Transcriber's Note:

Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as possible, including some inconsistencies in hyphenation. Some changes of spelling and punctuation have been made. They are listed at the end of the text.

The REAL JESUS of the FOUR GOSPELS

By J. B. ATWATER

MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 1922

Copyrighted, 1921

J. B. ATWATER

THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED TO ALL THOSE WHO, IN AGES PAST, HAVE SUFFERED OR SHED THEIR BLOOD ON ACCOUNT OF CREEDS, DOGMAS, THEOLOGIES, INQUISITIONS OR OTHER PERVERSIONS OF THE SIMPLE, ALL-SUFFICIENT RELIGION TAUGHT BY JESUS: LOVE THE LORD, THY GOD, WITH ALL THY HEART, AND THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF.

[PREFACE]

The first part of this work is a collation of all that is said, and just what is said, in each of the four Gospels, regarding the more important incidents of Jesus' life. Every statement in the text, it is thought, is accurate, free from personal coloring or sectarian bias, and may be verified from the passages cited. After examining various lives of Jesus, harmonies of the Gospels, etc., there seemed to be need of such a work, which would furnish simply the facts, and leave the reader to form his own conclusions.

Certain notes are appended in elucidation of or comment on the text, and these may be taken for what they are worth. Their underlying idea is, that the true greatness of Jesus lay in His being a human Teacher and not a Divine Redeemer, and therefore the supernatural parts of the Gospel story are not of vital importance.

The King James version has been used, since that has been the Bible of English-speaking peoples up to the present century, and their conceptions of Jesus have been formed from it, and not from the revised version. The differences between the two versions are probably not material to any matter herein discussed.

The second part is an attempt to point out, and comment on, the many and wide divergences that have grown up between the preachings of Jesus and the practices of His professed followers. Its object is not to criticise the short-comings of Christianity, but to bring home to the people of the United States a realization of the practical effect which these divergences have had, and are now having, on political and economic questions of high import to the present and future welfare of mankind.

[The REAL JESUS of the FOUR GOSPELS]

[Part I]

GENEALOGY

Mark and John give no genealogy of Jesus, except that He was the son of Joseph and Mary (Mark III:31; VI:3; John I:45; II:1; XIX:25), and is spoken of as the son of David (Mark X:47, 48; XI:10; John VII:42).

Matthew gives a genealogy from Abraham down to Joseph (Chap. I), and Luke gives one from Joseph up to Adam (III:2, 23-28).[1]

These two lines of ancestry are the same from Abraham down to David. There they diverge into two separate lines. Matthew has the next in descent Solomon, son of David and Bathsheba, former wife of Uriah, the Hittite (1 Chron. III:5). Luke has, in place of Solomon, his fullblood brother Nathan (1 Chron. III:5).[2]

From this point down, there is little agreement between the two lines of descent.

Even as to the father of Joseph, Matthew has Jacob, while Luke says his name was Heli. They agree as to Joseph's grandfather—Matthan or Matthat—but, as to his great grandfather, Matthew has Eleazar, while Luke has Levi.

As to Matthew's line of descent from Solomon, most of his names will be found in I Chron. Chap. III, although there are several differences. Where Luke obtained his names of Nathan's descendants, does not appear.[3]

[CONCEPTION]

Matthew and Luke state that Jesus was conceived of Mary, when a virgin, by the Holy Ghost (Matt. Chap. I, Luke Chap. I).

Mark and John are silent on the subject, except as they speak of Jesus as being the son of Joseph and Mary (Mark III:31; VI:3; John I:45; II:1; XIX:25).

Matthew says that Joseph, after he was "espoused" to Mary and was her "husband", but before they "came together", discovered that she was with child and was "minded to put her away privily." But an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and told him that his "wife" was with child by the Holy Ghost,[4] and would bring forth a son, and that he should call His name Jesus. Matthew adds that this was in fulfillment of an Old Testament prophesy, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel" (Isaiah VII:14).[5]

Luke gives the name of the angel, to-wit: Gabriel,[6] but he appears to Mary instead of to Joseph. He also appeared before Mary's conception, instead of after, as in Matthew.[7] Apparently Mary, while "espoused" to Joseph, was not yet his "wife", since she asks the angel how she shall conceive, "seeing that I know not a man?" (Luke I:34).[8] It would also seem that the appearance of the angel was not in a dream, since his conversation with Mary is related as any ordinary conversation between two natural persons.[9]

PRE-NATAL INCIDENTS

Luke gives (Chap. I) a quite lengthy account of the conception of John the Baptist, which is very similar to the story of the conception of Samson in the Old Testament (Judges Chap. XIII). He also tells of a three months' visit of Mary to Elisabeth, mother of John the Baptist and Mary's cousin (Luke I:36), and of Elisabeth's recognition of Mary as the mother of "My Lord" (Luke I:43).[10] While Mary treated the announcement of the angel rather indifferently (Luke I:38), she now, on this salutation of Elisabeth, pours out a grand hymn of invocation and thanksgiving for the blessing that has come upon her (Luke I:46-55).

The three other evangelists are silent as to these incidents and do not mention any relationship between Jesus and John.

BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD

Mark and John furnish no information as to the life of Jesus prior to His baptism by John.

Both Matthew and Luke agree in giving Bethlehem of Judæa as the place of Jesus' birth. Apparently Matthew considered Bethlehem the then residence of Joseph and Mary, for he says nothing of their presence there being temporary, and Joseph, when he returned from Egypt, was going back to Judæa (Bethlehem), but, on being warned of God in a dream, "he turned aside into the parts of Galilee; and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth" (Matt. II:22, 23). Luke, however, says that Joseph and Mary came down to Bethlehem from Nazareth to be taxed (or enrolled), and, because there was no room for them in the inn, Jesus, when born, was laid in a manger. Matthew does not mention any manger, but, on the other hand, the "wise men of the East" find the family in "the house," as would be natural if Bethlehem was Joseph's residence (Matt. II:11).

Matthew alone tells the story of the visit of the wise men from the East (Matt. II:1-2). He does not tell us the country from which they came, nor how they learned of the approaching birth of Jesus, the usual deus ex machina of Matthew and Luke—an angel in a dream—not being used here, although he appears in warning the wise men not to see Herod on their return (Matt. II:12).

Matthew also relates that it was revealed to the "wise men" that Jesus was to be "king of the Jews" (Matt. II:2). But Jesus never used this title as applying to Himself, and, that He did use it, was one of the "false" charges made against Him at His trial (John XVIII:33, 34, 36).

Luke also has a visit to the new born Jesus, but it is of shepherds "in the same country," instead of strangers from the East. To these shepherds appeared, not a star, but first one angel and then "a multitude of the heavenly host." This gives Luke the opportunity to introduce a beautiful hymn of greeting to the new born Babe, which is entirely lacking in Matthew (Luke II:10-14). The shepherds did their homage by "glorifying and praising God," instead of by gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh (Matt. II:11).

Matthew is the only one of the evangelists to tell of the slaying by Herod of "all the children that were in Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof from two years old and under," and the flight of Joseph and Mary to Egypt (Matt. II:16-23).[11]

Luke alone tells of the visit to the temple when Jesus was twelve years old, and of His meeting the "doctors," "both hearing them and asking them questions" (Luke II:46).[12]

BAPTISM OF JESUS

John's baptism of Jesus is the first event in the latter's life which all four evangelists unite in recording. The earlier events related by Matthew and Luke—Mark and John either do not know, or do not believe, or do not deem worth recording.

John begins his preaching about the year A. D. 26 (Luke III:1). Apparently Jesus was "about thirty years of age" when He was baptized (Luke III:23). The four Gospels describe at some length, and with substantial agreement, the preaching of John and the incidents of the baptism (Matt. III, Mark I, Luke III, John I).

Matthew's narrative covers seventeen verses, and John recognizes Jesus, for he says, "I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?" (Matt. III:14).

It does not appear that any one but Jesus saw the dove descending from heaven, or heard the voice (Matt. III:16-17).

Mark's narrative is the most concise, covering eleven verses, and omitting one or two points of John's preaching and his recognition of Jesus, as given in Matthew (Mark I:1-11). It does not appear that John knew or greeted Jesus in any way, or that any one but Jesus saw the dove or heard the voice.

Luke expands the story to twenty-two verses (Luke III:1-22), adding some points of John's preaching not given in Matthew or Mark. The baptismal ceremony is condensed into two verses, and, as in Luke, it does not appear that John recognized Jesus, or that any one but Jesus saw the dove or heard the voice.

John's account covers twenty-two verses (John I:15-36), and differs quite markedly from the other three. This Gospel adds a material point to John's preaching not in the others (John I:15-18), and omits certain points appearing in the others. The actual baptism itself is not described, but John speaks of it as an event that had occurred. He did not recognize Jesus on first meeting Him (contrary to Matthew's version): "And I knew Him not" (John I:31, 33). But "I saw the spirit descending from heaven like a dove and it abode upon Him" (John I:32). And "He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost" (John I:33). On account of this sign, therefore, he accepted Jesus as the "Lamb of God."[13]

JESUS' MISSION AS HE CONCEIVED IT DURING HIS LIFE-TIME

From this point on, the accounts of Jesus' movements in the four Gospels are so confusing and contradictory that the only feasible plan seems to be to follow one Gospel to its end, noting similarities or differences in the other Gospels as they occur in the course of the narrative.

But, before starting on this, it seems necessary to grasp clearly just what was Jesus' basic purpose in this, His life-work. Probably nine out of ten of His followers of today would say that it was to redeem mankind and convert the world to His teachings. Now, the evidence of the four Gospels is directly contrary to this view. Jesus had little regard for the Gentiles or Heathen, and no interest whatever in their conversion. His references to them are usually derogatory and rather contemptuous (Matt. VI:32; X:18; XVIII:17; XX:19; Mark X:33, 42, 43; Luke XXII:25), although there are one or two exceptions, when He is upbraiding the Jews for their unbelief (Matt. VIII:10; XI:21).

Apparently He never preached to the Gentiles, and was loath to exercise His healing powers for their benefit. When the woman of Canaan besought Him to cure her daughter, He at first refused on the ground that His healing powers were reserved for the Jews. "It is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to dogs" (Matt. XV:26).

In His instructions to His apostles and disciples (Matt. X; Mark VI:7-13; Luke IX:1-6), He does not enjoin on them to preach to the Gentiles, but, on the contrary, expressly prohibits them from doing so. "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and, into any city of the Samaritans, enter ye not" (Matt. X:5; see also Matt. X:23).

The apostles, as judges in heaven, are to have jurisdiction, not over the Gentiles, but only over Jews. "Ye, also, shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. XIX:28).

The angel who announced Jesus' conception to Joseph said that "He shall save His people from their sins"—not the whole world or "all nations" (Matt. I:21). So the angel who announced the conception of Jesus to Mary said that God should give unto Him the throne of His father David, and that He should "reign over the house of Jacob forever" (Luke I:32, 33).

One of the first recorded utterances of Jesus is: "Think not that I come to destroy the Law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matt. V:17). The converted Paul, with the over-zeal that often marks converts, conceived that his own mission was to destroy the old Jewish law, and worked most successfully towards that end, overcoming the opposition of Peter, James, John and other intimate associates of Jesus (Gal. Chap. II). But Jesus, in adhering to the old Law, necessarily excluded from His scheme of redemption all Gentiles and others who did not practice circumcision and similar obligatory rites of the Jewish faith.

Finally, we have Jesus' own clear and positive declaration of His understanding of His mission. "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. XV:24).

As against this explicit statement of His position, the two ambiguous references to some future (apparently after His death) preaching of His Gospel "for a witness unto all nations," or that it "must first be published among all nations," can have no weight (Matt. XXIV:14; Mark XIII:10).

The evidence establishes beyond a doubt that the characterization of Jesus by Paul and others who had never heard or seen Him, as an evangel to the Gentiles and a redeemer of mankind, was not only not authorized by Jesus, but was explicitly repudiated by Him. His only mission, as He conceived it, was to bring back the Jews to the true, simple worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.[14]

That Jesus failed in this mission must be admitted. At first the people flocked in multitudes to listen to His preaching. This was due in part to their expectation of a coming Messiah and, no doubt, in part to the effect of John's work. But what the Jews expected was an earthly kingdom and a ruler who would give them victory over the heathen. They had no interest whatever in a spiritual kingdom. Their disappointment was bitter when they found that Jesus promised them only a kingdom in heaven. Nor were they affected by such miracles as healing the sick, making the blind to see, the lame to walk, etc. The miracles they demanded were those of the Old Testament, when the Lord of Hosts visited His overwhelming wrath upon the armies of their enemies.

His neighbors of Galilee were the first to fall away from Jesus, and apparently He felt this defection deeply (Compare Matt. IV:25 with Matt. XIII:57, 58; Mark I:28 with VI:4, 5, 6). Even His own brothers did not believe in Him (John VII:5).

This opposition to Him spread (Matt. XI:20; XIII:57), and gradually deepened into active animosity, so that He was on occasions driven out of different places, or was in danger of stoning or death (Matt. VIII:34; Luke IV:29; John VII:I, 19, 44; VIII:59; X:39).

Finally the end came at Jerusalem, when His personal adherents had apparently dwindled down to a few besides His apostles. Jerusalem had always shown Him little favor, but, at this time of the Passover, it was filled with Jews from all parts of their country. Yet, when Pilate offered to release Him to the people, there was none to ask for His freedom. At the very last, even all His disciples fled from Him (Matt. XXVI:56).

Some small bands or sects of Jewish followers survived His death, but their numbers constantly diminished, and all of them disappeared within a few centuries after His death. From that time to this the Jews have consistently, and practically unanimously, rejected Jesus' teachings and His claims to be their Messiah.[15]

JESUS' FAST IN THE WILDERNESS

Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Jesus, after His baptism by John, was "led up," or driven "of the Spirit" into the wilderness, staying there forty days fasting and being "tempted of the devil" (Matt. IV:1-11; Mark I:12, 13; Luke IV:1-13). Mark says that this was "immediately" after the baptism, and condenses the event into two verses. Matthew and Luke give in detail the temptations of the devil. Matthew and Mark mention that Jesus was ministered to by angels. Luke adds at the end that the devil departed from Him "for a season."[16]

John directly contradicts this story of Matthew, Mark and Luke. He gives Jesus' movements specifically for three days after His baptism. On the first day He calls two of His apostles, Andrew and his brother Simon Peter (John I:35-42). On the second day He calls Philip, and here occurs the interview with Nathaniel (John I:43-51), which appears only in this Gospel. On the third day Jesus, instead of fasting in the wilderness, attends a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee, and performs what John says was His first miracle—the turning of water into wine (John II:1-11).

"After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brethren and His disciples; and they continued there not many days" (John II:12). "And the Jews' Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem" (John II:13).

THE CALLING OF THE APOSTLES

Matthew says that, after the fasting in the wilderness and after a visit to Nazareth, Jesus "came and dwelt in Capernaum" on the coast of the Sea of Galilee (Matt. IV:12,13). As He was walking by the sea, he found Peter and Andrew fishing, and summoned them to follow Him (Matt. IV:18,19,20). Going on from thence He found James and John fishing and summoned them also (Matt. IV:21-22). Matthew does not tell us of the circumstances of the calling of the other apostles except Matthew. After the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount, and the performance of various miracles, and Jesus had come into Capernaum (Matt. IX:1; IV:13),[17] as He "passed forth from thence, He saw a man named Matthew sitting at the receipt of custom; and He saith unto him, follow me, and he arose and followed Him" (Matt. IX:9). Matthew speaks several times of the "disciples" (apostles)[18] collectively, both before and after the calling of Matthew (Matt. V:1; VIII:23,25; IX:19). The names of the twelve are given in Chap. X:1-4.

Mark has the same account as Matthew of the calling of Peter, Andrew, James and John, but in place of the calling of Matthew has the following: "And as He passed by he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, follow me. And he arose and followed Him" (Mark II:14). After this Mark several times mentions His "disciples" (Mark II:15, 16, 18, 23; III:7, 9), and later says that He "ordained twelve that they might be with Him and that He might send them forth to preach" (Mark III:14). Both Matthew and Mark give James "the son of Alphaeus," as one of the apostles, but not Levi.

Luke relates that Jesus found Peter, with James and John, his "partners," fishing by the "Sea of Gennesaret" (Galilee), and called them and they followed Him (Luke V:1-11). He omits any mention of Andrew and adds two new incidents, that Jesus "taught the people out of the ship," and that Peter and the others put out their nets and they "inclosed a great multitude of fishes; and their net broke."

A little later Jesus "saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom," and He said to him, "Follow me, and he left all, rose and followed Him" (Luke V:27, 28).

Luke adds here the incident that Levi "made Him a great feast," at which publicans and others sat down, and the scribes and Pharisees rebuked the disciples, saying "Why do you eat and drink with publicans and sinners?" (Luke V:27-32).[19]

At some uncertain time later Jesus called "unto Him His disciples, and of them He chose twelve, whom also He named apostles" (Luke VI:13). Then follow the names, the same as in Matthew and Mark.

John's story is somewhat variant. Jesus' baptism took place at Bethabara, beyond Jordan, in the Decapolis, and some distance both from Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee. Here, on the next day, Jesus meets John and two of His disciples (John I:35, 36). One of these is Andrew, and he brings His brother Simon Peter to Jesus. The two acknowledge Him as the Messiah, and thereafter follow Him (John I:40-42). The following day Jesus finds Philip and makes him one of His disciples (John I:43). There is no further mention of any specific apostles being called by Jesus, although there are constant references to His disciples being with Him (John II:2, 12, 17; III:22; IV:8). There is no specific account of the choosing of the twelve, although the Gospel mentions later that they had been chosen (John VI:67, 70).

In the last chapter of John "Nathaniel of Cana" is mentioned apparently as one of the twelve apostles (John XXI:2), although his name is not in the lists of Matthew, Mark and Luke. He was probably the same Nathaniel who appears earlier in this Gospel (John I:43-51).

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

The Sermon on the Mount is the first discourse by Jesus narrated by Matthew, and is the longest connected discourse to be found in the four Gospels. The place of its delivery is not fixed other than that "He went up into a mountain," but it was probably some elevation of land in Galilee, near Capernaum (Matt. IV:13). The time of its delivery is also not fixed, although it must have been shortly after the baptism by John. Jesus had already done some preaching in Galilee and performed some miracles (Matt. IV:23, 24), but the delivery of the sermon ante-dates all the specific miracles which Matthew relates. The discourse covers three chapters (109 verses) of Matthew's text.

There is, in the four Gospels, no other connected discourse corresponding to the Sermon on the Mount, except in Luke. In Chapter VI he gives a discourse covering twenty-nine verses of his text, which are substantially the same as corresponding verses of the Sermon on the Mount. The place of the delivery of this discourse is not fixed, except that it was on a "plain" (Luke VI:17), probably near Capernaum (Luke VII:1). The time is not fixed, except that Luke's sermon on the plain occurs after a number of miracles and other events (Luke IV:33-44; VI:1-19), while in Matthew's narrative the Sermon on the Mount occurs before these events (Matt. VIII and following).

Some of the verses of this discourse will be found scattered through Mark and John, but a considerable portion of it is entirely lacking. For instance, the "beatitudes" do not appear in either Mark or John.[20]

THE LORD'S PRAYER

In Matthew the Lord's Prayer forms a part of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. VI:9-13).[21]

According to Luke (Luke XI:2-4) it was given to the disciples alone, and not to a multitude, as in Matthew. In Luke it also comes at a much later date than the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount. One verse is slightly different, Luke having, "and forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one who is indebted to us," in place of Matthew's "and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." Luke also omits the last sentence in Matthew's version.

The Lord's Prayer is not found in Mark or John.[22]

THE FIRST MIRACLES

Matthew says, in a general way, that Jesus healed "all manner of sickness" before the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. IV:23, 24). But the first specific miracles which he describes occurred after that event (Matt. VIII:1-15). The first was the leper, the second the centurion's servant, afflicted with palsy, and the third was the mother of Simon Peter's wife, who was "sick of a fever." Jesus saw and touched the leper and Peter's wife's mother, but the centurion's servant was one of the few cases where the cure was effected in the absence of the patient and without Jesus' seeing him.

The curing of the leper is described by Mark (I:40) and by Luke (V:12). Luke describes the healing of the centurion's servant (VII:1-10), differing only in that the friends of the centurion came to Jesus instead of the centurion in person, as in Matthew.

Mark and Luke both relate the curing of Peter's wife's mother (Mark I:30; Luke IV:38).

John mentions none of these miracles, but, alone of all four evangelists, narrates the miracle at Cana of changing water into wine (John II:1-10), and says that this was Jesus' first miracle (John II:11). He then describes the curing of the sick "son of a nobleman of Capernaum" (John IV:46-53), and says that this was the second miracle "which Jesus did when He was come out of Judæa into Galilee," viz: after His baptism by John (John IV:54). The circumstances of this miracle are quite similar to those of the centurion's servant described by Matthew and Luke, the cure being effected in the absence of the patient.

Matthew next gives the miracle of the stilling of the tempest (Matt. VIII:23-27), which is also found in Mark (IV:35-41), and in Luke (VIII:22-25). This miracle is not found in John.

Then follows the miracle of driving the devils out of the two men of the "country of the Gergesenes," and sending them into a herd of swine which "ran violently down a steep place into the sea and perished in the waters" (Matt. VIII:28-34).

Mark narrates the same miracle as occurring in the country of the Gadarenes, except there is one man instead of two (Mark V:1-20). The sufferings of this man, who is possessed of "an unclean spirit," are described in some detail. The spirit, being asked for his "name," says, "My name is Legion; for we are many." Thereupon he or they beseech Jesus not to send them away out of the country, but: "Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them." Jesus "gave them leave," and they entered into the swine ("they were about two thousand") and the swine ran violently down a steep place, and "were choked in the sea."

Luke's account (Luke VIII:26-40) follows substantially that of Mark. There was one man in the country of the Gadarenes "which had devils a long time." The devil or devils besought Jesus "that He would not command them to go out into the deep," but would send them into the swine. This Jesus does, and the swine run down a steep place and are choked in the sea.

All three accounts agree that, after the miracle, "the whole city," or "the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about," besought Jesus to depart from them. The only reason given for this action is the statement of Luke "for they were taken with great fear" (Luke VIII:37).

John does not mention this miracle.[23]

THE RAISING OF THE DEAD

There are three miracles of this class in the Gospels.

The first (apparently) in point of time is related by Luke (Luke VII:11-17).[24] The day after the curing of the centurion's servant at Capernaum (Luke VII:1), Jesus went into a city called Nain, with "many of His disciples" and "much people" (Luke VII:11). Nain was an inland city in the southern part of Galilee, some distance from Capernaum and the sea of Galilee. This is the only time that this city is mentioned in the four Gospels. As Jesus approaches the city, the dead man is carried out, followed by his mother, a widow, and "much people of the city" (Luke VII:12). Apparently without any solicitation, Jesus tells the dead man to arise, "and he that was dead sat up and began to speak" (Luke VII:13, 14, 15). The dead man and his relatives are not otherwise identified and there is no reference to this miracle in any of the other Gospels.

The next miracle of this class is that of Jairus' daughter.

Matthew relates that, while Jesus was at Capernaum after the miracle of the Gadarene swine (Matt. IX:1, 10), a "certain ruler" came to Him and said: "My daughter is even now dead; but come and lay Thy hand upon her, and she shall live" (Matt. IX:18). In answer to this request Jesus and His disciples go to the ruler's house, and find "the minstrels and the people making a noise." Jesus says, "Give place, for the maid is not dead but sleepeth. And they laughed Him to scorn. But when the people were put forth, He went in and took her by the hand, and the maid arose" (Matt. IX:23, 24, 25). On the way to the ruler's house occurs the miracle of the woman with an issue of blood touching Jesus' garment and being cured (Matt. IX:20, 21, 22).

Mark places this miracle immediately after that of the Gadarene swine, when Jesus had passed over the sea (Galilee) unto the other side (Capernaum), nigh unto the sea (Mark V:21). "One of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name," came to Him and told Him, "My little daughter lieth at the point of death" (Mark V:23). Jesus takes with him only Peter and James and John, and, on the way to the ruler's house, word is brought that the daughter is dead (Mark V:35, 37). Jesus brings the father, mother, Peter, James and John into the girl's room, takes her by the hand and bids her arise. At once she arose and walked, "for she was of the age of twelve years" (Mark V:40, 41, 42). The curing of the woman with the issue of blood is also given, but at considerable more length than in Matthew (Mark V:25-34).

Luke's account (Luke VIII:41-56) is substantially the same as that of Mark. The daughter "lay a dying" when Jairus went to get Jesus, and word of her death comes just as the miracle on the woman with an issue of blood is performed. Jesus took the father and mother and Peter, James and John into the house, but, apparently, excluded them from the girl's room, when he performed the miracle. "And He put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise" (Luke VIII:54).

The raising of Lazarus from his grave is told only by John (John XI:1-46). It occurred late in Jesus' prophetic career, very shortly before the last Passover (John XI:55; XII:1, and following). Jesus was then at Bethabara in Decapolis (John X:40; I:28). Lazarus and his sisters, Mary and Martha, were living in Bethany, in Judæa, quite near Jerusalem, but some little distance from Bethabara. Jesus already knew the family and "loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus." Lazarus falling sick, the sisters send to Jesus saying, "Lord, behold, he whom Thou lovest is sick" (John XI:3). Jesus does not go at once but waits two days (John XI:6). Apparently the reason for this delay is that, instead of healing a sick man, He may raise a dead man from the grave "that the Son of God might be glorified thereby" (John XI:4, 11-15). When Jesus came to Bethany, He "found that he (Lazarus) had lain in the grave four days already" (John XI:17). Martha first, and then Mary, came out to meet Jesus, and express their belief that, if He had been there, Lazarus would not have died; but are in doubt as to his now being restored to life (John XI:24, 32, 39). They then go to the grave, which "was a cave and a stone lay upon it" (John XI:38). Jesus then "cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes, and his face was bound about with a napkin" (John XI:43-44).[25]

THE LOAVES AND FISHES

Matthew relates that Jesus departed hence (from Capernaum, Matt. XIII:54) "by ship into a desert place apart" (Matt. XIV:13). This was just after the beheading of John the Baptist by Herod (Matt. XIV:10, 11, 12). A "great multitude" followed Jesus, "and He healed their sick" (Matt. XIV:14). At evening the disciples wished Jesus "to send the multitude away that they may go into the villages and buy themselves victuals" (Matt. XIV:15). But Jesus said, "Give ye them to eat." They had but five loaves and two fishes, and Jesus took these and broke them and the disciples distributed them to the multitude (Matt. XIV:16-19). "And they did all eat and were filled; and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, besides women and children" (Matt. XIV:20, 21).

Mark, Luke and John follow very closely the narrative of Matthew, Luke adding the detail that the "desert place" belonged to the city of Bethsaida[26] (Mark VI:30-45; Luke IX:10-17; John VI:1-13).

A similar miracle is related by Matthew and Mark (Matt. XV:29-39; Mark VIII:1-9) as occurring shortly after the first, on a mountain near the sea (Galilee) in "the midst of the coasts of Decapolis" (Mark VII:31). There were seven loaves and a "few small fishes," seven baskets full of the broken food were left, and they that did eat "were four thousand men, besides women and children" (Matthew), or "about four thousand" (Mark).

Luke and John do not give this miracle.

OTHER MIRACLES

Besides those already mentioned, the following specific miracles are found in Matthew, the details of which it is not necessary to give. These are outside of general and indefinite statements of persons cured of various afflictions.

(a) The curing at Capernaum of the man sick of the palsy (Matt. IX:1-7). See Mark II:1-12, Luke V:17-26, where the sick man is let down on his bed through the roof.

(b) The giving sight to two blind men, apparently at Capernaum (Matt. IX:27-31).

(c) Restoring his speech to a dumb man at the same time and place (Matt. IX:32-34).

(d) Curing of the man with the withered hand (Matt. XII:10-13). The place of this miracle is uncertain.

(e) The case of the blind and dumb man possessed of a devil (Matt. XII:22, 23). The circumstances of this miracle are the same as in (c).

(f) The walking on the waters (Matt. XIV:22-23) near the land of Gennesaret (Matt. XIV:34). See Mark VI:47-52; John VI:16-21.

(g) The curing of the daughter of the Gentile woman "vexed with a devil" (Matt. XV:22-28). The place of this miracle was "the coasts of Tyre and Sidon" (Matt. XIV:21).

(h) The curing of the lunatic son of a "certain man" (Matt. XVII:14-18). This occurred in some part of Galilee not specified (Matt. XVII:1, 22, 24). See also Mark IX:17-27; Luke IX:37-42.

(i) The curing of the two blind men near Jericho (Matt. XX:30-34). See also Mark X:46-52; Luke XVIII:35-43.

(j) The blasting of the fig tree near Bethany (Matt. XXI:18-20). See Mark XI:12-14, who explains the absence of figs on the tree—"for the time of figs was not yet."[27]

THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE APOSTLES

Matthew devotes an entire chapter to this subject (Matt. X). This is the first time in Matthew's narrative that the term "Apostles" is applied to the followers or disciples of Jesus (Matt. X:2). Up to this point he has mentioned specifically the calling of only five of the apostles (Matt. IV:18, 21; IX:9), although there are possible references to others (Matt. VIII:19, 21).

The first injunction is that they shall not preach to the Gentiles or Samaritans, but "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. X:5, 6).

The only instruction as to the subject-matter of their preachings is that they shall say "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. X:7).

They are told to "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils" (Matt. X:8).

They are to provide no money for their expenses and carry little raiment (Matt. X:9,10).

When they enter into a city, they are to seek a worthy house and abide therein, and, if a city will not receive and hear them, "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city" (Matt. X:11-15).

The remainder of the chapter contains warnings of the trials that will befall the apostles on their mission, admonitions against losing their courage and promises of the rewards that will follow the faithful performance of their work. Jesus also predicts the family dissensions that will accompany the gradual introduction of His Gospel, and in that connection uses the expression: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matt. X:34).

The place of this statement is not fixed, nor the time, except that it appears in the narrative after the Sermon on the Mount and the raising of Jairus' daughter.

Mark tells how Jesus went "up into a mountain and calleth unto Him whom he would" (Mark III:13). He then "ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach" (Mark III:14). Then follow the names of the twelve apostles, the calling of four of whom Mark had already related (Mark I:16-20). At a somewhat later time he tells of the sending forth of the twelve apostles, but condenses the instructions to them into four verses (Mark VI:7-13).

Luke tells that Jesus, "having gone out into a mountain to pray, called unto Him His disciples, and of them He chose twelve, whom also He named apostles" (Luke VI:13, 14). The calling of Andrew, Peter, James and John, and of Levi (if he were one of the apostles) had already been given (Luke V:1-10, 27, 28). The instructions to the apostles appear later in his narrative and are condensed into three verses (Luke IX:1-6).

Luke alone of the four evangelists tells that, at a later date, Jesus "appointed other seventy also" to go before Him and preach (Luke X:1). To these seventy are given instructions similar to those given to the twelve in Matthew (Luke X:2-12).

John tells of the calling of Andrew, Peter and Philip (John I:40, 41, 43), but has no account of any special instructions given to the apostles.[28]

THE TEMPERATE LIFE

In rebuking the obduracy of the then generation of the Jews, Jesus illustrates His view of right living, viz: temperance in all things.

"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous and a wine bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners" (Matt. XI:18, 19).

In the face of the example of asceticism set by John the Baptist, Jesus neither fasted Himself, nor did He enjoin fasting on His disciples (Matt. XI:18, 19; IX:14; Mark II:18; Luke V:33). While He objected to the charge of excess, He both ate meat and drank wine in moderation, and inculcated the same practice on His disciples. "And in the same house remain eating and drinking such things as they give" (Luke X:7). He must have been companionable in His every-day life, for He both entertained in His own house (Matt. IX:10; Mark II:15), and was a welcome guest at entertainments given in His honor. "And Levi made Him a great feast at His own house" (Luke V:29). "And it came to pass as He went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath day" (Luke XIV:1). "And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus was called and His disciples to the marriage" (John II:1, 2). "There they made Him a supper" (John XII:2).[29]

He could sympathize with the spirit of joy and cheer appropriate to such occasions, for when the wine failed at the wedding in Cana, He provided a fresh supply, better than the first (John II:3-10).

THE OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH

On a certain Sabbath day, Jesus and His disciples were passing through the corn fields (Matt. XII:1; Mark II:23; Luke VI:1). Luke says that it was "the second Sabbath after the first," probably calling "the first" the one on which Jesus preached in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke IV:16). The disciples, being hungry, began to pluck and eat the ears of corn. The Pharisees object that they "do that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath day." Jesus cites the example of David eating the shew-bread in the house of God, and says that if they understood the meaning of the saying, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice," they would not have condemned the guiltless. "And He said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath" (Mark II:27).

On another Sabbath day (Luke VI:1, 6), a man with a withered hand was in the synagogue, and the scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? That they might accuse him." Jesus cites the case of a sheep falling into a pit on the Sabbath day, and says: "Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath day." Thereupon He restores the man's hand "whole" (Matt. XII:10-13).

In Mark and Luke, Jesus asks the question of the scribes and Pharisees as to whether it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath day. "But they held their peace. And when He had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, He saith unto the man, stretch forth thine hand" (Mark III:1-5; Luke VI:6-10).

Again Jesus is teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath and cures a woman of a "spirit of infirmity" of eighteen years' continuance. The "ruler of the synagogue" objects "with indignation" to this healing on the Sabbath, because "there are six days in which men ought to work." Jesus says: "Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering" (Luke XIII:11-17).

Another similar case occurred when Jesus "went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath," and healed a certain man "which had the dropsy." Here He cites against the Pharisees the illustration of an ass or an ox falling into a pit on the Sabbath day (Luke XIV:1-6).

John records two more cases of cures being performed on the Sabbath day, and of the Pharisees objecting to them as unlawful acts (John V:1-17; IX:1-38. See John VII:23).[30]

THE TRANSFIGURATION

Six (or eight) days after certain preaching, Jesus "taketh Peter, James and John" and "bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them; and His face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light" (Matt. XVII:1, 2). Moses and Elias then appear and talk with Jesus (Matt. XVII:3). Peter proposes that they make three tabernacles (Matt. XVII:4). A cloud then overshadows them and a voice comes out of the cloud, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him" (Matt. XVII:5). The disciples are afraid, fall on their faces, but Jesus touches them and tells them to arise and be not afraid (Matt. XVII:6, 7). When they arise they see no man, except Jesus (Matt. XVII:8). As they come down from the mountain, Jesus charges them, "Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of Man be risen again from the dead" (Matt. XVII:9).

Mark follows closely the narrative of Matthew, and adds that the disciples "kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean" (Mark IX:2-10).[31]

Luke follows the accounts of Matthew and Mark, adding that the disciples were "heavy with sleep," but saw the vision when they awoke, and "they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen" (Luke IX:28-36).

John says nothing about this vision.

THE EVENTS PRECEDING JESUS' ARREST

About the middle of his Gospel, Matthew says, "From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto His disciples" His future trial, death and resurrection at Jerusalem (Matt. XVI:21). Peter, with his faith in Jesus' earthly power, "began to rebuke" Him, saying that this should not be done unto Him (Matt. XVI:22). But Jesus turned on him and said, "Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offense unto me; for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matt. XVI:23. See also Matt. XVII:22, 23).

Mark and Luke both give this incident, although Luke omits the rebuke of Peter (Mark VIII:31-33; Luke IX:22).

In all three Gospels the incident closely follows Peter's declaration of Jesus as "Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. XVI:16; Mark VIII:29; Luke IX:20).

Again, at a later date, as Jesus is going up to Jerusalem, He predicts to His disciples the fate that is there awaiting Him (Matt. XX:17-18; Mark IX:31, 32; X:32; Luke XVIII:31).

Just when these communications were made to the disciples is not clear, but the earliest of them must have been some time before the last visit to Jerusalem, since they precede much of Jesus' teaching and many of His parables and miracles.[32]

As the last Passover approached, Jesus "departed from Galilee and came into the coasts of Judæa beyond Jordan" (Matt. XIX:1). He continued His preaching as He journeyed, and finally came to Bethphage, nigh unto Jerusalem (Matt. XXI:1). From there He sends two of His disciples to a neighboring village, and they bring to Him an ass and her colt (Matt. XXI:1-7). Riding on the ass (or the colt), He makes His entry into Jerusalem. The multitude spread their garments, and branches from the trees, in the way, crying out, "Hosanna to the son of David," and salute Him as "Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee" (Matt. XXI:7-11).[33] Jesus then went into the temple, drove out those who bought and sold therein,[34] and healed the blind and lame (Matt. XXI:12-16).

Leaving Jerusalem, Jesus goes to Bethany (Matt. XXI:17) to the house of Simon the leper (Matt. XXVI:6). On the following day He returns to Jerusalem, and on the way occurs the blasting of the fig tree (Matt. XXI:18-23). It would seem that Jesus must have spent some time in Bethany, preaching in the day time in Jerusalem, since there follow four and a half chapters of preaching and parables, which were delivered before the Passover (Matt. XXI:23-46; XXII; XXIII; XXIV; XXV).[35]

While Jesus was at Simon's house in Bethany, sitting at meat, a woman (who, it seems, was Lazarus' sister Mary; see John XI:2) came in with an alabaster box of very precious ointment and poured on His head. The disciples object to this as a useless waste, but Jesus rebukes them and commends the woman for her act (Matt. XXVI:6-13).

Mark follows closely Matthew's narrative to this point, except that Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a colt, "whereon man never sat" (Mark XI:2; Luke XIX:30), and except that the cleansing the temple of the money changers is omitted (Mark XI:11).

Luke adds to the accounts of Matthew and Mark the encounter with Zacchaeus, and Jesus' entertainment by him (Luke XIX:1-7). According to him, it was "the whole multitude of the disciples" who greeted Jesus on His entry into Jerusalem (Luke XIX:37). Luke omits the anointing of Jesus by Mary.

John omits the cleansing of the temple, which he had already given at a much earlier date (John II:13-17), and says that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped them with her hair, instead of pouring the ointment over His head (John XII:3-8).

THE LAST SUPPER

As the feast of unleavened bread of the Passover approaches, Jesus sends Peter and John (Luke XXII:8) into Jerusalem to secure a room, in which He and His disciples may eat, or "kill", the Passover (Matt. XXVI:17-19). The room is secured, the Passover made ready, and "when the evening was come, He sat down with the twelve" (Matt. XXVI:20).[36]

While they were eating, Jesus tells the twelve that one of them shall betray Him, and indicates, in a rather veiled way, that Judas is the one. They all ask, "Master, is it I?" and He says to Judas, "Thou hast said" (Matt. XXVI:20-25).

Jesus then blesses the bread and the wine, and gives them to eat and drink and says: "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matt. XXVI:26-29).

After singing a hymn, they go to the Mount of Olives, and Jesus warns them of the approaching calamity. "All ye shall be offended because of me this night." The apostles, and especially Peter, affirm that they would die rather than deny Him. Jesus says to Peter: "Verily I say unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice" (Matt. XXVI:30-35).

Jesus with the disciples then goes "unto a place called Gethsemane." He takes Peter and James and John a little farther and says to them, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." He goes apart from them and prays, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt." He returns to find the disciples sleeping. He repeats the prayer twice, and then says to them, "Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners" (Matt. XXVI:36-45).

In Mark the two disciples are sent into the city to meet a man "bearing a pitcher of water." They are to follow him into whatsoever house he shall go in, and there secure the guest chamber. This was done, "and they made ready the Passover" (Mark XIV:12-16).

While they are eating, Jesus tells them that one of them shall betray Him—"one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish," but does not specify which one it is. The other incidents of the evening follow (Mark XIV:17-42) as in Matthew.

Luke recounts the passing of the bread and wine, and the saying of Jesus that one of the twelve should betray Him, without specifying which one (Luke XXII:22).

He then relates a new incident (that is, at this feast), a strife among the apostles as to which should be greatest. Jesus rebukes them, telling them not to imitate the Gentiles, but that he that is chief should be as he that serveth (Luke XXII: 24-30).[37]

The prediction of Peter thrice denying his master takes a little different form. Instead of saying to the apostles, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night," Jesus addresses Himself to Peter alone. Evidently, having some doubt of his constancy, He says: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." Peter then asserts, "Lord, I am ready to go with Thee, both into prison and to death." Jesus then predicts that Peter will deny Him thrice before the cock crows (Luke XXII:31-34).

There follows a passage very difficult to understand, in view of the fact that a short time later Jesus rebukes one of His followers for cutting off the ear of the high priest's servant. He reminds His apostles of the time when He sent them forth without purse or scrip, and they lacked for nothing. He then tells them that now they should take both purse and scrip, "and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." "And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said unto them, It is enough" (Luke XXII:35-38).

The visit to the Mount of Olives and the prayer offered there is described more briefly than in Matthew or Mark. There is no mention of the garden of Gethsemane, but Luke adds that an angel from heaven appeared, "strengthening Him" (Luke XXII:39-46).

John's version of the Last Supper is quite different from that of the other three evangelists. He omits any description of the selection of the place for the feast. He places the supper before the Passover, apparently correctly, instead of its being the celebration of the Passover, as in the other three Gospels (John XIII:1). He omits any mention of the blessing and passing of the bread and wine. He alone of the evangelists relates that, after the supper, Jesus took a basin of water and a towel, and washed the apostles' feet, impressing on them a lesson in humility (John XIII:4-17). Jesus says to the apostles that one of them shall betray Him. Peter and John ask Him, "Who is it?" Jesus answers, "It is the one to whom I shall give a sop." He then gives the sop to Judas, and says, "What thou doest, do quickly." Judas goes away at once, although none of the apostles (unless Peter and John) understand that He is accused (John XIII:18-30). After his departure, John has Jesus delivering a long discourse, covering four chapters and part of another, none of which appears at this time in the other three Gospels. After this is finished, Jesus goes with His disciples over "the brook Cedron," into a garden, but there is no mention of the praying there, which appears in the other Gospels (John XVIII:1).

THE BETRAYAL

On Tuesday or Wednesday of this Passover week the "chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people" came together unto the palace of Caiaphas, the high priest, and determined on Jesus' death (Matt. XXVI:3). Judas Iscariot then comes to them and promises to deliver Jesus to them in consideration of thirty pieces of silver (Matt. XXVI:14-16). Previous to this last visit to Jerusalem, Jesus had predicted His death and betrayal, but without indicating that His betrayer would be one of the apostles (Matt. XVI:21; XX:18-19). At the last supper Jesus indicates Judas as His betrayer, but somewhat equivocally, since the other apostles, if they had understood he was the traitor, would undoubtedly have cast him out of their society. So far as appears, he continued to take part in the supper (Matt. XXVI:21-25). Just after Jesus had finished His prayer in the garden, Judas comes with a great multitude of the chief priest's servants, carrying swords and staves. In accordance with a pre-arranged plan, Judas kisses Jesus, and thereupon the servants of the priests lay hands on Him and take Him (Matt. XXVI:47-50). One of those with Jesus draws his sword and strikes off the ear of one of the high priest's servants. Jesus rebukes him, saying, "For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matt. XXVI:51-54). "Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled" (Matt. XXVI:56). But Peter followed "Him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants to see the end" (Matt. XXVI:58). Then follows the fulfillment of Jesus' saying that Peter should deny Him thrice before the crowing of the cock (Matt. XXVI:69-75).

Judas, when he saw that Jesus was condemned, brought the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priest in the temple, saying, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." The chief priests tell him, "What is that to us? See thou to that." Thereupon Judas cast down the money in the temple, went away and hanged himself (Matt. XXVII:3-6).

Mark tells of the conspiracy of the chief priests and scribes, and that Judas went to them and offered to betray Jesus. "They were glad and promised to give him money" (Mark XIV:1, 2, 10, 11). Before this, Jesus had predicted His approaching death to the apostles, but had said nothing of any betrayal (Mark IX:31; X:33). At the last supper Jesus says that one of the twelve shall betray Him, but does not identify in any way which one it is (Mark XIV:18-21). Mark then relates, as in Matthew, the kissing of Jesus by Judas (Mark XIV:43-45), the cutting off the ear of the high priest's servant (Mark XIV:47), the desertion of Jesus by all the apostles (Mark XIV:50), Peter's following Him afar off to the palace of the high priest (Mark XIV:54), and denying Him thrice before the cock should crow twice (Mark XIV:66-72). What subsequently happened to Judas, Mark does not state.[38]

According to Luke, the chief priests and scribes had formed their conspiracy to kill Jesus at a somewhat earlier date than in the other Gospels (Luke XX:19). They watched and sent forth spies to listen to His words and obtain material for their charges (Luke XX:20). Jesus had already predicted His suffering and death at Jerusalem, but did not mention His betrayal (Luke XVIII:31-33). But the apostles "understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken" (Luke XVIII:34).

As the priests and scribes are planning the time of killing Jesus (Luke XXII:2), "then entered Satan into Judas," and he went to Jesus' enemies and offered to betray Him (Luke XXII:3, 4). "And they were glad and covenanted to give him money" (Luke XXII:5). At the supper Jesus says that one of those at the table shall betray Him, but does not indicate which one (Luke XXII: 21-23). At the Mount of Olives Judas came at the head of a multitude and "drew near unto Jesus to kiss Him. But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?" (Luke XXII:47-48). Jesus then heals the servant, whose ear was cut off (Luke XXII:50, 51). Peter followed Him to the house of the high priest, and denied Him thrice before the cock crew (Luke XXII:54-62). Nothing is said about Judas' subsequent fate.

According to John, Jesus knew from the beginning "who should betray Him" and at an early date told the apostles, "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (John VI:64, 70).

At or before the last supper the devil put it into Judas' heart to betray his Master (John XIII:2, 27). Jesus tells the apostles that one of them shall betray Him (John XIII:21). Peter and John desire to know which one of them He means, and Jesus tells John that it is the one to whom He shall give a sop. He then dips a sop and gives it to Judas, with the remark, "What thou doest, do quickly" (John XIII:22-27). "Now, no man at the table knew for what intent He spoke this unto him" (John XIII:28). John alone says that Judas immediately went out into the night (John XIII:30).

After Jesus had finished His discourse at the supper, and gone into the garden, Judas appears with a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees (John XVIII:1-3). Jesus then "went forth and said unto them, 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:4, 5). Simon Peter then cuts off the right ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest, and Jesus rebukes him (John XVIII:10, 11). Peter and another disciple, who was known to the high priest, follow Jesus to the palace, and there Peter makes his denial three times before the cock crows (John XVIII:15, 16, 17, 18, 25-27).

The subsequent fate of Judas is not related.[39]

THE TRIAL

Immediately after His arrest, Jesus is taken away to "Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled" (Matt. XXVI:57).[40]

The council seek "false witnesses" against Jesus and at first have some difficulty in finding any. "At the last came two false witnesses, and said: This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days" (Matt. XXVI:59, 60, 61). Interrogated as to this charge, "Jesus held His peace" (Matt. XXVI:62, 63). The high priest then adjures Him to tell them whether He is "the Christ, the Son of God" (Matt. XXVI:63). "Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matt. XXVI:64). The high priest accepts this as a confession of blasphemy, and, on appeal to the council, they say, "He is guilty of death" (Matt. XXVI:65, 66). They then indulge their spite against Jesus by spitting in His face and striking Him with their hands (Matt. XXVI:67, 68).[41]

In the morning (Friday) the chief priests bind Jesus and bring Him to Pontius Pilate, the Roman "governor" or procurator (Matt. XXVII:1, 2). Pilate asks Him, "Art Thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest" (Matt. XXVII:11).[42] He persists in maintaining His position of silence or non-negation against all the accusations of the chief priests, "insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly" (Matt. XXVII:12-14). Pilate's wife, having been warned in a dream, sends word to him, "Have thou nothing to do with that just man" (Matt. XXVII:19). It being a custom of the feast of the Passover that the governor should release one prisoner to the people, and Pilate, knowing that the chief priests had delivered Jesus to him out of "envy," asks the multitude whom he shall release unto them, Barabbas or Jesus (Matt. XXVII:15, 16, 17, 20, 21). The multitude demands the release of Barabbas, and, on Pilate's asking them what he shall do with Jesus, "they all say unto him, Let Him be crucified" (Matt. XXVII:22). "And the Governor said, Why, what evil hath He done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let Him be crucified" (Matt. XXVII:23). Pilate then washed his hands before the multitude, "saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it. Then answered all the people and said, His blood be on us, and on our children" (Matt. XXVII:24, 25). Thereupon Pilate released Barabbas, and after he had scourged Jesus, delivered Him to be crucified (Matt. XXVII:26).

In Mark the charges before the Sanhedrim are the same as in Matthew with some slight verbal changes (Mark XIV:53-66). To the question, "Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" Jesus answers directly, "I am."

The proceedings before Pilate are substantially the same as in Matthew (Mark XV:1-15).

According to Luke, the session of the Sanhedrim was held "as soon as it was day," instead of in the night, immediately after Jesus' arrest (Luke XXII:66). The only charge here is, "Art Thou the Christ?" Jesus, after a few words, recognizing the futility of any defense, says, "Ye say that I am" (Luke XXII:66-71).

Luke's account of the proceedings before Pilate is more detailed than, and somewhat different from, that of Matthew and Mark. The charge is maliciously distorted so as to offend the political susceptibilities of the Romans. "We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that He Himself is Christ, a King" (Luke XXIII:2). Pilate, after questioning Jesus, says at once, "I find no fault in this Man" (Luke XXIII:4). This makes the chief priests the more fierce, and they press again their charges, mentioning that Jesus comes from Galilee (Luke XXIII:5). Galilee being in Herod's jurisdiction, and Herod being then in Jerusalem, Pilate sends Jesus to him, probably hoping thus to rid himself of the whole trouble (Luke XXIII:6, 7).[43] Herod questions Jesus, who answers him nothing, and then with his men of war mocks Jesus, arrays Him "in a gorgeous robe," and sends Him back to Pilate (Luke XXIII:8-11). Pilate then calls together the "chief priests and the rulers and the people," and tells them that both he and Herod have examined Jesus, and lo, "nothing worthy of death is done unto Him" (proved against Him) (Luke XXIII:13-15). "I will, therefore, chastise Him and release Him" (Luke XXIII:16). "And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this Man, and release unto us Barabbas" (Luke XXIII:18). Twice more Pilate urges that Jesus be released, but they insist that He be crucified. Pilate finally yields and "gave sentence that it should be as they required" (Luke XXIII:20-24).

Neither Mark nor Luke nor John mentions that Pilate publicly washed his hands of responsibility for Jesus' sentence.

John's account of the trial is very indefinite. Jesus was first taken to Annas,[44] the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest, and Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas (John XVIII:13, 14). There was probably a session of the Sanhedrim, though this is not clear, and it was probably at the house of the high priest (John XVIII:15). No specific charges against Jesus are mentioned, but the high priest asked Him "of His disciples, and of His doctrine" (John XVIII:19). Jesus replies that He has spoken openly, and said nothing in secret, and that the priest should ask those who had heard Him (John XVIII:19, 20, 21, 23). No formal condemnation of Jesus is related, nor is it said who was present except the high priest.

Then "they" bring Jesus to Pilate "unto the hall of judgment," but "they cannot enter in, because it would defile them for the eating of the Passover that night (John XVIII:28). Pilate then comes out to them and asks what accusation they have against Jesus (John XVIII:29). They evade the issue by saying, "If He were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered Him up to thee" (John XVIII:30). Pilate very aptly tells them to take Him and judge Him according to their Law, but they reply, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death" (John XVIII:31). Pilate thereupon goes back to the judgment hall, and, after an examination of Jesus, comes out and says, "I find in Him no fault at all" (John XVIII:33-38). He then suggests that, according to custom, he release Jesus unto them. "Then cried they all again, saying, Not this Man, but Barabbas" (John XVIII:39, 40).

Upon this Pilate has Jesus scourged, a crown of thorns put on His head, and a purple robe about Him, and has the soldiers hail Him as King of the Jews (John XIX:1-3). He once more brings Jesus before the people and states that he finds no fault in Him.[45] The Jews still insist that by their law He ought to die, "because He made Himself the Son of God" (John XIX:4-7). Pilate goes back into the judgment hall, and talks further with Jesus, evidently hoping to find some way out of his dilemma (John XIX:8-11). "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release Him; but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this Man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend" (John XIX:12). Pilate makes one more effort to save Jesus, but, failing, delivers Him over to be crucified (John XIX:13-16).

THE CRUCIFIXION

The soldiers, taking Jesus, at first mocked Him, putting on Him a scarlet robe and a crown of thorns, spitting on Him and smiting Him (Matt. XXVII:27-30). They then put His own raiment on Him, and took Him to the place of Crucifixion, on the way impressing a "man of Cyrene, Simon by name," to carry His cross (Matt. XXVII:31, 32). When they reached Golgotha, they gave Him vinegar to drink, mixed with gall, but, on tasting it, Jesus refused to drink (Matt. XXVII:33, 34). They then crucified Him with two thieves, one on each hand, and parted His raiment, casting lots (Matt. XXVII:35, 38). Over His head they set up "His accusation written: This is Jesus, the King of the Jews" (Matt. XXVII:37). The passers-by and the chief priests and the two thieves mocked and reviled Him on account of His prophecies and His failure to save Himself (Matt. XXVII:39-44). The Crucifixion was apparently at the sixth hour, and darkness was over the land until the ninth hour (Matt. XXVII:45). Jesus then cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" (Matt. XXVII:46). Some of them who stood there thought that He called for Elias; one of them took a sponge filled with vinegar and gave it to Him to drink (Matt. XXVII:47, 48). "Jesus, when He had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost" (Matt. XXVII:50). Then was the veil of the temple rent in twain, and "the earth did quake and the rocks rent" (Matt. XXVII:51). Graves were opened, and bodies of the saints which slept arose, "and came out of the graves after His resurrection," and appeared to many in the "holy city" (Matt. XXVII:52, 53). When the centurion and the soldiers saw these things done, "they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God" (Matt. XXVII:54). There were many women from Galilee, "beholding afar off," including Mary Magdalene, Mary, Jesus' aunt, and also the mother of the apostles James and John (Matt. XXVII:55, 56). "When the even was come" Joseph, a rich man of Arimathæa, takes Jesus' body, Pilate, at his request having delivered it to him, wraps it "in a clean linen cloth," and lays it in his own new tomb, "hewn out in the rock." He rolls a great stone to the door of the sepulchre and departs (Matt. XXVII:57-60). On the following day the chief priests come to Pilate and tell him of Jesus' prophecy, that after three days He would arise again. They express their fears that the disciples may steal the body and claim that He was risen from the dead. Pilate gives them a watch, and "they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone and setting a watch" (Matt. XVII:62-66).[46]

Mark follows closely the narrative of Matthew, except he says that they offered Jesus wine mingled with myrrh to drink,[47] instead of vinegar and gall (Mark XV:23). Mark omits the supernatural happenings at the death of Jesus, except that the veil of the temple was rent in twain (Mark XV:38).

He also omits any account of the sealing of the sepulchre, or the setting of a watch over it (Mark XV:46, 47).

Luke omits the ill-treatment of Jesus by the soldiers before starting on their march (Luke XXIII:25, 26). "And there followed Him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented Him (Luke XXIII:27). Jesus delivers a short address to the women, which does not appear in the other Gospels (Luke XXIII:28-31). They bring Him to Calvary and crucify Him and the two "malefactors" (Luke XXIII:33). "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke XXIII:34). The superscription over Him was written in letters of Greek, Latin and Hebrew (Luke XXIII:38). Luke alone relates that, when one of the "malefactors" railed at Jesus, the other rebuked Him, and asked Jesus to remember him, when He should come into His kingdom; Jesus says to him: "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise" (Luke XXIII:39-43). The sun was darkened and the "veil of the temple was rent in the midst" (Luke XXIII:44, 45). The centurion acknowledges Jesus to be a righteous man, and "all the people that came together to that sight" smote their breasts (Luke XXIII:47, 48), "and all His acquaintance and the women that followed Him from Galilee stood afar off, beholding these things" (Luke XIII:49). Joseph of Arimathæa obtains Jesus' body from Pilate, and lays it in a new sepulchre, hewn in stone (Luke XXIII:50-53), "and the women also, which came with Him from Galilee, followed after and beheld the sepulchre, and how His body was laid. And they returned and prepared spices and ointments" (Luke XXIII:55, 56). No mention is made of any guard over the sepulchre.

John does not mention the ill-treatment of Jesus by the soldiers, nor any Simon of Cyrene. According to him, Jesus Himself carried His cross (John XIX:17).[48]

The title on the cross, written in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, was "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."[49] The chief priests objected to Pilate about this (probably considering it an insult to their nation), but Pilate refused to change it (John XIX:19-22).

John says that Jesus' mother, His aunt, Mary Magdalene and the disciple "whom He loved," stood by the cross. Jesus recommends His mother to this disciple's care, and "from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home" (John XIX:25-27).[50]

The vinegar was then given Jesus to drink, and, at the request of the Jews, the soldiers broke the legs of the two who were crucified with Jesus, but "they brake not His legs," because He was dead already. One of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, "came there out blood and water" (John XIX:28-37).[51]

John does not mention any supernatural occurrences at the time of Jesus' death, Joseph of Arimathæa obtains Jesus' body "secretly" from Pilate, and, with the aid of Nicodemus, wound the body in linen with spices—"A mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight"—"as the manner of the Jews is to bury" (John XIX:38-40). "Now, in the place where He was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand" (John XIX:41, 42). No mention is made of the attendance of the women, or of any guard being placed about the sepulchre.

THE RESURRECTION

About dawn on Sunday morning, the two Marys came to the sepulchre (Matt. XXVIII:1). The soldiers set to watch the tomb are there also (Matt. XXVIII:4). There is a "great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came, and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it" (Matt. XXVIII:2). "His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow" (Matt. XXVIII:3). The angel tells the women that Jesus is risen, and bids them go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead; "and, behold, He goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him" (Matt. XXVIII:6, 7). As the women were on their way to tell this to the disciples, "Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him" (Matt. XXVIII:9). Jesus says to them to be not afraid, and to tell His brethren that He will meet them in Galilee (Matt. XXVIII:10). Some of the watch go into the city and tell the chief priests what has happened (Matt. XXVIII:11). The chief priests give the soldiers "large money" to say, "His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we slept" (Matt. XXVIII:12, 13). The soldiers did as they were taught, and "this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" (Matt. XXVIII:15). "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw Him, they worshipped Him, but some doubted" (Matt. XXVIII:16, 17). Jesus then tells them to teach and baptize "all nations" (Matt. XXVIII:10).[52]

According to Mark, the two Marys and Salome come to the tomb early Sunday morning "at the rising of the sun" (Mark XVI:1). There was no watch there, and the stone was rolled away from the door of the sepulchre (Mark XVI:2, 3). They go into the sepulchre and find there a "young man, sitting on the right side, clothed in a long, white garment" (Mark XVI:5). The young man says to them that Jesus is risen, and that they should go and tell the disciples and Peter: "He goeth before you into Galilee," where they should see Him (Mark XVI:6, 7). The women fled quickly from the tomb, "neither said they anything to any man; for they were afraid" (Mark XVI:8). Then, at some time and place not specified, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene (Mark XVI:9). She tells of this appearance to "them that had been with Him, as they mourned and wept," but they believeth not (Mark XVI:10, 11). "After that He appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: Neither believed they then" (Mark XVI:12, 13). Afterward, at a time and place not specified, Jesus appears to the eleven "as they sat at meat," and upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart in not believing the accounts of His previous appearances to Mary and the two disciples (Mark. XVI:14). He then delivers a short exhortation to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, telling of the signs that should follow belief, and the punishment that should follow unbelief (Mark XVI:15, 18). "So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God" (Mark XVI:19).[53]

Luke relates that the two Marys, Joanna and "other women" went to the tomb on Sunday, "very early in the morning" (Luke XXIV:1, 10). There is no watch and the stone is rolled away (Luke XXIV:2). They enter the sepulchre, find the body of Jesus gone, and, as they stand there "much perplexed," "behold, two men stood by them in shining garments" (Luke XXIV:3, 4). They were afraid, but the two men tell them that Jesus is risen, as He had predicted, and as they now remember (Luke XXIV:5, 6, 7, 8). The women then return and tell "all these things unto the eleven and to all the rest," but "their words seem to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke XXIV:9, 11). Peter then goes to the sepulchre, finds the linen clothes "laid by themselves," but apparently sees nothing of the two men (Luke XXIV:12).

On the same day Cleopas[54] and another disciple go to a village called Emmaus, about three score furlongs from Jerusalem (Luke XXIV:13, 18).

As they are proceeding on their way, Jesus, in the guise of a stranger, joins them. Quite a long conversation follows, the disciples telling Jesus the things that had happened to Him, and He expounding the Scriptures to them. It is evening when they reach the village, and Jesus "made as though He would go further." But the two disciples induce Him to tarry with them (Luke XXIV:15-29), "and it came to pass as He sat at meat with them, He took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished out of their sight" (Luke XXIV:30, 31).

The two return to Jerusalem and, finding the eleven there, say to them, "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon" (Luke XXIV:32, 33, 34). They then tell the disciples what happened to them on the way (Luke XXIV:35). "As they thus spoke, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them" (Luke XXIV:36). The disciples are terrified, and "supposed that they had seen a spirit" (Luke XXIV:37). Jesus then tells them to see and handle His hands and feet, and prove that He is real flesh and bones and not a spirit. But "they yet believed not for joy, and wondered." To finally convince them He eats before them a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb (Luke XXIV:38-43). He then delivers a short discourse to them, telling that these things have happened to Him that the Law and the prophets might be fulfilled (Luke XXIV:44-49). They then went out to Bethany and He blessed them, and "while He blessed, He was parted from them and carried up into heaven" (Luke XXIV:50, 51).

John says that Mary Magdalene came along to the sepulchre and found the stone rolled away (John XX:1). She then summons Peter and John, who enter and find the grave clothes lying around, but no body. They then "went away again unto their own home." It is added, "For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead" (John XX:2-10). Mary remains weeping, and, looking again into the sepulchre, sees two angels in white there (John XX:11, 12). They ask her, "Why weepest thou?" and she says, "Because they have taken away my Lord and I know not where they have laid Him" (John XX:13). She then turns and sees Jesus standing, but supposes Him to be the gardener. She asks Him to tell her where they have laid Jesus, "and I will take Him away," she says (John XX:14, 15). Jesus then calls her by name, and she apparently recognizes Him and calls Him Master (John XX:16). Jesus then tells her, "Go unto my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God" (John XX:17). Mary then reports these things to the disciples, but John does not say whether they believed her, or, as Mark and Luke say, they disbelieved her (John XX:18). On this same Sunday evening, when the eleven, except Thomas, are together secretly for fear of the Jews, Jesus came to them and showed them His hands and side. Then follows a short discourse from Jesus to His disciples (John XX:20-23). When Thomas hears of this appearance, he expresses his disbelief, unless he can put his fingers into the print of the nails, and thrust his hand into His side (John XX:24, 25). Eight days later Jesus appears again to His disciples, when Thomas is present, and tells the latter to make his verifications. Thomas says unto Him, "My Lord and my God." Jesus then commends those who "have not seen, and yet have believed" (John XX:26-29).

John's Gospel apparently at one time ended at this point (John XX:30, 31), but Chapter XXI was subsequently added. Here there is related a third appearance of Jesus, this time to six of the apostles and Nathaniel of Cana (John XXI:1, 2). This occurred at the sea of Tiberias, and there was a miraculous draught of fishes (see Luke V:4, 5, 6), and a hint of Peter walking on the water (see Matt. XIV:28-31). At first the disciples "knew not that it was Jesus," and, even after John tells Peter that it is the Lord, they seem to be under some restraint, "and none of the disciples durst ask Him, Who art thou, knowing that it was the Lord" (John XXI:3-12). After they had dined, there ensued some conversation between Jesus and Peter, and later with John, out of which came the saying that the latter should not die (John XXI:15-23).

In neither of these appearances is there any account of Jesus ascending up into heaven, or of His instructing the disciples to preach His Gospel to all nations.[55]

[Part II]

MODERN CHRISTIANITY

With the death of Jesus, died also His dream of converting the Jews to His religious ideas. A few scattered bands of followers—Nazarites or Ebionites—survived Him. But they existed only in a moribund condition, exerted no influence over the nation, and, in the course of a few centuries, disappeared from history. The Jews as a people rejected, and have always rejected, both Jesus as a Messiah and His teachings as their religion. If the Jews had then been an independent nation, living in their haughty isolation from other peoples, the power and hatred of the Pharisees would probably have stamped out the last remnants of Jesus' followers, and He would have survived only as a name in history. But the disciples (or apostles) found under the Roman rule protection for their teaching, and ready access to the Gentile communities, not only in Palestine, but throughout all the coasts of the Mediterranean. Among these communities Jesus' Gospel found a quick and ready acceptance, and, within two or three centuries after His death, it had become a mighty living force in the evolution of mankind. In the reign of Constantine, Christianity became the dominant religion in the Roman empire, and it rapidly brought under its influence the Northern Barbarians, who, in their turn, were to be the conquerors of this empire.

As Christianity grew and spread and became more powerful, it lost almost all resemblance to the religion of "right living," which Jesus had taught and practiced. The spiritual and temporal powers were once more re-united, dogmas, creeds, theological disquisitions multiplied, "until the fair body of religion, revealed in almost naked purity by the prophets, is once more hidden under a new accumulation of dogmas and of ritual practices of which the primitive Nazarene knew nothing; and which He would probably have regarded as blasphemous if He could have been made to understand them."

"As, century after century, the ages roll on, polytheism comes back under the disguise of mariolatry and the adoration of saints; image worship becomes as rampant as in old Egypt; adoration of relics takes the place of the old fetich-worship; the virtues of the ephod pale before those of holy coats and handkerchiefs; shrines and calvaries make up for the loss of the ark and of the high places; and even the lustral water of paganism is replaced by holy water at the porches of the temples. A touching ceremony—the common meal originally eaten in pious memory of a loved teacher—was metamorphosed into a flesh-and-blood sacrifice, supposed to possess exactly that redeeming virtue which the prophets denied to the flesh-and-blood sacrifices of their day; while the minute observance of ritual was raised to a degree of punctilious refinement which Levitical legislators might envy. And with the growth of this theology, grew its inevitable concomitant, the belief in evil spirits, in possession, in sorcery, in charms and omens, until the Christians of the twelfth century after our era were sunk in more debased and brutal superstitions than are recorded of the Israelites in the twelfth century before it."

(Some Controverted Questions, Huxley, p. 159.)

In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the leaders of the Reformation and the New Learning began their relentless warfare upon the existing formalism and superstition, and from two different points of attack. After centuries of bloody wars, Protestantism succeeded in displacing Catholicism as the dominant religion over a large part of Northern Europe. Roman Catholicism still remained dominant in Southern Europe, and Greek Catholicism in Eastern Europe. In the meanwhile, to the eternal disgrace of the then Christendom, the followers of Mahomet had established his religion in some of the fairest portions of Southeastern Europe. If the Christian nations of the fifteenth century had expended on the practical cause of keeping Mohammedanism out of Europe one tithe of the energy and sacrifice that they did expend on the unpractical dream of recovering the Holy Sepulchre, Europe would have been spared the endless heritage of evil that has followed the introduction of the unspeakable Turk into European politics. But mutual jealousies, prejudices, petty ambitions, dissentions and discords permitted this calamity to occur, the end of which it seems is not yet.

As the Reformed churches became established in power, each one developed its own formalism, different from, but no more in consonance with, Jesus' simple religion, than that of the Catholics. As dogmatic theologians, Luther, Calvin, Knox and Jonathan Edwards were little improvement over Loyola, Augustine and Justin. Predestination, fore-ordination, change of heart, infant damnation, eternal punishment, the Thirty-nine Articles, the Augsburg Confession, would have been as unintelligible to Jesus, and would have met as summary condemnation at His hands, as the quarrels between the homoi-ousians and the homo-ousians, which rent the Christian world in the third century after His death.

But a more formidable champion had entered the lists against dogmatic theology and in favor of the creedless religion of Jesus. The invention of printing, the growth of science, the diffusion of education, and the development of a world-wide commerce were all working towards the eradication of superstition, the breaking down of national and racial and religious antipathies and prejudices, the cultivation of relations, first of business, and then of mutual regard and friendship between the peoples of different countries, the constant amelioration of the roughness, harshness and cruelty of earlier times, the encouragement of courtesy, consideration for others and charity towards all men. All these forces were making for Jesus' ideal of a common humanity, where the asperities of different religious creeds would cease to trouble, and each man might love his neighbor as himself. A tremendous victory had been won when the time came, that an Orthodox Catholic would admit that his righteous-living Protestant neighbor might inherit heaven as surely as himself.

The optimist of the early years of this century might have hugged himself with complacency over the rapid progress which the Gospel of Jesus was making in moulding mankind towards a realization of His ideals. Then came the cataclysm of 1914. The leading nations of Europe—all Christian except the Turks—plunged into the bloodiest war of history, and on the most petty of pretexts—the political administration of an insignificant Balkan state. The Gospel of Jesus, as an efficient force restraining these nations from war, was as though it had never existed. In the communications between England, France, Russia and Germany, preliminary to the war and ostensibly seeking to avert war, did any one statesman urge the argument that the law of Jesus forbade this war? Not a single syllable, and, for the sufficient reason, that each one knew that it would fall on deaf ears and would be laughed at as "old women's talk." So far as the efficiency of such arguments was concerned, they might as well have been used between the Persians and Egyptians before Jesus was born.

Then, when war broke out, came the supreme irony of each nation crowding its churches to pray for the assistance of the meek and gentle Jesus in slaughtering its enemies. Later, the victorious nations crowded their churches to thank Jesus that He had made them successful in their hellish business.

There are some who can quiet their consciences by shifting the responsibility for the incalculable misery of this brutal, barbarous conflict from the sins and evil ambitions of man to the shoulders of the Almighty. With those holding this (to the writer) blasphemous doctrine, argument is useless. But to the ordinary, sincere and candid follower of Jesus, does not the occurrence of this war give occasion to pause and think—as it were, to take an account of his stock-in-trade? Why did the mighty forces of Christianity fail to work with any practical effect at this, their supreme test—the prevention of war? What promise has the future to prevent the recurrence of such evils? How far has modern Christianity kept undefiled the pure religion of the Great Nazarene?

These are all questions demanding at this time the serious consideration of every thinking man, professed Christian or not.

THE ETERNAL CONFLICT

The Gospel of Jesus proclaimed the highest ethical ideal that had yet appeared on earth. But, as a working rule-of-conduct for practical, everyday life, it contained an essential weakness. With its acceptance by one nation after another, it became an efficient force, working with other forces in the evolution of mankind. But here it came in direct conflict with the forces of nature, which, working through countless ages, had made man what he then was. The ultimate goal of man's struggles and aspirations under the Gospel of Jesus was self-abnegation, non-resistance, the protection of the weak by the strong. The ultimate goal of nature's forces was self-assertion, battle, the crushing out of the weak by the strong. The struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest had no place in their operation for the doctrines of "turning the other cheek," and "loving thy neighbor as thyself." The two were, and always will be, as incompatible as fire and water.

When the Germans, some fifty years ago, began dreaming of, and planning for, a world empire, some of their philosophers clearly recognized, and openly proclaimed, the essential antipathy between the forces of Christianity, working towards Jesus' ideal, and the forces of nature, working towards the survival of the fittest. In order to realize her dream, it was necessary for Germany to treat the Sermon on the Mount as the piping of some "idle singer of an empty day."

On the assumption that the "manifest destiny" of the Germans was to be world-conquerors, these philosophers argued, with unassailable logic, that the nation had made a vital mistake in abandoning the heathen gods for the Jesus of Christianity. World-conquest demands of its aspirant merciless severity, even to the enslavement or annihilation of any unoffending people, which the "necessity of war" considers to be impeding its progress. In so far as the individual imbibes, and is affected by, the ideals of Jesus, just so far is his efficiency as a unit of the conquering nation impaired. World-conquerors can tolerate no "conscientious objectors" in their ranks. Logically their gods should be the gods of the old Valhalla, Valor, Glory, Victory. Their priests should preach war and hate, not peace and love.

With a courage and consistency that left nothing unsaid, these German writers tore in twain the veil of hypocrisy with which Christian nations cover up their wars, and their schemes of colonization, benevolent assimilation, etc. They showed forth the naked truth that Jesus' ideal and nature's goal for man are the antipodes of each other, at least as regards different nations struggling with each other for supreme power. In other words, the forces of Christianity are working in one direction, and the forces of nature in another.

As with the Nation, so with the Individual.

Jesus (stating His ideal standard, it must be remembered) says: "Go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor" (Matt. XIX:21).

Nature says: Not so. If you had done this in the beginning, you would now have nothing with which to help the poor. If you do it now, you will simply be adding yourself and your family to increase the number of the poor.

Jesus says: "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on" (Luke XII:22).

Nature says: Take thought for the morrow and provide for the future of yourself and your family; practice economy, frugality, thrift; see to it that the contingency of sickness, or the coming of old age, does not bring you and those dependent on you into the ranks of the poor, seeking aid from others.

The contrast between the two goals is as sharply defined in the case of the individual as in the case of the nation.

From this it does not follow that nature's forces do not make for altruism. As the family, the tribe or clan, the race, and the nation are successively evolved, the scope of self-interest widens and the means necessary to attain its ends become less individualistic and more humanitarian. As Fagin impresses on Noah Claypole, even in a band of thieves, the number one of Noah must also include the number one of the other members of the gang. In a modern community, whether Christian or heathen, the successful business or professional man must necessarily practice, to a greater or less degree, the same virtues inculcated by Jesus; otherwise he makes himself an outcast—an Ishmaelite—against whom every man's hand is turned.

"Honesty is the best policy" of the utilitarian leads to the same results as the Gospel maxim "to deal justly with all men."

Also the growth of a world-wide commerce, with the accompanying spread of international law, develops constantly a spirit of international morality. A nation today, planning a war, must look beyond the question of how its course will affect the self-interest of other nations. If it has wisdom in its councils, it must also reckon with this spirit of international morality. If its cause be too palpably unjust, or the means it adopts to secure victory be too barbarous, it may shock this international morality, and bring upon itself unexpected enemies, who may balk its best laid plans. The possibility of such contingencies arising will have far more weight than any argument based on the teaching of Jesus.

THE NECESSITY OF COMPROMISE

In Physics a body acted on by two divergent forces takes a course which is the resultant of (a compromise between) the two different forces. So, if Christianity is to survive as an efficient force in man's evolution, compromises must be made between the ideals of Jesus and the natural forces expressed in the terms of the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. It is possible that the day may come, when all nations of our planet may be converted, to put into practical operation in international affairs the ideals of Jesus. But the experience of the world during 1914 shows that little, if any, progress has been made in that direction since the Crucifixion. Suppose the Christian nations of Europe and America should announce today the doctrine of non-resistance, dismantle their fleets and dismiss their armies, how long would it be before the Moslems, or the "yellow hordes" of Asia, would enslave them and exterminate all Christian religion and civilization? Fortunately, such a result is unthinkable, and the Christian nations will, until some unknown time in the future, continue their compromise with Jesus' ideals. The unspeakable Turk will continue to understand that, if he massacres some Christian villages, the other cheek will not be turned to him, but, on the contrary, a righteous retribution of bayonet and shell will be meted out to him.

A superficial glance at history illustrates the necessity of national compromise.

If Moses had preached, and the Jews had put in practice, the doctrine of non-resistance, they would soon have been exterminated by their Philistine neighbors, and the Jesus that was would never have been.

If the tribes of the northern barbarians in the first thousand years of our era had put into practical effect the Sermon on the Mount, as soon as they accepted Christianity, there would have been no Anglo-Saxon England and United States, as they are today.

If Ferdinand and Isabella had not relied on their earthly weapons, Spain would probably have been Moslem to this day.

If the Christian powers had not warred against the Turks in the sixteenth century, the greater part of Europe would have bowed the knee to Mahomet, and the Mosque would have superseded the Church as the authorized place of worship.

If our colonial ancestors had obeyed the injunction, "Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's," there would have been no American Revolution.

If the "conscientious objectors" had swayed the councils of the North in 1861, we would now have a divided country, with slavery firmly established in one-half of it.

As with the nation, so with the individual, a compromise between Jesus' ideals and the forces of nature is a necessity, at least until evolution has produced some fundamental change in human nature.

It is related that when the mother and brethren of Jesus sought to speak with Him, He repudiated their special claims of relationship on Him, and said: "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister and mother" (Matt. XII:50; Mark III:31; Luke VIII:19).

In another place He says: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matt. X:37).

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke XIV:26).

"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life" (Matt. XIX:29).

"And He said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

"Jesus said unto him, let the dead bury their dead; but go thou and preach the kingdom of God" (Luke IX:59, 60).

Now, no sane man would advocate that doctrines such as these should be put into general, practical operation under the present constitution of human nature. Their practice would make of man a selfish ascetic, would disintegrate the family into its individual units, like animals when the breeding season is past, would discourage human progress and development, and would eventually lead to the degradation or extinction of any society which attempted to consistently enforce them. Of course the individual man or woman may abjure family ties altogether, without serious loss to the community and even perhaps with some gain, just as the drones have a function to perform in a community of bees. But the universal adoption of this practice by a human community would mean its speedy death. With those who would regard this as a desirable outcome of Jesus' teachings, we have no argument.

There is, however, no danger of such a condition of affairs coming to pass. For untold ages before these utterances of Jesus, nature had been developing the family affections in man. It had made the family the fundamental unit of the tribe, the clan, the race, the nation. These family affections, so planted by nature in man, must, in society as a whole, override the ethical idea of a general philanthropy, as embodied in these utterances of Jesus. The normal man has always, and does now, rank the duties to his family as paramount over those of general philanthropy.

Man will continue to marry and have children in the future, as he has in the past. He will continue to regard his obligations to his family as superior and prior to those he owes to mankind in general. He will feel within himself the urge, not merely to satisfy the need of the day, but also to provide for the future. He will look forward to the education and outfitting of his children. He will guard against the contingencies of sickness and the probabilities of old age coming upon himself and those dependent on him. He will engage with all his energy in the struggle with his fellow men for the acquisition of property. He will practice industry, thrift and economy, and take every fair means to push his own business at the expense of his competitors.

But in all this, even allowing that he has reasonably practiced the virtues of generosity, charity and philanthropy, there is no disguising the plain, naked truth that is all the time making compromises with the ideals of Jesus. His actions simply do not square with the maxims: Give all thy goods to the poor; take no thought for the morrow; every one who does the will of God is the same to you as your brother and sister and mother; resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also; whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain; give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again; love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you; lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth; take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? Or, What shall we drink? Or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.

It is difficult to conceive how, at the present stage of man's evolution, any community of considerable size, even if we assume all external hostile interference eliminated, could put these ideals into practical effect without disaster. As we know man, he has become what he is only through strife and contest, through the survival of the strong, the industrious, the provident over the weak, the lazy, the improvident. If the struggle for existence is eliminated, is there not every reason to expect that progress will be arrested, and the nation's civilization will decay and finally disappear, as has been the case so many times in the past history of the world? The desire for the acquisition of private property and the lust for power have been the two dominant motives impelling men to raise themselves from a stage of barbarism to a stage of civilization. What motives can be substituted for those that will have the same compelling, driving force? It is only by long centuries of hard fighting with material weapons that the powers of good have so far subdued the powers of evil as to establish our present standard of humanitarianism. But if the good are to be confined to the weapon of moral suasion, how long will it be until the powers of evil are in full control?

But, further, even if we assume that all evil-doers are converted from the error of their ways, the economic problem for a community working under these ideals seems insoluble. Even under the grinding necessities of the struggle for existence, the tendency of human populations to increase beyond their means of subsistence is an indisputable fact, as soon as they develop a civilization where peace and security of private property are measurably assured, and especially where manufacturing centers with large industrial populations are established. The many ancient civilizations that have arisen, flourished and decayed attest the truth of this fact. In the seventeenth century England was confronted with the problem of inadequate means of subsistence, and met it by spreading over the whole globe. What the history of the English people would have been if they had been confined to their native island, would afford an interesting subject for abstract philosophical speculation. Thus far, the vast undeveloped territories of the United States have furnished an outlet for its surplus population. But the time may not be far distant when the problem of subsistence may be a serious one with us. In modern times, nearly all the great nations have been struggling for the acquisition of new territories as an outlet for their expanding populations. Germany's economic needs were undoubtedly one of the strongest motives urging her onward in her fateful dream of world empire. France attempts to meet the difficulty by voluntary, individual action in limiting the birth rate. This remedy will always be resorted to in highly civilized nations, as the pressure of population on subsistence becomes more severe. But the decrease of population means the arrest of growth and progress in the national organism, and eventual decadence.

Thus dark and uncertain is the economic outlook for nations where the competitive struggle for existence is in full sway, where the acquisition and accumulation of private property are fostered and encouraged, where thrift, industry and saving are ranked as cardinal virtues, and where proper provision for oneself and one's family is even enforced by law against the indolent and shiftless. What must be the economic future of a community from which these incentives and restraints are banished, and where sympathy for the unfortunate and the criminal, regardless of merit or desert, is to be the governing principle?

It follows, then, first, that the nation, in its international relations, must compromise with the ideals of Jesus in order to preserve its national existence, and to safeguard Christianity against the attacks of its external foes; and second, that the individual, in his daily life, must compromise with these ideals to preserve the well-being and continuity of the family and to ensure the progress of mankind in happiness, morality and material prosperity.

COMPROMISE IS JUSTIFIABLE

The Crucifixion was but a few years old when those two old enemies whom Jesus had fought so persistently—creeds and ceremonies—began to be active among the early Christians. Right theological thinking began to assert its supremacy over the right practical living, taught by Jesus as the first essential of His professed followers. The outside of the cup was being carefully polished up, although the inside might be unclean. Paul, who had never had any personal intercourse with Jesus, was the protagonist of this retrograde movement. Zealous, energetic, a ready writer and a subtile dialectician, his numerous epistles furnished an arsenal of weapons for all future controversial theologians. His arrogance in defining the tenets of the rapidly growing Gentile Church was not one whit abated by the fact that he had never been in personal contact with Jesus, and that in his views he was opposed to those who had been the most intimate associates of Jesus during his entire prophetic career. Quite early in his ministration, Paul has a bitter quarrel with Peter, James, Cephas, John (the pillars) and other disciples of Jesus over some question of circumcision, and has no hesitation in telling Peter (the "rock" of the new Church) to his face that "he was to be blamed" for his views (Galatians II:11 et seq.).

It is not too much to say that he took the fair, smiling child of religion, as left by Jesus, and transformed it into a misshapen dwarf, with twisted and contorted limbs, and upon its face a frown of almost malevolent austerity.

When right theological thinking became established as the primary essential of a Christian, and especially when Christianity acquired temporal power, it was inevitable that there should be extracted from Paul's militant writings that most abominable doctrine of "No compromise with evil." In company with dogmatic distinctions of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, it has inflicted its full quota of misery and suffering upon the human race. It formed the justification of the cruelties of the Inquisition, the religious persecutions and wars of the Middle Ages, the conversion of savages by fire and sword, the extermination of so-called witches, and the burning at the stake of countless advanced thinkers in science and religion, and other so-called heretics.

Probably the unrecorded suffering which the advocates of this doctrine have inflicted in the domestic and social sphere would equal that which is written in political history. The possession of, and disposition to put into practical operation, this dogma presupposes sublime egoism, coupled with a narrowness of mind easily running into extreme bigotry. For the slightest study of history will show that the error and evil of one age becomes the truth and good of a succeeding age. But the non-compromiser ignores any consideration of that sort. If he has decided that this and that are evil, they must necessarily be evil without argument or appeal. He is the legitimate descendant of the old inquisitors, and, if he had the temporal power, would today enforce his ideas as ruthlessly throughout the nation as they did in the Middle Ages. Confined to the narrower limits of the domestic and social circle, he plays the autocrat so far as he can. Without sympathy or toleration for differing opinions and tastes, as husband, father, priest, officer, or citizen, the non-compromiser seeks to fit every one to his own narrow Procrustean bed.

Closely allied to the non-compromisers are the sacro-sancts, or those who would be holier than Jesus.

This class is well illustrated in an incident taken from a recent novel. The heroine consults her married sister about the heroine's contemplated marriage with a man who has divorced his wife on the ground of her adultery. The sister declares that such a marriage would be no better than prostitution. "But he is legally divorced" says the heroine. "Yes, according to man's law, but not according to God's law," says the sister. Now, considering that divorce was permitted under God's law, as recorded in the Old Testament, that Matthew twice clearly and explicitly states that Jesus sanctioned divorce on the ground of adultery, and that John mentions no condemnation of divorce by Jesus, it would seem that there was at least a fair doubt as to whether the heroine's proposed marriage was contrary to God's law. But the sister, like other sacro-sancts and non-compromisers, arrogates to herself infallibility in interpreting the divine will, and will not admit argument as to her possible inaccuracy.

Other examples are those who would fear to contaminate their holiness by following their Master's example in eating and associating with publicans and sinners (Matt. IX:10); who would shudder at being anointed by a prostitute (Luke VII:37); who would think the Sabbath desecrated by pleasant walks in the fields, or by feasting and joyous meetings with one's friends (Matt. XII:1; Luke XIV:1), and who in general insist on the observance of religious rites and symbols, similar to those which Jesus condemned in the Pharisees.

One of the XXXIX Articles of the Protestant Episcopal Church takes a slap at these sacro-sancts (Book of Common Prayers, Article XIV). It condemns, as marks of "arrogancy and impiety," works of supererogation—that is, works over and above God's commandments. Undoubtedly the meaning here is, not to condemn excess in acts of mercy and charity, but excess in the same acts of ceremonial worship which Jesus condemned in the Pharisees: Long prayers, "standing in the synagogues" (churches), instead of in their "closet"; public fasting with "a sad countenance," so that they "disfigure their faces," instead of anointing their heads and washing their faces "that they appear not unto men to fast," making "broad their phylacteries" and giving ostentatiously their "tithe of mint and anise and cummin" (Matt. VI:1-7, 16, 17, 18; XXIII:4-7, 23).

The dogma of non-compromise finds no support in the teaching and practice of Jesus. He pictured the highest ideals for mankind. But He was no bigot in demanding that fallible human beings should live up to these ideals on pain of damnation. With His wonderful tolerance and broadminded sympathy, He recognized that the happiness and progress of the human race, in its present state of evolution, necessitated certain compromises with evil. "As between two evils, choose the less," would be much nearer His position than "no compromise with evil." A short study of some of the episodes of His life will place this beyond dispute.

Jesus undoubtedly considered that riches were an evil (Matt. XIX:23, 24; XIII:22; Mark X:23, 24; Luke XVIII:24, 25). He knows the "deceitfulness" of riches, and that the temptations attending the possession of wealth do not ordinarily make for righteousness. He advises that one should lay up treasure in heaven rather than on earth (Matt. VI:19, 20; Luke XII:33).

Riches, then, being an evil, the non-compromiser should logically regard the rich man as a persistent evil-doer. He should constantly denounce his evil ways, as those of any other malefactor. He should refuse him his public association and friendship, since thereby he would be gilding his misconduct with the gold of his own sanctity. If a priest, he should charge his congregation to abstain from those habits of thrift and economy which will result in bringing upon them this evil of wealth.

But Jesus was too sane and broad-minded not to see that the happiness of mankind demanded a compromise with this evil. While warning against the temptations of riches, He preached poverty, not as a necessity to salvation, but as an ideal, to be attained and practiced by but a few.