 
 
 relation to Josephus, 20, 316 
 
 — ^use of St. Mark, 22, 25 
 
 character of the Gospel, 22 
 
 the birth narratives, 91 
 
 its sources, 22 
 
 the special source, 23, 24 
 
 Gospel of St. John, 37/., 104 
 
 use of the S3Tioptic Gospels, 
 
 20, 29 
 
 signs of later teaching, 37 
 
 its Jewish character, 38 
 
 the later element in, 41 
 
 signs of Aramaic origin, 38 
 
 — — use of, 41 
 Gospels, the, 4/. 
 
 — imagery of the, 104 
 • — the Synoptic, 5/. 
 
 historical value of, 30/. 
 
 — See also Synoptic 
 Gracchi, the, 45 
 
 Greek cities, the, 50, 52, 55, 73, 322 
 Greek ethical system, 220 
 Gutschmid, 75 
 
 Haggada, 87 
 
 Hallacha, 87 
 
 Harlots, 180 
 
 Harnack, Professor von, 6, 17, 19 
 
 Hasmonaeans, 47, 299 
 
 Hauran, 73, 170 
 
 Hawkins, Rev. Sir John, Bart., 6, 
 
 7, 19, 286 
 Healing the sick, 187 
 Heart, 120, 121 
 
 Heaven, description of, 115, 116 
 Hegesippus, 95, 96 
 Hellenism, 297 
 Hellenistic thought, 112 
 Helvetian theory, the, 96 
 Hemerobaptists, 137, 166 
 Herford, R. T., 2 
 Hermon, Mount, 65, 170, 317 
 Herod Agrippa. See Agrippa 
 Herod Antipas, Tetrarch, 9, 52, 
 
 68/., Ill, 141, 171 
 • marries daughter of Aretas, 
 
 69 
 
 divorces daughter of Aretas, 70 
 
 marries Herodias, 70 
 
 Herod Antipas, war with Aretas, 70 
 takes pleasure in hearing 
 
 John, 155 
 imprisons John the Baptist, 
 
 156 
 ■ — — threatens to kill Jesus, 268 
 
 hears of Jesus, 268 
 
 desires to be king, 7 1 
 
 banished by Caligula, 72 
 
 territory of, 323 
 
 Herod the Great, 47, 49, 66, 67, 281, 
 
 315 
 
 will of, 49, 52 
 
 funeral of, 50 
 
 disturbances after his death, 
 
 50/ 
 
 his palace at Jerusalem, 55 
 
 Herod, son of Herod the Great and 
 
 the second Mariamne, 70 
 Herod King of Chalcis, 32 
 Herod Philip, Tetrarch of Tracho- 
 
 nitis, 52, 65/, 159, 171 
 
 his character, 67 
 
 ^ territory of, 270, 322 
 
 coins of, 67 
 
 date of his death, 318 
 
 Herodians, the, 98, in 
 
 — conspire with Pharisees, 197 
 Herodias, 56, 155, 158 
 
 — daughter of Aristobulus marries 
 Herod, son of Mariamne, 70 
 
 — jealousy of Agrippa, 71 
 Hieronymus, 96, 150 
 High priest, 61 
 
 — ■ High priests, their vestments, 56 
 
 appointment of, 56 
 
 Hilgenfeld, Dr. Adolph, 151 
 Hill, G. F., 67, 75, 317 
 Hillel, Rabbi, 79, 113, 233 
 
 — his ethical trading, 82 
 
 — and Christianity, 82 
 
 — • his rules of exegesis, 83 /. 
 
 — his teaching on divorce, 83 
 
 — school of, 85 
 Hippene, 73 
 
 Hippos, 52, 73, 171, 323 
 Holy, Mansions of the, 116 
 Holy One of Israel, the, 300 
 Homonadenses, 54, 316 
 
 Idumaea, 50, 52, 55, 323 
 
 — toparchy of, 56 
 Idumaeans, the, 66 
 Interpretation of Scripture, 128 
 
 -the Midrashic, 128 
 
 the legal method, 1 28 
 
 Jewish, 83 
 
 the allegorical method, 129 
 
 the method of Jesus, 127/ 
 
 Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum, 10, 14 
 
INDEX 
 
 331 
 
 Ismael, Rabbi, 85 
 
 Ismael, son of Phabi, high priest, 
 
 62 
 Israel, spiritual ideals of, 48 
 Ituraea, 65, 315, 322 
 
 Jackson, Dr. Foakes, 19, 20, 42 
 James, father of Judas, 204 
 James, son of Alpheus, 204 
 James, son of Zebedee, 202, 287/. 
 James, the little (or less), 95, 206 
 James, the Lord's brother, 95, 96 
 Jamnia, 52, 56, 61, 86, 325 
 Jannes and Jambres, 128 
 Jericho, 323 
 
 — Herod's palace burnt, 50 
 
 — toparchy of, 56 
 Jerome. See Hieronymus 
 Jerusalem, 25, 56, 245, 289 
 
 — fall of, influence on historj^ 33 
 
 — visit of Jesus to, 41, 107 
 
 — the centre of the earth, 118 
 Jesus the Christ, Lives of, 2 
 Jewish traditions concern- 
 ing, 2 
 
 extra-canonical sayings of, 2 
 
 conception of His person, 43 
 
 as a boy visits Jerusalem, 77 
 
 date of His birth, 315 
 
 the education of, 94 Jf. 
 
 Son of Mary, 94 
 
 a carpenter, 94 
 
 the brothers of, 96 
 
 His home life, 96 
 
 interest in agriculture, 102 
 
 in animals, 102 
 
 in flowers, 103 
 
 influence of countrj^ life, 103 
 
 ■ — • of domestic life, 104 
 
 naturalness of His words, 105 
 
 His human characteristics, 106 
 
 reading and writing, 108 
 
 no rabbinical training, 108 
 
 Did He know Greek? 109 
 
 ■ — — His knowledge of Hebrew, 109 
 
 Psychology of His words, 119 
 
 conforms to scientific beliefs 
 
 of His day, 126 
 
 His use of Scripture, 127, 309 
 
 indifference to criticism, 130 
 
 His secular knowledge, 129 
 
 His teaching based on Old 
 
 Testament, 131 
 
 His Baptism, 146/. 
 
 the Servant of the Lord, 147 
 
 sjonbolism of His Baptism, 
 
 148 
 significance of His Baptism, 
 
 151 
 self-consciousness of, 151 
 
 Jesus the Christ, a disciple of John 
 the Baptist, 153 
 
 does not baptize Himself, 1 54 
 
 His disciples baptize, 154 
 
 returns to Galilee, 156 
 
 His answer to John the 
 
 Baptist, 156, 157 
 
 intimacy with John, 167 
 
 Uves in Peter's house, 174 
 
 calls the disciples, 174 
 
 His knowledge of His Mis- 
 sion, 174 
 
 His retirement for prayer, 1 75 
 
 His journeys, 176, 177 
 
 forgives the harlot, 180 
 
 His popularity, 178 
 
 forgives sins, 180, 181 
 
 the Saviour of the lost, 181 
 
 His poverty, 180 
 
 His power over evil spirits, 
 
 183 
 
 and modem science, 185 
 
 appeals to His miracles, 187 
 
 His authority unique, 186 
 
 His reserve, 187 
 
 reluctance to perform miracles, 
 
 190 
 
 opposition to His teaching, 
 
 193 
 
 accused of blasphemy, 194 
 
 relation to the law, 216 
 
 originality of, 220 
 
 His humanism, 222 
 
 element of paradox in teach- 
 ing, 224 
 
 attitude towards sacrificial 
 
 system, 225 
 
 and the Kingdom of God, 
 
 249/. 
 
 speculation about Him, 268 
 
 multitudes would make Him 
 
 King, 271, 272 
 
 His retirement, 280 
 
 His transfiguration, 287/. 
 
 — • — predicts His death, 284, 288 
 
 • His temptation, 290/ 
 
 indifference to signs, 308, 309 
 
 entry into Jerusalem, 309 
 
 His suff^erings redemptive, 
 
 306 
 
 length of His ministry, 317 
 
 Jesus, son of See, high priest, 53, 61 
 Jewish cosmology, 114 
 
 — exegesis, 83 
 
 — piety, 90/ 
 
 — traditions, 2 
 
 Jews, the, an educated nation, 77 
 Joanna, wife of Chuza, 205 
 Joasar, son of Boethus, high priest, 
 S3, 58, 61 
 
332 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Jochanan-ben-Zaccai, Rabbi, 113 
 John the Baptist, 133/., 254 
 
 his birth and parentage, 135 
 
 Nazarite, 135 
 
 life in the desert, 136 
 
 preacher of righteousness, 136, 
 
 169 
 
 his baptism, 136 
 
 beginning of his ministry, 316 
 
 preaches repentance, 139 
 
 his study of Scripture, 139, 
 
 160 
 
 the scene of his ministry, 141 
 
 preaches to Pharisees and 
 
 Sadducees, 141 
 
 prophet, 143, 164 
 
 prophesy of the Messiah, 143 
 
 his study of Isaiah, 147 
 
 narrative in the Fourth 
 
 Gospel, 153 
 his relations with Jesus, 40, 
 
 i53> 167 
 
 his disciples, 153, 158 
 
 length of his ministry, 155 
 
 influence of Isaiah on, 156, 
 
 enquiries to Jesus, 156 
 
 his death, 158, 269 
 
 effects of his work, 158, 159 
 
 mythical accounts of, 159 
 
 critical objections about, i6o 
 
 historical character of, i6o 
 
 not an Essene, 161 
 
 apocalyptic interpretation, 163 
 
 Elijah, 165 
 
 his witness to Christ, 165 
 
 date of his death, 318 
 
 John Hyrcanus, 298 
 
 John, the presbyter, 38 
 
 John, son of Zebedee, 38, 202, 
 
 287/. 
 Joppa, 52, 57, 324 
 Jordan, the, 65, 66, 281, 324, 325 
 Jordan Valley, the, 141 
 Josa ben Jochanan, Rabbi, 84 
 Joseph of Arimathea, 240, 249 
 Joseph, husband of the Virgin 
 
 Mary, 91, 94 
 Josephus, Jewish historian, 2, 20, 
 
 49, SI, 59, 66, 74, 99, 155, 172, 
 
 300, 316 
 
 — story about his boyhood, 77 
 
 — his life in the desert, 136 
 
 — his description of John's bap- 
 tism, 140 
 
 Joshua ben Ananiah, Rabbi, 226 
 Joses, 95, 204 
 
 Joses, brother of our Lord, 96 
 Juba, King of Mauretania, 53 
 Jubilees, the Book of, 124 
 
 Judaea, 49, 51, 55, 97, 323 
 
 — under a procurator, 54 _ff. 
 
 — divided into toparchies, 56 
 Judah the Prince, Rabbi, 85, 86 
 Judas, brother of our Lord, 96 
 
 — ■ his grandsons, 96 
 
 Judas Iscariot, 204 
 
 Judas, son of Ezekias, 50, 51 
 Judas, son of James, 204 
 Judas, the Galilaean, 51, 58, 59 
 Julius, 69 
 
 Kanatha, 73, 323 
 
 Kenyon, Sir F., 57, 58 
 
 Kingdom of God, the, 130, 134, 
 
 240/. 
 • — ■ — different meanings of, 30 
 
 the Davidic kingdom, 241 
 
 a righteous kingdom, 242 
 
 ■ Daniel, 243 
 
 apocalyptic expectation, 245 
 
 • — ■ — how used by Jesus, 249 /. 
 the apocalyptic meaning, 32, 
 
 249, 258 
 — • — the divine sovereignty, 250 
 
 Christian Church, 32, 250, 262 
 
 • a principle of life, 253 
 
 — — the Christian dispensation, 
 
 253 
 — • — eternal life, 253, 255, 262 
 
 righteousness, 255, 262 
 
 a new dispensation, 255 
 
 -the will of God, 256 
 
 — • — the time of the kingdom, 256 
 
 as a banquet, 259 
 
 • — — its universality, 261 
 
 a new Israel, 261 
 
 a golden age, 263 
 
 Kingdom of Satan, 254 
 
 Lake, Dr. Kirsopp, 19, 20, 30, 42 
 Lamb of God, 152, 154 
 Last Supper, 199, 259 
 
 date of the, 12 
 
 Law, the, interpretation of, 83, 84 
 
 — relation of Jesus, to, 215 
 
 — the new, its characteristics, 217 
 Lebanon, 68, 322 
 
 Levi, son of Alphaeus, 180, 297, 
 
 203 
 Levi, Testament of, 298 
 Lewin, Thomas, 315 
 Life, the garden of, 116 
 — - the tree of, 116 
 Lightfoot, Dr. J. B., Bishop of 
 
 Durham, 96 
 
 — Dr., Hebrew scholar, 219 
 Litany, the River, 68, 280 
 
 Livia, wife of Augustus, 56, 60, 323 
 Livias, 69 
 
INDEX 
 
 333 
 
 Lock, Dr. Walter, 2 
 
 Logia, The, 15 
 
 Logos, 38 
 
 Loisy, M. Alfred, 94 
 
 Lord, the, 299, 300, 306 
 
 Love, 218 
 
 — new teaching on, 43 
 Luke, St., 21 
 Lydda, 56, 324 
 
 Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene, 65, 
 75, 322 
 
 Maccabaean revolt, the, 243, 299 
 
 Maccabees, the, 49, 73, 297 
 
 Machaerus, 70, 156, 323 
 
 Madden, Coins of the Jews, 67 
 
 Magdala, 171 
 
 Maimonides, 219 
 
 Marcellus, procurator, 64 
 
 Mark, John, 14 
 
 Marsyas, 322 
 
 Mary, wife of Clopas, mother of 
 
 James the less, 75, 204, 205 
 Mary of Magdala, 181, 204, 205 
 Mary, the Virgin, 91 
 Matthew, the Apostle, 203 
 Matthias, the Apostle, 201 
 witness of John's Baptism, 
 
 Matthias, high priest, 61 
 Mayor, Rev. Joseph B., 46 
 Mechilta, 248 
 Meggido, 98, 324 
 Meleager of Gadara, 74 
 Menippus of Gadara, 74 
 Merrill, Rev. Selah, 97, 100, 113 
 Messiah, the, 43, 92, 136, 245, 
 290/. 
 
 — origin of the belief, 293 
 
 — of the house of David, 294, 307 
 of Levi, 298 
 
 the birthpangs of the, 15, 133, 
 
 246 
 
 — the Servant as, 305 
 
 Messianic Age, characteristics of 
 
 the, 144, 14s 
 
 preparation for, 169 
 
 the baptism and repentance, 
 
 140 
 
 — titles, 131 
 
 — secret, the, 283 
 
 — kingdom, the, 290 
 Michael, the Archangel, 123 
 Midrash, 89, 229 
 
 Ministry of Jesus, crisis of the, 
 
 259 ff. 
 Miracles, 187,/. 312 
 
 — part of structure of narrative, 188 
 
 — narrated in all sources, 188 
 
 — dependent on Faith, 189 
 
 Miracles, instances of failure, 189 
 
 — evidence of spiritual authority, 
 190 
 
 — integral part of minstry, 191 
 
 — sign of beneficent activity, 191 
 
 — relation to science, 192 
 
 — of feeding the multitude, 273 
 Mishna, the, 78, 85, 86 
 Moffatt, Dr. James, 5 
 Mohammedan rule, 99 
 Mommsen, Professor Theodoro, 54, 
 
 316 
 Montefiore, C. G., 140 
 Moses, 288 
 
 Nabataeans, the, 65, 66, 69, 323 
 
 Nain, 176, 323 
 
 Nathanael, 203 
 
 Nazareth, 97, 99, 176, 206, 323 
 
 Nazarite, 135 
 
 Neapolis, (Shechem), 324 
 
 Neara, 53 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar, 297 
 
 Neighbour, Jewish teaching on our, 
 
 219 
 Neubauer, Dr. A., 103, 113 
 Nicodemus, visit of, 155 
 Nicolaus of Damascus, 49, 52 
 Nietzsche, 238 
 Non-resistance, 223 
 
 Cannes, 159 
 
 Onesiphorus, 214 
 
 Origen on Symbolism, 148 
 
 — on the Temptation, 292 
 
 Palestine, Roman Province of, 55, 
 
 61, 323 
 Paneas, 67, 281, 322 
 Papias, of Hieropolis, 9, 15 
 Parable of the Drawnet, 253 
 
 — of the Good Samaritan, 24, 218 
 • — of the Hidden Treasure, 253 
 
 — of the Leaven, 17, 253 
 
 — of the Lost Piece of Silver, 24 
 
 — of the Lost Sheep, 24 
 
 — of the Mustard Seed, 17, 22, 32, 
 103, 252 
 
 — of the Nobleman who went to 
 receive a Kingdom, 52 
 
 — of the Pearl, 253 
 
 — of the Pharisee and Publican 24 
 
 — of the Prodigal Son, 24 
 
 — of the Rich Fool, 24 
 
 — of the Rich Man and Lazarus, 
 24 
 
 — of the Seed growing secretly, 252 
 
 — of the Sheep and the Goats, 37 
 
 — of the Sower, 251/. 
 
 — of the Tares, 37, 253 
 
334 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Parables, their purpose, 251 
 Paradise, 117, 118 
 Paralytic, healing of the, 23 
 Parousia, t,2, 258 
 Parthia, 71, 76 
 
 — Roman policy in, 76 
 Passover, 318 
 
 Paul and Thecla, Acts of, 214, 215 
 Pella, 73, 323 
 Penitent thief, the, 24 
 Peraea, 52, 65, 68/., 323 
 
 — disturbances in, 50 
 Peter, Simon, 201, 287 
 
 — his teaching in St. Mark's Gospel, 
 10 
 
 — his memory of his call, 1 1 
 
 — confession of, 282 
 
 — his indignation at a suffering 
 Messiah, 285 
 
 Petra, 323 
 
 Phanuel, the Archangel, 123 
 Pharisees, the, 194, 213, no, in, 
 225 
 
 — the religious pretensions of, 134 
 
 — come to hear John the Baptist, 
 141 
 
 — scribes of the, 194 
 
 — from Jerusalem, 278 
 Phasaelis, 52, 61, 323 
 Philadelphene, 73 
 Philadelphia, 73, 323, 325 
 Philip. See Herod Philip 
 Philip, the Apostle, 203 
 Philo, 128 
 
 Philodemus of Gadara, 74 
 Phoenican cities the, 98 
 Pilgrims' way, the, 66, 325 
 Pirke Ahoth, 80 
 
 Pollio, C. Asinius, 46 
 Pompeius, Magnus, 49, 73, 244 
 Pontius Pilate, procurator, 54, 55, 
 
 61, 62/. 133 
 ■ fails to remove images from 
 
 standards, 63 
 
 brings water to Jerusalem, 63 
 
 his banishment, 64 
 
 attacks fanatics in Samaria, 
 
 places golden shields in palace, 
 
 64 
 
 character of his rule, 65 
 
 Poor, the, 212, 213 
 
 Possession, phenomena of, 181 
 
 Praetorium at Jerusalem, 55 
 
 Prayer, 226/ 
 
 — - The Lord's, 230 
 
 Procurator, 55 
 
 Prophet, the, 301 
 
 — John the Baptist, 164 
 
 — importance of a, 167 
 
 Prosbol, 85 
 
 Proselytes, baptism of, 137, 138 
 Province, the Roman, 323 
 Psalms of Solomon, 244, 299 
 Ptolemais, 68, 323, 325 
 Ptolemies, the, 296, 297 
 Publicans and sinners, 195 
 
 Q. See Discourses 
 Quirinius, Publius Sulpicius, 54, 57, 
 59, 61, 315, 316 
 
 Rabbeth Ammon, 73 
 
 Rabbinical schools, the, 78/. 
 
 Rabbinical teaching, character of, 
 88, 89, 233, 249 
 
 Rabbis murdered by Herod, mourn- 
 ing for, so 
 
 Ramsay, Sir William, 19, 54, 57, 
 316 
 
 Raphael, the Archangel, 123 
 
 Raphane, 73, 323 
 
 Rebaptismate, De, 151 
 
 Redemption, 306 
 
 Renan, M. Ernest, 94, 97, 100, 237 
 
 Repentance, 139 
 
 Resch, Dr. Alfred, 
 
 Resurrection, the second, 243, 246 
 
 Righteous, the Garden of the, 117 
 
 Roads, 98, 324 
 
 Robinson, H. Wheeler, 120 
 
 Roman Empire, unspiritual, 48 
 
 prepares for Christianity, 47 
 
 — - — ■ birth travail of, 45 
 
 Roman ethics, 222 
 
 Rome, 48 
 
 Rufus, Annius, procurator, 61 
 
 Sabbath, the, 195/, 215 
 
 — healing on the, 196 
 Sabbatical year, 85 
 Sabinus, 50 
 Sacramental meal, 199 
 Sacrifice. See Self-sacrifice. 
 Sacrificial system, the, 225 
 Sadducean aristocracy, the, their 
 
 character, 133 
 Salcha, 323 
 Salome, daughter of Herodias, 67, 
 
 158 
 Salome, sister of Herod, her death, 
 
 52, 60, 323 
 Salome, wife of Zebedee, 95, 204, 205 
 Samaria, 49, 52, 55, 56, 98, 323 
 
 — religious impostor in, 64 
 Samaritan woman, the, 229 
 Samaritans, the, 52 
 
 — pollute the temple, 60 
 
 Sanday, Dr. William, 2, 5, 33, 173. 
 310, 311 
 
INDEX 
 
 335 
 
 Sanhedrin, the, 51 
 
 — authority under procurators, 56 
 Satan, 124, 182 
 
 — his kingdom, 254 
 
 Saturninus, C. Sentius, Governor 
 
 of Syria, 316 
 Saviour, 43 
 
 Schmiedel, Professor, P. \V., 20 
 Schiirer, Dr. Adolph, 2, 316 
 Schweitzer, Dr. Albert, 2, 163 
 Scott, Sir Walter, 4 
 Scribes, the, no, iii, 194 
 Scripture, its use by our Lord, 126 
 Scriptures, school of interpretation 
 
 of, 128 
 Scythopolis, 73, 323, 324 
 Sebaste (Samaria), 52, 57, 324 
 Sebastien, 55 
 Sejanus, 62 
 Seleucidae, 297 
 Self-sacrifice, 285 
 Seneca, 222 
 Sepphoris, 50, 69 
 Sermon on the Mount, the, 17, 
 
 207/. 
 Sermon on the plain, the, 208/. 
 Servant, the, 132, 151, 178, 286, 
 
 305 
 
 — the sufi'ering, 301 
 Shammai, Rabbi, 81/. 
 
 — his teaching on divorce, 83 
 Shammai, school of, 86 
 
 -its teaching encourages revolt, 
 
 Shemaiah, Rabbi, 80 
 
 Sheol, 117 
 
 Sibil, 46 
 
 Sibylline Oracles, 138 
 
 Sick, healing the, 187 
 
 Sidon, 9, 2S0, 323 
 
 Signs, 279, 307 
 
 Simeon, a devout man, 91, 248 
 
 Simeon ben Lakish, Rabbi, 247 
 
 Simeon I., Rabbi, 85 
 
 Simeon II., Rabbi, 85 
 
 Simeon III., Rabbi, 85 
 
 Simcox, W. H., 109 
 
 Simon, brother of our Lord, 95 
 
 Simon Peter. See Peter 
 
 Simon, rebel in Peraea, 50, 51 
 
 Simon, son of Kamithes, high 
 
 priest, 62 
 Simon the Maccabee, 167, 297 
 Simon the Zealot, 204 
 Sinners, 179 
 Smith, Rev. Sir George Adam, 67, 
 
 74, 97, 100, 325 
 Soemus, 312 
 Solomon, 296 
 Son of David, 300 
 
 Son of God, 43, 131, 301/. 
 
 in St. John's Gospel, 303 
 
 Son of Man, 15, 32, 35, 131, 258, 
 
 297, 299, 300, 303/. 
 Sonship, the Divine, 150, 302 
 Soul, the, 121 
 Sovereignty of God, 247 
 Spikit, the, 35, 122 
 Spirits, evil, 124/., 182 
 
 in our Lord's words, 125 
 
 recognize Jesus, 184 
 
 Stanton, Dr. V. H., 5, 7 
 
 Stoics, the, 222 
 
 Streeter, Rev. B. L., 20, 23, 36 
 
 Susanna, 205 
 
 Symeon. See Simeon, 91 
 
 Symeon, cousin of Jesus, 95 
 
 Synagogue, preaching in, 177 
 
 — separation from the, 197 
 Synagogues, the, 177 
 Synoptic Gospels. See Gospels 
 authentic history, 33 
 
 not influenced by later 
 
 theology, 33, 35 
 
 — — reflect religious ideas of 
 Palestine, ^^t 34 
 
 absence of anachronisms, 33 
 
 their teaching pre-apostolic, 
 
 36 
 
 use of, 36 
 
 reflect social and political 
 
 conditions of Palestine, 33 
 Syria, province of, 54, 61 
 Syro-Phoenician woman, the, 280 
 
 Tari, 171 
 Tartarus, 124 
 Taxation, 57 
 Tax-gatherers, 179 
 Teaching of Jesus, 207/ 
 
 its method, 210 
 
 its novelty, 215 
 
 relation to the law, 215 
 
 its originality, 220, 237 
 
 on wealth, 229 
 
 its authority, 236 
 
 Temple, Jesus in the, 77 
 Temptation, the, 151, 290/ 
 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 
 
 298 
 Thaddaeus, 204 
 Thamna, 56 
 
 Thecla, Acts of Paul and, 214, 215 
 Theodorus of Galilee, 74 
 Theudas, 51, 272 
 Thomas called Didymus, 203 
 Tiberias, 69, 86, 170, 171, 272 
 Tiberias, Lake of. See Galilee, 
 
 Sea of 
 Tiberius Caesar, 61, 64, 70 
 
336 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Tiberius Caesar, the fifteenth year of, 
 
 317 
 
 death of, 71 
 
 Tobit, Book of, 226, 233 
 
 Tolstoi, 224 
 
 Toparchies in Judaea, 56 
 
 Trachonitis, 52, 65, 322 
 
 Transfiguration, the, 282, 287 Jf. 
 
 Tribute to Caesar, in 
 
 Turk, the, 99 
 
 Turner, Dr. Cuthbert, H., 7. 315 
 
 Twelve, the, 200/. 
 
 — the mission of, 206 
 Tyre, 9, 68, 280 323 
 
 — territory of, 322 
 
 Valerius Gratius, procurator, 61 
 Varus, Pub. Quintihus, Governor 
 
 of Syria, 50 
 Virgil, Messianic Eclogue, 46 
 Vitellius Lucius, Governor of Syria, 
 
 64, 71 
 
 Walking on the sea, 271 
 
 Warde Fowler, W., 46 
 
 Waverley Novels, authorship of 4 
 
 Wealth, teaching of Jesus on, 229/. 
 Weber, Dr. Ferdinand, 216, 247, 248 
 Wellhausen, Professor J., 6, 30 
 
 his view of the Gospels, 30/. 
 
 Wellhausen, Professor J., opinion 
 
 concerning St. Mark, 32 
 Widow's mite, the, 228 
 Will of God, the, 256 
 Winds, portals of the, 117 
 Witchcraft, 182, 183 
 Witness of John, 165 
 Word, preaching of the, 252 
 
 Yarmuk, 65, 68, 171, 323 
 
 Zaccheus, 24 
 
 Zacharias, father of John the 
 
 Baptist, 91, 135 
 Zadok, leader of revolt, 58 
 Zahn, Dr. Th., 96 
 Zamaris, 66 
 Zealots, the, 47, 59 
 Zebedee, sons of, 173, 174 
 Zenodorus, 75, 322 
 Zenodotus, 65 
 Zoroastrian influence, 123 
 
 V 
 
 3 
 
 7'^ 
 
 v> / o 
 
 = 57