PART III:

The Presentation and Defense of

Christianity

LESSON XXVII

A PRESENTATION OF JESUS TO JEWISH CHRISTIANS

The Gospel According to Matthew

The Gospel of Matthew is probably, as has been said, the most

important book that was ever written. Its importance is due to the

information which it contains about Jesus Christ. More fully perhaps

than any other one book, the Gospel of Matthew has preserved the

knowledge of Jesus.

Whatever be the future of the Church, the life of Jesus will now

always remain the central fact of history. Even the secondary

influence of Jesus is incalculable; even if none were left to own

him as Lord and Master, still he would remain incomparably the most

influential man that has ever lived. As a matter of fact, however,

such a condition has never existed and never will exist. From the

very beginning the life of Jesus made itself felt through those who

accepted him, to the exclusion of all others, as the supreme Lord of

their lives. If Jesus had been regarded merely as a quiet teacher

of ethics, the Gospel of Matthew never would have been written, and

probably the very name of Jesus would have perished. The wonderful

influence of Jesus, which has transformed the world from darkness to

light, which alone gives promise of a final reign of righteousness,

has been exerted through the instrumentality, not of admirers, but

of disciples. Jesus has been a Teacher only because he has been a

Master.

To make Jesus Master in the lives of men was the purpose of the

Gospel of Matthew, and it is the purpose of our study of the book.

The Gospel was not written with merely scientific interest; it was

not written merely to preserve certain gems from the lips of an

inspired teacher. The ultimate purpose of the book was to make men

fall at Jesus' feet with the words, "My Lord and my God." Such a

purpose is not inconsistent with the most scrupulous truthfulness.

Adoration of Jesus can be induced best of all, not by fanciful

elaboration, but by sober fact. In the case of Jesus, truth was more

glorious by far than the boldest fiction.

To make Jesus Lord and Saviour is the purpose of our work as

teachers. That purpose cannot be attained by exhortation or by

threatening, but only by impartation of knowledge. To know Jesus is

to trust him and adore him. Many readers of the Gospels never attain

to the true knowledge. Their failure is due to various causes--to

moral laxness, to preconceived opinions, to spiritual dullness.

One obstacle, however, is of a simpler kind. One thing that stands

in the way of a real understanding of the Gospels is the habit

of piecemeal reading. We read the Gospels bit by bit instead of

allowing the whole to make its impression. We do not see the wood

for the trees. Jesus is concealed from us by his individual acts.

The Gospels should be read as well as studied--read rapidly, like

an ordinary book, preferably in some rational form of printing

where verse numbers and all editorial matters are relegated to the

margin and the lines stretch across the page. These things may seem

to be trivialities, and certainly they are not essential. What is

essential--not in place of detailed study, but in addition to it--is

a rapid reading of the Gospels, by which, through the exclusion of

all non-essentials, the mysterious, holy person of Jesus is brought

simply and freshly before the wondering soul. Not to know about

Jesus, but to know him, is the prime object of our study. To know

about him is a valuable part of education; but to know him is life

eternal.

1. MEANING OF "GOSPEL"

The Greek word for "gospel" means "good news." Nowhere in the New

Testament, however, is that word applied to a book. There is no

reference in the New Testament to a "Gospel" of Matthew or of Mark

or of Luke or of John. In the New Testament the word "gospel" has a

more general reference. It designates the "good news" which lies at

the basis of Christian preaching, however that news may be known.

Christianity is based upon "a piece of information." The subject of

that information is the life and death and resurrection of Jesus

Christ. Without Christ we should have been hopeless, but Christ has

saved us. Information about what he has done for us, however that

information be conveyed, is the gospel.

This broad use of the word "gospel" appears even in the titles

"Gospel according to Matthew," "Gospel according to Mark," "Gospel

according to Luke," and "Gospel according to John," which are not

due to the original authors of the books. "Gospel according to

Matthew" did not originally mean the same thing as "Gospel of

Matthew." It did not mean the Gospel which Matthew produced, but the

one Gospel of Jesus Christ as Matthew narrated it. Matthew, Mark,

Luke and John produced simply four accounts of the same thing. That

common subject of the four accounts is the gospel, the good news, of

what Jesus Christ has done for his followers.

At a very early time, however, books which had the gospel as their

subject came themselves to be designated as "Gospels." The usage is

convenient, and will be freely adopted in these textbooks. We may

speak indiscriminately of the "Gospel according to Matthew" and of

the "Gospel of Matthew."

2. AUTHORSHIP OF THE FIRST GOSPEL

=(1) Not Indicated in the Gospel Itself.=--The Gospel of Matthew

should be sharply distinguished from those books which themselves

make definite claims as to their authorship. The Epistle to the

Romans, for example, claims to have been written by the apostle

Paul. If it was not written by Paul, it is a forgery. The book of

The Acts, also, though it does not mention the name of the author,

claims at least--through the use of the first person plural--to have

been written by some companion of the apostle Paul. Even the Gospel

of John, as we shall see, really affords clear indications about

its own authorship. The Gospel of Matthew, on the other hand, lays

no claim to any particular authorship. We might believe that it was

written by some other person than Matthew and yet be perfectly loyal

to the book itself. The self-witness of the book is confined merely

to a claim of truthfulness. If we believe that the record which the

book contains is true, then we might, in perfect loyalty to the

Gospel, believe that it was written by some one like Luke or Mark,

outside of the company of the apostles. Such a view, however, would

display an unreasonable distrust of Christian tradition.

=(2) Papias on the First Gospel.=--The earliest extant information

about the authorship of the First Gospel is to be found in a

fragment which Eusebius, the church historian of the fourth century,

has preserved from a lost work of Papias. Papias was bishop of

Hierapolis in Asia Minor in the former half of the second century.

The fragment from Papias, which is found in Eusebius, Church

History, iii, 39, 16, may be translated as follows:

"Matthew accordingly wrote [or compiled] the oracles in the Hebrew

dialect, and everyone translated them as he was able."

It seems pretty evident that Papias is here referring to the First

Gospel. Some, indeed, have supposed that he means by "the oracles"

a writing composed almost exclusively of sayings of Jesus, which

formed merely one of the sources of our First Gospel. This view is

probably incorrect. Papias could designate the Gospel of Matthew

as "the oracles" either because of the large place which sayings

of Jesus have in this Gospel, as compared, for example, with the

Gospel of Mark, or else because the whole Gospel, both speeches

and narrative, was of divine, oracular authority. The view that

"according to Matthew" in the ancient title and in Christian

tradition means not that Matthew wrote the book, but that it is

based in some way ultimately on his authority, is opposed by the

analogy of Mark. As we shall see, the Gospel of Mark, in early

tradition, was referred ultimately to the authority of Peter; if,

therefore, "according to" was used in the sense indicated above, the

Second Gospel would have been called the Gospel "according to Peter"

instead of the Gospel "according to Mark."

The testimony of Papias involves two principal assertions: in the

first place, that Matthew wrote the First Gospel; and in the second

place, that he wrote it in the "Hebrew" language.

The former assertion, which is supported by a striking consensus of

early writers, has already been considered. The latter is much more

puzzling.

3. WAS THE FIRST GOSPEL ORIGINALLY ARAMAIC?

=(1) Meaning of "Hebrew."=--By "the Hebrew dialect," Papias no doubt

means Aramaic rather than what we call Hebrew. The term "Hebrew"

was applied to both of the two closely related languages. Compare

Acts 21:40. It is exceedingly unlikely that a Gospel would have been

written in Hebrew; for before the time of Christ that had ceased to

be the living language of Palestine. What Papias asserts, then, is

that Matthew wrote in Aramaic.

=(2) "Everyone Translated Them as He Was Able."=--Papias asserts

further that everyone translated the oracles as he was able. These

words may be interpreted in various ways. Perhaps they mean that

every man who used the original of Matthew had to translate it for

himself; or perhaps that the Gospel was translated orally in the

churches, as the Jews translated the Hebrew Old Testament into

Aramaic in the synagogues; or perhaps that a number of written

translations of the Gospel were made. At any rate Papias seems to

imply that the condition which he here describes had come to an end

when he wrote. Some one Greek form of the Gospel had gained general

acceptance; the time when everyone translated as he was able was at

an end.

(3) Value of the Tradition.--The tradition of an Aramaic original

of Matthew is not preserved merely by Papias, but appears in a

considerable number of early writers. How far the other writers

are independent of Papias is a disputed question. The tradition

may be variously estimated. Some have supposed that it is entirely

correct--that our Greek Gospel of Matthew is a translation, by

Matthew himself or by some one else, of an Aramaic work: others

have supposed that the tradition is altogether false--for example,

that an Aramaic translation of the Greek Gospel was mistaken for an

original from which the Greek Gospel had been translated: others

hold intermediate views--for example, that one of the sources of

our Greek Gospel was written in Aramaic. An important objection to

the view that there was an Aramaic original of Matthew is that the

Greek Gospel looks more like an original Greek work than like a

translation. The tradition of the Aramaic Matthew places before us

one of the unsolved problems of New Testament criticism.

One thing is certain--the language of the Gospel of Matthew, like

that of the other Gospels, has a strong Aramaic coloring. This,

however, does not require the hypothesis that our Matthew was

translated from an Aramaic original. Undoubtedly, however our

Greek Matthew was written, there was a time in the early days of

the Church when the tradition of the life of Christ was carried

on chiefly or wholly in the Aramaic language. The words of Jesus,

at any rate, as they appear in our Gospels, have at some time or

other undergone translation; for Jesus taught in Aramaic. The

Aramaic coloring of the Gospels is one of the evidences of their

trustworthiness. Though written in Greek, they are evidently rooted

deep in the original Palestinian soil.

4. DATE

The date of the Gospel cannot be determined with accuracy. Some

indication, however, is afforded by the assertion of Irenæus, of the

latter part of the second century, that Matthew published his Gospel

while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome. Even if this assertion

should prove not to be absolutely correct, it would exhibit an early

tradition for the years between about A. D. 60 and 70 as the date of

the Gospel. This tradition is confirmed by the widespread view among

early writers that Matthew was written before Mark; for Mark is now

generally admitted to have been written before the destruction

of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. There is really no serious objection to

the traditional dating of Matthew. It was probably written in the

sixties of the first century, and probably, as tradition says, in

Palestine.

There are traces of the use of the Gospel in writers of the early

half of the second century. On the other hand, there is no clear

indication that it was used by any New Testament writer. The absence

of citations from our Gospels in the epistles of Paul would tend to

indicate that in the very earliest period the gospel tradition was

carried on by word of mouth rather than by books.

5. THE APOSTLE MATTHEW

In the four lists of the apostles, Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke

6:13-16; Acts 1:13, Matthew is designated by the bare name, except

in his own Gospel, where he appears as "Matthew the publican." In

Matt. 9:9, his call is narrated. In the parallel passages in Mark

and Luke, Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27,28, the name of the publican who was

called is given only as "Levi." Without the Gospel of Matthew we

should not have been able to identify Levi and Matthew. Evidently

the apostle had two names, as was the case with so many others

of the persons mentioned in the New Testament. After his call,

Matthew made a great feast for Jesus. Luke 5:29; compare Mark

2:15. Matthew himself, alone among the Synoptists, does not even

make it perfectly clear that it was he in whose house Jesus sat at

meat. The peculiarities of the First Gospel in what is said about

Matthew become significant when the authorship is known. Of course

of themselves they would be quite insufficient to indicate who the

author was. The assertion by early writers that Matthew wrote the

Gospel, was based not upon indications in the Gospel itself, but

upon independent tradition.

6. "THE BOOK OF THE GENERATION OF JESUS CHRIST"

The first verse of the Gospel is evidently based upon the formula,

occurring for the first time at Gen. 5:1, which marks off the

divisions of the book of Genesis. It is most naturally regarded as

a heading for the genealogy that follows in Matt. 1:2-17. There

is only one objection to that view. In Genesis "the book of the

generations of Adam," or "the generations of Shem" or the like,

introduces an account, not of ancestors of the persons in question,

but of their descendants. In Matt. 1:2-17, on the contrary, we have

an account not of descendants of Jesus, but of ancestors. This

objection has led some scholars to regard Matt. 1:1 as the title

not of the genealogy but of the whole Gospel. The title would then

represent Jesus as the beginning of a new race, or of a new period

in the history of humanity.

This interpretation is unnecessarily subtle. It should rather be

admitted that there is a difference between the phrase in Genesis

and that in Matthew. The difference is very natural. In the case of

Abraham the descendants were in view; in the case of the Messiah,

the ancestors. Adam and Noah and Abraham were bearers of a promise;

Christ was the culmination. Genesis looks forward; Matthew looks

back. The difference in the use of the phrase is natural and

significant.

The title, with the whole genealogy, is significant of what is to

follow. At the very start, the ruling thought of Matthew's Gospel

finds expression. Jesus is son of David, and son of Abraham; he is

the culmination of the divine promise.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age,"

pp. 270-272, 290-293. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves

(supplemented), articles on "Gospel" and "Matthew." M'Clymont,

"The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 1-20. Stevens and Burton,

"A Harmony of the Gospels." Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary

for English Readers," vol. i: Plumptre, "The Gospel According to

St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke," pp. xli-xliii, 1-186. Zahn,

"Introduction to the New Testament," vol. ii, pp. 367-427, 506-601.

The last-named work is intended primarily for those who have some

knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.

LESSON XXVIII

A GRAPHIC SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF JESUS

The Gospel According to Mark

The Gospel of Mark contains scarcely any material which is not also

contained in one or both of the other two Synoptic Gospels. The

loss of Mark would not diminish appreciably the number of facts

that we know about Jesus. Nevertheless, the Second Gospel is of the

utmost importance; for although it narrates for the most part only

the same facts as are also narrated elsewhere, it narrates them in

a different way. Indeed the very brevity of the Gospel adds to its

special value. A picture is sometimes the more impressive by being

limited in extent. Read the Gospel of Mark, not piecemeal but as a

whole, and you obtain an impression of Jesus which can be obtained

from no other book.

1. THE TRADITION

=(1) Papias on Mark.=--As in the case of Matthew, so in that of Mark

it is Papias of Hierapolis who provides the earliest information

about the production of the Gospel. Again also the words of Papias

are quoted by Eusebius (Church History, iii, 39, 15). The passage

from Papias is as follows:

"This also the presbyter said: 'Mark, on the one hand, being

an interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately as many things as he

remembered, yet not in order, the things which were either said

or done by the Lord.' For neither did he hear the Lord nor did

he follow him, but afterwards, as I said, he followed Peter, who

carried on his teaching as need required but not as though he were

making an ordered account of the oracles of the Lord; so that Mark

committed no fault when he wrote some things as he had remembered

them. For he had one care--that he should not leave out anything

of the things that he had heard, or represent anything among them

falsely."

=(2) Antiquity of the Papian Tradition.=--It will be observed

that Papias is here represented as quoting from "the presbyter."

Probably, however, it is only the first sentence that is quoted; the

rest seems to be an explanation by Papias himself. By "presbyter,"

or "elder," Papias means not an officer in the Church, but a man of

an older generation. The tradition is therefore very ancient. Papias

himself lived in the former half of the second century; a man of a

still older generation would probably have acquired his information

about Mark well before A. D. 100. Such information is not to be

lightly rejected.

(3) Mark an Interpreter of Peter.--According to the presbyter, Mark

was an "interpreter" of Peter. If the word be taken strictly it

means that Mark translated the words of Peter from one language into

another--probably from Aramaic into Greek. On the whole, however, it

is not probable, in view of linguistic conditions in Palestine and

in the Church, that Peter would be unable to speak Greek. Perhaps,

then, the sentence means that Mark was merely the mediator, in a

general sense, of Peter's preaching. He presented the teaching

of Peter to those who had not had the opportunity of hearing it

themselves. Perhaps the meaning is that he had done so formerly by

word of mouth. Perhaps, however, it is rather the Gospel itself that

is referred to. By writing the Gospel Mark became an interpreter or

mediator of the preaching of Peter.

At any rate, whatever meaning be given to the word "interpreter,"

the general sense of the sentence--especially when taken in

connection with the following explanation by Papias is fairly clear.

Mark derived the information for his Gospel not from personal

acquaintance with the earthly Jesus, but from association with Peter.

(4) Mark Not Written "In Order."--The presbyter said further that

although Mark wrote accurately what he heard from Peter, he did not

succeed in giving "in order" an account of the things that Jesus

did and said. Evidently the historical incompleteness, the lack of

uninterrupted sequence, of the Gospel of Mark is here in view.

But by what standard is the Gospel judged? It can hardly be by

the standard of Matthew, for Matthew pays even less attention to

temporal sequence than Mark does. The order in Luke also is by no

means in all respects more strictly chronological than that in Mark.

Only one standard satisfies the requirements of the presbyter's

words--the standard provided by the teaching of John. John was the

great leader of the Church of Asia Minor. His teaching naturally

formed the standard of authority in that region. Perhaps at the time

when the presbyter expressed his judgment on Mark the Gospel of

John had already been written, so that one Gospel could be compared

with the other; perhaps, however, it was merely the oral teaching

of John, afterwards embodied in the Gospel, which afforded the

basis of comparison. The Gospel of John alone provides something

like a chronological framework of the public ministry of Jesus:

John alone mentions the early Judean ministry; John alone narrates

the successive visits of Jesus to the feasts in Jerusalem. If, as

is possible, "the presbyter" of Papias was none other than John

himself, then of course the whole matter becomes especially plain.

John knew that there were important omissions in the Gospel of Mark;

he probably observed, for example, that that Gospel if taken alone

might readily create the impression that the ministry of Jesus

lasted only one year instead of three or four. No doubt he corrected

this impression in his oral teaching; certainly he corrects it in

his Gospel. In commending the Gospel of Mark, John would naturally

call attention to its chronological incompleteness.

2. THE HEADING

Like the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark opens not with a

sentence, but with a heading. As in the former case, however, the

exact reference of the heading is uncertain. "The beginning of the

gospel of Jesus Christ" may, in the first place, mean merely, "Here

begins the gospel of Jesus Christ." "The gospel of Jesus Christ"

would then be simply the story about Christ that is narrated in the

book that follows.

In the second place, the phrase may be taken as a description of

the contents of the book. The whole of Jesus' life would then be

described as the beginning of that proclamation of the gospel which

was afterwards continued by the apostles and by the Church.

In the third place, the phrase may be merely a heading for the

section that immediately follows, for Mark 1:2-8, or for vs. 2-13.

In this case the preaching of John the Baptist, with or without the

baptism of Jesus, the descent of the Spirit, and the temptation,

would be described as the beginning of, as preliminary to, the

proclamation of the gospel, which is mentioned in vs. 14, 15.

Perhaps the first interpretation is to be preferred as being the

simplest, though it must be admitted that the phrase is a little

puzzling.

3. MARK THE MISSIONARY GOSPEL

It is significant that the Gospel of Mark begins not with the birth

and infancy of Jesus, but with the ministry of John the Baptist

and the subsequent preaching of Jesus in Galilee. Mark seems to

be following with great exactness the scheme of early apostolic

preaching as it is laid down in Acts 10:37-43. Apparently Mark is

preëminently the missionary Gospel; it contains only those things

which had a place in the first preaching to unbelievers. That does

not mean that the things which Mark omits are necessarily less

important than the things which it contains. Mark gives a summary,

not exactly of the most important things about Jesus, but rather of

the things which unbelievers or recent converts could most easily

understand. Hence the omission of the mystery of the birth, of the

profound teaching of the early Judean ministry, of the intimate

instructions to the disciples. These things are of fundamental

importance. But they can best be understood only after one has first

acquired a thorough grasp of the public ministry, and of the death

and resurrection.

The Second Gospel, judged by purely formal standards, cannot

be called exactly a beautiful book. It lacks the rhythm of Old

Testament poetry, and the grace of the Gospel of Luke. But its

rough, vigorous naturalness conveys a message of compelling power.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves (edited)

article on "Mark." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers,"

pp. 21-26. Stevens and Burton, "A Harmony of the Gospels." Ellicott,

"A New Testament Commentary for English Readers," vol. i: Plumptre,

"The Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke," pp.

187-234. "The Cambridge Bible for Schools": Maclear, "The Gospel

according to St. Mark." Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament,"

vol. ii, pp. 427-506, 601-617. The last-named work is intended

primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also

be used by others.

LESSON XXIX

A GREEK HISTORIAN'S ACCOUNT OF JESUS

The Gospel According to Luke

The purpose of the Gospel of Luke was, the author says in his

prologue, that Theophilus might know the certainty concerning

the things wherein he had been instructed. These words involve

recognition of a fundamental need of the Church, which is to-day

often ignored. After interest in Christianity has been aroused,

after faith has been awakened, the Christian feels the need of a

deeper intellectual grounding of the faith that is in him. This

feeling is perfectly legitimate; it should not be stifled; the

expression of it should not be treated necessarily as sinful doubt.

The treatment of these natural questionings is one of the most

important problems that faces the teachers of the present course. We

are dealing with young men and women of maturing minds, many of whom

can no longer be satisfied with the unthinking faith of childhood.

If Christianity is to remain permanently a force in their lives it

must be related to their entire intellectual equipment; it must be

exhibited as a reasonable thing, which is consistent with a sane and

healthy view of the world. In other words, we are dealing with the

problem of religious doubt, which is almost an inevitable stage in

the development of intelligent Christians of the present day.

Undoubtedly the problem is often very unwisely handled. By hearing

every natural expression of their doubt unmercifully decried as

rebellion against the Word of God, many intelligent young people

are being driven into hopeless estrangement from the Church. It is

useless to try to bully people into faith. Instead, we ought to

learn the method of the Third Gospel.

Very possibly Luke was facing the very same problem that is before

us teachers to-day--very possibly Theophilus, to whom the Gospel

and The Acts were dedicated, was a young man who had grown up in

the Church and could now no longer be satisfied with the vague and

unsystematic instruction that had been given him in childhood. At

any rate, whether he was a young man grown up in the Church, or

a recent convert, or merely a Gentile interested in Christianity,

he was a person of intellectual interests, and those interests are

treated by the evangelist not with contempt but with the utmost

sympathy. The Gospel was written in order that Theophilus might

"know the certainty" of those things wherein he had been instructed.

That might be regarded as the motto for the entire course of study

which we have undertaken this year. It should be our aim to lay

before young people of the Church the certainty of the things

wherein they have been instructed--to enable them to substitute

for the unreasoning faith of childhood the profound convictions of

full-grown men and women. Moreover, exactly like the author of the

Third Gospel, we are endeavoring to accomplish this aim, not by

argument, but by an orderly presentation of "those matters which

have been fulfilled among us." A simple historical presentation of

the facts upon which Christianity is founded is the surest safeguard

of Christian faith.

1. THE PROLOGUE

Alone among the Synoptists Luke gives his readers some direct

information about the methods of his work. Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1,2.

This information, which was barely touched upon in the Student's

Text Book, must here be considered somewhat more in detail.

=(1) Luke Not an Eyewitness from the Beginning.=--From the prologue

to the Gospel, Luke 1:1-4, it appears, in the first place, that Luke

was not an eyewitness of the events that he narrates--at least he

was not an eyewitness "from the beginning."

=(2) His Predecessors.=--In the second place, it appears that he

had had predecessors in his task of writing an account of early

Christian history. Apparently, however, none of these previous works

were produced by an apostle or by an eyewitness of the earthly

ministry of Jesus. The previous writers, like Luke himself, were

dependent upon the testimony of the eyewitnesses. The Gospel of

Matthew, therefore, since it was written by an apostle, was not one

of the works to which reference is made. This conclusion is amply

confirmed by a comparison of Matthew with Luke. Evidently, at least,

the two are entirely independent. If Luke refers to the First Gospel

in the prologue, at any rate he made no use of it.

=(3) Was Mark One of the Predecessors?=--The Gospel of Mark, on

the contrary, answers to the description of the previous works.

It was written not by an eyewitness, but by one who listened to

eyewitnesses. Perhaps, therefore, it was one of the many works to

which Luke refers. If so, it may well have been used by Luke in

the preparation of his own Gospel. This supposition is by no means

excluded by a comparison of the two books. As a matter of fact, the

great majority of modern scholars suppose that the writer of the

Third Gospel made use of the Gospel of Mark. All that can here be

asserted is that this view, though not required by what Luke says in

his prologue, is perfectly consistent with it.

=(4) Luke's Attitude Toward the Predecessors.=--It should be

observed that Luke attaches no blame whatever to the efforts of

his forerunners. When he says that they had "taken in hand" or

"attempted" to write accounts of certain things, he does not imply

in the slightest that their attempts had been unsuccessful. He means

simply to justify his own procedure by a reference to what had

already been done. "My effort at writing an account of the origin

of Christianity," he says in effect, "is no strange, unheard-of

thing. I have had many predecessors." Such a reference to the work

of predecessors was in antiquity a common literary form. At the

very beginning of his work, Luke displays the effects of his Greek

literary training.

Of course, however, although Luke attaches no blame to his

predecessors, he would not have undertaken a new work if he had

thought that the old satisfied all needs. Evidently he hoped to

accomplish by his own book something that his predecessors had not

accomplished or had accomplished only in part.

=(5) The Subject of the Gospel.=--Finally, therefore, Luke informs

his readers what his own peculiar methods and purposes were. The

main subject of the Gospel is not described with any definiteness in

Luke 1:1-4, but it appears in the retrospect at the beginning of the

second work. There the subject of the Gospel is designated as "all

that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he

was received up, after that he had given commandment through the

Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen." Acts 1:1,2. The

subject of the Gospel, in other words, was the earthly life of Jesus.

=(6) Completeness of the Narrative.=--In treating this subject, Luke

had striven, he says, Luke 1:3, first of all for completeness. In

his investigations he had followed all things from the beginning.

This feature appears plainly in the Gospel. Instead of beginning as

Mark does, with the public ministry of Jesus, Luke first gives an

account of the birth and infancy, and not content with that, he

goes back even to events preceding the birth not only of Jesus, but

also of his forerunner.

=(7) Accuracy.=--In the second place, Luke says that he had striven

after accuracy. Here again the Gospel justifies the claim of its

author. The effort after precision may be seen perhaps especially in

such a passage as Luke 3:1,2, where there is an elaborate dating of

the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry.

=(8) Orderly Arrangement.=--The effort at orderly arrangement,

which forms a third part of the claim which the author makes,

was, especially in the Gospel, limited by the material that was

at hand. Evidently in Palestine in the early period, the memory

of the earthly ministry of Jesus was preserved not in a connected

narrative, but in isolated anecdotes. It was impossible, therefore,

even for a historian like Luke to maintain a chronological

arrangement throughout; where chronological arrangement was

impossible he was obliged to be satisfied with an arrangement

according to logical affinities. This logical method of arrangement,

however, is not resorted to by Luke so much as by Matthew; and for

considerable sections of his narrative he was able to gratify his

historian's desire for recounting events in the order in which they

happened.

=(9) Luke a Historian.=--Detailed examination of the prologue should

not be allowed to obscure the outstanding fact that the sum of what

Luke here attests is a genuine historical aim and method in the

composition of his work. Of course, history in Luke's mind did not

exist for its own sake. The Gospel of Luke is not a mere scientific

dissertation. On the contrary, the history which is narrated was

to the author a thing of supreme value. But it was valuable only

because it was true. There is not the slightest evidence that

Luke was a bad historian because he was a good Christian. On the

contrary, he was a Christian just because he was a historian. In

the case of Jesus, knowledge of the real facts is the surest way to

adoration.

=(10) Is Luke 1:1-4 a Prologue to both the Gospel and The

Acts?=--The first four verses of the Gospel of Luke may be taken as

a prologue either to the Gospel alone or else to the entire work,

including both the Gospel and The Acts. The latter view, since the

subject is described in v. 1 only in very broad terms, is not to

be rashly rejected. No doubt, however, in the prologue Luke was

thinking especially of the former part of the work--the part for

which he was dependent altogether upon the testimony of others. The

first verses of The Acts link the two parts close together. Their

connection has been obscured by the traditional arrangement of our

New Testament books. But that arrangement is altogether advisable.

The former part of the Lucan work certainly belongs among the

Gospels; and of the Gospels the Gospel of John must certainly be

placed last, as being supplementary to the others.

2. TYPICAL PASSAGES

The characteristics of the Gospel of Luke may perhaps be presented

more vividly than by the general description in the Student's Text

Book, by an examination of a few typical passages. The two such

passages which we shall choose somewhat at random, are the narrative

of the birth and infancy in Luke 1:5 to 2:52, and the parable of the

Prodigal Son. Ch. 15:11-32. Both of these are without any parallel

in the other Gospels. Matthew provides an infancy narrative, but it

is concerned for the most part with events different from those that

appear in Luke.

=(1) The Narrative of the Birth and Infancy.=--It has often been

observed that the characteristic Greek sentence of the prologue,

Luke 1:1-4, is immediately followed by the most strongly Hebraistic

passage in the New Testament. The Semitic style of Luke 1:5 to 2:52

becomes explicable only if Luke was here making use of Palestinian

sources, either oral or written. This conclusion is confirmed by

the whole spirit and substance of the narrative. In this narrative

as clearly as anywhere else in the New Testament we find ourselves

transplanted to Palestinian soil.

The early date of the narrative is as evident as its Jewish

Christian and Palestinian character. There is here no reference

to concrete events in the later history of the Church. Messianic

prophecy appears in its Old Testament form uncolored by the details

of the fulfillment. Evidently this narrative is no product of the

Church's fancy, but genuine history told in the very forms of speech

which were natural to those who participated in it.

The first two chapters of Luke are in spirit really a bit of the Old

Testament continued to the very threshold of the New. These chapters

contain the poetry of the New Testament, which has taken deep hold

of the heart and fancy of the Church.

In this section of his Gospel, Luke shows himself to be a genuine

historian. A biographer is not satisfied with narrating the public

life of his hero, but prefaces to his work some account of the

family, and of the birth and childhood. So our understanding of the

ministry of Jesus becomes far deeper when we know that he grew up

among the simple, devout folk who are described in the first two

chapters of Luke. The picture of Mary in these chapters, painted

with an exquisite delicacy of touch, throws a flood of light upon

the earthly life of the Son of Man.

Beauty of detail, however, must not be allowed to obscure the

central fact. The culmination of the narrative, undoubtedly, is

to be found in the stupendous mystery of Luke 1:34,35. Far from

being an excrescence in the narrative, as it has sometimes been

represented in an age of rampant naturalism, the supernatural

conception of Jesus is the very keystone of the arch. In this

central fact, Matthew and Luke, totally independent as they are, are

perfectly agreed. By this fact Jesus is represented, more clearly

perhaps than by anything else, as not a product of the world but a

Saviour come from without.

=(2) The Prodigal Son.=--The parable of the Prodigal Son, simple

though it is, has often been sadly misinterpreted. It has been

thought to mean, for example, that God pardons sin on the basis

simply of human repentance without the necessity of the divine

sacrifice. All such interpretations are wide of the mark. The

parable is not meant to teach how God pardons sin, but only the fact

that he does pardon it with joy, and that we ought to share in his

joy.

Misinterpretation of the parable has come from the ignoring of its

occasion. The key to the interpretation is given in Luke 15:1,2.

Jesus was receiving publicans and sinners. Instead of rejoicing at

the salvation of these poor, degraded sons of Abraham, the Pharisees

murmured. In rebuke, Jesus spoke three parables. One of them,

the parable of the Lost Sheep, is reported also by Matthew, ch.

18:12-14; but the last two, the parables of the Lost Coin and of the

Prodigal Son, appear only in Luke.

The teaching of all three of these parables is exactly the same. The

imagery varies, but the application is constant. That application

may be expressed very simply: "God rejoices at the salvation of a

sinner; if, therefore, you are really sons of God, you will rejoice

too." In the parable of the Prodigal Son, however, the application

is forced home more poignantly than in either of the other two. In

that parable alone among the three, the Pharisees could see--in the

elder brother--a direct representation of themselves.

The incident of the elder brother, sometimes regarded as a mere

detail, really introduces the main point of the parable. Everything

else leads up to that. The wonderful description of the joy of the

father at the prodigal's home-coming is all intended as a contrast

to the churlish jealousy of the brother. The elder brother was as

far as possible from sharing in the father's joy. That showed that

he was no true son. Though he lived under the father's roof, he

had no real inward share in the father's life. So it was with the

Pharisees. They lived in the Father's house; they were, as we should

say, members of the Church. But when salvation, in the person of

Jesus, had at last come to the poor, sinful outcasts of the people,

the Pharisees drew aside. God rejoiced when the publicans crowded in

to Jesus; but the Pharisees held back. That showed that after all

they were not, as they thought, true sons of God. If they had been,

they would have shared God's feeling.

It should be noticed that the parable ends with an invitation. The

elder brother is not harshly rebuked by the father, but tenderly

urged to come in still. Will the invitation be accepted? The

question is not answered; and there lies the crowning beauty of the

parable. The Pharisees are still given a chance. Will they still

share the joy of God at the return of his lost children? They must

answer the question for themselves.

And we, too, have the same question to answer. If we are really

children of God, then we shall not despise the outcasts and the

sinners, but shall rejoice with him at their salvation. The parable

is characteristic of the Gospel of Luke. Of course, Luke did not

compose it. Nothing in the Gospels bears more indisputably the

marks of Jesus' teaching. But from the rich store of Palestinian

tradition Luke sought out those things which displayed sympathy for

the downtrodden and the sick and the sinful. It was an inestimable

service to the Church. Shall we heed the message? God rejoices at

the salvation of a sinner. Shall we be sharers in his holy joy?

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves (edited),

article on "Luke." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers,"

pp. 27-32. Stevens and Burton, "A Harmony of the Gospels." Ellicott,

"A New Testament Commentary for English Readers," vol. i: Plumptre,

"The Gospel According to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke," pp.

235-365. Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. iii, pp.

1-173. The last-named work is intended primarily for those who have

some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.

LESSON XXX

THE TESTIMONY OF THE BELOVED DISCIPLE

The Gospel According to John

1. THE EVANGELIST A WITNESS

The author of the Fourth Gospel was a great man. He was great,

however, not as a philosopher or as a religious genius, but as

an apostle; not as the originator of great ideas, but as one who

received the teaching of another. He was great, not as one who

created a profound theology, but as one who could understand the

Lord Jesus Christ. The "Johannine theology" is the theology not of

John but of Jesus. So at least John himself represents it. He claims

to be not a theologian, but a witness. The value of his book depends

upon the truth of his witnessing. If the Johannine picture of Christ

is the creation of the author's genius, it commands admiration; but

only if it is a true picture of the historic Jesus can it offer

eternal life.

Is the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel fiction or fact, a splendid

product of religious genius or a living Saviour?

Few questions have caused profounder agitation in the modern Church.

The question cannot be separated from the question of authorship.

Clearly if the book was written by an intimate friend of Jesus, its

witness must be true. Who wrote the Fourth Gospel? This question is

of vital importance.

2. THE TRADITION

At the close of the second century--the earliest period from

which any really abundant Christian literature outside of the New

Testament has been preserved--the tradition about the authorship

of the Gospel was practically unanimous. Even the one small and

uninfluential sect that disagreed practically supports the common

view, for its denial was evidently based upon objections to

the contents of the Gospel and not at all upon any independent

information.

=(1) Irenæus and Polycarp.=--Of the three important writers of

the close of the second century, all of whom attest the Johannine

authorship of the Gospel, Irenæus deserves special mention. Irenæus

spent his early life in Asia Minor, but afterwards became the

leader of the Church in Gaul. Before he left Asia Minor he had

some very interesting associations. One of them was with Polycarp,

bishop of Smyrna, who was martyred in A. D. 155. Polycarp would be

an important figure merely on account of the early period in which

he lived; but what makes his testimony supremely valuable is his

personal association with John. Irenæus himself in his early youth,

before he had left Asia Minor, had heard Polycarp discoursing about

the things he had heard John say. Polycarp, then, was a personal

disciple of John, and Irenæus was a personal disciple of Polycarp.

Only one link, therefore, separated Irenæus from John. Moreover,

since Irenæus in his youth had lived in Asia Minor, the very place

of John's residence, it is natural to believe that what he heard

Polycarp say about John could be supplemented in other ways.

Now beyond any reasonable doubt whatever, Irenæus supposed that

the John of whom he had heard Polycarp speak was none other than

John the apostle, the son of Zebedee. If that supposition was

correct, then the connection between Irenæus and the apostle John

was exceedingly close; and when Irenæus exhibits an absolutely

unwavering belief that the Fourth Gospel was written by the apostle,

it is very unlikely that he was mistaken. He had known one of the

personal disciples of John; he himself had lived in Asia Minor

where John had been the well-known leader of the Church, and where

the Fourth Gospel, no matter who wrote it, was almost certainly

produced. When, therefore, he asserts, not as something new, but

as a thing which he had known from the beginning, that the Fourth

Gospel was written by the apostle John, surely he must be believed.

This conclusion has been avoided by the hypothesis that the John

about whom Polycarp spoke was not really, as Irenæus supposed, John

the son of Zebedee, but another John, a certain John the presbyter,

who was not one of the twelve apostles at all. The unnaturalness

of such an hypothesis appears on the surface. Could a native of

Asia Minor who had repeatedly heard Polycarp speak about the John

in question, and who had many other opportunities for acquainting

himself with the traditions of the church in Asia Minor--could such

a man, together with all his contemporaries, have come to labor

under so egregious a misapprehension?

=(2) Other Attestation.=--The testimony of Irenæus to the Fourth

Gospel is of particular importance, on account of Irenæus'

connection with Polycarp. But it is only one detail in a remarkable

consensus. When the most widely separated portions of the Church

before the close of the second century all agreed that the Fourth

Gospel was written by John the son of Zebedee, their common belief

could not have been of recent origin. Earlier writers, moreover, by

their use of the Gospel attest at least its early date.

3. THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL ITSELF

The tradition which attributes the Fourth Gospel to John the son of

Zebedee is confirmed by the testimony of the Gospel itself. Although

the book does not mention the name of its author it clearly implies

who he was.

=(1) Indirectness of the Testimony.=--This testimony of the Gospel

itself is all the more valuable because it is indirect. If the name

John had been mentioned at the beginning, then it might conceivably

be supposed that an unknown author had desired to gain a hearing for

his work by putting it falsely under the name of a great apostle.

As it is, the inference that the author claims to be John the son

of Zebedee, though certain, does not force itself upon the careless

reader. A forger would not thus, by the indirectness of his claim,

have deprived himself of the benefits of his forgery.

The testimony of the Gospel to its author must now be considered.

=(2) The Author an Eyewitness.=--In the first place, almost at

the very beginning, we observe that the author claims to be an

eyewitness of the life of Jesus. "We beheld his glory," he says in

John 1:14. By beholding the glory of Christ he evidently does not

mean merely that experience of Christ's power which is possessed

by every Christian. On the contrary, the glory of Christ, as it is

intended by the evangelist, is fully explained by such passages as

ch. 2:11. The miracles of Jesus--palpable, visible events in the

external world--are clearly included in what is meant. It will be

observed that in ch. 1:14 it is very specifically the incarnate

Christ that is spoken of. The evangelist is describing the condition

of things after "the Word became flesh." Evidently, therefore, it

was the earthly life of Jesus which the evangelist claims to have

"beheld."

This conclusion is confirmed by I John 1:1-4. Scarcely anyone doubts

that the First Epistle of John was written by the man who wrote

the Gospel. When, therefore, the author of the epistle speaks of

"that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes,

that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word

of life," evidently these words have significance for the Gospel

also. The author fairly heaps up expressions to show, beyond all

possibility of misunderstanding, that he had come into actual

physical contact with the earthly Jesus.

=(3) The Unnamed Disciple of John 1:35-42.=--The author of the

Fourth Gospel, then, clearly claims to be an eyewitness of the

earthly life of Christ. Further indications identify him with a

particular one among the eyewitnesses. In John 1:35-42, an unnamed

disciple of Jesus is mentioned. "One of the two," it is said in v.

40, "that heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon

Peter's brother." Who was the other? There is some reason for

thinking that he was one of the two sons of Zebedee. But the matter

will become clearer as we proceed.

Another question is why this disciple is not mentioned by name. The

Fourth Gospel is not chary of names. Why, then, is the disciple who

appears so prominently along with Andrew and Simon not mentioned

by name? Only one plausible explanation suggests itself--the

explanation that the unnamed disciple was the author of the Gospel,

who, through a feeling common in the literature of antiquity, as

well as of our own time, did not like to mention his own name in

the course of his narrative. We have already observed that the

author claims to be an eyewitness of the life of Christ. John 1:14.

When, therefore, near the beginning of the narrative a disciple of

Jesus is introduced, rather mysteriously, without a name, when,

furthermore, events in which this disciple was immediately concerned

are narrated with unusual vividness and wealth of detail, vs. 35-42,

the conclusion becomes very natural that this unnamed disciple is

none other than the author himself.

=(4) The Beloved Disciple.=--This conclusion, it must be admitted,

so far as this first passage is concerned, is nothing more than a

likely guess. But by other passages it is rendered almost certain.

In John 13:21-25, a disciple is mentioned as leaning on Jesus'

breast and as being one whom Jesus loved. This disciple is not

named. But who was he? Evidently he was one of the twelve apostles,

for only the apostles were present at the Supper which is described

in chs. 13 to 17. The disciple "whom Jesus loved," however, was not

only among the Twelve; he was evidently among the innermost circle

of the Twelve. Such an innermost circle appears clearly in the

Synoptic Gospels. It was composed of Peter and James and John. The

beloved disciple was probably one of these three; and since he is

clearly distinguished from Peter, ch. 13:24, he was either James or

John.

The introduction of an unnamed disciple, which seemed significant

even in John 1:35-42, becomes yet far more significant in the

present passage. In the account of the Last Supper, a considerable

number of the disciples are named--Peter, Judas Iscariot, Thomas,

Philip, Judas not Iscariot--yet the disciple who is introduced with

especial emphasis, whose very position at table is described with a

wealth of detail far greater than is displayed in the case of any

of the others, is designated merely as "one of his disciples, whom

Jesus loved." The strange omission of this disciple's name can be

explained only if he was the author of the book. Clearly the painter

has here introduced a modest portrait of himself in the midst of his

great picture.

Passing by John 18:15,16, where "the other disciple" is probably

the author, and ch. 19:26,27, where the repetition of the strange

designation, "the disciple ... whom he [Jesus] loved," confirms the

impressions derived from ch. 13:21-25, we discover another important

indication in ch. 19:35. "And he that hath seen hath borne witness,

and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye

also may believe." "He that hath seen" can scarcely refer to anyone

other than the beloved disciple who was mentioned just before as

standing by the cross. In the present verse, this beloved disciple

is represented as the one who is now speaking. The identification

of the beloved disciple with the author of the Gospel, which was

implied before, here becomes explicit.

In John 20:1-10, "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" is of course

the same as the one who appears in ch. 13:21-25; 19:26,27,35.

=(5) Testimony of the Appendix.=--In John 21:7,20-23, the beloved

disciple appears again, and in v. 24 he is identified, in so many

words, with the writer of the Gospel. In this verse the first person

plural is used; other persons seem to be associated with the author

in commending the Gospel to the attention of the Church. This

phenomenon is explained if the twenty-first chapter be regarded as

a sort of appendix, perhaps added at the request of a circle of

friends. It will be observed that ch. 20:30,31 forms a fit ending to

the book; what follows therefore appears the more like an appendix,

though it was certainly written by the author's own hand and

published before his death along with the rest of the book.

=(6) Why Are John and James Not Mentioned by Name?=--The conclusion

of our investigation is that the author of the Fourth Gospel

indicates clearly that he was either one or the other of the two

sons of Zebedee. This conclusion is confirmed by the curious

circumstance that neither one of these men is mentioned in the

Gospel by name. How did they come to be omitted? They were in the

very innermost circle of Jesus' disciples; many apostles far less

prominent than they are named frequently on the pages of the

Gospel. There can be only one solution of the problem: one at least

of these men is, as a matter of fact, introduced in the Gospel as

the beloved disciple, and the reason why he is introduced in such a

curiously anonymous way and why his brother also is not named, is

that the author felt a natural delicacy about introducing his own

and his brother's name into a narrative of the Lord's life.

One statement that has just been made requires qualification: it is

not quite true that the sons of Zebedee are not designated by name

in the Gospel. They are not indeed called by their individual names,

but in ch. 21:2, they are designated by the name of their father.

Possibly this slight difference of usage between chapter 21 and the

rest of the Gospel has something to do with the fact that chapter 21

seems to be an appendix.

=(7) The Author Was Not James, but John.=--The author of the Fourth

Gospel, then, identifies himself with one or the other of the sons

of Zebedee. As to which one of the two is meant there cannot be the

slightest doubt. James the son of Zebedee was martyred in A. D. 44.

Acts 12:2. There is abundant evidence that the Fourth Gospel was not

written so early as that; and John 21:20-23 apparently implies that

the author lived to a considerable age. Evidently, therefore, it is

John and not James with whom the author identifies himself.

=(8) Is the Gospel's Own Testimony True?=--Thus the singularly

strong tradition which attributes the Fourth Gospel to John the

son of Zebedee is supported by the independent testimony of the

book itself. Conceivably, of course, that testimony might be false.

But it is very hard to believe that it is. It is very hard to

believe that the author of this wonderful book, who despite all

the profundity of his ideas exalts in a very special manner the

importance of simple testimony based upon the senses, John 19:35; I

John 1:1-4, has in a manner far subtler and more heinous than if he

had simply put a false name at the beginning palmed himself off as

an eyewitness of the Saviour's life. Many learned men have found it

possible to accept such a view; but the simple reader of the Gospel

will always be inclined to dissent. The author of this book has

narrated many things hard to be believed. But there are still found

those who accept his solemn testimony; there are still found those

in whom the purpose of the book is achieved, who through this Gospel

believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing have

life in his name. John 20:31.

4. TRADITIONAL TIME AND PLACE AND PLAN

The tradition about the Fourth Gospel is not confined to the bare

fact of Johannine authorship; it has preserved certain other very

interesting information.

(=1=) =The Ephesian Residence.=--For example, tradition represents

the Fourth Gospel as written after the other three Gospels and at

Ephesus. The evidence for the Ephesian residence of the apostle John

is singularly abundant and weighty; and the contrary evidence which

has been thought to attest an early death of John is exceedingly

weak. At first, John, like the others of the original apostles,

remained in Palestine. He appears in Jerusalem a little before A.

D. 50 at the Apostolic Council. Gal. 2:9. At some subsequent time,

perhaps at the outbreak of the Jewish war in A. D. 66, he journeyed

to Asia Minor and there for many years was the revered head of the

Church. He lived indeed until the reign of Trajan, which began in A.

D. 98.

(=2=) =The Gospel of John Supplementary to the Synoptic

Gospels.=--According to tradition, the Gospel of John was not

only written after the Synoptic Gospels, but was intended to be

supplementary to them. This information is amply confirmed by

the Gospel itself. Evidently John presupposes on the part of his

readers a knowledge of the Synoptic account. This explains his

peculiar choice of material--for example, his omission of most of

the Galilean ministry, and of such events as the baptism and the

institution of the Lord's Supper. It explains also, for example, a

verse like John 3:24: "For John was not yet cast into prison." The

Synoptic Gospels begin their account of the ministry of Jesus with

what happened after the imprisonment of John the Baptist. Mark 1:14.

Readers of Mark might even receive the impression that Jesus had

not begun his teaching till after that time. John corrects any such

impression in ch. 3:24.

If, then, the Gospel of John is intended not to compete with the

Synoptic Gospels, but to supplement them, in what direction does the

supplementing move? What is it that John adds to what had already

been told? Here, again, tradition affords us useful hints.

Eusebius, in the early part of the fourth century, writes as follows

(Church History, iii, 24, 7-13, translated by McGiffert, in "Nicene

and Post-Nicene Fathers," second series, vol. i, p. 153):

"And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they

say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the

Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason.

The three Gospels already mentioned [Matthew, Mark and Luke] having

come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he

accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that

there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ

at the beginning of his ministry. And this indeed is true. For

it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds

done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John

the Baptist, and indicated this in the beginning of their account.

For Matthew, after the forty days' fast and the temptation which

followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: 'Now

when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into

Galilee.' Mark likewise says: 'Now after that John was delivered up

Jesus came into Galilee.' And Luke, before commencing his account

of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that

Herod, 'adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up

John in prison.' They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being

asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the

period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of

the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those

which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is

indicated by him, they say, in the following words: 'This beginning

of miracles did Jesus'; and again when he refers to the Baptist, in

the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Ænon near

Salim; where he states the matter clearly in the words: 'For John

was not yet cast into prison.' John accordingly, in his Gospel,

records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist

was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the

events which happened after that time. One who understands this can

no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another,

inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts

of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of

his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh

John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by

Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which

had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the

divine Spirit."

According to Eusebius, then, John intended to treat the time before

the imprisonment of the Baptist as the Synoptists treated the time

after that event. We have already noted the element of truth in this

observation. Of course it is not the only observation that needs to

be made. Much of what John narrates occurred after the imprisonment

of the Baptist.

According to Clement of Alexandria, of the close of the second

century, who here reports what had been said by his predecessors in

Alexandria, John, seeing that "bodily" matters had been treated by

the Synoptists, supplemented their work by writing a "spiritual"

Gospel. In this testimony also there is no doubt an element of

truth. It is true that the Fourth Gospel reproduces certain profound

elements in the teaching of Jesus which in the earlier Gospels

appear only incidentally.

The oral tradition which forms the chief basis of the Synoptic

Gospels was rooted deep in the earliest missionary activity of the

Church. Especially, perhaps, in the Gospel of Mark, but also in

Matthew and Luke, we have for the most part those facts about Jesus

and those elements of his teaching which could appeal at once to

simple-minded believers or to outsiders. The Gospel of John, on the

other hand, drawing, like the others, from the rich store of Jesus'

teaching and Jesus' person, has revealed yet deeper mysteries. In

this profound book, we have the recollections of a beloved disciple,

at first understood only imperfectly by the apostle himself, but

rendered ever clearer by advancing experience, and firmly fixed by

being often repeated in the author's oral instruction of the Church.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible," article on "John"

(7): Purves, article on "John, Gospel according to St." M'Clymont,

"The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 33-40. Stevens and Burton,

"A Harmony of the Gospels." Westcott, "The Gospel according to St.

John: The Authorized Version with Introduction and Notes." "The

Cambridge Bible for Schools": Plummer, "The Gospel According to St.

John." Browning, "A Death in the Desert" (vol. iv, pp. 191-206 of

the Riverside Edition). Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament,"

vol. iii, pp. 174-355. The last-named work is intended primarily

for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by

others.

LESSON XXXI

THE JESUS OF THE GOSPELS

It is possible to speak of "the Jesus of the Gospels" only if the

Gospels are in essential agreement. If the features of the four

portraits are so different that they never could have been united

really in the same person, then there is no such thing as a Jesus of

the Gospels, but only a Jesus of Matthew and a Jesus of Mark and a

Jesus of Luke and a Jesus of John.

1. AGREEMENT AMONG THE SYNOPTISTS

Among the Synoptic Gospels, at any rate, no such difference exists.

Though every one of these Gospels possesses its own characteristics,

the peculiarities are almost negligible in comparison with the

underlying unity. There is certainly such a thing as "the Synoptic

Jesus." His words and deeds are narrated in each of the Gospels in a

different selection and in a different style, but the characteristic

features are everywhere the same.

2. THE SYNOPTISTS AND JOHN

With regard to the Fourth Gospel, the matter is not quite so

plain. The contrast between the Synoptists and John has already

been noticed. It forces itself upon even the most casual reader.

Difference, however, is not necessarily contradiction. It may be

due to a difference in the point of view. Both the Synoptists and

John give a true picture of Jesus; the same features appear very

different when viewed from different angles.

3. DIVINITY AND HUMANITY

At any rate, if there is a contradiction between the first three

Gospels and the Gospel of John, the contradiction is by no means

easy to formulate. It cannot be said, for example, simply that the

Synoptists present a human Jesus and John a divine Jesus. Whatever

the differences among the four Gospels, all four agree at least in

two essential features. All four present Jesus, in the first place

as a man, and in the second place as something more than a man.

(=1=) =Humanity in the Synoptists.=--The former feature is perhaps

especially clear in the Synoptists. According to the first three

Gospels, Jesus led a genuine human life from birth to death. As

a child he grew not only in stature, but also in wisdom. He was

subject to human parents and to the requirements of the Jewish law.

Even after the inauguration of his ministry the human conditions of

his life were not superseded. He was even tempted like other men.

He grew weary and slept. He suffered hunger and thirst. He could

rejoice and he could suffer sorrow. He prayed, like other men, and

worshiped God. He needed strengthening both for body and for mind.

No mere semblance of a human life is here presented, but a genuine

man of flesh and blood.

(=2=) =Humanity in John.=--But if the Jesus of the Synoptists is

a true man, how is it with the Jesus of John? Does the Fourth

Gospel present merely a heavenly being who walked through the world

untouched and unruffled by the sin and misery and weakness that

surrounded him? Only a very superficial reading can produce such

an impression. The Fourth Gospel indeed lays a supreme emphasis

upon the majesty of Jesus, upon his "glory" as it was manifested in

works of power and attested by God himself. But side by side with

these features of the narrative, as though to prevent a possible

misunderstanding, the author presents the humanity of Jesus with

drastic touches that can scarcely be paralleled in the Synoptists

themselves. It is John who speaks of the weariness of Jesus at the

well of Samaria, ch. 4:6; of the human affection which he felt for

Lazarus and Martha and Mary, ch. 11:3,5,36, and for an individual

among the disciples, ch. 13:23; of his weeping, ch. 11:35; and

indignant groaning, v. 38; and of his deadly thirst. Ch. 19:28. As

clearly as the other evangelists John presents Jesus as a man.

(=3=) =Divinity in John.=--In the second place, all four Gospels, if

they present Jesus as a man, also present him as something far more

than a man. With regard to the Gospel of John, of course the matter

is unmistakable. The very first verse reads: "In the beginning was

the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus

according to John was plainly no product of the world, but God come

in the flesh. John 1:14. The teaching of Jesus himself, as it is

reported in the Fourth Gospel, is concerned with the relation of

perfect unity that exists between the Father and the Son.

(=4=) =Divinity in the Synoptists.=--In the Synoptists the

supernatural character of Jesus is somewhat less on the surface.

His teaching, as the Synoptists report it, is largely concerned not

directly with his own person, but with the kingdom that he came to

found. Even his Messiahship is often kept in the background; the

demons are often commanded not to reveal it.

A closer examination, however, reveals the essential unity between

the Synoptists and John. If the supernatural character of Jesus

appears in the Synoptists less plainly on the surface, it is really

no less pervasive at the center. It does not so often form the

subject of direct exposition, but it is everywhere presupposed. The

doing by Jesus of what only God can do, Mark 2:5,7; the sovereign

way in which he legislates for the kingdom of God, Matt. 5:17-48;

his unearthly holiness and complete lack of any consciousness of

sin; the boundlessness of his demand for obedience, Luke 9:57-62;

his expected freedom from limitations of time and place, Matt.

28:20; the absolutely central place which he claims for himself

as ruler and judge; the substantiation of all his lofty claims

by wonderful power over the forces of nature--these are only

indications chosen almost at random of what is really plain upon

every page of the Synoptic Gospels, that the Jesus who is there

described is no mere human figure but a divine Saviour of the world.

The invitation of Matt. 11:28-30, which is typical of the Synoptic

teaching, would have been absurd on the lips of anyone but the Son

of God.

Moreover, the divine nature of Jesus is not merely implied in the

Synoptic Gospels; there are times when it even becomes explicit.

The relation of perfect mutual knowledge that exists between Jesus

and the Father, Matt. 11:27, reveals a perfect unity of nature. The

Jesus of the Synoptists, as well as the Jesus of John, might say, "I

and the Father are one."

4. THE MANNER OF JESUS' TEACHING

The Synoptic Gospels, therefore, imply everywhere exactly the same

Jesus who is more expressly presented in the Gospel of John. If,

then, there is a contradiction between the Synoptists and John,

it can be concerned only with the manner of Jesus' teaching. The

Synoptists as well as John present Jesus as a supernatural person,

it is said, but unlike John they represent him as keeping his own

person in the background.

Even here, however, maturer consideration shows that the difference

does not amount to anything like contradiction. May not the same

person have spoken the discourses of the Fourth Gospel and also

those of the Synoptists? It must be remembered that the ministry

of Jesus was varied, and that the first three evangelists confine

themselves almost exclusively to one phase of it. In the public

Galilean ministry, which the Synoptists describe, it was necessary

for Jesus to keep even his Messiahship for a time in the background.

Publication of it, owing to the false political conception which

the Jews had of the Messiah's work, would have been fatal to Jesus'

plan. Here, as so often, the Fourth Gospel explains the other

three. After the feeding of the five thousand, John tells us, the

crowd wanted to take Jesus by force and make him a king. John 6:15.

Popularity was dangerous. Jesus could not proclaim himself publicly

as the Messiah, until by explaining the spiritual nature of the

kingdom he had prepared the people for the kind of Messiah which it

was his mission to be.

Of course, it is difficult for us to understand at every point just

why Jesus acted as he did. All that we are now maintaining is that

the considerations just adduced, and others like them, show that it

is perfectly conceivable that Jesus, before his intimate disciples

and in Jerusalem and at a special crisis, John, ch. 6, adopted

a method of teaching which in the greater part of the Galilean

ministry he considered out of place. There is room in a true

narrative of Jesus' life both for the Synoptists and for John.

5. THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF JESUS

Jesus was many-sided. He was Lawgiver, he was Teacher, he was

Healer, he was Ruler, he was Saviour. He was man and he was God. The

Gospels have presented him in the richness of his mysterious person.

Modern historians are less comprehensive. They have been offended

at the manifoldness of the Gospel picture. They have endeavored to

reduce Jesus to the level of what they can comprehend. But their

effort has been a failure. After the supposed contradictions have

been removed, greater contradictions remain; and the resulting

figure is at any rate too small to account for the origin of

Christianity. The partial Jesus of modern criticism, despite his

comparative littleness, is a monstrosity; the comprehensive Jesus of

the Gospels, though mysterious, is a self-evidencing and life-giving

fact.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves, article

on "Jesus Christ." Warfield, "The Lord of Glory," pp. 125-173.

Robertson, "Epochs in the Life of Jesus." Stalker, "The Life of

Jesus Christ." Denney, "Jesus and the Gospel." Andrews, "The Life of

Our Lord."

LESSON XXXII

A DOCUMENT OF THE JERUSALEM CHURCH

The Epistle of James

1. THE CHRISTIANITY OF JAMES

The Epistle of James has been called the least Christian book in

the New Testament. Superficially this judgment is true. The name of

Jesus occurs only twice in the epistle, James 1:1; 2:1, and there

is no specific reference to his life and death and resurrection. A

close examination, however, reverses the first impression.

(=1=) =James and the Synoptic Discourses.=--In the first place,

the ethical teaching of James is permeated by the spirit of Jesus.

Even the form of the epistle displays a marked affinity for the

discourses of the Synoptic Gospels, and the affinity in content is

even more apparent. Many striking parallels could be cited; but

what is more convincing than such details is the indefinable spirit

of the whole. The way in which James treats the covetousness, the

pride, the heartlessness, the formalism, the pettiness and the

meanness of his readers, is strikingly similar to the way in which

his Master dealt with the Pharisees. James does not indeed actually

cite the words of Jesus; but the absence of citations makes the

underlying similarity all the more significant. The writer of this

epistle did not live at a time when the knowledge of the words of

Jesus was derived from books; rather he had himself listened to the

Master--even though he was not at first a disciple--and was living

in a community where the impression of Jesus' teaching and Jesus'

person was still fresh in the memory of those who had known him on

earth.

(=2=) =James and Christian Doctrine.=--In the second place,

moreover, the Christianity of James is religious as well as ethical.

Of course it could not be like the teaching of Jesus if it were

merely ethical; for everything that Jesus taught even about the

simplest matters of human conduct was determined by the thought

of the heavenly Father and by the significance of his own person.

But by the religious character of the Epistle of James even more

than this is meant. Like all the writers of the New Testament

James was well aware of the saving significance of Jesus' death

and resurrection. For him as well as for the others, Jesus was

Lord, ch. 1:1, and a Lord who was possessed of a heavenly glory.

Ch. 2:1. James, as well as the others, was waiting for the second

coming of Christ. Ch. 5:8. He does not directly refer to the saving

events that form the substance of Christian faith; but he takes

them everywhere for granted. The word of truth through which the

disciples have been formed by God, ch. 1:18, the implanted word,

v. 21, that needs ever to be received anew, can hardly be anything

else than the apostolic gospel as it was proclaimed in the earliest

speeches of Peter which are recorded in The Acts, and as it found

its rich unfolding in the teaching of Paul. Just because that gospel

in our epistle is presupposed, it does not need to be expounded

in detail. The men to whom James was writing were not lacking in

orthodoxy. If they had been, he would have set them right, and we

should have had another exposition of the gospel. As a matter of

fact their fault was in practice, not in theory; and it is in the

sphere of practice that they are met by James. The epistle would

be insufficient if it stood alone. It does not lay the foundation

of Christian faith. But it shows how, upon that foundation, may be

built not the wood, hay and stubble of a wordy orthodoxy, but the

gold and silver and precious stones of an honest Christian life.

This epistle, then, might be misleading if taken by itself; but it

becomes salutary if it is understood in its historical connections.

Far from disparaging Christian doctrine--as the modern Church is

tempted to suppose--it builds upon doctrine. In that it agrees with

the whole of the Bible. Christianity, as has been finely said, is

a life only because it is a doctrine. Only the great saving events

of the gospel have rendered possible a life like that which is

described in the Epistle of James. And where the gospel is really

accepted with heart as well as mind, that life of love will always

follow.

2. DATE AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE

The view which will be held about the date of the Epistle of James

will depend very largely upon the interpretation of the passage

about faith and works. James 2:14-26. In that passage, some of the

same terms appear as are prominent in connection with the great

Judaistic controversy in which Paul was engaged from the time of

the Apostolic Council to the time of the third missionary journey.

Three views have been held with regard to the date of the Epistle

of James. The epistle may be regarded as written (1) before the

Judaistic controversy arose, (2) during that controversy or while it

was still fresh in men's minds, or (3) long after the controversy

had been settled.

(=1=) =The Intermediate Date.=--The second of these three views may

be eliminated first. This intermediate view has the advantage of

placing the epistle within the lifetime of James. It can treat the

epistle as authentic. It has furthermore the advantage of explaining

the coincidences between James 2:14-26 and Rom., ch. 4. For if the

epistle was written at the very close of the lifetime of James--say

about A. D. 62, or, following Hegesippus, A. D. 66--the author may

have become acquainted with the Epistle to the Romans.

But the difficulties of this view far overbalance the advantages.

If James was writing with Galatians and Romans before him, then

apparently in ch. 2:24 he intends to contradict those epistles. As

a matter of fact, however, as is shown in the Student's Text Book,

he does not really contradict them, but is in perfect harmony with

them. He has therefore gone out of his way in order to introduce a

formal contradiction of the great apostle to the Gentiles although

there is no real contradiction of meaning at all! What could he

possibly gain by such useless trouble-making? If James really wanted

to combat Paul's doctrine of justification by faith, he would have

done so very differently; and if he did not want to combat it, he

would certainly not have uselessly created the appearance of doing

so.

Perhaps, however, James 2:14-26 is a refutation not of Paul but of

a misunderstanding of Paul. This also is very improbable. If the

passage was a refutation not of Paul but of a misunderstanding of

Paul, why did James not say so? Why did he not distinguish Paul

clearly from his misinterpreters? Instead he has indulged uselessly

in a formal contradiction of Paul, and has in refutation of a

misunderstanding of Paul not even used the abundant materials which

Paul himself could offer! And where was such a misunderstanding of

Paul possible in Jewish Christian circles of A. D. 62?

What makes every form of this intermediate dating impossible is the

total absence from the epistle of any reference to the question of

the conditions upon which Gentiles were to be received into the

Church. In A. D. 62 this question had recently been the subject of

bitter controversy. At that time no one could have touched upon the

closely related topic of faith and works as James does and yet have

ignored so completely the controversial question.

Evidently, therefore, the epistle was written either before the

Judaistic controversy arose or else long after it was over.

(=2=) =The Late Date.=--The latter view makes the epistle a

pseudonymous work--it assumes that an unknown author has here tried

to enhance the influence of his work by putting it under the

name of the first head of the Jerusalem church. This is of itself

sufficient to refute the late dating. For the procedure of the

supposed falsifier is quite incomprehensible. He has chosen James as

the alleged author only because of the lofty position which James

held, and yet he has designated him in the first verse merely as a

simple Christian! The procedure of real forgers is very different.

There are also, however, other objections to the late dating.

Would any writer in the second century, when the authority of Paul

was well established, have ventured to introduce such an apparent

contradiction of Paul as appears in James 2:24? In a writer of A.

D. 150 we should have had formal agreement with Paul and material

disagreement; in the Epistle of James we have formal disagreement

and material harmony. Apparent contradiction of expression combined

with perfect unity of thought is a sure sign of independence. The

Epistle of James has made no use of the epistles of Paul.

Against this conclusion may be urged only the coincidence that

James and Paul both use the example of Abraham, and cite the same

verse, Gen. 15:6, with regard to him. But it must be remembered

that to every Jew Abraham offered the most obvious example in all

the Scriptures. It is possible, too, that the faith and works of

Abraham had in pre-Christian Jewish circles already been the subject

of controversy. Furthermore, James does not confine himself to

Abraham, but introduces Rahab also, who is not mentioned by Paul.

The coincidence between Paul and James is quite insufficient to

overbalance the clear evidence of independence.

(=3=) =The Early Date.=--Only one hypothesis, then, suits the facts.

The Epistle of James was clearly written before the Judaistic

controversy became acute at the time of the Apostolic Council. In

the second chapter of the epistle, James has used the same terms

that became prominent in that controversy, but he has used them in

refuting a practical, not a theoretical, error--an error that is

related only indirectly to the great subject of Galatians and Romans.

3. UNDERLYING UNITY OF THE EPISTLE