"sT. i^r .JH/Ailtt-'

> .•*i-''.*-^i

¥'^

\Mf-.'?IQ

D

/''te

¦¦is'riffa^Jt:

'Y^ILIE«-¥]MIIVEI^SIIir¥«

Gift of
MISS EDITH WOOLSEY
1931

HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS

WAYSIDE TRUTHS

FKOH THE

LIFE OF OUE LORD.

BY

N. C. BURT, D.D.

PHILADELPHIA
J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.
1865.

Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1865, by
J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.,
In the Clerk's OfQce of the Distiict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

8 & 5.-1=

PREFACE

Two musical notes produce a higher efiect when sounding in
harmony, than when heard singly in succession. Two slightly
diflFerent views of the same scene, blended in the stereoscope,
give a single view far more life-like than that which either pre
sents when seen by itself.
Thus two separated portions of Divine truth are sometimes
found to be so remarkably related to each other, that being
brought together, a far more striking, if not a wholly new im
pression is obtained.
Such works as Paley's ''^ Sores Paulinoe" and Blunt' s "Un
designed Coincidences of the Old and New Testaments," val
uable as they are for the special object of establishing the mi
nute truthfulness of the Sacred Writers, secure perhaps even a
higher result, in incidentally eliciting the fuller and more vivid
meanings of those portions of Scripture with which they deal.
In pursuing the study of the Gro^pel records, the author has,
from time to time, noted such passages as have been found to
receive striking illustration from unexpected sources. The chief
of these, with their illustrations, are herewith presented. Some
times, as will be seen, the illustration comes from outside the
G-ospel history. Often the narrative in one of the gospels finds
its complement in the parallel narrative of another of the gos-

4 PREFACE.
pels. Occasionally the immediate context, when well considered,
is found to have an interpretative bearing not at first sight per
ceived. The passages illustrated being of considerable number, and
coming from every part of the Evangelic narratives, and being
moreover here arranged, as nearly as possible, in the order of
historical occurrence, the book instead of proving to be a mere
aggregation of disconnected teachings, may be found to present
a tolerably complete outline of the Life and Ministry of our
Lord. It may not be amiss to state that the first chapter, substan
tially as here given, was published some years since, under the
author's initials, in one of the religious magazines.
Although the Gospel records are receiving elaborate exposi
tion and defence from the most distinguished Sons of the Church,
it is hoped that this humble efi'ort will not be regarded as either
wholly useless or presumptuous.
Cincinnati, May, 1865.

CONTENTS.

I.
PAOl!
The Visit of the Wise Men ; as directly occasioned by Daniel's Prophecy
of the Messiah  9
IL
The Baptism of Christ; as illustrated by His Transfiguration  16
HL
The Temptation in the Wilderness ; as Illustrated by Christ's Rebuke
of Peter  21
IV.
The Contempt of Nathanael for Nazareth, connected with the fact
that he belonged to Cana of Glalilee  28
V.
The Healing of the Paralytle and of the Infirm Man Compared  32
VL
The Woman who was a Sinner, and Christ's Gracious Invitation  37
VIL
Sndden Outbreak of Pharisaic Hostility ; and its Immediate Occasion. 44
VIII.
Levi's Feast, in Several Relations ; especially Christ's Representation
of Himself as the Bridegroom  50
1 « 5

b CONTENTS. IX. PAGB
The Disciples unexpectedly Compelled to Embark and cross the Lake :
and the Reason for it  58
X.
Crisis in the History of Judas  64
XL
The Person who saw Men as Trees Walking not horn blind  70
XII.
The Opening of a New Era in the Ministry of Christ  75
XIIL
The Transfiguration Occurring at Night  84
XIV.
The Transfiguration Scene Culminating in the Heavenly Voice  87
XV.
The Exclamation, "0 Faithless and Perverse Generation ;" as uttered
soon after the Transfiguration  90
XVI.
The Contentions of the Disciples among themselves; as always con
nected with Christ's Teachings concerning His Death  94
XVIL
Conduct of the Unbelieving Brethren of Jesus ; as seen on Two Occa
sions  100
XVIIL
The Allegory of the Good Shepherd; as connected with the Healing
of the mau born blind  lOg
XIX.
The Request, " Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father ;" by
whom made, and why refused  HO

CONTENTS. 7
XX. PAOE
Christ "Beholding" the Young Ruler; as illustrated by His "turning
and looking on Peter."  116
XXL
Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard; as connected with Previous
Teachings  122
XXII.
Christ's Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem: The Ass and Her Colt  128
XXIIL
The Miracle and the Parable of the Barren Pig-Tree  132
XXIV.
Christ's Denunciations against the Scribes and Pharisees at different
times, compared  138
XXV.
The Anointing of Christ by Mary of Bethany : the Evangelists com
pared  145
XXVI.
The Resolution of Judas to Betray his Lord, and its Immediate Occa-

153

XXVIL

Christ's saying, " I am among you as he that Serveth," and His
Washing the Disciples' Feet  160
XXVIIL
Position of Judas at the Passover Table  164
XXIX.
The Agony in the Garden ; as illustrated by the Temptation in the
Wilderness  ^'^^

8 CONTENTS. XXX. FASX
The Two Cries of the People, "Hosanna to the Son of David," and
"Away with Him, Crucify Him."  179
XXXL
Judas Repenting at the Sight of Jesus Condemned  185
XXXII.
Joseph of Arimathea, and His Mission  191
XXXIIL
Jesus, after his Resurrection, appearing first to Mary Magdalene  197
XXXIV.
Christ's saying to Mary Magdalene, "Touch me not: for I am not
yet Ascended to my Father."  205
XXXV.
The Incredulity of Thomas ; as Overcome in like manner with that of
Nathanael  209

HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.

The Visit of the Wise 3fen; cts directly occasioned by HanieVs
I*rophecy of the Jtfessiah.
Matt. ii. 1, 2 ; Daniel ix. 24^-26.
In the opening of the gospel history, we behold dis
tinguished Gentile strangers arriving at Jerusalem, and
uttering the remarkable inquiry, " Where is he that is
born king of the Jews?" Who were these men?
Whence came they ? What did they mean by " king
of the Jews ?" And, above all, how had they become
possessed of the knowledge that a king of the Jews was
just now to be born, of such peculiar dignity as to de
mand their personal homage ?*
* The opinion of scholars on this point is thus expressed by Eluoott :
" It has long been a matter of discussion what precisely led these Magi to
expect a birth so prefigured. See Spanheim, Dub. Evang. Was it due to
a carefully preserved knowledge of the prophecy of Balaam, an opinion
entertained by Origen and the majority of the ancient expositors ; or was
it due to prophecies uttered in their own country, dimly foreshadowing
this divine mystery? (See citations from the Zend-Avesta.) Perhaps
the latter view is the most probable, especially if we associate it with a
belief, which the sacred narrative gives us every reason for entertaining,
(Matt. ii. 12,) that these faithful men received a special illumination,"
Ac. How has it come to pass that scholars have been so intent on the
"dim foreshadowings " of the Zend-Avesta, as to overlook the explicit
A» 9

10 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
This last question, as it seems to us, has not received
sufficient comparative attention. Biblical scholars dwell
chiefly on the character of the star which these strangers
allege that they have seen ; a matter of comparatively
small importance.
In attempting to answer this question, reference is
commonly made to that expectation of a mighty Deliverer
soon to arise from among men, which, at the time of our
Saviour's birth, as history attests, was widely indulged
amongst the nations. If we ask how such an expecta
tion came to exist, the reply is manifold. It may have
arisen partly from the native conviction of the soul of its
need of spiritual help — that which was desired to be, at
length fixing itself- as sure to be. It may have arisen
partly from early tradition — the most important commu
nications from God to the progenitors of the race having
been promises of a Redeemer. And it may have arisen
partly from the predictions of the Je-wish Scriptures,
which, for some hundreds of years, had been widely cir
culated among the learned of many lands.
This general expectation of a Redeemer, taken in con
nection with extraordinary appearances in the heavens,
might, to some persons, seem sufficient to account for
these wise men coming to Jerusalem with the inquiry
which they proposed.
But we may look further than this. The narrative
styles these persons " Wise men from the East." May
we not obtain valuable hints from the very form of these
predictions of the prophet Daniel, " uttered," as all the probabilities allege,
in the very country of these Magi. Some indeed make a general reference
to the book of Daniel, but none, so far as we have seen, trace the exact
correspondence between the visit and question of the wise men and the
terms of Daniel's prophecy.

VISIT OP THE WISE MEN. 11
expressions? The region designated as "the East," is
of course very indefinite ; but it at once occurs to us,
that the East, as the birth-place of mankind, would fur
nish the purest and most vivid traditions of primitive
times. It would be in the East, rather than the West,
that the expectation of a Deliverer soon to be born,
founded on ancient tradition^ would be strongest; and
men from the East, rather than from the West, might
be looked for iu Jerusalem, making the inquiry of these
•mse men.
There is, however, something noticeable in this very
expression, "Wise men." It is the translation of the
word " magoi." These Wise men were Magians. This
appellation strongly points to Persia, as a narrower re
gion of " the East " from which these strangers came. —
Magian was the designation of the Persian priesthood
and nobility.
Our attention being fixed on Persia, we at once recol
lect the fact that heathenism was there seen in its mildest
and most spiritual forms. Also, from the bold and full
tradition of the deluge which Persia ftirnishes, we infer
the superiority of that country in all traditionary know
ledge. These, then, were the very persons of all others
to come to Jerusalem, making the inquiry which they
made ; for even if we were unable to see where they
obtained such exact information as led them to just such
a visit andywsi such an inquiry, we might well conclude,
that possibly, in the most thoughtful of Persian minds,
ancient traditions of a coming Deliverer may have rip
ened for fulfillment along with the prophecies of God's
covenant people, until, the heavens giving birth to a

12 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
new star, they were ready to interpret the occurrence as
a token of the birth of the ExpectedcOne.
But we need not stop here. The question, how these
heathen sages became possessed of such knowledge as led
them to make a pilgrimage at this time to Jerusalem,
and to propose the precise inquiry which they proposed,
admits of an explicit and satisfactory answer. And the
answer shows us how remarkably one portion of God's
word confirms another, and how, by minute and imin-
tended agreements, the whole Bible may be confirmed
to us, as a book of perfect truth. Let us see.
We know that the Magians of Persia were learned
men — that they were read in the accessible literature of
all lands. We know that they were held in highest
respect, as nobles of the State, and as counsellors and
guardians of the king. This is the familiar teaching of
history. Bear this in \mind, and then remember that the Jews
were seventy years captives in Babylon, where they had
their Scriptures, and that they were restored to their own
country by Cyrus, the conqueror of Babylon and foimder
of the Persian Empire, who himself was familiar with
the Jewish Scriptures. And remember, especially, that
the prophet Daniel, who alone of all the prophets re
corded the exact time of Messiah's advent, was himself a
high civil officer under the first Persian monarchs in
Babylon, and hence must have been widely and femil-
iarly conversant with the Magians of his time.
Remembering all this, we may ask the following ques
tions : If the Jewish Scriptures had such circulation in
Babylon that Cyrus became acquainted with them, must
we not suppose that the learned Magians, his counsellors

VISIT OF THE WISE MEN. 13
and guardians, became even more thoroughly acquainted
with them? And if the Magians studied the sacred
books of the Jews generally, must we not think that their
attention would be specially directed to the -writings of
Daniel, their cotemporary and companion, whose writings
constituted a part of those sacred books ? And, if the
Magians of that day had special familiarity with the
¦writings of Daniel, would not the Magians of a later
day, their successors, have those particular expectations
of the Coming One which the -writings of Daniel would
give? All this probable conjecture receives confirmation from
the fact that while Daniel alone, of all the prophets, re
cords the exact time of Messiah's birth, he reckons the
time from a date in the ci-vdl history of the Persians. It
is " from the going forth of the commandment (of Cyrus)
to restore and build Jerusalem," that the weeks of Dan
iel's prophecy proceed.
Now, examining that celebrated prophecy, we find an
exact and literal correspondence between its principal
terms and the several expressions of these -wise men.
And we find the prophecy to be of the precise character
to set such men upon the making, of precisely such a
visit as Matthew represents these wise men actually mak
ing. The conclusion seems irresistible that the expecta
tions and conduct and language of these men were founded
directly upon that prophecy.
All that was needed, in their state of mind, to send
them upon their visit, was the suggestion of some visible
sign. They being astrologers, and ever watching the
heavens for tokens of earthly occurrences, no wonder
that when, at the exact time mentioned by Daniel as

14 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
that of Messiah's birth, they saw an extraordinary ap
pearance in the heavens, they cried. It is " his star."*
And when Daniel spoke of no other place than " the holy
city," in connection with the Messiah, no wonder that
they oame to Jerusalem seeking him, and asking, " Where
is hef" When Daniel called the predicted One the
" Messiah," no wonder that they so explained themselves
that Herod demanded of the assembled Council " where
Christ should be born." And when Daniel spoke of
Messiah as " the Prince," no wonder that they brought
royal gifts, and asked, " Where is he that is born Mn^
of the Jews?"
These wise men, as just observed, were astrologers.
They might also be called astronomers. In their studies,
doubtless, science and superstition mingled. Chaldean
Shepherds made the first recorded astronoinical observa
tions. And judicial astrology took its rise in the region
from which these Magians came. The very word magic,
looking so strongly to the frauds of superstition, has the
-•'' The Commentators, with great unanimity, connect the star of the
wise men with that predicted by Balaam. ,Num. xxiv. 17. The nature
of any legitimate connection it is difficult to discern.
Supposing Balaam's prophecy to relate to the Messiah, are we to think
that Christ came as a star, only in the way of an extraordinary celestial
phenomenon, to be appreciated by a few heathen astrologers ? Messianic
prophecies are the perpetual heritage of the whole church. The Jews no
doubt construed this Tpvo]ihecj Jiguratively : they had no thought, in con
nection with it, of any literal star. And the views of the wise men con
cerning this prophecy, had they any knowledge of it, beyond question
would be adopted from the Jews.
But where is the evidence that the Jews regarded this as a Messianic
prophecy? And why are we to give it a Messianic character? (See
Hengstenberg's Christology.)
In any case, there seems to be no other connection between the star of
the wise men and that of Balaam's prophecy than a chance verbal coin
cidence.

VISIT OF THE WISE MEN. 15
same origin as the word Magian. Yet we find that God
gave these Magians a sign such as they would not fail to
observe and improve — a sign in the heavens — a star.
Behold here an evidence of God's condescending good
ness. He meets men wherever they go. He suffers
themto look nowhere for himself in vain.*
Yet it may be asked. Supposing that this sign in the
heavens fell in with the superstitions of astrology, and
wedded itself to them, would it not seem that God had
here granted his sanction to error ^f The words of Ne-
ANDEE are apt and unanswerable. "If it offends us
to find that God has used the errors of man to lead him
to a knowledge of the great truths of salvation, as if
thereby he had lent himself to sustain the false, then
must we break in pieces the chain of human events, in
which the true and the false, the good and the evil, are
so inseparably linked that the latter often serves for the
point of transition to the former. . . . God condescends
to the platforms of men, in training them for belief in
the Redeemer, and meets the aspirations of the truth-
seeking soul, even in its error."
* The >Iagi are led by a star; the fishermen by fishes, to the knowledge
of Christ. Bengel. t Strauss.

II.
The Baptism of Christ ; as illustrated by Bis Transftguratitm,
Matt. iii. 13-17 ; Matt. xvii. 1-5 ; with their parallels.
The Baptism and the Transfiguration have one grand
feature in common. It is the solemn recognition from
heaven, by God the Father, of Jesus as His approved
Son. A further, although less obvious correspondence be
tween these striking occurrences, is seen in the relations
which they respectively sustain to the public ministry of
Christ. The Baptism stands at the entrance of that mi
nistry considered as a whole. In it the Father, seemingly
for the encouragement of the Son in all his appointed
work, acknowledges and approves him. So the Transfi
guration stands at the entrance of that marked period
immediately preceding the death of Christ, for which all
that had as yet occurred was mainly a preparation ; the
period in which the special sufferings of our Lord were
held in direct prospect, were spoken of to the disciples, and
presently, in all their bitterness, were endured. As the
Baptism stands at the entrance of our Lord's ministry
considered as a whole, so the Transfiguration stands at
the entrance of what may be called his passive ministry.
As, in the former, the Father gives in advance a token
of approbation to his Son, adapted to encourage him in
the whole work before him ; so, in the latter, when the
16

BAPTISM AND TRANSFIGURATION. 17
Sa-viour's ministry is about to become most trying, and
when his appointed sufferings might seem to betoken the
Father's displeasure, he receives repeated and emphatic
assurance of the Father's steadfast favor.
Not, however, to dwell on this, we desire especially to
call attention to the difference in the heavenly testimony
given on these two occasions, and to what this difference
intimates. This difference is often overlooked ; and the
fiiilure to observe it has helped to form what must be
considered a very erroneous conception concerning the
Baptism. Comparing the narratives of these events, we shall
see that while, in connection -with the Transfiguration,
each of the three writers recording the event is careful
to give, as a part of the solemn utterance from heaven,
the injunction, "hear ye him," these writers uniformly
omit any such injunction in their accounts of the Baptism.
At the Baptism, the heavenly testimony, according to
Matthew, was in these words, "This is my beloved Son,
in whom I am well pleased." At the Transfiguration,
according to the same Evangelist, the voice out of the
cloud uttered precisely the same words, -with the addition
"hear ye him."
It is thus seen that, at the Transfiguration, the heavenly
voice was directed in part to the spectators of the sc^ne —
to Peter, James and John. And we know, from the
Scriptures elsewhere, that these spectators understood the
divine declaration.* At the Baptism, the spectators,
whoever they may have been, were not addressed at all.
From this difference, it is not difficult to infer, either,
that the Baptism was not witnessed by the multitudes
* 2 Pet. i. 16-18.
2 »

18 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
who were attending John's ministry, or, that witnessing
it, they were not permitted to hear intelligibly the heav
enly voice. And this inference we cannot but regard as
correct. The impression so common with casual readers of the
history, and even with popular commentators, that the
sublime attestation of the Messiahship of Jesus given
in connection with his Baptism, was directed to the peo
ple at large, and was understood by them, is scarcely cre
dible.* Had this been the case, would not the effect of
it have been stated ? No doubt had the people, eager
for the coming of their Messiah, been thus publicly as
sured from the skies that then* Messiah had come, and
had they beheld Jesus designated as such by heavenly
tokens, they would have become frantic with excitement,
and at once enthroned Jesus as the Successor of David.f
And how easy, in after years, had this occurrence been
of the sort imagined, for Jesus to have referred his ene
mies to it, when they so persistently demanded of him
a sign from heaven. Yet the event passed by, apparently
without effect upon the people, and is never referred to
again, except by the Baptist, who avers that, in his offi
cial character, he was permitted to witness the descent
upon Jesus of the Holy Spirit.J
The narrative speaks of the heavens being opened "to
him" — to Jesus ; as if the heavenly -witness was given
mainly for his sake. In the particular mention of the
Baptist, as also enjoying the sight of the descending
Spirit, is it not strongly intimated that the privilege was
limited to the Saviour and his Forerunner ?
Some persons may imagine, that since the people seem
* See Barnes, Jacobus, and others. f John vi. 15. t i. 32-34.

BAPTISM AND TRANSFIGURATION. 19
to have been present at the baptism of Jesus, they mvM
have seen what is spoken of as visible, and heard what
is spoken of as audible. But, even supposing that the
multitudes were present, which is not declared, and is
not at all certain,* it is enough to reply that here was a
miracle, and it is impossible for us to say where the mi
racle might begin and where end, whether it might not
extend to the eyes and ears of the people. When Paul
was converted, he heard an articulate voice addressing
him. His companions perceived only a sound or noise.f
When the voice came to Jesus out of the skies, declaring,
"I have both glorified it, and -will glorify it again," those
that stood by thought that it thundered.J So here ;
' whatever the people may have seen or heard probably
had for them no significance. For them, if anything
at all, it was simply a blinding flash, as of lightning,
and a stunning noise, as of thunder.
This point is of importance, from its relation to our Sa-
-\dour's whole course of procedure, in his public ministry,
in communicating the truth that he was the Messiah. It
is remarkable that he never made to the people an ex
plicit announcement of this truth. Farthest from it.
Here and there, privately, and to those prepared to re
ceive it, he made the truth kno-wn,§ but in his public
relations he handled it -with extreme caution. He per
mitted it to come upon the minds of the people only in
an indirect way and in the most gradual manner, like
the slow dawning of a great light. He often charged
those who -witnessed his most striking miracles, not to
•* Tholuck on John V. 36-38. -j- Acts ix. 7 ; xxii. 9. JJohnxii. 29.
? John i. 41, 49 ; iv. 26.

20 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
let them be known.* He would not suffer the devils to
speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.f
Now this whole procedure was self-consistent and is
perfectly intelligible, apart from the common conception
of the event before us ; yet it becomes utterly inexplica
ble, if we suppose that, in the very beginning of his mi
nistry, the truth of his Divine Sonship and Messiahship
was flashed on the minds of the whole nation. Nothing
but explicit statements of Scripture could justify this
"view. Not only are such statements wanting, but the
vie-w has no evidence of correctness whatever.
» Matt. viii. 4; Mark v. 43; Luke ix. 21. f Mark i. 25, 34.

III.
The Temptation in, the Wilderness ; as illustrated by Christ's Mebiike
of Peter.
Matt. iv. 10 ; xvi. 23. Also their parallels.
On two occasions, -widely separated, we find our Sav
iour uttering the self-same words of stern reprimand,'
" Get thee behind me, Satan."* The one of these was
that of the Temptation in the Wilderness. On this oc
casion, three distinct assaults upon the Saviour were made
by the great Adversary. The last of these, it would
seem, was that in which the Tempter, having taken the
Saviour up into a high mountain, showed him all the
kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, and ten
dered these to him on condition that he would fall down
and worship him. This assault appears to have been
the most determined and desperate on the part of the
Tempter, and the most trying and grievous to the Sav
iour. Whatever disguise the Adversary may have as
sumed, he was now fully recognized in his proper char
acter, as the hideous Prince of -wickedness, and speedily
does the vehement rebuke of the Holy One put him to
flight.t * The self-same in the latest Greek editions.
f We have given above our own impression concerning the actual order
of the second and third assaults of Satan, following Matthew's arrange
ment rather than that of Luke. The remarks on this point of Westcott,
"Introduction to the Study of the Gospels," pp. 316, 317, are highly sug-
21

22 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
The other occasion of our Saviour's uttering the same
reprimand, was not one in which the devil appeared in
person. Only the disciples were present. And the rep
rimand was directed to a prominent apostle, who had
just before witnessed that good confession of Jesus as the
Christ which brought from the Master's lips the em
phatic commendation, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-
jona." Yet the reprimand, while directed to Peter, was
administered again upon the great Adversary. Peter is
not named, nor recognized, in the language of the Sav
iour. As though the disciple were absent, and only his
old enemy again confronted him, Christ once more ex
claims, " Get thee behind me, Satan !"
This extraordinary language, never used at any other
time, indicates an essential identity in the occasions which
called for it. If, in the wilderness, Jesus was tempted of
the devil, so was he when " Peter took him, and began
to rebuke him, saying. Be it far from thee. Lord : this
shall not be unto thee." And whatever the character
of the temptation in the wilderness, when the devil ten
dered the Saviour the kingdoms of the world and their
glory, the same temptation was again urged, in the re
monstrance and pleading of Peter. Such, at least, is the
probable inference. ^
This being , the case, the one of these occasions may be
gestive. " The representative points of the temptation, for the narratives
imply much which they do not contain, are given in each case in the order
which preserves a climax from the particular position occupied by the
writer. . . . The sequence is one of idea, and not of time. The incidents
are given wholly without any temporal connection in St. Luke, and the
language of St. Matthew is more definite only in appearance. The nar
rative, indeed, is one which may perhaps help to show the impossibility
of applying to things 'Spiritual and eternal that 'phantom of succession,'
in the shadow of which we are commonly forced to speak and act."

THE TEMPTATION IN THE WILDERNESS. 23
taken to illustrate the other ; the clearer character of
the temptation in the case of Peter, may be permitted
to throw light on the character, and hence on the cir
cumstances, of the temptation as it occurred in the wil
derness. We need not now trouble ourselves -with the view of
some expositors, that the whole scene of temptation in
the wilderness was without objective reality, having oc
curred to our Sa-viour when he was in an extasy or
trance, and that it possesses only a symbolic significance.
The evidences of the reality of the occurrence are numer
ous and overwhelming. But rejecting this view, the
quastion still remains, how far the records concerning
this occurrence are to be literally interpreted. Did- the
Wicked One approach the Saviour in visible form, and
utter in his ears an audible voice, and convey him through
the air to a pinnacle of the temple, and take him again
to the summit of a mountain and expose to his actual
view the empires of the whole world? Or did the
temptation begin and end in the desert, the Wicked One
being personally, though not visibly, present ; and exert
ing his full power upon the Saviour, yet not by audible
words and visible scenes, but by the forcible suggestion
of such thoughts and such objects as he hoped would be
enticing ?
Upon these questions, the temptation by Peter may
throw needed light. If we adopt the literal view, we
must believe, for example, concerning the third tempta
tion in the wilderness, that the devil, having actually
rapt the Saviour away from the pinnacle of the temple,
carried him to the top of a mountain frojp. which a view
was had of the whole world. Here we encounter the

24 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
difficulty, that a view of the whole world from the lofti
est mountain-summit is a physical impossibility. Fur
ther, we must believe that the Tempter sought to obtain
from the Saviour, under the fascinations of visible earthly
splendor, and in the prospect of attaining the highest
worldly grandeur, an act of outward personal homage ;
for the language of the Tempter is, " All these things
will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me."
The idea that the homage asked for was of such sort
seems puerile. It has been well said that " no extraor
dinary degree of piety would have been necessary to
rebuke such a proposal as this."
Turning to the temptation which Peter occasioned the
Master, we may learn that this third temptation in the
wilderness was something different from what the Uteral
theory supposes. It was essentially this : — a forcible sug
gestion to the mind of Jesus, that he should abandon his
intention of establishing his Messianic kingdom in the
world simply upon a spiritual basis — by means of weari
some instruction, and self-denying toils, and an igno
minious death ; and, instead of this, accept the powerftil
aid of the god of this world in establishing that kingdom
as a universal empire on the basis of the kingdoms and
the glory of the world.
Let us review the narrative which exhibits the conduct
of Peter and the significance of his remonstrance with
the Master. The record in Matthew is as follows:
" From that time forth 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, a^jd be raised again the third day." Our
Saviour was just entering upon a new era in his minis-

THE TEMPTATION IN THE WILDERNESS. 25
try, in which his special sufferings and coming death
were held in prominent view.* To help prepare his
disciples for receiving his instructions upon this subject,
he had just brought from them the solemn avowal of
their faith in him as the Messiah.f His first announce
ment of the great truth that the Messiah must suffer,
made in the language just cited, startled the disciples.
It was both surprising and distasteful. It produced, no
doubt, a sudden and profound revulsion of feeling.
" What ! their M.ister taken from them : his enemies
successful against him and triumphing in his death!
And he consenting to it ! It must not be." Such were
their thoughts. And Peter, ever more forward than the
rest, ventured to lead the Master aside, and not only to
remonstrate against such teaching, but actually to reprove
the Master and protest against his proposed course. That
course, thought Peter, would be fatal to the prospects
both of the Master and of his disciples. Instead of this,
Jesus might better proceed at once to " restore again the
kingdom to Israel."
And then it was that Jesus, discerning herein not
merely the working of an unworthy feeling on the part
of an imperfect disciple, but, further than this, the direct
agency of the devil, who for the time was making use of
the disciple as the vehicle for renewing his most mighty
temptation, administers the stunning rebuke already cited.
The prospect of his dying for the life of the world, of his
ushering in his kingdom by the birth-pangs of his own
humiliations even unto death — this was at the moment
in the full view of the Saviour ; and the contemplation
of it was painful enough for his flesh without the super-
* See Chs. II. and XII. f Matt. xvi. 16.
3 B

26 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
added and wicked suggestions of the Tempter, that he
might forego this in behalf of an easier way, that he
might meet the desires and expectations of his disciples
and of the whole people in assuming the throne of David
and setting up a grand temporal kingdom ; so that -with
instant and vehement resentment, he stops the mouth of
the disciple, and repels the Tempter.
Viewing the third assault of the Adversary in the
wilderness in the light of this temptation by Peter, and
learning thereby to interpret as figurative the language
concerning a personal homage to Satan on bended knees,
and concerning an actual sight of the empires of the
world from a mountain-height ; learning thereby to re
gard this third onset of the Tempter as a suggestion to
the mind of Jesus that he should forego the career of
humiliation opening before him, and secularize his king
dom ; we can readily discern in the proceeding that which
would have, even with the Holy One, the character and
the force of a mighty temptation.*
In his forty days' seclusion in the desert, the Sav
iour had doubtless been meditating upon his great work,
about to be undertaken, of inauguratmg the kingdom of
God. Probably this work had presented itself to his
mind in its many discouraging aspects. He well knew
the opposition he would encounter in preaching his self-
*¦ "Looking at the matter, then, from all sides, we may sum up the
meaning of the temptation of Jesus thus ; In the decisive rejection of the
false ajid the adoption of the true idea of the Messiah, in the refusal of a
worldly kingdom and the choice of the kingdom of God, a triumph was
gained over the power of evil generally, and this achievement not only
evinced the capability of Jesus to found a Divine kingdom, but constituted
him for all -times the prototype of victory over every species of tempta
tion.'' Ullmann's Sinlessness of Jesus.

THE TEMPTATION IN THE WILDERNESS. 27
denying doctrines. He' well knew the disappointment
he would occasion the people, who in their Messiah were
anticipating a glorious temporal deliverer. And, beyond
doubt, his natural feelings contemplated the prospect with
a painful shrinking. This being so, the Adversary, in this
third assault, having some understanding of the burden
oppressing the mind of Jesus, seeks by skillful suggestion
to divert him from his purpose. He endeavors to per
suade him to meet the carnal expectation of the people
by allying himself with worldly power. He pictures to
the imagimation of Jesus the glorious career which would
at once open to him, consenting thus to modify his plans.
And he pledges his own powerful influence for the exal
tation of Jesus, as Prince of a universal world-dominion
and Lord of all earthly grandeur. But for the Saviour
to yield to this suggestion, and accept the aid of the god
of this world, what were it but to become the vassal of
the Wicked One ? what were it but to do him worship ?
And the bold assault, in which the Tempter seems to
have gathered and applied his whole force, is promptly
and successfully repelled. Adapted to be powerful, the
temptation exerts no power. Hurled with might, it but
rebounds with the greater violence, and with the more
complete destruction to itself, like shattered glass from
marble floor.
The prompt and indignant rebuke of the Saviour sends
the Adversary from his presence, doubtless in mortifica
tion and rage.

IV.
The Contempt of H'athanael for Nazareth, connected with tite fact
. that he belonged to Cana of Galilee,
John i. 46 ; xxi. 2.
When Philip, full of joy at his recent acquaintance
with Jesus, makes the announcement to Nathanael, "We
have found him of whom Moses in the law and the pro
phets did -write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph,"
Nathanael exclaims, " Can there any good thing come out
of Nazareth?"
The question occurs, why this extreme disparagement
of the village to which our Saviour belonged, by this
particular person?
It is commonly imagined that Nathanael herein merely
exhibits an acquiescence in the general opinion that "no
nrophet," much less "The Prophet," should arise out of
Ualilee, Nazareth being a village of Galilee.* It may
well be doubted, however, whether at this time there was
any such prevalent opinion. Probably this opinion was
not advanced until Jesus had fully entered on his public
ministry and the impression was becoming current that
he was a mighty prophet of God. And it seems alto
gether natural to suppose that it was then announced as
a dictum of the Scribes, and that its promulgation was
one of the measures concerted by the enemies of Jesus
•'' John vii. 62.
28

NATHANABL'S CONTEMPT FOR NAZARETH. 29
for discrediting his divine commission and checking his
growing popularity.* Besides, the language of Natha
nael expresses more than a mere incredulity concerning
Galilee being the native country of any prophet. His
language is that not of incredulity, but of positive con
tempt. It instances not Galilee but Nazareth. It doubts
whether any good thing by possibility can come out of
Nazareth. And that this contempt was felt for Nazareth
rather than Ga,lilee, seems further probable from the fact
that Nathanael belonged to Galilee. As Alford observes,
"It is impossible that Nathanael, himself a Galilean,
could speak from any feeling of contempt for Galilee
generally." And although the word "Nazarene" was by
and by used contemptuously, in connection with the
name of our Saviour, even according to the predictions
referred to by Matthew, f Nazareth being a mere -village
of outlying Galilee, and being viewed in contrast with
the historic towns of Judea, and especially in contrast
with Jerusalem, there seems to be no good evidence that
among Galileans generally Nazareth was held in special
dishonor. None of the other apostles are at any time
represented as asking any such question as this of Na
thanael. How then came it to pass that just Nathanael, and
nobody else, should have been prompted to ask this
question ?
The inquiry is of no great importance, except as its
answer may bring to view another of those unintended
and minute evidences of truthfulness, which abound in
these records. In this instance, a most natural and gra
phic touch is imparted to the historic picture, exhibiting
-«- John vii. 40-43. f Matt. ii. 23.
3 ¦»

30 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
what is universally recognized as the truth of common
life. When we reflect for a moment, do we not see that the
question of Nathanael would come most naturally from
one who was familiarly acquainted with the localities
about Nazareth ? Who else would be likely to interest
himself in the comparative merits of Nazareth and other
villages of Galilee ? And do we not see further, that if
Nazareth would be despised by any, it would be by the
inhabitants of neighboring and rival villages ? A citizen
of Capernaum might speak disparagingly of the -villages
of Galilee generally, as inferior to his own town, but he
would not naturally depreciate any one of them in any
marked manner. But the world over, the people of con
tiguous towns indulge in feelings of foolish mutual con
tempt, and vilify each other's locality. If, therefore, we
should discover that Nathanael actually belonged to the
same part of Galilee with our Saviour, and especially if
we should discover that he belonged to a village near to
Nazareth, we should feel that his question concerning
Nazareth had the appearance of the greatest possible nat
uralness. Well, we tiu-n from the first chapter of John's gospel,
where Nathanael is first introduced into the history, and
where he proposes his question concerning Nazareth, to
the last chapter, where alone he again appears by this
name, and we find that, in the most casual way, Na
thanael is mentioned as belonging to " Cana of Galilee."*
This was the village where Mary the mother of Jesus
had friends, and where at the wedding-feast she seemed
at home.t Cana thus appears in the history as a place
« John xxi. 2. -j- John ii. 5.

NATHANAEL'S CONTEMPT POR NAZARETH. 31
probably not remote from Nazareth. But, further than
this, Cana has been recently identified by Dr. Robinson,
as only some six or seven miles distant from Nazareth.
" From the Wely above Nazareth, our friend Abu Nazir
pointed out to us a ruin called Kana-el-Jelil, on the
Northern side of the plain el-Buttauf, about N. i E.,
from Nazareth, and not far from three hours distant."*
This place, rather than Kefr Kenna, only one and a half
hours from Nazareth, Robinson, from the identity of
names, as well as from other considerations, accounts the
Cana of the gospels.
Precisely he who asked, " Can there any good thing
come out of Nazareth ?" of all others whose place of resi
dence is given in the history, was he who lived nearest
to the village where Jesus was brought up, and was
therefore most likely to ask just such a question. Yet
the information needed to bring together the elements of
probable truth, as we have seen, is furnished only in the
most incidental Avay.
It is generally held by Biblical scholars that Nathanael
was identical with the Apostle Bartholomew. And it
may be worth while just to mention here, as a pleasing
coincidence, which does not require exposition in a sep
arate chapter, that while Nathanael is represented as hav
ing been found and brought to Jesus by Philip, the two
apostles, Philip and Bartholomew, are inseparable in the
catalogues given of the twelve by the Evangelists, and
were probably close companions in their apostolic min
istry. * Roeinsoh's Palestine, vol. iii. pp. 204-5.

T.
The Sealing of the Paralytic and of the Infirm Man Compared.
Mark ii. 1-12; John v. 1-9.
The miracles of Christ were acts of self-revelation.
In them were exhibited the various attributes of the
God-man. The Son of God came in the nature of man
to perform the work of Redemption. His miracles were
a part of his work. Hence they were acts of redemp
tion, manifesting the grace and the power of the Saviour,
and were typical of the full work in which man is re
deemed unto God. This is most evidently true of the
miracles of healing.
In two cases of miraculous healing, our Saviour gave
the command, " Rise, take up thy bed and walk." The
one was that of the man " sick of the palsy, which was
borne of four," who was let do-wn into our Lord's pres
ence through the uncovered roof. This is recorded by
the first three Evangelists. The other was that of the
man by the pool of Bethesda, " which had an infirmity
thirty and eight years." This is recorded by the Evan
gelist John. According to the Harmonists, the latter
of these cures followed closely upon the former.
These cures, in their principal features, were strikingly
alike. In both, Jesus issued the same injunction to the
helpless invalid, and in both the grand demonstration of
the reality and perfection of the cure was the man's rising
32

THE PARALYTIC AND THE INFIRM MAN. 33
from the bed, which had been the near witness and sup
porting companion of his helplessness, and bearing it as
if in triumph away.
There is, however, a difference in the accounts of the
two cases, which, although at first sight apparently casual,
yet upon closer consideration is found to have an instruc-
vtive meaning. In the one case, the narrative states, that
at the command of Christ, " immediately he arose, took
up the bed, and went forth before them all." In the
other case, the language is, " And immediately the man
was made whole, and took up his bed and walked."
Thus it would seem that the Paralytic was not cured,
in whole or in part, and of course had no evidence with
in himself of being cured, until he actually complied with
the Saviour's command. Life came into his palsied frame
and limbs, in the endeavor to rise and walk. But the
Infirm man, if we may closely follow the record, was first
healed, even as he lay ; and having some evidence of the
reality of his cure already in possession, was encouraged to
try his new strength in obeying the Saviour's command,
thus receiving confirmation of the reality of his cure.
Thus interpreting the records, we may, by an inspec
tion of the frill narrative in each case, perceive a differ
ence in the dreumstances of the two cures, admirably cor
responding to the difference in the cures themselves.
The Paralytic belonged to Capernaum, the Galilean
home of Jesus, one of those cities in which he performed
"most of his mighty works." The previous narrative
shows that already Jesus had wrought in this vicinity
miracles of healing, and that just now his ministry was
attended by enthusiastic multitudes. Evidently the sick
man, and his friends who brought him to Jesus, had
B-«-

34 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
knowledge of these miracles, and had faith in Christ's
gracious power. The invalid himself may have been
oppressed with desponding doubts concerning the willing
ness of Christ to heal one so unworthy as himself, but
these doubts must have speedily given way under the in
spiring words of the Master, " Son, be of good cheer ; thy
sins be forgiven thee." (Matthew.) It was not until
after this indication of the Saviour's merciful disposition
and divine authority, and not until after the explicit
assertion of his authority against the scribes present who
were disposed to question it ; it was not indeed until after
he had given distinct intimation that^fe was about to heal
the Paralytic by a word, and expectation, in the whole
assembly and in the bosom of the invalid himself, was
roused to the highest pitch of eagerness, that Jesus gave
the command, " Rise, take up thy bed and walk." The
narrative runs as follows : " Whether is it easier to say to
the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee ; or to
say. Arise, take up thy bed and walk? But that ye may
know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive
sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy) I say unto thee.
Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine
house." Thus, in the case of the Paralytic, a sufficient basis for
active faith already existed, in the full acquaintance of
the man with the Sa-viour ; and the word of command
carrying with it the strong assurance that healing would
come in the very effort to obey, the man had sufficient
encouragement to make the effort, even in advance of all
signs that the cure had begun. ,
The Infirm man, on the other hand, belonged to Jeru
salem. He lay in one of the porches of the pool of

THE PARALYTIC AND THE INFIRM MAN. 35
Bethesda, " by the sheep-gate." And Jesus had been but
little in the sacred city. He was little known there.
This man might possibly have heard of the Galilean pro
phet, but even if so, he did not now recognize Jesus as
he. Even after his cure, he " wist not who it was " that
had healed him. Thus there was no basis for faith in
the command of Christ, "Rise, take up thy bed and
walk." Such a command, unattended by any evidence
of its divine authority, must have seemed a mockery, and
the poor man, wounded in spirit, would have refused any
attempted compliance with it. There must, indeed, have
been something in the question of Jesus, and in his
whole bearing toward the invalid, adapted to win his at
tention. Yet, when the great Physician, drawn to that
place of suffering, as we may suppose, through his un
ceasing sympathy for stricken humanity, and selecting the
person whose case was probably most pitiable of all, and
whose spiritual condition in all likelihood was best
adapted to receive a saving blessing from the Redeemer's
gracious interposition — when Jesus approached the poor
man with the strange question, "Wilt thou be made
whole?" the answer is not that of kindled expectation, as
though relief were at hand, nor are the regards of the man
fixed upon his questioner, as though he could do him any
good. His reply is that of the long disappointed invalid,
cherishing only a bare hope that at some time the waters
of this pool may yet be his cure. He says, " Sir, I have no
man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool ;
but while I am coming, another steppeth down before
me." And, in immediate connection with this despond
ing reply, Jesus bids him rise and walk^
No wonder, then, that the record runs, first, " and im-

36 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
mediately the man was made whole," and secondly, " and
took up his bed and walked." The miracle was wrought
before the man attempted obedience. In the absence of
other means of faith, he first had e-vidence of Christ's
power in himself, and acted upon that. 'H.efelt the sud
den incoming of strength, the joyful tides of a new life,
and herein recognizing the divine authority of him who
spoke, leaped to obey him.
And even thus, it may be said, there are differences in
the methods of grace, whereby men, helpless in sin, are
brought to the enjoyment of spiritual strength. He who
has been educated amidst Christian infiuences, has ac
quired a knowledge of divine truth, and has become
familiar by observation with God's miracle of conversion,
is commonly required to assume the vows of the Christian
profession, and commence openly the Christian life, with
out any previous assurance of a change of heart. Taking
God at his word, confiding in the promise that strength
shall be equal to the day, and actually undertaking the
discharge of Christian duty, assurance comes to such an
one in these very efforts. Thus his conversion is like the
healing of the Paralytic.
On the other hand, he who being greatly ignorant of
religious things is called by God's grace into the Chris
tian life, not unfrequently has, at the outset, a marked
experience of divine power in his heart. He feels differ
ently, and hence acts differently. His eyes are opened,
his ears are unstopped, his soul is melted, and he moves
forward under the impulses of the new life throbbing
within him. Thus his conversion is like the healing of
the Infirm man. ^

VI.
The Woman wlio was a Sinner, and Cltrist's G^'acioiis Invitation,
Luke vii. 36-60 ; Matt. xi. 28-30.
Who was this woman, and how came she to act in the
manner described ?
By many persons it is assumed that the woman who
here anointed the feet of our Saviour, was none other
than Mary Magdalene. And this woman being repre
sented as formerly a notoriously dissolute person, " a sin
ner," this is the character popularly ascribed to Mary.
Hence the name " Magdalen," commonly applied to vile
women who have become penitent, and to the institutions
devoted to their reformation.
There is, however, no evidence that Mary Magdalene
was such a person. True, her name appears in Luke's
gospel soon after this scene of the anointing.* Yet the
names of other women are given along with hers, " Jo
anna, the wife of Chuza," and "Susanna." And the
reason assigned for these women, Mary included, having
attached themselves to the company of Christ, is not the
reason which the Saviour's gracious treatment of " the
sinner " would have supplied, but the fact that they had
been "healed of evil spirits and infirmities." These
women, too, " ministered unto him of their substance ;"
they were women of wealth and social position, which ill
*' Luke viii. 2.
4 37

38 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
accords with the supposition that any of them had been
women of the town.
It is indeed said of Mary Magdalene, just in this place,
that out of her " went seven devils ;" yet this does not
argue her pre-sdous dissolute character ; for possession
was more nearly allied to disease and insanity, than to
moral impurity. This may be inferred not only from
general statements of the gospel -writers, but also from
specific cases. For example, the demoniac boy, whom
the disciples could not relieve, had suffered a dreadful
possession from his very childhood.* Of course, the
idea of a previous dissolute life is here precluded.
Is it not time that intelligent readers of the gospels
had dismissed from their minds all association of the
Magdalene with the depraved of her sex ?
But this anointing, recorded by Luke, is often con
founded with another, mentioned by the other Evangel
ists, in which Mary of Bethany is the actor, f The rea
sons for imagining these to be the same, frequently given,
are the following : First, the close general similarity be
tween them ; Secondly, the fact that, in both instances,
the ho.st is named Simon ; and. Thirdly, the fact that, in
both instances, offence is taken at the conduct of the woman.
To this it may be replied, First, that in the course of
the three years of our Saviour's ministry, some similar
events might very naturally occur. We know that there
were two similar miracles of feeding the multitudes, and
two of taking great draughts of fishes, and that on two
occasions the Pharisees demanded of Christ a sign from
heaven, in both of which he replied to them in the same
way. Further, there are important differences in the
» Mark ix. 21. f Matt. xxvi. 6-13, and parallels.

THE WOMAN WHO WAS A SINNER. 39
two anointings. They differ in the time and the place
of their occurrence ; the evidences all going to show that
this, recorded by Luke, occurred in a city of Galilee —
probably Capernaum — and in the midst of our Lord's
ministry, while that recorded by the others occurred at
Bethany, near the close of his ministry. Moreover,
nothing can be argued from the identity of the names
of the hosts ; for Simon was one of the most common
of names, there being two Simons, for example, in the
little xiompany of the Twelve. Besides, these Simons
are distinguished from each other, the one being Simon
" the Pharisee," and the other Simon " the leper." Still
ftirther, while, in both instances, offence was taken at
the act of anointing, it was by different persons in the
two cases, here by the Pharisee, there by Christ's own
disciples. Indeed, the idea of Christ being familiarly entertained
by a Pharisee at Bethany, on the eve of his crucifixion,
is preposterous. Who can imagine that, when the ma
lignity of the Pharisees had been intensified to the ut
most, and was impatiently awaiting its opportunity to
murder Jesus; this malignity, too, having reached its
last degree of exasperation by the miracle of raising Laz
arus from the dead, our Saviour should have been found
publicly feasting "with the Pharisees, in the imrne-
diate neighborhood of Jerusalem, with Lazarus as a
prominent fellow-guest? Yet this we must believe, if
we regard the two accounts of the anointing as relating
to the same occurrence.
Evidently the supper at Bethany was of a simple sort.
The scene is domestic ; the guests are a few devoted dis-

40 HOURS AMONG T^E GOSPELS.
ciples ; the entertainers are friends of Jesus. The dinner
at the Pharisee's house was different in all these respects.
If this reasoning be conclusive, we are relieved from
the otherwise necessary yet startling inference, that the
gentle Mary of Bethany had been a woman of infamous
reputation.* The way is now prepared for bringing together the
two passages referred to at the outset. The illustration
which is thereby secured, is the more deeply impressive,
regarding the nameless woman who here exhibits such
depth of contrition and such tenderness of devotion, as
not Mary Magdalene, not Mary of Bethany, but as one
appearing now for the first time in the history, and then
lost wholly from view.
The conduct of the woman does not need to be de
scribed. The graphic language of the Evangelist sets
before our eyes a full and vivid picture. " And behold,
a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew
that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought
an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind
him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and
did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his
feet, and anointed them with the ointment."
At first, the Saviour does not seem to heed this con
duct, either to approve or disapprove it. In silence he
permits the woman to make her heart's offerin^g, in her
chosen way ; permits her to satisfy her own sweet will.
And it is enough for her that she is unrebuked. The
strong and affectionate desire to honor her Lord, will not
be discouraged by anything short of positive prohibition.
* The author of tbe^" Prince of the House of David" might well have
spared himself a silly invention on this point.

THE WOMAN WHO WAS A SINNER. 41
Presently, when occasion offers, Jesus evinces his de
lighted approbation. He welcomes all that she has done,
as loving evidence of her true faith. And he gives her
an abundant reward for her work of love, in the assur
ance that her many sins are all forgiven, and in his ben
ediction of peace.
Now, in reading this narrative, we can hardly help
endeavoring to conjecture the way by which this woman
had been brought to such an acquaintance -with the Sav
iour, as led her to act in the manner described. She
must at some time have attended on his personal minis
try. And so doing, what gracious words must she have
heard, what exhibitions of Divine compassion witnessed,
and what inspirations of blessed hope enjoyed, to bring
her to his feet thus dissolved in penitence and love !
But when had she thus been won from the ways of sin,
and made a true disciple ? When had she been brought
to the step of decision, and notwithstanding all her op
pressive sense of dreadful guilt, and all her apprehensions
that the might and mercy of the Saviour might not reach
even to her, ventured to think of him as her loving Re
deemer ? What was the special occasion — what the ex
hibition of Christ's unlimited power, or the declaration
of his universal compassion — which had ended her weary
struggles, swept away all distrust, and wrought the joyful
confidence that his salvation was hers ?
How naturally do such questions arise ! In frequent
instances, similar questions can be met only by vague
and worthless conjecture. And can these be any better
met ? We reply that they can — that they admit of an
answer highly probable, and full of delightful interest.

4 *

42 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
Let us see how tlie answer is reached, and what it actually
is. Immediately preceding this narrative of the anointing
inT/uke, we have the interview with Jesus of the mes
sengers of John the Baptist, and the remarks of our
Saviour thereby occasioned. Looking now to the elev
enth chapter of Matthew, we find that it is mainly occu
pied with tlie same matter. And we find that the dis
course of our Saviour there given, following the interview
with the Baptist's messengers, a discourse connected in
all its parts and complete as a whole, winds up with that
most tender of all the entreaties of Divine compassion —
which has therefore obtained the appellation of the Sav
iour's " Gracious Invitation " — " Come unto me all ye
that labor and are heavy laden, and I -will give you
rest."* Now Luke, who gives only a portion of the
* Not only is there a close connection in thought, in all this discourse,
which some would be ready to ascribe to the happy arrangement of the
Evangelist, rather than to the Saviour's actual utterance, but there are
noteB of time in the transitions from one portion of the discourse to an
other, which determine the arrangement as that of the speaker rather than <
the writer. Thus we have, at the 20th verse, "Then began he;" and, at
the 26th verse, "At that time Jesus answered."
The objection that portions of this discourse are represented by Luke as
having been spoken at a time subsequent to this (Luke x. 13-22) amounts
to nothing. These reflections of Jesus were doubtless frequently indulged,
and might very naturally be repeatedly uttered.
We find Alford writing thus :' " The whole chapter stands in such close
connection, one part arising out of another, and all pervaded by the same
great undertone, which sounds forth iu vv. 28-30, that it is quite impossi
ble that this should be a collection of our Lord's sayings uttered at differ
ent times." Thus also Stier : " What St. Matthew communicates in this
entire chapter, is a progressive series of sayings, spoken in continuation,
just as they are here connected; and forming one great concerted dis
course, gradually advancing towards its climax, which in vv. 27-30, gives
the most complete an.-wer tn the question which had been received."

THE WOMAN WHO WAS A SINNER. 43
Saviour's discourse, omitting the Gracious Invitation,
records next, and as if occurring immediately upon the
close of this discourse, the entrance of Jesus into the
Pharisee's house, and his anointing by this woman who
was a sinner. Thus, when we harmonize the narrative,
the words of the Gracious Invitation are seen to be the
last which Jesus publicly uttered, before taking his place
at the Pharisee's table.*
Does it not hence appear in the highest degree proba
ble, that what decided this woman, bringing her to full
and happy faith, was this discourse of the Saviour, and
especially its closing invitation of Divine mercy; and
that she went from hearing and receiving that in-vitation
into the Pharisee's house, to declare, in the affecting
manner described, her newly inspired devotion ?
And thus was this poor woman, this outcast and deso
late one, the first, in the long list of the burdened and
broken-hearted, whom these precious words have reached,
and rescued from despair, and brought to the fulness of
Divine hope. '
'¦' See Robinson's Harmony.

VII.
Sudden Oufbreah of Pharisaic JBCostility j and its Immediate Occa
sion,
Matt. xii. 24r-37, and parallel passages.
One of the most noticeable features in the gospel his
tory, is the growth of Pharisaic hatred and opposition,
corresponding to the growth of Christ's popularity and
the extension of his influence.
Jerusalem was the stronghold of Pharisaism. Our
Lord began his formal public labors in Jerusalem and
its -vicinity, but owing to the jealousy of the Pharisees
soon withdrew from Judea to remoter Galilee.*
Yet, even in Galilee, he was soon waited on and
watched, not only by resident Pharisees, but by those
delegated for the purpose and sent down from Jerusa-
lem.f Such a delegation witnessed the miracle here re
corded, — that of casting out the devil, blind and dumb, —
and led in the ensuing conversation.!
The hostility of the Pharisees, before this miracle was
-wrought, had become well pronounced. Yet never had
it made such exhibition of itself as it now made. Here
was a sudden outburst of opposition, not indeed in any
form of physical -violence, yet in a form none the less ex
pressive of malignant desperation. It makes hot and
-* John iv. 3 ; 43-45. f Luke v. 17.
t Mark iii. 22, compared with Matt, and Luke.
44

OUTBREAK- OF PHARISAIC HOSTILITY. 45
energetic effort for the immediate and total destruction
of our Saviour's influence over the people. These Phari
sees, having witnessed the amazing miracle, in which a
demoniac was healed by the power of Jesus, and being
unable to deny the fact of a miracle, account for it by de
claring that Jesus is in league with Beelzebub, the Prince
of the devils. They seek to overwhelm him, by the con
fident ascription to him of such odious and diabolic char
acter, as must have caused all who credited them to
shrink from him with horror. Their device is itself char
acterized by diabolic ingenuity.
And as the malignant hatred of these Pharisees is thus
suddenly roused, and is precipitated upon the unoffending
and holy One, performing a most gracious work of heal
ing, so, as we might well have imagined, his spirit is
stirred to oppose his enemies with a vehemence of argu
ment and a solemnity of warning, never before exhibited.
Having shown in a happy rejoinder, that Satan cannot
cast out Satan, and that if he may rightly be charged -cith
having an unclean spirit, so may their own admired
exorcists, he turns their minds to the consequences of
their rejecting him, bringing to them as he does the king
dom of God, and declares the terrible doom of those who
blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.*
The question occurs, what was it that, on this occasion,
aroused the fierce opposition of the enemies of Jesus?
Cures of demoniacs had before been wrought by the

-* How deeply the heart of Jesus was grieved by this vile charge of his
enemies, we might infer from the way in which he recalled and signalized
it, on the occasion of his sending forth the Twelve. " If they have called
the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them
of his household." Matt. x. 25.

46 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
Sa-viour. And, as the whole history shows, he had re
cently performed other miracles, in great number and
variety, in circumstances of greater or less publicity. It
is hardly satisfactory to suppose that the mere perform
ance of an additional similar miracle should, of itself,
have occasioned this outburst of vindictive passion.
The clue to an explanation completely satisfactory is
given by Matthew, in a statement omitted by those other
evangelists who narrate the charge of the Pharisees. It
is the statement that, in view of this miracle, "all the
people were amazed, and said. Is not this the Son of
David f"
This quiet statement may be easily passed over, in a
hurried reading, without a thought of its peculiar signifi
cance. " The Son of David," imports nothing less than the
long looked-for Messiah, the mighty Deliverer of Israel.
And the question, whether Jesus is not he, now eagerly
and expectantly asked, shows that the multitudes in at
tendance on the ministry of Jesus, and witnesses of the
miracle just wrought, were rapidly coming to the belief
that Jesus was the Messiah.
Not long before this, as the Harmonists show, Jesus
had raised to life the son of the widow of Nain. And in
connection with that miracle, as we are told, " there came
a fear on all ; and they glorified God, saying. That a great
Prophet is risen up among us ; and that God hath visited
his people. And this rumor of him went forth through
out all Judea, and throughout all the region round
about."* That miracle evidently produced a new im
pression, concerning the person who was performing these
marvellous works. He was assuredly God's own mighty
^ Luke vii. 16, 17.

OUTBREAK OF PHARISAIC HOSTILITY. 47
messenger — perhaps the Messiah himself. And this new
impression became widely prevalent.
Directly after this, it would appear, John sent his
messengers to Jesus, inquiring "Art thou he that should
come, or look we for another?" Art thou indeed the
Messiah? And the answer and discourse of Jesus, fol
lowing upon this, must have tended to confirm the popu
lar impression previously received, and to lead the people
to think, even more distinctly than before, that Jesus
might be the Messiah.
And now, when a new miracle is -wrought before their
eyes, in which, by a single exertion of the power of Jesus,
a demon is expelled, the dumb is made to speak, and the
blind to see, the people, previously excited to eager ex
pectation, can no longer refrain from expressing their
ardent hope, and they pass round the earnest inquiry,
"Is not this the Son of David?" Must he not be, in
very truth, our Messiah? "When Messias cometh, will
he do more miracles than this man doeth?" And pro
bably the popular excitement, rapidly kindled, was just
ready to break forth in mighty conflagration.
And hence the vigorous promptness of the interposi
tion of the Pharisees. The popular acknowledgment
of . Jesus as the Messiah would be fatal to their power.
He would sweep away the whole existing order of
things. An emergency has arisen, and they bestir
themselves to meet it. They rush to the rescue. They
stamp upon the kindling sparks, and repress the rising
flames. Thus it is that the narrative runs, " But when
the Pharisees heard it " — heard that thrilling question,
" Is not this the Son of David ?"— " they said," thus
and so, casting upon Jesus their vile imputation.

48 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
And see how admirably their course meets the exi
gency; The people are ascribing to Jesus the most ex
alted character. They are viewing him as the powerful
messenger of the Most High God. And the Pharisees
cry, " He is indeed great in power, but not as the ally
of the Lord. The mightier he is, the more is he to
be dreaded. He casts out devils, because leagued with
the Prince of the Devils."*
Thus we see that just such occasion was offered these
Pharisees, as was required in order that they should
naturally have acted precisely as they did. And it may
not be amiss to suggest further, that in all probability
the efforts of the Pharisees were, for a time and to a
degree, successful. The minds of the people were di
verted from their previous thoughts, and the subsequent
history leads us to think, that, under the specious and
confident calumnies of their revered religious teachers,
doubts came upon many concerning the character of
Jesus.f ¦*In Matt. ix. 27-34, we have a brief record concerning two miracles;
the first, of the healing of two blind men who followed him, crying, " Thou
Son of David, have mercy on us ;" the second, of the dispossession of a
dumb demoniac, to the great astonishment of the multitudes, and to the
exasperation of the Pharisees, who said, " He easteth out devils, through
the Prince of the Devils." These miracles, although presented in the
record prior to the miracle under consideration, are commonly regarded
by the Harmonists as having actually occurred after it, the account of
them being placed next after that of the raising of the daughter of Jairns.
The order as given by Matthew, is, however, followed by some. Lange,
in loco, referring to Matt. ix. 34, says, " The former private accusation,
that Jesus was in league with Satan, was now publicly and boldly brought
forward." f It may be seen that after this the element of admonition becomes more
prominent in the Saviour's teachings. He warns the people against re
jecting himself, cautions them against the influence of the Pharisees, and

OUTBREAK OF PHARISAIC HOSTILITY. 49
It is interesting, moreover, to observe, how, in other
instances, Pharisaic hatred to Jesus exploded, upon the
ascription to him of the Messianic character, under this
same appellation, " Son of David."
On the occasion of his triumphal entry into Je
rusalem, when the people were bestowing this title
upon him in their Hosannas, we read that " some of
the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him.
Master, rebuke thy disciples." And shortly after,
when, in the temple, the children took up the cry,
" Hosanna to the Son of David," the record is that the
chief priests and scribes " were sore displeased, and said
unto him, Hearest thou what these say ?"
Thus we have a glimpse of Pharisaic hostility, when
Jesus was in the midst of his Galilean ministry. This
opposition was afterward still more fully organized,
and made still more formidable. The subsequent his
tory shows the Saviour in perpetual view of it, and in
frequent conflict with it. For a long time he completely
baffles it. At last, his active ministry having been ac
complished, and his hour fully come, a disciple betrays
him to these enemies, and he yields himself to their
murderous will, in the exclamation, " Now is your hour
and the power of darkness."
denounces the Pharisees themselves. Also, when our Saviour afterward
asked his disciples, " Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am ?'
(Matt. xvi. 13,) amidst the great variety of opinions stated in reply, as
held by the people, nothing is said of the opinion being entertained by
any that he was the Messiah.
5

VIII.
JJevVs Feast, in several relations ; especially ChrisPs Representation
of Himself as the Bridegroom,
Matt. ix. 16, and parallels ; also John iii. 29.
A STUDY of the simple narrative of the "reception"*
given to the Saviour by Levi, (whom we regard as
identical with Matthew,) where the Master ate with
publicans and sinners, shows this portion of the history,
in the different parts of it, linked in with the history
elsewhere, in a very remarkable manner. No inventor
of history has been equal to the work of producing a
narrative so vividly natural as this, and at the same
time of so inserting it into a body of history, as to give
it living relations to every portion. This brief section
is a tree which sends its roots deep and wide into the
whole soil of the evangelic narratives.
We may only glance at a few of the instances which
illustrate this, reserving special remark for the repre
sentation above announced of Christ as the Bridegroom.
In the first place, as has frequently been observed,
we have an evidence of naturalness in the fact that
while it is Matthew who gives the feast, and while
Mark informs us that the feast was given at Matthew's
house, and while Luke declares that it was " a great
feast," made at Matthew's " own house," Matthew him-
* Luke.
50

Levi's feast. 51
self, in his account of it, modestly conceals the fact that
it was a feast, and that it was given by himself and at
his own house, simply saying, " And it came to pass,
as Jesus sat at meat in the house."
Again : On this occasion, Jesus mingles with outcasts
from Jewish society, doing so for their spiritual benefit,
going among them as a physician among the sick.
Evidently from this, the Saviour regarded the publicans
and their companions as most hopeful subjects of his
ministry. And how exactly and remarkably does this
judgment of the Saviour coincide with the intimations
of the history given elsewhere. Thus we find the pub
licans frequenting John's baptism : " Then came also
publicans to be baptized, and said unto him. Master,
what shall we do ?"* Also we find that the reception
of John's ministry by the publicans was of so marked
and suitable a sort, as to be particularly mentioned in
the subsequent history. In connection with Christ's
encomium on the Baptist, it is said that " all the people
that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being
baptized with the baptism of John."t And far on in
the history, at a time long subsequent to Matthew's
feast, we hear our Saviour addressing the chiefs of the
nation in these emphatic words, " Verily I say unto
you, that the publicans and harlots go into the kingdom
of God before you."J
The facts on this subject, disclosed in the most casual
way at different times, yet exactly agreeing with one
another, are these: First, By the Baptist's ministry,
the publicans and their associates had been brought into
a condition to make Christ's labors among them most
» Luke iii. 12. f Luke vii. 29. % Matt. xxi. 31.

52 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
hopeful. Next, one well-known publican soon became
an apostle, and Christ, by his agency, comes into near
contact with the whole class of his fellows, preaching to
them the kingdom of God. And lastly, the members
of this class are found entering the ranks of Christ's
followers, when others were steadily refusing disciple-
ship. Again: In immediate connection with this feast, a
deputation waited on our Lord, proposing to him an im
portant question. From Luke's account, we should
have inferred that this deputation consisted only of
Scribes and Pharisees ; for Luke, having spoken of these
before, continues his narrative as follows, "And tliey
said unto him." From Matthew we should have in
ferred that the deputation consisted only of certain
adherents of the Baptist; for Matthew's language is,
"Then came to him the disciples of John, saying," etc.
The apparent discrepancy, which in other similar in
stances can commonly be reconciled by reasonable con
jecture, is here reconciled by Mark's statement, that
"the disciples of John and of the Pharisees" "come
and say unto him." These two parties unite in their
mission, having alike been accustomed to fast, their
question relating mainly to fasting.
Now how natural that the inquiry, "Why do the
disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy dis
ciples fast not?" should have been made in connection
with & feast; how true is the information here given to
what we know elsewhere of John's ascetiQ character;
and how exactly was the contrast hereby presented be
tween the conduct of John and of Christ, in the malig
nant view taken of it by the Pharisees, expressed by

LEVI S FEAST. 53
the Saviour, when he said, "For John the Baptist came
neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and ye say. He
hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and
drinking, and ye say : Behold a gluttonous man and a
wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners."*
Again: In Luke's account of the question of this
deputation, we find proposed not only the matter of
fasting, but also of praying. Luke writes, "Why do
the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers?"
From this it is evident, that the Baptist prescribed rigid
rules not only concerning fasting, but also concerning
praying. It seems natural to infer that he gave them
some formularies of prayer. And how exactly, yet
how wholly incidentally, is this inference established
by the direct narrative elsewhere. Thus it is said,
"And it came to pass that as he was praying in a cer
tain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto
him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his dis-
oiples."f And it was on this occasion that, for the
second time, the Master gave that formulary commonly
known as "The Lord's Prayer." J
¦» Luke vii. 33, 34. fLuke xi. 1.
:j; We have omitted to compare this instance in which our Saviour ate
with publicans and sinners, with that in which he became the guest of
Zaccheus the publican, or as his enemies phrased it, " guest with a man
that is a, sinner.*' (Luke xix. 2-10.) The comparison will be found in
structive. Also, we have not called attention to the saying of Christ, quoted from
the Old Testament, " I will have mercy and not sacrifice," applied here,
and also on another occasion. (Matthew xii. 7.) It may be seen that the
saying has an application equally apt in the two instances. Also, regard
ing Levi's Feast as having occurred after the plucking of the ears of corn
on the Sabbath, as the Harmonists show to have been probable, we
perceive the reason of Christ's greater severity of rebuke, when now
5 *

54 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
We come now to our Saviour's reply to the question
of this deputation, in which is found the figure of the
bridegroom. He justifies the absence of fasting, in the
case of his disciples, on the ground that the present is
with them a time of joy. The general teaching is, that
fasting may not properly be observed for its own sake,
and without regard to seasons and circumstances. Fast
ing is suitable for the time of mourning, and is becom
ing to the disciples of Christ whenever he is not joy
fully manifest to them ; but fasting in circumstances of
joy is incongruous and undesirable.
This teaching our Saviour clothes in figurative lan
guage. He asks, "Can the children of the bride-
chamber" — the near attendants of the bridegroom — can
they "mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them?"
— while the marriage festivities continue? "But the
days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken
from them, and then shall they fast." This figure was,
of course, perfectly intelligible and highly forcible, in
itself considered; weddings, by universal agreement,
being accounted and celebrated as joyful occasions.
And the Saviour's language affords a complete and sat
isfactory reply to the immediate question of both John's
disciples and the Pharisees concerning fasting. Yet,
when we bring into connection with this passage that
found in John iii. 29, and regard our Saviour as now
tacitly referring to that passage, in his use of the figure
of the bridegroom, his reply becomes, for the adherents
of John, not only far more forcible, but far more widely
making this quotation. His enemies had been slow to learn the lesson
which he had once before given them. And he will have them now " go"
instantly, "and learn what that meaneth."

Levi's feast. 55
reaching. This point, we think, deserves a careful ex
amination. The Baptist's disciples, on the occasion referred to,
had been discussing with the Jews some questions con
cerning purifications.* Just as here, they were troubled
about the outward rites of religion. And evidently
their discussion with the Jews had something to do
with the right of Christ's disciples to baptize, which
the latter were now doing; for to this they make dis
tinct reference. Alarmed at the growing popularity of
Jesus, and the corresponding decline of the cause of
their own Master, they come to John with the com
plaint, "Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan,
to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same bap-
tizeth, and all men come to him." And the Baptist, in
reply, nobly avowed that this state of things was every
way suitable. He reasserts his own humble character,
as the mere harbinger of the Messiah. He ascribes to
Jesus a character infinitely superior to his own. Jesus
has come from above, and is above all, while he is only
of the earth, and speaks of the earth. And as Jesus is
infinitely superior to him in character and authority, it
is fitting that the ministry of Christ should engage
supreme attention, and that his own ministry should be
disregarded and forsaken, for "He must increase, but I
must decrease."
It is in the midst of such statements as these, that
the Baptist introduces the figure of the Bridegroom,
applying it to Jesus and himself. "He that hath the
bride, is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bride
groom, which standethand heareth him, rejoioeth greatly
» See John iii. 25-34.

56 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
because of the bridegroom's voice; this my joy there
fore is fulfilled."
When, then, John's disciples come to Jesus with a
question about rites and forms, dissatisfied that Jesus
does not insist on the same outward observances which
their Master had required, being thus disposed to
adhere to John as against Jesus ; and when, in reply to
them, Jesus uses the same figure of speech which had
afforded the central and governing thought in that dis
course of the Baptist in which he had settled these
matters for his disciples ; can we help thinking that the
Saviour adopted the figure — intended the coincidence —
and meant to bring the authority of the Baptist to bear
upon his dissatisfied disciples ?
Thus Christ seems to say to them, "Your own Mas
ter taught you that I am the bridegroom, to stand in
whose presence is a joy. If this be so, can my dis
ciples, children of the bridechamber, living in my joy
ful presence, do otherwise than rejoice? And, further,
why do you not acquiesce in my authority, even
though my rules of discipline be different from those of
John, when he taught you that he was only my servant,
and that my authority was law to himself? And still
further, why adhere to John as against me, placing your
selves now in the company of opposing Pharisees, when
your Master so plainly taught you that his ministry was
only intended to usher in mine, and that none could
properly join themselves to him, except for the end of
becoming my disciples?"
Thus bringing these two passages together, our Sa
viour's language, in the instance before us, is clothed
with a far wider and fuller meaning. And that our

CHRIST THE BRIDEGROOM. 57
Saviour intended his saying to be viewed in the light
of that of his Forerunner, seems evident from the exact
harmony subsisting between them, at so many points,
and from the fitness of their concurrence to his purpose.
Yet the two are not brought together by the Evange
lists. The coincidence seems to have been on their part
undesigned.

c*

IX.
Tlie IHsciples unexpectedly compelled to Embark and Cross the
IjaTze ; and the Beason for it.
Matt. xiv. 22. John vi. 14, 15.
The Apostles had returned from their trial mission,
and made report concerning it to the Master. Upon
his proposition, they took ship Avith him for the farther
side of the sea of Galilee, to avoid the multitudes, and
secure rest and leisure, at least sufficient for an undis
turbed meal. "And the Apostles gathered themselves
together unto Jesus, and told him all things, both what
they had done and what they had taught. And he said
unto them. Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place,
and rest a while : for there were many coming and going,
and they had no leisure so much as to eat."*
With this movement, the intelligence just received,
of the beheading of John the Baptist, also had some
thing to do.f
The multitudes, however, anticipated this movement,
and anxious to continue in the Saviour's company, they
made their way by land around the head of the lake,
and were ready to meet him when he disembarked.
Jesus compassionately renews among them his ministry,
both of preaching and of healing their sick, and, doubt
less, the previous admiration for him suffers no abate-
» Mark vi. 30, 31. f Matt. xiv. 13.
58

THE DISCIPLES THWARTED. 59
ment, but corresponding increase. These multitudes, con
sisting largely of people from the country, now on their
way to the passover, were probably less influenced by
the hostile Pharisees, and were more ready to yield
their tribute of praise to Jesus, than were the inhabi
tants of Capernaum.*
As the day wears away, and the necessity for some
thing to eat becomes pressing, Jesus performs that as
tounding miracle, in which five loaves and two fishes
are multiplied into sufficient food for the many thou
sands. Immediately after this, we find that Jesus, instead of
withdrawing from the multitudes with his disciples, in
order that they may quietly remain together in that re
tired place, according to their intention in coming there,
— instead of this, compels his disciples to take again to
their vessel and return across the lake, while he re
mains to dismiss the multitudes. (Matt, and Mark.)
This, even upon the most casual view, seems strange;
yet, when we examine the language of the record, it is
still more surprising. Both writers use the same words.
They say that "straightway," he "constrained" his dis
ciples to get into the ship. His act was prompt and
authoritative. It compelled a reluctant obedience.
Evidently a crisis of some sort had suddenly arisen.
Evidently the disciples were now involved in some
matter or movement unwelcome to the Master. Evi
dently they were so much in earnest in it, and so de
termined upon it, that only the most decisive measures
on his part were adequate to suppress it.
But where else are any intimations of such a crisis
» John vi. 4. See also page 47.

60 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
having come, or of anything unusual having occurred
involving the disciples? No such intimations are found
elsewhere in the two gospels quoted. And none are to
be found, so far as we know, anywhere else, save in the
parallel account in John's gospel. That account does
not, indeed, say a word concerning Christ's compelling
his disciples to leave the place. The disciples are not
so much as mentioned. Yet John's account of what oc
curred immediately after the miracle, is found to supple
ment that of Matthew and Mark, and the two together
furnish the materials with which to reproduce an extra
ordinary scene, otherwise not dreamed of, enacted just
at that time, on the banks of the sea of Galilee.
We cannot but think that the effect of such a miracle
as that of feeding the five thousand men, not only wit
nessed, but actually participated in, by those who were
already aroused to high enthusiasm, would be well nigh
overwhelming. And the statement of John, although
very simple, is immensely significant. He writes,
"Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that
Jesus did, said. This is of a truth that Prophet that
should come into the world." They settled it in their
minds, and proclaimed it to one another, that Jesus was
the long-predicted prophet like unto Moses. Diseases
have fled at his touch, and now bread for thousands has
issued from his creative hands, and herein they see God
visiting his people and removing from them the curse.
And if Jesus shall have sway, there will be no more
sickness, no more poverty, no more toil ; all want and
woe will disappear. Probably they think that if he be
indeed " that Prophet," he must be the promised " Son
of David," and hence their desires seem to them to con-

THE DISCIPLES THWARTED. 61
spire with God's purposes, when they cry, " Come, let
us make him a king, and join ourselves to him as his
steadfast and happy subjects, and receive the blessings
of his reign." For, as John further informs us, the
people were ready actually to enthrone Jesus, and would
have used the most energetic means to accomplish their
purpose, had he not thwarted them. John writes,
"When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come
and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed
again into a mountain himself alone."*
Thus, then, John's gospel shows the people in a state
of intense excitement, just ready to enthrone the Saviour,
and the Saviour watching the unwelcome movement and
taking measures to thwart it ; while Matthew and Mark
show us the disciples suddenly compelled by the Master
to embark upon their vessel, and quit the scene of the
miracle and the multitudes.
It needs no great effort of the imagination to combine
these representations. We know well enough that the
disciples could not have been indifferent spectators of
what was going on among the people. We know well
enough that they would be little likely to use their influ
ence in quelling the excitement and restraining the pro
posed movement. The narratives elsewhere give us
abundant evidence of the worldly views of the disciples
concerning the Messiah and his kingdom. They could
not brook the thought that the Master should realize his
predicted character of a suffering Saviour, f They were
* The supposition is not improbable that as the multitude were on the
way to the passover, they intended to conduct Jesus in triumph to Jeru
salem, and enthrone him there.
t See Ch. IIL p. 21.

62 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
eager for positions of worldly honor in the coming king
dom.* Even after the Resurrection, and just before the
Ascension, they hoped that Jesus would even then as
sume the throne of David and restore the power of the
Jewish nation.f
Is it not, indeed, in the highest degree probable, that
now the disciples fully shared the feelings of the people ?
May we not think that, at the suggestion of the people,
they headed the movement in hand ? Were they not
the ringleaders in this project of enthroning their Mas
ter ; a project intended to honor him, yet wholly mis
taken, unworthy, and destructive of his plans, and de
manding from him the most prompt and vigorous efforts
to crush it?J
Nothing can be more natural than these suggestions.
Yet they enable us to complete the picture of that scene
in which Jesus resists the efforts of the people to enthrone
him. For they show the Saviour seizing upon his dis
ciples, tearing them from the multitudes, sending them
to their ship, and commanding them away, as the most
direct and effective method of breaking the popular spell,
and hindering the popular design.
No wonder that the disciples yielded to the Master
most unwillingly. No wonder that his full authority
was needed in order to resist them. They were relin
quishing the present fulfillment of their most fondly an-
» See Ch. XVI. f ^0*3 i- 6-
X Da Costa, writing upon another subject, calls attention to the fact,
that Mark here uses a military word, and that the accurate translation
would here be, " while he disbanded the multitudes." This looks as if the
people had already organized themselves for the intended effort.
See " The Four Witnesses," p. 100.

THE DISCIPLES THWARTED. 63
I* ticipated schemes. They were consenting to see their
most ardently cherished hopes yet longer deferred.
Need we marvel, in view of all the probabilities, that
the record runs, " And straightway Jesus constrained his
disciples to get into a ship, and to go before hiiri unto
the other side, while he sent the multitudes away?"
This deolaration, rather, is seen to meet the exact and
full state of the case, as all the probabilities represent it.

X.
Crisis in the Bistory of Judas.
John vi. 70, 71.
This chapter needs to be considered in connection
with the preceding.
The next day after the miracle of feeding the five thou
sand men, Jesus is found in the Synagogue of Caper
naum. His disciples are with him, and many of those
who, the day before, had shared in his miraculous
bounty, and sought to enthrone him as the Messiah.
Likewise hostile "Jews" are present, at first retired and
silent, but soon coming conspicuously forward.
In answer to the question of curiosity, asked by some
who had been with him the pre-vious evening, "Rabbi,
when camest thou hither ?" Jesus commences a discourse
of the highest practical moment. He at once rebukes the
worldly spirit of his auditors, and directs their attention
to himself as a spiritual rather than a worldly benefac
tor. "Jesus answered them and said. Verily, verily, I
say unto you. Ye seek me, not because ye saw the mi
racles, but because ye did oat of the loaves, and were
filled. Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for
that meat which endureth unto everlasting life." Thus
the discourse harmonizes with his conduct the evening
before, in breaking up the attempt to make him a
worldly king.
64

CRISIS IN JUDAS' HISTORY. 65
The discourse, conceived in this strain, falls upon un
willing ears. Questions arise; unbelief begins its de
mands ; and, when Jesus, instead of proffering proofs of
his divine claims, proceeds to assert those claims in a
manner still more offensive, the hostile Jews commence
their murmurings, and from murmurings go on to a very
tumult of strife. They asked, " How is it that he saith,
I came down from heaven?" They "strove among
themselves, saying. How can this man give us his flesh
to eat." — Meanwhile Jesus only advances still more
absolute claims, and asserts the truth in still more offen
sive forms. He is the bread of life, and except they eat
the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, they
have no life in them.
Thus does Jesus, exhibiting himself in mysterious
words, as a spiritual benefactor, endeavor to cut up by
the roots all mere worldly expectation concerning him.
As the result of this exposition of the Saviour's doc
trine, not only were those greatly exasperated who had
before been hostile to him, but many who had attached
themselves to his ministry forsook him. "From that
time many of his disciples went back, and walked no
more with him." They were glad to share the outward
advantages conferred by his miracles, but they had no
faith to receive his teachings which seemed strange to
the natural understanding, and they had no such spiritual
desires as disposed them to embrace him as the Messiah
of their hearts.
The juncture was most solemn. The chaff was rapidly
separating from the wheat, the Son of man having taken
his fan in hand and proceeding to purge his threshing-
floor. The disappointed and offended multitudes were
6*

QQ HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
forsaking him; even many of those who had been his
admiring followers were dropping from his presence;
the contagion bids fair to become universal, and Jesus
seems about to be left utterly alone. At this juncture,
he turns upon the twelve, with the solemn appeal,
"Will ye also go away?" The appeal does not long
remain unanswered. Peter responds, for himself and
his fellows, in those affecting, noble words of love and
faith, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the
words of eternal life. And we believe, and are sure
that thou art that Christ, the Son of the Living God."
And now come the words to which we would invite
special attention. For, how does Jesus receive this
confession of his disciples ? We cannot but think that
it must have been most grateful to him. We naturally
look to see him approve and honor it. We know that
when Peter made a similar confession, under circum
stances much less trying, Jesus exclaimed, "Blessed art
thou, Simon Bar-jona."* Yet now we find that Jesus
replies to the confession of his disciples, most strangely
and abruptly, with words of stern reproach and con
demnation. He asks, as if in indignation, " Have not I
chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" And
the Evangelist informs us, that "he spake of Judas
Iscariot, the son of Simon ; for he it was that should be
tray him, being one of the twelve."
Who can read this narrative, without inquiring why
it was that the falseness of Judas' character should just
now have risen so prominently before the mind of the
Saviour as apparently to overshadow all things else?
We might at first imagine that this intense feeling of
» Matt. xvi. 16.

CRISIS IN JUDAS' HISTORY. 67
displeasure against Judas was now aroused, simply in
view of the fact that he had hypocritically acquiesced in
the solemn avowal just made of attachment to Christ,
and of faith in his Messiahship. But was there not
equal hypocrisy in Judas' acquiescence in the confession
of Peter, referred to above? Yet, on that occasion,
Jesus does not advert to this hypocrisy, but only com
mends his disciples? There seems to have been some
thing peculiar in the case of Judas, just at this time.
And may there not, we ask, have been just now a
marked development in the character of Judas? May
not the hypocrisy of Judas, as now manifested, have
been something new? May not this have been the
critical occasion in which Judas passed from the condi
tion of a self-deceived disciple, to that of a conscious
hypocrite? May not Judas have shared the disappoint
ment and disgust of the worldly multitudes and fickle
followers of Jesus, and had it in his heart to leave his
Master; and may he not now in heart have actually
turned from him, so far as a true regard for him was con
cerned, yet have resolved to remain with him, a false
friend, in the hope of some worldly advantages yet to be
enjoyed? Now this probable view is rendered almost certain,
when we connect with the passage in question the con
siderations of the foregoing chapter.
We are to believe that Judas attached himself to the
Saviour under the governing desire of sharing that
worldly exaltation which he believed Jesus would soon
attain. The other apostles expected such exaltation,
and desired to share it ; but with Judas this unworthy
feeling was dominant and supreme, as it was not with

68 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
the others. When, then, under the influence of the
miracle of worldly blessing — the miracle of abundant
food — the people prepared to enthrone Jesus as a worldly
king, what a moment of exultation it must have been
for Judas ! Even now he beholds his cherished hopes
bursting into glad fulfillment ! And no doubt, if, as
we have been led to think, the disciples, as a body,
headed the people in their excited attempt, Judas was
probably foremost in this matter among the disciples.
He was the ringleader. His presence was everywhere
seen, his voice was everywhere heard, directing his
fellow-disciples and organizing the multitudes, on that
memorable afternoon.
And when Jesus interfered, seizing upon the Apostles
and sending them away, it must have been Judas who
engaged the special attentions of the Saviour and occa
sioned his most authoritative efforts. More reluctantly
than any of the rest would Judas cease from his attempt;
more unwillingly leave the scene and retire to the ves
sel. And if, in the case of the others, the disappoint
ment was keen, and well nigh overwhelming, much
more would it be so with him.
No wonder, then, if, when, the next day, Jesus, in
the most explicit manner, exposed the mistake of those
who followed him from worldly motives, and gave them
clearly to understand that he was not a worldly but a
spiritual Saviour, Judas' mind was made up, and he
resolved to have nothing further to do with the Saviour
and his cause than might serve his personal sordid ends.
And thus would the chosen disciple stand revealed to
the discerning eye of the Master, as one who was not
in league with himself; as one who had taken sides

CRISIS IN JUDAS' HISTORY. 69
against him and had sold himself to the Wicked
One. The miracle and the discourse of Christ taken to
gether, afforded the occasion which discriminated among
the multitudes the true disciples from the false. And
these taken together exhibit a juncture critical, in like
manner, -with the false Apostle. Judas, sharing with
the multitudes in their expectations and their disap
pointment by the sea of Galilee, shared also in their
disgust, and their decision against the Saviour, in the
synagogue of Capernaum. Nay, if he had been the
leader in the scheme to enthrone the Saviour, so may
he have been foremost in the ensuing disaffection ; for
when, before Peter's confession, many of his disciples
said, " This is an hard saying, who can hear it ?" Jesus
addressed the murmurers with words of admonition,
adding, " but there are some of you who believe not."
And the Evangelist continues, showing the promi
nence of Judas herein, " For Jesus knew from the be
ginning who they were that believed not, and who should
betray him."

XI.
The Person ujho saw JHen as Trees walking not born blind.
Mark viii. 22-26 ; John ix.
The incident here narrated by Mark receives illus
tration from that recorded by John, above referred to,
as will be presently seen, only in a negative way.
The healing of the blind man at Bethsaida is distin
guished from most, if not all the other miracles, by its
being wrought progressively. It also involved, on the
part of the Saviour, numerous and peculiar acts. Prob
ably these peculiar acts were employed, both to show
that no fixed mode was essential in the working of mir
acles, and also to assist the faith of the blind man,
which seems to have been very weak. Those who
brought the man besought Christ " to touch him," as
though this might be the invq.riable or even necessary
mode of performing miraculous cures ; also the man is
not represented as himself having faith in Jesus, but
rather it is his friends, who bring him and intercede
for him, whose faith appears.
The narrative of the healing is on this wise. " And
he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out
of the town ; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his
hands upon him, he asked him if he saw aught. And
he looked up, and said, 'I see men as trees walking.'
70

MEN AS TREES WALKING. 71
After that, he put his hands again upon his eyes, and
made him look up : and he was restored, and saw every
man clearly."
The point of special interest, at present, is this ; that
supposing the man to have been born blind, it would be
difficult to understand how he should be able, on first
coming to sight, to judge of the comparative appearance
of men and of trees, and of the proper motion of walking.
It is in great measure by experience that we learn how
the forms of things ought to appear. Persons born blind
are sometimes brought to sight, through modern surgical
skill, as in cases of congenital cataract. And it is said
that the blind, coming for the first time to sight, are
unable to judge of forms and distances. They cannot,
simply by sight, distinguish a globe from a cube. They
must handle these objects in connection with seeing
them, in order afterward to judge of them aright upon
simple sight. They have no idea of perspective, all
things appearing equally near or remote ; and not until
they have gone freely about, is their vision competently
instructed to judge of comparative distances.
We may not indeed limit a miracle. The miracle
wrought by Peter and John, on the man lame from his
birth, who lay " at the gate of the temple, which is
called Beautiful," not only gave strength to " his feet
and ancle-bones," so that he might of himself have
afterwards learned to walk, but it also gave the skill
which is usually acquired by experience, so that " he
leaping up, stood, and walked, and entered with them
into the temple, walking and leaping and praising
God."* » Acts iii. 2-8.

72 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
Yet, as a general fact, miracles end where natural
causes may suitably b(yin. Thus the daughter of Jairus
was brought to life and health, yet she was not miracu
lously strengthened in body. Natural food was sufficient
to strengthen her, and Jesus " commanded that some
thing should be given her to eat." In the case of the
lame man just mentioned, there was a great moral result
to be attained, in giving the miracle such extent of
operation as to enable the man at once and fully to
exercise his powers. It thus had an effect, which it
otherwise would not have had, in testifying for the
risen Saviour and his religion.
But, in the case before us, not only is there no evi
dent reason for giving such extent to the miracle, but
further, the miracle itself was not completed, when the
patient " saw men as trees walking." And it does not
seem natural to suppose that the miracle should have
conferred the skill of experience, before it had conferred
the full power of simple vision — the power to see things
" clearly." Yet the whole difficulty, be it observed, is simply
one of supposition. For the narrative does not state
nor imply that the man was born blind. It says noth
ing directly upon the subject. It does use one word,
which, in an apparently undesigned way, intimates that
the man was not born blind. It says that he " was re
stored ;" as if he had previously lost his vision, and had
now got it back again.
Negative proof is sometimes the strongest of all proof.
It is common, with the Scripture writers, to exhibit the
most desperate features in the case of those on whom
miracles were performed, doubtless in order that the

MEN AS TREES WALKING. 73
reality and the wonderful character of the miracles
might be sufficiently made evident. Thus it is stated
that the infirm man at the pool of Bethesda had been
afflicted thirty and eight years ; that the woman with
an issue of blood had suffered for twelve years, and had
spent her whole living on physicians in vain ; and that
Lazarus had been dead four days.* And not only
might we naturally suppose that it would have been a
circumstance worth mentioning, if this man had been
born blind, but we find that, in the case recorded in the
ninth of John above cited, this fact is distinctly and
repeatedly referred to, throughout the chapter, as one
of the notable features of the case. The statement is
not only made at the beginning of the chapter, that the
man "was blind from his birth." This might have
been done because of the ensuing conversation, in which
Christ answered the question of his disciples, " Master,
who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born
blind?" But afterward the Jews demand of the pa
rents, " Is this your son, who ye say was born blind f"
And the parents respond, " We know that this is our
son, and that he was born blind." And the man him
self exclaims, " Since the world began, was it not heard
that any man opened the eyes of one that was bom
blind." Now, how vastly easy would it have been for an in
ventor of history, or even for a truthful but careless
historian, to have represented the man of Bethsaida as
born blind, and thus unconsciously afforded the difflculty
above presented. But the Scripture records are not in-
* John V. 6 ; Mark v. 25, 26 ; John xi. 39.
7 D

74 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
ventions ; neither are they the product of mere honest
blunderers. Rather they recount actual occurrences,
exem, when these are stupendous miracles; and they are
minutely truthful, even as such "undesigned coinci
dences " most forcibly testify.

XII.
The Opening of a New Era in the Jilinistrif of Christ.
Matthew xvi. 21, and its parallels.
By consulting the passages cited, it will be seen that
our Saviour now explicitly foretold his death and res
urrection. He taught "his disciples," not the people
generally, that he "must suffer many things," be "re
jected" by the chiefs of the nation, be put to death,
and "be raised again the third day." He represented
this dread consummation as awaiting him in Jerusalem,
and declared that under the sublime necessity of his
mission, he "must go unto Jerusalem" to meet it.
It is important to understand that this teaching was
something new to the disciples, and further, that Jesus
now began this teaching, to continue it at intervals
until the predicted consummation was actually reached.
Indeed, we need to understand that a new era in the life
and ministry of our Saviour was now opening, in which
his coming sufferings and death were to be held con
spicuously in view, and in which his movements were
to be governed, to an extent not before seen, by the an
ticipation of them.*
*Behgel in loco observes, "The Gospel may be divided into two parts,
from which the Divine plan of Jesus shines forth. The first proposition
is, Jesus is the Christ; the second, Christ must suffer, die, and rise again,
or more briefly, Christ by death will enter into glory. Jesus first convinced 75

76 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
The fact that this teaching was something new, would
sufficiently appear from the language of our Saviour
here employed, if we would but give his expressions
their due significance. Mark writes, that " he began to
teach them that the Son of man must suffer many
things." Our Lord, before this, had given some
obscure hints upon this subject, but now his teachings
were clear and explicit.* This is also expressed by
Mark, when he further writes, "And he spake that say
ing openly." Matthew looks to the new era which was
now commencing, when he says, "From that time forth
began Jesus to show unto his disciples," etc. While
hitherto the subject of his passion had been referred to,
only in the way of brief and casual intimations, it was
now to become a frequent and prominent theme of dis
course. The fact that this teaching was new to the disciples,
appears also from their manner of receiving it. It
took them by surprise. It excited the profoundest
emotions. It presented their Master and his mission in
a strange and painful light.
We have had occasion already to observe Peter's con
duct on this announcement of our Saviour; how, una
ble to endure it, he took the Master aside, and ventured
not only to remonstrate with him but even to rebuke
him.f No doubt this feeling of Peter was shared by
his companions. The thought of a suffering and re-
his disciples of the first proposition ; in consequence of which they were
bound to believe him concerning the second, even before his passion. As
soon as Jesus had persuaded his disciples of the first proposition, he added
the second."
* John iii. 14. Matt. x. 38, etc. -j- See page 25.

NEW ERA IN Christ's ministry. 77
jected Messiah was wholly foreign to their minds. '
They had been so far enlightened concerning the person
of Christ, as to be able to make that confident acknow
ledgment of him, recorded just before Jesus began this
new teaching, when, to the question of the Master,
"But who do ye say that I am?" Peter answered,
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Yet
they regarded Christ chiefly in the light of a prophet
and of a king. They had not yet apprehended him in
his priestly character.
Now, what we have said above, receives full illustra
tion from the history. By comparing the evangelic
records prior to this time, with those which follow, we
may readily see that now a new chapter was opened in
the ministry of Christ. We may see that the anticipa
tion of his dreadful trials and bloody passion, not only
led the Saviour, from this time forth, to speak with his
disciples on this subject, in occasional and formal in
structions, but also tinged his various thoughts, affected
his various movements, and brought to him peculiar
experiences, thus giving distinct character to his whole
subsequent ministry.
It may be enough for us now, remembering the
absence of explicit teachings hitherto concerning Christ's
passion, to instance a few passages, in the subsequent
history, in which the subject is distinctly treated.
Only a week after Jesus began this new instruction,
occurred his transfiguration. In this sublime event we
behold one of those peculiar experiences of the Saviour,
just referred to, granted him in view of his coming
humiliation. Likewise it had for the disciples an im
portant teaching, as we shall by and by show. But iu
7 *

78 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
connection with this event, our Saviour is found mak
ing, to the three disciples who attended him, a distinct
reference to his death and resurrection. " As they came
down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying.
Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of Man be
risen again from the dead." One of the Evangelists in
forms us that the disciples " kept that saying with them
selves, questioning one with another what the rising
from the dead should mean." (Mark.) And further,
in answer to the question of the disciples, " Why say
the Scribes that Elias must first come?" Jesus "answered
and told them, Elias verily cometh first and restoreth
all things; and how it is written of the Son of Man,
that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought."
Here it is seen, that the theme upon which Jesus began
to teach, just after Peter's noble confession, was
speedily resumed again.
Yet only three of the Apostles witnessed the trans
figuration, and heard the instruction given in connection
with it. Soon after this, however, indeed the very next
day, as appears from Luke's narrative, — Jesus teaches
the same lesson, in explicit terms, to the whole company
of the Twelve.*
Leaving the region of Cesarea Philippi, the scene of
his transfiguration and of his healing the demoniac boy,
and journeying into Gra,lilee, he introduces the subject,
in connection with his former miracle. The people had
greatly wondered over that miracle. They seem to have
uttered their admiration in unwonted applauses. And
Jesus, amidst the echoes of these applauses, admonishes
his disciples of his coming humiliation and death. He
*See Matt. xvii. 22, 23, and its parallels.

NEW BRA IN CHRIST'S MINISTRY. 79
says, "Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for
the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of
men." (Luke.) The time was at hand in which such
tokens of his Almighty power as had recently been
exhibited, might be forgotten in his seeming helplessness
in the hands of his enemies. On the way to Galilee, and
while sojourning in that country, Jesus remains in seclu
sion -with his disciples, in order that he may speak -with
them yet more fully. And Matthew and Mark record
the repeated prediction of his death and resurrection, and
•with Luke intimate the new circumstance of his betrayal
to his enemies. " The Son of man shall be betrayed into
the hands of men." Thus plainly did Christ continue
the teaching which he before "began." The disciples
very imperfectly understood the true meaning of his
words; yet they understood enough to be greatly sad
dened. The subject was of such mysterious nature that
they shrank from questioning the Saviour for any ex
planation of his meaning.*
Not long after this, Jesus having for a long- time
avoided Jerusalem, because of the deadly hostility of the
Jews, secretly goes up to the city, and suddenly throws
* Remembering the familiarity of the disciples with the Master, it may
at first seem to us strange that they should hesitate to speak with him
freely upon this subject. In a comment of singular impressiveness, on
Mark ix. 32, Alexander observes, that the reticences which we are accus
tomed instinctively to practice towards one another, even when most
familiarly acquainted and tenderly related, are equally difficult of rational
explanation. The personality of every one is sacred. Nothing stands
more closely related to our personality than death. There was that in the
personality of Jesus, the eternal Son of God, yet the mortal Son of man,
which was awfully mysterious. After the resurrection, Jesus appearing to
his disciples on the shore of the sea of Galilee, "none of them durst ask
him, who art thou, knowing that it was the Lord." (John xxi. 12.)

80 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
himself into the midst of his foes.* He begins that
ministry in which he is confronted by the chiefs of the
nation, eager for his destruction. With his life in his
hand, he attacks Pharisaism in its stronghold, vindicates
at the National Capital and in the presence of all people,
his Divine Sonship and Messiahship, even as it behooved
him to do, before he should die. On this occasion, he
warns the people that he is to be with them only "a lit
tle while."f Having retired for a brief period into
Perea, and going up thence to Jerusalem for the last
time, he again, while on the way, takes his disciples
aside, and admonishes them that the hour of his suffer
ings and death is at hand. J
This further distinct announcement is of peculiar in
terest. It was made under a singular stress of feeling,
on the part of both the Master and his disciples. Mark
informs us that " they "were in the way, going up to Je
rusalem ; and Jesus went before them : and they were
amazed ; and as they followed, they were afraid. And
he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what
things should happen unto him." The prediction is
now more full than ever. There is an enumeration of
the indignities which should be committed against him,
and the statement is made that he shall not only be be
trayed to the chiefs of his own nation, but that they in
turn shall deliver him to the Gentiles, who shall inflict
the indignities mentioned, and at last put him to death
by crucifixion. (Matthew.) As before, he clearly foretells
his resurrection on the third day. And again we are
* John vii. 10, 14. f John vii. 33.
J Matt. XX. 17-19, and its parallels.

NEW BRA IN CHRIST'S MINISTRY. 81
informed by Luke that the disciples failed to compre
hend the Saviour's meaning.
In Jerusalem again, and engaged in his last conflicts
with his enemies, we find him at one time tasting the
bitterness of the anticipation of "his hour," — such an
anticipation as on the night before he suffered had well
nigh crushed him, and which here brought from him the
exclamation, "Now is my sOul troubled and what shall
I say?"* Again he warns the people to walk in the
light while they have the light, lest speedy darkness
overtake them.f Soon after, he is in the midst of his
disciples, eating the passover with them, as he had
greatly desired to do before he should suffer; announc
ing that he shall be betrayed by one of their own num
ber; instituting the memorial supper; predicting the
smiting of the Shepherd and the scattering of the flock ;
gi-ving his last counsels and offering his last intercessory
prayer; all being speedily followed by the dread events
of his agony, his arrest, his trial, and his crucifixion.
Does not this brief survey of our Lord's ministry sub
sequent to the time before us, taken in connection -with
the fact that prior to this time no explicit teachings of
the sort adverted to were given, sufflciently illustrate
and confirm the statement, that just now commenced a
new era in his ministry, an era which distinctly contem
plated his death? "From that time forth" began
Jesus, both to show to his disciples his approaching pas
sion, now but a few months distant, and also to antici
pate and prepare for it, in a more direct way than be
fore. It may be observed, before dismissing this subject,
-* John xii. 27. f John xii. 36.

82 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
that conceiving of our Saviour as now passing from his
general ministry of active and varied labors, to his
ministry of suffering — to that ministry in which the
things of his mysterious passion rose into colossal promi
nence, and cast their awful shadow over his life — the
events immediately preceding and following the an
nouncement of our Saviour before us, have a new mean
ing. The event immediately preceding is that of the dis
ciples' distinct and solemn avowal of their faith in the
Messiahship of Jesus, in contrast with the varying
opinions of the people concerning him. While some
said that Jesus was John the Baptist, others that he was
Elijah, others that he was Jeremiah, or some one of the
other old prophets returned to life, the disciples, upon
the challenge of the Master, declared their faith in him
as none other than the Messiah. And, in the light of
the foregoing considerations, our Saviour is herein seen
preparing the minds of his disciples for the announce
ment of what will sorely try their faith. It is as if he
had said, "You are fully convinced that I am the Mes
siah: well, I shall now tell you some things which will
wholly contradict your notions concerning the Messiah,
and I desire you to have the evidences of my Messiah-
ship clearly before you, that this new teaching may not
shake your faith."
The event immediately following is that of the Trans
figuration. Jesus was for a time personally glorified in
the presence of three of his disciples. Two of the most
illustrious personages in Jewish history, Moses, the
founder of the Hebrew Economy, and Elijah, its great
restorer, were present in glorified form, talking with

NEW ERA IN CHRIST'S MINISTRY. 83
Jesus. The sole subject of their conversation, so far as
we are informed, was " his decease which he should ac
complish at Jerusalem." And, in the light of the fore
going considerations, how must Peter and his compan
ions on the mount have wondered, when they found
that the subject of Jesus' recent instructions, so unwel
come to themselves, was of absorbing interest to these
distinguished, heavenly guests. And how well adapted
to correct their false -views must have been the discovery
here made, that the idea of a dying Messiah, which they
had regarded as foreign to their Scriptures, was, in the
estimation of the two great representatives of the Law
and of the Prophets, the grand idea. And how well
adapted to correct their erroneous conceptions of what
constituted the proper glory of Christ, to find Jesus all
intent upon his coming humiKation even unto death, at
the very moment that he was all radiant with more than
earthly regal splendor.

XIII.
The Transfiguration occurring at Night.
Luke ix. 28-36 ; ix. 37.
Perhaps we most commonly think of the Transfig
uration as having occurred in the daytime. The scene,
no doubt, would have been inconceivably glorious, had
it occurred even at noonday. The light of heaven, as
at Paul's conversion, would have outshone the brightness
of the sun. Yet, in all probability, the Transfiguration
occurred at night. And so thinking of it, our concep
tion of the brilliancy of the scene is enhanced, rather
than diminished.- The light of heaven is then brought
into contrast with earthly darkness, rather than into
comparison with earthly light. It might indeed be
imagined that the appearance of the cloud, in the scene
of the Transfiguration, would have been more impres
sive by daylight than in the darkness ; yet this would
not have been, unless the cloud itself had been dark,
which we know was not the fact. It was "a bright
cloud" which "overshadowed them." The voice of
God came from this cloud. Symbolical of God's pres
ence, it was luminous, like the Shekinah, which over
hung the mercy-seat of the ark of the covenant. The
cloud being thus of bright and burning appearance, its
brilliancy, like that of the other parts of the sublime
84

JESUS TRANSFIGURED AT NIGHT. 85
scene, would be enhanced, rather than diminished, by
appearing in contrast with the darkness of night.*
Now that the night, rather than the day, witnessed
this scene, we might infer from two suggestions offered
by the narrative itself. The first is this ; that, accord
ing to Luke's account — Luke being here, as often else
where, intent on our Saviour's devotional habits — Jesus
went up to the mount of Transfiguration for the pur
pose of prayer, and was actually transfigured while en
gaged in prayer. Luke -writes, "he took Peter and
John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.
And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was
altered, and his raiment was white and glistering."
And the gospel narratives abundantly inform us that it
was at night that Jesus was accustomed to seek the soli
tudes for devotional purposes. f
"Cold mountains and the midnight air
Witnessed the fervor of his prayer."
The other suggestion also comes from a statement pe
culiar to Luke's narrative ; to -wit, that when the Trans
figuration occurred, the disciples were oppressed -with
sleep. They did not, as it seems from the language of
our version, witness the a<:t of transfiguration. The
change had already passed upon the Saviour, and the
heavenly visitants had arrived, when the disciples awoke.
Possibly the fiashings of celestial glory may have awak-
-* Olshausen observes that the words " overshadowed them " are used
in regard to the light-cloud, only in so far as it prevented the disciples
from seeing. The most intense light is equivalent to darkness. Hence,
in the language of Scripture, the expressions are used synonymously, God
dwelleth in "light inaccessible," and in "darkness."
f Matt. xiv. 23, 24; Mark i. 36; Luke vi. 12.

86 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
ened them.* Luke writes, "But Peter and they that
were with him were heavy with sleep, and when they
were awake, they saw his glory, and the two that stood
with him." Are we not reminded of that night which
followed not long after this, in which these same three
Apostles were the only companions of the Saviour, and in
which, while he prayed, they fell asleep ?t
Now, connecting with these suggestions which come
from the narrative, the statement made by Luke follow
ing his account of the Transfiguration, to wit, " And it
came to pass, that on the next day, when they were come
down from the hill, much people met him," it seems well
nigh certain that the Transfiguration occurred at night.
It may be worth a closing observation, that the fact
that the Evangelist Luke affords all these intimations
concerning the Transfiguration occurring at night, indi
cates that he regarded this circumstance with peculiar
interest. ^' Alford in loco gives as the proper meaning of the word translated
" -vyhen they were awake," having kept awake, and seems to think that the
disciples had not fallen asleep. Accepting the translation, the inference
is not necessary ; but granting both, the argument remains the same for
its being night-time. Indeed, Alford argues that it was night-time, and
presents to such an extent the very same line of remark found in this
chapter, that our view might be thought to have been adopted from him,
which is not the case.
t Matt. xxvi. 40-45.

XIV.
The Transfiguration Scene culminating in the JSeavenly Voice.
Matt. xvii. 6-7 ; ii Peter i. 17, 18.
Not only did the Transfiguration scene end with the
coming of the bright cloud which betokened the Divine
presence, and the issuing of the Divine voice out of its
bosom, but this was the point of intensest interest to the
disciples. The whole vision of the glorified Jesus and his celes
tial attendants was extatic, evoking from the bewildered
Peter, when it seemed about to end, the exclamation
intended to stay its ending, "Lord, it is good for us to
be here : and let us make three tabernacles ; one for thee,
and one for Moses, and one for Elias." Yet not so
profoundly impressive was this sight, as was that which
followed. This we may see by a comparison of the
records. Mark informs us that at the time when Peter felt
constrained to speak, the disciples were "sore afraid."
Yet impressed as they already were, a still deeper awe
stole upon them, as they beheld the bright overshadow
ing cloud about to envelop them; for Luke writes,
"they feared as they entered into the cloud."* Yet a
*- Some interpret the expression " they feared as they entered the cloud,"
that the disciples feared, when Moses and Elias entered the cloud. This
seems unnatural ; and the reason assigned for it by Alford, to wit, that
if the disciples had entered the cloud, the voice would not have been heard
" out of the cloud," has little force. 87

88 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
still profounder fear oppressed them, when from the
cloud now surrounding them, came the heavenly testi
mony, sounding on the listening ear of night, " This is
my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye
him;" for Matthew writes, that "when the disciples
heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid."
Like John in Patmos, before the majestic apparition of
the Son of Man, they fell on their faces as dead, being
directly confronted with the glory of God. And from
their prostration they did not recover, until Jesus came
to their relief, reassuring them, much as he did John in
Patmos, by his touch and his voice.
And, now, how admirably confirmatory of this account,
in which the impression of awe is seen to be constantly
deepening, until at last, with the coming of the Divine
voice, it is absolutely overpowering, is the statement
which Peter makes concerning the Transfiguration, many
years after, when he is shortly to put off his earthly
tabernacle. Few are the personal reminiscences of their intercourse
with the Saviour, given by the disciples in their epis
tolary writings. Yet Peter makes an emphatic appeal
to this most memorable occurrence on the mount of
Transfiguration. And, calling the scene to mind, be it
observed that he dwells particularly, not on the glory
which Christ received from his being transfigured in
person, not on the honor done him by the attendance of
Moses and Elias, but solely on the honor which God the
Father gave him, in the voice out of the cloud. " For,"
says the venerable Apostle, speaking as if in vivid view
of the scene, and in tones suggestive of remaining awe,
"we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when

THE HEAVENLY VOICE. 89
we made kno-wn unto you the power and coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his
majesty. For he received from God the Father honor
and glory, when there came such a voice to him from
the excellent glory. This is my beloved Son in whom
I am well pleased. And this voice which came from
heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy
mount."

XV.
Tlie Exclamation, " O Faithless and Perverse Generation ;" as uttered
soon after the Transfiguration.
Matt. xvii. 17 ; 2-9.
During the temporary absence of Jesus, on the mount
of Transfiguration, with "the three disciples chosen of
the twelve," events of great interest were occurring in
connection with the remaining disciples.
A man had brought his demoniac son to these dis
ciples, and they had made an ineffectual attempt to heal
him. There were Scribes present who did not fail to
embrace this opportunity for "questioning with the dis-
cijiles." No doubt these Scribes took advantage of their
failure, to contest their claim to power over evil spirits,
and perhaps the like claim of their Master. The poor
disciples, mortified by their failure and unable to account
for it,* were evidently hard pressed, when the Master
opportunely arrives. Soon he transfers the controversy
from them to himself, and shows himself master of the
situation.f -« Matt. xvii. 19, 20.
-)- "But as when some great captain, suddenly arriving upon a field of
battle, where his subordinate lieutenants have well nigh lost the day, and
brought all into a hopeless confusion, with his eye measures at once the ne
cessities of the moment, and with no more than his presence causes the tide
of victory to turn, and everything to right itself again, so was it now. The
Lord arrests the advancing and victorious foe; he addresses himself to the
Scribes, and saying, 'What question ye with them?' takes the baffled and
90

FAITHLESS AND PERVERSl? GENERATION. 91
^Before the Scribes could respond to his inquiry,
"What question ye with them?" a man of the company
cries out. It is the father of the demoniac, who intro
duces and describes the case of his child. As this cry of
the man is in response to the challenge of Jesus to the
Scribes, (Mark) the supposition is confirmed that the
Scribes were questioning the disciples concerning their
failure with this demoniac.
The father, prostrating himself before Jesus, (Mat
thew) entreats his pity, enforcing his plea with the con
sideration that this is his "only child." (Luke.) And
the case of the child, as the father describes it, is indeed
lamentable. He was an epileptic, as all the accounts
show. He was also disordered in his organs of speech
and of hearing. (Mark.) And, still further, he was
mentally deranged. (Matthew.) Thus the evil demon,
in taking possession of the child, had run the whole
range of its being, occupying every organ of the body
and ascending the throne of the intellect, and now was
rioting at will over the whole domain. The father does
not fail to state that the disciples had measured strength
with the demon, and had been baffled in their attempts
to eject him.
And now there is heard from the Saviour that strange,
that almost passionate exclamation, which is the object
of our special attention. Never before have we heard
from him anything resembling it. All the writers who
record the miracle wrought in connection with it, are
careful to give it, using almost the self-same words. He
hard-pressed disciples under his own protection, implying by his words,
' If you have any question, henceforth it must be with me.' " — Trench
on the Miracles.

92 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
cries, "O faithless and perverse generation, how long
shall I be with you ? how long shall I suffer you ?"
What was it that brought from our Saviour this lan
guage? Endeavoring to answer this question, we may
find much, in the very circumstances at the moment ex
isting, seemingly adapted to provoke the exclamation.
In view of the whole scene about him, exhibiting a most
defective faith on the part of his disciples, utter unbelief
and malignant hostility on the part of the scribes, and
probably a capricious spirit of curious and blind wonder,
ready to applaud or decry the Saviour in alternate
voices, on the part of the people ; — in view of this, the
generation with whom he had so long labored to such
little purpose, might well seem faithless and perverse,
and he might well desire relief from the toils and the
persecutions which characterized his ministry among
them. Yet frequently before and after this, the Saviour may
be seen in circumstances apparently as trying, when he
utters no such word.* May there not have been some
thing peculiar in the present case, which we have not yet
noted ? We think there was, and that the sacred narra
tive affords us the opportunity of seeing it.
Only a short time before this, as we have already ob
served, Jesus had begun, more distinctly than ever, to
anticipate and speak of his coming death.f .Now the
thought of his death was, no doubt, usually attended with
the distinct anticipation of his heavenly exaltation.
¦* The exclamation in Luke xii. 50, "But I have a baptism to be bap
tized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished," is somewhat
similar, expressing a holy eagerness to realize the triumphs of his death.
t Matt. xvi. 21.

FAITHLESS AND PERVERSE GENERATION. 93
" Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to
enter into his glory ?" " Who, for the joy that was set
before him, endured the cross." "The hour is come that
the Son of Man should be glorified." Thoughts of his
coming glory, then, had recently been much in the mind
of Jesus, prior to the occasion before us. Not only so,
but the very night preceding, he had enjoyed an actual
experience of heavenly glory on the mount of Transfig
uration. Just now he was fresh from the scene of his
communings •with Moses and Elias, and from the re
ception of the high honor of his Father's testified appro
bation. And can we but think that it was the contrast of his
anticipations of heaven with his experience of earth, and,
especially, the sudden contrast of his blessed taste of
heavenly honor and joy with the bitterness of his life
amidst the dishonors of men, that extorted the cry, not
only, " O faithless and perverse generation," but, " how
long shall I be with you, how long shall I suffer you ?"
As if he had said, " O when shall the time arrive, that,
these toils and sufferings accomplished, the glory, as of
the mount of Transfiguration, shall be mine to enjoy,
¦without measure and without end ?"

XVI.
The Contentions of the IHsciples among themselves ; as always con
nected with ChrlsVs Teachings concerning Bis Death.
Mark ix. 33, 34; x. 35-46; Luke xxii. 24-27.
Almost every reader of the gospels has, at some time
or other, observed with surprise, that a disgraceful strife
among the disciples, as to who of them should be the
greatest in the kingdom of heaven, arose in close con
nection -with the distinct instruction of our Saviour, of
momentous and absorbing concern, in reference to his
coming sufferings and death. Just when we should
have expected them to be all intent on his terrible humil
iation, predicted to them confidentially and with great
solemnity, they are only concerned for their own selfish
exaltation one above another.
But perhaps it escapes the observation of most readers,
that these occasions of contention among the disciples,
which were three in number, invariably followed upon
such teachings of our Saviour, and that these occasions
were the only ones in which, after the first announcement,
our Saviour explicitly predicted to the Twelve his coming
humiliation. Yet such is the fact. Whenever he spoke
freely, to the company of his Apostles, of his expected
humiliation, they began at once to dispute with one an
other concerning their expected exaltation.
We have already re-viewed these peculiar teachings
94

CONTENTIONS AMONG THE TWELVE. 95
-with relation to another subject.* Let us now glance at
them in reference to this.
The first occasion occurred, when they came from
Cesarea Philippi to Galilee, after the Transfiguration and
the miracle of healing the demoniac boy.f It would seem
that it was while they were making their way toward
Capernaum that Jesus spoke to them plainly of his im
pending death. Arriving at Capernaum, (Matthew and
Mark,) " and being in the house, he asked them. What
was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way f
But they held their peace ; for by the way they had dis
puted among themselves, who should be the greatest."
(Mark.) Then, setting a child in the midst of them, he
inculcates the lesson of Christian humility. Thus, in
this instance, stand in close proximity the teaching of
the Saviour and the peculiar conduct of the disciples, the
latter evidently following the former.
On the second occasion, they are going up to Jerusa
lem, when Jesus propounds his solemn teaching.J And
the very next thing of which we read, in Matthew and
Mark, is the request of James and John — made for them,
as appears from Matthew, by their mother — that they
may " sit the one on his right hand and the other on his
left in his kingdom," and the indignation of the other
ten at the proceeding. No wonder that Jesus admon
ishes the ambitious brothers that they know not what
they ask, and at once speaks of the cup and the baptism
of sufferings appointed him. And again, and in very
impressive language, he inculcates the lesson of humility.
On the third occasion, the time of his appointed suffer-
* Ch. XIL t Matt. xvii. 22, 23, and parallels.
X Matt. XX. 17-19, and parallels.

96 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
ings is at hand. It is only the night before the cruci
fixion. They are just sitting down at the passover table.*
He gives them very express intimations of the near ap
proach of his death. He declares, " With desire have I
desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer."
And again, as we read, " there was also a strife among
them, which of them should be accounted the greatest."
And now he not only inculcates the lesson of humility,
in language very similar to that employed on the pre
ceding occasion, but, as we shall see in a subsequent chap
ter, enforces the lesson by that most impressive proceed
ing, in which he takes a towel and basin and washes his
disciples' feet.f
Now, can we think that this frequent and invariable
sequence of such peculiar conduct upon such peculiar
teaching, was wholly fortuitous ? This were in the high
est degree improbable. We are almost compelled to
think that the one was the natural result of the other.
And looking to ascertain, if we may, this fact, we are led
into a more impressive, if not a wholly new view, of the
significance of these portions of the history.
We must remember, then, that it was the settled con
viction of the disciples, that their Master would establish
a glorious earthly kingdom, and would himself reign
upon the throne of David his father. Whatever else
might be true, this to their minds must be true. What
ever was inconsistent with this belief must either be re
jected, or must be modified into possible harmony with
this. Christ might tell them of his suffering at the hands
of men, of his rejection and crucifixion, yet this, in its
obvious meaning, contradicting their settled convictions,
» Luke xxii. 14, 15, 24. f John xiii. 1-20 ; Ch. XXVII.

CONTENTIONS AMONG THE TWELVE. 97
went -with them for Kttle or nothing. They would not
deny it, yet they supposed it must be understood in some
hidden and figurative sense, which would permit them
still to hold their old notions. It must nevertheless be
true, that Jesus would yet cast off his lowly guise, and
take to himself his kingly power, and realize his kingly
character; and when he should sit on his magnificent
throne, they would be honored above all other men as
his chief ministers.
And, in the several teachings of Christ concerning
what was awaiting him in Jerusalem, while they failed
to perceive the true meaning of the Master's language,
they saw in it enough to convince them that a grand crisis
of some sort was at hand. And whatever else might
occur to him in this crisis — whatever his strange language
might mean, concerning his betrayal, his crucifixion, and
his resurrection — they had the strongest confidence that
in the crisis he would take his throne and begin his reign.
He would at that time " restore again the kingdom unto
Israel." And just in this way, Christ's teachings, even
concerning his humiliation, would set them upon thoughts
of the worldly honors which they should enjoy in con
nection with his government, and occasion disputings for
pre-eminence in these.
As confirmatory of this -view, we may observe that the
pre-eminence which the disciples aspired after is constantly
conceived of as existing " in the kingdom of heaven," or
under the Messiah's reign. Thus, on the first three oc
casions of their disputing, the controversy does not relate
to pre-eminence in general. They ask the question,
" Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven ?" And
Jesus, setting the little child in the midst of them, teaches
9 E

98 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
them that they must humble themselves as little children
in order to " enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew.)
So it is the ambitious request of James and John, to
sit, the one on his right hand and the other on his left,
"in his kingdom," (Matthew,) -or "in his glory." (Mark.)
And, as partially explaining the error of the disciples,
in adhering to the idea of a glorious worldly kingdom
for the Messiah, and of honorable positions for themselves
in that kingdom, even in spite of the Saviour's explicit
instructions concerning his sufferings, we may observe
that our Saviour often spoke of his kingdom and his
glory, in close connection with his teachings concerning
his humiliation. Thus, after his first announcement of
his coming sufferings, and his notification to his disciples
of the necessity of their taking up the cross and folio-wing
him, he adds, " For the Son of Man shall come in the
glory of his Father, with his angels ; and then shall he
reward every man according to his works. Verily I say
unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not
taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in
his kingdom."* So, just before the first of the three oc
casions when the disciples disputed with one another,
Jesus had spoken of the illustrious rewards which they
should receive as his faithful followers, giving them the
following distinct and emphatic assurance, " Verily I say
unto you, that ye which have followed me in the regen
eration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of
his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging
the twelve tribes of Israel."t And at the passover table,
not only did he say, " With desire have I desired to eat
this passover with you before I suffer," but also, " I will
-» Matt. xvi. 27, 28, and parallels, f Matt. xix. 27-30, and parallels.

CONTENTIONS AMONG THE TWELVE. 99
not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the king
dom of God," and " I will not drink of the fruit of the
vine until the kingdom of God shall come."*
We cannot, then, greatly wonder that the disciples
failed to perceive the true meaning of Christ's predictions
concerning his sufferings. And, failing to perceive the
true meaning of these predictions, and seeing in them
only the tokens of a great revolution at hand, we cannot
greatly wonder that, -with their previous views of a literal
and worldly kingdom of God, they were, with each new
prediction of the Saviour, stirred to stronger anticipations
of the setting up of such a kingdom, and to ambitious
desires for its expected honors.
It is not inconsistent with what has been said, to sup
pose that, in each case of the contentions of the disciples,
there was something in the circumstances of the moment,
as well as in the fact of Christ's recent teaching, which
incited them to controversy. As, in the second case pre
sented, the conduct of James and John provoked the
indignation of the other disciples, so, in the case preceding
it, there may have been a jealousy existing with the nine
disciples, for the peculiar favor shown the three who were
chosen to attend the Saviour on the mount of Transfig
uration. Likewise, in the case following it, the dispute
may have begun with claims for positions of honor at the
passover table. His teaching occasioned their specula
tions on the glorious rewards coming, and the natural
desire for a superior share of these was provoked to ex
press itself by the jealousies existing at the time.
» Luke xxii. 16, 18, 28-30.

XVII.
Conduct of the Unbelieving Brethren of Jesus; as seen on Tivo
Occasions.
John vii. 2-10 ; Mark iii. 20, 21, 31-35.
Foe eighteen months, as is commonly estimated, Jesus
had avoided Jerusaleni. This he had done, because
"the Jews sought to kill him." Meanwhile he had
been prosecuting his ministry in Galilee and the regions
adjacent. The feast of Tabernacles is now to be celebrated, yet,
it would seem, Jesus shows no sign of leaving his present
place. He is quietly remaining in Galilee, while all
around him are intent on the festival and are setting out
for Jerusalem. " His brethren " are about leaving, and
they urge him to go likewise. And they would have
him appear in Jerusalem, as they allege, in order that he
may publicly exhibit himself. Galilee was but an ob
scure, outlying province ; Jerusalem was the great national
capital, and now gathered the people from far and from
near. If he desired to make himself kno-wn to his
countrymen, it was, as they argued, unreasonable still to
avoid publicity. Rather he should court it. He should
avail himself of the opportunity afforded by the feast, at
once to procure the national recognition of his claims.
The language of his brethren is, " Depart hence, and go
into Judea, that thy disciples also may see the works that
100

THE BRETHREN OF JESUS. 101
thou doest. For there is no man that doeth anything in
secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If
thou do these things, show thyself unto the world." We
are given, further, distinctly to understand that his breth
ren did not credit his claims to be a high messenger from
God, and that their remonstrance with him at this time
was prompted by their want of faith. The Evangelist
adds, " For, neither did his brethren believe on him."
This remonstrance of the brethren of Jesus has been
understood in a variety of senses, some of them contradic
tory of each other. One class of commentators regard it
in its most obvious sense, as expressive of a sincere de
sire that Jesus should go to Jerusalem and " do his works
in the temple, and before the priests and rulers; because
if recognized there, he would be everywhere received."
Another class regard it as ironical and scornful, as ex
pressive of contemptuous skepticism, as taunting him
with cowardice in not venturing himself in Jerusalem.
Now, what is the proper sense of the language of the
brethren of Jesus?
This passage has a peculiar interest for its bearing on
that most perplexing question, whether the persons named
as James and Simon and Judas, in the catalogues of the
Twelve, were identical -with the persons of the same name
spoken of as our Lord's brethren.* It does not belong
to our present purpose to discuss this question. Rather
we would interpret the passage, without reference to it.
And we would interpret the passage mainly in the light
of the history, and especially in the light of the con
duct of these same brethren as exhibited on a former
occasion. '¦ Luke vi. 15, 16 ; Matt. xiii. 56.

102 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
His brethren, then, "did not believe on him." With
out insisting now on the precise import of these words,
we may give their general meaning, as made probable by
the whole history, on this wise. — They held him in sin
cere esteem as a near relative who was wholly inoffensive,
and in the highest degree pure and loving, but they dis
credited his claims to be a mighty prophet. Having
grown up in his company, being thoroughly familiar
with him in his earthly relations, they failed to recognize
in him what was Divinely extraordinary. They verified the
proverb, used by our Saviour, "A prophet is not without
honor, but in his own country, and among his o-wn kin,
and in his own house." And therefore they did not at
tend upon his ministry. They remained at Nazareth,
while he -was abroad performing his wonderful works,
and uttering his wonderful words. Now, supposing that
their want of faith in him was of this sort, are we to be
lieve that, on the occasion before us, they sought to force
Jesus upon greater publicity; or is it more probable that
they sought to withdraw him even from the publicity in
which he already lived? The conduct of these brethren,
as once before sho-wn, may help in the answering of this
question. And what was that conduct?
Jesus had fully entered on his Galilean ministry. He
was journeying from place to place, attended by a great
throng, working his mightiest miracles and everywhere
proclaiming the word. "His friends" hear of it. The
fame of his doings penetrates to Nazareth, where they
seem to be remaining — in strange apathy and unbelief.
They hear particularly of the excited multitudes who be
siege him at every moment. What they hear rouses
their latent suspicions, that his enthusiasm has now

THE BRETHREN OP JESUS. 103
mounted to the height of positive insanity. And their
thought is, that it is time for them to interfere and put a
stop to his proceedings. The language of the record is,
"And the multitude cometh together again, so that they
could not so much as eat bread. And when his friends
heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him : for they
said, He is beside himself."* Thus setting out, they by-
and-by reach the place where he is teaching, where the
multitude is so vast and dense that they cannot get access
to him. And now we are informed just who these
"friends" are. The word is passed to him, "Behold
thy mother, and thy brethren stand without, desiring to
speak with thee."t
Here, then, is another glimpse of "his brethren."
They are unbelieving; and what are they doing? Why
they are seeking to recall him from publicity, and bring
him to retirement.
This being the case, how can we think that farther on
in his ministry, they, remaining in the same state of
mind toward him — still unbelieving — should urge an
opposite course upon him? How can we think that he
being comparatively quiet in Galilee, they should really
desire him to go to Jerusalem, and act the part of a pro
fessed prophet in the presence of the assembled nation?
Does it not rather seem, that now, while he was com
paratively quiet, they regarded it as a favorable time to
approach him again, and to renew the attempt to disen
chant him of his delusions concerning himself, and to
dissuade him from further following his strange manner
of life? « Mark iii. 20, 21. -|- Mark iii. 32.

104 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
This interpretation, suggested by the history, admira
bly falls in with the language of the brethren, closing
their remonstrance; "If thou do these things, show thy
self to the world." How naturally does this form of ex
pression suggest the alternative, that it would be wise for
him not to "do these things!" How naturally does it
suggest the thought that the exposure of himself in Je
rusalem is proposed by his brethren, only as an argu
ment to enforce the necessity of his quitting public life
altogether !
This, then, is our view of the passage in question.
The unbelieving brethren of Jesus, in their remonstrance
with him, endeavored to show the inconsistency of his
course in remaining away from Jerusalem, with his claim
to be a prophet of God. And this they did, not with the
desire of having him go to Jerusalem and there assert
his claim, but with the hope of inducing him to re
nounce his assumed character altogether. They meant
to persuade him that his very dread of appearing in Je
rusalem was conclusive proof of his Twt being a mighty
prophet. We may regard their language as not that of scorn,
but that of kind rebuke. It is as if they had said, "You
profess to be sent of God, perhaps to be the Messiah
himself. Yet you do not venture to submit your claims
to a public test. You do not place yourself where you
can realize your vocation. If yours is a Divine mission
to your countrymen, you need to go before them, at the
National Capital and, in the most public manner, vindi
cate and discharge that mission. This you refuse to do.
You have assumed a character which you cannot main
tain. Now our advice is, either to go up to Jerusalem

THE BRETHREN OF JBSUS. 105
at once, and make good your claim and perform your
prophetic work; or, still unwilling to undertake this, to
abandon these wild notions concerning yourself, and
this strange manner of conduct, and come home to so
ber life."

XVllI.
The AMegory of tlie Good Shepherd ; as connected ivifJi the Bealing
of the Man born blind.
John ix. ; x.
The di-vision of the sacred -writings into chapters,
while convenient for reference, is often unhappy in break
ing up connections in thought. We can hardly help
feeling that what has always been presented us, and has
been read by us, in separate chapters, is disconnected in
sense. Thus we sometimes miss the continuity of thought
preserved in successive chapters, and fail to see the con
tents of one chapter in the light which its neighbor might
throw upon it.
¦These observations apply emphatically to the division
of John's gospel between the ninth and tenth chapters.
The latter opens with the allegory of the Good Shepherd.
And inasmuch as this begins a new chapter, many per
sons fail to perceive that it has any connection with what
precedes. Yet the allegory was, in all probability, di
rectly occasioned by the events detailed in the previous
chapter, and is all the more forcible when viewed in
their light. Let us see.
The ninth chapter is chiefly occupied with an account
of the man blind from his birth, who was healed by
Jesus. The Saviour was now in Jerusalem. The time
is subsequent to the feast of tabernacles. From Galilee
106

THE GOOD SHEPHERD. 107
he has come suddenly, during the feast, into the midst
of the gathered multitudes, and is now openly vindicat
ing his high claims to Divine Sonship and Messiahship
against the determined and fierce opposition of the chiefs
of the nation. When he encounters the blind man, who
is the prominent person in this chapter, he has just
avoided being stoned by the Jews in the temple. No
sooner is he out of their reach, than he begins his labors
anew, saying, " I must work the works of him that sent
me, while it is day : the night cometh-, when no man
can work."
All are familiar with the outline of narrative follow
ing ; how Jesus, anointing the eyes of the man, sends
him to wash in the pool of Siloam, which results in his
cure ; how the man's neighbors, disputing among them
selves concerning his identity and his cure, bring him
to the Pharisees ; how these interrogate, first the man
and then his parents, regarding the whole matter ; how,
when the Pharisees denounce Jesus, the man takes
ground in favor of him, arguing his Divine mission ;
and how, at last, the incensed and scornful Pharisees
pass upon the man the dread sentence of excommunica
tion from the synagogue and banish him from their
company as unclean and vile. And few stories of life,
either inspired or uninspired, so stir our manly sympa
thies, as does this account of a poor beggar just emerging
from life-long blindness, who, confronted with the mag
nates of the land singly and alone, deserted even by his
own parents, harried with examinations and cross-ex
aminations, and hearing his benefactor foully calumni
ated — the account of this man, in these circumstances,
maintaining an unbroken, fearless, cheerful spirit, and,

108 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
with blunt words of honest indignation, tearing in pieces
the sophistries of his teachers, hurling back their vile
imputations cast upon his benefactor — stoutly maintain
ing his Divine mission ; thus, utterly regardless of per
sonal consequences, exasperating them to fury.
Yet the condition of the man, now driven from the
synagogue and from society, is indeed deplorable.
What will become of him? Who will befriend
him ? Faithful, where so many are faithless, shall he
have no reward ? A true sheep of the flock of Israel,
shall he be left to wander, unsheltered and unguided,
amidst the -wilds upon which he is cast ? Not so. A
friend is at hand. A good Shepherd is near.
At the time of his working this miracle, Jesus was
retreating from his enemies for safety. And for a while
he remains aloof. But when he hears that the man has
been cast out, he goes in quest of him, at all hazards.
All along, no doubt, he had well known what was going
on, and was in lively sympathy with his new disciple, so
nobly confessing him. " Perhaps in secret he was utter
ing, ' with strong crying and tears,' the words of the pro
phetic psalm, ' Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord
God of hosts, be ashamed for my sake ; let none that
seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel :
because for thy sake I have borne reproach, . . . and the
reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon
me.' "* And in the young man " were to be fulfilled in
a very eminent sense those words, ' Blessed are ye when
men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you
from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast
out your name as evil for the Son of Man's sake.' He
* Prof. Brown's Notes on the Gospels.

THE GOOD SHEPHERD. 109
is cast out of the meaner fellowship, to be received into a
higher. ' When my father and my mother forsake me,
the Lord will take me up.' "* " Man's extremity is
God's opportunity," and at the darkest moment of the
man's trial, Jesus comes upon him, reveals himself as his
benefactor and the Son of God, and takes the outcast to
fellowship with himself.
Now it is in close connection with this whole proceed
ing, a proceeding which in the strongest manner exhibits
both the Jewish Rulers, as exerting their authority to
the destruction of God's true people, and the Lord Jesus,
as acting the part of a Saviour and Comforter to such,
that Jesus utters his famous allegory, in which he pro-
claims himself the Good Shepherd, anS characterizes those
who have preceded him, as hirelings, thieves, and robbers.
And does not this whole representation become emphatic,
in view of the foregoing proceeding ? How true, as seen
in the case of the blind man and the Saviour, that the
"sheep hear his voice," and that "he calleth his own
sheep by name and leadeth them out." How true, as
seen in the conduct of the Rulers toward the blind man,
that " the thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill,
and to destroy." * Trench on the Miracles.
10

XIX.
TJie Ttequest, " lord, suffer me first to go and bury my Father ,-"
by ufliotn made, and ivhy refused.
Matt. viii. 21, 22; Luke ix. 59, 60.
Professor Blunt, in his "Undesigned Coinci
dences," from a comparison of passages in Matthew's
gospel, infers that this request came from one of the sons
of Zebedee. The request was certainly made by one "of
his disciples;" for this is expressly stated; but whether
the word "disciples" is here to be taken in the strict
sense of Apostles, or the wider sense of the Seventy, or in
the still more general sense of all believers, we must
judge from the circumstances.
Prof. Blunt argues that this disciple was one of the
sons of Zebedee, from the fact that before this Zebedee is
mentioned as living — James and John, at the time of
their call to the Apostleship, being spoken of as "in a
ship with Zebedee their father;" while after this, the
narrative implies that Zebedee was dead — the mother of
James and John being spoken of, not as the wife of
Zebedee, but as "the mother of Zebedee's children."*
Almost fearing, lest he should subject himself to the
charge of over-refinement, the Professor ventures to infer
" that the death of Zebedee is here alluded to, [that is,
in the above request,] and that St. Matthew, without a
¦¦* Compare Matt. iv. 21 ; xx. 20 ; xxvii. 56.
110

THE UNSEASONABLE REQUEST. Ill
wish, perhaps, or thought, either to conceal or express
the individual, (for there seems no assignable motive for
his studying to do either,) betrays an event familiar to
his own mind, in that inadvertent and unobtrusive man-
'ner in which the truth so often comes out."
Our Saviour's refusal of the disciple's request, and the
peculiar language in which it was couched, "let the dead
bury their dead," have occasioned commentators much
difficulty. Under ordinary circumstances such a request
would seem perfectly proper. It would be made, indeed,
as the dictate of filial piety. Why, then, was it now re
fused? A recent judicious expositor writes thus ; "The
reply of our Lord to the young man's request seems
harsh, but he must have had special reasons for answer
ing thus unknown to us."* A further study of this pas
sage, in its various relations, elicits, we think, a confirma
tion of Blunt's view just given, and at the same time
helps us in the conjecture of those "special reasons"
which dictated the Saviour's reply.
Turning to the parallel passage in Luke, we find that
while it is not there stated that the request came from
one " of the disciples," the reply of our Saviour indicates
that it did come from one who was formally and officially
attached to his ministry. The reply is, " Let the dead
bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom."
The person was evidently an ordained ambassador of
Christ. Further, that the disciple was one of the Twelve,
rather than one of the Seventy, seems probable, from the
fact that, at the time the request was made, the Seventy
had not yet been commissioned, f Still further, that the
* Rev. Dr. Nast. Commentary on Matthew and Mark.
f Luke X. 1.

112 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
disciple was one of the sons of Zebedee, is suggested by
the fact that James and John are mentioned by Luke in
close connection with the request, and at a time when, as
it appears, the Twelve had been sent out to prepare the
way for our Saviour's progress toward Jerusalem. James
and John seem to have been the two disciples who en
countered the ill reception at the hands of the Samari
tans, going thence to make report to their Master, and
proposing to call down fire from heaven as Elias did.
They were probably alone -with the Master at the time,
the rest of the Twelve being absent upon the important
work recently assigned them. Close upon this incident
comes the request under discussion, as though offered by
one of these disciples.
Yet the inquiry is still more interesting, why did the
Sa-viour refuse the request? What were his "special
reasons ?" If we may suppose that Luke, rather than
Matthew, records this incident in its true chronological
order, we may find the answer to this inquiry in the pe
culiar circumstances of ihe Saviour and of his disciples at
the time the request was made.*
^ There is no good reason for not regarding this incident as recorded in
its proper place by Luke. Matthew gives it as if occurring at a, much
earlier period of our Lord's ministry; recording it, as Luke also does, in
connection with the incident of the man saying to Christ, "I will follow
thee whithersoever thou goest," to whom the Saviour responds, " The
foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man
hath not where to lay his head.*' Luke gives, also, a third similar inci
dent, omitted by Matthew. The Harmonists have been much perplexed
in choosing between the Evangelists, and some of them have gone so far
as to suppose that the very same incidents occurred twice, at the times
severally mentioned by the two writers.
Our view is this : The order, as given by each of the writers is the order
of actual occurrence, so far as some one of the incidents is concerned. Prob
ably the interview with Jesus of " the Scribe," to whom Jesus declared.

THE UNSEASONABLE REQUEST. 113
Just now, our Saviour was about starting from Galilee
to Jerusalem. On the way, he intended to employ him
self in such thorough labors as he had already performed
in Galilee, where he "went about all" the country,
" teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel
of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness."
To facilitate his plan, he made use of his Apostles as her
alds, sending them out along the whole front of his ad
vance, preaching the kingdom of God. Shortly before
the incident in question is narrated, we have the following
statement ; " And it came to pass, when the time was
come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his
face to go up to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before
his face."* These messengers, who were probably the
Apostles only, were not, it appears, sufficient for the whole
work of making ready for him, which he now desired to
have performed. For we read presently, that "after
these things, the Lord appointed other Seventy also, and
sent them two and two before his face, into every city
and place, whither he himself would' come."t Indeed,
even this number was found to be painfully inadequate
to the required work ; for our Lord immediately after
" The foxes have holes," etc., occurred at the time indicated'hy Matthew,
when Jesus was about to embark for the farther side of the lake. And
probably the similar incidents, first, of the disciple who desired to go and
bury his father, and secondly, of another who wished to go and bid fare
well to his friends at home, occurred at the time indicated by Luke. It
would be altogether natural for an Evangelist, in recording an incident
occurring at a specified time, to associate with it a similar incident occur
ring at a different time.
It may he added that Prof. Blunt's argument, as stated above, is not
impaired by the supposition that Luke, rather than Matthew, has recorded
the incident in question in its true chronological order.
« Luke ix. 51, 62. t ^- 1-
10 ¦*

114 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
thus speaks ; " The harvest truly is great, but the labor
ers are few ; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest,
that he would send forth laborers into his harvest."*
And that his disciples were to " preach the kingdom of
God," we learn from the commission given to the Sev
enty ; the only thing which they were specifically com
manded to say being this, "The kingdom of God is come
nigh unto you."t
Such, then, were the circumstances under which one
" of the disciples " made the request that he might be
permitted to go and bury his father. Whether or not
this disciple was one of the Twelve, being one who had
accepted the commission to "preach the kingdom of
God," and offering his request at the precise time that
there was an urgent and indispensable need for this
preaching, " the special reasons " of the Master for refus
ing what, in the case of another, or in the case of this
person at another time, might have been granted, seem
sufficiently disclosed. Just now, it would be a forsaking
of the service of Christ, for one of his disciples to leave
him on such an errand. Just here, a test of the disciple's
paramount devotion was reached. Jesus' words must
-» Luke X. 2.
-|- Luke X. 9. We follow Robinson's Harmony whenever practicable. In
this part of t he history, we have felt compelled to deviate from it. We would
place our Lord's final departure from Galilee and the sending out of the Sev
enty, subsequent to the feast of tabernacles. (John vii. 2. ) Por an admirable
discussion of the chronology here, see " The Life of our Lord upon the
Earth ; considered in its Historical, Chronological, and Geographical Re
lations," by Samuel J. Andrews. Mr. Andrews very justly remarks, after
a discussion concerning our Lord's last journey to Jerusalem, that if the
character of this journey "be correctly stated, it is apparent that to the
mission of the Seventy a much greater importance must be given than has
usually been doue by Commentators and Harmonists."

THE UNSEASONABLE REQUEST. 115
now receive their illustration, " He that loveth father or
mother more than me, is not worthy of me."
And well might the disciple commit even the burying
of his father to such as had assumed no obligations which
would interfere with the performance of that work.
Those who sustained no living relations to the kingdom
of God — those "dead" — might be left to "bury their
dead."

XX.
Christ Beholding the TTowng Buler ; as illustrated by Bis tu/min^
and looTeiTig on Peter.
Mark x. 21 ; Luke xxii. 61.
The first three Evangelists narrate the incident of
Christ's interview with the young Ruler. Each -writer
mentions certain particulars omitted by the others. The
circumstance referred to in the title of this chapter, is
given by Mark alone. In the midst of his narrative,
Mark -writes, " Then Jesus beholding him loved him."
In order that this circumstance may appear in full
relief, let us review the accounts of the writers up to the
point at which it is introduced, with some endeavor to
understand the meaning of our Saviour's procedure as
therein set forth.
Matthew, at the outset, is very indefinite; "And be
hold, one came and said unto him." Mark tells us
where Jesus was. He has informed us before of Jesus
being "in the house," where he had blessed the little
children.* Now "he was gone forth into the way,"
probably having resumed his journey toward Jerusalem.
The action of the person approaching the Saviour, is
also described by Mark. " There came one running and
kneeled to him." Luke informs us that this person was
"a certain ruler," one occupying an important ecclesiastical
¦» Vs. 10, 13.
116

Christ's look of pity. 117
position, and it falls out afterward, in Matthew's account,
that he was a "young man."
His great question and its answer receive substantially
the same record, in all the accounts. Addressing the
Saviour as " Good Master," he asks what he shall do that
he may inherit eternal life. Jesus, after an intimation
that the young man's conceptions of spiritual excellence
are superficial and unworthy, answers his question by
referring him to the law. " And Jesus said unto him,
why callest thou me good ? There is none good but one,
that is God. Thou knowest the commandments : Do
not commit adultery. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not
bear false witness. Defraud not. Honor thy father and
mother." (Mark.) Only Matthew records the question
of the ruler, "which" of the commandments? in response
to which the preceding enumeration is given ; Matthew
adding, " and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"
The Master sends the ruler to the law, not to leave
him there, but to lead him thence. Jesus will first dis
cover to the ruler his self-righteous spirit, and then bring
him to see and feel that the law, instead of affording any
encouragement to such a spirit, on the contrary convicts
of sin and argues the need of a Saviour.
The question of the young man, "which" of the
commandments, shows that he regarded obedience to the
law, as a formal compliance of conduct with the letter of
the several precepts, rather than a conformity of heart to
the principles underlying all the precepts.
Jesus enumerates the commandments of the Second
table of the law, rather than the First, we may suppose,
either because these afforded the easier test of character,
or because the ruler's attention had all along been chiefly

118 hours among the gospels.
directed to these, and he had come to pride himself on
his unexceptionable performance of social duties.
And now is brought from him that confession of his
self-righteous confidence and hope, which, doubtless, the
Saviour from the first intended to elicit, a confession
made, as we have every reason to think, in all sincerity
and with no little self-gratulation, " All these have I kept
from my youth up." Ha-ving recognized in the Galilean
teacher, one who had great discernment and skill in re
ligious things, the young ruler had evidently come to
him for a confirmation of present hopes, rather than for
any new light concerning the way of life. He has now
apparently received his desire, and having declared his
faithful observance of the law, he sounds the challenge
as of triumph, "What lack I yet?" This is re
corded by Matthew alone, yet is implied by both the
others. Thus has the young man declared his whole heart.
He stands before the Saviour fully revealed. It is a time
of intense interest. The Master's soul has been kindling
with all pure and pitying affections, in proportion as the
fiilse hopes of the ruler have been gaining strength and
encouragement.* In faithfulness Jesus must now sorely
¦^•- The intense interest with which the Saviour entered into the case of
the ruler, is further evident from the energetic expressions which he uses
when the ruler withdraws. As if viewing with profound sorrow and indig
nation the ruinous influence of a love of wealth, he utters one astounding
exclamation after another — " How hardly shall they that have riches enter
into the kingdom of God!" "It is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God !"
" With men this is impossible."
Some of the Commentators regard the question, "What lack I yet?" as
indicative of the feeling of uneasiness and doubt, on the part of the ruler,
and of a sincere desire to be more fully instructed in the way of life.

CHRIST S LOOK OF PITY. 119
disappoint and grieve his questioner. He must dissipate
his cherished self-deceptions. He must, with a single
breath, blow upon his life-long hopes, and blast them for
ever. He will open the true way to eternal life, but how
narrow is that way — how self-denying — perhaps too much
so for the disappointed one to be willing to enter it.
We might have inferred that at this point Jesus would
be deliberate in his utterances. We might have Imown
that he would not rudely or violently tear away from the
young ruler even the unworthy hopes with which he had
deluded himself. And this, which we might have in
ferred, is distinctly intimated by the Evangelist Mark.
Nay more, not only was there a solemn pause in the
conversation, not only did the eager question, "What
lack I yet?" remain for a moment unanswered, but that
moment was occupied by the Saviour in a most signifi
cant manner. He turned himself in full upon the young
man and earnestly surveyed him ; " Then Jesus beholding
him." And here it is that we would adduce the passage from
the history of Peter's denials of his Master. Would we
know how unutterably and thrilHngly significant was
the look of Jesus, we may judge of it from the case of
Peter.* What volumes of pity and reproach must have
been spoken, when "the Lord turned, and looked upon
Peter," to have instantly brought the disciple to full re
collection, and flooded his heart with penitent griefs, and
(Lange, Stieb, Nast, and others.) This, we think, does not so well ac
cord with his subsequent conduct, in which he rejects the Saviour's pre
scription. •» The word " beholding," in Mark x. 21, is, in the Greek, a participle
of the same verb translated " looked," in Luke xxii. 61.

120 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
sent him forth into the lonely night with tears of bitter
weeping. And although the look of Jesus, in the case
of the young ruler, may not have had precisely the same,
yet it doubtless had an equal significance. And as we
know, from the conduct of Peter, what was the peculiar
meaning of the Saviour's look in his case, so we know,
from the record itself, what was the peculiar meaning of
the look which Jesus gave the young ruler. For Mark
writes, "Then Jesus beholding him loved him." The
volumes now spoken were of pity and compassion. The
soul of Jesus yearned upon this young man, so sincere,
so upright, so deferential to himself, so concerned for his
eternal prospects, yet so fatally mistaken. In that look,
perhaps, the young man, stirred with strange and pro
found emotions, read the coming answer of the Master.
So did it penetrate and subdue his soul, that when the
answer came, he had no disposition to question or resist
its truth. He silently submitted to the terrible loss of all
his hopes of heaven, being still more deeply attached to
his great worldly possessions.*
Jesus' answer is, "One thing thou lackest," bidding
him distribute his goods to the poor, and engage in the
self-denying life of a disciple. Matthew -writes, "If
thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give
* " The Spirit who accompanied the words of Jesus had deeply pene
trated his heart, had enlightened the darkness within, had revealed to him
the true, though hitherto entirely unknown, way of regeneration, and so he
found himself taken prisoner by the power of the truth. But the chain
which he carried was too heavy, he could not call forth within his heart
that free determinate choice in favor of the narrow way, which is abso
lutely necessary, and the scarcely opened gate of Paradise closed itself
again before his weeping eyes." — Olshausbn, on Matt. xix. 22.

CHRIST S LOOK OF PITY. 121
to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven : and
come, follow me."
The ruler lacked one thing, but that was -vital to
everything else. It was not one thing of the same sort
with the many things which he already possessed, needed
simply to give completeness to his character. It was not
a unit which must be added to the ninety-nine before
possessed, to make a perfect hundred. It was not a lit
tle finger, as has sometimes been said, which was want
ing, in order to a perfect physical man. Rather, the
ruler needed a principle to animate his works of right
eousness. He was destitute of that true love to God
which is the life of all obedience to his law. The one
thing which he lacked was the numeral 1, which pre
ceding the ciphers, 00, worthless in themselves, makes
them 100. It was not a little finger, needed to com
plete the man, but a soul to give life to the body. His
heart was supremely set on worldly wealth. This was
the idol on the throne. And therefore the Saviour en
joins upon him just that which would sacrifice the idol
and enthrone the Lord in its stead.
The language of the Evangelists shows his failure to
abide the Master's test, and at the same time his con
viction of his life-long error. He is "sorrowful,"
(Matthew,) "very sorrowful," (Luke,) "sad" and
"grieved." (Mark.) And going away, clinging to his
"great possessions," he calls from the Master the ex
clamation, "How hardly shall they that have riches
enter into the kingdom of God."
11 P

XXI.
Pa/rahle of tlie Laborers in the Vineyard ; as connected with previous
TeacJiings.
Matt. XX. 1-16 ; xix. 16-30.
The disposition to sever parables from the connection
in which they are found, and having isolated them to
try and discover in their every feature and detail a re
semblance to some supposed case — this disposition, more
than anything else, as we believe, hinders the proper
understanding of the parables. Such a disposition freely
indulged, in reference to those incidents and anecdotes
which, in modern discourse, are most nearly analogous
to the parables of Scripture, would certainly be fatal to
any correct understanding of them.
The parable of the laborers runs thus: "For the king
dom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder,
which went out early in the morning to hire laborers
into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the
laborers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vine
yard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw
others standing idle in the market-place, and said unto
them. Go ye also into the vineyard ; and whatsoever is
right, I will give you. And they went their way. Again
he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did
likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, aud
found others standing idle, and saith unto them. Why
122

PARABLE OF THE LABORERS. 123
stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him.
Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them.
Go ye also into the vineyard ; and whatsoever is right,
that shall ye receive. So when even was come, the lord
of the vineyard saith unto his steward. Call the laborers
and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto
the first. And when they came that were hired about
the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
But when the first came, they supposed that they should
have received more; and they received likewise every
man a penny. And when they had received it, they
murmured against the good-man of the house, saying.
These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast
made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden
and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and
said. Friend, I do thee no wrong : didst not thou agree
with me for a penny ? Take that thine is, and go thy
way : I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is
it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own ?
Is thine eye evil because I am good ? So the last shall
be first, and the first last : for many be called, but few
chosen." This is said to be one of the most difficult of the para
bles. And viewed apart from its connection, and regarded
less for its governing thought than for the supposed sig
nificance of its several features, we may readily become
bewildered in a maze of interpretations suggested by the
imagination. And we are the more likely to view this
parable apart from the previous context, with which it
is vitally connected, for the reason that it is separated
from that context in the artificial division of the chapters.
The remarks made on p. 106 apply here with full force.

124 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
Very many readers, no doubt, have the impression that
the twentieth chapter of Matthew opens -with a wholly
new subject.
We desire now, if possible, to obliterate this false im
pression. We desire to bridge the chasm which is pro
duced by the division of the chapters, and draw the par
able to its proper place, in immediate and living connec
tion with our Lord's previous teaching. And we would
seek to understand the parable in the light of that teach
ing. For this is one of the instances, in which a view
of the whole is most important in order to a right under
standing of the parts. Here, as often elsewhere, the
motion of the river's current previously acquired may
bear the vessel over a shallow passage of the stream, with
only slight hindrance, when without such motion the
vessel would have hopelessly grounded.*
That the parable was meant to illustrate and enforce
the previous teaching, is evident from two considerations.
First, the parable opens in a way to indicate it. The
language is, " For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a
man," etc. Plainly thus are we advertised of the con
nection of the parable -with what goes before. In the
second place, the parable -winds up with a distinct refer
ence to the saying of our Saviour immediately preceding,
and with its partial repetition. The closing words of the
nineteenth of Matthew are these ; " But many that are
-* Neander has some strange remarks on this point. He says, "We
cannot but suppose that this parable is joined to the words that precede
and follow by a merely accidental link of connection. The most elaborate
efforts to harmonize the passages in question with the parable only result
in destroying its sense, so pregnant with characteristic Christian truth."
Yet he adds, " The collocation of the parable in Matthew may afford a
clue to its interpretation." — Life op Christ.

PARABLE OF THE LABORERS. 125
first shall be last ; and the last first." And the parable
thus concludes ; " So the last shall be first and the first
last ; for many be called, but few chosen."
Instead, then, of looking at the parable separately, and
spending our time in conjectures as to who respectively
are represented by the laborers employed early in the
morning, and at the different times of day mentioned ;
instead of trying to reconcile the dissatisfied and selfish
spirit exhibited by those who had labored the whole day
with what we know to be the true Christian spirit ; in
stead of seeking to explain the equality of rewards in the
parable consistently with the inequality of rewards which
the Scriptures teach us to expect in heaven ; instead of
this, let us look at the great teaching of the previous
context which the parable was evidently intended to re-
exhibit and reinforce, and see if, in the view of the cen
tral and controlling truths of that teaching, the parable
may not show an intelligible and impressive harmony.*
Our Saviour's previous teaching had been given in
answer to a statement and inquiry made by the Apostle
* The Commentators are especially perplexed over the " penny." About
one-half of them interpret it of temporal rewards ; about one-half of eter
nal. A difference truly. But why should we interpret it of either ? Why
should we make puzzles of parables ? Were not the parables intended as
illustrations of truth ? How then- can they be regarded as in themselves
obscure ?
" The meaning of the denary (the penny) is a crux interpretum, and re
minds us of what Chrysostom and Maldonatus say in loc., that we must
not scrupulously press every particular in a parable, but keep always in
view the general scope. Parables are poetic pictures taken from real life
for the illustration of the higher truths and realities of the kingdom of
heaven, and contain with the essential figures some ornamental touches
which are necessary for the artistic finish, although they may not express
definitely a corresponding idea or fact in the spiritual world." — Schaff
in Lange, in loco.
11 »

126 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
Peter. " Then answered Peter, and said unto him, Be
hold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what
shall we have therefore ?" Now this question concerning
the rewards of discipleship was not, in itself considered,
unworthy. The disciple is expected to have some " re
spect unto the recompense of the reward." Our Saviour,
therefore, does not refuse to answer Peter, but on the
contrary portrays in most striking language the compen
sations of a true Christian self-denial. " And Jesus said
unto them. Verily I say unto you. That ye which have
followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of Man
shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon
twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And
every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sis
ters, or father, or mother, or -wife, or children, or lands,
for my name's sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and
shall inherit everlasting life."
Still, it would be easy to ask the question of Peter in
an improper spirit. There was danger that with such
inspiring rewards in prospect, some persons might un
dertake the Christian life simply with a view to secure
them — ^in a selfish and mercenary spirit, rather than in
the loving spirit of a true disciple. This were a fatal
error. And hence the caution with which the Saviour
follows his statements of the Christian's glorious rewards ;
"But many that are first shall be last; and the last
first." The reward does not so much depend upon the
amount of sacrifice made, or service rendered, as upon
the prompting motive of the disciple. If the Christian
serves his Master selfishly, less from love than he
ought, and with an undue regard for advantage, though
he be first in the matter of privations and toils, he shall

PARABLE OF THE LABORERS. 127
be last in the matter of reward ; while he who is truly
devoted to the Master, being sacrificed in spirit, and
ready lovingly to endure and labor according to his op
portunities, — he, even though few opportunities be af
forded him, and he be last in actual self-denials, shall
be first in the matter of reward.
Next comes the parable. And regarding it as in
tended to enforce the caution just announced, — regarding
it as intended to impress upon the Christian disciple the
danger of indulging a selfish, hireling spirit when en
couraging himself with the hope of reward, — how per
fectly natural does it appear, how beautifully simple,
how free from all that is perplexing. The Lord may
do as he will with his own. His bestowments are of
grace not of debt. Something else than the compara
tive amount of ser-vice rendered proportions the Chris
tian's reward. The enjoyment of high Christian privi
lege, exciting selfish hopes but failing to secure the con
secration of the heart to God, shall distinguish many
who will come short of salvation. "So the last shall
be first, and the first last: for many be called but few
chosen."

XXII.
Christ's Tnumphal Entry into Jerusalem; The Ass and her Colt.
Matt. xxi. 2, 7 ; Mark xi. 2 ; Luke xix. 30.
Our Saviour coming up to Jerusalem for the last
time before he suffers, enters the city as a king, amidst
the acclamations of his loyal people. He does this, we
may believe, not merely in order that the Scriptures
may be fulfilled, but under the guidance of that eternal
and infinite wisdom, which dictated both the prophecies
of Scripture concerning him and the whole course of his
actual life. It was doubtless needed that an open
avowal of his Messiahship, of this impressive yet im
plicit sort, should be made at the Sacred Capital and in
the presence of the Nation, before he should suffer.
Gradually he had unfolded his character as the Messiah,
and by implication had claimed to be recognized as
such; and here the avowal is made so distinctly, that
all pretence, on the part of those who should reject
him, of his not claiming to be the Messiah, would be of
no avail.
In the account given by the different Evangelists of
the steps taken preliminary to the public entrance into
the city, occurs a coincidence evidently unintended, but
such as indicates the strict accuracy of each Evangelist,
in narrating what was of special interest to himself or
what was most suitable for his specific purpose.
128

CHRIST RIDING INTO JERUSALEM. 129
Mark and Luke speak of only one animal, in connec
tion with Christ's riding into Jerusalem, and that "a
colt." It was, too, an unbroken colt; for both writers
are particular to state that never yet had man sat on it.
This was doubtless a befitting circumstance in the
arrangement. The present sacred service could not
have been becomingly performed by an animal used be
fore to common labors.
Turning now to Matthew, we find that he constantly
speaks of two animals. "Ye shall find an ass tied, and
a colt with her : loose them and bring them unto me."
And it is only from the other Evangelists that we know
upon which of the animals the Sa-viour rode, Matthew
lea-ving this point undetermined.
On other occasions, as is well known, Matthew in like
manner speaks of two objects or persons, where the
other -writers mention but one. Thus, "Coming into
the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two pos
sessed with devils."* The others speak of but one,
whom we are accustomed from their narratives to call
the Gadarene demoniac. So Matthew records the heal
ing of two blind men at Jericho, where the others speak
only of Bartimeus.f This peculiarity in Matthew is
ascribed by some to his former practice of accurately
noting numbers, in his occupation of accountant.
But while Matthew thus mentions the fact that the
mother was taken along with the colt, without intimat
ing any reason for it, the statement of the other writers,
to the eflect that the colt was unbroken and hence un
accustomed to being separated from its mother, furnishes
us, although most incidentally, with a very obvious rea-
» Matt. viii. 28. f Matt. xx. 30.
F«

130 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
son. The colt separated from its mother would have
been intractable; especially when called to play an im
portant part in a novel and exciting scene. The mother
being led beside the colt, as Matthew's narrative im
plies that it was, no difficulty on this score would proba
bly occur.
Thus the narratives, in a strikmg yet evidently un
designed manner, supplement each other.
If it be thought that we are refining unduly, it may
be answered that it is no unimportant matter to detect an
indication of accurate veracity on the part of the Evan
gelists, however nice; and that the nicer the indication
the more important it is, for the purpose of showing
their infallible truthfulness. And further, the refine
ment in this case is not without a sufficient result; inas
much as it enables us to dispense with the supposition
of a miracle performed on the colt, to make it sufficiently
manageable. Many Commentators have thought the
supposition of such a miracle necessary, although the
records give no hint that any miracle was actually
wrought. We may add, before concluding, that the way in
which Matthew speaks of the two animals, has curiously
led him to the apparent assertion of a more literal ful
fillment of prophecy than he evidently intended. Mat
thew thus writes; "And they brought the ass and the
colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him
thereon." And before this he writes;* "All this was
done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold
thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an
* Matt. xxi. 7.

CHRIST RIDING INTO JERUSALEM. 131
ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass."* At first sight, we
might have thought that the prophet had represented the
King of Zion as riding on two animals, and that Mat
thew had spoken of both the ass and her colt, with a
view of showing the exact fulfillment of the prediction.
But every Hebrew scholar knows that only one animal
was intended by the prophet; and it were absurd to
think that Matthew, himself a Hebrew, would make a
mistake here. Surely he was as familiar with the paral
lelism of Hebrew poetry, as are any of our modern
critics! -* Matt. xxi. 4, 5.

XXIII.
The Miracle and the Parable of the Barren Fig-Tree.
Mark xi. 12-14; Luke xiii. 6-9.
Our Sa-viour wrought many miracles of mercy in
illustration of his gospel of mercy, but only one miracle
of judgment in illustration of the wrath due to despised
mercy. Even in this he selected an unconscious object
for malediction and destruction.
The miracle of the barren fig-tree thus occurred.
Jesus was at Jerusalem, teaching daily in the temple
and spending his nights on the Mount of Olives. The
people all came to the temple early iu the mornings,
thronging to hear him,* and he, working while the
day lasted — his night hastening apace — came early into
the city that he might be about his Father's business.
It was the next morning after his public entry into
Jerusalem, that, returning from his night lodgings at
Bethany, apparently without having breakfasted, he felt
keenly the pangs of hunger. Seeing in the way a fig-
tree in full leaf, he came to it, "if haply he might find
anything thereon" to appease his hunger. But while
there was an abundance of leaves, giving evidence of
vigorous life, and, even in advance of the season, rich
promise of fruit, no fruit was found. It was a barren
fig-tree. In a few words, not of impatience or anger,
* Luke xxi. 38.
132

THE BARREN FIG-TREE. 133
though doubtless of deep solemnity, he doomed the tree
to the perpetual barrenness of death. "Jesus answered
and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for
ever." And soon the judgment took effect. The next
morning, that tree, so exuberant of a profitless life,
flourishing in its sho-wy, boastful wealth of leaves,
was a withered mass, a lifeless stock, "dried up from
the roots."
Now how is this miracle to be regarded? No doubt
we might so conceive of it, that it would seem unworthy
the Saviour.
We might conceive of it as exhibiting an ebullition
of puerile resentment against an unconscious object
which had innocently occasioned a disappointment. Of
course there have not been found wanting those who
were ready to make the most out of the apparently un
favorable features of this miracle.
Were it permitted us, however, to regard this mir
acle as mainly intended to teach important truth,
all difficulty of the sort suggested would instantly van
ish. And, as is' well known, most interpreters attribute
to it a symbolic character. They regard it as a parable
in action, and as emblematical of the fate of the Jewish
people. And that our Saviour intended the miracle
thus to be taken, seems highly probable from the fact
that just now the thought of the nation's approaching
destruction was evidently dwelling on his mind, and
from the further fact that the details of the miracle- ap
ply with remarkable aptness to the principal features
df Jewish history.
How often at this time did Jesus show that the im
pending doom of his people was prominently in his
12

134 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
view. Only the day before, he had wept o-ver Jerusa
lem, beholding with prophetic eye her desolations,
"because she knew not the time of her visitation."
And the day after, he warned the rulers that "the king
dom of God should be taken from them and given to a
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof,"* and portrayed
to his disciples at length the downfall of the Jewish
State. And the details of the parable are apt for this
symbolic teaching. The Jewish people gave abundant
signs of religious life. They were blessed with all
manner of religious privileges, and they made all man
ner of religious professions. Those who beheld them
from afar expected to find among them the fruits of
religious living, upon a near approach and acquaintance.
Yet their religion was all show and boast — like the pro
duce of the fruitless fig-tree. They were -without profit
toward God, and cumbered the ground.
The symbolic character of the miracle is thus seen to
be probable. Yet would it not be gratifying to have
this confirmed ? But how can we expect it to be con
firmed ? As intimated by the title of this chapter, we
are disposed to connect the miracle with the parable of
the barren fig-tree. And while, apart from any connec
tion of the two, we may reasonably attach the symbolic
meaning to the miracle just stated, it would seem that
ii- it If ^e regard the tree as a symbol of the nation, and the malediction
as indicative of the nation's doom, until the end of this dispensation, the
time of the act may be significant. Our Lord had entered Jerusalem, the
day before, as her king, but he was not received in that character, except
by the children. The multitudes hailed him only as the prophet of Naz
areth, while the rulers plotted against his life. With that day, therefor^,
the day of their national visitation ended, and before he entered the city
again, he portrayed in the fig-tree the nation's doom." — Jones' Notes on
ScEIPTnRE.

THE BARREN FIG-TREE. 135
we are almost compelled to do this, if we bring the two
into connection. And that the miracle was intended to
be -viewed in connection with the parable, appears in the
highest degree probable, if we consider not merely the
sameness of the subject — in both cases a fruitless fig-tree
— but also the fact that the miracle in its symbolic char
acter perfectly supplements and completes the parable.*
Let us glance at the parable, and then see how ad
mirably the miracle fits it.
Jesus had been correcting the false views of his hear
ers, who regarded extraordinary calamities as judgments
from God for particular and aggravated sins. " Sup
pose ye," he asks, "that these Galileans," "whose blood
Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices," " were sinners
above all the Gralileans, because they suffered such
things ? I tell you. Nay ; but except ye repent, ye shall
all like-wise perish." Again he asks, " Or those eighteen,
upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them,
think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt
in Jerusalem ? I tell you. Nay ; but except ye repent,
ye shall all likewise perish." Just before this, he had
warned the people, and his enemies -with them, of the
crisis which was at hand, in the history of the nation.
He demands of them, " Ye hypocrites, ye can discern
* The good Bishop Hall thus writes: "Besides that, I have learned
that thou, 0 Saviour, wert wont not to speak only, but to work parables :
and what was this other than a real parable of thine ? . . . How didst thou
herein mean to teach thy disciples how much thou hatest an unfruitful
profession, and what judgments thou mean'st to bring upon that barren
generation ? Once before hadst thou compared the Jewish nation to a fig-
tree in the midst of thy vineyard, which, after three years' expectation
and culture, yielding no fruit, was by thee, the Owner, doomed to a speedy
excision; now thou actedst what thou then «aic?ai."— Contemplations in
loco.

136 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
the face of the sky and of the earth ; but how is it that
ye do not discern this time ?" And he warns them of
impending judgment, and of the necessity of prompt
measures in order to avoid it.*
Thus, then, just preceding the parable of the barren
fig-tree, Jesus pictures the Jewish people as exposed to
the imminent judgments of God, the sword of Pilate
ever gleaming before their eyes ready to pierce them,
the crumbling tower of Siloam ever overhanging them
ready to fall in crushing destruction. And judgment is
stayed, to give space for repentance. It "will come in
all its destructive fury, unless averted by repentance.
" Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."t
Then follows the parable of the fig-tree, for three suc
cessive years disappointing the owner of the -vineyard,
and spared from being cut down as cumbering the ground,
by the urgent intercessions of the dresser of the vineyard,
yet spared only for a single year, in the hope that re
newed and yet more generous culture may result in its
fruitfulness. " If it bear fruit, well ; . and if not, then
after that thou shalt cut it do-wn."
Thus, in the parable, is the want of fruitfulness in
God's ser-vice represented as calling for judgment upon
the Jewish people. And the parable leaves the people
with judgment suspended over them, and ready to de
scend upon them in case qf their continued unfruitful-
ness. The subsequent history shows that the people were
not brought to repentance. They failed to bring forth
* Luke xii. 64-59.
-|- " Those two calamities then are adduced as slight foretastes of the doom
prepared for the whole rebellious nation." — Trench on the Parables.

THE BARREN FIG-TREE. 137
" fruits meet for repentance." Renewed and increasing
pri-vilege only stimulated their spiritual pride and self-
sufficiency and shameless boastings. They were now
about to consummate their unfaithfulness by the positive
rejection of the Sent and Son of God, for whose sake
their nation and their religion existed. Hence the tree
must be destroyed. The impending judgment must de
scend. The intercessor must stand aside, acquiescing
though sadly in the decree of doom.
And all this is set forth in the miracle of the fig-tree,
if we may attribute to it a symbolic character.
How deeply impressive becomes the miracle thus in
terpreted. As if Jesus, standing by the fruitless tree,
had said to his disciples, " Remember that tree of which
I told you before, so long fruitless, yet spared another
year. And here is that tree, vigorous^ with life under
its new culture, but fruitless still. The time for judg
ment has come." " Let no fruit grow on thee hence
forward for ever."
12 »

XXIV.
Christ^s Denunciation against the Scribes and Pharisees at differ
ent times Compared.
Matt, xxiii. ; Luke xi. 37-64.
The Twenty-Third of Matthew is mainly occupied
with a discourse of the Saviour, of unparalleled severity,
directed against the leaders of the people. "As he once
commenced his sermon on the Mount in Galilee -with
pronouncing eight beatitudes, so he closes his last public
address with pronouncing eight woes on Mount Moriah,
declaring thereby most distinctly that all manifestation
of his Divine love and meekness had been in vain, and
must now give way to stern justice."*
Were we reading Matthew -without note or comment,
we should probably have no other thought than that
this thrillingly solemn discourse was actually delivered
at the time indicated, and substantially in the form here
-^ Baumgarten in Nast. " Some have labored to show that there is a
contrast between the earlier and later utterances of Jesus, indicative of a
change of feelings and views. This supp osition is based on the fact, that
whilst at his first public appearances blessings fell from his lips, at a later
period he poured forth denunciations of the cities which had rejected
him. . . . The only perceivable difference is, that as he drew towards
the termination of his mission, the ardent love he bore to his people
expressed itself more frequently and more strongly in the form of grief at
their perversity, until last of all there burst forth the prophetic warning,
that their contempt of inward moral redemption must inevitably result in
outward ruin." — Ullman's Sinlesssess of Jesus.
138

SCRIBES AND PHARISEES DENOUNCED. 139
reported. Some expositors, however, tell us that Jesus
now uttered only a part of what is here recorded, and
that Matthew, in making his report, — according to an
alleged habit of that Evangelist, — incorporated similar
sayings of the Saviour spoken at other times. The dis
course as here given may seem to be connected and com
plete, but this, they tell us, is due to the compiler rather
than to the author of these sayings.
The only reason adduced for this opinion, apart from
the alleged habit of Matthew just mentioned, is the fact
that Luke, in the passage above cited, has given a dis
course of Christ delivered on another occasion, which
strongly resembles this ; some of the expressions being
identical. Now, in regard to Matthew's habit of group
ing things similar, we believe it to be greatly exag
gerated, f Further, it seems a very insufficient reason
for rejecting the common view entertained of the unity
and completeness of this discourse in Matthew, that our
Saviour is known to have spoken some of, the same
things on another occasion. Why may we not think
that Christ often repeated his instructions, both as to
matter and form, moving as he did from place to place,
and addressing different assemblies of people? And
why might he not, in a long discourse directed against
a certain class of persons, repeat some of the same ex
pressions before used in another place, in addressing the
same class of persons ? It were sufficiently absurd to
take our conceptions of Christ's discourses in this respect
from those of a parish minister preaching to a stationary
congregation. Indeed we know that sometimes he did re
peat himself; the very same instructions being now and
* Sec foot-note, p. 42.

140 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
then reported by the same Evangelist, as spoken at dif
ferent times and places. Luke himself, in the very
instance before us, reporting very briefly the discourse
which Matthew gives at length, repeats almost verbatim
some of the expressions which he had previously given.*
But we desire, now, further and especially to show,
from a comparison of this discourse in Matthew with
that in Luke, that the two are very different, and that
the differences are precisely such as the altered circum
stances under which the Evangelists represent them to
have been delivered, seem to have demanded. Thus
we shall have the best of reasons for rejecting the sup
position of compilation on the part of Matthew, and for
taking the discourse as he reports it for a summary of
the actual discourse now pronounced by the Saviour.
It appears sufficiently clear that the denunciations of
our Lord against the Pharisees, as given in the eleventh
of Luke, were spoken elsewhere than at Jerusalem. It
is difficult to determine where he was then performing
his ministry, whether in Galilee or Perea, yet there is
no difficulty in determining that he was not in Jerusa
lem. He was not, at that time, in the stronghold of
Pharisaism. And although the exact date of that dis
course is uncertain, yet plainly it preceded by a consid
erable period the one recorded by Matthew. The op
position of the Pharisees to Jesus, had not therefore
reached its highest pitch of exasperation and malignity.
From the considerations both of place and time, we
should expect that discourse of Jesus, however severe
in itself, to show a comparative mildness. This, as we
shall presently see, is the case. We would now call
» Compare Luke xx. 46, 46, and xi. 43.

SCRIBES AND PHARISEES DENOUNCED. 141
attention to the fact, that according to Luke, our Saviour
did not volunteer his denunciations at all. They were
elicited by the incidents of the occasion, and the remarks
of those about him. Dining at the house of a Pharisee,
the host wonders that Jesus " has not first washed before
dinner." This calls for the first portion of our Saviour's
utterances, extending through six verses. Then a law
yer interposes, -with the words, "Master, thus saying
thou reproachest us also," when Jesus speaks of the sins
of the lawyers, through seven verses more, ending the
conversation. The discourse in Matthew is nearly three times the
length of that in Luke. It was spoken at Jerusalem,
at the end of a series of most animated encounters with
the Pharisees, and in the very end of Christ's public
ministry. It was volunteered by the Saviour, as his
solemn and final testimony against those who, in their
whole influence, were perverting the people, and who,
just now, were consummating their plans for the mur
der of their Messiah. All things considered, the place,
the time, the preceding discussions — in which the Sav
iour, having met every demand and disposed of every
ingenious question of his adversaries, shamed them into
utter silence by a wise question of his own — it seems
eminently natural and befitting that the Saviour should
have turned upon these princes of mischievous wicked
ness, and, in the presence of the people, pronounced
upon them just such terrific condemnation as is here
recorded by Matthew.
For, let us now observe the sharper severity of his
rebukes, as here administered. In the former discourse,
he had said nothing of the greedy avariciousness of the

142 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
Pharisees. See in what language he now characterizes
this sin and its consequences : " For ye devour widows'
houses, and for a pretence make long prayers : therefore
ye shall receive the greater damnation." Before, he had
said nothing of their religious party-zeal. Now, his lan
guage of condemnation of this sin is equally energetic
-with that just given : " For ye compass sea and land to
make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye malce him
two-fold more the child of Jiell than yourselves." While
in Luke, the Scribes and Pharisees, when once denounced
as " hypocrites," are compared to " graves which appear
not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of
them," the comparison in Matthew is that of " whited
sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but
are within full of dead men's bones and of all unclean-
wess." While in Luke, he once addresses the Pharisees
as " fools," he here repeatedly addresses them as "fools
and blind;" and it is worthy of note that the word for
" fool " in the Greek of Luke is a mild word, signifying
" mindless " or " unreasoning," while in Matthew it is
that word of intense moral reproach which, used by us
concerning a fellow-man, puts us, as our Saviour has
taught us, in peril of hell-fire.* Only in Matthew oc
curs that vehement and ominous appeal, " Ye serpents,
ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape tlie damnation of
hdl f" And when we remember that John the Baptist
first used this exact form of address, saying, " O genera
tion of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the
wrath to come," when he saw many of the Pharisees
and Sadducees coming to his baptism, there seems a pe
culiar fitness in our Saviour taking it up just at this
* Matt. V. 22.

SCRIBES AND PHARISEES DENOUNCED. 143
time. For this very day, when these Pharisees, de
manding of Jesus by what authority he assumed to act,
were referred to the baptism of John, they refused to ac
knowledge it as of Divine authority.* And, as the
cro-wning instance of our Saviour's present enhanced
severity of denunciation, we may observe that whilst in
Luke he sometimes uses the exclamation "woe" against
the Pharisees or la-wyers, and once adds " hypocrites ;"
here in Matthew, the long discourse is mainly sustained
upon the key-note, " Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharir-
sees, hypocrites." Seven times is this same phrase uttered,
sounding forth like so many successive blasts from the
trump of fate.
It might also be shown that this discourse, of such
terrible severity, finds an appropriate conclusion in that
most pathetic lamentation of the Saviour over Jerusalem,
connected by Matthew with his report of this discourse.
The conclusion befits the character of the Saviour, the
character of the discourse, and all the circumstances of
the occasion. For he is the tender, pitying Redeemer
still. His wrath is the strange -wrath of the lamb. And
the perverse -wickedness of those whom he has just de
nounced is hurrying onward not only themselves, but
the whole people, to a dreadful doom. No wonder that,
rejected of the nation, the words with which he closes
his ministry are these ; " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou
that killest the prophets and stonest them which are
sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy
children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens
under her wings, and ye would not ! Behold your house
is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, ye shall
-*' Matt. xxi. 27.

144 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
not see me henceforth, till ye say. Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord."
Our conclusion is, that just such a discourse as this
which Matthew records, is in exact harmony with the
circumstances in which it is represented to have been
uttered ; and that so far from the similar discourse in
Luke furnishing any argument against the opinion that
this in Matthew was delivered substantially as here pre
sented, it affords a strong argument in precisely the con
trary direction.

XXV.
The Anointing of Christ by Mary of Bethany: The Evangelists
Compared.
Matt. xxvi. 6-13 ; Mark xiv. 3-9 ; John xii. 2-8.
The time of this occurrence was subsequent to the
raising of Lazarus, and shortly preceding the Saviour's
final passover. The supper was given at the house of
Simon the leper, evidently a familiar friend of the family
of Bethany. All the members of that family were pres
ent, Lazarus sitting at the table, Martha serving the
guests, and Mary engaged in anointing the Saviour.
We may first observe the identical differences of char
acter, ascribed to the sisters of Bethany by the Evangel
ists Luke and John.* In Luke, Martha appears the
busy, practical, talkative woman, intent on her house
keeping, "cumbered about much serving." Mary is
quiet, retired, receptive ; — " who sat at Jesus' feet and
heard his words." In the eleventh of John, in the nar
rative of the raising of Lazarus, it is Martha who first
hears of the coming of Jesus to the village, sho-wing that
she, more than her sister, was in contact with outward
life. Hearing of his coining, she goes to meet him ; in
the interview with him exhibiting great self-command
and great readiness in the expression of her feelings.
* Luke X. 38-42; John xi. and xii.
13 G 145

146 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
Mary, meanwhile, had not heard of the arrival of Jesus.
She "sat still in the house," apparently absorbed in
grief. And when, at the bidding of Jesus, she came
forth to meet him, she could only utter a single excla
mation, being dissolved in emotion and falling at his
feet. And in the twelfth of John, where the sisters re
appear, they exhibit precisely the same chara.cteristic
differences, Martha honoring the Master by an active
attendance upon him, " serving " the table, and Mary
testifying to her feelings of profound and grateful love
by extraordinary acts of devotion, having once more as
sumed her blessed station at the feet of Jesus.
These notices of the sisters, in Luke and in John, have
no connection with each other, and the differences of
character in the sisters are in each case brought to view
in the most casual way, thus rendering the exact agree
ment of description all the more striking as a proof of
the minute truthfulness of the writers.
Further than this, the fact that Martha, as shown by
John, still indulged the same active and practical dis
position, after the rebuke given her by Jesus and the
commendation bestowed on her sister, as recorded by
Luke, is highly suggestive. It intimates that our Lord,
on that occasion, did not intend a general disparagement
of Martha's qualities of character in comparison with
those of Mary, as if he would exalt the contemplative dis
position over the active in Christian character ; much less
that he intended to imply that Martha was not a true
disciple ; but rather that Martha's busy and careful dis
position had, on this particular occasion, become a snare
to her, leading her to overvalue the mere hospitalities
of the hour, while Mary, in endeavoring to obtain a

THE ANOINTING BY MARY. 147
permanent blessing from the Lord's visit by attending
on his instructions, had more wisely chosen.
Let us now review and compare the accounts of the
anointing given by three of the historians, and observe
the manner in which they illustrate one another, and
together present a full picture. Matthew and Mark are
much alike. John, in many particulars, is unlike either.
Both Matthew and Mark mention the house as that
of Simon the leper. John omits this, saying, " there,"
that is, at Bethany, "they made him a supper." Possi
bly the family of Bethany had a principal concern in
providing the entertainment, holding it at the house of
their friend, as more commodious than their own. John
alone mentions the names of the family of Bethany, the
others leaving us in the dark, even concerning the per
son who anointed the Saviour. They speak of her most
indefinitely as " a woman." All the writers tell us of
the rare worth of the ointment lavished by Mary upon
her Lord ; yet Matthew omits the designation of " three
hundred pence," given by Mark and John as its ap
proximate value. In the parable of the laborers, we
find the stipulated wages for a day's work in the vine
yard, to be a penny.* Supposing the parable to be in
accordance with current custom, in this particular, the
box of ointment is seen to have been regarded as worth
a working-man's whole year of daily labor. While
Matthew and Mark speak of Mary's pouring the oint
ment on the head of Jesus, as he reclined at the table,
Mark mentions further her breaking the box, and John
states that she " anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped
« Matthew xx. 1-16.

148 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
his feet with her hair ; and the house was filled with
the odor of the ointment."
This beautiful act of devotion was strangely followed
by a scene of disquiet and angry questioning, in which
the modest, shrinking Mary was no doubt greatly
"troubled," and which produced the prompt and au
thoritative interference of the Master. The variations
in the narrative become more important, and still more
suggestive. Matthew speaks of " his disciples " having
indignation, when they witnessed the act of Mary. The
ill feeling seems to have been general among the Twelve.
Mark, however, -writes that " there were some that had
indignation within themselves," as though only a part
of the Twelve might have been involved. But John,
be it observed, mentions only Judas, making him the
author of the complaint against Mary. " Then saith
one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which
should betray him." There is, of course, no contradic
tion here. Evidently the opposition to Mary's act began
with Judas, and thence spread among the disciples until
it became general. The question of Judas was echoed
by one and another, until the whole table was agitated.
While Matthew and Mark speak of the question about
the waste of the ointment, all the -writers show that the
alternative proposed by Judas and seconded by the rest,
was the disposing of the ointment for the benefit of the
poor. John informs us, too, and that very explicitly,
that the plea of Judas for the poor was hypocritical ;
that the real cause of his indignation was not the thought
that the poor might have been benefitted by the sale of
the ointment, but the thought that he himself might
have been advantaged, by the appropriation of a share

THE ANOINTING BY MARY. 149
of the proceeds of the sale, according to his custom.
" This he said, not that he cared for the poor ; but be
cause he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what
was put therein."
Of course the other disciples could not be charged
with the hypocrisy of Judas, although they joined in
his complaint. There was abundant room for an honest
belief, on the part of the disciples, that the act of Mary
was mistaken and censurable. The question of Judas
was most plausible. Even in these days, and with the
keenly discriminating judgment of the Saviour here
pronounced in view. Christian people are often found
taking sides in favor of Judas and against Mary. The
cases are by no means rare, in which the spirit of a low
utilitarianism is found ruling the church, exclaiming
against all costly gifts to the honor of the Saviour as so
much waste ; and equally prevalent is the spirit of a
false humanitarianism, which makes the relief of the
poor the supreme religious duty. There were some
things in which the veteran Apostles of our Lord, dulled
in their affections by earth-born expectations and warped
in their judgments by special reasonings, could be taught
and rebuked by the conduct of a simple-minded, single-
hearted woman, who, in an affectionate devotion to the
person of her Lord, with humble and almost passionate
gratitude, threw herself at his feet and lavished upon
him her choicest treasures.
The Lord speedily comes to the relief of the lo-ving
but troubled Mary, sternly remonstrating with the dis
ciples, approving what she has done, pronouncing it "a
good work," disclosing the principle upon which the
k-vish employment of Mary's wealth in the manner de-
13 «

150 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
scribed may be justified, even in view of the needs of the
poor,* and pronouncing that wonderful prophecy of
honor upon Mary, that "wheresoever this gospel shall
be preached in the whole world, there shall also this,
that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of
her." It is of this prophecy that we desire to say a word,
before concluding this chapter. Nothing of like form
is to be found in the whole range of the gospels, or in
deed of the whole Bible. The Master seems to have
* The principle on which Jesus justifies the conduct of Mary, seems to
be this; that extraordinary tokens of love and honor done to himself are
permissible on extraordinary occasions. Mary, feeling her infinite indebt
edness to Christ, her brother's deliverer, her own soul's Saviour, and having
few opportunities to express her grateful love and her desire to honor her
Lord — not knowing indeed when, if ever, she shall have another such op
portunity, had done well to seize and improve this.
Every one is disposed to give honorable and costly interment to deceased
friends. The occasion is believed to call for it. We clothe their bodies in
expensive garments ; we encase them in coffins of beautiful wood — lined
within and silvered without. We construct for them spacious vaults, or
erect over them the monumental marble. No one asks, " Why this waste ?"
although nothing of it can benefit the dead. Thus is it, and thus has it
been, always and everywhere. Thus was it with the Jews. And this illus
tration our Saviour uses, to set forth the propriety of Mary's conduct.
" She has come to anoint my body beforehand for the burial." " Her anoint
ing, under the extraordinary circumstances of the case, truly honors me,
and is appropriate and commendable, as would be the case if she knew
that it was the last sad rite, the last pious offering made for my sepulture."
We do not think that Mary intended her anointing as literally a rite of
sepulture, as some seem to think. (See Alford.) How could it have this
character, in her estimation ? Yet the words of the Saviour have an addi
tional significance, when we associate them with his death and burial soon
to occur. It is as if Jesus had said, In the light of these, you will judge of
this deed of Mary more justly. You will see that Mary did well to embrace
the opportunity — the only one ever to be afforded her, for expressing her
grateful love, and honoring me in the extraordinary manner which you
have witnessed.

THE ANOINTING BY MARY. 151
been thoroughly roused to the desirableness of affixing
the seal of his unmistakable approbation to the deed of
Mary, so grievously misunderstood by the whole body
of the Apostles, and of sending down this instance of
Christian conduct, approved by him against the ex
pressed judgment of his disciples, for the perpetual
and peculiar admiration of his people in all genera
tions. Now is it not most remarkable that the two Evange
lists who record this prediction, and who are thereby
instrumental in securing its fulfillment, do not mention
the name of Mary in connection with the prediction,
nor in any part of their narrative here? Yet this is the
case. And, from them alone, we should never have been
able even to conjecture who was the person so peculiarly
honored of the Lord. We should have known nothing
more than that it was "a woman." And is it not
further remarkable that the Evangelist John, who gives
the name of Mary in connection with the anointing,
and thus permits us to associate her name with the
honorable prediction of Christ, does not himself record
that prediction? Yet it will be seen, upon examination,
that he does not make the slightest allusion to it.
Thus does John's gospel here seem particularly in
tended to supplement the others. Who would part
with the name of Mary of Bethany from this account?
Who would remove the name from any monument re
cording a deserved eulogy? And, in this instance, we
see Matthew and Mark erecting the monument and
writing the eulogy, while John comes in with the in
scription of the needed name.

152 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
Her eyes are homes of silent prayer.
Nor other thought her mind admits.
But — he was dead, and there he sits.
And He that brought him hack is there.
Then one deep love doth supersede
All other — when her ardent gaze
Roves from the living brother's face.
And rests upon the Life indeed.
All subtle thought, all curious fears.
Borne down by gladness so complete;
She bows, she bathes the Saviour's feet
With costly spikenard and with tears.
Thrice blest whose lives are faithful prayers.
Whose loves in higher love endure;
What souls possess themselves so pure.
Or is there blessedness like theirs? Tenntson.

XXVI.
Tile Besolution of Judas to betray his lord, and its Immediate
Occasion.
Luke xxi. 3; John xii. 2-8.
The Jewish Council, shortly after the raising of
Lazarus, had formally resolved upon the destruction of
Jesus.* Again and again, during the few days pre
ceding his last passover, they sought to lay hands on
him as he taught in the temple, but failed of their de
sire because of the friendly multitudes who surrounded
him. Finding themselves thus baffled, they turned their
attention to more secret measures; "they consulted that
they might take Jesus by subtilty and kill him."
They thought it best, however, to postpone the matter
until after the passover festival, when there would be
less likelihood of popular interference. "But they said.
Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the
people."t For a year Judas had been consorting with Jesus and
the Apostles only for base purposes.J No doubt he
still hoped that Jesus would sooner or later establish a
worldly kingdom, in which, as one of the Apostles, he
might enjoy great worldly honor and emolument.
Meanwhile his avaricious greed was to some extent
gratified by frequent purloinings from the company's
» John xi. 53. f Matt. xxvi. 3-5. { See pp. 89, 90.
G * 153

154 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
little purse. Yet we may conceive that Judas antici
pated with eager desire the arrival of the period of his
Master's worldly exaltation, and chafed with impatience
at its long delay. He had observed, too, we cannot but
think, the anxiety of the Jewish Rulers to get the
Master into their hands, and the manner in which they
had thus far been baffled. We read now of his going
privately to the Rulers, and engaging with them to de
liver his Master to their power.
Concerning his crime herein, we need not entertain
any extreme view. We need not imagine that it was
not instigated to any extent by malice, nor that it was
instigated by simple malice. His motives were no
doubt base and foul, even when not simply malicious;
and malice mingled in the entire transaction. His
avarice found room for exercise, as is evident from the
account of his dealings with the priests. His first ques
tion to them is, " What will ye give me, and I will de
liver him unto you?" "And they covenanted with him
for thirty pieces of silver." Possibly Judas may have
hoped to precipitate upon his Master the necessity of
assuming his regal powers, and erecting his throne, by
the miraculous overthrow of his enemies. Possibly he
may not have distinctly contemplated the death of his
Master as the consequence of betrayal. Or, in the
event of his Master's death, perhaps he thought of that
strange saying of Christ, that in his being put to death
"all things that are written by the prophets concerning
the Son of man shall be accomplished." Judas may
have reasoned thus; "even if he should be killed, it is
only what he seems to expect, only what he consents to,
only what he says has been predicted and predetermined.

THE BETRAYER RESOLVED. 155
My agency in delivering him to the priests, then, can
make no difference." It seems to have been some such
thought that Jesus addressed, when afterward he de
clared, in the presence of Judas, "The Son of man in
deed goeth, as it is written of him : but wo to the man
by whom the Son of man is betrayed! Good were it
for that man if he had never been born."*
Yet mingling with and underlying all that was ava
ricious and selfish in the motives of Judas, in his act of
treachery, was a diabolical malice. Judas was now turned
in heart to be an enemy of Jesus. He had come to dis
like or even hate the Sa-viour, and could take ready part
against him -with those who sought his life. This the
record plainly intimates. " Then," says Luke, " entered
Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, .being of the number
of the Twelve. And he went his way and communed
-with the chief priests." Judas submitted himself to the
power of the Wicked One, and acted in the spirit of the
Prince of Hate, when he betrayed his Sa-viour to his
foes. The language of the record suggests the sudden com
ing of a critical moment in the history of Judas ; " Then
entered Satan into Judas." Perhaps the false Apostle
had often before dimly thought of betraying his Master,
at some indefinite future time. But now he is fully re
solved at once to undertake it. Satan may often before
have prompted Judas, but now he takes possession of
him and controls him.
It is most interesting to mark not only the critical pe
riods in the life of this most wretched man, but also the
evident occasions of their occurrence. Already we have
* Mark xiv. 21, and parallels.

156 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
considered one such period and its occasion ; now we
may observe another. For not only does the record, as
we have noticed, here suggest a crisis in the history of
Judas, but a comparison of the different writers enables
us to discern a most natural occasion for it. Let us
see. Luke writes, as already quoted, " Then entered Satan
into Judas." The question is. When ? Bringing Luke
into comparison with Matthew and Mark, we find that
the time is just subsequent to the supper at Bethany.*
Luke omits all reference to this supper, probably because
elsewhere he records a transaction similar to that which
this involves.f Thus, reading the narrative of Luke by
itself, we should never imagine that the entrance of Satan
into Judas had any connection with the occurrences of
the supper. But what occasion for this was afforded by
any of those occurrences ? Surely it is not difficult, in
the light of what is said in the last chapter, to perceive
an easy occasion.
The anointing of our Sa-viour by Mary, as we have
seen, was the chief incident of the supper. We have
observed the angry commotion aroused against Mary, at
the instance of Judas. We have observed the prompt
and energetic interference of Jesus, sternly rebuking his
disciples and honoring Mary. A little reflection on these
* We follow the order of Matthew and Mark, rather than that of John.
There is nothing in the records decisive of the question of order, as be
tween the Evangelists, and it makes no difference, so far as the line of re
mark made in the chapter is concerned, which Evangelist we follow. Al
ford is too positive, when, on Matt. xxvi. 6, he observes, " This history
of the anointing of our Lord is here inserted out of its chronological place.
It occurred six days before the passover."
t Luke vii. 36-60.

THE BETRAYER RESOLVED. 157
particulars -will reveal a sufficient occasion for the crisis
which so soon was reached in the life of Judas.
In the first place, it is plain that Judas was prominent
and earnest in this scene. John's account fully implies
this. It was he who began the controversy with Mary,
and his first utterance was an outburst of indignation.
The earnestness of Judas might also be inferred from the
fact that Mary's act was dictated by a spirit in total con
trast and thorough antagonism with that of Judas. His
cold, selfish heart not only could not approve, but utterly
abhorred, her beautiful act of self-oblivious, self-sacrific
ing devotion. Moreover, he probably uttered his re
monstrance against Mary with great assurance, having,
as he supposed, an unanswerable argument in the obliga
tion to relieve the poor, and receiving the countenance
and concurrence of his fellow-disciples. Thus was Judas
personally and publicly committed in his controversy
with Mary.
The controversy, too, it ought to be observed, bore, in
no very indirect way, against the Saviour, as well as
against his loving disciple. The anointing was performed
on his person, was intended to do him honor, and as
such was permitted by him. The controversy, sifted to
the bottom, -will appear very much as a personal conflict
between Judas and his Master.
Bearing this in mind, and then seeing how promptly,
how decisively, Jesus takes the side of Mary and opposes
Judas, rebuking him, tearing his specious argument in
pieces, and loading with everlasting honor her whom
Judas sought to cover with reproach, is it not evident
that Judas must have been to the last degree humiliated
and mortified ? While his fellow-disciples were all put
14

158 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
to shame, his head must have hung lowest, his spirit
must have been cut deepest. And how natural, especially
when the controversy had been so nearly of a personal
sort, that with his feeling of intense shame should have
risen the kindlings of angry resentment against Jesus!
And now, ah, fit opportunity ! Satan enters and turns
the resentment into bitter malice. And though never
before resolved, it is easy for him now, with unflinching,
hateful purpose, to seek the enemies of his Master, that
in forwarding their plans he may revenge himself.
A.11 this seems natural ; the deductions are not forced.
Yet reviewing them, let us observe the circuitous way
by which we have been led, and the incidental manner
in which our conclusions are established.
The Evangelist John, who alone tells us that Judas
was specially displeased with Mary's act, alone omits to
tell us that Judas now went to the priests to betray his
Master. John enables us to see how Judas might now
have been provoked to the deed of treachery, yet he says
nothing here concerning the treachery. — Matthew and
Mark, both of whom speak of Judas going to the priests
immediately after the supper at Bethany, do not mention
Judas in their account of the supper, and give us no clue
to the probable reason for his resolving on the act of
betrayal just at this time. — Luke, as already seen, omit
ting the account of the supper, and of course all reference
to the particular conduct of Judas at the supper, nar
rates, just as do Matthew and Mark, his going to the
priests, but prefaces his account with the words, "then,
entered Satan into Judas," without explanation.
Yet the partial narratives when put together have a
completeness. Luke assures us of a crisis in Judas' life.

THE BETRAYER RESOLVED. 159
Matthew and Mark inform us when it came. John tells
us how it came. — Luke avers that " then Satan entered
into Judas." We ask. When did this occur ? and Mat
thew and Mark answer. In connection with the anointing
at Bethany. We ask again. What occasion did the an
ointing give for such a crisis? and John answers, It was
our Saviour's -withering rebuke of Judas.

XXVII.
Christ's saying, " I am among you as he tliat Serveth," and Bis
Washin{f the Disciples' Feet.
Luke xxii. 27 ; John xiii. 1-17.
Aleeady we have observed the contention among the
disciples for pre-eminence at the last passover supper.
This unseemly and strange conduct we have accounted
for as resulting from our Saviour's teaching concerning
the consummation of his ministry now at hand.*
The contention here began just as they were seating
themselves at table, and probably first took the form of
rival claims for positions of honor at the table. The
strong desire for such positions, was, in general with our
Saviour's contemporaries, a more notable matter than we,
with our habits, can easily imagine. One of the special
sins of the Pharisees denounced by Christ was that of
" loving the uppermost rooms " or places, " at feasfs."t
And one of our Lord's parables was spoken, when, din
ing with one of the Pharisees, " he marked how they
chose out the chief rooms."J The strife among the dis
ciples, arising upon the occasion mentioned, and at first
having respect to the honorable places at the table, no
doubt before it was done included their general claims
to places of dignity in the coming kingdom of the Mes
siah. There was probably an earnest canvass of merits,
s> See Ch. XVI. f Matt, xxiii. 6. { Luke xiv. 7.
160 ^

THE FEET-WASHING. 161
each pressing his own claims. The contention would be
the more warm, if, as we may think not impossible, they
imagined that this supper was to be signalized by some
advance step being taken, in connection -with it, toward
the inauguration of the kingdom of God.* Luke writes,
" And there was also a strife among them, which of them
should be the greatest."
Jesus of course does not permit the occurrence to pass
unnoticed. He interposes, -with words of gentle but firm
remonstrance. He tells them, much as he had done once
before, that while " the Kings of the Gentiles exercise lord
ship over them ; and they that exercise authority upon
them are accounted Benefactors," it shall not be so in
his kingdom and amongst his disciples.f On the con
trary, " he that is greatest among you, let him be as the
younger ; and he that is chief as he that doth serve."
And, as before, he cites his own example, representing
himself as a servant of others. He asks, " whether is
greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth ?" and
adds, in words whose full significance we shall presently
perceive, " but I am among you as he that serveth."
This rebuke of the Saviour perhaps seems to us, in
view of all the circumstances, strangely mild. This was
now the third time that the disciples had been guilty of
the same misdemeanor.^ On both previous occasions
the Master had remonstrated with them. Would it not
appear that their grievous fault, thus persisted in, de
manded from the Saviour something more than the sim
ple repetition of former remonstrance ? Would it not
have been manifestly appropriate, if the Saviour had
embraced the present opportunity, so to rebuke the vain
» Luke xxii. 16, 18. f Matt. xx. 26-28. t Ch- XVI.
14 »

162 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
aspirings of his disciples, that they would never be likely
to fall again into their present error, and to impress upon
their hearts a lesson of humility utterly indelible? We
could not of course affirm beforehand that our Saviour
ought to have done this, yet we can see that if he had
chosen to do this, it would have seemed every way ap
propriate to the circumstances.
Well, bringing the gospel by John into proper rela
tions with that of Luke, we find that Jesus actually did
what we have supposed he might most suitably have
done. We find that his words in Luke, "but I am
among you as he that serveth," have reference not merely
to his general work of humility, but to a specific service
which at that moment he undertakes. We find that for
a little Jesus was literally not " sitting at meat," but
moving among his disciples, performing an office of all
others most servant-like.
The narrative of the feet-washing given in John, as
all may readily see, comes in at the beginning of the
passover-meal, and hence is to be placed in juxtaposition
with the narrative before us in Luke. We encounter
here, indeed, a most unfortunate mistranslation in John,
which often prevents the English reader from perceiving
the proper connection. We read that "supper being
ended," Jesus proceeded to wash his disciples' feet.*
The proper translation is, " supper being macfe or pre
pared." It was the beginning of the meal, rather than
the close. Not only is this in accordance with the usage
of the Greek word,t but it is equally in accordance with
what we know of Oriental custom. The sandals were
removed and the feet washed, on entering the house and
* John xiii. 2. f See Alford's Greek Testament.

THE FBBT-WASHING. 163
taking the reclining posture at table, rather than when
the meal was over and the house about to be left.
Behold then the scene. No one is at hand, as they
seat themselves at table, to undertake the customary
grateful but menial office. In the absence of servants,
some humble disciple might well have volunteered to
perform, in behalf of his Master and even of his fellow-
disciples, what would so greatly conduce to their com
fort. But no. The thoughts of the disciples are run
ning in precisely the opposite direction. Not dreaming
of the claims or dignity of useful service, they are just
now at the height of their noisy strife for superior place.
And Jesus, having rebuked them with such language as
we have read, proceeds to impress upon them, by a most
memorable act, his lesson of humility.
Rising from the place he had just taken,* he sets about
the performance of that lowly service for his disciples,
which none of them had been considerate enough to
undertake even for himself. He moves silently and with
great deliberation, deferring any explanation of his con
duct until he is done. He lays aside his upper garments,
takes a towel, binds it about him, pours water into a
basin, and comes to his disciples.
No doubt the noisy debate has ceased. No doubt the
whole company of the Twelve are looking on in curious
wonder. Perhaps as they begin to understand what he
is doing,* their cheelis crimson with shame. No marvel
that when the Master approaches Peter, that outspoken
disciple exclaims against the proceeding. Jesus persisting
in the service, and completing it, with the same delibera
tion which marked him at the outset, resumes his place
* Tholuok vs. Olshadsen.

164 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
at the table, and proceeds to an explanation of his con
duct, the terms of which clearly show that it was the
intention of the Sa-viour, in what he had done, to rebuke
the unseemly strife of his disciples. "He said unto them,
Know ye what I have done to you ? Ye call me Master
and Lord ; and ye say well ; for so I am. If I then,
your Lord and Master, have washed your feet ; ye also
ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you
an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
Verily, verily I say unto you. The servant is not greater
than his Lord ; neither he that is sent greater than he
that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye
if ye do them."
Thus does the narrative in John incidentally explain
and enforce the narrative in Luke, while, at the same
time, as the readers of John's gospel may readily see, it
directly serves the special purpose of that Evangelist ;
his gospel having a completeness of its own, while often
supplementing the others. And thus do the narratives
combined present a fuller picture of a most interesting
scene in the Saviour's ministry than is afforded by either
of them separately.

XXVIII.
Position of Judas at the Passover Table.
Matt. xxvi. 21-25 ; Mark xiv. 18-21 ; Luke xxii. 21-23 ; John xiii. 21-31.
The designation by Jesus of the betrayer at the pass-
over table, is recorded with a variety of details by the
several Evangelists. In a hurried reading of the different
-writers, one at one time and another at another, these
details not unfrequently produce confusion, instead of
serving to bring the whole scene to view with graphic
clearness. If, however, we will take the trouble to bring
the accounts together in parallel columns, as is done in
some of the Harmonies, and will then carefully compare
the details and arrange them in the probable order of
actual occurrence, we shall be surprised at the clearness
and completeness of the representation, and also at some
of the necessary inferential results.* Let us now exam-
* Alford, who along with great scholarly learning exhibits an antipathy
to the Harmonists well nigh puerile, and pushes the idea of the indepen
dence of the several Evangelists to an extreme well nigh absurd, thus
writes on Matt. xxvi. 20-25. "Not that I have any desire to reduce the
four accounts to a harmonized narrative, for that I believe to be impossi
ble, and the attempt wholly unprofitable." It seems much the fashion just
now to decry all harmonistic study. For this reason we are the more glad
to find, in the pages of the learned and pious Ellioott, the following;
" It is much to be feared that the tendency of our more modern study of
the Gospels is to regard every attempt to harmonize the sacred narrative
with indifference, if not sometimes even with suspicion. . . . We may with
justice most strongly urge the extreme importance, not only in a mere
165

166 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
ine these details, as they would thus present themselves,
and observe the results.
Jesus had already exhibited much feeling, in anticipa
tion of the treachery of Judas.* Now, in deep anguish
of heart, he makes solemn announcement of the iaat that
he shall be betrayed by one of his own disciples ; " He
was troubled in spirit and testified." (John.)
See the different forms of this announcement, as re
ported. They were yet at table. " As they did eat,"
says Matthew. " As they sat and did eat," says Mark.
Both Matthew and Mark precede the announcement -with
the emphatic, "Verily I say unto you." John, according
to his custom, uses the double Verily. Luke simply
says, "Behold." — Matthew and John -write, "One of you
shall betray me." Mark has it, " One of you which eat-
eth with me shall betray me." Luke varies the expres
sion more widely, " The hand of him that betrayeth me
is with me on the table."
This announcement fell like a thunderbolt upon the
little company of the Twelve. They saw a dreadful
meaning in Jesus' words, which they had failed to see,
when, in a more indefinite way and mingled with other ,
matters, he had predicted his betrayal. f Instantly all
was the anguish of grief and self-distrust and perplexity.
"They began to be sorrowful." (Mark.) "They were
exceeding sorrowful." (Matthew.) Unsuspicious of any
critical, but even in a devotional point of view, of obtaining as complete
and connected a view of our Lord's life and ministry as can possibly be
obtained from our existing inspired records. And this, let it' he remem
bered, can only be done by that patient and thoughtful comparison of
Scripture with Scripture which now finds such little favor with so many
theologians of our present day. — Life of Christ. — Foot-note, p. 216.
* John xiii. 18-20. f Matt. xx. 18, and parallels.

JUDAS AT THE PASSOVER TABLE. 167
one of their number in particular, they "looked on one
another, doubting of whom he spake;" (John;) "they
began to inquire among themselves which of them it
was that should do this thing." (Luke.) And each
being suspicious of himself rather than of any of his
fellows, "they began every one to say unto him," (Mat
thew,) "one by one," (Mark,) "Lord, is it I?" (Mat
thew and Mark.) The confusion of the disciples and
the distress of the Master mingle in a general excite
ment. In answer to the question, who the guilty one may
be, Jesus at first responds only in general terms, that it
is one of the Twelve that dippeth with him in the dish.
(Matthew and Mark.) This seems to be only an em
phatic repetition of what he had already declared; as
if he had said, " It is indeed one of you, my professed
disciples and familiar friends." To John, however,
who reclined on the bosom of Jesus, and to whom Peter
had beckoned that he should ask the Lord privately —
the only apparent object of such a signal — Jesus an
swers, no doubt in a voice too low for the others to hear
— he communicating the answer as quietly as John had
conveyed the question — " He it is to whom I shall give
a sop, when I have dipped it." Perhaps while Peter
was signalling John, the Saviour makes that declaration,
recorded by Matthew, Mark, and John, of the 'terrible
guilt of the betrayer, even though his act instead of
hindering actually accomplishes the Divine purpose,*
"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him; but woe
unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed."
To this he adds, according to Matthew and Mark, those
* See p. 156.

168 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
portentous words, "It had been good for that man if
he had not been born."
Judas having somewhat delayed the question which
the others just now were proposing, and hoping perhaps
to divert suspicion from himself, now hypocritically asks,
"Master, is it I?" To this Jesus gives the emphatic
response, "Thou hast said" — it is indeed you. (Mat
thew.) At the same time, Jesus dips a piece of bread
in the dish and passes it to the traitor. (John.)
And speedily, as John intimates, Satan, who before
had been busy \vith Judas, takes renewed and fuller
possession of him; "And after the sop Satan entered
into him." The knowledge that he is discovered of the
Master, fires his guilty purpose. Jesus perceiving this
says to him, in a voice which all hear, " That thou doest,
do quickly," and he hastens forth to his damning work
under the congenial cover of the darkness of night.
(John.) Such is the full and graphic representation afforded
by a collation of the various incidents and expressions
of the different writers. Yet, for us now, a still greater
interest may be derived from these narratives, by cross-
examination and the reconciliation of apparent disagree
ments. We commonly imagine, from the reading of these ac
counts, that Jesus had plainly designated Judas as the
betrayer, to the whole company, before Judas withdrew.
Jesus had told John that the traitor was he to whom he
should give the morsel when he had dipped it, and
dipping it he gave it to Judas. So, also, Jesus had re
sponded to the question of Judas, "Master, is it I?" in
the most emphatic manner, assuring him that he was

JUDAS AT THE PASSOVER TABLE. 169
the betrayer. Must not the whole company hereby
have been informed of the guilty one?
Yet, from what the Evangelist John tells us, it ap
pears that when Judas withdrew from the company, he
was still unsuspected by his fellow-disciples. Jesus
gave him the ominous command, "That thou doest, do
quickly," yet it is said that "no man at the table knew
for what intent he spake this unto him." The disciples
did not imagine that it referred to any wicked conduct.
Rather, they still regarded Judas as their honored purse-
bearer, and supposed that the Master looked to him as
such, for the performance of useful duties connected with
that position. "For some of them thought, because
Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him. Buy
those things that we have need of against the feast; or
that he should give something to the poor." It was not
possible, in the nature of the case, that they should thus
have regarded Judas, had they just before seen him
pointed out by the Lord as the betrayer, and had they
known that the terrible woe of the Master was denounced
against him. Probably they came speedily to understand
that he was the betrayer, when Jesus, relieved of his
presence, began at once to pour forth his soul, now no
longer troubled but calmed and elevated, in such words
as these, " Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is
glorified in him."*
How, then, shall we construe the explicit announce
ments made by the Saviour, first to John, next to Judas?
Undoubtedly John understood from the Saviour that
Judas was the betrayer. But, as already intimated, the
announcement to John was probably made in a low
* John xiii. 31.
15 H

170 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
voice, which none others heard, this being easily done
because of John's position, next to Jesus. And John
may not have communicated his information to any one
— even to Peter, the very manner of Jesus in imparting
it perhaps operating to restrain him. And so, when
John says, " No man at the table knew," he means no
one of the disciples except himself.
But what shall we say of Christ's response to Judas?
Judas asked, "Master, is it I?" and Jesus answered,
" Thou hast said." Must not the whole company have
thus been unmistakably assured that Judas was the
traitor, and have recoiled from him in horror ? Yet, as
we have seen, even after this they did not suspect him,
but regarded him with favor, and supposed him to be
still in the confidence of his Master. How shall we
solve this difficulty ? The solution is not easy, save upon
one hypothesis, and upon that it is extremely easy. We
may at first be startled by it ; we shall certainly find it
suggestive. As Jesus could speak to John, -without the
rest of the Twelve hearing what was said, for the reason
that John was next him, reclining on his bosom; so
Jesus could speak to Judas, in the emphatic words,
" thou hast said," -without the rest of the Twelve hearing
the language, if only we may suppose that Judos was
next the Saviour on the other side, or that Jesus was reclin
ing on the bosom of Judas J
While there is nothing in the narrative inconsistent
with this supposition, there are some things which inci
dentally confirm it. For example, Jesus could not well
have given to Judas the morsel which he had dipped,
unless Judas had been near him. Besides, it would prob
ably have excited suspicion to send the morsel to one at

JUDAS AT THE PASSOVER TABLE. 171
a distance, while to offer it to the one next at hand was
to follow a customary token of friendship.
And, although it may seem a fanciful refinement, we
confess that we have not been able to avoid the impres
sion, that probably the strife for places of honor at the
beginning of this supper had been led by Judas, he not
being able to reconcile himself to the preference which
Christ exhibited for the disciple whom he loved, without
claiming for hirnself the position of next or equal honor
on the other side of the Master.
Admitting the supposition, do we not find it amazingly
suggestive ? Jesus on the bosom of Judas, at the moment
his black-hearted treachery was ripening for execution !
And how doubly impressive becomes the Scripture spoken
beforehand as prophecy, and here cited by the Saviour
and applied to the betrayer, when we think of Judas as
thus the familiar friend of Jesus, and thus receiving from
his hand the bread of friendship, " He that eateth bread
with me, hath lifted up his heel against me !"

XXIX.
The Agony in the Garden; as illustrated by the Temptation in the
Wilderness.
Matt. xxvi. 36-46 ; iv. 1-11, and parallels.
Speculation may well hesitate, lest with unhallowed
footstep it venture within the sacred enclosure of Geth-
semaue. Still it is permitted us, with subdued and re-v-
erent spirit, even to enter the garden's innermost retreat,
and to ponder the spectacle of the solitary midnight
wrestlings of the Son of God, amidst the deep olive-shad
ows, when, for the time, a more than mortal anguish had
fallen upon him.*
The Master and the disciples having reached the gar
den, he withdraws from the company, going to the place of
prayer. He is not wholly unattended. The " three chosen
of the Twelve " are again with him. And now the wonder
ful serenity of spirit which he had before preserved forsakes
him. Matthew writes that " he began to be sorro-wful
and very heavy." Mark's language is yet more strik
ing; "He began to be sore amazed, and to be very
¦» Nothing in the pages of M. Renan is more shocking than his specula
tions on this most sacred scene. Elsewhere, in frequent instances, he suc
ceeds in shrouding the dead body of his Unbelief in the draperies of an
attractive Sentimentalism. Here his art was defied. He has doubtless
done his best, but the veil is thin and ragged, and the corpse stares at us
in ghastly hideousness.
172

THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN. 173
heavy."* Not only did he experience a distressful sink
ing of soul, but a sudden terror seized him. The an
guish was well nigh insupportable; life itself was. ready
to give way. He exclaims, " My soul is exceeding sor
rowful, even unto death." Relief must be had, and he
flies to God in prayer. He bids his disciple-companions
wait and watch with him. Then going "a little fur
ther," (Matthew,) or "forward a little," (Mark,) until
" he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast," he
" kneeled do-wn and prayed." (Luke.) His very posture
soon became indicative of the intensity of his feelings ;
for he prostrated himself on the ground, (Mark,) on his
face, (Matthew,) and so — in the language of the writer
to the Hebrews — " offered up his prayers and supplica
tions with strong crying and tears unto him that was
able to save him from death."
Mark first records the substance of his prayer. He
"prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass
from him." Then he indicates more exactly, as do the
others, the language of Jesus. Matthew gives the words
of address, "O my Father," while Mark inserts the ad
ditional word of tenderness and trust, "Abba Father."
He prays that " the cup," that is, doubtless, the dreadful
sufferings appointed to him for the coming*day, may be
removed from his lips.f He offers this prayer in reve-
* Alexander in loeo thus writes, " Sore amazed, a very strong Greek
word denoting both surprise and consternation, and here used in its strong
est sense to signify the preternatural depression and alarm, of which our
Saviour condescended to partake, as the representative and surety of his
people. The other verb, although of doubtful derivation, is employed by
Xenophon and Plato to denote extreme anxiety and anguish."
-j- John xviii. 11.
16 *

174 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
rent submission to his Father's will: "if it be possible"
— not otherwise.
The agony must have been protracted ; for the dis
ciples during its continuance were overcome with sleep.
It was now, apparently, that, as Luke informs us, "an
angel appeared unto him from heaven, strengthening
him." And probably it was also in this first season of
protracted supplication, that, according to Luke, his
agony rose to such height and fierceness, that, even in
the cold midnight air, his body, in sympathy with his
rent and crushed spirit, yielded from its thousand pores
great drops of clammy sweat, as of blood, rolling to the
ground. Coming to the three disciples, whom he finds asleep
through sorrow, he gently chides them, administers
needed warning and caution, then goes and prays the
second time. Mark says, he "spake the same words."
Probably this statement was not meant to be literally
taken. The substance of the prayer was doubtless the
same, yet from what Matthew records as the tenor of it,
it would appear that now the desire of relief from his an
ticipated sufferings was less prominent than before. The
will of his Father that he should suffer seems to have
been uppermost in his thoughts, with the accompanying
feeling of resignation. The language now is, "O my
Father, if this cup may not pass away from me except I
drink it, thy will be done."
This second season of prayer could not have been
brief; for again the disciples, even incited to wakefulness
as they had been by the remonstrance of the Master,
were found asleep. We may infer the painfully absorb
ing character of the scenes through which these disciples

THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN. 175
for hours had been passing, when we see that now, with
so many and such pressing inducements to vigilance, they
should, to their own utter confusion, thus repeatedly be
overcome with sleep.
But the conflict was not yet over. We infer a third
season of prayer from Mark, who speaks of his coming
the third time to his disciples, while Matthew distinctly
informs us that "he went away again and. prayed the
third time, saying the same words." Perhaps the fea
ture of acquiescence in the Divine -will was, in this last
exercise, yet more prominent and became all absorbing.
" He was heard, in that he feared," yielding himself with
holy and unhesitating submission to the Divine disposal.
He received the answer to his prayer, in Divine assur
ances and comfort and strength, enabling him with re
newed serenity of spirit to move forward through all the
dreadful way of a sacrificial death appointed him.
We come now, to the special subject of this chapter.
It is a question of much interest, — What was the excit
ing cause of these dire agonies of Jesus? Not often,
probably, is the experience of our Saviour in Gethsemane
regarded as specifically a temptation of the devil. Yet
there are strong reasons for so regarding it. The Wicked
One, it is true, is not personally introduced into the
narrative. Perhaps that was for the reason that the in
timations of his presence given, were deemed sufficient,
without an express mention of the fact.
When the temptation in the -wilderness had ended,
the devil departed from Jesus, as we read, "for a sea
son." Here is an intimation that he would return
again, in like manner and for like purpose with his
present appearing. But when did he thus personally

176 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
return to the Saviour? We are not informed of his
doing so at any time. Yet we find our Saviour saying
to his disciples, on the very evening of the agony in the
garden, perhaps only an hour before the conflict began,
when they were about leaving the Passover table to re
tire from the city, "The Prince of this world cometh
and hath nothing in me."* Here is a distinct intima
tion that the devil was even now at hand, and for the
purpose of a sifting temptation ; and the designation of
him as "the Prince of this world," looking back to him
as he had last appeared in the temptation in the wilder
ness, when he tendered the Saviour "all the kingdoms
of this world and the glory of them," seems to anticipate
from him such another fierce onset as he had then made
in person, and a temptation substantially of the Same
character with that which he then urged.
With the idea of a temptation of the devil best com
ports the sudden seizure of the mind of Jesus with the
dread of those sufferings which he had long anticipated
with composure, and which this night he had regarded
from a point of such elevation that they seemed already
passed.f Also we can thus all the more readily think
of this whole scene, according to the account of it as "an
agony." The antagonism of the Human with the Di
vine will of the Saviour, in a conflict such as is here de
scribed, is by no means of such easy conception, as the
antagonism of Christ with the devil.
Regarding, on such grounds, the agony in the garden
as a conflict of our Saviour with the Arch-adversary, we
are not surprised to find many coincidences between this
scene and that in the wilderness, which otherwise might
-» John xiv. 30. f John xvii. 4, 5. '

THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN. 177
be deemed well nigh unaccountable. In both cases, our
Saviour was in retirement; and there, no doubt, as here,
for the purpose of prayer. There, the Tempter made
three attacks ; here Jesus prayed three times, as though
his distress was as often renewed. TJiere as liere, angels
appear, giving personal ministrations to the Saviour,
which they do at no other time. On both occasions, the
time is critical in the ministry of Christ. Then, he was
about opening his public ministry; noio, he was about
closing and crowning it.
Not only so, but regarding the occurrences in the gar
den as a scene of temptation corresponding to that in the
-wilderness, there is opened to us a wider analogy. We
have already seen that as the Baptism of Christ stood at
the entrance of his ministry considered as a whole, so his
Transfiguration stood at the entrance of what may be
called his passive ministry.* Regarding the agony in
the garden as a conflict with the Devil, it is seen to oc
cupy the same relation to Christ's ministry of special
suffering, which the temptation in the wilderness occu
pied to Christ's ministry as a whole. It was the Sav
iour's next most striking experience after that of the
Transfiguration, and was directly introductory to his
ministry of special suffering ; just as the temptation in
the wilderness was his next most striking experience
after that of the Baptism, and was directly introductory
to his whole public ministry.
In the one case as in the other, the Saviour was
tempted to forego his career of humiliation. In the
wilderness, the temptation addressed chiefiy the side of
our nature representing Desire; in the garden, the
« See Ch. IL
H *

178 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
temptation addressed chiefly the side of our nature rep
resenting Fear. Thus, in these two grand instances of
personal antagonism with the Devil, our Saviour is seen
to have been " tempted in all points like as we are, yet
without sin."

XXX.
The two cries of the People, "Bosanna to the Son of David," and
"Away with Bim— Crucify Bim."
Matt. xxi. 9; Luke xxiii. 21, and their parallels.
The most impressive instance of popular caprice found
in all history, is commonly imagined to be that afforded
by the two cries above recorded. One day, it is said,
the multitudes were rending the skies with their Hosan
nas to Jesus ; a few days after, they were clamoring for
his blood. Popular favor is indeed most fickle, and it
is not certain that those who so eagerly applauded the
Saviour when his cause was in the ascendant, acted the
part of faithful friends when suddenly he was found in
the hands of his enemies, and his cause seemed about to
be overthrown.
Yet that those who on the former occasion acted the
part of professed friends, speedily turned against Jesus,
and, a few days after, with one consent, being " instant
with loud voices," denied him before Pilate, demanded
the release of Barabbas, and " required that he might be
ca:ucified," there is no good reason for believing. Indeed
the evidences to the contrary are many and convincing.
The careful study of the records here, and of other
Scriptures bearing upon these, will show that the crowd
which clamored for the crucifixion of Jesus was substan- 179

180 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
tially a different company from that which gave him
triumphal entrance into Jerusalem.
Let us remember, first of all, that when Jesus made
his entry into Jerusalem, the passover was at hand, and
that vast multitudes were gathering to the city for the
festival. Let us further remember that the ministry of
Jesus had been performed mainly away from Jerusalem
and its vicinity, and principally in and around Galilee.
Let us still further remember that Jesus was popular in
the regions where he had chiefly labored, having been
^followed by immense crowds, who were astonished at
his doctrine, and who witnessed or even participated in
his many and beneficent miracles. The chief drawback
to his popularity in these regions arose from the inter
ference of Scribes and Pharisees, many of whom were
sent down from Jerusalem for the very purpose of re
sisting him. And let us also remember that, as the last
circumstance mentioned intimates, Jerusalem was the
headquarters of that Pharisaism which opposed the Sav
iour with bitter determination, and that the common
people of Jerusalem, as greatly under the influence of the
ecclesiastical leaders of the nation residing among them,
were likewise as a body unfriendly to Jesus.* Thus in
Jerusalem, during the great festivals, would be found
two large sections of people, ha-ving essentially opposite
relations to Jesus ; first, the permanent inhabitants of the
city — his enemies ; secondly, those who had come up to

» It was not easy for the authorities at Jerusalem, always to keep the
people of the city united in opposition to Jesus. An instructive instance
of the favorable impression made upon the Jerusalem people by our Sav
iour, and of the consequent alarm and indignation of the Rulers, may he
found in John vii. 26-52.

"hosanna;" "crucify him." 181
Jerusalem from Galilee and the countries adjacent — his
friends. Let us now turn to the history, and learn first, who
they were that cried their Hosannas to the Saviour. It
appears that the multitude attending on him when he
entered the city, was composed in part of those who had
journeyed with him just previously, and in part of those
who before had reached the city. Most of those who
journeyed -with the Saviour belonged evidently to those
districts of country in which he had chiefly labored.
They had come from Galilee through Perea, joining
themselves to him in great numbers, as his admiring
followers.* Some of them, indeed, murmured at his con
sorting -with Zaccheus.f Many of them, no doubt, were
mistaken friends. Yet the company, as such, believed
in him as a great prophet, or as the Messiah, and now
that "he was nigh to Jerusalem," thought that ",the
kingdom of God should immediately appear."J Those,
too, who went out from the city to meet him, were strangers
in Jerusalem. The Evangelist John thus writes, " On
the next day much people that were come to the feast, when
they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took
branches of palm-trees, and went forth to meet him, and
cried Hosanna."
Thus the multitude which so enthusiastically escorted
the Saviour into Jerusalem, one part going before him
and the other part following liim,§ was made up, in both
its parts, of those visiting the city. And these were to
such an extent his acquaintances and friends, as to make
it improbable that their rejoicing at his entrance into the
» Matt. XX. 29-34, and parallels. f Luke xix. 7.
I Luke xix. 11. ? Mark xi. 9.
16

182 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
city was a sudden effervescence of feeling, produced by
an unreasoning impulse which had quickly become con
tagious, and which once over left them to be swayed by
any new and chance impulse, however diverse from the
former. We may next appeal to the history to learn who they
were that madly vociferated the cry, "Away with him.
Crucify him." An examination of this point will satis
factorily show that they were not the strangers at the
feast, but were the people of Jerusalem, as distinguished
from these. They were those whom the hostile Pharisees
habitually controlled.
Commencing with the scene before Pilate, where this
murderous cry was raised, and going back in the narrative
to learn how the body of people there mentioned was
formed, we ascertain that its nucleus was the company
which the night before had gone forth with Judas to ap
prehend the Saviour. These are called in the history
"a great multitude." They went in company with a
military force, a " band of men and officers," being them
selves irregularly armed with "swords and staves."
And it is distinctly stated, that they "came from the
chief-priests, and the scribes, and the elders." They
were the minions of the hostile chiefs of the nation.*
The arrest of our Saviour must have occurred near
midnight. He was first taken before the High Priest.
"As soon as it was day," the Sanhedrim met, and Jesus
being brought into its presence, judgment was soon
given against him. Little time was lost in taking him
before Pilate, for still "it was early." Evidently "the
whole multitude of them,"t headed by the Council,
* Mark xiv. 43. John xviii. 2, 3. -j- Luke xxiii. 1.

"hosanna;" "crucify him." 183
could not have been very different in its composition
from the multitude which went out for the arrest of
Jesus. The numerous friends of Jesus, strangers in Je
rusalem, lodging wherever they could, many of them
doubtless spending the night outside the city, probably
had not yet, in any considerable number, even heard of
what was going on.
Some time, perhaps an hour or two, was spent in the
first examination by Pilate, and in taking the Saviour to
Herod and returning again. The crowd may have re
ceived an accession during this time, but it remained
essentially the same, since Pilate recognizes it as un
changed. "And Pilate, when he had called together
the chief-priests, and the rulers, and the people, said unto
them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that
perverteth the people : and behold I, having examined
him before you, have found no fault in this man, touch
ing those things whereof ye accuse him; no, nor yet
Herod; for I sent you unto him; and lo, nothing worthy
of death is done unto him : I -will therefore chastise him
and release him."*
And now it is that Pilate gives the people the choice
between Jesus and Barabbas. And they, persuaded by
the priests, demand Barabbas, and, in a general and per
sistent outcry, in which the priests largely share, pro
nounce their verdict upon Jesus in the words, "Crucify
him. Crucify him."
Assuredly the history thus makes it very plain that
those who clamored for the blood of Jesus, and were not
afraid to utter the dreadful imprecation, "His blood be
on us and our children," were not the multitude of
» Luke xxiii. 13-1 6.

184 HOURS among the gospels.
Galileans and others who had come to the feast, and who
a few days before had given him joyful entrance into the
city, but rather, were the rabble of Jerusalem, long since
inflamed by their leaders with hatred to Jesus, and
ready, in desperate hardness of heart, under the example
and influence of those leaders, to run all lengths of
wickedness. Were there any further evidence needed for corrobo
rating our conclusion, we might find it in the addresses
of Peter, made in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost
and soon after. "Peter, standing up with the eleven,
lifted up his voice and said, Ye men of Judea, and all ye
tliat dwell at Jerusalem. . . . Him being delivered
by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,
ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and
slain." " Whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the
presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him
go . . . and desired a murderer to be granted unto
you." "And now, brethren, I wot that through igno
rance ye did it, as did also your rulers."*
Perhaps it may have seemed unnecessary to undertake
in so serious a way the correction of a popular misappre
hension; yet if the undertaking has led us to a more just
view of the statements of the Sacred Records, it may be
esteemed as well worthy our pains.
* Acts ii and iii. See also Acts xiii. 27.

XXXI.
Judas Bepenling at the sight of Jesus Condemned.
Matt, xxvii. 3-5.
Weee the gospel history a fiction, as some have been
reckless enough to assert, it would need to be regarded
as a miracle of art. Such a character as that of Judas,
introduced as he is, acting the part he does, and depart
ing from the scene in the manner described, exceeds, as
we think, in its terrible truth, its truth to nature de
praved and acted on by higher powers of wickedness,
anything kno-wn in the creations of art.
Such a character, too, is wholly unique in the history.
In the whole Bible are found very few instances of sui
cide, and the gospel records are a total stranger to this
crime, except in the single case of Judas. Yet the de
lineation is perfect.
The fact that Judas repented of his treachery, the oc
casion of his so doing, and the remorse with which he
was filled, driving him to despair and self-destruction,
afford a study of fearful interest.
Judas had been successful in his effort to deliver up
his Master. At midnight he had led an armed band to
the side of Olivet, where he knew that Jesus might be
found, and coming upon the company of his old associ
ates, had advanced to his Master, and according to pre
concert betrayed him with a kiss.
16 ¦» 185

186 HOURS AMONG the gospels.
The deed was consummated, and for a little Judas is
lost sight of Jesus is carried before Annas and before
Caiaphas, and after some hours is brought to trial by the
Council. We read of the other disciples, how they for
sook Jesus and fled, how John and Peter rallied and
followed their Master into the High-Priest's house, how
there Peter's small courage again wholly forsook him and
thrice he shamefully denied his Lord ; but during this
time we read nothing of Judas. Where he was, or what
he was doing, we can only imagine. Yet we know that
in the hours which elapsed from near midnight till the
early morning, a great change came over him.
It was "yet early," when Jesus was led from the
Council to Pilate's hall of judgment, and this seems to
have been the time when Judas, as the record states,
"repented himself" of what he had done. It was "when
he saw that Jesus was condemned." This language, too,
makes it easy for us to imagine that Judas was a witness
of his Master's trial before the Council. He heard the
dreadful words of the unanimous verdict, " He is guilty
of death," and witnessed the mockeries and insults heaped
upon the condemned but unoffending One. He beheld
the Master in the power of his enemies. He saw unmis
takably the consequences of his treachery. And that
sight, flashing through all the specious reasonings with
which he had deluded himself, brought home to him, all
hardened before, the full sense of his damning guilt. He
saw Jesus condemned to death, and in an instant the
horrid crime of his Lord's foul murder was charged upon
his astonished soul.
And as Peter had gone out to weep bitterly for his
denials of Jesus, so we may think Judas went out from

DOOM OF JUDAS. 187
the Council and the presence of his Master, not indeed
under the movings of contrition, but under the bitings
of remorse and the tauntings of the Devil who was not
done with his victim. And can we not imagine him,
pallid and frightened, roaming wildly the streets of Je
rusalem, saying to himself, " What have I done ? What
have I done ?" And as he goes, surely the money in
his purse finds a tongue, and instead of soothing him
with the sound of its silvery sweetness, cries with accents
piercing his heart like barbed and poisoned arrows, " It
is the price of bipod — the price of blood."
Imagination aside, we know what was his frantic
thought, under the lacerations of conscience. He will
revoke his bargain with the priests, and undo his act of
treachery. He -will return the money and get back the
Master. And we see him hastening to the temple, where
he may find a portion of his employers, and coming into
their presence, and holding forth the money, and ex
claiming piteously and imploringly, " I have sinned in
that I have betrayed the innocent blood."
Ah ! what stinging power did this reflection give to
the guilt of Judas — " the innocent blood !" Could he
in that dreadful hour have only recalled some -wrong
done him by the Master, upon which to found a just
resentment, or could he have thought of any conduct of
the Master tending to discredit his claim to be the Mes
siah and the Son of God ; thus giving some color of right
to his own act in delivering him to the priests, or to the
act of the priests in condemning him ; it would not have
been so difficult to bear the smitings of conscience. But
to have perpetrated this deed utterly unprovoked, and
wholly in behalf of the wrong and the wicked, it was

188 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
more than he could bear. And unwittingly he is made
a chief witness for Jesus, in a voluntary and unimpeach
able testimony to his spotless innocence.
" He did not deserve this at my hands, or anythmg
like it," is the confession of Judas. " He was innocent,
and I ought to have defended him. He was innocent,
and I betrayed him. Here, take the money, and spare
me the guilt of his death. 'I have sinned' — 'I have
sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.' "
But Judas miscalculated, if he expected sympathy
from the priests. They had no concern, but for the ben
efit Avhich inured to them from his crime. Disdainfol
of him in his pitiful grief, and unmoved at his testimony
to the innocence of Jesus; satisfied that they had ob
tained secure possession of the object of their hate, and
might now dispose of him as they would — let him be
innocent or not — these callous wretches in cold contempt
thrust Judas from their presence, with the words inspired
from the pit, " What is that to us ? — See thou to that."
Thus they parleyed at the door of the temple. And
in his distraction, Judas seems to have pressed upon the
priests, until they retreated within the Sanctuary, if he
did not enter it himself.* When at last they drove him
-*- There are two words in the Greek Testament, as scholars well know,
which are rendered temple in our version. The one of these uniformly sig
nifies, not only the building proper, made up of the Holy Place and the
Most Holy, into which only the priests were permitted to enter, but the
building together with its various courts of popular assembly. It is this
word which is used, whenever our Saviour is spoken of as teaching in the
temple, or driving the money-changers out of the temple. The other word
uniformly signifies the sanctuary proper, the building into which none
might enter save the priests.
Now it is the latter word, which is used in the Greek, where it is said
that Judas " cast down the pieces of silver in the temple." And, as Arch-

DOOM OF JUDAS. 189
off, with words of cutting and fiendish scorn, he turned
upon them only to fling after them into the Holy Place
the money which they had refused. "And he cast down
the pieces of silver in the temple and departed."
The next thing in the record is, "and went and hanged
himself." And was not everything in the probable cir
cumstances just such as to sharpen his remorse and bring
him to this end?
We may think of him as he leaves the temple, return
ing to the streets and roaming them more wildly than
ever. The money is out of his hands, but the blood is
still there. And perhaps, as he goes his impetuous and
unguided way, he sometimes comes upon the crowd in
front of Pilate's palace, and hears the cry, "Away with
him — Crucify him;" or it may be he crosses the proces
sion which conducts Jesus from Pilate to Herod, or from
Herod back again to Pilate, and catches a sight of the
lowly and innocent one, beset by the rabble and arrayed
in the garments of mockery.
And thus his thoughts are soon maddening him to
despair. The very elements and influences doubtless
seem to conspire against him. The morning sun shines
but to wither and blight him with its yellow light. The
air grows thick and oppressive as with a curse. Sepa
rated by his own choice from his disciple-companions,
who would now shudder at the sight of him ; cast off and
scorned by those who once communed and covenanted
¦with him for their own wicked ends; having sinned too
bishop fTRENCH observes, in his "Synonyms of the New Testament," this
sets forth most vividly the despair and defiance of Judas, that he presses
into the very Sanctuary and there casts down before the priests the ac
cursed price of blood.

190 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
deeply against God and his Son to be -willing to ask for
pardon; and the time now hastening apace when that
innocent blood which he has betrayed shall be foully
shed; he yields himself to the impelling devil who has
possessed him and resolves upon self-destruction.
He will close his eyes to the sickening sunlight, and
escape the intolerable oppression of life, and go forever
from that world which has excluded him from its pity
and hope, and branded him as the object of all loathing
and hate. — And over the steep, rocky hill-side, beneath
Jerusalem's wall, he swings himself, thence again to
fall headlong, perishing miserably.

XXXII.
Joseph of Arimathea, and his Mission,
Matt, xxvii. 57-60, and parallels.
Jesus, on the way to death, suffered every conceivable
indignity. Yet ha-ving expired on the cross, his body
was not only preserved from destruction, or from any
serious marring of its organism, but was made the ob
ject of honorable and tender ministrations. The provi
dence of God herein was most notable.
Had the Romans been permitted their way with the
body of Jesus, it would have remained on the cross
until it went to decay, or was devoured by ravenous
birds. Had the Jews been permitted their way, it would
have received the infamous interment commonly given
to detestable criminals. God's special providence inter
fered to prevent both these results, and to secure a very
different and an exactly befitting disposition of the body.
And what was this special providence?
We might have supposed that the Apostles, or other
Galilean friends of Jesus, would have been anxious to
secure his body for burial. Some of them we know
witnessed his crucifixion. Yet these might well have de
spaired of being permitted to execute any desire of their
own. The body belonged to Pilate ; and what prospect
was there that the Governor would yield to the wishes
of such persons as they — obscure ones and strangers —
191

192 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
especially when the Jews might be expected to resist
them? But precisely at the juncture demanding interference,
there appears on the scene a person never before heard
of in the history, who effectually performs the needed
work, and who again immediately and wholly disap
pears. Seemingly he was raised up and commissioned
for this special service. He is a man of position and
influence, is desirous of giving the body of Jesus honor
able burial, and promptly undertakes the office. All
four of the Evangelists were moved to record the doings
of this person, and it may be of use for us to review and
compare their narratives, and thence endeavor to ascer
tain the causes which operated with such force as to set
him upon his extraordinary performance.
All the writers designate him as " Joseph of Arima
thea." Probably his birth-place was in the mountains
of Ephraim, although he had now become a resident of
Jerusalem. From Matthew we learn that he was "rich."
It is Matthew, also, who by and by informs us, that the
tomb in which Joseph buried our Lord, was " his own
new tomb," thus indicating, though without declaring
it, the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, " He made his
grave with the rich in his death." Luke characterizes
him as " a good man and a just," belonging thus to the
better class of Jews, and, as in the case of Simeon and
Anna, indulging some correct expectations of the Mes
siah; "who also himself waited for the kingdom of
God." (Mark and Luke.) He was also "a counsellor,"
(Luke,) " an honorable counsellor," (Mark,) from which
we should naturally infer that he was a member of the
supreme judicial tribunal of the nation. This inference

JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA. 193
is made certain by the declaration of Luke, that " the
same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them."
He, and probably Nicodemus, and possibly some others,
were absent from that packed meeting of the Sanhedrim
which gave a unanimous verdict against Jesus.* Still
further, he was " Jesus' disciple," (Matthew,) " but se
cretly, for fear of the Jews," (John,) — he yielding
unworthily to the special temptation of his high position.
Thus full is the account of this man, gathered from
all the writers. lie seems to have been much such a
person and disciple as Nicodemus, his brother Senator,
and naturally, though significantly enough, these two
are presently found in co-operation, probably having
previously conferred respecting their proposed work.
Joseph is already on his way to the Roman Governor,
prosecuting his mission, when introduced into the nar
rative. The time, according to Matthew and Mark, was
the evening — " when the even was come." This desig
nation of time was very indefinite then, as it is now.
The evening sacrifice occurred at the ninth hour, or at
three o'clock, P. M. Luke has it, that "the Sabbath
drew on." It was, by our reckoning, somewhere between
three and six o'clock, P. M. Both Mark and Luke men
tion, as John has also done, that it was "the prepara
tion ;" and Mark explains this to mean, " the day before
the Sabbath." The point needing to be observed is this,
that the time remaining for the burial was short. The
arrival of the Sabbath must be anticipated, and for this,
prompt and even hurried measures were required.
The Pharisees, like Joseph and Nicodemus, were anx
ious that the burial should take place before the Sabbath
» Mark xiv. 64.
17 I

194 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
commenced, (John,) and probably the visits of the two
parties to Pilate occurred near the same time. Joseph,
having obtained his request, returned to the cross, mak
ing purchase of fine linen and carrying it with him.
Meanwhile, and as if by previous agreement with Jo
seph, Nicodemus had procured the desired spices ; and
soon the body is lifted from the cross, wound in the linen
with the spices, conveyed to the new sepulchre in the
garden hard by, and there secured.
This narrative shows Joseph of Arimathea acting a
most honorable part. But more than this, it shows him
acting a most courageous part. And that, when we are
informed that previously he had been only a secret disci
ple, through fear. The Evangelist Mark uses this sig
nificant language concerning Joseph — that he " went in
boldly unto Pilate and craved the body of Jesus." And
assuredly his act must have required courage. Jesus
himself to all appearances overcome by his enemies and
his cause hopelessly lost, it was an act of highest heroism
thus almost alone to stand forth for the honor of Jesus
and for the upholding of his cause.
Well may we ask. How came it to pass that he who
was only a secret disciple through fear, when Jesus was
popular and his cause was seemingly marching to tri
umph, was now so courageous? The answer to this
question, that "the heroism of faith is usually kindled
by desperate circumstances,"* does not, even if correct in
itself, in the least explain the fact. At best it only places
it in a class of similar facts, all of which may require
explanation. The Apostles of our Lord exhibited little
* Prof. Brown.

JOSEPH OF ARIMATHEA. 195
"heroism of faith" amidst these "desperate circum
stances." A comparison of the records puts us, as we think,
upon a rational explanation of Joseph's extraordinary
conduct. And it is mainly for the sake of this explana
tion that such comparison has here been made.
It is strongly intimated, by all the circumstances of
the case as the records present them, that the reason for
Joseph's conduct was just this, that he now found him
self, in the peculiar providences of God, to be the only
person having any concern for the honor of Christ, who
was so situated as to be able to procure for him an hon
orable burial.
The Sabbath drew on ; the enemies of Jesus were hur
rying to bury him -with the malefactors ; most of the dis
ciples were scattered abroad, like sheep without a shep
herd; those who remained were destitute of influence
-with Pilate for procuring the body of Jesus, and, even
if they should overcome all obstacles and procure the
body, might not be able to find a suitable tomb. Jo
seph, we may presume, was acquainted with these facts.
And he knew further that he had influence with Pilate —
that he might be able to secure the body ; and, still fur
ther, there was his own new tomb, hard by the cross, with
out an occupant, standing ready to receive the body of
Jesus. Did not all the indications of that solemn and eventful
hour point to Joseph, as the man upon whom was devolved
the work of rescuing the body from the infamy fast pre
paring for it, and giving it honorable sepulture? Must
he not have felt that the crisis had arrived, when he
must banish his fears and boldly avow his attachment

196 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
to Jesus, or utterly and forever renounce all pretence of
friendship? It was, as we cannot but think, under the
pressure of these circumstances, so admirably adapted to
test the reality of his discipleship, and "kindle his
faith" for heroic achievement, that he went in boldly
unto Pilate, and consummated the burial of his Master.
Supposing this explanation to be correct, the conduct
of Nicodemus is just what we might have expected.
Of like character with Joseph, and feeling to some ex
tent the force of the same providential circumstances, he
co-operates with Joseph. Yet it is not Nicodemus who
owns the convenient tomb, and the circumstances do not
so fully devolve on him the responsibilities of the occa
sion. Hence, it is exactly natural that while his courage
is developed to a new degree and he is led to act a
worthy part, he should still be seen only as the helper of
Joseph, who remains the hero of the occasion.

XXXIII.
Jesus, after his Besurreciion, appearing first to Mary Slagdalene.
Mark'xvi. 9; John xx. 11-18; Matt, xxviii. 8-10.
In no part of the Gospel History is it so difficult to
reduce the accounts of the Evangelists to harmony, as
in the narratives of the events immediately following
the Resurrection.
Some persons — unbelievers — declare the accounts
hopelessly contradictory, and charge the writers with
fraud and falsehood. Others, who have implicit faith
in the records, and who believe that seeming incon
sistencies would be wholly relieved, had we a full
knowledge of the actual occurrences, doubt whether it is
possible with our present knowledge to relieve them,
and therefore discourage all attempts in this direction.
Others still, and among them probably the majority of
wise expositors, not professing to find a complete narra
tive in any blended account of the four writers, hold that
apparent contradictions may be removed by the supposi
tion of certain circumstances having existed and certain
events having occurred, which, although not recorded,
are within the limits of easy probability. This method
of reconciling seeming discrepancies is everywhere recog
nized as legitimate, under similar conditions, and we
cannot imagine why it should be rejected here.
The fact of considerable diversity in the statements
17 » 197

198 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
may be rationally accounted for. Each writer had his
own point of observation of the facts occurring. Each
had his special end in view, in selecting and recording
those which he has given. And further, it may reason
ably be supposed, that any apparent confusion in the
narrative is the natural result of a confusion which
actually existed in the movements of the disciples.
When we reflect for a moment on the fact that the dis
ciples were strangers in Jerusalem, and probably on the
night preceding the Resurrection lodged some in one
place and some in another — on the fact that the first
tidings from the sepulchre came early in the morning —
and on the fact that these tidings were of a most astound
ing character; is it not evident that some confusion of
movement 7nust have occurred? There would be a hur
rying to and fro. Some would be going to the sepulchre,
while others were returning from it. The sepulchre be
ing visited at different times, by different parties, the
.changes taking place would give rise to different reports
concerning what was there seen. Under these circum
stances, to demand that each of the writers, telling his
o-wn story from his o-wn point of view and for his own
particular purpose, should compose a narrative easily
falling in with and fitting all the others, is simply pre
posterous. Such a demand would be reasonable, as some
one has suggested, only on the supposition that the whole
company of disciples marched to the tomb, by a pro
gramme previously arranged.
It is our object, in this chapter, to show how one of
the most troublesome apparent disagreements in the re
cords may be reasonably explained.
In the gospel by John we have the account of an in-

FIRST APPEARING OF THE RISEN SAVIOUR. 199
terview of the risen Jesus with Mary Magdalene at the
sepulchre. Mary is evidently alone.— In Mark's gospel,
we have the distinct statement that Jesus appeared first
to Mary Magdalene. We can hardly help the conclusion
that the interview which John records is that to which
Mark refers, and was Christ's first appearance to mortal
vision after his Resurrection. — Yet, from Matthew's ac
count, we obtain the impression that Jesus first revealed
himself to the company of women, who, according to
the first three writers, came early in the morning to the
sepulchre, Mary Magdalene being then with them. And
he revealed himself to them, not at the sepulchre, but
after they had fled from it, going in obedience to the
command of the angels to bring word to the disciples of
the Resurrection. Matthew writes, "And as they went
to tell his disciples, behold Jesus met them, saying. All
hail. And they came and h^ld him by the feet, and
worshipped him."*
Now how are we to believe, without doing violence to
the narratives, that Mary Magdalene, alone, and at the
sepulchre, was the first to look upon the risen Saviour ?
There seems to be no difficulty in the supposition, that
when the company of women, including Mary Magda
lene, approached the sepulchre early in the morning, and
found the door open, Mary, without waiting until the
angels made kno-wn the fact of the Resurrection, under
the belief that 'the sepulchre had been rifled of its occu
pant, separated herself from the company and hastened
"¦ We follow the received text, although some of the critics reject the
phrase, " and as they went to tell his disciples." Ellicott is disposed
to find relief from the difficulty mentioned by adopting the view of these
critics. Life of Christ, p. 351. This we think unnecessary.

200 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
to bring the tidings to Peter and John. The Evangelist
John writes concerning Mary, when she saw that the
stone was taken from the sepulchre, " Then she runneth
and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple
whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them. They have taken
away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not
where they have laid him." John indeed writes as if
Mary going alone to the sepulchre had made this dis
covery, when he says, " The first day of the week cometh
Mary Magdalene, early, when it was dark, unto the sep
ulchre, and seeth the stone taken away ;" yet obviously
he thus -writes because it was Mary alone who gave the
information to himself and Peter. He was intent, not
on the visit of the women but on his own visit, and was
showing how it came to be made. Mary's language, as
John gives it, distinctly intimates that she had been at
the sepulchre in company with others. She says, "we
know not -where they have laid him."
Thus, then, was Mary probably separated from the
company of the women. The two disciJDles ran to the
sepulchre, yet did not arrive until after the women had
left, and did not meet them on the way. The disciples
made their observations and departed, Mary meanwhile
having followed them, and having reached the sepulchre
perhaps not far from the tiine they left it. And now,
remaining there alone, opportunity would be given for
the interview with her described so affectingly by the
Evangelist John.
Yet the principal question remains unanswered ; the
question, How can this interview be consistently con
ceived of as occurring before that with the company of
women mentioned by Matthew, so as to be regarded the

FIRST APPEARING OF THE RISEN SAVIOUR. 201
first, according to the declaration of Mark ? There is a
way, we think, in which this may easily be done, without
violence either to the narratives or to the manifest prob
abilities of the case.
All difficulty is here created by the gratuitous sup
position that our Saviour appeared to the women soon
after their fiight from the sepulchre, and in its immediate
vicinity. We say gratuitous supposition. There is not
the slightest e-vidence in its favor. So far as the record
goes, we have the language, that " as they went to tell
his disciples, Jesus met them." It may be admitted that
the first impression produced by this language is favora
ble to the supposition stated. Yet nothing is plainer
than the fact that these records are of a condensed and
summary sort, and were not always intended to give at
the first glance accurate impressions of the details of time
and place. For example, Matthew says nothing of any
interview of our Saviour, after his Resurrection, with any
of the Apostles in Jerusalem, and, according to the first
impression received from the reading of Matthew's ac
count by itself, Jesus ascended to heaven from Galilee.
And the narrative in Luke, read by itself, gives the im
pression that our Saviour ascended from near Jerusalem,
on the evening following his Resurrection. We know from
the Acts that he ascended from near Jerusalem, forty
days after his Resurrection. We may not, then, here
insist on first impressions. We must avail ourselves of
all the information afforded, and thus secure, so far as
may be, right impressions.
Matthew -writes, as we have seen, that " as they went
to tell his disciples, Jesus met them." But where were
the disciples, and how long did it take the women to find

T»

202 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
them ? The common supposition seems to be, that the
company of the Apostles all lodged in Jerusalem, at one
and the same place, and that the women knew just where
to find them. The probabilities, however, are to the con
trary of this. Being strangers in Jerusalem, and the
city now overflowing with the multitudes who had come
to the passover, probably the Apostles were much scat
tered ; perhaps most of them were lodging with their
friends at Bethany, or elsewhere amidst their famihar
haunts on the Mount of Olives.* Peter and John, we
may think, lodged in the city. John was to some extent
acquainted there, and seems tcr have had there a place
of temporary abode, to which he took the mother of our
Lord.f And Peter and John were together, wherever
it was they were staying.} The last we read, before this,
of the rest of the eleven, they were scattered on the
Mount of Olives, and not until the evening of the first
day of the week do we learn of any gathering of the
companj in Jerusalem. Even then Thomas is absent,§
and the rest are rejoicing over the appearing of the Lord
to Simon, showing that he had been separated from the
others. 1 1
It seems altogether probable that the women, charged
with the message to the disciples, were some length of
¦* No doubt at the festivals strangers were compelled to seek lodgings
through the surrounding country, out to a considerable distance. Thus
probably Simon the Cyreniau was coming in from his night-abode in " the
country," to the morning sacrifice, when he was taken and compelled to
bear the cross of Jesus ; and thus Cleopas and his companion may have
had their place of temporary residence at Emmaus, and may have been
going to it for the night, when joined by Christ.
t John xviii. 16; xix. 27. % John xx. 2. | John xx. 24.
I] Luke xxiv. 34.

FIRST APPEARING OF THE RISEN SAVIOUR. 203
time in finding them. Perhaps they first came into the
city, the sepulchre according to the old tradition being a
short distance from the western wall, going first in quest
of Peter and John whom they knew to be lodging there.
And we may suppose, that not finding these disciples,
who had already started for the sepulchre on the intelli
gence given by Mary, they passed on through the city
eastward and out to the Mount of Olives, in search of
the others.
And it may have been in this latter part of their long
walk, " as they went to tell his disciples," that, in some
of the seclusions of Olivet, the Saviour, having already
appeared to Mary at the sepulchre, and transferring him
self in his resurrection-body at will, revealed himself to
them. By this method of probable conjecture, we avoid the
difficulty suggested, and were there nothing in the rec
ords going directly to confirm the conjectures made, we
need not hesitate to accept them, so long as nothing in
the records is found to contradict them. But it so hap
pens, that a passage in the gospel by Luke, in a most
incidental way falls in with these conjectures, and with
our inferences from them, in a manner remarkably to
confirm them. Let us see.
The two disciples going to Emmaus, who plainly
were familiar friends of the Apostles,*— having started
from Jerusalem not far, we may suppose, from the mid
dle of the day, give to the unknown person Avho has
accosted them, the following statement of the facts
known to them on leaving the city. They say, " Yea,
and certain women also of our company made us aston-
» Luke xxiv. 22, 23.

204 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
ished, which were early at the sepulchre. And when
they found not his body, they came, saying, that they
had also seen a vision of angels which said that he was
alive." Evidently this was the same company of
women, of whose interview with the angels the first
three Evangelists tell us. Yet when they met these
disciples in the city, they spoke only of the vision of
angels which they had seen, and of what the angels had
told them, saying nothing of having seen the Lord. Must
we not suppose that the interview with him had not yet oc
curred ? Not at their first flight from the sepulchre, as
we again see, did the Lord reveal himself to these women.
Sufficient time elapsed, as is here intimated, for him to
appear, according to Mark's statement, "first to Mary
Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils."

XXXIV.
Christ's saying to Mary Magdalene, "Touch me not: for I am not
yet Ascended to my Father."
John XX. 17; xvi. 16; xiv. 3.
Maet was alone at the sepulchre, Peter and John
having recently withdrawn. Full of the thought that
the body of her Lord had been stolen away, she stands
there weeping. Presently, her tears still falling, she
stoops into the sepulchre, and beholds, what Peter and
John had not seen, two angels clothed in white.
It is remarkable that at this sight Mary evinces no
surprise. She is sufficiently composed to observe the
exact position of the angels, "sitting, the one at the
head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus
had lain." And when they address her with the sooth
ing remonstrance, "Woman, why weepest thou?" she
answers with the utmost calmness, and from the fulness
of her heart, " Because they have taken away my Lord,
and I know not where they have laid him."
Behold the might of love ! She did not fear ; for in
her heart was no room for fear. " Perfect love easteth
out fear." At that moment, Mary would doubtless
have little recked it, had the earth opened before her to
swallow her up.
Yet, having answered the question of the angels, she
rises, as -with womanly dignity, to retire. As she rises,
18 205

206 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
she partially turns, and in so doing catches a glimpse
of some one standing back of her. Her eyes are filled
-with tears ; perhaps the morning has not far advanced ;
possibly Jesus is different in appearance ; above all she
is not expecting to see him alive. At any rate she fails
to recognize him.
H6 addresses to her the same question of remonstrance
which the angels had asked, and still his voice is that
of a stranger. She gives him a courageous reply, such
as only the fulness of love would dictate. Supposing
him, very naturally, to be the gardener, and thinking
that probably it is he who has removed the body of her
Lord, she cries, " Sir, if thou have borne him hence,
tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him
away." But it is Jesus. And now he discloses himself to her,
even through all the obstacles which before had pre
vented her from recognizing him. And how does he
make himself known ? He does it instantly and com
pletely, by the utterance of a single word. Yet that
word is her name. " Jesus saith unto her, Mary."
No word comes so near to us as our name; none
searches so closely after our personality, and carries so
fully with it our very selves. And this one word, per
haps pronounced by the Saviour in his old familiar tone,
was a quick and full revelation. Not a doubt remained
as to who he was, and the full sense of her relations to'
him as his disciple came rushing upon her soul with
overwhelming power. Turning completely round, she
exclaims, " Rabboni," " My Master," and probably, in
the transport of her feelings, is ready to cling to him,
never more to be separated. Jesus, however, checks

CHRIST'S SAYING, "TOUCH ME NOT." 207
her movement, saying, " Touch me not ; for I am not
yet ascended to my Father."
The prohibition, " Touch me not," is regarded as one
of the sayings of our Lord most difficult of interpreta
tion. Tholuck, after mentioning a long list of varying
opinions concerning it, expressed by leading expositors,
declares himself unable to adopt any one of them with
confidence, and declines offering any independent judg
ment. We would venture to ask, whether the reason
assigned for the prohibition, may not be expected to
throw some light on the prohibition itself? — whether,
indeed, in the ambiguities of the one, the other may not
-be looked to for a decisive settlement of the meaning ?
Fixing our regards, then, upon the reason assigned ; —
" for I am not yet ascended to my Father," let us revert
to our Saviour's sayings upon this point, and see if we
can discern in them any reason adapted to restrain the
probable action of Mary.
One of the most remarkable of these sayings is the
following, "A little while, and ye shall not see me; and
again a little while and ye shall see me, because I go to
tlie Father."* The disciples were at a loss to understand
this saying, and inquired concerning it among them
selves. And Jesus explained it, much to their satisfac
tion, on this wise, " I came forth from the Father, and
am come into the world ; again I leave the world, and
go to the Father."t Before this, Jesus had declared,
» John xvi. 16. The critics would omit from this verse the clause, "be
cause I go to the Father." The omission, however, makes no difference;
for this verse looks directly back to the 10th verse, "because I go to the
Father and ye see me no more."
¦)- John xvi. 28.

208 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
" I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and pre
pare a place for you, I will come again and receive you
unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also."*
Now supposing Mary to have been familiar with such
teachings of our Lord — and the fact that he spoke to
her as he did implies this familiarity — is it not natural
to suppose that when she first recognized the risen Sav
iour, her thought was that Jesus in death had left the
world and gone to the Father, and that having returned
to life; he had now come from the Father ? How ex
actly would this suit his very words, " a little while and
ye shall not see me, and again a little while and ye shall
see me, because I go to the Father f" And, of course, so
thinking, Mary would further think, " he has now come
to take his disciples to himself, that they may abide with
him for ever, even according to his promise, 'I will
come again and receive you unto myself, that where I
am, there ye may be also.' "
And was it not in view of such misapprehensions as
these that Jesus said, " Touch me not ?" As if he had
said, " You are mistaken in supposing that I have now
come from the Father, and I must wholly disappoint
you. ' I am not yet ascended to my Father,' and hence
cannot now take you to myself. Earthly fellowship can
no longer be permitted, and the time has not come for
the heavenly. Therefore cling not to me ; but instead,
go from me and resume the life of service ; ' go to my
brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father,
and your Father, and to my God, and your God.' "
* John xiv. 3.

XXXV.
The Incredulity of Thomas; as Overcome in like manner with that
of Natlianael.
John XX. 24-29 ; i. 48, 49.
Theough the week following our Lord's Resurrection,
the unbeheving Thomas had been saying to his fellow-
disciples, " Except I shall see in his hands the print of
the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not
believe." Let us observe how this extreme incredulity
was overcome.
Faith in the Resurrection of Jesus was not for the
disciples an easy matter. Their very confidence in the
Messiahship of Jesus prevented them from regarding
his death as possible, until he should have "restored
again the kingdom to Israel." They did not interpret
aright his predictions concerning his death. Perhaps
they attached to them no definite meaning whatever.
Their dominant and absorbing feeling led them to an
ticipate with confidence his triumph over all opposition,
in the speedy establishment of his kingdom. When,
unresisting and as if helpless, he was arrested before
their eyes, bound and led away, and then shamefully
put to death, they were utterly confounded. In the sud
den prostration of their hopes, they could not at once
think that, like as his predictions concerning his death
had now received a literal fulfillment, so might they an-
18 » 209

210 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
ticipate his literal Resurrection. All was dismay, and
the dejection of deepest despondency.
Thus none of them credited the first reports from the
tomb. Mary Magdalene "went and told them that
had been with him as they mourned and wept. And
they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had
been seen of her, believed not." The company of women
reported the same things. " And their words seemed
to them as idle tales, and they believed not." Not until
he had actually appeared to one of their own number, to
Peter, did they credit the joyful intelligence.
On the evening following the Resurrection, Jesus ap
peared in the midst of the company of the Apostles, and
after " upbraiding them with thefr unbelief and hardness
of heart," showed them his hands and his feet, and ate
before them, and discoursed to them. As might have
been expected, they were hereby lifted from the depths
of despondency to the heights of joy. " Then were the
disciples glad when they saw the Lord."
From this meeting of the Lord with his Apostles,
Thomas was absent. Even more incredulous than his
brother disciples, he probably felt an indifference to what
was going on. He treated with even greater contempt
the reports concerning the Resurrection, and now that
his Master was dead, hoped for nothing further.* If,
on the day following the Resurrection, he had been in
the city at all, perhaps, like the two disciples going to
Emmaus, he had left it, amidst the eventful incidents
rapidly occurring, and gone to his abode in the country.
The records do not indeed directly charge Thomas
¦» For an admirable discussion of the character of Thomas, and of his
behaviour at this juncture, see Dr. Hanna's "Forty Days."

THE DOUBTER CONVINCED. 211
with guilty neglect, in failing to be present -with his fel
low-disciples, yet they strongly imply it. The gathering
of a deeper cloud upon him, in whose gloom he was left
to walk for many days, seems like an intended chastise
ment for wilful error.
Not having been present, " the other disciples therefore
said unto him. We have seen the Lord." Probably they
lost no time in making this joyful communication. Prob
ably they fully rehearsed the particulars of the Master's
interview. Yet so deplorably dark had become the mind
of Thomas, this explicit testimony of the whole company
of his fellow-Apostles made no impression upon him,
except to prompt the most unreasonable exactions in
order to his faith. They had been permitted to look
upon the Lord, and had been invited to handle him, that
they might know he was no ghostly apparition ; and now
Thomas declares that unless he has the same opportunity,
and actually avails himself of it, to his satisfaction, he
will not believe. Incredulous as were the other disciples,
the testimony of Peter that he had seen the Lord was
gladly credited. Thomas persisted in his unbelief against
such testimony multiplied to tenfold strength. If they
deserved the upbraidings of the Master, how much more
richly Thomas.
Yet he was a true disciple, though now under strong
temptation. The Saviour had not forgotten him, but
doubtless had borne him tenderly in mind, and had
prayed for him, that his faith might not utterly fail.
And the Saviour will presently bring him to suitable
feelings. The method of the Lord's procedure herein is
highly suggestive.
He leaves the guilty disciple for a time to the unhap-

212 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
piness which he has -wrought for himself. Indeed
Thomas is not to be restored, until he has repented of
his fault in absenting himself from his brother Apostles
and has returned to their company. Not until a full
week has elapsed, and they are assembled again much
as they were before, does Jesus appear to them and to
Thomas. The mode of his entrance among them is again
the same, tending to create doubt concerning the reality
of his being in the flesh. He does not condescend to
make the way any easier for Thomas' reasoning incredu
lity. This interview seems to have been granted with a
special view to the restoration of the erring disciple; for
no sooner does Jesus appear and bestow his salutation,
than singling him out, he addresses him. And how
must the words of the Master have thrilled the soul
of the doubter ! He hears the precise language of his
own unbelief — that which he has been repeating to him
self day by day, and with which he has obstinately met
the arguments and representations of his fellow-disciples.
" Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and
behold my hands ; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust
it into my side ; and be not faithless, but believing."
And now we have reached the point of our special
inquiries. The most frequent impression with Bible
readers appears to be, that upon this offer of our Sa-viour,
Thomas proceeded to inspect and handle the person of
the Master, and thereupon came to faith. Can this im
pression be correct ? It is scarcely possible. Our view
of the procedure of our Saviour, so long as we retain
this impression, is shallow and unworthy. Not after
this fashion, assuredly, would the Saviour gratify and

THE DOUBTER CONVINCED. 213
honor the unreasonable and even wicked demands of his
tempted disciple.
Both the narrative itself, and the analogy of our Sav
iour's dealings elsewhere, suggest a different view.
Two things in the narrative strongly imply that
Thomas did not accept the proposal of Jesus, but was
other-wise brought to faith. The first is the statement
which Christ afterward makes. He says, " Thomas, be
cause thou hast seen me, thou hast believed." Here no
further help to faith of an outward sort is recognized,
than simply the visible presence of the Saviour. The
second is the evidently instantaneous recognition by
Thomas, at the very words of the Master, not only of
the identity of Jesus and the reality of his Resurrection,
but of his absolute Divinity. This seems utterly incon
sistent with the impression so commonly entertained.*
From the teachings of the passage itself, we cannot
but think that Thomas was brought to faith on this wise.
Probably before this interview he had begun to see the
unsuitableness of his demands, and secretly to regret
that he had insisted on them. His relentings had been
such as to bring him back to the company of his brethren.
And now, in the presence of the Saviour, whom he finds
*It is with surprise that we find Ellicott thus writing, "We mark
with adoring wonder, how the personal test which the Apostle had re
quired, was now vouchsafed to him." And again, "With his hands on
the sacred wounds, with evidence most distinct that He whom he was per
mitted to touch was man, the convinced disciple, in terms the most ex
plicit, declares him to be God."
How much more satisfactory Bishop Hall-" I do not hear that when
it came to the issue, Thomas employed his hands in this trial: his eyes
were now sufficient assurance : the sense of his Master's omniscience in this
particular challenge of him, spared, perhaps, the labor of a further d.s-
quisition."

214 HOURS AMONG THE GOSPELS.
to have been conversant with his unbelieving thoughts,
although uninformed of them from any human source ;
whom he finds to have been reading his heart with omr-
niscient eye, and to have been sorrowfully watching over
him in all his wayward and guilty course ; the conviction
flashes on his soul, that it is, it can be, none other than
his gracious Master, not only risen from the dead, but
clothed with every attribute of Divinity. And prostrate
ing himself, he utters the , cry of adoring faith, "My
Lord, and my God !"
The most striking analogy to the case of Thomas, is
that afforded by Nathanael. And in that instance, be
it observed, it is evidently the sudden and resistless con
viction of the omniscience of Jesus, which is followed by
instant and implicit faith.
Nathanael was disposed to doubt. When Philip an
nounces to him the happy tidings, "We have found him
of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write,
Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph," Nathanael is all
incredulous. He responds, " Can there any good thing
come out of Nazareth ?" Yet going with his friend, he
soon finds that Jesus has some correct idea of his char
acter. Jesus pronounces him " an Israelite indeed, in
whom is no guile," and then, at the question of Na
thanael, "Whence knowest thou me?" gives Nathanael
to understand that he knows all things, that his omnis
cient eye had been watching him in the secret place of
wrestling prayer under the fig-tree; whereupon Na
thanael exclaims, in the fulness of his unhesitating faith,
"Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the king of
Israel." Jesus approves the faith of Thomas; yet as it was a

THE DOUBTER CONVINCED. 215
faith which needed to be helped into exercise by the
personal presence and address of Jesus, he disparages it
in comparison with a more ready and unquestioning
faith, which would not reject the testimony of others.
"Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast be
lieved ; blessed are they that have not seen and yet have
believed." Our Saviour's treatment of Thomas accords with the
Divine dealings with men generally, in the province of
spiritual matters. Those who entertain speculative
doubts concerning religion, are not commonly brought
to true faith, by having their arguments of unbelief gone
over in detail and refuted. These are commonly left to
stand in full force. Yet they no longer have power, or
are even remembered, when the Spirit of God has made
known the Divine adaptations of the gospel to the deep
needs of the soul. These doubts all vanish of them
selves, like ghosts to their graves before the morning
sun. We close these studies in the gospels, listening to the
benediction of the Master upon those who " have not
seen and yet have believed," a benediction freighted
with encouragement to us, who live between his first
and his second appearings, and who in reference to the
past and the future can humbly say, "Whom not having
seen we love ; in whom, though now we see him not,
yet believing, we rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full
of glory."

3 9002 08844 8742

eI3