THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.
1. The New Testament, like the Old, is not an abstract system of
doctrines and duties, but a _record of facts_ involving doctrines and
duties of the highest import. This record does not constitute an
independent history, complete in itself, and to be explained in its own
light. It is rather the necessary sequel to the record of the Old
Testament. It interprets the Old Testament, and is itself interpreted by
it. The two constitute together an organic whole, and can be truly
understood only in their mutual connection. To discard the Old Testament
whether formally or in practice, is to throw away the key which unlocks
to us the treasures of the New; for the writers of the New Testament
continually reason out of the Scriptures of the Old. If we cannot truly
comprehend the Old Testament except when we view it as preparatory to
the revelation contained in the New, so neither can we have a full
understanding of the New except as the completion of the revelation
begun in the Old. In a word, we understand revelation aright only in its
unity.
2. The New Testament _uses_ all the teachings of the Old, but it does
not _repeat_ them all. The unity, personality, and infinite perfections
of God; his universal providence, and his supremacy as well over nations
as individuals; the duties that men owe to God and each other, as
embodied for substance in the ten commandments and expanded in the
teachings of Moses and the prophets; the indissoluble connection, on the
one hand, between righteousness and true prosperity, and on the other,
between sin and ruin--all these great truths are so fully unfolded in
the Old Testament that they need no formal repetition in the New. The
person and office of the Messiah--as that great prophet, like unto
Moses, whom God should raise up for his people in the latter days; as
that mighty king of David's line, who should sit on his throne and in
his kingdom to order it and to establish it with judgment and with
justice forever; as that high priest after the order of Melchisedec whom
God should establish forever with a solemn oath--had been prefigured in
the institutions of Moses, in the Psalms, and in the writings of the
prophets.
Some other important truths not so fully revealed in the Old Testament
but deducible in a legitimate way either from its general scope or from
some brief hints in its teachings, had become firmly established in the
faith of the Jewish people during the long interval that elapsed between
Malachi and Christ. Such particularly were the doctrines of the
resurrection of the dead and of future rewards and punishments. These
truths, also, as well as those more directly and fully taught in the Old
Testament, were assumed by the Saviour and his apostles as a platform
for the peculiar revelations of the gospel, the sum of which is _Jesus
Christ crucified for the salvation of the world_. The four gospels,
then, as containing the history of our Lord's appearance and works, lie
at the foundation of the revelation contained in the New Testament. To
these, then, our attention must first be given; after which the history
of the apostolic labors, as given in the Acts of the Apostles, will
naturally follow.
I. THE GOSPELS AS A WHOLE.
3. The word _gospel_ (Anglo-Saxon, _god_, _good_, and _spell_, _history_
or _tidings_) answers to the Greek word _euangelion_, _good-tidings_,
whence comes the Latin _evangelium_, with the derived words in use among
us, as _evangelist_, _evangelical_, etc. It properly signifies the _good
message itself_, and it is only by a secondary usage that it is applied
to the _written histories_ of the Saviour's life, as being the
embodiment of this message. The titles prefixed to these gospels from
the beginning; "The Gospel according to Matthew", "The Gospel according
to Mark," etc., indicate that the written record is not itself the
gospel, but rather an account of the gospel _according to_ these
different writers. Christ himself is the author of the gospel. It
existed and was received by many thousands before a line of it was put
upon record on the written page.
4. The genuineness, uncorrupt preservation, and authenticity of the four
canonical gospels have already been shown at some length. Chaps. 2, 3,
4. In connection with the argument for their genuineness, their natural
division into two parts--the first three, commonly called the synoptical
gospels, and the gospel according to John; the remarkable agreements and
differences of the three synoptical gospels among themselves; and the
remarkable contrast which the fourth gospel presents to all three of the
synoptical gospels, have also been considered simply as _existing
facts_. Chap. 2, Nos. 14 and 15. But when we seek an _explanation_ of
these remarkable phenomena, we enter upon a very difficult problem, one
on which the ingenuity of Biblical scholars has exhausted itself for
several successive generations without reaching thus far a result that
can be regarded as perfectly satisfactory. Almost all conceivable
theories and combinations of theories have been proposed, some of which,
however, are now generally abandoned as untenable, and need not be
considered at large.
5. Looking at the three synoptical gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we
find a remarkable _agreement_ not only in their general plan, but in
many of their details also. With the exception of our Lord's last
journey to Jerusalem and the history of his passion there, they are
mainly occupied with his ministry in Galilee. The selection of incidents
is also to a great extent the same. "The most remarkable differences lie
in the presence of a long series of events connected with the Galilean
ministry, which are peculiar to St. Matthew and St. Mark (Matt.
14:22-16:12; Mark 6:45-8:26), and a second series of events connected
with the journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51-18:14), which is peculiar to
St. Luke." Westcott, Introduct. to the Study of the Gospels, chap. 3.
The coincidences of language, as well as incident, are also remarkable;
and here the general law prevails that these coincidences are more
common, as has been shown by Norton and others, in the recital of the
words of others than in the narrative parts of the gospels, and most
common when our Lord's own words are recited.
6. But with these remarkable agreements coexist equally remarkable
_differences_. Each writer has his own peculiarities of style, which
appear more distinctly in the original than they can in any version. It
has been noticed also by Biblical scholars that these peculiarities are
more marked in the narrative than in the recitative parts of the gospels
in question. Each writer, moreover, brings in incidents peculiar to
himself, not in the form of patchwork, but as parts of a self consistent
whole. So far is he from exact outward conformity to either of the other
gospels, in respect to arrangement and circumstantial details, that the
diversity between him and them in these particulars, sometimes creates
serious difficulties when we attempt to arrange the three different
narratives in the form of a harmony.
7. No theory of the origin of these three gospels can be true which does
not explain both their coincidences and their differences. Hence we may
set aside at once the hypothesis of their _mutual dependence_ on each
other--that the later evangelists used the writings of the earlier. By
the different advocates of this theory, each of the three synoptic
gospels has been made in turn the primary record from which the others
drew; but no one of them has been able, upon this hypothesis, to account
for the omissions or insertions of the supposed later evangelists, much
less for the remarkable fact already noticed, that the peculiarities of
each writer appear more fully in the narrative than in the recitative
part of his gospel. The later evangelists may, indeed, have been
acquainted with the writings of the earlier and have consulted them, but
this supposition alone does not explain their peculiar coincidences and
differences.
Another hypothesis is that of an _original document or documents_, from
which all three are supposed to have drawn. The assumption of a single
original written gospel, as the basis of our first three canonical
gospels, is manifestly untenable. Had a primitive gospel existed of such
compass and authority as to be the common source of our three synoptic
gospels, it is inconceivable that the churches, which carefully
preserved these three gospels, though two of them proceeded not from
apostles themselves but only from their companions, should have allowed
the original gospel so speedily and utterly to perish, that no traces of
it remained in the days of Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement of
Alexandria. Besides, this hypothesis, as it was soon seen, does not
explain the peculiar relation of these gospels to each other in respect
to coincidences and differences. Hence various modifications were
proposed--an original Aramaic gospel with various Greek translations,
this original Aramaic gospel variously increased with new matter, etc.
In a word, the form of these assumed original documents was
hypothetically explained from the actual form of our three synoptic
gospels; the very reverse of the true problem, which was to explain,
from some reliable data, the form of the canonical gospels themselves.
The remaining hypothesis is that of _oral tradition_ emanating from the
apostles themselves, and maintained in its purity during their lives by
their personal presence and teaching. That the gospel existed in this
form alone for some years after the beginning of Christianity is
admitted by all. The apostles were Christ's chosen witnesses of his life
and teachings. From their lips proceeded the tradition which now
constitutes our written gospels. The necessity of embodying this
tradition in the form of permanent records was not felt at the
beginning. But, as the churches were multiplied, oral tradition became
liable to corruption in many ways through the multiplicity of the organs
employed in its transmission. Then the need of written gospels began to
manifest itself, and it was natural that the apostles should look to the
supply of this need either by their own direct agency, or by that of men
writing with their knowledge and approbation. How many years elapsed
before the appearance of the earliest of our canonical gospels, which is
commonly supposed to have been that of Matthew, we have no means of
ascertaining with accuracy. But we may reasonably suppose that the
period was long enough to allow the apostolic tradition of our Lord's
life and teachings to assume a somewhat definite shape in respect to
both matter and outward form. _First_, in respect to _matter_. As their
public instructions could not cover the whole of our Saviour's history
(John 20:30; 21: 25), they naturally selected, under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, those parts of it which embodied the spirit and meaning of
the whole. Since, moreover, the apostles remained together at Jerusalem
for some time after our Lord's ascension (Acts 8:1; 15:6), it is highly
reasonable to suppose that in a matter of such moment they had a mutual
understanding--an understanding which, while it interfered with the
freedom of no one, secured a general agreement as to the points in our
Lord's history and teachings which should be especially insisted on.
_Secondly_ in respect to _outward form_. While the apostles were
preserved by the illumination of the Holy Spirit from any superstitious
regard to the letter of our Lord's teachings, their reverence for him as
a perfect teacher, whose words were truth unmixed with error, must have
made them anxious to put the oral tradition of his sayings into as
perfect a form as possible; whence the tradition of our Saviour's words
would assume from the first a more fixed form than that of his life
generally.
It is supposed by many that the writers of the first three gospels drew
each from this common body of oral tradition such materials as suited
his general plan; no one of them proposing to give the whole of our
Lord's history, or even to observe a strict chronological order in the
events recorded by him, any farther than such order was rendered
necessary by their nature and essential connection. In the case of
Matthew, who was one of the twelve apostles, it might be thought that he
wrote simply from his own personal knowledge; but his gospel could not
cover all the ground of our Lord's history as known to him, and we may
well suppose that in the selection of his materials he had regard--not a
servile, but a free regard--to the common oral tradition of the
apostles, which was, in fact, the embodiment of their united wisdom
under the illumination of the Divine Spirit. Each evangelist, as well
Mark and Luke who were not apostles, as Matthew who belonged to the
number of the twelve, wrote independently of the other two. The later
writers may, indeed, have been acquainted with the writings of the
earlier, but a bare inspection of the three gospels shows that there was
no labored effort on the part of one evangelist to adjust his work to
those of the others. Hence arise apparent discrepancies, as in the two
genealogies of our Lord, which it is sometimes hard to explain. But
these very difficulties witness to the independent truthfulness of the
writers. Had they written in concert, or borrowed systematically from
each other, such difficulties would not have existed.
Although apostolic oral tradition is thus made the main source whence
the writers of these gospels drew their materials, it is not necessary
to affirm or deny their use, in a subordinate way, of written documents.
That such documents existed in the time of Luke we know from his own
words, chap. 1:1. He does not condemn them, but neither does he rely
upon them. His gospel is not derived from them, but from his own
accurate investigations; "It seemed good to me also, having accurately
traced out all things from the beginning" (as the original Greek means),
"to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus." Chap. 1:3. And
if Luke, the companion of Paul, was not dependent for his materials on
any previously existing writings, neither was Mark, the companion of
both Peter and Paul, nor Matthew, who was himself an apostle. Nor can
the incorporation of such writings into the synoptic gospels be shown
with any degree of probability. If it cannot be claimed for this
hypothesis of a primitive apostolic tradition, as the source whence the
writers of the synoptic gospels drew their materials, that it explains
all the phenomena of their mutual relation to each other, it is,
nevertheless, more satisfactory than any other that has been proposed,
and may be regarded as a near approximation to the actual facts in the
case.
Between the _traditions_ of which the apostle Paul speaks (2
Thess. 2:15; 3:6; also, according to the original, 1 Cor. 11:2)
received immediately from his mouth or pen, and the pretended
traditions of later days, handed down from century to century
through a succession of uninspired men, the difference is that
between light and darkness, between truth and fiction. We have
in the _writings_ of the New Testament the genuine apostolic
tradition, at first oral, but put into a written form during the
lifetime of the apostles. These traditions are the "gold,
silver, precious stones" of divine truth. All other traditions
are the "wood, hay, stubble" of human origin. In settling the
question respecting the _genuineness_ of the New Testament
writings, we proceed as in the case of any other writings. We
avail ourselves of all the evidence within our reach, external
and internal. We take the testimony of Irenæus and Tertullian,
and also of Marcion and Valentinus; though none of them were
inspired, and the two latter were heretical. But when we have
once determined what books were written by apostles or apostolic
men, these contain for us the only authoritative _tradition_, as
defined by the apostle: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and
hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word
or our epistle." 2 Thess. 2:15.
8. In comparing the synoptic gospels with each other and with the fourth
gospel, we must ever bear in mind that no one of them professes to give
a complete history of our Lord's life, or to arrange all the incidents
which he relates in the exact order of time. Under the guidance of the
divine Spirit each one pursues his own course, independently of the
others, here inserting what one or more of the rest have omitted, or
omitting what one or more of them have inserted; and here, again,
bringing in incidents without regard to their exact chronological order,
with some general preface like the following: "at that time," Matt.
12:1; "and he began again," Mark 4:1; "and it came to pass as he was
alone praying," Luke 9:18; "and it came to pass as they went in the
way," Luke 9:57; etc. Thus the wisdom of God has given us, not all the
particulars of our Lord's history, but such a selection from both the
incidents of his public life and his public and private teachings as
best embodies the great facts of the gospel, and the doctrines and
duties connected with them. In the four canonical gospels the church
has, not all of our Lord's history and teachings, but all that the Holy
Ghost judged needful for her establishment and edification to the end of
time.
Of our Lord's history before his baptism we have only his
genealogy in a twofold form; some notices of his miraculous
conception; an account of his birth and circumcision, with the
visions and prophecies connected with them; a history of his
preservation from Herod's attempt to destroy him; the subsequent
residence of his parents in Nazareth, with a single incident of
his childhood. Luke 2:40-52. All these particulars have, in one
way or another, a bearing on his divine mission and work as the
Son of God. The apocryphal gospels on the contrary, as, for
example, the Gospel of the Infancy, and the Gospel of Nicodemus,
abound in frivolous stories relating to our Lord's infancy and
later life, which have no connection with the great work of
redemption.
9. The peculiarities of the fourth gospel, as well as its relation to
the three preceding gospels, will come up for consideration hereafter.
At present we only remark that John wrote many years after the
appearance of the synoptic gospels, and that, whatever reference he may
have had to them, his gospel constitutes, in the plan of revelation, a
_true complement_ to the other three. For (1) if we except the narrative
of our Lord's passion, it covers, for the most part, ground not occupied
by them. They give mainly the history of the Saviour's ministry in
Galilee (Luke also, at some length, that of his last journey to
Jerusalem); the scene of much of John's gospel, on the contrary, is
Jerusalem and its near vicinity. (2) John unfolds more fully the nature
of our Lord's person, and his peculiar relation to the Father and to his
church. This he does, more especially, in his prologue (chap. 1:1-18);
in the record of the Saviour's discussions with the Jews (chaps. 3,
5-12); and in that of his discourses addressed in private to the circle
of the apostles, chaps. 13-17. Thus John's gospel is emphatically that
of Christ's _person_, as illustrated by his works and words; while the
three earlier evangelists give rather the gospel of his _public
ministry_, through which his divine person everywhere shines forth. This
deeper view of our Lord's person and office which the gospel of John
unfolds met the wants of the primitive church in a more advanced stage,
when false teachers were already beginning to sow the seeds of those
errors which, in the next generation, brought forth such a rank and
poisonous harvest. The same great characteristics adapt it to the wants
of the church in all ages. Without the fourth gospel she could not be
completely furnished to meet the assaults of error, which, from one
generation to another, makes, with unerring instinct, its main assault
upon the person and office of the Son of God.
But if the evangelical narrative would not be complete without the
fourth gospel, neither would it be perfect for the use of the church
with this alone. The record of our Lord's life and teachings as given in
the first three gospels is preëminently adapted to popular instruction.
It is precisely such a record as the preachers of the gospel need in
their public ministrations. With it they can use the fourth gospel with
effect; but without it they would want the natural preparation for and
introduction to those deep and spiritual views of Christ's person and
office which the bosom-disciple unfolds. It is not in the three synoptic
gospels, nor in the gospel of John taken separately, that we find the
complete evangelical armor, but in the perfect whole of the four.
10. Very numerous attempts have been made to construct _harmonies_ of
the four gospels. One plan is to form out of the whole, in what is
supposed to be the true chronological order, a continuous narrative
embracing all the matter of the four, but without repetitions of the
same or similar words. Another plan is to exhibit in chronological
order, the entire text of the four gospels arranged in parallel columns,
so far as two or more of them cover the same ground. The idea is very
imposing, but the realization of it is beset with formidable if not
insurmountable difficulties. It is certain that the evangelists do not
always follow the exact order of time, and it is sometimes impossible to
decide between the different arrangements of events in their records. In
the four narratives of the events connected with the resurrection all
harmonists find themselves baffled. Had we a full account of all the
particulars of that exciting scene, we might undoubtedly assign to the
different parts of each narrative its true place in the order of time.
But with our present means of information this is impossible. Experience
shows that the most profitable way of studying the evangelical narrative
is to take _each gospel as a whole_, but with continual reference to the
parallel parts of the other gospels, so far as they can be ascertained.
In this work a good harmony, like that of Robinson, may render essential
service, though its arrangements must in many cases be regarded only as
_tentative_--essays at obtaining the true order, rather than the certain
determination of it.
The relative number of _chapters_ in the different gospels does
not give their true relation in respect to _size_. The chapters
are respectively 28, 16, 24, 21; which are to each other in the
proportion of 7, 4, 6, 5 1/4. But estimating according to the
number of pages (in an edition without breaks for the verses),
it will be found that the gospel of Luke holds the first place,
its size being to that of the other gospels nearly as 60 to 57,
35, 46. The relation of Matthew's gospel to that of Mark, in
respect to the quantity of matter is then nearly that of 8 to 5.
In the notices of the separate gospels which follow it is not
thought necessary to give an elaborate analysis of their
contents. The aim will be rather to exhibit the prominent
characteristics of each, and its special office in the economy
of divine revelation.
II. MATTHEW.
11. The unanimous testimony of the ancient church is that the first
gospel was written by the _apostle Matthew_, who is also called Levi.
With his call to the apostleship he may have assumed the name of
Matthew, as Saul took that of Paul. He was of Hebrew origin, the son of
Alphaeus, and a tax-gatherer under the Roman government, Matt. 10:3;
Mark 2:14; 3:18; Luke 5:27, 29; 6:15; Acts 1:13. He was evidently a man
of some means (Luke 5:29), and his office must have required for its
proper discharge a knowledge of the Greek as well as of his native
Hebrew; that is, Aramaean, as the word Hebrew means in the New
Testament, when applied to the vernacular of the Palestine Jews.
12. The question respecting the _original language_ of Matthew's gospel
has been, since the time of Erasmus, a matter of controversy, in which
eminent biblical scholars have been found on different sides. The
problem is to find a solution which shall bring into harmony the
following well-established facts: (1) that, according to the united
testimony of the early church fathers, Matthew originally wrote his
gospel in Hebrew; (2) that our present Greek gospel has all the freedom
of an original work, that it has remarkable coincidences in language
with the second and third gospels, and especially that the citations
from the Old Testament which stand in our Lord's discourses follow as a
rule the Greek version of the Seventy; (3) that all the early writers,
those who testify to the Hebrew original of this gospel included,
receive and use our present Greek gospel as the genuine and
authoritative gospel of Matthew; (4) that the original Hebrew gospel, to
the existence of which there is such abundant testimony, was allowed
utterly to perish, while the Greek form of it alone was preserved and
placed at the head of the canonical books of the New Testament.
13. The testimony from Papias, in the beginning of the second century,
and onward to the fourth century, has often been quoted and discussed.
It is not necessary to adduce it here at length. It may be found in
Kirchhofer, in the critical commentaries and introductions, and also in
the modern Bible dictionaries. The words of Papias, as preserved to us
by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., 3. 39) are as follows: "Matthew therefore
wrote the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and every one interpreted them
as he was able." If there were any ground for doubting what Papias meant
by "the oracles," it would be removed by the testimony of the later
writers, as Pantaenus and Origen (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 5. 10; 6.
25), Irenæus (Against Heresies, 3. 1), Eusebius himself (Hist. Eccl., 3.
24), Epiphanius (Heresies, 29. 9; 30. 3), and others. They who maintain
that Matthew wrote originally in Greek suppose that the early fathers
confounded an apocryphal gospel, the so-called "gospel according to the
Hebrews," with the true gospel of Matthew. Others think, perhaps with
more reason, that the gospel according to the Hebrews was a corrupted
form, or, what amounts to nearly the same thing, a close imitation of
the true Hebrew gospel of Matthew.
The Ebionites and Nazarenes used each apparently a different
form of a Hebrew gospel which is sometimes called the gospel
according to Matthew, but more properly "the gospel according to
the Hebrews" (once by Jerome "the gospel according to the
apostles"). According to Epiphanius that in use among the
Ebionites was "not entire and full, but corrupted and abridged."
Heresies, 30. 13. Jerome says: "Matthew, who is called Levi,
having become from a publican an apostle, first composed in
Judea, for the sake of those who had believed from among the
circumcision, a gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words.
Who was the person that afterwards translated it into Greek is
not certainly known. Moreover, the Hebrew copy itself is at this
day preserved in the library of Cæsarea which Pampilus the
Martyr collected with much diligence. The Nazarenes, who live in
Beroca, a city of Syria, and use this volume, gave me the
opportunity of writing it out." De Vir. Illustr., 3. Here he
certainly identifies this gospel, which, as he repeatedly
informs us, he translated, with the true Hebrew gospel of
Matthew. But he afterwards speaks of it more doubtfully, as "the
gospel according to the Hebrews," and more fully as "the gospel
according to the Hebrews, which is written indeed in the Chaldee
and Syriac language, but in Hebrew letters, which the Nazarenes
use to the present day, [being the gospel] according to the
apostles, or, as most think, according to Matthew" (Against the
Pelagians, 3); "the gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites
use, which we have lately translated from the Hebrew language
into the Greek, and which is called by most the authentic gospel
of Matthew." Comment. in Matt. 12:13. The most probable
supposition is that Jerome, knowing that Matthew originally
wrote his gospel in Hebrew, hastily assumed at first that the
copy which he obtained from the Nazarenes was this very gospel.
The character of the quotations which he and Epiphanius give
from it forbids the supposition that it was the true Hebrew
gospel of Matthew. It may have been a corrupted form of it, or
an imitation of it.
14. Of those who, in accordance with ancient testimony, believe that the
original language of Matthew's gospel was Hebrew, some assume that the
apostle himself afterwards gave a Greek version of it. In itself
considered this hypothesis is not improbable. Matthew, writing primarily
for his countrymen in Palestine, might naturally employ the language
which was to them vernacular. But afterwards, when Christianity had
begun to spread through the Roman empire, and it became evident that the
Greek language was the proper medium for believers at large; and when
also, as is not improbable, some of the existing canonical books of the
New Testament had appeared in that language, we might well suppose that,
in view of these circumstances, the apostle himself put his gospel into
the present Greek form. But it is certainly surprising that, in this
case, no one of the ancient fathers should have had any knowledge of the
matter. In view of their ignorance it seems to be the part of modesty as
well as prudence that we also should say with Jerome: "Who was the
person that afterwards translated it into Greek is not known with
certainty." The universal and unhesitating reception of this gospel by
the early Christians in its present Greek form can be explained only
upon the supposition that it came to them with apostolic authority; that
it received this form at the hand, if not of Matthew himself, yet of an
apostle or an apostolic man, that is, a man standing to the apostles in
the same relation as Mark and Luke.
This supposition will explain the freedom of Matthew's gospel
and its coincidences in language with the gospels of Mark and
Luke. An apostle or apostolic man would give a faithful, but not
a servile version of the original. The oral tradition of our
Lord's life and teachings from which the first three evangelists
drew, as from a common fountain (see above, No. 7), must have
existed in Palestine in a twofold form, Aramaean and Greek. The
translator would naturally avail himself of the Greek
phraseology, so far as the oral tradition coincided with that
embodied in Matthew's gospel. Those who have carefully examined
the subject affirm that the citations from the Old Testament
adduced by Matthew himself in proof of our Lord's Messiahship
are original renderings, with more or less literalness, from the
Hebrew. The citations, on the contrary, embodied in the
discourses of our Lord himself follow, as a rule, the Greek
version of the Seventy; probably because the translator took
these citations as they stood in the oral tradition of these
discourses.
Meanwhile the original Hebrew form of the gospel, being superseded by
the Greek in all the congregations of believers except those that used
exclusively the vernacular language of Palestine, gradually fell into
disuse. The "gospel according to the Hebrews," noticed above, may have
been a corrupted form of this gospel or an imitation of it. As Marcion
chose the Greek gospel of Luke for the basis of his revision, so the
Ebionites and Nazarenes would naturally use the Hebrew gospel of Matthew
for their purposes.
15. The gospel of Matthew opens with the words: "The book of the
generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." In
accordance with this announcement, it traces back our Lord's lineage
through David to Abraham, giving, after the manner of the Jews, an
artificial arrangement of the generations from Abraham to Christ in
three sets of fourteen each, chap. 1:17. To effect this, certain kings
of David's line are omitted--between Joram and Ozias (the Uzziah of the
Hebrews), Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah; between Josias and Jechonias,
Eliakim--and David is reckoned twice; once as the last of a set of
fourteen, then as the first of the following fourteen. The thoroughly
Jewish form of this introduction indicates the primary design of
Matthew's gospel, which was to exhibit to his countrymen Jesus of
Nazareth as their _long promised Messiah and king_. To this he has
constant reference in the facts which he relates, and which he connects
with the prophecies of the Old Testament by such forms of quotation as
the following: "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord
by the prophet," chaps. 1:22; 2:15, 23; 13:35; 21:4; 27:35; "that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet," chaps. 4:11;
8:17; 12:17; "then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the
prophet," chap. 2:17; etc. His direct references to the Old Testament in
proof of our Lord's Messiahship are more numerous than those of either
of the other evangelists. Peculiar to him is the expression "the kingdom
of heaven," to signify, in accordance with Rabbinic usage, the kingdom
which the Messiah was to establish in accordance with the prophecies of
the Old Testament; though he takes a spiritual view of its character,
and not the earthly and political view of the Jewish doctors. Another
designation of the same idea, common to him with the other evangelists,
is "the kingdom of God," which also was current among the Rabbins. This
"kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" is also the kingdom of the
Messiah. Chaps. 13:41; 20:21.
16. But precisely because Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, his
mission is not to the Jews only, but _to all mankind_, in accordance
with the original promise to Abraham: "In thy seed shall all the nations
of the earth be blessed." Gen. 22:18. While he records the fact that our
Lord's personal ministry was restricted to the Jews (chaps. 10:5, 6;
15:24), he also shows from our Lord's own words that the unbelieving
"children of the kingdom"--the Jews as the natural heirs to the
Messiah's kingdom--shall be cast out, and the believing Gentiles
received into it (chaps. 8:11, 12; 21:43); and he brings his gospel to a
close with the great commission: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you, and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world." Chap. 28:19, 20.
17. A striking characteristic of this gospel is the _fulness and orderly
manner_ with which it records _our Lord's discourses_. Striking examples
of this are the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5-7), his awful denunciation
of the Scribes and Pharisees (chap. 23), and the majestic series of
parables (chap. 25). Doubtless, Matthew had by nature a peculiar
endowment for this work, which the Holy Spirit used to preserve for the
church much of our Lord's teachings which would otherwise have been
lost. The narrative part of this gospel, on the other hand, has not the
circumstantial fulness of the following gospel. As already remarked, the
field covered by Matthew's narrative is mainly that of our Lord's
Galilean ministry, with the great events connected with his final visit
to Jerusalem, though he gives indications of repeated visits to that
city. Chap. 23:37-39.
18. It has been assumed by some that Matthew follows, as a general rule,
the order of time. But others deny this, thinking that his arrangement
is according to subject-matter rather than chronological sequence,
especially in the first part (Alexander's Kitto); and this appears to be
the correct judgment. He follows the exact order of time only when the
nature of the events recorded requires him to do so.
19. It is universally admitted that Matthew wrote his gospel _in
Palestine_. This fact accounts for the absence of explanatory clauses
relating to Jewish usages, such as are not unfrequent in the gospel of
Mark. As to the interpretation of Hebrew words, as "Immanuel" (chap.
1:23); and the words on the cross (chap. 27:46), that belongs to the
Greek form of the gospel. The _date_ of this gospel is doubtful.
According to the tradition of the ancient church it was written first of
the four gospels. Assuming that it originally appeared in Hebrew, we may
reasonably suppose that a period of some years elapsed before it was put
into its present Greek form.
20. The _integrity_ of this gospel is unquestionable. In modern times
the genuineness of the first two chapters has been called in question by
various writers, but the insufficiency of their arguments has been shown
by many, among whom may be mentioned Davidson, Introduction to New
Testament, vol. 1, pp. 111-127. In the words of this writer the chapters
in question are found "in all _unmutilated_ Greek MSS., and in all
ancient versions;" "the earliest fathers had them in their copies, and
received them as a part of the gospel;" "the ancient heretics and
opponents of Christianity were acquainted with this portion of the first
gospel;" "the commencement of the first chapter is closely connected
with something preceding;" and "the diction of these two chapters bears
the same impress and character which belong to the remainder of the
gospel, proving that the gospel, as we now have it, proceeded from _one_
author."
III. MARK.
21. There is no valid ground for doubting the correctness of the ancient
tradition which identifies the author of the second gospel with "John
whose surname was Mark" (Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37), who is called simply
John (Acts 13:5, 13), and Marcus or Mark (Acts 15:39; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim.
4:11; perhaps also 1 Peter 5:13). He was _cousin_ to Barnabas (Col.
4:10, not _sister's son_, as in our version), which relationship may
explain Barnabas' earnest defence of him (Acts 15:37-39). His mother
Mary resided in Jerusalem, and it was to her house that Peter resorted
immediately upon his miraculous deliverance from prison (Acts 12:12).
The intimacy of Peter with Mary's family must have brought about an
early acquaintance between the apostle and Mark. Ancient tradition
uniformly affirms a close relation between Peter and Mark, representing
the latter to have been the disciple and _interpreter_ of the former.
See below.
Papias (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl. 3. 39) says, upon the authority
of John the Presbyter, "Mark being Peter's interpreter, wrote
down accurately as many things as he remembered; not, indeed, as
giving in order the things which were spoken or done by Christ.
For he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord, but, as
I said, of Peter, who gave his instructions as occasion
required, but not as one who was composing an orderly account of
our Lord's words. Mark, therefore, committed no error when he
thus wrote down certain things as he remembered them. For he was
careful of one thing, to omit nothing of the things which he
heard and to make no false statements concerning them." These
words of Papias are somewhat loose and indefinite. But, when
fairly interpreted, they seem to mean that as Peter taught
according to the necessities of each occasion, not aiming to
give a full history of our Lord in chronological order, so Mark
wrote not all things pertaining to our Lord's life and ministry,
but certain things, those namely that he had learned from
Peter's discourses, without always observing the strict order of
time. We need not press the words "in order" and "certain
things," as if Papias meant to say that Mark's gospel is only a
loose collection of fragments. It is a connected and
self-consistent whole; but it does not profess to give in all
cases the exact chronological order of events, nor to be an
exhaustive account of our Saviour's life and teachings. Eusebius
has preserved for us in his Ecclesiastical History the testimony
of Irenæus on the same point (Hist. Eccl., 5. 8); also of
Clement of Alexandria (Hist. Eccl., 6.14); and of Origen (Hist.
Eccl., 6. 25). He also gives his own (Hist. Eccl., 2. 5). We
have besides these, the statements of Tertullian (Against
Marcion, 6. 25); and Jerome (Epist. ad Hedib. Quaest., 2). All
these witnesses, though not consistent among themselves in
respect to several minor details, yet agree in respect to the
two great facts, (1) that Mark was the companion of Peter and
had a special relation to him, (2) that he was the author of the
gospel which bears his name. We add from Meyer (Introduction to
Commentary on Mark) the following exposition of the word
_interpreter_ as applied to Mark in his relation to Peter: "No
valid ground of doubt can be alleged against it, provided only
we do not understand the idea contained in the word
_interpreter_ to mean that Peter, not having sufficient mastery
of the Greek, delivered his discourses in Aramaean, and had them
interpreted by Mark into Greek; but rather that the office of a
_secretary_ is indicated, who wrote down the oral communications
of his apostle (whether from dictation, or in the freer exercise
of his own activity) and so became _in the way of writing_ his
interpreter to others."
Mark's connection with the apostle Paul, though interrupted by the
incident recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (15:37-39), was afterwards
renewed and he restored to the apostle's confidence, as is manifest from
the way in which he notices him. Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11. If, as is
probable (see below, No. 22), Mark wrote between A.D. 60 and 70, his
long intimacy with Peter and Paul qualified him in a special manner for
his work.
22. Ancient tradition favors the idea that Mark wrote his gospel _in
Rome_. Had he written in Egypt, as Chrysostom thinks, we can hardly
suppose that Clement of Alexandria would have been ignorant of the fact,
as his testimony shows that he was. In respect to _date_, the accounts
of the ancients differ so much among themselves that it is difficult to
arrive at any definite conclusion. We may probably place it between A.D.
64 and 70. The _language_ in which Mark wrote was Greek. This is
attested by the united voice of antiquity. The subscriptions annexed to
some manuscripts of the Old Syriac, and that in the Philoxenian Syriac
version, to the effect that Mark wrote _in Roman_, that is, in Latin,
are of no authority. They are the conjectures of ignorant men, who
inferred from the fact that Mark wrote in Rome that he must have used
the Latin tongue.
The story of the pretended _Latin autograph_ of Mark's gospel
preserved in the Library of St. Mark at Venice is now exploded.
The manuscript to which this high honor was assigned is part of
the _Codex Forojuliensis_, which gives the text of the _Latin
Vulgate_. The text was edited by Blanchini in the appendix to
his _Evangeliarium Quadruplex_, _Fourfold Gospel_. The gospel of
Mark having been cut out and removed to Venice was exalted to be
the autograph of Mark. See Tregelles in Horne, vol. 4, chap. 23.
The fact that Mark wrote out of Palestine and for Gentile
readers at once accounts for the numerous explanatory clauses by
which his gospel is distinguished from that of Matthew. Examples
are: chaps. 7:3, 4; 12:42; 13:3; 14:12; 15:42; and the frequent
interpretations of Aramaean words: 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 10:46;
14:36; 15:34.
23. The opening words of Matthew's gospel are: "The book of the
generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham," by
which, as already remarked, he indicates his purpose to show that Jesus
of Nazareth is the long promised Messiah of David's line, and the seed
of Abraham, in whom all nations are to be blessed. Mark, on the
contrary, passing by our Lord's genealogy, commences thus: "The
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." He recognizes
him, indeed as the son of David, and the promised Messiah and king of
Israel. Chaps. 10:47, 48; 11:10; 15:32. But, writing among Gentiles and
for Gentiles, the great fact which he is intent on setting forth is the
person and character of Jesus as the Son of God. Matthew gives special
attention to the Saviour's discourses. With these considerably more than
a third of his gospel is occupied. Mark, on the contrary, devotes
himself mainly to the narrative of our Lord's works. With this is
interwoven a multitude of his sayings; since it was the Saviour's custom
to teach in connection with surrounding incidents. But if we compare the
set discourses of our Lord recorded by Mark with those which Matthew
gives, they will hardly amount to a fifth part in quantity. Between the
narrative parts of Matthew and Mark, on the contrary, there is not a
very great disparity in respect to the space occupied by each.
24. Though Mark has but little matter that is absolutely new, he yet
handles his materials in an original and independent way, weaving into
the narratives which he gives in common with one or more of the other
evangelists numerous little incidents in the most natural and artless
way. His characteristics as a historian are _graphic vividness_ of
description and _circumstantiality of detail_. If we except some
striking passages of John's gospel, he brings us nearer to our Lord's
person and the scenes described than either of the other evangelists. He
brings before us, as in a picture, not only our Lord's words and works,
but his very looks and gestures. It is he that records as has been often
noticed, how the Saviour "looked round about" him with anger on the
unbelieving multitudes and on Peter (chap. 3:5; 8:33); with complacency
on his disciples (chap. 3:34; 10:27); and with the piercing look of
inquiry (chap. 5:32); how he looked up to heaven and sighed when he
healed one who was deaf and dumb (chap. 7:34); and how he sighed deeply
in spirit at the perverseness of the Pharisees (chap. 8:12). He
sometimes gives us the very words of the Saviour when he performed his
mighty works--_Talitha cumi_ (5:41), _Ephphatha_ (7:34). His narratives
are remarkable for bringing in little incidents which can have come from
none but an eyewitness, but which add wonderfully to the naturalness as
well as the vividness of his descriptions. When the storm arises he is
asleep _on a pillow_ (chap. 4:38); Jairus' daughter arises and walks,
_for she was of the age of twelve years_ (chap. 5:42); the multitudes
that are to be fed sit down _in ranks by hundreds and by fifties_ (chap.
6:40), etc. As examples of vivid description may be named the account of
the demoniac (chap. 5:2-20), and the lunatic. Chap. 9:14-27. It is not
necessary to assume that Mark was himself a disciple of our Lord. If, as
ancient tradition asserts, he was the disciple and interpreter of Peter
he could receive from his lips those circumstantial details with which
his narrative abounds.
25. The closing passage of this gospel, chap. 16:9-20, is wanting in a
number of important manuscripts, among which are the Vatican and
Sinaitic. The same was the case also in the days of Eusebius and Jerome.
But it was known to Irenæus, and quoted by him and many others after
him. The reader must be referred to the critical commentaries and
introductions for the discussion of the difficult questions concerning
it. Tregelles, who, in his account of the printed text has given a full
statement of the case, thus expresses his judgment (in Horne, vol. 4, p.
436): "It is _perfectly_ certain that from the second century and
onward, these verses have been known as part of _this gospel_ (whoever
was their _author_)." He thinks that "the _book of Mark himself_ extends
no farther than 'for they were afraid,' chap. 16:8; but that the
remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full claim to be
received as an authentic part of the second gospel, and that the full
reception of early testimony on this question does not in the least
involve their rejection as not being a part of canonical Scripture."
IV. LUKE.
26. The unanimous voice of antiquity ascribes the third gospel with the
Acts of the Apostles to _Luke_. He first appears as the travelling
companion of Paul when he leaves Troas for Macedonia (Acts 16:10); for
the use of the first person plural--"we endeavored," "the Lord had
called us," "we came," etc.--which occurs from that point of Paul's
history and onward, with certain interruptions, through the remainder of
the Acts of the Apostles, admits of no other natural and reasonable
explanation. There is good reason to believe that he is identical with
"Luke, the beloved physician," who was with Paul when a prisoner at
Rome. Col. 4:14; Philemon 24; 2 Tim. 4:11. From the first of these
passages it has been inferred that he was not a Jew by birth, since he
is apparently distinguished from those "who are of the circumcision," v.
11.
Tradition represents him to have been by birth a Syrian of
Antioch (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 3. 4; Jerome, Preface to Matt.,
and elsewhere), and a Jewish proselyte (Jerome, Quest. on Gen.,
chap. 46); and it adds various other legends which are not worth
repeating.
27. The evangelist himself, in his dedicatory address to Theophilus
(chap. 1:1-4), gives us clear and definite information respecting the
_sources of his gospel_. He does not profess to have been himself an
eye-witness, but has drawn his information from those "who from the
beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." His
investigations have been accurate and thorough: "having accurately
traced out all things from the beginning" (as the original words mean),
he writes to Theophilus "in order;" that is, in an orderly and connected
way. He proposes to give not some loose fragments, but a connected
narrative; although, as we have seen above (No. 10), his order is not
always that of strict chronological sequence. From the long and intimate
connection of Luke with Paul it is reasonable to suppose that the latter
must have exerted an influence on the composition of this gospel. Luke,
however, did not draw the materials of his narrative from Paul (at least
not principally), but, as he expressly states, from those "who from the
beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." He did not
write from Paul's dictation, but in a free and independent way; though
there is no reasonable ground for doubting that it was with Paul's
knowledge and approbation.
The "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word" are those who (1)
were from the beginning eye-witnesses of our Lord's public
ministry; (2) were intrusted with the work of preaching the
word; that is, the apostles and such of their associates as had
companied with them all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and
out among them. Acts 1:21. The words of Luke must not be
strained; for he records some incidents of our Lord's history
_before_ his public appearance which could have been learned
only from Mary and her circle.
The remarkable agreement between Luke's account of the
institution of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:9, 20), and Paul's (1
Cor. 11:28-25) has often been noticed. It is most naturally
explained by the supposition that Luke recorded the transaction
in the form in which he had often heard it from the lips of
Paul. But there is nothing in the character of this gospel which
can warrant the supposition that the apostle exercised a formal
supervision over its composition. Such a procedure would be
contrary to the spirit of the apostolic age. The apostle himself
wrote by an amanuensis. But when one of his associates in the
ministry wrote, in whom he had full confidence, he left him to
the free exercise of his judgment under the illumination of the
Holy Spirit.
28. In respect to the _date_ of this gospel, if we assume that the Acts
of the Apostles were written at Rome about A.D. 63-65 (Chap. 5, No. 5),
it is reasonable to suppose that the gospel, which is dedicated to the
same personage, was composed not very long before, perhaps even during
the two years of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, in which case Rome would
also be the _place_ of its composition. Whether Luke wrote before or
after Mark is a question that has been differently answered, and cannot
be determined with certainty. The proof that all three of the first
evangelists wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem has been already
given. Chap. 3, No. 14.
29. Though Luke dedicates his gospel to Theophilus (chap, 1:1-4), it is
not to be supposed that it was written for his use alone. He had a more
_general end_ in view, and that is indicated by the form of our Lord's
genealogy as given by him. While Matthew traces the Saviour's lineage
through David to Abraham, in conformity with his design to show that he
is the promised seed of Abraham and king of Israel, Luke traces it back
through David and Abraham to Adam "the son of God." He identifies Jesus
of Nazareth not with the Messiah alone of Abraham's and David's line,
but with man as man. He is the second Adam, and as such the Saviour of
the race. This _universal aspect_ of the gospel, as a gospel not for one
nation but for all mankind, shines forth indeed in all the gospels, but
it appears with wonderful sweetness and power in some of the parables
which are peculiar to Luke, as those of the good Samaritan (chap.
10:30-37), the lost sheep (chap. 15:3-7), the lost pieces of silver
(chap. 15:8-10), the prodigal son (chap. 15:11-32); in all which Jesus
is set forth as the Saviour of suffering humanity.
30. As it respects the _character and plan_ of Luke's gospel, the
following particulars are to be noticed. In the distribution of matter
between the narration of events and the recital of our Lord's discourses
it holds a position between the first and the second gospel; being less
full in the latter respect than Matthew, but far more full than Mark. In
the narrative part there is an easy and graceful style which charms
every reader. In the introduction of minute incidents he goes beyond
Matthew, though he has not the circumstantial exactness of Mark. The
agreement of Luke's gospel with the two preceding in its general plan is
recognized at once by every reader. Like them it is mainly occupied with
our Lord's Galilean ministry. In regard to the Saviour's infancy he is
more full than Matthew, the matter of the first three chapters being in
a great measure peculiar to him. He omits a long series of events
recorded by the first two evangelists. Matt. 14:22-16:12; Mark
6:45-8:26. On the other hand he introduces (chap. 9:43-18:30) "a
remarkable series of acts and discourses which are grouped together in
connection with the last journey to Jerusalem. Some of the incidents
occur in different connections in the other evangelists; and the whole
section proves, by the absence of historical data and the unity of its
general import, that a moral and not a temporal sequence is the law of
the gospels." Westcott, Introduct. to Gospel, chap. 7. Very much of the
matter in this remarkable section is peculiar to Luke, and contains
passages of wonderful beauty and sweetness which would have been lost to
the church but for the record of this gospel. Among these are the
mission of the seventy, several miracles, some striking lessons of
instruction from passing incidents, and no less than twelve parables:
the good Samaritan, the unfortunate friend, the unclean spirit, the rich
fool, the barren fig-tree, the lost sheep, the lost pieces of silver,
the prodigal son, the unfaithful steward, the rich man and Lazarus, the
unjust judge, the Pharisee and publican. While the attentive reader
perceives the very near relationship of the third gospel to the first
and second, he notices also the fact that it differs from both of them
more than they do from each other.
"If the total contents of the several gospels be represented by
100, the following table is obtained:
Peculiarities. Concordances.
St. Mark,.........................7........................93
St. Matthew,.....................42........................58
St. Luke,........................59........................41
St. John,........................92.........................8
"From this it appears that the several gospels bear almost
exactly an inverse relation to one another, St. Mark and St.
John occupying the extreme positions, the proportion of original
passages in one balancing the coincident passages in the other.
If again the extent of all the coincidences be represented by
100, their proportionate distribution will be:
St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, . . . . . . . . 53
St. Matthew, St. Luke, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
St. Matthew, St. Mark, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
St. Mark, St. Luke, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 "
[Westcott, after Stroud and Norton.]
Of absolutely new matter in Mark a striking example is the
beautiful parable, chap. 4:26-29. The two miracles peculiar to
him (chap. 7:31-37; 8:22-26) are both of a very striking
character, and related with circumstantial minuteness of detail.
Where his narratives coincide with those of the other
evangelists, they are characterized by the addition of details,
which, as already remarked, add much to the vivedness and
graphic power of his descriptions.
31. The _integrity_ of the third gospel has been recently assailed in
Germany in the way of attempting to show that the gospel of Luke, as we
now have it, is corrupted by interpolations, and that Marcion had it in
its true form. See Chap. 2, No. 12. But the result of a voluminous
discussion is that Marcion's gospel is now acknowledged to have been a
mutilated form of the canonical gospel, in accordance with the testimony
of the ancient fathers.
On the relation to each other of the two genealogies of our Lord
given by Matthew and Luke respectively, and the different modes
of bringing them into harmony with each other, many volumes have
been written. Two different principles of interpretation are
proposed. According to the _first_, the genealogies of both
Matthew and Luke are those of _Joseph_, the legal father of
Jesus, and the only one that could be known in this relation in
the public registers. The _second_ view is that Matthew gives
the genealogy of _Joseph_, and Luke that of _Mary_, Joseph being
called the son of Heli, in the sense of _son-in-law_; and being
perhaps also legal heir to Heli through Mary in the absence of
brothers. The reader will find statements of these two views,
the former in Smith's Bible Diet., the latter in Alexander's
Kitto, Art. Genealogy of Jesus Christ; also in the commentaries
generally. We only add that though we may not be able to
determine with certainty _what_ is the true solution of the
difficulty, no one can show that such a solution is impossible.
The reverent believer will quietly wait for more light, if it
shall please God to give it; otherwise he will be content to
remain without it.
V. JOHN.
32. Though the writer of the fourth gospel everywhere refrains from
mentioning his own name, he clearly indicates himself as the "bosom
disciple." When he speaks of two disciples that followed Jesus,
afterwards adding that "one of the two" "was Andrew, Simon Peter's
brother" (chap. 1:37, 40); of "one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved"
(chap. 13:23; 21:7, 20); and of "another disciple" in company with Simon
Peter (chap. 18:15, 16; 20:2-8), the only natural explanation of these
circumlocutions is that he refers to himself. Even if we suppose, with
some, that the two closing verses of chapter 21 (the former of which
ascribes this gospel directly to John) are a subscription by another
hand, their authenticity is unquestionable, sustained as it is by the
uniform testimony of antiquity, and by the internal character of the
gospel.
33. The Scriptural notices of John are few and simple. He was the son of
Zebedee, a fisherman of Bethsaida on the Western shore of the sea of
Galilee not far from Capernaum. Matt. 4:21; Mark 1:19, 20; Luke 5:10,
11. His mother's name was Salome. Matt. 27:56 compared with Mark 15:40.
His parents seem to have been possessed of some property, since Zebedee
had hired servants (Mark 1:20), and Salome was one of the women who
followed Jesus in Galilee, and ministered to him. Mark 15:40, 41. From
the order in which he and his brother James are mentioned--James and
John, except Luke 9:28--he is thought to have been the younger of the
two. Early in our Lord's ministry he was called to be one of his
followers; was one of the three who were admitted to special intimacy
with him, they alone being permitted to witness the raising of Jairus'
daughter, the transfiguration, and the agony of Gethsemane (Matt 17:1;
26:37; Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; Luke 8:51; 9:28); and of the three was,
though not first in place, first in the Lord's love and confidence--"the
disciple whom Jesus loved," and to whose tender care he committed his
mother as he was about to expire on the cross. By his natural
endowments, as well as by his loving and confidential intercourse with
the Saviour, he was prepared to receive and afterwards to publish to the
world, those deep and spiritual views of Christ's person and office
which so remarkably characterize his gospel.
So far as we have any notices of John in the Acts of the Apostles and
epistles of Paul, his residence after our Lord's ascension was at
Jerusalem. But, according to the unanimous testimony of antiquity, he
spent the latter part of his life in Ephesus, where he died at a very
advanced age, not far from the close of the first century. The subject
of his banishment to the isle of Patmos will come up in connection with
the Apocalypse.
There is a mass of traditions respecting the latter years of
this apostle, which are, however, of a very uncertain character.
Among the more striking of these are: his being taken to Rome
during the persecution under Domitian, and there thrown into a
caldron of boiling oil, whence he escaped unhurt; his refusal to
remain under the same roof with the heretic Cerinthus, lest it
should fall upon him and crush him; his successful journey on
horseback into the midst of a band of robbers to reclaim a
fallen member of the church who had become their leader; and
especially, that during the last days of his life, he was
customarily carried into the assembly of the church, where he
simply repeated the words: "Little children, love one another."
34. The arguments for the _late composition_ of this gospel--after the
destruction of Jerusalem--have already been given. Chap. 2, No. 14. If
we say between A.D. 70 and 100, it will be as near an approximation to
the time as we can make. The _place_, according to Irenæus (in Eusebius,
Hist. Eccl. 5. 8) was Ephesus, with which statement all that we know of
his later life is in harmony.
35. From the beginning of our Lord's ministry John was, as we have seen,
admitted to his intimate companionship and friendship. He was not
therefore, dependent on tradition. His gospel is the testimony of what
he had himself seen and heard. Yet it covers only a _part_ of the
Saviour's ministry; and the question remains why, with the exception of
the closing scenes of our Lord's life on earth, that part should be to
so remarkable an extent precisely _what the earlier evangelists have
omitted_. In answer to this question it might be said that those actions
and discourses of our Lord which John selected most clearly exhibit his
person and office as the son of God; and that these were especially, (1)
his encounters with the Jewish rulers at Jerusalem, (2) his private
confidential intercourse with his disciples. Whatever weight we may
allow to this consideration, it cannot be regarded as a full explanation
of the difference between John and the other evangelists in the
selection of materials. With the exception of the miracle of the loaves
and fishes and the incidents connected with it (chap. 6:1-21) his
notices of our Lord's ministry in Galilee relate almost entirely to
incidents and discourses omitted by the other evangelists. It is
altogether probable that, although John did not write his gospel simply
as supplementary to the earlier gospels, he yet had reference to them in
the selection of his materials. His own statement: "Many other signs
truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written
in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life
through his name" (chap. 20:30, 31), is not inconsistent with such a
supposition. The "many other signs" he may have omitted, in part at
least, because he judged that a sufficient account of them had been
given by the earlier evangelists, of whose writings, when we consider
the time that in all probability intervened between their composition
and that of his gospel, we cannot suppose him to have been ignorant.
Such a reference to these writings does not in any way exclude the
general design which he had, in common with the earlier evangelists, to
show "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God," through faith in whose
name eternal life is received.
Ancient tradition represents, in a variety of forms, that John
intended to complete the evangelical history, as given by the
other evangelists, in the way of furnishing additional events
and discourses omitted by them. The citations may be seen in
Davidson's Introduct. to New Test., vol. 1, pp. 320-22. Though
the statements of the fathers on this point cannot be accepted
without qualification, there is no valid ground for denying the
general reference above assumed.
36. In writing his gospel John had not a polemical, but a _general end_
in view. It was not his immediate aim to refute the errors and heresies
of his day; but, as he tells us, to show that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God, in order that men, through faith in his name, may have
eternal life. Yet, like every wise and practical writer, he must have
had regard to the state of the churches in his day and the forms of
error by which they were assailed. In the latter part of the apostolic
age the seeds of those heresies which in the following century yielded
such a rank and poisonous harvest, had already begun to be sown. Like
all the heresies which have troubled the Christian church to the present
day, they consisted essentially in false views respecting our Saviour's
person and office. The beloved disciple who followed Jesus through the
whole of his ministry and leaned on his bosom at the last supper, has
given us an authentic record of the Redeemer's words and works, in
which, as in a bright untarnished mirror, we see both the divine dignity
of his person and the true nature of his office as the Redeemer of the
world. Such a record was especially adapted to refute the errors of his
day, as it is those of the present day. It is preëminently the gospel of
our Lord's person. It opens with an account of his divine nature and
eternal coëxistence with the Father; his general office as the creator
of all things, and the source of light and life to all men and his
special office as "the word made flesh," whom the Father sent for the
salvation of the world, and by whom alone the Father is revealed to men.
Equality with the Father in nature, subordination to the Father in
office, union with human nature in the work of redeeming and judging
men, and in all these perfect union with the Father in counsel and
will--such are the great doctrines that run through our Lord's
discussions with the unbelieving Jews, as recorded by this evangelist.
In the same discussions, but more especially in his private confidential
intercourse with his disciples, he adds deep views of his relation to
the world, as the only revealer of God's truth, the only source of
spiritual life, and the only way of access to the Father; and to
believers, as the true vine, through vital union with which they have
life, nourishment, and fruitfulness. He unfolds also more fully than the
other evangelists the office of the Comforter, whom the Father shall
send to make good to the church the loss of his personal presence. Thus
the gospel of John becomes at once an inexhaustible storehouse of
spiritual food for the nourishment of the believer's own soul, and a
divine armory, whence he may draw polished shafts in his warfare against
error. This last record of our Lord's life and teachings owes its
present form, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, partly to the
peculiar character of the writer, and partly to the lateness of the
period when it was composed. In both these respects we ought devoutly to
recognize the superintending providence of him who sees the end from the
beginning.
VI. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
37. The author of the Acts of the Apostles is identical with that of the
third gospel, as we learn from the dedication to the same Theophilus.
Chap. 1:1. Both are ascribed to Luke by the unanimous testimony of the
ancient church. The genuineness of this book, its credibility, and the
time of its composition--about A.D. 63-65--have been already shown.
Chap. 5, Nos. 2-5. It remains to consider its _plan_ and its _office_ in
the system of revelation.
38. In respect to _plan_ this book naturally falls into two main
divisions, the former embracing the first twelve chapters, the latter
the remainder of the work. The _first_ division contains the history of
the apostolic labors after the ascension, _in Jerusalem and from
Jerusalem as a centre_. Here, if we except the events connected with the
martyrdom of Stephen (chs. 6, 7), the conversion of Saul (chap. 9:1-31),
and the Ethiopian eunuch (chap. 8:26-40), _Peter_ everywhere appears as
the chief speaker and actor, being first among the twelve, though
possessing no official authority over them. It is he that proposes the
choice of one to supply the place of Judas, and that is the foremost
speaker on the day of Pentecost, at the gate of the temple, before the
Jewish Sanhedrim, and in the assembly of the church. Chaps. 1:15-22;
2:14-40; 3:4-26; 4:8-12; 5:3-11, 29-32. Associated with him we often
find the apostle John. Chaps. 3:1; 4:13, 19; 8:14. When the Samaritans
are to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, Peter and John are sent to
them from Jerusalem. Chap. 8:14-25. When the gospel is to be carried for
the first time to the Gentiles, Peter is sent by the Holy Ghost to the
house of Cornelius in Cesarea (chap. 10), for which mission he
afterwards vindicates himself before the brethren at Jerusalem. Chap.
11:1-18. Further notices of Peter we have in chaps. 9:32-43; 12:3-19. We
know that the other apostles must have been actively and successfully
employed in prayer and the ministry of the word (chap. 6:4), but it does
not come within the plan of this narrative to give a particular account
of their labors.
The _second_ division is occupied with the history of _Paul's missionary
labors among the Gentiles, from Antioch as a centre_. He had already
been sent from that city with Barnabas to carry alms to the brethren in
Jerusalem and Judea (chaps. 11:27-30; 12:25), when "the Holy Ghost said,
Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called
them;" and they were sent, with fasting and prayer and the solemn laying
on of hands, on their great mission to the Gentiles. Chap. 13:1-3.
Thenceforward the narrative is occupied with an account of the labors of
Paul among the Gentiles. The fifteenth chapter is no exception; for the
convocation of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem was occasioned by
the missionary labors of Paul, and had especial reference to them.
Two cities are mentioned in the New Testament which have the
name of _Antioch_--_Antioch_ of _Pisidia_ so-called, though
situated in the southern part of Phrygia near the border of
Pisidia (Acts 13:14; 14:19, 21; 2 Tim. 3:11); and _Antioch_ of
_Syria_, situated on the southern bank of the Orontes about
fifteen miles from its mouth. Acts 11:19-27; 13:1; 14:26;
15:22-35; 18:22; Gal. 2:11. The latter city was the centre of
Gentile Christianity. It was the metropolis of Syria, the
residence of the Syrian kings, and afterwards the capital of the
Roman provinces in Asia. Here the first Gentile church was
gathered, and the disciples first received the name of
_Christians_. Acts 11:19-26. Hence Barnabas and Saul were sent
to Jerusalem to bear alms (Acts 11:29, 30; 12:25); and
afterwards to consult the apostles and elders at Jerusalem on
the question of imposing the Mosaic law on the Gentile converts.
From this city also the apostle started on his three missionary
journeys, and to it he returned from his first and second
journey. Acts 13:1-3; 14:26; 15:36, 40; 18:22, 23. From the time
that Barnabas first brought the apostle to Antioch (Acts 11:26)
to that of his seizure at Jerusalem and subsequent imprisonment,
most of his time not occupied in missionary journeys was spent
at Antioch. Acts 11:26; 12:25; 14:26-28; 15:30, 35; 18:22, 23.
As _Jerusalem_ was the centre for the apostles of the
circumcision, so was _Antioch_ in Syria for the apostle of the
Gentiles.
39. This brief survey of the plan of this book gives us also an insight
into its _office_. First of all it gives us a fresh and vivid
portraiture of the apostolic labors and the spirit of the apostolic
church, as pervaded and quickened by the presence of the promised
Comforter. On the side of the apostles, we see a boldness and ardor that
no persecution can check, united with simplicity and godly sincerity. On
the side of the brethren, we see a whole-hearted devotion to the
Saviour, under the mighty impulse of faith and love, which opens their
hearts in liberality and causes them to have all things in common. On
the side of both the apostles and the brethren, we see untiring activity
and patient endurance in the Master's service, such as make the
primitive church a bright illustration of the promise: "Thou shalt be
like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail
not. And they that be of thee shall build the old waste places." Isa.
58:11,12. On the side of the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles, on the
contrary, we behold, as ever since, a series of unsuccessful efforts to
hinder the work of God; the very ringleader of the persecutors being
called, in the midst of his heat and fury against Christianity, to be
the "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." Such an authentic record
of apostolic times is of immense value to the church in all ages. It
gives the true standard of enlightened Christian zeal and activity, and
the true exhibition of what constitutes the real strength and prosperity
of the Christian church.
The Acts of the Apostles give also a cursory view of the inauguration of
the Christian church, by the descent of the Holy Spirit in his plenary
influences (chap. 2), by the appointment of deacons (chap. 6), and the
ordination of elders, though these last are only mentioned incidentally
(chaps. 14:23; 20:17), the office being understood of itself from the
usages of the Jewish Synagogue. The scantiness of the information which
we have on this matter of church organization is a part of the wisdom of
the Holy Ghost, and is full of instruction to the church in all ages.
Once more, the Acts of the Apostles give a most interesting and
instructive account of the way in which "the middle wall of partition"
between Jews and Gentiles was gradually broken down. The full import of
the Saviour's last command: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the
gospel to every creature," seems to have been at first but dimly
apprehended by the apostles. For some time their labors were restricted
to their own countrymen. But when, upon the dispersion of the disciples
in the persecution that arose in connection with Stephen's martyrdom,
the gospel had been preached to the Samaritans, the apostles Peter and
John were sent to them, and they in common with the Jews received the
gift of the Holy Spirit. Chap. 8:5-25. This was an intermediate step.
Afterwards Peter was sent among the Gentiles proper, and they also
received the Holy Spirit, to the astonishment of the Jewish brethren who
had accompanied Peter. Chap. 10. The same thing happened also at Antioch
(chap. 11:20), where the true reading is _Hellenas_, _Greeks_, that is,
_Gentiles_, not _Hellenistas_, _Hellenists_. But the work was not yet
finished. It remained that the believing Gentiles should be, by the
solemn and formal judgment of the assembled apostles and elders,
released from the yoke of the Jewish law. Of this we have an account in
the fifteenth chapter. Thus was the demolition of the middle wall of
partition completed. Of the greatness of this work and the formidable
difficulties by which it was beset--difficulties having their ground in
the exclusive spirit of Judaism in connection with the false idea that
the Mosaic law was to remain in force under the Messiah's reign--we who
live so many centuries after its accomplishment can form but a feeble
conception.
40. Brief and imperfect as is the sketch which Luke has given us, it is
sufficient for the instruction of the churches in subsequent ages. God
deals with them not as with children, to whom the command, "Touch not,
taste not, handle not," must continually be repeated; but as with
full-grown men, who need general principles rather than specific and
minute directions. The facts recorded in the Acts of the Apostles are of
a _representative_ character. They embody the spirit of apostolic times,
and the great principles upon which the cause of Christ must ever be
conducted. Fuller information in respect to details might gratify our
curiosity, but it is not necessary for our edification.