THE RESURRECTION, APPEARANCES, AND ASCENSION OF CHRIST
_During forty days beginning with Sunday after the death of Christ.
Spring of A.D. 30 (or 29). Judea and Galilee.[a] Sects. 169-184._
[Footnote a: Of this period we see that he remained at or near Jerusalem
for a week. Then he probably left at once for Galilee (Matt. 28:7; Mark
16:7). In the month that followed we cannot fix the exact time of the
events that occurred in Galilee, but just at the end of the forty days we
find him again in Jerusalem.]
Sect. 169. THE VISIT OF THE WOMEN TO THE TOMB OF JESUS
_They watch the tomb late on the Sabbath (our Saturday afternoon); and
the purchase of spices by them after the Sabbath (after 6 P.M. Saturday)
on the first day of the week._
GOLGOTHA AND BETHANY
Our late Saturday afternoon and early evening
Mark 16:1 |Matt. 28:1
|
| 1 Now late on the sabbath
| day,[a] as it began to dawn
| toward the first _day_ of the
| week, came Mary Magdalene and
| the other Mary to see the
| sepulchre.
1 And when the sabbath was |
past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary |
the _mother_ of James, and |
Salome, bought spices, that |
they might come and anoint him.|
[Footnote a: This phrase once gave much trouble, but the usage of the
vernacular _Koine_ Greek amply justifies the translation. The visit of
the women to inspect the tomb was thus made before the sabbath was over
(before 6 P.M. on Saturday). But the same Greek idiom was occasionally
used in the sense of "after." See Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New
Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 645. The distance from
Bethany to Golgotha was not more than a sabbath day's journey. The spices
could be purchased after sundown either in Bethany or Jerusalem. It must
be borne in mind that the Jewish First Day of the Week began at 6 P.M. on
our Saturday.]
Sect. 170. THE EARTHQUAKE, THE ROLLING AWAY OF THE STONE BY AN ANGEL, AND
THE FRIGHT OF THE ROMAN WATCHERS
Sunday before sunrise
Matt. 28:2-4
2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the
Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and
3 sat upon it. His appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white
4 as snow: and for fear of him the watchers did quake, and became as
dead men.
Sect. 171. THE VISIT OF THE WOMEN TO THE TOMB OF JESUS ABOUT SUNRISE
SUNDAY MORNING AND THE MESSAGE OF THE ANGELS ABOUT THE EMPTY TOMB
Golgotha. Early Sunday morning
Mark 16:2-8 |Matt. 28:5-8 |Luke 24:1-8 |John 20:1
| | |
2 And very early| | 1 But on the | 1 Now on the
on the first | | first day of | first _day_
day of the | | the week, at | of the week
week, they | | early dawn,[a]| cometh Mary
come to the | | they came unto| Magdalene
tomb when the | | the tomb, | early, while
sun was risen.| | bringing the | it was yet
3 And they were | | spices which | dark, unto
saying among | | they had | the tomb,
themselves, | | 2 prepared. And | and seeth
Who shall roll| | they found the| the stone
us away the | | stone rolled | taken away
stone from the| | away from the | from the
door of the | | 3 tomb. And they| tomb.
4 tomb? and | | entered in, |
looking up, | | and found not |
they see that the | | the body [2]of the Lord Jesus.
stone is rolled | | 4 And it came to pass, while
back: for it was | | they were
5 exceeding great. And| 5 And the angel | perplexed
entering into the | answered and said | thereabout,
tomb, they saw a | unto the women, Fear| behold, two men
young man sitting on| not ye: for I know | stood by them in
the right side, | that ye seek Jesus, | dazzling apparel:
arrayed in a white | which hath been | 5 and as they were
robe; and they were | 6 crucified. He is not| affrighted, and
6 amazed. And he saith| here; for he is | bowed down their
unto them, Be not | risen, even as he | faces to the
amazed: ye seek | said. Come, see the | earth, they said
Jesus, the Nazarene,| place [1]where the | unto them, Why
which hath been | 7 Lord lay. And go | seek ye [3]the
crucified: he is | quickly, and tell | living among the
risen; he is not | his disciples, He is| 6 dead? [4]He is not
here: behold, the | risen from the dead;| here, but is
place where they | and lo, he goeth | risen: remember
7 laid him! But go, | before you into | how he spake unto
tell his disciples | Galilee; there shall| you when he was
and Peter, He goeth | ye see him: lo, I | yet in Galilee,
before you into | 8 have told you. And | 7 saying that the
Galilee: there shall| they departed | Son of man must be
ye see him, as he | quickly from the | delivered up into
8 said unto you. And | tomb with fear and | the hands of
they went out, and | great joy, and ran | sinful men, and be
fled from the tomb; | to bring his | crucified, and the
for trembling and | disciples word. | third day rise
astonishment had | | 8 again. And they
come upon them: and | | remembered his
they said nothing to| | words.
any one; for they | |
were afraid. | |
[Footnote 1: Many ancient authorities read _where he lay_.]
[Footnote 2: Some ancient authorities omit _of the Lord Jesus_.]
[Footnote 3: Gr. _him that liveth_.]
[Footnote 4: Some ancient authorities omit _He is not here, but is
risen._]
[Footnote a: So he had already risen at early dawn on the first day of
the week. He was buried (Sect. 167) shortly before sunset on Friday, and
at sunset the sabbath began. So he lay in the tomb a small part of
Friday, all of Saturday, and 10 or 11 hours of Sunday. This corresponds
exactly with the seven times repeated statement that he would or did rise
"on the third day," which _could not possibly_ mean after 72 hours. The
phrase two or three times given, "after three days," naturally denoted
for Jews, as for Greeks and Romans, a whole central day and any part of a
first and third, thus agreeing with "on the third day." Even the "three
days and three nights" of Matt. 12:40 need not, according to known Jewish
usage, mean more than we have described. So these expressions _can_ be
reconciled with "on the third day," and with the facts as recorded, while
"on the third day" _cannot_ mean after 72 hours. See Note 13 at end of
the Harmony for full discussion of the question. There is no real appeal
from the testimony of Luke, who gives the whole period. Luke states that
Jesus was buried just before the sabbath "drew on" (our Friday evening);
that the women rested during the sabbath (our Saturday), and that Jesus
was already risen early Sunday morning when the women came to the tomb.]
Sect. 172. MARY MAGDALENE AND THE OTHER WOMEN REPORT TO THE APOSTLES AND
PETER AND JOHN VISIT THE EMPTY TOMB
Luke 24:9-12 |John 20:2-10
|
9 and returned [1]from the tomb, | 2 She runneth therefore, and
and told all these things to | cometh to Simon Peter, and to
the eleven, and to all the | the other disciple, whom Jesus
10 rest. Now they were Mary | loved, and saith unto them,
Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary| They have taken away the Lord
the _mother_ of James: and the | out of the tomb, and we know
other women with them told | not where they have laid him.
these things unto the apostles.| 3 Peter therefore went forth, and
11 And these words appeared in | the other disciple, and they
their sight as idle talk; and | 4 went toward the tomb. And they
they disbelieved them. | ran both together: and the
| other disciple outran Peter,
12 [2]But Peter arose, and ran | 5 and came first to the tomb; and
into the tomb; and stooping and| stooping and looking in, he
looking in, he seeth the linen | seeth the linen cloths lying;
clothes by themselves; and he | 6 yet entered he not in. Simon
[3]departed to his home, | Peter therefore also cometh,
wondering at that which was | following him, and entered into
come to pass. | the tomb; and he beholdeth the
| 7 linen cloths lying, and the
| napkin, that was upon his head,
| not lying with the linen
| cloths, but rolled up in a
| 8 place by itself. Then entered
| in therefore the other disciple
| also, which came first to the
| tomb, and he saw, and believed.
| 9 For as yet they knew not the
| scripture, that he must rise
|10 again from the dead. So the
| disciples went away again unto
| their own home.
[Footnote 1: Some ancient authorities omit _from the tomb_.]
[Footnote 2: Some ancient authorities omit verse 12.]
[Footnote 3: Or, _departed, wondering with himself_.]
_Five appearances are given as occurring on the day of his resurrection,
and five subsequently during the forty days. The five appearances on this
day were (1) to Mary Magdalene (John and Mark); (2) to other women
(Matthew); (3) to the two going to Emmaus; (4) to Simon Peter (Luke
24:34); (5) to ten apostles and others._
Sect. 173. THE APPEARANCE OF JESUS TO MARY MAGDALENE AND THE MESSAGE TO
THE DISCIPLES
Jerusalem. The first day of the week (Sunday)
Mark 16:9-11 |John 20:11-18
|
|11 But Mary was standing without
| at the tomb weeping: so, as she
| wept, she stooped and looked
|12 into the tomb; and she
| beholdeth two angels in white
| sitting, one at the head, and
| one at the feet, where the body
|13 of Jesus had lain. And they say
| unto her, Woman, why weepest
| thou? She saith unto them,
| Because they have taken away my
| Lord, and I know not where they
9 [1]Now when he was risen |14 have laid him. When she had
early on the first day of the | thus said, she turned herself
week, he appeared first to Mary| back, and beholdeth Jesus
Magdalene, from whom he had | standing, and knew not that it
cast out seven [2]devils. |15 was Jesus. Jesus saith unto
| her, Woman, why weepest thou?
| whom seekest thou? She,
| supposing him to be the
| gardener, saith unto him, Sir,
| if thou hast borne him hence,
| tell me where thou hast laid
| him, and I will take him away.
|16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She
| turneth herself, and saith unto
| him in Hebrew, Rabboni; which
|17 is to say, [3]Master. Jesus
| saith to her, [4]Touch me not;
| for I am not yet ascended unto
| the Father: but go unto my
| brethren, and say to them, I
| ascend unto my Father and your
| Father, and my God and your
10 She went and told them that |18 God. Mary Magdalene cometh and
had been with him, as they | telleth the disciples, I have
mourned and wept. | seen the Lord; and _how that_
| he had said these things unto
11 And they, | her.
when they heard that he was |
alive, and had been seen of |
her, disbelieved. |
[Footnote 1: The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other
authorities, omit from ver. 9 to the end. Some other authorities
have a different ending to the Gospel.]
[Footnote 2: Gr. _demons_.]
[Footnote 3: Or, _Teacher_.]
[Footnote 4: Or, _Take hold not on me._]
Sect. 174. THE APPEARANCE OF JESUS TO THE OTHER WOMEN
Jerusalem. Sunday the first day of the week
Matt. 28:9-10
9 And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and
10 took hold of his feet, and worshipped him. Then saith Jesus unto
them, Fear not: go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee,
and there shall they see me.
Sect. 175. SOME OF THE GUARD REPORT TO THE JEWISH RULERS
Matt 28:11-15
11 Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into
the city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that were
12 come to pass. And when they were assembled with the elders, and
had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13 saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away
14 while we slept. And if this [1]come to the governor's ears, we
15 will persuade him, and rid you of care. So they took the money,
and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad
among the Jews, _and continueth_ until this day.
[Footnote 1: Or, _come to a hearing before the governor_.]
Sect. 176. THE APPEARANCE TO TWO DISCIPLES (CLEOPAS AND ANOTHER) ON THE
WAY TO EMMAUS
Sunday afternoon
Mark 16:12, 13 |Luke 24:13-32
|
12 And after these things he was|13 And behold, two of them were
manifested in another form unto| going that very day to a
two of them, as they walked, on| village named Emmaus, which was
13 their way into the country. And| threescore furlongs from
they went away and told it unto|14 Jerusalem. And they communed
the rest: neither believed they| with each other of all these
them. |15 things which had happened. And
| it came to pass, while they
| communed and questioned
16 together, that Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But
17 their eyes were holden that they should not know him. And he said
unto them, [1]What communications are these that ye have one with
18 another, as ye walk? And they stood still, looking sad. And one of
them, named Cleopas, answering said unto him, [2]Dost thou alone
sojourn in Jerusalem and not know the things which are come to
19 pass there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And
they said unto him, The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which
was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the
20 people: and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him up
21 to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we hoped that it
was he which should redeem Israel. Yea and beside all this, it is
22 now the third day since these things came to pass. Moreover
certain women of our company amazed us, having been early at the
23 tomb; and when they found not his body, they came, saying, that
they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was
24 alive. And certain of them that were with us went to the tomb, and
25 found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. And
he said unto them, O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe
26 [3]in all that the prophets have spoken! Behoved it not the Christ
27 to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning
from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in
28 all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And they drew
nigh unto the village, whither they were going: and he made as
29 though he would go further. And they constrained him, saying,
Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is now far
30 spent. And he went in to abide with them. And it came to pass,
when he had sat down with them to meat, he took the [4]bread, and
31 blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were
32 opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And
they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us,
while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the
scriptures?
[Footnote 1: Gr. _What words are these that ye exchange one with
another?_]
[Footnote 2: Or, _Dost thou sojourn alone in Jerusalem, and
knowest thou not the things._]
[Footnote 3: Or, _after_.]
[Footnote 4: Or, _loaf_.]
Sect. 177. THE REPORT OF THE TWO DISCIPLES AND THE NEWS OF THE APPEARANCE
TO SIMON PETER
Jerusalem. Sunday evening
Luke 24:33-35 |1 Cor. 15:5
|
33 And they rose up that very |
hour, and returned to |
Jerusalem, and found the eleven|
34 gathered together, and them |
that were with them, saying, |
The Lord is risen indeed, and |
35 hath appeared to Simon. And |5 and that he appeared to Cephas.
they rehearsed the things _that|
happened_ in the way, and how |
he was known of them in the |
breaking of the bread. |
Sect. 178. THE APPEARANCE TO THE ASTONISHED DISCIPLES (THOMAS ABSENT)
WITH A COMMISSION AND THEIR FAILURE TO CONVINCE THOMAS
Jerusalem. Sunday evening
Mark 16:14 |Luke 24:36-43 |John 20:19-25
| |
| |19 When therefore it
| | was evening, on
| | that day, the
| | first _day_ of the
| | week, and when the
14 And afterward he |36 And as they spake | doors were shut
was manifested unto | these things, he | where the
the eleven | himself stood in the| disciples were,
themselves as they | midst of them, | for fear of the
sat at meat; | [1]and saith unto | Jews, Jesus came
| them, Peace _be_ | and stood in the
|37 unto you. But they | midst, and saith
| were terrified and | unto them, Peace
| affrighted, and | _be_ unto you.
| supposed that they |
| beheld a spirit. |
and he upbraided | |
them with their | |
unbelief and | |
hardness of heart, | |
because they | |
believed not them | |
which had seen him | |
after he was risen. | |
|38 And he said unto |
| them, Why are ye |
| troubled? and |
| wherefore do |
| reasonings arise in |
|39 your heart? See my |20 And when he had
| hands and my feet, | said this, he
| that it is I myself:| shewed unto them
| handle me, and see; | his hands and his
| for a spirit hath | side.
| not flesh and bones,|
| as ye behold me |
|40 having. [2]And when |
| he had said this, he|
| shewed them his |
| hands and his feet. |
|41 And while they still|
| disbelieved for joy,|
| and wondered, he |
| said unto them, Have|
| ye here anything to |
|42 eat? And they gave |
| him a piece of a |
| broiled fish.[3] And|
| he took it, and did |
| eat before them. |
| | The disciples
| | therefore were
21 glad, when they saw the Lord. Jesus therefore said to them again,
Peace _be_ unto you: as the Father hath sent me, even so send I
22 you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith
23 unto them, Receive ye the [4]Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye
forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever _sins_ ye
retain, they are retained.[a]
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called [5]Didymus, was not with
25 them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him,
We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see
in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the
print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not
believe.
[Footnote 1: Some ancient authorities omit _and saith unto them,
Peace_ be _unto you_.]
[Footnote 2: Some ancient authorities omit ver. 40.]
[Footnote 3: Many ancient authorities add _and a honeycomb_.]
[Footnote 4: Or, _Holy Spirit_.]
[Footnote 5: That is, _Twin_.]
[Footnote a: Of our Lord's final commissions to the apostles and others
(Luke 24:33), this is the first. See a second in Sect. 181, and a third
in Sect. 183.]
Sect. 179. THE APPEARANCE TO THE DISCIPLES THE NEXT SUNDAY NIGHT AND THE
CONVINCING OF THOMAS
Jerusalem
John 20:26-31 |1 Cor. 15:5
|
26 And after eight days again | 5 [and that he appeared to
his disciples were within, and | Cephas;] then to the twelve;
Thomas with them. Jesus cometh,|
the doors being shut, and stood|
27 in the midst, and said, Peace _be_ unto you. Then saith he to
Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach
_hither_ thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless,
28 but believing. Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my
29 God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, [1]thou hast
believed: blessed _are_ they that have not seen, and _yet_ have
believed.
30 Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the
31 disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are
written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.
[Footnote 1: Or, _hast thou believed?_]
Sect. 180. THE APPEARANCE TO SEVEN DISCIPLES BESIDE THE SEA OF
GALILEE.[a] THE MIRACULOUS DRAUGHT OF FISHES
John 21
1 After these things Jesus manifested himself again to the
disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and he manifested _himself_ on
2 this wise. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called
[1]Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the _sons_ of
3 Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. Simon Peter saith unto
them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also come with thee.
They went forth, and entered into the boat; and that night they
4 took nothing. But when day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the
5 beach: howbeit the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus
therefore said unto them, Children, have ye aught to eat? They
6 answered him, No. And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right
side of the boat, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now
7 they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. That
disciple therefore whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the
Lord. So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his
8 coat about him (for he was naked), and cast himself into the sea.
But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not
far from the land, but about two hundred cubits off), dragging the
9 net _full_ of fishes. So when they got out upon the land, they see
[2]a fire of coals there, and [3]fish laid thereon, and [4]bread.
10 Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now taken.
11 Simon Peter therefore went [5]up, and drew the net to land, full
of great fishes, a hundred and fifty and three: and for all there
12 were so many, the net was not rent. Jesus saith unto them, Come
_and_ break your fast. And none of the disciples durst inquire of
13 him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus cometh, and
14 taketh the [6]bread, and giveth them, and the fish likewise. This
is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples,
after he was risen from the dead.
15 So when they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to Simon Peter,
Simon, _son_ of [7]John, [8]lovest thou me more than these? He
saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I [9]love thee. He
16 saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again a second
time, Simon, _son_ of [7]John, [8]lovest thou me? He saith unto
him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I [9]love thee. He saith unto
17 him, Tend my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, _son_
of [7]John, [9]lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said
unto him the third time, [9]Lovest thou me? And he said unto him,
Lord, thou knowest all things; thou [10]knowest that I [9]love
18 thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Verily, verily, I say
unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and
walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou
shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and
19 carry thee whither thou wouldest not. Now this he spake,
signifying by what manner of death he should glorify God. And when
20 he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. Peter, turning
about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also
leaned back on his breast at the supper, and said, Lord, who is he
21 that betrayeth thee? Peter therefore seeing him saith to Jesus,
22 Lord, [11]and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I
will that he tarry till I come, what _is that_ to thee? follow
23 thou me. This saying therefore went forth among the brethren, that
that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, that he
should not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what _is
that_ to thee?
24 This is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and
wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which
if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world
itself would not contain the books that should be written.
[Footnote 1: That is, _Twin_.]
[Footnote 2: Gr. _a fire of charcoal_.]
[Footnote 3: Or, _a fish_.]
[Footnote 4: Or, _a loaf_.]
[Footnote 5: Or, _aboard_.]
[Footnote 6: Or, _loaf_.]
[Footnote 7: Gr. _Joanes_. See ch. 1:42.]
[Footnotes 8, 9: _Love_ in these places represents two different
Greek words.]
[Footnote 10: Or, _perceivest_.]
[Footnote 11: Gr. _and this man, what?_]
[Footnote a: The precise date of this seventh appearance is not known
except that it was after that on the Resurrection Day and before the
Ascension.]
Sect. 181. THE APPEARANCE TO ABOVE FIVE HUNDRED[a] ON AN APPOINTED
MOUNTAIN IN GALILEE, AND A COMMISSION GIVEN
Mark 16:15-18 |Matt. 28:16-20 |1 Cor. 15:6
| |
|16 But the eleven |
| disciples went into |
| Galilee, unto the |
| mountain where |
| Jesus had appointed | 6 then he appeared
|17 them. And when they | to above five
| saw him, they | hundred brethren
| worshipped _him_: | at once, of whom
| but some doubted. | the greater part
|18 And Jesus came to | remain until now,
| them and spake unto | but some are
| them, saying, All | fallen asleep;
| authority hath been |
| given unto me in |
| heaven and on earth.|
15 And he said unto | |
them, Go ye into all|19 Go ye therefore, and|
the world, and | make disciples of |
preach the gospel to| all the nations, |
the whole creation. | baptizing them into |
| the name of the |
| Father and of the |
| Son and of the Holy |
|20 Ghost: teaching them|
| to observe all |
| things whatsoever I |
| commanded you: |
16 He that believeth | |
and is baptized | |
shall be saved; but | |
he that disbelieveth| |
shall be condemned. | |
17 And these signs | |
shall follow them | |
that believe: in my | |
name shall they cast| |
out [3]devils; they | |
shall speak with | |
18 [4]new tongues; they| |
shall take up | |
serpents, and if | |
they drink any | |
deadly thing, it | |
shall in no wise | |
hurt them; they | |
shall lay hands on | |
the sick, and they | |
shall recover. | |
| and lo, I am with |
| you [1]alway, even |
| unto [2]the end of |
| the world. |
[Footnote 1: Gr. _all the days_.]
[Footnote 2: Or, _the consummation of the age_.]
[Footnote 3: Gr. _demons_.]
[Footnote 4: Some ancient authorities omit _new_.]
[Footnote a: The meeting attended by so large a number as stated by Paul
was most probably that which Jesus had appointed (Matt. 28:16), and it
could be held on an appointed mountain without attracting the attention
of unbelievers.--The Commission in Mark may perhaps be reckoned the same
as Matthew's here. A third Commission is given by Luke in Sect. 183. This
is what is called by many the Great Commission.]
Sect. 182. THE APPEARANCE TO JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS
1 Cor. 15:7
7 Then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles.
Sect. 183. THE APPEARANCE TO THE DISCIPLES WITH ANOTHER COMMISSION
Jerusalem
Luke 24:44-49 |Acts 1:3-8
|
44 And he said unto them, These | 3 to whom he also [3]shewed
are my words which I spake unto| himself alive after his passion
you, while I was yet with you, | by many proofs, appearing unto
how that all things must needs | them by the space of forty
be fulfilled, which are written| days, and speaking the things
in the law of Moses, and the | concerning the kingdom of God:
prophets, and the psalms, | 4 and, [4]being assembled together
45 concerning me. Then opened he | with them, he charged them not
their mind, that they might | to depart from Jerusalem, but
46 understand the scriptures; and | to wait for the promise of the
he said unto them, Thus it is | Father, which, _said he_, ye
written [_see Hos. 6:2_], that | 5 heard from me: for John indeed
the Christ should suffer, and | baptized with water; but ye
rise again from the dead the | shall be baptized [5]with the
47 third day; and that repentance | Holy Ghost not many days hence.
[1]and remission of sins should| 6 They therefore, when they were
be preached in his name unto | come together, asked him,
all the [2]nations, beginning | saying, Lord, dost thou at this
48 from Jerusalem. Ye are | time restore the kingdom to
49 witnesses of these things. And | 7 Israel? And he said unto them,
behold, I send forth the | It is not for you to know times
promise of my Father upon you: | or seasons, which the Father
but tarry ye in the city, until| hath [6]set within his own
ye be clothed with power from | 8 authority. But ye shall receive
on high. | power, when the Holy Ghost is
| come upon you: and ye shall be
| my witnesses both in Jerusalem,
| and in all Judea and Samaria,
| and unto the uttermost part of
| the earth.
[Footnote 1: Some ancient authorities read _unto_.]
[Footnote 2: Or, _nations. Beginning from Jerusalem, ye are
witnesses._]
[Footnote 3: Gr. _presented_.]
[Footnote 4: Or, _eating with them_.]
[Footnote 5: Or, _in_.]
[Footnote 6: Or, _appointed by_.]
Sect. 184. THE LAST APPEARANCE AND THE ASCENSION
On Olivet between Jerusalem and Bethany
Mark 16:19, 20 |Luke 24:50-53 |Acts 1:9-12
| |
|50 And he led them |
| out until _they |
| were_ over against |
| Bethany: and he |
| lifted up his hands,|
| and blessed them. |
19 So then the Lord |51 And it came to pass,|
Jesus, after he had | while he blessed | 9 And when he had
spoken unto them, | them, he parted from| said these things,
was received up into| them, [1]and was | as they were
heaven, | carried up into | looking, he was
| heaven. | taken up; and a
| | cloud received him
| | out of their
| | sight.
and sat down| |
at the right hand of| |10 And while they
God. | | were looking
| | stedfastly into
| | heaven as he went,
| | behold two men
| | stood by them in
| | white apparel;
| |11 which also said,
| | Ye men of Galilee,
| | why stand ye
| | looking into
| | heaven? this
| | Jesus, which was
| | received up from
| | you into heaven,
| | shall so come in
| | like manner as ye
| | beheld him going
| | into heaven.
|52 And they |
| [2]worshipped him, |
| and returned to |12 Then returned
| Jerusalem with great| they unto
|53 joy: and were | Jerusalem.
| continually in the |
20 And they went | temple, blessing |
forth, and preached | God. |
everywhere, the Lord| |
working with them, | |
and confirming the | |
word by the signs | |
that followed. Amen.| |
[Footnote 1: Some ancient authorities omit _and was carried up
into heaven_.]
[Footnote 2: Some ancient authorities omit _worshipped him, and_.]
EXPLANATORY NOTES ON POINTS OF SPECIAL DIFFICULTY IN THE HARMONY
_1. About Harmonies of the Gospels_
We do not know how soon an effort was made to combine in one book the
several portrayals of the life of Jesus. Luke in his Gospel (1:1-4)
makes a selection of the material and incorporates data from different
sources, but with the stamp of his own arrangement and style. He
followed, in the main, the order of Mark's Gospel, as is easily seen.
But this method is not what is meant by a harmony of the Gospels, for
the result is a selection from all sorts of material (oral and written),
monographs and longer treatises.
The first known harmony is Tatian's Diatessaron (_dia tessaron_, by
four) in the second century (about 160 A.D.) in the Syriac tongue. It
was long lost, but an Arabic translation has been found and an English
rendering appeared in 1894 by J. Hamlyn Hill. It is plain that Tatian
has blended into one narrative our Four Gospels with a certain amount of
freedom as is shown by Hobson's _The Diatessaron of Tatian and the
Synoptic Problem_ (1904). There have been modern attempts also to
combine into one story the records of the Four Gospels. There is a
superficial advantage in such an effort in the freedom from variations
in the accounts, but the loss is too great for such an arbitrary gain.
The word harmony calls for such an arrangement, but it is not the method
of the best modern harmonies which preserve the differences in material
and style just as they are in the Four Gospels.
In the third century Ammonius arranged the Gospels in four parallel
columns (the _Sections_ of Ammonius). This was an attempt to give a
conspectus of the material in the Gospels side by side. In the fourth
century Eusebius with his _Canons_ and _Sections_ enabled the reader to
see at a glance the parallel passages in the Gospels. The ancients took
a keen interest in this form of study of the Gospels, as Augustine
shows.
Of modern harmonies that by Edward Robinson has had the most influence.
The edition in English appeared in 1845, that in Greek in 1846. Riddle
revised Robinson's Harmony in 1889. There were many others that employed
the Authorized Version, like Clark's, and that divided the life of
Christ according to the feasts.
Broadus (June, 1893) followed Waddy (1887) in the use of the Canterbury
Revision, but was the first to break away from the division by feasts
and to show the historical development in the life of Jesus. Stevens and
Burton followed (December, 1893) Broadus within six months and, like
him, used the Canterbury Revision and had an independent division of the
life of Christ to show the historical unfolding of the events. These two
harmonies have held the field for nearly thirty years for students of
the English Gospels. In 1903 Kerr issued one in the American Standard
Version and James one in the Canterbury Revision (1901).
Harmonies of the Gospels in the Greek continued to appear, like
Tischendorf's (1851, new edition 1891), Wright's _A Synopsis of the
Gospels in Greek_ (1903), Huck's _Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien_
(1892, English translation in 1907), Campbell's _First Three Gospels in
Greek_ (1899), _A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels in Greek_ by Burton
and Goodspeed (1920).
The progress in synoptic criticism emphasized the difference in subject
matter and style between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel as
appears in the works of Huck, Campbell, and Burton and Goodspeed that
give only the Synoptic Gospels. Burton and Goodspeed have also an
English work, _A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels for Historical and
Critical Study_ (1917). In 1917 Sharman (_Records of the Life of Jesus_)
gives first a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels with references to the
Fourth Gospel and then an outline of the Fourth Gospel with references
to the Synoptic Gospels.
Once more in 1919 Van Kirk produced _The Source Book of the Life of
Christ_ which is only a partial harmony, for the parables and speeches
of Jesus are only referred to, not quoted. But he endeavored to show the
results of Gospel criticism in the text of the book. There is much
useful material here for a harmony, but it is not a real harmony that
can be used for the full story of the life of Jesus. Van Kirk, however,
is the first writer to place Mark in the first column instead of
Matthew. I had already done it in my outline before I saw Van Kirk's
book, but his was published first. It is an immense improvement to put
Mark first. The student thus sees that the arrangement of the material
is not arbitrary and whimsical, but orderly and natural. Both Matthew
and Luke follow Mark's order except in the first part of Matthew where
he is topical in the main. John supplements the Synoptic Gospels,
particularly in the Judean (Jerusalem) Ministry.
Slowly, therefore, progress has been made in the harmonies of the
Gospels. But the modern student is able to reproduce the life and words
of Jesus as has not been possible since the first century. It is a
fourfold portrait of Christ that we get, but the whole is infinitely
richer than the picture given by any one of the Four Gospels. The
present Harmony aims to put the student in touch with the results of
modern scholarly research and to focus attention on the actual story in
the Gospels themselves. One may have his own opinion of the Fourth
Gospel, but it is needed in a harmony for completeness.
_2. Synoptic Criticism_
The criticism of the synoptic gospels has been able to reach a broad
general conclusion that is likely to stand the test of time. The reason
for this happy solution lies in the fact that the processes and results
can be tested. It is not mere subjective speculation. Any one who knows
how to weigh evidence can compare Mark, Matthew, and Luke in the
English, and still better in the Greek. The pages of the present harmony
offer proof enough. It is plain as a pikestaff that both our Matthew and
Luke used practically all of Mark and followed his general order of
events. For this reason Mark has been placed first on the pages where
this Gospel appears at all. But another thing is equally clear and that
is that both Matthew and Luke had another source in common because they
each give practically identical matter for much that is not in Mark at
all. This second common source for Matthew and Luke has been called
Logia because it is chiefly discourses. It is sometimes referred to as
"Q", the first letter of the German word _Quelle_ (source).
Unfortunately we do not have the whole of the Logia (Q) before us as in
the case of Mark, though we probably do not possess the original ending
of Mark in 16:9-20. But we can at least reproduce what is preserved.
Still, just as sometimes either Matthew or Luke made use of Mark, so in
the case of the Logia that is probably true. Hence we cannot tell the
precise limits of the Logia. Besides, a small part of Mark is not
employed by either Matthew or Luke and that may be true of the Logia.
But the fact of these two sources for Matthew and Luke seems to be
proven.
But there are various other points to be observed. One is that both
Matthew and Luke may have had various other sources. Luke tells us (Luke
1:1-4) that he made use of "many" such sources, both oral and written.
And a large part of Luke does not appear in the other gospels or at
least similar events and sayings occur in different environments and
times. Hence our solid conclusion must allow freedom and flexibility to
the writers in various ways. We can see for ourselves how Matthew and
Luke handled both Mark and the Logia, each in his own way and with
individual touches of style and purpose.
One other matter calls for attention. Papias is quoted by Eusebius as
saying that Matthew wrote in Hebrew (or Aramaic) whereas our present
Matthew is in Greek. It is now commonly held that the real Matthew
(Levi) wrote the Logia first in Aramaic and that either he or some one
else used that with Mark and other sources for our present Gospel of
Matthew.
It should be added also that there is a considerable body of evidence
for the view that Mark wrote under the influence of Simon Peter and
preserves the vividness and freshness of Peter's own style as an
eyewitness.
One other result has come. It is increasingly admitted that the Logia
was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts
while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the
Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about
A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly. The upshot of these centuries of
synoptic criticism has brought into sharp outline the facts that now
stand out with reasonable clearness. There are many points in dispute
still, but we at least know how the synoptic gospels were written, and
are reasonably certain of the dates and the authors.
There are many good books on the subject, like Hawkin's _Horae
Synopticae_ (second edition), Sanday's _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic
Problem_, Harnack's _Sayings of Jesus_ and his _Date of the Synoptic
Gospels and Acts_. My own views appear in my _Commentary on Matthew_
(Bible for Home and School), _Studies in Mark's Gospel_, and _Luke the
Historian in the Light of Research_.
_3. The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_
It has come to pass that one has to defend the use of the Fourth Gospel
on a par with the Synoptic Gospels. The Johannine problem is an old one
and a difficult one. It cannot be said that modern scholarship has come
to a clear result here, as is true of the Synoptic Gospels. As a matter
of fact, the battle still rages vigorously. There are powerful arguments
on both sides. A mere sketch of the real situation is all that can be
attempted here.
The Gospel and the Epistles are in the same style and can be confidently
affirmed to be by the same author. The Apocalypse has some striking
peculiarities of its own. There are likenesses in vocabulary and idiom
beyond a doubt of a subtle nature, but the grammatical irregularities in
the Book of Revelation have long been a puzzle to those who hold to the
Johannine authorship. A full discussion of these grammatical details can
be found in the leading commentaries on the Apocalypse. A brief survey
is given in my _Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research_. The facts are undisputed and have a most
interesting parallel in the papyri fragments of some of the less
educated writers of the _Koine_ as one can see for himself in Milligan's
_Greek Papyri_ or in any other collection.
There are two solutions of the problem with two alternatives in each
instance. There are those who roundly assert that the same man could not
have written both the Gospel and the Apocalypse. Some of these affirm
that the Apostle John wrote the Apocalypse but not the Gospel. Certainly
a "John" wrote the Revelation or claimed it at any rate. Others of this
group hold that an inferential Presbyter John (not "the elder" in 2 and
3 John) supposed to be meant by Papias wrote the Apocalypse while some
one else wrote the Gospel whether the Apostle John or not.
But a considerable body of scholars still hold that the same man wrote
both the Gospel and the Apocalypse, but a different explanation is
offered by two groups. One class of writers affirm that John wrote the
Apocalypse first before he had come to be at home in the Greek idiom as
we see it in the Gospel and the Epistles. We know that John and Peter
were fishermen and were not considered men of literary training by the
Sanhedrin (Acts 4:14). This explanation is sufficient but for the
further fact that the early date of the Apocalypse (about 70 A.D.) is
not now so generally held to be true. The later or Domitianic date as
given by Irenaeus seems pretty clearly to be correct. So the other group
suggest that the books may belong substantially to the same period (the
Domitianic date) and that the explanation of the grammatical
infelicities in the Apocalypse may be due to the fact that John being on
the Isle of Patmos when he wrote did not have the benefit of friends in
Ephesus who apparently read the Gospel (John 21:24-25). Besides, the
excited state of John's mind because of the visions may have added to
the number of the solecisms in the Apocalypse. This view I personally
hold as probable. The unity of both Gospel and Apocalypse is denied by
some.
So the matter stands as between the Gospel and the Apocalypse. But the
Fourth Gospel has difficulties of its own. These relate in part to the
book in itself. It is true there is a great similarity in language and
style between the narrative parts of the book and the discourses of
Jesus. It is affirmed that the writer has colored the speeches of Jesus
with his own style or even made up the dialogues so that they are
without historical value or at least on a much lower plane than the
Synoptic Gospels as objective history. There is something in this point,
but one must remember that the Synoptic Gospels vary in their manner of
reporting the speeches of Jesus and aim to give the substance rather
than the precise words of the Master in all instances. It is at most a
matter of degree. There is a Johannine type of thought and phrase beyond
a doubt, but curiously enough we have a paragraph in Matthew 11:24-31
and Luke 10:21-23 that is precisely like the Johannine specimens,
written long before the Fourth Gospel. One must remember the versatility
of Jesus, who could not be retained in any one style or mold. But there
are those who admit the Johannine authorship of the Gospel and yet who
refuse to put it on the same plane as the Synoptic Gospels. Every one
must decide for himself on this point. For myself I see too much of
Christ in the Fourth Gospel in the most realistic and dramatic form to
be mere invention. We can enlarge our conception of Christ to make room
for the Fourth Gospel.
But even so it is urged that the Beloved Disciple cannot be the Apostle
John. If not, then the Fourth Gospel ignores the Apostle John,--a very
curious situation. It is a long story for which one must go to the able
books in defense of the Johannine authorship by Ezra Abbott, James
Drummond, W. Sanday, Luthardt, Watkins and many others. The ablest
modern attacks are made by Bacon and Wendt and Schmiedel. My own view is
given in my _The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John_.
_4. The Jesus of History_
It is not long since the cry of "Back to Christ" was raised and away
from Paul and John. Soon this cry was changed to an appeal to the Jesus
of History in opposition to the Christ of Theology. So we had the "Jesus
or Christ" controversy (see the Hibbert Journal Supplement for 1909). It
was gravely affirmed by some that Paul had created the Christ of
Christianity and had permanently altered the simple program of Jesus for
a social Kingdom and had turned it into a great ecclesiastical system
with speculative Christological interpretations quite beyond the range
of the vision of the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels. It was admitted that
the Fourth Gospel, the Apocalypse, and the Epistles all gave the Pauline
view.
To the Synoptic Gospels, therefore, we all went. But the Christ of Paul
and of John is in the Synoptic Gospels. In all essentials the picture is
the same in Luke as in John and Paul. The shading is different, but
Jesus in Luke is the Son of God as well as the Son of Man (see my _Luke
the Historian in the Light of Research_). It was admitted that Matthew
gives the picture of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Mark reflects Peter's
conception of Jesus and gives Jesus as Lord and Christ (see my _Studies
in Mark's Gospel_). And Q (the Logia), the earliest document that we
have for the life of Christ and almost contemporary with the time of
Christ, gives the same essential features of Jesus as the Son of Man and
Son of God (see my article _The Christ of the Logia_ in the Contemporary
Review for August, 1919). The sober results of modern critical research
show the same figure in the very earliest documents that we possess (Q
and Mark's Gospel). The Christ of Paul and of John walks as the Jesus of
History in the Synoptic Gospels. We do know the earthly life of Jesus
much more distinctly and the research of centuries has had a blessed
outcome in the enrichment of our knowledge. Matthew and Luke are the
first critics of the sources for the life of Jesus. We see how they made
use of Mark, the Logia, and other documents. The Fourth Gospel comes
last with knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels.
There are, to be sure, a few men who even deny that Jesus ever lived at
all. That was the next step; but this absurdity has met complete
refutation. The Christ of faith is the Christ of fact. There is no
getting away from the fact of Christ, the chief fact of all the ages,
the centre of all history, the hope of the ages. Jesus Christ we can
still call him, our Lord and Saviour, and he never made such an appeal
to men as he does today in the full blaze of modern historical research.
Men are just beginning to take his words to heart in all the spheres of
human life. The one hope of a new world of righteousness lies precisely
in the program of Jesus Christ for the life of the individual in his
private affairs, in his family relations, in his business and social
dealings, in his political ideals and conduct. And nations must also
follow the leadership of Jesus the supreme Teacher of the race.
The purpose of a harmony is not to teach theology, but to make available
for men of any faith the facts in the Gospels concerning Jesus of
Nazareth. Each interprets these facts and teachings as he sees the
light. We can all acknowledge our debt to modern scholarship for the
tremendous contributions made to a richer understanding of the
environment into which Jesus came and to a juster appreciation of the
real significance of his person and his message. The Gospels are still
the most fascinating books in the world for sheer simplicity and beauty.
One can first trace the picture of Jesus in the Logia, then in Mark, in
Matthew, in Luke, in John. To these he can add the pictures of Christ in
the Acts, the Epistles, the Apocalypse.
_6. The Two Genealogies of Christ_
Sceptics of all ages, from Porphyry and Celsus to Strauss, have urged
the impossibility of reconciling the difficulties in the two accounts of
the descent of Jesus. Even Alford says it is impossible to reconcile
them. But certainly several possible explanations have been suggested.
The chief difficulties will be discussed.
1. In Matthew's list several discrepancies are pointed out.
_(a)_ It is objected that Matthew is mistaken in making three sets of
fourteen each. There are only forty-one names, and this would leave one
set with only thirteen. But does Matthew say he has mentioned forty-two
names? He does say (1:17) that there are three sets of fourteen and
divides them for us himself: "So all the generations from Abraham unto
David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to
Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto
the Christ fourteen generations." The points of division are David and
the captivity; in the one case a man, in the other an event. He counts
David in each of the first two sets, although Jechoniah is counted only
once. David was the connecting link between the patriarchal line and the
royal line. But he does not say "from David to Jechoniah," but "from
David to the carrying away unto Babylon," and Josiah is the last name he
counts before that event. And so the first name after this same event is
Jechoniah. Thus Matthew deliberately counts David in two places to give
symmetry to the division, which made an easy help to the memory.
_(b)_ The omissions in Matthew's list have occasioned some trouble.
These omissions are after Joram, the names of Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah,
and after Josiah, these of Jehoiakim and Eliakim (2 Kings 8:24; 1 Chron.
3:11; 2 Chron. 22:1, 11; 24:27; 2 Kings 23:34; 24:6). But such omissions
were very common in the Old Testament genealogies. See 2 Chron. 22:9.
Here "son of Jehoshaphat" means "grandson of Jehoshaphat." So in Matt.
1:1 Jesus is called the son of David, the son of Abraham. A direct line
of descent is all that it is designed to express. This is all that the
term "begat" necessarily means here. It is a real descent. Whatever
omissions were made for various reasons, would not invalidate the line.
The fact that Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah were the sons of Ahab and
Jezebel would be sufficient ground for omitting them.
_(c)_ Matthew mentions four women in his list, which is contrary to
Jewish custom, viz. Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah. But
neither one is counted in the lists of fourteen, and each one has
something remarkable in her case (Broadus, Comm. on Matt. _in loco_).
Three were guilty of gross sin, and one, Ruth, was of Gentile origin and
deserved mention for that reason. This circumstance would seem to
indicate that Matthew did not simply copy the genealogical history of
Joseph. He did this, omitting what suited his purpose and adding
likewise remarks of his own. His record is thus reliable and yet made a
part of his own story.
2. A comparison of the lists of Matthew and Luke.
If no list had been given by Luke, no further explanations would be
necessary. But Luke not only gives a list, but one radically different
from Matthew's, and in inverse order. Matthew begins with Abraham and
comes to Jesus; Luke begins with Jesus and concludes with Adam [the son
of God]. Several explanations are offered to remove the apparent
contradiction.
_(a)_ As early as Julius Africanus it was suggested that the two lines
had united in accordance with the law of Levirate marriage. By this
theory, Heli and Jacob being stepbrothers, Jacob married Heli's widow
and was the real father of Joseph. Thus both genealogies would be the
descent of Joseph, one the real, the other the legal. This theory is
ably advocated by McClellan, pp. 416 ff., and Waddy, p. xvii. It is
argued that Jechoniah's children were born in captivity and so, being
slaves, lost both his royal dignity and his legal status. Stress is laid
upon the word "begat" to show that Matthew's descent must be the natural
pedigree of Joseph, and upon the use of the expression "son (as was
supposed) of Joseph." Hence both Joseph's real and legal standing are
shown, for by Luke's account he had an undisputed legal title to descend
from David. This is certainly possible, although it rests on the
hypothesis of the Levirate marriage.
_(b)_ Lord Arthur Hervey, in his volume on the Genealogies of Our Lord,
and in Smith's Dictionary, argues that Matthew gives Joseph's legal
descent as successor to the throne of David. According to this theory
Solomon's line failed in Jechoniah (Jer. 22:30) and Shealtiel of
Matthew's line took his place. Luke's account, on the other hand, gives
Joseph's real parentage. Matthew's Matthan and Luke's Mattathias are
identified as one, and the law of Levirate marriage comes into service
with Jacob and Heli. This explanation has received favor with such
writers as Mill, Alford, Wordsworth, Ellicott, Westcott, Fairbairn.
McNeile (on Matthew) considers this the "only possible" view. The chief
objection seems to be the most natural meaning of "begat," implying
direct descent, and the necessity for two suppositions, one about
Shealtiel and another about Jacob and Heli. It is even fairly probable
that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Matthew and Luke are different
persons.
_(c)_ The third and most plausible solution yet suggested makes Matthew
give the real descent of Joseph, and Luke the real descent of Mary.
Several arguments of more or less weight can be adduced for this
hypothesis.
(1) The most natural meaning of "begat" in Matthew is preserved.
Jesus goes through David's royal line and so fulfils prophecy. It is not
elsewhere stated that Mary was of Davidic descent, although presumptive
evidence exists in the language of the angel (Luke 1:32) and the
enrollment of Mary (Luke 2:5). So Robinson (Revised edition).
(2) The use of Joseph without the article, while it is used with every
other name in the list. "The absence of the article puts the name
outside of the genealogical series properly so-called."--Godet. This
would seem to indicate that Joseph belonged to the parenthesis, "as was
supposed." It would read thus, "being son (as was supposed of Joseph) of
Heli." Luke had already clearly stated the manner of Christ's birth, so
that no one would think he was the son of Joseph. Jesus would thus be
Heli's grandson, an allowable meaning of "son." See Andrews' (new
edition) _Life of Our Lord_, p. 63.
(3) It would seem proper that Matthew should give the _legal_ descent of
Jesus, since he wrote chiefly for Jews. This, of course, could only be
through Joseph.
(4) And it would seem equally fitting that Luke should give the _real_
genealogy of Jesus, since he was writing for all. And this could come
only through Mary. If it is objected that a woman's genealogy is never
given, it may be replied that women are mentioned for special reasons in
Matthew's list, though not counted, and that Mary's name is not
mentioned in this list. The genealogy goes back to her father either by
skipping her as suggested above and making son mean the grandson of
Heli, or by allowing Joseph to stand in her place in the list, as he
would have to do anyhow. On the whole, then, this theory seems the most
plausible and pleasing. So practically Luther, Bengel, Olshausen,
Lightfoot, Wieseler, Robinson, Alexander, Godet, Weiss, Andrews (new
edition, p. 65), Broadus, and many recent writers.
But Bacon (Genealogy of Jesus Christ, Hastings D. B. and Am. J. of
Theol. Jan., 1911) says that nearly all writers of authority abandon any
effort to reconcile the two pedigrees of Jesus save as the effort of
Christians to give "His Davidic sonship rather than His actual descent."
See Machen's survey of negative criticism, on the subject in Princeton
Theol. Review (Jan., 1906). Barnard (Hastings D. C. G.) admits two
independent accounts, but sees no solution, but Sweet (Int. St. Bible
Encyl.) accepts the view that Matthew gives the real genealogy of Joseph
and Luke that of Mary. Plummer (Comm. on Luke) thinks it incredible that
Mary's genealogy should be given by Luke.
_6. The Probable Time of the Saviour's Birth_
Every one now understands that the accepted date of our Lord's birth is
wrong by several years. The estimates of the true date vary all the way
from one to seven years B.C. There are various data that fix the year
with more or less certainty, but none of them with absolute precision.
They do, however, agree in marking pretty clearly a narrow limit for
this notable occurrence, B.C. 6 or 5.
1. The death of Herod the Great is relied on with most certainty to fix
the year of Christ's birth. The rule of Archelaus and Antipas demands
B.C. 4. Josephus mentions an eclipse of the moon which occurred shortly
before he died. Ant. XVII, 6, 4. This eclipse is the only one alluded to
by Josephus, and fixes with absolute certainty the time after which the
birth of Jesus could not have occurred, since, according to Matt. 2:1-6,
Jesus was born while Herod was still living. The question to be
determined would be the year of this eclipse. Astronomical calculations
name an eclipse of the moon March 12 and 13, in the year of Rome 750,
and no eclipse occurred the following year that was visible in
Palestine. Josephus (Ant. XVII, 8, 1), says that Herod died thirty-seven
years after he was declared king by the Romans. In 714 he was proclaimed
king, and this would bring his death counting from Nisan to Nisan, as
Josephus usually does, "in the year from 1st Nisan 750 to 1st Nisan 751,
according to Jewish computation, at the age of seventy" (Andrews). Herod
died shortly before the Passover of 750, then, according to the eclipse
and the length of his reign. Caspari contends for January 24, 753, as
the date of Herod's death, because there was a total eclipse of the moon
January 10. So he puts his death fourteen days later. Mr. Page (_New
Light from Old Eclipses_) argues for the eclipse that occurred July 17,
752, as the one preceding Herod's death. He thinks that this makes
unnecessary the subtraction of two years from the reign of Tiberius on
the theory that Tiberius was contemporary ruler with Augustus for two
years. But he finds difficulty in lengthening Herod's reign so long, and
his theory has gained no great acceptance as yet. Our present era makes
the birth of Christ in the year of Rome 754, and is due to the Abbot
Dionysius Exiguus in the Sixth Century. Hence it is clear that if Herod
died in the early spring of 750, Jesus must have been born _at least_
four years before 754, the common era, and likely in the year 749.
2. It has been inferred by some that Jesus was at least two or three
years old when Herod slaughtered the infants in Bethlehem, Matt. 2:16.
Thus the year would be put two years further back to the end of 747 or
beginning of 748. But this is not demanded by the "two years" of
Matthew, for Herod would naturally extend the limit so as to be sure to
include the child in the number slain, and a child just entering the
second year would be called "two years" old by Jewish custom. No more
definite note of time comes from this circumstance, save that the
massacre probably took place some months before Herod's death, which
fact would bring the Saviour's birth back some time into the year 749.
3. The appearance of the "star in the east" (Matt. 2:2). This, of
course, was before Herod's death, and would agree in time with the
slaughter of the children, if the star be looked upon as a supernatural
phenomenon, and not the wise men's interpretation of a natural
conjunction of planets. Kepler first suggested that, as there was a
conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 747, to which Mars was added in
748, this conjunction might have been the bright star that led on the
wise men. See Wieseler, _Synopsis_, p. 57. Kepler had also suggested
that a periodical star or a comet might have joined the constellation.
The Chinese records preserve the account of the appearance of a comet in
the spring of 749. Either of these theories is fascinating in itself,
especially to those minds that prefer a natural explanation of anything
that looks miraculous. Both phenomena are possible in themselves, but
they hardly meet the requirements of the record in Matthew. (1) The word
used is _aster_, star, and not _astron_, a group of stars. (2) Rev. C.
Pritchard, whose calculations have been verified at Greenwich (Smith's
Dic.), has shown that those "planets could never have appeared as one
star, for they never approached each other within double the apparent
diameter of the moon." So Ideler's hypothesis that the wise men all had
weak eyes seems rather feeble. (3) The year 747 would conflict slightly
with other evidence for Christ's birth that favors 749, although
Wieseler, p. 53, note 4, contends that the star first appeared to the
wise men two years before their visit, and a second time on their visit
to Bethlehem. (4) Besides, the star is said to have stood over "where
the young child was," v. 9. If it were a natural star it would have kept
going as they went, and would not have stopped till they stopped. Even
then it would appear as far away as ever from Bethlehem. It seems best,
therefore, to admit the existence of a miracle here, and hence gain
nothing from the visit of the Magi to establish the date of the
Saviour's birth, save that it was not long before the slaughter of the
infants, and would at least agree with the date 749. See Broadus, Comm.
_in loco_.
4. The language of the heavenly host in Luke 2:14 is urged by some as
fixing the birth at a time when there was universal peace throughout the
world. The closing of the temple of Janus in the time of Augustus is
also adduced, but it is not certainly known when it was closed apart
from 725 and 729. It was intended to be closed at the end of 744, but
was delayed on account of trouble among the Daci and Dalmatae. See
Greswell i. 469. Nothing specific can be obtained from this fact, save
that there was a time of comparative quiet in the Roman world from 746
to 752. There was a hush in the clangor of war when Jesus was born.
5. The entrance of John the Baptist upon his ministry gives us another
note of time. See Luke 3:1 f. John emerged from the wilderness seclusion
in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. Augustus died August 29,
767. Adding fifteen years to this, the fifteenth year of Tiberius would
begin August 29, 781. John was of a priestly family and so could
naturally enter upon his work when thirty years of age. Thirty years
subtracted from this gives 751, as the date of John's birth. But that is
too late by two years to agree with the other date. Here, however, the
Roman histories come to our help. Tacitus, Ann. 1, 3: "Tiberius is
adopted by Augustus as his son, and _colleague in empire_." Vell. Pat.
2, 121; "At the request of Augustus, Tiberius was invested with equal
authority in all the provinces." So Suetonius Aug. 97 and Tib. 21. It is
clear, then, that Tiberius reigned jointly with Augustus about two years
before he assumed full control of the empire at the death of Augustus.
Luke could have used either date, but Tiberius' power was already equal
to that of Augustus in the provinces two years before his death. Luke
would naturally use the provincial point of view. Taking off the two
years from the joint reign of Augustus, we again come to the year 749,
as John was born six months before Jesus. So if John was born in the
early part of the spring, Jesus would have been born in the summer or
fall of 749.
6. The age of Jesus at his entrance upon his ministry, Luke 3:23. "And
Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age."
So most modern scholars, taking the language in the obvious sense.
Origen refers it to the beginning of a new life, by the second birth of
baptism, after his spiritualizing fashion. The Authorized Version has
it: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age," applying
the "beginning" to the period of thirty years. McClellan argues that it
means "about thirty years, beginning"; that is, a little the rise of
thirty years. The Revised Version seems to be preferable and the only
doubt would be as to what is included in the phrase "about thirty
years." It has been variously argued that Jesus was from one to three
years younger or older than thirty. It seems more reasonable to give the
words the meaning that he was just about thirty, a few months under or
over. Apparently this fact explains the idiom. The argument that Jesus
had to be exactly thirty years old because the priest had to be so, when
he entered upon his work, has no great force. For Jesus was not a priest
save in a spiritual sense. John had been preaching no great while when
Jesus was baptized by him and so entered upon his public ministry. If
John began his ministry when he was thirty years old in the fifteenth
year of Tiberius, then Jesus's ministry would begin about six months
later. His birth would then come in the latter part of 749, unless John
was born in the latter part of 748, when it would be earlier in the
year.
7. The building of the temple of Herod gives a further clue to the date
of Christ's birth. In John 2:20, the Jews say, "Forty and six years was
this temple in building." Josephus tells us in one place that Herod
began rebuilding the temple in the fifteenth year of his reign, War. I,
21, 1, and in another that he did so in the eighteenth year of his
reign, Ant. XV, 11, 1. In the account of Herod's death, Ant. XVII, 8, 1,
he used two dates for his reign, according as he counted from his
declaration as king by the Romans 714, or the death of Antigonus 717.
Eighteen and fifteen would both be correct, according as he reckoned
from the one date or the other. Eighteen added to forty-six and both to
714 would make 778. It was at the first Passover in his ministry that
this expression is used. It has been probably six months since his
baptism. If thirty and a half years be taken from 778, his birth would
be thrown back to the year 747, unless the forty-six years be taken as
completed, when it would be 748. So Robinson. But this does not quite
agree with the other notes of time we have. Many modern harmonists count
the eighteen years from 717, and so bring the whole number, adding
forty-six, down to 780, or, if the years are complete, 781. Thirty and a
half from this would give the autumn of 749 or 750. This is done because
Josephus usually reckons Herod's reign from the death of Antigonus, 717.
On the whole it seems clear that Josephus is wrong in the War. It is
common enough to find Josephus in one passage contradicting what he has
said elsewhere. The temple was begun the year that the Emperor came to
Syria, as is plain from Josephus. According to Dio Cassius, LIV, 7, this
visit was made in B.C. 20 or 19. Correcting Josephus by himself and by
Dio Cassius we thus again get B.C. 5 as the probable year of the birth
of Christ. See Schuerer, _History of the Jewish People in the Time of
Jesus Christ_, Div. I., Vol. I., p. 410.
8. The census of Augustus Caesar mentioned in Luke 2:1 f., furnishes the
last note of time for this event. This subject is involved in a great
many difficulties, and for a full discussion, the reader is referred to
Ramsay's _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem_, and his _Bearing of Recent
Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament_ (Chap. XX) and to
my _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_. Every statement made
by Luke in 2:1-7 was once challenged. Every one is now shown to be
correct.
(1) It used to be said that no census was ever taken by Augustus, but
heathen writers mention three, in 726, 746, 767. One of these, 746, may
be the one here mentioned, which was delayed for various reasons, or
which was executed slowly in the distant provinces. But it is not
necessary that the phrase "all the world" should be pressed to its
literal meaning, though this is more natural. Nor does the argument from
silence prove that no other general census was taken by Augustus. But
Ramsay has triumphantly vindicated Luke and the general census under
Augustus by proof from the papyri that Augustus inaugurated a periodical
census every fourteen years from B.C. 8 on. The second occurred A.D. 6
(Acts 5:37). See Ramsay's _Was Christ Born at Bethlehem_, and _Bearing
of Recent Discovery on Trustworthiness of the New Testament_ (Chap. XX)
and my _Luke the Historian_ (Chap. XX). We have only to think that there
was delay in the carrying out of the census in Palestine to bring this
date down to B.C. 6 (or even 5).
(2) It is not a "taxing," but an "enrollment" (Rev. Ver.) that was
taken. There was a taxing later (Acts 5:37). And if it were done while
Herod was king, Augustus could not have taxed Judea without Herod's
consent. But Herod was not now in good form with Augustus.
(3) This helps to explain another objection that the enrollment would
not have included Judea anyhow, because it was not yet a province, but a
kingdom. But it is not likely that Herod would have displeased Augustus
by refusing such information if it was desired. Tacitus asserts that the
_regna_, the dependent kingdoms, were included in the census taken by
Augustus.
(4) Hence, also, it is natural that the enrollment should have taken
place according to the Jewish and not according to the usual Roman
method, because Herod would wish it to be in accordance with the customs
of his kingdom. So every one went to his own city. We now know from
numerous papyri that in Egypt the family went to the home city. The Jews
were used to enrollment by tribes and that was allowed. See Deissmann's
_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 268, and Ramsay's _Was Christ Born at
Bethlehem_, p. 108.
(5) We now have to meet the objection that Quirinius was not governor
till ten years later, A.D. 6, when a taxing did occur. (See Acts 5:37.)
It is now possible to give a real solution of this problem. Luke is now
shown to be wholly correct in his statement that Quirinius was twice
governor, and that the first census took place during the first period.
A series of inscriptions in Asia Minor show that Quirinius was governor
of Syria B.C. 10-7 and so twice governor of Syria (second time A.D. 6;
Josephus, Ant. XVIII, 1:1). See Ramsay, _Bearing of Recent Discovery_,
pp. 273-300, and my _Luke the Historian_, pp. 127-9. Tertullian (_adv.
marc._ iv, 19) says that Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria B.C.
9-6. But we now know that Varus was controlling the internal affairs of
Syria while Quirinius was leader of the army. Luke is therefore quite
accurate in his statement about Quirinius being twice governor of Syria.
The _Lapis Tiburtinus_ has _iterum Syriam_ about Quirinius. Ramsay has
cleared up this famous historical puzzle and has completely vindicated
Luke.
Few subjects have excited as much interest, even needless curiosity, as
the date of the birth of the Saviour. But it is noticeable that by the
masses of Christians more interest is taken in the day of Christ's birth
than in the year. The Christmas festivities and the natural desire to
make that the birthday of Jesus cause this widespread interest in
December 25. Not only is it impossible to determine with any degree of
certainty the day of the month, but the time of the year also is equally
uncertain. The chief thing that appears proved is that December 25 is
not the time, since the shepherds would hardly be in the fields at night
with the flocks, which were usually taken into the folds in November and
kept in till March. The nights of December would scarcely allow watching
in the mountain fields even as far south as Bethlehem. And besides, the
long journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem would hardly be made by Joseph
and Mary in winter, the rainy season. McClellan argues for December 25,
but his arguments are not convincing. The ancients had various days for
Christ's birth: May 20 (Clement of Alexandria), April 20, December 25,
January 5. Tertullian and others even say that the day of his birth
(December 25) was kept in the register at Rome. But chronologists attach
little weight to this testimony, since the same tradition puts the birth
of John, June 24; the annunciation of Mary, March 25, and Elizabeth's
conception, September 25--the four cardinal points of the year. If one
might hazard an opinion, it would be that the birth of Jesus occurred in
the summer or early in the fall of 749 or of 748, that is B.C. 6 or 5.
Turner (Chronology, Hastings D. B.) reaches B.C. 6 as the probable year
of the birth of Jesus though he did not have the new light on the census
and on Quirinius which confirms it. Hitchcock (Hastings D. C. G.) saw
the bearing of the periodical census that called for B.C. 7-5, but did
not yet know the discovery about Quirinius. Armstrong (Chronology New
Testament, Int. St. Bible Encycl.) is less certain about the precise
year.
_7. The Feast of John 5:1, and the Duration of Our Lord's Ministry_
It seems almost impossible to decide with certainty what feast is
alluded to in John 5:1. One can only speak with moderation where
everything is so doubtful. Various feasts have been suggested as solving
the problem.
1. The Feast of Dedication has been proposed by Kepler and Petavius. But
this view has met with no great amount of favor, for there is too short
an interval between the first Passover and December, when it occurred.
It might be a later Feast of Dedication, but this feast was not one of
the great feasts and would hardly have drawn Jesus all the way from
Galilee to attend it. He did attend this feast once (John 10:22), but he
was already in Judea at this time, having come up to attend the Feast of
Tabernacles (John 7:2, 14). So Robinson, Clark, etc. So this feast seems
to be ruled out of the question.
2. The Feast of Tabernacles is advocated by Ebrard, Ewald, Patritius. It
is very unlikely that the Feast of Tabernacles after the first Passover
could be meant, as the Saviour did not return to Galilee for some time
afterwards. He could hardly have come back so soon to Jerusalem. But the
Feast of Tabernacles after the Passover of John 6:4 is mentioned later,
John 7:2 f., which Jesus attended, it seems, because he was hindered
from going up to the previous Passover by the murderous designs of the
Jews. It is possible that the feast of John 5:1 may have been the Feast
of Tabernacles after a Passover not mentioned, and so would come after
the second Passover of his public ministry. But we do not know that
Jesus attended any other Feast of Tabernacles save the one in John 7:2,
which he may have done because he missed the preceding Passover.
3. The Feast of Purim, first suggested by Kepler, has had great favor
with modern harmonists, but apparently more on sentimental than on
scholarly grounds. Meyer says, "Without doubt it was Purim." But it is
by no means so certain as Meyer would have us believe. _(a)_ Meyer
relies on John 4:35 and 6:4 to show that this was the Feast of Purim
just before John 6:4. But the expression, "Say not ye, There are yet
four months and then cometh the harvest?" may be, and probably is a
proverbial saying indicating the usual length of time between sowing and
reaping, which, as a matter of fact, was about four months. Hence
nothing can be determined by this note of time. And, besides, the four
months could precede the Passover just as well as Purim, because the
sowing lasted a month or so. _(b)_ The Feast of Purim occurred a month
before the Passover. Is it at all likely that two circuits of all
Galilee were made in the meantime, besides much work of other kinds? See
Luke 8:1 and Matt. 9:35-38. The three general circuits throughout
Galilee, besides the mission of the twelve and a large part of their
training, the general statements about the Master's work of preaching
and healing, require an expansion rather than a contraction of the time
for this period of his ministry. It seems then quite unreasonable, when
once the mind takes in this enlarged conception of the missionary work
of Jesus, as recorded by the Synoptic Gospels, to limit it to the amount
of work mentioned by John, since he omits much of the early ministry,
because, it would seem, the others are so full just here. _(c)_ The
Feast of Purim, moreover, was observed at home in the synagogues, and
not by going to Jerusalem. See Esther 9:22 and Jos. Ant. xi. 6, 13. But
"the multitude" (John 5:13) seems to imply (Robinson) a concourse of
strangers at one of the great festivals. _(d)_ It seems hardly probable,
besides, that Jesus would go to any feast just a month before the
Passover and come back to Galilee and not go to the Passover itself
(John 6:4). Least of all would he do this in the case of Purim. _(e)_
The man who was healed at this feast was healed on the Sabbath (John
5:9), and this occasioned the outburst among the people. But the Feast
of Purim was never celebrated on the Sabbath, and when it came on a
Sabbath it was postponed. See Reland, Antiq. Sacr. 4, 9.
4. Pentecost is held to be the feast here alluded to by many early and
some later writers, such as Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Erasmus,
Calvin, Bengel, etc. Norris makes it the Pentecost after the first
Passover, but to do this, has to crowd into this short interval Christ's
first Judean ministry, the journey through Samaria together with the
first part of his Galilean ministry. So this idea has little weight.
McClellan argues that the allusions of Jesus in John 5:17-47,
"infallibly point to Pentecost," meaning the Pentecost after a second
Passover that is not mentioned. He further contends that this best suits
the chronological arrangement and the term "a feast of the Jews." This
view is certainly possible and cannot be positively disproved, although
it is not so "infallibly" clear as McClellan imagines.
5. The Passover has always met with many adherents, being the second
Passover in the Saviour's ministry and making four in all (John 2:13;
5:1; 6:4; 12:1). An unnamed Passover may exist in the ministry even if
not referred to here. The arguments in favor of this interpretation are
the most satisfactory. We cannot consider them as absolutely conclusive,
yet the Passover meets all sides of the case better than any of the
other feasts. _(a)_ The plucking of ears from standing grain by the
disciples (Luke 6:1) would indicate a time after the Passover and before
Pentecost. This incident appears to have happened after the feast
mentioned in John 5:1. _(b)_ It is fairly implied (John 5:1) that the
feast took Jesus to Jerusalem. The Passover would more likely be the one
to lead him there. It is expressly stated that he attended two Passovers
and a special reason is given for his not attending a third. If there
was another Passover in his ministry, this would naturally be the one.
_(c)_ This suits best the hostility manifested at this feast, which
would have time to become acute (Broadus' Comm. on Matt.) and break out
with increased vigor in Galilee and prevent his attending the next
Passover (John 6:4; 7:1). _(d)_ If this Passover be a second Passover of
the ministry, sufficient time is afforded for the great Galilean
ministry without artificial crowding. His ministry would be long enough
to allow the great work recorded as done by him. Only two serious
objections can be urged to this idea. (1) It is objected that the
article would be used with "feast," if the Passover were thus mentioned
as _the_ feast. But to this we can reply: _(a)_ The article is sometimes
omitted when the Passover is meant (Matt. 27:15; Mark 15:6). _(b)_ The
absence of the article proves nothing whatever one way or the other. No
conclusion can be drawn for or against the idea of the Passover. _(c)_
The article does occur in many manuscripts, including the Sinaitic, and
is put in the margin of the Revised Version. So nothing can be gained
against this theory here. (2) The chief objection is that Jesus would
not have remained so long away from Jerusalem, a year and six months,
from the Second Passover till the Feast of Tabernacles after the Third
Passover. But _(a)_ we do not know that he did not attend any other
feast in that time, for silence proves nothing; and _(b)_ a good reason
is given for his failure to attend the Third Passover, which may have
applied to the others, if he did not go, _viz._, the desire of the Jews
to kill him (John 7:1).
Hence it is natural that there should be a variety of opinions as to the
length of the Saviour's ministry, varying all the way from one to four
years, leaving out mere guesses based on five and more Passovers.
McKnight argues that the ministry may have lasted five or more full
years, since all the Passovers of Christ's ministry may not be
mentioned.
(1) The _Bi-paschal_ theory makes the time of the public life of Jesus
one year, allowing only two Passovers to the Gospel of John. Browne in
his _Ordo Saeclorum_ advocates this view. But the words, "the Passover,"
in John 6:4 must be omitted, and for this there is not enough
documentary evidence. If this could be done, Westcott thinks Browne
would make out a good case. But with the present text, his view cannot
be entertained.
(2) The _Tri-paschal_ theory finds only three Passovers in the life of
Christ. Hence the public work of Jesus would be from two to two and a
half years in length. This view is quite possible, as is shown in the
Harmony. These writers usually make the feast of John 5:1 Purim before
the Passover of John 6:4, or Pentecost after it.
(3) The _Quadri-paschal_ theory contends for four Passovers and a
ministry of from three to three and a half years. This theory follows
from making John 5:1 a Passover or Purim before or Pentecost or
Tabernacles after an unnamed Passover. This seems to be the more
probable length of the Saviour's public work on earth. How short a space
was even this to compass such a marvellous work. The ministry of Jesus
seems crowded beyond our comprehension. It would be certain that the
Saviour's public life lasted about three years and a half, if it was
admitted that John 5:1 referred to a Passover. Various writers seek to
find an allusion to the three years of the Saviour's ministry in the
Parable of the Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6), but this application of the
parable is by no means certain, since three might naturally be used as a
round number. But there can very well have been a passover not
mentioned. All we can say is that we know that the ministry of Jesus was
two and a half years in length with the probability of three and a half.
_8. The Four Lists of the Twelve Apostles_
It is interesting to compare the four lists of Jesus' chosen apostles as
given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts.
Mark 3:16 f. Matthew 10:2 f. Luke 6:14 f. Acts 1:13 f.
1. Simon Peter Simon Peter Simon Peter Simon Peter
2. James Andrew Andrew James
3. John James James John
4. Andrew John John Andrew
5. Philip Philip Philip Philip
6. Bartholomew Bartholomew Bartholomew Thomas
7. Matthew Thomas Matthew Bartholomew
8. Thomas Matthew Thomas Matthew
9. James the son James the son James the son James the son
of Alpheus of Alpheus of Alpheus of Alpheus
10. Thaddeus Thaddeus Simon the Zealot Simon the Zealot
11. Simon the Simon the Judas the Judas the
Cananaean Cananaean brother of brother of
James James
12. Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot
Let us examine the names here given.
(1) The lists are given some time after the selection was made, and
hence represent a later grouping according to later developments in this
inner circle. The primacy of Peter in these lists does not mean
necessarily that he was the acknowledged leader at first. See discussion
under (4) below. The point to note here is that we are not to think of
Peter as the formal leader of the Twelve before the death of Christ.
Jesus was himself that leader.
(2) One mark of an apostle was that he should have been with the Lord
from the baptism of John until the day that he was received up (Acts
1:21 f.). Perhaps no great stress is to be laid on any exact time here,
provided it began in the time of John. An apostle must know the Lord.
Hence Paul received the vision of Christ. We have some knowledge of
seven of these apostles before this time. If we infer from John 1:41
that John followed the example of Andrew in finding his own brother, it
was not long till James was a disciple as well as John, Andrew, and
Peter. Philip and Nathanael are soon added to the list (John 1:43 f.).
Later Matthew hears the call of the Saviour, too (Matt. 9:9; Mark 2:13
f). Of the other five we have no knowledge previous to this occasion.
Jesus had "found" them by the same insight that led to his other
selections. He chose Judas, though knowing that he was a devil.
(3) Observe the three groups of four, headed by Simon Peter, Philip, and
James the son of Alpheus, respectively. The great variety in the
arrangement of the other names makes this uniformity significant. It
seems clear that there are three recognized groups among the apostles
(Bengel, Broadus, Clark). Each group has the same persons in every list,
although there is such a variety in the order. In the first group
Matthew and Luke have the same order, while Mark and Acts agree. In the
second group Mark and Luke have a like order, while Matthew and Acts
agree in putting Matthew at the end of this group. In the third group
Matthew and Mark agree exactly, while Luke and Acts are identical save
the dropping out of Judas Iscariot from the list in Acts because of his
apostasy and death. No great importance can be attached to the precise
order within the groups since Luke, in the Gospel and Acts, gives a
different arrangement in the first and second groups.
(4) Observe also that Simon Peter not only stands at the head of his
group, but at the head of all the groups, while Judas Iscariot is always
at the bottom till he drops out entirely. Simon finally occupied a
position of precedence of some sort. He was one of the inner circle of
three that was so close to the Saviour's heart. Perhaps it was this,
rather than any notion of primacy in authority or power. He was the
spokesman because of his natural impetuosity. The question as to who
should be greatest among the apostles illustrates the spirit of rivalry
about precedence that existed among them. In the October, 1916, Journal
of Theol. Studies, Dr. A. Wright argues that the critical text in Mark
14:10 means "Judas Iscariot the first of the Twelve." The _Koine_ did
sometimes use _heis_ as an ordinal (see Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 96,
and my _Grammar of the Greek New Testament_, pp. 671 f.). But the
disputes among the Twelve show that they themselves considered Jesus
only as leader till his death. See my article on "The Primacy of Judas
Iscariot," the Expositor (London) for April, 1917, and one by Rendel
Harris in the June, 1917, issue, and Wright's reply in the November,
1917, number.
(5) There are among the Twelve three pairs of brothers--Simon and
Andrew, James and John, James the son of Alpheus and Judas the brother
of James. The first two pairs form the first group of the Twelve. It is,
however, uncertain whether Judas is the brother or the son of James. The
Greek is ambiguous, James's Judas. The Revised Version translated it
"Judas son of James," but the Epistle of Jude begins "Judas a servant of
Jesus Christ and brother of James." But the Jude of the Epistle and the
Judas of the Twelve were hardly the same. Cf. Broadus, Comm. on Matt.,
p. 216.
(6) There are some apparent discrepancies in the names in the various
lists. Bartholomew occurs in every list, but is generally understood to
be another name for Nathanael. Thaddeus is also called Judas the brother
of James. Matthew and Mark give Thaddeus, and Luke in Gospel and Acts
gives Judas the brother of James. It was a very common circumstance for
one to have two names. Lebbeus, given in some MSS. in Matthew and Mark,
is only a marginal explanation of Thaddeus. Both are terms of
endearment. Matthew and Mark again call Simon the Cananaean, while Luke
in the Gospel and Acts speaks of him as Simon the Zealot. But "Zealot"
is simply a translation into Greek of the Aramaic "Cananaean." Jesus
gave the other Simon the name "Cephas," which was translated into the
Greek "Peter," meaning rock. He is called by all three names in the New
Testament. Matthew likewise had another name, Levi, and Thomas was also
called Didymus, which was a Greek translation of Thomas, meaning "twin."
_9. The Sermon on the Mount_
Do Matthew and Luke record the same discourse? Let us consider the
several theories on this subject. My own view will be stated last.
1. Some hold that the two discourses are entirely distinct in time,
place, circumstances and audience. The arguments for this theory usually
presented are these.