Matthew gives the sermon before his call (Matt. 9:9), while Luke
precedes his sermon by the call of the twelve. Hence Matthew's discourse
comes quite a while before Luke's in the early Galilean ministry. But it
may be well replied that, inasmuch as Matthew's arrangement in ch. 8-13
is not chronological, but topical, it is entirely possible, even likely,
that the same arrangement should prevail in ch. 5-7. It is perfectly
natural that Matthew, writing for Jewish readers and about the Messianic
reign, should give at the beginning of his account of that reign the
formal principles that rule in this new state of affairs, as proclaimed
by Jesus on a later occasion. In the early part of the ministry of
Jesus, besides, the hearers would hardly be prepared for so advanced and
radical ideas. Besides, Matthew makes no note of time whatever for this
discourse.
_(b)_ The place appears to be different. One is on a mountain (Matt.
5:1), while the other is on a plain (Luke 6:17). Hence the one is called
by Clark the Sermon on the Mount, and the other the Sermon on the Plain.
Miller (Int. Stand. Bible Encyclopaedia) is uncertain whether Matthew
and Luke report the same discourse and so discusses also Luke's "Sermon
on the Plain." But his argument is not convincing. If it is necessary
that "plain" here shall mean a place away from a mountain, down in a
valley, this would seem to refer to a different place. McClellan seeks
to show that Luke uses "and" in 6:17-20 by way of anticipation. He
presents for effective grouping events that happened after Jesus came
down out of the mountain before he gives the sermon delivered to the
whole body of disciples up in the mountain. This is possible, but
another interpretation is much more likely. The plain here is really
simply "a level place" (Rev. Ver.). So then the two accounts of Matthew
and Luke will harmonize quite well. Jesus first went up into the
mountain to pray (Luke 6:12) and selected and instructed the Twelve.
Afterwards he came down to a level place on the mountain side whither
the crowds had gathered, and stood there and wrought miracles (Luke
6:17). He then went up a little higher into the mountain where he could
sit down and see and teach the multitudes (Matt. 5:1). Matthew gives the
multitudes as the reason for his going up into the mountain. By this
arrangement any discrepancy between "sat" in Matthew and "stood" in Luke
disappears. Waddy has given an admirable arrangement of the material at
this point in Note C, p. xix. Many writers affirm that the tradition
mentioned by Jerome, making the Horns of Hattin the place where the
Sermon on the Mount was delivered, suits this explanation exactly. There
is a level place on it where the crowds could have assembled. It is not
necessary to insist that this mountain is the Mount of Beatitudes, nor
need we contend, as Robinson does, that the mountain must be very close
to Capernaum.
_(c)_ The audience is different. Matthew (4:25) states that his audience
was composed of "great multitudes from Galilee and Decapolis and
Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond Jordan," while Luke (6:17) says that
there was "a great multitude of his disciples, and a great number of the
people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea coast of Tyre and
Sidon." Matthew says (5:1) also that "his disciples came unto him."
Hence both assemblages were composed of great multitudes from many
regions besides many of his disciples, but in neither case is Jesus said
to address himself to any save his disciples, his followers (Matt. 5:1
and Luke 6:20). So in both accounts the Saviour seems to withdraw a
little from the great outside crowd of curiosity seekers. But the
multitudes also must have heard something of what he said, for they were
astonished at his teaching (Matt. 7:28). Andrews well shows that the
audience in Matthew were not mostly Jews (according to Kraft), and the
audience in Luke mostly heathen. Matthew omits Tyre and Sidon, but he
had already mentioned Syria (4:24), which includes Tyre and Sidon.
Neither list may be complete. Hence nothing can be made out of Luke's
omission of Galilee, Decapolis, and beyond Jordan. Great multitudes from
the same general regions are alluded to as being present.
_(d)_ The contents are radically different. It is objected by Alford,
Greswell, etc., that Luke omits large portions of what Matthew has so
that Luke has only thirty verses, while Matthew has one hundred and
seven. But this leaves out of consideration the several large portions
of the same matter which Luke has placed elsewhere, or which Jesus
repeated on other occasions (cf. Matt. 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4; Matt.
6:25-34 and Luke 12:22-31). Jesus often repeated his sayings on other
occasions as all teachers do and ought to do. Neither evangelist gives a
complete report of this wonderful discourse. So Matthew omits some
things which Luke records (cf. Matt. 5:12 with Luke 6:23-6; Matt. 7:12
with Luke 6:31-40). Nor need we be surprised that Luke, writing
generally for all Christians, omits large portions towards the beginning
of the sermon that were designed especially for Jews (see Matt. 5:17-27;
6:1-18). These Matthew would be sure to record. Luke adds four woes to
the beatitudes. It is unnecessary to remark upon minor variations of
language, since the gospels manifestly aim to give the sense of what the
Saviour said and not the _verbatim_ words. The variations in the
Synoptic reports of the sayings of Jesus add much to the interest of the
narratives. Moreover, to offset these variations, which admit of
explanation, it ought to be remembered that the two discourses begin
alike and end alike, that they have a general similarity in the order of
the different parts, and that they show a general likeness and often
absolute identity of expression.
So these differences all melt away on careful comparison, and it is not
proved that there are two distinct sermons.
2. Another theory holds that the two sermons are distinct, but spoken on
the same day, and near together. So Augustine, who is followed by Lange.
The further points of this theory are two. _(a)_ The one (Matt.) was
spoken before the choice of the Apostles, to the disciples alone, and
while Jesus was sitting on the mountain. _(b)_ The other (Luke) was
spoken after the choice of the Apostles, to the multitudes, and standing
upon the plain. It is not hard to see that these points do not solve the
question. In Matt. 7:28 we are told that the multitudes were astonished
at his teaching and in Luke 6:20 that "he lifted up his eyes on his
disciples, and said." So this distinction vanishes. The question of the
mountain and the plain has been already discussed, and another more
probable explanation suggested. It is only a conjecture that the
discourse of Matthew was before the appointment of the Twelve. This
theory has had no great following.
3. Wieseler holds that Matthew has simply brought together detached
sayings of Jesus on different occasions and does not mean to present the
whole as one discourse; Luke's account being only one of the discourses
used by Matthew. But this violates the evident notes of place and
audience and surroundings by which Matthew gives local color and cast to
the entire discourse. See Matt. 5:1 and 8:1. The case of the grouping of
the miracles in chapters 8 and 9 is not parallel, since there Matthew
does not state that they occurred on one occasion. The fact that various
portions of this discourse are repeated elsewhere by Matthew is
immaterial, because this was a common habit of Jesus in his discourses.
Votaw in his exhaustive and able discussion of the Sermon on the Mount
in the extra volume in the Hastings D. B. admits the possibility of this
hypothesis, but considers it far less probable than the historical
reality of the Sermon as recorded by both Matthew and Luke. Moffatt
(Encycl. Biblica) considers it "a composition rather than an actual
address," while Bacon (Sermon on the Mount) admits only what is also in
Luke. Adeney (Hastings D. C. G.) holds to the essential integrity of the
address in Matthew.
4. Both Matthew and Luke give substantially similar accounts of the same
discourse. In that case we have a good illustration of the use of the
Logia in Matthew and Luke. Most of the arguments for this interpretation
have been mentioned in rebuttal of the previously mentioned theories.
_(a)_ This is the most natural explanation in view of the large volume
of similar matter in both, in the beginning, progress, and close of the
discourse. It is always best to give the Scripture the most natural and
manifest setting, when possible. _(b)_ This theory is the most probable
one, since it is hardly likely that Jesus would again make the same
sermon to the same audience, and under the same circumstances. _(c)_
There are no objections to this theory that do not admit of a probable
explanation. See the discussion above. The omissions and additions in
each case suit the specific purpose of the writer. The apparent
contradictions, when studied carefully, blend into a harmonious whole.
Hence we seem to be justified in maintaining the identity of the
discourses recorded by Matthew and Luke. For a careful outline of this
matchless discourse see Broadus on Matthew. Stalker, _The Ethics of
Jesus_, has a very able exposition of the teaching.
_10. The Combination of Luke and John_
We now have to deal with the most perplexing question in harmonistic
study, the proper disposal of the mass of material furnished by Luke in
9:51-18:14. McClellan discusses ten schemes, pushes them all aside, and
then suggests another which is no more convincing and equally
complicated. Nothing can be attempted here but a presentation of the
chief points in this endless discussion. All the principal plans for
arranging this part of Luke proceed on one or the other of the following
ideas:
1. Some hold that this portion of Luke is neither orderly nor
chronological. Hence many of the incidents, here recorded as apparently
belonging to the last six months of the Saviour's ministry, in reality
are to be placed earlier. They are put here as a sort of summing up of
things not mentioned elsewhere. So Robinson and others. In favor of this
theory it is urged that Luke here speaks of some things that Matthew and
Mark put before the third Passover, such as the healing of a demoniac
(Luke 11:14-36) and the blasphemy following. But it may be well replied.
_(a)_ It is not at all clear that we have here the same events that are
recorded in Matthew and Mark. Similar miracles were often wrought in the
Master's work and similar sayings were frequently repeated on similar or
different occasions. This was a common habit with him, as we have
heretofore seen.
_(b)_ This portion of Luke is his distinctive contribution to the
ministry of Christ in addition to his account of the nativity. He has
condensed his account of the withdrawals from Galilee, apparently to
make room for the description of another part of Christ's work. Matthew
and Mark almost confine themselves to the ministry in Galilee, while
Luke thus devotes the bulk of his narrative to what seems to be a later
ministry, after Jesus has left Galilee. It is hardly likely that this
account should be a mere jumble of scattered details.
_(c)_ Especially is this unlikely in view of Luke's express statement
(1:3) that he was going to write an orderly narrative. In no real sense
could this be true, if this large section is dislocated in time and
order of events.
2. Others refer the entire narrative (Luke 9:51-18:14) to the last
journey of the Saviour to Jerusalem to the Passover and see a triple
reference to the same journey arguing for triplications in Luke. Others
prefer to understand it as meaning the journey to the Feast of the
Tabernacles or Dedication. Some would combine this idea with the
unchronological plan noticed above. In favor of this journey being
continuous and the last one to Jerusalem, the following arguments are
adduced:
_(a)_ The language of Luke 9:51, "when the days were being completed
that he should be received up," implies that the end was drawing near,
and that he was setting his face towards Jerusalem to meet it. This is
true without doubt, for Wieseler's interpretation of "received up" as
meaning Christ's reception by man is entirely too forced. The expression
points to the end of Christ's earthly career. But what does the vague
expression, "the days were being completed," mean? Does it have to mean
only a few weeks? May it not include as much as six months? For we know
that Jesus had been instructing his disciples on this very subject
expressly and pointedly, and at the Transfiguration he had spoken of his
"decease." Henceforward this was the uppermost subject in his mind. So
the interpretation is correct, but the inference is not necessary. This
journey in Luke 9:51 need not be either just before the Passover or the
Dedication. It could be as early as Tabernacles and be thus described.
_(b)_ It is insisted that this is Jesus' final departure from Galilee,
the one described by Matthew and Mark. No place is allowed for a return
to Galilee after the departure in Luke 9:51. Robinson urges that Luke
9:51 naturally means a final departure from Galilee. But it may simply
mean that he left it as a sphere of activity, not that he never entered
Galilee again. And then Luke 17:11 expressly says that Jesus went
"through the midst of Samaria and Galilee." This means more than going
on the border between the two countries, as McClellan argues. He went
through some portions of Samaria and Galilee. In order for McClellan to
carry out his scheme he has to resort to the artificial device of
referring part of John 10:40 to the departure from Galilee, and the
other half to the Perean ministry after a diversion of considerable
length into Samaria and back into Galilee. So the effort is not
convincing to place all the material in this large section of Luke in
one last journey to Jerusalem.
3. The combination of Luke's narrative with that of John. Wieseler was
the first to point out a possible parallel between Luke and John. John
gives us three journeys,--the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2 ff.), the
journey to Bethany at the raising of Lazarus (John 11:17 f.), the final
Passover (John 12:1). Luke likewise three times in this section speaks
of Jesus going to Jerusalem, 9:51; 13:22; 17:11. Hence it would seem
possible, even probable, that their journeys corresponded. If so, John
7:2-11:54 is to be taken as parallel to Luke 9:51-18:14. This plan is
followed by various modern scholars.
According to John's chronology, Jesus was in Jerusalem at the Feast of
Tabernacles (7:2), at the Feast of Dedication (10:22), and at the
Passover (12:1). Just after the Feast of the Dedication we find him
abiding beyond Jordan, where John had baptized (John 10:40). From this
point he comes to Bethany near Jerusalem at the raising of Lazarus (John
11:17), whence he withdraws to a little town called Ephraim in the hills
north of Jerusalem (John 11:54). Here he abides awhile with his
disciples away from his enemies till he goes to the Passover. Such is
John's outline of these last six months of the Saviour's life.
_(a)_ But how is all this to be reconciled with the statement of Luke
(17:11) that Jesus went through Samaria and Galilee? If Jesus went back
to Galilee, John would have mentioned it, we are told. Not necessarily,
not unless it fell in with his plan to do so. Hence no conflict need
exist between Luke and John. Luke says he went through Galilee and John
permits it by the break in his narrative at 11:54. Various points in the
six months have been suggested as the point when the return to Galilee
was made. The most natural point is from Ephraim, whither he had
withdrawn (John 11:54). It was not far to go up through Samaria and join
in Galilee (Luke 17:11) the pilgrims from his own country who were in
the habit of going to the Passover through Perea, to avoid passing
through Samaria. This supposition is not improbable, as Robinson and
McClellan urge, but very natural; it makes Luke and John both agree, and
allows Luke 9:51 to mean that Jesus then left Galilee as a field of
operations. Various other theories are suggested for this return to
Galilee, but none of them appear as fitting as this one. It was just
before the Passover, when such a journey from Galilee to Jerusalem would
be made.
_(b)_ One other point needs to be considered. The theory we hold makes
the journey in Luke 9:51 identical with the one in John 7:2-10, _viz._,
to Tabernacles. Many hold such identity to be impossible because of
apparent contradictions in the narratives. Andrews makes three
objections against this identity: (1) That the Lord refused to go with
his brethren (John 7:6). But it was his brothers who were not favorable
to him that he refused to go with. He simply wished to avoid publicity.
His face was set (Luke 9:51) all the time, but he was not going with
them. (2) That the manner of the going is unlike; the one in John is
secret, while the one in Luke is public. But the secrecy in John may
merely mean the avoidance of the caravan routes and so through Samaria
(Luke). The messengers sent before were not to herald his coming to
gather crowds simply, but to make ready for him. It was needed, since
the Samaritans saw that his face was as if he were going to Jerusalem.
(3) That he went rapidly according to John and slowly according to Luke.
He does, according to John, appear in Jerusalem before the feast is
over, but Luke does not make him move slowly. Nor is it necessary to
connect the sending of the seventy (Luke 10:1 ff.) with this journey. It
belongs rather to the interval between Tabernacles and Dedication. So
the secret going of John and the going through Samaria of Luke agree.
John explains, 7:10, that Jesus rejected the advice of his brothers.
This theory is held irrespective of this being the final departure from
Galilee. It is not necessary to fill out every detail in this programme
and show where Jesus was between Tabernacles and Dedication. The main
outlines remain clear and harmonious and are fairly satisfactory. This
combination of Luke and John preserves the integrity of both narratives
and fills up a large blank that would otherwise exist in these closing
months of the Saviour's life. Upon the whole, therefore, this view seems
decidedly preferable, though nothing like absolute certainty can be
claimed in regard to the question.
We do not know what special source Luke had for 9:51-18:14. Some of it
may have come from the Logia (Q). Hawkins (_Oxford Studies_, pp. 55 ff.)
calls it "the Travel Document." Burton _(Some Principles of Literary
Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem)_ suggests "The
Peraean Document" and thinks that Luke may have drafted it early out of
oral material. But at any rate it is a great and characteristic portion
of his Gospel and adds greatly to our knowledge of Christ.
_11. Did Christ Eat the Passover?_
To put this question in another form, it would be, On what day of the
month was Jesus crucified? For the crucifixion occurred on the same
Jewish day as the eating of the meal recorded by all four Evangelists.
Nearly all agree that the crucifixion occurred on Friday and the meal
was eaten the evening before, our Thursday, but the beginning of the
Jewish day, counting from sunset to sunset. But what day of the month
was it? The Passover feast began on the 15th Nisan, the lamb being slain
in the afternoon of the 14th. But the day of the week would vary with
the new moon. If Jesus ate the regular Passover supper, he was crucified
on the 15th Nisan. If he ate an anticipatory meal a day in advance and
was himself slain at the hour of killing the paschal lamb, he was
crucified on the 14th Nisan. In that case he did not really eat the
Passover supper at all. So then we must seek to determine the truth
about this matter, because express statements are made about it in the
Gospels.
1. Some sentimental views of the question need to be disposed of first.
A great controversy once raged in the early churches about the Passover.
_(a)_ In the latter part of the second century some of the churches of
Asia Minor, largely composed of Jewish Christians, kept up the Passover
on the ground that Jesus had eaten it the night before his crucifixion.
Polycarp, the disciple of John, expresses the persuasion that Jesus ate
the Passover.
_(b)_ But some of the churches were afraid of this example and its
application to the discussion about the relation of the Mosaic laws to
Christianity. So they took the position that Jesus did not eat the
Passover himself, but as the Paschal Lamb, was crucified at the time the
lamb was slain. He was our Passover. The Greek churches now hold this
position, while the Latin churches hold that Jesus ate the Passover. But
those arguments are purely subjective and do not affect the question of
fact. Hence we waive this old-time controversy and come to the testimony
of the Gospels themselves.
2. The testimony of the Synoptists, Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The
evidence they give is abundant and explicit to the effect that Jesus ate
the regular Paschal Supper on the evening after the 14th Nisan.
_(a)_ Jesus predicted that his death would occur during the Feast of the
Passover. See Matthew 26:2, "Ye know that after two days the Passover
cometh, and the Son of Man is delivered up to be crucified." See also
Mark 14:1 and Luke 22:1, where the fact is alluded to. Passover is used
in the general sense of the feast of unleavened bread, as Luke explains.
The feast of unleavened bread followed the Passover meal, beginning the
next morning and lasting a week. But the one term was used to include
the other. The Passover was expanded to mean the entire feast that
followed, and _vice versa_.
_(b)_ It is true that the Jewish authorities decided not to put Jesus to
death during the feast (Matthew 26:5; Mark 14:2). But this decision was
reached not because of any compunctions of conscience in the matter, but
because they were afraid of a tumult among the people, owing to the
great crowds, many of whom were friendly to Christ. But so soon as Judas
offered his services, their fears vanished and they proceeded with their
murderous designs (Matthew 26:14; Mark 14:11). The rulers did expedite
matters at the crucifixion that the bodies might not be exposed on the
Sabbath. But they had often tried to slay Jesus on the Sabbath
heretofore. Public executions did take place during the feasts (Deut.
17:12 f.).
_(c)_ The Synoptists flatly say (Matthew 26:17, 20; Mark 14:12, 17; Luke
22:7, 14) that on the first day of unleavened bread Jesus sent Peter and
John from Bethany into the city to make preparations for eating the
Passover, and that on the evening of the same day he ate it with his
disciples. Luke calls it "the hour." Now, the first day of unleavened
bread was the 14th Nisan. There is no question about this. Josephus
speaks of the feast lasting eight days. The lamb of the supper being
slain on the afternoon of this day, it was regarded as the beginning of
the feast. Besides, Mark and Luke end the whole matter by saying that on
this day they sacrificed the Passover. Jesus himself calls it the
Passover (Luke 22:15). It is useless to say that Jesus ate the Passover
a day in advance. This could not be done, especially by one to whom the
temple authorities were hostile. Equally useless is it to say that the
Jews ate the Passover a day too late. If a mistake was made about the
new moon, they would hardly keep the Passover on two different days, nor
would Jesus be apt to make a point about the matter.
3. The testimony of John. If we had only the evidence of the Synoptists,
no serious trouble would ever arise on this question. Strauss has
strenuously urged that John is on this point in hopeless conflict with
the other Evangelists, since he makes Jesus eat the Passover on the
evening after the 13th Nisan (Wednesday), and not the evening after the
14th (Thursday). This idea has gained a foothold among many able modern
writers who see a clear contradiction between the Synoptics and the
Fourth Gospel. Some of these evidently do so because they hold that the
Paschal controversy in Asia Minor arose from this supposed conflict of
John with the Synoptists, and that this shows John's Gospel to have been
in existence when that controversy began. It is not worth while to
maintain that John in chapter 13 alludes to a different meal on a
different occasion. The points of contact with the Synoptists are too
sharp and clear, such as the sop given to Judas. But five passages in
John are produced as being in direct opposition to the statements of the
Synoptic Gospels. A careful examination of each of these five passages
in the Fourth Gospel will show that John does not say that Jesus ate the
Passover meal a day in advance of the regular time, but quite the
contrary.
_(a)_ John 13:1 f., "Now before the feast of the Passover, Jesus
knowing, etc." Here, it is alleged, a distinct statement is made that
this supper was before the Passover, and consequently twenty-four hours
before. But several things are taken for granted in this inference. One
is that the phrase "feast of the Passover" is to be confined to this
particular meal, and is not to include the entire festival of unleavened
bread (_cf._ Luke 22:1). Often by a metonymy of speech the name of a
part is given to the whole. Besides, it is not certain that verse 1 is
to be connected with verse 2. The best exegetes agree that a complete
idea may be presented therein, either a general statement that Jesus
loved his own before the Passover and until the end, or that he came
into special consciousness of this love just before the Passover. And if
the more natural interpretation be taken and the application of this
love be made in verse 2, it is not necessary that the "before" be as
much as twenty-four hours. Observe also the text adopted in the Revised
Version in verse 2, not "supper being ended," but "during supper." With
this reading agree the other references in 13:4, "riseth from supper,"
13:12, "sat down again," 13:23, "there was at the table reclining in
Jesus' bosom." So the natural meaning is that just before the meal
began, Jesus purposed to show his love for his own by a practical
illustration. So, after they had all reclined at the table according to
custom, Jesus arose and passed around the tables, washing their feet;
then he reclined again and proceeded with the meal. So nothing at all
can be made out of this passage against the view that this was the
regular Passover; but, on the other hand, the most natural meaning is
that John is here describing what took place at this Passover meal.
Else, why should he mention the Passover at all?
_(b)_ John 13:27, "That thou doest, do quickly." The objection is made
that the disciples would not have thought that Jesus referred to the
feast (13:29), if the Passover meal was already going on or was over.
So, it is urged, this remark must have been made a day before the
Passover was celebrated. But if that were the case, where would be the
necessity for hurry, as there would be plenty of time on the morrow? The
word "feast" here need not be confined to the paschal supper, but more
naturally refers to the whole of the feast, of which the supper was a
part. So this haste was needed to provide for the feast of unleavened
bread which began on the next morning. No real force lies in the fact
that this day was a holy day, being the first day of the Passover
festival. The Mishna expressly allows the procuring, even on a Sabbath,
what was needed for the Passover. If this could be done on a Sabbath,
much more could it be done on a feast day which was not a Sabbath. Hence
not only was it possible for the disciples to have misunderstood the
remark of Jesus on the Passover evening, but it was far more natural
that such misapprehensions should arise then than a day before. So this
passage, like the preceding, when rightly understood, really confirms
the Synoptists.
_(c)_ John 18:28, "They themselves entered not into the palace, that
they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover." At first sight
this does look like a contradiction. For this was certainly after the
feast of John 13:2; and if they had not eaten the Passover meal, why
here is a clear case of conflict of authorities. But it is by no means
certain that the phrase "eat the Passover" means simply the paschal
supper. This phrase occurs five times in the New Testament besides this,
but all in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:12, 14; Luke
22:11, 15). In all of these the reference is to the paschal supper. But
the word "passover" is used in three senses in the New Testament, the
paschal supper, the paschal lamb, or the paschal festival. The word is
used eight times in John besides this instance, and in every case the
Passover festival is meant. So we may fairly infer that the usage of
John must determine his own meaning rather than that of the Synoptists.
This becomes more probable when we remember that John wrote much later
than they, after the destruction of Jerusalem, when these terms were not
used so strictly. He always speaks of "the Jews" as separate from
Christians. And this very expression is used in 2 Chronicles 30:22, "And
they did eat the festival seven days." The Septuagint translates it,
"And they fulfilled (kept) the festival of unleavened bread seven days."
See Robinson. So it is entirely possible for the phrase, "eat the
Passover," to mean in this instance also the celebration of the Passover
festival. Some have urged that the Sanhedrin had not eaten the Passover
at the regular hour because of the excitement of the trial. But this is
hardly tenable. And, moreover, since this remark was made early in the
morning, how could that affect the eating of the supper in the evening?
For whatever impurities one had during the day passed away at evening.
Hence this uncleanness must belong to the same day on which it was
incurred. If the Passover festival had begun, this would be true, for
they would wish to participate in the offerings of that day. So this
passage likewise becomes an argument in favor of agreement with the
Synoptists.
_(d)_ John 19:14, "Now it was the Preparation of the Passover." This is
claimed to mean the day preceding the Passover festival. Hence Christ
was crucified on the 14th Nisan, in opposition to the Synoptists. The
afternoon before the Passover was used as a preparation, but it was not
technically so called. This phrase "Preparation" was really the name of
a day in the week, the day before the Sabbath, our Friday. We are not
left to conjecture about this question. The Evangelists all use it in
this sense alone. Matthew uses it for Friday (27:62), Mark expressly
says that the Preparation was the day before the Sabbath (15:42), Luke
says that it was the day of the Preparation and the Sabbath drew on
(23:54), and John himself so uses the word in two other passages (19:31,
42), in both of which haste is exercised on the Preparation, because the
Sabbath was at hand. The New Testament usage is conclusive, therefore,
on this point. This, then, was the Friday of Passover week. And this
agrees with the Synoptists. Besides, the term "Preparation" has long
been the regular name for Friday in the Greek language, caused by the
New Testament usage. It is so in the Modern Greek to-day. It was the
Sabbath eve, just as the Germans have Sonnabend for Sunday eve, _i.e._,
Saturday afternoon. So this passage also becomes a positive argument for
the agreement between John and the Synoptists.
_(e)_ John 19:31, "For the day of that Sabbath was a high day." From
this passage it has been argued that at this Passover the first day of
the Passover festival coincided with the weekly Sabbath. But that is an
entirely gratuitous inference. This coincidence would, of course, be a
"high day," but so would the first day of the feast, the last day, or
the Sabbath of the feast. In John 7:37 the last day is called "the great
day of the feast." The Sabbath occurring during the festival would be a
high day likewise. Robinson's arguments on this point are quite
conclusive. Nothing can be made out of the expression against the
position of the Synoptists.
McClellan discusses various other passages in John which show that the
crucifixion occurred on Friday, and that this was the first day of the
feast (John 18:39, 40; 19:31, 42; 20:1, 19, etc.). We conclude then that
a fair interpretation of the passages alleged not only removes all
contradiction between John and the Synoptists, but rather decidedly
favors the view that they have the same date for the Passover meal, and
that Jesus ate the Passover at the regular hour and was crucified on
Friday, 15th Nisan.
It is reassuring to note that David Smith (_The Days of His Flesh_,
Appendix VIII) reaches the same conclusion as that just stated. He makes
it out that Jesus ate the regular Passover meal and was crucified on
Friday 15th of Nisan and that the passages in John really agree with the
Synoptic account.
_12. The Hour of the Crucifixion_
In John 19:14 it is stated that the time when Pilate sentenced Jesus to
be crucified, or rather when he began the last trial in which he
sentenced him, was about the sixth hour. We read, however, in Mark 15:25
that it was the third hour when Christ was crucified. The Synoptists all
unite in saying that the darkness began at the sixth hour. The Jewish
way of counting the hours was to divide the night and day into twelve
divisions each, beginning at sunrise and sunset. The hours would thus
vary in length with the time of year. Just after the vernal equinox the
third hour of Mark would be about 9 A.M., and the sixth hour of the
Synoptists would be about noon. The ninth hour, when Jesus gave his
piteous cry to God (Mark 15:34), would be about 3 P.M. But how can the
sixth hour of John, the time when Jesus was sentenced by Pilate, be
reconciled to this schedule? A real difficulty is here presented, but by
no means an insuperable one, as Alford and Meyer hold. Let us discuss
some of the more usual explanations. Andrews and McClellan give quite a
variety of suggested solutions.
1. Some hold that "sixth" in John is a textual error for "third." This
could easily happen, since the gamma and the digamma of the Greek are
very similar. Eusebius said that the accurate copies had it "third" in
John. But the textual evidence is overwhelmingly against it, and,
besides, the difficulty would not be removed. John is evidently speaking
of the time at the last trial and Mark of the time after Jesus has been
led out to the crucifixion. So nothing is gained by this hypothesis. We
should still be confronted with the same difficulty. The change to
_third_ in John was a mere stupid scribal correction.
2. Others would change the punctuation in John 19:14 so as to make "of
the Passover" belong to "sixth hour," beginning from midnight. But there
is no evidence that the Passover began with midnight. So Hofmann. This
is very forced and unnatural.
3. Views that hinge on the word "preparation." Some would hold that John
simply says that about noon the preparation time of the Passover begins.
But Preparation here means Friday, and noon is not the hour needed to
harmonize with Mark. Equally arbitrary is it to count six hours backward
from noon so as to reach six o'clock.
Augustine suggested that the six hours are to be counted from 3 A.M.
This would make 9 A.M., and would concur with the hour of Mark. But this
is wholly arbitrary and unsatisfactory, and would not relieve the
trouble.
4. Equally arbitrary is the solution that makes Mark refer to the hour
of the sentence and John to the crucifixion, just the reverse of the
Scripture account. Augustine also proposed that Jesus was crucified at
the third hour by the tongues of the Jews, and at the sixth by the hands
of the soldiers.
5. Others hold that Mark and John both speak in general terms. Hence the
crucifixion may have taken place between 9 and 12 in the morning. Mark
looks in one direction and John in the other without aiming at
definiteness. The Jews, it is true, were not as exact in the use of
expressions of time as we are to-day, but this solution hardly meets the
requirements of the case. Mark puts his _third_ hour at the beginning of
the crucifixion, and John his _sixth_ hour at the beginning of the last
trial. This reconciliation does not reconcile.
6. The most satisfactory solution of the difficulty is to be found in
the idea that John here uses the Roman computation of time, from
midnight to noon and noon to midnight, just as we do now. Hence the
sixth hour would be our six o'clock in the morning. If this hour was the
beginning of the last trial of Jesus, we then have enough, but not too
much, time for the completion of the trial, the carrying away of Jesus
outside the city walls, together with the procuring of the crosses, etc.
All the events, moreover, narrated by the Evangelists, could have
occurred between dawn (John 18:27) and six or seven.
For a long time it was doubted whether the Romans ever used this method
of computing time for civil days. Farrar vehemently opposes this idea.
But Plutarch, Pliny, Aulus Gellius, and Macrobius expressly say that the
Roman civil day was reckoned from midnight to midnight. So the question
of fact may be considered as settled. The only remaining question is
whether John used this mode of reckoning. Of course, the Romans had also
the natural day and the natural night just as we do now. In favor of the
idea that John uses the Roman way of counting the hours in the civil
day, several things may be said.
_(a)_ He wrote the Gospel late in the century, probably in Asia Minor,
long after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Jewish method would
not likely be preserved. Roman ideas were prevalent in Asia Minor. John
evidently is not writing for the Jews primarily, since he constantly
speaks of "the Jews" as outsiders. John is writing to be understood by
the people, and this is the way it would be understood in Asia Minor.
_(b)_ All the passages in John, where the hour is mentioned, allow this
computation. John 1:39 would be 10 A.M.; 4:6 f. would be 6 P.M.,
counting from noon also (as we do). This hour suits best the
circumstances. In the evening the women would come to get water, Jesus
would have time for his journey thither, and would be tired and hungry.
In John 4:52 the hour would be 7 P.M. This hour likewise suits the
circumstances better. John 11:9, Are there not twelve hours in the day?
is not against this idea, since here obviously the natural day, as
opposed to night, is meant. The Romans used both methods and so do we.
_(c)_ Moreover, one passage in John (20:19), when compared with Luke
24:29, 36, makes it necessary to understand that John used the Roman
method in this instance. It was toward evening, and the day had
declined, according to Luke, when Jesus and the disciples drew near to
Emmaus. Here he ate supper and, "rising up that very hour," the
disciples returned seven miles to Jerusalem and told these things to the
eleven who were together. But while they were narrating these things
Jesus appeared to them. Now John, in mentioning this very appearance of
Jesus (20:19), says that it "was evening on _that day_, the first day of
the week," _i.e._, evening of the day when Mary Magdalene had seen the
Lord. But with the Jews the evening began the day. Hence John, here at
least, is _bound_ to mean the Roman day. It was the evening of the same
day in the morning of which Mary had seen Jesus. This appears
conclusive. John did use the Roman method here, may have done so always,
almost certainly did so in 19:14. Besides, as McClellan shows, the
natural meaning of John's phrase is that it was the sixth hour of the
Friday (Preparation) of the Passover. But we have just seen that John in
20:19 counts according to the Roman day. Hence the sixth hour of Friday
would be six o'clock in the morning.
This is the only solution that really harmonizes John and Mark. The rest
make the hours agree, but the hours bring together different events.
This method harmonizes the whole narrative, and seems entirely probable,
if we can assume that the Romans or Greeks employed hours in this sense,
a point denied by Ramsay.
Sir W. M. Ramsay (_The Expositor_ for March, 1893, and Extra Volume,
Hastings D. B.) contends that Mark and John are at variance, but that it
is of small moment, since the ancients had little notion about hours. He
seeks to show that the martyrdom of Polycarp and Pronius, usually relied
on to prove that in Asia Minor the hours were counted from midnight,
took place in the afternoon, instead of the morning, the usual time.
Hence the eighth and tenth hours respectively would be 2 P.M. and 4 P.M.
Ramsay argues that, when hours were counted, they were always counted
from sunrise. He holds that John is more accurate about hours than Mark
and that hence Mark is in error. He agrees that John "stood on the Roman
plane" in the use of time, but denies that the sixth hour can be our 6
A.M. But the evidence is too uncertain for such a dogmatic position.
_13. The Time of the Resurrection of Christ_
1. Mark, Luke, and John say that the resurrection had taken place early
on the first day of the week, _i.e._ early Sunday morning. Mark (16:9)
says that Jesus, "having risen early, on the first day of the week,
appeared, etc." The position of "early" is ambiguous in the Greek and
the passage is disputed. Mark (16:2) states that it was very early on
the first day of the week, the sun having risen, when the women came to
the sepulchre. Luke (24:1) says that the women came to the tomb at early
dawn on the first day of the week. John (20:1) says that Mary Magdalene
came to the tomb in the morning on the first day of the week. So then,
there is no doubt that these three Evangelists mean to say that Jesus
rose very early on Sunday morning, and that shortly after that event
came the two Marys and some other women to anoint his body with spices.
Much objection is made to some of the details in the accounts of Mark
and John especially as being inconsistent. John (20:1) says that Mary
comes while it is yet dark, while Mark says (16:2) that the sun was
risen. But Mark also says in the same verse that it was very early,
which would agree with John's statement that it was yet dark. Hence
Mark's other statement, that the sun was risen, must be interpreted in
the light of his own words. Two solutions can be offered.
_(a)_ We may suppose, as McClellan and others, that John's note of time
refers to the starting from Bethany, while it was yet dark or very early
(Mark). In a few minutes it would be early dawn (Luke), and by the time
the women come to the tomb, the sun would be up. All this is entirely
possible and looks even probable, for in the twilight of early dawn, the
border line is very narrow between darkness and sunrise. A stiff morning
walk would pass through all the stages. It all depends on where you take
your stand in this fleeting interim. Mark covers both sides and so
includes it all from the first glimmering light till the full light of
day.
_(b)_ Or the expression, "the sun was risen" (aorist participle), may
simply be a general expression applicable to the phenomena of sunrise.
The first gleam of daylight comes from the rising sun, though not yet
completely risen. Robinson gives several examples from the Septuagint,
where the same phrase is used in the aorist tense in a general way for
the dawning light of day (Judges 9:33; 2 Kings 3:22; Ps. 104:22). Either
of these explanations is entirely possible and removes the difficulty.
2. But Matthew seems to put the resurrection on the evening after the
Sabbath, our Saturday evening. He says (28:1), "But late on the Sabbath
day, as it was dawning into the first day of the week, came Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary to view the sepulchre." If this passage
means that the visit was made at the end of the Sabbath day (evening)
and after the resurrection of Jesus, then Matthew is in plain
contradiction to the other Evangelists. Some have taken the position
that Jesus rose at sunset on the Sabbath day, forgetting that Mark
(16:9) says that he rose early in the morning. There are several ways of
reconciling Matthew with the other gospels.
_(a)_ Greswell, Alford and others would translate "late on the Sabbath
day" by "late in the week." The Greek word is the same in this verse for
Sabbath and week. In both cases, therefore, the translation could be the
same. But little sense would result from this translation. "Late in the
week" and "dawning into the first day of the week" hardly fit well. By
this explanation the latter expression is used for the first part of
Sunday and the visit occurred in this dawning part of the day.
_(b)_ Others would translate "late on the Sabbath day" by "after the
Sabbath day." Godet, Grimm and others contend that the Greek idiom could
mean this, and the _Koine_ allows it (Robertson, _Grammar of the Greek
New Testament_, pp. 645 f.). This rendering is possible, though the
papyri have instances of "late on" for this preposition _(opse)_, and it
is so translated by several English translators. Thus the Greek idiom
allows either "late on" or "after."
_(c)_ Matthew does not clearly say that this visit was made after the
resurrection of the Saviour although his words may mean that. Hence the
words may have their natural meaning as sustained by the papyri. Late on
the Sabbath day, about sundown say, the two Marys go to view the
sepulchre (Matt. 28:1), having rested through the day (Luke 23:56). The
women who had come with Jesus from Galilee had gone thither on Friday,
after his burial, to see where he was laid and had prepared spices. If
they went at nightfall at the close of the Sabbath (Matt. 28:1) "to see
the sepulchre," they could have bought spices after sundown (Mark 16:1).
Then (Mark 16:2) in the early morning, they rose and took the spices and
went to anoint his body. It was then that they saw the angel (Matt.
28:5). Matthew does not say that in the visit of 28:1 the angel appeared
to them. He speaks of the earthquake having come, and the resurrection,
and then resumes. This view gains some support from the use of the same
Greek word in Luke 23:54, "And it was the day of the Preparation
(Friday) and the Sabbath drew on (was dawning)." Here the meaning seems
to be that the Sabbath _dawned_ at the close of the day. So Westcott,
McClellan and others. However it may be about the visit of the women in
Matt. 28:1, Matthew certainly does not mean to say that Jesus rose at
sunset on the Sabbath. The whole course of his narrative in the rest of
the chapter shows that it was the morning of Sunday when the angel
appeared. While (Matt. 28:11) the women went to the disciples, the
soldiers ran to the chief priests (Matt. 28:13) and said that the
disciples came by _night_ and stole him while they slept, clearly
implying that it was now day. Hence Matthew does not teach that Jesus
rose at sunset, but the reverse. Besides, Matthew expressly says that
Jesus rose on the third day, which would not be true, if he rose on the
Sabbath.
_(d)_ Sabbath day may be used of the day followed by the night,
according to a possible understanding of the language. The Jews
originally counted from evening to evening, but this custom did not
prevail universally. Jonah (1:17) and Matthew (12:40) speak of three
days and three nights, following the day by the night. Meyer, Morison,
Clark and others hold this view, and it is possible, but certainly not
so satisfactory as the view given under (c). At any rate, it remains
clear that Matthew agrees with the other Evangelists in putting the
resurrection of Jesus Sunday morning. The chief point of difficulty is
Matthew's visit of the women in 28:1, whether this was in the evening
before simply "to view the sepulchre," or in the morning to anoint the
body of the Saviour. The condensed account of Matthew leaves this
question unsettled, and there we too shall have to leave it. And this
last matter does not affect the question as to the time of the Lord's
resurrection, but only the number of the visits made by the women.
_14. The Length of Our Lord's Stay in the Tomb_
Quite an effort is made in some quarters to show that Jesus remained in
the tomb seventy-two hours, three full days and nights. The effort seems
due to a desire to give full value to the expression "three days" and to
vindicate scripture. But a minutely literal interpretation of this
phrase makes "on the third day" flatly erroneous. A good deal of labor
has been expended in the impossible attempt to make three and four equal
to each other. There are three sets of expressions used about the
matter, besides the express statements of the Gospels about the days of
the crucifixion and resurrection. Let us examine these lines of
evidence.
1. Luke settles the matter pointedly by mentioning all the time between
the crucifixion and the resurrection (Luke 23:50-24:3). The burial took
place Friday afternoon just before the Sabbath drew on (Luke 23:54). The
women rested on the Sabbath (Saturday) (Luke 23:56), and went to the
sepulchre early Sunday morning, the first day of the week (Luke 24:1).
There is no escaping this piece of chronology. This is all the time
there was between the two events. Jesus then lay in the tomb from late
in the afternoon of Friday till early Sunday morning. The other Gospels
agree with this reckoning of the time, as we have already seen.
2. But how about the prediction of Jesus, repeatedly made, and once
illustrated by the case of Jonah, that he would rise after three days?
Are two nights and a day and two pieces of days three days? Let us see.
_(a)_ The well-known custom of the Jews was to count a part of a day as
a whole day of twenty-four hours. Hence a part of a day or night would
be counted as a whole day, the term day obviously having two senses, as
night and day, or day contrasted with night. So then the part of Friday
would count as one day, Saturday another, and the part of Sunday the
third day. This method of reckoning gives no trouble to a Jew or to
modern men, for that matter. In free vernacular we speak the same way
today.
_(b)_ Besides, the phrase "on the third day" is obliged to mean that the
resurrection took place on that day, for, if it occurred after the third
day, it would be on the fourth day and not on the third. Now it so
happens that this term "third day" is applied _seven_ times to the
resurrection of Christ (Matt. 16:21; Matt. 17:23; Matt. 20:19; Luke
24:7, 21, 46; 1 Cor. 15:4). These numerous passages of Scripture, both
prophecy and statement of history, agree with the record of the fact
that Jesus did rise on the third day. (Luke 24:7.)
_(c)_ Moreover, the phrase "after three days" is used by the same
writers (Matthew and Luke) in connection with the former one, "the third
day," as meaning the same thing. Hence the definite and clear
expressions must explain the one that is less so. The chief priests and
Pharisees remember (Matt. 27:63) that Jesus said, after three days I
rise again. Hence they urge Pilate to keep a guard over the tomb until
the _third day_ (Matt. 27:64). This is their own interpretation of the
Saviour's words. Besides, in parallel passages in the different Gospels,
one will have one expression and another the other, naturally suggesting
that they regarded them as equivalent. (Cf. Mark 8:31 with Matt. 16:21,
Luke 9:22 with Mark 10:34.) On the third day cannot mean on the fourth
day, while after three days can be used as meaning on the third day.
_(d)_ Matthew 12:40 is urged as conclusive the other way. But the "three
days and three nights" may be nothing more than a longer way of saying
three days, using day in its long sense. And we have already seen that
the Jews counted any part of this full day (day and night) as a whole
day (day and night). Hence this passage may mean nothing more than the
common "after three days" above mentioned, and, like that expression,
must be interpreted in accordance with the definite term "on the third
day" and with the clear chronological data given by Luke and the rest.
They seemed to be conscious of no discrepancy in these various
expressions. Most likely they understood them as well as we do at any
rate.
A LIST OF THE PARABLES OF JESUS
The Sign of the Temple, Sect. 3l.
The Physician, Sect. 39 (cf. Sect. 47).
The Three Parables about the New Dispensation, Sect. 48.
The Blind Guiding the Blind, The Mote and the Beam, Sect. 54.
The Wise and Foolish Builders, Sect. 54.
The Children in the Market Place, Sect. 57.
The Two Debtors, Sect. 59.
Parables about Satan's Kingdom, Sect. 6l.
The Unclean Spirit that Returned, Sect. 62.
The Sower, Sect. 64.
The Seed Growing of Itself, Sect. 64.
The Tares, Sect. 64.
The Mustard Seed, Sects. 64 and 110.
The Leaven, Sects. 64 and 110.
The Hid Treasure, Sect. 64.
The Pearl of Great Price, Sect. 64.
The Net, Sect. 64.
The Scribe, Sect. 64.
The Parable of Corban, Sect. 77.
The Unmerciful Servant, Sect. 92.
The Good Shepherd, Sect. 10l.
The Good Samaritan, Sect. 103.
The Importunate Friend, Sect. 105.
The Rich Fool, Sect. 108.
The Waiting Servants, Sect. 108.
The Wise Steward, Sect. 108.
The Fig Tree, Sect. 109.
Seats at Feasts, Sect. 114.
Feast for the Poor, Sect. 114.
The Great Supper, Sect. 114.
The Tower and the King, Sect. 115.
The Lost Sheep, Sect. 116 (cf. Sect. 91).
The Lost Coin, Sect. 116.
The Lost Son, Sect. 116.
The Unrighteous Steward, Sect. 117.
The Rich Man and Lazarus, Sect. 117.
Unprofitable Servants, Sect. 117.
The Importunate Widow, Sect. 121.
The Pharisee and the Publican, Sect. 121.
The Laborers in the Vineyard, Sect. 124.
The Pounds, Sect. 127.
The Two Sons, Sect. 132.
The Wicked Husbandmen, Sect. 132.
The Rejected Stone, Sect. 132.
The Marriage Feast and the Wedding Garment, Sect. 132.
The Fig Tree, Sect. 139.
The Porter, Sect. 139.
The Master and the Thief, Sect. 139.
The Wise Servant, Sect. 139.
The Ten Virgins, Sect. 139.
The Talents, Sect. 139.
The Sheep and the Goats, Sect. 139.
A LIST OF THE MIRACLES OF JESUS
The Water Made Wine, Sect. 29.
The Courtier's Son, Sect. 38.
The First Draught of Fishes, Sect. 41.
The Capernaum Demoniac, Sect. 42.
Simon's Mother-in-law, Sect. 43.
A Leper, Sect. 45.
The Paralytic, Sect. 46.
The Impotent Man, Sect. 49.
The Man with a Withered Hand, Sect. 51.
The Centurion's Servant, Sect. 55.
The Widow's Son, Sect. 56.
A Blind and Dumb Man, Sect. 61.
The Stilling of the Storm, Sect. 65.
The Gadarene Demoniacs, Sect. 66.
The Woman with an Issue of Blood, Sect. 67.
Jairus' Daughter, Sect. 67.
Two Blind Men, Sect. 68.
A Dumb Demoniac, Sect. 68.
The Five Thousand Fed, Sect. 72.
Jesus Walking on the Water, Sect. 74.
The Phoenician Woman's Daughter, Sect. 78.
The Deaf and Dumb Man, Sect. 79.
The Four Thousand Fed, Sect. 79.
A Blind Man Healed, Sect. 81.
The Demoniac Boy, Sect. 87.
The Shekel in the Fish's Mouth, Sect. 89.
The Man Born Blind, Sect. 100.
The Woman with an Infirmity, Sect. 110.
The Man with the Dropsy, Sect. 114.
The Raising of Lazarus, Sect. 118.
The Ten Lepers, Sect. 120.
Blind Bartimaeus and His Companion, Sect. 126.
The Fig Tree Cursed, Sect. 129.
Malchus' Ear, Sect. 153.
The Second Draught of Fishes, Sect. 180.
Besides these particular miracles numerous general groups must be added,
as Mark 6:56; Matt. 4:23 f.; 9:35 f.; Luke 4:40 f.; 5:15 f.; 6:17-19;
7:21 f.; John 2:23; 3:2; 4:45; 20:30; 21:25.
LIST OF OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE GOSPELS
Mark 1:2, from Mal. 3:1; Isa. 40:3.
" 1:3, " Isa. 40:3.
" 1:11, " Ps. 2:7; Isa. 42:1.
" 1:24, " Ps. 16:10.
" 1:44, " Lev. 13:49; 14:2-32.
" 2:24, " Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; 23:25
" 2:25, " Lev. 24:9; 1 Sam. 21:1-6.
" 4:12, " Isa. 6:9, 10.
" 4:29, " Joel 3:13.
" 4:32, " Dan. 4:9.
" 6:18, " Lev. 18:16; 20:21.
" 7:6, 7, " Isa. 29:13.
" 7:10, " Ex. 20:12; 21:17; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 5:16.
" 8:18, " Isa. 6:9, 10; Jer. 5:21; Ezek. 12:2.
" 8:38, " Ps. 62:12; Prov. 24:12.
" 9:7, " Deut. 18:15; Isa. 42:1; Ps. 2:7.
" 9:12, " Mal. 4:5.
" 9:13, " 1 Kings 10:2, 10.
" 9:48, " Isa. 66:24.
" 9:49, " Lev. 2:13.
" 10:4, " Deut. 24:1.
" 10:6, " Gen. 1:27; 5:2.
" 10:7, 8, " Gen. 2:24.
" 10:19, " Ex. 20:12-17; Deut. 5:16-21.
" 10:27, " Gen. 18:14; Job 42:2.
" 11:9, " Ps. 118:26.
" 11:17, " Isa. 5:17; Jer. 7:11.
" 12:2, " Isa. 5:1 f.
" 12:10, 11, " Ps. 118:22 f.
" 12:19, " Gen. 38:8; Deut. 25:5, 6.
" 12:26, " Ex. 3:6.
" 12:29, " Deut. 6:4, 6.
" 12:31, " Lev. 19:18.
" 12:33, " 1 Sam 15:22.
" 12:36, " Ps. 8:7; 110:1.
" 13:12, " Mic. 7:6
" 13:14, " Dan. 9:27.
" 13:19, " Dan. 12:1.
" 13:24, " Dan. 8:10; Eccl. 12:2; Joel 4:16.
" 13:26, " Dan. 7:13.
" 14:12, " Ex. 12:18-20.
" 14:18, " Ps. 41:9.
" 14:24, " Ex. 24:8; Lev. 4:18-20; Jer. 31:31.
" 14:27, " Zech. 13:7.
" 14:34, " Ps. 42:6.
" 14:62, " Ps. 110:1; Dan. 7:13.
" 14:64, " Lev. 24:16.
" 15:24, " Ps. 22:18.
" 15:34, " Ps. 22:1.
Matt. 1:1-17, from 1 Chron. 1:34; 2:1-15; 3:1-19.
" 1:23, " Isa. 7:14.
" 2:2, " Num. 24:17.
" 2:6, " Mic. 5:1 f.
" 2:15, " Hos. 11:1.
" 2:18, " Jer. 31:15.
" 3:3, " Isa. 40:3.
" 3:17, " Ps. 2:7; Isa. 42:1.
" 4:4, " Deut. 8:3.
" 4:6, " Ps. 91:11.
" 4:7, " Deut. 6:16.
" 4:10, " Deut. 6:13.
" 4:15 f., " Isa. 8:23; 9:1 f.
" 5:4, " Isa. 61:2.
" 5:5, " Ps. 37:11.
" 5:6, " Ps. 55.
" 5:7, " Ps. 18:25; Prov. 11:17.
" 5:8, " Ps. 24:3-5.
" 5:21 f., " Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17.
" 5:27, " Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18.
" 5:31, " Deut. 24:1.
" 5:33 ff., " Ex. 20:7; Num. 30:2; Lev. 19:12; Deut. 5:11;
23:21; Isa. 66:1; Ps. 48:2.
" 5:38, " Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21.
" 5:43, " Lev. 19:18; Deut. 23:6; 25:19.
" 8:11, " Isa. 49:12.
" 8:17, " Isa. 53:4.
" 9:13, " Hos. 6:6.
" 9:36, " Num. 27:17; Ezek. 24:5.
" 10:35, " Mic. 7:6.
" 11:5, " Isa. 2:18-19; 35:5-6; 61:1.
" 11:10, " Mal. 3:1.
" 11:15, " Mal. 4:5.
" 11:23, " Isa. 14:13-15.
" 11:24, " Gen. 19:24.
" 11:29 f., " Jer. 6:16.
" 12:2, " Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; 23:25.
" 12:3, " Lev. 24:9; 1 Sam. 21:1-6.
" 12:5, " Num. 28:9-10.
" 12:7, " Hos. 6:6.
" 12:18-21, " Isa. 42:1-4.
" 12:40, " Jonah 1:17; 2:1-2; 3:5; 4:3; 1 Kings 10:1-10.
" 13:14, 15, " Isa. 6:9, 10.
" 13:32, " Dan. 4:9-21.
" 13:35, " Ps. 78:2.
" 13:43, " Dan. 12:3.
" 15:4, " Ex. 20:12; 21:17; Lev. 20:9.
" 15:8, 9, " Isa. 29:13.
" 16:4, " Jonah 3:4.
" 16:18, " Ps. 89:4, 26, 38, 48.
" 16:27, " Ps. 62:12; Prov. 24:12.
" 17:5, " Isa. 42:1; Deut. 18:5; Ps. 2:7.
" 17:11-12, " 1 Kings 19:2, 10; Mal. 4:5-6.
" 18:16, " Deut. 19:15.
" 19:4, " Gen. 1:27; 5:2.
" 19:5, " Gen. 2:24.
" 19:7, " Deut. 24:1.
" 19:18, " Ex. 20:12, 13, 14; 21:17; Deut. 5:19, 20.
" 19:19, " Lev. 19:18; Ex. 20:12.
" 19:26, " Gen. 18:14.
" 21:5, " Isa. 62:11; Zech. 9:9.
" 21:9, " Ps. 118:26.
" 21:13, " Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11.
" 21:16, " Ps. 82.
" 21:33, " Isa. 5:1 f.
" 21:42, " Ps. 118:22.
" 21:44, " Isa. 8:14.
" 22:24, " Deut. 25:5.
" 22:32, " Ex. 3:6, 15.
" 22:37, " Deut. 6:5.
" 22:39, " Lev. 19:18.
" 22:44, " Ps. 110:1.
" 23:5-6, " Ex. 13:9; Num. 13:38-39; Deut. 6:8; 11:18.
" 23:23, " Lev. 27:30; Mic. 6:8.
" 23:35, " Gen. 4:8; 2 Chron. 24:20-21.
" 23:38 f., " Ps. 118:26; Jer. 12:7; 22:5.
" 24:15, " Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11.
" 24:21, " Dan. 12:1.
" 24:24, " Deut. 13:1.
" 24:29, " Dan. 8:10; Joel 4:16.
" 24:30, " Dan. 7:13; Isa. 13:9-10; Ezek. 32:7-8; Amos 8:9;
Zeph. 1:14-16.
" 24:37, " Gen. 6:11-13; 7:7, 21-23.
" 25:31, " Zech. 14:5.
" 25:46, " Dan. 12:2.
" 26:28, " Ex. 24:8; Lev. 4:18-20; Jer. 31:31; Zech. 9:11.
" 26:31, " Zech. 13:7.
" 26:64, " Ps. 110:1; Dan. 7:13.
" 26:65, " Lev. 24:16.
" 27:6, " Deut. 23:18.
" 27:9, 10, " Jer. 18:2; 19:2; 32:6; Zech. 11:13.
" 27:24, " Deut. 21:6-9.
" 27:34, " Ps. 69:21.
" 27:35, " Ps. 22:19.
" 27:46, " Ps. 22:1.
Luke 1:15, from Num. 6:3; Judg. 13:4-5; 1 Sam. 1:11.
" 1:17, " Mal. 3:1; 4:5-6.
" 1:19, " Dan. 8:16; 9:21.
" 1:31, " Isa. 7:14.
" 1:32, " 2 Sam. 7:12-17.
" 1:35, " Ex. 13:12.
" 1:38, " Gen. 18:14.
" 1:46 f., " 1 Sam. 2:1-10.
" 1:48, " 1 Sam. 1:11.
" 1:49, " 1 Sam. 2:2.
" 1:50, " Ps. 103:17.
" 1:51, " 1 Sam. 2:4; Ps. 89:10.
" 1:52, " 1 Sam. 2:7; Job. 5:11; 12:19.
" 1:53, " 1 Sam. 2:5; Ps. 107:9.
" 1:54, " Isa. 41:8-9; Gen. 17:7; Mic. 7:20.
" 1:59, " Lev. 12:3.
" 1:68, " Ps. 72:18; 111:9.
" 1:69, " 1 Sam. 2:10; Ps. 18:3.
" 1:71, " Ps. 18:4; 106:10.
" 1:72 f., " Gen. 17:7; Lev. 26:42; Ps. 105:8; Mic. 7:20.
" 1:76, " Mal. 3:1.
" 1:78, " Mal. 4:2.
" 1:79, " Isa. 8:22; 9:2.
" 2:21, " Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3.
" 2:23 f., " Ex. 13:2, 12; Lev. 12:1-8.
" 2:30, " Isa. 52:10.
" 2:32, " Isa. 42:6; 49:6.
" 2:41, " Ex. 23:14-17; Deut. 16:1-8.
" 2:52, " 1 Sam. 2:26.
" 3:4-6, " Isa. 40:3-5.
" 3:22, " Ps. 2:7; Isa. 42:1.
" 3:23-38, " 1 Chron. 1:1-4, 24-28; 2:1-15; 3:17;
Ruth 4:18-22.
" 4:4, " Deut. 8:3.
" 4:8, " Deut. 6:13.
" 4:10 f., " Ps. 91:11.
" 4:12, " Deut. 6:16.
" 4:18 f., " Isa. 58:6; 61:1 f.
" 4:25-27, " 1 Kings 17:1, 8-9; 18:1-2; 2 Kings 5:1, 14.
" 4:34, " Ps. 16:10.
" 5:14, " Lev. 13:49; 14:2-32.
" 6:2, " Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; 23:25.
" 6:3, " Lev. 24:9; 1 Sam. 21:1-6.
" 6:21, " Isa. 61:2.
" 7:22, " Isa. 2:18-19; 35:5-6; 61:1.
" 7:27, " Mal. 3:1.
" 8:10, " Isa. 6:9 f.
" 10:12, " Gen. 19:24.
" 10:15, " Isa. 14:13-15.
" 10:27, " Lev. 18:5; 19:18; Deut. 6:4 f.
" 11:29, " Jonah 3:1-4.
" 11:31, " 1 Kings 10:1-3.
" 11:32, " Jonah 3:5-10.
" 11:42, 51, " Lev. 27:30; Gen. 4:8; 2 Chron. 24:20 f.;
Mic. 6:8.
" 12:53, " Mic. 7:6.
" 13:14, 19, " Ex. 20:8-11; Deut. 5:12-15; Dan. 4:10-12, 20 f.
" 13:27, 29, " Ps. 6:8; 13:29; 107:3; Isa. 49:12.
" 17:12, " Lev. 13:45-46.
" 17:13 f., " Lev. 13:49; 14:1-3.
" 17:26, " Gen. 6:11-13; 7:7, 21-23.
" 17:28, 33, " Gen. 18:20-22; 19:24-25; Gen. 19:26.
" 18:20, " Ex. 20:12-17; Deut. 5:16-21.
" 19:8, 10, " Ex. 22:1; Num. 5:6-7; Ezek. 34:16.
" 19:38, " Ps. 118:26.
" 19:46, " Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11.
" 20:9, " Isa. 5:1 f.
" 20:17, " Ps. 118:22 f.
" 20:18, " Isa. 8:14.
" 20:28, 38, " Gen. 38:8; Deut. 25:5 f.; Ex. 3:6.
" 20:42 f., " Ps. 8:7; 110:1.
" 21:20, " Dan. 9:27.
" 21:22, " Dan. 12:1.
" 21:25 f., " Dan. 8:10; Joel 4:16; Isa. 13:9 f.;
Ezek. 32:7 f.; Amos 8:9; Zeph. 1:14 f.
" 21:27, 28, " Dan. 7:13; Deut. 30:4 (LXX); Isa. 21:12 f.;
Zech. 2:6 (LXX).
" 22:37, " Isa. 53:12.
" 22:46, " Ps. 31:5.
" 22:69, " Ps. 110:1; Dan. 7:13.
" 23:30, " Hos. 10:8.
" 23:46, " Ps. 31:6.
" 23:56, " Ex. 12:16; 20:8-11; Deut. 5:12-15.
" 24:46, " Hos. 6:2.
John 1:23, from Isa. 40:3.
" 1:29, 36, " Isa. 53:7.
" 1:49, " 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7.
" 1:51, " Gen. 28:12.
" 2:18, " Ex. 16:4, 15; Neh. 9:15; Ps. 69:9.
" 3:14, " Num. 21:8-9.
" 4:5, " Josh. 24:32.
" 5:10, " Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14.
" 6:14, " Deut. 18:15.
" 6:31, " Ex. 16:4; Neh. 9:15; Ps. 78:24.
" 6:45, " Isa. 54:13.
" 7:22, " Gen. 17:9-14; Lev. 12:1-3.
" 7:38, " Prov. 18:4.
" 7:42, " 2 Sam. 7:12; Isa. 11:1; Mic. 5:2.
" 8:5, " Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24.
" 8:17, " Deut. 17:6; 19:15.
" 8:39, " Isa. 6:9 f.
" 10:16, " Ezek. 35:23; 37:24.
" 10:34, " Ps. 82:6.
" 12:13, " Ps. 118:26.
" 12:14 f., " Zech. 9:9.
" 12:27, " Ps. 42:6.
" 12:38, " Isa. 53:1.
" 12:40, " Isa. 6:9 f.
" 13:18, " Ps. 41:9.
" 15:25, " Ps. 35:19; 69:5.
" l6:22, " Isa. 66:14.
" 17:12, " Ps. 41:9.
" 19:24, " Ps. 22:18.
" 19:29, " Ps. 69:21.
" 19:36, " Ex. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:21.
" 19:37, " Zech. 12:10.
" 19:42, " Deut. 21:22.
A LIST OF SOME UNCANONICAL SAYINGS OF JESUS
Some of the more important reported sayings of Christ are given which
are not found in the Gospels or Acts; whether true words of the Master
or not, it is not known. Some certainly are not like the Spirit of
Christ, but it will be of service to the student to compare them with
the genuine Words of Jesus in our Gospels. The Apocryphal Gospels are
passed by as not worth using in this list.
1. The Logia of Jesus (Grenfell and Hunt):
Jesus saith: Except ye fast to the world, ye shall in no wise find the
Kingdom of God; and except ye keep the Sabbath, ye shall not see the
Father.
Jesus saith: I stood in the midst of the world, and in the flesh was I
seen of them, and I found all men drunken, and none found I athirst
among them, and my soul grieveth over the sons of men because they are
blind in their heart.
Jesus saith: Wherever there are ... and there is one ... alone, I am
with him. Raise the stone and there thou shalt find me, cleave the wood
and there am I.
Jesus saith: A prophet is not acceptable in his own country, neither
doth a physician work cures upon them that know him.
Jesus saith: A city built upon the top of a high hill and stablished,
can neither fall nor be hid.
2. Readings found in Codex D.
One is concerning a man found working on the Sabbath, and comes after
Luke 6:4: O man, if indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art
blessed; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and art a transgressor
of the law.
Likewise Codex D has, after Matt. 20:28: But you seek to increase from
little, and from greater to be less.
3. Quotations found in various early Fathers.
From Barnabas: Let us resist all iniquity, and hold it in hatred. They
who wish to see me and lay hold on my kingdom must receive me by
affliction and suffering.
From Origen and others: Show yourselves tried money changers.
Ask great things, and the small shall be added to you; and ask heavenly
things, and the earthly shall be added unto you.
He who is near me is near the fire: he who is far from me, is far from
the kingdom.
For those that are sick I was sick, and for those that hunger, I
suffered hunger, and for those that thirst, I suffered thirst.
From Clement of Rome (Ep. II.): Keep the flesh pure, and the seal
unspotted.
When the two shall be one, and that which is without as that which is
within, and the male with the female neither male nor female.
If ye kept not that which is small, who will give you that which is
great? For I say unto you, that he that is faithful in very little is
faithful also in much.
From Justin Martyr: In whatsoever I may find you, in this will I also
judge you. Such as I may find thee, I will judge thee.
From Ignatius: Take hold, handle me, and see that I am not an
incorporeal spirit.
From Clement of Alexandria: He that wonders shall reign, and he that
reigns shall rest. Look with wonder at that which is before you. My
mystery is for me and for the sons of my house.
From Papias: The days will come in which vines shall spring up, each
having ten thousand stocks, and on each stock ten thousand branches, and
on each branch ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand
bunches, and on each bunch ten thousand grapes, and each grape when
pressed shall give five and twenty measures of wine. And when any saint
shall have seized one bunch, another shall cry: I am a better bunch;
take me; through me bless the Lord.
SIMILAR INCIDENTS AND CHIEF REPEATED SAYINGS
Calling Disciples: Sects. 28, 41, and 53.
Cleansing the Temple: Sects. 31 and 129.
Owning Jesus as Messiah: Sects. 28, 35, 41, 76, 82, 118.
Rejection at Nazareth: Sects. 39 and 69.
Miraculous Draught of Fishes: Sects. 41 and 180.
Parables of Mustard Seed and Leaven: Sects. 64 (d) and 110.
The Tours of Galilee: Sects. 44, 60, and 70.
Healings on the Sabbath: Sects. 42, 43, 49-51, 100, 110, 114.
The Lists of the Twelve: Sects. 53 and 70.
Courtier's Son and Centurion's Servant: Sects. 38 and 55.
The Model Prayer: Sects. 54 and 105.
The Anointing of Christ: Sects. 59 and 141.
The Blasphemous Accusation: Sects. 61, 68, and 106.
Groups of Parables: Sects. 64, 91-92, 108, 114-117, 121, 124, 132, 139.
Sending the Twelve and Sending the Seventy: Sects. 70 and 102.
Feeding the Five Thousand and the Four Thousand: Sects. 72 and 79.
Tests of Discipleship: Sects. 76, 83 and 115.
Jesus Foretelling His Death: Sects. 31, 83, 85, 86, 88, 125, 139-152.
The Twelve Contending for Supremacy: Sects. 90, 125, 144.
Attacking Jesus in Jerusalem: Sects. 31, 49, 96-101, 111, 119, 124-135,
153-167.
Foretelling the Second Coming: Sects. 84, 120, 127, 139, 148-151.
Divorce: Sects. 54 and 122.
Like Children: Sects. 90 and 123.
Rewards of Service: Sects. 93 and 124.
Worldly Anxieties: Sects. 54 and 108.
The Ninety and Nine: Sects. 91 and 116.
Baptism of Death: Sects. 108 and 125.
The Pounds and the Talents: Sects. 127 and 139.
The Agony of Christ: Sects. 130 and 152.
Denouncing the Scribes and Pharisees: Sects. 61 and 137.
Lament Over Jerusalem: Sects. 113, 128, and 137.
About a Sword: Sects. 70, 147, 153.
The Three Commissions: Sects. 178, 181, and 183.
In general the Later Judean Ministry and the Perean Ministry, chiefly
Luke's contribution to the Life of Christ, furnish many events and
discourses similar to those described in the Galilean Ministry. Sections
102 to 127 furnish most of the so-called "doublets" or repeated sayings
of Jesus or similar miracles. This is just what we should expect in a
popular teacher who journeyed in different parts of the country. Some of
these were real doublets, spoken by Jesus more than once. Others may be
grouped by Luke in a different place. We have no way to decide the
problem.
BY PROFESSOR A. T. ROBERTSON
A HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS FOR STUDENTS OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. Based on
the BROADUS HARMONY.
A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL
RESEARCH. Third Edition. Pages 1538.
A SHORT GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. Fifth Edition. Pages 284.
Translation in Dutch, French, German and Italian.
PRACTICAL AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. The Wisdom of James.
Second Edition. Pages 271.
PAUL THE INTERPRETER OF CHRIST. Second Edition. Pages 155.
TYPES OF PREACHERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Pages 238.
EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF JESUS. Pages 212. Numerous Editions.
EPOCHS IN THE LIFE OF PAUL. Numerous Editions. Pages 337.
JOHN THE LOYAL: Studies in the Ministry of the Baptist. Pages 327.
Several editions.
THE PHARISEES AND JESUS. The Stone (Princeton) Lectures. The Studies in
Theology Series. Pages 201.
LUKE THE HISTORIAN IN THE LIGHT OF RESEARCH. Pages 267.
THE NEW CITIZENSHIP. Pages 157. Second Edition.
THE GLORY OF THE MINISTRY. Pages 243. Second Edition.
MAKING GOOD IN THE MINISTRY. A sketch of John Mark. Pages 174. Second
Edition.
PAUL'S JOY IN CHRIST. Studies in Philippians. Pages 267. Second Edition.
THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Pages 173. Second Edition.
THE STUDENT'S CHRONOLOGICAL NEW TESTAMENT. Second Edition.
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW. The Bible for Home and
School. Pages 308.
STUDIES IN MARK'S GOSPEL. Pages 158.
STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Many editions. Pages 284.
THE TEACHING OF JESUS CONCERNING GOD THE FATHER. The Teaching of Jesus
Series. Pages 190.
KEYWORDS IN THE TEACHING OF JESUS. Pages 127. Several Editions.
LIFE AND LETTERS OF JOHN A. BROADUS. Pages 476. Numerous Editions.
SYLLABUS FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDY. Pages 207. Fourth Edition.