The only answer which Philip makes is: "Come and see" (John I:45, 46).
On another occasion, Jesus' preaching so impressed His hearers that many
of them said: Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the
Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the
Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the
town of Bethlehem, where David was? (John VII:40, 41, 42).
In both these instances the obvious answer to the objection made would
have been, that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, if that had been a fact.
Again, on the evening of His arrest, Jesus twice affirms that He is
"Jesus of Nazareth" (John XVIII:5, 8). It would seem that, in that
solemn moment of approaching death, Jesus would have asserted His
Messianic claim to a birth at Bethlehem, if it had been a fact. (See
also Mark XVI:6; Luke XXIII:6, 7; XXIV:19; John XIX:19).
[12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were "amazed," and, when he told
them that He must be about His Father's business, "they understood not
the saying which He spoke unto them" (Luke II:50). Apparently their
knowledge of His miraculous conception, and all the predictions of
angels, wise men, shepherds, Simeon, Anna and Elisabeth had produced
little, if any, effect on their minds.
[13] It is an interesting query why all four evangelists give such full
and precise details of this ceremony. Neither John nor Jesus seems to
have attached much importance to it. Only a short time after it
occurred, John had forgotten it, for, while in prison (Matt. XI:2; Mark
VI:17), he sent some of his disciples to inquire of Jesus, "Art Thou He
that should come or do we look for another?" (Matt. XI:2-6; Luke
VII:19-23).
Jesus never mentions His baptism or His then recognition by John, as
giving credence to His claims, although He speaks of him and his mission
as His forerunner (Matt. XI:7-13; Luke VII:24-29). When He appeals to
John as a witness to the truth of His messianic claims, He does not
refer to this baptismal ceremony, but relies on John's statements to
messengers sent to Him (John V:32, 33; III:25-36).
Baptism, as it developed into a religious rite after Jesus' death--the
first step towards admission into the membership of a church--was
unknown to the Jews and to Jesus Himself (Kitto's Cyclopædia of Bib.
Lit., pp. 282-290).
John seems to have given it a temporary popularity, but its practice
among the Jews ceased with his death. Jesus showed as little interest in
it as in other rites and ceremonies. Only one of the Gospels mentions
baptism by Jesus' disciples, and that allusion is very indefinite (John
III:22; IV:1). But it is explicitly added "though Jesus Himself baptized
not" (John IV:2).
The strongest evidence on this point is Jesus' failure to enjoin the
practice of this rite on His followers. Three of the Gospels give quite
fully Jesus' instructions to the apostles and disciples on sending them
out in the world to preach, and not one word is said about baptism
(Matt. X; Mark VI:7-13; Luke IX:1-6).
Probably the evangelists felt the need (more than Jesus Himself) of
fortifying the latter's cause with the ægis of John's popularity. At
this time the Jews were filled with expectations of the coming of some
ruler (Elias, Christ, the Messiah, "he who shall come," etc.), who
should establish an earthly kingdom and give them victory over the
heathen. John's preaching appealed to this feeling and won to him great
numbers of adherents, who remained faithful to him even in prison (Matt.
III:5; XIV:5; Mark I:5; XI:32; Luke III:3). To identify Jesus with this
expectant one, of whom John preached, was to win at once to Jesus' cause
all of John's great following.
[14] It is to be noted that the Epistle of James is directed "to the
twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James I:1), and contains no
allusion whatever to the Gentiles. There is some dispute whether the
author of this epistle, who was bishop of Jerusalem for many years, was
the brother or cousin-german of Jesus, or the brother of John, "the
beloved disciple." There is no doubt, however, that he was an intimate
associate of Jesus during His life-time, and, presumably, a much more
accurate authority on His views than Paul or others who had never seen
Jesus or heard Him speak.
[15] There may be urged, against this view of Jesus' conception of His
mission, certain passages occurring in the different accounts of the
resurrection.
Matthew relates that, on the appearance of Jesus on a mountain in
_Galilee_ to the eleven apostles, where "some doubted" whether it were
He or not, Jesus said, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost" (Matt. XXVIII:19).
Mark relates that, on Jesus' appearance in _Jerusalem_ "unto the eleven
as they sat at meat," He said: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the
Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark XVI:14, 15, 16).
Luke relates that, when Jesus appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven, He
told them that Christ was to suffer and rise the third day "that
repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among
all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke XXIV:47).
According to John, who is by many regarded the most reliable authority
on the events of Passion Week, and who describes the appearances of
Jesus both at Jerusalem and on the sea-shore in Galilee, Jesus said
nothing indicating any change in His views about preaching to the
Gentiles or the importance of baptism. On the contrary, He three times
says to Peter, "Feed my lambs" or "Feed my sheep" (John XXI:15, 16, 17).
But His "sheep" were "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," with whom
alone His mission lay (Matt. XV:24).
The glaring contradictions on this point between Matthew, Mark and Luke
make their evidence of little weight as against the clear and explicit
utterances of Jesus, which these same evangelists have recorded in the
earlier part of their Gospels. No two of them agree as to just what was
said, or when it was said. The use by Matthew of the later formula of
baptism--"in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost"--which
apparently was never used by John the Baptist or Jesus' disciples, marks
his passage with the strongest suspicion.
The account of John is the only one consistent with the previous history
of Jesus, and it is more than probable that these passages from Matthew,
Mark and Luke were interpolated through the influence of Paul and his
followers.
[16] These solitary "retreats" for fasting, prayer and meditation to a
desert, wilderness or mountain are common occurrences in the lives of
religious teachers, prophets, saints, etc., of the Orient. They seem,
however, somewhat foreign to the character of Jesus (Luke VII:33, 34;
Matt. IX:14). This is the only formal fasting by Jesus mentioned in the
four Gospels. Several times it is related that He went up into a mount,
but He either did not go alone, or He spent only a short time,--a day or
a night.
In its location--a mountain--and its duration--forty days--this fast
follows the Old Testament precedents of Moses, on Mount Sinai (Exod.
XXXIV:28), and the prophet Elijah on Mount Horeb (I Kings XIX:8).
The rather theatrical adjunct of the devil and his temptations may fall
in the same category, as Matthew's massacre of the innocents and the
flight to Egypt. It gives opportunity, however, to bring in several
quotations from the Old Testament.
It must be remembered that, as Jesus preached only to the Jews, so the
Gospels (except possibly John), were written with the purpose of
convincing the Jews of the truth of Jesus' claims to be their Messiah.
The more their authors could connect Him with the sayings and
predictions of the Old Testament, the stronger their case. Hence, with
nearly every incident of Jesus' life, they cite some appropriate text of
the Old Testament, usually with the addition, "that it might be
fulfilled" or "as it was spoken by the prophet." In their zeal, it is
possible that, in some cases, an incident was found to fit a text,
rather than a text to fit an incident.
[17] Apparently, after Jesus left Nazareth, He became domiciled at
Capernaum (Mark II:1,15; Matt. IX:1).
[18] The four Gospels use the term "disciples" without much distinction,
as meaning either the apostles or the immediate, personal adherents of
Jesus for the time being.
[19] According to Mark this "feast" was in Jesus' house (Mark II:15; see
Matt. IX:10).
[20] This first discourse of Jesus stands unequaled in religious
writings for its clearness, simplicity and freedom from dogmatic
theology. To appreciate this, it is only necessary to cite some passages
from John's Gospel, which in comparison seem mystic, turgid and
ambiguous (John I:1-14; III:11-23; IV:50-59). There is scarcely a
sentence in the Sermon on the Mount susceptible of a double meaning, or
which a man of ordinary education cannot understand without the aid of a
learned exegesis. Yet how hard it is for the poor human followers of
Jesus to rise to its grand simplicity. Take, for instance, the subject
of fasting. It seems almost impossible for the Christian, of ancient or
modern times, to escape from the idea that, in mortifying the flesh, he
is doing something pleasing to God. John the Baptist both fasted and
enjoined fasting on his disciples. But Jesus neither fasted Himself, nor
enjoined fasting on His disciples (Matt. IX:14; Mark II:18; Luke V:33;
Matt. III:4; Luke VII:33-34). With His sane view of life, free of all
fanaticism, He here, as always, inculcated temperance, condemning the
excess of asceticism, as much as the excess of overindulgence in eating
and drinking. While He does not prohibit fasting, He, in very plain
language checks the enthusiasm of His disciples to make the public
practice of fasting a mark of holiness.
"Moreover, when ye fast, be not as the hypocrites of a sad countenance,
for they disfigure their faces that they may appear to fast."
"But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head and wash thy face. That
thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in
secret" (Matt. VI:16, 17, 18).
This seems so clear that he who runs may read, and how the Roman
Catholic and Protestant Episcopal Churches make it square with their
public celebration of the Lenten fast, for instance, is hard to
understand. The "Fast Day" of New England would seem to come directly
under Jesus' condemnation.
[21] The Sermon on the Mount is probably composed of a number of
utterances at different times and places, which have been compiled and
put together in one discourse by the author of this Gospel.
[22] The promulgation of the Lord's Prayer is one of the most
significant events of Jesus' prophetic career. It illustrates both His
conception of God, and, as a consequence, His dislike of all ceremonial
worship.
The persistent weakness of every religion is to gradually forget, or
ignore, the spiritual unity of its supreme divinity with his human
followers. Whatever may have been the conception of the Deity by the
first great teacher, he soon comes to be regarded as a Being apart, like
the deified monarchs of ancient times, and as one who can be pleased, or
his wrath averted, by offerings and sacrifices. Practically all
religions having their beginning from barbarous races are founded on
sacrifices of animals, and usually of human beings. Even fairly well
civilized nations are not offended by legends describing human
sacrifices as being welcome to God. Examples of this are Abraham and
Isaac among the Jews, Iphigenia at Aulis among the Greeks, and Curtius
among the Romans. The ceremonies attending the rendition of these
offerings and sacrifices form often the most important part of the
religion, as is illustrated by the innumerable minute regulations
contained in the Mosaic books of the Old Testament.
But Jesus' conception of the Heavenly Father was essentially unique in
ever realizing the spiritual unity existing between the Father in heaven
and His Son Jesus and His other children on earth. Mark the difference
between Moses and Jesus in the matter of divine communications. Moses'
messages to the Jews are the results of direct and separate interviews
with the Almighty. He sees Him in the bush, or in the fire, and hears
Him from the clouds. But all this is unnecessary with Jesus. He and the
Father are one, and when He speaks, the Father speaks through Him. In
the beautiful words of Renan:
"Jesus had no visions; God did not speak to Him as to one outside of
Himself; God was in Him; He felt Himself with God, and He drew from His
heart all He said of His Father. He lived in the bosom of God by
constant communication with Him; he saw Him not, but he understood Him,
without need of the thunder and the burning bush of Moses, of the
revealing tempests of Job, of the oracle of the old Greek sages, of the
familiar genius of Socrates, or of the angel Gabriel of Mahomet. The
imagination and the hallucination of a St. Theresa, for example, are
useless here. The intoxication of the Soufi, proclaiming himself
identical with God, is also quite another thing. Jesus never once gave
utterance to the sacrilegious idea that He was God. He believed Himself
to be in direct communication with God; He believed Himself to be the
Son of God. The highest consciousness of God which has existed in the
bosom of humanity was that of Jesus."
With this conception of God, the idea of offerings or sacrifices to
please or placate Him becomes unthinkable. All He asks of His earthly
children is that they lead a God-like life.
Human nature, however, seems too weak to free itself from this
superstition of a Supreme Being to be pleased and His wrath averted.
But, as a nation becomes more civilized and spiritualized, the
manifestation of this superstition takes on different forms. The smoking
altars with their living victims disappear, and, in a measure, the
material offerings of shields and other weapons, chariots, gold and
silver vessels, jewels, etc. But their place is taken by rites and
ceremonies, of which prayer is always foremost. The pilgrimages, votive
offerings, masses, adoration of holy places, long prayers (especially
for victory over our enemies), elaborate church ceremonials, public
fastings, erection of expensive churches "to the glory of God," legacies
to "pious uses," etc., of the present day are the legitimate successors
of the "fat thighs" of the Greeks, and the Shew-bread of the
Jews--offerings to win the favor of a possibly offended or indifferent
Deity. We laugh at the "prayer-mill" of the Hindus, but the idea is the
same as procuring better treatment for your departed soul by purchasing
the performance of long "masses," if you have sufficient wealth.
At the time of Jesus the Jewish religion, as moulded by the Pharisees,
was dominated by the spirit of formalism. Attendance at the synagogue,
public prayers and fasting, observance of minute Sabbatical and other
regulations, were made of more importance than visiting the sick,
helping the poor, succoring the widow and orphan, etc. But the essence
of Jesus' religion was the living of an every-day godlike life, not the
adherence to certain creeds or dogmas, or the performance of rites and
ceremonies. In this formalism He recognized His most dangerous enemy. It
was a deep-rooted evil and hard to eradicate. One of its inherent
dangers is the easy cloak it lends to hypocrisy, and, like the poor, the
Pecksniffs we will always have with us.
Consequently we find Jesus early and late inveighing against the "long
prayers" of the Pharisees and heathen, and the bitterest term He can
apply to the Pharisees is "ye hypocrites." When He comes to instruct His
disciples on the subject of prayer, it is quite probable that He would
have interdicted it altogether, except for that sane temperance which
was so fundamental an element of His character. He recognized the
essential uselessness of prayer addressed to an all-good and all-wise
Father, since He knows what is best for each person without being
instructed, and from His great goodness will do what is best for each
person without being asked.
"For your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask Him"
(Matt. VI:8).
Jesus therefore carefully enjoins on His disciples that they shall not
pray in the synagogue, but "when thou prayest, enter into thy closet,
and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to the Father which is in secret"
(Matt. VI:5, 6). He also cautions them against long prayers--"use not
vain repetitions as the heathen do" (Matt. VI:7).
He then gives them a short, simple prayer, as a model for their efforts.
On this point of prayer Jesus makes Himself clear beyond any possibility
of misunderstanding, as in the case of fasting, and with apparently as
little effect on the modern Christian. The very term "prayer-meeting"
would be anathema to Jesus, and, if He were enticed into one of these
"meetings," He would assuredly think He was in the midst of His old
enemies, the Pharisees.
[23] The "Gadarene swine" were the subject of a once famous controversy
between Huxley and Gladstone (Huxley. Some Controverted Questions.
Chaps. XIV, XV). In the course of the wordy battle there occurs a
delicious bit of humor which is worth preserving. Huxley starts out by
saying that, for himself, he does not believe the miracle ever occurred,
and then adds that he should consider that "the wanton destruction of
other people's property is a misdemeanor of evil example." Gladstone
comments on this that, after eighteen centuries of worship of Jesus, "it
has been reserved to a scientific inquirer to discover that He was not
better than a law-breaker and an evil-doer." Huxley objects to this
accusation, because, as he expressly said he did not believe Jesus ever
sent any devils into any swine, he can hardly be guilty of charging
Jesus with this evil-doing. In his following article Gladstone states
Huxley's position, does not withdraw his accusation, but, in a manner of
apology, says: "The difference, _from his point of view_, is probably
material, and I therefore regret that I overlooked it."
[24] This miracle occurs in Luke before the healing of Jairus' daughter
(Luke VIII:41).
[25] The account of Luke's miracle is so vague as to be very
unsatisfactory. The dead man is unnamed and unknown, neither his
dwelling nor any of his relatives are identified, no one solicits Jesus
to perform the miracle, but the bier is met casually on the street or
country road, and none of the witnesses are named, as in the case of
Jairus' daughter. The narrator of such an unprecedented event, as the
raising of one from the dead, ought at least to furnish some means of
identifying the resurrected person. It is small wonder that Matthew,
Mark and John know nothing of this miracle.
A "doubting Thomas" might explain all three of these resurrection
miracles on the hypothesis of unexpert diagnosis of death, a trance, a
cataleptic fit, or other form of suspended animation. This would not be
possible in the case of Lazarus, if he had been buried in the ground
without the provision of some means of respiration. But he was laid in a
cave covered only by a stone, so that ample means of respiration are not
excluded.
But in the case of Lazarus, the most unexplainable matter is the silence
of Matthew, Mark and Luke on the subject of this miracle. Lazarus and
his two sisters were well known to Jesus and His disciples, and the
sisters are mentioned by all three of the evangelists. Shortly after the
miracle, Jesus comes to Bethany and "there they made Him a supper" (John
XII:2), and Lazarus sat at the table and Martha served. "Then took Mary
a pound of ointment of spikenard very costly and anointed the feet of
Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair" (John XII:3). The disciples were
apparently present, because Judas Iscariot objects to the waste of the
ointment (John XII:4, 5, 6). Both Matthew and Mark relate this event as
occurring in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, except that the
ointment is poured over Jesus' head, and neither the name of Mary or of
Judas Iscariot is mentioned (Matt. XXVI:6-13; Mark XIV:3-9). Luke speaks
of both Martha and Mary on the occasion when Jesus rebukes Martha for
being "troubled about many things" (Luke X:38). The raising of Lazarus
from the dead was not kept secret but was noised abroad, and was known
to many of the Jews in Jerusalem and to the chief priests (John XI:45,
46; XII:9, 10, 11, 17, 18).
Considering the notoriety of this miracle, the intimacy existing between
Lazarus' family and Jesus and His disciples, the relation by all the
evangelists of other incidents in Jesus' life in which Martha and Mary
appear, it is hard to understand why Matthew, Mark and Luke have not a
word to say of this, the most marvelous of all of Jesus' deeds.
[26] Bethsaida is on the same (west) side of the sea of Galilee as
Capernaum, and but a short distance from it, but this desert place was
apparently across the sea, near the land of the Gergesenes (John VI:1,
17; Matt. XIV:22; Mark VI:32). Some claim that there was another
Bethsaida on the east side of the sea of Galilee.
[27] It may seem strange that these numerous miracles had so little
effect in winning permanent adherents to Jesus' cause. The Jews at this
time were, from all accounts, in a state of religious fermentation,
expecting the immediate coming of a Messiah, looking for the signs and
portents of that coming, ready and willing to welcome any miraculous
happenings as proof that their hopes were about to be realized. Yet John
the Baptist, who did no miracles (John X:41), had apparently at the time
of his death a stronger following than Jesus at the time of His death.
(Compare Matt. XIV:5; Mark XI:32; Luke XX:6, with Matt. XIII:57;
XXVII:22; John VII:1; VIII:59; X:39; XI:53.)
The earlier miracles attracted large crowds, but the evidence is
abundant that, later, the miracles lost their effect, and in some cases,
even aroused animosity. Thus Matthew says that Jesus, in the beginning
of His prophetic career, "went about all Galilee," teaching and
preaching and "healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease
among the people." "And there followed Him great multitudes of people
from Galilee and from Decapolis and from Jerusalem and from Judæa and
from beyond Jordan" (Matt. IV:23, 24, 25. See Mark III:7, 8). But, in
Chap. XIII:53-58, he relates how Jesus, coming "into His own country" at
a later date and preaching there, the people "were offended in Him."
"But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his
own country and in his own house. And He did not many mighty works there
_because of their unbelief_." Mark says, "And He could there do no
mighty work, save that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk and healed
them. And He marvelled because of their unbelief" (Mark VI:5, 6).
Luke tells how, after He had preached in the synagogue in His home town
of Nazareth, "all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things,
were filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust Him out of the city, and
led Him unto the brow of the hill, whereon their city was built, that
they might cast Him down headlong (Luke IV:28, 29).
Immediately after Jesus had healed the man, or two men, in the country
of the Gergesenes, Matthew, Mark and Luke agree that the "whole city,"
or the "whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about,"
besought Him to depart out of their coasts (Matt. VIII:34; Mark V:17;
Luke VIII:37).
After Jesus had preached in Jerusalem and performed at least one miracle
there (John V:5-9), the people were so incensed against Him that "He
would not walk in Jewry (Judæa), because the Jews sought to kill Him"
(John VII:1).
Later He went secretly into Judæa on the occasion of the feast of the
tabernacles (John VII:2, 10), and the people took "up stones to cast at
Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the
midst of them and so passed by" (John VIII:59). Again, when He had
restored sight to a blind man, they reviled this man and "cast him out"
(John IX:7, 34).
Again, when Jesus was at Jerusalem at the feast of the dedication (John
X:22), "the Jews took up stones again to stone Him." "Therefore they
sought again to take Him; but He escaped out of their hands" (John X:31,
39).
As regards the raising of Lazarus from the dead, the Jews, instead of
being favorably affected by that stupendous miracle, were apparently
incensed by it. They plotted to put both Lazarus and Jesus to death
(John XII:10), and "Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the
Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city
called Ephraim" (John XI:54).
Finally, Jesus Himself bears witness both to His belief that miracles
were proof of His messianic claims, and that His miracles had failed to
give the support to His cause which He had expected. In one of His most
bitter utterances, He denounces the cities of Galilee, because they
would not believe in Him notwithstanding the many "mighty works" which
He had performed in their midst.
"Woe unto thee, Chorazin. Woe unto thee, Bethsaida."
"But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at
the day of judgment than for you."
"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought
down to hell."
"But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon
at the day of judgment, than for you" (Matt. XI:20-24; Luke X:13-15).
In more temperate language He bewails the coldness and hostility of
Jerusalem.
"How often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not?" (Matt.
XXIII:37; Luke XIII:34. See also Luke XIX:41, 42; Luke XI:31, 32).
The reason why Jesus' miracles produced no lasting effect on the Jews
has already been indicated. They expected their Messiah to show them
miracles as proof of his claims. But this Messiah must be one of their
own creation preaching the doctrines which they wished him to preach.
All the miracles in the world would not have convinced them that Jesus
was the true Messiah, so long as He offered them only a heavenly
kingdom. On the other hand, if He had promised them an earthly kingdom,
they would have acclaimed these same miracles which He did, as
indubitable proofs of His Messiahship. In this respect they differ not
at all from many modern professed followers of Jesus. They follow such
parts of His teaching as happen to suit their own ideas or prejudices,
and calmly ignore other parts, equally explicit and binding, which do
not fit in with their scheme of life. (See Hypocrisy or Truth, _infra_.)
The miracles and, even more, the apparent faith of Jesus in their
evidentiary value, form serious stumbling blocks in the way of those who
revere Jesus as the greatest "Son of Man"--unequaled in the simplicity
and unselfishness of His character and in the sublimity of His
teaching--but free from the tawdry tinsel of supernaturalism, which is
the usual stock-in-trade of leaders of religious sects. Mohammedanism
seems to be the only great religion which has resisted the temptation to
ascribe to its founder, either divine parentage or the power to perform
supernatural acts.
The attribution to Jesus of the Holy Ghost as His father need cause no
difficulty, by reason of the facts set out under sub-head "Conception,"
_supra_.
But as regards the miracles, it is true that few of them have much
scientific value as evidence of the intervention of supernatural powers
in their occurrence. For instance, Matthew records nineteen specific
miracles, of which only one is attested to by all the three other
evangelists, five are attested to by one beside himself, twelve by two,
and one by himself alone. Of the nineteen, five are events--stilling the
tempest--walking on the waters, two feeding the multitude, and one the
blasting of the unfortunate fig tree, which did not bear fruit out of
season. Of the remaining fourteen, one is a lunatic, one has a withered
hand, one is dumb, one is a leper, two have palsy, three are blind, one
has fever, one an issue of blood, two are possessed of devils, and the
ailment of Jairus' daughter is not specified. Without examining each in
detail, it may be said generally that these accounts are very indefinite
as to exact times and places, names of persons cured, or by friends or
relatives, and other details, by which the story might be verified. From
the insufficient data furnished, it would, for instance, have been
almost impossible for a person, starting to investigate these miracles
immediately after Jesus' death to have asserted that any particular
miracle did not occur, although he could not find a single witness to
any of them. Even the names of the disciples present are given only in a
few instances. It is also to be regretted that practically all of the
personal cures, as is the case with more modern miracle workers, fall
within that class of afflictions where ignorance, suggestion,
simulation, conscious or unconscious, etc., can so easily confuse the
result. If some of these latter-day healers would only go to an old
soldiers' home and supply some missing arms and legs, the "doubting
Thomases" would be more ready to concede their possession of
supernatural powers.
But, notwithstanding all this, the four Gospels are so permeated with
these miraculous doings that it would be almost denying them any
credibility at all, to claim that Jesus and His apostles did not believe
that He performed miracles, and that these miracles were proof of His
claim to the Messiahship. It can only be said that Jesus, great as He
was, could not entirely escape the influence of the times in which He
lived.
[28] Here again Jesus makes clear His antipathy to churchly ceremonies
and pharisaical formalism. No ceremony marks the joining of His
disciples. He says to them, "Follow me," and they leave everything and
follow Him. No more is necessary to make them members of His band. So,
no rite, no ceremony marks the choosing or appointing of the twelve
apostles, or bishops, as they would now be called. There is no laying on
of hands, no formal induction or installation into office, no clothing
them in peculiar vestments, or sacerdotal robes, or other visible
insignia of their office or rank. Nor are they given any authority or
pre-eminence over their fellow disciples. Nothing could have been more
foreign to Jesus' ideas than the establishment of a priestly hierarchy.
The instructions as to their preaching are of the simplest--"the kingdom
of heaven is at hand." No creeds, no theological dogmas are to be
impressed on their hearers. But the necessity of their doing good
works--healing the sick, etc.--is emphasized. With Jesus works always
were of more value than words. The admonition to travel simply, without
money or extra raiment, and to depend on the hospitality of the people
among whom they came, reminds us of the practice of the itinerant
missionaries of frontier days in our own country.
Matthew's account is the only one containing the verse: "Think not that
I am come to send peace on earth. I come not to send peace but a sword"
(Matt. X:34). This has often been cited, warped from its context, as
meaning that Jesus sanctioned war as a means of spreading His religion.
But nothing is more contrary to the whole spirit of His teaching and
many express utterances. When His disciples would have Him call down
fire from heaven to consume those who would not receive Him, He "rebuked
them" and said: "For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives,
but to save them" (Luke IX:56). In this chapter from Matthew, Jesus is
predicting that the spread of His Gospel will set individual against
individual (even in the same family), and finally nation against nation,
and that, owing to the weakness of human nature, this would lead to
individual contests and to national contests. Results well justified His
prophecy. So long as the Christians were in the minority, they preached,
and, to some extent, practiced the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount.
But when they became the majority, the sword and torch and the fires of
the Inquisition were their favorite arguments in converting recalcitrant
heathen.
[29] Moderation was the keynote of Jesus' character. Excess in any
direction was contrary to His principles. He had no sympathy with either
the zealot or the ascetic. He condemned as well the faster and the
prohibitionist as the glutton and the wine-bibber. He was most
democratic in His daily intercourse with others. He dined one day with
publicans and sinners, and the next with a Pharisee, notwithstanding His
bitter antagonism to the Pharisees as a sect (Luke XI:37; XIV:1). This
moderation shows itself in the charity of His judgments of others, as in
the case of the woman taken in adultery (John VIII:3-11), the parable of
the Prodigal Son (Luke XV:11). "Judge not that ye be not judged" (Matt.
VII:1) and elsewhere. When He is asked to name the first great
commandment, He does not choose any of the ten stringent provisions of
the Old Testament, but expresses His ideas in the milder forms: To love
God, and to love thy neighbor as thyself (Matt. XXII:36-40; Mark
XII:28-31).
[30] The prophets of the Old Testament had long before the birth of
Jesus inveighed against the disposition among the Jews to magnify _acts
of worship_--religious rites and ceremonies--as pleasing to God and
indicative of holiness in the participant.
"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?--saith the
Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed
beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of
he goats."
"Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the
new moons and _Sabbaths_, the calling of assemblies; I cannot away with;
it is iniquity, even _the solemn meeting_. Your new moons and your
_appointed feasts_ my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am
weary to bear them."
"Learn to _do well_; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the
fatherless, plead for the widow" (Isaiah I:11-17).
"Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands
of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, _the
fruit of my body for the sin of my soul_? He hath showed thee, O man,
what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly,
and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah VI:7, 8).
"For I desired mercy and not _sacrifice_; and the knowledge of God more
than burnt offerings" (Hosea VI:6).
But the Jews had not heeded the admonitions of their prophets, and, in
the time of Jesus, their religion, under the dominating influence of
those zealous laymen--the scribes and Pharisees--had become permeated
with the dry-rot of formalism. Prayers, fastings, rites and ceremonies
had become all important, like the "burnt offerings of bullocks," "the
blood of bullocks," the "incense" and "vain oblations" of earlier days.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of
mint and anise and cummin and have omitted the weightier matters of the
law, judgment, mercy and faith" (Matt. XXIII:23). Their conception of
the Lord was that of the Mosaic times--a jealous Deity to be placated by
sacrifices, and whose favor was to be won by external worship, and not
by inward purity of heart. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites, for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter,
but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee,
cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside
of them may be clean also" (Matt. XXIII:25, 26).
The simple, unceremonial religion which Jesus taught, a living force
animating each act of one's daily life, nourished by secret prayers in
one's chamber, manifesting itself by unobtrusive acts of mercy, not by
public prayers, fastings and religious services, was the direct
antipodes of the ceremonial formalism then dominant among the Jews.
Jesus early recognized this antagonism, and lost no opportunity to
combat this, the greatest obstacle to the spreading of His ideas. He can
use no words too bitter in denouncing those whom He considers the
corrupters of the true worship of God (Matt. XXIII; Mark XII:38-40; Luke
XX:46, 47; XI:42-44). To persons deeply imbued with religious feeling,
hypocrisy is the cardinal sin. "Ye hypocrites" is His constant term of
reproach for the scribes and Pharisees.
Now, the observance of the Sabbath was the keystone in the arch of
formalism which the Pharisees had erected. They had filled the day with
religious ceremonies. They had surrounded it with minute restrictions
and prohibitions, so that even the healing of the sick on that day was
considered by them unlawful. Probably their objection to the disciples
picking and eating corn was not based so much on that fact, as on the
iniquity of Jesus and His disciples taking a pleasant walk through the
fields and country on the Sabbath. As Macaulay said of the Puritans,
they hated bear baiting, not so much because it gave pain to the bear,
as because it gave pleasure to the spectators.
This Sabbath was to Jesus a travesty on the true worship of His Father,
and met His instant and repeated condemnation. He intentionally and
openly violated its laws, and challenged the Pharisees to defend their
position. As in the case of prayer, He again defined His Father's
attitude as caring nothing for these outward observances. "I will have
mercy and not sacrifice" (Matt. XII:7). The weighty matters of the law
are "judgment, mercy and faith" (Matt. XXIII:23). In the expressive
language of the Old Testament His "soul hateth" their Sabbaths and
appointed feasts and solemn assemblies. They were a "trouble" to Him and
He was "weary to bear them." "When ye make many prayers, I will not
hear" (Isaiah I:13, 14, 15). Jesus sums up His conception of the Sabbath
in one of His pregnant sentences, "the Sabbath was made for man, and not
man for the Sabbath" (Mark II:27; Luke VI:5).
If Jesus were on earth today, He would make our Sunday a day of cheerful
rest. Children would rejoice in it, learn to love it, instead of its
being to them (more formerly than now) a day of penance and gloom, with
their forced attendance on a distasteful Sunday school, to study creeds
and catechisms, not suited to their immature years. Attendance at
"church" would be a matter of minor importance, to be determined by each
one for himself. The desire to worship could be satisfied without these
public assemblies, for "where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. XVIII:20).
But the significant deliberation of the day, the only one important
before God, would be the marking it out as the day especially for the
doing of deeds of mercy. Much more righteous in the sight of the Lord
would be the man who had spent the day in hunting, fishing or other
innocent recreation, but yet had one good deed to his credit, than he
who had spent the whole day in religious exercises, and given his "tithe
of mint and anise and cummin," but had not helped, or comforted, or made
happier a single fellow human being. Jesus would say with the poet:
"_Count that day lost, whose low descending sun
Views from thy hand, no worthy action done._"
[31] Jesus had already told the disciples of His approaching death and
resurrection (Matt. XVI:21, 22; Mark VIII:31; Luke IX:22).
[32] Jesus probably spoke to His disciples in the veiled language so
often used by Him, since it is clear that His disciples, down to the
last days in Jerusalem, had not accepted the idea of His immediate
bodily death.
"But they understood not that saying and were afraid to ask Him" (Mark
IX:32).
"And they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from
them, neither knew they the things that were spoken" (Luke XVIII:34; see
Matt. XXIV:3).
It is probable that up to the hour of the Crucifixion many of the
disciples still clung to the hope that Jesus would exert His miraculous
powers to confound His enemies and establish an earthly kingdom.
"They thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear" (Luke
XIX:11).
They quarreled among themselves as to who should have precedence in this
kingdom.
"And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be
accounted the greatest" (Luke XXII:24).
[33] None of these multitudes seem to have been on hand a few days later
to ask Jesus' release from Pilate (Matt. XXVII:15, 17, 22, 23).
[34] This cleansing of the temple is related by John as one of Jesus'
first acts, immediately after the marriage in Cana (John II:14-17).
[35] There is a marked difference between these latest utterances of
Jesus and His first preaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Then He was
enthusiastic, filled with the hope of converting the Jews, and
establishing His Father's spiritual kingdom on earth. Now He is
disappointed, realizing that His death is near, that His religious
teachings have been rejected by practically all of His people, and that
He will leave behind Him a mere handful of followers, few, if any, of
whom yet understand the true meaning of His religion. The spirit of the
Sermon on the Mount is love for one another, kindness active in
every-day life, charity for others' shortcomings, leniency in judging
and punishing offenders. But His later sayings abound in bitter censure
of the Pharisees and others who have thwarted His work, of denunciation
of all evil-doers, of promises of reward to His followers, and of
predictions of severe punishment for those who reject His teachings.
Thus in the Sermon on the Mount He says:
"Blessed are the merciful; for they shall obtain mercy" (Matt. V:7).
"Blessed are the peace-makers; for they shall be called the children of
God" (Matt. V:9).
"Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest
that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before
the altar and go thy way; first be reconciled with thy brother, and then
come and offer thy gift" (Matt. V:23, 24).
"Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him"
(Matt. V:25).
"But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. V:39).
"But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you" (Matt. V:44).
"But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father
forgive your trespasses" (Matt. VI:15).
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all
these things shall be added unto you" (Matt. VI:33).
"Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matt. VII:1).
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote of thy brother's eye" (Matt.
VII:5).
"Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them; for this _is the Law and the prophets_"
(Matt:VII:12).
As to those who heard His sayings and did them not, He speaks no
stronger condemnation than to compare them to the foolish man who built
his house on the sand (Matt. VII:24-27).
Compare with these the following excerpts from His later preachings:
"Verily I say unto you that the publicans and the harlots go into the
kingdom of God before you" (Matt. XXI:31).
"And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on
whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder" (Matt. XXI:44).
"Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take
him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt.
XXII:13,14).
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" (Matt. XXIII:13,
14, 15).
"Ye fools and blind" (Matt. XXIII:17, 23, 24).
"Ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful
outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all
uncleanness" (Matt. XXIII:27).
"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation
of hell?" (Matt. XXIII:33).
"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth"
(Matt. XXIII:35).
"And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in
those days" (Matt. XXIV:19).
"Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other
left" (Matt. XXIV:40).
"And shall cut him asunder and appoint him his portion with the
hypocrites; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt.
XXIV:51).
"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness; there shall
be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. XXV:30).
"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the
devil and his angels" (Matt. XXV:41).
[36] It is impossible for one not versed in the subtleties of Jewish
religious ceremonies to understand the references in the four Gospels to
the feast of unleavened bread and of the Passover. They do not seem to
correspond with the somewhat intricate ritual given in the Old Testament
(Ex. XII:1-20). If the Crucifixion occurred in the year A.D. 33, as the
authorities generally agree, then the feast of the Passover began on the
evening of Friday, the day after this supper and the day of the
Crucifixion. This agrees with John's statements (John XIII:1; XVIII:28;
XIX:14-31). But the other three Gospels speak of the supper on Thursday,
as being the eating of the Passover.
[37] This strife is also given by Luke as of an earlier date (Luke
IX:46). (See also Matt. XVIII:1; Mark IX:34; Mark X:35; Matt. XX:24).
[38] Mark tells of a "certain young man" who followed Jesus, until he
was driven away by the soldiers (Mark XIV:51, 52). He is not identified,
and apparently appears only at this place in the four Gospels.
[39] The motive of Judas in this transaction seems destined to remain an
unsettled controversy. Was he simply a traitor, seeking to sell his Lord
and Master for a price? Or was he a religious zealot, trying to force
Jesus' hand? It has been already noted that the apostles, even at this
late date, were expecting the immediate coming of Jesus' kingdom on
earth and the installation of themselves into the chief offices of that
kingdom (Luke XIX:11; XXII:24). Did Judas, in his supreme confidence in
his Master's supernatural powers, feel convinced that, if once a contest
were precipitated between the Pharisees and Jesus, the latter would
exert those powers and utterly confound His enemies?
The most inexplicable thing in the whole transaction is its utter
futility, both on the side of Judas and of the Pharisees also. On other
visits to Jerusalem, Jesus had kept His movements more or less secret
(John VIII:59; XI:54). But on this last visit there was not the
slightest attempt at concealment. His entry into Jerusalem was attended
by a great multitude, shouting and acclaiming Him (Matt. XXI:1-10; Mark
XI:1-10; Luke XIX:30-40). His cleansing of the temple was an open and
public act (Matt. XXI:12-14; Mark XI:15; Luke XIX:45, 46). Every day He
taught openly in the temple (Luke XIX:47; XXII:53). The chief priests,
elders and Pharisees were present at His teachings and argued with Him
(Matt. XXI:23; Mark XI:27; Luke XX:1). They had already employed spies
to follow Jesus in His preaching and note any seditious or heretical
utterances (Luke XX:20). Every night Jesus and His twelve apostles went
out to Bethany, coming back to Jerusalem in the morning, and the
movements of so numerous a company could not have been concealed (Matt.
XXI:17, 18, 20). Jesus must have been well-known in Bethany, both
because of His long friendship with the family of Lazarus, and because
of the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead (John XI:45; XII:9).
While in Bethany, Jesus and the apostles were entertained publicly at a
supper in Simon's house (John XII:2; Matt. XXVI:6). So far as an
identification of Jesus was concerned, or any assistance in making His
arrest, Judas' services were entirely useless to the Pharisees, and
there was no occasion for spending money on him. The most conclusive
evidence on this point is that of Jesus Himself. All three of the
synoptics agree that Jesus protested against a multitude with their
swords and staves coming out to take Him in the night-time, as though He
were a thief or a fugitive from justice. As He says, "I sat daily with
you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me" (Matt. XXVI:55;
Mark XIV:49; Luke XXII:53). According to John, who is considered the
most accurate of the evangelists on the events of this last week, Judas
did not kiss Jesus or make any other identification of Him. On the
approach of the band, Jesus comes forth and says, "Whom seek ye? They
answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And
Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them" (John XVIII:5). The
Pharisees seem to have had some trouble in procuring the proof of Jesus'
heretical sayings (Matt. XXII:15-16; Mark XII:13; Luke XI:54; Luke
XX:20; Matt. XXVI:60). If Judas had offered to furnish this evidence,
the bargain with the Pharisees would be understandable.
As to the pecuniary side of the transaction, Matthew is the only one who
states that a bargain was made for a definite sum of money. According to
the account of Mark and Luke, Judas volunteered his services, and the
Pharisees "promised to give him money." John does not mention any money
paid or to be paid, although he is especially bitter against Judas (John
VI:64, 70, 71; XII:6; XIII:2, 27). Now, Judas was the treasurer of the
apostles' company and carried the bag (John XIII:29; XII:6). If avarice
were his motive, it would seem strange that he would give up this post
and the possibilities of peculation which it offered, for the small sum
of money he would get from the Pharisees.
Moreover, the fact that, immediately after the conviction of Jesus,
Judas tendered back the money to the Pharisees, and, when they refused
it, cast it down in the temple, and went out and hanged himself, tends
strongly to support the theory that he was a misguided zealot (Matt.
XXVII:3-6).
Against this is the unanimous evidence of the Gospels that he was the
betrayer of Jesus, and that Jesus recognized and branded him as such.
[40] This gathering was presumably the Sanhedrim, the high council of
the Jews. It had jurisdiction to try and sentence Jews charged with
heresy--"corruptors," blasphemers of the temple, destroyers of the true
worship, etc. It could not, however, execute a sentence of death (John
XVIII:31). In such cases it was necessary that the sentence be confirmed
by the Roman tetrarch, procurator, or other governor of the country, and
the execution of the sentence be carried out by Roman soldiers.
[41] This was a trial for heredoxy under the Jewish law upon two
charges, one for blasphemy of the temple, the other for blasphemy of
God. Either, if proved, would warrant a sentence of death. The first was
very near the truth. The charge was, "I am able to destroy the temple of
God, and to build it in three days." Jesus' exact words were, "Destroy
this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John II:19). The
Jews did not understand His hidden meaning that He meant the death of
His body and its resurrection in three days (John II:20, 21). The other
charge was in one sense true, for Jesus had spoken of Himself as the
_Son_ of God. But He had not used these words in the sense attributed to
Him by the Pharisees, that He was himself God, or the equal of God. But,
coupled with His failure to deny these charges, they formed a sufficient
legal basis, under the Jewish law, for His conviction and sentence.
[42] The high priest evidently shifted his ground of attack when he
brought Jesus before Pilate. The main charge here against Jesus was that
He had claimed to be king of the Jews, something that had not appeared
in the proceeding before the Sanhedrim. This was more of a political
than a heretical crime, and one more likely to arouse the suspicion and
hostility of the Romans. Jesus was entirely innocent of this crime, for
He had never claimed for Himself an earthly kingdom. This, and the
charges of heresy, which probably were also presented, did not make much
impression on Pilate. He evidently did not think that Jesus had done
anything deserving a sentence of death, and probably regarded the whole
matter as one of those vexatious religious quarrels among the Jewish
sectaries which were constantly arising to trouble the Roman governors
of Jewry, and in which they had no interest or sympathy with either side
of the controversy. But he found himself in a difficult position. This
demand for Jesus' sentence was backed by all of official Jewishdom, and
they presented His legal condemnation by the Sanhedrim. While Pilate was
not absolutely bound to approve this sentence of the Sanhedrim, yet his
refusal to do so would deeply offend the leaders of the Jewish people
and quite possibly involve him in serious trouble with the authorities
at Rome. Seeking a way out of this dilemma, he bethought himself of the
custom of freeing a prisoner at the feast of the Passover. He tried to
induce the multitude to demand the release of Jesus, and, if there had
been any difference in opinion, would undoubtedly have declared the vote
in favor of Jesus. But the people were unanimous in their demand for the
release of Barabbas. Then, only, he consented to confirm Jesus'
sentence, and attempted publicly to shift the moral responsibility for
his act to the Jewish populace.
[43] There seems to be some question as to whether Antipas was not
governor at this time, instead of Herod (Matt. II:19).
[44] This Annas (or Hanan) is supposed by some authorities to be the
"power behind the throne," the chief instigator of the proceedings
against Jesus.
[45] Pilate evidently inflicted this punishment--milder than death--in
the hope that it would pacify the Jews, and they would permit him to let
Jesus escape the extreme penalty of crucifixion.
[46] From this narrative it would seem that, for one night, the
sepulchre was unsealed and unguarded.
[47] It seems that it was a custom to give criminals this drink in order
to, in a measure, stupefy them and lessen the pains of the crucifixion.
[48] This was probably the usual custom, unless the criminal was too
weak to bear the burden.
[49] No two of these superscriptions on the cross exactly agree.
[50] None of the other Gospels mention Jesus' mother or any of the
apostles as being present at the Crucifixion, and all agree that the
women stood "afar off."
[51] These were precautions, probably usual, to ensure that the
criminals were really dead.
[52] These instructions are contrary to those given to His disciples in
His life-time. He told them expressly not to go to the Gentiles (Matt.
X:5) and said nothing about their baptizing either Jews or Gentiles. No
time or definite place is assigned for this last appearance of Jesus.
[53] Mark does not tell of any appearance of Jesus to the apostles in
Galilee.
[54] The name Cleopas does not appear in the list of the twelve apostles
(Matt. X:2-4).
[55] The story of the resurrection and ascension would have even less
chance of acceptance by an impartial tribunal, than that of the
miraculous conception, or of the birth at Bethlehem. The accounts in the
four Gospels, together with that in the Acts, are such a hopeless mass
of confusion and contradiction that scarcely a single fact can be
extricated, on which they all agree.
As to the time, the place, and the witnesses of the ascension, they are
entirely at variance.
Jesus had, in His lifetime, fixed Galilee as the place of meeting His
apostles after His rising from the dead (Matt. XXVI:32; Mark XIV:28). So
the angel, or the "young man," at the tomb tells the women that Jesus
has gone into Galilee, where His disciples should see Him, "as He said
unto you" (Matt. XXVIII:7; Mark XVI:7).
Now, Matthew's account is the only one of the five originals which says
anything about Jesus appearing to His disciples in Galilee. And,
according to Matthew, this was the only time and place that He did
appear to any one, except the two Marys (Matt. XXVIII:9, 10), and their
statements were not believed by the apostles (Mark XVI:11; Luke
XXIV:11).
According to Matthew, at a time not specified, Jesus appeared to the
eleven on a mountain in Galilee (Matt. XXVIII:16), "and when they saw
Him, they worshipped Him; _but some doubted_" (Matt. XXVIII:17). Now,
from this it is apparent: first, that Jesus did not appear in His
natural, earthly form, for then the eleven would at once have recognized
His identity; and, second, that we have no means of telling just how
many of the eleven would have testified to this being an appearance of
the true Jesus, since "some" doubted.
John's original Gospel warrants appearances of Jesus, first, to Mary
Magdalene, the other Mary not being with her (John XX:15, 16, 17);
second, an appearance on Sunday evening to the apostles, except Thomas
(John XX:19); third, an appearance eight days later to all the eleven
apostles (John XX:26). Nothing is said about any ascension.
John's Chapter XXI, which, as has been said, appears clearly to have
been a later addition to the original Gospel, relates an appearance of
Jesus in Galilee, which is materially different from that of Matthew.
The appearance is not on a mountain, but on the shores of the sea of
Tiberias, and, instead of the eleven apostles being present, there were,
at most, only seven, including Nathaniel of Cana (John XXI:2). All of
them have considerable trouble in recognizing Jesus (John XXI:4, 12).
Nothing is said by Jesus about baptizing, or preaching to, the Gentiles,
but, on the contrary, Jesus tells Peter to feed "my sheep," or "my
lambs" (John XXI:15, 16, 17). Nothing is said about any ascension of
Jesus into heaven.
The Gospels of Mark and Luke, the original Gospel of John, and the Acts,
all agree in fixing the after-death appearances and ascension of Jesus
in Jerusalem or its neighborhood (Luke XXIV:50; Acts I:12). Apparently
the apostles remained for some time in Jerusalem after the Crucifixion
(possibly for forty days, Acts I:3; II:1), until they separated and
"went forth and preached everywhere" (Mark XVI:20). In the Acts it is
said that Jesus "commanded" them to remain in Jerusalem, until the gift
of the Holy Ghost should be sent to them (Acts I:4).
It is evident, in all these accounts, that the apostles had never
understood, or had entirely forgotten, the predictions of Jesus in His
lifetime that He would rise from the dead (Matt. XVI:21; XVII:23; XX:19;
Mark VIII:31; IX:31; X:34; Luke IX:22; XVIII:33). They were not
expecting any resurrection. They were not waiting at the tomb for it to
occur, and, by the unanimous testimony of all the writers, they showed
the greatest surprise and incredulity at the first reports of Jesus'
appearance alive (Matt. XXVIII:17; Mark XVI:11, 13; Luke XXIV:11, 16,
37, 41; John XX:9, 14, 25).
Furthermore, it is also evident that Jesus, in these appearances, must
have assumed some form or shape different from His natural earthly body.
Otherwise His intimate friends and associates could not have been in
such uncertainty about recognizing His identity.
Thus Matthew says that when He appeared to the eleven "some doubted."
But if He had appeared in His natural form, how could any of the
apostles have doubted as to whether the apparition was He or some other
person?
According to Mark, the apostles questioned the accuracy of the report by
Mary and the two disciples that they had seen Jesus (Mark XVI:13, 14).
Luke relates that Jesus spent a considerable portion of one day with two
of the disciples, and joined them at their evening meal. But they did
not recognize Him until He blessed some bread, brake it, and gave to
them, and then "He vanished out of their sight" (Luke XXIV:13-31). On
His first appearance in the midst of the apostles, "they were terrified
and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit." Even after He
showed them His hands and feet, their doubts were not dissipated, and,
although He ate a piece of fish and some honey comb, it is not
explicitly stated that this removed all their uncertainty (Luke
XXIV:36-43).
According to John, Mary Magdalene, who was well acquainted with Jesus in
His lifetime, when she saw this apparition, "knew not that it was
Jesus." She spoke to Him, "supposing Him to be the gardener." He gives
her a message to His disciples, and it is implied in the narrative that
she then recognizes Him as Jesus, although it is not explained how this
change came about (John XX:14-17). On His appearance to the apostles, He
shows them His hands and feet, as though that were necessary to confirm
their recognition of His identity. Thomas, apparently, will not trust to
the story of the other apostles; nor even to the personal appearance of
Jesus, until he has put his fingers into the prints on Jesus' hands and
feet (John XX:19-28). If Jesus had worn His earthly form these prints,
which the apostles had never before seen, could not have aided in His
identification.
The account in John, Chap. XXI, shows that the seven assembled at the
sea of Tiberias did not at first recognize Jesus, although one of them
was Thomas, who had already identified Him in Jerusalem. "But the
disciples knew not that it was Jesus" (John XXI:4). A little later it is
said: "And none of the disciples durst ask Him, Who art Thou? Knowing
that it was the Lord" (John XXI:12). No explanation is given as to how
this knowledge finally came to them.
Out of this welter of confusion and contradictions, it is impossible to
select any one coherent, authoritative story. With equal warrant of
authority it may be asserted that He appeared to the apostles only in
Galilee (Matt.) or never in Galilee, but only in Jerusalem (Mark, Luke,
Acts); that Jesus' first appearance was to the two Marys (Matthew), or
was to Mary Magdalene alone (Mark, John), or that He did not appear to
them at all, but two men "in shining garments" gave them the message to
the apostles (Luke); that He made a special appearance to two of the
apostles (Mark, Luke), or that He did not make this appearance (Matthew,
John); that He never appeared to the apostles but once (in Galilee
according to Matthew, in Jerusalem, according to Mark and Luke), or that
He appeared to them twice in Jerusalem (John XX) and once in Galilee
(John XXI), or that He was with the apostles in Jerusalem for forty
days, apparently in frequent communication with them (Acts I).
As to the ascension, it either occurred at some indefinite time on some
unidentified mountain in Galilee and could be testified to by the
unspecified number of the eleven who did not "doubt" (Matt.); or it
(impliedly) occurred at some indefinite time on some unspecified shore
of the sea of Tiberias, in Galilee, and was witnessed only by the seven
(John XXI); or it occurred in Jerusalem at some unspecified time or
place, and, so far as appears, in the presence of no one (Mark XVI:19);
or it occurred at Bethany at some indefinite time in the presence of
some unspecified number of His disciples (Luke XXIV:50, 51); or it
occurred at least forty days after the Crucifixion on "the mount called
Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's journey," in the
presence of persons who are only identified as "they" (Acts I); or, so
far as the Gospel of John is concerned, even including Chapter XXI, it
could fairly be claimed that He did not know of any specific ascension.
While the exact date of the writing of the four Gospels and of the Acts
cannot be determined, yet, in any event, they must have been composed
when there were many living witnesses to the events of Jesus' life. If
such a stupendous miracle as the ascension had occurred shortly after
Jesus' death, it is inexplicable that these historians should not have
shown some practical unanimity as to the time, place and witnesses of
the event.
[56] "The attitude of slave-holders towards freedom in the abstract was
grotesque in its lack of logic; but the attitude of many other classes
of men, both abroad and home, towards it was equally full of a grimly
unconscious humor. The southern planters, who loudly sympathized with
Kossuth and the Hungarians, were entirely unconscious that their tyranny
over their own black bondsmen made their attacks upon Austria's
despotism absurd." Roosevelt's Life of Benton, American Statesmen
Series, p. 275.
[57] Compare his severe criticism of the abolition revolt from the Whig
party in 1844 with his own revolt from the Republican party in 1912.
Life of Benton, American Statesmen Series, page 291.
[58] If this had been written after the Spanish war, he might, with
equal logic, have said the same thing of Porto Rico and the Philippines.
[59] It would be interesting if President Roosevelt had cited some
international controversies in which one nation did not claim that the
matter in dispute was "of great importance" and that there was no "doubt
as to which side was right."
[60] From the context he evidently means here any shadow or pretense of
title.
[61] If, as Mr. Roosevelt concedes, the war with Mexico was
unjustifiable, it is rather difficult to understand how the morals of
the people of the United States could have been improved by the
consciousness that they had unjustly slaughtered many thousands of
innocent Mexicans and robbed them of immense areas of their lands.
[62] It is apparent that Matthew uses the word "drinking" in the sense
of "drinking wine," and undoubtedly Luke uses the word "drink" in the
same sense. In all, or nearly all, instances in the four Gospels where
these words are used in connection with eating or fasting, they refer to
the drinking of wine. As to the words "wine," or "fruit of the vine,"
when used in the Gospels, meaning some unfermented liquid, the
undeviating practice of the early Christian churches in celebrating the
Holy Communion with actual wine, stamps this claim as too absurd to
merit discussion. Undoubtedly Peter, James, John, Paul and the other
founders of the infant churches knew and followed the example of Jesus
in prescribing wine as a part of this solemn ceremony. If the "universal
tradition of the church" is not to be believed on this point, of what
value is it on any other? It would be as sensible to claim that there
has never been any difference between Moslems and Christians in the use
of wine, because, in truth, the orthodox Christian was never authorized
to use anything but some unfermented drink that a Moslem might also have
used.
Transcriber's notes:
The following is a list of changes made to the original.
The first line is the original line, the second the corrected one.
_Joseph,_ not _Mary_, as being af the house of David (Luke II:4).
_Joseph,_ not _Mary_, as being of the house of David (Luke II:4).
like Judaea, and that it was taken at least ten years after
like Judæa, and that it was taken at least ten years after
[12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were "amazed", and,
[12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were "amazed," and,
and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan" (Matt. XIX:1).
and came into the coasts of Judæa beyond Jordan" (Matt. XIX:1).
(Matt. XXI:23-46; XXII! XXIII; XXIV; XXV).
(Matt. XXI:23-46; XXII; XXIII; XXIV; XXV).
the children of God; whosover, therefore, shall humble himself
the children of God; whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself
sacrifice for mercy (Matt. XII:7.) When prayers are regarded
sacrifice for mercy (Matt. XII:7). When prayers are regarded
International Cyclopaedia, Sabbath, Vol. XII, p. 857.
International Cyclopædia, Sabbath, Vol. XII, p. 857.
of that day advised "_panem et circenses_"--food and amusement
of that day advised "_panem et circenses_"--food and amusement.