OPPWIIMMRIP

/

^TiT'«T^.riTrfffi'[lfit»fi:^iU[fr'!!HMii:iifrtifiiT]i"(rininirlii

MM  I

•YAJLE-MHIIVEiaSinrY-

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

THE LIFE OF CHRIST

By William Bancroft Hill, D.D., Litt.D
MOUNTAIN PEAKS IN THE LIFE OF
OUR LORD. Illustrated. Cloth, $1.50.
THE APOSTOLIC AGE. Cloth, $2.00.
THE LIFE OF CHRIST. Cloth, $1.75.

PALESTINE IN THE
TIME OF CHRIST
0 S 1,0  20  30  40 Si do:

C.S.H 3, CO,, N.Y.

Longitude East from Greenwich

THE LIFE OF CHRIST

BY

WILLIAM BANCROFT HILL, D.D.
Frederick Weyerhaeuser Professor of Biblical Literature in Vassar College

New York Chicago Toronto
Fleming H. Revell Company
London and Edinburgh

Copyright, 191 7, by
FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY

PRINTED IN TJ. S. A.

New York: 158 Fifth Avenue
Chicago: 17 N. Wabash Ave.
Toronto: 25 Richmond St., W.
London: 21 Paternoster Square
Edinburgh: 100 Princes Street

TO
MY DEAR WIFE

PREFACE
EVERY student of the life of Christ has at hand,
in the four Gospels, practically all the original
sources. This is a most unusual advantage ; and, since
the first principle of historical research is to go back
to the sources, any textbook that diverts his atten
tion from the Gospels or serves as a substitute for
them is to be condemned. Nevertheless, to limit
a student's knowledge to what he himself can discover
in the Gospels is like limiting the student of chemistry
to his own unaided investigations in the laboratory.
Some acquaintance with what the great company of
New Testament scholars have discovered is needful as
a guide in personal study, and must be furnished the
student along with the text. The difficult problem is
to keep the textbook from usurping the place of the
text. While a Life of Christ has for its purpose to aid
the student in his study 'of the Gospels, it should not
undertake to be a substitute for a commentary on them ;
the detailed discussion of each incident and the exe
gesis of each obscure passage belong to later and more
minute study. Nor should it take the place of a Bible
dictionary ; a mass of information about the geography,
flora, fauna, history, politics and religion of Palestine
in the first century may bury the biography out of
sight, and defeat the purpose of the book. Least of all
should it be a series of sermons on the words and deeds
7

8 PREFACE
of Jesus ; the homiletic instinct, however praiseworthy,
is a poor guide in historical study.
The average student has more or less knowledge
(sometimes surprisingly less) of the separate incidents
in the life of Christ; but he has little conception of
their relation to each other, of their place in the history
as a whole, and of their significance and importance.
His store of information is a confused heap of discon
nected details. This is due partly to the character of
the Gospels themselves, in that they are not a his
tory but a collection of precious memorabilia, and still
more to the unsystematic, disjointed way in which
the Gospels are usually read and studied. What he
needs is aid in bringing order out of such chaos. His
textbook should help him to recognize the main periods
and great turning points in the life of Christ, to deter
mine the place and connection of the various inci
dents, and especially to answer two most important
questions, What did Jesus attempt to do? and What
did he claim to be ?
The number of Lives of Christ written within the
past fifty years is so great as to remind us of the clos
ing words of the Fourth Gospel, " I suppose even the
world itself would not contain the books that should
be written." The best of these Lives is not altogether
satisfactory, — this furnishes incentive to write an
other; the worst is not altogether worthless, — this
furnishes consolation in offering the present one. The
necessary preliminary discussion of the nature and
value of the gospel records was undertaken by the
writer in an earlier volume, his Introduction to the
Life of Christ. In it will be found the reasons
for basing the present book on all four of the
Gospels instead of restricting it to the Synoptics

PREFACE 9
or even to the sources that lie behind them. With due
recognition of the peculiar character of the Fourth
Gospel, he is by no means ready to pronounce it of no
historical value; and with full appreciation of the at
tempts to recover the earliest account, written or oral,
of what Jesus said and did, he fails to be convinced that
this should supersede all later accounts as necessarily
presenting the truest picture of the Master.
W. B. H.
Vassar College,
Pou^hkeepsie, N. Y.

CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. Palestine in the Time of Christ . 13
II. The Religious Ideas of the Jews . 34
III. The Birth of Jesus .... 44
IV. The Years at Nazareth ... 57
V. John the Baptist . ... 72
VI. The Baptism of Jesus ... 82
VII. The Temptation in the Wilderness 91

VIII. The Final Preparation .
IX. The Judean Ministry
X. The Galilean Ministry . >
XL The Miracles of Jesus .
XII. The Kingdom of God .
XIII. The Border Ministry
XIV. Jesus the Messiah
XV. The Peraean Ministry .
XVI. The Passion Week .
XVII. The Last Supper and Gethsemane
XVIII. The Trial and Crucifixion
XIX. The Resurrection
Index .

100
no127154174190
213232251 265
283 299 327

THE LIFE OF CHRIST

PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST
NO figure in history is so free from the limita
tions of race, place and time as Jesus Christ.
Though a Jew, He seems equally a Gentile; though
an Oriental, He is Lord of the Western world; though
born in the days of Herod the king He dominates
the present age. Yet to understand His life and teach
ings we must make ourselves well acquainted with
Palestine of the first century. We cannot fully appre
ciate what He did, until we know what the Jews of
His time expected Him to do; and we cannot rightly
interpret what He said, until we know the thoughts
and feelings of the men to whom He spoke. Had
Jesus lived in a different environment, His mission
and His message would have been the same ; but their
outward form, — His acts and His words, — would have
been changed to correspond to it.
We must, therefore, begin the study of the life of
Christ by placing before ourselves the Palestine of
His day. Fortunately the material for doing this is
abundant. Interest in the subject has caused scholars
to collect every least item of information; and we
have volumes devoted entirely to the political, social
and religious conditions in which Jesus passed His
13

14 THE LIFE OF CHRIST,
earthly life. Only an outline of the subject can be
given here.
i. Political Conditions.
In the whole period of Jewish history from the
Exile to the birth of Christ, — a period longer than
from the discovery of America to the present day, —
the Age of the Maccabees, 162-63 b.c, was the only
time when the Jews possessed national independence.
For a little while the glory of the days when David
and Solomon ruled a strong, united people seemed to
return, and Palestine was able to play an important
part in the troubled politics of Western Asia. But
the later Maccabean kings were feeble rulers; the strife
of religious sects divided and weakened the nation;
and Rome was steadily extending its dominion. The
end came when Pompey the Great was invited to
arbitrate between rival claimants, and settled their
disputes by taking the throne for his own nation.
A Maccabee still was allowed to rule as a dependent
of Rome and without the title of king; but the real
governor, the power behind the throne, was a wily
Idumaean named Antipater or, in its abbreviated
form, Antipas, the founder of the famous Herodian
family. The Idumaeans were descendants of the
ancient Edomites, and now occupied the extreme south
ern portion of Palestine. They had recently been con
quered by the Maccabees and incorporated into the
Jewish kingdom; so nominally Antipater was a Jew,
but the old Jewish hatred of the Edomites still con
tinued and made him detested. His power, however,
depended upon the favor of Rome which he always
managed to keep, even to the extent of gaining Roman
citizenship for himself and, therefore, for all his de-

PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST 15
scendants. After his death, 43 b.c, there arose in
Palestine a fierce struggle of opposing powers to which
the Romans could pay no attention because they were
busy with the dissensions that followed the murder of
Julius Caesar. Accordingly, a son of Antipater, Herod,
who was in the thick of the Jewish troubles, went to
Rome, 40 B.c, and gained permission to win by arms
the Jewish throne for himself. It took him three years
to crush his enemies; then he reigned, more like an
ally of Rome than like a subject, until his death in
the spring of 4 B.C.
Herod in many ways deserved his title, the Great,
and has well been called " the brain of the East."
To keep his throne, — which was the central purpose
of his life, — was a task demanding marked ability.
On the one hand, he must retain the favor of the Ro
mans, and make this frontier kingdom strong and
loyal; otherwise he would be deposed. On the other
hand, he must either propitiate or overawe the Jews;
otherwise they would rise in rebellion and drive him
out. The Romans were more easily managed than the
Jews. Herod did a great deal for his people, feeding
them at his own expense in time of .famine, extermi
nating bands of robbers and foreign marauders, mak
ing Caesarea into a good seaport, extending and pro
tecting the frontiers, and erecting magnificent buildings
all over Palestine. He also looked after the welfare
of the Jews in all parts of the Roman empire, insisting
that they be treated with respect and enjoy equal rights
with other nationalities. Really, the benefits he be
stowed would seem a sure means of winning the affec
tion of his subjects; but his motive in all was purely
selfish, and the Jews knew this. Moreover, their recent
independence made them restless under any foreign

16 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
yoke, however light; and that an Idumaean and Ro
man citizen should sit on the throne of David seemed
sacrilege. The greater the glory and success of such
a king, the more his rule would be resented. Herod, in
turn, disliked the Jews and despised their religion;
at heart he was a heathen. For a time he took pains
to conceal his real attitude and to conciliate the devout ;
but later on, when he felt firmly established and able
to suppress any uprising, he seemed to find a malicious
pleasure in outraging the religious feelings of the Jews,
and then punishing severely the uprising that invariably
followed. Herod's private life was made wretched by the
mutual jealousies and strifes of his numerous wives
and children, who again and again filled him with the
suspicion that those whom he loved most were plot
ting against him. At last he reached a point where
he trusted no one, and where from alternations of vio
lent rage and remorse he was almost insane. One
after another, his children were put to death, until
Augustus dryly remarked, " It is better to be Herod's
swine than his sons." In the bloodshed which stained
the close of his reign, the murder of some babes
at Bethlehem was such a minor incident that we
are not surprised to find it unrecorded except in
Matthew. By his will, which the Roman government con
firmed, Herod divided his kingdom between three sons,
giving Judea, Samaria and Idumaea to Archelaus;
Galilee and Peraea to Herod Antipas ; and the region
northeast of the lake of Galilee to Philip. The title
of Archelaus was ethnarch, and of the other two sons
tetrach; but the terms mean much the same as king
|(in fact, Herod Antipas is called king in Mark 6: 14 f.

PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST 11
and Matt. 14:9); and the sons had about the same
authority as their father, and stood in about the same
relation to the Roman government. Philip was the
best of them, and ruled quietly and justly until his
death, 34 a.d. At the foot of Mount Hermon, where
the Jordan takes its rise in what was once a famous
cave and heathen shrine, he built a city, and called it
Caesarea in honor of the emperor, the name Philippi
being added to distinguish it from the more important
Caesarea on the seacoast. Comparatively few of his
subjects were Jews, and he plays no part in the gospel
story. Herod Antipas was much like his father,
only less able and more sly : " that fox " is what
Jesus called him. His capital was at first Sepphoris
and later Tiberias, a city built by him during Jesus'
public ministry. His marriage with Herodias, which
John the Baptist condemned, brought on a series of
misfortunes, ending with his banishment by Caligula
about 39 a.d. Archelaus ruled so wretchedly that
Augustus deposed him in 6 a.d., and changed his
realm into the imperial province of Judea, governed
by a procurator as the representative of the emperor.
There was a series of these procurators in which
Pontius Pilate, 26-36 a.d., was the fifth. Their gov
ernment must be more fully described.
Though the emperor had taken direct possession of
Judea, little change was made in the policy of leaving
the Jews to govern themselves as far as possible; in
fact, they had more independence than when under the
Herods. The procurator dwelt at Caesarea, but came
to Jerusalem on occasions, especially at the feasts
when the city was crowded and there was danger of
riots. His residence in Jerusalem was the palace built
by Herod the Great on Mount Zion. To maintain

18 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
order he had an army, one cohort of which was sta
tioned at Jerusalem. The army officers seem to have
been worthy Romans; the common soldiers were re
cruited in the province; and as Jews were exempt
from military service because they had religious
scruples against fighting on the Sabbath, the recruits
were largely Samaritans, thus making the army doubly
unpopular with the Jews.
The Romans, of course, imposed taxes, which were
used for the expenses of the government and the im
provement of the province, only the surplus being sent
to Rome. A land tax and a poll tax were definitely
fixed and collected by imperial officials, probably
through the agency of the Sanhedrin. The customs
were farmed out to the highest bidders. These men
and their underlings collected as much as they could
squeeze out of the people, and kept as their profits
all above the amount they had bid. Evidently there
was every inducement to extortion; and though the
collectors ("publicans") often were Jews, they were
despised, hated and classed with robbers.
The right to coin money was jealously guarded by
ancient rulers, and seldom entrusted to subject nations.
The Maccabees as independent sovereigns possessed
that right, and minted copper coins, — possibly also a
few silver coins. The Jewish copper coinage was con
tinued under the Herods and the procurators. The
most common silver coin in the time of Christ was the
Roman denarius, — the " penny " of the King James'
New Testament, — whose value today would be about
twenty cents ; but foreign silver coins of all sorts were
in circulation or found their way to the money
changer's table. For the payment of temple dues " the
shekel of the sanctuary " was required, which probably

PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST 19
was a Phoenician silver coin worth about sixty-seven
cents. The procurator, as has been said, allowed the Jews
a large measure of self-government. Each commu
nity had its council (sanhedrin) made up of leading
men who managed affairs and settled disputes. Under
its control were religious as well as civil and criminal
matters, for the Jews made no distinction between
them, or rather treated all as religious. Above these
local courts, as the final authority and chief governing
power, was the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. This was a
body of seventy-one men, — chief priests, scribes and
elders, with the highpriest as president. How they
were selected we are not informed; but probably they
held office for life, and themselves chose men to fill
vacancies. Certainly they were not elected by popular
vote ; and Josephus well describes the form of govern
ment as an aristocracy under the presidency of the high-
priest. All matters involving the application of Jewish
law to Judeans came under the jurisdiction of the San
hedrin; and its sentence was final; though if the sen
tence was death, it must be ratified by the procurator.
The Roman authorities, however, could take the initi
ative, and try the case themselves; or they could call
the Sanhedrin together, and require it to render a
decision. According to the Talmud a false prophet,
a highpriest, or a tribe charged with idolatry could
be tried only by the Sanhedrin. Outside of Judea the
Sanhedrin had merely such authority as might be
voluntarily given it; but devout Jews in the realm of
Herod Antipas and all over the world reverenced its
opinions, and willingly submitted themselves to its
decisions. Though Samaria was part of the province of Judea,

20 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
and under the same procurator, it had to be treated
as a separate country, since the Jews had no dealings
with Samaritans (John 4:9). It seems to have had
its own council with powers similar to those of the
Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. The Romans favored Sa
maria as being a help in holding the rebellious Jews in
order; and Pontius Pilate was recalled because he put
down a fanatical uprising of Samaritans with unneces
sary severity.
2. Jewish Sects or Parties.
Political opinions unite men into parties; religious
opinions, into sects ; but in Palestine politics and religion
were so combined that the same body of men might
with equal propriety be called a party or a sect. The
question of taxes, for example, would in other lands
be purely political ; but the Jews debated hotly whether
paying taxes to Caesar was breaking the law of God or
not (Matt. 12: 14).
The Zealots or Cananaeans, to whom one of the
apostles originally belonged (Mark 3: 18), were men
fanatically eager to drive out the conquerors of their
country. It was they who forced the final rebellion
of 66-70 a.d., and in that rebellion used the sword
against not only the Romans but also any of their own
countrymen who sought a compromise. We should
call them a political party; yet their motive was to
reclaim the Holy Land for Jehovah, its true ruler.
The Herodians, who are mentioned twice in the
gospel narrative (Mark 3:6; 12: 13) but in no other
contemporary writing, supported the royal claims of
Herod and his family. What their motive was we do
not know; probably they thought it better to be ruled
by an Idumaean house, which was in a way their own

PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST 21
kindred, than to be under the direct rule of the Romans.
The theory of some scholars, that they believed Herod
the Great to have been the promised Messiah, is hard
to accept.
The best known and most influential of the sects or
parties was the Pharisees. They are first mentioned by
this name in the time of the Maccabees ; but to discover
their origin and understand their character we must
go back to the days when Ezra read the law at Jeru
salem and put the people under a covenant to keep it
(Neh. 8 : i f.). From that time onward there was an
increasing emphasis of the law, which deeply influenced
Jewish life, and out of which arose both the scribes and
the Pharisees. The scribes were a body of scholars
who, as the name indicates, made copies of the law,
but whose more important work was studying, inter
preting, applying and teaching it, and who were, there
fore, called lawyers (Luke 11:45) or doctors of the
law (Luke 5 : 17). Their pupils addressed them as
rabbi (Matt. 23:7) which means "my great one,"
monseigneur ; later than the time of Christ this became
a special designation for them. In their zeal for the
law they were continually laying down rules to prevent
any ignorant or accidental violation of it. For ex
ample, the Fourth Commandment forbids work on the
Sabbath ; and carrying burdens unquestionably is work ;
but just what is a burden, and what constitutes carry
ing it, and what measures are necessary to guard
against thoughtlessly breaking the commandment ? The
discussion led to more and more minute regulations
until it was solemnly decided that a tailor's needle is a
burden which he may not carry on the Sabbath, nor
even late on Friday afternoon lest the Sabbath come
upon him unawares while carrying it! Such regula-

22 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
tions constitute what is called sometimes the rabbinical
law because made by the rabbis, but more, often the
oral law because it was not put in writing but handed
down, as " the tradition of the elders " (Mark 7:3),
by word of mouth from one generation of lawyers to
another. In the time of Jesus the oral law had become
of vast size ; and its devotees considered it to be more
sacred than even the written law.
Closely connected but by no means identical with
the scribes were the Pharisees. These were men who
devoted their lives to keeping every minutest command
of both the written and the oral law as the scribes
directed. They formed a fraternity with special vows,
and held themselves proudly aloof from the mass of the
people (John 7:47-49). It was because of this atti*
tude that they were called Pharisees, which means
" the separated," and at first may have been a nickname,
like Puritan. Their doctrines were those of orthodox
Judaism (Matt. 23:2) as it had developed since the
Exile; and while they were never a large body (Jo-
sephus says that in the early days of Herod their
number was somewhat above 6,000) their influence
was great because the people generally reverenced them
as holy men, and considered their life to be the ideal
one. This fact justifies the statement of Montefiore,
" It is probably no exaggeration to say that five-sixths
of the nation were Pharisaic more or less; though
where and how the limits ran, it is hard to say." Their
devotion to the law was inspired by patriotism as well
as by religious zeal ; for they believed that whenever
the law was kept perfectly, the Messiah would come
and set up his reign. Meanwhile, as regards the rule
of the Romans, most of them held that it must be
patiently endured as a just punishment for the sins of

PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST 23
the nation, until the foreordained day when God,
should remove it. The word Pharisee has become a
synonym for formalist and hypocrite; and most per
sons would justify this by the accounts in the New
Testament, forgetting that among the New Testament
Pharisees were such men as Nicodemus, Gamaliel and
Saul of Tarsus. Undoubtedly an emphasis of the out
ward forms of religion often caused the Pharisees to
forget the inward spirit; and they grew narrow, cen
sorious, self-righteous and conceited. Yet this was not
the case with all. The motive which inspired such
rigorous and painful legalism was a praiseworthy de
sire to serve God in each slightest act of life; and
the best of the Pharisees must be classed among the
best of the Jews.
While the development and observance of the law ab
sorbed the energy of the devoutest Jews, and was their
greatest achievement, there were always some who
opposed them. And the leaders of the opposition were
the chief priests. This surprises us at first thought, yet
the reasons are simple. Now that there was no longer
a king, the chief priests considered themselves the
rulers of the nation, and were jealous of the increas
ing influence of the scribes and Pharisees. Their posi
tion was secured by birth, and they disliked to see
honors heaped upon men who had risen from the ranks
of the common people. They had the riches of the
temple at their command, and were inclined to indulge
in luxuries and amusements condemned by the stricter
Jews. Above all, they wished to do away with the
regulations that separated the Jews from their heathen
neighbors, making them a peculiar and generally
despised people. Of course, they had no desire to
abolish the temple worship, since it was the source of

24 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
their own authority and wealth ; but if the people should
incline to transfer the temple worship from Jehovah
to some more widely recognized and less austere
divinity, such a change had evident advantages. This
attitude of the chief priests towards the law, especially
the oral law, was shared by many of the other wealthy
families; and collectively they constituted the party
which from the time of the Maccabees was called the
Sadducees. The name probably is derived from Zadok,
a priest in the days of David, from whom the chief
priests claimed their special authority. It is needless
to say that the common priests generally were not Sad
ducees; indeed, some of them were Pharisees.
Since the opposition of the Sadducees to the oral
law and to those who emphasized it was not at all on
religious grounds, and since their ambitions were
wholly worldly, they hardly deserve to be called a re
ligious sect. They were aristocrats, who in politics
sought to keep on comfortable terms with the Roman
authorities because otherwise they would lose their
power, and in religion believed in maintaining the old
established forms of worship because otherwise they
would lose their wealth. They did lose both when
Jerusalem with the temple was destroyed in 70 a.d. ;
after that event the Pharisees grew even more strong,
but the Sadducees disappeared forever.
In the writings of Josephus and of Philo is found
an elaborate account of the Essenes. We call them a
sect ; but they more closely resembled a monastic order,
for they mostly lived in celibate communities, into
which members were received, after a period of pro
bation, upon taking a most solemn oath ; they shared all
possessions in common ; and they observed strict rules
of personal purity, daily labor, — mainly in agricul-

PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST 23
ture, — common meals and the like. Their doctrines
are not well known, but seem to have been partly Jew
ish of the extreme Pharisaic type and partly Pytha
gorean or perhaps Zoroastrian. The principal com
munities were in the wilderness west of the Dead Sea,
but Essenes could be found elsewhere in Palestine, —
especially in the villages. As they are not mentioned in
the Gospels, the chief reason for mentioning them here
is the fact that some scholars maintain that John the
Baptist was taught by them, and in turn passed on their
teachings to Jesus. But when we consider that the
Essenes were ascetics who withdrew from the world,
held their doctrines secret, emphasized ceremonial
purity, denied any resurrection, and kept the Sabbath
more strictly than did the Pharisees, it is evident that in
spirit they were widely separated from the founder of
the Christian religion. Nevertheless the existence
of such a sect is noteworthy as indicating a measure
of dissatisfaction with the current religious life, and of
yearning for something purer and more truly spiritual.
The search after God which led these Essenes to a
quietistic life in the wilderness was prompted by the
same impulse that later on led disciples to John and to
his great successor.
All these sects, — the Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees,
Herodians and Zealots, — formed only a fraction of the
Jewish people. The great majority of the priests were
poor, obscure and devout, and were treated with con
tempt and even cruelty by the Sadducees. And the
common people, though they might look up with rever
ence to the Pharisees, were neither able nor desirous
to take upon themselves the tremendous burden of the
traditional law. Yet it was among these humble priests
and " this multitude that knoweth not the law " that the

26 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
warnings of John the Baptist and the invitations of
Jesus found most responsive hearers.
3. The Temple and the Feasts.
One of the famous buildings of antiquity, which even
Gentiles came from a distance to behold, was the temple
in Jerusalem. It was begun by Herod in the eighteenth
year of his reign, 20-19 B.C., and the main part was com
pleted in less than two years; but work upon various
portions went on long after Herod's death. In the
days of Christ's public ministry it was still building
(John 2:20), and it was not wholly completed until
just before the rebellion of 66-70 a.d. which brought
about its destruction. Herod was passionately fond of
building; and in removing the shabby old temple of
Zerubbabel and replacing it with this splendid edifice,
he was influenced more by his own pleasure and glory
than by the religion of the Jews.
The temple, in the usual sense of the term, was not
a single building, but a great group of buildings and
open courts and covered porches or porticoes. The
sacred heart of it all was the House, entered from a
porch at the east and having two divisions, the Holy
Place or Sanctuary and beyond this the Holy of Holies.
The latter, screened by a heavy veil which was lifted
only once a year when the highpriest entered on the
Day of Atonement, was now empty, save for the great
stone on which once the ark with its mercy seat had
rested. In the Holy Place stood the altar of incense,
with the table of shew-bread on the north side and the
golden candlestick on the south. In front of the House,
in a court which only priests might enter, stood a huge
stone altar for burnt offerings and, towards the south,
an immense laver of brass, filled every morning with

PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST 27
water. In this Court of the Priests the animals were
killed and offered as sacrifices. Surrounding this court,
with its main entrance on the east, was the narrow
Court of the Men of Israel, where the male worship
pers might stand and share in the service; east of this
was the larger Court of the Women, which was used
by both sexes, and contained special chambers for
lepers, Nazarites and others, and where were the
trumpet-shaped boxes into which worshippers cast their
money offerings. All this part of the temple was so
sacred that no Gentile could enter it under penalty of
death; and the punishment for violating its sanctity
was the only death penalty the Jews might execute upon
even a Roman without asking permission from the
procurator. Enclosing this sacred part of the temple
was a great court, open to visitors of any race, and
hence called the Court of the Gentiles. Here, in the
time of Christ, cattle, doves and other sacrificial offer
ings were exposed for sale to the worshippers, and the
tables of the money changers were placed. Broad cov
ered porches, of which the one on the east was called
Solomon's Porch (John 10:23), formed the outer
limits of the Court of the Gentiles, and were convenient
shelters in stormy weather and meeting places for dis
cussion or instruction. The exact size and shape of all
these various parts of the temple, and the location and
use of the various chambers and rooms that were to be
found in them, are subjects most intricate and uncer
tain. Fortunately they are not of importance for our
present purpose.
The temple and the worship were under the care of
the priests and their assistants, the Levites. Many of
these lived in Jerusalem or its vicinity; the rest were
scattered throughout Palestine, though naturally the

28 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
majority of thern lived in Judea. They were divided
into twenty-four " courses," each of which was on duty
for a week (Luke i : 5, 8). At the head of all was the
highpriest, who alone could perform certain sacred
offices, but whose position now was far more political
than religious. The highpriesthood in early days was
hereditary and for life ; but Herod and the Romans ap
pointed the highpriest and deposed him as they pleased,
though the appointment could be only from certain
families. Members of these families, and especially the
ex-highpriests, are probably the persons called " chief
priests." Certain tithes, offerings and parts of offer
ings were the portion of the priests for their own
support. The morning and the evening sacrifice offered for
the whole nation, and the constant succession of sacri
fices offered for private worshippers, kept the priests
occupied and the temple courts thronged from sunrise
to sunset every day. But on the feast days the crowd
and the activities were vastly increased. There were
three great annual feasts which all adult male Jews
living within fifteen miles of Jerusalem, and not cere
monially unclean, were obliged to attend ; and to which
there came voluntarily great numbers, including many
women, from other parts of Palestine and from for
eign lands. These three feasts were the Passover,
Pentecost and Tabernacles. The precise date of each
varied from year to year because the Jewish year was
made up of twelve lunar months of twenty-nine or
thirty days each, with a thirteenth month added about
every third year to avoid too great variation from
the solar year. We can most easily recognize how the
date of a feast varied, by remembering that our Good
Friday is the successor of the Passover, and shifts

PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST 29
back and forward in the calendar after the same
fashion. The Jewish day began at sunset instead of
midnight; and the Jewish ecclesiastical year began in
the spring with the month Nisan, while the civil year
began in the autumn with the month Tishri.
A list of all the feasts and the one great fast (the
Day of Atonement), with the Jewish month and day
and the approximate time according to our calendar
is as follows :
Passover, Nisan 14-21, — early in April,
Pentecost, Sivan 6, — last of May,
Trumpets, Tishri 1, — last of September,
Day of Atonement, Tishri 10, — early in October,
Tabernacles, Tishri 15-22, — middle of October,
Dedication, Kislev 25, — last of December.
Purim, Adar 14, — early in March.
To these should be added the Feast of the New Moon
which was observed on the first day of each month.
The meaning and details of these feasts, so far as they
bear on the life of Christ, will be considered later on.
To the ancient Jew the temple and its services were
full of religious associations and most helpful for
spiritual life; to us, if we could behold them, they
would be almost the reverse. The scene in the Court
of the Gentiles, where worshippers were leading cattle
to be slain, or returning with portions of raw meat for
their own later consumption, where bargaining for
articles needed in the sacrifices or in the offerings was
constantly going on, where learned rabbis were holding
forth upon matters of the law to eager groups of
hearers, and where strangers of all nationalities were
curiously staring about and asking questions, — all this
would seem more like a fair than like a sanctuary.
And especially the Court of the Priests, — with its

30 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
knives for slaying the animals, its hooks by which the
carcasses were suspended while being skinned and dis
emboweled, its drains for carrying away the blood and
offal, its altar for burning the flesh, its laver full of
water for washing and flushing, — this, even when no
sacrifices were being offered, and still more when the
great company of priests and Levites were strenuously
pushing forward their bloody work, would remind us
so strongly of a slaughter-house that we could hardly
realize we were in the house of God.
No such impressions filled the mind of the Jewish
worshipper ; and yet, in the time of Christ, the temple
had ceased to be for him what it was for his fathers.
Foreign conquerors had repeatedly desecrated it; the
ark and the shekinah had disappeared; the highpriest
was appointed and removed at the pleasure of the Ro
mans ; the leading priests were greedy and corrupt ; the
present building was a monument to the heathen
Herod: — did Jehovah any longer dwell in its courts,
or take pleasure in its sacrifices ? Magnificent as it was,
and elaborate as was its ritual, did it not really deserve
the condemnation which Malachi pronounced in days
of former degeneracy? Such thoughts troubled the
devout seeker after God, and made him dimly feel
that real communion was to be found in the closet and
the synagogue rather than in the temple.
4. The Synagogue and its Worship.
The synagogue seems to have originated among the
Jews in Babylon during the Exile when they met in
private houses (e.g., in Ezekiel's) for instruction and
such forms of worship as could be observed without
temple or altar. Finding these meetings most profitable
they continued them in buildings erected for the pur-

PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST 31
pose after their return to Palestine. The increasing
emphasis of the law helped the growth of synagogues ;
for the main purpose of the synagogue is not worship
but instruction in the law. In the time of Christ one
or more synagogues stood in every city and town of
Palestine; and they were also to be found outside of
Palestine in every place where Jews abounded. At
least ten men must be present at any service that it
might be properly conducted.
The synagogue building would be cheap or costly ac
cording to the means of the worshippers. It usually was
placed so that the congregation faced towards Jeru
salem. Before them, at the end of the building was the
ark, i.e., a chest or closet containing the rolls of sacred
scripture, each in a linen case. In front of the ark was
a curtain, and before it a lamp, always burning. Next
were the " chief seats " for the elders and Pharisees,
who sat facing the congregation. Then came the
reading desk on a raised platform, fronting the main
body of worshippers. Probably the women were sepa
rated from the men, as in modern Oriental churches ;
in which case they may often have occupied a screened
gallery. In a Jewish town, as we have noted, all matters,
political and religious, would be in the hands of a
council (sanhedrin) of the older leading men, the
elders. These in a general way would have control
of the synagogue. Most specially, they would deter
mine who might share its privileges, and who should
suffer punishment by scourging or by excommunica
tion, i.e., " casting out of the synagogue " (John 9 :
22). The latter was a bitter punishment as it made
the person a civil and social pariah. They would also
appoint the special officers of the synagogue, viz. :

82 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
i). The ruler of the synagogue (Luke 13:14;
8:41). He had the general supervision of the syna
gogue and its services, and selected at each meeting
those who were to take part in the service. (Possibly
a synagogue sometimes had more than one ruler; see
Acts 13:15.)
2). The chazzan or attendant (Luke 4:20). His
duties were somewhat like those of our modern sexton
but, of course, more highly esteemed. He had charge
of the sacred books and the building; he administered
the scourgings ; and probably he was the village school
teacher. 3). The almoners, who collected and distributed the
alms. Services were held in the synagogue on Sabbath
(Saturday) mornings and each feast day; less formal
services were held on Sabbath afternoons, Mondays
and Thursdays. The order of the service was some
what as follows : —
1. The Shema, — the recitation in unison of Deut.
6:4-9, II: T3-2i, Num. 15:37-41, with certain bene
dictions preceding and following.
2. Prayers, with responses by the people, all stand
ing. In later days, and probably in the time of Christ,
the prayers were of fixed form, — i.e., liturgical.
3. Scripture reading, by various persons selected by
the ruler. The lessons were first from the law, a
special portion being assigned for each Sabbath, and
next from the prophets, a free selection. The reading
was in Hebrew ; but accompanying it was a translation
(targum) into Aramaic.
4. Address, by some person or persons selected by
the ruler (Acts 13:15). The readers stood; the
speakers sat (Luke 4: 20).

PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST 33
5. Benediction. This was by a priest; if none was
present, it was turned into a prayer.
Note that there was no person corresponding to our
modern minister, and that there was no provision for
reading the other portions of the Old Testament (" the
Hagiographa"), though certain selections from these
were appointed for various feast-days.
In the time of Christ the synagogue controlled by
scribes and Pharisees, rather than the temple con
trolled by priests, was the real center of Jewish reli
gious thought and life. In Gentile lands it not only
held the Jews together, but also attracted many devout
Gentiles to its services and thus to Judaism or later to
Christianity. It gave Jesus, and still more the early
Christian evangelists, a preaching place. And its serv
ices were the model for primitive Christian church
worship and thus for our present church worship.

II
THE RELIGIOUS IDEAS OF THE JEWS
BECAUSE the Jewish sacred books form the Old
Testament of our Bible, the religious ideas of
the times in which they were written are familiar. But
between the completion of the Old Testament and the
time of Christ a period intervenes in which many of
these ideas received further development and new ideas
were added. To understand the religion of the Jews
among whom Jesus lived and taught we must, there
fore, supplement our knowledge gained from the Old
Testament with some information concerning the later
course of thought.
One source for this is the Old Testament Apoc
rypha, — that group of books which found a place in
the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures (the Sep-
tuagint), and was held inspired by all the Jews except
the strictest in Palestine itself. A more abundant
source of information is the writings known as the
Jewish Apocalypses. These were not deemed sacred,
but were popular in the days of Christ, and shaped
Jewish religious thought somewhat as " Paradise
Lost " and " Pilgrim's Progress " shaped English re
ligious thought. It is only in recent years that this
apocalyptic literature has been carefully studied; in
deed, some of its books were until recently unknown,
and many things concerning them and their relation
to the teachings of Jesus are still matters of debate
34

RELIGIOUS IDEAS OF THE JEWS 35
and investigation. To describe them, or even give a
list of them, would be unnecessary here. Their gen
eral character and peculiarities may be indicated by
pointing to the Book of Daniel and the Revelation of
St. John, both of which are apocalyptical writings.
The question that alone concerns our present study is,
What has been learned from all sources about the
religious ideas of the Jews in the time of Christ?
i. God and the Law.
We begin with the idea of God, since this idea shapes
the whole of any religion. Before the exile the Jews
were prone to polytheism and idolatry; after the exile
there was no more of either. The sojourn as captives
in a land of strange gods and monstrous idols was a
discipline that made those who endured it without
giving up their religion firm believers in the sole
supremacy of Jehovah and the vanity of idols. Later
centuries steadily increased the recognition of God's
omnipotence and spirituality, but greatly diminished
the old feeling of His nearness and sympathy. He
became a monarch and a judge rather than a friend and
a counsellor. He was thought to be too exalted and
holy to come into direct relations with the earth and
men; so the doctrine grew that angels are His inter
mediaries to bear His messages, to execute His de
mands, to rule over nations and watch over individuals.
In proportion as God's power and unchanging will were
emphasized, the belief arose that the whole course of
human history is unalterably fixed by Him from the
beginning, and that man has no power of choice in
determining his fate. The Sadducees, who in religion
were conservatives, — so far as they were anything, —
refused to accept these new doctrines of angels and

36 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
f oreordination ; but the Pharisees advocated them and
made them popular.
If God is a lawgiver and a judge, the duty of man
is to keep His law, thereby securing His rewards and
escaping His punishments. Such a view is consistent
with a high spiritual life, if the law is that which is
written upon the heart rather than upon tables of
stone, if the motive power for obeying it is love, and if
the reward for obedience is entrance into sympathetic
companionship with God. But the law that the scribes
emphasized and developed was something far different.
It was largely external, — a matter of forms and cere
monies, of meats clean and unclean, of sacred days
and places and persons, of acts forbidden and allowed,
of relations between the circumcised and the uncir-
cumcised. An attempt was made to provide a rule for
every possible action, and thus cover the whole of life
with definite ordinances. Acts were more important
than feelings and motives; strict conformance was bet
ter than justice and mercy.
This is well illustrated by the Sabbath laws. No
institution was more prized by the Jews than the Sab
bath ; they gloried in it as their peculiar possession, and
multiplied laws to secure its strict observance. But
Sabbath-keeping, as the scribes taught it, was mainly
abstinence from everything that in any degree resem
bled week-day occupations. A deed of mercy like
dressing a wound, a deed of charity like preparing food
for the hungry, a deed of necessity like extinguishing a
fire, must not be performed because it involved labor.
There was nothing spiritual in such a Sabbath ; a man
might keep the day in perfect obedience to the law, and
yet have a heart full of malice, envy and pride. And
there was nothing elevating to the soul in such obedi-;

RELIGIOUS IDEAS OF THE JEWS 87,
ence; in fact, a Sabbath spent in the trammels of a host
of petty rules was drudgery and not a delight.
The laws of the scribes were largely prohibitions, —
" Touch not : taste not : handle not." Even the Golden
Rule which Hillel, one of the best of the teachers,
proclaimed, was (like that of Confucius) in the nega
tive form, " Do not do unto others what you would
not have them do unto you." Restraint rather than
development was the keynote of the religious life; pas
sive virtues were most cultivated. The special acts
with which God is well-pleased, — the " righteousness "
of Matt. 6: i, — were prayer, fasting and alms-giving.
Prayer was to be offered twice a day, in the morning
and evening; it was a formal matter, and a rabbi was
expected to teach his students how to pray (Luke
1 1 : i ) . The ancient law prescribed one annual fast, —
the Day of Atonement ; but other fast-days were added
after the Exile ; and the mere act of fasting was con
sidered so meritorious that the Pharisees fasted on
each Monday and Thursday (Luke 18: 12). Alms
giving was a part of the synagogue service, and was a
way of gaining credit rather than an expression of
sympathy with the poor.
Formalism in religion tends to produce self-satisfac
tion. No matter how elaborate any code of ceremonies
and observances, by strenuous effort it may be com
pletely carried out; and when that is done, the goal is
reached, — nothing lies beyond. The man who has
achieved this external perfection counts himself ac
ceptable to God; and his attitude towards those who
fail to reach his standard is apt to be one of contempt
and censure. While the Jews despised the Gentiles as
people who had no law, the Pharisees in turn despised
all other Jews as people who knew not the law (John

38 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
7: 49). They are well described in the preface to the
parable of the Pharisee and the publican as those " who
trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and
set all others at nought " (Luke 18 : 9)., Evidently a
man who undertook to keep the law could do little else.
From many occupations he was completely barred be
cause they involved ceremonial defilement; and for
the rest he would have little time after he had finished
the prayers, the ablutions, the attendance upon syna
gogue or temple services, and all the observances he
deemed of first importance. A poor man could hardly
earn his living and also be religious; so when Jesus
once declared that a rich man enters the kingdom of
God with difficulty, the disciples felt they had good
reason for asking, " Then who can be saved? " (Mark
10: 26).
Though the people generally looked upon the Phari
see as a saint, and though the Jews as a nation were
exceedingly zealous for the law, we must not imagine
there were no exceptions. On the one hand, were some
who, like the Sadducees, held their religion lightly, or
wholly abandoned it, through the influence of heathen
thought and life. We know that even at Jerusalem,
which was the very center of legalism, Herod the Great
built a theatre and an amphitheatre, and celebrated
games in honor of Augustus, which would have been
impossible if a portion of the people had not been will
ing to break over the barriers of the law. And on the
other hand, there were noble souls, some among the
prominent leaders and many among the obscure people,
who held a more spiritual view of religion, and a kind
lier attitude towards those who were not of their own
faith. The teachings of the prophets and the out
pourings of the Psalms were the food that nourished

RELIGIOUS IDEAS OF THE JEWS 89
these souls; and for them the law was a joy and privi
lege rather than a burden because it was given by a
gracious God who in these ordinances placed before
His chosen people the way of outward prosperity and
inward peace.
2. The Messianic Hope.
The most remarkable thing about the Jews from the
Exile to the present day is that they have maintained
their distinct existence through centuries of oppression
and helplessness which would have obliterated any
other people. This is explained by the fact that while
the Golden Age of other nations lies in the past, that
of the Jews has ever been in the future — they have
been saved by hope. They have constantly looked for
ward to the Messianic Age, and confidently expected
that it speedily would dawn.
To give the history of the Messianic hope would be
to rehearse the whole history and thought of the Jews ;
for, not only did that hope exist and develop all
through the centuries, but its precise form at different
periods was shaped by contemporary conditions and
current ideas. The Messianic Age, in the widest sense
of the term, is the glorious time when, through the
favor of Jehovah, all the desires of His people, Israel,
shall be satisfied. Because the Jews were usually a
subject nation and without a strong leader, their most
persistent desire was for a king who would crush their
foes and achieve an independent kingdom. Such a
king must be the chosen agent of God ; accordingly he
is called the Messiah (the Christ) which means the
Anointed (Ps. 2:2), i.e., the one whom God has placed
on the throne ; or, because in him is fulfilled Jehovah's
promise to David concerning some descendant, " I will

40 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
be his father, and he shall be my son " (2 Sam. 7 : 14),
he is called,— at least in later days and especially in the
time of Jesus, — the Son of God.
The Messianic hope was usually for the coming of a
personal Messiah and the establishment of his king
dom, — the kingdom of God. But there were periods
when the Jews had independence, or enough of liberty
to satisfy them ; then they ceased to yearn for a future
kingdom : and there were periods when they were con
tent with their present leaders; then they ceased to
desire a Messiah. Still the present was never so ideal
as to destroy all longing for a better future. Sickness
and suffering made them yearn for a day when physi
cal ills would disappear; the barrenness of Judea's
hills set them to dreaming of a time when the ground
would bring forth abundantly with little or no labor;
the contempt of other nations created an emphasis of
a glorious day when all nations would stream as humble
learners to the temple at Jerusalem. Whenever na
tional events aroused a feeling of sin and impurity, the
hope was for purification and spiritual blessings; but
when religion grew dead, such higher aspirations were
exchanged for more sensuous and selfish desires. And
sometimes all hope of Jehovah's blessing almost dis
appeared, either through long delay and frequent
disappointment, or through the lack of earnest preach
ers to rouse the nation from apathy.
At the period we are to study, the thoughts of the
Jews were centered upon the Messianic hope more
strongly, perhaps, than at any time before or since.
The brief taste of liberty and power under the Mac
cabees was too recent to be forgotten, and stirred up a
clamorous appetite for more. The Sadducees, who had
come back into positions of authority after the death

RELIGIOUS IDEAS OF THE JEWS 41
of Herod, were well content with Rome's dominion;
but the Pharisees and the people generally were long
ing and hoping for release from it through the estab
lishment of the kingdom of God. The conception of
the course of events by which this kingdom would be
established differed in degrees of the supernatural.
The opinion of some was that the expected Messiah
would be a purely human descendant of David who
would lead the people against the Romans and, with
divine aid, drive them out. When firmly established
upon his throne, he would extend his dominion farther
even than did his great ancestor; the Jews in foreign
lands would come back and make Jerusalem and Pales
tine populous and prosperous; and through the bless
ings of Jehovah life would become easy and delightful.
All this would take place when the people were pre
pared for their king (Luke i : 17) ; their present un
belief and failure to keep the law were what delayed
his coming. These Messianic ideas were taken mainly
from the Old Testament prophecies.
There was another conception, — found in portions
of the Old Testament and elaborated in later apoca
lyptic literature, — that involved a larger degree of the
supernatural, and a universal view of the world and its
destiny. According to this the present time was the
close of one great age or seon of history, an age filled
with suffering and unrighteousness, and dominated by
the powers of evil. The final scenes in this age were
to be a seeming triumph of Satan accompanied with
direst calamities, portents and prodigies. Wars, earth
quakes, famines, signs in the heavens, horrors, and
catastrophies unspeakable, mark the near end of the
present evil world and the approach of the world to
come, Then follows the judgment,— the Day of the

42 THE LD7E OF CHRIST
Lord, — when the kingdom of Satan is overthrown, his
followers are sentenced to punishment according to
their deeds, the world is purified from sin and its effects
so as to be a delightful habitation for the saints, and
the faithful inherit it. Not only those who are alive
at that day but also the dead, coming forth from their
graves, share in the punishments and the rewards. Be
cause of its emphasis of eschatology (the doctrine of
"the last things "), this conception of the kingdom of
God is usually called the eschatological.
In some of the apocalypses there is no mention of
the Messiah; the final victory over Satan and evil is
the direct work of God and His angels. In other
apocalypses the Messiah is God's agent and representa
tive in the victory; but his part is as supernatural as
the rest. He is not a man, but a pre-existent, super
human being who comes suddenly, mysteriously, in the
clouds of heaven, to work miracles, overthrow all ene
mies, pronounce the divine sentence upon the wicked,
and rule over not only the Jews but the whole world.
Elijah, returning from the spirit world, is his fore
runner ; and angels are his attendants and armed host.
Evidently the prophetic and the apocalyptic concep
tions of the Messianic Age cannot be joined in one
harmonious scheme ; and doubtless various elements of
each were held confusedly by most Jews. In fact,
the question. What did the Jews in the first century
think concerning the coming of Christ? is no more
capable of a single answer than the similar question,
What do Christians today think concerning the second
coming of Christ?
The Samaritans, also, were expecting the Messiah ;
but we know little about their Messianic ideas. From
the fact that they accepted only the Pentateuch as

RELIGIOUS IDEAS OF THE JEWS 43
sacred scriptures, and had remained free from the influ
ence of later prophetic and apocalyptic teachings, we
infer that their thought of the Messiah was a simple,
primitive one. In Deut. 18 : 18 Jehovah says to Moses,
" I will raise them up a prophet from among their
brethren, like unto thee ; and I will put my words into
his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I
shall command him." Relying on this promise the
Samaritans seem to have expected as their Messiah a
second Moses whose chief work would be that of a
religious teacher. This was the expectation set forth
by the Samaritan woman in her talk with Jesus (John
4:25); and her reason for believing Him to be the
Messiah was, He " told me all things that ever I did."
The formalism, legalism and hypocrisy, which hin
dered the work of Jesus and compassed His death,
make themselves so prominent in the gospel story,
that we are disposed to conclude they were the char
acteristic features of Jewish religious life in His
day, and true religion was dying or actually dead.
This is a mistake. Toy says, " It was by no means a
religiously torpid age ; on the contrary, there is reason
to believe that there was a well-defined feeling of dis
contentment in the best minds : — a desire for something
purer and higher than had yet been attained." And
Sanday states this still more strongly : " Perhaps at no
time, either before or since, has there been so much
aspiration, so much ardent longing for a future in
which God should reign more visibly and triumphantly
than ever in the past. In this attitude of intense ex-r
pectation culminated the preparation in history for the
coming of Christ; it was in the midst of it that He
came, and to it that He appealed."

Ill
THE BIRTH OF JESUS
THE story of the birth of Jesus, as the Christian
church for centuries has told it, is as follows : —
In the days of Herod the Great there lived in Naza
reth two descendants of David, a maiden named Mary
and the man to whom she was betrothed, Joseph. Be
fore their marriage the angel Gabriel appeared to
Mary, and announced that she would be the mother
of a divine child, the Messiah, and that her aged kins
woman, Elizabeth, was soon to bear a son. Thereupon
Mary made a journey to the home of Elizabeth in
Judea, and abode with her about three months, the
two women rejoicing together over the favor of God
vouchsafed to them. After her return, and when it
was evident that she was to become a mother, Joseph
planned to break the betrothal ties ; but being assured
in a dream that Mary was pure and the child divine,
he married her.
The requirement that a census list be made of all
citizens, each in his own city, caused Joseph and Mary
to make a journey to Bethlehem. The village khan was
filled with strangers ; so they lodged in a place, — tradi
tion says a cave, — where cattle were kept, and there
the child was born and cradled in a manger. The same
night certain shepherds sought them out, with the won
derful news that while watching their flocks in the
fields they had been told by an angel that the new-born
44

THE BIRTH OF JESUS 45
Messiah was lying in a manger at Bethlehem, and they
had heard a great chorus of angels celebrating His
birth. Moved by all this, Joseph, instead of returning
to Nazareth, decided to rear his child in the town of his
ancestor, and secured a house as a home. On the
eighth day, according to the regular Jewish custom,
the child was circumcised and named Jesus, — the Greek
form of the Hebrew Joshua, which means " Jehovah
is salvation." At the end of forty days the parents
with Jesus went up to Jerusalem that Mary might
make the humble offering of two doves for her purifica
tion from child-birth, and that they might also pay the
five shekels which were given the Lord in redemption
of a firstborn son. While in the temple Simeon and
Anna, two aged persons of devout spirit, greeted the
child and bore testimony to His Messiahship. Later on
magi from the East arrived in Jerusalem, who told
Herod they had seen a star heralding the birth of a
king of the Jews, and wished to know where He was
that they might worship Him. Herod sent them to
Bethlehem because prophecy declared the Messiah
would be born in the city of David ; and he asked them
to report, if they found the child, that he, too, might
worship Him. Guided by the star the Magi came to the
house of Joseph, where they worshipped the child, and
gave gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh; then,
warned by a dream not to return to Herod because he
sought to destroy Him, they went by another way to
their own country. In rage Herod ordered that all
male children under two years of age in Bethlehem
and its vicinity be put to death; but Joseph was in
formed of this by another dream, and fled into Egypt
with the mother and her child. There he remained
until Herod's death, when the command came through

46 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
a dream to return to Palestine. He obeyed, intending
to resume his life in Bethlehem; but fearing Herod's
son, Archelaus, and guided by a dream, he went to
Nazareth and dwelt there.
i. Discrepancies between the two Narratives.
This story is formed by dove-tailing together the
accounts in Matthew and Luke. The two have little
in common, — only the facts that Mary was betrothed
to Joseph, that before their marriage she divinely con
ceived a child whose name was to be Jesus, and that the
child was born in Bethlehem and reared in Nazareth.
Evidently the two evangelists drew their information
from wholly distinct sources ; but what these were we
cannot tell. The sudden change in Luke's style when
he passes from his preface to the story would indi
cate that his source was an Aramaic document, per
haps one of the narratives to which he refers in his
preface; and Sanday thinks these opening chapters
" essentially the most archaic thing in the New Testa
ment." Some hold that Matthew's source, also, was a
written one. The story in Matthew is told from
Joseph's standpoint, — absolutely nothing is said of
Mary's thoughts or emotions or independent acts; the
story in Luke is just the reverse, — Mary is the central
figure, and her inner life is delicately and touchingly
disclosed. This leads to the conjecture that in some
way Matthew's story came from Joseph, and Luke's
story from Mary : but how, remains unexplained.
It is often said that the two narratives do not agree ;
yet, with one exception, all the alleged discrepancies
arise, not from what is stated, but from what might
be inferred, if one account stood alone. For example,
if we had only Matthew, we might suppose Joseph to

THE BIRTH OF JESUS 47
have been a householder in Bethlehem, who never
thought of living in Nazareth until after the return
from Egypt; while from Luke alone we should con
clude that the visit to Bethlehem was as brief as pos
sible, and the temple visit was made on the homeward
journey to Nazareth. As a matter of fact, when the
two accounts are taken together, they not only form
an harmonious narrative but throw light each upon
the other. Joseph's attitude towards Mary, as revealed
in Luke, is explained by what is told in Matthew ; and
the choice of Nazareth for a home when Bethlehem is
unsafe, though told in Matthew, becomes intelligible
through Luke. Such mutual corroboration by two in
dependent narratives is a proof of their common truth
fulness. The genealogical tables, however, present a real
difficulty : Why is it that the one in Matthew differs so
greatly from the one in Luke ? From very early times
various explanations have been proposed, e.g., that
one table gives Joseph's natural descent from David,
while the other gives his legal descent through a levi-
rate marriage (i.e., the Jewish custom of taking the
widow of a childless brother, and reckoning her first
son to be the brother's child) ; again, that one table
gives Joseph's natural descent, and the other the line
through which the title to David's throne came to him ;
again, that one table gives the ancestry of Joseph, the
other that of Mary. The modern inclination is to make
no attempt to reconcile the two, but simply to accept
them as two different accounts of Joseph's lineage,
which the evangelists found and incorporated in their
two narratives.

48 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
2. Credibility of the Story.
Granting that the accounts in Matthew and Luke can
be framed into a consistent narrative, there are still
many difficulties in accepting the narrative as trust
worthy. A recognition of the deity of Jesus, however,
removes one frequent objection, viz. : that a virgin
birth is a miracle and therefore incredible. The law of
human birth necessitates a human father, and if Jesus
was only a man, His birth would be a miracle : but we
know nothing about the law of the birth of a Godman;
and if it is evident from His character, life, teachings
and influence that Jesus was divine, then His entrance
into the world may be just as natural, so to speak, as
the rest of His earthly career. For this reason the
term " the miraculous conception," though often used,
is objectionable ; it is better to avoid it and use instead
the simply descriptive term, " the virgin birth."
The fact that nowhere else except in the opening
chapters of Matthew and Luke is the virgin birth even
alluded to, is puzzling. We can understand why Mark
begins his gospel with the preaching of John the Bap
tist and the baptism of Jesus : he was reproducing the
story Peter used to tell for evangelistic purposes ; and
the virgin birth is not a theme for the opening message
of a missionary. So, too, John's silence may be ex
plained by the fact that his gospel was largely sup
plementary, and there was no need to tell the story
again. Indeed, his silence may be used as an argument
for the truth of the story; since, had he believed it
untrue, he would have taken pains to deny it, even as he
did deny the erroneous report that Jesus had said John
would not die before the Second Coming. But why
are the epistles wholly silent, even in passages where

THE BIRTH OF JESUS 49
a reference to the virgin birth would seem most natu
ral and helpful ? The only answer is that the story was
not generally told, and was guarded as a precious mys
tery by those who knew it. We shall presently note
some reasons why it could not be proclaimed to
churches made up of recent converts from heathen
beliefs. The attitude of Mary and the brothers of Jesus in
later years seems inconsistent with a knowledge that He
was the Son of God. This is best discussed in connec
tion with their part in His public ministry; we shall
consider it presently.
Probably to most minds the crowning difficulty in
accepting the story is its strong resemblance to the
legends which in those days gathered around the birth
of almost all famous characters. The divine father
hood, the prophecies of future greatness, the heavenly
visitants, the star, the perils threatening the young
child's life, — each of these is paralleled somewhere in
the stories of the Buddha and other religious teachers,
or of Alexander and Caesar and other conquerors
and kings. If we reject them contemptuously when
recorded by heathen writers, why should we accept
them when told by the evangelists?
The story of the birth of Buddha, which is the one
most similar to that of Jesus, may be explained as
growing out of the contact of Buddhism with Chris
tianity. It is found only in later Buddhist books, and
is not at all in harmony with the early form of
Buddhist teachings in which the supernatural is strictly
excluded. And as regards other stories we may prop
erly protest against the method of wandering through
all heathen mythology, and gathering at haphazard
every item that bears a superficial resemblance to the

50 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Christian belief, in proof that the two are identical
and equally worthless.
Heathen parallels are of little value unless we can
show how Christian thought came to reproduce them;
and this is not an easy task. The theory that the birth-
story was borrowed from the heathen is confronted
with the fact that heathen life and thought were most
repulsive to the early Christians, who sought in every
way to avoid them. One probable reason why those
who knew about the birth of Jesus refrained from tell
ing it publicly was the fear that it might be under
stood as a parallel to heathen stories. The theory that
the story was not borrowed but arose in Christian cir
cles from the same tendencies that produced the heathen
stories fails to recognize how totally the Christian
thought of God and His relation to the world differed
from heathen thought. On the one hand the Greek
and Roman deities were simply glorified men, human in
form and life and passions; so that it was easy to
imagine their coming to earth and becoming the
fathers of superhuman beings ; but the God of Jewish
and early Christian thought was purely spiritual, holy
and distinct from man ; and the description in Luke of
how Mary became a mother through the power of the
Most High and the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit,
in no respect resembles the Greek and Roman birth-
stories of demigods. On the other hand, Oriental
thought was pantheistic; gods and men alike were
manifestations of one eternal force, and there was no
distinction between the natural and the supernatural;
so an incarnation presented no difficulties and signified
nothing : but the Christian thought of God, though not
as strongly transcendent as the Jewish, emphasized His
separateness from the world. He was the creator of

THE BIRTH OF JESUS 51
heaven and earth ; and that He could become incarnate
was a fact most difficult to grasp. The early Chris
tians strongly believed in the deity of Christ ; but how
the union of God and man in Him was possible, they
did not attempt to explain. Certainly the story of a
virgin birth was not one that would naturally suggest
itself as they pondered on the problem.
Nevertheless, when all this has been said, the fact
remains that certain of the incidents that are grouped
around the birth, such as the chorus of angels heard
by the shepherds, and the star that guided the magi
to the cradle, seem to belong to a realm far different
from that of the rest of the gospel story, — a realm
of marvels rather than miracles, of fancy rather than
fact. For the most part the life of Jesus is not such
as human imagination would frame. A teacher sent
from heaven who in boyhood sat at the feet of earthly
teachers, a sinless being who had to struggle against
temptation, a miracle worker who never used His power
in satisfying His own wants, a king of all men who
made Himself servant of all, a lord of life who gave
Himself to death, — this runs so contrary to the
thoughts of men that to call it the product of imagina
tion is absurd. But some of the incidents of the birth-
story are such as fancy in those days might add. And
it would do this, not from a love of the marvellous, —
though that was strong, — but from a desire to em
phasize the truth that the incarnation was the most
wondrous event in history, and that heaven as well as
earth was stirred by deepest interest in it.
3. The Importance of the Virgin Birth.
Fortunately belief in the divinity of Jesus does not
hinge upon the truth of incidents in the story, nor

52 THE LIFE OF CHRIST,
even upon the fact of the virgin birth. The omission of
the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke would
make little difference in the New Testament picture
of Christ. If our knowledge of His life began with
John's baptism, we should be in the position of most
of the early Christians. Nor, if we accept the virgin
birth, do we gain any more light upon the way in which
the human and the divine were united in Jesus. We
are able to affirm that the union existed from the very
inception of His earthly existence, instead of beginning
at some later period, say at His baptism ; but the mys
tery of the incarnation remains as great as before.
Conversely, belief in the virgin birth does hinge upon
the divinity of Jesus. Unless we are fully persuaded
that He was the one sent by the Father as the Sa
viour of the world, the Desire of all nations and the
Lord of all realms, the story in Matthew and Luke
is preposterous. But if His entrance into the world is
the coming of God in the flesh, and His mission is the
wonderful revelation of the love of God to sinful men,
then we find it fully as hard to believe that this great
est event in the world's history was marked by nothing
that transcends the level of ordinary human experi
ence as to believe the gospel record. Indeed, the
proper place for a consideration of the story of His
birth is not at the beginning of a study of the life of
Jesus, but at the close. After we have traced His
self-revelation from the baptism to the ascension, and
have found an answer to His question, " Who say ye
that I am ? ", then, and not till then, are we really pre
pared to pass judgment upon the record of how He
entered into the world.

THE BIRTH OF JESUS 53
4. The Date of the Birth of Jesus.
It was a happy idea of Dionysius Exiguus, a learned
Roman monk who died in 556 a.d., to use the year of
the birth of Jesus as the era from which to reckon time ;
and, though the Christian world was slow to adopt it,
by the tenth century, — largely through the aid of Bede
and Charlemagne, — it was in general use. But his
computation that the year of the birth was 754 *v.u.c.
was unfortunate; for, although now we know better,
there is no possibility of changing the date; and we
shall always have the seeming anachronism that Jesus
was born somewhere in the period we call b.c
The exact date of His birth cannot be fixed. Herod
the Great died in March or April 750 a.u.c which
would be in 4 b.c ; and, if we accept Matthew's ac
count, the birth was before this event ; but there is noth
ing in the account to fix it more exactly, except that the
child was still "young" when Joseph in Egypt was
told that Herod had died. Astronomical calculations
of some conjunction of planets which might seem to
the magi like a new star are idle, because a star that
acts as a guide and stands above the house where
the child is to be found is evidently a supernatural
phenomenon. It would seem that the time could be definitely ascer
tained from Luke's account of the census ; but no other
writer mentions this census, and the difficulties in ac
cepting Luke's statement are used against the truth of
his whole narrative. There was a census taken by
Quirinius in 7 a.d. or a little earlier, soon after Arche
laus was deposed, when Judea was annexed to Syria
with a Roman procurator in charge of the province.
Luke knew about the census of 7 a.d. (see Acts 5 : 37) ;

54 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
and he seems to be carefully distinguishing this one
from it by his statement, " This was the first enroll
ment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria."
But apart from this statement by Luke we know noth
ing of an earlier census in Judea, though we have
recently found evidence that the Roman government
was accustomed to take a census of the provinces at
regular intervals for the purpose of determining taxa
tion. (In Egypt the interval was fourteen years; and
one rescript commands all persons residing away from
their homes to return so as to be ready for the census. )
There is some evidence also that Quirinius was in
Syria, perhaps as governor, for a little while shortly
after Herod's death; but his connection with a census
of Judea during Herod's reign is not easily explained.
Possibly more data may be discovered and solve the
problem ; but until such discovery we can only say that
in all points where there is full chance to test him
(e.g., in the Book of Acts), Luke proves to be a very
accurate historian; and this encourages us to believe
that if we knew the facts more fully, we should find
him accurate here. At present, however, the census
can be of no aid in fixing the date of Jesus' birth.
There are other notes of time in the gospels that
seem to promise help, but disappoint us when we test
them. Luke 3:1-2 is an elaborate attempt to state
definitely the year when John the Baptist began to
preach ; yet the only useable fact in it is that the date
was " the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius
Caesar." And here we cannot tell whether to reckon
from the time when Tiberius became co-ruler with
Augustus, n or 12 a.d., or from the death of Augus
tus in August, 14 a.d., when Tiberius became sole ruler.
The former best fits in with our other data. Luke goes

THE BIRTH OF JESUS 55
on to tell us (3:23) that Jesus "when He began to
teach was about thirty years of age." But we do not
know how long John had been preaching when he bap
tized Jesus, nor just what age is meant by " about
thirty years." It seems probable that John began
preaching in the summer of a.d. 26, and that he bap
tized Jesus about six months later (John was about
six months older than Jesus) . If Jesus was then about
thirty years of age, His birth may have been in 5 B.C.
John 2 : 20 gives another note of time. At the first
Passover of Jesus' ministry, the temple had been forty-
six years in building, i.e., in reaching its then stage of
completion, — it was not entirely finished until 64 a.d.
We know that Herod probably began building the tem
ple in the autumn or winter of 20-19 B-c- From the
autumn of 20 b.c to the Passover of 27 a.d. would be
forty-five and a half years. But we are not certain
whether John's statement means that the temple was
then in its forty-sixth year of building, or had com
pleted that year ; or indeed, whether the work was not
then suspended, and the forty-six years refer to some
earlier period. So this date does not help us greatly.
From all this data, therefore, we can draw no cer
tain conclusion ; but we shall not be far out of the way
if we take 5 b.c as the year of the birth, and also
reckon that the public ministry began in the spring of
27 A.D.
As regards the day of the birth, there is no recog
nition of it until the end of the second century, when
at the feast of Epiphany, — usually held on January
6th, — the church celebrated both the birth and the
baptism and also (in the West) various other events,
including the adoration by the magi. A separate cele
bration of the birth on December 25th was not begun

56 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
until the fourth century. Probably that date was
chosen to counteract the heathen festival of the winter
solstice. It was fitting that when their heathen neigh
bors were making merry over the turning back of the
sun from its journey down the southern horizon, the
Christians should hold a day of rejoicing over the com
ing of the Sun of Righteousness. There is nothing in
the gospel story to make the date impossible ; for sheep
sometimes are out at pasture in the fields around Beth
lehem even as late as December. But if the time for
taking the census was fixed with any regard for the
convenience of the people, a far better date would be
October, when there comes a leisure interval after the
fruit harvest is ended, and when the winter rains have
not yet begun to make travel difficult. All we can say,
then, about Christmas is that it was given its present
place in the calendar long after the exact day of Jesus'
birth had been forgotten.

IV
THE YEARS AT NAZARETH
T> ETWEEN the birth in Bethlehem and the baptism
*-* in the Jordan lie thirty important years. We
call them the years at Nazareth, ignoring the possibility
that some may have been spent in journey ings or in
labors elsewhere. Save for one brief incident they are
hidden years; and though imagination loves to dwell
upon them, it has produced nothing that can bear the
test of being placed alongside that one incident. Ac
cordingly this chapter in the life of Jesus can be
scarcely more than a statement of what would be the
usual education and employment of a Jewish boy of
the period as he grew up into manhood amid Galilean
environment. I. The Village of Nazareth.
The village of Nazareth lies on the northwestern
slope of a small, irregular amphitheatre of hills, a few
miles north of the great plain of Esdraelon. From its
streets little can be seen except the valley and hillsides ;
but from any of the hilltops, especially from that di
rectly behind the village, the view is one of the finest
in Palestine, and has often been described. The popu
lation today is somewhat over 10,000; in the first cen
tury it probably was smaller, as there is no mention of
Nazareth either in Josephus or in the Old Testament ;
yet the gospels always call it a city, which would imply
57

58 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
considerable size. Few villages are more secluded and
yet more close to the full rush of the world's activities.
The plain of Esdraelon has ever been one of the great
highways of the world, along which the caravans of
commerce and the armies of contending nations have
passed, from the time of the Hittites and pharaohs to
the present day. Probably more battles have been
fought upon it than upon any other battle-field in the
world, the latest being the battle between Napoleon and
the Turks in 1799. Yet neither the rush of trade nor
the din of war would disturb the town nestled among
the hills close by.
Nathanael's question, " Can any good come out of
Nazareth? " (John 1 : 46), and the treatment of Jesus
by His townsmen (Luke 4: 16-30), have given rise to
the opinion that Nazareth in the first century was a
notoriously wicked town. If this were the case, it
seems incredible that Joseph would deliberately choose
the place for his own home and for the rearing of the
child. And there is no ground for such ill opinion. Na-
thanael was simply expressing surprise or incredulity
that the Messiah came from Galilee (cf. John 7:41,
52) ; and the excitement and indignation with which
the men of Nazareth met Jesus' claims is rather to their
credit, if they deemed Him an impostor and blas
phemer. There is some reason for believing that
Nazareth was a priest-town, i.e., that here the priests
living in that vicinity used to assemble to go up to
Jerusalem together for their week of service, while
those who were unable to go, because of infirmity or
ceremonial uncleanness, spent the week here in fasting
and prayer. If this was so, the town would be con
sidered one of the more sacred places, and the influ
ence of these priests would be felt by all its inhabitants.

THE YEARS AT NAZARETH 59
Nazareth was better located than Bethlehem for the
training of the child Jesus. It was in the freer atmos
phere of Galilee where the synagogue rather than the
temple dominated life, and where there was more of
quickening contact with the thought and work of the
Gentile world. The town was secluded and yet close
to the great current of active life, — a nursery separated
only by a curtain from the living-room of the home.
2. The Home in Nazareth.
Joseph was a "carpenter" (Matt. 13:55), and
Jesus Himself followed the same occupation (Mark
6:3). The Greek word translated carpenter means lit
erally an artisan, a worker in wood or leather or metal.
Justin Martyr says Jesus made yokes and plows, both
of which in Palestine are of wood. That Joseph was
a poor man is doubtless true, since Mary in her purifi
cation offered for the burnt offering a dove (Luke
2:24), which the poor were allowed to substitute for
a lamb (Lev. 12 : 8). But there is no reason to suppose
that he was depressingly poor, or that there was much
difference between his condition and that of his neigh
bors. Life in a country town in Galilee would be with
out sharp contrasts in wealth or social rank. Moreover,
to emphasize the poverty of Jesus as a burden taken
upon Him for our sakes, is to fail to realize the depth
of the meaning in II Cor. 8:9, " Though he was rich,
yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his
poverty might become rich."
Life in Palestine was probably much the same in the
first century as it is today. The average home is a
stone building of one story with a flat roof, made of
rough beams covered with rushes or brush on which
is laid a coating of earth or mortar, which might easily

60 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
be broken up (Mark 2:4). It has but one or two
rooms; there is no chimney; and the window is simply
an opening with a wooden shutter. The furniture is
very simple, — a low table, a few rude chairs, some
mats which serve as beds by night and are rolled up
and put away by day, perhaps a bench or divan along
the wall, an olive-oil lamp in a niche, some jars to hold
water, grain or other stores, some dishes, jugs, water-
pots, and a brazier in which a little wood or charcoal
is burned for heat and cooking. The homes of the
wealthy are, of course, much more elaborate, generally
with an open court in the center and rooms opening
out of it, and with guest-rooms built on the flat roof
(Mark 14: 15).
Jewish home life was, as compared with that of
other nations, unusually pure and attractive. Though
polygamy was allowed, especially in the case of a
childless wife or deceased brother's widow, it was
unusual. Marriage took place early (rarely later than
at the age of twenty for the man) ; and betrothal was
as binding as marriage, i.e., to dissolve a betrothal re
quired a regular divorce proceeding, and unchastity in
this relation was the same as adultery. Divorce, how
ever, could be obtained for very petty causes. The
position of woman among the Jews was high; and the
relation of the wife to her husband, and of parents to
their children, was on a level with that of Christians in
later days. The home in Nazareth with Joseph and
Mary at its head must have been in many ways an ideal
one. In Matt. 13 : 55-56 we read of Jesus' brothers, four
in number, and of His sisters. What their exact rela
tion to Him was, is a matter of dispute. The Protes
tant Church, with many exceptions, holds that they

THE YEARS AT NAZARETH 61
were the children of both Joseph and Mary. Matt, i :
25 and Luke 2 : 7 naturally imply this ; and it seems
to have been the opinion of the early Church, — at least
there is nothing to disprove it. The Greek Church
says they were the children of Joseph by a former
marriage. This is a very old view found in the Prote-
vangelium of James, and it suits well the situation in
John 7 : 3-5. The Latin Church says they were the
children of the sister of Mary or of Joseph. The
Greek word for brothers and sisters might be used for
cousins, i.e., blood relations. This was the view set
forth by Jerome and St. Augustine. The question is
largely one of sentiment; and a decision is biased by
one's attitude towards celibacy and the worship of
Mary. Its practical bearings are on the associations of
the home at Nazareth, and also on the question whether
the apostle James, the son of Alphaeus, is the same as
James " the brother of the Lord," who was leader of
the church in Jerusalem and probably author of the
Epistle of James.
3. The Training of Jesus.
The boyhood of Jesus was a normal one with definite
stages of growth. Luke emphasizes this (2 : 40, 52) ;
and he uses appropriate terms to mark different
stages, — babe (2 : 16), child (2 : 21-40), the boy Jesus
(2:41-3), and Jesus (2:52). He was not a mon
strous and unnatural being, such as the Apocryphal
Gospels portray. He was the ideal child and youth,
advancing in "wisdom and stature [or age], and in
favor with God and men " ; and His training was that
of a Jewish lad.
Josephus says of his nation, " Our chief ambition
is to educate our children well " ; and unquestionably

62 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
" in the true meaning of the word education, the
Hebrew nation was at that time the most highly edu
cated people in the world " (Ramsay). The education
began in the home at the earliest possible period.
Parents taught their little children the Shema and other
passages of the Old Testament, and instructed them in
the lessons of the home life. This was a duty expressly
enjoined in Deut. n : 19 and elsewhere.
The education of girls seems to have been confined
to home instruction with what they gathered at syna
gogue services and the like; for the rabbis did not
approve of advanced education for women. But for
the boys in every village was a school, usually held in
the synagogue and taught by the chazzan, — though
there is some question as to this last point. The teacher
was supported by the congregation, and was not al
lowed to take fees from his pupils, that there might be
no favoritism to the rich.
At the age of six or seven a boy began to attend
school, where he was taught to read and write, and
given some elementary instruction in arithmetic and
geography. The one textbook was the Hebrew Old
Testament, concerning which Josephus says, " We have
not (as the Gentiles) an innumerable number of books,
disagreeing from and contradicting one another; but
only twenty-two books which contain the records of all
the past times" (Contra Apion 1:8). The boy be
gan his study with Leviticus, passing thence to the
other books of the law, then to the prophets, and
finally to the remaining writings of the sacred collec
tion. Aramaic had taken the place of Hebrew as the
living language of the Jews, and must have been taught
in the schools. Greek was used in Palestine as the
international tongue; there was a Greek version of

THE YEARS AT NAZARETH 63
the Old Testament (the Septuagint), and many of the
popular apocalyptic books were in Greek. Though it
would not be taught in the synagogue, there is reason
to believe that Jesus, with His eager thirst for knowl
edge (Luke 2 : 46), learned to read and speak it. His
quotations from the Old Testament are mostly accord
ing to the Septuagint, — though this may have been the
form given them by the evangelists. He was familiar
with the ideas expressed in the apocalyptic books, and
Luke 1 1 : 49 seems to be a direct quotation from some
one of them. In His conversation with Pilate, unless
an interpreter was present, He probably used Greek.
That He ever read any Gentile books is unlikely; but
Gentile thought pervaded the atmosphere of Galilee,
and He could not keep from breathing it in. Latin,
also, had some currency in Palestine through the pres
ence of the Romans : but we can hardly suppose that
Jesus ever learned it. The inscription above the cross,
however, was in Latin as well as in Greek and Aramaic.
Though a complete set of the parchment rolls of the
Old Testament books would be far too expensive for a
poor man like Joseph, yet some of them may, through
inheritance or purchase, have been the chief treasure of
his home. The books from which Jesus quotes most
frequently in later years are Deuteronomy, Psalms and
Isaiah; and His familiarity with them may justify the
inference that they were the scriptures owned by the
family; still, the fact that their teachings are most
closely in harmony with His own thought would be
sufficient explanation of His frequent reference to
them. Unquestionably the whole of the Old Testament
was familiar to Him ; and we can hardly over-estimate
the value and influence of its study.

64 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
4. The Visit to the Temple.
The Apocryphal Gospels are full of grotesque or
revolting stories of Jesus' boyhood. Luke's silence and
also the high character of the one story he does tell
(2:41-50) are strong proofs of the accuracy of his
account. This story is of the greatest interest to us
because it is the only glimpse of the mind of Jesus
before His public ministry; and it throws some light
upon the problem, To what extent did He realize in
His years at Nazareth that He was the Son of God?
or, to state it in another form, How fully developed
was His Messianic consciousness?
At about the age of thirteen (i.e., at puberty), a
boy became a son of the law ; in other words, the re
sponsibility for keeping the law was then transferred
from his father to himself. Naturally, it was, — and
among pious Jews still is, — a time of deep religious
experience, dominated by a recognition of personal
relationship and accountability to God. At this stage
of His life Jesus went with His parents, probably for
the first time, to Jerusalem for the feast of the Pass
over. The feast lasted seven days; but the first two
were the most important, and many pilgrims left on the
third day. And as it was only during feast-days that
members of the Sanhedrin taught in the outer court of
the temple, Mary and Joseph with their companions
but without Jesus must have started homeward on the
third day ; for three days later, — a day out, a day back
and a day of search, — they found Him in the midst of
these teachers, both hearing them and asking them
questions. Their astonishment at finding Him there and thus
occupied was natural; no other boy of twelve would

THE YEARS AT NAZARETH 65
have preferred the society of these grave rabbis to all
the novel sights and excitements of the great city. His
choice reveals a deep thirst for instruction in the Scrip
tures, — for answers to questions too hard for the syna
gogue teachers at Nazareth but professedly within the
power of these great doctors at Jerusalem. Did He
now have His first revealing experience of the barren
ness of the rabbinical teachings? And on the other
hand there is a note of surprise in His own reply to
His parents, " How is it that ye sought me ? Knew ye
not that I must be in my Father's house ? " With
childlike simplicity He had taken for granted that they
would not think of looking for Him in any other place,
because they would agree with Him that it was His
duty to tarry there until they gave the signal to begin
the homeward journey. It shows confident expectation
that they would sympathize with His deepest religious
aspirations ; and thus it throws light on the close com
panionship of the Nazareth family.
That the rabbis should pay attention to the boy is
not surprising. They liked to get the impression made
upon a bright child's mind by problems of the law.
Josephus says, " When I was a child and about four
teen years of age, I was commended to all by the love
I had for learning; on which account the highpriests
and principal men of the city came then frequently to
me together, in order to know my opinion about the
accurate understanding of points of the Law,"
(Life, 2). The amazement of those who listened to
Jesus was aroused, not by His display of supernatural
wisdom (such as the Apocryphal Gospels attribute to
the child) , but by His quick intelligence, His originality
and independence, and the profound spiritual life re
vealed in His questions and answers. The soul of the

66 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
boy was stirred to its depths by His new responsibility
as son of the law, by this first visit to the city of David
and the magnificent temple, by all the incidents of the
feast, and by intercourse with the revered teachers of
Israel. That which had been latent at Nazareth was
now brought to light.
In the first recorded words of Jesus, the most signifi
cant thing is His use of " my Father " as the name for
God. What did the boy mean by it ? To suppose that
He had in mind the unique relationship set forth in the
doctrine of the Trinity, is contrary to the conclusion
that His boyhood was the ideal human boyhood. While
we may fully believe in His divinity, such clear con
sciousness of it in childhood would make impossible
His normal development from infancy to manhood.
In later days Jesus taught His disciples to use " Fa
ther " as the name which best expresses God's relation
ship and loving attitude to man. This fatherhood of
God is sometimes claimed to be a special Christian
doctrine ; but it is found in the Old Testament, though
only a few in the days of Jesus seem to have discov
ered it. He certainly would be one of those few ; and
we may suppose that when now He spoke of " my
Father," He meant exactly what He wishes us to mean
when He tells us to say " our Father." Such a mean
ing has become so familiar to us that we expect even a
child to grasp it; but in the time of Jesus, the wisest
rabbis at Jerusalem taught that God dwells far apart
from man, that He is to be feared rather than loved,
and that His most significant name is one too holy to
be uttered. We can well understand why they were
filled with amazement at the little lad who sat in their
circles, and in the simplest, sincerest way spoke of God
as His Father. Did they realize how those words con-

THE YEARS AT NAZARETH 67
tradicted all their cherished ideas about the trans
cendent deity, and also how they revealed the most
intimate divine life in Him who used them thus natu
rally? 5. The Years of Obscure Toil.
For most boys, school life ended when they were
twelve or fourteen. Only a favored few passed from
the synagogue schools to the higher schools taught by
the rabbis, mainly in Jerusalem. These higher schools
were designed for future teachers of the law. Paul
attended one (Acts 22 : 3) ; but Jesus never did. John
7: 15, "How knoweth this man letters, having never
learned?" indicates the surprise of His hearers that
Jesus, without having been trained in a school of the
rabbis, could assume the position of a teacher.
It would seem that Joseph died in the early manhood
of Jesus, since we hear nothing more about him, and
the tradition is that he was much older than Mary. If
so, the burden of the support of the mother and also
of the younger children, — if we accept the usual Protes
tant view of His " brothers and sisters," — must have
fallen largely upon Jesus, forcing Him to fill His days
with constant labor as " the carpenter." There is
every reason to believe that He prospered in His trade,
reaping the fruits which come to ability, industry and
integrity; and possibly His brothers and other work
men may have been in His employ. " The skill with
which He trained and sent forth His disciples indicates
that He was accustomed to directing men; and sev
eral of the parables, e.g., that of the talents, or of the
equally paid laborers, or of the two sons who were
asked to work for their father, represent the point of
view of the employer rather than that of the em-

68 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
ployed" (Kent). Nazareth was a small place; but
Capernaum, which was only twenty miles away, offered
more opportunities for artisans; and there are indi
cations that at the time of the public ministry the
brothers of Jesus were no longer living in Nazareth,
and that Capernaum was a second home of the family
(Mark 6:3, 2:1; Matt. 4 : 13). Some business ven
ture may have caused the brothers to remove to Caper
naum ; and if so, they would do it with the counsel and
co-operation of Jesus.
One thing is certain, — Jesus, living in Galilee, was
in the broad current of the world's thought and action,
and could not escape intimate acquaintance with it.
Those who picture Him as a gentle dreamer, shut
away from all knowledge of the stress and struggle of
business and politics, unable to appreciate the tempta
tions or the opportunities of active life, deliberately
ignore His actual environment. Galilee was one of
the centers of the Roman world, the crossing-place
of many famous highways, " along which caravans
passed, and legions marched, and princes swept with
their retinues, and all sorts of travellers from all coun
tries went to and fro." It was a land filled with
cities, and teeming with people. It bordered upon lands,
like Phoenicia and the Decapolis, that were famous
for trade and rich in Greek civilization; and it was
permeated with their influence. As George Adam
Smith points out, " all the rumor of the empire entered
Palestine close to Nazareth — the news from Rome,
about the emperor's health, about the changing influ
ence of the great statesmen, about the prospects at
court of Herod or of the Jews, about Caesar's last
order concerning the tribute, or whether the policy
of the procurator would be sustained. Many Galilean

THE YEARS AT NAZARETH 69
families must have had relatives in Rome ; Jews would
come back to this countryside to tell of the life of the
world's capital. Moreover, the scandals of the Herods
buzzed up and down these roads ; pedlars carried them,
and the peripatetic rabbis would moralize upon them.
The customs, too, of the neighboring Gentiles, — their
loose living, their sensuous worship, their absorption
in business, the hopelessness of the inscriptions on their
tombs, multitudes of which were readable (as some are
still) on the roads round Galilee, — all this would fur
nish endless talk in Nazareth, both among men and
boys." Jesus in such an environment was in constant
contact with the great world and its problems; and
whatever we may say concerning the attitude He took
toward the affairs of life, we certainly cannot say
that He took it because of ignorance.
One of the most remarkable and significant facts
in the life of Jesus is His sinlessness. The challenge
put by Him to the rulers of Jerusalem, " Which of
you convicteth me of sin?" (John 8:46), has been
taken up by certain men of recent times, and they have
tried to find in the words and deeds of His public
ministry some flaw or lapse or least defect that would
stain the perfect purity of His character ; but the ver
dict of the world is that this search has been in vain,
and that Jesus remains, indeed, "the Crystal Christ."
Though we have no record of His years in Nazareth,
we are confident that the same sinlessness was dis
played in them ; for, in His self-revelation to His dis
ciples and the world, there is no slightest mark of
penitence for an imperfect past, and no trace of the
strain and anguish by which men " rise on stepping-
stones of their dead selves to higher things." The
standard of obedience to the Father which He set for

70 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
us is so high that it arouses in the best of men a sense
of failure and self-condemnation; yet He said, with
evident sincerity and knowledge, " I do always the
things that are pleasing to Him " (John 8 : 29). Such
perfect obedience is for Him no acquired habit but
the very instinct of His being, manifesting itself in
every portion of His life from the very first.
In the Apocryphal Gospels and in the later writings
attempts have been made to picture the life of Jesus
in His home-town ; but it is a task beyond the highest
imagination, and we turn with relief from such im
perfect imaginings to the simple statement of Luke,
"The grace of God was upon him" (2:40). That
His life was one in favor with men as well as with God
(Luke 2: 52), we can readily believe. The slowness
of His brothers in later years to accept Him as Mes
siah is no proof that His earlier days had not won their
admiration and love; it only shows that the Jewish
idea of what the Messiah would be and do had been
impressed upon them until they could not easily set it
aside. The later life of James, the brother of Jesus,
and the Epistle of James, if that is by him, throw
an interesting light upon the training received in the
home at Nazareth. We would conclude that it was
strongly Jewish and somewhat austere; and in it we
seem to see the influence of Mary more than of her
Son. We are told by Luke that when Jesus visited Naza
reth during His public ministry, " he entered, as his
custom was, into the synagogue on the Sabbath day,
and stood up to read" (4: 16). What is meant by
the statement, " as his custom was " ? Certainly not
merely attendance at the synagogue service ; this would
not be worth mentioning, since it was the custom of

THE YEARS AT NAZARETH 71
every devout Jew to go to the synagogue on the Sab
bath. It may refer to His practice of preaching in
the synagogue during this particular period of His
ministry (compare 4:15); or it may mean that in
earlier days at Nazareth He was accustomed to read
the lesson and preach. In the latter case we have a
glimpse of the respect given Him by His townsfolk.
The ruler of the synagogue often invited the young
carpenter to be the reader and speaker in the service.
We can well understand why he did so.
The possible development of the Messianic con
sciousness during this period of obscure toil in Naza
reth is best discussed in connection with the baptism
of Jesus by John.

JOHN THE BAPTIST
THE Gospels give a graphic and fairly complete
account of John the Baptist. Had he lived in Old
Testament times he would stand out more distinctly,
and we might see clearly why it was that Jesus said
of him, " Among them that are born of women there
is none greater than John" (Luke 7:28). But he
remains to most minds a dim and unimportant figure
because the proximity and glory of Jesus have caused
him to fade out of sight like the day-star beside the
rising sun.
1. His Birth and Training.
Luke tells the story of his birth as an introduction to
the birth of Jesus. Briefly it is as follows : — Zacharias
is a priest of the course of Abijah who, with his wife
Elisabeth, herself of priestly descent, lives in a city of
the hill country of Judea. Their life in all things is
righteous and blameless, but is overshadowed by one
supreme sorrow, they have no child, and old age has
ended their hope of one. In the regular order of his
course, Zacharias goes up to Jerusalem to perform his
priestly duties ; and while there it is his lot one morn
ing to enter the holy place and burn incense upon the
altar at the hour of prayer. This is the highest office
a common priest can perform, and is given to him but
once in the course of his ministry. We can under-
72

JOHN THE BAPTIST 73
stand, therefore, why Zacharias is filled with deep
emotion as he stands by the altar; and why, as the
smoke of the incense ascends, typifying the prayers of
the people, there arises from his own heart the most
sacred petition of a devout Israelite, — that Jehovah
may remember His people by speedily sending the Mes
siah. In a vision the angel Gabriel appears to him,
and assures him that his prayer is heard, and also that
he is to have a son, whom he must name John, who
shall be the promised forerunner of the Messiah. As
a sign that the vision is not an illusion, and that the
promise shall be fulfilled, he is stricken deaf and dumb.
He remains in Jerusalem until the end of his week,
although unable to take part in the temple services
because of his physical infirmity, and then returns
home where the words of the angel find their fulfil
ment in the pregnancy of his wife. About six months
later Mary, by divine direction, comes to visit Elisa
beth, who is her kinswoman, and remains with her until
after the birth of the child. When the child is to be
circumcised and given a name, the friends propose
that he be called Zacharias after his father; but the
mother insists that the name be John, and the dumb
father writes out the same name upon a tablet. Im
mediately his lips are unsealed, and with thanksgiving
to God he proclaims his remarkable experience. And
all those that hear the story say in fear and astonish
ment, "What then shall this child be? "
Luke's account, like his account of the birth of
Jesus, must in some way have been derived from Mary,
who through her abode with Elisabeth would be fa
miliar with all these details. This explains its minute
ness up to and including the circumcision and naming
of the child, and its silence concerning later events.

74 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
The account, like that of Jesus' birth, bears on its face
the marks of being primitive. For example, the vari
ous hymns express Jewish Messianic ideas in the form
in which they were held by the most devout and
spiritually minded of that time. It would have been
difficult to compose them in later days when Messianic
ideas had been largely transformed by Christian
thought. The problems, therefore, of the trustworthi
ness of this story are practically the same as those of
the story of the birth of Jesus, and need not be con
sidered a second time.
All that we know concerning the boyhood of John
is given in a single verse, " The child grew and waxed
strong in spirit, and was in the deserts until the day of
his shewing unto Israel" (Luke 1:80). His aged
parents doubtless died when he was young, and his
early manhood was spent in the country regions of
Judea. We need not think of him as a hermit, or
as withdrawing from all current religious life and
thought, but simply as a man of the country, like the
prophet Amos who once lived in the same region and
whose message against popular sins was in spirit like
that of John. We are told (Mark i : 6) that, when he
came forward to begin his work of baptizing, he was
clothed with camel's hair and had a leathern girdle
about his loins, and his food was locusts and wild
honey. This is simply the dress and the food of a
countryman, and is repeated by the Bedouins of the
wilderness today. The other great prophet from the
desert, Elijah, whose work in many ways was repro
duced by John, was clothed in similar fashion (II
Kings i : 8), and doubtless lived upon similar food.
In the prediction of John's birth the angel said,
"He shall drink no wine nor strong drink" (Luke

JOHN THE BAPTIST 75
1:15), which means that he was to be under the
Nazarite's vow. This vow, which might be taken for
a definite period or, as in John's case, for life, in
volved three restrictions, — abstinence from intoxicants,
wearing the hair uncut, and avoidance of contact with
any corpse (Num. 6:1-8). Of course, these were but
the outward signs of an inward dedication to God's
service, and in the present instance showed that even
before his birth John was set apart to be " the prophet
of the Most High."
Was John taught by the Essenes ? There is no proof
of this though some, who claim that the ideas of Jesus
were gained from the Essenes through John, would
have us think so. It is true that there were settle
ments of Essenes down by the Dead Sea in this same
wilderness of Judea. But there is nothing to connect
John with them. " The rule of his life was isolation;
the principle of theirs was community" (Lightfoot).
John in his preaching emphasized spiritual unclean-
ness, while their idea of sin was largely ceremonial
impurity. And there is no hint that the Essenes were
expecting a Messiah, or were preparing themselves
for his reception. If John had any teacher during
these years in the wilderness it was the Book of Isaiah.
This is evident from the fact that most of his ideas
concerning what the Messiah is to be and do, and also
concerning his own mission as the forerunner of the
Messiah, are taken from Isaiah. And also we notice
that later on, when John is in doubt whether Jesus is
actually the Messiah or not, Jesus refers him to the
Messianic prophecies of Isaiah as now being fulfilled
(Matt. 11:2-8).

76 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
2. His Mission.
We do not know just when John began his work.
Luke dates it carefully (3 : 1-2) ; but none of the dates
is exact excepting the fifteenth year of Tiberius, in
reckoning which we probably should include his joint
reign with Augustus; as this began about 12 a.d. the
date would be 26 a.d. which coincides with the begin
ning of the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate. The sea
son, we may suppose, was autumn ; for then the multi
tudes could best come forth to listen to John. The
place was the lower valley of the Jordan, which was
included in the wilderness of Judea, — a region full of
associations with Elisha and Elijah. Here could be
found plenty of water for the baptism, and also soli
tude such as John craved in the intervals of his work.
Bethany (John 1:28), and Aenon (John 3:23),
where he was later, have been variously identified;
evidently he changed his location from time to time,
and was not always on the same side of the Jordan,
nor, indeed, always at the Jordan.
John's task, as he gathered it from a study of the
prophets and from his knowledge of present conditions,
was threefold: —
1). To proclaim the nearness of the kingdom of
God and the coming of the Messiah in judgment. His
idea of the kingdom differed from the popular one
chiefly in emphasis. What he emphasized in it was not
the sensuous and political but the spiritual, — the true
theocracy, the high moral law, the preparation of
heart. And because current life was lacking in the
spiritual, he also emphasized the purifying, judging
work of the Messiah. The still higher Christian idea
of the kingdom and the Messiah he did not have. Until

JOHN THE BAPTIST 77
his death he stood outside, — a herald but not a mem
ber of the kingdom.
2). To make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
Both John and the Pharisees agreed that when the
people were prepared, the Messiah would come. It
was a saying of the rabbis, " If Israel repent but for
a single day, the Messiah will come at once." But
while the Pharisees laid stress on ceremonial fitness,
John demanded also moral fitness ; hence his cry, " Re
pent, make ready." He enjoined no change of outward
forms, but a change of heart and life. And he did not
try to build up a sect of followers, though such a sect
did arise and survived his death; what he labored to
bring about was individual and national regeneration.
3 ) . To point out the Messiah when finally he should
appear. This part of his mission seems to have dawned
upon him after he had begun his work; and with it
came the conviction that by some visible sign he would
recognize the person who was God's Anointed (John
i:33)- What were the results? As to 1) he was highly
successful. Though the Pharisees refused to believe
it, the people generally held John to be a prophet ; and
a prophet had long been lacking. His preaching was
with power both because of its message and of its man
ner. The nation was stirred by his proclamation;
multitudes thronged to hear him; and even publicans
and Roman soldiers asked, " Teacher, what must we
do?" The enigmatical statement of Jesus, — "From
the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of
heaven suffereth violence and men of violence take it
by force" (Matt. 11: 12; cf. Luke 16: 16), may be
condemnatory of the unhealthy excitement aroused by
John, or else commendatory of the eagerness for Mes-

78 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
sianic blessings shown by his disciples. As to 2)
John failed. He could awaken no sense of sin in the
leaders of the people. They admitted that the common
herd might need repentance and purification, but denied
the need for themselves. Having Abraham as their
father, they felt that the coming of the Messiah would
be for them a blessing, and that only Gentiles need
dread it (Matt. 3 : 7-9). And in explanation of the
fierceness with which John denounced their professedly
pious lives, they said, " He has a demon " (Matt. 11 :
18). Among the common people the work of John,
though great, was superficial and transient; they re
joiced in his light " for a season " (John 5 : 45). As
to 3) he did point out Jesus ; but the announcement, as
we shall see, impressed only a few.
3. His Baptism.
From what source did John get the idea of a bap
tism? Certainly not from the Essenes or the Phari
sees ; for their baptisms were often repeated, and were
purely ceremonial. The protest of the delegation sent
from the Pharisees, " Why baptizeth thou, if thou art
not the Christ, neither Elijah nor the prophet?"
(John 1 : 25), shows that they recognized this baptism
to be a special one which only a great servant of God
could perform, — something entirely distinct from the
ordinary purifications. Also John's own title, the
baptizer, shows that his work was unique. Possibly he
gained the idea from the baptism (immersion) of the
children of Israel just before God entered into a spe
cial covenant relation with them (Ex. 19:10), or
from the baptism (sprinkling) when this covenant was
adopted by them (Ex. 24 : 8). (The former reference
speaks only of washing garments but the rabbis agreed

JOHN THE BAPTIST 79
that immersion of the body was included.) If so, his
purpose was to prepare the people for the coming of the
Messiah by emphasizing anew their covenant relation
with God. More probably it was the baptism (im
mersion) of proselytes when received into the Jewish
faith that gave him the idea. He would create a people
for the Messiah by treating all his countrymen as if, at
present, they were heathen, who must be baptized as
proselytes before they could be admitted to the fold of
the true Israel.
What, then, did the baptism of John signify? It
caused much discussion (Mark 11:30). Mark and
Luke call it " the baptism of repentance unto remis
sion of sins " ; and Mark and Matthew state that
the people confessed their sins at baptism. It cer
tainly was an outward expression of repentance and
turning from sin; nevertheless, this could not have
been its innermost idea, else Jesus would not have
sought it. John's work was " to make ready for the
Lord a people prepared " (Luke 1 : 17) ; and repent
ance with forgiveness of sins would be necessary in
such preparation. The outward washing with water
would symbolize the inward purifying ; but if the appli
cant were already purified, still the baptism would be
full of significance as the public act by which he was
enrolled among those who were willing and prepared
to accept the Messiah and belong to his kingdom.
While John distinguishes his baptism with " water "
from that of the Messiah with " the holy spirit and with
fire," we must not read into his words the Christian
idea of the Trinity and baptism. He was preaching
to his own nation ; and for them the holy spirit was a
reverent name for " God active in the human life."
Such activity had caused Israel's glory in the past;

80 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
and, though for the present it had ceased, the prophetic
promise was that it would revive with the Messianic
age and cause its blessings. The announcement, there
fore, that the one coming after him would baptize
with the holy spirit, " was the affirmation in another
form that the Messianic age was at hand" (Wood).
At the same time the literal meaning of the word
" spirit " was used by John in a figure setting forth
his conception of the work of the Messiah. The figure
is that of the threshing floor (Luke 3: 16-17). The
holy spirit is the divine wind, the breath of Jehovah, —
an instrument of judgment according to John's fa
vorite book (Is. 41:16, 24; 11:4), — by which the
chaff is winnowed from the grain, when the fire is'
to burn it up. John considered his work of purifying
the nation to be only a preliminary of the far more
searching work by the Messiah, who acting as Je
hovah's representative and with powers supplied by
Him would thoroughly cleanse Israel from its iniquities
(cf. Matt. 13: 41-43):
Concerning the form of John's baptism the statement
that John and Jesus went down into the Jordan elimi
nates aspersion (sprinkling) but still leaves the ques
tion open between immersion (dipping) and affusion
(pouring). His baptism was not Christian baptism,
for Paul rebaptized some who had received it (Acts
19: 1-5) ; evidently it could not be, for its significance
was different. So the form is of interest simply as
bearing upon the probable early form of Christian bap
tism; since it seems likely that the apostles, most of
whom had been trained in John's baptism, would adopt
the same form when they undertook the work of Chris
tian baptism after the death of Jesus.

JOHN THE BAPTIST 81
4. Jesus' Estimate of John.
John claimed nothing for himself. He was simply
the voice that called attention to the coming of the
Messiah, — "Vox praeterea nihil" (John 1:19-21).
No temptation to assume a higher position had power
over him (Luke 3 : 15-17). No attempt to make him
jealous of Jesus' greater success and popularity was
successful (John 3 : 26-30).
The estimate of John expressed by Jesus was far dif
ferent. He was not a reed swayed by popular opinion,
nor a man who sought his own selfish advantage ; he
was a prophet and much more, — the special forerunner
of the Messiah. In the old dispensation he was the
greatest of all, but less than the lesser in the kingdom
of heaven (Matt. 11:7-11). He initiated the great
and violent movement into the kingdom; and those
who have spiritual discernment may see that he was the
expected Elijah (12-14). His way, like that of his
predecessors, was " the way of righteousness," — the
way of legality, and so not the way of Jesus (Matt. 21 :
32). In spirit and in action he was unlike Jesus,
though just as unacceptable to his generation (Luke 7 :
31 f.). Yet there must have been some resemblance
between the two, for not only Herod but others thought
that Jesus was John redivivus (Matt. 14:2, 16:14).

VI
THE BAPTISM OF JESUS
WHEN distress is deepest and need is sorest, God
will send the Messiah to deliver His people, —
this was the current belief, accepted by John the
Baptist. But in popular thought the distress and need
were political, and the Messianic deliverance was from
the yoke of heathen oppressors; while in John's mind
the wretchedness was spiritual, caused by sin, and the
deliverance, which only one far greater than himself
could bring about, was a thorough purification of each
individual life. His certainty that the advent of the
Messiah was close at hand arose, therefore, from his
conviction that now the sins of the nation were so
great that this direct intervention of Jehovah by His
Anointed was absolutely necessary. And with sublime
confidence he proclaimed " The Kingdom of God is at
hand," and awaited, from he knew not what quarter,
the appearing of the King.
i. The Time and the Place.
How long John had been preaching and baptizing
before Jesus came to him, we are not told. The news
that a prophet had appeared proclaiming the near ad
vent of the Messiah would spread rapidly, and would
soon be carried to Galilee ; since one of the great high
ways from Jerusalem to the North ran near the Jordan.
People from the lake of Galilee joined the ranks of
82

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS 83
John's disciples, e.g., Andrew, Peter and Philip from
Bethsaida (John i : 44) ; and before long the stir of
John's message must have reached even the quiet vil
lage of Nazareth. That Jesus was with John some
brief time before He was baptized is probable, and is
confirmed by the statement of John 3 : 26, " He that
was with thee beyond the Jordan." He would wish to
study John's work, and learn its real nature before
endorsing it ; and His later references to John do show
an intimate knowledge of the man and his message.
But there is nothing to prove that Jesus was in any
true sense a disciple of John, or that He gained His
message from him. Renan, who reconstructs the life
of Jesus according to his own fancy, imagines that
Jesus had already gathered a few disciples and begun
preaching a simple gospel of the kingdom, when He
heard of John's work; and that with His disciples He
went to John, was mastered by his strong influence,
adopted baptism as a part of His own mission, and
became a laborer with John at the sacrifice of His
earlier, purer gospel. There is no evidence for this;
and David Smith properly pronounces it " the wildest
of vagaries, destitute alike of reason and of evidence."
If we must attempt to fix the exact time of the bap
tism, we may say that as John was five or six months
older than Jesus, he may have entered on his work
that much earlier; so, if John began in the autumn of
26 a.d., Jesus was baptized in January or February of
27 a.d. The place now pointed out as the scene of the
baptism is a ford of the Jordan nearly east of Jericho.
Like other traditional sites in the Holy Land, it was
selected in later days mainly for the convenience of
pilgrims, and without regard to historical accuracy.
This special ford could most easily be reached from

84 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Jerusalem, and would satisfy the desire of those who
wished both to see where the children of Israel crossed
the Jordan, and to bathe where Jesus was baptized.
We know that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan (Mark
1:9), probably in the lower part of the stream; but
the exact place cannot be known.
2. The Motive of Jesus.
A passage quoted from the Gospel of the He
brews, — apparently the most valuable of the lost gos
pels, — runs thus, " Behold, the Lord's mother and
brothers said to him, John the Baptist is baptizing for
remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him.
But he said to them, What sin have I done that I should
go and be baptized by him, unless, perhaps, what I
have now said is ignorance ? " Unfortunately the reply
to Jesus' question is not preserved, so we cannot know
how the writer solved the problem it presents. If
John's baptism meant simply purification from sin,
there was no reason why Jesus should undergo it. We
have, however, already seen that the central purpose
of John's work was to make ready a people prepared
for the Messiah and his kingdom ; and the baptism was
an outward expression of that preparation. Repent
ance with consequent forgiveness of sins was the pre
liminary qualification, but was not necessary in the
case of Jesus. By His sinlessness and His readiness
to fulfill all righteousness, He was prepared already;
and He could claim a place among the new Israel. His
only question concerning John's work would be, Is it of
God ? ; when by observation He was able to answer this
affirmatively, He would be eager to share in it by pre
senting Himself for baptism.
While Jesus and John were distant kinsmen, it is

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS 85
not likely they knew anything about each other. The
birth of Jesus with all its wonders and promise was a
sacred mystery to Mary (Luke 2: 19, 51) who prob
ably did not reveal it to her child; and doubtless the
same reserve surrounded John's birth. Moreover, the
death of John's parents, and his later life in the coun
try, made communication between the two families
unlikely. Though the statement of John, " I knew him
not " (John 1 : 33), cannot be taken to mean more than
that John before the baptism was ignorant of the Mes
sianic mission of Jesus, yet his other statement, " I
have need to be baptized of thee " (Matt. 3 : 14), does
not imply an earlier acquaintance, but may express
simply the impression that Jesus made upon John at
the time when He came asking for baptism. The hour
was at the close of some day's work, when the multi
tude had departed (Luke 3 : 21) and there was oppor
tunity for intimate conversation. John would demand
of any applicant for baptism that he confess and for
sake his sins. The answer of Jesus that He had noth
ing to confess or forsake would surprise John, and
seem to indicate that Jesus was lacking in spiritual
sensitiveness. But when further questioning and con
versation showed that here, indeed, was one whose life
was in perfect harmony with God's will, and whose
conscience, though most quick, gave only constant ap
proval, then John would be ready to confess with
humility, " I have need to be baptized of thee."
3. The Vision and the Voice.
The baptism was an hour of deepest spiritual experi
ence for both John and Jesus. On the one hand, the
Baptist felt that here was a uniquely spiritual person,
concerning whom he could not help asking, " May ^ot

86 THE LIFE OF CHRIST,
this be the expected Messiah?" On the other hand,
Jesus was passing through one of the crises of His
life, — a fact which Luke indicates by his statement that
Jesus, having been baptized, was praying (Luke 3:
21) ; for Luke mentions the prayers of Jesus only in
connection with such crises. It was at this hour that,
according to the most ancient account, " he saw the
heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descend
ing upon him; and a voice came out of the heavens,
Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased "
(Mark 1 : 10-11). Were the vision and the voice ob
jective, i.e., would an unsympathetic bystander have
seen and heard anything or not ? The question is not
important because, whatever the objective facts may
have been, it was the subjective that were influential —
not what reached the eye and ear of Jesus and John,
but what made an impress upon their souls. And if
we reject the objective reality, we do not thereby deny
all reality, nor make the event less truly divine. The
argument that the experience was subjective seems the
stronger, e.g., in Matthew the voice is addressed to
John, in Mark and Luke it is addressed to Jesus ; also,
Matthew says " the heavens were opened unto him,"
as if it were to him alone, — indeed, some old manu
scripts omit the words " unto him," because apparently
the copyist felt that they make the scene subjective.
The vision of Stephen (Acts 7:56) was certainly
wholly subjective ; the voice in John 12 : 28 has at least
a strong subjective element, — the different hearers be
ing able to grasp the message according to their state
of receptivity; and the vision and voice at the baptism
would seem to be of the same character.

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS 87
4. The Revelation of the Messiahship.
In the might of strong conviction John had been
proclaiming that the Messiah was at hand ; but where
and who he was John did not know. The study of his
favorite prophet had taught him that the Messiah
would be anointed with the Spirit of God (Is. 11:2,
42 : 1, 61:1); and he was looking for a person who
was evidently thus anointed (John 1 : 33). The vision
and the voice were the revelation to him that Jesus was
the Messiah. The divine anointing was evidenced by
the Spirit descending like a dove; and the words,
" This is my beloved Son," which were like an echo of
Ps. 2 : 7, made the meaning of the act clear. Hence
forth John's message was changed from the general
announcement that the Messiah was coming, to the still
more thrilling proclamation, " In the midst of you
standeth one whom ye know not, — he that cometh
after me " (John 1 : 26 f.).
Did this same experience reveal for the first time to
Jesus that He was the Messiah, or did it simply confirm
what He already knew ? This is a difficult question to
which there are three possible answers : —
1). Jesus knew all about His mission as Messiah
before He came to John.
If so, when did He begin to know it? If the divine
knowledge was always His, — even when a babe in the
cradle, — then in no real sense was He a man, entering
into human experiences; an omniscient child is not a
human child. Moreover, we are expressly told that in
His childhood " Jesus advanced in wisdom " (Luke
2 : 52). Nor can we mep<- this difficulty by saying that
Jesus as human knew no more than other human babes
or children, but as divine knew all things. That would

88 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
make Him two entirely distinct beings, thus destroying
the unity of His person. But if when a babe He had
no Messianic consciousness, at what date in His life
previous to the baptism did that consciousness arise?
The baptism was certainly the most suitable event for
awakening it ; and, as we shall see, the temptation im
mediately after the baptism is best explained, if we
suppose that now for the first time His Messianic mis
sion was set plainly before Him.
2). Jesus knew nothing about His mission as Mes
siah until the baptism.
Wendt holds that the call of Jesus was as unex
pected as that of Paul, — the only difference being that
Paul's previous life had been in an opposite direction
so that the call forced him to break entirely with the
past, while for Jesus the call revealed a goal towards
which unconsciously He was already moving. Such
ignorance is not inconsistent with the divinity of Jesus,
if we suppose that when the Son of God entered into
human life He voluntarily laid aside divine knowl
edge, — as He also laid aside divine power, — in order
that He might be fully one with us. But even with no
supernatural knowledge, it seems probable that Jesus
may have had, while still in Nazareth, at least a glimpse
of His future Messiahship. As a devout Jew He
would share in the popular longing for the coming of
the Messianic kingdom ; though His conception of that
kingdom would be far more spiritual than the popular
one. The Messiah of His thought would be, not neces
sarily a superhuman being and certainly not an am
bitious earthly king, but rather the suffering servant
of Jehovah, portrayed by Isaiah, whose mission was
to lead the people with the aid of the divine spirit
into all righteousness. As Jesus in the quiet of Naza-

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS 89
reth pondered over these things and yearned for the
salvation of Israel, the thought may well have come
to Him, " What if even I should be the one whom the
Father has chosen for this high yet sorrowful task?
Would I be ready to undertake it; and how could I
know that He had called me? " The news that John
was preaching the nearness of the Messiah would
center His thought still more strongly upon this ques
tion, and would impel Him to seek out John and listen
to his message. And some hint of this readiness for
whatever mission God might reveal to Him may per
haps lie in the " Suffer it [or me] now " (Matt. 3:15)
with which He met John's unwillingness to baptize
Him. Indeed, as Loisy says, " the revelation of the
baptism could have been addressed only to a spirit
ready to receive it."
3 ) . Jesus first clearly learned of His mission as the
Messiah at the baptism.
This follows, if we reject both the foregoing an
swers. Certain old manuscripts give in Luke 3 : 22,
that which Harnack thinks to be the original form of
the words from heaven, ' Thou art my beloved Son ;
this day have I begotten thee." If this form is ac
cepted, we are not obliged, — contra Harnack, — to con
clude that the divine birth must be rejected ; but we may
infer that the baptism was the hour when the Messianic
consciousness of Jesus was quickened into activity.
The voice from heaven was the first positive and un
mistakable announcement of His Messiahship ; yet
previous years had not been without increasingly clear
suggestions of it. His sinlessness, His eager desire to
do the divine will as He grew to know that will, His
unbroken communion with a God who to Him was a
Father, developed a unique filial consciousness which

90 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
made Him ever more prepared for the awakening of
the Messianic consciousness. Luke's narrative seems
to recognize three stages in the spiritual history of
Jesus, viz. : that which began with His birth, and con
tinued through the years of His childhood at Naza
reth, — His life as the son of Mary; next, that which
began with the temple visit, and continued through the
years of manhood at Nazareth, — His life as a son of
the Father; and finally, that which began with the
baptism, and continued through His public ministry, —
His life as the Messianic Son of God. The advance
from one to another was not by a total transformation,
but rather by the addition of new spiritual powers to
those already possessed. And underneath all changes
that the years of human growth produced was the
changeless submission of His own will to the will of
God. Because at every stage in His life He could
sincerely say, " I do always the things that are pleas
ing to Him" (John 8:29), the Father's voice could
proclaim, " In thee I am well pleased."

VII
THE TEMPTATION IN THE WILDERNESS
THE story of the temptation in the wilderness must
be accepted as undoubtedly historical; for its
origin cannot otherwise be explained. " His disciples
would not have been likely to think that He could be
tempted to evil; and, if they had supposed that He
could, they would have imagined quite different tempta
tions for Him, as various legends of the saints show "
(Plummer). Moreover, as Sanday points out, "no
one possessed that degree of insight into the nature of
our Lord's mission and ministry that could have en
abled him to invent it." But the story has seldom
received sufficient attention from students of the life of
Jesus. Some have affirmed that it transcends human
comprehension, and that " on the deep secrets of those
forty days it is not meet that speculation should dwell "
(Ellicott). Others have made it little more than the
experience of an ordinary man who, believing he had
power to work miracles, struggled against a selfish in
clination to use that power for his personal ease and
glory. Many have spent more time in discussing the
outward form of the three temptations than in seeking
their inward meaning. And few have emphasized the
significance of the fact that Jesus told His disciples, —
and apparently more than once, since the order of the
temptations varies in the two accounts preserved, — the
full story of His experience. It is the only one of
91

92 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
His solitary experiences that, so far as we know, He
ever revealed ; and undoubtedly His reason for reveal
ing it was that the disciples might better understand
the way in which His mission must be performed.
Garvie suggests that He told it after the time when
He had to say to Peter, " Get thee behind me, Satan "
(Mark 8 : 33). It would, indeed, be helpful then, but
equally so on more than one other occasion when the
disciples marvelled that He refused to fulfill the popu
lar Messianic expectations.
1. The Form of the Story.
When we realize that the story was told by Jesus
Himself, and is His revelation of a spiritual experi
ence, we shall not fall into the mistake of those who
treat it exactly the same as the records of what the
apostles themselves saw and heard. The symbolical
form in which Jesus so often set forth the facts of
the inner life is the form He adopts in this narrative.
Its statements concerning Satan fall into line with His
rebuke to Peter, or His declarations, " I beheld Satan
fallen as lightning from heaven " (Luke 10: 18), and
" Behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift
you as wheat" (Luke 22:31). Its other graphic
details are like similar symbolic pictures of spiritual
experiences, e.g., " I have given you authority to tread
upon serpents and scorpions " (Luke 10 : 19), " I came
to cast fire upon the earth" (Luke 12:49), ano< " I*
thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it out " (Mark
9:47). To discuss the possible form assumed by
Satan, or to search for some mountain from which
"all the kingdoms of the world" might be seen, is
worse than a waste of time ; it cheapens the story, and
makes it strange and repulsive. We may be willing to

TEMPTATION IN THE WILDERNESS 93
admit the existence of Satan and his power to present
temptations ; but certainly a person like Jesus was not
tempted in such a childish way.
The scene of the temptation was doubtless the same
wilderness of Judea in which the baptism took place,
and was a convenient region for one who sought soli
tude after it. The length of time may have been forty
days ; though that period is so often used as a conven
tional statement of the duration of some serious or
sacred experience, that the use of it in the same way
here is not unlikely. The fast was not deliberate, —
Jesus placed little value on fasting ; it was caused partly
by lack of food, but far more by mental and spiritual
preoccupation which banished all thought of food.
And though His final hunger suggested the form in
which the first temptation was put, it was not the
source of that temptation.
2. The Possibility of Temptation.
It is sometimes argued that if the story of the tempta
tion is true, the sinlessness of Jesus could not have
been perfect, since temptation gets its power from evil
desires in the heart of the one tempted, and a sinless
being would feel no inclination to sin. This must be
admitted concerning one class of temptations. When
the choice is presented between a thing that is good
and a thing that in itself is evil, e.g., between using
another's money faithfully and embezzling it, there
can be no temptation unless a sinful desire is allowed
to sway the heart. But there is another class of tempta
tions in which the choice presented is between two
things of which both are blameless and even excellent,
but one is better and more difficult, e.g., the choice
sometimes between a life of home duties and a life of

94 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
foreign mission work. In itself the easier and more
attractive thing is not evil, and to desire it is not
wrong: yet yielding to the desire is sinful, for it is
turning from a greater good to a lesser. The rule that
should govern all choices is simple : " Every action is
right which in the presence of a lower principle fol
lows a higher; every action is wrong which in the
presence of a higher principle follows a lower " (Mar-
tineau). But the choice between two good things is
often far more difficult than the choice between a good
thing and an evil thing ; and it may present to a noble
nature temptations inconceivable by a base nature.
The temptations of Jesus, as we shall see, were of this
character; and their strength came from His eager
desire to fulfill His Messianic mission by bringing all
Israel into the kingdom of God.
3. The Three Temptations.
The temptations of Jesus are often explained as a
threefold assault upon the three parts of His human
nature — His body, soul and spirit — by the triple agency
of evil — the flesh, the world and the devil; the ap
peal being made successively to the innocent human
desires to live, to be recognized, and to accomplish.
But such an explanation does not give sufficient em
phasis to the significant, " If thou art the Son of God,"
with which two of Satan's proposals begin. This is
not a suggestion that doubt exists in Jesus' mind ; for
doubt, after God's explicit declaration, " Thou art my
beloved Son," would itself be sin ; rather it is an open
recognition of the Messiahship as the starting point of
Satan's assault. This " if," Godet says, has almost the
force of since. Christ is to be tempted, not as the son
of Mary, but as the Son of God, — the Messiah. What-

TEMPTATION IN THE WILDERNESS 95
ever may be our opinion as to Jesus' knowledge of His
Messianic mission before the baptism, we must agree
that the baptism, with the voice from heaven and the
descent of the Holy Spirit, brought that mission to His
mind with overwhelming force. He was to be the
founder and ruler of the kingdom of God, the Saviour
of mankind. The work this involved, vast as it was,
He was ready to undertake unhesitatingly; for His
obedience to the Father's will was perfect. But how
should it be performed? How should He draw all
men to Him, and win them as subjects of a spiritual
kingdom? This was the question which must be
answered before He could enter upon the work; and
for whose answer He sought solitude and opportunity
for deepest meditation. It was the problem filling His
mind to the exclusion of all else as He wandered alone
in the wilderness.
There were several possible ways which presented
themselves, all based upon popular expectations of what
the Messiah would do when he came. " If thou be the
Son of God, command that these stones be made
bread." The Jews were awaiting a Messiah who
would do miracles of that kind. His kingdom, so they
expected, would be an earthly paradise. The rabbis
delighted to set forth the joys of the Messianic days,
telling with Oriental hyperbole how a kernel of wheat
would be as large as the kidney of an ox, the trees
would bear fruit all the year round, a single grape
would load a wagon, and wine could be drawn from
it as from a cask. Men were hungering and thirsting
for a Messiah who would work such miracles; and
such miracles were within the power of Jesus, and in
themselves were perfectly right. As the Lord of
nature He could command it to feed His followers;

96 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
and He could banish hunger, disease and death from
His realm. All men would flock into such a kingdom ;
and His mission would be speedily and easily accom
plished. But what of the character of the kingdom?
What of subjects who serve for loaves and fishes ? The
kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteous
ness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. Would
turning stones into bread create this? Would it not
rather have just the opposite effect, and make men
more sensuous and carnal than ever? There could
be but one answer to such a question. The temptation
was recognized and put aside. " Man shall not live by
bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of
the mouth of God."
If men are not to be drawn into the kingdom by
their appetites, may they not be allured into it by their
imaginations? Let the Messiah descend, borne on the
wings of angels, into the courts of the temple where
priests and rulers daily assemble to pray for his com
ing; and immediately the Sanhedrin will accept him,
and the whole Jewish nation will follow their lead.
This is perfectly proper; for in what way should he
use his divine power to work miracles, if not in prov
ing to men that he is the Son of God? They expect
this, and will demand it. Why not meet their de
mand, and thus establish the kingdom promptly and
firmly? But, again, what of the nature of such a king
dom? Will there be anything spiritual about it?
Righteousness, peace and joy, — do these come through
marvelling at miracles? Can you surprise men, or
dazzle men, or scare men into the kingdom of heaven?
As a matter of fact, the miracles which Jesus wrought
in His public ministry often seemed to hinder rather
than to help His work. The excited crowds which

TEMPTATION IN THE WILDERNESS 97
they attracted, elbowed and jostled each other, eager
to gratify a low craving for the marvellous, but show
ing no desire to learn and follow truth. Faith which
is founded merely on miracles is vain. The despondent
cry of Jesus in later days, " Except ye see signs and
wonders, ye will not believe" (John 4:48), echoes
Moses' expostulation with Israel at Rephidim when
they tempted the Lord, saying, " Is the Lord among
us or not? " (Ex. 17:7). And against any display of
divine power to win admiration or superstitious follow
ing, there abides the command — whose significance is
found by studying the scene at Rephidim — " Thou
shall not make trial of the Lord thy God " (Deut.
6:16). The third temptation does not begin with "If thou
be the Son of God," because it is concerned, not with
Christ's use of the divine power, but with the char
acter of His proposed kingdom. The Jews were
chafing under the Roman yoke, and ready to follow
any leader who would promise them deliverance. With
the wildest enthusiasm they would greet him, and lay
down their lives to place him on the throne of David.
Jesus was of royal descent, and might properly claim
the Jewish crown. Why not establish the kingdom of
God by first restoring the kingdom of David? Take
the sword to win the scepter ; and when this has been
secured, then make all things work together for right
eousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. But
can the political kingdom be secured except by a sac
rifice of the spiritual? Can a man serve two masters ?
If he would receive a crown from the people, Jesus
must consult their selfish wishes and follow their lead
ing; and to do that would in reality be to bow before
the prince of this world and do his bidding. When that

98 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
fact is clearly recognized, the temptation is overcome,
and the tempter is spurned. " Get thee hence, Satan ;
for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and him only shalt thou serve."
This brief outline of the three temptations is suffi
cient to show their official character. They may be
profitably studied in their relation to Christ's three
offices of prophet, priest and king. As a prophet
He must feed the hungry multitude with the Word of
God instead of giving them stones made bread. As
a priest He must offer " a body bruised for our in
iquities " instead of one that angels bear up in their
hands. And as a king He must ever proclaim, " My
kingdom is not of this world."
4. The Later Repetitions.
It is a familiar thought that the temptations of the
wilderness were set before Jesus again in His public
ministry. Luke suggests this by his significant state
ment, " When the devil had ended the temptation, he
departed from him for a season" (4: 13). We shall
find in our study of the various fields in which Jesus
worked, not only that all these temptations were pres
ent, but that some particular one in each field pre
dominated and shaped the issue. In Judea the rulers
demanded a sign ; in Galilee the people were clamorous
for relief from bodily ills and physical wants; in
Peraea and the coasts the constant expectation was of
a political kingdom. And we shall find the work in
each terminated by an act that seemed to be a sur
render to the dominant temptation, but really was a
rejection and exposure of it. In Judea this was the
healing of the impotent man at Bethesda; in Galilee
it was the feeding of the five thousand; in the final

TEMPTATION IN THE WILDERNESS 99
ministry it was the triumphal entry. Such being the
case, we can understand why Jesus related to His dis
ciples so fully the struggle in the wilderness, though
He said nothing about His other solitary experiences.
He was endeavoring by this revelation to make them
understand the nature of the struggles they witnessed
in His public ministry, and to see in these the same
temptations that Satan had presented at the outset.
Also we find abundant reason for emphasizing this
chapter in our Lord's life. It was the time when with
deepest care He weighed and rejected the popular Mes
sianic ideas, and accepted a higher ideal of what the
Messiah's work and kingdom must be. When he went
forth from the wilderness, the path henceforth to be
followed lay clearly before Him. In the days of His
public ministry we shall see Him more than once
changing His plans of work and altering the emphasis
of His teachings, as conditions changed or the needs of
His hearers varied; but we shall find no convincing
proof, — though many have sought it, — that He
changed His own purpose and convictions, or received
new light upon His mission. His invitations were to be
rejected; His plans were to be frustrated; His own
nation, instead of being His helpers in establishing the
kingdom of God, were to compass His death : — all this
was beyond His present knowledge, for who can fore
see the wayward action of the human will? But no
change for good or evil in the hearts of men would
bring a new revelation of His Father, or alter the
settled rule of His life : " I do always the things that
are pleasing to Him " (John 8 : 29).

VIII
THE FINAL PREPARATION
i. The Witness of John the Baptist.
JESUS left John immediately after the baptism
(Mark i : 12) ; and there is no record that they
ever again talked together. The work of John went
on for weeks with increased energy and with a new
message, " The Messiah, though you know him not, is
in your midst " (John 1 : 26). The conception of the
Messiah as living in concealment and then suddenly
coming forth was a popular one (cf. John 7: 27), and
gave force to John's words. Such a startling Messianic
proclamation could not be ignored by the Sanhedrin,
especially by its Pharisaic members (John 1 : 24) ; and
since John was of priestly family they sent a committee
of priests and Levites to investigate. It came to John
with the question, " Who art thou? "
The hour was one of temptation for the Baptist, —
a temptation springing, like that of his Master, out of
an earnest desire to bring in the kingdom of God. If
only he could claim special authority for himself, how
much more weight would be added to his message!
The temptation grew greater with each suggestion of
the committee. "Art thou the Messiah?": that had
already been set before him by the people and had its
answer (Luke 3: 15 f.) ; so now it was easy to say,
" I am not." " Art thou Elijah? " : if they were will
ing to receive him as such (cf. Matt. 11 : 14), he could
do the work that Malachi had foretold Elijah would
100

THE FINAL PREPARATION 101
do (Mai. 4:5). "Art thou the prophet?", i.e., the
one foretold in Deut. 18: 15, who would, so the Jews
expected, usher in the Messianic period : surely he
could claim as much as that for himself; and what
power it would give him! With increasing brevity
John put these temptations away, remaining faithful
to his one commission as " the voice in the wilder
ness," — the impersonal herald of the Messiah. If we
were to accept Renan's theory that Jesus, in order to
increase His influence, allowed the people to cherish a
false belief that He was the Messiah and could work
miracles, then we must pronounce John more honest
and unswerving than his Master.
This happened in Bethany beyond the Jordan, which
probably was at a ford of the river about twelve miles
south of the Sea of Galilee, and a day's journey from
Nazareth. John had moved northward since he bap
tized Jesus. The day was the first of a week ending
with the marriage at Cana; and if, as Edersheim sug
gests, the marriage was on Wednesday, which was
usually chosen for a maiden's wedding, the day would
be the preceding Thursday.
On the next day (Friday) Jesus, who had finished
His temptation in the wilderness and was on His way
to Nazareth, came where John was preaching, and
naturally drew near to hear what message the Baptist
was proclaiming. If John had yielded to the tempta
tion of the previous day, and was now figuring as
Elijah the Second or the prophet whom Moses foretold,
we can imagine the confusion which would have over
whelmed him, when he suddenly saw Jesus approach
ing. But John had been faithful to his mission; and,
as Jesus appeared in the edge of his audience, he
eagerly pointed Him out : " Behold the Lamb of God!

102 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
There is the one whom I foretold, — the one upon whom
I beheld the spirit descending! " (John i : 29-34).
The term " Lamb of God " as a name for the Mes
siah was taken by John from Isaiah 53 : 7. Its use at
this time may indicate the impression Jesus had made
upon him when they talked together before the bap
tism. Whether the additional words, " that taketh
away the sin of the world," were spoken by the Baptist
or are the interpretation of the term by the author of
the Fourth Gospel, is disputed. It is difficult to be
lieve that the Baptist could have had such a clear idea
of the world-wide mission of the Messiah; yet there
are glimpses of that mission in the Book of Isaiah;
and John, — as his preaching to Gentile soldiers and to
publicans indicates, — had pressed beyond the narrow
limits of Jewish race prejudice. The wonderfully
high praise which Jesus later on bestowed upon him
(Matt. 11 : 11) would make us ready to believe that
his conception of the Messiah was vastly above that of
any other Jewish teacher. Be this as it may, the excla
mation of John produced little effect ; probably because
the hearers failed to grasp its full meaning, while Jesus
withdrew from sight before they fairly saw whom
John was pointing out. Such public announcement
with its consequent excitement was not the way in
which to begin His ministry.
The next day (Saturday) was the Jewish Sabbath,
when the people would remain at their homes, and
John would have the companionship of none but his
intimate disciples. Jesus, too, would not pursue His
journey, but would remain there at Bethany. And
thus it happened that John, as he was in the company of
two Galilean fishermen, — Andrew and the John who
tells the story, — again caught sight of Jesus, who was

THE FINAL PREPARATION 108
walking by the place where they were standing. He
gazed earnestly at Him (so far as we know it was the
last time he ever saw Jesus) as if to make sure that
he was right in the identification of yesterday, and then
cried out again, " Behold the Lamb of God ! " The
two disciples, hearing John thus speak, pressed after
Jesus with reverent curiosity ; and the Baptist was left
alone. He had fulfilled his mission; henceforth he
must decrease as the one to whom he had borne witness
increased. 2. The Call of the First Disciples.
When the two disciples at Jesus' invitation came to
His abode, it was " about the tenth hour." According
to Jewish reckoning the first hour began at sunrise;
and the tenth hour would be about four o'clock in the
afternoon. The day then would be nearly over; and
the statement, " they abode with him that day," would
mean simply a two hours' visit. If, however, we accept
the opinion of many scholars that John reckoned time
after our own manner (thus meaning by the tenth hour
ten o'clock in the morning), it helps us here and also in
other passages of his Gospel (4:6; 4:52; 19:14).
Before the two disciples settled down for their first
precious day with Jesus, Andrew, — doubtless with
Jesus' permission, — went in search of his brother,
Simon, and with a glad " Eureka ! " brought him
to Jesus. At the same time John probably went in
search of his brother, James, and a little later brought
him also. (This is the inference from " He first
findeth " (1:41) where the Greek means first of the
two seekers; though some of the best manuscripts
read, " He findeth first," i.e., before he did anything
else.)

104 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
The following day (Sunday) Jesus prepared to
resume His journey, and the four disciples were ready
to follow Him. But there was another to be added to
their company, Philip, a fellow townsman of Andrew
and Peter, about whom they had told Him. Jesus
Himself went in search of him and found him. And
Philip in turn must find and bring Nathanael, — probably
Bartholomew, i.e., the son of Tolmai (cf. Simon Bar-
jonah, Matt. 16: 17) who had come from Cana (John
21 : 2) to the preaching of John. Thus in this simple
and natural way six disciples were gained, all of whom
later on were to become apostles.
Jesus' knowledge of what is in man (John 2:25)
was shown by His giving Simon the new name, Peter,
and still more by His conversation with Nathanael.
In repeated instances later on this same knowledge
was displayed ; though whether it was supernatural or
only the result in the highest degree of that power
to read men which all leaders must possess we cannot
say. Certainly it was part of His equipment for the
Messianic work; to reveal God to man, He must thor
oughly know man as well as God. What the experi
ence of Nathanael was when underneath the figtree
before Philip called him, remains untold: but it was
something so intimate and sacred that the mere dis
covery that Jesus knew it turned Nathanael's doubt
into belief, and called forth his declaration, " Rabbi,
thou art the Son of God; thou art King of Israel."
How much meaning shall we put into these early
confessions of faith in Jesus? And can we reconcile
this enthusiastic welcome of the Messiah with the fact
that, according to the Synoptics, these same disciples
were very slow to recognize Jesus as the Messiah ; and
Peter's confession of faith, after months of patient

THE FINAL PREPARATION 105
teaching by Jesus, was treated as a marked advance in
spiritual discernment (Matt. 16 : 16 f.) ? In search of
an answer we must bear in mind that even John the
Baptist had very imperfect ideas about the Messiah;
and these men had only partially grasped the ideas of
John. They were following Jesus, not from any
spiritual recognition of Him and intelligent sympathy
with His mission, but because their teacher had pointed
Him out and endorsed Him. They had, therefore, a
great deal to learn before they could realize the true
nature of Him whom they followed, and receive the
benediction, bestowed first upon Peter, for such a reali
zation. They might now hail Jesus as the Messiah, and
yet later on, when He failed to fulfill their present Mes
sianic expectations, fall into doubt, as did the Baptist
himself. It is also possible, as Garvie suggests, that
Jesus at first did not realize the obstinacy and unbelief
and the degree of unpreparedness confronting Him,
and so began by revealing His Messiahship more fully
than later on. While there is no complete revelation,
yet His conversation with these first disciples and His
labors in Judea are with less reserve and more con
fidence than in Galilee. Nevertheless, His words
to Nathanael (John 1:51) must have been almost
enigmatic. Their explanation lies along the line of
Jacob's dream at Bethel : — Jesus is the ladder between
earth and heaven, upon which God's messages pass;
Nathanael shall have surer grounds for faith than
Jesus' knowledge of his secret thoughts ; he shall see in
Him a revelation of God, a knowledge of things divine,
that is possible only for the Son of man.
Monday and Tuesday are unrecorded days ; we know
simply that on one or both of them, Jesus and His
disciples made the journey to Nazareth. Why He

106 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
should go into Galilee, taking the six, when so soon
He was to return to the Passover feast, we can only
guess. Personal and domestic reasons may have influ
enced both Him and these Galilean disciples; or He
may have wished to get them away from the excite
ment of John's work, that their new-born faith in Him
might be educated and strengthened. He arrived home
soon enough to have the news reach Cana, a few miles
away, and an invitation come to Him and His dis
ciples to attend the wedding in Nathanael's town on
Wednesday. Mary's activity in the marriage feast sug
gests that she was a relative or at least an intimate
friend ; but that the marriage was of Nathanael or in
his home is improbable. We note that Jesus came
back to Cana again after His Judean ministry (John
4 : 46) ; this increases the probability that His relatives
or close friends lived there.
3. The Miracle at Cana.
Of all Christ's miracles this is " in some respects the
most perplexing " (Bruce). But the very things that
puzzle us, e.g., the mutual conduct of Mary and Jesus,
are proofs of its historicity; a fabricator would have
left them out. The story is that of an eye-witness who
remembers clearly the whole scene. It suits John in his
old age recalling the first miracle of his Master; but
some of the details must have been given him by
Mary who, tradition says (cf. John 19:27), lived
with him after the crucifixion.
The miracle is a " nature miracle," and so cannot be
explained as the influence of Jesus' personality, though
Beyschlag and Lange do suggest hypnotism, — (Lange
has much to say about "magnetized water"). The
easiest way for the sceptic to dispose of it would be to

THE FINAL PREPARATION 107
pronounce the story a myth. Strauss does this, basing
it upon Moses' turning water into blood, and Elisha's
changing bitter water into sweet. But if John was an
eye-witness, and the gospel report is his, a myth is here
impossible. Other explanations are that John himself
was " well drunken," and did not know what really
did happen (quoted by Strauss) ; that Mary brought
the wine, and gave the signal to her son to produce it
(Gforer) ; that Jesus jokingly said, " Here is some
wine I have made out of water " (Paulus) ; that it is a
parable changed into a supposed real occurrence
(Weisse) ; that it is an allegory, — water represents
John the Baptist; wine, Jesus; the transformation is
the passing from one dispensation to the other (Baur
and in substance Keim) ; that there was a spiritual
exaltation in which water became, in the best sense of
the word, wine (Ewald) ; that it was a miracle of
Providence, — the wine was brought opportunely by
some one (Weiss). The whole subject of miracles
must be considered later on; so we need not pause
to discuss these sceptical explanations.
That it was wine which Jesus created does not pre
sent a difficulty. Wine, — and wine that might intoxi
cate, — was the ordinary beverage, the tea and coffee,
of Palestine. The amount was large, — about five hun
dred quarts ; but there is no reason to think that in the
wedding festivities, which might last a week, it would
not all be used.
The strongest objection to the miracle is that, at
first sight, it seems a needless one, i.e., it ministers to
no real want, and is, therefore, purely a show miracle,
like descending from the temple pinnacle. If this is
so, we may well doubt the story ; for certainly a use
less miracle is incredible. What reasons, then, may be

108 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
found for changing the water into wine? Possibly the
bringing of these six disciples on briefest notice was
what caused the wine to run short ; in which case it was
a courteous act on the part of Jesus to supply an em
barrassing lack for which He was responsible. (Note
that as there were six disciples so there were six
water- jars.) But a more important reason was that
the new disciples needed such " a sign." John the
Baptist worked no miracle (John 10 : 41) : this act of
Jesus would teach them that their new teacher was
greater than John. John was an ascetic, never drink
ing wine nor attending feasts; this miracle at a wed
ding would show them that Jesus was not in spirit the
same, and that their ideas gained from John must be
broadened into a fuller conception of what the kingdom
of God was like. The miracle manifested Jesus' glory ;
but it was not a show miracle; it was a gracious con
descension to the needs of the wedding guests and of
the disciples.
The attitude of Mary towards her son is at first
sight perplexing. To understand it we must remember
that Mary had kept in the silence of her heart the
wonderful things about her child, and knew Him to be
the promised Messiah, but had only imperfect ideas
of what the Messiah was to be. His return from the
baptism with a band of disciples would arouse her ex
pectation that now He was about to proclaim his Mes-
siahship. She may, also, have learned from the
disciples (James and John were possibly her nephews)
what had happened when He and they were with John
the Baptist. Hence her belief that He could perform
the miracle, which led to the desire that He would
perform it to make the guests believe on Him. She
suggested an act fitly introducing a sensuous Messianic

THE FINAL PREPARATION 109
kingdom ; unconsciously she set before Him the bread
temptation of the wilderness. Christ's answer was not
so much to her words as to her unspoken thought. It
is not discourteous (cf. John 19:26 for "woman"),
nor is it as stern as the rebuke to Peter when he pre
sented a temptation (Mark 8:33); but it is a firm
statement that her wishes must not regulate His Mes
sianic course. The time has not yet come for Him to
announce Himself publicly; and He never can be the
kind of Messiah she expects. Mary accepts His posi
tion though not understanding its necessity; but she
persists in her desire that He should supply the wine;
and her faith, shown by her command to the servants,
prevails. The miracle may be wrought for her and the
disciples ; though the guests must not know of it. It is
performed in the most quiet way. Only Jesus, Mary
and the disciples with the servants witness it; for the
water-pots are outside the banqueting room, and evi
dently Jesus and His disciples, who would not be hon
ored guests, are also outside, — Mary is superintending
the servants. What measure of faith was kindled in
the servants by the miracle, we do not know; but for
the disciples it was a manifestation of divine power
which strengthened their confidence that they had in
deed found the Messiah. And, when, after a brief
sojourn at Capernaum, they went with Him up to
Jerusalem for the Passover, they must have expected
He was about to begin His reign over Israel; though
they could not have grasped the character of that
reign.

IX
THE JUDEAN MINISTRY
i. The General Character.
JUDEA was a small region; in length from Bethel
to Beersheba fifty-five miles, and in width from the
Shephelah (the low hills on the west) to the Jordan
valley about twenty-five or thirty; and nearly half of
this area was wilderness. The hill plateau was per
haps thirty-five miles long and twelve to seventeen
broad. In the first century, as now, because there
was little opportunity for agriculture or commerce,
the population was comparatively small, and the peo
ple gained their living largely from the multitude of
pilgrims coming to Jerusalem. These must be fed,
lodged and cared for : and cattle, sheep, doves and
various other sacrifices must be provided for their
temple offerings. In fact, the Judeans lived by the
temple services ; and being thus isolated from all except
the pilgrim world, and centering their thoughts on the
temple and the law, they could hardly help becoming
narrow-minded, conceited and bigoted.
If Jesus was to present Himself to the nation as its
Messiah, the proper place in which to do this was the
temple at Jerusalem. The general expectation, based
on Mai. 3:1, was that the Messiah would first appear
here. And in the thought of Jesus Himself no place
could be more fitting than His Father's house for
beginning the work to which His Father had called
110

THE JUDEAN MINISTRY 111
Him. Also, if He was to challenge the nation to pass
upon His claims, the proper body to address was the
Sanhedrin. It ruled and represented the people; and
one of its special duties was to denounce a false Mes
siah, or to proclaim the true one when he should
appear. The endorsement of the Sanhedrin was the
quickest way of securing universal acceptance. If the
rulers said, " Here is our long expected Messiah," not
only the people of Judea but all the Jews everywhere
would give him enthusiastic welcome. The purpose
of the Judean ministry, therefore, was to win the lead
ers in Jerusalem, — the Pharisees and Sadducees, —
especially those who constituted the Sanhedrin. When
they were won, the task of winning the nation was
practically accomplished.
2. The Appeal to the Sadducees.
We think of the temple as the sacred center of wor
ship, and only with difficulty realize that it was also
and necessarily the greatest business institution of the
Jews. It handled vast sums of money coming from the
temple tax, which all Jews everywhere were expected
to pay, and from various money offerings prescribed
or voluntary. The treasure which Crassus carried off
when he plundered it, 54-3 b.c, is said to have
amounted to ten thousand talents, which would be
more than ten million dollars ; and other spoilers found
it equally rich. It was likewise the center of an enor
mous traffic in animals for sacrifice and in articles
needed by the worshippers for their vows and offer
ings. At the time of the great feasts, when myriads
of pilgrims thronged Jerusalem, the sales must have
been beyond calculation.
Even tne strongest endeavor would hardly prevent

112 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
the business part of the temple life from overshadow
ing the religious part; but the ruling priests of that
day, the house of Annas and their associates, had no
disposition to put forth such endeavor. They were
notorious for greed, and cared little for the worship in
which they were the chief officials, except as a means
of heaping up private fortunes. It was easy for them
to monopolize the temple traffic. Every animal for
sacrifice must undergo priestly inspection to see that
it was without blemish ; this put within their power to
reject all animals not bought from their own agents.
Likewise, the money paid into the temple must be of a
special coinage; and all the sacred coins would soon
be in their possession, when they could charge a high
rate of exchange for them. They were not slow to
take advantage of such tempting opportunities. In
deed, under pretence of making purchases convenient
for strangers, they had even placed cattle booths and
exchangers' tables in the court of the Gentiles, thereby
turning into an emporium (John 2: 16) the only part
of the temple into which devout heathen could enter
for worship, and which, for that very reason, seems to
have been specially valued by Jesus. It was with good
cause that He said, " Is it not written, My house shall
be called a house of prayer for all nations? but ye
have made it a den of robbers " (Mark 11 : 17). All
the devout, had they dared, would have said the same.
The cleansing of the temple is told both by Mark,
whom the other Synoptists follow, and by John; but
the former places it at the close of Jesus' ministry, and
the latter at the beginning. Were there two cleansings
or only one; and if only one, when was it? For rea
sons better stated later on, we may conclude that the
only cleansing was at the beginning of the ministry, and

THE JUDEAN MINISTRY 113
that the Synoptists really describe this opening incident,
though they put it so much later.
After the marriage at Cana, Jesus spent a short
interval at Capernaum, where some of His disciples
and possibly of His own family resided, and then, as
the Passover drew nigh, went up to Jerusalem. Here
the preparations for the feast gave Him an opportunity
to challenge the Sadducees, and compel them either to
recognize His authority by reforming the abuses in the
temple, or else to refuse to accept Him as the one whom
Malachi had foretold. Coming into the court of the
Gentiles where the vendors and the money changers
were already active, He drove them out by stern com
mand and vigorous action ; and He also stopped another
desecration, — the use of this court by the citizens of
Jerusalem as a convenient shortcut (Mark 11:16).
There is no need to suppose that He used supernatural
power in accomplishing this; the evident approval of
His act by the worshippers, and the guilty consciences
of the traders, who were taken completely off their
guard, would be enough to ensure His success. Nor
can He be condemned for unrighteous anger and un
necessary violence. His disciples, as they watched the
scene, recalled the Messianic prophecy, " Zeal for Thy
house shall eat me up " (Ps. 69 : 9) ; and such consum
ing indignation was proper in the presence of this ir
reverence and greed. Gentle reproof would have
produced little effect upon the traders; though the
scourge of cords was for the cattle and not for the
men who sold them.
If Jesus had been simply a reformer, there was suffi
cient reason for His act. But the same abuse had met
His gaze at each previous visit to the temple, and had
called forth no correction because Jesus was never

114 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
merely a reformer. He had come this day as the Mes
siah to the temple,— as the Son to "My Father's
house " (there was a deeper meaning in this phrase
now than when He used it as a boy of twelve) ; and
He acted with divine authority. The attention of the
Jews (by " Jews " John always means the leaders —
in this case specially the Sadducees) was at once ex
citedly centered upon Him. And that they recognized
His claims to be more than those of a self-appointed
reformer, is shown by their demand for a sign, i.e., a
miracle (John 2:18) : — no sign would be necessary in
justification of an evidently needed reform. Here at
the very outset their demand put before Him the " tem
ple temptation "of the wilderness.
His answer (2 : 19) was purposely ambiguous; per
haps, also, part of it has been omitted. From Mark
14 : 58, which is the report of false witnesses but
whose falsity seems to have been in the statement " I
will destroy," we might conclude that His words were,
" Destroy this temple that is made with hands ; and in
three days I will build another not made with hands."
If so, it was a more significant statement than that, if
He were put to death, He would rise again after three
days, — and a statement better suiting the situation.
The temple made with hands which the Sadducees
were destroying by turning it into a den of robbers was
to be supplanted by the spiritual temple which in a
very little while (" three days ") Jesus would raise up.
The thought was the same as that expressed to the
Samaritan woman when He said the hour was at hand
" when the true worshippers shall worship the Father
in spirit and truth" (John 4:21-24). Nevertheless,
the significance which the apostle John found in the
words as he pondered them in later years may also

THE JUDEAN MINISTRY 115
have been there. These men who turned God's house
into a source of gain would not hesitate even to mur
der the Messiah if he interfered with their gains ; and
the resurrection from the dead would be the crowning
manifestation of His divinity, through which the new
and spiritual religion would be established (Rom.
1:4). For the present, however, the cleansing of the
temple seemed to have been a fruitless task. On the
morrow the priests regained their authority, the traders
were back in their places, and the denunciations of the
young man from Nazareth were almost forgotten.
3. The Appeal to the Pharisees.
From the Sadducees Jesus next turned to the Phari
sees. Doubtless they had approved of the cleansing of
the temple, though they would not like the credit of it
to be gained by an unknown Galilean : but the act was
not specially calculated to call their attention to His
Messianic claims. The case was different when in the
Passover week many of the people "believed on His
name," i.e., thought Him to be the Messiah, " behold
ing his signs which he did." These believers must
have been mainly pilgrims who had come to the feast
(cf. 4:45) : for the men of Jerusalem would wait the
opinion of the rulers. What the signs were we are
not told; probably they were miracles of healing; cer
tainly their purpose was not to create belief, for He
refused to accept the belief created by them. With
His knowledge of the human heart, He perceived
the shallowness of a faith that has no deeper founda
tion than wonderment. Whatever called forth these
miracles, their most important effect was to compel
the Pharisees to consider Jesus; for as soon as men
began to discuss whether He was the Messiah, they

116 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
felt that this was a question which must be answered
by themselves.
Nicodemus, who was a Pharisee (John 7 : 50) and a
member of the Sanhedrin, reveals the attitude towards
Jesus of the best and most thoughtful of the Pharisees.
He was by nature conservative but not hide-bound, —
cautious but not cowardly; he came to Jesus by night
not because he feared Jewish hatred (there was no rea
son for fear until later on, 19: 38, cf. 9: 22; 12:42),
but because night was the best time for a quiet, pro
longed conversation. That a rabbi of Jerusalem, — the
proudest being in the world, — sought an interview with
a young Galilean layman shows the profound impres
sion Jesus had made upon Nicodemus and his asso
ciates. Yet notice from the way in which he addressed
Jesus (3:2) how little he had advanced towards a
recognition of Him as the Messiah. He saw in him
" a teacher " (not " the teacher " as Jesus with some
sarcasm called him, 3: 10), "come from God," i.e.,
not trained in the schools, but still deserving to be called
rabbi, as truly possessing divine wisdom and having
evident proofs of divine favor. There was a little
unconscious patronage in his " we know " such as justi
fied Jesus' sarcasm.
The conversation with Nicodemus must have been
long and serious; but of it there are preserved only a
few striking sentences which are evidently given ver
batim, since here and only here in the Fourth Gospel we
find the term, the kingdom of God. The record is
joined without a break to the comments of the evan
gelist, so that we do not know where the words of
Jesus end; though 3 : 12 seems the natural termination,
since that which follows would have been incompre
hensible not only to Nicodemus but also to the disciples

THE JUDEAN MINISTRY 117
who bore witness with Jesus (3:11). Nicodemus
came to discuss the Messiahship, and at once found
himself confronted with the question of the nature of
the kingdom over which the Messiah should reign.
Evidently that was the first question to be settled ; for
the qualifications of a king depend upon the nature of
his kingdom. But Nicodemus had taken for granted
that the Pharisaic idea of the kingdom was correct,
and was not able to grasp any other. A spiritual
kingdom visible and open only to those who were born
from above, a kingdom to be entered by penitence
and the quickening of the Spirit, was a mystery to him.
In bewilderment he could only ask, " How can these
things be ? ", and cease to question further. The fail
ure of Nicodemus to grasp even the simpler teachings
concerning the kingdom is merely one instance of the
inability of the Pharisees to see in Jesus the Messiah;
for it was of them collectively that He said, " If I
told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall
ye believe if I tell you heavenly things ? "
4. The Work in Judea.
The work in Jerusalem had failed. The Sadducees
were of the opinion that Jesus was a fanatic, perhaps
a dangerous one; the Pharisees pronounced Him an
enigma, but were sure that if His teachings contra
dicted theirs, He was to be condemned. There was no
chance of His acceptance by the Sanhedrin ; in fact, He
was considered of too little importance for its atten
tion. The failure is not surprising, for the obstacles
were great. Not only was He a Galilean and there
fore despised by the Judeans; but He had been bap
tized by John, and taken His disciples from those of
John and his followers. And above all else pride

118 THE LITE OF CHRIST
and selfishness and lack of spiritual perception barred
the reception of a spiritual kingdom and its appointed
king. Evidently the work of preparation which John had
been doing was not complete. Jesus, therefore, when
He left the city at the end of the Passover week, —
departing because it was useless or unsafe to remain
longer, — set His disciples to work in Judea along the
Baptist's lines, with which they were familiar. In this
way the work of the Baptist would be enlarged; and
possibly the disciples themselves might become more
fully prepared for their own future mission. Because
it was preparatory work Jesus could not personally
engage in it; He must act as the Messiah, and not as
the forerunner. What He did while His disciples
were baptizing we are not told. The work was highly
popular, — the people who had flocked to John came
streaming forth again to these new preachers; but it
was not a work upon which Jesus laid great emphasis
or which continued long. When "a Jew" (3:25),
probably a member of the Sanhedrin and a Pharisee
(4: 1), tried to hinder John by making his disciples
jealous of their seeming rivals, Jesus stopped it. The
closing statement, "He left Judea" (4:3), is more
precisely, " He abandoned Judea," i.e., gave up utterly
His present attempt to win recognition there. We shall
see that He made one more effort ; for the visit to the
unnamed feast ( 5 : 1 ) , though much later in time, is
really the closing act of this Judean ministry.
5. The Work in Samaria.
When Jesus started to return to Galilee, " he must
needs pass through Samaria" (4:4). This explana*
tion is for readers who are not familiar with the

THE JUDEAN MINISTRY 119
topography. True, very scrupulous Jews went around
by Peraea; but this was not the shortest or the usual
route for Galileans going to the feast (Jos. Ant. 20:
6:1). A day's journey would bring Him to Jacob's
well, near the little town of Sychar. He reached the
well " about the sixth hour " (John 4:6), which may
have been high noon, but more probably was six in the
evening, — the regular hour of coming for water. If
the season was midsummer, there was plenty of time
for what followed.
The conversation with the woman at the well, —
learned probably by John from the woman herself, who
was so deeply impressed by it, — shows Jesus' marvel
lous skill in dealing with individuals. It ended with a
plain declaration of His Messiahship. There were rea
sons why He could make this declaration in Samaria
when He could not in Judea. The Samaritans ac
cepted the Pentateuch, but rejected the other books
of the Old Testament. This deprived them of the
rich, spiritual teachings of the prophets and psalms,
but also hindered visions of future national greatness
and of the marvellous transformation which should
take place in Messianic days. They borrowed from
their Jewish neighbors the hope of a Messiah : but their
expectation was that he would be chiefly a teacher, —
the one described in Deut. 18:15 where Moses is
represented as foretelling, " Jehovah thy God will raise
up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy
brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken"
(cf. John 4:19, 25, 29; Acts 3:22!). To those
who held this expectation Jesus could say plainly, " I
that speak unto thee am he," without the danger of
having His mission misunderstood ; and the accent of
authority in His teaching would lead them to accept

120 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Him as indeed "the Saviour of the world," — though
the term in their lips would not have the rich signifi
cance it was to possess later on.
The receptivity of the woman cheered the heart of
Jesus (John 4: 32) ; and He used it to cheer the hearts
of His disciples who, we may suppose, were naturally
discouraged by the fruitlessness of their work in Judea,
and had been keeping up their spirits by quoting the
saying, — perhaps a popular proverb, — " One must wait
four months after sowing before the harvest comes."
He pointed out to them that already they might begin
to reap (possibly ripe grainfields in sight shaped His
figure of speech), and to reap where they had not
previously labored in preparation.
Those two days in Sychar were full of the joy of
teaching men eager to receive instruction, — one of the
" few glad surprises " in the life of Jesus. But to
carry on this work among the Samaritans would end
all possibility of work among the Jews, who would be
hostile to any one associating with their despised and
hated neighbors. Possibly it was some report of these
days at Sychar which gave rise later on to the slander
of His enemies that He was a Samaritan (John 8 :48).
His mission was to the Jews, and Samaria must wait
until it was accomplished ; but this brief stay among a
receptive people was inspiring to both Master and dis
ciples, and in some degree was a preparation for the
great, popular work in Galilee. Concerning the per
manent fruit of His teachings at Sychar we know noth
ing; but possibly the ready reception of Christianity in
Samaria when Philip the evangelist preached there
(Acts 8:5), may have been because Jesus prepared the
way.

THE JUDEAN MINISTRY 121
6. The Second Miracle at Cana.
That this is the same as the healing of the centurion's
servant (Matt. 8: 5-13), is not probable. The resem
blances are few; the differences many. John treats it
as the epilogue to the Judean ministry, even as the
other" miracle at Cana was the prologue. That minis
try, so barren in Judea, was already beginning to
bear fruit in Galilee. Jesus had gone forth with the
lack of honor which a prophet has in his own country;
He returned to meet an enthusiastic reception because
the Galileans had seen the things that He did at
Jerusalem (John 4 : 44-45).
The measure of faith already aroused in some hearts
is shown in this second " sign " at Cana. A nobleman
or king's officer hastens from Capernaum, — a day's
journey, — to beg the healer to come to his dying son.
That Jesus can heal at a distance is beyond his faith : —
naturally enough, for the only persons who ever rose
to that height were two Gentiles (Matt. 8:5-13, 15:
21-28), and the faith of the Roman centurion aston
ished Jesus, while that of the Syro-Phoenician woman
called forth His open praise. The effect of the Judean
ministry is seen in Jesus' despondent cry, " Except ye
see signs and wonders ye will in no wise believe ! "
(John 4 : 48). And then, to test the nobleman's faith,
He says, " Go thy way : the child liveth." With a faith
increased to the point of believing that Jesus can heal
his son without going to Capernaum the father pre
pares to return; but it is now seven in the evening
(4: 52) : so he must postpone his journey until morn
ing. On his way home the next day, he meets his
servants hastening to tell him that yesterday, at the
precise hour when Jesus was speaking with him, the

122 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
fever left his son. This completes the progress of
faith, bringing about full belief on the part of the
nobleman and his whole house (4:53). Just what
did he believe? Probably that Jesus was truly the
Messiah; but we have no means of knowing what his
conception of the Messiah was. If we might identify
this nobleman with Chuza, Herod's steward, we' could
see one fruit of the miracle in the gratitude which made
his wife become, later on, a member of the band of
women who ministered to Jesus and the Twelve as
they journeyed in Galilee (Luke 8:3).
This miracle may have played its part in encourag
ing Jesus to undertake the Galilean ministry, in which
so important a place was given to miracles of healing.
But that ministry could not be begun while John was
still doing the work of preparation. Jesus must wait
until John had fulfilled his course. Probably He had
to wait but a few weeks before the news came that
John was imprisoned. Where He was and what He
did meanwhile, we do not know : — the disciples went
back to their boats on the lake.
7. The Length of this Ministry.
The work in Judea began at the Passover (April
12 or 11) of 27 a.d., and ended with the journey
through Samaria to Galilee. That journey is often
put in December, thus making the ministry eight
months. The only authority for this is John 4:35,
" Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then
cometh the harvest? ", which is taken to mean that the
harvest season, which begins in April, was four months
away when Jesus spoke. But the words can equally
well be interpreted as a proverbial statement meaning,
" After the time of sowing one must wait till the time

THE JUDEAN MINISTRY 123
for reaping " ; and thus, as we have seen, they would
express the thought of the disciples after their labors
in Judea. The description of the journey, — fatigue,
thirst, scarcity of water, — does not suit the cold, wet
December of Palestine, but rather the dry, hot sum
mer season. Moreover, the return to Galilee could not
have been eight months after the Passover, for the
impression made upon the Galilean pilgrims at that
feast was still fresh (4:45). From its very nature
the Judean work could not have been long. There
was apparently but a week in Jerusalem (2 : 23) ; and
a very few weeks would be enough to show that the
work in the country was a hindrance rather than a
help to the Baptist. We may, therefore, take the early
part of May as the date of the return to Galilee.
The brevity and barrenness of the Judean ministry
answer the question, Why is this ministry told only by
John? The three Synoptists based their history on
the story of Jesus as Peter used to tell it in his evan
gelistic preaching. He omitted the work in Judea,
probably because it was brief and unsuccessful and
contained so little that would interest and convert an
audience of unbelievers. John, writing for Christians,
saw how important it really was as a revelation of
Jesus to the world, and for this reason put it in his
narrative. 8. Its Possible Fruits.
There are few questions in all history more fascinat
ing than the question, What would have followed,
had the Sanhedrin accepted Jesus as the Messiah?
Suppose that instead of rejecting Him they had recog
nized His claims, and put themselves at His bidding,
and sent forth a proclamation to the people that their

124 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Messiah was come, — what then? It seems as if the
whole course of the world's history would have been
changed. The Jews would have saved their own na
tion from destruction; for Jesus, — teaching them to
render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, —
would have kept them from coming into collision with
the Roman power. They would also have been the
best possible instruments for converting the world to
Christianity. The Jew has rare qualifications as a mis
sionary (Paul is a proof of that), and in the days of
Jesus he had special facilities for such work. His
brethren were in every important city throughout the
lands of civilization (Acts 15 : 21) ; and every Jewish
synagogue could be used as a center of Christian mis
sions, even as the apostles vainly tried to use them
later on. Doubtless the conversion of the world was
delayed for centuries by the Sanhedrin's refusal to
recognize Christ. What changes would have been
made in Jewish worship and religious life, we cannot
tell. The temple would have remained, preserved from
the torch of the Roman soldier; but the temple ritual
must needs be transformed. Indeed, if Jesus was ac
cepted as the Messiah, a revolution must be wrought in
the whole ecclesiastical system which was the pride of
Judaism. This was the real reason why the Sanhedrin
rejected Jesus. To receive Him would involve the
transformation of all their conceptions of righteous
ness, the abandonment of their proud spiritual dictator
ship, and the loss of princely revenues connected with
the temple worship. That was clear from the outset.
Is it to be wondered at, all things considered, that the
rulers refused to recognize Him; and that the Judean
ministry was a failure?
If the Jews had accepted Jesus as their Messiah,

THE JUDEAN MINISTRY 125
what then about His death? This question is forced
upon us; and its answer is far more difficult. Cer
tainly He labored earnestly in the hope and expecta
tion that they would accept Him ; to hold otherwise, is
to make His ministry a mere pretence. And certainly,
if they had accepted Him, they would not have decreed
that He must die, and lent themselves to compass His
death. When we try to go beyond these two facts, in
our thought of what might have been, we enter a
region where men differ so greatly in their ideas about
predestination and their theories of the atonement, that
no unanimity of opinion is possible. To the present
writer the following statements commend themselves:
i). Jesus from the beginning of His ministry knew
that He must lay down His life for the world. Though
He kept it a secret, like- His Messiahship, yet as the
evangelist John perceives, the necessity of a sacrificial
death was in His thoughts from the outset ( i : 29,
2 : 19; 3 : 14, cf. Mark 2 : 20). Old Testament proph
ecy declared it; His knowledge of human nature con
firmed it; His desire to reveal the love of the Father
unto the uttermost led Him on to it. Two conceptions
of the Messianic work run parallel through the Hebrew
Scriptures, — one is of the triumphant king who crushes
all foes beneath his feet; the other is of the suffering
servant of Jehovah who pours out his life as an offer
ing for sin. These two conceptions, so seemingly
contradictory, Jesus was to combine in one, reconciling
them by making the road to death the pathway to the
throne. 2). The time and manner of that death He did not
know at first. The divinely appointed mission of Israel
was to be a light to the Gentiles, the preacher of sal
vation to the whole world. And while it was clearly

126 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
declared in the Old Testament that not all of Israel
would accept this mission, yet there was reason to hope
that many, perhaps the majority, would do so by first
accepting Him as the Messiah and then being ready
to bear His message to heathen lands. And His death,
whether at the hands of His own countrymen (Is. 53)
or of the heathen (Ps. 22), with the victory over death
that must inevitably follow, would be the consumma
tion of the message.
3). When the Jews, first the rulers and then the
people, placed themselves in final opposition to Jesus,
it became evident that His death would be at their
hands. And from that hour, as we shall see, the char
acter of His ministry was correspondingly changed.
If the cross was to stand hard by the walls of Jeru
salem, He must so labor that, on the one hand, the act
of His nation in denying Him would be without excuse,
and, on the other hand, His gospel still would be car
ried to the ends of the earth, as the power of God unto
salvation to every one that believeth.

THE GALILEAN MINISTRY
I. The General Character.
/^ALILEE in area was a little larger than Rhode
^-* Island, its dimensions being about fifty miles
from north to south and thirty from east to west.
According to statements of Josephus its population in
the middle of the first century was three millions. This
seems incredible, since it is almost six times the popu
lation of Rhode Island; yet Josephus knew the land
intimately, and was writing for Romans who knew it
nearly as well. Certainly Galilee was a fair and fer
tile land, crowded with cities and villages, in strong
contrast to Judea which had few large cities except
Jerusalem and much of whose territory was wilder
ness. The contempt and derision heaped upon Galilee
by the Judeans was partly caused by envy.
The people of Galilee, likewise, were in contrast to
those of Judea. They were not as purely Jewish;
indeed, the land had once been known as Galilee of the
Gentiles (Is. 9:2). They were busy with trade and
farming, accustomed to meet foreigners because great
thoroughfares of the world passed through their land,
noted for their bravery and independence, receptive
to new ideas. Josephus says that they were " ever fond
of innovations, and by nature disposed to changes, and
delighting in seditions," though he has in mind specially
the men of Tiberias with whom he had trouble. Herod
127

128 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Antipas ruled Galilee, and ruled it well. He took no
interest in the Jewish religion, and would not hinder
Jesus from preaching doctrines that in Judea would be
sternly suppressed by the Sanhedrin. The Galileans
were just as devout as the Judeans ; but the synagogue
had far more to do with shaping their religious thought
than the temple, and its influence was more wholesome.
The Messianic hope was strong, perhaps even stronger
than in Judea; for the apocalyptic literature, which
nourished and shaped it, " was written for the most
part in Galilee, — the home of the religious seer and
mystic" (Charles).
His failure in Judea had by no means caused Jesus
to abandon His attempt to win the Jews as a nation.
The rulers would not accept Him ; now He will appeal
to the people. For this purpose He selects the more
promising field of Galilee, and devotes Himself to work
among the masses. If He can win the Galileans, either
presently the Sanhedrin will be led to change its atti
tude and declare Him the Messiah; or else Galilee,
already separate from Judea politically, will become
separate spiritually; and the Messianic kingdom can
have its center here. His work is simple in method,
and uses Capernaum as its headquarters, this city being
a good center because it is easy of access and important.
Jesus has a home here (Mark 2:1, Matt. 4:13) either
with Peter or with His own brethren and mother who
possibly now lived here (John 2: 12) ; and we notice
that He is reckoned as a citizen of Capernaum in the
collection of taxes (Matt. 17:24). From Capernaum
He makes systematic tours throughout Galilee, teach
ing, preaching and healing the sick. Until increasing
hostility closes their doors, He uses the synagogues
on the days of public service (Saturday, Monday and

THE GALDLEAN MINISTRY 129
Thursday) ; but He is ready to teach wherever He finds
an audience. Special disciples accompany Him, but
probably do not preach, though they may help by per
sonal work with individuals. The small expense of
such tours is borne by friends and grateful acquaint
ances. In the opening chapter of Mark we have a
description of one day's work which is a good sample
of all.
If Jesus would win the people, He must, first of
all, attract their attention. This is one purpose of
the miracles; they serve as a church bell. But they
draw many who are simply curious or eager for heal
ing, and who, therefore, form an unpromising field
in which to work. Next, He must proclaim that the
kingdom of God is at hand, and endeavor to make His
audience understand the nature of the kingdom. The
current ideas are so unlike those which Jesus would
impart that this task is one of great difficulty. His
miracles by their character reveal the nature of the
kingdom, and His teaching does this still more plainly :
but the significance of the miracles is rarely grasped,
and the teaching is often lost sight of, or even rendered
impossible, through the excitement caused by the
miracles. Finally, He must offer Himself to the peo
ple as the Messiah. He cannot do this until they
understand and accept His form of the kingdom.
They are ready to hail a Messiah who will usher in the
kingdom they desire. Can Jesus induce them to accept
the higher ideal? This is the problem before Him;
and in solving it He will face again the temptations of
the wilderness, especially the bread temptation.
The whole Galilean ministry is a period of great
activity. Jesus is constantly surrounded by crowds ; so
that sometimes there is no chance even to eat, and He

130 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
has to steal away for an opportunity to pray. There
are miracles almost by the wholesale. People hasten
to bring their sick to Him for healing, and repeatedly
we are told, " He healed them all." The excitement
increases and becomes so great that His friends or
family fear for His sanity, or at least, hearing that
people are saying, " Jesus is beside himself," become
anxious lest the statement be true (Mark 3:21). There
is a general holiday atmosphere about the work in
Galilee, which greatly troubles John the Baptist when
he hears of it in his prison. At the same time there
is an increasing activity and bitterness of enemies, espe
cially of emissaries from the Sanhedrin ; and the people
are so slow to grasp the teachings about the kingdom
of God that there is a necessary silence about the Mes
siahship. Any chronological arrangement of the incidents in
the Galilean ministry, or indeed in any of the minis
tries, must be most uncertain. The evangelists did not
try to arrange their story chronologically. Probably
they could not have done so, if they had tried. The
order of Mark was in the main followed by Matthew
and Luke; and the best thing we can do, if we must
have a chronological arrangement, is to follow Mark,
inserting the incidents not told by him as best we can.
The length of this ministry depends upon the date
which is selected as the conclusion of the Judean min
istry. The imprisonment of John, which seems to have
taken place very soon after Jesus left Judea, was the
signal for beginning the Galilean work; and it con
tinued until shortly after the feeding of the five thou
sand, which was near the time of a passover (John
6:4, cf. Mark 6 : 39). If the Judean ministry ended
in May, 27 a.d., this passover must be that of March,

THE GALILEAN MINISTRY 181
28 a.d. Those who make the Judean ministry continue
until December, 27 a.d., cannot crowd all the work of
the Galilean ministry into the next four months, and
so have to suppose that the feeding of the five thousand
was at the passover season of 29 a.d. But a period
of sixteen months for the Galilean ministry is far too
long; the situation and the narrative agree that the
course of events leading up to the crisis which termi
nated the work was a rapid one.
2. The Popularity of Jesus.
From His first public appearance in Galilee Jesus
was surrounded by crowds, excited, curious, busy but
evidently friendly. Everything conspired to cause this.
He began His Galilean ministry by working miracles,
and with some fame as a miracle worker already gained
in Judea. " There is an irresistible bias in Orientals
of all religions to run after the mere shadow of a
prophet or miracle worker," says Dr. Thompson; and
when we remember how densely packed with cities
and villages Galilee was, we can understand why a
multitude would quickly collect around Jesus wherever
He went. His opening message was similar to that of
John the Baptist, — " The time is fulfilled, and the king
dom of God is at hand: repent ye and believe in the
gospel" (Mark 1 : 15), — a message which would al
ways attract attention. And as the crowds listened
to Him they were held spellbound, more by the novel
manner of His preaching than by the subject-matter
which often they failed to understand. " He taught
them as one having authority, and not as the scribes "
(Mark 1:22). No scribe ventured to give his own
opinion except as supported by what some great rabbi
of old had taught ; but Jesus demanded that His hear-

THE LIFE OF CHRIST
ers should believe His words simply because He Him
self uttered them. The difference between the two is
the difference between " It hath been said by them of
old time " and " Verily, I say unto you." The scribe
sought to be " a well-cemented cistern," holding every
word of his teachers; Jesus was a fountain, having
within Himself the source of all His teachings. Like
the rabbis He, too, was a teacher of the law; but
" the rabbis interpreted the law as they found it : Jesus
laid down a new law ; and when He spoke, it was with
the air of command " (Sanday). Again the catholicity
of His preaching was novel and most attractive. His
hearers were of all classes; for He was open to all,
and had a message for all. The rich and the poor, the
rabbis and the rabble, the Pharisees and the publicans,
stood side by side in His audience, and felt that His
interest embraced them without distinction. Above all,
there was a winsomeness, a graciousness, about His
words (Luke 4:22) which made His audience hang
upon His utterances. It was the grace, the charm, that
dwelt in the man Himself. The great religious lead
ers, — Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, Francis of As-
sissi and the rest, — have had this quality of personal
charm which draws forth the love and devotion of
disciples. Jesus had it pre-eminently, as incident after
incident in His history shows. Men and women were
attracted to Him and followed Him constantly, not
because they understood His teachings or hoped for
personal gain, but because their hearts went out to Him
in complete surrender.
At the outset the sole show of opposition was by
demoniacs; and His overthrow of this only increased
the reverence and favor of the people (Mark 1 : 23-
27). The Galileans were not disturbed, as the Judeans

THE GALILEAN MINISTRY 133
would have been, by the fact that He healed on the
Sabbath, though we notice that they would not bring
their sick to be healed on that day (Mark i : 29-34).
When He started out on His first tour in Galilee the
synagogues were all open for His preaching (Mark
1 : 39). But when the authorities learned, in spite
of His stern command to keep it secret, that a leper
had crept into some city, — probably in the evening, —
where Jesus was staying (Luke 5: 12) and had been
touched and healed by Him, they became alarmed, and
for a time refused Him admission into the cities for
fear of a repetition of such pollution. They evidently
disapproved, if not of Him, of the outcasts He drew
around Him. It was the faint yet definite beginning
of a future opposition; and this is the reason why
Mark tells the story in detail (1 : 40-45).
Although from this time hostility was steadily de
veloping (as we shall see later), the fame of Jesus
continued to spread, and general favor, also, seemed to
be constantly increasing. Notes of this growing popu
larity are found in Mark 2:2, " And many were gath
ered together, so that there was no longer room for
them, no, not even about the door; and he spake the
word unto them," and 3 : 7-10, " Jesus with his dis
ciples withdrew to the sea ; and a great multitude from
Galilee followed ; and from Judea, and from Jerusalem,
and from Idumaea, and beyond the Jordan, and about
Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, hearing what great
things he did, came unto him. And he spake to his
disciples, that a little boat should wait on him because
of the crowd, lest they should throng him ; for he had
healed many; insomuch that as many as had plagues
pressed upon him that they might touch him." We
notice also the effect of the miracle at Nain, " Fear

134 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
took hold on all ; and they glorified God, saying, " A
great prophet is arisen among us, and God hath visited
his people " (Luke 7: 16-17), which is only somewhat
stronger than the effect of the other miracles.
While multitudes thronged to Jesus, many of them
came simply from curiosity, and others to gain heal
ing for themselves or for friends. And though there
seemed to be general favor, there was scanty spiritual
response. The teachings about the kingdom of God
produced so feeble impression and gained so little
acceptance that Jesus could not proclaim Himself the
Messiah of the kingdom. Indeed, the very fact that
He spent so much of His time in teaching hindered
His recognition; for a teaching Messiah was a Sa
maritan conception and not a Jewish. Evidently His
popularity was superficial, and He could trust Himself
unreservedly to the people here no more than in Judea.
Meanwhile His enemies were steadily but stealthily
working up an opposition.
3. The Choice and the Training of the Twelve.
It is in connection with the great spread of the fame
of Jesus, and the thronging of multitudes to see and
hear Him, that Mark narrates the choice of the Twelve.
Jesus had begun His work in Galilee by calling from
their fishing-boats four of the men who had been with
Him in Judea, — Simon and Andrew, James and John
(Mark i:i6f.). The call this time was to a per
manent companionship in which He would prepare
them for their life-work, — " Come ye after me, and I
will make you to become fishers of men." Philip and
Bartholomew were probably soon added to the number,
as they, too, had been his companions in Judea. The
call of Levi the publican, whose other name was

THE GALILEAN MINISTRY 135
Matthew, took place after the first preaching tour.
The promptness with which he left his place of toll and
followed Jesus (Mark 2 : 14) is not strange, if already
he had heard Jesus preach, and was filled with the
desire to be a follower. How the others of the Twelve
were gained is not told. But we know that in the Gali
lean ministry Jesus was always surrounded with a
band of disciples, both men and women. Some of
these came voluntarily; some He called; and on the
other hand, some who wished to follow Him were dis
couraged and forbidden. Besides the Twelve there
were others who were with Him almost constantly
from the beginning of this ministry, so that Peter,
when seeking to fill the place of Judas, had no diffi
culty in finding at least two men who met the require
ments he laid down for an apostle, — " Of the men,
therefore, that have companied with us all the time
that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us,
beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that
he was received up from us, of these must one become
a witness with us of his resurrection" (Acts 1:21-
22). We might arrange the disciples of Jesus in four
groups of increasing closeness, viz. : — believers, like
Mary and Martha and Simon the leper, who welcomed
Him to their homes but did not journey with Him;
companions, like Mary Magdalene and Matthias, who
formed the group of daily followers in His preaching
tours ; the Twelve, who were selected from this group
to be apostles ; and the innermost circle, Peter, James
and John, who were privileged to share experiences
(Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33) from which the rest of
the Twelve were debarred.
It was when the work had increased to a point where
Jesus felt the need of assistants, that He selected

136 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
twelve of His disciples to be apostles. As the name
disciple means a learner, so the name apostle means one
sent forth, — a missionary. Mark expressly states that
the Twelve were chosen "that they might be with
Him and that he might send them forth to preach "
(3 : 14). The first purpose of the choice was a neces
sary preliminary to the second. These men must come
in closest contact with Him (contact that an impostor
would shun because his fraud would certainly be de
tected), must share His daily life, receive private
explanations of His hard sayings, be patiently trained
until they were in mind like Him, before they could be
sent forth with a gift of miraculous powers to preach
His gospel through the land. How far Jesus at this
time had also in mind the training of these men against
a future day when He would be taken from them and
the work would be left in their hands, we can only
surmise. Certainly it was such a training ; though not
until after the close of the Galilean ministry did He
begin to speak of that day.
All the Twelve probably were Galileans, except
Judas who was Iscariot, i.e., the man from Cherioth,
a little town in Judea. The question why, with His
knowledge of men, Jesus selected Judas Iscariot to be
one of the number, is best answered by saying that
Judas had in him the possibility of a magnificent apos
tle. Though Jesus later on says he " is a devil " (John
6: 70), He also later on calls Peter, " Satan " (Matt.
16:23). One of the Twelve (unless his appellation,
like that of the other Simon, indicates simply his char
acter, "the zealous") had been a Zealot, a fanatical
opponent of the Roman government ; another had been
a tax collector, a servant of the same government: in
this we see the sway of Jesus over spirits originally

THE GALILEAN MINISTRY 137
most diverse. The social standing of the Twelve is
often unduly disparaged. The father of James and
John had hired servants (Mark 1:20); John knew
the highpriest and had access to his palace (John 18:
15); Matthew could give a great feast in his own
home (Mark 2:15). Nor were they such illiterate
men as is sometimes represented. The Jews empha
sized education; and the statement about Peter and
John that the Sanhedrin perceived they were unlearned
and ignorant men (Acts 4 : 13), means simply that they
were laymen and not rabbis. Still the choosing of the
apostles from the common people rather than from the
recognized leaders (and there were such who might
have been chosen) is most significant; and the trans
formation of these fishermen, tax collectors, and the
like, into the masterbuilders of the Christian church
was a marvellous work, — a spiritual miracle.
4. The Growth of Opposition.
When Jesus had withdrawn from Judea without
gaining recognition, and John had been cast into prison
for his fearless denunciation" of the incestuous mar
riage of Herod Antipas, the rabbis at Jerusalem doubt
less felt that this Messianic movement was practically
ended. It had gone the way of numerous predecessors ;
and they could dismiss it from their attention. Soon
the news came that the fanatic from Nazareth had re
appeared in the North, and was drawing greater
crowds than John ever drew. This roused them at
once to send agents who should watch Him and, so far
as possible, stop His work. The Pharisees of Galilee
could feel little sympathy with what Jesus was doing;
but their active opposition was instigated by emissaries
from Jerusalem. Its growth is clearly indicated in

138 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Mark by a series of incidents apparently selected for
that purpose. They reveal a steady increase both in
the gravity of the charges against Jesus and in the
boldness with which these charges are uttered. It is
worth while to study them in detail.
a). The Charge of Blasphemy (Mark 2: 1-12).
When Jesus was back in Capernaum, after His first
missionary tour, His preaching place was His own
house (2:1), perhaps because the synagogue was
closed to Him, though later on we find it open again
(John 6: 59). Pharisees and doctors of the law, some
of them from Judea and Jerusalem (Luke 5 : 17),
were present to hear Him and to watch His work. The
others might be of little importance; but the rabbis
from Jerusalem would be revered and influential.
They heard Him say to the paralytic let down through
the roof, " Thy sins be forgiven " ; and a strong
though unspoken resentment arose in their hearts.
They could not have supposed that Jesus claimed au
thority to forgive sins as God or in the place of God;
such a claim would have made them rend their gar
ments in horror (cf. Mark 14 : 63 f.). Rather He was
blasphemously usurping the authority of the priests,
who alone as God's appointed representatives could, —
after proper penance and sacrificial offerings, — declare
sins forgiven. Still, the prophets had taught that for
giveness did not depend upon penance or sacrifices, and
had themselves pronounced sins forgiven (e.g., II Sam.
12: 13). So the scribes could not speak out against
Him. And when His rebuke of their unspoken cen
sure was followed by the miracle of healing, the popu
lar excitement and favor were too great for them to
do or say anything. But their hostile attitude towards
Him was strengthened.

THE GALILEAN MINISTRY 139
b). Association with Outcasts (Mark 2: 13-17).
The call of Matthew-Levi, and the feast with other
publicans and sinners in his house, stirred up the scribes
and Pharisees more deeply. If they had been at all
disposed to favor Jesus (as some may have been) be
cause He seemed to be engaged in a work of purifying
the people and preparing for the coming of the king
dom, this put an end to their favor. His ideal of a
holy life was evidently far other than theirs. Still
they could not say that He was actually transgressing
any law of God ; He was only failing to endorse their
ideal. They now revealed their strong disapproval, not
to Him but to His disciples, thus attempting to destroy
His reputation and influence. The charge was, " He
cannot really be a good man, or he would not thus share
the life of bad people." The reply of Jesus was tact
ful (He did not wish to alienate these critics) but
unanswerable : " The worse you hold these men to be,
the more it is my duty to seek them out and make
them better; if they were perfect men, they would not
need my warning to repent and prepare for the king
dom of God."
c). Neglect of Fasting (Mark 2: 18-22).
The scribes grew bolder in their opposition, and
came directly to Him with the reproach, but in the
form of a question, that He was not teaching His dis
ciples to fast. (Note that Matthew puts the question
in the lips of John's disciples ; but Mark and Luke are
better in assigning it to these same scribes.) Jesus in
answer stated the true idea of fasting, — an outward
expression of an inward frame of mind. And He de-
clared, in two parable germs, — the patch on the gar
ment and the new wine in old wineskins, — that His
mission was not to improve the old, but to bring in

140 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
something wholly new. This continued disapproval of
the scribes, and their evident hostility, called forth His
first veiled hint of the sorrowful failure of His work
(2 : 20). Since the fasts which they would have Him
keep were not obligatory (for the law of Moses ap
pointed only one, that on the Day of Atonement), the
scribes could not openly condemn Him for neglecting
them ; but they had their opinion just the same.
d). Sabbath-Breaking (Mark 2: 23-3: 6).
The Sabbath was the peculiar glory of the Jews.
Into no other part of their religious life did they enter
with more enthusiasm, enlarging and guarding the
Fourth Commandment by a multitude of rules and
restrictions. At the same time their Sabbath-keeping
was the supreme illustration of empty formalism, — an
emphasis of letter instead of spirit, of sacrifice instead
of mercy (Matt. 12 : 7). No wonder, then, that Jesus'
treatment of the Sabbath repeatedly violated their
rules (e.g., Luke 13: 10-17 ar>d 14: 1-6, both belong
ing probably to the Galilean ministry), and that such
violations aroused their hostility to the highest degree,
and could be considered proof that He was a Samari
tan, and had a devil (John 8 : 48).
Mark gives two instances to illustrate how the hos
tility arose. The first is Jesus' defence of His dis
ciples when they plucked ears of grain as they passed
through the fields on the Sabbath. The time must have
been early in the Galilean ministry for the grain harvest
ended in June. The statement, " One (or, a thing)
greater than the temple is here " (Matt. 12 : 6), sounds
like an echo of the teaching at the first Passover. The
violation of the Sabbath consisted both in plucking the
grain and also in rubbing off the chaff (Luke 6:1),
which the Pharisees deemed a kind of threshing. It

THE GALILEAN MINISTRY 141
was a petty matter, which the people at large would
not regard; but the Pharisees were quick to criticise
it, and Jesus' defence of His disciples, especially His
words, " The Sabbath was made for man, and not man
for the Sabbath ; so that the Son of Man is lord even
of the Sabbath," centered their attention upon His
attitude towards the Sabbath.
They now watched Him closely, and on another Sab
bath waited in the synagogue to see whether He would
heal a man with a withered hand. Jesus called the
man forth, and then made an appeal to them to endorse
an act of mercy performed on the Sabbath day. The
heartless silence which was their only reply filled Him
with righteous anger; and He ordered the man to
stretch forth his hand, whereupon it was restored
whole. The Pharisees were frenzied (Luke 6:11):
the man was healed; and yet all that had been done
was to command him to stretch forth his hand, — an act
that could in no way be construed into a violation of
the Sabbath. They felt that Jesus had made fools of
them, and, therefore, was a specially subtle and dan
gerous transgressor; and the problem henceforth was
how to overthrow Him (not necessarily to kill Him).
Why the Herodians should be concerned, is not evi
dent ; they may have been roused against Him by His
increasing popularity, and possibly Herod himself was
beginning to be alarmed.
e). The Charge of Diabolism (Mark 3:22-30).
This had been concocted at Jerusalem in light of
reports brought thither (Mark 3:22). It was a
shrewd and plausible explanation of Jesus' career.
The miracles could not be denied; but they might be
credited to Satan working through Jesus; and this
explanation would be in harmony with the Sabbath-

142 THE LIFE OF CHRIST,
breaking and the other charges against Him. If the
people could be made to accept it, His power was
destroyed. The demand for miracles would not at once
cease, — since sufferers are willing to try even unholy
means for relief, — but no one would accept His teach
ings; and when the people had no physical wants to
bring to Him, they would forsake Him utterly.
It would be unjust to call this charge of diabolism
a malicious lie of the Pharisees. Probably they hon
estly believed it, and with seemingly good reason.
They insisted that the character of any miracle must
be determined from the character of the man who
wrought it. In this they were right; the law itself
had prescribed this test (Deut. 13 : 1) ; and if we were
passing judgment upon a miracle today, we would
adopt it. And the Pharisees found proof, to their
minds strong, that Jesus was an evil-minded man.
They pointed out His fondness for feasting instead of
fasting, which showed Him to be a glutton and wine-
bibber ; His delight in the society of publicans, harlots
and other outcasts; His slight valuation of washings,
tithes, circumcision and such legal ordinances; and
above all, His deliberate disregard of the Sabbath.
Was it not manifest to any thoughtful critic that this
man was a child of Satan, and that He was deliberately
seeking to lead the people into sin ? If so, His miracles
Were lying wonders, wrought by the powers of evil.
The error of the Pharisees arose from deliberately
ignoring the manifest spirit of truth and love which
prompted and pervaded all the work of Jesus. In
their dislike of Him they were willing to suppose that
He was doing good from evil motives, and setting up
a kingdom of God in service of Satan. To take such
an attitude was to destroy all ability to perceive moral

THE GALILEAN MINISTRY 143
distinctions. It was more than denouncing Jesus; it
was pronouncing light to be darkness, good to be evil
(Is. 5:20), which is the sin against the Holy Spirit.
Any fuller, clearer revelation of the true character of
Jesus would not avail to overcome their opposition,
because the more He wrought the works of His Fa
ther, the more they would pronounce these works to be
Satanic. Hostility could not reach a greater, more
hopeless degree. The only question was, How far
would it spread, and to what consequences would it
lead? 5. The Change in Popular Feeling.
Certain incidents in the later part of the Galilean
ministry are significant as showing that the general
favor with which Jesus was regarded at the outset
was slowly disappearing. One is His use of parables
to convey the truth He wished to impart. We natu
rally think of a parable as an interesting and impres
sive form of teaching by comparison, whereby some
event in the world of nature or some incident in human
life is made to elucidate a spiritual truth. This is
true; and the parables of Jesus are among the most
familiar and helpful of His teachings. Nevertheless, a
parable means nothing, if the interpretation is lack
ing; and only those who love the truth and are pre
pared to receive it can interpret it without aid. Even
the Twelve more than once had to ask Jesus to explain
some parable He had spoken (Matt. 13: 36; 15:15).
Accordingly we find Jesus putting His teachings into
the form of parables most often when His audience
is made up in part of sympathetic hearers and in part
of enemies lying in wait to catch Him in His talk.
The one class is instructed by them; the other class is

144 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
baffled. For example, when publicans and sinners were
drawing near to hear Him, and the Pharisees and the
scribes were standing apart and murmuring against
His associates (Luke 15 : 1-2), He told the parable of
the Prodigal Son. To those who were heavy hearted
from conscious sinfulness it was a picture of their own
degradation, and a wonderful message of possible for
giveness; but the self-righteous critics found in it
nothing but idle talk about a foolish boy and a doting
father. The use of parables, therefore, in preaching
the kingdom to the multitude by the seaside, " as they
were able to hear it" (Mark 4: if.), shows that
among His hearers were some who were squarely hos
tile. The account follows directly after that of the
charge of diabolism; and the connection of the two is
obvious. Another note of impending disaster was the ques
tion that came from John the Baptist, who was now a
prisoner in Herod's palace at Machaerus, east of the
Dead Sea, because he had dared to denounce the
abominable marriage of the tetrach with Herodias.
Reports of what Jesus was now doing in Galilee filled
John with perplexity. He had foretold a Messiah who
would thoroughly cleanse the threshing floor, and burn
up the chaff with unquenchable fire ; but Jesus seemed
to have taken not the first step in such a ministry of
purification. On the contrary, He was feasting with
publicans, making friends with sinners, preaching for
giveness on easy terms to all. Naturally John was sore
troubled, and wondered if he had made a mistake in
declaring that Jesus was the one whose way he was sent
to prepare. But though John might doubt his own dis
cernment, he had no doubt concerning the honesty of
Jesus ; so he sent directly to Him the question. " Art

THE GALILEAN MINISTRY 145
thou he that cometh, or look we for another? " (Matt.
11:3). To give an open affirmative answer, espe
cially in the presence of the curious multitude, was
impossible without breaking the silence that Jesus was
observing about His Messiahship; and also it might
lead John to suppose Him to be exactly the kind of
Messiah John had announced would come. In place
of doing this He sent back a reference to a prophecy of
Isaiah (61 : 1-3) upon which John had nourished his
Messianic expectations, and which Jesus was now evi
dently fulfilling by His miracles and teachings. Doubt
less the answer restored John's shaken confidence, and
led him to a closer study of the teachings of the
prophet concerning the Messiah's mission. But the
words with which Jesus closed His message, " Blessed
is he whosoever shall find no occasion of stumbling in
me," are full of significance. If John, with all his con
fidence and devotion, found it difficult to believe that
' Jesus was establishing the kingdom of God, how many
of those who lacked John's intimate knowledge of
Jesus' sinlessness and high calling must not only have
stumbled in following but have turned back in utter
unbelief !
The rejection at Nazareth is a clear indication of
increasing hostility. Luke puts it at the beginning of
the Galilean ministry, possibly because the sermon in
the synagogue seemed to illustrate the course of that
ministry; but the whole situation, as well as the refer
ence to miracles already wrought in Capernaum, suits
better the much later date which Mark and Matthew
give it. Although Jesus was received in His boyhood's
village with something of the old-time favor or at
least with much curiosity, and was asked to preach in
the synagogue, He found an obstinate unbelief that

146 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
greatly hindered His power to work miracles, — an
unbelief that astonished Him (Mark 6: 5-6) ; and ac
cording to Luke a murderous attempt was made upon
His life. The attitude of these men of Nazareth arose,
in part, from their previous acquaintance with Jesus;
it is not easy to accept as a prophet the man whom
you have employed as your carpenter, no matter how
good a man and how good a carpenter he used to be.
But the intensity of the antagonism indicates a greater
cause. We can explain it only by supposing that Naza
reth was the home of some whose intense religious zeal
had been roused already against Jesus by His enemies.
Whatever its cause, this rejection by those who had
known and loved Him in earlier days must have been
specially hard to endure.
The separate mission of the Twelve, which is re
lated just after this (Mark 6:7 i.), was the final
attempt to win Galilee. The work of Jesus had been
hindered by the constant presence and increasing oppo
sition of His enemies. But if the Twelve be sent out,
two by two, to work apart from Him, not only can
they reach a wider audience, but possibly they may
escape the antagonism He constantly encounters.
Whether they succeed or not, the mission will be good
training for them. It will not be easy, for they are
going forth in the midst of enemies as sheep among
wolves (Matt 10: 16), and must expect to find an op
position that will shut them out from many places.
Their work, like their Master's, must be confined to
their own land and people (Matt. 10: 5-6). And no
labor is to be spent upon hostile cities; for the field
is larger than they can cover before "the Son of
Man be come," — whatever that may mean (10:23).
Concerning the special instructions given them Kent

THE GALILEAN MINISTRY 147
says, " Expressed in modern terms, Jesus commanded
His disciples to do their work in the simplest and most
direct way, to avoid unnecessary hindrances, and to
work only where conditions were favorable; He also
sought to impress them with the supreme importance
and dignity of their task, and to prepare them for the
misunderstandings and affronts which they were sure
to meet."
We are not told how long the apostles were away or
what experiences they underwent. They seem to have
fulfilled their mission faithfully (Mark 6: 12 f.) ; and
(if Luke 10: 1-20 is another account of the same epi
sode) they returned to Jesus with joy, especially elated
by their power to cast out demons. In this success of
His missionaries, Jesus saw the earnest of the com
plete downfall of Satan; yet He admonished them to
rejoice, not in what they could do, but in what they
might be (Luke 10: 17 f.). It was probably during
this absence of the Twelve, that the disciples of John
the Baptist came to Jesus with the news of their mas
ter's martyrdom, — an event of special significance to
Jesus, and leading up to a complete change in His
ministry. 6. The Final Test.
John the Baptist fulfilled his course, and fell the
victim of a wicked woman's hate. Behind that hate,
however, can we not see the more execrable hate of
the Pharisees, who not only rejoiced at his imprison
ment and death, but may have actively intrigued to
bring them about? Certainly Jesus laid the respon
sibility for John's fate not upon Herod or Herodias,
but upon the Jewish rulers. At every stage John had
been His forerunner. The annunciation to Zacharias

148 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
was the prelude of the annunciation to Mary. The
voice crying in the wilderness drew Jesus forth from
the seclusion of Nazareth to begin His public minis
try. The first disciples of Jesus were trained for their
work by following John. When the Judean ministry
had ended in failure, the imprisonment of John was
the signal to begin work in Galilee. A few months
later, when the Galilean ministry was still seemingly
on the flood-tide of success, the disciples of John came
bringing the news of his death (Matt. 14: 12); and
Jesus heard in it the knell of His own. " Elijah is
come already and they knew him not, but did unto him
whatsoever they would. Even so shall the Son of Man
also suffer of them" (Matt. 17:12). The lack of
spiritual discernment which had kept them from
recognizing that John was Elijah would keep them
from recognizing that Jesus was the Messiah ; and the
fate of each would be similar.
On the surface there appeared no reason to despair
of Galilee. The crowds that followed Jesus were not
diminishing; and the Twelve, who had just returned
from their independent mission, reported much success.
True, the Pharisees had grown bold and bitter, and
were dogging His steps with the charge that He was a
son of Beelzebub, teaching dangerous errors and work
ing miracles by the aid of Satan. But they had no
power to arrest His work, so long as the people were
loyal to Him. Nor was there danger that the political
authorities in Galilee would interfere. The fame of
Jesus had already reached the palace; and doubtless
they were discussing whether His course tended
towards insurrection. But the guilty conscience of
Herod Antipas suggested the dread thought that Jesus
was John the Baptist risen from the dead with power

THE GALDLEAN MINISTRY 149
of miracle-working gained by the resurrection (Mark
6: 14). Against such an enemy the king would not
take steps unless forced to do so.
The real danger lay in the purely selfish and super
ficial character of most of Jesus' following. Men were
enthusiastic over Him; but why? Because He was
healing diseases, and casting out devils, and bringing
the dead to life. His popularity was scarcely other
than that of a marvellous physician. The villages into
which He entered were crowded with people seeking
relief from sufferings; their importunity knew no
limits; they pressed upon Him when He walked the
streets; they tore off the roof when He was in a house;
they gave Him leisure for neither food nor prayer.
But when He began to preach, then at once they lost
interest. They cared little for His doctrines; they
interrupted His most earnest discourses with frivolous
comments or selfish requests ; the Sermon on the Mount
made no deeper impression than astonishment because
He spoke so confidently; and the parables by the sea
shore were enigmas beyond comprehension since men
lacked the heart to understand. So long as there was
some tangible, selfish gain in following Jesus, such
men would follow ; but not one moment longer. The
miracle in the country of the Gerasenes (Mark 5 : 1-
20) shows the general attitude; if the presence of
Jesus involves the loss of swine, the swine shall remain
and He must go.
The work of John had seemed to lay hold upon the
hearts of the people and to produce a thorough refor
mation, yet it had proved most fleeting and ineffective ;
was the present work as futile ? This was the question
that weighed on the mind of Jesus, and, — more than a
desire for rest or for an opportunity to sorrow in quiet

150 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
over the death of His faithful herald, — led Him to
seek with the Twelve "a desert place apart." A
crowd, possibly of pilgrims on the way to the feast of
the Passover (John 6:4-5), reached the spot, even
before His boat could land, and changed the day from
quiet meditation to active teaching and healing. When
evening came on, the disciples suggested that He send
the people away to find food and lodging for the night.
Instead, He used the opportunity to test the quality
of His work in a practical way by performing a
miracle of a sort the multitude had never seen before.
He took five loaves and two fishes, which happened to
be at hand, and with them fed every one. This aroused
the wildest excitement. Here was the Messiah for
whom they had been longing, — a Messiah who could
not only heal diseases but even supply food for all.
Life would be one long holiday under such a king; —
compel Him to take the throne openly and begin His
reign (John 6: 14-15). It seemed for the moment as
if this programme would be carried out and, despite
all his teachings concerning the kingdom of God, Jesus
would be crowned the king of selfish, sensual men.
Sharp work was required to prevent it. He con
strained His disciples, who evidently sympathized
with the project of the people, to get into their boat
and start for the other shore; He sent the multitude
away; and then, as His custom was after such an hour
of trial, He sought the solitude of the hills for unin
terrupted prayer.
A day or two later some of this same crowd came
pouring into Capernaum, — which would be on their
way to Jerusalem, — searching for Jesus, and not ready
to give up the project of a kingdom. Doubtless they
were irritated by His previous refusal ; and the recep*

THE GALILEAN MINISTRY 151
tion they now met with was calculated to irritate them
still more. Never was Jesus more enigmatical and
unresponsive than when they thronged about Him in
the synagogue that day. His heart was doubly sad
and sore; His great forerunner, John, after a life of
futile labor had been foully murdered; and the effect
of the miracle of the loaves and fishes had shown that
His own patient work in Galilee was equally barren in
results. He had succeeded only in gaining a purely
selfish following, and had failed to arouse any desire
for a spiritual kingdom, and any hunger for the bread
of life eternal. Just what Jesus said to the multitude,
as they babbled about manna in the wilderness, and
demanded fresh exhibitions of His power to gratify
their sensuous cravings, we cannot tell. John, after
his usual fashion, has thrown the illumination of later
knowledge upon the scene, and has told us, not the
exact words that Jesus spoke, but the hidden meaning
that lay beneath them. To men excited by greedy
desire for things purely physical, Jesus undoubtedly
proclaimed the supreme importance of things spiritual,
contrasting the meat which perisheth with the meat
which abideth unto eternal life (John 6:27). Their
insistence that He become their king had set before
Him one of the temptations in the wilderness; He
would give them in return the great truth with which
He had met and overcome that temptation (Matt. 4:
4). Something of the shadow of the cross, also,
would naturally be revealed in His words; for the
attitude of these Galileans signified the approach of
His death. But much of what John gives us is a
sacramental discourse, such as in no way fits this early
period when Jesus was silent about His personal claims,
and had not begun to teach the necessity of His death.

152 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
In the last days of His life He might speak in this
manner to the innermost circle of His disciples; and
possibly some of these sayings at Capernaum are repro
ductions of what He said to the Twelve in the upper
chamber; but it is hard to believe that He spoke
them thus early, and to an ignorant Galilean rabble
who had failed to grasp His simplest teachings about
the kingdom of God. John tells us nothing about the
institution of the Eucharist; but the meaning of it is
set forth here. He places it here because he sees that
what Jesus strove to accomplish for the Galileans was
really a spiritual union with Himself such as would
have made the miraculous supper in the wilderness a
true sacrament.
Whatever may have been the response that Jesus
made to the greedy crowd in Capernaum, it was so baf
fling and incomprehensible, that they turned away from
Him with murmurs of rage. John points to this
special time as the beginning of a great desertion;
though 6:66-71 is probably the summary of all that
followed until Peter's confession (Matt. 16:16).
The Synoptists tell of some further ministry, but only
of healing (Matt. 14:34-36; Mark 6:53-56), and
agree that very soon Jesus ended the work in Galilee
by withdrawing into the parts of Tyre and Sidon. The
suddenness and completeness of this collapse of the
Galilean mission can be understood if we realize how
the scribes had undermined His favor with the people.
The slander that He was in league with the devil had
borne its natural fruits. Men had not ceased to throng
to Him, eager for miracles, and while in His presence
had felt His charm ; but they had grown to regard Him
as a strange and dangerous man, denounced as the
emissary of Beelzebub by those to whom they were

THE GALDLEAN MINISTRY 153
accustomed to look for religious guidance. If there
was nothing to be obtained from Him, — if He would
not work miracles nor set up a kingdom, — the most
prudent thing was to keep away from Him. The dis
course in the synagogue at Capernaum seemed an an
nouncement that He had no more favors to bestow.
And so they left Him. In reality it was He who
abandoned His work for them, because He realized
it was a failure.
The dispute of Jesus with the Pharisees about eat
ing with unwashen hands (Mark 7 : 1-23) is appropri
ately given at the close of the Galilean ministry, —
though possibly it took place earlier, — because it brings
out clearly the underlying cause of the failure of that
ministry. The most cherished principle of the Phari
sees was that the service of God is a matter of meats
and drinks, of forms and ceremonies, of rules laid
down by human teachers to govern all outside actions.
The principle of Jesus, proclaimed in His teachings
and exemplified in His life, was the direct opposite of
this. The common people did not at first perceive the
contradiction; they could not even imagine that the
young prophet from Nazareth would dare to set Him
self squarely in opposition not only to their most hon
ored rabbis, but also to what they had been taught
were the eternal laws of righteousness. When they
finally did awake to the conflict, and were forced to
take sides in it, the choice was not difficult. In their
own blindness they preferred to follow blind guides;
and the call of Jesus to enter the kingdom of God soon
ceased to fall upon their ears.

XI
THE MIRACLES OF JESUS
THOUGH miracles are found throughout the
public life of Jesus, the Galilean ministry is the
period in which they are most abundant. Healings
and cures of demoniacs seem then to be a part of
each day's regular work ; there are also several nature
miracles, and twice the dead are raised. Accordingly
it would seem proper at this point to consider the whole
subject of the miracles of Jesus.
i. Our Attitude towards Miracles.
An unbiassed study of the miracles of Jesus is im
possible. We cannot take them up without a prejudice,
a prejudgment, arising from our attitude towards
piracies in general. When Renan, for example, states'
5n the preface of his life of Jesus, " Miracles are
things that never happen," he evidently has decided
m advance to reject all evidence for the miracles of
Jesus. And our attitude towards miracles in general is
already fixed by the scheme of the universe that we
have accepted. If in that scheme there is no personal
God, or God has no interest in man, or man does not
need any specjal assistance in the path to divine knowl
edge and likeness, then all miracles must be denied.
In that case, though our denial of the miracles oi
Jesus be professedly on the ground that the evidence
for them is untrustworthy, no amount of evidence
154

THE MntACLES OF JESUS 155
could make them credible to us, because there is no
place for miracles in the world of our philosophy and
religion. On the other hand, if we accept the Christian
scheme of the universe, which recognizes a God who
is the creator and controller of the universe, and who
with fatherly love seeks to bring all men into closest
touch with Himself, and which also recognizes that
men because of sin are blinded to His presence and deaf
to His call so that they need special help in coming
to Him, then miracles are not only possible, but highly
probable ; and we are ready to give due weight to the
evidence which supports them. And if, also, we be
lieve that Jesus was sent by the Father to reveal Him
unto men, we take up the subject of His miracles with
the conviction that if ever miracles have been wrought,
it was by Him in aid of His mission.
A common prejudice against miracles arises from
the idea that a miracle is simply a marvel, — the New
Testament term is "a wonder," — and therefore is
chiefly a fruit of ignorance. That which the savage
would call a miracle is often for the man of science a
purely natural event ; from which it is inferred that the
deeds of Jesus which were marvels to the Galileans,
and still remain so to us, were natural events which
will one day be understood and lose their power to
make men wonder. The inference is not correct be
cause a miracle is more than a marvel. In reality the
marvellous is the least important feature in a miracle,
and serves simply to call attention to it. The real
value of a miracle lies in its significance. In the New
Testament we never find the word "wonder" used
alone, it is always combined with the word " sign," —
"signs and wonders."
An exact definition of a miracle is important in any

156 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
discussion of miracles; but to agree upon a definition
is not easy because, while a miracle is a supernatural
event, men differ strongly as to what is meant by a
natural event. If we agree to recognize in the opera
tions of nature the regular, customary acts of God, we
may define a miracle as an unusual act of God filled
with divine meaning. Its unusualness makes it "a
wonder " ; its divine meaning makes it " a sign." A
miracle is not more directly an act of God than any
natural event. He is as immediately and fully active
in making the sun to rise each morning as He would be
in causing it to stand still at the prayer of Joshua. But
because a miracle is an unusual act, we cannot place
it under any of the " natural laws," which we learn by
observing the usual acts of God in nature; and so we
call it supernatural. It does, however, find a most
evident place under the spiritual laws according to
which all of God's acts are performed, and, in this
aspect of it, is as natural as any of His more usual
acts, 2. The Importance of Jesus' Miracles.
The miracles of Jesus have been used from early
days in proof of His divinity. The apostles, it is true,
seem to have laid no great stress upon any of them
except His resurrection, which they used among the
Jews to remove the ignominy of the cross, and among
the Gentiles to prove that He was indeed the Son of
God. Very soon, however, all His miracles were em
phasized as the chief and final proof that He was
divine. And sceptics, when they had found arguments
seeming to disprove them, felt that they had fully
settled the question of His divinity in the negative.
These arguments are usually rough and ready, — that

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 157
the miracles were deliberate frauds on the part of Jesus
or lies on the part of His disciples, or that the gospel
record is late and worthless.
Today the position of the miracles of Jesus is pecul
iar. On the one hand, we find it much more difficult
to disprove them than it used to be. We realize the
moral impossibility of deception on the part of Jesus
or His disciples, and we recognize the strength of the
evidence for the early date and consequent trust
worthiness of the Gospels and most of the other New
Testament books. On the other hand, we find it much
less easy than formerly to accept any miracles. The
age has been given to science, and this has fostered
habits of thought averse to the miraculous. To many
students miracles are simply a stumbling block instead
of a help. " The intelligent believer of our own day,"
says Adeney, " instead of accepting Christianity upon
the ground of the miracles, accepts it in spite of the
miracles; whether he accepts the miracles or rejects
them, his attitude towards them is towards difficulties,
not helps." No sceptic is ever convinced by them.
He is always able to answer that though he may not
have an explanation of them, he is sure there must be
one, and that the inexplicable is not necessarily the
miraculous. The foundation of belief in Christ today
is not His miracles, but rather His character, His teach
ings, and His influence upon the world. And in our
thought of His life as the Son of God who came to
show men the Father, the miracles fall into the back
ground. In thus giving miracles a subordinate place, we are
following the example of Jesus Himself. He never
wrought them simply to impress spectators ; the tempta
tion to do this was met and mastered in the wilderness.

158 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
The nearest approach to an attempt to convert sceptics
by a miracle was in the case of the paralytic let down
through the roof (Mark 2 : 10) ; but the man undoubt
edly would have been healed in response to the faith
of his friends who brought him, even if the hostile
scribes had not been present; and the miracle did not
change the attitude of the hostile scribes. More than
once Jesus was asked to show a sign from heaven
(e.g., Mark 8:11), and He always refused. He
sought to keep miracles from hindering more impor
tant work, sometimes by refusing to meet a crowd that
clamored for them (Mark 1 : 37), sometimes by enjoin
ing silence concerning them (Mark 5:43; Matt. 9:
30). He warned the Twelve against overvaluing the
power to perform them (Luke 10 : 20). And His final
beatitude was upon the faith that needs no miracle to
create it (John 20: 29). If we cling so closely to the
miracles that we refuse to believe in Him without
them, we cannot claim that beatitude.
3. Why should Jesus work Miracles?
A useless miracle is a thing incredible. Though we
may be fully convinced that Jesus had the power to
work miracles, yet we properly refuse to believe that
He used the power, unless we see some reason for His
so doing. Can we discover a real need met by His
miracles? They have been likened to a church bell
calling an audience. Undoubtedly they served that
purpose, but only incidentally; He never performed a
miracle simply to draw a crowd, and sometimes He fled
from the crowd collected by a miracle. They have also
been likened to a seal, affixed to His teachings to prove
them divine. In a sense they are such : Nicodemus was
right when he said, " Rabbi, we know thou art a teacher

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 159
come from God; for no man can do these signs that
thou doest except God be with him" (John 3:2).
Still we notice that the miracle never is a mere marvel
added to the teaching to confirm it, nor is the confirma
tion its chief purpose.
Christ's work was one harmonious whole, of which
the miracles were a part, though by no means the most
important part. When He appeals to them as evidence,
it is just as He appeals to the rest of His work ; e.g.,
the Baptist may know that Jesus is the Messiah because
" the dead are raised, and the poor have the gospel
preached unto them" (Matt. 11:5). (Note what
an anti-climax that statement would be if the Messiah-
ship was revealed more clearly by the miracles than by
the preaching.) As Bruce says, the miracles " were all
useful, morally significant, beneficent works, rising
naturally out of His vocation as Saviour, performed
in the course of His ministry in the pursuit of His high
calling." There were two reasons why, in accom
plishing His mission, He should work miracles :
1). To help men to receive Him as the Messiah.
The Jews expected that the Messiah when he came
would work miracles. This is shown in the Gospels by
the repeated demand for a sign (Matt. 12: 38; Mark
15: 32; John 2: 18), and also by Jesus' own story of
the temptation in the wilderness, which is meaningless
unless He recognized that in His Messianic work
miracles would be asked, and He had power to grant
them. Since this was the expectation, how could men
believe on Him if He refused to work miracles ? There
was so much in His life and teachings totally at vari
ance with their preconceptions of the Messiah and his
kingdom, that if they were disappointed likewise in this
matter, it is hard to see how He could have won any

160 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
faith and following. "We may well doubt whether,
without miracles, the belief would ever have grown up
that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, in view of
the striking absence of those attributes and functions
which the Jews expected in their Messiah " (Sanday).
Nevertheless we must also recognize that miracles did
not produce as profound an impression upon the be
holders as we might suppose. The age was credulous
and unable to distinguish between miracles and mar
vels. There were many professed and professional
miracle-workers (Matt. 12:27). Also, lying miracles
wrought by Satan were thought possible. A Messiah
who did not work miracles would not be accepted ; but
a person who did work miracles would not necessarily
be thought the Messiah.
This use of miracles was a concession to the Mes
sianic expectation of the people, — a gracious adapta
tion of the work of Jesus to their special need. With
out the need, there might not have been the miracles.
Therefore, if He were here today, we cannot affirm
that He would work miracles. " The miracles wrought
by Jesus were designed for, and fitted to convince,
those only for whose benefit they were wrought, — to
facilitate the planting of Christianity among them.
There is no evidence that they were designed to carry
conviction either to Jews or Gentiles eighteen hundred
years after their occurrence" (Robinson).
2). To make more clear to men the nature of the
Kingdom. We have seen how erroneous were the ideas of the
Jews on this subject, and how constantly Jesus had to
teach that the Kingdom is not political but religious, its
life not carnal but spiritual, and its central power not
selfishness but love, with a king ruling over it as serv-

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 161
ant of all. He taught this by deed as well as by word.
His miracles, equally with His words, were teachings
of sympathy, love, divine providence, the forgiveness
of sins, and the like. We study them and interpret
them as such today ; and in the Gospel of John we often
find that a miracle is the text of a sermon, e.g., the
opening of the eyes of the blind is the introduction to
the discourse on " I am the Light of the world." Such
teaching by miracles was again a part of Christ's con
descension to human needs. His words alone ought
to have been sufficient statement of the truth ; but be
cause of the dullness and immaturity of His hearers,
He had to use these object lessons.
It is this perfect harmony of the miracles with Jesus'
life and words that sets them in strong contrast to the
reputed miracles of heathen religions or of mediaeval
saints. The latter are usually pure marvels, — meaning
less, bizarre, grotesque, puerile and sometimes shock
ing. Of like sort are the miracles invented for Jesus
in the apocryphal gospels; they show what human
imagination would produce in the early Christian cen
turies, and thus they serve as an undesigned proof that
the gospel miracles are not the fruit of imagination.
We may affirm it incredible that the miracles of Jesus
could have been invented by any evangelist, still less by
popular imagination. " That popular imagination
which gives birth to rumors and then believes them,
is not generally capable of great or sublime or well-
sustained efforts. ' Wunderthatige sind meist nur
schlechte Gemalde'" (Seeley).
The purpose of the miracles explains the limitation
under which they were wrought. Their indispensable
prerequisite was faith on the part of those who desired
them (Mark 5 : 34, 36; 9 : 23 ; 10 : 52) ; without faith

162 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
the miracle could not take place (Mark 6:5 f.). This
faith was not simply a belief that Jesus could work
miracles ; it was also a recognition that God was work
ing through Him (Matt. 9:8; Mark 5:19). Evi
dently such faith would be strengthened by the miracle,
and its possessor would be made to recognize more
clearly the presence of the kingdom of God (Matt.
12 : 28) ; whereas the man who looked upon Jesus as
a professional thaumaturgist or as an emissary of
Beelzebub would receive no spiritual help from the
boon of a miracle, and, therefore, could not be granted
it. The presence of such faith drew forth a miracle
sometimes almost in contradiction to Jesus' desire
(Mark i:4of. ; 7:24!), or seemingly without His
direct volition (Mark 5:25^). The destruction of
faith through the increasing slanders and charges of
the Pharisees that Jesus was a Samaritan and a
demoniac caused the decrease in miracles in His later
ministries. There was no use of working them because
they would not be of spiritual profit.
4. Classes of Miracles.
We are inclined to divide the miracles of Jesus into
classes, and distinguish degrees of the supernatural in
them. To us, as to the original beholders, it seems a
greater miracle, requiring more divine power, to raise
the dead than to heal the sick, or to still a tempest than
to calm a demoniac. But there is no indication that
Jesus felt any such difference, or made any distinction
among His miracles. He used exactly the same act to
raise Peter's wife's mother from a bed of illness and
Jairus' daughter from a bed of death ; the one miracle
was apparently no easier than the other. Indeed, He
seemed to make no distinction between what we cat

THE MDIACLES OF JESUS 163
the natural and the supernatural. A miracle was as
simple and matter-of-course to Him as an ordinary act.
He blessed and broke the bread for the five thousand
near Bethsaida in the same manner as for the two dis
ciples at Emmaus. Often in His acts He blended the
natural and the supernatural in a way that does not fit
with our idea of their sharp distinction. He multiplied
the loaves and fishes till the multitude were filled, and
then He had the fragments collected and saved for
future food; He gave life itself to the daughter of
Jairus, but He commanded her parents to give her
something to eat.
The miracles of Jesus are usually grouped in four
classes, viz. :
i). Acts of healing, which are by far the most
numerous ;
2). Casting out demons, of which five or six in
stances are described and a much greater number is
indicated ;
3). Raising the dead, viz. : the widow's son, Jairus'
daughter, and Lazarus ; and
4). Nature miracles, — such as turning water into
wine and stilling the tempest, — of which there are
nine, if all the accounts are accepted.
Concerning these we notice that each of the Gospels
contains instances of all four classes except that John
has no cure of demoniacs, though it states that the Jews
charged Jesus with having a demon (7:20; 8:48;
10 : 20) ; also, that though the evidence is not equally
strong for each separate miracle, it is for each class
of miracles, e.g., there is just as good evidence that
Jesus performed nature miracles and raised the dead
as that He healed the sick and cast out demons. One
thing more should be borne in mind, — mere reduction

164 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
of the number of miracles is not an aid to faith ; if we
believe that Jesus worked one miracle, it is easy to
believe that He worked many, provided there was need
of them.
5. Sceptical Explanation of the Miracles.
Those who deny the miracles of Jesus must, of
course, find some satisfactory explanation of their
presence in the gospel story. The easiest explanation
is that the miracles are a later addition to the story
made innocently enough by ignorant and enthusiastic
Christians. Some are simply legends, such as cluster
around the memory of any famous man; others are
myths, arising from the natural supposition that every
miracle recorded in the Old Testament was a fore
shadowing of similar but far more wonderful miracles
by the Messiah ; others still are misunderstandings of
the original story, e.g., parables or symbolic statements
understood to be literal history. Such an explanation
involves a late date for all our four Gospels, since
Mark, which is generally considered to be the very earli
est, is replete with miracles, and the even earlier docu
ment, Q, though occupied with the teachings of Jesus,
seems to have contained one remarkable miracle, — the
healing of the centurion's servant from a distance.
But most scholars today would put the date of the Gos
pels within the lifetime of some of the Twelve and of
others who knew Jesus personally ; and it is not easy to
suppose that these witnesses would endorse such a de
cided transformation of the actual history which they
had witnessed. Also, we notice that in the Fourth
Gospel, which unquestionably was written some years
after the other three, the miracles are less numerous
and no more remarkable than in Mark, which would

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 165
indicate that the stories did not grow with lapse of
time. Moreover, as we have already pointed out, the
character of the miracles by no means agrees with the
character of those which later fancy would invent, if
we are to judge from the absurd miracles related in the
apocryphal gospels, the earliest of which were written
in the second century.
If an early date for the Gospels is accepted, there
still remain rationalistic ways of explaining the
miracles. The healing of the sick, like a host of mod
ern cures, was by the influence of mind upon body
when stimulated by expectancy and suggestion; the
remarkable personality of Jesus and the great excite
ment caused by His coming account for the greatness
of these cures — though some of them are doubtless ex
aggerated. The same explanation is given for the
casting out of demons, if the so-called demoniacs are
held to be simply persons of disordered intellect or
sufferers from epilepsy and similar diseases. The
raising of the widow's son and the daughter of Jairus
were cases of resuscitation ; so probably was the raising
of Lazarus, though that presents special difficulties
and is of doubtful authenticity. The nature miracles
are the hardest to explain ; in some instances they may
have been natural events happening so opportunely as
to produce the impression of special divine action, — the
so-called miracles of providence ; in other instances they
were misunderstood parables or else gross exaggera
tions. The rationalistic ways in which a miracle may be
explained were indicated in the discussion of the
miracle at the wadding feast in Cana ; but they may be
further illustrated in the miracle of feeding the five
thousand. The evidence for this miracle is strong,

166 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
since it is told at length by all four evangelists, and is
inseparably connected with the crisis of the Galilean
ministry; yet it is a nature miracle, most difficult to
account for in rationalistic ways. The chief explana
tions are as follows :
An exaggeration of some simple incident of which
the exact facts are now lost (Holtzmann) ;
Christ's example in distributing the little food He
had shamed the rest into doing the same; the result
was a common meal to which all contributed ; and even
if it was scanty, the good feeling made it most satis
fying (Keim, Menzies) ;
A misunderstood statement about the spiritual food
with which Jesus fed the multitude, or about the
satisfaction of soul which came from being with Him
(Renan, Gilbert) ;
An historical fact except the closing statement,
" they were all filled " ; — Jesus distributed the food as a
sacramental meal, and each took a minute portion
(Schweitzer). Evidently the only point upon which these writers
are agreed is that the feeding of the five thousand was
not a miracle; and we cannot help feeling that this
agreement was reached in advance, and arose from
their attitude towards all miracles.
Concerning rationalistic explanations in general, it
is enough to say that they are always ingenious and
are often plausible. It does seem that much of the
ministry of healing by Jesus and the apostles may
properly be placed under psychological laws which we
are beginning to formulate. And certain other inci
dents which we have always considered miraculous
may presently be given a satisfactory natural explana
tion. With a theistic conception of the universe the

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 167
line between the natural and the supernatural is much
harder to draw than in the days of deism. But the
attitude of mind that makes it possible to see God in
ordinary events as well as in extraordinary is an atti
tude that enables one to see most clearly the revelation
of God in the acts as well as in the words of Christ,
and therefore grasps their value as signs even if they
should some day cease to be marvels.
6. Demoniacal Possessions.
Besides the usual problems connected with all
miracles, the cure of demoniacs presents a special diffi
culty which demands discussion. On the one hand, a
belief in demons and demoniacs, like a belief in witches,
is characteristic of a low stage of intellectual and re
ligious development, — a survival of animism, — and
disappears with the development of knowledge and
religion; on the other hand, Jesus and the apostles,
whom we take as our highest teachers, seem to endorse
the belief both by word and deed. Without this en
dorsement, belief in demons would be treated exactly
like belief in witches; but with it we cannot reject
demoniacal possession without facing a difficult
dilemma, viz. : either Jesus was ignorant and supposed
that demons exist and possess men, or else He was
deceitful and pretended they do.
In Palestine in the first century belief in demoniacal
possession was general, and exorcists were numerous.
Josephus has an interesting account of seeing a Jewish
exorcist cast out a demon in the presence of Vespasian
and the Roman army (Ant. 8:2:5). Jesus speaks
of such exorcists, though it is doubtful whether He
admits that they really did cast out demons (Matt. 12 :
27; cf. Acts 19:13^). Therefore, in studying the

168 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
gospel narrative we must recognize that its accounts
of cures of demoniacs are possibly influenced by the
prevailing ideas, e.g., the man of Matt. 12 : 22 is said
to have been possessed with a demon, but this may have
been simply the inference of the spectators from the
fact that he was blind and dumb. But with all allow
ance it is evident :
a). That possession was regarded as distinct from
disease; though physical infirmities, — deafness, dumb
ness, epilepsy, — were sometimes associated with it.
The work of casting out demons is carefully dis
tinguished from the work of healing (Mark 1 : 34,
Luke 9: 1).
b). That Jesus spoke and acted as if demons pos
sessed certain sufferers and could be cast out by Him.
At the same time, we notice that He relied upon none
of the usual methods of exorcism (magic formulas,
roots, etc. ) , but used direct command, and said He cast
out demons " by the finger of God," or " the spirit of
God" (Luke 11:20; Matt. 12:28). For His dis
ciples to do the same, faith was necessary and prayer
(Matt. 17: 19-20; Mark 9:29).
c). That there is no indication of a necessary con
nection between sin and possession ; the demonized do
not seem to have been more wicked than other men.
We have two instances of persons who were possessed
in early childhood ( Mark 7:30; 9:21).
Modern thought is strongly inclined to explain
demoniacal possession as simply various forms of
physical and mental disease. In certain cases the be
lief that the man was possessed seems to have arisen
simply from the presence of some physical disease, —
dumbness, deafness, epilepsy, which was supposed to be
caused by demons ; in other cases the phenomena seem

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 169
to have been those of insanity, usually with double
consciousness. The recognition of Jesus as the Messiah
by some of the demonized (Mark i : 24, 34; 5:7) is
not remarkable ; a person of disordered intellect might
be specially sensitive to the general Messianic expecta
tion which pervaded Jesus' audiences, and would have
no hesitation in proclaiming the strong impression
Jesus made upon him.
With this explanation of demoniacal possession how
shall we account for the seeming belief in it on the
part of Jesus ? If we say that He shared the erroneous
ideas of His age about demons, we seem to lessen His
qualifications as a spiritual teacher. To share the ideas
of His age about science (e.g., as to the motions of the
earth and sun) or about history (e.g., as to the author
ship of Deuteronomy) would not hinder Him from
having in His own realm of spiritual truth the au
thority that comes from full knowledge. But this ques
tion of demons and their influence upon men belongs
quite as much to the realm of religion as to that of
science. And if we cannot accept the belief of Jesus
concerning demons, can we accept it concerning the
whole unseen world of personal forces good or evil?
On the other hand, we may say that the treatment of
demoniacs by Jesus was simply an accommodation to
popular thought. He did not believe in the existence
of demons, but acted as if He did, in order to gain the
confidence and co-operation of the sufferers and their
friends, and thus produce the cures. But why should
He confirm His disciples in such an erroneous belief,
e.g., by His private endorsement of it (Mark 9 : 28-9) ?
Can such conduct be made to square with perfect truth
fulness? We may possibly excuse a physician for
deceiving a sick man or a lunatic, on the ground that

170 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
for persons in their condition the truth is not really
true; but how about the physician who extends His
deception further, or endorses popular ideas when he
knows them to be false ?
Such difficulties in accepting the theory that demoni
acal possession is nothing but disease have led other
students to maintain the correctness of the old opinion
that there really are demons and that Jesus did cast
them out. It is pointed out that gross exaggerations
of a doctrine do not justify rejection of it totally. A
natural reaction from the absurd development of the
doctrine of angels and devils in the Middle Ages has
made us unduly inclined to question all belief in
spiritual beings. Much that was once thought to be
demoniacal is today recognized to be purely human.
Yet, on the other hand, the student of human con
sciousness is more ready than he was a few decades ago
to admit the possibility of influence by other than
human wills. " No one except a materialist believes
that this world contains all the forms of conscious
beings that exist. There may be many kinds and
grades of consciousness above, as there are in our
world many below, the human. Nor would it be quite
' modern ' to hold dogmatically that the human con
sciousness is shut off from contact with all forms of
consciousness except those that are alive at any one
time upon this earth" (Douglas Mackenzie). The
belief in demons may be held by the ignorant in absurd
forms ; but it is not in itself an absurdity. That in the
universe there should be other spiritual beings besides
God and men seems altogether probable; and the
existence of evil spirits is just as logical as the exist
ence of good spirits. And if evil spirits exist, their
influence upon the human consciousness under certain

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 171
conditions and circumstances may be possible and no
more mysterious than the influence of one human spirit
upon another. What those conditions and circum
stances are has never been determined. Demoniacal
possession, in forms very similar to those described
in the New Testament, is recognized in Korea, China
and other mission-lands today, and is regarded by many
observers to be wholly distinct from insanity. A care
ful study of its phenomena, such as was initiated by
Nevius, ought to throw much light upon the subject.
7. The Gospel Story without Miracles.
While faith in miracles may not be necessary for
belief in Jesus as the divine Saviour of the world, we
certainly cannot reject from the gospel story the inci
dents which to the beholders seemed miraculous, and
which are still beyond our ability to explain, without
rejecting practically the whole of the story and confess
ing that we know very little about Jesus. This is so
for several reasons :
a). Much of the gospel narrative is a record of
miracles. The gospel of Mark in particular, which is
one underlying document of Matthew and Luke, is
largely made up of them. Take away the miracles, and
there are great gaps in the narrative.
b). The history of Jesus at its most important
points becomes unintelligible, if certain miracles which
shaped it are eliminated. E.g., What caused the crisis
in the Galilean ministry, if there was no feeding of
the five thousand? What happened at Bethany to
alarm the Sadducees and make them join with the
Pharisees in the decision that Jesus must be put to
death, if Lazarus was not raised? Even Renan feels
that something like a miracle must have taken place ;—

172 THE LD7E OF CHRIST
"some motive proceeding from Bethany helped to
hasten the death of Jesus " ; either some saying of Jesus
to the sisters was distorted into a report of the resur
rection of Lazarus, or else there was a fraudulent
miracle. What took place at Jericho to arouse the
popular Messianic enthusiasm that led to the triumphal
entry ? Even Keim is disposed to believe that in some
way, — the blind men at Jericho were actually made to
see, — " at any rate this healing is by far the best at
tested among the accounts of the blind in the Gospels."
Above all, what happened to revive the faith of the
disciples after it had been destroyed by the crucifixion
of Jesus ? Every critic, though he may deny the resur
rection, admits that the church at the outset believed in
it, since otherwise the existence of the church at all is
inexplicable. c). Teachings of Jesus that bear on their face the
stamp of genuineness are often inseparable from
miracles. E.g., His remarkable utterances about the
Sabbath day (Mark 3:4) are hard to account for
unless a special divine work of mercy on that day had
called forth the censure of the Pharisees and His own
defence; His message strengthening the faith of the
imprisoned Baptist is a reference to His mighty works
as well as to His preaching ; the discourse in the syna
gogue at Capernaum needs for its explanation the
miracle of the loaves and fishes: the account of the
Temptation, which must have come from Jesus' own
lips, presupposes the power to work miracles.
" On the whole," says Gore, " miracles play so im
portant a part in Christ's scheme that any theory
which would represent them as due entirely to the
imagination of His followers or of a later age de
stroys the credibility of the documents not partially

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 173
but wholly, and leaves Christ a personage as mythical
as Hercules." Dr. Gore's statement ends with an
exaggeration. Even without the Gospels Jesus would
be more than a mythical personage; the Christian
church, the Lord's Supper, and the Lord's day bear
witness to His historic existence. But without the
Gospels the story of His life and work would have to
be reconstructed almost wholly by imagination ; and, in
deed, this is the way in which rationalistic writers
often do reconstruct it.

XII
THE KINGDOM OF GOD
IN the Galilean ministry Jesus was mainly occu
pied in preaching the kingdom of God. What is
that kingdom? When is it established? What is the
precise relation of Jesus to it ? These are questions for
every student of the teachings of Jesus. Indeed, as
Harnack points out, all the teachings of Jesus could be
grouped under one head, — the kingdom of God and its
coming. Our present subject is the life of Jesus; and,
though His words illuminate His life even as His life
illuminates His words, we cannot enter upon a de
tailed study of His teachings. Nevertheless, if His
ministry was concerned with the kingdom of God, we
must gain some light upon His idea of that kingdom in
order to understand His ministry. The study is
forced upon us to a special degree in the present day
because scholars differ sharply as to whether Jesus be
lieved the kingdom to be already present or to come in
the future, and whether He conceived of it as ethical
or apocalyptic in character, and even whether He
deemed Himself to be the Messiah or only a special
forerunner. Evidently our whole conception of Him
and His work will be shaped by our answer to these
problems ; and evidently also, if earnest students differ
thus widely, the subject is not free from obscurities.
i. Presuppositions.
For an understanding of the words of Jesus about
174

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 175
the kingdom of God it is important to bear in mind the
following facts:
a) . He had to express His thought in forms adapted
to the minds of His hearers. The very use of the term
" the kingdom of God " or " the kingdom of heaven "
(the Jewish form which Matthew prefers) is an in
stance of such adaptation. It may not have been the
most fitting term for what Jesus had in mind. John, in
his reproduction of the thought of Jesus, uses as its
equivalent " eternal life," which seemed to him more
truly expressive of Jesus' meaning. But " the kingdom
of God " would arouse the attention and interest of the
Jews because it was their favorite term for the supreme
manifestation of Jehovah's love for them, — the con
summation of all their desires. " That prayer," says
the Talmud, " in which there is no mention of the
kingdom of God, is not a prayer." No other. term
could so closely link the work of Jesus to the history
and the hopes of His nation.
b). Such adaptation had its inevitable danger.
Since His hearers already had in mind definite and
cherished conceptions of the kingdom, they were likely
to interpret His words according to their own ideas,
and thus to misunderstand Him. This is true even of
the inner circle of disciples ; and there is ever the pos
sibility that, through such misunderstanding, their
report of some of His enigmatic sayings may not be
correct. " We must keep clearly before us the differ
ence between what He meant and what His reporters
thought He meant " (Worsley).
c). The Old Testament doctrine of the kingdom of
God throws light upon the thought of Jesus. His atti
tude towards the teachings of the Old Testament is
expressed in His statement, " I came not to destroy but

176 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
to fulfill " (Matt. 5: 17). Concerning His revelation
of the mysteries of the kingdom He said to His dis
ciples, " Verily I say unto you that many prophets
and righteous men desired to see the things which ye
see, and saw them not ; and to hear the things which ye
hear, and heard them not " (Matt. 13 : 17). The con
ceptions of the kingdom set forth in the Old Testament
vary greatly in degrees of spirituality ; but we may be
sure that the most spiritual were those which Jesus
endorsed, and that none was higher, or more com
prehensive, than His own.
d). If Jesus did establish the kingdom of God, then
that kingdom is in our midst today, and is a realization,
more or less perfect, of the thought of Jesus; it is the
plant that has grown from the seed He sowed. To
deny this is to affirm either that Jesus did not under
stand His mission or that He wholly failed in it.
Nineteen centuries of Christianity have made evident
concerning the kingdom many things which the first
disciples saw dimly or not at all; and the knowledge
thus gained can be used in the interpretation of
Jesus' words about it.
2. The Kingdom in the Thought of the Jews.
The term, " the kingdom of God," may have taken
its rise from the Book of Daniel (e.g., 2 : 44, 7: 27) ;
but the idea it embodies goes back to the very begin
ning of Hebrew history. Josephus expressed that idea
exactly, — and coined a most useful word in doing so, —
when he said that the form of government which Moses
gave his nation was a theocracy. Israel was not the
only Semitic tribe recognizing its god as king, and call
ing him by that name; but no other people based its
whole national life so completely upon the sovereignty

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 177
of its deity. The early history of the Jews, whether
we treat it as fact or legend, and their later annals
constantly set forth a covenant relation between
Jehovah as king and themselves as His people; their
lawgivers and their prophets devote themselves to
developing and emphasizing this relation. When there
is an earthly king, he is considered to be the visible
representative of God, — the vice-gerent of the Most
High; when the throne of David is vacant, and the
yoke of foreign monarchs is heavy, the national life
is kept from perishing by a confident expectation that
God in some way will soon deliver His people, and
resume His reign over them.
The century of Jewish history preceding the time
of Jesus had been one of restlessness, disorder and
misery. Even the rule of the Romans had brought
only partial tranquillity, and had by no means dispelled
discontent and heavy-heartedness. The kingdom of
God was in abeyance, — that was evident; because of
their sins Jehovah was now punishing the people by
allowing the heathen to rule over them. When He
should be pleased to resume His reign, would the
Romans be driven out by natural means or by super
natural? Who then would occupy the throne, — a
descendant of David, or a Messiah coming in the
clouds from heaven, or Jehovah Himself through the
media of priest and prophet? The kingdom was for
Israel; but did this mean that every son of Abraham
would enjoy it, or only those who had faithfully kept
the covenant and obeyed the laws of Moses ? Eventu
ally the kingdom would extend to the ends of the
earth; but how about the heathen, — would they be
destroyed, or would they be converted to Judaism, or
would they remain a subject race, slaving for Israel as

178 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Israel had once slaved for them ? The kingdom would
be in every way ideal ; but would its chief features be
political or social or spiritual? Such questions must
have been discussed constantly, not only by learned
rabbis in schools and synagogues but by the common
people in homes and market-places; for they were of
vital interest to all. And the answers must have been
uncertain and conflicting, since prophecies and apoca
lypses in their revelation of the future gave widely
varying pictures, which appealed in different degrees
to different minds.
We have little means of ascertaining what views of
the kingdom were most popular, except from the gospel
narrative; and that may give us a wrong impression
because it records most often the opinions of men who
opposed Jesus. Unquestionably these men, whether
they thought of the kingdom as political or eschato-
logical, had little desire for the spiritual blessings which
the great prophets set forth as the chief joys of the
kingdom, and because of their selfish, worldly and
dogmatic frame of mind were unable to appreciate the
teachings of Jesus. But leaders like Joseph of Ari-
mathaea, " who was looking for the kingdom of God "
(Mark 15 : 43), and the rich young ruler whom Jesus
loved (Mark 10:21), must have had much nobler
ideals ; and doubtless there were many whose thoughts
were fashioned by the highest teachings of the Old
Testament. Nevertheless, the impression we gain from
the way in which the teachings of John the Baptist and
of Jesus were received is that in general the concep
tion of the kingdom was a low one. The reign of the
Maccabees, which began with real consecration, had
ended in selfish struggles for purely political power;
and there had been nothing in subsequent days to

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 1179
revive and purify the idea of a truly divine rule. The
situation seems to have been what James Orr well
sums up, when he says, " The one fact which stands
out clear is that in the time of our Lord neither Phari
see, nor Sadducee, nor Essene had any hold of a con
ception of the kingdom which answered the deep,
spiritual, vital import of the idea in the Old Testa
ment. The few who cherished more worthy views were
to be sought for in the private circles of the pious who
talked of these things (Mai. 3: 16) and 'looked for
redemption in Jerusalem ' (Luke 2 : 25, 38). The idea
of the kingdom of God in its spiritual meaning had
to be recovered, or more properly discovered, in a
worldly, legalistic, Sadducean age."
3. The Kingdom in the Thought of Jesus.
When Jesus was asked by Pilate, " Art thou the
king of the Jews ? " He answered, " My kingdom is not
of this world " (John 18 : 36), by which He meant, as
Pilate clearly understood, that the kingdom of God is
not a political one. All His acts and His teachings
bear witness to this ; He forbade his disciples to seek
the authority that Gentile kings exercised (Mark 10:
42 f.), and He warned them against the leaven of
Herod (Mark 8:15), which is thirst for worldly
power. Moreover, as Gilbert notes, throughout His
entire ministry He never dropped a word of contempt
or hatred or even disrespect for the foreign power
which was oppressing the Jews ; and He seems to have
regarded their agents, the publicans, as pursuing a per
fectly legitimate occupation. A political kingdom, like
that which the Maccabees established and which many
Jews were longing to have established again, would
bring no spiritual blessings, but rather the reverse;

180 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Jesus realized this at the outset, when He rejected the
mountain temptation of the wilderness. The words to
Pilate, however, did not mean that the kingdom has
no place on earth and is a purely heavenly realm;
whether it is in the future or already present, — a ques
tion to be considered later, — it is for men who live
under earthly conditions with human needs and temp
tations (Matt. 6 : 33, 13 : 41), a kingdom in this world,
though not of this world.
The kingdom of God is the kingdom over which
God rules, — the kingdom in which the will of God is
the law of all life; more briefly, it is the rule or reign
of God. To the petition, " Thy kingdom come " (Luke
11:2), there is added in Matthew, as its equivalent,
" thy will be done, as in heaven so on earth " (Matt.
6: 10). All Jews would accept this definition of the
kingdom; but the popular thought of what it involves
would not be the same as the thought of Jesus, because
the popular idea of God was not the same as His. To
most Jews God was the absolute monarch, a mighty
Oriental despot ; to Jesus He was the Father in heaven.
Only once (Matt. 5 : 35), and then for an obvious rea
son, does He call Him King, though the name would
naturally be used when teaching about the kingdom.
Now, the reign of a despot, however wise and just and
kind, is not the reign of a father. A father's subjects
are his children, and the purpose of his rule, if he is
an ideal father, is to make his children one in character
and aspiration with himself. This is the key to Jesus'
teachings about the kingdom of God. The topic is so
comprehensive, He dealt with it from so many stand
points, and He taught in such an occasional, unsys
tematic way, that His meaning is not always evident;
but we shall not go far astray in interpreting all His

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 181
words, if we bear in mind that the kingdom of God is
first and always the kingdom of the Father.
The subjects of the kingdom are all who with filial
spirit do the will of God. Evidently no barriers of
race or earthly condition shut in the kingdom; it is
open to all men. But an unfilial, selfish heart is a bar
rier ; and because men are by nature selfish, the invita
tion to enter the kingdom begins with a call to repen
tance (Mark i : 15), and the transformation required
is likened to becoming as a little child (Mark 10 : 15)
or being born anew (John 3:3). The character of
those who belong to the kingdom is set forth in the
Beatitudes (Matt. 5 : 3-9). God always is the Father,
but men must become His sons by a change in their at
titude towards Him and towards one another (Matt.
5:44, Luke 15:24). For Jesus no such transforma
tion was necessary because His spirit was ever filial,
and He did always the things that were pleasing to the
Father (John 8 : 29). With the consciousness of abid
ing in such perfect relations He could invite others to
follow Him (Luke 9:58) and learn of Him (Matt.
11 : 29). And yet no profession of love and loyalty to
Him, and no outward imitation of His life, could win
admission to the kingdom (Matt. 7 : 21) : the doing of
the will of His Father was the sole condition ; and who
ever did that will He recognized as His brother and
sister and mother (Mark 3 : 35).
The life in the kingdom is one of love and service.
It is the divine life ; for God, because He is a Father,
is the Great Servant of all His children, — of the evil
and the good, the just and the unjust (Matt. 5 : 45) ;
and those who serve in love are the sons of God (Luke
6:35). It is the life that Jesus led (Luke 22 : 27) and
set before His disciples as a pattern (John 13:15; 15 :

182 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
12). It is the only true life of man; so that he who
fails to gain it, no matter how full his earthly exist
ence, has really lost his life (Mark 8 : 35 f.) ; in other
words, it is the " eternal life," which in the Fourth
Gospel seems to be the equivalent term for the kingdom
of God. The motive power or law of life in the king
dom is love (Mark 12:29!); and by its operation
there is carried forward to completeness the will of
God revealed by the law and the prophets (Matt. 5 :
17 f.). The highest places in the kingdom belong to
those who serve most, — a complete reversal of selfish
gradation of dignities, — and cannot be arbitrarily be
stowed (Mark 10:35!). Unequal opportunities for
service will not affect the measure of reward, — so the
parable of the talents teaches (Matt. 25:14!); but
unequal use of the same opportunities results in cor
respondingly unequal degrees of divine commenda
tion, — such is the lesson of the parable of the pounds
(Luke 19: 12 !). All service brings reward; and yet,
as in the case of a father dealing with his children,
the reward must be reckoned, not as wages, but as a
gracious gift, — this is the truth added by the parable
of the laborers in the vineyard (Matt. 20 : 1-16). The
kingdom of God belongs to those who render to God
its fruits; in other words, live the life of love and serv
ice; and for this reason Jesus predicts that it will be
taken away from the Jews and given to another na
tion (Matt. 21 :43).
The blessings of the kingdom are spiritual, be
stowed by a God who is spirit. And the supremest
blessing, the summum bonum, is not the things of the
kingdom but the kingdom itself. The kingdom of God
is the hidden treasure or the pearl of great price, which
one gladly purchases at the cost of all other possessions

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 183
(Matt. 13 : 44-45) ; and it is the gift which the Father's
good pleasure bestows (Luke 12:32). This, again,
results from the fact that the kingdom is a Father's
kingdom; the thought is like that which we try to
express when we say the supreme blessing of a home is
not the things of the home but the home itself. The
popular Jewish conception was exactly the opposite ; the
blessings of the kingdom were material, — freedom,
power, riches, health and the like, and the kingdom itself
was valued simply as the means for obtaining these.
Concerning material blessings, we notice that Jesus
never promised His disciples exemption from the hard
ships He Himself was experiencing ; and they saw that
His lot was one of privation, persecution and finally of
the utmost suffering. Yet, on the other hand, He did
not regard earthly comforts as incompatible with mem
bership in the kingdom (Matt. 6: 33, Mark 10: 29 f.) ;
there was no emphasis of asceticism in His teachings.
Earthly treasures are not condemned but they are
trivial and transient (Matt 6: 19 !), and are not the
true riches (Luke 12:21; 16:11). Since the blessings
of the kingdom are those of the heavenly life, and the
highest blessing is the consciousness of the presence
and love of the Father, it is sometimes hard to tell
whether Jesus is speaking of the kingdom or of heaven.
We are not sure that He made a sharp distinction, —
there was no great reason why He should ; for, unlike
His hearers, He believed that " it was possible for the
godly to have, not only a sure hope of future blessed
ness, but also an abundant experience of blessedness in
this life" (Wendt).
4. The Time of the Kingdom.
In the thought of Jesus was the kingdom of God

184 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
a matter of the present or of the future ? The answer
is not obvious because the statements of Jesus seem
conflicting. Much that He says about the kingdom is
in the present tense. It is already within (or in the
midst of) those to whom He is speaking (Luke 17:
21) ; His casting out demons by the spirit of God is
a proof of its presence (Matt. 12 : 28) ; from the days
of John the Baptist until now men of violence take it
by storm (Matt. 11:12); the scribes and Pharisees
neither enter it themselves nor suffer those who are
entering in (Matt. 23 : 13) ; the rich man finds difficulty
in entering it (Mark 12:34); publicans and harlots
go into it before the chief priests and elders (Matt.
21:31); and whoever humbles himself as a little
child, the same is the greater in it (Matt. 18 : 4). On
the other hand, there are passages that place its coming
in the near future: — before the death of some who
stand by (Mark 9:1); or before another Passover
(if this is the meaning of Mark 14:25). And still
other passages place it in the remote future : e.g., the
parable of the pounds, which is told to those who sup
pose the kingdom of God is immediately to appear,
speaks of " a far country " to which the nobleman must
go to receive his kingdom and afterward return (Luke
19: 11 !), and the parable of the talents puts the hour
of reckoning "after a long time" (Matt. 25:19).
Especially striking are several passages about a future
coming of the Son of Man, apparently to usher in the
kingdom in true apocalyptic fashion.
Undoubtedly the men to whom Jesus spoke looked
for a future kingdom. There was nothing in their
present circumstances to suggest that it was already
here; indeed, they despaired of the present, and pos
sibly found a miserable pleasure in magnifying its

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 185
woes because they supposed the increase of oppression
made the coming of Jehovah in judgment and the
inauguration of His kingdom more certain and near.
While Jesus, of course, did not sympathize with those
who dreamed of a future political kingdom, some
scholars hold that He shared the current ideas about a
future, eschatological kingdom, and considered His
present work to be simply preparatory, — like that of
John the Baptist. In this case the rules He laid down
for the present life of His disciples were intended
only for the interval until the kingdom should come.
As John had preached repentance and a life of right
eousness, so Jesus with keener spiritual insight
preached repentance and a life of loving service; both
believed that the end of the present age and the coming
of the eschatological kingdom would be brought about,
if men would live a life acceptable to God. According
to these scholars, all that we have thus far set forth
as Jesus' teachings about the kingdom of God belongs
properly to the stage before the coming of the king
dom, and differs from the popular teaching mainly in
that it calls upon men to prepare for the kingdom
by an ethical, spiritual life rather than by an absorb
ing devotion to the law.
Whether Jesus did accept and teach the coming of
the kingdom in its eschatological form, is a question to
be discussed in a later chapter. But, even if He did,
it seems certain that He called the preliminary stage,
also, the kingdom of God. This would not be remark
able; the term is so elastic that it could contain both
significations; indeed, its wealth of contents is what
makes a complete definition of it so difficult. Since
the eschatological kingdom has no ethics, for in it
"temptation and sin no longer exist" (Schweitzer),

186 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
we may distinguish the kingdom we have been describ
ing by calling it the ethical kingdom of God. Now,
when we consider the teachings of Jesus that are evi
dently about this ethical kingdom, we find He seems
to declare sometimes that it is present, and sometimes
that it is still in the future. His disciples are assured
that the kingdom of God is already in their midst or
within them, and yet they are taught to pray that it may
come. The seemingly contradictory statements of time
still remain, even if we ignore the eschatological
kingdom. Possibly the simplest solution of the problem of the
time of the ethical kingdom is suggested in the
parables, where three periods are clearly distin
guished, — inception, development, consummation. In
one parable these are called the blade, the ear and
the full corn in the ear (Mark 4: 26-29) > m another
they are seed-sowing, growth and the harvest (Matt.
13:24-30) ; in still another they are the casting of a
seine-net, the drawing of it, and the sorting of the fish
(Matt. 13 : 47-50). If the kingdom of God is the rule
of a loving Father's will, then it began at the time when
Jesus revealed the Father, and men were drawn to
recognize and obey that rule. Jesus Himself, we might
say, was the first and, for a season, the only member
of that kingdom; but soon it increased, as disciples
joined themselves to Him and sought to bring their
lives into harmony with His teachings. Still this was
only a period of feeble beginnings, — scarcely more
than preparation. The full gospel of the kingdom
could not be proclaimed, because it was not yet pre
pared. The cross, which is the mightiest revelation
of the heart of the Father and, therefore, the great
door into the kingdom, was still in the future. With

THE KINGDOM OP GOD 187
yearning Jesus looked forward to the hour when that
mystery of redemption should be evident to His little
flock, and cheered them with the promise that in their
own lifetime they should " see the kingdom of God
come with power" (Mark 9:1). The promise was
fulfilled at the time of the resurrection and Pentecost.
The kingdom of God then came with the power of the
cross and of the Holy Spirit ; and it has remained in our
midst with an increasing revelation of the Father's
loving will, and a wealth of opportunities for loyal
service. The seed-time and tender blade are far be
hind, and the ears are growing on the stalks; the
treasures of God have been entrusted to His servants
and are increasing under faithful stewardship ; it is the
period of development. But still far before us is the
day when the message and the work of Jesus have
borne their full fruits, and the harvest is garnered, and,
in the fullest sense of the word, the kingdom has come.
In that day, when God's will is done as in heaven so
on earth, the kingdom of God will truly be equivalent
to heaven.
5. The Kingdom and the Church.
The kingdom of God, as we have thus far studied it,
is the rule or reign of God in the hearts of those who
love Him. But certain teachings of Jesus present it
as a visible, outward realm, whose increase in size
can be measured, and whose subjects are not all true
sons of God. The parable of the mustard herb (Matt.
13:31-32) teaches such outward growth; and the
parables of the field in which tares are mingled with
wheat (Matt. 13 : 24 !), and of the net filled with fish
both good and bad (Matt. 13 : 47 !), and of the wise
and foolish virgins (Matt. 25 : 1 !), depict such a

188 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
mingling of disloyal subjects among the loyal in the
kingdom. Also, in the various parables where the
members of the kingdom are represented as servants,
there are some who are careless and worthless and
finally condemned (Mark 13:3.6, Luke 12:47, Matt.
25:30). Evidently the kingdom of God in all these
passages has a meaning of its own, and is nearly (some
would say exactly) identical with the church.
The Greek word ecclesia (translated "church") is
found only in one Gospel and only twice (Matt. 16:
18; 18: 17); and there may be question as to what
Aramaic word it represents. We are sure, however,
that on neither of these two occasions, when Jesus
spoke about the ecclesia, was He teaching ecclesiasti-
cism. Whatever the meaning of the promise to Peter
and to the other apostles about the rock and the keys
and the binding and loosing, the whole tenor of Jesus'
teaching is contrary to any interpretation that finds
here the charter of an organization designed to rule
men with spiritual authority. He condemned in the
Pharisees all desire for recognition and rule in matters
religious (Matt. 23 : 5 f.) : He declared that the grada
tion in rank in the kingdom of God is based on
willingness to serve (Mark 10:42!); and in His
farewell commission, while He announced that all au
thority had been given to Him, He sent forth His
followers simply to bear witness and to make disciples
(Matt. 28: 18 !; Acts 1:8). Nevertheless, from the
very beginning of His ministry Jesus seemed to con
template a union of those who belonged to the king
dom. The little band of apostles and the larger com
pany of followers from which they were chosen were
held together by bonds of love and common devotion
to the kingdom. So far as they had any organiza-

THE KINGDOM OF GOD 189
tion, they were a brotherhood in which the younger
and the older, the strong and the weak, helped one
another according to ability and opportunity, while all
were in training as witnesses to the kingdom and its
king. They were those whom Jesus had called to
follow Him, and who in His name were to extend the
invitation to others. The day might come when for
efficient work they would need officers and creeds
and forms of worship and the like ; but for the present
the need was not felt, and the details of future organi
zation could be ignored.
This band of disciples after the day of Pentecost
constitute the church. And sometimes they seem to
constitute the kingdom of God in its present realiza
tion. But the two are not quite identical. The church
is the agency for bringing in the kingdom. It strives
to bring every part of human life, the social and
political as well as the religious, into loving obedience
to the will of the Father.

XIII
THE BORDER MINISTRY
i. General Character.
THE only geographical name that can be given to
this period of Jesus' work is the one found more
than once in the Synoptic account of it, namely, bor
ders or coasts, by which is meant not the boundaries
but the outer regions of the lands mentioned. Accord
ing to Mark, Jesus went first to the borders of Tyre
(7:24), then passed through Sidon and the midst of
the borders of Decapolis (7:31) in a circuit round
the lake of Galilee; then, touching at points on the
lake, He made His way northward into the villages
of Caesarea Philippi (8:27); then He returned
through Galilee to Capernaum (9:30, 33). Some
where in the period we may place two brief visits to
Jerusalem for feasts described by John. Capernaum
remained His home (9:33, Matt 17:24); but the
months were largely taken up with slow journeyings,
some of them seemingly with no definite goal.
The restlessness which characterized this period hink
of spiritual suffering or, at least, of recognition that
the night when no man can work is drawing near.
The cross is inevitable. The disciples do not realize
this, but their Lord does. Judea has declared it in
the worldliness of her leading priests, the bigotry of
her spiritual teachers; Galilee has repeated it in the
selfishness and sensuousness of her people; Rome has
190

THE BORDER MINISTRY 191
re-echoed it in the murder of the great forerunner,
John the Baptist; — the air is full of voices proclaiming
the impending tragedy. Most impressive of all is the
voice of ancient prophecy, declaring that the Messiah
must lay down his life for his people. But the hour is
not yet come ; there is work to be done first ; and that
work is mainly the training of the Twelve so that they
will be prepared to proclaim His gospel when He sends
them into the world as the Father has sent Him.
Thus far, though the Twelve were always with Him
except when they went on their brief independent mis
sion, there had been little opportunity to teach them in
private, because of the crowds continually around.
And they had advanced so little beyond the status of
the crowds that after the general desertion Jesus asked,
" Would ye also go away ? " This ministry, therefore,
was mainly devoted to teaching the Twelve, both by
direct instruction and by the influence of constant and
closest companionship. And while the theme of His
public preaching in Galilee had been the kingdom of
God, this private teaching was about " the things con
cerning himself." Two stages may be distinguished in
it — Peter's great confession being the dividing point:
a period of teaching that Jesus is indeed the Messiah;
and, when this lesson is grasped, a period of teaching
that the Messiah must die and rise again. Of the first
teaching nothing is preserved (perhaps it was not so
much in words as in intimacy and influence) ; but
Peter's confession (Mark 8:29) shows its fruit, and
Christ's joy shows how eagerly He had waited for such
fruit. Of the second teaching we have preserved vari
ous lessons of the cross, given with increasing clearness
and detail.
So far as public work is concerned, little was accom-

192 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
plished in this ministry; it was not devoted to public
work. There was, indeed, a brief popular period in
the Decapolis; but the impression made there was as
superficial and evanescent as previously in Galilee.
But to the Twelve these summer and autumn months
must have been wonderfully helpful. Though the im
mediate result was small, the seed now sown would
continue to spring up and bear fruit long after the
teacher was taken from them.
The Border ministry began after the close of the
popular work in Galilee, i.e., not long after the Pass
over of 28 a.d. ; and it continued until after the Feast
of Tabernacles in October of that year, though exactly
how long after cannot be determined.
2. Among the Gentiles.
Jesus began His ministry by withdrawing from Gali
lee, and entering, for the first and only time, into Gen
tile lands — Tyre and afterwards Sidon. Doubtless His
purpose was to take His disciples away from the
crowds and the Jewish environment which hindered
spiritual growth, and to have them alone with Himself.
Also, He may have been forced to leave Galilee because
of Herod's hostility. The attention of Herod had been
aroused (Mark 6: 14) ; and certainly the report, which
must have reached him, that the people had tried to
make Jesus king would be sufficient reason for seeking
His death. We notice that during the greater part of
this ministry Jesus stays outside of Herod's territory,
and when He does come back into Galilee, He tries to
keep His presence secret (Mark 9:30); also during
this period, or a little later, He is warned that Herod
wishes to kill Him (Luke 13 :3i).
Here in a heathen land it might seem that He would

THE BORDER MINISTRY 193
remain unknown ; but people from this region who had
been to Him in Galilee at once recognized Him (Mark
3:8); and a Syro-Phoenician woman, a Gentile, came
begging Him to cast a demon out of her daughter.
According to Matthew (15:23) the Twelve, when
Jesus answered her not a word, joined in her petition.
The remarkable hesitation with which He performed
the miracle arose in part from unwillingness to do
anything that might draw a crowd and hinder the
seclusion He was seeking, in part from a wish to test
both the faith of the woman and the catholicity of the
disciples, but most of all from the knowledge that any
work among these Gentiles would end all chance of
winning His countrymen. He had, indeed, in Caper
naum healed the servant of a centurion, probably a
Gentile, at the express request of Jewish elders (Luke
7 : 1-10) ; and in the present instance the woman's faith
and persistence and humility, together with the petition
of the Twelve, caused Him finally to grant her prayer ;
but there is no record of any other miracle for Gentiles
unless, possibly, in Decapolis. Even if there remained
but faint hope of winning the Jews, He must put no
stumbling block in their way, and give them no excuse
for rejecting Him. There would be a day when the
Gentile world might come freely to the feast (Luke 13 :
29) — a plain hint of this is in the statement that the
children first must be fed (Mark 7:27); until that
day they must wait, though a crumb from the children's
table might be given this suppliant woman.
For the same reason Jesus could not reach out to the
Jews of the Dispersion. They were more liberal-
minded than their brethren in Palestine, better pre
pared to accept His teachings; and as He had turned
from Judea to Galilee, so He might once more turn

194 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
from Galilee to the outer lands where His countrymen
were waiting for the Messiah. The step seemed natu
ral, — His enemies so considered it (John 7: 35) ; but
there was no possibility that in this way he would
eventually reach the Sanhedrin, and it was not the way
of His supreme manifestation. A Jew of the Disper
sion would one day follow Him — bearing the cross to
Calvary (Luke 23:26).
3. The Work in Decapolis.
From the purely heathen lands of Tyre and Sidon
Jesus came with the Twelve into the region known as
the Decapolis (the ten cities), south and east of the
lake of Galilee. The cities were originally Greek
colonies, some of them founded by veterans from the
army of Alexander the Great. Alexander Jannaeus
(104-78 b.c) annexed them to the Maccabean king
dom, but Pompey gave them their independence again,
about 63 b.c They were now united in a league, and
under the general control of the Romans as a part of
Syria ; but each city managed its own affairs, coined its
own money, and had a large measure of independence.
Greek was the general language, and there was much
commercial and intellectual activity; several famous
Greek scholars came from these cities. The Jews
dwelling here would be more nearly like those of the
Dispersion than their brethren in Judea and Galilee.
That the crowd around Jesus was partly heathen is
indicated in Matthew's statement, " They glorified the
God of Israel" (15:31).
Once in the Galilean ministry Jesus had crossed the
lake to a region of Decapolis where He healed a
demoniac (Mark 5:1-20). Any further work there
was then impossible because of the selfish opposition

THE BORDER MINISTRY 195
aroused by the destruction of a herd of swine in con
nection with the healing; but we notice that, contrary
to His usual custom, Jesus ordered the news of what
He had done to be published widely, which would seem
to indicate either that He wished to stir up the men of
Decapolis to visit Him in Galilee, or that He planned
at some later day to return and labor in this region.
Why He now returned and took up the work we are not
told. Possibly He felt that having sent the healed
demoniac as His herald, He ought to follow him up;
more probably it was forced upon His sympathetic
attention as He was passing to or from Jerusalem.
The work was a brief repetition of that in Galilee,
though miracles here, even more than there, seem to
have occupied the crowd to the exclusion of teaching;
and it ended with another miraculous feeding — this
time of four thousand. Many critics consider this
miracle to be only another version of the feeding of the
five thousand because the details are so similar; but
Mark gives a distinct account of both ; and if he gained
his material from Peter, he could hardly be mistaken.
The difficult problem is, Why were the Twelve so much
at loss as to how the multitude could be fed (Mark
8 : 4), if they had previously seen a still larger number
fed? But this very detail, so unexpected, makes for
the genuineness of the narrative. The only explana
tion is that the disciples always were surprised at
nature miracles, and slow to expect them.
4. At the Unnamed Feast. >
" After these things there was a feast of the Jews ;
and Jesus went up to Jerusalem " (John 5:1). If
John had only named the feast, how much discussion
would have been prevented ! " A feast of the Jews "

196 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
describes any one in the list, and each has had its advo
cates. Some manucripts read " the feast of the Jews,"
which is slightly more definite but may be Passover,
Pentecost, or Tabernacles. John tells the incident in
a chapter just preceding that in which he tells of the
feeding of the five thousand, thus indicating a feast
during the Galilean ministry ; but there are strong rea
sons for thinking that in some way the two chapters
have been transposed, or that John did not here follow
the chronological order ( " after these things " is a mere
formula of introduction), and told the incident of the
feast directly after the account of the Judean ministry
because it seemed to him the real conclusion of that
ministry. If we place the unnamed feast after the
Passover which was at hand when the five thousand
were fed, it naturally would be Pentecost ; and the visit
of Jesus would fall in the early part of the Border
ministry, perhaps even before the work in Decapolis.
Though Jesus seems purposely to have kept away
from Jerusalem during the time He was making the
attempt to win Galilee, when that attempt had failed
he turned to Jerusalem again. There was still a pos
sibility, faint yet not to be neglected, that the rulers
might accept Him and proclaim Him the Messiah;
and even if, as everything indicated, His death was to
be at their hands, they must not be able to plead that
they had been misinformed concerning Him ; — knowl
edge of what He was and what He was doing should
be given them. Yet to visit Jerusalem was perilous;
and if He were arrested and imprisoned or put to death
then, His work of training the Twelve would be
stopped before it was completed. During the great
feasts, where hosts of friendly Galileans were present,
He would be safe, at least in daytime, — the nights

THE BORDER MINISTRY 197
must be spent in concealment (John 8: i; Luke 21:
37) ; yet His visits must be so unexpected and brief as
to give little opportunity for His enemies to plot and
compass His arrest. Accordingly, we find that in this
last year of His life He went up to Pentecost (if this
was the unnamed feast), Tabernacles and Dedication;
but the first two visits seem to have been without the
company of the Twelve ; the second was " as it were in
secret " ; and in no case did He remain after the feast
was ended. John is the only evangelist who recognizes
the importance of these visits and records them.
The Sanhedrin had kept well informed about the
Galilean ministry; they knew, for example, that Jesus
was accustomed to heal on the Sabbath (John 5 : 16).
In fact, the center of opposition and the chief cause of
the failure of the Galilean ministry was Jerusalem.
But Jesus had stayed away a full year ; and probably
the rulers thought He did not dare to venture within
their jurisdiction. Now He came up for Pentecost,
and deliberately challenged their judgment by healing
the best-known, most helpless cripple in the city, one
whose thirty-eight years of persistent waiting at the
pool of Bethesda had made him the talk and almost the
jest of the populace. The rulers could not deny the
miracle ; and it was a sign, such as the Messiah might
properly give, though not such as they had in mind
when they put the question of John 2:18. The miracle,
however, was performed in such a way, — on the Sab
bath and with the command to carry a burden, — as to
bring squarely before them the impossibility of accept
ing Jesus as the Messiah while still retaining their own
proud authority as religious guides. (Weiss thinks
that the question about His authority (Mark 11 :28)
was asked now.) The decision was easily made, — in

198 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
fact, it had been made already; and Jesus' claim that
in His disregard of the Sabbath laws He had acted as
the Son of the Heavenly Father, increased the horror
with which they regarded Him ( 5 : 1 6- 1 7 ) . Either this
son of Beelzebub must be put to death, or the Pharisees
must perish ; henceforth it was a fight to the finish.
Possibly at this time Jesus was brought before the
Sanhedrin. His speech (5 : 19 f.) was certainly not to
the multitude but to some small body, seemingly official
(cf. vs. 33, 39). It is a carefully argued defence of
His claims, setting forth what His Sonship really is,
the witnesses to it, and the cause of the present unbe
lief. The Sanhedrin, however, could take no official
action against Him because the Sadducees (who
formed a majority) and some of the Pharisees (e.g.,
Nicodemus) were not ready to do so. Still His life
was no longer safe in Judea (7: 1). The knife of an
assassin, wielded through the instigation and under the
.protection of the Pharisees, might end it if He were
for a moment off His guard.
Concerning this miracle Ellicott says : " This is the
turning point in the gospel history. Up to this time
the preaching of our Lord in Jerusalem and in Judea
had met with a certain degree of toleration, and in
many cases even of acceptance; but after this all be
comes changed. Henceforth the city of David is no
meet or safe abode for the Son of David ; the earthly
house of His Heavenly Father is no longer a secure hall
of audience for the preaching of the Eternal Son."
In a very real sense, then, it was the closing act of the
Judean ministry; and as the demand throughout that
ministry had been for a sign, it was a final test of the
rulers by granting that demand in such a way as to
prove that their desire for a sign was insincere. What

THE BORDER MINISTRY 199
they lacked was not proof of His Messiahship, but
willingness to accept it.
5. Peter's Great Confession.
We have already seen reasons why Jesus could
not begin His work in Galilee by proclaiming openly,
or even to His intimate disciples, that He was the
Messiah. Still it was impossible for Him to take up
the Messianic work without in some measure reveal
ing Himself : " He could not be hid." As a teacher He
spoke with the certainty and independence of one who
had intimate knowledge of things divine, and who
could calmly set aside the highest human teachings.
As a lawgiver He not only abrogated legislation which
all His nation considered inspired, but treated His
hearers as subjects who were in duty bound to obey
the laws which He by His own authority enacted.
As a leader He demanded from his followers complete
personal surrender and implicit obedience, such as no
human being has a right to demand. And as a miracle-
worker He both revealed the character of the Mes
sianic kingdom, and acted with the calm assurance pos
sible only to one who, having in His control all the
powers of nature, knows that He has simply to will in
order to produce a desired effect.
The Twelve had been with Him through the Gali
lean ministry ; and it would seem, at first thought, that
such a revelation ought to have made them recognize
who their Master was, long before that ministry ended.
Its failure to do so is understood when we realize what
a transformation of their Messianic ideals was re
quired. They had begun, some of them from the hour
when John the Baptist pointed Him out, by accepting
Jesus as the Messiah of popular expectation. That

200 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
idea had been abandoned in the Galilean days, though
not without a sense of disappointment. Sinion the
Zealot, for example, must have been most reluctant to
give up the hope of a Messiah who would drive out the
Romans. And James and John still cherished an am
bition for chief seats in an earthly kingdom. Though
personal love and trust had held them steadfast when
the multitude deserted Him, it was evident their sym
pathies were with the crowd who clamored for a bread-
king. They must not be left in this condition. Since
the church was to be built upon them, they must be
hewn into true foundation stones.
During the crowded days of the Galilean ministry
there had been scanty opportunity to give the Twelve
special instruction. Occasionally a parable that puzzled
the multitude could be privately explained, or a lesson
too deep for a general audience could be taught to
them ; but they needed more thorough and systematic
tuition before they could wholly lay aside their old
ideas, and grasp the new and higher ones which Jesus
set before them. That tuition seems to have been
mainly the revelation of Himself to them by continu
ous and closest companionship. He did not tell them
what He claimed to be ; He simply let them see what
He was. Never had men better opportunity to know a
comrade than they had to know Jesus. And what was
the result? Contrary to the established rule that fa
miliarity breeds contempt, the more intimately they
knew Him, the more deeply they reverenced Him. As
Bushnell points out, " The most conspicuous matter in
the history of Jesus is that what holds true in our ex
perience of men is inverted in Him. He grows more
sacred, peculiar, wonderful, divine, as acquaintance
reveals Him. And exactly this appears in. the history

THE BORDER MINISTRY 201
without any token of art, or even apparent conscious
ness that it does appear, — appears because it is true.
Probably no one of the evangelists ever so much as
noticed this remarkable inversion of what holds good
respecting men, in the life and character of Jesus."
The first fruit of these months of special teaching
was evident when Jesus put the testing question, " Who
say ye that I am? ", and Peter acting as the spokesman
of the Twelve replied, " Thou art the Christ " (Mark
8:29). The exclamation of joy with which Jesus
received this confession of faith shows that it marked
an important stage in the spiritual development of the
apostles. Such a recognition of His Messiahship at a
time when others at the highest regarded Jesus as sim
ply a great prophet, was most significant; it arose
through no promptings of ambition or racial pride or
selfishness ; it was divinely begotten. " Blessed art
thou, Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood hath not
revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in
heaven" (Matt. 16: 17). And one who had entered
so far into the secrets of the kingdom as to recognize
its king could hereafter be entrusted with its keys.
So the famous promise, — put to strange uses centuries
afterwards, — was made to Peter, and a few weeks later
to the Twelve collectively (Matt. i6:i9;i8:i8). But
there was one of the number who had remained unre
sponsive to all the teachings and influence of Jesus.
If we take John 6 : 66-71 to be a brief summary of the
period we are now studying, we find in it not only
Peter's confession, given in somewhat different form
though with the same significance, but also Christ's
judgment of Judas, "Did I not choose you, the
Twelve; and one of you is a devil?" Just what
these words signify can better be discussed when the

202 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
whole career of Judas is before us. Enough now to
contrast them with the words of Peter.
When the disciples thus showed that they wer$ grasp
ing the correct conception of their Messiah, Jesus was
encouraged to teach them the culmination of His pres
ent Messianic work. " From that time began Jesus to
show unto his disciples how that he must go unto
Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and
chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third
day be raised up " (Matt. 16:21). He could not have
taught them this earlier; and even now it was so
strangely contradictory to all their Messianic ideas they
could not grasp it. Peter, who was foremost in
spiritual knowledge, was also first to cry out in lov
ing dismay and horror, " Mercy on thee, Lord : this
shall never be unto thee! " (Matt. 16: 22). Thus the
cross at its very first presentation becomes a stumbling
block to the disciples; and their distress over it be
comes in turn a stumbling block to the Master. The
old temptation to find another, less painful path pre
sents itself, and has again to be thrust away with " Get
thee behind me, Satan."
6. The Transfiguration.
One week after the first revelation of the cross came
the transfiguration (Mark 9:2). In no other passage,
except his account of passion week, does Mark state
the exact interval between two incidents. He does so
now because the two are parts of one situation. Jesus
was heavy-hearted from the inability of His disciples
to grasp the lesson of the cross, and perhaps, also, from
the increasing nearness of the hour of agony; He
needed cheer and increase of strength through com
munion with His Father. The disciples were stag-

THE BORDER MINISTRY 208
gered by the thought of a murdered Messiah; they
needed to be reassured by the vision of a transfigured
Messiah. The " high mountain " on which the trans
figuration took place was probably a shoulder of Mt.
Hermon, and the time seems to have been night. Jesus
was accustomed to spend nights alone in prayer; but
now. as later on at Gethsemane, He took Peter, James
and John to be with Him as He prayed. There seems
to have been no deliberate intention of being trans
figured before them, but rather the wish to admit
them into His innermost life, and make them realize
that His words about His death were the expression,
not of a passing moment of despondency, but of a
great purpose which He shared with God in prayer.
If they could learn to join with Him in that prayer,
the cross might cease to be a stumbling block, and be
come a foundation of faith.
The experience which followed falls into the same
class with the baptism, the temptation and Gethsemane.
What it was for Jesus himself, — what message of
cheer, what strength for the coming days, He received
and how these came, — we are not told. What the
three apostles saw and heard was doubtless subjec
tive, — in Matthew's account Jesus plainly calls it " the
vision" (17:9); no wandering shepherd, if he had
passed at that hour, would have beheld anything more
than four men in prayer and meditation. But it was
a real and deep experience. For one brief hour the
veil which hid their Lord was lifted, and they were
"eye-witnesses of his majesty" (II Peter 1 : 10). It
was no longer the Galilean carpenter, — despised, slan
dered, hated, — who stood before them but a majestic
being from whose whole person streamed forth a daz
zling white light. And with Him they saw two other

204 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
figures whom intuitively they knew to be Moses and
Elijah ; and they heard these talking with Jesus about
"his exodus which he was about to accomplish at
Jerusalem " (Luke 9 : 31), — the very event He had so
recently foretold, and they had refused to accept. The
lesson for them in that conversation, — or at least in
the vision of the two great representatives of the law
and the prophets conversing on that subject, — was the
same as that which Jesus in the walk to Emmaus
taught, when "beginning from Moses and from all
the prophets he interpreted to them in all the scrip
tures the things concerning himself"; the lesson,
namely, that the Messiah, foreshadowed in the law
and foretold by the prophets, was one who through
suffering must enter into his glory (Luke 24:25-27).
The knowledge that the death of the Messiah was pre
dicted by the great teachers of old would cast no light
upon the mystery of his death, — for that the disciples
must wait until after the resurrection, and meanwhile
tell no man what they had seen (Mark 9:9); but it
might help them to realize the necessity of His death.
Peter was right when he said, " Rabbi, it is good for
us to be here "; even though his proposition to prolong
the experience by building lodging-booths for the
heavenly guests of a vision was absurd. (Possibly the
nearness of the Feast of Tabernacles made him think
of passing the sacred days here on the mount. ) Then
sudden fear chilled their desire to tarry ; for they were
overshadowed by a bright cloud, — according to all
Jewish thought, the token of the presence of Jehovah ;
and out of the cloud came a voice, " This is my beloved
Son, hear ye him." The words were like those uttered
at the baptism ; they now were meant to strengthen the
faith of the disciples in Jesus as their teacher even

THE BORDER MINISTRY 205
though He was teaching them the mysterious truth that
a Messiah must die.
It was a wonderful experience, — indeed, too wonder
ful for them to grasp at present. Their state of mind
as they came down from the mountain reveals this.
They dared not ask Jesus what the rising again from
the dead should mean, when He spoke of it (Mark
9:10), for fear of calling forth another rebuke as
sharp and mysterious as that which Peter had re
ceived the week before. The vision of Elijah reminded
them of the prophecy that he must come before the
Messiah, and they ventured to ask why it had not been
fulfilled. Possibly they had not been with the multi
tude to whom Jesus declared that John the Baptist
was Elijah, or else had failed to grasp the statement
which seems to have been in esoteric form (Matt. 11 :
14 !). This time they understood that John the
Baptist was the fulfilment of the prophecy; but John
was dead, which seemed to indicate that Elijah had
failed in his mission, and that the Messiah also was
going to fail. What, then, could they conclude about
the transfiguration? The farther away it became, the
more of a mystery it seemed; and when months later
the hour arrived in which they most needed its mes
sage, they had ceased to bear it in mind.
7. The Lessons of the Cross.
As soon as the Twelve had grasped the fact that
Jesus was the Messiah, He began to teach them that
He must be rejected by the Sanhedrin and be killed
and after three days rise again. According to Mark,
"he spake the saying openly" (8:31), and later on
gave further details, — the betrayal (9:31), the de
livery to the Gentiles, the mockery and scourging

206 THE LIFE OF CHRIST,
( 10 : 34) . Matthew adds to these the crucifixion (20 :
19), — a form of death that might be expected if
Romans pronounced the sentence. Nevertheless, there
is no indication that the disciples were in any way
helped by His predictions, when the hour of fulfill
ment did arrive. They were overwhelmed by His
arrest and death, and wholly without hope of His
resurrection, exactly as if He never had foretold these
events. No emphasis of the dullness and unbelief of
the Twelve can account for their total failure to recall
His words at the hour when most naturally they would
remember them; it must be that the lessons of the
cross were much more ambiguous than Mark repre
sents. They are preserved for us not literally but
with the interpretation which the events themselves
brought; so there is no obscurity. Yet from their
present form we conclude that Jesus uniformly used
the Son of Man instead of the first personal pronoun
in them, which would make the disciples question
whether He was speaking about Himself or some other
person; and from our knowledge of the apocalyptical
form in which He put His teachings about the future
coming of the Son of Man, we infer that He put His
teachings about the future sufferings of the Son of
Man in the same obscure form. When He gave the
first of His lessons about the cross, Peter understood
that He was talking about His own death, and natu
rally cried out in horror at the thought ; but the sharp
rebuke this brought (Mark 8: 33) must have made the
disciples suppose that Peter had misunderstood Him
in a way that merited censure. Henceforth, when
ever He spoke about the death or resurrection of the
Son of Man, they listened in silence, not comprehend
ing but afraid to ask Him His meaning (Mark 9 : 10,

THE BORDER MINISTRY 207
•32; Luke 18: 34). The command, given to the three
disciples as they came down from the mount of trans
figuration, that they should tell the vision to no man
(Mark 9:9-10), made the lesson of that vision seem
something apart from what He was openly telling the
Twelve; so they were unable to use it as the key to
His other words. Doubtless the whole story of future
sufferings was supposed to be something like a parable
whose explanation had not been given them ; and they
dismissed it as beyond their comprehension.
The question why Jesus should teach thus obscurely
about His passion is a difficult one. Unless we refuse
to believe that He had a clear knowledge of the future,
we must agree that, had He wished to do it, He might
have made His statements so plain that the disciples
could not fail to understand them and, when the time
of His death came, to recall them. The author of the
first Gospel is sure that somebody before the resurrec
tion must have remembered that Jesus had said, " After
three days I rise again" (Matt. 27:63); but he can
assign such remembrance only to the chief priests and
Pharisees (27:62!). The wisdom of veiling the
future from the disciples becomes evident when we con
sider how minimized their spiritual experience in Pas
sion Week would have been, had they clearly foreseen
each of the great events. Knowledge that their Mas
ter was to return to them speedily, victorious over
death, would have taken away the stress and test of
soul which Jesus predicted at the Last Supper, when
He said, " Satan hath by asking obtained you that he
may sift you as wheat" (Luke 22:31). Yet for
Jesus to go up to Jerusalem with Calvary ever in view,
and give no hint of it to His companions whom it so
intimately concerned, was, humanly speaking, impos-

208 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
sible; the craving for their sympathy, and the loving
wish to help them in their trials, which are so often
manifested in His dealings with the Twelve, would
force some revelation of that which filled His thoughts.
And, if given in such form that the event made clear
the prediction, this revelation would be profitable to
the disciples in later years, as helping them to under
stand what were the thoughts and purpose of their
Master at a time when they followed Him in igno
rance and fear (Mark 10: 32).
There were lessons of the cross that concerned not
alone His own future but that of all disciples; and
these, too, Jesus was trying to teach. " If any man
would come after me, let him deny himself and take
up his cross and follow me" (Mark 8:34). This
was the keynote of many conversations. Few sayings
of Christ are more familiar ; and yet we often miss its
full meaning because we identify self-denial with
cross-bearing. There was to be self-denial to the
uttermost; and repeatedly He warned would-be dis
ciples to count the cost. Those who followed Him
must become homeless, break all family ties, hate even
their own lives. But all this was only preparation for
cross-bearing. The cross is the symbol of sacrificial
service, of burdens borne to lighten heavy-laden shoul
ders, of redemptive suffering for the sins of others.
The imitation of Christ, that goes no further than
self-denial, fails to reach the cross, and has no power
to bring the world to Him.
From the time when Jesus began to teach the les
sons of the cross we are conscious of something even
more serious than a failure of the Twelve to under
stand. There is a lack of sympathy on their part,
not great enough to destroy their love and loyalty,

THE BORDER MINISTRY 209
but sufficient to make them unresponsive and some
times antagonistic. Instead of accepting His lesson of
self-denial, they dispute who is the greatest (Mark 9:
34) ; instead of forgiving their enemies, they want
to call down fire upon a Samaritan village that refuses
them hospitality (Luke 9:54); instead of extending
generous welcome to all who recognize their Master,
they nourish a spirit of exclusiveness (Mark 9 : 38) ;
and the question of reward for following Him is
bluntly proposed (Matt. 19 : 27). Truly the path was
made lonely and needlessly hard for Jesus by the very
men whom He had chosen to be His comrades. It is
pleasant to believe that the natural yearning of His
heart for human sympathy and comprehension found
at least one cheering response. In the home at Bethany
Mary was ready to hear His word with the quick in
tuition of love (Luke 10: 39) ; and that she accepted
the lesson of the cross and understood it may be
inferred from her act and Jesus' words when He came
to Bethany on His way to the last Passover (Mark
14 : 3 f . ) . The alabaster cruse of costly spikenard
was her token of comprehension and loyal co
operation. 8. The Feast of the Tabernacles.
When the summer months were ended, Jesus was
back once more in Capernaum; but His presence no
longer drew a crowd. In fact, He was evidently
seeking to remain hidden (Mark 9 : 30). His brethren
strongly disapproved of this, and urged Him to go up
openly to the autumn feast of Tabernacles which was
now at hand (John 7:2 f.) Why they did this if,
as John points out, they did not believe on Him, it is
hard to say. They could not have wished to compass

210 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
His death ; but possibly they thought that this appear
ance at Jerusalem would be a decisive one; and their
private opinion was that it would end His public career,
which already seemed at the point of failure, and
would thus cause Him to resume the old life of a quiet
citizen instead of the exhausting and, to their minds,
almost insane course He had been following in recent
months. In response He said squarely, " I go not up
to this feast" (7:8), — a statement which seemed to
later copyists so near a falsehood that they changed
the word " not," by a slight alteration, into " not yet."
Further reflection on the situation caused Him to
recall His decision; He might profitably go up to the
feast, though not in such open manner as His brethren
suggested, — the time for the triumphal entry had not
yet come. Accordingly, "when his brethren were
gone up unto the feast, then went he also up, not
publicly, but as it were in secret (7: 10). There is
no reason to suppose that He took the disciples with
Him; the statement that He went secretly is opposed
to it, and the hostility He was to encounter would not
be beneficial to them.
At Jerusalem the whole atmosphere reeked with
hostility. The rulers were watching for His appear
ance (7: 11), aroused to this because He had come to
the previous feast; and it was understood that they
were plotting His death (7 : 25 ) . The people were dis
cussing His claims, and only a portion (probably Gali
lean pilgrims) dared speak even secretly in His favor
(7:13). It was generally thought that He would not
come to the feast, the danger was so great ; and when
He appeared, the people were astonished, and won
dered if the rulers had changed their attitude.
The feast lasted seven or eight days; Jesus arrived

THE BORDER MINISTRY 211
in the midst of it, and stayed until its close. Prob
ably He did not stay longer; there was little reason
why He should, and the danger was too great. Going
straight into the temple, He began to teach. The bold
ness of the act at first paralyzed His enemies; and
when they recovered and sought to arrest Him, the
favor of a part of the multitude protected Him. The
scenes that followed reveal a sublimity of fearlessness
and strength, the record of which, as Thomas Hughes
says, "has done more to make men courageous and
truly manly than all the stirring accounts of bold
deeds which ever were written elsewhere." Each day
Jesus was in the temple, teaching the people who
wavered between favor and opposition, uttering prom
ises, warnings, denunciations, making clearer revela
tions of His superhuman character, and defying the
Jewish rulers who were almost beside themselves with
helpless rage. They sent the temple guard to arrest
Him, and it returned empty-handed with the report,
"Never man so spake." They turned in fury upon
Nicodemus when he made the fair-minded suggestion
that they should not condemn a man unheard. They
agreed that whoever should confess that this Nazarene
was the Christ should be cast out of the synagogue.
They even took up stones to hurl at Him because His
claims seemed blasphemous. In short, they were like a
pack of wolves, wild with passion, thirsting for blood,
yet kept back from their victim by a barrier they
could not cross. No man laid hands on Him; He
remained in Jerusalem until the feast was ended,
uttered the words that were in His heart, and then,
having fulfilled the purpose of His coming, went back
once more to His waiting disciples in Galilee.
At this visit no miracle was performed ; the atmos-

212 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
phere was not suitable for one. But Jesus took the
ceremony of bringing water in a golden pitcher from
Siloam to the temple, which was part of each day's cele
bration except the last, as the text of His sermon on
that last day, "If any man thirst, let him come unto
me and drink " (7 : 37).

XIV
JESUS THE MESSIAH
WE have already noticed that while the early part
of Jesus' ministry was full of teachings con
cerning the kingdom of God, from the time when He
withdrew from Galilee to begin the private training
of the Twelve His teaching centered upon " the things
concerning himself." There was great need of such
teaching; for the various opinions concerning Him
were more than those the disciples stated in their
answer to His, " Who do men say that I am? " (Mark
8:27!), and the belief of the disciples themselves,
"Thou art the Christ," might be held with widely
different conceptions of the Messiah. We shall be
helped in understanding the whole ministry of Jesus,
if we pause at this point to consider briefly both what
the people thought about Him and what He taught
about Himself. And in considering the latter we must
bear in mind the same presuppositions as when study
ing what He taught about the kingdom of God, viz.:
that he had to suit His teachings to His audience ; that
He may have been misunderstood and wrongly re
ported ; that his ideas were in harmony with the highest
in the Old Testament; and that the Christian cen
turies have made the meaning of His words more
evident. In every other biography we have to distinguish not
only between a man's estimate of himself and his
213

214 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
associates' estimate of him, but also between both of
these and his true character. In the case of Jesus we
can take His statement of what He was as absolutely
correct. With His marvellous knowledge of other men
He had, also, full knowledge of Himself. Of course,
this must be denied by those who hold that He changed
His opinion several times, deeming Himself at first
to be merely a disciple of John the Baptist, next to be
a prophetic teacher, and finally to be the Messiah.
Such change of mind is called the development of the
Messianic consciousness; but it shows a deficiency in
self-knowledge which does not inspire confidence in
even the final opinion. Indeed, some think that Jesus
died on the cross with a cry of dismay at the rude
awakening from His delusion that He was the Messiah.
In the opinion of the writer, the theory that there can
be traced through the public ministry of Jesus a gradual
development of Messianic consciousness has no foun
dation in fact, and arises from confusing His progres
sive self -revelation to the disciples, as they were able
to receive it, with His actual self-knowledge. The
things concerning Himself were the deepest, hardest
lessons He had to impart; and He could proceed no
faster in His teaching than His disciples were ready
to receive ; but this necessary limitation in his statement
of what He was does not involve or imply a corre
sponding limitation in His own knowledge.
The theme of this chapter may be most simply
treated by considering the significance of some of the
titles that others gave Jesus and of those that He Him
self assumed.
I. The Prophet from Nazareth.
A prophet, in the Biblical sense of the word, is a

JESUS THE MESSIAH 215
man who speaks for God, uttering a message divinely
given. He may speak about the future; but his mis
sion is to offer warning, counsel or cheer in the pres
ent. He is God's spokesman, and his words are with
divine authority. The uniqueness of Israel's history
arises from the long line of such men who resolutely
strove to lead the nation forward in the path of Je
hovah's purposes.
When John the Baptist came forward, a prophet
had long been lacking, and the lack was sorely felt.
The people counted him a prophet (Matt. 14: 5), and
Jesus endorsed their opinion (Matt. 11:9), though He
added that John was much more than a prophet. And
of Jesus Himself in His Galilean ministry men said,
" A great prophet has arisen among us, and God has
visited his people" (Luke 7:16). Some went still
farther, and identified him with one of the old
prophets, Elijah or Jeremiah, or with the prophet
whom Moses foretold (Matt. 16: 14; John 6: 14; 7:
40). Even at the triumphal entry the multitude said,
" This is the prophet, Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee "
(Matt. 21:11). It was the most natural explanation
both of the authority with which He taught (Mark 1 :
22) and of the miracles He wrought (Luke 7 : 16) ;
He was, as the two disciples on the way to Emmaus
said, " a prophet mighty in deed and word " (Luke
24:19). Jesus never assumed the title. Once at Nazareth
He applied to Himself the proverb, " A prophet is not
without honor save in his own country" (Mark 6:
4) ; and once, speaking of His journey to death, He
said with severest sarcasm, " It cannot be that a
prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33).
But in the parable of the wicked husbandman (Mark

216 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
12: i ff.), in which the servants sent to receive the
fruits are the prophets, He assigns Himself the far
higher position of the only and beloved son of the lord
of the vineyard. It is the same distinction that is
made in His two statements, " He that receiveth a
prophet in the name of a prophet shall receiVe a
prophet's reward " and " He that receiveth me re
ceiveth him that sent me " (Matt. 10: 41, 40). Those
who, like Nicodemus, regard Jesus as simply a teacher
with a divine commission, fail to grasp this distinction.
It is true that He taught with authority, and was
called rabbi by His disciples ; but He claimed for Him
self a higher mission than simply to proclaim a message
from God; and the knowledge of the Father which He
possessed was that of a son and not of a prophet
(Luke 10:22).
2. Son of David and King of Israel.
The long occupancy of the Jewish throne by the
dynasty of David, and the promises of the prophets that
this occupancy should continue forever, made the two
terms, son of David and king of Israel, practically
identical. True, the Maccabean kings had not been
descendants of David; but the Pharisees looked back
upon them as impious usurpers whose final overthrow
was a merited punishment by Jehovah. Now that the
throne stood empty many expected a son of David
would one day occupy it. The story of the birth of
Jesus reflects this expectation ; but the clearest expres
sion of it is in the Psalms of Solomon, which were
composed 70-40 b.c, and were the highest thought of
the Pharisees. E.g., " Thou, O Lord, didst choose
David to be king over Israel, and swaredst to him,
touching his seed, that never should his kingdom fail

JESUS THE MESSIAH 217
before thee. But for our sins sinners rose up against
us. . . . They laid waste the throne of David in
tumultuous arrogance. . . . Behold, O Lord, and raise
up unto them their king, the son of David, at the time
in the which thou seest, O God, that he may reign
over Israel, thy servant. Gird him with strength that
he may shatter unrighteous rulers, and that he may
purge Jerusalem from nations that trample her down
to destruction. . . . He shall judge peoples and nations
in the wisdom of his righteousness. And he shall have
the heathen nations to serve him under his yoke " (Ps.
17: Charles' translation).
In Galilee the desire for a restoration of David's
throne seems to have been faint; probably the people
were satisfied with the rule of Herod Antipas, and
did not relish the thought of becoming tributary to
Judea. Accordingly the Galileans had little to say
about Jesus as the son of David (Matt. 9: 27 f. seems
a duplicate of 20:29!, and 12:23 is peculiar to
Matthew), and when they would crown Him king it
was on the ground that He was "the prophet that
cometh into the world " (John 6: 14). It was during
the closing months of His life, when He was teaching
in Peraea, that the cry for a political kingdom was
raised. So we find that when Jesus came up to Jeru
salem for the last time, He was hailed repeatedly as
son of David (Mark 10:47!; Matt. 21:9, 15) and
His possible kingship was discussed by friend and
foe. The charge which forced Pilate to condemn Him
was that He proclaimed Himself a king (Luke 23: 2;
John 19: 12); and over His cross in mockery was
written, " The king of the Jews."
Jesus accepted both titles, the king of the Jews and
the son of David, yet not with their popular significa-

218 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
tion ; a political kingdom was a temptation which at the
outset He had put behind Him. He told Pilate that He
was indeed a king, but that His kingdom was not of
this world (John 18 : 36) — a fact which Pilate already
knew, since the Pharisees never would have delivered
over a king who set himself in opposition to Caesar.
And when He propounded to the Pharisees the prob
lem of David's relationship to the Messiah, as set forth
in Ps. 110:1, asking, "If, then, David calleth him
Lord, how is he his son? " (Matt. 22 : 45), He was not
only accepting the title which they demanded that He
disclaim (Matt. 21 : 15 !), but also meeting an objec
tion they had raised against His right to it, namely,
that He could not be the Messiah because He was not
of the seed of David (John 7 : 42). Instead of point
ing out His own descent from David and His birth
in Bethlehem, He showed that the scribes gave a
false idea of the Messiah when they emphasized the
fact that he was the son of David. They taught that
he would be like his ancestor, a great warrior rul
ing an earthly kingdom gained by battle; whereas, in
the Psalm David looks up to the Messiah as his Lord
and one who instead of being called upon to fight has
from Jehovah the invitation, " Sit thou on my right
hand till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy
feet " (Mark 12 : 36). How can the teaching of the
scribes be reconciled with that of the Psalmist?
The kingdom of which Jesus is king — so He told
Pilate — is the kingdom of the truth : " Every one that
is of the truth heareth (i.e., obeyeth) my voice"
(John 18: 37) ; in other words, it is the kingdom of
heaven. That kingdom, as we have noted, is the rule
of the Father; but also it has been appointed by the
Father unto Him (Luke 22 : 29). " To the evangelists

JESUS THE MESSIAH 219
and the New Testament generally, the kingdom has its
king — not simply God but Jesus whom God has chosen ;
and the king — He whom God has chosen — has the
kingdom. There may be a question as to how pre
cisely the kingship is to be understood. That is a
question of interpretation. There may be a still graver
question as to its precise historic equivalent in the
consciousness of Jesus Himself. But, indubitably, to
all the New Testament writers, Jesus is the king; and
from their point of view, it is practically one and the
same thing to say God reigns and Jesus reigns "
(Muirhead). 3. The Son of God.
In the Old Testament the relation of the Jewish
nation to God was described as that of a son to a
father (Ex. 4: 22, Hos. 11 : 1) ; and because the king
represented the nation, he in a special sense was called
the son of God (II Sam. 7:14; Ps. 89:26!). It
was natural, therefore, that the son of God should
be used as a title for the Messianic King (Ps. 2:7).
The evidence for its use in the time of Jesus is scanty
except in the Gospels where it is abundant. Nathanael
says to Jesus, " Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou
art king of Israel " (John 1 : 49) ; Peter confesses,
" Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God "
(Matt. 16:16); the highpriest demands, "Tell us
whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God" (Matt.
26:63): in all these instances, son of God is used
as a synonym of the accompanying terfn; so also
in the taunts when He hung on the cross (Matt. 27:
40, 42), and in Martha's confession (John 11:27).
The demoniacs who proclaimed Him Son of God and
the holy one of God (Luke 4:41; Mark 1 : 24) were

220 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
only voicing with outspoken fear the Messianic belief
which lay as a question in the minds of the bystanders.
Whatever may have been the full meaning of the
divine proclamation at the baptism, " Thou art my
beloved Son," its immediate message to Jesus, as the
temptation shows, was that He was the Messiah ; and
the similar proclamation on the mount of transfigura
tion bore to the disciples the same message. Yet the
Son of God, as a Messianic title, must have had a dif
ferent meaning from the son of David. It brought
to the front the divine claims to the throne rather
than the human ; it suggested a supernatural being, and
a kingdom established by some special manifestation
of God's power. It was this connotation of the term
that filled Pilate with apprehension when the Jews
declared that Jesus " made himself the Son of God "
(John 19 : 7). Possibly Pilate understood by it simply
a demigod, such as Romans recognized ; more likely, he
knew enough of Jewish expectations to understand it in
the Jewish sense; at any rate, it meant to him, as to
the others, a person claiming peculiar divine relations
and support.
In the Synoptics Jesus never uses the term Himself,
though He accepts it gladly when Peter uses it in his
confession ; and at the last, when reserve is no longer
necessary, He replies " I am " to the question of the
highpriest, "Art thou the Son of God?" (Mark 14:
62). Whether the two occasions in John where He is
reported to have used it (5: 18; 10: 36) are to be ac
cepted as historical or are the evangelist's own choice
of a term to express the meaning of Jesus, we cannot
say. But in John repeatedly and in three passages
in the Synoptics (Luke 10:22; Mark 13:32; Matt.
28: 19) Jesus speaks of Himself as "the Son," with

JESUS THE MESSIAH 221
a significance that is evidently more than Messianic.
So, too, in the parable of the wicked husbandmen
(Mark 12: i f.) and in His question to the Pharisees,
"What think ye of the Christ? Whose son is he?"
(Matt. 22:42), He is claiming a relationship to God
much higher than what popular thought assigned to
the Messiah. This relationship is revealed not only
in the way in which He spoke of Himself but also in the
way m which He spoke of " my Father " and " your
Father." Long ago Horace Bushnell, in a classic
chapter of his " Nature and the Supernatural," pointed
out that the character of Jesus forbids His possible
classification with men. With equal truth it may be
said that the attitude of Jesus to God, as shown in
word and in deed, forbids His classification with men ;
they may be sons of God, He is the Son of God.
It is apart from the purpose of this book to discuss
whether the sonship of Jesus was ethical or meta
physical, i.e., whether He was the Son of God because
of His perfect harmony in will and thought and feel
ing with the Father, or He was the Eternal Son made
manifest in the flesh. Such a discussion would take
us out of the realm of history into that of theology,
and our subject is the history of Jesus. That history,
unless we refuse to base it on the gospel records and
undertake to frame it by pure conjecture, establishes
His claim to be called the Son of God, not only in the
Jewish Messianic sense, but also with a significance
that proclaims Him the unique and central figure in the
world's history.
4. The Son of Man.
The Son of Man is the most interesting of all the
titles of Jesus because it was the one He took for Him-

THE LIFE OF CHRIST,
self. With the exception of Stephen's words in the
hour of martyrdom (Acts 7:56), which evidently
were connected with Luke 22 : 69, it is found only in
the lips of Jesus or of those who quote Him; but he
uses it on about forty different occasions. It is, also,
a most perplexing title, arousing discussion not only
among those who listened to Him (John 12: 34), but
also among the scholars in the present day. Indeed, to
determine the meaning that Jesus put into it, "has
justly been described as the most confused and intri
cate problem in New Testament theology " (Mackin
tosh). There are some who, — basing their argument
upon the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, — take away
from it all meaning except that of " man " in general ;
and there are others who make it such a clear Mes
sianic title that the failure of Jesus' hearers to grasp
the meaning is inexplicable. Some hold that it em
phasizes the humanity of Jesus, — as if that needed
emphasis, being most evident; and others consider
it equivalent to " the ideal man," the type of the human
race, — a subtle philosophic thought whose Jewish ex
pression, if a Jewish mind entertained it, would be
" the second Adam," rather than the Son of Man.
Without stopping to discuss these possible meanings,
we may note that the title had been used long before
the days of Jesus with various significations. " Son of
man " in Ezekiel designates the prophet himself, and
emphasizes his weakness and utter dependence upon
God; "the son of man" in Ps. 8:4 means man in
general, but man as the heir of creation, the favored
of God, ranking close to angels in glory; a form like
unto " a son of man " in the apocalyptic part of
Daniel (7:13!) represents "the saints of the Most
High," whose kingdom is to be everlasting, while

JESUS THE MESSIAH
heathen nations with their transient power are repre
sented in the form of beasts. From the use of the
term in Daniel the development of a Messianic meaning
in it by later apocalypses would be most natural ; and
we do find it used with that meaning in portions of the
Book of Enoch, written probably not long before the
Christian era. The Son of Man in Enoch is a personal
title for a supernatural, pre-existent being who, com
ing to earth, sits on the throne of his glory, which
is likewise God's throne, and rules all nations and
executes all judgment. He is the Messiah of apoca
lyptic expectation. This meaning of the term would
be less familiar because it had so recently been
developed. With such a history the Son of Man must have
been decidedly an ambiguous term in the days of
Jesus; and the people who heard Him use it would
not always give it the same meaning. In certain in
stances they would understand Him to be speaking,
as did the Psalmist, about man generically, e.g., Mark
2 : 10, 28. More often they would recognize that He
was speaking about Himself; and since they accepted
Him as a prophet, they would suppose that He was
assuming a designation much like that which Jehovah
gave to Ezekiel, e.g., Luke 7:34; 9: 58; 19: 10; 22:
48. In John 12 : 23-24 they evidently at the begin
ning understood Him to be talking about the apoca
lyptic Messiah, but were led by His later statements to
question whether He was using the term with its
Messianic meaning. The Messianic meaning was, how
ever, clearly expressed and understood in His answer
to the highpriest (Mark 14: 62). In His private con
versations with His disciples Jesus seems to have used
the term sometimes with evident self -designation and

224 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
sometimes with evident reference to the future Mes
siah, but seldom if ever in such a way that the two
would be recognized as unquestionably identical. In
deed, in such statements as " whosoever shall be
ashamed of me, the Son of Man also shall be ashamed
of him " (Mark 8: 38), He seemed to speak of Him
self and the Son of Man as two distinct persons. It is
no wonder that the disciples were puzzled to know
what He meant. For example, all His teachings about
His impending death were, according to Mark, state
ments as to what should befall the Son of Man; and,
as they listened, the Twelve at first understood that He
was talking about Himself, but they were rebuked and
seemingly led to think the Son of Man was the future
Messiah (Mark 8 : 32-38) ; then, when they had settled
upon this meaning, they were told that the Son of Man
must arise from the dead which in no way agreed with
the coming of the Messiah in glory (Mark 9:9-10) ;
and presently they found themselves in a state of per
plexity where they neither understood nor dared to ask
His meaning (9:31-32).
Just what did the term mean to Jesus Himself?
This, of course, is the most important question. The
answer is not easy, and is made more difficult because
we are not always sure about the evangelists' reports,
e.g., on three occasions Matthew has Son of Man when
the parallel accounts indicate that Jesus did not use it
(12 : 32; 16: 13, 28). Nor can we be sure that Jesus
always used it with the same meaning. But evidently
in most instances, if not in all, He used it as a Messianic
title. The theory that Jesus did not believe Himself to
be the Messiah, and undertook merely to prepare His
people for a future Messiah, can be maintained only
by discrediting the whole gospel narrative. It is one

JESUS THE MESSIAH 225
of those paradoxical propositions which certain
scholars set forth and thereby draw attention to them
selves. The reticence of Jesus concerning His Mes
siahship, especially in the popular Galilean ministry,
can best be explained, — as we have seen, — by the neces
sity of teaching the true character of the Messianic
kingdom before announcing Himself to be its ruler.
The men who were to be asked to choose Him as their
king must first understand what the choice involved;
otherwise their action would be of no real value. To
proclaim Himself the Messiah, or to adopt the well-
known Messianic titles, " the son of David " and " the
Son of God," would at once arouse excitement, and
attract a crowd of followers, some thirsting for venge
ance upon the Romans, some hungering for material
comforts, some expecting marvels and prodigies, but
few or none seeking the spiritual blessings He waited
to bestow. Nevertheless, in preaching the gospel of
the kingdom, Jesus could not assume the attitude of
a mere herald, a John the Baptist. The kingdom was
His, and He must not seem to waive all claims to it.
So He took for Himself a title, unfamiliar yet truly
Messianic, " the Son of Man." It did not excite the
people because often they did not give it a Messianic
meaning, and when they did, they thought of the
apocalyptic Messiah, for whose coming they could do
nothing more than patiently wait with longing; and
yet, by its Old Testament associations, it "struck a
chord that must have vibrated in every heart "
(Worsley). Probably Jesus chose the Son of Man for His title
because it was so obscure, and because it suited equally
well His present work as prophet and His future work
as king; as the Son of Man He was now revealing the

226 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Father, and as the Son of Man hereafter He would
come in the glory of the Father. And He must have
felt a fondness for the term because it had gathered
such rich connotations in its development. Man ge
nerically, man in his need and weakness, man in his
power and greatness, man in his ideal state as a saint
of God, — all these meanings had enriched the title
before it became a personal one for the Messiah.
Hence, as a Messianic title it ever suggests the rela
tions of the Messiah to mankind. Jesus could and
did use it in connection both with His present weak
ness and suffering and with His future power and
glory, because in all stages of His work, as servant
or as king, He presented Himself as the Saviour of
men. The Son of God has an upward look to the
Father ; the Son of Man, with no less of divine signifi
cance, has ever an outward look upon the great world
of the human race.
5. The Future Coming of the Son of Man.
In studying the teachings of Jesus about the kingdom
of God we noted that in addition to His abundant
instructions about what may be called the ethical king
dom, there was a distinct line of teachings about the
eschatological kingdom, i.e., the kingdom to be estab
lished at the end of the present age with outward
circumstance and by supernatural agency after the
fashion of apocalyptical thought. It is usually men
tioned in connection with a future coming of the Son
of Man in glory to establish it ; therefore, its considera
tion was postponed until we had endeavored to deter
mine the meaning of the title, the Son of Man.
The whole subject is not an easy one; and it suffers
from too much attention on the part of a few, as well

JESUS THE MESSIAH 227
as from total neglect on the part of many. Its diffi
culties arise not only through the great differences
between the two kingdoms, but also through seemingly
contradictory statements as to when the Son of Man
shall come. Now, whatever theory we adopt about the
limitations of Jesus' knowledge, we cannot suppose that
He was uncertain about the character of His king
dom, or that at one moment He said the events He
was describing in connection with it would take place
in that generation, and the very next moment declared
that only the Father knew the day and hour (Mark
13:30-32). Confucius laid down the rule, "When
you know a thing, to know that you know it; and
when you do not know a thing, to know that you do
not know it : — this is knowledge " ; and certainly
Jesus had reached the Confucian standard of wisdom.
But though the kingdom and the way in which it was
to be established must have been clear to His own
mind, two important facts could not be made clear to
His disciples. One was that the supreme event by
which He would be declared to be the Son of God
with power was the resurrection (Rom. 1:4); the
other was that, after He had thus fully established the
kingdom, the work of proclaiming it and persuading
men to enter it was to be left to His disciples until a
far-off day when He should return once more for its
consummation. To make His disciples understand was
impossible, when even the fact of His death was veiled
from them; yet to keep utter silence about these cen
tral truths when teaching the things of the kingdom
and the things concerning Himself was equally impos
sible. Even at the risk of being misunderstood He
must try to make His hearers share something of the
thoughts that filled His own mind.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST
In the light of our present knowledge we can dis
tinguish three distinct advents of the Son of Man to
establish His kingdom ; he came from the humble home
in Nazareth; He came again from the riven tomb in
Jerusalem ; and He is yet to come from the right hand
of the Majesty on high. We may expect, therefore,
to find that whatever Jesus taught about a future
coming is, if correctly reported, in reference either to
His death and resurrection or to His final appearance
as the judge of the world. The first assignment of
a date for His coming is His command to the Twelve
when they went forth on their independent mission in
Galilee : " When they persecute you in this city, flee
into the next; for verily I say unto you, Ye shall
not have gone through the cities of Israel till the Son
of Man come " (Matt. 10 : 23). Evidently these words
are a warning against spending fruitless labors upon
hostile cities; and the reason assigned is the brevity
of the time that remains ; the harvest is plenteous but
the laborers are few (Matt. 9: 37), and it will not be
possible to reach all the fields before the Son of Man
comes. The warning was uttered at an hour when the
signs of failure in the Galilean work made the nearness
of His death certain ; but it is not necessarily a predic
tion that His death and resurrection would take place
before the Twelve returned from their brief tour. If
it had been so understood, the promptness with which
it was shown to be incorrect would have kept the dis
ciples from treasuring it in memory or reporting it
without explanation. The next date assigned was
when in connection with Peter's great confession
Jesus said that some who were then with Him would
not die before they saw the Son of Man coming in His
kingdom (Matt. 16:28) or, according to Mark, the

JESUS THE MESSIAH 229
kingdom of God come with power (9: 1). This is
thought by some to refer to the transfiguration, which
took place a week later; but the very form of the
statement implying the death of some shows that it
could hardly refer to an event so immediately at hand ;
and it is better understood as a reference to His death
and resurrection about which He was at this time giv
ing them the first lesson. Along with this should be
put His statement in His final testimony before the
Sanhedrin that from that hour forward they should
see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power
and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matt. 26:64),
which, again, refers to His glorification by death and
resurrection. In the great discourse on the Mount of
Olives He foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, and
said that after that tribulation the Somof Man would
come in clouds with great power and glory (Mark 13 :
26). The disciples supposed it to be " immediately "
after (Matt. 24: 29) but as He Himself declared that
He did not know the day or the hour, we conclude that
the close connection of these two events was made by
the disciples and not by Him. This coming is evidently
the same as that at the final day of judgment (Matt.
25:31)- In considering the apocalyptic form of His teach
ings about the future kingdom, we may assign some
of it to the evangelists. The author of the First Gos
pel, which is most Jewish in character, insists on
interpreting Jesus' statements according to Jewish
eschatological ideas, while in the Gospel of Luke there
is much less of such interpretation, and in John scarcely
any. And the passage that in all the Synoptists most
abounds in eschatology, the discourse on the Mount of
Olives, is thought by some critics to incorporate a Jew-

230 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
ish apocalypse (Mark 13:7-93, 14-20, 24-27, 30-31)
which in the opinion of the evangelist expressed the
ideas of Jesus about the future. Probably, also, those
who originally listened to Jesus as He taught about the
future understood Him to be setting forth apocalyp
tical ideas because their own minds were already full
of such ideas. Certainly the questions that called forth
the discourse on the Mount of Olives, if Matthew
states them correctly (24 : 3 ) , indicate that the disciples
in their own thought synchronized the destruction of
Jerusalem, the coming of the Messiah, and the end of
the present aeon; and probably it is this confusion of
their ideas that causes the difficulty when we seek to
determine the relative time of each of the three events
by studying their report of that discourse. Again,
nothing is more likely than that Jesus, in order to reach
His hearers, adopted the apocalyptic form in some of
His teachings without endorsing apocalyptic concep
tions. We notice, for example, that the parable of the
rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19!) is full of
Jewish eschatological ideas, yet we do not accept them
as the ideas of Jesus about the hereafter; they are
simply a familiar setting for the one great lesson of the
parable, which is that whoever selfishly shuts himself
away from humanity's need will be left thus separated
and alone hereafter when in sorest need himself.
Nevertheless, it is not possible to eliminate all the
apocalyptical element from the teaching of Jesus. And
the fact that His teaching contained this element is
confirmed by the prevalence of apocalyptical expecta
tions in the early church, both the Jewish and the
Gentile (e.g., Acts 3 : 19-21, I Peter 4: 13, I Thess. 4:
16 !). The return of Jesus in the near future, and
the establishment of His kingdom by a startling mani-

JESUS THE MESSIAH 231
testation of His power and glory, were eagerly ex
pected by these Christians ; and their whole conception
of their present work as His disciples was fashioned
accordingly. They believed that He had gone back to
the Father because the world was not yet ready to
receive Him, and had left them to prepare the people
for His second coming, somewhat as John the Baptist
had tried to prepare them for His first coming. When
ever the preparation was complete, — and they hoped
the time was near, — He would return in glory, and
establish an eternal kingdom by acts of judgment and
reward. The motto of the Apostolic Age was maran
atha, " Our Lord cometh " (I Cor. 16 : 22) ; and when
it could no longer be used unquestioningly, the Apos
tolic Age ended.
The words of Jesus about His final coming still
await interpretation; and if we are to judge by the
past, they will not become clear until experience makes
them so. All the teachings of Israel's prophets failed
to make the nation understand the way in which Jesus
was to come the first time ; all His own teachings failed
to make His disciples understand the way in which He
was to come the second time ; is it likely that the teach
ings concerning the way in which He is yet to come
will be more clearly understood? The lessons about
His future kingdom are given in parable and apoca
lypse; we cannot take them literally; yet who can say
how else they should be taken?

XV
THE PERAEAN MINISTRY
i. The General Character.
PERAEA, — " the land across," — was a loosely de
fined region extending from the Decapolis to the
Arnon (about seventy miles), and from the Jordan
east to the desert ; it was the old land of Gilead and the
northern part of Moab, — a larger region than Judea
or Galilee. With an average elevation of two thousand
feet above the Mediterranean, with temperate climate,
fine pastures, fertile soil, it was well suited for a large
population, if protected from the ravages of the desert
rangers. Today it is a land of ruins because it lacks
such protection : but in the days of Christ, when Herod
Antipas ruled it and held marauders in check, it
abounded in cities. The population was so largely
heathen that orthodox Jews despised it. The rabbis
said, "Judea is the wheat; Galilee, the chaff; Peraea,
the tares." It was in this land across the Jordan that
Jesus spent much of the last months of His life; for
which reason we call the whole period the Peraean
ministry. The purpose of this ministry arose out of the situa
tion. Jesus had been rejected by Judea and Galilee;
the Twelve had recognized His Messiahship, and re
ceived some special training for the future ; the conflict
with the Sanhedrin was on, and its evident issue was
the cross : but, if possible, the end must not come until
the next Passover, and then at Jerusalem. " With
232

THE PERAEAN MINISTRY 233
desire have I desired to eat this passover with you be
fore I suffer " (Luke 22 : 15) ; " I must go on my way
today and tomorrow and the day following; for it
cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem "
(Luke 13 : 33). In one sense the whole Peraean minis
try was, as Luke describes it, a slow journey towards
Jerusalem, i.e., it looked towards Jerusalem at every
step, and was to culminate in the triumphal entry and
the crucifixion. As a journey it had no definite route
or length or stay in any place ; there were interruptions
(e.g., the visit to Jerusalem for the feast of Dedication
and to Bethany for the raising of Lazarus) ; and during
the last part of it Jesus was in retirement at Ephraim.
But it was, also, for the most part a period of active
ministry, made more intense by the knowledge that the
time was growing short. " We must work the works
of Him that sent me, while it is day ; the night cometh,
when no man can work " (John 9:4).
The present work of Jesus was chiefly the further
training of the Twelve, an unending task. Now that
they knew Him to be the Messiah, they could gain a
clearer idea of His Messianic mission and character
by joining once more in a public ministry, after the
comparative seclusion of the previous months. But for
this a new field was necessary. Judea was too dan
gerous ; any prolonged stay and work there would bring
about situations in which He could escape death only
by using His miraculous power for His own safety, —
a thing He ever refused to do. Galilee was too unre
sponsive; it had already turned away and cared little
for His words. Samaria would not do; since any
work there would seem to justify the opposition of the
Jewish rulers who already were declaring Him to be a
demonized Samaritan (John 8:48). Peraea was the

234 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
only untried Jewish soil. Its people were compara
tively free from the influence of the Jewish rulers, so
that Jesus would not be hindered by emissaries of the
Sanhedrin ; and yet it was so near Judea that He could
easily make unexpected visits to Jerusalem. For, after
all, the real center of this ministry was Jerusalem, and
the chief work was in anticipation of the final action
of the Sanhedrin. The Gospel of John is the most
valuable record at this point because it alone gives us
the increasing self -revelation of Jesus to the rulers and
their increasingly hostile response.
The Jews across the Jordan thronged around Jesus
in a way that at times reminds us of the early Galilean
days, though miracles seem to have played a minor part
in drawing them. So far as we can judge, their wish
was that Jesus would proclaim Himself king, and
achieve for them independence. There is no definite
statement to that effect; but we note that, as this
ministry nears its close, there is a confident expecta
tion that the kingdom of God is immediately to appear
(Luke 19: 11), and James and John seek for them
selves the principal places in it (Mark 10:37). The
rulers at Jerusalem are afraid that Jesus will head an
insurrection against the Romans (John 11 :48). The
Triumphal Entry, which the people think to be a public
acceptance of the throne of David, is the culmination
of the Peraean ministry. There was nothing else
where to stir up such purely political demands from
the Messiah. In Judea the Sadducees were on the side
of the Romans, and the Pharisees were waiting for
Jehovah at His pleasure to free His chosen people by
supernatural means. In Galilee the people were not
anxious for independence; trade, commerce and life
in general prospered too well under Roman rule; and

THE PERAEAN MINISTRY 235
Herod Antipas, " whatever may be said of his morals,
was, as a ruler, liberal, energetic and capable in every
sense " (Merrill). When the Galileans sought to make
Jesus king, it was because they desired, not release
from the Romans, but loaves and fishes. What the
state of things in Peraea was we have no means of
knowing, except from the gospel account. There was
little resistance to the Romans in 68 a.d., probably
because the population was less Jewish than even that
of Galilee. But the very predominance of Gentiles
would make the Jews more restless and eager for a
political Messiah who might reclaim their land from
the heathen ; and with such desire they would welconie
the coming of Jesus4
This ministry covers the period from the close of the
Border ministry till Passion Week. The date of the
end is certain ; that of the beginning is less so. Some
would make it just before or even immediately after
the feast of Dedication which came the latter part of
December. The argument from weather is for an
earlier beginning. At the outset crowds follow Jesus
(Mark 10: i; Luke 12: 1; 14: 25), which would hardly
happen in the rain or snow of a/December on the high
lands across the Jordan, but would be natural in the
period after the autumn harvest feast, when farm-
work was suspended and the rainy season had not set
in. If we make the Peraean ministry begin in October,
soon after Tabernacles, we shall have a time of semi-
activity after Dedication and of retirement in Ephraim
after the raising of Lazarus; there were special rea
sons for these, but the inclement weather might, also,
play a part in causing them.

236 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
2. The Record of this Ministry.
Mark, who is followed by Matthew, has only a
brief record of the Peraean ministry with the follow
ing incidents : the question about divorce, the blessing
of little children, the rich young ruler, a lesson of the
cross, the ambitious request of James and John, and
the healing of Bartimaeus. He seems to distinguish,
even in this brief account, two stages, — a general work
after coming " into the borders of Judea and beyond
the Jordan" (10: i), and a final journey "going up
to Jerusalem" (10:32), apparently just before the
last Passover.
John has three incidents belonging to this period,
viz. : the feast of Dedication with its miracle of heal
ing the blind man, the raising of Lazarus, and the
retirement to Ephraim.
Apparently the great source for this ministry is
Luke. He tells all that Mark and Matthew do, except
the question about divorce and the request of James
and John; and he has also a long, independent nar
rative (9:51-18: 15) seemingly belonging to the period
after the final departure from Galilee, and giving the
events and still more largely the teachings in a journey
towards Jerusalem (9:51, 59; 10:38; 13:22,23; 17:
11). We find, however, in this narrative some inci
dents that Matthew and Mark assign to other periods,
e.g., the conditional offer of certain men to follow
Jesus (9:57-60), the lesson of the Lord's Prayer
(11 : 1-4), the charge of diabolism and the request for
a sign (11 : 14-32), the parables of the mustard-seed
and the leaven (13 : 18-20), and the lament over Jeru
salem (13 : 34-35). Certain other incidents found only
here seem to suit better the Galilean ministry, e.g., the

THE PERAEAN MINISTRY
healing on the Sabbath of a bowed woman and of a
dropsical man (13: iof. ; 14: 1 !), which reflect the
situation when the attitude of Jesus towards the Sab
bath was first causing censure ; and the dinner with the
Pharisee (11 :37 f.) which, together with the miracle
and accompanying discourse immediately preceding it
(cf. Matt. 12:22!), belong to the time when the
charge of diabolism was brought forward. What shall
we hold, then, about this whole section in Luke? Is
it " the great insertion " filling up historically a gap
left by Mark and Matthew ; or is it " the scrap-basket "
into which Luke put all the incidents to which he could
not assign a definite chronological place? The latter
view seems much more probable. Some of this section
has a topical unity, and may have come to him already
arranged (e.g., Weizsacker thinks Luke 14 was origi
nally a compilation of instructions for the common
meal of the early Christians) ; the rest of it seems to
be without any arrangement, and put in its present
place simply because it remained on hand after the
other ministries had been described, though a con
siderable portion of it really belonged elsewhere. If
this is so, our knowledge of the exact course and events
of the Peraean ministry must remain uncertain, which
explains the fact that modern lives of Jesus vary most
widely in precisely this portion of the narrative.
3. The Public Work in Peraea.
According to Luke, Jesus began His Peraean minis
try by sending out seventy disciples to go before Him
as heralds, two by two, into every city and place
whither He was coming, and to proclaim, " The king
dom of God is come nigh unto you " (10: 1 !). The
account presents difficulties. No hint is given as to

238 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
the place from which these heralds were sent or where
they were to meet Him again; much of their instruc
tions is the same as that to the Twelve; and the con
cluding woes against the cities of the lake (10: 13 !),
as well as the prayer of rejoicing when the seventy
make their report, are placed by Matthew in the Gali
lean ministry. Apparently the purpose of the sending
is to arouse expectation so that crowds shall surround
Jesus when He comes. Such a purpose might have
suited the early Galilean ministry; but Jesus is no
longer appealing to crowds, and Herod now would not
ignore great popular demonstrations. It is possible,
of course, that Luke is correct, and has preserved a
remarkable chapter in the ministry of Jesus, which
otherwise would have been unknown; but the argu
ment seems strong that what he gives is simply an
other version of the mission of the Twelve. He had
already given that mission in its proper place (9 : 1 f.)
but his material included instructions suiting a broader
work than the little tour in Galilee. In his opinion the
Peraean ministry was increasingly a triumphal proces
sion to Jerusalem for which an advance proclamation
by a large number of disciples would be fitting ; it was,
also, the nearest approach to a universal mission that he
could discover in the work of Jesus, for Peraea was a
land of Gentiles as well as Jews. Accordingly he sup
posed that at the beginning of this ministry there was
a mission of seventy disciples, — seventy signifying all
the nations of the earth (that is their number in
Genesis 10) even as twelve signified the Jewish
tribes, — and he assigned to it whatever of his material
did not seem to suit the Galilean mission.
In the opinion of some scholars Luke's narrative
indicates three different journeys towards Jerusalem

THE PERAEAN MINISTRY 239
(9:51; 13:22; 17:11), corresponding to the visits
described in John, to the feasts of Tabernacles and
Dedication and to Bethany for the resurrection of
Lazarus. If so, we would have here an undesigned
harmony between the two gospels ; but the arrangement
of Luke's material is too loose, and the statements of
time and place too vague, to establish it. Others place
in this period a work in Samaria, though the only hints
of it are that, probably when Jesus was leaving Galilee,
a Samaritan village refused to receive Him because He
seemed bound for Jerusalem (9 : 53) ; and, as He was
passing along the borders of Samaria and Galilee, pos
sibly directly after this refusal, He healed ten lepers,
of whom only one, and he a Samaritan, turned back
to thank Him (17:11-19). A Samaritan ministry is
improbable at any time and most of all in these last
months when everything centered upon the action of
the rulers at Jerusalem.
In Peraea itself we cannot trace the wanderings of
Jesus nor shape any narrative of events; the material
for it has not been preserved. But we are doubtless
right in concluding that the public work there con
sisted mainly in teaching (Mark 10: 1). To be sure,
Matthew begins his description by stating that great
multitudes followed Jesus and He healed them there
(19:2); but this is simply Matthew's favorite intro
ductory statement to any public work (e.g., 4: 23 f. ;
9:35; 14 : 14 ; 15 : 30). The time for a general minis
try of healing was past; it had been tried and found
of little spiritual profit.
The character of the teaching is shown in the
Peraean parables. Bruce in his excellent study divides
the parables into three groups according to their char
acter, viz. : theoretic parables, by which he means those

240 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
that teach the general truths concerning the kingdom
of God; parables of grace; and parables of judgment.
It is instructive to notice that eight out of the fourteen
in his first group belong to the Galilean ministry;
nine out of the twelve in his second group belong to the
Peraean ministry, — if Luke is right in placing them
there; and five out of the seven in his third group
belong to the Passion Week. This confirms the con
clusion, which other facts warrant, that in Galilee Jesus
was trying to make men understand the nature of His
kingdom ; in Peraea He was seeking by winning invita
tions to draw them into the kingdom; and in the last
week of His life He was pronouncing the sentence of
doom on the nation because it had refused to accept
the kingdom and the king. Among the Peraean para
bles are those of the prodigal son, the lost sheep, the
lost coin, the good Samaritan, the importunate friend,
the great supper, the Pharisee and publican. It is
these and teachings of this sort that make Luke pre
eminently the gracious, tender Gospel. The marked
evangelistic tone of this period may have been caused
by the shadow of the cross. The heart of jesus, as He
drew near the hour of His supreme sacrifice, yearned
to make men realize the love of the Father. And
while His words were usually addressed to the multi
tude, they were doubtless specially intended for the dis
ciples themselves, to teach them that love is the
impelling power of all divine work, and that only by
self-sacrifice could their own lives, like the life of their
Master, be made truly redemptive.
4. The Feast of Dedication.
The feast of Dedication, which lasted eight days,
began on the twenty-fifth of Chislev, or about the end

THE PERAEAN MINISTRY 241
of December. Some think that our Christmas was
derived from it, though this is not probable. It was
instituted, 164 b.c, by Judas Maccabaeus in commemo
ration of the purification and rededication of the tem
ple the previous year, after the horrible desecration by
Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 b.c It was, therefore, a
patriotic feast, — a Jewish Fourth of July. It was
sometimes called the Feast of Lights because the temple
and the houses were illuminated. Since it was kept
everywhere through the land, comparatively few Jews
went up to Jerusalem for it ; but that Jesus should go
up was in accordance with His plan to frequent Jeru
salem during this final year.
In studying this visit two critical questions have first
to be considered. One concerns the time of the miracle
of the man born blind; was it at the Feast of Taber
nacles, or at this feast, or in the period between the
two ? The last is most unlikely, — the hostility was too
great for Jesus to linger near Jerusalem; the first is
possible, but has nothing to support it except that John
tells the story immediately after telling the incidents at
Tabernacles. The fact that Dedication was the Feast
of Lights makes the miracle with its lesson, " I am the
light of the world " (John 9:5), most appropriate for
this feast ; and the reading of some old manuscripts, —
" at that time was the feast " (10: 22), — supports this
view. The other critical question concerns the order
of the narrative. As we have already noticed there are
reasons for thinking that the text of John has in some
way suffered disarrangement. In the present instance
the passage 10: 1-18 seems properly to come directly
after 10:22-29, in which case 10: 19-21 becomes the
fitting conclusion of the previous chapter. Also the
passage 8: 12-20 would be much more intelligible, if

THE LIFE OF CHRIST
it were placed after 9:41, as a part of Jesus' discus
sion of the miracle with the Pharisees.
This time Jesus brought the Twelve with Him to
Jerusalem, that they might realize both the hostility of
the rulers and also their impotence to harm Him against
His will. The experience would be good training for
Passion Week. He announced His presence by opening
the eyes of a man born blind, doing it on the Sabbath
with an outward act of healing, and sending him pub
licly with the clay on his eyes to wash at the pool of
Siloam. The Pharisees in an official examination of
the man tried to discredit the miracle and the one who
wrought it; but his honest obstinacy baffled them. At
last in rage they cast him out as a hardened sinner who
to his other sins had added belief in Jesus, and should
be excommunicated. This examination took place, we
may suppose, in the temple. And when the poor fel
low was passing out under strict guard of the Phari
sees, as an accursed creature to whom no one must
speak, Jesus hastened to him and put the question,
"Dost thou believe on the Son of Man?", i.e., Are
you cast out for believing on me? The man knew so
little about Jesus and His claims that he thought ,here
was a further teaching which he would gladly accept.
So he asked, " Who is he, sir, that I might believe? ",
and received the answer, " Thou hast both seen him,
and he it is that speaketh with thee." Then Jesus,
naturally, was drawn into discussion by the escorting
Pharisees, some of whom went back with Him to the
treasury where the others were still assembled; and
the argument over His statement that He was the light
of the world was carried to a point that threatened His
arrest ; " Yet no man took him because his hour was not
yet come" (John 8:12-20).

THE PERAEAN MINISTRY 243
The general attitude of hostility at this feast was
much the same as at Tabernacles. The rulers de
manded that Jesus should tell them plainly whether He
was the Messiah (John 10: 24). This was a snare to
catch Him. If they could get from Him an open
declaration that He was the Messiah, then His claim
could be brought before the Sanhedrin where it cer
tainly would be pronounced false, and He would be
punished accordingly. The statement with which His
answer ended, " I and the Father are one " (10: 30),
was understood to be an assertion of divinity, and
roused their horror to the point of stoning Him; yet
the words with which He supported it left them unable
to justify such an act. An attempt was made now
to arrest Him ; but " he went forth out of their hand."
Doubtless He spent His nights outside the city, — per
haps at Bethany which is only two miles away, on the
eastern slope of the Mount of Olives; and this may be
the time when the incident of Mary and Martha took
place (Luke 10:38-42). When He left Jerusalem
at the end of the week, it was with full conviction
that nothing more could be done there ; and the Twelve
were of the opinion that to return thither meant death
(John 11:8-16).
After Dedication Jesus went across the Jordan to
the place where John was baptizing when he pointed
out Jesus to the first disciples (10:40; 1:28), — the
place where the work now so nearly ended was begun.
Is it fanciful to see in this act something of the same
purpose and feeling that similar acts have in our own
lives ? When our life-work is closing, and we are in the
mood for retrospect, we turn instinctively to the place
where that life-work began. So Jesus in these last days
came back to the place where He had gathered His first

244 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
disciples, and had entered hopefully upon His public
ministry. And as He abode there His thoughts, and
also the thoughts of the disciples, must have been busy
with all that intervened between that earlier day and
now. The retrospect was not cheering; nevertheless
an unexpected gleam of sunshine appeared. John was
dead, but his work was not the utter failure most men
counted it. The testimony of John to Jesus was re
membered here, and bore the fruit the Baptist desired.
As Jesus tarried, " many came to him ; and they said,
John, indeed, did no sign, but all things whatsoever
John spake of this man were true; and many believed
on him there" (10:41-42).
5. The Raising of Lazarus.
The sickness and death of Lazarus, with the appeal
from the two sisters, brought Jesus and the Twelve
back again to the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem,
and called forth His most impressive miracle. We
notice that the miracles He wrought under the direct
notice of the rulers form a steadily increasing mani
festation of divine power. The undescribed miracles
of the first Passover seem to have been simple acts of
healing; a year later, at Pentecost, came the notable
miracle of curing the man who had an infirmity of
thirty-eight years' standing ; then at Dedication was the
opening of the eyes of the blind man, — a miracle of
which the poor man himself said (and he was speak
ing concerning a matter which he had reason to study
carefully), " Since the world began it was not heard
that any one opened the eyes of one that was bom
blind " ; and now Lazarus, who had lain four days in
the tomb, — a period beyond the limit of time during
which, as the Jews believed, the spirit hovered near

THE PERAEAN MINISTRY 245
the grave, — was raised from the dead. We may not
say that this was the greatest of His miracles, for
we cannot measure miracles; but it certainly had the
greatest effect. It kindled enthusiasm and a measure
of faith in the beholders, which bore fruit on Palm
Sunday (12:17!); and this enthusiasm and faith
wakened the Sadducees to the danger of a popular in
surrection led by Jesus, and made them unite with the
Pharisees in seeking His death, because an insurrection
might result (as that of 66 a.d. actually did) in the
destruction of the temple, the end of their power, and
the loss of such liberties as the Romans were granting
the nation (11 : 47 !).
Before the Sadducees were thus aroused to the neces
sity of putting Jesus out of the way, the Pharisees
had been able to do little, because they were a minority
in the Sanhedrin. Now, if He should be brought be
fore that body, the result was certain. The raising of
Lazarus, therefore, was the preliminary to the cruci
fixion. Was not this the main meaning of Jesus'
words when He said that the sickness which caused
the death of Lazarus was " for the glory of God, that
the Son of Man may be glorified thereby "? (11:4).
In John's reproduction of Jesus' teachings, the word
" glorify " is closely akin in meaning to " crucify "
(e.g., 12:23; 17: 1). It is true that the miracle was
a fresh manifestation of the power and sympathy of
Jesus, and thus revealed to the multitude the glory of
God (11 : 40-42) ; but a greater glory was involved in
it, — the glory which Caiaphas unwittingly proclaimed
and John interprets, — " that Jesus should die for the
nation ; and not for the nation only, but that he might
also gather together into one the children of God that
are scattered abroad " (11: 49-53).

246 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
The question naturally arises, Why are the Synop
tists wholly silent about this miracle? Some answer
it by saying that they wrote when Lazarus was still
alive, and the hostility against him (12:10) had not
ceased; therefore, out of consideration for his safety
the miracle was omitted. This seems far-fetched. A
better answer is that the plan of the Synoptists was to
make no mention of any work in Judea, till they came
to the last week. Luke does tell of Jesus' visit to the
home of Mary and Martha ; but he hides the fact that
they dwelt in Bethany (10: 38). Why this plan was
adopted we can only explain in part. There was so
much that might be told, and so little that could be
told ; the work in Judea was so unfruitful ; the account
of the last week was given so fully, — these are sug
gestions of an explanation. When we realize that if
John had not written, we should know nothing about
the raising of Lazarus or about most of the other
miracles related in the Fourth Gospel, it sets us think
ing of the " many other signs " not recorded in any
Gospel (John 20: 30), which would be so precious had
they been preserved.
6. The Last Journey to Jerusalem.
The increased danger caused by the raising of
Lazarus made Jesus withdraw this time not across the
Jordan but into complete retirement. He went with
the Twelve to Ephraim, which is usually thought to
have been a small town about five miles east of Bethel,
"near to the wilderness" (John 11:54). His stay
here was only a few weeks at the utmost. The feast
of the Passover in 29 a.d. came about the middle of
March. When the time drew near, and the highways
along the Jordan, plainly visible from His retreat, were

THE PERAEAN MINISTRY 247
filled with pilgrims bound for Jerusalem, Jesus came
down from the hills with His disciples, and joined
them. They journeyed to Jericho where two impor
tant incidents occurred. One was the conversion of
Zacchaeus, a chief publican, which is noteworthy as
being one of the few instances where Jesus is reported
to have wrought the kind of work which His disciples
later on were to accomplish continually. Here was a
social outcast, sought out by Him, convicted of sin,
showing sincere penitence by reparation of his wrong
doing, and entering with joy upon a new life. It was
a spiritual miracle, far more wonderful than any
physical one ; and it was of the kind that Jesus had in
mind when He said to His disciples after the Last Sup
per, " He that believeth on me, the works that I do
shall he do also ; and greater works than these shall he
do, because I go unto the Father" (John 14:12).
The other incident was the healing of the blind beggar,
Bartimaeus, as he sat by the wayside. It was done
in the presence of a crowd of pilgrims, and aroused
much excitement. Jesus had apparently been forced
into hiding through fear of the rulers, and it was
debated whether He would dare come to the feast
(John 11:56); now, appearing most unexpectedly,
He places Himself at the head of these Peraean and
Galilean pilgrims, and heals the blind man who hails
Him as "the son of David," i.e., the Messianic king.
Nothing could more quickly kindle their hope that at
last He was going to claim for Himself the throne of
His great ancestor, and drive the Romans from the
sacred land. This miracle helps to explain the " swell
ing tide of popular enthusiasm " which reached its
height at the triumphal entry. Keim, as we have
noticed, though he usually rejects miracles, accepts this

248 THE LIFE OF CHRIST,
one because the course of later events is inexplicable
without it.
From Jericho, Jesus went on to Bethany, a distance
of about fifteen miles, and an ascent of nearly three
thousand feet. John says that Jesus arrived there " six
days before the Passover" (12: 1), namely, on Sat
urday, if the Passover came, — as we shall see reason
to think it did, — on Friday of the following week.
Many scholars hold that Jesus would not travel on
Saturday, — the Jewish Sabbath ; and so they make the
day of His arrival Friday, and use this statement of
John as an argument that the Passover was on Thurs
day. But He was not strict in Sabbath observance;
and a short journey on the Sabbath was allowed even
by the most strict. If He had come up with the pilgrims
on Friday, it would have been hard to avoid a trium
phal entry on that day; for they were greatly excited
by what He had done in Jericho. It is simpler to
suppose that He allowed the pilgrims to leave Him
behind, thinking He planned to spend the Sabbath at
Jericho; and then, later in the day, He started with
the Twelve, spent the night at some point on the road,
and came to Bethany early on Saturday. This would
secure for Him one quiet day, the last possible, with
His friends ; for the news of His arrival would not be
sent to Jerusalem until the Sabbath was ended.
His friends in Bethany showed their joy at His com
ing by a feast held in the house of Simon the leper, —
whoever he may have been. Probably this was on the
afternoon of Saturday; for the Jewish Sabbath, with
all its restrictions, was a day specially marked by
feasting. It was here that Jesus was anointed by Mary.
The incident is told to explain the later conduct of
Judas, and to record Mary's prophetic act and Jesus'

THE PERAEAN MINISTRY 249
notable words about it. That Jesus by going to Jeru
salem would be exposed to the greatest peril was
known to Mary through her many friends in the city;
and that He was ready to lay down His life in ful
filment of His mission was a teaching she had compre
hended when others failed to do so. The puzzling
words, " Let her alone : — that she might keep it against
the day of my burial " (John 12 : 6), perhaps indicate
that this ointment had been purchased by her with the
thought that soon she might need it for His burial,
though now she seized the unexpected opportunity to
offer it while He still was alive. Mark, whom Matthew
follows, does not mention Mary by name, and says
that the ointment was poured upon the head of Jesus.
David Smith has an interesting explanation of these
variations. He adopts the old theory that Mary of
Bethany was Mary Magdalene, and that one chapter in
her history is given in Luke 7 : 37 !, — the story of the
harlot who anointed Christ's feet and wiped them with
the hair of her head. And he thinks that now, saved
by Christ and dwelling once more at home, she showed
her grateful remembrance by repeating the former act.
Peter in telling the story of the feast, which Mark
reproduces, would hide all this, partly to shield Mary,
but still more to avoid the base slanders that might
arise if he told of Jesus' loving intimacy with a woman
who had been what Mary once was. So he told only of
anointing the head (a usual act), and omitted the wip
ing with her hair, since to appear in public with loose
hair was a well-known mark of a harlot. Still he did
not succeed entirely in hiding the matter, for he said
that the Twelve or some of the guests " had indigna
tion among themselves " — and " murmured against
her," — a much stronger feeling than would be aroused

250 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
by mere extravagance, but one appropriate to an act
that advertised a shameful past history. All this is
ingenious; but there really is nothing to identify Mary
Magdalene with the woman who was a sinner; and if
there were, we would hesitate much to suppose that
she was Mary of Bethany. Still we note that, if the
identification with Mary Magdalene is correct, she
seems to have been the foremost of those who watched
by the cross as Jesus died; and she was the leader of
those who first came to the tomb on Easter morning to
care for the body of her Lord (Mark 16: i).

XVI
THE PASSION WEEK
"C*ACH of the four Gospels has a very full account
¦¦-' of the closing week of Jesus' life; it forms nearly
one-third of the whole story. This is natural, because
it is the most impressive part, and would be specially
remembered in Jerusalem where the oral gospel origi
nated; and also because it is the most important part,
and was emphasized by the apostles in their evangelistic
preaching (I Cor. 15:3!). We can arrange the
incidents by days with considerable certainty; the
nights seem to have been passed in the open on the
Mount of Olives, perhaps in the vicinity of Bethany
(Mark 11 : 11, 19), perhaps in Gethsemane (Luke 21 :
37; John 18: 2). It was not safe for Jesus to stay in
the city nor even in the house of a friend at Bethany.
His enemies were seeking to arrest Him away from
the multitude; and there were plenty of spies who
would report His lodging-place.
1. The Triumphal Entry, — Sunday.
The triumphal entry should be compared with the
feeding of the five thousand, when the Galileans would
make Jesus king. There is nothing to indicate that
He deliberately planned a public demonstration in the
one case any more than in the other. The multitude
who had come up from Jericho to Jerusalem on Friday
brought the news that the son of David, whose cure
251

252 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
of Bartimaeus they had witnessed, was on His way to
the feast. In return they were told of the miracle of
Lazarus, and of the Sanhedrin's decision that Jesus
should be put to death. When word came that He al
ready had reached Bethany, some hurried out to the
little town that same Saturday evening, eager to see
Lazarus as well as Jesus (John 12:9). The excite
ment increased, fed by the report that now ihe chief
priests were also plotting the death of Lazarus. And
on Sunday afternoon a crowd of the pilgrims set out
for Bethany to be the body-guard of Jesus and bring
Him into the city. Meanwhile, other pilgrims who
left Jericho early this same morning, and previous to
leaving heard that Jesus had gone in advance of them
to claim His throne, were now filing by Bethany. The
unconcerted meeting of these two bodies formed the
multitude that thronged the road before and behind
Him as he made His entry. Notice that they were
mainly Galileans and Peraeans; and their action had
more of a local than of a national character. They
would boldly escort the King of Israel to the city, set
Him in defiance before His Jewish and Roman ene
mies, and wait confidently for the miracles by which
He would establish Himself upon the throne. This
was their programme, so far as their hasty action had
a programme ; and in carrying it out, they placed before
Jesus again one of the temptations of the wilderness.
When the people on the shores of the lake sought to
make Jesus king, He strenuously opposed them; now
He made no resistance. He was in truth their king;
let them hail Him as " the son of David " here in the
sacred city. Nevertheless, there must be no misunder
standing what kind of a king He claimed to be, — one
who, as Zechariah had foretold, was " just and having

THE PASSION WEEK 253
salvation, lowly and riding upon an ass, even upon a
colt, the foal of an ass " (Zech. 9:9). Whatever false
expectations the multitude might cherish as they cried
" Hosanna ! Blessed be the King of Israel that cometh
in the name of the Lord," nothing in His words or
manner should seem to support them. This explains
why He sent two of His disciples to borrow from some
unnamed friend the humble beast, the symbol of peace,
on which He rode ; after the manner of the Old Testa
ment prophets He would act out His message. Never
theless, as John points out (12: 16), even the Twelve
did fail to understand the significance of His act; they
were so filled with anticipation of the overthrow of
their enemies, that they failed to perceive they were
bringing in the Prince of Peace.
The triumphal entry had different meanings for the
different actors engaged in it. For the enemies of
Jesus it was a revelation of His power and their own
impotence. As they looked forth from the city walls,
and watched the throng escorting Him around the
slope of Olivet, the Pharisees said to one another, " Be
hold, how ye prevail nothing: lo, the world is gone
after him" (John 12: 19). For the people, who by
spontaneous impulse gave Him this royal reception,
it was, though they knew it not, a manifestation of
the same spirit that, a few decades later, would cause
the horrible war against the Romans and against each
other, ending in the utter destruction of Jerusalem.
A vision of its impending doom filled the mind of
Jesus when He came to a point in the road where the
beautiful city stood revealed; and this forced from His
lips a wailing cry and words of lamentation which
broke in strangely upon the shouts of rejoicing (Luke
19 : 41 f .). For the disciples it was the sudden realiza-

254 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
tion of their fondest dream. Almost as if by magic
all the terrors that had appalled them (Mark 10: 32)
were dissipated; the hatred of Jerusalem seemed
changed to glad recognition; the years of lonely wan
dering, hardship, contempt and struggle were ended;
joy thrilled their hearts; triumph was sure at last;
the kingdom was their Lord's. But for Jesus Himself
the entry was not a triumph but a defeat, not glory
but humiliation, — a fresh revelation of the failure of
His ministry. He had failed to win these people,
though they seemed so wholly devoted. Today they
were shouting " Hosanna ! " because they thought He
was about to satisfy their greed for power and thirst
for vengeance ; tomorrow, when they found He would
do none of these things, they would even more loudly
cry, "Crucify, crucify!"
On wound the procession, across the valley of the
Kedron, up to the gates, through the streets; and at
its coming all the city was thrown into commotion.
Eager faces looked forth from the housetops ; excited
questions passed from lip to lip : " Who is this ? " they
asked ; and the answer came back, " This is the
prophet, Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee " (Matt. 21 :
10-11). Still onward it moved to the courts of the
temple, — the proper place for the Messianic king to
make a royal proclamation. Then the excited multi
tude waited His order to drive out the Roman guards,
overwhelm Pilate in his palace, seize the city and de
clare the yoke of Rome broken. A single word would
have set a revolution in motion; but He would not
speak the word. He could not teach them in their
excited state ; to work miracles would but increase the
excitement; there really was nothing He could do,
and the day was drawing towards its close ; so after a

THE PASSION WEEK 255
calm survey of all things (Mark ii:ii), He went
back across the Mount of Olives towards Bethany,
leaving them disgusted with His seeming cowardice
and weakness.
2. The Day of Suspense, — Monday.
When Jesus led the Twelve out unto Bethany on
Sunday evening, they doubtless found shelter and food
at some friend's home; but He spent the night alone
on the hillside in communion with God. We infer this
from His practice after days of great spiritual stress,
and from the fact that " on the morrow when they
were come out from Bethany, he hungered" (Mark
n : 12). The story of the cursing of the fig tree that
morning is a puzzling one. In an unusually favorable
location a fig tree might put forth leaves thus early
in the year; and, since the fruit-buds of a fig tree
develop before the leaf-buds start, a tree thus having
leaves ought to show green figs. But that Jesus
expected to find edible figs fully two months before
the very earliest ripe figs are due is hard to believe.
Perhaps the expectation is simply an inference of the
apostles from His investigation of the tree, since they
knew He had fasted all night. The curse upon the
tree was pronounced, not because there was no ripe
fruit, but because there was no fruit whatever, —
'' nothing but leaves." The pretentious tree was put
ting all its energy into leaf-bearing instead of fruit,
and deserved the sentence of doom. Many would
explain the whole incident as a parable transformed
into an actual event; and they point to the fact that
Luke omits it, but gives a parable of a barren
fig tree (13:6-9). Certainly it has the value of a
parable; though the evangelist does not seem to per-

256 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
ceive this, and treats it rather as a marvel. The fig
tree, through some special advantage of location, had
pushed far beyond its fellows, and by its foliage
promised fruit but was barren. This fitly typified
Israel. And the doom of both was destruction because
of such profession without performance. The main
objection to taking the incident as only a parable is
the teaching about the power of faith, which follows
it and would not be called forth by a parable; but
Matthew and Luke give similar teachings in other con
nections, and this may originally have belonged else
where. The Synoptic gospels put the cleansing of the tem
ple on this morning. That the old abuses had reap
peared can hardly be questioned ; but that Jesus should
repeat the act with which He opened His Judean min
istry is improbable. It would now be simply a useless
attempt to purify that upon which He had pronounced
sentence of destruction; the traders would not be
taken off their guard a second time; and it would
involve a needless danger of arrest just when He was
moving with caution that He might eat the Passover
with His disciples before the end should come. Per
haps the reason why the Synoptists tell of the cleansing
now is because, having mentioned no previous visit of
Jesus to Jerusalem, they have had no opportunity
to tell it earlier, and the story must be told to explain
the testimony of the false witnesses at His trial and
the taunts of those who passed by His cross (Mark
14:58; 15:29). Yet, we notice that they omit the
special words (John 2:19) which were garbled to
form a charge against Him.
Monday was a day of suspense rather than of con
flict. The rulers were anxiously waiting the action of

THE PASSION WEEK 257
Jesus and the people; but Jesus quietly took up His
usual work of teaching and healing in the temple
court, and the people, though still attentive and ex
pectant, showed no special approval of what He was
doing, — it was not what they wanted. Already the
enthusiasm of yesterday had disappeared ; the children,
remembering it, raised again the cry of " Hosanna to
the son of David " ; but no older person joined with
them, and the priests gained courage to protest. The
enemies of Jesus had not yet recovered from the con
sternation of the triumphal entry; but when He again
retired to the Mount of Olives, they felt that the
danger of a great popular movement in His favor
was ended.
3. The Day of Conflict,— -Tuesday.
By Tuesday the rulers were ready to confront Jesus
squarely. They began the contest as soon as He
appeared in the temple, and carried it on unceasingly
through the day. Monday had shown them that He
would continue His customary work of teaching. In
this work He must be met and decoyed into some state
ment that would justify His arrest and condemnation,
or at least would completely alienate the sympathies
of the people.
First, the representatives of the Sanhedrin came
with the direct question, " By what authority doest
thou these things ? or who gave thee this authority to
do these things? " (Mark 11 : 28). This called the at
tention of all to the fact that the Sanhedrin was the
proper body to pass judgment upon Messianic claims.
If Jesus refused to recognize this, His refusal would
prejudice the people against Him ; but if He acknowl
edged the authority of the Sanhedrin, then He must

258 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
submit, when it proceeded to pronounce Him an im
postor. He escaped the snare by demanding that first
they answer a question of His, " The baptism of John,
was it from heaven or from men ? " Though it put
them in a dilemma, and forced them' to retire in con
fusion, saying, " We know not," the demand was a
fair one. Before the Sanhedrin passed upon the
claims of the Messiah, it should pass upon those of
His forerunner; if it was not competent to do this,
it certainly was not competent to do the greater thing.
Moreover, Christ's response went to the very root of
their unbelief. If they were honest seekers after truth,
they would have accepted John, even as now they
would accept Him whom John foretold.
Next, with many hypocritical words of compliment,
endeavoring in this way to throw Him off His guard,
the Pharisees and Herodians asked Him to act as
umpire in one of their standing disputes, " Is it lawful
to give tribute unto Caesar?" If He said "No,"
the Herodians, who favored Caesar, would denounce
Him to the Roman authorities ; and He would receive
severe punishment as one who stirred up sedition. If
He said " Yes," the Pharisees would use this with the
people as positive proof that He was not the Messiah.
His well-known answer does not (as many assert)
lay down the principle of the separation of church
and state. It simply points out that so long as the
Jews avail themselves of Caesar's benefits, — his coin
age, his army and the rest, — they are stopped from
refusing to pay Caesar his dues; and then it raises
the thought to the higher level of the benefits we
receive from God and our dues to Him. They had
asked a petty question; they received a profound
reply. " And they were not able to take hold of the

THE PASSION WEEK 259
saying before the people; and they marvelled at his
answer, and held their peace" (Luke 20:26).
Now the Sadducees came forward to try a bout with
Him. Ecclesiastical and political weapons had been
used in vain; they would break a lance theological.
Jesus and the Pharisees taught the doctrine of a resur
rection, which they denied. They would make both
Him and the Pharisees laughing-stocks by ridiculing
the teaching. Accordingly they propounded one of
their pet problems. " Suppose that seven brothers have
in succession the same wife, — in the resurrection whose
shall she be? Each of the seven has equal claims;
will she sit in Abraham's bosom surrounded by this
circle of husbands, — the envy of all beholders, — or
how shall the fortunate possessor of the family heir
loom be determined ? " The question was intentionally
coarse, scoffing and calculated to raise a laugh from the
crowd. Christ's answer was on an entirely different
plane. Disregarding the special problem as frivolous,
He pointed out that their difficulties concerning the
resurrection arose from their gross, earthly concep
tions of the heavenly life. And their great argument
that a future life was not revealed to Moses was false.
When God said, " I am the God of Abraham, of
Isaac and of Jacob," the very form of the statement
showed that the patriarchs still live. God's love is the
seal of immortality; for He certainly will not allow
death to rob Him of His own. From the eternal
nature of God, the relationship He forms with man
must be eternal. The answer not only silenced the
questioners, but by its novelty and grandeur called
forth a murmur of applause from the bystanders.
And one thoughtful hearer was impelled to ask in all
seriousness the opinion of Jesus, as of a teacher whose

260 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
judgment was most valuable, concerning the problem
often and earnestly debated, " What sort of a com
mandment is the first of all? " (Mark 12 : 28).
Thus each of these attacks failed; and yet indirectly
they accomplished their purpose. They made it in
creasingly evident to the people that Jesus was not
the Messiah they desired. Above all, His final refusal
to countenance a revolt against the Roman authorities
could not be forgiven. "His fate was sealed.
Deserted by the people, He would certainly fall into
the hands of His enemies; from that very day the
populace would turn against Him " (Weiss).
Jesus' own part in the day's conflict was not merely
to stand on the defensive; never was He more bold
and terrible in His direct attack. In return for the
problems given Him, He propounded the problem
of David's relation to the Messiah as set forth in
Psalm no; and forced the Pharisees to confess they
could not solve it. He told his sternest parables, —
those of the two sons, the wicked husbandmen, the
wedding guests ; and He told them in such a way that
His enemies could not fail to understand He was speak
ing of them. And finally He broke forth into denun
ciation of the scribes and Pharisees, pronouncing upon
them a series of woes more appalling than the severest
imprecations of the old prophets. Possibly these were
not all spoken at this time, but are grouped in the
source from which Matthew took them. They reveal
a side of Christ's nature that we are prone to ignore
in our emphasis of His gentleness, patience and love.
We think of Him as the Lamb of God; here we are
forced to remember, what too often we forget, that
there is such a thing as " the wrath of the Lamb," —
a wrath made more significant because of the love

THE PASSION WEEK 261
which permeates it. From these words we get, says
Muirhead, " the impression that to Jesus' mind there
was no sin in the world worth speaking about compared
with the sin of His own nation. They bear the fate
and the guilt of the rest of the world. They bar the
entrance of others into the kingdom. Children of
hell, they draw their proselytes into closer folds of
flame. Murderers and children of murderers they
bear the guilt of all the ' righteous blood shed upon
the earth.' And Jesus did not speak of these things
as a mere speculator, or even as a prophet like Jeremiah
in whose bones the word burned. He spoke as one
who saw and felt the power of murder and hell let
loose upon Himself."
At the close of this day we may put the request of
the Greeks, — the only incident John has recorded of
all that took place between the triumphal entry and
the Last Supper. It was not unusual for Gentiles to
come and offer sacrifices at the temple. Indeed, a
daily sacrifice was offered " in behalf of the emperor
and the Roman people," for which the emperor paid.
There were certain Greeks now among the temple
worshippers; and to Philip they stated their desire to
meet Jesus, evidently not from curiosity but from a
craving for His intimate teaching. Such an approach
at such an hour stirred Jesus most deeply. It was the
voice of the great outer world calling for His salva
tion. To grant these Greeks an audience now was out
of the question ; the crowd and the hostile atmosphere
made quiet, earnest conversation impossible. More
than this, the message they needed was not yet ready;
the gospel, which would be " the power of God unto
salvation to every one that believeth, — to the Jew
first and also to the Greek" (Rom. i : 16), must be

262 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
completed by His death. What the request of the
Greeks signified to Jesus is indicated by His answer,
" The hour is come that the Son of Man should be
glorified ; verily, verily, I say unto you, except a grain
of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself
alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit" (John
12:23!). The cry of the world, "We would see
Jesus," He recognized to be the summons to the cross.
The passage which follows (John 12:27!) be
longs to the inmost spiritual history of Jesus. As
John omits all account of the institution of the
Eucharist but places a sacramental teaching in the syna
gogue at Capernaum (6:35 !), so also he omits all
account of Gethsemane but describes at this hour a
similar experience. The parallel between the agony
in the Garden and the agony here is most exact : " My
soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death. . . . Father,
remove this cup from me. . . . Not what I will, but
what thou wilt " (Mark 14: 34-36), and " Now is my
soul troubled. . . . Father, save me from this hour.
. . . Father, glorify thy name " (John 12 : 27) ; and
the disciples in the Garden who slumber oblivious, or
drowsily listen to the prayer of their Master, are like
the bystanders here who with various degrees of recep-
tiveness hear the voice from heaven. It does not fol
low, however, that one of the two accounts must be
rejected. In the ministry of Jesus there must have
been more than one hour, when in anguish of spirit He
cried to the Father and received a response that
brought strength and peace. The voice from heaven
by which the answer was now revealed to others is
the same as that at the baptism and the transfigura
tion ; and the explicit statement that to some it seemed
to be only thunder and to others the voice of an angel

THE PASSION WEEK 263
speaking an unknown tongue confirms the conclusion
that here and in the previous instances the message
was to the soul and not to the outward ear. This
revelation of the spiritual attitude of Jesus as He
approached death was for the sake of those, a handful
of disciples, who would be helped by it (John 12 : 30).
Nevertheless, neither the transfiguration nor this hour
gave them a message sufficient to support their faith
when the horror of a crucified Messiah was squarely
before them.
Thus ended this great day of conflict in which Jesus
again and again had met and mastered His enemies.
But His words of bitter condemnation of them were
likewise words of sentence upon Himself. They swept
away all possibility of reconciliation, all feeling of
pity on the part of those denounced. In the rage
excited, all else was forgotten save the thirst for
blood. Jesus must die at once ; and the more horrible
and ignominious His death, the sweeter would be the
revenge for Such insults. It was with full recognition
of this fact that He left the city at the close of the day.
Yet, as He looked at the future, His thought was for
His disciples rather than for Himself. And this
shaped His discourse that Tuesday evening as He sat
with them on the Mount of Olives over against the
temple, and gave them instruction and warning for the
days when they must bear witness and meet tribulation
without Him.
4. The Day of Retirement, — Wednesday.
It seems probable that Jesus remained in seclusion
from Tuesday night until the supper on Thursday
evening. Both His friends and His foes were now
in such a state of mind that further work in Jeru-

264 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
salem would be unprofitable, if not impossible. And,
though the favor of the multitude had hitherto pro
tected Him in daytime, special care must be taken that
nothing might prevent His eating the Passover with
the Twelve. Moreover, He needed this time of quiet,
not only for spiritual preparation for what was to
come, but even for physical preparation. The strain
of Tuesday had been tremendous ; the strain of Thurs
day night would be far greater; He must have an
interval of rest. How and where He spent it, we are
not told.
It was this Wednesday of inactivity that gave Judas
the opportunity to go to the city without his com
panions, and seek an interview with the enemies of
Jesus. He made his way to the palace of Caiaphas,
where he found the leaders gathered for consultation
as to how they could bring about the death of the
man who had denounced them. Assassination was
and is a favorite Oriental method of removing a
powerful enemy; but Jesus' secrecy and the body
guard of the Twelve made this impossible. If He
could be arrested, it might be easy to persuade Pilate
to put Him to death ; but an open arrest was likely to
cause a tumult, because the friends of Jesus would
interfere; and a secret arrest seemed impossible, be
cause Jesus went out of the city at nightfall, and no
one knew where to find Him. The coming of Judas
with an offer to betray his Master removed their diffi
culties, and made their hearts glad with unholy joy.

XVII
THE LAST SUPPER AND GETHSEMANE
THE public ministry began with a feast, at which
Jesus was a guest, — the supper in Cana; it
closed with a feast, at which He was the host, — the
supper in Jerusalem. At the first He manifested
to His disciples His glory by changing water
into wine; at the last He manifested to them His
grace by changing wine into the perpetual sym
bol of His blood. How important and precious
this last supper was to Him is shown by His
statement, "With desire have I desired to eat this
Passover with you before I suffer" (Luke 22: 15),
which hints of hours when He feared that it might
be impossible, of prayer and painstaking preparation
for it. The desire is explained when we consider
what " the Lord's Supper " has been to the Christian
world. The history of the sacrament is one with the
history of Christian faith and life. Whenever super
stition has hedged the table about with terror, and
ascribed to the elements magical virtues, — whenever
rationalism has degraded the sacrament to a bit of
Oriental symbolism, an interesting historical relic, —
whenever license has destroyed the reverence of com
municants, and made communion a trivial matter, the
church has been moribund and the gospel has been per
verted. And a return to the simplicity that is in
Christ to the faith that accepts His salvation, and to
265

266 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
soberness of Christian living, has always gone hand in
hand with a renewed appreciation of the value of the
sacrament. i. Was the Last Supper the Passover?
Jesus ate the Last Supper with His disciples on
Thursday evening, and was crucified on Friday. Such
seems to be the clear statement of the evangelists;
though a few scholars, accepting Matthew 12 : 40 as a
prophecy with a literal fulfillment, argue that Wednes
day evening was the time of the supper, and Thursday,
the crucifixion. A question more important and caus
ing much more division of opinion is whether the
regular Jewish Passover meal came that year on Thurs
day evening or on Friday evening, — in other words,
was the supper which Jesus ate with the Twelve on
Thursday evening a Passover meal or not?
The Passover was the oldest of the Jewish feasts;
it celebrated the deliverance out of Egypt, and was
also a feast of the first ripe grain. Strictly speaking,
it lasted only one day ; — but it was followed by a seven
days' " feast of unleavened bread,", which is so closely
identified with it, that the whole eight days are usually
called the feast of the Passover. The great event of
the feast was the Passover meal ; and the main feature
of this meal was the lamb, which must be brought to the
temple, and killed by the worshippers, and its blood
poured before the altar by the priests, between " the
two evenings," i.e., between the beginning of the sun's
decline and sunset, — say from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m., — on
Nisan 14. It was then roasted at home, and must be
eaten the same night before midnight. This night,
according to Jewish reckoning which makes a day
begin at sunset, would be the beginning of Nisan 15.

LAST SUPPER AND GETHSEMANE 267
The company must be sufficient to eat the whole
lamb, — not less than ten nor more than twenty per
sons. In later centuries the feast was minutely regu
lated both as to the various articles of food and the
order and manner of eating them; but we are not
sure that these regulations existed in the first century.
Was the supper which Jesus ate on Thursday evening
this Passover meal ? The question interests us because
it is involved in another question far more important,
viz. : Did Jesus at a Passover meal transform the Jew
ish feast into the Christian sacrament, or did He die as
the Lamb of God at the very hour when the Jews
were slaying their paschal lambs ? It might seem that
the answer could be found by simply turning to the
calendar, and determining whether that Thursday eve
ning was the beginning of Nisan 14 or of Nisan 15.
But this expedient fails us, partly because we are not
sure of the year when Christ died, and partly be
cause, — even if we agree on the year 29 a.d., — ancient
reckoning of time was so uncertain that we cannot be
sure to a day just when Nisan 15 of that year came.
Any conclusion has to be based wholly upon the gospel
record; and, on the surface, the account of the Synop
tists does not seem to agree with that of John.
Taking the Synoptists alone we should conclude that
the meal was the Passover : they plainly say so ( Mark
14:12, 14, 16 and parallels). Still we notice that
they tell of acts performed between Thursday evening
and Friday evening that are forbidden on Nisan 15,
which was treated as a Sabbath with all the Sab
bath restrictions, no matter on what day of the week
it came. E.g., the temple guard and Peter carry arms
(Mark 14:43, 47) ; Simon of Cyrene comes from the
country, i.e., from the field where apparently he has

268 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
been working (Mark 15:21); Joseph of Arimathaea
buys a linen cloth (Mark 15 46) ; the women prepare
spices and ointments (Luke 23:56). Above all it is
difficult to believe that members of the Sanhedrin
would deliberately desecrate the day of the Passover
by giving themselves to the arrest, trial and crucifixion
of any one, no matter what the provocation. On the
other hand, from the acount in John we should con
clude that the Last Supper was on the evening before
the Passover, i.e., that this Thursday evening was the
beginning of Nisan 14 instead of Nisan 15. He ex
pressly dates it " before the feast of the Passover "
(13:1); the disciples think Judas is going to buy
something for the feast, though buying and selling
would be debarred on the Passover ( 13 : 29) ; the rulers
shun defilement that will keep them from eating the
Passover (18:28); compare also 19:14, 31.
Various ways of reconciling the Synoptists and John
have been devised. Formerly the tendency was to fol
low the Synoptists in regarding the evening as Nisan
15; now it is rather the reverse. Certainly John
ought to know ; and in this, as in some other instances
(e.g., in making Christ's ministry begin in Judea),
he may be correcting the Synoptists. May it not be,
however, that both are right, owing to the fact that it
was permissible to anticipate the regular date of the
Passover, and eat the meal on Nisan 14? There is no
record of such permission ; but it would seem to have
been absolutely necessary. Josephus says (Wars 6:
9:3) that, a few years later, the number of lambs slain
at one Passover was 256,500. If at the temple they
killed three hundred a minute, it would take over four
teen hours to dispose of this number. Undoubtedly
Josephus greatly exaggerates; but we see that in any

LAST SUPPER AND GETHSEMANE 269
case the time of killing the lambs must have been
extended beyond three hours of one afternoon. So,
too, some extension of time must be allowed to pro
vide places for cooking and eating the meal. We
know that in order to make it possible to keep the law
requiring the lamb to be eaten in Jerusalem, the rabbis
agreed that all the suburbs as far out as Bethany
might be considered parts of the city; but even then
there would not be kitchens and dining-rooms enough
for the multitude to use in one day. Very possibly
one reason why Jesus ate the Passover a day in ad
vance was that His host might have the room for his
own use at the regular time. If Jesus thus anticipated
the day, we may hold both that He ate the Passover
meal, though not at the regular time, and that He
died on the cross at the regular hour for killing the
Passover lamb.
2. The Incidents of the Supper.
The supper was eaten in the house of a disciple
(Mark 14: 14) ; and from the fact that Mark alone
tells of the young man who followed the band that
came to arrest Jesus (14:51) we surmise it was the
house of Mark's family (cf. Acts 12:12). Since
Jesus was to be in the city after nightfall, there was
need to keep the place a secret; otherwise the traitor
might arrange to have Him arrested there, even before
the supper could be eaten. Peter and John could be
trusted; but it was best that they should not know
whither they were sent until they had left the others.
The man bearing a pitcher of water (an unusual sight)
could guide them to the home whose hospitality was
certain. The two disciples went into the city early
in the day, and were busy until nightfall, obtaining,

270 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
killing and cooking the lamb, and preparing the sup
per. At nightfall Jesus came with the rest of the
Twelve. This was the only Passover at which Jesus Himself
was the giver of the feast. He seems to have stayed
away from the previous Passover ; and at the first one
in His ministry He and His disciples numbered less
than the necessary ten, and must have united with'
others in the feast. Moreover, this was probably the
first time in all their long companionship that He
had acted as host to the Twelve at a formal meal.
We can understand, then, why the disciples watched
eagerly for the order in which He would seat them,
and for every detail by which as host He would be
compelled for once to indicate His preference among
them. The spirit of ambition and jealousy, always
ready to awaken, was roused, and marred the feast to
which Jesus had so eagerly looked forward. It had
to be sharply rebuked both by word and by act. Judas
was the chief disturbing factor, and the early part of
the meal was occupied with a silent struggle between
him and Jesus. From the time they entered the city,
he was planning how he could get away to inform the
rulers that their victim was now within their grasp.
And his whole bearing was one of scarcely concealed
insolence and contempt. He seized and held the seat
of honor at the table (see Edersheim) which made the
others indignant and envious. He looked upon the
footwashing, not as a rebuke to the others and an
unspoken appeal to himself to turn back from the path
he had entered, — a last chance for repentance and for
giveness, — but rather as the crowning proof that the
Galilean peasant, who he once expected would become
a king, had only the spirit of a peasant and should be

LAST SUPPER AND GETHSEMANE 271
despised. When, as the meal progressed, Jesus said
with anguish, " One of you shall betray me," and in
consternation the others cried out, " It is not I, is it,
Lord ? ", Judas repeated the words, but with a signifi
cant change that veiled a sneer, " It is not I, is it,
rabbi ? " And when the answer came, " Thou hast
said it," he still was neither alarmed nor penitent. It
was hopeless to deal with him further, and his pres
ence made spiritual teachings impossible. Let him
depart and do his worst. "What thou doest, do
quickly" (John 13:27).
It was after Judas had gone out into the night, and
peace was restored, that the most significant act of the
supper was performed, — the act which accounts for
the desire of Jesus to celebrate the feast with His
disciples. Mark says, " He took bread, and when he
had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said,
Take, eat, this is my body. And he took a cup, and
when he had given thanks, he gave to them ; and they
all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my
blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many "
(Mark 14:22-24). Some scholars deny that Jesus
by this act intended to institute the Christian sacra
ment. " He was not teaching theology nor giving
veiled utterance to any mysterious truth concerning
His work and person. He had already told them that
He must die, and that His death would be in reality a
means of blessing to them. He now repeated that
prophecy and promise in vivid and impressive sym
bol" (McGiffert). It is true that if, — as in some of
the oldest manuscripts, — Luke 22 : 19D-20 is omitted,
the Gospels contain no injunction to repeat the act in
future days : but Paul, whose epistle is earlier than the
Gospels, says that Jesus commanded, " This do in re-

THE LIFE OF CHRIST
membrance of me" (I Cor. 11:24). It is also true
that the sacrament would be of little significance to the
disciples until after the death of Jesus ; but the meaning
they found in it later on would really be there from
the first, ready to be disclosed when they were able
to receive it. Whatever theory of the Eucharist we
adopt, the need of some such ceremony to unite His
followers with Him and with one another was so evi
dent that we cannot readily believe Jesus made no
provision for it. If we deny that He instituted it be
fore His death, we are forced to hold that He taught
and enjoined it after His resurrection.
Though John does not tell of the institution of the
Eucharist, he does give the wonderful sacramental
discourse and prayer that closed the meal. The state
ment in the earlier part of it (John 14: 31), "Arise,
let us go hence," has been taken as a proof that the
rest of the discourse and the prayer were not in the
upper room. Some hold that Jesus went to the temple
and finished His words there. This seems most im
probable, and is only supported by the fact that over
the temple gateway there was a vine wrought of gold
which, it is argued, suggested the allegory of the vine
and branches. Even though the temple was open and
largely deserted at night, it was the center of His
enemies ; and moreover there was nothing to draw Him
thither, — it was not His Father's house but a den of
robbers. Others think He spoke the balance of the
discourse on the way to Olivet. But this, also, is hard
to believe. How could He suitably teach a band of
eleven men, and offer prayer, when passing along the
street? Undoubtedly it was dangerous to linger in
the house; but the discourse was probably not much
longer than John records ; each word of it would sink

LAST SUPPER AND GETHSEMANE 273
into memory at such an hour. The simplest solution
is to change the order of John 14-16, and place the
command to depart at the close, and thus before the
final prayer.
3. Gethsemane.
The place was an enclosed piece of ground (Mark
14:32), that is, a garden (John 18:1), across the
Kedron on the Mount of Olives. The name Gethsem
ane means an oil-press, from which we infer there
were olive trees and a press there, — a prosaic name,
now wonderfully transformed. Jesus had often tar
ried there (John 18:2), possibly had spent some of
the previous nights there, as Judas knew. Evidently
He was making no attempt to flee from the traitor.
The time must have been well on towards midnight,
and it was the season of the full moon.
When Jesus and His disciples, — now only eleven
for the son of perdition was lost, — came to the place,
He said, " Sit ye here, while I go yonder and pray "
(Matt. 26:36). Doubtless He had done the same
thing before ; but now He took with him Peter, James
and John, the three most intimate disciples, as once He
had taken them on another night of prayer. The
former time it had been to help them : this time it was
that their presence and sympathy might be a help to
Him. And again He was transfigured before them,
but not as before. They saw the Master, who an hour
ago had joined in singing the Passover psalms and had
said, " Let not your heart be troubled," now begin to
be "greatly amazed and sore troubled" (Mark 14:
33). Both expressions are significant. The experi
ence into which His soul was entering was such as to
overwhelm Him with its unexpectedness ; and the sore

274 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
trouble it caused was (according to the derivation of
the Greek verb used) a feeling of separation, loneli
ness and longing like that of heart-breaking home
sickness. It seemed crushing the very life out of Him,
and no human help could avail. He said to the three,
" My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death :
abide ye here and watch "; and going forward a little,
He fell to the ground and prayed that, if it were pos
sible, the hour might pass from Him. Such anguish, —
so sudden, so overpowering, and to those who watched
it so mysterious, — is perhaps beyond our comprehen
sion. Certainly whatever other explanation of it we
may adopt, we cannot but reject indignantly the super
ficial view which sees in it only an overpowering fear
of impending physical pain, and a desperate desire to
escape death. What can be said of a writer who, in
picturing the thoughts that filled Christ's mind at this
hour, asks, " Did He remember the clear fountains of
Galilee where He was wont to refresh Himself; the
vine and fig tree under which He reposed; and the
young maidens who perhaps would have consented to
love Him ? Did He curse the hard destiny which had
denied Him the joys conceded to all others ? Did He
regret His too lofty nature ; and, victim of His great
ness, did He mourn that He had not remained a simple
artisan of Nazareth? " (Renan). If He did, we could
not but pronounce Socrates a far greater teacher than
Jesus of Nazareth; for the Greek philosopher met
death undisturbed and with noble discourse about
immortality. There are some who explain His sorrow by the
specially saddening circumstances that surrounded His
last hours. One of the Twelve betrayed Him, another
denied Him with curses : the rulers prostituted justice

LAST SUPPER AND GETHSEMANE 275
to secure His sentence : the people shouted, " Crucify
him ! " ; the soldiers mocked and tortured Him ; the
very robber, crucified beside Him, joined in reviling
Him, — all the base passions of man held carnival
around His cross. If death must come, need it come
with such accompaniments? Might not this cup be
removed? Such an explanation of Christ's agony and
prayer may be true enough; but is it deep enough?
Does it do justice to His strength of character and
firmness of will? There had been hours before this
when a furious storm of hatred raged around Him,
and no human friend was at hand : remembering His
attitude then, can we believe that now the prospect of
the same hatred and lack of human support prostrated
Him utterly ? No ; the cause must be a greater one to
produce such an effect.
In the old prophecy of the suffering servant, it is
said, " The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us
all " (Is. 53 : 6). That prophecy, we may believe, was
now being fulfilled ; and the weight of the burden laid
upon Him was what crushed Jesus to the ground.
How such transfer of the iniquity of us all could be
effected is a perennial problem. Theories of the atone
ment are numerous, each with a measure of truth, but
none broad enough for the whole tremendous trans
action. The matter remains a mystery. And yet it is
not wholly incomprehensible. In each of us, so far as
we love our fellow men, there is a power called sym
pathy by which not only the joys and sorrows of our
brother become our own, but even his sins weigh us
down with a sense of guilt and shame, as if we our
selves had committed them. And through this same
power of sympathy, and only as we employ it, are we
able to help our sinning brother towards a righteous

276 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
life. Every act of loving sympathy for those who have
fallen is in a little measure an atoning sacrifice. Sup
pose that love were boundless, and sympathy able to
enter into the whole orbit of human experience, would
not the result somehow be Gethsemane and the redemp
tion of the world ?
We cannot study this chapter in the life of Jesus
without feeling that the temptation in the wilderness
had its parallel in Gethsemane. His ministry may be
divided into two parts, one active and one passive, —
the years when before the Sanhedrin, the people and
the disciples, He uttered gracious words and did mighty
works ; and the hours when before each of these three
He stood in silent suffering and gave no sign of power.
Was not Gethsemane the place of preparation and an
ticipatory struggle for the latter part, even as the
wilderness was for the former? Certainly there are
striking resemblances between the two. He said after
the Last Supper, " The prince of this world cometh,"
even as He said concerning the wilderness that there
Satan came to Him. In both He went voluntarily to
meet the adversary. In both He could have no human
companionship or sympathy. In both there was a
thrice repeated struggle. And in both the unshaken
determination, which carried Him through the conflict,
was, " I must do the will of my Father." To go fur
ther and attempt to state the special burden of each
of the three seasons of prayer in Gethsemane would
be to press beyond what is written. Christ did tell
us what each of the three temptations in the wilder
ness contained ; but He has given no similar revelation
concerning the Garden. We know merely what drowsy
disciples managed to see and hear.
The account, given only by Luke (22:43-44), of

LAST SUPPER AND GETHSEMANE 277
the angelic ministration and of the bloody sweat, seems
to be a later insertion, as it is not found in some of
the oldest and best manuscripts. If it was in the
original, there is no reason why a copyist should omit
it; but Luke's account without it is so brief and lack
ing in emphasis of the struggle of Christ's soul, that a
copyist would be inclined to make the addition. Some
think that it was an early tradition preserving a trust
worthy detail; but it seems more likely a symbolical
statement of a spiritual experience of Jesus. We
notice that from this passage we get the term " agony,"
so commonly used in describing Gethsemane.
4. The Arrest.
Though Jesus had foretold that He should be " de
livered up," i.e., betrayed, His first announcement that
the traitor was one of the Twelve was at the Last
Supper. It astonished the others, and must have
startled Judas, as showing that Jesus knew of his plot.
Yet Judas was not afraid; his feeling towards Jesus
now was hatred and contempt. But since the plot
was known, he was in haste to carry his part through.
It took time for him to find the rulers, and for them
to make arrangements for the arrest; but finally they
were under way with some of the Roman cohort
armed with swords, and some of the temple police
armed with clubs, and led by Jewish officers (John 18 :
3, Mark 14:43). Naturally he would lead them first
to the house where he left Jesus, and finding Him no
longer there, would go next to Gethsemane. This is
confirmed by the incident of Mark 14: 51-52. There
is no apparent reason why Mark should tell this, unless
because it was his personal experience. Aroused from
sleep by the coming of the soldiers to his house, and

278 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
recognizing from the presence of Judas that treachery
was afoot, he hurried after them without stopping to
dress, and at Gethsemane narrowly escaped arrest.
Judas had arranged to indicate which was Jesus
by going up to Him with a kiss of greeting; and his
nervous fear that after all his victim might escape
through some mistake is shown by his kissing Him
repeatedly when they met (Mark 14 : 45). The excla
mation of Jesus, " Comrade, for what art thou pres
ent ! " (Matt. 26 : 50), is a cry of horror at his action;
practically the same as " Judas, betrayest thou the Son
of Man with a kiss!" (Luke 22:48).
Peter remembered Christ's words about a sword
(Luke 22 : 36-38) , and thought that now at last He was
ready to have His followers fight; accordingly with a
rash blow he cut off the ear of a servant of the high
priest. Note that only John tells that Peter was the
apostle and Malchus the servant; both had long been
dead when John wrote, so to mention their names
would do no harm. Only Luke tells of the restoration
of the ear; but had not the miracle been performed, the
deed of Peter would have been a charge preferred
against Jesus and His followers in the trial before the
highpriest or Pilate. Christ's words, " Suffer ye thus
far" (Luke 22:51) are hard to interpret; possibly
they mean, " Give me liberty while I perform the
miracle." His rebuke to Peter, His refusal to help
Himself, and His " Let these go their way " (John
18:8), were taken by the disciples as a signal to flee.
They do not deserve censure for so doing ; though they
left their Master alone to be led away like a robber
taken in the hour of darkness.

LAST SUPPER AND GETHSEMANE 279
5. Judas Iscariot.
Exactly why did Judas seek to betray Jesus ? Some,
wishing to excuse his act and rehabilitate his reputa
tion, have argued that he was simply trying to force the
hand of Jesus, supposing that an arrest would compel
Him to assert His Messianic claims. "There was,
perhaps, in his deed more awkwardness than perver
sity " (Renan). In proof of this it is pointed out that
when he found his plan had failed, he tried in vain
to undo it, and then committed suicide. This theory
confounds remorse with godly sorrow, and is refuted
by Christ's own sentence upon Judas, " Good were it
for that man, if he had not been born " (Mark 14 : 21 ).
The Abyssinian church reckons Pilate a saint because
he washed his hands ; these men would have us reckon
Judas a saint because he hung himself. Some, going
to the other extreme, suppose him to have been a devil
from the beginning. But if so, would Jesus ever have
chosen him to be an apostle ; or could he have lived and
labored with the apostles all along? "Judas acted
like a Satan, but like a Satan who had it in him to
be an apostle." His career forms a sad but instructive
study in the progress of sin. If he seems blackest of
sinners, it is because of the light which surrounded
him. And his is the only instance where sin, having
run its full course, has received its final sentence
from Christ in this world.
The known facts in his history are few but all
significant. He and his father, Simon (John 6:71),
were each called Iscariot, which means the man from
Kerioth, a little town in Judea. He seems to have been
the only Judean among the Twelve. The Galilean
apostles were bound together by common ties; and

280 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
some of them were friends even before they followed
Jesus. Judas entered the band a stranger and an
alien; and his self-centered nature would keep him
from forming strong friendships. Thus he lacked one
support in the hour of temptation. Because he was a
Judean his Messianic ideas differed somewhat from
those of his comrades; and the contempt for Gali
leans, which he had been taught to cherish, made it
hard for him to surrender his heart to Jesus, and trust
when he could not understand. There weire hours
when the others faltered, but love kept them loyal;
Judas lacked this support also. Why, then, did he fol
low Jesus at all ? Partly because he believed him to
be the promised Messiah whom every Jew ought to
follow, and partly because he sought for worldly ad
vancement. He took the position of treasurer in the
little company, thinking thereby to secure a corre
sponding position in the kingdom that Jesus would
presently establish ; and yet, doubtless, the call of Jesus
appealed to his higher nature. Unmixed motives are
rare; and a blending of selfishness with devotion is evi
dent in others of the Twelve.
The first great time of testing was when the popu
larity of Jesus waned, and the hope of an earthly king
dom grew faint. It was a critical time for the other
apostles; but love and faith brought them safely
through it. Judas himself did not wholly fall away;
yet his spirit of selfish disappointment and gathering
resentment was evident to Jesus, and caused Him to
say, " One of you is a devil " (John 6 : 70). This spirit
increased, as the months went by and Jesus made no
move to become a king. Judas feared he was follow
ing a leader who had held out hopes without intending
to realize them; and he grew bitter towards Jesus.

LAST SUPPER AND GETHSEMANE 281
As ambition was increasingly thwarted, a meaner pas
sion increased in power. Avarice developed, and by
the time of the feast in Simon's house Judas was
stealing from the common purse (John 12 : 6). Doubt
less he quieted his conscience by justifying his act : —
Jesus under false pretences had kept him away from
lucrative employment; the money embezzled was but
scanty wages for the time he had wasted in foolish
discipleship. In his act of betrayal Judas was influenced by
avarice, but this was not the chief motive. The failure
of the triumphal entry had convinced him that Jesus
would never be king. Therefore he felt himself
swindled in having followed such a pretender. He
hated the Twelve and their Master, and believed him
self a wronged man. He would hand them over to the
fate they deserved at the hands of the Sanhedrin, and
in doing so would get what money he could out of it.
Thirty pieces of silver (probably shekels from the
temple treasury) would be equal to 120 denarii, and a
denarius was a day's wage. The amount was the price
of a slave (Ex. 21 : 32), and, though not a great sum,
was worth securing, and was all he could get, — except
the contents of the purse. (If only Mary had sold
the ointment, and put 300 denarii into that purse!)
Avarice, then, and revenge worked together; but re
venge was the chief motive. It is the more deadly
passion; but liable, when glutted, to turn into remorse,
as avarice does not.
There are two accounts of the death of Judas, that in
Matt. 27 : 3 f. and that in Acts 1 : 18 f. They disagree
as to who purchased the field, — the priests or Judas;
as to how Judas died, — by hanging or by falling head
long; and as to the origin of the name of the field, —

282 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
the price of blood or the bloody death. They may by
an effort be harmonized, but it is better to leave them
as two diverse accounts of how a bad man came to a
bad end; — or we may reject the one in Acts as being
originally a note by some scholiast. Papias (70-155
a.d.) gives a version of the death still more revolting:
" Judas walked about in this world, a sad example of
impiety; for his body had swollen to such an extent
that he could not pass where a chariot would pass
easily; he was crushed by the chariot so that his
bowels gushed out." Later traditions are even more
horrible. Imagination loved to dwell upon the
wretched end of Judas ; but no statement is more ap
palling in its unexpressed significance than that of
Peter when he speaks of the apostleship " from which
Judas fell away that he might go to his own place "
(Acts 1:25).

XVIII
THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION
WE have seen how the raising of Lazarus made the
Sanhedrin agree that it was expedient for them
that Jesus should die (John 11:50). The grounds
of the expediency were religious, political and financial ;
Jesus must be put out of the way because He denounced
the teachings of the Pharisees, threatened the comfort
able relations with Rome of the Sadducees, and con
demned the temple traffic of the chief priests. But
this removal must be in such a way as not to offend
the people; even the Sanhedrin did not care to face
a tempest of popular indignation. While vainly seek
ing an opportunity to assassinate Him, they found that
one of His disciples stood ready to betray Him. There
upon it was determined to compass Jesus' death by an
official sentence followed by a Roman execution. This
was a more hazardous course, and for its success three
things were necessary. First, Jesus must be arrested
and brought before the Sanhedrin without arousing a
tumult or a rescue by His friends. The offer by Judas
to lead them to His nightly retreat made this possible.
Second, Pilate must be induced to pronounce sentence
and order execution promptly; it would be politic to
have the Roman government bear the final responsi
bility for the death. Concerning this they had little
anxiety. Pilate was disposed to conciliate the Jews,
especially at the great festival seasons when Jerusalem
was crowded and any disturbances might be disastrous ;
283

284 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
a formal request from the Sanhedrin would have much
weight with him; and the death of the Galilean peasant-
prophet would be a trifle to a ruler who already had
mingled the blood of Galileans with their feast (Luke
13 : 1). Third, a pretext must be found which would
justify the execution of Jesus in the opinion of the
people. This was the most important and difficult part
of the affair. The multitude would not question
closely into the trial itself ; any illegality here might be
concealed; but it certainly would ask for what reason
the Sanhedrin had put the reputed prophet to death,
and would not be satisfied unless the offence evidently
merited such punishment. To decide upon a suitable
charge against their prisoner was the main work of the
Sanhedrin in the hours between Christ's midnight ar
rest and His presentation before Pilate the next morn
ing. The proceedings were in no sense a trial, unless
we choose to call that a trial in which first the sentence
is determined upon and then reasons for it are sought.
Volumes have been written discussing the legality of
the proceedings; but such discussion is largely idle
because we have no certain knowledge of the laws
that regulated the acts of the Sanhedrin in the days of
Jesus. We do have very exact rules for all its pro
ceedings set forth in the Talmud; but these received
their final form centuries after the Sanhedrin ceased
to exist, and seem for the most part purely academic.
1. Jesus before the Sanhedrin.
The details are somewhat confused. All the Synop
tists agree that there was some kind of a meeting at
night in the house of Caiaphas, soon after the arrest :
and another early in the morning, just before taking
Jesus to Pilate. But Matthew and Mark put the chief

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION 285
examination in the night meeting, while Luke puts it in
the morning. John tells that Jesus was led first of all
to Annas ; and we are somewhat puzzled to follow his
later account because we are not sure whom he desig
nates as " the highpriest." (He says expressly that
Caiaphas was "highpriest that year" (18:13) and
calls him "the highpriest" (18:24); but it seems
likely that he also calls Annas the highpriest, because
Annas had formerly held that office and still was the
head of the hierarchy. Compare Luke's " in the high-
priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas " (3:2), also Acts
4:6 where Annas is called highpriest). A possible
arrangement of the incidents is all that can be claimed
for the following narrative.
Jesus, when arrested, was taken before Annas, the
old leader of the priestly party, who briefly examined
Him while the council was gathering, and then sent
Him still bound to Caiaphas and the midnight meeting
(John 18 : 24). Though Mark says ( 14 =53) that " all
the chief priests and the elders and the scribes " were
at the midnight meeting, yet he (see 15: 1) and the
other Synoptists describe the meeting as less full and
formal than that of the next morning. Probably only
the leaders of the Sanhedrin were present, and they
came to determine by consultation and by examina
tion of their prisoner what offence should be the pre
text for His death. They had no doubt that Pilate
would pronounce a death sentence simply at their
request; but they must find some charge against Jesus
that would make the people approve His condemnation.
Evidently the acts which had stirred up their own hos
tility against Jesus, — such as His purification of the
temple, His disregard of the traditions of the elders,
His denunciation of scribes and Pharisees, — could not

286 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
be brought forward, because some of them had the
endorsement of the people, and others did not justify
extreme punishment. Various creatures of the priests
were ready to swear to anything; but there was not
time to train these in perjury, and their testimony in
its present shape was plainly false. Once, indeed, it
seemed as if the desired charge was found. Two men
bore testimony that Jesus had said, " I will destroy the
temple, and build it again in three days." And the
people, who held sacred the very stones of the temple,
and were ready to tear in pieces any one who dared
to profane it, would agree that death was a proper
punishment for making such a threat. But these two
witnesses, testifying as they did to a garbled statement,
disagreed so manifestly that they had to be set aside.
The people might remember what Jesus had really said.
Time was passing. Unless some decision was speed
ily reached before daybreak, their victim might escape.
In fury Caiaphas turned upon the silent prisoner, and
tried to browbeat Him into saying something that
would incriminate Him; but Jesus remained silent.
There was one thing more Caiaphas could do ; adminis
tering to Jesus the most solemn of oaths, " I adjure
thee by the living God" (Matt. 26:63), be put the
question, " Art thou the Christ, the Son of the
Blessed ? " ; in other words, " Art thou the Messiah ? "
Jesus might have refused to answer.' But this was the
hour for His supreme testimony to the Sanhedrin, —
the hour He had long awaited when the head of the
nation should solemnly ask Him His nature and mis
sion, and should be as solemnly answered. His answer
claimed Messianic position and power to the utmost
extent, " I am ; and ye shall see the Son of Man sit
ting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION 287
clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62). It solved the
problem of the rulers. The man who falsely claimed to
be the Messiah, — and the Sanhedrin was recognized
to be the proper judge of such claims, — was guilty of
blasphemy that should be punished by death ; so every
devout Jew would agree. Of course, Pilate might
not think the same; but they had no expectation of
difficulty with Pilate. The midnight meeting then
adjourned, leaving Jesus to the mockery and abuse of
His Jewish guard.
The denial of Jesus by Peter took place during these
hours. The incident is interesting for its light upon
Peter's character; but is of no special importance
otherwise. Note how Luke softens the account by
Mark and Matthew, — omitting the cursing, making
the three denials an anti-climax, and alone telling of
the look of Jesus, — and how John tells the story with
even more consideration for Peter.
In the morning, " as soon as it was day," there was
another gathering. Now the whole Sanhedrin was
present, excepting probably Nicodemus, Joseph of
Arimathaea and any other friends of Jesus. At this
time there may possibly have been some semblance of
a hasty trial, — the putting again the question, and
judgment passed upon the answer ; but the purpose of
the gathering was to take the prisoner formally to
Pilate before news of the midnight arrest became pub
lic. Accordingly it was a brief meeting; and from it
they went directly to Pilate's palace.
2. Jesus before Pilate.
Pilate was procurator from 26 to 36 a.d. What we
know about him, outside of the gospel narrative, is
mainly from Josephus, who evidently was prejudiced

288 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
against him. The fact that he rose from obscurity to
the responsible position of a Roman procurator, and
succeeded in governing the turbulent province of Judea
for a longer period than any other of the fourteen
procurators save one, proves that he was neither weak
nor foolish. In the present scene he appears creditably,
and makes a hard fight to save a prisoner about whom
He evidently knows a good deal, and whose death he
is aware is sought by the rulers for envy (Mark 15 :
10).
It is not easy to arrange the incidents of the trial
before Pilate because each evangelist gives only selec
tions from them. If we may use legal terms in de
scribing a proceeding that little resembled a legal trial,
we can say that twice Pilate dismissed the case as not
being in his jurisdiction, three times he declared there
was no evidence worth considering, and three times he
instructed the jury to acquit the prisoner: then most
reluctantly he pronounced sentence of death.
The rulers presented the prisoner to be sentenced to
death on the bare statement that they had found Him
to be a malefactor. The impudence of the request
brought out the sarcastic retort from Pilate, "If you
have taken this matter into your own hands, carry out
your sentence without me." This forced the humiliat
ing confession that a death sentence was beyond their
power (John 18 : 28-32). Then they brought forward
political charges which they thought would be most
effective, viz. : that Jesus forbade the payment of
Roman taxes and proclaimed Himself a king. Pilate
knew the Jews well enough to be certain that they
never would ask the death of a countryman for these
offences; and a private examination of Jesus showed
at once that the charges were false. The kingdom He

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION 289
claimed meant little to Pilate : but certainly it was not a
menace to the Roman rule. Accordingly he dismissed
the complaint: "I find no fault in this man" (Luke
23:1-4; John 18:33-38). Another political charge,
more plausible because of the recent triumphal entry,
was brought forward : " He stirreth up the people,
teaching throughout all Judea, and beginning from
Galilee even unto this place." The mention of Galilee
disclosed the fact that Jesus was a Galilean; and
Pilate both freed himself from this troublesome
prisoner and paid a compliment to Herod Antipas,
who happened to be in Jerusalem, by sending Jesus
to him to be dealt with as one of his own subjects
(Luke 23:5-7).
Herod listened to the accusations : but he was too
diplomatic to take any active step towards acquitting
or condemning Jesus, since it would offend either the
chief men of Judea or the friends of Jesus in Galilee.
He had no sympathy with Him as a religious teacher,
and had ceased to fear Him as a possible insurrec
tionist; but he had long wished to see him perform a
miracle. When he found that Jesus remained abso
lutely passive in his presence, he sent Him back to
Pilate, clothed in a royal robe as a gibe at the idea
of deeming Him a king (Luke 23:8-12). \
Next, Pilate proposed a compromise; — he would
scourge Jesus and then release Him. Evidently he
was weakening; so the rulers rejected his proposal
(Luke 23 : 13-16). By this time a crowd had come to
ask the customary boon of release of a prisoner in
honor of the feast. Pilate, remembering the events
of Sunday, was sure there must be friends of Jesus
in the crowd; and this suggested a solution of his
difficulties: — he would treat Jesus as a condemned

290 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
criminal, thus satisfying His accusers, and yet would
avoid putting Him to death by offering a choice be
tween Him and Jesus Barabbas, a notorious offender
whom he was sure no one would wish released. The
unexpected arrival of the outsiders must have discon
certed the rulers, who had hoped to forestall public
knowledge of what they were doing; but without much
difficulty they persuaded the rabble to choose Barab
bas, and in answer to the question what should be done
with Jesus, to shout, " Crucify him " (Mark 15 : 5-14).
Meanwhile a message from his wife had increased
Pilate's unwillingness to condemn Jesus (Matt. 27:
19) ; so next he appealed to the pity of the crowd by
presenting Jesus after He had been scourged and
crowned with thorns. But to Pilate's " Behold the
man! " the cry again was, " Crucify, crucify! " (John
19:1-5). This obstinate persistence roused Pilate's
obstinacy; and he came back to the position he had
taken at the outset ; with a sneer at the helplessness of
the Jews he said, " Take him yourself, and crucify
him; for I find no crime in him " (John 19 : 6).
Now, the rulers abandoned the political charges, and
for the first time revealed the religious charge : " We
have a law, and by that law he ought to die because he
made himself the Son of God." Whatever Pilate may
have understood by the term, " the Son of God," his
superstitious dread of Jesus was increased; and after
another private examination, he dramatically and im
pressively washed his hands before the multitude, say
ing, " I am innocent of the blood of this righteous
man ; see ye to it." The people, unmoved by his act,
replied, " His blood be on us, and on our children "
'(Matt. 27: 24-25; John 19: 7.12a) ; and the rulers be
gan to utter openly the grim threat, whose silent force

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION 291
had kept Pilate in dread of displeasing them, that they
would denounce him to Tiberius as a traitor if he
released Jesus. This was their final weapon, and it
ended the struggle. A hint of disloyalty carried
to the savage, suspicious emperor would end Pilate's
career and probably his life; the danger must be
averted even at the cost of the prisoner's life. Ac
cordingly he prepared to pronounce the desired sen
tence. And yet he could not help making one more
appeal ; or it may have been a sarcasm. As Jesus was
brought out before the people, he said, " Behold your
king! Shall I crucify your king?"; and the chief
priests answered, " We have no king but Caesar."
They stated truly the position of the Sadducees; but
the silent acquiescence of the Pharisees at any other
time would have been impossible ; for such a statement
was political and religious suicide. Then Pilate pro
nounced sentence (John 19: 12b- 16), and Jesus was
handed over to the Roman soldiers.
The foregoing is a harmonious combination of the
four evangelistic narratives. Very possibly some of
the incidents are duplicates, varied in the telling, and
the story should be much shorter. No alteration in it,
however, can materially change the essential features.
The incidents of Pilate's washing his hands and the
dream of his wife are told only by Matthew, whose
account of these closing scenes contains (as we shall
have occasion again to remark) several legendary
items; they are not necessarily unauthentic, but must
be received with reservation.
3. The Crucifixion.
The place where Jesus was crucified must remain
undetermined. We know only that it was just outside

292 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
the city (John 19:20; Heb. 13: 12), probably near a
highway (Mark 15:29), and called Golgotha (in
Latin, Calvaria) which means a skull. Whether it
received this name because it was a skull-shaped hill
(Mount Calvary is a fifth-century expression), or be
cause it was the place of public execution, we do not
know. In the time of Constantine the spot was sup
posed to be where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher
now stands, inside the present walls. A popular identi
fication today is the hill just north of the city, above
the grotto of Jeremiah.
Mark says, " It was the third hour, and they cruci
fied him" (15:25). This seems contradicted by
John who says, "It was about the sixth hour" (19:
14), when Pilate gave orders that He should be cruci
fied. The easiest explanation is that John reckoned
time as we do ; the final sentence then would be passed
" about," — probably after, — six in the morning, and
the crucifixion would be at nine. All three Synoptists
speak of darkness lasting from the sixth to the ninth
hour, when Jesus died; this fixes His death at three
in the afternoon.
Stoning was the usual Jewish form of capital pun
ishment. Crucifixion was a Roman form, borrowed
perhaps from the Persians by way of the Greeks, 'or
perhaps from the Carthaginians who used it exten
sively. The Romans at first used it only for slaves and
aliens. Tradition says that the cross on which Jesus
died was in the form we now call the Latin cross; but
it was not the tall structure of heavy sawn beams usu
ally shown in pictures. Two rough sticks carried by
the victim, — the upright one strong enough to support
his weight and long enough to raise his feet from the
ground, — would suffice. (A reed was long enough to

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION 293
lift the sponge to Jesus' lips (Mark 15 : 36). Even a
cross of this weight was too much for the ebbing
strength of Jesus; and the centurion impressed a
passerby to carry it. This was Simon, a man of Cyrene
in Africa (but probably a Jew, not a negro), who
seems to have become a Christian, — at least his two
sons are mentioned as if they were well-known per
sons in the circle for whom Mark wrote. It was,
perhaps, during the transfer of the cross, and while
the women, were expressing sympathy for the ex
hausted prisoner, that Jesus spoke His words of sym
pathetic prophecy about their own sad fate (Luke
23:27!). The purpose of crucifixion was to inflict a lingering
and most agonizing death. The victim was nailed to
the cross before it was raised and put in place. A
peg in the center of the upright post helped to sup
port the body which otherwise might have torn loose
from the nails. The crucified might live for two or
three days, screaming and cursing in pain. Jesus died
at the end of six hours, — so soon as to cause sur
prise. According to Stroud, who wrote a book on the
subject, He died literally of a broken heart. The
loud cry at the instant of death (Mark 15 : 37), and
the mingled blood and water (serum) which flowed
when the spear pierced His corpse (John 19: 34), are
thought to indicate this cause of death. Whether
Stroud is correct or not, certainly the physical and
emotional strain of the preceding hours was enough to
produce a speedy death.
The seven recorded utterances (" the seven words ")
of Jesus during the crucifixion are precious revela
tions of what was passing through His mind in these
final hours. The first was His prayer for those who

THE LIFE OF CHRIST
crucified Him, " Father, forgive them ; for they know
not what they do" (Luke 23:34). We can see no
reason why any copyist should omit this, but it is not
found in some of the oldest manuscripts. It seems,
therefore, not to have been in Luke's account; yet it
bears the stamp of truth so plainly that few would
reject it. Like the story of the woman taken in adul
tery, it is one of the facts preserved by tradition alone
until inserted in a gospel later on. No teaching about
forgiveness, not even that of Jesus Himself, has so
powerfully influenced the world as this prayer for the
brutal Roman soldiers when they were nailing Him
to the cross.
The next word was the promise to the penitent
thief, " Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise "
(Luke 23:43). Probably the man knew something
about the prophet from Nazareth; and the inscription
on the cross, as well as the jeers of the crowd that stood
around, brought His claims to mind afresh. But the
prayer, " Remember me when thou comest into thy
kingdom," was a triumph of faith, to which Jesus
responded as He always did. The thief prayed that
somehow, somewhere, in the unknown future when all
wrong is righted, Jesus would not forget a fellow
sufferer ; and the reply was that this very day his desire
should be satisfied.
The third word was a final provision for His
mother's comfort. The disciples had all fled at the
arrest; but John and Peter came back to the trial
before the council. Possibly others had now rallied,
and were at the crucifixion, standing afar off (Luke
23 : 49) or daring to venture nearer. The Galilean
women, also, were there at the foot.of the cross, among
them Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION 295
less and Joses, Salome the mother of James and John
(probably the same as " his mother's sister " of John
19 : 25, though some would make the sister to be Mary
the mother of James the less and Joses), and above
all Mary, His own mother. Except for this incident
we could not know that she was one of the devoted
band of women who followed Him. Possibly, how
ever, she had come up for the feast ; we know this was
her custom earlier (Luke 2 : 41). He dared not speak
her name now, nor reveal His relationship, lest the
hostile crowd insult her ; but with " Woman, behold,
thy son," and " Behold, thy mother," He commended
her to John, who straightway led her from the scene
(John 19:25-27). Whether this meant simply that
John should care for her at this terribly trying hour,
or whether henceforth he was to act a son's part, as
later tradition says he did, cannot be determined. A
few weeks later Mary is mentioned along with her
sons, as if they were living together (Acts 1 : 14).
The darkness which at noontime settled down upon
the land must have awed the jeering spectators into
silence, and freed the last hours of Jesus from their
mockery. And not until just as the darkness was lift
ing was there another utterance from the cross. Then
came the cry with an anguish like that of Gethsemane,
" My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? "
(Mark 15:34). The words are the opening of the
twenty-second psalm, the psalm which pictures the
anguish of the cross more clearly than any account of
the evangelists. What they meant in the lips of Jesus,
those only who have passed through deepest spiritual
suffering for the sins of loved ones are competent to
explain. The next word from the cross, " I thirst " (John 19 :

296 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
28), seems also an echo of the same psalm (22: 15).
It moved one of the bystanders to press a sponge full
of sour wine to the parched lips. Jesus had refused
the narcotic drink, wine mingled with myrrh, which
was offered to the prisoners before they were crucified;
He would not enter the final struggle in a stupor. But
this act of kindly service He did not refuse; there was
no reason why He should.
The last two words followed rapidly, " It is fin
ished " (John 19 : 30), which some would connect with
the closing statement of that same twenty-second
psalm, and " Father, into thy hands I commend my
spirit " (Luke 23 : 46; cf. Ps. 31 : 5). " And he bowed
his head and gave up his spirit." The agony of the
cross was ended.
In Matt. 27:51-53 we are told that the death of
Christ was accompanied by various portents, — "the
veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks
were rent; and the tombs were opened; and many
bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised;
and coming forth out of the tomb after his resurrection
they entered into the holy city and appeared unto
many." All this is peculiar to Matthew, except that
Mark and Luke give the rending of the veil; and we
have already noticed that Matthew in this portion of
his narrative shows a fondness for the purely mar
vellous. Some critics try to explain these portents as
natural events connected with an earthquake, — the
darkness, also, being the gloom preceding an earth
quake. Earthquakes are not unusual in Palestine ; and
though an earthquake could not rend a veil or cause
the dead to rise, it might open tombs, or break the lintel
of the temple door (Jerome says that the Gospel of the

THE TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION 297
Hebrews had " lintel " instead of " veil "). Josephus
tells of certain portents connected with the temple about
this time, e.g., that the brazen gates opened of their
own accord. The objection to accepting the portents
as actual, supernatural events is their uselessness and,
to some degree, childishness. Moreover, the rent veil
is evidently a symbolical statement of free approach
through Christ to God (cf. Heb. 10:19-20). Like
wise, that saints came forth from their tombs after
Christ's resurrection seems to be only another way of
stating that the risen Christ is the first fruits of the
dead (I Cor. 15:23).
The centurion in charge of the crucifixion (and ac
cording to Matthew, "those that were with him"),
when he saw how Jesus died, testified, " Truly this
man was a Son of God " (Mark 15 : 39). What did he
mean? Possibly simply a good man, — so Luke puts
it, " Certainly this was a righteous man " (23 : 47) ;
possibly a demigod, for such would be his understand
ing of the charge that Jesus claimed to be divine;
possibly a king, — even as the title above the cross indi
cated, — for the Roman emperors claimed to be sons
of the gods.
Joseph of Arimathaea, "a rich man" (Matt.), "a
councillor of honorable estate " (Mark), " a good man
and a righteous" (Luke), "a disciple of Jesus, but
secretly for fear of the Jews" (John), seems to have
been at the cross; for he promptly knew of Jesus'
death. He asked Pilate for the body, and with the
help of Nicodemus prepared it for burial, and placed
it in his own new tomb in a garden near the cross.
Matthew alone tells how the chief priests and Phari
sees, fearing that the disciples would steal the body
and then declare that there had been a resurrection,

298 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
gained permission from Pilate to seal the tomb and set
a watch, and did this " on the morrow," — probably
Saturday morning, though possibly Friday evening
(Matt. 27: 62-66). As there was no reason why the
Sanhedrin should be thus apprehensive, since the fol
lowers of Jesus had no thought of a resurrection even
when they found the tomb empty on Sunday morning,
this incident, — including Matthew's account of what
happened to the watchers (28:2-4, II_I5)> — should
be put among the later traditions. The chief priests
and Pharisees undoubtedly ate their Passover suppers
that Friday night with tranquillity and self-satisfac
tion, and sang most gratefully the Hallelujah Psalms.
For the man who had defied their power, broken their
laws and led the people far astray was dead and
buried ; and His disciples were scattered in terror.

XIX
THE RESURRECTION
THE original ending of the Gospel of Mark has
been hopelessly lost, and neither of the present
endings is more than a feeble attempt by later copyists
to supply some sort of a conclusion. The loss is greatly
to be regretted; yet if Matthew and Luke used the
Gospel of Mark here as one of their sources, as they
did up to this point, we may suppose they have incor
porated in their narrative the facts contained in the
lost ending. Fortunately we have for this chapter in
Christ's life an additional source, — the list of resur
rection appearances given by Paul in I Cor. 15: i-n.
It is a brief reference to his fuller oral account, and
apparently does not profess to be complete; but it is
most valuable because of its early date (I Corinthians
was written not later than 58 a.d., and possibly as early
as 50 a.d. ) , and because of Paul's interest in the facts,
and his opportunity to learn the truth about them. The
various accounts of the resurrection appearances are
fragmentary, and not always easy to harmonize; but
this need not be reckoned an argument against their
truthfulness, if we can see good reasons why they
should be so. Probably there were other appearances
besides those recorded. No one attempted to make a
full list of them ; and in proportion as the belief in a
living and present Christ was established, and was
confirmed by spiritual experience, the need of the origi
nal evidence was not felt. 299

300 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
i. Appearances of the Risen Christ.
Before discussing the credibility of the resurrection
story, it is advisable to arrange and harmonize its
incidents as far as possible. Paul's list, though incom
plete, seems to follow the historical order, and helps
us somewhat in determining the order in the Gospels.
The appearances seem to have been as follows :
i). To Mary Magdalene.
The most confused portion of the whole narrative is
the record of what happened to the women who went
to the tomb on Sunday morning before sunrise. This
is natural; the report of the excited women was im
perfectly understood and only partially credited, and
the reports of Peter and the apostles were more gen
erally circulated. That the appearance to Mary Mag
dalene is a later invention is improbable; invention
would have assigned the first sight of the risen Lord
to a more prominent person. As an attempt, — per
haps useless, — to harmonize the four accounts we may
suppose the following to have been the actual course of
events :
The women go together towards the sepulcher bring
ing the spices they have prepared; as they draw near
they see the stone rolled away; Mary Magdalene at
once concludes that the tomb has been rifled, and runs
to report this sacrilege to the apostles. The other
women come to the tomb, and receive the message of
an angel that Jesus is risen and will go before His
disciples into Galilee where they may see Him; then
filled with fear they flee from the place. Peter and
John, stirred by Mary's report, hasten to the spot and
enter the tomb. The orderly arrangement of the grave-
clothes convinces John that the body has not been

THE RESURRECTION 301
stolen ; and he begins imperfectly to believe that there
has been a resurrection. They return home. Mary,
coming back again to the tomb, sees two angels, and
then sees and, when addressed by name, recognizes
Jesus Himself. The reason for His prohibition when
she clings to His feet, — " Touch me not ; for I am not
yet ascended unto the Father " (John 20: 17), — is not
evident. Was her act the instinctive expression of a
wish to keep Him with her in resumption of His life
before the crucifixion, or was it an act of worship
(cf. Matt. 28 : 9) such as He was not ready to receive
because He had not yet become her ascended Lord ?
2). To Peter.
The angel's message, " Tell his disciples and Peter "
(Mark 16: 7), prepares us for a special manifestation
to Peter, who is weighed down with shame over his
denial, and needs to be assured that he is forgiven and
restored to a place among the disciples ; but we have no
record of it except Paul's, " He appeared to Cephas "
(I Cor. 15:5), and the statement of the Eleven on
Easter evening, " The Lord is risen indeed, and hath
appeared unto Simon" (Luke 24:34). The latter
shows that the appearance to Peter was the first sure
ground of a belief that Jesus had risen : Peter's testi
mony bore weight, when that of Mary Magdalene did
not. Thus, being converted, he strengthened the
brethren (Luke 22:32).
3). To Cleopas and Another.
This was on Easter afternoon when these two dis
ciples were walking to Emmaus, a village (location dis
puted) sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, and apparently
the home of one or both (Luke 24:13!).' Their
words to Jesus reveal the mingled hope and despair
that filled the minds of all the disciples on Easter day.

302 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
Jesus was a mighty prophet certainly; but His death
proves they were mistaken in believing Him to be the
one "who was to redeem Israel" (note the Jewish
form of their Messianic expectation) ; and yet, — what
means this strange story of an empty tomb and angelic
messages? The discourse of Jesus, pointing out
prophecies of the Messiah's agony and death prelimi
nary to his entrance into glory, fires their hearts with
hope ; but it is not until at the evening meal He blesses
and breaks the bread in the old, familiar way, that
they recognize the mysterious stranger to be their
risen Lord. And when the recognition is reached, He
vanishes; His work with them is completed. (Renan's
explanation of this appearance is amusingly absurd.
The stranger was simply some pious man well versed in
the Scriptures. The evening meal recalled Jesus so
strongly, that the two fell into a deep reverie, and
scarcely noticed that their companion, — eager to con
tinue his journey, — had left them. After his departure
they roused up, and were sure that it was Jesus, and
that He had miraculously vanished ! )
Why did they fail to recognize Him until the end?
Mark 16: 12 says, "He was manifested in another
form "; but this is a later explanation. Luke 24: 16
says, "Their eyes were holden that they should not
know him " ; but this seems like one of Luke's notes of
apology. Mary Magdalene, when He first spoke to
her, thought He was the gardener; but she had not
turned to look at Him, and was overwhelmed with
grief. These two disciples may not have known Him
intimately; and with their minds preoccupied with the
belief that He was dead, they may have failed to recog
nize Him, though one of the apostles would have
known Him at once. Or, of course, it may be that He

THE RESURRECTION 803
was in some way changed, though no other account of
His appearance indicates this.
4). To the Ten and Others.
Luke says this appearance was to " the Eleven and
them that were with them" (24:33), but John ex
plains that Thomas was absent. Either Luke did not
know this, or he used the term " the Eleven " as equiva
lent to " the Apostles " ; in Paul's list it is probably the
one " to the Twelve."
The place was a room in Jerusalem, possibly the
chamber of the Last Supper ; — and the doors were shut
for fear of the Jews. The disciples were drawn to
gether by the glad news that Jesus had risen and
appeared to Peter. Cleopas and his companion were
relating their own experience, when suddenly Jesus
stood in their midst with the customary Oriental greet
ing, " Peace unto you." Despite their belief that He
had risen, they were frightened, and with difficulty
could be convinced that they beheld Jesus in the flesh
and not a ghost. It was the old panic, experienced on
the Galilean lake a year before (Matt. 14:26). It
was succeeded by great joy: then followed a divine
commission, given to all, and the bestowal of the Holy
Spirit by an act which reminds us of the account of
man's creation (Gen. 2:7). Did it typify a new and
still higher creation ?
These four appearances on Easter Sunday are full
of little touches so true psychologically as to make
us believe that the story cannot be the crude product
of later imagination. E.g., Mary Magdalene feels that
men not women must deal with the startling situation :
John, the boy disciple, outruns Peter but hesitates to
enter the tomb until unconsciously influenced by the
older man's act; the appearance to the penitent Peter

304 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
is a private matter between him and his Master (imagi
nation in later days would have filled with details this
experience of the chief apostle) ; the two on the way
to Emmaus are so full of their sorrow that they are
surprised the stranger is ignorant of it, and after they
have recognized Jesus they cannot stop even to eat
before carrying the news back to the Eleven; the
despondent Thomas not only refuses to accept the tid
ings of Mary and Peter but shuts himself away from
the rest because he cannot endure their exultation.
Far more than this, however, "the appearances on
Easter Day, regarded as a whole, bear the stamp of
the mind of Jesus Christ ; the Easter sayings are such
as no sane criticism can attribute to the imagination
of the Apostolic Age. It needs a sturdy scepticism to
doubt that these narratives rest on a solid basis of
fact, or that words so characteristic of the great Master
are in substance the words of the risen Christ "
(Swete). 5). To Thomas with the Others.
This took place a week later, apparently in the same
room and at the same hour, — Sunday evening. The
first day of the week was becoming full of sacred asso
ciations with the risen Lord. The very early Epistle
of Barnabas says that ascension, also, was on a Sunday
(in which case we must treat " forty days " as a round
number) ; and Dr. Briggs finds reasons for believing
that each Sunday until the ascension was marked by at
least one of the recorded appearances. " These appear
ances of Jesus on successive Sundays," he says, " may
have given origin to the assembling of Christians on
that day, and also to the use of the term, the Lord's
Day." The Galilean disciples, we may be sure, had already

THE RESURRECTION 805
departed on their homeward journey; and the apostles
seemed to be disregarding the message of Easter morn
ing (Mark 16:7) by lingering in Jerusalem. Pos
sibly Thomas refused to depart until his doubts were
removed, and the others were unwilling to leave him
behind. He was always slow to believe and inclined to
take a desponding view; but his present reluctance to
accept the testimony of his companions seems caused
less by disinclination than by a fear that their eager
desire had made them self-deceived. Jesus showed that
He knew the test Thomas had laid down; and He
offered to submit to it, but warned him against yielding
to his special temptation to become sceptical (John
20 : 27). Such knowledge and rebuke were enough for
Thomas; he believed without applying the test, and
made the highest confession of faith, — " My Lord and
my God."
6) . To Seven by the Lake.
These seven were Peter, Thomas, Nathanael (Bar
tholomew), James, John and two others: according
'to the Gospel of Peter, the two were Matthew and
Andrew. To them as they were fishing in the gray morning
twilight Jesus called, in familiar fisherman phrase,
" Boys, you haven't caught any fish, have you ? " ; and
gave directions where to cast the net. Thereupon
they took such a multitude of fishes, one hundred
and fifty-three great ones, that John recalled the open
ing scene of the Galilean ministry (Luke 5:6), and
said to Peter, " It is the Lord." Peter was " stripped "
for his work ; but, putting on his frock, he impetuously
waded ashore without waiting the slow movements of
the net and boat. There was a mysterious reserve at
the morning meal which Jesus served them ; they knew

306 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
it was the Lord, and yet they dared neither reveal their
knowledge nor dissemble it; and as on certain occa
sions in the old days (e.g., Mark 10: 32; Luke 9: 45),
they waited in awe and silence until He should disclose
what was in His thoughts. His special mission was
with Peter ; and this time it was a public not a private
matter. On Easter He had restored him to disciple-
ship ; now He restored him to apostleship, — " feed my
sheep." The thrice repeated, " Lovest thou me? " cor
responds to the thrice repeated denial by Peter in
the court of the highpriest.
Note that, important as it is, we nearly failed to
have a record of this scene. John added it to his
gospel as an afterthought to explain how the saying
arose that he himself would live till the second coming
of the Lord.
7). To the Eleven and more than Five Hundred.
The appearance reported in Matt. 28 : 16-20 and that
in I Cor. 15:6 are probably the same. A prearranged
meeting for the apostles alone would seem unnecessary ;
and certainly the " some " who doubted while the
others worshipped could not be any of the Eleven, for
their doubts had already been removed. Among the
five hundred, who for the first time were beholding
their risen Master, some would be as slow as Thomas
to believe. That Jesus sought to remove their unbelief
by a clearer manifestation of Himself is hinted in the
narrative, — " they saw him, . . . some doubted ; and
Jesus came to them " ; and that doubt ended in full
belief is evident from the fact that Paul reckons all
the five hundred among his witnesses, and says that
most of them are still alive to offer their testimony.
This gathering of a great body of His disciples on
" the mountain " in Galilee recalls the time in the Gali-

THE RESURRECTION 307
lean ministry when a similar body was gathered, perhaps
on the same height, and Jesus appointed the Twelve
to be apostles. The purpose for which He brought
them together now was similar to that of the earlier
meeting, though with clearer spiritual significance; it
was a reappointment of leaders for His church, but
with greater power and a wider field. Peter had been
restored to his place and given his commission in the
presence of his brethren by the lake; now all the
Eleven were restored to their apostleship, and given
their commission in the presence of the great assembly
of disciples on the mountain. And in a new sermon
on the mount Jesus mapped out the future programme
of the church, and gave the formula of baptism (some
critics doubt this, but with no strong reasons), closing
with the promise, " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto
the end of the world."
It was here in the presence of the apostles and the
church that Jesus made the most remarkable of all His
statements about Himself : " All authority hath been
given unto me in heaven and on earth." Throughout
His ministry there had been a constantly increasing
revelation of His authority: to forgive sins (Mark 2:
10), to act as final judge (John 5:27), to fix the
limits of His own earthly life (John 10: 18), to give
eternal life (John 17:2); but this includes and far
surpasses all. Nothing that Paul has written in his
attempt to state the sovereignty of Christ begins to
reach the compass of these simple words of his Lord.
" Human thought loses itself in the attempt to under
stand what must be comprehended in such authority as
this" (Plummer).
8). To James.
This appearance, which is mentioned only by Paul

308 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
(I Cor. 15 : 7), was probably to the brother of Jesus,
not to either of the two apostles of that name. All
details are unknown; but, remembering that His
brethren did not believe on Him during His ministry,
we are justified in supposing that it had something to
do with creating their later belief. The Gospel accord
ing to the Hebrews has a curious story of this appear
ance, not worth repeating.
9). To the Eleven at Ascension.
The apostles were now back in Jerusalem, the place
where they were to begin work under their great com
mission. There seem to have been several appear
ances here; but we cannot distinguish those before the
ascension from the one at the ascension. Luke dove
tails them in his gospel, and goes into no full details in
Acts. It is instructive, however, to note that if the
author of the Third Gospel had not also written the
Book of Acts, some critics might argue that he knew of
no appearances except those on Easter Day, and that he
supposed the ascension took place at the close of that
day ; whereas, in Acts he states plainly that the appear
ances covered a space of forty days, and then were
concluded by the ascension. This shows the danger
of relying upon the argument from silence, which is
used so often and so confidently.
Apparently the period was one of fuller instruction
about matters which the apostles could not understand
before His death and resurrection, and was their final
preparation for the great work that lay before them.
Much remained to be taught them. The old idea of a
temporal kingdom had not wholly disappeared (Acts
1:6); and the words of Jesus, " speaking the things
concerning the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3), were
needed. The work of the apostles was clearly set

THE RESURRECTION 309
before them: "Ye shall be my witnesses, both in
Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the
uttermost part of the earth " : and power for this work
by the coming of the Holy Spirit was promised them
(Acts i : 8).
The ascension differed from the earlier manifesta
tions of Jesus only in the way in which He departed
from the disciples. Instead of suddenly vanishing,
" he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of
their sight " (Acts 1:9). With their Jewish idea that
heaven is above the earth and that a cloud is the mani
festation of Jehovah, this meant to them that He
" was received up into heaven and sat down at the right
hand of God " (Mark 16: 19). Here, again, it is in
structive to note that the Third Gospel tells the story
most simply : " It came to pass, while he blessed them,
he parted from them ; and they returned to Jerusalem "
(Luke 24: 51 f.) Had the later book of Acts been
by another author, its additional details, — both the
ascension and the message of the angels, — would be
pointed out as a sure proof that the story of Jesus'
last appearance had grown more marvellous as time
went on.
10). To Paul.
Whether this was of the same character as the fore
going ones must be discussed later. Certainly the
development of belief in the resurrection was complete
long before Paul was converted; and details of this
appearance belong to a life of Paul rather than to a
life of Jesus.
2. Origin of Belief in the Risen Christ.
Beyond all question the early Christians believed
and proclaimed that Jesus arose from the dead. No

310 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
other explanation of the rise of the Christian church
is possible. The crucifixion of Jesus would have been
for his followers an end of all their hopes, and a proof
of the falsity of His teachings concerning Himself
and His Messianic reign, unless belief in His resur
rection had overcome the consternation and despair
caused by His death, and explained, or at least dis
pelled, the ignominy of the cross. Those who deny
the fact of the resurrection admit this; Renan says,
" ' He is risen ! ' has been the basis of the faith of hu
manity " ; and Harnack says, " The primitive com
munity called Jesus its Lord because He had sacrificed
His life for it, and because its members were con
vinced that He had been raised from the dead, and was
then sitting on the right hand of God."
If we refuse to credit the gospel narrative and hold
that Jesus did not rise from the dead, we must in some
way explain the origin of this belief in His resurrec
tion. And the explanation that the story was a myth,
a legend, a tradition, cannot be offered here, — as it is
in the case of Jesus' miracles, — because myths and the
rest require time for their development, but this belief
in the resurrection arose before the Day of Pentecost.
The assignment of a late date to the Gospels in no way
helps towards an explanation, though evidently those
who do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead must
treat the gospel story as late and garbled.
The following are some of the theories accounting
for the belief in the resurrection, if that belief was not
based on fact.
A. Fraud.
The fraud may have been on the part of Jesus who
was not really dead when placed in the tomb, and re
vived enough so that He was able to come forth and act

THE RESURRECTION 311
the part of a risen Christ in Jerusalem and in Galilee.
This theory needs little discussion. The moral char
acter of Jesus makes it impossible. Moreover, if a
man who had suffered what Jesus did could have
strength enough to act such a part, what became of
Him later on? Did He die in secret after a few weeks,
or did He deliberately shut Himself away from His
disciples that they might think He had ascended to
heaven ? To state the problem seems enough to show
its absurdity.
Again, the fraud may have been on the part of the
apostles, who knew that Jesus was dead, but falsely
and persistently affirmed that He had risen. This is
equally incredible. There was nothing to gain by such
deception and men do not suffer persecution and mar
tyrdom for what they know to be a lie. And psycho
logically it is impossible that the disciples consecrated
their lives to preaching the sublime doctrines of Jesus,
while they carried in their hearts the secret that the
main fact to which they pointed in proof of the truth
of the message was a lie of their own invention.
B. Hysteria.
This is the well-known theory of Renan. Mary
Magdalene, hysterical and most devoted, fancies she
sees and hears her Lord as she stands weeping by the
empty tomb. " The miracle of love is accomplished ;
the resurrection has its first direct witness." She tells
the story to the rest ; and they fall into an excited state
in which they, too, begin to see and hear a risen Jesus.
And so by the contagion of hysteria the proofs of the
resurrection are created. (A variant of the theory
makes Peter the first hysteriac. )
This picture of the state of mind of the apostles is
contrary to the whole gospel record. Everything indi-

312 THE LLFE OF CHRIST
cates that they were prosaic, sensible men, in no way
inclined to hysteria and delusion. Moreover, to
imagine a resurrection, one must be expecting it; and
apparently they were sorrowing without hope, and
could with difficulty be made to realize that their
Master had really arisen. Then, too, an epidemic of
hysteria does not follow the course described in the
gospel story. It neither begins so suddenly and vio
lently as the events of Easter Day would necessitate,
nor runs its course so quickly as to end in forty days ;
nor does it leave its victims in the tranquil, strong,
practical frame of mind with which the apostles took
up their great work of witness-bearing.
The question how the tomb came to be empty, and
what became of the body of Jesus, is one Renan admits
he cannot answer. He suggests that there was " some
little deceit in the matter." Possibly Mary of Bethany
had carried away the corpse. The napkin so carefully
folded " would lead to the conclusion that a female
hand had slipped in there. And what did it matter
definitively? The result alone counts in such a mat»
ter." Thus he solves a serious difficulty by a shrug
of the shoulders.
C. A Heavenly Vision.
This is the theory of Keim and many others. There
was no bodily resurrection; but to Peter and the rest
Jesus granted a vision of Himself in His spiritual
and glorified state,—" a telegram from heaven " assur
ing them that He had triumphed over death: and in
later days these visions were changed in the telling
into appearances in the flesh. Much is made of the
vision granted to Paul which is declared to have been
purely spiritual, thus proving the earlier ones to have
been the same.

THE RESURRECTION 318
This theory can be held by those who accept Jesus
as the divine Saviour of the world, and may help some
who stumble at a bodily resurrection. But it can
be held only by rejecting the record, which unques
tionably tells of appearances of Jesus in the flesh. If
the Gospels are of the first century, how could visions
be thus transformed into physical appearances within
the lifetime of some who heard Peter and the others
tell their story? Would not the tendency of later
thought be to change a physical manifestation into a
spiritual one rather than the reverse? Since the early
Christians were accustomed to think of their glorified
Lord as still in their midst and able to reveal Himself
spiritually, why should they imagine that during the
first weeks after His death He revealed Himself in a
different way?
As regards the appearance to Paul, which undoubt
edly he held to be of the same nature as the others, the
chief statement relied upon to prove that it was purely
spiritual is Galatians i : 15-16, " It was the good pleas
ure of God, who separated me even from my mother's
womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His
Son in me that I might preach Him among the Gen
tiles." This is interpreted to mean that the revela
tion of Jesus to Paul at Damascus was internal and
therefore spiritual. But the text points out three dis
tinct stages in Paul's spiritual history. It says that
God set him apart for his work as missionary among
the Gentiles even before his birth ; then He graciously
callqd him to it, — undoubtedly by the experience near
Damascus ; and then in His good pleasure He provided
a revelation of His Son in Paul, — not to Paul, — which
was his final preparation to be an evangelist. What is
meant by this revelation of Christ in Paul is evident

314 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
from a later verse of this same epistle where Paul says,
"It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in
me " (Gal. 2: 20). The indwelling of Christ in each
believer was the very central truth of Paul's theology.
" Christ saves a man, he says, by entering and taking
up His abode within him, by binding him indissolubly
to Himself, so that it is no longer he that lives, but
Christ that lives in him, so that whatever Christ does
he does, and whatever he does Christ does " (McGif-
fert). The great message of his apostleship to the
Gentiles was " Christ in you, the hope of glory " (Col.
1 : 27 ; Rom. 8 : 10), a message proclaimed by his daily
living as well as by his words (Phil. 4:9).
The passage from Galatians, then, tells nothing about
the nature of the appearance to Paul ; and no other pas
sage in his writings proves that it was spiritual.
Stephen in the hour of martyrdom had a spiritual
vision of Jesus, as Paul had sad reason never to for
get; yet it is omitted from Paul's list, though nothing
would have been more natural and impressive than to
place it immediately before the appearance to himself,
had the two been of the same character. Paul had his
own spiritual visions of Jesus, — one of them in Corinth
itself (Acts 18:9); but he does not mention them as a
proof of the resurrection because they are not a proof
of it. Spiritual visions prove simply the continued
spiritual existence of Jesus; and neither Paul nor his
Corinthian readers seriously doubted that there is life
beyond the grave. What Paul needed to establish
his faith in Jesus was proof of an actual resurrection.
The cross was a stumbling block to him, as to every
Jew; a crucified Messiah seemed absurd. True, the
Christians whom he persecuted were declaring that
their Master had proved Himself the Son of God by

THE RESURRECTION 315
coming forth from the tomb, triumphant over death;
but the story was incredible. Nothing short of a per
sonal experience like that which the apostles described
could overcome Paul's scepticism; before he could
preach the faith of which he now made havoc he must
see Jesus, not in a spiritual vision but in the flesh
(I Cor. 9:1).
The empty tomb also remains an objection to the
theory of Keim, even as to that of Renan. If the
tomb was emptied, who did it? Neither the friends
nor the enemies of Jesus had any inducement to carry
away His corpse ; and for a third party, neither friend
nor foe, to rifle the tomb, would be contrary to the deep
reverence which the Jews felt for the dead. Keim
doubts that the tomb was empty. But if the body of
Jesus still slumbered there, the early Christians, who
had their headquarters in Jerusalem, would have held
the place most sacred, and visited it often; for the
Jews were accustomed to visit the burial-places of their
great men and their friends. Tertullian recognizes this
practice in his statement of a sceptical explanation cur
rent in his day, namely, that the gardener took away
Christ's body " that his lettuces might come to no harm
from the crowds of visitors," — a most free way of dis
posing of the body of the cherished Lord of Joseph of
Arimathaea. D. A Perverted Apostolic Statement.
This is the theory of Martineau. When the first
dismay was over, the apostles, who had fled to Galilee,
realized that such a life as that of Jesus could not be
terminated by death. Nor could such a one as He have
gone " like other men into the storehouse of souls in the
underworld." They grew convinced that Jesus, " like
the two or three great spirits that walked with God, had

316 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
passed into the abodes of the immortal." They " flung
themselves with unreserved confidence on the faith that
Jesus was in heaven to die no more, and accepted it
as their mission to spread this faith." In order to
convey to others their profound assurance of His
heavenly life they declared that they had seen the risen
Christ, meaning by this not visual but spiritual per
ception. But their hearers, not having the same faith,
demanded more material proof ; " and it is not surpris
ing that the traditions were so molded as to answer
this demand." Thus there gradually grew up the story
of Christ's bodily resurrection.
Many of the objections to the previous theories hold
against this; and it has others of its own. Keim
recognizes that nothing short of a miracle could remove
the apostles' despair. Martineau thinks that faith
would do it, if only the disciples were once back in
Galilee. Which is more probable? Again, if the first
disciples, when they said, " We have seen Jesus," were
stating simply their strong conviction that He still
lived and only waited the Father's time to fulfill His
promises, — a strange way of stating it, — could they
with honesty allow their hearers to suppose that they
were testifying to a physical resurrection ? And where
did the very early and strong belief arise that He rose
on the first day of the week? It took centuries for
Christians to settle upon Christmas as the anniversary
of His birth, but in a very few years they began to
keep Sunday as the anniversary of His resurrection.
Why such prompt selection of a special resurrection
day unless the statement that Jesus rose on the third
day (I Cor. 15:4) was a literal fact?
It is also hard to understand why the sacrament of
the Lord's Supper was observed daily by the early

THE RESURRECTION 317
Christian church, although the Passover meal was an
annual celebration, unless the example and teaching of
Jesus after the resurrection caused the change? He
was made known at Emmaus in the breaking of bread
(Luke 24 : 35) ; Peter tells that He ate and drank with
the apostles after He rose from the dead (Acts 10.
41 ) ; and many scholars translate Acts 1:4" eating
with them," instead of " being assembled with them."
All these statements imply that Jesus after the resur
rection repeatedly celebrated the Eucharist with His
disciples; in which case we have the simplest explana
tion of the change of the celebration from an annual
to a daily one.
If the stories of the resurrection appearances are
"the product of the mythopoeic energy of religious
imagination " aroused in the way Martineau supposes,
or in any other way, why are they so brief and sober
and in such harmony with the previous history of
Jesus? The excited imagination of a credulous age
heaps up marvels, and betrays itself by absurdities ; and
no theme would more surely call forth such treatment
than the return of Jesus from the dead. The Gospel of
Nicodemus and the recently discovered fragment of the
Gospel of Peter are evidence of this. The latter thus
describes the resurrection as it was witnessed by the
soldiers who guarded the tomb : " They see three men
coming forth from the tomb, and two of them support
ing one, and a cross following them. And of the two
the head reached unto the heaven, but the head of him
that was led by them overpassed the heavens. And
they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, Hast thou
preached to them that sleep? And a response was
heard from the cross, Yea." No great acumen is
needed to detect the difference in character between

318 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
such stories as this and the gospel accounts: and the
difference forms a strong argument for the truthful
ness of the evangelists.
Those who behold in the earthly years of Jesus
a clear manifestation of " glory as of the only begotten
from the Father " find no difficulty in accepting the
fact of His resurrection. His victory over death is
perfectly credible because, as Peter said on the Day
of Pentecost, " It was not possible that he should be
holden of it." For those who see in His life nothing
beyond the possibilities of a consecrated human spirit,
belief must be much more difficult. And yet, the testi
mony of the disciples cannot be contemptuously dis
missed, unless a fully satisfactory answer can first be
given to the question, " Why is it judged incredible
with you, if God doth raise the dead? " (Acts 26 : 8).
And a fair treatment of the testimony may, we be
lieve, produce the conclusion reached by Arnold of
Rugby : " I have been used for many years to study
the history of other times, and to examine and weigh
the evidence of those who have written about them;
and I know of no fact in the history of mankind
which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every
sort to the understanding of a fair enquirer than the
great sign which God has given us, that Christ died and
rose again from the dead."
3. Importance of the Resurrection.
Jesus appeared to none except His disciples. It was
useless to appear to others. The Pharisees, even if
convinced that He had risen from the dead, would
be only the more sure that He was a son of Beelzebub,
and would fear and hate Him accordingly. And the
,common people, greatly excited, would again expect a

THE RESURRECTION 319
political, sensuous kingdom. Indeed, the disciples
themselves were roused to expect this (Acts 1:6).
The spiritual belief which Jesus demanded could not
be created by a miracle, — not even by that of rising
from the dead.
The repeated appearances to the disciples seem to
have been intended to teach them two most important
truths, each hard to be grasped and scarcely to be
taught in any other way; first, that Jesus had tri
umphed over death and was still their living Lord
and Master just as before the crucifixion, — -this was
realized when they saw Him once more in their midst
sharing their life as in the days of old; and second,
that when He was no longer to be seen by their eyes
or touched by their hands, still He was ever with them
to help and teach and guide as before, — this was im
pressed upon them by the repeated appearances and
disappearances. Whenever they specially longed for
Him, or, perhaps, when they were thinking least about
him, — at any moment and anywhere, — their Master
might appear, coming in His old form, resuming at
once the old relations; and then, when He had given
them the teaching or the consolation they needed, sud
denly He would vanish, leaving them once more alone.
Increasingly they came to believe that they were never
alone, — that He was with them though they saw Him
not. And so at last, when He ascended to His Father,
the disciples did not feel that they were forsaken or
that He was false to His promise to be with them
always even unto the end of the world. The ascension
brought no sad sense of separation. On the contrary,
they " returned to Jerusalem with great joy ; and were
continually in the temple, praising and blessing God."
Concerning the body of Jesus during these forty

320 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
days we can only say that it was suited for this special
stage of His work. It was the same body which
Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus had placed in the
tomb, with the marks of the nails and the spear still
evident. Yet it was a body that could appear and dis
appear at will, enter a closed room, and the like. It
was not a spiritual body, — so Jesus Himself said
(Luke 24:39); and the statement, frequently made,
that it became more spiritual in the later appearances,
lacks proof. Yet evidently it was not a body like our
own, or else the power Jesus had over it was far beyond
any we know. With our present ideas of matter, the
act of making a material body vanish does not seem
as impossible, save by a miracle, as it did formerly.
" It would seem," says Swete, " that even in His mor
tal state the Lord possessed some peculiar power of
withdrawing His visible presence when He desired to
do so. At Nazareth, when the townsfolk sought to
throw Him over a precipice, ' passing through the
midst of them he went his way ' (Luke 4 : 30). After
the miracle at Bethesda ' Jesus conveyed himself away,
a multitude being in the place ' (John 5 : 13) . When in
the temple court the Jews took up stones to cast at Him,
' he hid himself, and went out of the temple ' (John
8 : 59) . Such incidents suggest that before the Passion
the Lord's sinless human will possessed a power over
His body which is wholly beyond our experience or
comprehension. Of the conditions to which His risen
body was subject we know nothing; but it may well
have been yet more completely under the control of the
will. No presumption, then, against the reality of the
resurrection can fairly be based on the statement that
the risen Christ made Himself visible or invisible at
pleasure."

THE RESURRECTION 321
The importance of the bodily resurrection of Jesus is
not the same to us as it was to the disciples. We do
not need the evidence which Thomas demanded to
establish our faith in His triumph over death; rather,
we can claim as our own the last of His beatitudes,
" Blessed are they that have not seen and yet believed "
(John 20:29). For nineteen centuries the Christian
church has been conscious of His constant presence; in
fact, the church is the present body of Christ. Nor is
the evidence of the forty days the great foundation of
belief in His divinity. To modernize His own state
ment (Luke 16: 31), if men will not accept the teach
ings of Jesus nor regard the lives of His followers,
neither will they be persuaded though it is proved that
He rose from the dead. Like all evidence from
miracles, the resurrection convinces only those who are
willing to be convinced. If one holds that Jesus was
only an ordinary man, no amount of evidence can make
the gospel story credible; the sceptic may be silenced
but he is not convinced. " When I am told that to be
a disciple, I must believe in the resurrection of Jesus, I
invert the order and reply, to believe that Jesus is risen
and lives the heavenly life, I must be His disciple "
(Martineau). But to say all this, is not to say that the
question of the resurrection is of little practical value.
The historical truth of this part of His life involves the
truth of the whole story of His life. And our assur
ance that " now is Christ risen from the dead " forms
the basis of our confidence that " even so them also
that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him."
The full significance of His resurrection in Christian
doctrine is a subject too great to enter upon. " The
economy which begins with a physical incarnation
naturally and appropriately ends with a physical resur-

322 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
rection. This much we can see though we may feel
that this is not all " (Sanday).
4. The Ministry of the Forty Days.
We are so interested in the fact and the form of the
resurrection appearances that often we fail to realize
and appreciate the ministry of Jesus when He thus
appeared to His disciples. We deal with His training
of the Twelve as if it ended at Calvary. But by so
doing we omit what must have been the most profitable
period of all their intercourse with Him, — the period
when at last their eyes were opened, and they knew
Him to be their Lord and their God. That Jesus
looked forward to it as a time of richest instruction in
spiritual truth is shown by His statement at the Last
Supper, " I have yet many things to say unto you, but
ye cannot bear them now," followed by His promise,
" The hour cometh when I shall no more speak unto
you in dark sayings, but shall tell you plainly of the
Father" (John 16: 12, 25). Up to the hour of His
death He had been hindered in teaching His disciples
by their apathy and lack of spiritual apprehension,
which seemed sometimes to try Him almost beyond en
durance (Mark 8:17; 9:19; 14:37). And a still
greater hindrance was the fact that He could not place
before them His whole life-work because it was not
yet accomplished. Now both these hindrances were
removed; and He was able to teach the full lesson of
His life to pupils eager and sympathetic.
The forty days were for the disciples a period of
great emotional uplift. Their utter despair had been
turned into joy, — a joy not to be taken from them;
and in the flood of emotions the words of Jesus reached
their hearts as never before (Luke 24:32). The

THE RESURRECTION 323
period was, also, one of great intellectual activity. The
startling facts of the cross, the tomb and the resur
rection roused their minds to review the whole past;
and in that review everything stood forth in a new
light, so that, concerning many an act of Jesus, His
promise found fulfillment, " What I do thou knowest
not now, but thou shalt know hereafter " (John 13:7).
With the revelation of Jesus as a Messiah far other and
grander than they had dreamed, there came a revela
tion of what He had been striving to accomplish in His
ministry. " Many hints and sayings of His which they
had scarcely noticed or had misunderstood, now came
back to memory and fitted into their places in the new
universe of ideas which was shaping itself in their
consciousness. They now began to know their Master
after the spirit ; and though they had known Him after
the flesh, they now henceforth knew Him so no more "
(Stalker). It was the beginning of the experience
which Jesus described when He said, " The Comforter,
even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
my name, he shall teach you all things and bring to
your remembrance all that I said unto you " (John
14:26). From the Master Himself at this time the disciples
must have received His very richest teachings. There
was much, indeed, for them to learn : the meaning and
use of the sacraments, which they would need at the
very outset of their missionary work; the great les
son of the cross, which had just been set before them;
the mission of the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, con
cerning whom, as yet, they knew nothing; the nature
of the Messianic kingdom, about which they still held
most imperfect ideas ; their own future work, so dif
ferent from what they had hitherto imagined. In-

324 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
struction in these and similar subjects had been prac
tically impossible at any earlier time ; but to understand
them was indispensable, if the apostles were to carry
the full gospel to a waiting world. That Jesus left
them without instruction on the deepest things con
cerning Himself and His mission would seem in
credible, even if the records gave no evidence to the
contrary. But the evangelists do tell us of one full
afternoon spent by Him in patiently explaining to two
obscure disciples the Old Testament predictions of His
sufferings and death (Luke 24: 13-31) ; and if these
received such precious teaching, what must have been
given to the apostles?
Luke expressly says that the work of Jesus in the
forty days was " speaking the things concerning the
kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3); but neither he nor
the others have recorded more than a few most memo
rable utterances. It may well be that some of Jesus'
teachings at this time have been grouped in the Gospels
with earlier lessons. Much of the instructions to the
Twelve when they were sent on their first missionary
journey (Matt. 10:5 f.) are wholly unsuited to that
occasion but might fitly have been given now. The
discourse at Capernaum (John 6:26!) has a clear
connection with the sacrament of the Lord's Supper;
and portions of it would seem to be additions from
what Jesus said when He unveiled the meaning of that
sacrament after His resurrection. Possibly, also, we
are told but little about the teachings of the forty days
because the whole teaching of the apostles was consid
ered to be a reproduction of it. One thing is certain,
we cannot account for the sermon of Peter at Pente
cost and all the words and work of the apostles in
the crowded ministry that immediately followed, unless

THE RESURRECTION 325
we suppose that Jesus gave His disciples far deeper
and richer spiritual instruction than what they were
ready to receive, or what was prepared to present to
them, before His death and resurrection. The Pente
costal baptism did, indeed, bestow power for witness
bearing ; but the truths to which they bore witness must
have been imparted by their Master after the cross
had crowned His work.
To ignore the ministry of the forty days is to leave
an inexplicable break between the gospel of Jesus and
the gospel of the apostles. From it arises the frequent
assertion that the Christ whom the apostles proclaimed
was a conception of their own, fashioned from other
sources than the teachings of the Master about Him
self. If we end our study of the life of Jesus at the
tomb in the garden, and begin our study of the Apos
tolic Age with a denial that the stone was ever rolled
away from the tomb, the assertion seems well founded ;
the Christ of Paul, " who was declared to be the Son
of God with power by the resurrection from the dead,"
becomes a figure of Paul's own theological invention;
and the cross is simply a symbol of unmerited suffering.
The scholars who support this view are urgent in their
insistence that to know what Christianity really is, we
must go back to Christ ; but, as Stalker points out,
" The attempt being made in our day to go back to
Christ in the sense of making Christianity consist solely
of what Jesus did and taught in the days before His
burial — with the resurrection left out — is a return to
the position of the disciples in the days of their igno
rance, if not to that of the enemies by whom He was
crucified."

326 THE LIFE OF CHRIST
5. Conclusion.
The story of Jesus must be a story without an end.
When we have reached the point where the gospel nar
rative ceases, we have finished only the first chapter in
it. Luke grasped this fact, and wrote as the opening
words of the Book of Acts, " The former treatise I
made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began
both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was
received up." The work of Jesus while He tabernacled
in the flesh was but the beginning of a work that He
was still continuing, through the ministry of His faith
ful servants and by His own unseen presence, at the
time when Luke was writing. And the work is yet in
progress, and the story is still incomplete. The future
chapters remain to be revealed and recorded. How
many there may be, and what they will contain, we
cannot even surmise. But we do know that the king
dom of God is in our midst and the Son of Man is
upon its throne ; and we also know that " he must reign
till he hath put all his enemies under his feet " ; and
" when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority
and power ; when he shall deliver up the kingdom to
God, even the Father; then cometh the end" (I Cor.
15:24!).

INDEX

Advent, Second, 226
Annas, 285
Apocalypses, 34, 42
Apostles, Choice of, 134
Apostles, Mission of, 146
Archelaus, 17
Ascension of Jesus, 308
Baptism, John's, 78f.
Baptism of Jesus, 82L
Bartimaeus, 247
Bethany, Feast at, 248
Bethesda, Miracle at, 197
Birth of Jesus, 44L
Blasphemy, Charge of, 138
Border Ministry, i9of.
Boyhood of Jesus, S7f.
Brethren of Jesus, 60, 70, 209
Buddha legends, 49
Cana, Miracles at, 106L, 121
Capernaum, Discourse in, 151
Census by Quirinius, 53
Church and Kingdom, 187
Coinage of Jews, 18
Cross, Lessons about, 20Sf.
Crucifixion of Jesus, 29if.
Date of Jesus' birth, S3
Death of Jesus inevitable, 125
Decapolis, 194
Dedication, Feast of, 24of.
Demoniacal possession, i67f.
Diabolism, Charge of, 141
Disciples of Jesus, 103
Education, Jewish, 62
Elizabeth, 44
Ephraim, 246
Eschatology of Jesus, 226f.
Essenes, 44, 75
Fasting, 37, 140
Feasts of Jews, 29

Fig tree, Cursing of, 255
Five thousand fed, 150, 166
Forty Days, Ministry of, 322
Four thousand fed, 195
Galilean Ministry, I27f.
Galilee, 68, 127
Genealogies of Jesus, 47
Gethsemane, 273f.
God, Jewish ideas of, 35
Golgotha, 292
Greeks, request of, 261
Herod Antipas, 17, 289
Herod the Great, 15
Herodiane, 20
Homes, Jewish, 59
Jericho, Miracle at, 247
John the Baptist, 72f., 83, 100,
144, 147
Joseph, 59, 67
Joseph of Arimathaea, 297
Judas Iscariot, 136, 264, 270,
278, 279f-
Judea, no
Judean Ministry, nof.
King, Jesus a, 216
Kingdom of God, I74f.
Language of Jesus, 63
Law, Jewish, 36L
Lazarus, 244
Loaves, Miracles of, 150, 166
Lord's Supper, 316
Maccabees, 14
Man born blind, 242
Mary, Mother of Jesus, 44L,
108, 294
Mary Magdalene, 249. 3°°. 3"
Mary of Bethany, 209, 249
Messiahship of Jesus, 87f.,
2I3f.

327

328

INDEX

Messiah and Miracles, 159
Messianic hopes, 39f., 95f.
Messianic kingdom, 176L
Miracles, 129, i54f.
Mission of the Twelve, 146
Nathanael, 104
Nazareth, 57L
Nazareth, Jesus rejected at, 145
Nicodemus, 116, 211, 297
Palestine, I4f.
Parables, 143, 240
Passion week, 25if.
Passover, 266L
Paul, 3i3f.
Peraea, 232
Peraean Ministry, 232f.
Peter, iggf., 301, 305
Pharisees, 2if., 37, 153
Pilate, Pontius, 287f.
Portents at Jesus' death, 296
Priests, 27L, 112
Procurators, 17
Prophet, Jesus a, 214
Publicans, 18
Quirinius, Census of, S3
Raising of Lazarus, 244
Resurrection of Jesus, 29gf.
Resurrection, Teaching after
the, 322

Sabbath, Jewish, 36
Sabbath-breaking by
I40f.

Jesus,

Sadducees, 24, in, 245, 259
Samaria, 20
Samaritan religion, 42
Samaritan woman, 119
Sanhedrin, 19, 123, 197
Sanhedrin, Jesus before the,
284f.
Seventy, Mission of the, 237
Sinlessness of Jesus, 69
Son of David, 216
Son of God, 219
Son of Man, 22if.
Supper, The Last, 26sf.
Sychar, 120
Synagogues, 3of.
Syro-Phoenician woman, 193
Tabernacles, Feast of, 2ogf.
Taxes, Roman, 18
Temple, 26f.
Temple, Boy Jesus in the, 64
Temple, Cleansing of, nf., 256
Temptation of Jesus, 91 f.
Thomas, 304
Transfiguration, 202f.
Trial of Jesus, 283f.
Triumphal entry, 251
Unnamed Feast, 195
Virgin Birth of Jesus, 44 f.
Zacchaeus, 247
Zacharias, 72
Zealots, 20

':|'I|J;