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.
By J. B. ATWATER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 1922
Copyrighted, 1921
J. B. ATWATER
[Pg 3] 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.
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.
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][Pg 8]
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[Pg 9] 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][Pg 10]
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[Pg 11] 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.
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[Pg 12] 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][Pg 13]
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][Pg 14]
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][Pg 16]
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[Pg 18] 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][Pg 19]
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][Pg 20]
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).
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,[Pg 21] 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 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][Pg 23]
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][Pg 24]
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[Pg 25] 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[Pg 26] 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]
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[Pg 27] 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][Pg 29]
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.
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][Pg 31]
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[Pg 32] 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 al[Pg 34]ready 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][Pg 35]
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).
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][Pg 38]
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).[Pg 39] 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.
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][Pg 40]
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][Pg 41]
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).
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).
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 be[Pg 45]trayal, 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][Pg 46]
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,[Pg 47] 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][Pg 48]
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][Pg 49]
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 multi[Pg 50]tude, "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).[Pg 51]
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[Pg 52] 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 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[Pg 53] 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 sol[Pg 54]diers, 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.
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 rai[Pg 55]ment 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[Pg 56] 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).[Pg 57] 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[Pg 58] 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 dis[Pg 59]ciples 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]
[Pg 60]
[Pg 61]
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 cere[Pg 62]mony—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[Pg 63] 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 oc[Pg 64]currence 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 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[Pg 65] 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.
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[Pg 67] 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 dis[Pg 68]courage 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, Where[Pg 69]withal 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[Pg 70] 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.
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 min[Pg 71]istration, 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[Pg 72] 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[Pg 73] 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.
Thus, in the case of the young man with "great possessions," Jesus, according to Matthew prefaces His counsel to sell his goods and give to the poor with the significant condition, "if thou wilt be perfect" (Matt. XIX:21). To the same effect are the accounts of Mark and Luke. "One thing thou lackest," viz., in order to be perfect (Mark X:21; Luke XVIII:22). Evidently Jesus took the concrete case of the young man to impress on His hearers one of His ideals—the high standard He set for those who aspired to be His immediate followers and the ministers of His Word. In His instructions to the twelve and the seventy, He laid down rules of conduct which practically eliminated the acquisition or possession of wealth (Matt. X:2, 9, 10; Mark VI:8, 9; Luke IX: 3; X:4). But He set no such severe standard for the rank and file of His followers, nor did He withhold His favor and countenance from the possessors of riches, as though they were evil doers.
Nearly all the persons named in the Gospels as intimate friends and associates of Jesus (outside of the apostles) were, apparently, more or less prominent, and belonged at least to the well-to-do class. Joseph of Arimathæa, a disciple of Jesus, and one "waiting for the Kingdom of God," and who placed His body in the sepulchre, was a rich man (Matt. XXVII:57; Luke XXIII:50, 51).[Pg 74] Nicodemus, who assisted Joseph in the burial, brought a hundred pound weight of myrrh and aloes indicating that he was not a poor man (John XIX:39). According to John he was the man who came to Jesus by night and was a "ruler" of the Jews (John III:1, 2; VII:50). Lazarus, whom Jesus "loved" and with whose family He was very intimate (John XI:5; Luke X:38), could not have been a poor man, since his sister anointed Jesus with an ointment "very precious" and worth more than three hundred pence (Mark XIV:3, 4, 5).
On one occasion Jesus invites Himself to visit in the house of Zacchaeus, who was "chief among the publicans," rich, and a "sinner" (Luke XIX:1-7). Levi, the publican, gives a "great feast" for Jesus, which He approves by His presence (Luke V:29). On another occasion He goes to the house of one of the "chief Pharisees" to eat bread on the Sabbath day (Luke XIV:1).
Several times He commends the qualities of thrift and economy (Matt. XXV:21, 23; Luke XII:42-44; Matt. XXV:3, 4; XXIV:45, 46; Luke XIX:17, 19). He constantly extols charity—the generous giving to the poor—as one of the chief virtues, but the practice of this virtue on a considerable scale necessarily implies the prior accumulation of riches.
The evidence of the four Gospels proves that Jesus, without hesitation, compromised with the evil of riches. He praised voluntary poverty as an ideal for those who were supposing themselves to be already perfect, and, perhaps, demanded it of His apostles and those who assumed to be the ministers of His Word. But He imposed no such hard and fast rule for the rank and file of His followers. He did not go about fanatically denouncing the rich men as evil-doers and malefactors. On the contrary, He made them His friends, singled them out for special marks of His favor and regard, though constantly urging on them the deceitfulness of riches and the necessity of generous giving to the poor. His friendship for Mary, the sister of Lazarus, was so great that in her case He even condoned the use of the precious ointment for a purpose which He must have regarded as superfluous, instead of its being given to the poor (Matt. XXVI:6; Mark XIV:3; John XII:3).
Other instances illustrate the readiness of Jesus to compromise with evil—to choose the less of two evils—when the conditions of practical human life demanded it. A notable instance of this was in the matter of paying tribute to the Romans. Undoubtedly Jesus, like all the other Jews, regarded the imposition on them of Roman sovereignty as an injustice—as a very great evil. But, under existing conditions, resistance to the Roman power was hope[Pg 75]less. A refusal to pay tribute by the Jews would have brought on them imprisonment, death and countless sufferings, and, if persisted in, would have resulted in the enslavement or extermination of the race. In putting to Jesus the question: "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar or not?" the Pharisees thought they had framed a dilemma from which He could not escape. If He had been a fanatical non-compromiser, He could only have answered the question in the negative. The Pharisees would then have denounced Him to the Romans, and thereby compassed His immediate death before His mission was completed.
His answer, "Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's"—is pregnant with meaning to all religious bigots and fanatics if they could only open their minds to its significance. This earth is not a heaven, and cannot be made one so long as human beings are fallible and imperfect. Concessions and compromises must be constantly made between the material necessities of the body and the ethical ideals of the spirit. The economic ideal of the "greatest good to the greatest number" can no more be ignored by the theologian of today in formulating rules of conduct for humanity, than it was by Jesus in His time. However wrong and unjust in theory it was for the Jews to be subject to an alien race, still in practice the Roman rule was reasonably mild and humane. As between resistance and obedience to this rule, the latter was much the less evil. Consequently, Jesus wisely and sanely compromised with this evil and both paid tribute Himself (Matt. XVII:24-27), and advised His disciples to do likewise (Matt. XXII:21; Mark XII:17; Luke XX:25).
Again, carrying out the same idea of compromising with the existing evils of government, Jesus commands His disciples to "observe and do" whatsoever is bidden by the scribes and Pharisees, who "sit in Moses' seat," at the same time warning them not to imitate or follow the Pharisees' "works" (Matt. XXIII:2, 3).
Undoubtedly Jesus considered it an evil "to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matt. X:35). He could foresee that this evil would result from the preaching of His Gospel. But better this evil, even, if it sent a "sword" on earth, than the greater evil that His Gospel should not be preached.
Unchastity in a woman is surely a most grievous evil. To the non-compromiser, the "scarlet woman" is a symbol of the lowest depth of vice, and no condemnation is too severe for her. But, on two occasions, Jesus dismissed the erring woman with His forgiveness (John VIII:11; Luke VII:47).
In fact, the two utterances of Jesus—"he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John VIII:7), and "why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye" (Matt. VII:2)—cut at the very root of the non-compromiser's position. For, in carrying on his crusade against his pet evil-doers, it would be fatal to be obliged to stop to answer objections that he may not be infallible in deciding what is evil, and that he may himself have habits considered by others as evil as the one he is denouncing. For instance, many a prominent non-compromiser among the clergy is living in comparative ease, if not luxury. When he reads the standard of living set by Jesus for the ministers of His Word (Matt. X:9; Mark VI:8; Luke IX:3; X:4; XXII:35), he must admit that he is every day compromising with the ideals of Jesus—with the evil of riches.
Compromise is the rule of human life. Each individual, as he tries to follow the Socratic advice, "know thyself," finds that most of his actions are a compromise between his good impulses and his evil impulses. Few men are a Dr. Jekyll during the day and a Mr. Hyde during the night. Most men are partly Jekyls and partly Hydes all the time. As the individual makes his way in business and society, he learns more and more every day, if he has common sense, the wisdom and advisability of compromise. He that is always bent on "having his own way" will usually find that his way does not go far, and results in unhappiness for himself and others. Happy marriages are founded on a compromise of individual tastes, habits and opinions. Parents win and retain the affection of their children, not by imposing on them their own inflexible laws of right and wrong, but by modifying these laws to meet the different tastes, habits and opinions of the children. Success in business, in law, in politics, is usually associated with the faculty of making reasonable compromises. The wisest legislation is usually a compromise between conflicting interests and opinions.
It is not too much to say that compromise is the corner stone of every modern democratic society. It is a necessary consequence of the "rule of the majority," since the majority of today may be the minority of tomorrow. To find a society of his taste, the non-compromiser should seek some negro tribe in darkest Africa, where the witch-doctors permit no deviations from the prescribed theological cult. Or, in matters political, he might find much to admire in the administrative system of Louis the XIVth, with his famous aphorism, "L'Etat, C'est Moi."
In international affairs every treaty of peace, unless its terms[Pg 77] are dictated by a strong power to a weak one, is a compromise between the opposing views of right and wrong held by the parties. Logically, the non-compromiser should be generally opposed to treaties, as involving necessarily some sacrifice of his principles of right to the demands of the other party. In the period from 1844 to 1846, we narrowly escaped war with England in the dispute over the boundary between ourselves and Canada, because a strong Jingo, non-compromising party started the popular cry of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight." This class of thinkers would undoubtedly have opposed the celebrated compromises of Henry Clay, which, whatever might have been said against them at the time, have, in the light of history, the incalculable merit of having postponed the inevitable conflict between the North and the South, until the former had so grown in population and resources that it could preserve the unity of the nation. Considering the hard, and sometimes doubtful struggle, which the North went through in winning victory in the sixties, there can be little doubt that the result would have been two divided nations if the issues between the two sections had been submitted to the arbitrament of arms in 1820, in 1832, or even in 1850.
As the intolerance of the non-compromisers will lead some of them to oppose treaties of peace, so the same quality in others will lead them to make nuisances of themselves in war.
During the Great War, the nations, especially England and the United States, had considerable trouble with the "conscientious objector," who is really a non-compromiser under a different name. Supposing him to be honest in his opinions (as some of them were), the logic of his position was unanswerable from the view-point of the non-compromiser. War is unquestionably a great evil, and most obnoxious to the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount. If there is to be no compromise with evil, then a Christian magistrate has no warrant to compel the conscientious objector to go out and slaughter, or give his help, directly or indirectly, towards the slaughter of his fellow Christians.
The true answer to this argument is, of course, obvious, although the magistrates, themselves infected with this pernicious, non-compromise doctrine, did not always make it.
In this fallible, imperfect human life, it is often necessary to compromise with evil—that is, as between two evils, to choose the less. Jesus both preached and practiced the doctrine of choosing the less evil, even in the extreme case of war. For He urged the spreading of His Gospel, although He foresaw that it would divide father from son and bring "fire" and a "sword" upon earth (Matt. X:34; Mark XIII:8; Luke XII:49). Now, in the case of this war, the vast majority of the nation has decided that[Pg 78] it is a less evil to go to war than to be enslaved by Germany. So, war it is to be. But it is unjust—an evil of the greatest magnitude—that a few individuals should reap all the benefits of preserving the nation from German slavery, without bearing the corresponding burdens. Consequently, the conscientious objectors must either submit to the decision of the majority or seek some other country, following the example of the Puritans, Huguenots and other "conscientious objectors" of past times.
It is apparent that if the door is once opened to allow people to shirk the civil duties imposed upon them by the society in which they live, the exemption cannot be limited to the case of war alone on the ground of their conscientious convictions. In the Supreme Court records of one of our States (possibly in several), there will be found a case where a man and woman (apparently respectable and generally law-abiding citizens) suffered a criminal conviction, because they had "conscientious objections" to legalizing their union by a conventional marriage ceremony. It is easy to imagine a man having conscientious objections to jury duty—the condemning men to death or imprisonment, or the transferring of property from one to another on account of the "technicalities" of the law. Or, why should a man not have conscientious objections to paying his taxes if they are to be used, in part at least, for a purpose which he considers evil? Evidently the field for evasion is a large one, and the only protection for society is to rigidly insist that the "conscientious objector," whether the case in hand be war or something else, either submit himself to the will of the majority or seek some other country more congenial to his peculiar ideas.
At the risk of repetition, we will collect again some of the utterances of Jesus which seem irreconcilable with the narrow, intolerant ideas of the non-compromisers and the sacro-sancts: Judge not, that ye be not judged; he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her; how wilt thou say to thy brother, let me pull the mote out of thine eye, and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye; blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy; blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God; whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven; joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance; on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets, viz., Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul and mind, and love thy neighbor as thyself.
Hypocrisy did not die with the Pharisees. To an observer of modern life, it might seem as if it has as rank and luxuriant growth today as in the time of Jesus. The modern Christian must apparently keep up the hypocrisy that he is always following Jesus, when, as a matter of fact, he is every day making compromises with Jesus' ideals, in some instances deviating widely from His teachings, and, in others, going diametrically against them. The question is, if, in these points of divergence, it is not better to speak the plain truth than to indulge in the hypocrisy of "following Jesus." For instance, take the case of divorce laws. Jesus explicitly condemned all divorces, except possibly on the ground of adultery. His language is so definite, repeated in all three of the Synoptics, that no quibbling over words or casuistry of logic can escape the result. Consequently, when a Christian state authorizes divorce for desertion, cruelty, drunkenness, etc., it is not following Jesus, but going directly contrary to His laws. In this matter the Roman Catholics are the orthodox Christians and most of the Protestants are heterodox.
The point here made has nothing to do with the expediency of these divorce laws. The conditions of human life have so vastly changed—it is quite possible that Jesus, speaking today, might lay down much less stringent rules on this subject than He did two thousand years ago. The important fact is that we have here an undeniable instance of Christians, not only making a compromise with the acknowledged evil of divorce, but also completely ignoring the views of Jesus in making the compromise. Those who condone, or tacitly approve, these divorce laws (as do the great majority of the Protestants in the United States) should certainly be slow, in the matter of other evils, to urge "no compromise with evil," or bring forward some utterances of Jesus as the final argument on the subject. Let them first consider the beam in their own eye.
It would probably surprise the professed follower of Jesus in present times to realize in just how many matters he is not, in fact, following Jesus. It may be well to enumerate a few of these important matters. This is not done in a spirit of criticizing the weakness and shortcomings of Christians, but because some of the questions involved vitally affect the present and future welfare of society. In the discussion of these questions the name and authority of Jesus are frequently invoked, and very justly so. For, even those who do not concede His parentage by the Holy Ghost, admire and revere Him as the Greatest Teacher. His[Pg 80] word or example on one side of a question is not lightly to be disregarded. But, if it is found that, in some matters, the followers of Jesus do compromise with, diverge from, or directly contradict Jesus' teachings, then the ultimate query, becomes, not whether Jesus said yes or no to the question in hand, but, conceding that He said yes or no, Is there sufficient justification for departing from His teaching in this matter, as has been done in other important matters? Without noticing individual short-comings, sins of omission, etc., which may be left to the individual conscience and its God, we will take up only questions of wide import, affecting the present and future welfare of societies and nations. Nor will we enter into the field of theological disputation over conflicting or ambiguous texts, but will cite no instance where Jesus has not made His position so clear that there can be no dispute over it.
The following are instances where modern Christian communities compromise with, diverge from, or go directly opposite to the teachings of Jesus.
(a) Wars between two Christian nations where each invokes the assistance of Jesus in the slaughtering of its enemies, and the victor thanks Jesus for its success in the blood-thirsty game.
(b) The substitution of the first day of the week for the seventh, as the Sabbath day.
(c) Divorces (at least for any cause except adultery).
(d) Public prayers and long prayers.
(e) Public fasting.
(f) Sunday Blue Laws.
(g) Prohibition as against Temperance.
(h) Creeds, articles of religion, pomp and ceremony in church services, and other observances, which Jesus included in the word "sacrifice," as opposed to "mercy."
It is unnecessary to waste words in proving that war (at least between two Christian nations) is utterly irreconcilable with the Sermon on the Mount. But, as has been shown, it may, in any given case, be the less of two evils, and therefore, justifiable, as a compromise. As to a defensive war against a Moslem, Oriental or other infidel invasion, which seeks to uproot the Christian faith and subjugate a Christian nation, Jesus has apparently given His sanction to such a war (Matt. X:34, 35, 36; Luke XII:51, 52, 53). It might, perhaps, even be argued that this sanction covered an offensive war, the purpose of which was to establish Christianity among an infidel people.
But, beyond this, some wars must be justifiable, as the less of two evils, under Jesus' sane practice of compromising with evil. If the independence (the life) of a nation is attacked, there is no warrant in the four Gospels for supposing that Jesus would advise a policy of passive non-resistance. Just as when the life of the individual, or the life or honor of his mother, sister, or daughter are threatened by some beast in human form, he is justified in resistance, although the taking of human life results. A standard of ethics countenancing such a surrender of the primary instincts of self-preservation might be suited to a race of spineless invertebrates, but could never be accepted by human beings, who are the evolutionary product of countless ages of a struggle for existence.
But, conceding that some wars may be justifiable, the general rule holds good that wars are un-Christian. The exception must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. As between two Christian nations, the one attacked can usually plead self-defense in at least partial justification, but the aggressor must always have a difficult case to maintain before the judgment seat of Jesus.
Looking back over the wars of the United States, there are few that would stand the acid test of Jesus' judgment.
The war of the Revolution was due, in the last analysis, to the fact that there were a large number of prominent men in the colonies determined on independence at any cost. If war was a necessary means to attain that end, these leaders were for war, without shilly-shallying over the moral justification for the conflict. The men of that generation were rather fond of attitudinizing, and were prone to the use of high-sounding phrases like "no taxation without representation," "give me liberty or give me death," etc. The Declaration of Independence starts out with one of those phrases—"All men are created equal, and endowed with inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This was at that time such a palpable untruth and hypocrisy, that one wonders if our forefathers had no sense of humor. Of course, to be true, the sentence should have been added, "except certain persons of African descent, whom we hold and propose to hold as slaves."[56][Pg 82]
Stripping the grievances of the colonists of their heated and declamatory rhetoric, their real sufferings under the misrule of Great Britain were far less than those of the Jews under the Romans, when Jesus said, "Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's." Many of the foremost statesmen in England supported the justness of the colonists' claims, and most of the obnoxious taxes were repealed before the Declaration of Independence. With time and patience the difficulties between the two countries could probably have been adjusted without war, as was the case with Canada, except for the underlying desire of the Americans for independence.
To avoid misunderstanding, it should be added, that, before the bar of Nature—under the laws of the struggle for existence and survival of the fittest—the colonies were fully justified in taking up arms when they did. The pigheaded obstinacy of George III in insisting on his "prerogatives," and the blind stupidity of his ministers in urging measures of little value to England, but irritating to the colonies, wounding their pride and making them apprehensive of future, more serious encroachments on their liberties, furnished ample warrant for ceasing longer to turn the other cheek.
Furthermore, before Nature's forum, the plea that the end justifies the means, is always of controlling force. History proves that the independence of the United States was sure to come sooner or later, and that it was better for both countries and for the world that the two nations should be under separate governments, and each work out its own destiny.
The war of 1812 was, before the bar of Jesus, without any excuse, and, like the Crimean war, was futile of results. The main questions at issue between the United States and England, and about which the war started, were not even mentioned in the final treaty of peace. The American grievances were real enough, but a very moderate exercise of Christian forbearance on England's part would have avoided any necessity of war. These grievances, bad as they were, had been endured by the United States for some twelve years, and a delay of some two years more would have brought a natural end to them with the fall of Napoleon. This war should never have occurred between two Christian peoples, and is unjustified by any good results that followed from it.
The war with Mexico in 1848 was simply an aggressive, land-grabbing, politicians' war, and will always be a blot on the Christianity of the United States. The lands of which Mexico was robbed were of course of great material value to the United States, but the less said about the justness of their acquisition the better.
The question of the Civil War is complicated by the moral issue of the abolition of slavery, underlying the political issue of the right of the South to secede, which was the ostensible cause of the war. Slavery in the United States was an evil, both ethically and economically, and, as its abolition was a result of the war, that war is justifiable both in the court of Jesus and in that of Nature. But that result was an incident of the war, and the North would never have taken up arms on the simple issue of forcing the abolition of slavery on the South.
On the ostensible, political issue which started the war—the right of the South to secede from the Union—there is room for much difference of opinion. Despite the technical and labored constitutional arguments of Von Holst and others, it is rather difficult to understand why, if the South believed that its happiness and prosperity were being imperiled by a further continuance of its union with the North, it had not the same right to break that union in 1861 as the colonies had the right to break their union with England in 1776. At the outbreak of the war, there were many in the North, beside Horace Greeley and Vallandingham, who thought it morally wrong to compel the South by force to remain in a union that had become hateful to it.
A great writer on American history (Sumner) has said that whenever some geographical section of our country becomes saturated with the idea that its material interests are being sacrificed to the interests of other parts of the country, and it sees no hope of redress, it will begin to talk secession. It was true of New England at the time of the Hartford Convention. It was true of the South in 1820, 1831 and 1860. It was true of the Pacific States shortly after the Civil War, when they feared that Congress would not pass their desired Chinese Exclusion Acts.
It would be difficult to justify the Spanish War of 1898, in the court of Jesus. It was mostly the work of the newspapers and politicians. Nine-tenths of the people of the United States were ignorant of suffering great grievances from Spain, until the Jingo journals demonstrated the fact to them. It is safe to say that this war would never have occurred if Spain had been a great naval power like Germany or Great Britain. The same assertion may be made of the war against Mexico in 1848. In studying the Jingo spirit which encourages wars, it will usually be found that the strength of this spirit varies in the inverse ratio to the supposed war-strength of the other party to the fight. Nations are much like school boys in this respect. It is quite probable that the war of 1812 would not have been brought on, except for[Pg 84] the mistaken idea of Henry Clay and his hot-headed followers from the West that the United States could easily overrun Canada, and dictate peace to England in Halifax.
Our participation in the Great War of 1914 was forced upon us, and was amply justifiable, both in the court of Jesus and in that of Nature. When Germany sunk our ships on the high seas, it struck at our independence as a nation, as vitally as though it had invaded and seized a part of our territory. On this issue we had waged war with England in 1812, and with the Algerine pirates in 1815. To have yielded this point to Germany would have been the first step toward international slavery.
But the war itself was utterly unjustifiable. The fact that it could occur nearly 2,000 years after the death of Jesus, only illustrates how little actual progress the teachings of Jesus inculcating peace had made against the forces of nature urging nations into conflict with each other.
To the impartial student of our history, it must be apparent that the Sermon on the Mount, so far as preventing wars, has been practically a dead letter. The condemnation of war has been superficial and insincere—nothing better than simple hypocrisy. It has been a service of the lip and not of the heart. The outside of the cup has been kept clean with a great parade of noble humanitarian sentiments, but the inside has been full of corruption.
Except among some numerically small bodies like the Quakers and a few others, there has never been any strong living, effective public sentiment in the United States condemning wars as unrighteous, save as a last extremity. This is well illustrated by our two disputes with England over the Maine and Oregon boundaries. These boundary disputes were most intricate and complicated, the evidence was uncertain and conflicting, no question of principle was involved, and they were eminently matters to be settled by negotiation, mutual compromise, or arbitration. But in each case the Jingo clamor for war spread over the whole country. Polk's campaign cry in 1844 was, "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight." But there was no organized, effective opposition on the ground that this war would be unrighteous and un-Christian. If England had been as weak as Mexico, or if Tyler and Polk had been "fire-eaters," like Andrew Jackson, we would, beyond doubt, have had war in each case, although there could have been no justification for it in the court of Jesus.
Every war, whether right or wrong, has been not merely condoned, but fully approved by the vast majority of the religious people of our country. Success in war has been the best stepping stone to the Presidency, as is shown by the instances of Jackson,[Pg 85] Harrison, Taylor and Grant. There is no record of any Jingo statesman being punished by his constituents for precipitating the United States into unnecessary and unrighteous wars, and the supreme hypocrisy of all is, that, in every war, whether morally justifiable or not, the followers of Jesus crowd the churches to pray for His assistance, and to thank Him for victory when won, as though He were sanctioning these infractions of His Sermon on the Mount.
The late President Roosevelt has expressed his views on our wars, and he may certainly be taken as fairly representative of a large portion of the American people. He was a devout Christian, but singularly free from hypocrisy. He was given to "speakin' out in meetin'," on occasions with a frankness that was embarrassing to his followers, and even later to himself.[57]
In his life of Thomas H. Benton, American Statesmen Series, page 261, he says, in treating of this boundary dispute with Canada:
"The matter was sure to be decided in favor of the strongest; and, say what we will about the justice and right of the various claims, the honest truth is, that the comparative might of the different nations, and not the comparative righteousness of their several causes, was the determining factor in the settlement. Mexico lost her northern provinces by no law of right, but simply by the law of the longest sword—the same law that gave India to England."[58]
On page 262 he says: "It would be untrue to say that Nations have not at times proved themselves capable of acting with great disinterestedness and generosity towards other peoples; but such conduct is not very common at the best, and although it often may be desirable, it certainly is not always so. If the matter in dispute is of great importance, and if there is a doubt as to which side is right, then the strongest party to the controversy is pretty sure to give itself the benefit of that doubt; and international morality will have to take tremendous strides in advance before this ceases to be the case."[59][Pg 86]
On page 268 he says: "No foot of soil to which we had any title[60] in the Northwest should have been given up; we were the people who could use it best, and we ought to have taken it all. The prize was well worth winning, and would warrant a good deal of risk being run."
On page 289, in speaking of the final compromise and settlement of the Oregon boundary dispute, he says: "Yet as there was no particular reason why we should show any generosity in our diplomatic dealings with England, it may well be questioned whether it would not have been better to have left things as they were until we could have taken all. Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided, but they are far better than certain kinds of peace. Every war in which we have been engaged, except the one with Mexico, has been justifiable in its origin, and each one, without any exception whatever, has left us better off, taking both moral[61] and material considerations into account, than we should have been if we had not waged it."
These citations, reflecting, as they undoubtedly do, prevalent American sentiment in the past and present, establish the utter hypocrisy of any claim that the Sermon on the Mount has had any practical, effective power in determining the actions of our nation concerning wars, whether justifiable or not.
It is uncertain just when Sunday (the first day of the week) began to be generally observed among Christians as a holy day. The early Gentile converts were naturally averse to all Jewish rites and ceremonies, including circumcision, Sabbath-day observances, etc. It would seem that, in St. Paul's time, more or less of them held the position that all days of the week were alike, and no one of them especially holy (Romans XIV:5, 6; Col. II:16, 17). But at least two or three centuries had elapsed after Jesus' death, before Sunday was established as a day holy to the Lord, and began to have attributed to it the sanctity with which the Jews surrounded their Mosaic Sabbath.
Jesus never sanctioned the observance of the first day of the week as a holy day. No text can be cited from the Old Testament,[Pg 87] or the four Gospels, that gives even color of authority to this observance. Sunday is a purely human institution, established by the Christians of the first five centuries, to suit their own convenience, or satisfy their anti-Jewish prejudices. As a Biblical festival, it is no more sacred than Monday or Tuesday, or any other day.
This matter is not commented on because of its practical importance, since it would now be inadvisable to change our legal day of rest to correspond with the Biblical Sabbath. But it affords a fair illustration of the prevalent cant and hypocrisy of the day. How frequently do the modern Pharisees denounce the man, who, for instance, goes fishing or hunting on Sunday, instead of going to church, as a contemner of Jesus, a violator of God's holy laws, etc., when in fact they have not the slightest authority from Jesus to do so. Would it not be well for them to consider the beam in their own eye? On this point, the Seventh-day Baptists and others like them are the consistent followers of Jesus, and not the Roman Catholics and the great bulk of the Protestants.
Under the Mosaic law a husband, dissatisfied with his wife, could "write her a bill of a divorcement" if he had found "some uncleanness in her" (Deut. XXIV:1; Matt. XIX:7).
According to Matthew, Jesus condemned divorce except for the cause of "fornication" (Matt. V:32; XIX:9).
According to Mark and Luke, He condemned divorce for any cause (Mark X:11; Luke XVI:18).
All the States of our Union, except New York and South Carolina, authorize divorce on other grounds than adultery. In New York divorces are granted only on the ground of adultery, and in South Carolina no divorces are granted. (World's Almanac, 1920, pp. 369-371.)
In 1916, there were 1,040,778 marriages and 112,036 divorces in the United States, of which about 11 per cent were on the ground of "unfaithful." (World's Almanac, 1920, pp. 151-152.)
But the marriages of the Roman Catholics, about 1-7 of our population (World's Almanac, p. 484), should fairly be excluded, since divorce is practically non-existent among them. This would leave 890,000 marriages to 112,000 divorces.
There was then, in 1916, something more than one divorce to every ten marriages among our total population, or, excluding Roman Catholics, something more than one divorce to every eight marriages.
In the face of these figures, it must be conceded that this prohibition of Jesus has become practically a dead letter among the Protestant Christians of the United States.
To the innocent party to a divorce, little, if any, stigma attaches either in business, social or religious circles, and nothing but a temporary condemnation is visited on the guilty party. The plain truth is, that divorce has become a matter of everyday life, regrettable but not sinful, and that, on this point, the followers of Jesus (excepting the Roman Catholics) have simply substituted their ideas of right and wrong for His.
It should be added again, to avoid misunderstanding, that it is not the intention hereby to condemn our present divorce laws. On the contrary, it is quite probable that, if Jesus were legislating for the complex societies of today, instead of for the comparatively simpler civilization of His day, He would materially modify His stringent views on divorce, in a sane concession to the weakness and frailty of human nature. Certainly, to one who has seen many ill-mated couples seeking relief in the divorce courts, and subsequently making happy marriages, to the mutual benefit of themselves, their children, their friends and society in general, divorce laws cannot seem all evil. The children, if there are any, are the main factor to be considered, and no conditions of life are likely to be much worse for them than to be brought up by two mutually unloving, unsympathetic parents, and, as usually happens, in an atmosphere of continual bickering and quarreling.
This subject has already been treated under Note 22, supra, page 23, and it has been shown that Jesus clearly condemned public prayers, long prayers and frequent prayers (Matt. VI: 5, 8).
The evils of the prayer-habit (as a public ceremony) are many and obvious.
(1) It is a useless waste of time and energy that had better be expended on works of mercy. God already knows what things we need, and will grant them, if advisable, without prayer (Matt. VI:8). For instance, how much time has been spent by the human race in praying for things which subsequent events proved were, or would have been, injurious instead of beneficial? How many there are, who, in looking back over their lives, can see that the realization of one of their (at the time) dearest wishes turned out later to be the most unfortunate thing that ever happened to them.
(2) It encourages the formation of a low and unworthy con[Pg 89]ception of God as a being to be propitiated and placated, like the deities of barbarous peoples. Insensibly the idea grows that the more frequent and the more zealous the prayers, the more likely they are to be granted. An instance of this will be found in the custom started during the Great War of every one on the streets and everywhere, praying exactly at noon for the success of our armies. The idea underlying this was apparently that of "a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull all together," although the latter requirement was hardly fulfilled, since the prayers in New York were several hours old before those in San Francisco were begun. Nothing could be imagined much more inconsistent with Jesus' regulations on the subject of prayer.
Furthermore, the prayer-habit begets a sickening tone of servility in the worshipper, coupled with the ascription to the Deity of an equally sickening love of adulation. In many prayer meetings the speakers seem to vie with each other in seeking terms of humility and self abasement for themselves (miserable worms being rather a favorite) and the most exaggerated titles of honor for the Deity. One would think they were a lot of grovelling slaves, prostrating themselves before the throne of some barbaric despot. Take the "Te Deum," which is a prayer in the form of a hymn. Can it be supposed that the fulsome adulation with which it is filled can be pleasing to the God of the universe? And yet, why is it sung, except on that supposition? What respect would we have for an earthly father who delighted in having his children assemble every morning, and chant their praises of his goodness, his excellence, his power, etc.? And yet should not the ideal of the heavenly Father be higher than that of the earthly father?
(3) The prayer-habit tends to emasculate the moral strength of its devotees. It is much easier to pray to God for help and, so to speak, shift the responsibility on Him, than to work out one's own troubles by one-self. There is an old saying—Pray, but with thy hand on the plough. Too much praying tends towards neglect of the plough, or, to use Cromwell's phrase, the keeping one's powder dry.
(4) Another evil is that it tends to encourage a self-righteousness on the part of its devotees (Luke XVIII:11). When prayer is regarded as a duty, the sequel to a prayer-meeting is a feeling of satisfaction in duty well performed. God has not only been well pleased by a display of humility on the part of His worshippers, but has also been intelligently advised on a variety of subjects, about which He may have been in uncertainty.
Compare the prayer meeting of today with one according to Jesus' precepts. There would be no long prayers (Matt. XXIII:[Pg 90]14; Luke XX:47). The meeting would open with the Lord's Prayer. Then, as each one thought over his various sins of omission and commission, and repented of them, he would arise and say, "God be merciful to me, a sinner" (Luke XVIII:13). The peace and silent meditation of such a gathering would tend to produce the humble and contrite heart, which is the offering pleasing to God.
(5) But the worst evil, as pointed out by Jesus, is that of substituting a false standard of righteousness, words for acts, sacrifice for mercy (Matt. XII:7). When prayers are regarded as a duty and their performance a meritorious act, their devotees are quite apt to become like the Pharisees, who paid "tithe of mint, anise and cummin," but neglected "judgment, mercy and faith" (Matt. XXIII:23).
The average, easy-going Christian can without difficulty square his account with God through numerous prayers, or even rest easy in his conscience with a slight balance in his favor. But it must be almost impossible for the believer in, and faithful adherent of, prayer-meetings to rise to the sublime conception of the Almighty, voiced not only by Jesus, but by the later prophets of the Old Testament.
"Bring no more vain oblations (prayers or fasting): incense (prayers and fasting) is an abomination to me. The new moons and Sabbaths (ceremonial church services), the calling of assemblies (prayer-meetings), I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts, my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them."
"Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow" (Isaiah I:13, 14, 17).
"And what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly and love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah VI:8).
This subject also, has already been discussed under note 20, supra, but for convenience, reference is again made to the passages in which Jesus condemns public fasting, or fasting as a ceremony (Matt. VI:16, 17, 18; Matt. IX:14; Mark II:18; Luke V:33; Luke X:7).
Nearly everything which has been said under the last subhead concerning public prayers applies with equal force to ceremonial fasting, and need not be repeated here.
Assuming there is to be ascribed to the modern Sunday the same sanctity as a holy day that should be accorded to the Sabbath which Jesus observed, His views on the proper observance of the day are summed up in the one sentence: "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark II:27).
The basic idea of the old Puritan Sunday was the direct opposite of that of Jesus. Following the old Mosaic law, which Jesus combatted, the Puritans planned their celebration of the day for the "honor and glory" of God, and not for the benefit of man. Conceiving this God, not as a loving Father, but as a stern, austere Judge, who, according to Jonathan Edwards, had reserved the bulk of mankind for burning, who demanded "sacrifice" and not "mercy," and was therefore to be propitiated and placated, the Puritan ministers succeeded, while they had the power, in imposing on their congregations a most atrocious travesty of the Sabbath of Jesus. Religious services were piled up like Pelion on Ossa, and every movement of the day was marked by gloom and austerity. No wonder that William Lloyd Garrison said of the observance of Sunday at a much later date: "The Sabbath, as now recognized and enforced, is one of the main pillars of priest-craft and superstition, and the stronghold of merely ceremonial religion."
Jesus did not object to the Jewish observance of the Sabbath on the ground that it was too "lax" (to use a modern term), but on just the opposite ground—that certain of their restrictions on man's freedom of action on that day were unnecessary. But the Sabbath of that time, as the Jews celebrated it, and as, from all the accounts in the four Gospels, Jesus celebrated it, was a day of joyous rest and recreation, and in no sense a day of spiritual maceration.
"The same character of cheerfulness, of happy rest from the toil and turmoil of the world's business; of quiet and peaceful return unto one's self; of joyous communion with friends and kindred over good cheer—in short, of mental and bodily relaxation and recreation that strengthens, braces, pacifies, and maketh the heart glad, while the sublime ideas which it symbolizes are recalled to the memory at every step and turn seems to have prevailed at all times down to our own, among the Jews."
"Suffice it to reiterate that in every class, every age and every variety of Jews, from first to last, the Sabbath has been absolutely a day of joy and happiness, nay, of dancing, of singing, of eating and drinking, and of luxury."
International Cyclopædia, Sabbath, Vol. XII, p. 857.
This is the kind of a Sabbath which the Gospels picture Jesus as celebrating, attending feasts in the houses of His friends, walking in the fields with His disciples, or meeting with them in public places, and healing the sick when occasion offered (Matt. XII:1; Mark II:23; Luke VI:1; Luke XIV:1; John V:1, 2, 9; IX:1, 14).
Hard as it may be for Anglo-Saxon prejudice to admit, yet it seems to be true, that the Spanish Sunday—mass in the morning and a bull-fight in the afternoon—is nearer than the Puritan Sunday to Jesus' ideas of the proper observance of the day, although He would probably approve, as little as we do, that particular form of amusement.
There is at the present time a strong and perhaps growing tendency towards enacting Sunday Blue Laws. By this is meant legislation restricting man's freedom of action on that day, which is based, not on any benefit to the individual or society, but on the old Mosaic idea of the supposed sanctity of the day—that it is holy to the Lord and He will be pleased by a ceremonial observance of it, different from other days.
Insofar as the professed followers of Jesus urge the enactment of such Blue Laws, it seems clear that they are not following Jesus, but going contrary to His precept and example.
There can be no possible doubt as to the position of Jesus on this question.
At the outset of His prophetic career, He drew the line sharply between Himself and John the Baptist in this matter.
John drank no wine and practiced fasting.
Jesus drank wine and condemned ceremonial fasting.
Each by word and example inculcated these different ideas on his respective followers (Matt. XI:18, 19; Luke V:33).[62][Pg 93]
At the marriage in Cana, He furnishes wine for the guests when the supply runs out (John II:1, 2). In His instructions to His apostles He tells them to eat and drink such things as are set before them (Luke X:7). He uses wine in the celebration of the Last Supper, and promises His apostles to drink with them of the "fruit of the vine" in heaven (Matt. XXVI:29; Mark XIV:25; Luke XXII:18, 30).
When Mahomet appeared, he followed the example of John the Baptist, and prohibited the drinking of wine. Since his time, on two points the line has always been sharply drawn between the Gospel of Jesus and that of Mahomet. The orthodox Christian could eat pork and drink wine, while the orthodox Mohammedan could do neither.
The majority of professed Christians have presumably supported the recent prohibition legislation in the United States. In so doing, they are not following Jesus, but going directly contrary to His precept and example. They are in effect saying that, on this point, Mahomet knew better than Jesus what was for the best good of the human race.
Under the term "sacrifice," Jesus included all ceremonial religious worship, and tried constantly to impress on His followers that this was not the offering pleasing to God, but, rather, deeds of mercy (Matt. IX:13; XXIII:23).
Realizing how strong is the tendency in human nature to impute to itself righteousness on account of its "tithes of mint and anise and cummin," He carried His condemnation of ceremonies into the smallest details. This is well illustrated by His enjoining His apostles not to wash before eating (Matt. XV:1, 2 and 20; Luke XI:37, 38). As He states, His objection was not to washing in itself, but because the Pharisees had made a religious ceremony of it.
Simplicity is the marked characteristic of all Jesus' acts of devotion. While it was His custom to preach in the synagogue on the Sabbath day, yet, so far as appears in the four Gospels, Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, Luke's Sermon on the Plain, the Lord's Prayer, and most of Jesus' important discourses were delivered, not in the synagogue and on the Sabbath day, but wherever time and place suited His convenience—from a ship, on a mountain, on a plain, in His own house, etc. (Matt. V:1; X:1; XII:2; XVIII:1; XXIII:1; XXIV:3; Mark IV:1; X:1; Luke V:3; VI:17; X:1; XI:1; XII:1; John III:2; IX:40; XII:22, 23; XIV; XV; XVI; XVII).
To demonstrate how far modern Christianity has traveled from the ideas of Jesus, it is only necessary to attend some ceremonial service in an Episcopalian or Catholic Cathedral, or some protracted prayer meeting of one of the Evangelical denominations.
Out of the fruitful field of Pauline theology, there sprang, even within a few centuries after the Crucifixion, a plentiful crop of the direst evils that have ever afflicted mankind—creeds and definitions of belief. Fortunately, disputatious theologians are now limited to the weapons of pen and ink, but in the Middle Ages oceans of blood were spilt over these religious quarrels.
If we could suppose the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the Thirty-nine Articles, or the Augsburg Confession to be submitted to Jesus for His approval, it is easy to imagine the substance of His answer: "I don't know what all this stuff means. I do not understand your terms—pre-destination, fore-ordination, trans-substantiation, infant damnation, etc. There is nothing here that I ever preached. I have given you a simple standard of righteousness, which every one can understand and follow, viz., right living. Have you forgotten my saying, that 'all the law and the prophets were contained in the two commandments to 'Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,' and to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' (Matt. XXII:37-40). These creeds of yours may be true, or partly true, or wholly false. But the important fact for you to remember is, that they are unnecessary to salvation—are non-essentials. If this sort of logomachy pleases you as an intellectual exercise, well and good, if it goes no further. But, beware that, in following this ignis fatuus, you do not neglect the only one main essential to God's favor—'to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.'"
The Great War has brought about a wondrous upheaval in the society of the world. Nearly every phase of mental and physical activity in man is in a process of transformation. Government, religion, labor, pleasure, business, finance, international relations—all are on a shifting basis, seeking readjustment to new ideas and new conditions. To cling to worn-out conceptions of life—to worn-out ideas and phrases is mere folly. These new problems can only be met and settled with a "tabula rasa." We must wipe out the old prejudices, the old accepted canons, and above all the old hypocrisies and cant.
If Christianity is to be a living, efficient force in the coming readjustment, it must cleanse itself of some of these old barnacles of hypocrisy now clinging to it. Not that hypocrisy will be less[Pg 95] prevalent under the new regime than under the old. Human nature will remain essentially the same, but it will demand new forms of hypocrisy. The specious, shallow reasoning of the charlatan, the fulsome adulation and extravagant promises of the demagogue, and other forms of humbuggery will still attract their thousands. Patient merit will still suffer its many spurns from the unworthy. But the followers of Jesus, if they will throw overboard their useless ecclesiastical and theological lumber, and return to the simple teachings and example of the Great Teacher, are sure to win.
The first and most important matter is to get rid of the hypocrisy of war. War is the most direful menace to the happiness and prosperity of mankind and, notwithstanding the bitter lessons of the Great War, little progress has been made towards averting it in the future.
And no permanent progress in that direction will be made until the Christian peoples of the world reject, root and branch, such views of national wars as are expressed by the late President Roosevelt in the quotations from his works already given (see (a) War, supra). The underlying principle of this war philosophy is the same as that of the modern Germans, Treitschke, Nietzsche and Bernhardi, except that they express themselves with more brutal frankness. It was preached long ago by Machiavelli, Francis Bacon, Hobbes, Eichte, Hegel and others. It is in substance that the State, although all its component units are sincere followers of Jesus, should not be governed by any moral laws in its dealings with other States. The State can do no wrong. It should pursue its ends with utter, callous selfishness, and its only law is that might makes right.
President Roosevelt has been quoted, because, in his views, he unquestionably voiced the sentiments of the great majority of past and present Americans. If this be true, should we not look for the beam in our own eye, before we criticize Germany for starting the Great War? She was simply applying the law that might makes right, except that she underestimated the might of the enemies she was arraying against herself. If she had been successful (as she probably would have been except for the unexpected valor and self-sacrifice of the Belgians), would she have been any worse sinner (barring some barbarous details of her warfare) than the United States with its condonation and approval of the Mexican and Spanish wars? Both of these were wars of aggression against weaker nations, and the Mexican war, at least, is admitted on all hands to have been morally unjustifiable, even by such stalwart Americans as President Roosevelt. More than a[Pg 96] hundred years ago, a distinguished admiral of the United States Navy is reported to have said: "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong." Now, this is a high-sounding phrase and is a great refuge for Jingo politicians when they have precipitated the country into an unrighteous war. But before the bar of Jesus it is the veriest clap-trap. The sincere follower of Jesus should insist that we be sure we are right in the first instance, and, if it is discovered that we have been misled into a by-way of wrong and injustice, that we get back at once to the straight and narrow way of right and justice.
Our churches must denounce these Rooseveltian doctrines early and late, as a perversion of Jesus' laws. They must insist that opposition to wars becomes a service of the heart and not of the lip. They must mould us into a nation of sincere "conscientious objectors," condemning all wars as un-Christian, judging every aggressive war as prima facie unjustifiable, and insisting that the advocates of any war prove the justness of their cause beyond a reasonable doubt. Let our politicians and leaders understand that if they plunge us into an unjust war, they are to be punished, and not rewarded by the Presidency, as was Roosevelt after the Spanish war, and Taylor after the Mexican war. How many of our wars would have lacked advocates, if they had been obliged to plead their cause under the principles of the Sermon on the Mount?
As long as the people of the United States are animated by, and their conduct based on, the war philosophy of Roosevelt, it is hard to see how any League of Nations could be anything but a farce—a mere "scrap of paper." On the other hand, if all the Christian nations were sincere, ardent "conscientious objectors," wars would be avoided without the need of any League of Nations. If the Christian people of Germany had been "conscientious objectors" in this sense, there would not have been a Great War. But unfortunately they were of a different faith, and according to German writers still cling to that faith, after all their bitter experiences. (Germany since the Revolution. Yale Review, Jan., 1921). Nor may we flatter ourselves that we are free from the same views. For instance, there is apparently, at the present time (as there was before the Spanish war) a Jingo junto of politicians and newspapers who seize every opportunity to stir up prejudice and hostility against Japan, although it has always acted towards us as a peace-loving, neighborly nation. If it were as vulnerable to our attack as Mexico or Spain, these Hotspurs[Pg 97] might quite likely drag us into a war, but the uncertainty of the contest in this case must give them pause.
Another field for church action is in working towards making Sunday like the Sabbath of Jesus' time—a day of joyous relaxation and recreation, but always remembering that deeds of mercy and the promotion of the happiness of others, are to feature the day, as the offering acceptable to God. One of the marked features of the time is the growing spirit of unrest and discontent among the mass of the people. This spirit of unrest manifests itself, in part, by an increasing appetite for amusement. While this outlet for people's uneasiness may perhaps not be of the highest, it is much preferable to others, to which their discontent might turn. The churches should recognize this present need of man, realize the truth of Jesus saying that the Sabbath was made for man, oppose all new Sunday Blue Laws, and seek the repeal of those now existing. Instead of putting the ban of the church on all Sunday amusements, it should encourage such harmless recreations as it can well sanction under the example of Jesus. There should be meetings in the churches, as in the synagogue in Jesus' time, but as an incident, and not the chief end, of the day.
In the matter of temperance vs. prohibition, a great Christian nation has, for the first time in history, recently inaugurated the experiment of a general prohibition law. What the results of this policy may be, remains an uncertain question for the future to decide. Certain it is that the Anglo-Saxon race has reached its present stage of progress and civilization under a regime of practically unrestricted use of alcoholic drinks. Of the eminent names in its history—in government, war, literature, arts, sciences, industrial work and invention—the percentage of those who all their lives have been consistent abstainers from liquor must be exceedingly small. The prohibitionist will say that all this progress has been made in spite of the evils of drink. But that can only be proved by generations of experience under prohibition laws. The other hypothesis is, prima facie, equally tenable, that this progress has been due in part to the stimulus which the temperate use of liquor undoubtedly does, at least temporarily, give to the physical and mental activity of man. The thirteen centuries of experience of the followers of Mahomet demonstrate that prohibition does not of itself produce great men, or general virtue, progress or prosperity.
Theoretically the success of prohibition is handicapped by the fact that it is opposed to the evolutionary processes of nature. The basic idea of prohibition is to improve man by removing the cause of evil. For no one can deny that excess of drinking is[Pg 98] an evil, just as is excess of eating, of fasting, of prayer, or any other form of human activity. Even excess of charity may be an evil, if it results in impoverishing one's family. But nature works on the contrary idea. It develops its highest types by exposing them to evil, and teaching them to conquer it. Take the matter of climate, for instance. A priori one might have reasoned that a mild, equable climate, like that of the South Sea Islands, where the means of subsistence are easily obtained, would be the best for the human race. It could plausibly be argued that man would have more time and energy for his intellectual development if he were not absorbed in a continuous, laborious struggle for his physical existence. But experience has shown that just this contest with the extremes of heat and cold—this continual battle for subsistence under uncongenial conditions—has produced not only the most efficient workers in material progress, but also the highest types of intellectual development. Whether the prohibition theory of wrapping men in lamb's wool, instead of putting them out to fight the battle of life, will not produce more evil than good, is at least uncertain. It may be that, after some time of experimenting, men may come back to the idea that Jesus was right in thinking that temperance is better for the human race than prohibition.
Furthermore, prohibition, besides being opposed both to the laws of Jesus and the laws of nature, has the essential weakness, as a remedy for intemperance, that it attacks the means or rather one of the means, of intemperance, and not the cause—the causa efficiens, as the logicians would say. The Anglo-Saxons have for centuries been meat-eaters and liquor-drinkers. What end they would have attained on a diet of vegetables and cold water, we can only guess, but all science is wrong if it would not have been some end quite different. Now, this appetite for stimulants—the growth of centuries—is not to be eradicated by prohibiting the use of alcoholic drinks, any more than the appetite for fornication can be eradicated by the suppression of houses of prostitution. In spite of all the prohibition laws in the world, the appetite for stimulants will continue to exist in the Anglo-Saxon race, and will seek its gratification in one way, if not in another. Whether these substitutes may not be worse in the end than alcohol, remains to be seen. Suppose, for instance, that accustomed liquor-drinkers should now substitute, as their stimulant, large quantities of strong tea or coffee, or, possibly, some concentrated product of one or the other of those plants. Probably nine-tenths of our medical authorities would agree that the change would be, generally speaking, undoubtedly for the worse.
It is to be observed that never in the United States has there[Pg 99] been made any general systematic effort towards temperance, such as is now being made towards prohibition. No greater hypocrisy has ever been worked off on the American people than that under the name of "Temperance." Societies have labeled themselves with that name, orators and prominent leaders have paraded under that name, when, in fact, it was a mere subterfuge, and the bearers of it were really prohibitionists. Probably no one who has ever worked for real temperance measures in any of our large cities but would testify that his work has been seriously hampered by the entire lack of interest, if not by the actual hostility, of these so-called temperance reformers and societies. In fact, many of them would make no scruple in openly avowing that they were opposed to any practical temperance measure, because it would retard the coming prohibition. With the hearty support of the prohibitionists, there is no reason today why scientific temperance measures should not be put in force throughout the United States, that would do away with at least seventy-five per cent of the evils of drunkenness.
Our present Federal prohibition law is still on trial. It never would have been enacted unless we had been precipitated into the Great War. It has never been submitted to a plebiscite of the people. In one respect, it has done much evil in increasing the unrest and discontent of a large part of our population, who regard malt liquors as comparatively innocuous, and as necessary to their comfort and health, and who regard the deprivation of them as an invasion of their personal liberty. When Rome was threatened, as we are now, by a rising tide of unrest and discontent, the rulers of that day advised "panem et circenses"—food and amusement. Many of the thinkers of today neglect this sage, old maxim in depriving the people of their beer, in urging more stringent Sunday Blue Laws, and, generally, in restricting or prohibiting popular amusements, on one pretext or the other. In reading some of the proposed restrictions on minors, one sometimes wonders how it is supposed that stalwart, young lads from sixteen to twenty-one are to spend their evenings. They most assuredly will not spend them at home reading the Bible.
In the future consideration of temperance vs. prohibition, it will be well for the followers of Jesus to weigh maturely His position on the question. His precept and example are not lightly to be disregarded, especially where, as here, they harmonize with the laws of nature, instead of, as in the case of war, being opposed to them. If all hypocrisy were eliminated, and the non-compromisers and sacro-sancts kept out of the discussion, there is no reason why the opposing forces of temperance and prohibition[Pg 100] could not arrive at a compromise, which would reduce the evil of drunkenness to a minimum, and, at the same time, not rob life of the joy and good cheer that comes from a temperate enjoyment of the "fruit of the vine." If it is to be a part of the heavenly life (Matt. XXVI:29; Mark XIV:25; Luke XXII:30), let it be also a part of the earthly life.
In the matters of prayer, fasting and ceremonial worship, the churches must make radical changes in their practice, if they are to win back their influence over the masses of the people—an influence which, it is generally admitted, has been on the wane during the past few decades. The contrast is altogether too glaring between the simple form of worship, practiced and preached by Jesus, and that of most of our modern religious denominations. The luxury of modern living is a favorite subject of invective by essayists and philosophical writers. But it is little wonder that the layman runs to this extreme, when he has before him the example set by many of the successors of Jesus' apostles—popes, bishops, cardinals, ministers of wealthy parishes, etc. And, in saying this, the fact is not overlooked that many ministers of the Gospel are worthy, self-denying, conscientious followers of Jesus in these matters, but the exceptions are too numerous. The conduct of a class is usually judged by that of its most prominent representatives.
As to creeds, theological disputes and sectarian differences, the common people are more and more acting on the lines of Pope's couplet:
After the death of Mr. Atwater it developed that he had instructed the Trust Company having his affairs in charge to make money gifts to about one hundred of his friends.
A few of those so remembered have published the accompanying book for distribution among Mr. Atwater's intimate acquaintances. The text is that of a pamphlet which he published just before his death.
Inside this leaflet are reproduced copies of a letter to the Trust Company regarding the gifts and a memorandum, found in his desk, as to the disposition of his remains.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Sept. 1/15
Minneapolis Trust Company,
115 South Fifth Street,
City.
Dear Sirs:—
In distributing the property which will come to you under my will, I wish you to exercise a reasonable discretion, since conditions may be quite different at the time of my death from what they are now. I very likely have overlooked some of my old friends who should be remembered, and in such case I should wish you to make the matter right as though they were included in my list.
In case I should die after sickness of some duration, the people who have taken care of me in this sickness should be also remembered.
In case there should be any deficiency of property to fill these bequests, I should prefer that the deficiency should be taken out of the larger amounts to friends who do not really need the money, rather then to reduce all of the bequests pro rata. Under present conditions there should be a surplus of several thousand dollars. This you might hold for some time and if any of my friends came to actual want, you could use it for their benefit or, if not used for that purpose, you could give it to some hospital or asylum.
If you deem it advisable, you may make explanation that the varying amounts of these legacies are not to be taken as indicating the degree of my regard for recipients, since I have considered to a considerable extent the financial condition of my friends. To some of them any amount of money I could leave would be of no account pecuniarily, while in case of others it might be of some real help; I have also given my girl friends largely the advantage in amounts.
I will keep a duplicate of this list, which will be among my papers, and may make changes in it from time to time, which will be of the same effect as though communicated to you.
Yours very truly,
John B. Atwater.
I wish my remains to be cremated as quietly as possible, and do not care to have a minister hold any services. While I believe in God the Infinite not ourselves which is eternal I do not believe in any of the man-made Gods and Creeds which now exist and which in my opinion have entirely perverted the simple gospel taught by Christ. As I have no near relatives to be pained by the absence of conventional ceremonies, I might as well be consistent to the end. I have no particular use for flowers at a funeral, and would prefer, if my friends feel it necessary to express their regret in a tangible form, that they would send checks to some Hospital or Asylum in my memory for the amount they would otherwise spend on flowers.
[1] Renan says that "the family of David had, as it seems, been long extinct" before Joseph's birth. Life of Jesus, Chap. XV.
[2] The first verse of Luke's Gospel says that "many" had written about Jesus' life before him. If, as seems probable, he had Matthew's narrative before him when he wrote his Gospel, it is an interesting query why he rejected in his line of ancestry Solomon—the most "glorious" of the Jewish rulers—in favor of the obscure and comparatively unknown Nathan.
[3] It is somewhat curious that Matthew and Luke, who are the only two evangelists to attribute a divine ancestry to Jesus (see heading "Conception"), are the only two to give a genealogy of Joseph. From their point of view, it was entirely immaterial whether Joseph was a descendant of David or not. An attempt to trace Mary's lineage back to David would have had some materiality.
On the other hand, it would seem that Mark and John, who ignore the paternity of the Holy Ghost, would have deemed it of high importance to establish, if possible, one of these genealogies. All Jewry at this time was teeming with expectation of the coming of a Messiah, and their prophets had marked Him out as one of the lineage of David (Psalms CXXXII:2; Jer. XXIII:4; John VII:42). No stronger argument could have been found to win the favor of the Jews to Jesus than the linking of His name with David.
In Cadman's "Harmony of the Gospels," page 39, the author makes an ingenious attempt to "harmonize" these two lines of ancestry—the super-natural and the Davidian. This he does by making Luke's genealogy one of Mary, instead of Joseph. By this means the super-natural fatherhood of Jesus is saved and, at the same time He can claim, through His mother, a descent from David.
The main trouble with this theory is that Cadman is obliged to make Heli the father of Mary, when Luke expressly says that Heli was the father of Joseph (Luke III:23). At another place, Luke speaks of Joseph, not Mary, as being of the house of David (Luke II:4).
[4] There was no God—the Holy Ghost—known to the Jews, and Joseph could not have understood the meaning of the term without some explanation.
[5] It is to be noted that Matthew does not explain why the angel changed the name in the prophecy—Immanuel—to that of Jesus.
[6] Apparently the Angel must have told Mary His name.
[7] Cadman, in the work already referred to, page 37, "harmonizes" these two variant accounts of the angelic announcements by giving Matthew's version in his text, and simply referring to Luke's account in a note.
[8] From Luke's narrative it does not appear that Joseph had any doubts as to Jesus being his child, or, if he did, how these doubts were removed.
[9] The story of the miraculous conception of Jesus would be thrown out of any impartial court upon the evidence of the four Gospels alone.
(a) The two narratives of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on several important details, as is shown above. This discredits each of them as a reliable, accurate authority on this point.
(b) This story is entirely omitted from the narratives of our two first-hand authorities—Mark and John.
Now, it is unthinkable that the authors of these two Gospels, if they knew of this story and believed it to be true, would not have recorded so important a fact in the life of Jesus.
Consequently, they either did not know of the story or, knowing it, did not believe it to be true.
Either hypothesis is equally fatal to the credit of the story.
If they, writing shortly after Jesus' death and, presumably, investigating all sources of information about His prophetic career—probably personally interviewing those persons then living who had seen, heard and known Jesus most intimately—had heard nothing of this story, then it must have been such an obscure legend, buried in the inner consciousness of so few people, as to be unworthy of serious consideration as a fact of history.
If, on the other hand, these writers knew of the story, but, after investigation of the abundant sources of information at their command, rejected it as untrue, what warrant have subsequent historians, not possessing their special means of information, to claim that their decision was wrong?
(c) The story of Jesus' supernatural paternity is most effectually discredited by the fact that no such claim on His behalf was advanced by, nor was the story known to, those nearest to Him during His lifetime.
His nearest friends and neighbors, who had been in daily intercourse with Him at Nazareth for thirty years, had no suspicion of such a claim being made on His behalf, even some time after He had begun his preaching.
"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. XIII:55; Mark VI:3.) (See also Matt. XII:47.)
Still later, the multitudes who came to hear Him knew nothing of such a claim.
"Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" (John VI:42).
Luke himself says that Jesus "was supposed" to be the son of Joseph (Luke III:23).
There is, in fact, no evidence in the four Gospels to show that, during Jesus' lifetime, there was, at any time or place or by any person, a public claim made that He was not as much the son of Joseph, in the natural course of events, as He was the son of Mary.
(d) Jesus in His lifetime never denied the paternity of Joseph.
On one occasion, in the synagogue at Nazareth, when He had been preaching and the people "wondered" at His "gracious words," "they said, Is not this Joseph's son?" And He said unto them, among other things, "No prophet is accepted in his own country" (Luke IV:22, 23). That is, the people were loath to accept Jesus' teachings because of His lowly birth. But Jesus, instead of claiming a divine parentage, impliedly affirms the fatherhood of Joseph.
On another occasion He is challenged as to His paternity, and does not deny that He is the son of Joseph (John VI:42).
If He had believed that the Holy Ghost was His father, then these two utterances would have been a suppressio veri—the equivalent of a falsehood—of which we cannot think Him guilty.
While Jesus never applies to Himself the title of "Son of David," yet His claim to this lineage must have been widely circulated, since He is given this title not only by the Jews (Matt. IX:27; XII:23; XX:30; XXI:9, 15; Mark X:47; XI:10; Luke I:32; XVIII:38), but also by the Gentiles (Matt. XV:22). His silence and failure to object, when so addressed, certainly constitutes a tacit approval of this description of Himself. But He could only be a descendant of David by reason of the fact that Joseph was His father. Undoubtedly Matthew and Luke inserted in their narratives these two genealogies of Joseph to prove a direct descent of Jesus from David through the paternity of Joseph. The Cadman theory of tracing a descent from David through Mary was not known to the evangelists (Matt. I:16; Luke II:4).
In His meetings with his family, while He seems rather cool and indifferent to them, there is no intimation that His relationship to them is not the ordinary one of son and brother (Matt. XII:47; Mark III:31; Luke VIII:19, 20; XI:28; John II:1, 12).
Jesus never refers to the Holy Ghost as His father, and, on four occasions only, calls Himself the "Son of God" (John III:16-18; V:20; IX:35; XI:4). None of the events in connection with which the term is used by John, are related in either of the three other Gospels. But this term would convey to His hearers no other significance than that with which they were familiar from the Old Testament, where it is applied to beings inferior to God (Gen. VI:2; Job I:6; II:1; XXXVIII:7; Ps. LXXXII:6; 2 Sam. VII:14). But this is very far from the attribute ascribed to Jesus through the miraculous conception, of being the equal of, or one with, God. Jesus Himself refers to others as being the "children of God" (Luke XX:36; Matt. V:45), and He speaks constantly of God being the "Father" of His hearers (Matt. V:16, 45; VI:1, 6, 14; XVIII:14 et passim). Apparently He makes no distinction between this "fatherhood," as related to others, and as related to Himself. For instance, He tells Mary to go to His disciples and say unto them, "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father and to my God and your God" (John XX:17).
Jesus' favorite appellation for Himself is "the Son of Man." He uses this name constantly throughout the four Gospels, and uniformly, except in the four instances cited from John. In speaking of the most solemn and important events of His career, He prefers this name to "the Son of God," or any other. "Of him, also, shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels" (Mark VIII:38; XIII:26; Luke IX:26). In passages like these, it seems necessary to eliminate the words "of man," if they are to harmonize with the theory of the paternity of the Holy Ghost. Again, on His trial, when the high priest "adjures" Him: "Tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of God," Jesus follows His usual noncommittal answer, "Thou hast said," with the statement: "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; Luke XXII:69; Mark XIV:62; John VIII:28; XII:23, 34, 35).
(e) Finally, to close all argument on this point, there are the many express statements of Jesus to the effect that He was not the same as, or the equal of, God (Matt. XIX:17; XX:23; Mark X:18, 40; Luke XVIII:19; John XIV:28; XVII:3).
[10] Evidently Elisabeth never told John of this visit of Mary, since John says of his first meeting with Jesus that "I knew Him not," until he saw "the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him" (John I:31-33; see also Matt. XI:3; Luke VII:19).
[11] Unfortunate as it may be to lose the beautiful story of the birth at Bethlehem, with its poetic imagery of the manger, the visit of the "wise men," and the greeting of the shepherds, the evidence of the four Gospels proves its untruth even more strongly than the story of the miraculous conception.
(a) The contradictory details appearing in the two narratives discredit each as a reliable authority.
Matthew has Jesus born in a house, greeted by "wise men of the East," and going to Egypt immediately after His birth, and remaining there until after Herod's death.
Luke has Him born in a manger, greeted by shepherds, remaining in Bethlehem for several weeks, then going to Jerusalem, and from there returning "into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" (Luke II:39). His parents could not have been in Egypt, avoiding the wrath of Herod, because "they went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover" (Luke II:41).
Herod's massacre of the innocents is, of course, unknown to Luke, because, according to him, no "flight of the holy family to Egypt" ever took place. This massacre is not mentioned in the four Gospels, except in this Chapter of Matthew, nor is it recorded by any profane historian of that time, like Josephus. Even supposing that Herod—a Roman tetrarch and not an independent despot—would have dared a wholesale slaughter of Roman subjects without express authority from Augustus Cæsar, yet so terrible an event would have left an indelible impression on the Jewish people. If it had occurred, connected as it was with the birth of Jesus, it is incredible that the other evangelists should have omitted all mention of it, as well as Josephus, who records the other cruelties of Herod.
Bethlehem was some six miles south of Jerusalem, and Nazareth some sixty or seventy miles north of Jerusalem. Matthew does not explain why Joseph and Mary should have been in Bethlehem at this time, especially in view of her then approaching confinement. In fact, the inference from Matthew's narrative would be, that they were residents of Bethlehem at this time. But the unvarying testimony of all the Gospels, except in this one passage, is that Galilee was the native country of both Joseph and Mary, and that their home, after her marriage, was at Nazareth. Luke states this explicitly (Luke I:26), and Matthew himself, in every other passage but this, speaks of Jesus as coming from Nazareth, and asserts that Galilee was "his own country" (Matt. XIII:54; XXI:11; XXVI:71).
Luke, who recognizes Nazareth as the native city of Joseph, explains his presence in Bethlehem on the theory that he, being of the house of David, came to Bethlehem to be enrolled under the census taken by Quirinius, pursuant to a decree of Cæsar Augustus (Luke II:1). But the authorities generally agree that this census did not extend to the tetrarchies, like Judæa, and that it was taken at least ten years after the birth of Jesus (Renan, Life of Jesus, Chap. II). Besides, it is taxing one's credulity to the utmost to suppose that the Roman officers would have allowed a citizen of Nazareth to enroll himself in an insignificant village, more than sixty miles distant, on the ground that some problematical ancestor had been anointed with oil in that place a thousand years before (1 Sam. XVI:13).
As to the contradictory accounts of Matthew and Luke concerning Jesus' movements immediately after His birth, Cadman in his "Harmony of the Gospels" pp. 4, 45, 48, "harmonizes" them by printing each of them without comment, as though both could be true.
(b) The silence of Mark and John as to the birth at Bethlehem is even more significant than in the matter of the miraculous conception.
There were two points most essential for Jesus and His followers to establish in order to convince the Jews that He was truly their expected Messiah: (1) that He was of the "house of David"; (2) that He "came" from Bethlehem.
The Old Testament prophecies were explicit on these two points (Jer. XXIII:5; Micah V:2; Ps. CXXXII:11).
This was the general expectancy among the Jews at the time of Jesus' birth (Matt. II:5, 6; XXII:42; Luke I:32).
"Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (John VII:42).
With such importance attaching to a birth at Bethlehem, the argument is irresistible that Mark and John, in not mentioning it, either did not know of the story, or, knowing it, did not believe it to be true. Either hypothesis is equally fatal to the credibility of the story.
It is further to be noted that, while the claim of Jesus' paternity by the Holy Ghost, if publicly asserted, might have stirred up some scandal among the good people of Nazareth, it could not have been absolutely disproved. But, at the time the Gospels were written, it was comparatively easy to absolutely prove whether Jesus was born at Nazareth or at Bethlehem, more than sixty miles distant.
(c) The claim was never publicly made that He was born at Bethlehem, notwithstanding the great support which that fact, if true, would have given to His cause. To His friends and neighbors of thirty years' standing at Nazareth, and to the "multitudes" in general, He was known only as "Jesus of Nazareth" (Mark VI:1-4; Matt. XXI:11; XXVI:71; Mark XIV:67, 70; Luke IV:16, 22; XXII:59; XXIII:6; John VII:41, 42; XVIII:5, 7, 8; XX:19).
(d) Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever put forth this claim, even when the objection was made that He could not be the Messiah, because He came from Nazareth.
The evidence on this point is, of course, mostly negative, consisting in an entire absence in the four Gospels of any reference to His birth at Bethlehem, except the first account given in Matthew and Luke. Thereafter it is as though it had never occurred, for anything that the Gospels have to say about it.
But in two or three instances the question was directly raised.
Philip, one of the apostles, finds Nathaniel and says to him: "We have found Him, of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
Nathaniel's reply is: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?"
The only answer which Philip makes is: "Come and see" (John I:45, 46).
On another occasion, Jesus' preaching so impressed His hearers that many of them said: Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? (John VII:40, 41, 42).
In both these instances the obvious answer to the objection made would have been, that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, if that had been a fact.
Again, on the evening of His arrest, Jesus twice affirms that He is "Jesus of Nazareth" (John XVIII:5, 8). It would seem that, in that solemn moment of approaching death, Jesus would have asserted His Messianic claim to a birth at Bethlehem, if it had been a fact. (See also Mark XVI:6; Luke XXIII:6, 7; XXIV:19; John XIX:19).
[12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were "amazed," and, when he told them that He must be about His Father's business, "they understood not the saying which He spoke unto them" (Luke II:50). Apparently their knowledge of His miraculous conception, and all the predictions of angels, wise men, shepherds, Simeon, Anna and Elisabeth had produced little, if any, effect on their minds.
[13] It is an interesting query why all four evangelists give such full and precise details of this ceremony. Neither John nor Jesus seems to have attached much importance to it. Only a short time after it occurred, John had forgotten it, for, while in prison (Matt. XI:2; Mark VI:17), he sent some of his disciples to inquire of Jesus, "Art Thou He that should come or do we look for another?" (Matt. XI:2-6; Luke VII:19-23).
Jesus never mentions His baptism or His then recognition by John, as giving credence to His claims, although He speaks of him and his mission as His forerunner (Matt. XI:7-13; Luke VII:24-29). When He appeals to John as a witness to the truth of His messianic claims, He does not refer to this baptismal ceremony, but relies on John's statements to messengers sent to Him (John V:32, 33; III:25-36).
Baptism, as it developed into a religious rite after Jesus' death—the first step towards admission into the membership of a church—was unknown to the Jews and to Jesus Himself (Kitto's Cyclopædia of Bib. Lit., pp. 282-290).
John seems to have given it a temporary popularity, but its practice among the Jews ceased with his death. Jesus showed as little interest in it as in other rites and ceremonies. Only one of the Gospels mentions baptism by Jesus' disciples, and that allusion is very indefinite (John III:22; IV:1). But it is explicitly added "though Jesus Himself baptized not" (John IV:2).
The strongest evidence on this point is Jesus' failure to enjoin the practice of this rite on His followers. Three of the Gospels give quite fully Jesus' instructions to the apostles and disciples on sending them out in the world to preach, and not one word is said about baptism (Matt. X; Mark VI:7-13; Luke IX:1-6).
Probably the evangelists felt the need (more than Jesus Himself) of fortifying the latter's cause with the ægis of John's popularity. At this time the Jews were filled with expectations of the coming of some ruler (Elias, Christ, the Messiah, "he who shall come," etc.), who should establish an earthly kingdom and give them victory over the heathen. John's preaching appealed to this feeling and won to him great numbers of adherents, who remained faithful to him even in prison (Matt. III:5; XIV:5; Mark I:5; XI:32; Luke III:3). To identify Jesus with this expectant one, of whom John preached, was to win at once to Jesus' cause all of John's great following.
[14] It is to be noted that the Epistle of James is directed "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James I:1), and contains no allusion whatever to the Gentiles. There is some dispute whether the author of this epistle, who was bishop of Jerusalem for many years, was the brother or cousin-german of Jesus, or the brother of John, "the beloved disciple." There is no doubt, however, that he was an intimate associate of Jesus during His life-time, and, presumably, a much more accurate authority on His views than Paul or others who had never seen Jesus or heard Him speak.
[15] There may be urged, against this view of Jesus' conception of His mission, certain passages occurring in the different accounts of the resurrection.
Matthew relates that, on the appearance of Jesus on a mountain in Galilee to the eleven apostles, where "some doubted" whether it were He or not, Jesus said, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. XXVIII:19).
Mark relates that, on Jesus' appearance in Jerusalem "unto the eleven as they sat at meat," He said: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark XVI:14, 15, 16).
Luke relates that, when Jesus appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven, He told them that Christ was to suffer and rise the third day "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke XXIV:47).
According to John, who is by many regarded the most reliable authority on the events of Passion Week, and who describes the appearances of Jesus both at Jerusalem and on the sea-shore in Galilee, Jesus said nothing indicating any change in His views about preaching to the Gentiles or the importance of baptism. On the contrary, He three times says to Peter, "Feed my lambs" or "Feed my sheep" (John XXI:15, 16, 17). But His "sheep" were "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," with whom alone His mission lay (Matt. XV:24).
The glaring contradictions on this point between Matthew, Mark and Luke make their evidence of little weight as against the clear and explicit utterances of Jesus, which these same evangelists have recorded in the earlier part of their Gospels. No two of them agree as to just what was said, or when it was said. The use by Matthew of the later formula of baptism—"in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost"—which apparently was never used by John the Baptist or Jesus' disciples, marks his passage with the strongest suspicion.
The account of John is the only one consistent with the previous history of Jesus, and it is more than probable that these passages from Matthew, Mark and Luke were interpolated through the influence of Paul and his followers.
[16] These solitary "retreats" for fasting, prayer and meditation to a desert, wilderness or mountain are common occurrences in the lives of religious teachers, prophets, saints, etc., of the Orient. They seem, however, somewhat foreign to the character of Jesus (Luke VII:33, 34; Matt. IX:14). This is the only formal fasting by Jesus mentioned in the four Gospels. Several times it is related that He went up into a mount, but He either did not go alone, or He spent only a short time,—a day or a night.
In its location—a mountain—and its duration—forty days—this fast follows the Old Testament precedents of Moses, on Mount Sinai (Exod. XXXIV:28), and the prophet Elijah on Mount Horeb (I Kings XIX:8).
The rather theatrical adjunct of the devil and his temptations may fall in the same category, as Matthew's massacre of the innocents and the flight to Egypt. It gives opportunity, however, to bring in several quotations from the Old Testament.
It must be remembered that, as Jesus preached only to the Jews, so the Gospels (except possibly John), were written with the purpose of convincing the Jews of the truth of Jesus' claims to be their Messiah. The more their authors could connect Him with the sayings and predictions of the Old Testament, the stronger their case. Hence, with nearly every incident of Jesus' life, they cite some appropriate text of the Old Testament, usually with the addition, "that it might be fulfilled" or "as it was spoken by the prophet." In their zeal, it is possible that, in some cases, an incident was found to fit a text, rather than a text to fit an incident.
[17] Apparently, after Jesus left Nazareth, He became domiciled at Capernaum (Mark II:1,15; Matt. IX:1).
[18] The four Gospels use the term "disciples" without much distinction, as meaning either the apostles or the immediate, personal adherents of Jesus for the time being.
[19] According to Mark this "feast" was in Jesus' house (Mark II:15; see Matt. IX:10).
[20] This first discourse of Jesus stands unequaled in religious writings for its clearness, simplicity and freedom from dogmatic theology. To appreciate this, it is only necessary to cite some passages from John's Gospel, which in comparison seem mystic, turgid and ambiguous (John I:1-14; III:11-23; IV:50-59). There is scarcely a sentence in the Sermon on the Mount susceptible of a double meaning, or which a man of ordinary education cannot understand without the aid of a learned exegesis. Yet how hard it is for the poor human followers of Jesus to rise to its grand simplicity. Take, for instance, the subject of fasting. It seems almost impossible for the Christian, of ancient or modern times, to escape from the idea that, in mortifying the flesh, he is doing something pleasing to God. John the Baptist both fasted and enjoined fasting on his disciples. But Jesus neither fasted Himself, nor enjoined fasting on His disciples (Matt. IX:14; Mark II:18; Luke V:33; Matt. III:4; Luke VII:33-34). With His sane view of life, free of all fanaticism, He here, as always, inculcated temperance, condemning the excess of asceticism, as much as the excess of overindulgence in eating and drinking. While He does not prohibit fasting, He, in very plain language checks the enthusiasm of His disciples to make the public practice of fasting a mark of holiness.
"Moreover, when ye fast, be not as the hypocrites of a sad countenance, for they disfigure their faces that they may appear to fast."
"But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head and wash thy face. That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret" (Matt. VI:16, 17, 18).
This seems so clear that he who runs may read, and how the Roman Catholic and Protestant Episcopal Churches make it square with their public celebration of the Lenten fast, for instance, is hard to understand. The "Fast Day" of New England would seem to come directly under Jesus' condemnation.
[21] The Sermon on the Mount is probably composed of a number of utterances at different times and places, which have been compiled and put together in one discourse by the author of this Gospel.
[22] The promulgation of the Lord's Prayer is one of the most significant events of Jesus' prophetic career. It illustrates both His conception of God, and, as a consequence, His dislike of all ceremonial worship.
The persistent weakness of every religion is to gradually forget, or ignore, the spiritual unity of its supreme divinity with his human followers. Whatever may have been the conception of the Deity by the first great teacher, he soon comes to be regarded as a Being apart, like the deified monarchs of ancient times, and as one who can be pleased, or his wrath averted, by offerings and sacrifices. Practically all religions having their beginning from barbarous races are founded on sacrifices of animals, and usually of human beings. Even fairly well civilized nations are not offended by legends describing human sacrifices as being welcome to God. Examples of this are Abraham and Isaac among the Jews, Iphigenia at Aulis among the Greeks, and Curtius among the Romans. The ceremonies attending the rendition of these offerings and sacrifices form often the most important part of the religion, as is illustrated by the innumerable minute regulations contained in the Mosaic books of the Old Testament.
But Jesus' conception of the Heavenly Father was essentially unique in ever realizing the spiritual unity existing between the Father in heaven and His Son Jesus and His other children on earth. Mark the difference between Moses and Jesus in the matter of divine communications. Moses' messages to the Jews are the results of direct and separate interviews with the Almighty. He sees Him in the bush, or in the fire, and hears Him from the clouds. But all this is unnecessary with Jesus. He and the Father are one, and when He speaks, the Father speaks through Him. In the beautiful words of Renan:
"Jesus had no visions; God did not speak to Him as to one outside of Himself; God was in Him; He felt Himself with God, and He drew from His heart all He said of His Father. He lived in the bosom of God by constant communication with Him; he saw Him not, but he understood Him, without need of the thunder and the burning bush of Moses, of the revealing tempests of Job, of the oracle of the old Greek sages, of the familiar genius of Socrates, or of the angel Gabriel of Mahomet. The imagination and the hallucination of a St. Theresa, for example, are useless here. The intoxication of the Soufi, proclaiming himself identical with God, is also quite another thing. Jesus never once gave utterance to the sacrilegious idea that He was God. He believed Himself to be in direct communication with God; He believed Himself to be the Son of God. The highest consciousness of God which has existed in the bosom of humanity was that of Jesus."
With this conception of God, the idea of offerings or sacrifices to please or placate Him becomes unthinkable. All He asks of His earthly children is that they lead a God-like life.
Human nature, however, seems too weak to free itself from this superstition of a Supreme Being to be pleased and His wrath averted. But, as a nation becomes more civilized and spiritualized, the manifestation of this superstition takes on different forms. The smoking altars with their living victims disappear, and, in a measure, the material offerings of shields and other weapons, chariots, gold and silver vessels, jewels, etc. But their place is taken by rites and ceremonies, of which prayer is always foremost. The pilgrimages, votive offerings, masses, adoration of holy places, long prayers (especially for victory over our enemies), elaborate church ceremonials, public fastings, erection of expensive churches "to the glory of God," legacies to "pious uses," etc., of the present day are the legitimate successors of the "fat thighs" of the Greeks, and the Shew-bread of the Jews—offerings to win the favor of a possibly offended or indifferent Deity. We laugh at the "prayer-mill" of the Hindus, but the idea is the same as procuring better treatment for your departed soul by purchasing the performance of long "masses," if you have sufficient wealth.
At the time of Jesus the Jewish religion, as moulded by the Pharisees, was dominated by the spirit of formalism. Attendance at the synagogue, public prayers and fasting, observance of minute Sabbatical and other regulations, were made of more importance than visiting the sick, helping the poor, succoring the widow and orphan, etc. But the essence of Jesus' religion was the living of an every-day godlike life, not the adherence to certain creeds or dogmas, or the performance of rites and ceremonies. In this formalism He recognized His most dangerous enemy. It was a deep-rooted evil and hard to eradicate. One of its inherent dangers is the easy cloak it lends to hypocrisy, and, like the poor, the Pecksniffs we will always have with us.
Consequently we find Jesus early and late inveighing against the "long prayers" of the Pharisees and heathen, and the bitterest term He can apply to the Pharisees is "ye hypocrites." When He comes to instruct His disciples on the subject of prayer, it is quite probable that He would have interdicted it altogether, except for that sane temperance which was so fundamental an element of His character. He recognized the essential uselessness of prayer addressed to an all-good and all-wise Father, since He knows what is best for each person without being instructed, and from His great goodness will do what is best for each person without being asked.
"For your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask Him" (Matt. VI:8).
Jesus therefore carefully enjoins on His disciples that they shall not pray in the synagogue, but "when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to the Father which is in secret" (Matt. VI:5, 6). He also cautions them against long prayers—"use not vain repetitions as the heathen do" (Matt. VI:7).
He then gives them a short, simple prayer, as a model for their efforts.
On this point of prayer Jesus makes Himself clear beyond any possibility of misunderstanding, as in the case of fasting, and with apparently as little effect on the modern Christian. The very term "prayer-meeting" would be anathema to Jesus, and, if He were enticed into one of these "meetings," He would assuredly think He was in the midst of His old enemies, the Pharisees.
[23] The "Gadarene swine" were the subject of a once famous controversy between Huxley and Gladstone (Huxley. Some Controverted Questions. Chaps. XIV, XV). In the course of the wordy battle there occurs a delicious bit of humor which is worth preserving. Huxley starts out by saying that, for himself, he does not believe the miracle ever occurred, and then adds that he should consider that "the wanton destruction of other people's property is a misdemeanor of evil example." Gladstone comments on this that, after eighteen centuries of worship of Jesus, "it has been reserved to a scientific inquirer to discover that He was not better than a law-breaker and an evil-doer." Huxley objects to this accusation, because, as he expressly said he did not believe Jesus ever sent any devils into any swine, he can hardly be guilty of charging Jesus with this evil-doing. In his following article Gladstone states Huxley's position, does not withdraw his accusation, but, in a manner of apology, says: "The difference, from his point of view, is probably material, and I therefore regret that I overlooked it."
[24] This miracle occurs in Luke before the healing of Jairus' daughter (Luke VIII:41).
[25] The account of Luke's miracle is so vague as to be very unsatisfactory. The dead man is unnamed and unknown, neither his dwelling nor any of his relatives are identified, no one solicits Jesus to perform the miracle, but the bier is met casually on the street or country road, and none of the witnesses are named, as in the case of Jairus' daughter. The narrator of such an unprecedented event, as the raising of one from the dead, ought at least to furnish some means of identifying the resurrected person. It is small wonder that Matthew, Mark and John know nothing of this miracle.
A "doubting Thomas" might explain all three of these resurrection miracles on the hypothesis of unexpert diagnosis of death, a trance, a cataleptic fit, or other form of suspended animation. This would not be possible in the case of Lazarus, if he had been buried in the ground without the provision of some means of respiration. But he was laid in a cave covered only by a stone, so that ample means of respiration are not excluded.
But in the case of Lazarus, the most unexplainable matter is the silence of Matthew, Mark and Luke on the subject of this miracle. Lazarus and his two sisters were well known to Jesus and His disciples, and the sisters are mentioned by all three of the evangelists. Shortly after the miracle, Jesus comes to Bethany and "there they made Him a supper" (John XII:2), and Lazarus sat at the table and Martha served. "Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard very costly and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair" (John XII:3). The disciples were apparently present, because Judas Iscariot objects to the waste of the ointment (John XII:4, 5, 6). Both Matthew and Mark relate this event as occurring in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, except that the ointment is poured over Jesus' head, and neither the name of Mary or of Judas Iscariot is mentioned (Matt. XXVI:6-13; Mark XIV:3-9). Luke speaks of both Martha and Mary on the occasion when Jesus rebukes Martha for being "troubled about many things" (Luke X:38). The raising of Lazarus from the dead was not kept secret but was noised abroad, and was known to many of the Jews in Jerusalem and to the chief priests (John XI:45, 46; XII:9, 10, 11, 17, 18).
Considering the notoriety of this miracle, the intimacy existing between Lazarus' family and Jesus and His disciples, the relation by all the evangelists of other incidents in Jesus' life in which Martha and Mary appear, it is hard to understand why Matthew, Mark and Luke have not a word to say of this, the most marvelous of all of Jesus' deeds.
[26] Bethsaida is on the same (west) side of the sea of Galilee as Capernaum, and but a short distance from it, but this desert place was apparently across the sea, near the land of the Gergesenes (John VI:1, 17; Matt. XIV:22; Mark VI:32). Some claim that there was another Bethsaida on the east side of the sea of Galilee.
[27] It may seem strange that these numerous miracles had so little effect in winning permanent adherents to Jesus' cause. The Jews at this time were, from all accounts, in a state of religious fermentation, expecting the immediate coming of a Messiah, looking for the signs and portents of that coming, ready and willing to welcome any miraculous happenings as proof that their hopes were about to be realized. Yet John the Baptist, who did no miracles (John X:41), had apparently at the time of his death a stronger following than Jesus at the time of His death. (Compare Matt. XIV:5; Mark XI:32; Luke XX:6, with Matt. XIII:57; XXVII:22; John VII:1; VIII:59; X:39; XI:53.)
The earlier miracles attracted large crowds, but the evidence is abundant that, later, the miracles lost their effect, and in some cases, even aroused animosity. Thus Matthew says that Jesus, in the beginning of His prophetic career, "went about all Galilee," teaching and preaching and "healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people." "And there followed Him great multitudes of people from Galilee and from Decapolis and from Jerusalem and from Judæa and from beyond Jordan" (Matt. IV:23, 24, 25. See Mark III:7, 8). But, in Chap. XIII:53-58, he relates how Jesus, coming "into His own country" at a later date and preaching there, the people "were offended in Him." "But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country and in his own house. And He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief." Mark says, "And He could there do no mighty work, save that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk and healed them. And He marvelled because of their unbelief" (Mark VI:5, 6).
Luke tells how, after He had preached in the synagogue in His home town of Nazareth, "all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust Him out of the city, and led Him unto the brow of the hill, whereon their city was built, that they might cast Him down headlong (Luke IV:28, 29).
Immediately after Jesus had healed the man, or two men, in the country of the Gergesenes, Matthew, Mark and Luke agree that the "whole city," or the "whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about," besought Him to depart out of their coasts (Matt. VIII:34; Mark V:17; Luke VIII:37).
After Jesus had preached in Jerusalem and performed at least one miracle there (John V:5-9), the people were so incensed against Him that "He would not walk in Jewry (Judæa), because the Jews sought to kill Him" (John VII:1).
Later He went secretly into Judæa on the occasion of the feast of the tabernacles (John VII:2, 10), and the people took "up stones to cast at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them and so passed by" (John VIII:59). Again, when He had restored sight to a blind man, they reviled this man and "cast him out" (John IX:7, 34).
Again, when Jesus was at Jerusalem at the feast of the dedication (John X:22), "the Jews took up stones again to stone Him." "Therefore they sought again to take Him; but He escaped out of their hands" (John X:31, 39).
As regards the raising of Lazarus from the dead, the Jews, instead of being favorably affected by that stupendous miracle, were apparently incensed by it. They plotted to put both Lazarus and Jesus to death (John XII:10), and "Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim" (John XI:54).
Finally, Jesus Himself bears witness both to His belief that miracles were proof of His messianic claims, and that His miracles had failed to give the support to His cause which He had expected. In one of His most bitter utterances, He denounces the cities of Galilee, because they would not believe in Him notwithstanding the many "mighty works" which He had performed in their midst.
"Woe unto thee, Chorazin. Woe unto thee, Bethsaida."
"But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than for you."
"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell."
"But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you" (Matt. XI:20-24; Luke X:13-15).
In more temperate language He bewails the coldness and hostility of Jerusalem.
"How often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not?" (Matt. XXIII:37; Luke XIII:34. See also Luke XIX:41, 42; Luke XI:31, 32).
The reason why Jesus' miracles produced no lasting effect on the Jews has already been indicated. They expected their Messiah to show them miracles as proof of his claims. But this Messiah must be one of their own creation preaching the doctrines which they wished him to preach. All the miracles in the world would not have convinced them that Jesus was the true Messiah, so long as He offered them only a heavenly kingdom. On the other hand, if He had promised them an earthly kingdom, they would have acclaimed these same miracles which He did, as indubitable proofs of His Messiahship. In this respect they differ not at all from many modern professed followers of Jesus. They follow such parts of His teaching as happen to suit their own ideas or prejudices, and calmly ignore other parts, equally explicit and binding, which do not fit in with their scheme of life. (See Hypocrisy or Truth, infra.)
The miracles and, even more, the apparent faith of Jesus in their evidentiary value, form serious stumbling blocks in the way of those who revere Jesus as the greatest "Son of Man"—unequaled in the simplicity and unselfishness of His character and in the sublimity of His teaching—but free from the tawdry tinsel of supernaturalism, which is the usual stock-in-trade of leaders of religious sects. Mohammedanism seems to be the only great religion which has resisted the temptation to ascribe to its founder, either divine parentage or the power to perform supernatural acts.
The attribution to Jesus of the Holy Ghost as His father need cause no difficulty, by reason of the facts set out under sub-head "Conception," supra.
But as regards the miracles, it is true that few of them have much scientific value as evidence of the intervention of supernatural powers in their occurrence. For instance, Matthew records nineteen specific miracles, of which only one is attested to by all the three other evangelists, five are attested to by one beside himself, twelve by two, and one by himself alone. Of the nineteen, five are events—stilling the tempest—walking on the waters, two feeding the multitude, and one the blasting of the unfortunate fig tree, which did not bear fruit out of season. Of the remaining fourteen, one is a lunatic, one has a withered hand, one is dumb, one is a leper, two have palsy, three are blind, one has fever, one an issue of blood, two are possessed of devils, and the ailment of Jairus' daughter is not specified. Without examining each in detail, it may be said generally that these accounts are very indefinite as to exact times and places, names of persons cured, or by friends or relatives, and other details, by which the story might be verified. From the insufficient data furnished, it would, for instance, have been almost impossible for a person, starting to investigate these miracles immediately after Jesus' death to have asserted that any particular miracle did not occur, although he could not find a single witness to any of them. Even the names of the disciples present are given only in a few instances. It is also to be regretted that practically all of the personal cures, as is the case with more modern miracle workers, fall within that class of afflictions where ignorance, suggestion, simulation, conscious or unconscious, etc., can so easily confuse the result. If some of these latter-day healers would only go to an old soldiers' home and supply some missing arms and legs, the "doubting Thomases" would be more ready to concede their possession of supernatural powers.
But, notwithstanding all this, the four Gospels are so permeated with these miraculous doings that it would be almost denying them any credibility at all, to claim that Jesus and His apostles did not believe that He performed miracles, and that these miracles were proof of His claim to the Messiahship. It can only be said that Jesus, great as He was, could not entirely escape the influence of the times in which He lived.
[28] Here again Jesus makes clear His antipathy to churchly ceremonies and pharisaical formalism. No ceremony marks the joining of His disciples. He says to them, "Follow me," and they leave everything and follow Him. No more is necessary to make them members of His band. So, no rite, no ceremony marks the choosing or appointing of the twelve apostles, or bishops, as they would now be called. There is no laying on of hands, no formal induction or installation into office, no clothing them in peculiar vestments, or sacerdotal robes, or other visible insignia of their office or rank. Nor are they given any authority or pre-eminence over their fellow disciples. Nothing could have been more foreign to Jesus' ideas than the establishment of a priestly hierarchy. The instructions as to their preaching are of the simplest—"the kingdom of heaven is at hand." No creeds, no theological dogmas are to be impressed on their hearers. But the necessity of their doing good works—healing the sick, etc.—is emphasized. With Jesus works always were of more value than words. The admonition to travel simply, without money or extra raiment, and to depend on the hospitality of the people among whom they came, reminds us of the practice of the itinerant missionaries of frontier days in our own country.
Matthew's account is the only one containing the verse: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I come not to send peace but a sword" (Matt. X:34). This has often been cited, warped from its context, as meaning that Jesus sanctioned war as a means of spreading His religion. But nothing is more contrary to the whole spirit of His teaching and many express utterances. When His disciples would have Him call down fire from heaven to consume those who would not receive Him, He "rebuked them" and said: "For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" (Luke IX:56). In this chapter from Matthew, Jesus is predicting that the spread of His Gospel will set individual against individual (even in the same family), and finally nation against nation, and that, owing to the weakness of human nature, this would lead to individual contests and to national contests. Results well justified His prophecy. So long as the Christians were in the minority, they preached, and, to some extent, practiced the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount. But when they became the majority, the sword and torch and the fires of the Inquisition were their favorite arguments in converting recalcitrant heathen.
[29] Moderation was the keynote of Jesus' character. Excess in any direction was contrary to His principles. He had no sympathy with either the zealot or the ascetic. He condemned as well the faster and the prohibitionist as the glutton and the wine-bibber. He was most democratic in His daily intercourse with others. He dined one day with publicans and sinners, and the next with a Pharisee, notwithstanding His bitter antagonism to the Pharisees as a sect (Luke XI:37; XIV:1). This moderation shows itself in the charity of His judgments of others, as in the case of the woman taken in adultery (John VIII:3-11), the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke XV:11). "Judge not that ye be not judged" (Matt. VII:1) and elsewhere. When He is asked to name the first great commandment, He does not choose any of the ten stringent provisions of the Old Testament, but expresses His ideas in the milder forms: To love God, and to love thy neighbor as thyself (Matt. XXII:36-40; Mark XII:28-31).
[30] The prophets of the Old Testament had long before the birth of Jesus inveighed against the disposition among the Jews to magnify acts of worship—religious rites and ceremonies—as pleasing to God and indicative of holiness in the participant.
"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?—saith the Lord. I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats."
"Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies; I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them."
"Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow" (Isaiah I:11-17).
"Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah VI:7, 8).
"For I desired mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings" (Hosea VI:6).
But the Jews had not heeded the admonitions of their prophets, and, in the time of Jesus, their religion, under the dominating influence of those zealous laymen—the scribes and Pharisees—had become permeated with the dry-rot of formalism. Prayers, fastings, rites and ceremonies had become all important, like the "burnt offerings of bullocks," "the blood of bullocks," the "incense" and "vain oblations" of earlier days. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith" (Matt. XXIII:23). Their conception of the Lord was that of the Mosaic times—a jealous Deity to be placated by sacrifices, and whose favor was to be won by external worship, and not by inward purity of heart. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also" (Matt. XXIII:25, 26).
The simple, unceremonial religion which Jesus taught, a living force animating each act of one's daily life, nourished by secret prayers in one's chamber, manifesting itself by unobtrusive acts of mercy, not by public prayers, fastings and religious services, was the direct antipodes of the ceremonial formalism then dominant among the Jews. Jesus early recognized this antagonism, and lost no opportunity to combat this, the greatest obstacle to the spreading of His ideas. He can use no words too bitter in denouncing those whom He considers the corrupters of the true worship of God (Matt. XXIII; Mark XII:38-40; Luke XX:46, 47; XI:42-44). To persons deeply imbued with religious feeling, hypocrisy is the cardinal sin. "Ye hypocrites" is His constant term of reproach for the scribes and Pharisees.
Now, the observance of the Sabbath was the keystone in the arch of formalism which the Pharisees had erected. They had filled the day with religious ceremonies. They had surrounded it with minute restrictions and prohibitions, so that even the healing of the sick on that day was considered by them unlawful. Probably their objection to the disciples picking and eating corn was not based so much on that fact, as on the iniquity of Jesus and His disciples taking a pleasant walk through the fields and country on the Sabbath. As Macaulay said of the Puritans, they hated bear baiting, not so much because it gave pain to the bear, as because it gave pleasure to the spectators.
This Sabbath was to Jesus a travesty on the true worship of His Father, and met His instant and repeated condemnation. He intentionally and openly violated its laws, and challenged the Pharisees to defend their position. As in the case of prayer, He again defined His Father's attitude as caring nothing for these outward observances. "I will have mercy and not sacrifice" (Matt. XII:7). The weighty matters of the law are "judgment, mercy and faith" (Matt. XXIII:23). In the expressive language of the Old Testament His "soul hateth" their Sabbaths and appointed feasts and solemn assemblies. They were a "trouble" to Him and He was "weary to bear them." "When ye make many prayers, I will not hear" (Isaiah I:13, 14, 15). Jesus sums up His conception of the Sabbath in one of His pregnant sentences, "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark II:27; Luke VI:5).
If Jesus were on earth today, He would make our Sunday a day of cheerful rest. Children would rejoice in it, learn to love it, instead of its being to them (more formerly than now) a day of penance and gloom, with their forced attendance on a distasteful Sunday school, to study creeds and catechisms, not suited to their immature years. Attendance at "church" would be a matter of minor importance, to be determined by each one for himself. The desire to worship could be satisfied without these public assemblies, for "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. XVIII:20).
But the significant deliberation of the day, the only one important before God, would be the marking it out as the day especially for the doing of deeds of mercy. Much more righteous in the sight of the Lord would be the man who had spent the day in hunting, fishing or other innocent recreation, but yet had one good deed to his credit, than he who had spent the whole day in religious exercises, and given his "tithe of mint and anise and cummin," but had not helped, or comforted, or made happier a single fellow human being. Jesus would say with the poet:
[31] Jesus had already told the disciples of His approaching death and resurrection (Matt. XVI:21, 22; Mark VIII:31; Luke IX:22).
[32] Jesus probably spoke to His disciples in the veiled language so often used by Him, since it is clear that His disciples, down to the last days in Jerusalem, had not accepted the idea of His immediate bodily death.
"But they understood not that saying and were afraid to ask Him" (Mark IX:32).
"And they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things that were spoken" (Luke XVIII:34; see Matt. XXIV:3).
It is probable that up to the hour of the Crucifixion many of the disciples still clung to the hope that Jesus would exert His miraculous powers to confound His enemies and establish an earthly kingdom.
"They thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear" (Luke XIX:11).
They quarreled among themselves as to who should have precedence in this kingdom.
"And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest" (Luke XXII:24).
[33] None of these multitudes seem to have been on hand a few days later to ask Jesus' release from Pilate (Matt. XXVII:15, 17, 22, 23).
[34] This cleansing of the temple is related by John as one of Jesus' first acts, immediately after the marriage in Cana (John II:14-17).
[35] There is a marked difference between these latest utterances of Jesus and His first preaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Then He was enthusiastic, filled with the hope of converting the Jews, and establishing His Father's spiritual kingdom on earth. Now He is disappointed, realizing that His death is near, that His religious teachings have been rejected by practically all of His people, and that He will leave behind Him a mere handful of followers, few, if any, of whom yet understand the true meaning of His religion. The spirit of the Sermon on the Mount is love for one another, kindness active in every-day life, charity for others' shortcomings, leniency in judging and punishing offenders. But His later sayings abound in bitter censure of the Pharisees and others who have thwarted His work, of denunciation of all evil-doers, of promises of reward to His followers, and of predictions of severe punishment for those who reject His teachings.
Thus in the Sermon on the Mount He says:
"Blessed are the merciful; for they shall obtain mercy" (Matt. V:7).
"Blessed are the peace-makers; for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. V:9).
"Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar and go thy way; first be reconciled with thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift" (Matt. V:23, 24).
"Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him" (Matt. V:25).
"But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. V:39).
"But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you" (Matt. V:44).
"But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt. VI:15).
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matt. VI:33).
"Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matt. VII:1).
"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote of thy brother's eye" (Matt. VII:5).
"Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the Law and the prophets" (Matt:VII:12).
As to those who heard His sayings and did them not, He speaks no stronger condemnation than to compare them to the foolish man who built his house on the sand (Matt. VII:24-27).
Compare with these the following excerpts from His later preachings:
"Verily I say unto you that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you" (Matt. XXI:31).
"And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder" (Matt. XXI:44).
"Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. XXII:13,14).
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" (Matt. XXIII:13, 14, 15).
"Ye fools and blind" (Matt. XXIII:17, 23, 24).
"Ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness" (Matt. XXIII:27).
"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matt. XXIII:33).
"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth" (Matt. XXIII:35).
"And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days" (Matt. XXIV:19).
"Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left" (Matt. XXIV:40).
"And shall cut him asunder and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. XXIV:51).
"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. XXV:30).
"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. XXV:41).
[36] It is impossible for one not versed in the subtleties of Jewish religious ceremonies to understand the references in the four Gospels to the feast of unleavened bread and of the Passover. They do not seem to correspond with the somewhat intricate ritual given in the Old Testament (Ex. XII:1-20). If the Crucifixion occurred in the year A.D. 33, as the authorities generally agree, then the feast of the Passover began on the evening of Friday, the day after this supper and the day of the Crucifixion. This agrees with John's statements (John XIII:1; XVIII:28; XIX:14-31). But the other three Gospels speak of the supper on Thursday, as being the eating of the Passover.
[37] This strife is also given by Luke as of an earlier date (Luke IX:46). (See also Matt. XVIII:1; Mark IX:34; Mark X:35; Matt. XX:24).
[38] Mark tells of a "certain young man" who followed Jesus, until he was driven away by the soldiers (Mark XIV:51, 52). He is not identified, and apparently appears only at this place in the four Gospels.
[39] The motive of Judas in this transaction seems destined to remain an unsettled controversy. Was he simply a traitor, seeking to sell his Lord and Master for a price? Or was he a religious zealot, trying to force Jesus' hand? It has been already noted that the apostles, even at this late date, were expecting the immediate coming of Jesus' kingdom on earth and the installation of themselves into the chief offices of that kingdom (Luke XIX:11; XXII:24). Did Judas, in his supreme confidence in his Master's supernatural powers, feel convinced that, if once a contest were precipitated between the Pharisees and Jesus, the latter would exert those powers and utterly confound His enemies?
The most inexplicable thing in the whole transaction is its utter futility, both on the side of Judas and of the Pharisees also. On other visits to Jerusalem, Jesus had kept His movements more or less secret (John VIII:59; XI:54). But on this last visit there was not the slightest attempt at concealment. His entry into Jerusalem was attended by a great multitude, shouting and acclaiming Him (Matt. XXI:1-10; Mark XI:1-10; Luke XIX:30-40). His cleansing of the temple was an open and public act (Matt. XXI:12-14; Mark XI:15; Luke XIX:45, 46). Every day He taught openly in the temple (Luke XIX:47; XXII:53). The chief priests, elders and Pharisees were present at His teachings and argued with Him (Matt. XXI:23; Mark XI:27; Luke XX:1). They had already employed spies to follow Jesus in His preaching and note any seditious or heretical utterances (Luke XX:20). Every night Jesus and His twelve apostles went out to Bethany, coming back to Jerusalem in the morning, and the movements of so numerous a company could not have been concealed (Matt. XXI:17, 18, 20). Jesus must have been well-known in Bethany, both because of His long friendship with the family of Lazarus, and because of the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead (John XI:45; XII:9). While in Bethany, Jesus and the apostles were entertained publicly at a supper in Simon's house (John XII:2; Matt. XXVI:6). So far as an identification of Jesus was concerned, or any assistance in making His arrest, Judas' services were entirely useless to the Pharisees, and there was no occasion for spending money on him. The most conclusive evidence on this point is that of Jesus Himself. All three of the synoptics agree that Jesus protested against a multitude with their swords and staves coming out to take Him in the night-time, as though He were a thief or a fugitive from justice. As He says, "I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me" (Matt. XXVI:55; Mark XIV:49; Luke XXII:53). According to John, who is considered the most accurate of the evangelists on the events of this last week, Judas did not kiss Jesus or make any other identification of Him. On the approach of the band, Jesus comes forth and says, "Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them" (John XVIII:5). The Pharisees seem to have had some trouble in procuring the proof of Jesus' heretical sayings (Matt. XXII:15-16; Mark XII:13; Luke XI:54; Luke XX:20; Matt. XXVI:60). If Judas had offered to furnish this evidence, the bargain with the Pharisees would be understandable.
As to the pecuniary side of the transaction, Matthew is the only one who states that a bargain was made for a definite sum of money. According to the account of Mark and Luke, Judas volunteered his services, and the Pharisees "promised to give him money." John does not mention any money paid or to be paid, although he is especially bitter against Judas (John VI:64, 70, 71; XII:6; XIII:2, 27). Now, Judas was the treasurer of the apostles' company and carried the bag (John XIII:29; XII:6). If avarice were his motive, it would seem strange that he would give up this post and the possibilities of peculation which it offered, for the small sum of money he would get from the Pharisees.
Moreover, the fact that, immediately after the conviction of Jesus, Judas tendered back the money to the Pharisees, and, when they refused it, cast it down in the temple, and went out and hanged himself, tends strongly to support the theory that he was a misguided zealot (Matt. XXVII:3-6).
Against this is the unanimous evidence of the Gospels that he was the betrayer of Jesus, and that Jesus recognized and branded him as such.
[40] This gathering was presumably the Sanhedrim, the high council of the Jews. It had jurisdiction to try and sentence Jews charged with heresy—"corruptors," blasphemers of the temple, destroyers of the true worship, etc. It could not, however, execute a sentence of death (John XVIII:31). In such cases it was necessary that the sentence be confirmed by the Roman tetrarch, procurator, or other governor of the country, and the execution of the sentence be carried out by Roman soldiers.
[41] This was a trial for heredoxy under the Jewish law upon two charges, one for blasphemy of the temple, the other for blasphemy of God. Either, if proved, would warrant a sentence of death. The first was very near the truth. The charge was, "I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days." Jesus' exact words were, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John II:19). The Jews did not understand His hidden meaning that He meant the death of His body and its resurrection in three days (John II:20, 21). The other charge was in one sense true, for Jesus had spoken of Himself as the Son of God. But He had not used these words in the sense attributed to Him by the Pharisees, that He was himself God, or the equal of God. But, coupled with His failure to deny these charges, they formed a sufficient legal basis, under the Jewish law, for His conviction and sentence.
[42] The high priest evidently shifted his ground of attack when he brought Jesus before Pilate. The main charge here against Jesus was that He had claimed to be king of the Jews, something that had not appeared in the proceeding before the Sanhedrim. This was more of a political than a heretical crime, and one more likely to arouse the suspicion and hostility of the Romans. Jesus was entirely innocent of this crime, for He had never claimed for Himself an earthly kingdom. This, and the charges of heresy, which probably were also presented, did not make much impression on Pilate. He evidently did not think that Jesus had done anything deserving a sentence of death, and probably regarded the whole matter as one of those vexatious religious quarrels among the Jewish sectaries which were constantly arising to trouble the Roman governors of Jewry, and in which they had no interest or sympathy with either side of the controversy. But he found himself in a difficult position. This demand for Jesus' sentence was backed by all of official Jewishdom, and they presented His legal condemnation by the Sanhedrim. While Pilate was not absolutely bound to approve this sentence of the Sanhedrim, yet his refusal to do so would deeply offend the leaders of the Jewish people and quite possibly involve him in serious trouble with the authorities at Rome. Seeking a way out of this dilemma, he bethought himself of the custom of freeing a prisoner at the feast of the Passover. He tried to induce the multitude to demand the release of Jesus, and, if there had been any difference in opinion, would undoubtedly have declared the vote in favor of Jesus. But the people were unanimous in their demand for the release of Barabbas. Then, only, he consented to confirm Jesus' sentence, and attempted publicly to shift the moral responsibility for his act to the Jewish populace.
[43] There seems to be some question as to whether Antipas was not governor at this time, instead of Herod (Matt. II:19).
[44] This Annas (or Hanan) is supposed by some authorities to be the "power behind the throne," the chief instigator of the proceedings against Jesus.
[45] Pilate evidently inflicted this punishment—milder than death—in the hope that it would pacify the Jews, and they would permit him to let Jesus escape the extreme penalty of crucifixion.
[46] From this narrative it would seem that, for one night, the sepulchre was unsealed and unguarded.
[47] It seems that it was a custom to give criminals this drink in order to, in a measure, stupefy them and lessen the pains of the crucifixion.
[48] This was probably the usual custom, unless the criminal was too weak to bear the burden.
[49] No two of these superscriptions on the cross exactly agree.
[50] None of the other Gospels mention Jesus' mother or any of the apostles as being present at the Crucifixion, and all agree that the women stood "afar off."
[51] These were precautions, probably usual, to ensure that the criminals were really dead.
[52] These instructions are contrary to those given to His disciples in His life-time. He told them expressly not to go to the Gentiles (Matt. X:5) and said nothing about their baptizing either Jews or Gentiles. No time or definite place is assigned for this last appearance of Jesus.
[53] Mark does not tell of any appearance of Jesus to the apostles in Galilee.
[54] The name Cleopas does not appear in the list of the twelve apostles (Matt. X:2-4).
[55] The story of the resurrection and ascension would have even less chance of acceptance by an impartial tribunal, than that of the miraculous conception, or of the birth at Bethlehem. The accounts in the four Gospels, together with that in the Acts, are such a hopeless mass of confusion and contradiction that scarcely a single fact can be extricated, on which they all agree.
As to the time, the place, and the witnesses of the ascension, they are entirely at variance.
Jesus had, in His lifetime, fixed Galilee as the place of meeting His apostles after His rising from the dead (Matt. XXVI:32; Mark XIV:28). So the angel, or the "young man," at the tomb tells the women that Jesus has gone into Galilee, where His disciples should see Him, "as He said unto you" (Matt. XXVIII:7; Mark XVI:7).
Now, Matthew's account is the only one of the five originals which says anything about Jesus appearing to His disciples in Galilee. And, according to Matthew, this was the only time and place that He did appear to any one, except the two Marys (Matt. XXVIII:9, 10), and their statements were not believed by the apostles (Mark XVI:11; Luke XXIV:11).
According to Matthew, at a time not specified, Jesus appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee (Matt. XXVIII:16), "and when they saw Him, they worshipped Him; but some doubted" (Matt. XXVIII:17). Now, from this it is apparent: first, that Jesus did not appear in His natural, earthly form, for then the eleven would at once have recognized His identity; and, second, that we have no means of telling just how many of the eleven would have testified to this being an appearance of the true Jesus, since "some" doubted.
John's original Gospel warrants appearances of Jesus, first, to Mary Magdalene, the other Mary not being with her (John XX:15, 16, 17); second, an appearance on Sunday evening to the apostles, except Thomas (John XX:19); third, an appearance eight days later to all the eleven apostles (John XX:26). Nothing is said about any ascension.
John's Chapter XXI, which, as has been said, appears clearly to have been a later addition to the original Gospel, relates an appearance of Jesus in Galilee, which is materially different from that of Matthew. The appearance is not on a mountain, but on the shores of the sea of Tiberias, and, instead of the eleven apostles being present, there were, at most, only seven, including Nathaniel of Cana (John XXI:2). All of them have considerable trouble in recognizing Jesus (John XXI:4, 12). Nothing is said by Jesus about baptizing, or preaching to, the Gentiles, but, on the contrary, Jesus tells Peter to feed "my sheep," or "my lambs" (John XXI:15, 16, 17). Nothing is said about any ascension of Jesus into heaven.
The Gospels of Mark and Luke, the original Gospel of John, and the Acts, all agree in fixing the after-death appearances and ascension of Jesus in Jerusalem or its neighborhood (Luke XXIV:50; Acts I:12). Apparently the apostles remained for some time in Jerusalem after the Crucifixion (possibly for forty days, Acts I:3; II:1), until they separated and "went forth and preached everywhere" (Mark XVI:20). In the Acts it is said that Jesus "commanded" them to remain in Jerusalem, until the gift of the Holy Ghost should be sent to them (Acts I:4).
It is evident, in all these accounts, that the apostles had never understood, or had entirely forgotten, the predictions of Jesus in His lifetime that He would rise from the dead (Matt. XVI:21; XVII:23; XX:19; Mark VIII:31; IX:31; X:34; Luke IX:22; XVIII:33). They were not expecting any resurrection. They were not waiting at the tomb for it to occur, and, by the unanimous testimony of all the writers, they showed the greatest surprise and incredulity at the first reports of Jesus' appearance alive (Matt. XXVIII:17; Mark XVI:11, 13; Luke XXIV:11, 16, 37, 41; John XX:9, 14, 25).
Furthermore, it is also evident that Jesus, in these appearances, must have assumed some form or shape different from His natural earthly body. Otherwise His intimate friends and associates could not have been in such uncertainty about recognizing His identity.
Thus Matthew says that when He appeared to the eleven "some doubted." But if He had appeared in His natural form, how could any of the apostles have doubted as to whether the apparition was He or some other person?
According to Mark, the apostles questioned the accuracy of the report by Mary and the two disciples that they had seen Jesus (Mark XVI:13, 14).
Luke relates that Jesus spent a considerable portion of one day with two of the disciples, and joined them at their evening meal. But they did not recognize Him until He blessed some bread, brake it, and gave to them, and then "He vanished out of their sight" (Luke XXIV:13-31). On His first appearance in the midst of the apostles, "they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit." Even after He showed them His hands and feet, their doubts were not dissipated, and, although He ate a piece of fish and some honey comb, it is not explicitly stated that this removed all their uncertainty (Luke XXIV:36-43).
According to John, Mary Magdalene, who was well acquainted with Jesus in His lifetime, when she saw this apparition, "knew not that it was Jesus." She spoke to Him, "supposing Him to be the gardener." He gives her a message to His disciples, and it is implied in the narrative that she then recognizes Him as Jesus, although it is not explained how this change came about (John XX:14-17). On His appearance to the apostles, He shows them His hands and feet, as though that were necessary to confirm their recognition of His identity. Thomas, apparently, will not trust to the story of the other apostles; nor even to the personal appearance of Jesus, until he has put his fingers into the prints on Jesus' hands and feet (John XX:19-28). If Jesus had worn His earthly form these prints, which the apostles had never before seen, could not have aided in His identification.
The account in John, Chap. XXI, shows that the seven assembled at the sea of Tiberias did not at first recognize Jesus, although one of them was Thomas, who had already identified Him in Jerusalem. "But the disciples knew not that it was Jesus" (John XXI:4). A little later it is said: "And none of the disciples durst ask Him, Who art Thou? Knowing that it was the Lord" (John XXI:12). No explanation is given as to how this knowledge finally came to them.
Out of this welter of confusion and contradictions, it is impossible to select any one coherent, authoritative story. With equal warrant of authority it may be asserted that He appeared to the apostles only in Galilee (Matt.) or never in Galilee, but only in Jerusalem (Mark, Luke, Acts); that Jesus' first appearance was to the two Marys (Matthew), or was to Mary Magdalene alone (Mark, John), or that He did not appear to them at all, but two men "in shining garments" gave them the message to the apostles (Luke); that He made a special appearance to two of the apostles (Mark, Luke), or that He did not make this appearance (Matthew, John); that He never appeared to the apostles but once (in Galilee according to Matthew, in Jerusalem, according to Mark and Luke), or that He appeared to them twice in Jerusalem (John XX) and once in Galilee (John XXI), or that He was with the apostles in Jerusalem for forty days, apparently in frequent communication with them (Acts I).
As to the ascension, it either occurred at some indefinite time on some unidentified mountain in Galilee and could be testified to by the unspecified number of the eleven who did not "doubt" (Matt.); or it (impliedly) occurred at some indefinite time on some unspecified shore of the sea of Tiberias, in Galilee, and was witnessed only by the seven (John XXI); or it occurred in Jerusalem at some unspecified time or place, and, so far as appears, in the presence of no one (Mark XVI:19); or it occurred at Bethany at some indefinite time in the presence of some unspecified number of His disciples (Luke XXIV:50, 51); or it occurred at least forty days after the Crucifixion on "the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath day's journey," in the presence of persons who are only identified as "they" (Acts I); or, so far as the Gospel of John is concerned, even including Chapter XXI, it could fairly be claimed that He did not know of any specific ascension.
While the exact date of the writing of the four Gospels and of the Acts cannot be determined, yet, in any event, they must have been composed when there were many living witnesses to the events of Jesus' life. If such a stupendous miracle as the ascension had occurred shortly after Jesus' death, it is inexplicable that these historians should not have shown some practical unanimity as to the time, place and witnesses of the event.
[56] "The attitude of slave-holders towards freedom in the abstract was grotesque in its lack of logic; but the attitude of many other classes of men, both abroad and home, towards it was equally full of a grimly unconscious humor. The southern planters, who loudly sympathized with Kossuth and the Hungarians, were entirely unconscious that their tyranny over their own black bondsmen made their attacks upon Austria's despotism absurd." Roosevelt's Life of Benton, American Statesmen Series, p. 275.
[57] Compare his severe criticism of the abolition revolt from the Whig party in 1844 with his own revolt from the Republican party in 1912. Life of Benton, American Statesmen Series, page 291.
[58] If this had been written after the Spanish war, he might, with equal logic, have said the same thing of Porto Rico and the Philippines.
[59] It would be interesting if President Roosevelt had cited some international controversies in which one nation did not claim that the matter in dispute was "of great importance" and that there was no "doubt as to which side was right."
[60] From the context he evidently means here any shadow or pretense of title.
[61] If, as Mr. Roosevelt concedes, the war with Mexico was unjustifiable, it is rather difficult to understand how the morals of the people of the United States could have been improved by the consciousness that they had unjustly slaughtered many thousands of innocent Mexicans and robbed them of immense areas of their lands.
[62] It is apparent that Matthew uses the word "drinking" in the sense of "drinking wine," and undoubtedly Luke uses the word "drink" in the same sense. In all, or nearly all, instances in the four Gospels where these words are used in connection with eating or fasting, they refer to the drinking of wine. As to the words "wine," or "fruit of the vine," when used in the Gospels, meaning some unfermented liquid, the undeviating practice of the early Christian churches in celebrating the Holy Communion with actual wine, stamps this claim as too absurd to merit discussion. Undoubtedly Peter, James, John, Paul and the other founders of the infant churches knew and followed the example of Jesus in prescribing wine as a part of this solemn ceremony. If the "universal tradition of the church" is not to be believed on this point, of what value is it on any other? It would be as sensible to claim that there has never been any difference between Moslems and Christians in the use of wine, because, in truth, the orthodox Christian was never authorized to use anything but some unfermented drink that a Moslem might also have used.
Transcriber's notes:
The following is a list of changes made to the original. The first line is the original line, the second the corrected one.
Joseph, not Mary, as being af the house of David (Luke II:4).
Joseph, not Mary, as being of the house of David (Luke II:4).
tetrarchies, like Judaea, and that it was taken at least ten years after
tetrarchies, like Judæa, and that it was taken at least ten years after
[12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were "amazed", and,
[12] Luke says that Joseph and Mary were "amazed," and,
and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan" (Matt. XIX:1).
and came into the coasts of Judæa beyond Jordan" (Matt. XIX:1).
(Matt. XXI:23-46; XXII! XXIII; XXIV; XXV).
(Matt. XXI:23-46; XXII; XXIII; XXIV; XXV).
the children of God; whosover, therefore, shall humble himself
the children of God; whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself
sacrifice for mercy (Matt. XII:7.) When prayers are regarded
sacrifice for mercy (Matt. XII:7). When prayers are regarded
International Cyclopaedia, Sabbath, Vol. XII, p. 857.
International Cyclopædia, Sabbath, Vol. XII, p. 857.
of that day advised "panem et circenses"--food and amusement
of that day advised "panem et circenses"--food and amusement.